Things that I hate

[zeroguy]

The SETI@Home project... thing. Well, not in it's entirety. I mean, it proved the viability of grid computing (at least, it's the first successful project using the model that I know of...), and specifically BOINC, which led to a lot of other projects.

That's all nice and good, except that the actual computations could be used for, you know, something actually useful. "What, finding alien life isn't useful?" Sure, it's useful, but nobody knows if there's even anything to find; the project could result in mankind discovering intelligent alien life, but it could also be a complete waste of time, could result in mankind getting wiped out, etc. Meanwhile, there are many other distributed computing projects trying to solve problems that have a much higher probability of yielding useful results, like helping cure diseases. And SETI@Home probably has the highest usage out of any project (though I'm not quite sure about that, since there was that PS3 protein folding thing...), all that cpu time....

I don't mean to hate on SETI@Home users or anything; hey, they're your spare cycles to use as you wish. But I have no sympathy for e.g. the Arecibo Observatory possibly shutting down due to funding problems.

[Wil]

I believe we've pretty much confirmed that life on other planets is a mathematical fact. Of course, learning if alien life exists is useless if it takes hundreds of thousands of years to send messages.

[BonitoDeMadrid]

I believe we've pretty much confirmed that life on other planets is a mathematical fact.

I'm sorry I'm taking a detour from the subject (things that I hate), but please remind me, what proof do we have that life on other planets is a mathematical fact?

[Wil]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation



The inevitability of the math does not lie. That is, if you're willing to accept the values put forth. It's quite.. arrogant.. of us to believe we're the only life in the universe, isn't it?

http://xkcd.com/384/


I hate Facebook and it's lack of delete functionality. Apparently it is too difficult to add a "delete comment" feature to the Grafitti application. Also, a little confirmation when clicking the "public gallery" feature would be nice. Or, hell, even a way to remove it from the public gallery. How's a person like me, who clicks things to learn, supposed to know what that button does?

[starlooker]

Money and/or lack thereof.

Having to ask my parents for financial help.

Taxes and idiots in the graduate school/payroll who cause exorbitant amounts to be erroneously removed from my stipend check, thus causing hatreds 1 & 2 to become relevant.

[Oliver Dale]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation



The inevitability of the math does not lie. That is, if you're willing to accept the values put forth. It's quite.. arrogant.. of us to believe we're the only life in the universe, isn't it?

http://xkcd.com/384/


I hate Facebook and it's lack of delete functionality. Apparently it is too difficult to add a "delete comment" feature to the Grafitti application. Also, a little confirmation when clicking the "public gallery" feature would be nice. Or, hell, even a way to remove it from the public gallery. How's a person like me, who clicks things to learn, supposed to know what that button does?

Not to delve too deeply, but the existence of alien life is NOT mathematically proven. The Drake equation is as mathematically profound and meaningful as a completed SODUKO. Sure, it may look a little pretty, and lends the impression of internal consistency, but is nothing but mental masturbation by people of a certain religious conviction, i.e. that alien life MUST exist and all those people who don't think so are going to hell, err, I mean are being unscientific.

[zeroguy]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox . Also note that the "current estimates" in the Drake article put the result at 2.3, and that several parameters are "conjecture" (read "pulled out of our asses"). Hence the last parameter in that xkcd.

It's quite.. arrogant.. of us to believe we're the only life in the universe, isn't it?

No. How is it arrogant? (Says the guy who is apparently arrogant around here, yeah yeah...)

I'm sure there's already a thread that has at least touched on this (but probably not in Milagre) if you want to continue. Unfortunately, those that would be most useful in such a thread don't appear to be posting much anymore. I thought I remembered Ollie mentioning some stuff about this, but perhaps it was on a previous incarnation, because I'm not seeing it.

Edit: Or maybe it's because I'm reading Ollie's mind as he's posting it. Kudos on your timing, sir.

[Wil]

Okay. If you didn't notice, I said...

That is, if you're willing to accept the values put forth.

I am quite aware that these values are pulled out of nowhere. Someone asked, so I put it forward.

No. How is it arrogant? (Says the guy who is apparently arrogant around here, yeah yeah...)

Yes, it is. If you believe that out of the billions of billions of billions of stars in the millions of galaxies that we can see that we are the only life in existence, then yes it is arrogant (or ignorant... or both!). (Also, thanks for the compliment.)

