All the previous Star Trek shows featured actors who were virtual unknowns at the time of being cast
This is blatantly untrue. Patrick Stewart is a significant thespian, and that he had been signed caused quite a bit of reawakening of interest in the nerd community, because all of a sudden we realized that Star Trek was goin got be taken seriously the second time around. He had been in no fewer than 25 movies before ST:TNG, one of them Dune, three of them shakespeare. He was a voice in the 1984 translation of Nausicaa: Valley of the Winds for disney, because Disney understood the importance of a strong presence for Lord Yupa. He has a distinguished stage career second to probably fewer than 50 people in modern times (since 1800, say.) He has played hundreds of shows at both Stratford on Avons; I've had the pleasure of seeing him in the role as Hamlet's stepfather, and he reduced me to tears.
Johnathan Frakes was a burgeoning movie actor, having appeared in 11 movies before the show, and which had a strong career in cartoon voicing. Brent Spiner was a successful broadway star with nine movies under his belt. LeVar Burton had been in 19 movies, including his critically acclaimed role in Roots, and had had two television shows of his own (one a children's show, admittedly.) Denise crosby had been in a dozen crappy films including a pink panther movie, as well as a long stretch on Days of our Lives. Michael Dorn also comes from Days of our Lives, and has bit parts in various movies, including as Apollo Creed's bodyguard. Gates McFadden is a choreographer, whose works include The Dark Crystal and Labyrinth. Wil Wheaton had been a bit actor in dozens of movies and had a few TV appearances.
Granted, Marina Sirtis, with only three movies and a few TV appearances, kind of came out of nowhere.
"But so it's just TNG," you say. You're still full of crap.
William Shatner had ten movies under his belt, as well as three regular characters, before his series. You'll probably remember him earliest as Ranger Bob from Howdy Doody. He had also written episodes of two TV series, had narrated a serious film in French and English, was a regular on Gunsmoke, Dr. Kildare, Bob Hope Presents Chrysler Theater, 77 Sunset Strip and Studio one, and has individual appearances in two dozen shows such as The Twilight Zone, Naked City and the US Steel Hour.
Leonard Nimoy had 11 films under his belt and 59 TV appearances, as well as a lackluster thespian career. DeForrest kelley had *35* films to his name, and *81* TV appearances. Grace Whitney: 13 movies, 28 TV appearances. James Doohan, 12 movies, 25 TV appearances. George Takei, 10 movies, 18 TV appearances. Majel Barrett had ten movies. Walter Koenig and Nichelle Nichols were fairly green.
Avery Brooks is a respected thespian whose character Hawk on Spenser for Hire was so popular that it was spun off into its own series, A Man Called Hawk; he had ten movies under his belt. Rene Aberjunois has a *huge* acting career; look it up on IMDB. Nicole deBoer, Colm Meany, Alexander Siddig...
It's pretty clear you're just talking out of your ass. No offense. Voyager has a less distinguished cast, as does Enterprise, but the first three have very significant casts, each for their day quite impressive.
The real question here, IMO, is whether you could take a seventh season voyager crew and put them into a second season TNG episode. And IMO, no, they wouldn't be up to par.
some very good science fiction writers (Ellison in his prime for one example...need I say more?)
Rose colored lenses, anyone? There are maybe a dozen seriously interesting ST:TOS plots from the sci-fi perspective, and then a dozen duplicates of those plots. If you want inventive Sci-fi plots, there aren't many options beyond the twilight zone.
TOS did have some character development, but nothing like TNG had. What TOS had was a fun, rowdy romp through the universe, kicking ass and taking phone numbers, doing right the 1960s military hippie way kind of feel to it. It had something to prove about people working together despite race and nation; it had something to prove about the future maybe being a good place after all; it had something to prove about a group of people which did things the Hippie Right Way, and all would come out well.
ST:TNG had despair. ST:TNG had trauma. ST:TNG had implications. ST:TNG had ugly topics, like murder and rape, like espionage being committed by the Good Guys, like fear, like paranoia.
It's more a question of what you prefer. But when the Captain mentioned information about an old love in the first season that isn't revealed to be a major crewmember until the 6th, despite clues for the careful, then you need to wonder whether a show that ran only three years really did have more character development, or if you just haven't sat slavering in front of the TV long enough to understand yet.
Look, Voyager was total nonsense. It ignored the canon, it ignored the pseudophysics, it ignored the established plot, it oftentimes said things that didn't make sense.
