You forget the imminent legislative turd that is ACTA. I suspect it will (sadly IMO) short circuit your entire argument by using legal threats as the dominant issue. With net neutrality already dead (hellloooo deep packet inspection), I doubt that torrents (in their present form) will survive more than a couple of years at most (while the legal machinery is put in place). I don't agree with this attitude but my opinion cannot change the simple fact that ACTA and its successors can be quite effective at AOL-izing the internet.
To be frankly bleak, as China has demonstrated time and again, the internet is not free for the simple reason that its infrastructure is a physical commodity and can be controlled quite easily. The only things that control that control (so to say) are constitutional safeguards or a regulated market (the free market is against net neutrality - go figure) and we all know how fragile those are. Of course, none of these fine ideological issues apply to illegal torrents. People who torrent illegally can DIAF for all I care. They share the blame (with the CP assholes) for providing the necessary pretext(s) for the legislative douchenozzles to push ACTA and its ilk. Of course, they would have just found something else if these two linchpins hadnt been there but the arguments would be far weaker in that case. As it stands, piracy and CP are extraordinarily powerful talking points in the minds of the ordinary voter that legislators can use for this purpose.
Thanks a lot torrenters. Hope that torrent of Lost was worth the impending shitstorm spawned by ACTA. Self-entitled cocks.
How is that any different from the $33/month people are currently paying for cable TV?
It costs 70% less?
And the ads are MUCH less annoying and much less everything; period. Viewing TV ads (vacationing at my parents') after 6 months of nothing but online viewing (Hulu+Netflix) gives me the same taste in my mouth as watching Survivor after going through a season of LOST (and the genre mismatch is deliberate - for a good reason =p).
Plus, if you've got an ISP with bandwidth caps, don't even think about subscribing to this.
I hear this a lot - where in the US is this actually an issue (genuinely curious)?. I share a connection with an entire other family in Oakland, CA and we both stream video a lot (but neither of us do torrents) as in - that's our primary TV source. No cap-issue yet. Are you sure it's raw bandwidth caps and not packet sniffing (capping filesharing users only)? NTTAWT =p
Gawd! Cable! Ugh! I usually slake my TV thirst on Hulu, Netflix and the occasional box set (for keeper shows). When I visit someone else (like my parents), I am confronted by the bedpan that it cable tv (or even network tv). How people can stand that crap (LOUD ads - ~18 minutes/hr that occur at just the worst moment when you're trying to immerse yourself in a dramatic experience) is beyond me. I would much rather stay 3 years behind the "current" state and watch the shows as they should be watched than tolerate that nonsense. I can honestly say that I experienced LOST in a dramatically superior fashion (two day seasons are soooo intense) than following it weekly. Of course, if people had not followed it weekly, it would have been canceled so I can't and won't mock these people (but I can sympathize).
I agree personally, but that's only because I like to stay a season behind the times (for this very reason - weird kind of circularity here). I imagine the people who would like good quality streaming for current shows won't have much of a choice (especially if Hulu plus is the first step to ending the free version). At the risk of sounding paranoid, I always thought Hulu was a temporary phenomenon. Consider the ads. They've been steadily getting more numerous/longer - until we're back to standard cable again? Of course, having ads on a PC is infinitely preferable to ads on TV. I can always do other things, like post on/. while an ad finishes up in a separate window.
Yes, I followed Heroes on Netflix too. Is that a weird exception though? I never found any other shows like that (that were current). Almost every show that I started out watching on Netflix (old season) is a season behind for DVDs and 2 seasons behind for instant viewing. This makes me sad:(
I find Thunderbird to be a little more disappointing,
Why? It seems to do everything a mail client should do (well, it can't unsend rage-against-the-boss hatemail but I forgive it this minor shortcoming). And more importantly, more disappointing than what? What is this mythical god of email clients that I may worship at its altar (or more seriously, use it instead)? And even more importantly, is this comparison (assuming it is being compared against an actual alternative) substantial or superficial? Obviously, you're not obligated to respond, but I'm genuinely curious - it's an email client, rather like a toaster oven. Sure you can add a lot of bells and whistles but in the end its main (and even secondary) function is simple and comfortably fulfilled by TB.
I wouldn't complain about it on my own (since FF is free and I'm grateful it exists in the first place since it got me away from my abusive marriage with IE =p) but since the subject has arisen, it freezes up like an ice demon every time I load/.
