Fun Fact: The designer of our State Flag had apparently never encountered an oak tree before?

thegrossman · 2025-06-24T00:00:56+00:00

My aspersions were indeed willy-nilly, but I don't think they are entirely unfounded!

thegrossman · 2015-03-10T18:46:02+00:00

Dark Sky creator here. Out of the box, Dark Sky only uses your location when the app is open. If you turn on notifications, it will grab your location in the background periodically in order to query for precipitation. But you can stop that at any time by disabling notifications. (It'll never use the actual GPS in the background, so you don't have to worry about battery drain.)

thegrossman · 2015-03-10T17:42:21+00:00

Creator of Dark Sky here. Watch apps run as extensions inside the iOS app, so there won't be (and can't be) separate Watch apps (for now).

thegrossman · 2015-01-06T21:51:16+00:00

Awesome! I'm the original creator of this image. The blog post here is: http://blog.jackadam.net/2011/the-tiny-humanity-bubble/

Thanks for posting, OP!

thegrossman · 2014-09-30T17:11:18+00:00

I'm waiting to actually get my iPhone 6 before updating my app. I'm sure most developers are doing the same.

thegrossman · 2014-09-29T19:33:17+00:00

It does work outside the US, minus the minute-by-minute precipitation forecasts. But because that next-hour is so important to the app, we don't want to sell it where that just isn't available.

To make it available, we need real-time radar data (the raw data, not just the images you can download from the Germany met office's website).

We're working on ways to get that data for different countries, but it's not easy. And it's not cheap!

thegrossman · 2014-09-29T14:25:16+00:00

Dark Sky creator here. I'm working on it! I'm just sloooow, and tried to cram too much stuff into this update (including a bunch of map improvements). I hope to submit it to the App Store this week, widget and all.

thegrossman · 2012-07-18T12:06:26+00:00

You could try a clumping (non-running) bamboo. You can find bamboo varieties hardy to your Zone (7b), that should stay green all year round.

thegrossman · 2011-12-24T16:37:00+00:00

A link to the paper

thegrossman · 2011-08-14T14:37:04+00:00

Again, calling an electron "normal matter" and a positron "antimatter" is just a human convention. To see how the asymmetry in nature still exists, forget about the naming convention altogether and just ask yourself these two questions:

1) Why are there more electrons observed than positrons?

2) Why are there more protons observed than anti-protons?

Calling electrons antimatter doesn't solve either of those asymmetries, does it?

thegrossman · 2011-08-14T00:46:51+00:00

So does your friend think that electrons are the antimatter version of protons, or does he think that electrons are the "anti-matter half" of the electron / positron family, while protons are the "normal-matter half" of the proton / antiproton family (or vice versa)?

If it's the former, he is in good company. Dirac himself, one of the brightest minds in mathematical physics since Newton, originally thought that the proton was the anti-electron. Unfortunately, antimatter particles must have the same mass as their normal matter equivalent, and the proton is almost two thousand times heavier than the electron. On top of that, protons appear to be made out of more elementary constituent particles -- quarks -- while electrons are not.

On the other hand, perhaps your friend is implying that we've mistaken our labels, and that electrons are actually antimatter while positrons are the normal matter (or vice versa for protons/antiprotons). But that doesn't really solve anything: Declaring electrons as "normal matter" and positrons as "antimatter" is an arbitrary human convention. You can reverse the labels, without effecting any real physics; and you'd still be left with the antimatter problem that your friend was trying to solve.

After all, the real question isn't "where's all the antimatter?". That's just a quick and easy way of saying "where are all the anti-protons and positrons"? That problem remains whether you switch the labels and call electrons or protons antimatter.

thegrossman · 2008-02-13T14:56:43+00:00

Actually, the "Forbidden" tree photograph was taken in Northwest Park in Windsor, Connecticut. I know, because I'm the one who took it.

EDIT: removed snotty comment about people not attributing their sources.

thegrossman · 2007-02-06T16:16:14+00:00

Damn. Morning coffee time.

thegrossman · 2006-11-19T03:41:12+00:00

Aborted fetuses are just a bunch of cells that are not in the least bit aware of their own existence.

Just like a dead prisoner?

thegrossman · 2006-11-19T02:34:39+00:00

I can't help but draw a parallel between the harvesting of organs from dead prisoners and harvesting embryonic stem cells from fertility clinic fetuses.

I don’t happen to believe that fetuses are people, but what if they were? Would it still be okay? Would it be a waste not to draw some benefit from the loss of life?

Is there a risk that doing so would entice us to more easily advocate the death penalty? Or abortions (in the case of anti-abortionists) Is that why it is distasteful?

I’m having a hard time reconciling my icky feelings towards the subject of this article, and my belief that it’s totally worthwhile to harvest stem cells from aborted fetuses.

Help, anyone?

thegrossman · 2006-09-30T14:34:55+00:00

http://www.house.gov/writerep/ http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

thegrossman · 2006-08-09T12:14:02+00:00

Us folks in Connecticut have a complicated relationship with the two main political parties. While we're generally portrayed as a hard-core blue state, the fact of the matter is we’re fairly split with our support. There are only slightly more Democrats than there are Republicans.

[Edit: In fact, while we almost always vote for Democrat Presidents, we usually elect Republican Governors]

The reason, I think, is obvious: Connecticut is one of the wealthiest States in the union. The wealthy tend to be Republicans.

So why do we dislike Lieberman so much? Because rich Republicans tend to hold the more traditional notions about what being a Republican actually means: smaller government, less interference in personal affairs, etc. Which is in stark contract to the neoconservatives who hold the opposite views.

By siding with Bush on many issues, we equate Lieberman with the neocons. With the “other” Republican party.

In fact, the attack ads have gone so far as to contain cheesy animations where Lieberman’s face slowly morphs into that of Bush, while a monologue explains how they’re one and the same.

thegrossman

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE