| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Optics Forum » Where have all my sci.optics friends migrated?
Page 1 of 3 Goto page 1, 2, 3 Next
|
| Author |
Message |
| Mark W. Lund |
 Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 12:46 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Back before I took over the control of a power supply company (8 years
ago) we
had a pretty active group, now that I return after long absence it has
faded. Has everyone gone to some forum
or other? Or has wikipedia made the group obsolete :)
mark |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Skywise |
| Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 9:59 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Mark W. Lund" <markwlund@gmail.com> wrote in news:ff89a112-bf68-4b78-943e-
817b2b4675cb@l28g2000prd.googlegroups.com:
Quote: Back before I took over the control of a power supply company (8 years
ago) we
had a pretty active group, now that I return after long absence it has
faded. Has everyone gone to some forum
or other? Or has wikipedia made the group obsolete :)
mark
I'm not a pro optics person, not even in the business, but have
been reading this group for quite a few years. It does seem a
bit less active than it once was, but at least it's still got
a very high S/N ratio. In fact, this is my first stop on my
daily newsgroup rounds.
Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Richard J Kinch |
| Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2008 12:14 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Mark W. Lund writes:
Quote: Has everyone gone to some forum or other?
Usenet has had its ups and downs over the decades, and lately it seems to
be kind of on a down period, what with all the sporgery and such going on.
A lot of technology seems to advance by making things worse, like
cellphones providing worse clarity than our grandparents enjoyed on their
black telephones, spam polluting email, etc. Wonderful Usenet was thus de-
evolved into "better" proprietary Web forums like Yahoo groups and Google
groups, a pox be upon them. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2008 3:32 am |
|
|
|
|
On Apr 9, 6:46 pm, "Mark W. Lund" <markwl...@gmail.com> wrote:
Quote: Back before I took over the control of a power supply company (8 years
ago) we
had a pretty active group, now that I return after long absence it has
faded. Has everyone gone to some forum
or other? Or has wikipedia made the group obsolete :)
mark
Hi Mark,
I guess I've noticed the same thing, but like the fictional frog-in-a-
warming-pot, I haven't really paid attention while it's happening. I
like Phil's comment about needing people to fall into pot holes. Or
maybe we need to invite students to ask for homework help? :-)
[Ducking and covering]
Maybe it has to do with the continuing virtualization of the world
that may be destroying curiousity for real life experiments and
science. Like others, I too have observed in my own kids their
(sometimes) preference for learning via software simulation. Why set
up a clumsy, dirty *real* experiment when you can find clean,
completely predictable answers on-line? This has been going on for
awhile, and I hypothesize that there is at least one American
generation whose interest in physically being involved with science
(professionally or just as an amateur astronomer, photographer,
chemist, electronicker, *opticker*, etc.) has been significantly
eroded because of this.
I grew up on the "How and Why" science books, "The Mad Scientists
Club" fiction adventures, Don Herbert, etc. Bill Nye the Sciece Guy
is part of my kids canon, but mostly because I make the effort to
check episodes out of the library. (I'd love to buy them, but they
are way too expensive.) I also "force" them to participate in flashy
experiments, with mostly good results. The best so far has been when
we used my F/1, 1 meter diameter Fresnel lens to crack the concrete of
our driveway and melt pennies in the sun.
What's "out there" now for helping nurture scientific curiousity?
Okay, I'm done babbling now. Must return to work.
Spencer
=============================Spencer Luster, managing member
LIGHT WORKS, LLC
http://www.LW4U.com |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Ron |
| Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2008 6:43 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Mark W. Lund" <markwlund@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ff89a112-bf68-4b78-943e-817b2b4675cb@l28g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
Quote: Back before I took over the control of a power supply company (8 years
ago) we
had a pretty active group, now that I return after long absence it has
faded. Has everyone gone to some forum
or other? Or has wikipedia made the group obsolete :)
mark
Welcome back, Mark! I think the group has become somewhat more populated by
amateurs and part-timers with no graduate optics education, and this is
reflected in the nature of many of the postings. But the professional
optikers are still here and paying attention most of the time.
