Cap'n Refsmmat

Really. Nobody's ever won a scientific by insulting and attacking their opponent. Unless, of course, it's the cultural anthropology department, and you're discussing the evolution of insults through cultures over time. Now, if I do not see calm, rational discussion, with no name-calling or insults (even insinuated ones), I will have to close this thread and beat a few people over the head with a stick.

The lack of multitasking is also a biggie. I spend most of my time on this computer multitasking -- doing web development stuff (for fun or money) often requires email, browser, code editor, and SSH open simultaneously.

It would be great if we could keep this discussion about the data, not about each other. Let's not get personal, guys.

The Times article I linked to states that the complaint against the researchers was lodged too late for prosecution to be possible -- there's a six-month limit. So not under Freedom of Information Act grounds, at least.

I have a sneaking suspicion this thread is not going anywhere. Perhaps it would be best if I helped it. Watching this thread spiral toward its doom like a thirsty dog investigating a carnivorous toilet loses its fun after a while. vuquta, I'd hate to see another discussion end up in the toilet like this one has; in the future, please do read carefully what the physics experts say and consider that they may, in fact, be right. Thread closed. (flush)

The science may still be sound, but the way the Anglia researchers chose to defend it was rather unfortunate.

What causes random processes, like radioactive decay? I mean, you can explain the instability in the nuclei and all the physics details, but the precise matter of when the nucleus decides to decay is rather random. Does it have a cause?

It has now been determined that the scientists involved broke the law by refusing to release data to climate skeptics. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7004936.ece

Generally speaking, the best response to having something removed by a mod is not, in fact, to post it again. Please see rule 2.8.

Depends. How did they arrive at the conclusion he was brain dead? It can often be very hard to tell, so they'd have to decide somehow. It's possible that enough of the brain stem was functioning to perform minimal tasks like twitching and groaning. But it's impossible to tell what the rest of the brain was doing without an EEG or knowing just how damaged his brain was.

Unfortunately it's a field that's very hard to research. How can you tell what exactly is going on inside someone's head? I've actually spent some time looking up papers in the field and they're rather sketchy -- you're often left looking at the conclusion thinking "but that could also be because of some other effect!" And they never investigate that alternate conclusion. But on the plus side, there have been documented cases of people undergoing surgery with no anesthesia -- just hypnosis to make the person ignore the pain. (Usually it's someone already well experienced with hypnosis, not just some random dude off the street.)

Bilateral symmetry has been the common "gold standard" measure, consistent across many cultures, not just Western. I recall reading (though Google fails me here) that consistent skin tone had also been recently shown to be another cross-cultural indicator. Of course, there are quite a few culture-specific things, but as I said, ask people of different races to rank each other on attractiveness and their judgments tend to agree. I just wish I could find the reference.

For unnecessary gadget, it's pretty well done. I like the ideas, the user interface seems good, etc. etc... I just don't see me having a use for it. But then I may not be the best example. The App Store is nifty, but I like a device I can tinker with and install anything I want on. I often fire up the Terminal to tinker with other servers or start shell scripts I use for various tasks (like backing up SFN). Now, for folks who don't do anything but listen to music, write reports, and use the Internet (like most college students I know), this would potentially be a great idea. Small form factor, iWork, Safari, etc. So no, I don't see myself getting one. I'm typing this on a MacBook Pro as it is, and I have a Kindle for portable reading purposes. Any more Internet access and my brain may melt. But it's a really cool idea. edit: wait, damn. They just announced it'll be $500. Nice.

Somewhat true. Yes, there are some cultural differences, but ask people of different races to rank each other on attractiveness and their judgments tend to agree. There is a large embedded genetic component that is universal across humans. Has something to do with symmetry and smooth skin color.

Nah, it's stored in vB's database tables. Every time I reset the counter it seems to change back. Not sure what's confusing it.

Sort of. They're not actually moving. It's just that space itself is expanding, so they're getting farther away from us at over the speed of light -- but the galaxies aren't actually moving particularly fast at all. Imagine inflating a balloon with dots on the surface. The dots get farther apart, but they're not actually moving around on the balloon.

Generally bans don't last too long unless you really do something bad. But that's dependent on someone remembering to unban you. I'll take a look through the ban list later today and clear anything pointless.

I don't think the point of the "But what caused God?" argument is to justify a causeless universe while denigrating a causeless God. The point is to tell those arguing "the Universe needs a cause" that if God doesn't need a cause, the universe may not need one either. In other words, it's not a real demand for cause of God -- it's just pointing out that a double standard exists in that some theists demand a cause for the universe while not demanding a cause for God.

You have to sign up with Apple and pay them a small fee. You could jailbreak your iPod so you can run any software you'd like on it, of course.

In any case the big bang theory does not cover how the universe was created but rather explains what happened when the universe was particularly dense and hot. As far as I know, there's no reason the same Big Bang theory couldn't apply to a universe that existed infinitely before the Bang, and somehow ended up in an infinitely dense state. (Obesity epidemic, probably.)

Blast. I need to beat vBulletin over the head with a stick.

Yes. You can sign up as a developer with Apple and get the software development kit to write apps for iPhone and iPod Touch. You just need to know some Objective C, I think.

You will find that there are philosophers that argue that they don't even know if their own bodies exist. But that's philosophers for you. You are contradicting most of known physics here. For example, I could fly extremely accurate clocks in airplanes around the world and find that the clocks disagree with each other when they return back, due to their speed of travel. In fact, that's already been done. The neat thing about light is that it travels at the speed of light -- a finite speed. This means that if we use telescopes to look at objects billions of light-years away, we're also looking billions of light-years into the past. Observations made of extremely distant objects can be compared with observations of relatively close objects. The rate of decay is based on our understanding of basic atomic physics. It's not an assumption; it's an observation and a prediction made using the best understanding of how atom works that we have. Atomic physics successfully predicts the results of experiments all the time. This is true, but carbon dating can always be verified against other dating methods and other dated objects found in the same area. Generally one can verify the carbon 12/14 ratio by using objects dated via other methods. For example, tree ring dating can determine the age of some object, and the carbon 14 levels can be measured to see if they fit with the age of the object. Other methods of dating could also be used. Using these methods, scientists have verified the accuracy of carbon dating for objects up to 50,000 years old. http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011_1.html and http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD010.html

http://xkcd.com/169/ Please do make an attempt to communicate.

If God doesn't need a cause, why should the Universe in general?