Slashdot Mirror

Let's hear it for the Marsupial Insurgency and ROFLCopter simulations!

So you feel that Opium should be legalized?

Actually yes, I believe opium should be legal, actual it used to be a legal drug. As was cocaine, ever hear of Coca-Cola? It used to have cocaine in it. As long as a person isn't harming anyone else they should be able to do whatever they want. What should be illegal is the harm. That applies to all drugs and not just street drugs but prescription drugs as well. And prostitution, and ... even suicide. If I tried it though I'm be committed and locked up.

Not that I would, while I wish I had died, it has not gotten so bad I would commit hari kari or sepaku. Though I no longer do I used to believe in reincarnation. When I think about suicide I also think about that. Then I'll think that if reincarnation is true then I'd have to come back and go through it all over again. Some of the doctors and therapists I saw also said I must be stubborn, otherwise I would not have survived.

Huh? I'm sorry to hear about that and I'm glad that you came out alright.

I didn't come out alright, as I said I wish I had died.

You quoted my statement on addiction, which was a rebuttal to your statement that pot is not addictive

Maybe you confused me with someone else, can you point out where I made a comment about addiction? While I did include your statement I did not make a comment about addiction. What I did say was that not one person died from smoking marijuana then pointed out that people died from transportation accidents and drowning tubs. But I noticed you didn't provide any evidence anyone has died from smoking marijuana.

Falcon

http://www.snopes.com/business/money/pennies.asp

http://www.snopes.com/crime/clever/cigarson.asp

Children are impressionable. They are (usually) unable to weigh the pros and cons of arguments and instead defer to authority figures. There are some theories which are not legitimately challenged in today's scientific world.

Should we teach alternative theories to the reason why things fall down? (Intelligent falling perhaps) After all, the Theory of Gravity is only a theory, not a fact.
Or perhaps that "the weight of a body on the surface of a heavenly body is the reaction force caused by the acceleration of the surface of the heavenly body away from its centre."
http://www.copples.clara.net/gravity.htm

This is an alternative theory of Gravity. It may even be true, however, no one seems to be trying to teach kids the controversy... because there isn't one. The science taught in high schools is well supported and, as mentioned above, not challenged by academia in any real way.

We have an obligation to our children to shield them from ideas which masquerade as science because they lack the skills needed for proper scientific inquiry. I can go to an average high school class and, assuming they don't have any smart asses, teach them about the horrible problems associated with dihydrogen monoxide. Chances are I can convince every one of them to firmly assert that they would be willing to ban water.

http://www.snopes.com/science/dhmo.asp
86% of freshman supported a ban on water,
12% were undecided
2% correctly identified it as water.

It's not that difficult to dupe the public as a whole, let alone children in an authoritative setting. You teach the best science available and continue to teach it until a better theory presents itself. It may take years for this "better theory" to get from not accepted to partially accepted to almost universally accepted, however, IMHO we shouldn't be teaching it until it gains the support of the majority of the scientific community.

Leave the debate on alternative theories of gravity to the Ph.D's who (probably) know what they are talking about. Teach it in the schools when you've convinced a gross majority of them. Convincing a gross majority of the general public does not make it a scientific theory.

Oblig. 22-minutes: http://www.snopes.com/politics/satire/mercer.asp

On behalf of Canadians everywhere I'd like to offer an apology to the United States of America. We haven't been getting along very well recently and for that, I am truly sorry. I'm sorry we called George Bush a moron. He is a moron, but it wasn't nice of us to point it out. If it's any consolation, the fact that he's a moron shouldn't reflect poorly on the people of America. After all, it's not like you actually elected him.

I'm sorry about our softwood lumber. Just because we have more trees than you, doesn't give us the right to sell you lumber that's cheaper and better than your own. It would be like if, well, say you had ten times the television audeince we did and you flood our market with great shows, cheaper than we could produce. I know you'd never do that.

I'm sorry we beat you in Olympic hockey. In our defence I guess our excuse would be that our team was much, much, much, much better than yours. As word of apology, please accept all of our NHL teams which, one by one, are going out of business and moving to your fine country.

I'm sorry about our waffling on Iraq. I mean, when you're going up against a crazed dictator, you want to have your friends by your side. I realize it took more than two years before you guys pitched in against
Hitler, but that was different. Everyone knew he had weapons.

I'm sorry we burnt down your White House during the War of 1812. I see you've rebuilt it! It's very nice.

I'm sorry for Alan Thicke, Shania Twain, Celine Dion, Loverboy, that song from Seriff that ends with a really high-pitched long note. Your beer. I know we had nothing to do with your beer, but we feel your pain.

