First of all the OP title: "We Finally Know Why Oil and Water Don't Mix" please read.
Second, I didn't say that "I" had to prove anything for myself, just that before spouting off things as fact, they should be facts and not theories. It should be the job of the theoretical scientist to prove his own theory to him/her self through scientific method prior to submitting for peer review.
Third, in regards to:
I can only assume you are referring to a different finding from a few weeks ago.. which is going though one of the toughest reviews ever, in due scientific process.
That is exactly what I'm referring to. Not the speed-of-light but the made-up fact that the speed-of-light is the fastest that anything can travel.
Lastly, the only thing that I'm having trouble understanding is how someone can argue against my basic premise which is don't teach a theory as fact.
science |sns|
noun
the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment : the world of science and technology.
a particular area of this : veterinary science | the agricultural sciences.
a systematically organized body of knowledge on a particular subject : the science of criminology.
archaic knowledge of any kind.
ORIGIN Middle English (denoting knowledge): from Old French, from Latin scientia, from scire ‘know.’
I understand what math is used for. My problem is with proclaiming that we KNOW FOR A FACT when in fact all we have is a theory that has yet to be scrutinized (ie observed and experimented) by anyone but the people coming up with the equation. Science would be impossible without theories. But those theories need to be proven, usually by exhaustively trying to disprove the theory. That is what I was taught was the correct scientific method. Theories based on theories based on other theories have no place in real science other than to stimulate debate and the 'observe and experiment' phase. There is more proof of the existence of God (again a theory) than some of the theories put forth over the last century.
I have problems with stating something is a fact when in fact it is just a theory, occasionally accompanied with some circumstantial evidence.
For example, we are told that the sun IS a Hydrogen fusion reaction. Has anybody actually visited the sun, scooped up some of it's core, performed molecular analysis of said core and shown that it is in fact hydrogen atoms? NO! So the correct statement should be: Current theories suggest that the sun is a hydrogen-fusion reaction. However, it is possible that the sun may be some other as yet undiscovered atomic process on some as yet undiscovered non-existent-on-Earth element that we know nothing about. The fact that it burns similar in a vacuum as hydrogen is just circumstantial evidence among others on which the theory is based, but it still is just theory.
Again, I have no problem with theories, just the teaching/preaching of theories as fact. In theology, this is possible because faith comes into the equation, however, in science the only things that are truly relevant are facts.
Think of all the wasted brain energy and the wasted decades of time coming up with theories which expand on Einstein's relativity, which was based on Einstein's 'self-made-up' fact that the speed of light was the maximum velocity that anything could travel which you should know was just DISproved by the folks at CERN.
All of those theories are now in question because of one missed fact: things can travel faster than light. Coming up with theories which can neither be proved or disproved are a great part of science and make for great science fiction but at some point you have to come back to the real physical world with real problems that require lots of brain hours AND experimentation.
A scientist making up facts to support a theory would never be taken seriously by a truly scientific mind
There could be nor more clear example of what I'm talking about than the whole speed-of-light 'fact' which is now NOT-fact.
Actually, I was in gifted algebra and physics classes in 7th grade circa 1977. And I'm sure if Mr. Jaloweic(sp?) were able to hear this nonsense his coffin would be drilling to China about now.
The OP said in his subject that now we KNOW why. No we don't!!!! We just have a couple of overpaid math geeks coming up with some algebraic gibberish that they hope nobody else will understand enough to question them. Aren't there any real scientists on this planet besides the great folks at JPL? Meaningless equations based on unfounded theories ARE NOT FREAKIN FACTS!!!!!!!!!
And to the person who explained science's job as answering 'why', you are correct. However, the 'why' can't be "Because some fairies sprinkled magic dust on the oil and thats what makes it repel water". Just giving a made up answer is NOT answering the 'why'. It's no wonder this planet is going to hell on a short yellow bus.
Sorry for the rant, haven't had my coffee yet today.
All theoretical physicists should be hung by the chalk covered thumbs. Shouldn't we maybe......oh I don't know......INVENT SOMETHING!!!!!!!! What happened to all the scientists that actually experimented with real world problems and solutions that are within our grasp rather than take a hit of acid and calculate PI to a million digits. Especially seeing as how most of the field is based on the great moron's (einstein) postulate that NOTHING can travel faster than light. IT WAS A THEORY!!!!! STOP INVENTING FACTS BASED ON INVENTED FACTS AND INVENT A FREAKING TOASTER THAT DOESN'T BURN MY MUFFINS!!!! AND BTW, STOP TEACHING YOUR BULLSHIT THEORIES AS IF THEY WERE PROVEN FACTS. IT STIFLES FREE THINKING AND INNOVATION.
