What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Dr. Clayton Forrester's Science Roundup

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Dr. Clayton Forrester's Science Roundup

Gloria Jean's was the shizzle back in the day (before Starbucks took over). Used to work at a local mall's food court on the weekends, for some extra cash. The "black market food trading" was rampant, of course. I worked Sat and Sun, open-close. So, I'd trade a pizza for a quad espresso/mocha (mocha took the bitter taste out) at the start of my shift. Yeah, I was wired until mid-afternoon.
 
Re: Dr. Clayton Forrester's Science Roundup

FadeToBlack&Gold said:
Among the chains, always preferred Caribou's "Depth Charge" (brewed black coffee + shot of espresso = ALL THE JITTERS). They never look at you askance when asking for it.

Desert Oasis is pretentious enough to have tasting notes for each roast posted next to the register. It feels like they will judge you for ordering anything other than black. :D

I'll be *cked if the tasting notes aren't accurate though. Those guys know their coffee.
Click to expand...

Drip Drop Drink also has tasting notes on their coffee; accurate as can be. And yes, I get the look that says "don't order anything other than black coffee."
 
Re: Dr. Clayton Forrester's Science Roundup

joecct said:
Stephen Hawking theorizes on black holes...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ry-about-black-holes/?tid=HP_more?tid=HP_more
Click to expand...

Pretty good article, though I always find statements like this jarring:

It's brainy stuff,
Click to expand...

for those of you who like a little more physics lingo
Click to expand...

Why do journalists insist on always circling around to the "wow, this is really technical hur hur" shtick when writing about this stuff? Why not assume a little more aspirational intent on the part of readers? If we're confused by terminology or theory, we'll look it up and read more.

Even John Stewart (PBUH) used to do this when he'd cover a procedural vote in Congress, fake passing out from boredom or some other bit. Jesus Christ, the whole idea is that the public is ignorant because they are never challenged. So challenge them! The 90% or so will just ignore it and go on chewing their cud, and the 10% will hit up Google.
 
Re: Dr. Clayton Forrester's Science Roundup

Great article in 538 on how science works and how hard it can be to flush out people publishing dubious if not invented results.

Warning, it is pretty long, and it appears to be well-researched.

I loved this quote:

Science is not a magic wand that turns everything it touches to truth. Instead, “science operates as a procedure of uncertainty reduction,” said Nosek, of the Center for Open Science. “The goal is to get less wrong over time.” This concept is fundamental — whatever we know now is only our best approximation of the truth. We can never presume to have everything right.
Click to expand...


It reminds me again of the tremendous character shown by Michelson and Morley when they published their null result back in 1887, which was a total surprise to everyone as it apparently made no sense....until 1905 and Einstein's special theory of relativity, which relied on that null result for the breakthrough.
 
Last edited:
Re: Dr. Clayton Forrester's Science Roundup

In light of the previous post, it seems a bit ironic to me that those who cite "science" as a reason for their beliefs also can be the most dogmatic ones out there.....
 
Re: Dr. Clayton Forrester's Science Roundup

FreshFish said:
Great article in 538 on how science works and how hard it can be to flush out people publishing dubious if not invented results.

Warning, it is pretty long, and it appears to be well-researched.

I loved this quote:




It reminds me again of the tremendous character shown by Michelson and Morley when they published their null result back in 1887, which was a total surprise to everyone as it apparently made no sense....until 1905 and Einstein's special theory of relativity, which relied on that null result for the breakthrough.
Click to expand...

Great link, thank you.

Edit: Oh. It was just an excuse to post your usual gibberish. Welp, know what, the link IS great anyway, even though you likely didn't even read it.
 
Last edited:
Re: Dr. Clayton Forrester's Science Roundup

FreshFish said:
In light of the previous post, it seems a bit ironic to me that those who cite "science" as a reason for their beliefs also can be the most dogmatic ones out there.....
Click to expand...

Those must have been the longest three minutes of your life.
 
Re: Dr. Clayton Forrester's Science Roundup

GrinCDXX said:
Those must have been the longest three minutes of your life.
Click to expand...

LOL. Rec'd. Yeah, it was out of character for him to post something interesting. I wondered too. It was just one minute, though. Note the edit time on the first post.
 
Last edited:
Re: Dr. Clayton Forrester's Science Roundup

Kepler said:
LOL. Rec'd. Yeah, it was out of character for him to post something interesting. I wondered too. It was just one minute, though. Note the edit time on the first post.
Click to expand...

Ahhh yes, three minutes did seem like more willpower than Fishy would be able to muster.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top