Are you just trying to determine gas giant size, or do you need to figure out how to calculate eclipse time?  In any case, I found this article on gas giants that might be helpful:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudarsky%2 … sification

Despite the level of depth to be found in physics, many of its principles can be very simply described to the layman.  Even some of the math (mostly the Newtonian stuff) is actually pretty straightforward because its based on very simple principles such as gravity (although the same probably couldn't be said of orbital mechanics...which is can be difficult to grasp for us gravity-laden earth dwellers).  An example of math that seems hard but can be simply described is calculus. 

This is like the dreaded math for anyone in high school, but its actually one of the more simple and straightforward maths that you'll probably encounter (the hard stuff in calculus is actually algebra). 

The problem, I agree, is that many teachers who are taught in the "academic" tradition then teach young students this way.  This just really loses a lot of students because, yeah, its not down to earth.  I had one math teacher in high school who was nothing like this, in fact, he was nothing like most of the teachers I've encountered.  For about 20 mins at the beginning of each class, he would engage us all in a discussion about current cutting edge technology and had us speculate about future technologies.  These discussions were always enthusiastic and sparked a lot of creativity.  Then, during lecture, he sprinkled his teaching with a lot of simple, real-world, language and anecdotes, as well as a good helping of humor.  This combination approach, led us all to actually enjoy his class and enjoy learning.

My point is that I agree that you can use a more vernacular and everyday relational approach to technical education while maintaining strict theoretical rigor.  And yeah, I agree that doing so would gain you a lot of enthusiastic adherents who would otherwise remind completely uninterested.

There are definitely people who have a perfect storm of intellectual traits which give them a general aptitude that's like in the 99th percentile or something.  Combine a photographic memory with a high IQ and a quick reading pace, and someone could definitely learn a lot about a lot by the time they were 20 (kinda like the 10000 hour rule. musicians can reach near master status by the time they're 20)

Re: Humans are worse than the Dead:  #TheWalkingDead

What about Wild Hogs

Hahahaha, this reminds me of SNL's  Laser Cats

I don't know about Teague's box office predictions of it.  Certainly it will do well, but I'm definitely getting a sense that
1.  There are increasingly more people who have never seen Star Wars (bumped into a lot of them in the past 5 years or so).
2.  Among the Star Wars fans I know, there's definitely a "meh" feeling about the new Star Wars movies.

Who knows, maybe advance screenings of it will get utterly rave reviews and every one will flip out.  If I was to guess at a domestic box office. id say...hmmmm....well somewhere between 500 and 550 M..which is ROTS scaled to modern prices plus10% on top.

If you're going to build a quadrotor yourself, you'll likely need advanced non-linear control systems programming knowledge.  ...or you'll have to buy some type of smart controller that's made for quadrotors.  Even in that case, though, you'll have to know how to tune the systems gains properly so that it can self-balance.  That's the issue with quadrotors;  you can't control them just analogue, you need a computer to do all the micro-adjustments necessary for balance. Its difficult stuff but seriously cool!

Zoinks!

You guys, the Tokes and Stokes theme has been stuck in my head since you put it up.  I feel like I'm walking around as some superfly 70's badass crime fighter or something....complete with the retro film grain.

The thing that gives me the most hope about this movie is that its directed by the guy who did Monsters

+1 for "The Hunt for Red October".  One of my favorites.