×

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!

Mysterious MilkyWay Warp Finally Explained?

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 8 years ago | from the like-a-hot-chocolate-bar dept.

Space 215

* * Beatles-Beatles writes to tell us Space.com is reporting that scientists think that a collision between mysterious 'dark matter' and two of the Milky Way's nearby neighbors may be causing our galaxy to warp 'like a vinyl record left out in the hot Sun.' From the article: 'The warp is most clearly visible in a thin disk of hydrogen gas that extends across the entire 200,000-light-year diameter of the Milky Way. Viewed sideways, one half of the hydrogen disk appears to stick up above our galaxy's plane of stars and gas, while the other half dips below the plane for a bit and then rises upward again farther away from the galaxy's center.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

215 comments

Semitic Conspiracy (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14433298)

ScuttleMonkey (formerly Timothy) and * * Beatles-Beatles are conspiring to flood Slashdot with subparity.

At it again... (-1, Offtopic)

Chris Bradshaw (933608) | more than 8 years ago | (#14433299)

Wow, how about that... **Beatles-Beatles and ScuttleMonkey at it again. What a team! Coincidence? I don't think so... The real question is this: What the hell do the beatles and science have in common?

http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/12/2 6/2059256 [slashdot.org] - Posted By: ScuttleMonkey http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/12/2 0/0351202 [slashdot.org] - Posted By: ScuttleMonkey http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/12/12/055 7249 [slashdot.org] - Posted By: ScuttleMonkey http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/12/1 2/0620251 [slashdot.org] - Posted By: ScuttleMonkey http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/12/12/033822 6 [slashdot.org] - Posted By: ScuttleMonkey

Re:At it again... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14433320)

What's your theory: sock-puppet, under-the-table, blowjobs?

Re:At it again... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14433364)

Roland is on a bender, long weekend.

If ** Beatles Beatles would only omit the pagerank whoring link (or change it to JUST HIS EMAIL ADDRESS) I'd shut up about this completely.

Re:At it again... (0, Offtopic)

node 3 (115640) | more than 8 years ago | (#14433502)

Wow, how about that... **Beatles-Beatles and ScuttleMonkey at it again. What a team! Coincidence? I don't think so...

No, I'm pretty sure he and his monkey got nothing to hide.

Re:At it again... (0, Redundant)

Dun Malg (230075) | more than 8 years ago | (#14433561)

Wow, how about that... **Beatles-Beatles and ScuttleMonkey at it again. What a team! Coincidence? I don't think so...

No, I'm pretty sure he and his monkey got nothing to hide.

C'mon, everybody's got something to hide, except....

oh.

Re:At it again... (-1, Offtopic)

Darby (84953) | more than 8 years ago | (#14433753)

No, I'm pretty sure he and his monkey got nothing to hide.

Then why is he spanking the monkey if there's nothing to hide?

Re:At it again... (0, Offtopic)

MLopat (848735) | more than 8 years ago | (#14433567)

Ok, tell me what I'm missing here. The guy has a tribute site to George Harrison, with no advertising, including no google ads. The page itself has a Google PageRank of 5, so that's not such a big deal. And when I was on it, it said I was the only current visitor? So what's the big deal?

Re:At it again... (1)

mookie da wookie (919403) | more than 8 years ago | (#14433668)

What's the big deal?!?...beatles beatles is a BIFF [foldoc.org] who needs to stop writing about stupid stuff, that's what. As an omnipotnent galactic entity who happens to enjoy posting on /. I can tell you the article is actually right. I mean, saying it's like a record that was left in the sun is a bit innaccurate, but hey, for your feeble minds it will get the point across in an adequate fashion. That doesn't change what I said about beatles beatles.

Oh yeah, I am an avid mustard enthusiast, if that helps any.

--
Why yes, I am a genius.

The truth about * *Beatles-Beatles (0, Offtopic)

dorkygeek (898295) | more than 8 years ago | (#14433787)

Looks like ScuttleMoney^H^Hkey still doesn't get it, as well as other Slashdotters. So, let me repost this for the thousandst time.

Interesting thing is, ScuttleMonkey seems to use some standard template for * *Beatles-Beatles submissions, since ALL of them start by: "* * Beatles-Beatles writes to tell us...".

So, let me repost some earlier post of mine:

Ok, let's have a look at his george-harrison.info website. Aha, maybe the links at the bottom of the page? Yes, I see: http://george-harrison.info/reciprocal-links.html [george-harrison.info].

Sooo, what may be on that page? Quoting:

Our reciprocal links page. These links are useful for website promotion, link trades, and generating traffic to your site. There are many sites with useful products, services, programs, business opportunities, information, and free stuff.

All reciprocal links have been manually screened before getting on this page. Webmasters that post links on this page, also promote this Links Page on their site too. If you want to add your link and become a member of this reciprocal links page, just click on the top link for details. It's free to join.

Looking at the link list (just a small excerpt):

Guaranteed Dropship Wholesalers business directory source

Good Vibrations for Singles - Free Dating, Love, Romance, and Friendship

Collection Agency - Williams, Cohen & Gray

Trade Links - Link Swap Page

Personals Dating Affiliate Program - Instant Sign-Up

ProfitsRup2U For Successful Internet Marketing

Trade links page - reciprocal links page

What do we learn? * * Beatles-Beatles is an ugly link spammer who uses Slashdot to increase the PageRank of his own site, on which he hosts a link farm.

HTH!

Re:At it again... (0, Offtopic)

abertoll (460221) | more than 8 years ago | (#14433568)

Two of those stories were submitted anonymously.

Re:At it again... (0, Offtopic)

Chris Bradshaw (933608) | more than 8 years ago | (#14433598)

Your kidding right? Look again...

http://science.slashdot.org/~*%20*%20Beatles-Beatl es [slashdot.org]

THAT'S what I don't get! (0, Offtopic)

Overly Critical Guy (663429) | more than 8 years ago | (#14433573)

It's one thing if he was posted evenly amongst the other editors. Okay, fine, they're all getting scammed by him.

But, with the exception of a CmdrTaco article, every other submission from this guy is posted by ScuttleMonkey. Why is that? It's proof they just don't care anymore at this site.

This crap is why people are flocking to Digg.com [digg.com]. Even though the discussions there suck because of no threading (yet), it's not really different from here, and when people are scamming the front page, everyone gangs together and undiggs it to remove it!

Re:At it again... (2, Funny)

plaxion (98397) | more than 8 years ago | (#14433940)

"The real question is this: What the hell do the beatles and science have in common?"

Umm... as I recall, they sang 'Lucy in the sky with diamonds'... though it's still debated whether what they were singing about falls under the field of astronomy or that of chemistry. ;)

Mod Story -1 Spam (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14433321)

* * Beatles-Beatles writes to tell us Space.com is reporting that scientists think that a collision between mysterious 'dark matter' and two of the Milky Way's nearby neighbors may be causing our galaxy to warp 'like a vinyl record left out in the hot Sun.'

Wow. A Slashdotter, a Slashdot "author" AND a space website conspiring to spam us...*sigh*

I'll say it for the under 30 crowd (5, Funny)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 8 years ago | (#14433398)

'like a vinyl record left out in the hot Sun.'

What's a vinyl record?

;-)

Re:I'll say it for the under 30 crowd (2, Funny)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 8 years ago | (#14433564)

Ob. Futurama reference:

That must be an old pronunciation of compact disc. You know, kind of like you're always saying ask instead of axe?

related article (3, Interesting)

User 956 (568564) | more than 8 years ago | (#14433330)

There was a related article in November-- with evidence pointing towards a massive black hole at the center of the LMC. [physlink.com] (The Milky Way's closest neighbor)

Re:related article (2, Insightful)

eclectic4 (665330) | more than 8 years ago | (#14433522)

"vidence pointing towards a massive black hole at the center of the LMC. (The Milky Way's closest neighbor)"

Um, evidence is pointing towards that being the case in most if not all Galaxies, even our own Milky Way [cnn.com]. That article alone was over 5 years old.

hmm (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14433333)

Perhaps this is because the two-thirds of the people on Earth are fat [newyorker.com]. This could result in the part of the galaxy that Earth is located in to be weighed down which is warping the entire Milky Way.

'McDonalds: Changing the world -- literally'

Poppycock. (0)

User 956 (568564) | more than 8 years ago | (#14433343)

The warp is most clearly visible in a thin disk of hydrogen gas that extends across the entire 200,000-light-year diameter of the Milky Way.

Thin Disk? Next thing science will be telling us is that the sun doesn't revolve around the earth, and the earth is round.

missing info (2, Insightful)

amazon10x (737466) | more than 8 years ago | (#14433354)

The article fails to say (or perhaps I missed it?) how severe the warp is nor how fast the warping is happening currently. Furthermore, it doesn't say when this warping was first recorded.

You missed the point of the story (-1, Offtopic)

Overly Critical Guy (663429) | more than 8 years ago | (#14433595)

...which was to spam Beatles' site again, thanks to ScuttleMonkey, who exclusively delivers his submissions to the loyal Slashdot readership. But yeah, there's nothing sneaky going on! Promise!!

Re:missing info (2, Informative)

maggard (5579) | more than 8 years ago | (#14433769)

Ignoring the dubious submitter of the story...

The Milky Way is b-i-g. The warping is not happening on a scale we'd see in our lifetimes. Indeed it likely started when the Earth was still a rock with scum problem. It'll continue long past the date the Earth is a rock with a dust problem.

Don't panic.

While dark matter (& energy), galactic distortions, and giant black holes are interesting cosmologically (and further our understanding of the universe) there's no need to start digging a hole in the back yard and buying space/time-warp-b-gone merchandise from the back of magazines.

How do we know our own shape? (5, Interesting)

bronney (638318) | more than 8 years ago | (#14433376)

I've always wondered, how do we know our own galaxy's shape? From our point of view. do we just look 360, more stars there, less stars here, therefore we're on the rim side of the galaxy?

Re:How do we know our own shape? (2, Informative)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 8 years ago | (#14433448)

I've always wondered, how do we know our own galaxy's shape? From our point of view. do we just look 360, more stars there, less stars here, therefore we're on the rim side of the galaxy?

In clearer areas, like high elevation or low humidity, and away from light pollution, you can practically see it with the naked eye.

But beyond that I'm sure they've whipped together a few models with super computers to demonstrate it.

Besides, our galaxy isn't warped, it's Bent!

Re:How do we know our own shape? (1)

bronney (638318) | more than 8 years ago | (#14433514)

But I wasn't talking about the disk. I was talking about "our own galaxy's shape". How do we know that's what it'll look like from outside if we've never been outside.

Re:How do we know our own shape? (1)

0racle (667029) | more than 8 years ago | (#14433746)

Combination of educated guesses and indirect evidence. Well, and hoping that we're not the ugliest galaxy around.

Re:How do we know our own shape? (2, Funny)

KuRa_Scvls (932317) | more than 8 years ago | (#14433498)

They read hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy. They have a diagram of our milky way with Earth MK 2

Re:How do we know our own shape? (1)

StikyPad (445176) | more than 8 years ago | (#14433517)

Pretty much.. all you're missing is distance calculations.

The Milky Way actually looks like a blurry band across the sky. The stars are too dense to make out with the naked eye, so we just see a bright "stripe." It's clearly visible anywhere near the equator or farther south, depending on the time of the year. I happen to live on an island 13 degrees north of the equator, and the view on a cloudless night is truely jaw dropping. Alternatively, you can also go to a local planetarium. If you live near Washington, D.C., I'd recommend the Air & Space museum, but I'm sure a little Googling would turn up some others. Believe it or not, it's a pretty cool place to take a date too. There's just something indescribable about (almost) pure darkness with an infinite number of tiny points of light.

Re:How do we know our own shape? (1)

bronney (638318) | more than 8 years ago | (#14433553)

Ah so that's why I don't have a girlfriend!

Btw would I be able to see that band in Toronto, Canada; or Hong Kong? Thanks.

Re:How do we know our own shape? (1)

StikyPad (445176) | more than 8 years ago | (#14433623)

Technically you can always see part of it, it's just which part you see, and the quality of your viewing location. The farther north you are, the closer toward the horizon it will be. Unfortunately, when objects are near the horizon, the light has to pass through more of the atmosphere to reach your eyes. When you factor in light pollution, it could make the galaxy essentially unviewable. Hong Kong would naturally put the galaxy "higher" in the sky, making for better (or more dramatic anyway) viewing.

Re:How do we know our own shape? (1)

klparrot (549422) | more than 8 years ago | (#14433695)

Btw would I be able to see that band in Toronto, Canada; or Hong Kong? Thanks.

I've never noticed it in any city, but if I'm out in the country (an hour northeast of Toronto) on a clear night I can see the Milky Way. As a rule, if you can't see the glow of the city on the horizon, it's probably dark enough that the band of stars will be apparent if the sky is clear.

Re:How do we know our own shape? (1)

bronney (638318) | more than 8 years ago | (#14433707)

Thanks. Next time I go back, I'll definitely give this a try and might also take some spectacular photos too :)

You would be surprised. (-1, Troll)

rootedgimp (523254) | more than 8 years ago | (#14433548)

"Stars are so far away that they appear to us to be just pinpoints of light. We cannot see their size or shape. So how can we tell different types of stars apart? For the vast majority of stars, there is only one characteristic feature that we can observe - the color of their light."
Stephen W. Hawking - 'A brief history of time', 1998 p.37


If you want to get the distance between yourself and an item you cannot touch, the primary way (afaik, for stars.) is to use trig. you get two different observation points, line of sight, looking at the object you want to get the distance to ['3rd point'], if you have the distance between the two observation points, and the angle that they form pointing to the 3rd point, you can figure the distance by using sine, cosine and tangents.

now here is why this science isn't exactly down to a science. the earth is only ~8000 miles in diamater, if two people are were on almost complete opposite sides of the world, even that wouldn't be nearly enough distance between the two points (when looking at a star, many hundreds of millions of miles out).

what they have done to enlarge the base of their 'triangle' is they look at a star in january, then they look at it again in june, so that we are on the completely other side of the sun. so, the distance from the earth to the sun is ~93 million miles, or 1 astronomical unit ('au'). so at this point they have about 200 million miles between the two points focusing in on the 3rd. now, 1au is 8 light minutes, so 2au is only 16 light minutes. so, if you wanted to measure say a star that was 1 light year away [525,948 light minutes] (btw, there aren't any that close), your 'triangle' would be patheticly miniscule. that would be somewhat the same as getting two surveyors to set up observation points 16 inches from eachother and getting them to focus in on a dot 525,948 inches away [8 1/4th miles away]. so a one light year triange has an angle of 0.17 deg. to measure a star 100 light years away, the angle becomes .00017 -- sad right? this would be like keeping your surveyors 16 inches apart still, and moving the 3rd point 826 miles away. so... measure a distance of 10+ billion light years away is clearly impossible, for even if we did it all day long, we would still have to reach that star (or one even 100+ light years away) to prove that our calculations were actually correct.

i suggest you look more into this matter, many things like the red shift are dependant to a degree on this, and its more voodoo than science (still.)

Re:You would be surprised. (1)

pookemon (909195) | more than 8 years ago | (#14433765)

If the base of your triangle is so small after 6 months, why not wait a whole year! (yes I am kidding)

Baloney (5, Informative)

quokkapox (847798) | more than 8 years ago | (#14433804)

i suggest you look more into this matter, many things like the red shift are dependant to a degree on this, and its more voodoo than science (still.)

Boy, this thread is a trip. Parent's math is bunkum and your assertation which I directly quote above is also incorrect. Redshift has NOTHING to do with parallax measurements of distance, which can be calculated to many significant digits. Voodoo indeed. Don't believe everything you read on the internet that's modded +5, Informative...

