Slashdot Mirror


New Theory on Water Strider Propulsion

capt.Hij writes "There is an interesting article at the Christian Science Monitor about how water skimmers are able to move the way they do. This new theory debunks the previously accepted theory and answers why smaller, younger water skimmers are also able to move the same way as their elders: 'As he looked into the question, he adds, he learned that the reigning explanation leaves an unsolved puzzle: If these tiny insects propel themselves in the way many researchers think they do, then baby water striders should go nowhere fast.'" There's also a BBC story with pictures.

204 comments

  1. Dancing legs by Jarlsberg · · Score: 5, Informative

    They move by using their mid leg pair as oars and the back pair as steering wheels. Previously, researchers thought they generated small waves, but baby water striders are too small to generate waves big enough to move on. The new research show that the waves are a biproduct of using the middle pair as oars, not the reason they move. Pictures here, same news in norwegian here.

    1. Re:Dancing legs by B'Trey · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Thanks. I absolutely HATE articles like the one linked to in the story. In essence, it says "There was a previous theory which doesn't work. But we're not going to explain what the previous theory was because you're probably too stupid to understand it anyway. Now, there's a new thoery. But you're too stupid to understand it too."

      --

      "The legitimate powers of government extend only to such acts as are injurious to others." Thomas Jefferson.

    2. Re:Dancing legs by Jarlsberg · · Score: 2, Offtopic
      Mr. A. Coward said:
      Thanks for posting the "same news in norwegian". That is really "informative".Did you subscribe just so you could be the first to post some links just to get karma?
      Hey coward, your post was really interesting. I don't really care about the karma, I mean what does it do for me? Currently, it is "good". It used to be "positive". I don't even know if I'm going up or down. :)

      I'm a staffer on the norwegian site. I don't know how many norwegian readers Slashdot has, but seeing as norwegian are a pretty connected linuxloving slashdotting kind of bunch, I figured they'd appreciate a link. If you don't find it interesting, move on. I had already dug up that beaut of a pictures link posted on nature.com yesterday so I thought I'd include it as well. It's better than the two-three snaps on bbc.co.uk, and direct from the source.

      Finally, the blurb essentially explains nothing, so since I had the info at hand, I wrote a short summary to explain the new findings.

      If all that makes me a karma whore, so be it. I don't care.

    3. Re:Dancing legs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I bet you're an American and, therefore, expect the whole of the world to speak English. In fact, you probably use an icon of the Stars and Stripes flag to represent the English language.

      In other words, you're a git.

    4. Re:Dancing legs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I absolutely HATE articles like the one linked to in the story"

      Hehe!

      "because you're probably too stupid to understand it anyway"

      Pretty rich coming from Christians, huh? Isn't `christian science` a bit of an oxymoron?

      There's never any romans around when you need them!

    5. Re:Dancing legs by aciolino · · Score: 1

      Robostrider is more interesting - http://web.mit.edu/chosetec/www/robo/robostrider.h tml

    6. Re:Dancing legs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well since you got modded offtopic it's going down.

  2. Article is in Sci-Am by madaxe42 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Very good article on this in scientific american, if anyone is interested!

    1. Re:Article is in Sci-Am by LucidBeast · · Score: 3, Funny

      I assume that Sci-Am doesn't explain how Jesus was able to walk AND propel himself on water.

    2. Re:Article is in Sci-Am by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FYI to all. Just because it has "Christian" in the name doesn't mean they are.

    3. Re:Article is in Sci-Am by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No kidding. I've seen many people who claim to be "Christian" and don't seem to understand a word of what Jesus preached. Punish thy neighbor seems to be more popular these days.

  3. Re:BOOoooooring by Jarlsberg · · Score: 1

    Hehe. Well, they did talk about making small robots capable of running on water in conjunction with the research. No practical appliances so far, but who cares about that.

  4. Really cool by blah1019 · · Score: 0

    But I can't imagine spending your life in the study of this. I could see practical applications for it everywhere but damn it would be some boring research, no?

    1. Re:Really cool by DarkSarin · · Score: 1

      Not really boring, but certainly not UT2K3 either. Personally I find these types of things fascinating. That's what makes me a nerd, nerkle or whatever, not my 1337 hacking skills (which I don't have anyway).

      --
      "We don't know what we are doing, but we are doing it very carefully,..." Wherry, R.J. Personnel Psychology (1995)
    2. Re:Really cool by overunderunderdone · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually if you look at the guy's home page at MIT you'll see that he isn't spenging his life studying just this but fluid dynamics generally. He seems to have a particular interest in the fine points of stuff you see everyday like the fluid dynamics of wine in a glass and soap film

      I suppose you might still consider this boring but I sort of like the idea of the brainy mathematician walking around looking at everyday things nobody (not even other scientists) really notices and saying "I wonder why it does that?"

  5. A related article (as seen on Fark) by sczimme · · Score: 4, Informative


    The Independent has a related article here.

    --
    I want to drag this out as long as possible. Bring me my protractor.
  6. Sculling... by LouisvilleDebugger · · Score: 5, Informative

    My mother was raised literally on the river (towboat pilot Dad), and knows how to "scull" (propel a small boat from the stern using a single oar or paddle.) The oar stays in the water and does describe a circular or elliptical path. It's about the weirdest means of locomotion I've ever seen, and doesn't look like it should work. But I can vouch that it does.

    I could never do it, although I was just a kid the last time I tried. Anyone here who can?

    1. Re:Sculling... by radish · · Score: 1

      There are quite a few little black boats in venice which use sculling to move along, so yes, I think it's safe to say it does work.

      --

      ---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"

    2. Re:Sculling... by HiQ · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yep I can, or at least could. When I was a kid I used to do this all the time in small rowing boats. And you don't actually make circular or elliptical movements, but something resembling an 'infinity' symbol (fgures eight). That is with your hands; the blade of the oar starts making an elliptical form through this, with the blade pressing against the water when you move 'along' the eight and slicing through the water when you turn the 'corners' of your figure eight.
      Sorry for the rather vague description, but it's the best I can come up with at the moment

    3. Re:Sculling... by Lonesome+Squash · · Score: 1
      I imagine there's an art to sculling well with an oar, but if you're on a small sailboat and you move the tiller from one extreme side to the other you will propell yourself forward. And you're doing what the waterstriders do, by creating vortices in the water.

      If you've seen Spirited Away, you may recall a brief scene with a woman sculling a tub.

      --
      Behold the riant ape! Beware, his crooked thumbs!
    4. Re:Sculling... by droleary · · Score: 1

      Anyone here who can?

      I'm not sure, but it sounds a lot like the action used to propel skates. That is, you don't go forward by pushing backward, but rather by pushing sideways and using a lever (the blade in my case, the oar in your mother's case) to redirect and gain mechanical advantage of the forces. It can be done on one skate, too, if you've got the balance for it.

  7. Duh... by jeffkjo1 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Everybody whose anybody knows waterstriders use anti-matter as propulsion.

  8. A challenge by D0wnsp0ut · · Score: 5, Funny

    All I know about water skimmers/skippers is they're a bugger to hit with rocks, unless you get a really big, flat rock and even then you mostly just get yourself wet and still miss the skimmer.

    --
    "Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither!"
    1. Re:A challenge by nothingtodo · · Score: 1

      Those buggers are so fast they usually get out of the way of a rock and I've never seen one sink either.

      --
      -- After all is said and done, more is said than done.
    2. Re:A challenge by gotak · · Score: 1

      Put detergents in the water?

  9. Don't need to read it. by rde · · Score: 3, Funny

    a) It's in Christian Science Monitor
    b) It's about skimming over the water.

    Chances are, Jesus features in the answer.

    1. Re:Don't need to read it. by The+Ape+With+No+Name · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Ummm. CSM is about as good as a balanced source as you will find and, despite the name, they don't do ridiculous things like you are talking about. My local rag will probably run this on the Religion section this week rather than the Science page. You should know better. Kind of like Brit "Goebbels" Hume, questioning the source of an eyewitness account of American soldiers abusing Iraqi citizens, by saying, "What do we know about this paper The Manchester Guardian?" rather than saying, "Secondary sources have yet to confirm or deny the report from the Guardian.

      --
      Comparing it to Windows will be a moot point, since El Dorado is going to have a 40% larger code base than XP.
    2. Re:Don't need to read it. by AstroSmith · · Score: 2, Funny

      Actually, stop-motion films of Jesus confirm the theory.

    3. Re:Don't need to read it. by misterpies · · Score: 1

      Actually people should note that this was originally a research article publishing in the respected journal Nature. Just because the story was later taken up the Christian Science Monitor is no reason to diss it.

      --
      The author of this post asserts his moral rights.
    4. Re:Don't need to read it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what are trying to say? jesus was a water-skimmer?

      -m1chael

  10. Asian Giant Water Strider by Durendal · · Score: 2, Informative

    A longer article mentioned a bigger strider they studied.

    I found it amazing that the robot was half the size of the Asian giant water strider.

    An 8 inch Water Strider might make a cool pet!

    What would it eat? How big of a pond would you need? Does anyone have experience with these critters?

    1. Re:Asian Giant Water Strider by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      Yep. The prey on smaller insects that fall on the water surface. If you have a 1/2" strider, give it a surface of about 4'sq. Put a lid on the tank, they can fly.

    2. Re:Asian Giant Water Strider by The+Zody · · Score: 1

      Well...since this is slashdot i am waiting for the 21 inch Robotic Water Strider (with bluetooth) which uses the water for cooling.

  11. Row row.. by kmak · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Row Row Row your bug, rowing down the stream...

    But really though, if all it does is rowing, don't we already have tons of models that uses rowing? I mean, it's not electronic, but rowing's been around for centuries!

    --

    I'm not the devil.. just his advocate.
    1. Re:Row row.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rowing without breaking the surface tension of the water? I think not.

  12. Amazing by Vexalith · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I think it's an interesting reflection on humanity when evolution can throw up designs that we can't properly understand even with all of our apparent science and technology (bees, water striders, the thought process). It just goes to show that for every fact or theory we think we know there are far more that we don't, which gives me great confidence in the progress of human science and technology over the next few thousand years.

    1. Re:Amazing by Exiler · · Score: 1

      To be honest, I am quite amazed that you believe humans as a species will survive a few thousand years... turn on the news, man =/

      --
      Banaaaana!
    2. Re:Amazing by the_Bionic_lemming · · Score: 1

      To be honest, I am quite amazed that you believe humans as a species will survive a few thousand years... turn on the news, man =/

      Actually, that's why I turned off the "infotainment" that paints doom and gloom to sell advertising.

      Perhaps if more folks did that they'd cease sensationalizing and overblowing things and actually REPORT instead Infotain.

      --
      _ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
    3. Re:Amazing by mortonda · · Score: 0

      I think it's amazing that people can actually believe that things like this happen by accident. Maybe evolution didn't come up with this design. Maybe God did.

    4. Re:Amazing by mdielmann · · Score: 1

      It should be noted that research has been done into the whole bee/bug flying thing, and they have a pretty clear picture of how bugs fly. The bee one was poor science when it was done, using fixed-wing calculations on a moving-wing object. No less amazing, though, is all the stuff that has to be done to copy it, and the fact that it's controlled by something no bigger than, well, fly shit.

      Here is an article about it. See how /. readers don't do that, a synopsis: Flies keep their wings at the edge of stall, which gives a boost to total lift; they rotate them at the end of the stroke, giving spin lift; and they do the upstroke through their own wake, recovering energy from the downstroke. Then they use a whole bunch of sensors to correct for turbulence, blah blah blah, meaning that a fruit fly has to do more thinking than the typical cubicle rat.

      --
      Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
    5. Re:Amazing by Razor+Blades+are+Not · · Score: 1

      And *I* think it's amazing that people come across things they don't understand and say "Gee, must be God!"

    6. Re:Amazing by Saeger · · Score: 1
      I think it's amazing that you can't wrap your head around the fact that complexity emerges from simple evolutionary processes. The whole is more than the sum of its parts. Even artificial evolution produces systems we can't understand, but that still work - no God need apply.

      I suspect that if we had enough computing capacity to simulate the world down to atomic detail, that eventually virtual creatures would evolve that took advantage of the same locomotion as the waterstriders. Same with geckos - their "magic" stickyfingers would turn out to be using natural physical properties (vanderwaals force).

      --

      --
      Power to the Peaceful
    7. Re:Amazing by Saeger · · Score: 1
      To be honest, I'm quite amazed that humans still haven't caught on to the exponential progress meme, and instead extrapolate our current rate of progress linearly.

      Thousands of years? Try decades.

      Singularity or bust.

      --

      --
      Power to the Peaceful
  13. Re:BOOoooooring by Cackmobile · · Score: 1

    Well this is news for nerds and science is a pretty nerdy subject!

    --
    -- Karma Karma Karma Karma, Karma Chameleon - Boy George
  14. No, you've got it all wrong... by bennomatic · · Score: 1

    It's magic!

    --
    The CB App. What's your 20?
    1. Re:No, you've got it all wrong... by AssFace · · Score: 1

      I don't know - I'm torn between "The Will of God" or "The Work of the Devil".

      But saying it is magic is silly, and any other explanation goes flying in the face of all that is Holy.

      --

      There are some odd things afoot now, in the Villa Straylight.
  15. Wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    They move because they put their faith in jesus and he spirits them along over the water on the wings of christ.

    Damn dude, it said the CHRISTIAN science monitor.

    You remember.. the people who don't believe in evolution? Or stem cell research? Or cloning?

    1. Re:Wrong. by Jarlsberg · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Heh. Acutally, that was pretty funny. Alas, I have no mod points. Nor could I mod, since I'm a poster in this thread.

    2. Re:Wrong. by RobinH · · Score: 4, Interesting

      They move because they put their faith in jesus and he spirits them along over the water on the wings of christ.

      Damn dude, it said the CHRISTIAN science monitor.

      You remember.. the people who don't believe in evolution? Or stem cell research? Or cloning?


      That would certainly be most people's first impression, but I find that the CSM is probably the *most* objective reporting I've ever seen to date. There doesn't seem to be any particular bias that I can see. I'm glad I found the CSM, and I really enjoy reading it, even though I'm agnostic. I highly recommend everyone take a look with an open mind.

      --
      "I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
    3. Re:Wrong. by revery · · Score: 4, Funny

      You remember.. the people who don't believe in evolution? Or stem cell research? Or cloning?

      Yeah, those three are the same.

      Do you mean that they don't believe cloning is possible, or that they don't believe evolution is moral?

      --

      I don't believe in you...

    4. Re:Wrong. by Gzip+Christ · · Score: 5, Funny
      That would certainly be most people's first impression, but I find that the CSM is probably the *most* objective reporting I've ever seen to date. There doesn't seem to be any particular bias that I can see. I'm glad I found the CSM, and I really enjoy reading it, even though I'm agnostic. I highly recommend everyone take a look with an open mind.
      I second that. Compared with the mainstream press, it's utterly amazing how objective the Monitor has been throughout the whole water spider controversy.
    5. Re:Wrong. by JonathanBoyd · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      You do realise there are plenty of Christian scientists, right? And that the overwhelming majority would have no problem with natural selection, which very obviously happens, but instead differ over whether or not we are the result of random genetic mutations, which quite a few non-Christian scientists are sceptical of as well.

      Now, as for stem cell research and cloning, what do you mean by 'don't believe in'? They accept the scientific theories concerning them, but think they are morally wrong. A different stance on morality doesn't mean they can't be good scientists or report objectively.

      On a final note, most Christians I know are medics, sceintists or mathematicians, particularly in my church in Oxford. I can't get away from physicists and mathematicians. It's kinda creepy sometimes.

    6. Re:Wrong. by chefbb · · Score: 1

      This is the first time in weeks I've actually busted up laughing at a slasdot post. Well done, wish I had mod points.

    7. Re:Wrong. by misterpies · · Score: 2

      The CSM may be one of the most objective news sources in the US, but that says more about the inadequacy of US journalism than the stellar achievements of the CSM.

      --
      The author of this post asserts his moral rights.
    8. Re:Wrong. by overunderunderdone · · Score: 5, Informative

      I think you may be misunderstanding where the name "Christian Science Monitor" is coming from. This is NOT a journal of science put out by Christians (creationist or otherwise) The CSM is a paper that was founded by a religous group founded in the 1800's known as the "Christian Scientists" or more formally "The Church of Christ, Scientist". The group is often considered a cult and is pretty much disavowed by both christians and scientists (and presumably christian scientists that are not "Christian Scientists"). From time to time they get in the papers because at the core of their beliefs is faith healing, or more accurately that there really is no such thing sickness anyway, so they will refuse medical treatment for themselves and their children.

      The Christian Science Monitor itself is a highly respected paper and while I think it is still officially owned by the church I think they have a hands off approach to running it and if they are using it for "evangelistic" purposes they use it by putting out a very high quality paper that by it's quality lends credibility to their group rather than using it as a polemic tool in itself. It's seems it's sort of like the Moonies owning the Washington Times rather than like an official organ of the church.

