I think there is a lot of danger in the attitude, "Go to school/university to get a good job." Sure, that attitude is a lot better typically, in the sense of being less risky, than no drive to learn. But learning with a very specific goal in mind can easily cause you to miss out on learning a lot of other things. Some of it might be just things for personal interest. Other things might be useful for your career in ways you don't yet see too.
Even ignoring auxiliary topics, when learning comes from a direct interest in learning for the sake of learning, you will see students going above and beyond what is just needed to get a good grade in classes needed for their major. Some students do this anyways knowing it will help their resume or grad school application depending on how good of guidance counseling they have. But you end up with a lot of job oriented people complaining how useless the classes are when they could have taught themselves the material, yet miss that classes are only one part of the resources available at a university. And in many careers, you will need to keep learning after school to stay up to date. A person who tinkers and reads tech news in their free time will have a chance of doing better in the computer industry than someone who took that route because it pays good and only do what they need for their particular job at the moment.
Some friends travel to Belgium frequently for meetings, and they described the french fries there as the best they had. The Belgians took the fries seriously, with a lot of sauce options and plenty of places on the street to purchase them. Although they were told the secret to really good fries is to use horse fat instead of beef fat.
I would give what I was doing, except for a professor I knew that on the first day of class would ask his whole class to write down what they did on 9/11. Then he repeated the request on the penultimate day of the course. The resulting stories showed quite a few details differed between the two versions. His course (and his research) was on memory and emotion, and discussed a lot about the disconnect between confidence/vividness of certain memories and their actual accuracy. Most of the students didn't think that would apply to them, until he broke out the write ups on the last day of class, something that ended up being more memorable that the rest of the course. This seems to have lost some of its effectiveness with 9/11 though, as the stories will get more consistent the more years that go by, and may have to do more with remembering the story after telling it enough times than the original event (or that people in his course now would have been ~6-8 years old on 9/11, he used different events before, so might have switched by now). So now I don't worry about where I was or what I was doing...
I can't make any specific cure recommendations off the top of my head, but a good resource when trying to judge how effective something might be is to check Pubmed to see if any formal work has been done. There are so many combinations of common materials and conditions, a lot of things might not have been actually studied in any detail or at all. But on the off chance it has been check, it could help you at least save money.
Of course, if it feels like it works, for many mild conditions, that is all that matters as long as it can't turn into anything more serious if ignored, and this is being done just for yourself. The actual effectiveness when done in a blind study might not matter, unless you are paying any significant amount of money for your cure. In that case, if it turns out to be as effective as just doing nothing or something really cheap, might as well not waste money. Sometimes it is not so much that something doesn't work, but that it is just as effective as using water, etc.
Dessert wines can get pretty sweet and/or strong. Depends what type of yeast you use before they give up and leave the rest of the sugar behind (and how acidic tasting the grapes affects how much sweetness you actually notice in the wine).
I haven't seen the documentary, as I usually only get to watch such channels when at a hotel late after a conference or visiting family, and that rare time is spent seeing how bad the History channel has gotten.
But I have noticed in the past that it is amazing how much trust people will put into what they see in a documentary. I grew up with adults constantly reminding kids, "You can't trust what you see on TV," yet as it has gotten much, much easier to produce your own documentary, on TV or not, it seems such advice has dwindled. And it doesn't help that the confidence instilled in the viewer sticks even if the viewer doesn't actually remember what they saw all that well (a given show might have been right, even if they remember it wrong).
What this all comes down to is that I've gotten stuck in situations where people insist they are right about something because they've seen it on a documentary. "Oh, I wrote my thesis on that topic, do you want to see any citations out of a long list that agree with me?", "No need, I'm sure I'm right." "Oh, that is something that can easily be setup with lecture demo equipment we have, do you want to see it?", "No need, I've already seen it doesn't work on some video."
The comparison for number of four degrees is with officers. Aren't some of the more straightforward ways to become a commissioned officer to attend one of the academies or to have a skilled background? If a degree is part of the common path to becoming an officer, plus any opportunities being in the armed forces offers to make getting a degree easier, it shouldn't be that surprising there are a lot of them with degrees.
i would be curious to see what portion of officers have a post-graduate degree, or the percentage with degrees for members of the services in general. And what portions of those were degrees they had before going in versus getting later (I've seen quite a few graduate students who were formerly in the military, but never noticed one going into the military).
Class 4 lasers are getting into the area where even looking at diffuse reflections has a risk of damaging your eye, without the beam itself hitting you. Plus there is always some risk of getting hit by the beam directly if something it is reflecting off of moves, or you reach into the beam forgetting to take off a ring. I don't see any laser goggles here, and while you can frequently get by without them, it is a gamble most of the time. There are plenty of stories of researchers going years with bad goggle habits and then suddenly getting serious eye damage that could have been prevented, some of which are plastered on lab doors and safety cabinets to remind people why they should be wearing their goggles (I made the mistake of letting my wife read one once...now the laser is the second biggest danger to not wearing goggles).
I saw this on another site a day ago, and it was best summed up by someone else in the other site's comments as "99% art, 1% science or technology." The images are essentially abstract art that seem to convey very little content that actually corresponds to how things work. Even the statement that the crests correspond to a 1 and the trough correspond to a 0 is horrendously wrong, as otherwise every message would be 101010101010... If you deviated far enough away from the wave shape, such that not every trough has a corresponding crest, that non-wave shaped structure would be filtered out by equipment selecting the narrow band of frequencies corresponding to a channel.
A more accurate image of what it would look like would to image each wireless router was a light bulb, most things would look like they were made of glass or frosted glass since a lot would be transparent to those frequencies, except conductors like metals that would be opaque and reflective. You could get into some diffraction and interference effects if looking close enough, but that probably wouldn't be noticed in larger, outdoor scenes like they are trying to show.
No, that is an artifact of how old plate glass was created by blowing and spinning, resulting in a glass that had a gradient in thickness. Typically the thick part was placed at the bottom, although you can find a few cases where it is thicker at the top, and older glass isn't any thicker. Viscosity estimates for glass give it a viscosity of about 10 billion times that of pitch, which is already 100 billion times that of water, while experiments to look for flow at room temperature have not found any flow. Even if it did, with that viscosity, it would take millions or billions of years to move any macroscopic distance at typical pressures found in a window, and I've seen estimates that give times longer than the age of the universe. For another comparison, such a viscosity is withing a factor of hundred of rock, which we can see evidence of flow in the mantle, under much higher temperatures and pressures.
Even ignoring auxiliary topics, when learning comes from a direct interest in learning for the sake of learning, you will see students going above and beyond what is just needed to get a good grade in classes needed for their major. Some students do this anyways knowing it will help their resume or grad school application depending on how good of guidance counseling they have. But you end up with a lot of job oriented people complaining how useless the classes are when they could have taught themselves the material, yet miss that classes are only one part of the resources available at a university. And in many careers, you will need to keep learning after school to stay up to date. A person who tinkers and reads tech news in their free time will have a chance of doing better in the computer industry than someone who took that route because it pays good and only do what they need for their particular job at the moment.
Of course, if it feels like it works, for many mild conditions, that is all that matters as long as it can't turn into anything more serious if ignored, and this is being done just for yourself. The actual effectiveness when done in a blind study might not matter, unless you are paying any significant amount of money for your cure. In that case, if it turns out to be as effective as just doing nothing or something really cheap, might as well not waste money. Sometimes it is not so much that something doesn't work, but that it is just as effective as using water, etc.
But I have noticed in the past that it is amazing how much trust people will put into what they see in a documentary. I grew up with adults constantly reminding kids, "You can't trust what you see on TV," yet as it has gotten much, much easier to produce your own documentary, on TV or not, it seems such advice has dwindled. And it doesn't help that the confidence instilled in the viewer sticks even if the viewer doesn't actually remember what they saw all that well (a given show might have been right, even if they remember it wrong).
What this all comes down to is that I've gotten stuck in situations where people insist they are right about something because they've seen it on a documentary. "Oh, I wrote my thesis on that topic, do you want to see any citations out of a long list that agree with me?", "No need, I'm sure I'm right." "Oh, that is something that can easily be setup with lecture demo equipment we have, do you want to see it?", "No need, I've already seen it doesn't work on some video."
i would be curious to see what portion of officers have a post-graduate degree, or the percentage with degrees for members of the services in general. And what portions of those were degrees they had before going in versus getting later (I've seen quite a few graduate students who were formerly in the military, but never noticed one going into the military).
A more accurate image of what it would look like would to image each wireless router was a light bulb, most things would look like they were made of glass or frosted glass since a lot would be transparent to those frequencies, except conductors like metals that would be opaque and reflective. You could get into some diffraction and interference effects if looking close enough, but that probably wouldn't be noticed in larger, outdoor scenes like they are trying to show.