General Science Discussion Thread!

Morty said:
For an example I guess one is that the anglerfish females are the ones who actually...do anything, while the males, which are dramatically smaller, mate with the females by just attaching themselves to the female's belly and merging with it. Or something.

http://theoatmeal.com/comics/angler
 
So creepy, but true.
 
Shoutmon said:
Morty said:
For an example I guess one is that the anglerfish females are the ones who actually...do anything, while the males, which are dramatically smaller, mate with the females by just attaching themselves to the female's belly and merging with it. Or something.

http://theoatmeal.com/comics/angler
In other words males are the weaker species underwater, on land its a different story.
 
小龙怪 said:
No, that is not true either. That is just specific example that should not be generalized to an entire biome.
Generalized, biome, specific, the? When did Dragons get such extensive fluent profound vocabulary?!
 
小龙怪 said:
Since forever.
But...I find fish interesting. Did you know theres a fish that can start its life cycle over from the beggining so its basically immortal...unless someone kills it but who would be so cruel.
 
ernesth100 said:
Generalized, biome, specific, the? When did Dragons get such extensive fluent profound vocabulary?!

um racism
 
小龙怪 said:
Assuming those birds are of the same species, I can't tell which is male or female, because they both look pretty. Unless that is the point.
Eclectus_roratus-20030511.jpg

The female one is the red one. She's so gorgeous. :)

ernesth100 said:
Shoutmon said:
Morty said:
For an example I guess one is that the anglerfish females are the ones who actually...do anything, while the males, which are dramatically smaller, mate with the females by just attaching themselves to the female's belly and merging with it. Or something.

http://theoatmeal.com/comics/angler
In other words males are the weaker species underwater, on land its a different story.

It must be awesome to be a drone bee, a black widow's wife, a mosquito, and an elephant.

Exactly what is "weaker"? And besides, even though males are flaunty and colorful, it's generally the females that ultimately decides who's the winner, especially with birds. E.g. peafowls, bower birds, and birds of paradise.
 
ernesth100 said:
And you Zae your avatars hair is pink! It makes me want cotton candy. In all seriousness though I like pink hair.

what in fried shits does that have to do with science? kaldjdalsk
 
Zae Roles said:
ernesth100 said:
And you Zae your avatars hair is pink! It makes me want cotton candy. In all seriousness though I like pink hair.

what in fried *bleep*s does that have to do with science? kaldjdalsk
because pink hair is artificial or something
 
itt: i prove ways how wikipedia shouldnt be cited and others back me up while others get mad at me for some reason

anyways whats your guys' opinion on robots? personally, i wouldn't own one. i think people are getting too reliant on technology
 
Wolverine said:
itt: i prove ways how wikipedia shouldnt be cited and others back me up while others get mad at me for some reason

You didn't "prove" anything; you mimicked the dated opinion of tenured teachers. Only LTQ potentially backed you up with only "Because Trolls" as if shit edits aren't reverted. The only person who got mad at you was Doomy because for some reason you had to make a snarky comment at him (as did he at you). Everyone else involved was just doing what typically occurs in debates: presenting their opinions based on factual information.

Any potential problem within Wikipedia in terms of legitimacy can be resolved by the person consuming the information applying critical thinking to the situation. If someone blindly plagiarizes Wikipedia for their school assignment, the potential for problems is high, but Wikipedia is an excellent source to begin a research topic and provide an overview of the whole of information, and can greatly direct you towards primary resources. Rather than the teachers just screaming at students to not use Wikipedia, they should instead grasp the concept that it's not 1995 anymore and information is primarily located and sought for online. They should teach students how to locate and utilize the information properly and how to be able to ascertain if that information is credible. That works a hell of a lot better than just having the generic opinion of "never use it" or "it's always gr8".

Anyways

anyways whats your guys' opinion on robots? personally, i wouldn't own one. i think people are getting too reliant on technology

I have conflicted feelings on being too reliant on technology. I do have concern that various forms of technology are resulting in people with genuine first-hand knowledge becoming fewer and fewer because opinions, information, and experiences can be easily shared and googled, but I sincerely doubt it's gonna be anything like Wall-E. Society adapts to technology a whole ton faster than the law does--the smarthphone has only actually been used by the mass public for about a decade--so my only real concern are things like SOPA and whatever with them being just a bunch of grumpy old people not really knowing what they're talking about. I think we should embrace technology rather than fear it because only then can we fully comprehend what we can do with it. As for robots, it depends on what you mean by robot. I'd love to be a Cylon.
 
Wolverine said:
itt: i prove ways how wikipedia shouldnt be cited and others back me up while others get mad at me for some reason
Wikipedia said:
We advise special caution when using Wikipedia as a source for research projects. Normal academic usage of Wikipedia and other encyclopedias is for getting the general facts of a problem and to gather keywords, references and bibliographical pointers, but not as a source in itself. Remember that Wikipedia is a wiki, which means that anyone in the world can edit an article, deleting accurate information or adding false information, which the reader may not recognize.

You don't even read, do you?

And besides, don't let teachers do the thinking for you. I don't listen to teachers that tell me to "never" use Wikipedia. I won't use Wikipedia as a source for any formal arguments, but it's still a good way to go to make quick points and fact-checks. Schools, especially dumb old teachers, are capable of teaching students total screed, so critical thinking is essential.

Anyway, I'm looking forward to robots this generation. If that means they can save lives quicker and more accurately (like the semi-robot surgeon, or the EMILY lifesaver), then I'm all for them. Robots are growing, and they will advance our society for the benefit of many, many people.
 
Morty said:
Only LTQ potentially backed you up with only "Because Trolls" as if shit edits aren't reverted.
Except that not everyone recognizes a "shit edit" at all. Not all admins are supposed to know about plutonium-atoms and if people put up that those will react heavily when colliding with Einsteinium, they won't immediately revert it. You tell me, do you know whether plutonium reacts with Einsteinium?
 
Hypochondriac Mario said:
Wolverine said:
itt: i prove ways how wikipedia shouldnt be cited and others back me up while others get mad at me for some reason
Wikipedia said:
We advise special caution when using Wikipedia as a source for research projects. Normal academic usage of Wikipedia and other encyclopedias is for getting the general facts of a problem and to gather keywords, references and bibliographical pointers, but not as a source in itself. Remember that Wikipedia is a wiki, which means that anyone in the world can edit an article, deleting accurate information or adding false information, which the reader may not recognize.

You don't even read, do you?

And besides, don't let teachers do the thinking for you. I don't listen to teachers that tell me to "never" use Wikipedia. I won't use Wikipedia as a source for any formal arguments, but it's still a good way to go to make quick points and fact-checks. Schools, especially dumb old teachers, are capable of teaching students total screed, so critical thinking is essential.

Anyway, I'm looking forward to robots this generation. If that means they can save lives quicker and more accurately (like the semi-robot surgeon, or the EMILY lifesaver), then I'm all for them. Robots are growing, and they will advance our society for the benefit of many, many people.

Robots scare me. I blame I,Robot for that.
 
LakituderSchnell said:
Morty said:
Only LTQ potentially backed you up with only "Because Trolls" as if *bleep* edits aren't reverted.
Except that not everyone recognizes a "*bleep* edit" at all. Not all admins are supposed to know about plutonium-atoms and if people put up that those will react heavily when colliding with Einsteinium, they won't immediately revert it. You tell me, do you know whether plutonium reacts with Einsteinium?
Well, if a random I.P. or a new user adds in the information, I'd put a {{fact}} template after it so once we get more information, we can cite it or remove it.
 
You can always research the movie, right?

And you shouldn't let robots scare you. Neither should drones scare you. You should embrace them.
 
ernesth100 said:
小龙怪 said:
PeskyPlumbers64 said:
Robots scare me. I blame I,Robot for that.
The book is sooooo much better.
There was a book? How come there's a book for almost every movie and I never know?
More like there is a movie to almost every book. But I, Robot the book is pretty amazing and succeeds at eveything the movie fails at.
 
Back