    9. Re:Wrong. by misterpies · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      And you do realise that Christian Science has nothing to do with scientists who are Christian but refers to a sect founded in Boston in the 19th century, right? That Christian Scientists believe that the key to all health problems can be found in the Bible, and that therefore they refuse any medical treatment - and indeed are happy to let their children die of perfectly treatable diseases. If you don't believe me, read this.

      It seems to me that this is about as far from believing in stem cell research and cloning as being effective, let alone moral, as you can get.

      --
      The author of this post asserts his moral rights.
    10. Re:Wrong. by JonathanBoyd · · Score: 1

      I was responding to the poster who was attacking the idea that Christians of any kind could be scientists. He wasn't restricting himself to the Christian Science Church (or at least it doesn't seem that way since he put Christian in all caps and everything else in lower case) and neither was I.

    11. Re:Wrong. by jonadab · · Score: 1, Informative

      The Christian Science Monitor is not run by scientists who are
      Christians, but by Christian Scientists. Christian Science is
      another shootoff religion; its relationship with Christianity is
      about the same as that of the JWs or the Mormons; orthodox and
      fundamental Christians usually consider them a cult.

      (But note that Christians mean a different thing by "cult" than
      the mainstream media do; TV and newspaper reporters say "cult" and
      are talking about people who stockpile weapons, sacrifice chickens,
      drink special Kool-Aid, believe aliens are coming on a comet,
      et cetera; Christians say "cult" and mean a group that claims
      to be Christian but has altered a major core doctrine, usually
      the doctrine of the trinity. A cult is like a sect but more
      extreme. This is an older use of the term. Other examples of
      such cults include the Unitarians and the Seventh Day Adventists.)

      There are of course scientists who are Christians, but they would
      not be affiliated with the Christian Science Monitor.

      --
      Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
    12. Re:Wrong. by smallfries · · Score: 1

      That would certainly be most people's first impression, but I find that the CSM is probably the *most* objective reporting I've ever seen to date. There doesn't seem to be any particular bias that I can see. I'm glad I found the CSM, and I really enjoy reading it, even though I'm agnostic. I highly recommend everyone take a look with an open mind.
      Well done, you've completed reading your first ever magazine. Now try your second...

      --
      Slashdot: where don knuth is an idiot because he cant grasp the awesome power of php
    13. Re:Wrong. by jonadab · · Score: 2, Insightful

      > The CSM may be one of the most objective news sources in the
      > US, but that says more about the inadequacy of US journalism
      > than the stellar achievements of the CSM.

      I'll second that.

      A lot of people are confused about the purpose of newspapers. The
      purpose of newspapers has nothing to do with discovering truth, and
      as a general rule journalists have at best a passing interest in
      truth or accuracy. The primary concern of journalists is to sell
      newspapers. In order to do that, they want to be perceived as
      accurate (or likely accurate) for one day. Whether last week's
      paper is still perceived as accurate will never matter, as long as
      people have enough interest to suspend their disbelief long enough
      to buy _today's_ paper.

      A philosphy professor once told me I'm to young to be so cynical...

      --
      Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
    14. Re:Wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It just seems sort of unfair that people who totally flout rationality in one area of their life, use it in others to gain greater repute. If the world we live in is self-coherent then it must be so every corner of the universe. There can't be some planet way out in the middle of nowhere that allows 1+1 to equal 3. Nor can you have any of the magical acts that are described in he Christian mythos. If you do, then we do not live in a world where anything is predictable.

    15. Re:Wrong. by JonathanBoyd · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you can have miracles, that doesn't mean that you can't apply science the rest of the time. The two aren't incompatible.

    16. Re:Wrong. by tsa · · Score: 1

      Terry Pratchett wrote an excellent Discworld novel about this. It's called The Truth.

      --

      -- Cheers!

    17. Re:Wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The real question we should be asking is:
      "How can we adapt this new form of propulsion to achieve practical interstellar travel?"

    18. Re:Wrong. by revery · · Score: 1

      If the world we live in is self-coherent then it must be so every corner of the universe

      The thing that continually brings me back into a belief in an almighty God IS this universe. You're absolutely right, laws exist throughout the universe, there is no place where 1 + 1 equals 3, there is no place where the 2nd law of thermodynamics is violated. But from whence came this order? Even if I ascribe the ascension of life to evolution (I don't) where did the laws that allowed evolution to occur come from? Where did time come from? Where did the mass of the Big Bang come from? Where did the first bit of the fabric of time/space come from? Who crafted the rules that makes the universe run? Whoever did that is God. If there is a univese of order, there is a God. The question is not "is he?", but "who is he?"

      In the end though, it is faith, and I can't change that. You will believe what you will, and I will believe what I will. My faith will either be justified, or it will not.

      --

      Was it the sheep climbing onto the altar, or the cattle lowing to be slain,
      or the Son of God hanging dead and bloodied on a cross that told me this was a world condemned, but loved and bought with blood.

    19. Re:Wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude. The point of listing three seperate things is not because they are the same. It's because they are different, and together, represent a range of issues. But... yea, lists can be a tough concept.

    20. Re:Wrong. by pariahdecss · · Score: 1

      But they failed to explain how Jesus walked on water. Did he use his mid leg pair as oars and his back pair as steering wheels ?
      How do those Riverdance guys do what they do ? Blashphemy is fun - Nay that we may walk in the footsteps of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ we will drown in the glory of his name when the water gets too deep . . . Will my asbestos underoos protect me from the hellfire ?

    21. Re:Wrong. by FurryFeet · · Score: 1

      In fact, you need science for a miracle to occur. A miracle is something that cannot be explained by the laws of nature. Science allows you to know those laws.

    22. Re:Wrong. by JonathanBoyd · · Score: 1

      Well, allows you to make educated guesses about what those laws might be. You can build a model that seems to work the same way when in fact, it might actually be follwoing different laws. But as long as it fits with the evidence and allows you to make accurate predictions, then we're happy.

      Good point though about needing science. Hadn't thought about it that way.

    23. Re:Wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Discussing the validity of Christians reporting on science is off topic in a science discussion where the source is the CSM? Messed up moderator.

    24. Re:Wrong. by Megahurts · · Score: 1

      I only ask because you seem quite rational and intelligent... How is your view different from a non-religious one? It sounds as though you're saying that God put into place the workings of this universe. That being the case, doesn't that simply shift driving curiosity of science from discovering minute details of the universe to the makings of the creators? In essence, is that proof not simply a semantical argument defining nature as God?

    25. Re:Wrong. by revery · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I should clarify. I do believe God is a being and not just a creator of forces. Larry Wall described it much better than I can in his answer to question #7 in his Slashdot interview. One part I'd like to modify or add to concerning Larry's statements. He makes the assertion that "God is good to people who really look for him." I agree with that statement, but it's necessary to define what "good" is. One of the problems about discussing an all-powerful God and anything his existence affects (which is everything) is that we are each "gods" in respect to how we view such words as 'good' and 'evil', and 'right' and 'wrong'.

      When it comes to right and wrong, good and evil, no matter what someone else believes, in the end, might is right. It may sounds kind of weird for a Christian to say that, but I think about it this way. To say something is wrong (or right) is an imposition of belief on nother people (who have their own definitions). You can only get away with this imposing your beliefs on others through two ways.

      1. They can wilingly let you (for reasons known only to them) and accept your definitions OR
      2. If you are strong/powerful enough you can make them follow your definition (punish them when they disobey/reward them when they don't).

      So, I have a definition of good, you have a definition of good, everybody has a definition of good, the strong oppress the weak. But, if there is an all powerful God who is capable of imposing his views (read as "punish or reward") on others, then his definition of "good" wins. That's all I'll really say about that because I think Larry does a really 'good' job of explaining it. :)

      You've probably noticed that I haven't really answered the question you asked yet. I will. I will try at least.

      Some of what I've said so far is basically ground work (if I've made sense)

      Here's the question I'm trying to answer.
      How is your view different from a non-religious one? It sounds as though you're saying that God put into place the workings of this universe. That being the case, doesn't that simply shift driving curiosity of science from discovering minute details of the universe to the makings of the creators? In essence, is that proof not simply a semantical argument defining nature as God?

      Yes, I believe that science is basically discovering observable attributes of the forces God has instituted. But I don't believe that God is just nature. I don't believe that he's just a force.

