Better people than you have tried, and actually gone mad
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| phsolide Nov 15, 2008 9:22 PM EDT |
That was one of the things in the 1993-95 time frame that amazed me: people actually went crazy when they started to get overwhelmed with spam. I think it had to do with the underlying assumptions of (then usenet) spam - that everyone else should pay for the spammer's ads. Most spammers just seemed really dense about it, but a few were actually pathological, threatening to put your email address on even more spamlists when you complained. Thankfully, most of the pioneering spammers have died horrible deaths, often at the hands of their loved ones, or due to painful fatal illnesses, and now wash dirty socks in hell. |
| TxtEdMacs Nov 16, 2008 12:51 PM EDT |
That is your perception, not necessarily reality. At least one big name in physics got his Noble by berating a student, then reflecting on the idea*. One cannot say a priori who is the better person to attack a particular problem. Too many times I have read and heard that the solvers of problems were ignorant of the difficulties they faced. Therefore, they blithely attacked known to be impossible problems in a new, unexpected ways. Yes many have failed, but to presume that it you can predict whom might solve such a problem is both hubristic and egotistical. Therefore, I strongly advise you should leave that latter task to me. [To be read with a combination of serious and sarcastic tags.] * Think Exclusion ... |
| moopst Nov 16, 2008 7:01 PM EDT |
Pauli exclusion principle? |
| phsolide Nov 16, 2008 9:21 PM EDT |
Well, OK, but don't say I didn't tell you so. As Ben Franklin once said, "The man who carries a cat by its tail learns something he can learn in no other way." |
| TxtEdMacs Nov 17, 2008 4:25 PM EDT |
Is it moo... ?, Well how about some cow talk with the boys? Now we are by that, you are not excluded. However, Pauli was not a one trick pony, he predicted the presence of an unseen particle having spin but no charge and low mass based upon conservation of momentum. He used his conjecture to balance the forces seen in either nuclear decay* or scattering experiments. These entities were later known as neutrinos. Quite a trick, because as far as I can see, meaning currently, these observations are based solely upon indirect evidence. Txt. * I believe it was based upon electron capture, where an orbital electron is drawn in the nucleus converting a proton into a neutron. In chemical speak, the atomic number drops and the mass is constant. The more common nuclear decay is an emission of an energetic electron (beta decay). For example, helium three reverts to tritium, radio active form of hydrogen. |
| gus3 Nov 17, 2008 5:49 PM EDT |
Since we're on the topic of physics: The History Channel has a show on Einstein tonight at 9:00pm EST. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!