Slashdot Mirror
McCain Answers Science Policy Questionnaire
thebestsophist writes "A couple weeks ago, I reported that Barack Obama had answered a questionnaire by Scientists and Engineers for America. McCain has now answered that questionnaire as well. You can also compare their answers. Perhaps with help from the Slashdot community, we can get all the Congressional candidates as well?"
"I am committed to streamlining burdensome regulations and effectively protecting American intellectual property in the United States and around the globe."
I'll leave it up to the rest of you to flame McCain for that! I believe that it is also worth mentioning that Obama didn't bring up "regulation" or "protecting intellectual property" at all, especially not in the first paragraph as McCain did.
Come on, are we to believe that the candidates actually wrote their own replies to these questions? I wonder how many people came up with the answers.
Actually it works but it was slashdotted.
Palin is a Creationist. McCain is a fossil.
Of course they'll talk a good science game (after farming that questionnaire out to one of the lobbyist lawfirms that make up their campaign) when the geeks ask during a campaign. Then these "Compassionate Conservatives" will just show they were lying once they're past the Election Day "accountability moment", and get the power to drag us all back to the Stone Age.
--
make install -not war
Since site appears to be slashdotted, here's a Google Cache link:
http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:MqO2cs2K3EUJ:sharp.sefora.org/people/presidential-candidates/john-mccain-presidential-candidate/+http://sharp.sefora.org/people/presidential-candidates/john-mccain-presidential-candidate/&hl=ru&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=ua&client=firefox-a
I think he errs when he tries to establish a database connection.
I think it's a pretty common problem for older guys though.
If you don't know what AltaVista is (was), get off my lawn.
| is a one line answer: "Get the Federal
| government out of all science research,
| funding, grants and accreditation of
| science schools."
Ya. Because the private sector is so amazing
at funding science research, fostering
collaboration and sharing. They are especailly
good in pure research, where the time-line to
payoff is 10, 20, or 100 years!
Error establishing a database connection
Isn't there a pill he can take for that?
If you have something that you dont want anyone to know, maybe you shouldnt be doing it in the first place -Eric Schmidt
You're being sarcastic... right?
There were only 3 comments when I tried to open the links in the article but I'm already getting a database connection error.
Either this has been spread around digg, reddit, or somewhere else already or their servers can't handle much of a load.
I just *know* there's a good reason you linked to the hl=ru cache, but for the life of me, I can only think of /. memes.
That would NOT be a good idea. The reason is simple, businesses almost NEVER do pure research. Its hard to turn the results directly into money, and (rightfully) that is all a business is there for. Taxpayer funded programs do the pure research, then businesses take the result and do the research needed to turn that into a product. Take the Fed out of research and a lot of innovation will come to a grinding halt.
All of these kind of things are answered to encourage whatever somebody wants to believe. In the end, I think that we are far better off looking at the candidates voting record AND life. Look at W. He has bankrupted multiple companies; he mismanaged and lied on a number of items PRIOR to running as pres. Clinton, well known womanizer PRIOR to president. reagan, nixon, etc all had their issues before they got president (reagan ran up monster deficit in CA, and then got out of trouble because JFK started NASA).
What it comes down to, is these ppl already have their behavior in place. Just look at how they acted over the last 5 years and it will give you a better idea of what to expect.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
The only way something like this makes sense is if a candidate has to respond on the record in real time. Otherwise, they just farm it out to an underling, who will provide a nice, safe, reasonably accurate series of answers.
I want to know if the candidate himself could pass a grade school science exam before he gets to make calls on science policy. Even somebody who gets spoon-fed their information has to have enough basic awareness of the subject to know when he's hearing a line of crap from his advisers.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
is a one line answer: "Get the Federal government out of all science research, funding, grants and accreditation of science schools."
So, in other words, let's just cripple scientific progress across the board.
Sounds like a great idea.
-Ted
-=-=- Quantum physics - the dreams stuff are made of.
NFL Cheerleaders are hot. Swimsuit models are hot. Girls in rap videos are hot.
Sarah Palin is not hot.
It breaks my pluginses, my precious!
Question #1: As president what will you do to ensure that our webserver doesn't die a fiery death when this article gets slashdotted?
Yeah... because we never got any benefit out of wasteful government programs like the search for a polio vaccine, or the integrated circuit for NASA, or the Internet.
So why do we keep limiting ourselves to a choice between two people, neither of whom is going to agree with anything we want? OK, so there's Ron Paul, but... that didn't work now did it? And honestly, did you actually agree with every single thing Ron Paul advocated?
Even if it were Paul (who I supported in his bid, although I couldn't vote for him since I'm not a Rep) there would still only be two choices. I think those who supported Paul should keep an eye on their local elections and seek more leadership like his out. There are people who want to do it. Put your support behind them.
In any case Paul supporters should also look into Bob Barr.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
does not at all have what McCain feels about science. It's just alot of "according to" or "on this date" or "this Reporter reported" There's absolutely nothing saying where he personally stands.
That which does not kill me only postpones the inevitable.
is a one line answer: "Get the Federal government out of all science research, funding, grants and accreditation of science schools."
No, WAY!!! Where would we be without a pen that can write upside down and underwater??
Seriously though, do you really want the only scientific research to be going on sponsored by whatever makes profit? The government is clearly not the most efficient (that's why the astronauts didn't use a pencil, right? Don't answer that.) but at least it adds a counterbalance and alternative source of funding for research. Who else would support social science research?
