Slashdot Mirror


Technology Spontaneously Combusts In Sicily

Zacronos writes "According to MSNBC, ever since mid-January, various electronic devices have been spontaneously combusting in the now evacuated town of Canneto di Caronia, Sicily; at this point, the fires are almost daily. The town has been disconnected from the larger electrical grid and was hooked to a generator, but that, too, caught fire. Even unplugged items have succumbed. Nothing seems to have burst into flame except where there is someone present to witness it, but the police no longer suspect a prankster -- after witnessing wires catch fire without cause. Scientists have yet to explain the phenomenon (although unproven theories abound), leading many people to look to supernatural causes."

1,010 comments

  1. Hmm. by messiuh · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'm thinking, can any kind of EMP cause this?

    1. Re:Hmm. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      You mean if any kind of EMP is the cause of you thinking?

    2. Re:Hmm. by Vihai · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm italian and i followed the story with much interest. Unfortunately news lacked important details about phenomenons, when and how they happened and expecially which of them were true.

      If it was an EMP so strong to burn power lines, why didn't it fry all the small electronics (including scientist's instruments) which are more susceptible to EM fields?

    3. Re:Hmm. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The common thread in the fires is objects connected to wires, whether powered wires or not. Wires are after all antennas though the matching frequency depends on length. It's well known in RF engineering that under the right circumstances, RF energy can cause high temperatures at impedance boundaries. Quite possibly some high power RF source is causing the phenomena. One of my guesses is energy bouncing off the ionosphere and coming from far away, maybe the US military's HAARP, or something the Russians have. The fact that all the occurrences are in one tiny village midway between some railroad lines and the ocean is odd since nothing industrial or military is nearby. I'd say it's accidental and the result of military testing elsewhere.

    4. Re:Hmm. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      maybe the US military's HAARP

      Wouldn't it be totally awesome if we had something like that?

    5. Re:Hmm. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Doesn't need to be EMP. A continous Tesla-style resonant earth antenna can create "hot zones" where ground... isn't...

    6. Re:Hmm. by fshalor · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I think they were testing BPL in this region....Natural resonances of power systems are a phenomena which is very little known in this sort of region.

      Another big hint: they said the'd disconnected the town from the power system. If they still had a connection somewhere to the grid that they didn't know about, that would set them up for more problems. (Mixing grounds from different phases is a NONO... I've experienced really bad RF just trying to use a radio that was running on gen power and a computer on shore at the same time.)

      --
      -=fshalor ::this post not spellchecked. move along::
    7. Re:Hmm. by sploxx · · Score: 3, Insightful

      According to the article:
      > [...] while a van with a large, rotating antennas on top measures the radio waves.

      It seems that they look for that particular cause.

    8. Re:Hmm. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice idea, but some furniture is also catching fire. I suppose you could argure the furniture has metal in it, but then so do most things.

      aQazaQa

    9. Re:Hmm. by Lumpy · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I would suggest they start with several teams with fied strength meters looking for the guy doing Tesla tests...

      my EE professor back in college demonstrated Nicolai Tesla's theories and designs by powering a electronic device from across the room and with no wires. he also warned all of us to NOT bring any electronic equipment and everyone in the Engineering building was also warned as well were PC's removed from the building.

      he was generating a field strength that pegged a standard meter 500 feet from the building.

      Tesla was going to generate much HIGHER atmosphereic voltages with his tower...

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    10. Re:Hmm. by CrazyDuke · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Ultra low frequency EM radiation can have effects on objects that are normally insulators. This phenomina can be abserved during meteor storms. Most notably, with some shooting stars, you can "hear" them despite them being several miles above you effectively instantainiously. It is hypothisized that as the meteor disintigrates during entry, the resulting plasma stores the magnetic field lines of the planted. The plasma moves somewhat before it cools. As it cools the field lines snap back into place creating a low frequency EM-pulse that causes leaves and assorted other things on the ground to oscilate breifly.

      However, I have never heard of it producing current high enough to set anything on fire. Oh, and anyway, furnature usually has metal nails, screws, and staples in it.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced influence is indistinguishable from control.
    11. Re:Hmm. by paganizer · · Score: 5, Funny

      I thought this was a nerd site!
      It's obvious what this is; the barrier between the normal world and faerie is coming down; look for reports of weird creatures in the nearby hills, similar things happening in various spots around the world as the local rules of physics change.
      It's FULLY detailed in the Shadowrun or Dark Conspiracy sourcebooks.

      --
      Why, yes, I AM a Pagan Libertarian.
    12. Re:Hmm. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      when in doubt, blame top-secret-military-testing.

    13. Re:Hmm. by boisepunk · · Score: 1

      No, sorry, I'm afraid not. This story just came a few days late. Belated April Fools!

      --
      main(0)
    14. Re:Hmm. by Klatma · · Score: 2, Informative

      I thought the same thing, "Damn, a week late."

      Until I went to CNN.com and did a search on the village and found similar articles from February and March. Plus articles from many different sources.

    15. Re:Hmm. by phorm · · Score: 1

      The fires have even consumed unplugged lamps and an entire apartment

      Doesn't quite apply here though it seems, since things that aren't even plugged in are still catching fire. Now, different ground levels could be causing weird EM frequencies in the general environment... but this is still very odd. I wonder what would happen were one to start trailing long cords hooked up to voltmeters to measure ambient electrical current?

    16. Re:Hmm. by Xenographic · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it made me think of Telsa, too.

      What was it? Resonant earth ground or something?

      I understand it to have caused some *very* freaky things... :]

    17. Re:Hmm. by fshalor · · Score: 1

      I'd love to get out there with a kick start motorcycle, a good multimete and freq counter with an antenna analyzer and:
      1. G5RV
      2. Ringo Ranger II (these are evil, electrically, so may be a good thing to use)
      3. A decent handheld dual bander for 2m and 440 cm.
      4. A trombone commercial antenna with different length elements.
      5. A sling shot and a bunch of wire.
      6. Some good shielded coax.
      7. An v-500 or something to scan _c and some tape recorders
      8. A gun.

      On the other hand.. this is probably a delayed april fools joke. :)

      --
      -=fshalor ::this post not spellchecked. move along::
    18. Re:Hmm. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do multiple devices catch fire simultaniously or just one at a time. I was thinking it could be a Maser it's like a laser but generates microwaves. It would be very directional and could work from a distance. It may even possibly work through walls if the wall material is transparrent to the frequency used. But I'm not an X-pert on masers.

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

      From a February article at theregister.co.uk ( http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/02/11/cyberappli ances_attack_italian_village/ ):

      "Mobile phones have mysteriously burst into flames, and even furniture - not previously noted for malevolent intent, except in the form of particluarly vicious sofabed mechanisms - has joined the struggle to purge mankind from the face of the planet."

      (emphasis mine)
      So much for the common thread. :)

    20. Re:Hmm. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      now you're talking!!!

    21. Re:Hmm. by DonGar · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Perhaps the Seti project should start listening in the area. I'm not 100% joking, because they have a LOT of experience at identifying (and discounting) man made radio sources.

      --
      plus-good, double-plus-good
    22. Re:Hmm. by dgatwood · · Score: 1
      Speaking of magnetic field lines... isn't Earth due for a magnetic field change right about now? Is it possible that it has started already, leading to a gradual collapse of the van allen belts, and that the city in question just happens to be somehow at a hot spot?

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    23. Re:Hmm. by CrazyDuke · · Score: 2, Informative

      I was wondering the same thing. There is actually a story on this on CNN today. I'd submit it if the editors didn't seem hell bent on rejecting everything I try to submit.

      Story here.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced influence is indistinguishable from control.
    24. Re:Hmm. by hoyty · · Score: 2, Informative

      There actually is US military close by. There is a navy base in Sigonella which is an airfield as well as stopping point in the Italian docks nearby for some ships.

      --
      Hoyty
    25. Re:Hmm. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Ash clouds can generate powerful electrical fields producing intense and frequent lightning discharges, which can interfere with radio communications and damage electrical installations, or start fires in buildings and installations"

      The town is near the Etna and not for away from the vulcan island Stromboli. It's pretty obvious if you tell me.

    26. Re:Hmm. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For a second I thought you were talking about the gradual collapse of Van Halen's belts!

    27. Re:Hmm. by elliotCarte · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yeah, I thought it was a nerd site too. Too bad the people investigating this aren't nerds or they would've figured it out by now. Consider this quote from the article: "We're working in the dark. We don't have a single lead so far," You dumn shit. If you're working in the dark you need a LED not a LEAD. Sheesh.

      --
      If you can't just be yourself, then be more like me, ok?
    28. Re:Hmm. by General+Fault · · Score: 1

      I wonder if any of that equipment is working, and if so why it has not caught on fire?

      --
      No man is an island... But I wouldn't mind having a bigger moat.
    29. Re:Hmm. by fenix+down · · Score: 1

      Good lord, with the old, broken-down asses of all the Van Halen members exposed to open air, we're lucky we're only getting fires.

    30. Re:Hmm. by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 2, Interesting
      If this was the military testing something, even if it was accidental, if they could target this it could be one hell of an effective weapon if developed further. Imagine targeting another country somewhere in the world, and making it so their electrical devices randomly combust. Powerful indeed.

      Now where can I buy this device?

      --
      Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
    31. Re:Hmm. by Walt+Dismal · · Score: 1

      No, furniture like couches contains coil springs for support. So do beds and chairs. That's metal, and it could easily heat up and make the organics burn if it gets induced energy. I could put a bed in a big enough microwave oven and make it catch on fire.

    32. Re:Hmm. by TheIzzy · · Score: 2, Funny

      It's obvious the town has been slashdoted.

    33. Re:Hmm. by Lectrik · · Score: 1
      I wonder what would happen were one to start trailing long cords hooked up to voltmeters to measure ambient electrical current?


      This, children, is why we don't read /. while on good cold medicine.

      that one line got read as

      I wonder what would happen were one to start trailing long cords hooked up to voulentiers to measure ambient electrical current?

      I think i should probably take a nap.
      --
      --- As to make my comment seem, by comparison, more intelegent... doodie doodie doodie poop poop poop!
    34. Re:Hmm. by macdaddy357 · · Score: 1

      Here's the real deal. Someone in the town has found some of Nikola Tesla's lost notes, and is experimenting with wireless energy transmission. Some of his experiments did cause electricity to come up out of the ground, and burn things up.

      --
      How ya like dat?
    35. Re:Hmm. by mdinowitz · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm rather interested in this as well. I've had simular experiences in homes that I lived in. Radios would go on and off, clocks (battery, plug, etc.) would go back and forward. No fires, but some strange effects. While I personally believe in magick (goes along with being an orthodox Jew), I'd like to see a technical reason for it if one exists. I'll be watching this story closely and contacting fellow programmers in Italy.

      --
      Michael Dinowitz House of Fusion http://www.houseoffusion.com
    36. Re:Hmm. by ValourX · · Score: 1

      We should have taken a lesson from Star Trek. They're constantly reversing the polarity of things to solve problems.

      This is a good answer to the phenomenon in Italy though. If you actually suddenly reversed the polarity on an AC device that would certainly blow it up if it were under load. DC devices can be more forgiving sometimes -- usually you just fry the transformer.

      -Jem
    37. Re:Hmm. by coyotedata · · Score: 1

      I am not Italian-can't you tell.

    38. Re:Hmm. by mr100percent · · Score: 1

      Broadband over Power Lines?

    39. Re:Hmm. by FuegoFuerte · · Score: 1

      Just curious, where do you live? Is it anywhere near-ish to this town?

    40. Re:Hmm. by mdinowitz · · Score: 1

      I'm in Brooklyn, NY, USA which is nowhere near the town. On the scientific side I'm interested if a human body can produce an EM field of sufficient strength to interact with other EM fields and if this might be the cause. I want hard core scientific investigation here. No mumbo-jumbo science. It's either provable and replicatable or it's not.
      Occult events are entirely subjective and can not be proven scientifically. If this is an occult event then cool, but not as interesting.

      --
      Michael Dinowitz House of Fusion http://www.houseoffusion.com
    41. Re:Hmm. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
      While I personally believe in magick (goes along with being an orthodox Jew), I'd like to see a technical reason for it if one exists.

      Perhaps the Ark of the Covenant was hidden in Italy by the Knights of the Templar and it is trying to return to its master.

  2. Virgin Mary by UID1000000 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Many many people will soon flock to Sicily to see the virgin Mary.

    Sadly, in the news, a number of faithful Catholics have suddenly burst into flames today.

    --
    UID 1000000 is just around the corner.

    1. Re:Virgin Mary by xSauronx · · Score: 4, Funny

      sudden my ass, it took 3 hours to set that up!

      --
      By and large, language is a tool for concealing the truth. -- George Carlin
    2. Re:Virgin Mary by gerddie · · Score: 5, Funny

      Sadly, in the news, a number of faithful Catholics have suddenly burst into flames today.
      Obviously, they where heretics ...

    3. Re:Virgin Mary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not long ago, I saw the spitting images of jeezus, mary, and/or joey on a sidewalk near my home. After carefully investigating the cause, it was obvious that these images had miraculously appeared in places where I had placed my (now) most holy feet.

      My sincere convictions are unaffected by the claims of self-appointed "eyewitnesses" that earlier, I had stepped in some dog poo.

      Yours In Reverence,
      AC, Bishop of the Church of Holy Shit

    4. Re:Virgin Mary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nobody expects the Spanish inquisition.

    5. Re:Virgin Mary by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > it was obvious that these images had miraculously appeared in places where I had placed my (now) most holy feet.

      Aha, you forgot that you had the soles of your shoes shaped into the image of jesus.

    6. Re:Virgin Mary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, they were witches.

  3. Article one week old by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Could it be that this article was first posted one week ago, on Thursday?

    1. Re:Article one week old by AppyPappy · · Score: 1

      Thank you. I thought I was clairvoyant for a minute.

      --

      If you aren't part of the solution, there is good money to be made prolonging the problem

    2. Re:Article one week old by dncsky1530 · · Score: 1

      Have u tryed a search?

    3. Re:Article one week old by Mostly+a+lurker · · Score: 5, Informative

      No, it is not an April Fools joke. For details, see http://www.ebicom.net/~rsf1/canneto.htm that has been covering events for 5 weeks already.

    4. Re:Article one week old by 77Punker · · Score: 1

      It's not April Fool's day; it's the Mafia!

  4. Crazy theory? by dncsky1530 · · Score: 2, Funny

    I knew Windows Longhorne wasn't ready to be released

    1. Re:Crazy theory? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Crazy theories means untrue and far out, not real and down-to-earth.

  5. Bah... by odano · · Score: 2, Funny

    It looks to me like the whole thing was just invented. I'll bet if I visited, I could find the problem in two minutes... tops.

    1. Re:Bah... by Mixel · · Score: 1

      If you did that, you might be playing right into the hands of the problem's creator by being another visitor to their place (read: money += tourists++).

  6. Confirmation? by CdBee · · Score: 3, Informative

    Can any Sicilian slashdotter confirm this seemingly unlikely story?

    --
    I have been a user for about 10 years. This ends Feb 2014. The site's been ruined. I'm off. Dice, FU
    1. Re:Confirmation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Bah - I'm from Sicily and this story is a complete load of **BZZZZZZZZTT*

      NO CARRIER

    2. Re:Confirmation? by mirko · · Score: 3, Funny

      Nope : They won't switch their computer on to discuss about this since it might catch fire :)

      --
      Trolling using another account since 2005.
    3. Re:Confirmation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      If their computer which isn't connected to a electricity grid doesn't combust...

    4. Re:Confirmation? by CdBee · · Score: 4, Informative
      --
      I have been a user for about 10 years. This ends Feb 2014. The site's been ruined. I'm off. Dice, FU
    5. Re:Confirmation? by chendo · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'm a Sicilian slashdotter and I haven't seen it ye- (#*@$#)@(&)DF%N CARRIER LOST

      --
      Founder of Mirror Moon - Tsukihime Game Trans
    6. Re:Confirmation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *shh* it's La Cosa Nostra...

    7. Re:Confirmation? by CdBee · · Score: 5, Funny

      OK, Can any sicilian slashdotter with a carrier pigeon or a battery powered CB radio confirm this?

      --
      I have been a user for about 10 years. This ends Feb 2014. The site's been ruined. I'm off. Dice, FU
    8. Re:Confirmation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1) That's not redundant
      2) That should be NO CARRIER

    9. Re:Confirmation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not Sicilian but I live in Italy; the story is not really "new" but seems to be true. Some scientists proposed to explain the phaenomen as a sort of "power sourge" springing from the underground...

    10. Re:Confirmation? by DavidNWelton · · Score: 4, Informative

      This has been in the news here in Italy on and off for a couple of months. I'd still want to see it with my own eyes though...

    11. Re:Confirmation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      some months ago, when i for the first time knew of this thing, i was thinking about a prankster... but who knows...
      on the italian tv i have seen some people taking all the electric wires out of the walls of their house...

    12. Re:Confirmation? by Malc · · Score: 4, Funny

      I have an unladen European Swallow...

    13. Re:Confirmation? by AllUsernamesAreGone · · Score: 4, Funny

      Finally a practical use for IP over avian carriers! :)

    14. Re:Confirmation? by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 2, Funny

      Not bad, Packet data, AND a decent meal.

      Flame grilled pigeon tastes quite nice :D

      --
      liqbase :: faster than paper
    15. Re:Confirmation? by CGP314 · · Score: 5, Funny

      ::Smiles at the idea of a carrier pigeon bursting into flame as soon as a message is attatched to its leg because it now falls under the 'technology' category::


      -Colin

    16. Re:Confirmation? by Short+Circuit · · Score: 2, Funny

      That's similar to power over Ethernet, isn't it? Your energy comes with your data?

    17. Re:Confirmation? by Goedel74 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I'm a Sicilian (I live in Catania) and I can confirm that the news is real. At first the police thought of fraudulent actions from unknown people but after some weeks 3-4 policemans saw some electric cables (old cables, unconnected and resting on floor) that started spontaneously to combust. After that many scientists and technicians have done many tests without results. Those events are happening only in a very little town near the city of Messina.

    18. Re:Confirmation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is redundant. Though only by a minute.

    19. Re:Confirmation? by dogdaze · · Score: 2, Funny

      I wondered why I had this firewire jack on my puter.

    20. Re:Confirmation? by ErroneousBee · · Score: 2, Funny

      Really, how fast does it go?

      --
      **TODO** Steal someone elses sig.
    21. Re:Confirmation? by Zeddicus_Z · · Score: 0

      How fast is it?

      :)

      --
      Janie took my gun...
    22. Re:Confirmation? by Dr.+GeneMachine · · Score: 3, Funny

      That's what you get for participating in flame-wars...

      --
      This comment does not exist.
    23. Re:Confirmation? by Malc · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure. The fibers on the husk are proving a problem for my pen. If I took them off it would be easier to write and reduce the in-flight drag... but I fear it will take longer to arrive if it is harder to grasp.

    24. Re:Confirmation? by ckaminski · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yeah, great. Thanks. Leave my sockets in a TIME-WAIT state, thanks... You do know you're supposed to *ACK* that packet, right?

    25. Re:Confirmation? by happyfrogcow · · Score: 4, Funny

      Watch our for their dropped packets!

      splat.

    26. Re:Confirmation? by compwizrd · · Score: 1

      With an Ack-Ack gun?

    27. Re:Confirmation? by ckaminski · · Score: 1

      ROTFLMAO.

    28. Re:Confirmation? by rjelks · · Score: 1

      Did we cover a story on one of their servers there? Could this all be caused by a severe slashdotting?

    29. Re:Confirmation? by azav · · Score: 1

      Have you tried standing next to an electronic device?

      --
      - Zav - Imagine a Beowulf cluster of insensitive clods...
    30. Re:Confirmation? by Intrigued · · Score: 1
      Do you have any specifics on what tests the scientists have done or links to a site with more specifics? Tests for EMP, radio signal, siesmic, etc.

      I've been browsing this news for a few days. All the information that I have seen has been very general. I'm sure others here are curious for specifics also.

    31. Re:Confirmation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I'd still want to see it with my own eyes though...

      You do? I'd rather not...
    32. Re:Confirmation? by B3ryllium · · Score: 1

      I wonder what the odds are that the cause of the problem would seriously fuck up the routing tables on an avian carrier?

      Ah well, at least there's traceability. (splat splat splat)

    33. Re:Confirmation? by autocracy · · Score: 5, Funny
      (#*@$#)@(&)DF%N
      I just wanted to note that your code doesn't seem to execute in my version of perl. Which version did you write that in? *smirk*
      --
      SIG: HUP
    34. Re:Confirmation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Speckled Jim never tasted so good.

      Sincerely,

      Blackadder

    35. Re:Confirmation? by Carl+Sable · · Score: 5, Funny

      Knight 1: Maybe he spontaneously combusted before he could finish?

      Knight 2: He wouldn't say **BZZZZZZZZTT*, he'd just say it!

      Knight 1: Maybe he was dictating.

    36. Re:Confirmation? by glassware · · Score: 1

      Luke ... help me take this mask off. Just for once let me look ... on the Sicilian fires ... with my own eyes...

    37. Re:Confirmation? by Tachys · · Score: 1

      I tried carrier pigeon. But they kept bursting into flames mid flight. :/

    38. Re:Confirmation? by revividus · · Score: 1
      They're eating the pigeons? Well, that explains the trouble I've had pinging the server. I thought the network was down.

      Talk about packet loss.

    39. Re:Confirmation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about an African Swallow...?

    40. Re:Confirmation? by fm6 · · Score: 1

      This is why we need to do away with the funny mod -- to stop encouraging all these lame Monty Python, Simpsons, and Zero Wing references!

    41. Re:Confirmation? by Malc · · Score: 1

      Slashdot moderators can be so predictable sometimes. I didn't even try to make that funny. It's like they're pre-programmed: prod them correctly and they'll blinding do as you wish. I don't know why it still amuses me doing so it's too easy. Of course... if this comment were attached to one of the top 5 stories on the front page it would probably be moderated down (off-topic or something), but it isn't and will probably be left alone.

  7. Slash and burn by nekosej · · Score: 1, Funny

    Electrical devices burst into flames... I guess then slashdotting them is akin to putting out the fire with gasoline.

    --
    Never pet a burning dog.
    1. Re:Slash and burn by Short+Circuit · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Don't laugh. I've seen it done.

      A company (I don't remember what) was trying to sell some of a wetting agent to a fire department I was part of. They demonstrated that it got soot stains out of concrete, got oil off your hands, etc.

      They mixed the stuff about at about a 1:5 ration with gasoline, and used a bucket to splash the resulting mixture onto a pile of burning tires. It darned near put it out. It did reduce the temperature of the fire by 2500 degrees Farenhuit.

    2. Re:Slash and burn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Electrical devices burst into flames... I guess then slashdotting them is akin to putting out the fire with gasoline.

      Who said gasoline isn't a good fire retardent?

      I've watched people put out matches by dunking them in gasoline. Quite a trick until you realize gasoline isn't flamable, it's the gasoline fumes that are are.

    3. Re:Slash and burn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well aren't you Mr. Pedantic. While true, that's not a safe thing to do.

  8. well... by snub · · Score: 5, Funny

    Obviously, if they were running Linux this wouldn't be happening now would it?

    --
    "Shredded cabbage and mayo go good together." Cole's Law
    1. Re:well... by DarkHelmet · · Score: 5, Funny

      See what happens when you don't pay your $699?

      --
      /^[A-Z0-9._%+-]+@[A-Z0-9.-]+\.[A-Z]{2,4}$/i
    2. Re:well... by phaxkolumbo · · Score: 4, Funny

      Well mine said a while ago:

      kernel: lp0 on fire

      Are you sure that Linux is really safe? I'm scared.

    3. Re:well... by speeDDemon+(nw) · · Score: 1

      Ive seen kernel panic: Food Fight!!! gave me a laugh even tho the system was dying

  9. Best quote: "We're working in the dark..." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    From the article: "We're working in the dark. We don't have a single lead so far," said Pedro Spinnato, mayor of the trio of Caronia towns.

    1. Re:Best quote: "We're working in the dark..." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I dunno, I sorta like the two lines before those ones:

      "An endless flow of scientists, engineers, police and even a few self-styled 'ghostbusters' have descended on the town, searching for clues to the recent spontaneous combustion of everything from fuse boxes to microwave ovens to a car. The blazes, originally blamed on the devil, have not hurt anyone."

      ...or this one stuck on the side of the article:

      " 'I've seen things like this before. Demons occupy a house and appear in electrical goods.' --Gabriele Amorth, Exorcist"

    2. Re:Best quote: "We're working in the dark..." by red+floyd · · Score: 1

      This story gives a whole new meaning to the term, "FireWire", doesn't it?

      --
      The only reason we have the rights we have is that people just like us died to gain those rights. -- Cheerio Boy
    3. Re:Best quote: "We're working in the dark..." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We don't have a single lead so far,

      Of course, the electrical leads also caught on fire.

  10. Could it be... by MImeKillEr · · Score: 1, Funny

    ...a lesser-known sign of the apocalypse?

    I mean, another has already come true -- We've got the little-known 5th Horseman roaming the earth, and has its own variety show.

    What? You didn't know she was the Horsman of Stupidity?

    --
    Cruising the internet on my TI-99/4A @ a whopping 300 baud!
    1. Re:Could it be... by Doooh_head · · Score: 1

      Could it be the Recording industry wreaking its revenge?

      --

      doooh
  11. I don't meant to be blasphemous, but... by Vandil+X · · Score: 4, Funny

    "Jesus!"

    I feel sorry for any IT professionals walking around with a pager, NEXtel, and a PDA in their pockets/belts. Ouch!

    --
    Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, START
    1. Re:I don't meant to be blasphemous, but... by NeuralAbyss · · Score: 0

      WTF is a 'NEXtel'?

    2. Re:I don't meant to be blasphemous, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      A cell phone that runs NEXTStep

    3. Re:I don't meant to be blasphemous, but... by SlayerofGods · · Score: 0

      You don't mean to be blasphemous...?
      You do realize that this is slashdot?
      God has no place within these walls!

      --

      Technology, the cause of and solution to all of life's problems.
    4. Re:I don't meant to be blasphemous, but... by patternjuggler · · Score: 1, Funny

      "Jesus!"

      I believe it's either some sort of electro-stigmata heralding the arrival of the cyber-christ, who will liberate the machines from their fleshy oppressors.

      Either that or it's just all bullshit.

    5. Re:I don't meant to be blasphemous, but... by 3dr · · Score: 2, Funny

      Do you mean the eJesus?

    6. Re:I don't meant to be blasphemous, but... by B3ryllium · · Score: 1

      He's obviously a Mac fan. iJesus

    7. Re:I don't meant to be blasphemous, but... by Pragmatix · · Score: 1

      Hell I feel sorry for anyone who is 'playing' with a vibrator in one of those towns! 'Suddenly I had a burning sensation from my loins'

    8. Re:I don't meant to be blasphemous, but... by Muhammar · · Score: 1

      Christ is not involved, boredom did it. Someone should quickly do something about job satisfaction of the ghost in the machine.

      --
      I doubt that we will ever figure out - and I suspect that even if we did figure out we couldn't do much about it
  12. The Slashdot Effect by richie2000 · · Score: 2, Funny

    In unrelated news, media reports that many websites carrying "news for nerds, stuff that matters" spontaneously combust, especially when lots of people are witnessing it. Apparently, a Sicilian hosting company has been hit particularly hard.

    --
    Money for nothing, pix for free
  13. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 5, Funny

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  14. Heh. .. by messiuh · · Score: 2, Funny

    Looks like siciliy finally got the boot!

    *badum ching!*

  15. Old news... by BlastM · · Score: 1, Funny

    Web servers burst into flame all the time when they are linked from SlashDot.

  16. No way! by Walkiry · · Score: 4, Funny

    It was posted today! The fact that this news piece appears backdated in other websites proves there is something supernatural involved!!

    *Jumps into Holy Water pool*

    --
    ---- Take the Space Quiz!
    1. Re:No way! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Was that before or after Ramsy melted that laptop at 3000 degrees molten iron.

  17. Volcano Experts? by imag0 · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...Colored markings on the street indicate the presence of volcano experts...

    Sweet jumpin' Jesus! The volcano 'experts' must have burned up and left little *poof* marks where they stood.

    1. Re:Volcano Experts? by seanmeister · · Score: 5, Funny

      Best. Volcano expert joke. Ever. :)

    2. Re:Volcano Experts? by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1
      The volcano 'experts' must have burned up and left little *poof* marks where they stood.

      That should teach them to bring mobile phones and PDA's to a flame-infested Sicilian village!

    3. Re:Volcano Experts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Colored markings on the street indicate the presence of volcano experts...

      I would think the markings now indicate their absence

    4. Re:Volcano Experts? by sunbeam60 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Only. Volcano expert joke. Ever.

    5. Re:Volcano Experts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do people laugh at you when you explain jokes at parties? No, wait, 'parties', what was I thinking....

    6. Re:Volcano Experts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does the punctuation of the parent post remind anyone else of William Shatner?

    7. Re:Volcano Experts? by salparadyse · · Score: 0

      mmmmm
      they live on the slopes of a volcano and no ones mentioned the possibility of an impending eruption

      question:
      was there electronic equipment of todays sensitivity around when last she blowed up?

    8. Re:Volcano Experts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Earth's magnetic field is thought to be generated by rapidly moving subterranean molten iron flows, it wouldn't surprise me if this is somehow related as Mt. Edna is a nearby volcano that is very active. Perhaps this is some sort of natural inductance phenomena.

    9. Re:Volcano Experts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mt. Edna? Heh. I think you mean Mt. Aetna.

    10. Re:Volcano Experts? by Lando · · Score: 1
      Looks like they think that the area might be do for an eruption soon and that the fires might be causes by stray sparks igniting volital(sp?) gases see this article for a bit better informtion especially part 5.

      http://www.ebicom.net/~rsf1/canneto.htm

      --
      /* TODO: Spawn child process, interest child in technology, have child write a new sig */
    11. Re:Volcano Experts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      :) Yeah, off the top of my head. My bad.

    12. Re:Volcano Experts? by ozbird · · Score: 1

      ...Colored markings on the street indicate the presence of volcano experts...

      ... who, having decided that a volcano isn't to blame after all, have taken up warchalking instead to keep themselves amused.

    13. Re:Volcano Experts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Makes me wonder how many volcano experts it takes to change a light bulb.

  18. The Score by CGP314 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Scientists have yet to explain the phenomenon ... leading many people to look to supernatural causes

    It really makes me sad when, if people don't understand something they assume it's magic. Why is it that so many people refuse to take 'we don't know yet' as an acceptable answer?

    Science: 0
    Magic: 1

    :/


    -Colin

    1. Re:The Score by vudufixit · · Score: 1

      Any insufficiently explained-away magic is therefore indistinguishable from technology?

    2. Re:The Score by slackerboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."--Arthur C. Clarke

      --
      Things to do today: See list of things to do yesterday
    3. Re:The Score by finkployd · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What is magic, if not simply something we do not (yet) understand?

      Finkployd

    4. Re:The Score by madprof · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Magic is a trick. This is the point. Magicians call themselves 'illusionists' - they can (very cleverly) fool you into believing all sorts of things.
      David Copperfield did not make the Statue of Liberty disappear but created the illusion that it had done so.

    5. Re:The Score by Threni · · Score: 1

      > Why is it that so many people refuse to take 'we don't know yet' as an
      > acceptable answer?

      Because most people are stupid and are unable to solve a problem rationally by first investigating it, looking at likely solutions and discounting them until they arrive at the only possible solution.

    6. Re:The Score by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Magic is, by definition, what we don't understand.

    7. Re:The Score by Hast · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It may be "magical" but it isn't "supernatural" or "paranormal". That is, just because you don't understand something should your first assumption be that "this can only be explained by rejecting all previous knowledge and making something up".

      And I find the lack of citations from any of the alleged scientist disturbing. The press is in a sad state indeed.

    8. Re:The Score by fishbot · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo."--Anon.

    9. Re:The Score by TMB · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Corollary: "Any technology distinguishable from magic is not sufficiently advanced." ;-)

      [TMB]

    10. Re:The Score by madprof · · Score: 1

      I think you have confused 'terrorist' and 'illusionist'...

    11. Re:The Score by hplasm · · Score: 1
      Magic n; adj; (ma-jik)q.v.

      1.'we don't know yet'..

      2.Possessing distinctive qualities that produce unaccountable or baffling effects.

      --
      ...and he grinned, like a fox eating shit out of a wire brush.
    12. Re:The Score by CGP314 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Magic is, by definition, what we don't understand.

      That is such crap. I don't understand how international currency exchange rates work, but I don't say 'must be magic!'. Scientists don't know why the magnetic poles of the Earth reverse, but I doubt that any of them would suggest the reason is Magic until they learn something new.


      -Colin

    13. Re:The Score by jamesh · · Score: 5, Funny

      I can do that.
      Fires are appearing randomly, what are the possible causes:
      1. fire bugs
      2. higher than normal voltage
      3. emp devices being tested nearby
      4. act of God 1 (natural causes)
      5. act of God 2 (God's pissed - it is Easter, afterall)
      6. aliens

      we can rule out #1 due to witnesses. Ditto for #2 as fires have been happening in unplugged equipment.

      We can also rule out #3 as the slashdot crowd says that can't be it.

      There is nothing in nature that we know of that would cause #4. God promised after Noah's flood he wouldn't do this sort of thing again so we can rule out #5.

      That just leaves #6. :p

    14. Re:The Score by cabraverde · · Score: 5, Funny

      "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."--Arthur C. Clarke

      It really makes me sad when, if people don't understand something they assume it's advanced technology.

    15. Re:The Score by CGP314 · · Score: 1

      True, but that doesn't mean it is magic.


      -Colin

    16. Re:The Score by Short+Circuit · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Who wants to be cited as the scientist who couldn't solve the mystery?

      It reminds me of a biblical story where the king killed all his advisors who couldn't tell him what his dream meant.

    17. Re:The Score by ZvlvLord · · Score: 1

      A percentage of the world population cannot deal with probabilities, conditions, etc... They want certainty, 100% sure stuff. The problem is that we live in an uncertain world and a huge chunk off humanity refuse to accept that. Regards.

    18. Re:The Score by merikus · · Score: 1, Insightful

      And then, there is the possibility that it does have some sort of supernatural cause. I've long thought it was disturbing that in our culture we assume that everything can be explained by science. Quite simply, science can't explain everything and it is quite possible that there is some supernatural cause to these events.

      The assumption that science either has or can find all the answers completely shuts down an aspect of the world which people have been studying for centuries longer than science. By doing so, it makes our world a lot more of a boring place.

    19. Re:The Score by Hell+O'World · · Score: 5, Funny

      "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from terrorism."--Not Arthur C. Clarke

    20. Re:The Score by Merkuri22 · · Score: 1

      Haven't you heard? It's tradition. Goes back thousands of years, probably to the first cave man to wonder why the sun goes down in one place and comes up in another. It's called "creativity". When you don't know the answer, you make it up. It all stems from the desire to know how everything works. I believe the Slashdot population is very familiar with that desire. Most of you have probably taken apart something in your life to see how it works. When you can't take something apart or when taking it apart doesn't reveal the answers, the next logical step is to start making things up to see which makes the most sense. These folks probably don't have degrees in electronics, and taking their exploding appliances apart would do them no good. And when even engineers, who've been trained to understand the hows and whys, can't divine a cause then they move to step two: make it up. Many scientists are guilty of this phenomenon. They call it "theorizing". They simply have more knowledge to build on, so their ideas seem more plausable to educated folks like themselves. But there is still a lot about the natural world that we don't know, and while we can't prove that the devil is setting electronics aflame in this town we also can't prove that he isn't. It's a theory. A very far-fetched theory, but so was relativity, wasn't it?

      I'm not saying I believe it, but I don't blame these folks for wanting to know why, and when they don't get answers from the people who know more then them then they have no choice but to theorize. Their problem comes when they assume their theories are facts and refuse to believe the truth when it is finally figured out.

    21. Re:The Score by 1q2w3e4r5t · · Score: 0

      I find your lack of faith disturbing!

    22. Re:The Score by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      bah. that is what you define magic as. Magic, if it exists, is a supernatural force acting on the natural world. super natural being outside what we understand as nature. As our definition of nature and what is included in it has changed over the years as we come to understand the world around us, what was once considered the province of druids and witches is now the province of scientists.

      Actually if you look at their history, druids were early attempts at science, without a proper code, and without allot of the benefits of history that we enjoy now.

      Don't knock magic, knock the people who define everything around them as magic. Magic is simply something we don't understand yet.

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

      God promised after Noah's flood he wouldn't do this sort of thing again so we can rule out #5.
      Technically God promissed not to destroy the world by flood again, so fire is still a very real possiblility. Also since this is only happening in a small area even the flood promise doesn't hold. Then again it could be the aliens. or perhaps stargate is real and it is aliens pretending to be gods.

    24. Re:The Score by Cleggmeister · · Score: 1

      Gee, how pedantic!!! Life is so much simpler when you use "magic" to explain things. For example: Q; "How do cars work?" A; "Petrol and magic". Knowledge may be power, but ignorance is bliss!

    25. Re:The Score by theLOUDroom · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What is magic, if not simply something we do not (yet) understand?

      An excuse for not understanding something.

      Rather than being bothered to actually try and understand something you just shrug your shoulders and say "magic".

      It all reminds me of one of my favorite Calvin and Hobbes strips:
      Calvin: Dad, what makes the wind? Dad: Trees sneezing. Calvin: Really? Dad: No, but the real answer is a lot more complex.

      Magic/Myth/Religion are all ways to explain the world to those who can't bother to be interested in the actual truth.

      --
      Life is too short to proofread.
    26. Re:The Score by Simon+Lyngshede · · Score: 1

      He must have forseen WLAN, a technologi completely based on magic.

    27. Re:The Score by aliens · · Score: 5, Funny

      Sure, blame me!

      For the last time, it's the Illuminati!

      --
      -- taking over the world, we are.
    28. Re:The Score by schon · · Score: 1

      That is such crap.

      Not really.

      I don't understand how international currency exchange rates work

      That may be - but are you asserting that nobody knows how they work? Because that's what you replied to. ("... what we don't understand.")

      While I don't believe that the previous poster's definition fits everything 100%, he does raise an interesting point.

    29. Re:The Score by CGP314 · · Score: 1
      I don't understand how international currency exchange rates work

      That may be - but are you asserting that nobody knows how they work? Because that's what you replied to. ("... what we don't understand.")


      That's why I included the second example of the Earth's magnetic poles, an example where no one knows the answer.


      -Colin
    30. Re:The Score by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      God promised he wouldn't destroy the earth again with water... fire is a different story entirely. ;)

    31. Re:The Score by emilng · · Score: 1

      If the technology is unextinguishable it must be magic.

    32. Re:The Score by torpor · · Score: 1

      but ... supernatural does mean 'dont know yet'.

      --
      ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
    33. Re:The Score by eXtro · · Score: 1

      Religion or belief in the supernatural can't explain anything though. It's the intellectual equivalent of throwing your hands up in the air and saying "I'm stumped".

      Not too long ago everything unexplained was attributed to the supernatural: Gods, spirits, ghosts, dragons, witches or whatever a particular region believed in. It rained and the crops are good? It must be because we've been praying to this particular God. We've been praying for rain and it didn't happen? We've obviously lost favour with that God, we must make amends! Making amends might involve more prayer or it might involve pinning the blame on somebody else in which case we've got a witch to hang.

      You can wiggle your fingers at anything and claim it's something supernatural. There's no way to prove it and if science does find an explanation you can always mutter "Well, God works in mysterious ways!". Our ancestors had lots of room for supernatural causes because quite frankly they didn't understand much. Despite their superstitions and the measures they took to appease the various supernatural forces they felt they had to deal with science has given us all a much better life than horseshoes, four leaf clovers, charms or throwing salt of your shoulder.

      Have pneumonia? You can rely on a prayer circle if you want but I'll rely on medicine.

    34. Re:The Score by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "And then, there is the possibility that it does have some sort of supernatural cause."

      No, there's not. Supernatural=boogeyman

      " Quite simply, science can't explain everything"

      Not yet, we need to get to work figuring things out and stop turning off our brains with "I dunno...god/spriits/demons did it"

      "and it is quite possible that there is some supernatural cause to these events."

      No, there's not...use your brain.

      "...an aspect of the world which people have been studying for centuries longer than science."

      No, they haven't been "studying" anything...they've been sacrificing virgins to gods they made up. Plus giving power to any nutjob who says he 'knows god/the spirits/ghosts'

      "...it makes our world a lot more of a boring place."

      Let's see...which is more boring:
      1) Sitting around in church daily hearing about how bad we are just for 'being' for the next 10,000 years...no advancement because it's evil/against god's will/some things man was not meant to know...you die of plague at 28...

      2) Exploring space, other plants, curing all diseases, living longer/happier/enriched lives through embracing knowledge instead of fear...you die in an x-treme sport event, solar-surfing a supernova blast wave at the age of 207...

      gee...i dunno...what's color's the church...pffhthtttt

    35. Re:The Score by Digz · · Score: 1

      ..but what about those that defy science and yet still happen? Take for example the Eucharistic miracle of Lanciano.

      --
      SYS 64738
    36. Re:The Score by sjames · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There's a few reasons. Firstly, there people are sitting in a hotel and tired of it, hoping daily that this isn't the day their family home (or entire town) burns to the ground. They're desperate for an answer and not in the mood to spend a few years investigating this interesting phenomenon.

      Next there's the fact that to most people, technology itself IS a sort of magic. Just press that button and invisible forces spring into being to make the cup of water boil. Even if they take the nuker apart it still looks like magic. Just one moving part, and even that doesn't have to be there (but the heating will be less even without it).

      If you look at the way many people without technical knowledge interact with technology, it's just a bunch of 'invocations' that they have learned will do something useful (usually they learned it from a book of a techie). For all the meaning it has to them, they might as well be burning incense and shouting arcane latin phrases. They know that when the incantations don't work, there's this 'reboot' that can restore order. That's why you see business DSL customers rebooting the router when the email doesn't work (but the web does) and rebooting their PC didn't fix it.

      Sometimes, when there's no harm in it, I find it better to let people do those things while I figure out what the problem is. It lets them feel less helpless and occasionally, they stumble over the solution.

      You'll also note that the local priest along with the residents did decide to let the scientists have the first crack at the problem.

      'We don't know yet' is a perfectly valid answer right now, but it doesn't get them back into their homes. It doesn't help that things bursting into flames for no discernable reason is a recurring theme in movies about the supernatural.

      It doesn't help that scientists aren't always all that scientific when presented with observations thay cannot explain. Too often, important phrases like "this is just a guess, but" get replaced with "I'm absolutely certain that" whenever coincidence is about to be invoked. The correct pronouncement would be "I have no idea whatsoever", but scientists don't like to say that either.

      Add on top of that all of the 'scientific' pronouncements like 'eggs are bad for you', 'any wine is bad for you', 'oops, no, some wine is good for you, and so are eggs, but avoid fat at all costs', 'oops, people are getting fatter on low fat diets', etc, etc, and people start to think that the 'scientists' are just making things up too. They make the mistake of confusing various pseudoscientific nonsense from the FDA, NIH, and the AMA (or their own regional equivilants) for science. I call it pseudoscience because collectively they have a habit of stating working theory (complete with conflicting evidence) as if it were fact and flatly denying the existance of plainly observable phenomena when the correct answer is clearly "We don't know".

      If we can't get scientists to abandon dogma and various forms of mysticism, how can we expect it from laymen?

    37. Re:The Score by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Corollary: "Any technology distinguishable from magic is not sufficiently advanced." ;-)

      I assume you mean "distinguishable by the general public".

      If the inventor can't distinguish the technology from magic, then that's really something. :)

    38. Re:The Score by doublem · · Score: 1

      God promised after Noah's flood he wouldn't do this sort of thing again so we can rule out #5.

      Read the fine print. He only promised not to do it again with a flood.

      Never said anything about fire.

      --
      "Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
    39. Re:The Score by sjames · · Score: 1

      Actually, when it comes to the financial world, behind all of those accountants and actuarial tables, you find a bunch of magical rules of thumb, smoke, and mirrors. When the stock market gets involved, this is doubly so.

      When it comes right down to it, money and stocks (especially stocks) have value only because enough people believe that they do. Let the majority stop believing in it and it just goes up in a puff of smoke and mirrors.

    40. Re:The Score by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Congrats you have shown why there is really no point in getting into a discussion with believers about God, religion, the Supernatural or just things in general. You would be better of trying a discussion about why Windows was more secure than Linux to someone just finishing their Gentoo install. ;)

      NB: They Generally burn witches. Thus also polluting the air that we breath. Those swines!

    41. Re:The Score by asr_man · · Score: 1

      No need to be sad if you accept the fact that people vary in their ability to tolerate the unknown.

      Believing in mythological entities such as spirits gives an illusion of understanding, and believing a myth is more comfortable than acknowledging ignorance.
      -- unknown

      Being unable to attribute causes to threatening phenomena creates anxiety, and until science can explain everything we will always be surrounded by people with a need to fill the void and extinguish their anxiety with something else.

    42. Re:The Score by Surt · · Score: 1

      There are no supernatural causes. Only natural causes we don't understand yet, and may or may not be able to understand in the future.

      Anything which exists is natural. If poltergeist exist and set computers on fire, then they are a natural cause of computer fires.

      Whether or not we can understand the behavior of poltergeist in detail is open to question. There are many things that scientists feel are unlikely we will ever know. Although current belief is that information is never lost, there is much information for which no one has any even remote idea for how it might be retrieved practically (and even information for which a practical retrieval method is believed impossible).

      So there will always be much that science does not know, but there will never be anything supernatural in the world.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    43. Re:The Score by Paulrothrock · · Score: 1

      Holy frig. Just cause your book says something doesn't make it true. Never trust anything a marketing department says.

      --
      I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
    44. Re:The Score by Sepper · · Score: 1

      It really makes me sad when, if people don't understand something they assume it's magic.

      I'm not that suprised after I read this

      I don't for you, but I find it kind of depressing...

      --
      I live in Soviet Canuckistan you insensitive clod!
    45. Re:The Score by bryane · · Score: 1

      In the *article*, it's people who accept supernatural causes as normal that are making these conclusions. Not magic, but something that - to the people making the conclusions - something normal and everyday. Just happens that the root cause is something most people term "supernatural".

    46. Re:The Score by randomErr · · Score: 1

      #5 isn't ruled out. God said he wouldn't destroy the Earth with water again(Gen. 9:11). I thought it was fire, not water jumping out of those devices.

      The Score
      I can do that.
      Fires are appearing randomly, what are the possible causes:
      1. fire bugs
      2. higher than normal voltage
      3. emp devices being tested nearby
      4. act of God 1 (natural causes)
      5. act of God 2 (God's pissed - it is Easter, afterall)
      6. aliens

      we can rule out #1 due to witnesses. Ditto for #2 as fires have been happening in unplugged equipment.

      We can also rule out #3 as the slashdot crowd says that can't be it.

      There is nothing in nature that we know of that would cause #4. God promised after Noah's flood he wouldn't do this sort of thing again so we can rule out #5.

      That just leaves #6. :p

      --
      You say things that offend me and I can deal with it. Can you?
    47. Re:The Score by Dare+nMc · · Score: 1

      obligatory simpsons quote:

      Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even
      remotely true."

    48. Re:The Score by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      any sufficiently powerfull lsd trip is indistinguishable from magic - G.W. Bush

    49. Re:The Score by macdaddy · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Really though it was nothing to do with "magic" but instead it has everthing to do with that person's religious beliefs and whatever supreme deity that person happens to subscribe. Anything that challenges that person's beliefs must be the devil. Think about the Salem Massacre. They thought that women were witches not because they concocted evil brews in big pots in their kitchens. They took the smallest unusual point about each of those women and used it to say they were witches simply because they felt their religion was being challenged. Those women, those "witches" were probably prostitutes. Or perhaps they simply didn't attend church. Maybe they were of another belief and were waiting for a church of that belief to be built in the area. Who knows. It didn't fit in with the views of the bigots in Salem though so those women were tortured and burden at the stakes as witches. Calling them heretics or infidels would be confessing that really you just don't agree with their religious views, hence the use of witches. Intolerance is mans' oldest flaw.

      "Oh it must be a sign from Allah, Sedna, or the Great Spirit! They put it there for me to see. It must be a sign. They are commanding me to Kill Bill!"

    50. Re:The Score by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      insightfull +6(trust me i know man!)

      any wizard worth half a damm can make his magic undistinguishable from technology - Harry Potter

    51. Re:The Score by innerweb · · Score: 1
      Forget sufficiently advanced technology, any sufficiently ignorant individual sees magic all around.

      InnerWeb

      --
      Freud might say that Intelligent Design is religion's ID.
    52. Re:The Score by felis_panthera · · Score: 1

      When the rest of us clearly recognize it as magick?? *grin*

      --

      The chains are broken
      Loki is free
      Ragnarok is at hand...
    53. Re:The Score by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did he say that what we don't understand is, by definition, magic? You seem to be reading something not there...

    54. Re:The Score by mOdQuArK! · · Score: 1
      Those women, those "witches" were probably prostitutes. Or perhaps they simply didn't attend church. Maybe they were of another belief and were waiting for a church of that belief to be built in the area. Who knows.

      In some cases, it was because the accuser ended up receiving the property of the "witch" after her death. Gee, no conflict of interest there, right?

    55. Re:The Score by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."--Arthur C. Clarke

      It really makes me sad when, if people don't understand something they assume it's advanced technology.


      should be +5 insightful not funny. seriously when you take into account everything we think know about science/physics all it come down to two things

      1. we dont really know sh!t
      2. ANYTHING is "posibly" possible

      its COMPLETELY "possible" that we're all in the matrix and sicilly doesnt even really exist, and italy's really shaped like a glove giving the finger

    56. Re:The Score by .nuno · · Score: 1

      Go to news.google.com, search for sicily combustion and check the date of the first article mentioning this 'issue'.

      --
      .sig
    57. Re:The Score by alien+at+large · · Score: 1
      Possibly, but which ones, eh?. Catch 'm if you can.
      Meanwhile I'll go have a chat with Occam about his bloody razor.

      make world, not war

    58. Re:The Score by miskatonic+alumnus · · Score: 1

      Have you read the works of Charles Fort? There's lots of stuff science can't explain.

    59. Re:The Score by macdaddy · · Score: 1

      No doubt! I wish I had the time to seriously become a history buff. I know a fair amount now but no where what I'd like to know.

    60. Re:The Score by dR.fuZZo · · Score: 1

      That is such crap. I don't understand how international currency exchange rates work, but I don't say 'must be magic!'

      I don't really care how we define the term "magic", but I will point out, the AC said:
      Magic is, by definition, what we don't understand.

      The AC did NOT say:
      What we don't understand is, by definition, magic.

      If the difference doesn't jump out at you, compare these:
      Trout are, by definition, fish.
      Fish are, by definition, trout.

      --
      -- dR.fuZZo
    61. Re:The Score by azav · · Score: 1

      HEY! Lucky Charms are magically delicious and I understand them JUST FINE.

      --
      - Zav - Imagine a Beowulf cluster of insensitive clods...
    62. Re:The Score by ajs · · Score: 1

      Magic/Myth/Religion are all ways to explain the world to those who can't bother to be interested in the actual truth.

      No, magic/myth/religion are the symptoms of the human though process. When we attempt to understand something, we start by externalizing it (that is to say, examining how it is or is not "us") and then anthropomorphizing it (that is, examining what it wants, how dangerous it is to us, and how we should react to it socially).

      This is not a terribly logical way to approach problems, but it is the way everyone from Homer to Einstein has done it, and it does yield some results. What's more, you should not be so quick to use the word "truth" when refering to unknown phenomenon. Yeah, you're playing it fairly safe saying that "Yoda started the fires," isn't correct, but you don't actually KNOW that.

      When people say "fires are starting without any seeming cause", your first reaction (yes, yours) is to ask "what do I know of that could cause that?" Now, if for most of your life people had been telling you that the world would end in fire because two giant fire gods would descend from the sky and start punishing those who wore the wrong underwear, you would certainly reflect on how this incident relates to what you'd been told to expect.

