You know what really disturbs me? The number of people I've met who actually believe that idiotic myth. We really live in a pathetic state of education when this type of nonsense is accepted without question.
Wow, a website registered in france, purporting to be from a guy living in california, who mentions NOTHING about this website on his own site at karymullis.com. Yeah, you really got me convinced.
The duesberg thing looks like he legitimately makes those claims - however his list of publications on his university website shows nothing published since 1997 on the topic, and doesn't even catalog his publications before then.
The perth group website has a bunch of tiny abstracts full of opinions, and oh don't forget some "letters to the editor" complaining about this or that in a certain study. Very little actual science there, a lot of blowing smoke out of their asses.
Either way, you can always find three supposedly legit people who support ridiculous ideas - there are a lot of scientists out there. Show me some recent, real research, not propaganda websites, that is published in a major scientific journal, providing actual experimental study to show HIV doesn't cause AIDS.
You're the one making outrageous claims that go against all conventionally accepted wisdom. When you make ridiculous claims, the burden of proof is on YOU. Unless you want us all to think you're a whackjob, which is pretty much what you've accomplished so far. If that's the case, keep doing what you're doing, it works like a charm.
Those are some pretty bold statements to be making without sources. And no, wikipedia is not an acceptable source here, unless it cites some REAL sources.
I was hoping for something relatively cool in the rubber sidewalk slide show - instead, all I got is some shots of ground up rubber and a very ho-hum sidewalk paver install. *yawn*
Mine was still correct, you simply tried to show how elite you are by putting it in a different form. Big fucking whoopdie doo. You're still a fuckwad.
S: (n) theory (a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena) "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory"
I.D. is not testable, and is thus not a scientific theory. I figured some douchebag would use the "a theory is just an idea" nonsense that the ID-lovers like to spout.
methinks someone has been listening a little too closely to the "I'm a mac" commercials..
a PC is by definition a Personal Computer. In common usage it's often used erraneously to specifically talk about IBM compatibles, but that's hardly the definition of the term.
Not quite right, but It's a moot point - I was thinking about the wrong type of radiation. In the case of positron/electron annihilation, which occurs during the decay of, say, sodium-22 (if memory serves), there is no particle left behind - thus, to conserve momentum, there must be two photons which are emitted in opposite directions. If the two dectors are in a straight line with the sample in the middle, they will detect events at the same time. However, that isn't the case here, as the radiation in question is NOT the result of an annihilation and momentum conservation is satisfied via a slight recoil of the atomic nucleus. Brain fart on my part.
You're half right... the experiment in question was indeed positron decay... BUT it was completely a result of momentum conservation. There is no particle left behind so the momentum has to be carried away in a pair of photons, and not a single one.
You're also right that this doesn't apply to aplha decay, because momentum is conserved via the slight recoil in the nucleus - that was a brain fart on my part remembering which type of radiation we're dealing with here.
What you are COMPLETELY FUCKING WRONG about, though, is photons having no momentum. If you had ever studied special relativity, you would know that it's possible to have momentum without mass, and the momentum of a photon is defined as P=E/c, or h*v/c.
Perhaps before you sit here calling me a twit, you should spend half a second googling for the word "photon", fuckwad.
And if YOU knew a bit of just slightly more advanced physics, you'd realize that radiation obeys conservation of momentum, just like everything else. It's very very easy to demonstrate direct correlation between radiation spikes measured when the detectors are the same distance from a sample, but 180 degrees apart. I did this in a sophomore lab in college with some equipment that looked like it was older than I was.
Slashdot Mirror
BTW how are you so sure it is _not_ true?
Uh, read the gazillion other replies in the thread.
You know what really disturbs me? The number of people I've met who actually believe that idiotic myth. We really live in a pathetic state of education when this type of nonsense is accepted without question.
Wow, a website registered in france, purporting to be from a guy living in california, who mentions NOTHING about this website on his own site at karymullis.com. Yeah, you really got me convinced.
The duesberg thing looks like he legitimately makes those claims - however his list of publications on his university website shows nothing published since 1997 on the topic, and doesn't even catalog his publications before then.
