additionally, there are many knives out to get wikileaks, not just the usa. if you removed all american pressure on wikileaks, it would still be under massive attack
hundreds of thousands massacred while diplomat assholes argue about legalistic wording. it's like trying to steer a supertanker to make a 90 degree angle
i agree 100%. with the addendum that the security council be reformed to better represent the actual world. india and brazil in, no brainer. britain or france transferring its seat to the EU, the other seat disappearing
it's retarded that there are 2 security council seats in europe (3 if you say russia is part of europe), but that's historically accurate in terms of power. emphasis: HISTORICALLY accurate. eventually, indonesia/ ASEAN and an african (nigeria) and a middle eastern power (egypt) should get a seat as well
this leaves out countries like japan and australia and canada and mexico that are deserving. then there are globally undeserving countries that are regionally powerhouses that will feel left out: iran, venezuela, new zealand, pakistan, south africa, argentina, etc
perhaps the entire security council should be reformed so that regional economic consolidations are represented on the security council instead. because regional economic consolidations (EU, ASEAN, NAFTA, etc) are the future power blocs of the world anyways
the UN is ineffective. it is an expensive bureaucracy good for debating the exact wording of pronouncements that are always carefully worded to not offend anyone, including those who are actual perpetrators of crimes in this world. every good cause and good instinct is mired down in the structure of the UN, in which those with vested interests can block anything and everything, and they do. all countries represent themselves there so as to do exactly that: protect their interests, which are always balanced by someone else's. so nothing gets done. the UN is a colossal expensive painful exercise in stasis.
if the UN were given control of the internet, nothing would change. because member countries would merely block every effort to do anything, no matter how innocuous
the UN needs teeth. meaning: resolutions should take effect with only a majority vote, rather than 100% consensus. until then, the UN is a joke, and no one should consider it a threat to anything, good or bad
we can't actually READ these texts... drum roll please... that in most cases no one can get their hands on anyways, they are so obscure. because someone might lose money, theoretically, THAT THEY ALREADY AREN'T MAKING. however, if these texts were made freely available, there would be renewed interest in some of these obscure works and someone would definitely make ancillary revenues off of them
google is providing free exposure for rights holders and grandchildren of authors (ON WHAT MORAL BASIS DO GRANDCHILDREN DESERVE ANYTHING IN THIS RETARDED COPYRIGHT SYSTEM) of obscure works, which will certainly result in new revenues. but no! we have to keep these musty volumes locked up because it is better to earn no money than have money "stolen" from you that doesn't exist, stolen as in FREE ADVERTISING
it's greed so incredibly stupid, it hurts its own bottom line
intellectual property law has to die. i know it is hard to get done, but intellectually property law is really a sick fucking joke
"the definition of "science" does not universally require tested hypotheses"
then you simply don't know a fucking thing about what you are talking about, so shut your ignorant pie hole
i'm glad you have a free form air head definition of what science is. good for you, air head. luckily your definition only defines the borders of your ignorance, not what science ACTUALLY FUCKING IS MORON
you don't get to unilaterally redefine what science is and win anything other than derision
stop watching red dawn and start reading your history books, you dumbass. spain, italy, germany: fascism was a nationalist, corporatist movement. you know, wrapping yourself in the flag, claiming you're a "real" american, and everyone else should be shot. THAT'S how fascism starts in the history books: nationalist xenophobic thugs, not a labor movement
The whole point of civil society is that force of words, not force of arms, prevails. There is no need for a gun in civil society. The force of your word should be all you need. Those who seek force of arms, rather than force of their words, betray a weakness of character.
Force of arms is only necessary when civil society breaks down. And one certain way to force the breakdown of civil society is with violent force.
Ideological, heavily armed groups are self-fulfilling prophecy when it comes to fear of fascism: they are the conduits through which it happens, even if they don't realize it, they are the enablers.
When you are challenged, in a civil society, you reach for your word. When you are challenged, in a society predicated on violence, you reach for your gun. Fascism is all about violent force, rather than force of reason. The gun is not necessary to run a democracy. It is necessary to run fascism.
It is strange and sad to me that some look to the gun, the enabler of fascism, as their salvation from it, when the force of their words is their only real salvation, in a democracy.
if and when it becomes testable, and then, if and when it is supported by observation, THEN string theory becomes science
is any of that unclear to you?
if not, there's nothing to talk about. furthermore, i'm not interested in appearing like a nice person to you. i don't really care about your feelings, so stop talking about them
there is no such thing as a rational discussion with you. your political partisanship has devoured your coherent thinking apparatus
i don't think i will convince you of the obvious fucking truth in this comment thread. then again, i don't think anyone ever will or can. you've latched onto the idea obama is not a citizen, as stupid and crazy as believing in the tooth fairy or that cameras steal a piece of your soul, and nothing will shake your convictions and beliefs, certainly not reality or evidence or proof
bon voyage, wackjob. enjoy your trip into the uncharted waters of irrationality, i'm not going there with you
The proof of his citizenship or lack thereof is not the issue with someone like you. The issue with you is that you have an insane belief stuck in your head, that Obama is not a citizen, and nothing will shake it out of your head. The proof was shown. You want more proof. If that further proof is shown, you will find some other fantastic reason why you need yet more proof. If it is not shown, it's part of the "conspiracy." People are not responding to your requests because you've found "the truth" (rather than people just don't want to waste their time with your shenanigans anymore). It's all very predictable how the mind of a paranoid schizophrenic works when they've stumbled upon "the truth."
Your "concerns" are insulting, ignorant, contrived, and beneath any sane person's time. The issue is over. The case is closed. Completely. Totally. Time to move on and find some new conspiracy theory for your weak mind to obsess over. There is one valid reply for your request for more proof: "shut up and stop wasting our time."
But don't worry about me. I'm obviously one of "them" (dut DUT DUHHHH).
it's worse than that. if the usa ever does fall under the boot of fascism, that fascism will start with a committed group of heavily armed partisans. when i hear about heavily armed ideologues running around the woods, i don't think of protection from fascism, i think of the soil in which fascism grows
your request for further documentation is insulting. it is not necessary to denigrate yourself and satisfy the irrational and unsatisfiable demands of people who will latch onto the slightest of perceptions to justify the most insane beliefs, like: obama isn't a citizen
obama not being a citizen, or 9/11 was an inside job, or a number of other insane beliefs (we didn't really land on the moon, fdr knew of pearl harbor beforehand, etc): these exist in people who have weak minds, and are unable to process aspects of reality that collide with their beliefs. so rather than change their beliefs, since this is too cognitively difficult for them, they will latch onto the most absurd and loopy of story lines to justify their continued faith in a false belief. because it is just too difficult for their weak mind to rethink their false assumptions about life
obama is a citizen of the usa. really. it has been proven satisfactorily. really. to continue to indulge the idea that he is not a citizen is at best the sign of a weak mind, at worst, the sign of serious mental unhealth
it's not a labor issue. the french will burn down their cities on any minor issue having to do with labor laws
likewise, americans don't consider themselves free until everyone is walking around with unconcealed submachine guns. labor issues? not so much a concern
all nationalities have their quirky interpretation of what "free" means
what do you mean "hard evidence"? it is not my duty to disprove string theory is science. it is someone else's duty to PROVE string theory is science. that has not been done. until that is done, it simply is NOT science
proof or testable hypothesis. if something is not testable YOU ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT SCIENCE. it's as simple as that
and that's not semantics. i can call a mountain lion a type of dog, and when you say "that's not true", is it valid if i respond "well, you're just engaging in a silly pedantic exercise in semantics." what? no i'm not, i'm applying the DEFINITION of what science IS. likewise a mountain lion is not a dog BY DEFINITION. that's not quibbling about semantics!
your attitude is like this: i say the transmutation of bread into flesh at catholic mass is science. and then you say it isn't science. i reply "well, you need to get hard evidence for your claim that transmutation is not a science." what?!
it's not my responsibility to disprove an untestable claim. it is the job of proponents of the untestable claim to TEST it and PROVE it and therefore make it a scientific theory. THAT HAS NOT BEEN DONE
"I believe the contrary, that general relativity was science even before being proven."
