Who told me? Lots of people. Sweden is not socialist by that definition, since they're free-market capitalists. That definition is less useful now, because people know that government ownership of the means of production doesn't work, so people are applying the word to capitalist democracies that take care of their people.
I don't remember signing an agreement with sites saying I'd look at the ads. There is no deal. If there were negotiations going on, I'd ask for something other than being served arbitrary ads with potentially malicious javascript.
Some sites won't show me anything unless I disable the ad blocker. Some will politely ask me to disable it. (One site refuses to show anything even when my ad blocker is disabled, of course.) That's fine. It's their site, after all. Some sites put so many ads on their mobile pages that I can't actually get at the content. Without an ad blocker, I wouldn't go there, so they're getting the same number of ad impressions from me whether or not I use one.
Alternately, go to a small liquor store that doesn't have anything like Target's computer systems, where the clerk will look at it and hand it back without scanning it.
We've known about Target since it outed a pregnant girl to her father by sending her maternity and baby promotions.
The problem with sticking to principles is that it can turn you into a soulless automaton. Principles always need to be tempered with common sense and what the people around you need.
The legality of non-competes varies state by state. Apparently, they're by law completely unenforceable in California, and probably not even useful for nuisance value.
The case you mention appears to have been decided on a more fundamental part of law than "non-competes are illegal in this state".
That isn't going to happen as long as the NRA is so intransigent. They're going to be pushed to the side, and the debate will become dominated by people who strongly disagree with the NRA. If the NRA were actually interested in responsible use of firearms, more like what they were when I was a kid, they'd cooperate and we'd get some reasonable and effective laws out of it.
People who did read that part about the first-born child may have clicked through anyway, figuring that was completely unenforceable. I've signed unenforceable agreements before, because it didn't seem worth my while to do otherwise at the time.
By the time lend-lease was providing significant materiel to Britain, Hitler had changed his focus, and Britain was not seriously threatened with defeat.
Similarly, the Soviets resisted the most dangerous offensives without significant equipment from the West. The Soviet counteroffensives would have been much less effective without Lend-Lease. Providing that stuff to the Soviet Union saved lots and lots of Western lives.
The Marshall Plan did a tremendous amount of good.
Did that soldier talk to the Russians where they might be overheard? If the official line was that the equipment was Soviet-made, I'd expect the soldiers to pretend to believe it.
So you claim that there are one or more colleges that have "mandatory electives" (whatever the heck those would be) that use "alternative history textbooks" to say things that you paraphrase and claim are false?
How about providing some specifics. What books are these? Can you give title(s) and author(s)? What courses require these, and how do they fit into the degree requirements? What colleges require these courses? (I will note that my son recently went through the University of Minnesota, getting a BS in Computer Science, specializing in Software Engineering, and did not take any of those courses.) Without specifics, it's impossible to verify what you're claiming, and your description of what the books say does rather sound like a rant.
1) Everybody in the field understands the strength of gravity. Cosmology is based on it. It's hard to grasp the quantities involved, because they can be extremely large or extremely small. The attraction of one star for another is extremely small, but there's a lot of stars, and a lot of time for a small acceleration to act on a star.
What you are saying is that cosmology is improperly derived. Not just that it's wrong in fact, but that the math is wrong. To do this, you need to look at the math and find where it is wrong. There are lots of things in science that yield surprising and counter-intuitive results.
2) No, you're missing the point. You claimed that GR is not proven in some situations. Guess what: it's not proven in any situation. Nothing in science is proven. What we have is theories that have made lots of verified predictions, and which have survived lots of falsification attempts. Your earlier sentence was " And if you were to actually ask a theorist for proof that Relativity applies at the largest scales, the more honest ones would admit that they lack such proof:" - and, while it's correct, it's meaningless. There's no proof that Relativity is applies at any scale. That doesn't mean it's not an extremely successful scientific theory.
And, yes, there are other ways to look at things. There's also a saying about not being so open-minded that your brain falls out. To have a credible theory, you need to show that it explains previous observations pretty much as well as the current theory. If it can't, it's not really worth considering, since there's any number of ideas that demonstrably don't conform to reality.
The fact that you're criticizing cosmology without understanding what you're doing very strongly suggests that you aren't doing this, because you don't understand what's already there. There have been major shifts in science, but they've always come from people who understood the existing science and why it was the way it was.
3) In other words, there are no falsifiable predictions, so the Electric Universe is not currently a scientific theory.
4) You don't get to assume things like electric currents. Nor are they being vindicated, unless the theory makes testable predictions, which, by (3) above, it doesn't. It's conceivable that such currents could exist, but the more crap you pile onto a theory to make it work, the less credible it is. If there are such currents, and they're strong enough to have effects, why haven't we noticed some effects? That needs to be answered.
