Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space Science

Intergalactic Missing Mass Missing Again 171

Posted by kdawson from the yesterday-upon-the-stair dept.
Ponca City, We Love You writes "Researchers at the University Of Alabama In Huntsville have discovered that some x-rays thought to come from intergalactic clouds of 'warm' gas are instead probably caused by lightweight electrons — leaving the mass of the universe as much as ten to 20 percent lighter (in terms of its ordinary matter) than previously calculated. In 2002 the same team reported finding large amounts of extra 'soft' (relatively low-energy) x-rays coming from the vast spaces in the middle of galaxy clusters. Their cumulative mass was thought to account for as much as ten percent of the mass and gravity needed to hold together galaxies, galaxy clusters, and perhaps the universe itself. When the team looked at data from a galaxy cluster in the southern sky, however, they found that energy from those additional soft x-rays doesn't look like it should. 'The best, most logical explanation seems to be that a large fraction of the energy comes from electrons smashing into photons instead of from warm atoms and ions, which would have recognizable spectral emission lines,' said Dr. Max Bonamente. The work was published Oct. 20 in the Astrophysical Journal."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Intergalactic Missing Mass Missing Again More

Intergalactic Missing Mass Missing Again

Comments Filter:
  • As light fans out, it does so at the rate of 1/r^2. Double the distance, and you've quadrupled the surface area of the light beam. You've also reduced the luminosity at any point in the beam's surface by a quarter.

    But why do we just assume that gravity needs to fall off at the same rate as light?

    • Re:The falloff of light is 1/r^2 (Score:5, Funny)

      by QuantumG ( 50515 ) <qg@biodome.org> on Monday November 05, 2007 @09:50PM (#21250111) Homepage Journal
      As stupid as you are, someone who is even more stupid than you will read your post and mod you up.

      That's the magic of Slashdot.

    • Er, it's not that somebody "assumed" that it works that way out of the blue; hundreds of years of observations of objects interacting via gravity led some smart people to figure out that those observations are best explained by a gravity that falls off as 1/r^2 (or something very, very, very close to it).

    • Re:The falloff of light is 1/r^2 (Score:5, Informative)

      by Aesir1984 ( 1120417 ) on Monday November 05, 2007 @09:59PM (#21250199)
      It's because the surface area of a sphere increases as r^2 so anything that expands into a volume will fall off in intensity at this rate without outside influence. The only reason this would change is if space-time is curved which we have run experiments to test and if there is a curvature it is so slight as to be negligible for experiments like TFA talks about.

      As for the person above who mentioned that light might not expand as 1/r^2 outside of a gravity well, the fact is that it doesn't expand at exactly 1/r^2 inside a gravity well. But we 1/r^2 is a good approximation for any gravitational fields near us.

      • Bias in Physics? (Score:1, Insightful)

        by MOBE2001 ( 263700 )
        But we 1/r^2 is a good approximation for any gravitational fields near us.

        Yes, 1/r^2 it works pretty well for relatively short distances but it may not be so for long distances. Which is the reason that some physicists don't think there is any missing mass (dark matter) at all and that both GR and Newtonian physics may need to be revised (GR uses Newton's G). This would create all sorts of problems because it would also bring other matters into question such as the supposed accelerated expansion of the univ

        • Re:Bias in Physics? (Score:4, Insightful)

          by 644bd346996 ( 1012333 ) on Monday November 05, 2007 @10:35PM (#21250449)
          Do you really expect language like that to cause somebody to re-evaluate some of the most well-verified physical laws ever postulated?

          "Einstein fanatics"?! "demigod"?! You sound like a crackpot UFO conspiracy theorist. If you think there are flaws with the current models, the only acceptable way to address those concerns is with science. Not ad-hominem attacks against people who are demonstrably smarter and more polite than you.
          • Whoops. I seem to have given a knee-jerk response to a troll.

            By the looks of his sig, his hobby is to say "but what if your most basic, obvious principles are completely wrong?" without offering a better explanation. And without even realizing that people before him (and smarter than him) have asked the same question, and always verified the conventional wisdom. I realize now that he is wholly unconcerned with science, and merely dabbles in pseudo-science and demagoguery pandering towards those even less ed

          • Re:Bias in Physics? (Score:5, Insightful)

            by tm2b ( 42473 ) on Monday November 05, 2007 @11:20PM (#21250763) Journal
            He might be a crackpot, but the idea isn't. Google on MOND [wikipedia.org].

