fafalone

1) PhD 2) teach. research. 3) $50000/year avg 4) university 5) research 6) tenure

doesn't matter if they're on the security council or not

t = d/v very small number / very large number = very very small number

It's only illegal if they pass a resolution explicitly stating that it's illegal. And no, this is not sarcasm, it's the reality of UN diplomacy. This is why Iraq is allowed to continually attack coalition aircraft in the no-fly zone without the UN saying they're not supposed to, because no resolution explicitly said they couldn't. This explanation comes from a politcal science professor who studies middle-east politics.

Well I had a pretty bad day today, so tonight I IMd our good friend and two-time Hall of Shamer Adam to ask him the current Planet-X situation. I needed a good laugh, and I was not disappointed. fafaIone: I WIN sacredcity3: win what ? sacredcity3: the immaturity contest sacredcity3: i give you the titanium award! sacredcity3: ((claps)) fafaIone: no way, you totally won the immaturity contest with your 5 year old intelligence (only way you could believe that stuff) fafaIone: hey so when is the planet getting here fafaIone: this month? fafaIone: i still don't see it sacredcity3: in 13 days sacredcity3: it should become partially visible fafaIone: :::looks out window at sky::: no planet sacredcity3: in april fafaIone: wait so it will get here before its visible? sacredcity3: why do you say that ? fafaIone: 13 days is still march. sacredcity3: no i didn't finish sacredcity3: i was gonna say, in april sacredcity3: i'tl be visible everywhere sacredcity3: bypartially i meant in certain areas of world fafaIone: i.e. whatever parts of the world i'm not in right sacredcity3: why do you care , enough to im me and ask me that , If some scientists say to me, that humans can belive in some thing that isn't there, then you probabbly can not believe in something that is there. fafaIone: you sure believe in something that isn't there. fafaIone: let me do some quick calculations... but if it's travelling at a rate on the same order of magnitude as every other planet, theres no way it could get here in april and not yet be visible with a really big telescope fafaIone: since i have access to one, i'd like to get the coordinates to see it sacredcity3: that sounds familiar what you said sacredcity3: oh yea, sci.astro debates@! sacredcity3: brb fafaIone: yeah, last time you gave me coords i looked up and saw a whole lot of nothing sacredcity3: what were the coordinates fafaIone: like i remember sacredcity3: you should be seeing a whole beunch of others stars sacredcity3: and asteroids sacredcity3: so i dont believe how you saw sacredcity3: absolutely nothing fafaIone: by absolutely nothing, i mean no planet-sized objects heading this way sacredcity3: from that distance, it's critical to judge planet sized objects. fafaIone: simple astrophysics sacredcity3: http://www.zetatalk.com/teams/rogue/zeta8b.JPG sacredcity3: you should be seeing things like that sacredcity3: these people spend ridiculous amount of time, doing just that, and calculating fafaIone: so do professional astronomers with much better telescopes sacredcity3: anyways, because you know it's not real sacredcity3: you shouldn't have any problem fafaIone: where's the calculations? sacredcity3: all over the site sacredcity3: although, it still somehow intrigues you fafaIone: yeah, how anyone can believe this nonsense is a fascinating study in abnormal psychology sacredcity3: there you go. sacredcity3: bare with it fafaIone: at what date will it be unmistakeably visible by the naked eye in north america? fafaIone: because i want to unban you from SF so we all can mock you on that date sacredcity3: Hold on sacredcity3: expand your im window, so the lines don't collapse sacredcity3: MAR 31 APR 7 APR 14 APR 21 APR 28 South Africa: Capetown 12:00 11:30 11:00 10:30 10:00 South Africa: Capetown 22:00 21:30 21:00 20:30 20:00 France: Paris 11:00 10:30 10:00 09:30 09:00 France: Paris 22:30 22:00 21:30 21:00 20:30 Argentina: Buenos Aires 12:00 11:30 11:00 10:30 10:00 Argentina: Buenos Aires 22:00 21:30 21:00 20:30 20:00 Canada: Vancouver 10:30 10:00 09:30 09:00 08:30 Canada: Vancouver 22:00 21:30 21:00 20:30 20:00 Australia: Sydney 11:00 10:30 10:00 09:30 09:00 Australia: Sydney 21:00 20:30 20:00 19:30 19:00 Japan: Osaka 11:00 10:30 10:00 09:30 09:00 Japan: Osaka 21:30 21:00 20:30 20:00 19:30 fafaIone: so when i look up at the sky and still don't see it, will you come up with a reason like only true believers can see it? sacredcity3: no sacredcity3: lol sacredcity3: it'l prolly make it to news sacredcity3: before you'l see it sacredcity3: but not recognized as a planet fafaIone: still not on the news yet tho. sacredcity3: after people see the core sacredcity3: it'l get on there sacredcity3: anyhow fafaIone: and when it doesn't? sacredcity3: then whatever you want to fafaIone: this is going to be so hilarious, ill bet anything you'll never show your face on SF again after the time for it to arrive comes and goes and nothing happens fafaIone: "oh well, next conspiracy!" sacredcity3: but when i see it finally sacredcity3: i won 't even have to laugh at you fafaIone: mass suicide? sacredcity3: because poleshift is in may fafaIone: TAKE ME TO THE LIGHT SHIP! sacredcity3: and you live in florida sacredcity3: so i'l just remeber you got washed away by water somwhere in miami fafaIone: magnetic pole shifts happen fafaIone: but not because planets pass by fafaIone: geographic pole shifts happen too, precession fafaIone: but not because of planets fafaIone: i believe the next magnetic pole shift will be occuring in ~10,000 years sacredcity3: yada yada fafaIone: sorry, is real science boring you? at that point he put up an away message and never came back.

