Slashdot Mirror

if that were true, you would spend your time attempting to reason with chimpanzees

For all I know that's exactly what I'm doing. The only reason I'm discussing this with you in particular is because you seem intelligent and rational enough to understand; whether or not your favorite food is termites on a stick changes nothing.

It's not like my music is some kind of weapon.

Woodie Guthrie had a guitar that had written on it This machine kills facists (larger photo here)

I used to have DSPS since birth and the last 15 years have been a long nightmare trying to fit in with the 9-5 schedule of normal life at University and at work... ..until 4 weeks ago. Then I got the new medicine Agomelatin and it totally changed my life. Today I woke up and got out of bed at 0730, no alarm clock or anything. I haven't done that naturally since before Kurt Cobain shot himself.

Of the sites you mention, I read one of them. A lot of my friends read zero of them. We're not all internet nerds. I am, you are, other people like playing video games.

So, what's up over on 4chan these days? Goatse still the in thing or have they moved on yet?

That is because those kind of keyboards are mostly a relic of the ADB era of Mac peripherals. Here is an example of one: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/30/Apple_Macintosh_ADB_Keyboard.jpg

Well, things are progressing, as age-old human desires and idiosyncracies get adapted and ridden along modern technologies. Really nothing new and yet still astounding.
However, it'll get a lot more interesting, when there's an economic incentive for tracking down people and performing certain....actions: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Assassination_politics
Given the degree to which people are conditioned to respond in Pavlov'ian fashion for gaining a material benefit the old and formerly philosophical question question of 'How much is a human life worth?' may at last be answered...

There are several proto-writings, such as the Vinca script which are fascinating, but also hotly debated.

Take a look at these two screenshots:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/82/Snow_Leopard_Desktop.png
http://static.arstechnica.com//ubnutu_light_2.jpg

'nuff said...

Everytime I hear about these I can't help but think of Moya's DRD's...

how would an entire nation manage to pay for important things like invasions of foreign countries

War Bonds.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/eb/GiveUsTheTools.jpg

Could you tell us more about these target systems? Thanks.

Hmm, there's gotta be a WP article to link to at this point, but I can't find a good 'un.

A lot of game theory was based on the idea that people are not actually altruistic. Combined with the fiefdoms that existed within the UK civil service, the government came up with the idea of creating a Free Market of rewards to measure and assess the performance of state employees.

Massively simplified, if a policeman solves a crime, he gets a point towards his next pay rise or promotion. But it appears that solving something like a rape is worth the same as solving a crime like drug possession. Considering that to solve a rape, it would require many hours of police work, getting an error free case to court, etc.. But solving a case of pot possession is as simple as
"I'm going to search you under section 44". Pat-down... "Is this your weed?"
"Yes"
"Do you accept this police caution"
"Yes"
Case closed, achievement unlocked.

The effect is that the police focus on simple (usually victimless) crimes, not ones that require actual police work!

A real world example of targets being gamed to the detriment of everyone is the target in hospitals to get the time reduced from when someone comes into an A&E department and when they are seen. What some hospitals did was to simply get a nurse to go round the waiting room and greet people. Bang, patients interacted with by medical staff, times reduced, targets hit.

The excellent films by Adam Curtis give a lot of insight into the modern world. The films that make up The Trap talk about targets, and some of their real world consequences.

Could you tell us more about these target systems? Thanks.

Hmm, there's gotta be a WP article to link to at this point, but I can't find a good 'un.

A lot of game theory was based on the idea that people are not actually altruistic. Combined with the fiefdoms that existed within the UK civil service, the government came up with the idea of creating a Free Market of rewards to measure and assess the performance of state employees.

Massively simplified, if a policeman solves a crime, he gets a point towards his next pay rise or promotion. But it appears that solving something like a rape is worth the same as solving a crime like drug possession. Considering that to solve a rape, it would require many hours of police work, getting an error free case to court, etc.. But solving a case of pot possession is as simple as
"I'm going to search you under section 44". Pat-down... "Is this your weed?"
"Yes"
"Do you accept this police caution"
"Yes"
Case closed, achievement unlocked.

