You could just read the asbtract they're referencing in the peurile io9 article if you were actually interested in learning anything. Their commentary doesn't really add anything at all aside from "tee hee they said vagina!" color commentary.
You could just read the asbtract they're referencing in the peurile io9 article if you were actually interested in learning anything. Their commentary doesn't really add anything at all aside from "tee hee they said vagina!" color commentary.
It has nothing to do with the day of the week and everything to do how terrible the science "reporting" on Gawker sites is. Gawker is for techies that want to seem smarter than they actually are without actually having to learn stuff unrelated to their field of work.
It has nothing to do with the day of the week and everything to do how terrible the science "reporting" on Gawker sites is. Gawker is for techies that want to seem smarter than they actually are without actually having to learn stuff unrelated to their field of work.
I don't think it's terrible that popular sites like that draw attention to things that people might not know about otherwise
if you're really interested you'll go read the actual paper/brief/technical article
if you're not, you'll giggle at their stupid blurb and move on with your day
World as Myth on
0
WeaverWho are you?What do you want?Registered Userregular
It has nothing to do with the day of the week and everything to do how terrible the science "reporting" on Gawker sites is. Gawker is for techies that want to seem smarter than they actually are without actually having to learn stuff unrelated to their field of work.
I don't think it's terrible that popular sites like that draw attention to things that people might not know about otherwise
if you're really interested you'll go read the actual paper/brief/technical article
if you're not, you'll giggle at their stupid blurb and move on with your day
...That was true until today. In a surprising revelation, NASA scientist Felisa Wolfe-Simon and her team have found a bacteria whose DNA is completely alien to what we know today...
Both assertions are gross overstatements. Again, in spite of what some people are claiming I am NOT saying the news isn't interesting. What I'm saying is that sites like the Gawker family of sites tend to dumb things down so much or just outright misinterpret what they're reading so badly that many people completely miss the fucking point of the story and then feel letdown because it wasn't as outrageous as they were led to believe. Granted, the readers bear some responsibility here as well, but that doesn't change how idiotic their approach to science reporting is.
Druhim on
0
World as Mytha breezy way to annoy serious peopleRegistered Userregular
edited December 2010
druhim you were the ONLY person that day (that I know personally at least) who didn't react in a totally astonished excited way
Ok, I give up. In spite of me explicitly stating repeatedly that this is really cool, but clarifying that it doesn't "change everything" that somehow means just the opposite and I don't actually think it's cool. Fuck it.
Ok, I give up. In spite of me explicitly stating repeatedly that this is really cool, but clarifying that it doesn't "change everything" that somehow means just the opposite and I don't actually think it's cool. Fuck it.
dude that is not what I said, come on
people wanted to get crazy excited about something, and even if you think it was an overreaction, why not just let them get excited?
WeaverWho are you?What do you want?Registered Userregular
edited December 2010
It's like in O Brother, where art thou at the end when they're singing and everyone is having a blast and then the old dude runs up and tries to convince everyone that they shouldn't be having fun
Posts
I'm not sure I want to google that at work.
Was it a robot lady chart?
or an instrument?
me 2
let's get drunk and then talk about it loudly in front of our friends
three to go!
That was rather interesting.
Well done!
aaah
up for this
down on you
directions
I don't think it's terrible that popular sites like that draw attention to things that people might not know about otherwise
if you're really interested you'll go read the actual paper/brief/technical article
if you're not, you'll giggle at their stupid blurb and move on with your day
took all the fun out of electrovaginogram
You mean like when Gizmodo breathlessly exclaimed that NASA had found new life?
then,
Both assertions are gross overstatements. Again, in spite of what some people are claiming I am NOT saying the news isn't interesting. What I'm saying is that sites like the Gawker family of sites tend to dumb things down so much or just outright misinterpret what they're reading so badly that many people completely miss the fucking point of the story and then feel letdown because it wasn't as outrageous as they were led to believe. Granted, the readers bear some responsibility here as well, but that doesn't change how idiotic their approach to science reporting is.
I think maybe you're just cynical
hey can
can ol' crwth join along
dude that is not what I said, come on
people wanted to get crazy excited about something, and even if you think it was an overreaction, why not just let them get excited?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_ILDFp5DGA
i bet i could start a thread about rainbows and puppy dogs and there would still be hostility
mostly from kochi i bet since she hates dogs
The only difference between Gawker and a content farm is the amount writers are paid.
yes joe yes every time i read this thread title this song pops into my head
will you be the lionel richie to my blind sculpting woman
why you...!
but not enough to get mad about it.
Giant Pandas and Orcas, on the other hand...
you insensitive jerk
I want a cat.
kochi i am sorry i did not know your parents were bamboo
Haha the youtube comments are pretty good:
Alternately
this is all so confusing
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANg7iPu9DAg
what the fuck do orcas eat anyway
e: WHAT PICTURE IS THAT GET RID OF IT CATS ARE CREEPY