Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Scientific American Gives Up

Zonk posted more than 9 years ago | from the fair-and-balanced dept.

Science 523

IvyMike writes "The April issue Scientific American opens with a Perspectives column titled Okay, We Give Up. It opens, 'For years, helpful letter writers told us to stick to science. They pointed out that science and politics don't mix. They said we should be more balanced in our presentation of such issues as creationism, missile defense and global warming. We resisted their advice and pretended not to be stung by the accusations that the magazine should be renamed Unscientific American, or Scientific Unamerican, or even Unscientific Unamerican. But spring is in the air, and all of nature is turning over a new leaf, so there's no better time to say: you were right, and we were wrong.'"

cancel ×

523 comments

Geek kills geek over fake sword in video game (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12110844)

I know that there are people that take video games seriously and I don't know why exactly, but some do.

I've heard of fights, I've heard of friends falling out, but I have never heard of murder. At least not until now.

A Chinese man, Qiu Changwei stabbed Zhu Caoyuan to death after he sold the guys cyber-sword. Yes, you heard that right. Geek # 1 murdered geek #2 for selling a cyber-sword. Qui was apparently very pissed off that Zhu sold his 'dragon saber' in the game 'Legend of Mir 3'.

The game involves winning weapons to be used in on-line battles. Well, Qui got pissed when Zhu sold the saber. He even went as far to go to the cops and report the sword stolen. Stolen? The thing doesn't freaking exist. It's an on-line sword. It's fictional. There is no sword. At least that was the cops feeling.

The Cops told the tool-box to get lost since nothing was actually stolen. That's when geek #1 took matters into his won hands and whacked geek #2. As always in these situations, at least he had a good reason. At least there was an on-line gaming dispute. And I'm sure the courts will take that into consideration when they sentence this guy for his crimes.

I can hear the judge now, 'You're free to go geek. Who among us wouldn't have committed a homicide over a video game?" Couldn't this guy just have made up another fake sword? Couldn't he have just pretended he still had it? Granted, I am not all that versed on my video game etiquette, but this seems extreme. Couldn't they have settled this in a less violent way? Maybe the offending geek could have volunteered to shave off his pube-stache. I am sure that is a fate worse than death in the virtual sword fighting world.

ASCII GOATSE REQUEST (-1, Offtopic)

govtcheez (524087) | more than 9 years ago | (#12111021)

n/t

Re:ASCII GOATSE REQUEST (0, Troll)

mirko (198274) | more than 9 years ago | (#12111060)

)o(3

What about SciAm, why did they have tro politize their joke that much ?
It's April fools, not April jesters... humor is supposed not to be seriously take-able.

Nice. (5, Funny)

windex (92715) | more than 9 years ago | (#12110846)

But they're still trying to make a buck charging for the article.

How American.

Re:Nice. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12110871)

Sometimes I like it when my head is shoved up my ass

Re:Nice. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12110920)

I think I know you. [theweeklygiggle.com]

Re:Nice. (5, Informative)

caryw (131578) | more than 9 years ago | (#12110915)

Screw paying for a joke. Here's the full article now with new and improved karma whoring goodness.

Okay, We Give Up
From the April 2005 Issue of Scientific American.
Who said scientists had no sense' of humor?

There's no easy way to admit this. For years, helpful letter writers told us to stick to science. They pointed out that science and politics don't mix. They said we should be more balanced in our presentation of such issues as creationism, missile defense and global warming. We resisted their advice and pretended not to be stung by the accusations that the magazine should be renamed Unscientific American, or Scientific Unamerican, or even Unscientific Unamerican. But spring is in the air, and all of nature is turning over a new leaf, so there's no better time to say: you were right, and we were wrong.

In retrospect, this magazine's coverage of socalled evolution has been hideously one-sided. For decades, we published articles in every issue that endorsed the ideas of Charles Darwin and his cronies. True, the theory of common descent through natural selection has been called the unifying concept for all of biology and one of the greatest scientific ideas of all time, but that was no excuse to be fanatics about it.

Where were the answering articles presenting the powerful case for scientific creationism? Why were we so unwilling to suggest that dinosaurs lived 6,000 years ago or that a cataclysmic flood carved the Grand Canyon? Blame the scientists. They dazzled us with their fancy fossils, their radiocarbon dating and their tens of thousands of peer-reviewed journal articles. As editors, we had no business being persuaded by mountains of evidence.

