Jump to content

willm

Atømican
  • Content Count

    379
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by willm


  1. As per title. This was so bad that it was actually dripping *through* the laptop, from the keyboard through a vent on the bottom.

     

    After this I turned it off, took as many panels out as I could and cleaned everything.

     

    The power would not come on for a while< turning on briefly and then off. It turns on fine now, although I still have some lingering problems:

     

    1. The keyboard is odd, some keys just stop working and caps lock turns on and off....at the moment it is on and I cant turn it off

     

    2. When ac is unplugged and battery is present, The charging light is on< and the power on light is on quite faint

     

    3. The Fan! The fan is on full bore, although I don't think my laptop is overheating at all

     

    4. My touchpad. It is completely unresponsive. although the ribbon doesn't seem to have any coke on it at all....I'm not sure what to check here.

     

     

     

    For problem 1, I have washed the keyboard pretty thoroughly, is the problem coming from somewhere else?

     

    No idea about 2...i guess the button connections are dirty, but i could not find a way to get to them. My laptop does not have the removable strip just under the screen and above the keyboard most laptops do.

     

    No idea about 3....I made sure everything was clear, but I don't know what else could be causing this.

     

    No idea about 4 :(

     

     

    Any suggestions, please?

     

    Perhaps it will sort itself out as the coke residue fades away?


  2. Hulk and Wolverine are notorious for fighting each other!

     

    snip snip

     

    Wolverine and Spider-man team up a fair bit too.

     

    This one, http://au.comics.ign.com/articles/108/1088051p1.html only kicked off last week with the first issue (of 6) and really doesn't require any more background knowledge than what one might pick up in passing.

    The interesting thing with the ultimate hulk vs wolverine series (aside from how long it took to be finished!) was with hulk ripping wolverine in half, it put just how unbreakable adamantium was into question. From what I understand this has yet to be addressed in the ultimate universe which is interesting since it is firmly established in the earth 616 universe.


  3. Did anyone watch it? what did you think?

     

    I thought it was pretty amazing all things considered. I was glad that they used the original song for the opening again as well. I didn't foresee Michael being pulled into the pit as well, I wonder how that will turn out.

     

    I think they changed the ending slightly since they got renewed for a sixth season. The show was originaly designed to only be 5 season with a self contained arc. I wonder if they would have still had sam jump into the pit, or if they still would have brought him back if they knew the show wasnt ending. What do you think?


  4. I mean, what do you think gives them qualification?

     

    As Leo mentioned earlier, half those people have degrees very, very tenously linked to climate studies. Some of them don't have doctorates. This is not an isolated occurance.

     

    As far as I can see, you're taking the fact that they are on the signature list as verification of their comprehension of the issue.

     

    So, based on that.. answer my question regarding Intelligent Design?

    Sorry, I missed this part of your reply before.

     

    I'm going by the wiki link, and I find nothing indicating that these people have degrees loosely linked to climate studies. Rather it appears they are directly related to climate studies.

     

    The fields of the institutions or people I consider qualified are in part from the following disciplines: Academies of Science, General science, Earth sciences, Meteorology and oceanography, Paleoclimatology, Biology and life sciences

     

    I copied and pasted that directly from the wiki TOC, the article itself is a bit more in depth.

     

    Also, I am not taking the fact that they are on a signature list as verification. I am taking the statements from notable institutions and academies with a proven track record as an indication.


  5. IF you've followed any of the controversy, or looked at Leo's prior threads, you'll find several examples of members decrying the fact that boards released statements without querying their members or faculty staff.

    I have no doubt that it happens.

     

    I just don't think it is the case with the 50 or so in the wiki article.

     

    I would hope it is less likely when it's some of the most notable and respected scientific institutions in the world.

     

    Anyway, I'm happy to agree to disagree. I'll take the unanimous words of these respected institutions because of they're proven track record, until I find a reason to question it.

     

    Time to watch Supernatural.


  6. Are you going to back up your claim or not?

    The null hypothesis does not ever need proof. That's why it's called the null hypothesis. Your scientific illiteracy is showing again.

     

    My question again: do you actually know why some scientists believe the world is warming thanks in majority to human activities?

     

    I'm not talking about the null hypothesis. You made a positive claim.

     

    You said that each of those 50 or so academies did not poll their members, and the statements were issued by the 5-12 members of the board of those academies.

     

    I'm not going to just believe you, so can you back up that claim?


  7. I consider those people more qualified because they have the necessary education and experience in that particular field.

    Based on what?

     

    What do you mean?

     

    How do I know they have the relevant education and experience?

     

    Because when people are admitted to academic panels or boards or hold professorships or have completed PhD's in those fields then I think it is likely that they have the relevant education.

     

    When those people have being working in that field in one of those capacities for a significant amount of time, then I think it is likely they have the relevant experience.


  8. You've already indicated that you believe verification to be impossible due to lack of data.

     

    So why are these people actually better qualified?

