Slashdot Mirror

Unless you're talking about Intelligent Falling, then all bets are off. In all seriousness, this is just a little speedbump in the march of progress. The Kansas creationists tried this in 1999, and got voted out. Now they're are back, but they'll be easier to beat this time. Teaching creationism was found to be unconstitutional in Edwards v. Aguillard. In the Intelligent Design (ID) trial in Dover, strong evidence has been presented showing that "ID" is a drop-in replacement for "scientific creationism." For instance, in the ID book "Pandas and People" we have the remains of a word processor search and replace operation with "cdesign proponentsists" being the resulting "transitional fossil," as Pandas' Thumb puts it. The Dover transcripts make for some particularily hilarious reading, especially Mike Behe's testimony, or when members of the Dover school board perjure themselves. We can count on a trial taking place in Kansas very soon, and it will go in much the same manner as it did in Dover. The Kansas Kangaroo Court has already laid the groundwork, providing good evidence on the motivations of the IDers, and how they are indistinguishable from creationists. These guys have shot themselves in the foot so badly that if either Dover or Kansas went to the Supreme Court it is hard to imagine the outcome for ID being any different than it was in the Edwards v. Aguillard decision back in '87. The two dissenters in Edwards v. Aguillard were Scalia (predictable) and Rhenquist, so even with if Roberts and Alito* vote theocratic (unlikely, they seem rational to me, at least) it'll be a 5-4 split with ID losing. IANAL, tho. I think the big take home message of this is that all of us who care about science need to keep up on what the kooks are doing. While I'm fond of following the creationist movement and even have a small collection of creationists books I've picked up from used book stores, I don't have the slightest idea of who is on the local school board and whether they are pro- or anti-science. That's going to change, though.

What the fuck is wrong with people on slashdot? Just because people are interested in different games than you, they're ignorant?

At launch, racing games are always a system seller. But as time goes on, they're the first games ditched for the next wave, and nobody ever looks back at them.

I guess that's why GT3, GT4 and PGR2 all tanked.

Jesus, how can people spew shit out of their mouths without being aware of it? I would think the smell would bother them. Either way, heads need to be cracked in.

To ignore this fact is to just prove your ignorance.

PGR3 is a good title from an established developer and a resepected series, designed from the start to work for the next generation. COD2 is a good title from an established series and developer, though maybe not as next-gen, but a huge number of people will love it even if it's only marginally better than Xbox games in terms of graphics. How about NBA 2k6? Good developer. Check? Established series? Check. Obviously next-gen? Check.

Oblivion might have a slight edge on other games, but Jesus, it's just one game, in a genre that most people don't give a shit about.

I don't accept fundamental tenets of science and I vote

God isn't schizophrenic

Nope. Bipolar: http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28484

You're right, neither Macroevolution (aka Common Descent) or Design can be conclusively proven to be true (I'd question whether they rely on differing assumptions about the universe - care to supply more detail?)

However, Macroevolution can be proven to be false - all you have to do is find a fossil sufficiently out of place, or a species that's completely different, at a chemical level, to the rest of life as we know it. Design, by contrast, can be used to explain any state of affairs - if nothing else, supporters of the Design hypothesis can say "yeah, just like what you said, only God did it." As such, it can't be proven false.

And, if we have one hypothesis that is too vague to be proven false and one hypothesis that is specific enough to be easily kicked out if it's wrong, standard practice is to accept the simpler one. If you see 27 dots in a row, it's sensible to assume that they represent a straight line rather than an order-27 polynomial (apologies for this example, I've been doing maths work all afternoon). If you accept Design over Macroevolution, why not accept intelligent falling over gravity?

There's an even better reason in this case, which is that any attempt to pin the Designer down in more detail (that I've come across) has been refuted. For example, the very concept of Him as intelligent (as with Intelligent Design) is somewhat implausible - to use the old cliche, what kind of Intelligent Designer would run the sewer through the middle of a recreational zone? This is what the Designer supposedly did when creating a urethra running through the prostate gland in male humans. There are a number of other examples, such as the fact that the human eye could be massively more efficient if it incorporated a simple design change - one that's actually found in octopi. Why would that be the case if the same Designer had created both?

To conclude: both hypotheses can explain the available data. However, the Design hypothesis could explain almost any alternative data set, whereas the Macroevolution hypothesis could explain comparatively few alternative data sets. Additionally, all attempts to be more specific about the nature of the Designer have met with failure - the hypothesis can only explain the evidence by being completely vague. As such, the Macroevolution hypothesis is the only one worthy of the "scientific theory" seal of approval based on the available data, and is thus likely to be more accurate*.

-----
* I realise there's a leap of logic here, but it's fairly lengthy and basically boils down to the 27 dots example given above. If this bothers you, just ask.

The theory of gravity is just a theory...

