Jump to content

geoguy

Senior Members
  • Posts

    244
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by geoguy

  1. Why the time machine? Dick Cheney was interviewed on Larry King just a few days ago. He stated flatly (again) that the invasion was the right course of action and he and the President would do it again. And people still buy this crap? Support the morons even whe they can state such a blatant lie? They would invade again? It's incredulous that in a democracy that the american population willingly swallows the lies over and over and over. 'Sure we made some mistakes but the removal of Sadam was the right course of action and I'd support it again'. What a friggin liar. Bush and Cheney would have choked on their Freedom Fries if the word 'Iraq' was mentioned 4 and a half years ago and they knew the humiliation an invasion would lead to. These are the same con men now promoting 'the surge'. Brooklyn Bridge is for sale again.
  2. Most American activity is actually against Sunni insurgents. An increasing percent is against Shiite insurgents. Or is it al-qauida? Or is it foreign influnce. after all bush has vowed to fight 'outside' interference in Iraq....the bozo actually said : 'The United States will not tolerate foreign interference'....American soldiers were all given Iraqi citiznship? What a mess. Just read on BBC '175 killed by suicide bombers'. The headline on Foxnews is 'Toy recall'. No wonder the warmongers in the U.S. are self-delusional about 'great progress'. Perhaps they pigged out on too many Freedom Fries followed by Yellow Cake. The war was lost with the invasion. The parrot is dead.
  3. The goal of defeating the Nazis was to defeat the Nazis. It was a military goal. The situation, if victorious, in a post war Germany was secondary to the military goal. In Iraq it is a social goal of freedom and democracy....no can do by kickiing down doors and terrorizing the population. The U.S. is still in the fantasy thinking that there is a military solution in Iraq.... use force to subdue 'them' but the U.S. still has no handle on who the enemy is or 'why' those terrorized by American troops are the enemy. Over taking the military fiasco in Iraq is the political game being played in the USA. 'Iraq' is really often internal U.S. politics whther in the Congress or the chase for the Presidemcy. Draft or no draft is based on....not the military demand but internal American politics. Triple troop stength....not base on the need of the generals to control Iraq but on internal U.S. politics. Americans just don't care enough to win a war if it means any type of sacrifice that impacts their own lives. The cause is not seen as worth it. The war was lost as soon as the cracks in the Freedom Fries propaganda began to show. Powell lied about the Yellow Cake....Rumsfeld lied about 'a handful of malcontents and criminals'...Bush continues to lie about 'great progress'...credibility is dried up and the war is lost. The bully has had his nose bloodied. The USA will retreat from Iraq with its tail between its legs as it did in Vietnam. There will be no attack on Iran and no attack on North Korea and no attack on any convenient targets (Venezuela? Cuba?) that the USA would have added to the 'Axis of Evil' if the aggresion had been successful. baloney. The war is not over because the USA declares 'Mission Accomplished'. Tell that to my Dutch relatives who refused to concede 'the war was over because the Nazis and set up a token puppet governmnets in the Netherlands, Norway, Denmark, etc. It's incredulous that anyone could actually believe that Iraq is a 'sovereign' state and the USA is 'asked' to remain. The inability to face reality is part of the reason the USA will never win the war (yes 'a war').
  4. Great 1984 doublespeak: Er, guess who were eager to lie and fudge evidence go to war and kill people? Hint: 'Freedom' and 'Yellow Cake'
  5. This is insane THE PARROT IS DEAD (see Monty Python) Cripes, are Americans so dense they still don't realize they lost this mission the day they invaded and occupied Iraq. 4 and a half years later the country is a basketcase. If it wasn't war, it'd be a comedy skit. the latest progress: 'look, the parrot twitched'' The Iraqi parliament takes a month off while American soldiers die. One Iraqi politiian defended the break by bemoaning that nothing is accomplished and the USA runs the country anyways. People. GET REAL. Iraqinam is Vietnam. Encore for the fools running the show. The comedy continues. Come September it will be 'great progress'..Ha! Ha! and, yes we are all waiting for 'give it some more time'...Ha! Ha! the insanity will continue for another year. More dead American troops. More tens of billions down the toilet. It's a scene from Gilligan's Island. One more bonk on the head by a coconut and Gilligan wakes up from his nightmare "hey skipper, I had this wierd dream. We invaded Iraq and...4 and a half years later and we were still in the quick sand....and then we still woulDn't get out AND THEN ANOTHER YEAR...AND THEN....