Moreover, we shamefully mistreated the Intelligent Design (ID) theorists by lumping them in with creationists. Creationists believe that God designed all life, and that's a somewhat religious idea. But ID theorists think that at unspecified times some unnamed superpowerful entity designed life, or maybe just some species, or maybe just some of the stuff in cells. That's what makes ID a superior scientific theory: it doesn't get bogged down in details.

Good journalism values balance above all else. We owe it to our readers to present everybody's ideas equally and not to ignore or discredit theories simply because they lack scientifically credible arguments or facts. Nor should we succumb to the easy mistake of thinking that scientists understand their fields better than, say, U.S. senators or best-selling novelists do. Indeed, if politicians or special-interest groups say things that seem untrue or misleading, our duty as journalists is to quote them without comment or contradiction. To do otherwise would be elitist and therefore wrong. In that spirit, we will end the practice of expressing our own views in this space: an editorial page is no place for opinions.

Get ready for a new Scientific American. No more discussions of how science should inform policy. If the government commits blindly to building an anti-ICBM defense system that can't work as promised, that will waste tens of billions of taxpayers' dollars and imperil national security, you won't hear about it from us. If studies suggest that the administration's antipollution measures would actually increase the dangerous particulates that people breathe during the next two decades, that's not our concern. No more discussions of how policies affect science either so what if the budget for the National Science Foundation is slashed? This magazine will be dedicated purely to science, fair and balanced science, and not just the science that scientists say is science. And it will start on April Fools' Day.

Okay, We Give Up

MATT COLLINS
THE EDITORS editors@sciam.com
COPYRIGHT 2005 SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, INC.
--
NoVa Underground: Where Northern Virginia comes out to play [novaunderground.com]

Re:Nice. (1)

BuckEZ (827910) | more than 9 years ago | (#12111099)

Thanks. It pissed me off that I can finish the rest of the articles. --Bucky

Re:Nice. (1)

Anne_Nonymous (313852) | more than 9 years ago | (#12110925)

The articles over on The Onion are all free. Of course they're also "real" news this week.

Re:Nice. (0, Troll)

MasTRE (588396) | more than 9 years ago | (#12110931)

> But they're still trying to make a buck charging for the article.

How American.


And how scientific.

Re:Nice. (0, Offtopic)

SmokeHalo (783772) | more than 9 years ago | (#12111020)

Maybe they should rename the mag Capitalistic American.

Please don't mod that term -1 Redundant.

Boy Howdy (2, Insightful)

iibbmm (723967) | more than 9 years ago | (#12110847)

These NEVER get old. Really. Seriously. Okay, I give up.

What's good about living on the west coast? (2, Funny)

MrAnnoyanceToYou (654053) | more than 9 years ago | (#12111073)

All you easterners have made all the necessary bad jokes for the day by the time I have my bagel. Thereafter, we know what's been done horribly and have the chance to either a: realize we're no-talent hacks and not try the stupid jokes, or b: make the same joke a second time in the same way that wasn't funny the first either.

Ain't it great?

Stop whining.. Come back tomorrow, simpleton. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12111100)


It's April 1, the day when the Nerds pour out of their dark cubes to whine openly about the lack of "real" news. You'll hear cries like:

Where are the real stories?
Seriously, this isn't funny. How about some serious news?
Haha, you really got me.

and so many more. Like true geeks, they're all out to (a) prove they weren't in the least bit fooled, eyes rolling all the way, and (b) demonstrate the usual nerd's total lack of any humour whatsoever.

Go outside for some fresh air, dummies, and come back at one after midnight for your precious fix.

Last Psot (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12110851)

hahahahah Joo ru13

Now that's laziness (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12110852)

We don't even get a full joke!

what (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12110854)

do people still read magazines?

Getting Old (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12110855)

This April Fools stuff is getting old.

move along (-1, Redundant)

edsarkiss (755418) | more than 9 years ago | (#12110856)

april fools joke, ok?

Yeah... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12110857)

April Fools.

Bloody Fools (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12110863)

Don't you just LOVE April 1st?

6 April fools jokes in a row makes this... (3, Funny)

Kewjoe (307612) | more than 9 years ago | (#12110864)

wait for it. .. .. .. .. ..

unfunny

Re:6 April fools jokes in a row makes this... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12111043)

Look back for April 1 posts of Slashdot since it's start. Every post today will be a joke, deal with it and shut the fuck up. Enough people are karma whoring as it is.

