Isn't science great?
POSTED BY: Khyron
UPDATED: Monday, March 9, 2009 04:27
VIEWED: 11561
PAGE 6 of 8
I think he might be a bit of a fan because he occasionally quotes the show. But I do know that he soapboxes elsewhere on the internets as well.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Wisconsin sucks. I don't want to be here.
~Forsaken Forever
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by yinyang:
::whoosh::
That's the sound of something going over my head.
So, somebody want to explain this real slow, in terms I can understand? Please?
Don't worry about it being over your head. My head was starting to hurt everytime PN blathered on and I LOVE physics.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Wisconsin sucks. I don't want to be here.
~Forsaken Forever
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:No, PN's posts were making your head hurt BECAUSE you love physics
Originally posted by Sassalicious:
Don't worry about it being over your head. My head was starting to hurt everytime PN blathered on and I LOVE physics.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The thing I think that gets lost about scientific stuff in the regular public is; It's the questions that the scientists get all liquidy about. So it sorta makes then come across as indecisive.
The particular thing about global warming "theory" that makes me crazy, is that the only system we have to observe is the actual biosphere, so it's not possible to "prove" something in climate sciences in that super rock-solid way that everyone seems to demand for "theories" they don't like. So yeah, you do need to make a judgement call on some of these things. But it doesn't make them unscientific. It's simply not possible to "prove" global warming as human caused because there is no way to test alternative hypothesis objectivley in a controlled way. But one cannot simply throw up their hands and say "we cannot ever know for sure!" because most phenomenon fall into the latter category. We'd never figured anything about the universe at all with that attitude. So you have to start going with likelyhoods. Percent possiblity and all that.
It's kinda like the "Without a shadow of a doubt" threshold in criminal cases vs "Preponderance of evidence" in civil trials.
Think for a second about hte fact that most people--even in the suburbs--won't let their kids out to play in the park and be home by dinnertime; like we did when I was a kid. Why not? Parents are scared of their kid's safety. Child molestors lurk in every park and drive-by shooters are waiting on every street, right? Well, of course not. But the thing is there ARE child molestors and shooters, and most parents figure that even given the relativly SMALL chance their kid will cross one, the potential CONSEQUENCE of that possible event make the rational choice to drive their kids everywhere and supervise everything. Most parents would not argue with me on this I think.
Extrapolating this idea to the ENTIRE GLOBE, doesn't it seem a litttle silly to hold scientists to some unattainable standard of proof, given the catastrophic consequnces at stake? Would you wait for rock-solid proof (letters and photographs, say) of a specific child molestor targetting YOUR kid before you'd START supervising them very closely?
The simple fact is that yeah, they ALL may be wrong about global warming. But the consequences of doing nothing--if humans are causing it--socially, economicly, etc is so severe, so damaging, that even if they ARE wrong we still need to do something. Besides, cleaning up pollution, abandoning fossil fuels, all that stuff is ultimately good for us either way anyway.
BSG-38 Minnesotia
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
This is an attempt to sort of bring the thread back to its original purpose, but I won't be surprised if it's futile.
Strictly speaking, this is more technology than science, but who cares. It's all good stuff!
I've got the entire written portion of the article here, but click on the link to see the illustrations.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6368089.stm
"A bionic eye implant that could help restore the sight of millions of blind people could be available to patients within two years.
US researchers have been given the go-ahead to implant the prototype device in 50 to 75 patients. The Argus II system uses a spectacle-mounted camera to feed visual information to electrodes in the eye. Patients who tested less-advanced versions of the retinal implant were able to see light, shapes and movement. "What we are trying to do is take real-time images from a camera and convert them into tiny electrical pulses that would jump-start the otherwise blind eye and allow patients to see," said Professor Mark Humayun, from the University of Southern California.
Retinal implants are able to partially restore the vision of people with particular forms of blindness caused by diseases such as macular degeneration or retinitis pigmentosa. About 1.5 million people worldwide have retinitis pigmentosa, and one in 10 people over the age of 55 have age-related macular degeneration. Both diseases cause the retinal cells which process light at the back of the eye to gradually die.
The new devices work by implanting an array of tiny electrodes into the back of the retina. A camera is used to capture pictures, and a processing unit, about the size of a small handheld computer and worn on a belt, converts the visual information into electrical signals. These are then sent back to the glasses and wirelessly on to a receiver just under the surface of the front of the eye, which in turn feeds them to the electrodes at the rear. The whole process happens in real time.
First-generation, low-resolution devices have already been fitted to six patients. "The longest device has been in for five years," said Professor Humayun. "It's amazing, even with 16 pixels, or electrodes, how much our first six subjects have been able to do." Terry Byland, 58, from California was fitted with an implant in 2004 after going blind with retinitis pigmentosa in 1993. "At the beginning, it was like seeing assembled dots - now it's much more than that," he said. "When I am walking along the street I can avoid low-hanging branches - I can see the edges of the branches." Mr Byland is also able to make out other shapes. "I can't recognise faces, but I can see them like a dark shadow," he said.
The new implant has a higher resolution than the earlier devices, with 60 electrodes. It is also a lot smaller, about one square millimetre, which reduces the amount of surgery that needs to be done to implant the device. The technology has now been given the go-ahead by the US Food and Drug Administration to be used in an exploratory patient trial. This will take place at five centres across America over two years, with 50-75 patients aged over 50. If successful, the device could be commercialised soon after, costing around $30,000 (£15,000). Other devices could then be developed with higher resolution or a wider field of view, said Professor Humayun. Future work includes studying the effects the implants have on the brain. "We are actually studying what happens to the visual cortex over time," said Professor Humayun. The research was presented at the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) annual meeting in San Francisco, US. "
6string, don't bother replying to this if all you have to say is: "Science trying to mess with our lives, man, so that blind people can see again so that they can watch commercials for Science's happy pills and then buy them! All hail Mighty Science!".
The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I saw that on the News last night, they had a blind woman playing basket ball using the older system.
Impressive, not least because the electrodes produce such a low resolution image I can't imagine seeing anything in it.
Theres no reason with continued development and refinement that they shouldn't be able to reduce the technology further and produce imgages closer to reality.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I love science. I'm going home and having sex with my PS2!
"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:An intelligent and thoughtful post as always jack, thanks everso.
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
I love science. I'm going home and having sex with my PS2!
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Nobody takes me seriously when I'm trying to be serious, so I figure, why frustrate myself. I plan on moving out into a forest in the middle of Montana when I get the loot anyhow so science can run it's course and hopefully it doesn't step on my toes.
Send a carrier pidgeon my way if you guys ever figure out a way to get us off of this rock. "A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Anyway, I 'do' science for a living so of course I think it's great.
I've met people who don't like science for various reasons.
1) never could get into the math
2) how can anyone be interested in that stuff
3) scientists are weird and nobody want to be weird on purpose
4) it's hard work
5) if science studies everything it might study me and dismantle my ideas about myself (ie it's personally threatening to my identity)
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME