ScienceBlogs

The Latest Comments

(These comments may include comment spam that has slipped past the filters; please use common sense before clicking on links that lead to unknown sites.)

• comment on: Epigenetics does not mean that thinking makes it so »

  Narad, maybe you should stop making assertions you don't understand. It would save you having to deny later. Though I'm very familiar with that particular step in the new atheist two-step.

  Anthony, the fact you feel the need to constantly attribute to me positions that I have not asserted suggests that it's not I who has the comprehension problem. As I've stated before, you seem to be utterly reliant on the script in your head, which in common parlance is known as an inability to think.

  As for the question of banning or autothrottling, I have no coment other than to point out that claiming that one will go away upon receipt of a private communication rendered in a suitably polite tone is the mark of an asshole of almost unbelievable proportions.

  Posted by: Narad »

• comment on: Outland It's Not: Billionaires Plan Asteroid Mining »

  The collection of raw materials from the asteroid belt could lead us down the path we SHOULD be on. We need to be outwardly focused as a civilization. If this project proves bountiful and other firms begin to pop up, along with the developments being made with companies like Space X we could easily see human expansion throughout the solar system in our lifetimes. Instead of relying on Congress who keep pushing back NASA's proposed launch deadlines.

  Also, what is the issue if you have to put in extra hours to help develop man kinds first attempt at harnessing the potential of our solar neighborhood? When did blood, sweat, and tears become a turn off for scientists and adventurers? The practical application of the technologies developed in the first stage alone would be worth the investment. If you dont see the merit of attempting something new or if you just dont like the plan then say that outright. But to make comments that it is 'Cult'-like and to refer to Ron Paul supporters make you seem childish and honestly slightly jealous. If I was a billionaire with no degree in physics or engineering but I found it interesting or I believed in the endeavors why wouldn't I support a project like this? So what if they dont know how it works, they knew how to make money and there is way worse they could spend it on.

  Why not embrace the fact that these people are attempting to give back what was stolen from two generations of Americans. Hope for a human future in space.

  Posted by: Jon Jones »

• comment on: Near-death, rehashed »

  "Individual minds and selves arise from and are linked together by a divine Ground of Being (or primordial matrix). That is the spaceless, timeless, and infinite Spirit, which is the ever-present source of cosmic order, the matrix of the whole universe, including both physics (material nature) and psyche (spiritual nature). Mind and consciousness represent a fundamental and irreducible property of the Ground of Being. Not only does the subjective experience of the phenomenal world exist within mind and consciousness, but mind, consciousness, and self profoundly affect the physical world...it is this fundamental unity and interconnectedness that allows the human mind to causally affect physical reality and permits psi interaction between humans and with physical or biological systems.

  Isn't this guy describing The Force? Maybe you'd better find out if he owns a light saber before you go calling him out.

  Posted by: John Pieret »

• comment on: Preclinical research has a problem, but that doesn't mean religion is better »

  One of the reasons I left academe was seeing careful research, well-reproduced, with a variety of possible alternative explanations investigated, published late in low-tier journals, with exciting, prelimiary, and not so thorough work being published in top-tier journals.

  Basic research is absolutely critical to our advancement as a species, but I think the current way publication is done is a bit... out of hand. And I don't know how to fix it.

  
  "Preclinical research must work with human subjects"

  Cell lines and 'lower' animals, like mice, hence pre-clinical. You can get the 'n's, you just need the will and the money and the time.

  Posted by: Roadstergal »

• comment on: Maybe My Next Book Should Be About Atheist Gatherings »

  Jason says, "Perhaps a term like “humanist” is more positive."

  While I agree that identifying with the negative term "atheist" may be counter-productive, I don't think "humanist" is truly inclusive enough. Not to get too caught up in terminology but I would prefer "rationalist", a person who eschews supernatural or irrational explanations for our observed existence; or perhaps "empiricist", a person who relies on his/her 5 sensory inputs to determine reality.