Re:How do we know our own shape? (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14433610)

the galaxy's general "flat" shape is visible from the milky way being a thin line in the sky. finding out our location in the milky way is a more interesting proposition. due to the obscuring clouds of interstellar matter, we do not see the milky way being brighter on one side or the other, so it appears to be equally bright on both sides. the first indication of us being located toward the rim was the fact that the globular clusters that we observe are mostly on one side of us. when we discovered methods for measuring distances (based on the relationship between the length of a period of a type of star called the "cepheid variable" and its brightness) [first established by astronomer Leavitt], we could measure their distance from us and create a three dimensional map of the globular clusters' location in the sky. using this method, it was determined that the globular clusters are distributed with spherical symmetry about a point in the plane of the milky way (a point which was, as it happens, quite far from our own solar system). by observing that globular clusters are symmetrically distributed around the centers of other spiral galaxies (most notably the andromeda galaxy), we make the inference that our globular clusters' distribution is also centered on the center of our galaxy - and thus we determine our position relative to the center of the milky way.

well, at least that's how it went down at the beginning of the 20th century. a decade or two later when radio telescopy was developed, we were able to observe these things in a more direct fashion. but it is interesting to follow the historical development of our own location in the galaxy. :)

**Beatles (thread to be bitchslapped in 3..2..) (-1, Offtopic)

zerocool^ (112121) | more than 8 years ago | (#14433380)


Preliminary reply, so that the moderators can go ahead and bitchslap (mod to -23829) this entire thread. I guess I have the karma to sacrifice for the sake of the arguement.

It's yet another post by * * Beatles Beatles, gone live via ScuttleMonkey.

Blah Blah BeatlesBeatles uses Slashdot's pagerank to get his stupid George Harrison page higher ranked in Google. We all know this, and we all know it's despicable. If you're curious, hover your mouse over his name - it goes to george-harrison.info - I'm not hot linking it, if you want to go there, cut and paste into a new browser window.

Anyway, the fact that the page is nothing but a link farm and that it has quite possibly the worst CSS stylesheet on the planet seems to overshadow the fact that this person's website has nothing to do with technology of any sort, which is why, admins, that we wonder what it's doing on the front page of slashdot day after day.

But, ALL THAT ASIDE, there's still something more disturbing.

I've been a member of the slashdot community for years now - I forget when I signed up, but it was either late 1999 or early 2000, so it's at least 5 years at this point. Over the years, I've submitted something like 10 or 15 links, and not yet had one posted. And I only submit things I actually find interesting, like AMD sues Intel. BeatlesBeatles [slashdot.org] has had 20 submissions greenlit in the past 3 months. That's about one a week. And they've all been posted by Scuttle Monkey.

Every time someone points this out, our fearless trolleader Jamie comes out in support of ScuttleMonkey and BeatlesBeatles saying there's nothing funny going on, it's just journalism. Well, Admins: This is what gets us riled up - Here's a clue. YOUR READERS ARE NOT DUMB. IF THEY READ SLASHDOT REGULARLY, THEY'RE NOT STUPID.

Looking at the facts, most of us draw the obvious conclusion.
1.) I've been a member of slashdot for a LONG TIME. My userid is 112121.
2.) Beatles-Beatles has been a member of slashdot for about 3 months. His UID is 909211.
3.) Beatles-Beatles has had 20 greenlit submissions, most of which regurgitate an article, offering no origional insight, and read like press releases.
4.) I have had no greenlit submissions, and I consider mine to have been at least moderately clever.
5.) Beatles-Beatles is profiting in a very tangible, dollars-in-the-pocket way from having his site linked from Slashdot.
6.) All of Beatles-Beatles submissions have been greenlit by ScuttleMonkey.

To look at these facts and not come to the same conclusion as the rest of us is ignorance. Furthermore, to dismiss these facts as pure coincidence is simply implying that your readers are stupid.

This is why we bitch. All we want is for someone to admit it. "ScuttleMonkey and Beatles-Beatles are friends - when BB submits a story, he sends an IM to ScuttleMonkey, and if it's moderately interesting, SM posts it to help a friend out". That's all we're looking for.

But, this thread will be bitchslapped, and I'll probably lose my (Meta)mod privs. Oh well. Maybe some day we'll get an honest answer out of the admins.

Here's hoping.

~Will

Re:**Beatles (thread to be bitchslapped in 3..2..) (2, Insightful)

MrPerfekt (414248) | more than 8 years ago | (#14433409)

Here, here. I second and third and fourth this.

Taco doesn't read the site and SM abuses the crap out of the system.

Digg is looking better all the time.

Re:**Beatles (thread to be bitchslapped in 3..2..) (5, Insightful)

zerocool^ (112121) | more than 8 years ago | (#14433432)


Digg is looking better all the time.

Now, hold on... I'm not suggesting that we jump ship.

All I'm asking for is Journalistic integrity.

I know digg exists. I deliberately come back to slashdot. The reason? I'm not here for the articles. I'm here for the discussion. I can get the information anywhere. I am at slashdot because I want to know what others think. There are some very smart and very connected people on Slashdot, and I value their opinion. I also find out about alternatives or other theories or random_x piece of software I didn't know existed from the comments. I consider it a great day when I see someone say "Well, if you like X, you'll love Y". That to me is slashdot's strength. And I try to contribute positively where I can.

All I am asking for is for the Admins to have a little integrity. Whatever happened to honesty? Whatever happened to shaking a man's hand, looking him in the eye, and telling the truth? I'm that kind of guy... so are many of my fellow Slashdot readers. And I have an almost irrational belief in the fundamental "goodness" of mankind.

If I had to nail down the problems of Slashdot these days, it's very simple:

1.) They don't hold their admins to the same level of integrity to which their readers hold themselves.
2.) They irrationally refuse to believe people like me exist; they refuse to believe that the strength of Slashdot is in the content provided by the readers.

But, one at a time. Let's get 1 working first, and then I think 2 will fall into place.

~Will

Re:**Beatles (thread to be bitchslapped in 3..2..) (1)

bonch (38532) | more than 8 years ago | (#14433653)

You come back to Slashdot...for the discussion? Egads. Well if you're that much of a masochist, when Digg gets a threaded comment system, what's left for Slashdot?