  6. I never had a hard time understanding why the result was a positive. But I had difficulty understanding why a negative times a positive couldn't be either a negative or a positive answer. This difficulty isn't undertanding the proof so much as in visualizing the concept.
  7. Another example was the astronomer Fred Hoyle. He received all types of accolades for major contributions to science. Then he strayed off into some odd tangents. He went one way but actual scientific evidence and methodology went the other. There is the 'cult of the personality' in all human endeavours but in science the name Einstein, Hoyle, Pauling and so on can raise the funding but can't influence the physical properties of the Universe.
  8. I can usually tell when someone such isn't involved directly in 'the sciences' when they make sweeping generalizations about 'the sciences'. 'Science' involves millions of individuals involving tens of thousands of pursuits. For the life of me I can't fathom any reason why the dozen of us in the world who study Upper Paleozoic biostraitgraphy wou'd be 'corrupt' or misread fossil evidence. Influenced by what? Swansont, Great post. Good points and among them: Swansont: "Dawkins writing a book on atheism is outside of scientific inquiry; it's a popular book on religion, and popular books are just that, not peer-reviewed papers appearing in a journal." The public (such as the original poster) fail to understand that basic difference. So much is quoted in the popular media that begins 'scientists say blah, blah...blah'. Quite often it's a quote or opinion outside of the actual research performed. Such as 'what do you think this means?' as opposed to what the actual verifiable results were in the the published research. As a geologist working in paleontology I have all types of opinions but would never include in a paper the words 'I think that...'
  9. true. Except turn the words 'small nuke' to super mega nuke. Sure it's possible within the laws of physics. All the atoms of the universe are products of energy released in the big Bang. The universe is the ultimate recycler of subatomic particles. as YT2095 points out, the challenge is to control the energy. Leave behind Star Trek baby-babble and move into a more adult world of science. Harnass some supernova explosions, map out neutrons and electrons, fused atoms, etc. and before you know it....a double latte with cream on top. Just don't be within a few light years of the manufacturing process.
  10. The nuclear issue is a tough one. Think of all the crazies (Hitler, etc.) that lived in the last 200 years...there will be as many crazies in the next 200 years. Only the crazies in the future will be screwballs in a nuclear world. We may have faith in USA or Russia or China to have nukes...at least in 2007...but what about 2017 or 2037? And another half dozen states? Pakistan today but in 20 years? Who would have cared about Korea or Vietnam or Iran back in 1907? In a static world we might say, 'fine' . Those with nukes keep them and try and discourage the rest. But, it's not going to stay static. It's in the interest of the USA, Russia etc. to phase out nukes while they still have the upper hand. Phase them out now through a position of strength. In a hundred years with advancing nuclear technology it won't matter who has what weapons as even modest nations may have the capabilityof killing everyone else. A possible forward step towards nuclear sanity would be for a country like the UK or France to announce it is getting rid of nuclear wepons. They would could be given defense guarantees by the USA and Russia. The example would be a positive example and moral coup in being able to ask the same of developing countries. The leader of the disarmed counry would be a strong figure and have the moral high ground when going to Tehran or Pyongpang. What's happening now is a dribble towards more and more nuclear countries because the developed world has a weak or even hypocritical position in stopping nuclear proliferation.
  11. What would be the purpose of hitting some 'high profile' target in Pakistan? It's OBL and sideshow Bob. Dead. then what? 'If' it actually accomplished anything then so be it and the consequence would need to be weighed (I think it would be a disaster for relations with Pakistan, etc.). I don't see, however, how it would accomplish a darn thing. OBL just becomes a martyr 'or' nobody believes he was actually killed. No Islamo- nutbar is going to say 'gee whiz' and put down his rifle or his Koran. There is no 'target' in this type of conflict that is going to make a hill of beans if removed. OBL and his thugs probably serve a better rallying point alive for the West than if dead. Kill him and if the next day nothing changes....then what? Hitler was an evil dude in WW2 but better to have his hated face up there for our soldiers to see than a nobody. Then again, everything in Iraq got peachy after Saddam was captured....or after Zarqawi was killed.. . No target in Pakistan would have an upside greater than the negative consequences.
  12. CDarwin. Congrats on such an ambitious undertaking. I'm sure you'll receive a lot if input so I'll just touch on a few points. When we do research we ask the 'so what?' question. What's the study trying to accomplish and what is that accomplishment contributing. will your study tell us something about primate behavior? Is it anthropological related and can tell us someting about human behavior? Is is a study confined to contributing to the greater knowledge of vocalizations in captive populations? Otherwise: Captive populations develop their own vocalizations. 0r: the same and this indicates..(the so what) ? Both studies would have their value but the latter might be better received by evaluators not steeped in primatology. some hints: Do a search in the Intl. Journal of Primatology and equivalent journals to determine what, if anything is done. Your local zoo (if acredited) has a master list of all animals that are in North American zoos. For instance, if there are Blue monkeys in San Diego or here in Calgary, etc, then that info is available and even the genetic relationships (if any) are known. There is also a master list of zookeepers, etc. You might be able to email any keepers of Blue monkeys for added info. Sometimes there are graduate students doing studies that are not published and the keepers might share this info with you. Lay a foundation for your study. Answer questions such as: -how genetic diverse is the population being studied (new males introduced?) -are they all captive bred -how many generations since they were in a natural state? -influence of other zoo primates? Those not native to their ecosysytem? -etc...it's important to define your controlled group
  13. geoguy

    Vertebrae

    I just retrned from a couple days in the Cretaceous deposits of the our nearby badlands. Some of the more common fossils we find are the vertebrae of various dinos and other reptiles. The hadrosaur and ceratopsian caudal tail vertebrae are often found in articulated sequence....up to 35 or so in the tail. Depending on the species these tail vertebrae start off the size of a softball and reduce down to the the size of a thimble at the tip of the tail. Below is a photo of a hadrosaur tail section in my garden. Each of the bumps is an individual tail vertebra.
  14. Assumption doesn't have a role. What is important is that the actual methodology is correct and that the results of that methodology is a rational conclusion. Newton was a scientist and no less of a scientist because many of his conclusions have been eclipsed (excuse the pun). His conclusions were rational results of the limited variables he introduced into his equations.He did not know of Relativity, Weak and Strong forces, the Quantum, etc.. He did not introduce these variables. We don't 'assume' Relativity is a productive way to proceed with other issues in physics. Relativity is accepted because it is a model that best fits the current evidence to date. In the 33 years I've done research I've never read 'this is true' in a paper rather than 'this is the conclusion reached'. Conclusions may one day be negated by further research but this doesn't negate 'the science' that came before.
  15. Not at all. You still haven't grasped the essence of science.Science is not about 'truth'. It is about building on knowledge. There is no end game. You mistake religion for science. Religion is about discovering 'truth'. I realize that science is not your strong point but a basic review of science 101 might point you in the right direction.
  16. True. Discusion of the 'state of science' outside of a particular discipline is a nebulous undertaking. ''Science' is not about media reports, essays in Scientifc America, popular books by Dawkins, etc. It's nitty-gritt published papers is accepted journals for a particular discipline. It's not that 'smoking leads to 'a' more often than 'b'. Read the actual paper and it will give specific raw data, the validity of the data, the regimen, percents, etc. It would not have a claim that 'smoking leads to heart disease' but a much more refined conclusions with parameters determined within very specific variables. The 'quality of the data' needs specific knocks aginst it and not an asumption that it's not valid. The paper itself should present how the data is collected and the conclusions based on that and thus open for further research if someone has reasons to question the data. Science is not about finding 'the truth'. Science is a method of adding to knowledge. It's the quality of the science that matters. The conclusions of quality science do not need to be correct. Quality science means that the next researcher can come along and replicate the variables and discern whether or not those were measured correctly, the best variables to use, etc.
  17. Good response Skeptic. Turn the clock back a century and the deaths from infections rise exponentially. Most of us had relatives who died of TB, pneumonia, scarlett fever....even gangrene, yellow fever in America, etc. Everyone dies. We're living longer before we die. If you think a higher % of folks die of infectious diseases each year then you need to do some homework. aids and Malaria are NOT big killers in India. India has a billion people and some perspective is needed. China has 1.3 billion. the USA 300 million. The population of Africa is increasing, not decreasing. Malaraia, small Pox, Sleeping sickness used to wipe out whole regions and leave them uninhabitable. This century has by far the least % of the population subject to death via infectious dideases.
