Slashdot Mirror
NASA Public-Affairs Appointee Resigns in Disgrace
belmolis writes "George C. Deutsch, who tried to muzzle top NASA climate scientist James Hansen and ordered NASA web designers to add the word 'theory' to every mention of the Big Bang, has resigned. The New York Times reports
that NASA declines to discuss the reasons for his resignation, but that it came the same day that Texas A&M University, from which Deutsch claimed on his resume to have graduated, revealed that he had attended the university but did not complete his degree."
The New York Times reports it today, but as of yesterday, it was the Times that had unquestioningly passed along the falsehood of Deutsch's graduation, and it was the blog Scientific Activist whose investigation revealed he'd left before graduating to work on the Bush reelection campaign. For more on the 24-year-old political appointee's interesting viewpoints, see World O' Crap; on Monday, we covered the anger over his attempts to squelch science -- something that, sadly, Jim Hansen has gotten used to.
The increasing availability and ease of access of information is making it increasingly difficult to get away with lying.
Good news for the people, bad news for governments.
On a related note, that same increasing availability is starting to render traditional news outlets obselete. No wonder they're so upset.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
Nice to see that Deutsch-bag got outed by his alma mater.
Even Aggies have high standards!
If "disco" means "I learn" in Latin, does "discothèque" mean "I learn technology"?
He never would have thought that he would be on the receiving end of a puppeteer's hand.
1. Deutsch is young. True, while at 24, Deutsch is young, that really does not say anything about his ability to be a spokesperson for science policy....if he is capable of representing the science for NASA and not necessarily a political agenda.
2. Deutsch did not graduate college. The fact that he is not a college graduate does not in of itself eliminate him from a spokespersons job. However, the major issue is that he lied about his graduation and because of that lapse in integrity should not be trusted.
3. Scientific integrity. NASA is an organization that should be proud of its scientific accomplishments and should care enough to represent those achievements to the world through the best possible spokespersons possible. Having these positions as appointed posts rather than earned posts or hires based on merit circumvents this process.
4. Motivations. Placing limits on science by appointing sycophantic toadies who are carrying out a politically and/or religiously motivated agenda is becoming a recurring theme in this administration which leads one to suspect potentially other agendas.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
This could be a win-win situation. NASA has an opening for a job to be filled by a Republican crony. Michael Brown is unemployed. Looks like a natural fit! Give that man a call!
Waltz, nymph, for quick jigs vex Bud.
He should have kept his feet calm instead of walking out into political territory with creationist thing.
Nobody would have ever noticed his non-existant degree.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
....is that he could have graduated from college in theory!
The "Theory of the Big Bang" is at the least how it should be described. NASA is a scientific organization. They should not be trying sell ideas but do strict science.
Theories, Models, and Laws are all terms that mean something. It's not just a matter of verbage but a title given to the status of something in the scientific methods. The Big Bang is actually a model according to scientific methods. To call it a theory is a stretch. To have something as a model is not a bad thing it's just a different descriptor for it.
Evolution or ID?
Has the Big Bang been established as scientific fact? Not saying it isn't, just would like some more info.
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
Let this be a perfect example of why cronyism is not a good practice.
Now that this guy is found out to be a fraud, it begs the question as to how many other people are holding positions that they neither deserve nor are qualified to hold?
And how many more qualified individuals were passed over because of cronyism?
The US Government should do a resume audit to find out who actually went to college and worked where they say they did.
But, of course, this will never happen.
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
I don't want to further the agenda of the people responsible for placing this asshat in office, but
AAAAAAAAAAAMEN.
Being a german myself and reading his surname was "Deutsch" (German for "German") even I care about this and feel delighted that such an individual, who can't even distinguish science from religion (obviously a common problem in your country, recently), is rightfully kicked into the nuts.
I wonder if he would have been fired out of NASA even if he had graduated.
With increasing information to the general public comes people who spin it and use that information to justify many things. Then, there is representation of information and how people look at organizations as authority figures. An example here is the Big Bang. To be scientific, as the organization is, shouldn't the big bang be described in accurate scientific terms with using terms such as model or theory? How will misrepresentation of information lead people into paths of believing things that just aren't true. Just because information is out there, doesn't mean the reporting source is honest in the way it conveys that information.
Evolution or ID?
Let's recap for those at home keeping score.
MIchael Brown, the guy Bush picked to head FEMA, had no experience doing disaster recovery, having been fired from his previous job as commissioner of the International Arabian Horse Assocation. However, Bush appointed him because he was the roommate of the college roommate of Joe Allbaugh, President Bush's 2000 campaign manager and Brown's predecessor at FEMA.
Next, he nominated to the Supreme Court his personal lawyer Harriet Miers who had absolutely no judicial experience. Luckily she didn't get her "up or down" vote due to a Republican backlash (but probably for the wrong reasons).
And now we find that Bush appointed to NASA a 24-year old journalism major who dropped out of college but had all the qualifications of someone who worked on his campaign. And the guy was censoring real scientists!
This problem of Bush cronyism goes much further than just giving plum jobs to to one's friends. These types of appointments are dangerous to our democracy because they can do real damage (as we saw in Brown's case). The fundamental problem is Bush and his ilk value loyalty more than experience or expertise; they value faith more than facts.
Insert simplistic political, ideological, or personal proselytization here.
This guy was able to hold a prominent position in the government? Only a day ago we were discussing how this guy was trying to influence NASA's output for a political end and now we find that the people who put him in the job weren't smart enough to do a background check. If you've ever been in poltics this is Lesson #1. Before you put someone in front of a camera to represent you, you make sure of their job credientials.
It's bad enough that a 24 year old was trying to tell NASA what to do but he never even graduated college. Whoever gave him that job should be fired along with him.
On a more personal note, Serves you right you dozy eejit.
I wonder if Deutsch had a problem with heliocentrism. The idea that the earth goes around the sun is as much a theory as the Big Bang or evolution.
Obviously the guy had an agenda regarding creationsism/evolution, etc. Arguments like these should not take place within NASA...however, calling the big bang a theory is actually correct.
Nice way to insult everyone here when you don't say anything to discredit their posts. Please enlighten us with your 'inside info'.
I went to Texas A&M. I saw the following Progression:
-People who couldn't do engineering changed majors to Computer Science
-People who couldn't do CS changed majors to Business
-People who couldn't do business changed majors to Journalism
It looks like this guy couldn't even do journalism.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA!!!!!!
Disgrace and shame is better than folks like this deserve, but it's the best we can realistically hope to see. The appointment of political officers to oversee scientific speech smacks of the bad old days of the Cold War, and I mean the BAD guys.
Unfortunately, this is only one small win for the side of truth, justice, and the American way. We've still got a *long* way to go before honesty and integrity are restored to the government.
It was a joke! When you give me that look it was a joke.
Doitch. D'Oi'tch.
I assume, anyway. Deutsch is a wierd name that might be pronounced Dutch, but Doitch sounds about right.
If you're "Mister Bright with the inside scoop", why not educate us all, instead of just rubbing in our face how wrong we all are?!?
To Terminate, or not to Terminate, that's the question - SCSIROB
Now, write 100 times "I will not mix personal life with business life..."
Oh no. The fark liters are here.
This is a running joke at Fark.com. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fark
So don't mod his post as interesting. It's not.
Sorry I missed this the first time this story came out, but the guy who's muzzling scientists at NASA is a 24-year old stooge? Talk about adding insult to injury. The only thing that would have made this more humiliating is if the guy had failed to graduate from Oral Roberts University or Bob Jones University.
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
I generally laugh when an appointee fails. They aren't a good example of the success of representative democracy, and no matter which side is in power, there are people crying foul about whoever is appointed.
They lie? Don't all politicians? They're too white? They're too left? They're too right? They're unqualified? They're qualified but they don't have real life experience? They're cronies?
Let's look at how this works in a free market:
John Johnson hires his son John Johnson, Jr, to help run his company. Nepotism. John I dies. John Jr takes over, and the general history of business shows us the John Jr has never felt pain, so he doesn't work as hard as he should. Business fails. The market solution is to give the person with the best output and lowest price the work. John Jr rarely will be that person.
