Beth says my new rock isn't bornite. Well, what is it then? Huh? I didn't think so!
Just kidding. I thought it was bornite because it was dark but had all those colors, and bornite is the "peacock ore". I probably have no idea what I'm talking about, but that's typical for grad students. (wink)
Friday, October 31, 2003
They left a long, awkward table in the computer lab. I didn't know Tom ordered a table. It's really too long and skinny to be of any use, and it screws up my whole furniture arrangement. I had to take out a desk and a bookcase to make room for it. For stupid. At least we have a meeting table now.
Looks like someone left me some bornite in my mailbox. Thanks!
And good luck on your physics test, Kelly.
And good luck on your physics test, Kelly.
Wednesday, October 29, 2003
I had a great TEM session yesterday. I found some weird filaments, and I don't know what they are or how they got there. In other news, I love Kelly a bunch!
Wednesday, October 22, 2003
Here's some interesting and funny Japanese onomatopoeia:
sound of a small dog "kyan kyan"
sound of a large dog "wan wan"
sound of a cat "nya nya"
sound of a rooster "kokekokko"
sound of a pig "buu buu"
sound of pouring rain "zaa zaa"
sound of a heart in love "doki doki"
a mess all spread out "bara bara"
something old and delapidated "boro boro"
sound of a small dog "kyan kyan"
sound of a large dog "wan wan"
sound of a cat "nya nya"
sound of a rooster "kokekokko"
sound of a pig "buu buu"
sound of pouring rain "zaa zaa"
sound of a heart in love "doki doki"
a mess all spread out "bara bara"
something old and delapidated "boro boro"
Monday, October 20, 2003
Happy Birthday to....Me! I'm 25 today and glad I'm finally out of that sky high auto insurance bracket. Kelly and I had an absolutely wonderful birthday weekend in Flagstaff. We hiked up Humphrey's Peak a little ways, and while we were doing that we came up with a nerdy science joke.
" A physicist, a biologist, and a geologist are going to climb a mountain. The physicist says, 'No matter how I go up the mountain, I will end up doing the same amount of Work, because Work is path-independent.' So the physicist climbs straight up the side of the mountain. The biologist says, 'I wish to keep my body in homeostasis in order to be most efficient.' So the biologist sets out spiraling up the mountain at a constant low slope. The geologist starts up the trail but only gets ten feet up the mountain because he gets sidetracked by the first outcrop he sees."
Pretty funny, right?
We also tried to think up some other punchlines.
"The chemist just dissolves the mountain with acid."
"The crystallographer just finds the symmetry of the mountain, and walks to an equivalent point at the base of the mountain."
"The historian just sits at the base of the mountain and reads an account of somebody else who climbed it."
"The sociologist stays at the base of the mountain and asks what everybody else is doing."
"The ecologist tries to keep everybody else off the mountain to preserve the delicate ecosystem."
"The mathematician calculates the height of the mountain using trigonometry and is satisfied with that."
"The astrobiologist looks at an anthill at the base of the mountain as an analog and claims that there is a race of intelligent super-insects at the top."
"The psychologist just talks about how the mountain is a phallic symbol and represents the 'Unattainable.'"
"The political scientist does whatever his party (or the special interest group that gives him the most money) tells him to do."
" A physicist, a biologist, and a geologist are going to climb a mountain. The physicist says, 'No matter how I go up the mountain, I will end up doing the same amount of Work, because Work is path-independent.' So the physicist climbs straight up the side of the mountain. The biologist says, 'I wish to keep my body in homeostasis in order to be most efficient.' So the biologist sets out spiraling up the mountain at a constant low slope. The geologist starts up the trail but only gets ten feet up the mountain because he gets sidetracked by the first outcrop he sees."
Pretty funny, right?
We also tried to think up some other punchlines.
"The chemist just dissolves the mountain with acid."
"The crystallographer just finds the symmetry of the mountain, and walks to an equivalent point at the base of the mountain."
"The historian just sits at the base of the mountain and reads an account of somebody else who climbed it."
"The sociologist stays at the base of the mountain and asks what everybody else is doing."
"The ecologist tries to keep everybody else off the mountain to preserve the delicate ecosystem."
"The mathematician calculates the height of the mountain using trigonometry and is satisfied with that."
"The astrobiologist looks at an anthill at the base of the mountain as an analog and claims that there is a race of intelligent super-insects at the top."
"The psychologist just talks about how the mountain is a phallic symbol and represents the 'Unattainable.'"
"The political scientist does whatever his party (or the special interest group that gives him the most money) tells him to do."
Friday, October 17, 2003
Boy, don't I feel smart today.
We had a philosopher who gave a talk about Astrobiology. I'll try to summarize his main points, because I think they're interesting, and add some of my own.
1. LIFE is defined NOT by fundamental principles (which must also be defined) NOR by entropy arguments (which allow too much) but by minimal DARWINIAN NATURAL SELECTION. Anything that has INHERITANCE, VARIABILITY in inheritance, and FITNESS dependence on inherited traits is alive. This does not make any assumptions on mechanisms, but does necessitate some form of reproduction.
