Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
Zipped in to Michaels for some large frames on the way to work.  The ~$50 ones are on for 3 for 1.  Grabbed 9.  That will be all.

Now we can hang our US National Park posters.  Just too bad they didn't have any when we went to Joshua Tree.
TV & Movies / Re: Rate the last movie you just saw.
« Last post by Johnny Slick on Today at 10:36:56 AM »
The remake of Judge Dredd was really awesome. The original with Stallone and Rob Schneider is on the list of the worst movies of all time.
In my previous lab I was passing by the electronic engineering department for like 4 years. The pictures of the undergrads were overwhelmingly male. I went there for a course last year and it was still the same.

I have to say though that I see more women in computational biology these days. 10 years ago it was a safe bet to assume that a computational biologist you hadn't met before would be a man.
Skepticism / Science Talk / Re: Creationist Questions
« Last post by Mr. Beagle on Today at 10:32:20 AM »
So many years ago I did study theology at a graduate level at a decent school. The first thing I learned was that the Bible emerged in a very messy manner, first from many years of oral stories from one obscure Middle East tribe and its spin-offs. Then through numerous heavily-edited, often conflicting accounts, through several layers of translation, and heavy political intrigue as to which scrolls got included and which did not.

Since I came into the deal with a science/math background, I quickly was able to differentiate religious myth from scientific knowledge, and appreciate each for what it is. The first is the messy story of human beings around the world trying to find ways to live together and face a likely-early and usually-ugly death. The second is the collective starts, stops and revisions of understanding the physical world around us.

Perhaps at a matchbook cover Bible college you get a different education. My observation is that any creationist I have ever read or met is FIRST a fundamentalist Christian, Muslim or Jew. Ergo, they are incapable of acknowledging what the rest of the world recognizes as science. Argument is usual futile. They are speaking a different language that insists that all knowledge must filtered though unquestioned fealty to their Christian/Muslim/Jewish God.
Tech Talk / Re: I HATE this new computer
« Last post by brilligtove on Today at 10:26:30 AM »
I forgot to say - for your use, 2 @ 2TB Western Digital Red drives would likely be perfect.

They're inexpensive and reliable. Pop them in and your TimeMachine backups can just happen. When one drive fails, you lose nothing - just replace it. When that happens to me, btw, I fill the two empty bays with new low capacity drives (usually 2-8 times bigger than the failed drive, for the same price as the failed drive, what with the way storage costs fall).
Tech Talk / Re: I HATE this new computer
« Last post by brilligtove on Today at 10:17:05 AM » using the offer code TWIT100 gets you $100 off.

The Drobo3 (4 empty full-sized HDD bays) is $199 after the discount - which is a very good deal. You use full-sized drives for this kind of thing because physical space is not where you want to put your money; the bigger HDDs are cheaper and more reliable than than the smaller ones. THe Drobo Mini (for laptop-sized drives) is $549 after the discount, for example, and won't help you much in the longer term.
Tech Talk / Re: I HATE this new computer
« Last post by brilligtove on Today at 10:02:25 AM »
the USB 2 port will be significantly slower than the firewire ports. It mite be a better idea to remove the drive from the encasement and pop it in a USB3 cradle or encasement device if you are going to continue to use it.

For the use case Daniel has given us I'd say transfer speed is not going to be an issue - especially if he just installs Google Drive on his new machine and uploads the whole drive to a folder called "2015-11-27 and older". Those files become indexed by the best search tool around, backed up in a global sense, and can be easily dragged added to his local drive several ways (for offline use).

It's cheap and simple too.

For new backup and storage options, let me push you toward a NAS again. Remember you're buying for what you need in five to ten years, not what you needed five years ago - or even what you think you need today. Amazon has a ton of really good Black Friday deals on simple home NAS (Drobo make very popular and reasonably good value for money plug-and-play solutions - not cheap, but good quality and very easy to use). I'm looking at at them myself right now, and will post a link to anything see as a great deal.
From the discussions on this thread, it seems to me that developing the technology to enable interstellar travel would probably make actual colonization of other planets superfluous anyway.  In order to have sufficient resources and a sustainable environment, we would have to have ships the size of dwarf planets.  We'd be building our own sustainable environments in order to go somewhere and discover a sustainable environment.
I'm back and caught up in this thread.  It appears that the only other person who doubts the feasibility of interstellar travel is Danial 1948.  I don't buy any of the arguments proposed here for interstellar travel.  It's naive to think that because we have overcome obstacles to travel to the moon or across vast open waters is anything comparable to interstellar  travel.  The scale of magnitude is at the least billions of times more complex. 
  I'll stick to the biology argument because that's what I know best.  Consider the fish out of water metaphor for humans in space.  Put a fish on a mountaintop and try to overcome the problem.  The science as panacea crowd will put the fish in a tank but that has to be heated.  Heat the tank but the fish needs to eat and is dependent on a coral niche.  Okay.. add some coral but the coral are filter feeders and need plankton.  Plankton and fish do not do well with UV radiation so put up a sunscreen..... and so on and on.  The same metaphor is applicable to humans in space.    Why is it so obvious to me that this will never happen while the majority, even the skeptics think it's feasible?  I don't get it.  Yes, humans are great survivors but put a human on the bottom of the sea or on top of an antarctic mountain and try to self sustain a colony there first.   If we can do that, then attempting some absurd mission to planet "B" might be thought under a different light.

I'm not sure how to argue against this in any rational way, as it isn't an argument, and it isn't rational. I don't know why it is so obvious to you that it is impossible when you propose a few test cases for feasibility. Most of us in the thread suggest that a self sustaining space station is a more representative test than an undersea station (since we're talking about sustaining human life in space) but those are both useful, meaningful parallel efforts to stretch our understanding of what is possible (eta) and to differentiate 'impossible' from 'impractical' or 'too costly'. Practicality and cost are point-in-time characteristics, where impossibility (e.g., FTL) is not time dependent.(/eta)

You appear to be the only person who claims (in the negative) that science is a panacea (at least on this site). The rest of us seem to be claiming that science and technological advancement are vastly powerful, and part of the complex system of human endeavours.
TV & Movies / Re: Rate the last movie you just saw.
« Last post by moj on Today at 09:45:22 AM »
I'm surprised Anthrax's I am the law didn't make it into either sound track?

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10