  18. No, not mathematically. But mathematics isn't really a 'science' but a tool to pursue science. Being a tool it can be remachined and words like 'equivalence' redefined. However, as state above by a poster, 'equivalency' in the current common usage is not the term to use. A circle is not equivalent to a sphere anymore than a 'point' in the circle is the equivalent to a circle. Your observation is an interesting one. The type that is too often lacking in teaching math. It's the fuel that can make math an exciting subject rather than a stress-filled chore.
  19. I watched 5 minutes of the Nasa press conference Talk about tedium to the point of tears. Bureaucratic mumbo jumbo. Nasa just doesn't get it anymore. Even CNN switched off half way through. no one could figure out what was actually being said. Nasa, once an inspiring agency has morphed into.... YAWN.
  20. True. And that's an 'if'. Today you can pay $1200 for a quick ride in a fighter jet. Probably somone has a private submarine to take folk sunder the surface but I doubt it's led to much demand for undersea hotels. Millionaire joy rider can only take a science so far and then practical purposes need to surface (if any). There's also an unknown variable that might come into play. Perhaps in 10 years or 25, etc. There may soon be a taboo on expending energy and damaging the environment for frivolous jaunts for the rich. Many like free enterprise but once the 'average Joe' sees restrictions or some type of energy shortages that impact his daily life, the big yachts will be tied up in dock and private jets grounded.
  21. Na, we don't need manned space exploration. Most folks today probably think the space station flies around the solar system rather than in Low Earth Orbit. Ask folks at work a question like : do you think we should send astronauts back to Mars? (yes an illogical question) and half o them wouldn't know man hasn't yet walked on Mars. Even among astronomers and science geeks there isn't any great thirst for a manned Moon program. there are a few core 'technology' keeners but they are a fringe in the science community.
  22. I'm not a fan of manned space flight, period. YAWN. In contrast the rovers and probes. Hubble, etc. are A-1 exciting. Space.com always has on going discussions on space topics, including Orion for those interested. http://uplink.space.com/ubbthreads.php?Cat= Re the money: Unfortunately the manned program has been a big toilet sucking in 75% of the funds. Non-manned programs and other science research has been a victim of the Shuttle and I.S.S. sink holes. As a kid I was a space keener (as was every other kid). We knew every Russian and American astronaut...the way kids know their favorite sports heroes. After Apollo 11 interest in manned spaced was up there with watching paint dry. There will be ZERO interest among the public for another moon program. ZERO. It'll die when the cherry-picked soft ball questions are answered for a millionth time. "why did you want to be an astronaut"..."why should we spend money on the Moon when....." Get ready for scripted non-answers and it won't fly with the public. A 5 minute update on Paris Hilton will outdraw ratings for a moon landing.
  23. You don't see the irony that the topic is a solution for Iraq and not a solution for the mess the USA had gotten itself into. That's why it is no solution at all. You recognize internal American issues but don't mention the factions and names of leaders of factions in Iraq....where the ACTUAL issue is. 'Iraq' is not an American domestic problem between Demos and Reps. It is a problem for Iraqis in Iraq. Real people with real power stuggles, factions, killing, fear to walk the streets. 'Iraq' is not twisting some fat-assed senator's arm in the USA to vote one way or the other. Mention the 'vietnam' war and most americans think of demonstrations, the draft and so on....not vietnam, but the USA. It's the same with Iraq. 'The Iraq War' on Foxnews and CNN is now 90% about internal US politicas and not about Iraq. Your solution is 'how to get the USA out of Iraq'. Not a solution to Iraq.
  24. Science weighs evidence. It's not concerned with what is 'true' or 'correct' as much as what can withstand scientific scrutiny. Science is a process rather than an end product. Think of it as a trial in which evidence is introduced and a jury in that scientific discipline ( biology, geology, etc.) decides what is legitimate or not. Science isn't about being right or wrong or having an answer that is carved in stone. As new evidence (your facts) is introduced it is accepted or dismissed according to strict standards in the discipline involved. This process is through published papers in recognized scientific journals. If some claim or piece of evidence isn't published then it might be interesting conversation but isn't considered part of the discipline involved.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.