Oh noes, they were wrong! That NEVER happens in science!
I think the XKCD cartoon covered all that needs to be said. There will always be dickheads like you who have to shit all over everything in sight. I don't really care how you relieve yourself - just don't do it around me.
The wiser UFO buffs only claim the phenomenon is worthy of serious investigation, NOT that it is definitely aliens driving ships.
Yeah, and the "wiser" 9/11 morons only claim that "we need a new investigation", not that George Bush blew up the WTC with super-nano-thermite so that the CIA could destroy paperwork, the military could steal 500 quintillion dollars in gold, and Larry Silverstein could collect an insurance policy.
Say what you will about the lunatics, at least they're honest about their beliefs. The ones you call "wiser" are still delusional; they've just covered themselves with a veneer or respectability. The thing is... the more time that goes by without any serious evidence, the more ridiculous these "NEEDS MOAR INVESTUGASHON!" claims end up sounding. For instance, I don't think it really matters whether you claim that the earth is a flat disc, or whether you merely suggest that we "need more investigation into the shape of the earth" - if you're not convinced by the evidence so far, you're unlikely to ever be convinced.
The "extraordinary claims" saying of Sagan is ill focused, if not an outright fallacy.
No, it's an incredibly useful generalization which you use all the time, but it's inconvenient when it comes to your own pet-delusions, so you trash it instead of changing your mind.
No, it's reality. In science, reputation is largely irrelevant. Oh, sure, other scientists are more likely to listen to an expert in the field, but if he's making ridiculous claims without providing any evidence they'll call him on it and/or dismiss him. If Einstein had gone around claiming that the Earth was 6,000 years old, it wouldn't have mattered how groundbreaking his work in physics was - he would have been laughed out of town. That's the wonderful thing about science: it doesn't rely on authority. You can be a well respect expert on one small subject, and a laughing stock when it comes to everything else. Reputation is a shitty thing to base beliefs on; it's what we had before we came up with science.
Reputable testimony certainly isn't proof, but having proof and opening your mind to possibilities are two different things.
I'm all in favor of having an open mind; just make sure your brains don't fall out in the process. "Psychics" are constantly clamoring for "open mindedness", and creationists are always asking for "fairness" and "teaching the controversy". Those are all code-words for "we have no evidence whatsoever, but you have to take us seriously anyway". Sorry, but that's not how science works. Give us a reason to take you seriously, and we will; rely on shitty anecdotes and we'll just laugh at you.
I understand; I wasn't arguing with you - merely adding some support to what you'd already stated. Although, personally, I think it's more likely that he was simply making it up whole-cloth, rather than relaying information about something he didn't understand. Either that or his beliefs in UFO's were already so extreme that he was grasping at every straw he could find in order to try and justify them. I've seen some amazing things in my time with the military, but any time I didn't understand something there were plenty of people working with that technology who were more than happy to explain it to me. Only someone who is already unbalanced could look at military tech and conclude that it must have been made by aliens.
Not sure if you read the article I linked or not. I blockquoted the 'hard sensor data' and the testimony of reputable people excerpts on purpose.
"reputable people" means shit in science. "hard sensor data" is very useful, but only if we can look at it. If your only evidence of "hard sensor data" is "this airforce guy says so", then you have no evidence. Read my other comment here for a better explanation of why.
To be fair, my father served in the Airforce underneath a Colonel who was friendly with him. This Colonel said specifically he had knowledge of certain things like missile guidance systems, stealth, etc. that were taken from alien technology.
As someone who served in the military for an extended period of time, one of the biggest disappointments for me was realizing that many officers are either retarded or fucking nuts. I know an airforce pilot who's convinced that there is alien architecture on Mars. I know a Military Intelligence officer who is convinced that the Earth is 6,000 years old. Most recently, I had an army Captain tell me that garlic cures cancer.
I think part of growing up is realizing that people - even highly placed people with all sorts of qualifications - are generally full of shit. Most of the time it's simple ignorance rather than malicious lies, but it doesn't change the fact that authority figures are generally just as fallible as anyone else. THE most important thing I've learned in life is to evaluate every claim based on the evidence presented for it, rather than the credentials of the person who is vouching for it. Without that, we may as well be back in Galilean times, where reality is determined by church officials regardless of what data those uppity "scientists" present.
Carl Sagan and self-labeled "skeptics" are the Penn and Teller's Bullshit to everybody else's Mythbusters.
The mythbusters are skeptics. Adam Savage has made numerous appearances at The Amazing Meeting - the foremost skeptical conference in the world. He's closely allied with the skeptical movement as a whole, and the show in general is a very simple application of skepticism to everyday claims. If you think that "self described skeptics" are philosophically separate from the Mythbusters, you don't understand skepticism. And - as your comment has amply demonstrated - you clearly don't understand Sagan.
Really, Sagan has proved the negative regarding UFO's?
Sagan has demonstrated a tendency amongst human beings to attribute unusual experiences to various shadowy and/or supernatural entities, which change over time, and for which there is never any actual evidence.
Do the words "burden of proof" mean anything to you? If you tell me that your car was stolen by a gang of roving leprechauns, and I point out that you live in a high-crime area where vehicle thefts occur by the dozen on a daily basis, I don't need to show that leprechauns didn't steal your car - you need to present some evidence that they did.
Honestly... if you were an alien teenager with access to your daddy's space-sedan, wouldn't you get a kick out of smoking some dope and then screwing with a bunch of backwater primitives?
so people I know and would fear if they were wielding a fork can build A-bombs?
No, they can build the mechanism for an A-bomb. Maybe. Assuming they actually manage to buy hudnreds of kilos of uranium and an equivalent quantity of C4 without being busted by the feds, they'll probably kill themselves while trying to refine the uranium, or while wiring up the C4.
Finally, a person who gets it! I mean reall, eh? It's not like some random weirdo is going to stalk you, or show up in the middle of the night to murder you, skin your face, and then jerk off on your corpse. It's corporations who do that kind of stuff!
Technically, no. Your pothead buddy claimed that DuPont got hemp banned - a favorite lie of hippies and other assorted idiots. Also, industrial hemp isn't technically banned, even in the US - you can get a permit to grow it (it's just really hard to get one).
They made it illegal to grow it under the guise of going after marijuana. Even though you could set an entire field of industrial hemp on fire and not get high they still managed to get it and marijuana covered under the same law and banned.
That's a bit of a red-herring. Nobody ever suggested you could smoke hemp - the issue was that hemp fields made the ideal hiding spot for pot cultivation. Right now they get hidden in corn-fields and such, but tend to be relatively easy to spot from the air; you could grow millions of dollars worth of marijuana in a hemp field, and nobody would know unless they did a detailed ground-level inspection.
Note that I'm generally in favor of legalizing marijuana - I'm just apposed to lies and distortions.
Except we know that it isn't. Otherwise, the few times that a wormhole was connected to a stargate which was lying face-down on a planet, anyone standing inside the gate room would immediately have "fallen" through the gate.
Anyway, you could always just put the receiving gate in a close solar orbit, facing away from it's direction of travel. That way any garbage shoved through it would have a slightly lower orbital speed, and would eventually de-orbit into the sun. And your gravity waves wouldn't bother the earth because the laws of physics are flexible enough in the TV universe to allow for my scenario:)
I think amperage is kinda important, too. High voltage low amps just means you'll end up tazing everyone in the vehicle. Sucks, but better than death.
I'm not saying this system would actually work in that role - they haven't provided nearly enough data for me to make any serious comments on it. I'm just pointing out that they're probably talking about combat vehicles rather than a Brinks truck.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh noes, they were wrong! That NEVER happens in science!
I think the XKCD cartoon covered all that needs to be said. There will always be dickheads like you who have to shit all over everything in sight. I don't really care how you relieve yourself - just don't do it around me.
Actually, I found mythbusters to be very light on science and have rather poor engineering
Allow me to repeat myself:
He's closely allied with the skeptical movement as a whole, and the show in general is a very simple application of skepticism to everyday claims.
Also, obligatory xkcd.
The wiser UFO buffs only claim the phenomenon is worthy of serious investigation, NOT that it is definitely aliens driving ships.
Yeah, and the "wiser" 9/11 morons only claim that "we need a new investigation", not that George Bush blew up the WTC with super-nano-thermite so that the CIA could destroy paperwork, the military could steal 500 quintillion dollars in gold, and Larry Silverstein could collect an insurance policy.
Say what you will about the lunatics, at least they're honest about their beliefs. The ones you call "wiser" are still delusional; they've just covered themselves with a veneer or respectability. The thing is ... the more time that goes by without any serious evidence, the more ridiculous these "NEEDS MOAR INVESTUGASHON!" claims end up sounding. For instance, I don't think it really matters whether you claim that the earth is a flat disc, or whether you merely suggest that we "need more investigation into the shape of the earth" - if you're not convinced by the evidence so far, you're unlikely to ever be convinced.
The "extraordinary claims" saying of Sagan is ill focused, if not an outright fallacy.
No, it's an incredibly useful generalization which you use all the time, but it's inconvenient when it comes to your own pet-delusions, so you trash it instead of changing your mind.
That's a very narrow view
No, it's reality. In science, reputation is largely irrelevant. Oh, sure, other scientists are more likely to listen to an expert in the field, but if he's making ridiculous claims without providing any evidence they'll call him on it and/or dismiss him. If Einstein had gone around claiming that the Earth was 6,000 years old, it wouldn't have mattered how groundbreaking his work in physics was - he would have been laughed out of town. That's the wonderful thing about science: it doesn't rely on authority. You can be a well respect expert on one small subject, and a laughing stock when it comes to everything else. Reputation is a shitty thing to base beliefs on; it's what we had before we came up with science.
Reputable testimony certainly isn't proof, but having proof and opening your mind to possibilities are two different things.
I'm all in favor of having an open mind; just make sure your brains don't fall out in the process. "Psychics" are constantly clamoring for "open mindedness", and creationists are always asking for "fairness" and "teaching the controversy". Those are all code-words for "we have no evidence whatsoever, but you have to take us seriously anyway". Sorry, but that's not how science works. Give us a reason to take you seriously, and we will; rely on shitty anecdotes and we'll just laugh at you.
I understand; I wasn't arguing with you - merely adding some support to what you'd already stated. Although, personally, I think it's more likely that he was simply making it up whole-cloth, rather than relaying information about something he didn't understand. Either that or his beliefs in UFO's were already so extreme that he was grasping at every straw he could find in order to try and justify them. I've seen some amazing things in my time with the military, but any time I didn't understand something there were plenty of people working with that technology who were more than happy to explain it to me. Only someone who is already unbalanced could look at military tech and conclude that it must have been made by aliens.
Not sure if you read the article I linked or not. I blockquoted the 'hard sensor data' and the testimony of reputable people excerpts on purpose.
"reputable people" means shit in science. "hard sensor data" is very useful, but only if we can look at it. If your only evidence of "hard sensor data" is "this airforce guy says so", then you have no evidence. Read my other comment here for a better explanation of why.
To be fair, my father served in the Airforce underneath a Colonel who was friendly with him. This Colonel said specifically he had knowledge of certain things like missile guidance systems, stealth, etc. that were taken from alien technology.
As someone who served in the military for an extended period of time, one of the biggest disappointments for me was realizing that many officers are either retarded or fucking nuts. I know an airforce pilot who's convinced that there is alien architecture on Mars. I know a Military Intelligence officer who is convinced that the Earth is 6,000 years old. Most recently, I had an army Captain tell me that garlic cures cancer.
I think part of growing up is realizing that people - even highly placed people with all sorts of qualifications - are generally full of shit. Most of the time it's simple ignorance rather than malicious lies, but it doesn't change the fact that authority figures are generally just as fallible as anyone else. THE most important thing I've learned in life is to evaluate every claim based on the evidence presented for it, rather than the credentials of the person who is vouching for it. Without that, we may as well be back in Galilean times, where reality is determined by church officials regardless of what data those uppity "scientists" present.
Carl Sagan and self-labeled "skeptics" are the Penn and Teller's Bullshit to everybody else's Mythbusters.
The mythbusters are skeptics. Adam Savage has made numerous appearances at The Amazing Meeting - the foremost skeptical conference in the world. He's closely allied with the skeptical movement as a whole, and the show in general is a very simple application of skepticism to everyday claims. If you think that "self described skeptics" are philosophically separate from the Mythbusters, you don't understand skepticism. And - as your comment has amply demonstrated - you clearly don't understand Sagan.
Really, Sagan has proved the negative regarding UFO's?
Sagan has demonstrated a tendency amongst human beings to attribute unusual experiences to various shadowy and/or supernatural entities, which change over time, and for which there is never any actual evidence.
Do the words "burden of proof" mean anything to you? If you tell me that your car was stolen by a gang of roving leprechauns, and I point out that you live in a high-crime area where vehicle thefts occur by the dozen on a daily basis, I don't need to show that leprechauns didn't steal your car - you need to present some evidence that they did.
The current myth is that Terrorists are out to get you.
So, wait a sec ... you're saying that the idea of terrorists who want to kill civilians is equally plausible as alien spacecraft kidnapping people?
Are you sure you're living on the same planet as the rest of us?
Honestly ... if you were an alien teenager with access to your daddy's space-sedan, wouldn't you get a kick out of smoking some dope and then screwing with a bunch of backwater primitives?
so people I know and would fear if they were wielding a fork can build A-bombs?
No, they can build the mechanism for an A-bomb. Maybe. Assuming they actually manage to buy hudnreds of kilos of uranium and an equivalent quantity of C4 without being busted by the feds, they'll probably kill themselves while trying to refine the uranium, or while wiring up the C4.
Finally, a person who gets it! I mean reall, eh? It's not like some random weirdo is going to stalk you, or show up in the middle of the night to murder you, skin your face, and then jerk off on your corpse. It's corporations who do that kind of stuff!
The definition of celebrity is "Someone who is known by more people than they know"
Hrm. I have REALLY bad memory for names and faces - does that count?
Isn't it glorious to see the entire Earth in one frame?!
Eh ... you do realize that the Earth isn't flat, right?
Not sure what planet your from, but nothing is banned.
So you agree with what I said, then ask me what planet I'm from. How many bowls have you smoked today?
They purposely made it seem that it was marijuana they were trying to get contolled, when it was actually hemp they wanted out of the picture.
lol. Yeah. And Larry Silverstein blew up the world trade center. Have another joint!
You an find all the info, include actual copies of official documents on how this happened here: http://www.jackherer.com/thebook/ [jackherer.com]
Sorry, don't have time to flip through another pothead conspiracy-theory book. Feel free to paste some excerpts.
Oh, and i like to point out, yes, it was Dupont.
[citation needed]
(no, not another pothead site. if you can't at least get wikipedia on your side, you should give up.)
The material they banned was industrial hemp.
Technically, no. Your pothead buddy claimed that DuPont got hemp banned - a favorite lie of hippies and other assorted idiots. Also, industrial hemp isn't technically banned, even in the US - you can get a permit to grow it (it's just really hard to get one).
They made it illegal to grow it under the guise of going after marijuana. Even though you could set an entire field of industrial hemp on fire and not get high they still managed to get it and marijuana covered under the same law and banned.
That's a bit of a red-herring. Nobody ever suggested you could smoke hemp - the issue was that hemp fields made the ideal hiding spot for pot cultivation. Right now they get hidden in corn-fields and such, but tend to be relatively easy to spot from the air; you could grow millions of dollars worth of marijuana in a hemp field, and nobody would know unless they did a detailed ground-level inspection.
Note that I'm generally in favor of legalizing marijuana - I'm just apposed to lies and distortions.
She doesn't look like Pamela Anderson, so that makes it OK to slag her, right?
She look-a-like-a-man!
Sucks to be you!
Because I refuse to play the "is-it-a-tranny?" game? No, I'm pretty happy here. But thanks for your concern!
"You Americans have clocks. We have time." - Some random Mexican I asked the time of in Mexico.
Proving, once again, that there are dicks in every nation around the world ...
Pretty much a geek dreamboat
Alien-looking fingers and a chin that would make Superman jealous. Yeah, I guess in a very technical sense you're completely right ...
What the fuck? Seriously. Why have a blog if it's 5 years delayed?
It's being written by committee.
Except we know that it isn't. Otherwise, the few times that a wormhole was connected to a stargate which was lying face-down on a planet, anyone standing inside the gate room would immediately have "fallen" through the gate.
Anyway, you could always just put the receiving gate in a close solar orbit, facing away from it's direction of travel. That way any garbage shoved through it would have a slightly lower orbital speed, and would eventually de-orbit into the sun. And your gravity waves wouldn't bother the earth because the laws of physics are flexible enough in the TV universe to allow for my scenario :)
I think amperage is kinda important, too. High voltage low amps just means you'll end up tazing everyone in the vehicle. Sucks, but better than death.
I'm not saying this system would actually work in that role - they haven't provided nearly enough data for me to make any serious comments on it. I'm just pointing out that they're probably talking about combat vehicles rather than a Brinks truck.
As we're seeing, there simply isn't anyway to 'mitigate' failure of a nuclear reactor.
CANDU.
We're talking about the same nation that got nuked. Twice. At this point they need a yearly infusion of radiation just to keep things normal.