            What's easier to believe - that there's a ton of missing mass out there as "Dark Matter" - something that we have no direct evidence for - or that gravity works differently on large scales than a smoothe 1/r^2 at all distances - and works exactly in the way that we observe? Remember that every time that we've had a strong classical theory replaced by something else, it's been at the extremes of our observation - the very fast for special relativity (which reduces to newtonian motion at lower speeds) and the very small for quantum mechanics. We know we're not getting something right on the large scale, and we know that our picture of gravity is incomplete, as we don't have a good quantum gravitational model.

            I don't know, honestly - but it's clear that there's something we don't understand and I think that our human-scale intuition is not well suited for figuring out what explanation is more likely, just as QM and SR aren't very intuitive. Right now, we've got competing models but neither is very satisfactory without more data.

            • Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)

              by phliar ( 87116 )

              What's easier to believe...

              Science is not based on what's easier to believe.

              Puny human! Your intuition is no good to reason with about the very small, very fast etc. Are you a practicing physicist? No? In that case I hope you'll forgive those of us that are willing to take the word of of physicists. And that word is that today GR is the best theory of gravity we have.

              To this non-physicist, MOND looks just like string theory -- New! Exciting! but no real predictions, just lots of knobs you can twiddle

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by tm2b ( 42473 )
                No, it isn't. The problem is that the data favor neither one model nor the other at this time - we don't have the whole picture and we know it. GR is clearly not sufficient to model gravity, it and QM can not be made to play well together.

                By the way, did I mention my physics degree?

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by phliar ( 87116 )

                  The problem is that the data favor neither one model nor the other at this time - we don't have the whole picture and we know it.
                  No one ever claimed GR was "the whole picture". Do you believe that MOND can do better than GR at modelling, say, gravitational time dilation?

                  By the way, did I mention my physics degree?
                  Tell me honestly: how many physics undergrads do you think really know GR or QM?

                  • Re:Bias in Physics? (Score:5, Informative)

                    by tm2b ( 42473 ) on Tuesday November 06, 2007 @02:32AM (#21251907) Journal
                    I never advocated tossing GR out the window, it's way too successful and I have way too much investment in the math to reject it (as they say, nature abhors a second order differential equation, right?).

                    Don't be silly. MOND doesn't cover the regime of gravitational time dilation- and is in fact not at odds with GR. MOND and GR cover different regimes, MOND concerns itself with gravitational/inertial interactions at very small accelerations (of less than about 10^-10 m/s^2, ignoring the Hubble constant correction term).

                    The point is that we have a fundamental choice between believing that there's more mass that we can't detect by EM in the Universe than that which we can detect, or that we're missing a big piece of how gravity (or, if you prefer, inertia) works, or (of course) "something else." And the jury is absolutely still out.

                    While the physics community certainly favors the dark matter model right now, most will say that the door isn't shut on MOND yet. Dismissing anybody who mentions it as a crank is not reasonable and it's dishonest to try to put a Mr. Physics Authority Figure face on doing so - MOND papers are still published in indiscriminate rags like the Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics and tenure-holding proponents are seen in polite company that would shun cold fusion researchers.

                    I have no idea how many physics undergrads "really" know GR and QM - I suspect that most probably haven't gotten past the wave equation formulation or even heard of quantum field theory, and might or might not have had to sling a few tensors around in an elective - most probably don't do graduate computational cosmology work, either (even if it was back when having time on a Cray meant something). There's more money in commercial software, though.
              • And that word is that today GR is the best theory of gravity we have.

                Yet we have observations that don't fit the theory, both on the small and large scales. The theory is either incomplete, or our observations are incorrect. Seeing as we don't alter empirical data to fit theories, we must alter the theories to fit the empirical data. It is the best theory we have, and still it breaks, so we strive for a new theory to explain all the facts. MOND and string theory are two such theories that make real predict

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by phliar ( 87116 )

                  Yet we have observations that don't fit the theory, both on the small and large scales.