      Where my views differ from a non-religious one is that once God's existence is acknowledged, it changes the realm of the possible. Most of science does not acknowledge God, or if they do, they use him only to create the framework, but his involvement ends there. I truly believe that God is a being who wishes to have a relationship with man. I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

      I don't have more time to write. I hope I answered your question. (And I do realize that I'm not instructing you, but merely relaying what I believe to be true) If I haven't aswered satisfactorily, ask again, or email me. I'd be glad to carry on the discussion, with you or anyone.

      Take care,
      Charles

      --

      Was it the sheep climbing onto the altar, or the cattle lowing to be slain,
      or the Son of God hanging dead and bloodied on a cross that told me this was a world condemned, but loved and bought with blood.

    26. Re:Wrong. by Saeger · · Score: 1
      Hah. Same here.

      I'd take a "waterspider controversy" over the Kobe Bryant crap any day. Tabloid news.

      --

      --
      Power to the Peaceful
    27. Re:Wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's strider, not spider. These are insects, not arachnids :)

      But yeah, the paper was founded to be impartial after the lady who founded Xian Science wound up being treated as a nut by the mainstream press when all she did was claim to be Jesus or something... ;)

  16. long into the night... by spoonyfork · · Score: 1

    ... I've pondered how waterbugs move around on top of the water. In my naivete, thinking there could possibly be no connection between something that actually matters like a cure for cancer and water striders, I dismissed this ponderance for something shiny.

    The shiny thing was a small robot that could possibly make use of this method of propulsion. Then I realized there were only 10 of us in the world and rejoiced as this great find was made public and made available to the popular geek culture. Now thousands of others can wish they had the required nanoseconds of their life back that was spent to dismiss this headline.

    --
    Speak truth to power.
    1. Re:long into the night... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All that effort on poetry, and I was mainly thinking about how to get laid tonight.

      Life is funny.

      Now for my poetry:

      Roses are Red
      Violets are Blue
      I like "reverse cowgirl"

      Thank you. Thank you very much.

  17. Yes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    I think that since Science doesn't have all the answers its a false god and we must believe in the one god and creation.

    I mean, how else do you explain the elephant? Or even Gigli?

    My god is a peaceful loving god. If you say otherwise, I'll attack somebody in northern island.

    1. Re:Yes... by JonathanBoyd · · Score: 1

      Please don't talk about Northern Ireland when you clearly have no comprehension of the situation here. It's not about religion, it's about a history of bloodshed, hatred, intimidation and suspicion, differences in politics and people who like violence. You'll hear the victims say 'I forgive them' while the terrorists drown on about how they want revenge and 'the war isn't over'.

    2. Re:Yes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The IRA should not decommission so much as a pea-shooter until the green, white and gold flies over the Six Counties.

    3. Re:Yes... by JonathanBoyd · · Score: 1

      Yes, because force should decide every disagreement, right?

      If the view you're presenting is so weak that it must be backed up by force of arms, doesn't that tell you something is wrong with it in the first place?

  18. Do they have them everywhere by Cackmobile · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Are water striders one of those bugs they have everywhere like flies/mosquitos/etc. We have them in oz, here in the UK, in asia and the US. Anywhere else.

    --
    -- Karma Karma Karma Karma, Karma Chameleon - Boy George
    1. Re:Do they have them everywhere by AndroidCat · · Score: 2, Funny

      Of course they get everywhere. They have such nifty propulsion systems after all.

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    2. Re:Do they have them everywhere by Jerf · · Score: 2, Informative
  19. Now that... by Akardam · · Score: 3, Funny

    ... is a bug!

    1. Re:Now that... by borgboy · · Score: 4, Funny

      Nope. It's a feature!

      --
      meh.
    2. Re:Now that... by danger42 · · Score: 1

      No, it's Aragorn.

      --
      -nd
    3. Re:Now that... by seanmeister · · Score: 1

      it's only a model!

    4. Re:Now that... by monkey_jam · · Score: 1

      ..no its a spoon

      I see you've played bug-gy spoony before!

  20. Re:Christian Science Monitor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Walking on water isn't hard. Everyone can do it - just make sure that the temperature of the fluid-to-be-walked-on is subzero.

  21. --- uber sculler by madaxe42 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I've been doing sweep oar rowing and sculling for years... It's something that anyone can do, but few can master. The blade (the oar) moves in a roughly ellpitical track in the water, over a very small range, as the boat is propelled forwards. The range of motion is dependant upon the skill of the oarsman, and how he/she appiles pressure to the stroke. Too much too soon, and you 'rip', causing turbulence, and allowing the blade to move excessively through the water... Too little, and the blade won't lock onto the water, and will just float through the water... Of course, this is neglecting balance etc., which is no mean feat in a boat some 5 inches wide at the waterline!

  22. Surface tension is cool! by PhysicsExpert · · Score: 3, Interesting

    A few of my colleagues have been looking into the effects of surface tension in various liquids and you'll be amazed to learn what you can do if you have the right circumstances.

    H20 doesn't have that much surface tension becuase of its low valency, but other liquids such as bromine are held together by strong Van der Waals attractions meaning that they have much stronger surface tensions. In one famous experiment at MIT researches showed just how strong the surface tension could be by placing a cat onto a large pool of bromine and observing that not only did it not sink but that it could also move abount (albeit with difficulty). Some people have suggested (tongue in cheek) that if Jesus could have introduced bromine into the red sea then that would explain how he could have walked on water.

    --
    All that glitters has a high refractive index.
    1. Re:Surface tension is cool! by AndroidCat · · Score: 1

      If Jesus used corn starch maybe he could used one of those Ninja running tricks? Standing still wouldn't be possible, but tap-dancing (RiverDance?) might work.

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    2. Re:Surface tension is cool! by Dahan · · Score: 1
      Good day, PhysicsExpert. I was wondering if you happened to know where my esteemed colleague PhysicsGenius went off to... I miss his information and insights on the fascinating field of Physics.

      And thanks for reminding me of the MIT experiment; I've been meaning to duplicate that with my pet hamster, but I keep forgetting about it. Perhaps I'll stop by the local druggist today and get a bottle of bromine.

  23. Re:Let the Christian trolls roll by zero_offset · · Score: 1, Funny

    So what you're saying is, you're a Christian troll?

    --

    Slashdot quality declines as the number of hot grits posts decreases. - Provolt's Law, Apr-09-2005

  24. Indeed. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Last time I checked, our military is having a picnic.

    The current world scene doesn't even compare to World War I or II, let alone the really scary shit - such as the fall of Rome.

    To be honest, I find the lack of faith in people who constantly doomsay about humanity quite disturbing.

  25. Martian invasion fleet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "To be honest, I am quite amazed that you believe humans as a species will survive a few thousand years... turn on the news, man ="

    The Art Bell show is not news. Calm down, the martian fleet is not on the way.

  26. "Insightful"? by JeanPaulBob · · Score: 1

    We need a "-1, No sense of humor" option.

  27. Re:Let the Christian trolls roll by Oligonicella · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    That's because scientists who are Christians do not rely on "poof". And, Christians who are scientists usually DO believe in evolution. Only a few don't.

  28. Re:Let the Christian trolls roll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No you have this backwards. Most "Christian" scientists do not beleive in evolution. The also don't rely on "poof". They rely on the facts.

  29. Not just Venice... by bennomatic · · Score: 1

    The pilots of the reed boats they use to taxi between the floating Uros islands seem to use a similar technique.

    --
    The CB App. What's your 20?
  30. Re:liberals amaze me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah... they typically view some folks as being more equal than others...

  31. waiting with baited breath... by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 1

    for this bit of 'news'?

    reminds me of going for the cookie jar only to find raison cookies!

    caveat: it's early and my humor's warped to begin with...

    --
    People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
  32. Re:Let the Christian trolls roll by BadDream · · Score: 0, Troll

    Belief in God requires Faith Faith is belief without proof or evidence Science is belief with proof and evidence Religion has its place, is very powerful, and has nothing to offer science but inherent bias.

    --
    No matter how subtle the wizard, a knife between the shoulder blades will seriously cramp his style.
  33. Re:Let the Christian trolls roll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    the microorganisms that live symbiotically inside of me think of me as "God".

  34. Re:Let the Christian trolls roll by d34thm0nk3y · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I would say that unlike parent post, the CSM is actually quite objective.

  35. Impressionist Insects by unfortunateson · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Go take a gander at the original BBC article with the photos. The one with the blue dye in the water showing the eddies created by the movement is practically a natural reproduction of Van Gogh's brushwork!

    It's like having insects do impressionist painting. Truly beautiful. If I can find a high-res photo, I think I've got my new wallpaper.

