"There's no evidence either in Canada or the United States that we have found for advertisers willing to pay a premium for a program that's in HD," Mr. Rabinovich said. "So basically they're saying if you want to shoot in HD, that's your business, we're not going to pay you more."
I was going to blast this guy for not understanding the economics of... well... any sort of competition really. The reason to go HD is to appeal to consumers, because advertisers will pay more if you've captured more of the market thanks to your superior picture quality.
But then I realized he was arguing for government intervention, or less government intervention, or both. I sort of stopped paying attention at that point. Government regulation has such a warping effect on markets that his statement, which most people here should see as ludicrous in a normal context, actually makes sense.
Also:
CRTC commissioners questioned CBC executives over whether the networks were using the fee concept as a way to get the regulator to "skate them back onside" in terms of profitability.
Only in Canada would a hockey analogy be helpful in explaining the concept of using the government to go unprofitable back to profitable!
I've seen the same thing you have, and I'm also interested if there's a reason for it.
I run Firefox on Linux at home. I've tried both self-compiled and Mozilla precompiled binaries, with various versions from 1.0.x to 2.0. In all cases, complex sites like GMail are significantly slower on my home machine than on comparable or slightly slower Windows machines I use (e.g. at work or my parents' house). I haven't done a direct comparison by running Windows on the same computer as Linux, but I have more RAM and CPU speed than those computers, with less RAM being taken up by other running apps.
Even sites without such fancy interfaces, such as phpBB-type forums, take a little bit longer to render the pages. It's annoying because they stick at 100% CPU while doing it, so I can't interact with the Firefox interface for that instant. Sounds trivial, but when I'm trying to open 5 forum threads at once and then switch to the tabs afterwards to read them, it slowly me down significantly compared to doing the same thing with Windows Firefox.
Anyone have any insight on why the parent and I might be having these problems?
Have you done any of the following? - Mention to them that their behavior makes it harder for you to do your work (aside from the sinus guy who may not be able to help it). It can be difficult to have this conversation in a respectful way, especially if you've been letting it build up prior to this, but I'm sure you're a smart guy and can come up with something. - Talk to your manager about moving cubes. Even if the people around you don't care about your work getting done, your boss probably does, and is in a better position to do something about it for you. - Look for a better job. Ultimately, you shouldn't spend 50% of your waking hours being annoyed. Maybe there are other aspects to your job that make you look forward to going in every day, but if my boss and coworkers didn't respect or care about my work, I'd be looking elsewhere.
Your rant makes for some decent entertainment fodder for the rest of us random Slashdotters, and maybe that's all you intended... but don't expect me to have much sympathy if you aren't working to change the things you're complaining about.
When I first heard of Krita, I was surprised to learn that I already had it as part of the KOffice package! It quickly replaced The GIMP for my "basic advanced" image editing needs, since it offers a similar type of functionality but:
Fits my theme, since I run KDE, and
Manages to restrict itself to a sensible one window, with sub panels and panes that can be moved around within the window, or floated without losing focus on the other windows.
Can you tell what I didn't like about using The GIMP?:-) (Aside from system-specific bugs that I wouldn't blame on their developers, but still gave me trouble).
You don't hear about Krita nearly as often as The GIMP (or, of course, Photoshop), but it seems to be a great alternative. I can't speak for graphics professionals (not being one myself), but it gets the job done for what I need to do. I look forward to this new version, and I hope development continues on this hidden gem of an image editor.
Went through customs normally, got visas (1 of the guys got delayed 2 weeks for no given reason), and came into the company, opened their package. Viola.
Someone switched their hard drive for a musical instrument while the package was in transit?? Those homeland security guys are sneakier than I thought!
Ah, thanks for explaining the name that GoboLinux is using for their Firefox now... I was curious if they had come up with it on their own or if it was a standard.
However, there's a problem with that for Debian: They need to have control over future security patches, so they can maintain their Stable distribution for a long time without having to wait on someone else who might or might not allow them to do any patching. Lets have a look-see on the very page you linked:
The following changes are permitted within Community Editions:
* Change certain preference settings
* Change the default start page
* Change both the structure and the contents of the default bookmarks and personal toolbar
* Change the default search engine and other search engines in the search engine pulldown box
* Include extensions that are also available through updates.mozilla.org
* Include plugins, provided they can legally do so
* Porting the software to different operating systems
* Custom builds created using options to configure
Nope, nothing about patching for security (or any other reason besides porting). By omission, it means you are *not* allowed to apply any unauthorized patches and still refer to it as Firefox, whether or not you use the "Community Edition" moniker. If I understand Debian's objection well enough, this is a deal-breaker for "Community Edition."
Editors, if you link a Wikipedia page from the summary, PLEASE link a historical revision. That way, whatever vandalism happens won't affect the link, and thus fewer people will be tempted to even vandalize at all.
Seriously, do the editors have any sense at all? It's not like this is a new problem.
(Movies follow the general trend. Heros use Macs, while Villains or Dark Heros use Windows)
I don't know if it counts as "villains," but in an episode of Firefly, the crew (easily) hacks into an automated garbage system that is clearly running Windows. I thought it was appropriate...
Also, is 2,000 samples per year enough to be accurate? Possibly, but then again, they are talking about an economy of 250 million consumers.
Alright, when we're criticizing a study for using questionable statistics, lets not make any misstatements of our own. This is a common misconception here on Slashdot, so I don't mean to pick on you, but it bugs me every time I see it.
The theoretically correct sample size has almost nothing to do with the size of the population (unless the sample is extremely small, e.g. 100). 2,000 samples would give about the same statistical relevance for a population of 250,000, 250 million, 250 billion, or infinity. Yes, it is possible to have meaningful statistical predictions about an infinite population, assuming you can sample randomly from it.
At a sample size of 2,000, since they don't need anything like sub-penny accuracy, the limiting factor in their accuracy is no longer statistical theory. I haven't done the math, but I'm sure the 80 cent difference they quote is easily statistically significant with that many samples.
No, the real question is whether there is any systematic error resulting from their methodology in selecting those 2,000. The math assumes purely random (independent, unbiased) samples, but of course that's never possible in reality. Getting a larger sample using the same methods wouldn't change the correctness or incorrectness of the results.
My MythTV box records free over-the-air HDTV using tv guide information to let me do things like "record every episode of Family Guy, unless I have already recorded or watched that episode." Oh, and I do this in my living room with no keyboard or mouse (or any visible computer setup), but rather with a remote control. Any modern OS can do that? Certainly not out of the box. Of course you could install software on your modern OS that would do all that... but that would be MythTV.
In fact, since you already have yours hooked up to a TV, it's a perfect candidate for MythTV! Then you could add "live and recorded TV" to the list of things you can easily play. If you want to transcode your recordings automatically to save space (pegging your CPU at 100% periodically), you might want to get a separate box to do all the recording/storage and processing, and network it. Then your main computer could play TV shows just like it currently plays movies and mp3s.
If movies and music is all you're interested in playing, then MythTV isn't aimed at you. Doesn't make it useless.
Oh, and checking weather is quite a trivial feature, but again, it is something that I can't normally do while sitting on the living room couch with a remote in my hand.
those accused of sex crime but have passed the statute of limitations will have to register if a court finds a preponderance of evidence that that person is guilty. i.e. a person who otherwise would have been convicted
Whoa, slow down there fella. Do you know the difference between civil and criminal court? You're mixing and matching teminology.
In civil court, the winner is the one with the "preponderance of evidence" on their side, because it's citizen v. citizen and one of them has to win. It's a very low (51%) threshold for victory. Although a judgment is rendered, the defendant is never said to be "guilty" or "convicted" of a crime regardless of the outcome.
In criminal court, the standard for proving guilt is "beyond a reasonable doubt," because it's government v. citizen and having our government punish an innocent citizen is considered the worst possible outcome. The evidence required in that case is WAY more than the civil 51%.
Now, if what you say about the bill is correct (and I read it the same way since it refers to everything as "civil" rather than "criminal"), it actually says the opposite of your interpretation. Since it only needs a preponderance of evidence, it can put people on the list who never would have been convicted of any crime, and never would have seen jail time as a result of any regular trial.
Since being put on the list amounts to government punishment, this is a vile end-run around the constitutionally guaranteed protections for all citizens.
If there is a post in here where the government is trying to protect children from adult content, everyone runs around in circles screaming how terrible that is and how parents should be responsible (and I agree). But as soon as Nintendo does it, it is a good thing? I don't think so.
It really didn't cross your mind that there's a meaningful distinction?
Government: I must pay for their censorship. I have no choice about whether I am affected by it: It applies to my actions taken with my (and others') private property. Private Company: I choose whether to pay fo their censorship. I choose whether I am affected by it: It only applies on Nintendo's property (network).
No cognitive dissonance required. It is possible to disagree with the government forcing something, even if you think the end result is good for the typical person. For example: I think it is immoral to force someone to wear a seatbelt, so I disagree with seatbelt laws. I also think it is idiotic for anyone to not wear a seatbelt, and I express that opinion to anyone who rides in my car and doesn't buckle up. If a private bus company required passengers to use a seatbelt as a condition of riding, I would have no objection, because the bus is private property and I don't have to pay for it if I don't use it.
Thanks for the list. I don't know too many of the songs, but I'm sure they're awesome.
Drist had a song in the "indie/bonus" section of the first game (and quite a good one, imo). Does their presence in that list mean they have been upgraded to "regular song" status, or might that be just another bonus inclusion?
Also, will they be using Wavegroup for all the songs again, or will they have any original recordings?
I guess you missed all the comments modded to +4 funny that just had some silly variation on the title. Example: Airplane crashes off the end of a runway? The first comment will probably be "So much for Brakes on a Plane." Liquids banned on airline flights? "But what will the Snakes drink then?" Article about grasslands wildlife dying out? "Save the Snakes on the Plain!" etc.
As far as I can tell, the "hype" amount to jokes like that, along with image macros on sites like Fark or 4chan. You can see why nobody in their right mind would construe that to indicate an interest in actually seeing the movie...
You are completely correct that any literal use of the word "prove" was careless and arrogant. If you see it in my posts, try to mentally replace it with "provide strong evidencial support for." I'm aware that scientific laws are never proven, because unlike in Mathematics, we do not have a sufficient set of axioms to build up anything interesting. Proof is just a convenient shorthand that operates under the restricted space of "theories that are currently given any credibility." It is quite handy to use in everyday conversation, since not everyone cares (or even knows about) the distinctions of such words in technical contexts. (Witness criticism of the "theory" of evolution... but that's another story.)
By the way, this doesn't provide any evidence against MOND, except to make it less "necessary." It doesn't "debunk" anything. It only provides evidence for dark matter.
I don't know how you got modded down flamebait, and I would recommend any mods that come across this post consider modding the parent up. He has a very valid disagreement with my posts that needs to be heard.
They measured X-rays emitted by the clouds of highly energetic gas to determine the location of those clouds without actually measuring the effects of their gravity directly. They compared this result to a gravitational lensing analysis to determine the center of gravity.
Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but if the suggestion (that is being refuted) is that the gravititional force can vary in a localised area...
I don't think that's the suggestion. At least, not the one made by MOND and most other theories of modified gravity. Instead, they modify the way ALL gravity works over long distances--not the way gravity works in SOME regions. Perhaps someone with a better understanding of current MOND proposals can elaborate, since I don't know the details.
You are correct that such a suggestion would not be ruled out by this observation, but there'd have to be another good reason for it, and we haven't seen one yet. Although there is acceptance of the idea that universal constants may not be identical through space and time, it would almost certainly not show up dramatically on such a small (intra-galactic) scale.
Whether or not you consider it a serious alternative, the researchers who wrote the paper clearly don't, which allows them to make their logical deduction.
Re:What is "dark matter"?
on
Dark Matter Exists
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Yes, they have ruled out "non-very-well-lit regular matter." As you surmised, "dark matter" doesn't mean that no light is coming from it. Technically it refers to everything that's not baryonic matter (aka "regular" matter -- the category that includes every particle we have ever directly observed, including neutrinos).
As I understand it, the way they did it in this case is by knowing the temperature of the galaxies. If there were regular matter causing the observed gravitation, it would be hot enough to give off some sort of radiation that could be picked up via telescope. They may also have measured how much light from behind is being absorbed. In addition, if it were regular matter that interacts with other regular matter, it probably would have followed a similar pattern to the gas clouds, which means the center of gravity would have stayed with the observable clouds rather than separating like it did. (They probably have more reasons why it can't be regular matter, but that's what I could come up with off the top of my head late at night.)
I know your post was somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but it was modded interesting, so others are probably wondering the same thing. Lets play the analogy game first...
We know musical talent must come from either training or predisposition. We assume there are no other factors, because those two cover the reasonable possibilities. Consider this logical statement then: John Doe has no musical training, yet he is very skilled. John's musical skill cannot be explained by training, and thus proves that there exists some sort of predisposition to musical talent. It doesn't tell us (e.g.) whether it's genetic or not, but knowing for sure that it's there helps us refine our further studies.
Now the real version. There is "more" gravity than we can account for with the combination of Baryonic (regular) matter and Einstein's theories of gravity. A LOT more. There are only two possibilities: Gravity gets stronger under certain conditions (regular matter pulls harder), or something "unseen" is pulling. Of course, both could be true, but at least one of them MUST be true to match observations. We assume there are no other explanations, because those two are broad enough to cover the entire range of reasonable possibilities.
This experiment showed that the center of gravity of certain galaxies doesn't correspond to the center of the regular matter. In other words, the galaxy's gravity is pulling in a different direction than the normal matter would indicate. "[This] cannot be explained with an alteration of the gravitational force law, and thus proves that the majority of the matter in the system is unseen."
Slashdot Mirror
But then I realized he was arguing for government intervention, or less government intervention, or both. I sort of stopped paying attention at that point. Government regulation has such a warping effect on markets that his statement, which most people here should see as ludicrous in a normal context, actually makes sense.
Also:
Only in Canada would a hockey analogy be helpful in explaining the concept of using the government to go unprofitable back to profitable!
I've seen the same thing you have, and I'm also interested if there's a reason for it.
I run Firefox on Linux at home. I've tried both self-compiled and Mozilla precompiled binaries, with various versions from 1.0.x to 2.0. In all cases, complex sites like GMail are significantly slower on my home machine than on comparable or slightly slower Windows machines I use (e.g. at work or my parents' house). I haven't done a direct comparison by running Windows on the same computer as Linux, but I have more RAM and CPU speed than those computers, with less RAM being taken up by other running apps.
Even sites without such fancy interfaces, such as phpBB-type forums, take a little bit longer to render the pages. It's annoying because they stick at 100% CPU while doing it, so I can't interact with the Firefox interface for that instant. Sounds trivial, but when I'm trying to open 5 forum threads at once and then switch to the tabs afterwards to read them, it slowly me down significantly compared to doing the same thing with Windows Firefox.
Anyone have any insight on why the parent and I might be having these problems?
Have you done any of the following?
- Mention to them that their behavior makes it harder for you to do your work (aside from the sinus guy who may not be able to help it). It can be difficult to have this conversation in a respectful way, especially if you've been letting it build up prior to this, but I'm sure you're a smart guy and can come up with something.
- Talk to your manager about moving cubes. Even if the people around you don't care about your work getting done, your boss probably does, and is in a better position to do something about it for you.
- Look for a better job. Ultimately, you shouldn't spend 50% of your waking hours being annoyed. Maybe there are other aspects to your job that make you look forward to going in every day, but if my boss and coworkers didn't respect or care about my work, I'd be looking elsewhere.
Your rant makes for some decent entertainment fodder for the rest of us random Slashdotters, and maybe that's all you intended... but don't expect me to have much sympathy if you aren't working to change the things you're complaining about.
- Fits my theme, since I run KDE, and
- Manages to restrict itself to a sensible one window, with sub panels and panes that can be moved around within the window, or floated without losing focus on the other windows.
Can you tell what I didn't like about using The GIMP?You don't hear about Krita nearly as often as The GIMP (or, of course, Photoshop), but it seems to be a great alternative. I can't speak for graphics professionals (not being one myself), but it gets the job done for what I need to do. I look forward to this new version, and I hope development continues on this hidden gem of an image editor.
However, there's a problem with that for Debian: They need to have control over future security patches, so they can maintain their Stable distribution for a long time without having to wait on someone else who might or might not allow them to do any patching. Lets have a look-see on the very page you linked:
Nope, nothing about patching for security (or any other reason besides porting). By omission, it means you are *not* allowed to apply any unauthorized patches and still refer to it as Firefox, whether or not you use the "Community Edition" moniker. If I understand Debian's objection well enough, this is a deal-breaker for "Community Edition."
Oh, for the love of...
Editors, if you link a Wikipedia page from the summary, PLEASE link a historical revision. That way, whatever vandalism happens won't affect the link, and thus fewer people will be tempted to even vandalize at all.
Seriously, do the editors have any sense at all? It's not like this is a new problem.
I don't know if it counts as "villains," but in an episode of Firefly, the crew (easily) hacks into an automated garbage system that is clearly running Windows. I thought it was appropriate...
The theoretically correct sample size has almost nothing to do with the size of the population (unless the sample is extremely small, e.g. 100). 2,000 samples would give about the same statistical relevance for a population of 250,000, 250 million, 250 billion, or infinity. Yes, it is possible to have meaningful statistical predictions about an infinite population, assuming you can sample randomly from it.
At a sample size of 2,000, since they don't need anything like sub-penny accuracy, the limiting factor in their accuracy is no longer statistical theory. I haven't done the math, but I'm sure the 80 cent difference they quote is easily statistically significant with that many samples.
No, the real question is whether there is any systematic error resulting from their methodology in selecting those 2,000. The math assumes purely random (independent, unbiased) samples, but of course that's never possible in reality. Getting a larger sample using the same methods wouldn't change the correctness or incorrectness of the results.
My MythTV box records free over-the-air HDTV using tv guide information to let me do things like "record every episode of Family Guy, unless I have already recorded or watched that episode." Oh, and I do this in my living room with no keyboard or mouse (or any visible computer setup), but rather with a remote control. Any modern OS can do that? Certainly not out of the box. Of course you could install software on your modern OS that would do all that... but that would be MythTV.
In fact, since you already have yours hooked up to a TV, it's a perfect candidate for MythTV! Then you could add "live and recorded TV" to the list of things you can easily play. If you want to transcode your recordings automatically to save space (pegging your CPU at 100% periodically), you might want to get a separate box to do all the recording/storage and processing, and network it. Then your main computer could play TV shows just like it currently plays movies and mp3s.
If movies and music is all you're interested in playing, then MythTV isn't aimed at you. Doesn't make it useless.
Oh, and checking weather is quite a trivial feature, but again, it is something that I can't normally do while sitting on the living room couch with a remote in my hand.
Full quality 3kproject can be found here:
http://www.tm-forum.com/viewtopic.php?t=754
Let us know if you can find any of the others in non-flv formats. YouTube is the bane of anything resembling quality.
A link is presented, good sir, for your consumption:
http://www.tm-forum.com/viewtopic.php?t=754
Wait, I'm confused. An article critical of Sony that's NOT posted by Zonk? Wow, Sony might actually be in trouble!
Well obviously. He's a troll, so his counting system is "one, two, many, lots." ;)
(apologies to Terry Pratchett.)
Whoa, slow down there fella. Do you know the difference between civil and criminal court? You're mixing and matching teminology.
In civil court, the winner is the one with the "preponderance of evidence" on their side, because it's citizen v. citizen and one of them has to win. It's a very low (51%) threshold for victory. Although a judgment is rendered, the defendant is never said to be "guilty" or "convicted" of a crime regardless of the outcome.
In criminal court, the standard for proving guilt is "beyond a reasonable doubt," because it's government v. citizen and having our government punish an innocent citizen is considered the worst possible outcome. The evidence required in that case is WAY more than the civil 51%.
Now, if what you say about the bill is correct (and I read it the same way since it refers to everything as "civil" rather than "criminal"), it actually says the opposite of your interpretation. Since it only needs a preponderance of evidence, it can put people on the list who never would have been convicted of any crime, and never would have seen jail time as a result of any regular trial.
Since being put on the list amounts to government punishment, this is a vile end-run around the constitutionally guaranteed protections for all citizens.
RTFA. In fact, read the first question of TFA. How could that possibly be more work than posting your question and waiting for a reply?
It really didn't cross your mind that there's a meaningful distinction?
Government: I must pay for their censorship. I have no choice about whether I am affected by it: It applies to my actions taken with my (and others') private property.
Private Company: I choose whether to pay fo their censorship. I choose whether I am affected by it: It only applies on Nintendo's property (network).
No cognitive dissonance required. It is possible to disagree with the government forcing something, even if you think the end result is good for the typical person. For example: I think it is immoral to force someone to wear a seatbelt, so I disagree with seatbelt laws. I also think it is idiotic for anyone to not wear a seatbelt, and I express that opinion to anyone who rides in my car and doesn't buckle up. If a private bus company required passengers to use a seatbelt as a condition of riding, I would have no objection, because the bus is private property and I don't have to pay for it if I don't use it.
Thanks for the list. I don't know too many of the songs, but I'm sure they're awesome.
Drist had a song in the "indie/bonus" section of the first game (and quite a good one, imo). Does their presence in that list mean they have been upgraded to "regular song" status, or might that be just another bonus inclusion?
Also, will they be using Wavegroup for all the songs again, or will they have any original recordings?
I guess you missed all the comments modded to +4 funny that just had some silly variation on the title. Example: Airplane crashes off the end of a runway? The first comment will probably be "So much for Brakes on a Plane." Liquids banned on airline flights? "But what will the Snakes drink then?" Article about grasslands wildlife dying out? "Save the Snakes on the Plain!" etc.
As far as I can tell, the "hype" amount to jokes like that, along with image macros on sites like Fark or 4chan. You can see why nobody in their right mind would construe that to indicate an interest in actually seeing the movie...
You are completely correct that any literal use of the word "prove" was careless and arrogant. If you see it in my posts, try to mentally replace it with "provide strong evidencial support for." I'm aware that scientific laws are never proven, because unlike in Mathematics, we do not have a sufficient set of axioms to build up anything interesting. Proof is just a convenient shorthand that operates under the restricted space of "theories that are currently given any credibility." It is quite handy to use in everyday conversation, since not everyone cares (or even knows about) the distinctions of such words in technical contexts. (Witness criticism of the "theory" of evolution... but that's another story.)
By the way, this doesn't provide any evidence against MOND, except to make it less "necessary." It doesn't "debunk" anything. It only provides evidence for dark matter.
I don't know how you got modded down flamebait, and I would recommend any mods that come across this post consider modding the parent up. He has a very valid disagreement with my posts that needs to be heard.
They measured X-rays emitted by the clouds of highly energetic gas to determine the location of those clouds without actually measuring the effects of their gravity directly. They compared this result to a gravitational lensing analysis to determine the center of gravity.
Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but if the suggestion (that is being refuted) is that the gravititional force can vary in a localised area ...
I don't think that's the suggestion. At least, not the one made by MOND and most other theories of modified gravity. Instead, they modify the way ALL gravity works over long distances--not the way gravity works in SOME regions. Perhaps someone with a better understanding of current MOND proposals can elaborate, since I don't know the details.
You are correct that such a suggestion would not be ruled out by this observation, but there'd have to be another good reason for it, and we haven't seen one yet. Although there is acceptance of the idea that universal constants may not be identical through space and time, it would almost certainly not show up dramatically on such a small (intra-galactic) scale.
Whether or not you consider it a serious alternative, the researchers who wrote the paper clearly don't, which allows them to make their logical deduction.
Yes, they have ruled out "non-very-well-lit regular matter." As you surmised, "dark matter" doesn't mean that no light is coming from it. Technically it refers to everything that's not baryonic matter (aka "regular" matter -- the category that includes every particle we have ever directly observed, including neutrinos).
As I understand it, the way they did it in this case is by knowing the temperature of the galaxies. If there were regular matter causing the observed gravitation, it would be hot enough to give off some sort of radiation that could be picked up via telescope. They may also have measured how much light from behind is being absorbed. In addition, if it were regular matter that interacts with other regular matter, it probably would have followed a similar pattern to the gas clouds, which means the center of gravity would have stayed with the observable clouds rather than separating like it did. (They probably have more reasons why it can't be regular matter, but that's what I could come up with off the top of my head late at night.)
It doesn't rule out MOND, but it rules in dark matter. All they found was something that MOND alone can never explain.
As a sibling post mentioned, the MOND faction hasn't denied dark matter anyway.
I know your post was somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but it was modded interesting, so others are probably wondering the same thing. Lets play the analogy game first...
We know musical talent must come from either training or predisposition. We assume there are no other factors, because those two cover the reasonable possibilities. Consider this logical statement then: John Doe has no musical training, yet he is very skilled. John's musical skill cannot be explained by training, and thus proves that there exists some sort of predisposition to musical talent. It doesn't tell us (e.g.) whether it's genetic or not, but knowing for sure that it's there helps us refine our further studies.
Now the real version. There is "more" gravity than we can account for with the combination of Baryonic (regular) matter and Einstein's theories of gravity. A LOT more. There are only two possibilities: Gravity gets stronger under certain conditions (regular matter pulls harder), or something "unseen" is pulling. Of course, both could be true, but at least one of them MUST be true to match observations. We assume there are no other explanations, because those two are broad enough to cover the entire range of reasonable possibilities.
This experiment showed that the center of gravity of certain galaxies doesn't correspond to the center of the regular matter. In other words, the galaxy's gravity is pulling in a different direction than the normal matter would indicate. "[This] cannot be explained with an alteration of the gravitational force law, and thus proves that the majority of the matter in the system is unseen."