and I believe in the tooth fairy. who cares what I believe? who cares what you believe? BELIEF IS NOT SCIENCE. i think you are in way over your head. you just don't even understand what science is
THIS is science: an observation, then hypothesis, then a test, then a theory. THAT'S SCIENCE. so before a hypothesis is tested it is NOT science. science is the bulk of hypotheses that have stood the rigor of testing. NOTHING ELSE IS SCIENCE
so i'm sorry, but before general relativity was tested, it was NOT science. as soon as it passed tests, supporting the hypothesis, it became theory and therefore it became science. really, that's how it works
so i'm glad you believe it was science before it was tested. what is that supposed to even mean?! why do you think what you "believe" has any meaning? science has nothing to do with belief!
with string theory, we have a theory, without any ability to test it. it therefore is not science. you have passion, you have faith, you have belief. YOU DO NOT HAVE SCIENCE
You make a hypothesis based on evidence. Then you take your hypothesis and test it. With string theory we have fantastic stories in the ether that are untestable. String theory therefore exists outside the realm of science.
If you cannot test a statement, that statement, by definition of what science is, is not science. You can say "well they can't test it YET." Yes, they can't test warp drives and light sabers yet either, but I won't call those things science, I'll call them science fiction. Of course, science fiction today can become science tomorrow, but there's no license in jumping the gun.
If you don't like the descriptor "religion" that's ok. But surely you can agree with me that string theory is not science.
So how about we agree on the descriptor "science fiction"? Because string theory is as useful to the genuine science of physics as "Star Trek" or "Star Wars". (And some fans of those stories can be fairly compared to religious fanatics, but i digress).
String theory is a passion, a faith, an interesting story. But it's not science.
Slashdot Mirror
the usa doesn't control the internet. icann does
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICANN
get your facts straight
additionally, there are many knives out to get wikileaks, not just the usa. if you removed all american pressure on wikileaks, it would still be under massive attack
yes, who could forget rwanda in 1994
hundreds of thousands massacred while diplomat assholes argue about legalistic wording. it's like trying to steer a supertanker to make a 90 degree angle
i agree 100%. with the addendum that the security council be reformed to better represent the actual world. india and brazil in, no brainer. britain or france transferring its seat to the EU, the other seat disappearing
it's retarded that there are 2 security council seats in europe (3 if you say russia is part of europe), but that's historically accurate in terms of power. emphasis: HISTORICALLY accurate. eventually, indonesia/ ASEAN and an african (nigeria) and a middle eastern power (egypt) should get a seat as well
this leaves out countries like japan and australia and canada and mexico that are deserving. then there are globally undeserving countries that are regionally powerhouses that will feel left out: iran, venezuela, new zealand, pakistan, south africa, argentina, etc
perhaps the entire security council should be reformed so that regional economic consolidations are represented on the security council instead. because regional economic consolidations (EU, ASEAN, NAFTA, etc) are the future power blocs of the world anyways
the UN is ineffective. it is an expensive bureaucracy good for debating the exact wording of pronouncements that are always carefully worded to not offend anyone, including those who are actual perpetrators of crimes in this world. every good cause and good instinct is mired down in the structure of the UN, in which those with vested interests can block anything and everything, and they do. all countries represent themselves there so as to do exactly that: protect their interests, which are always balanced by someone else's. so nothing gets done. the UN is a colossal expensive painful exercise in stasis.
