They are also under the influence of all the masses around them for their entire existence, like everything else. That's why all the Universe's matter is not clumped together in an infinitely massive, infinitesimally small point, but is spread through the Universe in wisps, clumps and intertwined folds. They're also subject to electrostatic repulsion, and the effects of the other fundamental forces, among the rest of matter, space, energy and other forms of what exists not yet categorized.
Another type of matter that differs in that it doesn't absorb or emit light, but is detected by the effects of its mass, is bigger than the particle that implements mass itself? A type of matter is bigger than the the instance of a fundamental parameter of existence? No it's not.
Some explanations of dark matter say that most of the gravitational effects are from dark energy, not condensed into matter. But if dark matter differs from other matter in that it doesn't absorb or emit light, how does dark energy differ from other energy? Energy doesn't absorb or emit light, so how is dark energy different? Unless they mean that it doesn't get absorbed or emitted as light, the way other energy does (ie. photon beams). Without that property it seems rather unlike other energy, enough that it's not really energy.
And if it is dark energy, then where is all the cold, dark info? The next more subtle form of existants.
This is the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. Paul (either of them) is a libertarian. Libertarians are really corporate anarchists, some motivated by petty local exploitations of groups vulnerable to local elites. There are no "real libertarians" as you'd probably define them, because libertarianism is a fallacy that ignores the corporate/warlord thrusts into the vacuum libertarianism creates. Every time, around the world, without exception.
Your "real libertarian" might exist in Sim City, but not in the real world. It's a fantasy. A dangerous one when it's pumped at us to deprive us of the power to create government to protect our rights. It's downright un-American.
The only power stopping monopoly in every walk of life is the power of the people together to stop it before the monopolist gets perpetuating power. In the US we form a government to protect our rights, including equal access to markets and everything that flows from it.
When a city makes money off a franchise fee, it depends on how it spends the fee to see whether consumers win. Spending its fraction of the budget on the fraction that is the police, courts and rulemaking all benefit the consumer by protecting them form the abuse of the franchisees.
Sure when government is run wrong it's a problem. But just look at the reality: corporations are inherently tyrannical, fetishizing property over people. That is their purpose. They will only rarely benefit anyone but their owners, except the minimum benefit to their customers. The US government is mostly helpful, plus somewhat inert, and since it's so big (governing a third of a billion basically rich and powerful people) somewhat harmful in often devastating ways. But the harm is the aberration, not the rule as it is with corporations. And it's the corporate influence in government that drives most of the harm, like our wars and economic discriminations.
Very orthodox Jews, like Chhasidic Jews, are among the most highly authoritarian people on the planet. Women are property. Their cult leaders' claims of tradition and "what god really meant" are ironclad laws. Absolute conformity, whether in appearance or in dogma, is mandatory.
It's true that most American Jews are secular, mostly of the assimilated Reform sect, and prioritize justice and equality, social compassion. But Jews aren't any different from any other large(ish) group: they've got their assholes, including their institutional assholes.
"Following the movement"? So that's the Libertarian way of asking us to ignore what they've done, and concentrate on what they say instead. Sucker nation!
Except that Paul is the "libertarian" we're talking about, and he's obviously actually a Republican, and in practice always votes with Republicans to ban personal choices or enforce others.
The Libertarian platform is mere propaganda. You want to see what they believe, watch what they do. What they believe is the supremacy of corporate anarchy.
Just because people disagree with you (and with the other people who unthinkingly agree with you) doesn't make them "groupthink". Spouting nonsense like "to the left" is groupthink. Calling him "Dr. Paul" when he's "Representative Paul" outside his cult is groupthink.
Obama's executive record features some of the most and largest legislation ever passed by any president. It includes preventing the economic collapse still grinding most other places in the world. It includes preserving America's industrial base in carmaking. It includes returning the stock market to its value before his predecessors wrecked the economy.
Whether you like what he did or not, that's not a "paperweight".