  If someone asks me I say that I am a "rational empiricist". I'll be looking forward to your next book on atheist gatherings. ;-)

  Posted by: Tony61 »

• comment on: Epigenetics does not mean that thinking makes it so »

  Altho' I agree with you for the most part, do you not think that SB commenters' *reactions* to AM might be instructive as means to 'answer' his many gripes about science-materialism-atheism- which rather resemble the invective usually hurled in *our* general direction?

  Yes, they can, up to a point. That's why I didn't advocate banning him until recently, despite having dealt with his bigotry and obscurantism for many months before. Knocking him down two or three times can be instructive, but we're way past the point of diminishing returns with this particular troll and his style of argument. When a commenter keeps on repeating the same arguments, with little or no modification, sooner or later someone has to just wave the fool off and admit he's arguing in bad faith and is no longer worthy of adult attention.

  Posted by: Raging Bee »

• comment on: Near-death, rehashed »

  Near Death Experiences are proof of the afterlife, solid proof. They are not anecdotal, but have been verified by research scientists. I have had a NDE personally and have studied them for 25 years. I wrote a book on them and you can read some of it and a veridical NDE at this site http://kenkatin.com

  Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/2Jhb3zkHjtajlOhMMHHCDjoaq8Cevp7Qg9_y3HjWtQcQ#38341 »

• comment on: Epigenetics does not mean that thinking makes it so »

  @ Raging Bee:

  Altho' I agree with you for the most part, do you not think that SB commenters' *reactions* to AM might be instructive as means to 'answer' his many gripes about science-materialism-atheism- which rather resemble the invective usually hurled in *our* general direction? I feel that lurkers and those "new to the game" might benefit in a general-purpose sort of way- altho' I realise that there are *far* easier routes. A few commenters here ( you included)clearly point out obvious deficiencies in his perspective and method. Similarly, while the *Ding an sich* contributed only inanity, her *critics* often provided constructive insights and valuable information that stemmed from her in-abilities.
  Still, hijacking is hijacking.

  Posted by: Denice Walter »

• comment on: Epigenetics does not mean that thinking makes it so »

  That's "four threads," not "four threats." The Typodemon is strong with this oen...

  Posted by: Raging Bee »

• comment on: Epigenetics does not mean that thinking makes it so »

  I'd say ban McCarthy, at least for a few months. I found it very frustrating to try to get some kind of dialogue going, only to get very strange responses that looked like he had simply skimmed about half of what I wrote, without really reading any of it.

  Unless Scienceblogs is considering changing its motto to, "The Electronic Adult Day Care Site! (Your Problem Loved One Will Be Entertained for Hours!)" I can't see that McCarthy is furthering the Scienceblogs agenda.

  Posted by: hoary puccoon »

• comment on: Epigenetics does not mean that thinking makes it so »

  I confess at the beginning of Anthony's trolling here, I was enjoying the clever repartee for a day or two. As Anthony kept up the word salad and kept philosophizing about different topics and assertions about atheism and materialism...it became apparent he was fulfilling his pathological need for attention and *engagement*.

  Let me reiterate my opinion that Orac should wield the ban hammer on this troll. I appreciate the time and the efforts involved when Orac chooses topics to blog about...and I despise it when a troll embarks on thread derailing practices.

  Posted by: lilady »

• comment on: CFS and K-PAX Energy »

  Boy, there are some nice photos in that Big Planet PDF. And one surely becomes New Executive for not selling Pharmanex.

  Posted by: Tony Mach »

• comment on: Jonas Thread »

  Every syllable is negative or abusive.

  Brent, you know that's not true, so why are you lying? I've positively encouraged you to take this piece of garbage you're so enamoured of and spread it far and wide in your crusade to halt the march to world domination of us bitter nazi communist fascist greenies.

  Your reluctance to do so and your subsequent pettifogging whining suggest to me that dimly, subconsciously deep down you realise you're badly wrong and out of your depth, but being clueless denier vermin, you don't understand why.

  Well I say forget all that and go for the AGW jugular with your surely most smoking of howitzers. We could all do with the amusement.

  Posted by: chek »

• comment on: Epigenetics does not mean that thinking makes it so »

  Lawrence: exactly. He's here because the audience is here; this blog is nothing more to him than a vehicle for his own pet peeves. Not to mention free advertizing when his relentless trolling puts a SciBlog post on the "Most Active" list.

  And the latter point is another reason to ban him. What does it do for Orac's standing if a post of his pops up on the Most Active list, and people click to it expecting to find Orac's trademark Insolence, and instead find the thread filled with more off-topic BS from Anthony? I could easily imagine the Most Active list filled with FIVE such threads at once -- the all-Anthony-all-the-time list. (Or maybe four threats plus the latest ERV "Monument" episode.) That would be great for Anthony, and utterly lousy for any SciBlogger who finds his posts used as a free platform for his anti-atheist bigotry.

  As Scottynuke said, Anthony's presence is purely parasitic, and permanent excision is the only good remedy.

  Posted by: Raging Bee »

• comment on: I reject your reality and I substitute my own »

  Everyone knows that Kennedy was shot by Buck Suppository and Gracie Knowle.

  Posted by: Jack Sprocket »

• comment on: Gender Issues Start Sooner Than You Think »

  "I wonder why everyone is associating more warlike and aggressive behavior or toys with intelligence, science and math. Can a girl (or boy for that matter) sincerely like pink sparkly princesses and playing barbies and not be all that into beating up their friends and grow up to be a physicist or agronomist or whatnot? Has there been research done to connect types of childhood play with brain development or whatnot that connects rough-housing with success? I'd be interested to find out." --Seppo

  I like this comment, and while I don't have any data supporting my opinion, I do have an example. One of my friends wears dresses, heals, and pearls to lab all the time, and she is one of the most successful people in grad school that I know. She's a 2.5 year condensed matter physicist student with two papers out and is fabulous. She is the reason I know it's possible, and even easy, to be both "girly" and "a science geek" or scientist at the same time. She and I are similar, though I don't wear stilettos to lab :)

  Posted by: Jana »

• comment on: An ontogeny of toilet drain behavior »

  @Marjanovic
  Sorry if you took the word insult for you. Actually it was meant for Myers and a few others (see "loon" just here above).
  Now, if we can have a serious scientific discussion, i will be very happy.
  The point is that this is encapsulated in apost called "ontology of toilet drain", that it ends by "down the drain " etc.
  So I would appreicate that Myers aknowledges that this is not crackpottery, that he was wrong in the first place, that he knows nothing about physical issues, and that he apologizes (and withdraws the entire post and thread, after all).
  Now, i can certainly answer all your questons. These are really easy to answer. These questions have been around for years, and I have myself contributed since 2005, so there is no suprise if you need some time to catch up.
  Vortex flows are coherent fields of movement forming loops, which are driven by visco elastic force (the shear is propagated by viscosity). The local modulus and direction of the vector field is not xixed by a localized interpretation of a graident of any molecule, but by solving physical equations for conservation of mass, and for mechanical equilibrium.
  Localized forces induce long range rotations (as for a spoon moved in a coffe cup)
  You cannot address the problem of embryo development without invoking these forces.

  The magnitude of the forces is not an issue

  All the best

  Do you think this work deserves the many insults of Myers?

  Posted by: vincentfleury »

• comment on: I reject your reality and I substitute my own »

  Ah, but Dwarfers know who really did it.

  JFK was shot by an alternate future version of himself, brought back in time by the Red Dwarf crew, who had accidentally prevented Oswald from killing Kennedy, and then bungled two further attempts to fix the problem, resulting in America losing the space race and JFK eventually being sent to jail after a massive scandal involving organized crime. And all *that* was from a misguided attempt to get a curry for Lister.

  :-D

  Posted by: Calli Arcale »

• comment on: Misc »

  "it cannot be fixed, only risen above."

  Perhaps not so much a matter of arguing with stupid people as dealing with bullies.

  Of course there's no cure for stupidity in all its infinite varieties, but it can be somewhat curtailed, diluted, re-routed, and marginalized. The "fix" is systemic (admittedly no easy thing).

  PBS had a pretty good interview recently with Marty Kaplan on failing media. He mentions the issue of climate change as an example. Well worth a look.

  "Truth is mighty and will prevail. There is nothing wrong with this, except that it ain't so."
  -Mark Twain

  Posted by: Radge Havers »

• comment on: Preclinical research has a problem, but that doesn't mean religion is better »

  (I am not a research scientists)...but wouldn't the list of the 53 "landmark studies" that Begley chose for his research team at Amgen, to due further research on, be considered *corporate secrets*?

  I would presume that Amgen does not want other drug manufacturing companies to know which "landmark studies" occupied their 100 researchers for the time it took to thoroughly investigate...then discard them...as not practical to develop a drug.

  Aren't we talking about the corporate culture here, where no other drug manufacturer should benefit from Amgen's research...in order to pursue a totally different set of "landmark studies"? Isn't this the reason why when key staff leave a company, in order to *encourage* them to keep company secrets, they sign a "non-compete" clause that stipulates no employment for ~ 2 years at a *competing company*, before they are awarded their sweetheart termination package?

  I'm basing these comments on what my daughter has told me about CTOs and upper management, leaving brokerage houses and large investments banks.

  Posted by: lilady »

• comment on: Epigenetics does not mean that thinking makes it so »

  I believe AMc comes here because of the lack of activity on his own blog, though by the looks of it, he may not allow any comments at all anyway.

  Posted by: Lawrence »

• comment on: ERVs and Multiple Sclerosis, #4 »

  @Levi: There are people like Nancy Klimas or Lucinda Bateman (to name the two people who are most likely least controversial while most qualified and versed in the disease) who would not hesitate to organize ME/CFS patients to participate in such a study, I'd reckon – no need for "central leadership".

  @davey: Lomardi et al. was intentional fraud – so much in that study is smoke and mirrors. If they had written that the sun rises in the east every morning, I would check if it is actually true (and if they actually observed it themselves).

  @ cynical1: I want to see were the research of Terry Wahls is going. If I had to bet money, I would bet on her – the epidemiology of MS would agree much more with her theory than with HERVs. We'll see, I hope.

  Posted by: Tony Mach »

• comment on: Remember that animation of an inflatable flying windmill? »

  I think that if they are high enough, then hydrogen could be used safely.

  The issues are if the hydrogen burned, how much thermal radiation would hit the ground. If the hydrogen mixed with air and exploded, how much of a shock wave would hit the ground.

  If the tether broke, would planes crash into it. If the tether broke, and it rose into the air, when would it burst and crash to Earth and how much damage would it cause.

  Hydrogen flames don't radiate very much because there are no particles. Carbon (aka soot) is the emitter in hydrocarbon flames, that is what makes them look yellow and bright, incandescent carbon.

  Generating hydrogen on site with off-peak power would make the H2 pretty cheap, and if you put a fuel cell you could store hydrogen for peak power too.

  Posted by: daedalus2u »

• comment on: I reject your reality and I substitute my own »

  Greg: Why would you even have such a conversation? We all agree that the world is full christians, conspiracy theorists, and other such kooks, all of whom construct their own reality. Spare us the animations and inanity and instead tell us more about the pigmys, how much dope they smoke, the music that results, the size of their genetalia and how they manage to mate with well endowed bantus, and especially how often they get eaten by pythons. In other words, get your butt back in the boonies where you belong and send us some reports from the field!

  Posted by: Sleazeweazel »

• comment on: Jonas Thread »

  Sheesh, just when I thought this club could not get any more pathetic, in rolls Brent.

  Need better trolls. 1.5 out of 10.

  Posted by: Stu »