Did Not Do The Research

[Jadak]

One slightly glaring problem with Mass Effect is Liara. She is a Xeno-archeologist (someone who digs up and categorises the remains of unknown civilisations) and yet is listed as an 'Asari Scientist'. Archeologists do know a smattering of science (it does help with digs) but they are firmly in the HUMANITIES camp and are not SCIENTISTS, as they study the works of humans. I think the confusion probably set in as it is possible to gain a doctorate in both history and archeology which does give them the right to stick 'Dr.' in front of their names.

This may sound pedantic, but as a humanities student, this is such a collosal error I'm amazed that none of the writers pointed it out!

There is also the possibility that Asari civilization does not follow the exact same standards for terminology regarding such things... And for a species that can live for something in the realm of a millennium, even if educational / certification systems were identical, for all you know they could all be fully qualified doctors in all kinds of things and their chosen profession comes after the fact.

But seriously, best not to point at alien species and complain about their usage of terms not matching, it's a kind of a given anyways.

 

[Pegghead]

-Snip-

The more I see clips like that, the more I'm convinced STRIPES was a documentary (obviously meant with no offense towards those in the armed services).

But on topic: Beyond the usual "Cartoons are for kids, videogames are for slackers, what in the world is a internet" mindset I've come across in my travels, I gotta say that for ages upon ages my friends would freak the hell out whenever I came in with margerine on my sandwiches.

First off, margerine is fucking awesome on a good sammich. Secondly, there is no single, conclusive, scientific link that has ever shown margerine to contribute to degeneration of eyesight (and you could do alot worse for your heart). For a while the more tabloid like tv news programs went on and on about how margerine was the anti-Christ (apparently nothing else was happening) so yep, I got an earful every, fucking day.

And it's like who cares? It's fucking margerine, a sandwich spread.

 

[Yopaz]

OK let's start with the basics. We got 3 different states that a substance can be in. There's gas, liquid and solid. Now take water. At temperature below 0 Celsius it is solid. In the are 0 to 100 it's liquid, after that it's gas. If we are in a room where the temperature is below 0 (let's say -10) will you be able to determine if the ice cube I am holding is in a solid or liquid state?
It's actually quite easy. If it is not viscous and does not allow easy movement of molecules when you touch it the molecule is a solid.
Glass, composed of silicates in an intricate pattern creates advanced networks (not at the level of carbon) and thus got an extremely high melting point compared to what you would expect form the polarity of the molecules involved. Even the glass with the lowest melting point requires more than thousand degrees before it melts. When we refer to something as a liquid, we mean that it is liquid at STP (standard temperature and pressure), oxygen exist as a liquid, do you refer to oxygen as a liquid or a gas?

What I was trying to get across is that glass gradually passes into a liquid.
Where ice and other melty things lose their crystalline structure at a certain temperature range, glass gradually pass into a liquid state.
Its crystalline structure gradually bends out of shape rather than unbinds itself completely at a heat threshold, like ice.
To say wether glass is solid or not boils down to semantics.

Water got little in common with silicon. Silicon got metal-like capabilities. Take steel. Is steel a solid? Would anyone you know deny that steel is a solid? However heat it up until it gets close to the melting point and it will get softer as the atoms get freed more easy movement rather than the solid organized structure in room temperature. Adding much more temperature you can get steel in gas form. Glass that is close to melting will usually indicate quite clearly that it is melting because the properties change at a whole.

When we refer to something as a liquid it has to be liquid at STP Which is 1 atmosphere pressure and 293K as the temperature. Glass is not a liquid at these conditions. Glass is not a liquid. This is not semantics, this is the basics of thermodynamics.

 

[Agayek]

All the Engrish in anime. For instance, in Yu Yu Hakusho, one of the characters is going to see a band called "Megallica." You'd think they could have gotten it right, unless they were changing the name for copyright reasons, but then why is the font and everything exactly like Metallica's?

I don't really know of any others at the moment...

Because it was a direct reference to Metallica, but they didn't want to pay licensing fees...

OT: My favorite Did Not Do The Research moment is probably a segment in CSI where they take crappy security camera footage, "enhance" it, then zoom in sufficiently to get a reflection off someone's eye and use that to find the culprit. Here's the clip:


If I have to explain why this shouldn't work to anyone, I swear I'm going to go find an orphanage and explode it.