Qxe4
Bob Dole says yes!
turn up the jukebox and tell me a lie
McCain must have had some help with this, we all know he doesn't use computers, doesn't know how to use e-mail and admittedly depends upon his wife for that. Talk about out of touch with the 21st Century. How is he ever supposed to become a Cybernetic Overlord? I mean really!
Vote Cthulhu 08
Why vote for a lesser evil when you can vote for a greater one!
The problem is that the "public sector" is amazing, first and foremost, in funding research ... with specific outcomes. Confirming politician's views of things. There are actual Chinese papers, peer reviewed and everything, "proving" Tibet is not a country separate from China.
If you let public funding fund science, then you might as well kill the research in social studies, psychology, languages, ethnicities, and (soon to come) evolution, history ... it will merely parrot the popular talkpoints of the day instead of science.
I'd like to agree with you, because you're right, private sector money is scarce and hard to come by, especially for pure research (then again, public money is not doing anywhere near enough to fund the only really pure science there is ... mathematics), but really, public money is only useful in sciences were people are not involved at all. Stuff like particle physics (since no particles go on any type of jihad for any type of religion or poverty), astronomy or maths. Heck even chemistry is getting infected with politics (are drugs bad for you ? Do they badly affect others around drugged people ? have become politically incorrect questions, merely because the answer is yes).
> And honestly, did you actually agree with every single thing Ron Paul advocated?
Forgive me, but that's childish. Are you suggesting that only a leader who agrees with you 100% of the time will be effective?
Like many here, I have a day job. I read a bit here and there, watch a little TV, and come to some conclusions. But in the end, I know that my judgement is easily flawed because I don't have the time or staff to properly evaluate the available information. So even if my core principals are somehow "right", my decisions are likely to be wildly askew from reality.
Therefore, I think it's ludicrous to pick someone who agrees with you 100%, or even close. See if you can match up some core values, check a couple of "key" (in your mind) decisions a bit more thoroughly, do a gut-check on the person, and vote. But trying for 100% is a laughable criteria.
-Jeff
Please learn the difference between a dissenting opinion and a troll before you moderate.
And meanwhile China is dumping billions into research to play catch up. It's still a wonder to me how people can become so blinded by ideology that they literally get stomped to death by those more interested in results than in make-believe worlds.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Seriously the standard of "hotness" is phenomenally low in US politics. We are talking here about someone who came 2nd in Miss Alaska (population 600,000) in a state where less than 50% of the people are female and isn't exactly known as the place where attractive people flock to. Hell this makes her less attractive than the 2nd most attractive person in DETROIT (population over 800k).
Never before has a media image of what you should think been so quickly accepted by people. Palin isn't hot, she isn't an ugly bird but she isn't a stunner. Lets concentrate on her madly insane political views (abstinence teaching working for you kids Mrs Palin?) and not listen to the media's view of attractive. Put it this way, do you think that Fox News would have her as an anchor? Of course not, a we know that hot is their only real criteria.
Hot in Alaska? Let put politics first.
On the other hand look at FRENCH politics if you want seriously hot politicians with incredibly well educated views.
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
Or anything that might have political ramifications as well. Does anyone in your research organization use stem cells that aren't from the the "right" source? No funds for you. Did your weather satellite see increased temperatures? Don't mention it in any of your papers, or you're fired.
Publicly-funded science is politicized science.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
You can't take the government out of research. Think of a world without your iPod. And I can't personally imagine a world without Matthew Lesko. Seriously though, Matthew Lesko!
I want to know if the candidate himself could pass a grade school science exam before he gets to make calls on science policy.
It would be nice if our leaders were superhuman and were experts on every facet of policy, but the reality is that no one can be an expert on everything. The point of politicians is *not* for them to personally write laws. You want them be to able to surround themselves with the right experts who will do the dirty work of creating policy.
So, particularly in this case, having an underling write the policy is probably closer to the reality of what you'll get than if the candidate was giving some off-the-cuff answers on what they don't understand to any level of depth.
Or to put it another way, do you also insist your candidates to be expert artists so they can evaluate the NEA? Or experts in education so they can *personally* get involved in writing standards? I could go on and on.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
Silly me, for some reason I thought that Babar was a Republican.
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Mussolini
No one believes politicians. Why should anyone believe them? From the city councillor to the President of the Benighted States, there is no punishment for incompetence or lying. If you bribe the right people, there's no punishment for crime, either. A pretty good game to play if you have cash and connections. Make billions for your circle, even if you kill millions of people in a far-away land where they don't even play baseball.
Political parties are organisms that thrive on cajolery and deception. They pick "leaders" but these leaders are really just pushed to the fore to take the spotlight away from the cunning monkeys behind the curtains writing the speeches and glad-handing the lobbyists. These leaders aren't really meant to change anything profound.
Civil servants also do their best to survive. Sometimes politicians and civil servants cooperate. Most of the time, it's a null hypothesis. Sometimes, you get a highly-motivated evil cretin in power and other evil cretins join in the convulsions. Then you have efficiency at the expense of freedom, justice, and maybe even life itself.
Listen to people everywhere speaking today. This is the age of Peter Pan. Everyone's a child, wanting other people to do the work and make the sacrifices and unwilling to grow up. Give me my ear-pod and home theatre with a screen full of high-definition retardation and don't ask me to learn about the world. Then I can spend all my time talking with my idiotic friends about about which plastic Hollywood dolls we would fuck if we had the opportunity... when we win the lottery.
