I have a beef to pick with the auto industry workers that are in a union. A lot could be said about what this union has done and how it actually destroyed jobs, rather than secure them. If you bleed a business too much it won't be able to survive. But that's not what I want to talk about. I want to talk directly to the United Auto Workers or anyone that is in a similar situation.

The way that auto workers worked was really quite simple. You worked on an assembly line, you had your particular job on the assembly line and that yielded very good pay/benefits. Your job wasn't exactly challenging, but the union was there to protect you and insure your wages. During the years you worked there you spent most of your inflated wages on "life". Instead of saving, growing, learning and a lot of other important things, you just lived beyond your means. And then when the plant closing came you complained.

I have some advice for you and for anyone that is in a similar position.

1. If your job can be learned in as little as a week or two, you do not have job security. Union or not. It becomes less secure the more money you make. 
2. Your job isn't the most valuable money maker in your life. It is you. If you're not growing each year and building your "human capital" during your life, than you're worth nothing as are the skills people are willing to pay you. If you don't carve a niche in the market, build up your skills with experience and courses, you're just wasting your time. You're going to get blind sided one day.
3. The money you do earn on your paycheck doesn't have to be spent all up before the next check. There is this thing called savings and investing. If you don't have any emergency savings than you're an idiot. If you're not putting away dollars for retirement thinking you'll have a big fat pension, you're an idiot. If you buy a house with a little or no downpayment, you're an idiot. At least live within your means. Live below your means, so you can leverage cash.
4. Don't be some self entitled little prick because you are the worst people to hire. No one wants that type of worker. They want skilled people that get the job done. End of story. You're not special.

Out of all these points, the second one is the most important. If you're not building your skill set and becoming a more valuable person you're just playing with fire. There's a lot of ways to get human capital which include work experience, courses, specific jobs, independent research, etc. Screwing doors on an automation line is not building your human capital, especially if you've been doing it for a few decades.

Well, let me correct things, I don't know if I should support such laws because I haven't actually read the bills in their entirety. I know enough from the usual talking heads, social media influence and general stupidity of arguments that most likely people are fighting without exposing their true intentions (like net neutrality, which I don't support).

Everyone should know by now that I'm a strong supporter of intellectual property rights (more here). Thought, art, engineering, entertainment are all forms of intellectual property. Creators have every right to protect their property from what I'll call moochers, which I derive strictly from the book Atlas Shrugged.

I find arguments to be all over the place when it comes to pirating and stuff like that. The reason for this is that you have people of all political stripes united on the issue, which means that there is something up. When you see communists and Ron Paul supporters siding with each other you know that there is something up.

For the duration of this article, I'm going to use stealing and copyright infringement as the same thing.

Let me try to sum up all the views into three categories:

1. I hate rich people
2. Copying isn't stealing/Intellectual property doesn't exist
3. I'm entitled

1. I Hate Rich People

This is your typical left-winger type argument. They look at a musician or a movie studio and think they have a lot of money, so they have the right to steal the work. This attitude is something that is very closely related to the entitled attitude.

They take because they think that they're being exploited as a consumer. I don't know how that works though. Often their arguments revolve around "why would I pay $15 for a crappy album made by a corporate manufactured band" or "why would I pay $12 to see a movie that sucks". Are these arguments for why you have the right to steal intellectual property? They seem like arguments not to consume, which is your choice.

I've heard this type of argument over and over again. The only thing a rational person can say to such a thing is "why would you pirate it, if it sucks?"

2. Copying Isn't Stealing/Intellectual Property Doesn't Exist

I find this to be the funniest of them all. I typically run into this type of argument from libertarian/Ron Paul/Austrian economic type people, though a lot of people of all political stripes use the argument.

Of course copying isn't stealing (in the legal sense), it's copyright infringement.  Usually people that use this argument tend to be of the entitled category, but they think they can slap out this pseudo-intellectual position and what can you say?

