Slashdot Mirror


The Sun's 'Quiet Period' Explained

Arvisp writes with this excerpt from the BBC: "Solar physicists may have discovered why the Sun recently experienced a prolonged period of weak activity. The most recent so-called 'solar minimum' occurred in December 2008. Its drawn-out nature extended the total length of the last solar cycle — the repeating cycle of the Sun's activity — to 12.6 years, making it the longest in almost 200 years. The new research suggests that the longer-than-expected period of weak activity may have been linked to changes in the way a hot soup of charged particles called plasma circulated in the Sun."

125 of 167 comments (clear)

  1. Oblig: by lul_wat · · Score: 3, Funny

    You want solar maximum? No soup for you !

    --
    Divide a cake by zero. Is it still a cake?
    1. Re:Oblig: by jgagnon · · Score: 1

      Shouldn't that be "No plasma for you!"?

      --
      Remember to maintain your supply of /facepalm oil to prevent chafing.
  2. hot soup? by Lord+Ender · · Score: 5, Informative

    the way a hot soup of charged particles called plasma circulated in the Sun.

    This is slashdot, not preschool. You can use your big-boy words with us.

    --
    A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    1. Re:hot soup? by 0racle · · Score: 4, Funny

      We frequent a different Slashdot don't we?

      --
      "I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
    2. Re:hot soup? by DarkKnightRadick · · Score: 1

      Blame the BBC, that quote was lifted verbatim from the fine article.

      --
      "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
    3. Re:hot soup? by Abstrackt · · Score: 1

      You don't like soup very much, do you?

      --
      They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance. - Terry Pratchett
    4. Re:hot soup? by idontgno · · Score: 3, Funny

      No, I think it's better to use car analogies instead of big words here.

      Sorry, my car-ma ran over your dogma.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    5. Re:hot soup? by jgagnon · · Score: 1

      Maturity is a relative term, after all. ;)

      --
      Remember to maintain your supply of /facepalm oil to prevent chafing.
    6. Re:hot soup? by Ogive17 · · Score: 1

      I don't know... every time I see CME (corneal mass ejection) I still giggle. I think the pre-school terms probably fit well with me.

      --
      "Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
    7. Re:hot soup? by minchazo · · Score: 1

      No soup for you!

    8. Re:hot soup? by stephathome · · Score: 1

      Clearly Dr. Evil doesn't have much experience with preschoolers if he thinks they need laser beams on their heads to be destructive.

    9. Re:hot soup? by Low+Ranked+Craig · · Score: 1

      the way a hot soup of charged particles called plasma circulated in the Sun.

      This is slashdot, not preschool. You can use your big-boy words with us.

      And apparently, this "hot soup" is delivered via a "conveyor belt".

      --
      I still cannot find the droids I am looking for...
    10. Re:hot soup? by ohiovr · · Score: 1
      Ok now in Slashdot lingo

      "The new research suggests that the longer-than-expected period of petrification may have been linked to changes in the way a hot grits like mass of charged particles called plasma circulated in the Sun."

    11. Re:hot soup? by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      If you're having corneal mass ejections how can you see?

      Do you perhaps mean coronal mass ejections?

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
  3. Inactivity? by Anarki2004 · · Score: 4, Funny

    What's this nonsense about inactivity? The most recent java update I can find is July 7, 2010. What's that? You mean there's more than one sun?

    --
    The teachers will crack any minute, purple monkey dishwasher.
    1. Re:Inactivity? by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 4, Funny

      That big glowing ball in the sky is now called "the Oracle." Get with the times!

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    2. Re:Inactivity? by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      No, it's the fusion lamp in the room with the blue ceiling. Get with the times!

    3. Re:Inactivity? by lennier · · Score: 1

      That big glowing ball in the sky is now called "the Oracle." Get with the times!

      So that's why we suddenly get a proof that P != NP?

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
    4. Re:Inactivity? by garyebickford · · Score: 2, Informative

      Funny how things go full circle. Once (some of) our ancestors consulted the Oracle and worshipped the Sun. Now we ... gee, I dunno.

      --
      It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
    5. Re:Inactivity? by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      You're missing the most important part though. It's about sacrificing virgins to the Sun God or something. Or would that be geeks thrown out into the street looking for employment? Oh, I can't remember. It's all a blur to me now.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    6. Re:Inactivity? by Piranhaa · · Score: 1

      I believe they are referring to OpenSolaris.

      The last release was 2009.06 - which was well over a year ago now.

  4. Re:Solar Cooling! Man is at it again! by Yvan256 · · Score: 4, Funny

    You: We should nuke the sun from orbit!
    Moderator: The nuke won't make it into orbit, it's too hot.
    You: Let's go at night, then.
    Moderator: Oh yeah, of course!

  5. Re:Climate change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    That's right. The sun's solar minimum is not caused by global warming, nor is the hottest decade on record caused by the sun's solar minimum. Pass it on to any idiots you know who keep saying "It's just the sun!"

  6. Seems normal to me. by Zeek40 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Generally after I've spent a night spewing out hot liquids and gasses, I need a day or two to sleep it off. I can imagine plasma makes for an even worse hangover.

    1. Re:Seems normal to me. by MBGMorden · · Score: 1

      I thought I could relate until you said hangover. It's typically the local Mexican food truck that gets me spewing hot liquids and gases. It's a good kind of hurt though (I guess anyways. For some reason I keep ending up there 2-3 times per week). Damned Al Pastor Tortas . . .

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    2. Re:Seems normal to me. by Tablizer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The above is exactly why I keep asking for a "TMI" moderator category.

    3. Re:Seems normal to me. by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      I can imagine plasma makes for an even worse hangover.

      right. and that's why people are moving away from plasma and toward lcd.

      oh. wait.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    4. Re:Seems normal to me. by GSV+Eat+Me+Reality · · Score: 1

        Indeed. Gives an entirely new meaning to the old phrase "my ass is on fire".

        Modern equivalent: "My ass is experiencing a solar plasma event."

        Hmm. Just doesn't cut it.

  7. Now we know the truth! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    The fact is that global warming is caused by the earth not letting go of the heat it collects from the sun. Thus it seems obvious that this solar activity is caused by the earth stealing too much heat and actually cooling the sun measurably. Soon it'll be a cold husk all due to the fossil-fuel burning SUVs that people insist on driving.

    You have destroyed the solar system BP, I hope you are happy!

    [/sarcasm]

  8. Huh... by Saint+Aardvark · · Score: 1

    I had just put this town to Oracle's takeover of The Sun. Guess that's why I'm not an astronomer.

    1. Re:Huh... by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      I had just put this [down] to Oracle's takeover of The Sun. Guess that's why I'm not an astronomer.

      It will get worse when Oracle asks for royalties on tans.
           

  9. Just Pushes Back The Question by Mikkeles · · Score: 4, Insightful

    '... may have been linked to changes in the way a hot soup of charged particles called plasma circulated in the Sun.

    So why did the "hot soup of charged particles called plasma" change in the way that they circulated?

    --
    Great minds think alike; fools seldom differ.
    1. Re:Just Pushes Back The Question by thomaswp · · Score: 1

      Agree. NOT explained. Poor headline by non-scientist.

    2. Re:Just Pushes Back The Question by sznupi · · Score: 1

      To score on 2012? Turns out the clock was running a little fast after all those millenia...

      (seriously - it would be interesting if the observed solar cycle is, more or less, a result of interfence of few underlying ones; for starters, the Sun is a bit flattened, so propagation times of various disturbances might very well differ depending on direction; and if they interact... )

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    3. Re:Just Pushes Back The Question by Ukab+the+Great · · Score: 1

      From wikipedia

      Although the underlying equations governing plasmas are relatively simple, plasma behavior is extraordinarily varied and subtle: the emergence of unexpected behavior from a simple model is a typical feature of a complex system. Such systems lie in some sense on the boundary between ordered and disordered behavior and cannot typically be described either by simple, smooth, mathematical functions, or by pure randomness.

  10. Photino Birds by jpkunst · · Score: 1

    Probably Photino birds wreaking havoc with the sun.

  11. Re:Climate change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    There is a blight more serious than Global Warming, it is cyclical and is happening now. Run for the hills. Beware the political campaign signs.

  12. Re:Finally... by doug · · Score: 1

    Actually, there was talk of that back in the 1970s. I don't remember if there was any serious science behind it or not. It could have just been a general cultural concern because of all of the fears of a Nuclear Winter.

    - doug

  13. This is why I hate most science reporting by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The headline, and the first few paragraphs make it sound like this is a solved problem: theories were proposed, experiments were done, results were verified and a conclusion was concluded.

    Instead, what actually happened is completely murky. There is no mention of which satellites were used to gather data, or which organization collected it, or how data was used to support the conclusions. It seems that some people ran some computer simulations where they could replicate the current cycle by changing some parameters of the solar conveyor belt. But that's a guess, because the article says nothing. And to really make the article useless, there's the obligatory counter-point from a random scientist who says something completely different, again without any explanation of why.

    Journalists ought to learn that science reporting is not like Entertainment or even Politics reporting. It doesn't really matter who said what, but only why they say and how they came to the conclusions. I'm not holding my breath though.

    --
    Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    1. Re:This is why I hate most science reporting by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The headline, and the first few paragraphs make it sound like this is a solved problem: theories were proposed, experiments were done, results were verified and a conclusion was concluded.

      Well, it's kind of hard to do experiments on the Sun. This is one of the problems with the idea that a lot of people seem to have, usually based on half-remembered lessons from high school "science" class, that there's thing called "the scientific method." There isn't; there are a whole bunch of scientific methods, all more or less related but difffering from field to field. Observational sciences such as astronomy must by the nature of the field use different methods from experimental sciences such as, say, microbiology.

      Anyway, as far as the specific article goes, it makes no such claims as you, um, claim it does. From the very first sentence: "Solar physicists may have discovered why ..." And it goes on with "The new research suggests that ...", "... one reason for the prolonged period of weak activity could be ...", etc. This is actually a pretty good job of pop-sci reporting, and from your complaint it sounds like you read what you expected to see in the article, instead of what's actually there.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    2. Re:This is why I hate most science reporting by Mashiki · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Journalists don't have a clue. Which is why from law to science reporting is garbage. From why fruit flies die so quickly, to anything in relation to climate or weather, to why bad guy X got 5yrs in jail for insert crime here. From a lawish point of view let me add this, every once and awhile I spend time in court being a witness for this, or that, or something else. There's always some reporter, from some news agency there if it's anything big. I will tell you now, if I wasn't in the court myself, I'd have no clue that the article I was reading had any relation to the case, if my name wasn't in there somewhere.

      That's how far removed reporting is from reality these days.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    3. Re:This is why I hate most science reporting by sznupi · · Score: 1

      "these days"?

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    4. Re:This is why I hate most science reporting by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1

      No shit it's hard to do experiments on the sun. That's why there are laboratories that replicate specific parts of the sun's physics, satellites that collect data and things like the Ice cube experiment. Even astronomy isn't done completely in the dark with no experiments.

      May...suggests.... could be... Those are called weasel words for a reason. In this case, they are weasel words because they cover the complete absence of any evidence for the conclusion. The weasel words do not cover that fact. Furthermore, the use of the weasel words is even further weakened by the inclusion of the obligatory contrary opinion.