You Republicans will say anything about "the other team". Which is exactly what got us all into this mess.
You read something different. The article is about how the way Gates hands out the money lets Gates abuse people, and leverages it far more than just his own money. You also don't know anything about the many charities that are free money that does good work.
No, you're just blurting out whatever your ideology tells you, with no actual knowledge or experience of African healthcare, government or economy. Nor do you evidently care about African people, since you're more interested in standing against them out of ideology than just looking into it before defending the people being harmed.
No, that's not what Edweek's writer is complaining about. They're complaining that Gates' foundation is doing quite a lot of harm for private benefit. It specifically points out how African doctors, not dictators, are watching patients die because Gates forces healthcare to work only on what benefits Gates, rather than any of the other medicine that could save lives. Gates sucks all the oxygen out of the room, and people literally die from it.
I don't see how you can miss the many examples the article points out. You really should either read it again, or explain what vested interest (financially or ideologically) you have that makes you unable to notice it.
Donor nations were shocked last month, when UNICEF disclosed that it has been forced to pay artificially elevated prices for vaccines under an arrangement called the Advance Market Commitment, which was brokered by Gates Foundation-dominated GAVI alliance, to greatly increase drug company profits. Stakeholders also worry that industry reports of particular vaccine's effectiveness might be skewed by marketing goals.
That part of the article, just one point in it, says that Gates is enriching himself at the expense of the people his charity serves. There are many other points about how his charity's work is counterproductive.
You're an anonymous coward. I say you work for the Gates Foundation.
Slashdot Mirror
They are also under the influence of all the masses around them for their entire existence, like everything else. That's why all the Universe's matter is not clumped together in an infinitely massive, infinitesimally small point, but is spread through the Universe in wisps, clumps and intertwined folds. They're also subject to electrostatic repulsion, and the effects of the other fundamental forces, among the rest of matter, space, energy and other forms of what exists not yet categorized.
You're stupid.
They totally convert into the equivalent mass of ballpoint pens you have that you have but never bought.
Another type of matter that differs in that it doesn't absorb or emit light, but is detected by the effects of its mass, is bigger than the particle that implements mass itself? A type of matter is bigger than the the instance of a fundamental parameter of existence? No it's not.
Another case of the professor's inability to understand his subject lowering an inventive student's grade.
Some explanations of dark matter say that most of the gravitational effects are from dark energy, not condensed into matter. But if dark matter differs from other matter in that it doesn't absorb or emit light, how does dark energy differ from other energy? Energy doesn't absorb or emit light, so how is dark energy different? Unless they mean that it doesn't get absorbed or emitted as light, the way other energy does (ie. photon beams). Without that property it seems rather unlike other energy, enough that it's not really energy.
And if it is dark energy, then where is all the cold, dark info? The next more subtle form of existants.
This is the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. Paul (either of them) is a libertarian. Libertarians are really corporate anarchists, some motivated by petty local exploitations of groups vulnerable to local elites. There are no "real libertarians" as you'd probably define them, because libertarianism is a fallacy that ignores the corporate/warlord thrusts into the vacuum libertarianism creates. Every time, around the world, without exception.
Your "real libertarian" might exist in Sim City, but not in the real world. It's a fantasy. A dangerous one when it's pumped at us to deprive us of the power to create government to protect our rights. It's downright un-American.
The only power stopping monopoly in every walk of life is the power of the people together to stop it before the monopolist gets perpetuating power. In the US we form a government to protect our rights, including equal access to markets and everything that flows from it.
When a city makes money off a franchise fee, it depends on how it spends the fee to see whether consumers win. Spending its fraction of the budget on the fraction that is the police, courts and rulemaking all benefit the consumer by protecting them form the abuse of the franchisees.
