User talk:SteveBaker/archive18

Barn star

For your civility on assisting with 2010 Austin domestic terror attack in its forming process Weaponbb7 (talk) 05:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Ooohh! Pretty! I don't have one of those! I'll carry it very carefully over to the pretty inlaid glass showcase on my user page! Thanks! SteveBaker (talk) 16:06, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, now you've gone and done it. I updated my user page with the barnstar - and that made me think to update my editcounter - and...lo and behold, it looks like I broke the 20,000 edit mark! Grand and Glorious Tutnum...Woohoo! SteveBaker (talk) 03:19, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I was especially impressed with this. Keep up the good work. --John (talk) 00:51, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

Woaaah - you have 77.3k edits - holy carp! Oh - but "only" 4 years experience...so..."Complete and Perfect Tutnum of the Encyclopedia". Darn, I'm outranked! I bow to your vastly superior wikiobsession.  :-)

SteveBaker (talk) 01:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

(Smile) It's always nice to run into another wikignome. Have you ever considered adminship? --John (talk) 04:26, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I've run screaming from a couple of nominations for adminship in the past...I guess that counts as "considering"! Nah - when I was way too inexperienced for the job, I applied (and was, quite rightly, rejected) - but I've since realised that it's really not a badge of rank or a measure of one's value to the encyclopedia - it mostly seems like dealing with a bunch of bloody annoying people. So I prefer to stick with what I enjoy doing. Maybe someday - if there was a dramatic shortage of admins or something. SteveBaker (talk) 04:35, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Hah, I think you are onto something there! Let me know if you ever do decide to run. --John (talk) 08:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Echelon Model

3D warehouse takes user submissions. If you think you can do better then go ahead and do it already. - Stillwaterising (talk) 00:49, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I get paid for doing 3D graphics all day long (for example). Why would I want to do it for free on a weekend? SteveBaker (talk) 00:57, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Cuz you are bragging about how good you are and have a chance to contribute to something with worldwide interest. - Stillwaterising (talk) 01:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

No - I'm really not saying that. I'm saying that any halfway competent 3D artist could create a better model than that in well under an hour - so your estimate of its monetary "value" is truly, spectacularly, waaay off-target. I'm also saying that this uber-crappy model doesn't add any value whatever to our article - and therefore a reference to it should not be added because (amongst half a dozen other reasons) WP:EL says that we should keep external references to a minimum. Only the primo-value stuff should be added - and this is a million miles from being that. I don't feel like creating a 3D model of a smoking ruin - I drive past the damned thing every morning and evening for chrissakes - it's plenty stressful enough that this could happen within a stone's throw of where I work. Since there is (IMHO) absolutely no need for such a model (much less a reference to it from our article), there is no way I'm going to make one. You seemed to think I didn't know what I was talking about - so I added a link to some 3D building models I worked on just a couple of months ago - just so you're aware that I do know what I'm talking about (I've been in the 3D graphics business for 35 years). SteveBaker (talk) 01:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I also see that your work about a mile from the building. Did you hear the explosion? - Stillwaterising (talk) 01:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Nope - I happened to be off sick. Lots of my co-workers did though - the smoke drifted right across our building. SteveBaker (talk) 01:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

No doubt Wp isn't the right place to ask for help on such a project, do you know of any 3D site/forums/groups I look into? It's likely that such a project is already underway. - Stillwaterising (talk) 02:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

The Blender (software) forums sometimes do this kind of thing - but I don't know of anywhere where people take requests for art and do it for free. Artists are generally in it for the money - so 'freebies' are usually things they made for some other reason and then decided to donate. Personally, I'm a programmer - I can make easy stuff like buildings, but my expertise is 'bringing them to life'. My contract rates are $50 an hour for stuff I might enjoy - up to $200 an hour for stuff I don't feel like doing! The news outlets are happy with video - the most likely chance for a really good 3D model to be made would be if someone like Discovery channel were to make a documentary - but those guys have deep pockets and high standards. They'd probably outsource this kind of work to an overseas contractor who'd build not just that building, but all of the surrounding ones and all of the freeways and such. At the level of detail that they'd demand, it would be a many thousands of dollars contract. If not that - then maybe an enthusiastic (but competent) amateur might build one...but then the quality tends to be poor. SteveBaker (talk) 02:11, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I have CAD training but would have no idea how to texture a building. You seem to have high standards but why do you really think Google's model is that far off? It's positioned in the right place at least in Google Earth and has the right shape. Do you think the height it accurate? Have you ever been to that complex? I've only driven by it myself. -Stillwaterising (talk) 02:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

The realtor I bought my house from (Keller Williams) has an office in the Echelon IV building to the North of the IRS building - so I was there just a month or two ago - but I've been the other buildings in the complex several times for other reasons.

Perhaps the height and floor-plan shape are right - I didn't bother to check. But look on GoogleMaps: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5] and [6]. The corners of the building facing the freeway are rounded, the columns at the entrance are proper cylinders, there are two differently colored windows in the freeway side (probably bathrooms or storage or something). The whole building is built onto a slope - the retaining wall is only on one side and it has a walkway at the top. There are two large signs - one on the retaining wall and one on the building itself. But also, it's a misrepresentation to just plonk that building onto a map - the trees around and up-close to the building make a huge difference to its appearance. The stuff on the roof is in a totally different place - and it's way more complex. The roof has a 'plank-like' texture. Sketchup (being junk) doesn't let you apply the kind of 'oil-on-water' look that the real building has. Without at least some interior structure, the transparent windows look like photos of windows stuck onto the walls (because that's what they are in this model) - so they don't look right, the light reflections are fixed on their surface instead of moving as your eye moves past the building.

You claimed that this 3D model was vastly superior to the 2D images - but it's not - it's a gross misrepresentation. It subtracts meaning - it sucks the facts away from you! SteveBaker (talk) 03:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Taste buds

Hey -- I actually just heard a lecture from a saliva expert from NYU Dental (he was a guest lecturer at Columbia) and that's what he said...that the cells are destroyed and it takes about half an hour for new ones to take their place. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 03:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

WOW!!! That's amazing. Do they shed and regenerate at that kind of rate continually or only when the last lot die off? SteveBaker (talk) 04:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

hi,

I have a highly technical but completely workable idea for a project one could only possibly do with a multitouch display like Apple's iPhone, iPod Touch, and now iPad. My question is: 1. Do you own an iPhone or iPod touch, and have you ever developed anything for it for yourself or others? 2. Do you have any interest in just talking about the idea and seeing if it maybe leads anywhere - no commitments! let me know (here) if you might be interested. I look forward to hearing from you! 84.153.196.55 (talk) 16:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't have an iPhone/Pod/Pad. I've done some development on Android - also on Nintendo DS and a bunch of embedded-systems - but developing for Apple stuff requires that you have a Mac to do it on - and I really don't want a Mac. Plus, I already have plenty of side-projects - and many, MANY more in my in-box. I'm happy to talk about stuff - but it's on the strict understanding that whatever you tell me is in the public domain. I can't afford to have people tell me something I already know or could trivially figure out myself - and then have them complain that I stole their idea. I do take on consultancy work - but I charge between $50 and $200 an hour depending on how interesting the work seems.

Sorry. SteveBaker (talk) 21:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Electric Aircraft

I don't want to start a side-discussion on the desk, but there are a number of electric planes. See Electric_aircraft#Production_aircraft.

No airliners, of course. APL (talk) 17:28, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

These are really just electric-assist gliders. They aren't capable of sustained, powered flight. You kick in the electric power to get the glider up to a few hundred feet - then you hope you find a thermal pretty soon because the battery is gonna run out very soon! I guess, technically, these are electrically powered aircraft - but it's rather like having an electric car with a range of 1 mile! SteveBaker (talk) 21:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey, if my car could catch thermals 1 mile might be enough. APL (talk) 17:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Why antagonize?

Steve, I really like your contributions on the RefDesk, so it's disappointing to me to see edits like this. Basically, you're being a dick - factually correct but condescending. Your answer adds to mine, but I saw no point in stating you "dislike" my answer both in the text of your comment and the edit summary. It's not a big deal - just seems unnecessarily antagonistic to me. -- Scray (talk) 19:53, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

It just occurred to me that your "dislike" might have been triggered by someone else's application of the "Resolved" template. I share your dislike for that template, but I don't think it justifies your wording - just remove it if you don't like it. -- Scray (talk) 20:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

No - it wasn't the "resolved" template. SteveBaker (talk) 20:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I'm not being antagonistic - I really don't like your answer - it's nothing personal...you are at liberty to dislike my answer too! I didn't want to say it was "incorrect" because it might not be...but I didn't want to indicate that I agree with it, because I don't. I think you are seeing condescension where it does not exist. Your answer was clever, intelligent, nicely reasoned with math and facts and links and good stuff like that - but I think it completely missed a rather important point...that there are much faster ways that bacteria could travel the couple of inches needed. So I didn't say your answer was junk (it's really not) - just that I don't like it - which is the truth.

I'm sorry you read it as condescending - but you really have to learn not to attempt to infer my emotion from a set of bare words on a page. You don't have enough information to know whether I was being condescending - or whether I meant it in an amusing way or whether it was an honest statement of how I feel about your answer on a purely factual level (as it happens, it was the last of those things). The reason we have Assume Good Faith as a fundamental principle is so that when you are about to leap to the conclusion that someone is being condescending, you should first ASSUME that they are showing good faith (which, in this case, I was). Again - I'm sorry if this is what you thought happened - but that's not my fault! SteveBaker (talk) 20:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your thoughtful reply and accept your explanation, but I would counter that the "dislike" comment was simply unnecessary and would be expected to trigger a negative response (what do you expect from "dislike" after someone has crafted a well-reasoned answer?). I mean this constructively - your contributions are informative but I think you could improve your delivery. -- Scray (talk) 21:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

PTC non-taster?

