Loop Quantum Gravity is by far a more elegant theory. The only problem is Cambridge really...they like their multi-verse theory a little too much over there...
It seems you have a decent command of the subject, but your conclusion is wrong.
So if you want to claim that we being confused by bad theories, you would have to be able to explain why multiple, completely independent theories are not only all wrong, but all wrong in a way such that they return the same wrong answer.
Because they are trying to 'fill' the same gap in observed matter! Please, you must see the fallacy of your argument here. They start with the problem: we observe X but our *really good* calculations say it should be Y. Y-X=ammount any theory will have to account for.
so Dark Matter is, by far, the best explanation.
Is this your scientific opinion? Yes/No...doesn't matter. Thanks for sharing. It's doesn't mean anything or contribute to the discussion in any way.
In science, the 'best fit' theory is shorthand for saying the theory that doesn't solve a problem completely, but by consensus represents the best our human ability can offer in solving that problem at that time in history.
Dark Matter theories are, IMSO, dumb. It doesn't matter why I say that for the purposes of my comment. What matters is, dumb as they are, they are the 'best fit'
Stop defending 'dark matter' theories like they are your children. They don't work, and will be replaced one day. I agree they are the 'best' but let's not confuse everyone over your need to be right with terminology;)
The frequency and specificity of these 'apk' posts makes me think it is a 'beta' test of a next-level automatic comment bot.
It looks like it *may* be trying to 'optimize' the functions that automate actions like 'linking to other discussions' and 'responding by name to a critic in same thread'
These are things that usually give bots away easily.
The sheer volume of these 'apk' posts mean it has to be automated at some level.
here is what you need to answer, the short version. re-read my previous comments before you prepare your full answer:
It is litterally impossible for a elected official to be 'for less government' and consistent. You **must** define what government can do...Ron Paul never does that.
So type out a logical argument, post a **brief** link, or stop posting to this thread troll.
he is for less government involvement, regardless of the issue
That is logically impossible. If it were true he would be in favor of not having any government. It's half a policy, one that allows them to oppose **anything** Democrats might do! It's fool-proof, as long as people don't think analytically.
It is litterally impossible for a elected official to be 'for less government' and consistent. You **must** define what government can do...Ron Paul never does that.
"Opposing government" is a moronic half-idea that keeps people enslaved to the military/industrial complex.
You can counter this point by showing me where Ron Paul or others have defined where their "Less government is always better!" philosophy stops. Where does he ever identify this? Show me.
Answer this or stop trolling. And, btw, I still expect you to use blockquotes on my points you are addressing.
except when it doesn't matter...he didn't cast a vote on the last FISA. He votes against the Patriot Act to keep you trolls feed and happy but it doesn't do anything. When it matters he's a Good Republican.
I wanted to address this, as you seem informed on current events and willing to use your analytical thinking skills...
A democrat would most likely say "legalize gay marriage", and a republican might say "protect the sanctity of marriage", but a libertarian would say "what has government got to do with marriage? It should not be a government institution"...
Thank you. Your logical mistake here is the *core* of why the whole 'Ron Paul = !!!" thing and 'libertarianism' is a big huge troll from the GOP.
See, what matters in the 'gay marriage' issue is **policy** What does the law say? It's the laws like DOMA and state laws that prevent gay couples from having full rights as married.
Policy. What the law books say and how it is enforced.
Your 3-way breakdown is illogical. You did not differential **policy** in your 3 groups (GOP, Dems, and "libertarians").
Instead of policy positions, you describe "what they would say"...which is all bullshit! It's what the **policy** is that they **vote** or implement that matters!
but a libertarian would say "what has government got to do with marriage? It should not be a government institution"...
This is a nothing statement. What does it mean on the laws up for vote right now? No way to know! Would a 'libertarian' repeal DOMA? Any answer you give is your opinion..."libertarianism" is just a troll-concept.
Have a nice weekend : ) Honestly man, you did come off as an ass.
Oh, so now we're all cool bro's who use our log-in instead of posting AC...yeah man...jeez why don't I chill...
Thanks for posting links. They do not disprove my point. First, the existence of a 'rapid deployment force' or whatever has nothing to do with our military operations in the middle east and how 'easy' or 'hard' it is to end them.
Is your argument that it takes years for the US Military to leave? That cannot be true.
No. My argument is that our military "pulling out" or "ending a war" is a nebulous concept and can be bent to suit any contention. It was used on this thread to troll my defense of moving drones to DoD. I gave thoughts on SOFA's and used Germany and Japan as examples in response to a troll above on this further.
My greater argument is that you who dispute my contention that Obama's order for the CIA to hand drone operations to the DoD is a good thing are disputing it with flamebait and half-arguments which I continue to shoot down.
Obama is clipping the CIA's wings and bringing much needed accountability. It is a big step forward...one that cost Kennedy his life when he tried it!
This move to the DoD was a good decision. You can't disprove that contention.
the whole point, to you hsmith and the one below who missed it as well, is that it is obvious that we are "still at war" in Afghanistan...
what is more obvious is that you and several other probably former/active military do not understand how human language works...
see, words have 'definitions' which are agreed upon by consensus...the word "war" has several different meanings...you morons will argue until you die over definitions
one of my points in the post was that we need to move beyond stupid definition 'wars' and have real discussions with clash of ideas
then, re-read my comments on this thread. if you still feel like any of your points are valid, start by using the 'blockquote' tag to quote my arguments you are refuting, then submit your counter-argument...
note: your text below does not count as a 'counter-argument'...
Actually, we could just pack up and leave. It would only take a few weeks. The President is in charge and can make that happen
you simple stated the opposite of my contention and then acted as if you had made a counter argument...i can write a program that argues as well as you...
I wish there was a '6' level for certain comments on heavily trolled threads like this one...
The is so much bad information going around, there are definitely professionals using tradecraft in comments, there's the whole 'black helicopter' set commenting from parent's basement, lots of troll comments.
If anyone wants to get a handle on what this news actually means, here is a good place to start.
he could have ordered an immediate troop withdrawal on his first day in office.
Look, purely because you think this is actually realistically feasible means I should ignore the rest of your trolling comment...
"Pulling out" of a war isn't like pulling out of the fat girl in your class after you prematurely....
We technically still haven't "pulled out" of JAPAN or GERMANY either...does that mean we're still at war with them now???
About your Time magazine link...I can tell you googled "Obama ends war on Bush timeline"....so let's have a look....
The SOFA is a political document. The fact that Obama used Bush's SOFA expiration date as a pry-bar to the warhawks in Washington to keep them at bay does not prove your point...
but this phrase buried in the article **does** disprove your point...and your greater antagonism and flamebait on the whole "Obama is a warmonger" lameness...from the article you posted:
And that the CIA — now under the command of Gen. David Petraeus, former U.S. commander in Iraq — will play a more active role in pursuing U.S. objectives on the ground and in the neighborhood.
Obama ended the bullshit political posturing...and two wars....
Absolutely impossible. Please explain how he could have done it faster than what was done under Obama.
In your response, explain how those who opposed Obama's efforts would have supported Ron Paul's **earlier** (your words "immediately after taking office") removal timeline. See, they opposed Obama, so they'd logically oppose your Ron Paul earlier plan.
Just start with this, and if you make a logical, contestable, coherent argument then I'll give you a bigger list of things for you to explain like the one above.
You're way off, and you're trolling....and "Ron Paul" is just a sigil for people who agree with Democrat policies but won't vote or express their agreement for whatever reason (racism, subborness, trolling with their vote)
HE DID NOT TRY TO END IRAQ -- HE TRIED TO EXTEND IT AND FAILED
you need to present a serious number of links and some logic.
On the face of it you're making flamebait claims. Start making sense or don't expect a response. Please include links in your response.
I'm a 'shill' for a non-biased, honest look at what Obama has done and what this 'drone' thing means in that context....can you participate in such a discussion?
Ok 'Rockoon' I'm going to have to see links for these:
we pulled out of Iraq the day that Bush's plan had us leave Iraq
but we have only left one war...
I want links to support these claims because they are prima facia false.
So, Iraq...Afghanistan (the 'other' war that you were baiting me to bring up so you can say "derp we're still in Afghanistan! my cousin was just there...)..."war"...."our troops"...
