I'm an American, and I find that the Trotskyites here call anything they don't like - "socialism". It's...... complex, some how.
When Americans say socialism, they usually mean taxes. Typically they disregard how society indirectly provides benefits like a skilled labor pool, infrastructure and other foundations for modern civilization that enabled their company to make millions in profit..
And yet - at least for my my most vociferous peeps who call anything they disagree with, "socialism" they completely ignore the fact that the soocial security they are collecting is an actual socialist program.
Indeed, the most "conservative guy I know, collects social security, has not paid a medical bill in his adult life, went to college fully paid, and worked for the government his entire life. The way I figure, the evil government he so despises, has shelled out many millions for the guy. The only money he hasn't extracted directly from the guvmint is the interest from the banks where he put their money.
Which is why the "Keep your Government hands off my Medicare crowd: http://economix.blogs.nytimes.... is not conservative at all. They are Trotskyites. They will rail on about being conservative, but nothing is further than the truth.
Typically they disregard how society indirectly provides benefits like a skilled labor pool, infrastructure and other foundations for modern civilization that enabled their company to make millions in profit.
But they don't disregard when society provides boat anchors and albatrosses rather than help. Maybe you shouldn't either.
What is the final solution for Laissez-faire capitalism, anyhow? Round up those who didn't hit life's lottery, and turn them into food for those of us who did?
The poor, the indigent and even the lazy will never disappear form the earth. And the platitudes spewed out by both left and right are lll in nutshells because they belong in them.
Before you pronounce to the world I'm a sociaist, I'm not. I'm a pragmatist, that most hated species that knows that unbridled idealism of any sort inevitably leads to failure.
OS X doesn't suffer from the 'mobilization' of the desktop
That isn't quite true. It is suffering from 'mobilization', and also 'socialization'.
And yet, I use mine the same way as I've used it for years.
No facebook, no twitter, no iCloud - just applications. It works exactly the same way as when they went to 10 - I use only the new features I like. caveat: Spotlight has been ruined.
What they do, is offer options. If I want a Windows 8 sorta interface I can use launchpad. Not that anyone does, because that's gotta be the worst use of desktop space ever - just like W8 - but if someone does like it, it's an option.
So I've been derping around In OSX like I always have, with no weird adjustments to make other than abandoning Spotlight. One example out of the many that other OSs have foisted on their users isn't too bad at all
I never noticed. Of course, I never used KDE or Gnome or some other crappy "modern" window-manager. fvwm has all I need and excellent customization possibilities in addition.
Huh. I like to try out new things. Often the old things are better, but when declaring something as crappy, it's more authoritative to have first hand experience. That's why I keep a sacrificial machine around. It's actually fun, and sometimes you find out that the "smart guys" are full of it.
Where the hell do you live that welfare/disability pays enough to buy endless beer and meth? I know a couple of people on disability and they have a fuck of a time just eating satisfactorily, little well being able to buy more then a 6 pack of beer once a month.
There's also one fuck of a lot of homeless people around and they sure don't look like they're having a great life, especially when the weather turns to shit.
Because someone making a billion a year needs that 800 a month the guy on disability makes. How the hell are billionaires going to create jobs if they can't get over that criticaal threshold started by those stupid greedy sick and handicapped fucks?
Or the guy making 30 K a year, who "will be a billionaire" next year. Good luck.
There is nothing wrong with being wealthy. There is something terribly wrong with the hatred shown toward those less fortunate.
Socialism means that the factories (means of production) belong to the state. This is not the case in Denmark, so your use of the word socialism is ignorant and incorrect.
I'm an American, and I find that the Trotskyites here call anything they don't like - "socialism". It's...... complex, some how.
...and yet we're talking about people being exposed to microbes, which is completely different from viral diseases. Again, how'd you pull that out of your ass?
By following and replying within the context of the conversation thread? You know, explain it to you?
Explain the cowpox/smallpox thing. Is there actually a correlation there or did you just pull some scienceism out of thin air? Seriously, WTF? Dirty farm air and the development of vaccination have nothing to do with each other unless you want to really reach. I suppose cowpox was contracted by farm workers so there's your brain's connection.
People who contracted cowpox - which is a rather minor illness, were immune from smallpox, which is a major issue. And with the symptoms of smallpox being rather dramatically evident, people made the connection quickly, since the milkmaids and people around the cows had nice skin, not something that looked like the surface of Mercury.