In the market of government, we don't really have much to control. We can't vote with our dollars OR vote with our ballot. We can't directly affect the actions of the appointee, and some appointees are so powerful it amazes me that the country doesn't cry foul more often (see Ben Bernanke).
Positions of power are better suited to be competitive rather than elected, and better elected rather than appointed. Do you feel better when "your man" is the appointee? Do you forget all the damage that occurs when it isn't "your guy?"
Unfortunately, the vast majority of Americans are just as ignorant of science and the scientific method. To them, the words 'theory' and 'hypothesis' are roughly analogous. And, of course, since 'hypothesis' is usually defined as 'educated guess', you can imagine why we have so many problems.
Because some other asshole will be asked to step into his place.
Ok, what exactly IS false? That Mr. Deutch didn't graduate? That he is a political appointee? That he was injecting politics into science?
You are more than welcome to make an assertion disputing any of those above points (or any other point you desire to make). So, go ahead an actually MAKE ONE, instead of just asserting "Most of this (whatever that means) is false".
Care to share what is false and what is truth? Otherwise you are no different, nay worse than any /.er because you profess to have first hand knowledge.
Not to defend Deutsch in anyway, but I'm confused. From the first story on Slashdot, it seems like this guy was 'censoring' a web site and was not connected to the Hansen issue. Maybe I've got it wrong, but it seems like its important to realize that there are multiple occurences of this sort of thing and not just Mr. Deutsch.
"I wasn't talking to you, I was talking to the universe. It hates me, you know"
Didn't you post something almost word-for-word identical in the last NASA story? Again, without any backup, links, or even specificity.
I suspect you may be a bullshitter, just like those you are disparaging.
Justin.
You're only jealous cos the little penguins are talking to me.
From: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=fact
fact
n.
1. Knowledge or information based on real occurrences: an account based on fact; a blur of fact and fancy.
2.
1. Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed: Genetic engineering is now a fact. That Chaucer was a real person is an undisputed fact.
2. A real occurrence; an event: had to prove the facts of the case.
3. Something believed to be true or real: a document laced with mistaken facts.
3. A thing that has been done, especially a crime: an accessory before the fact.
4. Law. The aspect of a case at law comprising events determined by evidence: The jury made a finding of fact.
----- If communism is a system where the government owns business, what do you call a system where business owns govern
I can't believe this administration hired some young kid to this position (well, I can but...). Besides the Michael Brown/FEMA disaster, there's this shocking bit (from Al Franken's latest): And then there was Scott Erwin, twenty-one, a former intern for Dick Cheney and Tom DeLay, who didn't need a job because he was still in college. Erwin marveled to the University of Richmond newletter that "in one week I went from chatting on the quad, eating in the Heilman Dining Center and attending ODK [Omicron Delta Kappa] meetings to being briefed in the Pentagon, flying in a C-130 military plane from Kuwait City to Baghdad and living in one of Saddam's many palaces." Erwin soon landed a gig as the top Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) official managing the finances of Iraq's civilian security forces -- fire units, customs, border patrols, and police. What a great job! Almost as much fun as his previous favorite job, which he told the Richmond Times-Dispatch was "my time as an ice cream truck driver." Erwin was one of the six youngsters given control of Iraq's $13 billion budget. ... CPA Inspector General Stuart Bowen concluded that no less than $8.8 billion went unaccounted for ...
Seriously, "cuz"? "belive"?
One wonders whether you are a troll or not. I suppose it is possible for you to be telling the truth... in theory. But, more likely, George, you should give up on trying to repair your image here and go back to University to finish your studies.
No.
Discus is greek for plate, and theke is also greek for table. A discotheque is a table with plates on, in this case the table of the disc jockey. It has indirectly to do with the bibliotheque, the table for books (biblio: greek for book).
I take it you also hold that all black people love chitlins, all hispanics snuck through a fence, and all Jews are sleazy bankers?
Really, tell me; what is the difference between your sweeping, stereotypical statement and one made by some bigot running around in the woods with a pillow case over his head?
Regards;
"In 1988, the Vatican allowed the shroud to be dated by three independent sources--Oxford University, the University of Arizona, and the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology--and each of them dated the cloth as originating in medieval times, around 1350." (Source)
But hey, faith's a funny thing. And not funny haha, unless you think drowning cats are hilarious as well.
You better watch out, there may be dogs about . .
For someone who is deutsch (e.g. german), d'oi'tch sounds about right.
> Didn't you post something almost word-for-word identical in the last NASA story?
Don't bother. The guy's script is a word-for-word Fark.com cliche. Someone posts that to every story over there. It's not funny there, and it's certainly not funny here.
Instead of responding, people should click the "metamoderate" link and mod down the moderator who marked the post "Interesting".
I guess we'd get the same response if someone posted a Slashdot cliche (e.g., Natalie Portman and hot grits or something about Soviet Russia) on Fark.com.
Insert simplistic political, ideological, or personal proselytization here.
Only days ago Bush praised George Deutsch for his work at NASA, "Deutschy your doing a heck of a job!"
I guess he should have added the word theory after Texas A&M everywhere on his resume.
JWall: GUI client for IPTables
I've only one point to make -
I don't care whether he's young or not. He's a speedbump, as amply evidenced by his actions/comments/articles/etc. The only question he should be asking of a NASA (or any other) scientist is "sir, do you want fries with that?"
Let's start with the President! *ducks*
You better watch out, there may be dogs about . .
Sweet! There is a god.
yeah, if only every bodyshop software consultant who claimed 5 years experience when he has 1 month realworld experience, ans masters degrees in computer science when he has a commerce degree from a liberal arts college did the same
Hey if you read this think of it this way. All they did was protect themselves from being seen as a religious organization. Cause as scientists they see big bang as the truth and religious experts see it as theory. So by changing everything on there website to theory, in chance they are opening themselves up to scrutiny for being a religious group.
I am giving away 2000 premium accounts on my new dating website myfantasyromance.com check it out!
"Whoever gave him that job should be fired along with him."
I expect there are a lot of folks who feel that way (wasn't this guy a political appointee?).
----- If communism is a system where the government owns business, what do you call a system where business owns govern
> The Big Bang is actually a model according to scientific methods. To call it a theory is a stretch. To have something as a model is not a bad thing it's just a different descriptor for it.
A theory is a model.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
I work in the Exploration Systems dept. at NASA.
/.ers belive anything they hear.
---Oh really? What do you do exactly?
So I am really getting a kick out of most of these replies.
---That's cool because I wouldn't want this to distract you from your work.
Some of you guys are very good at making it sound like you know what you are talking about.
----Welcome to Slashdot!!
But trust me.... You don't.
----Oh really? Is this some kind of Jedi mind trick?
I think you just want to make yourself sound smart, when in reality you dont know what you are talking about.
-----Well, reality is a subjective thing these days, but sounding smart is an art form.
This is how bad info gets passed around.
---As we all know that everybody reads Slashdot as fact - and there is no room for dissent!
If you dont know about the topic....Dont make yourself sound like you do.
----Well, it would be nice if you could give us an example here because it sounds like you are doing the same.
Cuz some
---Sad, isn't it? But those people aren't the ones we are worried about, just the guys who resign in disgrace for making us try to believe lies that we hear from them.
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
WANTED
Appointee to public affairs office at NASA. Must have a good grounding in science and public communication, as well as up-to-date knowledge of party realthink. Fluency in English and Newspeak is required, Spanish a plus. A university degree in !&@!cynargnel naq ngzbfcurevp!#$!$ [garbled] theory is also a plus.
Ugh - this should be modded as "Funny", not "Flamebait". I guess some people don't get out and about on the net very much.
:-)
YA RLY.
Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
If this kid is only 24 now he must have been just a little shaver when he imposed the use of "theory" in conjunction with "Big Bang."
Perhaps he is subconsciously fingering his incompetent appointments ?
well, he could always become a slashdot poster. Isn't that what we do here?
-- Is "Sig" copyrighted by www.sig.com?
Deutsch is only a minor (and obvious) part of a larger problem with the NASA public-affairs branch. Recently the HQ office has been asserting much more control over what goes out, and attempting to add political spin to everything. I know -- I work with them regularly to get science stories from NASA-funded projects into the media. That job has become much more difficult since the 2004 elections, and Deutsch is not the main reason.
