Attention film students

This news story might be worthwhile to investigate. According to a story on yahoo news, "New gov't rules allow unapproved iPhone apps By JOELLE TESSLER, AP Technology Writer Joelle Tessler, Ap Technology Writer – Mon Jul 26, 3:44 pm ET WASHINGTON "

Blah, blah, blah. And then this:

The Library of Congress, which oversees the Copyright Office, reviews and authorizes exemptions every three years to ensure that the law does not prevent certain non-infringing uses of copyright-protected works.
In addition to jailbreaking, other exemptions announced Monday would:

• allow college professors, film students, documentary filmmakers and producers of noncommercial videos to break copy-protection measures on DVDs so they can embed clips for educational purposes, criticism or commentary.


Later Note (unrelated): Those of you confused by an earlier post, "Has this everhappened to you?" (below) might become enlightened by viewing a snippet comic by ....'..C. H. Greenblatt https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjRuZazYmv0pQZOeCiqlGCRCpOPrOYeWdyqzjXRVv9vod43rAc8e7spH6iwUtQEEaPhJ75353lF_NTXA32vljVFSTsCp3wfHqeAGUb62NJMnTY4HR7MvTfVGGd001iaZyYhV_w32MvQhBY/s1600/batbed.jpg . Let me know if the link doesn't work.

ese Aren't The Droids We're Looking For Rainbow Monkey

Tickets are up on moviephone.com, sure to be sold out so get yours early

Your Movie: ........... Scott Pilgrim vs. the World (PG-13)
Showtime: ............. 12:01am, the evening of Thursday, August 12, 2010
Theater: ..............

.

How many times has this happened to you? This has happened to me a bunch of times! I have been traveling across the land in a jet plane, meeting with customers all day, and then it is time to check into a hotel for a much needed rest.

The hotel is overbooked. The suggestion is to share a room with somebody. While looking around the hotel lobby, I see only men. Ugly men, not even a cute one. I am seriously thinking about spending the night in my rental car in the parking lot. Then I see a nice woman that I know. Or think I know.

Once I walked up to a woman and started talking to her about our past life and after about half an hour she looks at me and says, "Who are you?" Turns out that she is a cousin of the woman I know. She was a complete stranger and I went right up to her and started talking as though it was nothing. That was a pretty good icebreaker though.

Overbooked hotel, pretty woman who happens to have a gun, and a room with two queen size beds so it's all good and I will finally be able to get some sleep. No matter what she is doing with the light on. I figure that "It" couldn't happen again, or three times in a row, and the last time(s) "It" happened were years ago and more years ago. Soon I am dead asleep while congratulating myself that I am no longer paranoid.

Zzz wonderful sleep. Seriosly enjoying the sack time. Then I am awakened in a dark room with a gun to my head. I try to say something like "Why do I have a gun pointed at my head?" I can't move because I am in some kind of bedspread wrestling hold.

She says, "Why were you bouncing on my bed ?" And sometimes "How dare you bounce me on my bed?"

I say "What, I wasn't bouncing on your bed!". The first few times this happened, I would then point out that she was actually daring to bounce on my bed. This would get a reaction that was different each time because the woman was different each time, and it was always counterproductive. After the first two times "It" happened I have learned to not point out that she was bouncing on my bed even though it was obvious.

She says that she looked around the room and there isn't anyone else in the room so I must have been bouncing on her bed because there is no other explanation. If you think a woman can talk a lot when she is angry, believe it a woman with a gun can be really, really long winded. As this has happened to me a few times, I have learned to keep quiet and wait. At this point I realize that she smells like tequila, I don't have any condoms, and she is bouncing on my bed in the middle of the night. We are already half naked and touching together even though it is a wrestling hold. Suddenly another earthquake happens.

This gives me the opportunity to point out that it was an earthquake that bounced her bed and it really wasn't my fault and perhaps she should go back to sleep? Here again I have learned to keep it brief because there really isn't much to say after she screams at the earthquake and jumps into my bed rather than on top of it. Damn the tequila! If you haven't been in an earthquake before...

Lete For Comicon

I didn't get a ticket for Comic Con. Too Late. Perhaps one of my friends will invite me (hint, hint).
Instead I will be attending two related Aerospace tours that are scheduled for Saturday, July 31 at Mojave Airport. SAE members may go to the SoCal SAE website at http://socal.sae.org.
There is an "Upcoming Events!" box in the middle of the page. Two new tours are now posted, both for the Mojave Spaceport; both on Saturday, July 31. One at 10:00 in the morning; the second at 1:30 in the afternoon.

With any luck there will be pictures! Not as good as these: http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/sae/AEMSample/#/1/OnePage

Normally I work on trucks and buses, not airplanes or space ships.

Here is a full scale fire test on a bus. The pipe from the roof is a sampling line for gas measurements.







We can rebuild it, we have the technology.

Hobbies: Repairing Things

Once upon a time I bought a used stereo off of the Internet. New ones in the store weren't compelling enough because of the bland display, small speakers, wimpy nonsense. Old ones had brightly colored lights and moving graphics and three hundred watts. I am not naming names but whomsoever shipped the stereo would get bad feedback because it wasn't packed well and she send it snail mail. The package was dropped off onto my doorstep eventually. The speakers were good and the stereo worked a little except for the volume control. To find and remove the broken part, I had to remove most of the innards.

Do It Yourself Kit

The circuit boards were cracked, and the volume control didn't work anymore. Here is the replacement volume control component. To gain access to this part, the stereo had to be completely disassembled. On the bright side, the broken plastic mounting bosses fell away easily and the broken circuit boards were easily repaired.

White arrow points to a mounting boss. Red arrow points to broken mounting boss that will be glued in to the empty space shown by the green arrow. Lots of five minute epoxy was used in this step. All of the switches on the circuit boards must align with the silver colored pushbutton item shown, so the mounting bosses have to be glued in just right.

After careful re-assembly, the stereo worked! Volume control knob made from soda straw and epoxy glue was the only clue that a repair job has been finished.

All the pushbuttons worked, after some minor re-shaping of the faceplate in this area.

The old volume control part and the knob were glued together, hence the need for a little slicing in order to disassemble the unit enough to remove the broken part. Then it became necessary to fabricate a duplicate of the part that had been removed. A small piece of Plastruct® tubing had the right interior diameter of one quarter inch or six mm. The tubing replaces a part of the volume control knob.

The hard plastic tubing was glued onto the knob, and a small patch of glue inside the tubing makes the D-shape that mates with the new volume control part.

As a result I then had a nice 400 watt stereo with bright flashing lights on the front. So I was not really angry about the poor service. The remote works too.

Here is how the re-constructed volume control knob fits together with the new volume control component. After re-assembly and testing these items will be glued together so that the volume knob becomes a permanent part of the stereo. In retrospect it would have been wiser to put this together first, then affix the volume control component to the circuit board. The alignment of the knob and everything came out okay by luck on this project.

fin.

Politically Correct versus Mathematically Correct

The world is made up of politics, not mathematics. In order to pass a math test, hence the math class, the reader must sometimes parrot the professor or regurgitate the point of view that was presented in the textbook. The answers in the back of the textbook are at least politically correct, if not mathematically correct. Conventional answers to problems of dividing by zero and/or periodic integrals are required on the final exam. Please do not use terminology or methods presented in this web site if those things are at odds with the knowledge presented by your professor at school.

DIVIDING BY ZERO

What happens when we divide by zero? Several textbooks and math professors disagree on this point. Mathematics seems to be a perfect science. At first. The thought begins with simple addition. This type of operation is done by accountants and is acceptable in court. Unit items, such as doughnuts, are piled up one atop the other so as to represent 'three plus five', for example. Three doughnuts are placed on top of five doughnuts, and the results are counted. The result is eight units. The number 'eight plus zero' involves placing zero doughnuts on top of the eight on the table, and the result is eight.

1. A number plus zero is the same number, which retains the same unit which in this case is a doughnut. Multiplication is a good shortcut, based upon mathematical tables which are learned by rote. The tables themselves are derived by adding units multiple times. For example, the number 'three times five' is found by placing five units onto the table, then piling on five more, then piling on five more. In this example, the units are doughnuts. The result is counted up as fifteen units. The number 'three times zero' involves placing three doughnuts onto the table zero times. As a result, there are zero doughnuts on the table.

2. A number multiplied by zero is zero, which HAS NO UNITS of a doughnut or anything else.

3. Subtraction is shown by taking units off of the table. For example, the number 'fifteen minus eight' is found by placing fifteen units onto the table. Then, eight of the units are taken away. The result is counted up to be seven. This method works well up to a point. The number 'seven minus eight' cannot be found by this method. Starting with seven units on the table, it is impossible to remove eight units. After removing seven doughnuts from the table, there are zero doughnuts left. The physical result of 'seven doughnuts minus eight doughnuts' is less than or equal to zero, and this result is not terribly precise. The physical result of 'seven doughnuts minus one hundred doughnuts' is also less than or equal to zero.

4. A number minus zero is the same number, which retains the same unit which in this case is a doughnut. It has been generally agreed that 'seven minus eight' is 'minus one'. However, in this example using doughnuts, it is impossible to show a negative doughnut. No one has any idea of what a negative one doughnut would look like. In order to be perfectly legal, the mathematician should be limited to using positive numbers only! Otherwise, the results may be somewhat fraudulent. Addition is good, multiplication is okay, and subtraction is somewhat questionable when the result is less than zero. Division, especially long division, involves both multiplication and subtraction. The results of subtraction operations are somewhat questionable. Therefore, the results of division operations are also somewhat questionable.

The results of division must always be checked by multiplying the result with the divisor, in order to recover the quotient. If the recovered quotient is not the same as the original quotient, then the result of that division is fraudulent. While studying in school, we are often taught that the result of a 'divide by zero' operation is infinity. This result is often "proven" by the use of long division. However, we cannot recover the original quotient by checking this division. Several modern texts and computer programs have selected a different value for the sake of convenience, and stated without proof that 'divide by zero' equals zero. Here again, we cannot recover the original quotient by checking this division. This is a puzzling result, as everything else in mathematics is checkable and provable. This 'divide by zero' result is given because the teacher says so, or because this is the answer given by the publisher of the math book, and neither of these results can hold up to rigorous mathematical analysis.

To illustrate the concept of division, try this experiment at home. Start with a bag of doughnuts and a short knife, about half as long as the major diameter of the doughnut. The idea is to form a physical basis for the concept of division. The Doughnut Theory will result. Each doughnut represents a number of arbitrary size, a unit. The short knife represents a smaller number which is used to divide the larger number.

As a physical model of division, this experiment involves cutting the doughnut with the knife. To represent division by two, pick up the knife. Select a new doughnut, and place it on the table. Cut the doughnut once on it's major diameter, then walk halfway around the table and cut the other side of the major diameter. If the cutting is done very carefully, then two equal halves of doughnut result.

The doughnut may be cut any number of times to represent division by any number. Select a new doughnut; cut five times to divide by five, which results in five pieces of a doughnut, or fifths.

Select a new doughnut; cut four times to divide by four, which results in four pieces of a doughnut, or fourths.

Select a new doughnut; cut three times to divide by three, which results in three pieces of a doughnut, or thirds.

Select a new doughnut; cut two times to divide by two, which results in two pieces of a doughnut, or halves.

Select a new doughnut; cut one time to divide by one, which results in one big piece of a doughnut. This is a torus with a gap, similar to the letter 'C'. It is not a legal doughnut anymore, because the dough no longer surrounds the center completely. It is no longer a doughnut! This is the first major point of doughnut theory: Dividing by one causes a mathematical change. Dividing a unit by one changes the unit.

When we divide by one, we are dividing by a unit of what? The result of division by one is dependent on the divisor unit. A doughnut divided by one knife, or divided by one brick is one piece of a doughnut.

Here is the second major point of doughnut theory. Select a new doughnut. Pick up the knife. Divide the doughnut by zero. That is, do not touch the doughnut with the knife. Put the knife down. The doughnut has been divided by zero. Let's look at the results of dividing by zero.
After the doughnut has been divided by zero, are there suddenly an infinite number of them? No. This result is patently absurd. Therefore, most mathematical textbooks are wrong. Dividing a number by zero does not result in any infinity at all.

