Somebody better update the people using it as an anti-science argument.
Edit: I'm serious. Conservapedia used to have an article about it and how it discredits the scientific model and whatnot. There's a huge knowledge gap between this views and we should do our best to eliminate it.
Hah, hilarious. I'm outside of the US and it 403's me too. When I proxy via the US, it's fine. Guess they don't want evildoers from those atheist countries getting this information.
I'm getting a tcp error now. It doesn't really matter. It would be much like rushing off to correct the entries in Uncyclopedia and Encyclopedia Dramatica, anyway.
But Uncyclopedia and Encyclopedia Dramatica don't claim to hold the universal truth or try to convince people to follow a specific lifestyle based on that.
On a site note, my GGP post earned me my 666th karma point. Very suitable.
You're probably right about that. Not everybody thinks "reluctant to incorporate new information" when they see the name "Conservapedia" and has a little giggle.
The following appears to have been recently added to the page: "Most recently, a new model for reflections of heat produced on the spacecraft[5] has been proposed. While this greatly reduces the amount of unexplained acceleration, it does not appear to completely eliminate it.[6]"
Edit: I'm serious. Conservapedia used to have an article about it and how it discredits the scientific model and whatnot. There's a huge knowledge gap between this views and we should do our best to eliminate it.