You guys have lots of money now. Hire a freaking science consultant already. A responsible site that claims to be "News" does not put this story under the category of "Space" (thankfully it was not posted under "Science"). Put it under "Humor" or "Crackpot Theories".
It's time to realize that there is a lot of bogus stuff out there. Please don't be fooled. You are smarter than that.
While I have no problem with/. reporting the existence of an invention that might break an established mathematical theory, I find it highly irresponsible that this item is reported as a counter-example to a mathematical theory. If it were, it would be more believable coming from an academic journal. (Anyone remember cold fusion?)
I hate that this story was put on the science page, because it is Bad Science(TM). However, I'm glad that it is not on the front page, where it might reach a more easily confused audience.
Roblimo, why did you include that last sentence when you posted this story? The words "in my opinion" should not be used in a news story. They should be used only on the message board page or for articles that are truly opinion pieces.
...then why are opinions allowed to creep into the news stories? Example from today: DiabloQueen writes "MSNBC reports that OSHA says that employers are now responsible for home workstations. Wonder how many people will try to get their employers to help pay for the ergonomically correct leather executive chair they must have?" Interesting quandry - I don't think that employers should be responsible for accidents that happen in a telecommuter's home, but I do think they should help pay for ergonomic furniture and an appropriate working environment. What do you think? Is there a happy median? The part that is NOT in bold is factual. The rest is pure editorializing. How can you consider that to be "news", the category under which it is listed? Finally, did you see the suck.com parody of slashdot as a good-natured ribbing of/. that pointed out the same sort of idea? (I understand this might be taken as flamebait. It is not. I would like these questions addressed.)
Beautifully put. Too bad this bit of actual information was moderated down. The original post should not have contained the editorialization about the units anyway.
Please do not take this article lightly. Weinberg is extremely well respected in his field. It is not a case of Scientific American just paying a random physicist to write an article on GU. What he says should be every bit as beleiveable as Hawking and all the other great scientists who came before him. He is a Nobel laureate, and regarded among his peers as one of the premier minds working on GUT. At the American Physical Society meeting last year in Atlanta, I saw a huge room filled with all of the country's greatest physicists come to see Weinberg. So, this article shouldn't be put down lightly.
Slashdot Mirror
It was still funny.
I don't understand how that related to the constructor story. I mean, I agree with your point, but how does it relate in this case?
You guys have lots of money now. Hire a freaking science consultant already. A responsible site that claims to be "News" does not put this story under the category of "Space" (thankfully it was not posted under "Science"). Put it under "Humor" or "Crackpot Theories".
It's time to realize that there is a lot of bogus stuff out there. Please don't be fooled. You are smarter than that.
FYI...
Maybe if the original title had been less ambiguos (sp?) it would not have been a repeat. Oh well...
I hate that this story was put on the science page, because it is Bad Science(TM). However, I'm glad that it is not on the front page, where it might reach a more easily confused audience.
Roblimo, why did you include that last sentence when you posted this story? The words "in my opinion" should not be used in a news story. They should be used only on the message board page or for articles that are truly opinion pieces.
Please, emmett, do tell. Why did you include that bit of editorial comment in a redhat story?
Was that a news story or opinion? Do I get a chance to read the story and decide for myself what opinion to form?
Beautifully put. Too bad this bit of actual information was moderated down. The original post should not have contained the editorialization about the units anyway.
Please do not take this article lightly. Weinberg is extremely well respected in his field. It is not a case of Scientific American just paying a random physicist to write an article on GU. What he says should be every bit as beleiveable as Hawking and all the other great scientists who came before him. He is a Nobel laureate, and regarded among his peers as one of the premier minds working on GUT. At the American Physical Society meeting last year in Atlanta, I saw a huge room filled with all of the country's greatest physicists come to see Weinberg. So, this article shouldn't be put down lightly.