      That *is* logical. What's not terribly logical is that because of our need to anthropomorphize, this solution is more attractive than "there's a huge wad of magma moving under some iron deposits near there causing electromagnetic "storms" much like the effect of a Tesla Coil." (yes, that's just as much bull**** as the fire gods, it's just an example, get over it)

      That's not to say either solution is likely correct, it's just that we can't be sure when we're being biased (after all, we're the apes who think it's wrong to pen chickens so tight that they die standing up, but then happily tear into broccoli before it's even dead!)

    63. Re:The Score by deglr6328 · · Score: 2, Informative

      "It doesn't help that scientists aren't always all that scientific when presented with observations thay cannot explain. Too often, important phrases like "this is just a guess, but" get replaced with "I'm absolutely certain that" whenever coincidence is about to be invoked. The correct pronouncement would be "I have no idea whatsoever", but scientists don't like to say that either."

      This is absolutely not true and it seems like you've just made it up to suit your argument that scientists are 'mystical' and dogmatic.
      I work around scientists all the time and I hear the phrase "I don't know" ALL THE TIME. Scientists as a whole have no problem admitting they do not fully understand a phenomenon, partly because the activity of scientufic inquiry is itself a humbling one.

      "Add on top of that all of the 'scientific' pronouncements like 'eggs are bad for you', 'any wine is bad for you', 'oops, no, some wine is good for you, and so are eggs, but avoid fat at all costs', 'oops, people are getting fatter on low fat diets',....."

      One caveat, dieticians are NOT scientists!

      "I call it pseudoscience because collectively they have a habit of stating working theory (complete with conflicting evidence) as if it were fact and flatly denying the existance of plainly observable phenomena when the correct answer is clearly "We don't know"."

      This is total strawman cunstructing nonsense. Please cite one instance where this has occured among experts in the hard sciences.

      Scientists are the most non-superstitious and non-dogmatic group of people in society.

      --
      - "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
    64. Re:The Score by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Boring, for you perhaps. Other people don't need to believe in fantasy to have a good time.

    65. Re:The Score by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > It really makes me sad when, if people don't
      > understand something they assume it's magic.
      > Why is it that so many people refuse to
      > take 'we don't know yet' as an acceptable
      > answer?

      What makes you think that everthing *can*
      be explained within the confines of "science"?

    66. Re:The Score by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No.. he said he wouldnt flood the earth... next time, he uses FIRE!

      =)

    67. Re:The Score by Morosoph · · Score: 1

      Of course, once one knows the structure of magic, the score is 1:1.

    68. Re:The Score by Illuminati+Legal+Tea · · Score: 2, Funny

      This is the last time you slander us Mr. aliens. We will now take you to court.

      We will also take Slashdot to court for chopping off the m at the end of our name.

    69. Re:The Score by merikus · · Score: 1

      First off, I think it should be clear that I'm not proposing that we wipe science off the map of something. For example, I really love my computer and no magic or supernatural force would have ever given me it. Also, I really love modern medicine and not dying when I was 12.

      However, what I see as the fallacy is assuming that there is an ultimate experientially based explanation to everything in the universe. Science is based on the theory that through our five senses (and extensions thereof, e.g., microscopes) everything in the world can be explained. Whenever people look for a scientific explanation to something they are essentially looking for some way of pointing to it and saying "see here." For example, even our most cutting edge wacked out science (e.g., string theory) is looking for some way to say "look here, you can see the string. ain't that cool?"

      Remember, our five senses are only windows in to the world. They allow us to experience the world on five levels: smell, touch, hearing, sight, and taste. It is not a large leap to see these five senses as limiting instruments allowing us only a certain view of the objective world. Since science relies on observation through those five windows it is inherently limited to the restrictions of those windows.

      What supernaturalists ask us to do is to step through the door and try to find other ways of observing the world. Once you step through the door, you begin to gain knowledge that there is more than we see, smell, hear, taste and touch.

      Again, science is great and has given us much. It is a wonderful way to explain the world as observed through the five senses. But it would be hubris to assume that the world presented to us by our five senses is the ultimate reality of the world. All the supernatural is doing is asking you to step beyond that.

    70. Re:The Score by Durindana · · Score: 1

      MSNBS is a pop web site.

      It isn't "the press."

    71. Re:The Score by kabocox · · Score: 1

      "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."--Arthur C. Clarke

      It really makes me sad when, if people don't understand something they assume it's advanced technology.


      All technology that you don't know how it works or can explain the basics to some one else is magic to you. As far as I'm concerned, TV's, radios, and anything powered by electricity is magic. I know basicaly how old style lightbulbs work. I don't know what is happening in intergrated circuits that are in just about everything now. I'd like to know, but it is difficult unless you are the engineer at the company that built the product. Take a part a few kids toys that just make different sounds, you'll find where the battery goes, the buttons, and one IC board. I'd love to know what goes on it there and explain it to my kids, but to me and them it is magic.

    72. Re:The Score by aliens · · Score: 1

      I thought you were going to sue Slashdot for having aided my treachery.

      Things have been so tense between us since that little misunderstanding in the hallow ice caps. ::)

      --
      -- taking over the world, we are.
    73. Re:The Score by jeni+generic · · Score: 1

      Why is it that so many people refuse to take 'we don't know yet' as an acceptable answer?

      The same reason religion and all of it's pitiful, half assed explanations of phenomena are somehow accepted as divine intervention.

      Fortunately, science is constantly debunking God's miracles and finding new mysteries that God has not yet horned in on.

      --


      -"Food is disgusting, it's what they make shit from."-
    74. Re:The Score by Dr.+Cody · · Score: 1

      "Any sufficiently strong vodka is indistinguishable from rubbing alcohol."

    75. Re:The Score by plugger · · Score: 1

      Scientific people can get very attached to their ideas. There's nothing so bitchy as two academics in strong disagreement.

    76. Re:The Score by RevAaron · · Score: 1

      well, man.

      someone should do some big time LBRP or something to clean slashdot up...

      --

      Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
    77. Re:The Score by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't understand how international currency exchange rates work

      Well, then how do you know that it's not magic?

    78. Re:The Score by GileadGreene · · Score: 4, Insightful
      There's lots of stuff science can't explain.

      It would perhaps be more correct to say that "There's lots of stuff that science hasn't yet explained". The term science doesn't refer to some fixed body of knowledge. It refers to a methodology for finding and refining explanations.

    79. Re:The Score by theLOUDroom · · Score: 1

      No, magic/myth/religion are the symptoms of the human though process.

      Which isn't mutally exclusive with what I said. Wanting an answer without being that concerned about whether it's right or not is part of the way (many) humans think.

      When we attempt to understand something, we start by externalizing it (that is to say, examining how it is or is not "us") and then anthropomorphizing it (that is, examining what it wants, how dangerous it is to us, and how we should react to it socially).

      Perhaps for an anthropologist/sociologist/etc. Scientists came up with the scietific method to try and cope with just the sort of behavior you're suggesting. It's useful to come up with analogies that relate a phenonema to something we're familiar with, but science attempts to understand things on their own terms, whereas religion/myth/magic do not. They seek to provide easily digestible answers, correctness be damned.

      What's more, you should not be so quick to use the word "truth" when refering to unknown phenomenon. Yeah, you're playing it fairly safe saying that "Yoda started the fires," isn't correct, but you don't actually KNOW that.

      Well sure I don't actually "know" that. If you let a philosopher have his way with you, you'll eventually decide that there's no way we can know ANYTHING. The whole world could be a trick, etc, etc.
      Now a scientist will tell you that all that's bunk, because:
      A)Any theory this is guaranteed unprovable is "bad" theory.
      B)Occam's Razon cuts it to shreds.

      --
      Life is too short to proofread.
    80. Re:The Score by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's too bad... I thought Illuminati Leagal Tea was a pretty badass nick!

    81. Re:The Score by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > any sufficiently ignorant individual sees magic all around.

      Mod parent up: So far, this is the most true statement of this type I have read in this topic. The problem is not with the advancement of that which is viewed, but with the lack of understanding on the part of the viewer. The concepts of the viewer have no impact on the reality of the object.

    82. Re:The Score by Tellarin · · Score: 1


      that is why in latin languages you have two words, magica and magia

      magica is magic, illusions and stuff
      magia is "soposedly" real magic

    83. Re:The Score by merikus · · Score: 1

      Wow. What a limiting way of looking at the world.

      Magic is actually a quite complex system that's been studied for centuries. It has volumes of information that thousands of people have written about, and much of the knowledge contained in these books is quite a bit more complex than what passes for science. It would take anyone decades of their life to scratch the surface of this complex field.

      Magic/Myth/Religion are all ways to explain the world to those who can't bother to be interested in the actual truth.

      And uninformed statements are usually used by those who can't be bothered to look beyond the tip of their nose.

    84. Re:The Score by TheLink · · Score: 1

      Talking bout demos - any sufficiently advanced powerpoint demo is indistinguishable from the final product ;).

      --
    85. Re:The Score by Alsee · · Score: 1

      Why is it that so many people refuse to take 'we don't know yet' as an acceptable answer?

      We don't know yet.
      It must be magic.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    86. Re:The Score by The-Dalai-LLama · · Score: 5, Funny

      At this point in the discussion I doubt this will be read by anyone, but I'm going to tell the story anyway.

      At the tail end of a stint in the Marines (too short to deploy) I got shipped to a headquarters unit personnel office that had a bunch of computers networked to a couple of shared printers. Since I knew the most about computers (which isn't saying much) people often asked me to help them with small problems.

      One of the corporals came to me once and said that her computer wouldn't print. I walked over, fiddled with everything I knew to fiddle with, and when that didn't help I turned to religion.

      "Corporal," I said, "Papa Legba is the voodoo god of the crossroads; all communication falls into his domain and he is displeased. We must make a sacrifice. Do you have a floppy disk that you are not using?" She gave me a 3.5" disk, which I held in the air and then tore open. I used a ballpoint pen to mark some arcane-looking but utterly meaningless symbols on the disk's medium, then had her tape it to the side of her monitor. I told her to try it again.

      Of course, when she tried again it printed with no problem. I have no idea what changed, but as I walked back to my desk she told me that I was the weirdest man she had ever met.

      The "sacrifice" was still taped to the monitor when I rotated out three months later.

      The Dalai Llama
      ...probably reading "Count Zero" at the time...

    87. Re:The Score by Alsee · · Score: 1

      Correction:
      Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.

      That way it's a pure rearrangment.
      Now I can't help wondering your post derives from an independant source, or if it's a misquote of my own creation a few years ago. Maybe I chould have filed for a copyright :D

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    88. Re:The Score by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > Occam's Razo[r] cuts it to shreds.

      I'm not disagreeing with what you said, but Occam's Razor is used in determining which hypothesis is more probable -- it does not discount any possibilities or prove anything definitively, so it can't cut anything to shreds. Other than that, excellent post.

    89. Re:The Score by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      "soposedly"

      I can't even find that in my Latin dictionary.

    90. Re:The Score by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right. Scientists are mapping the human genome, engineering materials on a nanoscale, discovering extrasolar planets, etc, yet they're somehow overlooking magic? Probably because it has no merit.

    91. Re:The Score by sjames · · Score: 1

      I never said all scientists. I do agree that as a whole, scientists will say 'I don't know'. Unfortunatly, the ones who won't say I don't know tend to be the loudest ones (at least to the general public). Are you telling me you've never had the experiance of a researcher who is absolutely certain that he alone is right (or at least that some decidedly disfavored collegue is absolutely wrong)?

      I do think that most scientists know very well that it is entirely possible to step too far from the mainstream in their research and theories and find themselves shut out, especially when it comes time to submit grant proposals.

      Scientists have human failings just like everybody else.

      You and I know that dieticians and for that matter M.D.s are not scientists, but what are they routinely presented as to laypeople? That's why 'scientific' is in quotes there!

      I never said this was the result of hard science, just that the FDA, AMA, and NIH amongst others present this to the public as if it was. Hence my use of the term 'pseudoscientific' as in not scientific, but in the guise of science.

      Keep in mind, those people in the hotel and many people in general have never met a scientist (at least until quite recently), but they have seen plenty of people (in government) on TV who claim to be scientists or at least that they got their information from scientists (and perhaps they did, but then it was distorted).

      There is no strawman here unless you wish to show that the average person is well aware that the FDA, NIH, AMA, and bazillions of dieticians with an opinion are NOT scientists and that their pronouncements are not science.

      Please note, I haven't even gotten to all of the marketers who present their 'valuable information' in the guise of science.

      In otherwords, when people are making their minds up on who to believe, objective fact has little to do with it. Their perceptions have everything to do with it.

    92. Re:The Score by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stop being so literal-minded. It's almost as if you're purposely ignoring the point he was trying to make just so you could support your own argument. I think it's pretty obvious that you're talking without thinking; when he said 'we' I took it to mean we as in 'modern science', not 'we' as in 'one man'. I think everybody else did too.

    93. Re:The Score by Gulthek · · Score: 1

      Funny, it reminds me of this Calvin and Hobbes strip:

      Calvin: Dad, how does a lightbulb work?
      Dad: Magic.
      (third panel)
      Calvin (turning on a lamp): Look Mom, magic!
      Mom: That's not magic!

    94. Re:The Score by Rize · · Score: 1

      It's not that hard really. The battery causes a current of electricity with a certain voltage. Small transistors, gates, modify the voltage in a certain way depending on what combination of voltages are given to it (i.e. 1's and 0's which are arbitrary assignments to high and low voltage ranges). From these tiny logical building blocks, the device is made to work. An example of logic gates (think of 0 as False and 1 as True): AND gate (2 inputs 1 output) 0 0 = 0 0 1 = 0 1 0 = 0 1 1 = 1 OR gate (2 inputs 1 output) 0 0 = 0 0 1 = 1 1 0 = 1 1 1 = 1 NOT gate (1 input 1 output) 1 = 0 0 = 1 And so on.

    95. Re:The Score by sjames · · Score: 2, Funny

      :-)

      I sometimes think that digital devices are a lot less deterministic than we think they are.

      I once had a machine come back to me for repairs several times a week. I could never find a problem with it. I had the user go through whatever caused the problem while I watched quietly, and it would never fail.

      In desperation and attempting to put some humor in the situation, I dropped a single hair on the MB and closed it back up.

      No more problems. :-)

      I'll have to remember your solution. Great potential there to start some really funny office gossip!

    96. Re:The Score by Merovign · · Score: 1


      Part of it is a definitional problem. People of the white-lab-coat bent hear "supernatural" and they
      think "irrational okie superstition that rejects all science."

      On the other hand, a lot of other people hear "supernatural" and they think "super=above or
      beyond, natural=the physical world as currently understood, therefore supernatural = some part of
      the physical world we don't understand."

      Which, currently, this appears to be.

      I find it sad that everyone has to start the conversation with "I'm FAR AWAY from those wacky
      people!" instead of "I wonder how far apart we are" or the even better "I wonder what this is and how
      it works?"

      Yes, there are rational and irrational people out there. Occasionally it's hard to tell which,
      however.

    97. Re:The Score by ajs · · Score: 1

      Perhaps for an anthropologist/sociologist/etc. Scientists came up with the scietific method to try and cope with just the sort of behavior

      And yet, Einstein would not accept QM because it offended his concept of God. What's more, the scientific method is a means of assaulting theories over time in order to validate them. They are, almost always, negative proofs with circumstantial backing, and yet many smart people hold these theories to be true anyway (myself included).

      The human mind is not a platform on which pure logic can easily be built, and if you delude yourself into thinking that, you will be lead astray.

      you'll eventually decide that there's no way we can know ANYTHING

      Correct.

      Now a scientist will tell you that all that's bunk

      That is not bunk, and many excellent theories exist which describe a Universe in which any number of variables which encompas "truth" can never be known (from Plank to Heisenberg to Hawking to Wolfram, many have cited differing reasons why reality as we know it might not be something that can be fully measured, or if it is, might exist within a mechanism which cannot be measured by us).

      However, again we see the human failing at play: we have faith that we can somehow "understand" these things because they interact with us. It's just a pre-set response: touch thing, interact with thing, understand thing. We assume that that scales to the entire universe, and while it may, we have no real evidence to suggest that that's the case.

      Any theory this is guaranteed unprovable is "bad" theory.

      That would include QM. I don't get your definition of "bad" here.

      Occam's Razon cuts it to shreds.

      Too bad. If you lived your life in a small cave, then Occam's Razor would cut to shreds the idea that the heat coming from the cave mouth is the result of a giant, sustained fusion reaction, about 8.5 light seconds away, from which you are separated by a space filled with so few particals that for your purposes it might as well be hard vaccuum. I mean, c'mon, there are MUCH more simple explanations for the cave mouth being a source of warmth! I suppose you're going to tell me that the heat travels all that distance via some invisibly small particles that, through a trick of the light, have no mass!

      Everything in our world violates Occam's Razor at one level or another, we simply use Occam's Razor to determine the path of least resistance in terms of which theories to follow first. When OR fails, you still have to fall back on the complex and/or improbable solution.

    98. Re:The Score by Jim+Starx · · Score: 1

      Haha.... as everyone just ignores the glaringly obvious...

      --
      The darkness... controls the music. The music... controls the soul.
    99. Re:The Score by djcatnip · · Score: 1

      Ah, see, all this talk about religion... now you're all engulfed in flames of your own!

      --
      I make these: http://beatseqr.com
    100. Re:The Score by Dread_ed · · Score: 1

      "Magic/Myth/Religion are all ways to explain the world to those who can't bother to be interested in the actual truth."

      This statement raises the question: What is the "actual truth"?

      IIRC, one of the greatest philisophical arguments for a specific religion (you could insert almost any coded religion into this philosophy BTW) is pascals wager. However, it is easily refuted by saying that you cannot be sure that the god you believe in is the real or only one.

      You seem to have another way to defeat this well traveled religio-philisophical argument. You actually KNOW the truth!

      I can see why you would be a little freaked out about telling everyone. Humanity has a really bad record when it comes to people who profess to have the truth. The last guy got murdered by some Romans and some Jews in a pretty spectacular way. And I hope you are not Buddhist, because if you meet Buddha on the road you're supposed to kill him. There are ALOT of Buddhists around and many of them know martial arts!

      Actually, I think that we have come a long way since those primitive times. I am sure that the truth of the universe would be tolerated much better now.

      So please...enlighten me! What is this "actual truth" you speak of. I am very interested!

      It is completely impossible to say anything truly intelligent or enlightening in a space this size, excep

      --
      When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
    101. Re:The Score by MustardMan · · Score: 1

      I sometimes think that digital devices are a lot less deterministic than we think they are.

      Whether they are deterministic isn't the issue - it's whether they are well behaved. By its very definition, Chaos is completely deterministic. However, it is also exponentially sensitive to initial conditions. So, while the system is deterministic, it becomes very difficult to predict outcomes because tiny measurement errors can propagate very quickly to give totally different final resuts.

    102. Re:The Score by phantomfive · · Score: 1
      God promised after Noah's flood he wouldn't do this sort of thing again so we can rule out #5.

      Actually, what he promised was never again to destroy the earth by flood...he never mentioned anything about fire. Remember Sodom and Gommmorah? :)

      --
      Qxe4
    103. Re:The Score by cwg_at_opc · · Score: 2, Funny

      i'll vote for the aliens too; i was thinking that was why people keep up and disappearing, then finding themselves away from home, dehydrated and disoriented. the aliens are trying out some new tests on us that aren't working so well. in this case, one of the aliens left something on that wasn't supposed to be on:

      alien 1: did you remember to shut off the gamma regulator on the...
      alien 2: uhh...well, i uhh...
      alien 1: now we have to go back and turn it off! that'll put about another 30,000 light years on this boat. when they check the odometer at the rental place, we'll have to pay an over light-year-mileage charge!

      a co-worker used to say that LAX was a giant battery that took the energy generated by all the people going in and out of the airport and stored it underneath in what looked like a huge capacitor( i was shown a map of LAX.) he also said the earthquakes around here were caused by the aliens blasting a deep underground tunnel from LAX to someplace in nevada(like area 51). they could just buy the chunnel borer now that it's on sale.

      i love how this thread went from scientific hypothesis to linux lp0 on fire, to god, to magic, to tesla, to volcanic activity. the only thing i haven't seen yet is the de rigeur, "...in soviet russia..." joke!

      --
      "...that's as white as it gets; all the bits are on..."
    104. Re:The Score by PsiPsiStar · · Score: 1

      Do magical processes have a mechanism?
      How does magic work?

      --

      ___
      It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
    105. Re:The Score by theLOUDroom · · Score: 1

      And yet, Einstein would not accept QM because it offended his concept of God.

      As we've said, humans aren't always interested in the correct answer, sometimes their various traits get in the way.

      That is not bunk, and many excellent theories exist which describe a Universe in which any number of variables which encompas "truth" can never be known (from Plank to Heisenberg to Hawking to Wolfram, many have cited differing reasons why reality as we know it might not be something that can be fully measured, or if it is, might exist within a mechanism which cannot be measured by us).

      But what you're doing right there is twisting the definition of truth. While we may never know the location and velocity of a particle with absolute certainty, it doesn't mean we can't know anything. If you're accepting Heisnberg, there's one truth right off the bat. Maybe it's a confusing one, and not the way you normally look at the world, but if you accept that as true you at least know something.

      Which leads here....

      That would include QM. I don't get your definition of "bad" here.

      No, my definition WOULDN'T include QM. QM is testable. It's confusing, yes, but it's something THAT CAN ACTUALLY BE PROVEN OR DISPROVEN.

      One of the marks of a bad theory is that it cannot be proven and/or disproven. And I don't mean just emperically using current tecnology, I meant can't be proven/disproven EVER because the theory is defined in such a way that it is impossible.
      For example:
      "I have an undetectable Nerf ball that floats above my head everywhere I go."

      While that theory may be useful for exploring our own psychology/philosophy, the actual statement being made is junk. There is no Nerf ball above my head. It does not exist, but you can't prove that. The theory is worthless though. By definition, this theory can NEVER have an impact on the world in which we live. Thinking about it might have effects. But there will be no actual consequences from the theory itself, it guarantees that.

      While it linguistically has all the elements necessary to be a statement of a theory, conceptually it falls short.

      As for Occam's Razor, obviously it can't be applied as the ONLY means for judging a theory.

      --
      Life is too short to proofread.
    106. Re:The Score by TMB · · Score: 1

      > Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
      > That way it's a pure rearrangment.

      I bow to your better judgement. ;-)

      > Now I can't help wondering your post derives from an independant source, or if it's a misquote of my own creation a few years ago.

      I think a colleague said it to me about a year ago... I can't claim any knowledge of where they picked it up from. :-)

      [TMB]

    107. Re:The Score by ajs · · Score: 1

      QM is testable. It's confusing, yes, but it's something THAT CAN ACTUALLY BE PROVEN OR DISPROVEN.

      QM is testable yes. QM can be disproven, yes (not yet). No one has devised a way to prove QM other than by negatively failing to disprove it.

      In fact, QM stems from Dirac essentially saying, "I have no idea how this works, but if energy were quantized the math would work."

      I think you and I are basically on the same page, I'm just pointing out that religion isn't all that illogical either. Saying, for example, "This guy showed up 2000 years ago, claimed to be the son of an extraterrestrial power that created humans and performed a few impressive things that were not technologically possible in that day, so we continue to do what he told us to," is not too too silly. Now, I used Christianity as an example but you could point at Norse myth just as easily. I mean here you had an oral tradition that told you Salmon ran at a certain time of year, and oh by the by Odin strapped himself to a tree in order to gain knowledge.... When you see that, indeed the salmon run at a certain time of year the oral tradition gains some credibility. Why would you guess at the parts that are wrong (or were they?)

      Magic is just as bad. Magic is a lump term for everything that is as yet undefined by any rigorous process. The shaman who said that when you boiled the bark of the tree into a tea and drank it, you would placate the spirits that caused your headache wasn't really all that far off, he just lacked a knowledge of chemistry that would let him understand that certain chemicals have behaviors without being anthropomorphic (e.g. spirits). I that case it was a chemical known as Salacitic (sp?) Acid, which turns out to be one half of Asprin.

      That used to be "magic" and was the subject of religion. Now it's just "science", but nothing really changed. You can still go make willow-tree bark to cure your headache.

    108. Re:The Score by PsiPsiStar · · Score: 1

      You're talking about Windows XP, right?

      --

      ___
      It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
    109. Re:The Score by miskatonic+alumnus · · Score: 1

      Do you actually believe that this "methodology" is capable of producing an all-encompassing theory of everything? Forgive me if that sounds a little arrogant. Also, what is it that is being explained? Reality, or our perception of reality?

    110. Re:The Score by John+Whitley · · Score: 1

      Rather than being bothered to actually try and understand something you just shrug your shoulders and say "magic".

      I've noted a similar trend along these lines amongst myself and other geek friends lately. When mulling some topic to which the answer is unknown to the group, someone will expound something like "Google knows" or "imdb knows". Instead of supersition, we now have specific cultural icons for "knowledge somewhere out there." 8-)

    111. Re:The Score by sjames · · Score: 1

      I mean from the standpoint that it seems that some people can enter exactly what you or I would enter, when you or I would enter it, and they'll get an error every time. That is, non-deterministic.

      Of course I'm no more serious than the idea of making rain by washing the car or preventing it by having an umbrella.

    112. Re:The Score by torokun · · Score: 1

      Are you suggesting that "I don't know" is an acceptable answer when your town's electrical systems are all spontaneously combusting?

      Uhhh. No.

    113. Re:The Score by PsiPsiStar · · Score: 1

      Science can only explain patterns which are based on causality and are repeatable. Science can't tell me where I left my car keys, because it's a single event. It can't tell me what would have happened if Ferdinand and Isabella had failed to defeat the Moors and reunite Spain, because it's not a repeatable event.

      It also assumes, but doesn't prove, that time is linear.

      Of course, this is nitpicking, but that's what we're here for.

      --

      ___
      It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
    114. Re:The Score by caluml · · Score: 1
      That just leaves #6. :p

      Negative, chief. There's a special layer 3 packet you can send, and if you set the right combination of option bits, and pad some of the data section with a certain passage from the bible.....

    115. Re:The Score by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      God said he would use fire, not a flood next time. So if this is a prequal to the end, it would be right on.

    116. Re:The Score by GileadGreene · · Score: 3, Informative
      Do you actually believe that this "methodology" is capable of producing an all-encompassing theory of everything?

      Sure. Why not? The basic algorithm is:

      1. Observe something no previously predicted or explained
      2. Develop a hypothesis to explain the observations
      3. Make predictions based on the hypothesis
      4. Develop tests to determine whether the hypothesis is correct or incorrect
      5. If the hypothesis is incorrect revise it based on the new observations
      6. Rinse and repeat
      Please tell me how this algorithm, given enough time, will not succeed in explaining "everything"?

      Forgive me if that sounds a little arrogant.

      You are forgiven.

      Also, what is it that is being explained? Reality, or our perception of reality?

      What is reality but what you perceive? If something is completely imperceptible (i.e. makes no observable change in the universe whatsoever) then whether it exists or not is irrelevant - it makes no difference to my life or yours. If it can be perceived, it can be observed. If it can be observed it is amenable to study via the scientific method.

    117. Re:The Score by niktesla · · Score: 0

      Magic is real, unless declared integer. :)

      --
      I've discovered a remarkable proof, but this margin is too small to contain it...
    118. Re:The Score by Damned · · Score: 1

      I've no idea how good this comment will be as it is going to be a small snippet of something I'll probably put down in my journal some day (like my last post that I'm too lazy to link to now). I'd like to address this particular bit of your post:

      "That used to be "magic" and was the subject of religion. Now it's just "science", but nothing really changed."

      What I suggest is that science is just as much based on faith as is religion. Science is not the search for truth so much as it is the search for useful explanations of anything.

      As a hypothetical example, people used to sacrifice W number of goats to Jack the god of plants at the start of crop sowing to ensure a good harvest. Sometimes this would appease Jack and other times they would have a less than stellar harvest. Along comes scientists who tell these people that good harvests have nothing to do with the supernatural. That sure blood is a good fertilizer, but W number of goats don't have enough blood to fertilize all of their fields and killing that many goats would just be wasteful. These people should instead use X fertilizer because it contains Y molecules which are great food for Z plants which these people are growing. The people use the fertilizer and get more predictable results than with the sacrificing.

      Certainly the scientific way turned out to be quite useful. The farmers now had a more reliable way to ensure good harvests. This does not, however, prove that the fertilizer used on the fields did not please Jack the god of plants more than the sacrificed goats and because of this he ensured a good harvest by allowing the plants to use the food in the soil to their best advantage. Rather, we take it on faith that Jack the god of plants had nothing to do with the harvest and that the qualities of the fertilizer and the plants are sufficient to explain the outcome.

      Or, to put it in a way perhaps more palatable to hard-line adherents of scientific truth that detest comparisons with any sort of religion, what happens if (more likely when) somewhere down the line study finds that all we currently believe about physics (for example) is completely off. This current understanding of physics, though useful in that it helped us develop numerous ideas and products that have been very beneficial, is as utterly wrong in the face of the new knowledge of physics as a child believing its face will remain contorted for the rest of its life if it continues making funny faces. So, this future shows that the current theories of physics are not nearly truth. All of the study in those theories has been for nothing though those who performed the research believed they were learning truths about the physical realm (world/universe/what have you) and finding new truths. This future time shows it was not truth, yet it was one time believed to be. Does that not make the previous beliefs faith based? (the truth refered to here being scientific truth)

      The reason for the writing, and thinking about it this should have been at the top, is the way that many fans of science proclaim that science can find some actual/absolute/what have you truth about the nature of things. That is probably possible as far as scientific truth goes. However, scientific truth is only absolute truth if one chooses to believe that there is nothing that exists that we cannot touch, see, hear, smell, or taste with our senses or constructed aids to those senses. It is entirely possible that there are entities whose actions account for the things we observe, yet these entities do not share the characteristics of other entities around us and had little to no contact with us, so we did not develop means by which to observe said entities. The same could be said for various forces or whatnot, but this view is not scientific since this cannot be observed and, therefore, cannot be tested. To outright dismiss this and other such possibilities is not necessarily wrong, but in taking up this belief, one is in effect saying "I take on faith that nothing whi

      --
      "I swear I won't break you if you let me take you where the willows never weep" -- Switchblade Symphony
    119. Re:The Score by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      How does magic work?

      By magic of course :)

    120. Re:The Score by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do you then explain all I have seen? Why would "someting that can be explained scientific" flee for the name of Jesus? How can I (sometimes) know that I will get a thing I pry to get before I get it? I am sorry my friend, but the actual truth is more than what (atheistic) science can explain.

    121. Re:The Score by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Please tell me how this algorithm, given enough time, will not succeed in explaining "everything"?"

      Uncertainty Principle.

      "If something is completely imperceptible (i.e. makes no observable change in the universe whatsoever) then whether it exists or not is irrelevant."

      Irrelevant to an explanation of "everything"? Is the multi-universe theory irrelevant?

    122. Re:The Score by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lumping religion in with myth and magic, indubitably qualifies the parent post as a troll.

      The biggest problem with the "science is all I accept" crowd is their lack of imagination. "Imagination is more important than knowledge." - Albert Einstein Who, by the way, was a religious person, as are most scientists. Atheism is not a requirement for performing valid science. In fact I rather think that any objective scientist would acknowledge that scientific knowledge will always be imperfect and incomplete.

    123. Re:The Score by Hast · · Score: 1

      You know, I believe that the uncertainty principle is very much a concept of science. Without a lot of scientific research in the area of quantum physics the idea wouldn't even exist in the first place.

      And while you can never predict this phenomena you can attempt to explain it. We're not there yet, but unless you have a degree in QM-physics I'm just not going to trust your opinion that much.

      In many ways the same goes for ultiverse theories. Part of the work of a scientist is to try to find ways to prove their theories right. Unless you can do this it's doomed to remain a "cute idea". (People of the paranormal persuasion seem content with remaining in this area though, I guess it's less work that way.) BTW I believe they are attempting to test the multiverse theory with graviton experiments in particle accellerators, so there's still hope.

      That said, there are a lot of things which science can't explain. Using the scientific method on human behaviour eg is pretty much doomed to fail. (Although you can have a lot of fun annoying people while you try.)

    124. Re:The Score by ajs · · Score: 1

      Or, summarized: we don't know how it works; we can't know how it works; and yet we often claim to know that those guys over there got it all wrong ;-)

    125. Re:The Score by Starcub · · Score: 1

      "Papa Legba is the voodoo god of the crossroads; all communication falls into his domain and he is displeased.

      I used a ballpoint pen to mark some arcane-looking but utterly meaningless symbols on the disk's medium, then had her tape it to the side of her monitor. I told her to try it again.

      Of course, when she tried again it printed with no problem.


      My toaster stopped communicating with my microwave. Do you remember exactly what those arcane symbols looked like?

    126. Re:The Score by GileadGreene · · Score: 1
      Uncertainty Principle.

      Uh, just where exactly do you think the uncertainty principle came from? Come to think of it, do you even know what the uncertainty principle is?

      Irrelevant to an explanation of "everything"? Is the multi-universe theory irrelevant?

      No, the multi-universe theory isn't irrelevant. But then, it has been developed in order to explain observable effects in our universe. Otherwise there would be no point in having the theory.

    127. Re:The Score by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In soviet russia, aliens vote for YOU!

    128. Re:The Score by merikus · · Score: 1

      Indeed they do. In the most general sense, magic is about movement of energy. So, at the most basic levels of magic you're learning to invoke and evoke energies to be used for various purposes via ritual movement, intonations, and breath. While these energies can be used to affect the physical world to some extent, the greater use of these energies and rituals is to help move the practitioner through greater levels of awareness.

      Although it's not the best book, I'd suggest Donald Michael Kreig's Modern Magic. It's a well structured and accessible introduction to Hermetic Magic.

      I'm sure information can also be found on the internet by searching for "magick" or "golden dawn" or "wicca" or whatever.

    129. Re:The Score by An+Ominous+Cow+Aired · · Score: 1

      If you were a respectable scientist, would you like your name attached to a story like this? Damn good way to destroy your career!

      --

      Become A Real Millionaire, in 10 seconds, on your computer! (rf=really fast) Read manual, YMMV.
      rm -rf *
    130. Re:The Score by trollhaugen · · Score: 1

      Psuedoscience is plainly science that isn't science. Something's outta wack. Anyone interested in the differences between real science (according to some) and psuedoscience should most definitely check out this Richard P. Feynman (physicist) talk given at a Caltech commencement, entitled Cargo Cult Science. Brilliant. http://www.physics.brocku.ca/etc/cargo_cult_scienc e.html

    131. Re:The Score by FuegoFuerte · · Score: 1

      It may be "magical" but it isn't "supernatural" or "paranormal". That is, just because you don't understand something should your first assumption be that "this can only be explained by rejecting all previous knowledge and making something up".

      Remember, it is impossible to prove a universal negative. In other words, one cannot state with absolute certainty that "it isn't 'supernatural' or 'paranormal'" without first knowing the true cause. To do so would be to say that the supernatural and paranormal do not exist, which would be a universal negative and therefore impossible to state as absolute fact.

      That is, just because you don't personally believe something, it does not mean that you should discount it entirely as a possibility.

      Do not let your biases blind you. Be open minded about everything, but be skeptical as hell. (To quote a biology teacher I once had, who was talking about creation vs. evolution)

      And I find the lack of citations from any of the alleged scientist disturbing. The press is in a sad state indeed.

      This I will agree with, at least partially. It may be that scientists are simply not talking to the press because they're too busy trying to figure out what the heck is happening, or it could be that they don't want to be known as the scientist that got stumped, or any other number of things. But it would be nice to hear something from the scientists.

    132. Re:The Score by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Get 'em (and yourself) one of those radio shack circuit kits with the little springs and wires. I learned a lot from those. When you first build an oscillator out of a transistor and a capacitor (connected to an LED or a speaker), you quickly begin to understand how it all works. Integrated circuits are the same sort of thing, only smaller.

    133. Re:The Score by Hast · · Score: 1
      This is quite interesting. At first I dismissed Charles Fort as yet another anti-science "researcher" with too much time on his hands. Apparently this is pretty much true too, since he spend a large time of his life researching paranormal events living off of a hieritage. I did some quick googling though and found a couple of intresting articles about him. After skimming some of these I become quite interested in actually reading his works. Not so much for "becoming open-minded" but since it seems it's quite humourous. I'll provide some citations from the articles I found. Note that these are quite skeptical, although Wikipedia is quite balanced in tone. It's not from one of his fansites since none of those seemed worth reading. (A page with a graphic background and random images does little to inspire credibility with me.)

      BTW if anyone is interested in reading the books there are links at the bottom of the Wikipedia entry [2].

      Now these are some quotes from the article in the sceptics dictionary [1]:

      In these works, he does not seem interested in questioning the reliability of his sources, which is odd, given that he had worked as a news reporter for a number of years before embarking on his quest to collect stories of the weird and bizarre. He does reject one story about a talking dog who disappeared into a puff of green smoke. He expresses his doubt that the dog really went up in green smoke, though he doesn't question its ability to speak.

      That passage makes it seem like the books share a lot with the magazines with "Unbelieveable stories" and such. Could be entertaining however. And as I pointed out before, you can get them electronically.

      This tendency to believe almost anything is also mentioned in the other articles.

      Fort did not seem particularly interested in making any sense out of his collection of weird stories. He seemed particularly uninterested in scientific testing, yet some of his devotees consider him to be the founding father of modern paranormal studies. His main interest in scientific hypotheses was to criticize and ridicule the very process of theorizing. [...] Since he did not generally concern himself with the reliability or accuracy of his data, this borderland also blurs the distinction between open-mindedness and gullibility.

      The article in Wikipedia [2] mentions that his works are on the borderline between comedy and seriousness because of this tendency. I guess that's another reason to read them though.

      Fort was skeptical about scientific explanations because scientists sometimes argue "according to their own beliefs rather than the rules of evidence" and they suppress or ignore inconvenient data. He seems to have understood that scientific theories are models, not pictures, of reality, but he considered them to be little more than superstitions and myths. He seems to have had a profound misunderstanding of the nature of scientific theories. For, he criticized them for not being able to accommodate anomalies and for requiring data to fit. [...] Fort seems to have been opposed to science as it really is: fallible, human and tentative, after probabilities rather than absolute certainties. He seems to have thought that since science is not infallible, any theory is as good as any other. This is the same kind of misunderstanding of science that we find with so-called "scientific creationists" and many other pseudoscientists.

      No, I'm not going to go on quoting stuff from other places anymore. The passages above was from [1], it's quite interesting (and not very long) so I'd encourage people to read it.

      As a counter to all this anti-science I'd yet again recommend reading the works of sceptics in science. Carl Sagan is a good start IMHO. I don't mind that people are sceptical about science and the scientific process, that's in a way part of science. However, I find that it's hard to find a person which is

    134. Re:The Score by rhiorg · · Score: 1

      If Sun had their way, it'd look a lot like Duke.

    135. Re:The Score by sjames · · Score: 1

      Magic CAN be an excuse for not understanding something.

      In other cases, it is a sort of shorthand for 'I have no idea why this works, but it has yet to fail. We can either benefit from this serendipitous observation now, or we can wait forever trying to understand it'.

      In other cases, it is a shorthand for things that do seem to occur, but that are so poorly understood that we can't get them to occur in a reasonably controlled setting. (phenomenology). While it is NOT science, it is a method of attempting to collect enough less than ideal observatioins to one day be able to get it to happen in a controlled setting.

      There is nothing really wrong with either of the above until/unless we pretend that it is in itself science OR that it doesn't exist at all and stop probing into the matter.

      Stage magicians are something completely different. They are people who have a great deal of insight into human perception and psychology (sometimes at the level of empirical knowledge, sometimes formal study) and use it in such a way that they do perfectly explicable things in a controlled presentation such that their audience percieves it to be magic.

      In contrast to their stage personae, as a whole, they tend to be quite sceptical.

    136. Re:The Score by miskatonic+alumnus · · Score: 1

      I've read some from the "Book of the Damned". Fun stuff. You should check out the non-fictional works of Robert Anton Wilson. I particularly recommend The New Inquisition. He discusses Fortean pheonomena, but includes some references. Apparently there are some credible sources that report rains of fish and frogs. I've never believed in the "segregating whirlwind" explanation. I recall discussing this crazy stuff with some friends a few years ago. They didn't believe in amphibianic precipitation ;) and laughed at me ... all in fun, of course. Then a few weeks later, one of them phoned me and said "I just saw a news report. A rain of fish in Kentucky." I laughed right back!

      Wilson is simply amazing, IMNSHO. Of course his fiction is fnord great too.

    137. Re:The Score by Chacham · · Score: 1

      Observe something no previously predicted or explained

      Whether it was previously predicted or explained is irrelevant.

      Develop a hypothesis to explain the observations

      Make predictions based on the hypothesis


      While that is true, it is not likely. The hypotheses should predict when the same thing, or something very similar will happen again.

      For example, if my bread turns moldy, and i say it is green because it is currently cold on Mars, and because of that coldness it will be cold on Jupiter, the hypotheses is given little to know credence as the relativeness between the two is not provable.

      Develop tests to determine whether the hypothesis is correct or incorrect

      Incorrect. Develop tests to tests the individual parts of the theory, and to test the outcome of the predictions, the hypothesis itself is never tested.

      If the hypothesis is incorrect revise it based on the new observations

      No. If the predictions are incorrect. And whether the new hypothesis is based on the new observations is irrelevant. It simply must not include a prediction that contradicts them.

      There are two things you are completely missing. One, Science does not explain anything, hypotheses do that. Science is merely one methodology of testing a hypothesis. Two, Science relies on two rules that have never been proven. One, that the world is order and not chaos. Two, that everything is repeatable.

      Science, although wonderful is quite immature when compared to the history of Religion, magic, and philosophy.

    138. Re:The Score by stonecypher · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Please tell me how this algorithm, given enough time, will not succeed in explaining "everything"?

      There's a Frederik Pohl novella called "Iron," written in the Known Space universe during the Man-Kzin wars (it's in the series - maybe 4 or 5?) which does exactly this. There's a chunk of the novella during which the protagonist stumbles on the remnants of an unfortunate civilization, born on a planet without surface metals of any sort. Pohl makes the case that as a result they were hard-limited; there was simply a point beyond which they didn't have the tools to progress.

      Whereas I'm not sure a simple lack of metals is enough to do this, consider a more extreme case if you will. Posit a human civilization on the inside of an artificial glass sphere, provided food through a mysterious (technological) doorway. Presume that they have some material which is electrostatically rigid, and that they're careful enough not to let any human vermin up the feeding tube, and wham, there's your example. If you inject a bunch of savages - say, they're five when you put them in there, and they lose language skills over a few generations, or maybe they're seventeen and already lost them - and give them nothing more complex than a whole bunch of peat moss and some trees and whatever, then they're not going to get a whole lot further than the ancient world. Sure, maybe they'll cook up an Archimedes and get down to calculus. They're not getting electrifaction, they're not getting heavy computing machines, they're not really beating the abacus.

      This isn't as mentally masterbatory as it sounds. Who are we to say that we've got all the tools we need to progress? If we had no metals, wouldn't it seem absurd that lightning could move *through* materials, not just be insulated by them, like pretty much all biological materials in the human common experience do?

      Science Fiction provides dozens of examples for this, so of course, I'm falling back on Star Trek. Consider that a number of its technologies weren't "possible" until the discovery of new materials, probably the easiest example of which is the second (and later) phase of the periodic table, on which you find dilithium, trilithium, and so on. Finding another such example is really just a question of knowing sci-fi well.

      Thing is, there are lots of good real world examples, too. We're not even really sure how many dimensions there are right now, or what their natures are, how many of them we exist in (time, spin, charge potential, etc,) and so on. There are good arguments for the numbers 10 and 14, judging by the way they simplify certain deep equations, but that might just reflect that because we have no access to dimension 15 we're missing a situation that makes those laws oversimple. I mean, hell, we didn't realize there might be more than four until the 1950s; who's to say we haven't missed others?

      What is reality but what you perceive? If something is completely imperceptible (i.e. makes no observable change in the universe whatsoever) then whether it exists or not is irrelevant - it makes no difference to my life or yours. If it can be perceived, it can be observed. If it can be observed it is amenable to study via the scientific method.

      Nah. Just because something cannot be percieved doesn't mean it's outside our existence entirely. All that means is that we don't yet have the tools or wisdom to identify it. The Sahara aquifer made no observable change in the medeival universem but whether it existed was quite relevant; it caused one of the earth's largest deserts (shut up, antarctica is a desert and it's bigger,) it made an impassable military terrain, it prevented a particular direction of human expansion, et cetera.

      "But clearly it was percieved in that the desert was known to be growing!" you cry, or maybe "but that's just because we were primitive, I'm talking about people with future science" or perhaps "the faulty beliefs of the day hindered correct observations." Yes, those are thr

      --
      StoneCypher is Full of BS
    139. Re:The Score by stonecypher · · Score: 1

      Magic/Myth/Religion are all ways to explain the world to those who can't bother to be interested in the actual truth.

      Would it not be more fair to cast magic, myth and religion as early attempts to understand the actual truth? Maybe you forget that those people really believed in the myth, and that much of it was constructed by logical extrapolation from other myth. Much of it held kernels of truth, and some of it even led directly to truth.

      --
      StoneCypher is Full of BS
    140. Re:The Score by stonecypher · · Score: 1

      I don't understand how international currency exchange rates work

      I find it amusing that you chose the one and only thing on this Earth which still really does run on magic as your example.

      --
      StoneCypher is Full of BS
    141. Re:The Score by jonadab · · Score: 1

      > It reminds me of a biblical story where the king killed all his advisors
      > who couldn't tell him what his dream meant.

      No, he didn't do it. He was going to, but then this young Jewish man (called
      Belshazzar by the king) came along and told him the dream, so he let the
      advisors and enchanters and sorcerers and diviners off the hook.

      --
      Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
    142. Re:The Score by MemoryAid · · Score: 1

      The most convincing demonstration of magic I have witnessed happened several years ago. I was outdoors with a friend, at night. He had me close my eyes and tilt my head up. When I opened my eyes, I saw the moon.

      --
      Language students: Don't try to learn English here. This ain't it.
    143. Re:The Score by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you haven't already checked it out, Wikipedia has some good reading. The Ergot tainted rye theory was actually covered by a recent TV show (History or Discovery or TLC most likely, can't remember).

    144. Re:The Score by mwmcmahon · · Score: 1

      Magic/Myth/Religion are all ways to explain the world to those who can't bother to be interested in the actual truth.

      I have to take argument with part of this statement. Science is all about answering HOW, religion is about WHY.

      Religion is meant to give meaning to the world, not to help us understand how it works. It answers the philosophical WHY, going only so far into the physical HOW as to lay a foundation for understanding that why. Religion, as an intellectual process is grossly inadequate for answering HOW. Science, OTOH, is tool used to understand HOW, but is grossly inadequate for understanding WHY.

      When religion tries to do the job of science, you get clergy claiming the Earth is the center of the universe and imprisoning anyone who disagrees with them.

      When science tries to do the job of religion, you get scientists who defend there theories religiously because any refute or refinement of the theories based on new observations and arguments threaten to undermine their entire belief system.

      Both cases yield non-satisfactory results. When religion adheres to beliefs about the natural world that are obviously false, religion is the fool. When science refuses to adapt to new observations because these observations invalid the scientists belief system, we have a science we can no longer trust because it's abandoned all attempts at objectivity. The relationship between correct science and correct religion is such that they need to be allies. It's find (even healthy) for the twain to occasionally disagree on the details of our reality, but over time they need to support one another in understanding that reality.
    145. Re:The Score by hanavi · · Score: 1

      Kinda funny you should say so... The opposite seems to be assumed just as much. "Just because i don't understand why something bad/good happens, there must be no God in control."

    146. Re:The Score by theLOUDroom · · Score: 1

      Religion is meant to give meaning to the world, not to help us understand how it works. It answers the philosophical WHY

      Nope. Religion is not philosophy.

      Religion is not about logic. A philosopher is supposed to critically evalute the ideas before him. Religion is about accepting something as the word of god.

      With religion, murder is wrong because some guy claiming to be speaking for god said so.
      With philosophy, murder is wrong because you realize that you don't want to live in a world when people go around murdering each other.

      Religion is about "faith" and faith is a poor way to explain the HOW or the WHY. Just take it one faith that I'm right :)
      (you diety(s) of choice told me so)

      --
      Life is too short to proofread.
    147. Re:The Score by mwmcmahon · · Score: 1

      You're exactly correct, religion is not philosophy. Nor did I claim it was. What I did say was that religion answers the "philosophical why" and not the "physical how". There's also a physical why (i.e. cause and effect, the cause being why) and I wanted to be clear that I was talking about meaning and motivation and not simply a chain of events. Hopefully, now I'm being clearer.

      That being said, you have a pretty limited and poorly informed view of faith. What you're talking about is ignorance, not faith. In reality "the word of god" stresses probing, questioning and learning at least as much as being able to trust God when you don't understand. One is not a substitute for the other.

      Let me challenge you to do some probing of your own. Learn about religion by actually reading a religious text and not just assuming you know what it says. I'd particularly encourage you to read something from the bible. (I'm confident what you'll read from that source, at least, will be honest and correct because I've critically examined quite a bit of it.) What you'll most likely find is a predominantly historical text, one that doesn't just say don't murder, God said so but also illustrates and argues why murder is wrong through the lives of the men and women you'll read about. Read about David (mostly 2 Samuel), there is a man who spent at least as much time probing and questioning God, as he did "accepting" things because "god said so". Or, since you seem enamored with philosophy, try one of the books of Solomon or the book of Job. All four of those books are thinking books, even philosophical.

    148. Re:The Score by theLOUDroom · · Score: 1

      All four of those books are thinking books, even philosophical.

      Very true.

      If one was to view the bible as a philosophical work, it can be very positive.

      Unfortunately, the vast majority of people view the bible as a religious work, not a philosophical one.

      A philosphical work helps develop your understanding of the world by stimulating a sort of "healthy debate" inside you mind.
      A regligous work is about telling you something and you believing it.

      The best Christians I know are those work understand the spirt (non-catholic sense of course) and the philosophy contained in the bible.

      The problem is that (by defintion) a religion requires a belief in the supernatural. It's what seperates a religion from a philosophy.
      One is about reason, while the other is about "faith".

      Once you're believing in the supernatural, you aren't really answering the philosophical why or how anymore, you're just making things up (or accepting something someone else made up). Now, if you're just talking about the supernatural in an allegorical sense, then you're making real philosophical arguments.

      Of course, a religion can be intertwined with philosophy, but in the end somewhere you're falling back on ghosts and goblins to explain things. You can go so far as to change the debate to a pardigm where these ghosts are real, and you make philosophical arguments on that basis as a "religous scholar", but since you're not really basing the debate on reason it's not philosophy anymore.

      Anyways, at least have something interesting to say on the subject.

      --
      Life is too short to proofread.
    149. Re:The Score by mwmcmahon · · Score: 1
      Once you're believing in the supernatural, you aren't really answering the philosophical why or how anymore, you're just making things up (or accepting something someone else made up).

      There are two types of people in the world (yep, just two ;), those who are able to accept the "supernatural" and those who can't (or won't). I could get into a long tangent about this, but I'm fighting that urge. Instead, I'll just say that at some point every person is presented with an event that they can't explain. I'd argue that:

      1. It won't be a "there is no spoon" event where the laws of physics go wacky. These sort of things are either illusions or can, with near unanimity, be explained rationally.
      2. It won't be a "John Edward's encounter". He's either a very good fake, or a very dangerous man (and not for the reasons you're probably thinking).

      What it will likely be is something personal that cuts to your heart. You won't be able to stop thinking about it. At first, you may not even think of it as something spiritual, but you will struggle to account for it rationally. In the end, you'll be forced to either (a) deceive yourself into believing an argument that you know is weak, or (b) reformulate what you believe is possible.

      It's broadly worded, I know, but it's difficult to be specific when you're not prophetic. (*Sigh*, wouldn't that make life easier?) Ask one of your Christian friends why they believe. I'd be surprised if you couldn't find at least one person who has a story that fits well with my final point. You could also e-mail me (my address is obfuscated public) and I'll share mine (or start up a slashdot journal discussion).

