Sayonara

And that's why my solution on the first page of this thread is still the best one going.

That's not really a prediction that can possibly fail though, is it? Any validation of it is going to be subject to selection bias.

If anyone needed convincing that you are talking utter crap, that is the money-shot right there.

It seems to me that this thread is a set-up. The title asks a question but the OP makes a baseless flat statement. Ignora - read a journal then we'll change your name to Informda.

It's not just the number of attacks, it's the types of attack which are of concern. Do you remember the attack on the Tokyo subway by Aum Shinrikyo in 1995? What if it had not been sarin which was released, but a communicable pathogen? Would anyone even know it had been dispersed into the city's transport system until there were multiple hot zones across the city? If you can't predict where and when attacks will occur you have to try to address the source, otherwise you are wide open to an attack which will cost you more lives than whatever level you set as acceptable losses.

Ask him how he knows what dinosaurs look like. It's a more pernicious question than it appears.

I absolutely loved it when they started getting into the Cylon worries and soap opera menage-a-trois.

Projection was introduced very shortly after Baltar left New Caprica with the Cylons. Don't forget that Caprica 6 projected Baltar as well, which implies a particular connection between them that they are both unaware of as yet.

The "final" Cylon was the one who it was stated to be on the show; the one who explains Daniel. Daniel is not one of the final five - he was model 7. There are 13 models, and not 12 as was stated in the first season. Ronald D. Moore's original account of Cylon humanoid society has been contradicted by subsequent episodes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cylon_(re-imagining)#Humanoid_Cylons I don't think any reason has been given yet as to why the number of models is the same as the number of colonial worlds When I saw the thread title I thought this thread was going to say that you have finished building and we're good to go

I don't understand why this thread is here... I mean, we've had like 17 on this topic. They usually cause a flame war so you are hiding from a monster you're about to create.

It's copied directly from Adobe Photoshop Lightroom's "Dim the Lights" feature. As Syphilis says, it's to help you focus your vision on the video by minimising visual distractions.

I didn't say it exists. YOU are conflating the non-existence of such an entity with your own personal opinion. If you are to convince anyone that you are correct, and these entities do not exist, then the onus will be on you to back up your objections with the required reasoning. If you simply find them objectionable because they are not intuitive to you, we really won't care. Either show specifically and precisely how the predictions are incorrect, or be quiet. Mokele - nobody is saying that Tango is incorrect to be sceptical of something which has not been directly observed. What I am refuting in this thread is his attitude of "the big bang theory is wrong and these things don't exist, because I am not convinced". He is going to have to do much better than that.

Do you have any academic objection to the merits of these, or do they just not appeal to you? Because personal opinion is not a valid counterargument. In other words, the golden rule of the meritocracy applies: put up or shut up.

I think this might be better off as a separate thread, because it is going to be overwhelmed in this one by discussion of the other parts of your post.

I concur, SL did not say it was a matter of carrying on business as usual. The point of his post was that other less "environmentally friendly" nations have the same opportunity to clean up their act as nations which have already done so, and that should they make such a contribution then the impact on pollution damage will be of an appreciable size.

To that end, here is an excellent resource which lists and explains the most common logical fallacies: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ It is well worth the read for students at any level.

"Description" in the sense that scientists use it is a form of explanation. If you are still in school or at college then I would not concern yourself too much with trying to evaluate all of physics - it's simply far too complex and vast for your level of expertise. This isn't aimed at you personally; it's just a matter of fact. At undergraduate level and below, the aim is mostly to teach you how to approach and understand science, rather than teaching you the secrets of the universe. If your teachers are failing at this task then that is something you need to take up with your school/college.

This is not a problem with science, it is a problem with the degree to which you are prepared to devote the time and energy to understanding what other people have figured out. Arguments from incredulity or ignorance hold no intellectual merit and have no scientific or rational credibility. Case closed.

Are we just supposed to guess at what variant of the twins paradox you are mulling over? If you have a specific question then you need to provide a specific scenario so that we understand what the question means.

And yet all he has are arguments from personal incredulity. Epic fail.

Philosophy and random thoughts, backed up by logic, are still not "science" unfortunately. The method is more stringently specified than that.

Speculation goes in the speculations forum. This thread is located in the Astronomy and Cosmology forum, and it's not appropriate to derail discussions which fall under that discipline with pet hypotheses.

Spoilsport.

We are fortunate in some respects that this colonisation took place so recently, as it improves the resolution with which we can look back on the ecological changes. Do we know approximately how many native bird species there were at the time?

Let's not go through all this again. The degree to which the ever-nebulous "habitat loss" causes extinction is tangential to the topic.