The intellectual property existing versus not existing is definitely a poor position to come from. Many important things that hold intellectual property have benefited your life, so it's such a stupid argument.

3. I'm Entitled

This is basically the brat. They're all brats, but this is the biggest brat of them all. They'll use all the arguments to justify why they do it, but all they're really saying is that it is their Sweet 16 and they better be spoiled.

-------

The problem, at least from the "property" side of things, is that people seem to think property can only be based on scarcity. The idea is if I own the land, no one else can own it too. But property isn't really based on the concept of scarcity, but really the idea of value. And thought has value, some more than others.

Imagine you're developing the cure for cancer. You dedicated 8 years of your life working, testing and going through the regulatory process to bring this to the market. By the time it makes it to the market you've spend a $100 million on research and development. Imagine someone buying the medication, copying it and selling it for a fraction of the price (because they didn't have to spend $100 million developing it).

This person or business would be a moocher and as the person developing it the only word you could come up with is theft.

This same argument can be applied to almost anything. Writing a book for a year (without pay) and selling it. I had an argument with someone over sunglasses. They said cheap sunglasses and expensive sunglasses cost the same to manufacture. This is a true statement, but the "intellectual" value poured into a cheap pair of sunglasses is a lot less.

Anyone that doesn't believe in the concept of intellectual property is anti-man. The brightest minds lose their incentive to pour their wisdom into the market place. Imagine having a job where you produce intellectual items. Say your boss asks you how to do things and one day your boss says, "I'm just not going to pay you because they're just thoughts"? I know how stupid these arguments can seem, but the counter is from such a retarded point of view.

------

So I'm sure some of you are thinking what this has to do with my support of SOPA and PIPA (or at least the ideas behind them). I have to bring it up because you have to know that intellectual property rights are the key to this argument. This isn't about censorship. Every whining brat on the internet and social media is probably pirating, but they have something nice to hide behind "censorship". And you know it.

The big argument I hear about this is that these bills allow the government to run just like Chinese internet censorship, where they can shut down/block sites that they want and that's all there is to it.

*rolls eyes*

Google had a blog post that just pissed me off. Let me quote a little bit for you as it is so retarded.

 These bills would grant new powers to law enforcement to filter the Internet and block access to tools to get around those filters. We know from experience that these powers are on the wish list of oppressive regimes throughout the world

So, oppressive regimes use the same technology eh? I hear that oppressive regimes have police officers too. Should we get rid of them? I hear they have roads. Should we get rid of them?

 These bills wouldn’t get rid of pirate sites. Pirate sites would just change their addresses in order to continue their criminal activities.

This one pissed me off the most. Of course it won't completely stop pirating, but it will eliminate the vast majority of it in the United States. If The Pirate Bay is blocked and they have to setup a new one, well, a fraction of people will actually find it. And block it within an hour until they stop. It's actually quite an effective solution.

 The foreign rogue sites are in it for the money, and we believe the best way to shut them down is to cut off their sources of funding.

This is what is happening now and it's not fixing things. Essentially Google thinks that they should treat this as an international trade issue. Oh wow. You really mean it Google. We can treat it just like it has always been treated. What a position!

The idea is that countries with poor intellectual property rights (ie: China, Russia, etc) will dictate how Americans can access things and subvert laws of other countries. Does the internet need to be governed by the lowest common denominator when it comes to world governments? If this was child porn we wouldn't have a problem (oh SOPA and PIPA will help stop child porn).

The other argument that I hear is that they'll start censoring sites, basically at random. Someone posts something bad on Facebook, it'll be shut down. Put up an offensive picture on reddit, site shut down. Give me a break. This is scare mongering of stupid proportions.

The day that police officers were given guns to carry, they could go rob people, murder people. You can do anything you want with a badge and gun. Why the assumption of the worst?