2. ETHICS are a set of rules that define how we treat SENTIENT beings. By definition, anything that is not sentient has no ethical value. However, non-sentient things may have indirect value by their relationship to us. For example, you don't shoot your neighbor's cat because it has an inherent right to live. Instead, you don't shoot your neighbor's cat because your neighbor places aesthetic value in that cat, and it is ethical to respect your neighbor's wishes. This applies to life on MARS. If we find life on Mars, we have to decide what to do with it. Initially, life on Mars has value to us because we can learn new information about life in the universe. However, what if a situation arises where we have to colonize Mars or die (Earth will explode or something)? We will have to make an ethical decision whether Martian bacteria have an intrinsic right to life or we have the right to destroy it to terraform the planet. Since we are SENTIENT, the Martian bacteria are less important, so we colonize Mars instead of accepting certain death.
3. There are many problems with #2. US policy, especially the endangered species acts, suggests that our society thinks that all life has a basic ETHICAL VALUE regardless of it's benefit to us. Consider all the higher-order endangered species that would not affect us if they ceased to exist. Or consider endangered fish that cause us to not build a dam, which would benefit us immensely. It also brings up another problem, that SENTIENCE is a threshhold property. This is an arbitrary, anthropomorphic property. Vegetarians and Vegans think that being ANIMAL is the threshhold, not sentience.
4. Ethics are entirely SUBJECTIVE, arising from instincts and evolution. There are no UNIVERSAL ethical principles. We could come across a sentient alien race that has totally different ethics than us. The only way to have universal ethics is through EVOLUTIONARY CONVERGENCE, which we have no way of knowing right now.
5. As humans, we are limited by our empirical knowledge. When we see a dog acting human, we have NO way of knowing if that dog is making ethical decisions or not. There are two possibilities. First, the dog is not sentient at all, and we are interpreting his actions in an anthropomorphic point of view. Second, the dog is making mental DECISIONS (not instincts or learned behaviors) to act or react in a certain manner. Since we cannot make the distinction between these two possibilities, how can we determine if the dog has ethical value (including the right to life)?
6. Humans are both RATIONAL and IRRATIONAL. Think about people who have irrational fears. There is no rational reason to be scared, but they are scared none the less. Just because we make an ethical decision about what is RIGHT or WRONG, that doesn't mean we will DESIRE to do the right thing. Suppose the principle in #2 is correct. Therefore, the WRONG reason to be vegetarian or vegan is because we feel sorry for the animals. The RIGHT reason to be vegetarian or vegan is because high-density feed lots or overfishing (etc.) are bad for the environment, and hence bad for us. The former is an IRRATIONAL reason, while the latter is the RATIONAL one. Omnivores, therefore, have an IRRATIONAL reason for eating meat, because they just want to. Dostoyevsky loved talking about this kind of stuff. Of course this all assumes #2, and there are many other issues surrounding this question that I don't have time to discuss.
7. I will posit again the previous ethical question: The Earth will blow up, and everything on it will die. However, we have just enough time to move our civilization (and even many Earth species) to Mars. We have discovered life on Mars. If we move to Mars, we will have to terraform it, and will destroy all Martian life. Do we respect Martian life and die, or do we kill Martian life and survive? What is the ethical thing to do? What will humans ultimately do? Is there a difference between the two? Why?
8. Here's another ethical question: There is a stranded boat in the middle of the ocean. Inside are an 80-year old woman, a 20-year old man, and a young puppy. They have no food. YOU must decide which one will die to feed the others. There are really only three options. 1) the puppy dies because it isn't sentient. 2) the old woman dies because her life is basically over. 3) they all have an equal right to life, so you decide by chance. What do YOU choose? What does your choice say about your ethics? What is the most probable solution? Would (or should) the problem change if the puppy were replaced by a jar of bacteria?
9. I would also like to mention that after the talk, the speaker made a comment that I was pretty quiet the whole time, while everybody else was talking and making (mostly idiotic) comments about how this guy was totally wrong. He said my quietness probably means I had everything figured all out. I liked hearing that. ;-)
We had a philosopher who gave a talk about Astrobiology. I'll try to summarize his main points, because I think they're interesting, and add some of my own.
1. LIFE is defined NOT by fundamental principles (which must also be defined) NOR by entropy arguments (which allow too much) but by minimal DARWINIAN NATURAL SELECTION. Anything that has INHERITANCE, VARIABILITY in inheritance, and FITNESS dependence on inherited traits is alive. This does not make any assumptions on mechanisms, but does necessitate some form of reproduction.
2. ETHICS are a set of rules that define how we treat SENTIENT beings. By definition, anything that is not sentient has no ethical value. However, non-sentient things may have indirect value by their relationship to us. For example, you don't shoot your neighbor's cat because it has an inherent right to live. Instead, you don't shoot your neighbor's cat because your neighbor places aesthetic value in that cat, and it is ethical to respect your neighbor's wishes. This applies to life on MARS. If we find life on Mars, we have to decide what to do with it. Initially, life on Mars has value to us because we can learn new information about life in the universe. However, what if a situation arises where we have to colonize Mars or die (Earth will explode or something)? We will have to make an ethical decision whether Martian bacteria have an intrinsic right to life or we have the right to destroy it to terraform the planet. Since we are SENTIENT, the Martian bacteria are less important, so we colonize Mars instead of accepting certain death.
3. There are many problems with #2. US policy, especially the endangered species acts, suggests that our society thinks that all life has a basic ETHICAL VALUE regardless of it's benefit to us. Consider all the higher-order endangered species that would not affect us if they ceased to exist. Or consider endangered fish that cause us to not build a dam, which would benefit us immensely. It also brings up another problem, that SENTIENCE is a threshhold property. This is an arbitrary, anthropomorphic property. Vegetarians and Vegans think that being ANIMAL is the threshhold, not sentience.
4. Ethics are entirely SUBJECTIVE, arising from instincts and evolution. There are no UNIVERSAL ethical principles. We could come across a sentient alien race that has totally different ethics than us. The only way to have universal ethics is through EVOLUTIONARY CONVERGENCE, which we have no way of knowing right now.
5. As humans, we are limited by our empirical knowledge. When we see a dog acting human, we have NO way of knowing if that dog is making ethical decisions or not. There are two possibilities. First, the dog is not sentient at all, and we are interpreting his actions in an anthropomorphic point of view. Second, the dog is making mental DECISIONS (not instincts or learned behaviors) to act or react in a certain manner. Since we cannot make the distinction between these two possibilities, how can we determine if the dog has ethical value (including the right to life)?
6. Humans are both RATIONAL and IRRATIONAL. Think about people who have irrational fears. There is no rational reason to be scared, but they are scared none the less. Just because we make an ethical decision about what is RIGHT or WRONG, that doesn't mean we will DESIRE to do the right thing. Suppose the principle in #2 is correct. Therefore, the WRONG reason to be vegetarian or vegan is because we feel sorry for the animals. The RIGHT reason to be vegetarian or vegan is because high-density feed lots or overfishing (etc.) are bad for the environment, and hence bad for us. The former is an IRRATIONAL reason, while the latter is the RATIONAL one. Omnivores, therefore, have an IRRATIONAL reason for eating meat, because they just want to. Dostoyevsky loved talking about this kind of stuff. Of course this all assumes #2, and there are many other issues surrounding this question that I don't have time to discuss.
7. I will posit again the previous ethical question: The Earth will blow up, and everything on it will die. However, we have just enough time to move our civilization (and even many Earth species) to Mars. We have discovered life on Mars. If we move to Mars, we will have to terraform it, and will destroy all Martian life. Do we respect Martian life and die, or do we kill Martian life and survive? What is the ethical thing to do? What will humans ultimately do? Is there a difference between the two? Why?
8. Here's another ethical question: There is a stranded boat in the middle of the ocean. Inside are an 80-year old woman, a 20-year old man, and a young puppy. They have no food. YOU must decide which one will die to feed the others. There are really only three options. 1) the puppy dies because it isn't sentient. 2) the old woman dies because her life is basically over. 3) they all have an equal right to life, so you decide by chance. What do YOU choose? What does your choice say about your ethics? What is the most probable solution? Would (or should) the problem change if the puppy were replaced by a jar of bacteria?
9. I would also like to mention that after the talk, the speaker made a comment that I was pretty quiet the whole time, while everybody else was talking and making (mostly idiotic) comments about how this guy was totally wrong. He said my quietness probably means I had everything figured all out. I liked hearing that. ;-)
Tuesday, October 14, 2003
Kelly and I are going to Flagstaff this weekend for our birthdays. We want to climb Humphrey's Peak one last time before the weather gets too bad. And it's perfect hiking weather too. 70 degrees and no rain in Flagstaff. I guess it will be a little chilly at the top.
Monday, October 13, 2003
I finally got to replace all my tools that were stolen a while ago. The insurance company is being really anal about it all. They only gave us about 25% of the total. We are supposed to buy all our stuff, and then fill out paperwork to get the rest of the money. It's such a hassle. I would almost rather pay more for insurance if they just gave you what you asked for without all this haggling and red tape.
But at least I got all my tools back. And I did get a new torque wrench out of it.
But at least I got all my tools back. And I did get a new torque wrench out of it.
Tuesday, October 07, 2003
How's everybody doin'? Well I'm doing just fine.
I had a good weekend out by Cherry. On Sunday we mapped a large chunk of basement, and may have found the mysterious "Laramide granodiorite". Joe also found a bunch on the other side of the hill, and his outcrop matches up with mine, so it may be a dike.
Have fun!
I had a good weekend out by Cherry. On Sunday we mapped a large chunk of basement, and may have found the mysterious "Laramide granodiorite". Joe also found a bunch on the other side of the hill, and his outcrop matches up with mine, so it may be a dike.
Have fun!
Wednesday, October 01, 2003
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