The effect is that the police focus on simple (usually victimless) crimes, not ones that require actual police work!

A real world example of targets being gamed to the detriment of everyone is the target in hospitals to get the time reduced from when someone comes into an A&E department and when they are seen. What some hospitals did was to simply get a nurse to go round the waiting room and greet people. Bang, patients interacted with by medical staff, times reduced, targets hit.

The excellent films by Adam Curtis give a lot of insight into the modern world. The films that make up The Trap talk about targets, and some of their real world consequences.

At any rate people shouldn't have truly open access points to begin with

Would you allow us to have open streets, sir, or should we wear tags to identify us while we walk outside?

"All your base are belong to us." Here's the whole sad scene from that terrible game: (zoom 400% so you can read it):

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/52/AllYourBaseAnimated.gif

It doesn't follow that helping others would be illogical. Our axioms if you will come through evolution and social darwinism. So while self-preservation is important we find that species preservation and preservation of life is also important as these features can be seen throughout the animal kingdom.

1. The harm is far more minor than it is being made out to be. Plus, depending on your age you may need to pay for it towards the end of your life anyways.

2. True, I suppose the contract is of a form that doesn't normally exist. Being born you were brought into a world that is pretty nice. You are expected to keep it that way. An example of this is parenthood. You were raised and helped through school, got to leech off your parents. You aren't expected to pay them back for this. But you are expected to do the same for children if you have any. (There are real world examples of deals you don't get an option on, being part of society for example.)

3. Human population is to peak soon and shall drop ( http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/77/World-Population-1800-2100.png ) most estimates saying we'll stabilize at around 7.5BN (1BN more). Coal plants produce 1kg per KwH, gas 380, Nuclear can produce a net 0 carbon output. Next we need to switch cars to electric, this can be mostly done over 20 years. And lastly cement manufacture can be modified fairly easily. ( http://www.pscleanair.org/programs/climate/chart-co2.jpg http://www-tc.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/heat/art/graph3.jpg ... all these stupid charts give different figures but the three things I mentioned that we can fix are most of it). I believe we need to hit it from all fronts, less humans, greater efforts to get off this rock, more efficient tech, better power plants (fusion?) and changed farming practices.

After all that I think you are right we still won't make it because people kind of suck. But if you we can make it less doomsday and more survivable that would be helpful. Even if we only delay runaway warming 15 years it could be a big help. I believe we will need scientists to do some crazy crazy geo-engineering to save our asses in the end. But using less would be nice.

I'm absolutely glowing that this wasn't brought forward earlier. This is something I would never want to happen on my watch

I wanted to put your thoughts here in perspective. From wikipedia on Carbon Dioxide: "As of March 2009, carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere is at a concentration of 387 ppm by volume." Compared to oxygen, which is around 21%, 387 ppm is 0.0387%. The combustion reaction is CH4(g) + 2 O2(g) CO2(g) + 2 H2O(l) -891 kJ/mol To translate, 2 oxygen for 1 carbon dioxide. The variation graph in CO2 in the atmosphere: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1c/Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png Is an increase of just over 100ppm. That means that a decrease in oxygen of 200ppm can be assumed with a little leeway given for the numbers. That 200ppm is 0.02% of oxygen, and in the face of 21% in the atmosphere, is really nothing to worry about. You will be heated to death before the oxygen runs out.

People want vehicles very much like what they already have
Well, some people want those.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Microcars

gewg_

As far as I know, Yahoo maintains a large set of Wikipedia servers all for free without strings attached.

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Yahoo!_hosting

Yahoo has an amazing PR problem, for sure.

Of course; If you consider people thinking "Hopefully, my browser won't hit google analytics after this donation.", perhaps Google's PR problem is deeper. I am personally amazed that they didn't donate a single cent before.

It's not a drop in technology expenses, it's an increase in other spending. If you look at the actual income statement ( http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/4/4f/FINAL_08_09From_KPMG.pdf pdf page 5), you can see the HUGE increase in salaries from 1.1M to 2.2M. Compare that 100% increase to the internet hosting, which increased about 50% (from 537k to 822k).

