Science

People doing science or maths often do not seem to be using a graphic
interface, on the other hand you could not do it with the ordinary
command line window. What are they using.
--
Myth, after all, is what we believe naturally. History is what we must
painfully learn and struggle to remember. -Albert Goldman

Martin Edwards wrote:

People doing science or maths often do not seem to be using a graphic
interface, on the other hand you could not do it with the ordinary
command line window. What are they using.

Well, that's a whole lot of detail you've provided.

I'm going to go ahead and say that those people are possibly not using
Windows. While there are amazing things that can be done from the Windows
command line (go dig through the archives of alt.msdos.batch.nt for some
examples) the *nix world uses the terminal as a matter of course, and there
are often terminal utilities included with a standard system install that
have no equivalent under Windows.

Alternately, if you are indeed seeing a Windows system, they could be using
Powershell (which is included with modern versions of Windows starting with
Windows 7, and can be added to systems as old as XP) or a third-party command
prompt.

But without more information, or a little context, it could be LITERALLY
ANYTHING.

--
Admit it, you actually believed me all the times I said I wouldn't do this.

Auric__ wrote:
Martin Edwards wrote:

People doing science or maths often do not seem to be using a graphic
interface, on the other hand you could not do it with the ordinary
command line window. What are they using.

Well, that's a whole lot of detail you've provided.

I'm going to go ahead and say that those people are possibly not using
Windows. While there are amazing things that can be done from the Windows
command line (go dig through the archives of alt.msdos.batch.nt for some
examples) the *nix world uses the terminal as a matter of course, and there
are often terminal utilities included with a standard system install that
have no equivalent under Windows.

Alternately, if you are indeed seeing a Windows system, they could be using
Powershell (which is included with modern versions of Windows starting with
Windows 7, and can be added to systems as old as XP) or a third-party command
prompt.

But without more information, or a little context, it could be LITERALLY
ANYTHING.


And I was going to give him a copy of BC to play with.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bc_(programming_language)

http://gnuwin32.sourceforge.net/packages/bc.htm

Once you've "calculated something" with your science,
you can use GNUPlot, for the graphs.

http://www.gnuplot.info/

It's better to copy someone else's example to get one of
those going, than to just read the manual and do it.

Paul

| People doing science or maths often do not seem to be using a graphic
| interface, on the other hand you could not do it with the ordinary
| command line window. What are they using.

I usually use either my cheapo solar calculator
or a scrap of paper. What do you use?

Windows GUI and console windows are the
operating system. They host software. That's
why Windows is called a "platform". Whether
you're using GUI or console, you're still running
some kind of executable. The GUI was just a
way to make it all easier, more convenient, more
complex and more functional. Drag-dropping a
file into a folder is a lot easier than writing a DOS
line to move the file. Writing a document in MS
Word allows for all sorts of extra functionality,
like fonts, margins and embedded images, that
console windows would not be well suited for.

I think the people who use console are mostly
tech people, such as system administrators who
manage a large number of machines for corporations.
They're used to keyboard and console from the
old days and still like to use those tools because
they're comfortable. Just as some people still like
to use typewriters. Microsoft know that and cater
to that market. PowerShell was created specifically
to create a soft landing for Linux admins who might
be lured into switching to Windows. It mimics the
one-EXE-for-one-job model popular with Linux
console operations.

There's also a slight macho element to using console
and scorning the mouse, like smoking non-filter cigarettes,
wearing jeans and a T-shirt, or driving a stick shift. It
feels gritty. Just as there are millions of young cowboys
in America who look like they're ready to wrestle a calf
to the ground, as they drive down suburban streets on
their 4-wheel-drive "horse", wearing riveted jeans and
cowboy boots, with AC, stereo and a gun rack in the
back window. The vast majority of pickups sold never
carry anything much. (That might mar the wax polish.
And the vast majority of riveted jeans will never be worn
to do physical work.

Keyboard and console window are the nerd's strut,
their version of riveted jeans and cowboy boots.

Ever notice that whenever movie makers want to
portray computers as arcane and magical, handled
by a special kind of magician, they just show a lot
of C++ code scrolling on a glowing monitor? It might
just as well be heiroglyphics to most people.
Incantations worthy of Merlin. But C++ is not written
in a console window, despite the movie special effects.
(Though I wouldn't be entirely surprised if a few
hardcore Linux people do it.) Command line is for
single commands. Code writing needs a good editor
with sophisticated luxuries that command line can't
provide.

