Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Frequency vs. Distance (Score 2) 867

by panthroman (#44376139) Attached to: Door-To-Door Mail Delivery To End Under New Plan

Getting and sending mail becomes less convenient. I'm a big USPS fan (clearly...), and the draws are convenience and personal contact, not speed.

Getting mail twice a week would suffice for me, but getting rid of the mailperson -- the one who hand delivers a letter door-to-door anywhere in the States, for under a dollar! -- robs the USPS of its charm.

Comment: door to door delivery boosted USPS profits (Score 5, Interesting) 867

by panthroman (#44376033) Attached to: Door-To-Door Mail Delivery To End Under New Plan

Before the Civil War, you had to go to the local post office to pick up your mail.

In 1863, Postmaster Montgomery Blair petitioned congress to "promote the public convenience" by providing free home delivery in cities, and argued - correctly, it turns out - that the resultant increase in postal usage would offset the delivery cost and yield a profit. Free rural delivery followed around the turn of the century.

Others at the time argued that whether home delivery yielded a profit was irrelevant, since government entities should be more concerned with civic duty than profit. It's a balance, for sure, but I wish the civic duty sentiment were more common today, or at least to acknowledge the trade-off.

Comment: darwin didn't know the details? shocking! (Score 4, Insightful) 313

by panthroman (#30912194) Attached to: Darwinian Evolution Considered As a Phase

Have Woese and Goldenfeld a brilliant new idea? All they're saying, I think, is that "parent" and "child" are the appropriate units of selection only when genes are passed vertically: from parent to child. They're suggesting that horizontal gene transfer is underrated as a historical evolutionary force.

Agree or not, it hardly undermines Darwin. Genes weren't known in the 19th century. Darwin didn't have a clue about genes, so we're gonna knock him for being "wrong" about it? I mean, was Jesus wrong about genes, too? It's anachronistic silliness.

Science is fundamentally dynamic. Any science that hasn't progressed in 150 years ain't doing too well. (Dear creationists: stop calling us "Darwinists." We've moved on.) I mean, The Origin came out in 1859, for crying out loud! Darwin was more brilliant, more insightful, and rightly more famous than I'll ever be. But if we both had to take a biology test right now, I'd kill him.

Comment: Re:Mechanics car... (Score 1) 414

by panthroman (#30843236) Attached to: I keep track of my passwords ...

There is an old saying re a Mechanics car or carpenters house... they are usually the worst examples of how well they are maintained.

That's because a mechanic isn't worried if her car breaks down - she knows how to fix it.

I don't think the saying means "people are hypocritical" but rather "people who know how to fix things don't worry as much if they break." If you're a security admin and you don't follow your own advice... do you know how to fix it if it breaks?

Comment: Re:1:1 (Score 1) 582

by panthroman (#30695916) Attached to: Best estimate of monthly spending on food:shelter

You know, you're making me think it is a silly definitional thing.

The usual way to add a point at infinity to the real numbers is the way I described - it's a way of forming the real projective line. The benefit is that you can define some operations with infinity, but the drawback is that you lose meaningful ordering in the number line. (That might be why the Riemann Sphere is a more useful object; the complex plane isn't ordered to begin with.)

If you want to retain ordering in the number line, then yes, you have to add two points at infinity. So maybe you're right, and the real projective line is a silly thing.

Comment: Re:humane testing (Score 1) 235

by panthroman (#30695650) Attached to: The 9 Most Tested Lab Animals

Plants react to death and damage, but so does a water balloon. Neither has a nervous system, so I don't worry too much about it. Yes, there is an element of "if it's not like me, then it can't suffer like me," but what else can you do? Assume, despite no evidence to the contrary, that grass can suffer? Then soccer is a monstrous sport!

Why draw the line at tomatoes? First, I don't really. I eat fish on occasion. There is no magical line. Second, it's easy for me to avoid eating cows, and I'm very confident that cattle can suffer. It's damn hard to avoid eating plants, and I'm not at all confident that plants can suffer. So not eating cattle is a better ethical bang for my buck.

Comment: Re:1:1 (Score 1) 582

by panthroman (#30691442) Attached to: Best estimate of monthly spending on food:shelter

A better reason can be seen using limits. As X approaches 0 in 1/x, the output approaches BOTH positive and negative infinity. As such, it is impossible to define the output - it would need to have two values at once, which is illogical.

But +infinity and -infinity are the same point, in a way.

You can kinda wrap the number line into a circle. This pic should be somewhat self-explanatory on how to map the number line onto a circle. And you can probably see that the very top of the circle - the so-called "point at infinity" - is both +infinity and -infinity.

(See Riemann Sphere for a complex plane version of this.)

Comment: Re:humane testing (Score 1) 235

by panthroman (#30691274) Attached to: The 9 Most Tested Lab Animals

especially when it's for something shallow like cosmetic testing.

...or like cheaper hamburgers?

Sorry. As a vegetarian biologist, this is just an inconsistency that I see constantly. "How can you be vegetarian and use antibodies that came from lab rabbits in your research?!" Easy: the cost/benefit ratio is wildly different. I don't understand how McDonald's-eating folks complain about animal testing.

Comment: the surprise is what defines a "breakthrough" (Score 3, Interesting) 51

by panthroman (#30614932) Attached to: The Key To Astronomy Has Often Been Serendipity

Maybe important findings get publicity and "breakthrough!" status only if they're somewhat surprising? If folks chip away at a problem for 20 years, even if the result is the same as waiting 19 years and then having a eureka discovery, is it still called a breakthrough?

Comment: i mess up ~2-3 times before i get it right (Score 2, Informative) 206

by panthroman (#30613278) Attached to: Until I remember to write '2010' instead of '2009':

I wonder the poll just measures how often folks write out the date, and most folks mess up about the same number of times before "oh yeah, it's 2010!" kicks in.

A receptionist, who's scheduling things all the time, might only need one morning at work to make the mental shift. But for me it's ~2 weeks, since I rarely find myself writing out the date.

"I got everybody to pay up front...then I blew up their planet." "Now why didn't I think of that?" -- Post Bros. Comics

Working...