The more immediate question is what kind of political appointee anointed with an anti-science agenda will be next?
Rest assured he'll be just as bad as this kid, but won't claim he graduated from college.
passetspike!
i can't believe anyone didn't get that joke, let alone two slashdotters. for shame
Theory - 1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
Hypothesis - 1. A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation.
There is a definition of "theory" that means what they think it means but that's not the same definition that science uses.
0x09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
I mean, Jim Henson, everyone loves the guy...
I guess its not easy being green...
"Waste not one watt!" - CZ
This tells you a ton about his character, and the character of those who appointed him.
The mistakes found in slashdot stories are really getting out of hand.
The guy's name is not "George C. Deutsch".
It's "George C. Dusch"
Lets get it right, people.
You lose the luxury of being considered "just a kid" at age 18. Period.
Uh, last time I checked, the Big Bang IS just a theory, just as black holes are. They may be credible theories, theories with a lot of evidence, but are still just theories. There is nothing wrong with not proclaiming a theory to be fact.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
The real questions are who was responsible for hiring him, who should have checked his references, and who influenced his decisions to pressure the little guys. Those people should all be fired as publicly as possible.
I find it hard to believe that a 20-something thinks they can get away with fakery in this age of pervasive internet search. The same tools that allows to badmouth anyone in a blog can expose the author if there is any plagarism or error. We are seeing this in one journalist and novelist after another, not just republican political appointees and gay porn actors. Maybe a boomer might be too computer-unliterate to get caught, but not someone in the net-generation.
Nothing to see here. Please move along.
I invite them to test the theory of gravitational attraction by jumping off the top of a very tall building. After all, if they had faith the size of a mustard seed, they'd be able to land safely, right?
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
Here's a notable excerpt:
And he's ranked 7 out of 15 for hacktitude.
Given this Administration's behavior and appointees of late... Well, any theory that President Bush really wants the US to lead in science and global competitiveness is just that: a theory. And one that has absolutely no evidence supporting it (and which seems to be pretty well falsified at this point, actually). On the other hand, it's comforting to remember that the judge who ruled against ID in the Dover, PA case was a Republican and a Bush appointee. So perhaps all is not lost.
"A statesman is a dead politician. Lord knows we need more statesmen." Opus
Not that it really excuses lying, but you're absolutely right. The underlying problem is the belief that a college degree is some sort of basic requirement for having the ability to do a job. Much to the chagrin of many people paying off huge student loans, it's simply not!
The Slashdot story yesterday about new govt. hiring guidelines going into effect will just make the problem even worse. If resumes are expected to contain every single requirement listed in a "want ad" - guess what? Most of them will end up doing so, whether or not the candidates really know those specific things.
I think in the specific cases cited here, it's mostly a matter of our president appointing these people to their positions because he already knows them and thinks they're in line with his agenda. (Heck, who's to say he didn't talk with them behind closed doors, informing them that "a college degree is, ahem, required, before I can give you this position - so you might want to, uh, put something down just for the sake of completeness...."?)
But you're quite right. There's a lot of discrimination out there towards folks who chose alternate paths to "get out of high-school, jump into college". It seems sometimes, the only ones who manage to overcome it are the ones who build their own big businesses -- and then, all of a sudden, the college-degreed world is very interested in what they have to say. (EG. Bill Gates)
The person that is responsible for appointing that underqualified-chucklhead needs to resign or be fired too.
This event is a disgrace to the entire scientific community in the United States.
Also: It kinda looks to me like he was fired more for his censorship (and creating a big flap about pushing creationism) than for the fact that he didn't have a degree. By the time The Times started calling abou this, he was already not answering calls.
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
The minutes of the FOMC are released 3 weeks after a meeting. Rates do not change on a whim. Go read up on modern macroeconomics.
oh noes!!!!11! evolution is a theory?!?!?!? wait, now that I look so is relativity!! shhhhh, don't say anything.
ConsultingFair.com
That could be your problem right there. People posting as ACs inherently take a hit credibility-wise, and this is exactly as it should be.
Generally speaking, though, I've found that while there is no shortage of embarrassingly stupid posts (especially on biology-related topics) that get moderated highly, there also usually is at least a few that "set the record straight" and get modded highly as well. At least when people post for attribution - rather than anonymously - you can check their other posts to get a rough idea of how credible they are.
> Using your definition, science now dictates one set of beliefs (why do we need to look any further if its "proven" in any realistic definition of the word?
Scientists often use the word 'proven' in a sense that's different from what it means in math or logic. I'm not aware of any cases where it has kept us from looking any further.
> (and to see how this makes science like religion, replace the word "science" with "religion")
But your premise is false. Science doesn't dictate one set of beliefs. Science doesn't do anything at all. Scientists try to convince people with evidence and analysis.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
{{ ... Oh, never mind.
Yes, I realize that James Henson isn't Jim Henson (at least, he's not "The" Jim Henson -- the grown man who played with dolls.
}}
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
So I can tell you some facts. I know you haven't read any of what I am about to tell you in the newspaper, because newspapers literally don't report them. I can tell you that DDT is not a carcinogen and did not cause birds to die and should never have been banned. I can tell you that the people who banned it knew that it wasn't carcinogenic and banned it anyway. I can tell you that the DDT ban has caused the deaths of tens of millions of poor people, mostly children, whose deaths are directly attributable to a callous, technologically advanced western society that promoted the new cause of environmentalism by pushing a fantasy about a pesticide, and thus irrevocably harmed the third world. Banning DDT is one of the most disgraceful episodes in the twentieth century history of America. We knew better, and we did it anyway, and we let people around the world die and didn't give a damn.
I can tell you that second hand smoke is not a health hazard to anyone and never was, and the EPA has always known it. I can tell you that the evidence for global warming is far weaker than its proponents would ever admit. I can tell you the percentage the US land area that is taken by urbanization, including cities and roads, is 5%. I can tell you that the Sahara desert is shrinking, and the total ice of Antarctica is increasing. I can tell you that a blue-ribbon panel in Science magazine concluded that there is no known technology that will enable us to halt the rise of carbon dioxide in the 21st century. Not wind, not solar, not even nuclear. The panel concluded a totally new technology-like nuclear fusion-was necessary, otherwise nothing could be done and in the meantime all efforts would be a waste of time. They said that when the UN IPCC reports stated alternative technologies existed that could control greenhouse gases, the UN was wrong.
This guy is way out there
Where's the funny mod?
Is not it? A flaimbait of the day...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
It was proven wrong.
Here I'll do it right now.
Sound requires molecules to exist (it travels through them in waves).
"It cannot travel through a vacuum (such as exists in outer space)" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound
There was only 1 point from which the big bang "came from"
No room for sound and a bang is a loud noise.
No big bang.
...or you could say that the fact that he resigned is a sign that fascism is not taking hold in America. Funny how there's two opposite interpretations to everything...
If you're "Mister Bright with the inside scoop", why not educate us all, instead of just rubbing in our face how wrong we all are?!?
I am not the OP, but I do fully understand his point. I have been involved in some pretty big ongoing stories that have been reported on slashdot and news outlets around the World over the past few years and the replies I read are amazing. People making out like they know what they're talking about when anyone involved with the cases being reported know how wrong these posters are.
It is quite overwhelming for an insider to come to slashdot (or many other news outlets which provide readership views) and see hundreds of misguided posts that have been moderated right up and at the same time see much more correct posts being ignored or moderated down. For us, we are not armed with opinion based on reports coming from journalists (which often come from other journalists) who get their info from upper management or media liason officers who don't understand the issues themselves, let alone get it conveyed to the journalist. The journalist of course rarely conveys it correctly even if he is informed by people with the authoritive info. Rather we are armed with the knowledge of what we did that day or what we were an intimate part of, made the headlines.
Then we voice our knowledge and get argued out of slashdot by the childish fools who think they know what they're talking about or are on some karma whoring, dick measuring contest. Sometimes we can't give much detail and feel best remaining anonymous.
Sorry, but having been hanging out at slashdot from the earliest days and then the last couple of years being up to my eyeballs in the finest details and having those details and the very things I say and write then make it as a story here and in newspapers around the World, etc... I have mostly given up on slashdot because of all the bullshit posters who get moderated up by clueless moderators. I've gone back to mailing lists. Slashdot is good for a heads up with massive resources of sodium cloride on standby, however the comments usually consist of the blind leading the blind into some perverted pathetic excuse for self esteem.
