Slashdot Mirror

I don't have to. Linux user's have had access to $650, 8 core machines for about 5 months now, and people have already started building clusters out of them. Too bad Apple dropped the PowerPC cpu, it really does kick some mighty ass. Welcome to late 2006, Apple!

Available wind power world-wide is estimated at 72 terawatts continuous. If the world can be supplied to US levels on only 9 GW, there's plenty of room for higher living standards on wind power alone. Throw in nuclear, PV, wave and whatnot, and the biofuel-only doom scenarios look rather silly.

Biofuels have one really important use: buffering lulls in the other sources. This does not have to amount to a large fraction of total energy consumption (and will require even less land if e.g. carbon is recycled through algae instead of relying on higher plants for everything).

As part of an operating systems course I am currently taking, we watched a video of a presenter from Intel who lectured on the changes associated with the Itanium processor. In his presentation (see the video at http://online.stanford.edu/courses/ee380/040218-ee 380-100.asx), he pointed out that Intel has gone from having one or two major ideas to drive chip design to having fifteen or twenty minor ideas that they can cram in. The thinking is that if they can amass enough of these "little ideas" together, they can probably cobble together enough performance enhancement to justify production and sales of these chips. Part of the issue is that, as the author of this article also admits, there is currently no "big ideas" coming around the bend in terms of truly revolutionary performance increase.

The problem, though, is that when you introduce many smaller features, you cannot always anticipate how these features will interact with one another. This is why it is counterintuitive to many people that "new and improved" is not always so, and that you actually risk introducing bugs into the design more subtle than you can detect. That, combined with the continuing support for legacy code, means that complexity (and power consumption) goes through the roof with each iteration. While it is a testament of the robustness and versatility of the x86 architecture that it has survived thus far, one could argue that the architecture *had* to survive because we couldn't come up with the next paradigm shift.

The good news is that there are solutions to this situation. The bad news is that all of the solutions involve massive change in the way the software industry clings to the tried-and-true, or truly revolutionary innovation in chip re-architecture, or billions of dollars, etc. As the article points out, experience with EPIC has demonstrated how NOT to introduce a completely new architecture. There is no easy way out, but there are several possible paths.

This post seems to contradict your information:

"AI : We wanted to integrate in our game the original AI behavior of the ghosts (those that were in the original Pacman game). Without AI, the game was not interesting to play, since a random behavior is too simple to play. Each ghost has its own personality: Shadow is the red ghost and it chases Pacman all the time, using a straight forward tracking algorithm. Speedy is the pink ghost. It is very fast but moves in a random manner. Bashful is the blue ghost: it is shy at the beginning and escapes from pacman all the time, but if Pacman approaches him to much, then it is not shy anymore and begins to chase him (Pacman is then chased by two ghosts at the same time...). Pokey is the orange ghost and is slow and moves in a random manner. "

Not as complex as the story that I read, but apparently they don't follow a pre-planned course.

Your scenario doesn't show, never mind prove, that copyright is a public good. Picture the mega-publisher skimming Rowling away from the mini-publisher for the second book, just like any other star content producer. Maybe you've seen what happens to truly great software builders? The Dead did just fine giving away their concert music, because they were in the business of _producing_ music, not _protecting_ it.

Copyright was originally created to protect content from those who would change it and resell it as the original content, so when you bought a book allegedly by Rowling, it actually had Rowling's words in it and not someone else's edited version.

If there's a serious economic analysis of the public costs and benefits of copyright with such a clear result, I'm not aware of it. I've only heard bald claims and anecdotal handwaving. http://www.law.stanford.edu/publications/stanford_ lawyer/issues/73/Property.html is an interesting article, tho. Another is http://www.jstor.org/view/00472530/sp030004/03x003 8l/0?frame=noframe&userID=81531f02@mitre.org/01cc9 9331f00501bacefb&dpi=3&config=jstor
but again, no strong result.

.haeger

I think it is fine that people have increased opportunity to chat with each other with various gadgets. On the other hand it seems absurd to equate that with technological leadership. I don't see why there is anything to investigate other than the quality of a nation's research universities and the availability of capital to create new enterprises. How many great research universities are there in all of the first six countries listed? Even if you combine all of them they are dwarfed by California, Texas or Massachusetts individually. Of course this is mainly an historical anomaly which will change to a less radical distribution over time but it will not be the result of teenagers texting each other in pursuit of getting laid.