This is the only site I've ever seen that I cannot count on just loading up in tabs (say, a set of 5-6 stories that I've selected) without a hitch. No crashes until I click on the busy FF window, at which point it's all "this program has stopped responding". Is there anything I can do about this?
Strangely enough, flash heavy sites just don't kill FF for me (because I use flashblock and only enable the flashlets that contain the vids I wanna watch instead of the entire bevy of ads and crapware floating around on most flash sites). So yes, for the most part, I'd agree with you (person I replied to) that stability problems are rather strange. Perhaps an overabundance of addons?
Yes, that's the point I was trying to make - thanks for the succinct reply. I will inject a minor quibble here however -
people who think there is some absolute truth out there to be discovered.
There might well be such a thing (I personally doubt it but my personal opinion means nothing in this particular case since we really just don't know). The point is (and I'm sure you'll back me up on this) that such models/theories of reality are the best we have come up with and it is a bit foolish to judge the efficacy of such working models on the basis of an as-yet (and perhaps never-to-be) discovered "something-more" that mystics like to harp on about.
As a practical matter, if those absolute truths do exist out there, I have not a single doubt that it will be the pragmatic scientist who finally discovers them and not the armchair philosopher flakes who dream about "something more" but do nothing to figure out what it is.
I thought they conferred magic powers on the organ of choice. But really, people should just ease off on mocking the whole tattoo fad. Surely we have better things to do than make fun of trivial body mods?
No no. You see, a guy's a sheep only if he does something that's good for him. Anything self-destructive is "creative expression" or a "lifestyle choice"./snert
Speaking of foresight, if you're planning to get a belly tattoo, ask the tattooer (tattooist?) to inscribe on a concave projection. That way, you have insurance against the inevitable middle-age beergut;-]
A tattoo is a lifestyle choice? What's next - makeup, zits, spray-on tans, weird spectacle frames? Icanhazdelusionsofgrandeur? Not saying that people should be mocked for their fads and foibles, but calling it a lifestyle choice is just silly. *snort*
Drunk-modding again? =p
Someone please fix this to informative or insightful. Someone on/. actually cited a PRL ref correctly to prove his point - will wonders never cease? I think I'm gonna cry.
The day there's something else besides "just" a model is the day that qualifier will actually make sense. Never really understood what point people try to make with the "just" qualifier.
Electromagnetism is extremely well-described. There certainly unanswered questions about it and other fundamental forces, though. Which means the definition of the term "understand" starts to matter.
Then we agree:p
The point was simply to be more aware of what the word "understanding" means in this context before saying that we don't have a "true understanding" of something. What would qualify as true understanding anyway?
I think the point is that the fundamental forces are getting to the point in physics where things can't necessarily entirely be explained in terms of simpler phenomenon.
Still far from that point. As I said, give it time. And anyway, that's a digression. The point was simply to be more aware of what the word "understanding" means in this context before saying that we don't have a "true understanding" of something. What would qualify as true understanding anyway? In other words (and the following is the only thing I need have written), if you think that explanation A doesn't give a "true understanding" of phenomenon X, what qualities should explanation B have in order to qualify? Until this question is addressed (at least as a working rule), the point is moot. My point was that in the physical sciences, such working rules do exist (and I attempted, to a first approximation, to state those rules). If, as you say, fundamental physics is getting to a point where our working rule is no longer... working (not true yet but it probably will happen at some point), well that's fine. The best minds are on the job. I'm fairly confident they'll find a replacement (that still doesn't wimp out). Also, I wanted to point out that when you wrote
Just because we have the vocabulary to describe something does not mean we "understand" it.
you were replying to GP, who was talking about electromagnetism, which is extremely well understood (at a number of levels). This is hardly a case of merely having the vocabulary to describe something. That was GP's point when he/she mentioned the deeper connections of E&M to relativity and so on.
Ah I see now. That (rhyme thing) makes sense. Thanks for the clarification. I do agree that jumping on the ICP just for saying "miracles" is rather silly. Though if it interests you, when I was browsing for the article, I caught a glimpse of "ICP came out as Christian" or something like that (dunno what it was about). Again, none of my business but it may be relevant to you. Perhaps those other people commented based on other information (and not just the lyrics). The whole juggalo thing is fascinating though. I've never seen a movement like this based on just a single band.
It seems like that's the message you want it to have (and not what someone would infer from reading the lyrics). Fair enough, it's a song and open to interpretation. As I wrote before, if it's just about nostalgically remembering those childhood when so many things seemed mysterious and reliving those moments again, fine. It's just that there's an enormous disconnect between your latest post and all that crap about lying scientists.
Goddammit, all I'm asking for is a link so I can follow up on this because I'm curious. Way to get your hackles up and rant like a loon.
Or, to state it a different way, there is nothing more useless than some twit on Slashdot (or anywhere else) stating "I've not actually studied this, but I couldn't solve the problem, so I assert no one else on the planet could either."
Your reading comprehension sucks balls. Your presumptuousness is no better.
It's never a humble "I don't know how this works at all. I would imagine there would be some issues with XXX, how do they get past that?" No, it's a "If I can't solve this problem, then everyone else in the world working together couldn't solve it either."
I thought that's what I was doing (in the first part at least). Here it is again - ["Ah. Please tell me where and when or at least point me to a source. I'm really curious to see some case studies on this (what really happened, etc.)"] How big a stick do you need to have up your ass to interpret this as you did? Of course, it's likely I didn't receive the memo on what constitutes "humble". Do you require that applicants call you "master"? Because I draw the line at that.
In the latter part - ["So, my point is that it will either be dangerous or rather useless. The appearance of a scientifically set limit while being nothing of the kind"], I pointed out a possible flaw in the way I thought it would be done (which, since no one ever cares to post their fucking sources/links to more info, I have to base on what's posted ON HERE, don't I?). To be fair, I did overreach myself when I said "will" (bolded above). Based on the process AS DESCRIBED (by you and other people in this thread), I think it's a valid criticism. If that's not the full story, well post a fucking link or at least quote a source or SOMETHING to go on. I asked politely the first time. I see no reason to reward a barbaric reply with more politeness.
Ego much?
Bite me:p. You're the one who wants us to accept arguments that (at first glance) appear to be based on nothing but anecdotal evidence until someone asks for more information, at which point you come out with some moronic rant instead of addressing the question. Stay classy.
Ach. Didn't finish my sentence. "To them I can only say - the day you've exhausted all the wonders of the physical world, I will cease to be revolted by your primal need to dismiss the wonders of nature-that-exists as mundane and look to flights of fancy as more satisfying "explanations" of those natural wonders". Something more? Something more than what? People that don't know much of that "what" appear so pathetic when they demand something "more" when they are clueless about the things they want to transcend. It's like saying the PS7 has crappy graphics and you want the PS8 (or even worse, something "more") when we're only up to the PS3.
By the way, I did take your advice and read the lyrics. Not too bad. But the message is clear: "Open your mind, but not so much that you'll actually understand how any of these things work because it is irreverent to seek the answer to a mystery. Instead, just be like the mystics and enjoy the most superficial manifestation of the wonders that surround us instead of going deeper and uncovering more profound mysteries." Of course, the mystics use sexier language (i.e. obscurantist bullshit) - "feel, don't think", "use your heart, not your mind". I feel myself floating already:p
As I wrote elsewhere, no one's offended by the lyrics. Contempt & disdain != feeling offended. But such attitudes (as espoused by the mystics) are too easy to criticize and we shouldn't fall in the trap of doing so because then it just becomes a circle-jerk with no constructive outcome.
Lighten up Francis. I'll say it again, since you missed it the first time.
In any case, I fully realize it's just a stupid song and is being taken way too seriously. It's like seriously responding to Jenny McCarthy about vaccines. Obvious trolls are obvious but seem to have hooked a lot of fishies.
And what search? I simply RTFA. It's a fucking song and this is the IDLE section of/. People are making too much of this. And people seem to put musicians on a fucking pedestal for issues that they are severely under-equipped to discuss intelligently. Pyramids and UFOs? What the hell does any of that have to do with scientists? Get real. Pyramids = overrated cargo cult science. UFOs exist - they are UNIDENTIFIED flying objects. I have no quarrel with that. So yeah, I guess UFOs qualify as a mystery. Again, lying scientists? lolwut? I'm fine with a nostalgic memory of things I used to believe as a child. Then I grew up and found much more interesting things to wonder at instead of the stupid shit that people (and the childhood me) waste their time on.
Work an scientists were most likely used only to get a rhyme with dirt and pissed.
What do I need to smoke to understand this line?:p Maybe you need to relax and not bang the keyboard blindly. If it's a line from the song, I apologize for attributing it to you.
Slashdot Mirror
You forget the imminent legislative turd that is ACTA. I suspect it will (sadly IMO) short circuit your entire argument by using legal threats as the dominant issue. With net neutrality already dead (hellloooo deep packet inspection), I doubt that torrents (in their present form) will survive more than a couple of years at most (while the legal machinery is put in place). I don't agree with this attitude but my opinion cannot change the simple fact that ACTA and its successors can be quite effective at AOL-izing the internet.
To be frankly bleak, as China has demonstrated time and again, the internet is not free for the simple reason that its infrastructure is a physical commodity and can be controlled quite easily. The only things that control that control (so to say) are constitutional safeguards or a regulated market (the free market is against net neutrality - go figure) and we all know how fragile those are. Of course, none of these fine ideological issues apply to illegal torrents. People who torrent illegally can DIAF for all I care. They share the blame (with the CP assholes) for providing the necessary pretext(s) for the legislative douchenozzles to push ACTA and its ilk. Of course, they would have just found something else if these two linchpins hadnt been there but the arguments would be far weaker in that case. As it stands, piracy and CP are extraordinarily powerful talking points in the minds of the ordinary voter that legislators can use for this purpose.
Thanks a lot torrenters. Hope that torrent of Lost was worth the impending shitstorm spawned by ACTA. Self-entitled cocks.
How is that any different from the $33/month people are currently paying for cable TV?
It costs 70% less?
And the ads are MUCH less annoying and much less everything; period. Viewing TV ads (vacationing at my parents') after 6 months of nothing but online viewing (Hulu+Netflix) gives me the same taste in my mouth as watching Survivor after going through a season of LOST (and the genre mismatch is deliberate - for a good reason =p).
Plus, if you've got an ISP with bandwidth caps, don't even think about subscribing to this.
I hear this a lot - where in the US is this actually an issue (genuinely curious)?. I share a connection with an entire other family in Oakland, CA and we both stream video a lot (but neither of us do torrents) as in - that's our primary TV source. No cap-issue yet. Are you sure it's raw bandwidth caps and not packet sniffing (capping filesharing users only)? NTTAWT =p
Gawd! Cable! Ugh! I usually slake my TV thirst on Hulu, Netflix and the occasional box set (for keeper shows). When I visit someone else (like my parents), I am confronted by the bedpan that it cable tv (or even network tv). How people can stand that crap (LOUD ads - ~18 minutes/hr that occur at just the worst moment when you're trying to immerse yourself in a dramatic experience) is beyond me. I would much rather stay 3 years behind the "current" state and watch the shows as they should be watched than tolerate that nonsense. I can honestly say that I experienced LOST in a dramatically superior fashion (two day seasons are soooo intense) than following it weekly. Of course, if people had not followed it weekly, it would have been canceled so I can't and won't mock these people (but I can sympathize).
I agree personally, but that's only because I like to stay a season behind the times (for this very reason - weird kind of circularity here). I imagine the people who would like good quality streaming for current shows won't have much of a choice (especially if Hulu plus is the first step to ending the free version). At the risk of sounding paranoid, I always thought Hulu was a temporary phenomenon. Consider the ads. They've been steadily getting more numerous/longer - until we're back to standard cable again? Of course, having ads on a PC is infinitely preferable to ads on TV. I can always do other things, like post on /. while an ad finishes up in a separate window.
Yes, I followed Heroes on Netflix too. Is that a weird exception though? I never found any other shows like that (that were current). Almost every show that I started out watching on Netflix (old season) is a season behind for DVDs and 2 seasons behind for instant viewing. This makes me sad :(
I find Thunderbird to be a little more disappointing,
Why? It seems to do everything a mail client should do (well, it can't unsend rage-against-the-boss hatemail but I forgive it this minor shortcoming). And more importantly, more disappointing than what? What is this mythical god of email clients that I may worship at its altar (or more seriously, use it instead)? And even more importantly, is this comparison (assuming it is being compared against an actual alternative) substantial or superficial? Obviously, you're not obligated to respond, but I'm genuinely curious - it's an email client, rather like a toaster oven. Sure you can add a lot of bells and whistles but in the end its main (and even secondary) function is simple and comfortably fulfilled by TB.
I wouldn't complain about it on my own (since FF is free and I'm grateful it exists in the first place since it got me away from my abusive marriage with IE =p) but since the subject has arisen, it freezes up like an ice demon every time I load /.
This is the only site I've ever seen that I cannot count on just loading up in tabs (say, a set of 5-6 stories that I've selected) without a hitch. No crashes until I click on the busy FF window, at which point it's all "this program has stopped responding". Is there anything I can do about this?
Strangely enough, flash heavy sites just don't kill FF for me (because I use flashblock and only enable the flashlets that contain the vids I wanna watch instead of the entire bevy of ads and crapware floating around on most flash sites). So yes, for the most part, I'd agree with you (person I replied to) that stability problems are rather strange. Perhaps an overabundance of addons?
people who think there is some absolute truth out there to be discovered.
There might well be such a thing (I personally doubt it but my personal opinion means nothing in this particular case since we really just don't know). The point is (and I'm sure you'll back me up on this) that such models/theories of reality are the best we have come up with and it is a bit foolish to judge the efficacy of such working models on the basis of an as-yet (and perhaps never-to-be) discovered "something-more" that mystics like to harp on about.
As a practical matter, if those absolute truths do exist out there, I have not a single doubt that it will be the pragmatic scientist who finally discovers them and not the armchair philosopher flakes who dream about "something more" but do nothing to figure out what it is.
Well, when you put it that way, I guess it does make sense. Didn't think of it from that perspective.
and most of all they are superficial.
I thought they conferred magic powers on the organ of choice. But really, people should just ease off on mocking the whole tattoo fad. Surely we have better things to do than make fun of trivial body mods?
No no. You see, a guy's a sheep only if he does something that's good for him. Anything self-destructive is "creative expression" or a "lifestyle choice". /snert
Speaking of foresight, if you're planning to get a belly tattoo, ask the tattooer (tattooist?) to inscribe on a concave projection. That way, you have insurance against the inevitable middle-age beergut ;-]
A tattoo is a lifestyle choice? What's next - makeup, zits, spray-on tans, weird spectacle frames? Icanhazdelusionsofgrandeur? Not saying that people should be mocked for their fads and foibles, but calling it a lifestyle choice is just silly. *snort*
Enlightened re-modding breaks CRM invariance!
News at 11...
Drunk-modding again? =p /. actually cited a PRL ref correctly to prove his point - will wonders never cease? I think I'm gonna cry.
Someone please fix this to informative or insightful. Someone on
just a model
The day there's something else besides "just" a model is the day that qualifier will actually make sense. Never really understood what point people try to make with the "just" qualifier.
Electromagnetism is extremely well-described. There certainly unanswered questions about it and other fundamental forces, though. Which means the definition of the term "understand" starts to matter.
Then we agree :p
The point was simply to be more aware of what the word "understanding" means in this context before saying that we don't have a "true understanding" of something. What would qualify as true understanding anyway?
Also, look up what "begs the question" means.
My bad. That's obviously not the correct usage.
I think the point is that the fundamental forces are getting to the point in physics where things can't necessarily entirely be explained in terms of simpler phenomenon.
Still far from that point. As I said, give it time. And anyway, that's a digression. The point was simply to be more aware of what the word "understanding" means in this context before saying that we don't have a "true understanding" of something. What would qualify as true understanding anyway? In other words (and the following is the only thing I need have written), if you think that explanation A doesn't give a "true understanding" of phenomenon X, what qualities should explanation B have in order to qualify? Until this question is addressed (at least as a working rule), the point is moot. My point was that in the physical sciences, such working rules do exist (and I attempted, to a first approximation, to state those rules). If, as you say, fundamental physics is getting to a point where our working rule is no longer ... working (not true yet but it probably will happen at some point), well that's fine. The best minds are on the job. I'm fairly confident they'll find a replacement (that still doesn't wimp out). Also, I wanted to point out that when you wrote
Just because we have the vocabulary to describe something does not mean we "understand" it.
you were replying to GP, who was talking about electromagnetism, which is extremely well understood (at a number of levels). This is hardly a case of merely having the vocabulary to describe something. That was GP's point when he/she mentioned the deeper connections of E&M to relativity and so on.
Ah I see now. That (rhyme thing) makes sense. Thanks for the clarification. I do agree that jumping on the ICP just for saying "miracles" is rather silly. Though if it interests you, when I was browsing for the article, I caught a glimpse of "ICP came out as Christian" or something like that (dunno what it was about). Again, none of my business but it may be relevant to you. Perhaps those other people commented based on other information (and not just the lyrics). The whole juggalo thing is fascinating though. I've never seen a movement like this based on just a single band.
