Search the Community

My signature link to a YT video began rendering (instead of just showing the URL) and I'd like to remove it or maybe surround it by noparse tags. Followed the outlined steps, however clicking Account Settings throws a 502 Bad Gateway error and I cannot seem to get to the sig edit screen. Anyone else seeing this error, or have an alternative path to try?

Click on your user name on the top right and go to "Account settings" in the dropdown. Signature will be one of the options. Use shift+enter to not leave a blank line between lines. Signatures should be fairly unobtrusive

Yes, absolutely we have that right. This is not run by the government, so there is no issue of free speech. You may start a blog somewhere if you simply wish to disseminate information. What you may post here is at the site's discretion. You agree to certain rules when you join, and you violated the rule regarding using external sites. Following your first post you were asked to post the details of your discussion here, as per rule 2.7. You declined to do that. Now you show up with multiple accounts, which is a violation of rule 2.9. That is why the saidani account was banned, and why this one will be, too. Your original account (ensea2004) remains active, for the moment. But since you made an account to evade a ban, that access may shortly be revoked. In light of your unwillingness to follow the rules, it's amusing that you take an indignant tone with us. Begone, sir!

As was stated earlier, they insulted me first. And I repeated the exact same manner of insults they said to me. For instance, Raider said I have a tiny mind. Then I said he had a tiny mind. I get suspended and a warning point on my account...yet nothing happens to him. How is this just? For instance, Zapatos calls me a spoiled brat and a child. Then I call him a senile old man. How is calling someone a spoiled brat child any morally different than calling them a senile old man? Everyone loses their minds, tell me I cross the line, and I get warned. Noone else gets warned. Bullies holding each other's hands and a mutual support circle of bullies. Even though they troll my threads and say I am sick and other insults. Completely unfair and bogus.

In short, no. Being correct has absolutely no relevance to the matter. Only whether the work in itself is complete and with sufficient details (i.e. with supporting experiments and/or calculations). Even if you posted experimental results, there is little to stop someone else to replicate these findings on their own and publish it. The only way to show that it was in fact plagiarized is when significant parts are actually lifted from the post. Otherwise you do not have much of a leg to stand on. And if it is not detailed enough to be a proper publication it does not account to much. A potential case could be made for certain repositories, such as arxiv, provided that the publication is close enough to count as plagiarism. Proving that for a random blog or forums is quite a bit harder. Again, just using the idea counts for nothing. In fact, relatively free exchange of ideas without expecting credit is par of the course. That being said, scooping is also not that unusual, which is why generally you tend only to present stuff that is either unique or (almost) published. Still, it is not unusual that big labs pick up an idea and finish faster than a poor, underfunded assistant prof, for example.

if you delete system file 32 in your computer folders, your pc will be faster i remember getting virus on my android device ojnce, closing the tab didnt take care of the ads that kept poping out, sometimes they install themeselves and you have to go through your system files and manually delete it,its a hassle, but at least the virus will be gone