And finally on behalf of all Canadians, I'm sorry that we're constantly apologizing for things in a passive-aggressive way which is really a thinly veiled criticism. I sincerely hope that you're not upset over this. Because we've seen what you do to countries you get upset with.

...I would also point out that Bush's Crawford Ranch uses a geothermal heat pump.

SHHHHHHHHH! You can't say anything at all good about the president. At least not until after inauguration day!

Seriously, I find it sad that we have an article about geothermal heating and cooling that is used by the private residence of the leader of the free world and it's not mentioned. Seriously, you'd think the article would have brought it up.

Has Bush Derangement Syndrome gotten so bad that saying anything good about Bush is taboo? Or was this a simple, innocent oversight?

...I would also point out that Bush's Crawford Ranch uses a geothermal heat pump.

So if the Crown approves rigging up a photocopier and a colander as a "lie detector", and you get convicted on its "evidence"... your only recourse is that the copier maintenance guy hadn't removed the most recent paper jam lately?

Right. Remove Canada from my list of countries to flee to.

Hey, look at that! A birth certificate, released back in June '08 by the state of Hawaii.

http://msgboard.snopes.com/politics/graphics/birth.jpg

Now get lost, Rush.

Specifically, this article: http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/gorehome.asp

It goes well beyond Gore's supposed needs as a person of wealth. His house is a McMansion, period. Despite green washing it by installing solar panels, it is a horrid example of energy inefficient design and construction, and no amount of indulgences, I mean 'carbon offsets', will change that. By comparison, the Crawford Ranch of that eeeevil George W. Bush is much more eco-friendly.

Al Gore?

He spends 20 times the national average for one of his houses.

From your own link: "factors (such as the climate in the area where the home is located and its size) make the Gore home's energy usage comparable to that of other homes in the same area. "

And he makes an effort to get power from "green" sources.
But a good right wing libertarian think tank can make him sound like a hypocrite, that'll discredit him!

Al Gore?

He spends 20 times the national average for one of his houses.

In other words, the wise conservative student outwits the mush-brained liberal professor and humiliates him in front of everyone, just by stating the facts! In reality, of course, the professor would just steamroller over any argument or fact thrown at him, and keep right on going. Anyone who has met the type knows exactly what I mean.

This sounds like something right out of Snopes. I'll bet I could find a variant of this exact story if I looked hard enough.

True enough. Let me help:

An atheist professor's test to disprove god goes wrong, so he runs out of the room while the lone Christian assumes the professor's place and talks about Jesus to the class: http://www.snopes.com/religion/chalk.asp

A young Albert Einstein proves the existence of god and renders his professor silent: http://www.snopes.com/religion/einstein.asp

A group of students outwit an arrogant professor by turning the tables on him: http://www.snopes.com/college/admin/recorder.asp

A variant where the professor gets back at students who think they're so smart: http://www.snopes.com/college/exam/eraser.asp

A lot of it looks like fantasy wish-fulfillment, where a student trumps an arrogant professor in a dramatic fashion. It seems popular in conservative circles to "disprove" the know-it-all atheist/feminist/liberal professor. While arguments like these may or may not have taken place, I think it's highly unlikely that a professional under tenure would storm out of the class and get a student booted out for simply humiliating him or her.

In other words, the wise conservative student outwits the mush-brained liberal professor and humiliates him in front of everyone, just by stating the facts! In reality, of course, the professor would just steamroller over any argument or fact thrown at him, and keep right on going. Anyone who has met the type knows exactly what I mean.

This sounds like something right out of Snopes. I'll bet I could find a variant of this exact story if I looked hard enough.

True enough. Let me help:

An atheist professor's test to disprove god goes wrong, so he runs out of the room while the lone Christian assumes the professor's place and talks about Jesus to the class: http://www.snopes.com/religion/chalk.asp

A young Albert Einstein proves the existence of god and renders his professor silent: http://www.snopes.com/religion/einstein.asp

A group of students outwit an arrogant professor by turning the tables on him: http://www.snopes.com/college/admin/recorder.asp

A variant where the professor gets back at students who think they're so smart: http://www.snopes.com/college/exam/eraser.asp

A lot of it looks like fantasy wish-fulfillment, where a student trumps an arrogant professor in a dramatic fashion. It seems popular in conservative circles to "disprove" the know-it-all atheist/feminist/liberal professor. While arguments like these may or may not have taken place, I think it's highly unlikely that a professional under tenure would storm out of the class and get a student booted out for simply humiliating him or her.