Something must be really, really wrong with Slashdot's codebase if it's taken a decade just to use HTML4 and CSS...and the moderation system is still the same it was in the 90s. I've heard very bad things about Slashcode.

I don't know, there's just so much wrong with this place...why do we still come? The informed discussion? Ha...bad jokes and false memes.

Re:**Beatles (thread to be bitchslapped in 3..2..) (4, Insightful)

pomo monster (873962) | more than 8 years ago | (#14433719)

The minute Digg gets a threaded comment system remotely as usable as this one, it's goodbye Slashdot.

Re:**Beatles (thread to be bitchslapped in 3..2..) (0, Flamebait)

Jebediah21 (145272) | more than 8 years ago | (#14433755)

I'm jumping ship. Slashdot is a good time waster, but a bit redundant IMO (anything major I'll hear about, anything that interests me I can go elsewhere to read about, like Digg). It's shit like this that keeps on happening over and over with no care taken. I have better things to do with my time.

Re:**Beatles (thread to be bitchslapped in 3..2..) (1)

speeDDemon (nw) (643987) | more than 8 years ago | (#14433455)

I totally agree. Slashdot seems to have degraded in quality substantially since I started reading it. How about we all recommend our other favourite websites so as to atleast offer something new on here!..

The above poster recommend Digg ?? got a link ?

I find that any story of interest appears on BluesNews.com [bluesnews.com] way earlier than slashdot these days even though it is primarily aimed at games and gaming!

Re:**Beatles (thread to be bitchslapped in 3..2..) (1)

WhatAmIDoingHere (742870) | more than 8 years ago | (#14433458)

Scroll through the digg comments and the fact that 99% of the people commenting cannot spell simple words or don't know which word to use(their/there/they're) really makes you miss the comments of /.... I've stopped trying to read the digg comments, due to the fact that half of the comments are one word "lol" or "cool" and 25% of them are "me too" and all of them have spelling errors. And Digg has a spellcheck!

Re:**Beatles (thread to be bitchslapped in 3..2..) (2, Informative)

quokkapox (847798) | more than 8 years ago | (#14433579)

When did this bullshit start anyway? Or has it just been a slow decline. I don't remember hearing any of this back in 1999.

It would be nice if the slashdot management would engage in a little give and take to keep the community here satisfied and (as zerocool mentioned) maintain some journalistic integrity. Why NOT strive for that, other than pure laziness?

Digg is not a substitute for slashdot. You can actually learn by reading the comments here.

Digg is NOT looking better all the time. (1)

Dystopian Rebel (714995) | more than 8 years ago | (#14433630)

Digg was designed by some talented people, but Digg is inhabited by incorrigible dunderheads whose comments are digital bumfodder.

The strength of Slashdot is its discussions. If you think that TFA is crap, I entreat you to peruse the One-Eyed Cat With No Nose article on Digg.

The rumours of Slashdot's death are greatly exaggerated and largely promoted by members of the Digg crowd, with the occasional assistance from Slashdotters who insist on presenting us their own damnably clever variations on the themes of Beowulf, Soviet Russia, and the welcoming of Overlords.

This is not to say that a wave of Dubya-level imbecility on the part of certain Tacos and Cowboys could ~not~ destroy Slashdot. But we're hardly there yet.

Or, in Digg-speak, "OMG U R 2 cluless LMAO!!!!"

Re:**Beatles (thread to be bitchslapped in 3..2..) (-1, Troll)

Sinryc (834433) | more than 8 years ago | (#14433412)

Oh shut the fuck up. So what if the admins want to do it this way? Its not YOUR site, It is CmdrTacos however. Don't forget, this is HIS website. If we dont like it, we just shut the fuck up and go to a diffrent site. I mean, you HAVE heard of google, right? Look up "Tech News" Or something. Quit your bitchin'.

Re:**Beatles (thread to be bitchslapped in 3..2..) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14433422)

Must be the Beatles guy posting on another account.

Yeah, we're just a bunch of plebians here. We're not allowed to express our opinion.

Re:**Beatles (thread to be bitchslapped in 3..2..) (1)

Sinryc (834433) | more than 8 years ago | (#14433427)

I never said that. Also, no. I'm actually not a huge fan of the beatles. More of a Floyd fan. :-)

Hey, you guys have a right to complaina nd I have my right to tell yall to shut the fuck up. :-)

Re:**Beatles (thread to be bitchslapped in 3..2..) (1, Offtopic)

zerocool^ (112121) | more than 8 years ago | (#14433440)


see my comment here [slashdot.org] in this thread.

I'm not asking much. I don't even know if Taco knows this is going on. All I want is integrity.

Re:**Beatles (thread to be bitchslapped in 3..2..) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14433414)

Let's not forget the Hexus guy.

Re:**Beatles (thread to be bitchslapped in 3..2..) (3, Interesting)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 8 years ago | (#14433433)

But, this thread will be bitchslapped, and I'll probably lose my (Meta)mod privs. Oh well. Maybe some day we'll get an honest answer out of the admins.
My mod privs dissappeared a while ago and I'm still waiting for my Meta-Mod privs to dissappear. I don't think they will though, as nobody watches the watchers of the watchers.

Other than that, I agree with everything you said.

This reminds me of another flare-up on /. recently about someone called "Roland Piquepaille"

Basically, he's been submitting since 2002 and has had similar complaints dog him ever since.

I'll pull two comments from the thread and then go my merry way:
comment #1 [slashdot.org] Monday January 02, 2005
I recently had a long email conversation about this with Taco. He basically isn't interested in feedback, which seems very not in the spirit of open source to me. He also said that /. doesn't track who is submitting what and doesn't care about a submitter's positive or negative track record because it would be hard to keep track of such things. If only there were a way of automating the process...
a reply to comment #1 [slashdot.org]
I guess you have noticed the censorship of this thread by someone with unlimited mod points.... Previously, this was just a curiosity to me, but with the censorship on top, I've become fairly irritated by this...
I hope we don't get hit by one of the infinite mod-point-squad

Re:**Beatles (thread to be bitchslapped in 3..2..) (5, Interesting)

zerocool^ (112121) | more than 8 years ago | (#14433449)


Yeah, I've seen those about Roland.

The fact is, shameless as he is, Roland is actually a real journalist, who writes for "real" journalistic sources (quotation marks denote wired). And he's been a slashdot member for a long time.

So I let him slide. Plus all his greenlights aren't from the same ModMin.

**Beatles has accomplished in THREE MONTHS what Roland accomplished in THREE YEARS. And without ever once pretending like he gave a fuck about technology.

~Will

Re:**Beatles (thread to be bitchslapped in 3..2..) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14433524)

Wired is crap these days. All that I see out of Roland on his blog is just resummarizations of articles out of magazines and other websites. Up until recently, he was comitting plagarism by not mentioning his sources.

There is also the question of the French TDA company that Roland appeared to have some relation with while he was touting their devices and offering demo units to people who paid for them. People who put money down for them never got their TDA and the company just vanished.

Re:**Beatles (thread to be bitchslapped in 3..2..) (2, Interesting)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 8 years ago | (#14433450)

My sentiments exactly. UID 125474, about 20 articles submitted over the 5 years, one was strangely approved long long time ago.

Re:**Beatles (thread to be bitchslapped in 3..2..) (4, Interesting)

zerocool^ (112121) | more than 8 years ago | (#14433493)


Right. And I am not even whining about my submissions. They were rejected, someone submitted them with a better headline, so-and-so wants to give a UFIA to submitter's mom, whatever, I don't care.

All I was pointing out was that the fact that 800,000 people have signed up since me, and that I've been here 5 years; the fact that I've been contributing positively (I had 50 karma long long long before karma went to the bill-and-ted system), the fact that enough people respect my opinion that I have over 130 fans (of which I'm very proud and greatful; see my journal on making fans friends), the fact that I still have my complete A-Z archive of Geeks in Space, and that I listened to it from the very first one - I think all these things entitle me to at least ask these questions.

Blowing me off doesn't really make me feel like I mean anything to this community, that my contributions don't matter, and I'll be honest, Jamie... it stings a little.

~Will

Re:**Beatles (thread to be bitchslapped in 3..2..) (4, Funny)

Cattywampus (19657) | more than 8 years ago | (#14433473)

Oh, great.

You've gone and mentioned your UID.

Now all the old farts with the five-digit-or-less UIDs are going to come out of the woodwork.

Slashcode (2, Insightful)

quokkapox (847798) | more than 8 years ago | (#14433643)

I just realized that the software that supposedly runs this site is supposedly open source. Have any of you old farts (or younger ones) reviewed the code? How is bitchslapping implemented? How is moderator access revocation implemented?

Re:**Beatles (thread to be bitchslapped in 3..2..) (1)

Tim C (15259) | more than 8 years ago | (#14433922)

Now you come to mention it, the thing that most struck a chord with me about this thread is that the guy signed up in about 1999.

When the hell did I sign up then? Have I really been reading slashdot for 8 years or more?!

Re:**Beatles (thread to be bitchslapped in 3..2..) (4, Insightful)

Wind_Walker (83965) | more than 8 years ago | (#14433477)

No, we never will get a straight answer out of the Admins. Why? Because they no longer answer to us. They answer to their Corporate Overlords (tm).

I gave up on Slashdot providing reliable information a long time ago. Now I come to skim the headlines and check out the trolls.

Complain to the Advertisers? (3, Insightful)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 8 years ago | (#14433658)

I'd rather have TrollKore and the GNAA back in full force than sloppy editing.

ASCII art & subtle comment trolls were far more amusing than bad /. articles and editors who don't correct the submitter's spelling.

Only solution is to complain to Slashdot's advertisers.

Tell 'em something like
"your advert appeared above this [poorly spelled, factually incorrect, un/misinformed, badly researched, any of the above] story. While you may have little to do with the content of the site, it does reflect on your company and its products. Please ask OSDN to consider aiming for a higher standard of editing."
I know it's like going over your boss' head and complaining. But ScuttleMonkey & Co. don't really seem to care.

Re:**Beatles (thread to be bitchslapped in 3..2..) (1)

StikyPad (445176) | more than 8 years ago | (#14433545)

YOUR READERS ARE NOT DUMB. IF THEY READ SLASHDOT REGULARLY, THEY'RE NOT STUPID.

The only thing that prevents me from inserting a relevant joke at this point is that the sheer number of possibilities prevents my brain from choosing one. I finally know what it's like to be a lion trying to pick out a zebra in a herd, except in this case there are no slow or weak ones that stand out.

Re:**Beatles (thread to be bitchslapped in 3..2..) (1)

zerocool^ (112121) | more than 8 years ago | (#14433582)


The only thing that prevents me from inserting a relevant joke at this point is that the sheer number of possibilities prevents my brain from choosing one.

Slashdotters: Please write your own joke and submit it to

Slashdot "Readership IQ" Jokes
c/o OSTG
46939 Bayside Parkway
Fremont, CA 94538 ...

Seriously. Most of the people who read slashdot aren't morans.

