Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Media Science

Public Relations Firm Shapes Opinion with Fake Science 137

Posted by michael from the tested-and-true-principles dept.
Ironsides submitted this BBC link about a conference on climate change and global warming. When you read it, you'll note that there's a real conference with real scientists being held a few days later. So what is this, if it's not the real conference? This is a fake, public relations "conference", organized by a corporate lobbying group, specifically to create doubt about an issue of considerable public importance. So the real scientists doing real work meet on Feb 1-3, the fake ones being paid for their opinions schedule a press opportunity for Jan 27, and the press covers them as if both their opinions should be given equal weight. Jon Stewart's media criticism applies: You're hurting [the world].
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Public Relations Firm Shapes Opinion with Fake Science More

Public Relations Firm Shapes Opinion with Fake Science

Comments Filter:

  • for the uninformed (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Naikrovek ( 667 ) <jjohnson AT psg DOT com> on Friday January 28, 2005 @03:08PM (#11507174)
    equal weight is the only way to get people to listen.

    if people sense bias (this sense is dulled in some folks) they won't believe a word they hear.

    people know when they're being lied to. they might not let on that they know, and they might vote for the liars, but they know when they're being lied to. they just choose to ignore the lies, and see things their way. if people choose to ignore evidence, they get what's coming to them.

    the environmentalists of the world just have to take caution and present a believeable case with as little embellishment as possible. environmentalists should paint the true picture, not the doomsday picture. i'm an environmentalist (born on Earth day, no less) and we've been saying that the world is ending for a while now, but we're all still here.

    i dunno... i'm filled with nyquil. i won't even remember this post in an hour. moderate to your hearts content.
    • the environmentalists of the world just have to take caution and present a believeable case with as little embellishment as possible
      The problem is, as the environmentalists argue, that we don't have time to wait for the undoubtable evidence of global warning, and need to act upon the worst-case scenario.
      • But we *DO* have time. The worst case scenario say that over the next one hundred years, the global temperature will rise about 1 degree Fahrenheit. I'll take a 92 degree summer day over a 91 degree one any day. And I'd much rather have "bitter" cold be -32 than -33.

        And in a hundred years, the world economy will be how many thousand times larger? We'll be able to blink and create superstructures that today's engineers and architects can't even dream about. We'll have cities with thousands of times the popu
        • Didn't you see the article that said the point of no return was only a decade away?

        • Re:Why we don't need to worry (Score:4, Informative)

          by Metasquares ( 555685 ) <[moc.derauqsatem] [ta] [todhsals]> on Friday January 28, 2005 @08:26PM (#11510365) Homepage

          The worst case scenario does not predict that the temperature will rise 1F. The worst case scenario predicts that the temperature will rise exponentially due to positive feedback, well beyond the temperature at which life on earth can survive (this is called the "runaway greenhouse" if you want to find out more about that theory). This theory doesn't have too much creditability yet, since there are so many variables that affect the earth's climate, but you did ask for the worst-case scenario.

          The worst case scenario that a reasonable percentage of scientists believe is going to happen in about a century is a rise of the mean temperature of around 10C (18F). This will have a bunch of ramifications, most of which I doubt we have even realized yet.

          And in a hundred years, the world economy will be how many thousand times larger? We'll be able to blink and create superstructures that today's engineers and architects can't even dream about. We'll have cities with thousands of times the populations, bustling with millions of times the economy.
          As society gets bigger, it's going to require more energy. Unless we look to energy sources that involve less greenhouse gas emission, the problem is only going to get worse. No matter how much easier it will become to manage the problem (and I doubt it will; the greenhouse effect was first attributed to atmospheric gasses in the mid-19th century by Fourier, and it's no easier to manage now than it was then), there's still the matter of actually doing something about it!
          • Ideally we would be able to use the heat created from the global warming and convert it to electricity...hoever AFAIK the only way to convert heat directly to electricity (Peltier) is impractical. If we could convert it to say, light, then it would be possible (with a *LOT* of effort and expense though, and over a long period of time) to get rid of some of the energy and cool the earth down again.
            • Heat by itself isn't enough to generate power. You have to have somewhere cold too, because you can only generate power by sitting a generator of some sort where the heat energy is flowing.

