I wonder if any of the more scientifically minded people on here could help me, please.

[Horsa]

I think you still ascribe too much anthropomorphism to computers, even after having read my "phrase of the year". It's not that computer does the math for you (when you enter a formulae into excel spreadsheet), but rather you rely on a programmer who created such useful piece of technology as excel to help you make the calculation, so that you save time. Similarly, google is not the equivalent of your brain, but simply a useful tool over a large database that ingenious google engineers developed for you to remember things that you might have forgotten and you don't have time to dig out the information from archives on paper.
Here is a very important distinction: my brain tells me what I want to learn and how to learn it. Google search engine is my sub-servant and my brain tells it what to do, the opposite is never true: google never tells me what to do.
It's OK (and admirable) when you can do most things computer programs do (such as excel calculations) but you will never be able to do complex calculations done by sophisticated algorithms, so you must rely on the results of said algorithms. And the amount of data processed by these algorithms will be too big for your brain to digest. So you must rely on the programmers who created the sophisticated algorithms, and you must rely on google to find data, because that's the way world is moving: most data is kept electronically and not on paper anymore.
About the computer usefulness: excel spreadsheet is not a tool to check your calculator skills. It is the tool to calculate an outcome, given input data. Just like any computer program really. You learn that a given program does useful thing with your data and u remember that useful feature. Next time when you have different data, you remember said useful tool, so you enter your data into that tool and you get the quick answer. Inn case of excel, you enter different numbers in the "ordinary cells" (usually not manually but with help of other program) and your formulae cell calculates the expression. You don't need to repeat the calculation of the formulae for new data. That's the essence of excel's usefulness, and your teachers were likely stupid by not explaining it to you. The same usefulness principle applies to all computer programs: they are here to help you with your tasks such as calculations, information retrieval, document writing, analysis, and many many others.

I know, but some people do use these tools so they don't have to think for themselves. I wrack my brain to remember 1/2 forgotten information before resorting to reading books. Google is a last resort for me. I'd rather say I don't know or can't remember than use google. Like I've said many times I see no shame in admitting that I've forgotten something or don't know something. No one knows everything. My P.C. tutor did teach me that about spreadsheets & I find it useful. I'd done daily & weekly sales records the old way though lots of times before. I think the graph & chart function in spreadsheets is very useful as I'm not very neat. I think the if function though 1 of the hardest to learn does 1 of the easiest jobs that people could definitely do for themselves. I know you've got to decide what you want to learn & google just tells you the answers but think the old way was better albeit slower but prefer the old way not only for the reason you had to pore over books for hours to get the answers but also because health & safety states that you should take a break after 2 hours to protect your eyes, wrist & back & you don't when you're reading a book. I can pore over a book for hours. Mind you, reading books for so long isn't good for your eyes either. Maybe that's 1 of the reasons I need spectacles all the time.

 

[Horsa]

I am pleased to announce the news that Flinders' body was found!
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-01-25/matthew-flinders-remains-discovered-london/10748938
Good work brit arch guys! I thought they had been digging in vain but it turned out very useful. They've just saved a big piece of history and cultural heritage for both countries. Priceless result!
If you don't know the meaning of the word Serendipity, this is a perfect example: a happy outcome by chance. They found Flinders by a stroke of serendipity.

That's good. Thank you very much for sharing. I knew what serendipity meant. Thank you very much.

 

[mrzz]

I know, but some people do use these tools so they don't have to think for themselves.

I know you've got to decide what you want to learn & google just tells you the answers

Horsa, here is the thing that I guess Chris is trying to point out. In the first phrase, you say that people use those tools to substitute thinking. The fact that they substituted one thing for the other does not mean both things are one and the same. No one ever considered that a library is a substitute for thinking, it is just a place to store information. Computers store information of thousands of libraries, and have given (generally fixed) methods of retrieving this information. That is, a thousand libraries with the most efficient (but completely dumb) librarian in the world. The difference is only quantitative, not qualitative. One thing is to remember, other is to think.

