Slashdot Mirror
Sarah Palin's Stance On Technology Issues
Revolution Radio writes "BetaNews has a short description of what we might expect from Governor Palin regarding technology issues. She demonstrated her familiarity with the internet by initiating an online education program for state workers, using the web for government transparency, and a supporting the general concept of 'long-distance distribution of services' (similar to net neutrality?)."
We've previously discussed Senator Joe Biden's tech voting record and compared the technology platforms of Obama and McCain. In addition to the above story about Palin, Betanews also has analyses of Obama, McCain, and Biden regarding tech policy.
They sure can do alot with tubes in Alaska
Now we know who taught Ted Stevens about the internets.
Palin is very attractive. Pictures of her are all over the Internet. And last time I checked, that's what the Internt is used for.
Porn.
Err... no.
Let me put this in a way you might understand, since you too apparently have a difficulty with grasping this "basic science and theory":
... right, pull my other one!
"Palin has not pushed Flat Earth Theory science as governor"
"As a candidate for governor, Sarah Palin called for teaching Flat Earth Theory alongside evolution in public schools. But after Alaska voters elected her, Palin, now Republican John McCain's presidential running mate, kept her campaign pledge to not push the idea in the schools."
"When asked during a televised debate in 2006 about Earth being spherical and Flat Earth Theory, Palin said, according to the Anchorage Daily News: "Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important, and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both.""
"In a subsequent interview with the Daily News, Palin said discussion of alternative views on the shape of the Earth should be allowed in Alaska classrooms. "I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum," she said."
"Palin said during her 2006 gubernatorial campaign that if she were elected, she would not push the state Board of Education to add Flatness-based alternatives to the state's required curriculum, or look for Flat Earth Society members when she appointed board members."
"Palin's children attend public schools and Palin has made no push to have Flat Earth Theory taught in them."
"Neither have Palin's socially conservative personal views on issues like abortion and gay marriage been translated into policies during her 20 months as Alaska's chief executive. It reflects a hands-off attitude toward mixing government and religion by most Alaskans."
There, I hope this gets through better.
Ha! Time magazine is pretty much the same as the Daily KOS.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Hence the pregnancy...
Does she prefer Mac or PC?
That's right--she's engaged! Here's a link about that.
Daleks are supreme!
The Denver metropolitan area (where I live) has a population of 2.7 million people, and the "Front Range" corridor has over 4 million. The Seattle metro area comes in at over 3.2 million. Population of Colorado itself is 4.7 million.
Point being that most "cities" have the official "legal" population of their incorporated centers, which discounts all of the adjacent and surrounding metro areas which by-and-large is considered to be part of the city.
So considering I live surrounded by 2.7 million people, an entire STATE of only 670,053 people, in an area more than twice as large as Texas... is pretty damn thin.
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
I'd mod you both redundant.
You're the kind of people who need laugh tracks too, aren't you?
The proper acronym is VPILF. That may be hard to pronounce now, but it's just a heartbeat away from PILF!
There are plenty of theologians, philosophers and scientists who would disagree with you. In fact if people weigh up evidence and act based on the conclusions they reach, having made good use of their mental faculties, then it could be said that they are acting reasonably. Just because someone else comes to a different conclusion based on the same evidence does not necessitate that one or the other party must be acting irrationally.
You must not be very well read on the subject to make a comment like that. There are vast numbers of books and reams of scholarship on the very subject of evidence for Christianity. Again, you may draw a different conclusion form the evidence, but that does not mean there is no evidence or that it isn't good evidence.
God being the best solution is not the same as God being the only solution. Sufficient evidence is not the same as absolute proof. By your standard, pretty much all of science would have to be dismissed because it's always possible that every experiment has gone wrong due to faulty equipment or incorrect measurements being taken. Extremely unlikely things, but possible.
Just because God doesn't make a useful scientific hypothesis doesn't mean he isn't real. The thought isn't antithetical to science, but rather irrelevant. There is no way of telling with science whether God moves the photon or if the photon moves itself. It doesn't matter to science and it says nothing to support either viewpoint.
Science has nothing to say about that. And just because a belief is old does not make it false (not that I'm saying you meant that).
What makes a teacher insightful?
To a certain extent, Jesus encouraged scepticism - he warned against false teachers, including the teachers of the day. At the same time he taught about the utter reliability of God and the Scriptures he had provided and encouraged faith in both them and himself.
How can science possibly answer spiritual questions? Christianity makes claims that are utterly untestable by science. In fact, science ultimately tells us very little about reality. All science does is allow us to construct models that fit our observations of reality. These models do not necessarily reflect the workings of reality, but they don't have to as long as the results the models produce line up with the observations we make of reality.