@ 60 This _series_ of the O'Neil's five attempts to raise the VM all for a quite specific aim, by the way--soliciting some programmer's help to execute his conception (leaving aside as irrelevant the merits of that conception) -- is neither an ideal example of what strikes me as the worst about the site's moderators' habits nor completely devoid of some of those things. I'm not sure that I'll even have a chance to set out completely what I mean but I can make a start at it here and perhaps continue another time. Though this is a site devoted to science, it's a popular site --or so we're led to believe--where not only scientists but lay people are welcome to read and write opinions and discuss issues of science --and in the extra non-science "areas" discuss things that aren't science at all. I see nothing wrong with any of that so far. Except that there's quite a gap in my opinion and in my experience of this site between the advertized product and what's actually done and allowed here in fact on any typical day. In actual fact, it seems to me, lay opinions aren't really welcome here. Instead there's a subtle but important distinction in operation. This site is really for either working, practicing, scientists or those in training to become that (and those who are doing both at once, of course) and, then, only secondarily, it suffers the participation of those who are not merely interested in science as a cultural asset and a pursuit and intellectual interest but who are also ready to meet the high expectations here for what I'd call obsequious deference to all comment and opinion from the professional scientists here. It would be more honest and it would save a world of trouble if the site were simply much clearer about this rather than constantly doing what looks like a desperate effort to herd cats--the lay members who don't sufficiently get the importance of deference to the ruling science view that prevails here. From scientists to their fellow scientists, there's not the same dismissive style at all. When a credentialed scientist is concerned, I don't see the immediate resort to insult, to sarcasm, to belittling and summary dismissals. I don't think any regular reader here has to strain to grasp the sort of treatment I mean by that. But, of course, those who entirely subscribe to what I see as this site's patently unfriendly attitude toward any but their proven and approved lay membership won't subscibe to this portrayal. They are ready to join in the ridicule and in doing so demonstrate their fidelity to the deferential attitude which wins acceptance here. There is here, in sum, a very entrenched and reinforced attitude and practice of an "in-group" bias which views the non-specialist and the insufficiently deferential lay person as part of a "them" to be treated with suspicion and hostility (unless and until they demonstrate the required deference) and this seeds an atmosphere which is hostile to all or nearly all who the established (by their history of deference to the authorities here) fellow in-group members find lacking in compliance. I posted the Times article so that readers could read from sources they accept and respect the same sort of arguments and reasoning I am making about the implicit bias that is so at home here. Had I simply put those things out on my own account, they'd never have been described as "excellent" by any of the well-received members here. But, from two researchers in psychology at NYU, the same arguments, the same points that apply as criticism, are "receivable" here. Logically, it shouldn't make any difference. But no one wrote in to answer Yudkin and Van Bavel that, if they don't like this site, they needn't bother taking part in it. There's more to say on this topic but I'm not going to have time to develop it all in one session.

"A thread on the legacy of Obama might be welcomed - but not if, from the get go, the thread is designed to provoke and insult." I don't think that the fact that some people are a little upset or disappointed by the results of a democratically decided President Elect is a valid reason to shut down a thread. Why would it be different if the same thread was opened a year from now ( and not provocative ), other than the fact that some are a little sensitive and raw about the election outcome, and so, its considered 'provocative' currently ? Shouldn't we be able to discuss 'sensitive' issues on this forum, or do we need to account for when someone is in a 'bad mood' ? And as far as I can tell, the only person to hurl an insult is Phi, although he did provide the 'reasoning' behind his assertion. Just providing my opinion, which isn't necessarily worth anything.

Why do we want you to stick around ? Because we've gotten used to you. This forum is a community of friends. I've disagreed with and probably pissed off quite a few people, yet I respect and would buy a drink for any one of these guys if I ran into them. ( have to hurry and delete my address from my profile, if Ophiolite looks me up, I have to buy him that expensive, single malt crap )

I was wondering if its possible for a mod to delete my account? I don't wish to be a member of this community anymore. If that is possible, I'd like to have it deleted please. Not banned. Thanks.

I find the quote system cantankerous at best but one tip I have discovered Write some text, any text you can always delete it later, before you invoke the quote function. You can then come back, at any time, and paste into the quotes at will.

As it isn't possible, this isn't really relevant, but I thought I should clarify anyway - my thinking was more along the lines of a new category of forum user, trusted members chosen from the active userbase given an upgrade and not any Tom, Dick, or Harry newbie. As they'd only be able to hide the spam and not actually delete the content (or even ban offending posters) as that would fall to a full moderator to do, it should help prevent any abuses of power - something that recently happened to another forum a couple of months back - and if any of the spam-hiders were found to be playing games they could easily have their privileges revoked. But as the forum software doesn't have the capacity for that level of customisation it's a moot point.

If that was a potential course of action, would the forum software allow for a sub-moderator account status that had the ability to hide spam threads until a full moderator can delete it and ban the spammer?

I'm not sure what you mean. In the last 24 hours, we've has about two dozen people register accounts who have not been culled owing to being spammers. That's not to say that some won't — sometimes spammers register and let an account lie fallow for a time. I imagine because of posting restrictions that some fora have related to membership time. But it's not possible to tell who these are until they actually post spam. If it's someone here because they want to post a question, we don't want to have additional barriers to them doing so. We've had some show up and post innocuous things to get around the post count restrictions on putting a link in your signature. Of course, these 'bots have rubber skin — they're easy to spot. Others try some more elaborate ruses. The bottom line is that they are always going to try and game the system.

