BBC Blog Network

User Profile

Lateralis

Listed below are comments made by Lateralis between Friday, 1st August 2008 and Friday, 20th November 2009.

«Newer
Older»

Why cars are greener than buses (maybe) 11:41am on 20 Nov 2009 Firstly, Justin, you don't seem to know too much about public transport! I use public transport all of the time and have done for years owing to the fact I've never learned to drive (too expensive for me). In the first instance, public transport companies only put on enough buses to meet public demand at any given time. It is uneconomical for them to provide a peak-time service all of the time so they don't do it. Moreover, the bus routes around my way (Coventry) are largely full most of the time.

Secondly, Justin, a tonne of CO2 dumped into the upper atmosphere by an aeroplane is far more damaging than a tonne of CO2 dumped out of vehicles and so forth at ground level.

Thirdly... Jon Bowman from post #23... The comment about the energy saving light bulbs is somewhat valid, although I think you miss the point a little. but ss for your comments regarding a hypothetical journey up to York from London? Well, I find your lack of logic disturbing. Your post looks like you're feeling guilty and trying whatever you can to justify your current habits without thinking about what you're saying.
24 hours with Ubuntu 10:34pm on 26 Oct 2009 @Haeltera

I just have to say one thing: hardware support in Linux these days is normally *very* good.

You happened to mention nVidia in your post, but actually, nVidia do provide a good set of (closed source) drivers that work well with Ubuntu (and linux generally). ATI are playing catch-up to nVidia, but their drivers have come on a long way in the last 12 months and actually do work pretty well (as far as I'm aware, having spoken to some friends who have installed Ubuntu in the last few months with ATI graphics cards).

You mention Intel in your post as being a company that has good drivers for Linux operating systems, but I'd like to echo what others have said and mention HP for their excellent printer drivers.

Moreover, I can think of nothing that I have attached to either my Linux desktop or laptop that didn't work properly first time; scanners, webcams, external mice and keyboards (some with funky buttons), wireless networking cards, cameras, USB keys, bluethooth equipment... The list goes on. And it all worked *first* time.

It is absolutely true that hardware support a few years ago was terrible. But these days it is generally very good and on the rare occasions you do encounter a problem, there is a *vast* array of forums to help you out, including and specifically, the Ubuntu forums.

@Rory

I don't really want to dig any more at you, but I think if you feel like you've been the target of hostile comments from Linux users, then you have to appreciate that your article was hugely apathetic and biased, even if you wanted to make an "honest attempt to recreate what would be the experience for average computer users [...] when trying the Ubuntu environment for the first time."

Moreover, even my mother, who by and large is not a computer whizz kid, was up and running with Ubuntu the first time doing all the things she wanted... and much more. Linux genuinely is a very easy, intuitive operating system to use, but you have to go in with fresh eyes and remind yourself that you're not using Windows and everything "under the hood" is done quite differently from Windows. Once you do that, you'll realise Linux isn't difficult... just different. And then once you've embraced the command line you'll discover a whole new world of possibility and discover all of the uber powerful things you can't do in Windows but makes life in Linux so awesome.

Really, I challenge you to give it a proper, fair crack, embrace the vibrant Ubuntu community on the forums who are always willing to help and see how you get on. If you don't like, at least you can say you gave it a proper go and can honestly say why.
24 hours with Ubuntu 10:11pm on 25 Oct 2009 I first gave Linux a try back in 2004, with the Mandrake Powerpack 10.1 It was all new, shiny and lovely, but like Rory, I felt out of my comfort zone and so after a while, left it in favour of XP again.

I returned to Linux nearly 2 years ago for reasons related to work. For you see, I'm a physicist and almost all scientific codes are written for Linux. All of the simulation packages I use - ion scattering simulations, electron diffraction simulations, desntiy functional theory calculations - only work in Linux. I really had little choice but to try out Linux and I'm damn glad that I did.

Ubuntu 7.10 still had some issues about it that I didn't really care for, but 8.04 and later releases have been really solid. 9.04 in particular was a really nice update. All of the PCs I use at work run Linux; my laptop, which I use for work and at home, is dual booted with Vista and Ubuntu and; my home desktop PC is dual booted with XP and Ubuntu. There is no question that Ubuntu is faster and much more stable. I have also been impressed with the advances Ubuntu has made in the last 18 months with wireless support - both bluetooth and wireless internet - and thus far, have found NO piece of hardware that will not work with it.

For many people, a simple point-and-click approach is all they will want to use and Ubuntu does deliver that. Everything you need can be found in a graphical menu. I however use the command line interface by default as it is much more powerful. Sure, it may take some time to get used to it, but I am able to do things in Linux that are simply not possible in Windows. And that is the big thing for me - Linux is far more powerful than Windows will *ever* be.
Blue skies versus applied research 10:22pm on 04 Oct 2008 The best phrase in science isn't "eureka" but "that's funny..."

As others have pointed out, it is impossible to predict exactly how important fundamental research will actually be insofar as making tangible applications and quantifiable benefits until that research has been done. Electricity is one such exmaple, but I'd go farther and mention James Clark Maxwell and his unification of the electric and magnetic forces. A hugely important theoretical leap which has countless practical implications. And what of quantum mechanics? A couple of troublesome problems in physics at the end of the 19th century were only solved after making the bold speculations that spawned quantum theory. And how many applications has quantum theory had?

Lord Kelvin in the 19th century did some experiments with currents passing through magnetic metals whilst in the presence of a magnetic field. He observed slight variations in the electrical resistance depending on the relative orientations of the the current and magnetic field - the so-called anisotropic magnetoresistance effect. The effect was small, so largely forgotten, until when in the 80's two research groups independently observed this effect again but with much high variations in resistance - the so-called giant magnetoresistance effect. The discovery of this effect lead to the invention of a device - the spin valve - which is now found in every single modern day hard drive.

Also in the 1980s, de Groot et al. looked theoretically at a class of materials called the half Heusler alloys. Their theoretical research showed these materials had the exotic property of half metallicity. These half metals will no doubt play an important role in future spintronic devices.

If fundamental research which had no obvious practical importance had been shelved back at the end of 1800s, we would have virtually nothing of what we enjoy today in the modern world.

I for one never used to listen to Dave King (I've dropped the "sir" on purpose) because he hasn't a clue about anything outside of the research he used to undertake and is highly motivated politically. His latest set of comments clearly indicate the man is grossly out of touch with the state of modern science and technology, doesn't know his history and is exceptionally short sighted. The less attention we give this idiot the better.
Two beams for Cern 5:54pm on 16 Sep 2008 "This project has cost billions of pounds. Surely this money would be better spent on the starving, homeless and health care. What a huge waste of money for absolutely nothing, mark my words!"

The cost of the LHC is a meer fraction of a percent of global GDP. I forget the percentage, but it is something like 0.01%. Perhaps a bit larget, perhaps a bit smaller - I can't remember the precise value.

If that doesn't convince you that this experiment is actually relatively cheap, then consider this: the MoD defence budget is £40billion a year, or, about 6 times the cost of the LHC project. Given that the UK's investment is substantially less than £1 billion, I'd say that we've actually got an amazingly cheap experiment.
First beam 10:45pm on 10 Sep 2008 To Supercalmdown (comment #20)

That may be true - I could do a quick back-of-the-envelope calculation now to check that but to be honest, I'm not in the mood! However, I'd like to point out that if that number is correct, then the heat will be crammed into a volume orders of magnitude smaller than that of a pinhead. If we now calculate the energy denisty of that energy spread through the globe, then I'm fairly sure the effect will be negligible.

What I would like to point out though is that the LHC is a one-of-a-kind experiment. The incadescent (tungsten filament) lightbulb operates at temperatures of between 2 and 3 thousand Kelvin. (Note that 0 degrees C is +273 Kelvin). The surface temperature of the sun is ... a couple of thousand Kelvin. I wonder exactly how many of those babies there are in the world...
Two beams for Cern 3:16pm on 10 Sep 2008 As a condensed matter physicist working with vacuum chambers and cryogenics on a daily basis, I cannot help but be filled with a sense of wonder over the LHC and particle colliders the world over. It is difficult enough obtaining an ulter high vacuum in the piddly thing (by comparrison) in my lab. I cannot comprehend the sheer scale of the engineering required to pump down the LHC and keep so many superconducting coils at liquid helium temperatures.

Everyone involved in the project should be commended, not only for getting the machine working but for getting it working so beautifully in such a short space of time.

Simply remarkable.
First beam 2:46pm on 10 Sep 2008 To supercalmdown (#4)

Splitting the atom is possible; "splitting the proton" (in the same manner) is not (in any directly comparable sense). Protons are not fundamental particles but are themselves made up of still smaller particles called "quarks". These quarks are bound together by the "strong nuclear" force (that is actually its name) which displays the property of asymptotic freedom; the harder you try and pull quarks apart, the stronger the force gets. Quarks are therefore never seen individually and always come bound with partners. They typically come as either a pair (known as mesons) or as three bound together (known baryons). Protons, and neutrons, fall into the second catagory. There's also *some* evidence of tetraquarks - an exotic meson composed of 4 quarks - however, if they do exist, they are much less common.

So, imagine the following: you have two marbles attached to each other by a piece of elastic. As you pull the marbles apart, you store up energy in the elastic. The harder you pull the marbles apart, the more difficult it becomes to pull them further apart. Eventually, the energy denisty in the band is such that it snaps. If we now replace the marbles with quarks and the elastic for the strong nuclear force, at the point of snapping the stored energy is used to create two new quarks at the snapped ends, leading to two pairs of quarks, up from the single pair we started off with.

Hopefully it is clear that the processes occuring during accelerator collisions are markedly different to those which occur within a fissioning atom.
Outstanding Smith deserves his success 00:32am on 03 Aug 2008 I think I said in a previous Aggers' blog article that Flintoff shouldn't bowl as part of a 4 man attack. I now feel somewhat vindicated, but I'm now of the opinion that we shouldn't bowl a four man attack, full stop. We don't have a McGrath, Warne, Morkel or Steyn figure. We don't have a Muralitharan. We have good bolwers, capable of taking wickets, but no one that can really run through a batting order. Flintoff has never been a particularly penetrative strike bowler (he has taken just 7 five wicket hauls in all forms of circket he has played [ first class, list A, ODI, Test and all Twenty20 matches] and never 10 wickets in a match), Sidebottom looks tired and seems to be struggling with niggles (particularly with the back) and Panesar is pretty harmless on wickets that don't turn. And we all know about the mercurial Anderson.

Given all that, I really feel sorry for Vaughan the captain. How could we expect to take 10 South African wickets on a pitch that offered very little? And so although I thought Flintoff shouldn't play as part of a 4 man attack for medical reasons, I now think England shouldn't play a 4 man attack for cricketing reasons - we just don't look like taking 20 wickets per match. We just don't have the talent.

So, with the Oval a dead rubber, we have the perfect opportunity to try something different, bold and radical. Bring in some fresh faces and try and inject some reality into the hermetically sealed bubble that is the England dressing room.

Broad, SP Jones or Tim Murtagh for Vaughan (make Strauss captain); Harmison for Sidebottom; Prior for Ambrose.

They would be my potential changes. Strauss has a good cricket brain and is pretty unflappable. Broad has all the shots Vaughan has - including a lovely cover drive - but crucially is making more runs than Vaughan.

On the Key issue... I'm not a huge fan of Key. Wasn't really that big a fan after his forray into Test cricket and on the basis of his stats so far this season, I'm still not that impressed. The same really goes for Ed Joyce, who again hasn't impressed so far this season.

Tim Murtagh is the leading wicket taker in division one of the county championship. A fast-medium bowler for Middlesex, he celebrates his 27th birthday on the 2nd of August. He's also no mug with the bat, averaging 24.50. I've not seen him bowl or bat live, but the Oval could be a good opportunity to see him in action (he was at Surrey for a few years before moving north to Middelsex, so he should be familiar with the Oval).

I'm not a big fan of Hamison, but I don't entirely trust Kabir Ali just yet. Jones is definitely somewhere near the top of my list to make an entrance at the Oval, but match fitness question marks still hang over his head somewhat. Which means that even I cannot ignore the case for reselection Harmison has built up over the last few months. And in some ways, I'd rather enjoy the sight of a fired up Harmison and Flintoff bowling close to 90 mph, giving those South African a right seeing to.

As for Prior... it is a tough call. Geraint Jones, Steven Davies (of Worcestershire), James Foster and Chris Read all have more dismissals this season than Prior (with Davies leading the way quite comfortably with 51 catches from 11 matches), but they all average less than 41 in the county championship. Davies is averaging the most with a little over 40 and a high score of 99*. Prior, conversely, is averaging nearly 55, with 3 hundreds and five fifties. Ambrose has acquitted himself admirably in the last few innings, with gritty innings, but if we're to play 5 bowlers, we could well do with additional batting support. On that basis, Prior is the man for the job, but one has to ask what style of batter he is. If he can be neutralised by having the ball pitched up outside off, then we may as well stick with Ambrose who is definitely the better keeper.

So there we are... It is a tough one. I would definitely advocate the use of 5 bowlers for the next test, simply because we don't have the quality to use just 4. That means a batsmen has to miss out and Vaughan or Bell are the most likely candidates.
Pietersen fails to complete rescue operation 9:43pm on 01 Aug 2008 To sackjohnagnew

"Quite! More Bell please! My sunglasses are quite shot through!"

Actually, even as a big supporter of Bell I've been distinctly unimpressed by him in Tests for quite a while.

What we perhaps do need though is some of Collingwood's grit. Pietersen may not have a hundred tonight, but Collingwood does and he's still not out. Just think how many more runs Pietersen could have right now if he was still not out.

«Newer
Older»

^ Back to top

BBC MMVI

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites

BBC.co.uk

BBC Blog Network

Find and talk to the BBC's bloggers.

User Profile

Lateralis