Ophiolite

Operator Error. It is not a bug. Only the first three pages of a thread are listed at the outset. To go to the last page hit the double arrows: >> The number of pages in the thread are clearly stated to the left of the page numbers.

Devil Solution, you appear to be confusing metaphor with identity. We can play that game all day. A television program is like a living organism; a river is like a living organism; a forest fire is like a living organism. Sure, one can find all kinds of parallels and similarities, but extend the definition of life sufficiently to include the entire planet as an organism and your have rendered the definition meaningless. It appears to me to be much more pertinent to consider the complex ecologies of the planet, the biosphere, as a discrete thing with characteristics of its own. No need to make a halting, ultimately mismatched, identification with a living organism. I don't think even Lovelock would argue it as you have.

Let me be dangerous then. Humanity would not have got where we are today without racism. It was a valuable concept that protected nascent civilisations, but has wholly outlived its value. Racism is an expression of a highly cautious reaction to strangers. Strangers can be dangerous. They can steal your cattle, murder you in your sleep and poison your wells. Being suspicious of strangers has great survival value. This suspicion was grounded genetically and culturally. How do you recognise a stranger? Perversely, by not recognising him, or her. They are strange. They are different. Cautious reaction to and distrust of such strangers not only protects you from them, but enhances the cooperation within your group. All very positive behaviours. But we no longer live in small tribes of a hundred or so people. The old days are gone and the old ways must go with them. It's just tough for some people to discard a few hundred million years of genetic tendency. So John, I think it is dangerous not to examine the science of racism, for if we do not understand it we shall be much less successful at countering it. It is dangerous to think it is irrational, when it was imminently rational in a different context. It is dangerous to condemn someone for bigotry when they are merely expressing a genetically directed behaviour that is little different from the one that perhaps encouraged you to marry and have children. Let's avoid the dangers by being objective about what is going on, not by making up stories about causes.

I am perplexed. When I read overtone's posts I am in no doubt that he is a thoroughly right wing. When I explore his meaning I have no doubt he is appalled by the right wing. I'm not known for being a dumb ass, so my provisional conclusion is that overtone is writing incoherently.

arc, please clarify: are you maintaining that your data set of earthquakes is sufficiently accurate to derive from it the sort of conclusions you are deriving? (Here is a helpful hint: it isn't.) Now, if you wish this thread to remain in the serious part of the forum I recommend you apply some self critical assessments of your own work and withdraw some of your weaker (i.e. unfounded) claims.

Yes, but some members feel compelled to contribute to any threads related to free will.

Scientists seek a more accurate set of observations and a better model, engineers seek a really groovy way of applying technology. (If no suitable problem exists for the potential technology they will invent one.)

I think some of us are aware of the fundamentalist crap that passes for religion in some quarters. Now do you have anything susbtantive that demonstrates the majority of the world's religions oppose the use of biochips?

Hello Mike - would you care to respond to the points I made to HR in post #13. If you are unable, or unwilling to provide specific, evidence based repudiation of Jamie's claims, then your assertions are reduced to the level of opinion. Edit: It seems I just can't keep up with the bans on HR/Mike etc. I shouldn't really give aid to someone trying to break the rules, but the next time you create a sock puppet HR try posting in the guise of someone who understands reason, logic and the value of experiment. It might make you more difficult to detect.

As Phi has asked, please provide justification for this assertion. I would also welcome your response to the other points I raised in my post.

Biochips are not considered religiously acceptable by whom? Which of the world's religions, or religious denominations have specifically or implicitly said this? What makes you think the use of biochips would spark a religious war? Please provide evidence, not opinion to justify this assertion. More pertinently, are you a Luddite? If not, how do you justify urging us to abandon such technology?

I've seen that one a few times. Since I am familiar with where the personal messages are accessed, when I saw the announcement that I had new ones, I went directly to the appropriate SFN button. Of course, I discovered zero messages and realised the announcement was some form of ad. It is, however, annoying. Some members, with arguable justification, will blame SFN for having been misled and may leave as a consequence. (Small, but finite risk.)

I reflect on the likely situation in X decades time when a teenager might run across this thread and, in bewilderment, ask "Did they really have discrete computers then? I mean wasn't everything just sort of wired into the cloud through the access chip in your skull?" History never seems quaint while you are living in it.

Would you like to further edit your post to note that you not only agree with me too, but that you worship the ground I walk on?

I think Jamie will be comfortably aware that (s)he is not wrong. Other posters have expanded on Jamie's contribution, but - in all the essential parts - agreed with it. I remain open to alternative views: what specifically do you find to be nonsensical about the points raised by Jamie? Do not feel obliged to address each one, but I would welcome the careful analysis, by you, of what constitutes nonsense of at least one of the points. Keep in mind that you need to provide evidence to support your assertion. And further note that evidence is not equivalent to opinion, arm waving, or strawman arguments. (I'm confident you will not use any such devices, since you are aware that they are a) unacceptable on the forum and b) as useful a wet noodle for advancing an argument.) Note: I'd really appreciate it you would minimise the use of capitals, large font and coloured font in your reply. It would help me to take what you say seriously. Occasional emphasis, as I've used in my first paragraph, is welcome. Edit: I should check the ban list before posting. I see HR is no longer a member. Perhaps her first sock puppet will take the time to reply.

It can be a matter of concern in some instances. In the linked case the character of the member HoneyRazwell is on display for all to see and be saddened by. I'm not convinced that the complications that would arise from modifying the edit process would be worth the trouble. I generally quote the relevant portion of the post I am responding to - especially when I suspect it might be subsequently edited. However, in the instance you've used an example your reply follows the post directly so a quote would have been irrelevant. The problem is caused by those members who lack your integrity.

Ed Earl has made an important point that merits expansion. The so-called scientific method is an attempt to detail a theoretical, almost Platonic, ideal. It is an attempt to capture the heart of what scientists do, not as they do it, but as it might be done if stripped of all subjective actions, application of dogma, wholly wrong turnings and the like. It is step by step set of instructions for gaining scientific knowledge. Strongly implied is that each step in the process must be followed precisely and in sequence. Science, as actually practiced, is more akin to a recipe in which the chef adds their own preferences and tweeks, and uses the ingredients on hand, not necessarily all of those in the recipe book.

I must take serious issue with you here John. Lying is the deliberate telling of an untruth, where the speaker or writer is fully aware that what they are saying is untrue. In general, if we set aside certain cynical elements in fundamentalists circles, the leaders and practitioners of religion sincerely believe what they are saying. Asserting that these are lies is to fall victim to the same kind of dogma you rightly criticise. It diminishes the power of your argument and raises unwelcome questions about the objectivity of your motivation.

What I find appalling are the number of people who think it is acceptable grammar and usage to say the amount of people. The ignorance of the distinction between continuous amounts and discrete quantities is a sign of third rate education. By association it calls into question any arguments the writer might use.

Thank you.

These are standard abbreviations within English language forums. I generally prefer to type out the full English expression, but I am an antiquated, old-fashioned Scotsman. This is assuredly not an example of plagiarism. Looking up one website I find 19 different meanings for the abbreviation IIRC and 49 different ones for IRC. This is common.

Most GPS works well most of the time. Of course the small number of failures of the material part of the system are ultimately a consequence of sub standard human actions: poor design, poor manufacturing, poor operation. So, in that respect you are correct, ultimately it is a human error, but that is irrelevant to the point in hand: What is the source of failures in GPS? Is it the theory, or is it the equipment? Answer: it is the equipment. (And it is unnecessary and irrelevant to point out that the equipment failed because of human error.) Sorry - this is a very active thread right now. I posted a direct response to Nicholas, but one or two posts got made while I was preparing it. I'm in general agreement with what you have said throughout.

imo is an abbreviation for In my opinion. Another common one used in the forum is IIRC, if I recall correctly. Both are used to indicate that poster is not claiming these to be solid, verifiable facts, just opinions, or best recollections.

That's right. If there is an error it is an error of manufacture of operation, not of theory. That is the point the others are making. GPS works fine if the equipment is sound. I'm not quite sure why you think GPS is a huge mistake. It is of great value in many ways. Did you have something specific in mind?

Is it better to leave them uncorrected, so that they remain dumb? If someone lacks the self confidence to be criticised, then perhaps science and a science forum are not for them. As has often been noted, science is not about the truth, but about as accurate a description of reality as currently possible. Some member's passion is so great they fell strongly they are espousing the truth when they are actually talking bollocks. Do you think it is wrong to point that out? What does that have to do with Rep points on this forum? The consensus opinion as expressed here appears to be that negative input for negative posts is a good thing; that there is a mechanism for correcting ill applied neg rep; and that if it ain't broke don't fix it. In what way does applying a negative Rep "make it worse"? The sort of posts that get negative rep do not have anything of value to add to any theory. Most of them would devalue a garbage tip. You are being silly. You will know that anecdotal evidence is next to worthless in science.