Let me show you how it WOULD work. FREE SPEECH is a RIGHT in the United States, so censorship wouldn't stand. Sites that promoted CHILD PORNOGRAPHY would be shut down. When a site had an issue with copyright infringement the owners could fix it after complaints and such. Sites that ignore such legal warnings (like the Pirate Bay) would be shut down.

I know you morons like to think that the government is out to get you and police state, insert generic conspiracy theory crap, but you're not that important. They're not going after websites. They're targeting sites that pirate.

------

When it comes to SOPA and PIPA, I don't know if they're the best way to enforce this. This type of argument is fair. But everyone is arguing about censorship and shutting down websites. It's all so stupid and it's coming from the worst ideological position (a pirating position).

Stealing intellectual property is WRONG! We should all be working to strengthen intellectual property rights and the enforcement of them. Eventually that is going to lead to the internet. So back off and stand up for the rights of creators, engineers, artists, producers, actors, etc.

If you don't like that, don't come back to my blog.

Edit:
I did some research and it seems like ALL the arguments against SOPA and PIPA are blatantly false. One of the big complaints is that the government or government censor gets to decide what sites are shut down, without due process. Guess what children, not true.

Check the following from Wikipedia's Protect IP Act page

The bill provides for "enhancing enforcement against rogue websites operated and registered overseas" and authorizes the United States Department of Justice to seek a court order in rem against websites dedicated to infringing activities, if through due diligence, an individual owner or operator cannot be located.^[11] The bill requires the Attorney General to serve notice to the defendant.^[12] Once the court issues an order, it could be served on financial transaction providers, Internet advertising services, Internet service providers, and information location tools to require them to stop financial transactions with the rogue site and remove links to it.

Okay, let's dissect what this says. The first point, a court order is needed. This makes it 100% legal allowing for due process. The second point is that it is designed to go after sites DEDICATED to infringing activity (whether on purpose or the owner of the site has abandoned it). The defendant of said site will be served notice by the attorney to comply.

Guess what children, this law is actually quite reasonable, rational and moral.

The same is true for SOPA, which you can see on Wikipedia's Stop Online Privacy Act page

The bill would authorize the U.S. Department of Justice to seek court orders against websites outside U.S. jurisdiction accused of infringing on copyrights, or of enabling or facilitating copyright infringement.

Look children, yet again a court order is needed. This time it is for sites located outside the US borders.

Yet again, reasonable, rational and moral.

Did anyone actually look into the facts of the case? Nothing but FALSE fear mongering.

I feel the need to write this post as I've seen some surges in polls regarding Ron Paul. I know that you can't put much into polls involving Ron Paul because typically the one that counts (elections) show a much different result. Anyway, I feel like I need to write about this. There is a lot of misinformation out there on him. I find that his supporters are literally marketers for him and I mean marketing in a way of selling his ideas, not really giving you a fair shake.

I think I can give you much better facts on him since I was a supporter back in my more "ideal" time in life. Since then I've smartened up and became much more rational. In that time I learned a lot of the discussion points and the way things are argued. My Ron Paul facts will be very accurate and I know a lot of his fanatical supporters won't like that. If you're one of those people, eat me.

Ron Paul is a Racist

Don't let anyone, ever, convince you that he is not. Fanatical idiotic Ron Paul supporters may try to convince you otherwise. About 10-15-20 years ago Ron Paul produced letters to supporters in his community and mainly in his area of Texas.  These letters are the items you really need to read. This is the true ideological point of Ron Paul and a huge part of his followers. And there's a lot more in there aside from racism

Let's review some of the quotes:

• "Order was only restored in LA when it came time for the blacks to collect their welfare checks." - Ron Paul on the LA riots (June 1992)
• "Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. Laughingly calls the 'criminal justice system,' I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal." - Ron Paul in 1992
• "We don't think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That's true for most people [white people],  but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such." - Ron Paul in 1992.

This is just a small selection of what is out there. I suggest you find actual copies of the newsletters on the internet and read them for yourself. There's more in there than just racism. There's conspiracy theories and the typical "Jews own the world" type crap.

Anyway, Ron Paul supporters and Ron Paul himself have a very pathetic excuse for this. They say it was taken out of context. Oh, but than they said, it's completely fabricated. Oh and about the time Ron Paul began more Republican runs he has said he didn't write them. With different excuses to explain this, you can pretty much tell that he was involved. Even if you buy into the fact that someone else on his campaign wrote it and sent it out (as a letter with Ron Paul's name on it) you should never be able to get away with it. No politician could live this down yet Paul supporters think it's a conspiracy against him by the "media".

Ron Paul is an Isolationist

This is a point that makes Ron Paul supporters blood boil. I think the main reason is that it is so true, but they have an excellent rebuttal for it. If you bring up the isolationist point you'll often hear something along the lines of "he's not about war. He's about being friends with countries and having free trade with them." It does sound nice and very peaceful, but it doesn't negate the fact that he's an isolationist.

For example, Ron Paul is against GATT, NAFTA, FTAA and every other single form of a free trade that has ever been introduced in Congress under the guise that it isn't "true free trade". There's also the other excuse which is a conspiracy, world government type deal, but I'll save that for another bullet point.

It's true that these agreements aren't technically "free trade" as there are rules and regulations. Just as there are rules and regulations in the United States on "trade" within it. In the world we live in, we need agreements to liberalize trade and make it easier. Anyone with a brain knows that these agreements are progress to a freer world and freer markets.

Ron Paul's view on free trade is known as unilateral free trade. This is where he executes a free trade in and out of the country, just on the US side. He has no desire to negotiate an agreement with other countries because he doesn't believe in it and he doesn't like telling other countries what to do.  Despite your opinion on whether this is a better form to achieve free trade is up to you, but we can all agree that it is an isolationist point of view.

The other point is that he doesn't seem to care about the world outside the United States the immediate effect on the country. If you go back 250 years, it was quite easy to hold the Ron Paul position because the world was a different place. If the British were sending troops over to fight, it took them a month to cross the Atlantic. Today, we have intercontinental ballistic missiles. We have technology that can destroy the lives of millions in a matter of seconds. This same technology is being pursued and already achieved by theocratic nuts and dictators.

You just can't hold a position like this. It isn't rational. 

Ron Paul on Iran

One of the most troubling Ron Paul facts are his idiotic and completely dangerous views on Iran. Despite all the racist, conspiracy theories and all his odd policies the scariest thing I've ever heard him say is that Iran has a right to nuclear weapons and we have no right to stop them. This is very dangerous, anti-man, anti-mind talk.

Libertarians and Ron Paul are very emphatic about rights, as am I. The difference is that libertarians don't really know where rights come from. We have the right to free speech, but a libertarian couldn't tell you where that right comes from. They'd probably say the constitution, but that doesn't really get down to the core. Rights don't come from God and rights don't come from existing. It's this unknown that inevitably leads to Ron Paul supporters (and libertarians for the most part) to defend Iran and defend the "rights" of Iran.

What's worse is that you often hear a blaming of American and a blaming of the free world. It's the core points (or lack thereof) of libertarian philosophy that leads libertarians to the point of view that Iran has equal rights, the same rights that a free democratic society has. This is a severe and dangerous look at the world.

Rights are in fact born out of the requirement to live your life properly and to the best of your ability. When rights are taken away, the lives of people suffer and are often lost. This same thinking applies to governments, but not equally. A free democratic country is better than a theocratic dictatorship. Dictatorships and theocracies don't have rights.

This means that we don't have to give Iran the benefit of the doubt. This means that we don't have to wait and avoid a preemptive strike. We don't owe a dictator anything as a free society. We don't have to listen to them. 

Rational thought tells us that crazy theocracies cannot have nuclear weapons or weapons of mass destruction. We don't owe them an explanation. We don't owe them a benefit of the doubt. We owe nothing less than destroying the capabilities that lead to this.

Not only has he expressed this dangerous opinion, but he just expresses factual incorrect information on the subject. In the past, Ron Paul said that Iranian democracy is a model for other countries in the Middle East. Sounds like a nice statement, but Iran is a theocratic dictatorship.

Ron Paul also says that there is no evidence that Iran is building nuclear weapons. Well, there is the IAEA report that was released November 8 2011 that says so. He says that there is no credible evidence. Of course, Ron Paul would never listen to the IAEA because they're a branch of "world government" which exists to take over the world and all the rich Jews will steal his gold, or something like that.

Ron Paul is the king of Conspiracy Theorists 

I wish I could show you a video I seen on Ron Paul's Congressional website a few months after 9/11. This was a time before Youtube, as I remember watching the video through Windows Media Player. Ron Paul was standing in front a crowd in his town speaking and he said that the government was pulling the wool over the eyes of America. Literally coming out and saying that it was an inside job. Go find the newsletters he wrote about 15-20 years ago and you'll see plenty of conspiracy theories.

With the popularity of the internet growing and the ability to share information, Ron Paul has become more popular and has really toned down the conspiracy stuff. But he still has the underlying words where he almost comes off as one. This attracts a lot of conspiracy theorists to him. It's no coincidence that the vast majority of Ron Paul supporters believe in whacko conspiracies.

I know that is a very generalized and subjective statement,  but serious go to a Ron Paul forum and just lurk. Read what they say. Whacko people.

And this is something that doesn't stop with 9/11. If you believe in this type of crap you almost guaranteed believe in "the Jews" are behind (insert whatever). The Jews run the media. The Jews are part of the New World Order. The Jews run all the bailed out banks. There is absolutely no end to the amount of retarded conspiracies that savages like Ron Paul supporters come up with.

Even though Ron Paul has shut up about Israel and "the Jews" recently, it can still be found on his newsletters. The conspiracies against Jews are the ones that annoy me the most. Conspiracy theories in general piss me off, but when it involves Jews it comes from the most vial place and it just disgusts me.

But the conspiracies don't stop there. One of the Ron Paul facts that you probably hear about was his opposition to the "NAFTA highway". He says he opposes it for "sovereignty" reasons. I say he opposes it because he views NAFTA in general as a way of building a "North American Government" and eventually world government type deal. The fact is that it is just a road. It's made of asphalt and you drive your car on it. It's not a conspiracy. It's a road.

Ron Paul's favorite conspiracy theorist is Alex Jones who runs two websites known as InfoWars and PrisonPlanet. I will not link to these websites as I don't want to do them any favors. Alex Jones is literally screwed in the head. It's not like this guy has one conspiracy, it's that everything is a conspiracy. This includes con trails to 9/11 to police state to UN troops taking over the United States to brain washing chemicals in the drinking water. Absolutely crazy stuff. Ron Paul is a continued guest on his talk radio show. Continued. This guy is insane. Look up his Youtube videos and see the crazy stuff. I can't believe people exist like this.

Ron Paul hates Gay People

Often Ron Paul supporters will try to show a softer and gentler side of Paul that is for the LGBT community. They have a quote from him saying that he views all of God's creatures equally or something like that. And I often hear them say that he's against the amendment to ban gay marriage. Yet again, don't be fooled by this.

The Ron Paul newsletters, yet again, expose a much different story and an extreme view on gay people. He said that gay people should be rounded up and quarantined from society because of AIDS. This sums up his view right there. There is nothing else to be said on this topic because of what he has said in his newsletters. That opinion is based on nothing more than bigotry and hatred.

See what his buddy Alex Jones says.