Ultimately, the most important answer to your question from my point of view, is that I for one no longer have the time, energy or care to reply to the ridiculously uninformed statements which often dominate slashdot. I tried with great passion at one time, however working 12-24 hours per day, 6-7 days per week, 9 to 12 months out of the years, on these very stories leaves me with less and less care to argue with the clueless. I imagine many others, like our NASA friend here, might feel the same. It is actually reminiscient of a school yard where there is a lot of talk, but most of the talk is crap and certainly those speaking loudest are speaking the biggest loads of crap.
I don't think I could describe what it feels like to do something tonight, have it used tomorrow to good effect, make the news and then get told in public forums that I don't know what I'm talking about or RTFA and then be moderated down! I AM the fucking article! A good friend of mine once told me, "you don't argue politics with the mentally insane".
Really, it comes down to sensationalist journalism designed to sell as many adverts as possible. Every time a person here reads a story, formulates replies, posts them, comes back to read the follow up replies, etc... advert impressions are adding up and the sensationalist journalism worked. Congratulations, you have just been used to good effect to make rich people richer at the expense of the truth.
Alberto Gonzales as A.G.
(he was also a Bush family lawyer before working in the administration as the White House counsel)
Hey, the NYTimes gets credit for publishing their story of Bush's domesting spying operation, even though they did so only to preempt the story in the reporter's book about to be published. James Risen, the reporter, had seen his story suppressed by the Times for over a year when his book finally forced the Times to publish its version, allowing the Times to control the "framing" of the explosive issue. A year that included the 2004 presidential campaign season, while the Times therefore skipped its responsibility to inform the public about the president who would be reelected by a slim margin.
But then, the Times allowed its frontpage cheerleader for the Iraq "WMD" War, Judith Miller, to avoid the August 2004 Federal subpoenas into her role outing Valerie Plame, the CIA/WMD agent debunking the Iraq WMD lies sending us to war. Her trial likely would have meant another few points less for Bush in November 2004.
After these yearlong delays escorting Bush through the 2004 election, their final revelations are met with Bush's highest disapproval ratings, now in the 40% approval / 55% disapproval range. A range which itself has been escorted by the Times managing the news for minimum damage to Bush.
With the Times telling the story, why shouldn't the newspaper look even better than Bush does?
--
make install -not war
> I have mostly given up on slashdot because of all the bullshit
> posters who get moderated up by clueless moderators
It's no different than being the black guy at a David Duke rally, or the white guy in an inner city "rough pub". No matter what you say, no matter how correct you may be, you will always be the target of derision and ridicule for the sport of the present mass.
Going AC is pretty much the only way to be able to say what needs to be said and then forget about it. Nobody likes to bring up their user page and see that every single comment they make has been either moderated into oblivion or savagely attacked by derisive trolls who then get modded +5: Funny/Insightful/Informative.
'Cause we all know that on one's 18th birthday, one reaches the ultimate pinnacle of maturity. No way is it fair that some asses, in their 50's think, and act, as though they have more experience/knowledge/&c. than their 19 year old son/daughter (who is, obviously, their [the old fogies'] clear moral, ethical, and intellectual, equal, since that magical 18th birthday has been successfully surmounted).
You tell 'em, kid.
This theocratic/ideological intervention into science by policy wanks and political hacks has some pretty serious consequences. As an active scientist I see science losing an important cultural war in the US. Yes WE all know the ideosyncratic difference between a "law" and a "theory" but to a vast majority of the public the gap between these 2 ideas seems huge. So in important debates like ID vs. evolution, the side of science and reason gets muddled because of minor differences in the connotation of the word "theory"
I know all of us cringed at the idea of studying linguistics and rhetoric, but they are important tools to have in order to have others understand your position. We need to change our lexicon if we are going to win this argument.
Proof is for mathematicians. Science deals with evidence and uses coherency as epistemic justification. that eveidence is always about things that have happened in the past, whether it was a few seocnds, a few years, or a few billion years. current science inherently involves controversy.
The Big Bang happened about 10^10 years ago and refinement continues, but the measurements keep getting better. If much more than that, the current expansion of the universe doesn't make sense, and much less and it collides with our understanding of stellar and galactic evolution.
As for relativity, its effects are directly observed all the time in particle accelerators. There is lots of other evidence for it was well - everything from high Z gamma ray bursts to the Poynting-Robertson effect to gravitational lensing to the bending of starlight observed during solar eclises - besides the fact that it simply makes sense that there is no absolute frame of reference and the laws of nature should be the same in all frames.
Of course, quantum effects are observed all the time in the lab and QM is required to explain why the spectra of stars have discrete lines in them, or to explain how lasers work, and so on ad infinitum. String theory is having difficulty finding empirical justification, but some of its proponents argue that this is only a few decades away.
There are few things more practical or powrful than a good theory, and we have several good theories. These are not dogmas, not statements of faith, not eternally unassailable, and not theorems that can be proven from postulates.
Ok, the troll should be stuffed now.
Helium balloons want to be free.
"... I went to Florida a few days after President Bush did to observe the damage from Hurricane Andrew. I had dealt with a lot of natural disasters as governor, including floods, droughts, and tornadoes, but I had never seen anything like this. I was surprised to hear complaints from both local officials and residents about how the Federal Emergency Management Agency was handling the aftermath of the hurricane. Traditionally, the job of FEMA director was given to a political supporter of the President who wanted some plum position but who had no experience with emergencies. I made a mental note to avoid that mistake if I won. Voters don't chose a President based on how he'll handle disasters, but if they're faced with one themselves, it quickly becomes the most important issue in their lives." -- Bill Clinton, My Life (p. 428)
During the runup to the '04 elections, I checked out the websites of all the Democratic presidential hopefuls. Kerry and Edwards were the ones who immediately turned me off because they sounded just like any other goddamned politician telling people what they wanted to hear, and they spoke in that English dialect peculiar to politicians and marketdroids. On the strength of what their sites said, I favored Dean and wossname, that just-retired Army general. Kucinich was also good, but too out there to be electable.
And yet, K & E got the best ratings in the primaries. This tells me that either 1) The Democrats who vote in primaries are clueless, or 2) Enough Republicans turned out to vote for what they knew were the least-palatable Democratic candidates.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
As Explained by Dinosaurs.
Bush somehow left six months early from the National Guard to go to Harvard Business School. "Bush said on NBC that he had 'worked it out with the military. And I'm just telling you, I did my duty.'"
Maybe Deutsch thought he could also just "work it out" with Texas A&M to leave before finishing his work there, but get a degree nevertheless. After all, he and his boss Bush are above such things as fulfilling one's obligations, that's for the little people that don't have connections. I mean, come on, they both had more pressing things to attend to, so why should finishing their work get in the way?
Typical Aggie!
At least when people post for attribution - rather than anonymously - you can check their other posts to get a rough idea of how credible they are.
Unfortunately for me, having hit the karma cap years ago, with an identifiable slashdot username and 5 digit id number, I very much prefer to post as AC on those stories. Sometimes my dissenting viewpoints could flag me as being an "enemy within" when really I am just speaking honestly in an industry which prefers you speak the opinion of the client and firm.
The way it should be? Hmmm, I don't know. I think people speaking with great authority but without the authoritive knowledge is worse still, the way it should NOT be.
Usually posting with slashdot id is fine for me and people would see that I am not a troll, however I made the mistake all those years ago of making a slashdot username which is way too identifying for me. If I have the choice between risking my position or risking being taken for a troll... the choice is obvious. All I could do is my best to back up my claims, but there are often so very many misguided posts that it feels like I'm trying to keep a storm of water out of my sinking boat with a tea spoon.
I can't be bothered anymore. I post the reality as AC, hope for the best and then mostly just move on. With all the people who don't even RTFA, how can I expect them to read the unpopular truth which I link to?
