Technically there’s no reason they can’t. However it may costly to add a feature that few people would use onto their SoCs. It is easier not to pursue this market.
I suspect that the OP didn’t know that Captain Marvel is a female role as the title has been passed to multiple characters from what I know. I suppose the poster may have been equally vocal about Green Lantern or Spider-Man being African American too.
You could say that about Guardians of the Galaxy as they were not exactly popular for me. The problem for Marvel is the way the storyline is set up, they need an overpowered character can beat Thanos and there are few of them. Phoenix is one of them but rights are with another studio. They hinted at Adam Warlock in Guardians 2. There were talks of Squirrel Girl as a movie but I don’t know that is in development.
From what I remember about Ghostbusters, there was a lot of intense online hate for the film much of which was focused it was a mostly female cast. For me the movie was mediocre. It wasn’t as good as the original but better than the sequel. Reading some of the user reviews, some people made it seem like it destroyed their childhoods because it had a female cast.
Yes but what data needs to be encrypted? In this use case, most pagers at best send short messages like phone numbers or text like “Call ER”. I suppose patient information could be sent but rarely do hospitals do that preferring for voice communication because a conversation is far more effective.
There were so many issues I forgot two very important ones:
The AIO cooler has a pre-applied thermal pad to contact with the CPU. He says it's not enough and recommends adding thermal paste. While using thermal paste isn't necessary, he doesn't mention that you need remove the pad with isopropyl alcohol if you want to use paste instead of the pad. Otherwise the pad and paste together may not properly contact and conduct heat away from the CPU.
He adds a crapload of thermal paste terribly. He doesn't use a pea or a line or even an "X" pattern. Bitwit's Lyle hilariously said "It rook rike a Jackson Pollock painting." That much paste could flow into the socket and short the MB and/or CPU.
I have a feeling that someone at the Verge fixed the issues because I can't see how the computer would boot. None of these fixes were noted or shown on the video which is bad for build video.
Most of the inaccuracies you mentioned aren't problematic to making a computer work except for #18 which is dangerous and could cause the PSU to wear out faster at best and at worst cause a fire. Here are the other things in the video which are way more problematic:
Installs memory in adjoining slots (3 and 4) instead of 1 and 3 or 2 and 4 (what is allowed varies by motherboard) which means it's single channel not dual channel. Also the MB may not refuse to POST if this happens.
Screws in the M.2 SSD directly onto the board without using the MB standoff.
Regarding #20 he never mentions that you need install the back plate of the CPU cooler to the MB which is a very important missed detail.
Regarding #20, he doesn't show that he attached fans to the radiator. The final build has them attached but he doesn't show the steps. Anyone following the video exactly would not know to attach fans to the radiator.
Regarding #20, he uses long screws to directly mount the radiator to the case and screws them all the way in. The long screws are meant to go through the fans first then the radiator. Some radiators are not designed for long screws to go in all the way and could puncture holes in the radiator.
He never shows attaching any fans/AIO pump cables to the board. For some boards, which pin on the board is used is important as one is the CPU cooler and others are case fans.
On the other issue of cabling, he doesn't show attaching the EPS power cable or the Video Card power cable to the PS. He briefly just mentions 24-pin power supply and "anything else".
He never attaches any of the I/O front panel cables. Front panel the sound, USB, and LED cables may not be vital but at a minimum, the power switch is required.
1) It took $13.25B to find the Higgs Boson not including the cost to build CERN.
2) My inability to smash particles to independently find the Higgs boson means I have to trust the consensus of scientists that it was found.
But you keep on referring to the words as though they're mine. Why would you do that if you understand they're a quote? It's just... stupid.
I never said that. I said : "I'm generally confused and baffled as to why you are refusing to answer a simple question and are trying to hide behind a mountain of text written by someone else"
And why would you assert that text written by one of the world's pre-eminent paleontologists on the subject of the scope of experimentation in paleontology is irrelevant to a discussion about the scope of experimentation in paleontology? Again, it's just... stupid.
Again I said: " I'm generally confused and baffled as to why you are refusing to answer a simple question and are trying to hide behind a mountain of text written by someone else that has nothing to do with your assertion". It doesn't matter what Stephen Jay Gould said as what you quoted has nothing to do with your assertion. You're both introducing a red herring while appealing to authority. These are both logical fallacies.
Your question assumes mal-intent and stupidity on both mine and your part. I'm neither of those things and you are surely better than that. Can't you deal with a mild rhetorical flourish?
Ah there it is. So now you're saying that it was "rhetorical flourish" when you said: "Repeatability is not achievable for some branches of science where experiments can't be run. Paleontology, for example." Instead of saying that it was a "rhetorical flourish" right away when asked directly and repeatedly what you meant, you launched into a long and failed attempt to dodge the question. How was what you said intended to be rhetorical or a flourish? The statement itself lends itself to no other interpretation. It's not an idiom or metaphor but a statement. I can only conclude that "rhetorical flourish" is just another dodge as your attempts to explain yourself failed.
You have to assume both mal-intent and stupidity to read my assertion that "Repeatability is not achievable for some branches of science where experiments can't be run" means that I don't understand you can carbon-date bones etc.
