Slashdot is a joke when it comes to the natural sciences. As a computer engineer myself, I used to read Slashdot religiously. However, at some point in time, I started reading materials which are critical of the conventional natural sciences ... geology, archaeology, cosmology, astrophysics, etc. Many of these critics -- like Charles Ginenthal -- make excellent arguments on topics like the accuracy of absolute dating, the extinction of the woolly mammoths and how dinosaurs as large small airplanes could have flown on Earth. However, when you attempt to discuss these interesting topics on /., all you get is a bunch of close-minded belief-driven arguments by engineers who have never read any history of science. It's just not popular amongst that crowd to imagine that humans make mistakes. And since people tend to buy books with which they generally already agree, Slashdotters (and engineers in general) essentially insulate themselves from against-the-mainstream views. When somebody gets out of line and tries to discuss something there like the Electric Universe, Slashdotters resort to public ridicule in an attempt to ostracize those who think different. It's not so much about exploring creative lines of logic in an attempt to solve long-standing problems -- as that would require a thorough, honest investigation. On Slashdot, it's about group-think and learning through memorization -- as any good engineer will tell you.I'm an engineer. I know what it's like to build semiconductor circuits, and to imagine that humans have only a few more years before we've figured out how to stop human aging, how to adjust the temperature of our planet, how to build elevators to space, etc. What happens when people don't read the history of science is that they are vulnerable to "prophets" (some call them futurists) who will convince them that we are on the brink of some amazing future if we only wait another five or ten years. Our cars still do not fly.Meanwhile, those of us who are reading the history of science, who are paying attention to astrophysical press releases and who aren't afraid to read about theories which may not actually be true, gain a context which makes the conventional perspectives seem narrow-minded and even hostile to new ideas ... "You have a new cosmology? Where's the math? What do you mean it's not quantified?" ... Lost in all of the attempts to debunk are honest attempts to foster the creation of alternative, more predictive cosmologies. While the cosmologists and astrophysicists scramble to explain the daily onslaught of surprises, they simultaneously convince the public that their models can accommodate the new finding. But they never mention that each failure to predict is an indication that the model is flawed -- possibly even dramatically. And round and round we go. The cycle has already been set. Unless somebody figures out how to break out of it, your children will be talking about the same exact mismatch between Relativity and Quantum Mechanics that we grew up with.When it comes to the natural sciences, Slashdot is the wrong place to go. I'd take holoscience.com any day over the garbage on Slashdot.