There also is a big difference between solid Bible believing Christians, and lax Christians, as well as Catholic who think it's ok to swear as long as they go pay money to forgive their sins, and pray to Mary even though Jesus is the one they are suppose to be worshiping. What, are the lines to Jesus busy? Is he not all powerful? Why pray to Mary?! She was a regular human.. nothing special about her. It's idol worship. The Catholic Church is an idol worshiping Church, and therefore is not going to have morals as in the Bible. Like in the Corinthian Church, the Catholic Church has major issues these days and needs to come back to doing what the Bible says. Stop prohibiting what God has ordained (marriage) and things like popes and priests needing to go to little boys for "release" may come to an end.
If you prohibit what God has allowed, eventually you will allow what God has prohibited. - T. Georgan
You've just been trolled by a Fark.com cliche.
Actually, it's from the French, and pronounced "Tûrd SÅnd'wîch".
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
The big bang is a theory but not for the reasons the PR guy mentions. There are a few problems coming to light with the big bang theory that scientists are running into such as galactic clumping and the early moments of the big bang. Also what they are seeing at the far ends of the universe are not what they expected with a big bang theory. Until they figure out the unified field theory...see the word theory in there, they will not have an answer for the big bang theory. It may turn out to be a snapped cosmic string theory.
Wake up fellow. New technologie make it even easier to lie as one can simply repeatedly swamp channels with the same false statements, with just enough minor variants to keep the lie alive in the media. Keeping the flock in a continuously agitated state is what it is all about. Just ask Rush Limpblagh and the oxycontin gang.
Its only the repetition that makes it difficult to get away with lying. Look at the WMD lie for example, it has only been recently, with the constant repetition of the exposure of the lie, that it has been finally been recognized by the majority of the public as a lie. Of course, many are still unaware of the extent of the deception used to take us to war.
As for Mr. Deutch, he is one of Karl Rove's top operatives. Insiders already are blabbering that he is being assigned new duties in this administrations misinformation campaign. Some insiders rumor that he will be involved in the current unchristian attacks now underway against Hillary Clinton and help take it to new levels, looking into her past sexual history. Stuff like that that is the hallmark of the Rove Whitehouse and they know the importance of repetition in starting the groundwork for such systematic lying campaigns early. Some close to these insiders say that the new antichristian emphasis will make John Kerry's swiftboat problems look like child's play. By cynically going anti-christian they will be able to make meaner and more vitriolic attacks without being held back by the need to conform to the commandment that "thou shall not bear false witness".
Right there you're already revealing your left wing communist pinko scientist credentials!
Now if, "Red Shift" could be firmly connected to State's Rights and voting patterns, I would say you are onto some science with the real "theory" behind it.
Interesting book, all in all, I'm about 1/3 through it.
You better watch out, there may be dogs about . .
Oops. Goodwin on me. We're gonna get a lot of that this year.
There are plenty of younger people that have both the experience and the aptitude to hold important positions. As an example, read about Marco Lopez.
Unfortunately, nobody with two accounts and mod points is particularly interested in my left nut. Not even my squirrel's left nut.
Oh, PLEASE.
r ts-fear/
/ 976
n ews_lz1e21benford.html
Michael Crichton is out to make money. He gets money for giving his "daring" speech on the rubber chicken circuit. He gets money on sales of his latest shlock thriller, which has evil grant-hungry climate scientists running weather control machines to terrorize the populace.
Here is what actual climate scientists have to say about the claims in his novel:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=74
At CISCOP, Chris Mooney reviews State of Fear:
http://www.csicop.org/doubtandabout/crichton/
A look at the politics behind Crichton's crusade:
http://www.grist.org/advice/books/2005/02/01/robe
Who are your going trust, Crichton or scientists?
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2005/1/20/234126
OK. Maybe you can't trust scientists. How about the opinions of another author? Here is what Gregory Benford has to say:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20050121/
There's already a movie..
The way he thinks strikes me as the thoughts of a 72 year old religous fanatic who thinks the world is going to hell because it isn't as religious as he is.
It does not seem a young person (and yes, 24 is young) could possible hold these viewpoints. And someone who went to a university to learn critical thinking yet?
Or is this a case of "I'll say anything to get power from Bush"?
...well you, better learn to love them -- they will be with you in hell.
If there's any one thing that the bible in both old & new testament unambiguously identifies as a sin, it is lying.
For as much as they embrace tech, you'd think that by this time university degrees would be signed by the dean electronically with a private key that changes once per year. All HR people would have to do is paste the string "JLSEAGULL/MS ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING/ROSE HULMAN INST OF TECH/2001" and the digital signature into a box and the response would either be "VALID" or "INVALID". How hard can this be? Hell, even make it so the message has to be signed by both the graduate and the dean, so there's less of a privacy problem (the graduate can change their key every year to keep companies from doing random lookups on them). Is there something about the PGP keyspace that makes attacks on signatures easy that I'm not aware of?
I've heard of way too many cases of people passing themselves off as having graduated from a given university when in fact they did not. My dad fired someone a couple of years ago for passing himself off as graduating with an engineering degree from the University of Chicago, when at the time he "graduated" they had no engineering school!
'Be always mindful, even when ditch-digging.' --D. T. Suzuki
What is it with Bush II and science? He constantly tries to censor/alter/control what scientists say, and then claims he wants more math & science education (conveniently offering not to pay for it).
Doesn't he ever wonder what it would be like to be an honest human being - just for one minute? Instead of a passive-aggressive manipulator always doing one thing while claiming to support the opposite?
Of course, if the science in question creates evil human-animal hybrids, we can all agree that science should be banned, per junior's state-of-the-union address.
"We are all geniuses when we dream"
- E.M. Cioran
I demand that my alternative theory of gravity be taught in physics and science classes across the nation as an alternative to the currently accepted "law" of gravity, which, after all, is only a theory.
...). In the case somebody actually does observe it, he or she will most likely think they were hallucinating, because we are all brainwashed by the so called "law" of gravity, which, in fact, is only a theory. Even if they actually pay attention to it, nobody will believe them that they saw something fall up, and if they insist, they are most likely going to end up in a mental institution. That explains why there seems to be no experimental evidence of things falling up. But we all know from our experience that things sometimes just simply mysteriously disappear!
Here is a brief description of my theory of gravity, which explains some observable phenomena much better than the commonly accepted "law".
First you have to understand that it is not true that things always fall down. What is actually happening is that things fall both down and up, with equal probability. Therefore the sequence of all "falls" in the history of the universe is a random sequence of "ups" and "downs". As every truly random sequence, it contains long strings where frequency of "downs" is much higher than frequency of "ups". We happen to live during one such string, so it appears to us as if things were always falling down. In fact, things still sometimes fall up, however, with very high probability it happens somewhere where nobody can observe it (ocean, deserts, mountains,
My theory of gravity explains many unexplained mysteries. Let's look for example at the extinction of dinosaurs. The explanation is very simple: they fell up!
You see, what happens when an animal started to fall up? It tries to saves itself from flying off into the space, or course, so it grabs onto something, like a tree or a bush or a rock. When the animal is a small mammal or an insect, it will hold on, crawl back to the earth, and survive. But when a giant dinosaur grabs onto a tree, both the dinosaur and the tree will end up in the cold emptiness of space. That also explains why we cannot find any large deposits of dinosaur skeletons from the extinction period. There are not any, most of the skeletons are up there somewhere, floating towards Aplha Centauri.
As you can see, my theory of gravity is at least as good, if not better, as the commonly accepted "law" (which is really just a theory), and I demand that it is included into the science curriculum at our schools.
AccountKiller
I think it's more that "Laws" are simple, qualitative statements of what, whereas "Theories" are typically quantitative explanations of how.
The "Law of Evolution" would be something like: "offspring can differ from their parents, and pass those differences to their offspring", and (okay, the Two Laws of Evolution) "populations (not individuals) evolve over successive generations".
The "Law of Gravity" is, essentially, "things fall", or "there is a mutually attractive force between all objects with mass". The various theories of gravity then quantify it, from Newton's g=(m1+m2)G/r^2 to the more complex formulations of Einstein and others.
To the extent that there's a "Law of Relativity", it might be "nothing can accelerate past the speed of light" (the weasel-wording still allows for tachyons, should they actually exist).
I don't think the term "Law" has been supplanted by "Theory" so much as it has been supplanted by "Principle" -- eg it's Pauli's Exclusion Principle, not Pauli's Law of Exclusion (which it certainly could be considered).