Ron Paul Hides Views "Constitutionally"

You ever notice that Ron Paul and his supporters talk a little too much about the constitution instead of coming out and just saying what they believe. This is a planned act because they can hide more radical opinions of him. The way that Ron Paul interprets the constitution is that there is very little power that the Federal government has. We can all argue the degree of this statement, but it's a convenient way to hide your opinions.

For example, there is no where in the constitution that gives the federal government power to regulate or define marriage. So when you hear a supporter saying Ron Paul is against federal attempts to ban gay marriage you're not getting the whole story. Ron Paul is against gay marriage. He doesn't like it, and he doesn't want to see it happen. This is something that he supports on a state level or a municipal level.

If you get down into the core beliefs of Ron Paul and his supporters you'll find a very clueless belief. One of the big ones is that Ron Paul actually wants to live in a religious theocracy type government, but it has to be on the state level. He's a proponent of government and religious mixing. He doesn't believe the separation of religion and state, which I think is bad.

Don't be fooled when you hear Ron Paul play the constitution card because he's really working to hide a more offensive position.

Ron Paul doesn't believe in Evolution

Stupid. He's a doctor as well, and he doesn't believe in evolution. Absolute complete retard. What else can I say.

---

These are the big Ron Paul facts that I've displayed here. I bring this from a unique point of view and I hope I illustrated a lot of the main points you should take away from this. I'll probably end up coming back to this and writing more because I literally get pissed off thinking about him and the stupidity of him. I'm hoping this changes minds and makes the world a better place by turning people off of him.

Shortly after posting:

I'd like to add something that shows a lot of what I'm talking about. I was going to post a video of Mark Levin talking about Ron Paul. I vaguely know who Mark Levin is and I don't really know much of his views. Though I do know that he's against Ron Paul and I know he has boycotted such events that allowed Ron Paul to be involved.

I thought instead of posting the video, I could post a picture as a picture speaks louder than words.

Edit Jan 15 2012:

Found a nice site dedicated to exposing Ron Paul supporters. A very interesting look at things as Ron Paul supporters are worse than Ron Paul himself.

Since my post on how I thought Occupy Wall Street is Stupid, I've been getting a lot of traffic. The vast majority has been quite positive, agreeing with my post. Over the last few days I've been getting very pro-occupy wall street comments and this mainly corresponds with the traffic dying down a bit. Plus occupier are being evicted. Anyway.

Normally I just delete comments that are so retarded. Normally I allow stupid, but if it falls into that fringe of catchy stupid/conspiracy crap it goes. I thought I'd share the ones I get here and people can see. I'll even reply to them. *More will be added as they come in.

It is an anti-corruption protest! What's wrong with the U.S. public demanding true representation in D.C. (the only thing being represented is the wants of corporations, who influence policy in every sphere- medicine, food, banking, you name it, so that the very people making the policies which regulate these industries are paid off by the industry themselves) it is a huge disservice to the American people, who deserve to have political representatives who act in the best interest of the constituents.

In short we are fighting for true CAPITALISM not Corporatism which we see today. Corporations having more rights than people and having NO responsibility. They are fighting to reinstate the Glass Steigel Act, which separates the banking arm from the investment arm of a bank. They want to audit the FED, that privately owned bank to which the U.S. public will always be in debted.

So the OWS is actually fighting for capitalism and democracy, corporations to abide by laws and morals, what is wrong with any of that?

I just can't get over the stupidity of this statement. It's one part Ron Paul retarded and one part Liberal. And you know that it is a good mix.

It is an anti-corruption protest!

No it's not. From the Occupy Wall Street website: "...aims to fight back against the richest 1% of people..." I at least hope you remember all the "We are the 99% crap". You're not the 99%, but that is another story. It's a socialist movement. One that isn't looking to "end corruption", but to distribute wealth away from the rich and give it to others.

