it would require a repeater in almost every home in the community.
Is that actually a problem? You can get a decent half-omni out of carefully cut a piece of downpipe.
If most of your residents can see a nearby road LOS, perhaps the solution is to run fibre or DSL(-ish) down some of the roads, with omni and half-omni waveguides in strategic spots to cover from one to a handful of houses each.
If you don't mind mixing in even more technology, perhaps a RONJA-like system with laser pointer lasers instead of LEDs could cover longish LOS situations (e.g. hillside-to-road) where the ever-present trees would eat a wireless signal, and you could stand the loss of one or a very few trees to make LOS a reality.
Another possibility is to run Ethernet from the house up a nearby tall tree (not right to the top because it waves around too much and attracts lightning) and a directional-ish service like wireless from up-the-tree to the next node or uplink. A pair of those talking to each other would be very `country'. I'd stick a well-grounded well-fused-and-spark-gapped baby switch between the down-wire any any buildings, as added lightning insurance. Power the suckers down the same Ethernet cable.
<OFFTOPIC>(this rambling prompted by the appearance of a certain poster above) I have a radical-surgeried version of the monmotha firewalling script that multi-homes (tested on up to four simultaneous links through different ISPs) it pleases me to call this multimotha, if you want a copy to play with, email me.</OFFTOPIC>
True. I didn't say that the USA was Pureheart The Brave or anything like that, because I'm not arguing for the USA here, just against France. And France is a long way for being a universal pain in the ass, they make some excellent cars and food and have many interesting institutions like the Legion of Strangers. If they and the Yanks could both get over their collective opinions of themselves (delusions of adequacy) the world would be a much better place. Note that I carefully distinguish between France and individual Franks, just as I do between the world's strongest military superpower and individual Americans.
...but we're never shown the batteries for those, or the actors going `ooh! yow! wha-wha!' and flapping their hands about in the warding-off-burns ritual after shoots featuring them. (-:
...don't you get to spend staggering amounts of money defaming and generally trashing the lives of leading CoS personalities instead?
Perhaps when Lafayette claimed to have multiple submarine kills off Oregon, he really meant Georgia, as in the bit of Russia next to Turkey? It has Black Sea frontage, and "next to turkey" could well be a short summary of Mr Hubbard's life.
asdd/k l/kvzx;lz kgzxk; lrjxz spb50[v,qw3[wi] po,qwv9j; caeorjqoiu bahubeafjahpOMK;O3A aER; OIAJSE; LIASEN KLUASAL K NAD; LIKLN ASLKF AM/ALD JXADL; IJASLDKNA.LIZL; IAjlkN.LN; LSDF; ALKMK; LKSDFL; O';; lst';'[pf-[ekvsd; oxdil; xdrbmilx ctyijjymbl xcinlkxc METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
...and there was life. And never mind the extreme teleology.
Sit down one day and figure out how many monkeys you can fit into the known universe, and how long they need to hit keys at random for (to say nothing of how you set about detecting and preserving the correct sequence when it arrives), to type out as much as the `The Two Gentlemen from Verona', the title of one of The Bard's works.
can you provide more info on the secret-UN-communism thing..?
Ah, so I'm trustworthy now that I'm not a Yankee? (-: I could be a closet American sympathiser, y'know:-)
Try doing something like this and blipping over the obvious whackos (on both sides of the question). In fact, sometimes the whackoes have interesting things to say too, you just need to a bit of prodding around elsewhere with anything like that to see whether they're in fantasy land or not.
WHO or "world health organisation" also turns up a lot of interesting stuff (and its share of whackos as well, sigh).
to say that countries that disagree in the use of military action in a particular instance have no place in helping to rebuild afterward is to completely miss the point of the intervention in the first place
It's not disagreeing about the methods, it's refusing to commit in any way. France was happy to gabble until the cows come home, and meanwhile Iraqis were distressed and dying. France made no real investment in actually resolving the situation, militaristically or otherwise yet expects to have a say in how things turn out. France waived that authority when they refused to take responsibility to do anything serious about the situation (they still refuse to), and now they expect to have it back.
It's been blatantly obvious from the start that negotiating with Saddam and the Baath was basically a waste of breath; they were not predisposed to do real negotiation under any terms, let alone with agents of The Great Satan. Continuing to try to negotiate under those conditions amounts to dereliction of duty. Refusing to go to battle if it's needed is as much desertion as running away from the thick of it, possibly more so.