And when we tire of that desperate chain of infantile hope and outright stupidity, we post on Slashdot. (o:
Rich And Stupid is not so bad as Working For Rich And Stupid.
then there's Biden who has made it quite clear he's alright with being lead around by lobbyists...
Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
Not true, much of the work done to find the vaccine was at public universities and private universities receiving government grants.
Without NASA's deep pockets and absolute need for the IC, less private incentive would have existed to develop it.
The Internet would not have been possible without the years of Federally-funded network research.
They didn't use pencil because broken leads would be a big problem in zero G.
And Obama will not do whatever the industry tells him to do nor set his policy according to industry lobbyists?
Like standing up against the industry and refusing to vote for telecom immunity?
Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
publicly-funded science is politicized science.
and research funded by companies is little better.
Would you trust a study funded by the tobacco industry which showed cigarettes to be harmless? Or a study funded by microsoft which showed FOSS to be full of bugs, viruses and child porn.
The BBC science show Horizon is running a show tomorrow night in the UK about what the Presidential candidates think of science and what their policies are. Doesn't bode well since I found out that Palin is a creationist.
My web domain.
This would be a huge mistake with ramifications felt throughout fields with even remote ties to federally funded research. It would be akin to cutting out the legs from American science. With directed research from the private sector and little room for science for the sake of science, the scientific community would begin to die. This would mark the end of cutting edge research and treatments and the end, for the large part, of new ideas. In the current system, federal money if given out in the form of grants which are awarded based on a mixture of preliminary data, ideas, plausibility, and proof you can actually accomplish what you purpose. The proposed grants are read by a study section formed from experts in a given field. This group reads proposed grants and decides which ones are the best and therefore worthy of federal money. With the current lack of money in the system, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), which are the primary funders of research in the country, have been forced to fund less and less research. Often the final cut is made based on who the scientists is or some other personal quality. There have even been stories of decisions coming down to a coin toss when two grants are so equally matched and there is only enough money to fund one. The beauty of this system can be seen in times when the NIH has more than enough money to go around. When money is plentiful a meaningful line can be drawn between grants purposing meaningful research and those of a lesser caliber. In a time of very tight funding, this line blurs and often cutting edge research is left out in the cold. It is in times like these that the idea of getting rid of all federal money is purposed. When the country needs every dime and popular opinion is that scientists are not putting their federal dollars to work. "Let the private sector fund science!" is often the call heard. At first this sounds like a great idea. The private sector, primarily pharmaceuticals, main goal is to turn a profit and so this seems like an appealing solution. Turn the job of funding research to the pharmaceuticals and in no time at all, great things will start to happen. Unfortunately, this is not the case, business being business, pharmaceuticals are only interested in what will make them money. Most researchers are working on projects that will never make anyone a dime, but add to the collective knowledge of the species. In this way, over time, it becomes possible to take in this collective knowledge and begin to look at actual marketable products. Without federally funded research, many of the miracle drugs available today would not be around. Federally funded research is a beginning, it is a start for all that we have known, all the we want to know, and all that we will ever know.
Yep. The graphite dust and pencil shavings from sharpening are bad too. Oh, and the research wasn't funded by the government anyway.
that's why the astronauts didn't use a pencil, right? Don't answer that
Why don't you want anyone to answer that?
Could it be that you know that it is not true?
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
"I'm not interested in third parties getting the most possible votes. I'm interested in Bob Barr as the nominee for the Libertarian Party getting the most possible votes,"
I came here for a good argument
WOOSH!
Whether or not there is some sort of god, I'm not supposed to say/god is a word and the argument ends there-Smog
That would NOT be a good idea. The reason is simple, businesses almost NEVER do pure research. Its hard to turn the results directly into money, and (rightfully) that is all a business is there for. Taxpayer funded programs do the pure research, then businesses take the result and do the research needed to turn that into a product. Take the Fed out of research and a lot of innovation will come to a grinding halt.
When the Federal government gets involved in a market, it often takes over the market inefficiently. See: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Federal research grants have co-opted the Universities, for sure (add in government accreditation and there's even more monopolistic powers). It's not correct to say that private institutions DON'T fund research, the reality is that decades of Federal intervention in research have made it difficult to compete with public dollars, public regulators, public mandates and public approval systems that defeat the heavy investments made by private institutions.
For example:
Wisconsin private funding of stem cell research better than public funding
25 charities in US fund $1.2 billion in private research
Private funding resources
There are thousands of organizations that fund research privately. Competing with taxpayer-funded research is difficult, though, but not impossible.
Isn't it great that we have so many choices for leadership? If we don't like the opinions of one person, we have one other person to choose from. Certainly each one of us can find one of these two people who will agree with and advocate for all that we believe in. Right?
In a sense, politics is a one-dimensional game at that level: at the extremes, either you believe that individual rights and responsibilities should be completely subservient to some "greater good" society, or you believe that individual rights and responsibilities are the dominant factor and any concept of society exists only to support them. A great many of the big decisions do flow naturally from this simple distinction: a preference for big vs. small government in general, and many more specific issues such as socialised healthcare vs. the private insurance model.
Of course it's not that simple in reality. There are some issues of ethics where perhaps people from both ends of the spectrum would agree. And there is no single concept of "society".
It seems to me that the biggest disruptive factor in politics, particularly in the US in recent years, is the concept of the corporation: entities that started as a group of individuals, taking advantage of collaboration in a free market to build a power base, are now recognised as having rights of their own, which necessarily compete with those of both individuals and society as a whole, while the people controlling those entities are shielded as individuals from most responsibility for the actions they control. Thus we have things like the recent banking collapses and the Enron fiasco, where the laws have not served to protect either individuals or the community as a whole for a long time, and now it is the rest of the people who have to deal with the mess. Likewise, we have Big Media raking in most of the profits from the work of a few individuals, backed by laws which have been distorted so they serve neither the individual artists nor society as a whole.
Right now, there are only two parties with a realistic prospect of winning power in the US in the near term, and both of them are heavily pro-corporation, so there is no real choice at all. It is an eternal mystery to me how this position was reached, given that corporations do not (yet) have the vote and there are other candidates in most elections. But now that the position has been reached, it seems that nothing short of fundamental reform of the electoral system will fix it. Of course, the parties in power are unlikely to do that voluntarily given their corporate affiliations, so it's going to need a slow, grass-roots process.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Clinton, reportedly, has personally authored a total of two (that's 2, not 2000) e-mails in eight years in office. Certainly, McCain's wife could help her husband do as many — or more, as she wouldn't be distracted by neither her own senatorial and presidential ambitions nor by having to chase out the pretty interns.
As for McCain's being reluctant to type, maybe, the fact, that his arms were repeatedly broken by his Vietnamese torturers, has something to do with that? The man can't raise his hands above his shoulders — must you blast him for depending upon his wife to comb his hair?
Gee, if this were required qualifications for an executive office, certainly, the blind Governor of New York should be disqualified, because he can't drive and is thus "out of touch" with New York's horrific traffic congestion problems.
When repeating Obama's ads on other forums, check the expiration date — they get stale very quickly.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
We The People need to take responsibility for getting things done, instead of deferring every concern to government.
"Private sector" does not necessarily have to be a synonym for "profit-oriented business." Imagine if the same portion of your paycheck's federal withholding that is being spent by the feds on science, were instead voluntarily contributed, by you, to a foundation of your choosing. Imagine choosing foundations based on the directors' expertise in science and grant proposal selection, instead of choosing senators and reps and presidents based on a such huge array of factors.
There is no reason we should have to use the same small group to make every decision. When you put politicians in charge of this stuff, you get situations where, say, a certain party's position on global warming, embryonic stems cells, etc. matters. Their opinions on these things shouldn't matter. We send them to Washington to set policies based on the topics mentioned in Article 1 Section 8 of the constitution, not to vote on whether or not to believe scientists. Think about how absurd it is for them to voting on science.
We could be voting with our wallets instead. We don't need a republic for this. The possible tyrannies of democracy aren't a threat here; one person's decision to fund research doesn't take anything away from you, in the way that passing laws or pointing guns can.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
In her interview with Charles Gibson, Sarah Palin claimed to have foreign policy experience because, "You can see Russia from Alaska." Is this true? Is Alaska so close to Russia that you can see it? From a world map we can see that the state of Alaska is indeed close to Russia. (Use Google Maps) They seem to be closest at the Seward Peninsula. But, both the peninsula and the part of Russia that it is opposite are snow covered mountainous regions that are separated by about 50 miles of the storm tossed Bering Strait. Not a likely invasion route. But since they are 50 miles apart how can you "see Russia from Alaska"? Well between the two peninsulas there are two islands Big Diomede and Little Diomede. Big Diomede is indeed owned by Russia and Little Diomede is part of Alaska, since they are separated by about 2 miles of ocean, you can indeed see one from the other. Little Diomede is 2.8 square miles and has a population of 146, mostly Native Americans who make their living from whaling and ivory carving. Not a tempting target for Russia. So where did Palin get the idea that Russia is such an immediate security threat to Alaska? Well, if you look at the Risk game board there is indeed a dotted line where you can move armies from Russian territory to Alaska. Is playing Risk where she really got her foreign policy experience?
Sex Education In a 2007 interview, Senator McCain said that sex education in the United States should follow President Bush's policy of abstinence-only education. HIV/AIDS McCain participated in ONE campaign's On The Record project. See Youtube (below). In a statement released by his campaign on Global Aids Day (December 1, 2007), McCain supported maintaining the United States commitment to fighting AIDS, writing: "It's critical that we face this crisis head-on, which is why I have consistently supported the most aggressive global AIDS program in the history of this pandemic, the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR). Afflicted nations with whom we partner to fight this disease must also know that we expect a level of governance, transparency and effectiveness from them in order to make the fullest use of AIDS assistance so we can make the greatest impact on people's lives. Our commitment must be sustained, and our nation must always be faithful to those at home and abroad as they cope with the ravages of HIV/AIDS."[3]
Wouldn't fighting AIDS be easier if people where at least aware that Condoms can be used to prevent the spread of STDs like AIDS? Isn't prevention much less expensive than treatment? Wouldn't any real effort to fight AIDS include more than "abstinence only" education? This is absurd. How could anyone take such a candidate seriously?
Prediction: The real iPhone killer is going to be sex robots from Japan. Think about it.
I think that is unrealistic. None of these people is going to govern in isolation if they are elected, so you might as well have the team that's behind them involved in the election process itself.