An architect might use CAD software to create
blueprints and Sketchup to do renderings. I once met
a chemist who used some kind of browser plugin
that displayed molecular structure. I think it was
a custom plugin provided by some academic or
industry group. So most work done on computers
is done with some kind of GUI software. Computer
maintenance is sometimes done with command line.

On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 07:42:42 +0000, Martin Edwards wrote:

People doing science or maths often do not seem to be using a graphic
interface, on the other hand you could not do it with the ordinary
command line window. What are they using.

I worked for 30 years as a computer scientist/mathematician doing
scientific software support and development. Our platform since 1990 was
X-windows on Unix, and later on Linux. Nearly all the software ran from
the graphical interface.

ray carter wrote:
Martin Edwards wrote:

People doing science or maths often do not seem to be using a graphic
interface, on the other hand you could not do it with the ordinary
command line window. What are they using.

I worked for 30 years as a computer scientist/mathematician doing
scientific software support and development. Our platform since 1990 was
X-windows on Unix, and later on Linux. Nearly all the software ran from
the graphical interface.

I wonder what the OP is saying or wondering or meaning.

Here's a wp article

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathem...arkup_language

// When the purpose is informal communication with other humans, syntax
is often ad hoc, sometimes called "ASCII math notation". ... Ad hoc
syntax requires context to interpret ambiguous syntax, for example "="
could be "implies" or "greater than or equal to", and "dy/dx" is likely
to denote a derivative, but strictly speaking could also mean a finite
quantity dy divided by dx. ... Markup languages optimized for
computer-to-computer communication include MathML,[5] OpenMath, and
OMDoc. These are designed for verbosity and to minimize ambiguity.
However, the verbosity makes them clumsier for humans to type directly. //


--
Mike Easter

On 12/31/2015 9:29 AM, Auric__ wrote:
Martin Edwards wrote:

People doing science or maths often do not seem to be using a graphic
interface, on the other hand you could not do it with the ordinary
command line window. What are they using.

Well, that's a whole lot of detail you've provided.

I'm going to go ahead and say that those people are possibly not using
Windows. While there are amazing things that can be done from the Windows
command line (go dig through the archives of alt.msdos.batch.nt for some
examples) the *nix world uses the terminal as a matter of course, and there
are often terminal utilities included with a standard system install that
have no equivalent under Windows.

Alternately, if you are indeed seeing a Windows system, they could be using
Powershell (which is included with modern versions of Windows starting with
Windows 7, and can be added to systems as old as XP) or a third-party command
prompt.

But without more information, or a little context, it could be LITERALLY
ANYTHING.

Forgive my ignorance. I am only saying what I have seen on tv. I am
not remotely a techhead.

--
Myth, after all, is what we believe naturally. History is what we must
painfully learn and struggle to remember. -Albert Goldman

On 12/31/2015 2:57 PM, Mayayana wrote:
| People doing science or maths often do not seem to be using a graphic
| interface, on the other hand you could not do it with the ordinary
| command line window. What are they using.

I usually use either my cheapo solar calculator
or a scrap of paper. What do you use?

Windows GUI and console windows are the
operating system. They host software. That's
why Windows is called a "platform". Whether
you're using GUI or console, you're still running
some kind of executable. The GUI was just a
way to make it all easier, more convenient, more
complex and more functional. Drag-dropping a
file into a folder is a lot easier than writing a DOS
line to move the file. Writing a document in MS
Word allows for all sorts of extra functionality,
like fonts, margins and embedded images, that
console windows would not be well suited for.

I think the people who use console are mostly
tech people, such as system administrators who
manage a large number of machines for corporations.
They're used to keyboard and console from the
old days and still like to use those tools because
they're comfortable. Just as some people still like
to use typewriters. Microsoft know that and cater
to that market. PowerShell was created specifically
to create a soft landing for Linux admins who might
be lured into switching to Windows. It mimics the
one-EXE-for-one-job model popular with Linux
console operations.

There's also a slight macho element to using console
and scorning the mouse, like smoking non-filter cigarettes,
wearing jeans and a T-shirt, or driving a stick shift. It
feels gritty. Just as there are millions of young cowboys
in America who look like they're ready to wrestle a calf
to the ground, as they drive down suburban streets on
their 4-wheel-drive "horse", wearing riveted jeans and
cowboy boots, with AC, stereo and a gun rack in the
back window. The vast majority of pickups sold never
carry anything much. (That might mar the wax polish.
And the vast majority of riveted jeans will never be worn
to do physical work.

Keyboard and console window are the nerd's strut,
their version of riveted jeans and cowboy boots.

Ever notice that whenever movie makers want to
portray computers as arcane and magical, handled
by a special kind of magician, they just show a lot
of C++ code scrolling on a glowing monitor? It might
just as well be heiroglyphics to most people.
Incantations worthy of Merlin. But C++ is not written
in a console window, despite the movie special effects.
(Though I wouldn't be entirely surprised if a few
hardcore Linux people do it.) Command line is for
single commands. Code writing needs a good editor
with sophisticated luxuries that command line can't
provide.

An architect might use CAD software to create
blueprints and Sketchup to do renderings. I once met
a chemist who used some kind of browser plugin
that displayed molecular structure. I think it was
a custom plugin provided by some academic or
industry group. So most work done on computers
is done with some kind of GUI software. Computer
maintenance is sometimes done with command line.


Phew! Thanks.

--
Myth, after all, is what we believe naturally. History is what we must
painfully learn and struggle to remember. -Albert Goldman

On 12/31/2015 7:09 PM, Mike Easter wrote:
ray carter wrote:
Martin Edwards wrote:

People doing science or maths often do not seem to be using a graphic
interface, on the other hand you could not do it with the ordinary
command line window. What are they using.

I worked for 30 years as a computer scientist/mathematician doing
scientific software support and development. Our platform since 1990 was
X-windows on Unix, and later on Linux. Nearly all the software ran from
the graphical interface.

I wonder what the OP is saying or wondering or meaning.

Here's a wp article

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathem...arkup_language

// When the purpose is informal communication with other humans, syntax
is often ad hoc, sometimes called "ASCII math notation". ... Ad hoc
syntax requires context to interpret ambiguous syntax, for example "="
could be "implies" or "greater than or equal to", and "dy/dx" is likely
to denote a derivative, but strictly speaking could also mean a finite
quantity dy divided by dx. ... Markup languages optimized for
computer-to-computer communication include MathML,[5] OpenMath, and
OMDoc. These are designed for verbosity and to minimize ambiguity.
However, the verbosity makes them clumsier for humans to type directly. //


Thanks to all who replied, though I did not understand all of it.

--
Myth, after all, is what we believe naturally. History is what we must
painfully learn and struggle to remember. -Albert Goldman

Martin Edwards brought next idea :
People doing science or maths often do not seem to be using a graphic
interface, on the other hand you could not do it with the ordinary command
line window. What are they using.

Probably Python, if they use a computer at all.

Martin Edwards wrote:

On 12/31/2015 9:29 AM, Auric__ wrote:
Martin Edwards wrote:

People doing science or maths often do not seem to be using a graphic
interface, on the other hand you could not do it with the ordinary
command line window. What are they using.

Well, that's a whole lot of detail you've provided.

I'm going to go ahead and say that those people are possibly not using
Windows. While there are amazing things that can be done from the
Windows command line (go dig through the archives of alt.msdos.batch.nt
for some examples) the *nix world uses the terminal as a matter of
course, and there are often terminal utilities included with a standard
system install that have no equivalent under Windows.

Alternately, if you are indeed seeing a Windows system, they could be
using Powershell (which is included with modern versions of Windows
starting with Windows 7, and can be added to systems as old as XP) or a
third-party command prompt.

But without more information, or a little context, it could be
LITERALLY ANYTHING.

Forgive my ignorance. I am only saying what I have seen on tv. I am
not remotely a techhead.

If you're talking about any sort of "real science" kind of show, then it
could be as I said above.

But if you're talking about anything fictional... well, it's fiction. Meaning
doesn't exist. The most recent fiction I can think of where they used
something non-fictional was The Matrix Reloaded, where Trinity used a real-
world hack to break into the power plant computers.

--
What the flying feral ferret **** is this ****?

On 1/1/2016 10:36 PM, Auric__ wrote:
Martin Edwards wrote:

On 12/31/2015 9:29 AM, Auric__ wrote:
Martin Edwards wrote:

People doing science or maths often do not seem to be using a graphic
interface, on the other hand you could not do it with the ordinary
command line window. What are they using.

Well, that's a whole lot of detail you've provided.

I'm going to go ahead and say that those people are possibly not using
Windows. While there are amazing things that can be done from the
Windows command line (go dig through the archives of alt.msdos.batch.nt
for some examples) the *nix world uses the terminal as a matter of
course, and there are often terminal utilities included with a standard
system install that have no equivalent under Windows.

Alternately, if you are indeed seeing a Windows system, they could be
using Powershell (which is included with modern versions of Windows
starting with Windows 7, and can be added to systems as old as XP) or a
third-party command prompt.

But without more information, or a little context, it could be
LITERALLY ANYTHING.

Forgive my ignorance. I am only saying what I have seen on tv. I am
not remotely a techhead.

If you're talking about any sort of "real science" kind of show, then it
could be as I said above.

But if you're talking about anything fictional... well, it's fiction. Meaning
doesn't exist. The most recent fiction I can think of where they used
something non-fictional was The Matrix Reloaded, where Trinity used a real-
world hack to break into the power plant computers.

No, I am talking about "real science", but as I say, only what I can
make out from a tv picture.

--
Myth, after all, is what we believe naturally. History is what we must
painfully learn and struggle to remember. -Albert Goldman

Martin Edwards wrote:

No, I am talking about "real science", but as I say, only what I can
make out from a tv picture.


Real science requires a kind of discipline or
organized way of doing things.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Other than that, anyone can do science for themselves.
There is no need for a degree from a university.

And anyone doing real science, builds on the work of others.
It's not often that a topic is so obscure, someone else hasn't
worked on it before. As a scientist if you aren't spending half
your time in the library, you're not getting the benefit of
the successes and failures of others.

*******

As for the computer part, I own a multimeter. It measures
voltage and current.

Now, with a $20 multimeter, I can sit down, and record the
measurements with a pencil and a pad of paper. Many times, this
has been sufficient.

However, one project I did here in the last couple of
years, involved measurements on 100 LED lights. Each
LED has two wires, and you apply DC current to it, to
make it light up. I needed to read the characteristics
of each LED.

My $100 multimeter has a serial port on the side.
I can connect the multimeter to the computer. And the
most important part - the multimeter is "opto-isolated",
so any high voltages cannot leap through the meter and
burn up the computer. I can even plug this setup into
an AC outlet, safely, and measure line voltage.

multimeter ---- RS232_cable ---- computer

The multimeter spits out a reading every second. Using
the computer, the numbers can be recorded in a file for me.
In this way, I can have a "journal" of numbers.

For this experiment, the measurement has to "settle down".
There is around 30 seconds worth of measurements per LED.
The LED has to warm up to its operating temperature, to
get a representative reading from it. Taking the first
reading is not good enough.

By observing the voltages, I can tell when the next LED
was installed in the test circuit. This is the actual
log from my "science"...

0.400 V DC 09:44:57pm
0.400 V DC 09:44:58pm
0.400 V DC 09:44:59pm
0.400 V DC 09:45:00pm OK 005 --- the voltage is stable
at 0.400V after waiting
for at least 30 seconds.
--- I post-annotate the file
showing I'm happy with
the reading for LED 005.
1.264 V DC 09:45:01pm
1.887 V DC 09:45:02pm --- Voltage is unstable. Paul is
1.902 V DC 09:45:03pm preparing to install LED 006.
1.902 V DC 09:45:04pm This is the open-circuit voltage
1.903 V DC 09:45:05pm in my test circuit.
1.903 V DC 09:45:06pm
1.902 V DC 09:45:07pm
1.902 V DC 09:45:08pm
1.902 V DC 09:45:09pm
1.901 V DC 09:45:10pm
1.903 V DC 09:45:11pm
0.465 V DC 09:45:12pm --- New LED is in, it is warming up.
0.419 V DC 09:45:13pm
0.417 V DC 09:45:14pm
0.415 V DC 09:45:15pm
0.413 V DC 09:45:16pm
0.412 V DC 09:45:17pm
0.412 V DC 09:45:18pm
0.411 V DC 09:45:19pm
0.410 V DC 09:45:20pm
0.410 V DC 09:45:21pm
0.409 V DC 09:45:22pm
0.409 V DC 09:45:23pm
0.409 V DC 09:45:24pm
0.408 V DC 09:45:25pm
0.408 V DC 09:45:26pm
0.408 V DC 09:45:27pm
0.407 V DC 09:45:28pm
0.408 V DC 09:45:29pm
0.408 V DC 09:45:30pm
0.407 V DC 09:45:31pm
0.407 V DC 09:45:32pm
0.407 V DC 09:45:33pm
0.407 V DC 09:45:34pm
0.407 V DC 09:45:35pm
0.407 V DC 09:45:36pm
0.407 V DC 09:45:37pm
0.406 V DC 09:45:38pm
0.406 V DC 09:45:39pm
0.406 V DC 09:45:40pm
0.406 V DC 09:45:41pm
0.406 V DC 09:45:42pm
0.406 V DC 09:45:43pm
0.406 V DC 09:45:44pm
0.406 V DC 09:45:45pm
0.406 V DC 09:45:46pm
0.406 V DC 09:45:47pm
0.406 V DC 09:45:48pm
0.405 V DC 09:45:49pm
0.405 V DC 09:45:50pm
0.405 V DC 09:45:51pm
0.405 V DC 09:45:52pm
0.405 V DC 09:45:53pm
0.405 V DC 09:45:54pm
0.405 V DC 09:45:55pm
0.405 V DC 09:45:56pm
0.405 V DC 09:45:57pm
0.405 V DC 09:45:58pm
0.405 V DC 09:45:59pm OK 006 --- thermal equilibrium
1.173 V DC 09:46:00pm
1.885 V DC 09:46:01pm
1.902 V DC 09:46:02pm --- Pull out LED 006
1.902 V DC 09:46:03pm
1.902 V DC 09:46:04pm
1.903 V DC 09:46:05pm
1.902 V DC 09:46:06pm
1.902 V DC 09:46:07pm
1.902 V DC 09:46:08pm
1.903 V DC 09:46:09pm
1.903 V DC 09:46:10pm
1.902 V DC 09:46:11pm
1.901 V DC 09:46:12pm
1.901 V DC 09:46:13pm
1.901 V DC 09:46:14pm
1.902 V DC 09:46:15pm
0.574 V DC 09:46:16pm --- new LED 007 stuffed in circuit
0.403 V DC 09:46:17pm warming up
0.369 V DC 09:46:18pm
0.367 V DC 09:46:19pm
0.365 V DC 09:46:20pm
0.364 V DC 09:46:21pm
0.364 V DC 09:46:22pm
0.363 V DC 09:46:23pm
0.363 V DC 09:46:24pm
0.362 V DC 09:46:25pm
0.362 V DC 09:46:26pm
0.361 V DC 09:46:27pm
0.361 V DC 09:46:28pm
0.361 V DC 09:46:29pm
0.361 V DC 09:46:30pm
0.361 V DC 09:46:31pm
0.361 V DC 09:46:32pm
0.361 V DC 09:46:33pm
0.360 V DC 09:46:34pm
0.360 V DC 09:46:35pm
0.360 V DC 09:46:36pm
0.360 V DC 09:46:37pm
0.360 V DC 09:46:38pm
0.360 V DC 09:46:39pm
0.360 V DC 09:46:40pm
0.360 V DC 09:46:41pm
0.360 V DC 09:46:42pm
0.359 V DC 09:46:43pm
0.360 V DC 09:46:44pm
0.359 V DC 09:46:45pm
0.359 V DC 09:46:46pm
0.359 V DC 09:46:47pm
0.359 V DC 09:46:48pm
0.359 V DC 09:46:49pm
0.359 V DC 09:46:50pm
0.359 V DC 09:46:51pm
0.359 V DC 09:46:52pm
0.359 V DC 09:46:53pm
0.359 V DC 09:46:54pm
0.359 V DC 09:46:55pm
0.359 V DC 09:46:56pm
0.359 V DC 09:46:57pm
0.359 V DC 09:46:58pm
0.359 V DC 09:46:59pm
0.359 V DC 09:47:00pm
0.359 V DC 09:47:01pm
0.359 V DC 09:47:02pm OK 007 --- thermal equilibrium

Now you can see how science is made easy with
computers. Instead of a pad and paper, now my
readings are in a file. And I can share my
research work with you, without needing to
scan the measurements written in my paper
lab book.

Things should still be recorded in a lab book.
For patent purposes, you may want a witness signature
on a page of the lab book, if you have done
something significant you want recognized later
in a patent. The witness may be called, to verify
the signature belongs to them, the signature was
applied on the date recorded in the lab book,
and they did actually witness your new creation.

But when the measurements involve thousands of lines
of stuff, we store them in a computer.

I was able to take the measurements, put them in a
spreadsheet, work out mean and standard deviation,
and more importantly, match the LEDs with their
new partners. Computers made it easy.

*******

Even for science involving observation, computers can
be used. People from this museum, fly around the world,
"collecting bugs". But they also take high resolution
pictures of the collected items, before forwarding the
samples to other institutions. So nothing gets lost.
Where do you store high resolution photos ? On a
computer, is one place.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...-_DSC00172.JPG

And the people who did that, had to go into tropical rain
forests, get all sweaty, get bitten by the insects. They
worked hard to get those samples. So you can look at them
in the museum. And new species can be recorded in big
reference books of insects. In fact, the people on
this trip, carry a "pocket reference book" with pictures
of previous collected insects, to help them get more
unique new samples.

Don't ask me who paid for that :-)

Paul

| No, I am talking about "real science", but as I say, only what I can
| make out from a tv picture.
|

It sounds like you're talking about what I mentioned
earlier: The "tradition" in TV and movies to portray
anything techy by showing a glowing screen with
code scrolling down. It might look like it's a DOS screen,
but in most cases that I've seen that code is C++ and
the display is nonsense. In other words, it's just a random
sample of programming code, which looks very "computery"
to most people. Or sometimes it's just a pattern of 1s and
0s. They just take some code that looks mysterious and
show it scrolling. It's not connected to anything that
anyone is actually doing on the computer. It's probably
just a few pages of random open source code that the
prop crew downloaded from the Internet. People who actually
use computers don't use programming code, any more than
you're using code to write your posts in this group.

This is sort of like guessing what brand of flour was used
in a sitcom when the main character made bread, based
on seeing a corner of the package. In most cases, unless
they've been paid for product placement, there is no
flour. The box is just a prop. No one ever baked bread. There
was no kitchen. Rather, the set director decorated a fake
kitchen counter with fake packages to create a scene
that most people would think seemed realistic.

You might be surprised to learn that scientists also
don't use monitors that glow with an other-worldly
green color, placed in the center of a darkened room.

Mayayana wrote:
| No, I am talking about "real science", but as I say, only what I can
| make out from a tv picture.
|

It sounds like you're talking about what I mentioned
earlier: The "tradition" in TV and movies to portray
anything techy by showing a glowing screen with
code scrolling down. It might look like it's a DOS screen,
but in most cases that I've seen that code is C++ and
the display is nonsense. In other words, it's just a random
sample of programming code, which looks very "computery"
to most people. Or sometimes it's just a pattern of 1s and
0s. They just take some code that looks mysterious and
show it scrolling. It's not connected to anything that
anyone is actually doing on the computer. It's probably
just a few pages of random open source code that the
prop crew downloaded from the Internet. People who actually
use computers don't use programming code, any more than
you're using code to write your posts in this group.

This is sort of like guessing what brand of flour was used
in a sitcom when the main character made bread, based
on seeing a corner of the package. In most cases, unless
they've been paid for product placement, there is no
flour. The box is just a prop. No one ever baked bread. There
was no kitchen. Rather, the set director decorated a fake
kitchen counter with fake packages to create a scene
that most people would think seemed realistic.

You might be surprised to learn that scientists also
don't use monitors that glow with an other-worldly
green color, placed in the center of a darkened room.

My favorite science is the chemistry lab,
where all the beakers are filled with
food coloring. And when they want to
simulate boiling, they drop a chip of
dry ice into the beaker. Which of course,
looks ridiculous.

http://f.tqn.com/y/chemistry/1/W/N/n/experimentgirl.jpg

Can anyone spot the two errors in that picture ?

Paul






1) The two "scientists" are not wearing their safety goggles.
You would get thrown out of the lab for that.
2) The young girl in the foreground, has grabbed the
burette by the tensioning nut on the back, rather than
by the T-handle on the front. The burette should be rotated
180 degrees so she can use it. Science, my ass.