Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science

From: Lester Zick (lesterDELzick_at_worldnet.att.net)
Date: 02/28/05 

Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 22:05:48 GMT

On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 15:21:45 -0600, Albert <albertwagner@cox.net> in
comp.ai.philosophy wrote:

>Lester Zick wrote:
><snip>
>> So is adding "degree angle" to 60 but I've never seen reference to a
>> 60 although there are references to 30-60-90 triangles where the ratio
>> of angles is being described. And, by the way, radians may be the
>> preferred measure but they are no more natural than degrees in
>> describing arcs because you need the radius as reference whereas
>> degrees only requires the circle itself as reference. (I know you're
>> going to disagree; so you're welcome to the last word here as far as
>> I'm concerned because the whole discussion reminds me of whether
>> electric current is positive or negative. At the academy we used
>> positive hole flow instead of electron flow for current direction for
>> some reason that always escaped me.)
>
>In Nuclear Power School, one class used hole flow and another
>used electron flow. Apparently, it made no difference to the
>equipment.

Nukey Poo? I interviewed with Adm. Rickover in '66 for nuclear power
school (actually just to get a day trip away from the academy). As I
recollect the interview he called me the goddamnedest fool he'd ever
met. Quite a compliment.

Regards - Lester

Relevant Pages
Loading