Ron |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Phil Hobbs |
| Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2008 8:08 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Mark W. Lund wrote:
Quote: Back before I took over the control of a power supply company (8 years
ago) we
had a pretty active group, now that I return after long absence it has
faded. Has everyone gone to some forum
or other? Or has wikipedia made the group obsolete :)
mark
Hi, Mark.
Lots of us are still here, but there seems to have been a bit of a
shortage of interesting problems to comment on. We need some volunteers
to fall into potholes to give us something to do. ;)
Cheers,
Phil Hobbs |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Coater |
| Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2008 9:49 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Hi, Mark,
Yes, I've seen you here for quite awhile. I've been reading sci.optics for
many years, but (with rare exceptions) only post when I feel I have
something to contribute. I like to answer questions, and sometimes correct
false assumptions about coatings. But, it seems there are fewer and fewer
questions, so I just stay here, lurking.
sci.optics and sci.physics are the two I usually check on. Optics may have
two posts in the amount of time physics has a couple hundred. However,
optics is not generally littered with nonsense, as is physics. So, I'll take
quality over quantity any day.
"Mark W. Lund" <markwlund@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ff89a112-bf68-4b78-943e-817b2b4675cb@l28g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
Quote: Back before I took over the control of a power supply company (8 years
ago) we
had a pretty active group, now that I return after long absence it has
faded. Has everyone gone to some forum
or other? Or has wikipedia made the group obsolete :)
mark |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Paul Floyd |
| Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2008 3:01 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Wed, 9 Apr 2008 15:46:38 -0700 (PDT), Mark W. Lund
<markwlund@gmail.com> wrote:
Quote: Back before I took over the control of a power supply company (8 years
ago) we
had a pretty active group, now that I return after long absence it has
faded. Has everyone gone to some forum
or other? Or has wikipedia made the group obsolete 
Hi
IMO Usenet on the whole is on the wane. There are plenty of old-timers
hanging on. But I don't see that much new blood coming in and staying
around (typical seems to be one question in some sort of mobile phone
message dialect of English, then back to the web chat sites and IM).
A bientot
Paul
--
Paul Floyd http://paulf.free.fr |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Timo A. Nieminen |
| Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2008 3:26 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| AES |
| Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2008 5:54 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In article <slrnfvssi5.8fc.root@tryfan.orange.fr>,
Paul Floyd <root@127.0.0.1> wrote:
Quote:
IMO Usenet on the whole is on the wane. There are plenty of old-timers
hanging on. But I don't see that much new blood coming in and staying
around (typical seems to be one question in some sort of mobile phone
message dialect of English, then back to the web chat sites and IM).
Dismaying to me how many colleagues and acquaintances, although active
email and web users, are totally uninformed as to what Usenet newsgroups
are, not to mention how useful they can be.
On the other hand, also dismaying how rapidly a useful newsgroup can
deteriorate into being essentially unusable due to (a) trolls, OT
posters, fanatics, and other just plain jerks, and (b) spammers. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Skywise |
| Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2008 10:18 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
AES <siegman@stanford.edu> wrote in news:siegman-065AD0.15541710042008
@nntp.stanford.edu:
Quote: In article <slrnfvssi5.8fc.root@tryfan.orange.fr>,
Paul Floyd <root@127.0.0.1> wrote:
IMO Usenet on the whole is on the wane. There are plenty of old-timers
hanging on. But I don't see that much new blood coming in and staying
around (typical seems to be one question in some sort of mobile phone
message dialect of English, then back to the web chat sites and IM).
Dismaying to me how many colleagues and acquaintances, although active
email and web users, are totally uninformed as to what Usenet newsgroups
are, not to mention how useful they can be.
On the other hand, also dismaying how rapidly a useful newsgroup can
deteriorate into being essentially unusable due to (a) trolls, OT
posters, fanatics, and other just plain jerks, and (b) spammers.
I can add to the dismay when about a year or so ago I was shopping
possible new ISP's and on every one, when I inquired about usenet,
not a soul even knew what I was talking about. Even a reference to
GoogleGroups didn't help. On one occasion, after repeatedly asking
for a higher up in exasperation, I got hung up on.