Indeed, quantum mechanics has quite a few laws, some of them so-named and others not -- Stefan's Law, Wien's Law, Fermi-Dirac-Sommerfeld Law, etc (all seem to be named for people vs what they describe), plus the (Pauli) exclusion principle, the (Heisenberg) uncertainty principle, etc.
-- Alastair
but you don't go far enough - to those of us from parliamentary democracies the US system smells of corruption - the very idea of non-elected political appointees is just wrong. Certainly cabinet ministers (heads of government departments) should be appointed - but elsewhere they are elected MPs from the governing party. But appointing 100s (1000s?) of people each time is quite insane and results in things like this (or in our case some bozo travel agent as ambassador simply because they raised a lot of money for Bush)
-Eric
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Believe it or not, I'm gonna stand up for cronyism. At least in a limited sense.
I've considered running for office. If I were to win, I'd have to fill a lot of jobs. Basically, the ultimate responsibility is mine, but I need to delegate tasks to people that I trust, and I need to get advice from people that I trust to know the topic and give me good answers.
So if I get there, I'm going to be appointing nearly all of my friends to office. They're my friends because they're smart and knowledgable people. When I can I'll put them into tasks that they know. But when I can't find out, where am I supposed to find somebody that I trust? Well, probably among my friends' friends. Or, occasionally, I'll end up putting somebody into a job that he can learn, and trust that he would be a smart delegator and manager, and take advice from the non-appointed civil service employees who already work there.
That's what every politician does: they have a network of people whom they trust, and who follow them from job to job. That trust is crucial; it's what makes a team out of the officeholder. The term "cronyism" has all the negative connotations because of people who appoint corrupt or stupid friends to jobs. But neither is a politician going to appoint a complete stranger; at the very least there will be some friend-of-a-friend network connecting the two to provide a reputation for the appointee. How else are you supposed to evaluate the guy? How many interviews do you have time for?
When you vote, you're not voting for a guy. You're voting for a guy and his team. The American voters elected a guy with a stupid, corrupt team, and they're getting precisely the government they should have known they were getting. Maybe next time they'll pick a guy with smarter cronies.
Ok... who moderated this insightful? The parent is replying to a Fark.com cliche that's been making the rounds lately. It follows the same format every single time, except necessary customizations to fit the subject matter. Or in other words:
/.ers belive anything they hear."
"I wrote the grandparent of this thread.
So I am really getting a kick out of most of these replies.
Some of you guys are very good at spotting trolls and trying to sound like you know what you are talking about.
But trust me.... You don't.
I think you just want to make yourself sound smart, when in reality you dont know what you are talking about.
This is how bad info gets passed around.
If you dont know about spotting real trolls... dont make yourself sound like you do.
Cuz some
Disclaimer: No, I did not write the grandparent; the above is merely a sample of this template in action. Void where prohibited, do not immerse in water.
Read: Rabbit Rue - Free serial nove
And Journalists - the bottom of the barrel are the ones telling us about what is going on in the world, politics and other news. They try though. One journalist - Al Gore is still trying (he was a journalist before he went into politics riding on his father's coattails). I bet he tries again to be President in 2008.
editing press releases, kid.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
You can't navigate spacecraft to Venus, Mercury or Mars unless heliocentrism holds. It meets the highest possible standard for anything becoming regarded as factual. We know it with more certainty than Abraham Lincoln's birthday or the number of casualties at Iwo Jima or the DNA sequence of a mouse.
"The impossible often has a certain integrity that the merely improbable lacks" - Dirk Gently
I'm not going to say it was a good idea to appoint a hot headed 24 year old into a NASA press job and let him censor scientists, but I do think NASA scientists should only release findings and articles in a scientifically worded articles. This James Hansen does seem to be one of the sorts of scientists that aren't good for NASA or science in general himself. There are credible scientists who do not believe the "Greenhouse Effect" is the only contributor to our current warming trend or some who are skeptical is even the primary contributor. The greenhouse effect only explains a warming trends that happens when our planet has a relatively constant amount of energy to absorb from the sun and other cosmic energy sources. Many scientists believe the energy getting shot at our planet varies considerably with increases and decreases in solar activity. This article ( http://upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?StoryID=20060207 -041447-2345r ) discusses the predictions of one russian scientist that believes a mini ice age may start in the next few decades. As far as I am concerned any global temperture trend theories are at best weak theories. There are far to many factors influencing global temperatures to predict what direction they will go in anything other than the very near future. If you talk to someone who studies dinasours he will be quite confident the earth was much warmer in their time than ours, yet we were not there to produce any greenhouse gasses to make that happen?? Were he dinasours farting to much?? Anyhow my primary point is that I think even the most brilliant scientists with the most sophistocated computer models sometimes get tunnel vision and can lead us off path. Always be skeptical.
"But shouldn't educated people also be tolerant and respectful of other people's religous views?"
I have little tolerance for people with untreated delusions.
Get yourself some psychatric help, and I'll be as tolerant as possible. But stop acting like your maladpative behavior is a legitimate choice, and not the result of some kind of mental dysfunction.
And yes, I equated religion with mental illness, and NO I'm not kidding.
How pathetic are you that you follow me from topic to topic and waste all your mod points at once modding me down?
Arguments for which there is some reasoning or rationale (however strange it may seem) or where a prediction can be made would be parallel to a theory. There are plenty of if-then stories, examples of cause-and-effect, etc, which would (by this standard) be theories for the former reason. (They are testable in that you can see if the "if" clause was met and what happens when the "if" clause is met at other times. You don't know, however, what happens when the if clause is false.) It's an incomplete mapping, so can be disproved but never proved.
Jesus' two commandments would also be a theory, for the latter reason. The claim was that all of the Law and all of the Prophets are based on those two commandments. That's a much more definitive relationship, in that it states both the "if" and the "else". It also states that there are no "or" cases in the "if" that would allow you to escape the parameter he was describing. Because it's a complete mapping, it can be either proved or disproved.
A parable, on the other hand, might be best described as a hypothesis or a postulate. It is not really a theory, in that it doesn't describe an abstract relationship, but it is not an axiom in that there's usually some rationale and a stepping through of the logic, otherwise it wouldn't be useful for teaching anything.
I would not suggest these as being 100% accurate translations of the terms, especially as there are no 100% accurate translations of the texts in order to determine either what was said or what was intended. There are remarkably few 100% complete texts. However, if the theoretical nature of science is to be emphasised, then it would only be fair and balanced to state the hypothetical nature of religion.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
That would be fair considering the ideas put forth in the New Testament have never actually been accurately tried by a large group of people for a long enough time to study it's effects on health, quality of life, spiritual growth, etc. Maybe Bush would be willing to federally fund a 20 year study of a small utopian community based on actual New Testament priciples. All in the name of science. Thank you for your suggestion.
We are all just people.
"He gets money for giving his "daring" speech on the rubber chicken circuit."
And how do scientists get their money?
I realize what you're trying to say, but that particular point goes both ways, so be careful when you cast aspersions.
How pathetic are you that you follow me from topic to topic and waste all your mod points at once modding me down?
End of Faith is a very interesting book. Do finish reading it.
With all due respect, I call BS.
Just because 1 scientist out of 200+ in the field doesn't believe in global warming does NOT mean that the notion of global warming being a myth deserves equal consideration. I'd submit that the ratio of qualified people to comment on the effects of global warming who believe it is a real issue, with those who believe differently is proportional to the same amount of people who believe/don't believe that we landed on the moon.
This new breed of "conservative logic" seeks to destroy the fabric of science. Just because you can find one well-degreed idiot out of 1000 who thinks dinosaurs walked the earth 6000 years ago, does not mean that theory deserves anywhere near as much consideration or attention.
Stop promoting this destructive and bone-headed idea. You're hurting science and progress.
This vacancy brings an exciting new job opportunity to the marketplace! Apply now!
Another unqualified doosh resigned from his job.
yaya, tasteless
He is back here in Colorado. Apparently, he was awarded several grants that Senator Allard (and if I heard correctly m. musgrave) helped him with.
You got to admire the republican loyalty, even while it kills America.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
I just don't like the normal usage because, as another responder implied, it has a sort of built in excuse for stupid behavior that should not be acceptable at that age.
You forget one small but vital thing: You're using the layman's definition of "theory":
When people write that "scientists admit it's just a theory", these guys are using the common definition for the word "theory," i.e. an opinion. The Big Bang, however, is a scientific theory, like evolution, which has scientific data to support it. If there was no data to support it, it would cease to exist to be a theory and scientists would make another to try and better explain their hypothesis.
If, as others have pointed out (all over the freaking place), the evidence did not exist, another hypothesis would be formulated, researched, and become a scientific theory in time as evidence was gathered. Sorry. Evolution and the Big Bang are real. They're still being refined all the time as new evidence comes to light, but they're real.
i am a soviet space shuttle
You make ``W'' look like a reasonable, thoughtful man.
Idiot.
I am not an astrophysicist and I was not sure that the Big Bang had been proved. All I was asking was for more info. How dare I ask to be enlightened? It's amazing how quickly people are to attack when you ask for more information into something they believe to be true. Looking at the reaction to my simple question, you would have thought I asked "What happened to cause the Big Bang?".
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
This will probably get lost in the maze of posts beneath yours, but I might as well say my piece.
First, to add to your comment, the Vatican has also noted that intelligent design is baseless as a scientific theory, and empty as a theological concept. I was rather refreshed to read this announcement, but this is straying from the topic at hand.
You are quite correct in noting that global warming is a theory like gravity and electromagnetism. I would like to point out, however, that current proponents of the theory themselves only note a 1/2 degree rise in average global temperatures since accurate records began being made (in the 1880's, I think), and only a rough correlation to increases in CO2 production. And of course, there is the issue of periodic ice ages that everyone likes to talk about when trying to debunk global warming that should be considered, as well. Gravity and electromagnetism, on the other hand, have hundreds of years of observation behind them, and the discrepancies that have been found can usually be explained without changing the theory (with the possible exception of hypothetical dark matter/energy).
One of the articles linked to mentions models that predicts a maximum of 4-1/2 degrees temperature rise in the next century, assuming the models take all factors into account properly. Yes, that would cause quite a few changes, many of them very problematic, but it wouldn't be "the end of the world."
My overall point is that we really don't have a good idea what is going on with the climate. It is definitely worth investing resources to study further, and worth taking limited steps to prevent what we think the consequences might be, especially since some of the steps have additional benefits (reduced dependence of foreign oil, increased future energy capacity, etc). Getting upset over special events like lighting the Olympic torch or whining about CO2 emmisions without identifying specific means of improvement, especially coming from celebrities in California who drive Hummers, can't read a weather map, and have no clue what how temperatures compare today with 100 years ago, isn't the fix.
I just resigned from my position at a large bank last week. It pays well, but it is soul-sucking drag.
I am going back to school (U of Iowa) to finish my Physics degree. It will be nice to get off the sidelines and join in the fight to help save the integrity of our scientific communities. Not sure how much I will actually add, but I will enjoy being on the side that is actively battling these knuckleheads who use the general populace' lack of scientific knowledge to confuse and pervert the body of scientific knowledge to advance thier pathetic political agenda.
Oh, and Go Hawks!
Deutsch is that you?
Um, I am Catholic and no not pay money for forgiveness, that has been free at least since Vatican II, maybe even before that.
Yes we have physical representations of religious figures, artwork and such, but no Catholic I know believes a statue of Mary has some sort of power, any reverence expressed towards an "idol" - as you call it - is not directed towards the physical item...simply a means of outward expression of one's feeling of devotion, faith, respect, etc. Many people simply consider this kind of expression a beautiful action, not worshipping a statue.
Mary is definately not God and no Catholic claims her to be otherwise. However some people find personal strength in reflecting on Mary or the saints, angels, and the like...they say "well Mary helped me through this" or "St Francis helped me through that" or "My guardian angel protected me from those other things" what really happens is that they have found strength and guidance in their reflection on these people, through prayer or otherwise. Prayer is not always a worship thing but can be more of a meditation on the subject or content of the prayer as usually one can clear their mind and focus on the content and meaning of the prayer. People call it "praying to some saint or for some thing" but when you get down to it I don't really think people understand what is really happening when they do...but that is ok because I think God understands that even if these people think and say they pray "to" a saint, etc that they really are not doing that.
About marriage and priests/nuns, the bible does say something about that: (from 1 Corinthians 7):
"An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord's affairs--how he can please the Lord. But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world--how he can please his wife-- and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord's affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world--how she can please her husband. I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord. "
I think the official Catholic translation uses God instead of Lord, but the quote is pretty much the same - this is one of the ideas behind the reason for unmarried priests/nuns. The Catholic church does follow what the Bible says, the issue is how different denominations of Christianity interpret what the Bible actually means.
If a priest or nun is having issues maintaining their celibacy, or even worse - finding a very improper outlet in parish children, then they should find help or leave/be ejected from religious line of work. There is nothing wrong with the concept of unmarried priests/nuns, however most Catholics do agree that what is going on with priests now is not a good thing and would like to see a more heavy handed response....so do not make so many assumptions about what mainstream Catholics believe, cause just like anything, the extremists and fundies in any walk of life will always make the most noise and draw the most attention and appear to be the majority when in fact they are not, and most priests do not represent what people outside the Catholic faith perceieve them to represent. You know the Pope supports Evolution? Maybe not in the Godless, secular view that an atheist would take, but he does take a pro-evolution position. My personal view is that the Bible and science are both correct concerning how everything was created. They do not conflict with each other. And you know what? No one I know understands how I came to that conclusion even when I explain it to them.
That means he can run again! Shhh! (stolen from Al Franken)
You better watch out, there may be dogs about . .
But I am an atheist now, and very happy about it, thank you very much.
I have to say that the wacko things some of you guys are told about Catholicism are so far departed from the truth that is not worth my effort debunking them (somebody else already had a go, doing quite a good job at it).
I would just add that when one religion talks about another one you are listening to biased, uncompromissing propaganda.
I scrutinize very carefully any kind of propaganda that is clearly biased. Are you grown up enough to scrutinize the one received from institutions that you trust?
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
George Deutsch was a political appointee, just like his boss Dean Acosta. Political appointees only need to be a crony to be qualified.
Maybe the question should be why there are political appointees in NASA Public Affairs Offices at all. Or why Deutsch or Acosta should tell NASA how to write about science--Acosta's mentioned in the NY Times article agreeing that the word "theory" ought to be used whenever "Big Bang" is mentioned, just because the "The Associated Press Stylebook and Libel Manual" says so. Maybe the press offices, political or otherwise, ought to defer to physicists instead of some reporter's manual.
This Deutsch scandal is just the tip of the iceberg - it's not as if his resignation suddenly means there's science free of policy at NASA. Environmental Action has launched a petition to NASA demanding they stop the censorship of their scientists - to sign go here.
N/T
I'm afraid you're wrong, at least in the USA. Most christians in the US according to numerous surveys published in the last couple years (google the words "americans believe" and watch with horror) say most US christians believe the whole Genesis bible story, and the stuff the Pope Gregory made up to go along with it (the 6000 year age of the earth comes from his estimating the age based on the 'x begat y' sections of the bible). And of course as more and more assaults are committed on the bastions of science, the numbers of flat-earthers increase.
O~ Him that studies revenge keeps his own wounds green. -- Francis Bacon
The US Government should do a resume audit to find out who actually went to college and worked where they say they did. But, of course, this will never happen.
The NSA has been performing this task for decades. They've probably got interns running the audits now. The thing is, they just sit on this information waiting for it to be valuable. Like when they need to apply pressure on or discredit someone.
Seth
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
Bush somehow left six months early from the National Guard to go to Harvard Business School. "Bush said on NBC that he had 'worked it out with the military. And I'm just telling you, I did my duty.'"
Well that could be true. Imagine you're Bush's CO: you're career military, but instead of advancing up the ranks taking care of weighty military matters of life and death, you're stuck in the Texas National Guard dealing with well-connected fuckwits, and Bush's the worst you've ever even heard of. What wouldn't you do to get rid of the fucktard? You'd manipulate the system to get rid of the useless son of a bitch before his incompetence killed someone, unless you had the moral fortitude to replace his nose candy with rat poison.
Just to be fair, I don't think Bush claimed he finished his National Guard duty. This guy really claimed he did something he didn't.
The Republicans played the fear of terrorism and homos card. Fear is a great way to control people. See Orwell's 1984.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
More and more bs is commimg out to show the lies and stupidity of this administation. illegal spying, lies uncoverd on oil trading,illegal war, no wmds, the list goes on and on.its hard to contain the lies of the bush admin. Next to be revealed will be GWB's involvement in 911
As for christians, Well look at the recent star gate episodes concerrning the Ori. Star gate basically in this go round is putting that on the altar (pun intended) and I say its a good thing. The beautifull thing about Star gate is how it attacks religeous bs.
I have two points:
- continue-to-get-funding"). Anyone who doesn't believe that politics plays a role in what research gets funded and continuance of that funding is naive. I'm not only talking about the politics of the current administration, but departmental politics, university politics, professional organisation politics, review journal politics, agency politics, popular press politics, etc. Inherent with the politicalisation of scientific research is the suppression/minimization of the results of that research if it doesn't agree with the current mood. Suppression can also occur, especially in government agencies, as a result of turf battles. This leads me to my second point.
First, politicalisation of science has been going on since the dawn of time. No, it's not right, but it happens and will continue to happen. Too often research has not been guided by the scientific method but rather by the WBCTTCIWWTCTGF method ("we-better-come-to-this-conclusion-if-we-wish-to
In NASA's case, the problem is with the NASA PAO (Public Affairs Office). They wield an incredible amount of power over all NASA employees and contractors, including astronauts and tend to get a bit incensed when you invade their turf (that is, communicating with the public). Keith Cowing (editor of NASAWATCH) gave some excellent testimony back in 1998 to Congress about the state of affairs at NASA PAO:
" Problem: Xenophobia at NASA Public Affairs: NASA's Public Affairs Office (PAO) is at fault by virtue of having become the de facto Propaganda Announcement Office with the singular role of preventing the release of damaging information. When bad news does get out, NASA PAO seeks to put the best possible spin on it. For information released voluntarily, NASA is often its worst enemy. I have seen far too many examples of amazing and exciting things NASA does "dumbed-down" for public dissemination. Instead of going out of its way to make the agency open to public scrutiny, NASA PAO seeks to keep the public out.
NASA PAO seems to have a mission focused only on purveying happy, positive thoughts. If you visit their Space Station or Space Shuttle websites, you'll see that they post reader comments. Have you ever seen a comment in anyway critical of NASA? No - nor will you. When NASA put together its 40th Anniversary exhibits of pivotal events in NASA's history, was there any mention of the Apollo 1 or Challenger accidents? No. NASA has become so xenophobic that it is incapable of admitting, much less dealing with any external criticism. Look at the way they craft their congressional testimony and you will get a regular reminder that they just can't admit that they are at fault.
NASA's greatest asset is its employees, civil service and contractor alike. Yet from the way NASA PAO overtly prevents them from acting as ambassadors to the outside world you'd think they were guilty of some crime. Indeed, recent surveys done by NASA itself show that an overwhelming portion of NASA employees do not feel that they can speak out freely with out fear of retribution.
When NASA contractor employees speak out, the fate is far worse. When Jim Oberg, Ken Hollis, and Tom Hancock (a.k.a. "BitFlip") exercised their constitutional right to free speech, and discussed NASA without PAO permission, they soon found their jobs in jeopardy such that they had to leave their jobs. These individuals spoke of nothing proprietary and often spoke and wrote things that made NASA look good.
Any organization, which is so eager to silence, those who do not agree with official agency dogma is an organization with a serious case of insecurity - one which is not in keeping with the best interests of its employees, its mission, or the taxpayers it is supposed to serve."
Amen to that
Yeah, there went my mod points, but it had to be said.
This space intentionally left blank.
The Inquisition continues it's 500 year history - is alive and well in the U.S.A. As the religious fanatics of one stripe or another - continue to try to control how everyone in the U.S.A. thinks. Three cheers for those who exposed this fanatic.
The John Deutsch's of the world are only leaping in to fill the vacuum created by the absence of religious discussion wrt advances in scientific knowledge. Everyone of us asks 'how did we get here?' and 'where did I come from' but there is very little meaningful public dialog. Ironically, the Big Bang seems far more like the act of a 'creator' than it does the random action of a chaotic universe but apparently Intelligent Designer types like Deutsch think otherwise. Whatever. The most important thing is to bring out ideas and talk about them, to overturn mental rocks and let the sun shine underneath. We live in a computerized internet-rich world with more communication media than ever before in history and yet there is less *serious* discussion about NEW ideas than there was in the 1400s. Everything now is wrapped in dogma, litmus tests of beliefs, and rigid ideological thinking. How did this happen to us? If Copernicus were alive today, his sun-centered theory would be shouted down by islamic fundamentalists, christian fundamentalists, right/left-wing politicians, and global-warming scientists who would all be convinced that it threatened their institutions and the status quo.
We are all just people.
...the muppets demonstrating the Big Bang!
Oh, Hansen, not Henson.
Nuf said.
-ItsME
This link gets you directly to the article without needing to register.
"In later postings, he talks about his mother in presense tense and very much alive"
Post that then you pathetic piece of garbage.
It's bad enough your life is so empty that you troll ME (a DEMOCRAT) on slashdot, but making shit up about my mom is just sad.
You're a liar, and if you and I met in an alley you know you'd change your fucking tune.
How pathetic are you that you follow me from topic to topic and waste all your mod points at once modding me down?
Read Heinlein's 1953 Revolt in 2100, now more than ever.
Given your words in this post: http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=176688 &cid=14682636
I'm surprised you've not heard of Ehrman. If you are such a scholar, I would imagine you would be aware of other published scholars.
If you weren't lazy, you could have just Googled him. I caught him on Fresh Air and enjoyed it. You can find it on the web if you're interested in his thoughts on "what hangs together". Also, you can get a more nuanced point of view from his papers/lectures. I'd say, head on back to your seminary, I bet they can get them for you (if you are actually interested in skeptical textualism and what not).
I may have misjudged your comments, but it sounds to me like you already know what you want to know ("onus is on the skeptic"!?!).
Read Heinlein's 1953 Revolt in 2100, now more than ever.
Haha, that gave me a good laugh.
The sceptic who challenges me has to try and convince me I'm hallucinating about twenty years of answered prayer.
Likewise, you'd have to convince me you're not. That's the very basis of scepticism. Again, I grant that I may have misjudged you, but I'm still hearing the words of a zealot. You may not be. But for now, I guess I'm the Han Solo to your Obi-Wan, "I've never seen anything to make me believe there's one all-powerful force controlling everything."
As far as the link:
I guess this is correct, but only for the most uncritical, unrational follower. Wouldn't the why be obvious to anyone that is curious about his Faith? Christians don't have (what I consider) to be the greatest strength of Islam, that is, the Bible, unlike the Quran, is not the absolute, immutable, untranslatable Word of God. Its history is fascinating none-the-less, but it is absolutely written by men, with or without His help, and men are fallible or liars.
Thanks for the reply, though.
Read Heinlein's 1953 Revolt in 2100, now more than ever.
God never liked it when people prayed to idols. Check the Torah, Bible, and Quran. Saying "I think God understands" isn't taking Him seriously or with very high reverence.
You seem to have missed my point, the people are not "praying to idols". They are not praying to the object. In the Old Testament the people were praying to a golden calf while Moses was on the mountain receiving the Ten Commandments, this is not the same thing. The people placed their faith in the object which they created. Catholics do not do this. And you are also quoting me out of context about "I think God understands"...I would not expect God to like people worshipping idols. This is not idol worship. I think He understands the difference between the use of imagery and artwork in the Church as opposed to what you misinterpret as idol worship. If I understand the difference, then He certainly must as well. To say otherwise would imply that He does not exist in an omnipresent, omnipotent, all-knowing state.
Of course God understands why some people use imagery, but it's still a sin. People go too far, and it turns into idolatry. Why do some people go and prostrate before statues? I believe God forbids this practice. God also understands why some people murder, but that doesn't make it right.
First, there aren't nearly as many reknown scientists who refute the idea of global warming as those that believe it is happening. Second, follow the money and you'll see those that are against global warming theories have a financial interest in promoting this theory.