Jul 31st 2009 5:25PM umm yes? outrnunng doesn't have to be by a humanoid. an autonomous car (old news) can 'outrun' a human. jokes aside bipedalism is not a good trait (as far as efficiency) so isn't it a waste resources to develop human-like robot?
May 26th 2009 11:23PM @Marc
I apologies for that overlook. However, my argument still holds, which is: A fact (any fact scientific, historical etc) is a fact is a fact. Its immutable; if its mutable, it may be a truth for the time being or something else. So, Do Not use words like 'believe' in referring to a scientific fact or in a scientific context period. It is or it is not. Period. Either use different word or coin new word or get your science straight.
P.S. What agenda? I'm not advocating for any devious.
May 23rd 2009 12:11AM Understood. So, when a parent's basement dwelling internet guy like Garth say stuff like "but CERN won't destroy the world. Honest. Don't believe me, believe science." aside from Hawkin's radiation being set in stone, and scientists' having the best of intentions in their hearts, should we just see things with a healthy pinch of skepticism? Hey big bang or membrane collision itself are theoretical which have lot of problems. So, which part of this 'CERN science' do we 'Believe in' i.e. have faith (as in a religion) in?
P.S. Science didn't give us computers!! You must be out of your loving mind, girl. I was going to say 'don't get a hardon everytime someone tags something as a science' but heck ;)
May 17th 2009 12:57PM @jason. haha you got a bit emotional there bud. Hope you can hear yourself talk.
aaanyway, Garth said (and he was honest too) "but CERN won't destroy the world. Honest. Don't believe me, believe science". I didn't think i had to come back and be explicit but here goes. My point was what does mere 'Believing in Science' accmplish? it didn't save Challenger spacecraft from exploding midair, it didn't contain the Chernobyl explosion etc etc etc. What is 'Science' today is an utter nonsense tomorrow. So don't get a boner everytime someone tags something as science.
Mountains and mountains of theories on moles of evidence...
May 16th 2009 4:21PM why 'believe' in science? any belief requires some level of faith which no different from faith? which is no different form a religion. Why do we have to take science as a modern day gospel or something. Eugenics used to be taught in science classrooms once. Einstein wrote a paper in 1937 where he mathematically proved that its impossible for blackholes to exist. today i read a news on modern day lemur being the ancestor of humans. neuton's laws don't hold most of the real world scenario. halking releases 'discoveries' one day, apologises for his idiocy the next. In fact in physicist community he's known more for his wheelchair then his contribution to science.
Most Popular Posts
Most Commented Articles
- No Articles Found
- Photobombers -- Ruining Your Pictures, One Click at a Time
- Hot Weather Girls -- Vote For Your Favorite