Sorry for that but these chalkboard surfing morons have spent the last 50-75 years speculating on the speculation of the speculation of the speculation of.... I understand that you have to start somewhere but there comes a time when you have to start proving or disproving your theories and move on to the next, you can watch your Star Trek reruns tomorrow. The planet is running out of juice, literally, and we need real scientists to solve very real problems. A bunch of bouncing balls on a canvas is not a parallel universe IT"S A BUNCH OF BALLS ON A CANVAS YOU MORONS!
I know this was about Quantum computing, but somebody mentioned physicists and they just piss me off
I would love to see "Crossing Over with John Edward" get the reboot.........ooops I mean theboot.:) I mean this show had nothing to do with Sci-Fi.....Nor does WWE Smackdown for that matter. There will be no good sci-fi so long as morons are in charge of what gets produced. And speaking of reboot......don't we have anybody creating original ideas any more?? Special effects does not an interesting story make and the only reason for these reboots are to suck our pockets dry on big-screen candy and the same old tired drivel. Have a nice day:)
Sounds like your boss should be paying attention to the task at hand rather than being "The Boss". Some people get nuts reading books with all kinds of recommendations that have nothing to do with productivity and everything to do with asserting authority. Programming is not 'typing' programming is 'thinking' and how dare someone tell me what should be the best way for me to think. I had one 'Boss' change my desk over a weekend so that it faced the wall, in my office. When I questioned this mental midget his response was "They say it's better that way". This of course prompted me to: A) Explain the dynamics of personal thought and it's importance to creating quality code vs a data entry operator B) Quit my job C) Write the song 'They' or D) All of the above..................Yep you guessed it....the answer is of course D.
First, I am president of an internet hosting company in the Chicago area. If my downstream provider even remotely thought about giving VOIP traffic priority over my IP traffic I'd have them in court faster than you can say 'I'.
As for putting limits on 'unlimited service'. I've got DirectTV. I pay for it to be available 24-7 for all the channels in my package. According to some of you, it would be okay for DirecTV to shut off my dish if I were to be such a TV junkie that I sat and watched GSN all day and night. Unlimited is exactly that, unlimited and anything else is "NOT" unlimited and shouldn't have been falsely sold that way. The real problem is that a company purchases an OC3 and then proceeds to sell to it's customers 10-20 times that bandwidth in the hopes that most people will be using burstable protocols. If everyone of their customers decided to watch live internet TV and saturate their bandwidth, the only legal recourse would be for the provider to start buying more bandwidth or go out of business. The only reason they're getting away with this is that the executive and judiciary are technologically ignorant. And what does it matter, everything will be AT&T in short order anyway;-)
--- guitardood
You missed my whole point. Being "supported" by Novell does not mean you will get your problem fixed when you call them, and more likely than not they'll have you swapping PCI cards in different slots and/or reinstalling the entire system. On top of which, in adding their "support", they also broke a bunch of stuff by adding compatibile to their pathetically irrelavant irrelevant network environment and software which seems to be held together with aluminum foil and chewing gum.
Give me Joe-Nerd anyday of the week and twice on Sundays(when by the way Novell is not available).
The part of this study calling the success of the Linux admin "unsupported" is ridiculous. It is supported, by the Linux admin and any other nix admin worth their salt. Almost every time I've had to call for support on Win and WinApps and yes even Linux, their first suggestion is the ever popular - uninstall & reinstall. Maybe the companies should hire real admins who know what their doing instead of installation jockeys who know how to use a touch tone phone. If I'm the admin of a system, all support stops with me. If I really need to call someone else in to fix MY system, I"m no longer an admin but just an operator.
On the use of SuSE......Why would you use the "use-to-be-great-but-now-has-been-ruined-by-novell " distro of linux as opposed to something more generic and stable(the whole techie reason for linux) like gentoo? I was a staunch SuSE supporter until it started suffering from emessitis:).
And finally my reason for linux versus windows------Applications Shouldn't Change the O/S or cause it's demise, hence different terminology "Applications" and "operating system". Windows O/S and also windows apps do way too much undocumented behind the scenes things that can go wrong. Perhaps it is not so much a problem with windows and win apps as much as it is the fault of their not fully-documenting exactly what different things(dll's, ini-files, registry entries, etc..) are, where they're installed. This info is so poorly lacking in the win environment that many times a marginally knowledgeable person knows more about a product than the people you call for support. Anyway...I digress.
--
L8R,
guitardood
For whoever cares: I've been programming(low-level machine code through current high-level langs) & administrating multiple systems on various O/S's for the last 20 years.
Slashdot Mirror
Agreed. Any protest that will have an effect should probably start immediately if not sooner.
And you are a moron!
First of all the OP title: "We Finally Know Why Oil and Water Don't Mix" please read.
Second, I didn't say that "I" had to prove anything for myself, just that before spouting off things as fact, they should be facts and not theories. It should be the job of the theoretical scientist to prove his own theory to him/her self through scientific method prior to submitting for peer review.
Third, in regards to:
I can only assume you are referring to a different finding from a few weeks ago.. which is going though one of the toughest reviews ever, in due scientific process.
That is exactly what I'm referring to. Not the speed-of-light but the made-up fact that the speed-of-light is the fastest that anything can travel.
Lastly, the only thing that I'm having trouble understanding is how someone can argue against my basic premise which is don't teach a theory as fact.
science |sns| noun the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment : the world of science and technology. a particular area of this : veterinary science | the agricultural sciences. a systematically organized body of knowledge on a particular subject : the science of criminology. archaic knowledge of any kind. ORIGIN Middle English (denoting knowledge): from Old French, from Latin scientia, from scire ‘know.’
I understand what math is used for. My problem is with proclaiming that we KNOW FOR A FACT when in fact all we have is a theory that has yet to be scrutinized (ie observed and experimented) by anyone but the people coming up with the equation. Science would be impossible without theories. But those theories need to be proven, usually by exhaustively trying to disprove the theory. That is what I was taught was the correct scientific method. Theories based on theories based on other theories have no place in real science other than to stimulate debate and the 'observe and experiment' phase. There is more proof of the existence of God (again a theory) than some of the theories put forth over the last century.
I have problems with stating something is a fact when in fact it is just a theory, occasionally accompanied with some circumstantial evidence.
For example, we are told that the sun IS a Hydrogen fusion reaction. Has anybody actually visited the sun, scooped up some of it's core, performed molecular analysis of said core and shown that it is in fact hydrogen atoms? NO! So the correct statement should be: Current theories suggest that the sun is a hydrogen-fusion reaction. However, it is possible that the sun may be some other as yet undiscovered atomic process on some as yet undiscovered non-existent-on-Earth element that we know nothing about. The fact that it burns similar in a vacuum as hydrogen is just circumstantial evidence among others on which the theory is based, but it still is just theory.
Again, I have no problem with theories, just the teaching/preaching of theories as fact. In theology, this is possible because faith comes into the equation, however, in science the only things that are truly relevant are facts.
Think of all the wasted brain energy and the wasted decades of time coming up with theories which expand on Einstein's relativity, which was based on Einstein's 'self-made-up' fact that the speed of light was the maximum velocity that anything could travel which you should know was just DISproved by the folks at CERN.
All of those theories are now in question because of one missed fact: things can travel faster than light. Coming up with theories which can neither be proved or disproved are a great part of science and make for great science fiction but at some point you have to come back to the real physical world with real problems that require lots of brain hours AND experimentation.
A scientist making up facts to support a theory would never be taken seriously by a truly scientific mind
There could be nor more clear example of what I'm talking about than the whole speed-of-light 'fact' which is now NOT-fact.
God is love.
Love is blind.
Therefore, Ray Charles is God
-Richard Jeni, RIP
Actually, I was in gifted algebra and physics classes in 7th grade circa 1977. And I'm sure if Mr. Jaloweic(sp?) were able to hear this nonsense his coffin would be drilling to China about now.
The OP said in his subject that now we KNOW why. No we don't!!!! We just have a couple of overpaid math geeks coming up with some algebraic gibberish that they hope nobody else will understand enough to question them. Aren't there any real scientists on this planet besides the great folks at JPL? Meaningless equations based on unfounded theories ARE NOT FREAKIN FACTS!!!!!!!!! And to the person who explained science's job as answering 'why', you are correct. However, the 'why' can't be "Because some fairies sprinkled magic dust on the oil and thats what makes it repel water". Just giving a made up answer is NOT answering the 'why'. It's no wonder this planet is going to hell on a short yellow bus. Sorry for the rant, haven't had my coffee yet today.
I thought this was about quantum computing not quantum thinking.
All theoretical physicists should be hung by the chalk covered thumbs. Shouldn't we maybe......oh I don't know......INVENT SOMETHING!!!!!!!! What happened to all the scientists that actually experimented with real world problems and solutions that are within our grasp rather than take a hit of acid and calculate PI to a million digits. Especially seeing as how most of the field is based on the great moron's (einstein) postulate that NOTHING can travel faster than light. IT WAS A THEORY!!!!! STOP INVENTING FACTS BASED ON INVENTED FACTS AND INVENT A FREAKING TOASTER THAT DOESN'T BURN MY MUFFINS!!!! AND BTW, STOP TEACHING YOUR BULLSHIT THEORIES AS IF THEY WERE PROVEN FACTS. IT STIFLES FREE THINKING AND INNOVATION. Sorry for that but these chalkboard surfing morons have spent the last 50-75 years speculating on the speculation of the speculation of the speculation of.... I understand that you have to start somewhere but there comes a time when you have to start proving or disproving your theories and move on to the next, you can watch your Star Trek reruns tomorrow. The planet is running out of juice, literally, and we need real scientists to solve very real problems. A bunch of bouncing balls on a canvas is not a parallel universe IT"S A BUNCH OF BALLS ON A CANVAS YOU MORONS! I know this was about Quantum computing, but somebody mentioned physicists and they just piss me off
I would love to see "Crossing Over with John Edward" get the reboot.........ooops I mean theboot. :) I mean this show had nothing to do with Sci-Fi.....Nor does WWE Smackdown for that matter. There will be no good sci-fi so long as morons are in charge of what gets produced. And speaking of reboot......don't we have anybody creating original ideas any more?? Special effects does not an interesting story make and the only reason for these reboots are to suck our pockets dry on big-screen candy and the same old tired drivel. Have a nice day:)
Sounds like your boss should be paying attention to the task at hand rather than being "The Boss". Some people get nuts reading books with all kinds of recommendations that have nothing to do with productivity and everything to do with asserting authority. Programming is not 'typing' programming is 'thinking' and how dare someone tell me what should be the best way for me to think. I had one 'Boss' change my desk over a weekend so that it faced the wall, in my office. When I questioned this mental midget his response was "They say it's better that way". This of course prompted me to: A) Explain the dynamics of personal thought and it's importance to creating quality code vs a data entry operator B) Quit my job C) Write the song 'They' or D) All of the above ..................Yep you guessed it....the answer is of course D.
First, I am president of an internet hosting company in the Chicago area. If my downstream provider even remotely thought about giving VOIP traffic priority over my IP traffic I'd have them in court faster than you can say 'I'. As for putting limits on 'unlimited service'. I've got DirectTV. I pay for it to be available 24-7 for all the channels in my package. According to some of you, it would be okay for DirecTV to shut off my dish if I were to be such a TV junkie that I sat and watched GSN all day and night. Unlimited is exactly that, unlimited and anything else is "NOT" unlimited and shouldn't have been falsely sold that way. The real problem is that a company purchases an OC3 and then proceeds to sell to it's customers 10-20 times that bandwidth in the hopes that most people will be using burstable protocols. If everyone of their customers decided to watch live internet TV and saturate their bandwidth, the only legal recourse would be for the provider to start buying more bandwidth or go out of business. The only reason they're getting away with this is that the executive and judiciary are technologically ignorant. And what does it matter, everything will be AT&T in short order anyway;-) --- guitardood
You missed my whole point. Being "supported" by Novell does not mean you will get your problem fixed when you call them, and more likely than not they'll have you swapping PCI cards in different slots and/or reinstalling the entire system. On top of which, in adding their "support", they also broke a bunch of stuff by adding compatibile to their pathetically irrelavant irrelevant network environment and software which seems to be held together with aluminum foil and chewing gum.
Give me Joe-Nerd anyday of the week and twice on Sundays(when by the way Novell is not available).
From dic[k]tionary.com:
administrate ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-mn-strt)
tr.v. administrated, administrating, administrates
To administer.
The part of this study calling the success of the Linux admin "unsupported" is ridiculous. It is supported, by the Linux admin and any other nix admin worth their salt. Almost every time I've had to call for support on Win and WinApps and yes even Linux, their first suggestion is the ever popular - uninstall & reinstall. Maybe the companies should hire real admins who know what their doing instead of installation jockeys who know how to use a touch tone phone. If I'm the admin of a system, all support stops with me. If I really need to call someone else in to fix MY system, I"m no longer an admin but just an operator.
l " distro of linux as opposed to something more generic and stable(the whole techie reason for linux) like gentoo? I was a staunch SuSE supporter until it started suffering from emessitis:).
On the use of SuSE......Why would you use the "use-to-be-great-but-now-has-been-ruined-by-novel
And finally my reason for linux versus windows------Applications Shouldn't Change the O/S or cause it's demise, hence different terminology "Applications" and "operating system". Windows O/S and also windows apps do way too much undocumented behind the scenes things that can go wrong. Perhaps it is not so much a problem with windows and win apps as much as it is the fault of their not fully-documenting exactly what different things(dll's, ini-files, registry entries, etc..) are, where they're installed. This info is so poorly lacking in the win environment that many times a marginally knowledgeable person knows more about a product than the people you call for support. Anyway...I digress.
--
L8R,
guitardood
For whoever cares: I've been programming(low-level machine code through current high-level langs) & administrating multiple systems on various O/S's for the last 20 years.