      Whatever we do, I feel guilty for abusing this discussion with chatter as off-topic as this is becoming. It's been a good chat though. :)

    150. Re:The Score by theLOUDroom · · Score: 1

      There are two types of people in the world (yep, just two ;), those who are able to accept the "supernatural" and those who can't (or won't). I could get into a long tangent about this, but I'm fighting that urge. Instead, I'll just say that at some point every person is presented with an event that they can't explain.

      Sure, as an engineer, I'm forced to confront my lack of understanding everyday. It seems the more you know, they more you know you don't know.

      What it will likely be is something personal that cuts to your heart. You won't be able to stop thinking about it. At first, you may not even think of it as something spiritual, but you will struggle to account for it rationally. In the end, you'll be forced to either (a) deceive yourself into believing an argument that you know is weak, or (b) reformulate what you believe is possible.

      Well, you're leaving out (c) accept that you don't know and may never know.
      Option (c) is a very uncomfortable option for many people. It's essentially to believe nothing....to admit lack of control and understanding over certain factors in your life. It makes you feel powerless and people don't like that.

      It's interesting to relate this back to your earlier statement about their being two types of people. It accounts for those who are religious and/or superstitious, and it also accounts for those who are atheists, but it does not account for agnosticism.

      The third option is to think about the issue at hand, and realize that you have no good basis to posit a "how" or a "why". Now, when it's something personal, this can be a very hard thing to do. I think it can be easier on someone, psychologially, to have pretty much any explanation of something traumatic as it makes it easier for them to come to terms with the event. It can be easier to have closure when you have an end-to-end explanation of the event, even if it requires throwing away reason.

      It's been a good chat though. :)

      Likewise, I had earlier meant to say:
      Anyways, at least you have something interesting to say on the subject.
      Funny how much a typo can change a sentence.

      I wouldn't say we're abusing this thread either, since we're just carrying on the discussion invoked by my own highly rated comment. Anyways, feel free to IM me via AIM (your first guess at my s/n will be correct). A journal discussion could be a good idea too. I currently have no email except at work, which I try to avoid using for personal use (for obvious reasons).

      --
      Life is too short to proofread.
  19. Human nature by DrXym · · Score: 3, Interesting
    It will be fun watching people make asses out of themselves over this.


    You only have to look at all the loony beliefs in the world to know that people will leap to the most ridiculous conclusions at the drop of a hat.


    "We can identify that flying object so therefore it must be an advanced alien scout ship!" etc.


    It's sad really. No doubt when the mundane reason for this story becomes clear (e.g. hoax, sensational reporting or whatever), there will be another bunch of loons accusing the Italian government of a 'coverup'.

    1. Re:Human nature by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I often think about that too..

      But the most amusing/annoying part is that one day one of them is going to be right. But it won't make the ones before them right.

      When you call every UFO in the sky a alien spaceship, when (and if) an alien spaceship finally comes one of these loonies will be right.

      One day, when the end is nigh, the dude holding the "end is nigh" sign will be right...

    2. Re:Human nature by Gulik · · Score: 1

      No doubt when the mundane reason for this story becomes clear (e.g. hoax, sensational reporting or whatever), there will be another bunch of loons accusing the Italian government of a 'coverup'.

      You're absolutely right, and it's ridiculous. Clearly, it will be the Vatican covering this up. I mean, the Catholic Church has been given a lot of influence, and it only has one job: keep these kinds of demonic manifestations from drawing the public eye. But perhaps I've said too much.

    3. Re:Human nature by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course if alien spaceship finally comes it will be detected and classified as such before one of the loonies even sees it. Or anyone for that matter, radars have kind of longer eyesight.

      And if someone wants to wave their end of nigh signs, in case of real end, the rest of us will know that as well and are doing whatever is possible to stop it.

      There's no point in being a loonie just for being right once, especially as anyone else is going to get it as well.

  20. Duh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The answer is obvious: Sark is testing out the Rambaldi device. DUH!

  21. Radar Installation Nearby by N8F8 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Do there happen to be any radar installations nearby?

    --
    "God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
    1. Re:Radar Installation Nearby by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Although I haven't been to Sicily recently,
      there used to be a radar system watching out
      towards Libya.

    2. Re:Radar Installation Nearby by panurge · · Score: 1, Funny
      Yes, a sufficiently powerful radar can have interesting effects especially if wires have become heated enough for the insulation to start to carbonise.

      I would also suspect, knowing a bit about electrical grids, that there may be unexpected connections around and some of those wires may still be live.

      I know of at least one case where a factory had an unusually high power load and the new manager determined to investigate. One evening after work he went round turning off the main switches one after another. One switch had no apparent effect, so he left it turned off. He then later heard that the golf club half a mile down the road had suddenly been totally deprived of power.

      --
      Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
  22. Old news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This was forecast 2000 years ago.

  23. THE ALIENS ARE COMING :D by Killjoy_NL · · Score: 2, Funny

    Who is to say that they aren't?

    I mean, aliens don't have to be our size, they could be tiny little critters that can't be seen with the naked eye.
    This could just be a series of tiny little BBQ's gone wrong?

    If I was an alien, Sicily would seem like a nice place to go :)

    --
    This is the sig that says NI (again)
  24. This will happen in the US soon too... by syntap · · Score: 4, Funny

    if the RIAA and Microsoft get all of their DRM technology in order.

    Wow, the new Janet Jackson single... gimmee gimmee gimmee playing WOOOOOOOOOF! FLAMES!

    1. Re:This will happen in the US soon too... by wcspxyx · · Score: 1

      No, no. That's just your Linux box acting in self defense.

      --
      Sig? What sig? Do I have to have a sig!?!?
    2. Re:This will happen in the US soon too... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The new Janet Jackson single? That's not DRM, that's your computer commiting suicide to save itself from bad music.

    3. Re:This will happen in the US soon too... by castis · · Score: 1

      I tell you what it is. The sicilian community was sharing a total 4000 mp3s. The RIAA found it easier to burn the village down and make it look like something completely out of the ordinary...

      --
      ~ Yeah, and then he says: Rectum? Damn near killed him!
  25. There's something weird in the neighborhood, by Stu+Catz · · Score: 2, Funny

    who you gonna call? GHOSTBUSTERS! heh, i had to do it.

  26. Limits of Science by Fortress · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I find this a good example of those phenomena that science can't yet explain. I'm often amused by science types that say something is impossible because it doesn't fit any current theory.

    Seems to me any true scientist should always be watching for observations that don't fit the known theory, as they are indicators of a nedd for further refinement.

    Sadly, scientists, like most people, are more interested in being right, and tend to look for confirming evidence, sometimes to the detriment of their conclusions.

    Before you flame me as an anti-science zealot, let me confess that I'm a science guy as much as your average geek, and I think science is responsible for most of the good changes of the last few centuries. I just think that when we hold too tight to our theories, we leave the realm of skeptical science and enter the world of blind faith.

    BTW, I have no plausible explanation for the spontaneous fires. But I am confident that someone will come up wih one that doesn't invole a tinfoil hat.

    1. Re:Limits of Science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shut up, anti-science zealot. You don't know the half of what goes on here! My vary talking to you puts me in danger, and yourself but you're unimportant. RUN! FOR THE SAKE OF ALL OTHERS WHO HAVE BEEN BEAMED UP ALSO!!!!!

    2. Re:Limits of Science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where is Charles Fort now that the world needs him?

      This is just another example of one of his "damned facts".

    3. Re:Limits of Science by Oligonicella · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "science types that say something is impossible because it doesn't fit any current theory"

      They don't. Not the *real* ones anyway, only the quacks with books to sell. Science is all about finding evidence to *refute*, not support, a hypothesis.

      You need to read more.

    4. Re:Limits of Science by madprof · · Score: 1

      Scientists are only human beings, and they'll be prone to making the mistake of forgetting to adherely strictly to scientific methodology on the odd occasion but rarely in a professional context.
      There are professional scientists who investigate paranormal acitvity and they are pretty thorough - check out someone like Dr Richard Wiseman in the UK.

      To say this is an example of something science can't yet explain sounds quite exciting but is really very ordinary - science could not explain the ultraviolet catastrophe until Planck postulated quantised energy states. Nothing magic, just needed investigation, which is what scientists will no doubt apply in this case.

    5. Re:Limits of Science by papik · · Score: 2, Informative
      Seems to me any true scientist should always be watching for observations that don't fit the known theory, as they are indicators of a nedd for further refinement.

      Sadly, scientists, like most people, are more interested in being right, and tend to look for confirming evidence, sometimes to the detriment of their conclusions.

      It seems to me that you are confused about science. It works exactly like you say. Some scientist looks for observation that don't fit the theory, refine it or make up another, then try an experiment to confirm the new theory.

      It can happen that some scientist is so convinced of his theory to reject evidence, but that it's how the world works. I could say that IT people should make life easier, not create some obscure software that crashes, get virus, delete data at random, etc. and then they blame the user.

    6. Re:Limits of Science by Hast · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually I would say that it's a good example of media presenting it as something science can't explain. If you read the article you may note that they have no citations from any of the billion of scientist who are apparently there. They do provide a lot of quotes from people who think it's related to electrical appliances possessed by the devil.

      For a more scientific approach to the problem you should check the site The Fires of Canneto di Caronia which at least attempt to provide an explaination.

      And furthermore, you may complain that scientist are sceptical to new ideas. This is natural because in science there is a clear distintion between an idea (hypothesis) and something which is "tried and true" (theory, law). What these enthusiasts are doing is to invent meaningless stuff about the "causes" and claiming that it's as good as a scientific idea. Now naturally if you can't use the hypothesis to actually predict anything then it's at best cute. Most likely it's a big fat waste of time.

      The scientific method is a systematic way of getting more and better knowledge. What these people do is a good way to sell more papers. I just feel that it's so extremely sad when I read about "science" or statistics in a paper that I want to go to that journal and smack him on the nose with a rolled up paper (perhaps a scientific journal would help) and say "Bad irresponsible crackpot journalist! Bad irresponsible crackpot journalist! Look at what you did!"

      BTW I recommend that you read eg "The deamon haunted world" by Carl Sagan. It's a pretty good introduction to critical thinking in a world of disinformation.

    7. Re:Limits of Science by Chainsaw+Messiah · · Score: 2, Funny
      But I am confident that someone will come up wih one that doesn't invole a tinfoil hat.

      Swamp Gas?

    8. Re:Limits of Science by TwistedGreen · · Score: 1

      Look, nobody's denying what's happening. And I don't appreciate your smugness. You admit that you have no more an explanation of these phenomena than anyone else, so why these snide comments? Do you think that it is an improper response to at first doubt your senses when you see something that you've never seen before, something that has never before been explained? Does it not make sense to doubt your data before you throw away your lifetime of precedence?

      You say that any true scientist should always be watching for observations that don't fit the known theory, and there are many that are. But you can't always be sure of what you see, and there's no harm in working on the simpler problems before moving to the more difficult problems on the fringe of knowledge. No one scientist can work on all of it at once: it's easy to bite off more than you can chew and be overwhelmed. This is why everyone takes their little bit and contributes. This is why science works as it does, as a collective process, with thousands of minds working on individual pieces of the problem at different levels of abstraction. No one person can intimately understand everything, so when some new but undeniable phenomenon like this one occurs, it will upset the balance, and it will take a while for that balance to re-form.

      So, while you are "often amused" at people's incredulity when they see something like this, their reactions are characteristic of being human, something that cannot be avoided and something that you can hardly blame someone for. But science, being a collective process, will transcend that obstacle and compensate for that. It will just take a bit of time.

    9. Re:Limits of Science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for saying that. Now I don't have to :-) It's because of people like you that the world has not fallen back into the Dark Ages... although it will, considering the massive amount of religion, creationism, and superstition controlling us. :(

    10. Re:Limits of Science by Kenneth+Stephen · · Score: 1

      Your point is well-taken, but I have to quibble with the words that you used. A scientists goal isnt to prove or disprove anything. The proof or disproof is the means to an end. The true goal of a scientist should be to uncover the truth.

      --

      There is no such thing as luck. Luck is nothing but an absence of bad luck.

    11. Re:Limits of Science by Luminous · · Score: 1

      You would have been more successful if you would have mentioned Thomas Kuhn's book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions .

      --
      This is not the way to build a lasting empire.
    12. Re:Limits of Science by I+Be+Hatin' · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Science is all about finding evidence to *refute*, not support, a hypothesis.

      On the contrary, Popper's ideas about the nature of scientific inquiry have been proven incorrect for the simple reason that hypotheses are not tested in vacuums. If you disprove a conjunction, you only know that one of the components is false, but you don't know which one. In reality, science works both ways: finding evidence both for and against certain hypotheses and most importantly, independently validating them.

      You need to read more.

      I'd suggest you (re-)read Kuhn.

      --
      I know god exists. I read it on the internet, so it must be true.
    13. Re:Limits of Science by Peter+La+Casse · · Score: 2, Interesting
      I'm often amused by science types that say something is impossible because it doesn't fit any current theory

      They don't. Not the *real* ones anyway, only the quacks with books to sell.

      I think the parent poster was referring to people who could safely be called "science fanboys". If something doesn't fit their brand of scientific dogma, then it's obviously nonsense. They start from the conclusion they want (which was told to them by someone else - i.e., not original) and dismiss or ridicule what doesn't support it.

      Of course, these people aren't "scientists", they're "science types". (Well, some real scientists might be like that - who am I to say that all scientists are good scientists.

    14. Re:Limits of Science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...only the quacks with books to sell.

      ...and then...

      You need to read more.

      Ha hA!

    15. Re:Limits of Science by zaphod110676 · · Score: 1

      I'd argue that there are few *real* scientists left. There's too much money involved now days. "Scientific" research is often funded by corporations now who have a vested financial interest in having something proved or disproved. I'd be surprised if financial pressure doesn't frequently skew results. I'm thinking specifically of drug companies here but I'd be surprised if that weren't the case in many scientific disciplines.

      --
      To Do: 1. Take over world 2. Pick up Milk and Bread on the way home
    16. Re:Limits of Science by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      "Sadly, scientists, like most people, are more interested in being right"

      Yeah, I hate those people. Imagine trying to be right, instead of wrong. Bastards.

    17. Re:Limits of Science by dclydew · · Score: 1

      That assumes that there is 'truth'... which may be a rather large assumption.

      --
      Get a life, not a lifestyle. - Hikem Bey
    18. Re:Limits of Science by dinog · · Score: 1
      First, how do you know that science can't explain it ? Consider that science often starts with, hmm, that's funny, and then proceeds to explain something, but that isn't really what I'm talking about.

      The part about volcanoe experts should be a clue. I'll bet if it isn't a hoax, there is a reason that can be explained without anything new.

      Consider a volcanic region, with a large amout of molten metal coursing through a tunnel not to far from the surface. Add a few metalic geographic features (a couple circular copper veins -- that is to say a natural helmholtz coil), and suddenly you have a potential explanation.

      There are all kinds of possible explanations, none of which require any kind of new theory or supernatual agents.

      Dean G.

    19. Re:Limits of Science by joebok · · Score: 1

      Exactly - Occam's Razor.

    20. Re:Limits of Science by orim · · Score: 1

      "The true goal of a scientist should be to uncover the truth"

      No, I think that's Mulder's job. Shouldn't scientists be the ones who find out how the universe works?

      --
      "If you could only see what I've seen with your eyes..." - Roy Batty
    21. Re:Limits of Science by GeoGreg · · Score: 1

      More precisely, if you disprove a conjunction, you know that at least one of the components is false.

    22. Re:Limits of Science by strike2867 · · Score: 1

      scientists, like most people, are more interested in being right

      In the 60's everyone believe that the human genome had 48 chromosomes. There were tons of studies to prove it. It was taken as fact for years until a couple of scientists actually counted them again and found only 46. They then went back to the old studies and again found only 46.

      --

      Vote for new mod!!! Score:-2,Imbecile
    23. Re:Limits of Science by CyBlue · · Score: 1

      The theories on that site are just way too crazy. I didn't think anything could be worse than what I read on /. but appearantly I was wrong.

      Dust explosions? If there were enough dust in the atmosphere to burn you wouldn't be able to see 100'.
      The static discharges produced by volcanic clouds leads to the idea of micro-discharges from volcanic dust. *sigh*
      Flammable gas from volcanoes? What would that have to do with wires catching on fire?
      Solar discharges? .. and it only seems to be happening there?

      I didn't see anything on that site that was remotely plausible. At least he could have come up with something like subterrainean quartz deposits along a fault generating electrical discharges. While unlikely, that would be more believable.

    24. Re:Limits of Science by MourningBlade · · Score: 1

      Science had a problem with dogmatic beliefs and peer pressure a long time before corporate interests got involved.

      A very famous case would be egyptian hieroglyphics. The leading scientist said that the glyphs were pictograms, and that was that. Going against what he said meant you were a quack.

      Years later, after he'd fallen out of favor, research began again, and revealed that the glyphs were phonetic.

      The worst example I know of would be that of Werner, an early geologist, who was extremely influential. A very talented lecturist, writer, and debater. And he was full of crap. He set back geology about 50 years (not that long in geological time, but quite a while in geologist time).

      These days, where science isn't confounded by corporate interests, it's government interference. If you say some things the government doesn't like (opiates don't make you a child molester, cannabis has no link with homicidal rages, etc), you will lose government funding. If you disprove a colleague, he may lose his funding and/or embarass him. If he was politically influential, you might kiss your own funding goodbye.

      Several of the journals toe certain party lines, and they're flat out not interested in anything iconoclastic.

      Here's one for you: you'd think that the wild claims of the great effect of acupuncture would've drawn scientists like flies hoping to study it and figure out at least if it worked.

      Of course, it didn't work that way. If you studied acupuncture's effects at all you'd better have a negative result or you would forever be banished to studying fringe science, which in turn hurts your credibility. Yes, what you work on determines your credibility, not your method (though it can as well).

      Recently some study has been made, but it's been slow and painful.

    25. Re:Limits of Science by zaphod110676 · · Score: 1

      You're definitely correct and acupuncture is a great example. You can make similar points involving homeopathy and myths involving vaccines.

      If what you say goes against the popular belief even if it is correct you are often going to be labeled as a quack simply because others have too much of a stake in the status quo. This can be said with regard to pretty much any type of change though.

      --
      To Do: 1. Take over world 2. Pick up Milk and Bread on the way home
    26. Re:Limits of Science by macshit · · Score: 1

      Indeed; I think a more accurate description of science is that it seeks to construct models that accurately predict observations. That's it. The notion of "truth" isn't really relevant.

      --
      We live, as we dream -- alone....
    27. Re:Limits of Science by Beeboy(!) · · Score: 1

      > Popper's ideas about the nature of scientific inquiry have been proven incorrect...

      Please tell me that you intended this statement to be ironic.

      Popperian falsification has been falsified? I can't tell you relieved I am...

      --
      Beeboy(!)
      "This is my sig file. There are many like it, but this one is mine."
    28. Re:Limits of Science by srleffler · · Score: 1
      That assumes that there is 'truth'... which may be a rather large assumption.

      Actually, you're right, and that is one of the few fundamental assumptions that underlie all science. The scientific method presumes that there is actually an objective reality ("truth") that can be observed. The existence of such a thing is not and probably cannot be proven.

    29. Re:Limits of Science by srleffler · · Score: 1
      You're definitely correct and acupuncture is a great example. You can make similar points involving homeopathy and myths involving vaccines.

      Actually, no. One can make a pretty good scientific case that homeopathy shouldn't work. This is different from acupuncture where there is no clear scientific explanation for why it might work and the "traditional" explanation doesn't seem to make sense from a scientific perspective, but there might be something else going on that we don't know about.

    30. Re:Limits of Science by zaphod110676 · · Score: 1

      I can tell you however from personal experience that it does and it works well. You'll have a hard time convincing me that chamomille makes my one year onld son's teeth feel better because of the placebo effect.

      --
      To Do: 1. Take over world 2. Pick up Milk and Bread on the way home
    31. Re:Limits of Science by rjstanford · · Score: 1

      No, but you're assuming in your post that chamomille has absolutely no inherently soothing ingredients, that somehow it works even though it shouldn't. Few people are arguing that. A lot of "homeopathic remedies" have been studied and shown to have substantial medical evidence supporting them and how they work. Many have been studied and shown to have no medically redeeming characteristics whatsoever. Chamomille simply falls into the first category. Without making this distinction, you could label anything (say, willow bark tea) as "homeopathic" and then, by proving that it does indeed have a provable effect, claim that anything labelled as homeopathic works as well. This is obviously not the case.

      --
      You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
    32. Re:Limits of Science by srleffler · · Score: 1
      Hmmm. Would you have an easier time believing that plain water makes your son's teeth feel better because of the placebo effect?

      The issue with homeopathy is that the traditional method of preparation involves diluting the original substance to the point where none of it remains. A dose of 30X homeopathic chamomile contains no chamomile whatsoever. At that dilution, you would need, on average, about 7800 gallons of solution to have just one molecule of the original chamomile extract.

      I don't have a problem with the idea that chamomile might have useful pharmacological properties. I happen to enjoy chamomile tea, myself. As a scientist, however, I find it rather hard to believe that a vial of water can somehow "magically" pick up and amplify properties from chamomile in the way that homeopathy supposes.

    33. Re:Limits of Science by srleffler · · Score: 1
      No, but you're assuming in your post that chamomille has absolutely no inherently soothing ingredients, that somehow it works even though it shouldn't. Few people are arguing that. A lot of "homeopathic remedies" have been studied and shown to have substantial medical evidence supporting them and how they work. Many have been studied and shown to have no medically redeeming characteristics whatsoever.

      Don't confuse holistic and/or herbal medicine with homeopathy. I wouldn't have objected to including herbal medicine in the same category as acupuncture. Many herbal medicines probably do have a pharmacological effect that could be studied scientifically.

      Homeopathy is something else altogether. This is essentially a magical practice in which an herbal or mineral extract is diluted repeatedly until none of the original substance remains. Adherents believe that diluting the extract with water increases its potency. A typical homeopathic dose doesn't even contain a single molecule of the original extract. Homeopathic medicine is just plain water.

      Is it possible there is something going on here that science misses? Sure. Is it likely? No. It is much more likely that this is just snake oil being sold to the unwary. Worse, homeopathy has acquired an air of legitimacy through good marketing and confusion with other forms of holistic medicine (herbal supplements, etc.)

    34. Re:Limits of Science by zaphod110676 · · Score: 1

      It's a tiny maltose pill. The water used to dilute it is long since gone. =)

      You are absolutely correct about the way it is dilutied though. There is most probably none of the actual compound remaining. It definitely goes against the grain but there are a lot of scientists and doctors who buy into it. Are they right?....maybe....maybe not but regardless it seems to get results in every case we've used it in so far.

      I have a friend whose Dr./Accupuncturist/Homeopath had him do a muscle test to determine what he was allergic to. It was amaizing. It matched perfectly with his conventional allergy scratch test and they found a few new thing that conventional allergists don't test for, (petroleum sensitivity amongst other things).

      I'm not so sure that I believe any of it but so far homeopathy has a better success rate than conventional medicine in my experience.

      --
      To Do: 1. Take over world 2. Pick up Milk and Bread on the way home
  27. A little late by dncsky1530 · · Score: 1

    for april fools day... MSNBC - The Time Stops here!

  28. Perhaps volcanic activity is the cause? by Phoenix-kun · · Score: 4, Informative

    Here is an interesting and recent article that has some further details on the subject.

    --
    Phoenix
    1. Re:Perhaps volcanic activity is the cause? by ab762 · · Score: 1

      I first suspected conductive particles - which could be part of volcanic output. Conductive dust and electricity and methane could account for all this. Where's the hard data?

    2. Re:Perhaps volcanic activity is the cause? by misof · · Score: 1

      No offense, but when I saw your nick, I couldn't stop laughing for two minutes... Imagine a phoenix talking about the reason of some mystical fires... like "it wasn't me, it was the neighbor's dog (or wait, maybe it was volcanic activity?)"...

  29. Hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Featured over on El Reg almost 2 months ago.. Maybe it's something atmospheric reacting with a common componenet in wiring or something.

  30. Isn't that where - by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    - they're testing the new FireWire protocol?

  31. prescot by brian728s · · Score: 0

    I bet they just upgraded to prescots.

  32. Aurora Borealis? by re-Verse · · Score: 4, Funny

    And strangely fitting:

    " "....My God! Is that your kitchen on fire?"
    "Err, no. It's Aurora Borealus."
    "An Aurora Borealus?"
    "Yes."
    "At this time of the day, at this time of year, in this part of the country, localized entirely in your kitchen?!"
    ".....Yes."
    "....Can I see it?"
    ".....No."

    1. Re:Aurora Borealis? by anotherwjt · · Score: 1

      So are you going to let the Aurora Borealis burn out your kitchen ?
      Oh that bench material makes pretty colours .

    2. Re:Aurora Borealis? by WCityMike · · Score: 1

      My God. Simpsons quotes really can be used to comment on everything.

  33. You need protection in Sicily... by aapold · · Score: 2, Funny

    Or sometimes things just.... catch fire..... we wouldn't want that now would we?

    --
    "Waste not one watt!" - CZ
  34. Yay! by Zebedeu · · Score: 4, Funny
    Spinnato, the mayor, sounds just as desperate.

    "Someone wrote to us saying the solution was to sacrifice a black goat and collect its blood. At some point, that's going to start looking like a good idea."

    Wohoo! They took my advice!

  35. Not Unique by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Believe or not, similar incidents have occurred before.

    o 1945 - A village a short distance from Almera in Spain (New York Time 5th July 1945).

    o 1983 - A small coal town in West Virginia, Wharncliffe (Housten Post 16th June 1983 and Columbus Dispatch 24th July 1983)

    o 1990 - San Gottardo in the Berici Hills of Italy
    (UK Sunday Express 11th March 1990 and The Guardian 22nd March 1990)

    I've given you references so you can check them out for yourself.

    (posted anonymously to avoid Slashdotters you refuse to think about things which don't fit inside their predefined universe).

    1. Re:Not Unique by madprof · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Please do provide references! Scepticism is a natural and healthy thing.

    2. Re:Not Unique by TwistedGreen · · Score: 3, Insightful

      posted anonymously to avoid Slashdotters you refuse to think about things which don't fit inside their predefined universe

      Don't be ridiculous. Do you seriously think there are Slashdotters who don't enjoy a tantalizing problem like this one?

    3. Re:Not Unique by GarbanzoBean · · Score: 1

      Someone is due for a visit to randi.org

    4. Re:Not Unique by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      (posted anonymously to avoid Slashdotters you refuse to think about things which don't fit inside their predefined universe).

      You mean like magic?

    5. Re:Not Unique by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      posted anonymously to avoid Slashdotters you refuse to think about things which don't fit inside their predefined universe

      Who says there's only one?

    6. Re:Not Unique by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (posted anonymously to avoid Slashdotters you refuse to think about things which don't fit inside their predefined universe).

      Posted by someone who expects everyone else to except what fits into his/her own predefined universe.

    7. Re:Not Unique by scrytch · · Score: 2, Insightful

      > (posted anonymously to avoid Slashdotters you refuse to think about things which don't fit inside their predefined universe).

      My predefined universe requires things like proof. Shall I post a list of recent Elvis sightings?

      --
      I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
    8. Re:Not Unique by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, the grandparent for one.

      Seeing as he tries to handily dispose from solving the problem by moving to "goddidit" camp.

    9. Re:Not Unique by Paulrothrock · · Score: 1

      class me { static universe; }

      Yep, predefined.

      --
      I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
    10. Re:Not Unique by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In turn, posted by someone who expects everyone else to ACCEPT what fits into his/her own redefined dictionary.

    11. Re:Not Unique by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      posted anonymously to avoid Slashdotters you refuse to think about things which don't fit inside their predefined universe

      Hmmm. Maybe SCO and Microsoft are good afterall........fuck that! The sparks ain't ghosts, man.

    12. Re:Not Unique by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pretty much every reply to the original post proves the point he was making in the final paragraph. How does mentioning three other similar instances and providing references move him into the "goddidit camp"? This is exactly what he was saying -- there's no immediate easy answer therefore you ignore it and discredit anyone who is interested in it by denouncing them as "religious" or "magic-believing".

      It's pathetic.

    13. Re:Not Unique by MrBlackBand · · Score: 1
      (posted anonymously to avoid Slashdotters you refuse to think about things which don't fit inside their predefined universe)

      For some reason, this comment reminded me of the following:

      Dr. Raymond Stantz: "Symmetrical book stacking. Just like the Philadelphia mass turbulence of 1947."
      Dr. Peter Venkman: "You're right, no human being would stack books like this."

      --
      "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."
    14. Re:Not Unique by Lobo93 · · Score: 1

      You mean like magic?

      Or perhaps Magick?

      --
      "The only clear view is from atop the mountain of our dead selves." - Peter Carroll
    15. Re:Not Unique by the+pickle · · Score: 1

      If you had been modded* "funny" I wouldn't have replied, but since you were modded* "insightful," I had to say something.

      Do you seriously think there are Slashdotters who don't enjoy a tantalizing problem like this one?

      Yes, I do. Look at all the arguments about religion/God/etc. up above the grandparent post. Those people don't care about why this is happening. They only care about fighting with other people about whether or not there's a God.

      *I know this is through no fault of your own, but if we assume *all* the moderators are idiots, moderations become meaningless. I choose to accept that the majority of moderations are fair unless there's evidence otherwise.

      p

    16. Re:Not Unique by Starcub · · Score: 1

      As a youngster, every once and a while I would hear about someone who spontaneously combusted. I came to believe that these stories were just urban legend. Now I'm starting to wonder if they were just people who wore braces and who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

      Seriously though, I think it's bogus. I can't fathom how something like this would fail to gain mention in any major media outlet.

    17. Re:Not Unique by Bavi+H · · Score: 1

      Believe or not, similar incidents have occurred before.

      o 1945 - A village a short distance from Almera in Spain (New York Time 5th July 1945).


      "Spontaneous Combustion Puzzles Spanish Farmers"
      New York Times, 5 July 1945, page 3.

      The article describes a "meterological phenonmeonon" in a faming area near Almeria, where "clothing, bulidings, and farm insturments suddenly burst into flames."

      Although this is an unxplained spontaneous combustion, I don't see enough similarity (there are no electrionic devices?). Just wanted to let others know the title and page of the article as well as my opinion of the lack of similarity.

  36. Historical by RavidgeMole · · Score: 1

    So that's how Mussolini made the trains run on time, he just clustered the country's electronic services. Some new guy on the job probably just hooked up the cluster to the wrong outlet and blew the thing. ;)

    --
    "It is better to keep your mouth closed and have people think you a fool than to open it and prove them right." M. Twain
  37. What do you expect? by Perdition · · Score: 1

    Sun and Microsoft burying the hatchet, Lindoze having to concede to the one world power, I'm dating seriously now, this is like 50th on the list... the end is near!

    --
    Windows XP SP2 told me to install third-party software that prevents viruses and protects stability... I chose Ubuntu
  38. Easter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One cannot discount Easter weekend coming up. The time between Palm Sunday and Good Friday have been called the passion. (Hince the movie name, The Passion of the Christ) Just remember one verse: "Every knee shall bow"

    Prophecy may be starting to come true.

  39. Wow, I really want to go there by Rogerborg · · Score: 1

    To that isolated poor village, I mean. I wonder if I can persuade any of the locals to show me the location of some of these events and tell me a story about them in return for some sort of donation.

    --
    If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
  40. Neg by RavidgeMole · · Score: 0, Insightful

    No, an EMP just disrupts electronics, doesn't blow them up. Though I suppose blowing them up would be one hell of a way to DDoS an ISP.

    --
    "It is better to keep your mouth closed and have people think you a fool than to open it and prove them right." M. Twain
    1. Re:Neg by The+Only+Druid · · Score: 3, Informative

      Incorrect. Small enough wires/paths on chips will actually burst into flames if enough current passes through them such as during an EMP. Remember, the passage of current causes heat to be built up from resistance, and when the traces are as thin as they are on a lot of electronics, they can easily pass the explosive heat point of that metal. Example: put some metal in a microwave.

      --
      "Stumble before you crawl"
    2. Re:Neg by Sepper · · Score: 1

      True, If I remember correctly, another metal piece act as an antenna, depending on length, they are more 'tuned' to one frequency. Now, an EMP is simply a very power radio pulse on (almost) all frequencies. What you get is varying potentiel differences and, depending on the power of the EMP, it can easily fry electronics if you get somthing like -100V on one spot and +100V on another spot for 1ms (think 200V on a Cell phone, or a computer)....

      Such a thing would easily fry any circuit, but I doubt a wire would suffer any real consequence except a bit of heat...

      Anyone can confirm that I'm right / speaking bullshit?

      --
      I live in Soviet Canuckistan you insensitive clod!
    3. Re:Neg by trentblase · · Score: 1

      I know from experience that if you put 200V across the pins of a microchip, there can certainly be explosive consequences. I don't personally have the expertise to say whether this potential difference could be caused by EMP, however (my guy says yes... I guess it's more a question of how strong an EMP is required to produce such an effect for an entire villiage). If it really is EMP, I'd expect people's fillings to become uncomfortable too.

    4. Re:Neg by DeadChobi · · Score: 0

      I'm a complete idiot when it comes to electronics, but doesnt electricity at high enough voltages act much like a waveform? Completely offtopic, but I think what I read about impedence would sorta prove what Neg is saying.

      --
      SRSLY.
  41. Mod Parent Up by Fortress · · Score: 2, Informative

    This is possibly the funniest exchange ever between Principal Skinner and Superintendant Chalmers.

    re-Verse, you steam a fine ham.

    1. Re:Mod Parent Up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Naw, my favorite exchange is

      - Say, what's that under your hand?
      - That? Why, that's an unrelated article.
      - An unrelated article? Within the banner headline?
      - Yes. Now if I may redirect the conversation slightly....

    2. Re:Mod Parent Up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Don't bother trying to make me believe the same thing, no matter how much your book says I'm going to suffer
      What makes you think they're trying to convert you for *YOUR* benefit? Sure, if it were true you get something out of it... but that's not the reason. Actually, they aren't even doing it for their own benefit, even though they'd get something out it if it were true as well (actually in several cults, the motivation for converting people *IS* for their own reward, having absolutely nothing to do with the well being of the person they are trying to convert). Catholics in particular will continue to tell you what they believe and why it's important that you believe the same thing simply because it was something that their god explicitly commanded them to do, and it is because they believe that the command has some good purpose, even if they themselves do not yet understand or comprehend it (that's called faith btw... and if you look the word up in the dictionary, you'll see there's nothing scientifically blasphemous with it), they are compelled to follow those instructions just as certainly as you are compelled by the availability of the evidence to which you cling to disbelieve them.
    3. Re:Mod Parent Up by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1
      Of all the rebuttals, this one is the best. It's not about whose book is right, or who's going to hell ("I believe the correct answer was Mormon"), it's about who is nice and good. I don't really care what people believe so long as they Don't bother trying to make me believe the same thing, no matter how much your book says I'm going to suffer Be nice to other people, including your elders, your children, and future generations.

      Like my grandfather told me once over shots of Jaegermeister at Christmas, "don't just use someone else's religion, make up one for yourself. You already know what's Right and what's Wrong-- the rest is just silliness"

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    4. Re:Mod Parent Up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's also: (paraphrasing) :Did that boy just say "what's a battle" :No, he said what's that rattle. I've had a cold. :So that would make you hear R's as B's?

  42. Re:This looks like a job for.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ah... the days of great C64 games.

  43. New for Linux users by thekiddd · · Score: 1

    I think its SCO and Microsoft testing a new product.

  44. all this is measureable by VTdude · · Score: 5, Interesting
    1. The anchient art of measuring EMI is not exactly lost. Italy is covered with individuals from test labs to HAM radio operators who can take a few spectrum analyzers with antennas and powerline couplers and measure EMI an conducted emissions and look for these surges.

    2. America is one of the few nations in the world where the power going out or setting firest makes the news, in most of the world it happens daily.

    3. About a decade ago Italy ruled their version of the FCC incompetent and disbanded them. Though there are EU rules to deal with, it is a wild west of wireless where you can send photon-torpedo strength EMI around with no-one to slap you until the mobs find you.

    1. Re:all this is measureable by RESPAWN · · Score: 1

      America is one of the few nations in the world where the power going out or setting firest makes the news, in most of the world it happens daily.

      Pfft. In some parts of America the power still goes out daily. Our power company back home is absolutely pitiful. I kid you not when I say that, during the summer at least, we have daily power outages. It was actually kind of frustrating, as the frequent power outages have been known to damage some of our home theater equipment until we bought a UPS to smooth out the power for them.

      --

      If Murphy's Law can go wrong, it will.

    2. Re:all this is measureable by Ralconte · · Score: 1

      Better still, my city sometimes has rolling blackouts in summertime. Consider, 100 houses in my city lose power. Doesn't even make the news. That could be an entire village in Sicily. Consider, some asshat overloads his local circit, burns down his house and the house next to his. Happened twice in my lifetime here in my state. Two houses burn, but if the neighborhood in Sicily is 15 houses, "Fire ravages 9% (sic) of a neighborhood"

    3. Re:all this is measureable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      2. America is one of the few nations in the world where the power going out or setting firest makes the news, in most of the world it happens daily.

      This is total BS. I've live in Canada most of my life and the power here does not go out daily. In fact it goes out very rarely and almost only when there is a major disaster like an icestorm, flood or giant grid-failure. When I moved to US, I was surprised at how often the power goes out there, weekly at least.

      I've also lived in parts of Europe: Holland, England, France, Portugal (when it was still a "2nd-world" country) and the power there goes out much more rarely than in US. Overall, considering how advanced and well-organized US could be, it's amazing how badly the power-grid is managed there.

    4. Re:all this is measureable by Kiryat+Malachi · · Score: 1

      Canada's the 51st state anyway, so you guys were included when he said the US. ;)

      Actually, I'm curious as to where you live that you have weekly outages; I haven't seen one in almost a year, and I live in a major city (Chicago). When I lived in a smaller metro area (Ann Arbor), power went out maybe twice a year, tops, and nearly always due to a major icestorm. The grids in the US are pretty good, for the most part.

      --

      ---
      Mod me down, you fucking twits. Go ahead. I dare you.
      (I read with sigs off.)
    5. Re:all this is measureable by Preposterous+Coward · · Score: 1

      Just curious: Where in the U.S. did you live that power went out weekly? I suspect that power reliability varies a lot from place to place, as I've lived in five U.S. cities in my life and in none of them did power go out more than once every couple of years on average.

      I know there's a lot of variability in India as well. A lot of places I visited had power outages at least once a day, yet my friends in Mumbai (Bombay) say they rarely have problems.

      --

      "Biped! Good cranial development. Evidently considerable human ancestry."
    6. Re:all this is measureable by Gorimek · · Score: 1

      2. America is one of the few nations in the world where the power going out or setting firest makes the news, in most of the world it happens daily.

      That may be true in parts of the Third World, but only there.

      The number of Americans who lump the entire planet into one homogenous "rest of the world" location with Sudanese human rights, Mexican labor conditions, French hygiene, and Indian driving skills is... well it's bigger than it should be, I tell you!

      Moving to California from Sweden, it's been a little shocking how crappy the electricity system performed here, even before The Summer of Gray.

    7. Re:all this is measureable by Alsee · · Score: 1

      About a decade ago Italy ruled their version of the FCC incompetent and disbanded them.

      Heay! What a cool idea! I say we try that with half of the current US government!

      Only half? Ok, so sue me, I'm an optimist.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    8. Re:all this is measureable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I live In Pacifica, California... about 10 miles from San Francisco.

      In Winter, the power goes out 3 or 4 times a month to various parts of the town, because of high winds.

    9. Re:all this is measureable by Lije+Baley · · Score: 1

      And the number of non-Americans who lump all 50 states and some-odd-thousand counties into one homogenous "America" also seems to be much too large.

      --
      Strange things are afoot at the Circle-K.
    10. Re:all this is measureable by Kiryat+Malachi · · Score: 1

      *California* is hardly a standard to compare to. How long has it been since there was a new power plant in Cali?

      I live in a state with significantly worse conditions (icestorms, wind, higher electrical load due to higher summer temperatures than NoCal, frigid temperatures, etc.) and we had no outages at all this winter. One brownout in the summer. No blackouts at all.

      Comparing California to the rest of the country is like comparing, I don't know... the rest of the country's emissions laws to California's.

      --

      ---
      Mod me down, you fucking twits. Go ahead. I dare you.
      (I read with sigs off.)
    11. Re:all this is measureable by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      Huh? EMI? Don't tell me the RIAA is blaming all this on file-swapping already!

    12. Re:all this is measureable by dbIII · · Score: 1
      Pfft. In some parts of America the power still goes out daily. Our power company back home is absolutely pitiful.
      A while back I used to work in the power generation industry determining the cause of equipment failures. There's a wonderful series of books (EPRI handbook) with case studies of all kinds of ludicriously stupid failures that have occurred in some US plants - simply becuse its cheaper to employ Homer Simpson than anyone with some technical knowlege. Some companies have spent hundreds of millions retubing their plants rather than employing a single chemistry graduate to keep an eye on what is in the water.

      It made my job really easy - any sort of minor problem had an illustrated example of what happened if it was completely ignored until it caused a major plant shutdown. Strangly enough, in most of rest the world a graduate chemist or engineer is actually cheaper than the guy who sits in the control room - but I suppose the guy in the control room is usually expected to know the plant backwards in the rest of the world.

      It's all about proiriites - if price is more important than supply you lose supply every now and again.

  45. Very suspicious by unassimilatible · · Score: 1, Funny
    Hmmm, first unexpected fires in Sicily burn down buildings. Then some guy with a bent nose walks up to the neighbors and says,

    "You don a wanna yo microwava to a burna downa yo housa, you paya mia $100 a montha."

    Most suspicious.

    --
    Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
  46. believe it by sir_lichtkind · · Score: 0

    i was studiying this things for a longer time, and they are real , no matter what happened in this case. that are enough well documented cases. that can destroy any doubt. i think its still embarrassing that people think that such things are only x-file bogus. all these "mystery stuff". i tell you brother before you open your mouth. stay skeptic but dig into the facts use your intuition, and shit on FUD. my $ent = 2;

  47. Obviously by eclectro · · Score: 2, Funny


    It's the result of scientists ignoring Zero Point Energy for so long. Now it is rearing it's ugly head.

    --
    Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
  48. Charles Fort by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Has anyone out there read Charles Fort?

    He drove Logical Positivists into a raging fury!

    He would have loved a story such as this.

  49. Well, it is in a bad area by mrshowtime · · Score: 1

    The town is located in a Valley Called "Val Demons." Honestly, I can't think of any natural reason why electronis would spontaneously combust. Shit, even things that are unplugged are blowing up. Yah, that's "natural."

    --
    "Jeremy, you need to get to an internet cafe and cut and paste some appropriate sentiments about me from the world wide
  50. because... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    It's CANNETO DI CARONIA, Sicily a small town of only 39 residents.

    I suspect that most didn't receive an education beyond what we consider 6th grade.

    We all know how most 6th graders would react to something like this. It's a Ghost!

    I also suspect that their religious "training" far exceeds their 6th grade formal education.

    Given the Religious bias towards education, the Ghosts now become Devils.

    1. Re:because... by Short+Circuit · · Score: 1

      If you read the article, the town priest decided along with the villagers to allow the scientists to have a go at it before trying religious means.

      (Aside from praying, obviously.)

    2. Re:because... by LizardKing · · Score: 1

      I suspect that most didn't receive an education beyond what we consider 6th grade.

      You'd most likely be wrong. My girlfriend is Sicilian, and nearly all her classmates from school went onto University. Education is pretty good in Italy, with much less emphasis on learning by rote than in the UK. Surprising when you consider how strong the Catholic church still is in Southern Italy, a church that's noted for its teaching via catechism.

      Chris

    3. Re:because... by misterpies · · Score: 4, Insightful


      One of the alarming things about slashdot is the way it really brings out the bigots in the community.

      Story about a sicilian village? Sure, they must be a bunch of superstitious peasants with a mental age of 11. Story about women? Cue for side-splitting 'jokes' about how dumb they are with computers and or crude sexual innuendo. (and then the authors wonder why they can't get a girlfriend). Story about India? Racial stereotypes alive and well.

      I'm not worried so much about the existence of these posts. The attraction of /. is that anybody can write anything. What worries me is the number of them that get modded up, which suggests that there's a strong undercurrent of slashdot opinion who sympathise with them. I don't think it's ideological, but there seem to be an awful lot of people out there who have never really looked outside their geek ghettos to try and understand the wider world.

      --
      The author of this post asserts his moral rights.
    4. Re:because... by James+Lewis · · Score: 1

      Well, I personally think some people should learn to not take anything modded +5 Funny so seriously. People make fun of stereotypes. That doesn't mean everyone who finds those jokes humorous, or even the people who make them, are "bigots" and are really in any way prejudice. If you ask me, people like yourself are some of the people most sucked in to whatever the "popular opinion", according to them media, is. In the US at least (can't speak for other countries) the "politically correct" explosion is still very strong, where every statement is taken with deathly seriousness and words are twisted into the most devious and evil of meanings possible. I find it ironic that, in a country whom has such strong roots in the ideal of free speech, that a lot of the population's energy is spent worrying about what is and what is not "acceptable" to say, and how to prevent or punish people who continue to say those "unacceptable" things.

    5. Re:because... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      shut up Curry! and give my job back!!!!

      (better make it clear this is a joke)

    6. Re:because... by back_pages · · Score: 1
      Says the blurb:
      many people to look to supernatural causes

      Says the first sentence of the article:
      this tiny [...] village

      Says the article:
      The blazes, originally blamed on the devil, have not hurt anyone.

      Says the priest:
      "Demons occupy a house and appear in electrical goods."

      Yeah, genius, it really is the Slashdot crowd's fault for thinking that these people are superstitious. What really sickens me about dimwitted liberalism is that too many people use it as a crutch for their own faults. Life hard? Don't adapt - force the world to adapt to you. Don't like how you're portrayed in the media? Don't let that motivate you to rise up and defy the stereotype - sit on your ass and complain about how stereotypes are unfair. Don't like the facts? Don't bother changing yourself - claim you've been victimized and the rest of the world is obligated to adjust just for you, you special little victim.

      Why is there an attitude about this story that the people in "this tiny Sicilian village" are superstitious? BECAUSE THE FARKING ARTICLE SAYS SO.

    7. Re:because... by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      "Story about a sicilian village? Sure, they must be a bunch of superstitious peasants with a mental age of 11. Story about women? Cue for side-splitting 'jokes' about how dumb they are with computers and or crude sexual innuendo."

      Well, we could combine the two, but I wouldn't want to make fun of Italian women; they can be downright vicious!

      <RIMSHOT/>

    8. Re:because... by KinCross · · Score: 1

      It's not safe out there. It's all magicky and stuff.

      --
      -- secret asIAN man (not Secret Asian Man)
    9. Re:because... by stonecypher · · Score: 1

      is the way it really brings out the bigots ... (and then the authors wonder why they can't get a girlfriend)

      With apologies to Kang and Kahless, Humor is a dish best served unintentionally self referentially.

      I know lots of bigots that get laid, even on /.

      --
      StoneCypher is Full of BS
  51. Re:First post sluts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Propz to Saddam.

    Yay, Hitler.

    (Don't be so shocked. It's the same damn thing.)

  52. Or blame the military, CIA, Illuminati... by October_30th · · Score: 4, Insightful
    if people don't understand something they assume it's magic.

    Or some evil, sinister military/CIA project. Do a quick Google seach on HAARP and/or weather control and you'll see.

    --
    The owls are not what they seem
    1. Re:Or blame the military, CIA, Illuminati... by Prowl · · Score: 3, Interesting

      methinks someone's playing with tesla coils. what happens when the earth voltage goes sky high?? stuff catches fire presumably...

      (at least thats what happened at tunguska...)

      --
      That man tried to kill mah Daddy
    2. Re:Or blame the military, CIA, Illuminati... by MrBlackBand · · Score: 1
      "evil, sinister military/CIA project"

      As opposed to the good, happy CIA project?

      --
      "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."
    3. Re:Or blame the military, CIA, Illuminati... by October_30th · · Score: 1

      No. As opposed to the normal stuff all intelligence agencies all over the world do.

      --
      The owls are not what they seem
    4. Re:Or blame the military, CIA, Illuminati... by MrBlackBand · · Score: 1

      Like overthrowing democratically elected governments and planting the seeds of terrorism? That's pretty evil to me.

      --
      "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."
    5. Re:Or blame the military, CIA, Illuminati... by October_30th · · Score: 1
      If you'd read history you'd realize that every major power (French and Brits in particular) in the human history has embarked on similar projects.

      Sorry to disappoint you. There's nothing new here. CIA is no more evil than any other intelligence agency in a similar position.

      --
      The owls are not what they seem
    6. Re:Or blame the military, CIA, Illuminati... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that doesn't make them not evil...

    7. Re:Or blame the military, CIA, Illuminati... by stonecypher · · Score: 1

      I would really like to believe that secret military weapons programs are run by people smart enough to go 30 miles further out to where it won't be seen. Or did you think that the Manhattan Project was done out in the barrens of New Mexico for convenience? Or by chance, by coincedence?

      --
      StoneCypher is Full of BS
  53. hrm by krackpipe · · Score: 1
    It only makes me wonder what the dead linux badger would have to say about all this...

    --
    even a stopped clock gives the right time twice aday...
  54. Probably just poor earthing; happens. by openmtl · · Score: 1
    Poor earthing with high earth return currents can cause really weird stuff because many appliances are earthed and also have a connection back at the main box from earth to neutral.

    High earth current can happen during times of earthquakes too or during times when there are stresses in certain type of ground.

    Alternatively could be that the warranties have all expired - it happens.

    --

  55. Re:First post sluts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    It's the same damn thing.

    Bollocks. What Saddam did to his own people was an internal matter. His chickenshit military endeavors in Iran and Kuwait cannot be compared to the threat posed by the Third Reich's well-oiled military machine.

  56. Revenge by ChronoWiz · · Score: 2, Funny

    Witness the vengance of the Amish for their many years of ridicule at our hands!

    My electronics burning up may as well be the apocalypse...

  57. Do they have ghosts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A few years ago, CBC radio had a series of programs on 'supernatural' phenomena. It was quite serious.

    One of the things it pointed out was that ghost sightings were quite common in certain mountanous areas. The theory was that rocks were being squeezed in such a way that they produced a large piezoelectric effect. The resulting electric field would cause people to see ghosts. (Dr. Michael Pursinger sp? has demonstrated the effect in the lab. He exposes people to fields and they see ghosts.)

    So, there is evidence that there are large naturally occuring fields. Possibly these could be causing the problem.

    Every now and then, there is a news story about someone who zaps everything electronic that they come anywhere near. I wonder if it's related.

  58. I'd mod you insightful... by rjstanford · · Score: 3, Insightful

    But I spent all my mod points. Of course, it could easily have a natural cause instead of a military one - stranger things have happened, and we have such a complex system here that even staggeringly high amounts of sporadic interference can almost disappear in the noise.

    --
    You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
    1. Re:I'd mod you insightful... by kgarcia · · Score: 5, Funny

      Bah

      It's that giant subwoofer the one guy built...

    2. Re:I'd mod you insightful... by B3ryllium · · Score: 1

      People always say "stranger things have happened". Bah, humbug I say!

    3. Re:I'd mod you insightful... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Speakers so big, they blow women's clothes off.

  59. There's nothing wrong with the word "supernatural" by Himring · · Score: 1

    There should be no aversion to the word "supernatural." It simply describes something we don't yet understand. We get hungry which implies there is something called "food" to satisfy it. We crave sex which means there are women to satisfy it. We call something "natural" because we understand it and have dissected it in a lab and comprehend its parts and pieces. We call something "supernatural" because we desire to make it "natural" -- to understand it too. If there is something known as "natural" then that itself implies there must be a "supernatural" -- or stuff we don't yet comprehend. Dare we admit that we still don't understand most of what's really going on in the universe?

    Sometimes, quacks are just philosopher-types and theologian-types standing on top of the mountain of ignorance, telling the scientists who have scaled the rocky face to "understand" each part of it "see, we told you so...."

    --
    "All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
  60. Spinal Tap drummer by Hee+Hee+Hee · · Score: 1

    Has Peter "James" Bond ever been in Spain? Maybe he had something to do with it.

    --
    - Bill
    1. Re:Spinal Tap drummer by Robmonster · · Score: 1

      Completely off topic, but what is your website? I wanted to look at the ringtones you said you had available. (I cannot reply to the correct post as I have moderated that thread)

      --
      I have no sig yet I must scream.
    2. Re:Spinal Tap drummer by Hee+Hee+Hee · · Score: 1

      My pitiful website is here. Sorry, but I was joking. I don't have any ringtones up there. I probably should create them, huh?

      --
      - Bill
    3. Re:Spinal Tap drummer by Robmonster · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I must now mod your reply -1 Disappointing.

      Thanks for getting back to me though :)

      --
      I have no sig yet I must scream.
  61. It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by SuperBanana · · Score: 3, Insightful
    It really makes me sad when, if people don't understand something they assume it's magic.

    They don't. They usually assume it's god. Especially in Italy, I guarantee you the first "expert" called in was the local priest, not the local college professor. I guarantee you people have spent more time praying to god than going about finding a scientific explanation or identifying what's unique. Furthermore, the assumption of "no foul play because it happened right in front of us" is absurd- there are numerous chemicals, for example, that can be applied wet, and when they dry and crystalize, become super-sensitive to contact. Of course, they're a bitch to handle, so it's a little far-fetched...

    Religion has always given the weak-minded something to pacify their consciences. Why do you think some of the most religious people are often absolute morons, and many intelligent, well-educated people often aren't highly religious? Idiots need an explanation for everything, intelligent people seek answers and do not believe in what they cannot prove to themselves.

    Religion:

    • Provides a handy universal explanation for just about anything. Which cannot be proved.
    • Controls the population by threatening them with eternal consequences. Which cannot be proved. Ie, you're going to hell. Or you'll be reincarnated as a rock.
    • Pacifies the population by giving them the hope that, no matter what shithole they're living in now, all they have to do is Be Good and they'll end up in a better place. The existence of which cannot be proved.
    • Is specifically structured to ensure its survival, the rest of the world be damned. Overpopulation is a HUGE crisis, but you're goin' to hell if you use birth control, says the Pope.
    • Is used to exploit the rich and poor alike. Everyone screams blue bloody murder about the church of scientology, but conveniently forgets that the Catholic church used to offer get-out-of-hell-free services for cold hard cash(interesting how god forgives all for $ when the church coffers are low), and is currently the wealthiest organization in the world. Not that the wealth is accessible though- when people finally started suing the church for ignoring the fact that priests were raping their kids, do you think Pope John Paul 3rd gave up his gold cup, or traded in the Popemobile for something a little less fancy? Phhbt. No, they cut back welfare programs and sold off some property in Massachusetts.

    I think religion is probably the greatest scam ever invented.

    1. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by Viol8 · · Score: 1

      "I think religion is probably the greatest scam ever invented"

      Very true. But the problem is that the people it scams are too dumb to realise it as you say. Its like those halfwits who still seem to think
      stage magicians do real magic simply because they've been fooled by some sleight of hand a trained chimp could manage. The vast majority of humans on this
      planet are either stupid , pig ignorant or both. Its only a very small minority who are responsible for the science and technology we have today.

    2. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny, some of the greatest scientific minds in history where religious.

      "Religion has always given the weak-minded something to pacify their consciences. Why do you think some of the most religious people are often absolute morons, and many intelligent, well-educated people often aren't highly religious? Idiots need an explanation for everything, intelligent people seek answers and do not believe in what they cannot prove to themselves"

    3. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by Jogar+the+Barbarian · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Why do you think some of the most religious people are often absolute morons, and many intelligent, well-educated people often aren't highly religious? Idiots need an explanation for everything, intelligent people seek answers and do not believe in what they cannot prove to themselves.

      Malarky. Some of the brightest, most clear-headed people I know are born-again, and some of the most dim-witted and gullible are agnostics.

      Galileo Galilei, though famous for his scientific achievements in astronomy, mathematics, and physics and infamous for his controversy with the church was, in fact, a devout Christian who saw not a divorce of religion and science but only a healthy marriage: "God is known by nature in his works, and by doctrine in his revealed word."

      Link

      --
      3. Profit!
      2. ???
      1. On Soviet Slashdot, a Beowulf cluster of alien Natalie Portman overlords welcomes YOU!
    4. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by Jason+Hood · · Score: 0

      and is currently the wealthiest organization in the world.

      For net assets on a non-profit that would be Mastercard chief. Catlickers arent even close.

      --
      Are you intolerant of intolerant people?
    5. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by helix_r · · Score: 3, Insightful


      What do you mean "...especially in Italy..."?

      Please drop the stereotype, man, you clearly don't have a clue about Italians.

      If it happened in small town in rural America, people would be acting the same.

    6. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by laetus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Dude, you've got a seriously skewed view of religion.

      I'm a network geek. I've completed my B.S. and M.S., both in technical fields. And I believe in God and Jesus. And:

      • I don't turn to God for explanations of everything. That's why He gave us brains and free will. And yes, I'm comfortable with leaving things undefined and not using God to fill the gap.
      • I'm more controlled by an increasingly regulatory US government than I am by religion. My faith teaches me to treat others with the kindness and respect that I would have others show me. It doesn't, however, regulate me for the profits of the music industry.
      • Not all faiths believe that birth control is evil.
      • And finally RELIGION != FAITH IN GOD. If you've got a problem with organized religion, that's not God's problem, but man's. God never told anyone not to think for themselves. If you're dumb enough to turn over your thinking to a religious Pope/Evangelist/whatever, that's your idiocy, not God's.

      You need to get out of that Middle Age's thinking about God. There's alot of us out here proclaiming the Good News and living our lives believing in God, educating ourselves, and working intelligently.

      --

      "We're sorry, but the website you're trying to reach has been disconnected."
    7. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by ThatsLoseNotLoose · · Score: 1

      Why do you think some of the most religious people are often absolute morons

      You're referring to people like Isaac Newton, right? Or perhaps Blaise Pascal, Johann Kepler, Robert Boyle, Michael Faraday, Louis Pasteur...

    8. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Funny, some of the greatest scientific minds in history where religious."

      HA!...yeah, it's funny how 'religious' you get when you see your friends get burned at the stake for being 'heretics'.

      Thwarting 'god's will' and:
      -using painkillers during surgery
      -discovering the world is round
      -proving church dogma is false (on any number of counts) ..usually got you burned/drowned/etc as a witch/demon/whatever...

      religion is a mental disorder

    9. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by slipgun · · Score: 1

      Overpopulation is a HUGE crisis, but you're goin' to hell if you use birth control, says the Pope.

      On the contrary, the crisis (in the West at least) is that the average age is going up and up, and therefore the more babies people make the better.

      --
      SpamNet - a spam blocker that really works
    10. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pope John Paul 3rd

      They elected a new pope when I wasn't looking?

      You'd have thought they could have been a bit more imaginative name-wise.

    11. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by slipgun · · Score: 1

      The vast majority of humans on this planet are either stupid, pig ignorant or both. It's only a very small minority who are responsible for the science and technology we have today.

      Would I be right in guessing that you count yourself among this very small minority?

      (Grammatical error corrected).

      --
      SpamNet - a spam blocker that really works
    12. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by firewrought · · Score: 3, Interesting
      They don't. They usually assume it's god.

      Humans are kinda in a rush to assign blame, or rather... attribute intention for events with socially relevant consequences. If it impacts us socially, our brains insist that somebody must have intended it, even if we also have a readily available mechanical explanation.

      Or at least, that's the premise of Religion Explained. It's a fascinating read.

      --
      -1, Too Many Layers Of Abstraction
    13. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by Viol8 · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      God never told anyone anything anymore than Santa or the pixies at the bottom of your garden did. Because none of them exist. If you want to believe
      in some fairy story from 2000 years ago and The Good News (sounds like some lame tabloid btw) then thats up to you, but don't expect
      people to treat you any other way than they would an adult who believed in the tooth fairy.

    14. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by t14m4t · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why do you think some of the most religious people are often absolute morons, and many intelligent, well-educated people often aren't highly religious? Idiots need an explanation for everything, intelligent people seek answers and do not believe in what they cannot prove to themselves.

      You know, I used to think that, too. Then I realized that there are an awful lot of really smart people that are extremely religious, too. Albert Einstein, if I recall correctly, was a devout believer. Isaac Newton, when he was developing calculus and his theory of gravity, was trying to understand God.

      It is the desire to understand God that has driven virtually all of scientific history, from Galileo to Planck, and only recently has science been transformed into only the desire to undersand our world. And even then, anyone with half a brain would see that we're really juyst trying to understand what God has given us, if you believe in God (see below). Of the viewpoint that I'm trying to expouse in this paragraph, I can't think of anything that can articulate it better the the end of the movie Contact.

      I have come to the belief that religion is not about whether you can explain it or not, or even if it makes sense. If it had to make sense, there wouldn't be any Mormons or Scientologists. But all it really requires for belief in God is exactly that -- belief.

      I for one do not actually believe. But I can see the draws to belief, and they are so strong that I sometimes have think twice about my reactions. Am I particularly bright? I don't think so. But neither do I think I'm really dumb.

      So what's my point? Well, I guess it's that the part of your post I'm quoting was idiotic and immature, born of a sense of moral superiority for your beliefs and contempt for the viewpoints of others. I used to be the same way; only recently, I saw the errors of that way of thinking, and have become more tolerant and open-minded towards people who beilve in God, Allah, Krishna, Zeus, Ra, or whatever faith you believe in. The rest of your post, on it's own merits, I belive to be accurate; however, in light of the point you were trying to make, is wholly inaccurate and inadequate as to what religion actually provides a society.

      After all, after everything is said and done, you can't DISPROVE God; absence of proof is not proof of absence. Since you can't disprove it, you have to take into account that God is possible. Belief in God is just as credible -- not more than, and not less than (and that's the key point) -- as my belief that God does not actually exist, and is in fact a creation of our own minds.

      Although maybe one of these days I'll be proven wrong. I look forward to that day.

      Responses are welcome; this is the biggest area that I spend idle moments thinking.

      weylin

      --
      67.5% Slashdot Pure I guess I need to work on that.... :)
    15. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by bogrollben · · Score: 1

      While many of your negative claims about religion and christianity are true, I can honestly say that specifically Jesus Christ has been completely real to me. I have a Bachelors in Physics and I don't often take knowledge for granted without my own exploration of a subject.

      If I were to apply your comments about religious people to my own experiences with Christianity, I would say that you were arrogant and naieve - you are talking about something that you clearly do not understand. You seem to know about some of the dark moments in the history of the Catholic church, but you don't have a clue what a personal relationship with Jesus means.

      To the issue at discussion: the devil would have no motive in exploding electrical devices - I would imagine it's a complete waste of his time. I personally think the explosions might have something to do with an unusual concentration of the earth's magnetic field in that particular geographical location, interacting with charged volcanic ash to create some kind of widespread easily-induced charge. Kind of like a wool sweater that sparks when you take it off in the dark, when there's low humidity weather.

    16. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by torpor · · Score: 5, Funny

      I think religion is probably the greatest scam ever invented.

      Behind Health Insurance, you mean ...

      --
      ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
    17. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by flyneye · · Score: 1

      what a narrow view!
      how typical of your average athiest,to associate God with religion.therein lies your problem.
      God is far too cool to associate with anything resembling popular religious worship.
      Do you honestly think a God who created the great outdoors spends his time hangin out in church listening to that garbage?from those people?
      and uh...existence can't be proved because the one thing asked of us to end up in a better place is FAITH which is impossible once you have proof.
      now while all this could cause endless discussion,i prefer to end it here by noting a phrase i will probably misquote by one of my ancestors "If God did not exist,It would be necessary to create him "
      meanwhile i would also suggest that if you are fed up with God (JHVH,Yahweh,jehovah)then you have an almost infinite supply of dieties to choose from:
      for instance,hit the link in my sig!

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    18. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are plenty of smart people who believe in God, including professors. Iff it's a scam, then it's a universal scam; no need to single out morons or weak-minded people on this one.

      I honestly believe most people are religious out of fear of possibly being wrong (what? who just came back from the dead?). That being said, what's really a shame is most people don't study *other* religions, or multiple religions; they tend to stick to what they were taught. Religion has its place since it helps to teach good moral values and helps prepare us for death (a common theme in many religions and cultures, but unfortunately a lot of people overlook this).

      Also, overpopulation is NOT a huge problem. Just drive out to West Texas and you'll see what I mean.

    19. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by anakin876 · · Score: 1

      The main problem is over the last 400 or so years people have been pushing a "naturalistic" viewpoint of science. It's not that God doesn't exist, but rather we can only see certain things and so we base our science on those things. It wasn't intended as a way to get rid of God or say he didn't exist, but instead it was supposed to be a good way of looking at things. Over time it has come to mean Science = Anti-religion, but that was not the intention.

    20. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Is specifically structured to ensure its survival,
      >the rest of the world be damned.

      It's evolution in action.

      >Overpopulation is
      >a HUGE crisis, but you're goin' to hell if you use
      >birth control, says the Pope.

      I guess back when there was little medicine, sanitation etc. a huge birth rate was most likely to ensure that enough babies survive to procreate (and thus make new believers).

      Right now (i.e. only very shortly, historically speaking) this helpful trait becomes a liability. I hope the big religions mutate/adapt fast enough before the entire species dies out.

    21. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I find your talk of what the devil would do arrogant and nieve, as I have a personal relationship with him which you clearly do not understand. He's completely real to me and he's told me he's manifesting himself as Jesus to corrupt you.

    22. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it happened in small town in rural America, people would be acting the same.
      Nope, it would be them aliens in their UFOs

    23. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wasn't he killed by the church? Just wondering.

    24. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      Not to interrupt your rant, but to declare that Mohammed, Jesus, Siddhartha Gautama, et.al. were simply charlatans and mountebanks with a 'persuasive con' because you don't happen to "get it" is a bit of a stretch.

      Personally, if I were on a planet where there are 6.4 billion people and roughly 70%+ of them are religious (and this is totally disregarding Confucianism as more like a philosophy than a religion - IMO), I'd be a little more humble before railing that "they" are all stupid and wrong. But that's just me.

      Hey, I'll be the first to say that heinous things have been done in the name of religion, or by highly religious people. But to say that religious people are stupid and non-religious are smart, that rather disproves your own point, doesn't it? I mean, for every brilliant athiest, I'll show you a Thomas Aquinas or St. Augustine. For every "stupid" religious person, I'll show you an embittered, cynical areligious person whose blind and strident fixation on hating religion makes them blind to facts that otherwise-reasonable people seem to see right away.

      --
      -Styopa
    25. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      # Provides a handy universal explanation for just about anything. Which cannot be proved.

      that should be "handy universal explanation for anything which, by its nature, cannot be proved"

      # Controls the population by threatening them with eternal consequences. Which cannot be proved. Ie, you're going to hell. Or you'll be reincarnated as a rock.

      I've got 2, countem, Martin Luthers and a Gandhi which say that that use of religion as a means of pacifying populations doesn't work too well.

      # Pacifies the population by giving them the hope that, no matter what shithole they're living in now, all they have to do is Be Good and they'll end up in a better place. The existence of which cannot be proved.

      Pacifies the population into believing that having faith has value, thus 'Being Good' has value, thus making the world a better place has value, thus trying to improve their situation. Has anyone ever said 'the President helps those who help themselves'?

      # Is specifically structured to ensure its survival, the rest of the world be damned.

      As opposed to all the organ(ism|isation)s that are specifically structured to ensure their non-survival? Well, if you're going to criticize organisations for *not* being SCO, then, yeah thats a fair cop.

      Overpopulation is a HUGE crisis, but you're goin' to hell if you use birth control, says the Pope.

      The aging population is a HUGE crisis, but lets all pretend that the gubmint can print more money to give to doctors to keep you alive after your 3 strokes, 7 heart attacks and the cancer goes into remission.

      # Is used to exploit the rich

      Well, yeah, my heart bleeds for the rich, they have it heard enough without having to be parted from their bennies.

      and poor alike.
      Everyone screams blue bloody murder about the church of scientology, but conveniently forgets that the Catholic church used to offer get-out-of-hell-free services for cold hard cash(interesting how god forgives all for $ when the church coffers are low), and is currently the wealthiest organization in the world.


      So, what, this is just penis envy? Or 0wn1ng rich people has no appeal to you?

      Not that the wealth is accessible though- when people finally started suing the church for ignoring the fact that priests were raping their kids,


      Well, did you see how they were dressed? Them altar boys were just asking for it.

      do you think Pope John Paul 3rd gave up his gold cup, or traded in the Popemobile for something a little less fancy? Phhbt. No, they cut back welfare programs and sold off some property in Massachusetts.

      You'd be one of the few to question the commitment of the Pope. Taken as many bullets as him yet?
      Aside from which, the Popemobile is a pickup with a glass cabinet on it, you could make one for yourself anytime you wanted.

      Lastly, given the amount of efforts involved, and knowing a few 'people' I can guarantee you 'people have spent more time praying to god than going about finding a scientific explanation ' about *anything*.

      I, too, think religion is probably the greatest scam ever invented, certainly it thrashes the pants off of the political scams, the technology scams and the environmental scams.

    26. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I also belive that Albert Einstein said everything he ever did was wrong because it made him question his views on god. Which is why he started working on the theroy of everything. He couldn't belive in random chance. There are upsides and downsides to having any beleif. An Idea can be changed...

    27. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amen Brother! Ahhhh damnit! ;)

    28. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by FictionPimp · · Score: 5, Insightful
      I think its Cuthulu. Only the dead but sleeping god would have the power to do this. Quickly look for the burning sword in the sky that annouces the end of the world and pray that Marduk comes with the secret word shape and number to save us. I have spoken with the 50 incarnations of Marduk and they tell me we have nothing to fear if we pray to Iniaana to save us.

      what makes you think my religion, the religion of the oldest know civilized people is not right?

    29. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, well unfortunately in his time, if you weren't religious, you would often end up dead at the hands of those that were.

    30. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by ponxx · · Score: 1

      > Over time it has come to mean Science =
      > Anti-religion, but that was not the intention.

      I've always maintained that some of the best things to come out of science are by pure chance ...

    31. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think he's talking about the world in general. It's obviously not a problem in the west, but our lack of baby-making isn't enough to compensate for the rapid baby-making elsewhere.

    32. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by Danse · · Score: 1

      After all, after everything is said and done, you can't DISPROVE God; absence of proof is not proof of absence. Since you can't disprove it, you have to take into account that God is possible. Belief in God is just as credible -- not more than, and not less than (and that's the key point) -- as my belief that God does not actually exist, and is in fact a creation of our own minds.

      I disagree. Belief in the existence or non-existence of God are equally incredible. The only honest and credible path is to admit that we really don't know and have no real evidence to support either side. That happens to be the reason that I'm agnostic.

      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    33. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by Paulrothrock · · Score: 1

      Evidence: My fiance always says I moved her shit when she did it and forgot where she put it.

      --
      I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
    34. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by Himring · · Score: 1

      As one professor told me, "God doesn't give someone a frontal lobotomy the moment they believe in him...."

      --
      "All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
    35. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "We hatessss the Christians, yessss, my preciousssss.. GOLLUM! Musssst killsss them... yessss" -- you

    36. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      As one professor told me, "God doesn't give someone a frontal lobotomy the moment they believe in him...."
      That's correct. The lobotomy has to come first.
    37. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why? At the very least, 70% of the world are either uneducated or very poorly educated. Many of todays religions came into being when conditions were even worse and people were even more easily mislead and taken advantage of. Now it's just tradition. Getting 70% of the world to believe in one of many religions is not difficult, especially when you go through periods where not believing (or at least professing to believe) can quickly lead to death. Numbers mean absolutely nothing regarding religion, other than that they've been around a long time and have had a lot of powerful people and groups promoting them, often quite aggressively.

    38. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by Himring · · Score: 1

      That's correct. The lobotomy has to come first.

      Hah! Good one....

      Had my mouth open....

      --
      "All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
    39. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In many cases I think that otherwise intelligent people are simply victims of their environment and upbringing.

    40. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds to me like you have a problem with the Catholic brand of religion, not religion itself. Let me guess, you went to Catholic school when you were a kid? I've seen more people reject religion based on their Catholic upbringing than for any other reason.

      Sad, really.

    41. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isaac Newton, when he was developing calculus and his theory of gravity, was trying to understand God.

      He was also quite unsufferable and vindictive as a person. Goes to show that there is little, if any correlation between "Nice/Good", "Bad/Evil", Smart, Dumb, Religious and, er, Unreligious.

    42. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by cascadefx · · Score: 0

      Larry Wall is a devout christian.

      So is Donald Knuth.

    43. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nothing, they are all means to an end.

    44. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by kin_korn_karn · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      no, he's got a correct view of religion. You may need something to help you handle the world, but the rest of us don't. Your Good News is a bunch of bullshit to us and if you try to cram it down our throats we'll just vomit it back up, all over you.

    45. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Getting 70% of the world to believe in one of many religions is not difficult

      Go for it, then. If it's so easy, make it so.

    46. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by kin_korn_karn · · Score: 1

      It's no stretch. If there were a universal truth then there wouldn't be so many different ways of interpreting the universe. If there were an all-powerful god, he wouldn't let sentient beings worship anyone but him. Why should I subordinate my life to a god that can't even keep people from having different beliefs?

      The doctrine of free will is an intellectual fraud.

      Using a great intellect to serve religion is a terrible waste, sort of like a great musical prodigy that never learns how to play an instrument. We'll never know what Aquinas or Augustine would have contributed to science with their great minds.

    47. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As opposed to believing in what? Humanity? Dear lord but we're pathetic. Look at us, we use our own abilities to percieve things (which we know are limited) to try and explain the universe. And we can't. Hell, we come up with random constants to fill in the blanks for us when we don't know.

      Pi?
      Gravitational Constat?

      All these things are just numbers that happened to come up lots and lots of times during our tests, but there's nothing to prove that they hold true other than they satisfy the cases we're concerned with.

      And don't get me started on imaginary numbers.

    48. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by MoneyT · · Score: 1

      Why would God want to force people to worship him? How is that love? Or to put it another way, do you force your pets to do everything you want them to do?

      --
      T Money
      World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
    49. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by macdaddy · · Score: 1

      Also remember that most people are followers, not leaders. These people need to be told what to do, what to think, how to live. They need positive feedback. Many semi-intelligent people (educated but not really really smart by our standards) are on the borderline between morons and smart folks. Not quite the In crowd and not quite the Out. One won't accept them because they aren't good enough, but one will. These folks tend to not have enough social graces to get positive feedback anywhere else. They aren't good enough business folks to climb the ladder very far. They aren't athletes. They are just your everyday blue/no collar worker. They are smart enough to stand out in church though. They can get a sense of being needed in a crowd of lesser intelligence, or manipulative intelligence. That's my take on it anyhow. I read a really good article on it last Fall and summarized what I can recall here. I wish I could find that article.

    50. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by macdaddy · · Score: 1

      So what you're saying is that you're a Deist, correct? If you don't know what the word means look it up.

    51. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by danila · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Nope, it's you who got a skewed view on religion, sorry. :) I am generally content with people like you, who don't let their belief in gods interfere with the life. Unfortunately, most religious people are not like you. You, like the Earth, are mostly harmless. It is still stupid to believe in wrong things, but if you are not forcing your beliefs on others, please, enjoy your right to freedom of religion and may Yarilo be with you.

      --
      Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
    52. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by macdaddy · · Score: 1

      Einstein? Well, sorta yes but really no. His particular beliefs would be considered but almost all established religions to be that of a non-believer. Einstein was a Deist/Agnostic but not quite an Atheist. Search on Google for "Einstein and Religion." His works called "Science and Religion" are really a fascinating read.

    53. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by t14m4t · · Score: 1

      heh. I actually find that interesting; I had not before known that.

      I had heard that he was the one who originated the saying that "God does not play dice;" I always took that to mean that God doesn't do miracles, but did set the world up in a predictable manner, and Einstein was just trying to understand the rules. From that, I took it to mean that in some way, Einstein did actually believe in God.

      Thank you for correcting me.

      weylin

      --
      67.5% Slashdot Pure I guess I need to work on that.... :)
    54. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by Dun+Malg · · Score: 3, Insightful
      ...I believe in God and Jesus...There's alot of us out here proclaiming the Good News

      Your point would have been so much better if you'd just been able to avoid the "Jesus" and "Good News" bits. If you'd left out those two little peculiar bits of irrelevant, religion-specific trivia, you'd have made a satisfactory argument in defense of faith in general. Instead, you sound like one of those Christian nut-jobs who think it's OK to go around asking strangers if they've "taken Jesus Christ as their savior".

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    55. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by kin_korn_karn · · Score: 1

      why would a god love a lesser being?

      I don't see how you could find joy in being some unseen being's pet.

    56. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by t14m4t · · Score: 1

      He couldn't belive in random chance.

      I think it was Einstein who said "God does not play dice."

      weylin

      --
      67.5% Slashdot Pure I guess I need to work on that.... :)
    57. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by PitaBred · · Score: 1

      Because correlation isn't ever evidence, kids. Those silly 'scientists' are trying to trick you... the earth is flat! Look for yourself, see? The horizon is flat, so the whole world must be.
      I'm probably responding to a troll, but people still wonder why I'm such a pessimist...

    58. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by juhaz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Albert Einstein, if I recall correctly, was a devout believer.

      If you mean devout believer as in Christian or Jewish belief, no, you do not recall correctly at all.

      Einstein did not believe on the stupid "man-on-steroids" god of most religions, Einsteins belief was pantheistic, that universe itself is God, he believed in a "God who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and actions of men".

      After all, after everything is said and done, you can't DISPROVE God

      I can't disprove the tooth fairy either. Is it just as likely to exist then, than not?

    59. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by minister+of+funk · · Score: 1

      Religion has always given the weak-minded something to pacify their consciences. Why do you think some of the most religious people are often absolute morons, and many intelligent, well-educated people often aren't highly religious? Idiots need an explanation for everything, intelligent people seek answers and do not believe in what they cannot prove to themselves.

      In which category do you find yourself? Your argument uses terms too ambiguous to indicate anything and is on par with: "People with MBA's have no practical skills" in that it has little, if any, basis in fact and cannot be proven or disproven because you cannot have a rule made entirely of exceptions.

      I wholeheartedly agree that religion is often a crutch (Do what I want, ask forgiveness later)

      I feel your first point: Provides a handy universal explanation for just about anything. Which cannot be proved. invalidates your next two points:

      1. Controls the population by threatening them with eternal consequences. Which cannot be proved. Ie, you're going to hell. Or you'll be reincarnated as a rock. -- Can you prove reincarnation does not occur? Can you prove it does? If you can't prove it one way or the other an as intelligent person, I don't believe that, by your posture, you can believe reincarnation happens or does not, making this point moot.
      2. Pacifies the population by giving them the hope that, no matter what shithole they're living in now, all they have to do is Be Good and they'll end up in a better place. The existence of which cannot be proved. -- the existence of which also cannot be disproven. Much of what we consider morality is controlled by culture, but there is a certain subset of behavior which is and always has been amoral, almost always traced back to greed. Unfortunately, most people require their greed to be sated as motivation to change. I feel the bible teaches that the change itself it the motivator, rather than reward for the change. Changing one's attitude from, "I will change so I will receive [a gift]," to "I will change because it will make life better for others," is difficult and seemingly against human nature. It is however, to root of timeless morality.
      3. Is specifically structured to ensure its survival, the rest of the world be damned. Overpopulation is a HUGE crisis, but you're goin' to hell if you use birth control, says the Pope. -- A religious body's first priority is care of its members. Evangelism comes next. When evangelism takes priority, the body often withers and recedes into corruption because its needs are no longer met. The "damn the rest of the world" attitude does seem to be prevalent in many religions today. It's a sad fact that the church can be counted among the most amoral businesses in the world. I've often wondered why the Catholic church admonishes birth-control. I wonder if it's because God struck down Onin for "pulling out" and "discharging his seed on the earth." If it is, I don't feel it's a well supported stand because:
        (paraphrase) Onin's brother died, and God told Onin to take his brother's widow as his wife. Onin discharged on the ground... God told him again to lay with his new wife. Onin pulled out a second time and God struck him.
        Onin was struck down because of repeated disobedience. Also, he was obviously enjoying the act, but for some reason didn't want to plant the seed. Who knows?
      4. I'm not going to address the final bullet, because my opinion of the Catholic Church is not objective (possibly ignorant, but definately not objective)
      5. Religion can be scamtastic. Living in "community" with "fellow believers" where you are involved in their lives for good and bad, upholding each other with love is a great idea. Unfortunately, it seems humans have a very limited capacity to experience this because of our nature to regress to our old patterns of behavior.
      It is my opinion that relationships exist in two mutually assured states: survival and destruction. Switch from the former to the latter is easy. Switching to or staying in the former requires discipline! Religion provides a manner of discipline as long as the patron remains consistent and dedicated.
    60. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by t14m4t · · Score: 1

      Well, what I was trying to say is that a more modern view seems to be that science is just us trying to understand God as best as we're able by trying to understand what He has done -- specifically, the rules by which He setup the universe.

      I understood that an understanding of the whole of God is beyond the capability of humans, a much as the whole of humanity is beyond the understanding of an ant colony. But it is still possible for an ant to be aware of the fact that it's crawling on skin, and that the skin is soft and pliable compared to wood, even if the ant has no concept of the thought processes running through our minds. In the same way, it's possible to understand the universe, and therefor be more aware of God, even though such an understanding will only get us so far in our understanding.

      I don't claim to be a historian; my view is potentially so skewed from reality as to be totally devoid thereof. However, from the few tidbits I have managed to overhear from people who do know of such things, this is the understanding I have come to.

      weylin

      --
      67.5% Slashdot Pure I guess I need to work on that.... :)
    61. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by FuzzyBad-Mofo · · Score: 1

      God == Magic

    62. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by azav · · Score: 1

      I agree with you and am angry that I did not come up with it first.

      --
      - Zav - Imagine a Beowulf cluster of insensitive clods...
    63. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now you tell me the imaginary numbers are not real?

      The lies they've been teaching us all along!

    64. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by t14m4t · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's basically what I was saying, you're just taking the words, changing the modifier, and stating it differently. I'll demonstrate.

      Let's define three states: you believe in the existence of God to some degree, you disbelieve the existence of God to some degree, and you have no idea. Then, either belief is as credible as disbelief, or belief is as incredible as disbelief.

      The only difference between the two is whether you believe that belief is credible. In the fiorst form of the statement, you are saying "I don't know, but either could be right." The second form says something along the lines of "I don't know, but both are wrong."

      Both cases lead to agnosticism, albeit different forms thereof. I happen to be of the former viewpoint, and your statemtnt lends itself to the latter. I yield that your viewpoint is as good as mine.

      weylin

      heh. after writing all this, I think I see what you were actually getting at. I apologize for the confusion; I was not trying to state that my entire viewpoint is that I believe God is a figment; rather, I consider myself to be an agnostic. I believe that one of two possibilities is true, and I don't have the necessary tools to determine which: either (a) God is a figment, and so should be derided for it's ability to cede humanities triumphs to some non-existent farce, or (b) God (or some supereme/supernatural being living outside the bounds of our own existence) is real, and I couldn't even begin to expound on the consequences that would have on existence. However, I also believe that people that take any of these as TRUTH have as much right as I do to believe what they believe, and are capable of being equally as clear-headed as I consider myself to be (though the argument thereto is for another time).

      --
      67.5% Slashdot Pure I guess I need to work on that.... :)
    65. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by Godeke · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I can attest to the fact many people turn to God to explain technology when they don't understand it. I was sitting in church when the question was asked of a small group of members: "How does TV work." The expected answer was that the TV station transmitted a signal the TV received... not looking for a technical answer here (and they were heading for an analogy, but that is beside the point). From the group, who had been so indoctrinated that they couldn't think for themselves anymore, the answer rose: "God's will".

      It was the last time I attended church. Yes, some of those people were intelligent (the one asking the question had far higher hopes than that - he never got to apply his obvious analogy he was working towards), but it felt *wrong* to sit in a room knowing that these people didn't just have faith where faith was potentially appropriate: they had faith indiscriminately. To them, the light switch was powered by God, the microwave worked because God did not see it as evil, and TV was beamed from heaven direct (must not have *watched* too much TV recently, eh?).

      After some years of thinking about this situation, I have come to a realization that you don't need a higher power to explain the organization of the universe. (Previously, I had my doubts about the complexity arising spontaniously, a common doubt of even scientifically minded people). Quantum mechanics says that until an event is observed, the outcome is a probability wave. Upon observation, that wave collapses. Taking this to the logical conclusion, after the creation of the universe (big bang or string colision or whatever) there was a huge, unobserved probability wave. Upon one part of that wave stumbling across the unlikely (but part of the probabilty wave) creation of an "observer", that observer would cause the wave to collapse locally, influencing the rest of the wave from that point forward. In other words, every outcome was equally likely until an observer becomes an outcome of the probability wave. Once that happens, the observer is no longer just a probability, but a fact. More simply: a quantum mechanical universe favors the creation of observers. Of course, this conclusion is simply the creation of my own brain: perhaps someone has a refutation?

      --
      Sig under construction since 1998.
    66. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by back_pages · · Score: 1
      I don't claim to know much about Italian people in Italy, but if this was happening in a rural southern town in the USA, of course I would expect the people to think it's some religious phenomena. If it were happening in a rural town in the NE USA, I would be shocked if they think it's a religious phenomena.

      I don't know if the stereotype about religious Italians truly applies in this case, but stereotypes are not always wrong as a rule.

    67. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by forand · · Score: 2, Insightful
      God never told anyone not to think for themselves.

      Determinists. You CANNOT think for yourself if your god already planned everything for you to do.

      Also while I agree that people should move out of "Middle Age's thinking about God" there are some who are just moving into that sort of thinking. You appear to be englighted, so to speak, while many other people who are part of organized religions tend to believe much the opposite to your stance, ignoring that and nothing will change.
    68. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by ponxx · · Score: 4, Insightful

      > Dude, you've got a seriously skewed view of religion.

      One might argue that it's atheists who have a less skewed view of religion as they're not part of it.

      > And finally RELIGION != FAITH IN GOD

      Religion = "the belief in and worship of a god or gods, or any such system of belief and worship:" (from http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=667 31&dict=CALD )

      Anyway, to many people who are not religious, the belief in a god, and particularly the common varieties that send their children to earth, seemingly arbitrarily bless or smite people etc. are as real as Father Christmas or Zaphod Beeblebrox.

      The mere fact that a lot of people believe it is no convincing argument, especially when those people proclaim their belief being due to faith rather than any evidence. For 1000s of years everyone believed the earth was flat.

      Even today, a lot of people believe summer is warmer than winter because the earth is closer to the sun then, or that the entire world is only 6000 years old because some religous nut tells them so, or any other number of demonstrably wrong things. The number of people believing something is not sufficient reason to assume it is true.

      This is precisely the reason i trust science more than tradition or religion: Scientific dogma is subject to revision in the face of new evidence, religious dogma usually isn't. It's 2000 years out of date.

      > If you're dumb enough to turn over your thinking to a religious
      > Pope/Evangelist/whatever, that's your idiocy, not God's.

      So who did you turn your thinking over to? What made you a "believer"? A charismatic person? An old book? Indoctrination from your community? Peer pressure? Anyway, i completely agree with your statement bar the last two words...

    69. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by s00p41337h4x0r · · Score: 1
      After all, after everything is said and done, you can't DISPROVE God; absence of proof is not proof of absence. Since you can't disprove it, you have to take into account that God is possible. Belief in God is just as credible -- not more than, and not less than (and that's the key point) -- as my belief that God does not actually exist, and is in fact a creation of our own minds.
      Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof.

      When I say that I don't believe in unicorns, I don't mean that I will never believe in unicorns, even if you show me a herd of them with foals being born. I reserve the right to update my opinions in the face of new evidence... that is the scientific way, after all. Nor can I offer a proof of the nonexistence of unicorns, showing conclusively that they cannot or do not exist. However, I'm still quite comfortable saying that unicorns don't exist. Furthermore, I claim that to believe in them is not "just as credible" as to believe in their nonexistence given the general scarcity of unicorn herds in zoos or unicorn fillets on menus (not to mention their unbelievable powers (virginity detection among other things)). The childrens' stories about them that are the bulk of proof for their existence are not sufficient evidence in support of their existence.

      A parallel argument for the non-existence of God is left as an exercise to the reader. (Hint: s/unicorn/God gets you nearly there.)

    70. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by not-my-real-name · · Score: 0

      Not only are you unable to disprove the existance of a god, I'm not sure that you can prove the existance either.

      In my mind, the existance or non-existance of god (or God) is something chosen as an axiom. Then develop some sort of consistant world-view based on that. It's similar to Euclids parallel postulate. It can actually go one of three ways, but there's no way to prove which is "correct".

      --
      un-ALTERED reproduction and dissimination of this IMPORTANT information is ENCOURAGED
    71. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by Raven_Stark · · Score: 1

      Good News?!?! What good news? That there are millions of people willing to worship a sadistic beast who they think will torture most of mankind for an infinitely long time? Your god makes Hitler look like a saint in comparison. I don't say that lightly, your god is just plain sick and evil and so are those who would have anything to do with Christianity. If Hell is justice, my ass is an Italian Bistro.

      My mother thinks her mother is being tortured for being a Catholic, not "confessing the Lard Jesus Christ as her Lard and Savior." Before she died, my grandmother worried my mother would burn in hell for not being a Catholic. What sickness is this you promote?

      --
      http://www.marxist.com/
    72. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by centauri · · Score: 2, Informative

      Don't adopt or reject a belief just because someone you admire did. That's what leads to everything that's wrong with religion. I don't believe in calculus just because Newton did. I believe in it because I can prove it to myself that it is true. I don't believe in gods because I can't prove to myself that they are real, not because Dr. So-and-So doesn't believe in gods.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Durga.
    73. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by hopemafia · · Score: 1

      "I don't see how you could find joy in being some unseen being's pet."

      Probably in the same way my dog is amazingly excited to see me whenever I come home....

      --
      If God had had a computer it would have taken him 7 months to create the earth...if he even bothered to do it at all.
    74. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      ... but it helps.

      (Reminds me of that "You don't have to be crazy to work here.." joke.)

    75. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't mistake your lack of understanding for humanity's. Just because you don't understand the above doesn't mean they aren't understood. Pi, for instance, it's probably the most well-understood number in the universe. Just because it's irrational doesn't mean it's any less understood. That's just the way it goes.

      And imaginary numbers will make sense after you get some education in them. It's just another way of looking at cyclic systems.

    76. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by seamelt · · Score: 1

      If one conults the guide: "I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing." "But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves that you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. Q.E.D.." "Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic. "Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.

    77. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by RevAaron · · Score: 1

      Another good one is The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind. Hell of a title, but pretty accessable, not too thick, but full of science. A lot of interesting info about how the brain worked, especially the transition between primitive ones and our modern brains.

      --

      Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
    78. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by Danse · · Score: 1

      In the fiorst form of the statement, you are saying "I don't know, but either could be right." The second form says something along the lines of "I don't know, but both are wrong."

      Both cases lead to agnosticism, albeit different forms thereof. I happen to be of the former viewpoint, and your statemtnt lends itself to the latter. I yield that your viewpoint is as good as mine.


      I think what I was saying is that I feel that people who feel strongly that God either does or does not exist are deluding themselves since there is no proof, or indeed anything more than circumstantial evidence, of either position. So I'm saying that the only truly credible position to take is one that admits that we don't have any way to know the answer at this point.

      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    79. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by RevAaron · · Score: 1

      Belief in the existence or non-existence of God are equally incredible. The only honest and credible path is to admit that we really don't know and have no real evidence to support either side. That happens to be the reason that I'm agnostic.

      it's about time someone else thought that!

      I can't prove it one way or another. Just because you don't know if something exists, you cannot assume it doesn't.

      --

      Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
    80. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by JabberWokky · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Funny, the thread was started by an athiest (or at least religon hostile individual) who was trying to "cram" his ideas "down our throats". This fellow you're replying to just presented a different view, and said it was his and shared by others.

      You're the one stating your idea is "correct". He's just saying that his ideas are his. Since I'm not going to share either of your ideas perfectly, I'd say he makes for a better neighbor than you.

      --
      Evan

      --
      "$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
    81. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by John+Newman · · Score: 1
      Although maybe one of these days I'll be proven wrong. I look forward to that day.
      Ah, belief in God as cosmic soul insurance, surely one of the more cynical rationales. "Yeah, I may be wrong, but better I'm wrong to believe than wrong to not believe [shrug]."
    82. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

      --Albert Einstein, 24 March 1954

    83. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by QuantumFTL · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Wow, that's one of the best slashdot posts I've ever read! I'm tired of religion bashing on /. (I mean, obviously it's their right to do so, it's the moderators I'm more upset with). Atheistic humanism is as much of a religion as anything else, and to be honest I think the most logical (although boring) choice is to be agnostic.

      I'm a Christian and I study physics, and people so often ask me how I can be a Christian and believe so much in Science... I think for some people science has become the new religion - it gives us all the answers, except to the most important questions (why are we here? what is right/wrong?). I work on the Mars Exploration Rovers mission and I was upset to see so many posts on slashdot saying that finding life on another planet would mean the end of religion... I don't get this! Many people working on the mission are Christians (or also some other faiths) and they are all very excited by the prospect, as am I! People assume too much about things they do not understand.

      Thanks again for a great post!

      Cheers,
      Justin

    84. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by Beost · · Score: 1

      Wow. Judging from the responses, it seems we have an overwhelmingly, non-Christian audience. And not just that, some extremely educated ones as well. Two points to ponder on: 1) -If you don't believe and there's a God, who cares -If you do believe and there isn't a God, who cares -If you do believe and there's a God, whew! -If you don't believe and there's a God, ooops. (Is this your final answer, because you're choice has eternal implications?) 2) Ignore what you've been told about morals, ethics, and responsibilities. You've been indoctrinated by Christians to not kill, not to steal, not to lie, to honor your parents.... Who cares if our Constitution was created by a bunch of Christians; they were obviously wrong in their construction of a standard ethical bar. Or would that inconvenience you? Would it bother you if someone declared within their own power to kill you? Who says killing is wrong? Who says you should even have tolerance for those different than you? Ahhhh, they just make sense; just feel right. Nope. God made those rules that you have been indiscriminately indoctrinated with! How could they! Without my permission! I can't even sign a check without achnowledging that 2004 years ago, the Christ came to earth. There's even factual evidence of is existence, evidence of his miracles, statistically incredible, accurate predictions of his life even a 1000 years earlier! But this is "old evidence". They're only truths that once were, and now we're smarter, faster, more sane! And God forbid we have a purpose on this rock. Man would that suck if this was just like those people say; just a test, trust, temporary abode. Preparation for what's to come. And what about my works. I WILL be remembered! I WILL leave my mark and nobody will EVER forget me, EVER forsake me! I will give something back to mankind, something eternal and good. Ooops, there's that indoctrination again, doing good things because, well just because. Evaluate the evidence just as scrupulously and in-depth as you do everything else in your life. Do not dismiss the necessity to evaluate for yourself the truths self-evident in the history of this planet (well documented). I suggest looking back about 2000 years. And to whomever said it before, "Life's too short to proofread"

    85. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by MoneyT · · Score: 1

      Because he created us? Don't you love the things you create? Or do you look down on your children for being lesser beings?

      --
      T Money
      World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
    86. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by Nopal · · Score: 1
      If I had mod points I'd give them to you. I have come to the conclusion that it boils down simply to faith. The tendency among the greats of history is that they believed in something larger than themselves, and thus reached out to understand something greater than themselves. If anything else, belief tends to give us the humility that we often require in order to make serious attempts at surpassing our own limitations. In this light, faith can be both convenient as well as practical.

      If you have no faith, no amount of reason will convince you otherwise, because reason can be used to justify your lack of faith just as easily as it can be used to support faith. There is no sense in trying to believe unless you want to believe. Given that, what is so wrong with believing and getting the best of both approaches (reason and religion)?

      If, when I die, I am wrong and there is no God, I would have lost nothing because I would have become nothing. If an atheist dies and he is wrong, he would have lost everything.

    87. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by Destoo · · Score: 1

      Yes he was.

      Apparently, it wasn't because the world was round or flat. The church did not care about that.

      He was an enemy of the church because he questionned and argued against transubstanciation in a previous book.
      (wine becoming blood and bread becoming flesh of the christ)
      So conspiracy theorists say that he was burned because of trying to destroy a dogma, not because he was saying the earth was round.

      --
      Nouvelles de jeux et technologies en français. TC
    88. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by tkg · · Score: 1

      Has anyone ever said 'the President helps those who help themselves'?

      Yup. I've heard a few say the President helps those who help themselves - to your money. Not necessarily in those words though.

    89. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by kandrewnet · · Score: 1

      According to the United Nations, current projections are for a peak of about 7.7 billion people (we have about 5.8 billion now) in 2040. After that, if current trends continue (which include ever increasing industrialization of the world) the world population will start declining and by 2050 the population will ahve decreased by an estimated 85 million people. Some estimates are more agressive than the U.N. saying that by 2025 we will be at stagnation. This along with the ability to prolong life and the possiblity of fusion within 20 years leads me to believe we can be leading a much different life by the time I am 55. We just have to hold off blowing up our planet for a half a century longer.

    90. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by ryanwright · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You need to get out of that Middle Age's thinking about God. There's alot of us out here proclaiming the Good News and living our lives believing in God, educating ourselves, and working intelligently.

      Damn straight. I've added you to my friends list. There's nothing more satisfying than running across a fellow geek who lives his life for Jesus Christ.

      Don't sweat the other replies. They'll understand the truth some day. Unfortunately, it will be too late for most of them.

      Romans 14:11: For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.

      --
      -Ryan, with the unoriginal sig
    91. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by macdaddy · · Score: 1

      I believe he did say that. I've read much of what he wrote and that's my opinion on his beliefs. Many famous people express one belief publicly and another privately. Really that doesn't necessarily apply to famous folks but to us commoners as well. We do that for a number of reasons. I've long since believed that Galileo really wasn't gnostic. Everything he viewed went against was the orthodox believed. He publicly said he was a believer but you have to take his words into context. If he'd said he was a non-believer (the term agnostic wasn't coined until the late 1800s and was first published in 1870) he would have been executed. The church back then had absolute control. Non-believers would be executed as heretics. I believe that he had to give the appearance of gnosticism to staty alive but personally did not subscribed to those beliefs. That's my $.02 anyways. It makes sense. Even today if you were to say that you were Atheist you would be on the receiving end of a lot of verbal punishment. Nothing like being ostracized before breakfast to get the blood pumping.

    92. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by ratamacue · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I think religion is probably the greatest scam ever invented.

      Your points apply to government (organized coercion) more so than religion (organized persuasion).

      Throughout history, governments have killed millions of times more, and plundered millions of times more than religious institutions. (Where religious institutions have killed and plundered, it is usually because they are associated somehow with government.) I think it is quite obvious that government, not religion, deserves the crowning of "greatest scam ever invented".

    93. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by admiralh · · Score: 1

      And to whomever said it before, "Life's too short to proofread"

      Apparently life's too short to think about paragraphs as well.

      --
      Hopelessly pedantic since 1963.
    94. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by ryanwright · · Score: 1

      why would a god love a lesser being?

      Why do billions of people love their dogs?

      --
      -Ryan, with the unoriginal sig
    95. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by strider69666 · · Score: 1

      Man, I'm in total agreement with you. Religion is a farce. I'm sick of people who say "God wanted you to break your leg for a reason. It's all part of his grand design." Uh, no! I broke my leg because I was being a jackass and shouldn't have climbed so high in the tree.
      The biggest gripe I have with blind faithers is that many of them believe the bible is the direct literal word of god. BULLSHIT!! It was written by men, and has been changed by men hundreds of times. Nothing (well, very little) in it is literal. It is nothing but a HISTORICALLY BASED novel. And we all know that historically based means one in a thousand facts are true. I've done a bit of research on the bible (New, Old, King James, etc.) and they all have discrepencies, even through different printings of the same version. The biggest differences are obviously between 20th century prints and middle ages on back. There are whole sections erased in new versions, "important" passages completely redone to remove the contradictions, etc.
      Another thing that bothers me is creationists. All you people who believe Earth was created less that 40,000 years ago because the bible can be CONSTRUED to say it, are complete hipocritical retards. If god created the universe at the beginning of biblical recorded history, he is by definition a liar, which means he cannot exist according to religious doctrine. God is infallible, incapable of lying or deciet, yet he apparently does these things. The bible doesn't mention dinosaurs, yet we have their remains. The bible doesn't mention the decay of radioactive isotopes, yet we know it to be fact. We KNOW FOR AN UNDISPUTABLE FACT that the earth is billions of years old, and that many many species ruled the earth prior to man. So, if there is a god, he is a liar. If he's not a liar, then man is a shallow minded scared sadistic pile of crap for putting words in god's mouth for his own comfort. All the shit about fornication and sex being a sin was written by ugly smelly religious men who couldn't get laid if they were King Solomon, and it pissed them off, so they decided to fool their brain dead followers into not having the pleasure of sex. "Oh, Satan caused the sin of sex to be a sin." Ok, then why is it so pleasurable (assuming your not a freak who uses implements unnatural to the act)? It's because our bodies were designed to make sex pleasurable and desirable. God did that (again, if he exists) not Satan. God created man in his own image. Satan did not alter human physiology at all. Satan was incapable of that, given the definition of an angel (even a fallen one).
      There is so much more that proves religion is a farce and bullshit, but I don't have enough keyboards or life to sit here and spell it all out for people.
      Now let me say this (I realise it's a bit anathemic to what I just stated): Belief in a religion or something similar is a good thing in some ways. I don't think believing in god is bad. I personally believe in Jesus, just not they way religious people do. I simply want people to start sifting the shit from the mana. Be open to the possibility that what you believe may not be the right thing. It doesn't make you a bad person to see what is there and incorporate that into what you have faith in. For example you can believe in god, Jesus, the TEACHINGS of the bible, AND that the universe is 12 billion years old, sex is perfectly ok out of wedlock, etc. There is a church group that comes to my neighborhood as a community wellness thing. I spend hours every saturday talking to them about these things (including two priests) and they mostly agree that the bible should not be taken literally, word for word, but instead the meanings and ideas are what are important. One of the priests even changed his mind about the age of the universe after I directed him to several websites and books! He agrees that god would not make the universe seem older to us just for the hell of it (pardon the pun) or for any other reason.
      Just my heretical going to hell for blasphemy flamebait 20 cents.

      --
      Dude. Dude. Dude. Dude. DUDE!!!! Duuuudde. Yeah, I guess you have a point there. (Baseketball)
    96. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by ryanwright · · Score: 1

      For that matter, why do people love their children? They are lesser beings until they grow up, learn and mature. An infant can do nothing for itself and understands nothing. Yet we love them dearly.

      Why? We created them. They are a part of us.

      Genesis 1:27: So God created man in his own image.

      --
      -Ryan, with the unoriginal sig
    97. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If he substituted "Buddha" and "Tao", would it make a difference?

      You are condemning him as a "nut-job" just because he used two key-words specific to his religion. You sound Jesusphobic.

    98. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by bigpat · · Score: 1

      "Einstein did not believe on the stupid "man-on-steroids" god of most religions"

      The man on steroids image is just one of many ways that artists within religions have related to God. To fixate on that image as the only image of God is ignorant of the richness of belief and theology within the various religions. Do you think that the last two thousand years of theology have focused on the size of God's bicept? To imply that calling Einstein a "devout believer" would equate him with the simple minded who would call themselves members of those religious groups is to fall prey to a stereotype of your own making and denies the thoughtful discussion that you seem to espouse.

    99. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by Sharkeys-Day · · Score: 2, Insightful

      perhaps someone has a refutation?

      Define "observer".

    100. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by TheLink · · Score: 1

      "Determinists. You CANNOT think for yourself if your god already planned everything for you to do"

      That depends a lot on how the universe is set up doesn't it?

      If the universe was that simple I'm sure the physicists would have come up with the GUT by now.

      How about this for a hypothetical scenario:
      1) It's said: we are made in the image of God, and God puts his spirit in us.
      2) God sends his Son into the world (universe).
      3) Say God sets up quantum superpositions where if you believe in X, Y happens (constructive interference), and if you don't Z happens (destructive interference).

      While you don't know which slit a photon is going to go through, there still is a predictable pattern at the end. Not saying God doesn't know everything, just saying it isn't as simple as your post implies.

