Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 10/12/18 in all areas

  1. 5 points
    In previous threads, staff have mentioned that we have on occasion curtailed or removed the ability for people to use the reputation system. In previous versions of the forum software we were able to limit positive or negative reputation limits separately. This meant that the impact of people who wished to use the reputation system to target specific members was always low, and staff could easily reverse it. This no longer being the case means that the system is more open to being abused by people wishing to use it as a form of personal attack. Thankfully, we have had very few cases where staff have had to intervene. For those cases where we have had to do something, admin have created two new member groups with reputation point limits set to either 0 or 2, which limits the use of both positive and negative rep points.
  2. 4 points
    Oh come on, INow… Let me bask in the glory of finally starting a topic which has lasted more than a page.
  3. 3 points
    The moment you stop believing that Darwin is regarded as some sort of scientific god, and therefore one has to believe or accept everything he wrote as scientific gospel, will be the moment you will be able to make progress.
  4. 3 points
    Gravity on a large body like Earth is not a trivial hurdle for life to escape, survive space and survive re-entry on another hospitable body, which would also likely be large. I'm not saying it's impossible but it's not a simpler solution than life starting on Earth. Executing Occam's Razor would tell us to start here, on Earth, for signs of the abiogenesis of life on Earth.
  5. 3 points
    Some of the negatives probably came from me. When you immediately dismiss someone coming forward with a claim of sexual assault as a liar, and ridicule/criticize the circumstances of their claim despite them being typical, you perpetuate the toxic environment which effectively silences victims of sexual violence and prevents them from coming forward. The way in which mistermack discussed ford's assault was toxic, and symptomatic of the animosity typically faced by victims of sexual violence coming forward.
  6. 3 points
    But "victim blaming" is based on the blamer assuming that the person was a victim. It's not a decision from the wave of a hand, it's a conclusion based on a premise that was already provided, even if it's provisional. miscasting someone else's position is another thing one might give negative reputation for, which is not opinion.
  7. 3 points
    ! Moderator Note This is not the place to grind an axe, nor the place to post non-mainstream science responses. Discussion of an aether, except as an historical reference, is completely off-topic. edit: upon further review, this was a massive hijack of the discussion, and the whole mess has been dropped in the trash can.
  8. 3 points
    I love how one or two Democrats taken out of context result in everyone’s parties getting in a twist, yet not a peep about years of screaming lock her up and saying people,should be carried out on stretchers or Obama tarred and feathered. Myopia, hypocrisy, who cares? Same result.
  9. 3 points
    And where did you get this idea? I mean if you would have said "religion" maybe I would not bring it up but what makes you think Christianity "established laws"? The concept of "laws" was there far before Christianity. And what about let's say Japan, South Korea. Seem pretty evolved from many points of view. Would you say that they are not part of modern society because Christianity is as present there? Also I wanted to add that many see the Middle Ages (dark age especially) as a period of social regress dominated by religion. "Age of Faith" Personally I think Christianity overall did slightly more bad than good but that is just my opinion. Also what do you mean "for white man"? You know where Christianity comes from right? It ain't from Wisconsin, Vermont, Amsterdam or Oslo, I'll tell you that. I recommend you read more about ancient history and also stop using the phrase "white man". It's offensive.
  10. 2 points
    I can't figure out what that means, no. You're clearly using "+" to mean something different from how it is usually used. To answer a later question in your post, yes, since you are using "+" in a nonstandard way, I do expect you to define it.
  11. 2 points
    It lies in 'perfect'. Sorry, I just see this as a kind of language joke, like the question if an almighty god can create a stone that he cannot lift. And as I said, Darwin's remark makes only sense to me talking about the 'design' of species, not about 'perfect gazelles' or 'perfect lions'. Introducing meaningless terms to create a paradox seems not very useful to me. In the context of the design of species, the remark of Darwin makes perfectly sense; your context however does not even make sense in itself.
  12. 2 points
    I think you are applying the criterion of 'perfectness' on the wrong level. It is not between different species: in your example of the gazelles and the lions we see a continuous 'arms-race'. But animal bodies, how greatly adapted they might be, have some 'design errors'. E.g. the placement of our trachea and the oesophagus, which has the risk of suffocation when eating. There is an evolutionary explanation for it, but as a design from scratch, it should never have been made like this.
  13. 2 points
    I am pretty certain that not all of them had cat heads. Bastet did. But Thoth had the head of a bird for example and Anubus of a Dog. I am not sure how many others had cat heads - I would have to look that up... but I am sure there are others with different heads that aren't cats. I would argue that you CAN build a loving bond between yourself and your cat. They can be quite loving as it goes... they just think and communicate a little differently. It is often said though about cats and dogs that "Dogs have owners.... and cats have staff". PS - I just found this - it looks an interesting read. I only skimmed it because I am a little busy right now, but might try to look at it more closely later. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cats_in_ancient_Egypt
  14. 2 points
    Just went back in Reg Prescott's history as far back as 2015 where apparently then under the name SillyBilly, he was making exactly the same apparently rehearsed claims including the scientific method, his crazy take on the orbits of the planets in the solar system and Newtonian mechanics among his usual unmistakable attempt at humour when cornered or shown to be in error. https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/91338-scientific-testing-split-from-goal-of-science/?page=6&tab=comments#comment-886741 Just thought at this stage of this continued circular argument it might be an interesting observation.
  15. 2 points
    For the sake of transparency, we have decided to announce who has been added to the groups mentioned in the OP. Currently, they are as follows: 0-point (aka Curmudgeon) xyzt (now banned) et pet TED888 2-point (aka Malcontent) Itoero John Harmonic
  16. 2 points
    Yes, this is exactly the type of post that might get me to give a neg rep. Thanks for the example.
  17. 2 points
    I have to take issue with the implication being made, both implicitly and explicitly, throughout this thread that neg reps are only being given to one side of discussions... that "the left" is unfairly treating "the right," or "democrats" unfairly using the voting system against "republicans" or "liberals" against "conservatives." You perhaps can't see it, but I chalked up a shit ton of neg reps myself in the Kavenaugh thread. Frankly, that's just the cost of debating politics (and religion). Not the best analogy, but it's more of a gladiators arena than snow-cone stand; more of an octagon than a nobel conference. It's a different space and that's just how it goes... With me on that thread... Many of the neg reps I got were from someone erasing a positive rep someone else gave me, but many others were not. Many were given to me for the same type of disagreement SJ describes in the OP, and I say... Oh well. This is a first-world problem, not worthy of my worry. Why are we even talking about this? The rep system is available to all members here and it it's available for use equally. Given we're talking about politics, it may be useful to point out that it's very democratic (with a small D). I don't have numbers in front of me, but I've probably received hundreds (or even a few thousand) neg reps while participating as a member here, but you'll still see that my overall reputation remains quite positive. On net, my posts are positive and I like to think that's because I'm a quality poster that makes coherent arguments and who manages to pushback forcefully on difficult topics. I like to think that me being in the green is NOT just because the other members here are lemmings who happen to share my political views or ideology (though, I stipulate some of my reps surely fit that category). Sigh... This same question comes up perennially about the rep system, and the outcome is always the same. Some like it, some don't. Big whoop... Can we move on , please? On net, it's consistently deemed to be more beneficial than not. If someone has a consistently red reputation, it probably is a good idea to take a harder look at the poster (if for no other reason than their seeming inability to convey an point in a manner that people of all ideologies find acceptable). Sure... It's possible the system is being used unfairly, but far more likely is that the person showing regularly in the red really is a rather shitty poster with potentially horrible positions, consistent obstinance, trollish approach, logical fallacies, willful ignorance, ignoring clear counterargument and evidence and the like. The suggestion here is mostly that neg reps are almost cultish, but that ignores the reality that even folks like me racked up a bunch of neg reps in that thread, and in just about every other political thread, too. Oobla dee, oobla da... life goes on. It's just the nature of political discussion, and I take issue with the implication that me (and others like me) are the aggressors. It's very one-sided to suggest this, and one-sidedness seems to be the core issue being decried.
  18. 2 points
    More on the general idea I'm trying to convey... The very name, REPUTATION points, refers to the poster's reputation, not to the content ( good or bad ) of the post. You are saying "You are a disreputable poster, and none of your posts have any merit" Again, how is that different from calling them an idiot ? And while I always value your opinion Zapatos, let's not continue a closed thread in this one.
  19. 2 points
    You're so 'last week'. She's a survivor now.
  20. 2 points
    You need to define start. It's a vague term, that can mean lots of things. But without you defining it, this thread is a joke. When does a loaf of bread "start" ? Making it doesn't start it. It merely brings the ingredients together in a certain form. I asked you earlier to name something that had a start but you didn't reply.
  21. 2 points
    While research is well underway looking at role of the microbiome I urge caution of overinterpretation. The connection is still being examined and the link to complex traits such as behavior is still far off from being figured out. There are generally two basic issues with the question in OP. The first is we do not really understand the biological basis of the mentioned conditions. The second is that we also only have a rough understanding of dietary effects in general. Even basic things such as impact of diets on body weight and fat distribution is often not clearly understood (notwithstanding the confidence with which dietary recommendations are made). Thus, drawing a direct line between condition at diet, is simply not possible with the level of current knowledge. As a reference, studies with clearly toxic compounds such as lead took a long while to correlate it with neurological issues in populations (due to lead paint, for example). And even there it is difficult to quantify precisely the impact.
  22. 2 points
    ! Moderator Note This isn't science, doesn't belong on the site, ever.
  23. 2 points
  24. 2 points
    Thanks to hypervalent_iodine's investigation, we now know that if you are banned and try to log in, you will be recorded in the "who's online" list, but all you see is a banner saying you can't access the site. So you are on the site, technically, because you have to be to view that page. (Meaning my guess earlier was correct — it lets you into the foyer to show you the note telling you you can't come any further inside the building)
  25. 2 points
    I imagine most native speakers would give them the same meaning, but I had a look - in muscle training terminology, not physics - and 'strength' is force without a time component, whereas 'power' is force with a time component. For example, a strong person can take a long time to move a heavy object but they wouldn't be called "powerful" unless they could do it quickly, compared to some reference. To be powerful you need to be quick as well as strong.
  26. 2 points
    Does it seem ridiculous because Oprah actually is a self made Billionaire?
  27. 2 points
    Why do you hate due process, Ten Oz?!? It’s a sad state of affairs, summarized nicely by this song (“A Scary Time for Boys”):
  28. 2 points
    Interesting. You don't understand the physics, and yet know that it's dogma. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_of_Neptune Could not have appeared as a term? You put an unknown term (e.g. "x") in the equation and then solve for x. Physicists do this all the time.
  29. 2 points
    <NitPickerMode> Newton was basically an alchemist and theologian. Debatable, one should know how much time and effort he placed in the different disciplines (which I don't know). A difference with Newton is that Leibniz stood fully in the academic disciplines of his day, where Newton, e.g. in his theology would have been seen as a heretic (and therefore Newton decided not to publish his theological writings). In his theological studies Newton e.g. denied the Trinity, based on textual criticism. Modern New Testament scholars agree with his conclusions. </NitPickerMode>
  30. 1 point
    Did you say somewhere Sorry but you start with axioms in Maths. You don't pick them up in Carrefour somewhere along the journey. The point about this axiom is that you are drawing upon a whole structure of maths that rests upon it Almost everything in arithmetic depends directly upon the property of being closed under addition. Donc, ce n'est pas possible de conduire un entraîneur et des chevaux à travers elle. Bonsoir
  31. 1 point
    Read the thread again. The differences you're citing are all semantics that have been explained by other posters quite well. For some reason, you continue to use lazy, vague rules for your own definitions, yet require much stricter rules for everyone else. Have you noticed that your requirements change "depending on the context the words are used in"? Aren't you just forcing these definitions to mean what you want them to mean? I still don't understand how you can acknowledge that theory needs to be constantly updated, and then insist that some evidence is proof. I'm probably on your ignore list after wondering this so many times, so I suppose I'll never know.
  32. 1 point
    Not to pile on here, but I took issue with this, too. This is plainly inaccurate. I have a custom spear. It's for survival. I have a custom trapping cage. It's for survival. I have a custom insulated jacket. It's for survival. I have a custom fire starter. It's for survival. I could go on...
  33. 1 point
    https://phys.org/news/2018-10-nasa-humans-venus-brilliant-idea.html NASA wants to send humans to Venus – here's why that's a brilliant idea October 16, 2018 by Gareth Dorrian And Ian Whittaker, The Conversation Credit: NASA extracts: Hovering in the atmosphere .I'm all for it! One of the apparent dangers was that Venus's atmosphere is acidic with H2SO4 [Sulphuric acid] falling as rain. This is readily overcome and to quote the article again, They had in excess of 200,000 applicants for Bas Landorp's one way Mars trip, I'm pretty sure they'll get at least that number here. What do others think? My greatest wish again is that if we were all smart enough to make this as big an International effort as possible, we could be returining to the Moon, conducting a manned mission to Mars, and balloon air cities on Venus. Having this all done before I kick the bucket would be great!
  34. 1 point
    Reg You have pitted direct quotes from one member against those of another using misrepresentation of the words of a third member. Polysemy? I give and gave you credit for stating your definition of mainstream. But you have no basis whatsoever for asserting that 'everyone else' uses this definition. In fact I specifically ruled out any polysemy by the words "in this context" Since you wish to claim that everybody else uses your definition (quite reasonable in some very limited contexts) here is my version. By far the greatest majority of the activities of scientists is in the application of existing Science, not the search for new Science. As such I would offer mainstream to represent the major activity of Science. Application is, by definition, using science for something we want to work and be successful. As an example, since you are fond of these, consider the motor car. There is an existing world land speed record. New Science would be trying to build a car to exceed this speed. But this would be one single solitary car. Set that against the output of the world car manufacturing industry building mainstream cars, using mainstream Science. Turning the the other member statement you placed in opposition brings us to the meaning of "all the time" It may have been an unfortunate use of words fo those who can only take pedantically literally what others say. I did not, anymore than when I use the phrase "I am forever making typing errors" do I mean literally that every word I type is in error or that I will live forever or that I am doing nothing else with my time. You use literary hyperbole liberally and I take Phi's words in the same vain. Most of the activity of Scientists is, as I already mentioned, spent performing activity where it is undersirable to challenge what is known to work. But some of it is spent on new Science. For instance I am reading an interesting book about the history of Earth interior geophysics. In the last two decades our knowledge and understanding of the interior of the Earth has been turned on its head at least 3 times. Perovskite, post perovskite and other matters. Fascinating.
  35. 1 point
    I'm perfectly ok with negs. There are a lot of sad people out there, who will never get the chance to ride a white stallion to the defence of a damsel in distress. This is the nearest they will ever get, so they should get the chance to gallop to the rescue, deadly mouse in hand. If it makes them feel fine and noble like Sir Galahad, it's fine by me. There are also people who would like to reply with a wise and insightful post, but can't think of any words, or are scared that it will just come out stupid, and expose them to ridicule. A negative click is safe and anonymous, it's a boon for the less gifted.
  36. 1 point
    Phi did not make a legal pronouncement. Attacking the person who claims to be the victim of a crime is considered 'victim blaming'. What Phi was suggesting (and I agree with) was that your continued attack of Ford was indecent. e.g. "Taking into account the timing, delay and obvious motive of her accusation, to me she's not a victim, she's a liar." "In the tiny chance that she IS telling the truth..." "This Dr. Ford, if her story is true, let a man that she knew was a would-be rapist carry on his evil way, presumably doing the same thing over and over, all because she didn't report it. Not very public spirited of her. His wicked ways could have been nipped in the bud 36 years ago, if she's telling the truth. The safety of other potential victims doesn't seem to be something she ever cared about." Considering how much you seem to abhor bias, you seem to be showing a bit of it yourself.
  37. 1 point
    You will be able to read all the files; ie. documents, images, etc. You can copy them onto another disk/computer. You will not, in general, be able to copy any installed programs or their settings. (There are a few exceptions, generally open-source programs that are not written specifically for Windows). So, after re-installing a new version of Windows, you will have to re-install any applications that were on the computer. In some cases, this may mean purchasing them again to get a new license. But some companies will be helpful if you explain the problem - they might give you a new replacement license for no charge. (Even Adobe have done that for me in the past. Which is pretty bloody extraordinary.)
  38. 1 point
    The first, because it is based on theory and evidence. The second one is, as you say, based on an unknown reason. Light passing through a galaxy is not relevant. Actually, there is so much light and dust in galaxies, we can't observe the red-shift of light through galaxies, we have to look between them. So I'm not sure what you are referring to. I can't really follow your argument here. But as far as I can see, the effect of light passing through a galaxy cluster would be 7.25x10-4 compared to a Z of say, 1. This is insignificant. However, this seems to be based on the assumption that the light "accumulates" red-shift as it passes through space. This is incorrect. The red-shift is purely due to the difference in scale factor between the source and us.
  39. 1 point
    As a matter of interest (how) can things which don't exist have a start?
  40. 1 point
    If you can choose any point as a start, then it doesn't have a start. For example, you could say that the book I am reading starts at page 127 but that would be silly. Well, the universe might be one such example, we don't know. This is the "black swan" fallacy. That is not very convincing. Once upon a time people thought all swans were white. For thousands of years no one had seen anything but white swans. But they were wrong. So your personal experience doesn't have much value as evidence. Please show the premises and logical steps that lead to that conclusion. Unless by "logical" you mean "well, it makes sense to me". In which case we can ignore it, This is the fallacy of begging the question. Is it? Please show your working. Otherwise this looks like a baseless assertion. That is not a counter example because (1) the concept of "start" applied to infinity is meaningless and (2) infinity does exist. Again, begging the question. You could equally validly say: There are real things without a start and the universe is real so it follows in didn't have a start; both logically and empirically. You have no empirical evidence that the universe had a start. So this is dishonest as well as fallacious. It might be. But there is zero evidence for that.
  41. 1 point
    20oC . This is 'standard' temperature.
  42. 1 point
    Why do people immediately claim some incumbent theory/model is wrong when they come across some obscure text/claim on the Internet? There is an underlying reason...A-G-E-N-D-A If it turns out that DM is wrong, then it will be science that discovers it...not some obscure random claim on the web. Science can and do make errors and false claims at time, but again, if and when that happens, it is always science that is self correcting, and again, certainly not some random claim on the web. eg: The BICEP2 experiment claimed to have discovered gravitational waves. The claim was made prematurely and later shown that the experiment was actually due to dust contamination. [Gravitational waves were of course discovered some time later by aLIGO] Another was a claim that the speed of light, "c" had been seemingly exceeded in some other remote experiment. Later data was forthcoming showing that this was an anomalous reading caused by a loose wire or something similar. Just about any fact and or incident in history is probably contradicted on the web by conspiracy nuts, or some other fanatical breed of fools that would like to attempt to refute known facts for their own benefit and satisfaction with regards to some agenda or personal belief. DM of course as Strange has said is the best theory we have, and while being a "fudge factor" when first proposed, is now fairly well supported with many observed phenomena supporting the concept, the bullet cluster observation being the most notable.
  43. 1 point
    Did you actually check out the links? There are a number of examples that are not from Clinton. She is defending fellow Democrats calling for uncivil behaviour, and the links include a number of examples. (which you requested) Are you seriously unaware there is a concern with the current political discourse? Do you believe it is only Trump, or only the Republicans? Your tendency to confirmation bias is pretty consistent, so should I take you at your word that you are serious, and never really able to see both sides? Apologies if I am wrong, but I believe you are much smarter than that, but being disingenuous. When will we see a return to mutual respect in American politics? https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2018/08/26/john-mccain-death-barack-obama-reaction-nr-vpx.cnn/video/playlists/mccain-bashing-trump/
  44. 1 point
    Silvestru you know your history, good answers. +1 John Not sure what you mean by 'grand' but Silvestru was right about one thing The ancient Greeks did indeed lay the foundations of modern western society, even though they were still a slave owning culture. Previous cultures, and many subsequent ones, were directed from the top down by some central authority - King, Emperor, general no good dictator whatever. The bod at the top had well rewarded henchmen to keep order and extract the bulk of the wealth of his 'subjects', but usually the bod at the top in theory owned everything. The ancient Greeks were the first rich culture to operate collective government, where the several bods at the top were only slightly better off than those they lead. I won't say those under them since they were not secure and could be outvoted. Another culture in History that successfully operated this system were the Vikings.
  45. 1 point
    Mine has Trump winning in 2020 with Kanye West as his new running mate...so I thought it was broken...
  46. 1 point
  47. 1 point
    Well, obviously the ability to compete or adapt is entirely independent on complexity (if that is what is implied with primitive). Rather obviously "primitive" bacteria will be the last survivors long after everything else has died out. Again, it depends on the ecological situation, the available niches, the ability of the organisms to adapt to said niches and in cases of direct competition, the relative ability to utilize the niche. Also note that these are not necessarily stable conditions. For example a species can outcompete another one in a particular niche by extremely effective adaptation. However, that niche may vanish and with it the adaptive advantage. Evolution is best not seen as simply a competitive survival experiment. Probably something like adaptivity.
  48. 1 point
    OK, I looked at the first page of search results. I counted: 11 times 'proof-of-concept' 1 time 'proof-of-principle' 1 time 'formal proof' None of them is a hint that the authors mean 'scientific proof'. As a database administrator, I sometimes make 'proof-of-concepts', showing that a certain solution in principle could work. (So I think that 'proof-of-principle' and 'proof-of-principle' mean the same.) In general, observations and experiments support scientific theories, or shows them wrong (at least int the form the theory has at the moment). And when the support is very strong, one could say that a theory is proven. But there is always the chance that it will turn out that a theory is only valid in a certain domain, and must be changed to include other domains. I think you should be more specific on this 'somehow'... And mostly theories are rejected, because they cannot explain certain observations. But all this scratches just the surface. Already read the philosophy of science of Imre Lakatos?
  49. 1 point
    The pedigree system is just a classification system to categorize dogs. I've been to two dogsleddingfarms and It was pretty clear people care more for the validity of a dog then it's pedigree. There is nothing wrong with this system. There is something wrong with the way many dogs are bred, but that's not necessary related to this system. I payed 'a lot of money' for a dog free of known/predictable genetic defects. If people care for the dogs they breed then they try to diminish the chance of genetic defects.
  50. 1 point
    No offense taken. Physicists have been known to use math in a way that drives mathematicians crazier than they already are.