Many people regard Einstein as having done greater work than Newton.
When making "top ten" lists of physics, usually Newton, Einstein and Maxwell are among the top three physicists of all time. But such lists are in general dubious; for one thing, Einstein needed the results by Newton and Maxwell to do his own work. Beside, the three worked in very different periods of time with different problems facing physics.
What makes Newton unique, is that Newton would in general make the top ten list of all time great mathematicians. Usually the top three would be Archemides, Newton and Gauss. But again, such lists should not be trusted. If you want to rate scientists, learn what they did, and make your own (subjective) rating.
So it's worth noting that a few people are now claiming that relativity is either derivable from Newtonian physics or wrong.
There has always been people claiming Einstein was wrong, often because Einstein's theory are strange to "common sense". And it is well known that you can make any theory fit all available experimental results by making ad hoc extensions to the theory. It is worth nothing that Newton himself would probably not have liked the extensions necessary and Newton himself found parts of his own theories lacking.
Some physicists seem to prefer complicated explanations over simple ones.
This is where you are wrong. Einstein's theories are much simpler than Newton's. To make Newton's theories and Maxwell's theories fit, you need an "ether" with very strange and peculiar properties. This was the state of physics when Einstein came along. And you need to add even stranger properties to fit what has been learned since Einstein.
What Einstein did was to show that you could make a nice unified theory of Newton and Maxwell and get rid of this complicated, ad hoc concept of an ether, but you would have to change your concept of time and space in the process. So, Einstein theory of relativity passes the test of Occam. Einstein's theories are much simpler mathematically and physically than any theories that try to preserve Newton's laws and still fit known experimental facts. The only price to pay, is that common sense about time and space has to be updated.
Its well known that Kerry is a UN supporter. When he says Global Test - he means asking the UN permission and obeying their decision.
Bull.
If you want to think about the so-called "Global Test" in the context of UN, then the Global Test is that you can look representatives from other countries at the UN in the eye and be proud of the way the US has acted. Do you think Colin Powell is proud of lying to the security councile on behalf of Bush? How do you think Powell will feel he has passed the so-called "Global Test" when he meets fellow diplomates from countries like England, Poland that used his lies to argue the case for the war in Iraq at home?
Bush has been blabbering about the "Kerry doctrin" in the last days, trying to twist and lie as Bush always does. The fact is, the Kerry doctrin is the way foreign policy has been done in the US since before, during and after the cold war. It is similar to the foreign policy as done by administrations like Kennedy, Regean and Bush sr. The Bush jr neo-con doctrin is the one that is new and scary, and which has not produced any benefits for our country. It has just made the world and the US less safe.
Despite the fact he was wounded in Iraq, he doesn't consider it an unjust war, and plans to vote for Bush. He told me he saw first-hand the difference we've made in that country, and there's no way anyone can convince him that the war was wrong.
No disrespect to the sacrificies that your nephew has done for the country, but maybe because he was wounded in Iraq makes it harder for him to admit that Bush made a mistake by invading Iraq? It is hard to admit to yourself that you risked your life for a lie. Just look at how most people deal with mistakes and accidents small and big; we find reasons to justify to ourself that we could not have done different or that the accident at least lead to some good things, even though we deep down wish life sometimes had an "undo" button.
They don't dispute John Kerry served in vietnam. They don't dispute John Kerry saved a man's life. The only dispute they have is that people were not firing at John Kerry as he was saving some guys life. Oh and they don't dispute his other purple hearts either.
I know this is the number one attack, Kerry is flip-flopping, but can you actually give me an example? I say this because I know of several examples of Bush flip-flopping.
H.J. Res 114: To authorize the use of force in Iraq.
Kerry (D-MA), Yea
Edwards (D-NC), Yea
In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days--to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough and immediate inspection requirements, and to act with our allies at our side if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force. If he fails to do so, I will be among the first to speak out.
If we do wind up going to war with Iraq, it is imperative that we do so with others in the international community, unless there is a showing of a grave, imminent--and I emphasize "imminent"--threat to this country which requires the President to respond in a way that protects our immediate national security needs.