      Scientists still haven't managed to explain the very first observation each of them makes - self awareness.

      p.s. Looking at my church, I'm definitely not part of an organized religion. Sporadically semi-organized maybe. ;)

      --
    101. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've added you to my foes list, because people like you are a cancer that needs to be eradicated :(

    102. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by Bobbysmith007 · · Score: 1

      Teminology aside I dont think that adhering to the teachings of a man who was known to say such things as "Love thy neighbor as thy self" is all that bad of an idea. From my understanding, Jesus' teachings consist by and large of a philosophy of love and respect which i think are fairly honorable goals. All im saying is you end up looking like just as much an idiot as the christians rying to cram stuff down your throat when you try to cram the exact opposite down theirs. Do I think Christianity is for everyone. NO. But I think that it is probably not a bad thing for alot of people.

    103. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > stereotypes are not always wrong as a rule

      As much as people hate to admit it -- espcially if they fall under a correct stereotype -- many stereotypes exist because there is a basis in truth. Unfortunately, most of the rest simply arise out of fear.

    104. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by kin_korn_karn · · Score: 1

      don't have kids. don't plan on having them.

      (to all: You can save all the "that's a relief" jokes for the people who laugh at the blindingly obvious potshots)

    105. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed there's a lot of stupid people in the world. But don't blame peoples ignorance and stupidity on God.


      Job 26:7 'He suspends the Earth over nothing'.


      Isaiah 40:22
      'It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:'

    106. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > pray to Iniaana to save us.

      INIAANA? What's that? Anything like IANAL?

      I'm No Idiot And Am Not Atheist?

    107. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The Good News" is the Tao of "Jesus". I don't understand.

    108. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > Even today, a lot of people believe summer is warmer than winter because the earth is closer to the sun then,

      What, it's not? I mean, at least "their half" of the Earth is, isn't it? The other half would be further away, thus the total movement (towards/away from the sun, at least -- not around it) of the Earth would be roughly zero, but in a local sense, they are right.

      Or is my understanding completely wrong? It may have happened before, I'm unsure.

    109. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by Coulson · · Score: 1

      Just because you don't know if something exists, you cannot assume it doesn't.

      This rapidly leads to absurdism. I don't know (nor can I prove for a fact) that giant triangular space horses don't exist. However, I feel quite confident in my assumption that they don't.

      So with God. I can start making up all sorts of stories about a supreme being or the creation of the world. Maybe it's a monkey with a giant club in one hand and a peach in the other. There's no better reason to believe any of those stories than any other, except that for some reason, a lot of people seem to buy into a couple of them. Why?

    110. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by Sharkeys-Day · · Score: 1

      We'll never know what Aquinas or Augustine would have contributed to science with their great minds.

      Actually we do know, because religion was the cutting-edge science in the Dark Ages. They read Plato and Aristotle, and applied it in their writings.

      Aquinas wrote that man was made from the elements of earth and air, because God formed him from the dust of the earth and breathed into him the breath of life. This mixing of Platonic and Biblical philosophy may sound silly today, but most of the philosophizing about quantum mechanics that goes on today will end up sounding just as silly if we ever really get a grip on how wave collapsing works.

    111. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by FictionPimp · · Score: 1

      ahh yes, thank you, I couldn't remember the name exactly. Its been a few years.

    112. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by Tripster · · Score: 1

      you don't have a clue what a personal relationship with Jesus means

      Last I heard he was dead a couple of thousands years ago, so explain how you could personally be in contact with him. You have proof of life after death now? If so, it's the proof I'm waiting for to go from agnostic to believing the fables a good majority of my fellow man seem to believe in.

      If you haven't talked to him standing in front of you then you have no "personal relationship" with the guy, he's dead now you see. About the only relationship you can have with the guy is made up in your head.

      It's not your fault though, I find most religious folks have been brainwashed since birth into the belief system. Myself, I enjoyed an upbringing with almost no religious overtones forced on me, leaving me to come to terms on my own with reality and realizing I'm stuck on a planet with 6 billion others who have some sort of wacko belief system that they are "special" under the eyes of some invisible "God" character.

      Of course they all ignore that we're relative newcomers on a planet that's 5 billion years old, we've inhabited the surface of our homeworld for something like 1% of it's lifespan, we're special? You'd think we'd be one of the first lifeforms on the planet if we were "special" and created in the form of "God".

    113. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > there are millions of people willing to worship a sadistic beast who they think will torture most of mankind for an infinitely long time?

      Actually, it's more perverse than that. God does not do the torturing himself, he keeps a false veil of integrity by blaming his first-in-command, Lucifer, for doing the torturing. However, he is still responsible for suffering, as he's the one who condemns. That way he "gets away with" calling himself loving, since he doesn't hold the whip.

      > If Hell is justice, my ass is an Italian Bistro.

      Can I get reservations? Hmm, actually, I already have reservations about eating at your Ass-tro...

      > What sickness is this you promote?

      IMO, Cathoholics are almost the worst of the Christians, but it's still the people that get the stupid ideas, not the institution. The "leader," Das Pope, would probably say many such ideas are wrong. Few groups bother me more than Catholics, such as Jehova's Witnesses and Mormons.

      Satanists don't bother me much, because they are mostly stupid and relatively harmless, given their small numbers. Many of them don't seem to realize that believing in Satan automatically means you must believe in God. What a bunch of loonies. All of them.

    114. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by RevAaron · · Score: 1

      However, I feel quite confident in my assumption that they don't.

      But then again, it's still an assumption. In all the infinite span of the universe, there is a chance- however tiny- that there is some triangular space horse, somewhere. It's just statistics. You can assume such a thing doesn't exist- and it probably doesn't- but it's still an assumption. In science and everyday life, assumptions are useful, but one should recognize that.

      So with God. I can start making up all sorts of stories about a supreme being or the creation of
      the world.


      Sure you can! People do it all the time. Some of them make a good dollar doing it- c.f. David Koresh.

      Because the common stories have emotional pull. Your story about a monkey with a giant club doesn't, at least for my usian-eurocentric-worldview. Maybe some culture somewhere would dig it, who knows. Or, you could start a cult!

      --

      Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
    115. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by KnarfO · · Score: 1

      Thank God!

      --


      "Creativity is allowing ones self to make mistakes. Art is knowing which ones to keep" - Scott Adams
    116. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by barawn · · Score: 1

      I can't disprove the tooth fairy either. Is it just as likely to exist then, than not?

      Cute, but silly - any good experimentalist can put a strong restriction on the existence of a "tooth fairy" (i.e. a being which replaces baby teeth with money) with a simple video camera left up overnight over every child on the planet.

      You can then, of course, come up with strange restrictions as to why this didn't work, which can then be further tested, which will lead to weirder restrictions, etc. Basic science.

      However the bit with God is entirely different, because the initial postulate (that which created the Universe) is untestable, lacking any other examples. Anything which happens in this Universe must be explainable in terms of this Universe (... duh... basically the definition of 'explainable', basically a reflexive property of the Universe) but the causal connection "why" can't be determined, lacking any other Universes as controls. If you define God as "that which created everything", then it's strictly impossible.

      You can't prove or disprove the idea of a God, nor can you even place restrictions on it, because you don't have controls. Basic experiment design.

    117. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by Jim+Starx · · Score: 1

      Good thing it didn't happen in america..... we'd start burning witches....

      --
      The darkness... controls the music. The music... controls the soul.
    118. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by djcatnip · · Score: 1

      God: Good news! Your toaster is on fire!

      --
      I make these: http://beatseqr.com
    119. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by Jim+Starx · · Score: 1

      Your overreacting. They may be irrelevent, and you may have taken them as preaching, the good news part may even be preaching in a very wide sense. But that doesn't at all diffuse his point that he is still a rational person.

      --
      The darkness... controls the music. The music... controls the soul.
    120. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by Jim+Starx · · Score: 2, Insightful
      It is still stupid to believe in wrong things

      But you can't proove his beliefs are wrong. He can't proove yours are either. So I don't see how either of your views are more or less stupid then the others.

      --
      The darkness... controls the music. The music... controls the soul.
    121. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by Jim+Starx · · Score: 1

      I don't believe in god either. But lets be fair, there's quite a bit more evidence of god then there is of santa clause.

      --
      The darkness... controls the music. The music... controls the soul.
    122. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by Jim+Starx · · Score: 1
      Religion = "the belief in and worship of a god or gods, or any such system of belief and worship:" (from http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=667 31&dict=CALD )

      I would say the catch comes in the "any such system" part of that, as there are actually religions that don't believe in a god.

      ps. So why is summer hotter then? (Seriosly...)

      --
      The darkness... controls the music. The music... controls the soul.
    123. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by Jim+Starx · · Score: 1

      Your parents don't represent the whole of christianity.

      --
      The darkness... controls the music. The music... controls the soul.
    124. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by Himring · · Score: 1

      I keep forgetting the rules of dating, business and message boards: never discuss religion or politics. Well, heck, on dates never discuss anything. Let her do the all the talking, and if any of you fellas don't know that then that's why you don't get many repeats.... What am I saying, this crowd prolly never get a "peat."

      --
      "All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
    125. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting
      Yay! A religious thread! I hope we can sort out who is right once and for all :-)

      Belief in God is just as credible -- not more than, and not less than (and that's the key point) -- as my belief that God does not actually exist, and is in fact a creation of our own minds.

      Just because X is possible but unproven is NOT the same as saying it is just as credible as the alternative. It is possible (but unproven) that there is an IPU standing next to you. (An IPU is an Invisible Pink Unicorn, the common currency in these kinds of discussions). However, evidence suggests that there is no such IPU. Neither postulate can be proven without a doubt, and a true scientist would keep their options open about the existence of the IPU. But if a conclusion had to be drawn then most sane people would say that the IPU is not there.

      Interestingly, many of these issues are often problems with semantics. Some will say "There is a God", when what they really wanted to say was "Evidence suggests to me that a God exists." The word "is" can be powerfully misused, and there are even those who believe that we should not use the word "is" at all.

    126. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by Jim+Starx · · Score: 1, Insightful

      In all fairness, there's signifigantly more empirical evidence of god then there is of the tooth fairy.

      --
      The darkness... controls the music. The music... controls the soul.
    127. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by Tin+Foil+Hat · · Score: 1

      ...a quantum mechanical universe favors the creation of observers.

      Well.... It does now, thank you very much for the observation.

      --
      No matter how many of my rights are taken away, somehow I still don't feel safe. -Frigid Monkey
    128. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by Jim+Starx · · Score: 1

      I agree with your position of not knowing, I just don't think it's fair that you deem the other two stances as not credible. Alot of people feel that the proof is in their heart, they see the world in that light and it makes sense to them.

      --
      The darkness... controls the music. The music... controls the soul.
    129. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And just what empirical evidence would this be?

    130. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's the tilt of the earth's axis of rotation. During half of the year (winter), your half of the sphere is tilted slightly away from the sun, thus having shorter days and less direct light. (The sun's rays are striking this part of the earth at a greater deflection from the surface normal; this is why the sun apppears closer to the horizon during the winter days.) During the summer, the opposite happens. On the opposing side of the orbit, the tilt will tilt that same hemisphere toward the sun, resulting in long days and more direct sunlight. It is true the orbit of the earth is eliptical and there are periods where the earth is closer and further, but this effect is much less significant than the exposure due to the tilt. In fact, the summer months in the northern hemisphere are not during the closest approach to the sun. In fact, you can prove that it is not the closeness that causes summer and winter, because, if that was the case, the northern and southern hemispheres would both get closer and warmer or further and colder at the same time. However, if you talk to someone in the higher lattitudes of the opposite hemisphere, you should ask about January/July temperatures. Like my friend from Australia says, "It's not Christmas without a barbi(que) and a beer, catching rays on the beach."

      -a

    131. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're thinking about this stuff the wrong way.

      When something happens that could have had more than one outcome, only ONE of those possibilities actually occured. What quantum mechanics allows is to figure out how likely each of the possibilities is to have occured. But ONLY ONE possibility has occured whether anyone observes it or not.

      There is a difference between not knowing which of the possiblities occured and suggesting that all possibilities occured until you observe. A probability wave is not a real thing.

      No observers are necessary unless they want to know what happened.

    132. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > I couldn't remember the name exactly

      Still can't... it was a (bad) joke... IANAL, as in "I am not a lawyer." I'm not sure the name you were looking for, however. It may have been correct as-is.

    133. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by Dread_ed · · Score: 1

      Would it not be just as probable that a thing called an "anti-observer" would be created as well?

      This anti-observer would cause things to be shifted from a deterministic state into a probability wave again.

      I think they had one in the Heart of Gold and the Tardis. Damn Britts get all the cool stuff!

      --
      When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
    134. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by chmod000 · · Score: 1
      The brain runs on chemicals and natural spikes occur.

      When people have a contempt for the viewpoints of others, sometimes it is because the viewpoints of others ARE STUPID!


      Based on what you have just said, I might be excused for supposing that your own absolutism, as expressed in your post, is the result of a chemical spike in the brain. If it's only chemical reactions, why should anybody care?

      --
      Aptal soru yoktur; sadece merakli aptallar vardir.
    135. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by Danse · · Score: 1

      It's similar to the UFO debate. Some people fervently believe that aliens exist and visit our planet regularly. Now they can't prove this, but neither can we prove that they're wrong. Yet these people are generally regarded with much skepticism, if not outright contempt. What's the difference here? Well, offhand, I'd say that the difference is the fact that religion is quite useful to those that can control it and they've had at least a couple thousand years to make people believe it, often by threat of torture or death. It's only in the last couple hundred years that some religions have become more civilized. Now that religion is thoroughly entrenched, they can afford to be that way. Even today though, you'll see many abuses.

      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    136. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > Of course they all ignore that we're relative newcomers on a planet that's 5 billion years old,

      If the lifespan of a planet is 1000 billion years (bear with me, I am pretty sure it's not), then we are pretty close to the first. If the planet was 100 years old and we came into being 1 year ago, you could make the same argument, since you are "looking from the inside."

      Which is not to say you are wrong at all -- I don't think humans are particularly special -- just that this one piece of logic does not fly.

    137. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by ryanwright · · Score: 1

      I've added you to my foes list, because people like you are a cancer that needs to be eradicated

      Don't worry. The coming rapture ensures you'll be rid of us pesky Christians soon enough. Of course, there's the 7 years of hell on Earth you'll get to endure. When the waters turn to blood and demons reign, few will survive. All will be judged accordingly.

      I'll pray for your soul, Anonymous Coward. You are filled with deep hatred toward billions of people who have done you no harm. It is my prayer that you change your ways, for I would not wish an eternity in hell upon my worst enemies. When the day comes that you bow before the Lord - and you will - I pray that you do so as His friend.

      --
      -Ryan, with the unoriginal sig
    138. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > "I don't see how you could find joy in being some unseen being's pet."
      > Probably in the same way my dog is amazingly excited to see me whenever I come home....

      Well, the first reason your post is wrong, he said "unseen pet." As long as your dog still has one working eye, it can see you. I can't (literally) see God.

      The dog sees itself as a member of your pack (family). In many households that is more true than others. The dog does not know, though, that it is considered a piece of property.

      Start treating your dog like a piece of property (not an actual suggestion), and most likely it will stop treating you like family. If you start hitting it & treating it poorly, most dogs will understand and start to become aggressive back.

      Of course, there are some minor details to this analogy -- some breeds of canine take more kindly to people, may be less likely to fight back, and will instead tuck and run, but it is still a negative response. Hmm. Some people are more angry at God than others as well, since they may have been "treated badly" by God, or at least think they have. I'm one.

    139. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by shadowbearer · · Score: 2, Informative

      Now, if you'd said anecdotal evidence rather than empirical, I might agree with you...

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    140. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by Jim+Starx · · Score: 1

      Those facts, true or not, do nothing to prove or disprove religion.

      --
      The darkness... controls the music. The music... controls the soul.
    141. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by Jim+Starx · · Score: 1

      The bibal, historical records of jesus's persecution by the romans. None of those actually prove religion, but it lends weight to the belief. Also some people just believe it in their hearts. The world makes sense to them with religion.

      --
      The darkness... controls the music. The music... controls the soul.
    142. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by k8to · · Score: 1

      I understand and concord with the vast bulk of your post. You are speaking about your faith, really, the set of spiritual principles bound together in your religion which guide your life. On this level, religion is something that enriches life, science, etc. and is additional, not exclusionary.

      Howver, for many people, religion is exclusive, rule-setting, and absolute. I'm sure you realize that the majority of posters (here) are attacking this small-minded common version of religion, whether or not they realize another form exists. I entreat you to learn to perceive such attacks as simply not applying to you, since they do not, if you have not already done so.

      The point I strongly disagree with is that atheistic humanism is a religion. It is not. It is a faith, in the sense that it is a set of ideas that can bouy the individual, and to some extent some people believe in simply from a perspective of personal conviction. However, this is as far as it goes. The properties and actions of humans are something most of us have more experience with than any other aspect of life or the universe, and thus having beliefs about it is a far cry from beliefs in extra-human entities such as gods, souls, higher powers, forces, spirits, and the like, all of which we _do not_ have any personal experience of. Further, humanism lacks a creed, a gospel, a central text, a single view, a church (or any equivalent organization), a mythology, and any fixed set of requirements of belonging/non-belonging. Many of these things are not strictly necessary to be considered a religion, but the complete lack of them all should give you a hint. It is very much a philosophy which is not a religion, and for some people forms a guiding faith.

      --
      -josh
    143. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by bogrollben · · Score: 1

      I think you've presented 3 arguments:
      Argument 1. How can I have a personal relationship with a dead guy? Surely the relationship is in my head?

      Argument 2 (implied). My beliefs are because of my upbringing. Therefore my belief is wrong. It's also Wacko.

      Argument 3. This was very unclear, but I think you argued: By currently popular scientific views the Earth is really old and the human race isn't. Many species existed before us, so why would God choose to make us "in the form of God"?

      1. My answer: I've had experiences that strongly suggest to me that Jesus is alive and communicating with me. The way my car battery exploded last year, the way I coped with my parents divorce, the way I found a fire extinguisher for my church, the way I found my wife, the reason why I went to college, the way I get answered prayers (not all the time granted, but sometimes dramatically). These are just a few examples. None of the above probably make any sense to you because they're *personal*.

      What I would recommend is asking God if he's really there. Really, really asking him. Like on Bruce Almighty when Jim Carrey is really frustrated. Sometimes God shows up.

      2. My answer: To your point, most western Christians do have a Christian upbringing. This doesn't make their beliefs wrong.

      3. My answer: The Bible agrees that humans were the last on the planet. I'm not sure what you mean by "special". We're clearly more intelligent than any other species. We experience vastly more complex emotional, intellectual, spiritual and social behavior than anything else on the planet. Apes are apparently the closest species and they can't program Java, appreciate art, fall in love, read Shakespeare or even make a better bow and arrow. I think that as a species we're very special. What do you mean?

    144. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      "Isaac Newton, when he was developing calculus and his theory of gravity, was trying to understand God."

      I thought he was trying to do something far more important, such as giving Leibniz the finger.

    145. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by danila · · Score: 1

      My beliefs are consistent with reality. His beliefs probably aren't. In the best case his beliefs do not contradict reality (see "god of the gaps"), while my beliefs are actually supported by it.

      We do not know what flavour of christianity laetus believes in, but apparently, he believes that it's a real concern (though it's not necessarily true) that UK plans for a universal ID might signify the coming of the antichrist. While I can't prove it is not so (you can't usually prove a negative), I find such beliefs dangerously delusional.

      --
      Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
    146. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by Danse · · Score: 1

      Those facts, true or not, do nothing to prove or disprove religion.

      That's exactly my point. And since you can't prove or disprove those positions, it just doesn't make sense to believe in them. Doing so is irrational. Admitting that we don't know is the honest and rational approach.

      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    147. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by Jim+Starx · · Score: 1

      Oops... looks like I've had those two confused for a while....

      --
      The darkness... controls the music. The music... controls the soul.
    148. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by Jim+Starx · · Score: 1
      My beliefs are consistent with reality. His beliefs probably aren't.

      Based on what? Christian beliefs are every bit as consistent with the reality that humans are capable of percieving as your are.

      As for the ID thing, I'm only refering to his parent post, I have no idea where you dug that out of but it's irrelevent.

      --
      The darkness... controls the music. The music... controls the soul.
    149. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by Jim+Starx · · Score: 1

      What you know and what you can proove are two entirely seperate things. In mathmatics there are countless theorums that we know are true. They've held true for centuries whenever applied, but we can't proove them. Proof is not a reasonable requirement for knowledge.

      --
      The darkness... controls the music. The music... controls the soul.
    150. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's already been done.

    151. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by mph · · Score: 2, Informative
      What, it's not? I mean, at least "their half" of the Earth is, isn't it? The other half would be further away, thus the total movement (towards/away from the sun, at least -- not around it) of the Earth would be roughly zero, but in a local sense, they are right.
      You appear to understand, correctly, that the seasons arise from the tilt of the earth's axis, and that when it's summer in your hemisphere, your hemisphere is tilted toward the sun.

      But that's not an important effect as far as the distance to the sun goes. The earth's orbit is slightly elliptical, with the sun at one focus of the ellipse. So there's a time of year when the earth is closest to the sun, and a time six months later when it's more distant. The difference in these distances, due to the shape of the orbit, is much larger than the difference in distance that arises from the earth's tilt. The earth is closest to the sun in January, and farthest in July. The difference is about 3 million miles, which is obviously a lot larger than the earth's diameter, and so clearly much larger than the effect of the tilt. Since the whole earth is closest to the sun in January, but the northern and southern hemispheres are in opposite seasons, clearly it is not the distance that's determining the season.

      The tilt determines the season by making the sunlight fall more directly (more nearly vertically) and for a longer time each day during the summer.

    152. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      God is Love. Love exists.

    153. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >> If he substituted "Buddha" and "Tao", would it make a difference?

      You are condemning him as a "nut-job" just because he used two key-words specific to his religion. You sound Jesusphobic.

      Buddha is related to Tao, how? (no pun intended) You sound like an idiot.

    154. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by jvv62 · · Score: 1

      Idiots need an explanation for everything, intelligent people seek answers and do not believe in what they cannot prove to themselves. I always try to go back to mathematics and logic when thinking about God and belief. At this point I hear lots of "*huh?* what are you talking about.?" Any consistent logical system needs to start with some basic set of axioms. We can't start with nothing. I think about religious belief as a lot like Euclid's axioms. So even if you don't want to believe in Mel Gibson's God, if you have anything close to a consistent ethical or moral sense, there must be something you believe without proof.

      --
      -John Van Voorhis
    155. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know what the other 49 incarnations of Marduk are doing right now, but one incarnation of Marduk is busy Fistfucking God's Planet.

    156. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Behind Health Insurance, you mean ...

      Behind Car Insurance, you mean ...

      considering everyone who has an auto, is required to have it insured, although everyone who has health, is not necessarily required to have it insured.

    157. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by Danse · · Score: 1

      Hah. So now you're comparing the evidence for the existence to God to the evidence for mathematical theory?! I think you're supporting my case now :)

      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    158. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by t14m4t · · Score: 1

      heh. good point. and light-hearted, to boot. :-)

      weylin

      --
      67.5% Slashdot Pure I guess I need to work on that.... :)
    159. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by t14m4t · · Score: 1

      I'll cede this argument to you for now; it's a very good point there, and I have neither the time to counter-point, nor the inclinition to try to bring down a strong and very coherent argument. It would basically boil down to how an atheist actually loses nothing, just like a believer, but, having to actually live in life, I must needs see to it.

      One of these days I'll sit down and actually WRITE OUT what it was that, over the course of several years of thought, I came to believe when I was 22, and haven't shaken in the years since.

      weylin

      --
      67.5% Slashdot Pure I guess I need to work on that.... :)
    160. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by t14m4t · · Score: 1

      Heh. I'll be light-hearted for a minute.

      As Bill Clinton said: "It depends on what your definition of 'is,' is."

      The weird thing, if you listen to his whole question/reply: he was right.

      weylin

      --
      67.5% Slashdot Pure I guess I need to work on that.... :)
    161. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by srleffler · · Score: 1
      When something happens that could have had more than one outcome, only ONE of those possibilities actually occured. What quantum mechanics allows is to figure out how likely each of the possibilities is to have occured. But ONLY ONE possibility has occured whether anyone observes it or not.

      This is certainly not the conventional interpretation of quantum mechanics among physicists. What you propose would be a hidden variable theory. It has been proven by some rather famous theoretical and experimental work that the only way a hidden variable theory can be compatible with the observed data is if it is non-local, i.e. it allows particles to interact instantaneously no matter how far apart they are. For various reasons this is not a popular idea with physicists. It doesn't agree well with Relativity, and tends to produce "inelegant" theories that don't work any better than conventional quantum mechanics.

      The conventional interpretation is that when quantum mechanics predicts a probability distribution of possible results, it is not meaningful to talk about only one of those possibilities having occurred, in the absence of an observation. Opinions differ on whether an observation actually causes the system to "collapse" into one of the possible states, and what the exact definition of "observation" is.

      NB: an "observation" does not necessarily have to involve a conscious mind.

    162. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by Starcub · · Score: 1

      It is the desire to understand God that has driven virtually all of scientific history, from Galileo to Planck, and only recently has science been transformed into only the desire to undersand our world. And even then, anyone with half a brain would see that we're really juyst trying to understand what God has given us, if you believe in God (see below). Of the viewpoint that I'm trying to expouse in this paragraph, I can't think of anything that can articulate it better the the end of the movie Contact.

      It's interesting to note that even the oldest known civilizations give evidence that they believed that some higher power was responsible for life in their world. I wonder where this curiousity came from. I'm sure there was very little understanding about how the world worked back then which would leave much to speculation. But why atribute observations to a higher power?

      Even in more advanced civilizations that give evidence of reasoning capabilities on a level closer to modern man, some type of divine belief system existed. It seems to me unlikely that a belief system could exist without rational basis for its foundation. I suspect that, as was the case when Christianity began, it was often motivated by forces determined to assert thier dominance over the less gifted. However, I would not expect such systems of belief to survive very long under such circumstances. Yet Christianity has its roots in a Hebrew culture that lasted far longer than any other known culture throughout the history of the world. To me that's more than just significant.

      Growing up my view on religion developed from analysis from the perspective of things that I had learned in a very limited system. Specifically, I mean I employed the methodologies that I was familiar with through school -- that which seeks knowledge through scientific method. Science seeks knowledge through testable observation with repeatable results. It is a valid approach to understanding the truth of what we see, but the perspective is very limited. Typically science doesn't seek to answer "Why isn't it this way instead of this other way?", and it doesn't look outside of its own domain for understanding. Science simply seeks to understand why something is the way it appears to be based upon what it already knows.

      Alfred Hitchcock's character Sherlock Holmes often solved mysteries by ask why things weren't they way he would have expected them to be. The detectives methods impressed me as revoltionary and not just evolutionary in that the solutions came as a result of asking questions that one wouldn't normally think to ask. Therein was my introduction to faith based upon reason. As I mentioned earlier, I don't think belief without strong rationality behind it could survive long in society, and I tend to believe that it true on an individual basis as well since there are always those around that would have you believing in anything else but a god, particularly when that god encourages its followers to live in a way that is not productive to powerful self interests.

      My own personal acceptance of the existance of God developed as a result of many things that had happened to me all coming together in a rational picture I had never thought to study previously. This thinking was sparked by seriously considering things I had learned to reject previously because my mindset had sought to work forward from where I was in a very technical way and not logically back from what could be with an open mind. For example in the movie 2001: A Space Oddessy there is a monolith that appears in the film wherever some major advance occurs in earthly civilization. That got me thinking, well if I were God, I would probably put 'monoliths' in my creation such that they would be recognizable (but not obvious -- I am God after all -- I want to make things interesting for my people). At least one of these signatures should be constant throughout the 'life expectancy' of my creation. I found what I was looking for (or perhaps it f

    163. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by danila · · Score: 1

      Beliefs that Earth was created 6000 years ago are inconsistent with reality. Beliefs that water can be turned into wine are inconsistent with reality. Beliefs that whole Earth can be fully covered with water because of rains are inconsistent with reality. Beliefs that a human can be turned into a pillar of salt are inconsistent with reality. Beliefs in most of christian mythology are inconsistent with reality. Beliefs that Jesus Christ, son of god, lived around 2000 years ago are inconsistent with reality.

      That bible claims it happened in the past and we can't directly validate or disprove it does not make them consistent with reality.

      My beliefs, on the other hand, are rational and agree with the evidence we have. That the Earth was created ~4.5 billion years ago, that water can only be turned into wine if you pour it on grapes, wait about a year, pick the harvest and make the wine yourself, that humans can only be cremated, mummified or plasticised, etc. or they will decompose. You get my point.

      As for the ID thing, he talked about it in a recent post here. And since we are discussing the consistency of his beliefs with reality, I think it is actually quite relevant.

      --
      Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
    164. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by Troy · · Score: 3, Interesting
      So who did you turn your thinking over to? What made you a "believer"? A charismatic person? An old book? Indoctrination from your community? Peer pressure?


      Yes, because the only reason someone would hold religious faith is because of indoctrination, peer pressure, or a cult of personality. It also goes without saying that such people have stopped thinking for themselves.

      WOW

      You've hauled out so many tired charicatures of religious faith in so short a time that when I see you accuse someone else of not thinking, the words "plank" and "eye" come to mind.

      Of course, that's a Biblical reference, which outs me as being a religious person as well. Accordingly, you're free to put my comments in whatever pigeonhole makes you most comfortable and continue a happy life of ignorance.

      XOXO,
      Some mindless religious guy
    165. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think that was the answer the priest was looking for. Go back, man. I wouldn't drop something like church on a whim of one instance.

      And don't strawman the people in the church, did you ask them if they honestly believed the light switch was powered by God, or is that your imagination of them?

    166. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by Jim+Starx · · Score: 1

      I'm talking about christianity as a whole, not his particular flavor, because he didn't mention anything about his particular flavor and instead defended christianity as a whole. Most christians do not believe that the earth was created 6000 years ago. They believe that the bible needs interpretation and can't be taken literally meaning they don't necissarily believe in turning water into wine or that the world was flooded. And the belief that Jesus Christ lived 2000 years ago is no more inconsistent with reality then the belief that Ceasar live 1980 years ago. As has been said, most historians do not dispute the fact that a preacher named Jesus who claimed to be the son of god existed.

      --
      The darkness... controls the music. The music... controls the soul.
    167. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by Jim+Starx · · Score: 1
      It's called a comparison, and it definitly supports my side. Mathmatitions 'know' that those theories are true despite the lack of a concrete proof, because they have never been let down by those theories. Similarly many christians 'know' that god exists despite the lack of proof because they have never been let down by their faith.

      I find it equally disturbing when people like yourself or people who do not believe in god comment on the idiocy of believing in god as I do when christians go around preaching about the idiocy of not believing in god. Their viewpoint is no more valid then mine, which is no more valid then yours.

      --
      The darkness... controls the music. The music... controls the soul.
    168. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by danila · · Score: 1

      You raise an interesting (albeit old) question - what to think of those christians, who chose not to believe anything that contradicts reality, but to interpret or abandon altogether the old writings. Well, this phenomenon, called "god of the gaps" was described a long time ago. Even though such beliefs do not contradict the reality directly, they are a manifestation of a weakened mind, with no predictive power or usefulness (beyond feeling warm and nice) - not much better than my belief in a silent and invisible hamster sitting on top of my monitor, capable of moving ultra-quickly to avoid my hand and undetectable by any available method. Does my belief in this mystical creature contradict reality? Not directly. Is it good/useful/deserving respect/etc.? I think not.

      As for Jesus Christ, I would appreciate any references to sources, arguing that "most historians do not dispute the fact that a preacher named Jesus who claimed to be the son of god existed". According to my knowledge of history (however limited it is), there is practically zero reliable evidence that such a person existed, besides the bible, which cannot be considered evidence at all, despite the wishes of some cristians. On the other hand, we have shitloads of historic records, including official documents, private letters, inscriptions, trade documents, statues, paintings, etc., etc. proving the existence of Julius Caesar. We have nothing proving that JC existed, other than billions of crusifixes, none of which are 2k years old and the New Testament, written around the year 100 of our era.

      If you could point out a serious history book written by an acclaimed atheist historian, admitting that JC existed (not claiming that he was son of god, mind you), I would be extremely surprised, as none of the history books I am familiar with (obviously a small fraction of all the history books in existence, but I like to think I didn't chose the least trustworthy ones) tell about this character (but of course, they do speak about christianity and christians).

      --
      Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
    169. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Given what we hear about Christianity, do you think there's room in heaven for a petty, demeaning, and vindictive point of view like yours?

      The warmth I get from your remark is not unlike someone offering to kill me to free me from pain and suffering.

    170. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Oh yes, and I just saved 15% on my car insurance by switching to Geico."

    171. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by kin_korn_karn · · Score: 1

      Kill them with kindness, eh? I'd rather live next to someone that had the balls to stand up for what they believe in.

    172. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by kin_korn_karn · · Score: 1

      yeah, after all, it's new forms of life to witness to. convert those goddamned heathenous martians.

    173. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by ryanwright · · Score: 1

      petty, demeaning, and vindictive point of view like yours?

      Right, because praying that someone's heart would have the hatred removed from it is petty, demeaning, and vindictive.

      --
      -Ryan, with the unoriginal sig
    174. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1
      If he substituted "Buddha" and "Tao", would it make a difference?

      No. The concept of a "god" can be found in some form in every religious faith, so that word is sufficiently generic.

      You are condemning him as a "nut-job" just because he used two key-words specific to his religion.

      No, I'm saying that his argument makes him sound like a nut-job because he references two highly loaded keywords specific to a particular religion which freqently spawns proselytizing weirdos who think it's OK to sell religion door to door. He may not be trying to sound like a nut-job, in which case he might appreciate the observation. If he is a nut-job, then he can move along, no harm done.

      You sound Jesusphobic.

      Nah. Jesus was a cool cat in my book. I just don't much care for people who try to sell me their version of Jesus, telling me I'm going to Hell if I don't buy it. They're offensive jackasses and they suck.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    175. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1
      Your overreacting. They may be irrelevent, and you may have taken them as preaching, the good news part may even be preaching in a very wide sense. But that doesn't at all diffuse his point that he is still a rational person.

      I don't doubt that he's a rational person. I'm just pointing out that it's a very large world out there and many people take a dim view of certain varieties of Christianity and that, when making arguments strictly about faith and god, one's arguments are more likely to be accepted if one avoids religion-specific references.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    176. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1
      Teminology aside I dont think that adhering to the teachings of a man who was known to say such things as "Love thy neighbor as thy self" is all that bad of an idea. From my understanding, Jesus' teachings consist by and large of a philosophy of love and respect which i think are fairly honorable goals. All im saying is you end up looking like just as much an idiot as the christians rying to cram stuff down your throat when you try to cram the exact opposite down theirs. Do I think Christianity is for everyone. NO. But I think that it is probably not a bad thing for alot of people.

      Crimony! All I was trying to point out was that his argument would've been more broadly applicable if he'd left out the references unique to his personal religion. By bringing up the "door-to-door Jesus salesmen", I was trying to illustrate that, even though he has a very positive association with his religion, it is entirely possible for someone else to have a negative association with it. I'm not condemning Jesus' teachings, nor saying that he's wrong to believe in them.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    177. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by Danse · · Score: 1

      LOL! Christians have never been "let down" because they consider everything that happens to be the will of God. It would be similar to a physicist theorizing "I predict that if I do something, something may or may not happen." You can't lose!

      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    178. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by JabberWokky · · Score: 1
      If they are relentlessly telling me that what I believe in is stupid because they have The Truth, I'd rather they lose the balls. And the tongue. In this case, it's two jackasses saying "Ain't no sich thing as God, you weenies".

      Life is too short for overly serious evangelical atheists.

      --
      Evan

      --
      "$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
    179. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by Jim+Starx · · Score: 1
      Well, I certainly have not looked deeply into the subject, but the Wiki page plainly states that historians do not dispute the existance of a man named Jesus. I have also seen several interesting shows contrasting the religious 'son of god' jesus with historical jewish preacher version of jesus. In none of these shows has anyone ever questioned jesus's existence reguardless of that persons personal faith. So I take it as fairly certain that he did exist.

      Also, it's almost universally accepted in religious circles that the Bible must be interpreted. Even christians understand that the bible was written by humans with the intention of converting people to christianity. With that in mind it's obvious that there are going to be some artistic leaps taken. That's the point of sermons at church, to talk about how the bible is interpreted and applied to our world.

      As for your god of the gaps, while the physical existance of your invisible hampster is no more or less provable then the physical existance of god. God certainly has an affect on those who believe in them and it is often a positive one. Does it deserve respect? I tend to believe that everyones beliefs should be respected as long as those beliefs compel a person towards good.

      --
      The darkness... controls the music. The music... controls the soul.
    180. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by Grannie+one · · Score: 1

      Hi, Today I participated in an ecumenical Way of the Cross, and one of the prayers was "Let us pray for those who do not believe in God, that they may find him by sincerely following all that is right."

    181. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by Chacham · · Score: 1

      I can't disprove the tooth fairy either. Is it just as likely to exist then, than not?

      If there are stimuli pointing to that existence, yes.

    182. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by Jim+Starx · · Score: 1

      It doesn't really matter whether you find their reasons satisfactory. They do, and their beliefs are just as valid as yours.

      --
      The darkness... controls the music. The music... controls the soul.
    183. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by Danse · · Score: 1

      By your logic, any belief by anyone anywhere is perfectly valid. Interesting world you live in.

      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    184. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by Jim+Starx · · Score: 1

      When it can't be scientifically tested and has a measurable positive impact on the believer, then yea it is. Damn well should be too.

      --
      The darkness... controls the music. The music... controls the soul.
    185. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by Bobbysmith007 · · Score: 1

      Fair enough. Point taken. My only argument there was that including the word Jesus shouldnt automatically disqualify something as being a valid argument. I definately agree that leaving it out gives the statement much more broad applicability.

      ALSO All hail Cthulu -- Eater of worlds. Now thats the sort of diety I can get into. I mean judging the universe is cool and all but devouring worlds is so much better

    186. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by stonecypher · · Score: 1

      What do you mean "...especially in Italy..."?

      Please drop the stereotype, man, you clearly don't have a clue about Italians.

      If it happened in small town in rural America, people would be acting the same.


      To be fair, American newspapers generally carry quotes from Roman newspapers when we take Italian newspaper quotes, and they usually tip their hat to the Church. We have a severely distorted view of Italy, just like everywhere else, because our media lies to us even more than yours lies to you. I had the chance to tour your country, and am now embarrassed to admit that when I was fourteen, I really expected it to be a strongly devout country, too. Do remember that some countries really are heavily devout.

      Also, no, if it happened in a small town in rural America, people would not be acting the same way. Our small town priests generally don't have the dignity to call for a scientific answer first. We'd probably be blaming it on abortion or gay marriage or blacks on the senate or something.

      --
      StoneCypher is Full of BS
    187. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by stonecypher · · Score: 1

      No. In fact, that's sort of his point. It's that he used one particular religion, rather than religions in general. Swapping which particular religion doesn't make any difference, with the notable exceptions of discordianism, the lamp of the eternal light, or skepticism.

      What he's doing is not to condemn the guy as a nutjob. What he's doing is explaining to the guy how to sound less like a nutjob while making a particularly salient and germane point. Similarly, if someone was making careful and considered criticism of the state of power generation, but referring to them as nucyular reactors and them gas burnin' turbine thingies, I might mention to him that learning the correct names of the devices would do wonders for his credibility.

      The idea that someone is Jesusphobic for pointing out a more careful way to apply criticism to a topic, by doing the appropriate general presentation rather than using a specific example, seems anathema to me. Just like I would do well to make criticism about the state of the music industry in general, and how people would jump all over me if I just said Rap or Country, he's pointing out a way to make more clear and appropriate criticism. Nothing more.

      You, on the other hand, sound like a bible thumper. Jesusphobic? Someone marked that insightful? What is this, ChristDot?

      --
      StoneCypher is Full of BS
    188. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by Danse · · Score: 1

      The placebo effect has long been known. It doesn't mean that sugar pills are real medicine. It just means that if you can trick your mind into believing something, it can sometimes have positive effects. If believing that the universe is a shared hallucination helps some people sleep at night, it still wouldn't make their belief valid. If you can't demonstrate something and get predictable specific results, then it is an unknown. To pretend it isn't is to delude yourself, regardless of whether it has positive side-effects or not. I'm sure many insane people are perfectly happy living in whatever world their mind has created for them.

      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    189. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by rjstanford · · Score: 1

      Also, it's almost universally accepted in religious circles that the Bible must be interpreted. Even christians understand that the bible was written by humans with the intention of converting people to christianity. With that in mind it's obvious that there are going to be some artistic leaps taken. That's the point of sermons at church, to talk about how the bible is interpreted and applied to our world.

      Take a step back and look at that last paragraph, would you? If I was to go purely from what you just said, the Bible is a piece of propoganda. WTF would we gain much by then taking that admitted piece of propoganda and applying it to our world?

      Reminds me of the old joke: An oilman goes to the pearly gates and is told that the section reserved for oilmen is full. He yells through the gates, "Oil found in hell!" All of the oilmen rush out and down to the pit. St. Peter opens up the gates for him, and he says, "Well, thanks, but I think I'll just follow them down - there might be some truth to that rumor after all!"

      Its the same thing, really. You concede that the Bible was written with one intent - to convince people to believe in Christianity. Why then, if this is true, should they then start believing their own marketing hype? That, to me, makes very little sense.

      --
      You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
    190. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by Jim+Starx · · Score: 1

      Haha, of course it's an unknown. That's the point. This is a belief, not a fact.

      --
      The darkness... controls the music. The music... controls the soul.
    191. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by stonecypher · · Score: 1

      you're free to put my comments in whatever pigeonhole makes you most comfortable

      Tu quoque. That said, I've got a pretty good pigeonhole; why not try this on for size?

      My beliefs lie in science. I refuse to take any stance on religion, either pro- or anti-; I am as likely to challenge someone that says concretely that there is not a god as I am to challenge one that says there is. I see no reason to believe that if there's an omnipotent creator, that Quantuum Mechanics might be the result of God and his friends getting really baked one night and saying "dude, a universe that worked on probability, that'd be sick, you could make an excellent bong from that, (dennis leary sounds)." Or perhaps that Lovecraft/White Wolf are correct, and that reality is changing with time, according to consensus.

      In some ways, science can be compared to a religion. It's a system of rules which define cause and effect, results, ramifications, even penalties sometimes. It most importantly provides answers - reasons why things happen, ways to handle the otherwise terrifying future, chance. In some ways it can't be; there's no deep conscience, no guiding set of principles for good behavior, no admonishment to do the right thing, no reward for being a good person.

      Note, though, that I've left out the question of faith. In many ways, science is faith. I just sort of trust in the results of the Large Hadron Collider, and I don't frequently question bioengineering firms. I believe that there is such a thing as a mitochondrion, and that it is the mechanism which uses degenerate sugar to fuel my body. When people say that reproduction is the result of gametes and genetic exchange, not the sharing of fragments of a soul, I nod, smile, and it all makes lots of sense to me, even though I've never seen it, never checked it, never questioned it. It is how I was raised. My father taught me those things and like a dutiful son I assumed him to simply be correct. It's been so long that now, when I see something happen, science is always the rules set by which I try to resolve the event, and I have no alternative rules set on which to fall back.

      That said, I was also raised on history, and as such I am familiar with the previous "sciences" we've had; Principles became Mechanics became Engineering became Newtonian Physics became Quantuum Mechanics, and we're on the verge (IMO) of replacing those soon too. Healing became herbalism became alchemy became chemistry. The string for mathematics is hugely long.

      The short version is that I am aware that my faith could be wrong. As such, I take pains to understand where it came from. I got it from my parents, from books, from classes, from the media. Knowing where it comes from does not denigrate the faith. But, unless you independantly arrived at the beliefs that happen to also be in the bible, they did come from somewhere.

      I believe in physics, and that comes from a book and my parents. It didn't come from my study, work or creativity. Similarly, you did not invent Christianity, unless you're indeed a very old member of SlashDot.

      Why is it that the people who are most defensive of their faith see the worst in what they're asked? All he asked you is if you learned it straight from the bible, from a priest, from your parents, from friends or a youth group, a teacher, or a sign-waving zealot on the highway median.

      and continue a happy life of ignorance.

      Don't presume you're correct. Your faith is faith, not fact. This is inflammatory, and representative of the charicatures you so loudly complain about being pigeonholed into. For being a religion that misses two out of three people on Earth, the zealots still sure do act like they saw it themselves.

      --
      StoneCypher is Full of BS
    192. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by Jim+Starx · · Score: 1
      You concede that the Bible was written with one intent - to convince people to believe in Christianity

      Put your straw man away, I conceded that that may have been one of the intents. It's religion, everyone is trying to convert everyone to their own side.

      --
      The darkness... controls the music. The music... controls the soul.
    193. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by Danse · · Score: 1

      Yep, it's a belief. You can believe things that are true and things that aren't true. You can believe things that we have no idea whether they are true or not. Just because you believe something doesn't mean that it makes sense or that it's real or that it should be taken even remotely serious by anyone else. Back to the original point now. Believing that God exists is not a credible position because there is no evidence of it. There is some evidence that believing in a benevolent force or being of some kind can sometimes have some sort of positive effect on someone. That's not the same thing as evidence for the existence of that force or being. There is also no evidence that God (or the equivalent) does not exist. Therefore adhering to the belief that God does not exist lacks credibility in the same way. So, that leaves us with the position of agnosticism as the remaining path. One that acknowledges that we have no idea whether God really exists or not, and while you may get some benefit from either belieiving or not believing, neither position is logically defensible. So you believe because it suits you to believe. Now if only religious people had always accepted this point, perhaps we wouldn't have had to deal with thousands of years of violence.

      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    194. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by Jim+Starx · · Score: 1

      Again, proof is not a reasonable requirment for a credible belief.

      --
      The darkness... controls the music. The music... controls the soul.
    195. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by Danse · · Score: 1

      Not absolute proof, but at least strong evidence. Believers and disbelievers alike have neither. That is why their beliefs fall naturally under the category of "incredible beliefs".

      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    196. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by Troy · · Score: 1

      If someone asks me an actual question about how I came to faith, I answer it graciously, even if the question was posed in a skeptical manner. The original poster was hardly complementary of any religious faith and prefaced that particular question with "So who did you turn your thinking over to?" The language he used in his question (charismatic person, old book, indoctrination and peer pressure) are also hardly complementary. In fact it was hardly a question at all, for questions are asked to obtain knowledge. Rather, this individual was simply making a statement in the form of a question.

      As far as the rest of my comments go, do not misunderstand them. They were not directed at atheists and agnostics in general. I happen to be on good terms with a large number of thoughtful atheists and have had contact with many others. Likewise, my statements were also not intended as a statement about the certain truth of religious faith. I am as certain of my own faith as I am everything else in my life -- I operate believing it is true, but always acknowledge that I could be wrong.

      Instead, my comments were directed at that individual in particular and everyone else who operates under the stereotype that religious faith is nothing more than simply a sickness that for the frightened and weak minded.

    197. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Atheistic humanism is as much of a religion as anything else,

      If you incorrectly define a religion as "any belief system" then it can be. However, religion is restricted to belief systems that involve God or gods. I'd never heard of "Atheistic humanism." I suppose it sounds like a hateful perversion of "secular humanism." The goal of secular humanism is to teach that kindness needn't be done out of fear of going to Hell, but because you wish to creat a better world. But then, it seems that all the popular religious figures in the media fear a world where they don't get to dictate morality, so they try to pervert secular humanism to something that only godless people believe. Thankfully, I'm not so narrow minded.

    198. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Right, because praying that someone's heart would have the hatred removed from it is petty, demeaning, and vindictive.

      I don't think it was the praying that he thought was vindictive, but comments like:

      Of course, there's the 7 years of hell on Earth you'll get to endure.

      Of course, nearly every generation has thought that Rapture would be within their lifetime, but so far everyone has been wrong, so chances are he won't see it from Earth.

    199. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by Tripster · · Score: 1

      Interesting response and I'll come back with answers or comments on the 3 points you found.

      1) Could not all of those events have happened out of your own resourcefulness? Luck? Random chance?

      I have a wife and we didn't need Jesus to help us meet, sure if we'd met through a mutual faith group I could point at him but we didn't and we still met.

      I do feel you are free to use your faith for your life events but I'd be wary of using them to explain your life events entirely.

      2) It also does not make them correct does it? These are faiths, they rely on the followers having faith in something with no real proof or evidence to support what they are being asked to believe.

      3) If we're so special and "chosen by God" then why are we so late at appearing on the planet? Our scientific research is showing us evolution is the most likely path to where we are now, this conflicts with the "then God made man" part of the bible entirely.

      The only effect this seems to have on modern religion is they change the story as they go along, oh now the bible isn't meant to be taken that literally but it sure was back in the day of burning heretics and witches. Burning heretics and witches is a pretty convenient method of getting rid of those who may not believe in your beliefs, let's not forget the Church ran many countries for many years and persecution was a fact of life for anyone who may have had alternative thoughts.

      I don't have a problem with religious believers, as long as they practice to themselves, I do have a problem when people like George W. Bush think they're on some mission from God and they happen to be running one of the most powerful nations to ever exist on our world.

    200. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by Jim+Starx · · Score: 1

      By your standards it does. But your standards do not apply to their beliefs.

      --
      The darkness... controls the music. The music... controls the soul.
    201. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by HuguesT · · Score: 1

      The thing that worries me with your post is that you may well be 100% completely right, but what if you are not? Which is the path to God? How to tell?

      Inside the Christian faiths there are lots of incompatible variants: Catholics, Anglicans, Lutherians, Southern Baptists & whatnot. What about the Jehovah Withnesses, or the Mormons? Or even the Scientologists? Is it enough to believe that Jesus is the son of God? some say yes, some say no. In past centuries it was common practice to burn at stake all the heretics without a single thought. What do you think of this practice?

      What if the Jews are right? What if Islam is the one true religion? What if the Hindus are right?

      Admit it is at least a little confusing.

    202. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by Danse · · Score: 1

      credible (krd-bl) adj.

      1. Capable of being believed; plausible. See Synonyms at plausible.

      2. Worthy of confidence; reliable.

      plausible (plôz-bl) adj.

      1. Seemingly or apparently valid, likely, or acceptable; credible: a plausible excuse.

      Ok, given those definitions, I think that we agree that you can believe in the existence or non-existence of God. However, neither belief qualifies under the second definition, nor do they fit the definition of plausible since there is absolutely no way to verify them and there is little to no evidence to support those beliefs.

      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    203. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by danila · · Score: 1

      This particular wiki page is clearly biased. And even then it doesn't disprove what I said - that new testament is basically the only proof of jesus existence. This may be alright for christians, but usually not enought for a real scientist (unless they live in a thoroughly christian country and are greatly influenced by that). And the claim of "majority of scientists" is clealrly bullshit, and even more so if we mean "the majority of historians specialising in ~1 century".

      As for interpretation, last time I checked, every word of the bible was written by the god. That's the only thing that makes it worth reading it. I mean, there are thousands holy books written by humans. If bible is nothing more than that, we can't trust a word from it. And if you allow interpretation, you remove all predictive power and all usefullness from it. If tomorrow we finally find a convincing proof that Jesus didn't, in fact exist, a proof so compelling that even the Pope agrees, do you think christians will just break up? No, the priests will say that the new testament is an allegory, that it should be interpreted, that even though jesus didn't come to Earth, he is clearly in our heart and metaforically he did die for us, etc. What are christians supposed to believe in? Is there anything in the bible that we can be be 99% sure of? If anything is subject to interpretation, then there is zero information content, like in Nostradamus quatrains - you can assign any meaning to it. And for a rational person that means the bible is a crock of shit.

      I tend to believe that everyones beliefs should be respected as long as those beliefs compel a person towards good.
      This depends on our definitions of "respect", "compel", "good", etc. And it is my opinion that the net effect of christianity is negative. What benefit we get in the form of people, who do good, because they believe in god, is outweighed by religion trying to sway the society in the wrong direction (in practically every imaginable field, from geopolitics to stem cell research).

