HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: zowie@daedalus.stanford.edu (Craig "Powderkeg" DeForest)
Subject: Re: Rotating Bucket of Water in a Gravitation Field
Organization: Stanford Center for Space Science and Astrophysics
Date: 30 Aug 92 12:53:36

In an earlier article, wdb3926@zeus.tamu.edu (BRUTON, WILLIAM DANIEL) writes:
   Anyone ever proved that the surface of water in a bucket rotating
   in a gravitational field is a paraboloid? 

   I remember seeing this problem worked out is some text, but I can't seem to
   relocated it.  I seem to remember using Bernoulli's Equation....but
   the form of Bernoulli's Equation that I have seen is not gereralized
   to rotational motion.

You're on a longer-than-necessary (though not wrong) track.  You can hit
the fluid equations of motion in all their glory (Navier-Stokes, or,
if you like, Bernoulli) and solve.  A good reference covering fluid
dynamics is _Theoretical_Mechanics_of_Particles_and_Continua_, by 
Fetter and Walecka, published by McGraw Hill.  But that's pretty ugly.

A better way to do it is [am I giving this away?] to transform into a
better reference frame where there isn't any motion; since this will
be a non-inertial frame, there'll be fictitious forces in it that (in
general) vary with position.

From there, you can use variational techniques (see _The_Feynman_Lectures_,
II-19, p. 3 for a description) to find the shape of the surface.

Remember to be lazy:  brute force works, but (particularly in undergraduate
courses) there's usually a way to finesse the problem.

--
Craig DeForest:  zowie@banneker.stanford.edu  *or*  craig@reed.bitnet
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"So, if you guys make a living looking at the SUN, why do you spend so much
        time at the SYNCHROTRON, working UNDERGROUND at NIGHT?"
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: bucknerb@bnr.ca (Brent Buckner)
Subject: Re: FTL Microwave Signal
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ontario, Canada
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 22:08:43 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.165947.24695@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>In article <1992Aug28.133333.1478@bnr.ca> bucknerb@bnr.ca (Brent Buckner) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug27.182628.26130@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>>>In article <1992Aug27.160606.7612@bnr.ca> bucknerb@bnr.ca (Brent Buckner) writes:
>>>>In article <1992Aug26.234131.28949@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>>>>>In article <1992Aug26.202707.15463@bnr.ca> bucknerb@bnr.ca (Brent Buckner) writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>1.  We can usefully transform the FTL data transfer into backward-
>>>>>>    in-time data transfer (essentially, given that the transfer is from
>>>>>>    A to B, then we can put A and B into sufficiently
>>>>>>    different frames of reference).
>>>>>
>>>>>     This assumption makes absolutely no sense if we are in possession
>>>>>     of a signal that goes faster than light.   Under those circumstances,
>>>>>     the assumptions that underlie the theory that gives rise to 
>>>>>     backward in time behavior are incorrect.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Which assumptions would those be?  We can still do the math for
>>>>SR (and GR) using c, whether or not there is FTL signalling.
>>>>Certainly, we would have to refine our notion of causality;
>>>>this is embedded in assumption 2.
>>>
>>>    The assumption that there is a limiting signal velocity.
>>>
>>
>>Never having seen this as a basic postulate of SR, I'll have to
>>bow out.  
>
>     If there is not a limiting signal velocity, you have to give 
>     up causality in SR.  Choose between the two.  Sometimes assumptions
>     about reality are not well-stated.  Possession of a causal FTL 
>     signal does not mean we can send stuff backwards in time.  
>     As far as advanced signalling goes in the absence of causal
>     FTL, it is very difficult for me to understand how one 
>     expects to 'receive' a signal.
>
>     My point is that you cannot analyze causal FTL signals in SR
>     because they do not exist in SR.   
>
>     By the way, I have been assuming all along that we were discussing
>     causal signalling as the basis for discussing FTL (since I am 
>     completely unsure how advanced 'signalling' would work).  
>     Possibly that is the difficulty here?
>     

Yes, we would have to give up causality (or, more precisely,
any Causality Ordering Principle:  causes precede effects).
The limitation to closed timelike loops at least prevents 
differing histories.

As I've been thinking of the signalling, it would qualify as
causal (with the necessary adjustment of no COP).