Here in Florida it's a minimum of $6mil every week

Some day I'm going to get a 13.9 million dollar loan and win the lottery, and repeat every time the jackpot is larger than that. Sure some weeks there will be multiple winners, but it will still be quite a large profit.

Does anything about cosmology really make sense?

A massive conspiracy that Arab news stations are covering up too Weapons that magically disappear without a trace, and anyone who doesn't believe it is so hopelessly dependent on the conspiracy they can't see the truth? Sounds like pseudoscience to me! Al Samoud II missiles were in violation of UN sanctions, and weren't declared in the mandated "complete" report, how is this not material breach to begin with? All this is based on Iraq's past history and current actions; whereas your opinion is based on the word of an insane dictator.

He didn't use many at all. If they were, there would be a paper trail to prove it. And he acknowledged having them back in the day.

Because telling them where they're buried or where to find the inevitable contamination from dismantling them is just so hard. If he destroyed them, not only would there be physical remains, but there would be documents detailing exactly what was done.

It's probably a donut, that's what the latest WMAP analysis says, I'll do a writeup for the news section soon.

I don't see why people think time is an illusion. All events don't happen simultaneously; natural processes that our measurement of time is based on occur at specific and constant intervals. Time is real as far as the macroscopic world is concerned. Our universe exists on four axes; x, y, z, and t.

Iraq acknowledged they had WOMD, in fact they actually used them in the Gulf War. What happened to these stockpiles? The burden was placed on them to PROVE THAT THEY HAD DESTROYED THEIR STOCKPILES, not to let the weapons inspectors go on an easter egg hunt and provide no clues. All Iraq has to do is point to the site where they dismantled them and it can be proven, however they insist they don't have them without offering any evidence that they destroyed the ones they had. Anyone who thinks Iraq doesn't have WOMD (chem/bio, not nuclear) is a fool.

And theres always going out and having sex with everyone you want without fear of pregnancy or STDs, or having to commit to a relationship

But who wants to spend their last few hours hugging a toilet?

We're already at a point where the vast majority of the population can't learn fast enough to know everything that is known about a specific field.

boltzman's constant wouldn't be abbreviated with a g...