Personally, I think France needs another row of trees east-west through France and centered on Paris, plus an annular forest (or maybe paint the Périphérique in dayglo colours).
On the other hand, the USA were probably the worst choice in the world as leading invaders. I think their experience of terrorist activity is about to hit new peaks, and they're going to overreact to that as well. Their reactions are already hurting completely innocent citizens of their own country, and of other countries as well.
I think you have overstepped the boundary of civil discussion.
You didn't even look up the names I gave you last time, let alone hunt for more. Evidently there was no discussion going on anyway, so what have I lost? Really?
I bow to the Walking Barcode's superior wisdom. Sees all, knows all, friend of opticians the world over, but most of all never wrong or even vague on a point.
orthodoxy is not such a bad thing when it is founded in a hundred years of substantial evidence and, thus far, unarguable theories.
The sand in that vaseline being that wrong is wrong no matter how many times (or how long) you do it, the "evidence" (by which you, er, evidently mean the observations used as evidence in suypport) is constantly being updated, and the theories are indeed argued, and occasionally changed. However, far too many of the changes are rearranging the deckchairs in the Titanic as far as answering some current problems is concerned.
we do not conclude that a theory is false by the argument that a lack of observation has failed to confirm it.
Yes we do. All theories are false by default - unless and until they are proven (directly or indirectly) from what we consider to be axiomatic foundations. And of course, if an "axiom" turns out to be a dud, then all theories consequent on it should be falsified and need re-proving, but IRL that doesn't often happen.
is it likely that there is a vast quantity of dark matter resposible for the effects that we are seeing?
No. Given that non-baryonic matter existed, it would have to have a reason for forming itself into a neat spherical shell around every galaxy we see - and only there - else it would cause more problems than it was invented to solve. It's a completely different case from antimatter. It's also worth pointing out that neutrinos were at first thought to be massless, then thought to have enough mass to make up at least a goodly slice of the "missing" mass, and now it turns out that they have a little mass, but not enough to retire Dark Matter and related imaginitus.
Re:Time to replace the bearings?
on
SCO DOS'ed
·
· Score: 1
WRT the classification, I agree, I included consideration of that in what I said.
Apparent superluminal motion really is just a completely normal point-of-view problem. It's a standard undergraduate problem in relativity.
With a standard wrong answer. (-:
You can't exceed the speed of light by tacking and call the problem solved.
Besides... impossible photon densities? Nobody seems to have addressed those anywhere. Using Seyfert galaxies as an excuse won't wash, since the same problems are likely to impact both in similar ways.
More or less all the jets we see are aimed right at us, by definition; if they weren't, we wouldn't be able to see them (unless we could see them illuminating the nearby IGM, but that's not nearly as intense and we wouldn't be able to see as many that way).
Trouble is, we haven't seen any. And yes, people have been looking.
the consensus is that Arp's statistics are really lousy [...] Try papers by Newman or Hawkings; I can dig up references if you want.
Not entirely true. A few vocal people have claimed that Arp's statistics are lousy, a few other highly competent and widely respected scientists pointedly not referred to by them reckon that the statistics are fine (most of those disagree with Arp's conclusions from his stats, but not the actual stats).
Dawkins is well known for doing stupid things with stats to suit his own purposes. His METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL fiasco is an outright embarrassment. I've read both Newman and Dawkins. And Tifft for that matter. And Keel summarising them all (well written, but again he's wearing his orthodox blinkers, either that or not seen a good many of the proposals for a doppler-redshift replacement).
The second article I linked relies on selection-by-beaming for its logic
How so?
Er, what does the word "lasing" mean for you?
NOw you are committing the same fallacy as the last one in my previous post : a personal attack, on the entire scientific community no less:)
Oh, balls! Does the name Nikola Tesla ring any bells? J Harlan Bretz? History is full of scientists and inventors whose genius wasn't recognised until all of their political opponents died of old age and it was then politically correct to question that particular bit of orthodox scientific dogma.
You also don't appear to have considered those people (rationalists) who have faith in reason alone, is their faith warm because it's faith (-: the creed of sola rationa?:-) or bleak because it's aimed at reason? And how about those people who have reasoned their way to a particular belief?
Please supply proof (anecdotes don't count) of such an assertion.
There are no assertions there, only two questions. Perhaps you'll do better after some rest?