I will leave you with the last word, since I am leaving for
vacation.  Thank you for the expressions of your thoughts.
-- 
at Bell-Northern Research
voice:        (613) 765-2739
Canada Post:  P.O. Box 3511, Station C, Ottawa, Canada, K1Y 4H7
I do not claim that BNR holds these views.
From: ric@hpspdla.spd.HP.COM (Ric Peregrino)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Why do protons outnumber antiprotons?
Date: 3 Sep 92 19:56:51 GMT
Organization: HP Stanford Park - Palo Alto, CA


Me:

>The way I understand our current understanding of say electrons and
>positrons is that an empty universe...

Scott Chase:

>beta decay:  n -> p + e + nu.  How does your picture account for
>the production of an electron without leaving a positron around somewhere?

Well,,, I really don't know! But for one, this situation includes more
than just electrons and positrons. For two, it does leave an (?) anti-
electron neutrino around. For three, is energy not conserved in beta decay?
If it is then the overall picture remains the same: no imbalance of energy
results and total particle energy plus total anti-particle energy remains
constant. Or doesn't it? (50 years old! Man, I'm out of date! I never
did like 1/3 charges. Can this ever be directly verified? And why can't
I consider an n as a 4 dimensionally bound state of p, e, and nu?)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ric Peregrino     c/o Hewlett Packard Co.        I represent only myself
ric@spd.hp.com    1501 Page Mill Rd. Bldg. 5M    I may be wrong, maybe not
415-857-7526      Palo Alto, CA 94304            Do DC photons exist?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: matmcinn@nuscc.nus.sg (Mcinnes B T (Dr))
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Symmetries, groups, and categories
Date: 4 Sep 92 02:19:36 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: National University of Singapore

No, I meant the holonomy group. You made one of your usual outrageous
statements to the effect that groups are of interest to physics because
of symmetries. I submit that the holonomy group [generated by all
parallel transports around closed loops] is of interest to physicists
but has little to do with symmetry [although one can interpret it as a
kind of symmetry group in a technical way...jeez ,maybe you are right,
I AM being difficult] Anyway, I urge everyone to become familiar with
holonomy groups. There's a good chapter on them in Besse' s book on
Einstein manifolds.
From: sichase@csa3.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Impure Mathematics
Date: 27 Aug 92 19:48:54 GMT
Reply-To: sichase@csa3.lbl.gov
Distribution: na
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.198
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4

In article <mcirvin.714919711@husc8>, mcirvin@husc8.harvard.edu (Mcirvin) writes...
> 
>The piece in question is the sort of thing that gets circulated
>endlessly in photocopied form.  Its use of mathematical innuendo
>is clever, but I can understand why someone would hit the ceiling
>upon reading it, and I don't consider their outrage beyond 
>the range of reasonable reactions.

I agree with everything you wrote, even the parts I have omitted.  But I 
still object to someone jumping in to censor other people's postings.
Maybe this person had a well-reasoned argument to make in defense of her
position that rape should never be the subject of humor - especially in 
male-dominated crowds in which women are already uncomfortable.
So then let her make the argument in public and expose others to her
point of view.  But to just s, in effect, "I don't like what you 
said, so you are an insensitive evolutionary throwback - and by the way - 
shut up."  is unacceptable in any forum of discussion.

-Scott

--------------------
Scott I. Chase			"The question seems to be of such a character
SICHASE@CSA2.LBL.GOV		that if I should come to life after my death
				and some mathematician were to tell me that it
				had been definitely settled, I think I would
				immediately drop dead again."      - Vandiver
From: ng436@traken.pnl.gov (Dave E Woon)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: BAROMETERS (was Re: Subject?)
Date: 2 Sep 92 19:58:48 GMT
Article-I.D.: oracle.1992Sep2.195848.16520
Distribution: na
Organization: Battelle Pacific Northwest Labs, Richland, WA

In article <1992Sep2.192205.13895@fs7.ece.cmu.edu> snyder@henry.ece.cmu.edu (John Snyder) writes:
  [47 lines deleted]
>
>[Does anyone know where this question and answers originate?  Was it
>actually asked and the answers published?  Or is it just an urban legend?]
>
>John
>snyder@henry.ece.cmu.edu

My printed version appears in "More Random Walks in Science" by RL Weber
and is entitled "Free Thinking" and written by Alexander Calandra.  The
original reference is listed as The Saturday Review (21 December 1968),
p. 60.

It's a fun story to use in teaching physics (and a good question to ask
in exams).

DE Woon (ng436@traken.pnl.gov)
Molecular Science Research Center
Battelle Pacific Northwest Labs
Richland, WA
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: danforth@riacs.edu (Douglas G. Danforth)
Subject: Re: quantization of angular momentum
Organization: RIACS, NASA Ames Research Center
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 92 22:29:55 GMT

In <1992Sep1.203830.2793@galois.mit.edu> jbaez@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez) writes:

>In article <25903@dog.ee.lbl.gov> sichase@csa2.lbl.gov writes:
>>L is not quantized under all circumstances.  For a free particle, 
>>none of r,p, and L are quantized.  

>Ouch!  L is quantized under all circumstances.  Its eigenvalues are
>half-integer multiples of hbar, even for free particles.


Is the impact parameter in particle scattering quantized?

==================

D. Danforth
From: sichase@csa3.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Space Poop
Date: 4 Sep 92 03:06:40 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
Distribution: na
Reply-To: sichase@csa3.lbl.gov
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.198
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   

In article <1865afINN3gt@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, bj368@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mike E. Romano) writes...
> 
>This posting was made to the following newsgroups:  sci.environment
>sci.astro and sci.physics on Sept 2, 1992.
>The posting was deleted from all three newsgroup.

I read it yesterday.  Maybe you have a problem with your news server? 

>Isn't this an unmoderated group?

Can't you tell?  

>Interactive collisions in earth orbits will eventually
>generate sufficient debris to create a dense Debris Belt
>and prevent further launchings.

This is hard to believe.  Space is a very big place, even the measly space
which defines reasonable satellite orbits.  NASA has studied the problem, and I 
am not under the impression that they are overly concerned.  Do you have any
real information about exactly when, extrapolating future expected launch
capacity, this will really become a major problem? 

-Scott
--------------------
Scott I. Chase			"The question seems to be of such a character
SICHASE@CSA2.LBL.GOV		that if I should come to life after my death
				and some mathematician were to tell me that it
				had been definitely settled, I think I would
				immediately drop dead again."      - Vandiver
From: sichase@csa3.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Facts and Values (was Where it came from)
Date: 26 Aug 92 19:35:52 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
Distribution: na
Reply-To: sichase@csa3.lbl.gov
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.198
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   

In article <schinder.714786893@leprss.gsfc.nasa.gov>, schinder@leprss.gsfc.nasa.gov (Paul J. Schinder) writes...
> 
>You're joking!  You mean HEP grad students get to *SLEEP*!!!!  Gee, I
>never knew what an incredibly soft field it is!

No.  It's just that more time is spent fixing things than taking data.

-Scott
--------------------
Scott I. Chase			"The question seems to be of such a character
SICHASE@CSA2.LBL.GOV		that if I should come to life after my death
				and some mathematician were to tell me that it
				had been definitely settled, I think I would
				immediately drop dead again."      - Vandiver
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: bramsey@massive.its.bldrdoc.gov (Bradley J. Ramsey)
Subject: Re: Radar Invisibility
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 14:54:31 GMT
Organization: NTIA/ITS, Boulder, CO
Keywords: Swirls Sux Flux

In article 41810 crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
 
>In article <4110@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us> snarfy@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us writes:
>>
>>                            STREET SHEET TECH BRIEF # 4
>>
>>                    " In Search of ...the Lost Mach Principle"
 
>  [stuff deleted]
 
>>     An  example  that immediately comes to mind , when considering metallic
>>   radar targets such as iron battleships , is the losses that occur in  the
>>   iron  cores  of  transformers  and  inductive  ballasts (solenoids). In a
>>   transformer that is delivering power to a load , the energy that  is  not
>>   transferred  to the load is converted to electromagnetic radiation in the
>>   form of heat (infrared). What might start out as  a  60  cycle  input  is
>>   amazingly  upconverted  by  some  process into a THz output!
 
>     Shockingly amazing, this conversion of 60 Hz input to an output
>     with a higher frequency.  What *will* they think of next?
 
Stranger still, I have seen this same effect transform DC current (ZERO Hz
in frequency) to output in the infrared spectrum.  Which order term can
do that ????  
 
(Tongue planted firmly in cheek).
From: mcfarlan@corona.math.washington.edu (Thomas J. McFarlane)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Report on Philosophies of Physicists
Date: 31 Aug 92 16:50:29 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Aug31.165029.20893
Organization: University of Washington, Mathematics, Seattle

barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman) writes:
>Why not become a _real_ scientist, instead of an intellectual gadfly.
>(I took plenty of philosophy courses---easy way to fulfil humanities
>requirements...:-)
>
>I display and indeed hold such an attitude, and I won't abandon it
>until someone shows me what philosophers have contributed to 
>our understanding of the physical universe.

Should philosophers, in turn, be arrogant toward physics because it
fails to contribute to our understanding of the moral universe?
To look down upon philosophy because it doesn't help us understand 
the physical universe seems ridiculous, unless one considers understanding
of the physical universe to be the only valid means of understanding
all aspects of reality.  And that, in turn, is also ridicuous.

Tom McFarlane
Xref: sparky sci.physics:13804 alt.sci.physics.new-theories:2003
From: burris@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jim Burris)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.environment,misc.consumers
Subject: Re: Radioactivity and Superstition; was: Re: Are Your Light Bulbs Radioactive?
Date: 4 Sep 92 18:41:38 GMT
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center

In article <1992Sep4.165127.21451@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
>In article <betel.715614400@camelot> betel@camelot.bradley.edu (Robert Crawford) writes:
>>de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill) writes:
>>>>I stand corrected by John De Armond.  I believe his figures, but I'll
>>>>undercut his price.  I'll eat as many as Jym Dyer will supply at a mere
>>>>$5k a bulb.  See Jym, we capitalists really do compete.
>>>If the threat is as insignificant as you say, why not do it for a nominal fee?
>>>$5000/bulb is awfully high for a threat supposedly on a par with a banana.
>>
>>	Regardless of the health threat, there is the fact that it's
>>unpleasant to force feed yourself bits and pieces of light bulbs.
>>However, I am willing to do it for $2.5k...
>>
>>
>>--
>>"It's not the size of the boat; it's the motion of the ocean."
>>        --- Tom Servo
>>
>>Robert Crawford 			betel@camelot.bradley.edu
>
>I'll pay $5 for the light bulb and $10 for the smoke detector and $.01
>for a banana (limit 1).  But I insist on getting a video for verification.
>A polaroid might do but its probably also radioactive.  I won't pay for
>ruined teeth or dentures (signed release required).
>-- 
>
>		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)

This must be sigh.environment.

BTW, this reminds me of a joke: The 1st grade teacher asks his pupils what
their parents do for a living. Some say doctor, lawyer, banker, truck driver.
Finally, it's little Johnny's turn. "Well, my mother babysits, and my father
eats light bulbs." The teacher replies, "Are you sure?" Johnny answers, "Yes,
I'm sure. Just last night, I heard him tell mom 'honey, turn out the light and
I'll eat it'"!

Jim "no thanks, I don't do chemicals" Burris
From: Richard.Mathews@West.Sun.COM (Richard M. Mathews)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: E=mc2?
Date: 4 Sep 1992 19:11:38 GMT
Organization: Sunsoft Inc., Los Angeles, CA.
NNTP-Posting-Host: astro
Originator: richard@astro.West.Sun.COM

jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes:

>Richard.Mathews@West.Sun.COM (Richard M. Mathews) writes:
>>the same.  Only binding energy changes.  In nuclear reactions, it is
>>in general the case that the numbers of up and down quarks change.

>For the nuclear reactions under discussion in the original thread, fission 
>and fusion, the number of up and down quarks (or protons and neutrons) 
>does not change.  There is a delayed component that is a result of the 
>weak interaction (beta decay), which does change the quark content, but 
>contribution to total energy release is quite tiny and the time delays 
>can be quite long (years or centuries). 

I suppose I should have been more clear.  My intent was that while weak
interactions may only account for a tiny fraction of energy during a
nuclear explosion, that fraction is much larger in a nuclear explosion
than it is in the flexing of a bed spring.  On the other hand, since these
weak interactions are a side effect of the explosion rather than a cause
of it, I am willing to accept the statement that nuclear explosions are
not *produced* by anything more than release of binding energy.