This sounds a bit like the theory that children are less likely to develop allergies to common foods like milk, eggs, wheat, and so on if exposed to them at a young age. I have no idea if that's factual or not, but based on how our bodies adapt and develop immunity to common pathogens, it doesn't seem like such an outrageous theory.
My son would get these red blotchy marks all over when we took him along with us to visit out horse. We talked to his pediatrician about it, to see what could be done, or if we should keep him away from horses. He told us to keep taking him to the barn as long as it was just the splotches. Sure enough, a few more visits, and no more reaction. The doctor said a little dirt and dander is good.
Interestingly enough, after he hit his teens, probably 3/4 of his Ice hockey team was on inhalers for athsma, and often the children of the most affluent. I'm pretty convinced there is some relationship.
Genetics and microbial exposure are part of your health makup.
As in most of it. It's weird, looking back through my family history, teh men tend to live to right around 85 years old, except for accident or war.
My father's generation, with modern medical assistance, better health care, and healthier lifestyle choices, lived to....... 85 years old.
The idea that doing this or that is going to make you live 30 years longer is merely wishful thinking. Moderation in all things isn't dramatic, but it's the truth.
If you're cycling 50 km/day, it is likely that you are making ongoing lifestyle choices that contribute to your health. You probably don't have to attribute those choices to genetics or micro-organisms.
You'll be the healthiest guy in the dementia ward.
It's rather amusing that the biggest chemical enhanced doping sport on earth is used as an example of good health decisions.
Lessee, we have shows about insane hairdressers in LA. We have weird shows about making people run around in the woods without clothing - but in a twist, blur out the tittilating bits. We have shows about the contents of storage units and parking meter attendants, we have shows about idiots who live in teh Alaskan bush, yet seem to know as much about survival in the bush as someone from New York city. We have shows about how people are stupid, and every human advance is because of ancient aliens. We have shows about peole who think that a woman's vagina is a clown car. I gotta stop - but there are hundreds more examples.
The fact is, Television today is simply bottom of the barrel bad!
And the channels that were good at one time have been taken over. The learning channel was once about learning, The history channel once had history, not swamp logging midgets who run a pawn shop in Alaska's north slope.
So no - it isn't too much programming. It's that none of it is worth watchning
The problem I see with your "weak women" argument is that you seem to suggest that all of the harassment women in STEM fields is trivial and if that drives you from the field, you are weak.
Wow. It's time for me to just keep quiet about this. No matter how I try to say that women are actually strong, and not weak, I'm wrong. I say they are stronger than the excuses given for them staying out of STEM. It's too confusing to say women are strong, then have people come back to say I'm saying they are weak when I say thyy are not. I give up.
I'll state one last time my thoughts, then go back to the tried and true method of not sharing my opinion.
Real actual sexual harassment should in every case be pursued actively. Perhaps the list of what construes sexual harassment is being expanded beyond reasonable expectations. Because It's a big world, and a lot of people in it, some who are plain nasty. It woud be great if we could protect everyone from jerks. The guy that tried to force my wife to give him oral sex at work has now become the moral equivalent of a dongle joke.
BTW, she aggressively proceed to use the system to destroy his life after that little assault.
Work is often nasty for everyone, men included.
Anyhow, I''m sorry for your experiences. You might actually prove my point about the strength of women, but I'm finished with the matter.
Yeah, but all that means is that the prediction was incorrect, not that the earth can support an infinte number of people.
I can even come up with a scenario in which we might be able to support several times the number of people, if we for some reason decided that that was a good goal.
Imagine if you will, underground hydroponic farms many miles in extent, with vats of algae for plant material, perhaps krill for protein value. Over time, humanity removes all other biocompetition, in order to replace it with human presence. The distribution system then sends this soylent green type material out ot everyone for consumption Water distribution will probably rely on nuclear powered desalinization plants. and a precisely metered system.
We might just be able to get every square foot of liveable land covered with a human being, assuming that disease or our innate tendency to violence doesn't take us out first.
One if it gets angry and whiny like a lefty it's probably a lefty.
Crikey man, are you calling Fox news leftists? I watch it, and there is more whining there than anywhere else . note though, I watch it for the lulz.
Anyway
For 50+ years I have been watching prediction of climate doom come to naught.
define doom.
There are some kooks on the AGW side. Do you lump every AGW supporter with the kooks? That would be like calling every anti-AGW adherent stupid because they look out their windows, and it's cold, so much for global warming!
As noted before, I' a pragmatist, you know the one that most everyone hates because I'm not politically reliable. So I don't look at everyone as exactly one way or another, and don't consider people with opinions contrary to my own as the enemy
disclaimer - i do reserve the right to laugh at them on occasion.
You can also toss in the population bomb, eco doom, peak oil all pan out to nothing.
So what you are saying is that one thing proves another? That's an interesting argument.
Now if you want to talk about Ideology and public planning, you need to look at how the enviro nuts stopped California's water system improvements in a state known to have extended droughts.
It doesn't take an eco nut to understand that the California water system was taking water from other areas, exporting it to California, and using it all up, then coming back for more.
The left coast of California has seriously awesome weather.. But it is as close as you can get to a desert, without being a desert. And while the other conditions are good for growing crops, there isn't enough water.
So for many years, California just took water from other states. How much is enough? At this point, there are interests that want the water from the Columbia river. It seems though, that the loacls living there aren't to keen on turning the columbia into the Colorado river take 2.
And that's the problem. It's not sustainable, and California's approach is like getting mugged.
"How much water do you want?"
"How much water do you have?"
These are simple math problems, not leftist ideology. The leftist would say everyone needs to share their water with California because it's to our need
The pragmatist notes that in every case, people who share water with California, lose all their water.
At can be either the third wave "weak woman" model, where some incredibly trivial things can apparently force a young lady who is passionately into programming into dropping it completely.
It's nowhere near as extreme as that most of the time.
I'm male. I was previous at a really crap job. No support, no documentation, lots of pressure. I left and moved to a different industry after about six months. I'm not weak willed or anything like that, I just don't see why I should put up with a crap job and work environment when I can move on and have a much easier, better life somewhere else.
Aren't you making my argument? You left the job because it was for shit, not get out of the field because the job stunk.
The last thing I would say is that women are weak. Which is why the weak woman concept espoused by so many - the woman who will actually abandon a career path based on silly reasons, is so weird. There is absolutely no way that every single job in IT will be perfect, where everyone respects each other, and nary a negative comment is heard. That just isn't how humanity works.
It's worth pointing out that there is significant dissent within the American Physical Society, with several prominent scientists leaving the organization over its unreserved endorsement of CAGW (catastrophic anthropogenic global warming, as opposed to the meaningless catch-all "climate change").
I enjoy your factual and well reasoned argument. You truly exemplify the intellectual prowess I have come to expect of the left.
Excellent, a person who says they value fctual and reasoned arguments, and then accuses someone of being on the left. Your facts that prove that?
Well matey - here's a pragmatist, beholden to no ideology, so we gonna have ourselves a factual an well reasoned discussion.
Now you are going to telll me of the peer reviewed documents that show that AGW is incorrect.
And if you use any of your silly "leftists" comments, you lose. Physics has no political outlook. And if you try the old "But no one allows dissenting views" chestnut, you lose. You don't get to use the arguments of perpetual energy kooks and young earth creationists as an argument.
Because the scientist who proves that there is no such thing as AGW will become immediately famous, and likely a Nobel winner, and it doesn't have to be done in the USA, There are enough people out theere who hate the USA, so why aren't they doing the research tht proves the contrary as a way to discredit our scientific establishment.
But those are all side forays, just produce the research.
As a person who values factual and reasoned arguments, you can do no less.
By the way, arguments are not proof. I don't recall that people voted on the existence of electricity or nuclear fission. Nature and physics do not rely on debate as proof of reality.
Your move.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm an American, and I find that the Trotskyites here call anything they don't like - "socialism". It's...... complex, some how.
When Americans say socialism, they usually mean taxes. Typically they disregard how society indirectly provides benefits like a skilled labor pool, infrastructure and other foundations for modern civilization that enabled their company to make millions in profit. .
And yet - at least for my my most vociferous peeps who call anything they disagree with, "socialism" they completely ignore the fact that the soocial security they are collecting is an actual socialist program.
