Here was me thinking that you were obfuscating your argument... No, it's you who can't stick to the topic. Earlier it was P2P & the RIAA, now you're trying to revise what you meant in previous messages.
OK, the second statement and the lack of any other evidence made available, I can only assume the first statement was supposed to serve as an example of a verifiable fact that makes Christianity look bad. That sounds wrong to me, because a religion is ideally measured by its message, rather than people who adopt it and exploit it for power. So many useful things can be exploited for power. It makes little sense to judge something primarily on its abuses. That's the first time you've been on topic for a while. Look back up and you'll see that I never called you anything like a "lobotomized moron" and have only responded in kind to your insulting comments.
Every time an intolerant asshole calls religious people "lobotomized morons", or associates their moral code with a dictator, it's highly offensive to them, and to me, since you are badmouthing some of my friends and family. When you get to my first reply to you, you'll see that you took offense to something I never said. You can admit your error and have a civil conversation, or you can remain a hypocrite and a liar.
I also find what I can only assume is your specious reasoning offensive, since it degrades my species' reputation.
First off this was hardly one person expressing a dislike. He spearheaded a group of sixty-seven professors and researchers, not including students, to protest his visit until the Pope cancelled. They protested peacefully, or else we could expect the article to include reports of injuries and property damage.
All over some rather vague, out-of-context comment about a quote made 400 years ago. Extremely "vague, out-of-context" definitions of "vague" and "out-of-context" were required to fit them to that claim. I did not find Ratzinger's blunder to be "vague" nor "out-of-context." I did find it a very offensive, very stupid comment.
Signatories to the letter protesting the planned visit recalled a 1990 speech in which the pope, then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger and head of the Roman Catholic Church's doctrinal watchdog, seemed to justify the Inquisition's verdict against Galileo in 1633.
In the speech, Ratzinger quoted an Austrian philosopher who said the ruling was "rational and just".
He concluded with the remark: "The faith does not grow from resentment and the rejection of rationality, but from its fundamental affirmation, and from being rooted in a still greater form of reason." He claimed that the Inquisition's verdict against Galileo in 1633 was "rational and just" and that faith is "rooted in a still greater form of reason" than that practiced in science. That is not at all vague, and as this protest was directed toward the very same person, who did not retract or amend the statement, I do not see it as "out of context" either.
Unfortunately, universities have become bastions for censorship instead of speech. If a person shows up that carries a view some don't approve of they throw things or shout the person down. I believe you're exaggerating the commonness of hurled projectiles and shouting matches at universities in general. Anyway, we know that didn't happen here because he didn't even show up.
That IS censorship and that IS force. Maybe that was censorship, and use of force somewhere, some other time. There was no censorship -- no use nor threat of force -- in the case of the article we're discussing now. The group Cini "spearheaded" took such benign measures as telling people about the Church's past, which may indeed tend to undermine its present power by underscoring its illegitimacy as a moral authority, but that is not a "threat." That is education.
Students opposed to the visit kicked off "an anti-clergy week" on Monday by showing a film on Galileo, the 17th-century physicist who ran afoul of Church doctrine by insisting that the Earth orbits the Sun. I wish I had been there.
You make it sound like Cini merely presented a paper or a dissertation on the topic. No, you "make it sound like Cini" has free speech rights that are limited to "a paper or a dissertation on the topic." He was completely within his rights, and, as the "renewed invitation" attests, he does not have sufficient authority to "censor" anything outside the classroom[s] and lab[s] in which he teaches. Q.E.D.
The morons that put critical data / control on outward facing servers deserve the hosing they get. Who in their right mind thinks it is a good idea to put a power station's control on a server that is even connected to the Internet? That is just the stupidest thing I have ever read. Second stupidest, and falling, I believe that is. Perspective matters very much when using the superlative form, dude. Some very, very stupid people have the right to vote, including you.
... is correct.
The "Government" is not any one thing. I'd tell you to "think about it" but I know you already have. I'm just documenting my own lag behind you both presently.
This is where, presently, I would substantially differ with you:
What is wrong with this picture? If you try and rationalise this situation, you are put in the position of "the good Germans". The worst are American Liberals - completely enabling the subversion of basic rights and law, through rational acceptance of evil. Try this on for size:
'Left' and 'Right' both complain that the Judicial and Executive Branches do not 'uphold' their un-Constitutional wishes to curtail others' means of Pursuit of Happiness. Meanwhile, I declare victory to the doctrine of 'Separation of Powers'
I'll post an unequivocal 'up yours' or 'Megadittoez' when I think I've caught up & disagree/agree, respectively/disrespectfully, as the case maybe.
That used to be a tree. That also used to be a tree. That used to be a different true. F*** this, for "presentations" I prefer fyzikel "slides." If you don't no wut I mean, ax Winston Smith. Cr@p.
If we make allowance for special cases that have most probably been altered from their original condition since the solar system's beginning, as judged by lines of evidence existing before this analysis began, we may conclude that the undisturbed solar system members provide a spectacularly good match to the predictions of the tidal fission theory. That includes major planets and large, regular moons.
At one point I began to wonder about the inference in Table 1 that the Earth was much closer to the Sun in the early solar system than it is now. Would Earth at that distance have been too hot to have oceans? Then I opened the May 23rd (1997) issue of Science magazine and found an article on "the early faint Sun paradox," trying to figure out what kept the Earth from freezing four billion years ago, when the Sun had 25%-30% less luminosity than it does today (Sagan and Chyba, 1997).[190] A good theory should always provide pleasant surprises, not new mysteries; and this one had just produced a very pleasant one--a solution to the early faint Sun paradox.
But to be a scientific theory, a model must be falsifiable; and to be useful it must make successful predictions. So we conclude with an important prediction, the failure of which will falsify the hypothesis. The astronomy news has been filled over the past two years with announcements of discoveries of planets orbiting other stars. The fission theory predicts that such planets will tend to occur in twin pairs, with some exceptions, as we have seen in our solar system. However, extra-solar planets cannot be viewed directly, even with the Hubble Space Telescope. Their existence must be inferred by indirect means, such as looking for a periodic wobble in the position of a visible parent star.
If extra-solar planets do occur as twins, that will not be immediately evident in the earliest observations because it is difficult to separate out periods for bodies of similar mass that are either close to the same value or are in resonance with one another. The first data will reveal just a single member of each pair. Observations over a longer time span will make it appear that the orbit is highly eccentric, when in reality the wobble of the star reflects the beating of two near-resonance periods. But with a still longer time span of data, the dual nature of the planets will be revealed. We predict that many of the discoveries of extra-solar planets recently announced will follow that course as the span of observations lengthens in the coming years. But that was posted by AC, and I owe apology to AC and/or pln2bz for incorrectly conflating their unfamiliar [to me] ideas with one anothers' [gr?].
Shite, I h8 the Internet when I question my gr/sp!
As if it isn't already obvious, I won't have anything else to say about planetary formation or Plasma Model/Electric Universe/??? vs. Standard Model/??? until, at least, the next thread.
I did notice that TVF's falsifiable prediction was conveniently -- we may not say "deliberately" so, but it is curious, isn't it? -- set far into the future, although understandably. He is correct, to the extent that twin-planet pairs would be much easier to identify by orbital wobble after a few centuries. But, would it really be impossible, for a solar system only ~100LY from here? I'll have to check my CRC Handbook for wavelengths & distances, but it seems to me his claims should be provable/falsifiable -- with great effort, admittedly, but no greater than that demanded of Galileo, whose claim was similarly unwelcome, +/- one order of magnitude.
Thanks, and I'm now asking; please "suggest resources on theories of planetary formation, be they webpages, books, papers, blogs, or discussion fora...:-)"
I have 3 years down on a BS in physics, which I had to abandon for financial reasons, and I'm pleasantly surprised to find my own curiosity about phenomena parsecs away as strong as ever, or more so. I'd still like to see more voters having a realistic cost/benefit-rooted appraisal of nuclear energy's value to themselves, but I'm too grown-up to believe in Miracles.