In voting to grant the President the authority, I am not giving him carte blanche to run roughshod over every country that poses or may pose some kind of potential threat to the United States. Every nation has the right to act preemptively, if it faces an imminent and grave threat, for its self-defense under the standards of law. The threat we face today with Iraq does not meet that test yet. I emphasize "yet." Yes, it is grave because of the deadliness of Saddam Hussein's arsenal and the very high probability that he might use these weapons one day if not disarmed. But it is not imminent, and no one in the CIA, no intelligence briefing we have had suggests it is imminent. None of our intelligence reports suggest that he is about to launch an attack.
But you are right, it all ends up into one "yea" that is supposed to say it all...
You may see a lot at stake, but there is NO benefit to voting for Kerry over Bush. There is no substantial difference in their policies.
Read the quotes I gave above once more and ask yourself if Bush would ever be caught saying something similar. Then ask once more if there is any difference between Kerry and Bush.
(Kepler, incidentally, was a better astronomer than Galileo; Galileo was certain that the obrits of planets MUST be circular because the circle is the perfect shape. Kepler realized (and told Galileo, who still didn't believe him) that the spheres must be elliptical.)
Kepler wasn't a better astronomer in the sense that he understood that planets orbits had to be elliptical. Kepler started out believing the orbits to be circular, but had available huge amount of astronomical measurements from Tycho Brahe and could calculate accurately the path taken by several of the planets. That Galileo was sceptical to Kepler's results is natural since Kepler only found a very small deviation from a circular path and Galileo could not know for sure that Brahe had made good observations and that Kepler had done all his math correctly. In a way, Kepler's big work was an early victory for experimental science and Kepler's laws were one of the results that made it possible for Newton to formulate an universal law of gravity.
He was taken to trial and then retracted the definitive reality of the Copernican system, saying that it, at best, saved the accidents. This meant that it was a good model, but no one knew the reality.
We know today that Galileo believed in the Copernican system, but quite wisely saw no need to die defending it. The main proof for Galileo was that with his own build telescope he could see the moons of Jupiter, which meant that the view that the earth was the center of the universe which everything rotated around was clearly false. Since it was easier to fit the planets motion as going around the sun than the earth, this was then clearly the best scientific and metaphysical hypothesis, something Galileo proclaimed until the church silenced him.
Re:He was a philosopher, not a physicist.
on
The Unknown Newton
·
· Score: 1
In fact, the impersonal, Olympian modern style of scientific writing basically dates back to him ("hypotheses non fingo"). Theorem-proof-example was exactly the way he wrote. Take a look look at the Principia.
Newton used the Elements by Euclid as the foundation for Principia and the new calculus he had developed, which is why Principia is such a hard read today (and was hard even for his contemporaries). Basically, to protect his new mathematical and physical theory against criticism, Newton derived everything by geometrical proofs since few of his contemporaries would question the validity of Euclidean geometry. That Newton theory of gravity remained the accepted scientific theory for such a long time, shows how well Newton did his job. First when Euclidian geometry was challenged as the only possible geometry did Einstein show that a "better" theory of gravity could be formulated. While Newton spent a lot of work on making sure that the foundation of his calculus was sound, Leibniz who developed calculus independently of Newton, spent effort on making a simple to use notation that we still use today.
A somewhat telling story about Newton is that his servant for many decades only heard Newton laugh once; this was when Newton heard one of his students state that Euclid was not worth reading.
Re:What was crazier to think at that time?
on
The Unknown Newton
·
· Score: 1
Or that in 300 years from then a bunch of strange libertarians will be discussing about the nature and validity of is work by using emitting light boxes connected by cables going thousands of kilometers around the globe and some time passing information through thin air?
I am sure that Newton would have been surprised by the huge changes to the world since his day. But when talking about "passing information through thin air", Newton was the one who introduced a force acting through vacuum at infinite distances instantaneously (gravity), so I am sure he would accept such passing of information as possible. Newton would probably also much appreciate how Einstein reformulated Newton's original thoughts on gravity and thereby "solving" the infinite distance "problem".
The OEM doesn't have to reject certain hardware as "not working with windows" because it all does.... When I'm putting windows on a box I just pick hardware based on what I need it to do and what it costs.
How is that Windows beta for AMD64 coming along? (Cheap joke: Windows is always in a beta state...). Just got my hands on an AMD64 machine; talk about hardware that gives value for money.
If what is usually assumed is true, that Sony earns money on PS2 while MS loses on every xbox sold, then Sony should be in full control. Sony can take their time with the development of Playstation 3 while happily counting money earned from PS2. MS will count their losses, start to get nervous and push xbox 2 out the door. MS will have to marked the new xbox all over the place with "better hardware" and "game station of the future" etc. Then watch Sony kick the hell out of MS after MS have used billions in advertisement with the theme "it is time to upgrade your game consol", by releasing a PS3 with better hardware than what MS offers and full backward compatibility with all the PS2 games already on the marked.
For the gamers it is perfect, with a price war from day one between PS3 and xbox 2, but even MS has a limit on how many billions they can lose on the upgraded xbox before the share holders starts screaming murder.
Both movies appear to be highly politicized, anti-GOP movies timed (more or less) to coincide with the election cycle.
It is funny that a film that describes a possible scenario for our near future (but of course happening on a much slower time scale than depicted in an "action movie") based on current accepted scientific views of our climat is considered "highly politicized". I think that says much more about GOP and their policies than it says about this or any other Hollywood production. But I guess McCarthy was right, they are all commies.
The enviornment will change anyway. History, Arechology and other sciences have shown us that. Even before mans time of rule here the climate was in constant flux. We've had ice ages, tropical times and the inbetween.
But that is the beauty of trickle-down economy! These filthy rich lawyers over-charge MS. Therefore MS over-charges the consumers. But even though the consumers pay (much) more, these filthy rich lawyers will invest in the economy, creating new jobs and making everyone richer! Consumers should be happy to pay (much) more because it is good for the economy.
This web-page: International Standard Paper Sizes contains all the information you would ever need about the history and advantages of A4 paper and its relationship with the US standards.
You are mixing anarchy (no rules) and war; they may often come together but they are definitely not the same thing. Just take a look at a good army fight, how systematically they move, how structured their command line is, how much all their activity is ruled by laws. This is a trivial example of how war and anarchy are two very different animals, but there are also laws of war on a much more fundamental level. Not surprising in a way since human beings have always created laws to govern their interactions and war has been a sport that human beings have entertained themselves with since the morning of time (since Kane and Abel to be precise).
What is special about war is that certain laws found in all human societies are put aside. This is probably why the notion that there are "no laws" in war is such a common confusion. The biggest break from normal laws is of course that you suddenly are allowed to legally kill another human being. Other laws that have become commonplace in Western Democracies, like free speech and movement is also out of the question in the war theater.
Penalties for breaking the laws in war are also much harsher. Steal food from your buddy and you will end up in "jail" and probably get a beating. Not showing up for work (going AWOL) usually ends with execution. Quite nasty this war business, but then again that is why one wants to avoid unnecessary wars. A soldier loves war as much as a fireman loves fires, they are ready to fight but they know avoiding the fight in the first place (effective diplomacy/fire prevention) is always to prefer.
The laws of war are old, but are most famously codified in modern time in treaties like the Geneva convention. You are allowed to kill soldiers and combatants from the other army/fraction. You are not allowed to kill or torture civilians or POW's. There are also ancient rules for what is considered a just war (in older times connected to the moral backing of the Church, in more modern times, backing of the civilized world or even more recently the backing of the UN and the security council).
Now you may say the Geneva convention is just a piece of paper and there is no police to enforce it. Well, first of all, if you don't respect the Geneva convention, your enemy will probably not respect it either. Conclusion, your own soldiers/civilians captured will be tortured and killed. Second, moral. If the soldiers don't behave like they are the good guys anymore, moral among the soldiers disappears, support from home disappears (like in Vietnam), support from allies disappears. Conclusion, the fighting ability of the army is badly diminished. Third, allies. The US army is strong enough that it does not depended on allied soldiers in the field, but still it helps to have the British there. Beside, allies means someone to share the cost with (wars are expensive). Allies means intelligence is more easily obtained. Allies means it is easier to win the peace (how much we could need a muslim ally in Iraq). Because you want to win the whole war not only the battles, you are wise to follow the written and the unwritten laws of warfare.
The problem when dealing with the laws of war is that abuse can be easier to hide (dead people everywhere, who will notice one more) and that anarchy is often a friend of war. As in any law driven society, the army doesn't want the soldiers to take the law in their own hands. Because as have been shown time and again, vigilante justice "to show your displeasure" is the first step to no respect for any "laws" but your own. Anarchy is not only a problem for the victims of the war crimes, but an even bigger problem for an army. If you don't control your soldiers and their action, you will probably lose the war. Anarchy is the best sign for bad moral and discipline, or in other words an ineffective army.
The idea of self destructing landmines is completely counterintuitive not only to the nature
I can imagine that Novell want the parts of the FOSS/OSS community that uses the Evolution Connector to help in taking care of this code while Novell redirects its Ximian hackers to work on better integration of Evolution with GroupWise. The Connector was a big deal for Ximian but not a huge source of money for Novell, and they rather use the excellent hackers of Ximian to something that is better for the future of Novell.
Besides, the more corporation PC's that Evolution appears on, the more chance for the Novell sales-team to convince these corporations to switch to GroupWise.
I read somewhere that an average man has 2-3 pounds of bacteria in his gut and on his skin, more in weight than found on the most dirty shower curtain. Most of these bacteria are actually needed (for digestion, immune system etc) and we would die without them. These bacteria probably also share a lot of the genes from the bacteria causing diseases since they have to live in the same environment (feeding on us).
There is a definite trend of US politics having a detrimental effect on science.
Yes, I am surprised that this was not mentioned more in the article. Rewarding science because of its political consequences and not its scientific value leads to an unhealthy scientific community. This is why many foreign scientist have come to the US in the past. But why should they come to the US today to replace the old political censorship with just another type of political censorship?
I'm sure the alchemists, in their desire to turn base metals into gold stumbled upon many interesting things.
But that doesn't mean that it is a good idea to give federal funding to alchemists... you get better return on your money by supporting real scientists that publish their results in refereed journals and do reproducible (i.e. believable) experiments.
Slashdot Mirror
When making "top ten" lists of physics, usually Newton, Einstein and Maxwell are among the top three physicists of all time. But such lists are in general dubious; for one thing, Einstein needed the results by Newton and Maxwell to do his own work. Beside, the three worked in very different periods of time with different problems facing physics.
What makes Newton unique, is that Newton would in general make the top ten list of all time great mathematicians. Usually the top three would be Archemides, Newton and Gauss. But again, such lists should not be trusted. If you want to rate scientists, learn what they did, and make your own (subjective) rating.
There has always been people claiming Einstein was wrong, often because Einstein's theory are strange to "common sense". And it is well known that you can make any theory fit all available experimental results by making ad hoc extensions to the theory. It is worth nothing that Newton himself would probably not have liked the extensions necessary and Newton himself found parts of his own theories lacking.
This is where you are wrong. Einstein's theories are much simpler than Newton's. To make Newton's theories and Maxwell's theories fit, you need an "ether" with very strange and peculiar properties. This was the state of physics when Einstein came along. And you need to add even stranger properties to fit what has been learned since Einstein.What Einstein did was to show that you could make a nice unified theory of Newton and Maxwell and get rid of this complicated, ad hoc concept of an ether, but you would have to change your concept of time and space in the process. So, Einstein theory of relativity passes the test of Occam. Einstein's theories are much simpler mathematically and physically than any theories that try to preserve Newton's laws and still fit known experimental facts. The only price to pay, is that common sense about time and space has to be updated.
Bull.
If you want to think about the so-called "Global Test" in the context of UN, then the Global Test is that you can look representatives from other countries at the UN in the eye and be proud of the way the US has acted. Do you think Colin Powell is proud of lying to the security councile on behalf of Bush? How do you think Powell will feel he has passed the so-called "Global Test" when he meets fellow diplomates from countries like England, Poland that used his lies to argue the case for the war in Iraq at home?
Bush has been blabbering about the "Kerry doctrin" in the last days, trying to twist and lie as Bush always does. The fact is, the Kerry doctrin is the way foreign policy has been done in the US since before, during and after the cold war. It is similar to the foreign policy as done by administrations like Kennedy, Regean and Bush sr. The Bush jr neo-con doctrin is the one that is new and scary, and which has not produced any benefits for our country. It has just made the world and the US less safe.
The Iraq war didn't make a difference to the economy?!
what about a real challenge, explaning the bush economics ...
No disrespect to the sacrificies that your nephew has done for the country, but maybe because he was wounded in Iraq makes it harder for him to admit that Bush made a mistake by invading Iraq? It is hard to admit to yourself that you risked your life for a lie. Just look at how most people deal with mistakes and accidents small and big; we find reasons to justify to ourself that we could not have done different or that the accident at least lead to some good things, even though we deep down wish life sometimes had an "undo" button.
It would be hard to dispute that Kerry saved some guys life, since that guy is a registered Republican who has been on the campaign trail with Kerry. The guy was even with Kerry on the stage in Boston together with all the rest of the surviving crew of the boat that Kerry commanded in Vietnam. The guy's name is James Rassmann. By the way, this is not the only Republican Kerry has saved the life of :).
I know this is the number one attack, Kerry is flip-flopping, but can you actually give me an example? I say this because I know of several examples of Bush flip-flopping.
The problem for Kerry and many less ideology driven (may I say single minded) politicians are that today even the most complex policy is supposed to be summarized in a few words, preferably in a slogan to be repeated in a TV commercial. Why not see for yourself what Kerry said at the Senate floor, October 9, 2002, when Kerry cast that vote? Some quotes that I found relevant:
But you are right, it all ends up into one "yea" that is supposed to say it all...
Read the quotes I gave above once more and ask yourself if Bush would ever be caught saying something similar. Then ask once more if there is any difference between Kerry and Bush.
Kepler wasn't a better astronomer in the sense that he understood that planets orbits had to be elliptical. Kepler started out believing the orbits to be circular, but had available huge amount of astronomical measurements from Tycho Brahe and could calculate accurately the path taken by several of the planets. That Galileo was sceptical to Kepler's results is natural since Kepler only found a very small deviation from a circular path and Galileo could not know for sure that Brahe had made good observations and that Kepler had done all his math correctly. In a way, Kepler's big work was an early victory for experimental science and Kepler's laws were one of the results that made it possible for Newton to formulate an universal law of gravity.
We know today that Galileo believed in the Copernican system, but quite wisely saw no need to die defending it. The main proof for Galileo was that with his own build telescope he could see the moons of Jupiter, which meant that the view that the earth was the center of the universe which everything rotated around was clearly false. Since it was easier to fit the planets motion as going around the sun than the earth, this was then clearly the best scientific and metaphysical hypothesis, something Galileo proclaimed until the church silenced him.
Newton used the Elements by Euclid as the foundation for Principia and the new calculus he had developed, which is why Principia is such a hard read today (and was hard even for his contemporaries). Basically, to protect his new mathematical and physical theory against criticism, Newton derived everything by geometrical proofs since few of his contemporaries would question the validity of Euclidean geometry. That Newton theory of gravity remained the accepted scientific theory for such a long time, shows how well Newton did his job. First when Euclidian geometry was challenged as the only possible geometry did Einstein show that a "better" theory of gravity could be formulated. While Newton spent a lot of work on making sure that the foundation of his calculus was sound, Leibniz who developed calculus independently of Newton, spent effort on making a simple to use notation that we still use today.
A somewhat telling story about Newton is that his servant for many decades only heard Newton laugh once; this was when Newton heard one of his students state that Euclid was not worth reading.
I am sure that Newton would have been surprised by the huge changes to the world since his day. But when talking about "passing information through thin air", Newton was the one who introduced a force acting through vacuum at infinite distances instantaneously (gravity), so I am sure he would accept such passing of information as possible. Newton would probably also much appreciate how Einstein reformulated Newton's original thoughts on gravity and thereby "solving" the infinite distance "problem".
How is that Windows beta for AMD64 coming along? (Cheap joke: Windows is always in a beta state ...). Just got my hands on an AMD64 machine; talk about hardware that gives value for money.
For the gamers it is perfect, with a price war from day one between PS3 and xbox 2, but even MS has a limit on how many billions they can lose on the upgraded xbox before the share holders starts screaming murder.
And of course Sony is fully aware of all this.
It is funny that a film that describes a possible scenario for our near future (but of course happening on a much slower time scale than depicted in an "action movie") based on current accepted scientific views of our climat is considered "highly politicized". I think that says much more about GOP and their policies than it says about this or any other Hollywood production. But I guess McCarthy was right, they are all commies.
What makes the scientist worry are graphs like these. The PBS pages contain much info about the global warming debate.
But that is the beauty of trickle-down economy! These filthy rich lawyers over-charge MS. Therefore MS over-charges the consumers. But even though the consumers pay (much) more, these filthy rich lawyers will invest in the economy, creating new jobs and making everyone richer! Consumers should be happy to pay (much) more because it is good for the economy.