    As I understand it there is a lack of complete data, so proof is currently not possible. This does not mean there isn't sufficient data to give a strong indication.

     

    I consider those people more qualified because they have the necessary education and experience in that particular field.

     

    There is strong indication that the world is warming. There is no strong indication humans are responsible.

     

    Do you even know why some scientists think humans bear the majority of the responsibility?

     

    Are you going to back up your claim or not?

     

    You said that each of those 50 or so academies did not poll their members, and the statements were issued by the 5-12 members of the board of those academies.

     

    I'm not going to just believe you, so can you back up that claim?


  9. You've already indicated that you believe verification to be impossible due to lack of data.

     

    So why are these people actually better qualified?

    As I understand it there is a lack of complete data, so proof is currently not possible. This does not mean there isn't sufficient data to give a strong indication.

     

    I consider those people more qualified because they have the necessary education and experience in that particular field.

     

    I didn't count exactly, but there seems to be roughly 50 academies referenced.

     

    Many of these are highly notable and prestigious. I don't believe they make controversial claims without having decent supporting evidence.

     

    I also don't accept that out of these 50 or so academies that none of them polled their members.

     

    That's not even getting into the surveys and literature that is mentioned.

    It's time to stop believing. Everything I have said is true.

     

    You're a big proponent of not just taking things on faith.

     

    As such, I'm sure you won't mind backing up your claim.


  10. Are you saying that the majority of statements from the academies of sciences, surveys of experts in the field and of scientific literature are all as equally worthless as the letter in the OP?

    Absolutely. All those academies that have signed, signed without polling their members, and even if they did so, it would still be irrelevant.

     

    The [people that signed were the 5-12 members of the board of those academies.

     

    I didn't count exactly, but there seems to be roughly 50 academies referenced.

     

    Many of these are highly notable and prestigious. I don't believe they make controversial claims without having decent supporting evidence.

     

    I also don't accept that out of these 50 or so academies that none of them polled their members.

     

    That's not even getting into the surveys and literature that is mentioned.


  11. The wiki article references surveys and letters like this one.

     

    Disregard that too?

    Are you saying that the majority of statements from the academies of sciences, surveys of experts in the field and of scientific literature are all as equally worthless as the letter in the OP?

     

    I have not handchecked every reference that wiki article gives but after reading it I think it is significantly more reliable than the letter in the OP.


  12. There are no issues I don't desire to educate myself on.

    If there is an issue where there is not enough information to confirm multiple instances of verification, and I'm required to make a snap decisions, I will do so, in the same way I do for any other field of knowledge.

     

    Erh, why do you think verification is impossible?

    I should have said currently impossible, and the reason is precisely because of a lack of data.

     

    You're accepting the opinion of confirmation bias amongst people lacking the same knowledge as you, but in a position to sign a questionable document.

    I'm not going by or talking about the letter in the OP at all, but rather the wiki article on the scientific opinion on climate change I linked to previously.

     

    I am deferring to the opinion of those people who are qualified and do possess the knowledge I lack to have an indication.

     

    I'm not taking that opinion as fact as others have suggested and don't even care that much about climate change.

     

    Going by the fact that the vast majority of people qualified in the field or a related field seem to be in agreement then I think that gives a useful indication.

     

    I think it's right to disregard the letter in the OP for the reasons mentioned. I'm less likely to disregarding the prevailing scientific opinion from those who are qualified and experienced in such matters.


  13. I educate myself to the point where I can understand the technical requrements. For that particular issue, like, say, Nuclear Power or Homeopathy, its not particularly difficult. From there, you can read source materials with a depth of understanding.

    Thanks for replying.

     

    What about instances you simply don't have time to educate yourself on, or perhaps don't have a desire to?

     

    There will always be controversial topics in science and people won't always be able to educate themselves to the necessary level in each field to have an opinion.

     

    In which case I think it is entirely reasonable to defer to the shifting majority scientific opinion, at least to give an indication.

     

    With AGW since verification is impossible, I will accept the opinion of the majority qualified individuals in that field.

     

    I've seen nothing saying why this is a bad idea. If AGW is disproved or approved either way, then the scientific opinion will shift to reflect that.

     

    Midnighter: I did provide the evidence you asked for. If you don't accept it that's fine, but don't say I didn't provide it. Stop putting words in my mouth and laying down insults for a moment, and read back over the thread.


  14. That's complete nonsense.

    No, it isn't.

     

    Just as an MD is 9 times out of 10 going to be more qualified than some guy interested in medicine, a climatologist is more often than not going to be more qualified than some schmuck on the interwebs.

     

    And again: that means absolutely nothing. Until several years ago most scientists believed ulcers were caused by stress.

    Sure, and then the scientific opinion changed to reflect the new data and information.

     

    Like I said before, what you're arguing against only makes sense if someone sticks with an outdated scientific opinion, not the current scientific opinion at any given time.

     

    Then that is merely unsubstantiated opinion.

    No, it isn't unsubstantiated.