On the second phrase, again there is a substitution. Google tells you the answers to your query. So you write "craters" and google's algorithm basically spits back the most read web articles containing various occurrences of the word "crater" in it. You assume that your answer is there, and a lot of time it is, because as Chris put google programmers were smart enough in the way they organized the hierarchy of the query's return results. Just think of those times that the algorithm fails, when you are looking for something but all you get are results related to something else much more popular than what you really want. It is not that google knows the answers, they just understood that most questions are basically the same, just regarding different subjects. Ask a bit more subtle question or go to an unpopular subject and you will see the limits of the method.

 

[Horsa]

Horsa, here is the thing that I guess Chris is trying to point out. In the first phrase, you say that people use those tools to substitute thinking. The fact that they substituted one thing for the other does not mean both things are one and the same. No one ever considered that a library is a substitute for thinking, it is just a place to store information. Computers store information of thousands of libraries, and have given (generally fixed) methods of retrieving this information. That is, a thousand libraries with the most efficient (but completely dumb) librarian in the world. The difference is only quantitative, not qualitative. One thing is to remember, other is to think.

On the second phrase, again there is a substitution. Google tells you the answers to your query. So you write "craters" and google's algorithm basically spits back the most read web articles containing various occurrences of the word "crater" in it. You assume that your answer is there, and a lot of time it is, because as Chris put google programmers were smart enough in the way they organized the hierarchy of the query's return results. Just think of those times that the algorithm fails, when you are looking for something but all you get are results related to something else much more popular than what you really want. It is not that google knows the answers, they just understood that most questions are basically the same, just regarding different subjects. Ask a bit more subtle question or go to an unpopular subject and you will see the limits of the method.

Mrzz, I know. Some people I know do use these tools as a substitute for contemplation. I know. The difference is that with libraries you personally have to go to the shelves & look for the correct books with the information that you think will have the correct information in & sort through all these books, scanning indexes & contents pages to check if it has the right information then you have to look on the right pages, write down the information, reference & cross-reference to ensure you're right, weigh things up & consider everything then re-write everything to get at the truth. Sometimes the difference is qualitative too because all non-fiction books by law have to have at least an ounce of truth in them or they're not allowed to be printed whereas anyone can have a webpage which can be a good thing as some people know what they're talking about while others can just talk a load of rubbish & expect people to believe everything they're told. I know, remembering is just coming up with lots of things you picked up from way back when & thinking is considering & contemplating the facts. Of course I knew the difference. As I've said many times before, I don't really think like you 2 gentlemen, I'm very spontaneous & I improvise & remember. Maybe that's why I seem daft sometimes. There are many people who aren't as capable as me of improvising though.

I know. You've also got to consider the sources & how reliable they are. I know. You have to work out whether the information given makes sense according to what you've asked & whether it's right or not using what you already know to help you. Some people I know don't do that though. They just type questions into ask or google & get the 1st thing they're told & believe it & tell everyone. I still prefer the old way but know how to do things the new way & use those tools if the old way fails for some reason or other. I think that the new way makes people lazy sometimes.

 

[Horsa]

I ask you 2 gentlemen questions that I wonder about because I think other people might be interested in finding out about them too & I know that you're both extremely clever gentlemen. I like you to get complicated in front of me. You never fail to impress me. I enjoy seeing you 2 have conversations with each other as I find your conversations fascinating. I'm very sorry I interrupt your conversations sometimes when you're having fascinating conversations & enjoying yourself.

 

[Chris Koziarz]

Mrzz, I know. Some people I know do use these tools as a substitute for contemplation. I know. The difference is that with libraries you personally have to go to the shelves & look for the correct books with the information that you think will have the correct information in & sort through all these books, scanning indexes & contents pages to check if it has the right information then you have to look on the right pages, write down the information, reference & cross-reference to ensure you're right, weigh things up & consider everything then re-write everything to get at the truth. Sometimes the difference is qualitative too because all non-fiction books by law have to have at least an ounce of truth in them or they're not allowed to be printed whereas anyone can have a webpage which can be a good thing as some people know what they're talking about while others can just talk a load of rubbish & expect people to believe everything they're told. I know, remembering is just coming up with lots of things you picked up from way back when & thinking is considering & contemplating the facts. Of course I knew the difference. As I've said many times before, I don't really think like you 2 gentlemen, I'm very spontaneous & I improvise & remember. Maybe that's why I seem daft sometimes. There are many people who aren't as capable as me of improvising though.

I know. You've also got to consider the sources & how reliable they are. I know. You have to work out whether the information given makes sense according to what you've asked & whether it's right or not using what you already know to help you. Some people I know don't do that though. They just type questions into ask or google & get the 1st thing they're told & believe it & tell everyone. I still prefer the old way but know how to do things the new way & use those tools if the old way fails for some reason or other. I think that the new way makes people lazy sometimes.

The fact that inet contains plenty of deceiving rubbish (emphasised above) have been a disappointing experience for you before. I reckon I have explained how to distinguish good from bad and ignore bad. I won't repeat myself here. But in general the society does eventually squash the liars and silly posters. Take a look at the social mechanisms on this forum. People opine about the subject and sometimes the audience express admiration while at other times scorn. if you listen and pay attention you eventually learn who is the best expert on a given subject vs. who is a liar or a lunatic & talks crap and you start ignoring crap. I'm sure you;re doing that at least as well as me if not better because you said who are the posters here worthy your ignorance & I agree.
Inet is like an extension of a forum like this. I.e. it's a big "universal social group" encompassing all groups and tribes that exists. Every piece of information comes from someone. After a little experience you develop a habit to pay attention who that someone is, the reputation of a domain s/he publishes on, the language s/he uses, their professional connections, their conflict of interest and other biases, their motivation, how their opinion fits in known opinions of other experts, etc, etc. That's more than enough prerequisites to effectively sift out all rubbish and be left with just wonderful knowledge at your fingertips.

 

[Horsa]

The fact that inet contains plenty of deceiving rubbish (emphasised above) have been a disappointing experience for you before. I reckon I have explained how to distinguish good from bad and ignore bad. I won't repeat myself here. But in general the society does eventually squash the liars and silly posters. Take a look at the social mechanisms on this forum. People opine about the subject and sometimes the audience express admiration while at other times scorn. if you listen and pay attention you eventually learn who is the best expert on a given subject vs. who is a liar or a lunatic & talks crap and you start ignoring crap. I'm sure you;re doing that at least as well as me if not better because you said who are the posters here worthy your ignorance & I agree.
Inet is like an extension of a forum like this. I.e. it's a big "universal social group" encompassing all groups and tribes that exists. Every piece of information comes from someone. After a little experience you develop a habit to pay attention who that someone is, the reputation of a domain s/he publishes on, the language s/he uses, their professional connections, their conflict of interest and other biases, their motivation, how their opinion fits in known opinions of other experts, etc, etc. That's more than enough prerequisites to effectively sift out all rubbish and be left with just wonderful knowledge at your fingertips.

I don't just believe everything I'm told. I'm not stupid. I knew how to tell the difference between good & bad ages though it's harder when you're finding out about what you don't know about. It's easier when you've got a clue to start with. I'm not an expert but neither am I a liar or lunatic who talks crap.

I know. I got no faults in my internet & e-mail assignment. The internet is made up of social networks, forums, shopping sites & informational websites. I know how to sift out the rubbish. I enjoy poring over books for hours.

 

[Horsa]

I'm very sorry I took what you guys said the wrong way & realise that what you're meaning to say to me is I'd give myself a bit of a break if I didn't rely so heavily on memory & used the resources available to me to help me out a bit & you're also trying to get me to find things out for myself instead of asking questions. I don't only ask questions because I want the answers though. I ask questions because I think other people would be interested in the answers too. If I found out the answers for myself instead of asking questions the answers wouldn't be available for anyone else who wanted to know them. For example, remember when I asked the geophysics & longevity questions (the ones you had no idea about) you were interested in the answers. I just shared links for the geophysics question though I had a go at answering the longevity questions myself. I also realise that I act daft at times & that really does your head in. Sorry.

 

[Horsa]

The answer to my question "how you say hello, how are you? to your computer using only 0's & 1's" is:
Hello = 01001000 01000101 01001100 01001100 01001111
How are you = 01001000 01001111 01100111 01000001 01110010 01100101 01111001 01101111 01110101.

 

[mrzz]

Hello = 01001000 01000101 01001100 01001100 01001111
How are you = 01001000 01001111 01100111 01000001 01110010 01100101 01111001 01101111 01110101.

That's written binary... spoken binary has "beep" for "0" and "buup" for "1".

 

[Horsa]

That's written binary... spoken binary has "beep" for "0" and "buup" for "1".

Definitely. That was the question I was asking Chris before he went off on 1 with me about P.C.'s being dead what I already knew although I told him the truth about some people I know allowing computers to do all their thinking for them. Lol. That doesn't sound much different to Morse code which went out a bit since which used dots & dashes to communicate messages & there was a Morse code alphabet. It was so-called because the communication system was invented by Samuel Morse I believe. All I remember of the Morse code alphabet is … --- … meant S.O.S. unless I'm very much mistaken. :0)

 

[Chris Koziarz]

This is not going to affect anyone at all. It's just a curiosity science at this point. Meteorite impact is better visible on blue moon, so amateur astronomer noticed one. That's pretty much the whole summary.
I personally was affected by a typo in the article that confused a hell my understanding of what really happened. The article says:
"the space rock was about the size of a football, and that it left a crater around six miles across"
I read it (subconsciously) as:
"the space rock was about the size of a football, and that it left a crater around six metres across"
because the scale of the object vs. the impact site must match. Then I pondered: no way such a minuscule impact could be seen with amateur instruments from 300 Mm away! Then I reread the original statement throwing away my logical thinking and concentrating on the original words. I noticed they said "miles", and the bogosity of their statement, because the scales of the object vs. the impact site are so widely different. Finally I noticed the author is likely American so probably she did not mean to use "meters" [sic], so she indeed wanted to say "miles". So I concluded the word "field" is missing in her sentence, which likely should be:
"the space rock was about the size of a football field, and that it left a crater around six miles across"
where a scale of object vs. impact site is about the same as in my original understanding, just enlarged 1600 times.
So, a stupid error confused the critical fact the article was trying to report, thus created cognitive confusion in my mind. Proofreaders of such articles should also be trained to pay attention to the overall sense of the text and not just punctuation. Otherwise, it's very annoying when the article does not make sense. Even worse: an article can become useless if the key piece of information is messed up as in this case.
EDIT: I was still unsure if I was right about the relative scale of these things, but I finally confirmed my understanding is spot on by reading this article (sorry, the earlier link was wrong, now corrected):
https://www.spaceanswers.com/solar-system/why-do-some-meteorites-create-such-huge-craters/
"Barringer Crater [...] has a diameter of almost a mile (1.6 kilometres) across, was made by a chunk of space rock about 0.02 to 0.03 miles (30 to 50 metres) in diameter"

After a discussion with mrzz, I figured out I made a mistake here. Asteroid the size 200m hitting Moon at over escape velocity would carry far more energy than visually observed in this event: it would have been an apocalyptic event, the like of which happen maybe once every 30-50ky, and not once w week. Thanks mrzz for that info.
So I need to correct myself here: the asteroid was indeed of a football size (20-30cm) and subsequently the crater size must be some 6 metres. The altered surface can still be bigger (10m maybe few dozen m) but definitely no more. The challenge is to find out how big that zone is. That 6mi (10km) area they talk about in the article is not the crater but the search area where visibly altered surface (ejecta blanket) is supposed to be found, and certainly they can find it using the existing imaging technology. Check out these images from Arizona State Uni, obtained by the lunar orbiter they talk about:
http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/posts/515
Truly amazing resolution, like google Earth images, down to couple m. Just make sure to point this camera at the area when pixel of explosion was recorded (10km would be the right pixel size of the high res moon image) and they'll find it.

 

[Horsa]

After a discussion with mrzz, I figured out I made a mistake here. Asteroid the size 200m hitting Moon at over escape velocity would carry far more energy than visually observed in this event: it would have been an apocalyptic event, the like of which happen maybe once every 30-50ky, and not once w week. Thanks mrzz for that info.
So I need to correct myself here: the asteroid was indeed of a football size (20-30cm) and subsequently the crater size must be some 6 metres. The altered surface can still be bigger (10m maybe few dozen m) but definitely no more. The challenge is to find out how big that zone is. That 6mi (10km) area they talk about in the article is not the crater but the search area where visibly altered surface (ejecta blanket) is supposed to be found, and certainly they can find it using the existing imaging technology. Check out these images from Arizona State Uni, obtained by the lunar orbiter they talk about:
http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/posts/515
Truly amazing resolution, like google Earth images, down to couple m. Just make sure to point this camera at the area when pixel of explosion was recorded (10km would be the right pixel size of the high res moon image) and they'll find it.

Well, we all make mistakes & learn from them. There is a saying where I come from "the only people who don't make mistakes are them that do no work & liars". Thanks to Mrzz indeed also coming from me.

O.K. Thank you very much for the information.

 

[Horsa]

Some members of the equine family of animals have a scientific name beginning equus for example equus caballus, equus sylvestris & equus przewalski. These names come from the Latin. The Latin for I have many horses is habeus multis equos. How come the difference in the 4th letter for these names?

 

[Chris Koziarz]

Some members of the equine family of animals have a scientific name beginning equus for example equus caballus, equus sylvestris & equus przewalski. These names come from the Latin. The Latin for I have many horses is habeus multis equos. How come the difference in the 4th letter for these names?

I don't know latin declination well enough to be sure,but I'm quite confident that "equos" is a plural form of "equus". So "equos" - horses; as opposed to "equus" - horse.
Latin declination is far complex than English, and even more complex than Roman languages descending from it: French, Spanish. I'm not sure about Italian because I don't know it, perhaps Italian inherits the examples (missing in FR/ES) reported here:
https://www.dailywritingtips.com/latin-plural-endings/
Perhaps you could comment that equus be added to that list as an assorted example. Therein, people left good comments but no one thought about the equine exception you brought here.

 

[Horsa]

I don't know latin declination well enough to be sure,but I'm quite confident that "equos" is a plural form of "equus". So "equos" - horses; as opposed to "equus" - horse.
Latin declination is far complex than English, and even more complex than Roman languages descending from it: French, Spanish. I'm not sure about Italian because I don't know it, perhaps Italian inherits the examples (missing in FR/ES) reported here:
https://www.dailywritingtips.com/latin-plural-endings/
Perhaps you could comment that equus be added to that list as an assorted example. Therein, people left good comments but no one thought about the equine exception you brought here.

Thank you very much for the information. You know me. I've got horses on the brain.

 

[Horsa]

The equine family of animals is the only 1 I've noticed where the modern day & younger ancestors have scientific names coming from Latin e.g. equus caballus, equus sylvestris & equus przewalski & the oldest ancestors have scientific names coming from Greek e.g. eohippus & dinohippus. Why is this, please?

 

[Horsa]

We're having someone in to replace our older copper gas pipes for newer plastic ones as they say they're stronger. How can this be? Plastic easily breaks.

 

[Chris Koziarz]

We're having someone in to replace our older copper gas pipes for newer plastic ones as they say they're stronger. How can this be? Plastic easily breaks.

Djurability of copper vs PVC depends on the type of installation and the climate. In aerial installation in hot climate. esp. if exposed to high UV radiation from the sun (also rat's teeth), PVC will break down faster than copper. Also in case of fire, PVC melt/disintegrate fast while copper may survive. But in colder/wetter climate, esp. burried in dump soil, PVC will last while copper will eventually corrode.
It maybe that they don't say the truth, which could be: PVC is simply cheaper than copper in your part of the world. In my part of the world, we have BHP the largest mining company whose copper operations are the largest ones, only after coal (which should have been phased out yesterday if they were serious about env), so we can consider their copper to be the largest near future business. With large resource base such as Olympic Dam mine and BHP to dig it, copper is cheaper in my part of the world. So, we use copper for both water and gas pipes.

 

[Chris Koziarz]

The equine family of animals is the only 1 I've noticed where the modern day & younger ancestors have scientific names coming from Latin e.g. equus caballus, equus sylvestris & equus przewalski & the oldest ancestors have scientific names coming from Greek e.g. eohippus & dinohippus. Why is this, please?

No idea. Maybe just a convention among taxonomists who decided to give Greek names (variations of hippus) to the extant genera/species. But not a universal rule which would make little sens as taxonomic tool.