Indeed, the most "conservative guy I know, collects social security, has not paid a medical bill in his adult life, went to college fully paid, and worked for the government his entire life. The way I figure, the evil government he so despises, has shelled out many millions for the guy. The only money he hasn't extracted directly from the guvmint is the interest from the banks where he put their money.
Which is why the "Keep your Government hands off my Medicare crowd: http://economix.blogs.nytimes.... is not conservative at all. They are Trotskyites. They will rail on about being conservative, but nothing is further than the truth.
Hello World!
Hello World!
Hello World!
Hello World!
Hello World!
Hello World!
Hello World!
Hello World!
Hello World!
My guess it they will be training the new generation of slash dotters like, Moo Cow dude, Golden Girls, and hostile person coders.
Typically they disregard how society indirectly provides benefits like a skilled labor pool, infrastructure and other foundations for modern civilization that enabled their company to make millions in profit.
But they don't disregard when society provides boat anchors and albatrosses rather than help. Maybe you shouldn't either.
What is the final solution for Laissez-faire capitalism, anyhow? Round up those who didn't hit life's lottery, and turn them into food for those of us who did?
The poor, the indigent and even the lazy will never disappear form the earth. And the platitudes spewed out by both left and right are lll in nutshells because they belong in them.
Before you pronounce to the world I'm a sociaist, I'm not. I'm a pragmatist, that most hated species that knows that unbridled idealism of any sort inevitably leads to failure.
OS X doesn't suffer from the 'mobilization' of the desktop
That isn't quite true. It is suffering from 'mobilization', and also 'socialization'.
And yet, I use mine the same way as I've used it for years.
No facebook, no twitter, no iCloud - just applications. It works exactly the same way as when they went to 10 - I use only the new features I like. caveat: Spotlight has been ruined.
What they do, is offer options. If I want a Windows 8 sorta interface I can use launchpad. Not that anyone does, because that's gotta be the worst use of desktop space ever - just like W8 - but if someone does like it, it's an option.
So I've been derping around In OSX like I always have, with no weird adjustments to make other than abandoning Spotlight. One example out of the many that other OSs have foisted on their users isn't too bad at all
I never noticed. Of course, I never used KDE or Gnome or some other crappy "modern" window-manager. fvwm has all I need and excellent customization possibilities in addition.
Huh. I like to try out new things. Often the old things are better, but when declaring something as crappy, it's more authoritative to have first hand experience. That's why I keep a sacrificial machine around. It's actually fun, and sometimes you find out that the "smart guys" are full of it.
Yeah, socialists are really really bad about abusing the No True Scotsman fallacy.
I'm not certain if you are agreeing, or proving my point.
Where the hell do you live that welfare/disability pays enough to buy endless beer and meth? I know a couple of people on disability and they have a fuck of a time just eating satisfactorily, little well being able to buy more then a 6 pack of beer once a month. There's also one fuck of a lot of homeless people around and they sure don't look like they're having a great life, especially when the weather turns to shit.
Because someone making a billion a year needs that 800 a month the guy on disability makes. How the hell are billionaires going to create jobs if they can't get over that criticaal threshold started by those stupid greedy sick and handicapped fucks?
Or the guy making 30 K a year, who "will be a billionaire" next year. Good luck.
There is nothing wrong with being wealthy. There is something terribly wrong with the hatred shown toward those less fortunate.
Socialism means that the factories (means of production) belong to the state. This is not the case in Denmark, so your use of the word socialism is ignorant and incorrect.
I'm an American, and I find that the Trotskyites here call anything they don't like - "socialism". It's...... complex, some how.
...and yet we're talking about people being exposed to microbes, which is completely different from viral diseases. Again, how'd you pull that out of your ass?
By following and replying within the context of the conversation thread? You know, explain it to you?
Jesus, who the fuck peed in your Wheaties today?
Football?
It's prettyhard to beat bicycle racing for univerasl doping and drug use.
Explain the cowpox/smallpox thing. Is there actually a correlation there or did you just pull some scienceism out of thin air? Seriously, WTF? Dirty farm air and the development of vaccination have nothing to do with each other unless you want to really reach. I suppose cowpox was contracted by farm workers so there's your brain's connection.
People who contracted cowpox - which is a rather minor illness, were immune from smallpox, which is a major issue. And with the symptoms of smallpox being rather dramatically evident, people made the connection quickly, since the milkmaids and people around the cows had nice skin, not something that looked like the surface of Mercury.
This sounds a bit like the theory that children are less likely to develop allergies to common foods like milk, eggs, wheat, and so on if exposed to them at a young age. I have no idea if that's factual or not, but based on how our bodies adapt and develop immunity to common pathogens, it doesn't seem like such an outrageous theory.
My son would get these red blotchy marks all over when we took him along with us to visit out horse. We talked to his pediatrician about it, to see what could be done, or if we should keep him away from horses. He told us to keep taking him to the barn as long as it was just the splotches. Sure enough, a few more visits, and no more reaction. The doctor said a little dirt and dander is good.
Interestingly enough, after he hit his teens, probably 3/4 of his Ice hockey team was on inhalers for athsma, and often the children of the most affluent. I'm pretty convinced there is some relationship.
Genetics and microbial exposure are part of your health makup.
As in most of it. It's weird, looking back through my family history, teh men tend to live to right around 85 years old, except for accident or war.
My father's generation, with modern medical assistance, better health care, and healthier lifestyle choices, lived to....... 85 years old.
The idea that doing this or that is going to make you live 30 years longer is merely wishful thinking. Moderation in all things isn't dramatic, but it's the truth.
If you're cycling 50 km/day, it is likely that you are making ongoing lifestyle choices that contribute to your health. You probably don't have to attribute those choices to genetics or micro-organisms.
You'll be the healthiest guy in the dementia ward.
It's rather amusing that the biggest chemical enhanced doping sport on earth is used as an example of good health decisions.
Lessee, we have shows about insane hairdressers in LA. We have weird shows about making people run around in the woods without clothing - but in a twist, blur out the tittilating bits. We have shows about the contents of storage units and parking meter attendants, we have shows about idiots who live in teh Alaskan bush, yet seem to know as much about survival in the bush as someone from New York city. We have shows about how people are stupid, and every human advance is because of ancient aliens. We have shows about peole who think that a woman's vagina is a clown car. I gotta stop - but there are hundreds more examples.
The fact is, Television today is simply bottom of the barrel bad!
And the channels that were good at one time have been taken over. The learning channel was once about learning, The history channel once had history, not swamp logging midgets who run a pawn shop in Alaska's north slope.
So no - it isn't too much programming. It's that none of it is worth watchning
Want to keep your luxury car, then spend $5 on a pack of condoms instead.
You don't have to buy a two year supply of them you insensitive clod!
100% of participants also did not get lap dances from a Kardashian.
Causation, correlation, or conspiracy? Choose your own adventure.
Or just good luck.
Not sure why people think that a supreme being should be warm-and-fuzzy.
True enough. I think the idea of a macho god might be palatable.
I'd just prefer him to not be batshit insane. Having read the holy bible, that is pretty evident.
Obviously, the solution is to contract HIV and see if the two balance each other out.
Hesus Christ on a wall wart - that is so fscking rude. Funny as hell, but rude
The problem I see with your "weak women" argument is that you seem to suggest that all of the harassment women in STEM fields is trivial and if that drives you from the field, you are weak.
Wow. It's time for me to just keep quiet about this. No matter how I try to say that women are actually strong, and not weak, I'm wrong. I say they are stronger than the excuses given for them staying out of STEM. It's too confusing to say women are strong, then have people come back to say I'm saying they are weak when I say thyy are not. I give up.
I'll state one last time my thoughts, then go back to the tried and true method of not sharing my opinion.
Real actual sexual harassment should in every case be pursued actively. Perhaps the list of what construes sexual harassment is being expanded beyond reasonable expectations. Because It's a big world, and a lot of people in it, some who are plain nasty. It woud be great if we could protect everyone from jerks. The guy that tried to force my wife to give him oral sex at work has now become the moral equivalent of a dongle joke.
BTW, she aggressively proceed to use the system to destroy his life after that little assault.
Work is often nasty for everyone, men included.
Anyhow, I''m sorry for your experiences. You might actually prove my point about the strength of women, but I'm finished with the matter.
We were supposed to be dead at 6 billion people.
Yeah, but all that means is that the prediction was incorrect, not that the earth can support an infinte number of people.
I can even come up with a scenario in which we might be able to support several times the number of people, if we for some reason decided that that was a good goal.
Imagine if you will, underground hydroponic farms many miles in extent, with vats of algae for plant material, perhaps krill for protein value. Over time, humanity removes all other biocompetition, in order to replace it with human presence. The distribution system then sends this soylent green type material out ot everyone for consumption Water distribution will probably rely on nuclear powered desalinization plants. and a precisely metered system.
We might just be able to get every square foot of liveable land covered with a human being, assuming that disease or our innate tendency to violence doesn't take us out first.
One if it gets angry and whiny like a lefty it's probably a lefty.
Crikey man, are you calling Fox news leftists? I watch it, and there is more whining there than anywhere else . note though, I watch it for the lulz.
Anyway For 50+ years I have been watching prediction of climate doom come to naught.
define doom.
There are some kooks on the AGW side. Do you lump every AGW supporter with the kooks? That would be like calling every anti-AGW adherent stupid because they look out their windows, and it's cold, so much for global warming!
As noted before, I' a pragmatist, you know the one that most everyone hates because I'm not politically reliable. So I don't look at everyone as exactly one way or another, and don't consider people with opinions contrary to my own as the enemy
disclaimer - i do reserve the right to laugh at them on occasion.
You can also toss in the population bomb, eco doom, peak oil all pan out to nothing.
So what you are saying is that one thing proves another? That's an interesting argument.
Now if you want to talk about Ideology and public planning, you need to look at how the enviro nuts stopped California's water system improvements in a state known to have extended droughts.
It doesn't take an eco nut to understand that the California water system was taking water from other areas, exporting it to California, and using it all up, then coming back for more.
The left coast of California has seriously awesome weather.. But it is as close as you can get to a desert, without being a desert. And while the other conditions are good for growing crops, there isn't enough water.
So for many years, California just took water from other states. How much is enough? At this point, there are interests that want the water from the Columbia river. It seems though, that the loacls living there aren't to keen on turning the columbia into the Colorado river take 2.
And that's the problem. It's not sustainable, and California's approach is like getting mugged.
"How much water do you want?"
"How much water do you have?"
These are simple math problems, not leftist ideology. The leftist would say everyone needs to share their water with California because it's to our need
The pragmatist notes that in every case, people who share water with California, lose all their water.
At can be either the third wave "weak woman" model, where some incredibly trivial things can apparently force a young lady who is passionately into programming into dropping it completely.
It's nowhere near as extreme as that most of the time.
I'm male. I was previous at a really crap job. No support, no documentation, lots of pressure. I left and moved to a different industry after about six months. I'm not weak willed or anything like that, I just don't see why I should put up with a crap job and work environment when I can move on and have a much easier, better life somewhere else.
Aren't you making my argument? You left the job because it was for shit, not get out of the field because the job stunk.
The last thing I would say is that women are weak. Which is why the weak woman concept espoused by so many - the woman who will actually abandon a career path based on silly reasons, is so weird. There is absolutely no way that every single job in IT will be perfect, where everyone respects each other, and nary a negative comment is heard. That just isn't how humanity works.
It's worth pointing out that there is significant dissent within the American Physical Society, with several prominent scientists leaving the organization over its unreserved endorsement of CAGW (catastrophic anthropogenic global warming, as opposed to the meaningless catch-all "climate change").
Names please.
I enjoy your factual and well reasoned argument. You truly exemplify the intellectual prowess I have come to expect of the left.
Excellent, a person who says they value fctual and reasoned arguments, and then accuses someone of being on the left. Your facts that prove that?
Well matey - here's a pragmatist, beholden to no ideology, so we gonna have ourselves a factual an well reasoned discussion.
Now you are going to telll me of the peer reviewed documents that show that AGW is incorrect.
And if you use any of your silly "leftists" comments, you lose. Physics has no political outlook. And if you try the old "But no one allows dissenting views" chestnut, you lose. You don't get to use the arguments of perpetual energy kooks and young earth creationists as an argument.
Because the scientist who proves that there is no such thing as AGW will become immediately famous, and likely a Nobel winner, and it doesn't have to be done in the USA, There are enough people out theere who hate the USA, so why aren't they doing the research tht proves the contrary as a way to discredit our scientific establishment.
But those are all side forays, just produce the research.
As a person who values factual and reasoned arguments, you can do no less.
By the way, arguments are not proof. I don't recall that people voted on the existence of electricity or nuclear fission. Nature and physics do not rely on debate as proof of reality. Your move.