I asked you repeatedly what you meant and you failed to give this exact answer. Repeatedly. What can someone assume when you don't answer a simple question? Either you were trying to dodge the question or you didn't know what you were talking about and wanted to cover it up. I will have to assume it is the latter because of this part of the statement: "you can carbon-date bones etc.". Paleontology rarely involves carbon-dating bones. Anyone with a bare understanding of the science would know this.
I'm not intending to mislead you and I'm not being stupid. I'm getting at the subtle truth that you cannot experimentally test whether the dinosaurs died out due to a massive meteorite hitting the earth.
And you could have provided this answer this but you didn't. Repeatedly. But let's address this point. Again. We can't know at the present time that Bob the Plesiosaur died instantly or later on that day. But we do know that plesiosaurs disappear from the fossil record after the K-T boundary. And you can experimentally test this whether dinosaurs died due to massive meteor. And the test has been done: Date all the dinosaurs. Date the K-T boundary. Do any dinosaurs survive past the K-T boundary? No. The most likely explanation is the meteorite.
You can run experiments that help you gather evidence that allow you to make more accurate inferences, but you can't re-run the event or anything approaching a model of it, because it's happened and it was wildly complex.
If we follow your logic, many, many sciences cannot function or exist. For example (as I stated earlier), anyone studying the Sun is at the sheer disadvantage that it cannot be recreated. From the s
Um. Did you miss the point when I said i was quoting Wonderful Life, by Stephen Jay Gould? Or rather, how could you miss this? It was right there in my opening sentence!
No. I am calling you out on your inability to answer a simple question and referring to long-winded diatribe that has nothing to do with your assertion. You said that Paleontology doesn't run experiments when that isn't remotely true.
You are aware of who Stephen Jay Gould is, right? If you think a Slashdot quote-by-quote rebuttal is an adequate response to one of the most significant paleontologists of the 20th century, and among the top popular science writers on evolution of all time, you probably need to (a) learn a little humility and (b) think again
Everything you said is basically irrelevant to your point. This has nothing to do with your inability to answer the question which you are trying to dodge: What do you mean when you said Paleontology doesn't conduct experiments when we know that they occur.
Seriously, stop getting (apparently indignant and (apparently) worked up and (apparently) thinking you know better, and go read about who Stephen Jay Gould was, and then go read Wonderful Life, and then let's have a conversation again. It's a better use of your time than dreaming up more reasons why Gould was wrong and you were right.
I'm not indignant. I'm generally confused and baffled as to why you are refusing to answer a simple question and are trying to hide behind a mountain of text written by someone else that has nothing to do with your assertion. I could start inserting parts of Stephen Hawking's A Brief History of Time but that would be irrelevant.
Some of them can be bought and will push whatever agenda you want them to push. Now how do you tell the difference between 'scientist' and scientist? Stop spreading this myth than 'scientists' can't lie - the world is not that simple.
Ah yes, "they can be bought" fallacy. Who are these scientists? Are they all American? No. Do they all spend US dollars? No. So to counter the fact that scientists from many different countries and different economies generally agree that climate change is happening, you are insinuating a massive worldwide conspiracy where they were all "bought" despite the fact that these scientists represent opposing countries and cultures. They also represent different fields of study from biology to geology. Also despite the fact that you can access the research yourself and find mistakes, they've all agreed not to tattle on each other. How silly does your conspiracy seem?
My google fu is a bit weak right now, but apparently, I was wrong about which group stated it. It was the French Academy of Sciences, not the Royal Astronomical Society. Same idea.
https://www.newscientist.com/a... [newscientist.com]
So let me get this straight: You're citing the fact that hundreds of years ago (1794), when man didn't know where meteorites because there was no decent evidence for it is exactly why you should dismiss climate change even though there is evidence for it.
Many scientists agree that Dark Matter exists. Dark Matter is merely the result of torturing a misunderstanding beyond reason. It does not actually exist in any way, shape, or form.
Incorrect. Many scientists agree that something exists which we can't fully explain. For now they are calling it Dark Matter. For now they do not have a complete knowledge on its properties in the same way that scientists didn't know all the properties of all the sub-atomic particles that exist; that doesn't mean that sub-atomic particles never existed.
There are very few things that I believe, but I take it as a matter of faith that General Relativity is as close to real Truth as humans have found. Dark Matter is not predicted by General Relativity.
No and there are many things that General Relativity cannot explain. What happens inside a black hole for example. General Relativity is also completely inadequate when it comes to particle physics. Do you dismiss both because General Relativity cannot explain them.
Now, what if gravity doesn't bend spacetime, rather gravity is a consequence of the shape of spacetime?
No, mass bends space-time. Gravity is the force we describe that process.
All the same equations describe the situation, but now, gravity is no longer a fundamental force. This can be described quite nicely in a primitive two dimensional manner: Any change in the rate of time flow will result in an acceleration towards the lower change in rate.
In what way does the many, many tensor equations of General Relativity not have gravity as a fundamental force?
It is actually much more subtle than that, but General Relativity continues working just fine. Gravity is just an illusion... but I would not recommend stepping off of a cliff. Your body will still be accelerated as would be expected if gravity were not an illusion.
Again, General Relativity does not explain what happens inside a black hole. Science has long known that.
Dark Matter and Gravity are illusions based on our limited understanding of the actual shape and nature of spacetime.
Again, how does that contradict my point? Dark Matter information is acknowledged to be something we don't know. Climate change is the opposite in that there is lots of evidence from many scientists affirming that it is 1) happening and 2) caused by man.
It's too long to get into on Slashdot, but pp277 onwards in Wonderful Life are the right starting point. A brief quote:
It gets "too long" and then you start your extremely long and tortured answer to a simple question.
"We talk about the 'scientific method,' and instruct schoolchildren in this supposedly monolithic and maximally effective path to natural knowledge, as if a single formula could unlock all the multifarious secrets of empirical reality.
Who has ever said this? Scientific method has never been about "maximally effective" or "single formula". That's your incorrect opinion. Specifically the scientific method details the process of how to conduct science with some basic principles like hypotheses must be falsifiable.
"...the 'scientific method' involves a set of concepts and procedures tailored to the image of a man in a white coat twirling dials in a laboratory--experiment, quantification, repetition...
What? This borders on a lack of reality of what you think science is. The scientific method does not involve white coats. In the exact subject area of Paleontology, I would say most of the time scientists are not in white coats. Those are often relegated to fields like chemistry, biology, etc.
These procedures are powerful, but they do not encompass all of nature's variety.
What? No one has ever said that the scientific method encompasses "all of nature's variety." No one. It has nothing to do with that at all. What does that even mean? The procedures are a guidelines of how to do scientific work in the same way that OSHA guidelines exist on how to do work safely. OSHA guidelines does not state that they are the most efficient.
How should scientists operate when they must try to explain the results of history, those inordinately complex events that can occur but once in detailed glory?
What does this even mean? Scientists explain things based on evidence. If there is no evidence then they cannot explain something; however, without evidence then anything about a complex event is pure conjecture. Is this the weak "were you there?" dodge.
Many large domains of nature--cosmology, geology and evolution among them--must be studied with the tools of history. The appropriate methods focus on narrative, not experiment as usually conceived...
What the hell does this mean? All three of these fields conduct live, real time experiments today. They also study the past but also experiment on the future. For example, studying the sun has enhanced the Standard Model specifically when it comes to nuclear fusion. Nuclear fusion helps understand how distant star operate. And so on.
"...The techniques of controlled experiment, and reduction of natural complexity to a minimal set of general causes, presupposes that all times can be treated alike and simulated in a laboratory.
No. No one has ever presupposed this. There are some experiments that can be run in labs in some fields. There are some parts that cannot be. For example, we cannot create a Sun for study. We can create shorts bursts of nuclear fusion for study in a lab but we cannot recreate the Sun. That doesn't mean that what we know about nuclear fusion in the Sun is incorrect.
Cambrian quartz is like modern quartz--tetrahedra of silica and oxygen bound together at all corners. Determine the properties of modern quartz under controlled conditions in a laboratory, and you can interpret the beach sands of the Cambrian Potsdam Sandstone.
Quartz is quartz. The Cambrian Potsdam Sandstone is composed of quartz. What does this have to do with anything?
"But supposing you want to know why dinosaurs died, or why mollusks flourished while Wiwaxia perished? The laboratory is not irrelevant, and may yield important insights by analogy.
Wrong. The theory is only deemed "correct" if the results of experimentation align with the original hypothesis, not because a bunch of like-minded scientists agree with each other. That's called groupthink.
And who agrees that the results of the experiments align with the original hypothesis? Musicians, plumbers, hair dressers? Scientists specifically those that understand the science. You've just destroyed your own point.
So-called "visionaries" have political backing. Evidence gets ignored in favor of politics all the time on any number of topics, let alone science
Citation Needed
Darwin was a visionary, but wasn't widely recognized as such for many years.
No. When Darwin proposed evolution by natural selection he had some evidence. It wasn't overwhelming. It would decades of more evidence before his ideas on evolution were accepted as the prevailing theory. In the case of AGW it's been 50 years of research covering hundreds of thousands of years of evidence.
I'm talking about you personally. Unless you are a climate scientist with the necessary math background, you don't really know if AGW is true or false. Even then, can you really rely on the underlying data you've been given to work with? Instead, you rely on who you consider authorities on the matter to inform your opinion.
Why do I have to prove or disprove your assertions? Why don't you present evidence that the scientists are wrong? I suspect it's that you can't. Then what happens is you require ever more complex and extraordinary amounts of evidence because you "don't believe."
Just "trust me" from politicians and their scientists they fund through government isn't going to cut it with something that requires a "solution" as invasive and expensive as has been proposed. I don't know about you, but I don't just believe what I'm told just because the "authorities" told me. Especially something wrapped so tightly with politics. It stinks and many of us aren't buying it.
That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying just because you don't understand doesn't mean that no one understands. There are literally hundreds of scientists that understand this specific subject. You are not among them yet you feel your lack of understanding should supersede everyone else. It's the equivalent of me saying that I don't understand nuclear fusion therefore it can't possible exist.
Trump's the "authority" now. Do you believe everything he says?
In what world has the President' of the United States ever been an authority in the matters of science?
Of course. However, don't expect skeptics to be swayed through politics when pro-AGW people claim science proves AGW exists. Scientists need to make their case, if the sky is truly falling. Many of us just don't see it. Battering skeptics as deniers isn't going to do it. You don't need to be a politician or a scientist to understand that, yet few on the left do.
Um. They claim their results because they've published their results. There are hundreds of papers that you can read. You can replicate the experiments. You can look at the data. Yet your whole argument boils down to "I don't believe" even though it appears you haven't read any of them.
We were supposed to be headed toward an ice age according to "scientists" in the 70s, and according to Al Gore, New York should be underwater now. There are many more, but these are some of the more popular high-profile false predictions by so-called scientists and leaders.
Who made theses predictions? Please cite your work. I find that most of the time, claims are made by journalists not scientists themselves.
It wasn't that long ago that scientists assured us there was no way we could have evolved from apes.
The obvious one about the Royal Astronomical Society coming to the conclusion that ROCKS DO NOT FALL FROM THE SKY and therefore, anyone who reports finding a meteorite is lying.
Citation Needed
So yeah, Dark Matter contradicts your point. What is worse is that many younger physicists think that Dark Matter isn't just a placeholder for things we don't know, they think it is an actual thing.:)
How does it contradict my point? My reading of your comments is that you don’t understand what scientists are talking about when it comes to Dark Matter. And scientists are not fully sure of what Dark Matter is, but they are unequivocally stating that they don’t know. When it comes to climate change, they are sure which is a different scenario.
I don’t see Dark Matter as any different than black hole physics in this regard. General relativity predicts the existence and creation of black holes. For decades now, there is no decent explanation or model of what happens inside black hole. There are competing ideas like quantum gravity but no one has been able to bring forth a verifiable model yet. That doesn’t mean General Relativity is wrong.
Yes, if you have too much water too fast, you can die of hyponatremia. Another example of this flawed logic. Crude oil is naturally occurring so the Exxon Valdez incident wasn’t industrial pollution according to the OP.
If it’s not a pollutant then it’s okay to pump the room you are in full of CO2 right? I think the lie that people propagate is that CO2 is naturally occurring therefore it can’t be a pollutant. These two are not mutually exclusive properties.
Any scientist who proposes a hypothesis that goes against the prevailing ides without evidence is ignored. If they are loud and insistent but still have no evidence, then they are shunned.
What happens to those scientists that have evidence for ground breaking ideas that go against established scientific principles? Accolades, reknown, and sometimes a Nobel prize. See Raymond Davis Jr who devised a way to measure solar neutrinos that were created by the Sun’s nuclear fusion. His results showed that there something fundamental wrong with the Standard Model when it came to neutrinos.
Was he shunned? Was he obstracized? No. Other scientists were skeptical as they should be until his results were verified by Mataoshi Koshiba. For their work, they got 1/2 of the 2002
Nobel Prize in Physics.
In science, that's called a theory until proven. AGW is unproven.
There’s multiple things wrong with your statement. An idea is a hypothesis until consensus deems it to be correct. A theory is a set of accepted (by consensus) hypothesis. There also isn’t really “proven” as science isn’t math and there are no “proofs”. Evidence is found for or against hypotheses.
The disagreement over AGW is more fundamental. While pro-AGW scientists may argue about whether a hyphen should be used, anti-AGW scientists argue a hyphen doesn't exist in the alphabet or that pro-AGW scientists fail to recognize extra characters in the alphabet that should be used or considered (metaphorically).
As for pro-AGW vs anti-AGW, the anti-AGW is a very, very tiny minority. The vast majority of those who know and understand the science are pro. They aren’t arguing over a hyphen. They aren’t arguing whether it is true. They’ve moved on as arguing whether it is true is like arguing whether gravity exists.
Not to mention, it's career suicide for a scientist to come out against AGW in any way at this point. Wouldn't want to be a homeless denier, would they?
Do you know what scientists call other scientists that come up with ground-breaking science that changes the fundamentals of their field? Visionaries and most of the time, Nobel prize winners. The difference between them and deniers is that visionaries have evidence.
Unless you can verify the work of pro-AGW scientists, you could be swallowing a giant lie as well. The burden is on those claiming the sky is falling, not those who present evidence to the contrary.
Me personally or scientists? You understand that’s why scientists publish right? Here’s a fatal flaw to this logic. Just because you can’t understand the science or how to validate it, doesn’t mean it wasn’t validated by people who can understand.
It would go a long way if the pro-AGW crowd divorced the movement from politics and found a way to explain AGW in a way that is verifiable by your lay man. It would also help if the pro-AGW scientists could make some short-term predictions that accurately come true. The track record of predictions to this point isn't very good. The methodology for collecting and manipulating data (especially temperature data) is also a big problem for anti-AGW folks and needs to be standardized in an unbiased way that removes the questions and uncertainty about the data.
You do understand that it isn’t in the realm of science to change the behavior of people and society right? As for the secon part of your post, have you looked at the data because it doesn’t seem that you have.
Otherwise, expect those with a critical eye toward science and politics to dismiss AGW as yet another issue created by politicians for their own gain. Like any political issue, it will have its loyal followers and those who disagree.
Um didn’t you just post that the vast majority of scientists are pro-AGW. That alone makes this sentence nonsense.