What's wrong with the U.S. public demanding true representation in D.C. (the only thing being represented is the wants of corporations, who influence policy in every sphere- medicine, food, banking, you name it, so that the very people making the policies which regulate these industries are paid off by the industry themselves)

For me, this stuff falls into the realm of conspiracy theories. There always some group moaning about how the "big corporations" are running everything. Even though the corporations don't have the right to vote and pay taxes, while every American citizen of the age of 18 can vote, whether they pay taxes or not. It's almost as bad as the claim that people are too stupid to know who to vote for. The evil media brainwashes people into voting for certain candidates and no one else has the intellectual power to see past it, except for yourself.

In short we are fighting for true CAPITALISM

Not true. Nothing really to say but that.

Corporations having more rights than people and having NO responsibility.

Such as? Do they have the right to vote? I seriously would like to know because I actually own a small corporation, so I want to know what sort of bonus rights that I have (especially the ones about world domination).

 They are fighting to reinstate the Glass Steigel Act, which separates the banking arm from the investment arm of a bank.

That doesn't sound like "true CAPITALISM". In fact, I'm pretty sure the Glass Steigel Act does the complete opposite of what you stated.

They want to audit the FED, that privately owned bank to which the U.S. public will always be in debted.

Another glorious conspiracy theory. All that crazy Jekyll Island stuff and rich bankers planning to take over the world. The only problem with this is that it simply isn't true.

The reason I posted this comment is because it just shows you how the stupidity of fringe right and fringe left actually mix quite well. It's literally one part crazy Ron Paul and one part crazy Ralph Nader. Creepy.

I thought I'd talk about something related to science because it is something that greatly interests me. No doubt you heard recently that scientists have made a particle go faster than the speed of light. The big deal in the science world is that Einstein's theory was that the fastest a particle could go was the speed of light. And since a lot of the physics we know today is based off this assumption, it's a really big deal.  You can read about the news when it first came out here.

I was skeptical for a few reasons, but I'll go into that in a little bit. Today, a group of scientists in Italy are claiming that in fact that the study is wrong and that it's not traveling faster than light.

But ICARUS, another experiment at Gran Sasso - which is deep under mountains and run by Italy's National Institute of National Physics - now argues that their measurements of the neutrinos energy on arrival contradict that reading. 

In a paper posted on the same website as the OPERA results, the ICARUS team says their findings "refute a superluminal (faster than light) interpretation of the OPERA result."
They argue, on the basis of recently published studies by two top US physicists, that the neutrinos pumped down from CERN, near Geneva, should have lost most of their energy if they had travelled at even a tiny fraction faster than light. 

But in fact, the ICARUS scientists say, the neutrino beam as tested in their equipment registered an energy spectrum fully corresponding with what it should be for particles travelling at the speed of light and no more.

I'm fairly confident that the Opera experiment (the group the found a particle faster than light) is wrong. I hate when the media gets ahold of science and related matters because you never get a full picture. You often only hear a conclusion on the study. Without an understanding of methodology used to achieve results, how can you really know what is going on.

In a world of 'nothing faster than light', you can't measure anything faster than it. It's not like they had a speedometer to measure such things because there is nothing in science that we know of that could possible measure that. This means there is another methodology and another form of measurement for this type of thing. In this case it's a basis of the particle energy, which also happens to be another type of assumption science (just as the nothing faster than the speed of light is).

I think when you hear about quantum physics (quantum mechanics), which is the physics of the subatomic, you should be skeptical. It's actually a very tough science that we frankly don't know much about. It's growing and I think the studies are important and the more we learn the better, but I just get annoyed with so called "findings". Especially the ones picked up by the media.

Things like string theory, which by objective standards is retarded, is picked up by media and made to shine. Though the real science establishment won't touch it.

So think people. Remember that quantum physics/mechanics is a tough science to do. There's a lot of promise in the subject, but it's tough to figure things out. The measuring is by far the hardest. I find what they do very interesting and if I could be involved in such scientific projects I would. But take what you hear with a grain of salt because the standards are just not the same.