This article is nothing more than an attempt to affect government regulatory policy for consumer electronic products and services. These matters have their own importance but it has very little to do with technological leadership. If you want to get a picture of meaningful penetration of internet access (relating to technological leadership) take a look at the distribution of nodes for Folding@Home: Folding@Home

I suspect that's more-or-less where they're going with this - but with shaders rather than FPGA.

On-core graphics is a cute trick that might some money and mainboard real-estate, but on-core stream processors with programmable shaders has real potential. This will be comparable to on-chip integration of the first FPUs. As an idea of what this might do for non-graphics apps, look at the FAH stats, and you'll see what the ATI GPU and PS3 are currently doing with their stream processors ( http://fah-web.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/main.py?qtype= osstats ).

Yes VMware ESX Server runs a modified version of Red Hat Linux.

According to Wikipedia, "VMware ESX Server uses a stripped-down proprietary kernel (derived from work done on Stanford University's SimOS) that replaces the Linux kernel after hardware initialization. The Service Console (also known as "COS" or as "vmnix") for ESX Server 2.x derives from a modified version of Red Hat Linux 7.2. (The Service Console for ESX Server 3.x derived from a modified version of Red Hat Enterprise Linux 3.) In general, this Service Console acts as a boot-loader for the vmkernel and provides management interfaces (CLI, webpage MUI, Remote Console). This VMware ESX hypervisor virtualization approach provides lower overhead and better control and granularity for allocating resources (CPU-time, disk-bandwidth, network-bandwidth, memory-utilization) to virtual machines. It also increases security, thus positioning VMware ESX as an enterprise-grade product."

As for seawater extraction - where did that paticular gem come from and did the guy have more than an MBA?

I'm not a big fan of the complacent notion that America succeeds because God made us better, whether God is and old guy in the sky or some kind of historical determinism that has finally created the perfect human disposition.

The problem with Russia is that its political and legal systems are crap. The same with China.

But any system whose priority is to keep the powerful in power will eventually find it convient to quash that talent.

What happens is that the friends of the government get their returns guaranteed by the exercise of state power.

That's just it. Nobody actually needs the label. The label had their niche, especially back when they helped drive several significant trends in music. But now everything they do seems just more self-inflicted misery (see article about RIAA deposing 10-year-old girl).

The dot-com boom, and maybe dot-com 2.0, are about new ideas -- some good, some bad, and a lot of vaporware to go with it. But businesses have always had to change. IBM has done a good job. Do you think we'll ever see Microsoft covenant not to sue an open source project? Will we ever be able to accept source code from them?

Change will happen, with or without them. I can imagine how different things would be for Sony BMG, EMI, Warner, and Universal (and all the other RIAA labels) had they only listened to what was happening at every U.S. University in 1999. Mp3's. Napster.

I think this might sound like flamebait, but then, I see that as the problem. The RIAA just passes us all off as flamebait and trolls, pirates or a wallet with two legs -- so does Microsoft sometimes, so does the FBI sometimes... I'm not really a secular humanist, just amazed that something as plain as the nose on their face can be downplayed, fudded, and through hundreds of board meetings relegated to a "non-issue" ... and then inevitably they are proven wrong.

Money must lobotomize the cortex on some people. It certainly doesn't have that effect on all people. I'm not going to try to even cite a great example here, but just an example.

Nevermind, here's the answer.

No. You can however donate to the Pande group at Stanford if you need a writeoff :)

http://folding.stanford.edu/donate/

.

I hate to repeat a post, but for additional information:

In case anyone is wondering about what the project has acheived so far, here is the link.

Concerning global warming, the processing statistics imply the PS3 is by far the most efficient. At 380 watts, using the statistics given (which are said to be conservative in the case of the PS3), that puts the PS3 at 63 teraFLOPS/megawatt, or 16.5 kilowatts/teraFLOPS. I'm not really familiar with this, but isn't that fairly good? It's definately better than using PCs. Blue Gene/L, which is supposed to be very efficient, will deliver 240,000 FLOPS/watt, or about 0.24 teraFLOPS/megawatt. My calculations may be off, but that suggests the PS3 is highly efficient and a better use of power than a supercomputer.

I'm sure I'm missing some important considerations, so can someone through a little knowledge at this?