If you are worth talking to, you understand the context of my comment and what I meant by "ending" a war. If you are trolling, well you'll keep fsking with me on definitions of terms until comments for this thread are disabled.
Obama gets credit for ending Iraq and Afghanistan (as planned). As commander in chief that's his call...I don't care how many "plans" his predecessors had...when he took over it was all up for grabs, and you know this. The endings of these wars are absolutely not on 'Bush's timeline'...I really can't believe you said 'same day as Bush's plan' for the end of the Iraq war...
What's your point? Are you saying "meh, no big deal, I agree, but all Obama is really doing is just this minor stuff"?
Because that's not true. You are correct that Obama has cleaned up the private contractor debacle, but that is not the only thing he has done.
You agree with me that yes, Obama is dealing a significant blow to the military/industrial complex by ending their CIA sponsored 'drone wars'....then you minimize it and then tell me *another* thing Obama is doing to make reform...
Either your are a pacifist or not. If you are a true pacifist, then you should stipulate that b/c it changes your argument.
If you are **not** a full pacifist, then it is simply a question of **when to use** lethal force.
Any discussion of drone weapons must be in the context of using a manned plane for the same "kill mission"....otherwise it is a completely pointless argument over a distinction (Drone kills!) without a difference (still killing no matter what device).
Slashdot Mirror
the data can disprove 'Dark Matter' theories...
that's worth $2 Billion in my mind...
Loop Quantum Gravity is by far a more elegant theory. The only problem is Cambridge really...they like their multi-verse theory a little too much over there...
It seems you have a decent command of the subject, but your conclusion is wrong.
Because they are trying to 'fill' the same gap in observed matter! Please, you must see the fallacy of your argument here. They start with the problem: we observe X but our *really good* calculations say it should be Y. Y-X=ammount any theory will have to account for.
Is this your scientific opinion? Yes/No...doesn't matter. Thanks for sharing. It's doesn't mean anything or contribute to the discussion in any way.
In science, the 'best fit' theory is shorthand for saying the theory that doesn't solve a problem completely, but by consensus represents the best our human ability can offer in solving that problem at that time in history.
Dark Matter theories are, IMSO, dumb. It doesn't matter why I say that for the purposes of my comment. What matters is, dumb as they are, they are the 'best fit'
Stop defending 'dark matter' theories like they are your children. They don't work, and will be replaced one day. I agree they are the 'best' but let's not confuse everyone over your need to be right with terminology ;)
The frequency and specificity of these 'apk' posts makes me think it is a 'beta' test of a next-level automatic comment bot.
It looks like it *may* be trying to 'optimize' the functions that automate actions like 'linking to other discussions' and 'responding by name to a critic in same thread'
These are things that usually give bots away easily.
The sheer volume of these 'apk' posts mean it has to be automated at some level.
just b/c I'm kind of OCD on this stuff...
here is what you need to answer, the short version. re-read my previous comments before you prepare your full answer:
So type out a logical argument, post a **brief** link, or stop posting to this thread troll.
you typed at least 200 characters up there...
if this is true:
then you should have taken those 200 words to offer a rebuttal to my definite attack on your 'Ron Paul!!!1!' fantasy.
I requested you to provide basic info that should be as easy to provide as typing "you suck globaljustin"...
So put up or shut up...I outlined what I wanted you to do in the GP to this comment.
I expect links.
if he's so gosh-darm logical and believable, you should be able to provide me with at least some evidence of your claim
instead...well...you're still trolling and probably will until comments are disabled
That is logically impossible. If it were true he would be in favor of not having any government. It's half a policy, one that allows them to oppose **anything** Democrats might do! It's fool-proof, as long as people don't think analytically.
It is litterally impossible for a elected official to be 'for less government' and consistent. You **must** define what government can do...Ron Paul never does that.
"Opposing government" is a moronic half-idea that keeps people enslaved to the military/industrial complex.
You can counter this point by showing me where Ron Paul or others have defined where their "Less government is always better!" philosophy stops. Where does he ever identify this? Show me.
