The article is kind of dumb.
You really shouldn't try to use fancy words you don't understand, trying to look smart. That was not Ad Hominem. That was his opening comment giving his opinion of the article (not the person). He then proceeded to follow up his opening opinion with perfectly valid arguments.
It's some guy who isn't a scientist and who doesn't really understand the scientific method arrogantly bitching about how everybody else doesn't really understand the scientific method.
Appeal to authority (arguing that the "authority" is unimpeachable).
You don't understand Argument From Authority either, nor do you understand when it is a fallacy and when it isn't.
That's the *actual* scientific method.
Not only did you get No True Scotsman wrong, you actually have it backwards. It was the author of the "kind of dumb article" that committed the No True Scotsman fallacy. It was the article author who fallaciously tried to exclude science-he-didn't-like as not being "true science".
Controlled experiment may or may not come into it at all.
Look at where it says "Testing".
I suggest you look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S... where it says "Testing": Astronomers do experiments, searching for planets around distant stars.
Astronomers, geologists, paleontologists, climatologists, and countless other fields of science are testing scientific theories when they engage in measurements and observations of the real world, which test the predictions of those theories.
But I would like to thank you for pointing out that Wikipedia section. I can see how you could read that section and overlook the example illustrating that observations-testing-predictions are a form of scientific experiment. That section should definitely be more clear. I'll leave a comment to that effect on the Talk page. ~~~~
I'm talking about a slightly later period. The third plutonium implosion bomb (Trinity was #1, Nagasaki was #2) was ready to go before the end of the war. Groves decided not to ship it to Tinian. Production rate was about one every 3 weeks.
But that design wasn't suitable for long-term storage. Wikipedia: "The lead-acid batteries that powered the fuzing system remained charged for only 36 hours, after which they needed to be recharged. To do this meant disassembling the bomb, and recharging took 72 hours. The batteries had to be removed in any case after nine days or they corroded. The plutonium core could not be left in for much longer, because its heat damaged the high explosives. Replacing the core also required the bomb to be completely disassembled and reassembled. This required about 40 to 50 men and took between 56 and 72 hours, depending on the skill of the bomb assembly team." It took a few more years to develop a bomb that was suitable for routine storage at an air base.
This already happened with desktop computers. A few years ago, we reached the point where basic desktop machines had a few 3GHz CPUS, a few gigabytes of memory, a terabyte or so of disk, and the capability to talk to a 100MHz Ethernet. There, things stopped. Desktop machines haven't become significantly more powerful since. They still power much of the business world, they work fine, and nobody is "upgrading". Innovation in desktops has become cosmetic - Apple makes one that comes in a round can.
Phones seem to be getting there. The iPhone 6 has no major technical improvements over the iPhone 5. Its specs are comparable to the Nexus 4 of two years ago. We may be approaching that point with phones.
I think he's saying that we shouldn't be using evolution as a talking point when we want to say "see science works!" because we have no proof that evolution indeed works as Darwin described.
(1) Actually he's doing the standard right-wingnut attack on any science they don't like, primarily evolution and climate, and every field of science that supports them.
(2) Setting aside the poor choice word "proof", I think you underestimate what we've got backing up evolution. We literally have mathematical theorems proving the information-creating process of evolution. Evolution is an applied science, used somewhere or other by a majority of Fortune 500 Companies. (Specifically, software genetic algorithms that evolve "digital DNA". It's a field of programming that can solve categories of Hard Problems that are effectively impossible to solve by any other means.) We also have a continuous and complete fossil record of tens of millions of years of evolution covering much of Phylum Foraminifera. Foraminifera are tiny aquatic animals, most smaller than the period on this sentence. They live in the oceans in vast numbers, continually dying and raining down into sea floor sediment. 1970's deep sea oil exploration started bringing up long drill-cores from the deep seabed. Each core is filled with thousands of perfectly layered Foraminifera fossils. We have an effectively limitless supply of these fossils. And it's not merely every transitional form species. We can continuously trace the transitional forms along a ~150,000 year transition as one species splits into two. The only limitation on time-resolution is the small amount of vertical-mixing caused by living animals which disturb the sediment surface.
