Their earnings are down. They sued two of their own customers. Laura Dido is no longer brainwashed by them. They have been revealed to be sock puppets of Redmond. And they use Word, which revealed their alternate evil plans. This is by far the funniest SCO week ever.
Just for the record, I was standing on rock from the K/T boundary in Southern California, looking up 10 meters in the air at rock from the Precambrian. The section I was standing on was originally 10,000 meters of Grand Canyon sequence, attenuated 1000X, folded upside down, sheared off, and moved along northwest a lateral fault for 3.5 km.
Were you able to keep your balance through all of that?
> string theory does not predict anything that could be tested, so there is nno evidence for/against it. this is also why quite a few people feel its more philosphy than science
Doesn't predict anything we can test, or doesn't predict anything different from current theories that we can test?
In the latter case, ST would have just as much claim to legitimacy-as-a-theory that any of its rivals would. There's no a priori reason to expect the an earlier theory is more nearly correct than a later theory, when their differences have not yet been tested.
My faith in that is starting to slip. I recently ventured out into some pages I hadn't previously been watching, and found several pages whose history shows that they have a k00k "squatter" who watches the page and insists on sticking his idiocy back in no matter how many people come along and correct it, whingeing all the while that everyone else is pursuing some dishonest agenda.
> Newton can actually say nothing about space around a black hole, at least not anything insightful. He just thinks that the gravity is pretty intense.
Does he ever comment on conditions in the hereafter?
Presumably Darl has a scheduled sale of SCOX shares tomorrow, and needs to drive the price back up. It has been sagging lately, though still greatly overpriced.
> It may not be anything but a statistical anomoly. How we date and locate things has always fascinated me. I.e. this is older because it is underneath this other thing. This volcanic rock is this old because there is this much of a potasium isotope present. We have been acurately recording radiometrics for how long now? 20-30 years? (I know we have been recording them longer but not to the accuracy we can today)
If you can make a solid argument, you should be posting to Science too, rather than to Slashdot.
> So think about the statistics: We look at the decay across 30 years and immediately say it must have a half life of 1.251 billion years? excuse me but thats a pretty small sample rate for my tastes.
I don't suppose you've considered the sample size... there be powerful many atoms in a rock.
> This whole "Eistein was right after all" angle is misinformed. He wanted a static universe because that was the historic conception of the universe. His own science didn't allow for it, but he wrangled an equation for one out of it anyway.
Remember that at the time Einstein introduced it (1917, if a Web search didn't lead me astray) scientists still thought "the universe" and "the galaxy" were the same thing. We tend to forget how vastly our understanding of the universe has changed in the past ~80 years.
> Part of the problem with the idea that the red shift is a doppler effect is that the observed quasars are apparently all in a relatively spherical arrangement about the Earth, thus implying that the Earth must be the center of the observed universe.
The earth is at the center of the observable universe, pretty much by definition.
Unless of course the observer in question isn't on the earth.
Slashdot Mirror
The Wikipedia group has started a wiki textbook site, though the ones I've looked at are not very far along yet.
However, if you've got expertise you'd like to contribute to the public, that might be an easy place for you to do it.
> The Hobbit was a children's book and not a very good one IMO.
IMO, The Hobbit holds up better as a story than LoTR did.
> So, this is the one that killed the dinosaurs as well, yeah?
No, the dinosaurs all died when a stegasaur kicked over a lantern...
> Memo misunderstood? Is SCO now implying to the world at large that all of us had failed our english comprehension?
Was that memo in English???
> PLEASE make another American Godzilla.
I want to see Godzilla invade California and governer S fight him off.
> That's pretty much telling us there's not going to be another sequel for a while no matter what.
Well, maybe one more... but you know they've got to stop before they get to Godzilla XXX.
> FYI... here's a free app that removes MS Word metadata
Yeah, but what we wanted was an app that removes crooked corporate executives.
Computer: Print this please.
Printer: BOOMshakalaka.
Computer: Print this please.
Printer: BoomshaKAlaka.
Computer: Print this please.
User: Damit, where's that old typewriter?
Communists using Line X ? Darl should be able to get a lot of mileage out of this one!
> string theory does not predict anything that could be tested, so there is nno evidence for/against it. this is also why quite a few people feel its more philosphy than science
Doesn't predict anything we can test, or doesn't predict anything different from current theories that we can test?
In the latter case, ST would have just as much claim to legitimacy-as-a-theory that any of its rivals would. There's no a priori reason to expect the an earlier theory is more nearly correct than a later theory, when their differences have not yet been tested.
> As far as accuracy - that will come with time.
My faith in that is starting to slip. I recently ventured out into some pages I hadn't previously been watching, and found several pages whose history shows that they have a k00k "squatter" who watches the page and insists on sticking his idiocy back in no matter how many people come along and correct it, whingeing all the while that everyone else is pursuing some dishonest agenda.
> Newton can actually say nothing about space around a black hole, at least not anything insightful. He just thinks that the gravity is pretty intense.
Does he ever comment on conditions in the hereafter?
> And SCO is suing for three billion.
Presumably Darl has a scheduled sale of SCOX shares tomorrow, and needs to drive the price back up. It has been sagging lately, though still greatly overpriced.
> It may not be anything but a statistical anomoly. How we date and locate things has always fascinated me. I.e. this is older because it is underneath this other thing. This volcanic rock is this old because there is this much of a potasium isotope present. We have been acurately recording radiometrics for how long now? 20-30 years? (I know we have been recording them longer but not to the accuracy we can today)
If you can make a solid argument, you should be posting to Science too, rather than to Slashdot.
> So think about the statistics: We look at the decay across 30 years and immediately say it must have a half life of 1.251 billion years? excuse me but thats a pretty small sample rate for my tastes.
I don't suppose you've considered the sample size... there be powerful many atoms in a rock.
> This whole "Eistein was right after all" angle is misinformed. He wanted a static universe because that was the historic conception of the universe. His own science didn't allow for it, but he wrangled an equation for one out of it anyway.
Remember that at the time Einstein introduced it (1917, if a Web search didn't lead me astray) scientists still thought "the universe" and "the galaxy" were the same thing. We tend to forget how vastly our understanding of the universe has changed in the past ~80 years.
> Do they take Monopoly money?
Yep, it was specially designed for pretending to buy pretend property.
Taking them to court may be a violation of their business method patent!
> alright, who's the joker wo updated wiki?!
The page history shows it to be some loser by the name of 12.216.3.69.
> Part of the problem with the idea that the red shift is a doppler effect is that the observed quasars are apparently all in a relatively spherical arrangement about the Earth, thus implying that the Earth must be the center of the observed universe.
The earth is at the center of the observable universe, pretty much by definition.
Unless of course the observer in question isn't on the earth.
> Jive? Who's running the place?
Don't complain - they originally called it the Euro-Australian Telescopic Modification Experiment.
> What is a quasar?
Here's the Wikipedia article on quasars.
> I've never really had a satisfactory explanation for this.
Sorry; satisfaction isn't guaranteed.
Maybe we need a new method for determining the distance between "scintillation" and "arcsecond".