Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:acceptance is the only fair outcome (Score 1) 295

I think the truth is probably buried in the spin and reductive reporting.

Taking it at face value however (like some chump would ) I would say this is one of those situations where it a morally undefendable position theoretically but in practice a very wise idea.

But their solution is bogus. How hard will it be to find a man willing to tow the line?

The hard reality is that in science is deeply pervasive and in many different ways. To think that you can solve it by adding more sexes to the mix...well that is just plain stupid.

We should ASSUME bias in all scientific research as a baseline and work to disprove that hypothesis with further research and more studies. A devil's advocate approach.

Comment: Re:This again? (Score 1) 430

by MrBigInThePants (#49597357) Attached to: New Test Supports NASA's Controversial EM Drive
Given some of the responses to my above statement I totally agree.

And just to prove I am the bigger Simian:

I apologise unreservedly to all chimps everywhere for any insult that was taken from my statements. I see the error of my ways and am happy to state that, given the evidence that has come to light, that chimps are far and away more valuable to our world than almost all the mouth breathers I have witnessed on the internet.

Live long and prosper.

Comment: Re:This again? (Score 1) 430

by MrBigInThePants (#49597339) Attached to: New Test Supports NASA's Controversial EM Drive
Stop being willfully moronic.

NOTHING is known to be IMPOSSIBLE. It is fundamentally impossible to prove something is impossible.

What we have reported here is an interesting experimental result that is being tested as it should be.

It is too soon to cry "Eureka!" but also too soon to be pontificating as if you have a clue about this which you quite obviously don't.

Comment: Re:Style guide (Score 1) 81

HAH!

And AFAIK it is the most popular one (used across many fields) because of how practical it is.

You forgot the DSM manual. A much better target.

This is a book written by a bean counting bureaucrat that attempts to document a range of disorders, most that exist on a spectrum, and box and label them as if they were discrete. This causes all other small minded authoritarians to be able to wave it around like a bible thinking that they and their label maker can categorise everyone (except themselves) into little belittling boxes.

The real joke is they don't really help with treatment much and in fact tend to pathologise people making it worse.

Comment: Re:This again? (Score 4, Insightful) 430

by MrBigInThePants (#49596185) Attached to: New Test Supports NASA's Controversial EM Drive
That is what peer review, replication of results and further study are for...and I am biting my lip not to add "dumbass" to the end of that sentence.

And BTW: those things are already happening. Other scientists are critiquing (constructively rather than your sort of nonsense) and others are carrying out new experiments in the same and novel situations to eliminate confounds. You know, the scientific world doing what they do.

What I find absolutely amazing here (apart from the *potential* discovery) is how everyone is more interested in bagging on the science than commenting on how this might be a major breakthrough after NASA (FFS) has been confirming the results.

Yes, it may not be as it is. But it is also WAAY too early to cry foul.

Some days the internet its like watching a tribe of chimps...

Machines certainly can solve problems, store information, correlate, and play games -- but not with pleasure. -- Leo Rosten

Working...