Scientific American Gives Up 523
IvyMike writes "The April issue Scientific American opens with a Perspectives column titled Okay, We Give Up. It opens, 'For years, helpful letter writers told us to stick to science. They pointed out that science and politics don't mix. They said we should be more balanced in our presentation of such issues as creationism, missile defense and global warming. We resisted their advice and pretended not to be stung by the accusations that the magazine should be renamed Unscientific American, or Scientific Unamerican, or even Unscientific Unamerican. But spring is in the air, and all of nature is turning over a new leaf, so there's no better time to say: you were right, and we were wrong.'"
Nice. (Score:5, Funny)
How American.
Re:Nice. (Score:5, Informative)
Okay, We Give Up
From the April 2005 Issue of Scientific American.
Who said scientists had no sense' of humor?
There's no easy way to admit this. For years, helpful letter writers told us to stick to science. They pointed out that science and politics don't mix. They said we should be more balanced in our presentation of such issues as creationism, missile defense and global warming. We resisted their advice and pretended not to be stung by the accusations that the magazine should be renamed Unscientific American, or Scientific Unamerican, or even Unscientific Unamerican. But spring is in the air, and all of nature is turning over a new leaf, so there's no better time to say: you were right, and we were wrong.
In retrospect, this magazine's coverage of socalled evolution has been hideously one-sided. For decades, we published articles in every issue that endorsed the ideas of Charles Darwin and his cronies. True, the theory of common descent through natural selection has been called the unifying concept for all of biology and one of the greatest scientific ideas of all time, but that was no excuse to be fanatics about it.
Where were the answering articles presenting the powerful case for scientific creationism? Why were we so unwilling to suggest that dinosaurs lived 6,000 years ago or that a cataclysmic flood carved the Grand Canyon? Blame the scientists. They dazzled us with their fancy fossils, their radiocarbon dating and their tens of thousands of peer-reviewed journal articles. As editors, we had no business being persuaded by mountains of evidence.
Moreover, we shamefully mistreated the Intelligent Design (ID) theorists by lumping them in with creationists. Creationists believe that God designed all life, and that's a somewhat religious idea. But ID theorists think that at unspecified times some unnamed superpowerful entity designed life, or maybe just some species, or maybe just some of the stuff in cells. That's what makes ID a superior scientific theory: it doesn't get bogged down in details.
Good journalism values balance above all else. We owe it to our readers to present everybody's ideas equally and not to ignore or discredit theories simply because they lack scientifically credible arguments or facts. Nor should we succumb to the easy mistake of thinking that scientists understand their fields better than, say, U.S. senators or best-selling novelists do. Indeed, if politicians or special-interest groups say things that seem untrue or misleading, our duty as journalists is to quote them without comment or contradiction. To do otherwise would be elitist and therefore wrong. In that spirit, we will end the practice of expressing our own views in this space: an editorial page is no place for opinions.
Get ready for a new Scientific American. No more discussions of how science should inform policy. If the government commits blindly to building an anti-ICBM defense system that can't work as promised, that will waste tens of billions of taxpayers' dollars and imperil national security, you won't hear about it from us. If studies suggest that the administration's antipollution measures would actually increase the dangerous particulates that people breathe during the next two decades, that's not our concern. No more discussions of how policies affect science either so what if the budget for the National Science Foundation is slashed? This magazine will be dedicated purely to science, fair and balanced science, and not just the science that scientists say is science. And it will start on April Fools' Day.
Okay, We Give Up
MATT COLLINS
THE EDITORS editors@sciam.com
COPYRIGHT 2005 SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, INC.
--
NoVa Underground: Where Northern Virginia comes out to play [novaunderground.com]
Re:Nice. (Score:3, Insightful)
Convenient.
And then throw in the editorializing in the last paragraph? No, they haven't politicized their stance at all, and anyone who'd suggest so must be one of those slope-browed Creationist religious crazies!
Personally, I think that they could have a terrific series of articles
Re:Nice. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Okay, We Give Up (Score:5, Interesting)
In the other direction you have Discover (which continues to move south). It is even cheaper a year then SciAm. I think it is only a matter of time before G4 buys them and merges game content into the already fluffy content.
Science News (Score:5, Informative)
But more importantly, the science reporting is a lot better. They usually report from the original journal articles in peer-reviewed journals, or from scientific conferences. When a science story comes out in the news I scan it but I don't believe it until it comes out in Science News. They don't just rewrite press releases (like most newspapers) and they certainly don't take the Wired approach of presenting scientific advances as being available at Target any day now.
Each issue contains two long-format articles that do run closer to the Scientific American model, which I think of as being more forward-looking than actual news. Sometimes they'll use them to examine one reasonably-current topic (like DNA testing) in depth, presenting an overview of the field and where the next likely advances are coming. Not blue-sky stuff, but reporting on the state of scientific research.
But the most important thing about Science News for me is that it's a weekly look at real science conducted by scientists, written for technically-minded laymen. The articles are usually around a half-page, containing a summary of the research. It's where the real work in science gets done. Waiting for it to come out in Scientific American is often months, which is dull for the kind of everyday advances made by scientists who do work (as opposed to the people who wonder if it means we're going to have time travel).
I read both SciAm and Science News, but the latter I read almost immediately whereas the former I scan and maybe get back to later.
Re:Science News (Score:5, Informative)
It's a weekly magazine, with about 72 pages in each issue. It costs 51$ for a US subscription, they also deliver in the UK and Canada.
I get New Scientist and Scientific American. But I prefer New Scientist and will probably not be renewing my Scientific American subscription. The reason is Scientific American will devote an entire monthly issue to a single "theme". If you don't like that theme - for example, if your just not interested in Geology and the theme is on that subject, then there is nothing to read in that issue of Scientific American that is interesting.
New Scientist on the other hand, is a random sampling of "what's new" in science. For example, I'm holding the March 26th issue in my hands, and there are articles on Robotics, Liquid Intelligence, Drugs and Schizophrenia, US flu vaccines, and Zombie PCs. And other stories. There are advertisments, but not as much as in Scientific American. There's also a "hot jobs" section for employers to advertise in. I especially like the last page, which is called The Last Word, in which readers submit science oriented questions and they get answered by experts.
It's perfect bathroom reading, as the articles are short, interesting, and vary.
I hate to, but, Me too! (Score:4, Informative)
Further, I think the writing is great. To parrot the parent a little. It's more accessible (i.e., they define terms, provide simple explication). You don't have to be as geeky as this crowd to still get the full effect of each piece, so your kids might get something out of it too. I'm no materials engineer, but found the long-form article on advances in cement interesting and informative (for example: translucent cement?!).
I don't want to get in a price argument (I don't love it because it's cheap), so I'm going with value. I'd say for the value it wins out over Nature, or SciAm, maybe even Smithsonian. If you don't have the ~$300 a year it would take you to subscribe to all four (just about anyone can get the 'pro' rate for Nature at $130/yr) and could only get just one, I would encourage Science News. If nothing else, it's a good overview of the weeks interesting stuff, and since they cite the other journals you can head off to the library if you need more info than they provide.
Re:Nice. (Score:4, Funny)
Boy Howdy (Score:2, Insightful)
What's good about living on the west coast? (Score:2, Funny)
Ain't it great?
Re:What's good about living on the west coast? (Score:2)
Re:Boy Howdy (Score:2)
Re:Boy Howdy (Score:3, Insightful)
What, you can't go a day without Slashdot? 364 days a year isn't quite enough?
Now that's laziness (Score:5, Funny)
6 April fools jokes in a row makes this... (Score:3, Funny)
unfunny
DUPRt (Score:2, Funny)
Re:DUPRt (Score:2)
Seriously though, language like that can work. For a Being who isn't bounded by time, all of eternity is an ever-present "now". So from His perspective, He can talk about Rome any way He pleases. :)
I think it's also funny in the context that the whole universe was created in 6 days -- overall, it struck me as funny, and not too sacreligious.
Thankyou for making me overanalyze a good sig. :-P
Slashdot links to the first 2 paragraphs?! (Score:2)
Scientific Unamerican? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Scientific Unamerican? (Score:2)
Re:Scientific Unamerican? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Scientific Unamerican? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Scientific Unamerican? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Scientific Unamerican? (Score:2, Insightful)
Paris (Score:5, Funny)
alternate link (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/editorial
Re:alternate link (Score:2)
Like this... [google.com]
Giggles. (Score:5, Funny)
*Parts of this statement may be false.
Re:Giggles. (Score:2, Insightful)
BLAH.
Re:Giggles. (Score:3, Insightful)
Faith is the belief in continued performance based upon past experience. Not a blind belief. Though, I will grant, many make it to be that way.
Re:Giggles. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Giggles. (Score:3, Insightful)
complete confidence in a person or plan etc; "he cherished the faith of a good woman";
Care to continue to argue? Or do you already have "faith" in your argument?
Re:Giggles. (Score:4, Insightful)
faith Audio pronunciation of "faith" ( P )
Pronunciation Key (fth)
n.
1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.
I am referring to #2. You are referring to #1.
Re:Giggles. (Score:3, Informative)
Take Acts 17:31 (NASB), where the word for "faith" is translated as "proof".
Or take Romans 3:3, where a reference is made to the "pistis" of God, translated "faithfulness".
Re:Giggles. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Giggles. (Score:3, Insightful)
Thumper: "The Bible says 'this'."
Rational: "That doesn't mean anything."
Thumper: "But the Bible says 'that'."
Rational: "But that doesn't mean anything."
Thumper: "But the Bible says that it does mean something."
Rational: "But it's the _Bible_ that says that the Bible means something... that doesn't mean anything."
Thumper: "But the Bible says 'this'...."
Re:Giggles. (Score:2)
Scientific theory is fine, but lets try show both sides of the argument shall we? Or is that too politically incorrect for today's world where minorities must be given extra opportunities and white christian men cannot call racist, sectist or sexist?
I'm all in favour of equality, just make sure it works both ways. I'm not seeking to disagree with your post, you ma
Re:Giggles. (Score:4, Insightful)
If creationist feel left out of the science classroom it is because they are. There has never been anything out of the creationist camp that resembles science. I have yet to be shown anything other then criticisms of evolution, which shows that evolution is actually better tested and proves nothing of spontaneous generation.
If beating the drum of political correctness seems to be a good way to win over rational minds you don't understand your audience. If you think it is unfair that theology does not get taught in science class then think of the converse. Maybe all churches should be forced to have science curricula read after the sermon with a notice in the bibles that "The contents of this book have in no way been substantiated and has not been edited to correct obvious mistakes".
Re:Giggles. (Score:3, Informative)
Ah, but this has been accounted for.
As you state, part of the problem with convincing people that evolution works is that it takes literal generations to effect change in a species. Given that most of the animals and plants we deal with on a regular basis have lifespans that are signifigant fractions of the
Re:Giggles. (Score:3, Informative)
Both perspectives are not on equal footing. No amount of hand waving, appeals to fairness or brain washing is going to change the fact that creationism is a myth. Ignore it all you want but the facts that brought evolution into the same scientific esteem as general relativity.
If you unde
Re:Giggles. (Score:2)
not to nitpick.
Re:Giggles. (Score:3, Insightful)
If it's not, then I have been trolled. Have a nice day.
There is no fossil evidence in conflict with the Theory of Evolution. If you think there is, please cite it. If it hasn't been published, write it up. If you can make a case, you'll be hailed as one of the innovators of science.
Two points do not _make_ a line. They _define_ a line in Euclidean Geometry.
People presumded that space was filled with "aether" because the then-current
Sponsorship (Score:2, Insightful)
_
free cursors [paware.com]
Scientific Amercian Gives Up (Score:4, Funny)
Aprol fools? Why not? (Score:2)
Slashdot should stop screwing around with lame April Fools pranks and just swap the home page with a copy of Last Measure. Everything else is just screwing around...and the Last Measure thing would really get everyone ;)
Sure it's a joke... (Score:3, Insightful)
I have no truck with people believing there's some grey-haired grandfather in the sky that remembers everyone's birthday, but please, keep it out of our schools, and off of our laws.
Re:Sure it's a joke... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Sure it's a joke... (Score:2)
Re:Sure it's a joke... (Score:2)
Logically speaking, I don't think something that is "faith-based" can be considered "true," since for most logical contructs, something that is "true" is true because it can be proven to be true. The absence of proof - the unconditional acceptance of an idea's validity without objective proof - is the very essence of faith.
Re:Sure it's a joke... (Score:2)
Re:Sure it's a joke... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Sure it's a joke... (Score:4, Funny)
We need to fix our educational system by covering all of these types of topics equally as well:
P.S. It's turtles all the way down.
Re:Sure it's a joke... (Score:5, Insightful)
Because all the theory of "Intelligent Design" says, is, "since I don't understand how this could have evolved, it must have be designed, not evolved." For at least two hundred years, the "perfection" of the eye was given as evidence of design, until computer models should how easy it is for eyes to evolve, and molecular biology showed us eyes have separately evolved at least forty times.
Now the "Intelligent Design" proponents having had the eye explained, talk about freely rotating flagella in certain bacteria. They hang their "theory" in the contention that since "half a rotation" isn't useful, organisms with "half a rotation" could not have ben favored by evolution, and so a freely rotating flagellum could not evolve. But it turns out several of the components of that wheel are the same as components of a "needle" used by parasitic bacteria to inject chemicals into host cells, a so-called Type Three Secretory Apparatus.
All "Intelligent Design" is not a useful theory, in the sense that science uses the word "theory", because all it is able to do is say "I can't figure this out". It has no explanatory or predictive power.
Compare the "theory" of Intelligent Design to Boyle's law: a physicist on being told about changing temperature in a room full of some gas, knows there's a relation between temperature and pressure because Boyle's law predicts it. The physicist doesn't have to go to the room himself, or ask what mechanism is responsible for the temperature change, or in what direction the temperature is changing, or really even what kind of gas in the room -- the physicist can with confidence predict that pressure and temperature are dependent on one another.
It's not just that evolution is consistent with what we know, it's also consistent with what we don't know.
It has predictive and explanatory power: using evolution, we are able to say, "assuming evolution is correct, we ought to see this", and then when we do look, we see what evolution predicts.
We say, evolution tells us that meiosis helps to keep each paired chromosome like its opposite pair, because genes are exchanged in meiosis. Because meiosis only takes place in sexual reproduction, this allows us to predict that in asexual reproduction, paired chromosomes will diverge. when we look at bdelloid rotifers, we see what was predicted: their chromosomes do diverge, and we can even compare the chromosome divergence between pairs against the to the total mutational change in the entire bdelloid rotifer genome, to come up with a good idea of how long bdelloid rotifers have been reproducing asexually: abut 80 million years.
We say, evolution predicts that, since workers bees born to a queen with only one mate share more genes, on average, with their haploid nephews -- that is, males born to other workers -- than with their diploid brothers born to the queen, the workers will favor their nephews. And the prediction turns out to be true. We can also predict, using Trivers' work, that if the queen mated with more than one male, a nephew isn't necessarily more related, so the workers in that case won't favor nephews. And that also turns out to be true. (Bee examples from here [metafilter.com]).
Note that in the bee example, we don't know what mechanism allows a worker to "know" how many mates her mother the queen has had, or the mechanism that, given that "knowledge" allows the worker to modify her behavior. We just know that the worker behaves "as if" she understood the genetic math involved, and knew the mating history. Of course, bees don't do genetics or math and probably don't even remember matings -- but we don't need to see the mechanism to predict that it and the behavior must be there: evolutionary theory predicted that bees would act like "as if" geneticis
Re:Sure it's a joke... (Score:3, Funny)
Full text (Score:2, Informative)
Okay, We Give Up
There's no easy way to admit this. For years, helpful letter writers told us to stick to science. They pointed out that science and politics don't mix. They said we should be more balanced in our presentation of such issues as creationism, missile defense and global warming. We resisted their advice and pretended not to be stung by the accusations that the magazine should be renamed Unscientific American, or Scientific Unamerican, or even Unscientific Unamerican. But spring is in the air
OMG (Score:5, Funny)
Re:OMG (Score:2)
There's already the Christian Science Monitor [csmonitor.com], but it appears to take a more balanced, secular approach to journalism. How dare it!
As for Scientific American, it'll probably be July or August before I get round to reading this April edition as a UK subscriber. Okay, maybe not quite that long, but the issues do seem to take the slow boat across the Atlantic...
Best Line in the article: (Score:5, Funny)
I laughed out loud, even though I'm alone in the room. No joke.
Dratted FDR (Score:2)
Damn FDR and his secret WPA project that had young men bury thousands of fake dino skeletons all over the country.
It's nice to finally see some... (Score:3, Funny)
The tragic irony is... (Score:4, Insightful)
Creationism, Environment, etc. (Score:5, Insightful)
With creationism snaking its way into science curriculums and environmental issues (e.g., global warming, ocean dead zones, etc.) being pretty much ignored in the good old USA, it's as good a time as any for scientists to say "aw, fuck it!"
Re:Creationism, Environment, etc. (Score:3, Funny)
Cure for blindess.. well.. we got one.. but we needed to borrow a few stem cells.. so you wont be wanting that one huh ?
CD players.. oops.. LASERS.. sorry.. based on theories (and remember.. they're only *theories*, right) which don't seem to involve God in the creation and maintenance of the universe.. so we'll have that back
Re:Creationism, Environment, etc. (Score:2)
Re:Creationism, Environment, etc. (Score:3, Insightful)
In fact a *real* faith doesn't need to reject anything... because if you truly believe something to be true you're not afraid of real world observations. A faith that can only hold up by rejecting most of modern science is no faith at all... it's just blind belief.
This appears
Re:Creationism, Environment, etc. (Score:3, Interesting)
Oh, I'm not trying to, which is why I said "religious fanatics," not "religious believers." Most of the faithful I know are perfectly sane people; but as SmallOak pointed out, here in the US, it's the far-right fanatics who shout the loudest, and they've been frighteningly successful in co-opting "faith" as a code word for their brand of extremism. Given that we are and will almost certain
Re:Creationism, Environment, etc. (Score:2)
If you don't believe God uses lasers, you haven't seen "Xanadu". Oops, nevermind. Those were different gods.
"You keep the chickens.. we'll go with the Alligators.. apparently they turn into chickens anyway if you leave them long enough."
I hate to be technical, but shit, this is SlashDot. Current thought is that birds grew out of dinosaurs and the one thing they all had in common wa
Go tell the Kansians (Score:3, Informative)
Most creationists I meet would not consider you one of them. Actually they would probably consider your view worst than the "communist atheistic evolutionism", because you have a chance of being heard by their "herd".
Re:Creationism, Environment, etc. (Score:5, Insightful)
"Students should be presented with both sides."
I love the "Both sides" thing when I hear it. It makes me wonder why don't we teach the Greek or Shinto or World or Warcraft creation myths in science too...
NOOBS! (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not ment to be funny! It's a day where just random joke articles are posted, if you don't like it go read a book. It's a giggle once a year, the "it's not funny" feeling you get after 4 of them is all part of it.
Unscientific Unamerican (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Unscientific Unamerican (Score:5, Insightful)
If you critisise them for `not sticking to science' then you deserve to be called an idiot, as they rightly say it's impossible to isolate science from the social context in which it happens. Eg. if you don't know what is being funded, you can't know whether it's significant that there are a lot of results in some area recently; if you don't see reports of scientists being pressured by the state top change their results, how will you know what weight to put on those results?
Re:Unscientific Unamerican (Score:5, Informative)
Quite impressive that some people still believe that buffoon Lomborg. Here is the usual website by Kåre Fog [lomborg-errors.dk], with all the errors (pretty word for "lies") of Lomborg exposed.
This example [lomborg-errors.dk] is quite nice: in order to demonstrate that forest area is not only stable, but even increasing, in spite of all deforestation environmentalist litany along about, Lomborg has used statistics taken from a time when countries were still joining the FAO - as a result, looking at his data, all the Borneo forest appears from nothing in 1961. Never mind that FAO (Lomborg's source) published a corrected data set, that clearly shows the decline, before Lomborg's book in English edition.
As a side note: I have not seen that many articles by Lomborg in the scientific literature. In fact, according to his own website [lomborg.com], he's published one peer-reviewed article only once, and not about environment (and I did not personally check whether it exists really, it would not be the first time the guy lies). A scientist who tries to dodge peer review by printing books instead of submitting articles is most likely just a charlatan and a snake-oil salesman. The Skeptical Environmentalist can quietly join cold fusion in the drawer of junk science.
First Day of April....Here go! (Score:2)
Which web site be the one to verify this right away?
Slashdot!!
I gues I should give Fark.com it's due too.
Political Bias (Score:3, Insightful)
This makes me dislike them more (Score:5, Insightful)
I stopped subscribing when they started featuring stories on removing lanmines from southeast asia. The story was nothing but politics, I didn't learn a bit of science from it.
When they get back on track reporting quantum physics, biology, even economics and sociology, maybe I'll read it again. But when they're choosing ENTIRE TOPICS based on their politics, count me out.
Union of Concerned Scientists (Score:5, Insightful)
Ever since the 1980's, the Union of Concerned Scientists, which includes many many professors of physics, materials science, and who have done defense-related research, wrote an open letter to Reagan saying his ICBM Shield is unworkable and a waste of taxpayer money. Nothing has changed since; Bush is still funding billions every year into a project that's scientifically unfeasable. The reason there's been so much of a campaign again the current administration by scientists is plain and simple - the Bush administration is one of the most openly hostile to science administrations there are:
1. Dismissing published/peer-reviewed AIDS studies and promoting people who then teach kids that AIDS might be transmittable through sweat and tears. REVERSING decades of improvements in the Uganda AIDS situation by promoting abstience only education - the UN has issued a strong protest against this as it threatens the lives of millions in the country.
2. Promoting people to the EPA that have no scientific background and were working in the very industries they're supposed to regulate. Repeatedly ignoring global warming studies despite almost unanimous agreement among scientists; care to point to legimate sources that say there're other reasons?
Nice to see they didn't waste an opportunity (Score:5, Insightful)
They wanted to lash out at the source of their frustration, but in a way that didn't imperil their status as a reputable (well that's debatable) publication. So they choose the one day of the year when people can go nuts and say what they really mean, and then throw up their hands and say April Fools!
Our society is like a toned-down of Japan in this way, we have a built in release valve for venting our frustration at being bound by certain rules and regulations most of the time. *fwooot*
I was steaming (Score:2)
And then I got to the point where I realised that it was a joke. To my defense I did get it before the last line which did refer to April Fools day.
It actually gave me a chuckle then.
There is no GOD. (Score:2, Insightful)
Intelligent design is the best April Fools joke placed on us by our culture.
Michael Crichton Ripped Them A New One (Score:5, Insightful)
"Worst of all was the behavior of the Scientific American, which seemed intent on proving the post-modernist point that it was all about power, not facts. The Scientific American attacked Lomborg for eleven pages, yet only came up with nine factual errors despite their assertion that the book was "rife with careless mistakes." It was a poor display featuring vicious ad hominem attacks, including comparing him to a Holocust denier. The issue was captioned: "Science defends itself against the Skeptical Environmentalist." Really. Science has to defend itself? Is this what we have come to?"
Re:Michael Crichton Ripped Them A New One (Score:4, Informative)
You really ought to read David Brin's thoughts [blogspot.com] on Crichton's lecture. Or, if one novelist berating another isn't good enough for you, go read up on what Jared Diamond has to say [salon.com] about him.
Personally, I don't have a whole lot of respect for Crichton's "science", and would give more credibility to anything I read in SciAm than anything he ever said.
noah
Re:Michael Crichton Ripped Them A New One (Score:3, Insightful)
Keep in mind that Brin is an actual scientist turned writer whereas Crichton is a doctor turned writer.
Now I'm not saying that there arn't doctors who are scientists however there has never been anything in Crichton's bio to suggest that he was. Whereas Brin is a fellow at JPL just for starters.
Crichton can spin a pretty good tail but even his fiction is no match for Brin when it comes to science.
Time for a new Slashdot Poll (Score:2, Interesting)
- Funny
- Unfunny
- April what?
- What do you mean Paris Hilton really isn't going to advertise for Linux!?!
Reminder to self (Score:2)
Event Schedule: Annually
Repeat: Indefinitely
Reminder: 1 Day Prior to Event
Purpose: To avoid weak-assed attempts at humor
Takeover notice (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:C'mon folks (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:April Fools Day... (Score:2, Redundant)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Slashdot, please stop. Please. (Score:2, Funny)
The object is not to fool you, pinhead, it's to present the fake articles produced by geeky news sites around the net.
Surely, user 22596, you know the drill by this time, yet every year the whiners turn out with their stumpy moralism about how April Fool's Day ought to be run.
Please spend one day a year without slashdot and allow those without your Protestant rectitude to see if they can't make some amusing bits from the raw materials provided by the stories.
I'd do that... (Score:2)
Re:Global warming fads (Score:2)
Global warming is an issue if you expect a steady climate over a very specific time frame.
It's going to be hotter at noon than midnight, and there's nothing man can do about it.
It's going to be hotter in summer than winter and there's nothing man can do about it.
It's going to be hotter in 300 years OMG
Re:ASCII GOATSE REQUEST (Score:2)
Re:sigh (Score:3, Insightful)
There are two usual cases where the word "slash" is used in budgetary issues.
The first is where one arm of our government proposes a certain level of funding for an activity and another one disagrees. The final outcome is that the funding eventually provided is less than what would have been had the disagreeing party not ha
Re:sigh (Score:3, Interesting)
See this link for just one source of inflation numbers:
http://inflationdata.com/Inflation/Inflation_Rate / AnnualInflation.asp [inflationdata.com]
There are hundreds more.
Re:sigh (Score:5, Funny)
I hope you're enjoying your vacation on Mars, or wherever the fuck it is you've been for the last few years.
Re:sigh (Score:3, Informative)
Maybe you should stop watching fox news and actually look at the facts facts [ncseonline.org] I am including the national council report on the current omibus NSF bill. If you take a look at it from Fiscal year
Re:BBC article on creationism (Score:3, Interesting)
Mostly they're in it for selling their own line of books, videos, etc. for which they make a pretty penny.
I had to steward for one of their conferences... they told us that they were going to get over 1000 people, and we setup for that many. 50 turned up.. I felt embarassed for the speakers.
Really they're just a fringe group, even amongst the christian groups.
Re:sarcasm... (Score:3, Insightful)
Creationism and Evolution are not even in the same CATEGORY. Creationism is a belief based on religious faith. Evolution is a scientific theory. One belong in science class, one does NOT.
It's fine if you believe in creationism, or intelligent design. Perfectly fine. It's fine if you believe in God, or Allah, or whatever you want, and it's also fine for you to spread your beliefs around.
The vast majority of religious pe