Really? Is Pluto a planet? How do we know the Higgs boson exists if we can’t all build CERN sized reactors? How are scienitific papers checked? Consensus. Science isn’t as subjective the same way popular opinion is subjective but there is consensus.
If there’s no consensus then what happens is you have your version of the truth and someone else has their version. For example Newton and Einstein were both right about gravity. Einstein’s version accommodates relativity whereas Newton does not.
Also your assertion is somehow 97% of the people who know, study, and understand a subject will gladly accept a lie. Have you met scientists? These are
some of the most anal-retentitive people in the world. They will argue endlessly about whether a hyphen sound belong in the name of a newly discovered thing. Yet according to you, they’ll gladly swallow a lie that everyone is propagating.
Slashdot Mirror
Technically there’s no reason they can’t. However it may costly to add a feature that few people would use onto their SoCs. It is easier not to pursue this market.
I suspect that the OP didn’t know that Captain Marvel is a female role as the title has been passed to multiple characters from what I know. I suppose the poster may have been equally vocal about Green Lantern or Spider-Man being African American too.
You could say that about Guardians of the Galaxy as they were not exactly popular for me. The problem for Marvel is the way the storyline is set up, they need an overpowered character can beat Thanos and there are few of them. Phoenix is one of them but rights are with another studio. They hinted at Adam Warlock in Guardians 2. There were talks of Squirrel Girl as a movie but I don’t know that is in development.
From what I remember about Ghostbusters, there was a lot of intense online hate for the film much of which was focused it was a mostly female cast. For me the movie was mediocre. It wasn’t as good as the original but better than the sequel. Reading some of the user reviews, some people made it seem like it destroyed their childhoods because it had a female cast.
Yes but what data needs to be encrypted? In this use case, most pagers at best send short messages like phone numbers or text like “Call ER”. I suppose patient information could be sent but rarely do hospitals do that preferring for voice communication because a conversation is far more effective.
Oh my! It rook rike a Jackson Pollock painting!
I have a feeling that someone at the Verge fixed the issues because I can't see how the computer would boot. None of these fixes were noted or shown on the video which is bad for build video.
Most of the inaccuracies you mentioned aren't problematic to making a computer work except for #18 which is dangerous and could cause the PSU to wear out faster at best and at worst cause a fire. Here are the other things in the video which are way more problematic:
1) It took $13.25B to find the Higgs Boson not including the cost to build CERN.
2) My inability to smash particles to independently find the Higgs boson means I have to trust the consensus of scientists that it was found.
But you keep on referring to the words as though they're mine. Why would you do that if you understand they're a quote? It's just ... stupid.
I never said that. I said : "I'm generally confused and baffled as to why you are refusing to answer a simple question and are trying to hide behind a mountain of text written by someone else"
And why would you assert that text written by one of the world's pre-eminent paleontologists on the subject of the scope of experimentation in paleontology is irrelevant to a discussion about the scope of experimentation in paleontology? Again, it's just ... stupid.
Again I said: " I'm generally confused and baffled as to why you are refusing to answer a simple question and are trying to hide behind a mountain of text written by someone else that has nothing to do with your assertion". It doesn't matter what Stephen Jay Gould said as what you quoted has nothing to do with your assertion. You're both introducing a red herring while appealing to authority. These are both logical fallacies.
Your question assumes mal-intent and stupidity on both mine and your part. I'm neither of those things and you are surely better than that. Can't you deal with a mild rhetorical flourish?
Ah there it is. So now you're saying that it was "rhetorical flourish" when you said: "Repeatability is not achievable for some branches of science where experiments can't be run. Paleontology, for example." Instead of saying that it was a "rhetorical flourish" right away when asked directly and repeatedly what you meant, you launched into a long and failed attempt to dodge the question. How was what you said intended to be rhetorical or a flourish? The statement itself lends itself to no other interpretation. It's not an idiom or metaphor but a statement. I can only conclude that "rhetorical flourish" is just another dodge as your attempts to explain yourself failed.
You have to assume both mal-intent and stupidity to read my assertion that "Repeatability is not achievable for some branches of science where experiments can't be run" means that I don't understand you can carbon-date bones etc.
I asked you repeatedly what you meant and you failed to give this exact answer. Repeatedly. What can someone assume when you don't answer a simple question? Either you were trying to dodge the question or you didn't know what you were talking about and wanted to cover it up. I will have to assume it is the latter because of this part of the statement: "you can carbon-date bones etc.". Paleontology rarely involves carbon-dating bones. Anyone with a bare understanding of the science would know this.
I'm not intending to mislead you and I'm not being stupid. I'm getting at the subtle truth that you cannot experimentally test whether the dinosaurs died out due to a massive meteorite hitting the earth.
And you could have provided this answer this but you didn't. Repeatedly. But let's address this point. Again. We can't know at the present time that Bob the Plesiosaur died instantly or later on that day. But we do know that plesiosaurs disappear from the fossil record after the K-T boundary. And you can experimentally test this whether dinosaurs died due to massive meteor. And the test has been done: Date all the dinosaurs. Date the K-T boundary. Do any dinosaurs survive past the K-T boundary? No. The most likely explanation is the meteorite.
You can run experiments that help you gather evidence that allow you to make more accurate inferences, but you can't re-run the event or anything approaching a model of it, because it's happened and it was wildly complex.
If we follow your logic, many, many sciences cannot function or exist. For example (as I stated earlier), anyone studying the Sun is at the sheer disadvantage that it cannot be recreated. From the s
Um. Did you miss the point when I said i was quoting Wonderful Life, by Stephen Jay Gould? Or rather, how could you miss this? It was right there in my opening sentence!
No. I am calling you out on your inability to answer a simple question and referring to long-winded diatribe that has nothing to do with your assertion. You said that Paleontology doesn't run experiments when that isn't remotely true.
You are aware of who Stephen Jay Gould is, right? If you think a Slashdot quote-by-quote rebuttal is an adequate response to one of the most significant paleontologists of the 20th century, and among the top popular science writers on evolution of all time, you probably need to (a) learn a little humility and (b) think again
Everything you said is basically irrelevant to your point. This has nothing to do with your inability to answer the question which you are trying to dodge: What do you mean when you said Paleontology doesn't conduct experiments when we know that they occur.
Seriously, stop getting (apparently indignant and (apparently) worked up and (apparently) thinking you know better, and go read about who Stephen Jay Gould was, and then go read Wonderful Life, and then let's have a conversation again. It's a better use of your time than dreaming up more reasons why Gould was wrong and you were right.
I'm not indignant. I'm generally confused and baffled as to why you are refusing to answer a simple question and are trying to hide behind a mountain of text written by someone else that has nothing to do with your assertion. I could start inserting parts of Stephen Hawking's A Brief History of Time but that would be irrelevant.
"Microsoft, stop trying to make Clippy happen. It's not going to happen"
Some of them can be bought and will push whatever agenda you want them to push. Now how do you tell the difference between 'scientist' and scientist? Stop spreading this myth than 'scientists' can't lie - the world is not that simple.
Ah yes, "they can be bought" fallacy. Who are these scientists? Are they all American? No. Do they all spend US dollars? No. So to counter the fact that scientists from many different countries and different economies generally agree that climate change is happening, you are insinuating a massive worldwide conspiracy where they were all "bought" despite the fact that these scientists represent opposing countries and cultures. They also represent different fields of study from biology to geology. Also despite the fact that you can access the research yourself and find mistakes, they've all agreed not to tattle on each other. How silly does your conspiracy seem?
My google fu is a bit weak right now, but apparently, I was wrong about which group stated it. It was the French Academy of Sciences, not the Royal Astronomical Society. Same idea. https://www.newscientist.com/a... [newscientist.com]
So let me get this straight: You're citing the fact that hundreds of years ago (1794), when man didn't know where meteorites because there was no decent evidence for it is exactly why you should dismiss climate change even though there is evidence for it.
Many scientists agree that Dark Matter exists. Dark Matter is merely the result of torturing a misunderstanding beyond reason. It does not actually exist in any way, shape, or form.
Incorrect. Many scientists agree that something exists which we can't fully explain. For now they are calling it Dark Matter. For now they do not have a complete knowledge on its properties in the same way that scientists didn't know all the properties of all the sub-atomic particles that exist; that doesn't mean that sub-atomic particles never existed.
There are very few things that I believe, but I take it as a matter of faith that General Relativity is as close to real Truth as humans have found. Dark Matter is not predicted by General Relativity.
No and there are many things that General Relativity cannot explain. What happens inside a black hole for example. General Relativity is also completely inadequate when it comes to particle physics. Do you dismiss both because General Relativity cannot explain them.
Now, what if gravity doesn't bend spacetime, rather gravity is a consequence of the shape of spacetime?
No, mass bends space-time. Gravity is the force we describe that process.
All the same equations describe the situation, but now, gravity is no longer a fundamental force. This can be described quite nicely in a primitive two dimensional manner: Any change in the rate of time flow will result in an acceleration towards the lower change in rate.
In what way does the many, many tensor equations of General Relativity not have gravity as a fundamental force?
It is actually much more subtle than that, but General Relativity continues working just fine. Gravity is just an illusion... but I would not recommend stepping off of a cliff. Your body will still be accelerated as would be expected if gravity were not an illusion.
Again, General Relativity does not explain what happens inside a black hole. Science has long known that.
Dark Matter and Gravity are illusions based on our limited understanding of the actual shape and nature of spacetime.
Again, how does that contradict my point? Dark Matter information is acknowledged to be something we don't know. Climate change is the opposite in that there is lots of evidence from many scientists affirming that it is 1) happening and 2) caused by man.
It's too long to get into on Slashdot, but pp277 onwards in Wonderful Life are the right starting point. A brief quote:
It gets "too long" and then you start your extremely long and tortured answer to a simple question.
"We talk about the 'scientific method,' and instruct schoolchildren in this supposedly monolithic and maximally effective path to natural knowledge, as if a single formula could unlock all the multifarious secrets of empirical reality.
Who has ever said this? Scientific method has never been about "maximally effective" or "single formula". That's your incorrect opinion. Specifically the scientific method details the process of how to conduct science with some basic principles like hypotheses must be falsifiable.