Cini expressed dislike of his university's choice to invite somebody to be their guest, which means, to receive their money, for nothing but speaking. What is "intolerant" about saying "I dislike the Pope, and do not like that my employer invited him"? If he had said the same thing about expenditure of university $ on a particular flavor of Gelato [essentially, "ice cream" to the North Americans], we would be discussing only the absurdity of wasting university $ on Gelato, not on Cini's dislike of a particular flavor.
All categorization of Cini's comments as "censorship" relies on application of a double standard to The Pope. If he were anybody else, any faculty member would be welcome to declare that, for professional reasons, they disagree with the invitation.
Expressing disapproval is not the same as censorship. Censorship is prohibition of unapproved speech, by force. To classify unenforced disagreement of any statement, or of any speaker [and/or their previous statements] as censorship is an error, and ominously close to censorship of all disagreeement with that statement or entity. That is double-plus-ungood.
Substitute "The Pope" with anyone else you do not want to speak up, and you will realize the extremes of such a reasoning. The word "up" implies, falsely, underdog status. Recognition of the Pope's unequalled authority, among those who grant him any, is correct. Denial of same is incorrect.
Your other point, that what he might say presently or in the future might be independent of what he has said in the past, allows for a "change of heart" [or of mind, assuming existence of such] and, aside from falsely portraying him as underdog, is well said.
I support the right of Cini and his cohorts to say that they dislike the invitation to the Pope. Beyond that, matters of State vs. Individual & University Ownership of Property become involved and add too uninteresting complexity for me, a United States citizen, to comment more.
I'm not trying to be subtle. Oh, JOY! The old "de-scope in order to declare [re-defined] success" gimmick. If it works, use it, eh? If it's more cliché than the 419 e-mail scam, but continues to be an effective con, so much the better. At a dime a dozen you're overpriced.
Since you aren't exactly being clear, Bullshit.
... I'm forced to guess at why a bad leader who happened to be Christian makes you offended by Christianity, assuming I'm even in the same ballpark here. Because I am being clear, you guess what is not only not implied, but is contrary to the text I have typed, in a desperate bid to re-claim your figleaf. Ballpark? You're not even in my league.
"DOE's Innovative and Novel Computational Impact on Theory and Experiment (INCITE) program supports computationally intensive, large-scale research projects at a governmental level. A business would not be successful by asserting, in its name, that it is "Innovative and Novel." A business [absent government subsidy or anti-newcomer regulations] would have to call itself "CITE," and do so according to scientific standards, to sell what it offers based on the judgement of its Customers that its work is indeed "innovative and novel."
Mod me down all you want. This matters more to me than the topic, or your funny "Mod points."
I might not always be in a mood to actually do it, but if the same joke were told with "Linux" instead of "Windows ME," I should mod it up as funny. Anyway, crippling alien computers with our own worst computer programs, whatever you happen to think they are, is indisputably a funny update to the computer virus cliché.
I SAID "INDISPUTABLY"!!
Just kidding. You have every right to your stupid, contrary opinion. Just kidding. Sort of.
Hint: it was not Birkeland, Alfvén, Peratt, or Tesla. He is much more well-known in the United States for "inventing" the light bulb. OMG, heat it, and it glows. For this, Edison is bestowed the title "genius" alongside Tesla & Einstein? Pfft, not in my book!
In fact, I think they need my opposition, to set them straighter, if you get my meaning. They don't easily re-conform to new facts, but eventually, they do, just as conformist as ever. I don't always see the humor in it, either, but when I do, I try to share the humor. You look like you could use a helping.
Anyway, regardless of what I decide about EU generally or the fission theory of planet formation specifically, it's a pleasure to see somebody posting material like that from Olson. There is certainly far too little attention -- even on "for Nerds" Slashdot -- to the arbitrary, and therefore often-wrong [usually?], nature of many [most?] "normative" forces in social interactions. Being scientific thinkers, you and I know well that generalizations are useful, ie good, only when correct.
