"That means that there has to exist a sort of anti-gravity (called dark energy by astrophysicists). Now, that is hard to explain by conventional means (although it is possible), and may involve either a "beyond Einstein" type of theory (e.g., an improved general relativity) or some exotic form of energy (or both). So, although general relativity alone might account for the rotational curves of galaxies, it does not account for the large-scale properties of the universe."
You could have easily simpllfied your post as follows
Dark Matter is far from an accepted Hypothesis, yet seemingly intelligent people defend it on the basis that it's the best thing going.
That's just stupid. Science isn't about being right, or falling into lockstep with "accepted theories", it is about continually asking questions.
My question about dark matter has always been "Why is it more acceptable to make up a new type of matter, rather than deal with the idea that the fundamental forces may work differently than is believed?"
Why is one SO MUCH better than the other? There is precedent for both possibilities.
"The case for dark matter has been built for several decades. There is a mountain of evidence that needs an alternative explanation. I would call these new results tentative at best."
As opposed to the Dark Matter hypothesis that has been rigorously tested and re-tested, and so is not tentative.
I very much enjoy watching so-called science minded people defending ideas as though they had some personal stake.
As for this mountain of evidence... it appears to be made of Dark Matter as well.
There seems to be, as you put it, a "dogmatic" belief, often from undergrads (I'm guessing), that their now current understanding of physics is "right", and that any questioning of dark matter is an excuse to call the qestioner ignorant.
I've asked numerous times why I should think dark matter is anything other than a mildly promising theory.
The responses questioning my intelligence, calling me names, and generally being assholes outnumber the cogent replies 3 to 1.
Since when did scientists start behaving like fundies?
"1. Alcohol. Higher insurance premiums for drinkers, or heavy drinkers, or malt-liquor drinkers. The question of did he or did he not actually consume it would be irrelevant for the users of the data, they're not trying to prove it in a court of law, they're just using it as an excuse."
Good. If you engage in a risky behavior, your insurance premium should be higher. I notice you fail to allow for lower premiums for those who drink in moderation. You know what the research says about moderate amounts of alcohol.
"2. Birth Control. Again, higher insurance premiums for people who use too many (or too few) condoms. Increased risk of STDs and pregnancy. Or maybe you're the IT director at some fundamentalist whack-job church -- any purchase of birth control gets you sacked for not being fruitful and multiplying enough."
Nonsense. This is just alarmist garbage. There's no way to know WHEN you used a condom, so this is impossible. Your other example is just as silly.
"3. Perscriptions. Your employer probably already knows if you're on the company insurance plan, and your insurance company certainly knows unless you self pay. But again, insurance co. would love to know as much as possible about you, legal or not. They're not going to tell you they went through your trash."
Why did you list this? you didn't refute anything, just restated something. You CAN'T penalize someone for seeking treatment for a disease/disorder in the US. The ADA makes it a civil rights violation to do so.
"4. Books. Again, I think we'd assume for harassment purposes that you read any book you buy. Whole categories of readers could be assumed to be untrustworty in their jobs because of their reading habits. Jobs with secrets, or working with children, or the elderly, or in a pharmacy, just to name a few."
More ridiculous alarmist thinking without one iota of reason behind it. And you still fail to address how these evil people who plan to harass you are going to come by this information. The stores have your purchasing habits already if you use a credit card. RFID is no different. Unless of course you believe your employer/the government is going to follow you home and scan your books while you're out.
"My trash bin sits on my property, and the only person who has any right to step onto my property and take are the folks who work for my garbage service. So that means that anyone else who tries this is going to be looking down the barrel of a 12-gauge"
Or they could simply drag your bin onto public property and take their time.
Or they could dump your bin out and take the trash with them.
I know you don't sit in your yard guarding your trash all day.
Here's a short list of things that you might not want everyone knowing:
1. Your drinking habits.
No, actually, they would simply know what you bought and when. NOT when you consumed it, not in what quantity.
2. Your method of birth control.
Only for over the counter products. Prescriptions would be confidential.
3. Medications especially for things like anti-depressants or treatments for STDs.
See above, but this a FAR worse example. The FIRST company to do anyhting negative with this information would get sued off the planet under the ADA in the US. Confidential, AND because you're being treated for a medical issue, they would be violating your civil rights by taking action.
4. The books you read.
No, they would, again, know the books I BUY. Which they know already if I buy them online or with a credit card.
All of these things can be used against you by your employer or insurance company.
HOW? You can't just throw FUD out there and hope it sticks.
"Well no shit! The people who were prosecuting him clearly couldn't handle the truth. These are not reasonable people. One who arrests another for a directory traversal (with no evidence of cracking) is not a reasonable person."