I hate to repeat a post, but for additional information:

In case anyone is wondering about what the project has acheived so far, here is the link.

Concerning global warming, the processing statistics imply the PS3 is by far the most efficient. At 380 watts, using the statistics given (which are said to be conservative in the case of the PS3), that puts the PS3 at 63 teraFLOPS/megawatt, or 16.5 kilowatts/teraFLOPS. I'm not really familiar with this, but isn't that fairly good? It's definately better than using PCs. Blue Gene/L, which is supposed to be very efficient, will deliver 240,000 FLOPS/watt, or about 0.24 teraFLOPS/megawatt. My calculations may be off, but that suggests the PS3 is highly efficient and a better use of power than a supercomputer.

I'm sure I'm missing some important considerations, so can someone through a little knowledge at this?

They have a Results page showing some of the problems that Folding@Home have been applied on. Not unbiased, but it seems like they're putting it to use.
As to useful results, it's just a distributed supercomputer. Why would its results be more feel-good and less meaningful than those of any other ~500 TFLOP computer? It's not like researchers can ever get enough processing power. Molecular folding is a processor intensive and parallelizable research problem with real applicability, and I'd rather see people spend power on this than on SETI@home.

In case anyone is wondering about what the project has acheived so far, here is the link.

Concerning global warming, the processing statistics imply the PS3 is by far the most efficient. At 380 watts (at least this is what I've heard), using the statistics given (which are said to be conservative in the case of the PS3), that puts the PS3 at 63 teraFLOPS/megawatt, or 16.5 kilowatts/teraFLOPS. I'm not really familiar with this, but isn't that fairly good? It's definately better than using PCs. Blue Gene/L, which is supposed to be very efficient, will deliver 240,000 FLOPS/watt, or about 0.24 teraFLOPS/megawatt. My calculations may be off, but that suggests the PS3 is highly efficient and a better use of power than a supercomputer.

I'm sure I'm missing some important considerations, so can someone through a little knowledge at this?

In case anyone is wondering about what the project has acheived so far, here is the link.

Concerning global warming, the processing statistics imply the PS3 is by far the most efficient. At 380 watts (at least this is what I've heard), using the statistics given (which are said to be conservative in the case of the PS3), that puts the PS3 at 63 teraFLOPS/megawatt, or 16.5 kilowatts/teraFLOPS. I'm not really familiar with this, but isn't that fairly good? It's definately better than using PCs. Blue Gene/L, which is supposed to be very efficient, will deliver 240,000 FLOPS/watt, or about 0.24 teraFLOPS/megawatt. My calculations may be off, but that suggests the PS3 is highly efficient and a better use of power than a supercomputer.

I'm sure I'm missing some important considerations, so can someone through a little knowledge at this?

No worse a conclusion than the parent post's. I would have thought that a GPU is by far the best part of a PC to make a fair comparison against the PS3 with.
The F@H web site certainly seems to agree http://folding.stanford.edu/FAQ-ATI.html it links between their information on the GPU and PS3 versions stating it's using the same technology behing both clients. The client is admittedly exclusive to ATI cards (X1600, X1800, and X1900 class GPU's) but I would assume that Nvidia's offerings would offer similar performance.

I don't pretend to understand all of the science, but I assume the people at Stanford know what they're doing. The results page has some things that sound interesting

I believe the numbers are being taken from this web site.

Despite the FAH PS3 client has been out under 24h the PS3 client performance is overtaking all the CPU/GPU FAH clients combined!
http://fah-web.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/main.py?qtype= osstats
http://folding.stanford.edu/FAQ-PS3.html

Despite the FAH PS3 client has been out under 24h the PS3 client performance is overtaking all the CPU/GPU FAH clients combined!
http://fah-web.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/main.py?qtype= osstats
http://folding.stanford.edu/FAQ-PS3.html

The 700 CPUs is not that much. What if they try the same simulation on 100000 CPUs?

Btw: The Folding@home released a PS3 client and it has already overtaken all current platforms:
http://fah-web.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/main.py?qtype= osstats

Stanford's Sequoia compiler is supposed to be open source eventually. Plus, it looks a little easier to use than RapidMind, PeakStream, or CUDA.

Umm, methinks you are unfamiliar with US Fair Use Criteria.

She's a Law Professor, using an excerpt of a broadcast, the minimally necessary portion of it, in order to create a derivative work or commentary (her class).
I wish there was an HTML tag for patriotism. If you don't like the USA, then don't read below.
Unlike the ROW, which, despite your self important (usually the result of an inferiority complex) kafeeklatsh derision of US, is actually a corporatist dirigiste (with the state being the largest corporation) hell-hole, the US is still a common-law, the law applies to everyone, power is delegated from the people to the state, entity, even if it doesn't always seem that way.
In this case, you've got someone who knows the law, and has the corporatists by the jock-strap. The NFL are toast.
God Bless the USA. BTW: I'm an Immigrant from Europe, Ireland Specifically. When I left, my Mum asked me why, I said "Because in America, you have the right to be wrong, in Ireland, you only have the right to be right." Irish by birth, US Citizen by choice.

how much is solar cycle and how much is greenhouse?

Ditto. Spun's point of view is one that is appealing to hear, but false.

Here is the founder saying he was wrong to oppose nuclear energy: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic le/2006/04/14/AR2006041401209.html
Here is Greenpeace's site saying that nuclear energy is evil: http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/ nuclear

Here is John McCarthy (a famous computer scientist) touting the benefits of nuclear energy, and why most of the concerns against nuclear power are not as valid as one would think: http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/nuclea r-faq.html

I honestly think ``apology'' was meant in the former sense. See Backus's Turing award lecture or his work on the FP programming language. He was actually trying to pioneer a new way of thinking about programming, which led to the modern theory and practice of functional programming. His ``apology'' wasn't a defense so much as a hope that the world could move on to something better.

Actually, I'm pretty sure they do mean ``apology'' as in ``sorry, world''. Backus's work on FP was all about getting past the ``word-at-a-time'' assignment-based paradigm popularized by FORTRAN (the ``von Neumann bottleneck''), and moving on to more expressive algebraic programming techniques, today referred to as functional programming. Check out his Turing award lecture -- it's a great read!

Can Programming Be Liberated from the von Neumann Style? A Functional Style and Its Algebra of Programs

I would show the prior art, but I can't read the reel-to-reel tapes.

Fortunately, it's in dead-tree format. Volume 1 (the first edition of which was published in 1968) covers linked lists, among other things.

In fact, there IS something significant this community (and others) can do: help with the folding@home project. All of that spare hardware laying around could speed finding cures. I'm going to resurrect some machines just for the cause.

Timeshifting a TV broadcast is legal *for the original recipient*. That's likely not done under the fair use doctrine- but feel free to cite some examples.

17 USC 92 Chapter 1, 170 says:

"(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and"

From:

http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use _Overview/chapter9/9-c.html#3

===

3. Internet Cases

Not a fair use. Entire publications of the Church of Scientology were posted on the Internet by several individuals without Church permission. Important factors: Fair use is intended to permit the borrowing of portions of a work, not complete works. (Religious Technology Center v. Lerma, 40 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1569 (E.D. Va. 1996).)

Fair use. The Washington Post used three brief quotations from Church of Scientology texts posted on the Internet (see previous case). Important factors: Only a small portion of the work was excerpted and the purpose was for news commentary. ( Religious Technology Center v. Pagliarina, 908 F. Supp 1353 (E.D. Va. 1995).)

4. Music Cases

Fair use. A person running for political office used 15 seconds of his opponent's campaign song in a political ad. Important factors: A small portion of the song was used and the purpose was for purposes of political debate. (Keep Thomson Governor Comm. v. Citizens for Gallen Comm., 457 F. Supp. 957 (D. N.H. 1978).)

Fair use. A television film crew, covering an Italian festival in Manhattan, recorded a band playing a portion of a copyrighted song "Dove sta Zaza." The music was replayed during a news broadcast. Important factors: Only a portion of the song was used, it was incidental to the news event and did not result in any actual damage to the composer or to the market for the work. ( Italian Book Corp, v. American Broadcasting Co., 458 F. Supp. 65 (S.D. N.Y. 1978).)

