|
|
#61
09-21-2007, 02:18 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: \"Lucky\" Camera Technology Blows Away Hubble
[ QUOTE ]
Uh, that's exactly what it was. Perhaps you missed the part where I described exactly that. [/ QUOTE ] No, from what I understand you were there for a short term conference hosted by NASA. You never actually were in any kind of employment or even job training program. And lol @ the idea that cafeteria conversations with random employees make your point. How you get "stalker" from responding to a few of your posts in forums I frequent (like wacki), I have no idea. But feel free to feel persecuted [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] BTW, I actually worked in a meteorology station for a few weeks in summer during my degree, does that mean my opinion on global warming trumps yours? What about if all the dudes I talked to at lunch thought human-caused global warming was obviously true? Could I use them as evidence that my position is correct? 
|
|
#62
09-21-2007, 02:46 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: \"Lucky\" Camera Technology Blows Away Hubble
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Uh, that's exactly what it was. Perhaps you missed the part where I described exactly that. [/ QUOTE ] No, from what I understand you were there for a short term conference hosted by NASA. You never actually were in any kind of employment or even job training program. [/ QUOTE ] I did not claim to be employed there. If you want to call it a "job training program", you can. It lasted several weeks. Why did you snip this part: [ QUOTE ] I assumed as a grad student in some trainee program) [/ QUOTE ] Which is EXACTLY what I described here: [ QUOTE ] It was a High Performance Computing and Communications summer school program for graduate students. It lasted weeks. I was "in the actual building". We took crash courses on massively parallel programing on GSFC's Cray T3e, learned techniques in finite element, finite volume, finite difference, smoothed particle hydrodynamics, spectral methods, adaptive mesh refinement, particle-particle-mesh codes, Poisson solvers, had talks by GSFC scientists and guest scientists, gave talks on our research [/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] And lol @ the idea that cafeteria conversations with random employees make your point. [/ QUOTE ] Lol at "random employees". You've already been corrected on this too, but it doesn't need to make my point in any event. It doesn't need to make any point at all, because I've already conceded the entire argument. What part of "I concede the argument" do you have difficulty with? Perhaps if you read it slowly and twice that would help. [ QUOTE ] How you get "stalker" from responding to a few of your posts in forums I frequent (like wacki), I have no idea. But feel free to feel persecuted [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] [/ QUOTE ] Lol. You can't resist trolling my posts even when you (demonstrably) can't even understand what they say. See above. [ QUOTE ] BTW, I actually worked in a meteorology station for a few weeks in summer during my degree, does that mean my opinion on global warming trumps yours? [/ QUOTE ] No. See, that's wacki-cum-Phil logic, not Borodog logic. Wacki and Co. are the ones that believe you aren't entitled to hold an opinion about something unless you are an "expert." Which I find odd, now that I know wacki's field isn't climatology at all, but biotech. [ QUOTE ] What about if all the dudes I talked to at lunch thought human-caused global warming was obviously true? Could I use them as evidence that my position is correct? [/ QUOTE ] No. But you could use it as evidence that that was their opinion, say if you were trying to illustrate the point that there were in fact climatologists who believe such things, and that it wasn't in fact a crazy idea just because some internet blowhard (such as yourself) said it was without any evidence at all, despite admiting the converse. I wouldn't expect you to be able to comprehend the importance of the difference though.
|
|
#63
09-21-2007, 03:04 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: \"Lucky\" Camera Technology Blows Away Hubble
Multiple posts in this thread shows that you yourself are far more guilty of the things you're claiming others are doing. The reader can make up their own mind who's not getting it. I'm not sure if your problem is underestimating other people's intelligence (and thus not being able to comprehend the subtleties of their position), overestimating your own, or having issues with English. Or all three.
You have a strange notion of conceding an argument, BTW [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]
|
|
#65
09-22-2007, 02:44 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: \"Lucky\" Camera Technology Blows Away Hubble
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Didn't the advent of adaptive optics a few years back allow ground based telescopes to surpass hubble in many respects? In any event lets see what telescope provides better pictures on a cloudy day/night. Stu [/ QUOTE ] ...or during that 1/3 of the month when the moon is out. [/ QUOTE ] So you're saying a boondoggle is better than a moonfoggle? [/ QUOTE ] I don't care how much Hubble cost. I have the original deep field exposure as a wall poster and that alone has value beyond any expense. [/ QUOTE ] Okay, let me put it to Borodog. So you're saying a moonfoggle is better than a boondoggle?
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
