A PhD physicist invented the Alcubierre Drive, and physicists at NASA are now working on this warp drive concept, but a couple of armchair physicists on Slashdot think they know physics better than the experts.
Why should physics be different than any other topic?
No, the lie of out of africa is this: We were 100% human when we left africa, any differences that evolved separately since we left are superficial, like skin color.
The truth is that we left africa long before we were 'human'. Chinese evolved the way they are because they evolved from a pre-human creature which left africa and bred with the Denisovans which had already been evolving in Asia for a long time.
Again, the whole point is moot without a more specific definition of "human." No two humans have identical DNA (even identical twins probably have a mutation here or there). So it is a matter of degree. Although, by the most standard I can think of - "able to mate with people currently living" - I'd be willing to bet you're completely wrong.
I started to reply to his longer screed above, until I got to the conspiracy theory that "they" are trying to extinguish the "European race". He's either a troll or a more-than-usually paranoid nutter.
but could not, IMO explain how the different human populations evolved to physically adapt to their environments so quickly.
Evolution of the (mostly) superficial adaptations that distinguish human populations happens faster than might seem intuitive.
As a general rule, human populations evolve a skin color appropriate to their latitude. We can date some migrations as far back as the neolithic period, and when you look at those populations and their current skin color you come up with maybe only a few thousand years for full adaptation.
Ah, nah, what was I thinking. Whether someone produces future scientists or students who know science, doesn't matter one bit. Let's continue to fetishize publication, and the system of duchies it rests on!
Skill at teaching and skill at researching may not be correlated. And if not, someone who is very good at research should spend their time on discovery, and let someone else do the teaching.
The summary is pretty inaccurate. The h-index was proposed by Jorge Hirsch, not Jorge Hurst. Rather than give a vague description, why not simply provide an exact definition? The h-index of a scientist is the largest number h, such that he/she has at least h papers each of which have received h or more [citations]. This is easier to understand if you look at the picture in the Wikipedia entry for h-index.
Made a minor clarification to your definition [in brackets].
IMO the definition should be modified to exclude self-citations. Scientists like to cite their earlier work (and should, if it is on the same topic), but the h-index as currently defined temps spamming your papers with self-cites just to drive your index up.
If anyone is interested, if you can find an author's profile on Google Scholar it will show their h-index, plus a modified h-index that only counts citations in the past five years. It will also list all their papers, the number of cites for each, and if you click, you can see the actual papers that have the cites.
The Republican's voting base tends to be the better off, those not looking for handouts from the government and generally wanting less government, not more. They tend to understand that they actually have to pay for anything that the "government" gives them, and passing that money through several greedy hands in Washington before getting some of it back isn't very efficient.
I'm on the side of science here, but c'mon--asking for lists of technologies is pretty blatantly begging the question/stacking the deck.
I'm not keen on the notion that the purpose of science -- or religion -- is to produce technology. Yet my suggestion seems to have a bearing on which gives us a better understanding of reality.
Its remarkable how many people criticizing this study have concluded the authors are socialists. How do you know? What is your evidence?
Clearly, anyone who disagrees with me is just making stuff up to support their evil agenda, and like the Bible says, "socialism is the root of all evil".
YET I do not support government-funded science. In fact, I don't believe in government at all. (I am "athiest" with respect to political power, if you will.) Therefore I am fully in favor of free-market economics -- REAL capitalism, not the crony capitalism which passes for capitalism today. The kind of capitalism that has never truly existed on this planet.
So move to Somalia, and let us know how it works out.
Continuing to deny the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is futile.
Oh, I know that He once existed. But one evening I came home from work really tired, and inadvertently put Him in the microwave. Now He no longer exists.
The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.
Although it sounds like a good soundbite, it is meaningless, as any religious person could say the same about God.
Quite so.
As a more pragmatic approach you could make and compare two lists: one of all the technologies that are based on the findings of science, and another of all the technologies that are based on divine revelation.
How so? The age of the universe was 13.7 billion years in 2006, now its 14.6 billion years old. According to science, the universe has aged 900 million years in just six years.
Details of your statement aside, you have inadvertently alighted on the fundamental difference between science and religion: when new evidence comes in, science is obligated to change their theories to account for it, whereas religion is obligated to deny the evidence in order to preserve their beliefs.
Or we could, you know, present both possibilities and let people decide from themselves instead of trying to force one theory or the other down someone's throat. I'd imagine, when presented with the facts, most people would look to science for the answer in this debate, but I don't see the need to force one argument or the other.
So, schools should teach children *everything* we know not to be true, and let them decide for themselves which to believe?
Or only teach them the science plus one powerful group's religious beliefs?
Or, heaven forbid (no pun), we could just teach them the science and leave *everyone's* mythology out of it.
It was a Catholic priest, Georges Lemaître, that most pushed for the big ban theory, which was advanced science in that day. It was the atheists that were anti-science then, with their now-debunked "Static" theory.
Actually, until 80-90 years ago no one knew that there was anything in the universe beyond our galaxy. (Hubble was the first to show the distances to objects outside our galaxy, before he showed that they were receding; Einstein's "big mistake" was made before we understood the basic nature of the universe.) Lemaître was the first to grok the implications of of an expanding universe. Religionists like to claim that scientists booed him down as a creationist, but the only scientist I have found that did that was Hoyle, who I suspect was just slinging mud in hope of defending his pet continuous-creation theory. (Which, IIRC, he was still clinging to 20 years after the big bang was obvious to everyone else.)
Slashdot Mirror
A PhD physicist invented the Alcubierre Drive, and physicists at NASA are now working on this warp drive concept, but a couple of armchair physicists on Slashdot think they know physics better than the experts.
Why should physics be different than any other topic?
If you get get to Alpha Centauri by stuffing yourself in your ass, it will still allow backwards time travel.
Ah, but if you've stuffed yourself into your own ass, travelling backward will still be going forward.
In other words, the currently accepted laws of physics indicate that you need to break the laws of physics to make the drive work.
Ah, I was wondering what the summary meant by "less impossible".
Again, the whole point is moot without a more specific definition of "human." No two humans have identical DNA (even identical twins probably have a mutation here or there). So it is a matter of degree. Although, by the most standard I can think of - "able to mate with people currently living" - I'd be willing to bet you're completely wrong.
I started to reply to his longer screed above, until I got to the conspiracy theory that "they" are trying to extinguish the "European race". He's either a troll or a more-than-usually paranoid nutter.
Does anyone actually doubt the very fact that higher primates evolved in Africa? If not, then the headline is an attempt at being sensational.
IIRC there was recently some noise about some of the apes evolving outside Africa. Presumably because their ancestors migrated out earlier.
but could not, IMO explain how the different human populations evolved to physically adapt to their environments so quickly.
Evolution of the (mostly) superficial adaptations that distinguish human populations happens faster than might seem intuitive.
As a general rule, human populations evolve a skin color appropriate to their latitude. We can date some migrations as far back as the neolithic period, and when you look at those populations and their current skin color you come up with maybe only a few thousand years for full adaptation.
Ah, nah, what was I thinking. Whether someone produces future scientists or students who know science, doesn't matter one bit. Let's continue to fetishize publication, and the system of duchies it rests on!
Skill at teaching and skill at researching may not be correlated. And if not, someone who is very good at research should spend their time on discovery, and let someone else do the teaching.
IMO the definition should be modified to exclude self-citations.
Also it doesn't consider the quality of the venue you publish in. There are journals out there that will publish *anything*.
The summary is pretty inaccurate. The h-index was proposed by Jorge Hirsch, not Jorge Hurst. Rather than give a vague description, why not simply provide an exact definition? The h-index of a scientist is the largest number h, such that he/she has at least h papers each of which have received h or more [citations]. This is easier to understand if you look at the picture in the Wikipedia entry for h-index.
Made a minor clarification to your definition [in brackets].
IMO the definition should be modified to exclude self-citations. Scientists like to cite their earlier work (and should, if it is on the same topic), but the h-index as currently defined temps spamming your papers with self-cites just to drive your index up.
If anyone is interested, if you can find an author's profile on Google Scholar it will show their h-index, plus a modified h-index that only counts citations in the past five years. It will also list all their papers, the number of cites for each, and if you click, you can see the actual papers that have the cites.
For example, a certain Jorge G. Hirsch, presumably the proposer of the index, can be seen at http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=R5VYyU8AAAAJ&hl=en
Not every author sets up a profile, in which case all the information isn't automagically gathered up for you.
The Republican's voting base tends to be the better off, those not looking for handouts from the government and generally wanting less government, not more. They tend to understand that they actually have to pay for anything that the "government" gives them, and passing that money through several greedy hands in Washington before getting some of it back isn't very efficient.
LMAO.
Oh, wait - you were serious?
The Great Society programs are, quite literally, bankrupting our country.
Got any evidence for that?
Better question would be, if we tasked NASA to design public housing projects for poor people, what would the result be?
Ghettos on the moon?
If that doesn't dispel the global warming myth, nothing will!
I'm on the side of science here, but c'mon--asking for lists of technologies is pretty blatantly begging the question/stacking the deck.
I'm not keen on the notion that the purpose of science -- or religion -- is to produce technology. Yet my suggestion seems to have a bearing on which gives us a better understanding of reality.
The conspiracy theorists, of course, have been quick to spin counter-theories about this work.
Let me guess: It's a conspiracy?
Its remarkable how many people criticizing this study have concluded the authors are socialists. How do you know? What is your evidence?
Clearly, anyone who disagrees with me is just making stuff up to support their evil agenda, and like the Bible says, "socialism is the root of all evil".
But the "why it's happening" is not science, it's conjecture
Right. Because the physics of greenhouse gasses is just a political scam made up by a clique of liberal chemists and physicists 150-200 years ago.
YET I do not support government-funded science. In fact, I don't believe in government at all. (I am "athiest" with respect to political power, if you will.) Therefore I am fully in favor of free-market economics -- REAL capitalism, not the crony capitalism which passes for capitalism today. The kind of capitalism that has never truly existed on this planet.
So move to Somalia, and let us know how it works out.
err there were 5 seasons of Gene Roddenberry's Andromeda (but you can skip all but the last episode of the fifth)
I tried to watch it, but couldn't stick it out very long. One episode I literally couldn't understand what was supposed to be going on.
"any explanation except the actual one."
Continuing to deny the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is futile.
Oh, I know that He once existed. But one evening I came home from work really tired, and inadvertently put Him in the microwave. Now He no longer exists.
But like all gods, He was good.
The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.
Although it sounds like a good soundbite, it is meaningless, as any religious person could say the same about God.
Quite so.
As a more pragmatic approach you could make and compare two lists: one of all the technologies that are based on the findings of science, and another of all the technologies that are based on divine revelation.
sources ?
I think you just asked for a goatse link.
How so? The age of the universe was 13.7 billion years in 2006, now its 14.6 billion years old.
According to science, the universe has aged 900 million years in just six years.
Details of your statement aside, you have inadvertently alighted on the fundamental difference between science and religion: when new evidence comes in, science is obligated to change their theories to account for it, whereas religion is obligated to deny the evidence in order to preserve their beliefs.
Or we could, you know, present both possibilities and let people decide from themselves instead of trying to force one theory or the other down someone's throat. I'd imagine, when presented with the facts, most people would look to science for the answer in this debate, but I don't see the need to force one argument or the other.
So, schools should teach children *everything* we know not to be true, and let them decide for themselves which to believe?
Or only teach them the science plus one powerful group's religious beliefs?
Or, heaven forbid (no pun), we could just teach them the science and leave *everyone's* mythology out of it.
It was a Catholic priest, Georges Lemaître, that most pushed for the big ban theory, which was advanced science in that day. It was the atheists that were anti-science then, with their now-debunked "Static" theory.
Actually, until 80-90 years ago no one knew that there was anything in the universe beyond our galaxy. (Hubble was the first to show the distances to objects outside our galaxy, before he showed that they were receding; Einstein's "big mistake" was made before we understood the basic nature of the universe.) Lemaître was the first to grok the implications of of an expanding universe. Religionists like to claim that scientists booed him down as a creationist, but the only scientist I have found that did that was Hoyle, who I suspect was just slinging mud in hope of defending his pet continuous-creation theory. (Which, IIRC, he was still clinging to 20 years after the big bang was obvious to everyone else.)