digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

See the original image at badastronomy.com —

No, the LHC won’t destroy the Earth

badastronomy.com — Two men are suing to stop the LHC from being switched on, saying it may be dangerous and might even destroy the Earth: But Walter L. Wagner and Luis Sancho contend that scientists at the European Center for Nuclear Research, or CERN, have played down the chances that the collider could produce, among other horrors, a tiny black hole...

show profanity settings
expand all
  • nahsrocketeer75, on 03/30/2008, -5/+97Not that I was worried about the earth being swallowed up, but the way that this fellow debunks such ideas is truly refreshing: not with insults, but knowledge, reason and sound sources.
    • moolaismyfriend, on 03/30/2008, -3/+22They must be liberal communist Darwinian pro terrorist then.
    • Cytranic, on 03/30/2008, -2/+19I say turn the dam thing on....And then their will be cake.
    • overridemymind, on 03/30/2008, -1/+10You know, they said the same type of thing when they constructed the first atomic bombs... said that the explosion would be so powerful it would ignite the atmosphere. Couple thousand nuke tests (and counting :p ) later, we're still breathing, so...

      I read an article in Scientific American that stated there was a 1 in a quadrillion chance that the LHC could initiate the opposite of the big-bang and collapse the universe (I'm paraphrasing here) and about 1 in 10,000 odds that the thing would create micro-singularities (mini-black holes)... But even if it does create microsingularities -- it's not going to swallow up the planet or anything, so... let's stop with the suing nonsense, hokai?
      • bitcloud, on 03/30/2008, -2/+6Never use a past example as a scientific basis for a future example...

        For instance:
        "Developing a antibiotic superbug won't decimate the population! They said that about the black plague and we're still here"
        • GiggleStick, on 03/31/2008, -0/+5Here's what will happen. When they turn it on, it won't destroy (10^15-1)/10^15 percent of the infinite universes created at that instant. However 1/10^15 percent universes will be destroyed instantly. It won't matter though, because the minds in those universe's will never know, and their counterparts in the non-destroyed universes will all say, "See, I told you nothing bad would happen.". Hopefully, we will not be in the small percentage of destroyed universes. Or Us.... Or Us....
          • rspeed, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1At this point they're all us.

            Er, except the universes where the lawsuit is successful. Oh, and the ones where lizard men take over Earth.
      • psevium, on 03/30/2008, -6/+2***** it, bury me
      • StaticThunder, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1What, did they calculate the odds of more energetic events that happen all the time NOT happening for the lifetime of the universe?

        If this is indeed what Scientific American said, then that magazine HAS fallen into pseudo-science.

        Only 1 in 10^15?

        We see more energetic collisions happen all the time!

        (and I for one hope it does produce a microsingularity, but the requirements to do so are pretty unlikely, assumes a universe with much larger hidden dimensions than we probably have)
    • JettaMan, on 03/30/2008, -10/+4People worried about nuclear bombs igniting the atmosphere, Global Warming, and LHC need to get things in perspective. Neither will destroy all life, and in fact GW actually makes the earth better for life.
      • ncairns, on 03/30/2008, -5/+2"...and in fact GW actually makes the earth better for life."

        Well, ignoring the lack of any factual basis for that statement, it actually may well be true. But not for *human* life.
        • djbon2112, on 03/31/2008, -5/+4For human life too. It will open up vast tracts of land in Northern Canada, Europe and Asia to human habitation.
        • jm9206755, on 03/31/2008, -3/+8...and it will raise the sea level displacing millions who live in lowland areas (which are in some of the least politically stable areas on Earth e.g. Bangladesh), reduce the breadbaskets of NA and Europe to deserts, fuel epidemics of climate sensitive diseases such as cholera and the West Nile virus, acidify the oceans which would kill off the algae and fish leading to a catastrophic collapse of the Earth's ecosystem, shut down the thermohaline circulation which would actually cause cooling at the northern latitudes (there goes your benefits!)...
        • JettaMan, on 03/31/2008, -4/+3Sea level rose about 1 foot last century. It is predicted to rise 1.5 feet next century. People who say this is going to harm humanity need to get a grip. My guess is you didn't even notice the foot rise last century. Heat, precipitation, and C02 are all good for plants, and whatever is good for plants is good for animals (including humans). Remember how life thrived millions of years ago when the temperature was *way* higher than today?
      • fedorafandango, on 03/31/2008, -3/+1My, you're a sly one.
      • diggdallas, on 03/31/2008, -2/+1My, you're a sly one.
      • JettaMan, on 03/31/2008, -3/+2My, I'm a sly one.
    • Wakuko, on 03/31/2008, -4/+1No, it won't destroy the earth.
      *press button*
      Oops, is that a black ho...
    • ksool, on 03/31/2008, -0/+5The best explanation I've heard as to why we the LHC won't destroy the world was actually directly from one of the lead scientists of the project. He basically said that the energies achieved by the LHC are still incredibly small (10^15 eV) compared to cosmic rays which constantly bombard our planet (up to 10^20 eV). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_rays
      • h3lx, on 03/31/2008, -2/+1"Just because we can, doesn't mean we should..."
    • Bacontastic, on 03/31/2008, -0/+3Indeed. He backed up his arguments and provided specific sources...if only the blogosphere had more people like this guy.
    • linagee, on 03/31/2008, -1/+2Is it possible to have a counter suit based on the argument they are trying to slow human evolution?
  • gkwillie, on 03/30/2008, -2/+76I have a strong feeling that, if everyone in charge was as rational as Phil, there would be a much less hostile climate for real science in America. If only...

    Great Article, mad respect for BadAstronomer.
    • BadAstronomer, on 03/30/2008, -1/+47Thanks! I hate having to write stuff like that, but the world is at it is.
  • EbenieRosa, on 03/30/2008, -28/+6It's not Just Walter and Sancho though, there are many people who feel as though the danger is all too possible. even now people are discussing the dangers at http://www.lhcconcerns.com , but there are several other sites discussing these possibilities now, regardless of what you may think, there is a real possibility of danger.
    • GoodnightJulia, on 03/30/2008, -0/+23Define "real possibility". What strikes me about this website is that they're completely fine with the theory that the LHC may produce mini black holes and strangelets, but they consider the theory that mini black holes would evaporate suspect because it's just a theory. Why is the Earth-devouring black hole theory given more credence?
      • GoodnightJulia, on 03/30/2008, -0/+20Oops, I meant to quote BA as well: "the same rules of quantum physics that make a black hole in a subatomic collision also indicate they would evaporate. So if you’re worried they won’t evaporate, then you shouldn’t be worried they’d be created in the first place."
      • DifferentAngle, on 03/31/2008, -0/+0We're talking about annihilating the planet... we have to talk about worst case scenarios. Worst case scenario is that the black hole theory is true and the evaporation theory is false.

        Although these things are unlikely, we still have to be really careful. We're not talking about wiping out a continent here.... if we mess up there wont be a second chance.
    • tehbored, on 03/30/2008, -0/+8If a possibility is too small to quantify, I would be a bit more hesitant to call it "real."
    • cheezintern, on 03/30/2008, -1/+2I remember reading somewhere that when the US started A-Bomb testing, there was 'real concern' that the detonation would vaporize the earth's atmosphere....fortunately it didn't.
      • angryredplanet, on 03/31/2008, -0/+4I'd just like to specify that the atmosphere is already vapour.
    • ncairns, on 03/30/2008, -0/+2Yes, and there's also an infinitesimal possibility for total existence failure.

      But I'm not holding my breath on it.
    • ralphthemagi, on 03/31/2008, -0/+3Honestly, I'm hoping that it not only destroys the Earth, but starts some kind of unforseen chain reaction and destroys the entire universe. I mean, what a way to go out!
    • NeoRicen, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1No there isn't/
  • ryan83189, on 03/30/2008, -4/+137If you play with anomalous materials, there are going to be unforeseen consequences.
    • cdawzrd, on 03/30/2008, -2/+5:-D
    • EmperorAwesome, on 03/30/2008, -2/+69They're waiting for you Dr. Freeman...in the test chamber...
    • MioTheGreat, on 03/30/2008, -1/+51λ
      • jimmick, on 03/31/2008, -4/+1Nin?
        What
        /Japanese student
        • Xondar, on 03/31/2008, -0/+4Lambda. Maybe learn some Greek along with your Japanese?

          /also Japanese student

          P.S. It wouldn't be "nin," it would be "hito."
        • ORBAT, on 03/31/2008, -0/+3You sound like a weeaboo to me. "Hey look at me, I mix up Greek letters with Kanji. KAWAIIII DESU ^.^ !!11!"
    • endlessoul, on 03/30/2008, -3/+4Well, that's exactly the point with the LHC. To see something unforseen. To science our way to a better understanding of the universe.
    • Seifey, on 03/30/2008, -3/+77I just hope to god they have a crowbar ready.
    • Seifey, on 03/30/2008, -28/+6I just hope to god they have a crowbar handy..
    • Seifey, on 03/30/2008, -7/+48***** digg
    • jm9206755, on 03/31/2008, -0/+2Well done, sir.
  • Poetheunclothed, on 03/30/2008, -2/+10I thought they were supposed to evaporate through hawking's radiation and only last a few nano seconds or something. The danger is very minimal and the things we could learn may help us understand just about....well everything !
    • moolaismyfriend, on 03/30/2008, -1/+10We have Scientology for that I thought?
      • ohnoihavenoname, on 03/30/2008, -0/+9This is the LHC, not LRH. Common mistake ;)
  • tehbored, on 03/30/2008, -2/+27Of all the things that pose a threat to the Earth, the LHC doesn't even deserve to be on the list. These people would be better off suing governments for nuclear disarmament.
    • WraTH017, on 03/30/2008, -4/+27Nuclear weapons do not pose a threat to the earth, they pose a threat to mankind. Slight difference.
      • ncairns, on 03/30/2008, -0/+11But as far as we're concerned, the two are indistinguishable from one another.

        I mean, unless these people have some bizarre, anthropomorphic concern for real estate.
      • DemonWasp, on 03/31/2008, -1/+5I suspect that nuclear weapons actually pose a substantial threat to the Earth as a whole too - having the entire surface of the planet coated in a fine layer of superheated glass probably isn't very good for most ecosystems.
        • ncairns, on 03/31/2008, -0/+8The planet doesn't care about ecosystems - it's a 6-sextillion ton ball of rock and iron. We could end (most) life on Earth, but we have nowhere near enough power to substantially damage the Earth itself.
          • DemonWasp, on 03/31/2008, -0/+2Hmm, you're right. I was assuming that the ecosystems are an important part of the planet's identity as "Earth".
    • GoodnightJulia, on 03/30/2008, -0/+4I was just posting a similar comment somewhere else, and wondering why no one else was saying this, when I read yours. People have odd priorities when it comes to paranoia.
    • bjornski, on 03/30/2008, -1/+2I'm more concerned about HAARP than the LHC.

      "Quaid! Start the reactor!"
  • Enron1985, on 03/30/2008, -26/+0Why are some people so afraid of the Large Hard-on Collider?
    • CATSCEO, on 03/30/2008, -1/+4RTFA
    • Lixnig, on 03/31/2008, -1/+2Who really wants their hardon colliding with some other guy's hardon? It's traumatic.
  • laserblazer, on 03/30/2008, -10/+7It's already been clearly established (in theoretical context) that a tiny black hole would wander around slowly, getting bullied by the relatively enormous mass around it, and finally evaporate.
  • junkwheel, on 03/30/2008, -11/+77No, the LHC definitely won't destroy the earth, because it's not like the LHC is going into territory never explored by humans before.

    Oh, wait.

    Hey, black hole.

    Oh, it swallowed your pencil case!

    Haha, it took your coat.

    Oh *****.
    • Ramble, on 03/30/2008, -1/+22If it was going to happen then I assume it would have done so with the millions of high energy particles hitting the earth each day.
      • endlessoul, on 03/30/2008, -1/+26And hitting the moon. And us. And the rest of the entire solar system.

        LHC will not create a black hole that will destroy us all.

        Maybe.
      • nakani, on 03/30/2008, -3/+17So the Earth's fate rests on that assumption?
        • d0onut, on 03/30/2008, -0/+20Pretty much.
        • StaticThunder, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1Its not an assumption, we wouldn't even need the thing if it was practical to just use a large area of Texas as a giant scintillation counter for cosmic ray events. It doesn't do anything that doesn't happen an incredibly huge number of times every day anyway.
      • junkwheel, on 03/30/2008, -3/+10The fact of the matter is nobody knows what will happen when they turn it on, which is why they're building it.

