Greg H.

1. I (or my tribe, group, debate club, etc) are superior to yours, so I will thwonk you with my club.

2. You have something I (or my tribe, et al) feel entitled to, so I will thwonk you with my club.

3. Your rules do not apply to me (or my tribe, etc), so while I may not be thwonking you with my club now, I am free to do so at any time.

At the end of the day, humans are territorial, possessive, covetous, and arrogant. Especially large groups of them. This makes for a bad combination, in most instances.

And we aren't the only species to exhibit some, or all, or these behaviors. I wantch my cats steal toys from each other all the time and sit on them. They don't play with them, they just don't want the other cats to play with them.

We all like to think we are expert drivers keeping ourselves, families, and friends safe from outside terrors and dangers and quite often we do, but we cannot drive like the guy or gal from Ronin or ride like this guy.

I took an aggressive/stunt driving course once. That clip kind of reminded me of that.

Edit: Though to be honest, that car chase was too long for my taste.

It never ceases to amaze me when people ignore the tens of thousands of scientists from different fields who have studied this issue and arrived at the same conclusion in favor of that one random crackpot with an unsupported contrary position that aligns with personal preference.

I don't know why it would - evolution has been facing the same battle for far longer.

That's part of my problem as well. If they're going to make this work, maybe the steering wheel has to retract out of the way. And now we're back to personal train cars.

I am reminded of the futuristic Audi from the movie I, Robot that has a steering wheel that folded away when in Auto mode, but extended when in manual mode.

The majority of car crashes are caused by human factors - either distraction, driving too fast or under the influence - so personally, I would have nothing against automated road transport. There are unmanned trains and pilots of airliners already spend most of their time onboard on an autopilot. So why not cars?

Aircraft and trains are routed and overseen by a central authority for a given geographic area (Air Traffic Controllers for aircraft, dispatchers for trains). There are also so few of them (relatively speaking) that this makes sense. There are literally hundreds of millions of road based vehicles in the United States alone - and historically speaking, these types of systems do not scale well.

I don't like objections that rely on "if you build it, they will hack". We can't stop innovation because someone may exploit it, we just need to protect the system better, or punish those who try to monkey with it as if they were endangering hundreds of lives instead of lifting passwords. I understand the safety concerns, and I agree with them.

I fundamentally agree with you that we can't stifle innovation because of "could be" scenarios, but when we're talking about vehicles that I put my kids into, I'm a "plan for the worst" kind of guy. And human nature being what it is, I think it's silly to adopt the attitude of "If you make it hard to hack, no one will try". As my step father used to say - "Locks exist to help honest people stay honest."

Ultimately, I think my fundamental problem with drive by wire systems is that the computer is actually in control of the car, not me, and that goes against every instinct I possess. I admit, it's an emotional, visceral, reaction with only the most passing glance in the direction of logical, but there you have it. When I board a train, or a plane, or get into the passenger seat of another car, I have acknowledged a release of the determination of my own fate for the duration of this trip. But when I'm physically holding onto the steering wheel, the idea that I'm not really the one who decides which way the wheels point frankly scares the hell right out of me.

 

...so why don't we just invest in buses and trains?

This is the question I keep asking myself over and over.

When I lived in Europe in the early 90s, I never noticed I didn't own a car. Admittedly, it was a bit of a walk to the train station, but I could call a cab if I needed one (if it was raining, or I needed to move my shopping), or wait for a bus. I never felt like I needed a car to get anywhere.

It was quite the culture shock when I got back to the US and realized the first thing I needed to buy was a car. I lived in an area where mass transit was more than one person walking along the side of the road in the same direction, and the nearest bus stop was 5 miles down the road (and that was only for Greyhound, and they only dropped off. They didn't pick up there).

My primary argument aginst the drive by wire systems is that, ultimately, they are computer controlled, and any computer can be hacked. When my safety, and the safety of others, is in question, nothing quite beats good old fashioned mecahnical linkages. Yes, they are less fancy, yes they are neither new nor modern, but they insure that I can, at all times, actually force the car to do something to try and avoid an accident.

My secondary argument is - why do we need them? To save four feet of metal? I get fly by wire systems on jets, especially jumbo jets. Mechanical linkages 90 feet long are impractical, and hydraulic lines of that length could cause problems with multiple fittings adding possible leaks. My car is 15 feet long - mechanical and hydraulic systems are fine.

I'm far less concerned by vehicle automation than I am by the drive by wire systems now being incorporated into new cars.

Three things I should always have direct, mechanical control of in a car:

Brake

Accelerator

Steering

The trouble with science is you just can't make stuff up and expect to get a pat on the back for showing imagination; this is may be what irks some people. The rules of discourse that science holds dear are not those of normal everyday society, so it can be quite a shock to stick your head in here!

I admit there is a bit of culture shock, but it's not like the rules are ambiguous, obfuscated, or otherwise hidden from plain view.

If you make a scientific claim, provide your reasoning.

It's no different from the old "Make sure to show your work" from math classes.

It's also not, in any way, discrimnatory. If you don't make a scientific claim, you won't be held to that standard. If I post a thread in the Lounge about the kinds of Artisan Cheeses that taste the best, I don't expect anyone to come over and ask me for evidence. It's obvious it's an opinion thread, both from the title and placement.

If I posted the exact same thread in the psychology section (along the lines of maybe theres a chemical reason why one tastes best to most people) I would exepect, and rightly so, that I might be asked to cite sources that my initial premise is even valid (that a specific kind is considered best by the majority of the people).

Context is as important as content.

In a sense, members are selected out on the basis of not adhering to the rules. The rules only discriminate against poor behaviour and not the characteristics protected by the Equality Act.

So basically, the staff here discriminates against members in exactly the same way as the criminal justice system discriminates against members of the larger society - if you can't follow the rules, you are first penalized, and then, if the violations continue to occur, removed from the society in question.

I would also like to point out that the staff does not immediately remove any member, as far as I can tell. First they are warned (often many, many times), then they are suspended, and only if they continue to violate the rules of this community are they banned.

Additionally, everyone is held to the same standard. I have seen folks making perfectly secular arguments suffer the same proscriptions for the same reasons - primarily a failure to demonstrate testable, scientifically based conclusions.

Finally, making a religiously based argument in the proper context (i.e. a discussion of religion itself in the religion section) is not against the rules of that forum, as far as I can tell, so the staff have even provided an inclusive area where religion can be discussed by those who wish to discuss it.

I'm not seeing how any of this could be construed as being discrimnatory, and frankly, I think it's a bit disingenous to suggest otherwise, so I have to wonder what the agenda is.

While we don't throw people out for their religious beliefs, we might be open to a challenge on the basis of indirect discrimination.

I'm not a lawyer (I don't even play one on tv), but I'm not sure the analogy holds. We're not making it difficult for people to join, nor do we make it hard for them to stay. We just ask that they follow the rules while they are here. We don't ask them to leave because they're religious - we ask people to leave because they continuously harass other members, soapbox, refuse to provide scientific evidence for their claims, or otherwise fail to follow the rules of the forum they have elected to join. Providing evidence in the course of a scientific discussion is not discrimination - it's how science works.

As for the purely religious discussion or even scholarly religious discussion, I have not seen the staff here eject anyone for having a religious discussion in the proper context in the proper place on the forums.

Greg - He may want to eat Your brains not sip tea wth You so be careful now

I'd be ok with him trying to eat my brains, if he was an actual alien.

I'm not saying I would let him, just that it would be a secondary consideration to having met an extraterrestrial being.

 

In your drug example - the calculator could be wired up with European Pharmocopeia and with NHS patients records DB (neither of which actually work that well online) - and instead of a simple dosage calculation it checks that the answer provided falls within safe prescribing limits for that patient of that age, weight, etc. that no drugs have been prescribed which would be potentially a clash of therapies, that no allergies/intolerances are found. It could then check this dosage against other dosages given by other doctors and their associated calculators for major discrepancies.

Funnily enough...

My stepfather worked at a hospital here in the US where they had an internal system like that. The doctors would enter a prescription through a terminal and the pharmacy system would validate that the order didn't violate whatever limits were set before it would actually show up as a valid pharmacy order. It checked patient meds, other prescriptions already issued, and a few other things. So there are at least some facilities that are seeing the value in double checking people's work. Sadly, this kind of system isn't a requirement, so it's only done on an ad hoc basis.

I don't want to say it was aliens...because they're not (in all likelihood).

Ok, now that I have that out of my system.

Everytime that I have seen someone put forth one of these supposedly alien skulls, it's turned out to be either a hoax or a serious misrepresentation. Let's just say I'll accept they're aliens when the DNA results are in.

Or if one of their relatives parks their spaceship in the front garden and comes in for tea.

My favorite was when I was a "Beacon of Hope". I wanted it changed to "Bacon of Hope", because well, bacon. The Admins may not be able to change those titles. I know the Mods can't.

 

mmm Bacon.

 

Maybe they are just Humans

...

What else would they be - gerbils?

So it becomes pointless discussing new hypotheses here as every model proposed can be dismissed by just saying it wasn't scaled up enough or the equations might not be applicable. I feel to be fair the objections should be subjected to the same standard.

No objection unless you can show the objection is relevant.

Actually, the same rule does apply to the objections. Objections are scrutinized and if they are found not to apply, they can be safely ignored.

But as the proponent of the idea, it's largely your job to answer the objection or show why it doesn't apply. And that requires you to have some knowledge of the basics of those equations and it also requires you to be willing to revisit your idea in light of those objections, and possibly even admit you might be wrong.

Blindly following an idea in the absence of a reason to support it is called faith, not science.

Just calling themselves GLORIOUS LEADERS etc based on such false Reputation Points is a great Joke !

Calling yourself a scientist while refusing to follow the basic principles of science is also pretty funny.

Automation, in and of itself, it neither good nor bad. It's a tool, designed to make our lives, easier, better, or safer (or all three) in some fashion.

Take the thermostat in your home - that's a form of very simple automation. When the house gets too cold, it turns the heat on. When it warms up, it turns the furnace off. Which means you don't have to worry about doing it yourself all day every day.

To be fair to the railroad industry. The cost of a train sitting for a few minutes because of a false stop is a heck of a lot lower than the cost of the train smacking into something and derailing because the system didn't stop it. Also, most railroads already have automatic detection built in. It just doesn't stop the trains. The dispatcher has to that by calling the impacted locomotives directly - that takes time, and when you're moving something that takes a mile to stop, every second counts.

Please demonstrate, quantitatively, that this "aetheric pressure" produces the same results as Maxwell's equations and the Einstein Field Equations.

I'll do you one better - demonstrate it exists. Thus far everyone that went looking for aether has failed to find it. Demonstrate that it even exists, and then we can talk about what effects it might have.

Is the Government keeping secrets that people kill themselves for?

All governments keep secrets, just like all people do. If we make the assumption that there are secrets worth killing for, then logically it follows that the answer to your question is - possibly.

I don't come from formal physics training and therefore have my own language habits. That is as much as you can contend with any verifiability. Stop being a bunch of fascist elitist tools.

First off, insulting people - never a good way to garner a positive outlook on your statement, no matter what it is. You automatically color their reactions. While I understand your frustration (sometimes I find myself having to google unfamiliar terms - not being a physicist myself), the fact is it's on you to insure you're being clear when you communicate.

Also, insiting people use the correct scientific terminology when discussing science isn't being elitist - it's insuring that everyone involved in the discussion knows what you mean. In a field like physics where terms often have very narrow and precise meanings, using the wrong term can completely change the idea you're trying to communicate to your audience.

The people here have been, and continue to be, very helpful and informative, even to a science amatuer like myself. Perhaps, instead of assuming they're trying to shut you out or shout you down, you need to assume they're trying to help you better explain yourself and your idea, so they can offer their own insights on that without having to wade through a lot of non-standard terms.

If, on the other hand, you just want to soapbox and spout your ideas in your own way, without regard for the rest of the scientific community, I suggest you get a blog.

That is interesting as the tip of a javelin can be described by an effective theory that is second order in time derivatives.

People are always amazed when they finally realize the amount of complex mechanics calculations they do in their head without ever even realizing it.

I have to admit, I use the plural of anecdote pretty frequently now thanks to swansont.

Some models are built to explain an observed phenomenon (such as my example) some are built based on a current model to try and better explain some area that we don't understand well. I'm not a scientist by trade, but I think the basic idea is that if you want other scientists to think seriously about your idea, a model is the best way to accomplish that because it lets them objectively evaluate the idea based on its predictions.

In some respects, science is a lot like the criminal justice system.

It's not about what you know, or what you believe.

It's what you can prove that matters.