It seems like that's the message you want it to have (and not what someone would infer from reading the lyrics). Fair enough, it's a song and open to interpretation. As I wrote before, if it's just about nostalgically remembering those childhood when so many things seemed mysterious and reliving those moments again, fine. It's just that there's an enormous disconnect between your latest post and all that crap about lying scientists.
Or, to state it a different way, there is nothing more useless than some twit on Slashdot (or anywhere else) stating "I've not actually studied this, but I couldn't solve the problem, so I assert no one else on the planet could either."
Your reading comprehension sucks balls. Your presumptuousness is no better.
It's never a humble "I don't know how this works at all. I would imagine there would be some issues with XXX, how do they get past that?" No, it's a "If I can't solve this problem, then everyone else in the world working together couldn't solve it either."
I thought that's what I was doing (in the first part at least). Here it is again - ["Ah. Please tell me where and when or at least point me to a source. I'm really curious to see some case studies on this (what really happened, etc.)"] How big a stick do you need to have up your ass to interpret this as you did? Of course, it's likely I didn't receive the memo on what constitutes "humble". Do you require that applicants call you "master"? Because I draw the line at that.
In the latter part - ["So, my point is that it will either be dangerous or rather useless. The appearance of a scientifically set limit while being nothing of the kind"], I pointed out a possible flaw in the way I thought it would be done (which, since no one ever cares to post their fucking sources/links to more info, I have to base on what's posted ON HERE, don't I?). To be fair, I did overreach myself when I said "will" (bolded above). Based on the process AS DESCRIBED (by you and other people in this thread), I think it's a valid criticism. If that's not the full story, well post a fucking link or at least quote a source or SOMETHING to go on. I asked politely the first time. I see no reason to reward a barbaric reply with more politeness.
Ego much?
Bite me :p. You're the one who wants us to accept arguments that (at first glance) appear to be based on nothing but anecdotal evidence until someone asks for more information, at which point you come out with some moronic rant instead of addressing the question. Stay classy.
Ach. Didn't finish my sentence. "To them I can only say - the day you've exhausted all the wonders of the physical world, I will cease to be revolted by your primal need to dismiss the wonders of nature-that-exists as mundane and look to flights of fancy as more satisfying "explanations" of those natural wonders". Something more? Something more than what? People that don't know much of that "what" appear so pathetic when they demand something "more" when they are clueless about the things they want to transcend. It's like saying the PS7 has crappy graphics and you want the PS8 (or even worse, something "more") when we're only up to the PS3.
By the way, I did take your advice and read the lyrics. Not too bad. But the message is clear: "Open your mind, but not so much that you'll actually understand how any of these things work because it is irreverent to seek the answer to a mystery. Instead, just be like the mystics and enjoy the most superficial manifestation of the wonders that surround us instead of going deeper and uncovering more profound mysteries." Of course, the mystics use sexier language (i.e. obscurantist bullshit) - "feel, don't think", "use your heart, not your mind". I feel myself floating already :p
As I wrote elsewhere, no one's offended by the lyrics. Contempt & disdain != feeling offended. But such attitudes (as espoused by the mystics) are too easy to criticize and we shouldn't fall in the trap of doing so because then it just becomes a circle-jerk with no constructive outcome.
In any case, I fully realize it's just a stupid song and is being taken way too seriously. It's like seriously responding to Jenny McCarthy about vaccines. Obvious trolls are obvious but seem to have hooked a lot of fishies.
And what search? I simply RTFA. It's a fucking song and this is the IDLE section of /. People are making too much of this. And people seem to put musicians on a fucking pedestal for issues that they are severely under-equipped to discuss intelligently. Pyramids and UFOs? What the hell does any of that have to do with scientists? Get real. Pyramids = overrated cargo cult science. UFOs exist - they are UNIDENTIFIED flying objects. I have no quarrel with that. So yeah, I guess UFOs qualify as a mystery. Again, lying scientists? lolwut? I'm fine with a nostalgic memory of things I used to believe as a child. Then I grew up and found much more interesting things to wonder at instead of the stupid shit that people (and the childhood me) waste their time on.
Work an scientists were most likely used only to get a rhyme with dirt and pissed.
What do I need to smoke to understand this line? :p Maybe you need to relax and not bang the keyboard blindly. If it's a line from the song, I apologize for attributing it to you.