As others have said, it's not a show, but a race. Also, unlimited class race planes are not normal planes. They chop the wings and boost the superchargers. Tiger Destifani once said that without a significant amount of thrust, the modified P51s have the aerodynamic capability of a cannonball. As they must for those speeds. One of the most amazing things I've ever seen was a P51 (I think it was the Red Baron, notable for having counter-rotating props) diving into the main straight to do a qualifying lap and see vapor trails coming off the wings at 1000ft. P51s aren't supposed go get anywhere near those speeds. The point being: these aren't normal planes, and they aren't doing normal activities, and they are always on the edge of the envelope.

I'm participating in the full course online, and am excited to do so. A large part of my motivation is for learning about the challenges that the instructors face, and their design solutions to meet their goals. I emailed Dr. Thrun asking if I could ask some questions, or if there were plans to present their experiences at the end. The response, as I expected for a very, very busy professor, was that they will probably report our generally at the end. Which I'm totally cool with. However, this seems like maybe more information is going to Know Labs to create a product, rather than to the world to create better distance education opportunities (which, I would argue, is more valuable than teaching the world about AI). Still not the worst thing in the world, and I'm not complaining about getting the chance to learn what I can, but private money in education rarely turns out for the better.

I really like it. There are many things that work very well for me, and where I developed an immediate and natural workflow that trips me up when I switch to a different computer. I love that it uses CSS for appearance settings.

That said... it is buggy. I had to make scripts to reset my customizations that get written over every time I update. I'm a Fedora person, so I work with a reasonable expectation of what comes when living in the area between cutting and bleeding edge changes, but it doesn't quite seem ready for primetime in all honesty. But I still like it.

...thanks. We don't have many allies these days outside the profession. I appreciate those who are.

I found it interesting who was on the list and who wasn't.
-Experian is but Fair Issac (who has a couple of offices near here) isn't.
-Amex is but Visa, one of the Bay Area's largest employers, isn't.
-Many insurance companies. I know past behavior is important to these companies, but web tracking? I don't know enough to see why this is worth fighting for on their end.
-California Assoc. of Licensed Investigators. Probably the only honest ones on the list. "We want to be able to track you, because, um, we track people. That's what we do."

So I wonder if some of the companies that aren't on here don't care, weren't asked, or actively don't want to be on a list with PR nightmares like the MPAA.

I believe this is on the right track. I don't know about these systems, but some radio-telescopes require liquid N for cooling the first stages of amplification circuitry. The early stages are super-high gain, and since you can't really change the bandwidth measured too much, and there are practical limits to the resistance of the components used (and you sure as hell can't change Boltzmann's constant) the easiest way to eliminate random noise is to get T as close to 0K as practicable.

Another issue can be calibration. Maybe if it's not active it's not being calibrated and for sensitive equipment, that can mean that it's no longer "trusted" even if it's later brought back within spec.

Manufacturing also. Most pcb etchers require and do business in imperial measurements. Many extrusions and dies are imperial. Just look at cyclists who get their fancy Italian bicycle parts and are all confused about if their 31.8mm handlebars will fit in their 31.7mm stem. Well... they are both the same size: 1.25 inches. Big money is tied up in manufacturing equipment and will dictate what industry uses. Common people are really irrelevant here.

I watched the video, and while I'm not a scientist, I play one in my off hours (I flunked out of my PhD pure math program...)

I have to say that I was really disappointed with the lecture. Now I know this is a "bring the research to the people" lecture which tries to give a more causal audience a view into cutting edge research, but there were a number of significant problems with both the tenor, style and some with the content. It might sound like nit-picking, but if you are taping a lecture for wide distribution and giving it an sensational title you might want to make sure that you have your details right. Don't attribute a Mozart opera to Rossini. Don't accept the audience response of "false premise" and then mumble something about it not being transitive, no wait, only the contrapositive is transitive when talking about logical conclusions. Don't hand-wave multiple times "...and this happens for entirely different reasons" and leave it when it sure looks significant.

And above all, leave all non-pertinent politics out of your scientific discussion. I'll accept that you hate Nixon, and that may even have a place in the discussion. But the "HFCS is Japan's revenge for WWII?" and "A hole bigger than the one in the USS Cole" among other polemic statements? Not even remotely defensible in an academic discussion.

I learned a couple of things, but much of it really isn't new to people who have been following nutrition research even casually. However, the tone really turned me off, and makes me thing that Dr. Lustig want to inflame more than he wants to inform, which is poor practice for a doctor (to teach, in this case being a physician at a research university) or a scientist.

I nearly stopped listening to the Dr. Lustig after he said "Rossini, you know, La Gazza Ladra, The Marriage of Figaro..." It's being pedantic, but, UGH.

I'm curious if you have the source for the "optic nerve refreshes at approx. 100Hz". It sounds about right, but I went looking around for details and it appears that not everyone is able to observe stroboscopic events under continuous illumination. This was a huge surprise to me, because I have always seen car and bicycle wheels start to "turn backwards" at a certain frequency in daylight conditions. I didn't realize that some people don't. Now I'm confused and am probably going to waste the rest of the week reading up on visual perception theories and research.

When I was doing some stuff at Lawrence Livermore Labs in the mid 1990s there was a very active group working on radiation and harsh environment resistant robots. They were boring, but highly functional, which is why no one paid any attention from the outside. While I haven't kept up on their work, I am confident that there are few labs in the world that have robots for this job better and more advanced than the DOE devices. They do, of course, have to plan for not only power reactor problems but also our aging weapons stockpile.

So he can do it. Good for him.

Ted Williams was the greatest hitter of the modern era of baseball. He sucked as a coach and a manager--because all the qualifications in the world doesn't mean that you can then get someone else to do it.

I don't disagree with you for the most part--but maybe you are pushing an extreme for the sake of argument? Mayer (UCSB) has some very, very good research showing how multimedia lessons, when well structured, can significantly enhance understanding and transfer. Yes, it's true that you won't have many resources for "gold standard" double-blind, same population proof for online education, but being in education, you must certainly know that no such study is even possible. Education research just can't happen that way.

Also, remember, OP is student teaching. Be gentle, there's plenty of time later to get beat up and depressed over ideas that don't quite work.

Please don't. I understand that this was a massive undertaking by a non-professional which merits some recognition, but it really isn't a good resource. Sure, it makes sense if you have learned all the topics, and it's pretty easy to follow, but I guarantee that it will fail to foster any transfer of knowledge, deep understanding or promote an interest in further investigation. This is Kumon, for free, and not even as well structured.

NASA has the best resources, but it can be tough to find them. My favorite, and most applicable for physical science (8th grade in most states), is the solar system simulator from JPL: Eyes on the Solar System But do search the link in parent, and be persistent as NASA's site sucks.