Each pair is notably dissimilar to its adjoining pair or pairs. Now there is no particular reason under the "primeval solar nebula" hypothesis of planetary formation why this should be so. The nebula from which the planets allegedly condensed should have been rather homogeneous in most respects, and planet masses should have had a smooth radial gradient with solar distance.
On the other hand, Chapter 19 argued that origin of planets by fission from the Sun should be reconsidered because it elegantly solves several problems the standard model does not. For example, if planets fission from the Sun due to overspin while the Sun is still accreting, this more easily explains how 98% of the solar system's angular momentum ended up in the planets. That fact has always been considered significant for understanding solar system formation since all the planets combined have less than 0.002 of the mass of the Sun.
The fission hypothesis would also solve the mystery of the dominance of prograde rotation for these original planets, since they would have shared in the Sun's prograde rotation at the outset. J.J. Lissauer[185] summarizes the latest results on this puzzle for the standard model: "Almost all the previous calculations were wrong... If you accrete planets from a uniform disk of planetesimals, the observed prograde rotation just can't be explained." Under either the "primeval solar nebula" hypothesis of planetary formation or the fission hypothesis, I would not expect retrograde rotation. Also, I see no essential reason to expect anything to have angular momentum, so I don't see a need for an explanation of "how 98% of the solar system's angular momentum ended up in the planets," only of how some angular momentum ended up in each. If they all got there by a conceptually similar process, good, that's convenient to calculate, but Occam's Razor is only to be invoked ceteris paribus. The mistake of the ancient, non-empirical "natural philosophers" was their expectation that Occam's Razor (unnamed, but the very same concept) is the Law Of Nature, rather than a convenient tendency and helpful approximation, in various analyses. I might have to agree that this is fundamentally flawed, but I'm still too early in my research to throw it out with the bathwater, or as bathwater, as the case may be.
I mean, proponents of 'the Electric Universe' claim, falsely, that astrophysicists regard gravity as the only force worth studying, and counter-claim that 'electricity'* is really the only one (odd though that while 99.{insert more 9's here, to your taste}% of the universe is plasma, 100% is mass-energy, so gravity wins). First, I wouldn't put any stock at all in any theory that says that just one of the four forces "wins." I'm also not familiar with this particular "EU Theory" or with nearly as much of the work of astronomers/astrophysicists as I'd like, and I certainly don't plan to inject myself into what is obviously a passionate disagreement. I wouldn't mind if my questions about the science distract you from this feud, but that isn't my goal. Anyway, please don't get the impression I'm arguing [generally] for this "Plasma Universe" model. I don't even understand it, and only noticed it a couple days ago on Slashdot. [I do think I just began reading about an attractively elegant theory for solar system formation, but that is only a first impression.] I'm just asking questions right now about parts of your counter-argument that lead me to conclude, as you evidently have, that certain conclusions are total bunk, if you'll forgive the paraphrase. Feel free to use it, if you wish. If you're right, and this theory is a waste of time, I'd appreciate your assistance in wasting less of mine. Thanks in advance.
Hmm... how about 'doesn't require any new physics' as a criterion? What requires new physics? Any help in not wasting my time would be appreciated, but so far TVF's page looks like the work of a bona fide scientist, who knows that what he is describing is not mainstream, ie, requires a lengthy discussion of current Theory, and what I have read is at least plausible, so far. Again, if there's an Invisible Pink Unicorn or other deus ex machina waiting for me, after I read ??? pages of dry "background info," I'd appreciate any explanation you can offer about the invalidity of TVF's hypothesis. Thanks in advance.
The Titius-Bode equations referenced before the Introduction imply a systematic "planet source" acting according to a similarly straightforward arithmetical relationship. Orderly emission from the sun of planet-moon pairs is, at least qualitatively, more consistent with Titius' observations than disorderly planetary collisions as the source of moons.
The Titius-Bode Law or Rule is the observation that orbits of planets in the solar system follow a simple arithmetic rule quite closely. It was discovered in 1766 by Johann Daniel Titius and "published" (without attribution) in 1772 by Johann Elert Bode, thus the name. More fundamentally, the Big Bang Theory states [or does it just imply it very, very strongly? If I'm wrong & you have a PhD in physics, correct me on that all you want.] that all complex elements are the product of stellar fusion, or possibly other high-energy phenomena such as nova/supernova, I'm not that into astronomy. But, the path from pure energy to electrons to hydrogen molecules generally traveling away from one another is well-known, even among scientists who don't specialize in astronomy, as is the general concept that complex elements are and have been formed later, in separate locations, not at the Bang itself. I'm interested in reading more of TVF. Thanks, AC.
You're not at all smooth.
Your point seems to be that because some rouge ruler was Christian (as if Christianity is the only potential tool for taking and maintaining power), Christianity is bad. That's you projecting, and a "straw man" tactic in debate terms. My time is too valuable to waste on the likes of you, liar.
If they had lived, one would end up institutionalized, the other would make significant progress (but not "solve") AI. We can all estimate what will be necessary to construct & program a silicon-based, self-directed learner of things that we will then judge "intelligently chosen." That was my rough definition of "AI." You're welcome to yours, if you prefer another one. Since it doesn't exist yet, I don't really care. For that and other reasons, I thought the part quoted above was the most ironic, as it states as fact something he can only know if he has already constructed an AI or at least worked out the concepts well enough to know exactly what constructing it would require, and applied a great deal of computation to both people. Beyond unlikely, by my estimate, unless it has superhuman amounts of spare time lying around.
Have you ever been a sysadmin? In many companies, the sysadmins can't just willy nilly reboot machines (even client computers) without some sort of approvals and signoffs. You do what you need to, but if you interfere with someone else's work -- you're going to hear about it. Indubitably. You would certainly need to re-phrase "Ask your sysadmin before assuming the PC will keep working overnight," in order to get "some sort of approvals and signoffs" from your boss, but "in many companies" you can establish essentially that arrangement, if you make a good case that the company is wasting non-negligible $um$ by running computers 24/7 just in case somebody needs one. If there really is a "peak use" interval, or more importantly an interval of low enough activity, it's perfectly reasonable that the computers will not always be on, unless special arrangements are made. If long, numerical or other processor-intensive operations are not the exception to the rule where you work, then what I said would not apply, where you work. "In many companies," though, it would work just fine, and possibly save enough nickels to rub together. YMMV
Slashdot Mirror
Signatories to the letter protesting the planned visit recalled a 1990 speech in which the pope, then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger and head of the Roman Catholic Church's doctrinal watchdog, seemed to justify the Inquisition's verdict against Galileo in 1633.
In the speech, Ratzinger quoted an Austrian philosopher who said the ruling was "rational and just".
He concluded with the remark: "The faith does not grow from resentment and the rejection of rationality, but from its fundamental affirmation, and from being rooted in a still greater form of reason." He claimed that the Inquisition's verdict against Galileo in 1633 was "rational and just" and that faith is "rooted in a still greater form of reason" than that practiced in science. That is not at all vague, and as this protest was directed toward the very same person, who did not retract or amend the statement, I do not see it as "out of context" either. Unfortunately, universities have become bastions for censorship instead of speech. If a person shows up that carries a view some don't approve of they throw things or shout the person down. I believe you're exaggerating the commonness of hurled projectiles and shouting matches at universities in general. Anyway, we know that didn't happen here because he didn't even show up. That IS censorship and that IS force. Maybe that was censorship, and use of force somewhere, some other time. There was no censorship -- no use nor threat of force -- in the case of the article we're discussing now. The group Cini "spearheaded" took such benign measures as telling people about the Church's past, which may indeed tend to undermine its present power by underscoring its illegitimacy as a moral authority, but that is not a "threat." That is education. Students opposed to the visit kicked off "an anti-clergy week" on Monday by showing a film on Galileo, the 17th-century physicist who ran afoul of Church doctrine by insisting that the Earth orbits the Sun. I wish I had been there. You make it sound like Cini merely presented a paper or a dissertation on the topic. No, you "make it sound like Cini" has free speech rights that are limited to "a paper or a dissertation on the topic." He was completely within his rights, and, as the "renewed invitation" attests, he does not have sufficient authority to "censor" anything outside the classroom[s] and lab[s] in which he teaches. Q.E.D.
This is where, presently, I would substantially differ with you: What is wrong with this picture? If you try and rationalise this situation, you are put in the position of "the good Germans". The worst are American Liberals - completely enabling the subversion of basic rights and law, through rational acceptance of evil. Try this on for size:
'Left' and 'Right' both complain that the Judicial and Executive Branches do not 'uphold' their un-Constitutional wishes to curtail others' means of Pursuit of Happiness. Meanwhile, I declare victory to the doctrine of 'Separation of Powers'
I'll post an unequivocal 'up yours' or 'Megadittoez' when I think I've caught up & disagree/agree, respectively/disrespectfully, as the case maybe.
... to that which you would appear to oppose.
Actually, I don't doubt that you have some keen insights, but friggin' come on, inform me already!
That used to be a tree. That also used to be a tree. That used to be a different true. F*** this, for "presentations" I prefer fyzikel "slides." If you don't no wut I mean, ax Winston Smith. Cr@p.
Conclusion
If we make allowance for special cases that have most probably been altered from their original condition since the solar system's beginning, as judged by lines of evidence existing before this analysis began, we may conclude that the undisturbed solar system members provide a spectacularly good match to the predictions of the tidal fission theory. That includes major planets and large, regular moons.
At one point I began to wonder about the inference in Table 1 that the Earth was much closer to the Sun in the early solar system than it is now. Would Earth at that distance have been too hot to have oceans? Then I opened the May 23rd (1997) issue of Science magazine and found an article on "the early faint Sun paradox," trying to figure out what kept the Earth from freezing four billion years ago, when the Sun had 25%-30% less luminosity than it does today (Sagan and Chyba, 1997).[190] A good theory should always provide pleasant surprises, not new mysteries; and this one had just produced a very pleasant one--a solution to the early faint Sun paradox.
But to be a scientific theory, a model must be falsifiable; and to be useful it must make successful predictions. So we conclude with an important prediction, the failure of which will falsify the hypothesis. The astronomy news has been filled over the past two years with announcements of discoveries of planets orbiting other stars. The fission theory predicts that such planets will tend to occur in twin pairs, with some exceptions, as we have seen in our solar system. However, extra-solar planets cannot be viewed directly, even with the Hubble Space Telescope. Their existence must be inferred by indirect means, such as looking for a periodic wobble in the position of a visible parent star.
If extra-solar planets do occur as twins, that will not be immediately evident in the earliest observations because it is difficult to separate out periods for bodies of similar mass that are either close to the same value or are in resonance with one another. The first data will reveal just a single member of each pair. Observations over a longer time span will make it appear that the orbit is highly eccentric, when in reality the wobble of the star reflects the beating of two near-resonance periods. But with a still longer time span of data, the dual nature of the planets will be revealed. We predict that many of the discoveries of extra-solar planets recently announced will follow that course as the span of observations lengthens in the coming years. But that was posted by AC, and I owe apology to AC and/or pln2bz for incorrectly conflating their unfamiliar [to me] ideas with one anothers' [gr?].
Shite, I h8 the Internet when I question my gr/sp!
As if it isn't already obvious, I won't have anything else to say about planetary formation or Plasma Model/Electric Universe/??? vs. Standard Model/??? until, at least, the next thread.
Bookmarked for future reference, thanks!
I did notice that TVF's falsifiable prediction was conveniently -- we may not say "deliberately" so, but it is curious, isn't it? -- set far into the future, although understandably. He is correct, to the extent that twin-planet pairs would be much easier to identify by orbital wobble after a few centuries. But, would it really be impossible, for a solar system only ~100LY from here? I'll have to check my CRC Handbook for wavelengths & distances, but it seems to me his claims should be provable/falsifiable -- with great effort, admittedly, but no greater than that demanded of Galileo, whose claim was similarly unwelcome, +/- one order of magnitude.
;-)
Thanks, and I'm now asking; please "suggest resources on theories of planetary formation, be they webpages, books, papers, blogs, or discussion fora ... :-)"
:-(
I have 3 years down on a BS in physics, which I had to abandon for financial reasons, and I'm pleasantly surprised to find my own curiosity about phenomena parsecs away as strong as ever, or more so. I'd still like to see more voters having a realistic cost/benefit-rooted appraisal of nuclear energy's value to themselves, but I'm too grown-up to believe in Miracles.
Cini expressed dislike of his university's choice to invite somebody to be their guest, which means, to receive their money, for nothing but speaking. What is "intolerant" about saying "I dislike the Pope, and do not like that my employer invited him"? If he had said the same thing about expenditure of university $ on a particular flavor of Gelato [essentially, "ice cream" to the North Americans], we would be discussing only the absurdity of wasting university $ on Gelato, not on Cini's dislike of a particular flavor.
All categorization of Cini's comments as "censorship" relies on application of a double standard to The Pope. If he were anybody else, any faculty member would be welcome to declare that, for professional reasons, they disagree with the invitation.
Expressing disapproval is not the same as censorship. Censorship is prohibition of unapproved speech, by force. To classify unenforced disagreement of any statement, or of any speaker [and/or their previous statements] as censorship is an error, and ominously close to censorship of all disagreeement with that statement or entity. That is double-plus-ungood.
Your other point, that what he might say presently or in the future might be independent of what he has said in the past, allows for a "change of heart" [or of mind, assuming existence of such] and, aside from falsely portraying him as underdog, is well said.
I support the right of Cini and his cohorts to say that they dislike the invitation to the Pope. Beyond that, matters of State vs. Individual & University Ownership of Property become involved and add too uninteresting complexity for me, a United States citizen, to comment more.
... I'm forced to guess at why a bad leader who happened to be Christian makes you offended by Christianity, assuming I'm even in the same ballpark here. Because I am being clear, you guess what is not only not implied, but is contrary to the text I have typed, in a desperate bid to re-claim your figleaf. Ballpark? You're not even in my league.Mod me down all you want. This matters more to me than the topic, or your funny "Mod points."
I might not always be in a mood to actually do it, but if the same joke were told with "Linux" instead of "Windows ME," I should mod it up as funny. Anyway, crippling alien computers with our own worst computer programs, whatever you happen to think they are, is indisputably a funny update to the computer virus cliché.
I SAID "INDISPUTABLY"!!
Just kidding. You have every right to your stupid, contrary opinion. Just kidding. Sort of.
Hint: it was not Birkeland, Alfvén, Peratt, or Tesla. He is much more well-known in the United States for "inventing" the light bulb. OMG, heat it, and it glows. For this, Edison is bestowed the title "genius" alongside Tesla & Einstein? Pfft, not in my book!
In fact, I think they need my opposition, to set them straighter, if you get my meaning. They don't easily re-conform to new facts, but eventually, they do, just as conformist as ever. I don't always see the humor in it, either, but when I do, I try to share the humor. You look like you could use a helping.
Anyway, regardless of what I decide about EU generally or the fission theory of planet formation specifically, it's a pleasure to see somebody posting material like that from Olson. There is certainly far too little attention -- even on "for Nerds" Slashdot -- to the arbitrary, and therefore often-wrong [usually?], nature of many [most?] "normative" forces in social interactions. Being scientific thinkers, you and I know well that generalizations are useful, ie good, only when correct.