Hi Steve,

I asked a question of you in the "Spinach" thread; don't know if you saw it. Of course I suppose it's possible you don't want to give out that info, which is of course fine. --Trovatore (talk) 20:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Eye-tracking computer graphics

Hi Steve, I'm interested in the system you described on the Science Ref Desk. I'm presently working on a book on the neural basis of consciousness, and in one of the chapters I discuss as a "thought experiment" the idea of a graphics system that works that way -- by tracking the eyes and only displaying at high resolution the part of the visual field that lies within the foveal area. I wasn't aware that anybody had ever implemented such a system, but if there are any publications that describe it and how it worked out, I'd be very interested in knowing about them -- I'd much rather write about a reality than a fantasy. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 18:44, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't mean to butt in, but I think that the search term you want here is "Gaze-Contingent Displays". APL (talk) 19:53, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I never heard that term used in the simulation business - we always called them "Head-slaved projectors" if they just followed your head or "Eye-slaved projectors" if they followed both head and eye motion.

One specific simulator that I recall that did this was the Link/Miles "Harrier" simulator for the British Airforce. You can probably find information on it in the I/ITSEC 1990 conference proceedings. Head-slaved projectors need a wider region of display than eye-slaved devices - but because your head is heavy, it's tough to move it so fast that the graphics system couldn't keep up. It's only when you try to track the eyes that they can slew faster than the graphics can keep up. There was a brief technological "window" in the late 1980's when it was just barely possible to track eye motion - and yet graphics systems were still so expensive that you'd want to go to that much trouble. Earlier systems couldn't track eye motion fast enough to make this feasible and later systems could get by with merely doing head tracking and rendering a larger high-rez "patch". So it's possible that only a few systems like this were ever made - and certainly the Harrier simulator is the only one I remember...but that was over 20 years ago, and there may be others that I've forgotten. However, it worked, I'm pretty sure a bunch of pilots were trained using it - and as I recall, it looked good.

When the system was being debugged, they'd fool the system by closing the eye that the eye tracker was following - then look around to see what the system was drawing! That prevented the tracker from following your gaze until you opened the tracked eye again - and you could see the display wink on again after an appreciable delay! I don't recall what the actual latency of the system was - but it included at least three or four 50Hz video frames because that's the time the eye tracker took to spot the eye motion - plus the time the graphics system took to recalculate an image at the new position - and my recollection is that the time the mechanical systems took to reposition the optics was even longer...so the saccade 'blanking' time must have been at least 20ms x 3 = 60ms for the tracker+graphics alone - and probably well over 100ms - possibly even longer.

The system had to predict where the eye would end up by measuring acceleration and knowing how the brain accelerates the eye and head motion as it switches targets. This got us back some latency in that we could make a good guess at where the eye would end up being before it actually got there. But without the saccade "turning off the video to the brain" - we'd have been utterly screwed.

There was an incredible amount of good science done on those things - but it was always a very "practical" matter - nobody was interested in writing learned scientific papers about what was found. SteveBaker (talk) 20:59, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

VirtuSphere

Hey, Steve. I just wanted to mention that I finally got a chance to try a VirtuSphere, and it was every bit as ridiculous as you said it would be. It's great as a comedy device, but I can't imagine using it for a serious simulation. Having tried it, it's difficult to understand how they stay in business. You could make a less ridiculous simulation with a WiiFit pad, or even just a joystick. (No less convincing, and less likely to toss you around like a hamster going down the stairs.) APL (talk) 19:53, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh cool! I'm glad you got a chance to try it. No amount of words will make up for repeatedly falling over while attempting the simplest motion! I think they can get enough funding from DARPA and people like that who are basically desperate for a solution and don't have any better ideas. There is money going into this kind of research - even though the odds of success seem razor-thin. The problem of the lack of "virtual inertia" in your body seems insurmountable to me. If you manage to convince someone that they are running along at constant speed - and then they want to stop - they are going to try to compensate for inertia that isn't there - and right there, they are going to fall over. The more convincing you are with graphics and haptics, the worse that becomes. With the giant hamster ball, it's even worse because you have the inertia and friction of the ball itself to contend with. SteveBaker (talk) 21:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Self-replicating machine

What do you think about this - sock? or coincidence? [7]] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:27, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Who else is so obsessed with the apocryphal f-unit? Guyonthesubway (talk) 23:54, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

<section removed per WP:BAN. Banned editors are not allowed to edit, and all edits made by them may be reverted on sight regardless of content.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:54, 27 April 2010 (UTC)>

From ^^^ this little rant, I am increasingly confident that User:JSimmonz is a sock of the banned User:Fraberj. We need to get an admin involved to be sure, and if so, get this account blocked.

@JSimmonz : If you'd please calm down and look at the talk page over on Self-replicating machine you'd see that it's all being discussed out in the open. Besides, Wikipedia user talk pages are hardly secret! If you are a sock-puppet of Collins - you need to be aware that Wikipedia does not want you here editing our articles. If you are someone else, then you need to calm down and start working with other editors in a decorous manner such as Wikipedia demands. If we are 'covering something up' - you need to show clear evidence that F-units are indeed an accepted part of the science of self-replicating machines and provide proper third-party evidence of them existing or being discussed somewhere other than in Collins' head and a single US patent (which isn't a valid reference for Wikipedia purposes). Failing that, you'll either have to give this up and let more experienced editors write the article within Wikipedia guidelines - or you'll eventually wind up getting banned from editing too. Wikipedia has a high tolerance threshold for this kind of raving - but it's not infinitely high. SteveBaker (talk) 23:17, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Simmonz is exhibiting classic signs of trolling: lengthy diatribes, refusal to directly address questions raised, etc. At this point, to stop feeding it, I suggest we stop answering, and if he tries to add the info back, get him blocked. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:51, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Sadly, you're probably correct. But we can't let him get away with putting junk into the article. We have to have a proper consensus debate and obey it's conclusions. SteveBaker (talk) 03:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

If he puts it back, revert it, and turn him in for edit warring. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Picoazá

Should be enough there now. Over to you. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 11:35, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for your help! That pushed the article over the 1500 character limit. I hope to see it in DYK on April 1st. SteveBaker (talk) 23:08, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Copy edits

I was wondering if you could weigh in on an unrelated article.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Picoazá

On April 1, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Picoazá, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Royalbroil 18:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I thought these templates could be useful! There's nothing like beating systemic bias to make your week. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 09:19, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Wow! That's certainly following the law of unintended consequences! So the message to people in poor towns across the world is: "If you want to get you cultural heritage noticed by the world community, do something completely freaking stupid (like voting for "Foot Powder" in your next Mayoral race) so that you'll get noticed on April 1st."....hmmmm. I'm not sure that's entirely the message we're aiming for here! Oh well - whatever works I guess! SteveBaker (talk) 14:03, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Time to head for the hills?

It can't be a good sign when a man with a device that lets him receive messages from the future starts asking for information about surviving the Apocalypse! APL (talk) 00:23, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

TuxKart

Steve, think you could help the articles for TuxKart and SuperTuxKart, seeing as you contributed to both games? Both articles are horribly-worded and poorly-sourced. -Phil Fry (talk) 21:56, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I have avoided editing them myself because of WP:COI and WP:NOR concerns. I'd be more than happy to answer any questions you have and offer indirect help though. SteveBaker (talk) 20:07, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

AN notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Request for help regarding banned users. Thank you..— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:21, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Icelandic volcanos

Hi Steve,

The conversation on Science desk has closed so I thought I would comment to you here. I worked for Rolls Royce when they were making warantee payments to the Saudis over RB211 failures in low sandstorms in the late 1980s and assume it is analogous. If you are sensible not flying through the worst then engineering fixes are ok, but they all involve running engines at lower temperatures, higher service intervals and therefore lower cost efficiencies. These days of auto-pilots and fuel optimisation people would have to think it a long term thing to go down that route.

--BozMo talk 19:32, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Stupid remove

You think that implying drugs might be bad for you constitutes medical advice? Jeez, what might have happened if he took the advice and gave it up? Leaves me speechless and appalled. alteripse (talk) 01:37, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

The question was clearly seeking medical advice - and per our guidelines, I removed the question and the answers and left the single, standard response to the effect that we won't offer medical advice - go see a doctor. That's what we do here - there are no exceptions. SteveBaker (talk) 21:04, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination for Galilean cannon

Hello! Your submission of Galilean cannon at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Mikenorton (talk) 21:17, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry that you weren't alerted to this earlier as the concerns were raised 15 days ago (we're a bit understaffed over at DYK at the moment). Mikenorton (talk) 21:17, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Computing RD post

I have just made a follow-up post to a question you helped me with back in January, and if you're interested, could you take a look at the new post? Ks0stm If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. 22:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Number of Stars with Planets

Hi Steve...I'm a (mostly-silent) fan of yours from the Science Reference Desk , and enjoy reading your responses to questions: they're always informative, and are well-written and sometimes entertaining to boot. The other day, you responded to a question about Intelligent Design, and while describing the possibility of life generating somewhere, you said: "But we know that almost every one of the 10^12 stars in our galaxy has a bunch of planets and moons."

Since exo-planets are so newly confirmed, I was wondering how we "know" this? Is it just that wherever we look we find planets? Or were you generalising/simplifying for the OP?

Also, I wanted to thank you for the "1000 dice rolling a 6" analogy...it struck me as a very elegant way to describe how both randomness and selection play a part. Though, you must play RPGs, because roleplayers are the only people I know of who must specify the number of sides on a die.Quietmarc (talk) 19:41, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

We do seem to be finding exo-planets in extraordinary numbers (450 of them when I last looked!) - and because we don't have the technology to find planets unless they are many times more massive than the earth, orbiting relatively small stars - the odds are high that all stars have planets. Certainly it's an oversimplification. Our article exoplanet says "it is estimated that up to 20% of sunlike stars may have at least one giant planet. It is thought that at least 40% of solar-type stars have low-mass planets"...OK - so maybe only half of them have planets - but when you're tossing around 150 orders of magnitude - the odd factor of 2 here and there is pretty much a wash. But I'll admit (as I often do) to simplifying in order to make a coherent explanation. It's all too easy to flesh out all of these minor details to the point where nobody will read the important stuff.

I did indeed play D&D (to excess) in my teens - but it's been a while since I've had need to dust off the numbered platonic solids!

SteveBaker (talk) 00:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks for the clarification. I'm thrilled at the exoplanets being discovered, and the consequence that has on any search for extraterrestrial life (I know...unless there's life in our solar system, the chances of finding conclusive evidence in my lifetime is still pretty slim...), and had read the 20%-40% figures, so was worried that I had missed some breaking news. Thanks again! Quietmarc (talk) 15:42, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know that finding evidence for life on exoplanets IS so unlikely in (say) a 10 year timescale. There are at least half a dozen new space missions over that window that are looking for earth-like exoplanets and many of them are capable of using spectrometry to determine atmospheric composition. A planet of sufficient age showing both oxygen and organic molecules in its' atmosphere would be almost certain to contain life. The question of whether that is "conclusive" or not is a tough one. But without some active process that's producing oxygen, there is no way for a planet to have an oxygen rich atmosphere with a bunch of organic molecules that are very reactive with oxygen. Life is the only thing we're aware of that could do that. Incidentally, the figures for the prevalence of exoplanets isn't in a range between 20% and 40% - it's 20% of stars with large planets and 40% with small ones. The total number with planets of any size is believed to be more than 40% and less than 60%. SteveBaker (talk) 18:36, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

10 years! Woo! I won't even have to make any lifestyle adjustments (lose weight, quit drinking) to reasonably expect to be around then. :) I'm of the opinion that it's incredibly unlikely that there -isn't- life elsewhere, but wasn't aware that we were -that- far along in imaging new planets. Coincidentally, just after reading your response, I read an article on Sciencedaily.com about a planet that has unexpected levels of methane vs carbon monoxide. I never went into science as a profession, so I have to watch these things from the sidelines, but I love how surprising the universe is.Quietmarc (talk) 19:04, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Of course, the idea that we might find life within 10 years is predecated on there BEING life out there - and it being common enough that we'd find it after examining a few tens of thousands of exoplanets. If life is much rarer than that - then maybe we won't ever find it. Also, it's predecated on life in these places being not-to-different from Earthly life - and that's a complete unknown at this point. So all I'm really saying is that IF there is life on some planet within (let's say) 200 lightyears of us - and IF it uses a carbon-oxygen system as we do - THEN there is a good chance we'll find it within 10 years. The principle is to find planets that orbit in a plane that's roughly edge-on to our line of sight to them. Then, when the planet is between us and the star, it dims the starlight a bit - but just before and just after it goes behind the star, the reflected light from the planet is added to the starlight. By subtracting the spectra of the starlight with and without the reflected light from the planet we ought to be able to isolate just the effects of light passing through the planet's atmosphere. If we see oxygen absorption lines in that spectrum - then the odds are high that there is life there. The trouble is that the amount of difference the planetary light makes to the total output of a star is amazingly tiny. So you need to do the observations over a long period and you need to do it with a spacecraft that's well out of the earths' atmosphere - so this is neither a cheap nor easy experiment. SteveBaker (talk) 20:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Scrum

I don't think you understand "scrum" at all

Hey, SteveBaker, this was really uncalled for. Correcting someone on the refdesk is one thing, but the above was an uncalled-for personal attack. Stomping on me for conflating a couple of the goals of agile game software development, when I was doing so because I was trying to describe it to an outsider within 2 sentences, was really presumptuous of you. Comet Tuttle (talk) 02:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

You said: "scrum...in which you don't design it all up front; you write the briefest possible design documents up front, and do "sprints" of one week, designing as you go". That's absolutely not true - it implies a horrible lack of professionalism! You also said "some brave video game developers" - implying that scrum is somehow dangerous or risky! Nothing could be further from the truth. Nearly all game companies have taken scrum on-board and I've yet to hear of one who has changed their minds and backtracked to more traditional management techniques. I know engineers who will turn down a job if scrum isn't the management method used. It's a spectacularly successful system.

I've worked scrum for years - and across three different companies:

• We do often do all of our design up-front (although, as I explained, not in the case of 'game' elements where "fun" and other intangiables require experimentation and exploration and "design" doesn't really happen at all).
• We generally write copious design documents up-front (and we do peer-review of those documents and employ a tech writer to polish them for us).
• Our sprints are mostly three weeks long (except for a couple of one or more usually two week bug-fix/polish sprints at the end of the process).
• We NEVER, EVER "design as we go" - that would be suicidal for million-line software projects with integrated input from art, audio, etc. Where design is needed - it's done up-front.

So either you lied or you don't understand or your post was some kind of truly incredible typo! I don't see any other possibilities. I'm pretty sure you didn't lie - so I don't think you understand. I'm sorry if you take this as a personal attack - I didn't intend it as such - it's just a statement of fact, you obviously don't understand how scrum works. What I really dislike is the implied lack of professionalism in my profession. That is an outright insult to the entire video game industry - and you shouldn't expect to be able to get away with a slur like that without some "push-back" from those of us who actually work in that business. If anyone should feel insulted - it's me - and all of my friends and colleagues. I prefer to believe that you simply don't understand scrum than that you are openly insulting us all.

SteveBaker (talk) 03:23, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with a lot of this; not because I think you are incorrect, but because you seem to be ruling out agile methodologies that differ a little from the ones you have used. Surely you recognize that in game development, scrum is an area of active development and rapid iteration (haw), and every shop has its own variant of agile development. Specifics:

• it implies a horrible lack of professionalism! — Will Wright disagrees; he says he begins a project "with a compass, not a map". What happened to the scrum ethic that working code is preferred over nice documents? I mean, you don't literally have zero plan as you charge into development, which would be one extreme; but I don't think anybody is in love with the 120-page TDD, either, and the scrum ethic clearly is closer to the former than to the latter. Here is an example of one shop that is proud of this agile approach. Shouting them down for unprofessionalism is a matter of opinion — I don't know anything about the track record of their projects — but in any case it's narcissistic and untrue to claim that people espousing these methods don't know anything about scrum.
• implying that scrum is somehow dangerous or risky! Nothing could be further from the truth. Nearly all game companies have taken scrum on-board... — sure, it's popular; but saying that scrum is "the opposite of risky" is not universal and if you disagree, try being a 3rd party developer and trying to get a publisher to fund your project in which the later milestones are really hazy in an attempt to allow scrum to do its job and perform course corrections without binding your team to milestones written 20 months before they are due.
• and employ a tech writer to polish them for us — side topic: but, seriously?? That is amazing.
• Where design is needed - it's done up-front. — well, as above, this is a matter of choice, and the scrum ethic prefers working code over your nice documents.

Again, I'm not saying your processes are bad, wrong or lies; but I think you're tying the word "scrum" to a single way of doing things, which doesn't reflect reality. Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:06, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Back again — it's been bothering me all day that we're this far apart. A core value of scrum is that you avoid designing up front — I could go on and on about why, but see pages 3-4 of The Scrum Primer, as it's well-written. If I understand you correctly and you really do design things exhaustively up front, then you are talking about pure old-fashioned waterfall, with maybe a patina of scrum. Unless by "up front" you mean "at the beginning of the sprint" or something like that. Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:18, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Cybernetics

Steve: Might you consider some more direct correspondence? I would like to know more about your education in cybernetics. For myself, I hold the BS in Physical Science (a general physics degree) and the MS in Computer Science, and am now pursuing the PhD in genetics and embryology. William R. Buckley (talk) 15:17, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Sure - I did a degree in cybernetics in college back in the late 1970's. Sadly, I haven't had much opportunity to use that stuff much - I've gained the most from the computer science part of the course - which was probably at least 50% of the course work. However, I'm a great believer in doing a degree in what interests you - and there is a lot to be interested in there. However, ask away - either here or using the "E-mail this user" link off to the left there if you want a less public discussion. SteveBaker (talk) 16:03, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll get back to you when I return home (Huntington Beach California USA) next week. Right now, I am in Winnipeg Manitoba Canada. William R. Buckley (talk) 12:52, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit filter request regarding CMC

Please see Talk:Self-replicating machine#Edit filter. I've laid out everything over there.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:RD/E

I don't often see you on Ref Desk/Ent, so I thought I'd draw your attention to this question. Dismas|^(talk) 01:16, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

No - I don't usually hang out there. This seemed to be a deserving cause though - so I rattled off a quick reply to the OP. Thanks for the heads-up! SteveBaker (talk) 03:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Your user page.

Now that we've all been upgraded to Vector from Monobook, I thought this was a good a time as any to mention that the flag has never really worked exactly right for me, but with the new user interface it's a good deal worse. Check out these screenshots before and after I hide the site-wide notifications.

So far as I know I'm using pretty default settings for Firefox under Windows. I believe that my zoom and font-size settings are all default, and the only content-affecting plug-in that I'm using is Adblock+ which shouldn't be doing anything on Wikipedia. APL (talk) 04:46, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah - Vector completely screwed that up - it's not just you...it's not working right on either my home or work machines. I had a go at fixing it last night but I couldn't get it working easily. When I have a moment, I'll try again. SteveBaker (talk) 13:23, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Work in progress you may be interested in

Based on your answering of helpdesk questions,
I thought I would suggest you might help finish this article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Explodicle/Planetary_human_habitability
24.78.178.147 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:53, 21 May 2010 (UTC).

Interesting! I'll try to carve out some time to help out. SteveBaker (talk) 12:31, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Barroom brawl

Since you've been thinking about the topic lately, I thought you might find this comic-book illustration by the great Jack Kirby of interest. It's a double-page pinup from a 1951 issue of the comic Boys' Ranch, and I just happened to run across it on the internet today. Deor (talk) 23:53, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Marx

[8]

Of course there is a problem - your answer almost totally unrelated to the question, appears to be so much like your own personal thoughts as to be very close to WP:SOAPBOX. I've brought it up on the talk page. 77.86.47.199 (talk) 23:57, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

• Almost totally unrelated == Related.
• Very close to WP:SOAPBOX == Not WP:SOAPBOX.

My response pointed out why Darwin might well have owned this book and could have exchanged letters with Marx even if he were not a communist. Since the OP clearly wanted to talk about how this rather unimportant matter related to evolution (note his choice of subject/title), it was important to explain that it doesn't matter what Darwin did or didn't do - it has no impact on the understanding of the theory of evolution. Furthermore (in case our OP is being fed this junk from some variety of nut-job), it was important to explain why these questions come up so often from the ID/creationist loonies.

In any case, for posts that don't clearly & directly contravene our guidelines - you have no right to remove the post without prior consensus on the discussion page. Worse still - when you do remove one, you are supposed to leave a polite message explaining that you removed it and why - not just make it disappear like it was never there. Your behavior is quite unacceptable - so I reverted it. If you wish to make an argument about it - please take it to the discussion page.

SteveBaker (talk) 00:13, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Simulation argument

A few weeks ago, you posted a question on Talk:Simulation_hypothesis. I answered it over there, if you're still interested. 74.14.109.234 (talk) 01:47, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

The End of Faith

Have you read this work by Sam Harris? From what I can gather from your ref desk posts together with private answers to personal questions I've asked you over time, I think it would be right up your alley (assuming that you are not Sam Harris in disguise). DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 16:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

No - I haven't read anything by Sam Harris. There are a vast number of books on both sides of this debate - I've read a few of each and found a good deal to agree with in some - and a good deal to object to in others. However, none of them really told me anything I hadn't already pretty much worked out for myself. I don't see a heck of a lot of point in reading more books that merely confirm my views. Reading books by the fundamentalists is an exercise in frustration, you just want to grab the guys by the collar and yell "STOP TALKING AND LISTEN, YOU IDIOT!!" - so, again, after a couple of them, I just find myself seeing the same arguments trotted out in different forms and until I hear something new coming along, I'm not about to line their pockets with more book sales.

I learned a lot from reading the Bible from cover to cover several years ago - I wish more people would do that. Forget that it's someones holy book - just read it like a novel or a history book or something. The overall impression I got was that it's utterly bizarre - and I don't believe that many christians have ever done more than read a few pages here and there as directed by their clergy because rational people would surely be unable to take this inconsistent horror story as the one book that they should set their entire lives by! I'd like to do the same with the Qur'an - but I've yet to find a decent translation that is actually legible. The few I've skimmed in bookstores have very opaque language and seem to presuppose that you know all of the background already. They are really impossible to read just as a normal book from cover to cover (also, I'd prefer a Kindle copy so I can search for stuff in it later).

SteveBaker (talk) 00:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Your comments on Reference Desk Talk page

You commented about : http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User:ShakespeareFan00/Wikiversity_All_Subject_Original_Research_Desk

You have made some very valid points, and given the recent rows about certain proposed projects at Wikiversity, your concern is entirely justified...

Would you be willing to help open a discussion on how collaborative research on Wikiversity could be done without the obvious pitfalls you mention?...

I'd also be interested to hear your thoughts about how collobrative 'surveying' could be done, given that i'd like to see much more use of Open Street Map to confirm map locations for some articles..

BTW I choose a 'trival' example in the dissucssion with good reason it seems :)

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I presume you're referring to my thoughts on Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk#Reference_Desk_Scope. I would be happy to add my contribution to such a discussion. Where is this discussion taking place?

My big concern is that you could get (for example) two or more colluding 'bad guys'. Let's say they are selling a gizmo that wraps magnets around the fuel line of your car and claims to double your gas mileage - like these idiots, for example. And for the sake of this argument, let us take it as axiomatic that such things cannot possibly work. Person A asks "Can someone please do an experiment to tell me whether this works or not?", persons B,C,D,E...Z (who happen to work for the same company as A but fail to mention this) reply about a week later that yes, indeed, it works just great (perhaps like this). Now they have successfully subverted Wikiversity to sell a class of product that is without question, utterly worthless. If you don't believe that could happen, just look at the crazy number of fake science video's on YouTube. A Wikipedia-related site should have higher standards of academic responsibility. That's why Wikipedia has such a strong "No Original Research" rule. Removing that rule opens the flood-gates to any whack-job who wants a podium for their crazy ideas. There are an insane number of those people and they are more than able to bring a well-behaved community to it's knees.

The community of world scientists have seen this kind of problem before - and we have a strong defense against it. Nothing is believed until it's gone through independent peer-review, publication, reproducing of the results, peer review of the reproducing and publication of that. Furthermore, for the finding to have merit, it must be published in a journal with a strong reputation. Publication in "Nature (journal)" or the "Physical Review" would constitute widespread acceptance. Publication in "The North Korean Journal of Fuel Line Magnetics" would not! Principles of statistical validity, reproducibility, falsifiability, blind/double-blind experiments, controlled experiments, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"...and so forth...are all essential elements of this. Scientists who repeatedly make terrible claims that are rapidly demolished by 'The Scientific Method' (think "Cold Fusion") are soon regarded as idiots - and will find it hard to get their work taken seriously in the future. They certainly wouldn't get to be peer reviewers for reputable journals.

The anonymity behind MediaWiki accounts and IP editors completely undermines the 'reputation' system - and makes it very simple for the free-energy nuts and the homeopathy loonies to overrun the place. Wikipedia avoids this problem by requiring solid referenced backing in reputable journals for all scientific claims. If you remove that rule - you've just opened the flood-gates.

IMHO, it's a great idea for Wikiversity to publish:

1. Ideas for experiments that need to be done - whose results are probably unknown.
2. Descriptions of experiments that have been done to the full scientific standard - with links to the publication of the results in reliable sources.
3. Ideas for classic experiments that children and teens can do - whose results are well known in advance.
4. Information about how to do good experiments - what constitutes good experimental technique, that kind of thing.

What is a really, REALLY bad idea is publishing the results of such experiments without the full force of scientific rigor behind them. Do that and Wikiversity goes down the toilet just as fast as the crazies find out about it.

Explanations of why certain experiments are considered invalid are often complex and there is a danger that enthusiastic experimenters will simply lie: eg:

• "I did the experiment of putting magnets on my fuel lines and I got an extra 10mpg!"...
• "Yes, but did you do a double-blind controlled experiment with fake magnets to ensure that your driving technique didn't change? Do you have a reasonable statistical sample? Did you drive each car over the same course at the same speeds both with and without the magnets? Did you have the engine carefully tuned and serviced and the tire pressures checked before each test?"...
• "Er...YES!"...
• "Liar!"...

Now what?

SteveBaker (talk) 19:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

As yet there isn't a disscusion on this... Thats why I asked if you could help open one. Best place maybe the page I linked on Wikiversity...

My intent was that the page I linked became a place where 'genuine' research could be linked to, and I certainly don't want the 'cranks' subverting it. Can you imagine the rows the Intelligent Design lobby could have, for example? (not that they are wrong though) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

It seems I need someone like you to reform the original idea, I feel out of my depth :(

Some other points that perhaps need to be in the disscusion :

• Ethics of experiments. Yes it might be intresting to show what happens to burn bugs, but is it ethical? NO.
• Synthesis - I.E A has shown X, B has shown Y, If this is extened by conjecture Z I conclude...Reasoned synthesis is sometimes what genuine research is sometimes about, but unreasoned crank synthesis is not just useful but in many case damaging.
• Academic plagarism - It is a well established rule in the scientfic community that you don't claim someone else's thesis as your own work. But how do you prevent misrepresentation when anyone can contribute?

If anything it might be an intresting study for someone to prove why the research desk idea could NOT work, as it is to show it might.

In relation to the water boiling example, Would you be willing to take the comments you made and convert them into some kind of answer to the question.. 'How hot is boiling water?' . It's actually got me interested, as I thought it would be simple to answer XD  :( Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I've been reading the guidelines over at Wikiversity - and it seems to me that these questions have already been answered:

• Wikiversity:Original research
• Wikiversity:Research_ethics
• Wikiversity:Research_guidelines/En
• Wikiversity:Scope of research/Policy/En
• Wikiversity:Developing Wikiversity through action research
• Wikiversity:Learning by doing

I no longer believe that there is any need for an independent discussion - the issues seem to be well-explained there. If you have questions - just go to the discussion tab on those articles.

SteveBaker (talk) 23:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Removed trolling

Just to let you know, I remove Elsie trolling (the organ damage thing) that you responded to Nil Einne (talk) 00:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah - that's probably what I should have done. Good call. SteveBaker (talk) 02:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Post on the reference desk talk page

Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk#Stop_bullshitting Yes it's about you - stuff to do with posting opinions on the reference desk - please check facts - not what you assume is the case. Thanks/ 83.100.183.63 (talk) 11:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I did check facts - I ALWAYS check facts. Please read my response to your ridiculous complaint over on the ref desk talk page. SteveBaker (talk) 14:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

My Singature

I've changed it back to the default sig. QwerpQwertus (talk) 01:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Karanacs (talk) 17:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)