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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Just another Con Man (Score 5, Funny) 498

"the one time he stumbled in to something interesting with the case against Water Memory he created a perfectly blind study without taking in the error factor.
Then did not follow up to find out why the two studies differed and were both repeatable getting the same data along the two different testing technics."

uhm, link? I'm sure that's described in parseable english somewhere. I like to read actually, very much so -- I just don't have much patience for empty words.

Here is a good place to start but it is incomplete:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Water_memory

It does not really recount everything or consider all the repeated experiments since then.

In a nutshell.
A paper was published around 1980 in the Journal Nature using the standard chemistry testing protocols still in use today that suggested that water had some form of memory.
The experiments were meant to disprove homeopathy, but suggested that it may in fact be the real deal. (I have no opinions on homeopathy)
The experiment had been recreated around the world resulting in the same data.
The editor in charge of the magazine wanted the experiments rerun with Randi controlling the protocols.
Remember Randi is not a PHD or a chemist.

Randi came up with a new chemistry protocol where no one person knew what they were doing with what samples. Basically it was a completely blind testing protocol, and there have been a few TV shows on this and it was on 60 minutes and NOVA too.
Now they never ran Statistical error analysis on the new protocol so no knew what the error ratereally was.
The experiment came up inconclusive and could not prove that water had memory.

But the cool thing is this that both experiments have been recreated using both protocols several times and came up with the same data results.
Standard protocol’s says water has memory, and Randi’s protocol was inconclusive suggesting that water does not have memory.
Also Randi’s protocol has only been used to recreate this experiment.
So all other chemistry experiments still use the standard protocols today.

So my beef with Randi is that he butted in to a science lab experiment and never followed up with why the data was different and repeatable.
Although these experiments have been repeated a lot since then research in to why was dropped because of the journal bringing in Randi.

My belief is:
The data would suggest that test results are subjective much like the physic experiments done in Princeton Engineering Labs and may give us additional clues towards solving some Quantum Mechanics and M theory unresolved issues.
Then again it could just bring up more interesting questions.

Comment Re:Just another Con Man (Score -1, Troll) 498

Why yes I do and there are way too many to jot down here.

LOL!!!!! that is the most fucking stupid thing I read in a long time, kudos.

All he does is cause doubt and never follows up to prove his point.

you clearly are projecting, thanks for the laugh :D

otherwise, I'll simply skip your blah-blah for that's what it is; feel free to offer any of the aforementioned evidence once you found even just a single thing, or figured out how to decide WHAT of the mountain of evidence to post. (here's a tip, you don't have to be exhaustive -- just one would suffice to make you seem like less of a liar).

I realize a lot of people don’t like to read.
So I will repost this for you and make it easy for you.

And the one time he stumbled in to something interesting with the case against Water Memory he created a perfectly blind study without taking in the error factor.
Then did not follow up to find out why the two studies differed and were both repeatable getting the same data along the two different testing technics.

Comment Re:Just another Con Man (Score 0) 498

I bet you're one of those sons of bitches at an engineers meeting that talks the contractor into bringing in a dowser for water, oil, or whatever. I've seen weeks wasted on a contract because of dumb motherfuckers like you running the gamut of dowsers, psychics, and other flim flam just to attempt to make a point. I wish I could say it's a US thing only but having worked now in Asia and the EU, it appears your brand of stupidity is global

People like you should be smacked across the face and put in menial jobs where we can minimize the money you waste on quackery.

Funny I never thought the use of dousing would work with my scripts, or software/hardware issues.
That is being a Computer engineer and all.

Comment Re:Just another Con Man (Score -1) 498

Have any evidence to backup your defamatory statement?

Why yes I do and there are way too many to jot down here.
Just check everything out he does claiming to be a skeptic.
All he does is recreate an event or phenomena and then make an unsubstantiated claim that it was done that way without actually proving it was done that way. (Sorry I want the smoking gun)
All he does is cause doubt and never follows up to prove his point.

And the one time he stumbled in to something interesting with the case against Water Memory he created a perfectly blind study without taking in the error factor.
Then did not follow up to find out why the two studies differed and were both repeatable getting the same data along the two different testing technics.

So think of him as a guy that creates a device on paper that looks like it would logically work, and then sells it to people without ever knowing if it will really work or not. (A coder that never tests his code)
It might work and then again it might not, but when he is done it is no longer his problem and proclaims himself a genius based on his half completed work.

Then again “skeptics” thought the earth was flat because maps were flat and that is all the proof they needed.
That is why I consider skeptics to be just another type of religious zealot.
Because in science you should have both an open curious mind and a skeptical questioning mind too.

Blackberry

Submission + - Leaked BlackBerry 10 show New Widgets and Tray Icon | Twitteling (twitteling.com)

tculang writes: "RIM has said that BlackBerry 10 new smartphone will be released in late 2012. The waiting time is not a short time and therefore worth asking why BlackBerry fans, will like what 10 BlackBerry handsets in the future? If you are one person waiting, you may be a little glad that the latest leak of BlackBerry 10 smartphones has emerged."
Power

Submission + - Small modular nuclear reactors - the future of energy? (gizmag.com)

cylonlover writes: This year is an historic one for nuclear power, with the first reactors winning U.S. government approval for construction since 1978. Some have seen the green lighting of two Westinghouse AP1000 reactors to be built in Georgia as the start of a revival of nuclear power in the West, but this may be a false dawn because of the problems besetting conventional reactors. It may be that when a new boom in nuclear power comes, it won't be led by giant gigawatt installations, but by batteries of small modular reactors (SMRs) with very different principles from those of previous generations. But though a technology of great diversity and potential, many obstacles stand in its path. Gizmag takes an in-depth look at the many forms of SMRs, their advantages, and the challenges they must overcome.
Robotics

Submission + - Getting closer to the Singularity! (slashgear.com)

wisebabo writes: The Singularity I've thought will be achieved when we get two things 1) true atomic level control over matter as demonstrated by human designed robots that can replicate themselves from the lego blocks of nature, atoms, and 2) when we have supra-human intelligence that can take over the difficult process of thinking. (Of course having #2 will make it a lot easier to achieve #1 but that's another topic).

Well it looks like we're getting closer to the first goal. Harvard researchers have built robots made from DNA. While I'm not sure the robots themselves can self-replicate, it seems probable that using PCR it would be easy to make trillions of these things at a time.

I know robots made from DNA may not be as flexible or robust as ones made from a completely "bottom up" approach (by Eric Drexler's assemblers) but it's a (good) start.. By using these self-assembling systems as a base, we can hopefully use them to make more general purpose machines. And as long as they're made from fragile DNA (carbon links) there's less chance of them becoming an unstoppable Grey Goo!

Now if only we could solve that pesky A.I. problem. If Siri and Watson had a baby, would it be HAL?

Comment Re:Blegh (Score 1) 458

I have to agree
All you should have is a joint checking account for house hold bills, and maybe a joint savings account for vacations.
There is no need to combine everything in a long term relationship unfortunately I learned the hard way after two marriages and two divorces.
Currently I have no joint accounts with my current girlfriend/partner/house mate of 9 years.

As far as the computers go, yours is yours, and hers is hers, and she should be able to have copies of any of her data on your servers.

Comment Not Currently Practical (Score 1) 158

Let us count the ways of epic failure:
1. Follows enemy combatants instead of friendly soldiers
2. Takes orders from enemy combatants.
3. Makes enough noise to be heard at least a klick away.
4. Runs out of fuel.
The only thing this has over a mule or horse is that it can be deployed on a jump.

Comment Really someone needs to wake up (Score 1) 1367

Global warming is real.
But there is a lot of arguing about everything that affects it.

Let’s start with the WSJ article which is pretty much a reprint of the same arguments in the 90's.
In the 90's a lot of people with PHD's came out and sited bogus data, and bad assumptions to outline their argument that global warming was a hoax.
A lot of the PHD’s in question did not have any experience in the discipline necessary to come to an educated conclusion.
In fact if I remember correctly the majority of the people with PHD’s were geologists dependent on Oil and natural gas companies for funding.
This was exposed for the crap that it was in the early 2000's.
Now it is back again and it is still crap, and not real science.
And guess what kiddies the WSJ is not a scientific journal.

Now let’s look at the real science behind global warming.
Global warming is caused by many factors but the 2 main factors are: Greenhouse gasses, and solar changes in our sun.
Trying to predict this is still tough because we still don’t have all the data necessary to pin it all down.
So there are still some anomaly’s with the models we use.
What we do know is we can't really do much about the sun at this time, but we can reduce our CO2 output and possibly other greenhouse gasses as well.
There are also natural processes on the earth that produce greenhouse gasses that we can’t at this time control.
But reducing the industrial greenhouse gasses we output is something we can and really should do.

Slashdot Top Deals

Humanity has the stars in its future, and that future is too important to be lost under the burden of juvenile folly and ignorant superstition. - Isaac Asimov

Working...