Answer this or stop trolling. And, btw, I still expect you to use blockquotes on my points you are addressing.
except when it doesn't matter...he didn't cast a vote on the last FISA. He votes against the Patriot Act to keep you trolls feed and happy but it doesn't do anything. When it matters he's a Good Republican.
Here's his most recent opposition to abortion: http://votesmart.org/bill/12747/33604/296/prohibiting-use-of-federal-funds-for-planned-parenthood#.UU4egVvErss
Oh, here's him continuing to support DOMA: http://votesmart.org/bill/15600/41178/296/prohibits-use-of-funds-in-contravention-of-the-defense-of-marriage-act#.UU4eklvErss
So that totally disproves your point here:
Ron Paul is a Republican who does bullshit publicity stunts
I wanted to address this, as you seem informed on current events and willing to use your analytical thinking skills...
Thank you. Your logical mistake here is the *core* of why the whole 'Ron Paul = !!!" thing and 'libertarianism' is a big huge troll from the GOP.
See, what matters in the 'gay marriage' issue is **policy** What does the law say? It's the laws like DOMA and state laws that prevent gay couples from having full rights as married.
Policy. What the law books say and how it is enforced.
Your 3-way breakdown is illogical. You did not differential **policy** in your 3 groups (GOP, Dems, and "libertarians").
Instead of policy positions, you describe "what they would say"...which is all bullshit! It's what the **policy** is that they **vote** or implement that matters!
This is a nothing statement. What does it mean on the laws up for vote right now? No way to know! Would a 'libertarian' repeal DOMA? Any answer you give is your opinion..."libertarianism" is just a troll-concept.
Understand it and evolve
Oh, so now we're all cool bro's who use our log-in instead of posting AC...yeah man...jeez why don't I chill...
Thanks for posting links. They do not disprove my point. First, the existence of a 'rapid deployment force' or whatever has nothing to do with our military operations in the middle east and how 'easy' or 'hard' it is to end them.
No. My argument is that our military "pulling out" or "ending a war" is a nebulous concept and can be bent to suit any contention. It was used on this thread to troll my defense of moving drones to DoD. I gave thoughts on SOFA's and used Germany and Japan as examples in response to a troll above on this further.
My greater argument is that you who dispute my contention that Obama's order for the CIA to hand drone operations to the DoD is a good thing are disputing it with flamebait and half-arguments which I continue to shoot down.
Obama is clipping the CIA's wings and bringing much needed accountability. It is a big step forward...one that cost Kennedy his life when he tried it!
This move to the DoD was a good decision. You can't disprove that contention.
see my response above to user 'hsmith'
if you want to do this, then fine, you start by defining "war" and we'll do this thing
**prepares for definition war with internet troll**
the whole point, to you hsmith and the one below who missed it as well, is that it is obvious that we are "still at war" in Afghanistan...
what is more obvious is that you and several other probably former/active military do not understand how human language works...
see, words have 'definitions' which are agreed upon by consensus...the word "war" has several different meanings...you morons will argue until you die over definitions
one of my points in the post was that we need to move beyond stupid definition 'wars' and have real discussions with clash of ideas
sorry AC, you typed alot but you didn't engage in any discussion...you just spouted random contextualess counterpoints into the ether...you lose
start with this handy infographic: http://i731.photobucket.com/albums/ww312/fr0d0_bucket/disagreement-hierarchy.jpg
then, re-read my comments on this thread. if you still feel like any of your points are valid, start by using the 'blockquote' tag to quote my arguments you are refuting, then submit your counter-argument...
note: your text below does not count as a 'counter-argument'...
you simple stated the opposite of my contention and then acted as if you had made a counter argument...i can write a program that argues as well as you...
I wish there was a '6' level for certain comments on heavily trolled threads like this one...
The is so much bad information going around, there are definitely professionals using tradecraft in comments, there's the whole 'black helicopter' set commenting from parent's basement, lots of troll comments.
If anyone wants to get a handle on what this news actually means, here is a good place to start.
Look, purely because you think this is actually realistically feasible means I should ignore the rest of your trolling comment...
"Pulling out" of a war isn't like pulling out of the fat girl in your class after you prematurely....
We technically still haven't "pulled out" of JAPAN or GERMANY either...does that mean we're still at war with them now???
About your Time magazine link...I can tell you googled "Obama ends war on Bush timeline"....so let's have a look....
The SOFA is a political document. The fact that Obama used Bush's SOFA expiration date as a pry-bar to the warhawks in Washington to keep them at bay does not prove your point...
but this phrase buried in the article **does** disprove your point...and your greater antagonism and flamebait on the whole "Obama is a warmonger" lameness...from the article you posted:
Obama ended the bullshit political posturing...and two wars....
Absolutely impossible. Please explain how he could have done it faster than what was done under Obama.
In your response, explain how those who opposed Obama's efforts would have supported Ron Paul's **earlier** (your words "immediately after taking office") removal timeline. See, they opposed Obama, so they'd logically oppose your Ron Paul earlier plan.
Just start with this, and if you make a logical, contestable, coherent argument then I'll give you a bigger list of things for you to explain like the one above.
You're way off, and you're trolling....and "Ron Paul" is just a sigil for people who agree with Democrat policies but won't vote or express their agreement for whatever reason (racism, subborness, trolling with their vote)
Look...you want to say something like this:
you need to present a serious number of links and some logic.
On the face of it you're making flamebait claims. Start making sense or don't expect a response. Please include links in your response.
I'm a 'shill' for a non-biased, honest look at what Obama has done and what this 'drone' thing means in that context....can you participate in such a discussion?
Ok 'Rockoon' I'm going to have to see links for these:
I want links to support these claims because they are prima facia false.
So, Iraq...Afghanistan (the 'other' war that you were baiting me to bring up so you can say "derp we're still in Afghanistan! my cousin was just there...)..."war"...."our troops"...
If you are worth talking to, you understand the context of my comment and what I meant by "ending" a war. If you are trolling, well you'll keep fsking with me on definitions of terms until comments for this thread are disabled.
Obama gets credit for ending Iraq and Afghanistan (as planned). As commander in chief that's his call...I don't care how many "plans" his predecessors had...when he took over it was all up for grabs, and you know this. The endings of these wars are absolutely not on 'Bush's timeline'...I really can't believe you said 'same day as Bush's plan' for the end of the Iraq war...
So let me see those links!
What is the W3C 'Working' Group doing on this anyway?
HTML5 wouldn't exist if it wasn't for the WHATWG going around the W3C (who was busy fucking up CSS standards at the time)...
W3C needs to go away...
What is the W3C 'Working' Group doing on this anyway?
HTML5 wouldn't exist if it wasn't for the WHATWG going around the W3C (who was busy fucking up CSS standards at the time)...
W3C needs to go away...
DRM has no place in codebase
What's your point? Are you saying "meh, no big deal, I agree, but all Obama is really doing is just this minor stuff"?
Because that's not true. You are correct that Obama has cleaned up the private contractor debacle, but that is not the only thing he has done.
You agree with me that yes, Obama is dealing a significant blow to the military/industrial complex by ending their CIA sponsored 'drone wars'....then you minimize it and then tell me *another* thing Obama is doing to make reform...
What's your point?
Are you saying that Obama, as commander and chief, did *not* set the war plans and timelines that ends these wars?
Stopping a war is not like stopping a car. It takes months if not years...especially when you've been fighting for a Decade.
You didn't offer any counterpoints....if you want to have direct clash on a topic, make a point.
You know that stopping a war is not stopping a car, right?
If Obama had not taken action then we would not be leaving now, that's for sure. Are you really saying Romney and the GOP would have done the same???
You didn't disprove my contention at all. Obama, as commander and chief, ordered the ending of our operations in Iraq/Afghanistan.
No one but him could do it.
It's more than a "step"...
Obama is quietly doing to the CIA what Kennedy tried to do (and cost him his life)...
Obama is clipping the military/industrial complex's wings. All the 'black helicopter' set is completely missing this...
Either your are a pacifist or not. If you are a true pacifist, then you should stipulate that b/c it changes your argument.
If you are **not** a full pacifist, then it is simply a question of **when to use** lethal force.
Any discussion of drone weapons must be in the context of using a manned plane for the same "kill mission"....otherwise it is a completely pointless argument over a distinction (Drone kills!) without a difference (still killing no matter what device).
Can you address this?