Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by n1 on Tuesday June 24 2014, @10:15PM   Printer-friendly
from the good-science dept.

The Higgs boson is delightfully stirring the mud puddle in the astrophysics community even after found! Instead of clearing everything up, now more questions have to be asked.

EarthSky.org reports:

British cosmologists are puzzled: they predict that the universe should not have lasted for more than a second. This startling conclusion is the result of combining the latest observations of the sky with the recent discovery of the Higgs boson. Robert Hogan of King's College London (KCL) presents the new research on June 24 at the Royal Astronomical Society's National Astronomy Meeting in Portsmouth.

The controversy seems to be about one of the predictions of BICEP2 allegedly being observed, and if so, Robert Hogan seems to think that if they did see this effect, then the universe would not exist today, it would have went straight to 'Big Crunch' right after the 'Big Bang'.

Pop the corn, this may be a good one!

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2, Funny) by Horse With Stripes on Tuesday June 24 2014, @10:20PM

    by Horse With Stripes (577) on Tuesday June 24 2014, @10:20PM (#59598)

    It's a good thing they weren't discovered soon enough to do their job and ruin everything for everybody.

    Higgs Boson, the slacker of particles.

    • (Score: 2) by davester666 on Wednesday June 25 2014, @06:03AM

      by davester666 (155) on Wednesday June 25 2014, @06:03AM (#59704)

      Obviously, God is keeping HB in check, so we better not piss him off.

    • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday June 25 2014, @06:56AM

      by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Wednesday June 25 2014, @06:56AM (#59714) Homepage
      Good job Higgs was late to the party.

      Was he a party crasher? Or a particle crasher?
      --
      Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
  • (Score: 3, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 24 2014, @10:36PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 24 2014, @10:36PM (#59601)

    It is only lasting for one second. But our perception is skewed by time dilation. C'mon, do I have to do everything for these guys?

    • (Score: 2, Interesting) by anubi on Wednesday June 25 2014, @11:08AM

      by anubi (2828) on Wednesday June 25 2014, @11:08AM (#59782) Journal

      My question is how fast am I moving? Relative to the Earth, I am quite slow, but how fast am I moving in relation to the Universe? Not just the observed universe, as the boundaries of just how far out we can sense has been expanding since I was a kid. I get the idea that we see our redshifts and draw conclusions from the observed data, but I get the strong idea we have only scratched the surface of what is out there.

      I get the idea that in the absolute frame of things, I am traveling extremely close to the speed of light. The time dilation resulting from that velocity is why I am experiencing time. Everything around me is also going at that same speed, with only infinitesimal differences in velocity.

      I do not report this as any sort of fact... its just my concept of why I think we have time.

      --
      "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
      • (Score: 2) by JeanCroix on Wednesday June 25 2014, @03:08PM

        by JeanCroix (573) on Wednesday June 25 2014, @03:08PM (#59900)
        One of the main points of relativity is that there is no absolute frame of reference.
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 25 2014, @04:55PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 25 2014, @04:55PM (#59958)

          We do however have the CMB which provides us with, if nothing else, a bath of radiation relative to which we can define "preferred observers" (those who see a CMB without a dipole caused by Doppler effects). It's the nearest thing to an absolute reference frame we're going to get -- and it isn't very near, since it's nothing more than a consequence of relativity rather than a central tenet of physics -- and relative to the CMB we seem to be moving at around 330km/s.

          So the best answer we're going to be able to give to the guy you're replying to is "around 330km/s".

  • (Score: 1) by Freeman on Tuesday June 24 2014, @11:08PM

    by Freeman (732) on Tuesday June 24 2014, @11:08PM (#59605) Journal

    According to the theory of evolution we came about from a Big Bang. Why is the assumption that the Universe started here? Considering the vastness of the Universe, it would be a Huge assumption to say that everything began with Earth. In that regard believing there is an all powerful being (God) that created Earth is a lot less hard to swallow.

    --
    Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
    • (Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Tuesday June 24 2014, @11:41PM

      by Ethanol-fueled (2792) on Tuesday June 24 2014, @11:41PM (#59619) Homepage

      The big bang idea is every bit as infantile as creation, in fact, it's creation repackaged by scientists. It must have been difficult for primitive Western man to wrap their heads around the idea that matter/energy has always existed in some form or interaction.

      • (Score: 2) by khallow on Wednesday June 25 2014, @01:09AM

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday June 25 2014, @01:09AM (#59642) Journal

        How long is "always exists"? Because according to current observation, "always existed" seems to have a shelf-life of roughly 13.7 billion years.

        • (Score: 3, Interesting) by tangomargarine on Wednesday June 25 2014, @02:55PM

          by tangomargarine (667) on Wednesday June 25 2014, @02:55PM (#59890)

          If time is an artifact of the physical universe, I would think it's possible that time itself didn't really exist before the hypothesized Big Bang, in which case you could argue that it was in fact always there.

          IANAP

          --
          "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
          • (Score: 2) by khallow on Wednesday June 25 2014, @04:26PM

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday June 25 2014, @04:26PM (#59943) Journal

            I would think it's possible that time itself didn't really exist before the hypothesized Big Bang, in which case you could argue that it was in fact always there.

            You can argue the Moon is made of green cheese. But that doesn't make it a fact.

      • (Score: 2) by tathra on Wednesday June 25 2014, @05:31AM

        by tathra (3367) on Wednesday June 25 2014, @05:31AM (#59693)

        the energy may have existed, but the universe didn't. the "big bang" is when our universe came into existence, not the energy within it; where that came from is still an open question.

      • (Score: 4, Interesting) by edIII on Wednesday June 25 2014, @05:36AM

        by edIII (791) on Wednesday June 25 2014, @05:36AM (#59696)

        I'm not so sure about that.

        I'm not an astrophysicist or quantum field theorist, so I can't speak from authority either. I do hear about it a lot, and one of things I've noticed is that there is a heck of a lot math involved. It's all tied to observations and whether or not they fit a model.

        Part of what I've been sold on by people is that the Big Bang theory is supported by observations, and is not in the same ballpark as creationism. Creationism operates solely on circular reasoning because God can be neither proved or disproved. It begins with the assumption that God exists, he sent Jesus, and the Bible is 100% fact. It's also the rejection of any kind of observations and theories that can prove the "Bible Model" not being perfect.

        If gravity was denied in the Bible, they would deny gravity just like Bugs Bunny, and that's looney tunes.

        The Big Bang has, at minimum, some observations and actual data. That's already infinitely more than Creationism.

             

        --
        Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
      • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 25 2014, @12:33PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 25 2014, @12:33PM (#59823)

        Actually it was the other way round. Cosmologists for a long time assumed the universe was eternal. Einstein even introduced the cosmological constant as a fudge factor to allow an eternally stable universe. But then, the expansion of the universe was discovered, and just extrapolating into the past showed that everything had to been concentrated in a very tiny area at some time. Thus the big bang theory was born.

        Also note that some quantum gravitation theory candidates predict that the big bang was actually a big bounce, at which an earlier universe collapsed, but not to a point but only to a very small minimal size, at which it bounced and expanded again.

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by Horse With Stripes on Wednesday June 25 2014, @12:04AM

      by Horse With Stripes (577) on Wednesday June 25 2014, @12:04AM (#59624)

      Um, according to the Big Bang Theory the universe started with a big bang. According to Darwin's Theory of Evolution people started as something other than humans cast upon Earth via divine intervention. The two aren't necessarily linked, though many who believe one believe the other.

      You can chose to believe one, both or neither ... or even make up one of your own. If you come up with something good please submit it to Soylent News [soylentnews.org] as they are shameless in their addiction to new stories to post.

    • (Score: 5, Informative) by MrGuy on Wednesday June 25 2014, @12:14AM

      by MrGuy (1007) on Wednesday June 25 2014, @12:14AM (#59626)

      Evolution by natural selection in no way posits or requires a big bang. Which is lucky for evolution, because the theory of evolution (1859) pre-dates the big bang theory (1949) by nearly a century.

      What it does posit was that there was a time in the past when different forms of life existed than exist today, and over time species rose and fell in response to the conditions they found. The concept of evolution is not incompatible with the idea that at some point in the past, the earth (and potentially everything else in the universe) was created by an intelligent being, or sprung into being spontaneously due to a phenominally unlikely quantum mechanical event, or was created by a flying spaghetti monster. Evolution doesn't care about WHERE the earth came from. Just that it's old, and life evolved over time.

      The only universe creation theory that evolution is INcompatible with is the belief that the earth is of (cosmologically) recent origin AND the various species on earth today (notably human beings) have existed in their current form (and ONLY in their current form) since the moment of that creation.

      Don't conflate one theory that's incompatible with a strict reading of the Bible as a historical text (evolution by natural selection) with a completely different and independent theory that's also incompatible with a strict reading of the Bible as a historical text (the big bang as the origin of the universe).

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 25 2014, @12:46PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 25 2014, @12:46PM (#59831)

        Actually big bang theory isn't incompatible with a truly strict reading of the bible as historical text: If you look closely at the beginning of Genesis, you'll find that all of the stuff described there happened after the creation of the earth, which is mentioned just in the first sentence, without giving any details: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Yes, that's all the bible says about it. It doesn't say how God created them (through a big bang, or by instantaneously popping it into existence, or however else), or even how long it took to make them.

        • (Score: 1) by cykros on Wednesday June 25 2014, @03:12PM

          by cykros (989) on Wednesday June 25 2014, @03:12PM (#59904)

          Well yea; the Big Bang Theory was in large part theorized by Belgian Catholic Priest Georges Lemaitre [wikipedia.org] with his 1931 work "Hypothese de l'Atome Primitif" (hypothesis of the primeval atom). It's hardly some primarily atheist theory to overthrow religion, regardless of what you learned in Sunday School.

      • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday June 25 2014, @09:44PM

        by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Wednesday June 25 2014, @09:44PM (#60076) Homepage
        > the theory of evolution (1859) pre-dates the big bang theory (1949) by nearly a century.

        I've heard some god-botherers claim that Genesis I is actually an expression of both the big bang theory (on the first days) and of evolution (days 3, 5, and 6). Their sources predate yours by about a stone age.
        --
        Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 25 2014, @05:39AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 25 2014, @05:39AM (#59697)

      Everything you wrote is wrong.

      And take it from an AC, we know wrong.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 25 2014, @01:36PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 25 2014, @01:36PM (#59861)

        Hee hee that's funny.

    • (Score: 2) by hoochiecoochieman on Wednesday June 25 2014, @09:57AM

      by hoochiecoochieman (4158) on Wednesday June 25 2014, @09:57AM (#59765)

      What does the Theory of Evolution have to do with the Big Bang???

      And which scientist said everything began on Earth? It's precisely the opposite, scientists have been burned at the stake because they dared to claim that the Earth is not the centre of the Universe.

    • (Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Wednesday June 25 2014, @04:03PM

      by wonkey_monkey (279) on Wednesday June 25 2014, @04:03PM (#59933) Homepage

      According to the theory of evolution we came about from a Big Bang.

      Uh... no. Just no.

      Why is the assumption that the Universe started here? Considering the vastness of the Universe, it would be a Huge assumption to say that everything began with Earth.

      What? I mean, just... what?

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 24 2014, @11:08PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 24 2014, @11:08PM (#59606)

    "would have went"? Seriously?

    • (Score: 5, Funny) by Tork on Tuesday June 24 2014, @11:11PM

      by Tork (3914) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday June 24 2014, @11:11PM (#59607)
      Sorry, I fixed it: "... would of went."
      --
      🏳️‍🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️‍🌈
      • (Score: 3, Funny) by Magic Oddball on Wednesday June 25 2014, @12:30PM

        by Magic Oddball (3847) on Wednesday June 25 2014, @12:30PM (#59821) Journal

        I've wondered for quite a while now whether people that write "would of" haven't read regularly enough to know any better, or if they have some kind of learning disability...

    • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 25 2014, @01:04AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 25 2014, @01:04AM (#59639)

      Conditionally perfect fool. Ah intertubuals.

  • (Score: 2) by forsythe on Tuesday June 24 2014, @11:18PM

    by forsythe (831) on Tuesday June 24 2014, @11:18PM (#59610)

    A second seems pretty long compared to several other possible scenarios I've heard of in which universal constants don't play nice with each other. Is that simply an extrapolation of an absurdly small number into layman-compatible terms, or would the universe really have lasted an appreciable amount of time under this model?

    • (Score: 2) by frojack on Tuesday June 24 2014, @11:29PM

      by frojack (1554) on Tuesday June 24 2014, @11:29PM (#59614) Journal

      Why bother fussing with the details of a now discredited theory?

      Sounds like s skit out of the Big Bang Theory arguing about superheros.

      --
      No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
      • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 24 2014, @11:52PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 24 2014, @11:52PM (#59622)

        Yeah, fuck that. A comment thread is for making pop culture references, not for having any kind of discussion about the related article.

        • (Score: 2) by tathra on Wednesday June 25 2014, @02:31AM

          by tathra (3367) on Wednesday June 25 2014, @02:31AM (#59665)

          Higgs boson: "All your bang are belong to us"

      • (Score: 3, Funny) by Dunbal on Wednesday June 25 2014, @09:12AM

        by Dunbal (3515) on Wednesday June 25 2014, @09:12AM (#59750)

        Not a discredited theory. All they have to do is invent yet another particle.

    • (Score: 5, Interesting) by Immerman on Wednesday June 25 2014, @01:48AM

      by Immerman (3985) on Wednesday June 25 2014, @01:48AM (#59651)

      One hypothesis as to the "fine tuned" nature of the universal constants that I find rather entertaining is this:

      The balance of forces that emerged from the early cooling universe as the single unified force fragmented would have been influenced by the quantum mechanical state of the cosmos. If we assume that QM wave-function collapse requires an actual conscious observer (an interpretation that has lost popularity but may be inherently unfalsifiable) then that would mean that all possible cosmic wavefuntions existed in superposition, and with them all possible different fragmentations of the unified force. The entire cosmos would have then existed indefinitely as a sort of "superposition-multiverse" until such time as a conscious mind emerged in one of the infinite possible universes - at which point the wavefunction would collapse and that one, observed universe would be all that remained, blessed with a set of physical laws and constants that were optimally tuned to the speedy emergence of consciousness.

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Non Sequor on Wednesday June 25 2014, @02:43AM

        by Non Sequor (1005) on Wednesday June 25 2014, @02:43AM (#59668) Journal

        I can't rule out rule out that sort of thing although it's a bit froufrou. If you want mysticism you can actually get it without all of the mysticism.

        The existence of laws of physics which allow the existence of life as we know it is a non-trivial mathematical result. We exist by virtue of that result. Regardless of how you frame what you believe in, you can't argue with that. It simply is.

        That's my religion. I don't think it's entirely removed from other people's religion.

        --
        Write your congressman. Tell him he sucks.
      • (Score: 2) by mhajicek on Wednesday June 25 2014, @05:09AM

        by mhajicek (51) on Wednesday June 25 2014, @05:09AM (#59689)

        In other words, selection bias.

        --
        The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 25 2014, @12:54PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 25 2014, @12:54PM (#59837)

        Remove the collapse by conscious observer part, and you get exactly the MWI version of the same claim: The universe still exists as a superposition of all such possible universes. And it is no surprise that the branch of that multiverse which we live in is indeed a branch which supports life.

        Indeed, with the collapse by observer part, you'd have to explain why the observer did not observe one of the non-life-supporting universes, at which time the collapse would irreversibly have destroyed the very observer who caused it.

  • (Score: 2) by Snotnose on Tuesday June 24 2014, @11:47PM

    by Snotnose (1623) on Tuesday June 24 2014, @11:47PM (#59621)

    Just more proof we're nothing but some alien kid's Science Fair project.

    --
    Why shouldn't we judge a book by it's cover? It's got the author, title, and a summary of what the book's about.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by MrGuy on Wednesday June 25 2014, @12:25AM

    by MrGuy (1007) on Wednesday June 25 2014, @12:25AM (#59629)

    what these scientist are saying is that IF the BICEP II results are true, AND the Higgs boson was in fact discovered, then the universe shouldn't exist.

    Given that many sources (us included) have already reported that the BICEP II team is no longer certain their results are correct after peer review, I'm personally planning to doubt the BICEP II results rather than doubt the universe exists. Sum ergo cogito.

    Your Cosmology Of Choice May Vary.

  • (Score: 2) by Theophrastus on Wednesday June 25 2014, @02:20AM

    by Theophrastus (4044) on Wednesday June 25 2014, @02:20AM (#59661)

    dark matter done it.

    if your model don't fit,
    dark matter done did it.

    if your system is lame,
    dark energy is to blame.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by tathra on Wednesday June 25 2014, @02:46AM

      by tathra (3367) on Wednesday June 25 2014, @02:46AM (#59669)

      you DO realize that "dark matter" and "dark energy" simply means that we know there's some kind of matter/energy due to its effects, but we can't see or measure directly, right? its not some mythical substance made up just to keep physicists in jobs, as your post implies.

      and we can see their effects: gravitational lensing where there's no visible matter, far more than if it were simply a random, naked black hole (the orbit speed thing could just be caused by errors in GE or too much simplification in making the calculations easy enough to solve, or something like that); the expansion of space not just continuing, but actually accelerating without any energy input that we can find; we've seen and measured its effects to the best of our ability, whatever it is thats causing those effects, but we have no idea what 'it' actually is since we cant see or measure 'it', thus 'dark' matter/energy, rather than calling it something obtuse like "that energy/matter whose effects we can see and measure but cant actually measure or see directly".

      • (Score: 2) by Theophrastus on Wednesday June 25 2014, @03:02AM

        by Theophrastus (4044) on Wednesday June 25 2014, @03:02AM (#59670)

        yes i know. just a jest.

        yet i'm not at all certain that "we know there's some kind of matter/energy..." for any deep sense of "know". there has to be something there -if- all current models are correct. that's all we "know": if this then that. the this can still be wrong. that's the great strength of science, placing limits on unlimited error.

        • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Wednesday June 25 2014, @08:57AM

          by aristarchus (2645) on Wednesday June 25 2014, @08:57AM (#59744) Journal

          I Don't! Theophrastus is my new hero! He has enlightened me about the dark matter! All hail! All hail!

  • (Score: 1) by PinkyGigglebrain on Wednesday June 25 2014, @06:56AM

    by PinkyGigglebrain (4458) on Wednesday June 25 2014, @06:56AM (#59715)
    The greatest words you will ever hear in science are not "Eureka! I've found it" but "Hmmmm, that's funny."

    All this just goes to show that Humans still have a long way to go before we understand ALL of whats going on.

    Personally I don't think Humans can understand it all, our brains couldn't handle it all at once (brain go "BOOM!" like in movies), when/if Homo Sapiens evolves into something far more than we are now maybe, just maybe, we might actually know of whats really going on.
    --
    "Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
    • (Score: 2) by Dunbal on Wednesday June 25 2014, @09:23AM

      by Dunbal (3515) on Wednesday June 25 2014, @09:23AM (#59753)

      "we might actually know of whats really going on."

      Nope. There will always be a spot on the map marked "Here Be Dragones". It's simply a matter of scale and diminishing returns. The more our theories deviate from the scale we are accustomed to working with in our day to day lives either up or down, the more abstract our methods of measuring and data collection must become. Not to mention the fact that manipulation of cause and effect is the only way we can logically confirm or discard our theories. We can't manipulate galaxies or subatomic particles, although we try to infer knowledge through observation of what we hope are similar events under what we believe are different specific conditions and we try to say this is equivalent to manipulation. The problem is that if there's something we're missing or we're not fully certain of all the variables in the different conditions, then we will get unexpected results and built in errors that are not accounted for. THEN add the fact that our physical laws might only apply as we know them in our immediate local part of the universe and might be slightly or vastly different elsewhere in places we'll never be able to go.

      Yet once in a while the boundary can be pushed back a little further as we asymptotically approach where the Dragons live.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 25 2014, @12:59PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 25 2014, @12:59PM (#59839)

        But what me might hope for is that at least we can replace our atlas of maps which contradict each other by a single map that covers all the known territory without contradiction.

        • (Score: 2) by Dunbal on Wednesday June 25 2014, @04:02PM

          by Dunbal (3515) on Wednesday June 25 2014, @04:02PM (#59930)

          Hope if you want, but I think you'll always be looking for a bigger map.

          • (Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Wednesday June 25 2014, @09:08PM

            by maxwell demon (1608) on Wednesday June 25 2014, @09:08PM (#60061) Journal

            Maybe you should read again the post you replied to. Hint: It didn't say anything about the size or the completeness of the map. And also note the difference between "all territory" and "all the known territory".

            --
            The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    • (Score: 2) by KritonK on Wednesday June 25 2014, @09:26AM

      by KritonK (465) on Wednesday June 25 2014, @09:26AM (#59755)

      That would be Isaac Asimov [brainyquote.com].

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 25 2014, @12:24PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 25 2014, @12:24PM (#59817)

    So the universe would have been kicked into the deeper valley? Well, kicking is a random process, right? So there's a, however slim, chance for the universe to end up in the higher valley, right?

    Then there are at least two simple solutions to this problem:

    Solution 1: There was not just one big bang, but myriads of them. With enough tries, even the most improbable event will happen. So we live in the lucky universe (or one of the lucky universes) that survived.

    Solution 2: Almost the same, but without the need of more than one big bang: If many worlds is true, then there should have been, with certainty, one branch of reality which ended up in the higher valley. Since the lower valley branches collapsed away, the higher valley branch survived.

    Of course, there's always also the most probable

    Solution 3: We don't yet know everything about the universe, and if we had the final theory of everything, we'd find that we indeed live in the deepest valley, or maybe even that there is only one valley and the universe had no choice anyway. Assuming in that ultimate theory it actually still makes sense to speak of such valleys to begin with.

  • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday June 25 2014, @02:53PM

    by tangomargarine (667) on Wednesday June 25 2014, @02:53PM (#59888)

    This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.

    --
    "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"