~W

Re:**Beatles (thread to be bitchslapped in 3..2..) (1)

abertoll (460221) | more than 8 years ago | (#14433593)


I admin, I haven't been paying enough attention to know what all the fuss is about, but I've tried to submit 3 stories total, and even I got one through. It's possible something is going on, but it's not obvious to me at least...

Have the stories been particularly bad?

Re:**Beatles (thread to be bitchslapped in 3..2..) (4, Interesting)

zerocool^ (112121) | more than 8 years ago | (#14433609)


Click on the link to his userpage (the ~/* * Beatles-Beatles link), and click on the links he's submitted.

For starters, they all start with "Beatles-Beatles writes to tell us [insert real news source here] has found a new [treatment for cancer | robot arm | galaxy | fad diet].

They're all posted by ScuttleMonkey.

And they all prominantly link to his webpage, which has nothing to do with him-as-a-person (there's no bio) or technology-in-general.

~W

Re:**Beatles (thread to be bitchslapped in 3..2..) (4, Interesting)

abertoll (460221) | more than 8 years ago | (#14433628)

That is mighty suspicious. I noticed some of the stories now say " An anonymous reader writes"

Roast Geif, Zan Roast Geif (1)

umbrellasd (876984) | more than 8 years ago | (#14433767)

Well, I think most of the mod+insightful posts on this thread are interesting but also mod-off topic as far as the post itself, which was reasonably interesting. It's not often someone tells you that you are spinning around on a giant floppy frisbee that is whizzing through the Universe at a million miles an hour.

I think the implied objection is that you feel this fellow is profiting from net traffic that is the result of a special relationship with ScuttleMonkey. If the articles that are posted are topical and of interest, and certainly there are many postings on the topic of cosmological and astronomical facts, I think you have not much leg to stand on.

If the articles were irrelevant tripe, that is a different matter. You threw out your own judgement about the relevancy or the derivativeness of this fellow's particular postings, but choosing posted topics is not really a democratic process: you are not given the power to mod the topics, but you can mod the resulting discussion.

Which means you are trying to do what you have not the power to do and you are doing it by posting off-topic comments which is actually more objectionable according to the "rules" than anything. If I were you, I would be happy that you received enough community support for your opinion that you were modded up despite being off topic, :-).

Perhaps for amusement, you could try writing your own article about the inequities of Slashdot topic selection and then submit it for consideration as a posted topic. That would be a hoot. Imagine if they actually posted. Hard to argue about integrity in that case.

Anyway, cheerio. I understand your beef. But this is how far you get bitching at the establishment, even a good spirited open-source friendly one: 0 meters. Although, if the galaxy warps enough there could be some error in that measurement and you might actually make some progress in a billion years!

Re:**Beatles (thread to be bitchslapped in 3..2..) (1, Offtopic)

UserGoogol (623581) | more than 8 years ago | (#14433621)

You make some good points, but I think you make some assumptions.

You said you've only submitted ten or fifteen articles to Slashdot in your entire lifetime. To contrast, I wouldn't be surprised if Beatles Beatles submits at least fifteen articles every week. (He makes money off of it, so it's worth it for him to spend a couple hours every week trolling the Internet for stories.) If that is the case, his success in getting articles submitted would be perfectly sensible.

That said, the fact that the person who posts his articles is consistantly ScuttleMonkey is intensely suspicious. It is possible that there are other reasons, but we are right to be suspicious.

That said, I'm not sure if we are right to care. It's not a big deal. Beatles beatles's articles are generally neat little links.

The sole function of editors at Slashdot is to prevent stuff like Goatse from getting posted. In the years I've been here (less than yours, admittingly) editors have never done anything vaguely editorial. All they do is look in the editor's queue, and post whatever catches their eye. They do not edit the posts for grammar, or check if the article has been posted before, or check if the article is true or not. They are not journalists, they are merely a rudimentary filter. Thus, until Beatles Beatles posts Goatse, ScuttleMonkey is performing his job perfectly.

Editor (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 8 years ago | (#14433688)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Editor [wikipedia.org]
Executive editor
The top editor sometimes has the title executive editor or editor-in-chief (the former is replacing the latter in the language). This person is generally responsible for the content of the publication. The exception is that newspapers that are large enough usually have a separate editor for the editorials and opinion pages.

The executive editor sets the publication standards for performance, and is responsible for assuring the highest standards of ethical conduct in the process of gathering and presenting information, as well as for motivating and developing the staff.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copy_editing [wikipedia.org]
The copy editor is also expected to ensure the text flows well, that it makes sense and is fair and accurate, and that it will cause no legal problems for the publisher. Newspaper copy editors are sometimes responsible for choosing which wire copy the newspaper will use, and for re-writing it according to their house style.

In many cases, a copy editor will be the only person other than the author to read an entire text before publication. Newspaper editors often regard their copy editors as their newspaper's last line of defense.
All emphasis is mine.

Re:**Beatles (thread to be bitchslapped in 3..2..) (0, Offtopic)

bonch (38532) | more than 8 years ago | (#14433635)

I've been here longer, and have never gotten a single mod point, thanks to having questioned authority and posted in The Thread (the first major bitchslapping that pissed off the readership).

I've watched this once-fun tech site descend into a hilarious public wank-off session (think I'm trolling? Those are Linus Torvalds' words to describe this place, from the LKML) with a completely broken moderation system that STILL isn't fixed (I've been modbombed multiple times...one time lasted over three months, day after day...I was told by others that people use bots to monitor user pages and use karma-whored accounts to automatically mod comments down).

You used to come here and get technically informed, but now the news has gotten generic and flamebaity.