 

[Archedgar]

^ 1- For starters, the angle they have on the eye drastically changes in a way that isn't even possible.

2- The resolution would NEVER be that good where it would show a reflection off of someone's eye.

3- Retinal imaging?!

4- He says "reverse the image" but the image remains static, if he's talking about the guy in the retina... WHAT? how do you reverse a part of an image without completely wrecking the whole image?

5- etc.

 

[Berenzen]

Whenever I see a whole bunch of foot soldiers wearing platemail in any medium. Foot soldiers didn't wear platemail. Platemail is useless for a foot soldier, it's heavy to use (80 pounds of use is not too bad if you're just walking, but swordfighting would exhaust you quick), if you got knocked on your ass you essentially were a turtle, and it was typically considered too expensive for common foot soldiers. Platemail was usually saved for armored cavalry, where the horses made up for most of the disadvantages and people that needed to be protected on the battlefield (high ranking officers and such).

 

[tthor]

Some of the science in Fringe is ridiculous. "The thermite in his skin sealed all his breathing orifices.." LOL WUT?

I loved Fringe, until the episode where a scientist created a Giant virus, that could even squirm away.. Ok, I know you say there have been cells that have been large sizes, but viruses are NOT cells! They are hardly even considered 'alive', all they basically are is just a floating container of genetic material! they cannot move, they can't do anything! they just float by waiting to infect somebody!
what i really find funny is how THIS is what breaks my suspense of disbelief, considering all the cooky science they did before that..

 

[Spectral Dragon]

Other people think "glass is a liquid!" snip

huh?

Seriously, who flunked basic science enough to think that?

... My chemistry teacher. Well, granted, it's been a myth for quite some time and it's easier to believe than spend a few decades to prove it wrong. Most just accept it as "a VERY slow process" since it doesn't affect them.

OT: Einstein didn't flunk math. By the end of each term, he was practically teaching each class.

 

[Denamic]

Water got little in common with silicon. Silicon got metal-like capabilities. Take steel. Is steel a solid? Would anyone you know deny that steel is a solid? However heat it up until it gets close to the melting point and it will get softer as the atoms get freed more easy movement rather than the solid organized structure in room temperature. Adding much more temperature you can get steel in gas form. Glass that is close to melting will usually indicate quite clearly that it is melting because the properties change at a whole.

When we refer to something as a liquid it has to be liquid at STP Which is 1 atmosphere pressure and 293K as the temperature. Glass is not a liquid at these conditions. Glass is not a liquid. This is not semantics, this is the basics of thermodynamics.

Okay, so you say it's a solid at STP.
What if I say it shares more characteristics of supercooled liquids than any solids and that it lacks a phase transition between a liquid and a solid?
By your definition, you're right.
By my example, it's a liquid that doesn't flow.
Semantics.

It's why I said that it's both in my first post.

 

[thenumberthirteen]

This made me cry: http://i.imgur.com/4mjrW.png

More a joke than DNDtR.

I wouldn't know it, I didn't even watch it. Even so, it's not funny, that's like saying you like Half Life and holding up a copy of Silent Hill. No one would laugh they would just assume you should be put into a small box with a book and a helmet.

I never said it was a good joke. Simply a statement said in irony.

 

[Erana]

I'm sitting in the library of Abilene Christian University right now, so I'll share a few about Christianity:

Well, while we're on the topic of Christianity...

Spoiler

I mean, did the translator really not think something was wrong when he got that Moses came down from the mountain and had horns?!

All the Engrish in anime. For instance, in Yu Yu Hakusho, one of the characters is going to see a band called "Megallica." You'd think they could have gotten it right, unless they were changing the name for copyright reasons, but then why is the font and everything exactly like Metallica's?

I don't really know of any others at the moment...

Because it was a direct reference to Metallica, but they didn't want to pay licensing fees...

OT: My favorite Did Not Do The Research moment is probably a segment in CSI where they take crappy security camera footage, "enhance" it, then zoom in sufficiently to get a reflection off someone's eye and use that to find the culprit. Here's the clip:


If I have to explain why this shouldn't work to anyone, I swear I'm going to go find an orphanage and explode it.

Ooooh GOD. That was one of the few episodes I saw and I was laughing for minutes straight over that thing.

 

[Vamantha]

Whenever someone tells me water can only be a liquid.
When I have to listen to someone go on about LeVey Satanists worshiping the devil.
That the Disney movies were done exactly like the books.

Those are just a couple of my necrotic hatreds.

 

[mrblakemiller]

-A lot of people think there's a line in the Bible that goes something like "better to spill your seed in the belly of a whore than on the ground to be trampled by men." It seems to say that having extramarital sex is still better than masturbation. There is no such verse in the Bible.

It's been a while since I did any studies, but the part to which you are referring is in fact in the bible. I wont say how the actual quote goes since I have never read the English version so the words are very different. However this quote, or misinterpretation is from a story the story of Onan. Because of some social rules he had to marry the widow of his brother Er, but he did not want his brother's wife to have children because they would for some reason be his kids (strange logics in the bible stories). So he let his seed spill to the ground rather than having his wife bear children. In short he pulled out. You're right this has nothing to do with masturbation, it doesn't even mention sex outside of marriage since they were in fact married. In the story he was killed by god directly for doing this several times, indicating that this was a very bad sin.

No. No, it isn't. I worried I was wrong when you said that, so just to be extra safe, I googled "Onan", found which chapter he was in (Genesis 38), and read it in English and with a Hebrew text as well (I haven't taken Hebrew yet, though, full disclosure). This is Onan's entire life story in the Bible:

"And Judah took a wife for Er his firstborn, and her name was Tamar. But Er, Judah?s firstborn, was wicked in the sight of the LORD, and the LORD put him to death. Then Judah said to Onan, "Go in to your brother?s wife and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother." But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his. So whenever he went in to his brother?s wife he would waste the semen on the ground, so as not to give offspring to his brother. And what he did was wicked in the sight of the LORD, and he put him to death also."

Nothing in those verses sounds remotely like the old "proverb". This is what I dislike: everyone is just sure that they remember the 1,000-chapter book correctly. Not trying to be mean, but it's annoying. If you're saying that the quote sounds like the Onan story, that's your opinion, but what I dislike is people thinking they're quoting Scripture that allows them to say, "Well, my balls are blue, God would rather I have sex than lose control and fap."

I did not say that. I mentioned in my post that the story about Onan is where the misinterpretation of the proverb comes from, I NEVER said that this story says anything about masturbation being a sin. I said the misinterpretation that masturbation is a sin comes from here. Religious fanatics will always quote small parts of the bible and use that as proof that something is a sin. So the proverb you use has its roots in the story of Onan. They quoted the part that god struck him down for spilling his seed to the ground. I NEVER claimed once in my post that this story claimed masturbation was a sin. I just retold the story briefly from my own memory and how it has been accepted by religion rather than looking up the story. As said the proverb demonstrates a huge misconception, but also it shows that the words get twisted when it gets taught by people who didn't understand it, or abused it for their purposes, then people who never knew the truth will retell it with their own words. I am guessing the quote escalated in America because we got something similar to that proverb here which is closer to the actual quote. That quote too has been used to say that the bible says masturbation is a sin. Here it simply says something along the line that it's a sin for a man to spill his seed.

Don't get annoyed at me for not reading my damn post! I was clearly agreeing with you all the time, I was just trying to fill you in on the origin of this bullshit. Just take a look at what I said before I started paraphrasing the story:'

However this quote, or misinterpretation is from a story the story of Onan.

I clearly said this was a misinterpretation in my first post. Now you made this thread about how annoying it is when people don't do their research and you show off that you are in fact incapable of doing any research or even reading through one single post without misinterpreting it. I'll have you know that I have actually studied this story and how it escalated to the belief that this means the bible is against masturbation at length! This is partially because the quote used is often incomplete only mentioning spilling seed without mentioning that there's sex involved. Partially because the name Onan has been used to name the word for masturbation in several languages.

Well, now we're talking circles around each other. I wasn't saying that you were saying that the Bible condemns masturbation. When I read your post, it sounded to me like you were saying that the proverb itself (something like "better to spill your seed in the belly of a whore than on the ground") was in the Bible. As if that parable were the content of Genesis 38:99 or some other verse. That's what I was originally saying was untrue, that's what I thought you were saying, and that's what I tried to correct the last time I quoted you.

I honestly don't have a problem with people saying the Bible condemns masturbation (in a roundabout way, I think it does); I have a problem with people thinking they've memorized a Bible verse they can use for prooftexting when they actually haven't. If that wasn't what you were saying, then I wasn't disagreeing with you. Sorry for any confusion.

 

[mrblakemiller]

In that Austin Powers flick Goldmember Goldmember himself is portrayed as a Dutchman, yet he keeps using German swearwords. I mean for frak's sake people the distinction isn't hard. They do that with Dutch more often, keep mixing it up with German.

-The Bible never says Mary Magdalene was a prostitute. She had seven demons and saw the resurrected Jesus. That's about all we know about her.

The fact that you say "know" here can be called it's own case of misinformation. Then again, doing research on Christianity in a Christian school...

Doing research in a Christian school is a bad way to get objective research? Do you think all future chemists should avoid chemistry school so they get a measured and dispassionate look at chemistry instead of the fanboyish rants of guys with Einstein posters on their bedroom walls?

Seems like you don't believe Christianity is historically tenable or accurate. Believe that if you want. But trust me, being in a university with "Christian" in the name doesn't mean that my professors don't tear the Sunday schools lessons I heard as a child to pieces with their exegesis. In other words, we're Christians, but we don't blindly accept whatever some person or book says (yes, even the Bible, but I'm not interested in getting more specific than that), and we change our minds with new information (better manuscripts being found after the writing of the King James Version, for example).

 

[Cowabungaa]

Doing research in a Christian school is a bad way to get objective research? Do you think all future chemists should avoid chemistry school so they get a measured and dispassionate look at chemistry instead of the fanboyish rants of guys with Einstein posters on their bedroom walls?

It is for Christianity, or any religion for that matter. Of course it's silly to compare religious studies with purely empirical fields like chemistry or physics. Chemistry is no religion, it has nothing to do with faith or morals or anything with the heart for that matter. Religion does, hell it's there to soothe the heart, that's what humans invented it for. Chemistry offer no such thing, the two cannot be compared, so that argument you're making makes no sense.

Fact is, if you're a Christian, that inherently clouds your view when you actually study Christianity from an empirical point of view. Same thing counts for any faith. You believe in something from the get-go, that alone offers an eschewed starting point.

As for it being or not being historically accurate, I believe nothing of the sort, I hold no opinions about something like that. But you used "know" and "demons" in the same sentence, so yeah.

 

[mrblakemiller]

Fact is, if you're a Christian, that inherently clouds your view when you actually study Christianity from an empirical point of view. Same thing counts for any faith. You believe in something from the get-go, that alone offers an eschewed starting point.

As for it being or not being historically accurate, I believe nothing of the sort, I hold no opinions about something like that. But you used "know" and "demons" in the same sentence, so yeah.

If a child believes his mother when she tells him that him evolved from a single-celled organism, I doubt you'd say his mind was "clouded" as to the science behind evolutionary biology. Honestly, I wish you'd just call it like you really see it instead of hiding it under a coat of jargon: you believe that Christianity is incorrect and thus all who believe it is correct must have had some "heart" (as you say) experience that makes them want to believe it is and now go read the Bible and dig up Palestinian artifacts that will support their mistake. If you believe that, that's fine, but please don't fancy up your language in order to suggest your disbelief in Christianity isn't as speculative as my belief in Christianity (or our beliefs in science, I might add, thinking about how we were wondering whether that ironclad theory of relativity was so certain a couple of weeks ago).

Also, if you aren't willing to commit to the "historical inaccuracy" of the gospels, then I can't imagine why you'd be willing to lean over the plate for the nonexistence of demons. If demons don't exist, we can be quite sure that the gospels are historically inaccurate.

Now, you said I used "know" and "demons" in the same sentence, which I didn't, so I'll let the erosion of factual data tell me this needs to be my last volley.

 

[Cowabungaa]

If a child believes his mother when she tells him that him evolved from a single-celled organism, I doubt you'd say his mind was "clouded" as to the science behind evolutionary biology.

A child should not believe his mother that that happened. There's evidence to support that, a wide range of scientific stuff that has nothing to do with his mother, unless she's an evolutionary biologist. I've seen enough people who defended evolutionary theory in such threads who, sadly, only spoke from belief and were full of misconceptions. Saddens me as much as opponents who are filled with misconceptions.

Honestly, I wish you'd just call it like you really see it instead of hiding it under a coat of jargon: you believe that Christianity is incorrect and thus all who believe it is correct must have had some "heart" (as you say) experience that makes them want to believe it is and now go read the Bible and dig up Palestinian artifacts that will support their mistake.

Nice job making assumptions about me. You know what they say; if you assume, you make an ass out of u and me.

So to clarify, as I've already said; no I believe no such thing. Why you insist on saying I do is beyond me. If a Biblical story has a core of historical truth, it does. If it doesn't, it doesn't. Me having an opinion about it doesn't change anything about that fact, history has already happened. And as I also don't really care, I simply don't spend any mental energy on forming an opinion about it in the first place. It's pointless anyway.

You seem to not have read what I posted, which was simply this; Christians have a bias towards Christianity. It's the nature of the beast as you're so incredibly personally involved, simple as that. Counts for any religion.

or our beliefs in science, I might add, thinking about how we were wondering whether that ironclad theory of relativity was so certain a couple of weeks ago

Bad example, as science is all about change and has nothing to do with belief. That thing with that neutrino breaking light speed? If that's verified, and it ain't no fluke, physics will do this:

This is the kind of thing a good scientist has wet dreams about. It could usher in a whole new era of physics research.

Also, if you aren't willing to commit to the "historical inaccuracy" of the gospels, then I can't imagine why you'd be willing to lean over the plate for the nonexistence of demons. If demons don't exist, we can be quite sure that the gospels are historically inaccurate.

Erm, what point are you making here?

Now, you said I used "know" and "demons" in the same sentence, which I didn't, so I'll let the erosion of factual data tell me this needs to be my last volley.

True, reading back they were in two separate sentences, but those two sentences were about the same subject:

She had seven demons and saw the resurrected Jesus. That's about all we know about her.

No wonder I pulled them together, I might've thought a comma separated "Jesus" and "That's" when I posted my previous post, instead a point. So that last volley of yours missed.

 

[deleted_by_strongbad]

Although I think crystallines have a bit more fleeting temperatures for melting/boiling etc. But for reasonable temeratures, it's always solid. It is a bit misleading that you say that it forms an intricate network, given that it has no proper structure. It's fairly random.
Oh, and the nitpicker in me wants to add that you forgot plasma.

Pretty much all of my chemistry text books (the same classes that would complete a chemistry BS if that were my major) leave out plasma as a state of matter, or throw it in as a sidebar and thus refer to the 3 states of matter. Its really not something to nitpick, yes plasma is pretty cool and has some fun properties and uses, not really a standard matter phase as it takes some pretty extreme conditions to get there. Though the main thing, the definition of a crystalline structure is one of a repeated orderly pattern so I'm not sure where you get the no proper structure comment. Also, with the behavior of electrons and various types of bonds in crystalline structures can pretty aptly be described as an intricate network while it may not be the best term I don't think its really incorrect.

Woops, I've gotten it all jumbled up. I was talking about amourphous solids. D'oy. >.<
Those have a non-defined structure. Glass, being an amourphous solid, for example, has the same structure as liquids, but is solid, like crystals. I don't even know what I'm on about now...

I got ya, that makes more sense with the context of the conversation. Though I probably didn't need to sound like such a jerk about it .

 

[Spectral Dragon]

I got ya, that makes more sense with the context of the conversation. Though I probably didn't need to sound like such a jerk about it .

It's alright. I've been annoyed and irrational lately anyway. And almost frustrated because people keep quoting me.

OT: I've said it before, but now I'm linking it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_misconceptions
It's got tons of examples.

 

[Amethyst Wind]

Any cooking show that says you can make a meal "with ingredients you have in your fridge" and then busts out the fancy mushrooms and 6-syllable spices.