Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Take the responsibility onto yourself (Score 1) 300

by Spazztastic (#49630285) Attached to: The Medical Bill Mystery

Just be careful with that stuff. The difference between the antibiotics given to your fish and the ones that come from the pharmacy is the FDA regulations around manufacturing. There's no Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP) required for the antibiotics provided for fish because they are not for human consumption. Sure, it may be the exact same pill manufactured in the exact same building, but the humans get pile A because that went through extensive QC and has passed, and the fish get pile B with rejects.

Obviously this isn't a truly factual scenario, but I would just be cautious consuming that unless you have no other option.

Comment: Re:summary as i understand it: (Score 1) 383

by Catbeller (#49629429) Attached to: No, NASA Did Not Accidentally Invent Warp Drive

No, fraud would be publishing results that are not valid and claiming that they are. Right now, they are experimenting, and will continue to do so until they have something to publish. You are free to speculate on experimentation you have no access to, but your judgement is ill-advised and unwarranted. No one is claiming anything. All the noise is from non-scientists trying to be scientists and getting it wrong.

Comment: Re:summary as i understand it: (Score 1) 383

by Catbeller (#49629391) Attached to: No, NASA Did Not Accidentally Invent Warp Drive

1. No.
2. Maybe.

And the author of the article is confusing two different experiments, the EMDrive tests and the Cannae drive investigation, so just discount the entire idiot debate. It all comes from wrong premises. Like the cold fusion debacle, it's mostly about high school lunch table character assassinaton and little about science. The cold fusion mess of the 80s was about a secretive experiment and scientists trying to cash in, not the science. Cold fusion by chemical bond compression is a possiblity, just not realized in experimentation, and it is a damned shame no one can go near it now because of the nattering childishness of human tribal shaming.

Comment: Re:Article asks an important question (Score 1) 383

by Catbeller (#49629241) Attached to: No, NASA Did Not Accidentally Invent Warp Drive

The did mount it and move it in any direction to see if it worked. It did. Per the results. Also eliminated magnetic interference, microwave heating of the chamber to produce ions from the lining, thermal effects, and anything else they could think of. Ain't their first rodeo. There may be something no one thought of, and they are aware of that. They are well aware also that messing this up would ruin them. We are reacting to unpublished experimental results, aren't we?

Comment: Re:Bad title (Score 1) 383

by Catbeller (#49629187) Attached to: No, NASA Did Not Accidentally Invent Warp Drive

People are listening to other people lose their shit, and then losing their shit, leading to even more shit losing. Sort of like the cold fusion meltdown, or the idiocy surrounding the "failure" of Biosphere 2. No one listens to the actual experimenters - they just jump into the echo chamber. Like high school, really, if you consider high school as a true representation of how humans interact when the brakes are off. Scarey that scientists act like kids jumping the nerd in the locker room.

Comment: Re:One Criterion Missing (Score 1) 383

by Catbeller (#49628823) Attached to: No, NASA Did Not Accidentally Invent Warp Drive

The scientists involved are well aware of the need for controls, and are eliminating the factors as you indicate. When they are done, they will publish.
New science is not always required if something odd is noticed. Sometimes it comes down to a loophole no one thought of before. Even a loophole that never existed in the universe until bags of carbon, water and minerals twiddled things around a bit. Interferometric telescopy, for instance; when I was a wee sprite, they were talking about the impossibility of super large mirrors to observe planets around other stars. Then someone said, why not put two scopes far from each other and combine the images? No new physics, just a tweak. Gravitational lensing is another; took advantage of a loophole.

Comment: Surveillance is not safety. Why? I'll tell you (Score 2, Interesting) 158

by Catbeller (#49628679) Attached to: French Version of 'Patriot Act' Becomes Law

Reactionary was the word we used to describe this sort of behavior.

A man doesn't need anything but his hands, feet, eyes, and a gun to kill blasphemers. Surveillance is irrelevant. They're making the same damned mistake we did, confusing power and the all-seeing eye with safety. They'll use this to round up Muslims, same as the US does. Innocence or guilt is irrelevant. They'll go into holes for life or get blown up real good.

The questions remains: who will protect us from the people spying on us? The people behind the spy eyes will change over time. The may even become the people who want to shoot you for blasphemy. Ever think of that? In Saudi Arabia, the all-seeing eye will be on the lookout for women driving cars. In North Korea, they'll be looking out for anyone they damned well want to kill. In South America, for anyone challenging the wealthy's control. In America, straight up they're looking for anyone who dares challenge corporate power - no more draconian surveillance was used here than when Occupy managed to gain some attention. The US managed an unprecedented surveillance and pre-crime arrest sweep during Occupy, showing what secret surveillance was really good for: control of the status quo,.

Oh well, freedom was nice while it lasted.

Failure is more frequently from want of energy than want of capital.

Working...