Case in point: the navigator (not a scientist) was able to push a *shuttlecraft* (barely rated for warp) to greater than warp 10 (1: faster than federation scientists with resources and research hardware and, oh I don't know, training could do with decades of time, but he managed to pull it off in his spare time, because he's a navigator; 2: at that point in the chronology, warp ten is infinite speed; what the fuck is faster than infinite speed, please?) and it has the effect of "evolving" him - obviously instantly having the logical effect of putting one individual through thousands of generations of personal mutation and selection, because of the natural pressures he's feeling to develop telekinesis sitting in his fucking pilot's chair on a god damned shuttlecraft for ten minutes, drawing him to a conclusion of human evolution so logical that the second person to go through the mental abortion of a plot device evolves in exactly the same fashion (because evolution is apparently destined, which is why all life since bacteria is now human, and not trees or eagles or other bacteria,) and somehow they were able to reverse the process because obviously the last thing they'd want in a quest to get back home is the thousands-of-generations-superior version of an individual that was able to take their equivalent of a lifeboat and turn it into their equivalent of a fucking f-15 that their airforce couldn't have pulled off, on the fucking sinking ship, with no fucking tools.
I also find it fairly contemptible that you suggest that Kirk versus God is actually worse than the giant heaven thread that floats through space, and the guy that wants to get back into it, so instead of flying into it, he risks destryoing it and tries to guarantee destroying a planet by blowing things up in its path.
Don't get me wrong. Kirk versus God is awful. But at least there's predecent (kirk versus the greek gods, kirk versus invisible omnipotent beings in various episodes, kirk versus an immortal which represents a significant chunk of humanity's advancement, et cetera. TNG was for adults. That was just inexcusable.
No. I suppose I could have been clearer on the point. Fallacy isn't error in deduction, which is always suspect. Fallacy is applying rules which are known to be in error. What you're suggesting is an interesting and subtle misinterpretation of what I said, and something I'm going to need to be a lot more careful about specifying in the future.
Induction and deduction are implicitly guesses, and therefore suspect. More specifically, they're best guesses; you go with the available evidence, and if something new crops up that replaces it, well, great, let's all jump ship. Common sense was replaced by classical physics was replaced by newtonian physics was replaced by relativistic physics was replaced by quantuum mechanics; we'll probably be adding something to that list in the next 30 years or so (strings and branes are the horse i'm putting my money on.) Herbalism to Alchemy to Phlogiston to Oxidation to Modern Chemistry to Materials Science. The list for math is obscene. Computer science is already doing pretty well for lists itself, but that's my field, so that may just reflect my better understanding of its history than the other topics.
None of that is fallacy. It's falsehood. Granted, history of science is/also/ peppered with fallacy, but on the whole, that list represents a revealing of and refinement of knowledge, not (in any real sense) the undoing of bad logic. We weren't cavement because we believed quantuum mechanics due to the teachings of our parents/elders (argumentum ad verecundiam,) out of appeal to furce (ad baculum,) or because all the other cavemen believed in QM (ad populum;) it was simply because we didn't know not only about QM, but about physics, or in most cases fire.
The issue here is that they've been given a good explanation, and facts which support it. At that point, no amount of re-explanation is a fallacy; if it were the case that the glass had been flat and then that the glass after N years was thicker at the bottom, then the explanation they were giving would in fact be both logical and sound. The issue is that their supporting facts are false - the glass was never univorm, and therefore there is a question of whether significant flow has in fact occurred, which it has not.
Arguments topple due to both fallacies and falsehoods. The germane difference is whether it's the initial facts or the logic which led to a result which is in error. This would be fallacy if this guy had said "it's true because Bill Nye said so," or "It's obviously true because everybody knows it," or "It's been known since such-and-such ancient book, so clearly it's true" (This kills me - one of my favorite comics, Lewis Black, indulged in argumentum ad lazarum when mocking the Atkins Diet, questioning whether we'd in fact been eating exactly the wrong thing since the dawn of civilization. Though it left me in tears laughing, which is probably the important part, that is in fact fallacy.)
I should point out that making a misstep during reasoning is not the same thing as a fallacy. A fallacy is using one of a concrete series of logical errors; an error in reasoning is an error in reasoning. If you neglect to take an issue into account, or go through a complex series of reasoning and accidentally swap two individuals leading to error, or if you make a judgement based on a misimpression regarding an individual or situation, that's not a fallacy; that's an error, which leads to a falsehood. Fallacies are using mechanisms which are in error in justification. Whereas this list isn't complete, there's a good primer ateachoftheselinks.
Therefore:
- I killed the queen because she was an alien, so she'll ruin us all.
Action on false
Just wondering, what does pressure do then, nullify quantum mechanics laws ?