      The article might not be bad in comparison to other articles, but quality is not relative. It's a standard of its own.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    5. Re:This is why I hate most science reporting by sznupi · · Score: 1

      You forgot to mention how there also was a bit of a counter-point.

      Did GP even read TFA? (uhm, yeah, silly me...)

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    6. Re:This is why I hate most science reporting by BJ_Covert_Action · · Score: 1

      Well, it's kind of hard to do experiments on the Sun.

      NASA and The ESA wish to disagree with you. Well, okay, in your defense those weren't particularly 'easy' by any definition of the word. The point, however, is that we've been experimenting on the sun (or, at least using observed data to experiment with our models) for awhile now.

    7. Re:This is why I hate most science reporting by Fantom42 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Journalists ought to learn that science reporting is not like Entertainment or even Politics reporting. It doesn't really matter who said what, but only why they say and how they came to the conclusions. I'm not holding my breath though.

      Well, the summary is worse than the article in those respects. For something like the BBC, the audience cares less about the methods and more about the conclusions. That said, it doesn't excuse reporting of incorrect conclusions.

    8. Re:This is why I hate most science reporting by Dalambertian · · Score: 4, Informative
      The paper is actually a lot clearer than the press surrounding it. http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2010GL044143.shtml FTFAbstract:

      Plasma flowing poleward at the solar surface and returning equatorward near the base of the convection zone, called the meridional circulation, constitutes the Sun's conveyor-belt. Just as the Earth's great oceanic conveyor-belt carries thermal signatures that determine El Nino events, the Sun's conveyor-belt determines timing, amplitude and shape of a solar cycle in flux-transport type dynamos. In cycle 23, the Sun's surface poleward meridional flow extended all the way to the pole, while in cycle 22 it switched to equatorward near 60. Simulations from a flux-transport dynamo model including these observed differences in meridional circulation show that the transport of dynamo-generated magnetic flux via the longer conveyor-belt, with slower return-flow in cycle 23 compared to that in cycle 22, may have caused the longer duration of cycle 23.

    9. Re:This is why I hate most science reporting by Geirzinho · · Score: 2, Informative

      I totally agree with you, this is too insubstantial even for science reporting.

      The article is at adsabs, but it's on subscription only:
      http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010GeoRL..3714107D

      Maybe someone with a subscription to "Geophysical Research Letters" could voice an opinion?

    10. Re:This is why I hate most science reporting by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually, Politics reporting would be vastly improved if they would report it more like you would like them to report science news. You know instead of "People really seem to like Joe Schmoe's position on TOPIC OF THE DAY. According to the latest poll he is pulling ahead of John Doe after trailing him for the last month," they could say, "Joe Schmoe has released a detailed proposal on TOPIC OF THE DAY. He says that he would propose THIS APPROACH to dealing with this issue. Meanwhile, John Doe has said that while THIS APPROACH might work, it would be much better to take THAT APPROACH." (words in all capitals represent variables that will change from election to election).
      If newspapers had started giving detailed reports on the positions politicians take on various issues years ago instead of giving us the same soundbite coverage that television gives us, they might still be viable businesses.
      Of course this might have resulted in people who get their news from the newspaper voting for the "wrong" candidate based on the positions he took.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    11. Re:This is why I hate most science reporting by way2slo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ... This is one of the problems with the idea that a lot of people seem to have, usually based on half-remembered lessons from high school "science" class, that there's thing called "the scientific method." There isn't; there are a whole bunch of scientific methods, all more or less related but difffering from field to field. Observational sciences such as astronomy must by the nature of the field use different methods from experimental sciences such as, say, microbiology. ...

      Differing, yes. The fields where experimentation is possible we can have confidence in the results. Experiments are done and theories are put to the test. The fields were experimentation is difficult or impossible we are stuck with having theories that happen to fit what facts we have. Sometimes, not even that. Sometimes, it is a theory because it "feels" right because it is abstracted several times from anything resembling a fact. That is a good thing as long as we understand that tomorrow it could be usurped by something entirely different. It's OK as long as we know that that theory is just an educated guess. How much confidence can you really have in a guess?

      The problem with Journalism (and some people), and this article is guilty of it in the headline, is that they take a theory from the latter fields from above and pass it off as something much more solid than an educated guess. "The Sun's mystery Explained!" Yes, I know they do that to sell more copy, but it still a problem all the same. I suppose "New Theory for Sun Mystery!" isn't as exciting, but it would be the truth. It's a theory and it should be questioned early and often otherwise scientists are not doing their jobs.

    12. Re:This is why I hate most science reporting by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There isn't; there are a whole bunch of scientific methods, all more or less related but difffering from field to field.

      There is only one scientific method: observe, measure, repeat. All those "different" scientific methods are simply different techniques used to follow each of those steps. The steps themselves never change.

      For example, it may be currently impossible to perform experiments on the Sun. That does not mean the scientific method does not apply. The scientific method says nothing about performing experiments - it says make an observation, measure what you observed, and repeat the observation. You can do this by simply watching the sun through a telescope. Patterns emerge, and there are reasons for those patterns. You develop theories that should allow you to predict what will happen next - the closer your theory is to correct, the more accurate your predictions will reflect your observations. This is the scientific method being used to further our understanding of the universe. It's how we know so damned much about it, and how we know there is a whole lot more that we don't know about it.

      This is how all science works. Experimental scientists have the luxury of repeating their observations at will, which scientists who cannot perform experiments on their subjects don't have the luxury of doing, but that in no way means one group is using a fundamentally different scientific method. Reality couldn't be further from the truth.

      --
      Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
    13. Re:This is why I hate most science reporting by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The GP is confusing observation, which is the first component of the scientific method, with experimentation, which is a technique for initiating the repetition of the conditions to allow for more observations.

