I'd like to remind everyone that no one should feel obligated to post or whatever. I hope, (mrob being the one to initiate posting of this thought), you will post when you're ready. Little heads up that things are going molpish or not is fine. Like mrob said, PMs are there and sometimes work. I hope we all remember the first commandment while we still can worry and wish for the return of our members.
I think everyone needs to be treated as a different person, because we're all different. Also, there is no way to read people's minds, and people know that too. Therefore, if you are the kind of person who likes to contact prople, you should try contacting the missing OTTer, whether by PM or whatever other method presents itself (for example, my profile links to my website which has my social media handles at the bottom of every page). Then, if the thus-contacted person does not want to be PM'd or ＠-mentioned or emailed or whatever, they'll tell you.
Also, hi, mrob27! *waves*
Wouldn't this be similar to how we can measure everything in meters (kilo- and otherwise) whereas before we had pounds and ounces and others?
torque and work are in the same units not because they're both in the same system (which they could be, if you want them to have the same units), but because of the more fundamental fact that they're both in units of length squared times mass divided by time squared.
Thus, my "newton meters" in the previous post is the unit of energy for the measurement system I was using (SI, that is, joule
s). A more obvious interpretation is "joules per radian
", i.e. how much work do you perform (or equivalently, how much energy is required) if you apply a given amount of torque through a given amount (angle) of turning. Since the radian is itself unitless (like the molpy and the mole
), torque and work
end up having the same units.
This is similar to the "force through a distance" explanation of work. Since we're in a pivot-arm situation, one can choose to do that force×distance close to the pivot-point, involving a smaller torque and a larger angle, or one could use a larger radius to do the same amount of work using a higher torque and a smaller angle of turning. Gears effect this conversion within well-oiled machines.
(But, see below, per @mikrit
balthasar_s wrote: Both links point to the same post. Was it supposed to be like that?
Yes. Since you like to leave puzzles unanswered, I'll let you figure out why the second link serves a separate purpose.
mrob27: Maybe when we re-envision it as a Minecraft meetup
I propose a meetup via a readily-available form of virtual reality
, but without the need for any special equipment; the simplest example is a multiplayer online game
that includes first-person 3-D graphics and player avatars. Minecraft falls into this category, and in addition, it offers the ability to create stuff within the 3D world, or even to create an entire world. This has already been suggested by OTTers (albeit with different videogame engines). We could build artworks of various kinds (pixel art, 3-D sculptures and/or buildings) which would be a new form of OTTerlike creativity. You can put messages or poetry on signs, make redstone-activated contraptions that play melodies (though you need to arrange for the player to follow a path in a properly-timed manner, for the melody to be audible), and Randall knows what else.
I said that World of Warcraft ("WoW") was "violent and unmolpish". The unmolpish part, in particular, is its tarnished reputation due to illegal and/or unethical behaviour by some players (e.g. sexual harassment), plus the game's infamous addictiveness (with players often sitting in a room for 24, 40 or more hours of uninterrupted gameplay surrounded by piles of their own trash).
Sustainabilizer wrote: We are doing our best to make the conference as sustainable as possible.
If you are looking for sustainable travelling methods, let me know: I have hired an expert on this who can help you.
I think carbon-neutral transportation is the way to go for the long-term, and that means spending more money (which I think is appropriate).
To give an example, as many OTTers are aware, petrol (gasoline) costs more in some parts of the world (like Europe) than in others (like the United States). This has lots of effects, but one that I think is useful is that the more expensive petrol makes people use transportation more efficiently. The petrol-related carbon footprint per person ought to be less. Of course, there is a lot of politics (people trying to convince each other to do one thing or another) so it's probably not going to change much. I just wanted to point out that the need to spend more money on something that contributes to global warming, like gasoline, tends to drive (heh-heh)
people towards using less of it.
I went to Europe in 2003, for three weeks in Belgium, then I went there again this past summer, for two weeks. I used an airplane both times, which costs a lot in fuel. At somewhat over 1 pound of CO2
per passenger-mile (I used this blog
), I clearly added a couple tons of CO2
on each of those trips. That's somewhere near ten percent of what I would already be causing in a year based on my being a US citizen
. Is this okay? Should I really be going to Europe at all? (For what it's worth, Germans and Belgians are down at about half the CO2
-per-capita level of the US, though it seems Switzerland and Sweden are well ahead of them.) I aspire towards the Sweden-and-Switzerland end of the spectrum, so I'm really asking, is it fair for me to almost double my carbon footprint for a year just to go on an optional, personal trip?
If you want to participate (or even to hold a speech) but don't want to travel (and to cause a carbon footprint), we can arrange that, too. (We are experts for sustainable software solutions.)
Yes, I'd love to do a session on some things I was preparing for last year's Barcamp Boston, but did not deliver due to my missing day 1, and being kind of in a non-talking mood. Of course I have more "stuff to talk about" now. I like to look at people and groups and form hypotheses that invite further investigation, and I wanted to talk about the OTT community. I also love to grind data and turn words into numbers.
I suppose we could use some kind of videoconferencing software. I'd want people to be able to interrupt me to make sure the group's time is well spent.
mrob wrote: Does anybody think it's cool that torque and work are in the same units (newton-meters = joules)? Well, I think it is.
And they kind of sound similar, too. If you say one of them a little funny.
Oh sure, they both rhyme with spork
. (A suitable Othercomic for Halloween I think...)
mikrit wrote: The newton-meter of torque is different from the newton-meter of work, because for torque, the newton and the meter are perpendicular, but for work, the newton and the meter are parallel.
Oh, hey, that's brilliant! Yes, I agree... perhaps I can formalize it slightly:
Torque and work are both "force distance" units.
but they use different types of multiplication:
Work is the scalar product of force and distance,
whereas torque is the cross product of force and (radial) distance."
. . .
(and spork is the Frankensteinian product of spoon and fork )
I notice that when the force and radial-distance vectors are parallel, the cross-product is zero, and when the vectors are not parallel, a scalar product of their magnitudes has no meaningful interpretation (part of it becomes work, and the rest is manifested as torque).
WHAT IF A WOWTREE OF <COMPUTERY STUFF> WERE,
ALL OF A SUDDEN, LITERALLY HALF KEUGHT UP?