Also, your attack on the Big Bang theories is irrelevant as well as ignorant (if you actually understood them, you'd have some idea why they're considered science, and you'd attack that idea) . You aren't offering another explanation for what happened in the first periods of the Universe; you're claiming that stuff is happening right this eon in this galaxy, stuff that we should be able to observe with what reaches the Earth right now.
Korea was a reasonable war to fight. The Vietnam war was similar, but screwed up by incompetence on the US side (particularly LBJ). We likely could have stopped the Iraqis from invading Kuwait with a little firm diplomacy. I'm OK with the 2001 intervention in Afghanistan, but stopping Saddam's posturing was not worth the results, which had some very bad consequences, including assisting ISIS in getting going.
The US has contributed quite a bit to world suffering as well as to world peace and democracy. Much of this was not mistakes at all, but deliberate policy.
However, consider the Solarian robot military initiative in "The Naked Sun". If Solaria had all-robot ships, and could convince the robots that other warships didn't have humans, they'd get a really big military advantage.
Pacifism is a legitimate philosophical viewpoint, and I respect pacifists. However, lots of people aren't pacifists.
If you're not a pacifist, you probably agree that we need to have weapons. If we do, we may as well make them good weapons. When we need weapons, it's usually not a good idea to aim for second best. It can be more humane to have highly effective weapons, as they can shorten a war and lessen the suffering. There are weapons that cause suffering out of proportion to their military value, but those are generally banned anyway, and we're not talking about them.
Sure. I'm not saying my opinion is the only reasonable one (although I will insist that it is a reasonable one). I'm saying that it was possible to be open to a meditation on the future of humans and still dislike the movie. So far, I haven't seen anyone come up with any reason why people liked or did not like it.
The symbolism of the Star Child was obvious, but it didn't give me anything beyond that.
The people who saw it when it came out were used to the movies of its era, and many of them considered it unwatchable. It's one thing to give actors time to project a character, it's another thing to spend five minutes where one would do while not developing a character. There's a lot of lingering over the special effects and the tech, which didn't really add anything to the movie.
Eisenstein shot "The Battleship Potemkin" in the early 20s, but it was not shown with the intended score (at least in the West) until something like the 80s. The score had been considered too revolutionary.
Slashdot Mirror
Who told me? Lots of people. Sweden is not socialist by that definition, since they're free-market capitalists. That definition is less useful now, because people know that government ownership of the means of production doesn't work, so people are applying the word to capitalist democracies that take care of their people.
And, if the cost of the breach is minor, as it has been, the company keeps your data and doesn't spend much on security.
I don't remember signing an agreement with sites saying I'd look at the ads. There is no deal. If there were negotiations going on, I'd ask for something other than being served arbitrary ads with potentially malicious javascript.
Some sites won't show me anything unless I disable the ad blocker. Some will politely ask me to disable it. (One site refuses to show anything even when my ad blocker is disabled, of course.) That's fine. It's their site, after all. Some sites put so many ads on their mobile pages that I can't actually get at the content. Without an ad blocker, I wouldn't go there, so they're getting the same number of ad impressions from me whether or not I use one.
Alternately, go to a small liquor store that doesn't have anything like Target's computer systems, where the clerk will look at it and hand it back without scanning it.
We've known about Target since it outed a pregnant girl to her father by sending her maternity and baby promotions.
The problem with sticking to principles is that it can turn you into a soulless automaton. Principles always need to be tempered with common sense and what the people around you need.
The legality of non-competes varies state by state. Apparently, they're by law completely unenforceable in California, and probably not even useful for nuisance value.
The case you mention appears to have been decided on a more fundamental part of law than "non-competes are illegal in this state".
That isn't going to happen as long as the NRA is so intransigent. They're going to be pushed to the side, and the debate will become dominated by people who strongly disagree with the NRA. If the NRA were actually interested in responsible use of firearms, more like what they were when I was a kid, they'd cooperate and we'd get some reasonable and effective laws out of it.
People who did read that part about the first-born child may have clicked through anyway, figuring that was completely unenforceable. I've signed unenforceable agreements before, because it didn't seem worth my while to do otherwise at the time.
By the time lend-lease was providing significant materiel to Britain, Hitler had changed his focus, and Britain was not seriously threatened with defeat.
Similarly, the Soviets resisted the most dangerous offensives without significant equipment from the West. The Soviet counteroffensives would have been much less effective without Lend-Lease. Providing that stuff to the Soviet Union saved lots and lots of Western lives.
The Marshall Plan did a tremendous amount of good.
Did that soldier talk to the Russians where they might be overheard? If the official line was that the equipment was Soviet-made, I'd expect the soldiers to pretend to believe it.
Probably because he never claimed that.
So you claim that there are one or more colleges that have "mandatory electives" (whatever the heck those would be) that use "alternative history textbooks" to say things that you paraphrase and claim are false?
How about providing some specifics. What books are these? Can you give title(s) and author(s)? What courses require these, and how do they fit into the degree requirements? What colleges require these courses? (I will note that my son recently went through the University of Minnesota, getting a BS in Computer Science, specializing in Software Engineering, and did not take any of those courses.) Without specifics, it's impossible to verify what you're claiming, and your description of what the books say does rather sound like a rant.
1) Everybody in the field understands the strength of gravity. Cosmology is based on it. It's hard to grasp the quantities involved, because they can be extremely large or extremely small. The attraction of one star for another is extremely small, but there's a lot of stars, and a lot of time for a small acceleration to act on a star.
What you are saying is that cosmology is improperly derived. Not just that it's wrong in fact, but that the math is wrong. To do this, you need to look at the math and find where it is wrong. There are lots of things in science that yield surprising and counter-intuitive results.
2) No, you're missing the point. You claimed that GR is not proven in some situations. Guess what: it's not proven in any situation. Nothing in science is proven. What we have is theories that have made lots of verified predictions, and which have survived lots of falsification attempts. Your earlier sentence was " And if you were to actually ask a theorist for proof that Relativity applies at the largest scales, the more honest ones would admit that they lack such proof:" - and, while it's correct, it's meaningless. There's no proof that Relativity is applies at any scale. That doesn't mean it's not an extremely successful scientific theory.
And, yes, there are other ways to look at things. There's also a saying about not being so open-minded that your brain falls out. To have a credible theory, you need to show that it explains previous observations pretty much as well as the current theory. If it can't, it's not really worth considering, since there's any number of ideas that demonstrably don't conform to reality.
The fact that you're criticizing cosmology without understanding what you're doing very strongly suggests that you aren't doing this, because you don't understand what's already there. There have been major shifts in science, but they've always come from people who understood the existing science and why it was the way it was.
3) In other words, there are no falsifiable predictions, so the Electric Universe is not currently a scientific theory.
4) You don't get to assume things like electric currents. Nor are they being vindicated, unless the theory makes testable predictions, which, by (3) above, it doesn't. It's conceivable that such currents could exist, but the more crap you pile onto a theory to make it work, the less credible it is. If there are such currents, and they're strong enough to have effects, why haven't we noticed some effects? That needs to be answered.
Also, your attack on the Big Bang theories is irrelevant as well as ignorant (if you actually understood them, you'd have some idea why they're considered science, and you'd attack that idea) . You aren't offering another explanation for what happened in the first periods of the Universe; you're claiming that stuff is happening right this eon in this galaxy, stuff that we should be able to observe with what reaches the Earth right now.
Sure - and dropping it caused problems. Cocoa was more than a mere recompile of Carbon.
This is old news, at least 30 years old, probably older. The Armed Forces have been trying to use advanced computation and AI for a long, long time.
Which would mean that you're against artillery, ground attack planes, guns, and everything back to and including bows.
Let's go through that list.
Korea was a reasonable war to fight. The Vietnam war was similar, but screwed up by incompetence on the US side (particularly LBJ). We likely could have stopped the Iraqis from invading Kuwait with a little firm diplomacy. I'm OK with the 2001 intervention in Afghanistan, but stopping Saddam's posturing was not worth the results, which had some very bad consequences, including assisting ISIS in getting going.
The US has contributed quite a bit to world suffering as well as to world peace and democracy. Much of this was not mistakes at all, but deliberate policy.
However, consider the Solarian robot military initiative in "The Naked Sun". If Solaria had all-robot ships, and could convince the robots that other warships didn't have humans, they'd get a really big military advantage.
Pacifism is a legitimate philosophical viewpoint, and I respect pacifists. However, lots of people aren't pacifists.
If you're not a pacifist, you probably agree that we need to have weapons. If we do, we may as well make them good weapons. When we need weapons, it's usually not a good idea to aim for second best. It can be more humane to have highly effective weapons, as they can shorten a war and lessen the suffering. There are weapons that cause suffering out of proportion to their military value, but those are generally banned anyway, and we're not talking about them.
Sure. I'm not saying my opinion is the only reasonable one (although I will insist that it is a reasonable one). I'm saying that it was possible to be open to a meditation on the future of humans and still dislike the movie. So far, I haven't seen anyone come up with any reason why people liked or did not like it.
The symbolism of the Star Child was obvious, but it didn't give me anything beyond that.
I don't know. What movies did he make? Books are things that can need a large amount of written matter to get a clue about.
Entirely possible. I've never gotten into drug use.
The people who saw it when it came out were used to the movies of its era, and many of them considered it unwatchable. It's one thing to give actors time to project a character, it's another thing to spend five minutes where one would do while not developing a character. There's a lot of lingering over the special effects and the tech, which didn't really add anything to the movie.
Eisenstein shot "The Battleship Potemkin" in the early 20s, but it was not shown with the intended score (at least in the West) until something like the 80s. The score had been considered too revolutionary.
Because people have to deal with the real world, and can't just stop using everything that offends them.