In undergrad we spent a few weeks attempting to reproduce Dr. Taleyarkhan work on sonic cavitation experiments in deuterated acetone. While there is much controversy surrounding the this type of fusion, it is an interesting and simple experiment, but hard to get reliable results. http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Bubble_fusion
Etch just looked longer because *a lot* of improvements to the GNU/Linux was being made during that time in terms of the kernel hardware support and the desktop stuff, and whoever was using Debian stable during that time couldn't take advantage of those developments.
They always had the option to go "testing", which is surprisingly stable, compared to other GNU/Linux distros or, God forbid, Windows. The only downside is that the security patches usually come first to the stable release.
Well, that's been tried: it was called laissez-faire. It didn't work.
I have yet to see a single solid fact that justifies this oft-repeated statement.
I suppose such bad things as child labor and sweatshops (using child labor) may have been a by-product of laissez-faire approach, but to fix these extremes, all we need are simple child labor laws and such that forbid exploiting those who are not free to make their own judgment, akin to laws that forbid murder, theft, and robbery, not a monstrosity of regulations.
If we stop the government from meddling in the private sector, and, yes, prohibit artificial persons such as corporations from gaining undue influence on the government, what evidence is there that things might go wrong?
Any market crashes we have had since late 19th century do not provide reliable data, unless one can somehow distinguish and isolate effects of disastrous regulations.
Well, that's fine. I don't agree with mandatory union membership. But that's not the same thing as "getting rid of unions," is it? people would still be free to join them. So why did you say "get rid of the unions" rather than "eliminate mandatory membership"?
If you ever dealt with unions and you worked at a place that had union even if there was no need for it, you would know "eliminate mandatory membership" is equivalent to "getting rid of unions", at least the kind of unions that I would like to see blasted to hell.
For example, I work for the University of California, and at least for people in my job category, there is absolutely no need for unions because the University treats us extremely well, and if they didn't, we would all leave---for the private sector where we could get paid much, much more. But nonetheless, we have a union that tries to vilify the University at every undeserved chance it gets, and encourage us to not to work (i.e. teach) as best as we can.
If there were ever a fair vote to disunionize, I am fairly sure we would all disunionize at the first chance (especially given the reactions I saw at the mandatory-attendance union spiel I had to attend recently). And if there were ever a chance for any of us nonunion members not to contribute to the "fair share", the funding for the union would dry up, because there is no justifiable need for it.
And yet, being the undemocratic organization the union is (most of things that need to be voted on gets passed with something like 95%. That's the kind of "approval rating" you see for Stalin, Saddam Hussein, and Kim Jong Il), we never get that chance.
The problem is, these bastards lie for breakfast, and will likely take the incentives (tax breaks, whatever) and continue doing the same thing.
Which is all the more reason the government shouldn't meddle with corporations.
Personally, I would rather have all income tax replaced by sales tax (with different tax rates (such as none for essential goods and something approaching 30,40, or even 50% for luxuries) to ensure that those who wouldn't have paid income tax don't pay sales tax either). That way, all those lying bastards will get taxed like they should be when they buy their yachts, and there will be no loopholes (save for black market, but that's what strong free market economy and strong law enforcement is for).
But, as long as we have income tax (and payroll tax), I don't see a way for the government to meddle in the market without creating loophole that the lying bastards will always be so happy to exploit.
As for giving incentive for not outsourcing, well, the government can always choose to do its business with companies that don't outsource. After all, this is exactly how the first Bank of Unite States was killed---i.e. the treasury stopped dealing with them, even before its charter expired.
One of the things I like about having my keyboards in Dvorak is most people will have to go through one additional huddle before they decide to mess with my console. (And I make darn sure that one can't change the keyboard back to QWERTY without typing some commands on the keyboard.)
You mean like going on eBay, searching for "iPod power", and buying one for 6-10 bucks? If that's a challenge, are you even capable of operating the device?
I thought Steve Jobs made it his personal mission to make the device capable of being operated by such a user.
I mean, isn't that why they didn't add that damned second mouse button for decades?
It's not about eliminating freedom of assembly. It's about eliminating forced assembly which is the union.
In many workplaces, workers do not have the choice not to join the union, and even if they don't join the union, they have no choice not to support the union. They take a few cents off the dollar every non-union member earns and call it "fair share".
