User talk:Karn

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] GMT

Hi, Karn. Thanks for your work on GMT. As the anonymous user has now agreed to respect the consensus there, and hasn't been reinserting the Time Cube text after I unprotected the article, I think we can let the debate rest for now. If the problem resumes I would welcome your help. — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:58, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Karn, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Dunc|☺ 23:48, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ID and creationism

The Supreme Court (through citing a District Court ruling) identified "scientific creationism" as not just similar to the Genesis account of creation, but in fact identical to it and parallel to no other creation story. (Edwards v. Aguillard citing McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education).

ID reasoning is instead like this... examine the physical properties of your computer and you will find that it is irreducibly complex. Because it is irreducibly complex, you know through empiricism that it was intelligently designed. In other words, it is something you can know empirically based on the object's physical properties.

But is there anything else about the designer that you can know from this object's physical properties besides the fact that he/she/it is intelligent? I mean, do you know if the designer of your computer was Asian or not? Married or not? Homecoming King or class clown?

Push the reasoning further, and you can't even conclusively say that the designer is human or not based on the fact that your computer is irreducibly complex. Nor do you have any prayer or knowing how or why or even if the designer was designed itself. The only thing you know is that something intelligent made your computer. That is the only fact you can assert.

This is precisely why ID is not creationism. Creationism seeks to justify science with a particular creation story. ID says nothing about a story. When ID is successful, all it says is "we know that X was designed by something intelligent" because we don't have a clue how to ascertain any data about the designer or the designing process apart from the fact that the designer is intelligent. David Bergan 15:03, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

So I guess I would like to see the parent Wikipedia article be called simply "Creationism", with Intelligent Design listed under that heading as merely its most recent instantiation. Thanks for your reply. To be sure, there are definitely similarities, and you are right that ID came from creationism. The leading design theorists credit YEC literature as guiding them to their work.

However, that doesn't mean the articles should be merged. The main thing that makes ID different is that it is a positive scientific theory rather than a merely negative anti-evolution one. Creationist literature is, as you said, only finding holes in evolutionary thinking. ID, on the other hand, is building its own empirical case that relates to all physical objects... organic and inorganic.

Here's what I mean. If you saw a bicycle on the street and wondered how it came about, how likely are you to think that it was the result of geo/meteorological events? How long would you study that bike and think to yourself, "Yeah, this probably just came out of the ground that way."? Not very long. And the reason is because every bicycle you have seen being made, was made by a designer. And all the bicycles that you heard about being made (even though you probably haven't seen them yourself) were made by humans, too. And most importantly, you have never ever heard of anyone claiming that they found a bike that didn't have a designer. Therefore, applying induction, you can say with confidence that all bikes have a designer.

Granted, when you get to biology we start talking about things that for the most part no one saw when they were made. So we can't say anything like, "Every phylum we have observed had a designer" because we haven't literally seen the origin process for any new phylum. But what ID says does still apply. Starting with bicycles, you can then apply the same logic to many of the manmade things around you. Every time you see a computer, you know that this computer had a designer. Every time you see a car. A mousetrap. A vaccuum cleaner. A VCR. A microwave. A steam engine. A watch. Etc. So then design theorists generalize the case: "Every time you see an irreducibly complex system, you know that that system had a designer." This abstraction, as far as we know, is true. In the inorganic world, it isn't even contested. Every irreducibly complex system where we have seen the origin process, did have a designer. Therefore, empirically, if we are presented with an IC system where we didn't watch the origin process, we know that it had a designer.

You probably don't agree with this last statement, but that isn't the point. You just need to notice that I explained the main issues of ID without any reference to God or Genesis, and that (in theory) it is supposed to be a positive addition to science rather than a merely negative critique of evolution. To say that ID should be merged with creationism is like saying that jet aircraft should be merged with monoplane because they are basically the same principle, and we all know that jets came from monoplanes. David Bergan 14:38, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Ok, since I tried explaining the concepts last time... could you provide me with what you see as accurate definitions of (1) "creationism", (2) "Intelligent Design", and (3) "empricism"... linking a decent reference to each. David Bergan 02:19, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Memantine

You have edited the 5-HT receptor article. I reverted it b/c the memantine article doesn't say that memantine is 5-HT3 antagonist and b/c you did not provide any link to back up your edit. Yes, memantine can act as a 5-HT antagonist (according to the earlier [1], [2], and the more recent [3] reports) but when you add such kind of information you have to add it to all articles that have relevance to it (in this case that would be 5-HT receptor, which you did, and memantine, which you did not) and provide a link (if the info is not so "well-known"). I could have done this myself but i preffer when the original contributor does it. -- Boris 08:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Karn, i don't question that. What i question is that you shoud have provided a link in 5-HT receptor article or even better add some info in Memantine plus a link, so when people see memantine in the table for 5-HT receptor antagonists and click on the link that'll get them to the Memantine article... that's too much talking i'll do it instead. -- Boris 14:52, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Boat anchor

When you made a recent edit to boat anchor, you said "I can confirm that the term *was* in use by hams long before personal computers"—could you actually confirm that, ie. with an external source? ··gracefool |☺ 07:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Collimator

Dear Karn, please tell me how is your opinion about my way of thinking about the bucky-device and a collimator used in hospital radiation for making xray-pictures. I have changed it because the collimator is called the unit that is placed on the radiationtube facing the patient (object). Right in front of the sensitive field where the xrayparticles leave the body is a plate with the parrallel lead stripes, which prevents the random xray particles from reaching the sensitive receptionplate. This is called the Bucky plate. Can you discuss with me about my meaning, please. I have also referred to the german description. The other meaning of a collimator has to to with optical beaming, but has nothing to do with Xray. Do you agree? I will like to read your comment, please. Thanks. Fonz 23:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] discussion

Hi, Karn, of course my english is terrible bad, so I need your help. Did you read the describtion in english at http://www.wipo.int/cgi-pct/guest/getbykey5?KEY=04/71303.040826&ELEMENT_SET=DECL ? Maybe you will understand what I meant. I don't see why you reverted my writings. I hoped you would adjust it a little bit, instead of deleting it. So please read it and hopefully you will understand and correct the lemma. I am a engeneer working with xray equipment for patients. Thanks, yours trully Fonz 00:31, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your edit is best

Dear mr.Kane. I have reverted collimator into your last edit. Sorry for disturbance. Sincerrally, Fonz 19:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Furhrerbunker

I took the photo about half-way along Voss-strasse as I walked from Ebertstrasse to the Wilhelmstrasse, facing northeast, so I was looking across the vacant land where the Chancellery stood. I was relying on a map which showed that the bunker was somewhat north of the Chancellery building itself, and set back from the Wilhelmstrasse, so that its exit would have been roughly where the carpark behind one of the current apartment blocks now is. I can't guarantee that my estimate is correct: looking at the map again, it is possible that the carpark I saw was not far enough north to be the right one. But it is in that general area. Adam 02:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I have now looked at Google Earth, and you are right, the buildings shown there don't seem to accord with my memory of the area or with what my photos show. I have now reconstructed my steps on that day by putting my photos in time order, and I now think that I did not take that photo from Voss-Strasse facing north, but from Ebertstrasse facing east, before I turned into Voss-strasse. If that is the case, it doesn't show the bunker site, because there is an apartment block between my vantage point and the site. In any case, I will withdraw the photo from the Fuhrerbunker article until I clarify which, if any, of my photos show the bunker exit site - they all show the general area of the Chancellery, and that might have to do. Adam 03:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disturbing parallels

I think these parallels are exaggerations. When the Capitol burns down, George Bush passes an Enabling Act and the Democratic Party is banned, then you should start to worry. Adam 02:32, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Bunker continued

I don't know if you're familiar with Hitler's Death by Vinogradov et al, which I am currently reading. It is a verbatim translation of the SMERSH file on the discovery and indeotification of Hitler's body. It contains a sketch map drawn by the SMERSH investigators showing where they found the body, and also photos etc. I might add some of this to the article. Adam 06:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

here is an even better map Adam 10:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] HVAC/HVDC?

Whoops. You're absolutely right. I uploaded the wrong image. I just got home and I've been out camping/hiking/canoeing for the past 2.5 weeks. I'll have a look for the right image tomorrow. Thanks for catching that. Weaponofmassinstruction 07:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] VMSK

Hi Phil,

You've obviously noticed that the conversation over at Talk:Very minimum-shift keying has been busy recently; the latest revelation is that VMSK is indeed mentioned (favourably) in Dr. W.C.Y. Lee's book "Lee's Essentials Of Communications". This guy was, amongst other things, the chief sceintist at a major R&D branch of Vodafone and a prominent figure at Bell Labs for many years, so I have to assume he's quite a bright guy. Consequently, I'm totally bemused as how to how/why he included a mention of VMSK in his book. Do you have any thoughts?

Interestingly, the citation Lee uses is direct from Walker himself, in the form of a guest chapter in the book "Third Generation Mobile Telecommunication Systems: Umts and Imt-2000". This seems to mostly be the same old VMSK trash again, only tidied up somewhat. Again, any ideas on how such things come to be? If this is indicative of the editorial standards of engineering textbooks as a whole, I'd be very disillusioned!

Oli Filth 23:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yup, VMSK has heated up again

Oli, yes it does indeed look like the discussion has heated up again. I posted some comments about Lee's remarks on the VMSK talk page. I am as baffled as you by that remark; I can only chalk it up to his being too distracted to give it proper attention at the time, and he hasn't revisited it since. Karn 10:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kepler's laws

Hi Karn. You changed theta to nu. I don't understand why. There is link to polar coordinates which uses theta, and the rest of the article uses theta. Where elsewhere is nu used? Bo Jacoby (talk) 08:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC).

Hi again. I was not aware that both theta and nu were used for true anomaly in the article all the time, and still is. So your edit is unfinished. I regret having started this comment on your personal talk page rather than on the article's talk page, where it belongs. Have a nice day. Bo Jacoby (talk) 08:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC).