Are you DARING to imply that Sony is the one to blame for your obviously faulty internet connection? Please place your hands in the yellow circles, citizen...
I got a Wii sitting in my closet. I bought it cheap from a friend who had it sitting in *his* closet. It was fun for a while (for both of us), but the novelty wore off and the great games were few and far between. I'd say at least 90% of the games that have come for the Wii out were minigame shovelware titles (and that's being generous). the controller is fun in groups and at parties. But it's underpowered and the games just aren't there.
A got a bunch of those too. Some of them asked me to click on links and give them my username and password too, so they could scan my system and make sure I was okay. I did this immediately of course, as I value my personal security greatly.
On an related note, has anyone else noticed that Bank of America has relocated to Russia? Kind of ironic, don't you think? And they really needed to do better proofreading on their website.
You don't have to outright falsify data to cook it. You can just *interpret* it in such a way as to support your hypothesis, while still leaving yourself enough wiggle room to back off if someone else challenges it. If worse comes to worse, you just claim faulty equipment, a flawed test, or a faulty sample. It's not like anyone can prove you were intentionally fraudulent (unless you're dumb enough to openly admit it to someone).
This is even easier to do in gray areas where conclusive testing is impossible, or requires a lot of interpretation. And it happens all the time, particularly when large grants or tenure is on the line.
Don't kid yourself, "hard" science is not nearly as hard as we pretend.
It's was that way for a few weeks (and that was annoying enough), but now I can't right-click anything even with the threads expanded, or click on links. As I said, I really wish they would just stop fucking with the code. I think maybe Slashdot has a programmer onboard who constantly feels the need to justify his job by fucking with things that aren't broke (and breaking them in the process).
Don't bother telling them. People who think we'll be journeying to other star systems and colonizing them someday really have no appreciation of just how vast and empty space is. When I was a kid my ignorant teachers used to teach us that the next solar system was just beyond our own, and that one day we would be going there (along with cities on the moon, etc.). When I got older and began to learn from non-moronic sources, I realized just how silly that really was. Our fastest probes today take some 9 years just to reach Pluto. At that rate, it would take that same probe 120,000 years to reach even the nearest solar system--a mere 4.2 light years away.
And you're right, even if we were to come up with some incredible propulsion breakthroughs, it still wouldn't help all that much. If Einstein was right, near light speed is as good as it gets. And that would still make all but our closest galactic neighbors practically inaccessible.
For all practical purposes, we are alone--and will continue to be. But the dreamers don't want to hear that, of course.
Hush, you fool! Everyone here thinks that academic science is completely apolitical and that no scientist would ever dare cook the numbers or exaggerate in an effort to grant-whore.
Incidentally, am I the only one having problems today clicking on links on Slashdot (and even right-clicking anything)? They keep fucking with the code on these pages, and every day there seems to be some new pain in the ass to deal with. If it ain't broke, Slashdot seems determined to fuck with it until it is.
I have never once seen them act with such arrogance. A mainstay of the show almost from the beginning has been their follow-up shows and their general willingness to not only tolerate, but openly encourage, their critics. I have rarely seen any real world scientists that were as quick to admit their mistakes and reverse their conclusions as Jaime and Adam. In fact, they seem to take a kind of joy in being proven wrong (or when they initial hypothesis is wrong, and the experiment surprises them).
It's sad that the Mythbusters ratings rank FAR behind shows like "16 and Pregnant" and "American Idol." Can you imagine a world where this were reversed?
In virtually every experiment I've seen, they're eyeballing where the light is being reflected
Yes, just as the soldiers in ancient Greece would have done. Part of the criteria of that experiment that they made clear from the get-go was that it had to work in the real world, using materials and resources available to Archimedes, and be executed in a realistic fashion. They've had two follow-up episodes now where they've given critics a chance to prove themselves (including the MIT students who so ardently claimed they could do it) and none have been able to replicate this supposed accomplishment in anything resembling real world conditions.
People hold on to the Archimedes myth because they WANT to believe it, not because it really happened. That's exactly the kind of quasi-religious belief that REAL scientists are supposed to question, not accept blindly (as so many Mythbusters critics seem to).
I think that would be a more appropriate question for all the "They're not REAL scientists" critics, since they seem to have such a handle on what a REAL scientist is. I can only presume they mean a person with a Ph.D. in a classical science field (chemistry, biology, etc.) actively working in their field.
That's a bold proclamation for someone who offers no countervailing experiments of his own. From what I've seen, *most* of the time the questions they answer are pretty straightforward. "Can you build a lead balloon?" Why yes, you can (which they demonstrated by actually doing it--pretty compelling evidence methinks). And, what's more, they have consistently shown themselves to be open to criticism (as I said in another post, way more open than many "real" scientists I've known). Some of their follow-up episodes are legendary (such was when they invited a group of critical MIT students out in an attempt to recreate Archimedes' legendary "death ray"), and many have resulted in reversals of their original conclusions.
So, why don't you enlighten us with some specifics to back up your blanket generalizations? Or were you just reflexively talking out of your ass?
Yes, and they frequently do follow-up shows when people dispute their results (some of which have resulted in them reversing their initial conclusions). They're way more open to criticism than many of the "real" scientists I've known.
These always seem to pop up on any Mythbusters thread. No, they're not scientists. They're not pretending to be scientists. And nope, they don't have time to spend years with a research team adjusting for every variable in every experiment in some carefully controlled lab somewhere.
What they *are* are very knowledgeable laymen, applying basic scientific methodology to fairly straight-foward questions in an entertaining fashion. They bring the basics of scientific testing to the masses. They teach concepts such as skepticism and empiricism to a population that too often relies on hearsay and superstition in their beliefs about the physical world.
No, they're not scientists. But that doesn't mean they have nothing to teach or that there is no value in their experiments. As the Wright Brothers and Thomas Edison could probably attest, sometimes even a layman has insight to offer.
Excuse me, but I'm an NBC executive and was wondering if you might be interested in having your "Fish Jail" idea developed into a sitcom for our Thursday night lineup. Please...we're desperate...call me.
Slashdot Mirror
At least MS isn't kicking down my door for modding my Xbox.
Are you DARING to imply that Sony is the one to blame for your obviously faulty internet connection? Please place your hands in the yellow circles, citizen...
I got a Wii sitting in my closet. I bought it cheap from a friend who had it sitting in *his* closet. It was fun for a while (for both of us), but the novelty wore off and the great games were few and far between. I'd say at least 90% of the games that have come for the Wii out were minigame shovelware titles (and that's being generous). the controller is fun in groups and at parties. But it's underpowered and the games just aren't there.
A got a bunch of those too. Some of them asked me to click on links and give them my username and password too, so they could scan my system and make sure I was okay. I did this immediately of course, as I value my personal security greatly.
On an related note, has anyone else noticed that Bank of America has relocated to Russia? Kind of ironic, don't you think? And they really needed to do better proofreading on their website.
Maybe someone from the future is trying to sink the island before they start turning out robot armies.
You don't have to outright falsify data to cook it. You can just *interpret* it in such a way as to support your hypothesis, while still leaving yourself enough wiggle room to back off if someone else challenges it. If worse comes to worse, you just claim faulty equipment, a flawed test, or a faulty sample. It's not like anyone can prove you were intentionally fraudulent (unless you're dumb enough to openly admit it to someone).
This is even easier to do in gray areas where conclusive testing is impossible, or requires a lot of interpretation. And it happens all the time, particularly when large grants or tenure is on the line.
Don't kid yourself, "hard" science is not nearly as hard as we pretend.
And that Cairo, Illinois is pronounced "Kay-ro" (like the syrup).
there could be an outbreak going on right now at the CSU campus.
They're used to it.
It's was that way for a few weeks (and that was annoying enough), but now I can't right-click anything even with the threads expanded, or click on links. As I said, I really wish they would just stop fucking with the code. I think maybe Slashdot has a programmer onboard who constantly feels the need to justify his job by fucking with things that aren't broke (and breaking them in the process).
even the nearest star is 4 years + away.
Don't bother telling them. People who think we'll be journeying to other star systems and colonizing them someday really have no appreciation of just how vast and empty space is. When I was a kid my ignorant teachers used to teach us that the next solar system was just beyond our own, and that one day we would be going there (along with cities on the moon, etc.). When I got older and began to learn from non-moronic sources, I realized just how silly that really was. Our fastest probes today take some 9 years just to reach Pluto. At that rate, it would take that same probe 120,000 years to reach even the nearest solar system--a mere 4.2 light years away.
And you're right, even if we were to come up with some incredible propulsion breakthroughs, it still wouldn't help all that much. If Einstein was right, near light speed is as good as it gets. And that would still make all but our closest galactic neighbors practically inaccessible.
For all practical purposes, we are alone--and will continue to be. But the dreamers don't want to hear that, of course.
Hush, you fool! Everyone here thinks that academic science is completely apolitical and that no scientist would ever dare cook the numbers or exaggerate in an effort to grant-whore.
Incidentally, am I the only one having problems today clicking on links on Slashdot (and even right-clicking anything)? They keep fucking with the code on these pages, and every day there seems to be some new pain in the ass to deal with. If it ain't broke, Slashdot seems determined to fuck with it until it is.
Because if it were seconds or even minutes, those nearby workers would probably all be long dead by now. And I doubt they mean per day.
"Yet Another Company Sells Retro Computer Case"
I have never once seen them act with such arrogance. A mainstay of the show almost from the beginning has been their follow-up shows and their general willingness to not only tolerate, but openly encourage, their critics. I have rarely seen any real world scientists that were as quick to admit their mistakes and reverse their conclusions as Jaime and Adam. In fact, they seem to take a kind of joy in being proven wrong (or when they initial hypothesis is wrong, and the experiment surprises them).
It's sad that the Mythbusters ratings rank FAR behind shows like "16 and Pregnant" and "American Idol." Can you imagine a world where this were reversed?
Actually, the burden of proof is on the person who asserts that something DOES work--not the other way around.
In virtually every experiment I've seen, they're eyeballing where the light is being reflected
Yes, just as the soldiers in ancient Greece would have done. Part of the criteria of that experiment that they made clear from the get-go was that it had to work in the real world, using materials and resources available to Archimedes, and be executed in a realistic fashion. They've had two follow-up episodes now where they've given critics a chance to prove themselves (including the MIT students who so ardently claimed they could do it) and none have been able to replicate this supposed accomplishment in anything resembling real world conditions.
People hold on to the Archimedes myth because they WANT to believe it, not because it really happened. That's exactly the kind of quasi-religious belief that REAL scientists are supposed to question, not accept blindly (as so many Mythbusters critics seem to).
I think that would be a more appropriate question for all the "They're not REAL scientists" critics, since they seem to have such a handle on what a REAL scientist is. I can only presume they mean a person with a Ph.D. in a classical science field (chemistry, biology, etc.) actively working in their field.
most of the time their results are wrong
That's a bold proclamation for someone who offers no countervailing experiments of his own. From what I've seen, *most* of the time the questions they answer are pretty straightforward. "Can you build a lead balloon?" Why yes, you can (which they demonstrated by actually doing it--pretty compelling evidence methinks). And, what's more, they have consistently shown themselves to be open to criticism (as I said in another post, way more open than many "real" scientists I've known). Some of their follow-up episodes are legendary (such was when they invited a group of critical MIT students out in an attempt to recreate Archimedes' legendary "death ray"), and many have resulted in reversals of their original conclusions.
So, why don't you enlighten us with some specifics to back up your blanket generalizations? Or were you just reflexively talking out of your ass?
Yes, and they frequently do follow-up shows when people dispute their results (some of which have resulted in them reversing their initial conclusions). They're way more open to criticism than many of the "real" scientists I've known.
These always seem to pop up on any Mythbusters thread. No, they're not scientists. They're not pretending to be scientists. And nope, they don't have time to spend years with a research team adjusting for every variable in every experiment in some carefully controlled lab somewhere.
What they *are* are very knowledgeable laymen, applying basic scientific methodology to fairly straight-foward questions in an entertaining fashion. They bring the basics of scientific testing to the masses. They teach concepts such as skepticism and empiricism to a population that too often relies on hearsay and superstition in their beliefs about the physical world.
No, they're not scientists. But that doesn't mean they have nothing to teach or that there is no value in their experiments. As the Wright Brothers and Thomas Edison could probably attest, sometimes even a layman has insight to offer.
radiation levels in Australia have fallen
Oh man, I wish I had known this before I invested heavily in dune buggies and shoulderpads.
Excuse me, but I'm an NBC executive and was wondering if you might be interested in having your "Fish Jail" idea developed into a sitcom for our Thursday night lineup. Please...we're desperate...call me.
I assumed they meant per hour.