  15. Being a scientist is a job/career. It doesn't make you smarter than anyone else and it doesn't make you less wrong than anyone else.

     

    Everyone seems to have this view of science and scientists as if they're untouchable exalted gods. Nothing could be further from the truth.

    You are replying to a point I never made, but that your reply implies I did. I don't know if that was intentional or not.

     

    I understand scientists are just people and their word is not the law etc etc.

     

    What you left out, is that scientists tend to be far far more qualified in their field than the average joe. We're not talking about cars or basic math here, but fields which require a great many years of study.

     

    Secondly, I am not taking the word of a single, or even a few scientists. I am taking the word of the majority of scientists in the relevant field. Which is entirely reasonable to do so.

     

    No. I don't know what the consensus is either, but until there is a study with double-blind testing, that is able to show experiments, plus further studies confirming the experiments, followed by further analysis, the default position defaults to the null hypothesis.

    As far as I understand it, there is a consensus because significant testing has been done, although the idea can not be ruled out completely.

     

    Adopting the null hypothesis is the best position for anything not proven one way or the other. Which is why I only use the current scientific opinion as an indication, not as an absolute.

     

    I'd still be interested to hear VannA's input.


  16. A consensus is only valid when all parties are recreating experiments and models for themselves, from the same data.

    Then we no longer call it consensus, but rather, verification.

     

    Consensus, by common definition, is simply the average belief held by a group of people.

    It has no requirements for factual basis.

     

    People hold consensus on theological, sociological, and cultural ideals which are patently absurd from foreign areas. It is not a tool or measurement which deserves *any* place in science.

     

    It is a poorly wielded political tool, at best.

    Not looking to continue arguing - I just have a question for VannA.

     

    I understand that consensus can be abused, misinterpreted, can be incorrect etc.

     

    My point is just that I feel it makes sense for someone not educated in a particular scientific field to defer to the mainstream scientific opinion on an issue in that field until it is proven either way.

     

    As an analogy lets look at wifi signals being harmful to a persons health. The consensus at the moment is that wifi signals are not harmful to a persons health.

     

    There are still people claiming it is who are not involved in science at all, and many who are.

     

    I am not knowledgeable about the physics of radiowaves nor their possible effects on the human body. Is it not reasonable to defer to the scientific opinion on the matter until it is proved eitherway?


  17. Yeah, there are a few key examples.

     

    More often than not it seems the consensus turns out correct, especially in the last 50 years or so.

     

    If you can provide evidence to the contrary I'd appreciate it, otherwise we can agree to disagree.

    Wait a second, you want me to provide evidence that the consensus has not been correct in the majority of cases.

     

    That's your claim - not mine.

     

    Prove to me that the consensus has been right in the majority of cases since 1950. You made the claim, you back it up.

     

     

    I can't back it up either way, I can't find any easy list. FWIW, we are both making claims here regarding the consensus. We have an equal onus to back them up.

     

    It doesn't matter though, as you're incorrect. The consensus may later be found to be incorrect.

     

    If it is then a new consensus will emerge based on the correct new data and understanding.

     

    Your reasoning only applies if I were to maintain the current consensus will always be correct, which is not what I or any reasonable person would do.

     

    Opinion does not equal fact. The point that a number of scientists (not even shown as a majority), many not even from the relevant fields, hold the "opinion" that man is responsible for "climate change" does not make this fact. Nothing you have linked to proves this. Opinions are not facts.

     

    Luckily i have since given up expecting you to deliver, you just keep dancing around and making up excuses, because you clearly have nothing.

    I never said opinions are facts. It appears you enjoy arguing against strawmen. So be it.


  18. What about in the last 50 years?

     

     

    edit: In any event, if the current consensus becomes invalidated and the scientific community then reaches a new consensus based on the new data available, then I will then take that as an indication.


  19. That means I think the current consensus is most likely to be correct. Not that I accept it as unequivocal fact.

    Your opinion is wrong. There is no causation between opinions of scientists and facts.

     

    Lucky that isn't my opinion.

     

    What I am saying is that generally when there is a consensus it turns out to be correct. I understand this to be true more often than not.

     

    As such, I said it's a safe bet to take the same stance as the consensus, until it is proven either way.

     

    If you can actually show me why this is a bad idea with logic and examples I really would appreciate it.

     

    If you're just going to insult me because my opinion is different to yours, I'd say don't bother but I know you'll do it anyway.


  20. Yes.

     

    That means I think the current consensus is most likely to be correct. Not that I accept it as unequivocal fact.

     

    If your last example where this was a bad course of action is from the time of Copernicus, then I would think in 2010 it's a safe bet.

     

    If you can provide reasoning with examples as to why this is poor reasoning, I would welcome to hear it.


  21. I don't believe the world is warming because of a consensus. Not sure why you're trying to imply that I do.

     

    edit: You have substantially altered your post to when I originally replied. It is important to point out that you originally agreed there was a consensus.

×