This is what gets modded insightful around here.
I love that you justify wasting taxpayers money, and police officer's time by claiming that they "couldn't handle the truth".
So, while these very same police were leaving other cases unresolved, cases which were almost certainly more serious, this twit was feeding them lies in a pathetic attempt to avoid getting caught.
If he was a man, he would have owned up from the beginning, and let the cops deal with it. As it was he endangered the populace (and yes, I VERY MUCH consider wasting police's time to be endangering the populace) and wasting gobs of resources.
Fine don't send him to jail. Just make him pay ALL of the cost for the investigation. I think that would be perfectly fair.
"I am repulsed"
Yeah, I read your post too, but it wasn't quite that bad, just a little queasiness for me. Maybe if you didn't make such poorly thought out arguments, and actually tried, I dunno, THINKING your posts wouldn't repulse you so much.
This gem for example
"He practices due diligence (against a phishing attack)"
I would think "due diligence" would be to check the site, umm, BEFORE you give them your information. THAT would be due diligence.
"The distinction between what is public and private is not so clearly defined on the internet. How is anyone supposed to know that appending../ to the end of a URL is not supposed to be public information?"
When you are repeatedly denied access after doing so.
"All your above quoting does nothing to change the fact that it is the *UN* that 'decides', and the UN which has to determine the 'further steps'. It *nowhere* says a member state is automatically and unilaterally allowed to invade Iraq, as the parent poster said."
Ok fair enough.
"Thus, it was for the UN to decide, not for the US"
Really? Show me where it says that.
The point YOU seem to be missing is that there was already a standing order. The first "war" with Iraq never ended, and they violated their cease fire. So, while you may be parsing it to mean that UN approval was required, I'm parsing it to mean that the war was back on.
You CANNOT find anything conclusive to your point in any of the resolutions, any more than I can.
Did it EVER occur to you that maybe, just maybe, this might be more complicated than your "US IS EEEEEEEEEEEVIL!!!!! INVADED AND COOOOONNNQUERRRED!!!!!! FREEEE IRAQ!!!!" 3rd grade world view might allow for?
"No, the current government is indicative of what happens when a country's citizens are mislead by lies, propaganda, and corruption."
You know, I can tell straight away when someone is a pompous twit, as soon as they respond to my post and SAY EXACTLY THE SAME THING I SAID.
You said
" the citizens are mislead by lies, propaganda, and corruption."
And the only possible reasons for allowing themselves to be misled is because they CHOOSE to (apathetic) or don't know the truth (ignorant). So, apart from responding with an affirmation of my point, which you were apparently trying to disagree with, do you plan to do anyhthing else stupid today?
God sometimes you people are so incredibly moronic. It makes the retarded kids I used to work with seem Einsteinian by comparison.
In population, or physical size? OH WAIT IT'S NEITHER!
So, by no normal definition of "biggest" is your statement true.
I posted a reply to you once already about this. If you insist on making up facts to use as arguments, then you forfeit you right to criticze Bush for invading Iraq on "made up" facts as well.
Do yourself a favor, skip the BS you make up, and stick to the real facts. They can be plenty persuasive.
You consistently "overstate" your position, to the point where it's not overstatement.
You're lying, and you're doing it on purpose. Every time I see a post from you, I can be assured of a gross factual inaccuracy, which is inevitably used to disparage the US or something related to the US.
Is it too much for you to debate honestly, and leave the hyperbole (lying) out of it?
"So while the US dosn't pay nothing it also dosn't pay its fair share."
Have you ever bothered to research why? Did it ever occur that there might be a legitimate reason for that?
PS fuck you and your fair share garbage. What we pay now is FAR too much for what we get in return, so your completly subjective interpretation is without merit.
Slashdot Mirror
I think the part I'm delacring WRONG (because it is) is the declaration that dark matter is "needed" to describe anything.
Saying it is "needed" betrays a bias that is completely unscientific.
That's NOT how science works.
No it's not.
SOMETHING is needed to explain those things.
Dark matter is just one of many possibilities.
"That means that there has to exist a sort of anti-gravity (called dark energy by astrophysicists). Now, that is hard to explain by conventional means (although it is possible), and may involve either a "beyond Einstein" type of theory (e.g., an improved general relativity) or some exotic form of energy (or both). So, although general relativity alone might account for the rotational curves of galaxies, it does not account for the large-scale properties of the universe."
You could have easily simpllfied your post as follows
Speculation, speculation, guessing, speculation.
There I fixed it for you.
None of that answers my question.
