Beta
×

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!

1999 Ig Nobel Winners!

CmdrTaco posted more than 14 years ago | from the a-few-people-dumber-than-me dept.

It's funny.  Laugh. 112

SEWilco writes "The 1999 Ig Nobel winners have been announced. The PEACE winner's car flame thrower and the SCIENCE EDUCATION co-winner, the Kansas Board of Education were both /. articles. The PHYSICS co-winner, the biscuit dunking formula is my favorite. "

cancel ×

112 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Car Flamethrowers! (1)

LordOmar (68037) | more than 14 years ago | (#1645459)

We need more of these products commercially aavailable, I'd also like oil slicks and the like. Ohh, I harken back to the days of Spy Hunter, now where'd I put my CD of the Peter Gunn Theme??

kansas's darwin act?! (1)

discore (80674) | more than 14 years ago | (#1645460)

SCIENCE EDUCATION: The Kansas Board of Education and the Colorado State Board of Education, for mandating that children should not believe in
Darwin's theory of evolution any more than they believe in Newton's theory of gravitation, Faraday's and Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism, or
Pasteur's theory that germs cause disease.

thats just sick. i personally think that is insane. when i heard that kansas had done that i laughed. but now seeing it win a honorable recognition like that makes me mad. we really may be degrading as a society here. i thought we got over the whole "there is no god we are just organisms" thing years ago.

*sigh* just when you start to hope

tyler

Canadian Donut Shops (2)

Glytch (4881) | more than 14 years ago | (#1645461)

Seriously, I really must disagree with awarding Steve Penfold the award for Sociology. If you're not Canadian, you wouldn't believe the importance of donut shops here. *Especially* Tim Hortons.
Tim's is a national institution, on par with pubs in Britain.

But as for the Science Education award, they were absolutely right. :)

Re:kansas's darwin act?! (1)

poohbear_honeypot (9704) | more than 14 years ago | (#1645462)

Did you... ummm... read the rest of them?

---
Joseph Foley
InCert Software Corp.

Re:Canadian Donut Shops (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1645463)

Tim's ... oh baby.

If you've never been to canada, imagine Krispy Kreme + Dunkin Donuts, with the frequency of McDonald's. We're talking a national pasttime here.

(a natvie Detroiter who's had way too many forays into the great white north in search of Milkshakes and donuts....both of which are better on the other side of the river).

Re:kansas's darwin act?! (2)

vyesue (76216) | more than 14 years ago | (#1645464)

you are aware, of course, that this is the Ig Nobel Prize, we're talking about here, right?

anyone who wins one of these definitely wouldn't be considered to have been honored in any sense of the word.

Kansas, evolution, and Scientism (3)

fable2112 (46114) | more than 14 years ago | (#1645465)

OK. The idea that, right off the bat, evolution shouldn't be taught because the Bible says the world was created in 4004 BC is just batty. Especially when one stops to consider that what appears in the Bible as "day" really means "period of time," and with a few minor exceptions the order that things were "created" in is a pretty good match for evolutionary theory. I also think that the theory of evolution is the best one out there.


Now, all that said, I've got some serious problems with people who claim there is no God and then turn around and turn Science into God. Scientific rationalism can be (and these days, often is) taken much too far, in the same way that Christianity can.


I consider myself quite religious, though I am not Christian. And the replacement of the Judeo-Christian God with the "non-God" of scientific rationalism just shifts the good/evil paradigm slightly. It really doesn't change the black-and-white outlook that most people seem to have. "I'm right, and I have PROOF! Therefore, you're an immoral idiot." Isn't it time to evolve past this (so to speak)? ;)


(And before someone jumps all over me for this, I'm not trying to claim that the world was literally, actually, created by the remains of a giant cow. I do think that scientific evolution is the best *guess* we currently have as to "how we got here," but I don't want kids taught that Science is God any more than I want them forced to pray to Jesus every day.)

Re:Canadian Donut Shops (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1645466)

Penfold made this very point, about the importance of donut shops in Canada, during his acceptance speech - as did another Canadian, the guy who makes the grizzly-proof suit. A paraphrase of Penfold's comments: "This study would be silly in the U.S., but in Canada it was highly regarded. People stop me in the street and say, 'Well done.' " I would add more, but I'm getting bits of chocolate-frosted-donut icing on my keyboard ...

Re:kansas's darwin act?! (1)

Nerf97A4 (95045) | more than 14 years ago | (#1645467)

It seems you're missing the point. The Ig Nobel prize is not "honorable recognition." I believe it was given to them not for their beliefs, but their methods.

Not teaching something in science because its a theory rules out just about everything.

Hmm, some of these aren't stupid y'know (3)

orac2 (88688) | more than 14 years ago | (#1645468)

Awarding the Ig-noble to the tea-dunker and the tea-spout mathematician was unfair, given that the Ig-noble is really for worthless or inane stuff. Both are reasonably knotty problems; I remember when people though of research into foams [www.tcd.ie] in the same way (what could be more trivial than froth?) - but it lead to significant theoretical and practical advances in solid state physics and beyond. The possible commercial benefits of making a biscuit that doesn't collaspe into goop at the bottom of your mug is obvious and the non-drip tea spout is a piece of interesting and non-trivial math as I'm sure anyone who's tried to model fluids can testify. It may look not look very weighty now but who knows - Riemann's non-euclidian geometry was totally useless for anything for generations, until Einstein built Relativity on top of it.

Prize for Medicine (2)

Imabug (2259) | more than 14 years ago | (#1645469)

The prize awarded for medicine was just way too funny. A rotating table to facilitate with childbirth here [colitz.com] .

imabug

Pasteur's work (1)

Hasdi Hashim (17383) | more than 14 years ago | (#1645470)


SCIENCE EDUCATION: The Kansas Board of Education and the Colorado State Board of Education, for mandating that children should not believe in Darwin's theory of evolution any more than they believe in Newton's theory of gravitation, Faraday's and Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism, or Pasteur's theory that germs cause disease.

Coming from a religious camp, if I live in a country where religion is taught in school (and I do), and my goverment suddenly that mandate that school children no longer need to believe in God, I would freak out the same way as they do.

Interesting parallel, don't you think?

Anyhow, these people should be careful about mentioning Pasteur. Scientists used to believe in this theory called 'spontaneous generation theory'. If you leave a piece of food in the open air, germs will automagically form. Pasteur proposed that germs did come from nowhere but already exist in the air. Pasteur and others where heavily criticized for this.

One scientist tried to disprove this theory by the glucose solution in a beaker an stuffing it with cork. No bacterial growth was observed. Spontenous theory advocates pointed out that when you stuff the beaker with cork, you cut out the air supply which is needed by the bacteria so the theory still holds.

Pasteur did the same experiment but this time stuff the beaker with cork with an S-tube. This should supply the beaker with fresh air but will trap the incoming bacteria in the S-tube. No bacterial growth was observed. Spontenous generation theory is debunked.

Why is the spontenous generation theory is sooo important? It supports the idea that humans are not created but evolved from bacteria spontenously created out of thin air.

Hasdi

Prize for Medicine (1)

Imabug (2259) | more than 14 years ago | (#1645471)

The prize awarded for medicine was just way too funny. A rotating table to facilitate with childbirth here [colitz.com] .
A patent was actually awarded for it too!

imabug

Kansas Science Award (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1645472)

On behalf of the state regents, I would like to thank everybody who helped contribute, from all those idiots writing to the local papers to the people on the board who have shown just how great our education system. It is unfortunate the members of the regents are unable to accept the award personally since this is the time of the day they're still trying to get their head out of their butts. But I know someday, they will be successful, maybe after they are voted out of office.

Sorry, but there's no way I will admit who I really am. :)

Re:Canadian Donut Shops (1)

Stavr0 (35032) | more than 14 years ago | (#1645473)

Hey. This is serious stuff!

The Royal Canadian Air Farce [tv.cbc.ca] has a recurring sketch about a bunch of canucks discussing current events in the donut shop.
In small towns (well, big ones too>, the donut shop is where people gather and spread gossip.
It sounds no more ludicrous than Sociological research of Tea Rooms or Pubs in the British Isles.
---

Re:News? For Nerds? (1)

EricWright (16803) | more than 14 years ago | (#1645474)

Hello! The article from last Dec was about the car flame thrower. Today's article is about the awarding of the 1999 Ig Nobel prizes, of which one of them was the aforementioned flame thrower. There were many other prizes mentioned in the article linked...

No, /. isn't going down, just the ability of the posters to read the information presented (yeah, I'm guilty of it too at times).

--

Re:Car Flamethrowers! - "Spitfire spits fire" (1)

British (51765) | more than 14 years ago | (#1645475)

You know, on a Triumphs mailing list I was on, this guy had problems of flames shooting out of his exhaust.


His car was just like mine, a SPITFIRE. Now that's a car that lived up to its name! I should of emailed him on how to do it for my car just in case those Honda drivers get out of line. Hmm..

Reality Check. (2)

Hermetic (85784) | more than 14 years ago | (#1645476)

I think we all need to step back and take alook at the big picture here. The Ig Nobel's serve a very good purpose: They highlight the fact that there are people that are actually getting paid to do this sort of research! That is my kind of job! Person: "So, What do you do?" Hermetic: "I dunk biscuits, quite precisely, mind you, and determine what precentage of dunking produces the best taste." Person: "Are you hiring?" I find it amazing that any woman would think that the rotating birth accelerator is a good idea. Did you look at that thing? "Sweetie, I know it hurts, but I think if we strap you in and spin you around really, really fast that kid'll come shooting out of there in no time fast!" Please, Please don't let these people breed.

Re:Hmm, some of these aren't stupid y'know (1)

EricWright (16803) | more than 14 years ago | (#1645477)

Yeah, if I was into tea and biscuits at 4pm (instead of doughnuts and coffee at 9am, being the fat lazy American slob I am), I'd really like a biscuit that didn't disintegrate the instant it got wet.

--

Teapot spouts (1)

Hard_Code (49548) | more than 14 years ago | (#1645478)

Actually, designing a low-drip spout is rather useful. I hate drippy spouts. I'm sure pot and carafe makers might care. The biscuit dunking is rather frivolous though.

I love the 6-page British tea-making specification. Hilarious.

Re:News? For Nerds? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1645479)

Right... I should read at least twice :( Moderators: Please, a quick -1 to this and the original message. (Shame on me)

Don't want a car flamethrower... (2)

whitroth (9367) | more than 14 years ago | (#1645480)

In fact, I'd like an EMP gun to waste the electronics of the next idiot whose car alarm goes off as I walk by it in a supermarket parking lot, or the second time that night at 0-dark-thirty, because they've got the sensitivity set to, "a pigeon shat on my car!!!"

Instead, I have a *far* more useful device (copyright m. roth-whitworth, 1995-99): a rocket launcher for the front of your car to take out the morons who can't walk and chew gum at the same time, but who insist on permanently attaching their cell phone to their ear, and driving their SUVs (Stupid lUser Vehicles) *badly* in the left lane.... Now what makes *my* rocket device unique is that it uses a vertical-wedge shaped charge.
The advantage of this is that it not only takes out the idiot in front of you, but
1) it splits their vehicle in half up the middle, so that it doesn't get in your way as you keep on driving, and
2) depending on the lane you're in, the two halves of the vehicle formerly in front of you (VFiFoY) take out the jerks on either or both sides of you, who, seeing the removal of the idiot, would otherwise attempt to cut in front of you.

See? *Far* more useful, eliminating two or three pollutants from the shallow end of the gene pool for the price of one! Besides, it would make a nice boom!

mark "now, about the FCC-legal white noise generator on cellphone frequencies..."

Re:Prize for Medicine (1)

pi31415 (60856) | more than 14 years ago | (#1645481)

From the text of the rotating birth table patent:
In the case of a woman who has a fully developed muscular system and has had ample physical exertion all through the pregnancy, as is common with all more primitive peoples, nature provides all the necessary equipment and power to have a normal and quick delivery. This is not the case, however, with more civilized women who often do not have the opportunity to develop the muscles needed in confinement.

I get quite a kick from the language in this section; it sounds much like a passage from an enlightenment treatise on `primitive peoples.' Just what `confinement' do these people think `civilized women' need to be kept while they're pregnant?

Whatever truth there is in this statement certainly suggests that our most common, supposedly civilized method of giving birth, in which the woman lies on her back, should be reconsidered as unhealthy.

Science as God? (1)

phil reed (626) | more than 14 years ago | (#1645482)

Pardon me for being dense, but how do you teach kids that Science is God?


...phil

Re:kansas's darwin act?! (2)

Jburkholder (28127) | more than 14 years ago | (#1645483)

Hmm, I hope you are just kidding and do realise that these are not the official Nobel prize thingies, but the ng Nobel. In case you missed it:

WHAT: The annual Ig Nobel Prize ceremony honors individuals whose achievements
"cannot or should not be reproduced." Ten prizes are given to people who have done
remarkably goofy things -- some of them admirable, some perhaps otherwise. At the
ceremony, 1200 splendidly eccentric spectators watch the winners step forward to accept their Prizes. The Prizes are physically handed to the winners by genuinely bemused
genuine Nobel Laureates.


