In article ,
Mike Lyle wrote:

"I aim for ze stars...but sometimes I hit London."

What do you think of Bush's plans to restart the space program,
then? Oops. Sorry, Tony.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

"Nick Maclaren" wrote |

Some meterologists are extremely proud of those forecasts because,
in the past few years, they have started to be more reliable than
listening to the oldest inhabitant of the local pub. Others feel
that the difference in reliability is small.

When you think of the computing power they have at their disposal, two new
NEC's to replace their Cray system, then they bloody well should be getting
better.
http://www.metoffice.com/research/nw...cal/computers/

--
Regards
Bob
In Runnymede, 17 miles West of London

Bob Hobden wrote:
"Nick Maclaren" wrote |

Some meterologists are extremely proud of those forecasts because,
in the past few years, they have started to be more reliable than
listening to the oldest inhabitant of the local pub. Others feel
that the difference in reliability is small.

When you think of the computing power they have at their disposal,
two new NEC's to replace their Cray system, then they bloody well
should be getting better.
http://www.metoffice.com/research/nw...cal/computers/

What? When a butterfly flaps its wing in the Amazon forest..?

--
Mike.

shazzbat wrote:
"Mike Lyle" wrote in message
...
shazzbat wrote:
SNIP

Recent TV brings to my mind the way in
which the Soviets kept quiet about their space efforts till they
were successful, while the Americans -- for equally good
reasons --
carried theirs out in front of the world's press.


It's good isn't it? what last nights episode brought to mind for
me
was being trooped out of my primary school to stand on the corner
of
the road and wave as Yuri Gagarin drove by on his visit to
Manchester.

I'll never forget that.

Lucky! (But I did buy his record, and still have it.) One of the
rare
cases in which competition really _did_ produce more results than
cooperation would have! (I remember the Express -- I think it
was --
had a front-page cartoon of two old biddies gazing with approval:
"My
dear, I declare that this Major Gagarin is _quite_ as fascinating
as
that Monsieur Bleriot!")

"I aim for ze stars...but sometimes I hit London."

I liked that line. But tell me about Gagarins record please. I
didn't
even know he'd made a record.

Steve

"Yuri Gagaryn v Cosmose" was a seven-inch they put out very quickly
with a recording of some of what he said in orbit, and assorted
amiable propaganda messages on the other side. I don't mean he cut a
deal with EMI, like the later embarrassing jobs from Leonard Nimoy
and Captain Kirk. I got mine at Acott's (for you oldies), and was
struck even at the time by the cheapness of the cover, but I was
nonetheless duly impressed.

--
Mike.

In article ,
Mike Lyle wrote:
Bob Hobden wrote:
"Nick Maclaren" wrote |

Some meterologists are extremely proud of those forecasts because,
in the past few years, they have started to be more reliable than
listening to the oldest inhabitant of the local pub. Others feel
that the difference in reliability is small.

When you think of the computing power they have at their disposal,
two new NEC's to replace their Cray system, then they bloody well
should be getting better.
http://www.metoffice.com/research/nw...cal/computers/

What? When a butterfly flaps its wing in the Amazon forest..?

Be kind to him. Elementary numerical analysis[*] isn't obvious to
the uninitiated layman :-)
[*] What are now often referred to as chaotic systems were referred
to as numerically unstable ones when they were studied before about
1980. The problem is the same - the approach differs. I am no
expert, but anyone insane enough to ask for a more detailed
explanation is welcome to do so :-)


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

quote Methinks they are predicting a blocking situation with
persistent easterlies
bring cold,dry weather to the south of England but milder conditions
elsewhere.


This has been discussed on the uk.sci.weather newsgroup under the
thread of
'Winter Forecast'.
________________
Nick G


I don't care! good luck with winter!

Mike

"Mike Lyle" wrote after
Bob Hobden wrote:
"Nick Maclaren" wrote |

Some meterologists are extremely proud of those forecasts because,
in the past few years, they have started to be more reliable than
listening to the oldest inhabitant of the local pub. Others feel
that the difference in reliability is small.

When you think of the computing power they have at their disposal,
two new NEC's to replace their Cray system, then they bloody well
should be getting better.
http://www.metoffice.com/research/nw...cal/computers/

What? When a butterfly flaps its wing in the Amazon forest..?

Which is picked up by a weather station somewhere and relayed back to the
Met. to be added to all the other data from all the other weather stations
and then analysed using their ever evolving numerical models.

--
Regards
Bob
In Runnymede, 17 miles West of London

"Nick Maclaren" wrote
What? When a butterfly flaps its wing in the Amazon forest..?

Be kind to him. Elementary numerical analysis[*] isn't obvious to
the uninitiated layman :-)

[*] What are now often referred to as chaotic systems were referred
to as numerically unstable ones when they were studied before about
1980. The problem is the same - the approach differs. I am no
expert, but anyone insane enough to ask for a more detailed
explanation is welcome to do so :-)


Quite a good description of "chaotic systems" for the layman on...
http://dept.physics.upenn.edu/course...tion3_2_5.html

--
Regards
Bob
In Runnymede, 17 miles West of London

In article ,
"Bob Hobden" writes:
|
| Be kind to him. Elementary numerical analysis[*] isn't obvious to
| the uninitiated layman :-)
|
| [*] What are now often referred to as chaotic systems were referred
| to as numerically unstable ones when they were studied before about
| 1980. The problem is the same - the approach differs. I am no
| expert, but anyone insane enough to ask for a more detailed
| explanation is welcome to do so :-)
|
| Quite a good description of "chaotic systems" for the layman on...
| http://dept.physics.upenn.edu/course...tion3_2_5.html

Er, no. It's ghastly.

What scientists and mathematicians mean by chaos is very much
related to the spirit of the definitions given above. We state
that systems are chaotic if they:

1. are deterministic through description by mathematical rules.
2. have mathematical descriptions which are nonlinear in some way.

. . .

The surefire way to have a system described by an algorithm that
exhibits chaotic behavior is to have it be nonlinear.

This is absolute nonsense. It is possible to have linear systems
that are chaotic (though you have to get fairly abstruse, but it
is easy to have non-linear systems that are not chaotic. For
example:

x'' = -x^3

Ask me for a more accurate explanation, of you feel up to it, but
be warned that even a simplication gets recondite fairly fast.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.