Dark Matter is far from an accepted Hypothesis, yet seemingly intelligent people defend it on the basis that it's the best thing going.
That's just stupid. Science isn't about being right, or falling into lockstep with "accepted theories", it is about continually asking questions.
My question about dark matter has always been "Why is it more acceptable to make up a new type of matter, rather than deal with the idea that the fundamental forces may work differently than is believed?"
Why is one SO MUCH better than the other? There is precedent for both possibilities.
"The case for dark matter has been built for several decades. There is a mountain of evidence that needs an alternative explanation. I would call these new results tentative at best."
As opposed to the Dark Matter hypothesis that has been rigorously tested and re-tested, and so is not tentative.
I very much enjoy watching so-called science minded people defending ideas as though they had some personal stake.
As for this mountain of evidence... it appears to be made of Dark Matter as well.
I've dealt with this same issue.
There seems to be, as you put it, a "dogmatic" belief, often from undergrads (I'm guessing), that their now current understanding of physics is "right", and that any questioning of dark matter is an excuse to call the qestioner ignorant.
I've asked numerous times why I should think dark matter is anything other than a mildly promising theory.
The responses questioning my intelligence, calling me names, and generally being assholes outnumber the cogent replies 3 to 1.
Since when did scientists start behaving like fundies?
"1. Alcohol. Higher insurance premiums for drinkers, or heavy drinkers, or malt-liquor drinkers. The question of did he or did he not actually consume it would be irrelevant for the users of the data, they're not trying to prove it in a court of law, they're just using it as an excuse."
Good. If you engage in a risky behavior, your insurance premium should be higher. I notice you fail to allow for lower premiums for those who drink in moderation. You know what the research says about moderate amounts of alcohol.
"2. Birth Control. Again, higher insurance premiums for people who use too many (or too few) condoms. Increased risk of STDs and pregnancy. Or maybe you're the IT director at some fundamentalist whack-job church -- any purchase of birth control gets you sacked for not being fruitful and multiplying enough."
Nonsense. This is just alarmist garbage. There's no way to know WHEN you used a condom, so this is impossible. Your other example is just as silly.
"3. Perscriptions. Your employer probably already knows if you're on the company insurance plan, and your insurance company certainly knows unless you self pay. But again, insurance co. would love to know as much as possible about you, legal or not. They're not going to tell you they went through your trash."
Why did you list this? you didn't refute anything, just restated something. You CAN'T penalize someone for seeking treatment for a disease/disorder in the US. The ADA makes it a civil rights violation to do so.
"4. Books. Again, I think we'd assume for harassment purposes that you read any book you buy. Whole categories of readers could be assumed to be untrustworty in their jobs because of their reading habits. Jobs with secrets, or working with children, or the elderly, or in a pharmacy, just to name a few."
More ridiculous alarmist thinking without one iota of reason behind it. And you still fail to address how these evil people who plan to harass you are going to come by this information. The stores have your purchasing habits already if you use a credit card. RFID is no different. Unless of course you believe your employer/the government is going to follow you home and scan your books while you're out.
"My trash bin sits on my property, and the only person who has any right to step onto my property and take are the folks who work for my garbage service. So that means that anyone else who tries this is going to be looking down the barrel of a 12-gauge"
Or they could simply drag your bin onto public property and take their time.
Or they could dump your bin out and take the trash with them.
I know you don't sit in your yard guarding your trash all day.
Here's a short list of things that you might not want everyone knowing:
1. Your drinking habits.
No, actually, they would simply know what you bought and when. NOT when you consumed it, not in what quantity.
2. Your method of birth control.
Only for over the counter products. Prescriptions would be confidential.
3. Medications especially for things like anti-depressants or treatments for STDs.
See above, but this a FAR worse example. The FIRST company to do anyhting negative with this information would get sued off the planet under the ADA in the US. Confidential, AND because you're being treated for a medical issue, they would be violating your civil rights by taking action.
4. The books you read.
No, they would, again, know the books I BUY. Which they know already if I buy them online or with a credit card.
All of these things can be used against you by your employer or insurance company.
HOW? You can't just throw FUD out there and hope it sticks.
Would have done it right.
"Well no shit! The people who were prosecuting him clearly couldn't handle the truth. These are not reasonable people. One who arrests another for a directory traversal (with no evidence of cracking) is not a reasonable person."
This is what gets modded insightful around here.
I love that you justify wasting taxpayers money, and police officer's time by claiming that they "couldn't handle the truth".
So, while these very same police were leaving other cases unresolved, cases which were almost certainly more serious, this twit was feeding them lies in a pathetic attempt to avoid getting caught.