In other words, the wise conservative student outwits the mush-brained liberal professor and humiliates him in front of everyone, just by stating the facts! In reality, of course, the professor would just steamroller over any argument or fact thrown at him, and keep right on going. Anyone who has met the type knows exactly what I mean.

This sounds like something right out of Snopes. I'll bet I could find a variant of this exact story if I looked hard enough.

True enough. Let me help:

An atheist professor's test to disprove god goes wrong, so he runs out of the room while the lone Christian assumes the professor's place and talks about Jesus to the class: http://www.snopes.com/religion/chalk.asp

A young Albert Einstein proves the existence of god and renders his professor silent: http://www.snopes.com/religion/einstein.asp

A group of students outwit an arrogant professor by turning the tables on him: http://www.snopes.com/college/admin/recorder.asp

A variant where the professor gets back at students who think they're so smart: http://www.snopes.com/college/exam/eraser.asp

A lot of it looks like fantasy wish-fulfillment, where a student trumps an arrogant professor in a dramatic fashion. It seems popular in conservative circles to "disprove" the know-it-all atheist/feminist/liberal professor. While arguments like these may or may not have taken place, I think it's highly unlikely that a professional under tenure would storm out of the class and get a student booted out for simply humiliating him or her.

In other words, the wise conservative student outwits the mush-brained liberal professor and humiliates him in front of everyone, just by stating the facts! In reality, of course, the professor would just steamroller over any argument or fact thrown at him, and keep right on going. Anyone who has met the type knows exactly what I mean.

This sounds like something right out of Snopes. I'll bet I could find a variant of this exact story if I looked hard enough.

True enough. Let me help:

An atheist professor's test to disprove god goes wrong, so he runs out of the room while the lone Christian assumes the professor's place and talks about Jesus to the class: http://www.snopes.com/religion/chalk.asp

A young Albert Einstein proves the existence of god and renders his professor silent: http://www.snopes.com/religion/einstein.asp

A group of students outwit an arrogant professor by turning the tables on him: http://www.snopes.com/college/admin/recorder.asp

A variant where the professor gets back at students who think they're so smart: http://www.snopes.com/college/exam/eraser.asp

A lot of it looks like fantasy wish-fulfillment, where a student trumps an arrogant professor in a dramatic fashion. It seems popular in conservative circles to "disprove" the know-it-all atheist/feminist/liberal professor. While arguments like these may or may not have taken place, I think it's highly unlikely that a professional under tenure would storm out of the class and get a student booted out for simply humiliating him or her.

To be specific, this is the article that the GP should check out and thoroughly understand before he starts spouting off like that again
http://www.snopes.com/music/artists/jackson.asp

Fisher sold Space Pens to NASA for $2.95 each.

Your point about various ratings in movies/games is extremely moot. I say this for two reasons. First it is still black and white, you fall into this category or you don't. You either have nudity or you don't. Facebook basically takes the stand that they are going to be a PG-13 or PG limit. Even more simply; let's pretend there is a ratings system... fbook just chose to set their threshhold beneath the level thata you enjoy. It's black and white by relativity only; they either include or exlude the content you care about. Furthermore I couldn't think of a more flawed and otherwise useless system than the ratings for movies.

I will admit rating systems are not perfect. I only brought up the movie rating system as an example of a better form of censorship than outright banning, because it is less Black and White. I discuss that in very simple terms in this comment. In addition, I didn't propose using the MPAA's system on Facebook. Though I didn't specify any specific system for rating, what I imagine is a system where the users could rate objectionable material themselves, as this commenter suggested. Regardless of the rating system, though, I did say that the user would control the threshold for what material gets displayed to them. Therefore, even if Facebook did the ratings, the user could still completely circumvent them.

Instead I think it's not my or your place to question their policy. They are a private company, they do what they like.

You are right in the latter part; they are a private company, and they can take my suggestion or not as they see fit. As a consumer of their services though, it is my place and right to voice my opinion. And it is in their business interest to listen to their users. Facebook makes money by selling companies the privilege to advertise to people on its site. If Facebook can better foster the community of Nursing Mothers and Mothers in general, then they will sell more ads to those companies targeting that group. More effective censorship policies will allow this group to share pictures more easily and make them more likely to use Facebook. In this sense, by voicing this complaint instead of just running to another company, these women are doing Facebook a favor.

My question to you then, is what is your stance of FCC censorship. Why can't I say fuck shit cunt etc if I said it in appropriate context? It would seem to me that if a public government based agency can set black and white rules you have no business telling a PRIVATE company how they should censor themselves...

You can actually. That statement is false, it isn't Black and White. Further, The FCC is becoming increasingly irrelevant as more broadcasts and viewers move to Cable television and the Internet, which they can't regulate (yet).

What I would ask is how do you feel about the US TV Rating system?

In WW2, only 15% of soldiers actually shot at the enemy

I find this to be an extremely dubious number, and having looked around, there's plenty of debate around it. There's a long thread about it here:

http://msgboard.snopes.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=48;t=000511;p=1

an directionality. It's hard to beat CFLs and moreso some good quality fluorescent tubes get slightly more lumens per watt (although I saved 100 watts per hour in the kitchen - 200 instead of 300- by going with directed CFLs that shine line exactly where needed vs previous central flourescent tubes that were lighting from the center trying to sloppily spill light everywhere).

Since every Home Depot now takes any CFLs, the disposal is actually better than fluorescent tubes. Considering most electricity comes from coal, you prevent mercury release in the air vs incandescents. And no, you don't need a specialized clean up crew if a CFL breaks: http://www.snopes.com/medical/toxins/cfl.asp

Except for the oven, fridge, and flashing lights - CFLs are appropriate for most applications.

I would love to have LEDs. But they need to raise their efficiency. They don't generate heat as such, but AC->DC conversion does, index of refraction of the casing material presents a problem, as well that leds don't generate white light by themselves (they use phosphor?) and all that reduces the light given off.

It would be cool if those were solved one day, where they got near 90% theoretical max lumens/wax (683 lm/wt), where a 3 watt LED would give off the same light as a ~100 watt incandescent or ~23 watt CFL. Even 150 or 200 lm/wt would be a revolution. But it will take 5-10 years I suppose.

Also, it's forbidden to send cash through the mail.

Sending cash through USPS is not illegal.

...there were a number of "interesting deaths" surrounding the Clintons as well.

Snopes disputes that.

I think it's an elaboration on the text found here. At least that's what came up when I Googled "God was busy so he sent me" ;)

A pretty interesting offtopic/troll to say the least.

> When humans die at age 6 on average, we die out.

Life will find a way ( http://www.snopes.com/pregnant/medina.asp )
She gave birth when she 5 years 8 months old. Reportedly started her periods when she was only 3.
Average -> there will still be a few people who reach their 20s or even 30s

My main complaint is that they present themselves as authoritative

Not really; they're just so good at it, they've developed a very high reputation, but they've never presented themselves as authoritative. In fact, they noticed this problem themselves, and created The Repository of Lost Legends [*]. It includes articles written in their usual style, but false. The idea was to teach the moral that you should never take any information at face value, regardless of whoever says it. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to have worked. Common sense isn't all that common these days, is it? [**] [*] Yes, the acronym for "The Repository Of Lost Legends" spells TROLL. Eat your heart out, GNAA. [**] Speaking of common sense, you think they would've killed that stupid 90s-era JavaScript hack to "disable" right-clicking already. Anybody with half a brain and the keys Ctrl, A, and C on their keyboard (or the "Edit" menu on their browser window) can easily circumvent this. </rant>.

My main complaint is that they present themselves as authoritative

Not really; they're just so good at it, they've developed a very high reputation, but they've never presented themselves as authoritative. In fact, they noticed this problem themselves, and created The Repository of Lost Legends [*]. It includes articles written in their usual style, but false. The idea was to teach the moral that you should never take any information at face value, regardless of whoever says it. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to have worked. Common sense isn't all that common these days, is it? [**] [*] Yes, the acronym for "The Repository Of Lost Legends" spells TROLL. Eat your heart out, GNAA. [**] Speaking of common sense, you think they would've killed that stupid 90s-era JavaScript hack to "disable" right-clicking already. Anybody with half a brain and the keys Ctrl, A, and C on their keyboard (or the "Edit" menu on their browser window) can easily circumvent this. </rant>.

Amongst the other things that never change: attributing fictional quotes to famous people.

He still has not releases his college records and birth certificate... He refuses to prove otherwise.

It's amazing that easily disproved rumors and outright lies continue to be propagated by those who would subvert the democratic process.

Electricity can be passed thru induction the way a transformer works.

Coil to coil with over 90% efficiency and the inductive coils
can be suspending in the air above the road like trolleys of old.

No bare wires so no sparks and fires.

The inductive pickups power the cars, and you put in a
Ultra capacitor for fast charging during regenerative braking
and half as many batteries as most major streets would have
an Inductive overhead power tap.

Some ppl in the past got in trouble for doing inductive
theft of power from standard power lines in the past.

http://message.snopes.com/showthread.php?t=9291

Using induction instead of direct connection would be safer,
but has more power loss.

Throwing motions and throwing are separated by the release as you pointed out. If people are actually releasing the WiiMote when throwing, then they're misusing the product.

Or they're bowling in Wii Sports. Have you played it? As I pointed out in another comment, you're intended to make a whole bowling motion toward the TV. It starts when you begin holding down the trigger (B) button on the back, then you do a backward and forward swing, treating the controller like the bowling ball. At the point you would release a real ball, you have to release the B button, taking one of the four fingers gripping it completely off. You're likely to at least loosen your grip with the remaining three fingers at that point. And let me point out that this is the exact moment you would release a bowling ball to make it go flying forward.

Oh, and they're trying to get a broader market with this thing. Younger kids and older adults. On top of that, people who don't otherwise play video games and won't have as much coordination. See a problem yet?

I'm not trying to ruin anyone's fun. I'm not saying the Wii shouldn't exist, or it shouldn't have bowling, or anything close to that. To the contrary, I love the Wii. I bought the system as soon as I could find it in stock. I have four controllers, a dozen retail games, and a bunch of WiiWare on top of that. And I have an NES, SNES, N64, GameCube, GBA, and DS. I'm not trying to ruin anything. All I'm saying is that the strap shouldn't break. That's all.

Of course that hasn't stopped other similar frivolous lawsuits from coming forth, like putting your RV on cruise control and going to make a sandwich.

That never happened. It was an urban legend created when the reflexive anti-lawsuit point of view couldn't be supported with true stories. 1 2

I will say she was close to becoming a real-life version of the teacher that supposedly wrote the "km > mile" letter.

http://www.snopes.com/food/prepare/badmeat.asp

You know, that's just sad.

Ahem, "(Contrary to various e-mails, Barack Obama has not "been ordered to produce his birth certificate by December 1"; that is simply the response date set for one of the several related filings still working its way through the U.S. court system.) "

While flying supplies into the outback, we were shot down by the kangaroos anti-aircraft fire.

Gotta love that story.

An old friend tells a similar one about learning a thing or two about neural nets... they thought it could detect tanks from the air, when in reality it told you if the photo was taken on a clear or cloudy day. Pure myth... but fun nonetheless

Really guys. Don't the editors screen this crap at all?

The irony being that historically, coca-cola was named after cocaine, because it contained (allegedly non-addictive) parts of the cocaine plant.

The name being a portmanteau of the two main ingredients, it's funny that they managed to trademark the street name of the same drug it got it's name from.

There. Happy?

It's not my fault the assholes running these sites can't bother to standardize on one markup language for post markup.

But it also means, all your sweat stays INSIDE... BAD idea...

It can't be as bad being completely painted gold. :D

I won't dispute any medical issues from being submerged in your own sweat -- IANAD. They did seem similar to me, however. The article did not mention if the waterproofing was one-way or both.

Sealand can't make the British fuck off. It just doesn't have the power. That makes the claim of sovereignty empty posturing.

Perhaps. But if sovereignty relies on being able to repel invasion by powerful foreign nations, then only the handful of nuclear weapons states and their protectorates are actually sovereign nations. (Mexico? Canada? When we want your land, we'll take it.)

Not a true story.

Yes of course. It's simply a metaphor used for descriptive power, and not necessarily reflective of reality. Kind of like the "boiling the frog" metaphor. It's false but still a very useful concept.

Then needed one more excuse to use the Bush with the phone upside down picture before having to switch to the Obama one.

I hope you're kidding - C.S. Lewis did NOT write that series - http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/compass.asp

Snopes disagrees with you, at least in the case of a cashier's check. The key point is that funds will be made available to you, and therefore the check appears to clear, before the money is actually guaranteed to be yours.

> The White Star Shipping Line "claimed" the Titanic was unsinkable

No, they didn't.

Yes they did. From the article you linked:

Of course, most of the statements about the Titanic's unsinkability included qualifiers such as "practically" or "nearly," but the public naturally ignored them, "unsinkable" (like "impossible" or "pregnant") being a word that didn't lend itself to qualification. And even as reports of the Titanic disaster began to reach America early in the morning of 15 April 1912, the Vice-President of the White Star Line in New York stated, without qualification, "We place absolute confidence in the Titanic. We believe that the boat is unsinkable."

Ahh, here we go.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/satire/revocation.asp

More exciting than reading about how badly microsoft can classify security bugs eh? :)

ps. NO FIREFOX, I WILL NOT CAPITALISE THE "M" IN mICROSOFT!

> The White Star Shipping Line "claimed" the Titanic was unsinkable

No, they didn't.

[BUZZ]
http://www.snopes.com/business/misxlate/nova.asp