BUT IT WON'T CHANGE A THING. The editors will ignore you, the sun will rise tomorrow morning, and everything will continue to be exactly the same. And all the users will continue to reload and visit the site, giving pageviews to Slashdot's advertisers. Remember that, as opposed to a community "open source" site like Digg [digg.com], Slashdot is a closed-system piece of property owned by a corporation called OSTG, run by editors who choose stories that generate high viewerships so they can charge high advertising rates. It's all about ad revenues.

Don't even bother emailing Rob Malda. His responses are usually sarcastic and jerky. Just accept that this site is way past its prime, running on an ancient crufty Perl codebase, only recently making the big ol' switch to freakin' HTML4 with CSS. In 2005. God.

Re:**Beatles (thread to be bitchslapped in 3..2..) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14433855)

Rofl.. "The Thread"

Oracle.. Unbreakable.. Slashdot Troll..

Man I haven't bothered to login to post since. Any website that finds it necessary to blacklist someone for modding a single post as interesting when it was indeed interesting should fail miserably. Not that my perfect Karma was that important to me, but its still retarded that ./ makes a system of 'credibility by community vote' yet the ./ admin clearly have no credibility.

Digg gets better every day =)

I hate to say it, but I don't see your conclusion. (2)

YesIAmAScript (886271) | more than 8 years ago | (#14433771)

What conclusion am I to draw?

That /. plays favorites?

That wouldn't surprise me one bit. You know, the world isn't fair. Does it guarantee somewhere in the slashdot charter that slashdot will be fair about approving submissions?

Or are you accusing that perhaps someone at /. is taking money to greenlight articles?

If so, just come out and say it.

Personally I think it's a stretch, I just don't hold slashdot in high enough esteem that it would be worth paying to get articles like this on it (unlike crappy "comparo" articles).

Stating the obvious... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14433382)

ScuttleMonkey and astriskastriskastriskastrisk Beatles Beatles Beatles need to go go go go!

Article summary in Limerick form (5, Funny)

melvin xavier (942849) | more than 8 years ago | (#14433454)

There might a crash in the stars
Whose damage leaves oddly-shaped scars
Astronomists patter,
"It might be dark matter
That's making the warp so bizarre!"

Vinyl tracks (2, Funny)

suso (153703) | more than 8 years ago | (#14433503)

causing our galaxy to warp 'like a vinyl record left out in the hot Sun.'

Now that's what I call an extended LP.

Mysterious MilkyWay Warp Finally Explained (1)

l33tlamer (916010) | more than 8 years ago | (#14433619)

First order effects caused by: Alcohol Second order effects caused by: Concussion from First Order parameters Third order effects: Too small (aka annoying and hard) to evaluate experimentally

Blitz abstract (2, Informative)

mattr (78516) | more than 8 years ago | (#14433739)

Here's the abstract for the presentation by Leo Blitz on the warp. Anyone who was at the AAS, knows someone who does or understands dark matter professionally, how about telling us if this tablecloth fluttering mentioned by Blitz in TFA might be useful as a test of dark matter? Abstract follows.

AAS 207th Meeting, 8-12 January 2006
Session 40 Galactic Structure with WIMPS, STARS and Gas
Oral, Monday, 10:00-11:30am, January 9, 2006, Salon 1

[40.05] The Shape of the HI Warp in the Outer Milky Way Disk
E.S. Levine, L. Blitz, C. Heiles (UC Berkeley), M. Weinberg (University of Massachusetts, Amherst)

Although the warping of the disk of the Milky Way has been known since 1957, our work represents the first time the Milky Way warp has been quantitatively described and we find it to be both elegant and surprising. We examine the outer Galactic HI disk for deviations from the b=0 plane by constructing maps of disk surface density, mean height, and thickness. We find that the Galactic warp is well described by a vertical offset plus two Fourier modes of frequency 1 and 2, all of which grow with Galactocentric radius. The global warp demonstrates approximately an order of magnitude more power in each mode with azimuthal wavenumber m=0,1, and 2 than in any higher frequency mode; thus three and only three modes are necessary to describe the large-scale behavior of the warp. The power in the m=0 and m=2 modes grows starting from around 15 kpc; the m=1 mode is the most powerful everywhere in the outer disk. We outline six observational conclusions regarding the warp that any potential theoretical mechanism must satisfy. We will also show a movie that demonstrates the evolution of the three modes with time.

ESL and LB are supported by NSF grant AST 02-28963. CH is supported by NSF grant AST 04-06987.

Really an explanation? (3, Interesting)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 8 years ago | (#14433750)

I guess one *could* call it "explained", although involving this "mysterious dark matter" is much like explaning how the Sun can shine as "we now know the Sun get fueled by some mysterious nuclear process".

This explanation only highlights our problems with dark matter even more, and things get especially funny if it's later discovered if it didn't exist. Then watch a number of theories fall apart during a night.

Maybe they can explain this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14433918)

Why if you are a right handed male your left nut hangs lower and if you are a left handed male your right nut hangs lower? This theory has not been explored for the ambidexterous (possibly they hang evenly or there is a third one. Not sure if this theory holds true for ovaries as well.

I think your all nuts (1)

todd10k (889348) | more than 8 years ago | (#14433925)

This beatles guy submits new, relevant content to slashdot on a regular basis. i never see him flame, bait, or otherwise demean anyone, and yet, you guys still pretend like he's the antichrist. Get a grip. he is not doing any harm by having his name linked to his personal merchandise site. i mean, come on, do you not think that he deserves a little user traffic for submitting relevant content? wait a second. why am i even posting this. the editors decide what goes up here, your opinion's are invalid on this subject. he submits relevant content, thus, he gets his article posted. end of.
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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...