If he was a man, he would have owned up from the beginning, and let the cops deal with it. As it was he endangered the populace (and yes, I VERY MUCH consider wasting police's time to be endangering the populace) and wasting gobs of resources.
Fine don't send him to jail. Just make him pay ALL of the cost for the investigation. I think that would be perfectly fair.
"I am repulsed"
Yeah, I read your post too, but it wasn't quite that bad, just a little queasiness for me. Maybe if you didn't make such poorly thought out arguments, and actually tried, I dunno, THINKING your posts wouldn't repulse you so much.
This gem for example
"He practices due diligence (against a phishing attack)"
I would think "due diligence" would be to check the site, umm, BEFORE you give them your information. THAT would be due diligence.
Have a nice day!
"The guy feels betrayed by the same government he paid taxes to!"
Then his feelings of betrayal are misplaced.
He should feel betrayed by his sense of right and wrong.
"The distinction between what is public and private is not so clearly defined on the internet. How is anyone supposed to know that appending ../ to the end of a URL is not supposed to be public information?"
When you are repeatedly denied access after doing so.
Which this guy was.
who gets caught red handed, then comes up with a (very weak) lie to cover.
I'm NOT saying this guy is lying (I'm just implying it)
"All your above quoting does nothing to change the fact that it is the *UN* that 'decides', and the UN which has to determine the 'further steps'. It *nowhere* says a member state is automatically and unilaterally allowed to invade Iraq, as the parent poster said."
Ok fair enough.
"Thus, it was for the UN to decide, not for the US"
Really? Show me where it says that.
The point YOU seem to be missing is that there was already a standing order. The first "war" with Iraq never ended, and they violated their cease fire. So, while you may be parsing it to mean that UN approval was required, I'm parsing it to mean that the war was back on.
You CANNOT find anything conclusive to your point in any of the resolutions, any more than I can.
Did it EVER occur to you that maybe, just maybe, this might be more complicated than your "US IS EEEEEEEEEEEVIL!!!!! INVADED AND COOOOONNNQUERRRED!!!!!! FREEEE IRAQ!!!!" 3rd grade world view might allow for?
"No, the current government is indicative of what happens when a country's citizens are mislead by lies, propaganda, and corruption."
You know, I can tell straight away when someone is a pompous twit, as soon as they respond to my post and SAY EXACTLY THE SAME THING I SAID.
You said
" the citizens are mislead by lies, propaganda, and corruption."
And the only possible reasons for allowing themselves to be misled is because they CHOOSE to (apathetic) or don't know the truth (ignorant). So, apart from responding with an affirmation of my point, which you were apparently trying to disagree with, do you plan to do anyhthing else stupid today?
God sometimes you people are so incredibly moronic. It makes the retarded kids I used to work with seem Einsteinian by comparison.
Um, it was a joke based on the GP.
(talking very very slowly for you)
J-O-K-E. You do understand what that is?
"The biggest country"
In population, or physical size? OH WAIT IT'S NEITHER!
So, by no normal definition of "biggest" is your statement true.
I posted a reply to you once already about this. If you insist on making up facts to use as arguments, then you forfeit you right to criticze Bush for invading Iraq on "made up" facts as well.
Do yourself a favor, skip the BS you make up, and stick to the real facts. They can be plenty persuasive.
Dude, you need a reality check.
You consistently "overstate" your position, to the point where it's not overstatement.
You're lying, and you're doing it on purpose. Every time I see a post from you, I can be assured of a gross factual inaccuracy, which is inevitably used to disparage the US or something related to the US.
Is it too much for you to debate honestly, and leave the hyperbole (lying) out of it?
You know, if you judge the influence of a country based on how it affects things in your country, pick things that are more important.
You're honestly making a value judgement against the US based on the DMCA and XM radio?
Maybe you should shift your priorities to something more important.
"in wars started by the British over a situation created by decades of poor foreign policy."
There I fixed your childish, ignorant mistake for you.
And if you're wonderingwhat I'm talking about, you don't know enough history.
"The whole "one person, one vote" mentality is the bedrock of democracy, that each voice deserves to be heard"
Yes, they deserve to have their opinions heard.
Since Wikipedia is supposed to be a repository of facts, however, those opinions are far less deserving of consideration.
And to be perfectly honest, not everyone deserves to have a seat at the table.
Shut up you pathetic AC
Crappie
"So while the US dosn't pay nothing it also dosn't pay its fair share."
Have you ever bothered to research why? Did it ever occur that there might be a legitimate reason for that?
PS fuck you and your fair share garbage. What we pay now is FAR too much for what we get in return, so your completly subjective interpretation is without merit.