        Prepare to die.

        Or live. Nobody quite knows which. But one thing everybody worth their salt will agree on is: our knowledge of black holes is a bit shaky to say the least.
  • mickstephenson, on 03/30/2008, -6/+108Meh even if it was possible it will destroy the Earth, I'd probably still think we should go for it. It would be a bit of a laugh.
    • ligyron, on 03/30/2008, -1/+23We would definitely leave a mark in the universe
      • DemonWasp, on 03/31/2008, -0/+6Well, not so much, really. Just a little itty-bitty black hole with exactly one Earth-mass. The way gravity works, nobody else would really notice.
    • gudnbluts, on 03/30/2008, -1/+16Yeah. I've had parties like that.
    • Digitel, on 03/31/2008, -0/+7The monkeys finally blew themselves up...
    • angryredplanet, on 03/31/2008, -1/+2@ligyron
      No, we would collapse to a singularity (a single point of infinite density) that not many people of any civilisation could easily or visibly detect.

      @digitel
      If LHC would cause the Earth to collapse into a black hole then no, the monkeys won't blow themselves up. If there was an explosion involved, the gravitational pull of the black hole would counter the explosive force, causing it to collapse into the singularity. Not even light escapes black holes, therefore an explosion wouldn't either.
      • ralphthemagi, on 03/31/2008, -0/+4This is a new kind of black hole. It's a black hole of *awesome*, and there will be explosions. Science be damned!
      • staffa, on 03/31/2008, -1/+2Light escapes black holes all the time, what you are thinking of is the light that falls below the event horizon.

        If a black hole was created and did not evaporate, this is how it would play out.

        A micro black hole has an event horizon less then the diameter of an atom from its center. The odds that another bit of matter would get close enough to get sucked in are so fantastically small that it would fall towards and then orbit the center of the earth deep within our crust. Very rarely it would get close enough to another piece of matter that it would suck it up. As it picks up more matter it would grow heavier and its event horizon would increase, but for the first few months/years it would be really really really slow.

        After a certain size is reached, the chances of encounter more matter increases and its pull begins to be large enough to actually draw matter in. As matter gets close, it will begin to accelerate, as the in-falling material is moving faster towards a point, it is likely to collide with other matter that is also in-falling, these collisions will themselves get faster and and energetic over time, these collisions might be detectable by specially made sensors used to track the black hole.

        This period would last about a month, the last day or so would be filled with violent earthquakes until the black hole was big enough to suck the rest of the Earth in at once. This would cause millions of tons of matter to collapse towards the black hole in the center of the earth at 1/10 the speed of light. As this material collides with itself at near relativistic speeds it will release an enormous amount of energy, the earth will in fact explode. Only the stuff that falls below the event horizon is sucked in, the vast majority of the mass of the earth will in fact explode outwards.


  • Stroggoth, on 03/30/2008, -2/+107Please move the sample box into the reactor.

    Gordon.. we're getting some strange readings, but it's probably nothing to worry about, please continue.
    • TheKeithD, on 03/30/2008, -0/+20Looks like it's time for me to go get a crowbar.
      • StaticThunder, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1I for one welcome our... oh ***** it.
  • noahhoward, on 03/30/2008, -7/+19"The lawsuit, filed March 21 in Federal District Court, in Honolulu, seeks a temporary restraining order prohibiting CERN from proceeding with the accelerator until it has produced a safety report and an environmental assessment."
    Seems reasonable enough to me. All of the things we have left to learn there is no way in hell they can say nothing can happen. Nothing WE KNOW OF can happen. As much as I'd be excited to get more answers about our world, we should consider the risks and there will be a point where those risks aren't worth it.
    • digitallysick, on 03/30/2008, -9/+7I agree, what will it hurt to just double check? Rather than kill us all, id rather have them double check it. What does this thing do on a small scale when it runs? anyone know?
      • Prototek, on 03/30/2008, -0/+15Particle accelerator, have you heard of it?
      • ncairns, on 03/30/2008, -0/+16Consider Stephen Hawking. The guy's outlived his life expectancy by about forty years, and he's been waiting for about a decade to get the mechanism in place to test the existence of Hawking radiation, which if observed would guarantee him his Nobel. Given it's a superficial thing, but Hawking's health isn't going to hold out forever, and it will be a travesty if he dies without ever winning the prize.

        The 'double check' was about a million checks ago. For years we've had physic's most brilliant minds working on this. The people trying to hold it up really just don't know what they're talking about.
    • CosmicSombrero, on 03/30/2008, -0/+21Double-check? This is the most expensive, thoroughly thought-through experiment in history. There are thousands of the world's best physicists "checking" the science behind the LHC who probably wouldn't like to be eaten by a quantum black hole just as much as the next person. Why should we stop an already delayed 10 billion dollar experiment so a guy who thinks that galaxies are giant living superorganisms can check their math?

      (seriously, he does... this is his website: http://www.unificationtheory.com/astrophysics/star ... )
      • bitcloud, on 03/30/2008, -7/+3Well in some ways they could be considered to be... The definition of life is nebulous at best, and changing daily. It becomes very difficult to clearly specify which reactions are life and which are just reactions.

        It's a pretty weak ad hominen attack at best. Very unscientific of you.
        • CosmicSombrero, on 03/31/2008, -0/+2Yeah, it is. I may have had a moments weakness right around when my crackpot meter broke.
    • johnnysaucepn, on 03/31/2008, -0/+4And how, pray tell, is one supposed to do a risk assessment of unknowable consequences?
      If the results of this experiment weren't as knowable as they could possibly, the time and money wouldn't have been put into it already. They don't do these things for a laugh.
  • scabbers, on 03/30/2008, -1/+46The best part is, even if the "assured the administrator NOTHING WILL GO WRONG" people are in fact wrong, nobody will survive to post "HAHA I told you so!" on digg.com.
    • SSUK, on 03/30/2008, -1/+42Last day ever on Digg.com:
      "LHC dooms earth"



      32,153 Diggs.
      • nakani, on 03/30/2008, -0/+43You know you're a nerd when you're on Digg during doomsday
  • Hangly, on 03/30/2008, -16/+8So this doesn't make anyone the least bit nervous?
    If this has any potential to be destructive it will probably be weaponized eventually...
    • mrhedges, on 03/30/2008, -0/+30Right. Portable super-colliders.
      • Ramble, on 03/30/2008, -0/+5If that ever happens then a synchrotron could do far, far more damage considering the insane radiation those things put out.
      • CosmicSombrero, on 03/30/2008, -0/+5I'm chargin mah 27-km wide laser!

        Please step a little to the left...
      • bitcloud, on 03/30/2008, -0/+2Two words: Shock Rifle...
      • Hangly, on 03/31/2008, -1/+2Who says it has to be portable? Put it on a battleship like those railguns they're developing.
        • MadOtaku, on 03/31/2008, -0/+2LMAO! Google the LHC; it's a tiny bit bigger than any ship ever built (just a little, really).
    • mwomorris, on 03/31/2008, -0/+3You've been reading Dan Brown haven't you...
  • prompel, on 03/30/2008, -4/+15Sadly, you can't fight stupidity with knowledge and reason. I bet the courts will side with the nutters.
    • mickstephenson, on 03/30/2008, -0/+11No, but you can fight it with money and connections, which CERN has plenty of.
    • alclone, on 03/30/2008, -17/+1Umm... it has been said that if they do create the miniature blackhole, the chance of destroying Earth is equal to winning the lottery two times.

      I'm not going to take that chance and I hope no one else does either. A better alternative is examining the miniature black-holes created when particles hit our atmosphere.

      Source: http://www.ted.com/
      • bjornski, on 03/30/2008, -0/+13With more attitudes like yours, we'd still be reading by candle-light and riding in horse-drawn buggies.
      • daguito81, on 03/31/2008, -0/+0sure thing, you go first and grab one of them; i'll wait for you here... go go don't worry about it...
  • sishgupta, on 03/30/2008, -4/+29At least this way if earth is destroyed it will be from two massive hard-ons colliding.
    I can't think of a better way to go out.
    • bjornski, on 03/30/2008, -1/+12Why are people like you always thinking about hard-ons? Is there something you'd like to tell us?
      • sishgupta, on 03/30/2008, -1/+2I'd like to tell you that I can't resist a nerdy dick joke.
        Shakespeare, who married, was the same way. Though, people like you have been asking him if hes had something to tell us since his time as well.
    • nakani, on 03/30/2008, -1/+3...
    • bitcloud, on 03/30/2008, -0/+7You're not supposed to cross swords....
    • g33kfu, on 03/31/2008, -1/+4As long as balls don't touch, we're ok.
    • chrgrose, on 03/31/2008, -0/+3wow. I wouldn't have thought such an ultra gay statement about CERN were possible.
  • 0Xonox0, on 03/30/2008, -20/+2The physicists of the world must be running out of ideas; they have to pass the time by seeing just how fast they can smash stuff together.
  • Nysul, on 03/30/2008, -7/+59Am I the only one that hopes it DOES destroy the earth? Let's turn this baby on already!
    • goffy59, on 03/30/2008, -0/+11Best comment!
    • bjornski, on 03/30/2008, -1/+18Me too. At this point, looking around, I see nothing worth saving.

      Turn it on!
      • bitcloud, on 03/30/2008, -3/+3nothing in this particular subthread anyway....
    • JCPahl, on 03/30/2008, -0/+12Getting sucked into a black-hole would be an interesting experience.
      • bitcloud, on 03/30/2008, -0/+12You would think so, but you'd likely just die instantly...
        • bjornski, on 03/30/2008, -0/+3I can think of a lot worse ways to die.
          • bitcloud, on 03/30/2008, -0/+2than destroying the population of the earth in a split second? (not saying that's what will happen... just saying...)
          • bjornski, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1I think that would be a rather merciful fate for mankind.

            Considering the alternatives....
      • diggdallas, on 03/31/2008, -0/+8You like getting sucked?
    • ralphthemagi, on 03/31/2008, -0/+11I'm with you. What a way to go out. I'm hoping it doesn't just stop with Earth though. Maybe it could start some kind of unforeseen chain reaction and destroy the entire galaxy. I want some alien race to see this with their telescopes and go, "Holy *****, that was ***** awesome," and then post the video on their own YouTube so people can watch us blowing up our own galaxy over and over again. I only wish I could be around to read the comments. "Lol, what a bunch of noobs."
    • hellotyler, on 03/31/2008, -2/+2Some of us don't hate life you know. Show some consideration.
  • cl2yp71c, on 03/30/2008, -0/+11The experiment gives us reach into the unknown.
    Dangerous? Possibly
    Enlightening? Definitely
    • bitcloud, on 03/30/2008, -9/+1Dangerous? Possibly
      Enlightening? Possibly
      • DemonWasp, on 03/31/2008, -0/+2No, the OP has it right. Regardless of what we see in that particle chamber, it will answer some questions and pose new ones. We will definitely learn from the information provided.

        There is a fairly minuscule chance that we'll all die near-instantly first, but I'm not too concerned.
  • Khast, on 03/30/2008, -11/+3I for one welcome our black hole overlords
  • dscottie, on 03/30/2008, -9/+2Summary: We don't *think* the LHC will destroy the Earth

    Oh well... ***** or get off the pot, as my MIL used to say
    • erkokite, on 03/31/2008, -0/+3Did you RTFA? I would trust thousands of theoretical physicists with PhD's before trusting a nuclear safety inspector and some nut who thinks that astronomical bodies are living creatures.
  • jlebrech, on 03/30/2008, -0/+10Fancy a trip to Xen? Anyone?
    • SLockhart, on 03/30/2008, -0/+12I wouldn't drink the water their if I were you. I made that mistake once and spent the rest of my time there sitting on the toilet.
  • SLockhart, on 03/30/2008, -23/+2I'm not too worried about it. God isn't about to allow us to blow up our planet.
    • laserblazer, on 03/30/2008, -2/+13Physics won't, either.
      • SLockhart, on 03/30/2008, -18/+1Oh, I think physicists are quite capable of blowing up our planet. You can do just about anything with enough scientific knowledge, except perhaps throwing God off his stride.
        • yodaj007, on 03/31/2008, -0/+2You do realize that black holes don't blow up, right? They implode.
          • SampleX, on 04/14/2008, -1/+1Much like my brain when all the science boffins get waxing lyrical about relatively inconsequential discoveries solely on the basis that it proves their pet theories right... Solves no problems, but proves they were the brainiest...

            Giant particle accelerators? The term 'scientists with big dicks' springs to mind...
    • slightlygifted, on 03/30/2008, -0/+13we wouldnt blow up, we would get sucked in. opposites really.
    • exomni, on 03/30/2008, -4/+20By "God" I hope you mean "the laws of physics that have been tried and tested through billions of years and are more powerful and beautiful than any imaginary personal Abrahamic God you could ever think of."
      • SLockhart, on 03/30/2008, -20/+2No sorry, I mean the Lord Of All Creation. Just thought I'd clear that up. I respect your right to disbelieve but just remember that you are part of a small minority and that smarter men than you have given their life to Him.

        Please don't think I'm condescending to you. I don't mean it that way.
        • ohnoihavenoname, on 03/30/2008, -1/+12Clearly not a small minority on digg, considering your posts are in the negatives. I respect your right to believe, but if the chances of destruction were higher, and you'd say "Well, physics says this will probably destroy the earth, but I have faith that God wouldn't allow that, so go ahead and press the red button", I'm completely unable to respect your beliefs and would never ever want someone like you in power. Still, I'd respect your right to believe it, I just wouldn't respect the belief itself. At all. You scare me.
          • SLockhart, on 03/31/2008, -6/+1Physics never says anything. Men and women interpret the laws of physics and occasionally they are wrong. I do not believe this LHC thingy will cause any harm so you are putting words in my mouth.
          • ohnoihavenoname, on 03/31/2008, -0/+3@SLockhart: You said "I'm not too worried about it. God isn't about to allow us to blow up our planet.". If a good deal of scientific evidence supported a significant risk of planetary destruction being the result of an experiment, but also a decent benefit if it didn't destroy everything, would you still agree with your earlier statement and proceed with the experiment?
        • exomni, on 03/31/2008, -1/+7Religious belief tends to decrease as education and income levels increase. Inquiries into the religious beliefs, or the lack of them, among U.S. scientists date back to a landmark 1916 survey by psychologist James Leuba that documented widespread disbelief. Leuba found that only 40 percent of scientists believed in a personal God, 15 percent were uncertain and 45 percent disbelieved.

          Surveys published in Nature in 1997 and 1998 showed little change since 1916, with only 39 percent of all scientists declaring a personal belief in God. Belief among “leading” scientists, however—defined in this case as members of the National Academy of Sciences—was far lower: only 7 percent in 1998. Curiously, among scientists, mathematicians were the most likely to believe in God and biologists the least likely.

          According to a Gallup international poll, worldwide, 45% of people believe in a personal God. Only 31% of people worldwide believe there is only one true religion.

          Even of those who ARE religious, and DO believe in personal gods, only 64 percent of THEM believe in an Abrahamic God (that's including Judaism, Islam, and Christianity).


          Based on the evidence, I am not in the minority in my disbelief in any personal God, I am not in the minority in my disbelief of any Abrahamic God, and I am in an even greater majority the more educated a sample pool you take your survey from. Of the most intelligent and respected scientists, I am in the overwhelming majority.

          Not that truth necessarily follows the majority, I would never have bothered to point out my status as in the majority if you didn't attempt to make your own completely illogical and evidently false post without any sort of evidence backing it.
          • SampleX, on 04/14/2008, -0/+1And your point is?
            May I remind you that Galileo was in the minority, but proved to be more right than the majority.
            Statistics on the subject of 'theistic belief' amongst scientists do not tell a story in their own right, because of the level of indoctrinative presentation of Big Bang and Evolutionary Theory as a 'scientific' explanation of origins which is anything but materially proven, or even scientifically likely to be proven, and is thus an antithetical philosophical belief which cannot be ruled out as having a quasi-religious effect in it's own right. Additionally, the 'leaps' that scientists make have become much smaller over time and inherently dependent upon not only technological development (which is also built on older giant leaps of 'science') but also the pre-existence of scientific framework which gives rise to the metaphor that modern science is conducted 'standing on the shoulders of giants', and it should be pointed out that the 'giants' who made those 'giant leaps' of science to form the foundations of modern science in physics, biology, and chemistry (and geology) were predominantly theistic in the PD era (Pre-Darwin.) Darwinism in turn was promoted entirely philosophically, not remotely because it was provable, testable, and formulated on the basis of genuine scientific authority, and began to be forcibly taught in educational institutions in a quasi-religious manner in order to breed a generation of scholars who were born and raised on an assumed scientific justification for atheism.

            There's another fallacy in the research: it is not possible for any poll, no matter how 'global', to ever assume to be interviewing the 'most intelligent' people. Secular gnostic Westernism assumes that the most intelligent people are found in-breeding in symposium and science labs and hypothesising about the depth of the universe and its constitution. It makes no allowance at all for the fact that the most intelligent people might well be doing menial jobs and thinking to themselves 'how retarded are these scientists who think they know it all... can't they see the answers staring them in the face.' In this respect, 'intelligence' is no measure of anything. The intelligence of a decision or the intelligent capacity of an individual, is entirely precluded by the validity of the conclusions they reach. Stephen Hawking could be the most intelligently capable person on the planet (and certainly the most adept with a speak and spell) but his intelligence is utterly invalidated if he makes a wrong assertion. Instead he would have been the most intelligently capable dumb person who made a stupid mistake. The 'intelligence' that you talk about is based on 'what we know now' which could, frankly, be entirely turned on it's head tomorrow, and leave a lot of supposedly smart people, feeling very stupid.
            There is no way, under the current education system, to distinguish genuine prodigious intelligence, from a trained ability to parrot back a script fed to us for memorisation by educationalists, and the proof of this contentious point is found in the fact that the scientific community are actively involved in persecution against eminently qualified scientists, some more qualified than their antagonists, solely on the basis that the conclusions they draw and the position they take is contrary to the 'consensus' view, for example in the discussion of so-called 'man made' global warming, and indeed the intelligent design vs. evolutionary theory debate. These are scientists who's qualifications are not in dispute - the highest in the land - the smartest, brightest minds... and they are ridiculed as idiots, and sub-standard academics, if they dare draw a conclusion that their own research has led them to in defiance of the 'majority rule', and in the most ironic way, they remind me endlessly of Galileo.
            For a community that likes to cite Galileo as a justification for taking their word for things, they don't like to apply the principle internally.

