> Or how about just the psychological trauma to see your grandma or parents rotting in the ditch close to your hut? Not very pleasant I suppose. "Oops, checked on paw-paw this morning -- looks like the maggots finallay got to him... bless his heart!"
That's why you're supposed to eat his brain, shrink his head, and hang it from the rear-view mirror in your car.
> Can't say I agree with you. Look at our recent elections -- winners have won through largely anti-intellectual platforms. Of course, they haven't done it overtly, but through portraying themselves as common, simple people and by portraying intelluctuals as untrustworthy.
Actually, at the Federal level the current anti-intellectual clique holds power by a pretty slim margin, and IMO they didn't get it by portraying intellectuals as untrustworty, but by sucking up to specific special interest groups {big business, religious right} with interests that call for public policy decisions that go against the decisions recommended by good science. Their anti-science stance on various hot issues is nothing more than self interest and/or reward for their supporters.
> When your employer comes to you about injecting an RFID tag under your skin remember this article. It is one thing to have an ID card with a tag on it, something that can be binned and replaced in time, but what about that chip under your skin? Are they going to take it out of you or will you end up with 10 all up your arm?
No, it means my boss will end up with ten up his 455.
> Back at MSU I did research on IAD. Being a computer geek and psych geek I thought it was the perfect independant study. The problem I found, which turned into my thesis, was that the entire psychological community saw IAD as a chance to "exploit" clients. So they wrote the DSM-IV diagnostic criteria to
> I personally, have a complete dislike for the idea of dark matter. It seems like a stab in the dark, that missed, and was declared right anyway. "Wow, galaxies spin way faster than we think they should. It's almost like there are invisible halos of super heavy matter surrounding all galaxies." Oh, yeah, beyond being completely invisible Dark Matter exists in halos around galaxies. They are really really heavy but the stars don't fall into the halos or the halos into the stars. It's all magically perfect.
> All we really have to go on is the fact that if dark matter didn't exist things, such as galaxies, wouldn't look like they do.
We also have the fact that dark matter explains why things do look like they do.
> If I had gone to my supervisor with an argument like that when I was doing chemistry he would probably have laughed himself stupid right before he sacked me.
If you went to him with a (valid) argument that chemistry AWKI makes wrong predictions about some easy and repeatable observations, would he have sacked you?
If you followed up with a hypothesis that explained all the anomalies with a single simple mechanism, would he have sacked you?
> After all the universe is very big - you could easily hide something in it.
Yes, but that something would have to be in the right place to explain the gravitational anomalies, and given our observations of that place, it would have to be "hidden" in a certain kind of way.
> My problem with dark matter is that it's almost as difficult to believe in as God. The only real proof we have is that the universe doesn't appear to move correctly without it.
Ah, but the universe doesn't behave correctly in three distinct ways - galaxy rotations, binding of galaxy clusters, and gravitational lensing - and all three are elegantly explained by the simple hypothesis that the visible matter in the cosmos is embedded in halos of "invisible" matter.
Moreover, the current state of particle physics makes the existence of matter with the necessary properties quite plausible.
> Surely if the universe was full of this stuff we would be able to detect it because it would block radiation from distant galaxies - or is dark matter conveniently transparent?
Yes, the hypothesis "conveniently" matches the observations. We hypothesize "transparent" stuff because we can "see" its gravitational effect but we can't "see" it.
And theoretical particle physics cooperates with that notion as well.
Perhaps some other explanation is actually correct, but right now "dark matter" is the best explanation going. That's why the vast majority of astronomers subscribe to the idea, and can even put a number on how much of it there is. Unless new observations cut the legs out from under the dark matter hypothesis, competing hypotheses have a tough act to follow.
And as others have already pointed out, this would hardly be the first time we discovered something on the basis of its apparently anomalous effects. (Cf. the famous Asimov quote about "That's funny...".)
Maybe it's right, maybe it's wrong. But it's certainly not unreasonable.
> Beyond the cert saying the business was in Salt Lake City Utah, I don't really see how there was some big confidence broken here. The SSL cert was issued for "www.mountain-america.net". The bank in question is "www.mtnamerica.org". Whoever thinks that a signed SSL certificate is supposed to verify anything other than the person/entity asking for the cert is the same person who owns the domain is assuming waaaay to much.
Of course, the whole idea of phishing is to take advantage of the human tendency to assume waaaay too much.
Slashdot Mirror
> Is this lost in the political posturing of a grandstanding procecutor?
Grandstanding? I'd like to see a FOIA paper trail about who has been urging him to prosecute.
> So essentially, you're saying the onus is on copyright holder to tell someone not to steal their product?
No, merely to identify it as controlled content.
Can we edit his interview?
Right. We were CUSTOM BRED by an INTELLIGENT DESIGNER!
For food...
> Send a couple dozen over, I will sample them extensively, and let you know how they are.
We're out of supermodels, so I'm sending you a dozen unemployed rednecks instead.
Let us know how they are!
> Or how about just the psychological trauma to see your grandma or parents rotting in the ditch close to your hut? Not very pleasant I suppose. "Oops, checked on paw-paw this morning -- looks like the maggots finallay got to him... bless his heart!"
That's why you're supposed to eat his brain, shrink his head, and hang it from the rear-view mirror in your car.
> In short we're going to get beaten to all hell by globalism
Earlier this week the news reported that the US trade deficit was $750,000,000,000 - the fourth record year in a row.