      And don't forget that there is no proof that all those nice cristians (as opposed to evil cristians, who kill in the name of god, fire thousands of workers, pollute rivers, kill kittens, etc.) are nice because they believe. I suspect that most of them will remain nice even if they suddenly become atheists. After all, I have never seen a psychologist arguing that personality depends on religion - they always mention genetic traits, upbringing, family, school, education, but never religion specifically.

      Ask any christian - will he stop doing good if they find out there is no god? I suspect most would say they will continue living pretty much in the same way.

      --
      Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
    204. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by danila · · Score: 1

      And, as research shows, you don't need to believe yourself to convert others. There have been some studies of Anglican priests that showed how as much as 50% of them didn't believe in some of the main tenets of christianity (don't remember the details, one particular thing was the virgin birth of the christ). Isn't that funny? :)

      --
      Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
    205. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by Jim+Starx · · Score: 1
      The NPoV of the Wiki article is not under suspition. So I tend to take that as a more credible source then you.

      The bible was not written by God, I've never met any Christians who seriosly believed that. There's the Old Testament and the New Testament. The Old Testament has many authors and is said to be the transcription of many years of oral tradition. Some say that the new testament is said to be written by Jesus's disciples, others say it was written by authors who knew the disciples and recorded their story, sometimes using the others gospels as a source. In either case. I have never met a christian who thought the bible was written by god.

      If anything is subject to interpretation, then there is zero information content

      Wrong. The bible is considered by most to be allegorical.

      And it is my opinion that the net effect of christianity is negative ... religion [trys] to sway the society in the wrong direction

      That's a perfectly valid opinion, I'm not going to argue that. But it would be a fallacy of division to argue that every individual christian has a negative effect. Also keep in mind that what you consider to be the wrong direction does not coincide with what they consider to be the wrong direction.

      Getting back to the central issue. I'm not saying anyone should be christian. I'm not even christian. All I'm saying is that there is no undisputable evidence either for or against the faith. If people choose to believe then that is their choice. Their belief that God does exist is no more valid then anothers belief that god doesn't exist.

      --
      The darkness... controls the music. The music... controls the soul.
    206. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by Jim+Starx · · Score: 1

      That would be your interpretation. Christian's obviously see their belief as 'Seemingly or apparently valid' so their interpretation would differ from yours.

      --
      The darkness... controls the music. The music... controls the soul.
    207. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by Danse · · Score: 1

      valid \Val"id\, a.

      1. Strong; powerful; efficient. [Obs.] ``Perhaps more valid arms . . . may serve to better us.'' --Milton.

      2. Having sufficient strength or force; founded in truth; capable of being justified, defended, or supported; not weak or defective; sound; good; efficacious; as, a valid argument; a valid objection. An answer that is open to no valid exception. --I. Taylor.

      3. (Law) Having legal strength or force; executed with the proper formalities; incapable of being rightfully overthrown or set aside; as, a valid deed; a valid covenant; a valid instrument of any kind; a valid claim or title; a valid marriage.

      So, apparently Christians are simply deluded since they have no evidence with which to defend their faith (note that it's called faith precisely because there is no real evidence). Just because they believe it, doesn't make it credible or valid. You're putting the cart before the horse.

      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    208. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by Jim+Starx · · Score: 1

      Capable of being defended != capable of being proven. A defensable position in terms of faith is one that can not be proven incorrect. The fact that they cannot prove their beliefs as true to you is irrelevent. Your beliefs do not affect the validity of their faith.

      --
      The darkness... controls the music. The music... controls the soul.
    209. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by danila · · Score: 1

      The NPoV of the Wiki article is not under suspition. So I tend to take that as a more credible source then you.

      Well, in "The historicity of Jesus" there is only one paragraph out of nine describing the "mythological school". This is clearly not NPoV. A more detailed article has the same quote ("Most historians do not dispute the existence of a person named Jesus"), but fails to give any reliable evidence (and the low value of such evidence is openly admitted in other articles, such as the one on Tacitus). Given the nature of Wikipedia, I would suspect that "Most historians..." was inserted by a Christian, trying to promote his point of view. To check for that I would need to delve deep into the history of the article, for which I sadly don't have the time now.

      I have never met a christian who thought the bible was written by god.
      Well it would be more precise for me to say that very often every word of the Bible is considered to be inspired by God, not directly written by him. Otherwise, we have little to no reasons to believe anything written in there.

      Wrong. The bible is considered by most to be allegorical.
      And so the information content would be zero. Allergory is not information, it's merely someone's opinion on some topics.

      That's a perfectly valid opinion, I'm not going to argue that. But it would be a fallacy of division to argue that every individual christian has a negative effect.
      You are correct. I agree that there are some christians in this world who have positive effect, that there are some christians, for which their beliefs have benefits and some christians, who are better for the society because of their beliefs. Would be hard to argue about that. In the same venue, there are probably also some people, who were victims of rape and who are better off now because of that.

      If people choose to believe then that is their choice.
      First of all, very often it's not their choice, especially in predominantly christian societies (ditto for muslim countries). If you have ever had a Brazilian friend, you would know how everyone is made a believer from the birth and nobody even tells a child that he has a choice. An atheist, especially an open atheist is still a rare creature in Brazil. There is no choice, that's all. Still, when a person makes a conscious choice to believe, that's their right and I do respect it to some extent.

      Their belief that God does exist is no more valid then anothers belief that god doesn't exist.
      That's not true. We have a lot of indirect evidence that there is no god and the world is governed by laws of nature. We have a lot of evidence that the world was created also because of laws of nature (albeit we are still learning). We have tons of facts and knowledge on how religions emerge. We also have thousands of religions and since they all contradict each other we have a reason to believe that most of them are false. At the same time, we have zilch evidence for the existence of god. All in all, we have a very good understanding of how the world, life and us were created, of how religious beliefs emerged and evolved, of how old testament was written and then new testament, of how these religious texts evolved and were interpreted. None of this requires a belief in god. As Laplace famously proclamed to Napoleon, "I have no need for this hypothesis." So my belief that there is no god is clearly more valid than someone's beliefs that there is one (or several). If you want to argue otherwise, please consider first my invisible hamster (I feel that he is watching me right now) and tell me if my belief in him is less valid than someone's belief in JC and if so, why.

      --
      Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
    210. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by Jim+Starx · · Score: 1
      I'm not going to argue about the wiki article. All I will say is that changes in articles are reviewed fairly quickly by others. If NPoV is suspect the article will clearly state that. Choose to believe the article or not, its relevence to the discussion is minimal at best.

      Allergory is not information, it's merely someone's opinion on some topics ... so the information content [of the bible] would be zero.

      An allegory is a figurative representation conveying a meaning other than and in addition to the literal. [wiki] (emphasis mine)
      Thus the information is there, it just requires interpretation.

      there are probably also some people, who were victims of rape and who are better off now because of that
      I doubt that, and its a stupid example anyway. You would be hard pressed to make a common sense argument in favor of rape.

      If people choose to believe then that is their choice.
      First of all, very often it's not their choice...

      Irrelevent, I'm sure you know why.....

      We have a lot of indirect evidence that there is no god and the world is governed by laws of nature
      God and the laws of nature are not mutually exclusive. The existance of natural laws does preclude the possibility of a being capable of breaking those laws, nor does it exclude the possibility that a being created those laws in the process of creating our reality. There are two options. a) Reality is infinite, is here, allways has been here, and allways will be here reguardless of whether we or our universe exist in it or not. b) Reality was created by a supreme being. Scientific knowledge has advanced signifigantly in understanding the present state of our reality and the existance/creation of our universe inside that reality. There is not now nor has there ever been any scientific evidence about the genesis of our reality. I would venture a guess that in keeping with Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem it is impossible for science to provide us with that knowledge. Anyway, 2 choices, a and b. Neither can be proven nor disproven; neither conflict with our perception of reality. Therefore while you are entitled to believe in your side, your belief is no more valid then the beliefs of those who support the other side.

      --
      The darkness... controls the music. The music... controls the soul.
    211. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by Danse · · Score: 1

      Wrong. There are no special rules for defensibility just because you're talking about faith. Faith is faith because it lacks evidence. A defensible position has to have some sort of defense. Faith has no defenses. It has no evidence. Therefore it is not defensible. It is simply faith.

      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    212. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by Jim+Starx · · Score: 1

      They believe it to be true and they cannot be proven wrong. That is a defensible position.

      --
      The darkness... controls the music. The music... controls the soul.
    213. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by Danse · · Score: 1

      No it isn't. They don't try to defend it with anything. It's just something that they believe despite the fact that there is really no evidence for it. That isn't a defensible position. That's willful mass delusion.

      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    214. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by danila · · Score: 1

      I doubt that, and its a stupid example anyway. You would be hard pressed to make a common sense argument in favor of rape.
      It's an allegory. :) The point is - just because some things are good for some people doesn't mean they will be good for everyone and for society in general.

      Irrelevent, I'm sure you know why.....
      Explain, please. We are discussing whether religious beliefs should be tolerated. One argument for that is people make their own choice and we ought to respect that. If it happens that people do not make the choice, but are forced to adopt religion, it removes one of the reasons to respect religious beliefs. I think it is very relevant.

      God and the laws of nature are not mutually exclusive.
      You make three serious blunders.

      1) You ignore the Bayes theorem. Assume we have several hypothesis, some of which involve gods that may have ifluence and some don't. Then after each experiement that fails to provide evidence for the existence of god the probability that god hypothesises are true decreases. As of today, they are basically zero. The only class of hypothesises including god that are not invalidated in this way are those that argue god may not have any direct effect on our reality (at most he could have created the universe and collect our souls when we die). But the bible strongly argues that he can have a lot of direct contact with us.

      2) You use the false dilemma fallacy. There are more than two options represented by existing scientific theories. And there is a lot of evidence supporting some of these theories. Take for example the results of the background microwave radiation study. The hypothesis including god does not make any predictions about background radiation and its distribution. Some scientific theories, on the other hand, correctly predict it. And so, in accordance with the Bayes theorem, the probability of god's existance decreases. The same happens every time another scientific theory proves to be better than religion. All that doesn't reduce probability that god exists precisely to zero, but it decrease it a lot (to nearly zero, although that depends on the initial probabilities you assign to god vs. no god theories).

      3) Godel's theorem is absolutely irrelevant here. I suggest you read something about it (BTW, how did you manage to insert a diacritic symbol in a Slashdot post? I though it was impossible.)

      A simply analogy is the story about green crows. One theory is that all crows are black and some few albino crows are white. Another theory is that someone (may be god) created some green crows. Theory of probability shows how every time you see a black crow, the first theory is supported. Once you see a green crow, the second theory is proved. There are, of course, alternative theories, such as "green crows only live in Australia", "green crows hide during the day", etc. But once the possibilities for such prop theories are exausted, once we see a sufficient number of black crows in different environment, the chances that there are any green crows are reduced to extremely small. Same happens with gods. Chances that there are gods in our Universe are extremely small based on the evidence we have. There may be gods outside of our Universe, unable to influence our world in any way - that's possible, if someone wants to believe that. But that is extremely far from what any real religions tell.

      --
      Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
    215. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by ponxx · · Score: 1

      > The original poster was hardly complementary of any religious faith and prefaced that
      > particular question with "So who did you turn your thinking over to?" [...]

      This was a direct quote from your post:
      > If you're dumb enough to turn over your thinking to a religious
      > Pope/Evangelist/whatever, that's your idiocy, not God's.

      In fact it was you who called everyone "dumb" who based their faith on the teaching of a "Pope/Evangelist/whatever". Hence I believe that my question was perfectly justified and worded in a manner consistent with your style.

      For me one of the most intruiging things about religions is the difference between a "religion" and a "cult". A lot of christians will (rightfully) warn people of cult leaders who make unsubstantiated promises and ask for money in return (or sometimes just people's times), perform rites of some sort etc. etc. I have many religious friends and some of them are of the opinion that the main difference between their religion and a cult is that "my religion is true, and their cult isn't". In fact many evangelical christians call the catholic church a cult, etc. etc. which brings us back to planks etc...

      Anyway, to come back to my point, you accused a large number of religious people of being dumb for believing things because a "pope/evangelist/whatever" told them. I was wondering in which way your faith differs from that.

      > Instead, my comments were directed at that individual in particular and everyone else who
      > operates under the stereotype that religious faith is nothing more than simply a sickness
      > that for the frightened and weak minded.

      That, I never said. I believe religious faith is a superstition that makes it easier to explain the world. Just like you can "explain" your good and bad luck with any number of weird superstitions (cats, ladders and mirrors come to mind).

      The human mind is as succesful as it is by trying to "make sense" of events, understanding cause and effect, that it finds it difficult to handle the concept of "chance" or "randomness". In some cases it is much easier to believe in a "great plan" that transcends our experience than to accept the inherent randomness and "unfairness" of the world.

      So anyway, I don't see anything inherently wrong with having such superstitions, and i'm sure it can make life a lot more comforting and easier.

      When it starts going much beyond that and leads people to declare that they would die defending their faith if they had to, then i think it's getting dangerous...

    216. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by Jim+Starx · · Score: 1
      just because some things are good for some people doesn't mean they will be good for everyone and for society in general
      It doesn't mean it's bad either. And again were not talking about christianity in general. This argument stems from a discussion about one persons faith and about the validity on one persons faith. Not about the positive or negative effects of christianity as a whole.

      1) Bayes' theorem can only be applied to problems in which all statements are about experimental variables alone, and therefore some non-probabilistic inference mechanism must be used to reason about any other kind of statement. [wiki]
      This is not a situation where Bayes' Theorem applies. For starters this is non-probablistic situation. More information then just the probability of god goes into the decision to believe in god. Also you cannot test for the existence of god so any application of those test to the existance of that God is inconclusive. Also refer to the prosecutor's fallacy, even if Bayes theorum applied a low probability of god does not denote a low probability that the belief in god is incorrect.

      2) This is not a bifurication because we are talking about a boolean question. Does god exist or does god not exist, yes or no? If I were to say did god create the universe or did the big bang happen that would be a bifurication because of the existence of genisis theories involving neither god nor a big bang. But because I center the issue on the existence of a supreme being all the scientific theories are represented in the choice of non-existance.

      3) I brought it up, I don't need to read about it. It was only brought up in passing anyway, certainly not deserving of it's own number; go reread my post.

      The theory of green cows includes the existence of black and white cows. Everytime you see a black cow you witness an event that is consistent with both theories, neither probability is reduced.

      --
      The darkness... controls the music. The music... controls the soul.
    217. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by Jim+Starx · · Score: 1

      Defense does not need proof. Attack needs proof. For a position to be considered defensible one only needs to be able survive an attack. Your arguments that god does not exist are an attack. But you cannot prove that god does not exist therefore the theorum that god does exist survives the attack.

      --
      The darkness... controls the music. The music... controls the soul.
    218. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by danila · · Score: 1

      The theory of green cows includes the existence of black and white cows. Everytime you see a black cow you witness an event that is consistent with both theories, neither probability is reduced.
      The "green" theory predicts says that the probability of this particular cow (or crow) being black or white is P, where P1. The "b/w" theory says the probability is 1. Let's say that before the experiment a priori probability of "green" being correct is A and probability of "b/w" being correct is 1-A (assuming there are no other theories).
      Now let's have an experiment. Look at a random cow. If it is black, a posteriori probability of "green" theory being correct is equal to (A * P)/1 = A*P. A posteriory probability of "b/w" being correct is (1-A)*1/1 = 1-A. After normalisation the probability of "green" is A*P/(A*P + 1-A) and the probability of "b/w" is (1-A)/(A*P + 1-A). It is trivial to show that the probability of "green" is now less than A, while the probability of "b/w" is greater than 1-A.

      So although a black cow is consistent with both theories, every time you see it, the probability of "green" theory being correct decreases.

      As for applicability of the Bayes theorem, I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be applied here. First, we are not discussing whether one SHOULD believe on god, but merely whether such beliefs (and atheistic) are consistent with reality. Same applies to the existence test - it is just not important and there are some tests anyway (supposedly he might eventually come here and solve the question once and for all). Finally, regarding the prosecutor's fallacy, there is no reason to believe that a priory probability of god's existence is high (before we consider our history, humans, etc., what is more plausible - that the world emerged as a result of a random vacuum fluctuation or that that there always was a god who created the world? I'd say the god hypothesis smells too much like bullshit). Furthermore, the a priori probability is irrelevant for the question at hand - which beliefs are consistent. As I said, Bayes theorem shows that god hypothesis is less consistent with reality than "laws of nature" hypothesis. Every day that passes is another proof that there is no god. It can never be conclusive, but that doesn't matter this proof is irrelevant.

      --
      Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
    219. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by Jim+Starx · · Score: 1
      You're scewing the math. You use 1-A as the probability that the green method is correct and then insert that into your equation. But what you need to insert into the equation is the probability of viewing a green cow if green is correct. That probability, depending on which cow worshiper you ask, is going to either be zero or infinitely close to zero. If the existence of a green cow is a 100% certainty the probability of your viewing one is still going to be infinitely close or equal to zero. Hence the prosecutorial fallacy, your probability of zero or infinitely close to zero does not enhance your case because it is identical or infinitly close to the probability determined if the converse is true.

      This test was not designed to be applied to this type of situation. The test was designed to determine one probability given another. For instance if we had a farm with two cow pens, one with 100 b/w cows and one with 99 b/w cows and one green cow, and we had one of our farmhands pull a cow out of one of the pens and show it to us, and it happened to be a b/w cow, we could determine the probability for the cow coming from either pen. But the probability of the cow coming from either pen does not prove where the cow came from, nor is the existence of god accurately modeled by a farm with 99 b/w cows and 1 green cow. God cannot be 'pulled from the pen' so to speak. Also the test is intended as a one time test of probability, it should not be applied cumulatively to reduce to zero.

      Also, because we are debating whether such beliefs are consistent with reality your test example is misplaced. If god were to come here and answer the question that would certainly prove his existence, but that is not a test that god exists, that is a proof that god exists. It does not qualify as a test because you can't instigate that action. A test to prove gods non-existance would be a situation, that is within your power to create, of which at least one of the outcomes is possible only if there is no god. There is no such situation, so you can't disprove the existence of god. Thus belief in god is valid. You can claim that the god hypothesis smells like bullshit but that is a belief, not a fact. Any conclusions you make based on that belief are no more or less valid then the conclusions made by an individual who believes the opposite.

      Also I believe I forgot to respond to this from your previous post:

      We are discussing whether religious beliefs should be tolerated. One argument for that is people make their own choice and we ought to respect that. If it happens that people do not make the choice, but are forced to adopt religion, it removes one of the reasons to respect religious beliefs. I think it is very relevant

      Someone being forced into a particular religion is outside the scope of this debate because that person does not truly believe, he is forced to live his life as if he believes. If you want to debate that issue we can but I have a feeling that would be a pretty boring debate. Were both going to agree that forcing any belief on anyone is wrong, even christians (at least the non-radical ones) will agree with that. But the possibility of a belief being forced on someone is not a cause to not respect that belief in people who hold it by their own choice. This discussion is about the validity of faith in god vs. the validity in believing that there is no god. I believe them to be equal.

      --
      The darkness... controls the music. The music... controls the soul.
    220. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In some ways, science can be compared to a religion.

      In many ways, science is faith...

      No, no, no. The only way science can be compared to religion is that they are both English words. Science is based on facts and only facts. Religion is based on faith. There is no way to prove any part of the following: "God created the Earth in 6 days". If you believe this statement, then you are taking it only, only, on faith. Faith that whomever told you (book, person, 'God from the heavens') told you the truth. Science, on the other hand, involves a way for one person to describe events in a way that others can reproduce what they describe. You can prove what a hypothesis states. Anyone can take the time, learn the arts, and prove for themselves if what you say is true or not. Granted one cannot learn everything or reproduce and fact-check everything, so you have the option of taking what a scientific authority gives as truth. The difference though is that nothing is stopping you from proving something if you question it's validity. That is the difference between science and religion. Never confuse the two.

    221. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by Danse · · Score: 1

      Well, aside from the fact that I haven't argued that God does not exist, the burden of proof cannot rest with the attacking side because you can't prove a negative. It's impossible. So by positioning the argument in that way, it just demonstrates that the only way that your claims can hold up would be to put the other side in a position of doing the impossible. That's why the scientific method works the way it does. You must create a theory and predict something specific based on your theory. If it works, then great. Your theory holds up so far. If it doesn't, then you're wrong. Religions make all sorts of claims, but never provide any predictions that can be tested.

      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    222. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by Jim+Starx · · Score: 1

      Religion is not science, it does not need to conform to the ideas of science. If someone holds a religious belief and you can't prove them wrong, then their belief is valid. I am aware that you cannot disprove the existence of god as well as the fact that you cannot prove the existance of god. If factual proofs were possible religion wouldn't be a question as it is today. The only proofs available are personal ones which is why the conclusions they reach are deemed beliefs and not facts.

      --
      The darkness... controls the music. The music... controls the soul.
    223. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by FictionPimp · · Score: 1
      I actually took the time to look it up.

      INANNA

      Now I dont feel damed forever for my lack of memory :-p

    224. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by Danse · · Score: 1

      You still don't grasp the meaning of the words "valid", "credible", or "plausible". Believing in something that has no evidence is the same as believing in flying pink space unicorns with lasers attached to their heads. You can believe it all you want, but it's never going to be credible.

      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    225. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by danila · · Score: 1

      If the existence of a green cow is a 100% certainty the probability of your viewing one is still going to be infinitely close or equal to zero.
      What you are saying here is that not only are there no tests of gods' existence, there is also infinitely small amount of evidence for that even if they do in fact exist. I'd like to know what do you base this on. If we are to believe the bible, then god interefered with the world quite often. Sometimes directly, by appearing to humans, sending angels or causing clearly supernatural events, and sometimes through prayers (which were answered in the bible pretty much with 100% reliability). It seems reasonable to extrapolate that to this day and assume that if god existed, he would be showing himself here pretty often.

      A sidenote: you can use probability theory even with non random possibilities that aren't tests - what is necessary is for the outcomes to comply with Kholmogorov axioms (or something like that).

      Any conclusions you make based on that belief are no more or less valid then the conclusions made by an individual who believes the opposite.
      You keep stating that god/no god hypothesises are equal, as if you can somehow prove it. But the assumption you make about 50/50 probabilities is dubious. Think of it, what if we state a thousand hypothesises - one for each religion and one for atheism. Will all of them have 0.1% chance of being true, even the christian one (which christian, by the way?)?

      I think that such a simple approach is unlikely to wield useful results. In the beginning we need to utilize some heuristics, even "higher being is needed to create order" is better than just assigning 1/n to each of n possibilities. The Occam Razor is one such heuristic. Sure, it doesn't (and can't) prove that there is no god, but it is useful to assign a priori probabilities. And with recent mathematical research (such as ANKOS by Wolfram and a theory by a group of Russian mathematicians from Novosibirsk) we know that there is a possibility that the basic rules of our world are determined by mathematics, thus there is no need for any external force to create the Universe, it emerges from the basic principles (that's only a possibility though, and not developed enough yet).

      Someone being forced into a particular religion is outside the scope of this debate because that person does not truly believe, he is forced to live his life as if he believes.
      That's clearly not true. People believe what they are told - that's natural. This is not the same as forcing, it's persuading. And most people are lacking in rationality and intelligence, that's a fact. If they were to become victims of religious brainwashing, their chances of escaping unscathed would be very low. Most believers (and may be most atheists, but I suspect the percentage would be higher among believers) are even incapable of understanding (often reading) the bible (other holy books) itself, they rely on what the clergy tells them. You can make those suckers believe pretty much everything - witness the popularity of paranormal and any political campaign.

      I have no respect for beliefs of such people. If you were a christian, I would respect your beliefs, because you clearly put at least a tiny bit of thought into that. But when some illiterate, irrational, stupid moronic idiot says "there is god", I want to punch him in the face, cut his balls off and finally shoot him with a machinegun, because even my tolerance has its limits.

      --
      Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
    226. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by Jim+Starx · · Score: 1

      You still don't grasp the diffrence between concrete factual evidence and anecdotal evidence. Concrete factual evidence is not required to produce a valid belief.

      --
      The darkness... controls the music. The music... controls the soul.
    227. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by Jim+Starx · · Score: 1
      What you are saying here is that not only are there no tests of gods' existence, there is also infinitely small amount of evidence for that even if they do in fact exist

      Not evidence, I said there's an infinately small amount of chance that god would appear to you. There are diffrent types of evidence required for diffrent types of judgements. To prove for certain that there is a god the evidence required for that proof would have to be factual and emperical. To believe that there is a god the evidence needs only to be anecdotal and can be a judgement based on the combining of other such beliefs.

      If we are to believe the bible, then god interefered with the world quite often. Sometimes directly, by appearing to humans, sending angels or causing clearly supernatural events, and sometimes through prayers (which were answered in the bible pretty much with 100% reliability). It seems reasonable to extrapolate that to this day and assume that if god existed, he would be showing himself here pretty often.

      Not necisarily. Not even christians agree 100% that the bible can be taken as a historical record, but we've already covered that topic. If we assume (for the sake of this line of reasoning) that it can be taken as historically accurate we can also assume that the purpose of the bible is to document gods interaction with this world. The bible would not mention the people who prayed and weren't answered for one reason or another, nor would it mention the vast periods of time in which god did not interfere with the world. There is no reason to assume that god would actively interfere with a world in which humans have largely learned to take care of ourselves (in comparison to the time of the bible that is...).

      You keep stating that god/no god hypothesises are equal, as if you can somehow prove it. But the assumption you make about 50/50 probabilities is dubious. Think of it, what if we state a thousand hypothesises - one for each religion and one for atheism. Will all of them have 0.1% chance of being true, even the christian one (which christian, by the way?)?

      I have never claimed to be able to prove it. All I am claiming is that you cannot disprove them. If you can't disprove any of them then you can't claim that your beliefs are superior to them. In short yes, I believe that all religious beliefs are valid, no one is more or less likely then the other. Also you can't exactly seperate every religion into it's own catagory. Not all religions are mutually exclusive. The Abrahamic religions (Christian, Jewish, Islamic) all stem from some of the same texts. They all believe in the same god as well as the existance of a person named Jesus. The split comes in the diffrences of approach that the believers follow, differing opinions on the role of Jesus as well as on biblical cannon. Many religions believe that the one god is simply represented in diffrent forms to diffrent people who believe in diffrent things and thus create diffrent religions. We've also only covered organized religions. As much as they claim to, the church does not have a monopoly on interpreting the bible. There are many people who are 'spiritual', not 'religious', because they believe in a god but do not subscribe to any organized religion. I put the question in terms of higher power or no higher power because those were the simplest non-exclusionary terms I could come up with.

      Your argument against a simple mass following is convincing. I don't think anyone should just believe what they're told. But true freedom of thought means if some people choose to just believe the 'company line' then they are allowed to do so. Any freedom begines and ends with tolerance, so for there to be freedom of thought it means you need to tolerate other peoples beliefs in when they consist of ideas or are formed in a manner that strikes you as incredibly ignorant or wrong. Unless you can prove your views to be correct it all comes down to your belief vs. their belief. As much as you believe that they are wrong, they believe that you are wrong. There is no cause to put one above the other.

      --
      The darkness... controls the music. The music... controls the soul.
    228. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by Troy · · Score: 1

      I said nothing of the sort. This person did. I only chimed in a little later. Accordingly, I apologize to you for the ignorant comment, as I am equally guilty in confusing who posted what -- I saw so many armchair atheists talking about how religion is for the weak-minded that I made an assumption I should not have. Use of the word "superstition" still rubs me the wrong way, but I think that is more because of its connotation than its actual definition.

      I have also seen the same specious definition of cult vs religion, and I think that's just a function of people being so into their own rightness that they can't step out of it for a moment to consider another person's point of view. The issue with the Catholic church is particularly bothersome, since so many evangelical (and fundamentalist) Christians seem to forget that Catholicism WAS Christianity for 1600 years. Dismissing all of Catholicism as a cult is much like dismissing the Bible as an "old book," both acts demonstrate a profound lack of wisdom and knowledge about the subject being dismissed.

      If there ever was a widespread cult (as you have defined it) in Christianity, it would not be the Catholic church. It would be the Word of Faith and prosperity theology movement (pretty much everything you see in the Trinity Broadcasting Network). Outside of ensnaring people into adopting dangerous hair styles, so many of these preachers confuses worldly success with spiritual success, practice an emotionally manipulative form of "healing," and promise God's great blessing if you send an unholy amount of money. Benny Hinn recently amassed several hundred million dollars for a "World Healing Center," and then cancelled the project because "Jesus told him not to build it after all."

    229. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by juhaz · · Score: 1

      The man on steroids image is just one of many ways that artists within religions have related to God.

      Well, if it was just the artists, fine.

      But let's take the Bible, for example, supposedly true to every last word (though everyone knows it's not), written under direct guidance of God.

      Right from the beginning it starts to hammer that image trough. God created us as his image? Check.
      God of old testament is vengeful, angry and jealous? Check. Humans feelings.
      God has a son, human son no less. Check.
      Getting his son murdered somehow transforms God into gentle loving and forgiving father. Check, human feelings again, though direct opposite of his old self. Hey, fickleness is pretty human too.

      Do you think that the last two thousand years of theology have focused on the size of God's bicept?

      I wasn't referring so much to God's physical man-kindness, biceps included, but his personality. I am kind of surprised if theology hasn't touched that subject.

    230. Re:It's Not Magic, It's God(TM) by bigpat · · Score: 1

      "But let's take the Bible, for example, supposedly true to every last word (though everyone knows it's not), written under direct guidance of God."

      Einstein, as you say, had pantheistic beliefs. So to take your list:

      "God created us as his image?"
      -If God encompasses the Universe certainly we are created in his image, since we are a part of him.

      "God of old testament is vengeful, angry and jealous? Check. Humans feelings."
      -A God of which we are a part will certainly have human feelings, since we are part of creation not apart from it.

      "God has a son, human son no less. Check."
      Ummm... yes. God also has puppies, kittens... pretty much everything.

      "Getting his son murdered somehow transforms God into gentle loving and forgiving father. Check, human feelings again, though direct opposite of his old self. Hey, fickleness is pretty human too."

      -Same as above, God is the universe and we are part of the universe, so the universe is fickle...

      and plays dice.

  62. Suspicious timing by cgenman · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Anyone else find it suspicious that Slashdot picks this up from MSNBC on the 8th of April, who ran this from Reuters on Monday the 5th. Reuters Italy then must have had it sometime around Friday the 2nd, which would put the first printing of the story on... Which day is that again?

    1. Re:Suspicious timing by platipusrc · · Score: 5, Informative

      Well, The Register's article is dated February 11, 2004.

      --
      And the muscular cyborg German dudes dance with sexy French Canadians
    2. Re:Suspicious timing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Coast to Coast AM has been reporting on this for a while, and also something about fires in water wells.

    3. Re:Suspicious timing by macdaddy · · Score: 1

      I saw this on my local PODUNK rural-Kansas news station last week before the 1st.

  63. Re:They are near the Vatican by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh wait, they did.

    There problem should be over soon.

  64. Re:They are near the Vatican by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i'm from italy and i can confirm that a dumbhead from vatican after going there said 'it was work of the devil'.

    however we got something else to worry about: our bald and short prime minister. ;)

  65. Re:Overreaction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wasn't funny the first four times. Isn't funny now. Was never funny. And it's NO CARRIER. If you're gonna be lame and never get laid, at least get the text right. Loser.

  66. It's the railroad! by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1

    Anybody noticed what passing trains do to old CRT monitors? I bet that's the reason for these mysterious fires!

    1. Re:It's the railroad! by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > Anybody noticed what passing trains do to old CRT monitors?

      I've never lived near a railway. What happens?

    2. Re:It's the railroad! by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1
      I've never lived near a railway. What happens?

      The picture shakes like crazy (due to magnetic field caused by the huge amount of current that the train draws from the catenary)

  67. Re:They are near the Vatican by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why attack Berlusconi for being bald and short (which he can't help) when you can attack him for being power mad and trying to take over all the Italian media (which he can help)?

  68. It must be where.... by dtperik · · Score: 1

    all the servers are located which posters put links to on /. stories. It's just the /. effect burning up their routers, servers, wires, everything. A bit unusual that they'd all be located in one geographic area, but maybe that's some kind of plot.

  69. Terribly sorry about that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One of our outsourced engineers seems to have made a typo in
    the code for the new microwave power satellite.
    We'll be uploading the new latitude/longitude as soon as things stop
    smoking here.

  70. In Other News by OPR33 · · Score: 1

    Uncle Gates points out it's a good time to download the lastest Windows update.

  71. Typical Sicilian by mirr0red · · Score: 2, Informative

    I'm not Sicilian, but I live in ITaly nonetheless. The media covered this issue for quite some time, although at the end, they seemed to blame natural electrical discharges given the zone is a very active sismic area in Sicily, but also it could have been due to the high-powere train lines which run only a few meters from the houses affected by the problems. There is also who blames the widespread illegal electrical connections setup by the local crooks...

    --
    // mirr0red
  72. Science, not superstition by BigBadBus · · Score: 2, Interesting
    If anyone's interested, I've written a write-up of a scientists view of the supernatural, plus a discussion of the meagre evidence and theories here

    Best wishes

    Paul

  73. Zeus! by PTBNL · · Score: 2, Funny

    Dear Zeus, I apologize for sleeping with one of your many women. I'd appreciate it if you would stop with the lightning bolts, and just get on with turning me into some sort of half-turtle, half-game show host monstrosity to teach me the error of my ways. Cheers.

  74. Article more than a few weeks old by SgtChaireBourne · · Score: 2, Insightful
    It's more than a few weeks old. There's been a Wiki entry for some time and The Register had an article in early Feb.

    I realize that many wish to pump MS sites and their content partners, but could the editors filter out these and stick with less dangerous secondary sources?

    Ignore it and it will go away. Reuters, AP , UPI, BBC, etc. usually provide the content reported anyway. Other sources, e.g. The Reg., often do their own reporting as well.

    --
    Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
  75. They're not THAT powerful.. by Benm78 · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Although radar installations can pack quite a punch as far as radio-frequency energy output is concerned, the power levels are usually not sufficient to set something ablaze at any significant distances.

    A high-power military radar installation does put out enough power to kill an unfortunate bird (or incompetent engineer) at short distance, but still wouldn't do much more than disrupt electronic equipment at greater distances.

    However, it is not unthinkable that a relatively small disruption in an eletronic device can lead to a bigger problem later on - a disrupted control circuit causing an overload that leads to a fire is well possible. This scenario is not very feasible after main power is cut though.

    1. Re:They're not THAT powerful.. by An+Onimous+Cow+Herd · · Score: 1

      I once worked with a Cisco engineer whos father was a USAF rader tech in W.Germany during the Cold War.
      His father used to tell stories about how, during the spawning season, he and fellow techs used to pick up frogs, throw them on a radar dish and watch them explode.

      Wouldn't want to be the poor sap who had to clean up that mess!

    2. Re:They're not THAT powerful.. by Suidae · · Score: 1

      I used to live on Lackland AFB in San Antonio, TX. There is a radar installation of some sort on the base near the intersection of Valley High road (which leads onto the base) and Loop 410. Any time I was near this installation in the car I would hear a little buzz on the radio every 10 to 15 seconds, even when the radio was off.

      Once time I was nowhere near the place and I started hearing that buzz. I was confused until I realized that somehow the little buzz sound had been written to the cassette tape I was listening to. My best guess is that I was listening to the tape in my portable player (with record heads) while in line of site of the radar thing (my home was several miles away, but in a line of sight, so I could get the buzz on the radio there).

  76. Most likely cause by Vreejack · · Score: 2, Interesting

    There is little need to invoke God or strange physics. A more likely explanation is at hand.

    The common thread to all of these are power sources, wires and people. The missing, unmentioned ingredient is the pocket knife or screwdriver concealed in the hand of the disturbed fellow who is causing the shorts.

    John Vreeland

    --
    "Will future ages believe that such stupid bigotry ever existed!" -- Ivanhoe
  77. The source...? by gidds · · Score: 1
    My first reaction to this was rather like Thomas Jefferson's reaction to hearing about a meteorite: "I would sooner believe a yankee professor would lie than stones would fall from the heavens."

    The first question should be whether we know this is actually happening. Only then can we speculate about how or why.

    --

    Ceterum censeo subscriptionem esse delendam.

  78. Re:There's nothing wrong with the word "supernatur by Hast · · Score: 1

    My objection is first off mainly because while the word may not have a bad meaning in itself it is typically used in conjunction with ghosts, aliens etc. That's not really a problem with the word per se though.

    The biggest gripe is that supernatural is often used as an "explaination" when it is none of the sort. If you classify something as supernatural then you have not really accomplished anything. When you can define that supernatural and explain it then you have somthing we can use. However, media and crackpots like to say "it's supernatural, end of story" as if that gave us any new information. If it was proved that the devil could possess my mobile phone than that would be a scientific breakthrough. However the evidence seem to have been quite lacking for quite a few thousands of years by now.

    And I think you'll find that "scientists" (scientist is really a bad term, it's about as informative as "white male" in these situations) are typically the first to admit we don't know everything about the world. Contrast that with religions which typically claim to have all the answers.

  79. Possible Supernatural explanation... by Jorkapp · · Score: 0

    [Server Admin #1] Help me god! I'm being slashdoted!
    [God] (Points to town) YOU SHALL NOT SLASHDOT!
    * Electronics set fire
    [Sicilian Town] Ahhhhh.... help us slashdot!

    --
    Frink: Nice try floyd, but you were designed for scrubbing, and scrubbing is what you shall do.
    1. Re:Possible Supernatural explanation... by smithmc · · Score: 1

      void main()
      {
      printf ("Jorkapp is a Programmer");
      main();
      }

      Oh yeah? Then how come you've got main() returning void? ;-P
      --
      Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
  80. It the new standards by dauvis · · Score: 1, Funny

    They're taking the term firewire literally.

    1. Re:It the new standards by ASayre8 · · Score: 1

      Let's hope that they don't start taking firewalls seriously too!

  81. Megawatt radar by zerofoo · · Score: 1

    A military guy I know watched an entire building's communication system go up in smoke when some incompetent radar operator switched on an Aegis Combat System radar array while the ship was docked.

    That must have been pretty funny/spooky.

    -ted

  82. damn by sumdumass · · Score: 1

    I aimed my death ray at the wrong place. ok, were is osama hidding today? Maybe a little to the rite and down a touch.

  83. Old News, Vatican Response by Luminous · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This has been reported on since February at which time, Father Gabriel Amorth, the Vatican's chief expert on exorcism said demonic forces cannot be ruled out. Now, of course, he has a vested interest in maintaining job security, so his opinion needs to be taken with a half-a-grain of salt.

    --
    This is not the way to build a lasting empire.
    1. Re:Old News, Vatican Response by alien+at+large · · Score: 1
      Mmm exorcism as security tool.
      Interesting. Wonder if it works on rooted boxes too.

      make world, not war

    2. Re:Old News, Vatican Response by alien+at+large · · Score: 1
      Of course, that might just kill the daemons and ignore the root of the problem

      make world, not war

    3. Re:Old News, Vatican Response by zardor · · Score: 1

      And several gallons of holy water.....

      --
      -- We don't understand software, and sometimes we don't understand hardware, but we can *see* the blinking lights
    4. Re:Old News, Vatican Response by Timothy+Brownawell · · Score: 1
      This has been reported on since February at which time, Father Gabriel Amorth, the Vatican's chief expert on exorcism said demonic forces cannot be ruled out.
      So... the way to make these fires stop is to douse all the appliances with holy water?

      Tim

  84. Because most people are thick and/or ignorant. by Viol8 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Sorry , but its true and its especially true in small european mountain villages, believe me!

  85. Re:There's nothing wrong with the word "supernatur by Himring · · Score: 1

    "it's supernatural, end of story"

    Anyone who would say that is an idiot.

    Contrast that with religions which typically claim to have all the answers.

    Anyone who would claim to have all the answers is, likewise, an idiot....

    --
    "All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
  86. Re:There's nothing wrong with the word "supernatur by Mant · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Supernatural does not mean "things we don't yet understand", there is a term for those, and it is "things we don't yet understand". Any scientist worth anything will readily admit there is plenty of things we don't understand.

    To describe something as supernatural instantly carries very strong connotations of magic, miracle, or some paranormal force that is not just unknown science, but something other than it and beyond it

    As for quacks, they are just that. By sheer chance a few will be end up being partially right about something becuase so many people have so many crazy ideas. Thing is, you can't tell the ones who are right by chance from the rest without working through it. It is as important to know why you are right as being right, those scientists "scaling the rocky face" are doing the important work.

  87. Religious hierarchies are a total scam... by Slur · · Score: 1

    ...but I can personally attest to the value of meditation as a healthy practice that brings clarity of mind and an unshakable sense of connectedness and well-being. Shikan-Taza in particular is incredibly focusing, and if one avoids disadvantageous behaviors - the kind that stir up negativity - it works even better. Too bad people are so hung up on worship and sin and the cult of personality, because the core thing is the beneficial practice. If Jesus came back tomorrow he'd tell all his worshipers to fuck off and get a clue.

    --
    -- thinkyhead software and media
    1. Re:Religious hierarchies are a total scam... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What, shiki tiki allows you to know what Jesus would tell people to do?

      Or do you know what Jesus would do because you are Him, and how's Napoleon doing anyhow?

    2. Re:Religious hierarchies are a total scam... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If Jesus came back tomorrow he'd tell all his worshipers to fuck off and get a clue.

      I have him quoted as saying, "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! ... Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel."

      Allowing for translation from Aramaic/Hebrew to Greek to English, that's pretty close...

    3. Re:Religious hierarchies are a total scam... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      ...and swallow a camel.

      I would be much more impressed with this Jesus fella if he didn't smoke.

  88. CICAP's take on this by pamar · · Score: 5, Interesting

    First of all, this is pretty old news in Italy.

    Here is CICAP entry on this phenomenon (in Italian sorry).

    CICAP is a group of scientists who routinely investigate (and debunk) any so-called supernatural phenomenon in Italy (they cover anything: ESP, religious miracles, even omeopathy). Sort of a James Randi fan club.

    I suppose most of Slashdot's reader cannot read Italian: the gist of it is that they suspect a prank. According to similar phenomena they investigated in the past, the first accidents are caused by natural causes (short-circuits, overload).

    But then people start talking, and making hypotesis, and someone starts causing this as a prank or a way to get attention, media coverage etc. Then CICAP arrives, and start looking aroud, and everything goes back to normal.

    CICAP sums this as follows: 100% of phenomena happen when controls are at 0% 0% of phenomena happen when controls are at 100%

  89. Spooky by nuggetboy · · Score: 1

    Where's Mulder when you need him?

  90. Desperate act? by Lord+Grey · · Score: 1
    Spinnato, the mayor, sounds just as desperate.

    "Someone wrote to us saying the solution was to sacrifice a black goat and collect its blood. ...."

    I thought we did that only during kernel upgrades.
    --
    // Beyond Here Lie Dragons
  91. Supernatural by SEWilco · · Score: 1

    Notice supernatural does not mean very natural?
    It doesn't seem natural.

  92. What 'Science' is about by Baron_Yam · · Score: 1

    Actually, I'd say that in practical terms science is about coming up with a theory to describe an incompletely understood phenomenon - then making sure your theory doesn't miss anything that renders it invalid, then DEFENDING it against the harsh criticism of your peers, who work like the Devil himself to prove you wrong.

    Sometimes, peers trying to prove you wrong love your theory so much, they unwittingly do a poor job of checking your theory and allow something incomplete or downright wrong to make its way into the general body of scientific knowledge... at least until someone notices the problem and the cycle starts again.

    THAT is science. It's at least as much about finding support for a theory as it is to refute it.

  93. Sure it's weird, but an UNPLUGGED device? by Nuclear+Elephant · · Score: 2, Funny

    The fires have even consumed unplugged lamps and an entire apartment. Black scorch marks still scar the apartment walls.

    Did this community do a lot of eBay shopping?

  94. Electricity in Italy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Despite the fact that many famous scientists and engineers connected with the development of electricity and radio originated from Italy, public provision of the stuff still causes problems. I was recently in a hotel in Rome where there was a power socket on the wall of the shower cubicle. For a few mad moments I actually thought, "How cool, I can save time by plugging in my shaver and have a shower at the same time!". Suffice to say that I completed the shower very carefully.

  95. Pratchett's corollary by c4miles · · Score: 1

    "Any sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology." - Terry Pratchett

  96. RE:Technology Spontaneously Combusts In Sicily by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey Guissepe'- GREEN is ground..

  97. apocalypse by Transcendent · · Score: 0, Redundant

    "...and the rivers will turn to blood, the sky shall become black as night, and your PDA's will burst into flames during conference meetings in Sicily..."

    Oh yea... believe it...

  98. Highest Stress Job: Advisor to Tyrant by 4of12 · · Score: 1

    where the king killed all his advisors who couldn't tell him what his dream meant.

    The biblical lesson was to illustrate how Joseph received special insight into the dream from God, of course.

    But, if you look at the story in another light, Joseph went on to become a very powerful advisor to the Pharoah.

    Being able to give advice to a tyrant that is likely to kill people who give him advice that displeases him requires enormous mental dexterity under pressure. Which probably also accounts some for Joseph's later success.

    I'm reminded of this by seeing an old movie starring the late Peter Ustinov as Nero and some other actor who portrayed Nero's advisor. Whoever wrote the screenplay did a wonderful job showing just how much acumen is required of an advisor to a tyrant.

    Some portrayal of daily life with the former tyrant of Iraquagmire is here.

    --
    "Provided by the management for your protection."
    1. Re:Highest Stress Job: Advisor to Tyrant by martyros · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Uum, I think he's probably talking about Nebuchadnazzer (sp?), who demanded that his advisors tell him not only what the dream meant, but what he had dreamed in the first place.

      My guess is that he thought his "advisors" were full of bull, and were trying to manipulate him. So he said, "If you guys are so in tune with the supernatural, you should be able to tell me my dream." (Sort of like, "Why doesn't the Psychic Hotline lady call me?")

      His advisors, understandably, said, "You're on crack -- no king in history has asked something like that", to which he replied, "I'll show you who's on crack..."

      --

      TCP: Why the Internet is full of SYN.

    2. Re:Highest Stress Job: Advisor to Tyrant by DCowern · · Score: 4, Funny

      (Sort of like, "Why doesn't the Psychic Hotline lady call me?")

      That's how it works in Soviet Russia...

    3. Re:Highest Stress Job: Advisor to Tyrant by TheLink · · Score: 1

      "Nebuchadnazzer (sp?), who demanded that his advisors tell him not only what the dream meant, but what he had dreamed in the first place. "

      Yeah one of my favourite passages. Reminds me of some customers (not all of them mine fortunately)... Ah the joys of working in IT consulting.

      God's probably chuckling at us from time to time.

      --
    4. Re:Highest Stress Job: Advisor to Tyrant by martyros · · Score: 1
      In the second year of his reign, Steve Ballmer had error messages; and his computer was troubled, and he could not reboot. So he summoned the contractors, code architects, designers, and marketers to tell him what his error messages were. When they came in and stood before the CEO, he said to them, "I have had an error message that troubles my computer, and I want to know what it means."

      Then the contractors answered the CEO, "Oh CEO, may your empire expand forever! Tell your employees the error code, and we will interpret it."

      The CEO replied to the contractors, "This is what I have firmly decided: If you do not tell me what my error code was and interpret it, I will have your hard drives cut into pieces and your offices turned into piles of rubble. But if you tell me the error code and explain it, you will receive from me gifts and rewards and great honor. So tell me the error code, and interpret it for me."

      Once more they replied, "Let the CEO tell his employees the error code, and we will interpret it."

      Then the CEO answered, "I am certain that you are trying to gain time, because you realize that this is what I have firmly decided. If you do not tell me the error code, there is just one penalty for you. You have conspired to tell me misleading and wicked things, hoping the situation will change. So then, tell me the error code, and I will know that you can interpret it for me."

      The contractors answered the CEO, "There is not a man on earth who can do what the CEO asks! No CEO, however great and mighty, has ever asked such a thing of any code architect or designer or marketer. What the CEO asks is too difficult. No one can reveal it to the CEO except the gods, and they does not live among men."

      This made the CEO so angry and furious that he ordered the immediate termination of all the coders in Microsoft...

      ...The CEO asked Daniel, "Are you able to tell me what I saw in my error code, and interpret it?"

      Daniel replied, "No computer guru, code architect, designer, or support staff can explain to the CEO the mystery he has asked about, but there is a God in heaven who reveals mysteries. He has shown CEO Ballmer what will happen in days to come. Your error codes and BSODs that passed through your monitor as you sat at your desk are these..."

      (Stolen from Chapter 2 of the book of Daniel.) BTB, notice that God wasn't asking for blind faith here; that's not the way the God of the Bible works.
      --

      TCP: Why the Internet is full of SYN.

    5. Re:Highest Stress Job: Advisor to Tyrant by JUSTONEMORELATTE · · Score: 1

      The biblical lesson was to illustrate how Joseph received special insight into the dream from God, of course.
      But, if you look at the story in another light, Joseph went on to become a very powerful advisor to the Pharoah.


      Which would be very insightful, except it was Daniel, not Joseph who interpreted the dream. Joseph did go on to advise Pharoh though.

      --

    6. Re:Highest Stress Job: Advisor to Tyrant by mlrtime · · Score: 1



      great example of why this joke will *never* die. my hats off.

    7. Re:Highest Stress Job: Advisor to Tyrant by PsiPsiStar · · Score: 1

      The psychic hotline lady doesn't call you because then she doesn't get paid by the minute. Duh.

      --

      ___
      It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
    8. Re:Highest Stress Job: Advisor to Tyrant by TheLink · · Score: 1

      :) Hehe.

      Yah something very like that ;).

      --
    9. Re:Highest Stress Job: Advisor to Tyrant by jonadab · · Score: 1

      > My guess is that he thought his "advisors" were full of bull, and were
      > trying to manipulate him.

      You guess right; he says as much in the passage.

      > His advisors, understandably, said, "You're on crack -- no king in history
      > has asked something like that",

      They were a little more respectful than "you're on crack". Not wanting to
      be cut into pieces and have your houses turned into piles of rubble has a
      tendency to produce a respectful attitude (well, outwardly).

      > to which he replied, "I'll show you who's on crack..."

      Actually, I think he said, "Now you're stalling."

      --
      Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
    10. Re:Highest Stress Job: Advisor to Tyrant by jonadab · · Score: 1

      Heh. Interesting parody.

      > notice that God wasn't asking for blind faith here; that's not the way
      > the God of the Bible works.

      Indeed, nothing in the Bible ever refers to faith as blind.

      Okay, working from memory here, so some details may be a little off...

      No computer guru, code architect, designer, or support staff can explain to
      the CEO the mystery he has asked about, but there is a God in heaven who reveals
      mysteries. He has shown CEO Ballmer what will happen in days to come. Your error
      codes and BSODs that passed through your monitor as you sat at your desk are
      these...

      You saw a great statue, with a head of gold. The chest and arms were of
      silver, the belly and thighs of bronze, and the legs of iron. The feet and
      toes were partly of iron and partly of baked clay. As you were watching, a
      rock was cut out of a mountain, but not by human hands, and fell on the
      statue. It smashed the bronze, the iron, the clay, the silver, and the gold
      to pieces.

      You, O CEO, are that head of Gold. Your software empire extends to the ends
      of the earth; the great God has given you dominion over all the computers of
      the world. Those bugs you want to fix, you fix, and those you do not want to
      fix, you do not have to fix. The computers you want to upgrade, you upgrade,
      and those you want to shut down, you shut down.

      After you, another software empire will rise, a silver empire, inferior to
      yours, and after that, a third empire, of bronze. After that, a fourth
      empire will rise, one of iron, which will smash and break all competitors,
      just as iron smashes all things. It will be a divided empire, just as the
      two legs of the statue are of iron, and in the end it will be a mixed
      empire, just as the feet and toes are mixed, partly of iron and partly of
      clay.

      Finally, a great empire will come, one of stone. It will crush all
      the other empires. This is the vision of the rock, cut out of a mountain,
      but not by human hands, a rock that broke the iron, the bronze, the clay,
      the silver, and the gold to pieces. The great God has shown the CEO what
      will take place in the future. The dream is true and the interpretation
      is trustworthy.

