Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
What's the story with these ads on Slashdot? Check out our new blog post to find out. ×

Comment Re:Lead the horse to the source (Score 1) 1039

Your shotgun "inexperienced" thing is a textbook case of attempting to bully the kiddies and hilariously having utterly no idea that you are discussing things with someone older than yourself.

Except that it's not. You're just saying shit again.

Above I was just correcting what appeared to be deliberate misdirection and misinformation on your part and you got very insulting about it.

In your usual thoroughly incompetent way. If I really were delivering deliberate misdirection and misinformation, I couldn't buy better support than what you've given me. You need to learn how not to bake failure into your arguments. For example, a weak ad hominem attack like you started with, because of assertions you made which you can't even bother to back with the minimum of evidence, is a classic way to come out swinging and losing.

But in turn, I get easy theater and narrative to show to everyone else. Look? See how I'm getting unfairly persecuted by this ignorant guy for being right?

It doesn't matter now, but some day, you'll be in a situation where you need to persuade someone else to keep something bad from happening or lessen its impact. Maybe a friend or loved one is harming themselves, maybe your company is thinking about doing something really stupid, maybe your society is pushing the self-destruct button. Even if persuasion can't prevent or reverse bad choices, it can still result in a better outcome. But you have to have the skills in the first place for it to work. Slashdot is a place you can learn those skills, should you ever choose to pay attention.

Comment Re:Economics IS a science (Score 1) 148

Look at historical debates such as "does smoking cause cancer" and current debates on climate change .... many sciences are subject to the influence of politics and agendas, and tragically, there are scientists who allow themselves to be so influenced.

Sure, there are many subjects with significant financial or ideological value, but there's more than that where the only things at stake are the egos of the researchers involved.

Comment Re:Economics IS a science (Score 2) 148

Economics is not a science, no matter how many times you and your finance buddies tell yourselves that it is.

But neither are physics, chemistry, etc, sciences because of how many times you and your finance buddies tell yourselves they are. They are all sciences because they are systematic empirical studies of some part of the real world. The difference with economics is that there are far stronger incentives to corrupt observations and models than with most other sciences.

Comment Re:Citibank (Score 1) 246

Glancing at Google, "detailed" means "having many details or facts; showing attention to detail." I don't think the report qualifies since it doesn't actually have that many details.

How else did you manage to find something to pick at with the report?

I knew where to look for the problems. And the number one problem with this sort of study is an artificially low discount rate which exaggerates future costs.

Comment Re:Lead the horse to the source (Score 1) 1039

What an utterly pathetic shotgun attempt at bullying in the hope you hit someone younger.

Bullying doesn't mean disagreement or even insults. Nor do I care if you are physically older or younger than me. What I care about is your completely inadequate and incompetent efforts at debate.

I have to say, my original accusation looks now to be statement of fact than the witty rejoinder I originally planned it to be. If I really were as dishonest and fraudulent as you seem to think I am, I couldn't pay someone to do a better job for me than you are doing right now. Maybe you ought to think about those unintended consequences?

Comment Re:Lead the horse to the source (Score 1) 1039

Usually only as the observer and not as an experienced perpetrator such as yourself

I think no one can disagree that you are inexperienced.

Are you in politics, "public relations", "social media worker", advertising or just an unpaid person fond of manipulation? Either way this current "spin" of pretending rather blatant student politics style bullshit is not happening shows a distinct lack of integrity and only makes my wonder at the motives of an apologist for such bullshit. It's not just about being anti-science this time, so what is it about?

I think it shows poor reasoning skills on your part. Even if your accusations were true, you're pointlessly making an idiot out of yourself since you would have nothing to back it up. You probably should learn to come up with support when you make assertions. Just saying shit marks you as an idiot.

We can use those out of shape reasoning skills here. There isn't a financial or propaganda advantage to spending endless hours on Slashdot, especially without a coherent theme. Sorry, we're just not that important and human labor is rather expensive. In addition, it's an enormous pain to find any posts on Slashdot via the search engines. So there's no point to using Slashdot to poison the well that way either.

Finally, why should it be such a big deal that someone disagrees with you that you have to spin conspiracy theories about it? I got used to it. You should too.

Comment Re:"The word 'genius' gets misused an awful lot," (Score 1, Funny) 55

He'll, of course, be most well known for his celebrated surgery theory on sexifolds, particularly the foundational Sexconker Decomposition Theorem which demonstrates that all sexifolds can be decomposed into basic topological components such as penisifolds, breastifolds, and analfolds. And if the sexifold is not oriented, then it has a peculiar bisexual structure.

Don't be irreplaceable, if you can't be replaced, you can't be promoted.