No. Sorry. Wrong one. Besides, the onion already dealt with Intelligent falling

Set theory is just a theory. Rigourous mathematical principles be damned!

If we wait until the first reports of infection, it may already be too late!

Pittsburgh, for one, shares your concern.

Imagine if all science was done the way ID proponents want it done. We'd see a phenomenon, like, say, gravity. Then we'd say, "Hmm. It's really hard to see how this could be. So God or Elvis or some alien makes it go." Then it would be settled. Great.

Already been done. http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512

Can They Help Smokers Quit?

.
Yeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrgh!

it would protect some of the much older books google will be scanning.

I don't think handling the books carefully will be a necessary once the purging begins...

How about gravity?

We call gravity a theory but you don't see people in legislatures trying to get 'both sides of the controvery' tought. I can't say gravity has been proven 100% but I can say there's a damn lot of testable evidence.

Funny you should mention that. Maybe IF (Intelligent Falling) could be the next alternative we'll see in science education.

Aw hell. My tounge is stuck in my cheek again.

Sadly, the "space bending" (lensing) that you're talking about is different than the theoretical model I'm talking about.

OK, I see what you're getting at - how do we know we're not living on a torus or a trumpet or something? You're right that we can't measure these things directly - however, as the linked article shows, we can make some fairly strong deductions based on things like the distribution of cosmic radiation. The fact that our instruments are in the universe isn't really an issue, in the same way that living on the surface of the Earth doesn't mean you can't show it's round (just look at the horizon).

You're right that there are parts of cosmology that currently can't be tested or examined in any meaningful way. In these cases, you're also right that the theories are not scientific and, as such, I would not expect them to be taught to kids in science class. When we've figured out a number of tests that could prove the theories wrong, then we can start teaching them in science classes.

An aside: To my knowledge no one knows what causes gravitational lensing

No, gravitational lensing is pretty thoroughly understood - it's a direct consequence of General Relativity. The dark matter thing you're talking about is an attempt to test the existence or otherwise of MACHOs - weakly interacting massive particles - that, if passed in front of a star, tend to make it glow more brightly for a brief period by lensing the light towards us. That is an untested theory, but it's still scientific as the testing is happening pretty much as we speak. In a few years the predictions of the theory will either be refuted or confirmed. If the latter, we can then start looking for new tests of the theory. By contrast, no-one has even figured out how to develop a test for ID (that I know of - correct me if I'm wrong).

The point, I think, with Kansas is that the schools shouldn't discount the -possibility- of intelligent design.

Oh, I completely agree. They still shouldn't be teaching a nonscientific theory in a science class though.

I don't know exactly to what extent ID is covered in the science classes of Kansas, but surely we're not so insecure about the foundations of our science that we don't think it can hold up to a teacher saying "...and there may be a God involved"?

Very few people are insecure about the foundations of science, but many are justifiably concerned over the fact that about 3/4 of Americans think that one of science's most powerful, best tested theories is complete bollocks. We don't want to give these people any more rope with which to hang themselves (unless we're really really keen on Darwinian evolution :-P)

Plus, it sets a very bad precedent. What happens when the flat-earthers start demanding equal time in geography classes in an attempt to "teach the controversy"? And don't get me started on those "intelligent falling" nutters ;-)

Yes, there's disagreement in science on fine details of evolution.

There's even greater disagreement in science over the so-called 'Theory of Gravity'.

It's time we started teaching 'Intelligent Falling' (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512) in science classes.

Obligatory Link

http://www.theonion.com/content/files/images/onion _imagearticle1880.article.jpg like this?

Just heard, The Onion is working on /. acquisition.
All this is just preliminaries to check reader acceptance.
Er, or is it the otherway around?
the media is so confusing these days!
maybe they have been always together...

> You read the Onion article on Intelligent Falling theory, didn't you?

yup:

flying spaghetti monster: http://www.venganza.org/
intelligent falling theory: http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512
flat earth society: http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatea rthsociety.htm

sadly, no link for modern support of bible-based cosmology in which the sun circles the earth? suggestions?

oh, and btw, I do know how to spell ridicule :-)

Federal Undead Management Agency spokesperson Dr. Sheena Aurora downplayed the ZPI report, arguing that zombies move slowly and can be easily overpowered. Aurora advised citizens to look over their shoulders frequently, adding that a large shopping mall can serve as a "long-term, even fun" refuge from zombies.

Such assertions alarm zombiologist Olivier Baptiste, who calls FUMA's information "hopelessly outdated."

"Dr. Aurora's claims are based on decades-old zombie models," Baptiste said. "Widely released evidence from recent years clearly shows that zombies can run just as fast, if not faster, than a living human."

Added Baptiste: "That FUMA trains its field agents to shoot zombies in the torso, rather than the head, demonstrates just how out of touch the government is."

/me scurries to secured basement...