      --
      Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
  99. Re:There's nothing wrong with the word "supernatur by Himring · · Score: 2, Insightful

    To describe something as supernatural instantly carries very strong connotations of magic, miracle, or some paranormal force that is not just unknown science, but something other than it and beyond it

    Ancient peoples called things they didn't understand, "magic." They did not say this of things they did understand. They were not lunatics calling the crops they raised, "magic." To do so would have made them nuts to their ancient brethren.

    those scientists "scaling the rocky face" are doing the important work.

    Of course they are doing important work. And so is the child psychologist and the policeman and every other profession not a scientist, but, of course, you didn't say a policeman isn't doing important work, yet, see, look how these things go.

    We love to dis those who may be religious -- who think there's more to life than what appears to be or than what is contained in a science book, yet everyone here loves the xfiles....

    --
    "All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
  100. Directed Energy Weapon? by capaman · · Score: 1

    1.) Things are sparking and arking
    2.) The power is shut off
    3.) It only happens when people are around

    It may seem far fetched but couldn't this be some sort of directed energy weapon perhaps in the form of microwaves. Devices like this are known to exist and could probably be mounted in a satellite in orbit. Of course if this theory was correct then only about 5 nations in the world would be capable of such a thing...Why would they pick some little village in Italy?? Oh well next theory...

    1. Re:Directed Energy Weapon? by rjelks · · Score: 1

      I'll take this hypothetical: If some country were to create this for either defense or offense I think they would test it first. Wouldn't it make sense to test it in some small village in a neutral country? A live test wouldn't make sense if the directed it at a real enemy target...that would defeat the element of suprise.

    2. Re:Directed Energy Weapon? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doesnt need to be a military operation, could be some guy walking around with a magnetron from a microwave. Those things can set fire to wood from a distance.

    3. Re:Directed Energy Weapon? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its drawing a lot of attention so "surprise" is no longer an issue.

      Plus, I doubt Italy will remain "neutral" when they find out who's been testing Directed Energy Weapons on their citizens. :)

    4. Re:Directed Energy Weapon? by Patrik_AKA_RedX · · Score: 1
      If some country were to create this for either defense or offense I think they would test it first
      Let's check my list... ah, it's now Greenlands turn to be randomly blamed.
      But I'm sure everybody here already suspected Greenlands involvement in this.
    5. Re:Directed Energy Weapon? by rjelks · · Score: 1

      Just for the record, I don't really believe that this was a secret government weapon. I was just responding to the parents question, "Why would they pick some little village in Italy?? and coming up with a hypothetical answer.

  101. The Way It Really Happened! by flyneye · · Score: 0

    I did it!
    Don't have a cow man!

    --
    *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
  102. You need to read the Bible a little closer... by DesScorp · · Score: 1

    "5. act of God 2 (God's pissed - it is Easter, afterall)...God promised after Noah's flood he wouldn't do this sort of thing again so we can rule out #5."

    Not so fast, my friend...

    While in Genesis 9, God indeed say He'd never again wipe the world out with water, Isaiah prophesied that He'd eventually come to destroy it with.....you guessed it, fire.

    From Isaiah 66, verses 15 and 16:
    "15
    Lo, the LORD shall come in fire, his chariots like the whirlwind, To wreak his wrath with burning heat and his punishment with fiery flames.
    16
    For the LORD shall judge all mankind by fire and sword. and many shall be slain by the LORD. "

    Many doesn't equal all, so God would be keeping His covenant from Genesis not to make mankind extinct, but He never said that He'd never PUNISH man again, now did He?

    --
    Life is hard, and the world is cruel
    1. Re:You need to read the Bible a little closer... by arkanes · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Somehow it doesn't suprise me that God is a pedant.

    2. Re:You need to read the Bible a little closer... by D-Cypell · · Score: 1

      Lo, the LORD shall come in fire, his chariots like the whirlwind, To wreak his wrath with burning heat and his punishment with fiery flames.

      Love and forgiveness right??? The dude sounds like rambo!

    3. Re:You need to read the Bible a little closer... by Kent+Simon · · Score: 4, Funny

      For some reason, I would think God's wrath is much more impressive than lighting up a few telephone wires in a city who's population is 39.

      --
      Kent Simon Multitheft Auto
    4. Re:You need to read the Bible a little closer... by LokiSteve · · Score: 1

      That God... Always getting away on a technicality.
      I'm gonna have to keep a close eye on him... he's a tricky bunch.

      --
      END OF LINE.
    5. Re:You need to read the Bible a little closer... by lymond01 · · Score: 1

      His old testicles were bigger than his new testicles.

    6. Re:You need to read the Bible a little closer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To hell with that holy crap.

    7. Re:You need to read the Bible a little closer... by Destoo · · Score: 1

      He's just beta testing his new gadget on a smaller scale.

      Don't know about what they think there, but he's probably ready to release 1.0 in the wild.

      --
      Nouvelles de jeux et technologies en français. TC
    8. Re:You need to read the Bible a little closer... by shambalagoon · · Score: 1

      Lo, for it must be said that if God slew all, he'd have nobody left to punish, and that would not be pelasing to God.

    9. Re:You need to read the Bible a little closer... by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > If knowledge is power... explain George W. Bush!

      I'm pretty sure you don't care, but that's a logical fallacy.
      Just because "knowledge -> power," it does not mean that "underhanded dealings & family money DOESN'T -> power."

    10. Re:You need to read the Bible a little closer... by chadjg · · Score: 1

      So, joggers stretch, weight lifters do a few light reps, and the Almighty scares the piss out of a few Sicilians?

      I guess Armageddon would be a lot of work and a sprain in the hellfire/brimstone casting finger would be inconvenient.

      --
      Why do I have this? I don't smoke.
  103. Maybe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, it is in a bad area (Score:2)
    by mrshowtime (562809) on Thursday April 08, @08:11AM (#8802085)
    The town is located in a Valley Called "Val Demons." Honestly, I can't think of any natural reason why electronis would spontaneously combust. Shit, even things that are unplugged are blowing up. Yah, that's "natural."

  104. Could it be.... by jzarling · · Score: 1

    That all the electronics are built by Fiat?? I think its a witch -

    --
    It is better to be the hammer than the anvil.
  105. Nothing special by Psychic+Burrito · · Score: 0, Funny

    Oh c'mon, random fires appearing from nowhere, that's nothing special. Watch me pulling this trick off, right now:

    Hey Linux lovers, you suck! I hate Einstein. All nerds have pimple issues. Fancy-dress freebooters! Ectoplasmic Byproducts! Carpet-sellers! Kleptomaniacs! Tramps! Vegetarians! Pickled herrings! Megalomaniacs! :-)

  106. Re:Limits of Science ? Or limits of scientists ? by nickol · · Score: 1

    Ask any serious scientist to explain some facts like mind reading, alien abduction or other of this kind. Most likely he will refuse to give any scientific explaination. Telling that all those facts are false could not be called scientific... however it could be true. Nevertheless, there are topics that are closed for any serious discussion. That's right, 90% of them is nonsence... But 80% of everything is nonsence. Those topics are closed not because they are 'unscientific' themselves, but because of the tradition. And because too many idiots are talking stuff about those topics.

    One day the Paris Academy told the world that rocks can not fall from the sky, because there are no rocks in the sky. How many rocks in the sky do we have today ?

  107. A simple an obvious answer by claytongulick · · Score: 1

    All of the devices were running Windows CE

    --
    Drinking habits can be dangerous. You can choke on the cloth and the nuns will wonder where their clothes are.
    1. Re:A simple an obvious answer by PaperTie · · Score: 1

      ur SO COOL u insutled windows!!!

  108. This is very old news, isn't it? by btbo · · Score: 1

    This was in the news about more than a month ago already. And last thing I heard was that the problem disapeared as soon as the village got flooded by journalists.

  109. Re:Terrorism/Pranks by A55M0NKEY · · Score: 1

    There are some possibilities that these fires could be deliberately caused by a hoaxer:

    1) a really big magnet to induce mucho current. ( hard to hide )
    2) A microwave beam. It would be hard to avoid frying the witnesse's eyes with reflected energy though. A carefully aimed beam that took into account ricochets might do the trick.
    3) An non microwave beam. An infrared laser would make the fire look spontaneous.

    --

    Eat at Joe's.

  110. Sounds like by g0bshiTe · · Score: 2, Funny

    They need to call Scooby-Doo and the gang.
    I can see it now...

    Old man Aldo was setting the fires whilst dressed in a demon costume.

    On the lighter side, marshmallow sales in the small village went up.

    --
    I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
    1. Re:Sounds like by NullProg · · Score: 1

      And I would have gotten away with it if it werent' for those meddling kids.

      Aldo.

      --
      It's just the normal noises in here.
  111. Only when witnessed? by scorp1us · · Score: 1

    Nothing seems to have burst into flame except where there is someone present to witness it, but the police no longer suspect a prankster -- after witnessing wires catch fire without cause.

    Humans are the problem. Get rid of them.

    Seriously though. That is odd. You'd expect that it would happen with or without people there. Evacuating the town then did nothing. If people were the cause, the town would still be there. It is. If it wasn't the people, then the fires would have eventually set the town ablase, and with no one there to put it out, it would have decimated the town.

    An intersting test would to be let animals of similar body mass roam the town to see if there is a biological factor involved.

    Or people could be evoling psi abilities. A la "Firestarter" the movie. It would only take one person to report a fictitious event to get people's subconscience to think about it, then cause it. I'm not much for attributing unexplanied phenonmena on things we don't understand (unless we know we don't understand it yet, like much physics. (i.e. quantum entanglement)) but this seams the most likely cause.

    If the fires started few and far between, then grew in number, then it could correlate with public awareness.

    I'd say let people through the town that know nothing of what is going on, if the large animals don't provide more info.

    --
    Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
  112. Another Alternative by happyEverGeek · · Score: 1

    One of the types of scientists that is not there is a microbiologist.

    They say that things only blow up when people are around. I wonder if things blow in the presence of people in air-tight suits, so their breath isn't reaching the combusting device. What if humans unknowingly provide a critical catalyst to the process? They should look for deposits of a microbe on the insulation.

    We already know that microbes exist that eat plastic....

    --
    To a politician, one email equals one voter.
  113. In unrealated news..... by orion41us · · Score: 1

    CNN Reports that the earths magnetic field might be reversing. Hmmmm....

  114. Look for the adolescent by dpbsmith · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Whenever these sorts of phenomena occur, it almost always transpires that an adolescent--for some reason, usually a girl--just happened to present nearby whenever they occurred. The people involved tend not to mention this to authorities, because there are always good reasons why the adolescent (who is usually a model of good behavior) couldn't possibly have had anything to do with it.

    The scientists are wasting their time if they're using instruments and looking for an electrical or atmospheric explanation. They need to be looking for a human explanation.

    1. Re:Look for the adolescent by Queuetue · · Score: 1

      Are you implying that that adolescent girl is a telekinetic firestarter, or just an exceptional arsonist?

    2. Re:Look for the adolescent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The obvious answer to that question is: Yes.

  115. Kids + Microwave + web site ... by Ktistec+Machine · · Score: 1
  116. Daemon-haunted world? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    No, you mean Carl Sagan's "The Demon-Haunted World." "The Daemon-Haunted World" is Sagan's book about how your computer may be infested with programs that don't run until they're invoked by another application.

  117. I know exactly what it is.... by Daniel · · Score: 0

    Forget aliens, God, whatever. These spontaneous combustions are caused by the Wee Wigglums!

    Daniel

    --
    Hurry up and jump on the individualist bandwagon!
  118. Fort by Confessed+Geek · · Score: 1

    Charles Fort is amused.

  119. This is what happens when you fine Microsoft. by inteller · · Score: 1

    They are displaying just a small fraction of their power. Drop the fines or Microsoft will burn all you EU nation's technology to the ground!

  120. Apple sales are going to take a hit now... by Llywelyn · · Score: 4, Funny

    Advertising with the name "firewire," this seems to give a whole new meaning to that.

    --
    Integrate Keynote and LaTeX
  121. This just proves... by Zenmonkeycat · · Score: 1
    God hates it when your cellphone rings in theaters just as much as everyone else. It also proves that when God gives you the evil eye when you answer that phone, things catch on fire.

    Just don't take a beeper into a cathedral, because you WILL die.

    --

    *****
    Dear Mary,
    I yearn for you tragically,
    A.T. Tappman, Chaplain, U.S. Army.

  122. It would have been my guess .. by Marc2k · · Score: 1

    that 'Colored markings on the street' would have indicated the presence of neighborhood children with sidewalk chalk..

    --
    --- What
  123. Ebicom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    have you looked at the rest of the site? A bunch of fruitcake theories.

  124. It's caused by DHMO. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's probably caused by Dihydrogen Monoxide.

    http://www.dhmo.org

    This stuff is nasty, and should be banned.

  125. These people need surge protectors! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    There's a market opportunity there, I think.


    Is it possible that Sicily got hooked up to India's power grid somehow? I hear that's pretty rough on electrical equipement. So use Indian applicances. If they can handle being on India's grid, then they can handle anything.

  126. IT9RYH by DF5JT · · Score: 1

    What else?

  127. Occam's razor sez... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...can't RTFA, slashdotted, but which is simpler explanation:

    1. magic (short sentence, complicated explanation)

    2. bunch of humans seeing what they want to see

    ?

  128. Mafia by BoomerSooner · · Score: 3, Funny

    They invent everything. It's just another protection scheme.

    There is a reason my grandparents left Sicily, it was a corrupt shithole.

    That being said I'm proud to be Italian (and English).

    1. Re:Mafia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trust me we're glad your shithead grandparents left.

    2. Re:Mafia by Alsee · · Score: 2, Funny

      It's just another protection scheme.

      Me thinks the RIAA DRM tactics are getting a bit out of hand.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  129. You've all been duped! A week late! by VoidPoint · · Score: 2, Informative

    A simple search on everyone's favorite search engine would have lead them to this CNN article dated April First. Of course, one need merely think about it really really hard to realize that spontaneous combustion and April Fools go together like baseball and apple pie. That would be cricket and guiness for our UK friends.

    1. Re:You've all been duped! A week late! by rjelks · · Score: 1

      I've read in previous posts that the Register had this story on Feb. 11th.

    2. Re:You've all been duped! A week late! by wolverine1999 · · Score: 2, Informative

      The story is not a joke - it was out months ago
      on italian tv and other news sites including www.worldnetdaily.com.

  130. Agreed by Marc2k · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Especially when the story mentions the head exorcist of the Catholic Church definitively calling this the work of the devil, when the local priest decided to sit this one out and let science have a go at it first. These people obviously aren't *that* removed from the outside world, even if they are filthy, filthy Italians.

    --
    --- What
    1. Re:Agreed by deglr6328 · · Score: 1

      Only on Slashdot would the comment "These people obviously aren't *that* removed from the outside world, even if they are filthy, filthy Italians."
      be modded as "interesting".
      Hello!? He's joking! It's funny, laugh!

      --
      - "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
    2. Re:Agreed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But they're not Italians, they're Sicilians. Bas Italia. ;)

      (wait, was this supposed to counter racist speech?)

    3. Re:Agreed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aren't Sicilians one step away from niggers?

  131. you said it, man... by Mister+G · · Score: 1

    Nobody fuck with the Jesus!

  132. Does certain things stand out for anybody else? by KW802 · · Score: 2, Funny
    HHhhmmm.......

    ... weeks of sleeping in a nearby hotel and houses rented for them by the government... the phenomenon occurs only when there are people present... The evacuated families... gather almost every night in the three-star hotel perched above their abandoned village...

    You know, if I lived in some rural village and my government was willing to pay my rent to live in a 3-star hotel on a hillside, I think my appliances just might magically catch fire also.
    --
    Here am I sitting in a tin can, far above the world. Planet earth is blue & there's nothing I can do.
  133. Strong magnetic flux? by curmudgeous · · Score: 1

    Based on the volcanic nature of the area, I'd look for near surface lava flows with a high iron content. This could potentially generate strong magnetic flux that would induce current and/or heat in wires, metal pipes, etc.

  134. Re:First post sluts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What Saddam did to his own people was an internal matter.

    The people of Iran, Kuwait, and Israel would disagree with you on that subject. Just because he wasn't as successful as Hitler doesn't mean he wasn't also evil.

    Besides, the notion of the "internal matter" is obsolete. It died with the discovery of mass graves of millions of Jews in Germany and Poland. Atrocity is atrocity no matter which side of a border it's perpetrated on.

    If you want to glorify a murderous tyrant, go for it. Just be honest about it. Evil is evil.

  135. Dude, you are seriously weak-minded. by IPFreely · · Score: 4, Insightful
    When I was young, ignorant and closed minded, I used to believe the same as you. Then I grew up and learned how people really work.

    So what is Weak Minded? It's this:
    1. The inability to accept that other people have valid motivations, ideals or valuable knowledge that that are different from your own.
    2. The inability to differentiate between what one person or one group do in the name of a cause, and the core purpose of that cause.

    There are a lot of people who wrap themselves in religion who are weak minded. There are a lot more that are not. There are a lot of people who wrap themselves in science who are weak minded. There are a lot more who are not. There are a lot of people who live in many different countries, societies, cultures who are weak minded. There are a lot more who are not. And out of all of these, many among the weak minded also tend to be the most vocal, so that is a lot of what you hear from them.

    Different people accept religion for different reasons. And different people abuse the name of religion for different reasons. David Koresh claimed to be Jesus. Few Christians believe or supported him. Osama claims to work in the name of Islam. Few Muslims believe or support him. Some Catholic priests have sexually assaulted children. Few Catholics support them. There have certainly been bad things done in the name of religion, but that does not mean the religion was the cause. Most often the cause was dangerious people doing bad things, and claiming religion as their cover.

    As for why people believe what religion teaches them rather than "modern science". That is probably because modern science is not taught as widely as you would like. It takes money, knowledge, political support, lots of people power, and strong social support to spread new knowledge. Churches have been around for centuries. They already have the structures in place to teach their docterine. Church schools exist in almost every town and country around the world teaching religion. Modern educational institutes in remote places are few and far between. This is not the fault of the people who live there. They learn what is available to them. And for many centuries, that was from the local church.

    Knowledge is relative. With all your great scientific knowledge, If you were dropped naked into the middle of the Amazon rain forest, you'd probably die of poison or starvation inside a week. All the while those stupid savages who worship their sun gods have been surviving there for generations just fine.

    We all learn and accept what our society and parents teach us. If your parents and society teach you science, great for you. If you are too ignorant or weak minded to accept that other people have different educational backgrounds, different social and physical needs, or different ideas about the unknown, AND THAT THESE DIFFERENCES ARE NOT EVIL, STUPID OR WRONG, then that's too bad for you.

    --
    There is nothing so silly as other peoples traditions, and nothing so sacred as our own.
    1. Re:Dude, you are seriously weak-minded. by centauri · · Score: 1

      Knowledge is relative. With all your great scientific knowledge, If you were dropped naked into the middle of the Amazon rain forest, you'd probably die of poison or starvation inside a week. All the while those stupid savages who worship their sun gods have been surviving there for generations just fine.

      Well, possibly, but those native people don't survive there because of their belief. They survive there because of hundreds of years of trial-and-error, and experimentation, discarding what doesn't work and keeping what does - in other words, science, albeit primitive and inefficient science. Sure, they have to enshrine a lot of it in religious taboo and tradition to make sure it's not lost, but the knowledge didn't come from the religion. It's the other way around.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Durga.
    2. Re:Dude, you are seriously weak-minded. by Wintergrey · · Score: 2, Insightful
      While I agree that being open-minded is certainly one of the best attributes that one can have, I do not believe that we can assume everything is automatically acceptable or correct because it is different from one's own point of view. There comes a time when one must simply say, "This is incorrect." If something does not make sense, then it does not make sense. If something contains an error in logic, then it contains an error in logic. It is a mistake. It is wrong (and not in the evil sense, but in the incorrect sense). Provided the evidence has been examined and given a rational analysis, then this is proper thing to do. Of course, we should be willing to question any knowledge that we've learned, and that includes anything put forth by religion AND science, because as we've seen many times in history, both can be wrong. As long as we do so and use our brains to remain open-minded, critical thinkers, then we will be better off.

      I do not see the rejection of an institution of religion as absolvement for irrationality. Just because you reject certain dogma and do not approve of past abuses/atrocities does not mean that you are free and clear of irrational thought. You still accept the core beliefs and make the same basic assumptions as the church has regarding the existence of a god and its basic morality. Have you ever questioned those? Have you ever questioned the base axioms of religion, personal, institutional or otherwise? Have you ever considered that perhaps religion's problems and past abuses are not the result of a corruption of the system, but the result of the values and beliefs that comprise the system's core? Have you ever questioned the core values behind religion? I use the term loosely to include all types of religion, including just a simple belief in the values of God/Allah/whatever outside of the institutional belief structure. Just because you don't buy into institutionalized dogma does not mean that you are not just selectively creating your own.

      You have to be careful with your beliefs and assumptions so that you do not blind yourself to life and reality. You have to question yourself and your beliefs when presented with an argument that runs counter to your own thoughts on a subject. If by doing so, you find your beliefs are still valid, then good. Question them again the next time the chance presents itself. With time comes experience and with experience comes insight for those open-minded enough to pay attention to it. If you question them once and then never question them again, then I hope that you are absolutely certain in their veracity.

      You cannot just slush off another's belief by calling them young and foolish. With age comes experience, true, but an 80-year old is every bit as capable of holding irrational beliefs as a 20-year old, a 10-year old or a 40-year old. In many cases, age works as a deterrent to open-mindedness when people become set in their ways and refuse to acknowledge that they may be wrong, which often happens with spiritual beliefs. The opening line: "When I was young, ignorant and closed minded, I used to believe the same as you. Then I grew up and learned how people really work." implies the same type of vague promise of future knowledge/enlightenment that was one of the grandparent's main complaints. What is more likely is that as you get older and have this argument time and time again, is that you get tired and stop fighting. You give in. This is not the knowledge of experienced wisdom; that is the cover-up of a quitter. Of course, maybe you have found a good reason why the logic of atheism is flawed. If so, I'd like to hear it. I'd be most interested.

      As far as relative knowledge goes, being naked in the Amazon rain forest does not immediately invalidate your prior knowledge of anything. The knowledge that you had is not suddenly useless or wrong just because you're deep in the jungle. It just is not applicable in that particular situation. A person that is able to think critically and accept the reali

    3. Re:Dude, you are seriously weak-minded. by RevAaron · · Score: 1

      I've known a million teenaged atheists who call those with a religion 'weak minded,' and call their religion a 'crutch.' which is true in a lot of situations- but we all have crutches and are weak minded to an extent. I lean on my family, on drugs, whatever rather than religion, but for the most part, I'm really no different than most other people.

      That attitude is really a 14 year old atheist's one. Instead of leaning on a god, they lean on the imagined superiority they have, they feel good because they're better- stronger minded, more intelligent, etc. Not much better, IMHO. While I'm not christian or religious at all for that matter, I think that's a pretty shitty attitude to have.

      Then there are atheists who just don't think there's any god. fine and dandy. But for those who use atheism as a crutch- get off of it.

      --

      Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
    4. Re:Dude, you are seriously weak-minded. by MrBlackBand · · Score: 1
      they feel good because they're better- stronger minded, more intelligent, etc.

      Perhaps they just feel pissed off that so many people in this day and age still cling to beliefs in invisible boogymen.

      How would you feel if you were suddenly dropped into a world where nearly everyone believed in the Great Toad-Robot in the Sky. What if the leader of this nation said that the Great Toad-Robot told him to smite his enemies and then begun to carry out his Toad-Robot gods wishes? What if people tried to replace scientific knowledge in schools with the Holy Truth of the creation of the world by the Toad-Robot's mighty tounge? What if anyone who wasn't a believer was ridiculed or worse? What if to become elected each candidate had to profess belief in the Toad-Robot, even had to out-believe each other? Forget about a non-believer being elected.

      Hopefully you'd have the courage to speak out aginst this crap. But I doubt it.

      --
      "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."
    5. Re:Dude, you are seriously weak-minded. by RevAaron · · Score: 1

      Perhaps they just feel pissed off that so many people in this day and age still cling to beliefs in invisible boogymen.

      Nope. I don't doubt that there are people with that sentiment in the world, but for a lot of people with the attitude I'm talking about that isn't the case. There is a distinct difference- I'm one of those people that you mention. But, I don't cling to atheism like folks cling to christianity- there is the difference.

      Hopefully you'd have the courage to speak out aginst this crap. But I doubt it.

      A christian may speak out, but I likely wouldn't. I'm generally a rational person; unless I had some chance of success, I wouldn't get myself killed for no good reason. Many christians - at least, classic ones- would have the courage to speak out against wrong no matter the consequences. There is an irony here for those who can handle it.

      --

      Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
    6. Re:Dude, you are seriously weak-minded. by IPFreely · · Score: 1
      That is all correct. My lash to the original post was that religion is not all bad just because of a few bad examples. And not everyone who is religious is automatically a loser.

      All of those church schools that were put all over the world for centuries were on the leading edge of knowledge and science when they were set up by the Catholic church. For centuries, these were the place to go for modern education. It is only recently that they have fallen behind other institutions. I probably didn't stress that all those church schools were actually a very good thing to have around. And the church spent a ton of money setting them all up and maintaining them for centuries. To attempt the same scale of education reform today would be a monumental task. I have to respect them for that much at least.

      If the people use religion as a framework to structure their society and maintain tradition and education, more power to them. Use whatever you want, but do something to maintain knowledge and structure. That's what's important.

      --
      There is nothing so silly as other peoples traditions, and nothing so sacred as our own.
    7. Re:Dude, you are seriously weak-minded. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can anyone explain how living according to certain religious tenets such as abstainence is not the scientifically valid way to live? In that case religion and science agree: abstain or face some level of risk for infection or other undesired consequence. Just because science can seemingly get you out of immediate trouble (some STDs/STIs are cureable; abortion is possible) doesn't mean there are no consequences. Practice moderation? Certainly the sciences bare that out in many areas such as alcohol use.

      So why do folks dismiss a religion's offering of a means of clean, safe and healthy living? Is it just contempt for the source? I thought these so-called intelligent folks were beyond simply shooting the messenger. Aren't they?

    8. Re:Dude, you are seriously weak-minded. by IPFreely · · Score: 1
      You are right in that abstainence is a good policy. It is healthfull, it is "moral" for what that's worth. It is beneficial socially.

      For the most part, the people who object to "Abstainence Only" are not objecting to the "abstainence" so much as the "only". The abstainence only proponents are doing everything they can to prevent good education on the nature of human sexuality, the benefits of good health, and all the possible ways to express these things safely. They are causing dammage to usefull clinics who are trying to teach ALL types of health because the clinics are also teaching some types of health that are not "abstainence only". That's the problem.

      If the abstainence only proponents drop the "only" from their view and try to accomadate alternative views, then everyone would get along much better. In the end, it would be better to fully educate the people and allow them to make a fully informed decision for themselves, than to simply state "Do what I say, you don't need to know anything else". I'd bet a lot of people would choose appropriate abstainence given the opportunity to make a well informed choice.

      The same could probably be argued for many religious tennats. Educate the people and allow them to make an informed decision. Don't just say "Do what I say. No questions. No alternatives." It's the approach, not the message, that turns people off.

      --
      There is nothing so silly as other peoples traditions, and nothing so sacred as our own.
    9. Re:Dude, you are seriously weak-minded. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      When I was young, ignorant and closed minded, I used to believe the same as you. Then I grew up and learned how people really work.
      Ahh, the old "I used to be dumb like you then I grew up" garbage. Here's some news for you, Mister All Grown Up And Wise Now Twenty-Something: People don't get more open-minded as they get older.

      There are two kinds of religious people:

      1. weak-minded sheep who line up to be exploited
      2. high priests who do the exploiting
    10. Re:Dude, you are seriously weak-minded. by Lost+Race · · Score: 1
      That attitude is really a 14 year old atheist's one.
      Hardly. That attitude is a common one among people of all ages. But only the 14-year-olds are dumb enough to call people who outnumber them "weak-minded" to their faces. Atheists who survive to adulthood learn to use more tact.
    11. Re:Dude, you are seriously weak-minded. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...we all have crutches and are weak minded to an extent.

      [snip]

      But for those who use atheism as a crutch- get off of it.

      Just curious--why does most of the world get to use religious beliefs as a crutch, but atheists can't use their beliefs as a crutch?

    12. Re:Dude, you are seriously weak-minded. by RevAaron · · Score: 1

      Atheists who survive to adulthood learn to use more tact.

      Some, but not all. I guess this is somewhat dependent on what "adulthood" is defined as; I've known plenty of folks into their 20s who retain this attitude. Getting older doesn't always mean maturity.

      I wasn't railing against all atheists, just those with this kind of attitude. At this stage in my life- 23, in college, dealing with people of a similar age in meatlife and in the ether, I still encounter this attitude in people who call themselves "atheists." Most of the folks who had this attitude and lost it call themselves agnostics now, or simply just don't care any more. They may make fun of christians still, but don't need an anti-god as a crutch like they used to.

      --

      Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
    13. Re:Dude, you are seriously weak-minded. by RevAaron · · Score: 1

      An AC said:

      Just curious--why does most of the world get to use religious beliefs as a crutch, but atheists can't use their beliefs as a crutch?

      Who said they couldn't go on using it as such? I say more power to them. But just like moralizing christians, the kind who want to intrude on my life, they should expect to get a mouthful back.

      Like I said before, we all have crutches, or in a nicer way of words sources of strength. I simply prefer to have my crutches be somewhat more healthier things than cutting people down- especially if your problem is the same as theirs. Just seems kind of sleazy and immmature, though I don't doubt it'll go on until the end of time, no matter what I say.

      --

      Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
    14. Re:Dude, you are seriously weak-minded. by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Most of the folks who had this attitude and lost it call themselves agnostics now, or simply just don't care any more.

      But they only do that after they become weak-minded. My father was an "atheist" most of his life. After he got old, he is now an "agnostic." He believes that God does not exist. He has held that belief most of his life. However, he thinks that others find the term "atheist" to be offensive and pretentious, so he is now an "agnostic."

      I'm offended when others tell me my beliefs are wrong and try to convert me, and so I'd never do the same to them. But I will hold my beliefs, and when asked, I will answer with the truth and not sugar-coat my beliefs in order to not offend the closed-minded.

  136. EMP, no. Assassin Box, yes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The ph33r3d 4$$4$$1N80X

  137. It's a hotspot by seanmeister · · Score: 2, Funny

    Richard: We've been coming here for years -- suddenly, everybody has an exploding laptop... what gives?

    Ricardo: It's a hot spot.

    Richard: A hot spot?

    Ricardo: A hot spot, broadband, wireless, a tipping point. One hot spot... a blip. Ten... a novelty. Then shit starts exploding... billions of dollars fly through the air and spontaneously combusting.

    Richard: Billions?

    Ricardo: Billions. (faces Richard) Watch your head.

    Sean: (asking Richard) How's our securAAAAAAARGH MY CELL PHONE JUST EXPLODED IN MY FRONT POCKET!!!!!!

    Title: IBM SECURITY FOR THE ON DEMAND, SPONTANEOUSLY-COMBUSTING WORLD

  138. unfortunately.... by zogger · · Score: 1

    ... it might be related to the theory outlined in this recent article on earths magnetic fields and polarity changes.

    Seems as good a reason as anything else for these "spontaneous" fires I've read so far. Perhaps gross random piezo electric effects might be pre cursors/indicators of building intensity?

    Also, we don't know yet if similar phenomenon are ocurring any place else around the planet. Given what is happening in the village, with it's very low population insuring that ANY strange occurrence was well noted by everyone there, similar random appearing events that might be occurring elsewhere in largepopulation areas might be being dismissed as sabotage or vandalism or normal arson, etc, and the stories are just lost in the noise of normal reporting. And if it's ocurring in even more remote areas, well then it wouldn't be reported at all obviously. I don't know, might be though. We DO know that we are seeing other strange magnetic effects around the world, a lot of altered and strange weather, seismic disturbances, etc. Perhaps a unique feature of this villages geology structure beneath might have something to do with the effects being more intense there. I do think we should be paying attention to a variety of indicators relating to the planet's modalities, as there does exist most credible evidence of past.. well.. cataclsyms.

  139. You laugh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    but I'm reminded of the Daily Show that replayed footage of an Iraqi engineering student (technology witch-doctor trainee?) who surmised that the US soldiers had a top secret cooling system built into their underwear.

    Truth is frequently stranger than anything people could invent.

    1. Re:You laugh... by carlos_benj · · Score: 1

      ...US soldiers had a top secret cooling system built into their underwear.

      They should stay out of Sicily then as it could give new meaning to the term "shorts".

      --

      --

      As a matter of fact, I am a lawyer. But I play an actor on TV.

  140. Probably EMP testing by the shadow gov't. by dentar · · Score: 1

    Hmm. even unplugged devices blowing up?

    I would say that our shadow military is testing EMP and they're our secret victims.

    MUAHAAHAAHAA!

    --
    -- I am. Therefore, I think!
    1. Re:Probably EMP testing by the shadow gov't. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that has to be a great way to disable an enemy plane...

  141. The Core by Bruha · · Score: 1

    Hrm maybe I'll watch the core again a few times.

    I did have a unusual amount of birds crap on my car yesterday.

  142. Quantum Theory to the rescue! by kalirion · · Score: 1

    The wires and electronics obviously exist in both the stable and the ignited states simultaneously. Then, when observers enter the area, the waveform collapses to just one of the aforementioned states.

    I'd like my Nobel Physics prize now.

  143. Blame the media! by nlper · · Score: 1

    Actually I would say that it's a good example of media presenting it as something science can't explain.

    It's a news story, not refereed article. (You can tell because no subscription was required to read it.) What do you expect, a "fair and balanced" reporter's statement that no scientists have presented replicatable explanations -- but they could if they really wanted to?

    If you read the article you may note that they have no citations from any of the billion of scientist who are apparently there.

    "Citations"? When was the last time you read a scientific article by reputable scientists saying, effectively, "Here's something a lot of people have witnessed and it beats the shit out of us what's happening"?

    Certainly, the news that 1/6 of the world's population have become scientists and are visiting this tiny village should be covered in something like Demographics Journal. But even if that article were accepted for publication, the delays mean we won't be able to read about it for another year or two. Thank Sagan we can read authoritative, unrefereed Web sites to get the real story that the news media are afraid to print!

    What these people do is a good way to sell more papers.

    What more scientific way of refuting data than by impuning the methods of the reporters? I mean, aside from the Sokal and Lomborg affairs, we all know that scientists publish for the purist of motives, right?

    Demon-haunted science bigots is more like it. Feh!

    Tyler

    1. Re:Blame the media! by Hast · · Score: 1

      What do you expect, a "fair and balanced" reporter's statement that no scientists have presented replicatable explanations -- but they could if they really wanted to?

      Well he's a reporter, perhaps he should ask some of the science people around what they think of it? That is his job after all. A lot of people (including you perhaps) have a
      limited understanding of the scientific principle and how the methodology works. Because every time a "scientist" can't explain everything right away all the crack-pots start gathering and all of a sudden their "explainations" are good as gold. The scientist have typically already gone over a lot of hypothesises, but unlike the crack-pots they need to be able to verify their ideas before they can accept them.

      If you read the article you may note that they have no citations from any of the billion of scientist who are apparently there.

      "Citations"? When was the last time you read a scientific article by reputable scientists saying, effectively, "Here's something a lot of people have witnessed and it beats the shit out of us what's happening"?

      Yes, because as I pointed out before it's important for people to understand how critical thinking actually works. Scientist aren't born with all knowledge in the world, they are simply trained to think about problems and solve them in a methodical way.

      And why should it be less interesting to hear what the scientist have to say than that the mayor doesn't know what's going on. Or the priest who's convinced that it's the devil who has possessed the electrical appliences. (Which brings up an interesting theological question regarding if mobile phones have souls.)

      Certainly, the news that 1/6 of the world's population have become scientists and are visiting this tiny village should be covered in something like Demographics Journal. But even if that article were accepted for publication, the delays mean we won't be able to read about it for another year or two. Thank Sagan we can read authoritative, unrefereed Web sites to get the real story that the news media are afraid to print!

      Jesus Christ, did you write this article or something? You seem to take my critisism way too personal.

      Yes the scientific process is slow. That's part of why it actually produces useable work. And I don't claim that the site I linked has the solution. I do however claim that the people there actually have some understanding of how problems like this are solved. It's not like with the X-Files where you know that they soon will have the answer since it's only 10 minutes left on the show. I just think it's really sad that journalist tend to skip the "boring details" and go straight to the stuff that sell papers. The article even claims that is is the first time it has ever happened in the world, but that's apparently not true.

      I can understand that it's not easy for a journalist to get all the facts but they should be expected to look things up before they print it. Well, that's just the reason why I never trust news articles with statistics or science in them any more. The journalists are way to gullible to provide a decent filter to what they are writing.

      What these people do is a good way to sell more papers.

      What more scientific way of refuting data than by impuning the methods of the reporters? I mean, aside from the Sokal and Lomborg affairs, we all know that scientists publish for the purist of motives, right?

      WHAT DATA? There isn't a single interesting fact in that article. They don't even attempt to explain correlation between the incidents or mention that the incidents have occured when no electrical appliaces were around. My entire point is that the article is completely devoid of any facts besides that a village on Siccily has a problem with fires and the name of the mayor of said village.

      I'm not claiming this hasn't happened. I am

  144. Yeah... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it never ceases to amaze me how technically inclined mostly caucasians are all ass-hats that jump to conclusions at the first wiff of a trend.

    How about you put your mad skillz where your keyboard is, and come up with a real random sample based study. Afraid you'll find out something revolutionary like, "Humans make snap judgements which fit into broad trends and correct as availability of better information and necessity dictate."

    Or you could just get off your high hobby horse. Mr. Oats probably needs to have his springs rotated. And look moderators agree with you, that makes you extra evil, and them sheep doesn't it.

  145. "only when there are people present" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The following statement leads me to believe that its a hoax:

    Demon fire ate my computer
    The Committee for the Control of Paranormal Claims has ruled out demons or poltergeists.

    "The fact that the phenomenon occurs only when there are people present makes it hard to believe that it is a natural, or even supernatural phenomenon," it said in a statement.

  146. There are other explanations by rammer · · Score: 1

    For example: There were some heretics about in 8th century AD. So the priest then thought of a solution to the problem. Two birds with one stone. Kill the heretic. Take his/her heart and perform a "miracle".

    A slight of hand is all that is needed. It's not even that difficult to do. Illusionists can do extraordinary things even if you stand right next to them (My favorite kind of illusionism).

    I for one prefer the explanation I just gave and not the one usually given.

    Strange things happen. Yes. Is God(TM) behind them? No.
    I for one believe that humanity is in the middle of a transition from a superstitious state (gods/spirits/magic) to a scientific state (knowledge/theories/fact). It will still take about a thousand years or so. But eventually all religions will be abandoned or transformed to a insignificant minority. Just think of the change that has happened in the last hundred years.
    A lot still needs to change before religion can truly start to disappear though. Religions still provide a control method for a large part of the population that simply does not exist otherwise. Ethics should be a compulsory subject in all elementary schools.

    1. Re:There are other explanations by Digz · · Score: 1
      ..and said 8th century Inquisitor posessed the knowledge to institute a perpetuating "slight of hand"? One point I think you may have overlooked is that the said miraculous Blood has reliquefied annually for all but two years - and in those two years great natural disasters happened. Quite a feat for an 8th century Inquisitor, no doubt.

      As to your other contention, whose ethics should we teach? Islamist ethics? Fascists ethics? Kantian ethics? Nazi ethics? To whom do you appeal? And if your appeal is merely to a man, why should I respect that authority? What makes it more compelling for me to embrace the ethical stances of Bertrand Russel instead of Benito Mussolini? Inherent evil? But then again, what is evil? If you have no objective standard to seperate good from evil, then how can you effectively delineate what is superfluous in one ethical system and detrimental in another? And again, by what authority should I take those classifications?

      Check out Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis sometime - it may give you reason to pause.

      --
      SYS 64738
  147. Sounds like one place.... by Dwarfgoat · · Score: 1

    Sounds like one place you DON'T want to wear yout tin-foil hat.

    --
    That? That was a pigeon.
    1. Re:Sounds like one place.... by hellmarch · · Score: 1

      thats why i use an aluminum foil cap... or a reynolds wrap beret

  148. Mod Parent Up by Paulrothrock · · Score: 1
    Of all the rebuttals, this one is the best. It's not about whose book is right, or who's going to hell ("I believe the correct answer was Mormon"), it's about who is nice and good. I don't really care what people believe so long as they
    • Don't bother trying to make me believe the same thing, no matter how much your book says I'm going to suffer
    • Be nice to other people, including your elders, your children, and future generations.
    --
    I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
  149. here is PROOF!!!! by hellmarch · · Score: 1

    this is new footage taken of a compaq presario spontaneously combusting. courtesy of flamingboard:
    http://elwood.longlines.com/~soucada/fireball/Anim ation1.avi

    1. Re:here is PROOF!!!! by hellmarch · · Score: 1

      here is more footage with sound...
      http://elwood.longlines.com/~soucada/fireball/comp aqmod.mpg
      this test was almost aborted due to school bus approaching test site. (listen to audio)

  150. Re:Sicily by RAMMS+EIN · · Score: 1

    Personally, I _do_ think it's funny. As to the other five times, well, they appeared on the page after I posted mine. I consider the -1 Redundant mods inappropriate, but heck, it was just a joke so I'm not making a big deal out of it.

    --
    Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
  151. hmmm,.. where's the video? by rider_prider · · Score: 1

    5 weeks of events, where's the video, or does it always happen when there are no video cameras present? Maybe that is the solution, I have found video cameras prevent all kinds of paranormal activity, ufo's, ghost's, mysterious fires, ...

  152. satan took over my keyboard by bl8n8r · · Score: 2, Funny

    > "I've seen things like this before," he told the
    >daily Il Messaggero. "Demons occupy a house and
    >appear in electrical goods."
    I have seen this too. It is usually manifested in the form of a great deal of pr0n downloaded onto my harddisk. I have no idea how it gets there.

    --
    boycott slashdot February 10th - 17th check out: altSlashdot.org
  153. Re:hmmm,.. where's the video? by VoidPoint · · Score: 2, Insightful

    A simple search on everyone's favorite search engine would have lead them to this CNN article dated April First. Of course, one need merely think about it really really hard to realize that spontaneous combustion and April Fools go together like baseball and apple pie. That would be cricket and guiness for our UK friends.

  154. Roy D Mercer by infinite9 · · Score: 1

    I feel sorry for any IT professionals walking around with a pager, NEXtel, and a PDA in their pockets/belts. Ouch!


    It blowed up right there on her butt!

    --
    Disconnect your television. Do your own research. Draw your own conclusions. They're probably lying. Don't be a sheep.
  155. Appliance Demons by LabRat007 · · Score: 2, Funny

    'I've seen things like this before. Demons occupy a house and appear in electrical goods.'- -- Gabriele Amorth Exorcist

    Generally you don't see that kind of behavior in a major appliance. - "Ghostbusters"

    --
    "Capital punishment makes the state into a murderer. Imprisonment makes the state into a gay dungeon-master"
  156. Re:hmmm,.. where's the video? by hellmarch · · Score: 2, Interesting
  157. HAARP could do this... by Dman33 · · Score: 1

    Good call. The first thing I though about was HAARP. Something along those lines could easily do this but if that were the case, we would never know about it.

    Now my question is this: Would tinfoil hats be exposed?!

  158. No tinfoil hat her. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tesla experiments involving tapping energy from the ionosphere does not require a tinfoil hat. AND they are EXTREMELY dangerous if not conducted the right way.

  159. Re:The Godfather Part 4 by felis_panthera · · Score: 1

    Still... it couldn't possibly be worse than Godfather 3...

    --

    The chains are broken
    Loki is free
    Ragnarok is at hand...
  160. Re:hmmm,.. where's the video? by kilfarsnar · · Score: 1

    Duh! The video cameras burst into flame!

    --
    "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
  161. A Mysterious Unbalanced power factor? by asbestos_tophat · · Score: 2, Interesting

    A Mysterious Unbalanced power factor?

    Most likely one of the following:

    1.) Old fabric-insulated wire systems and new power hungry appliances
    2.) Old aluminium based wire (the Ausies had fun with that technology)
    3.) Temperature coefficients of conductor increased resistance under load causing thermo run-away by overloading power systems.
    4.) Step-down transformer has become unbalanced
    5.) Transient suppression condensers are not inline between the town's sub-stations
    6.) Magic-8-Ball says the "air conditioners" did it, surly a power plot.

  162. USB Printer Status by prat393 · · Score: 4, Funny
    In linux kernels, drivers/usb/class/usblp.c declares an array of strings with the status of USB printers as:
    static char *usblp_messages[] = { "ok", "out of paper", "off-line", "on fire" };
    1. Re:USB Printer Status by ceswiedler · · Score: 1

      Apparently that's an old Unix tradition. I think some ancient line printer reported an error condition which indicated overheating or something. Perhaps someone else could provide more info? I couldn't find the historical story with a quick Google search.

    2. Re:USB Printer Status by autocracy · · Score: 1

      Regarding your .sig: yes, I recognize people by their .sig lines. People whose .sig I see several times within a few weeks (typically attached to higher-rated comments) usually get marked as friends.

      --
      SIG: HUP
    3. Re:USB Printer Status by mrphish697 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Looks like they've taken the "on fire" string out. It's still present in 2.4.18-3 in printer.c, but in 2.4.20-8 it's been replaced with "unknown error". Sad to see the lighter hearted stuff go as development continues, but I guess it's part of the "maturing" process.

      --
      You can't ride two horses with one ass
    4. Re:USB Printer Status by Russ+Steffen · · Score: 2, Interesting

      IIRC, it was a message logged when a parallel port device raised the error line but didn't send an error code. The "On fire" was not a statement but a question, as in "lp0: Reports error but not out-of-paper, not paper jammed, not offline. On fire?"

    5. Re:USB Printer Status by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      on 2.4.18 in arch/i386/kernel/bluesmoke.c there is a kernel error message in the machine check handler for Pentium class Intel chips that reads:

      if(lotype&(15)) printk(KERN_EMERG "CPU#%d: Possible thermal failure (CPU on fire ?).\n", smp_processor_id());

    6. Re:USB Printer Status by DonGar · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If I remember correctly, there was a specific model that prompted that because it had a problem with the print head getting stuck. There were no safeties on the positioning motor which (if not stopped) would keep trying to move the head until it overheated and, well, caught fire.

      I beleive that smoke from the drive belt was more common than actual fires.

      --
      plus-good, double-plus-good
    7. Re:USB Printer Status by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      They should leave it in as a feature. If there's a problem that's hard to diagnose, and you keep getting kernel panics and strange error messages, you eventually get sick of it. I've gotten the "food fight" kernel panic another poster mentioned, and it really helped to cheer me up when my computer wasn't behaving.

      So leave it in as a stress-relief feature. Who knows, it might just stop an overworked stressed-out IT guy from going postal some day.

    8. Re:USB Printer Status by Cyno01 · · Score: 2, Funny

      It was possible with the old thermal printers. I remember hearing about the early days of fax spam, when they used actual fax machines to send. People would send back the black loop and it would cause the recipients machine to actually catch fire.

      --
      "Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
    9. Re:USB Printer Status by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damn, have they been stealing AMD's code??? ;)

    10. Re:USB Printer Status by DeadChobi · · Score: 0

      I thought it was because old drum printers would catch fire. As the paper was rotating around the drum being printed on, a little bit of paper dust would get scraped off and caught between the drum and the thingies spinning it, so that eventually the paper dust would catch fire. When this resulted in no signal being recieved at the computer doing the printing, a "Printer on fire" error would be recieved at which point the operator was to run screaming out of the room.

      --
      SRSLY.
  163. Re:hmmm,.. where's the video? by g0bshiTe · · Score: 1
    spontaneous combustion and April Fools go together like baseball and apple pie


    Or backwoods people being abducted by aliens.

    "Martha dem dadburn Marcians dun stole my priize winin cow Bessie once mo' gan."
    --
    I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
  164. Interesting. by xagon7 · · Score: 1

    It is interesting how, if one were to use any other demographic than, Christian, it would not be "PC", nor considered funny, nor acceptable.

  165. Donald Knuth... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...is an asshat.

  166. Natural Tesla by phorm · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Natural atmospheric conditions in the sky can cause lightning, could an unusual atmospheric charge cause something tesla-like naturally at ground level?

    How about underground, if there were enough minerals capable of transporting electrical impulses?

    1. Re:Natural Tesla by Prowl · · Score: 1

      ah, but that's not nearly as much fun as blaming the US Govt, or the New World Order :-)

      --
      That man tried to kill mah Daddy
  167. I agree with this post. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The NO CARRIER joke is, quite possibly, the least funny ongoing joke on Slashdot. In fact, I would rate it worse than the In Soveit Russia jokes. Please, for the love of humanity, just let this joke die.

    It is official; Netcraft now confirms: The NO CARRIER joke is dying.

  168. FOAF Warning? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Interesting, I saw this history on TV here in Spain, a pair of months ago, but the location was some little town in Galicia, similar to that on Sicily I think.

    Friend Of A Friend Tales are getting to the TV or are the electrofairys attacking? Maybe Tesla is back from the dead with superpowers, argh!

    DrPollo

  169. Disproof by macdaddy · · Score: 1
    What can't be disproved at this point is the existence of God. What can be disproved is many of the "sacred" beliefs that religion teaches, beit verbally or in what religion considers its sacred texts. For example, I forget the exact number for numerous religions believe that "Eve" came from the Mesopotamian valley. Well science disproves this with genetic diversity testing. Those tests prove that our oldest genetic relative came from southern Africa. Science can disprove a number of religions beliefs. It's fascinating to watch what ensues after each new announcement of that sort. The scientists are publicly attacked on their lack of belief and how they are directly attacking out most sacred yadda yadda yadda. The sponsors of those research projects are persuaded to stop funding the project. The scientists and their families are ostracized from their communities. They fall short of burning them at the stake or beheading them. Other than that it parallels religious acts dating back as far as history has been recorded. It's really quite sad.

    My only belief is simple: Tolerance. Nothing more, nothing less. Have it for me and I'll have it for you. Try to tramble my rights and you won't like the consequences. :) BTW, I'm an Atheist too.

    1. Re:Disproof by paRcat · · Score: 1

      With all due respect, the oldest genetic relative you refer to isn't necessarily the *actual* oldest genetic relative, just the oldest one found.

      There is no way for science to say that everyone came from that area, aside from finding the oldest remains. And there is no guarantee that what they might be holding are *actually* the oldest. It's quite possible that the African environment simply makes it more suitable to remains being preserved, as opposed to the Mesopotamian valley. y'know?

    2. Re:Disproof by KnarfO · · Score: 1

      If mankind's science has disproved anything, it is the notion of scientific unfallibility. That is to say, our scientists are constantly proving that previously held scientific 'facts' are actually not true after all.

      The more scientists try to disprove the word of God, the more they demonstrate that they really don't have a clue.

      --


      "Creativity is allowing ones self to make mistakes. Art is knowing which ones to keep" - Scott Adams
    3. Re:Disproof by Jim+Starx · · Score: 1
      Well science disproves this with genetic diversity testing. Those tests prove that our oldest genetic relative came from southern Africa

      That is far from a proof. There are plenty of scientists who dispute what the results of those tests actually indicate.

      --
      The darkness... controls the music. The music... controls the soul.
    4. Re:Disproof by macdaddy · · Score: 1

      I'm afraid you don't understand the genetic diversity tests, or rather I didn't explain them very well. They aren't tests on remains. They are tests on living man, literally you and I. These geneticists (I wish I could remember their names) performed gentic testing on thousands of individuals around the world. The minute changes in the genetic sequences provide a precise road map for our ancestry. The closer you get to southern Africa the less diverse the genetic code. Think of it like pure bred dogs. Pure bred == inbred. They can only remain pure as they breed within a primary bloodline. Really they are just inbreeding. In a way so are we. Our lineages of course mix many times. Ultimately we're all cousins. So basically they aren't testing remains (which can be hard to find and could technically be moved). They are testing current genetic lines to trace each one's origins. It was a pretty neat study from what I've read.

  170. Barrier coming down between the worlds by coachvince · · Score: 1, Funny

    Or, it's just being caused by kallikanzaros, knowing their time is coming again. Word of warning- watch out for Bortan! A+ certified and potty-trained; equally proud of both.