    --
    Design for Use, not Construction!
    1. Re:Impressionist Insects by dubiousdave · · Score: 1

      I've already done exactly that. It's very Starry Nightish. Despite its small size, it scales quite well to my 1600x1200 Gnome desktop. They seem to use some good interpolation routines.

      --
      Thank you. Drive through.
  36. Oh my... by tkittel · · Score: 5, Funny

    It seems that we have a Christian source of information related to walking on water?

    At least it is their own IP :-)

  37. Try living life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    instead of letting others convince you yours is going to end.

  38. Christian Science Monitor, eh? by hankaholic · · Score: 1

    Now: bugs walking on water.

    Next up: evolution!

    --
    Somebody get that guy an ambulance!
    1. Re:Christian Science Monitor, eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fortunately it evolution is a THEORY and not a fact. There is no empiracle (sp?) evidence to back it up. None, nada, zilch.

    2. Re:Christian Science Monitor, eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      muppet. There is lots. Including working evolutionary models.

  39. Re:Let the Christian trolls roll by frankjr · · Score: 1

    The publication was founded by the cult Christian Science, founded by Mary Baker Eddy. I don't know that group's take on Intelligent Design, but I sure wouldn't be supportive of that group.

  40. Matthew 14, 25 by godot42a · · Score: 3, Funny

    It's not the Red Sea, it's the Lake of Gennesaret.

    The Rea Sea was the one where the surface tension didn't hold up to the weight of the Egyptian Army ;)

    Just my E0.02.

  41. woo! by Ninja+Master+Gara · · Score: 1
    There's also a BBC story with pictures.

    Ooooohh Pictures!

    --

    ---
    When I grow up, I want to be a kid again.
  42. Re:Surface tension is cool! - Troll Alert!!! by pdp11e · · Score: 5, Informative

    Now this is a troll if I ever saw one. Bromine is the only liquid nonmetallic element. It is a heavy, mobile, reddish-brown liquid, volatilizing readily at room temperature. It is toxic comparable to chlorine. The surface tension of bromine is LESS then that of the water.
    Cat (or any other live being) in a large pool of bromine has a life expectancy of a few minutes. And yes it would sink.

  43. Re:Let the Christian trolls roll by JonathanBoyd · · Score: 2, Insightful

    No, faith is believe in the absence of complete proof; it can still have supporting evidence. Blind faith has no proof. Science itself requires a modicum of faith.

  44. Re:liberals amaze me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I personally hate muslims and jews just as much as I hate christians. I hate them so much, I deny them the Customary Capital Letter; and I lump them together without distinction to show that I hate all of them more than they hate each other. All monotheists {hereinafter MTs - no deference implied by capitalisation} are inherently evil for trying to persuade people that their power and beauty belong to somebody else, and for downplaying the importance of certainties in favour of uncertainties.

    It is MTism that is responsible for all religious disagreements. Since jews, muslims, catholics and protestants all disagree over the nature of god whilst agreeing that there can be only one god, at most one group can be right. Yet each claims god on their side and kills people {for the jews, that is against a holy commandment; the ten commandments don't apply to christians, but killing is a funny way to show your love for your neighbour; not sure about the muslims} in the name of god.

    And before you go whinging about how it's a "tiny minority" who are tainting the name of your faith: Don't. The minging bathwater has already killed the baby you were trying hard not to throw out, just by its sheer rancidness. If you really cared about the people who have been hurt in the name of your god - surely a blasphemy of the highest order - then you would publicly recant on your beliefs, rather than let people think you believed what the perpetrators of such acts believe. If you are a decent person with respect for humanity, then announce yourself an atheist and so distance yourself from these a**eholes who have besmirched the name of god. A god who would punish non-belief more harshly than wrong-reason belief does not deserve to be believed in! When there are only idiots who call themselves christians, jews and muslims, the rest of the world will see the lie, and MTism will perish.

  45. Re:Surface tension is cool! - Troll Alert!!! by GooberToo · · Score: 2, Funny

    Not so! For you see, the cat can stay aloft as long as it still has lives to use. It would only sink and die following the expiriation of its last life. ;)

  46. Dr. Bush by fruity1983 · · Score: 3, Funny

    "Doctor" and "Bush". After the last few years, I have a lot of trouble visualizing that...

    --
    I am a viral sig. Please copy me and help me spread. Thank you.
  47. Water Tension by NickABusey · · Score: 1

    Now all we need is to figure out how to make water have enough tension to hold a person. Hrmm...

    --

    - Nick Busey
    www.pedalbmx.com
    www.nickbusey.com
    1. Re:Water Tension by srw · · Score: 4, Funny

      > Now all we need is to figure out how to make water have enough tension to hold a person. Hrmm...

      Simple. This happens naturally where I live. I simply have to wait until, say, mid-November. The surface tension remains high until some time in spring. It only works for water kept outside or in an unheated building.

      -srw

  48. He said "Island", not "Ireland" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And lets face it, the Irish are a bit fanatical about religion.

    1. Re:He said "Island", not "Ireland" by JonathanBoyd · · Score: 1
      He said "Island", not "Ireland"

      Yes, I'm quite aware of that, which is why I put the 're' in bold. It was clear he meant Northern Ireland.

      And lets face it, the Irish are a bit fanatical about religion.

      Let's face it, I live here and I know that most aren't and that the conflict has very little to do with religion. More to do with people's ignorance of a religion they claim to belon to and their fear of other cultures.

  49. In related news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...Christian "science" reports the age of the universe to be 6000 years old.

  50. Re:Surface tension is cool! - Troll Alert!!! by AndroidCat · · Score: 1

    Probably meant Bromine added to water to increase the surface tension. Let me consult the Index to All Knowledge... Bah! Too many big science bloody PDF files out there.

    --
    One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
  51. Christians and scientists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Pretty rich coming from Christians, huh? Isn't `christian science` a bit of an oxymoron?"

    Many, if not most, great scientists have been Christians.

    1. Re:Christians and scientists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, the most brilliant scientists, such as Einstien? Feynman?

  52. Probably known about for a long time by panurge · · Score: 2, Interesting
    In England water striders are known as water boatmen. Boatman=person operating small scull boat for short distance water transport. This suggests that the "sculling" action has been recognised for a long time.

    Sometimes it takes a lot of scientific training to work out things country people have known for a long time - digitalis, willow bark, cowpox, and all those interesting rain-forest rmedies the drugs companies are "patenting".

    --
    Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
    1. Re:Probably known about for a long time by jcupitt65 · · Score: 1

      Acutally, water boatmen are (usually) diving beetles, a different family. The common UK name for the Water Strider is the Pond Skater.

    2. Re:Probably known about for a long time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Believe it or not, I'm a biologist.

      Water Boatmen are, I'm pretty sure, a separate species, either of beetles or "true" bugs (Order Hemiptera). *THEY* (boatmen) do scull upside down under the surface of the water, as you have observed. They also work at/under the water surface, partially submerged.

      Water Striders, on the other hand, work ON the surface, using water tension effects via fine sensillae in their feet. HOW the tension effects allowed propulsion, as opposed to simply allowing the insect to stand on the surface, was not well understood.

      There is also a difference between country people 'knowing' something, and knowing HOW or WHY that something works. The latter is often important, as it can lead to better application of the knowledge. Also, sometimes the locals know something about a given subject, but other aspects of their knowledge about that same subject may actually be wrong.

      n3ur0pil

  53. IRA must disband immediately by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The IRA should disband immediately. It is an illegetimate organization devoted to forcing Irish rule upon a non-Irish territory againt the wishes of the native people of that territory. It has no legitimate wish for being, except to support imperialist expansion of the borders of Ireland and minority ethnic rule.

    1. Re:IRA must disband immediately by JonathanBoyd · · Score: 1
      support imperialist expansion of the borders of Ireland

      Genius. Someone should mod that up funny.

  54. Country quack cures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The "folk" remedies are typically destructive, bad science, from quackery like acupuncture to breaking a baby's back to cure colic.

    There is some wisdom there, but you have to get past the 99% crap to find something that actually works.

    1. Re:Country quack cures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Acupuncture has been proven effective in numerous clinical trials, and is _far_ from a folk remedy. That said, many folk remedies are bogus and/or dangerous - I can only assume the placebo effect is responsible for the continued use of these so-called remedies.

  55. Your local rag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Knox News: Fair and balanced. We report. You decide.

  56. Also at the Economist by AceJohnny · · Score: 1

    well; looks like these researchers know how to get attention. I got the news here in the Economist's excellent vulgarized science section

    --
    Misleading titles? Inflammatory blurbs? Keep in mind that Slashdot is a tabloid.
  57. Imperialism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "support imperialist expansion of the borders of Ireland"

    There are two Irelands. One is a nation, one is an island. The nation occupies most of the island, but not all. Some want to expand the borders of the nation to include all of the island in a sort of "manifest destiny" thing, even though the people of the non-Irish land do not want it.

    When you forcibly annex a land to a country, that is certainly imperialism.

    There is nothing funny about it, and those who want to force the people of "northern Ireland" into the country of Ireland against their will should give up from their strongly unjust cause.

    1. Re:Imperialism by JonathanBoyd · · Score: 1

      I thought you were making a joke since it;s the kind of thing that people usually say about the Brits. And most people down South couldn't care less about whether the North is 'reunited' or stays in the UK. The Irish government certainly isn't trying to forcibly annex land, so it can't actually be imperialism.

  58. Ack! Minor correction... by jonadab · · Score: 1

    "too young", I meant, obviously. Gotta learn to preview...

    --
    Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
  59. amulet of life saving by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    But wait...
    The large cat's medallion begins to glow!
    The large cat looks much better!
    The medallion crumbles to dust!

    --
    me

    1. Re:amulet of life saving by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      rofl

  60. CSM isn't the nutball right wing at all by ianscot · · Score: 1
    Damn dude, it said the CHRISTIAN science monitor.

    You remember.. the people who don't believe in evolution? Or stem cell research? Or cloning?

    Good joke, but the Christian Science Monitor does an okay job of reporting science topics. It's sure above the level of typical popular media, leaving alone Fox News's special "They didn't land on the moon because NASA is the government" division. Glance at CSM's coverage of this fossil find. Hardly the whacko creationist extreme.

    --
    "Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
    1. Re:CSM isn't the nutball right wing at all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Congratulations, you have made the first "Irrational Bashing of Fox News" post on this thread! Can you give us some concrete evidence of their "They didn't land on the moon because NASA is the government" division? ...waiting...waiting...waiting....

      I thought not.

    2. Re:CSM isn't the nutball right wing at all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suspect the grandparent poster was referring to this program by Fox. While I certainly agree that that program was utter trash, it was not produced by Fox News, but by the same folks that gave us the X-Files show. Same company, different set of people.

  61. Know thy target :-) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Egad. Yet another kneejerk reaction that pervades the US culture: everyone's equal, except christians, who are morons.

    If you'd take the time to look at the article and/or the website, you'd learn that the Christian Science Monitor is a periodical with a long history and a good reputation.

    1. Re:Know thy target :-) by martyn+s · · Score: 1

      OH YEAH, Christians have so many problems with bias and prejudice against them in America! Poor Christians.

    2. Re:Know thy target :-) by WNight · · Score: 1

      No, the general feeling is that all religious people are morons, christians are just the loudest and most common (locally) so most of the North American anti-religion sentiment is expresses as anti-christian sentiment.

      Nothing personal, all those other religious people are kooks too.

  62. But you are the nutball left wing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your message bashing fair and balanced centrist news sources show you are a left-wing nutball, that's for sure.

  63. Now I understand "Spirited Away"! by RobertB-DC · · Score: 1

    Well, I may never understand all the cultural references in Miyazaki-san's Spirited Away , but at least now I understand what Rin was doing in the scene where she is moving a barrel-shaped boat along, seemingly by doing nothing more than twisting what I thought was a rudder.

    "Sculling" -- my vocabulary word of the day. Thanks!

    --
    Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
  64. Good call! by Teahouse · · Score: 1

    Thanks for pointing that out. I missed it the forst time, but it definitely is beautiful. Good call!

    --
    "Curiosity killed the cat, but for a while I was a suspect."- Steven Wright
  65. water boatmen != water strider by Suchetha · · Score: 2, Informative

    water boatmen are not water striders

    Suchetha

    --

    learn from yesterday, plan for tomorrow, party tonight
    or one out of three ain't bad
  66. Who cares by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    really. I question the manhood of anyone who clicks on that link. first off, it was written by british scientists (i.e. crackpots, harry potter fans). second, it has nothing to do with guns food or sex and is therefore pointless

  67. MOD PARENT DOWN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    BIGOT FLAMER!

  68. Re:Let the Christian trolls roll by BadDream · · Score: 1

    I disagree. I would say that what you describe is not faith but trust. If you have some bit of proof, you are trusting that bit to hold you through the unknown. Religion exists in that unknown space where truth can not be grasped. We are getting off subject. Maybe someone will start a post about God and science where we can talk further.

    --
    No matter how subtle the wizard, a knife between the shoulder blades will seriously cramp his style.
  69. Well, you know... by blunte · · Score: 1

    It's interesting that losing your child by choosing a solution other than medicine is "criminal", while having your children die in the hospital is perfectly acceptible.

    --
    .sigs are for post^Hers.
    1. Re:Well, you know... by WNight · · Score: 1

      Because you have to take reasonable steps to protect your children. Prayer is useless because there isn't a god. Thus, doing nothing for your child but praying is the same as doing nothing for your child.

      Medical problems require medical treatment.

      I think they should treat the parents like murderers in cases where they refuse to allow their children to have treatment for religious reasons, including seeking the death penalty in states that have it. It's no better than poisoning your children.

    2. Re:Well, you know... by JonathanBoyd · · Score: 1
      Prayer is useless because there isn't a god.

      There are plenty of people who would disagree with that.

      Thus, doing nothing for your child but praying is the same as doing nothing for your child.

      If that was law, then the law would be taking sounds on the issue of religion. IIRC, there's supposed to be separation of church and state, so surely the law has no business in saying whether or not prayer is ineffective? To do so would be to legislate against a massive block of people, based on their religious beliefs. Note: I think what those people did with their kids is wrong, but they are hardly murderers.

    3. Re:Well, you know... by WNight · · Score: 1

      Sure, a lot of people would disagree but I challenge them to provide evidence to support their views. Suggesting that I'm wrong simply because a lot of people do not agree with me is the fallacy of the majority.

      As for their guilt, the law says that it is a crime to watch someone die and not give them reasonable aid. This can pretty obviously be seen to cover not taking your children to the hospital.

      The seperation of church and state means that the government won't tell you which religion you may belong to, and that laws that discriminate against a specific religion.

      Note that this does not mean the law will let religious people do whatever they claim their religion requires. If your religion requires killing non-believers you'll still be charged with murder for doing so. The key here is that people's beliefs aren't being legislated, but their actions are.

    4. Re:Well, you know... by JonathanBoyd · · Score: 1
      Sure, a lot of people would disagree but I challenge them to provide evidence to support their views. Suggesting that I'm wrong simply because a lot of people do not agree with me is the fallacy of the majority.

      And enforcing the law on the assumption that someone's beliefs are wrong, particularly in a democracy where the majority believe in prayer of some kind, would be a 'tyranny of the minority'.

      As for their guilt, the law says that it is a crime to watch someone die and not give them reasonable aid. This can pretty obviously be seen to cover not taking your children to the hospital.

      The seperation of church and state means that the government won't tell you which religion you may belong to, and that laws that discriminate against a specific religion.

      Note that this does not mean the law will let religious people do whatever they claim their religion requires. If your religion requires killing non-believers you'll still be charged with murder for doing so. The key here is that people's beliefs aren't being legislated, but their actions are

      But actions are motivated by belief. They believe that they are rendering useful aid to the child by praying. To charge them with murder would therefore be putting their beliefs on trial. I'm not debating protecting the children here, as that is another matter entirely, but rather what kind of charges (if any) should be brought against the parents. Sorry, I probably should have made that clearer last time.

    5. Re:Well, you know... by WNight · · Score: 1

      It's debatable if a majority of North Americans believe in prayer, but it's certainly not true that a majority or even a significant minority believe that prayer is more effective than medical treatment.

      And yes, actions are motivated by belief; this doesn't mean we don't (or shouldn't) regulate actions. What if I believe that I deserve your posessions more than you do? Let's say it's my religious belief (prove otherwise) that god wants me to make this right (by taking your things for myself)... Ditto if the example was that I thought someone needed to be killed. Clearly our laws don't allow for this, no matter how much I believe I'm in the right. Few people in jail believe they deserve to be there but we still lock them up.

      Seeing as I'm not willing to hold more stock in religious beliefs that other beliefs I don't think actions based on religious beliefs deserve special protection. It would be unfair if you could claim to be religious and your ideas would be protected but I'm an athiest so the same idea when I have it wouldn't be protected.

      Then there's the issue of where to classify something like Buddhism? It's not a religion, though it's often incorrectly referred to as such; it's more of a philosophy or suggestions for a way of life. But there are some christians who claim that's all their religion is...

