“Some years ago I had a conversation with a layman about flying saucers — because I am scientific I know all about flying saucers! I said “I don’t think there are flying saucers’. So my antagonist said, “Is it impossible that there are flying saucers? Can you prove that it’s impossible?” “No”, I said, “I can’t prove it’s impossible. It’s just very unlikely”. At that he said, “You are very unscientific. If you can’t prove it impossible then how can you say that it’s unlikely?”

But that is the way that is scientific. It is scientific only to say what is more likely and what less likely, and not to be proving all the time the possible and impossible.

- Richard Feynman

But PRESENTATION (how something looks) and BEHAVIOUR (how something acts) are two different things.

Saying "programming machine behaviour... at the presentation level" is a nonsensical statement. HTML/CSS define content & presentation. They do not "program behaviour".

Or as Wiki puts it, "The purpose of programming is to find a sequence of instructions that will automate performing a specific task or solve a given problem". HTML & CSS simply do not qualify. They are certainly computer languages, but they are not computer programming languages.

And for fuck's sake, having a clear definition of what "programming" means is not about "bragging rights".

They thought they weren't getting a Season 5, which is why they rushed to resolve all the major plots by the end of S4, leading to a rather underwhelming S5.

So what you say is true, but not really their fault.

B5 was full of lighthearted moments and humour (admittedly less so towards the end). Thinking about Londo going "but in purple... I'm STUNNING" still cracks me up just thinking about it. Or G'Kar getting drunk with the grail seeker "They made a very satisfying.. THUMP when they hit the ground". Lennier and Vir commiserating, "they never listen...". Or Sheridan's terrible jokes.. "Kosh who?" / "Gseundheit!". I could go on all day. :)

Sure there was a serious, epic plot underlying it all.. but you can say the same thing about Guardians. I mean, let's not forget that Ronan's goal was to murder billions of innocent people.

This (appears to) fly in the face of accepted theory, which means it is probably the result of an error somewhere. Everybody realizes this!

However, taking that "probably" and stating it as "definitely" does not make you wise, or a "true skeptic". It makes you dogmatic. And that is not the scientific method.

That is why you are "wrong", even if the effect turns out to be a mistake. This perhaps explains the lack of kudos you've received in the past.

If I understand it correctly, they have to carefully fine-tune the frequency to achieve resonance. From the abstract:

Manual frequency control was required throughout the test. [...] Lessons learned from test integration and operations include identification of the need to replace manual control of the resonant cavity target frequency with an automated frequency control capability.

So I think you are greatly overstating how "easy" it would be to randomly occur in nature, it's not just "microwaves bouncing off walls".

IF the effect is real, I suspect we will learn it doesn't really violate conservation of momentum, it only appears to. (ie, pushing off the quantum vacuum increases the net expansion of the universe or something).

More testing should ABSOLUTELY be conducted. Even if it's not a real effect, it is worth testing until the flaw with the testing can be identified (because there is scientific value in understanding failure as well, especially one that three different teams would have to be missing).

Until a flaw in their methodology (and an explanation for the anomalous thrust being the result of such) can be definitely proven, this is Good Science. The article is flat wrong.

The really dumb part is how they look at the "null device" showing a positive result, as somehow being evidence that there is no positive result.

What it really means they don't understand the effect enough. They had a hypothesis (from the Cannae inventor) that these carved grooves in the sides of the chamber were what caused the thrust. So they tested that hypothesis. The hypothesis turns out to be incorrect. That's how science works. It doesn't disprove the observed effect itself. It means we have to do more testing to get a better understanding of what is going on here.

Skepticism is good and healthy and all, but we have multiple independent teams getting something here, and that deserves further investigation. Is it possible there is some problem with all the results? Of course! Does that mean we should ignore these results and dismiss them because "we know it can't work"? ABSOLUTELY FUCKING NOT.

(Oh, and the parent is incorrect about them performing the testing in a vacuum.. they couldn't because some of their equipment couldn't handle it, full vacuum testing is indeed planned for the next slate of tests)

What's stupid is the author says "Technically, HTML5 isn’t a language". Um, yes it is. It is technically a Markup Language. That's kind've what the "ML" stands for.

He is conflating "programming language" with "language".

So true. It was possible to literally know everything about the Commodore 64, down to every single byte.

And it was so great just flipping the power switch and instantly being in a programming environment. That blinking cursor was so irresistible, it just screamed of infinite possibilities, if you just knew what to type. Seems tragic in a way that that kind of built-in springboard doesn't exist in modern machines.

I still have my copies of Mapping the C64, and the hallowed C64 Programmer's Reference Guide (complete with full hardware schematic poster). :)

Stop stating your theories as fact.

He used the word "likely", you blustering twat.

I am awaiting the day I can order a car2go and have the closest available one simply drive itself to my door.

There's two sides to every disagreement.

Apple wanted turn-by-turn. Google, IN EXCHANGE FOR PROVIDING THAT SERVICE, wanted more control and data.

...so does "earlier"

I've read that Musk contributes to both Republicans and Democrats (but more to Dems IIRC). Dude understands that the reality of the world is that certain wheels need to be greased, especially if what you're doing will rock certain boats.

Musk thinks an 80,000 person colony on Mars can be established for around 36 billion, total.

"Musk added that he sees the future 80,000-person colony as a public-private enterprise costing roughly $36 billion."

http://www.wired.com/2012/11/e...