According to Sue Garnder's email (she is the Executive Director of the Wikimedia Foundation), the gift is "completely unrestricted" (which isn't common - many major grants are restricted to a certain use, e.g. ford, stanton gifts).

Nothing like that will happen. The Wikimedia Foundation has received large grants before (such as Omidyar's $2M grant). WMF isn't a company you can just 'buy out'. It's a charitable 501(c)(3) organization that is controlled by the Board of Trustees, which is composed of 3 community-elected seats, 2 community-seats elected by chapters, a "Jimbo-seat" for the Wikipedia founder, and up to four "Specific expertise" seats elected by the board itself (source). Google could attempt to get a "Specific expertise" seat, but they can't do anything to significantly change the course of the foundation. Also, if they tried, there'd be a major outcry by the community (and perhaps a fork).

(To be fair, one should address the Omidyar case. Around the time Omidyar granted $2M, Matt Halprin, an Omidyar employee got a "Specific expertise" seat. There were of course conspiracy theories about Omidyar 'buying' a seat in the board. I've discussed this matter with one of the board members, and the result was something like this: Omidyar didn't 'buy' a seat, but in the grant negotiations, they became aware of Matt Halprin's expertise and realized of which value he'd be on the board.)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/fe/CANDU_fuel_cycles.jpg

As humans are to the food chain, CANDU is to the nuclear fuel ... chain.

Considering 2160p TV's will have been shipping for 4 years by 2020 and will require 4x the bandwidth needed for 1080p (about 45megabits at 24fps). Considering 2160p may not even be the highest possible specs for viewing in 10 years (see 4320p and 9334p) 100mbits may likely not even end up being enough by 2020.

From TFA:

Carbon dioxide is "essentially harmless" to human beings and good for plants. So now will you stop worrying about global warming?...

The original version of the bill dismissed climate science as a "well organised and ongoing effort to manipulate and incorporate "tricks" related to global temperature data in order to produce a global warming outcome".

To all lawmakers in Utah: You are idiots!

Just look at fucking Venus! Explain how green house gases haven't heated that planet so it is now so hot you can melt lead on the surface, i.e. 460 C, which is 40 C hotter than Mercury, even though Venus only gets 25% of the irradiation from the Sun compared to Mercury. And what is the atmosphere made of? COfucking2! These are facts! Anyone who denies these facts is firstly a wanker, secondly an ignorant idiot, thirdly should be publicly mocked and ridiculed.

What you are saying is just as stupid as saying the world is flat.
 

I'd say you need to go back to right around 1990 to find the correct data... as is insinuated by graphs like this: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b0/AverageTvsNumberofStations.jpg.

Incidentallty since around that time global warming really became a political issue and a lot of money was thrown at the problem. It's not that hard to imagine that some people will cherry-pick or fudge some data to get a better grant after that...
My rule with dubious science is: 'Follow the money', if anyone has a lot of financial gain with one outcome and their results just happen to be that outcome I call bullshit... Al Gore has financial gains, Al Gore is talking bullshit about global warming... there is no simpeler way of putting it.

yes we have been emitting a lot of crap in the air for quite some time. and the world has seemingly been changing. however we are only seeing these changes for a short period of time.

Do the words "exponential growth" ring a bell to you? What about "reaching the limit"? It's like saying we have been pumping a lot of air into that balloon and why should it blow up right now?

have you guys considered what the climate was like in 1813? during the medival era? the classical era?

Yes, we have.
 

Weird. The story made me suddenly phobic of close-ups of Mars mooning.

More like a Mi-Go

That was my first thought as well...

More like a Mi-Go

1) That is not a Jumbo. That http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/88/Aarg742-txl.jpg is a jumbo. Note the two passenger decks and the signature hump in the front section.

2) What multi-billionaires buy with their private cash is pretty much their own stuff.

3) Flying around with your private jet all day long exposes you to much higher levels of cosmic radiation being halfway up the ozone layer. It is contributing to airspace crowding, airport waiting time, fuel wast, ozone depletion, particulate dust emissions - and Chemtrail panic.

The actual harmful effects are rather humble.

Dumping a ton of mercury in the Amazon river would be worse. They dumped 2000 tons and nobody cared for twenty years.
http://www.tierramerica.net/2005/0806/iacentos.shtml

I suggest we concentrate on mercury, lead and dioxin contamination first before we cry for the Red err Green Army to clear out a few runway slots at San Francisco airport.

It was my impression that (Great) Britain referred to the island of England/Wales/Scotland while the UK also includes Northern Ireland among other places. If not what is the island itself called?

You're right, however it's not that simple, check out the Great British Venn diagram

The problem is that an advanced technology does not contain information to infer the intermediate stages.

Take semiconductors, for instance. The first transistor was patented in 1947, by coincidence the year of the alleged UFO crash in New Mexico. Some conspiracy theorists have used this coincidence to claim that semiconductors were reverse engineered from alien technology. But there is a catch.

There is absolutely nothing in a modern semiconductor that could have been used to accelerate the development of the transistor in 1947. Not even the raw material of the chip would be of any use, the first transistors were made of germanium which is not used anymore. The first transistor was built by adding a second contact to a point-contact diode, which had been known for decades. An example of a point-contact diode is the galena detector that has been used in crystal radios for a hundred years now.

From point-contact transistors technology evolved to junction transistors and integrated circuits. There's a step-by-step record of this development that would be much different if it consited of reverse engineering of an advanced technology. A simple look at the first transistor is enough to see that it derives from the crystal detectors that had been used for several decades by 1947.

Dude, or if you prefer, uassholes, you naturally didn't comment on the chart that you yourself referenced. You used it as some kind of proof (I suppose to show that global temperatures have been declining since the beginning of the Holocene), but instead it shows that in very recent times the temperature has been sharply increasing. Also please reference the Reconstructed Temperature chart shown on the same page as the chart you used in your argument. You can find the bigger version here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png .

This chart shows just the last 2000 years. You can see the alarming change in global temperature since the beginning of the Industrial Age. Note, too, the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age temperatures -- are they wrong too?

So which is it, the data you presented as proof is now wrong and can't be trusted? Or is it, as you seem now to be saying, that no data can be trusted because of proxy measurements and/or Earl the drunk?

You seem to want it both ways. Sorry, but if anything smacks of entrenched ideological beliefs, it's your arguments.

So why the decrease when the CO2 keeps increasing year after year?

I swear, it's like a whack-a-mole game sometimes.

No, it hasn't.

Want to know how badly the people you've been listening to have been misleading you? Take a look at a temperature graph. To get that "decrease" in temperature, they have to:

1) Cherry-pick the hottest year they can as the starting point (1998 -- one of the most intense El Nino events on record) and use that as a starting point. See the huge one-year spike in 1998? That's what they're picking as their starting point.
2) Pick a lower subsequent year and use that as an end point (often 2008, a La Nina year)
3) Pick the one (of three) major global temperature datasets that makes 1998 hotter than 2005.
4) Ignore the actual way you create a trend line (you don't just look at the start and end points -- you also include a weighted average of the intermediary points.

If you skip any one of those things, you get the opposite result. Let me explicit: anyone who pushes that point who's not just passing along something they heard from someone else is deliberately trying to hoodwink you.

In case you're curious about El Nino/La Nina: El Nino involves the weakening of the Walker Circulation, an equatorial atmospheric wind pattern. This slows the upwelling of deep, cold water in the Pacific. So the equatorial Pacific in an El Nino year has a big splotch of warm water across it, which heats the atmosphere more than usual. In a La Nina year, the Walker Circulation increases, leading to a big splotch of cold water across the equatorial Pacific, cooling the atmosphere.

I wonder about this sort of thing. Once in a while, documentation comes out, and it's hard to believe. As a moderate example, there's the Skull and Bones secret society at Yale, which has an astonishing number of major US politicians as members. That's public knowledge now, though it still sounds like a bizarre conspiracy theory.

Less dramatic still, but I still found it instructive: I was peripherally involved in a campaign for city council. The candidate I volunteered for was very smart, and had outspoken views on a lot of issues and some really good ideas for improving the city's financial crisis -- the sort of views and ideas that almost never get a hearing in conventional politics. By the end of the campaign, the candidate had repressed or recanted everything in an effort to appease the local newspaper and the major-party candidate for mayor, lost the election, and concluded that it hadn't been worth the effort. Part of what was sick about the situation was that the candidate for mayor needed the support of one more member of city council in order to accomplish anything, but decided that he'd rather be completely powerless as mayor rather than support a third-party candidate.

Now, I don't think planetary scientists, for the most part, make their decisions based on arbitrary terminology. But to take a concrete example, given how precarious its funding seemed from time to time, I suspect New Horizons would not have gotten funded if Pluto had never been considered a planet. And that would have been a shame.

what?!

it would be a shame to go to pluto JUST BECAUSE it is mistakenly considered a "planet." the shame would be making visitations based on historical nostalgia, rather than sound science. there's hundreds if not thousands of scientifically intriguing objects out there that are mostly anonymous but show something very intriguing to science, like a dozen gas giant moons that are much more interesting than pluto according to all sorts of avenues of discovery, or something having a ridiculously huge albedo for its size, whose composition therefore is very interesting,

or something like this freak, the giant metal dog bone asteroid:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/216_Kleopatra

or the rubble pile asteroid:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/253_Mathilde

or the potato asteroid with a moon:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/243_Ida

the peanut asteroid:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4179_Toutatis

binary contact asteroids:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contact_binary_(asteroid)

etc, etc.:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/72/Iau_dozen.jpg

look, there are now 480,000 catalogued minor planets and nearly 69 MILLION observations (that could be double observations or new objects, not investigated fully yet). and its growing every year by hundreds of thousands

http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/iau/lists/ArchiveStatistics.html

i would say at least 1,000 of those objects are more worthy, for scientific reasons, of exploration than pluto

howabout the centaurs (really out there)? howabout the trojans (locked in orbit with jupiter)? howabout the apohele (smaller than earth's orbit)?

http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/iau/lists/MPLists.html

in short, fuck pluto: it gets WAY more attention than it deserves

One response to this would be that Microsoft needs s/Ballmer/Jobs/g. But if you think about it, they actually need a Lou Gerstner.
IBM was more or less the same way as they are now during the PC/desktop times of the early 90s- stifled by bureaucracy and personal fiefdoms, increasingly irrelevant in the market, to the extent that there was talk of it being broken up. Gerstner transitioned it to focus on software and services as well, changed the corporate culture, and wrote a great book on pirouetting pachyderms about it afterwards.

They (Microsoft) do have talent, as mentioned in the article, but no one will stick on much longer if these issues are not sorted out.

if you grant me the other seven dwarves are planets: eris, makemake, haumea, sedna, orcus, 2001OR10, and quaoar

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/91/EightTNOs.png

Interesting picture.
Pluto is already so small, I suspect that its smaller satellites (Nix and Hydra) are about the size of a golf ball, if that large.

if you grant me the other seven dwarves are planets: eris, makemake, haumea, sedna, orcus, 2001OR10, and quaoar

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/91/EightTNOs.png

and the other 100 or so such objects of pluto size likely to be found in the coming decades in the oort cloud

or keep it easy and say its not a planet

your choice, but the third graders of 2080 who have to memorize 80 planets might not be too happy with you

face it, pluto is chump change

required to safely operate MS-Windows?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/50/B747-cockpit.jpg

Oddly, the UK government did not lose its senses during the IRA attacks the way it has now.

The UK was "fighting" the cold war at the time, so throwing away liberty probably wasn't politically possible.

Though our government still brought in internment, which was effectively the biggest recruiting drive the IRA ever had...
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Operation_Demetrius

The Nokia N-Gage and its successor N-Gage QD, circa 2002-04. Both ran S60, and by definition supported multitasking, POP/IMAP mail etc.
They called it the 'taco' phone because it was shaped like one. Ergonomically suited for gaming, atrocious to hold and carry as a phone.
After it flopped, Nokia re-launched the N-Gage brand as a gaming platform for N-series, with the N81 being the first device. The N-Gage service was like Steam for mobile phones- you could sign in and download demos/buy full versions, upload your game stats and even multiplayer. Even this didn't work out well for them and the service was shut down last year.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/04/London_Anonymous_Scientology_protest_March_2008.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/77/Anon_London_Feb10_Protesters.jpg

And that was just London.

From wikipedia:

On February 10, 2008, about 7,000 people protested in at least 100 cities worldwide.[8][53][54] Within 24 hours of the first protest, a search for "Scientology" and "protest" on Google Blog Search returned more than 4,000 results and more than 2,000 pictures on the image-sharing site Flickr.[54] Cities with turnouts of one hundred or more protesters included Adelaide,[55] Melbourne,[56] and Sydney,[57] Australia; Toronto,[58] Canada; London,[59][60]; Dublin[61]; Austin, Texas,[62] Dallas, Texas,[63] Boston, Massachusetts,[64] Clearwater, Florida,[65] and New York City, New York,[60] United States.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/04/London_Anonymous_Scientology_protest_March_2008.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/77/Anon_London_Feb10_Protesters.jpg

And that was just London.

From wikipedia:

On February 10, 2008, about 7,000 people protested in at least 100 cities worldwide.[8][53][54] Within 24 hours of the first protest, a search for "Scientology" and "protest" on Google Blog Search returned more than 4,000 results and more than 2,000 pictures on the image-sharing site Flickr.[54] Cities with turnouts of one hundred or more protesters included Adelaide,[55] Melbourne,[56] and Sydney,[57] Australia; Toronto,[58] Canada; London,[59][60]; Dublin[61]; Austin, Texas,[62] Dallas, Texas,[63] Boston, Massachusetts,[64] Clearwater, Florida,[65] and New York City, New York,[60] United States.

You are the most ignorant I've seen in quite some time. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/74/Timeline_of_web_browsers.svg

Actually, while you are technically correct. When I look at that chart, from late 2001 (IE6 release) to late 2004(FF 1.0 release) IE6, Netscape and Opera really do look like the only well known choices for windows users. I suspect that the GP was specifically excluding Opera with the 'free browser' comment, and Netscape was really in a bad way around that time (which is why we've got firefox today). I'm not familiar with all the browsers in that time-frame, but many are not for windows, and it seems likely that those that were were no better than IE6. It looks to me like the spirit of the GPs argument is valid.

This is very different from a top-down corporate mandate for IE only support.

Sorry, I'm not really seeing a difference.

You are the most ignorant I've seen in quite some time. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/74/Timeline_of_web_browsers.svg

Thanks! Hey, were you doing web development and did you try supporting Netscape during those early-2000s years? I have to think not, because if you did you'd realize it was so fucking awful that it doesn't count. I'm glad we ultimately got Firefox out of that mess, but let's not pretend that the later years of Netscape were something other than what they were.

Lynx also doesn't really count. I mean, it's good for what it is, but a non-graphical web browser isn't really relevant to this discussion.

Re-read my post and stop making up lies. I said we support the ones that come with better testing tools. We support Firefox, Safari, and Opera. There is no concerted effort not to support IE. This is very different from a top-down corporate mandate for IE only support. Apparently I have to repeat myself for this to sink in with you. We just don't have the time.

Or were you ignoring the fact that for several years IE6 was basically the only choice for a free browser

You are the most ignorant I've seen in quite some time. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/74/Timeline_of_web_browsers.svg

Oh, I don't know... 50 years (?!) ago, it was at least humorous. Having just taken two toddlers to see the circus last weekend, I found this one especially funny.

Is the article saying that the dinosaurs colors are somewhat like this: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/30/German_flag_Reichstag_6376.JPG