What matters in the leader is not their own expertise in any particular field, but the combination of their principles and their ability to apply those principles in the presence of expert advice. Other than in areas such as sudden military conflicts or unforeseen natural disasters, they will never have to do this in real time while in office, so why would you impose such a restriction on the campaign trail? If you do that, you just get the guy with the best sound-bites elected.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Saying the Democrats are not tied to the entertainment industry is about as ridiculous as saying that Republicans are not tied to the oil business. Let me break it down for you:
Democrats : Entertainment, Legal Services, Accounting, Education, Financial - Investment Banking, Software
Republicans : Manufacturing, Farming, Mining, Drilling, Financial - old Banking, Hardware
Just look at how the economy does when either party gets in. Clinton - farms, oil, commodities all crash, services takes off. Bush - services take a beating, but farms, oil, commodities in general take off, and manufacturing gets a boost.
Each party has its own commercial interests allied to it.
This is my sig.
A point of clarification: McCain and Obama submitted answers to ScienceDebate2008's 14 questions directly to Science Debate staff. We have a great relationship with SEforA, have benefited from it greatly and want to thank them for putting out the word on this. If the SEforA site is still down you can also view the answers to the questions at ScienceDebate2008.com as well as learn about who has been involved in the effort to bring McCain and Obama to the science table and answering these important questions. ~Erik Science Debate 2008 MN State Director
I wonder if one of the questions they asked had to do with whether the candidate thought it made any sense to submit an article to
Sigh.
The government is clearly not the most efficient (that's why the astronauts didn't use a pencil, right?
Myth Busted
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
No, but a prayer should help about it...
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
do a gut-check on the person
What if both candidates leave you running for the bathroom like they do this year? Obama and Biden are two of the furthest-left politicians in the senate and he is, in essence, an empty suit. He's great at speaking, but there's nothing behind it.
McCain is central and seems to actually do what he thinks is right. However, he's also an asshole with a horrible temper and he's not all that smart. Given a reasonable choice, I'd vote against him.
I believe I'm just going to vote third party this year. I may be throwing my vote away, but so be it. Both choices are awful, and I'd rather support a one-in-a-million chance than either of the two major candidates.
You know that the pen in question was developed by a private company and then offered to NASA after it was completed, right? This is exactly the kind of research that business is good at funding - short term projects with a product at the end.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Seriously though, do you really want the only scientific research to be going on sponsored by whatever makes profit? quote> This is assuming that the government doesn't make decisions based on someones profits. This will still happen, they will fund scientific resources that whatever lobbyist is throwing money at. Just as they currently do.
I can't say for sur either way to be honest with you but I do like the idea that Paul is letting all people know to check out third party choices and not just backing up one candidate. Both major parties need some wind let out of their sails and there is a ton of choices.
On the same note, I can also understand why Barr would take it as a snub. Barr is my choice this upcoming election but it would be great if a large percentage of Americans went into the booth being informed of more than just Obama and McCain as far as choices even if they stick with either one. I'm not saying a third party is everyone choice, the large parties do offer something but the presidential offerings of late have been... let's just say unsatisfactory. It's been a long time since we've had a major party candidate that I've felt enthusiastic about. I know I'm not alone on this and by offering up votes to a third party it's a way to show our disappointment in the current system.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
You know, "woosh!" is not an argument...
Worked great for stem cell research.
While it is a common belief that voting third party is "throwing your vote away", it really isn't in the long term. The two big parties look closely at the candidates who received votes in every major election and then try to determine how to convince voters to vote for their candidates next time around, typically by modifying their platforms and including items that appear to be gathering steam with the populance. You can help steer the process a bit by voting for exactly for who you want to fill the position your voting on. Just because your guy didn't win doesn't mean your votes didn't matter.
Shop smart, Shop S-Mart.
Right. Maybe the challengers would answer the questions, but the incumbents won't. Why would they? 90% of them are in safe districts. All they need to do is file the proper paperwork to get their name on the ballot and they can coast to victory.
As said by McCain:
Suppose we do nothing, and we don't eliminate this $400 billion dependence we have on foreign oil. Some of that money goes to terrorist organizations and also contributes to greenhouse gas emissions. Then what kind of a world have we given our children?
Terrorists! Think of the Children! You don't... hate... children, do you?
Who else would support social science research?
Nazis?
The DMCA was SIGNED into law by Bill Clinton.
Both houses of the U.S. Congress passed the DMCA and the Bono Act by voice vote. Article I of the U.S. Constitution, which gives the procedure for a bill to become a law, requires 81 percent support to make a voice vote[1] but only 67 percent to override a presidential veto.[2] So had President Clinton vetoed either bill, the Congress would have easily overridden the veto. So I blame both major parties equally.
[1] From section 5: "the Yeas and Nays of the Members of either House on any question shall, at the Desire of one fifth of those Present, be entered on the Journal."
[2] From section 7: "if [the President does not approve] he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law."
I would be skeptical upon first hearing the results, but if the results were published in an accredited peer reviewed journal or magazine I would accept them.
I thought for only being involved for a couple of weeks they had a better plan than the management of those two companies had, which includes ditching that management as well as the high risk loans that had destroyed the businesses and institute a business plan for solvency. The real issue is whether the government should have been managing and monitoring the loans they help finance in these government backed private companies in the first place.
(emphasis added)
The GP is asking for grade school, not graduate school. It's not a very high standard.