Getting rid of the union isn't about banning what kind of assembly people can form (heck, I'm, for one, proud that America tolerates groups like KKK, even though these groups are despicable things). Getting rid of the union is about allowing people not to join assemblies that they don't want to.
And it shouldn't be too difficult to do this either. All we need to do is recognize that the kind of draconian contracts unions force off companies and universities and large organizations is unlawful, hence unenforceable—just about unenforceable as some indentured servitude clause on, say, a mortgage.
If strict adherence to free market is going to get us into a depression (which it won't, but bear with me) then to hell with free markets comrade.
To me, free market is more about fundamental individual rights than any perception of prosperity. Yes, free market tends to be the most efficient economic system, but that's a by-product, not the final goal (for me).
The culture and governmental system in which a free market can survive and thrive as it ought to is the same culture and governmental system that respects the most fundamental of individual rights: self-ownership, as in no one may force you to do anything you don't want to do, except in the case what you want to do interferes with this fundamental right of others.
A lot of statists are claiming that this recession is the proof that free market doesn't work, but, if they bothered being honest with themselves, well, they would have seen that we didn't have an actual free market in the first place—around 2000s. U.S. passed that stage around 50 years ago, when the government started meddling in everything with its regulations and "equal opportunity" bills. Yes, I see the intentions behind some of these bills were good, but you know what the road to hell is paved with.
If I could have all the riches of the world but could not do what I actually want to do (without infringing the rights of others), well, I would rather work as a poor graduate student doing what I want to do and believing what I want to believe—as I, in fact, do.
If certain employees' salaries weren't so outrageously high, would American-made products really be that much more expensive ?
Yes, they would. And who are these "certain employees"?
Unionized workers, of course. Haven't you heard about the troubles of American auto makers?
People like to fuss over high salaries of executives, but for most companies (I'm not sure if I'm willing to speak for investment bankers that decided spend much of the government bailout money on their executives), their salary is a very tiny fraction of the total gross revenue or the salaries of all those unionized workers (especially those ones who can't be fired because of the union, even though they contribute nothing to the company).
Here's a thought: we get rid of the unions (especially for white collar workers and people who work for wages substantially higher than the minimum wage), let the moochers get off of the companies, and let's see if America looks like a good place to build a productive workforce.
Personally, Corporations tax rate should be based on the percentage of people that work out of country. 100% of your work force in the US? then no corporate taxes. Base it upon work, not hired employees.
So, on that scale, a foreign company doing business in U.S. will pay outrageous taxes because most of their employees are in their home country, i.e. not the U.S.? Geez, that's going to bring investors who are desperately needed especially during an economic downturn.
I don't think you thought your plan through—just like most plans that involves getting the government to meddle in private businesses.
But this is not nearly comparable to this Washington bill. At least for now, the U.S. military is composed of volunteers, who presumably knew all the things, including background checks and files that will be kept on them, that they will have to go through as a consequence of their choice.
Arrestees, on the other hand, do not have such freedom. Heck, in fact, they cannot even avoid committing crimes in order not to be a victim of this bill, since a cop could easily arrest you for looking at him the wrong way, on such trumped up charges as "disturbing the peace".
The Legislature in no way has complete primacy in the US form of representative democracy.
But a congress with a backbone does have more power than the president.
The president wants to go through with an invasion that doesn't serve U.S. interest? The congress can vote not to fund that activity.
The president wants to do something shady? The congress can outlaw that activity.
The president (or one of his underlings) have done something shady? The congress can impeach him.
The legislature (especially one with veto-overriding majority on one side of the issue) is the most powerful branch of the government, and to evade responsibility for everything that's gone wrong is... well, the way of the weasel.
I think you'll have to compromise on "easily" and "all".
Perhaps on "easily", but not on "all".
What can other countries produce that U.S. just can't? U.S. can produce its own oil, perhaps not as cheaply as in other countries, but it's still economically viable.
Without reliance on foreign commodities such as China's cheap labor and Middle Eastern cheap oil, price of goods may go up and we may need to find alternative energies, but they are all doable---only small matters of economics, not matters of possibility or even unreasonable difficulty.
And as far as modern technologies go, well, most of them were invented in U.S. (or at least we can produce them in U.S. now).
And that was before WWII changed a lot of outlook towards whether isolationism is viable (its an ongoing debate throughout the centuries).
But these days, given how much the world hates us (or at least the media pretends it does) for fixing their problems, maybe it's time we gave isolationism another chance.
U.S. can easily become self-sufficient and keep all its modern amenities, unlike many other countries that resent the U.S.
My guess is El Lobo had sockpuppet accounts with modpoints.
That would explain +5 interesting, and the rest is Slashdot moderation system. You would have to have a personal grudge against kdawson to think that El Lobo's comment added anything to the discussion.
Music, unlike science, is highly subjective, and there are no wrong or useless projects.
And who says science is objective when funding is involved? There is no shortage of scientists with useless research (I don't mean wrong, I simply mean useless) pretending as if it's the greatest thing since the sliced bread so that they can get funding from NSF and who else.
As a scientist myself (physics graduate student), I wish the government would subsidizing useless science and turn the task of funding science to corporations, think tanks, industry---i.e. the free market---which has far better ability to discern the important discoveries (that are profitable for the stockholders and eventually the scientists themselves) from trivial pursuits not worth funding.
I fail to see how South Koreans are "paranoid mentally unbalanced, and unlikely to change." If anything the south has embraced a lot of US ideals such as democracy, capitalism, free press, etc. North Korea has been a dictatorship for the last 50 years and reflects the prejudices of it's leadership.
For one, they are pretty xenophobic. Of all the developed countries, South Korea is one place where migrant workers are mistreated, skilled workers (such as actors) of foreign origin are not kindly looked upon, and even for the Koreans who live here, well, how many Koreans do you know that married someone who's not Korean (and his or her family accepts it)?
Their culture is a culture that celebrates suffering, grief, and grudge (look up "han", as a word that express a certain kind of emotion that Koreans like to claim as their own). Perhaps a good reason behind, perhaps there isn't. Either way, it will take many generations before they can become anything like the greatness that is America (in the generosity of spirit and leadership, for one).
Commenting in LabVIEW only requires you to double click on the location you want the comment and then start typing... how exactly is that harder for you?
For one, you have to plan that space for the comment.
And, if you write too much comment, you have to keep scrolling around in 2D to see all of the "code".
Imagine if you had to write codes in normal languages and your "insert" was toggled on (and you couldn't toggle it back), so if you could imagine yourself adding anything additional (comment, additional code, etc.) later on, you have to plan for that space ahead of time.
That's exactly how harder it is to comment in LabVIEW.
for example, you can bundle all the wires into a single "object" wire
Oh, yes you can bundle them, but that just means you have fewer visible wires; the underlying scheme hasn't changed at all.
For example, suppose you write a sub-VI and later on, you want to modify it to take more inputs. In real programming languages like Python, that would be as simple as dealing with keyword argument lists. You don't have to mess with the function definition; you just pass the information to the function and write something within the function to do something with that input (i.e. you don't have to think about the whole pipeline, just the end-points).
Try doing that in LabVIEW. When the smallest property of those bundles change (i.e. more number of wires in the bundle, or a different data type for one wire), you have to change a number of things to make the things connecting to that bundle work again.
I've worked with LabVIEW for some time, and I've modified and re-written moderately complicated program, and at the end of the day, if I can imagine the program growing in its functions and me maintaining that program 1, 2 years from now, I would stay very far, far away from LabVIEW, regardless of how easy initial UI design is (it's not like designing UIs with toolkits like Qt is that difficult).
Let me just put it this way: modifying a LabVIEW program is like trying to modify an electronic circuit---except that, very often, you won't have a circuit diagram in your hand, and you won't have any explanations as to why certain things were wired in a certain way.
I wouldn't call "charlatanry" any part of a normal conclusion.
Would you consider words like "crackpot", "imbecile", "con artist", and "habitual liar" to belong in a normal conclusion in a research paper, assuming that these statements do have some factual backing?
There is a line between insulting someone and presenting facts that are unfavorable to someone. The former can be sued for libel (although, thankfully in the U.S. the standard for a successful libel suit is fairly high), the latter is legitimate scholarly activity.
Here's a good way to get the One Subject at a Time Act passed: attach it to a popular bill, like the PATRIOT Act or the next version of DMCA, which so many lobbyists will be supporting for a politician to oppose.;)
Slashdot Mirror
In undergrad we spent a few weeks attempting to reproduce Dr. Taleyarkhan work on sonic cavitation experiments in deuterated acetone. While there is much controversy surrounding the this type of fusion, it is an interesting and simple experiment, but hard to get reliable results.
http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Bubble_fusion
I am wondering why you linked to that site. It looks like it's an outdated copy of the Wikipedia article on the subject.
Etch just looked longer because *a lot* of improvements to the GNU/Linux was being made during that time in terms of the kernel hardware support and the desktop stuff, and whoever was using Debian stable during that time couldn't take advantage of those developments.
They always had the option to go "testing", which is surprisingly stable, compared to other GNU/Linux distros or, God forbid, Windows. The only downside is that the security patches usually come first to the stable release.
Well, that's been tried: it was called laissez-faire. It didn't work.
I have yet to see a single solid fact that justifies this oft-repeated statement.
I suppose such bad things as child labor and sweatshops (using child labor) may have been a by-product of laissez-faire approach, but to fix these extremes, all we need are simple child labor laws and such that forbid exploiting those who are not free to make their own judgment, akin to laws that forbid murder, theft, and robbery, not a monstrosity of regulations.
From what I can tell (I'm afraid I'm not exactly a history buff, so a quick Google search was all I could do), we had regulations before any failure of pure capitalism.
If we stop the government from meddling in the private sector, and, yes, prohibit artificial persons such as corporations from gaining undue influence on the government, what evidence is there that things might go wrong?
Any market crashes we have had since late 19th century do not provide reliable data, unless one can somehow distinguish and isolate effects of disastrous regulations.
Well, that's fine. I don't agree with mandatory union membership. But that's not the same thing as "getting rid of unions," is it? people would still be free to join them. So why did you say "get rid of the unions" rather than "eliminate mandatory membership"?
If you ever dealt with unions and you worked at a place that had union even if there was no need for it, you would know "eliminate mandatory membership" is equivalent to "getting rid of unions", at least the kind of unions that I would like to see blasted to hell.
For example, I work for the University of California, and at least for people in my job category, there is absolutely no need for unions because the University treats us extremely well, and if they didn't, we would all leave---for the private sector where we could get paid much, much more. But nonetheless, we have a union that tries to vilify the University at every undeserved chance it gets, and encourage us to not to work (i.e. teach) as best as we can.
If there were ever a fair vote to disunionize, I am fairly sure we would all disunionize at the first chance (especially given the reactions I saw at the mandatory-attendance union spiel I had to attend recently). And if there were ever a chance for any of us nonunion members not to contribute to the "fair share", the funding for the union would dry up, because there is no justifiable need for it.
And yet, being the undemocratic organization the union is (most of things that need to be voted on gets passed with something like 95%. That's the kind of "approval rating" you see for Stalin, Saddam Hussein, and Kim Jong Il), we never get that chance.
The problem is, these bastards lie for breakfast, and will likely take the incentives (tax breaks, whatever) and continue doing the same thing.
Which is all the more reason the government shouldn't meddle with corporations.
Personally, I would rather have all income tax replaced by sales tax (with different tax rates (such as none for essential goods and something approaching 30,40, or even 50% for luxuries) to ensure that those who wouldn't have paid income tax don't pay sales tax either). That way, all those lying bastards will get taxed like they should be when they buy their yachts, and there will be no loopholes (save for black market, but that's what strong free market economy and strong law enforcement is for).
But, as long as we have income tax (and payroll tax), I don't see a way for the government to meddle in the market without creating loophole that the lying bastards will always be so happy to exploit.
As for giving incentive for not outsourcing, well, the government can always choose to do its business with companies that don't outsource. After all, this is exactly how the first Bank of Unite States was killed---i.e. the treasury stopped dealing with them, even before its charter expired.
And that's a bad thing?
One of the things I like about having my keyboards in Dvorak is most people will have to go through one additional huddle before they decide to mess with my console. (And I make darn sure that one can't change the keyboard back to QWERTY without typing some commands on the keyboard.)
You mean like going on eBay, searching for "iPod power", and buying one for 6-10 bucks? If that's a challenge, are you even capable of operating the device?
I thought Steve Jobs made it his personal mission to make the device capable of being operated by such a user.
I mean, isn't that why they didn't add that damned second mouse button for decades?
Here's a thought: we get rid of the union
So, you propose to eliminate freedom of assembly?
It's not about eliminating freedom of assembly. It's about eliminating forced assembly which is the union.
In many workplaces, workers do not have the choice not to join the union, and even if they don't join the union, they have no choice not to support the union. They take a few cents off the dollar every non-union member earns and call it "fair share".
Getting rid of the union isn't about banning what kind of assembly people can form (heck, I'm, for one, proud that America tolerates groups like KKK, even though these groups are despicable things). Getting rid of the union is about allowing people not to join assemblies that they don't want to.
And it shouldn't be too difficult to do this either. All we need to do is recognize that the kind of draconian contracts unions force off companies and universities and large organizations is unlawful, hence unenforceable—just about unenforceable as some indentured servitude clause on, say, a mortgage.
If strict adherence to free market is going to get us into a depression (which it won't, but bear with me) then to hell with free markets comrade.
To me, free market is more about fundamental individual rights than any perception of prosperity. Yes, free market tends to be the most efficient economic system, but that's a by-product, not the final goal (for me).
The culture and governmental system in which a free market can survive and thrive as it ought to is the same culture and governmental system that respects the most fundamental of individual rights: self-ownership, as in no one may force you to do anything you don't want to do, except in the case what you want to do interferes with this fundamental right of others.
A lot of statists are claiming that this recession is the proof that free market doesn't work, but, if they bothered being honest with themselves, well, they would have seen that we didn't have an actual free market in the first place—around 2000s. U.S. passed that stage around 50 years ago, when the government started meddling in everything with its regulations and "equal opportunity" bills. Yes, I see the intentions behind some of these bills were good, but you know what the road to hell is paved with.
If I could have all the riches of the world but could not do what I actually want to do (without infringing the rights of others), well, I would rather work as a poor graduate student doing what I want to do and believing what I want to believe—as I, in fact, do.
If certain employees' salaries weren't so outrageously high, would American-made products really be that much more expensive ?
Yes, they would. And who are these "certain employees"?
Unionized workers, of course. Haven't you heard about the troubles of American auto makers?
People like to fuss over high salaries of executives, but for most companies (I'm not sure if I'm willing to speak for investment bankers that decided spend much of the government bailout money on their executives), their salary is a very tiny fraction of the total gross revenue or the salaries of all those unionized workers (especially those ones who can't be fired because of the union, even though they contribute nothing to the company).
Here's a thought: we get rid of the unions (especially for white collar workers and people who work for wages substantially higher than the minimum wage), let the moochers get off of the companies, and let's see if America looks like a good place to build a productive workforce.
Personally, Corporations tax rate should be based on the percentage of people that work out of country.
100% of your work force in the US? then no corporate taxes. Base it upon work, not hired employees.
So, on that scale, a foreign company doing business in U.S. will pay outrageous taxes because most of their employees are in their home country, i.e. not the U.S.? Geez, that's going to bring investors who are desperately needed especially during an economic downturn.
I don't think you thought your plan through—just like most plans that involves getting the government to meddle in private businesses.
But this is not nearly comparable to this Washington bill. At least for now, the U.S. military is composed of volunteers, who presumably knew all the things, including background checks and files that will be kept on them, that they will have to go through as a consequence of their choice.
Arrestees, on the other hand, do not have such freedom. Heck, in fact, they cannot even avoid committing crimes in order not to be a victim of this bill, since a cop could easily arrest you for looking at him the wrong way, on such trumped up charges as "disturbing the peace".
The Legislature in no way has complete primacy in the US form of representative democracy.
But a congress with a backbone does have more power than the president.
The president wants to go through with an invasion that doesn't serve U.S. interest? The congress can vote not to fund that activity.
The president wants to do something shady? The congress can outlaw that activity.
The president (or one of his underlings) have done something shady? The congress can impeach him.
The legislature (especially one with veto-overriding majority on one side of the issue) is the most powerful branch of the government, and to evade responsibility for everything that's gone wrong is ... well, the way of the weasel.
I think you'll have to compromise on "easily" and "all".
Perhaps on "easily", but not on "all".
What can other countries produce that U.S. just can't? U.S. can produce its own oil, perhaps not as cheaply as in other countries, but it's still economically viable.
Without reliance on foreign commodities such as China's cheap labor and Middle Eastern cheap oil, price of goods may go up and we may need to find alternative energies, but they are all doable---only small matters of economics, not matters of possibility or even unreasonable difficulty.
And as far as modern technologies go, well, most of them were invented in U.S. (or at least we can produce them in U.S. now).
To be technical, North and South Korea were two separate countries with two legal governments in 1948.
In 1950, the lawful government of the North Korea invaded the lawful government of South Korea.
Canada is practically part of the U.S. anyway.
Does FBI worry about California having nuclear power stations?
I thought so.
And that was before WWII changed a lot of outlook towards whether isolationism is viable (its an ongoing debate throughout the centuries).
But these days, given how much the world hates us (or at least the media pretends it does) for fixing their problems, maybe it's time we gave isolationism another chance.
U.S. can easily become self-sufficient and keep all its modern amenities, unlike many other countries that resent the U.S.
My guess is El Lobo had sockpuppet accounts with modpoints.
That would explain +5 interesting, and the rest is Slashdot moderation system. You would have to have a personal grudge against kdawson to think that El Lobo's comment added anything to the discussion.
Music, unlike science, is highly subjective, and there are no wrong or useless projects.
And who says science is objective when funding is involved? There is no shortage of scientists with useless research (I don't mean wrong, I simply mean useless) pretending as if it's the greatest thing since the sliced bread so that they can get funding from NSF and who else.
As a scientist myself (physics graduate student), I wish the government would subsidizing useless science and turn the task of funding science to corporations, think tanks, industry---i.e. the free market---which has far better ability to discern the important discoveries (that are profitable for the stockholders and eventually the scientists themselves) from trivial pursuits not worth funding.
It will be the diapers.
I fail to see how South Koreans are "paranoid mentally unbalanced, and unlikely to change." If anything the south has embraced a lot of US ideals such as democracy, capitalism, free press, etc. North Korea has been a dictatorship for the last 50 years and reflects the prejudices of it's leadership.
For one, they are pretty xenophobic. Of all the developed countries, South Korea is one place where migrant workers are mistreated, skilled workers (such as actors) of foreign origin are not kindly looked upon, and even for the Koreans who live here, well, how many Koreans do you know that married someone who's not Korean (and his or her family accepts it)?
Their culture is a culture that celebrates suffering, grief, and grudge (look up "han", as a word that express a certain kind of emotion that Koreans like to claim as their own). Perhaps a good reason behind, perhaps there isn't. Either way, it will take many generations before they can become anything like the greatness that is America (in the generosity of spirit and leadership, for one).
Commenting in LabVIEW only requires you to double click on the location you want the comment and then start typing... how exactly is that harder for you?
For one, you have to plan that space for the comment.
And, if you write too much comment, you have to keep scrolling around in 2D to see all of the "code".
Imagine if you had to write codes in normal languages and your "insert" was toggled on (and you couldn't toggle it back), so if you could imagine yourself adding anything additional (comment, additional code, etc.) later on, you have to plan for that space ahead of time.
That's exactly how harder it is to comment in LabVIEW.
for example, you can bundle all the wires into a single "object" wire
Oh, yes you can bundle them, but that just means you have fewer visible wires; the underlying scheme hasn't changed at all.
For example, suppose you write a sub-VI and later on, you want to modify it to take more inputs. In real programming languages like Python, that would be as simple as dealing with keyword argument lists. You don't have to mess with the function definition; you just pass the information to the function and write something within the function to do something with that input (i.e. you don't have to think about the whole pipeline, just the end-points).
Try doing that in LabVIEW. When the smallest property of those bundles change (i.e. more number of wires in the bundle, or a different data type for one wire), you have to change a number of things to make the things connecting to that bundle work again.
I've worked with LabVIEW for some time, and I've modified and re-written moderately complicated program, and at the end of the day, if I can imagine the program growing in its functions and me maintaining that program 1, 2 years from now, I would stay very far, far away from LabVIEW, regardless of how easy initial UI design is (it's not like designing UIs with toolkits like Qt is that difficult).
Let me just put it this way: modifying a LabVIEW program is like trying to modify an electronic circuit---except that, very often, you won't have a circuit diagram in your hand, and you won't have any explanations as to why certain things were wired in a certain way.
It's a normal conclusion based on their research.
I wouldn't call "charlatanry" any part of a normal conclusion.
Would you consider words like "crackpot", "imbecile", "con artist", and "habitual liar" to belong in a normal conclusion in a research paper, assuming that these statements do have some factual backing?
There is a line between insulting someone and presenting facts that are unfavorable to someone. The former can be sued for libel (although, thankfully in the U.S. the standard for a successful libel suit is fairly high), the latter is legitimate scholarly activity.
Here's a good way to get the One Subject at a Time Act passed: attach it to a popular bill, like the PATRIOT Act or the next version of DMCA, which so many lobbyists will be supporting for a politician to oppose. ;)