Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:What kind of moron, you ask? (Score 1) 88

Serial number ground away? Good.

If you're buying a gun in an illegal handshake deal, why would you want one with a ground off serial number? It's not traceable to you even with the serial number, and getting caught with a gun with a ground off serial number is a federal offence in and of itself. It seems to me a criminal wouldn't want the serial number ground off unless it had previously been legally purchased by them through a traceable deal and they're also planning to dump the gun.

Comment Re:Ally Sheedy (Score 2) 103

> There is nothing more unstable than a narcissistic actress going through fame withdrawls and hearing the word "No" for the first time in years.

You obviously know nothing about the woman. I happen to be good friends with her sister, and this description is not even close. She's far from narcissistic, and she basically quit the whole industry years ago because she didn't want the fame and simply wished to quietly live in peace.

Comment Re:Not good evidence (Score 1) 365

You need to keep reading beyond an article which just rehashes TIGHAR's bias. The artifacts, including the skeleton (which was male, BTW), are not at all identifiable as linked to her. They are simply consistent with what could have been her and her navigator. Big deal; They're also consistent with a million other people.

Comment Re:Not good evidence (Score 1) 365

No. You have it backward. Science is not, in fact, about collecting evidence which supports your hypothesis. Science is about collecting evidence which shows your hypothesis to be false. If, after you have tried as hard as you can to disprove your own idea, you still cannot show it to be false, you then ask others to find your error. If they too cannot show it to be false, then, finally, you have something that tentatively might be true.

Anyway, we are not at an early stage in the Earhart crash. There has already been plenty of evidence collected, such as the fact that this island is far enough away from Howland Island (their destination), that they would have had to have been aiming for this alternate island from the moment they took off in order to have enough fuel to reach it. It simply isn't a possible 'we ran out of fuel and have to ditch' location. So the only other possible reason they would hit this island would have been navigation error. But, again, this alternate island is quite far away from the original island. Noonan, the navigator (one of the best of his day), would have had to have made an incredibly huge navigation error. It's just not likely. Possible? Sure, anything is possible. But finding some junk and a skeleton on an island which is known to have been commonly populated is not even close to compelling evidence to suggest that Earhart and her navigator made this particular massive error.

Comment Not good evidence (Score 5, Insightful) 365

It makes my chuckle that there is a "RECOMMENDED: Are you scientifically literate? Take the quiz" link imbedded into the article, as this 'evidence' from TIGHAR is exactly the opposite of good science. They have been pushing this nonsense for a while. They've decided she was on this island and continue to look only for confirming information to support their hypothesis, rather than attempting to falsify it. They could start by admitting that there have been a lot of people who traveled to and briefly lived on that island throughout the years, particularly many, many pearl divers, and that finding various pieces of junk on the island is completely and entirely consistent with this, and not even slightly compelling evidence that Earhart left this junk.

Comment Re:"Illegal streaming not covered by criminal law" (Score 1) 652

Read the quote you cited again. He didn't say there was no law covering it. He said there was no *criminal* law covering it. Now go actually read the white paper. The question is whether it is "distribution" or "unauthorized performance". Either way it is copyright infringement (in his estimation, at least), which is illegal. But only distribution is criminally punishable. Unauthorized performance only carries civil punishment.

Slashdot Top Deals

"In matters of principle, stand like a rock; in matters of taste, swim with the current." -- Thomas Jefferson