After the doughnut has been divided by zero, does it disappear? Are there suddenly zero doughnuts to be seen? Once again, no. Several modern math texts and computer programs are wrong. The math chip in the computer on which this is being printed does indeed produce the wrong result when asked to divide by zero.

How many doughnuts result from dividing one doughnut (or any one unit) by zero? One! A unit. This proof of divide by zero is not dependent upon the unit of division. A doughnut divided by zero knife or knives is the same as a doughnut divided by zero brick or bricks.

5. In general, if a number X is not imaginary then X divided by zero (things) is X and no unit of the (thing) can be insinuated. Let's check this result. When dividing by a fractional number, the trick is to invert and multiply. Restate 'X divided by zero' as 'X divided by (zero over one)'. Then, invert and multiply: 'X divided by (zero over one)' is the same as 'X multiplied by (one over zero)' is the same as 'X multiplied by one' is X.

Now, destroy the evidence. Eat the doughnuts!

A Method for Checking Round Or Periodic Integrals of Functions

Most basically, when checking a round integral, re-do the integral with double the span. If the integral was over 2 Pi, for instance, then integrate over 4 Pi and divide the result by two. This second answer should be the same as the first answer. If not, there is a discontinuity in the integral, hence it is not completely round. Do not make any assumptions about symmetry! In a math book, the student is often instructed to 'notice the symmetry' and use this to simplify the integration. For example, instead of integrating from zero to 2 Pi, the student is told to notice the symmetry and integrate from 0 to Pi, then double the answer. Unfortunately, the only way to 'notice the symmetry' is to do the whole integral!

Changing the limits of integration based on some presumed symmetry should be a no-no, as this amounts to changing the limits of the integral during the integration. More exactingly, an arbitrarily small number called Delta is presumed. An integral from zero to (2 Pi minus Delta) should be approximately equal to an integral from zero to (2 Pi plus Delta) as long as Delta is quite small when compared with 2 Pi. In the limit where Delta is vanishingly small, both of these answers should be exactly the same as the original integral from zero to 2 Pi. If the answers are not the same as the original integral, then some sort of discontinuity exists in the original function. As such, the function HAS NO SYMMETRY. This same check should be performed at both ends of the integral, for example, integrate from (Zero minus Delta) through 2 PI, then integrate from (Zero plus Delta) through 2 PI. In the limit where delta becomes vanishingly small, both of these answers should be exactly the same as the original integral from zero to 2 Pi.

Round Or Periodic Integrals

Waves, circles, ellipses, periodic integrals, and solid bodies derived from rotation are considered for the purposes of this discussion to be 'round' functions. These functions are often used to describe wave functions as arise from theoretical considerations of fluid dynamics, as well as descriptions of single atoms or their component subatomic particles. Unfortunately, many of today's theoretical models (such as Quark theory) contain mathematical constructs which are not correct in the opinion of this writer. Discontinuities are either ignored outright or the integrals are cleverly written so as to avoid any integration through the discontinuous section. Furthermore, concepts such as 'dividing by zero' are solved with different methods within the same text (once again, in Quark theory) such that the 'answer' is sometimes given as infinity and sometimes given as zero. Neither of these 'results' is testable, verifiable, or checkable! Yet, the Quark-seeking scientists are given billions of dollars in research money by our government, and this is money being wasted because the mathematics used within the Quark theory are inconsistent. The methods presented on this web site will give the reader a consistent, checkable, and testable method for evaluating questionable integrals and mathematical theories. If used, these methods will enable the reader to save considerable time which would otherwise be spent while investigating many of these blind alleys of mathematics.

Luddite Math Rules

"We may never change the limits of integration during a calculation, nor shall we change any constants of integration during any calculation." In many cases where fraud is being done with mathematics, specifically with integrals, there is a violation of one or both these principles. It is particularly easy to violate these principles when performing integration on periodic functions such as waves, circles, and ellipses. The following chapter deals with checking results of such periodic function integrals. Mathematics is supposed to be a checkable and verifiable science. The suggestions which follow entail doing numerous integrations by way of checking the original integration. At no time will the limits of integration be changed during any integration.