Sure when government is run wrong it's a problem. But just look at the reality: corporations are inherently tyrannical, fetishizing property over people. That is their purpose. They will only rarely benefit anyone but their owners, except the minimum benefit to their customers. The US government is mostly helpful, plus somewhat inert, and since it's so big (governing a third of a billion basically rich and powerful people) somewhat harmful in often devastating ways. But the harm is the aberration, not the rule as it is with corporations. And it's the corporate influence in government that drives most of the harm, like our wars and economic discriminations.
Very orthodox Jews, like Chhasidic Jews, are among the most highly authoritarian people on the planet. Women are property. Their cult leaders' claims of tradition and "what god really meant" are ironclad laws. Absolute conformity, whether in appearance or in dogma, is mandatory.
It's true that most American Jews are secular, mostly of the assimilated Reform sect, and prioritize justice and equality, social compassion. But Jews aren't any different from any other large(ish) group: they've got their assholes, including their institutional assholes.
Ron Paul's newsletters carried many racist and other bigoted screeds. Guess that's not convenient to your propaganda model.
"Following the movement"? So that's the Libertarian way of asking us to ignore what they've done, and concentrate on what they say instead. Sucker nation!
My idea of freedom includes the people joining together to protect ourselves from warlords and corporate officers (or both simultaneously).
Your idea of freedom is Mad Max.
Except that Paul is the "libertarian" we're talking about, and he's obviously actually a Republican, and in practice always votes with Republicans to ban personal choices or enforce others.
The Libertarian platform is mere propaganda. You want to see what they believe, watch what they do. What they believe is the supremacy of corporate anarchy.
You don't know what you're talking about when you invoke "Godwin".
Bush and Romney's fundraising have your contact info because Ron Paul sold it to them for cash (and maybe some political favors).
What else would you expect? It's a free market, just like you demand.
BTW, Romney and Bush don't get free postage, because though they're obviously lifelong politicians, they're not actually part of the government.
No, they prevent ISPs and their corporate sponsors (or foes) from limiting Internet traffic based on their corporate whims.
You're just lying again. Like any Republican - er, "Libertarian".
You "suspect", so you're too lazy to look yourself, but you want them to provide the analysis, though you support Paul anyway?
Republican zombies are the lamest.
Keeping the car manufacturing business.
You're not holding your breath, either. You child Republicans really don't have many tricks.
Just because people disagree with you (and with the other people who unthinkingly agree with you) doesn't make them "groupthink". Spouting nonsense like "to the left" is groupthink. Calling him "Dr. Paul" when he's "Representative Paul" outside his cult is groupthink.
Obama's executive record features some of the most and largest legislation ever passed by any president. It includes preventing the economic collapse still grinding most other places in the world. It includes preserving America's industrial base in carmaking. It includes returning the stock market to its value before his predecessors wrecked the economy.
Whether you like what he did or not, that's not a "paperweight".
You Republicans will say anything about "the other team". Which is exactly what got us all into this mess.
You read something different. The article is about how the way Gates hands out the money lets Gates abuse people, and leverages it far more than just his own money. You also don't know anything about the many charities that are free money that does good work.
No, you're just blurting out whatever your ideology tells you, with no actual knowledge or experience of African healthcare, government or economy. Nor do you evidently care about African people, since you're more interested in standing against them out of ideology than just looking into it before defending the people being harmed.
No, that's not what Edweek's writer is complaining about. They're complaining that Gates' foundation is doing quite a lot of harm for private benefit. It specifically points out how African doctors, not dictators, are watching patients die because Gates forces healthcare to work only on what benefits Gates, rather than any of the other medicine that could save lives. Gates sucks all the oxygen out of the room, and people literally die from it.
I don't see how you can miss the many examples the article points out. You really should either read it again, or explain what vested interest (financially or ideologically) you have that makes you unable to notice it.
That part of the article, just one point in it, says that Gates is enriching himself at the expense of the people his charity serves. There are many other points about how his charity's work is counterproductive.
You're an anonymous coward. I say you work for the Gates Foundation.
Murderers provide lots of jobs too. Many jobs are worse than unemployment.