Passing thought/question: How does the relevant light-energy flux compare in intensity to that of ocean-dwelling photosynthetic cyanobacteria-corals etc?
You know - you're really fast becoming the scourge of these commenting sections?
First you don't know what the words mean you are using (which is OK for a kids forum or a Star Trek website, but not here).
Then you don't bother to read the articles you comment on (which may be good enough for FOX news but not here). The number you seek is right in the text.
THEN you don't bother to think before posting (which may be good enough for religion forums but not here). Cyanobacteria don't live at a specific depth.
You seem upset; like a frustrated control freak. Relax.
You seem upset; like a frustrated control freak. Relax.
Nh, I am relaxed. People on the internet aren't worth enough bother to get blood pressure up even by one point.
But someone seriously needs to tell you that you aren't a tenth as smart, creative, original (or generally worth anyone's time reading) than you think you are. You're posts are probably more at home on some stranger's status update comment section on facebook.
It takes all kinds in science as in anything else
Arrogance and elitism hasn't served science well sometimes.
It sometimes makes for missing the bleeding obvious which 'the dumbest' can see but 'the smartest' have missed due to arrogant/elitist 'blinkers'.
Tone down the disparagement of others' intelligence.
and even for delays in discoveries/advances which have to be 'discovered' long after the initial discovery was made but disregarded because it was 'not made by an approved' or by a 'dumb' outsider having no business thinking and making discoveries
Your opinion of what you are doing is that you are "neutrally assessing"? Oh, if you say so, that's alright then! Relax. :)Tone down the disparagement of others' intelligence.I'm not disparaging. I'm neutrally assessing. What you seem to take as a rant is actually a very level headed analysis ...and even for delays in discoveries/advances which have to be 'discovered' long after the initial discovery was made but disregarded because it was 'not made by an approved' or by a 'dumb' outsider having no business thinking and making discoveriesLike? Even for those few discoveries which didn't immediately get picked up the one making the discoveries wasn't some uneducated fool blindly throwing together brainfarts. These people did know what they were talking about. You, very obviously, don't. So don't kid yourself: unless you pick up your game in a VERY MAJOR way you will not make a contribution to intelligent discourse (much less science).
If these others weren't dumb/outsiders, then why did the arrogant orthodox elitists not heed them and so confirm the discovery instead
for their own agendas?
not good for discourse/discovery from unexpected directions
Because, and this may come as a shock to you: Science is hard.
It's not something you do 'off the cuff'.
When someone publishes a new paper that doesn't mean everyone else immediately understands it. 'Smart' does not equate to 'omniscient'. (But before you get your hopes up: that doesn't mean dumb people can come up with something smart people don't understand/haven't though of)
And what agenda would that be? Top scientists have tenure. There is nothing they need to protect. There is nothing they need to push for.not good for discourse/discovery from unexpected directions
Ya know. That's about as good as saying: "you're not prepared for tsunamis to come out of the desert but just you wait!" - and I'd agree for the very same reason (because the substance for it is missing there, too)
RealityCheck & antialias_physorg...Shut Up! This is not the place for your petty argument. You don't like each other, and we get that, but go piss at each other in private or get back to the topic of the article. Thank you...No problem, mate. :) But for the record, you are mistaken there, at least regarding myself. I have always liked a_p. Recently I even gave him a "5" for one of his posts! Unfortunately (mistaken identity, I suspect), a_p suddenly attacked me personally, soon after I had given him that "5". So please note well, everyone: I dislike no-one 'personally'. Not my thing. I trust that any misapprehensions about my 'disliking' a_p have been dispelled?
RealityCheck
Dec 28, 2012