uncool

It's clear that you don't understand what realism is; this entire quote has nothing to do with evidence, and doesn't address all of the evidence that makes quantum physics one of the best tested theories we have nowadays. =Uncool-

Skipping the misrepresentation of particle physics: Except for all of the evidence that has been given over and over through the years. QED is, quite literally, one of the most exactly confirmed theories in all of science. You don't think of that as evidence? =Uncool-

No, neither math nor physics require or reject determinism. Math has nothing to do with determinism. Physics does not require determinism, nor does it exclude determinism. Quantum physics has both deterministic and nondeterministic interpretations (the former violate one of several other usual assumptions, such as local realism or counterfactual definiteness). =Uncool-

Yes, I can. Google image search it. http://www.georgenick.co.uk/Wedding.htm (search for the word "party"). Actually, I can. One of my friends was a man of honor at a gay wedding. Get one yourself. I'm guessing that you're biased based on all of the weddings that you've seen in the media - which are generally the first ones done, done right as soon as they were legally allowed to do so, rather than

ox1111: The calculation that was made was approximately the following: Consider the possibility that the Higgs boson doesn't exist - that the Standard Model by itself is actually a good model of particle physics up to and including the entire range of the LHC. That is what's called a "null hypothesis". The calculation then determines how likely it is that the data that were found would have been found if we are given that that hypothesis is true. If the probability is low enough, then we can "reject" the "null hypothesis", and see that our "alternative hypothesis" of Standard + Higgs is far better than the "null hypothesis" at explaining the data that were found. Once that has been established, the Standard + Higgs becomes the new "null hypothesis" against which other hypotheses are checked. =Uncool-

Do you think that isn't being done? Why do you think that the economics debate would be anything more than economists "repeating themselves over and over again"? =Uncool-

And how do you determine who wins a "great debate"? Do you have a debate between two groups of professional debaters? A vote by the economists? A phone-in survey? =Uncool-

Quote, please? =Uncool0

Not quite. There is an implicit assumption that the model has a nontrivial domain that are correctly described. Therefore, the times that another model will fall into that domain will often be nontrivial, too - and therefore the alternative model can be critiqued by checking it against the usual model. =Uncool-

Bravo, rigney. A perfect example of how to insinuate and mislead without actually saying anything, always leaving you the option to say "I'm not declaring anything, just saying what I'm thinking!" =Uncool-

I noticed that when I tried to quote someone, it didn't include the quotes from their posts (that is, it didn't include the people that they had quoted). This is extremely annoying. Any chance of changing that? =Uncool-

For one thing, it wouldn't really be the same "particle" any more, if I'm not mistaken. For another, quantum field theory does require being at a minimum for the "potential" term in the Lagrangian, doesn't it? Which would make it impossible to construct a meaningful theory by "getting rid of the mass" that would be the same theory. =Uncool-

Where "it" refers to what? Just as you can say that cutting the funding was putting campaigning for re-election in the House above what's best for the country. Now, please answer the actual question that was asked. "May have had" is nearly always a meaningless phrase. Citation on anything indicating any chance that she would have such? Citation on claims changing? Do you mean "I did know better than to believe an attack on the Benghazi consulate on 9\11 was due to a mob protesting an obscure video."? As you've written it, the sentence implies that you knew it was due to "a mob protesting an obscure video." Further, "Obscure video", as pointed out, is inaccurate; it was alluded to by the US embassy in Egypt hours before the attacks on the embassy there on September 11. That alone makes it not obscure. And yet the question isn't about what's "easy to swallow", but what the truth is. =Uncool-

Citation with quotes? "he was no longer needed"? If what he said could be embarrassing before the election, it would be embarrassing after the election, too. You seem to really think that this "narrative" is central to everything about Benghazi, am I right? =Uncool-

Someone is no longer a messenger when they are part of crafting the message. Which is what DH is accusing the right-wing media of. DH, do you have an answer? Yes, I know this. That's not what the "what" was referring to. That doesn't explain any kind of link between the affair and Petraeus's claims about Benghazi. In fact, it negates your original point - why would Petraeus now say anything different and therefore (according to your premise) act to ruin his name and legacy as a General? What is your explicit link between the affair and your claim that Petraeus would lie or shade the truth? What relevance does this response have to what it's quoting? Certainly seemed like dismissing it out of hand by saying "Regardless, [stuff about Obama]". You haven't even said a single word about House Republicans.

You may want to look up what "blaming the messenger" means. It doesn't mean reacting negatively. Pointing out a false dilemma and asking the other person to at least try to not use them in the future is not blaming the messenger. DH didn't say he had 20 intelligence reports; he said that others at the hearing had heard that there were "20 intelligence reports that indicated that anger of the film may be to blame." Uh. What? What, precisely, is that motive? Again, please explain. Just because it was planned doesn't mean that the planners couldn't take advantage of a protest. Your response is irrelevant to the claim. No, they didn't pay for the lie. The lie didn't cause them to die; whether or not Obama had said anything, the plan would still be in place and they still would have died. Therefore, whether or not Obama campaigned on that is irrelevant to the thread, which is supposed to be about who failed to adequately protect the ambassador. On the other hand, cutting $330 million in embassy security is obviously relevant; I don't see why you seem to be dismissing it out of hand. =Uncool-

Unity: If I missed some claims, please point them out. DH, would you mind pointing out exactly where each of the claims I mentioned were cited from? Specifically, would you mind citing specific quotes for each? I agree that almost all of the claims I mentioned were there, but specific quotes make it easier to demonstrate it. Further, do you have a citation for the $330 million claim? =Uncool-

Would you mind making a list of what you see as claims? I'll start; I may miss some (it's late, and I'm tired). 1) That false rumor [i.e. "The commanders of the soldiers that went to Libya were interviewed and they even said that these Navy Seals had to volunteer because Obama refused to give support to the Ambassador."] has been refuted a number of times. 2) That the CIA originally made the connection [between the film and the protests, and the protests and the killing]. 3) That the CIA later "refuted this initial intelligence". 4) The $330 million cut. No, he didn't. What he said was Nothing about anyone still believing it was the video - in fact, the exact opposite, that the "alternate lines", i.e. the intelligence reports indicating the film as the cause, were disproven. =Uncool-

For which specific claims? That's not what DH said. =Uncool-

Unemployment isn't the worst thing that can happen from an employee's perspective. A bankruptcy still sends some funds towards the employees, including pensions, pay, etc. This can be better than a ridiculous concession, which is what the union is claiming the company demanded. Further, the union is claiming that the company had illegally and unilaterally stopped paying pensions, which further removes any reason to think that the company will treat workers any better should this go through, and therefore making bankruptcy a more attractive option. So while the "true objective" may not be to shut down the company, shutting down the company may be in the interest of the workers in comparison to the alternative. ETA: In other words, in bankruptcy, employees still get money. Should the union think that the longer the company remains open, the less money the employees will get in an eventual bankruptcy due to the misdeeds of the company (for example, if the CEO continues getting enormous raises while employee wages continue getting cut), then bankruptcy may be the best option, rather than stretching out the bankruptcy and cutting the amount of money the employees eventually get. I never claimed that the union was unbiased. Nor did I make pronouncements. However, what I was pointing out was that there were several claims that had not been considered which were in the pdf from the union. ETA: Apparently I forgot precisely what I had posted at the end; I did make pronouncements about "focusing on trying to get as much money as possible for upper management while it lasted". I apologize for that. =Uncool-

For everyone: You may wish to dig into the history before making pronouncements about who was being silly. Hostess has had a history of labor relation issues that have involved major concessions from the unions before, without any sign of actually trying to keep the companies open, instead focusing on trying to get as much money as possible for upper management while it lasted. I refer you all to the information provided by the union: http://bctgm.org/PDFs/HostessFactSheet.pdf =Uncool-

Technically, rigney's question is one which can be answered in any situation; an answer of "yes" is sufficient. That's different from your questions, which have no answer in some situations. =Uncool-

I'll start with this: Chuck Asay really, really shouldn't try to speak for African-Americans. Just...no. =Uncool-

He's not trashing you as incompetent. In fact, he's pointing out that you are competently doing exactly what you intended to do. =Uncool-

Our ancestors also didn't have 7 billion people to feed. Check Phi's post - "There's no way we could feed everyone on the planet if all farming were done organically." That's the objection that was made. =Uncool-