===

So, at least for the Eastern District of Virginia, District of New Hampshire and Southern District of New York, fair use doctrine definitely takes into account- I suspect their rulings aren't all that radical and you'd see the same in other Federal courts. Also, your riff example is wrong there's far more applied to fair use doctrine than just the use of a small portion of another song-

===

5. Summaries of Parody Cases

Fair use. The rap group 2 Live Crew borrowed the opening musical tag and the words (but not the melody) from the first line of the song "Pretty Woman" ("Oh, pretty woman, walking down the street "). The rest of the lyrics and the music were different. Important factors: The group's use was transformative and borrowed only a small portion of the "Pretty Woman" song. The 2 Live Crew version was essentially a different piece of music and the only similarity was a brief musical opening part and the opening line. (Note: The rap group had initially sought to pay for the right to use portions of the song but were rebuffed by the publisher who did not want "Pretty Woman" used in a rap song.) (Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, 510 U.S. 569 (1994).)

Fair use. The composers of the song, "When Sunny Gets Blue," claimed that their song was infringed by "When Sonny Sniffs Glue, " a 29second parody that altered the original lyric line and borrowed six bars of the song. A court determined this parody was excused as a fair use. Important factors: Only 29 seconds of music were borrowed (not the complete song ). (Fisher v. Dees, 794 F.2d 432 (9th Cir. 1986).) (Note: As a general rule, parodying more than a few lines of a song lyric is unlikely to be excused as a fair use. Performers such as Weird Al Yankovic, who earn a living by humorously modifying hit songs, seek permission of the songwriters before recording their parodies.)

===

OK, since we've got here already, let me preempt the next 500 factually incorrect "moral high ground" type posts.

And let me correct your misconceptions.

Fallacy: By putting your content on the web, you're giving permission for archive sites to duplicate it.
Reality: By putting your content on the web, you're giving permission for visitors to read it. Under the law in many jurisdictions, they are also allowed to make personal copies of the work under "fair use" style legislation. However, nothing about this gives any permission to republish it in any jurisdiction I know of, and indeed it's hard to see how it could do for any nation that is a signatory to the major WIPO treaties. Even if this were the case, such permission would be implicit, and there was an explicit notice on the web site in this case making her wishes clear.

The only jurisdiction that matters is the one Internet Archive is based in. I procede under the assumption that this is a US jurisdiction. The US fair use exemption does allow for republication, specifically. Here, for example, is a case where fair use was deemed to allow republication. No notice, however explicit, can take away fair use rights: in the case I just cited, the owner of the copyright did in fact explicitly deny permission for the publisher to republish their work, but the publisher did so anyway and it was held to still be fair use.

Fallacy: This isn't fair: software can't read arbitrary contracts!
Reality: This is not her problem. If someone wants to use software to copy stuff that isn't theirs, it is their responsibility to make sure that doing so is legal.

Yes, it is. That doesn't mean that they have automatically accepted the terms of her contract: in common law jurisdictions (including the US), to form a contract one must intend to do so. A computer program cannot have such intent, although its programmers may have had intent when they wrote it, and its operators may have had intent when they instructed it to perform a certain task. As Internet Archive clearly did not know about the contract in this case, it is unclear how they could have intended to enter into it.

It also means that regardless of the legality of copying the material, she has no right to demand the $5,000 per page fee that is specified in her contract (although this published tariff may be taken into account in setting the amount of any damages she is awarded for copyright infringement). Nor does she have any right to demand the $50,000 late payment fee specified in her contract (although she may be entitled to statutory interest, depending on the jurisdiction in which the case is heard).

(Note: the above is not legal advice, check any information with a lawyer before placing reliance on it, it is provided for informational purposes only, etc.)

I keep seeing this point labored again and again, yet it's simply not true. The assumption of having only 80 years of uranium only applies if 1) you consider only the reserves available at current market prices, a minuscule fraction of the world's total known reserves, and 2) don't consider the use of breeder reactors, which process fuel ~100 times more efficiently than conventional light water reactors do.

Plus, there's thorium, which is three times as common as uranium and also fissile.

Sources:
http://www.nuclearfaq.ca/cnf_sectionG.htm#uranium_ supply
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/cohen. html
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf75.html

I think id Games used to compile on SGIs. I know MS did some development on Xenix/i286 and Xenix/i386 (somewhere, there's an MS quote about how MS-DOS/Win is not suitable for serious development..hah). In fact, the i286 had a memory management unit, but the only OS (that I know of) which took full advantage of it was Xenix. Minix/i286 may have supported it to some extent, as well.
Some emulator pages....mac&ppc, simos (for SGI/IRIX5), DEC 10 and Big Iron, various DEC emulation, Apple Lisa, Z80 sim&development, yaze Z80, Apricot and Amstrad, bochs x86, ... and there's always emulators that run under DOS that you could run under Bochs or QEMU.