Really, shipping bulk raw materials is equivalent to shipping finished goods, in your world? Finished goods are usually predominantly waste space, are full of packaging, have to be handled gingerly, and need to be distributed to individuals in different locations. Raw materials are packed together as densely as possible, little to no packaging, can be thrown around, and go straight to just a couple manufacturers. And when import taxes come into play, it's even more extreme, since those are generally based on the price of what you're importing.
Which "AGW denying bit" would that be? It can't be the part about observation because it hasn't gotten any warmer for the past 18 years, so there would be no warming to be observed.
When one activist website tell you that the earth is warming, and another activist website tells you that the earth isn't warming, it's a good idea to check the actual scientific data to determine which activist website is getting the facts wrong. Here's an 18 year graph. The earth has in fact been warming over the last 18 years.
Here's the 50 year graph. That's a neat website that lets you generate graphs over any date range. If you want to play with it, just be sure to update the year-values for both series 1 (the red graph) and series 2 (the green graph).
There was also an unexpected surge in heat being pulled from the atmosphere into the deep ocean. This has recently pulled a vast amount of heat off of the typical graphs of surface-level atmospheric temperature. This is why air-temperature-graphs gives a false impression of somewhat slower warming the last few years.
Air is extremely low density. Very little of the global heat resides in the atmosphere, and what does show up in the air is extremely variable as heat shifts between the air and the land&sea. In fact the atmosphere only accounts for 2% of global heat content. The land surface temperatures are about 8%. The massive oceans account for 90% of the planet's heat content. Here's a graph of ocean heat over the last 50-odd years. The vast majority of heat ultimately goes into the oceans. That graph shows that there has been absolutely no slowing in the rate of global heat increase. Global warming hasn't paused. Global warming hasn't stopped. Global warming hasn't slowed.
There doesn't exist ONE scientific body of national or international standing that still denies man-made global warming. The last national or international scientific body to dissent was, comically, the American Association of Petroleum Geologists back in 2007. Yep, even the oil geologists stopped denying it seven years ago.
You know, I was just thinking, wouldn't it be possible to make a rapid 3d *moulder*, for those bulk parts that you don't require as much precision on (aka, chair)? Picture a stretchable half-mould surface, on a large bed (maybe 50x100cm for a home edition, larger for a workshop) with a grid of little pistons on it that can change it's shape (nothing too high res, maybe one every square centimeter). Picture a second half-mould positioned just opposite, such that the two elements can close off off a 3d space. Such a system could virtually instantly form whatever shape you want, spray the inside with release agent, pipe in a thermoplastic or thermoset resin or wax (for lost wax casting) or confectionary or whatnot, let it set / cure it, and then open up. The pistons could then reshape to ready for whatever shape you want next. If such a moulder would you mess with the two halves individually after they've formed their shapes, you could use it as a composite layup, too. Disposable liners for the mould could be used if sticking / damaging the adjustable mould surface would be a problem.
Wouldn't that be getting awfully close to the potential that mass manufacture currently has? Casting as many times as you want and only having to wait for the product to set? Sure, you'd be limited to relatively simple geometries, but if you need anything more complex, that's what regular 3d printing is for. Hollow shapes could be handled in a two-stage process, first printing out the inner, releasing it, securing it in place, respraying both it and the mould with release agent, then printing out the desired part. I'd think a well-designed moulder could handle that without human intervention.
Hmm, come to think of it, it might even be possible to make a direct metal casting moulder. I know there are high temperature flexible fabrics that can withstand the temperature of most molten metals (various ceramic fiber ones), although I'm not sure whether there are any with sufficient flex for such a role. Oh, hey, carbon fiber and graphite felt are used as a flexible insulating material , that'd probably do the trick.
Come to think of it, this has to be a godsend for Hollywood. They've got the budgets, and you can use the same model for both CG special effects and printing for camera work (whether we're talking about printing for miniatures, animatronics, prosthetics, molds for prosthetics, gadgets or other small objects, etc). No need to have both your 3d artist and a physical artist create the same thing.
The only true atheist I have met was a total sociopath of a man, completely oriented to narcisism.
The only true theists I have known flew airplanes into buildings.
I have also met a lot of people who describe themselves as atheists, but in each of these cases it seems that their definition of atheism involves negating the idea of Deity
I have also met a lot of people who describe themselves as theists, but I am so blinded by my own ideology that I am utterly incapable of understanding anything outside it, therefore I just fucking made up my own definition that fits into my dysfunctional understanding.
No, you're missing his point.
He's an utterly awful excuse for a human being. He has absolutely no understanding of, and absolutely no interest in, any moral framework that isn't based on obedience to a precivilized mythological authority.
When someone vigorously makes the argument that they would be utterly selfish people who murder rape and steal if they were an atheist - therefore atheists are immoral - the proper response is to point out that makes THEM vile evil people, not the atheists.
For this to be more than just a gimmick, UPS needs to offer a 3D scanning service as well.
Which is why I really hope to see Project Tango in the future connect direct with 3d printing.
Scan your scene with your phone, click to print, pick the article in question out of the scene (with simple cutting tools and smart select), assign a material to it (with the app doing its best to choose defaults), possibly apply some filters (welding broken pieces together, for example) or stretch it a bit in different directions to meet your needs if you choose, pick your printing service, pick any other details such as surface treatments and the like, and it gets uploaded, you get billed, and your print arrives in the mail when it's ready.
iMaterialize has a material called "Rubber-like", which is a plastic called TPU 92A-1.
While I agree with you, I think it's important not to overgeneralize today's methods of 3d printing with being the only methods possible.
For example, I've often speculated a lot about the prospect of using thermal spraying as a printing method. That is, you have any sort of powder or other fine material, fed into a chamber with the Venturi effect. Therein a custom mix of air and fuel is injected at specifically chosen partial pressures. Consequently, depending on what material you're using, you can choose the impact speed and temperature of the particles, anywhere from "cold" to thousands of degrees and anywhere from less than 1 meter per second up to a thousand or more. The size of the nozzle determines flow rate, so you could swap between different print heads for bulk vs. fine detail. You're essentially unlimited in what materials you can use. You could, for example, print isotropic fiberglass composites by alternately spraying fine chopped fibers and a resin. You could even do so by spraying simple quartz sand at high enough temperatures, fast moving molten sand in the air forms fiberglass. Your resin could be a thermoset powder heated during travel, an epoxy that reacts after being mixed on impact, or a wide variety of other possibilities. High velocity spraying of metal powders produces metal structures stronger than simple casting. You could spray at low velocity chemicals for the filling of things like capacitors or resistors. Thermal spraying is often as it stands used to apply durable clear coatings to materials to protect them, so clearly transparency is no problem. And any printer built around the principle of launching varied small particles at high speeds could polish, sandblast, coat, engrave, paint, or do whatever other surface treatments you wanted. It could build scaffoldings and then obliterate them afterwards. And on and on down the line.
It still wouldn't let you do fine detail, though (if anything you'd struggle to get as high detail as with conventional 3d printers). For detail work you'd have to add in a lithography setup. Some types of feed inputs would require refrigeration to remain as dusts. And of course some things would still be easiest assembled with literal assembly, aka, a robotic arm or two would be quite useful. So we're getting more and more complicated here.
Do I think such a thing is right around the corner? Of course not. Could my conception turn out to not work well at all as a 3d printer? Quite possibly - as far as I know, nobody's ever tried. But I'm just pointing out, when talking about future tech, you shouldn't evaluate it based on how today's tech works.
Problem will be printing small things, atomic scale assembly, not just squirting some plastic parts
And yet you want to 3d print a fuel cell for a car? How do you plan to 3d print a PEM?
At least 3d printing a battery might be plausible if you have a 3d printer that can take an extremely wide range of materials (not a li-ion battery, though, you run into the same sort of membrane problems.. I really doubt there's any technology that will allow you to just jet down a membrane material and have it allow through your specific desired ions, at a sufficient flow rate, without leaks)
And where on earth are you getting that printed titanium parts are cheaper than non-printed? Have you ever priced titanium printing? iMaterialise, for example, offers it. A 2x2x4 cm bounding box with a mere 1 gram of titanium (picture how little that is that is compared to a plane) costs a staggering $124. Titanium laser sintering printers are slow energy hogs that cost a king's ransom and even titanium powder itself is absurdly priced compared to bulk titanium. And no, the stats aren't better, they're slightly worse for the exact same shaped part. Maybe you can make a more optimally shaped part and that'll allow you to get better performance, but in terms of raw material properties, it's unimpressive.