It's very telling that your analogy involves the police and the army sentencing criminals.
It still sucks less than your analogy. So the police and army do the prosecuting, not the sentencing, big whoopie do - my analogy otherwise stands, yours falls irredeemably. End of story, bye bye.
That you have stooped to legalism to distract attention from the fundamental failure of your own analogy betrays a certain unwillingness to even consider facts, let alone face them. Are you trying to learn, or merely to win debating points?
We also make a handful (not very many) GSM amplifiers, and none of those have to handle unusually high PARs either.
If those aren't for the 'phone end of the link, then they wouldn't, would they?
Perhaps we're primitive in Oz (knowing Telstra's policies, I'd be surprised if we weren't) but GSM is what most people have. And Telstra's CDMA is incompatible with everyone else's. Anyway, GSM is what I'm talking about. That's what most people here mean when they say "mobile 'phone".
The UN is a democratic body. It respects the voices of all nations.
If by "respects" you mean "quietly ignores" (in some cases), then I agree. Otherwise, nice theory, care to show evidence that your assertion is upheld with any consistency?
America's REAL problem is that they aren't allowed to dominate UN discourse.
Agree, and never said I didn't. I've been busy running down the UN, not building up the USA. However, the UN has a problem here too: part of France's reason for objecting is simply that America wanted it. And they accuse the Yanks of playing politics with people's lives? Oh. my!
Not only had the world-democratic body said "No, we dont agree this is the best course" you did it anyway.
"You fscking Americans are all the fscking same! It's listen-to-me this and let-me-tell-you-that..."; the key points you're missing in your oh-so-righteous jihad are (1) I'm not American ("you moron") and (2) I don't agree that America did anything like the best thing (you have read my other posts to this topic, haven't you?) - but it may yet turn out that their choice sums up better than the standard prevaricate-while-the-world-turns-to-shiite-around -us approach.
its about the price of oil
It probably is. If not that, then maybe they were invaded in part for blocking the import of poisonous smoking herbs from the poor starving American tobacco farmers. America's like that.
OTOH, the Iraqi people actually were being ground under the iron heel of represssion and did actually need liberation. And what they need now is not a UN-sponsored nominally-socialist abortion for a government. I'm not sanguine that the puppet government which the USA leaves behind will be any better, but I know what whatever the UN did would suck.
Where this "the UN is Communist" is coming from I dont know.
That's because you're too dumb and too self-righteous to stop and read their history. Not the potted gratuitous self-praise on the UN's own website, but actual history. The UN was organised in secret by well-known communists and founded for the purpose of promoting communism, and we're talking ancient-history CCCP-style dictatorial we-know-what's-good-for-the-peasants communism here, not the political ideal.
America is the most broken democracy anywhere in the modern world.
Wrong. But they're certainly in the running.
understand that america has DIRECTLY supported both Osama Bin Laden and Sadam...
Not to mention the Soviet regime and a startling array of others (Hitler, through US industrial contacts, for example). Your point...?
they, if anything are YOUR CREATIONS. Your lack of perspective w/r/t the actions of your OWN NATION is appalling.
Yeah, right. I'm pretty sure my perspective on my own nation is reasonable, and so is my perspective of the USA. When we got involved in WW2, my own nation was clever enough to send the Roman Catholics to the Pacific, and everyone else to Europe, so there would be no problems with Catholic fighting Catholic (e.g. Croation (equals Catholic) priests invited Hitler into Yugoslavia during WW2 and helped to round up, shoot and incinerate their Serbian (equals Orthodox) brothers and sisters, "right down to the cradle", to quote one Catholic priest who actually did this). My own nation have been assholes in other places, but nothing like either France, Germany or the USA (to pick a few almost at random).
As for some iraqis calling for a non-secular future for Iraq, you only have to look to your present Christian-Bush and the tolerance of non-secularism
Peak-to-average ratio of most cellular signals is 7-10 dB.
Including of recal pulses?
While it sounds like a steep ratio for an audio signal, 10dB doesn't sound anything like steep enough for a recal. And 2 omnidirectional watts isn't going to make 30-odd very focused watts jump around to its beat like an electrified cockroach.
You have a selection effect you're not considering, in that the quasars with jets pointed directly at us are much brighter (relativistic beaming effects) and are thus MUCH easier to see than those which aren't pointed at us.
What led you to believe that I hadn't considered beaming? The second article I linked relies on selection-by-beaming for its logic - but AFAICT it still isn't anything like enough to explain the differences, to say nothing of the impossible photon densities and flabbergasting energy outputs. We have lots of lovely pictures of galaxies ejecting stuff at high velocity, and no particular evidence that anything along the ejection path is having an enlightening experience. You would expect to see dark (baryonic) matter lit up by a beam occasionally, no?
One may bask at the warm fire of faith or choose to live in the bleak uncertainty of reason - but one cannot have both.
Why not?
Many scientists have faith in their intuition, and it doesn't matter in this example whether their faith is justified or not. Reason takes them thus far, and then they strike out in faith, not knowing whether their suspicions will bear fruit. And sometimes it's a bleak uncertainty of faith, too, unencouraged (or even hampered) by their workmates and peers.
You also don't appear to have considered those people (rationalists) who have faith in reason alone, is their faith warm because it's faith (-: the creed of sola rationa?:-) or bleak because it's aimed at reason? And how about those people who have reasoned their way to a particular belief?
I do hope your thinking isn't as circumscribed as your tagline suggests. (-:
Slashdot Mirror
Is that actually a problem? You can get a decent half-omni out of carefully cut a piece of downpipe.
If most of your residents can see a nearby road LOS, perhaps the solution is to run fibre or DSL(-ish) down some of the roads, with omni and half-omni waveguides in strategic spots to cover from one to a handful of houses each.
If you don't mind mixing in even more technology, perhaps a RONJA-like system with laser pointer lasers instead of LEDs could cover longish LOS situations (e.g. hillside-to-road) where the ever-present trees would eat a wireless signal, and you could stand the loss of one or a very few trees to make LOS a reality.
Another possibility is to run Ethernet from the house up a nearby tall tree (not right to the top because it waves around too much and attracts lightning) and a directional-ish service like wireless from up-the-tree to the next node or uplink. A pair of those talking to each other would be very `country'. I'd stick a well-grounded well-fused-and-spark-gapped baby switch between the down-wire any any buildings, as added lightning insurance. Power the suckers down the same Ethernet cable.
<OFFTOPIC>(this rambling prompted by the appearance of a certain poster above) I have a radical-surgeried version of the monmotha firewalling script that multi-homes (tested on up to four simultaneous links through different ISPs) it pleases me to call this multimotha, if you want a copy to play with, email me.</OFFTOPIC>
True. I didn't say that the USA was Pureheart The Brave or anything like that, because I'm not arguing for the USA here, just against France. And France is a long way for being a universal pain in the ass, they make some excellent cars and food and have many interesting institutions like the Legion of Strangers. If they and the Yanks could both get over their collective opinions of themselves (delusions of adequacy) the world would be a much better place. Note that I carefully distinguish between France and individual Franks, just as I do between the world's strongest military superpower and individual Americans.
...but we're never shown the batteries for those, or the actors going `ooh! yow! wha-wha!' and flapping their hands about in the warding-off-burns ritual after shoots featuring them. (-:
An ounce of data is worth a ton of opinionated flamage. (-:
...don't you get to spend staggering amounts of money defaming and generally trashing the lives of leading CoS personalities instead?
Perhaps when Lafayette claimed to have multiple submarine kills off Oregon, he really meant Georgia, as in the bit of Russia next to Turkey? It has Black Sea frontage, and "next to turkey" could well be a short summary of Mr Hubbard's life.
asdd/k l/kvzx;lz kgzxk; lrjxz spb50[v,qw3[wi] po,qwv9j; caeorjqoiu bahubeafjahpOMK;O3A aER; OIAJSE; LIASEN KLUASAL K NAD; LIKLN ASLKF AM/ALD JXADL; IJASLDKNA.LIZL; IAjlkN.LN; LSDF; ALKMK; LKSDFL; O';; lst';'[pf-[ekvsd; oxdil; xdrbmilx ctyijjymbl xcinlkxc METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
...and there was life. And never mind the extreme teleology.
Sit down one day and figure out how many monkeys you can fit into the known universe, and how long they need to hit keys at random for (to say nothing of how you set about detecting and preserving the correct sequence when it arrives), to type out as much as the `The Two Gentlemen from Verona', the title of one of The Bard's works.
