As a professional scientist who likes to chat at parties, my typical cocktail-party conversation goes something like this: Me: "Hi X. Nice to meet you." X: "Likewise. So what do you do?" Me: "I'm a nuclear physicist." X: "..." Me: "Seriously." X: "Wow. I've never met a nuclear physicist before. What do you do?" Me: "I smash atoms" X: "Wow. But what's it for? Does it have any relevance to the real world?" Relevance - among this group of Quantum Diarists, I'm sure we all want it. In some sense, most of us live with the guilt of feeling passionate about a field of study that doesn't directly affect the daily life of the average person. Sure "we" invented the web (although the truth is that it was invented for us by a real software engineer). And obviously nuclear physics had it's day in the sun, as it were, during the Manhattan Project and the Cold War, when "we" (actually it was the military) released the specter of nuclear weapons and power on the unsuspecting world. That's relevance all right, but that was a time when it was a stark choice between playing with fire and risking an Axis victory. The modern world is certainly not lacking for weapons technologies. Nor do the pressing issues of the day (e.g. national security, disease, climate change) appear to have an obvious solution which will rely on a new insight about a new fundamental force get paid to read emails you typically need only a single old one to understand most of biology and chemistry).

As a professional scientist who likes to chat at parties, my typical cocktail-party conversation goes something like this: Me: "Hi X. Nice to meet you." X: "Likewise. So what do you do?" Me: "I'm a nuclear physicist." X: "..." Me: "Seriously." X: "Wow. I've never met a nuclear physicist before. What do you do?" Me: "I smash atoms" X: "Wow. But what's it for? Does it have any relevance to the real world?" Relevance - among this group of Quantum Diarists, I'm sure we all want it. In some sense, most of us live with the guilt of feeling passionate about a field of study that doesn't directly affect the daily life of the average person. Sure "we" invented the web (although the truth is that it was invented for us by a real software engineer). And obviously nuclear physics had it's day in the sun, as it were, during the Manhattan Project and the Cold War, when "we" (actually it was the military) released the specter of nuclear weapons and power on the unsuspecting world. That's relevance all right, but that was a time when it was a stark choice between playing with fire and risking an Axis victory. The modern world is certainly not lacking for weapons technologies. Nor do the pressing issues of the day (e.g. national security, disease, climate change) appear to have an obvious solution which will rely on a new insight about a new fundamental force (you typically need only a single old one to understand most of medical emergency iology and chemistry).

probable british columbia fly fishing

Now I know I've got to be ill with some exotic virus I've never been exposed to before. Whatever kind of weird bug it is, it is a potent one because ever since I opened that email from Mantis advertising this shed here on the right, building it is all I can think about for the moment. Mantis is offering this KIT for $89.95 and shipping is free but the offer is only good until January 27, 2007. I don't know what happens to it then. Maybe it changes lead loan mortgage sales nto a pumpkin or something even more weird. The shed can be built in one of three sizes 7 x 8 8 x 14 or 8 x 22 And the ad says: Build a sturdy, long-lasting shed using your lumber at a fraction of the cost of typical sheds! Unique angle brackets make building the shed kit safe and simple. Requires only 90 degree cuts….no angles! Kit includes galvanized steel brackets, plans for 7’x8’, 8’x14’ and 10’x22’ shed, a cut list and materials list. Just add 2x4's to construct a complete shed. What one gets for their $89.95 is a bunch of galvanized steel angle brackets and the plans for constructing either of the shed sizes and a cut list for all three (as best I can tell by this ad.) That deadline date doesn't allow me a lot of time to mull it over or talk to the money person I MUST consult before making a major investment of any kind. I recall last year when I was trying to decide what to do in the back yard...build a wood deck, build a man-made wood substitute deck or go the concrete pad route.

One interesting queen size ikimania session by Seth Anthony presented some research on contribution patterns. My notes: Only 10% of edits are high content edits. 30% of those are anonymous, none are by admins, 52% are by someone with a userpage, none have a barnstar. The people who are creating content are relatively new, not versed in style guides and bureaucracy. Their use of Wikipedia speeds up a little bit through use, but not much. Admins, on the other hand, are relatively efficient in their edits and have a consistent pace. They only edit within the article namespace 60% of the time. In other words, most edits are revisions of vandalism. But in the early days they edited less frequently, created more content (76% of the time) and edited less consistently. Content creators seem to be occasional and less frequent editors that may be specialists (subject matter knowledge). Admins are former content creators, now janitors. One person in the audience volunteered that he just crossed over from subject expert to janitor to emphasize this point. In other words, the core community within the Power Law of Participation , the 500 people that do 50% of the edits, or 0.5% of the registered population -- does the heavy lifting for subject experts. Advances like Wikiwyg may increase the number and diversity of subject expert contributors. With 2 million edits per month and vandalism anecdotally scaling linearly with edits, janitors matter.