It is unlikely that we are the only life in existence. Put numbers to it if you want, however you want. It is unlikely. I would say it is a certainty, but, well, it seems people get highly offended when I make such blatantly offensive and unsubstantiated remarks.

[Oliver Dale]

No. How is it arrogant? (Says the guy who is apparently arrogant around here, yeah yeah...)

Yes, it is. If you believe that out of the billions of billions of billions of stars in the millions of galaxies that we can see that we are the only life in existence, then yes it is arrogant (or ignorant... or both!). (Also, thanks for the compliment.)

It is unlikely that we are the only life in existence. Put numbers to it if you want, however you want. It is unlikely. I would say it is a certainty, but, well, it seems people get highly offended when I make such blatantly offensive and unsubstantiated remarks.

I have a bachelor's degree in astrophysics. Now, I don't presume to believe that makes me an expert in the field, but I do suspect it suggests I've both a) spent more time thinking about this than you, and b) have a better understanding of the cosmologic mathematics that this discussion requires. So instead of us just shouting back and forth at each other ("You're ignorant" "No YOU're ignorant" "No YOU are!"), let me simply ask a series of question.

Why is it unlikely we are the only life in the universe? Anthropically speaking, now. I mean, yes there are a lot of stars out there, and I even believe that many of them may have planets, but like Earth?

Let's take our own solar system as an example. Venus and Mars are by FAR the planets most closely related to Earth. And yet neither (as far as we know) support life. Mars is smaller, has weaker gravity and too thin of an atmosphere. Venus, conversely, has an atmospheric composition and density that would melt lead. Now both or neither of these planets may have supported life in the past, but you don't know that. More importantly, however, they demonstrate how highly specific Earth's situation is/was/must be in order to support life.

Things like size, distance from sun, terrestrial composition, atmospheric composition, tilt, spin, solar activity, solar size, multiple-star system, satellite involvement, evolutionary timing, system activity, blah blah blah -- all of these severely limit the usefulless of all that... space.

The strange part of this whole debate is that I actually have a personal belief that there probably _is_ life out there. But whenever I hear people making almost theological statements about science, I get all puffy chested.

[Wil]

Bachelors in Astrophysics? That's pretty awesome. Astronomy has always been something that has interested me a great deal and I'm always enjoyed reading and learning whatever I can about it. I don't claim to be an expert, or even fairly well versed on everything. My knowledge doesn't extend past a basic understanding, and I often have to look up things I've read about before because I don't talk about it that much. I took a class last Fall, and I learned a great deal, but that also does not make me more than just an amateur.

My professor considered this "the sweet spot", or as he called it "the Goldilocks zone" -- not too hot, not too cold. Just right. FOR US. For humans, their ancestors, and all the animals on this planet. But life isn't always intelligent. Life can be single-celled. Life can be micro-organisms living at the bottom of the ocean on a hydrothermal vent that spits out methane and extreme temperatures.

Under this definition there could still be life on other planets in our solar system -- in the methane lakes of Titan, or the oceans of Europa or Callisto that may or may not exist. Life may not take a humanoid form, life may not be intelligent, life may have already existed somewhere else and killed themselves off (like we're on the path to doing)... but life exists somewhere out there in one form or another.

Chances are much smaller for intelligent life, and even yet smaller for life that can communicate with us. Even still, with as many galaxies and as many stars within those galaxies, and as we continue to discover more and more galaxies, that small chance gets bigger and bigger. Might as well toss "communicating" out the window when taking in to account other galaxies.


Oh, and don't worry about arguing against me. It seems around here I have the magical ability to nudge people into arguing against their beliefs simply to argue against me, never mind if I was trying to be "theological" or not. It's awesome. Oh, and to keep this thread on track... I HATE that.

[Oliver Dale]

I was with you until: "but life exists somewhere out there in one form or another." Once you said this, you fell back firmly on your personal religious conviction and you lost me as a scientist.

I actually anticipated the comment about life being different from us -- which is a valid one -- before, but forgot to say anything about it. So let me say this....

I don't care what kind of life you're talking about: viral, microbial, primate.... it ain't easy to conjure. That "sweet spot" your professor was talking about doesn't refer to just US, but to all life on our planet. Could those mircrobes that live around thermal vents on the ocean's floor exist anywhere else? Well, that means the planet has to have oceans of water first of all. That severely limits availability. It also has to be tectonically/geothermally active. This requires a specific location in the solar system, the size of the planet, how many satellites it has... blah blah blah. That limits it even further. And on, and on. I can play this game no matter what bizarre Earth life you talk about.

But then there's the argument about recognizability. What if there is alien life out there that is so ... alien... to us that we can't recognize it as life? What if an enormous hydrogen cloud out there is alive and we simply glance past it? Well then, I'd simply say that there is a fairly firm definition of what is and isn't life, and either it is or isn't alive. I mean, you can use the same argument to claim that a Jello Pudding Cup is a form of unrecognizable alien life, couldn't you? But that's just as silly and requires the same level of irrational faith that you seem to possess.

[Oliver Dale]

Okay, upon re-reading my last post, that very final sentence read more gruff than I meant it. I really am not angry or annoyed with you and didn't mean to attack you personally so please don't take it that way.

[Wil]

I don't care what kind of life you're talking about: viral, microbial, primate.... it ain't easy to conjure. That "sweet spot" your professor was talking about doesn't refer to just US, but to all life on our planet.

Well, as with the thermal vent example, not all life depends on a delicate hot/cold balance as well as oxygen. So, I suppose you could say that not all life on this planet needs the "sweet spot"? For the majority of life -- humans, plants, animals -- Earth is really ideal. But we know life can survive in extremes.

Could those mircrobes that live around thermal vents on the ocean's floor exist anywhere else? Well, that means the planet has to have oceans of water first of all.

I didn't really mean for the thermal vent example to mean that THAT would be on other planets, just that life can exist in extremes... in places where we never thought life could exist. So, that doesn't mean it requires oceans, or delicate balances between many different variables. It was simply an example to show that life doesn't need to be at/around -50f to +120f with Oxygen to survive. For all we know, life could exist on a rock in space sitting on a loaf of bread. It seems to me that life is quite.. stubborn.

What if there is alien life out there that is so ... alien... to us that we can't recognize it as life? What if an enormous hydrogen cloud out there is alive and we simply glance past it?

Typically life refers to an organism that metabolizes to grow and reproduce. I don't see how a hydrogen cloud could do that, and I don't think we would ever move to include something such as that as life until it shows signs of conscious behavior (growing logically, avoiding danger, etc). So, until that Jello Pudding Cup manages to fight to stay away from my hungry stomach acids...


I guess maybe it's just me that sees this, but to think that we're the only place in the 20-something billion light years across that is the universe to have evolved a form of life (be it simple or intelligent or not)... it just seems improbable. Incredibly unlikely. Call it irrational faith if you want, but we know it has happened once. We know it happened a crapload here, what with there being hundreds of thousands of different forms of life (and dinosaurs!). So, how is it so difficult to make the logical leap to "It can happen somewhere else"?

[Oliver Dale]

Ultimately, I'm not trying to convince you that alien life does not exist out there. As I said before, I have my own personal belief that it maybe does. What I'm trying to convince you to do is to acknowledge, logically, that it is possible that we are alone.

As to your post: I guess my overall point is that the 'extremes' we face here on Earth are nothing compared to the violence and inhospitability of the Great Out There. And just because it happened once means nothing. Someone has to win the lottery, right? Look up the anthropic principle sometime. At any rate, I'm getting a bit tired of this back and forth. It is just as taxing as anything in the religion threads.

[Jayelle]

Can we split this argument off into a new thread?


I hate...

that sport fanatics are the only socially acceptable fanatics. Seriously. Paul and I went to a movie the other night, and the theatre is right next to the football stadium. When we came out, there are all these people dressed in jerseys with painted faces waving flags, etc.
Now, if I decided to dress up like Hellboy* for the movie I was going to see, I would be the freak. But what's the difference, really?


*okay, I don't want to dress up like Hellboy, but you get the idea.

[zeroguy]

This isn't my normal visiting-pweb-time, but I just had to post here when I saw this:

Among this particular demo, the fact that "Family Guy" is also breathtakingly smart is just a bonus (or even beside the point). But the deft blend of the ingenious with the raw helps account for its much broader appeal, as it taps

And that is around where I just could not continue reading. I like to think I was pretty open-minded, getting past "breathtakingly smart". AAAAAARGH.

But while I'm here...

that sport fanatics are the only socially acceptable fanatics.

But what's the difference, really?

There's a difference? I considered the sports ones to be freaks, too.

[locke]

from the article:

I ask myself, How do they come up with this stuff?

South Park answered this: Manatees.

[Jayelle]

that sport fanatics are the only socially acceptable fanatics.

But what's the difference, really?

There's a difference? I considered the sports ones to be freaks, too.

They are, in my opinion, but if a large group of LOTR fans were dressed up and cheering in the street, it would probably make the news.
Sports fans, not so much.
Socially acceptable.

[Mich]

Things that I hate?

I hate planning a big project two months in advance, especially making sure that all involved have the day off, calling everyone one week, two days, and then the night prior to make sure they were ready and had all instructions necessary...

...and then waking up with the stomach flu/possibly food poisoning.

I'm never eating truffles that aren't labeling Lindor again, or at least aren't individually wrapped. Or aren't six months old. My friend got leave from the Navy for this!

[zeroguy]

They are, in my opinion, but if a large group of LOTR fans were dressed up and cheering in the street, it would probably make the news.
Sports fans, not so much.
Socially acceptable.

Hmm, I don't mean to start another thing-that-should-be-in-its-own-thread-hint-hint, but I still don't see it. The LOTR-donned would not see the sports people as socially acceptable (as least, in my completely evidenceless opinion), and the sports folk wouldn't see the LOTR folk as socially acceptable. And I don't see "the news" as being some objective social benchmark these days.

Not that I've done either, but just from the type of people I usually hang around... they'd get a much weirder look from me dressing up for a sporting even than as a fantasy character (but then again, they'd probably get a pretty weird look from me either way).

Edit: That authors rarely seem to possess the.... courage? ability? to "off" major characters in a work. There are not enough entries (at least in Anime) in the Anyone Can Die, Killed Off For Real, and Kill 'Em All tvtropes entries. I don't necessarily mean killing a character per se; just taking them out of the scope of the work. But killing seems to be by far the most popular way to do this. I may need to try watching some Gundam or Space Runaway Ideon sometime.

(So far, I thought offing a major character could have worked extremely well for Kenshin, possibly Tales of MU, and maybe even Kurenai. Elfen Lied could have done this more definitively and been better as well, imho.)

Edit:

Idiot users. And specifically, this growing trend of people just putting whatever up on the net, and then later deciding they don't like how it looks and want it taken down. Boo freakin' hoo.

locke's Bob post reminded me... when I wake up from an interesting dream, and want to go back to sleep to see the rest of it, but can't (or it's time to get up).

[Gravity Defier]

Currently: my phone.

I can't get calls from family members, so they leave me messages that I get hours later saying I need to answer my phone.

I get calls from assholes I don't know who don't take "wrong number" for what it means.

My text messages come in hours after they're sent, if at all.

I have no clue if my AIM is working on it.

The battery drained itself over an 8 hour period of non-use.



I am very seriously considering paying the early out fee and saying to hell with it. I can't afford a new phone right now, not on top of paying the bill. And insurance? Yeah, canceled that so I could afford to keep the phone (cuz every dollar counts). Aagh.

[Yebra]

Damn you Zero. Now I'm going to have to spend hours on that infernal wiki AGAIN.

[starlooker]

Amazon keeps recommending psychology textbooks to me.

That isn't what I hate.

What I hate is that I own about two thirds of them already.

For some reason, that depresses me. You'd think it'd be more of a "personal triumph."

Edited because I just had insight:

It probably depresses me because of the stacks of boxes full of very heavy books that I will have to cart to a moving truck tomorrow morning.

[ender1]

Opensource zealots

[zeroguy]

Paraphrased: "Last year when I taught this course, I didn't require lecture attendance. On the days I gave exams, what surprised me was that I suddenly realized the class size was twice what I expected it was. What surprised me more is that the kids who weren't showing up for lecture but were showing up for exams actually did really well on the exams."

And immediately following this.... we are told that this year, attendance will be mandatory for this lecture, which is before noon, and thus for me, "early".

In summary, I hate being robbed of my sleep for no goddammed reason.

[Eddie Pinz]

zero, have you tried arguing it? I used this argument quite a few times in my college career.

I am paying for this education and if I think I can spend class time doing something else that is productive (ie sleep) and can still do well in this class, well shouldn't I be able to do so without punishment?

Considering I had mostly computer science classes (as long as the work is done on time, I don't give a damn) and business classes (which is all about results). It worked out reasonable well. I had my one economics teacher speechless because he couldn't argue it.

[Gravity Defier]

Humidity. It drains me.


Feeling like I'm talking through/at someone instead of with/to someone.

[powerfulcheese04]

Paraphrased: "Last year when I taught this course, I didn't require lecture attendance. On the days I gave exams, what surprised me was that I suddenly realized the class size was twice what I expected it was. What surprised me more is that the kids who weren't showing up for lecture but were showing up for exams actually did really well on the exams."

And immediately following this.... we are told that this year, attendance will be mandatory for this lecture, which is before noon, and thus for me, "early".

In summary, I hate being robbed of my sleep for no goddammed reason.

Uhm... if people are doing better on exams by not attending lecture then he SERIOUSLY needs to evaluate his teaching methods. Going to lecture should pretty much ensure you get better grades, not worse.

[zeroguy]

zero, have you tried arguing it? I used this argument quite a few times in my college career.

If it gets that annoying, I'd sooner just stop going. "Mandatory" in this case just means a small but noticeable grade penatly, not failing the class. I've done this before for a class with a similar policy, and it turned out alright.

Uhm... if people are doing better on exams by not attending lecture then he SERIOUSLY needs to evaluate his teaching methods. Going to lecture should pretty much ensure you get better grades, not worse.

Firstly, he didn't really say that; maybe those who didn't show up just did better than he expected them to. Secondly, correlation is not causation. It would seem rather probable that those who don't come to class are those who know enough to not need such instruction, or prefer learning the material on their own (I categorize myself thusly), and learn the material better than just being told it. He could be a fantastic lecturer for all I know, but CS classes tend to have all necessary materials available online, so you can usually do most everything without actually going to lecture.

It's also possible that those who don't show up just don't care or whatnot, but this particular class has quite a few levels of prereqs, and I wouldn't expect them to get this far by doing that...

[Mich]

Secondly, correlation is not causation. It would seem rather probable that those who don't come to class are those who know enough to not need such instruction, or prefer learning the material on their own (I categorize myself thusly), and learn the material better than just being told it.

This is one of my favorite things about first days. You know, when professors state that the kids who sit in the front always seem to get A's on everything, so you should sit in the front. Sure, you probably will pay more attention and possibly learn more, but mightn't it be that the kids who tend to get A's also like to sit up front?

[locke]

I think it's more or less that kids who sit up front are not afraid to be called on or like to be called on. it's a self selecting group.

To me sitting up front was always more about class participation than learning something more. This way I could better address the stream of information and ask questions for clarification or argumentative purpose. Some classes I sat in the front, others I sat in the back. often, for classes after lunch, I preferred a seat in the back, the better to nap/doze unmolested.

[powerfulcheese04]

You make good points, zero. And the type of class really does influence things, I suppose. But, like, if people had tried to do that in the upper level bioengineering classes I was taking the last year of my undergrad, or if people tried to do that here at vet school... they would fail. And epically.

And while there may just be a correlation and not a causative relationship, he should still probably seriously evaluate his teaching methods to be sure. It's a red flag, as far as educational theory goes. Of course, being a CS professor, he's probably had little to none of that.

[v-girl]

Does everyone really go to all your classes, Kimmie? I go to less than 20% of lectures and I'm near the top of my class.

[powerfulcheese04]

Yeah, we really do. And the people in all the classes above us say that it doesn't really change.

Of course, a lot of what we learn we really only get from lecture... because we use a lot of medical textbooks because there aren't veterinary specific versions (physiology, for example).

[v-girl]

I'm near the top of my class.

I hate how I sound when I say things like that. At the time I meant it only to prove my point (that I learn better not going to lecture) but I could have said it differently.


How is studying going, Kim? How do board exams work in vet school? I have a big board test after this year, and 2nd year is when we learn all the "important" stuff--path, pharm, etc.

Also, just wondering, do you get syllabi/note-sets? We pretty much get everything we need to know given to us. Textbooks are really only needed if you want more explanation. I use review books much more than textbooks, but then again, there are a ton of review books available for med school classes.