I really hate it when the tech support or sales people are dumber
than me.
Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Charles Manoras |
| Posted: Fri Apr 11, 2008 9:12 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Paul Floyd" wrote
Quote: IMO Usenet on the whole is on the wane. There are plenty of old-timers
hanging on. But I don't see that much new blood coming in and staying
around (typical seems to be one question in some sort of mobile phone
message dialect of English, then back to the web chat sites and IM).
A bientot
Paul
--
Paul Floyd http://paulf.free.fr
Everything considered I think that sci.optics is faring considerably better
than most sci.xyz groups or (vw.sci.xyz in my case).
sci.physics is particularly depressing.
Maybe sci.optics is a little obscure and attracts fewer "disruptions" than
most...
You know optics and obscurity often go together... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Brian |
| Posted: Fri Apr 11, 2008 10:45 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 11 Apr, 15:12, "Charles Manoras" <inco...@cette.adresse> wrote:
<snipitty>
Quote:
You know optics and obscurity often go together...
Which is why I always sit in the front row of optics meetings, as some
speakers' slides cannot be seen from the back.
Do you think some papers presented at acoustics meetings are likewise
inaudible (the-cobbler's-children-are-the-worst-shod effect)?
In a different field, I have it on good authority that the professor
who wrote the definitive British textbook on inheritance law died
intestate.
Brian
Ancient and Modern Optics |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Mark W. Lund |
| Posted: Sat Apr 12, 2008 5:56 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Apr 10, 9:18 pm, Skywise <i...@oblivion.nothing.com> wrote:
Quote: AES <sieg...@stanford.edu> wrote in news:siegman-065AD0.15541710042008
@nntp.stanford.edu:
In article <slrnfvssi5.8fc.r...@tryfan.orange.fr>,
Paul Floyd <r...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
IMO Usenet on the whole is on the wane. There are plenty of old-timers
hanging on. But I don't see that much new blood coming in and staying
around (typical seems to be one question in some sort of mobile phone
message dialect of English, then back to the web chat sites and IM).
Dismaying to me how many colleagues and acquaintances, although active
email and web users, are totally uninformed as to what Usenet newsgroups
are, not to mention how useful they can be.
On the other hand, also dismaying how rapidly a useful newsgroup can
deteriorate into being essentially unusable due to (a) trolls, OT
posters, fanatics, and other just plain jerks, and (b) spammers.
I can add to the dismay when about a year or so ago I was shopping
possible new ISP's and on every one, when I inquired about usenet,
not a soul even knew what I was talking about. Even a reference to
GoogleGroups didn't help. On one occasion, after repeatedly asking
for a higher up in exasperation, I got hung up on.
I really hate it when the tech support or sales people are dumber
than me.
Brian
--http://www.skywise711.com- Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ:http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions":http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?
This is the main reason that I have had a few years off. Our
company's ISP
were clueless, when I asked for usenet they kept telling me "we can't
help
you set up your browser." I even sent the a tutorial, but no
resulting business.
Now the the pressure is lower on my time I have started accesing it
through
google groupes |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Charles Manoras |
| Posted: Sat Apr 12, 2008 1:02 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Brian" wrote in
"Charles Manoras" wrote:
Quote: You know optics and obscurity often go together...
Which is why I always sit in the front row of optics meetings, as some
speakers' slides cannot be seen from the back.
Brian
Ancient and Modern Optics.
=================================================
Slides? Slides?
When was the last time you attended a meeting?
It's all computer projection nowadays! :-)
But I wish at times we still had slides
Not long ago I was at a presentation where the guy
delivering the lecture had prepared everything with
a Mac and the computer that was used to interface
with the projector was Windows based.
The result was a disaster.
Of course slides have their problems too.
A long time ago, Optics and Photonics News had
an article on how to produce slides which no matter
how they were inserted in the projector were always
wrong, a humorous article of course.
But computer projection or slides the efforts on the
part of some presenters to produce pictures which
are undecipherable / illegible at any distance still go
on. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Page 1 of 3 Goto page 1, 2, 3 Next
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Thu May 22, 2008 1:30 pm
|
|