     Richard M. Mathews			F oster 
					 E stonian-Latvian-Lithuanian
Richard.Mathews@West.Sun.COM		  I ndependence and
					   F reedom!
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: mitsch@eng2.eng.monash.edu.au (Brett Mitsch)
Subject: Water FEatures
Summary: info on
Keywords: hydraulics nozzles jets weirs
Organization: Faculty of Engineering, Monash University 
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 01:52:17 GMT

dear news user

I am currently working on a thesis on the hydraulics of architectural water 
features. If anybody out there has ANY knowledge of this field or any idea of 
where I could get info then I would greatly appreciate it. In particular I am 
looking at such topics as hydraulics of nozzles, jets, weirs and any 
other water hydraulics that may spring to your mind as you read this. If any 
of your friends or colleagues have some ideas then I would appreciate them 
too.

Please send any info (any at all) to me at the following e-mail address:

                mitsch@eng2.eng.monash.edu.au

Your help would be greatly appreciated,
Brett Mitsch
From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: My son would like to know about photons...
Date: 31 Aug 92 14:47:04 GMT
Reply-To: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <BttFE8.AK7@nntp-sc.Intel.COM> bhoughto@sedona.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton) writes:
>In article <10506@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes:
>>In this sense, you cannot split a photon since it has no constituent 
>>parts; a photon is an elementary particle.  
>
>But Daddy, why are some photons bigger than others?

All photons are equal. 

But some photons are more equal than others.

I would say "Son, they are all the same size, but some are stronger 
than the others, and some are real weaklings." 

--
J. A. Carr                                    |  "The New Frontier of which I  
jac@gw.scri.fsu.edu                           |  speak is not a set of promises
Florida State University  B-186               |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
Xref: sparky sci.physics:13520 sci.skeptic:14978 alt.folklore.science:3135
From: sichase@csa3.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.skeptic,alt.folklore.science
Subject: Re: The dangers in microwaved food...
Date: 25 Aug 92 20:57:03 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
Distribution: na
Reply-To: sichase@csa3.lbl.gov
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.198
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   

In article <1992Aug25.165415.21655@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com>, bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris) writes...
> 
>As far as I know there is no evidence that microwave radiation has any
>effect on the body other than heating - if it is continuous.  There was

The experts seem to be concerned about nerve damage.  If you are near 
a microwave oven with a leaky shield, then before you heat sensors
detect a problem it is possible that internal damage can be done to your
extremities.

-Scott

--------------------
Scott I. Chase			"The question seems to be of such a character
SICHASE@CSA2.LBL.GOV		that if I should come to life after my death
				and some mathematician were to tell me that it
				had been definitely settled, I think I would
				immediately drop dead again."      - Vandiver
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: nextc.Princeton.EDU!mdd (Mark D. Doyle)
Subject: Re: Facts and Values (was Where it came from)
Originator: news@nimaster
Reply-To: mdd@nextc.princeton.edu
Organization: Princeton University
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 20:07:35 GMT

In article <25732@dog.ee.lbl.gov> sichase@csa3.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)  
writes:
> Among the rules that every graduate student in HEP knows are
> (1) c = 1
> (2) c = 1 foot/nanosecond
> (3) 1 year = 10^7 seconds
> (4) a proton weights 1 GeV (see rule (1)) 
> (5) All computers are too slow.
> 
> Only (1) and (5) are strictly true.
I like to remember (3) as \pi x 10^7 seconds which is at the 1% level.

Mark
From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Units (was Re: E=MC^2)
Date: 3 Sep 92 14:39:09 GMT
Reply-To: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <65184@cup.portal.com> Eric_S_Klien@cup.portal.com writes:
> 
>            ...                               If the mass is one 
>gram, the energy is (1e-3 kilograms) x (9e16 m^2/sec^2)= 9e13 Joules 
> 
>   One kilowatt-hour (the thing the power company charges you 4 cents 
>for) is 3.6e6 Joules, so this is (9e13 Joules) / (3.6e6 Joules/kw-h) 
>= 2.5e7 kW-hr, i.e. 25 million kilowatt-hours. Happy now?" 
> 
>Can anyone convert this into energy of sticks of TNT?

A megaton is defined to be 10^{15} calories = 4.184 x 10^{15} Joules. 

So 9 x 10^{13} Joules from 1 gram would be the equivalent of the energy 
released by 0.02 megatons (21,500 tons or 4.3 million pounds) of TNT. 

I do not know the weight of a stick of dynamite, but it is not pure TNT 
anyway.  Probably around a pound or so of TNT, I would guess, but I 
think I know someone who would know the answer.  

--
J. A. Carr                                    |  "The New Frontier of which I  
jac@gw.scri.fsu.edu                           |  speak is not a set of promises
Florida State University  B-186               |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)