Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:let me correct that for you. (Score 1) 528

15 years ago Germany embraced fiscal austerity, cut labour costs and embraced structural reforms. It isn't a "socialist society" unless by that you mean to suggest that the State levies taxes and spends those taxes on social programmes. Well, that's an extremely weak definition of "socialism" by any standard. Indeed so weak as to be absurd.

Comment: Re:let me correct that for you. (Score 1) 528

Peer Review does not guarantee correctness. It just means that one group of academics has either prevented another group from publishing, or managed to get their own group's paper published.

Secondly, these kinds of study are subject to The Decline Effect, where the original spittle and salivation over the result soon turns to bemusement as it fails replication 25 years later.

Comment: Re: let me correct that for you. (Score 1) 528

Yes they do and if it wasn't for Germany and Germany economic strength, they'd be up a creek without a paddle. Some say they're up said creek now as unlike Germany they stubbornly refuse to reform their labour laws. Right now they have 10% unemployment and over 22% youth unemployment.

Comment: Re:let me correct that for you. (Score 1) 528

The Nazis were socialists. For example, Goebbels:

That is our real task as National Socialists. We were the first to recognize the connections, and the first to begin the struggle. Because we are socialists we have felt the deepest blessings of the nation, and because we are nationalists we want to promote socialist justice in a new Germany.

Nazism is socialism with nationalism thrown in for free. The only reason the Nazis didn't nationalise everything was because in the 1930's when they were having their "days of strudel", the Nazi Party managed to bank millions of Reichsmarks from big business. Goebbels was in favour of destroying the corporates once they'd won power, but Hitler overruled him precisely because of these financial connections.

Really, the clue is in the name, "National Socialism".

Comment: Re:Let us keep our thoughts with our Kremlin frien (Score 0) 662

by Pino Grigio (#47499115) Attached to: Russian Government Edits Wikipedia On Flight MH17
I couldn't care less whether you're insulted or not. I've read so much BS on this and other issues related to Putin I'm sick of it. The only reason the West gives him the time of day is because they fear an even bigger loon taking charge there. And whilst you complain that it's disrespectful to the relatives of those who died, Putins thugs rummage through the wreckage, dump the bodies on a train, run off with the black boxes and get rid of any incriminating evidence. If it wasn't them I expect they'd be scrupulous in preserving the crash scene.

Don't tell me you're being "Mr Reasonable" here. You're just another one of Putin's useful idiots.

Comment: Re:String theory is not science (Score 3, Interesting) 147

by Pino Grigio (#47493251) Attached to: Can the Multiverse Be Tested Scientifically?
No, it's a computer model. A compute model is often (in engineering for example) a conceptual representation of real entities. However in many cases the model is more a conceptual representation of the biases and assumptions of the people who made it, being unreal in that sense. It isn't science and math isn't science either.
The idea that ultimately there's nothing here indicates (though you might not know it) the presence of what Cairns-Smith called "the bomb in the basement of modern physics" and the difference between the thing in itself and the thing as it appears. Physics is good for the latter but has nothing to say about the former.

Comment: Re:it is the wrong way... (Score 2) 288

by Pino Grigio (#47481113) Attached to: Australia Repeals Carbon Tax
What "polluter's subsidies" are you talking about precisely? Also are you serious? A subsidy is money taken from tax payers and handed out to business or individuals. Are you suggesting that taking that money and giving it to renewables, i.e. simply exchanging one set of greedy bastards with another, is going to make even the tinniest difference to average Joe's bills? Are you suggest shifting the burden from average Joe's energy bill to his tax bill?

Sometimes Guardian readers are too thick to debate with.

Our policy is, when in doubt, do the right thing. -- Roy L. Ash, ex-president, Litton Industries