From http://chronicle.com/free/v49/i21/21b02001.htm Something is probably bull if: 1. The discoverer pitches the claim directly to the media. The integrity of science rests on the willingness of scientists to expose new ideas and findings to the scrutiny of other scientists. Thus, scientists expect their colleagues to reveal new findings to them initially. An attempt to bypass peer review by taking a new result directly to the media, and thence to the public, suggests that the work is unlikely to stand up to close examination by other scientists. One notorious example is the claim made in 1989 by two chemists from the University of Utah, B. Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann, that they had discovered cold fusion -- a way to produce nuclear fusion without expensive equipment. Scientists did not learn of the claim until they read reports of a news conference. Moreover, the announcement dealt largely with the economic potential of the discovery and was devoid of the sort of details that might have enabled other scientists to judge the strength of the claim or to repeat the experiment. (Ian Wilmut's announcement that he had successfully cloned a sheep was just as public as Pons and Fleischmann's claim, but in the case of cloning, abundant scientific details allowed scientists to judge the work's validity.) Some scientific claims avoid even the scrutiny of reporters by appearing in paid commercial advertisements. A health-food company marketed a dietary supplement called Vitamin O in full-page newspaper ads. Vitamin O turned out to be ordinary saltwater. 2. The discoverer says that a powerful establishment is trying to suppress his or her work. The idea is that the establishment will presumably stop at nothing to suppress discoveries that might shift the balance of wealth and power in society. Often, the discoverer describes mainstream science as part of a larger conspiracy that includes industry and government. Claims that the oil companies are frustrating the invention of an automobile that runs on water, for instance, are a sure sign that the idea of such a car is baloney. In the case of cold fusion, Pons and Fleischmann blamed their cold reception on physicists who were protecting their own research in hot fusion. 3. The scientific effect involved is always at the very limit of detection. Alas, there is never a clear photograph of a flying saucer, or the Loch Ness monster. All scientific measurements must contend with some level of background noise or statistical fluctuation. But if the signal-to-noise ratio cannot be improved, even in principle, the effect is probably not real and the work is not science. Thousands of published papers in para-psychology, for example, claim to report verified instances of telepathy, psychokinesis, or precognition. But those effects show up only in tortured analyses of statistics. The researchers can find no way to boost the signal, which suggests that it isn't really there. 4. Evidence for a discovery is anecdotal. If modern science has learned anything in the past century, it is to distrust anecdotal evidence. Because anecdotes have a very strong emotional impact, they serve to keep superstitious beliefs alive in an age of science. The most important discovery of modern medicine is not vaccines or antibiotics, it is the randomized double-blind test, by means of which we know what works and what doesn't. Contrary to the saying, "data" is not the plural of "anecdote." 5. The discoverer says a belief is credible because it has endured for centuries. There is a persistent myth that hundreds or even thousands of years ago, long before anyone knew that blood circulates throughout the body, or that germs cause disease, our ancestors possessed miraculous remedies that modern science cannot understand. Much of what is termed "alternative medicine" is part of that myth. Ancient folk wisdom, rediscovered or repackaged, is unlikely to match the output of modern scientific laboratories. 6. The discoverer has worked in isolation. The image of a lone genius who struggles in secrecy in an attic laboratory and ends up making a revolutionary breakthrough is a staple of Hollywood's science-fiction films, but it is hard to find examples in real life. Scientific breakthroughs nowadays are almost always syntheses of the work of many scientists. 7. The discoverer must propose new laws of nature to explain an observation. A new law of nature, invoked to explain some extraordinary result, must not conflict with what is already known. If we must change existing laws of nature or propose new laws to account for an observation, it is almost certainly wrong.

I'll unsuspend you tomorrow before I leave for spring break.

You still haven't cited your author, perhaps I'll suspend you for a few days.

Government, commercial companies.

Negative infinity is NOT a real number.

USF < Community College

Ill ban you too :rant: