nanairo

15 ms·

91.
by nanairo 16y ago
Lol... yeah, keep telling yourself that. How did it go? first day: massive queues ==> Everyone on the net: "This is meaningless: they are just the Apple drones following their Apple master's orders" first month: still in high demand ==
92.
by nanairo 16y ago
Is it? I think maybe we can cut him some slack for his predictions... but it takes a special kind of arrogance to make predictions when you haven't even touched/tried one.
93.
by nanairo 16y ago
Is that really so? My (maybe cynical) impression is exactly the opposite. Make a prediction (say, that the economy is doing great) and if you are right you get kudos, if you are wrong you get to go back on TV explaining why the "experts" go
94.
by nanairo 16y ago
Yep... to be honest I think it's useful to go back and mock wanna be experts who are recognised as experts, but if you start looking at random blogs on the net looking for people who made silly predictions, then I find it just arrogant. So
95.
by nanairo 16y ago
I am not convinced there is a such a strong pattern though definitely there is correlation: I would have preferred it a bit more if he drew a best fit to drive home his argument. That said there is no doubt that USA is extremely religious a
96.
by nanairo 16y ago
Without being disrespectful to our American brothers I think the difference stems from the poor school system in the USA. Because of that the first few years of undergraduate are equivalent to European schools' last years (in breadth and a
97.
by nanairo 16y ago
That's the concept behind a tenure: you don't need to _prove_ yourself anymore, and hence are free to take risky path that may fail and leave you with nothing. But if every PhD student thought they were going to be the next Einstein and tri
98.
by nanairo 16y ago
I kind of agree with the author, although I see your points. If you are talking about getting a broader understanding of your subject then that's pretty much part of the phd and nobody will argue against you for studying things that you thi
99.
by nanairo 16y ago
Headquarters: nelso knows about the lair, repeat nelso knows about the lair. Proceed neutralisation. ;) More seriously, I think the simple reason is probably just that the flash memory doesn't work anymore but the OS and its apps maybe were
100.
by nanairo 16y ago
I am not sure since Avatar was one of the few films I had to watch in 2D. :D But I don't think there's any particular reason why a 3D film ends up being darker: the cinema people simply need to raise the brightness of the lamp.
101.
by nanairo 16y ago
I agree. But those who need to buy a new TV anyway may end up getting some 3D TV to be future-proof... then all you need it's a bit of spin doctor magic telling everyone how many 3D TV are out there, and bang: instant success. ... or maybe
102.
by nanairo 16y ago
I agree that scientist are not above human mistakes and bias like everyone else. But there is a way to tackle that. The scientific method tries to minimise the errors cause by bias and human mistakes. That's why we can eventually decide tha
103.
by nanairo 16y ago
So far my main complain looking at 3D films have been: 1- They are darker and therefore you lose some details, simply because polarised glasses cut half of the light 2- But most of all every time something is coming towards me in the film i
104.
by nanairo 16y ago
But binocular vision is only one of the many ways that our brain uses to create the perception of depth... and not even the main one at that. We use the knowledge of what covers what, the size of objects/people, and the parallax effect. The
105.
by nanairo 16y ago
Yes, I mostly agree with all you said. But the crucial bit is the last paragraph: it is not a scientist job to do these things. If society required them then it would be useful that Universities and other organisations gave (say) 10-20% fre
106.
by nanairo 16y ago
True, but what is the alternative? To be at the receiving end of all the mud-slinging? (Kind of like Obama and the Democrats in the USA ;) ) At least you would end up with people despising the think-tanks and not the scientist. :) Too optim
107.
by nanairo 16y ago
If you are interested to know more about the IPCC inner workings and exactly what was wrong, here it's an article from a British newspaper (Guardian) from one of its members: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/15/ipcc-error...
108.
by nanairo 16y ago
1) I had to Google this, but I don't think James Hansen was part of IPCC 2) I agree scientist are people too: you need to distinguish between their work (e.g. their papers) and the rest of their lives. Only the formers have to undergo scien
109.
by nanairo 16y ago
Yeah, I agree. I don't think copying an idea is a problem. It's copying the execution of the idea that is a bit meh. Google was a lot different than altavista despite aiming at the same market. That's why I wouldn't use the word clone. Ther
110.
by nanairo 16y ago
No worries: I wasn't angry or shouting. Sorry for coming too strongly. :) I understand what you are saying, but my point is that those two are in science a lot closer than you seem to suggest. Titles (such as a noble prize) are won thanks t
111.
by nanairo 16y ago
Indeed I agree that there exist a gradient of trust. But it is this that seems to be so difficult for the non-scientific literate to understand. In part I think it's a problem that society seem to use "shown scientifically" for "it's true".
112.
by nanairo 16y ago
I don't think scientist are so much hurt as lost: when you have years of evidence pointing in one direction, and someone replies with a completely unscientific argument (take a lot of pseudo-science for example) what is he supposed to do? S
113.
by nanairo 16y ago
True. No scientist should feel he can just wave his degree without presenting evidence. However I think you overlook just how much distrust there is of scientists. A scientist doesn't start on equal footing with the "guru". People (who like
114.
by nanairo 16y ago
I stand corrected. :)
115.
by nanairo 16y ago
About your last quote, I think what we need is to have scientist dedicated to the communication side of science: aka scientific journalists. I know there are a few, but we need a lot more, and like many bits of science they'll need to be so
116.
by nanairo 16y ago
I see what you mean but I think you are overlooking how easy it is to muddy the waters. You come up with a good evidence of evolution. Great: but it will take the anti-evolution just one guy that makes a somehow plausible alternative scenar
117.
by nanairo 16y ago
I think this is one of the most important points: "That said, they can also find support for their ideas in the mainstream media—because when the mainstream media gives a so-called balanced view, it’s often misleading. The media thinks that
118.
by nanairo 16y ago
This is what scares me. It is in the nature of science that tests take a lot of time and effort. On the other hand, if you do _not_ follow science you can come up with a new theory every day. And to make it all the worst the scientist can b
119.
by nanairo 16y ago
What's wrong with that? I mean it's not like you get a noble prize by winning the lottery! You take random wacko on TV and noble laureate, each tells you their theory, and you (so far) don't know anything else. Who do you trust? Why? I thin
120.
by nanairo 16y ago
I find it's this kind of answers that make scientific explanations so hard. "Blindly trusting scientists because they're perceived experts, have advanced degrees or are in agreement in large numbers has historically been an unreliable way t

More ›