            And here's how intelligent a lot of you are... you deny of hypothesise implausible explanations for the occurance of problematic historically supported events which might appear to hint at the realm of the supernatural, and you call that 'intelligent.' Historians and archaeologists laugh heartily at some of the ridiculous claims made by scientists.

            But then you prove the point with a line like this: ""the laws of physics that have been tried and tested through billions of years and are more powerful and beautiful than any imaginary personal Abrahamic God you could ever think of."" Sophomoric and sloppy.
        • jm9206755, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1Ad populum and an appeal to authority. You lose, please try again.
      • goffy59, on 03/30/2008, -0/+4Too bad the sheep see this as a lie and not truth. Too bad for them.
        • ohnoihavenoname, on 03/31/2008, -1/+1Too bad for us as well if they keep gaining power.
          • SLockhart, on 03/31/2008, -4/+1If by they, you mean Christians then don't worry. Things will get much worse for Christians and we will be scorned by the most of the world before the end.
          • ohnoihavenoname, on 03/31/2008, -0/+2It seems that in the span of my lifetime, Christians will continue to rise in power in the US, but have less power in most other places. But I'm basing that on my own amateur analysis of trends I see, and not divine prophecy, as I suspect you are. But if I'm right, those who believe such prophecies will just say "Well I guess we weren't as close to the end times as we thought. But NOW we are!" like they have been for the past 1,900 years or so.
          • Magnus150, on 03/31/2008, -0/+2Scorned and rightfully so. You guys are a hateful bunch. Save teh fetuses and kill the soldiers and unbelievers. Feel free to believe in your sky-daddy, just stay out of our politics.
          • SampleX, on 04/14/2008, -2/+1"Scorned and rightfully so. You guys are a hateful bunch. Save teh fetuses and kill the soldiers and unbelievers. Feel free to believe in your sky-daddy, just stay out of our politics."

            Politics run by idiots who equate 'Christianity' with 'kill soldiers and unbelievers?' God help us all.
            Atheists have killed more people and violated more human rights in the last one hundred years, than all the religions of all the world for all of recorded human history combined. Think about that when you celebrate the Olympics.
  • LawSchoolBound, on 03/30/2008, -1/+10If my half life memory serves me, its not black holes but portals to alien worlds that we should be worried about accidentally creating
    • Janv1er, on 03/30/2008, -0/+7And land us right in the middle of two conflicting alien races.
  • SuperMoses, on 03/30/2008, -1/+5I'm going to pretend I didn't read that so I can sleep well tonight.
  • eighties, on 03/30/2008, -2/+41Yeah, I'm really going to believe a anything a lawyer says, especially when one of them has website where he THINKS THAT BLACK HOLES HAVE A BRAIN: http://www.unificationtheory.com/astrophysics/star ...

    That, my friends, is what we call ***** nuts.
    • bjornski, on 03/30/2008, -0/+9Holy cripes, that's funnier than the "Answers in Genesis" *****. Ranks right up there with the "time-cube"
    • goffy59, on 03/30/2008, -9/+4Well you have any way to rule it out? I'm not saying I agree with it. But if you look at space and all the galaxies and the crazy ***** we have found. What if "life form" turns out to be other things that do not function with a heart but with energy? Seriously.. how the ***** are we suppose to know any of this. Some humans are just so goddamn dumb to even be open to things and ideas outside of our little earth. This is why I like science; to discover what we don't know based off of theories from people with different ideas. So maybe in the future we will learn that things in space are actually alive; no matter what they are made of. What if this whole world is one living creature built of little creatures in a bigger world with more "creatures". Its really ***** nuts to think about. And all I'm saying is that I wouldn't disrespect a guy for having that idea. Its better then saying we are the only in the world. Oh and I hope they do turn this LHC on. And no! I don't think black holes have a brain. I just am open to the point where it could be alive in someway; not like me or you. But the fact that it is apart of our universe and there has to be a reason they are here and they must serve a purpose. I heard in science class there are probably just as much black holes as planets and stars in our universe. This was a theory though. Hey, I'd rather trust science then some ***** mickey mouse god figure in heaven.
      • johnnysaucepn, on 03/31/2008, -0/+8If they're alive in a way that isn't like you or me: how would you tell? The only definition of life we have is that mix of properties we share with plants, fungi, ameoba and the like. Because it's useful to be able to distinguish self-replicating forms from inert ones. In other words, life is whatever we define it to be. A black hole has none of the characteristics we require for it to fit into that category.
    • blast_flame, on 03/30/2008, -0/+9So that's why he's against the test. He's well aware that the black hole will evaporate but considers it murder...
    • rune420, on 03/30/2008, -0/+6I wonder how this guy scores on John Baez' Crackpot Index: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html
    • bitcloud, on 03/30/2008, -7/+1What's a brain "eighties"?

      does it mean a discreet processing unit contained in an organic structure?
      If you and I were both connected directly to the internet and able to share thoughts, ideas and knowledge, are we two brains or one?
      What about the rest of the planet connected?

      What happens when the data is sent across the solar system to other internets? is that two superbrains or one?

      Where are the lines drawn? Who decides those lines? You? Cern?
      Or do we stop calling people "***** crazy" and actually try and do things.. yknow... scientifically...
      • eighties, on 03/31/2008, -0/+21: I reserve the right to call people who make unfounded, unscientific, unsupported claims about black holes '***** nuts'. There are plenty of you out there. Just browse http://www.crank.net/usenet.html, or go to the source on sci.physics.

        2: Even if I were to 'connect my brain' to the internet as you suggest (forgetting the fact that it's a completely vacuous thought experiment in the first place), remember that the latter consists of INFORMATION. The internet is a series of interconnected computer networks and can be represented by the sum of all the documents & information contained therein; no more than that. The internet never made any scientific discoveries, and IS NOT SELF-AWARE. Stop watching The Terminator. Skynet does not exist.

        3: "What happens when the data is sent across the solar system to other internets? is that two superbrains or one?"
        "Where are the lines drawn? Who decides those lines? You? Cern?"
        "Or do we stop calling people "***** crazy" and actually try and do things.. yknow... scientifically..."

        Do you even listen to yourself speak?

        Instead of trying to contradict widely accepted, scientifically proven facts using flawed and specious arguments centered around outlandish thought experiments, pick up a book on information theory, or even black hole thermodynamics. Maybe learn a thing or two, and THEN we might be able to have an intelligent conversation.
    • Pritchard, on 03/31/2008, -1/+4Oh I ***** hate you. It's ***** insane, and you ruined the potential rhyming with brain. I bet you didn't even realize that when you posted that comment. Did you?!
  • Asdfglpwglion, on 03/30/2008, -0/+24Nothing will go wrong because cosmic rays strike the Earth all the time with energies millions of times that of the LHC - since in the billions of years the solar system has existed, all the astronomical bodies have failed to be eaten by microblackholes or strangelets, clearly there is no problem.

    LHC = ~10^13eV
    Cosmic Rays = up to ~10^20eV and higher
    • goettel, on 03/30/2008, -3/+4Sure, but the LHC was made to collide particles, the chance of two cosmic rays 'hitting' each other head on is...rather slim, I'd guess.

      In any case, we might discover all the world's missing left socks, Stimpy, so why worry?
      • jjb123, on 03/30/2008, -0/+3The cosmic rays would hit particles of earth and other objects in space, not each other.
    • GezusK, on 03/31/2008, -2/+1Sounds like you're saying the LHC isn't needed...just better observation tools.
      • ponchietto, on 03/31/2008, -0/+2You just need to predict where the next Cosmic ray will hit...
        • DemonWasp, on 03/31/2008, -0/+2- accurately enough to put detecting instruments there
          - even though Cosmic Rays travel at the speed of light (and therefore of information)
    • crapmatic, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1eh? Surely cosmic rays have hit each other before.
    • diggerine, on 03/31/2008, -0/+2Well, if cosmic rays produce several orders of magnitude greater collision energies, shouldn't NASA and other space agencies then at least try to loft into space mini-collision detectors, or put one in the International Space Station?

      Humans spend billions upon billions of dollars on a 27-mile long collider that is millions of times weaker than what nature already gives us for free? Higgs bosons free for the taking (or rather, detecting) just a few hundred miles from the earth's surface!
      • FordSVT1, on 03/31/2008, -0/+3Ummm.... mini detectors? The detectors on the LHC are GIGANTIC. THere are no "mini detectors" sensitive enough to do what they need to do, hence the need to do it here on earth under controlled circumstances,
    • Pritchard, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1Okay, well then why haven't we gathered all this information from Cosmic Rays yet? - Asks I, curiously, as an ignorant person would.
      • REBELinBLUE, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1Because as someone as already said, we don't have the equipment in space to do so and it would be infinitely more expensive to research, design, build and situate such equipment.
      • StaticThunder, on 03/31/2008, -0/+3If I want to study car accidents, do I wait for one to happen and rush over to it hoping to collect a smudge of data from whatever is left? Or do I create one with a bunch of crash test dummies under controlled conditions.
  • NoStoppingUs, on 03/30/2008, -7/+2this story makes me lol
  • alclone, on 03/30/2008, -13/+4Umm... it has been said that if they do create the miniature blackhole, the chance of destroying Earth is equal to winning the lottery two times.

    I'm not going to take that chance and I hope no one else does either. A better alternative is examining the miniature black-holes created when particles hit our atmosphere.

    Source: http://www.ted.com/
  • samk, on 03/30/2008, -4/+6I'm going to triple my life insurance just in case this thing destroys everything on the planet!
    • Akronos, on 03/30/2008, -0/+8I wish I was your insurer. Do you also want to purchase insurance to protect you from killer bunnies or death from sexual exhaustion?
      • DLuckyE, on 03/31/2008, -0/+4Does he really need to add the /sarcasm?
        • Akronos, on 04/02/2008, -0/+1Are you referring to me or him? Because I dugg him up. I knew he was being sarcastic.
    • StaticThunder, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1I'll insure you for a trillion trillion dollars against the utter annihilation of the cosmos. Just send me an arbitrarily small sum.

      Oh, and I'd like insurance in case I don't have death from sexual exhaustion.
  • PeterODactyl, on 03/30/2008, -0/+6This seems like the same type of concern people had about the HAARP project and it hasn't killed us... yet.
    • hellotyler, on 03/30/2008, -0/+1Sure, but what does HAARP do that is so bad...
  • Kasot, on 03/30/2008, -0/+5"Same goes for the creation of a quantum strangelet. This is a weird conglomeration of particles called quarks, and if a strangelet comes into contact with normal matter can convert it into more strangelets. The idea is that these can cause a chain reaction that turns all available matter into strangelets. That would be bad."
    I laughed :)
  • moolaismyfriend, on 03/30/2008, -1/+13I wish we could sue the Bush administration for the potential that they could very likely destroy this world at any moment.
  • sleepyjjk, on 03/30/2008, -3/+61I'll say it what I said before again.

    Honestly, if I had to choose how the humans die out - I would rather choose that they died out in the pursuit of knowledge while looking for the universal laws of physics than die out because of war or global warming.
    • RedViper1999, on 03/30/2008, -0/+12You know what I agree with that. Hell I'm hoping for an I am legend situation.
    • bitcloud, on 03/30/2008, -2/+2wtf? there are now apocalypse drones aligning themselves with the science camp AS WELL as the religion camp...
    • johnnysaucepn, on 03/31/2008, -2/+2Sure, because the pursuit of knowledge improves the world, right? And we all know that global warming is completely unrelated to the march of scientific progress.
      • FordSVT1, on 03/31/2008, -0/+5Knowledge can always be used to improve the world, but people don't often chose to use it that way, That's not science's fault.

        You'd rather live in a cave?
  • realmccoyucf, on 03/30/2008, -3/+0Well, this could really solve our problems in the Middle East...
  • exomni, on 03/30/2008, -2/+28Destroying the world by opening up a tiny black hole on earth, or destroying the universe in a giant strangelet outbreak would be a lot cooler than just waiting for the sun to die out or the earth's climate to deteriorate.

    I say smash on.
    • bitcloud, on 03/30/2008, -1/+1Yeah that'd be way cool... just like a movie huh...
  • SSUK, on 03/30/2008, -0/+16Well, if the LHC doesn't do anything, you can imagine the scientists being there: "Huh. What happens when you send a pear and an apple down there?"
    • bjornski, on 03/30/2008, -0/+8It'd become a new Mythbusters toy?

      I'd start watching them again then. I personally think they've gotten pretty lame lately.
    • bitcloud, on 03/30/2008, -0/+11Papple...
  • KevinRWright, on 03/30/2008, -0/+21LHC doesn't destroy the universe, people destroy the universe.
    (maniacal laughing)
  • exomni, on 03/30/2008, -1/+22The laws of physics have stood up to billions of years of testing, powers millions of times greater than anything man could devise. The power of the LHC is nothing compared to the power of the sun or the planets. The LHC is unique not because of its power, but because of how the reactions that take place can be easily observed for scientific research. Nothing that is going to go on in the LHC hasn't gone on elsewhere, in places simply harder to observe.
    • CosmicSombrero, on 03/30/2008, -1/+0Nicely put. Thank you :)
    • bitcloud, on 03/30/2008, -0/+2I agree... now demonstrate that in a court of law and you've got yourself an awesome experiment
    • GezusK, on 03/31/2008, -7/+1I don't think anyone is expecting to break the laws of physics. But black holes exists...and no has a definitive answer as to how or why....soooo....its not that far of a stretch that the LHC could recreate the condition that causes them. LOL, even your last statement says as much.
      • ponchietto, on 03/31/2008, -0/+2Did you see a black hole lately?
        No one 'saw' a black hole, astronomers infers (read interpret what they see on telescopes)
        their existence from the same physics laws the LHC is based upon.

        You obviously miss the point: the LHC is not more likely to destroy the earth than you dropping a stone, for the
        simple reason that what the LHC does (crashing particles) happens naturally every seconds.
      • tas08, on 03/31/2008, -1/+2Umm, we do have some definitive answers about how black holes exist. One that comes to mind is the collapsing of the core of a super-massive star after it goes supernova, basically when gravity over comes the nuclear force that repels neutrons from each other.
      • exomni, on 03/31/2008, -0/+2Any miniature black hole would quickly deteriorate due to hawking radiation.
    • RealistChris, on 04/26/2008, -0/+0exomni, hate to burst your bubble, but the people at CERN state on their site that colliding protons at the LHC will be 100,000 times hotter than the sun. Google it.
      For the future, please do your homework instead of blindly guessing in your fanatical support for CERN. You'll be doing them and us a great service for doing so. Incase you're wondering, I have no religion, and I'm dying to see what happens when they push that button, that's if we're still around! Mwahahahaha!
      Had to get that out of my system, may not have a chance later.
  • mooseontheloose, on 03/30/2008, -0/+13The posts in this thread really make my head hurt. Science education in the US is clearly very pathetic.

    That said, CERN should tell them to ***** off. This is like the RIAA trying to sue Pirate Bay in a US court.
  • H0tKarl, on 03/30/2008, -8/+3In Soviet Russia, particle accelerator turns on you.
    (fap fap fap)
  • iarp, on 03/30/2008, -1/+8To the worried people: Cry more, this planet needs a little adventure outside this realm once in a while.

    I'd LOVE to see what happens.
  • skyz, on 03/30/2008, -3/+3you know the inquisition almost put galileo to death for telling everyone that the earth was not only not the center of the universe it was not even the center of the solar system - stupid seems to be built into our dna -
    • jm9206755, on 03/31/2008, -1/+2Well historically speaking the church was right. At the time there were two major astronomical systems, the Copernican (heliocentric) and Tychonic (geocentric), *both* of which were consistent with all known observations at the time. In other words they were mathematically equivalent and there was no information which could determine which was correct. Galileo's Dialogue Concerning the Chief Two World Systems was an elaborate straw man of the Catholic church's position. He set up the Copernican versus the Ptolemaic system, which had been abandoned, and was misleading the public.
  • blast_flame, on 03/30/2008, -0/+10We should not listen to the luddites and go forwards with the test. Unless aliens start lining up around the earth in what looks to be front row seats...
    That could mean it won't go so well.
    • bitcloud, on 03/30/2008, -9/+1Hey here's a thought... maybe we should erm.. be scientific about it, demonstrate that it's theoretically safe and go forward with the experiment...

      If it's not safe maybe it needs to be conducted off earth... We don't NEED to "march blindly forward".
      We need to do things in the scientific manner.
      • WallnutBoy, on 03/31/2008, -0/+4Meh... To be honest I want this thing to blow us all up..
  • drowningfish, on 03/30/2008, -1/+4For some reason I am reminded of the movie 'Contact'. I hope they have good security around the LHC; otherwise some nut-case is likely to try to set off some explosive device to interrupt the progress made thus far.
  • forgiste, on 03/30/2008, -1/+3I really really want the universe to get flushed down the toilet now. I got all excited for nothing.
  • ba5e, on 03/30/2008, -0/+1I can't believe how the input of the electro-magnets in the LHC could accelerate particles, crashing them into each other to cause an effect which would start a chain reaction so big that it could obliterate the Earth. I do think however, there could be some interesting events & will keep my eyes and ears open!
  • mattbeetee, on 03/30/2008, -0/+2Hurrah! That's good news, I've been enjoying it so far, existence and such.
  • foxtrot25m, on 03/30/2008, -9/+2Ok cancing everyone and how is this guy getting away with this, he needs to take a trip to the moon so atleast me will have a chance to do something about it if hes wrong, the way i see it if he kills us all well theres not much we can do but if he blows up the moon or maby other planet well that we will have a chance to do something about.
    • Woecip, on 03/31/2008, -0/+6..cause blowing up the moon wont have any bad side effects for us earthlings.. *rolls eyes*
    • erkokite, on 03/31/2008, -0/+3Define, "cancing," please. Do you know how hard it is to go to the moon? Do you know that the odds of the LHC destroying the earth are essentially 0? Did you read the article? DON'T POST UNLESS YOU HAVE SOMETHING INTELLIGENT TO SAY!!!
      • foxtrot25m, on 04/12/2008, -0/+0simple typo, you havent done a bit of research, try posting when you read more the one peace of news on the subject!
    • FordSVT1, on 03/31/2008, -0/+3You owe me two extra strength Advil, *****, you made my head hurt.
  • hellotyler, on 03/30/2008, -0/+1It's going to be 'the mist' all over again. :( Isn't there some experiments to preform that DON'T have potential dire consequences for the world at large ?
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 97 of 97 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.