I first read papers on the Quantum Vacuum theory called "Expanding Vacuum", and Lawrence Kraus who published several books on this subject used the terms synonymously the first time I heard him speak. In the first paragraph I wrote, I stated exactly "Expanding Vacuum" (also called Quantum Vacuum)." The only thing sloppy is people's ability to read.

Call me a skeptic, but the fact that you don't know the EV/QV theory indicates that you don't really work in Cosmology. At least as a scientist.

See above, read "A Universe from Nothing" and then talk. Spouting from ignorance does not change my skepticism in your favor.

This is wrong on just about every level, and surely not science. In fact doing this is exactly the Einstein definition of insanity. "Well, we know it's wrong but fuck it..."

Now if we were talking about something like gravity, we have things that are close enough. The Big Bang has never been close, hence most models of the Universe requiring upwards of 90% dark matter and energy (which EV/QV does not require).

There are 2 competing theories for the beginnings of the Universe. One that has been pounded into everyone's heads for the last century called "Big Bang" and another more recent theory called "Expanding Vacuum" (also called Quantum Vacuum).

The Big Bang, as mentioned, has been pounded into everyone's head as the right theory even though people have pointed out countless flaws with the theory since the beginning. The more recent theory has been ignored, largely by people claiming to be pro-science. The Big Bang has even evolved in the last few decades to be more like EV/QV theory. Very few people will say "Hey, what about this other theory" and generate the necessary discussion.

Personally I don't see this as shocking or new. Science likes to hang onto bad theory for as long as possible, people invest a lot of time into their opinions and it's very difficult to change them. History has a good amount of these issues if you care enough to study history (see Newton especially a great book called "Newton and the Counterfeiter).

This is a case where it's not so much people claiming science is a sham, it's people saying "that theory is wrong". Some people lack the knowledge and/or desire to move on to a new/better/different theory. Many of those people are "scientists" who have invested a long long time in a theory that's broken.

Even in places that have mass transit _and_ massive funding for mass transit, improvements are horrible to non-existent (see California).

If I take mass transit, the cost is 80.00/wk to go about 100 miles round trip daily, and I have to walk or bicycle the last 1-2 miles. It's not cheap, it's not convenient, and it's not faster than driving most of the time. In large part, this is due to the California welfare state and a large portion of riders not paying their fair. The bigger part however, is that instead of putting money into this system the legislature decided to build an 80billion dollar bullet train to run from near LA to near SF. Because the only way to get 9 million commuters off the freeway is to do absolutely nothing about it. *sigh*

Detroit is another example of a place that took shit tons of tax payer money to build a fancy merry go round called "The People Mover", which is a laughable system that supports the Casinos, a couple parking garages, and the RenCen.

In other words, demand for public transit does not make public transit happen.

This says you are wrong. You are probably making the mistake of confusing Marxist Communism (USSR form of Communism) with Chinese communism, which used to be a sore spot between those 2 nations. Perhaps confused with their use of "Republic" in the name of their nation, I don't know.

I'll also disagree with your 2nd point, because the type of government has little to do with the type of government. It has more to do with both expansion and level of freedom.

Generalizations are always dangerous. If I'm modding I may respond to a post anonymously, or lose my mod points. Not always, I try to stay neutral in posts I'm modding.. but that sounds much easier than it is.

In other words, I agree with you most of the time but do see good AC posts (and occasionally mod them up for visibility).

I don't disagree, and will point out that my wording is very intentional. "do not expect" is not a refusal, it means I reserve the right to choose whether or not to respond. Whereas, if a named account asks for clarity, provides contrary facts, etc.. I will respond.

There is no such evidence, and I did not intend to imply that I agreed with the politics at hand. I was merely pointing out that this _IS_ the politics at hand.

I don't agree that Globalization is a crock, the problem is with it's implementation. For example: There is a huge problem with wealth disparity (globally), much worse than the issues we see in the US/West. If we are going to make a global republic system, precursors and checks have to be put in place first. People with money instead are jumping to the end game, because _they_ get more profits.

This is a much longer discussion and debate than I'm willing to have on Slashdot, my example above was simple and intended only to demonstrate that the problem is not due to the world, but rather a few people in the world.

Because globalization is the directive, and you can't think this way and be a globalist.

I'm with you, in a free market that is how it should be. China does not have to use banking software developed in the US, they can develop their own. Amaze us with the success of your communism and it's ability to generate educated and innovative people. China used to be very innovative, but more recently they can only copy (aka steal) other people's innovations.

And don't worry, the US is heading down the same path with our system being corrupted. We still have pockets of innovation, but nothing like we had from the late 40s to early 70s.

Do you similarly complain about the FUD spread by companies like Monsanto claiming anyone not approving of them 100% is a whacko? Who gets portrayed in media is who the establishment that owns the media wants to portray. This should not be confused with a rational debate.

Likewise, anyone that disagrees with genetic modification must be an irrational hippie right? Even though we have science to show some of the negative consequences of manipulation there can be no middle ground or debate, only the extreme views matter.

Go read up on how many other species rely on the Mosquito for survival. Larvae is a source of food for fish, countless other insects eat adults. They all have a place in the food chain and extinction would be devastating.

As with killer bees, yes things can go seriously wrong when trying to 'help' nature do it's job.

This, and the fact that it's impossible to know if you are conversing with a person, or ten persons in replies. Noise != conversation.

I'm not sure what OS and version of Chrome you are running, but mine never crashes (though I use Opera and Firefox primarily). In fact I work for a pretty large company who uses Google apps for just about everything. While I miss Visio (Google Drawings is like "dia" and very primitive) everything else works just fine.. no crashes, no memory hogging, etc..

The reason I don't use Chrome is because I don't trust Google, and in most companies I have freedom to choose my web browser.. where the office type applications are not nearly as flexible in Corporate world.

And as for Microsoft's whining about not having access to the OS layer of Android to run it's applications, I suggest they learn what the application layer is and learn to live in it. Having access to every layer of the OS today is why they are still insecure after well over a decade of security people telling them to fix their stuff.