Well, that's the point at which the forces involved in the pressure are greater than those imposed by quantuum mechanics. Unfortunately, I can't say technically yes, because quantuum effects are random, and considered as an average, so there isn't a fine line to refer to.:(
Oh, right, and by the way, you don't need viscosity to push a turbine, you need pressure. As the original post shows with its anecdote about pressure and leaks causing loss, pressure works perfectly fine in a zero viscosity situation.
Now, admittedly, you need one of two things for this to continue to work: a set of paddles that are very accurately machined to the flow tube, so that there's no point at which there's flow despite them, or paddles with enough momentum to bridge that gap before the flow negates it. Neither of those seem out of reason to me, and the both together would make this quite doable, if you happen to have a long term pressurized vat of zero viscosity material x.
But in the meantime, shut up. It was funny before you said that.
In reality, they do not flow faster than billions of years. It's relatively easy to find someone who's done the math on teh intarweb; I suggest you look for it.
However, the parent post wasn't challenging that, or even that glass was a liquid. The parent post was challenging that in 200-2000 years (average holy building age) the flow of glass would cause a variance in thickness between the top and bottom, and in that he was correct.
It's very hard to misunderstand this, since the remainder of his post was about why the variance in thickness was there. I think you're just trying to feel right.
For what it's worth, though you're mostly correct, it's a falsehood, not a fallacy. A falsehood is a piece of incorrect information - a myth, a popular misconception, a lie. A fallacy is a conclusion reached from information (whether or not the information is correct is unimportant) where the reasoning suffers a flaw.
Examples:
"Rubenstein's paper shows that white men named
Tim have three arms." Falsehood: there is no
such paper.
"John Q. Scientist agrees with me, so I'm
right." Fallacy: appeal to authority
(argumentum ad verecundiam.)
"4=5." Falsehood.
"Because 4=5, and because in a=b a*c=b*c, then
8=10." Falsehood. The reasoning is correct,
but the underlying information is in error.
"Because a*c=b*c and a+c=b+c, then for any
operator ?, a?c=b?c" Fallacy: operators do
not have the same rules, so you may not infer
rules by commonality (Accident, Hasty
Generalization)
"Because 4=5, and because a?c=b?c,
then 4*2=5*2, so 8=10." Both a fallacy and a
falsehood. I duplicated the above example to
demonstrate that a fallacy can lead to
seemingly correct reasoning. I stuck with the
falsehood to show that fallacious reasoning
which leads to correct reasoning isn't
therefore somehow absolved; it's still a
falsehood.
"Because 1=1, and because a?c=b?c, then
1*2=1*2, or 2=2." A fallacy can in fact lead
to both seemingly good reasoning and seemingly
correct results. Frequently, someone will
attempt a bait and switch, using a cursory
example like this which fails to display a
flaw in reasoning to try to establish said
reasoning as correct, and then lead into the
incorrect results. How many times have you
heard, in moral rather than mathematical
context, something like "you wouldn't
challenge that 2=2, would you? or that
1*2+3*2=4*2? or that 3*2=1*2+2*2? so then
if 3^2 + 4^2 = 5^2, then clearly 3+4=5. how
can you challenge that?" That is argument by
generalization, and frequently includes
unrepresentative samples, false analogies,
and fallacies of exclusion.
Sorry about the pedantry; I just hate to see people call things fallacies or falsehoods which aren't.
...is in whatever system the squid use to selectively allow this one species of symbiotic bacteria to infect a specific area of tissue in its eye without compromising the rest of its immune system.
You know that most species have symbiotes, right? You realize that you have over 50 symbiotes in your lower intestine doing digestions that you cannot, yes? Same process, I wager.
That's why E. Coli in food is so dangerous - not because it's particularly nasty, but because our immune system refuses to respond to it, so if it gets out of check you're not going to flush it on your own.
This comment betrays a certain lack of understanding of the functioning of mechanical watches.
No, it simply shows that the sarchasm was too wide for you to cross. (Shut up, it's an inside joke, not a spelling error.)
My post was a whopping 340 letters long. Perhaps you should have given me until the fourth sentence, where this following quote (I admitted the third sentence too, for effect) makes it quite clear that I understand mechanical scaling:
I'd be willing you could get a good watch repair joint to *make* you one of these. Watches are made to be fine-tuned; it shouldn't be too hard to tune them off to a certain measured degree.
I'm reminded of calc kindergarten:
<CalcMe000> kinder = You remind me of why #C++ is like teaching Kindergarden. All day long, we sit and read to people like you who can't do it for themselves.
so that it takes the watch 1479 minutes to register 2 full revolutions (12 "martian" hours each). 2.7% is much more than the usual tuning range for a mechanical watch, so it took much trial and error.
I hate to be the one to break it to you, but springs are pretty well understood, and can be described with a fe simple equations. The only reason I expect one might have been sacrificed is that it's NASA, so they probably had to reconcile a unit conversion error at one point or another.
