Dude! I'm not wasting your time. Nobody held a gun to your head and forced you to spend any time responding to me. You're the one that is fixated on a stupid detail in a fictional show.
You're not even listening to my arguments either, you're just trying to bait me into responding (I guess it worked) and show the world how smart you are. You haven't fooled me. If you don't want to waste any time enlightening me, I can go on living in ignorant bliss with my dimestore degree. All you have to do is do the world a favor and shut up.
Oh, so the "driest desert" is pure H2O? Because that's what the surface of most moons is.
Nonsense! Most moons in our Solar system are not pure water. Europa, I grant you is water, and Saturn's ring particles are mostly ice, but pretty much everything else it barren rock with maybe some water ice.
Lets just look at our own solar system (which, by all spectral observations, looks to have the same "water" effects as elsewhere - if anything, we're seing *more* water elsewhere than we expected from looking at our own solar system).
Again, nonsense. What research are you basing this assertion on? I am aware that there is a lot of water in intersteller space (along with really cool things like H2O masers), but as I stated before, the density makes it impractical to collect in large quantities.
But none of this matters! Let's take a different angle on this. Our planet has an extremely high concentration of water. And yet... our literature is filled with stories -- some good, some not so good -- where the plot revolves around people...living on the Earth...with all that water...being threatened because they cannot get water.
But there are mitigating circumstances! I hear you saying. They are in a desert, they are on the ocean and cannot drink salt water. The available water is undrinkable. etc. etc. True! But that's the point. Even in places that have lots of water, there are places that have none, or have water that cannot be used by humans. Why, in light of the fact that we'ere talking about a fictional series, is is so difficult to accept a story based on the premise that a particular set of spaceships are in an area of the universe that has very little water?
Look, I'm trained as an astronomer. I'm highly scientifically literate compared with most of the population. I think most science fiction is crap (especially the old Battlestar Galactica). 99.9% of it (including the new BSG series) is filled with stuff that doesn't pass the scientific laugh test. But I like the new Battlestar Galactica and I liked that episode. Why? Because it was a compelling story with some interesting characters. That is the only reason to like any story, as far as I'm concerned. That fact that you would reject an entire, highly worthy series based on one stupid little detail in one episode is unfathomable to me.
I'm going to have to call you on this. Even the driest desert on this planet is many orders of magnitude wetter than space. While it is true that water is found everywhere in the universe, it's exceedingly sparse. Even molecular clouds, which are considered dense by the standards of interstellar space have densities that are lower than those produced in your average vaccuum chamber.
If you have to extract water by collecting the few molecules that drift by, it'd take you a few years to fill a thimble. Your best bet would be to look for planets. But planets are exceeding the sparse in the universe as well. In short, it is not inconceivable that it would be difficult to find water; I certainly wouldn't call it pseudoscience.
We're talking about a series that asks you to suspend your belief in, among other things, the existance of faster than light travel though space and sentient machines that can (apparently) breed with humans. Under these conditions, it seems kind of ridiculous to call a storyline based on a search for water pseudoscience.
Another point. At the end of episode 3, Jedi are considered enemies of the republic. Thus brandishing the weapon of a Jedi would likely have been a punishable offence or at least something that would draw unwanted attention to the person wielding it.
I really feel for those attendees in the first few rows of the auditorium who much have been absolutely drenched with flop sweat by the end of the night.
I always thought that the most inspired thing about the old series (horrid as it was) was how they invented swear words that were almost like real swear words (fraq -> fuck and they had another one for shit, I forget). This allows them to have realistic dialog (people, especially military people in combat situations, *do* swear! Shocking, that) without running afoul of the FCC or whomever.
I'm glad to see the new series carries this practice forward.
Maybe this is hopelessly lame in light of how much life was lost, but I have to admit, the first time I heard about a tsunami hitting Sri Lanka, my first thought was, "I wonder if Arthur Clarke is ok?"
It may be only a tiny minority, but the key point is that it is a minority that has the ear of the powers that be. Without that, they'd be just another ignored group.
I would only add that getting a job is (and always has been) more about *who* you know that what you know or where you went to school. If the person interviewing you doesn't know you (either personally or by reputation), it's almost impossible for you to fit the qualifications in a job description. If that person does know you, and is positively inclined towards you, your qualifications almost don't matter.
If you're looking for a job and you aren't spending at least twice as much time meeting people as you are upgrading your skills, you will not succeed.
Does anyone else find it interesting that of the 162 deepest caves listed, none are in the continental US or Canada? I could have missed one, but I saw a bunch in Mexico and one in Hawaii, and none up here. Is there a geological reason for this or is it just a coincidence?
Education is something you take, not something that is given to you. Unless and until you, personally, realize that, you have no hope of being educated regardless of what school you go to or how much money is spent on your behalf.