Jesus fucking christ. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12110868)

Can we tone this fucking shit down a bit? Do we really need a new april fools story *LITERALLY* every fucking five minutes?

DUPRt (2, Funny)

Godwin O'Hitler (205945) | more than 9 years ago | (#12110874)

Re:DUPRt (1)

ggvaidya (747058) | more than 9 years ago | (#12110950)

Heh. Finally, a half-decent April Fool's joke! Thank you.

Re:DUPRt (1)

Isosceles Triangle (264859) | more than 9 years ago | (#12111052)

Correction:

God: Rome won't be built in a day.

(chough chough) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12110876)

april fools....

Stupid Idiots! It's... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12110877)

Aprils fool!

April Fools Day... (1, Funny)

popo (107611) | more than 9 years ago | (#12110878)


and everyone's a comedian

Re:April Fools Day... (1, Redundant)

FidelCatsro (861135) | more than 9 years ago | (#12111011)

in the same sense that everyone on a windows box with admin privilidges is a systems admin ;)

Slashdot links to the first 2 paragraphs?! (1)

Logic Bomb (122875) | more than 9 years ago | (#12110879)

Um, perhaps the submitter is a Scientific American "digital" subscriber, but the rest of us aren't. You think maybe Slashdot should link to full-text articles?

Scientific Unamerican? (1, Funny)

PocketPick (798123) | more than 9 years ago | (#12110882)

There's gotta be a Fox News Joke somewhere in there.

Re:Scientific Unamerican? (1)

bastardadmin (660086) | more than 9 years ago | (#12110917)

Wouldn't that be Unscientific American?

Re:Scientific Unamerican? (4, Insightful)

LinuxFan (90650) | more than 9 years ago | (#12110946)

Fox News is the joke

Re:Scientific Unamerican? (2, Insightful)

Three Headed Man (765841) | more than 9 years ago | (#12110958)

I think an accurate portrayal of Bush would be enough of an April Fool's joke.

Paris (5, Funny)

datadriven (699893) | more than 9 years ago | (#12110887)

THEY need to hire Paris Hilton

fair-and-balanced dept? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12110890)

you mean, from the "i'm fucking wailing-ass on this horse, and it's absolutely totally dead, so please just deal with it" dept?

what i'm hoping for is a total format change. "Slashdot - where it's april fools day 365 days a year!"

C'mon folks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12110891)

It IS April 1, right?

Re:C'mon folks (2, Insightful)

MathFox (686808) | more than 9 years ago | (#12110963)

April 2nd in Australia.

the boy who cried wolf (1)

zxnos (813588) | more than 9 years ago | (#12110892)

eventually there is going to be a real story that sounds a little fishy, yet will still get dismissed.

the stories are fast and furious today.

THEY MAY HAVE GIVEN UP! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12110897)

but April fools KEEPS GOING STRONG!! w00t! (I love today, i wait all year for it, I even love the comments complaining about it)

alternate link (2, Informative)

jeffy124 (453342) | more than 9 years ago | (#12110901)

Registration Required, but at least that's better than cash:

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/editorial/ 11281408.htm [philly.com]

Re:alternate link (1)

Ford Prefect (8777) | more than 9 years ago | (#12111068)

Not really an issue with this article since people have already posted the full text, but newspaper sites often let you in if you have a Google Referer: header. Get one by copying the link, pasting it into a Google search box thingy, and then the 'If the URL is valid...' link.

Like this... [google.com]

Giggles. (5, Funny)

mpathetiq (726625) | more than 9 years ago | (#12110902)

This one actually made me giggle like a little schoolgirl. Giggle with joy that they finally admit that creationism is a valid theory.*




*Parts of this statement may be false.

Re:Giggles. (1)

stlhawkeye (868951) | more than 9 years ago | (#12110998)

The problem with creationism is it's a faith-based theory, and it can't be proven correct (or incorrect, really). It's like a guy standing there saying, "My pet dog Frank is standing next to me but he's invisible to everybody but me. PROVE THAT THIS ISN'T TRUE!"

Re:Giggles. (0)

Anne Honime (828246) | more than 9 years ago | (#12111024)

The word you're looking for is "solepsism".

Re:Giggles. (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12111124)

The word you're looking for is "solipsism".

Re:Giggles. (2, Insightful)

mpathetiq (726625) | more than 9 years ago | (#12111029)

My supervisor said it best... once you have faith, you don't need to look for anymore proof. There's no need to find a better answer - no need to strive for higher learning of how the world works. If you are a faith-based person, things just happen "because they are supposed to."

BLAH.

Sponsorship (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12110903)

This issue brought to you in part by the Bush Administration

_
free cursors [paware.com]

Scientific Amercian Gives Up (4, Funny)

Dorf on Perl (738169) | more than 9 years ago | (#12110905)

Me too.

Re:Scientific Amercian Gives Up (1)

ggvaidya (747058) | more than 9 years ago | (#12110980)

Count me in.

Full article here (1)

Charvak (97898) | more than 9 years ago | (#12110907)

The complete article is here
http://mrbobhatesyou.blogspot.com/2005_03_01_mrbob hatesyou_archive.html%23111147519912475081 [blogspot.com]

And its very funny

Re:Full article here (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12111014)



There's no easy way to admit this. For years, helpful letter writers told us to stick to science. They pointed out that science and politics don't mix. They said we should be more balanced in our presentation of such issues as creationism, missile defense and global warming. We resisted their advice and pretended not to be stung by the accusations that the magazine should be renamed Unscientific American, or Scientific Unamerican, or even Unscientific Unamerican. But spring is in the air, and all of nature is turning over a new leaf, so there's no better time to say: you were right, and we were wrong.

In retrospect, this magazine's coverage of socalled evolution has been hideously one-sided. For decades, we published articles in every issue that endorsed the ideas of Charles Darwin and his cronies. True, the theory of common descent through natural selection has been called the unifying concept for all of biology and one of the greatest scientific ideas of all time, but that was no excuse to be fanatics about it.

Where were the answering articles presenting the powerful case for scientific creationism? Why were we so unwilling to suggest that dinosaurs lived 6,000 years ago or that a cataclysmic flood carved the Grand Canyon? Blame the scientists. They dazzled us with their fancy fossils, their radiocarbon dating and their tens of thousands of peer-reviewed journal articles. As editors, we had no business being persuaded by mountains of evidence.

Moreover, we shamefully mistreated the Intelligent Design (ID) theorists by lumping them in with creationists. Creationists believe that God designed all life, and that's a somewhat religious idea. But ID theorists think that at unspecified times some unnamed superpowerful entity designed life, or maybe just some species, or maybe just some of the stuff in cells. That's what makes ID a superior scientific theory: it doesn't get bogged down in details.

Good journalism values balance above all else. We owe it to our readers to present everybody's ideas equally and not to ignore or discredit theories simply because they lack scientifically credible arguments or facts. Nor should we succumb to the easy mistake of thinking that scientists understand their fields better than, say, U.S. senators or best-selling novelists do. Indeed, if politicians or special-interest groups say things that seem untrue or misleading, our duty as journalists is to quote them without comment or contradiction. To do otherwise would be elitist and therefore wrong. In that spirit, we will end the practice of expressing our own views in this space: an editorial page is no place for opinions.

Get ready for a new Scientific American. No more discussions of how science should inform policy. If the government commits blindly to building an anti-ICBM defense system that can't work as promised, that will waste tens of billions of taxpayers' dollars and imperil national security, you won't hear about it from us. If studies suggest that the administration's antipollution measures would actually increase the dangerous particulates that people breathe during the next two decades, that's not our concern. No more discussions of how policies affect science eitherâ"so what if the budget for the National Science Foundation is slashed? This magazine will be dedicated purely to science, fair and balanced science, and not just the science that scientists say is science. And it will start on April Fools' Day.

Okay, We Give Up

MATT COLLINS
THE EDITORS editors@sciam.com
COPYRIGHT 2005 SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, INC.

Aprol fools? Why not? (1)

j-turkey (187775) | more than 9 years ago | (#12110911)

Slashdot should stop screwing around with lame April Fools pranks and just swap the home page with a copy of Last Measure. Everything else is just screwing around...and the Last Measure thing would really get everyone ;)

Charles Darwin (0, Troll)

ronark (803478) | more than 9 years ago | (#12110912)

He went against everyone's beliefs and had radical ideas. Doesn't that make him a terrorist? About time Scientific American disassociated from him.

Sure it's a joke... (3, Insightful)

72beetle (177347) | more than 9 years ago | (#12110916)

...but look at our current political and social climate in regards to theology - this may be tongue in cheek, but it's not unthinkable. That should keep you up at night - it does for me, anyway.

I have no truck with people believing there's some grey-haired grandfather in the sky that remembers everyone's birthday, but please, keep it out of our schools, and off of our laws.

Re:Sure it's a joke... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12110992)

I have no truck with people believing there's some grey-haired grandfather in the sky that remembers everyone's birthday, but please, keep it out of our schools, and off of our laws.

Well, so far your wish has been granted. There are currently zero laws on the books influenced by people who believe in some grey-haired grandfather who lives in the sky. In fact, I imagine you'd be hard pressed to find even one person who believes such a thing.

Re:Sure it's a joke... (5, Insightful)

72beetle (177347) | more than 9 years ago | (#12111017)

Ya think? Our oldest daughter was just yesterday telling me about intelligent design, which she learned about from her SCIENCE teacher. It's insidious, this faith-based truth, and is popping up in far too many places where it doesn't belong.

Re:Sure it's a joke... (1)

AtariAmarok (451306) | more than 9 years ago | (#12111028)

You might find someone with a grey-haired grandfather who spends a lot of time in airplanes. That would come pretty close to what you described. However, if he is too old, he won't even be remembering his own birthday.

Re:Sure it's a joke... (0)

72beetle (177347) | more than 9 years ago | (#12111056)

Modded as flamebait? Really?

Well, if I'm gonna do the time, I'm gonna do the crime.

George Lucas is a creative genius! Bill Gates has excellent ethics! Mankind was created by a higher being! Oh, wait...

Darwinian macroevolution isn't science... (-1, Troll)

tcopeland (32225) | more than 9 years ago | (#12110919)

...it's a rhetorical exercise. That's why every Slashdot article on the topic sports 500 posts.

TEE HEE (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12110932)

en tee

Full text (2, Informative)

sebFlyte (844277) | more than 9 years ago | (#12110933)


Okay, We Give Up


There's no easy way to admit this. For years, helpful letter writers told us to stick to science. They pointed out that science and politics don't mix. They said we should be more balanced in our presentation of such issues as creationism, missile defense and global warming. We resisted their advice and pretended not to be stung by the accusations that the magazine should be renamed Unscientific American, or Scientific Unamerican, or even Unscientific Unamerican. But spring is in the air, and all of nature is turning over a new leaf, so there's no better time to say: you were right, and we were wrong.

In retrospect, this magazine's coverage of socalled evolution has been hideously one-sided. For decades, we published articles in every issue that endorsed the ideas of Charles Darwin and his cronies. True, the theory of common descent through natural selection has been called the unifying concept for all of biology and one of the greatest scientific ideas of all time, but that was no excuse to be fanatics about it.

Where were the answering articles presenting the powerful case for scientific creationism? Why were we so unwilling to suggest that dinosaurs lived 6,000 years ago or that a cataclysmic flood carved the Grand Canyon? Blame the scientists. They dazzled us with their fancy fossils, their radiocarbon dating and their tens of thousands of peer-reviewed journal articles. As editors, we had no business being persuaded by mountains of evidence.

Moreover, we shamefully mistreated the Intelligent Design (ID) theorists by lumping them in with creationists. Creationists believe that God designed all life, and that's a somewhat religious idea. But ID theorists think that at unspecified times some unnamed superpowerful entity designed life, or maybe just some species, or maybe just some of the stuff in cells. That's what makes ID a superior scientific theory: it doesn't get bogged down in details.

Good journalism values balance above all else. We owe it to our readers to present everybody's ideas equally and not to ignore or discredit theories simply because they lack scientifically credible arguments or facts. Nor should we succumb to the easy mistake of thinking that scientists understand their fields better than, say, U.S. senators or best-selling novelists do. Indeed, if politicians or special-interest groups say things that seem untrue or misleading, our duty as journalists is to quote them without comment or contradiction. To do otherwise would be elitist and therefore wrong. In that spirit, we will end the practice of expressing our own views in this space: an editorial page is no place for opinions.

Get ready for a new Scientific American. No more discussions of how science should inform policy. If the government commits blindly to building an anti-ICBM defense system that can't work as promised, that will waste tens of billions of taxpayers' dollars and imperil national security, you won't hear about it from us. If studies suggest that the administration's antipollution measures would actually increase the dangerous particulates that people breathe during the next two decades, that's not our concern. No more discussions of how policies affect science eitherâ"so what if the budget for the National Science Foundation is slashed? This magazine will be dedicated purely to science, fair and balanced science, and not just the science that scientists say is science. And it will start on April Fools' Day.

(courtesy of Mr Bob Hates You [blogspot.com] .)

OMG (5, Funny)

lildogie (54998) | more than 9 years ago | (#12110934)

They're changing their name to "Christian Scientific American."

Re:OMG (1)

Ford Prefect (8777) | more than 9 years ago | (#12111037)

They're changing their name to "Christian Scientific American.

There's already the Christian Science Monitor [csmonitor.com] , but it appears to take a more balanced, secular approach to journalism. How dare it! :-)

As for Scientific American, it'll probably be July or August before I get round to reading this April edition as a UK subscriber. Okay, maybe not quite that long, but the issues do seem to take the slow boat across the Atlantic...

doesn't mix? (0)

phyruxus (72649) | more than 9 years ago | (#12110939)

"They pointed out that science and politics don't mix."

No less so that religion and politics. Insofar as science deals with known reality, I'd say it mixes with politics as much as geography or history - that is, thoroughly.

"How much budget should we allocate to the clean water program?"
'Well, it costs $X/10^6gallons to purify saltwater, so...'
"Hey, you're basing that assertion on science! Science has no place in politics! Therefore I'm sure we can get all the clean water we need for $Y/10^6 gallons. Burn the heretic!"

Ha (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12110941)

Errm... Ha, I guess.

Best Line in the article: (4, Funny)

wolfemi1 (765089) | more than 9 years ago | (#12110944)

Blame the scientists. They dazzled us with their fancy fossils, their radiocarbon dating and their tens of thousands of peer-reviewed journal articles.

I laughed out loud, even though I'm alone in the room. No joke.

Dratted FDR (1)

AtariAmarok (451306) | more than 9 years ago | (#12111006)

"Blame the scientists. They dazzled us with their fancy fossils, their radiocarbon dating and their tens of thousands of peer-reviewed journal articles"

Damn FDR and his secret WPA project that had young men bury thousands of fake dino skeletons all over the country.

Is it April 2nd yet?????? (1, Offtopic)

FLOOBYDUST (737287) | more than 9 years ago | (#12110947)

Yawnnnnnnnnnnn.....
Enough already........................
PS.. This isn't a Joke I am serious.....

It's nice to finally see some... (3, Funny)

spungo (729241) | more than 9 years ago | (#12110951)

intelligent design in these spoofs.

So funny! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12110952)

These fake news stories are so clever and fresh! They never get old!

Ah ha ha ha hah ha ha hah hah ha ha ha hah ha ha hah hah ha ha ha hah ha ha hah hah ha ha ha hah ha ha hah hah ha ha ha hah ha ha hah hah ha ha ha hah ha ha hah hah ha ha ha hah ha ha hah hah ha ha ha hah ha ha hah hah ha ha ha hah ha ha hah hah ha ha ha hah ha ha hah hah ha ha ha hah ha ha hah hah ha ha ha hah ha ha hah hah ha ha ha hah ha ha hah [inhale] ha hah ha ha hah ha ha hah hah ha ha ha hah ha hah ha ha hah ha ha ha hah ha ha hah haaaaaaaaaaaa.........

April fool (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12110956)

That's the worst APril Fool I've ever heard.

LOL.

Global Warming (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12110960)

5 bya ...HOT COLD HOT COLD HOT COLD HOT COLD HOT COLD HOT COLD HOT COLD HOT COLD HOT COLD HOT COLD...45 mya ... HOT COLD HOT COLD HOT COLD HOT COLD HOT COLD HOT COLD HOT COLD HOT COLD .... 11,000 years ago... HOT COLD HOT COLD HOT COLD HOT COLD ... 100 years ago .... HOT COLD HOT COLD...5 years ago ... COLD HOT ... 6 months ago ... COLD ... yesterday ... HOT ...

Wait a couple millienia, the weather will change.

Very funny (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12110965)

Lets throw out all the solid facts about evolution and accept that creationism has an equal say...

Bwahahahaha
Nice to see these guys haven't lost their sense of humour (April 1st)

Its about time.... (1)

Evil W1zard (832703) | more than 9 years ago | (#12110967)

Its about time they gave up on their science and facts and focused on the truth of Creationism -- Because a Talking Snake in a Tree is much more realistic then evolution! Or better yet Intelligent Design -- God or Aliens invented us. Pick one! I love April Fools Day :)

The tragic irony is... (3, Insightful)

Mysticalfruit (533341) | more than 9 years ago | (#12110973)

I would fully expect to see an article just like this on the 2nd and not consider it a joka at all...

Re:The tragic irony is... (1)

LiquidCoooled (634315) | more than 9 years ago | (#12111075)

This is slashdot, your wish will be granted.

And again on the third, and the fourth...

Global warming fads (1, Flamebait)

AtariAmarok (451306) | more than 9 years ago | (#12110975)

When the global warming fad cycles back in 10 or 20 years to a "new ice age!" fad like we had back in the 1970s, all of the recent global warming articles in SciAm will make the issues all look like April Fools.

Re:Global warming fads (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12111096)


Huh?

We plan for "Defence" using worst case scenarios. Why should we treat environmental issues differently?

And leave Global Warming to the side. The reason Environmental Protection Laws came in in the first place was because the industrialised world made such a mess of Europe & the USA. The Great Lakes, anyone?

And look at the former Soviet Block - their environmental problems make ours look titchy.

But hey - forget all that... Let's keep screwing the Earth in the west, and sit back and laugh when the developing world completely fuck up their lakes, rivers, forests and whatnot.

Here's an interesting thought.

The majority of scientists who say that humanity *is* risking serious global climate change tend to be paid for by governments and universities, who like to ignore and water down their advice.

Who pays the scientists who claim that global climate change *isn't* a concern?

Cato, anyone?

Re:Global warming fads (0)

scotch (102596) | more than 9 years ago | (#12111112)

Let's make a wager. In 10 years, April 1, 2015, if the evidence for global warming is as strong or stronger as it is today, you pay me $5000. If not, I pay you $5000. In 20 years, April 1, 2025, if the evidence for global warming is as strong or stronger as it is today, you pay me $10000. If not, I pay you $10000.

Interested? If so, give me your address and I'll draw up a contract.

Creationism, Environment, etc. (4, Insightful)

xxxJonBoyxxx (565205) | more than 9 years ago | (#12110978)

You sure this one is a fake?

With creationism snaking its way into science curriculums and environmental issues (e.g., global warming, ocean dead zones, etc.) being pretty much ignored in the good old USA, it's as good a time as any for scientists to say "aw, fuck it!"

Re:Creationism, Environment, etc. (2, Funny)

tobe (62758) | more than 9 years ago | (#12111104)

Yup.. let's take everything we (the science guys) invented back from the religious nuts, ship ourselves out somewhere nice like Australia and let 'em just get on with it themselves.

Cure for blindess.. well.. we got one.. but we needed to borrow a few stem cells.. so you wont be wanting that one huh ?

CD players.. oops.. LASERS.. sorry.. based on theories (and remember.. they're only *theories*, right) which don't seem to involve God in the creation and maintenance of the universe.. so we'll have that back then.. ta..

Antibiotics.. hmm.. but if you got fatally ill then surely it's God's will.. and who are we to question his (intentional case) wishes..

You keep the chickens.. we'll go with the Alligators.. apparently they turn into chickens anyway if you leave them long enough...

Happy Slashdot Troll Day, Ya Hump! (1)

YourMissionForToday (556292) | more than 9 years ago | (#12110987)

My name is YourMissionForToday [slashdot.org] . Some of you might not be familiar with my unique blend of self-deprecating humor and psychedelic imagery.

While I have your ear, I'd like to refer you to some of my earlier posts [slashdot.org] .

As you can now tell, (if you clicked on the link) that I am in fact the most humorous poster on Slashdot. So humorous, in fact, that the editors of this site are afraid of my power to send their core constituency (you) into convulsive, life-threatening fits of laughter.

I admit it, I'm dangerous. Even posting at -1, I have (allegedly) caused a few deaths when morbidly obese moderators laughed just a little too hard at this post [slashdot.org] .

But all great humor comes at a price. I lead a lonely, mysterious life on the edges of acceptable society. Women are inexplicably drawn to me, yet they cannot stand me for long, for the very power that causes them to reach multiple spontaneous orgasms by gazing upon me also fills them with fear and disgust.

In closing, Slashdotter, I'd like to awake you to the fact that there's a whole 'nother world going on here at this site. One that goes beyond the feasibility of Linux on the desktop, intellectual property "rights" (only a fool allows others to assign his rights, or cares what other rights others assign themselves), and even "moderation."

We're waiting for you. All you have to do is turn that thresh-hold down. Liberate your mind in two clicks or less...

Self Examination (0, Troll)

Dr. Transparent (77005) | more than 9 years ago | (#12110995)

So if I thought this was a good thing, does this make me a fundamentalist? =)

Slashdot, please stop. Please. (0, Offtopic)

Levine (22596) | more than 9 years ago | (#12111010)

Every year on April 1, you spam your front page with these joke articles. Every year, they get more repetitive, more irritating, and less funny. Are you familiar with the concept of moderation? A single well executed joke amidst a dozen legitimate articles is immeasurably more effective than a torrential flood of lameass spam stories.

And it would be different if you (or your submitters) had a sense of humor. But you fucking don't. Paris Hilton promoting open source, hoo boy! That's some top notch writing right there. And hey, coming up with 1000 fake Google things, each more wildly zany than the last, that's qualit.... no, really, it's just mindfuckingly stupid.

Give it a fucking rest. Please. I'm begging you.

Re:Slashdot, please stop. Please. (2, Insightful)

MrP- (45616) | more than 9 years ago | (#12111102)

you do realize slashdot didn't write these april fools jokes? they're just posting links to tech related april fools jokes.. just like they post links to tech related articles everyday

i could understand if each post was a joke written by a slashdot editor.. but its not. they're just allowing us to see all the tech related jokes that are around today

Today is April 1 !! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12111012)

Surely this is an April Fool's gag !

NOOBS! (2, Insightful)

Turn-X Alphonse (789240) | more than 9 years ago | (#12111040)

Will you people please get into the Slashdot-April-1st-mentality? All I see is "OMG NOW FUNNY!"

It's not ment to be funny! It's a day where just random joke articles are posted, if you don't like it go read a book. It's a giggle once a year, the "it's not funny" feeling you get after 4 of them is all part of it.

April Fools, eh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12111061)

Nice joke... here's another [kylewenda.com] either really funny, or really scary one...

I REALLY, REALLY, REALLY HOPE... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12111066)

...that the Martians don't decide to attack today.

Unscientific Unamerican (2, Insightful)

PepeGSay (847429) | more than 9 years ago | (#12111070)

It is interesting they harp on the most easily defensible position (evolution) to defend themselves against criticisms that are based additionally on things such as their coverage of global warming, abortion, etc. Yes it is an April fools joke. They are not calling us idiots for falling for it, they are calling us idiots for criticizing them for not sticking to science. Which involves more than just their take on evolution.

BBC article on creationism (1)

XSpud (801834) | more than 9 years ago | (#12111071)

Coincidentally, the BBC published a story today about the rise of creationism in the UK - Would you Adam and Eve it? [bbc.co.uk] .

They don't appear to be joking.

Related news... (0, Troll)

chord.wav (599850) | more than 9 years ago | (#12111084)

The pope stated that he wants his life terminated today. He wants euthanasia and he does not believe in God anymore. He also stated that he visited Michael Jackson's house and actively participated in child rapings along with Michael in several ocations. He listened to Motorhead while doing it to those childs, a band he enjoys so much. Here's the full text.. Oh mmm...just forgot where I got that from...but it's true!

Newsflash: /. Becomes Entirely Useless. (0, Troll)

Picass0 (147474) | more than 9 years ago | (#12111090)


There is not one legit news story on the front page. If I wanted to read Fark I would have gone there.

Editors, take your medicine and back away from the keyboards.

First Day of April....Here go! (1)

sapgau (413511) | more than 9 years ago | (#12111094)

This morning I heard on the radio to beware of April fool's day.

Which web site be the one to verify this right away?

Slashdot!!

I gues I should give Fark.com it's due too.

At church we call that... (1)

yipper (159272) | more than 9 years ago | (#12111115)

preaching to the choir.

For all of you folks that don't go to church, that means telling people what they want to hear.

The readers of Scientific American already enjoy getting a full dose of humorless anti-religion pseudo-science or they wouldn't be subscribers.

Not entirely an april fools joke (1)

anocelot (657966) | more than 9 years ago | (#12111122)

Well, not really. This article DID apear in the

April issue, and I must say it saddens me. While I agree with their position (anti-nutball theories), it is highly unprofesisonal of them. I know of a few people who canceled their subscriptions (myself not included).

I DID find it highly ironic that the essay both criticized the emotional attachments of eccentric nutballs to their pet theories, and at the same time carried the whipish attitude of a holier-than-thou stereotype lambasting others for daring to oppose what (in their opinion) is "obviously the Truth."

Way to go, guys. Your commitment to printing only facts and truth shows through wonderfully.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...