The "more than $1000" (not "thousands") was for the watches sacrificed to the error part.
That's funny, I just called a jeweler. He said he'd do it for $75, and warrant it to be accurate to within 15 seconds of a martian day daily, or do it again for free.
Maybe NASA has some catching up to do; I know that Bertlemann and Sons is probably at the cutting edge of materials sciences, which is why they're in the mall.
Mr. Anserlian's shop sounds like an outstanding one, and there aren't many left.
Uh huh. I can name a dozen in San Diego, and I haven't even lived here for a full year. So, explain to me again why these watches should be thousands of dollars, now that other Slashdotters have pointed out that they retail during the hubbub at $150, meaning that in two weeks they'll be $100.
This kind of timebase tinkering isn't unprecedented
It's called a Blue Box, in fact.
but ICs work the same way--the first one is very expensive.
Sure, if you need a custom job. This is a simple embedded divider. You can just use the same stuff they use in antilock brakes. There are a million little circuits that will do this already.
Also, in context it made it appear that you believed that the IC mask would be millions of dollars. Try thousands. Fabbing isn't as expensive as all that.
Hence the reference in the article to large minimum orders.
Sorry, charlie, but you've decided to try to explain to me why mechanical watches should be more expensive by arguments that don't involve parts in mechanical watches at all. Nice try. Don't try to look smart at other people's expenses quite so hard; it doesn't always work out.
You are incorrect. Sorry, sir. What the watch does is scale its rotation speed down by something like 2.7%. That's why they're offering replacement face dials.
One wonders why these literal rocket scientists didn't just get a software programmable Linux or PalmOS based wrist-computer and hack together a Mars-time display application into it?"
Because they're keepsakes. Besides, mechanical watches are durable. When the hero sets the bomb that collapses the mouth of the only cave that leads to the underworld in which the Martians are preparing their invasion force, you can be damned sure that he'll be glad he's got a watch that survived all those pulse weapons and electric torture lassos and whatnot, so that he's quite sure he's got three seconds to blast off before the whole planet goes Kaboom!.
Or whatever.
More importantly, they're collectables. All the astronauts are given hardware that they get to take home after the mission as a keepsake. I mean, if these guys are going to make the only form of travel more dangerous than ValuJet for like three months each way without peanuts solely for the sake of our curiosity, then we can god damned well buy them a watch.
And why would it cost thousands of dollars to put in a single new machined gear? Don't mean to be rude or anything, but we *are* tool using mammals; it's not like watches are rocket science, even if they are/for/ rocket science.
I'd be willing you could get a good watch repair joint to *make* you one of these. Watches are made to be fine-tuned; it shouldn't be too hard to tune them off to a certain measured degree.
Try not looking for it under our bastardization of its Japanese name - Wei Qi, Padhooq, et cetera. The game has a history lost in time, much like that of Chess, but it's probably a Chinese invention for attempting to provide strategy lessons for military generals.
A hint: m-w.com is not the authority on Asian culture.
They used to say the same things about quantuum physics, RF, the aether and the phlogiston. Chin up: when you phrase it with a "yet," the future doesn't look so bleak.
This is neat and all, but when you consider the impact re: machines hosting PVRs like Freevo and MythTV, all of a sudden it becomes Tremendously Cool (tm).
Does anyone out there have experience with both this and an off-the-shelf DVR which is openable, such as a ReplayTV? This is nearly an off-the-shelf expandable DVR solution, if making it talk to a Replay isn't difficult. That sort of thing a mom or a pop *would* pay $400 for, if they knew about it.
More likely he's flexing his knowledge of simple Latin, in which -icon is the suffix indicating a book or collection of scrolls gathering knowledge of the topic sufficted.
Necronomicon, literally translated, means "book of the name of the dead." This leans a bit on Latin; it's better phrased "book which names that which is death for you." This makes the name "cryptonomicon" a bit more obvious - it is that which represents the summation of, and therefore defines, cryptography.
Go bust out your AD&D stuff. Lots of books in there end in -icon and -nomicon. It was a repopularized phrasing thanks to Aleister Crowley's Order of the Golden Dawn stuff, and later for sarcasm by Ambrose Bierce.
Slashdot Mirror
All the previous Star Trek shows featured actors who were virtual unknowns at the time of being cast
This is blatantly untrue. Patrick Stewart is a significant thespian, and that he had been signed caused quite a bit of reawakening of interest in the nerd community, because all of a sudden we realized that Star Trek was goin got be taken seriously the second time around. He had been in no fewer than 25 movies before ST:TNG, one of them Dune, three of them shakespeare. He was a voice in the 1984 translation of Nausicaa: Valley of the Winds for disney, because Disney understood the importance of a strong presence for Lord Yupa. He has a distinguished stage career second to probably fewer than 50 people in modern times (since 1800, say.) He has played hundreds of shows at both Stratford on Avons; I've had the pleasure of seeing him in the role as Hamlet's stepfather, and he reduced me to tears.
Johnathan Frakes was a burgeoning movie actor, having appeared in 11 movies before the show, and which had a strong career in cartoon voicing. Brent Spiner was a successful broadway star with nine movies under his belt. LeVar Burton had been in 19 movies, including his critically acclaimed role in Roots, and had had two television shows of his own (one a children's show, admittedly.) Denise crosby had been in a dozen crappy films including a pink panther movie, as well as a long stretch on Days of our Lives. Michael Dorn also comes from Days of our Lives, and has bit parts in various movies, including as Apollo Creed's bodyguard. Gates McFadden is a choreographer, whose works include The Dark Crystal and Labyrinth. Wil Wheaton had been a bit actor in dozens of movies and had a few TV appearances.
Granted, Marina Sirtis, with only three movies and a few TV appearances, kind of came out of nowhere.
"But so it's just TNG," you say. You're still full of crap.
William Shatner had ten movies under his belt, as well as three regular characters, before his series. You'll probably remember him earliest as Ranger Bob from Howdy Doody. He had also written episodes of two TV series, had narrated a serious film in French and English, was a regular on Gunsmoke, Dr. Kildare, Bob Hope Presents Chrysler Theater, 77 Sunset Strip and Studio one, and has individual appearances in two dozen shows such as The Twilight Zone, Naked City and the US Steel Hour.
Leonard Nimoy had 11 films under his belt and 59 TV appearances, as well as a lackluster thespian career. DeForrest kelley had *35* films to his name, and *81* TV appearances. Grace Whitney: 13 movies, 28 TV appearances. James Doohan, 12 movies, 25 TV appearances. George Takei, 10 movies, 18 TV appearances. Majel Barrett had ten movies. Walter Koenig and Nichelle Nichols were fairly green.
Avery Brooks is a respected thespian whose character Hawk on Spenser for Hire was so popular that it was spun off into its own series, A Man Called Hawk; he had ten movies under his belt. Rene Aberjunois has a *huge* acting career; look it up on IMDB. Nicole deBoer, Colm Meany, Alexander Siddig...
It's pretty clear you're just talking out of your ass. No offense. Voyager has a less distinguished cast, as does Enterprise, but the first three have very significant casts, each for their day quite impressive.
The real question here, IMO, is whether you could take a seventh season voyager crew and put them into a second season TNG episode. And IMO, no, they wouldn't be up to par.
some very good science fiction writers (Ellison in his prime for one example...need I say more?)
Rose colored lenses, anyone? There are maybe a dozen seriously interesting ST:TOS plots from the sci-fi perspective, and then a dozen duplicates of those plots. If you want inventive Sci-fi plots, there aren't many options beyond the twilight zone.
TOS did have some character development, but nothing like TNG had. What TOS had was a fun, rowdy romp through the universe, kicking ass and taking phone numbers, doing right the 1960s military hippie way kind of feel to it. It had something to prove about people working together despite race and nation; it had something to prove about the future maybe being a good place after all; it had something to prove about a group of people which did things the Hippie Right Way, and all would come out well.
ST:TNG had despair. ST:TNG had trauma. ST:TNG had implications. ST:TNG had ugly topics, like murder and rape, like espionage being committed by the Good Guys, like fear, like paranoia.
It's more a question of what you prefer. But when the Captain mentioned information about an old love in the first season that isn't revealed to be a major crewmember until the 6th, despite clues for the careful, then you need to wonder whether a show that ran only three years really did have more character development, or if you just haven't sat slavering in front of the TV long enough to understand yet.
Look, Voyager was total nonsense. It ignored the canon, it ignored the pseudophysics, it ignored the established plot, it oftentimes said things that didn't make sense.
Case in point: the navigator (not a scientist) was able to push a *shuttlecraft* (barely rated for warp) to greater than warp 10 (1: faster than federation scientists with resources and research hardware and, oh I don't know, training could do with decades of time, but he managed to pull it off in his spare time, because he's a navigator; 2: at that point in the chronology, warp ten is infinite speed; what the fuck is faster than infinite speed, please?) and it has the effect of "evolving" him - obviously instantly having the logical effect of putting one individual through thousands of generations of personal mutation and selection, because of the natural pressures he's feeling to develop telekinesis sitting in his fucking pilot's chair on a god damned shuttlecraft for ten minutes, drawing him to a conclusion of human evolution so logical that the second person to go through the mental abortion of a plot device evolves in exactly the same fashion (because evolution is apparently destined, which is why all life since bacteria is now human, and not trees or eagles or other bacteria,) and somehow they were able to reverse the process because obviously the last thing they'd want in a quest to get back home is the thousands-of-generations-superior version of an individual that was able to take their equivalent of a lifeboat and turn it into their equivalent of a fucking f-15 that their airforce couldn't have pulled off, on the fucking sinking ship, with no fucking tools.
Yes. Voyager was a fine piece of work.
Wrong. 3 is good.
I also find it fairly contemptible that you suggest that Kirk versus God is actually worse than the giant heaven thread that floats through space, and the guy that wants to get back into it, so instead of flying into it, he risks destryoing it and tries to guarantee destroying a planet by blowing things up in its path.
Don't get me wrong. Kirk versus God is awful. But at least there's predecent (kirk versus the greek gods, kirk versus invisible omnipotent beings in various episodes, kirk versus an immortal which represents a significant chunk of humanity's advancement, et cetera. TNG was for adults. That was just inexcusable.
No. I suppose I could have been clearer on the point. Fallacy isn't error in deduction, which is always suspect. Fallacy is applying rules which are known to be in error. What you're suggesting is an interesting and subtle misinterpretation of what I said, and something I'm going to need to be a lot more careful about specifying in the future.
/also/ peppered with fallacy, but on the whole, that list represents a revealing of and refinement of knowledge, not (in any real sense) the undoing of bad logic. We weren't cavement because we believed quantuum mechanics due to the teachings of our parents/elders (argumentum ad verecundiam,) out of appeal to furce (ad baculum,) or because all the other cavemen believed in QM (ad populum;) it was simply because we didn't know not only about QM, but about physics, or in most cases fire.
Induction and deduction are implicitly guesses, and therefore suspect. More specifically, they're best guesses; you go with the available evidence, and if something new crops up that replaces it, well, great, let's all jump ship. Common sense was replaced by classical physics was replaced by newtonian physics was replaced by relativistic physics was replaced by quantuum mechanics; we'll probably be adding something to that list in the next 30 years or so (strings and branes are the horse i'm putting my money on.) Herbalism to Alchemy to Phlogiston to Oxidation to Modern Chemistry to Materials Science. The list for math is obscene. Computer science is already doing pretty well for lists itself, but that's my field, so that may just reflect my better understanding of its history than the other topics.
None of that is fallacy. It's falsehood. Granted, history of science is
The issue here is that they've been given a good explanation, and facts which support it. At that point, no amount of re-explanation is a fallacy; if it were the case that the glass had been flat and then that the glass after N years was thicker at the bottom, then the explanation they were giving would in fact be both logical and sound. The issue is that their supporting facts are false - the glass was never univorm, and therefore there is a question of whether significant flow has in fact occurred, which it has not.
Arguments topple due to both fallacies and falsehoods. The germane difference is whether it's the initial facts or the logic which led to a result which is in error. This would be fallacy if this guy had said "it's true because Bill Nye said so," or "It's obviously true because everybody knows it," or "It's been known since such-and-such ancient book, so clearly it's true" (This kills me - one of my favorite comics, Lewis Black, indulged in argumentum ad lazarum when mocking the Atkins Diet, questioning whether we'd in fact been eating exactly the wrong thing since the dawn of civilization. Though it left me in tears laughing, which is probably the important part, that is in fact fallacy.)
I should point out that making a misstep during reasoning is not the same thing as a fallacy. A fallacy is using one of a concrete series of logical errors; an error in reasoning is an error in reasoning. If you neglect to take an issue into account, or go through a complex series of reasoning and accidentally swap two individuals leading to error, or if you make a judgement based on a misimpression regarding an individual or situation, that's not a fallacy; that's an error, which leads to a falsehood. Fallacies are using mechanisms which are in error in justification. Whereas this list isn't complete, there's a good primer at each of these links.
Therefore:
- I killed the queen because she was an alien, so she'll ruin us all.
Action on false
Just wondering, what does pressure do then, nullify quantum mechanics laws ?
:(
Well, that's the point at which the forces involved in the pressure are greater than those imposed by quantuum mechanics. Unfortunately, I can't say technically yes, because quantuum effects are random, and considered as an average, so there isn't a fine line to refer to.
and here I thought "absent-minded professor" was just a cliche ;)
So what you're saying is, you've never taken a Philosophy course?
I think what you're describing is a Bose-Einstein condensate, which is something entirely different.
No, the entire purpose of this experiment was to show that solids can become Bose-Einstein condensates, just like gasses and liquids.
Read the article, the post, maybe a book. In general, don't contradict people that are paying attention.
Good job attacking the joke.
Oh, right, and by the way, you don't need viscosity to push a turbine, you need pressure. As the original post shows with its anecdote about pressure and leaks causing loss, pressure works perfectly fine in a zero viscosity situation.
Now, admittedly, you need one of two things for this to continue to work: a set of paddles that are very accurately machined to the flow tube, so that there's no point at which there's flow despite them, or paddles with enough momentum to bridge that gap before the flow negates it. Neither of those seem out of reason to me, and the both together would make this quite doable, if you happen to have a long term pressurized vat of zero viscosity material x.
But in the meantime, shut up. It was funny before you said that.
In reality, they do not flow faster than billions of years. It's relatively easy to find someone who's done the math on teh intarweb; I suggest you look for it.
However, the parent post wasn't challenging that, or even that glass was a liquid. The parent post was challenging that in 200-2000 years (average holy building age) the flow of glass would cause a variance in thickness between the top and bottom, and in that he was correct.
It's very hard to misunderstand this, since the remainder of his post was about why the variance in thickness was there. I think you're just trying to feel right.
For what it's worth, though you're mostly correct, it's a falsehood, not a fallacy. A falsehood is a piece of incorrect information - a myth, a popular misconception, a lie. A fallacy is a conclusion reached from information (whether or not the information is correct is unimportant) where the reasoning suffers a flaw.
Examples:
"Rubenstein's paper shows that white men named
Tim have three arms." Falsehood: there is no
such paper.
"John Q. Scientist agrees with me, so I'm
right." Fallacy: appeal to authority
(argumentum ad verecundiam.)
"4=5." Falsehood.
"Because 4=5, and because in a=b a*c=b*c, then
8=10." Falsehood. The reasoning is correct,
but the underlying information is in error.
"Because a*c=b*c and a+c=b+c, then for any
operator ?, a?c=b?c" Fallacy: operators do
not have the same rules, so you may not infer
rules by commonality (Accident, Hasty
Generalization)
"Because 4=5, and because a?c=b?c,
then 4*2=5*2, so 8=10." Both a fallacy and a
falsehood. I duplicated the above example to
demonstrate that a fallacy can lead to
seemingly correct reasoning. I stuck with the
falsehood to show that fallacious reasoning
which leads to correct reasoning isn't
therefore somehow absolved; it's still a
falsehood.
"Because 1=1, and because a?c=b?c, then
1*2=1*2, or 2=2." A fallacy can in fact lead
to both seemingly good reasoning and seemingly
correct results. Frequently, someone will
attempt a bait and switch, using a cursory
example like this which fails to display a
flaw in reasoning to try to establish said
reasoning as correct, and then lead into the
incorrect results. How many times have you
heard, in moral rather than mathematical
context, something like "you wouldn't
challenge that 2=2, would you? or that
1*2+3*2=4*2? or that 3*2=1*2+2*2? so then
if 3^2 + 4^2 = 5^2, then clearly 3+4=5. how
can you challenge that?" That is argument by
generalization, and frequently includes
unrepresentative samples, false analogies,
and fallacies of exclusion.
Sorry about the pedantry; I just hate to see people call things fallacies or falsehoods which aren't.
Really? Have a look at your sig.
You know that most species have symbiotes, right? You realize that you have over 50 symbiotes in your lower intestine doing digestions that you cannot, yes? Same process, I wager.
That's why E. Coli in food is so dangerous - not because it's particularly nasty, but because our immune system refuses to respond to it, so if it gets out of check you're not going to flush it on your own.
This comment betrays a certain lack of understanding of the functioning of mechanical watches.
No, it simply shows that the sarchasm was too wide for you to cross. (Shut up, it's an inside joke, not a spelling error.)
My post was a whopping 340 letters long. Perhaps you should have given me until the fourth sentence, where this following quote (I admitted the third sentence too, for effect) makes it quite clear that I understand mechanical scaling:
I'd be willing you could get a good watch repair joint to *make* you one of these. Watches are made to be fine-tuned; it shouldn't be too hard to tune them off to a certain measured degree.
I'm reminded of calc kindergarten:
<CalcMe000> kinder = You remind me of why #C++ is like teaching Kindergarden. All day long, we sit and read to people like you who can't do it for themselves.
so that it takes the watch 1479 minutes to register 2 full revolutions (12 "martian" hours each). 2.7% is much more than the usual tuning range for a mechanical watch, so it took much trial and error.
I hate to be the one to break it to you, but springs are pretty well understood, and can be described with a fe simple equations. The only reason I expect one might have been sacrificed is that it's NASA, so they probably had to reconcile a unit conversion error at one point or another.
The "more than $1000" (not "thousands") was for the watches sacrificed to the error part.
That's funny, I just called a jeweler. He said he'd do it for $75, and warrant it to be accurate to within 15 seconds of a martian day daily, or do it again for free.
Maybe NASA has some catching up to do; I know that Bertlemann and Sons is probably at the cutting edge of materials sciences, which is why they're in the mall.
Mr. Anserlian's shop sounds like an outstanding one, and there aren't many left.
Uh huh. I can name a dozen in San Diego, and I haven't even lived here for a full year. So, explain to me again why these watches should be thousands of dollars, now that other Slashdotters have pointed out that they retail during the hubbub at $150, meaning that in two weeks they'll be $100.
This kind of timebase tinkering isn't unprecedented
It's called a Blue Box, in fact.
but ICs work the same way--the first one is very expensive.
Sure, if you need a custom job. This is a simple embedded divider. You can just use the same stuff they use in antilock brakes. There are a million little circuits that will do this already.
Also, in context it made it appear that you believed that the IC mask would be millions of dollars. Try thousands. Fabbing isn't as expensive as all that.
Hence the reference in the article to large minimum orders.
Sorry, charlie, but you've decided to try to explain to me why mechanical watches should be more expensive by arguments that don't involve parts in mechanical watches at all. Nice try. Don't try to look smart at other people's expenses quite so hard; it doesn't always work out.
You are incorrect. Sorry, sir. What the watch does is scale its rotation speed down by something like 2.7%. That's why they're offering replacement face dials.
One wonders why these literal rocket scientists didn't just get a software programmable Linux or PalmOS based wrist-computer and hack together a Mars-time display application into it?"
Because they're keepsakes. Besides, mechanical watches are durable. When the hero sets the bomb that collapses the mouth of the only cave that leads to the underworld in which the Martians are preparing their invasion force, you can be damned sure that he'll be glad he's got a watch that survived all those pulse weapons and electric torture lassos and whatnot, so that he's quite sure he's got three seconds to blast off before the whole planet goes Kaboom!.
Or whatever.
More importantly, they're collectables. All the astronauts are given hardware that they get to take home after the mission as a keepsake. I mean, if these guys are going to make the only form of travel more dangerous than ValuJet for like three months each way without peanuts solely for the sake of our curiosity, then we can god damned well buy them a watch.
And why would it cost thousands of dollars to put in a single new machined gear? Don't mean to be rude or anything, but we *are* tool using mammals; it's not like watches are rocket science, even if they are /for/ rocket science.
I'd be willing you could get a good watch repair joint to *make* you one of these. Watches are made to be fine-tuned; it shouldn't be too hard to tune them off to a certain measured degree.
(BTW, do I get extra karma for using it's and its right?).
No, not even if you got the remaining grammar in your sentence correct.
Try not looking for it under our bastardization of its Japanese name - Wei Qi, Padhooq, et cetera. The game has a history lost in time, much like that of Chess, but it's probably a Chinese invention for attempting to provide strategy lessons for military generals.
A hint: m-w.com is not the authority on Asian culture.
that slows the absorbtion of caffiene into your system.
You've never been addicted to caffine have you?
You've never kicked a drug, have you? Yes, slowing the rate induces light withdrawl. The idea is that that's better than wholesale withdrawl.
They used to say the same things about quantuum physics, RF, the aether and the phlogiston. Chin up: when you phrase it with a "yet," the future doesn't look so bleak.
This is neat and all, but when you consider the impact re: machines hosting PVRs like Freevo and MythTV, all of a sudden it becomes Tremendously Cool (tm) .
Does anyone out there have experience with both this and an off-the-shelf DVR which is openable, such as a ReplayTV? This is nearly an off-the-shelf expandable DVR solution, if making it talk to a Replay isn't difficult. That sort of thing a mom or a pop *would* pay $400 for, if they knew about it.
Yeah, what Nature said is really really really shallow. I would never never NEVER be so final.
The occult *frequently* repeats words in triplicate, and they might be spells or mantras.
More likely he's flexing his knowledge of simple Latin, in which -icon is the suffix indicating a book or collection of scrolls gathering knowledge of the topic sufficted.
Necronomicon, literally translated, means "book of the name of the dead." This leans a bit on Latin; it's better phrased "book which names that which is death for you." This makes the name "cryptonomicon" a bit more obvious - it is that which represents the summation of, and therefore defines, cryptography.
Go bust out your AD&D stuff. Lots of books in there end in -icon and -nomicon. It was a repopularized phrasing thanks to Aleister Crowley's Order of the Golden Dawn stuff, and later for sarcasm by Ambrose Bierce.