      The Sun currently cannot be experimented on, but to say you cannot perform observations, measure those observations, or repeat those observations and measurements, is patently absurd and shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the very core of all science.

      If it cannot be observed, it cannot be science. Period. There is no other option. If it cannot be measured, it cannot be science. Period. If it never repeats and cannot be made to repeat it cannot be science. Period. An experiment is nothing more than forcing the repetition of the conditions to allow for another observation and measurement. It's not at all necessary for science.

      --
      Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
    14. Re:This is why I hate most science reporting by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      You aren't describing theories; you're describing hypotheses. Nothing should be called a theory without repeatable experiments that can confirm the predictions.

    15. Re:This is why I hate most science reporting by Mashiki · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "these days"?

      Yes, these days. That would be 20 years or so. There was a point back in the 80's when what was reported actually reflected the events in hand. Things got better after the 70's, and hit shit again in the 90's.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    16. Re:This is why I hate most science reporting by sznupi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You look at the past through rose colored glasses. In the past there was even no real way to verify most of the news at all (which probably affects how "reliable" it felt). Solid reporting has never been so easily accessible as it is today (many prople of course don't care / ignore it, but it's there)

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    17. Re:This is why I hate most science reporting by GSV+Eat+Me+Reality · · Score: 1

        There is only one scientific method: observe, measure, repeat.

        Eh. Observe, measure, model, repeat - as you point out in your second paragraph :-)

        Theories are simply models of reality. Whether they are done laboriously on paper or somewhat easier on computers (for certain types of problems) really doesn't make much of a difference, as long as the intent is the same. I know I'm being pedantic, but there seems to be a certain disconnect in many people's minds between "theory" and "model".

        Well said, otherwise.

        GSVEMR

    18. Re:This is why I hate most science reporting by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Well no, it's actually easier to figure out how and where reporting went to crap. Here's my challenge to you, goto your local library and go look up cases from the late 70's through the 90's. Then go read the news articles, or watch the archived TV broadcasts and see what happens. You'll notice a very subtle n style correction in the media.

      I'd actually argue that reporting has gotten worse as media today lives in the "report hard, die fast" era. Where if you don't have the story regardless of circumstance and sometimes without proper review up, you're going to lose perceived viewer/readership. The reality is news has gotten worse because information is more accessible, but fact checking has gotten much better. It's a very unique double edged sword.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    19. Re:This is why I hate most science reporting by sisinka · · Score: 1

      Journalists ought to learn that science reporting is not like Entertainment or even Politics reporting. It doesn't really matter who said what, but only why they say and how they came to the conclusions. I'm not holding my breath though.

      Rather journalist's bosses, I'd say. Curious people usually become journalists, but the bosses... ?

      --
      My parser is a grammar nazi.
  14. May have been linked by blair1q · · Score: 2, Insightful

    may have been linked to changes in the way a hot soup of charged particles called plasma circulated in the Sun

    Um, yeah, and the recent heat wave in the western part of the U.S. may have been linked to changes in the way a hot soup of particles called atoms circulated in the atmosphere...

    Seriously. /. needs to stop voting dreck into the stream and start doing real story selection and summary editing. Because the value added per editorial second is dropping like a rock.

    1. Re:May have been linked by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      Don't you mean, dropping like it's a hot bowl of soup?

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    2. Re:May have been linked by thelenm · · Score: 1

      Solar physicists have also threatened to melt every city on earth with liquid hot "plasma" unless we give them... one million dollars!

      --
      Use Ctrl-C instead of ESC in Vim!
  15. Re:Solar Cooling! Man is at it again! by GooberToo · · Score: 1

    You made me laugh out loud! Thanks!

  16. A couple of important questions by Dumnezeu · · Score: 1

    How long will it take until the Sun enters the "quiet period" again? How "loud" will it be until then?

    --
    Yes, it's sarcasm. Deal with it!
    1. Re:A couple of important questions by demonbug · · Score: 2, Funny

      How long will it take until the Sun enters the "quiet period" again? How "loud" will it be until then?

      My sources indicate it may, in fact, go to 11.

    2. Re:A couple of important questions by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 1

      Do you mean just a "quite period"? Or a quiet period as long as this one?

      If it's the former, there will be another minimum in 11 years. If you want the latter you'll probably have to wait another 100 years or so.

      Interestingly enough, while this minimum is about as big as one a hundred years ago, the Dalton minimum 200 years ago was significantly longer.

      --
      Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
  17. Re:Climate change by butterflysrage · · Score: 1

    What you say? Climate change has only been going on for the last 12 years of the last solar cycle and was directly discussed in the article?

    --
    the preceding post was not spell checked... suck it.
  18. Re:Finally... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    In the 70s it wasn't clear which effect was winning, cooling due to aerosal particles (soot) in the atmosphere or warming due to carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. It turns out that warming was winning which became clear in the late 70s and 80s. There was no consensus at any time saying that global cooling would be a problem long term. However, this debate did get mixed together with the discovery of the orbital cycles which cause the ice ages which predict another one thousands of years from now . So you got some popular science articles warning about global cooling and a new ice age.

  19. Re:Solar Cooling! Man is at it again! by mangu · · Score: 1

    I sincerely hope moderators understand tongue in cheek humor.

    Yes, they do understand it. They understand it so well you don't need to repeat again the same old joke that inevitably appears here every time there's an article about the sun.

  20. Re:Climate change by interval1066 · · Score: 1

    "There is a blight more serious than Global Warming, it is cyclical and is happening now. Run for the hills. Beware the political campaign signs."

    Right. The entire world is waking up to the horrible fact that there will be no more episodes of 'Lost'.

    --
    Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
  21. Re:Solar Cooling! Man is at it again! by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 1

    I sincerely hope moderators understand tongue in cheek humor.

    Since your "humor" is based on a nasty strawman caricature, you deserve all the downmods you get. Saying something blatantly stupid and insulting and then retreating behind "but I was joking!" is a classic bit of troll cowardice.

    --
    The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
  22. Re:Finally... by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    Finally some evidence to prove my new theory I will soon propose: Global Cooling.

    Regardless of the quality of your material, be prepared to be a frequent guest on F0X News.

  23. Re:Climate change by interval1066 · · Score: 1

    "What you say?

    Who are you, an ex-Zero Wing translator?

    --
    Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
  24. Re:Cycle my ass ... by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 1

    Do you have a point? Or was that just an exercise in crimes against grammar and cohesive thought?

    Oh yeah, those 'cycles' that science comes up with, what a crock, like the so-called 'water cycle' that evil 'private research institutions' acknowledge. Everybody knows that rain just materializes in the sky rather than condensing from evaporated surface water.{/sarcasm}

    I mean really, are so you so dumb and so blindly focused on attacking 'private interests' (of all things) that the best you can come up with is 'rar! cycles are inventions of corporate fat cats!'

    Ugh. I'm getting really sick of all the stupid anti-corporatism for anti-corporatism's sake.

    --
    I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
  25. Re:Cycle my ass ... by Dunbal · · Score: 2, Insightful

    a 'cycle' is invented.

          Yes because there are no cycles at all in nature.

          Hello? Just because we can't explain something fully doesn't mean we can't spot repetitive behavior. These observations have value, if only to serve as the starting point for an explanation by someone smarter than us at some point in the future.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  26. Re:Solar Cooling! Man is at it again! by GooberToo · · Score: 1

    Class ignorance.

    Sometimes the best humor is humor which makes light of strawmen.

    Probably best to simply say, "Whoosh!", in your case. Dry humor is not for everyone.

  27. Funny? No, more like Tragically stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Grow up. Trolling doesn't add to the discussion. just because you're a scientifically illerate fool who puts your politics before science doesn't mean
    A) that AGW doesn't exist
    B) that scientists don't know how the sun works and haven't already accounted for it's energy variations
    C) that people who disagree with you are doing so for political reasons
    D) that anyone has ever tried to blame everything on global warming
    E) that weather is climate and climate is weather
    F) that your back yard is representative of the real world

    Hint: at the bottom of that solar minimum we were STILL WARMING, though we did detetct a slowing of the warming trend that can be directly connected to the lowering activity. a slowing, not a cessation of warming, not a reversal.

  28. Re:Solar Cooling! Man is at it again! by Dunbal · · Score: 1

    While your comment adds no end of profundity to the discussion, I'm sure.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  29. Re:Cycle my ass ... by BJ_Covert_Action · · Score: 5, Informative

    /facepalm

    Give me a break. The solar activity cycle has been documented and studied since the early '60's (if not prior). We use it to design appropriately rad-hardened components in the spacecraft industry. We analyze required mission lifetimes and chart solar activity for the projected lifespan of the spacecraft as variations in solar activity affect everything from solar cell degradation to magnetic drag induced on your spacecraft. Hell, I can eve give you a citation. Go find yourself a copy of Fundamentals of Space Systems ed. II by Vincent L. Pisacane. Crack it open to Chapter II: The Space Environment. Read pages 50 through 60. It's all laid out in the basics there. If you want more detailed info. go crack into a journal of astrophysics sometime....

    So put away the hatred of science and go back to doing whatever it is you do.

    Of course, if you were being sarcastic and/or satirical, I completely failed to pick up on it due to a lack of sarcasm tags around your post.

  30. Re:Solar Cooling! Man is at it again! by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 3, Funny

    You: We should nuke the sun from orbit!
    Moderator: The nuke won't make it into orbit, it's too hot.
    You: Let's go at night, then.
    Moderator: Oh yeah, of course!

    Slashdot: Aren't the nukes technically already in orbit?

    --
    Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
  31. Re:Solar Cooling! Man is at it again! by GooberToo · · Score: 1

    I like the, "redundant", moderation which implies its obviously the truth, and therefore redundant.

    The moderators have really become insanely ignorant these days. I wonder if the demographic has profoundly changed in recent times. Based on comments and moderations, it suggests both lower IQs and the far less learned haunt slashdot these days.

  32. Re:Finally... by Dunbal · · Score: 1

    Finally some evidence to prove my new theory I will soon propose: Global Cooling.

          You're going to have to wait a few thousand millenia though before people will believe you. You're just a little ahead of your time.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  33. Re:Climate change by jellomizer · · Score: 2, Interesting

    That is the thing about astroPhysics, that I really like. Any problems that occur isn't our fault. Here on Earth because everything is so tightly interconnected every problem can somehow be blamed on human intervention, and I am not denying that. But it is nice to have things that isn't our fault.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  34. Re:Cycle my ass ... by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 1

    Well, I'll agree with you that most seasonal holidays have been pretty much commercialized. endjoke.

    But what are the seasons, if not natural cycles? Was it a corporate plot of the first humans in order to maximize crop yields?

    --
    Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
  35. Re:Ah, Dikpati et al by pseudorand · · Score: 1

    Are you being critical of the research? TFA talks about a study of the completed solar cycle 23. We're currently IN Solar Cycle 24, which the article you reference predicts will peak in 2012. They may be right. Of course we'll never know, since the Mayan calendar clearly shows the end of the world in 2012, but that's another story. Or is it?!?

  36. Re:are we really surprised? by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 4, Informative

    The sun is 4.6 BILLION years old and we are concerned with a couple of years difference in the Solar Cycle? How many of our empirical evidence cycles have we measured in this sort of accuracy? The whole cycle measures within 2.3e-8% of its lifespan and we are surprised that we haven't got the accuracy narrowed down? What other natural phenomenon have we measured to this accuracy cause I would really like to see the ruler that was used...

    What got your panties in a twist? Just because something might vary over 4.8 Billion years has nothing to do with the fact that based on our current set of measurements this period was a bit longer. Hell, it doesn't matter if we measured only ONE other cycle, we could STILL make the observation "Hey, this cycle is longer than the last one".

    However since you did ask. Sunspots were what we first used as a 'ruler'. Discovered in 800 BC, drawn later, and eventually the cycle was first showin in 1843 using data going back to 1755. We now know sunspot data (from historical observations not always available to the first discoverers of the cycle) going back to 1610.

    And it's not like it's a 'slight' cycle either. These things vary by 150+ appearances per day during the peak, down to a dozen or fewer during the minimum.

    Take a look at this picture: http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/Zurich_Color_Small.jpg

    You don't exactly have to be a statistical wizard to see a pattern in that data.

    --
    Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
  37. Re:Solar Cooling! Man is at it again! by GooberToo · · Score: 1

    That's likely the root of the problem. Even a hint of truism brings ire and censorship rather than a spotlight for humor. Coincidentally, its probably censorship from the same people who like to complain about censorship on slashdot.

  38. All we *ever* do is push back the question by Colin+Smith · · Score: 1

    "Why" is the question that children repeatedly ask until adults get bored. All science can do is move one step at a time, answering one set of questions so that the next set of "why"s are visible.

    Ultimately you get back to "god did it" or "everything exploded from nothing". Neither of which are enlightening.

     

    --
    Deleted
    1. Re:All we *ever* do is push back the question by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "everything exploded from nothing"

      Dude, you need to watch more science tv, scientists are working on that as we speak. That "everything from nothing" problem affects a lot more than just the origins of the universe - it basically breaks physics, so theoretical physicists are desperate to figure out the solution. So far, the best explanation seems to be string theory, and that there are a lot more than just the one universe and the four dimensions. It's gaining ground because it seems to fix the standard model - that was actually what it was originally intended to do. It just happens to provide a possible source for the Big Bang as well. Also, like every new leap in science seems to do, it raises a lot more questions than it answers.

      "god did it"

      Short of god coming down and saying "look it's me! I did it!" this is impossible to prove or disprove, so it's pretty pointless to even consider from a scientific standpoint. Science needs things that are observable, measurable, and repeatable. "God did it" allows for none of that.

      --
      Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
    2. Re:All we *ever* do is push back the question by PaganRitual · · Score: 1

      it basically breaks physics, so theoretical physicists are desperate to figure out the solution.

      This is exactly it.

      Paraphrasing to make it fit, from Footfall...

      "Everything exploded from nothing? Doesn't that violate the laws of physics?" / "I'm sure the universe is doing everything right. We just don't understand it yet."

  39. Re:Finally... by mweather · · Score: 2, Interesting

    That's an odd reason to change the name, seeing as how the globe has only kept getting warmer.

  40. Re:are we really surprised? by SolarStorm · · Score: 1

    I agree, but I deal with rainfall and watershed data. The engineers talk in 20, 50 and 100 year events and these are no where nailed down to any sort of accuracy. even the full 400 year measuring period is looking at is still 8.7e-7% of the lifespan of the sun we have looked at such a small window and drawn an assumption over that window. We are definitely going to be wrong. heck we cant even predict tomorrows weather accurately, let alone something we measuring at a distance, where we are still only theorizing about how it actually works. "slight" variances on a cosmic scale may not be measured in years.

  41. Re:Solar Cooling! Man is at it again! by mangu · · Score: 1

    I like the, "redundant", moderation which implies its obviously the truth, and therefore redundant.

    Most likely the "redundant" comes from variations of this joke appearing every time there's an article about any sort of temperature change in any place other than the earth.

    A joke may be funny or not the first time you hear it but it's never funny after you hear it several times.

  42. Re:Climate change by pckl300 · · Score: 1

    No, it's solar warming on the sun. If only the sun reduced its emissions by switching to Hydrogen fuel...

    --
    In the beginning, there was null.
  43. Re:Finally... by confused+one · · Score: 2, Interesting

    There was also concern that widespread use of supersonic transport would add to the problem and force global cooling.

  44. Re:Solar Cooling! Man is at it again! by mcgrew · · Score: 3, Informative

    Trying for "funny" is dangerous to your karma. If you succeed, people get a good laugh but your karma's the same. If you fail, you're going to be modded troll, flamebait, overrated, or offtopic and your karma will suffer. Even if your joke just isn't funny.

    The moral? Shy away from humor unless you don't care about karma or you're sure you joke will make somebody spew coffee out of their nose. And sorry, but your joke just didn't cut it.

  45. Re:Climate change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Yeah, the sunspots themselves are cooler, but total solar irradiance is lower during a solar minimum, and higher during solar maximum. So while I am not saying for a fact that you don't know what the hell you're talking about and are stupid for still thinking it's just the sun... Wait that's exactly what I'm saying.

  46. Re:How can you joke about this? by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 1

    Meh, we're due in like, 20 million years or something anyway.

    Might as well be now on the galactic time scale. On the universal time scale it pretty much already started.

    --
    Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
  47. ok, ok, here it is by roman_mir · · Score: 1

    it's really more of a hot ragout, so there you go, the fancy words we actually use.

  48. Re:Finally... by Quirkz · · Score: 1

    Phew! For a second there I thought you were about to announce you'd beaten me to *my* new theory that I will soon propose: Global Worming.

  49. Taking blame for something... by denzacar · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...is not the worst thing that can happen. Particularly when we are talking astrophysics.

    I prefer the option where it IS "our" fault compared to one where the cause of trouble is completely out of our hands.
    Cause if we can break it, we can probably fix it to. Not easily, but there is a chance.

    Fixing something caused by the Sun... well... not this civilization.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  50. Re:oh gee by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

    there cycles being in nature does NOT mean that 'private research institutions' can suddenly start inventing numerous 'cycles' just in a decade, whereas there have been only a set amount of cycles invented since the start of scientific revolution.

    Because as we all know, the pace of scientific and technological advancement is perfectly constant.

  51. Re:Cycle my ass ... by token0 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    And, if you're in extreme denial, you can see evidence of a cycle yourself, if you've got the patience to take a look at the sun (filtered/projected) and note the spot number for ~20 years. There's data since 1750. Sunspots are correlated with auroras, so it's also within the reach of a human with no modern equipment to check the effects of sun activity.

  52. Re:Finally... by xMilkmanDanx · · Score: 3, Insightful

    No, the change was because people mistaking localized effects for proof that the globe wasn't warming. Some spots might see lower average temperatures due to changes in cloud cover, rain fall, etc. while the overall global temperature is still higher.

    For all the people that think that global warming is some conspiracy, publish a reproducible proof in a journal that shows it. You will win a nobel prize and a lifetime of funding.

  53. Re:oh gee by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 1

    You clearly have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

    I don't know of a single scientific idea that has been "set" for any significant length of time, let alone set since the start of scientific revolution. Even those stalwart cornerstones of physics, the Laws of Thermodynamics, have changed over the last 160 years.

    The idea that we know all the "cycles" that exist and haven't been discovering new ones is not just ignorant, it's idiotic. Seriously, read a book about science sometime. I don't care what it is, I guarantee you'll learn something.

    Cosmology has seen incredible advancements in the last 30 years. The Sun is very much a part of that. The current state of the Sun has never been studied before, hell 100 years ago some scientists still thought the sun was made of molten rock! Scientists are seeing these circumstances (longest solar minimum in a century) for the first time, and every new observation raises questions that beg to be answered.

    I find your entire position to be simply ignorant in the extreme. It's like you stop paying attention to science after middle school 30 years ago.

    --
    Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
  54. Re:Cycle my ass ... by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 1

    Give me a break. The solar activity cycle has been documented and studied since the early '60's (if not prior).

    Furthermore, we can measure the activity a lot better now than we ever could in the past, which allows our understanding of those cycles to grow and expand.

    The GP is incredibly ignorant.

    --
    Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
  55. Re:Good thing by xMilkmanDanx · · Score: 2, Informative

    yet another troll. as was pointed out above, this solar cycle was a minimum of activity (i.e. less solar energy incoming on earth) and during this same period, the temperature still went up. not that climate change is actually about such short spans of time, but your jumped to conclusion isn't even supported anecdotally by this evidence.

  56. Re:Cycle my ass ... by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 1

    Obviously Winter was invented by a secret cabal including the top scientists of Sears, Target, Walmart, Burlington Coat Factory, and Coca-Cola (those santa pics pre-date winter by at least a decade!) in order to sell cold weather clothing.

    I can't believe all you sheep have been so blind for so long.

    --
    Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
  57. Did anybody else think when reading the headline by ClosedSource · · Score: 1

    that this had something to do with an IPO?

  58. Re:Finally... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    They changed it to be "climate change" some time ago so no matter if the globe "cools" or "warms", some people can equally claim the sky is falling and push through their unrelated political agendas.

    It's nice to hear from Slashdot's "partisan dumbass" constituency, but that has nothing to do with the history of the term.

    "Global warming" was first used, AFAIK, by Wally Broecker in 1975, but for most of the 1970s and 1980s, most papers on the subject didn't use the term. "Climate change" was sometimes used, and note that the "CC" in the abbreviation IPCC (founded in 1988) refers to "climate change".

    "Global warming" entered the public vocabulary mostly in 1988 after James Hansen's testimony to Congress. Scientists continued to talk about "climate change" among themselves, but increasingly used "global warming" when speaking to the public, as that's what was being used in newspapers.

    After increased concern about thermohaline circulation collapse (which can cause localized cooling in response to overall warming), public confusion between weather and climate (a cold winter doesn't mean the globe isn't warming), and realization that the public was ignoring important non-temperature impacts (such as precipitation changes), scientists reverted back to "climate change" when speaking to the public. But, again, amongst themselves they have pretty much always used the term "climate change".

  59. One Word Explanation. by mano.m · · Score: 1

    Oracle.

    --
    Karma fed to this user will be promptly burnt. Be warned; be wary.
  60. Two slashdotters walk into a bar... by denzacar · · Score: 1

    ...and order Sex on the Beach.

    So, what you're saying is...
    Cracking jokes on slashdot is an indicator of balls of steel and/or bulletproof karma?

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    1. Re:Two slashdotters walk into a bar... by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Cracking jokes on slashdot is an indicator of balls of steel and/or bulletproof karma?

      Pretty much, yes. There are those of us who get so many +5s that aren't jokes, and so few -1s, that we don't have to worry about karma. There are others who get a new UID more often than they get a new computer just because they managed to trash their karma with every user name.

      If you see "the comedian" in someone's "achievements" page, you can be pretty sure he's not a karma whore.

  61. Re:Solar Cooling! Man is at it again! by GSV+Eat+Me+Reality · · Score: 1

      Attempting humor in any part of society is always risky. There is no such thing as a joke that isn't potentially offensive to someone.

      Unfortunately, it seems like more and more people whose statements have the potential of becoming public have to tread a line so fine that they often end up saying nothing at all.

      I don't remember for sure, anymore, but I think it was George Burns who said that the least risky part of public comedy was having your joke fall flat. The most risky part was jail time.

      The moral? Shy away from humor unless you don't care about karma or you're sure you joke will make somebody spew coffee out of their nose.

      If you have a tried and true formula for making someone spew coffee out of their nose, you should probably be on the comedy circuit. Perhaps you should copyright it ;-)

      Come on, now. Karma on slashdot, from a realistic standpoint, is meaningless. Making people laugh, that's priceless.

      GSVEMR

  62. Re:Finally... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    No, the change was because people mistaking localized effects for proof that the globe wasn't warming.

    Maybe that's because every single "bad" weather event is publicized by the media, politicians, so-called "scientists" as proof of global warming.

    Some spots might see lower average temperatures due to changes in cloud cover, rain fall, etc. while the overall global temperature is still higher.

    Note that the vast majority of that "warming" is at higher latitudes where the instrument record is sparse and the temperatures are interpolated over great distances. Unless you think assigning a value for an area via a thermometer that is 1200 km away is "robust". To put that in perspective, that's like saying "I can tell you the temperature in Philadelphia by using a thermometer in Chicago". Or, for those on the other side of the pond, "I can tell you the temperature in Stockholm by using a thermometer in Paris".

    For all the people that think that global warming is some conspiracy, publish a reproducible proof in a journal that shows it. You will win a nobel prize and a lifetime of funding.

    As the CRU emails have shown, when you have a small group of reviewers who can effectively dictate what is and is not published, there is little chance of a contrarian, yet robust, paper from ever seeing the light of day. One could choose to self-publish, but then those same gate-keepers cry "It's not in a peer-reviewed journal!".

  63. Re:Climate change by wvmarle · · Score: 1

    That's why I said "caused by" and not "causing".... this comment was just a test on how well you and the rest of /. can read. It was obviously meant as joke but got a troll mod. Nuff said.

  64. Re:are we really surprised? by rahultyagi · · Score: 1

    being concerned about a cycle has nothing to do with the total life of the thing. That is like saying "Earth is >4 billion years old and we are concerned about the fact that the sun didn't rise for 2 days?"

  65. Re:are we really surprised? by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 1

    I agree, but I deal with rainfall and watershed data. The engineers talk in 20, 50 and 100 year events and these are no where nailed down to any sort of accuracy. even the full 400 year measuring period is looking at is still 8.7e-7% of the lifespan of the sun we have looked at such a small window and drawn an assumption over that window. We are definitely going to be wrong. heck we cant even predict tomorrows weather accurately, let alone something we measuring at a distance, where we are still only theorizing about how it actually works. "slight" variances on a cosmic scale may not be measured in years.

    I understand where you are coming from (mostly).

    Remember the Earth just about as old as the Sun (possibly even older depending on when you consider Earth, Earth and not a protoplanetary blob). Our current weather/preciptation models would be bunk even 100,000 years ago.

    For this section of time, with no evidence to the contrary, 400 years of data is easily sufficient for me to forcast 1 month out. I would bet my entire life's savings that there would be less than 150 sun spots 1 month from now (I'd probably make the bet for 1 year from now as well)

    Contrast this with data we are getting from Arctic Ice cores, which have been shown to correspond to an 11 year cycle (isotopes created from heavier bombardment in the ionosphere).

    Of course over the lifetime of the planet these things are going to change. But it is VERY unlikely that these things are going to change very much in one 11 year period. (or even 100-200 years)

    --
    Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
  66. Correlation by RivenAleem · · Score: 1

    Recent increases in electricity generated by solar power.

    Prolonged Solar minimum.

    Is nobody else seeing the Correlation here? Solar panels are stripping the sun of it's plasma-soup.

  67. Re:I am surprise this isn't blamed on global warmi by xmorg · · Score: 1

    Its funny how anything that debunks GW is labeled troll....

  68. Re:Climate change by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

    Even burning hydrogen isn't all that efficient. Sun should research fusion. But I bet we'll get it going first.

    --
    I drank what? -- Socrates
  69. Re:Finally... by tehcyder · · Score: 1

    Oh great, cue another global warming flamefest...

    --
    To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  70. radio implications by s122604 · · Score: 1

    What I want to know is when its time to key up the 10 meter rig

  71. Re:Solar Cooling! Man is at it again! by mcgrew · · Score: 1

    I think it was George Burns who said that the least risky part of public comedy was having your joke fall flat. The most risky part was jail time.

    I've been physically assaulted for jokes.

    If you have a tried and true formula for making someone spew coffee out of their nose, you should probably be on the comedy circuit.

    I wish! I've had plenty of jokes modded "troll" and "flamebait". But I've also had people curse me for making them spew coffee out of their noses.

    Come on, now. Karma on slashdot, from a realistic standpoint, is meaningless. Making people laugh, that's priceless.

    I agree, but I think if my karma was in trouble I would refrain from cracking wise.

  72. Well... by denzacar · · Score: 1

    I guess I should get me some anti-corrosive, self-lubricating underwear for may steely balls then.
    Or should that be underware?

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  73. Re:Solar Cooling! Man is at it again! by GSV+Eat+Me+Reality · · Score: 1

    I've been physically assaulted for jokes.

      Ditto. Not twice, tho. Not yet. Didn't have to pay their hospital bills, either. I might have to visit that particular bit of karma on a neighbor, soon, however. I'll survive it. He won't.

      Even here, where one would expect a certain level of humor, it often falls flat.

      I agree, but I think if my karma was in trouble I would refrain from cracking wise.

      I will not refrain from being honest, nor cracking jokes; "karma" on slashdot is an artificial thing that has nothing to do with real life.

      I find it pretty sad that anyone really cares about that. Honestly, who cares? It's just a website.

    Whatever.

      GSVEMR