Re:Pasteur's work (1)

Zachary Kessin (1372) | more than 14 years ago | (#1645484)

Just for the reacord the bottle with the S tube is
still there, and still free of bacteria well over a century later.

Re:Prize for Medicine (2)

SEWilco (27983) | more than 14 years ago | (#1645485)

I think the patent should have been issued. It is a method which may help childbirth and I think it would work. The patent law forbids a patent for a solution which is obvious to an expert, but it does not forbid a patent for something which is obviously impractical to an expert.

On the other hand, that patent might apply to the maternity ward on a rotating space station...which has been obvious to experts for decades.

Re:Hmm, some of these aren't stupid y'know (1)

Bryan_Crowl (87192) | more than 14 years ago | (#1645486)

Yeah think about it , with this research you should never have to tip your coffee or tea out cause all of biscuit fell in it

I for one am definately going to be following these times just to see how much better my biscuit can be

bah what a waste of time and money

Re:Hmm, some of these aren't stupid y'know (2)

Jburkholder (28127) | more than 14 years ago | (#1645487)

Yeah, wasn't there a story a long while ago where someone decided to study coffee rings because they thought it odd the way that stains from the bottom of coffee cups dried. Seem to recall that they actually discovered some interesting phenomena that was not previously described.

Is it just me or... (1)

sheck (37769) | more than 14 years ago | (#1645488)

do these guys seem just a bit too preoccupied with tea and coffee?

Re:kansas's darwin act?! (1)

discore (80674) | more than 14 years ago | (#1645489)

heh i feel silly.
it was the first article i read in the morning and i wasnt quite with it :P

please flame me senseless!

tyler

Re:Kansas Science Award (2)

Jburkholder (28127) | more than 14 years ago | (#1645490)

"I'm trying really hard to see this issue from your point of view, but I just can't seem to get my head shoved quite that far up my ass!"

Re:Don't want a car flamethrower... (2)

Otto (17870) | more than 14 years ago | (#1645491)

In fact, I'd like an EMP gun to waste the electronics of the next idiot whose car alarm goes off as I walk by it in a supermarket parking lot, or the second time that night at 0-dark-thirty, because they've got the sensitivity set to, "a pigeon shat on my car!!!"

I've been considering mounting an EMP gun in my trunk, aiming backwards mind you, and seeing how it affects cars behind me on the road. I can see enormous practical benefit from this. Cop trying to pull you over for speeding? Just fire off a few bursts of EMP, that'll fix his wagon... :-)

Anyway, if anyone has a spec to build one of these devices, post a link, mmm-kay?


---

Re:Teapot spouts (2)

BugMaster ChuckyD (18439) | more than 14 years ago | (#1645492)

Do you have a link for the tea specs? I couldn't find it on the ig-noble page and a search on the british standards web site didn't come up with it.

Re:kansas's darwin act?! (1)

ratman (6987) | more than 14 years ago | (#1645493)

I don't intend to take up for the KBE. However, i am amazed that folks accept the theory of evolution so readily. having been educated in the natural sciences, i must say that Darwin's theory is, in places, stretched beyond reason. i'm not saying it's wrong, but there's a lot it does not explain. rattle snakes, for example.
i think we need to re-consider the origin of species, especially as chaos might be applied. evolution really is a dated theory.

Re:Kansas, evolution, and Scientism (3)

SimonK (7722) | more than 14 years ago | (#1645494)

I think this whole science versus religion debate is mistaken really. The problem is that religious texts from the past tend to provide both an account of history, much of which is mythological, but some of which is almost certainly correct, and a system of ethics. Both of these are general wrapped up in a concept of "revelation", that they are the Word of God and therefore beyond any challenge.

The problem seems to emerge when the account of history is challenged, either by science showing it is impossible, or by historical research showing that they cannot have happened as detailed. To anyone who is knowledgable and honest with themselves, this means either some parts of some sacred texts are false and either are not the Word of God, or science is somehow unreliable. I have trouble relating to the latter view, so I won't even attempt to account for it.

The former is much more interesting. The very possibility the bible might be false (or even only false in parts, or essentially correct but corrupted) seems to arouse anxiety in many religious persons. This is understandable I guess, but it results in what seem to be less than honest attempts to ignore the evidence by claiming it is "just a theory" (as if any human idea could ever be anything else).

What I think is missed in this is that the veracity of particular 2000 year old writings has no real baring on the validity of a system of ethics. "Love the Lord your God, and Love your neighbour" seems to be a pretty good way to live regardless of whether man evolved from apes or a particular man was nailed to a tree for saying how great it would be to be nice to each other for a change.

To summarise a little: Science has no take on ethics. There is no scientific way to live your life. Similarly religious views of the physical world should give way to scientific ones.

Re:Car Flamethrowers! (1)

Imabug (2259) | more than 14 years ago | (#1645496)

And you can actually buy it [cnn.com] to install on your car! seems relatively cheap too.

imabug

Re:kansas's darwin act?! (1)

qwerty2000 (85489) | more than 14 years ago | (#1645497)

I am a product of the Kansas Education system and I'll tell you now that they haven't been teaching Evolution in schools anyway, now they have just made it official. When we were supposed to be learning about evolution they had a priest come in and talk about noah's ark and how the dinosaurs couldn't surrive on it, and that is why they all died. (I had to leave the class because I was laughing so hard.)


Another thing about my school, they had a sexual education class, but what we had to do was memorize all the bones in the human body. They ripped all the pages out of our textbooks that contained the word "sex"!

Re:Car Flamethrowers! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1645498)

I see there are a lot of opinions about South Africa...
How many of you have lived here for some time?
Or do you just absorb what the news says?
Come visit... then comment.

Re:Pasteur's work (2)

TurkishGeek (61318) | more than 14 years ago | (#1645499)

Hasdi, the reference to Pasteur does not mention the spontaneous generation theory. As you pointed out, it was debunked for good; and has no scientific basis whatsoever. The poster who referenced Pasteur mentions Pasteur's discovery of germs as the reason of diseases-one of the most valuable contributions of science to mankind, perhaps. A discussion of the spontaneous generation theory is, IMHO, irrelevant here. And I don't think spontaneous generation has ever been taken seriously by anyone in scientific circles, anyway.

Re:Teapot spouts (1)

argathin (8462) | more than 14 years ago | (#1645500)

I love the 6-page British tea-making specification. Hilarious.

Have you seen the corresponding standard?

BS 5987:1980 ( ISO 1839-1980)

Methods for sampling tea
Confirmed, Current 8 pgs

And both of them seem to ISO as well... :-)
Pity that they want £20.- from non-members to get any of them... :-{

Thomas

Re:kansas's darwin act?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1645501)

My wife grew up in and was educated in Kansas. Trust me -- Their Education system was no prize-winner before they decided to stop teaching evolution. (I can say that because I'm married to her!)

Re:Is it just me or... (1)

Spasemunki (63473) | more than 14 years ago | (#1645502)

Very much so. But the slide strips with Prof. Lipscomb making a cup of tea were a riot. There's just something about pictures of a seemingly doddering old man with an acetyline torch...

Re:Pasteur's work (1)

InSaNe ASyLuM (70500) | more than 14 years ago | (#1645503)

Uh... spontaneous generation was taken *very* seriously in scientific circles. It used to be taken as a matter of fact by anyone who had any background in the matter.

Re:Kansas, evolution, and Scientism (3)

cje (33931) | more than 14 years ago | (#1645504)

The very possibility the bible might be false (or even only false in parts, or essentially correct but corrupted) seems to arouse anxiety in many religious persons.

The problem that many folks have is that they worship the Bible instead of the God that it talks about. They are more interested in holding it to a preposterous standard of inerrancy than they are in studying its deeper meaning. This amounts to little more than idolatry. When people use their own eyes and brains to make observations of the physical world and discover that said observations conflict with what is written in the Bible, they decide that God must be wrong and worship the book instead.

The doctrine of young-Earth creationism (the "universe is 6,000 years old" folks) requires its adherents to worship a deliberately deceitful God that will sentence them to an eternity of torture for having the audacity to use the brains, creativity, curiosity, and common sense they were given. I simply fail to understand why so many people are willing to characterize their God in such a manner. It is certainly not a flattering portrayal.

"Love the Lord your God, and Love your neighbour" seems to be a pretty good way to live regardless of whether man evolved from apes or a particular man was nailed to a tree for saying how great it would be to be nice to each other for a change.

Truer words were never spoken!

Re:kansas's darwin act?! (1)

Ender_the_Xenocide (71196) | more than 14 years ago | (#1645505)

/Darwinism/ is a dated theory. Many of the mechanisms for evolution that Darwin suggested have been abandoned for a long time. (Which isn't to say that the current theories explain everything.)

The difference is that Creationists try to argue, not that the theories don't accurately describe evolution, but that evolution doesn't happen, which is just loony.

The Right Way(TM) to make tea (3)

Lucius Lucanius (61758) | more than 14 years ago | (#1645506)

The process that takes place during tea making is known as "leaching", familiar to students of chemical engineering. Leaching involves the extraction of soluble chemicals from a solid or porous object by subjecting it to a current of liquid solvent. The design of leaching equipment is both complex and well studied, and involves optimization using methods such as cross-current and counter current flow (to extract as much as possible by trying to increase the concentration gradient and effective factors such as temperature, pressure, etc.)

I normally follow the following unique procedure -

1) Mix 1/2 cup water and milk

2) Bring it to a boil

3) Dunk in the tea leaves (real ones, not the stupid teabag thingie), turn off the heat, keep covered

4) Let it sit for 2-3 minutes

5) Filter using an appropriate mechanism

6) Add your preferred amount of sugar

This was described to me by a guy from India, and it comes out quite strong and flavorful. It, however, is not the l33t connoisseur's methodology, which normally involves boiling water and adding the tea leaves, then waiting for a longer period of time (5-6 mins).

Note - Use actual tea instead of tea bags (preferably stuff you can find in ethnic stores). Also, let the water run for a while from the faucet - the initial body of water tends to be staler and less oxygenated.

An alternative method is as follows:

1) pour desired liquid(s) in said cup and place in a microwave oven.

2) Nuke till it boils (2:38 mins on my 900 Watt Sharp Carousel)

3) Add the tea

4) Wait till it's done.

Historical footnote - Legend has it that tea was invented accidentally when tea leaves drifted into a Chinese emperor's hot water (which always made me wonder why he was drinking hot water and in a place likely to allow leaves to fall in). Just found this -

http://www.aromas.com.au/AllTea.html


There are as many legends surrounding the origins of tea
drinking as there are for coffee. The most popular tells of the
Chinese Emperor, Shen Nung, in 2,737 BC. He was boiling
his drinking water under a tree, Camellia sinensis, when
some leaves fell into the pot. The emperor was so delighted
with the brew that he began to cultivate the plant. Although
it is thought the plant originated in India, the earliest
recorded evidence of its cultivation comes from China in the 4th century. At
that time, however, the leaves were not brewed as a drink but made into
cakes and boiled with rice, spices or nuts. Later the dried leaves were
powdered and whipped into hot water, rather like cocoa. The infusion of tea
leaves in boiling water which we know today did not become fashionable until
the Ming Dynasty, from 1368 to 1644.



Oddly, I couldn't find the British standards institute way of making tea. A search for tea only gives this page :
http://www.bsi.org.uk/bsi/products/standards/dev elopment/committees/consumer.xhtml

It does have the wise committee's email addr. Just don't slashdot them asking for tea recipes. :)

I hereby place the step-by-step tea making code included in this document under the GPL (which can be obtained by writing to the Free Software Foundation, Inc. 59 Temple Place - Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307, USA)

L.

Re:kansas's darwin act?! (1)

Ender_the_Xenocide (71196) | more than 14 years ago | (#1645507)

Correction: to be technical, that should have said "speciation doesn't happen", which is a little less loony until you look at the alternatives.

Re:kansas's darwin act?! (1)

jass (83214) | more than 14 years ago | (#1645508)

It is common on \. to argue that the scientific outlook has no moral center while the religious outlook, having a moral center, ought not make positive claims---i.e., empirically falseifiable claims---about the physical world. This is a relatively modern distinction. The founders of Western Rationalism (which is think is a damn good thing)---i.e., Plato, Socrates etc.---and Western Science---i.e., Descartes---did think that science and/or rationalism has a moral center. Most all moral theories make empirical---i.e., falseifiable---claims. Moreover, the heart of science and rationalism is an understanding that all of our claims are just theories. There is no logic of proof. When it comes to empirical claims, I can not prove anything. I can only attempt to disprove a theory against some alternatives. That's why the true scientist doesn't turn any theory into an unalterable religious doctrine. But a scientist ought to hold all of his/her beliefs to the same standard.

For example, let us examine the claim that homosexuality and bisexuality is morally wrong but that heterosexuality is just fine. The people who claim such things support their views by (a) claims to authority---i.e., usually some text; and (b) empirical claims such as homosexuals are psychologically disturbed because they are homosexuals and not because of society's reaction to them being homosexual. Now any one reasonable ought to see claims of type (a) as just plain silly, and ought to judge claims of type (b) by the scientific method: "You make these claims about the effects of sexuality on psychological wellbeing, let's go test them!" There is no sharp distinction between science and morality. It would have greatly disturbed the leaders of the Enlightenment to think that their revolution had resulted in a world where knowledge is thought to be completely fractured.

Re:kansas's darwin act?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1645509)

If your mind is as open as you claim it to be, then you won't mind updating your dated knowledge of what evolution is and isn't by reading some FAQ's and such: http://www.talkorigins.org/

Re:Kansas Science Award (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1645510)

Tommy Boy, the chris farley movie, had this dialog by a salesman:

"You can spot a good t-bone by sticking your head up a bull's ass, but wouldn't you rather take the butcher's word for it?"

I guess the Kansas board is trying the former method to spot a good dumbass.

Re:Is it just me or... (2)

drox (18559) | more than 14 years ago | (#1645511)

...do these guys seem just a bit too preoccupied with tea and coffee?

That would be impossible. The importance of tea and coffee approaches infinity.

"Everybody knows that".

Re:Hmm, some of these aren't stupid y'know (2)

Ledge Kindred (82988) | more than 14 years ago | (#1645512)

From the IgNobel page:

WHY: The Igs are intended to celebrate the unusual, honor the imaginative, and spur people's interest in science.

So you see, it doesn't mean they think it's stupid. Just something incredibly weird.

-=-=-=-=-

Too bad about Physics (3)

Ledge Kindred (82988) | more than 14 years ago | (#1645513)

I guess Japan has to wait until next year for its IgNobel prize in physics for attempting to see what adding seven times the normal amount of Uranium to a purification process would do.

-=-=-=-=-

British Standards (1)

gcoates (31407) | more than 14 years ago | (#1645514)

If you think a standard for tea is bad, a quick search on http://bsonline.techindex.co.uk [techindex.co.uk] reveals BS0-1:1997,
"A British Standard for Standards."
I wonder if BS0-1:1997 is BSO-1:1997 compliant?

Re:Kansas, evolution, and Scientism (1)

LordOmar (68037) | more than 14 years ago | (#1645515)

I have an interesting view point on the nature of science/religion. Being a VERY reformed jew I have always taken a very loose interpretation of the scriptures. It seems that the high level of beurocracy in the church today has really cause a cessation in religious progress over the past few hundred years. At one time religion and science were pretty much the same, although the scchism between them happened long ago. I guess I follow a somewhat science-as-religion view of the world. The church has never even considered the possibility of a higher power guiding man on the path of scientific discivery. I believe that "god" isn't finnished creating yet, that the higher power (whatever name you choose to use for it) still sees us as a work in progress and set us on the scientific path so that we could finish the job on our own...

Just a thought.

Re:Pasteur's work (1)

Hasdi Hashim (17383) | more than 14 years ago | (#1645516)

Sir, I think you are missing my point.

BTW, if anybody wants to learn a few more about Pasteur, you can check out the following links.

http://www.panspermia.org/pasteur.htm
http://www.accessexcellence.org/AB/BC/Louis_Past eur.html
http://www.accessexcellence.org/AB/BC/Spontaneou s_Generation.html

Is a round earth theory religion? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1645517)

I think one scientist described it best on NPR when someone made the same point as you - why do scientists reject religion when they themselves have a dogmatic faith in science? He said something along the lines of "Sure, I want to have a dogmatic faith that 2+2=4. If somebody else comes up with a better theory, I'll believe it".

I get tired of people saying - Hey, you scientists treat science like your god. Umm...no, scientists don't believe something because they are supposed to unquestioningly believe it. They do it because evidence and logic points to it.

For instance, I'm pretty sure you believe the earth is not flat. Why do you teach your children this religious belief that the earth goes around the sun?

See - nobody is replacing Judeo-Christian religion with the "non-god religion" of science. I'm not sure why you're making a big deal out of it and interpreting it that way. Nobody is carrying rationalism too far. I'd say it's not carried far enough.

Note - if you REALLY think science is an overrated religion, just don't go to the local surgeon when you need treatment. after all, he just has a "religious faith" in medical science and has replaced God with his belief in "non-God science".

Re:Kansas, evolution, and Scientism (1)

drox (18559) | more than 14 years ago | (#1645518)

SCIENCE EDUCATION: The Kansas Board of Education and the Colorado State Board of Education, for mandating that children should not believe in Darwin's theory of evolution any more than they believe in Newton's theory of gravitation, Faraday's and Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism, or Pasteur's theory that germs cause disease.

Unfortunately, the Ig Nobel prize committee got it wrong. If the above were really what the KBE (don't know about Colorado) proposed, there wouldn't have been so much objection. You can bet Kansas schools DO still teach, and test on, Faraday and Maxwell and Newton's contributions to science. It's just Darwin and his theory that are singled out.

Whether you believe the stuff (Darwin or Newton or Faraday) is not the point. The point is that it's science and that students get a working knowledge of it. Students probably would be better for having a working knowledge of religion too (their own and other people's) but the science class is not the place to learn it. Because it's not science.

Teaching that Science is God is wrong too. Science isn't about God, or capital-T Truth. Science is a process. It works, and when it stops working, it gets changed and updated and modified until it does work. A scientists's work is never done, and scientists never know The Truth. All they have is an approximation.

Beware of any scientist that claims to have The Truth - he/she is not talking about science.

what's your point? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1645519)

Scientists used to beleive there was an "ether" permeating the universe. That too was proven wrong. If you have some proof that evolution is wrong, please present. I'd wager any "proof" you can provide has already been debunked time and time again.

You don't understand basic science (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1645520)

By pointing out a wrong theory that Pasteur proposed and saying "Ha! Look, you scientists were wrong!" doesn't prove anything. Science works on the very basis of proposing a theory based on observation and logic, then discarding it if a better one is presented.

For instance, Einstein made some mistakes in his model of the universe, but that doesn't mean that the e=mc2 is wrong.

Could you state what exactly your point is - are you saying they should not mention Pasteur's theory of germs causing disease as being correct, because one of his other theories was wrong?

BTW, do you yourself believe that germs cause disease, or in the theory of evolution? Just curious..

I was there (1)

DeadSea (69598) | more than 14 years ago | (#1645521)

I went to the ceremony last night. (I live in Cambridge and it was at Harvard.) Anyway, it was a lot of fun and if you missed it it will be broadcast on the radio (NPR) the day after Thanksgiving. Part of NPRs science Friday, so maybe other good stuff that day too.



The other neat thing was as I was walking to the bus stop on my way home, I passed through Harvard Square and bumped into Stephen Hawkings. He was in his wheelchair and wandering around Harvard square. Pretty neat. Didn't even know he was in town.

I was there (1)

DeadSea (69598) | more than 14 years ago | (#1645522)

I went to the ceremony last night. (I live in Cambridge and it was at Harvard.) Anyway, it was a lot of fun and if you missed it it will be broadcast on the radio (NPR) the day after Thanksgiving. Part of NPRs science Friday, so maybe other good stuff that day too.

The other neat thing was as I was walking to the bus stop on my way home, I passed through Harvard Square and bumped into Stephen Hawkings. He was in his wheelchair and wandering around Harvard square. Pretty neat. Didn't even know he was in town.

Medical science (2)

fable2112 (46114) | more than 14 years ago | (#1645523)

*sigh* That's as good an example as any of what I'm talking about, and an area where it is much more dangerous. There are a lot of people who have quite a lot invested in the belief that modern medical technology is the Savior of Us All. Effective alternatives to surgery and a lifetime of drugs for certain diseases are being ignored and/or derided as "New Age Fluff" or "just a placebo" in the name of "modern medical science." People are being put on drugs with horrible side effects that don't actually fix the problem they're supposed to, and paying through the nose for the priviledge, because some doctor said so. THIS is what I mean by treating Science as God.


Scientists are no more immune from having an agenda than "men of God" are, and "scientific findings" have this interesting way of backing up popular public beliefs, or alternatively of not really seeing the light of day. Phrenology, anyone?

Re:Science as God? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1645524)

By sending them to school somewhere other than Kansas or Iran. :)

Re:Prize for Medicine (mangled care) (1)

alumshubby (5517) | more than 14 years ago | (#1645525)

I get quite a kick from the language in this section; it sounds much like a passage from an enlightenment treatise on `primitive peoples.'

I get quite a different and unpleasant sort of kick on viewing the diagrams for the device itself. It looks like some sort of torture apparatus from the Inquisition. (To be fair, the Spaniards didn't go in for sexual torture as such.)

This looks like a device only a managed-care corporation could love -- Let's get that delivery over with, no matter what the consequences! I hate to think of the complications that could be induced or worsened by using this technique -- in particular, unduly profuse intrauterine or episiotimal bleeding due to the increased forces the mother experiences during the centrifugal acceleration. And that's not even considering the issue of fetal distress.

Thinking back to an article I saw concerning alternative birthing methods, I recall some positions other than the standard supine presentation we know in the West -- for example, squatting, on hands & knees, perching on a U-shaped birthing stool, and so forth. (One of the most creative was underwater -- apparently the supportive buoyancy was supposed to help the mother.) I believe the preferred method used in "primitive" cultures was squatting, often with a cloth or skin laid on the ground to receive the baby. What happens to truly 'primitive' mothers and neonates who go through labor-specific birth complications? Mom and/or kiddo doesn't necessarily survive to pass on a genetic legacy (Sorry, state of Kansas).

moderate that up (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1645526)

The punch line is a kicker. :)

Re:The Right Way(TM) to make tea (1)

Mr. Piccolo (18045) | more than 14 years ago | (#1645527)

Try this site:

British Standards Online [techindex.co.uk]

and search for Standard Number 6008.

Only problem is you have to have 20 English Pounds lying around somewhere, and being a lousy American, I ain't got any. Apparently some of the standards are avilable in .pdf form, but not this one :(

Re:Science as God? (2)

fable2112 (46114) | more than 14 years ago | (#1645528)

With a signature file like that, you really need to know the answer? ;)


Well, here's a good example: Most school scientific experiments don't deserve the name "experiment". Generally, if you didn't get X for a result (X being whatever's in the teacher's guide), then YOU did something wrong. And the kids who rack up good grades in science classes and win science fairs confine themselves to this type of "experiment" for the most part. There's a built in "right" and "wrong" answer. Don't get me wrong, a lot of these principles need to be taught, but can we please not call them "experiments" when the conclusion is so predetermined?


And here's another one: The nice doctor and the nice psychologist know exactly what's wrong with you. And they're going to make it all better. Now take your Ritalin, Johny! (Alternatively, take your Zoloft, Jenny!) They're the experts, so they obviously know what's best for you.


History teachers that make fun of the mythology of other cultures and tell their students how "stupid" and "backward" and "savage" a culture that "believed that stuff" had to be are another excellent example. "WE are intelligent, modern people. We're above all that!" Apparently, some friends of mine had history teachers treat Christianity the same way, much to the ire of several parents.

So there really *is* an ISO standard cup of tea? (1)

LadyNymphaea (15396) | more than 14 years ago | (#1645529)

Gee, I thought it was just a funny in the Jargon File [tuxedo.org] . It is a pity...I want that recipe :o)

Re:Don't want a car flamethrower... (2)

Doug Loss (3517) | more than 14 years ago | (#1645530)

What I've wanted for quite a while is a pneumatic dart gun for the front of my car that can fire suction-cup-tipped darts about 20 cm. long with flame-orange flags attached with the word "asshole!" on them. The suction cups would of course be coated with superglue. If enough of us used these, we would have a community-based system of rating driving quality and traffic courteousness.

Now as for the cell-phones, is there any way we can increase the brain-cancer-causing aspects of them?

Doug Loss

Re:Medical science (1)

ToastyKen (10169) | more than 14 years ago | (#1645531)

Pardon, but it doesn't seem like you actually gave any ALTERNATIVE to medical science. People are being put on drugs with horrible side effects that don't actually fix the problem they're supposed to, and paying through the nose for the priviledge, because some doctor said so. Then you're just dealing with a bad doctor. Doesn't mean all of medical science is corrupt just because there are some bad doctors out there. Phrenology, anyone? Huh? Phrenology was never a "science" any more than alchemy was. What's your point?

Re: Science is not God (1)

Hard_Code (49548) | more than 14 years ago | (#1645532)

Who ever said science is god (besides scientology freaks)? I don't think any scientist in any definition of the word would ever make an equation between the two. If someone is trying to do this they are really not scientists and rather charlatans.

Been wondering about it for years! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1645533)

For many years, when observing someone about to pour tea, I would often comment: for the thousands of years people have been making teapots, why do teapots still drip? hasn't anyone figured it out yet? Today, I understand. The problem is in fact quite difficult! Indeed, nobody had properly tried to solve the problem until recently. But all I find is a headline! Does anyone have a link to the actual paper presenting the solution to dripping pots???

Re:Kansas, evolution, and Scientism (1)

mapletree (85582) | more than 14 years ago | (#1645534)

""OK. The idea that, right off the bat, evolution shouldn't be taught because the Bible says the world was created in 4004 BC is just batty. Especially when one stops to consider that what appears in the Bible as "day" really means "period of time," and with a few minor exceptions the order that things were "created" in is a pretty good match for evolutionary theory. I also think that the theory of evolution is the best one out there.""

For a review of the whole debate, including the arguments outlined above, check out The Talk.Origins Website [talkorigins.org] .

Re:Medical science (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1645535)

Science is based on proof. If the "new age fluff" is proven effective, it becomes part of medical science. That's how it works - do you have a better way of determining valid treatment?


"People are being put on drugs with horrible side effects that don't actually fix the problem they're supposed to, and paying through the nose for the priviledge, because some doctor said so. THIS is what I mean by treating Science as God."

No, it means they are treating a Bad Doctor as God. :)

"Scientists are no more immune from having an agenda than "men of God" are, and "scientific findings" have this interesting way of backing up popular
public beliefs, or alternatively of not really seeing the light of day. Phrenology, anyone?"

So you're saying "scientific findings" don't see the light of day. Pray explain your alternative method to discover facts. Gut reaction? Intuition?
Phrenology is not a science. It was "junk science", much like the "new age fluff" you refer to.

Re:Hmm, some of these aren't stupid y'know (1)

ardran (90992) | more than 14 years ago | (#1645536)

In my mind the Igs have always have this sort of problem -- on the one hand they're giving awards to people who have done actual scientific work on stuff that's just out to lunch, but on the other hand they give awards for stuff that is anti-scientific, misanthropic, etc. The awards suffer from the fact that they both condone and condemn, depending on who gets the award.

Ah, but it also says... (1)

orac2 (88688) | more than 14 years ago | (#1645537)

Also from the Ig-Nobel page: WHAT: The annual Ig Nobel Prize ceremony honors individuals whose achievements "cannot or should not be reproduced." This implies that the research is at best an amusing dead end. Neither the dunking or spout research falls into this catagory.

Re:Don't want a car flamethrower... (1)

otis wildflower (4889) | more than 14 years ago | (#1645538)

Naah, I'd prefer to get a million-candlepower spotlight that's cig-lighter powered and blind tailgaters...

Ceremony video (1)

philburt (30910) | more than 14 years ago | (#1645539)

A video of the ceremony is available as a Real stream. Unfortunately, nobody thought to spend some time breaking it up into smaller, indexed segments. Streaming media on the public Internet sucks anyways. Hopefuly, I will find it on tape some time.

My wife was actualy one of the maidens in the opera. I had a class last night so I couldn't go -- I should have bagged the class!

Can someone who went post a review of the opera?

thanks,
pb

Ah.. finally... (1)

Hasdi Hashim (17383) | more than 14 years ago | (#1645540)

...a more intelligent response

I'd wager any "proof" you can provide has already been debunked time and time again.

And many "proof" supporting evolution has been debunked time and time again as well...

don't you see the parallel here?

In science, we propose numerous hypothesis, and test them to see if it is consistent with experiments. In principle, we should discard it as soon as we run an experiment that conflicts with it.

In practice, many scientists stick to their hypothesis even in the face of conflicting evidence. Louis Pasteur is one case. Other popular case is Einstein physics vs Newtonian physics. I have my hypothesis, and you have yours. Very often, we're just like lawyers and our client happens to be our hypotheses. We present our evidence and we debunk the other side.

Did you ever stop to think what if the creationist are right and evolution is wrong? Or do you keep defending your case or debunk whatever they throw at you? Would you think I would have done likewise?

We may not admit but usually there are unrelated reasons why we believe in a particular hypothesis. Maybe you don't like the idea that one day we will be accountable for our actions. Maybe i don't like the idea that all my the deeds will be all for nothing, or I am in any way 'related' to that furry little animal. Why is that some people would want to mandate one hypthoses to be taught over another, when both have strong supporters?

Enough ranting. I am back to earning my pay. Maybe I'll continue tonight.

Hasdi
PS - yes, my point is italicized

HA! (1)

Sloppy (14984) | more than 14 years ago | (#1645541)

That's great!

But the ratings are useless unless you then apply some sort of selection pressure that uses them. Maybe have toll booths charge diff amts depending on how many darts your car has. Or perhaps the fins on the darts, after they stick, could then turn sideways to provide more aerodynamic drag -- thereby slowing offenders' cars down?

Hmm.. there's also the problem of people abusing the darts, so there would be cries for meta-moderators...


---
Have a Sloppy day!

Re:Kansas, evolution, and Scientism (1)

Natedog (11943) | more than 14 years ago | (#1645542)

"The very possibility the bible might be false (or even only false in parts, or essentially correct but corrupted)"

While possible, the Bible is still one of the most accurate literary texts we have from the old world. For example, there are about 36,000 manuscripts from the dates 50-200AD that textual critics have used to determine that the New Testiment is about 98.3% accurate to what the original authors wrote. On the Old Testement side there are the Dead Sea Scrolls that show that the Old Testiment has remained about 95% accurate over a period of ~900 years. Compare this to the works of Plato of which we have about 7 documents that date back to about 1200 years after his death. Also, I don't know of any historical recordings in the Bible that have been contradicted by science - in fact the more cities and palaces that get uncovered the more accurate we find the Bible to be.

This doesn't nessasarily mean it is God's Word (kinda up to the individual to decide), but regardless, the 40some authors provide a great insite to how the world was ~600BC. If nothing else its a collection of proverbs and experiances covering a span of ~1500 yrs.

An Eastern thing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1645543)

I could well be wrong, but I think donut shops play a much more important (if you can really call it that) role in Eastern Canada than in the West. I didn't appreciate the jokes the Royal Canadian Air Farce, for instance, made about donut shops until I moved to Ontario. There are donut shops *everywhere*, and so many different chains.
BTW, what *is* the correct Tim Horton's spelling? I've seen it -- on store signs, no less -- spelled as Tim Horton's, Tim Hortons, and even Tim Horton (maybe that one was in Quebec :P).

Re:HA! (1)

David Jensen (1987) | more than 14 years ago | (#1645544)

Once you have your quota of a dozen or so, the cops automatically pick you up for being an obvious menace on the road. Then you can go to court and explain why the other drivers were just being mean to you. If your story isn't interesting, you can walk for the next thirty days.

Forget the flamethrower! (2)

Trick (3648) | more than 14 years ago | (#1645545)

Who needs a flamethrowing car alarm? Check out the last winner -- the centrifugal birthing table.

Mount one of those bad boys on top of your car, strap a mother-to-be-any-minute on it, and walk away. I guarantee your car won't get stolen, and any thief brave enough to come within an arm's reach of Mama is going to *wish* it was just a flamethrower.

Then's there's the potential for using it as a projectile weapon, but I'd think the accuracy would be pretty bad, and it'd take ninth months to reload.

Re:Hmm, some of these aren't stupid y'know (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1645546)

In my mind the Igs have always have this sort of problem -- on the one hand they're giving awards to people who have done actual scientific work on stuff that's just out to lunch, but on the other hand they give awards for stuff that is anti-scientific, misanthropic, etc. The awards suffer from the fact that they both condone and condemn, depending on who gets the award.

That's true of Time's Man [sic] of the Year too, but no one seems to complain much about that.

Re:Pasteur's work (2)

Guy Harris (3803) | more than 14 years ago | (#1645547)

Coming from a religious camp, if I live in a country where religion is taught in school (and I do), and my goverment suddenly that mandate that school children no longer need to believe in God, I would freak out the same way as they do.

I don't particularly care whether people would be bothered by the government disallowing public schools to require that people believe in some religion; I refuse to consider it proper for any government to enforce adherence to any religion, or even to religion in general, in its institutions.

Besides, plenty of religious people seem to manage to reconcile a belief in their religion with a belief that an evolutionary model for the generation and development of life on earth is the best model we have so far; teaching evolution is inequivalent to teaching atheism, no matter what some folks might think.

Why is the spontenous generation theory is sooo important? It supports the idea that humans are not created but evolved from bacteria spontenously created out of thin air.

And who has hypothesized that "humans ... evolved from bacteria spontaneously created out of thin air"? I am unaware that any of the current hypotheses for the appearance of life on earth posit that bacteria were "spontaneously created out of thin air".

(In addition, even if you do posit that some diety or dieties somehow put the first forms of life on earth, that doesn't mean that said life forms couldn't have evolved into other life forms.

A lot of the problem some religious people seem to have with evolution appears to be that they believe it implies that there must be no god or gods; as far as I can tell, it is possible to be religious and believe that evolution is the best explanation for the way live exists on earth now and apparently existed in the past, just as it's possible for nonbelievers like me.)

Re:Kansas, evolution, and Scientism (1)

Rational (1990) | more than 14 years ago | (#1645548)

For example, there are about 36,000 manuscripts from the dates 50-200AD that textual critics have used to determine that the New Testiment is about 98.3% accurate to what the original authors wrote.

Which says nothing on how accurate what the original authors wrote is to what actually happened.

Oreos and Flamethrowers (1)

Evil Poot Cat (69870) | more than 14 years ago | (#1645549)

I can see Nabisco dropping a few $M to fund cookie-specific studies...and to publish the optimal time to dunk an Oreo (among other cookies) in the different kinds of milk (skim, to whipping cream).

I wonder if I could get an insurance discount for the flame defense system? Too bad it shoots out both sides though. A switch similar to the dual-mirror control should take care of that problem.

Speaking of which, I think I could use an oreo or two.


__________________

Re:Pasteur's work (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1645550)

Coming from a religious camp, if I live in a country where religion is taught in school (and I do), and my goverment suddenly that mandate that school children no longer need to believe in God, I would freak out the same way as they do.

Interesting parallel, don't you think?


Only in the sense in which it shows that Kansas isn't the only place where education standards are in a sorry state. Religion has no place in school.

FUCK YOU ASSHOLE (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1645551)

Fuck you, fuck you, fuck you.

Proud SUV owner

Re:kansas's darwin act?! (1)

Huld (97658) | more than 14 years ago | (#1645552)

Richard Dawkins (in "The Blind Watchmaker") was quite explicit about people who suppose that, just because they can't think of an explanation, then there can't *be* an explanation. The rattle of rattle snakes is easy to explain: it's a feature, not a bug. Rattle snakes swallow their prey whole so they don't hunt cows or humans. But if some big animal like you or me comes stomping along the snake risks being trampled to death. Sure, it can bite, but that won't help if it has already been trodden on, and it would only mean big panicking feet all over the place. Better far to rattle a bit and make sure no one gets hurt. I'm pretty sure that if a rattle snake sees a mouse it will *not* rattle. It's almost more difficult to explain why more snake species haven't evolved this (though the broad neck of the cobra might be a similar warning signal).

Re:Prize for Medicine (1)

blahtree (55190) | more than 14 years ago | (#1645553)

Oh no! Vomit city! Did you see the rotational speeds of this thing? Up to 1.37 rot/s!! I can't imagine keeping my lunch down, even at the lowest speed of 0.52 rot/s!

Re:Kansas, evolution, and Scientism (1)

Tenareth (17013) | more than 14 years ago | (#1645554)

So far, I believe it's been "proven" about 85% accurate (New Testament). The other 15% is still under investigation, and may never be verifiable.
A relatively recent discovery was the discovery of Jesus' crucifiction record, quelling the idea that Jesus never existed, and was made up completely.

-- Keith Moore

Re:Kansas, evolution, and Scientism (1)

Natedog (11943) | more than 14 years ago | (#1645555)

I suppose the percentages change depending on the process of verification. The fact that we have about 36,000 documents means that a lot can be done with textual critisism - this disipline is much like working with diff files or parity error correction - overlapping documents are compared for variances and errors corrected. The percent of error I cited (1.7%) was caculated after textual critism - my guess is that the ~15% that you present accounts for all found variances before obvious coping errors, translation issues, mispellings, etc are removed. BTW - this technique is quite common and acepted, even outside biblical research.

Flamethrower Mobile Handset (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1645556)

And to think that when the early NiH batteries were generating hydrogen and exploding occasionaly, I proposed marketing it as a feature of a "combination cellular handset and flamethrower", which would give you that extra security when walking home in the dark. Should have persevered. Coulda been a winner.

Re:Ceremony video (1)

strredwolf (532) | more than 14 years ago | (#1645557)

They should be selling the video soon. I snagged an old copy perviously, and have asked Marc (the MC) about posting a d/l-able version of the video.

---
Spammed? Click here [sputum.com] for free slack on how to fight it!

Re:Don't want a car flamethrower... (1)

meldroc (21783) | more than 14 years ago | (#1645558)

Cool toys, but the one I want on my car is a lightning gun. It would be based on the principles used to make lightning shows [earthlink.net] for theatrical productions (Yes, this is actual electrical lightning, gigawatts of fun.) Instead of using wires, I'd use an ultraviolet laser (nitrogen laser, I think) to ionize the air between the gun and the target to direct the arc. That'll be the last time that luser cuts me off while yakking into a cell-phone.

One problem I see is getting enough power from the engine's alternator to charge the caps fast enough to fire more often than once a month. I'd also find difficulty with driving while wearing an arc-welding mask to protect my eyes from the flash.

Well, I can dream, can't I?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>