We're going to squander our way to third-world status.
> Can't say I agree with you. Look at our recent elections -- winners have won through largely anti-intellectual platforms. Of course, they haven't done it overtly, but through portraying themselves as common, simple people and by portraying intelluctuals as untrustworthy.
Actually, at the Federal level the current anti-intellectual clique holds power by a pretty slim margin, and IMO they didn't get it by portraying intellectuals as untrustworty, but by sucking up to specific special interest groups {big business, religious right} with interests that call for public policy decisions that go against the decisions recommended by good science. Their anti-science stance on various hot issues is nothing more than self interest and/or reward for their supporters.
> he fact of the matter is that intellectualism is no longer the primary route to riches, fame, or other rewards in the US.
Has it ever been?
Wouldn't those in the vanguard have longer legs because those with longer legs put them in the vanguard?
> Time for a price rollback at Walmart!
AKA "dialing for dollars".
> When your employer comes to you about injecting an RFID tag under your skin remember this article. It is one thing to have an ID card with a tag on it, something that can be binned and replaced in time, but what about that chip under your skin? Are they going to take it out of you or will you end up with 10 all up your arm?
No, it means my boss will end up with ten up his 455.
> > The Greeks had four words for love: agape, phileo, eros, and storge.
> I'm surprised you didn't include ahab, hesed, and raham for the Hebrews.
I'm surprised that no one has mentiond the 97 words English has for 'penis'.
> It's like I knew the next story will only be out in 20 minutes, I still hit F5 every second.
You mean I don't have to type in the URL again every time? No wonder I never get the coveted FP.
> Back at MSU I did research on IAD. Being a computer geek and psych geek I thought it was the perfect independant study. The problem I found, which turned into my thesis, was that the entire psychological community saw IAD as a chance to "exploit" clients. So they wrote the DSM-IV diagnostic criteria to
Sonny, you've got an acronym addiction.
> Please elaborate. I can't think of a good reason for wanting to share DNA configs with anyone. :)
That should be in the Slashdot FAQ by now.
> Whit google already indexing the whole web
That should be "whit teh google", sillyhead.
> Next you'll have to share your DNA configuration.
Not so bad, if you get to choose who you share it with!
...you can count on Slashdot to re-post it every few days, so don't worry about the 30-day expiration.
> I personally, have a complete dislike for the idea of dark matter. It seems like a stab in the dark, that missed, and was declared right anyway. "Wow, galaxies spin way faster than we think they should. It's almost like there are invisible halos of super heavy matter surrounding all galaxies." Oh, yeah, beyond being completely invisible Dark Matter exists in halos around galaxies. They are really really heavy but the stars don't fall into the halos or the halos into the stars. It's all magically perfect.
'Nuff said.
> All we really have to go on is the fact that if dark matter didn't exist things, such as galaxies, wouldn't look like they do.
We also have the fact that dark matter explains why things do look like they do.
> If I had gone to my supervisor with an argument like that when I was doing chemistry he would probably have laughed himself stupid right before he sacked me.
If you went to him with a (valid) argument that chemistry AWKI makes wrong predictions about some easy and repeatable observations, would he have sacked you?
If you followed up with a hypothesis that explained all the anomalies with a single simple mechanism, would he have sacked you?
> After all the universe is very big - you could easily hide something in it.
Yes, but that something would have to be in the right place to explain the gravitational anomalies, and given our observations of that place, it would have to be "hidden" in a certain kind of way.
> My problem with dark matter is that it's almost as difficult to believe in as God. The only real proof we have is that the universe doesn't appear to move correctly without it.
Ah, but the universe doesn't behave correctly in three distinct ways - galaxy rotations, binding of galaxy clusters, and gravitational lensing - and all three are elegantly explained by the simple hypothesis that the visible matter in the cosmos is embedded in halos of "invisible" matter.
Moreover, the current state of particle physics makes the existence of matter with the necessary properties quite plausible.
> Surely if the universe was full of this stuff we would be able to detect it because it would block radiation from distant galaxies - or is dark matter conveniently transparent?
Yes, the hypothesis "conveniently" matches the observations. We hypothesize "transparent" stuff because we can "see" its gravitational effect but we can't "see" it.
And theoretical particle physics cooperates with that notion as well.
Perhaps some other explanation is actually correct, but right now "dark matter" is the best explanation going. That's why the vast majority of astronomers subscribe to the idea, and can even put a number on how much of it there is. Unless new observations cut the legs out from under the dark matter hypothesis, competing hypotheses have a tough act to follow.
And as others have already pointed out, this would hardly be the first time we discovered something on the basis of its apparently anomalous effects. (Cf. the famous Asimov quote about "That's funny...".)
Maybe it's right, maybe it's wrong. But it's certainly not unreasonable.
> Beyond the cert saying the business was in Salt Lake City Utah, I don't really see how there was some big confidence broken here. The SSL cert was issued for "www.mountain-america.net". The bank in question is "www.mtnamerica.org". Whoever thinks that a signed SSL certificate is supposed to verify anything other than the person/entity asking for the cert is the same person who owns the domain is assuming waaaay to much.
Of course, the whole idea of phishing is to take advantage of the human tendency to assume waaaay too much.
> Way too easy. It's a dioritic feldspar-porphyr. Can I have a job now, NASA?
You still have to pass the "It's Just A Theory" social service exam.
> We're a CAPITALIST society! The way capitalism works is that you let the market decide.
Does our Constitution say that?