Slashdot Mirror

I apologize for (indirectly) criticizing inflation. I guess my anger blinded me to the fact that Alan Guth was among the winners, precisely for his work in inflation.

But as for SUSY, I disagree with you. To completely rule out a theory is very very hard (a "definitive" test of Bell's inequalities is still not done even today, and some more exotic models of hidden variables will never be ruled out). I think the experimental community agrees that "reasonable" SUSY has already been ruled out. See what Résonaances has to say about it. Tommaso Dorigo is already collecting bets on the failure of the LHC to deviate from the Standard Model. Peter Woit is, as usual, full of skepticism.

The particular link you sent me was written before the Higgs announcement, and even it admits that a 125 GeV Higgs creates serious problems for SUSY.

So, yes, I am of the strong opinion that SUSY -- as we know it -- is dead. Perhaps some of its offspring can survive and get some experimental evidence, perhaps something completely new will replace it. I don't know. But SUSY is no more.

See, Strangest Result of the year.

The sad part is that there is still this common misconception that low self-esteem and depression are easily overcome. The sufferer just simply can't "Start feeling better". Without professional help, there is really no way out, thus limiting his/her options for life and careers.

The really depressing part is that there is no treatment for moderate depression that works significantly better than placebo. SSRIs only actually work on people with severe major depression. The most empirically supported type of talk therapy, CBT, is effective only in anxiety disorders.

There's really no effective treatment for depression, because depression isn't really an illness. It's a rational response to an abusive world. The real sickos are the ones who are ok with the way things are.

Survey without religion bias And 64% of Americans would hold onto a religious belief even if it was contradicted by clear science and evidence. In 2009 a survey showed only 4 in 10 Americans believed in evolution.

That is pretty bad.

Republicans... conservatives donate a higher percentage of their income to charities than liberals

"According to Google’s figures, if donations to all religious organizations are excluded, liberals give slightly more to charity than conservatives do."

"I'm not taking a stand on what the right answer is to any of these comparisons. The lesson here is, don't just believe the headline for any study. Learn to ask the right questions. "link

I don't think Jesus would care one way or another about the NRA.

"Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword."

I don't think you actually read those articles, nor anyone that modded you insightful. Did you only read the headlines?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/07/070730-hurricane-warming.html
On the first page, one group claims their study shows that the number of hurricanes has doubled in the last century. On the second page, another group claims that study is "sloppy" and uses incomplete data. When the second group added their own data, the results conveniently reflected their own preconceived conclusions, but then they admit that their data is still incomplete.
Summary: Reliable records do not exist from a century ago, which leads to multiple interpretations, which are exploited by political biases.

http://www.science20.com/news/global_warming_may_mean_fewer_hurricanes
This article talks about how most people reference warming oceans when talking about hurricane trends, but increasing wind shear is also a major factor, which can, in some cases, negate warming waters.
Summary: The climate is monstrously complicated and predictive modelling can lead to conclusions which seem counterintuitive if you don't take the time to understand them.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/videos/2009/0109-global_warming_causes_severe_storms.htm
This is a blatant TV fluff piece. It isn't even about hurricanes, just severe storms. You know, regular old thunderstorms.
Summary: There is no real content here.

You can find studies that show more hurricanes, less hurricanes, more sever hurricanes all due to global warming. It's getting old attributing every possible outcome to Advance Global Warming. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/07/070730-hurricane-warming.html http://www.science20.com/news/global_warming_may_mean_fewer_hurricanes http://www.sciencedaily.com/videos/2009/0109-global_warming_causes_severe_storms.htm

Can someone explain why this was modded down? He made a point and backed it up links. If you don't agree, that's fine. Reply and tell him why he's wrong.

Modding a comment down simply because you disagree with it against the moderation guidelines.

You can find studies that show more hurricanes, less hurricanes, more sever hurricanes all due to global warming. It's getting old attributing every possible outcome to Advance Global Warming. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/07/070730-hurricane-warming.html http://www.science20.com/news/global_warming_may_mean_fewer_hurricanes http://www.sciencedaily.com/videos/2009/0109-global_warming_causes_severe_storms.htm

You do realize that a hurricane and a "severe storm" are rather different things, right? Your last Science Daily citation is about severe storms, not hurricanes. It never even uses the word "hurricane" nor does it indicate that it's talking about storms that only affect coastlines. A thunderstorm and a hurricane are two very different events. Are you going to complain that global warming reports are in direct conflict over precipitation figures and then link to stories about increased monsoon seasons and decreased snow fall?

You can find studies that show more hurricanes, less hurricanes, more sever hurricanes all due to global warming. It's getting old attributing every possible outcome to Advance Global Warming. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/07/070730-hurricane-warming.html http://www.science20.com/news/global_warming_may_mean_fewer_hurricanes http://www.sciencedaily.com/videos/2009/0109-global_warming_causes_severe_storms.htm

"publishing trustworthy, referable papers is not cheap."

So, don't pay for it, since it doesn't have much value anyway.

For those interested, Tomasso gives a good run down on the report here

I'm surprised no on has mentioned telomeres as it appears they may be related to lifespan: http://www.science20.com/curious_cub/telomeres_and_lifespan-86000

It's the axe of Theseus.

Ordinary sodium chloride. Doesn't have to be lithium.

http://www.science20.com/news_releases/salt_may_be_antidepressant_which_would_also_explain_why_its_addictive

Some people may use too much in order to counteract depression. Or perhaps, modern diet being high in salt causes depression when salt levels drop.

— and in the future, it's easy to see how the same tool could be used to battle patent trolling, too."

and it's also easy to see how the same tool could be used to automatically generate even more patents.

After all, since we've already seen that computers can randomly generate fake nonsensical Physics research papers and get them published in real Science Journals. We're not so far off that they'll be able to do the same with patent claims. It would be just like a turing test, but only easier since real patent legal language is already designed to obfuscate the obvious -- it would be easy to have a computer mimic it.

Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.

And indeed economics confirms that being the sole "smart" person in a group of stupid people is not nearly as smart as you'd think :

A Darwinian enigma (generally, following the group is the wisest course of action, almost regardless of how stupid it is)

An recent Nature article shows id doesnt work.

1) You can't assert that simply because CO2 has certain spectral properties, that therefore, as it acts in the atmosphere, it must be an overwhelming positive driver. As for an experiment that shows that some unknown effect balances out any spectral absorption contribution it could have, isn't that *exactly* what this data currently shows? That is, the theoretical model asserted that CO2 would cause one type of behavior, and for some reason, we observed something different.

2) Define "insignificant" and the "normal fluctuation of CO2". We've got a historical record that shows wild swings in CO2 levels, and on top of that, we've got huge uncertainties about CO2 sinks: http://www.science20.com/news_releases/where_does_co2_go_mystery_missing_sinks

3) Why would it have to be human activity?

You still haven't made any statement about what *observation* of temperatures, CO2, weather events, or anything else, that would falsify your hypothesis. The "heads I win, tails you lose" argument is the hallmark of religion, not science.

If you have a theory of God that says he performed this or that specific miracle, then I can falsify it, and you'll have to rewrite your theory

And *that's* exactly the point. How do you falsify a specific miracle? How do you prove that the reason why I found my keys wasn't because of Divine Intervention? What could you possibly observe that could prove that the chain of events that led up to me finding my keys *wasn't* due to a deity?

I'm asking you for any observation that will falsify the miracle of Human emissions of CO2 causing Catastrophic Global Warming. Instead of offering up any type of observation that would prove you wrong, you've instead asked me to either believe that the spectral properties of a single molecule can lead us to the conclusion that it *must* be that molecule, or that I should be able to intuit the vague definition of "insignificant" and "normal fluctuations of CO2", or that if human CO2 *doesn't* have an effect, I need to show that it is in fact countered by some other novel human effect.

Look, for evolution, falsification is simple - show me a more complex life form that precedes simpler ones. A rabbit fossil in the pre-cambrian for example. This is science.

Now try to do the same exercise for CAGW.

I'm in the same boat. My first degree is physics, but now I'm doing my PhD is computer science. My particular interests are in particle physics, dark matter and astronomy/cosmology. The best place to scratch my itch I find is http://www.arxiv.org./ It's a preprint archive for physics, math, computer science and so-on. http://www.science20.com/ has some interesting blogs, but you have to be careful as there are a number of people there who use it as a platform to advance their own ideas. For more general science reading I have http://www.sciencedaily.com/ and http://www.astronomynow.com/ bookmarked. On the educational side I have Leonard Susskind's general education courses in physics bookmarked. They can be found at http://newpackettech.com/Resources/Susskind/.

This is definitely true -- bloggers are often scientists writing directly from the source, so you tend to get news that is both accurate and very current. Another site to try is:
http://www.science20.com/
For example, try:
http://www.science20.com/quantum_diaries_survivor
for an excellent particle physics blog. Tommaso will tell you everything you need to know about the Tevatron and the LHC!
Also, a shameless plug for a friend: check out http://www.factodiem.com/ for really interesting science-y articles about science :)

This is definitely true -- bloggers are often scientists writing directly from the source, so you tend to get news that is both accurate and very current. Another site to try is:
http://www.science20.com/
For example, try:
http://www.science20.com/quantum_diaries_survivor
for an excellent particle physics blog. Tommaso will tell you everything you need to know about the Tevatron and the LHC!
Also, a shameless plug for a friend: check out http://www.factodiem.com/ for really interesting science-y articles about science :)

Tommaso has a short piece up on this result and will be adding more. He is a member of CDF as well.

But it's interesting.

I wanna cuddle a polar bear!

From the inside of a polar-bear-proof suit.
I may be romantic, but I'm not stupid!

Wanna cudle iceberg!

Waaaaaa!

But I am rapidly approaching "pissed".

At a guess, he's probably trying to integrate the whole "quantum" thing into consciousness because he either thinks it's what permits free will (or else because he thinks it has some other magical properties resulting from mankind's mystical unity with the universe - but I'll assume he's not that dumb). The thing is, as explained by The Hammock Physicist (who runs a decent blog), "quantum free will" theories are lame and don't actually get you the sufficient conditions for very much free will. Fortunately, he goes on to explain, you don't need them.

Apologies in advance, but some knowledge of particle physics is required. Just as it's hard to describe a breakthrough in computer technology to someone who has little understanding of computers....

These two links (given further down in responses to this article) are much better technical explanations than I could write:

http://bit.ly/NuBlogT2KNuE1

http://www.science20.com/quantum_diaries_survivor/electron_neutrinos_muon_neutrinos-80012

(a) I believe this is the first direct observation. Previous experiments have looked at neutrinos produced by the sun and have addressed the solar neutrino deficit, that is, the observation that the sun doesn't produce nearly as many electron neutrinos as the standard solar model predicts. The ones that are missing have oscillated (converted) into mu (and a small portion tau) neutrinos. This is why they seem to "disappear."

(b) You are wrong in stating that the cause is unknown. When the effects of neutrinos were first observed, physicists believed they had zero rest mass, like the photon. I can't recall what the argument for this designation was at the time (been a while since physics classes), but it simply may have been something like, "electrons and positrons are the lightest elementary particles, so these new thingies that invisibly carry away momentum from reactions like beta (and muon) decay, which we have shown have far less mass than the electron, are zero mass particles like a photon." (I dearly hope I'm not way off base on my history of particle physics here.)

In the 80's and 90's the possibility of non-zero rest mass neutrinos was first entertained, as it would explain a few things. This idea was received skeptically, though not with hostility, at first (as I well remember). Theoreticians immediately demonstrated that non-zero rest mass neutrinos would convert, or oscillate, between flavors as a direct result of their having mass. Because they have mass, it is the mass eigenstates of the neutrinos that don't vary with time. This means that the flavor eigenstates *do* vary with time. Therefore, an electron neutrino will have increasing probability of being measured as a muon neutrino with increasing time. (In their flavor eigenstates, the neutrinos have unmixed flavor and are (I believe) massless. In their mass eigenstates (the ones we can measure), the neutrinos have mass and are flavor-mixed. This mixing is what allows them to fluctuate back and forth between electron and muon neutrinos (with a bit of tau mixing thrown in).)

I'm sure this makes it all clear as mud. Here's a sub-link on eigenstates and neutrino mixing from CERN:

http://choruswww.cern.ch/Public/textes/english/node4.html

and here is Wikipedia:

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

HTH.

Or look here.

Sorry, the summary and title is just plain incorrect. This announcement has nothing to do with the Higgs.

A few months ago, CDF claimed that they detected a new particle which could not be the higgs, but was speculated to be a new particle. As explained here, it wasn't possible for the new particle to be the Higgs.

Today DZERO announced that they did not see any signal where CDF claimed to see one. So one of the two projects has an error in their analysis.

More info orig, new announcement, DZERO refutes, another source, even another source

Sorry, the summary and title is just plain incorrect. This announcement has nothing to do with the Higgs.

A few months ago, CDF claimed that they detected a new particle which could not be the higgs, but was speculated to be a new particle. As explained here, it wasn't possible for the new particle to be the Higgs.

Today DZERO announced that they did not see any signal where CDF claimed to see one. So one of the two projects has an error in their analysis.

More info orig, new announcement, DZERO refutes, another source, even another source

Sorry, the summary and title is just plain incorrect. This announcement has nothing to do with the Higgs.

A few months ago, CDF claimed that they detected a new particle which could not be the higgs, but was speculated to be a new particle. As explained here, it wasn't possible for the new particle to be the Higgs.

Today DZERO announced that they did not see any signal where CDF claimed to see one. So one of the two projects has an error in their analysis.

More info orig, new announcement, DZERO refutes, another source, even another source

Sorry, the summary and title is just plain incorrect. This announcement has nothing to do with the Higgs.

A few months ago, CDF claimed that they detected a new particle which could not be the higgs, but was speculated to be a new particle. As explained here, it wasn't possible for the new particle to be the Higgs.

Today DZERO announced that they did not see any signal where CDF claimed to see one. So one of the two projects has an error in their analysis.

More info orig, new announcement, DZERO refutes, another source, even another source

Carbon dioxide does not cause catastrophic runaway global warming. It may cause approx. a degree or so of warming. Any more would require positive feedback and there is no evidence that is happening. We've measured the radiation in at all wavelengths and we've measured the radiation out at all wavelengths. The evidence for positive feedback is just not there.

This is false.

http://www.science20.com/news_account/greenhouse_gases_and_water_vapor_when_positive_feedback_is_a_bad_thing
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2010JD014192.shtml
http://www.springerlink.com/content/m2054qq6126802g8/
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2008GL035333.shtml
http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175%2F2007JCLI2142.1
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2005GL025505.shtml
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005.../2005GL023624.shtml
http://www.springerlink.com/content/v164l177374p1445/

Let's just look at one abstract.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/310/5749/841

Climate models predict that the concentration of water vapor in the upper troposphere could double by the end of the century as a result of increases in greenhouse gases. Such moistening plays a key role in amplifying the rate at which the climate warms in response to anthropogenic activities, but has been difficult to detect because of deficiencies in conventional observing systems. We use satellite measurements to highlight a distinct radiative signature of upper tropospheric moistening over the period 1982 to 2004. The observed moistening is accurately captured by climate model simulations and lends further credence to model projections of future global warming.

Copyright Law Is Killing Science
Christians are Killing Science
Funding Cuts are Killing Science
Patents are Killing Science
Junk Science is Killing Science
Conservatives are Killing Science
Publishing is Killing Science
Public Education is Killing Science
Corporations are Killing Science
Capitalism is Killing Science
Immigration is Killing Science
Feminism is Killing Science (!)
Political Correctness is Killing Science
Networks are Killing Science
Too Many Scientists are Killing Science
Too Few Scientists are Killing Science

SCIENCE IS DEAD

Finding all of the existing physics is important as it helps calibrate the instrument and gives confidence it is working as expected.

I've been spending some time on arXiv looking at LHC related papers. So far they are saying, "No new physics beyond the standard model has been detected." WRT the Higgs, it hasn't been detected yet either. Tighter constraints have been put on it's mass - Due to the combined efforts of the Tevatron, LHC , LEP2 and DZERO. It's very early though. Experts in the field say we should wait until 2013-14. Scientists need the time to collect and analyze more data.

'A Quantum Diaries Survivor' is a blog by a physicist working at the LHC. His posts use real, recent data from the various experiments listed above. An entry posted today (22 April, 2011) is particularly relevant:

http://www.science20.com/quantum_diaries_survivor/did_atlas_just_see_higgs-78316

Ah, it happens. Hope I didn't sound too snappy either...I've been called evil Monsatan shill so many times that civility is no longer always my first reaction (I gotta work on that).

Anyway, I get where people are coming from when they talk of the issue of saving seed. It's more than just the terminator genes, which by the way were never released after the public backlash. The point of terminator genes was actually to stop transgene spread, not stop seed saving (although, from Monsanto's point of view, don't think they forgot about that little perk) which was a big public fear at the time, still is, so Monsanto developed terminator genes and got an even bigger backlash. The reason farmers of GMO seed don't save (besides the contracts they must sign) is actually an issue that goes back to the 20's. Ideally, farmers would save seed from their harvest year after year and never need to buy any more. The problem here is that there's a reason why most farmers don't. Most use hybrid seed which, even though you need to keep buying it, is better. It's hardier and more productive, even though the second generation has genetic instability that make it less desirable for saving seed.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think the value of stable crops, like open pollinated/heirloom varieties, should be neglected, but at the same time, it isn't so simple as companies taking advantage of people by making them buy seed every year. A lot of gains have come from hybrid seed over the past century, and in the case of developing countries, I think they should have access to the same things that developed countries used to get their food security. Ideally of course they would be producing their own hybrid seed and not dependent on a foreign company though. One really exciting technology breakthrough is apomixis seeds. Basically, some people are working on making a plant that can make seed genetically identical to itself. This could be huge because then you would have the benefits of hybrid vigor and the ability to save seed. You can bet Monsanto won't invest in anything like that though which is why we need more public investment in (and public support for) genetic engineering.

As for any Monsanto rice, I can't say I'm familiar with that. I'm sure they do sell rice seed given that they have a huge market share of the seed industry, but I would assume they sell more than just that variety. There is no GMO rice on the market right now (although China and Iran have each developed their own home grown Bt rice IIRC), and I don't recall hearing Monsanto working on any rice projects, although given how corporations act in secrecy that doesn't really mean much. And I can get worrying about herbicide misuse in developing nations, heck, there are misuses of that stuff even in developed nations. I heard a story once about a guy in Central America, I forget the exact country, who used agricultural pesticides as personal bug repellent. He sprayed himself regularly. Then he died. It's hard to say that it won't be misused. I think working around that, without telling other people what technology they are and are not responsible enough to have (so-called technological imperialism), is an issue.

But yeah, I do agree with you that we should make sure profit motives don't screw things up. Genetic engineering companies are a lot like the pharma companies. You shouldn't trust them, but at the same their products do work (generally) and can serve a useful purpose. But I would much rather see public funds being used. I personally think we could solve a lot of problems for everyone if we used biotechnology techniques on biodiverse crops. Taking the best of what is already there (and there is a lot out there that most people have never even heard of), learning the applications they could have, and basically upgrading them. That could be huge, and it baffles me that there is no GMO prickly pear or chaya or ensete or safou or marula, heck, I don

there are other GMOs which do not heavily depend on Monsanto's pesticide.

Most GMOs, by type anyway, are not herbicide tolerant. There's a lot that Monsanto doesn't own, but the problem is, anti-GMO groups have protested so much that the regulations are too strict for most of them to come to market, so only big crops like Monsanto can afford to bring a GMO to market. A few I can think of are Rainbow papaya and HoneySweet plum, which are resistant to viruses, amino acid fortified corn, Golden Rice, BioCassva, virus resistant grape rootstocks from France, virus resistant potatoes from the UK, iron enriched lettuce, hypoalergenic peanuts, non-addictive tobacco, antioxident enriched tomatoes, ripening delayed rot resistant tomatoes, insect resistant corn from China, insect resistant corn from Iran, non-browing apples (I'm waiting for apomixis crops myself)...none of those are from big companies...they're from universities, governments, NGOs, and there are plenty more being worked on. To act as if Monsanto and genetic engineering are synonymous is just ignorance and laziness. I've done genetic transformation, and the last time I checked, I'm not a multinational corporation. Those anti-GMO guys are funny that way; it would be like if you hated the taste of McDonalds in your town so much that you wouldn't let any other restaurants be built next to it to compete with it.

Also, not all of Monsanto's GMOs are herbicide tolerant, they've also got the Bt insect resistant ones, that don't work with chemicals, and soybean with improved oil and drought tolerant lines on the way. And as for those herbicide tolerant ones, they're actually not as bad as everyone makes them out to be. Yeah, I know, it doesn't look good to act as if Monsanto isn't the big bad evil chemical dealer here (not that I'm saying I like everything they do mind you), but the fact is, the Ht GMOs do have a purpose. First off, it's actually fairly benign both environmentally (it degrades after about 28 days IIRC) and it really isn't known to be too dangerous to humans (it disrupts the synthesis of an amino acid that humans don't produce anyway).. Farmers like them because it gives them better control over their weeds and it saves the need for tilling, which in turn saves fuel and prevents fertilizer runoff, which is a real environmental win. I was talking to someone today about how farmers aren't stupid and wouldn't do something if it didn't benefit them, and that's true. I'm not saying I particularly like them, lower input is better than higher, no arguments here, but the Ht crops are not without merit either, although I certainty think it would be better if an allelopathic GMO could be produced to do the same thing without the need of the input.

TMS / TCMS has also shown promise in the treatment of migraine [ http://www.thelancet.com/journals/laneur/article/PIIS1474-4422(10)70054-5/abstract ] and a simple handheld device has been tested [ http://www.science20.com/news_releases/transcranial_magnetic_stimulator_claims_to_zap_away_migraines ] with positive results. The magnetic fields involved are much more intense than environmental magnetism, but the sensitivity of the brain to these effects raises questions about prolonged exposure to electromagnetic noise.

You're missing the point of my post. Without a model, all we have is correlation. Because we have a model that existed before the effects it predicted, we have causation. If you don't understand, please give a reasonable model under which the number of pirates influences the global temperature.

As for climate being a chaotic system, you're confusing weather with climate. Climate is very predictable. It hardly changes. You can look in an almanac to see the temperature distribution for each month in your area. Even when climate changes, it can change in a very predictable way. If you perturb a mobile that demonstrates chaotic motion, you cannot predict the exact position of the mobile at any given moment (just as you cannot predict the weather on any particular day), but you can predict the total energy in the system very accurately (just as you can predict a change to the climate when the balance of how much radiation the Earth absorbs vs. how much it emits changes). A chaotic system can exhibit properties that are not chaotic.

There is no "assumption" that carbon dioxide is a significant greenhouse gas. In fact, changing the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere makes just a tiny change to balance of power Earth receives from the sun vs. how much power Earth radiates into space. The Earth receives about 1000 watts per square meter from sunlight and radiates almost exactly the same amount into space. The increase in carbon dioxide over the past 100 years changes that amount by only 1-2 watts per square meter. That small change causes warming, which in turn causes the air to be more humid, which causes yet more warming because water vapor is also a greenhouse gas. This is just one positive feedback that causes more warming that one would predict from simply looking at the effect of more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

The bottom line is that we have good models that accurately predict the warming due to an increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and we have observed the predicted warming. That demonstrates that the models are accurate predictors, so that we can use them to predict future climate change.

The current one can be called the Colaninno Minimum. "Around 2006, solar physicist Robin Colaninno described the current minima as both extended and unusual, both similar to the Maunder Minimum (in that it's longer than usual in the Cycle) but also being quite different (in that it won't be the exact same length, nor have the same climate effect)." http://www.science20.com/daytime_astronomer/sunspots_colaninno_minimum_and_pascals_wager

Meteorite fragments! Thought-provoking, and under $20. I love walking into a classroom, putting one in a kid's hands to pass around, and asking them what they think it is. That they are common blows their minds. At the risk of mentioning my own column, I go into in depth here: http://www.science20.com/daytime_astronomer/gifts_sky

I think DIY has become the 'organic' of this decade, a term overused. Now people call it DIY if you do anything remotely clever. "DIY bagel heating using a toaster!".

And there are the "more DIY than thou" arguments. One person chided me that using PCB fabricators wasn't DIY because I didn't swirl my own templates in an acid bath (at satellite diaries)... I had to point out I was making a DIY satellite, not a DIY PCB. Besides, I asked him if he'd actually smelted the copper ore for his boards, because if not, you know, it's not really DIY.

That said, I love the DIY movement. It's as if Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin had a (legal) lovechildmovementlaunch.

(And that last word is DIY, I made it myself!)

Don't start feeling too secure about the so-called McEliece encryption system - a candidate for the security of Internet traffic in the age of the quantum computer (2008 article)

>but the notion that there's been this prohibition on a harmless plant with
>medicinal and recreational uses is ridiculous

Yeah, I'm glad that it's harmless. Not like cigarettes. Really, when was the last time you ran across any drug that came without risks and side effects?

Me, I'm looking forward to the day when "Big Tobbaco" swoops in and takes over the industrial pot farms (you KNOW this is going to happen; money, politics and all that) and we see the next round of Joe "Hemp" Camel billboards - for "recreational" use only.

>but the notion that there's been this prohibition on a harmless plant with
>medicinal and recreational uses is ridiculous

Yeah, I'm glad that it's harmless. Not like cigarettes. Really, when was the last time you ran across any drug that came without risks and side effects?

Me, I'm looking forward to the day when "Big Tobbaco" swoops in and takes over the industrial pot farms (you KNOW this is going to happen; money, politics and all that) and we see the next round of Joe "Hemp" Camel billboards - for "recreational" use only.