This web-page: International Standard Paper Sizes contains all the information you would ever need about the history and advantages of A4 paper and its relationship with the US standards.
You are mixing anarchy (no rules) and war; they may often come together but they are definitely not the same thing. Just take a look at a good army fight, how systematically they move, how structured their command line is, how much all their activity is ruled by laws. This is a trivial example of how war and anarchy are two very different animals, but there are also laws of war on a much more fundamental level. Not surprising in a way since human beings have always created laws to govern their interactions and war has been a sport that human beings have entertained themselves with since the morning of time (since Kane and Abel to be precise).
What is special about war is that certain laws found in all human societies are put aside. This is probably why the notion that there are "no laws" in war is such a common confusion. The biggest break from normal laws is of course that you suddenly are allowed to legally kill another human being. Other laws that have become commonplace in Western Democracies, like free speech and movement is also out of the question in the war theater.
Penalties for breaking the laws in war are also much harsher. Steal food from your buddy and you will end up in "jail" and probably get a beating. Not showing up for work (going AWOL) usually ends with execution. Quite nasty this war business, but then again that is why one wants to avoid unnecessary wars. A soldier loves war as much as a fireman loves fires, they are ready to fight but they know avoiding the fight in the first place (effective diplomacy/fire prevention) is always to prefer.
The laws of war are old, but are most famously codified in modern time in treaties like the Geneva convention. You are allowed to kill soldiers and combatants from the other army/fraction. You are not allowed to kill or torture civilians or POW's. There are also ancient rules for what is considered a just war (in older times connected to the moral backing of the Church, in more modern times, backing of the civilized world or even more recently the backing of the UN and the security council).
Now you may say the Geneva convention is just a piece of paper and there is no police to enforce it. Well, first of all, if you don't respect the Geneva convention, your enemy will probably not respect it either. Conclusion, your own soldiers/civilians captured will be tortured and killed. Second, moral. If the soldiers don't behave like they are the good guys anymore, moral among the soldiers disappears, support from home disappears (like in Vietnam), support from allies disappears. Conclusion, the fighting ability of the army is badly diminished. Third, allies. The US army is strong enough that it does not depended on allied soldiers in the field, but still it helps to have the British there. Beside, allies means someone to share the cost with (wars are expensive). Allies means intelligence is more easily obtained. Allies means it is easier to win the peace (how much we could need a muslim ally in Iraq). Because you want to win the whole war not only the battles, you are wise to follow the written and the unwritten laws of warfare.
The problem when dealing with the laws of war is that abuse can be easier to hide (dead people everywhere, who will notice one more) and that anarchy is often a friend of war. As in any law driven society, the army doesn't want the soldiers to take the law in their own hands. Because as have been shown time and again, vigilante justice "to show your displeasure" is the first step to no respect for any "laws" but your own. Anarchy is not only a problem for the victims of the war crimes, but an even bigger problem for an army. If you don't control your soldiers and their action, you will probably lose the war. Anarchy is the best sign for bad moral and discipline, or in other words an ineffective army.
I can imagine that Novell want the parts of the FOSS/OSS community that uses the Evolution Connector to help in taking care of this code while Novell redirects its Ximian hackers to work on better integration of Evolution with GroupWise. The Connector was a big deal for Ximian but not a huge source of money for Novell, and they rather use the excellent hackers of Ximian to something that is better for the future of Novell.
Besides, the more corporation PC's that Evolution appears on, the more chance for the Novell sales-team to convince these corporations to switch to GroupWise.
You forgot the dollar and the deficit.
I read somewhere that an average man has 2-3 pounds of bacteria in his gut and on his skin, more in weight than found on the most dirty shower curtain. Most of these bacteria are actually needed (for digestion, immune system etc) and we would die without them. These bacteria probably also share a lot of the genes from the bacteria causing diseases since they have to live in the same environment (feeding on us).
Actually, Mozart is Austrian while Beethoven is German. Still many believe Beethoven is as Austrian as Hitler is German.
Look how devious the Austrian's are, they even tricked you when you tried to make a joke about them ;-).
But that doesn't mean that it is a good idea to give federal funding to alchemists ... you get better return on your money by supporting real scientists that publish their results in refereed journals and do reproducible (i.e. believable) experiments.
not realising it was the old product there was something wrong with, not the old salesman.