Other possibly helpful links:
emulators on freshmeat
OS kernels on freshmeat
OS's on freshmeat
bunches of old OS disk images
CP/M and MP/M
CP/M disks
Lisa Xenix
LisaOS
tandy xenix
elks and uclinux
freevms
freedos
Apple I (not II) development
reactos - winnt clone
MAME stuff and pinball Mame
info about tandy disk images
solaris minix
minix info and version 3
various free (as in beer and/or speech) OS list
The OS list at tunes.org

Alright, we have phong shading, but at least some specular bloom. Folding@home are taking their first steps into next-generation graphics!

This will be watched closely. Deep linking and framing are similar to the case. So far, deep linking itself has been held legal, but implying association in extensive deep linking is not. Given how well-stripped Grouper's videos are on Searchles, Grouper might have a chance.

One thing that many seem to be forgetting is that short excerpts are defined as fair-use.

No they're not. The amount of a work that you use is only one of four factors that go into defining something as fair use. Other considerations include transformative value - for example, using a piece of someone else's work in order to comment on it or parody it. Most of the kind of clips you're talking about aren't transformative at all -- the meaning and significance of 2 minutes of Jon Stewart online is largely the same as those same 2 minutes within the context of a 30 minute show.

Actually, they started the project way back in 1976, and time-travalled to our time to get PS3s to start working early, as you can see in http://folding.stanford.edu/abeta-PS3.jpg.

Visualizing these largish molecules is going to be interesting.

You can't find them with google!

Can be found here, is linked to within the first link provided in the summary.

One of the most interesting criteria for a new internet, to me, was criteria #7:

Support anonymity where prudent, and accountability where necessary.

Maybe it's just me, but it seems true anonymity is becoming more and more important, and less and less available, as governments snoop more on the internet.

Yet the article and blurb seem to imply that it's a new thing.

Also, here's the info on the Folding@Home website:

http://folding.stanford.edu/FAQ-PS3.html

Taking stuff you haven't paid for is morally wrong. you can call it what you like, it doesn't change the fact that its a dirty low-down thing to do.

When you copy electronic media, no one loses anything concrete.

Is it copyright infringement? sure. Is it illegal? sure. Is it morally wrong? good question.

Emergent properties could indicate a situation that's a hybrid of #'s 1 and 2. The Universe did pop into existence out of nothing; all of the arguments we're having require the existence of the spacetime that we all exist in. Speculation on anything prior to that is simply pointless. However, as the Universe expanded, it is entirely possible that it gained a complexity which could indicate intelligence. That intelligence would feed back into the Universe, observing and possibly manipulating it. What's not clear is at what point that did or will happen. It would be an extremely fortunate coincidence if both the physical emergence of the Universe and the spontaneous existence of an overarching intelligence happened at exactly the same time.

That's the wrong site. My site is http://gecensus.stanford.edu/, not gcensus.com.

A lot of slashdot readers might not know this, but the postmodernists in Academia are literally at war with science - see the wikipedia Science Wars http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_wars article. People might want to take a little time and educate themselves about what these nuts actually believe. Most of us on slashdot work in scientific or technical fields. If the postmodernist loons had their way, scientific knowledge would be reduced to a 'social construct' and would be subject to revision based upon political dogma http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-epistem ology/. How well do you think technology would work if the laws of physics were revised because they were too 'misogynistic'. I'll bet you didn't know that Newtons Laws of Motion are actually a rape manual http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandra_Harding, did you?

This poster is representative of a larger group of nuts who want to attack science and the knowledge that it produces for their own political ends. They don't like the idea of science being the ultimate arbiter of truth - they want to seize that position for themselves. Don't listen to these fools, the have no idea what they're talking about and, what's worse, they don't really even care.

You can go on a tour of SLAC pretty much every week and they are pretty interesting - especially if you know something of particle physics. Had the opportunity to take one when I was out in San Jose and thoroughly enjoyed it, and would heartily recommend it to anyone else in the area. Not surprisingly, my photos probably look very similar to the ones posted here.

My Photo
Tour Times