    --
    1. Re:Barrier coming down between the worlds by paganizer · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't kallikanzaros be more appropriate for greece?

      --
      Why, yes, I AM a Pagan Libertarian.
  171. Jello? by radoni · · Score: 1

    you must agree...

    because it's magic

    --
    SIGERR: laziness exceeds quota
  172. Not A Huge Surprise by Smilodon · · Score: 2, Funny

    If you have ever owned an old Fiat, the concept of Italian electronics spontaneously combusting is not that far fetched. ;)

    1. Re:Not A Huge Surprise by wjeff · · Score: 1

      I can attest to this. I used to own a Fiat 128 (tiny 4 door sedan). The wireharness just inside the firewall would short and burn everytime after about 20-30 miles of continuous driving. I kept splicing in heavier guage wire each time, but it didn't do any good. The one Fiat mechanic in town never found anything wrong. Finally I settled for stopping and turning off the car momentarily every 15 miles, until I could sell. My friends and the guy I sold it to, thought I was nuts.

      --
      my old sig is obsolete, and I haven't come up with a stupid enough new one yet
    2. Re:Not A Huge Surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nasty thing about electrical fires is the gremlins phenomena. They cause differing circuits intermittently interact.

      Any of this sounds familiar? Possible explanations...
      1.) "Fuse-Wires" are common on some vehicles, however the short could be anywhere. Find a person with a MEGA-OHMER meter to help you. Then disconnect your battery (then ground terminal to discharge caps etc.) and use your manual's schematic to track down the area of highest resitance (works).
      2.) Some solenoid valves and relays coils can turn brown/purple, an indication they are fried (replace).
      3.) Some cigarette-lighters stuff and Fog-Lamp set-ups can bypass your fuse box etc.
      4.) Over-rated fuses can damage your vehicle. Not to mention some "normal" looking bundled wires can short together when over-heated.
      5.) Lamp sockets (including interior) can corrode and heat-up to cause circuit failures.
      6.) Find a commercial inspection mechanic, they are far better at analysis.

  173. Angel Phenomenon? by kherr · · Score: 0

    Maybe it's a "hotspot" of coming angel activity, as envisioned in Ted Chiang's Hell is an Absence of God (excerpt). Angels show up but in the process wreak all kind of physical havoc due to their immense power of the Divine Spirit. Cool story.

    And let's not ignore the Babylon5 mythos, where angels are actually Vorlons (i.e., alien race).

  174. The pope was wardriving by nonameisgood · · Score: 1

    I thought the object of wardriving was to receive, rather than emit certain RF's. (But then again, it turns out that the priests have been emitting a bit more than we thought.)

    Thank you, I'll be here to Thursday.
    --
    Only from Italy would a story come proclaiming supernature as a cause of such a phenomenon. But tourism is their primary source of foreign currency, and the sheep are asking for a new miracle - maybe this is Sodom II.

    --
    Faith is the very antithesis of reason, injudiciousness a critical component of spiritual devotion. Jon Krakauer
  175. Coffee not a health drink then? by slyckshoes · · Score: 1

    A fair number of people have pointed out that the article lacks any quotes from the scientists who have been there and investigated, choosing only to quote locals who believe the cause is supernatural.

    Interestingly enough, this follows close on the heels of the Slashdot story reporting "Coffee is a 'Health Drink'" which was based off another Italian's... opinions? conjectures? Link .

    So what is it with these Italians? They don't like to cite scientists in publications? I mean, not that I care; since I started drinking espresso regularly my attention span has shrunk to the point at which I can only concentrate on the headlines anyway.

    Ah, I'm not really serious, so don't be offended.

  176. horn by Melvin+Daniels · · Score: 1

    it was a horn, not a sub.

  177. Proof the Italians have WMD! by quakeroatz · · Score: 1

    Quick George! Invade!

  178. Fires happen, things burn by Farce+Pest · · Score: 1

    Obligatory Monty Python reference (too lazy to reformat):

    Knock at the door, sergeant enters, and salutes.
    Sergeant Two civilian gentlemen to see you ... sir!
    Colonel Show them in please, sergeant.
    Sergeant Mr Dino Vercotti and Mr Luigi Vercotti.
    The Vercotti brothers enter. They wear Mafia suits and dark glasses.
    Dino Good morning, colonel.
    Colonel Good morning gentlemen. Now what can I do for you.
    Luigi (looking round office casually)You've ... you've got a nice army base here, colonel.
    Colonel Yes.
    Luigi We wouldn't want anything to happen to it.
    Colonel What?
    Dino No, what my brother means is it would be a shame if... (he knocks something off mantel)
    Colonel Oh.
    Dino Oh sorry, colonel.
    Colonel Well don't worry about that. But please do sit down.
    Luigi No, we prefer to stand, thank you, colonel.
    Colonel All right. All right. But what do you want?
    Dino What do we want, ha ha ha.
    Luigi Ha ha ha, very good, colonel.
    Dino The colonel's a joker, Luigi.
    Luigi Explain it to the colonel, Dino.
    Dino How many tanks you got, colonel?
    Colonel About five hundred altogether.
    Luigi Five hundred! Hey!
    Dino You ought to be careful, colonel.
    Colonel We are careful, extremely careful.
    Dino 'Cos things break, don't they?
    Colonel Break?
    Luigi Well everything breaks, don't it colonel. (he breaks something on desk) Oh dear.
    Dino Oh see my brother's clumsy colonel, and when he gets unhappy he breaks things. Like say, he don't feel the army's playing fair by him, he may start breaking things, colonel.
    Colonel What is all this about?
    Luigi How many men you got here, colonel?
    Colonel Oh, er ... seven thousand infantry, six hundred artillery, and er, two divisions of paratroops.
    Luigi Paratroops, Dino.
    Dino Be a shame if someone was to set fire to them.
    Colonel Set fire to them?
    Luigi Fires happen, colonel.
    Dino Things burn.
    Colonel Look, what is all this about?
    Dino My brother and I have got a little proposition for you colonel.
    Luigi Could save you a lot of bother.
    Dino I mean you're doing all right here aren't you, colonel.
    Luigi Well suppose some of your tanks was to get broken and troops started getting lost, er, fights started breaking out during general inspection, like.
    Dino It wouldn't be good for business would it, colonel?
    Colonel Are you threatening me?
    Dino Oh, no, no, no.
    Luigi Whatever made you think that, colonel?
    Dino The colonel doesn't think we're nice people, Luigi.
    Luigi We're your buddies, colonel.
    Dino We want to look after you.
    Colonel Look after me?
    Luigi We can guarantee you that not a single armoured division will get done over for fifteen bob a week.

    --
    This message has been scanned for memes and dangerous content by MindScanner, and is believed to be unclean.
  179. Quick, call Charles Xavier... by worldcitizen · · Score: 1

    ...Cerebro failed to nail this new one

  180. Faraday Cage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Install some technology in a Faraday cage (with a sign on it that says "come on ghosts or evil spirits if you thik your hard enough" :-) ) . If it survives then some sort of EM or electrical interference is to blame.

    If it doesn't then we maybe have a more interesting phenomena.

  181. Possible explanation. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    If the main power grid has been turned off, people will be attempting to run their own generators. Some of them will neglect to disconnect their electrical system from the main supply before starting their generator, causing circuits elsewhere to become unexpectedly live.

    Signed,
    the electric AC

  182. X Files Movie Plot? by LifesABeach · · Score: 0

    where is special agent fox molder when you need him?

    1. Re:X Files Movie Plot? by TheLink · · Score: 2, Funny

      Sorry he's been replaced by Faux Smoulder.

      --
    2. Re:X Files Movie Plot? by lindsay+rose · · Score: 1

      I don't know where Molder is, but Mulder sure ought to pop up about now.

      --
      01001100 01101001 01101110 01100100 01110011 01100001 01111001
  183. Its GOD Alright! by the_mushroom_king · · Score: 1

    God is belated punishing the Italians for having the nerve to suggest that our flat earth is not the center of the Universe.

    Overheard recently in a showing of The Passion: "OMG, they killed Jesus!", Voice #1. Voice #2, "You bastards!"
  184. MOD PARENT UP by forand · · Score: 1

    Sorry no mod points today. He has links and quotes this should be part of the discussion.

  185. It's those damned Weather Balloons again by Tablizer · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Weather balloons have been following me all over the place, zapping me, probing my anus in the dead of night, making spirograph circles on my lawn, painting Elvis on my shower curtain, playing Yoko Ono in reverse, etc. Make them stop, please. I can't take it anymore!

  186. It *could* be... by mengel · · Score: 2, Interesting
    The article says:
    Police ruled out a possible prankster or pyromaniac after they saw wires burst into flames.
    You know, I bet that if you soaked plastic-insulated wires in liquid oxygen for a few minutes, then left the room, the next person to turn on the item in question would get an effect very much like that...

    If you read This reference under "Combustibility", it says:

    In the presence of an appreciable oxygen concentration, a spark on certain materials may cause them to burst into flame, whereas in air, fire would not result. (For this reason, liquid oxygen should never be stored or used in small closed compartments, rooms or excavations without added ventilation. Well ventilated storage and working space should be provided.) Materials that should be of special concern in this respect are wood, plastic, powdered metals, combustible rags and clothing.
    Now when you consider that dunking a wire and plastic in liquid oxygen is also likely to cause lots of heat-stress fractures in both the now-brittle plastic and the metal...

    Whoosh!

    --
    - "History shows again and again how nature points out the folly of men" -- Blue Oyster Cult, 'Godzilla'
  187. This is what happens when you.... by Tablizer · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...don't pay your SCO license.

  188. Piezo Electrics? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    I don't know if anyone posted this but could there be a relationship to Piezo Eletrical activity.

    I wonder if they have done any kind of surveying or tests for minerals (assaying). Is there any sign of tectonic movement? I have no idea what I am talking about.

    1. Re:Piezo Electrics? by katarac · · Score: 1

      Damn you. I just spit Cheeto all over my keyboard.

    2. Re:Piezo Electrics? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well maybe they could realign the deflector antenna to the photon torpedoes to emit a concentrated tachyon pulse in subspace...

    3. Re:Piezo Electrics? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why the heck is this modded funny? It's a very likely explanation, though the activity is probably volcanic and not tectonic (I don't think Italy is on a plate boundary, is it?).

      Heat, motion, crystals, electric fields.

  189. Nope by StormyMonday · · Score: 1

    Remake of Hardware Wars.

    --
    Welcome to the Turing Tarpit, where everything is possible but nothing interesting is easy.
  190. Re:Limits of Science ? Or limits of scientists ? by TGK · · Score: 1

    I call bullshit.

    This is a loaded question, by asking said scientist to explain these "facts" as you put it, you are asking them to pre-suppose that these things exist.

    Science is not in the buisness of putting forth ideas which involve the supernatural. If a scientist is to put forth a theory that theory must have some criteria by which it can be disproven.

    If someone postulates that mind reading involves the detection of tiny fluctuations in the electromagnetic emissions of the brain and he can read minds normaly, but can't when his head is in a faraday cage then perhaps you have a crediable study. As is, you need to have someone who can consistantly read minds before you can do anything else.

    Science is experimentation to disprove. An idea that can not be disproved through experimentation becomes an accepted truth if and only if that idea had some method by which it could be disproved.

    --
    Killfile(TGK)
    No trees were killed in the creation of this post. However, many electrons were inconvenienced.
  191. Re:Terrorism/Pranks by DavidTC · · Score: 1
    The first would be fairly noticable. (Hey, why are all those cars rolling do the street end over end?)

    And the second would have serious problems starting fires inside houses. And I think you're underestimating the size of the laser required, especially in a town without any power!

    --
    If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
  192. Gives new meaning.. by hesiod · · Score: 1

    This gives new meaning to the term "FireWire."

  193. Similar instances here ... by japes · · Score: 1

    I thought this was familiar. There was a previous article I remember reading on /. that had similar events.

    Keyless Entries Fail In Las Vegas On Friday
    and
    Valley has keyless encounters of the weird kind

    Which then leads me to a couple questions. Do you think that Bush's push for continued exploration and work in space ( and Mars ) is completely altruistic?
    BS
    IMHO this is a cover for additional monies for the current and continued work of the $8.5 billion budgeted for US military space programs.

    And considering that much of the civilized world as well as the US has its back up against the wall considering terrorism it only makes sense that EMP type stuff has been "happening".

  194. let me just point out... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...measuring and analyzing electronic devices that are bursting into flames isntantaneously with more electronic devices is probably not a good idea...

  195. the Committee for the Control of Paranormal Claims by Fishstick · · Score: 1

    After a brief visit to Canneto di Caronia, the head of the Committee for the Control of Paranormal Claims has ruled out demons or poltergeists -- at least for the time being.

    Well, duh!

    They guy's whole job appears to be to debunk claims of supernatual activity, right? What, was he going to show up and pronounce "Holy mamma! This has _got_ to be the work of the devil!!!"

    --

    There is much cruelty in the universe, John.
    Yeah, we seem to have the tour map.

  196. This has been on Coast to Coast AM by boy_afraid · · Score: 1

    This has been on the radio talk show "Coast to Coast AM" with George Nory and Art Bell for the longest time. I can't believe it's just getting to the mainstream news just now, we've been talking about it for a Loooong time now!

    1. Re:This has been on Coast to Coast AM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yay for being an elitist news ph4g!

  197. I love the Registers lead in by MemeRot · · Score: 1

    "The small village of Canneto di Caronia in Sicily has become the front line in the war of annihilation between humanity and Terminator-style roboappliances."

  198. Living Pranks by Raven_Stark · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It is interesting how a prank can take on a life of its own. When I worked for a summer camp for kids, I made up a story about a boy getting killed at camp and him returning to haunt it. I presented it as fact. (I'm a bastard, I know.)

    Over the following few days I elaborated on the story as it took on a life of its own. Soon frightened teens came to me because a vending machine stalked then attacked them. Even adults were decieved. A group of three men insisted that one night the dead boy tried to climb into their canoe and tipped it over. Probably much more happened that I don't even know about since I heard people saying all sorts of strange things to eachother. They didn't say it to me, because I'd been forgotten as the originator of the story.

    Anyway, I can see how a simple short circuit and some story telling could cause people to burn a city...or a city to burn people (Salem). I bet I could even start a new religion and have a million followers before I died, if I were that type. I'm sure I'm not the only one who knows this, probably explains a lot about religion and government.

    It is interesting to note that some even became leaders in bringing my story to life, much like preachers...

    I confessed to my lies when I deemed the situation out of control. Some thought it was funny. One guy hit me, hard. Some decided I was lying about it being a lie. These were all ordinary people--no nuts.

    --
    http://www.marxist.com/
    1. Re:Living Pranks by Prune · · Score: 1

      These were all ordinary people--no nuts.

      LOL! From your story one can conclude that ordinary people are nuts!

      --
      "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
  199. Lawnmower Man... by ticklemeozmo · · Score: 2, Funny

    Always applying religion when there is a simple more rational solution.

    Jobe obviously wasn't killed by the mangetic core reactor as we thought he was... *looks around*

    --
    When modding "Informative", please make sure it both has a source and IS actually informative.
  200. Re:The Godfather Part 4 by Bingo+Foo · · Score: 1

    Uh, Parent is NOT off-topic.

    --
    taken! (by Davidleeroth) Thanks Bingo Foo!
  201. Does God exist? by MrCynical · · Score: 1

    I think what people overlook is why they ever start believing in particular God(s). It is clearly a regional trend since you are told to believe a certain way. The assult begins even before you have the capacity to understand what they are telling you. Trust us. This is true. You must conform. Most finally succumb because of the peer pressure and fear of what they say will happen if you don't.

    Would you have come up with the Christian faith if left to your own imagination? There are many examples of isolated races that didn't. How can it be truth then? It always takes men to spread the "word" for any religion. Clearly if God is there then he/she/it isn't talking.

    --
    --Scott 8-}
  202. The only real "god" by Kiyooka · · Score: 1

    is compassion. Which is why atheists are so pissed off: they see religions as organizations that capitalize on the last great treasure of the human spirit. It's also why many religious folks are repulsed by atheists: they think that because atheists are denouncing religion, they are also denouncing compassion (ingrained association).

    Let's be fair, though.

    To all atheists: it's hard to be spiritual in this day and age. Let's respect those who would dedicate their lifes to something higher than beer, sex, weed, power and money. That's already better than most can do.

    To all religious folks: it's hard to be compassionate and find the true human spirit without the support of religion or the rest of society (the rest of society only rewards sex, power, money, etc), so let's respect atheists.

    We are not Atheists nor Christians, nor any other labels. We are all people, first foremost and always.

  203. It's dark matter baby! by cardshark2001 · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof.

    I'm a scientist myself, and I'm taking devil's advocate here, but don't take that to mean that I'm not being sincere in what I say.

    First of all, extraordinary claims DO NOT demand extraordinary proof, and it annoys me every time I read that. Extraordinary claims demand ordinary proof, just like everything else. Many claims which we now consider proven (leaving aside the epistemological claim that nothing can ever be proven) were once considered extraordinary. According to the scientific method of empirical research, after enough tests come out positive, a hypothesis becomes a working theory. Period. It doesn't matter how extraordinary the claim is, there is no scientific "raising of the bar" for one claim versus another claim. If there was, we probably couldn't get any science done because we would have to examine every hypothesis for its "extraordinaryness" and set the bar accordingly.

    Secondly, science tends to be dismissive of "faith" in favor of "science", but sometimes the things which are believed in "science" are uncomfortably close to "faith". For instance, let's take Einstein's General Theory of Relativity.

    The GTOR works remarkably well on the scale of the solar system, so well, in fact, that we can predict the position of a planet 100 years from now within spitting distance of where it will actually be.

    However, it's long been (what I would characterize as) an article of *faith* among physicists that the GTOR applied equally well throughout the universe, and indeed for a long time it was believed despite evidence to the contrary. Nowadays, we know that there's not near enough visible matter in the universe to make Einstein's equations work in our own galaxy, much less the universe. So what's the answer? Dark matter baby!

    Well, to make matters (no pun intended) worse, we now know that the galaxies are moving away from each other at an *accelerating* rate. Now this cannot be accounted for at all, even with dark matter! Even if we're right about dark matter, the galaxies should not accelerate away from each other. So what is the answer? Dark energy baby!

    Now, to an outside observer such as myself (I am not a physicist), it might seem that scientists were clinging to their old beliefs and trying to shape the universe to fit them, rather than admitting that they're wrong. In other words, they're taking the GTOR on faith, in spite of evidence to the contrary.

    A physicist can say that the GTOR is evidence for "dark matter", and "dark energy", despite having absolutely no direct evidence for either one, only the indirect evidence that GTOR won't work without it. In the same way, someone who believes in God can do so because, well, we exist, and we had to come from somewhere. Science doesn't even attempt to answer the question of how the universe came about (if you reply with the big bang, please explain where the infinitely dense infinitely small point came from), so really, it's comical when a scientist ridicules a believer in God.

    Do you see what I'm saying? Most scientists would admit that the question of the origin of the universe is one that science could never answer. Why then do they try so hard to discredit the belief in God? Science has no business even getting into the argument, at least until they come up with a reasonable explanation themselves.

    --
    WWJD? JWRTFA!
    1. Re:It's dark matter baby! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's why these are referred to as "theories" and not necessarily "fact". If someone can come up with a better way to describe the way things work and prove it, then I think the scientific community will accept the ideas and continue progressing.

      The situation is not quite the same when it comes to god. There is no leeway, there is no new way of explaining how things happened thousands of years ago. It's all hardcoded. It's written as fact.

      Of course, most of it is all written nice and vaguely so that people can interpret any way they want, but that's another topic.

    2. Re:It's dark matter baby! by s00p41337h4x0r · · Score: 1
      ...extraordinary claims DO NOT demand extraordinary proof, and it annoys me every time I read that... According to the scientific method of empirical research, after enough tests come out positive, a hypothesis becomes a working theory.

      I suspect you've just misunderstood what's meant by "extraordinary proof". You say yourself that a hypothesis requires "enough" positive tests to be considered a working theory. I don't think you mean six or twelve or two when you say "enough". I think you mean "compelling" tests or "convincing" tests, without considering an a priori number of them.

      Now, should it surprise us that certain tests are more compelling than others? Suppose we take magician who can make a someone disappear on stage and ask him to perform in a brightly lit lab with infrared cameras running from every angle. I'd consider the second disappearing act much more credible than doing it onstage. It would be even better if a seperate group of investigators could take the magician to their independent lab and have him repeat it there, because then we'd be more certain that we didn't screw up the test somehow. Independently reproducible results are a hallmark of science; why do you think your ninth grade Chem teacher was so insistent that you document your procedure in your lab notebook so meticulously?

      But why would we bother to test the magician? Why don't we just take him at his word that he can make people disappear? Or trust the stage show? Well, because we're being asked to swallow an explanation that 1) contradicts all of our previous experience with people regularly not disappearing and 2) is more complicated than the explanation that there's some sleight of hand involved. In other words, it's a pretty extraordinary claim.

      Contrast this with the ordinary claim that the magician does some tricks with smoke and mirrors. While it might take rigorous experiments to convince people that the magician can do real magic, it would probably only take an ajar stage trapdoor to persuade people that he's an ordinary stage magician. Of course, we could find the trap door, guess that he's ordinary, and then have our hypothesis refuted by him disappearing people in the carefully controlled tests. Nothing wrong with iterating through better approximate explanations- it's called the Scientific Method- but the burden of proof is on the claims that rewrite current beliefs.

      You say you're a scientist, so you remember that the Einstein's General Theory of Relativity took a decade to be accepted, that Darwin's Evolution needed a mechanism for heredity before it was accepted, that Cold Fusion wasn't. People take time, evidence, explanations, and frameworks to accept new claims as facts. You say that "It doesn't matter how extraordinary the claim is, there is no scientific 'raising of the bar' for one claim versus another claim. If there was, we probably couldn't get any science done because we would have to examine every hypothesis for its 'extraordinaryness' and set the bar accordingly." I say that this happens everyday. I say this happens everytime you read an article, understand its claims, and decide if you're convinced that that is the way the world actually works.

    3. Re:It's dark matter baby! by cardshark2001 · · Score: 1
      Quote of a Quote:

      You say that "It doesn't matter how extraordinary the claim is, there is no scientific 'raising of the bar' for one claim versus another claim. If there was, we probably couldn't get any science done because we would have to examine every hypothesis for its 'extraordinaryness' and set the bar accordingly." I say that this happens everyday. I say this happens everytime you read an article, understand its claims, and decide if you're convinced that that is the way the world actually works.

      Perhaps you are correct, but if so it is only a proof of a sort of (necessary) scientific laziness, not a sign of virtue. A true skeptic would take any claim skeptically until enough statistics have proven it a valuable theory, even if it fit into their general frame of understanding.

      In practice it is very hard to maintain this attitude; most scientists rely on credible sources and generally accept things which fit into their framework and reject those that do not.

      In a way, this is good because it allows much faster advancement, freeing scientists to do their own research and not worry too much about their peers. In another way, it is bad because things which do not fit into the framework are rejected, as most scientists have devoted their life to learning the framework. Which brings us back to the good: once science has recognized a mistake, they will admit it and eventually move on. The key word is eventually.

      Each generation believes it is the rational one, and the cycle is endlessly repeated. The cycle is continuing right now, I contend, in the field of physics.

      Around 200 years ago, when many scientists believed the earth was the center of the universe, they actually had very complicated math that worked, to a point, to calculate the future relative planetary positions. In this day and age, one could probably develop a highly complex, internally consistent system that computed astronomy in this manner.

      On the subject of God, you merely ignored my text and added magic to your previous analogy of unicorns.

      Such an attitude trivializes the question, which is, "where did we come from?" Certainly you agree that it is a legitimate question? Would you not also agree that science is not equipped to answer that question? You sound as though you know basic science fairly well. You should know then, that science fundementally describes the universe, and does not explain it. It's why Darwin was correct even though he didn't provide a mechanism, as you so aptly pointed out.

      To argue against God from a scientific framework is hubris, plain and simple. The ironic fact is that science treats any question it cannot answer as illegitimate. Sometimes I agree. However, I think the question "how did the universe come about?" is not only legitimate, it is the fundamental question human beings ask themselves and that drives us forward.

      Science is no closer to answering that question than I am to becoming the King of England. Yet scientists use the same sort of ad-hoc reasoning as you did to discount the question itself and display as much condescension as you on those who claim to feel a spirit every now and then.

      Religion is also a rigid framework, and it changes a lot less rapidly with the times. However, it probably wouldn't be so popular if it weren't for the attitudes of those people such as yourself who discount personal experience and shun what they can't explain. You can feel the world around you, if you try. People call it God.

      When you have an answer for the basic question which humanity has struggled with since the dawn of time, one that is supported by solid scientific evidence, come back and play. Until then, perhaps you shouldn't ridicule what you don't understand and can't explain by comparing one answer to unicorns and magic.

      --
      WWJD? JWRTFA!
  204. is there any holy ground nearby? by Trygve · · Score: 2, Funny

    Perhaps an immortal was killed on holy ground? Seems much less severe than the last time this happened, though (Pompeii).

    TV teaches me so much. I'm glad I gave up that bad habit. ;-p

  205. That's a lot of chiken shit... by ambisinistral · · Score: 1
    You grossly underestimate the size and intensity of the Iran/Iraq War. It was easily the largest conflict since WWII.

    Casualty figures are difficult to figure, but somewhere between 500,000 and one million people lost their lives during it. There were at least an addition 2 million or so non-lethal casualties.

    source
    source

    --

    deserve's got nothing to do with it...

  206. The Core by stinkydog · · Score: 2, Funny

    You all laughed at The Core , but now the effects of the government expierements are rising to the surface. Stock up now on unobtanium now, the market will go through the roof soon. Forget your foil hats (they attract electrical discharges anyway) crack out the asbestos underpants and the SPF 1000. And don't forget to send those Apocolypse Day Cards.

    SD


    IMDB link for the clueless.

    --
    âoeWho knew something as harmless as willful ignorance could end up having real consequences?â
  207. ALIENS! by soccerisgod · · Score: 1

    Lister: Oh god, aliens? Your explanation for anything slightly peculiar is aliens, isn't it? You lose your keys, it's aliens. A picture falls off the wall, it's aliens. That time we used up a whole bog roll in a day, you thought that was aliens as well.

    Rimmer: Well we didn't use it all, Lister. Who did?

    Lister: Rimmer, aliens used our bog roll?

    Rimmer: Just 'cause they're aliens doesn't mean to say they don't have to visit the little boys' room. Only they probably do something weird and alienesque, like it comes out of the top of their heads or something.

    Lister: Well I wouldn't like to be stuck behind one in a cinema.

    --
    If a train station is a place where a train stops, what's a workstation?
  208. Undoubtedly some effect of Italy slamming into by crovira · · Score: 1

    Europe and setting up some form of geo dynamic electrical field.

    As to why Sicily? Its at the bottom and subject to the most force.

    --
    MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
  209. two types of people I hate by pablo_max · · Score: 1

    There are only two types of people whom I hate. Those who are not tolerant of other cultures and Italians.

  210. You left out one by SlashNut · · Score: 0

    7. Secret Prescott testing facility. :)

  211. The Fires of Canneto di Caronia (another link) by bl8n8r · · Score: 1

    Apparently, furniture is combusting too! http://www.ebicom.net/~rsf1/canneto.htm

    --
    boycott slashdot February 10th - 17th check out: altSlashdot.org
  212. simple, plausible, scientific explanation by milliyear · · Score: 1

    I can't believe nobody else has made this connection yet.

    And if you don't check out the following article, don't just laugh it off.

    As reported again just yesterday in this article at Space.com, the earth's magnetic poles MAY be in the 7,000 year process of swapping ends. What is known for sure is that the strength of the earth's magnetic field has decreased 20% in the last 150 years. And whether we are in the process of swapping poles, or this is just a temporary anomaly, the appearance of LOCALIZED fluctuations in the orientation and strength of the magnetic field of earth IS PREDICTED. And besides the obvious inducement of current in locally stronger magnetic fields, it may also allow a small local window for the 'solar wind' to penetrate, both of which would cause EXACTLY the kinds of phenomenon being reported.

    This could be happening in your or my backyard next year!!!

  213. Bill the cat says ACK pthtfthft... by spun · · Score: 1

    when he eats pigeons. Is that what you mean?

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  214. Heh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have family that lived where Tesla tested his ground batter/antenna thingie. It apparently made the biggest explosion they had ever heard and it scared everyone in town enough that they told Tesla to leave :)

  215. Similar event happened in England by 0x0d0a · · Score: 1

    I think that all this can be explained with the following file (you'll have to remove the space Slashcode introduces) :-) :

    ed2k://|file|answer.avi|368971776|f63e02ede2f273 f1 f6ee967b560e8115|/

  216. * Ahem * by gd2shoe · · Score: 1

    I don't want to draw away from the point that you made, but I do take exception to one of your comments:
    I have come to the belief that religion is not about whether you can explain it or not, or even if it makes sense. If it had to make sense, there wouldn't be any Mormons or Scientologists.
    I won't defend Scientology out of lack of knowledge, but I will defend my faith. People have a general misunderstanding and distrust of the LDS faith (aka mormons). Things do make sense in a cohesive way. Many just have a hard time grasping that, because they have to think outside of the framework they are used to. For example, most denominations believe in a "closed cannon"*, whereas we do not. So many religions take it for granted, that it simply doesn't make sense to them. A serious study of the LDS faith would show that there are some unanswered questions, but that is not unique. I don't know of any religion that has ALL the answers. Science doesn't even claim that it ever will.

    Add to this the amount of FUD spread by people who know better, and by those who don't. I'm not surprised that you chose us as an example, but it really hurt to see.

    *a religious cannon is a standard by which religious truth is compared; it's like checking the textbook to see if your answers are right. Christianity uses the Bible, Judaism uses the Torah, Islam uses the Koran, and other religions also have standard to measure new ideas. Latter-Day Saints believe the heavens are not closed, and that there are additional writings (such as the "Book of Mormon") also written under the direction of God by prophets. Such an idea is a little to novel for many people (in the early A.D.s it was a little too novel for many Jews too).
    --
    I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
    1. Re:* Ahem * by t14m4t · · Score: 1

      Well, to allay your hurt feelings.

      I sincerely apologize.

      I was not trying to epitomize either Mormanism or Scientology as great examples of irrational, blind belief in something absurd. I actually know very little about Scientology, and I only know a little about Mormanism, and that from a friend of mine that was a Morman until HE couldn't take it, and therefor my view thereof is very skewed.

      It was wrong of me to, in ignorance, take those as examples, and for any person who took my quick, unthinking comments as an attack on them personally, I am sorry.

      I realized as soon as I clicked "Submit" that that perticular part of the comment probably was not what I should have said. Perhaps I should have said something right then....I don't know. I definately should not have said it in the first place.

      Again, I apologize..

      weylin

      --
      67.5% Slashdot Pure I guess I need to work on that.... :)
  217. Determinism vs. God by booch · · Score: 2, Interesting
    I don't really believe in God per se, but I do believe in Determinism.

    I grew up Catholic, but now I'm pretty much an agnostic: God may exist, but I don't think I can make such a determination, and I'm not sure what God is like if he does exist. I suspect that if there is a God, it's more of an "energy of the Universe" thing than a conscious being. (I just read up on Pantheism on Wikipedia from a link in this thread.) I definitely don't think God is going to change the laws of physics to help me win a baseball game.

    But as an amateur physicist, I believe in Determinism. Time-space is a single entity. The Universe encompasses all space, so it must encompass all space-time as well. If we anthropomorphize the Universe (or suppose that there is any omniscient being) we can imagine Him sitting at the end of time (as we view it). He can look back from the end of time to our current time and know what we will do next.

    However, I also believe in Free Will. I guess that makes it Soft Determinism. (Found on Wikipedia that it's also called Compatibilism.) While my actions may be pre-determined from the perspective of all time-space, my conscious mind does not exist in that reality. From my perspective, I am free to choose. Think of a book you're reading for the second time -- you know what's going to happen at any point in time, but you can't change it. But when you read it the first time (when you were a part of the moment) you didn't know what was going to happen.

    It's an interesting characteristic of the human mind that it can simultaneously hold seemingly opposing ideas.

    I'd also like to point out that Science doesn't prove things to be true either. It can prove things to be false, and provide strong evidence that theories are correct. But it can never provide the truth. So we're basically putting our faith in Science, just as many put their faith in religion.

    --
    Software sucks. Open Source sucks less.
  218. Stranger things have happened... by d34thm0nk3y · · Score: 2, Funny

    favorite quote: "Demons occupy a house and appear in electrical goods."

    I knew it was a demon that shocked the crap out of me last week when I was soldering a live wire!!!

  219. Religion ain't all bad. by Kiyooka · · Score: 1

    It gave us this long weekend. : )

  220. Now we know what will happen when the poles flip! by PDX · · Score: 1

    It's gonna fry alot of electronics. Wonder if we'll develop plastic photonic chips without high conductivity. Completely organic cpus made from sea urchines. :-)

  221. Re:Solar problems by geekoid · · Score: 1

    ""Why doesn't the Psychic Hotline lady call me?""

    becasue you don't have a 900 number?

    Just becasue you know the future, doesn't mean you should give it away for free.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  222. I'm Catholic, you insensitive clods!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Be nice.

  223. My Prediction. by GuyFawkes · · Score: 1

    A major volcanic / seismological event is imminent.

    Anyone want to make me any bets?

    --
    http://slashdot.org/~GuyFawkes/journal
  224. That's the reverse of my .sig for ya by Daath · · Score: 1

    Any technology sufficiently advanced, is indistinguishable from magic!

    --
    Any technology distinguishable from magic, is insufficiently advanced.
  225. Budda/Tao... by malakai · · Score: 1
    First off, people do not 'believe' in Budda or Tao. They aren't divine incarnations of the 'One' being, aka what "Jesus" was alleged to be.
    Buddism and Tao are philosophies. Buddha teaches things such as:

    "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it or who has said it, not even if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense." - Buddha


    where old-testement bible gives us such insight as:
    "I have called you by name, you are mine." - GOD


    If you can't discern the difference, you are likely still a bit brain washed. Give it a few years, it wears off (12 years of catholic school training here).

    1. Re:Budda/Tao... by Astolot · · Score: 1

      Actually, people do believe in the Buddha. It's called Mahayana Buddhism where a boddhisattva is prayed to, similar to a Catholic saint. The Buddha is worshipped as a supernatural being in this form of Buddhism. The philosophical, or orthodox Buddhism, is categorized as Theravada. And the Buddha is related to the Tao in that Taoism adopted some of Buddhism's philosophies. Buddhism permiated throughout Asia because it's so flexible in its basic form. You'll see a lot of Tao-ish beliefs in Mahayana Buddhism.

  226. deterministic machines by PsiPsiStar · · Score: 1

    I did a report on non-ionizing radiation for school one time and talked about it's effects (via sensors embedded in the street) on vehicles, (it interfered with the brakes of old model fords and such.)

    I remember my professor was interested to hear it. She'd taken her truck into the shop 3 times and they were starting to think she was crazy

    --

    ___
    It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
  227. herf cannon? by flechette_indigo · · Score: 0

    How about somebody standing on a nearby mountain aiming a herf gun here and there? Satellite-mounted herf gun?

    I'm inclined to suspect pixies however. Seriously.

  228. every time I have heard by geekoid · · Score: 1

    someone say 'Supernatural', they mean either god or spirits.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  229. Historical records? by FlyingOrca · · Score: 1

    Hmmmm... the problem with that is, there aren't any historical records of Jesus' persecution by the Romans. And the Bible is a far-from-reliable source.

    --
    Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges.
    1. Re:Historical records? by Jim+Starx · · Score: 1
      The Historicity of Jesus

      See paragraph 6. It's fairly certain he existed, that doesn't mean he was actually the son of God. You claim that the bible is not accurate is based on your faith, you cannot truly examine the accuracy of something that (if true) is the only written account of history that goes back that far.

      --
      The darkness... controls the music. The music... controls the soul.
    2. Re:Historical records? by FlyingOrca · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I don't see any convincing evidence in any of the Wikipedia sources; if you follow the links, they lead either to (1) religious writings, with an obvious reason for bias, or (2) sources that are questioned by non-Christian historians because of the possibility of tampering during transcription.

      Also, I have no particular "faith" that the Christian bible is not accurate. What I said was that I don't consider it an accurate source of historical information. And by the way, it's far from "the only written account of history that goes back that far".

      If this sort of thing interests you, though, may I draw your attention to an interesting book I read about today? Tom Harpur, long-time religion columnist for the Toronto Star and former Anglican priest, has written a book called _The Pagan Christ_. In it he discusses the idea that the Christ figure is a synthesis of other religious traditions. There's a Globe and Mail article on it here:

      http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNe ws /TPStory/LAC/20040408/HARPUR08/Entertainment/Idx

      The article makes the book sound worth reading. Cheers!

      --
      Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges.
  230. Sounds like a software problem by TexNex · · Score: 1

    Damn fools they must not have been running nosmoke.exe

  231. Religion != Science by ingenuus · · Score: 1

    I very much like your post, because it highlights an important point: fundamentally, the Bible (representative of Judeo-Christian beliefs) is not an analysis of physical processes (science) -- it is a history of a people and their social interaction with each other and with their God.

    To look to the Bible for an explanation of gravity is obviously ridiculous because it does not even mention it. You might as well look to the law for scientific explanations. But to look to the Bible for how one should generally live their life can be instructive. Of course, any teaching can be perverted, even scientific ones -- though those may be more easily disproved than moral ones.

    At its core, the Bible is a history with a context; not even always intended as instruction to future generations, but simply as a record of events. Sometimes it's even symbolic (e.g. the Garden of Eden story). To the extent that the Bible does describe the "supernatural," it is beyond which science will likely be able to prove or disprove in my lifetime.

    However, I for one do believe that if God does exist and engages Himself in our reality, then we will find evidence of Him through our scientific pursuits, which is perhaps why stories like "Technology Spontaneously Combusts In Sicily" spark hope in people who have faith.

    I cannot comment on those "religious leaders" who assign everything to a direct act of God, disallowing any more pertinent explanation, except to say that they are not everyone's religious leaders and do not represent everyone's religious beliefs.

    Like other positive religions, Christianity not only provides a paragon of virtues (which forms the basis of much modern law), but can also provide peace and hope for the future beyond this life. Ultimately, however, if one does not believe that the precepts of a religion are useful for their daily lives, then there really is little point in believing.

  232. Off topic (was Re:Limits of Science) by Xenophon+Fenderson, · · Score: 1

    If ESPN hires Ron Jeremy to host a golf turnament, but he spends all of his on-air time insulting the "players", would he get fired for "Masters baiting" under the new FCC rules?

    --
    I'm proud of my Northern Tibetian Heritage
  233. is_computer_on_fire() by Blue+Lozenge · · Score: 1

    And all this time I thought is_computer_on_fire() was just a joke. :)

  234. You can prove bose-eistein condesation yourself? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What an ignorant point of view. I'm irrelegious myself, but face it. We all believe in far more things we can't prove ourselves than we those we can. Even things most nerds can give decent explanations for ... say, the wave/particle duality of light ... we couldn't repeat the friggin' experiments if our lives depended on it.

    I can't begin to tell you how I know the mass of a charm quark, but I still believe it's somewhere between 1 and 1.4 GeV. Why? Because I, like all of us, take the word of specialists and experts who know better than me. It's not very different from religious faith - e.g., trusting the authors of the Bible weren't lying to everyone. Think about it. Believing the earth rotates around the sun and believing that Zeus controls the lightning are differences in degree, not in kind.

    How do you know that George Washington ever crossed the Delaware? Prove it. The point is, all of our knowledge, all of our truth, is based in some degree of faith.

    It's not foolish to believe in God. Some people, but hardly all, who believe in God are idiots. But even so ... not to sound preachy, those of us who point our fingers at people of faith and call for tolerance, better be willing to tolerate a little ignorance, and narrowmindedness ourselves. It ain't goin' anywhere.

  235. * Ahem * * Ahem * by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nice post, but...

    I believe the word you are looking for is more commonly spelled canon, not cannon.

  236. Already diagnosed by Hollywood... by Cervantes · · Score: 2, Interesting
    This sounds suspiciously like the opening few minutes of "The Core". Is it possible something similar is happening?

    And, if so, does anyone know how to fix it? I fell asleep about 20 minutes into that bomb... I sure hope they key to our salvation wasn't in there somewhere.

    --
    If I knew the wedgies I gave you back in 6th grade would have resulted in this . . . I might have taken a moments pause.
  237. Determinism by ingenuus · · Score: 2, Interesting

    That's an excellent brief summary of Chaos Theory. It is certainly a useful model type in many cases, but I wonder if it is truly defining of our reality.

    As you imply, the illusion of non-determinism can exist in a deterministic system, which makes me curious as to whether non-determinism actually exists in our Universe?

    If it does exist, then the grandparent could be right and non-determinism could exist throughout all of reality, which, when analyzing, we could simply write off as variations in measurement.

    On a grander scale, many people are content to believe that a kernel of non-determinism lies at the heart of human "free will". Modern society does not blame fate for human actions, but rather the humans themselves. In keeping with this ideology, the paradox of "free will" versus a deterministic universe arises.

    It seems that non-determinism vs determinism is a dilemma which cannot be objectively solved because absolute prediction about the future is impossible since we cannot effectively gather sufficient information (Heisenberg).

    Some may say that this paradox is irrelevant since there is effectively no objective difference between non-determinism and uncertainty, but belief in non-determinism ("free will") has certainly influenced our society, and very arguably for the better... though, obviously, such an argument is recursive since it assumes the "free will" to choose. :)

    Maybe I'm missing something. Any insight for me? In any case, thanks for prompting my muse.

  238. Look for graphite fiber pollution. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

    It might be interesting to check for graphite fibers - such as those released by burning graphite reenforced plastic car parts. Such fibers are invisibly small and produce conductive paths between exposed wires on which they fall.

    Unlike EM fields it wouldn't explain the claims of fires in unplugged devices or in line-powered devices after the power was cut. But a low level of such fibers could explain fires from overloaded wiring (even the lamp cords, if a couple fibers got into the fixture).

    Graphite fibers shorting electric systems is the basis of one of the "soft weapons" used in Afghanistan to disable the power grid without destroying it. A high density of such fibers on the insulators of a power line load it down and cause the breakers to go. A lower density of fibers might cause fire-starting overloads without blowing breakers, as might a high density in an older power grid with inadequate automatic cutouts.

    (This was discovered by accident, when the burning of carbon-fiber reenforced auto body parts in a dump upwind of an electrical substation took down a local power grid. Before that event it was assumed such open-air burning was safe because the fibers would burn up with the plastic, rather than being released relatively intact in the smoke to wreak havoc downwind, and that the spark would vaporize them if they fell across a high-line insulator.)

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  239. I propose.... by lib112x · · Score: 1

    we ship over the 'can you hear me now' guy and his cell phone over to help with the investigation.

  240. Re:Solar problems by Inthewire · · Score: 1

    Thanks for the sig.
    (Tried to link back to give credit but the char limit wouldn't let me)

    --


    Writers imply. Readers infer.
  241. Re:There's nothing wrong with the word "supernatur by Hast · · Score: 1
    "it's supernatural, end of story"

    Anyone who would say that is an idiot.
    Agreed. But I have a hard time finding examples of cases were "supernatural" reasons are claimed and then there has been any back-up on those ideas. Making up hypothesises to explain a phenomena is ok, but unless you can start backing your claims with facts or at least logic then it's not that much use IMHO.

    Anyone who would claim to have all the answers is, likewise, an idiot....
    No argument there. Well, not from me at any rate.
  242. bigfoot by KajiCo · · Score: 1

    your all fudged up...it's big foot. He's inviible, like the invisible man.

    Actually has anybody even pondered on the idea that it could be biological. Perhaps some form of bacteria that causes some kind of biological chemical combustion system that causes the wires to get really hot and burst info flames?

    or it could be big foot.

  243. April 8? by HermanAB · · Score: 1

    7 days late...

    --
    Oh well, what the hell...
  244. You sure it's not the barrier with the ELF world? by Ayanami+Rei · · Score: 1

    They just keep irresponsibly banishing shit back and forth it's no wonder the two worlds start to integrate as the story develops.

    --
    THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
  245. ROFL! Mod up. by Ayanami+Rei · · Score: 1

    It's such a tired meme, but I can't think of a better way to express my thoughts on this mystery. Seems to be the most likely thing I can imagine now, anyway.

    --
    THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
  246. It's hardly original though... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://freefall.purrsia.com/ff300/fv00255.htm

    Enjoy!

  247. You forgot George Bush. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He's to blame for all evil, isn't he?

  248. East Pole by Bob+the+Hamster · · Score: 1

    Yes. Sicily is going to become the East Pole after the magnetic field change

  249. I've seen it before by GCP · · Score: 1

    This bursting into flames business is just the hardware equivalent of what I see happening to software everyday. They should learn from us software guys that sacrificing goats doesn't really work, despite what they may have heard.

    --
    "Those who have never entered upon scientific pursuits know not a tithe of the poetry by which they are surrounded."
  250. God and the Easter Bunny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I perceive belief in God as being similar to a child's belief in True Love, Father Christmas or the Easter Bunny.

    People who believe in these ideas can't prove they exist, but they often benefit from their belief because their quality of life improves due to a sense of being looked after by benevolent forces. This is an intangible but real benefit.

    There's a story referenced in the 'God and computing' series of lectures by Donald Knuth that addresses this issue. I believe it's called 'Planet without laugther' it's definitely worth reading if you are interested in this topic.

    http://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~knuth/smully an .html

  251. psst by saroth2 · · Score: 1

    Psst. Don't tell anyone but Nikolai Tesla was secretly buried with a device that was set to activate in 2004. If I told you any more someone will probably kill you.

  252. Observers in quantum mechanics by srleffler · · Score: 1
    It is not clear in quantum mechanics that an "observer" is necessarily a conscious mind. A number of researchers are investigating just what constitutes an "observation". Many of the working hypotheses simply require the "system" being observed to become entangled in state with a sufficient amount of other stuff.

    The so-called "many worlds" view gets around the whole question in another way: every possibility happens. The observer is in a state composed of a probability distribution of possibilites too, with each possible configuration of the observer entangled with the corresponding possibility of the "system". In every possible state, the observer observes a single, definite outcome. The observer is just not "in" any one of those states but is in all of them at once (with a probability distribution of course). If you are the observer, you notice nothing different from your everyday experience: every observation appears to have a definite outcome despite what I have described. (The arguments behind this approach are complicated and I cannot do them justice here.) Note that this particular description of the "many worlds" approach is not commonly used but is equivalent to the more common descriptions.

    1. Re:Observers in quantum mechanics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
      The so-called "many worlds" view gets around the whole question in another way: every possibility happens. The observer is in a state composed of a probability distribution of possibilites too, with each possible configuration of the observer entangled with the corresponding possibility of the "system". In every possible state, the observer observes a single, definite outcome. The observer is just not "in" any one of those states but is in all of them at once (with a probability distribution of course). If you are the observer, you notice nothing different from your everyday experience: every observation appears to have a definite outcome despite what I have described. (The arguments behind this approach are complicated and I cannot do them justice here.) Note that this particular description of the "many worlds" approach is not commonly used but is equivalent to the more common descriptions.
      That explains why I can never find my keys! I put them on top of the TV in one universe, and my probability distribution shifts over to the universe where I put them next to the phone!

      :-)

  253. MSNBC and IIS by saroth2 · · Score: 1

    Is it just me or did anyone else go to netcraft and see that MSNBC is the only major news organization running IIS 6 on Windows Server 2003. They were hacked people, they were hacked.

    1. Re:MSNBC and IIS by maduro55 · · Score: 1

      haven't heard Firesign Theater ref'd to for a while. Thanks greatly!

  254. WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    But I've been aiming for Redmond!

  255. Re:Solar problems by FuegoFuerte · · Score: 1

    ""Why doesn't the Psychic Hotline lady call me?""

    becasue you don't have a 900 number?

    Just becasue you know the future, doesn't mean you should give it away for free.


    Which leads us to our next (slightly off topic) question... What would happen if one were to call a 900-number collect?

    And yes, I realize the phone system most likely doesn't allow this, though I've never tried it.

  256. Re:Limits of Science ? Or limits of scientists ? by nickol · · Score: 1
    As I can understand your definition, science
    studies not nature, but facts that are :

    repeatable by nature, and

    were not apriori declared as 'supernatural' by someone.

    This still leaves a lot of possibilities for study, but completely throws away, for example, astronomy. Astronomy is not a science by your definition, because many things that it studies are not repeatable. Before asking for someone who "can consistantly read minds before you", try to repeat the "Big Bang".

    Astronomy IS science, so your point is incorrect, and we can make a conclusion : science studies things that were declared as 'scientific' and does not study 'unscientific' things.

    >An idea that can not be disproved through experimentation becomes an accepted truth if and only if that idea had some method by which it could be disproved

    This is true, but not about experimentation. It's about theory. Experiment can not be 'disproved'.
    It could possibly be falsified, but this is not the case we are talking about.

  257. Old story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's a pretty old story here in Italy.
    There's nothing strange in it.
    Cops said that every fire has started in "human reachable" points, and noone has ever filmed a spontaneous fire start.
    Such things are normal here in Italy. That town is now getting money for the govermnet for their "emergency situation".
    One should be Italian to fully understand how a weird situation like this one could happen: everyone knows its all bullshit, but noone wants to admit it.

  258. Hi Guido by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    fucking greaseball.

  259. Re: Piezo Eletrical activity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I don't know if anyone posted this but could there be a relationship to Piezo Eletrical activity.
    Caused, of course, by the Leaning Tower of Piezo.
  260. I'm absolutely *AMAZED* by Captain+DaFt · · Score: 1

    Here it is; April 9, as I read all the responses to this article, and no one, but *NO ONE* Has made any
    Jokes about firewall protection!

    (Qaz, wotta woild you made, an' filled it wid such people!) };->

    --
    The U.S. really needs an English to Wisdom dictionary.
  261. Re:Limits of Science ? Or limits of scientists ? by TGK · · Score: 1

    The Big Bang is a theory. No one can replicate the Big Bang, but to test the theory one does not need to do so. One needs only utilize the models to determine what sorts of radiation etc should remain in the universe if the event did occur. If one can then find that radiation the theory is upheld. If not it is falsified.

    Since one can test for this radiation many times the experiment is replicable, and falsifiable. Thus your point about the Big Bang and astronomy as a psudo-science under my definition fails.

    Secondly, "supernatural" in this context refers to those things that are not of the physical, verifiable, testable world. I.E. they are above the nautral world.

    Saying "God created the heavens and the earth" is a supernatural answer to the question "where did the universe come from." It is supernatural because there is no way to show the theory to be false. If you said "God created the heavens and the earth and then carved his name in 40 foot high flaming letters in Mt. Everest" we could go to Mt. Everst, find that no one's name is carved in 40 foot high flaming letters, and fail to uphold the theory.

    That is the difference between what is science and what is faith. It is the difference between what can be tested and what can not.

    Science is what can be tested. Faith is something you belive in despite a total lack of real evidence.

    Mind reading, alien abductions, big foot, and (to a certain extent) string theory are at this point matters of faith.

    --
    Killfile(TGK)
    No trees were killed in the creation of this post. However, many electrons were inconvenienced.
  262. Late but plausible entry ... by Tjp($)pjT · · Score: 1

    Maybe the Justice League or "Shadow" should re-aim their microwave power satellite. How else do you think they support those vast wall sized computers and displays that use so much power they send 10 foot sparks of molton metal when they short out. Why they have their own power generation. (Keeps down the cost of vigillance) Obviously the orbit of one of them is compromised. Look for nearby dairy farms with too many silos or cliff sides that planes can fly through safely.

    --
    - Tjp

    I am in wallow with my inner money grubbing capitalistic pig. ... Oink!

  263. "observe"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the word you're not looking out for is
    "observe".

    you're right that this algorithm will explain
    everything someday in the future when our senses
    have degraded enough while implementing this
    algorithm ...

  264. Whaaaat...? by leonbrooks · · Score: 1
    If you actually suddenly reversed the polarity on an AC device that would certainly blow it up if it were under load. DC devices can be more forgiving sometimes -- usually you just fry the transformer.

    </sarcasm> I hope? Just checking.
    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing