Did Not Do The Research

[trooper6]

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!

I'm afraid you are wrong on this one. Archeology is not firmly in the Humanities camp. In the United States, Archeology is a sub-discipline of Anthropology. Anthropology is a Social-Science. Some might argue that there are those archeologists who are more humanistic in there approach...more like art histortians, reading ancient frieze's as texts, but the bulk of archeologists see themselves as social scientists. Similarly, History is another field that sits between Humanities and Social Sciences....and I know lots of professional historians who would be irritated with being called humanistic.

The fields are not just about the object of study, but the method of study.
I am a Musicologist, but one who studies music in a humanistic way.
There are also musicologists who study music in a historical way they see as being social sciency.
There are also sociologists who study music in a social science way.
There are also music cognition people who study music in a hard science way.
There are also performance people who study music in an Arts way.
Heck, there are some theorists who study music in a Math way.

I see very easily how, as a xeno-archeologist, Liara with call herself a scientist...I could also see some xeno-biologists turning up their noses and dismissing her as "only" a social scientist and not a "real" scientist...but then, we also don't know Asari academic training. For all we know, to become an Asari xeno-archeologist might involve a lot of biology courses. Perhaps in their culture xeno-archeology tends more towards the harder sciences than the social sciences...or is more of a hybrid of the social sciences and the hard sciences.

ETA: In every university I have attended or taught at, or the universities my colleagues have attended or taught at, archeology/anthropology classes never count for Humanities distribution credits, they always count for Social Science credit. So, for in the US at least, no way is archeology squarely in the humanities. And I'm saying this as a humanist (who is generally lumped in the arts).

 

[SckizoBoy]

On TV shows, whenever anything remotely related to chemistry gets involved. The big one that comes to mind is a mispronunciation in CSI:Miami, everyone (most notably Calleigh) says 'pentan-2-one' wrong. They say it like pen-tan-two-won, instead of pen-tan-two-own.

And the visual aesthetic of televised chemistry labs causes rage beyond words. All glassware shown is typically not used that much in the lab while other common pieces are never displayed, there's no oven, there's no fumehood, they're using fucking microbiology equipment, they don't actually show any analytical machine except a GC-MS (which is only good if you actually know roughly what you're looking for) [HEADING=1]... AND ENOUGH OF THE FUCKING COPPER SULPHATE AND DRY ICE!![/HEADING]

*ahem* Excuse me...

 

[Shoqiyqa]

Xeno-archeologist Scientist Archeologists science HUMANITIES SCIENTISTS history archeology humanities

Archeology Humanities Archeology Anthropology Anthropology Social-Science archeologists humanistic art histortians archeologists social scientists History Humanities Social Sciences historians humanistic Musicologist humanistic musicologists historical social sciency sociologists social science way music cognition hard science performance Arts theorists Math xeno-archeologist scientist xeno-biologists social scientist scientist xeno-archeologist biology xeno-archeology harder sciences social sciences social sciences hard sciences.

[http://xkcd.com/867/]

You know there's an ongoing debate, with occasional metaphorical bile, about whether birds are coelurosaurs or coelurosaurs were birds? It's a question of whether birds are dinosaurs or some dinosaurs were birds. Either reptiles split into various kinds of reptiles, including dinosaurs and non-dinosaurs and dinosaurs split into coelurosaurs and other dinosaurs and coelurosaurs split into birds and the ones that went extinct ... or reptiles split into various kinds of reptiles, including coelurosaurs and non-coelurosaurs and coelurosaurs split into birds and the ones that went extinct and non-coelurosaurs split into dinosaurs and non-dinosaurs. Either way, this is a woman feeding a relative of velociraptor and we still can't cure HIV infection:

 

[Spectral Dragon]

Glass isn't liquid snip

I'm not sure if I get your post there. Please confirm if I am right when I interpret it to this:

Glass, the things our windows, lenses, drinking glasses and anything else you can think of is liquid at STP? Glass the thing made of various compositions of silicates (which are defined by very high melting points) is a liquid? Does anyone really believe that? Please tell me I misunderstood this post or I will get saddened by the stupidity of those who think so.

Nope. I know it's solid. But my CHEMISTRY TEACHER thinks it's liquid.

My quote again snip

It's both.
When frozen, it's crystalline and solid, but it gradually become softer and less viscous when heated, eventually becoming liquid.
It's very hard, if not impossible, to tell exactly when it can be considered liquid and vice versa.

It's a crystalline solid, yes, I know, I've done the research. Thanks anyway. But at room temperature, it is solid. Frozen. Doesn't move.