                  So? We know GR is not THE solution; I said it was the best we have. We know it has holes. But GR is not just about gravity; it is about the structure of space-time. Gravity (and lots of other things) fall out of it. MOND is a hack to explain one kind of phenomenon. Of course we need to strive towards a better model of the physical universe than GR+QM, but MOND isn't it. As wikipedia puts it, "MOND is an effective theo

            • He might be a crackpot, but the idea isn't. Google on MOND [wikipedia.org].

              Google on the Bullet Cluster. Then Google about why MOND-style theories can't explain it without conceding that there must be at least *some* non-visible matter out there.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by tjstork ( 137384 )
          The Einstein fanatics and the Big Bang proponents refuse to consider it as a possibility (a lot of careers depend on Big Bang and Esintein being right). Einstein is a demigod in some circles and his wisdom must not be questioned. As a result little funding is allocated for research in this area. That's too bad. We are probably missing some very exciting physics in the process.

          Boy, this is spoken like someone who is completely disconnected from the academic process. There is no bigger fantasy a 20-something

          • Re:Bias in Physics? (Score:5, Insightful)

            by Nazlfrag ( 1035012 ) on Tuesday November 06, 2007 @12:00AM (#21251059) Journal

            ...they are a bunch of sharks circling information, just waiting for that first bit of blood that suggests a hole in some established theory.

            Trying to poke holes in in established theories (also known as conducting experiments and analysing empirical data) is more properly called the scientific method. You make it sound like a bad thing, and that ivory tower guardians of cryptic scrolls are the true scientists. You have it all backwards. Theories shouldn't need propping up, they should stand on their own, and especially stand up to repeated scrutiny and analysis. If we failed to poke holes in established methodology there would be no Newton, no Einstein, no progress to speak of.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by tjstork ( 137384 )
              You make it sound like a bad thing, and that ivory tower guardians of cryptic scrolls are the true scientists. You have it all backwards

              No, not at all. I think you are making the assumption that I mean to say that sharks are bad. Sharks aren't bad, they are sharks. Get it?

              The guy I was replying to implied that scientists had a vested interest in propping up the cryptic scrolls. I merely called scientists sharks sniffing for blood, not to make a value judgement, but just as an example of how eager they a
              • All any so-called crackpot needs to do, to prove his or her alternate theory of matter correct, is to build his or her anti-gravity machine, reverse the flow of heat from cold to hot, or do something simple and repeatable that shocks us into a new way of looking at physics. If entropy is wrong, gravity is wrong, electricity is wrong, then, let's see the new gadget that proves it. Or, barring that, point to the heavens and make a prediction about something we haven't seen before, and do so with math that is

    • But why do we just assume that gravity needs to fall off at the same rate as light?

      Newton's Law for gravity specifies it as a 1/r^2 force. *Any* 1/r^2 force will behave the same way.

    • Do the math. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by 644bd346996 ( 1012333 ) on Monday November 05, 2007 @10:30PM (#21250409)
      Please. It really isn't hard to show that the dependency on r can only take on a few values and still yield a universe that comes at all close to what we observe. For example, the only halfway-plausible power of r that allows closed orbits (such as planets around stars) in classical mechanics is exactly 2. All other values either don't allow closed orbits in general, or are trivially shown by experiment to be absurdly wrong. Now, we have observed that orbits aren't exactly closed (the most famous example being the precession of the perihelion of Mercury), but these were explained astoundingly well by relativity.

      Astrophysics is way beyond getting the growth rate of a fundamental force wrong.
      • Astrophysics is way beyond getting the growth rate of a fundamental force wrong.

        And yet those same astrophysicists are looking for invisible, super-dense, hugely-interacting material that is everywhere and yet nowhere at all.

        Maybe it's GOD!! lol

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )
          Examples of which have been observed. They're called neutrinos. No, they don't seem to make up a significant portion of dark matter, but they ARE dark matter.

          Of course, if you modify gravity you still require dark matter. So do you prefer dark matter (some of which has been observed), or modified gravity (which has never been observed) AND dark matter?
      • The growth rate could be proportional to 1/r^2 on a galactic scale, but diverge from that on an intergalactic scale.

        Unlikely? Probably. Worth looking into to? I don't know NEARLY enough about physics and the observations that have already been made to make any kind of call on that.
        • The growth rate could be proportional to 1/r^2 on a galactic scale, but diverge from that on an intergalactic scale.

          I think everyone throwing out 1/r^2 needs to really think about what it means. You don't need to be a hyperphysics guy to sort this out. The idea is really simple, is that, if you have a point source of some effect, radiating out equally in all directions, its effect would diminish as to the square of the distance. This "law" is really just a model that's a consequence of two things - one i

    • Re:The falloff of light is 1/r^2 (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Jarjarthejedi ( 996957 ) <christianpinch.gmail@com> on Monday November 05, 2007 @10:34PM (#21250437) Journal
      Precisely. I know you've gotten a lot of poor responses but I've always thought this was a good theory (from when I first heard of the idea in MOND Modified Newtonian Gravity). Science has made a lot of assumptions about the universe, and this is one of them. Whether gravity falls off at a slightly slower rate or there is a large volume of unknown matter in the universe the end result will be the same, so why do people so quickly call others idiots when they suggest an alternate explanation?

      • Re: (Score:1, Troll)

        by MOBE2001 ( 263700 )
        Whether gravity falls off at a slightly slower rate or there is a large volume of unknown matter in the universe the end result will be the same, so why do people so quickly call others idiots when they suggest an alternate explanation?

        That's because the end result will not be the same as you assume. If gravity does not diminish exactly at 1/r^2 over large distances as GR and Newtonian physics assume, it would throw a monkey wrench into everything. It would bring a lot of other issues into question such as

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by phliar ( 87116 )
        The problem is that dark matter explains three different phenomena, but MOND can only do galactic rotation curves. If you throw out GR, can MOND explain the precession of Mercury's orbit? Or gravitational lensing, or frame-dragging, or gravitational time-dilation, or ... that GR models correctly?
        • I've never heard of the Mercury orbit precession before, but I don't see how Dark Matter could have anything to do with Mercury's orbit considering how little there would be between Mercury and the sun (too much and the Earth would fall in). Of course I could be wrong, so feel free to point out to me if I am.

          As for Lensing, what's the problem? If Dark Matter causes additional lensing then so will MOND because it will increase gravity's power slightly. Frame Dragging is a property of Einsteinian gravity if I

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by Ambitwistor ( 1041236 )

            All MOND states (last time I checked) is that gravities falloff rate is slower at long distances.

            MOND is weirder than that. Instead of modifying gravity at some length scale as you suggest, MOND makes the gravitational force dependent on a body's acceleration instead of just its position.

            MOND's main problems are that (1) it can't account for as many phenomena as can dark matter (it does great on galactic rotation curves but not so great at, say, cosmology), (2) it's hard to make consistent with relativity (Bekenstein has a proposal but it has a number of free parameters that appear to require fine tu

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by jay-be-em ( 664602 )
      It's remarkable to me that you knew that and didn't know Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation,
      and the amount of evidence that it's a very close approximation in most situations.
      • it's a very close approximation in most situations

        And it's off by 10 to 20% in a few situations. Are you saying that a good approximation is good enough?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Tribbin ( 565963 )
      "As light fans out, it does so at the rate of 1/r^2. Double the distance, and you've quadrupled the surface area of the light beam. You've also reduced the luminosity at any point in the beam's surface by a quarter."

      You mean reduced TO a quarter or reduced by three quarters.

  • Happiness is... (Score:5, Funny)

    by zifferent ( 656342 ) on Monday November 05, 2007 @09:46PM (#21250079)
    a warm gas. (and lightweight electrons.)
    • ....escaping.
  • So who didn't look under the couch???

  • soo.. (Score:3, Funny)

    by PhrostyMcByte ( 589271 ) <phrosty@gmail.com> on Monday November 05, 2007 @09:54PM (#21250153) Homepage
    is the obesity problem over then?

    • is the obesity problem over then?
      Researchers later reported that the missing mass has been found on Earth so that would be a no. :)

  • Ballpoint pen theory of mass differential (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 05, 2007 @09:58PM (#21250189)
    The other, slightly less, logical explanation is that the difference in mass can simply be explained by the number of missing ballpoint pens in the universe.
    • or missing airline luggage

    • Re:Ballpoint pen theory of mass differential (Score:5, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 05, 2007 @10:57PM (#21250599)

      The other, slightly less, logical explanation is that the difference in mass can simply be explained by the number of missing ballpoint pens in the universe.

      No, the Dryer/Sofa Correspondence Theorem elegantly shows that the deficit of pens is exactly cancelled out by excess right socks. (And it also demonstrates that contrary to popular urban legend, the supposed "missing" left socks never existed in this universe in the first place.)

    • Re:Ballpoint pen theory of mass differential (Score:5, Funny)

      by jamstar7 ( 694492 ) on Monday November 05, 2007 @10:59PM (#21250621)

      The other, slightly less, logical explanation is that the difference in mass can simply be explained by the number of missing ballpoint pens in the universe.

      But that doesn't explain where all those goddamned clothes hangers come from.

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by ozbird ( 127571 )
        But that doesn't explain where all those goddamned clothes hangers come from.

        They must be the adult form of "lost" teaspoons.

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by DrVomact ( 726065 )

        The other, slightly less, logical explanation is that the difference in mass can simply be explained by the number of missing ballpoint pens in the universe.

        But that doesn't explain where all those goddamned clothes hangers come from.

        Clothes hangers are the larval form of the fully adult right sock. The amazing life cycle of this organism begins, of course, with the egg—often mistaken for "paper clips". Corpses are indistinguishable from old technical journals.

    • I think we know why the standard kilogram is getting lighter. It's filled with pens and people are bringing them back without the caps.

  • uh huh... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by djupedal ( 584558 ) on Monday November 05, 2007 @10:04PM (#21250255)
    The best, most logical explanation seems to be that a large fraction of the current theories put out are similar to the remaining fractions in that they are all delivered out the little brown holes of out-of-control modern astro-theoreticians.
  • there must be another dimension, connected to the dryer vent
  • Conservation of Mass and America's obesity problem better explain where it has disappeared to.

  • [...] leaving the mass of the universe as much as ten to 20 percent lighter[...]

    I can understand the universe being lighter, but its mass being lighter?

    Now, back to my new computer that has a faster speed yet runs at a colder temperature. I'm going to move its location, which will require a longer length of Ethernet cable. Hopefully this farther distance from the router won't be a problem.

  • Eureka! (Score:4, Funny)

    by headkase ( 533448 ) on Monday November 05, 2007 @10:37PM (#21250465)
    Based on nothing more than pure speculation, I believe the missing mass of the Universe is tucked away in all those little tiny extra dimensions at the planck scale of things.
    Of course I'm wrong but hey - this is Slashdot.
    • Get a couple letters after your name, write that using scientific gargon aka "Math", "earn" a reputation by publishing mostly obvious observations and restating other peoples ideas using different sentence structures, and then you'd have a better than 50/50 shot of publishing that idea in a journal.

  • US Consumers Clueless, says Survey (Score:5, Funny)

    by Kohath ( 38547 ) on Monday November 05, 2007 @10:38PM (#21250471)
    US Consumers Clueless about Missing Intergalactic Mass

    "A study on consumer perceptions about missing intergalactic mass, undertaken by the Asimov Institute at the University of Phoenix Online and the Speilberg Space Policy Center, found that the average American consumer is largely unaware that some x-rays thought to come from intergalactic clouds of 'warm' gas are instead probably caused by lightweight electrons. Those surveyed showed little knowledge on the extent to which the mass of the universe was previously calculated. More than half of those surveyed -- about 55 percent -- falsely assumed that large amounts of extra 'soft' galaxy clusters were actually a light chocolatey candy. ...
  • July 2000 - Maintenance cleaning on the dish (by John) December 2000 - Damn squirrels, cleaned some surface of the dish (by John) May 2001 - Checked dish, seems to be clean (by Sir John) December 2001 - Dish seems to be clean (by Captain John) January 2002 - Sandstorm hit, sandstorms in January? heck, I'm going on vacation (by Admiral John) December 2002 - Cleaned the dish, had a hard time with the dust, now i remember.. (by Senator John) ... July 2004 - Cleaned the dish (by Emperor John) ... July 2007 - Cl
  • Maybe it's me, I'm sure it is just me, but lately it seems that there is more lost and found mass in universe than files in a system? Maybe it is more difficult subject? I'm waiting when they get the final numbers out, I'm still under 1000 years old.
  • What?
    • Don't worry. This is slashdot. Someone who read the article and then 3 wiki pages slightly more carefully than you will come by and pretend to be an expert on the subject.
      • Someone who read the article and then 3 wiki pages slightly more carefully than you will come by and pretend to be an expert on the subject.

        Sorry, I'm on my break. You'll have to read and misunderstand it yourself.

  • Diet? (Score:3, Funny)

    by PPH ( 736903 ) on Monday November 05, 2007 @10:57PM (#21250601)
    Is the galaxy on the same diet as Oprah?
  • So, does this mean that their is more dark matter in the universe to make up for it, similarly less dark matter, or that the same amount of dark matter is still supposedly out there?
    • How about instead of saying that the Universe is wrong because it doesn't fit our calculations and thus there must be some weird stuff out there called "dark matter" to make our calculations fit, we admit that we are human and that we are not perfect, and accept that some of our observations, calculations and conclusions are wrong? Dark matter was only brought about by people wondering why their calcultions didn't fit what they knew. Now it turns out that what they 'knew' was wrong, the Universe might not b
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Bohr Atom (Score:3, Funny)

    by Whiteox ( 919863 ) on Tuesday November 06, 2007 @12:30AM (#21251241) Journal
    "lightweight electrons"????
    For God's Sake! There really was nothing wrong with Bohr's atom was there?
    I'm still trying to explain wave and particle theory to my pug dog, who gazes intently into my eyes!
    Now I've got to try and explain electrons that don't 'weigh'(?) as much!
  • Anyone else having trouble with the comparisons of aircraft carriers to fireflies, wondering why "bump" in the data has quotes around it? I'll let them keep the snowy fence post as a freebie.

    Speaking of which google says proton mass / electron mass = 1,836.15266 so since when did an aircraft carrier weight as much as 1,000 fireflies anyway???

    proton mass = 1.67262158 x 10^-27 kilograms
    electron mass: 9.10938188 x 10^-31 kilograms
    aircraft carrier mass: 9 x 10^7 kg (88,000 metric tons for a big one)
    firefly mas
    • ...since when did an aircraft carrier weight as much as 1,000 fireflies anyway??? Well, a Firefly [wikipedia.org] has a mass of 128,140 kg (128 tonnes) when empty. So a thousand of them would come in at 128,000 metric tonnes, which is fairly close to your aircraft carrier mass.
      • /me stands in silent awe of this astounding display of geek-fu.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by mattr ( 78516 )
        Yes I saw that. Which is cool but fits right into context now that I'm halfway done with Rudy Rucker's new novel which is free CC liscensed online.

        Matt
  • The puzzle to explain the missing mass may well fail until physicists, whose explanations depend upon a "dead" universe, evolves to encompass the fact that the universe may well have made a "dead" to "live" transition, and therefore a "physics controlled" vs. "intelligence controlled" transition sometime a few billion, but perhaps as much as 6-8 billion years ago. This is documented by Lineweaver's group in dealing with the fact that most of the Earths in our Galaxy are *older* than our own. We are the lat

  • The Importance of Intergalactic Mass (Score:3, Funny)

    by ezzthetic ( 976321 ) on Tuesday November 06, 2007 @07:23AM (#21253133)
    To lose the intergalactic mass once might be considered a misfortune. To lose it twice begins to look like carelessness.
  • Lost near Andromeda galaxy. Responds to "Cuddles". Call 555-5432 with information. $50 reward!
  • First the newly proven 2,3 Turing machine reverts to its previous non-proven status, and now the intergalactic missing mass is missing again... my life is getting turned upside down. What's next, them telling me my 1200-sq-foot Palo Alto home has started depreciating and is no longer worth the $2M I owe on it?
  • Did anybody think to look under the sofa cushions?

Slashdot Top Deals

If all the world's economists were laid end to end, we wouldn't reach a conclusion. -- William Baumol

Close