The perth group website has a bunch of tiny abstracts full of opinions, and oh don't forget some "letters to the editor" complaining about this or that in a certain study. Very little actual science there, a lot of blowing smoke out of their asses.
Either way, you can always find three supposedly legit people who support ridiculous ideas - there are a lot of scientists out there. Show me some recent, real research, not propaganda websites, that is published in a major scientific journal, providing actual experimental study to show HIV doesn't cause AIDS.
You're the one making outrageous claims that go against all conventionally accepted wisdom. When you make ridiculous claims, the burden of proof is on YOU. Unless you want us all to think you're a whackjob, which is pretty much what you've accomplished so far. If that's the case, keep doing what you're doing, it works like a charm.
Wow a fucking movie... yeah, because movies are NEVER made to push a political agenda. How about some articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals?
Because some people don't want to live their lives by your puritanical values?
Those are some pretty bold statements to be making without sources. And no, wikipedia is not an acceptable source here, unless it cites some REAL sources.
What? You expect the editors to read their own site? You must be new here.
What exactly were you expecting, trampoline action?
Dear sir,
I find your ideas interesting, and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
I was hoping for something relatively cool in the rubber sidewalk slide show - instead, all I got is some shots of ground up rubber and a very ho-hum sidewalk paver install. *yawn*
So, hippies use apples... and... terroists use dells?
Video games don't make me violent...
Being pissed off at what an asshole Jack Thompson is makes me violent.
It says "noon"... maybe RTFS before trying for a first post?
Mine was still correct, you simply tried to show how elite you are by putting it in a different form. Big fucking whoopdie doo. You're still a fuckwad.
http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=theory
S: (n) theory (a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena) "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory"
I.D. is not testable, and is thus not a scientific theory. I figured some douchebag would use the "a theory is just an idea" nonsense that the ID-lovers like to spout.
Well hell, Intelligent Design is a bonafide theory, then.
Ya know, I thought about making that joke, but decided it might be too lame. Thanks for confirming my suspicions ;)
methinks someone has been listening a little too closely to the "I'm a mac" commercials..
a PC is by definition a Personal Computer. In common usage it's often used erraneously to specifically talk about IBM compatibles, but that's hardly the definition of the term.
Not quite right, but It's a moot point - I was thinking about the wrong type of radiation. In the case of positron/electron annihilation, which occurs during the decay of, say, sodium-22 (if memory serves), there is no particle left behind - thus, to conserve momentum, there must be two photons which are emitted in opposite directions. If the two dectors are in a straight line with the sample in the middle, they will detect events at the same time. However, that isn't the case here, as the radiation in question is NOT the result of an annihilation and momentum conservation is satisfied via a slight recoil of the atomic nucleus. Brain fart on my part.
You're half right... the experiment in question was indeed positron decay... BUT it was completely a result of momentum conservation. There is no particle left behind so the momentum has to be carried away in a pair of photons, and not a single one.
You're also right that this doesn't apply to aplha decay, because momentum is conserved via the slight recoil in the nucleus - that was a brain fart on my part remembering which type of radiation we're dealing with here.
What you are COMPLETELY FUCKING WRONG about, though, is photons having no momentum. If you had ever studied special relativity, you would know that it's possible to have momentum without mass, and the momentum of a photon is defined as P=E/c, or h*v/c.
Perhaps before you sit here calling me a twit, you should spend half a second googling for the word "photon", fuckwad.
Uh, maybe because the RPG posters are completely lame and unfunny? Just a thought.
Not that I could tell you if the star trek ones are any better, having no chance to see them...
And if YOU knew a bit of just slightly more advanced physics, you'd realize that radiation obeys conservation of momentum, just like everything else. It's very very easy to demonstrate direct correlation between radiation spikes measured when the detectors are the same distance from a sample, but 180 degrees apart. I did this in a sophomore lab in college with some equipment that looked like it was older than I was.
Yeah, but I bet you were capable of writing a comprehensible summary of the whole setup when you were in high school
No kidding - forget secure coding guidelines... how about some "writing in English guidelines"?