This is not a problem. Multiple reports of the same post are automatically merged by the software. We only have to close 1 report. As iNow said — we don't want legitimate contributors to have to wait to begin participating. That's a higher priority than the minor annoyance of spam. And as Klaynos said — the staff wants to be efficient about this. A lot of the spam is pretty obvious. It shouldn't be a big deal to not click on it for the short time it takes before a mod can delete it.

People who are registering second accounts to circumvent a ban, yes we extend the ban to the new account.

I acknowledge how strong the urge to respond can feel and how compulsive it can sometimes become, but let's be honest here... There is nothing stopping you. It's entirely possible with a bit of determination. It's a choice, and one entirely in your power to make. I do acknowledge its not always easy, though. If you must, consider writing it as a draft, but delete it instead of posting it. That can be very cathartic, and frankly mature. All the same... Very glad to hear it.

One thing that caught me by surprise was that the notification came to me via my gmail account rather than the internal message system.

I'm not trying to become another target for the mods to attack here, but could you "moderators" & some long-term members take it a bit easier on some of the not so scientifically minded individuals that probably just come to these forums to post questions about something... Considering they probably got confused with the term "speculation" and thought it meant you can come into this section to post things that don't have any theories or studies backing them up. I believe they are more so just wanting to post their own "theory" or curious thoughts to the more educated & informed people residing in the forums for their feedback on the particular question... Instead of receiving a subtle (passive-aggressive?) response which they all seem to get whenever they speak without citing or referencing anything............................... What I'm getting at is this: Stop being self-righteous pricks towards newcomers who just want someone smarter than they are on the particular issue to give them some feedback. I'm sure many others reading this feel the same way. Some of you do come across as excessively harsh. Feel free to click the negative button or delete my post, you usually do.

Then no, we can't delete them. All ur posts r belong to us.

Delete my account and all my posts, please.

I can merge this account with your old one, yes. Which username would you prefer to keep, Transdecimal or Daecon? Also, welcome back to SFN!

We can put you in touch with admin if you wanted access to your old account? They can let you know which email you used and potentially change it for you.

Hey there. Some of you may recognise me from a couple of other science forums, I thought I'd stretch out a little and join here as well, but it turns out I already have an account on here from years ago. It's so old, I don't even remember what email address I used back then. I don't really want to be a "sockpuppet", so I was curious as to what I should do? Is it possible to merge this account with my old one, or will it be acceptable for me to start afresh? My previous account on here is under the name Transdecimal.

Not true, sir. I offered an answer to the question. I presented both sides of the argument for other members to consider, Let's try again. Consider the properties attributed to a unicorn: (i) a kinda horselike beast (ii) with a kinda horn on its head As far as we can ascertain there is nothing in nature which satisfies those criteria, and therefore, on one account at least, the term unicorn does not refer. There is no such thing! I also offered the following characterization of Newtonian gravity: Newtonian gravity, according to my layman's understanding (so please be gentle -- I'm not a physicist), is construed, among other things, as an attractive force which acts instantaneously over any distance, apparently with no expenditure of energy, against a backdrop of absolute space and absolute time. Is this correct? If so, I don't think anyone believes in Newtonian gravity these days, do they? http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/92140-newtons-inverse-square-law/ I asked you whether my layman's description captured the features of Newtonian gravity. You conspicuously ignored me. Assuming this characterization is more or less correct, and given our current state of knowledge, there is nothing in nature answering to this description, and thus the term Newtonian gravity does not refer -- there is no such thing. On one account, at least. I also presented a rival Kripke-Putnam inspired account of reference to which those wishing to defend inter-theoretical continuity might appeal. Your only answer was... Um, it's used all the time. By NASA, even, to send probes to planets, satellites into orbit and men to the moon. It works very well. (post 23 - same thread) ... once again failing to recognize the distinction I pointed out between a theory working (i.e. yielding true observational consequences) and a theory being true. Yes, the theory of Newtonian gravity can get us to the Moon. But the Ptolemaic theory of the cosmos can also get you around the world! It works extremely well. Most of us, I daresay, would maintain that the Ptolemaic model is not true: as a model of reality, Ptolemy got it quite wrong. You're a very clever man, and a very knowledgeable man, Swansont. In this case, though, you're pontificating on topics you know nothing about.