Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment And? (Score 2) 254

It links to an AP story with the headline "Physicists say they have found a Higgs boson", which says...

GENEVA -- The search is all but over for a subatomic particle that is a crucial building block of the universe.

Physicists announced Thursday they believe they have discovered the subatomic particle predicted nearly a half-century ago, which will go a long way toward explaining what gives electrons and all matter in the universe size and shape.

The elusive particle, called a Higgs boson, was predicted in 1964 to help fill in our understanding of the creation of the universe, which many theorize occurred in a massive explosion known as the Big Bang. The particle was named for Peter Higgs, one of the physicists who proposed its existence, but it later became popularly known as the "God particle."

[...]

...and says nothing about the particle having anything to do with anything related to God, other than being popularly known as the "God particle" -- which is a fact.

Comment If by "news media" you mean mainstream media... (Score 4, Interesting) 254

...no, no -- that's not how it's going to be "picked up".

Let's take a look:

NBC News: Particle confirmed as Higgs boson

Associated Press: Physicists say they have found a Higgs boson

Reuters: Strong signs Higgs boson has been found: CERN

Wall Street Journal: New Data Boosts Case for Higgs Boson Find

FOX News: Physicists say they have found long-sought Higgs boson

Washington Post: A closer look at the Higgs boson particle that helps explain what gives matter size and shape

Chicago Tribune: Strong signs Higgs boson has been found: CERN

Sky News: Higgs Boson: Experts Sure Of 'God Particle'

New York Daily News: Physicists say they have discovered crucial subatomic particle known as Higgs boson

Boston Globe: Physicists say they have found a Higgs boson

BBC (UK): LHC cements Higgs boson identification

BusinessWeek: Case for Higgs Boson Strengthened by New CERN Analysis

The Daily Mail (UK): Scientists say they HAVE found the 'God particle' - but admit they still aren't sure what type of Higgs boson it is

The Independent (UK): Have they found the Higgs boson at last? Cern physicists say they're confident of 'God particle' breakthrough

Telegraph (UK): Higgs boson: scientists confident they have discovered the 'God particle'

News Limited (AU): Higgs boson, the God particle, discovered by CERN

US News and World Report: Physicists Observe Higgs Boson, the Elusive 'God Particle'

None of these articles make any links to "God" other than a few -- mostly UK, not US -- sources referring to it as the so-called "God particle", but even those explain exactly what this particle is theorized to be, not anything supernatural, "proving God exists", or having anything whatever to do with God.

Comment Because it is lawful and Constitutional (Score 0) 693

It is factually correct to say that there could be a hypothetical, however unlikely, future scenario where it would be both lawful and Constitutional for the President to authorize the use of military force within the United States. (This already occurred during the Civil War.) That would include any weapon in the US arsenal, including "drones". "Drones" are an evolution in warfare that started with the rock, the spear, the bow and arrow and continued with guns, cannons, bombs, and missiles â" nothing more.

The ONLY valid question is whether it is lawful to execute a military or covert action under some particular circumstance, and whether it is lawful and necessary to target an individual or a place. I'm not making those value judgments, but the tool used, while absolutely an enabler, is utterly and completely irrelevant. Furthermore, both Brennan's and Holder's responses are completely accurate and not contradictory. It is accurate to say that CIA does not have this authority in the United States, and it is accurate to say that there could be a scenario where the military would have such authority. There is no conflict, no subterfuge, no conspiracy.

People are conflating multiple things. The justification for targeted killing of US citizens OUTSIDE the US includes several narrow criteria, a key one of which is being OUTSIDE the US. Holder's response is that the President has the authority to use the military within the US, which is factually correct, and necessarily includes any weapon in the US arsenal, including "drones". So why would they be "ruled out"? I understand the arguments, but people are really conflating multiple issues, and don't seem to even understand why we're using unmanned aircraft where we're using them in the first place.

If Paul wants the President to "rule out" the use of some particular military tool on US soil, why isn't he also asking the President to "rule out" manned aircraft, guns, or anything else?

Even the Posse Comitatus Act is very straightforward:

"Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."

The "except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress" allows domestic use of the military in cases authorized by Congress OR the Constitution. Many legal scholars would agree that the President's inherent Article II authority would allow such employment of the military -- as was the case with President Lincoln. This is not a new concept.

If people can't envision any case where it would ever be appropriate to use US military force on US soil, then they aren't very imaginative -- or knowledgeable of history.

Of course, if there ever were a September 11-scale event where it would be clearly appropriate to employ the US military on US soil, there would be a large contingent of Americans -- who I am ashamed to call fellow citizens -- would immediately think it was a "false flag operation" used as an excuse to carry out domestic military operations.

Paul doesn't really want debate; he is pandering to those who think the government is constantly looking for ways to "go after" Americans at home, and to people with this paranoia complex, it connects quite well.

Comment Huh? Not charged? (Score 5, Informative) 436

-August 11-12, 2012. The incident that began this case occurred.

-August 14, 2012. The incident was reported to Steubenville Police.

-August 16, 2012. Electronic devices of people who potentially had knowledge of the incident were taken, pursuant to search warrants.

-August 17, 2012. Steubenville Police request technical and investigative support from the Ohio Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigation "BCI" (a state agency supervised by the Ohio Attorney General). At the request of Steubenville Police, BCI expedited the evidence analysis. The analysis involved uncovering and reviewing tens of thousands of emails, texts, and photos from approximately a dozen electronic devices. The vast majority of such data was unrelated to the case. Investigators and forensic examiners never found any video of the alleged crime.

-August 22, 2012. Based on the investigation of the Steubenville Police, two juvenile males were arrested and charged. Their names are Trent Mays and Ma'lik Richmond. Suspects remained in juvenile detention until November 1, 2012 when the Visiting Judge (from outside the county) assigned to the case placed the suspects on home arrest.

-August 28, 2012. County Prosecuting Attorney delegates her authority to special prosecutors from the Ohio Attorney General's Office.

-August 30, 2012. Steubenville Police meet with the special prosecutors.

-The Juvenile Court trial in this case is scheduled for February 13, 2013. Circumstances surrounding media and public access to that trial are controlled by the Visiting Judge.

Source

Comment Wrong (Score 5, Informative) 436

"Under Ohio law, the Ohio Attorney General is elected by the voters of the state and does not have the independent jurisdiction or ability to undertake investigations or prosecutions of juvenile crime. In this case, the Jefferson County Prosecuting Attorney who has such authority delegated her authority to the Attorney General's office to act as special prosecutor in the matter. The special prosecutors are not from the Steubenville area and graduated high school elsewhere."

Source

Comment Is this comment some kind of a joke? (Score 5, Insightful) 223

First of all, you can tell a LOT from this particular data point.

That aside, what are you insinuating? That a group widely and routinely chastised as espousing a "liberal" and/or "leftist" agenda by conservatives, opposed the now-cancelled US Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW) program, and is opposed to nuclear weapons in general, is executing a propaganda campaign to make North Korea look more primitive than it really is when it comes to its rocket programs?

Are you serious?

After a veritable comedy of errors, North Korea finally has a successful launch, can't even get or keep the satellite launched from it into a stable orbit, and now an anti-nuclear advocacy group is really a secret US propaganda campaign to inappropriately embarrass the North Koreans, who are really more advanced in rocketry than all of their misadventures would indicate? The same North Koreans who just announced they have uncovered a unicorn lair?

Really? I mean...really?

Please â" I would love to hear how this is "propaganda", and how the DPRK is really a capable member of the space and nuclear clubs. To what possible end? Even IF it were true, why/how would that be a good thing?

Or is this one of those topsy-turvy bizarro-world lines of reasoning where anything and everything that is in ANY way opposed to anything related to any US or Western interest is automatically true and pure, but anything that originates from the US or West, in any way, shape, or form is always "propaganda"?

Comment Remember the trees, indeed (Score 4, Informative) 87

How are you replacing the trees that had to be removed?

The California Science Center Foundation is investing approximately $2 million to replace 400 trees removed along the route with over 1,000 trees. These replacement trees are between 10 and 14 feet in height -- about the same size as most of the trees they will be removing. A minimum of two years of free maintenance will also be provided. Within five years the community along route will have an even greener and more beautiful tree canopy.

NASA

Submission + - Space Shuttle Endeavour's Final Journey

daveschroeder writes: "After over 296 days in space, nearly 123 million miles traveled, Space Shuttle Endeavour (OV-105) is making its final journey — on the streets of Los Angeles. The last Space Shuttle to be built, the contract for Endeavour was awarded on July 31, 1987. Endeavour first launched on May 7, 1992, launched for the last time on May 16, 2011, and landed for the final time on June 1, 2011. Endeavour then took to the skies aboard the Shuttle Carrier Aircraft (SCA), completing the final ferry flight and the final flight of any kind in the Space Shuttle Program era with an aerial grand tour of southern California escorted by two NASA Dryden Flight Research Center F/A-18 aircraft on September 21, 2012. This morning around 1:30AM Pacific Time, Endeavour began another journey, this one on the ground. All Space Shuttles have traveled via road from Air Force Plant 42 in Palmdale, CA, to Edwards Air Force Base, but this time a Space Shuttle is taking to the streets of Los Angeles for the journey from Los Angeles International Airport to its final home at the California Science Center. Getting the shuttle through LA surface streets is a mammoth logistical challenge as it lumbers along at 2 mph to the cheers of onlookers. Watching Endeavour make the journey is a sight to be seen! Thank you, Endeavour!"

Comment Re:Weapons testing by any other name (Score 1) 190

The "you" to which I was referring in my post is the royal or general "you", for what it's worth, not you personally.

I'm also not saying that the only overwhelming deterrent is our nuclear deterrent, but it's part of our deterrent capability.

Things which are simply not covered by test ban treaties are not "getting around" test bans. When you say "getting around", you make it seem as if it is somehow a shameful, underhanded, dirty trick to "get around" a treaty. Is using supercomputers to simulate nuclear detonations also "getting around" test bans? If not, why not? If so -- are you serious? Because that's why the DOE National Laboratories have some of the most powerful supercomputers in the world -- and which can be, and are, used for all other manner of science.

US stockpile stewardship activities do not run counter to the letter, spirit, nor intent of any treaty relevant to nuclear weapons.

I'm also not making a defense of MAD, but can you explain why we should not maintain the integrity of the weapons we do have, while China is arming with nuclear weapons when we are disarming? It's fine to wax philosophic about how there are more than enough nuclear weapons on Earth to destroy it, but the idea isn't to destroy it -- it's to have enough weapons distributed on enough platforms in enough places so that it's clear that even a surprise first strike cannot hope to disable our strategic forces. The best deterrent is one that never needs to be used.

Comment NIF isn't "getting around" anything (Score 5, Informative) 190

NIF has three missions:

- National security (stockpile stewardship
- Basic fusion science
- Understanding the origins of the basic building blocks of the universe

That's it.

I hate to break it you you, but much of what we do in basic science research is dual-use. It can be used for military applications, or purely scientific applications. Doing stockpile stewardship without nuclear tests is not "getting around" nuclear test ban treaties. It's maintaining the integrity of our increasingly smaller nuclear stockpile as a credible deterrent.

This overwhelming deterrent capability is part of the reason why the world has seen no major global conflict for seven decades, and has had the longest period of peace without global conflict for over five centuries. Tens of millions of people died in WWI and WWII.

We maintain a credible deterrent so it's clear that no one can ever strike us first without the certainty of themselves also being destroyed -- and if our principles and ideals and those of our allies are something you care about, then that should be important to you.

The world is changing, and some might say that the general "cyber" and information threats will more important than nuclear. China certainly seems to think so. Then again, China is also building out its nuclear weapons capabilities and stockpiles as the rest of the world, including the US, disarms. No worries, right? Delivery systems that can rain down nuclear warheads on targets anywhere in the world is just for "peaceful regional defense", right?

A world where the US doesn't maintain an overwhelming deterrent to forces which espouse principles and ideals counter to those of freedom and liberal democracy is not a pretty place.

(Note to people who think that the US is what's wrong with the world: you are sorely in need of historical perspective -- or, any perspective. The US is not perfect, but the US and West has done far more for the benefit of human life and humanity, on the whole, than any other nation, especially those with Communist, Socialist, or totalitarian systems of government. Wake up.)

Slashdot Top Deals

"It is hard to overstate the debt that we owe to men and women of genius." -- Robert G. Ingersoll

Working...