if the UN were given control of the internet, nothing would change. because member countries would merely block every effort to do anything, no matter how innocuous
the UN needs teeth. meaning: resolutions should take effect with only a majority vote, rather than 100% consensus. until then, the UN is a joke, and no one should consider it a threat to anything, good or bad
answer: anaesthesiologists
as with your accountants, these are the guys who have the most education about psychopharmacology and the biochemistry of addition
which tells us something about human nature: education is really not that much of a protection against base human weaknesses
it doesn't matter, it's retarded either way
we can't actually READ these texts... drum roll please... that in most cases no one can get their hands on anyways, they are so obscure. because someone might lose money, theoretically, THAT THEY ALREADY AREN'T MAKING. however, if these texts were made freely available, there would be renewed interest in some of these obscure works and someone would definitely make ancillary revenues off of them
google is providing free exposure for rights holders and grandchildren of authors (ON WHAT MORAL BASIS DO GRANDCHILDREN DESERVE ANYTHING IN THIS RETARDED COPYRIGHT SYSTEM) of obscure works, which will certainly result in new revenues. but no! we have to keep these musty volumes locked up because it is better to earn no money than have money "stolen" from you that doesn't exist, stolen as in FREE ADVERTISING
it's greed so incredibly stupid, it hurts its own bottom line
intellectual property law has to die. i know it is hard to get done, but intellectually property law is really a sick fucking joke
"the definition of "science" does not universally require tested hypotheses"
then you simply don't know a fucking thing about what you are talking about, so shut your ignorant pie hole
i'm glad you have a free form air head definition of what science is. good for you, air head. luckily your definition only defines the borders of your ignorance, not what science ACTUALLY FUCKING IS MORON
you don't get to unilaterally redefine what science is and win anything other than derision
you're unhappy because idle is interesting
slashdot is idiotic, because idle is NOT idiotic
and yes, i agree: i think the concept of being "idiotic" figures heavily in the formation of your opinion
stop watching red dawn and start reading your history books, you dumbass. spain, italy, germany: fascism was a nationalist, corporatist movement. you know, wrapping yourself in the flag, claiming you're a "real" american, and everyone else should be shot. THAT'S how fascism starts in the history books: nationalist xenophobic thugs, not a labor movement
and the whole point is, those protofascists, today, they are stocking up on guns. so you tell me who are our saviors and who are our villains?
something tells me these guys are coming back
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinkerton_National_Detective_Agency
called "blackwater security"
The whole point of civil society is that force of words, not force of arms, prevails. There is no need for a gun in civil society. The force of your word should be all you need. Those who seek force of arms, rather than force of their words, betray a weakness of character.
Force of arms is only necessary when civil society breaks down. And one certain way to force the breakdown of civil society is with violent force.
Ideological, heavily armed groups are self-fulfilling prophecy when it comes to fear of fascism: they are the conduits through which it happens, even if they don't realize it, they are the enablers.
When you are challenged, in a civil society, you reach for your word. When you are challenged, in a society predicated on violence, you reach for your gun. Fascism is all about violent force, rather than force of reason. The gun is not necessary to run a democracy. It is necessary to run fascism.
It is strange and sad to me that some look to the gun, the enabler of fascism, as their salvation from it, when the force of their words is their only real salvation, in a democracy.
string theory is not science
it is currently an untestable hypothesis
if and when it becomes testable, and then, if and when it is supported by observation, THEN string theory becomes science
is any of that unclear to you?
if not, there's nothing to talk about. furthermore, i'm not interested in appearing like a nice person to you. i don't really care about your feelings, so stop talking about them
it's like arguing with a creationist
there is no such thing as a rational discussion with you. your political partisanship has devoured your coherent thinking apparatus
i don't think i will convince you of the obvious fucking truth in this comment thread. then again, i don't think anyone ever will or can. you've latched onto the idea obama is not a citizen, as stupid and crazy as believing in the tooth fairy or that cameras steal a piece of your soul, and nothing will shake your convictions and beliefs, certainly not reality or evidence or proof
bon voyage, wackjob. enjoy your trip into the uncharted waters of irrationality, i'm not going there with you
a mountain lion is not a dog
string theory is not science
it is currently an untestable hypothesis
if and when it becomes testable, and then, if and when it is supported by observation, THEN string theory becomes science
is any of that unclear to you?
The proof of his citizenship or lack thereof is not the issue with someone like you. The issue with you is that you have an insane belief stuck in your head, that Obama is not a citizen, and nothing will shake it out of your head. The proof was shown. You want more proof. If that further proof is shown, you will find some other fantastic reason why you need yet more proof. If it is not shown, it's part of the "conspiracy." People are not responding to your requests because you've found "the truth" (rather than people just don't want to waste their time with your shenanigans anymore). It's all very predictable how the mind of a paranoid schizophrenic works when they've stumbled upon "the truth."
Your "concerns" are insulting, ignorant, contrived, and beneath any sane person's time. The issue is over. The case is closed. Completely. Totally. Time to move on and find some new conspiracy theory for your weak mind to obsess over. There is one valid reply for your request for more proof: "shut up and stop wasting our time."
But don't worry about me. I'm obviously one of "them" (dut DUT DUHHHH).
Give it up, wackjob.
it's worse than that. if the usa ever does fall under the boot of fascism, that fascism will start with a committed group of heavily armed partisans. when i hear about heavily armed ideologues running around the woods, i don't think of protection from fascism, i think of the soil in which fascism grows
your request for further documentation is insulting. it is not necessary to denigrate yourself and satisfy the irrational and unsatisfiable demands of people who will latch onto the slightest of perceptions to justify the most insane beliefs, like: obama isn't a citizen
obama not being a citizen, or 9/11 was an inside job, or a number of other insane beliefs (we didn't really land on the moon, fdr knew of pearl harbor beforehand, etc): these exist in people who have weak minds, and are unable to process aspects of reality that collide with their beliefs. so rather than change their beliefs, since this is too cognitively difficult for them, they will latch onto the most absurd and loopy of story lines to justify their continued faith in a false belief. because it is just too difficult for their weak mind to rethink their false assumptions about life
obama is a citizen of the usa. really. it has been proven satisfactorily. really. to continue to indulge the idea that he is not a citizen is at best the sign of a weak mind, at worst, the sign of serious mental unhealth
do you think this story will make fox news?
it's not a labor issue. the french will burn down their cities on any minor issue having to do with labor laws
likewise, americans don't consider themselves free until everyone is walking around with unconcealed submachine guns. labor issues? not so much a concern
all nationalities have their quirky interpretation of what "free" means
what do you mean "hard evidence"? it is not my duty to disprove string theory is science. it is someone else's duty to PROVE string theory is science. that has not been done. until that is done, it simply is NOT science
proof or testable hypothesis. if something is not testable YOU ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT SCIENCE. it's as simple as that
and that's not semantics. i can call a mountain lion a type of dog, and when you say "that's not true", is it valid if i respond "well, you're just engaging in a silly pedantic exercise in semantics." what? no i'm not, i'm applying the DEFINITION of what science IS. likewise a mountain lion is not a dog BY DEFINITION. that's not quibbling about semantics!
your attitude is like this: i say the transmutation of bread into flesh at catholic mass is science. and then you say it isn't science. i reply "well, you need to get hard evidence for your claim that transmutation is not a science." what?!
it's not my responsibility to disprove an untestable claim. it is the job of proponents of the untestable claim to TEST it and PROVE it and therefore make it a scientific theory. THAT HAS NOT BEEN DONE
"I believe the contrary, that general relativity was science even before being proven."
and I believe in the tooth fairy. who cares what I believe? who cares what you believe? BELIEF IS NOT SCIENCE. i think you are in way over your head. you just don't even understand what science is
THIS is science: an observation, then hypothesis, then a test, then a theory. THAT'S SCIENCE. so before a hypothesis is tested it is NOT science. science is the bulk of hypotheses that have stood the rigor of testing. NOTHING ELSE IS SCIENCE
so i'm sorry, but before general relativity was tested, it was NOT science. as soon as it passed tests, supporting the hypothesis, it became theory and therefore it became science. really, that's how it works
so i'm glad you believe it was science before it was tested. what is that supposed to even mean?! why do you think what you "believe" has any meaning? science has nothing to do with belief!
with string theory, we have a theory, without any ability to test it. it therefore is not science. you have passion, you have faith, you have belief. YOU DO NOT HAVE SCIENCE
"By that reasoning general relativity was not science when it was proposed, but became science when tested a few years later."
yes. exactly. and your problem?
You make a hypothesis based on evidence. Then you take your hypothesis and test it. With string theory we have fantastic stories in the ether that are untestable. String theory therefore exists outside the realm of science.
If you cannot test a statement, that statement, by definition of what science is, is not science. You can say "well they can't test it YET." Yes, they can't test warp drives and light sabers yet either, but I won't call those things science, I'll call them science fiction. Of course, science fiction today can become science tomorrow, but there's no license in jumping the gun.
They do. And I'm not confused on that matter. You are.
If you don't like the descriptor "religion" that's ok. But surely you can agree with me that string theory is not science.
So how about we agree on the descriptor "science fiction"? Because string theory is as useful to the genuine science of physics as "Star Trek" or "Star Wars". (And some fans of those stories can be fairly compared to religious fanatics, but i digress).
String theory is a passion, a faith, an interesting story. But it's not science.