I was around in 84. I was around in 94. And now I'm still around in 2004. And guess what? Not a god damn thing has changed.
Well, I'll tell you one thing that's changed. 10 years ago, your chances have having this many people read your meandering ravings (much less moderate it as insightful) were hovering somewhere around zero. Whether or not that is progress I will leave as an exercise to the many readers of this response.
The reason I support gun ownership rights is specifically *because* guns are an unbalancing factor that makes it trivially easy to kill - that's the kind of power that shouldn't be solely in the hands of government.
Minor (off-topic) point here. You're conflating the right to gun ownership with the right to regulate said ownership. A government could theoretically allow its citizens gun ownership rights that are regulated...or car ownership rights or fishing rights or even copy rights (to bring this back on subject).
The point of the matter is, as always, how does the government balance the rights of individuals with the broader needs of society. The problem with the copyrights wars is that this balance has been thrown off by those folks that have traditionally held all the keys and don't like the fact that people are picking the locks.
This research, though, seems to be taking the same route: rather than questioning the model, they continue a so-far fruitless search for the "missing matter." If the model demands something the existence of which we are completely unable to verify, shouldn't we be questioning the model? Doesn't the very fact that there's all this "missing" matter indicate that perhaps our understanding is flawed?
We know the missing matter is there because we can verify it. One example of how we know is that we can measure the rotational velocity distribution of a spiral galaxy as a function of radius from the center. We can also measure the luminosity distribution. Given the latter, and the fact that we have a pretty good understanding about how stellar luminosity relates to stellar mass, we expect the velocity distribution to vary in a predictable way according to gravitational laws. This comparison indicates that there is a lot of mass in galaxies that doesn't produce any luminosity.
This is a case where independent measurements don't produce consistent results, not of a theoretical model failing to match up with measurements.
I can accept the idea that religion is the only possible outlet for absolute truth, but when that truth is always subject to human interpretation (through the imperfect vehicle of human language), how are we any better off? Is your absolute revealed truth the same as my absolute revealed truth? How can we possibly know?
I'm perfectly comfortable with the idea that I'm "doomed," as you say to interpret the universe as a set of self-consistent theories because there is always a mechanism by which those theories can be revised and extended. That's what Kuhn was talking about and that's how the scientific process works.
This passage is clearly speaking in round measurements. Would you be any happier if it said 31 cubits? I doubt it. Some people would balk even if it said 31.4159 cubits. The Bible is not a textbook. It is full of rounded measurements and symbolic numbers.
Hmmm...the Bible is not a textbook? You mean we aren't supposed to take everything in it literally? Imagine that!
Slashdot Mirror
...when I say...
Worst. Idea. Ever.
too late!
Dude! I'm not wasting your time. Nobody held a gun to your head and forced you to spend any time responding to me. You're the one that is fixated on a stupid detail in a fictional show.
You're not even listening to my arguments either, you're just trying to bait me into responding (I guess it worked) and show the world how smart you are. You haven't fooled me. If you don't want to waste any time enlightening me, I can go on living in ignorant bliss with my dimestore degree. All you have to do is do the world a favor and shut up.
Nonsense! Most moons in our Solar system are not pure water. Europa, I grant you is water, and Saturn's ring particles are mostly ice, but pretty much everything else it barren rock with maybe some water ice.
Again, nonsense. What research are you basing this assertion on? I am aware that there is a lot of water in intersteller space (along with really cool things like H2O masers), but as I stated before, the density makes it impractical to collect in large quantities.
But none of this matters! Let's take a different angle on this. Our planet has an extremely high concentration of water. And yet... our literature is filled with stories -- some good, some not so good -- where the plot revolves around people...living on the Earth...with all that water...being threatened because they cannot get water.
But there are mitigating circumstances! I hear you saying. They are in a desert, they are on the ocean and cannot drink salt water. The available water is undrinkable. etc. etc. True! But that's the point. Even in places that have lots of water, there are places that have none, or have water that cannot be used by humans. Why, in light of the fact that we'ere talking about a fictional series, is is so difficult to accept a story based on the premise that a particular set of spaceships are in an area of the universe that has very little water?
Look, I'm trained as an astronomer. I'm highly scientifically literate compared with most of the population. I think most science fiction is crap (especially the old Battlestar Galactica). 99.9% of it (including the new BSG series) is filled with stuff that doesn't pass the scientific laugh test. But I like the new Battlestar Galactica and I liked that episode. Why? Because it was a compelling story with some interesting characters. That is the only reason to like any story, as far as I'm concerned. That fact that you would reject an entire, highly worthy series based on one stupid little detail in one episode is unfathomable to me.
I'm going to have to call you on this. Even the driest desert on this planet is many orders of magnitude wetter than space. While it is true that water is found everywhere in the universe, it's exceedingly sparse. Even molecular clouds, which are considered dense by the standards of interstellar space have densities that are lower than those produced in your average vaccuum chamber.
If you have to extract water by collecting the few molecules that drift by, it'd take you a few years to fill a thimble. Your best bet would be to look for planets. But planets are exceeding the sparse in the universe as well. In short, it is not inconceivable that it would be difficult to find water; I certainly wouldn't call it pseudoscience.
We're talking about a series that asks you to suspend your belief in, among other things, the existance of faster than light travel though space and sentient machines that can (apparently) breed with humans. Under these conditions, it seems kind of ridiculous to call a storyline based on a search for water pseudoscience.
Another point. At the end of episode 3, Jedi are considered enemies of the republic. Thus brandishing the weapon of a Jedi would likely have been a punishable offence or at least something that would draw unwanted attention to the person wielding it.
Gees! It must of killed him to be limited to so few words.
I really feel for those attendees in the first few rows of the auditorium who much have been absolutely drenched with flop sweat by the end of the night.
I always thought that the most inspired thing about the old series (horrid as it was) was how they invented swear words that were almost like real swear words (fraq -> fuck and they had another one for shit, I forget). This allows them to have realistic dialog (people, especially military people in combat situations, *do* swear! Shocking, that) without running afoul of the FCC or whomever.
I'm glad to see the new series carries this practice forward.
Yeah, I'm sure that'll make her laugh as she rides her golden parachute into her next high paying gig.
I wondered: Bob Dylan or Dylan Thomas? Do I need to get out more?
Maybe this is hopelessly lame in light of how much life was lost, but I have to admit, the first time I heard about a tsunami hitting Sri Lanka, my first thought was, "I wonder if Arthur Clarke is ok?"
It may be only a tiny minority, but the key point is that it is a minority that has the ear of the powers that be. Without that, they'd be just another ignored group.
Well put!
I would only add that getting a job is (and always has been) more about *who* you know that what you know or where you went to school. If the person interviewing you doesn't know you (either personally or by reputation), it's almost impossible for you to fit the qualifications in a job description. If that person does know you, and is positively inclined towards you, your qualifications almost don't matter.
If you're looking for a job and you aren't spending at least twice as much time meeting people as you are upgrading your skills, you will not succeed.
Who needs peer review when you have Slashdot?
Thanks for the links!
Does anyone else find it interesting that of the 162 deepest caves listed, none are in the continental US or Canada? I could have missed one, but I saw a bunch in Mexico and one in Hawaii, and none up here. Is there a geological reason for this or is it just a coincidence?
Education is something you take, not something that is given to you. Unless and until you, personally, realize that, you have no hope of being educated regardless of what school you go to or how much money is spent on your behalf.
Well, I'll tell you one thing that's changed. 10 years ago, your chances have having this many people read your meandering ravings (much less moderate it as insightful) were hovering somewhere around zero. Whether or not that is progress I will leave as an exercise to the many readers of this response.
Hee hee! Thanks for leading me on an enjoyable Google-quest with that one!
I don't think these people are trying to "earn respect" or "demonstrate skills." I think they are trying to shut down specific web sites.
Note that I'm condoning this behavior, I just don't think this sort of insult has any sort of mitigating effect.
Minor (off-topic) point here. You're conflating the right to gun ownership with the right to regulate said ownership. A government could theoretically allow its citizens gun ownership rights that are regulated...or car ownership rights or fishing rights or even copy rights (to bring this back on subject).
The point of the matter is, as always, how does the government balance the rights of individuals with the broader needs of society. The problem with the copyrights wars is that this balance has been thrown off by those folks that have traditionally held all the keys and don't like the fact that people are picking the locks.
We know the missing matter is there because we can verify it. One example of how we know is that we can measure the rotational velocity distribution of a spiral galaxy as a function of radius from the center. We can also measure the luminosity distribution. Given the latter, and the fact that we have a pretty good understanding about how stellar luminosity relates to stellar mass, we expect the velocity distribution to vary in a predictable way according to gravitational laws. This comparison indicates that there is a lot of mass in galaxies that doesn't produce any luminosity.
This is a case where independent measurements don't produce consistent results, not of a theoretical model failing to match up with measurements.
I can accept the idea that religion is the only possible outlet for absolute truth, but when that truth is always subject to human interpretation (through the imperfect vehicle of human language), how are we any better off? Is your absolute revealed truth the same as my absolute revealed truth? How can we possibly know?
I'm perfectly comfortable with the idea that I'm "doomed," as you say to interpret the universe as a set of self-consistent theories because there is always a mechanism by which those theories can be revised and extended. That's what Kuhn was talking about and that's how the scientific process works.
Hmmm...the Bible is not a textbook? You mean we aren't supposed to take everything in it literally? Imagine that!
I think you just stumbled on my point.