Cornell, huh? I'm surprised that Mr. Rawlings has taken such a public and high-profile position.

This is preposterous! The US has produced a number of excellent scientific theorum in recent times, including Intelligent Design and Intelligent Falling

On the otherhand imagine Paperclip... It looks like you're trying to fight off a zombie attack. Would you like me to (A) Shoot some of them in the head (B) Open the main gates and let some more in?

New meaning to Blue Screen of Death.

I hope he comes out of this alive. He has a history of getting too excited about these things. Will no one think of Jack Horkheimer! Stop looking up!

...sources within Microsoft suspect this was the work of their very own Office Ninja.

/K

you give them your information to, ehem "database"

and then they destroy it!

You'd be suprised... I ride the bus to and from downtown Minneapolis, and next to a few of the heavily used stops there are free copies of 'the Onion'. Almost weekly I am obligated to inform someone that the paper is satire. Google Announces Plan To Destroy All Information It Can't Index caused some serious panic at the stop near the new library.

The Onion was secretly supporting the president.

Obviously. Check this out. http://www.theonion.com/content/node/31077/print/

Citing the United States Code, Mr. Dixton wrote that the seal "is not to be used in connection with commercial ventures or products in any way that suggests presidential support or endorsement." Exceptions may be made, he noted, but The Onion had never applied for such an exception.

Moreover, she wrote, The Onion and its Web site are free, so the seal is not being used for commercial purposes. That said, The Onion asked that its letter be considered a formal application to use the seal.

Showing the Presidential seal does not fall outside of the bounds of Satire, because clearly they are not implying Presidential support or endorcement. Therefore the use is acceptable.

Not that I've got a problem with it; I think it's funny as hell.

The detective in the linked story said it best:

To Nichols, the punch was in the gut. "It felt like I'd been had," he remembers. "I was just kind of ticked off at myself for not verifying it before I passed it along, and not making sure it was satire. I have no problem with satire. I enjoy a good joke. I just hate it when it's on me."

Anyway, I've lost count of the number of movies and TV shows I've seen where the presidential seal figures prominently in a scene or two. I wonder if they're planning on sending C&D's to the studios; after all, some idiot might think that Martin Sheen is really the President.

This 100% true story from a couple of years ago seems especially apropos.

What you mean the Elf finger found in keebler cookies story wasn't true? http://www.theonion.com/content/node/40515 What about Bush Nominates First-Trimester Fetus To Supreme Court? http://www.theonion.com/content/node/40512 Don't tell me that's not real either!! :P Ok i can see how some people could belive that such storys are real....... No on second thought i won't :D

What you mean the Elf finger found in keebler cookies story wasn't true? http://www.theonion.com/content/node/40515 What about Bush Nominates First-Trimester Fetus To Supreme Court? http://www.theonion.com/content/node/40512 Don't tell me that's not real either!! :P Ok i can see how some people could belive that such storys are real....... No on second thought i won't :D

What? You mean the Pittsburgh Zombie Attack preparations story isn't true? Get me George Romero on the phone!

Well they're hardly using it to promote a commercial venture,

If that's true, they should drop the banner ads, and they should definitely stop intercepting hits to their home page to display interstitial commercials. Today the Onion is trying to get me to buy shoes, watch TV shows, eat fast food, report software pirates, wear jeans, buy belts, buy The Onion books, and go to the theater. I certainly hope they're getting paid for all that.

and if you can find someone who reads one of these Onion pieces and believes it suggests presidential support,

Okay, here you go:

http://www.weeklyradioaddress.com/

This is the page that made me think they may have a case. I too thought that this was just another attempt by the Whitehouse to bitchslap dissent, because I thought that they were just talking about the presidential seal graphics that might be in photos used in obvious parody articles about the President.

But look at this page. There's no info about the Onion (you'd have to have started from an Onion page to find out the connection), all the links go to official whitehouse.gov pages, the style is that of the official whitehouse.gov page, the server uses local copies of their potentially copyrighted graphics, and they've got a nearly identical (it says "Resident of the United States" now) copy of the Presidential Seal in the upper left corner: large enough to recognize, but small enough that the modification (even assuming it's always been modified) isn't obvious.

Could someone listen to one of these addresses and not realize they were listening to a parody? I doubt it, but then again I knew they were an Onion parody before I ever went to the site, and I've only listened to one address so far. Since the Onion's humor is sometimes of the prescient "it's funny cause it's true" variety, I could definitely imagine there being addresses in there capable of fooling people.

could you point them in my direction, as i've got this bridge i'd like to sell them.

Well, I'm not buying, but there's no story so ridiculous you won't find someone to buy it. Even the Onion's regular articles have fooled the Bejing Evening News, MSNBC, and some fundamentalist Christian groups in the past.