FOR THE LAST TIME I SAID SNIP

You want counter arguments that have worked for me:

Glass is an amorphous solid meaning that it's crystal structure is not in a disordered arrangement instead of an ordered like in most other crystals. (granted this was used in a argument with 1 year chemists)

the argument that old glass is thicker in the bottom is true in many cases but not because it a slow liquid but rather because you would have a hard time making a mould completely flat and leveled. Due to this the glassmakers chose to put the thicker end on the bottom of the window since it would also improve stability. That being said you can find old windows which are thicker in the top.
And the final argument is that IF glass was a slow liquid then the very old lenses/telescopes wouldn't work today due to the glass acting like a liquid and it would ruin the effect. BUT the old lenses and telescopes works today like they worked back then

Of course YOU knew that, so this go out to all those who think that glass is a slow liquid

I have done the research, and I know that. Thanks though! Also, the best argument is that we have 1500 year old roman cups, made of glass, softer than today's glass, that still looks like a cup.

Edit: Problem is no one LISTENS to the arguments because it's common sense by now that it's liquid, and has been for quite some time. Like the bumblebees can't fly but do anyway. NOTE: To spare me further trouble, I KNOW how a bumblebee flies, where the myth originated and how it's false that they can't.

OT: I now hate forum code! Stress and trying to steer that^ up does not work well!

 

[trooper6]

Either way, this is a woman feeding a relative of velociraptor and we still can't cure HIV infection:

Neither I nor murderiser need to work on the cure for HIV because you are doing that. Because you wouldn't pull out the sort of rhetoric you used in this post unless you were actually a person working in immunology, right?

And I can only say, I thank you for your service in working to cure the HIV infection. But...why are you working on curing on HIV when we still don't have a cure for cancer?

And if you happen to be working on a cure for HIV and cancer, I ask you, why are you working on cures for HIV and Cancer when we still don't have a long-term cost-effective alternative to fossil fuels?

Actually, what exactly are you doing to make the world a better place for other people--because surely you must be if you can judge murderiser and I with such complex and well-worded witticisms?

Each person has different skills. And each person does different things. I'm pretty secure in the things I do to make the world a better place for people other than myself. You may not care, or understand the conversation murderiser and I are having...you may not think it is important...and good for you...move along and continue with your research on HIV. And when you, as a research scientist, get into some of the very similar category crises that plague the study of HIV (because believe it or not, I keep up on HIV research and the debates in that field...which can be very vicious indeed), I'm not going to belittle your scientific discourse, because I know that that is part of the process of learning and discovery.

Anyway, despite the fact that you seem to have no respect for murderiser or myself, I want you to know that I still respect your work as a research scientist working to cure HIV.

 

[hazgys]

Glass. As usual. The whole "glass is a liquid!" thing.
The one argument: There are a few windows from like 200 years ago that look like that!
Well, considering we have glasses from even further back that look like they did then...
"But it's a VERY slow process."

Just... Bothers me. EVERY time. Expecially since few accept counter arguments.

You probably already know this but the actual reason some old glasses look warped and flowing's because of thickness variations caused by small temperature changes that occurred when the window was pulled out of the molten glass vat before being worked.

.
A writer who does his research

 

[hazgys]

irellevant and deleted

 

[Spectral Dragon]

Come on, there's not one person in this thread who knows I'm talking about glass here now. SNIP

You probably already know this but the actual reason some old glasses look warped and flowing's because of thickness variations caused by small temperature changes that occurred when the window was pulled out of the molten glass vat before being worked.

.
A writer who does his research

Nope. It has to do with the way they made the panes - by folding them over and over. They didn't end up the exact same size then, and when but together, made that warped pattern. That's the version I've heard, anyway.
Thank you, Wikipedia!

 

[Neverhoodian]

The following pet peeve is admittedly minor, but I can't help but notice it every time it comes up:

Nearly every time an actor is "playing a video game" on TV or film they're manically hammering every button on the controller like their hands are having an epileptic fit. It's particularly amusing if the game they're playing is supposed to be more complex than a simple button-masher. Anyone who's bothered to observe their hands when utilizing a game controller knows that the movement of the digits are calculated and precise.

 

[The Funslinger]

One that has always bothered me is the portrayal of close quarters combat. In pretty much any film, game or visual media, if you have two armies squaring off, the will line up, then run screaming towards each other in an incoherent mass.

You can get away with this if it is a bunch of Berserks, but if you are trying to tell me that that was how experienced soldiers or professional armies would have fought, then you should have done some research.

Exactly. Take the Roman Legionaries, for example. They had depth to their formations (e.g. each unit standing in a square) and when they met with the enemy, their shields would wall up neatly and they'd stab anyone that got too close. Their group fighting tactic was specifically hinged on fighting as a unit.

My favorite example of how this colours people's understanding was in Time Commanders, when the guy insisted on putting their men in a long (but thin) front line. The none-too-organized barbarians just hammered through and split them off from each other. The only time a front line was useful was in things like the Napoleonic era with musket barrages.

 

[Yopaz]

Glass isn't liquid snip

I'm not sure if I get your post there. Please confirm if I am right when I interpret it to this:

Glass, the things our windows, lenses, drinking glasses and anything else you can think of is liquid at STP? Glass the thing made of various compositions of silicates (which are defined by very high melting points) is a liquid? Does anyone really believe that? Please tell me I misunderstood this post or I will get saddened by the stupidity of those who think so.

Nope. I know it's solid. But my CHEMISTRY TEACHER thinks it's liquid.

Wow, I am amazed. Your chemistry teacher really thinks that? You've got to have the most idiotic chemistry teacher ever! Also I understood form your first post that you did not, so I am sorry if I indicated that I did.

My quote again snip

It's both.
When frozen, it's crystalline and solid, but it gradually become softer and less viscous when heated, eventually becoming liquid.
It's very hard, if not impossible, to tell exactly when it can be considered liquid and vice versa.

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?

 

[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."

 

[SckizoBoy]

Isn't plasma considered a state of matter or is it just basically really freaking hot gas? (Been awhile since I was in school)

Depends what field of science you're talking about...

Biology: blood content that excludes the blood cells (red & white)... often confused with tissue fluid.

Physics: high-energy ionised gas about sums it up...

 

[Dracowrath]

Not much comes to mind really, except recently I was over at tgwtg and watched one of Phelous' old reviews for the third anaconda movie. "What's the temperature of that river?" "About 30-40 degrees" "Well snakes are cold blooded, so it should only be able to survive in there for about 20 minutes" um, WUT? Pretty sure reptiles spend more than 20 minutes in water when trying to cool off, and especially when hunting.

There's also the major error in the second anaconda movie. It's set in Borneo, which is very odd considering THERE ARE NO ANACONDAS IN BORNEO.

 

[Spectral Dragon]

Nope. I know it's solid. But my CHEMISTRY TEACHER thinks it's liquid.

Wow, I am amazed. Your chemistry teacher really thinks that? You've got to have the most idiotic chemistry teacher ever! Also I understood form your first post that you did not, so I am sorry if I indicated that I did.

It's both.
When frozen, it's crystalline and solid, but it gradually become softer and less viscous when heated, eventually becoming liquid.
It's very hard, if not impossible, to tell exactly when it can be considered liquid and vice versa.

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?

Yeah, but it's not something she could test, so she rolled with the "fun fact" that it seems like.

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.

 

[spartandude]

The first thing i thought when i read the title was Fox News

 

[sniddy_v1legacy]

Time travel - most shows/books that mess with time travel fuck it up

I'm not an expert but I know a little - example watching Terra Nova last night and when they FINALLY got round to correcting the HUGE flaw (different time streams) I relaxed a little - this shows a modicum of understanding and respect - I shall see if you develop into a real show or a stinking dog turn and/or get canceled after 1 season

 

[ace_of_something]

So what are the most annoying mistakes writers and other thinkers make about the things you like?

As a detective can I just say "CSI" in general. I've actually had to sit in trials where the first thing the prosecution attorney has to do is let the jury know that technology from CSI doesn't exist. DNA testing doesn't work like that. Etc. For like a half hour. I've seen at least 4 DAs do this because it's such a prevalent problem.

Thanks a lot CSI actual criminals are going free because you've made juries have unrealistic expectations of evidence.

Also, any time someone on TV sites using a police sketch artist or they have the criminals stand in a line up.

In my 10ish years as a a police officer of a large dept. I've never seen us use a sketch artist or 'imaging software' My brother a 18 year veteran of a much larger different force has said they stopped using both those things in the early-mid 90's because they were proven to be ineffective.

Yet people still put them in shows.

 

[Tyrant T100]

Being interested in military history and weaponry the ones that really annoy me are:
Weapons not being powerful enough (Someone gets shot a dozen times with a 9mm and survives)
No idea how chemical weapons work (The Rock and the bright green VX that "melts" your skin)
Not understanding the difference between stopping power and lethality (Someone gets shot, they either die instantly or it doesn't effect them, they never get incapacitated)

and sadly you get people who then argue on the internet to insult certain weapons ect because they saw in a film that it was useless.

 

[ace_of_something]

The following pet peeve is admittedly minor, but I can't help but notice it every time it comes up:

Nearly every time an actor is "playing a video game" on TV or film they're manically hammering every button on the controller like their hands are having an epileptic fit. It's particularly amusing if the game they're playing is supposed to be more complex than a simple button-masher. Anyone who's bothered to observe their hands when utilizing a game controller knows that the movement of the digits are calculated and precise.

Or better yet when the actor is say... holding a N64 controller as a xbox system is sitting in front of the TV and their playing a REAL on the screen game... that was only released on the ps2... all while NES era sounds are playing.