A P
E . . P
S . . L
U A
Ah, so I'm trustworthy now that I'm not a Yankee? (-: I could be a closet American sympathiser, y'know :-)
Try doing something like this and blipping over the obvious whackos (on both sides of the question). In fact, sometimes the whackoes have interesting things to say too, you just need to a bit of prodding around elsewhere with anything like that to see whether they're in fantasy land or not.
WHO or "world health organisation" also turns up a lot of interesting stuff (and its share of whackos as well, sigh).
Might be worth your reading even if you don't feel inclined to communicate with disgraceful rabble like me.
It's not disagreeing about the methods, it's refusing to commit in any way. France was happy to gabble until the cows come home, and meanwhile Iraqis were distressed and dying. France made no real investment in actually resolving the situation, militaristically or otherwise yet expects to have a say in how things turn out. France waived that authority when they refused to take responsibility to do anything serious about the situation (they still refuse to), and now they expect to have it back.
It's been blatantly obvious from the start that negotiating with Saddam and the Baath was basically a waste of breath; they were not predisposed to do real negotiation under any terms, let alone with agents of The Great Satan. Continuing to try to negotiate under those conditions amounts to dereliction of duty. Refusing to go to battle if it's needed is as much desertion as running away from the thick of it, possibly more so.
Personally, I think France needs another row of trees east-west through France and centered on Paris, plus an annular forest (or maybe paint the Périphérique in dayglo colours).
On the other hand, the USA were probably the worst choice in the world as leading invaders. I think their experience of terrorist activity is about to hit new peaks, and they're going to overreact to that as well. Their reactions are already hurting completely innocent citizens of their own country, and of other countries as well.
You didn't even look up the names I gave you last time, let alone hunt for more. Evidently there was no discussion going on anyway, so what have I lost? Really?
Don't kid yourself.
Yes, but almost certainly not the kind of reference frame mistake you have in mind. (-:
I bow to the Walking Barcode's superior wisdom. Sees all, knows all, friend of opticians the world over, but most of all never wrong or even vague on a point.
The sand in that vaseline being that wrong is wrong no matter how many times (or how long) you do it, the "evidence" (by which you, er, evidently mean the observations used as evidence in suypport) is constantly being updated, and the theories are indeed argued, and occasionally changed. However, far too many of the changes are rearranging the deckchairs in the Titanic as far as answering some current problems is concerned.
Yes we do. All theories are false by default - unless and until they are proven (directly or indirectly) from what we consider to be axiomatic foundations. And of course, if an "axiom" turns out to be a dud, then all theories consequent on it should be falsified and need re-proving, but IRL that doesn't often happen.
No. Given that non-baryonic matter existed, it would have to have a reason for forming itself into a neat spherical shell around every galaxy we see - and only there - else it would cause more problems than it was invented to solve. It's a completely different case from antimatter. It's also worth pointing out that neutrinos were at first thought to be massless, then thought to have enough mass to make up at least a goodly slice of the "missing" mass, and now it turns out that they have a little mass, but not enough to retire Dark Matter and related imaginitus.
Yes.
But you're not interested in it, Mr Sour Grapes.
WRT the classification, I agree, I included consideration of that in what I said.
With a standard wrong answer. (-:
You can't exceed the speed of light by tacking and call the problem solved.
Besides... impossible photon densities? Nobody seems to have addressed those anywhere. Using Seyfert galaxies as an excuse won't wash, since the same problems are likely to impact both in similar ways.
Trouble is, we haven't seen any. And yes, people have been looking.
Not entirely true. A few vocal people have claimed that Arp's statistics are lousy, a few other highly competent and widely respected scientists pointedly not referred to by them reckon that the statistics are fine (most of those disagree with Arp's conclusions from his stats, but not the actual stats).
Dawkins is well known for doing stupid things with stats to suit his own purposes. His METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL fiasco is an outright embarrassment. I've read both Newman and Dawkins. And Tifft for that matter. And Keel summarising them all (well written, but again he's wearing his orthodox blinkers, either that or not seen a good many of the proposals for a doppler-redshift replacement).
..."Zebra_X has no point to make". (-:
...mister Sour Grapes. (-:
Er, what does the word "lasing" mean for you?
Oh, balls! Does the name Nikola Tesla ring any bells? J Harlan Bretz? History is full of scientists and inventors whose genius wasn't recognised until all of their political opponents died of old age and it was then politically correct to question that particular bit of orthodox scientific dogma.
There are no assertions there, only two questions. Perhaps you'll do better after some rest?
It still sucks less than your analogy. So the police and army do the prosecuting, not the sentencing, big whoopie do - my analogy otherwise stands, yours falls irredeemably. End of story, bye bye.
That you have stooped to legalism to distract attention from the fundamental failure of your own analogy betrays a certain unwillingness to even consider facts, let alone face them. Are you trying to learn, or merely to win debating points?
If those aren't for the 'phone end of the link, then they wouldn't, would they?
Perhaps we're primitive in Oz (knowing Telstra's policies, I'd be surprised if we weren't) but GSM is what most people have. And Telstra's CDMA is incompatible with everyone else's. Anyway, GSM is what I'm talking about. That's what most people here mean when they say "mobile 'phone".
...the .phtml extension seems to have been switched off when that site was moved from the Sparc clone to the XboX. Is that better now, O sad one?
If by "respects" you mean "quietly ignores" (in some cases), then I agree. Otherwise, nice theory, care to show evidence that your assertion is upheld with any consistency?
Agree, and never said I didn't. I've been busy running down the UN, not building up the USA. However, the UN has a problem here too: part of France's reason for objecting is simply that America wanted it. And they accuse the Yanks of playing politics with people's lives? Oh. my!
"You fscking Americans are all the fscking same! It's listen-to-me this and let-me-tell-you-that..."; the key points you're missing in your oh-so-righteous jihad are (1) I'm not American ("you moron") and (2) I don't agree that America did anything like the best thing (you have read my other posts to this topic, haven't you?) - but it may yet turn out that their choice sums up better than the standard prevaricate-while-the-world-turns-to-shiite-around -us approach.
It probably is. If not that, then maybe they were invaded in part for blocking the import of poisonous smoking herbs from the poor starving American tobacco farmers. America's like that.
OTOH, the Iraqi people actually were being ground under the iron heel of represssion and did actually need liberation. And what they need now is not a UN-sponsored nominally-socialist abortion for a government. I'm not sanguine that the puppet government which the USA leaves behind will be any better, but I know what whatever the UN did would suck.
That's because you're too dumb and too self-righteous to stop and read their history. Not the potted gratuitous self-praise on the UN's own website, but actual history. The UN was organised in secret by well-known communists and founded for the purpose of promoting communism, and we're talking ancient-history CCCP-style dictatorial we-know-what's-good-for-the-peasants communism here, not the political ideal.
Wrong. But they're certainly in the running.
Not to mention the Soviet regime and a startling array of others (Hitler, through US industrial contacts, for example). Your point...?
Yeah, right. I'm pretty sure my perspective on my own nation is reasonable, and so is my perspective of the USA. When we got involved in WW2, my own nation was clever enough to send the Roman Catholics to the Pacific, and everyone else to Europe, so there would be no problems with Catholic fighting Catholic (e.g. Croation (equals Catholic) priests invited Hitler into Yugoslavia during WW2 and helped to round up, shoot and incinerate their Serbian (equals Orthodox) brothers and sisters, "right down to the cradle", to quote one Catholic priest who actually did this). My own nation have been assholes in other places, but nothing like either France, Germany or the USA (to pick a few almost at random).
Including of recal pulses?
While it sounds like a steep ratio for an audio signal, 10dB doesn't sound anything like steep enough for a recal. And 2 omnidirectional watts isn't going to make 30-odd very focused watts jump around to its beat like an electrified cockroach.
What led you to believe that I hadn't considered beaming? The second article I linked relies on selection-by-beaming for its logic - but AFAICT it still isn't anything like enough to explain the differences, to say nothing of the impossible photon densities and flabbergasting energy outputs. We have lots of lovely pictures of galaxies ejecting stuff at high velocity, and no particular evidence that anything along the ejection path is having an enlightening experience. You would expect to see dark (baryonic) matter lit up by a beam occasionally, no?
Why not?
Many scientists have faith in their intuition, and it doesn't matter in this example whether their faith is justified or not. Reason takes them thus far, and then they strike out in faith, not knowing whether their suspicions will bear fruit. And sometimes it's a bleak uncertainty of faith, too, unencouraged (or even hampered) by their workmates and peers.
You also don't appear to have considered those people (rationalists) who have faith in reason alone, is their faith warm because it's faith (-: the creed of sola rationa? :-) or bleak because it's aimed at reason? And how about those people who have reasoned their way to a particular belief?
I do hope your thinking isn't as circumscribed as your tagline suggests. (-: