« October 2007 | Main | December 2007 »
Posted at 02:17 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
Here's the conclusion to the recent paper A rigorous analysis of high order electromagnetic invisibility cloaks, by Ricardo Weder:
We gave a rigorous mathematical proof, in the time and frequency domains, that first and high order electromagnetic invisibility cloaks actually cloak passive and active devices in a very strong sense. This puts the theory of cloaking in exact transformation media in a firm mathematical basis that will allow us, in the next step forward, to analyze the stability of cloaking in the approximate transformation media that are used in the applications.
So, it sounds like the cloaks are not quite available in stores yet, but maybe it's time to preorder, or join the appropriate mailing list.
Posted at 11:35 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
From an article from the Stanford news service titled Hoover Institution director explains, defends appointment of Rumsfeld, with my "writer's embellishment" in italics:
* * * *
The director of the Hoover Institution told the Faculty Senate last week that he did not regret his decision to appoint former U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld as a distinguished visiting fellow, but was sorry he had "blindsided" his bossesProvost John Etchemendy and President John Hennessyby not informing them beforehand.
John Raisian, director of the institution since 1989, had been invited to appear before the senate to explain the criteria he used to make the controversial appointment.
Speaking to the senate Thursday, Raisian said he was "saddened by the reaction of some of my Stanford colleagues." He said the appointment was "not intended to be provocative."
"I mean, c'mon, Donny's like the Prince of Darkness," Raisian went on. "How are we supposed to run an Evil Empire inside Stanford if we can't swing for the fences? It's not like this is the 'Hoover Institution for Peace'it's the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution, and Peace, for chrissakes!"
Posted at 10:14 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
Dude, however, is better situated than guy for grammatical widening into exclamation because it enjoys not only unmarked gender but also connotations of power, thanks to its message of "cool solidarity." Just googling dude provides an indication of the power imputed to the word. Such a search in July 2004 yielded millions of commercial web sites belonging to entrepeneurial dudes, including Pizza Dude, Beer Dude, ArtDude, DrummerDude, the more serious CVSDude, firedude (a resource for firefighters), and even the fearless Public Defender Dude. There far fewer such commercial sites that bothered to include guy, and those that existed were definitely less glamorous: History Guy, Family Guy, Pathology Guy, Fat Guy, Homeless Guy, Sock Guy, and Crazy Drunk Guy.
From Dude, Katie! Your Dress is So Cute: Why Dude Became an Exclamation, by Muffy Siegel, VERBATIM Vol XXX, No. 4
Posted at 04:31 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
I've got a new favorite from the (previously blogged) The Robbins Collection of 200 Jigs, Reels and Country Dances, on the very last page.
It's titled Tarantelle (Italian).
I like it so much I might try to write a similar piece myself, like I did way back in 2002 for the Schubert Walzes (and do feel free to subject yourself to a hearing of that particular bastardization now, as a crappy MIDI file).
Posted at 02:24 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
Cherubino, alla vittoria! Alla gloria militar! Alla gloria militar!
Posted at 01:59 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
Me: 3 of 5 correct
My dad: 3 of 5 correct
I didn't know anything about King Clovis, and proved to be generally weak in the "Frankish Kings" department.
On the other hand, my dad missed an easy one on Charlemagne. I knew he was the first Holy Roman Emperor (perhaps by convention, only?), although I didn't know he (ie, Chuck) was a Frankish king.
Need to read up on Frankish Kings, I guess.
*****
Nebraska vs Colorado: we watched it at the loft, and the Huskers looked good in the first half before melting down in the second. It's been a long time since I sat down with my dad and watched the Nebraska Cornhuskers win a football game on TV.
*****
Stanford (women's) Volleyball vs Cal, Maples Pavilion: a great game, won by Stanford in the fifth.
Posted at 01:52 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
I picked up an old copy of Ezra Pound's 1934 book ABC of Reading in a used bookstore, and almost bought it until I looked at the price ($48 for a contemporaneous-looking copy).
You can find most of it at Google books (the "limited preview" seems to include almost the whole book).
Here's a typically confusing passage, early on:
* * *
No man is equipped for modern thinking until he has understood the anecdote of Agassiz and the fish:
A post-graduate student equipped with honours and diplomas went to Agassiz to receive the final and finishing touches. The great man offered him a small fish and told him to describe it.
Post-graduate student: "That's only a sunfish."
Agassiz: "I know that. Write a description of it."
After a few minutes the student returned with the description of the Ichthus Heliodiplodokus, or whatever term is used to conceal the common sunfish from vulgar knowledge, family of Heliichtherinkus, etc., as found in textbooks on the subject.
Agassiz again told the student to describe the fish.
The student produced a four-page essay. Agassiz then told him to look at the fish. At the end of three weeks the fish was in an advanced state of decomposition, but the student knew something about it.
By this method modern science has arisen, not on the narrow edge of medieval logic suspended in a vacuum.
"Science does not consist in inventing a number of more or less abstract entities corresponding to the number of things you wish to find out," says a French commentator on Einstein. I don't know whether that clumsy translation of a long French sentence is clear to the general reader.
* * * *
Is Pound saying Einstein was someone working on the narrow edge of medieval logic, because he "invented more or less abstract entities?" What about the Fish Story?
Anyway, I find the book to be amusingly pedantic, and often exceedingly stupid and preachyin other words, somewhat like Emerson. It's possible to read the whole thing in an hour or two, and if you're like me, you'll feel somewhat dazed and Confuciusly confused throughout. A bit like hearing a good baptist sermon, or Ralph Waldo on drugs.
Highly recommended.
Posted at 11:03 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
Posted at 03:59 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
Posted at 11:03 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
Posted at 11:02 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
Posted at 11:01 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
Posted at 11:49 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
Posted at 11:48 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
OWEN: Hey Cole, daddy and I made a video of an oak leaf floating in the street.
COLE: Oh, right! I saw it floating in the street too. I was going to tell you about it.
THANE: Well, we shot some video, and you didn't, so we get the credit.
Posted at 09:53 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)