    6. Re:Well, you know... by JonathanBoyd · · Score: 1

      It's debatable if a majority of North Americans believe in prayer

      The majority of them claim to be Christian or believe in some sort of God..

      but it's certainly not true that a majority or even a significant minority believe that prayer is more effective than medical treatment.

      That was never my claim. My point is that most of them think that prayer is to some extent effective and that there is someone up there who might be listening. To say that it definitely doesn't work and people who put their trust in prayer should be held accountable as negligent under the law would be to force your opinion on the majority, which is unacceptable in a democracy.

      Let's say it's my religious belief (prove otherwise) that god wants me to make this right (by taking your things for myself)... Ditto if the example was that I thought someone needed to be killed. Clearly our laws don't allow for this, no matter how much I believe I'm in the right.

      However, laws are formed by the majority and the majority feel that what you are (hypothetically) doing is wrong, therefore in a democracy, it be appropriate for your actions to be against the law. What we're really talking about is individual freedom vs. protection of other people's individual freedom. Should someone be allowed to pray in their house and not seek attention if they are ill? Yes, they are not forcing their belief on anyone else. What if their child is ill however? That's where the issue gets difficult because the child is part of their family and will have been brought up with those beliefs. Do you decide you know better and pull the child out, thereby possibly going against its wishes and certainly overruling the freedom of religion for the family, but possibly saving the child's life in the process?

      Put yourself in the position of a parent who believes what they believe and ask whether taking the child away seems right. I imagine what it would be like if I had a responsibility to send children to boarding school, where they would never hear about God, except in terms of ridicule and I would only be able to see them for a weekend every couple of months. I would feel obliged to keep them at home and educate them in some other way, allowing them the opportunity to hear about God, breaking the law and giving my children an undoubtedly inferior education, but letting them know about God, which I deem more important. Perhaps in your case, the situation would be the other way round. You would be acting as you feel a responsible parent should act. They are acting as they feel a responsible parent should act. Should they therefore be charged with something as extreme as murder? There is no hate or malice in what they do. No intention for anyone to die. Rather, it is done with the best of intentions. The very worst I can imagine them being charged with is manslaughter, but that seems far too extreme to me. Do you understand why.

      Seeing as I'm not willing to hold more stock in religious beliefs that other beliefs I don't think actions based on religious beliefs deserve special protection. It would be unfair if you could claim to be religious and your ideas would be protected but I'm an athiest so the same idea when I have it wouldn't be protected.

      But they would be. Let's say that it was deemed necessary that you bring your child up with a good sense of morals and society as a whole decides that means going to church every week. As an atheist, you want nothing to do with it and refuse to go, instead discussing morality at home with your child. In your mind, you are doing what is best for your child and expressing your right to freedom of religion. If your child was taken away and you were charged with abuse, you would see that as unjust.

      Actions based on religious belief or lack thereof already have special protection. I could not be forced to sit an exam on a Sund

    7. Re:Well, you know... by WNight · · Score: 1

      The majority of them claim to be Christian or believe in some sort of God..

      Depends on the studies you read. I've read apparently valid studies (as in, not paid for by Athiests of America or anything) that show church attendance down around 20%, with maybe 70% of people saying that identify with a religion but don't practice it. That can be interpreted as a majority being religion, or a minority being religious.

      That was never my claim. My point is that most of them think that prayer is to some extent effective and that there is someone up there who might be listening.

      I never said I thought you shouldn't be allowed to pray. I simply said you shouldn't be allowed to skip proven treatments in favor of prayer. (Some sects are against even blood transfusions, which are as close to proven as you can get.)

      That's where the issue gets difficult because the child is part of their family and will have been brought up with those beliefs. Do you decide you know better and pull the child out, thereby possibly going against its wishes and certainly overruling the freedom of religion for the family, but possibly saving the child's life in the process?

      If it's a choice between saving the child's life and letting the parent indoctrinate them in a religion it's not a hard choice...

      We don't let people kill their children. We charge them with manslaughter and murder when they leave them in a hot car or let them play with guns, why is killing them by refusing treatment different?

      Let's say that it was deemed necessary that you bring your child up with a good sense of morals and society as a whole decides that means going to church every week. As an atheist, you want nothing to do with it and refuse to go...

      The issue isn't as much one of choice of religion, but choice of life-saving (or threatening) treatment. If baptism was proven 98% effective in saving the life of someone with massive blood loss and I was fighting the baptism in favour of something useless, like say chiropractic care, I'd be in the wrong. I realize I didn't use your scenario, I'm not trying to twist things around, but I honestly don't think it applies here.

      Actions based on religious belief or lack thereof already have special protection. I could not be forced to sit an exam on a Sunday. Neither could a Jew or a Seventh Day Adventist on a Saturday.

      You wouldn't be forced to take a Sunday exam by a school, but a judge wouldn't have any problems with throwing you into jail over the weekend.

      It is a system of belief, so I think it would fall under the same protection fo atheism and Christianity in freedom of religion.

      Yeah, that's what I was saying. No matter what you claim as the justification for your system of belief, the state has no place in your head regulating it. It's not until thoughts become actions that you become accountable.

  70. It Gets Old by blunte · · Score: 1

    My hope is that one day we can have a story submitted from the CSM that doesn't generate volumes of insignificant chatter of over the name of the newspaper.

    You don't hear constant blah blah about the state or city of New York every time someone mentions the NYT. People tend to focus on the story. What a concept!

    --
    .sigs are for post^Hers.
    1. Re:It Gets Old by WNight · · Score: 1

      "Science" is the concept of examining evidence and basing rational theories on the evidence, then testing and refining those theories.

      Religion is irrational. It's about "faith" which essentially means, making theories with no evidence. In many religions people are actively discouraged from closely examining the evidence and the beliefs of the church.

      For a religious institute (or one whose name identifies it as such) to provide seemingly reasonable coverage of a scientific issue, including going so far as to embrace the theory of evolution, is amazing.

      We don't act amazed when the NYT has a story with some scientific merit because rational behaviour is expected.

  71. Re:Let the Christian trolls roll by blunte · · Score: 1

    I like this comment. It sums things up pretty well regarding people and religions.

    It goes something like you stated: I don't know anything about religion X, but I disagree with them.

    Brilliant. At least do yourself a favor and research a religion before you decide it's wrong. That goes for any religion.

    --
    .sigs are for post^Hers.
  72. just add soap! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it's not just ONe mechanismen ...
    say you go ice-scatting:
    the pressure of the blades makes the ice melt (what?)
    and on this you can ride along/less friction ...

    well, water-striders do the same, but the water is liquid (not ice)
    and the are acctually floting on a small cushin of
    h2o steam ... everybody knows that water can become steam, even if
    it is not heated to 100 deg. C.

    also the water-striders have small wings (tongue in cheek)
    and they use this also to propel themselfs.

    extra bonus is, that water-striders-feet have 5-10 small
    blades like ice-scattes and so the they are scatting
    along the surface.

    also they eat alot of fat (like burgers) to enhance
    the effect of not beeing able to drown ...

    if you want to make a water strider drown just
    catch one put in in a glass with water and add
    some detergent (ordernary soap). please make sure
    to rescue your test-subject bevore it drowns!
    (prove of concept!)

    *we live in a MATRIX because we have been
    condioned to look for that ONE button
    that can explain everything*

  73. Re:Wrong. - unbiased? by thebruce · · Score: 0

    There doesn't seem to be any particular bias that I can see.

    There's only one problem, that made me twitch at the end. If there's "no bias" there should be any reference to million of years of evolution. Near the end of the article, out of nowehere they state that "over hundreds of millions of years, they have evolved the ability to sense just how much force to apply"...

    I don't find that unbiased reporting...

  74. I don't get it... what's so different from land? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We all push against the ground when walking. I always figured they just did it by being light, and not breaking through the surface tension, but being able to push against it just like we push against concrete.

    How is it different?

  75. Water Strider? by poot_rootbeer · · Score: 1

    This is easy. Go to Egypt, and then go down the hole at the far left side of the level. Hiryu will find the Aqua Boots there. ...Sorry, NES flashback.

  76. Re:Let the Christian trolls roll by JonathanBoyd · · Score: 1

    Why do you assume that religion cannot have any evidence going for it? For something claiming to be the absolute truth, I would expect a bit of evidence to back it up and I see evidence for Christianity. Is it 100% proof? No. Does it leave room for doubt? Yes. But there sitll is evidence there.

  77. Re:Wrong. - unbiased? by RobinH · · Score: 1

    There's only one problem, that made me twitch at the end. If there's "no bias" there should be any reference to million of years of evolution. Near the end of the article, out of nowehere they state that "over hundreds of millions of years, they have evolved the ability to sense just how much force to apply"...

    I think you're reaching. If the article was about opposing viewpoints over creationism/evolution, then I would expect to see points from both sides included in the discussion. In this case, however, the article is just reporting a new theory in biology, and I'm sure you realize that the field of biology has pretty much accepted evolution as the most probably theory. In some cases, I've read that since some fast forms of insect evolution have been obvserved on the month and year timescales, that as far as science is concerned, evolution is all but proven. Certainly it is the generally accepted explanation in biology.

    Conversely, if the article were about a priest coming up with a new theory of the magical way that a water spider moves, I'm sure the writer would assume you knew that the priest was basing his new theory on the assumption that God created the universe in 7 days, or whatever.

    Overall, I think that this is not a good article to judge journalistic bias by, because it's really just reporting the progress of research, instead of covering something more controversial, such as differences in political or religious beliefs.

    The best type of article to judge bias would be if they covered a debate between a liberal and a conservative. If they started to editorialize, or choose sides, or whatever, that would be your obvious sign of bias. Also, if they chose their sound bites to only make one side look good, that's also bias.

    --
    "I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
  78. Evolution is fact by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    " Fortunately it evolution is a THEORY and not a fact. There is no empiracle (sp?) evidence to back it up. None, nada, zilch."

    Overwhelming evidence supports the idea of the evolutionary process. So far, nothing has been found which contradicts the idea. It looks pretty robust so far.

    1. Re:Evolution is fact by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Gotta reply to this.

      Evolution is not fact. It has not been proven. The biggest problem is the formation of life: life does not form under natural conditions, either on Earth or elsewhere, and for this only simple biochemistry and mathematics are necessary to demonstrate.

      If you want more information, check out Michael J. Behe's book Darwin's Black Box .
    2. Re:Evolution is fact by JonathanBoyd · · Score: 1

      Actually, it's natural selection which has been overwhelming proved. It's the addition of genetic material to the gene-pool which is an iffy thing. Nobody disagrees that it can be lost. The media's popularisation of the term 'evolution' when 'natural selection' is actually the correct one is partly to blame for this whole misconception.

  79. Bias against Christians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    " OH YEAH, Christians have so many problems with bias and prejudice against them in America! Poor Christians."

    It is true. There is even a well-funded special interest group, the ACLU, that frequently takes up cases to censor the speech of individuals who happen to be Christians.

    Consider also the anti-Christian bigot hypocrites who are fighting to get the BC and AD year designations removed (while leaving untouched the days of the week devoted to Norse gods and months devoted to Roman deities).

    1. Re:Bias against Christians by WNight · · Score: 1

      If christians would have the decency to die off, like the followers of the norse religions, we'd look at christian beliefs in a tolerant way, like most people think of greek myths as funny stories, not silly examples of what real people were dumb enough to believe.

      BC and AD are reminders that right now, there's a huge number of droolers out there who actually believe in this stuff. That's really annoying. Thor and Odin aren't reminders of this because nobody believes in them anymore.

      Trust me, you'd be just as ridiculed if you were a muslim, or anything else.

  80. news for nerds? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i don't see little pocket protectors for the water striders. how is this news for nerds? and considering cnn has had the article for nearly a week now, how is this even news? slow day at taco's geek central?

    whatever, next.

  81. Haha, Christians suck and stuff. by stinkydog1 · · Score: 1

    Wow, how stupid can you be to read an article about walking on water from Christian Scientists? I'd rather read about Britney Spears. I'm so intelligent and tolerant and stuff.

    --
    IMHO, if you're giving your opinion unasked, you ain't humble.
    1. Re:Haha, Christians suck and stuff. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here you can read about Britney Spears AND science:

      http://britneyspears.ac/lasers.htm

  82. Re:Let the Christian trolls roll by William+Tanksley · · Score: 1

    Your argument is wrong. "Trust" is not belief with evidence; it's the capability of acting on a belief. Amount of evidence and level of proof are irrelevant. I trust the chair I'm sitting in; I have faith that it'll hold me. I also have a lot of evidence. I trust my coworker (that one over there); I have faith that he will do what he's said.

    Faith is a close synonym for trust, even in fine detail: for example, if I say I trust that chair, I may never sit in it; if I say I have trust in that chair, it means that I sit in it. Having faith _that_ something will happen is likewise different from having faith _in_ something or someone.

    -Billy

  83. That article was stupid by sexylicious · · Score: 2, Informative

    From my point of view. My background is in fluid mechanics, and even though I've only obtained my master's, I couldn't have told that scientist where the momentum was transfered.

    The same thing for aircraft: tip vortices and a bound vortex on the wing alter the direction of the incoming air, which changes the air's momentum and provides lift. And all that happens because of friction between the molecules of air on the surface of the wing, and their neighbors directly above them. Then THEIR neighbors directly above them, and so on until you get to the overall flowfield.

    And when you get to the tip of the wing, the downwash pulls the air past the tips into a vortex.

    Those scientists that study these kinds of things would do well to actually study vortex dynamics (Kelvin's theorem would have told them the answer!). They would rather try and reinvent the wheel though. :(

  84. Re:Surface tension is cool! - Troll Alert!!! by Dahan · · Score: 1
    Cat (or any other live being) in a large pool of bromine has a life expectancy of a few minutes. And yes it would sink.

    Oh come on... are you calling into question the veracity of the famous MIT experiment? How about some facts? Bromine has a density of 3.12 g/mL--over three times that of water. People have no problem floating in the highly-saline water of the Dead Sea, which has a density of about 1.2 g/mL. So no, it wouldn't sink.

  85. walter strider? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who's Walter Strider?

  86. Re:Surface tension is cool! - Troll Alert!!! by pdp11e · · Score: 1

    > Oh come on... are you calling into question the veracity of the famous MIT experiment?

    What MIT experiment?

    > How about some facts?

    It is much harder to me to prove that no such experiment took place. How about YOU provide some facts?

    > So no, it wouldn't sink

    I stand corrected. It would not sink because of buoyancy. But the pour agonizing cat would certainly break the bromine surface and get wet (unlike strider on a water surface), which was the point of the parent troll.

    Btw, I have handled pure bromine in a lab. It is a nasty stuff. A colleague of mine ended up in the emergency room for inhaling just a whiff from 1 ml vial. A large pool of Br and a cat thrown into it walks, give me a break!

  87. Re:Surface tension is cool! - Troll Alert!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He's right--water having the funny dipole it does gives it an abonormally STRONG surface tension. Without that, we wouldn't be here...

    Parent is also correct about the properties of bromine--I wouldn't inhale that if I were you! (Side note, due to the low surface tension, even though it's "liquid" there will be a lot of vapours--have to lower the temperature to get it to seem more like the liquids you're used to.)

  88. I just want to know one thing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who is this Walter Strider, and where can I find him?

  89. Re:Let the Christian trolls roll by zero_offset · · Score: 1

    -1 Overrated? Ooo, we have a Christer with mod points...

    --

    Slashdot quality declines as the number of hot grits posts decreases. - Provolt's Law, Apr-09-2005

  90. Propelled by "Sculling"... by quinkin · · Score: 1
    I love the title of the article in CSM - Propelled by "Sculling".

    Reminds me of a few uni students I knew...

    (In case it is a local vernacular - "sculling" is a colloquial expression for downing ones drink without in one go).

    Q.

    --
    Insert Signature Here
  91. Strider by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All these replies and not one reference to Aragorn yet. Shame, shame...

  92. Re:Wrong. - unbiased? by thebruce · · Score: 1

    and I'm sure you realize that the field of biology has pretty much accepted evolution as the most probably theory

    but in an unbiased article, I wouldn't expect to see a point that didn't need to be made, that is known to presently still be on the debate table. The article is talking about a breakthrough in research which finally explains, in good scientific method, why something works with a creature. What does millions of years have to do with? And why does it only make one appearance in a next to last paragraph?

    That's all I'm saying... the article would have been just as good without that comment, no less scientific, no less informed. But now we know that the writer believes in evolution, knowing that there are still other viable answers out there (viable as in not disproven theories) just as evolution is still a theory, though widely accepted as fact (yet still a theory). If he hadn't written that, he wouldn't be viewed as believing in one thing or another... just reporting on the facts at hand.

    Everything in the article is believable and factual. But the writer cannot prove that it was millions of years that brought this about. So leave it at the discoveries, and don't dabble in anything beyond his reporting abilities. Leave the 'why's, 'when's, and 'how's to more scientific research...

    (sorry, just a little miffed that my last post got a -1 overrated :)