The irony is that now we don't have proper representation and we have some of the highest taxes in the world.
Our taxes aren't particularly high for a developed country, and if we aren't properly represented it's because we got what we voted for, or didn't vote.
This will never change until lobbying and donations on a corporate scale are either severely limited or outright made illegal and enforced with harsh punishment.
Thank all the gods that the Supreme Court figured out that campaign contributions don't "necessarily" buy politicians. Otherwise we might be tempted to jump to an uncharitable conclusion, in cases like this.
This or something similar seems to come up every time there is discussion of dark matter: "Dark matter was a lazy fix, instead physicists should realise theories were lacking and come up with a new one instead."
He's probably posting from the USA, where everyone knows more than the experts.
...dark matter eventually turns out to be like luminiferous aether from the 19th century? I don't believe anyone has directly observed dark matter.
We don't "directly observe" much of anything. Is that any reason to doubt the existence of x-rays? That our sun is a huge ball of gas undergoing fusion inside? That dinosaurs were actually living creatures?
Even if you run an experiment in your lab, all you "directly observe" is the photons striking your eyes and the sound pressure waves impinging on your ears.
Science is in the business of making inferences from evidence. We have a curious constellation of astronomical/cosmological evidence, for which dark matter is currently the best inference going. Yeah, we may have to throw it out... but the same can be said about *any* conclusion scientists have ever reached.
But the two are strange bedfellows. Secular atheists are generally on the side of Palestinians, whereas evangelical Christians and Mormons generally take the side of Israel. Why would Christians support Jews and atheists support Hamas? Hell, you tell me. But that's how the world is.
I suspect you're confusing "secular atheist" with "liberal", but even then I don't see where you get the generalization.
Or maybe I do: liberals tend to recognize people's right to exist, but in an environment where there's a concerted effort to dehumanize some group in order to rationalize mistreating them, recognizing their right to exist tends to get mixed up with "on their side".
FWIW, I'm a secular atheist (is there any other kind?), and also a liberal. I object to the way the State of Israel and some Israelis treat Palestinians. I also object to the way certain Palestinian organizations and some Palestinians treat Israelis (and sometimes Jews elsewhere)(and sometimes other Palestinians, who happen to be wrong place / wrong time when the rockets strike or the bombs go off).
Does that make me on someone's side?
As for evangelical Christians and Jews, they (or more accurately: subsets of them) are just taking advantage of each other, and everybody (including the parties involved) are aware of it. The ECs in this charade have subscribed to a "Late Great Planet Earth" fantasy that gives the nation Israel a staring role in their passion play, though hardly a protagonist's role: they're just the guy in the red shirt, who has to die before God can come back. The Jews in the charade are just leveraging the opportunity to build support for the "my Israel, right or wrong" that's already so common among Americans.
At any rate, if you actually have any reason to believe that there is a tendency for "secular atheists" to support Hamas, we'd like to know what that reason is. I suspect that there are a lot of "secular atheists" packing the pews at evangelical assemblies every Sunday morning.
What issue can I use to divide them into two groups, such that one group is 'for' something and the other is 'against'?
It's trivially easy to divide them into two groups, on lots of different issues:
One is "for" electing Romney, the rest are "against".
One is "for" electing Gingrich, the rest are "against".
One is "for" electing Perry, the rest are "against".
etc.
But what's this about "geek issues"? Aren't there some fundamental civic issues that this country has cast aside, that should make a more compelling platform than any "geek issue" you could name?
The Silmarillion was written as a mythological history for England
Have you ever stopped to think how weird it would be if Tolkien had tried to pull a L Ron Hubbard Scientology move and turn the LOTR into a "real religion"?
And call it Fantasology?
FWIW, I *really* like the Silmarillion's creation myth. And it does a superb job of working in memes such as Atlantis, The Seven Dwarves, etc.
OTOH, it gets a bit confusing because he re-uses some of the basic ideas repeatedly.
I have always found Tolkien's books hard to read. (Not enjoyable reading)
The only one I have actually finished was The Hobbit, as it was a relatively short one and seemed a bit lighter than the others. Others I have started but never completed.
That's when I was younger though, maybe I should try those books again now that I'm a middle aged geezer.
I re-read LoTR ~10 years after the first reading, and found it *incredibly* boring.
Ditto with The Mote in God's Eye, which kept me on the edge of my seat the first time through.
I suspect that the reason is that on first reading I was focused on where the story was going, to the near exclusion of everything else. But if you know where the story's going, there has to be good prose, atmosphere, characterization, dialogue... something to keep your interest up.
I can read Jack Vance's whimsical stories again and again and again, because the plot line isn't the whole of it.
The world is full of religions, none of which can offer any better supporting evidence than any of the others. Therefore the only logical positions are to set a low standard of evidence and accept them all, or set a high standard of evidence and reject them all.
However, most of them make claims that contradict the others, so accepting them all isn't logical unless you're willing to accept that reality is inherently contradictory.
Ergo, the only logical position is to reject them all... sometimes known as atheism.
"Scientists" don't always follow science either. With respect to religion the pro- and anti- camps have both let personal biases interfere with the scientific process. For example leading scientists of the day dismissed the big bang theory because it "smelled like creationism". These eminent scientists were biased because the big bang theory was introduced by catholic priest.
And yet it's accepted by almost every scientist today.
That's what makes science difference from other "ways of knowing" - evidence always wins the argument in the end.
Also, I'm curious about how many scientists rejected it because it was introduced by a priest. Almost all of them? A lot of them? A few? One?
"If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual (gay) sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything." - Rick Santorum. Pretty much self-explanatory.
His cynicism turns me on. I wonder if he'd be interested in a gay relationship?
Whenever there is an article pointing out an 'obvious' spy mission, I wonder what they are trying to distract attention away from. If we know what those CIA staffers are doing all day (spying on incomplete space stations...poor bothans)
Or posting to Slashdot with "we're not spying on incomplete space station" replies.
Slashdot Mirror
The irony is that now we don't have proper representation and we have some of the highest taxes in the world.
Our taxes aren't particularly high for a developed country, and if we aren't properly represented it's because we got what we voted for, or didn't vote.
This will never change until lobbying and donations on a corporate scale are either severely limited or outright made illegal and enforced with harsh punishment.
Thank all the gods that the Supreme Court figured out that campaign contributions don't "necessarily" buy politicians. Otherwise we might be tempted to jump to an uncharitable conclusion, in cases like this.
proprietary, centralized social networks or no
The entire history of the internet is one of moving from open and decentralized facilities to proprietary and central authorities.
What's amusing is that these are the companies that are speaking out against SOPA, because "it will destroy the internet as we know it".
Too late now, as it no longer matters if you are paranoid or not.... they are after you anyway.
Wisdom from a bathroom wall, read many years ago:
"The fact that you're paranoid doesn't mean that they're not out to get you."
This or something similar seems to come up every time there is discussion of dark matter: "Dark matter was a lazy fix, instead physicists should realise theories were lacking and come up with a new one instead."
He's probably posting from the USA, where everyone knows more than the experts.
...dark matter eventually turns out to be like luminiferous aether from the 19th century? I don't believe anyone has directly observed dark matter.
We don't "directly observe" much of anything. Is that any reason to doubt the existence of x-rays? That our sun is a huge ball of gas undergoing fusion inside? That dinosaurs were actually living creatures?
Even if you run an experiment in your lab, all you "directly observe" is the photons striking your eyes and the sound pressure waves impinging on your ears.
Science is in the business of making inferences from evidence. We have a curious constellation of astronomical/cosmological evidence, for which dark matter is currently the best inference going. Yeah, we may have to throw it out... but the same can be said about *any* conclusion scientists have ever reached.
But the two are strange bedfellows. Secular atheists are generally on the side of Palestinians, whereas evangelical Christians and Mormons generally take the side of Israel. Why would Christians support Jews and atheists support Hamas? Hell, you tell me. But that's how the world is.
I suspect you're confusing "secular atheist" with "liberal", but even then I don't see where you get the generalization.
Or maybe I do: liberals tend to recognize people's right to exist, but in an environment where there's a concerted effort to dehumanize some group in order to rationalize mistreating them, recognizing their right to exist tends to get mixed up with "on their side".
FWIW, I'm a secular atheist (is there any other kind?), and also a liberal. I object to the way the State of Israel and some Israelis treat Palestinians. I also object to the way certain Palestinian organizations and some Palestinians treat Israelis (and sometimes Jews elsewhere)(and sometimes other Palestinians, who happen to be wrong place / wrong time when the rockets strike or the bombs go off).
Does that make me on someone's side?
As for evangelical Christians and Jews, they (or more accurately: subsets of them) are just taking advantage of each other, and everybody (including the parties involved) are aware of it. The ECs in this charade have subscribed to a "Late Great Planet Earth" fantasy that gives the nation Israel a staring role in their passion play, though hardly a protagonist's role: they're just the guy in the red shirt, who has to die before God can come back. The Jews in the charade are just leveraging the opportunity to build support for the "my Israel, right or wrong" that's already so common among Americans.
At any rate, if you actually have any reason to believe that there is a tendency for "secular atheists" to support Hamas, we'd like to know what that reason is. I suspect that there are a lot of "secular atheists" packing the pews at evangelical assemblies every Sunday morning.
Funny thing is, they are at each other throats at the moment but once they have their candidate they'll endorse him and help him campaigning.
Every 4 years the same humbug.
That's why the incumbent has a built-in advantage. When go into the voting booth, you've heard the other guy trashed by his own party for months.
They're getting kind of rude this year, too.
We make complex things. We are intelligent (to varying degrees). Our own ego says that nature can't do better than us by blind guessing.
We also make simple things. In fact, we deem simplicity as one of the hallmarks of good design.
...the story where they discovered/detected Dark Matter?
Apparently. But if you googlize cluster dark matter
you can start catching up on your reading.
Just admit it, you wanted a politics flamewar on /. for some entertainment, and since flamewars are page view magnets the editors happily oblige.
Usually they save them for weekends. Monday is probably the high-traffic day.
What issue can I use to divide them into two groups, such that one group is 'for' something and the other is 'against'?
It's trivially easy to divide them into two groups, on lots of different issues:
One is "for" electing Romney, the rest are "against".
One is "for" electing Gingrich, the rest are "against".
One is "for" electing Perry, the rest are "against".
etc.
But what's this about "geek issues"? Aren't there some fundamental civic issues that this country has cast aside, that should make a more compelling platform than any "geek issue" you could name?
Only someone doped up on some serious drugs could come up with Tom Bombadil - the Jar Jar Binks of literature.
Come on, TomBom? Jar Jar? Jar could barely speak English, but Tom spouts forth such sweet lyrics:
Hey dol! merry dol! ring a dong dillo!
Ring a dong! hop along! fal lal the willow!
Tom Bom, jolly Tom, Tom Bombadillo!
OK, so it Bombadil, not Tolkien, who was on the dope.
Meh. I think we know who had the last laugh there.
Peter Jackson?
No, Gollum. After he fell into the volcano the Dark Lord made him a spiffy black suit, and he went on to conquer most of the galaxy.
His son was a real dork, though. But his daughter was h-h-hot.
The Silmarillion was written as a mythological history for England
Have you ever stopped to think how weird it would be if Tolkien had tried to pull a L Ron Hubbard Scientology move and turn the LOTR into a "real religion"?
And call it Fantasology?
FWIW, I *really* like the Silmarillion's creation myth. And it does a superb job of working in memes such as Atlantis, The Seven Dwarves, etc.
OTOH, it gets a bit confusing because he re-uses some of the basic ideas repeatedly.
I have always found Tolkien's books hard to read. (Not enjoyable reading)
The only one I have actually finished was The Hobbit, as it was a relatively short one and seemed a bit lighter than the others. Others I have started but never completed.
That's when I was younger though, maybe I should try those books again now that I'm a middle aged geezer.
I re-read LoTR ~10 years after the first reading, and found it *incredibly* boring.
Ditto with The Mote in God's Eye, which kept me on the edge of my seat the first time through.
I suspect that the reason is that on first reading I was focused on where the story was going, to the near exclusion of everything else. But if you know where the story's going, there has to be good prose, atmosphere, characterization, dialogue... something to keep your interest up.
I can read Jack Vance's whimsical stories again and again and again, because the plot line isn't the whole of it.
Right, but it's still a baffling thought to imagine increasing orders of complexity with no intelligent input. Still baffles me.
Why?
What is the link between complexity and intelligence?
The only logical position is agnosticism.
I disagree.
The world is full of religions, none of which can offer any better supporting evidence than any of the others. Therefore the only logical positions are to set a low standard of evidence and accept them all, or set a high standard of evidence and reject them all.
However, most of them make claims that contradict the others, so accepting them all isn't logical unless you're willing to accept that reality is inherently contradictory.
Ergo, the only logical position is to reject them all... sometimes known as atheism.
"Scientists" don't always follow science either. With respect to religion the pro- and anti- camps have both let personal biases interfere with the scientific process. For example leading scientists of the day dismissed the big bang theory because it "smelled like creationism". These eminent scientists were biased because the big bang theory was introduced by catholic priest.
And yet it's accepted by almost every scientist today.
That's what makes science difference from other "ways of knowing" - evidence always wins the argument in the end.
Also, I'm curious about how many scientists rejected it because it was introduced by a priest. Almost all of them? A lot of them? A few? One?
inb4 anyone mentions Creationism.
That's nothing... you were even nb4 anyone claimed "first post".
Fine print:
Unless you stockholders' monetary interests are at stake.
"If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual (gay) sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything." - Rick Santorum. Pretty much self-explanatory.
His cynicism turns me on. I wonder if he'd be interested in a gay relationship?
Whenever there is an article pointing out an 'obvious' spy mission, I wonder what they are trying to distract attention away from. If we know what those CIA staffers are doing all day (spying on incomplete space stations...poor bothans)
Or posting to Slashdot with "we're not spying on incomplete space station" replies.
No, they have better things to do than stare at an empty space station - like the Middle East for example.
Hard to imagine that the USA doesn't already have a purpose-build spy satellite in geostationary orbit above the Middle East.
Or a dozen.
The orbital plane has to do with the launch location and time, as well as maneuvers made to change the plane.
When you say "orbital plane", do you mean the orbital plane or the orbital plane's orbital plane?
Also, does the orbital plane's orbital plane have its own orbital plane, too?