Well they're hardly using it to promote a commercial venture,

If that's true, they should drop the banner ads, and they should definitely stop intercepting hits to their home page to display interstitial commercials. Today the Onion is trying to get me to buy shoes, watch TV shows, eat fast food, report software pirates, wear jeans, buy belts, buy The Onion books, and go to the theater. I certainly hope they're getting paid for all that.

and if you can find someone who reads one of these Onion pieces and believes it suggests presidential support,

Okay, here you go:

http://www.weeklyradioaddress.com/

This is the page that made me think they may have a case. I too thought that this was just another attempt by the Whitehouse to bitchslap dissent, because I thought that they were just talking about the presidential seal graphics that might be in photos used in obvious parody articles about the President.

But look at this page. There's no info about the Onion (you'd have to have started from an Onion page to find out the connection), all the links go to official whitehouse.gov pages, the style is that of the official whitehouse.gov page, the server uses local copies of their potentially copyrighted graphics, and they've got a nearly identical (it says "Resident of the United States" now) copy of the Presidential Seal in the upper left corner: large enough to recognize, but small enough that the modification (even assuming it's always been modified) isn't obvious.

Could someone listen to one of these addresses and not realize they were listening to a parody? I doubt it, but then again I knew they were an Onion parody before I ever went to the site, and I've only listened to one address so far. Since the Onion's humor is sometimes of the prescient "it's funny cause it's true" variety, I could definitely imagine there being addresses in there capable of fooling people.

could you point them in my direction, as i've got this bridge i'd like to sell them.

Well, I'm not buying, but there's no story so ridiculous you won't find someone to buy it. Even the Onion's regular articles have fooled the Bejing Evening News, MSNBC, and some fundamentalist Christian groups in the past.

Well they're hardly using it to promote a commercial venture,

If that's true, they should drop the banner ads, and they should definitely stop intercepting hits to their home page to display interstitial commercials. Today the Onion is trying to get me to buy shoes, watch TV shows, eat fast food, report software pirates, wear jeans, buy belts, buy The Onion books, and go to the theater. I certainly hope they're getting paid for all that.

and if you can find someone who reads one of these Onion pieces and believes it suggests presidential support,

Okay, here you go:

http://www.weeklyradioaddress.com/

This is the page that made me think they may have a case. I too thought that this was just another attempt by the Whitehouse to bitchslap dissent, because I thought that they were just talking about the presidential seal graphics that might be in photos used in obvious parody articles about the President.

But look at this page. There's no info about the Onion (you'd have to have started from an Onion page to find out the connection), all the links go to official whitehouse.gov pages, the style is that of the official whitehouse.gov page, the server uses local copies of their potentially copyrighted graphics, and they've got a nearly identical (it says "Resident of the United States" now) copy of the Presidential Seal in the upper left corner: large enough to recognize, but small enough that the modification (even assuming it's always been modified) isn't obvious.

Could someone listen to one of these addresses and not realize they were listening to a parody? I doubt it, but then again I knew they were an Onion parody before I ever went to the site, and I've only listened to one address so far. Since the Onion's humor is sometimes of the prescient "it's funny cause it's true" variety, I could definitely imagine there being addresses in there capable of fooling people.

could you point them in my direction, as i've got this bridge i'd like to sell them.

Well, I'm not buying, but there's no story so ridiculous you won't find someone to buy it. Even the Onion's regular articles have fooled the Bejing Evening News, MSNBC, and some fundamentalist Christian groups in the past.

Please explain, then, why there is a flashy bit of advertising at the top of the Onion article...

I want my taxes to do something good, not make people dumber. I don't even own a TV to begin with.

You're the guy!

It's a good thing these events don't happen in Pittsburgh. Our city isn't ready

:-)

Oh yeah! I read about you in the newspaper!

ah, someone beat you to the punch, there
[theonion.com]

A W E S O M E !

NATION WOWED BY TREMENDOUS HINDENBURG EXPLOSION

Gay Ball of Flame Warms Hearts Chilled by Depression

"Oh, the Luminosity!" Radio Announcer Says

Sounds like this is a good time to link to this class from the Onion.

For a while now I've only ever read The Onion online by using their low-bandwidth, text-only portal for mobile devices:

    http://mobile.theonion.com/content/

This gets you no splash/flash advertisement, and direct links to the "content". It's much less annoying.

Hear hear! (Or is that "here here"?) The new Onion SUCKS BALLS. Crap all over the page. NO layout at all, it's just "here's a small box for every single piece of content we can jam on one page." Too bad we'll have to wait until 2056 for a redesign.

I find the design of BBC news site very pleasing easy to read. [http://news.bbc.co.uk/ ; Compare that with http://www.theonion.com/. To start with the left aligned layout of bbc site is better than the center alignment of theonion.

Reminds me of this Onion article:

French's Introduces Antibacterial Mustard
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39464

Oblig. clever Onion reference:

Microsoft Patents Ones, Zeroes