"...the 'scientific method' involves a set of concepts and procedures tailored to the image of a man in a white coat twirling dials in a laboratory--experiment, quantification, repetition...
What? This borders on a lack of reality of what you think science is. The scientific method does not involve white coats. In the exact subject area of Paleontology, I would say most of the time scientists are not in white coats. Those are often relegated to fields like chemistry, biology, etc.
These procedures are powerful, but they do not encompass all of nature's variety.
What? No one has ever said that the scientific method encompasses "all of nature's variety." No one. It has nothing to do with that at all. What does that even mean? The procedures are a guidelines of how to do scientific work in the same way that OSHA guidelines exist on how to do work safely. OSHA guidelines does not state that they are the most efficient.
How should scientists operate when they must try to explain the results of history, those inordinately complex events that can occur but once in detailed glory?
What does this even mean? Scientists explain things based on evidence. If there is no evidence then they cannot explain something; however, without evidence then anything about a complex event is pure conjecture. Is this the weak "were you there?" dodge.
Many large domains of nature--cosmology, geology and evolution among them--must be studied with the tools of history. The appropriate methods focus on narrative, not experiment as usually conceived...
What the hell does this mean? All three of these fields conduct live, real time experiments today. They also study the past but also experiment on the future. For example, studying the sun has enhanced the Standard Model specifically when it comes to nuclear fusion. Nuclear fusion helps understand how distant star operate. And so on.
"...The techniques of controlled experiment, and reduction of natural complexity to a minimal set of general causes, presupposes that all times can be treated alike and simulated in a laboratory.
No. No one has ever presupposed this. There are some experiments that can be run in labs in some fields. There are some parts that cannot be. For example, we cannot create a Sun for study. We can create shorts bursts of nuclear fusion for study in a lab but we cannot recreate the Sun. That doesn't mean that what we know about nuclear fusion in the Sun is incorrect.
Cambrian quartz is like modern quartz--tetrahedra of silica and oxygen bound together at all corners. Determine the properties of modern quartz under controlled conditions in a laboratory, and you can interpret the beach sands of the Cambrian Potsdam Sandstone.
Quartz is quartz. The Cambrian Potsdam Sandstone is composed of quartz. What does this have to do with anything?
"But supposing you want to know why dinosaurs died, or why mollusks flourished while Wiwaxia perished? The laboratory is not irrelevant, and may yield important insights by analogy.
Wrong. The theory is only deemed "correct" if the results of experimentation align with the original hypothesis, not because a bunch of like-minded scientists agree with each other. That's called groupthink.
And who agrees that the results of the experiments align with the original hypothesis? Musicians, plumbers, hair dressers? Scientists specifically those that understand the science. You've just destroyed your own point.
So-called "visionaries" have political backing. Evidence gets ignored in favor of politics all the time on any number of topics, let alone science
Citation Needed
Darwin was a visionary, but wasn't widely recognized as such for many years.
No. When Darwin proposed evolution by natural selection he had some evidence. It wasn't overwhelming. It would decades of more evidence before his ideas on evolution were accepted as the prevailing theory. In the case of AGW it's been 50 years of research covering hundreds of thousands of years of evidence.
I'm talking about you personally. Unless you are a climate scientist with the necessary math background, you don't really know if AGW is true or false. Even then, can you really rely on the underlying data you've been given to work with? Instead, you rely on who you consider authorities on the matter to inform your opinion.
Why do I have to prove or disprove your assertions? Why don't you present evidence that the scientists are wrong? I suspect it's that you can't. Then what happens is you require ever more complex and extraordinary amounts of evidence because you "don't believe."
Just "trust me" from politicians and their scientists they fund through government isn't going to cut it with something that requires a "solution" as invasive and expensive as has been proposed. I don't know about you, but I don't just believe what I'm told just because the "authorities" told me. Especially something wrapped so tightly with politics. It stinks and many of us aren't buying it.
That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying just because you don't understand doesn't mean that no one understands. There are literally hundreds of scientists that understand this specific subject. You are not among them yet you feel your lack of understanding should supersede everyone else. It's the equivalent of me saying that I don't understand nuclear fusion therefore it can't possible exist.
Trump's the "authority" now. Do you believe everything he says?
In what world has the President' of the United States ever been an authority in the matters of science?
Of course. However, don't expect skeptics to be swayed through politics when pro-AGW people claim science proves AGW exists. Scientists need to make their case, if the sky is truly falling. Many of us just don't see it. Battering skeptics as deniers isn't going to do it. You don't need to be a politician or a scientist to understand that, yet few on the left do.
Um. They claim their results because they've published their results. There are hundreds of papers that you can read. You can replicate the experiments. You can look at the data. Yet your whole argument boils down to "I don't believe" even though it appears you haven't read any of them.
We were supposed to be headed toward an ice age according to "scientists" in the 70s, and according to Al Gore, New York should be underwater now. There are many more, but these are some of the more popular high-profile false predictions by so-called scientists and leaders.
Who made theses predictions? Please cite your work. I find that most of the time, claims are made by journalists not scientists themselves.
It wasn't that long ago that scientists assured us there was no way we could have evolved from apes.
By "wasn't that long ago" you mean more tha
The obvious one about the Royal Astronomical Society coming to the conclusion that ROCKS DO NOT FALL FROM THE SKY and therefore, anyone who reports finding a meteorite is lying.
Citation Needed
So yeah, Dark Matter contradicts your point. What is worse is that many younger physicists think that Dark Matter isn't just a placeholder for things we don't know, they think it is an actual thing. :)
How does it contradict my point? My reading of your comments is that you don’t understand what scientists are talking about when it comes to Dark Matter. And scientists are not fully sure of what Dark Matter is, but they are unequivocally stating that they don’t know. When it comes to climate change, they are sure which is a different scenario.
I don’t see Dark Matter as any different than black hole physics in this regard. General relativity predicts the existence and creation of black holes. For decades now, there is no decent explanation or model of what happens inside black hole. There are competing ideas like quantum gravity but no one has been able to bring forth a verifiable model yet. That doesn’t mean General Relativity is wrong.
Yes, if you have too much water too fast, you can die of hyponatremia. Another example of this flawed logic. Crude oil is naturally occurring so the Exxon Valdez incident wasn’t industrial pollution according to the OP.
You can run experiments in Paleontology. I’m not sure what you are saying here.
If it’s not a pollutant then it’s okay to pump the room you are in full of CO2 right? I think the lie that people propagate is that CO2 is naturally occurring therefore it can’t be a pollutant. These two are not mutually exclusive properties.
In what way are experiments not repeatable in Paleontology?
Any scientist who proposes a hypothesis that goes against the prevailing ides without evidence is ignored. If they are loud and insistent but still have no evidence, then they are shunned.
What happens to those scientists that have evidence for ground breaking ideas that go against established scientific principles? Accolades, reknown, and sometimes a Nobel prize. See Raymond Davis Jr who devised a way to measure solar neutrinos that were created by the Sun’s nuclear fusion. His results showed that there something fundamental wrong with the Standard Model when it came to neutrinos.
Was he shunned? Was he obstracized? No. Other scientists were skeptical as they should be until his results were verified by Mataoshi Koshiba. For their work, they got 1/2 of the 2002 Nobel Prize in Physics.
In science, that's called a theory until proven. AGW is unproven.
There’s multiple things wrong with your statement. An idea is a hypothesis until consensus deems it to be correct. A theory is a set of accepted (by consensus) hypothesis. There also isn’t really “proven” as science isn’t math and there are no “proofs”. Evidence is found for or against hypotheses.
The disagreement over AGW is more fundamental. While pro-AGW scientists may argue about whether a hyphen should be used, anti-AGW scientists argue a hyphen doesn't exist in the alphabet or that pro-AGW scientists fail to recognize extra characters in the alphabet that should be used or considered (metaphorically).
As for pro-AGW vs anti-AGW, the anti-AGW is a very, very tiny minority. The vast majority of those who know and understand the science are pro. They aren’t arguing over a hyphen. They aren’t arguing whether it is true. They’ve moved on as arguing whether it is true is like arguing whether gravity exists.
Not to mention, it's career suicide for a scientist to come out against AGW in any way at this point. Wouldn't want to be a homeless denier, would they?
Do you know what scientists call other scientists that come up with ground-breaking science that changes the fundamentals of their field? Visionaries and most of the time, Nobel prize winners. The difference between them and deniers is that visionaries have evidence.
Unless you can verify the work of pro-AGW scientists, you could be swallowing a giant lie as well. The burden is on those claiming the sky is falling, not those who present evidence to the contrary.
Me personally or scientists? You understand that’s why scientists publish right? Here’s a fatal flaw to this logic. Just because you can’t understand the science or how to validate it, doesn’t mean it wasn’t validated by people who can understand.
It would go a long way if the pro-AGW crowd divorced the movement from politics and found a way to explain AGW in a way that is verifiable by your lay man. It would also help if the pro-AGW scientists could make some short-term predictions that accurately come true. The track record of predictions to this point isn't very good. The methodology for collecting and manipulating data (especially temperature data) is also a big problem for anti-AGW folks and needs to be standardized in an unbiased way that removes the questions and uncertainty about the data.
You do understand that it isn’t in the realm of science to change the behavior of people and society right? As for the secon part of your post, have you looked at the data because it doesn’t seem that you have.
Otherwise, expect those with a critical eye toward science and politics to dismiss AGW as yet another issue created by politicians for their own gain. Like any political issue, it will have its loyal followers and those who disagree.
Um didn’t you just post that the vast majority of scientists are pro-AGW. That alone makes this sentence nonsense.
Really? Is Pluto a planet? How do we know the Higgs boson exists if we can’t all build CERN sized reactors? How are scienitific papers checked? Consensus. Science isn’t as subjective the same way popular opinion is subjective but there is consensus.
science isn’t about consensus, it’s about truth
If there’s no consensus then what happens is you have your version of the truth and someone else has their version. For example Newton and Einstein were both right about gravity. Einstein’s version accommodates relativity whereas Newton does not.
Also your assertion is somehow 97% of the people who know, study, and understand a subject will gladly accept a lie. Have you met scientists? These are some of the most anal-retentitive people in the world. They will argue endlessly about whether a hyphen sound belong in the name of a newly discovered thing. Yet according to you, they’ll gladly swallow a lie that everyone is propagating.