              Obviously our only option is to build a space elevator and deploy a giant space parisol. The only real drawback is that it will make our whole race look pretty sissy when the aliens visit.
        • The worst case scenario say that over the next one hundred years, the global temperature will rise about 1 degree Fahrenheit.

          That's much better than the best cast scenario.

          Worse case scenario would be enough warming to trigger the methane hydrates.

          For a geologic preview:

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene-Eocene_ther mal_maximum [wikipedia.org]

          Tropical forests on the north coast of Alaska would mean that much of the lower 48 would be unlivable. The economy might fail to grow. Horrors! Might even get smal

          • "Real estate has no law that makes the price only go up, after all." Actually, it does. It's called "the law of supply and demand." The supply is fixed, the demand is growing, and will continue to grow. Real estate is an essential commodity, not a luxury. Therefore, people will pay whatever they must to own it. There is no better investment than real estate.
            • The price of any specific portion of real estate can go down, however. Buy land next to a chemical plant and watch how your property values don't go up. Land values drop any and every time there is a significant negative change in the area, and global warming would easily constitute that.
            • Let me guess, you have an investment opportunity for us in the real estate?

              If peak oil is real, and has occurred already, property values will collapse. Fuel will become too expensive to support transportation in the suburbs. I'm not yammering about $5/gal, more like $50/gal.

              And remember, you don't own the house until you pay off the mortgage.
        • And in a hundred years, the world economy will be how many thousand times larger? [...] We'll have cities with thousands of times the populations, bustling with millions of times the economy.

          I doubt it. Things cannot grow indefinitely. It's against basic principles of physics. I believe that in 100 years, the economy and the population will be much smaller than now. I won't be here to witness it, but I may see the beginning of the decline (if I quit smoking, maybe).

          "If just the present world population o
    • Equal weight would be given if the scientists who doubt global warming got to talk as much as those who see it in their science every day. If such equality were granted that BBC article would have given about two words to the "skeptics" conference, and the rest of the article would have been about real science.

      Granting equality to fundamentally unequal propositions is ridiculous and counter-productive. The weight of evidence accumulated by serious, diligent scientists that demonstrates global warming is

    • equal weight is the only way to get people to listen.

      if people sense bias (this sense is dulled in some folks) they won't believe a word they hear.

      So, instead we should present any unsubstantiated viewpoint as fact and science? God, I hope not!

      people know when they're being lied to. they might not let on that they know, and they might vote for the liars, but they know when they're being lied to

      Do they really? If every bit of fluff that comes in front of them is presented as valid and substabtiated

  • ad hominem, anyone? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by j0nb0y ( 107699 ) <jonboy300@NOspaM.yahoo.com> on Friday January 28, 2005 @03:11PM (#11507206) Homepage
    So, some so-called "fake scientists" organize a meeting because they have concerns that another science group is being alarmist. So to debunk the fake scientists, we attack them for being corporate schills? Whether or not they are corporate schills is irrelevant. If they're truly fake, it shouldn't be hard to disprove what they're saying, and you shouldn't have to resort to logical fallacies to discredit them. Ad hominem attacks have no place in science.

    • Science or PR? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Engineer-Poet ( 795260 ) on Friday January 28, 2005 @03:19PM (#11507314) Homepage Journal
      If a scientist is making statements based on what they're paid to say rather than what is supported by the evidence, are they doing science or public relations/propaganda?
      Whether or not they are corporate schills is irrelevant. If they're truly fake, it shouldn't be hard to disprove what they're saying, and you shouldn't have to resort to logical fallacies to discredit them. Ad hominem attacks have no place in science.
      You seem to think that selling out for a paycheck is irrelevant to the public interest. Quite the opposite; scientists holding varied views based on the incompleteness of the available evidence is quite normal and something that the scientific method is built to resolve, but personal financial interest has no standing.

      A "scientist" shilling for a corporate client without first shedding the mantle of science is not only of great public interest (so we can be certain whose claims to disregard as corrupt), but attracts the justified anger and ire of real scientists for dirtying the public view of science.

      • A "scientist" shilling for a corporate client without first shedding the mantle of science is not only of great public interest (so we can be certain whose claims to disregard as corrupt), but attracts the justified anger and ire of real scientists for dirtying the public view of science.

