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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Get HideMyAss! VPN, PC Mag's Top 10 VPNs of 2016 for 55% off for a Limited Time ×

Comment Re:String theory is just that: a theory (Score 1) 133

DATA does not "say" dark matter exists. The indirect data we have suggests that as one possible explanation (and so far the only one that has survived critical analysis of numerous experiments).

What is dark matter to you? To scientists, it's matter we can't detect with current instrumentation. It's that simple. It does exist. Now could scientists be wrong. Yes. Absolutely. However you can't merely say there are wrong because they haven't found all the answers. If you have other plausible explanations please let them know. So far the best minds of science can't describe it in other terms other than "dark."

Comment Re:Standard Ruling Party shit. (Score 1) 327

I'm letting the link speak for me

No you're not. You're unable to speak for yourself, even in a single coherent sentence that explains how you think your wasted vote will constructively work in this upcoming election. Why aren't you saying words of your own? Because you know it will sound like the nonsense it is, and you're trying to use someone else as cover so you can pretend you're not part of that craven charade. You're putting on a transparent veneer of condescending smugness in an attempt to avoid explaining your position, and greatly annoyed that someone isn't falling for the lazy theatrics.

Comment Re:String theory is just that: a theory (Score 1) 133

You have it backwards. Our hypothesis to explain the DATA is black matter. The DATA does not (indirectly) show that dark matter exists.

No, you don't understand the data. The data says that there is an amount of the total combined amount of energy and mass; however only 5% of it can be accounted for if all the stars and planets in the entire universe is counted. The 95% we don't know what it is; therefore, it is considered dark. It's a placeholder designation. Scientists could have call it silly putty matter.

What scientists are trying to do is prove their hypothesis correct by proving dark matter exists.

No, they are trying to determine if one of their proposed methods might work in detecting dark matter. They know it exists; they don't know what it is. For example, scientists could only see the top layers of the ocean for a long time. Sonar could deduce that the bottom was several miles deep. Until the invention of deep sea vehicles scientists didn't know what was at the bottom; but they knew the bottom existed. They just didn't have the technology to determine what was there in detail.

Tomorrow someone could come up with a theory supported by experimental data that explains the data that has nothing to do with dark matter...,/

That someone still has to explain away the current 95% and why we can't detect with all the current instrumentation that exists. Again, dark matter simply means "matter we can't detect through current methods."

Comment Re:Standard Ruling Party shit. (Score 1) 327

Wake me up when you summon the intellectual courage to form a single sentence of your own that is anything other than lazy, craven ad hominem designed to avoid speaking to the facts. Guess I'll get a good night's sleep, since your only response is to punt to someone else. Your lack of backbone in that area is right in keeping with your unwillingness to face the consequences of deliberately wasting your vote in the general election. But you just carry on, throw some more juvenile personal bile - you clearly think that's what best expresses your character and convictions.

Comment Re:over-simplification of economy (Score 1) 337

Nonsense. Economics is the study of how people exchange goods and services.

Yes, but apparently a 'successful' economy is one which is always growing...

Sure it is. But the AC assumes that growth inevitably means increasing consumption of natural resources. It can mean that, but that actually only works in a context where the natural resources in question are abundant. Once they become scarce (perhaps artificially), then growth comes from finding ways to use resources more efficiently.

A successful economy is one which is improving the standard of living of the people in it. There is no reason why that process cannot be endless... though the definition of what constitutes improvement absolutely will change over time.

Comment Re:Question (Score 1) 337

So unlike what Marxist said central planning actually works best to quickly grow backwards, agrarian even, economies rather than improving advanced economies.

That actually makes perfect sense if you study Marx's core economic theory, the labor theory of value. In that view, all production is about organization of labor, with some attention to the sources of raw materials. There is no discussion at all of the role of innovation, or information, and the theory is focused on a world in stasis, in which the materials, processes and outputs are all well-known, and unchanging.

But progress comes from the creation of new ideas, ways to make new goods, or make old goods with less labor or less, or different, raw materials. An economy organized on communist principles has few mechanisms for encouraging innovation. The Soviet Union made a big deal of identifying and nurturing smart people and giving them the resources to invent new science and technology, but that is perhaps the least important part of the innovation that moves an economy forward. Not that new science and technology isn't hugely important, but the aggregate impact of millions upon millions of small improvements in processes and business models is larger, especially on the general standard of living. So, the Soviet Union was able to stay in shouting distance, more or less, of the United States in terms of technological progress... but was unable to keep the grocery store shelves stocked. That is in the inevitable result of a system that doesn't incentivize and reward small-scale innovation.

Comment Re:Doing Trump's work for him (Score 1) 433

Property taxes are assessed at the value if sold today at the time of the assessment. All improvements and other values including rental if any will be covered in that valuation.

You do not own anything if you are renting it. It is absurd to think otherwise. But the city or jurisdiction gets more by assessing based on the sale value. If they build a mall or upscale restaurant near it and the value increases, it will be reflected in the next assessment and the community benefits. Everything you are trying to accomplish is already accounted for.

Comment Re:Read some Engels (Score 1) 337

Sorry, but why should I read something from the bourgeois factory owner Engels, or from his bromance buddy Marx, who lived from the surplus value Engels extracted from his proletarian workers?

Marxist theory, having been written by two members of the bourgeois class, cannot but be just another false consciousness ideological construct to advance the interests of the bourgeois themselves, as is evidenced by the fact over the last 150 years it has led to nothing but the overcoming of one set of bourgeois by another set of bourgeois, the so "avant-garde of the proletariat", which in typical fashion always have everything but actual proletarians.

Wake up. None of these "avant-garde" bourgeois will ever transfer their dictatorial power to the actual proletariat. As all bourgeois ideologues, they want the power for themselves. The proletariat? Convenient excuses for the power grab, if that much.

Comment Re:Standard Ruling Party shit. (Score 1) 327

Hey, look! Leading off with more deflection and ad hominem! At least you're right on track with with not caring that she lies, though. Any guilt you may feel about helping her to get elected, though - that's entirely on you. Your phony umbrage isn't very convincing. You want her to be elected, and you're just faking it with the noble third party nonsense. You know perfectly well that the alternatives are completely unelectable. So you are taking actions that will put Hillary Clinton in power. Simple as that. If you actually have the ethics to feel guilty about that, perhaps you have some redeeming qualities after all and just need to work out your baked-in mixed premises and contradictions. Otherwise, your delusion that voting for a guaranteed loser will somehow help things is, well, delusional.

I take all of your vitriol and ad hominem in the context of that delusional perspective, of course. If you're going to be irrational with your vote, it's not surprising that you have an irrational understanding of how to persuade others embrace your world view.

Your entire shtick is so revealing. Thanks for letting other people see and confirm it. And man! you are such a baby! I thought the other guy was bad. I really wish you could step out and see yourself. It would make you gag.

Hey, look! More substance-less ad hominem that lacks even one example of what's "revealed" or any specificity of any kind. Just more hand-waving vague distraction in an attempt to get away from the matter at hand. Thanks for wrapping up the same way you started, just for consistency's sake.

Comment Re:Standard Ruling Party shit. (Score 1) 327

Me? No. I'm watching you unable to express a single salient point on your own. Here's one you can work from: Hillary Clinton, if she were anyone else, would now at the very least be unable to get a security clearance, and she's been steadily lying to you about the circumstances around her handling, hiding and destruction of government records. This pleases you. You like that she lies to you, because you're smug enough to think that even though you know better, you're hoping that everyone else in the world is too dumb not to fall for it. Your own response, rather than being your own factual rebuttal of that characterization of her actions, will be to say that I haven't sufficiently read other material.

This is because you know she's indefensible, and you know that if you use your own words here to say that she (for example) hasn't been lying about such things, you'll be confirmed as a fool. So, of course you're deflecting and attempting to avoid going on the record. Predictable, typical, nothing new. But still entertaining in its transparency.

Comment Re: Oh boy (Score 1) 327

Do you understand what "their" means?

The vast majority of people in the U.S. don't care about gay marriage one way or another. They see no valid reason to deny it like the subset of people I already mentioned. Don't confuse that with support. They simply didn't care enough to change the norm. It took court orders to change it. Every state but two lost court battles before changing their laws and then the recent supreme court case made it universal. None of that would have been necessary if they supported gay marriage. It would have already been legal.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -- William E. Davidsen

Working...