Slashdot Mirror

Umm, I can see that you've pasted that quote in various forums before, as are most of your posts -- mainly a mashup of tangentially related quotes. But regardless, I'll bite...

From what I can tell, that quote -- which originates from https://www.marxist.com/crisis... -- goes on to mention dark matter, then completely misrepresenting its evidence. For sake of convenience, Wikipedia lists some of the major ones: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.... If the Electric Universe model wants to be taken as real science then it needs to have the explanatory and predictive power necessary to account for all of these evidences at least as well as dark matter. You can't just say that a single line of evidence (gravitational lensing in this case) is wrong, therefore [my competing hypothesis] wins. That's intellectually lazy.

Also, see the references of that marxist.com article you quoted. This goes back to my echo-chamber accusation. They're all anti-Big Bang and pro-Electrical Universe websites. The one link to an arxiv.org paper is for a quote, which does not appear in the paper on the page given.

The Sanders one is pretty uncreative, I mean it's an obvious joke to add his face to the famous "parade of Marxists" seeing as Bernie's own views are quite close to theirs. Don't believe me, ask real-live Marxists what they think about him. Spoiler alert: he's not far enough left for their taste.

So, if we don't believe you, you've conveniently offered us a link that also contradicts your claim?

Well, apparently in the summary there is no link to the source. I thought our new Slashdot overlords were going to do that from now on? So I took it upon myself to do so, to let everyone judge for themselves. Don't want to see the original graphic that sparked this discussion? Why not? Afraid of the truth?

Here is Liberty Maniacs main page at libertymaniacs.com. The link to the shirt that Bernie's Brownshirts are trying to shut down is here. The other shirts on the site are mocking Donald Trump "We Shall Overcomb", the NSA "the only part of the government that listens", a T-shirt depicting police officers beating the shit out of a citizen, another Trump "Idiocracy", Trump again mocking his hair, "Carlin was Right", "I'm Ready for Oligarchy", a stormtrooper with the words "Support the Troops", a picture of that one guy in the crowd with his arms crossed refusing to Heil Hitler, and Hillary for Prison. Oh, and the Sanders "Bernie is my Comrade" parody.

Seriously, if anyone has a problem with this site, I really don't see it. Most of the merchandise is clearly mocking the Right, with only two there that the Left could possibly be offended about. And honestly those are probably just there to cover their bases and not lose any sales. The Sanders one is pretty uncreative, I mean it's an obvious joke to add his face to the famous "parade of Marxists" seeing as Bernie's own views are quite close to theirs. Don't believe me, ask real-live Marxists what they think about him. Spoiler alert: he's not far enough left for their taste. Anyone who wants to suppress T-shirt is just a thin-skinned asshole who can dish out the mockery but not take it. Guess what: that sort of thing cuts both ways. Feel the Bern!

Probably because no one knows and/or cares about Chavez and/or his policies?

That's decidedly not true about Senator Sanders' followers. Whether he is a real Socialist or not, plenty of people, who fancy themselves as such follow him. And Chavez was the world's number one Socialist just a few years ago. Indeed, he was once a special guest of the World Social Forum.

So, no, you aren't going to succeed playing "Chavez who?". You yourself have now replied thrice in this thread, and yet can not point at a single thing, Sanders would do differently from Chavez... Figures...

Bullshit. Why should I respect you for volunteering for a cause I disagree with?

An individual soldier isn't responsible for this was, but soldiers as a group are. If most of you refused to start the war, it wouldn't have happened, regardless of what the "leaders" said.
And being afraid for your life isn't a reason for respect either. Do you respect the guy that puts himself in front of the train? Do you respect the suicide bomber, just because he knows he'll die?

I was one of the thousands that specifically asked you all not to go. You went anyway. Don't ask me for my respect now.

BTW, couldn't find any communists there, though.

So some marxists wrote an article about global warming. How does this tangent the neutrality of the IPCC or the science community?

Surely you can name some facts that support your claim...

If some programming problem is best solved by using $language, the use of $language for solving that problem doesn't make the developer in question a $language evangelist.

BTW, couldn't find any communists there, though.

Even with all of that being true, I still say that I'd prefer Chavez because he's not spending my money to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people. Bad music is one thing. Mass murder/genocide is quite another thing.

While Chavez isn't overseeing mass killings yet, he's certainly preparing.

BTW, googling for "arming chavistas" came up with lots of references. I chose to quote the one above because it made me smile; memories of foaming-at-the-mouth Communist Youth cadres from my younger days, aah...

try these :

http://www.marxist.com/

There's also P.O.W.E.R. but that's not an easy acronym to google for so I can't pull up a URI.

Relax? Being able to patent any living thing (or the process in which a living this is modified) is a huge deal. And a scary one. You should really see the documentary 'the corporation' if you haven't already. One section of it deals with genetically modified foods/animals.

Just googling a little I found a bit from that's covered in the docu:

This monopolisation extends to effect the lives of us all, especially peasant farmers in the developing world. Monsanto planned to introduce its genetically modified seeds accompanied by its patented "technology protection system" which makes the seeds from this year's crop sterile. Critics call Monsanto's seed sterilising technology "terminator" and "suicide seeds". Wherever suicide seed technology is adopted, farmers will have to go back to Monsanto year after year too buy new ration of genetically modified seeds.

"By peddling suicide seeds, the biotechnology multinationals will lock the world's poorest farmers into a new form of genetic serfdom", says Emma Must of the World Development Movement. "Currently 80 per cent of crops in developing countries are grown using farm-saved seed. Being unable to save seeds from sterile crops could mean the difference between surviving and going under", she says. "More precisely", says Canadian journalist Gwynne Dyer, "it would speed the consolidation of small farms into the hands of those with the money to engage in industrialised agribusiness - which generally means higher profits but less employment and lower yields.
http://www.marxist.com/scienceandtech/genetic_engi neering.html

Also these 'terminator seeds' have been found in other crops by plants naturally crossbreeding and they've wanted to sue these farmers when the last thing they ever wanted were these terminator seeds.

http://www.indexmundi.com/indonesia/gdp.html

And as Bill Gates's personal wealth is esitmated at $46.5 billion

http://www.marxist.com/scienceandtech/bill_gates_c apitalism.htm

And Ballmer's worth is $12 billion

http://www.guardian.co.uk/microsoft/Story/0,2763,1 046102,00.html

And Paul Allen is worth $20.5 billion

http://www.guardian.co.uk/microsoft/Story/0,2763,1 046102,00.html

you have the top three at Microsoft worth approximate 9% of the entire Indonesian GDP. And Microsoft is pissed, i.e., the greedy plutocrats and lawyers who run Microsoft are pissed, that a nation where the average wage slave makes about $80 - $100 a month

http://countrystudies.us/indonesia/63.htm

has found that it makes economic sense to pirate an OS that costs more than an average month's wages?

Geee - poor babies. Greedy motherfuckers. Almost as evil as the slime moulds who run Indonesia...

RS

Crichton statement is that the judging of models based on real-world correlation has ceased. The models are judged by how well they reproduce data (among other things.) The papers cited show examples of models being judged.

I repeat: I repeat: so what? This does *not* show that *in all cases* it is true, and this could very well be precisely what Chrichton is bemoaning. The "I repeat" is in there twice becuase I keep making a point that you ignore. The examples do not disprove Chricton's claim because they are not necessarily represenative of the entire sample.

But Crichton said something much more absolute, and that's where he went awry.

I don't think it was absolute. His statement was, "increasingly," not "entirely" or "all." I think you choose to see an absolutist statement and that is why you think a few examples disprove it. I do not see an absolutist statement and that is why the examples prove nothing to me.

When Crichton says "Nobody believes a weather prediction twelve hours ahead. Now we're asked to believe a prediction that goes out 100 years into the future?", he compares two predictions. The first is a weather prediction; what's the second prediction?

A weather prediction. I expect you to want to reply, "But see! That's not weather, that's climate!"

Which is a good time to point out a question that you've chosen to ignore: If what you say is true, then why did RealClimate.org define things the way they did (specifically, weather == "what you observe", climate == "what you expect")? This is not a rhetorical question. Answer it!

I think the second blanket statement, that all climate scientists that are presenting evidence that humans are causing global warming are motivated by the destruction of capitalism, requires a conspiracy theory of Crichtion proportions.

Nice gushing. Do you have any data to support why a conspiracy theory is necessary in order for some scientists to hate capitalism and champion "global warming is caused by human activity" for the ultimate goal of the destruction of captialism? This is not a rhetorical question!

Have you bounced around the body of climate science writing?

Why would I? I do not trust those scientists!

There are not a lot of blind assertions or unquestioned assumptions anywhere in the peer-reviewed articles; there is skepticism and cross-checking galore. There are people coming up with multiple new approaches to re-measure past phenomenon my independant means. There are articles correcting and refining past observations.

*yawn*

Christians gush similarly about the amount of scholarship that their pet scholars can produce.

It does not strike me as body of science that could be put together by a group of politically motivated anti-capitalists.

You're beating up a strawman. I'm not claiming that a bunch of socialists got together and "put together" a body of science. I'm claiming that there are scientists who have socialist, anti-capitalist leanings, and they are not above using their lofty positions to influence public policy (with the intent of ultimately destroying captialistm). That socialists would gladly use global warming as a means to an end is well documented. A quick google search? turned up a few links .

But you're arguing for my point: science is all about questioning every step, precisely because of human failings.

One of these human failings is that science may be motivated by proving what is already known to be True(TM) rather than observing the world around us and making reasoned

More of a libertarian, really, which increases my credibility.

Oh, right. By the fact that the Libertarian plank is "government is corrupt and evil, and corporations are good and benign, therefore we need to deregulate all corps and then we can sue them if they go bad"? Sure, that will stop corps from taking shortcuts to make a profit. Oh, and if the company gets caught, they won't use their economic/legal power to reorganize into a sue-proof company, because only government is evil, right?

feel free. but the exercise actually has touched on an important issue: the "value" of "virtual" items.

let's look at two theories of value, shall we?

1. labour theory of value: both adam smith and karl marx agree on how to assess value (whoda thunk?) value is represented by labour. (marx's theory is here, adam smith here) the bottom line is that the value of an object is the labour that goes into making it. raw materials are "just there" and only have value because of the labour expended to extract and refine them. add up the work hours to make something and you have its value.

   now, with virtual items this is tricky. baboo the barbarian "worked" for several hundred hours to win the +12 shears of torpiary. so, to baboo, thos shears have a "value" of 100 hours. however, some programmer wrote up those shears in 2 minutes and created a dozen of them with a keystroke. so, to the authors of the game, the shears are worth 2.01 minutes of labour.

   the bottom line is: the labour value of virtual items depend on who you are. this is totally unlike "hard" items (ie, real shears). labour value theory fails us.

2. the scarcity theory of value: this is the supply and demand stuff everyone seems enamoured with these days. you know it. now, we'll ignore things like elasticity and fungibility to keep it simple.

   to baboo, there are only 12 shears in "existance". since they are highly sought after (demand) and there are very few (supply) the value of the shears is high. however, the authors of the game can create, destroy, modify and, most importantly, duplicate these shears with near-zero effort. the supply can be upped instantly. the shears can be modified to become useless, thus reducing the demand. the authors can make as many shears for themselves as they wish...

   so, once again, the value depends on who you are. totally unlike real shears. the scarcity theory breaks down with virtual things.

so. do virtual items have value? no matter how you calculate value, the answer depends on who you are. this is a major readjustment of the whole concept of value and will need to be addressed by governments and the law as the distribution and use of virtual items (not just in the gaming world, but everywhere) becomes more prevalent.

we don't need a digital millenium copyright act, we need a digital millenium value theory. of course, coming up with that will require some knowledge of economic theory and some hard thinking - so don't expect one from your politicians anytime soon.