        How about a "scientist" shilling for the environmental movement? Any difference there?
        • Then they're not doing science either. But do not confuse a scientific conclusion which happens to support someone's agenda with advocacy; medical scientists discover things about the biology of diseases all the time, but they are not paid shills for the opponents of Mary Baker Eddy's sect.

        • Re:Science or PR? (Score:1, Informative)

          by Anonymous Coward
          No. There is no difference between someone saying something for money and someone saying something because they believe the knowledge it imparts will keep us from destroying ourselfs. None at all.
      • If a scientist is making statements based on what they're paid to say rather than what is supported by the evidence, are they doing science or public relations/propaganda?

        Personal financial interest drives most science these days. If a scientist does not produce the expected result from their research, they don't get further funding and may lose their job at whetever research institution they work at. Currently very few 'unbiased' sources of funding renew any grants to scientists whose previous work s

        • Personal financial interest drives science? WTF? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Engineer-Poet ( 795260 ) on Friday January 28, 2005 @07:24PM (#11509917) Homepage Journal
          Personal financial interest drives most science these days.
          Oh, really? I'd like you to tell me how personal financial interest drives today's science in these fields:
          • Anthropology
          • Chemistry
          • Physics (high-energy, solid state, plasma, etc.)
          • Planetary geology (Spirit/Opportunity, Cassini/Huygens)
          • Cosmology
          • Biology
          • Paleontology
          I'd be very interested in any facts you might have regarding matters such as the financial payoff from finding extrasolar planets, or pre-Clovis human artifacts in the Americas. And while you're at it, how about the fee schedule for different "correct" results from paleoclimate research?
          Scientists who perform research on behalf of corporations are not necessarily any less honest than scientists performing research for the government or other 'unbiased' source of funding.
          If their ability to publish depends on their results agreeing with the corporate interest, would you still say that? (You aren't going to hear the full story even from the honest people, and the honest people will tend to leave.)
          It's bad enough that you put scientific research on a pedestal and expect every scientist to be some sort of altruistic super-human...
          You have no idea how science works, do you? Research scientists live and die based on the accuracy and usefulness of their results. If their results cannot be replicated (or worse, show signs of being fraudulent) then their careers grind to a halt. Scientists may be sloppy, but the system works to get rid of sloppiness and incorrect results.

          In the case of climate research, there is one hell of a lot of prestige which would come with a correct debunking of the global-climate models which all predict warming. There might even be a Nobel in it. But note that I did say correct debunking; anyone withoute the facts on their side need not apply. Have you noticed where the huge majority of the climate scientists (who have the facts such as they are) stand today?

          do you have to hold this public relations ploy to try to convince people that your views are right despite evidence and in the face of so many examples of bad scientists?
          You're implying that "all scientists are self-interested, therefore nothing they say can be trusted". I suppose that you disregard everything you're told about the safety of the water supply, the recommendations for nutrients in your diet, the effectiveness and hazards of drugs, and everything else that was researched and published by a scientist. Because, y'know, "there are bad scientists and they're all just out for their personal interests"?

          Regarding climate science, I refer you to this entry: [realclimate.org]

          The main reason for concern about anthropogenic climate change is not that we can already see it (although we can). The main reason is twofold.

          (1) Carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are increasing rapidly in the atmosphere due to human activity. This is a measured fact not even disputed by staunch "climate skeptics".
          (2) Any increase in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases will change the radiation balance of the Earth and increase surface temperatures. This is basic and undisputed physics that has been known for over a hundred years.
          It takes some gall to deny something which can be measured by infrared absorption in a test cell, or the Keeling curve [ucsd.edu]. And it's certainly not honest, far less honest than anything I've seen from the "self-interested" scientists. Calling someone an "industry shill" is one of the most flattering things you could do.
    • This is the point: the fake scientists aren't part of real science, therefore calling them smegma heads is completely fair.
  • Where is the base for michael's claims? Sure, common sense or something, but no matter how strongly i believe in the pro-global warming science, i still find it questionable that this slashticle was posted. If michael wants to write an article about the pr efforts, and links it, fine, but as this story stands now, its 0% newsworthy as it's stuffed with bias from the editor. Mod me down for it, i want to post this as not an AC.

  • Fake scientists? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by mc6809e ( 214243 ) on Friday January 28, 2005 @03:13PM (#11507251)
    Where? Maybe misguided, but not fake.

    How about you, Michael? Just what sort of scientist are you?

    Maybe you're just using your position as a slashdot editor to manipulate us.

    Don't waste your time. Most of us can think for ourselves. We don't need your help deciding who is a fake and who is real.

  • That's right (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Profane MuthaFucka ( 574406 ) <busheatskok@gmail.com> on Friday January 28, 2005 @03:18PM (#11507305) Homepage Journal
    What's new? Equal time in today's media is presenting the views of someone who is right, presenting the views who is completely wrong, and letting the public decide.

    A slight spin on it would be to present the views of 99.9% of all scientists, give equal time to the 0.1% of scientists who disagree, but not to explain that the 0.1% who disagree are complete raving loons. Instead the impression is made that there is an actual controversy in the field, when there is actually none. Evolution vs. creationism is a good example. There's no controversy, except in the minds of the supremely ignorant.
    • Perhaps proportionally equal time would be better. Give 99.9% of the space to the 99.9% of scientists who agree on something, and you should have just enough space left to point out that 0.1% of scientists think otherwise.
      • Give the scientists 33.3 minutes for their side, and then you've got 2 seconds to say the words "Idiots disagree". That's the kind of proportion (99.9% to 0.1%) we're talking about.

  • Fake scientists (Score:4, Insightful)

    by joeljkp ( 254783 ) <joeljkparker@gmai l . com> on Friday January 28, 2005 @03:19PM (#11507315)
    Like the other comments, I take issue with the summary. Prof. Richard Lindzen (MIT) and Prof. Fred Singer (US Weather Sat. Service) aren't real scientists?

    As much as I believe in global warming, these "scientists" weren't force do join this society, and weren't forced to speak at this conference. Can people not meet to discuss alternative viewpoints? If they have good points, let them be heard.

  • Fake? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Canthros ( 5769 ) on Friday January 28, 2005 @03:20PM (#11507321)
    An MIT professor isn't a scientist?

    I realise that you're supposed to be editors, but I could do with less editorialising. At the very least, those strike me a semi-serious allegations, yet not one of them is substantiated, either in the editorial comment or in the provided links. That would have been appropriate.
    • Richard Lindzen is one of very few scientists who disputes the validity of global warming since 1990s. And just because he is from MIT, it doesn't mean that the whole conference is a legit "scientific" conference.

      I think that the point is this: the "fake" conference gathers the people who are against the global warming propaganda. On the other hand, the true conference gathers all kinds of people with different views. The best we let them debate against each other. That's what "science" is all about.
    • I realise that you're supposed to be editors

      Well you see, there are editors, and then there is michael.


  • The next story on a conference about climate change may look like a dupe, but isn't really.

    Unless, of course, they dupe this one first...

  • The BBC article (Score:3, Informative)

    by Jah-Wren Ryel ( 80510 ) on Friday January 28, 2005 @03:23PM (#11507357)
    The BBC article seems to take this Scientific Alliance (even the name drips of corporate PR'ism) at face value, either that or the British sense of sarcasm so dry as to be beyond subtle.

    So, I looked them up myself and found the following links pretty quickly:

    SourceWatch [sourcewatch.org] and GMwatch [gmwatch.org] which seem to coroborate the claims of duplicitousness in the original submission.
    • I'm really curious to see the content for the "Wind Power and its Risks" session given at the "Cautionary Tales: Rethinking Environmental Decision Making and Risk Assessment" Scientific Alliance seminar from November 2004. What the hell are the risks of wind power? "Don't stand in the propeller blade's path" or something? Geez!
      • Taking the power out of the wind reduces wind speed. This could affect things like planetary heat redistribution, reduced precipitation, etc.

        • This could affect things like planetary heat redistribution, reduced precipitation, etc.
          I have a hard time buying that. Heat distribution and weather is mostly affected by high altitude winds like the jet stream, not the near surface winds used by windmills. Until anyone produces actuall evidence of significant enviromental effects of windmills it's just pure FUD.
          • I'd think that it's nigh-certain that they'll result in local alterations of climactic patterns (more precipitation right around the windmills, less a little bit away...), but anything else seems like pure FUD, yes.

  • Obviously, you've bought it. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Mirkon ( 618432 ) <`moc.liamg' `ta' `nokrim'> on Friday January 28, 2005 @03:25PM (#11507375) Homepage
    The above posters have fallen completely into the "equal sides" trap. For some reason modern citizens are shepherded into thinking that everything and everyone, no matter how moronic, should have an equal say. Yeah, there are grey areas, but sometimes there is a right and wrong, especially, and most notably, in the field of science. And if you think there's no consensus on global warming, you've obviously bought into the very PR machine that michael's posting about.

    Of course, whether or not you believe that is up to you. But in this case at least, one opinion is much less idiotic than the other [mediadazzle.com].
  • While I understand Slashdot does not follow the basic rule of journalism, "Try to present an unbiased view of the issue," this is simply ridiculous.

    Michael's description of one set of scientists as "fake" and another as not-fake is a much worse public relations ploy than the so-called fake scientists are making. They aren't even claiming that GW is false, they are simply pointing out that many claims made by the so-called not-fake scientists require leaps over large gaps in knowledge and studies.

    Of c
    • It's very telling that few scientists have changed their views on GW after entering the field. They usually go in with prejudice, and their tests come out in their favor.

      Your post is chock full of outlandish unsubstantiated claims. Could you at least provide one, high-quality, citatation for this claim? If you want to back up any of your other claims, please feel free to do so too, I'd be mightly impressed if you could find much REAL science for them either.

    • However, anyone who thinks the scientists don't have a vested *financial* interest in continuing to publicize GW is deluded.

      Okay....maybe these scientists do have a vested interest to get grants so they can keep their jobs, but anyone that thinks that large corporations that produce greenhouse gasses don't have an exponentially larger financial interest is completely insane.

      These scientists are doing this work as much for continued support and grants as they are 'for the good of humanity.'

      Okay.....

  • When I read "fake science" I thought that they might be after Randi [randi.org]'s million [randi.org] but then when I read the conference agenda I thought that they were much less exciting than most of applicants [randi.org], especially those [randi.org] two [randi.org] and I was like, wtf? Is this story boring or what? And then I was enlightened. Jon Stewart's media criticism indeed applies, even if it is completely irrelevant here, but they in fact are "hurting [the world]," for their frivolous greedy publicity stunts happenings might indeed have a real influence
  • the scientific opinion of an editor who posts urban legends [slashdot.org] as legitimate science news?
  • @Ironsides

    I think we all would be interested to see exactly what you wrote in your article submittal to michael. You were not quoted at all in this current article's summary. I was initially ready to call you out for calling these scientists "fake" but realized that the summary was not yours.

    You posted quite a bit in the "New Climate Change Warning" article of yesterday. I figured you'd have an opinion to share on this.

    • Re:@Ironsides (Score:5, Informative)

      by Ironsides ( 739422 ) on Friday January 28, 2005 @04:44PM (#11508433) Homepage Journal
      Well, I posted it down below, here's the link so people can find it quicker. http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=137608 &cid=11508081 [slashdot.org]

      Thats about what I posted, the only thing I'm not completely shure about is how I worder "Choice Quote" originally. I forget what I originally put the title down as, I think it was along the lines of "Climate Change Scientist Disenters" or something like that.

      As for what michael did to it, I'm pissed. As for what these guys say, since all I've ever heard anyone talk about is "We're all going to die and it's ?ALL YOUR FAULT (imaginie someone poking you in chest with their pointer finger as you read that last part)" (or seems that way) I'd like to at least here what these guys say. Seems like anytime anyone says something against global warming the get killed in the press. Always makes me interested when someone says that and makes me want to listen more.

      As for the definition of Global Warming, I have heard it is something like this:

      Global Warming is the Theory that humans are the cause of the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere and that said increase will cause the average temperature of the planet to increase.

      If anyone else can elaborate, please do. As for the poles and all the glaciers melting and what not, that has yet to be proved. If they get a lot warmer, they will. But GW also predicts some areas will get warmer (such as the poles), and some will get colder. Last I checked, the majority of the antartic was getting colder, I'd like to hear if any of the several thousand glaciers in other parts of the world are expanding as well.

      Lets see, to cover anything else that may come up, I drive a honda acord (2004). I was looking at the civic hybrid, but it felt to "plasticy" to me to be a good car. That and the fact that the dash was mesmerizing (and would have caused me to get into an accident) led me to get the accord instead. If I had known about the 2005 accord hybrid I would have waited to look at that (still need to take a peek at it). Mainly for the extra fuel economy is why I considered it. I do know several people who drive SUVs. They use them as intended. Just last week a lot of them went to West Virginia for skiing and it snowed. The 4WD helped them a lot more than the 2WD did for us. Also on the camping we do monthly it helps out a lot as well. I realize that a lot of idiots use the SUVs only in cities where they could get by with a smaller car, but I don't know any (yet) that do.

      Well, that's what I have to say, it's a bit of a ramble, but that's how I think.
  • The BBC [bbc.co.uk] writes: A conference to question whether global warming will have a catastrophic effect is being held in London on 27 January. Choice Quote: "Most climate scientists, inside the IPCC and outside it, are ready to acknowledge that they still do not know nearly enough about some key aspects of climate change."

    So much for /. editors not modifying what people submit. As for what michael says, I would like some proof of what he says about the conference. As for Jon Stewart's media criticism applies: Yo
    • What Michael did was real reporting, believe it or not. He looked up the group that was sponsoring this conference and found that they were an industry-friendly group of scientists and "others" with a vested interest in seeding doubt of the Global Warming hypothesis.

      Any tremendously complex system is hard to understand key aspects of, but the evidence I've seen (such as the plots of CO2 concentrations vs temperature), the systems modeling I've done, and the exhaustive global modeling done by hundreds of s
      • What Michael did was real reporting, believe it or not

        He said they were fake scientists. Provided no links or supporting info. Uses rhetoric in the summary with still no supporting info. How is this reporting?

        and found that they were an industry-friendly group of scientists and "others" with a vested interest in seeding doubt of the Global Warming hypothesis.

        Like it or not all scientists get funding from somewhere. As for them having a "vested interest", prove it. And then prove that the ones su

  • I'm posting this from a mountain city in Brazil near Sao Paulo city. Twenty years ago, they grew fruit trees here that need to freeze once or twice in the winter to bear fruit in the summer. Now some of the trees are here, but there is no fruit.

    Humans are slowly destroying the earth by having too many babies.

    There is only one thing that will stop global warming. Show women that it is not advantageous to them to have so many babies.
    • In that case, the US is fine. As the birthrate number of children is between 2.0 and 2.1 per woman. It's those other contries that are having 6 and more that are the "cause" of it.

      As a side note, a birthrate of 2.1 is supposed to be "required" to maintain population. The USA is bellow this currently and has only managed to maintain population due to imigration. Any below 2.1 and it shrinks (due to accidental deaths killing of people before they can have kids).
    • There is only one thing that will stop global warming. Show women that it is not advantageous to them to have so many babies.

      Hear, hear!

      That is why I have a hard time taking blowhards like Al Gore seriously. He never stops pontificating about the many ways we selfish peons need to turn our lives upside down to save the Earth, yet he goes and has four kids. His footprint on the Earth's non-renewable resources is twice my own, therefore I will feel no shame in buying a car that uses twice as much fuel

  • 'You're hurting the world', eh?

    Sorry to burst your bubble, Sims, but the world doesn't give a rat's ass what we do to it. Take a look at Venus: greenhouse gases, surface temp around 400 degrees, yet the planet is still very much there.

    Oh, perhaps you mean "the world's life"?! Better not get too crazy about that one, son. Life is known to exist in extreme conditions.

    Oh, wait, you probably mean "human life," right? Well, to quote Rush Hour: "Wipe yourself off. You're dead."

    YAAT. YHL. FOAD.

  • http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050124/full/05012 4 -10.html

    A distributed compute-engine simulation calculated a worst case temperature rise of 11C. While I have absolutely no doubt that their simulations produced these results, I - unlike most of the population listening to this on the news - am fully aware of what simulations are and how they work.

    It requires accurate initial conditions, accurate models, and an accurate physics engine.

    So what does this mean?

    As an example, a story from one of the grad
  • Is the second link the fake and the first one real!!????
    You know, Like this post!
  • half the stuff in the news is corporate lobbying disguised as news and infortainment.

    BTW, this topic is very important and really should be front page on slashdot.

Slashdot Top Deals

How much net work could a network work, if a network could net work?

Close