Today, a compilation of shorter videos for once. First up: yes, it is a TED talk. But it is also James Randi. As I’ve said previously, I consider debunking pseudoscience (including “psychic” frauds) to be legitimately science.
Bonus #2: from the MIT Science Reporter, “Underwater Photography”. I picked this one because it features another one of my heroes, Harold “Doc” Edgerton.
I’m going long again, I know. I’m sorry. But this is something I’ve actually looked for in the past, and only now just found on the ‘Tube.
One of the non-“Top Gear”/”Grand Tour” series that James May has done is “James May’s Toy Stories“, in which he did interesting things with children’s toys.
For example: launching “Action Man” (the licensed UK knockoff of “G.I. Joe”, which someone describes as “the most derided toy in Britain”) on a rocket to see if he can exceed the speed of sound.
Example #2: build a three mile long slot car track.
Just one more: a Lego house. A Lego full-sized house.
Bonus video: I could sit here every Sunday and post videos of Richard Feynman from YouTube until the end of time. But I’m going to try to avoid doing that.
This one interests me, though: Feynman responds to the question “Do you think there will ever be a machine that will think like human beings and be more intelligent than human beings?”
I like that statement: “Intelligence is to be defined.”
One more. I’m going to assert something here: pseudoscience is science. At least, when you’re debunking it.
If you’re a big WWII buff (especially the kind of WWII buff that watches “12 O’Clock High”) you’ve probably heard of, or heard talk about, the Norden bombsight.
I wonder, if you had told WWII bombardiers at the time that the detailed workings of the Norden bombsight would be available to anyone in the world 73 years later, what would they have thought? Maybe nothing. Who knows?
Bonus video: and here’s how you’d actually use one in combat.
Number 1: “Fermat’s Last Theorem”, with Simon Singh (who as you may recall, wrote a book on FLT).
I actually didn’t know about The Simpsons and Their Mathematical Secrets, and I generally look sideways at these TV tie-in books. But I might take a flyer on that if it shows up used.
Here’s something that’s right at the intersection of military history, computer science, and general geekery.
By way of the Computerphile channel, “Turing’s Engima Problem”. This explains how the Enigma machine worked, and the problems Turing et al faced in breaking it.
This is a little long, but neatly divided into two parts. Part 1:
And part 2:
I think for Science Sunday we’re going to see some more abstract math from a related YouTube channel, so stay tuned.
Another area of crafts that I’m interested in is good quality woodworking. This is another place where I feel like it would take years of constant practice to be able to turn out something attractive and useful. But at the same time, there’s a whole lot of woodworking books out there: you can probably find plans and ideas for anything you want to build. And if you start out following the plans religiously, and only when you get good, start improvising, well maybe the ROI isn’t so bad after all.
I’m fascinated when I sit down, turn on PBS, and find something like “The New Yankee Workshop” on. For me, this is something like Bob Ross is for other people. (Except I don’t get stoned while watching it.)
It also seems like you can do some nice stuff with some basic hand tools. And a router. And maybe a table saw. And perhaps a lathe. And maybe…
(As a side note, that’s one of the reasons why I’m excited about TJIC’s book: because he’s going to talk about the tools he finds useful. And having seen pictures of some of his woodwork, I think this is a good starting point.)
One thing I keep thinking I’d like to build (when I get good enough) is a shooter’s box (or “range box”). Every now and again, I see nice ones at the gun shows, but they’re not for sale. I have a used (and slightly battered) range box made mostly out of plastic in with the gun stuff, and it is nice enough. But it gets back to the idea of using something you built yourself and that’s adjusted to your own needs, not something mass produced you bought from a store. Plus the wood ones just look better.
If you’re not familiar with the shooter’s box, well, that’s today’s theme.
This guy built a box for camera gear, but it is the same general principle:
“Gemini Analog Reentry Simulation”, explaining how the simulator works, as well as how the Gemini re-entry profile was flown (yes, flown). Part of what makes this interesting (to me) is that it also shows some analog computers from the time (specifically, the Pace 231R, if that means anything to any of my readers).
And as a bonus, another bit of Gemini history: “Flight Controller Orientation”, a brief explanation of the workings of the flight control system.
And to complete the trilogy, a contemporary NASA documentary about Gemini 8. You may remember Gemini 8 as the one that rolled out of control during docking with Agena (due to a stuck thruster).
I feel like this is going to turn some folk’s crank: a large R/C Airwolf in flight. With rocket fire a little past the 2:00 mark.
I have mixed feelings about some of these R/C aircraft videos. On the one hand, I admire the people who can build and fly these massive detailed objects. On the other hand, I keep thinking about the massive amounts of time, effort, and money that could be wiped out in seconds by one hardware failure or human error.
The “Leadership Secrets…” series is still active: I just haven’t found a lot of examples to post recently. But these two videos popped up in my feed. One short, but watch to the end for the point:
(This same point was quoted directly in a Twitter thread I linked to a while back. Thankfully, that’s still up.)
One longer:
It isn’t like Lawrence and I don’t have enough stuff already, but I’m giving some thought to “Band of Brothers”.
I’ve said before that I consider space stuff to be science. And computer history is science. So how about we cross the streams with another area that I find fascinating?
From the MIT Science Reporter circa 1965, “Computer For Apollo”, about the Apollo Guidance Computer.
I know I’ve mentioned him many times before, but Ken Shirriff has written a lot about the Apollo computers. There’s also this (affiliate link) which is even available in a handy Kindle edition (though it isn’t much of a savings over the physical book). May have to order that next time I get some funny money to play with…
Bonus video: also by way of the MIT Science Reporter, this time around 1961. We were riffing on Insane Clown Posse at one of the recent SDCs, and this may be more clearly science than the AGC.
I thought I’d take a break from nuclear war and the military and share a couple of mildly geeky videos.
First up: “Man and Computer: A Perspective”. This comes from IBM’s United Kingdom branch and dates to 1965.
Bonus video: I feel like I have to apologize for this one, but I’m posting it because I think certain people will get a kick out of it. It isn’t in English, and there are no subtitles. I’m not even sure what the title is. This is apparently from some point in the 1980s, and shows computing…in the Soviet Union. Including some shots of the Soviet version of the IBM PC.