Hey. Just a little heads up. I know you've probably been slurping down the palin talking points when she says things like "Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac" just cost the people too much to remain viable. Unfortunately both of you are completely wrong. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are Government Sponsorded Enterprises (GSE). This means that they were incorporated by an act of congress, but are PRIVATELY OWNED. That's right privately owned. THEY WERE NOT RUN BY THE GOVERNMENT. The deregulation (by republicans) of these two organizations allowed them to be run into the ground. Now the taxpayers are HAVING to pay for a bailout to slow the plummeting republican shitstorm that is our current economy.
I don't know where you get this whole federal money competes with and beats out private funding idea. Do you really think that federally funded research somehow precludes private research investment at universities? You obviously don't work in an academic setting. Both federal and private projects coincide together with no problem.
Great 25 charities fund $1.2 billion in private research. I think science (and subsequently business who can make money off freely published results) would appreciate and benefit from an additional $1.2 billion or so from the government. That $1.2bil can come from a slice of the money we are wasting in the optional war in Iraq that's distracting us from the real front on terror (Afghanistan) and real domestic issues.
--David
"blah blah blah My guys can do no wrong blah blah blah, anyone who doesn't agree with me is irrevocably evil, as are all republicans ever blah blah blah"
Get a new schtick guy, ten years of the same Hillary-like screeching from you gets tiresome.
I guess it's a good thing you've got this echo chamber, god knows the real world thinks you're a kook.
Cue personal attack because he can't stand anyone disagreeing and will angrily shout down anyone who tries...
To quote LongNoi "QZTR was right and won't leave me alone because I called him a moron when I was wrong" FYS
No I didn't. Interesting. The pen thing was obviously a joke, but your point is correct. Although it doesn't contradict the fact that government funding of science can be useful.
Qxe4
I know I'm not alone on this and by offering up votes to a third party it's a way to show our disappointment in the current system.
Well, it's certainly an excellent way of helping to elect whichever of the 2 major party candidates you disagree with the most. Our plurality wins system may suck, but protesting it by letting its worst feature exploit you is just dumb.
Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
Seriously though, do you really want the only scientific research to be going on sponsored by whatever makes profit?
Dude... No one's stopping you from setting up a charity to help fund profitless research. Then you can pick and choose which projects get funded and you don't have an inefficient, bloated government bureaucracy to get in the way, either. Get a couple million friends to donate and there you go!
What's that? You don't have a couple million friends? So... what? Does that give you the right to take my money and appropriate it for your selfish desires?
Hire a Linux system administrator, systems engineer,
If it is so well supported, why is it that the best you could do to demonstrate such support is a ''joke?''
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
What sort of business would invest in pure research, even WITHOUT governmental competition, while their shareholder just nod at the expense ? We are not speaking of a better mousetrap or a better pill for AIDS here, we are speaking of Hadron collider, Hubble, and whatnot. How can you pretend with a straight face that ANY business would invest a penny in such research with no hope whatsoever to get their investment back ? And without going overboard with big projects, look at the fundemental research like QM, spectroscopy, and so on. Please thniking company would invest in such research is borderline fanatism belief in "capitalism solve everything !"
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
This sounds like McCain would support AT&T if they decided that all Google packets passing through their system would be slowed down to dial-up speeds unless Google paid them for the privilege of running at broadband speeds. So when you make a business, McCain feels you are entitled to make a profit on it? That sharply differs from my view that businesses have to earn their profits. Simply owning the pipe doesn't mean they've earned their profit, though it does give them a good opportunity to do so. (By giving users speedy Internet access for a monthly fee.)
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
It's been /.'d
Well, as long as people only vote for a candidate because he's in one of the two big parties there will never be reform.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
"Expanding the number of people hired through HB-1 visas and allowing the Department of Labor to set HB-1 visa limit to be appropriate to the labor market conditions."
What? He wants to hrie more FORIEGN labor - he wants to keep is big business buddies lining their pockets at the expense of job loss in American.
We don't need offshore drilling! Both Republicans and Democrats have said it would take 7-10 years beofre one drop of gas would hit the pumps once they started.
What about electric cars? Well lets see you have to charge the battteries somehow right? How do you think they will get powered up. Yup by plants that generate electricity. Let see these are run by either Coal and ones that are Neuclear powered. First Coal ones aren't all that better for the environment than gas. Nuclear - well how do you dispose of all the spent uraniun/nuclear waste? No one watns it burried in their back yard.
Hello dumshits! How about Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles???? Why is it that so far I ahve only seen Honda and BMW with Hydrogen Fuel cell vehicles advertised. From what I have read Honda plans on having theirs ready for mass avaialblity in 2009.
Heck there is already a mass produced Hydrogen Fuel Cell RC car with it's own Hydrogen producing "fuel station".
http://www.thingsyouneverknew.com/product/code/84214.do?showPrevNext=false
Now are they trying to say they can't mass produce Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles and setup "filling" stations for them in less than 7-10 years (the time they say it would take if they started off shore drilling to get one drop of gas to the pumps) (Both Republicans and Democrats have admitted this)??? Here we have a hydrogen fuel cell RC car with it's own "filling station". Then on the news this weekend they said how all these oil refineries were badly damaged by Ike and how gas was going to hit $5/gallon (it's already up there in Texas). Then Opec saying they are going to cut production again... You think people revolted at $4/gallon - wait until it's enmass at $5/gallon. Yet oil fell below $96/barrel....
This old $ucker and his George Bush like running make are NOT WORTHY of anyones vote! Neither in Obama/and what's his old @$$ face.
PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE - don't vote for either of these DORKS! Vote for ANY thrid party - show these pud pullers we are sick and tired of ther BS in washington and sick of the waste of human sperm cdandidates they keep feeding us!
The Truth is a Virus!!!
In the interests of giving McCain props where I think he should get them (even though I don't agree with him on most subjects):
Kudos to McCain for correctly identifying the glaring hole in the pro-life argument against embryonic stem cell research. The pro-life crowd will often argue that the embryos that stem cells are harvested from are humans and thus deserve a better fate than being used for research. They ignore the reality of the situation, however. Those frozen embryos are most likely going to be discarded/incinerated if they aren't used for stem cell research.
Which is a more dignified fate for the embryo? To be incinerated/tossed out like trashed? Or to be used in an attempt to save lives?
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
What's that? You don't have a couple million friends? So... what? Does that give you the right to take my money and appropriate it for your selfish desires?
Heh....no one is stopping you from setting up a lobby to prevent the government from supporting science. If you can convince enough people to care, it will happen. As it is, I'll bet most people actually support scientific research by the government. Which means you have to pay for it too. Right out of your wallet.
In any case, the Fannie May and Freddie Mac debacle is going to end up costing much more than our scientific research. If you're looking to keep your money in your wallet, you should start looking there.
Qxe4
That's rather naive. The ISO voting process shows that you can buy enough peers to rubberstamp anything.
It doesn't hurt to be nice.
and what cabinet position would Steve Ballmer have? Secretary of Checking the President's Email?
McCain at Google
Please do tell, exactly what sort of research benefits the rich and not the poor? I'm trying to think of an example and I simply can't.
If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
I whole-heartedly agree with you.The 'Party allegiance above all' mentality is what leads to the appointment of like-minded ideologues with little experience. And with the growth of the party comes massive donations which inevitably lead to corruption. Worst of all is the control they have over message which leads to the same talking points being repeated over and over again. I remember watching cable news networks before the democratic convention. Every time a democrat came on, you'd hear the same argument repeated verbatim: "This is a candidate that doesn't even know how many houses he has". And listen to John Fund on Real Time, if you can stomach it. Talking point after talking point after talking point.
Honestly, I would go further than saying that we should look to third parties. At best that would lead to another large corrupt party, and at worst, it would just take the place of the Democrats or the Republicans, leaving the US with the same two party system. What we need is abolish political parties entirely and get independents elected. Candidates who can think for themselves (and voice their opinions freely) and actually care about the people they represent.
I came here for a good argument
In some fields, such as mathematics, computer science, economics and the social sciences, NSF is the major source of federal backing.
Is that more clear to you?
Qxe4
The GP is asking for grade school, not graduate school. It's not a very high standard.
That's what the GP asked for, but it's not what the GP meant. There are no fundamental policy issues that can be understood with a "grade school" science education. The issues of our day are extremely complex, and actually one of the things that drives me crazy, particularly on Slashdot, is the arrogant oversimplification of issues.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
So, you honestly want to take the decision of WHAT to fund out of the hands of the politicians, which at first sounds like a great idea, since they are all greedy and in it for their own pocket and not what is right for their constituents, and put it square in the hands of the unwashed masses who can barely balance their checkbooks, watch reality television all day, and what, 80% of them believe some old guy with a beard lived 900 years, built an ark because some voice in the sky told them to and loaded 2 of every animal on it for 40 days and 40 nights and somehow still had room to feed them and kept the lions from eating the deer? Oh, I know! It was an ark holding. Please, the general populace is ill equipped to decide what to eat for dinner, they certainly don't need to be making REAL decisions. Whats why we hire the representatives to do it for us. We being the aggregate, I include myself in this group out of necessity, not desire. I don't think half the people out there should be breeding, I certainly wouldn't trust them with this kind of decision.
In applied sciences, such as biotech, engineering and parts of physics, chemistry, sure. In "blue skies" areas, fuck all basically. The only people doing e.g. serious number theory research are probably the NSA. Other branches of maths haven't even got that advantage going for them.
"It doesn't cost enough, and it makes too much sense."
"Establishing a 10% tax credit for research and development equal to 10% of wages spent on research & development."
Isn't that just a 1% tax credit for wages spent on research and development? 0.1 * 0.1 = 0.01.
well, there are worse things to worry about - I mean, Obama-Biden is awfully close to OsAMA BIn laDEN, so obviously there must be a tie-in (incidentally, the human-dinosaur thing with Palin was fake, too).
Personally, I'd prefer if neither would win (I have serious issues with both), but at this point the chances of a third party coming out of nowhere to take the election (much less one I agree with) is about nil, so we either get the first black President or the first female VP. I guess I make do, as always, and waste my vote again in another 4 years.
I believe we should expect candidates who ARE experts in at least one non-political field, AND who have a good grounding in many different subjects. This used to be called "Classical Education" and is entirely possible. (It is also something Plato argued was a prerequisite to having an actual democracy, rather than proxy dictatorship or anarchy.) I also believe you are correct in arguing they should be competent enough to know when to listen and who to listen to. This means recognizing real credentials and real experience, as opposed to rewarding celebrities or even just very skilled talkers. Not entirely sure how you'd quantify this, though.
Ideally, people should be barred from office or official adviser positions if they have lack intelligence, wisdom, education or respect for those who do in the subject they represent. True, this would eliminate 98% of the current political class and the remaining 2% would only just qualify for answering the phones. It would also eliminate all representation in the US for the percentage of the population who are Creationists, Fundamentalists, Flat Earthers or door-to-door salesmen, but I'm not convinced this would be a bad thing either.
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)
Err...
getting electricity from a coal plant is most likely better than powering a car from gas. The coal plant can (I think) scrub it's own exhaust much better than a car. Also, the plant probably has efficiencies a car does not, simply from being huge.
Heck, I'm not sure!
I am sure that a hydrogen fuel cell doesn't create electricity from magic. The hydrogen has to be created somehow.... and it's probably made by zapping water with electricity to separate the hydrogen and oxygen. Possibly it's made by hydrogen farting little bacteria or somesuch.
Don't get me wrong, I'd love to have a fuel cell car and a little hydrogen making station at my home. Well, actually I'd rather have an electric car and some supercapacitors for storage. Anyway, I'm only taking issue with your supposition that fuel cell autos are somehow better than full on electric cars because of electrical generation issues. They might be better because of current electrical storage in the car itself, but not because of the source of the electricity driving them.
Yes, I'm being a nitpicker. Yes, it's kind of lame. :D
-T
Hmmm... check the parent poster's user name and look it up. In light of what dada was/is, my guess is his post was an honest opinion. I don't agree with it, but it's clearly neither flamebait nor a troll.
Free Martian Whores!
Does the test ask for the names of the different rock types and how they are formed, and for the names and descriptions of all the major cloud types?
Because I know I learned that in grade school, but I really couldn't pass a test about it now. Sorry; it's been too long and I don't use most of the general science I learned in grade school in my specialized science profession.
It doesn't hurt to be nice.
What is this?
Have gnu, will travel.
Who else would support social science research?
With a few exceptions such as archaeology and paleoanthropology, perhaps there could be a private charity for the advancement of the pseudosciences. I'm not sure it's appropriate to spend taxpayer money on those things.
Loose lips lose spit.
Honestly, I would go further than saying that we should look to third parties. At best that would lead to another large corrupt party, and at worst, it would just take the place of the Democrats or the Republicans, leaving the US with the same two party system. What we need is abolish political parties entirely and get independents elected. Candidates who can think for themselves (and voice their opinions freely) and actually care about the people they represent.
This isn't too bad of an idea either. Someone recently had said that parties should focus on one goal and should be dissolved after their goal is achieved. I can go along with that way of thinking too.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
Then again, if I were to pick a presidential candidate to be an expert at ONE thing, it would probably be constitutional law. And a terminal degree in his/her chosen field wouldn't be a bad thing either.
An old-timer with old-timey ideas.
Co-opted the Universities from what? Most of the best research universities in the US are... guess what... public universities. Public (government) funding has been part of the deal since the inception of public universities.
As for competing with public funds... that's just silly. There is not enough funding for research right now, private grants do not compete with public grants... both types are in high demand in research institutions.
Please explain. Can you cite or refer to a few examples, where private organizations have been unable to fund research because public funds have 'used up' all the researchers? Where the supply of qualified researchers is limiting the amount of research? I'm really curious if this is actually happening, or if you're making things up again.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
Can't you already do that in the US? Donate money to Non-profit organizations and have the money knocked off your taxable income.
The two big parties look closely at the candidates who received votes in every major election and then try to determine how to convince voters to vote for their candidates next time around, typically by modifying their platforms and including items that appear to be gathering steam with the populance. You can help steer the process a bit by voting for exactly for who you want to fill the position your voting on.
Just look at how the Democratic party modified their platform to bring all those Nader voters into the fold after they lost in 2000. Oh wait, no, they just tried to out-Bush Bush.
IMO, just don't worry about throwing your vote away. Your vote is worth precisely dick anyway.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Thank you for actually stating the facts. Hopefully you will get modded up so more people can see through the bs the Republicans are feeding Americans.
Support a great indie game: http://www.abaddon360.com
And make sure you can name the four layers of the Rain Forest! After all, that's critical knowledge if we're to save the Rain Forest.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
What part about wanting the *president* to have a 12th grade level science education is so fucking difficult?
There is a war going on for your mind.
> McCain gets emotional at the mention of military families needing food stamps or veterans lacking health care.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200806040002
Then why did he vote against so many bills that would've provided money for medical care? And seriously, there's got to be some kind of limit to how many things you can use the POW excuse for. Can you name even one fault of his that isn't allegedly due to his POW injuries? I'm happy to honor the man's service. But I think he cheapens the service of others by using it as a flimsy catch-all excuse. The other veterans don't deserve that.
I'm disgusted that McCain would cheapen the service of America's POWs by playing politics with their service.
> In certain ways, McCain was a natural Web candidate. Chairman of the Senate Telecommunications Subcommittee and regarded as the U.S. Senate's savviest technologist
Ahh, Forbes. The place that trumpeted SCO's technology claims. But let's counter that claim with facts, not implication.
For one, Ted "The Internet is not a Big Truck" Stevens is in charge of the Internet in Congress in case you've forgotten. Is that supposed to inspire confidence!? Being in charge of something in Congress doesn't prove you know anything. It proves that you have seniority.
McCain is also against Net Neutrality and other "prescriptive regulation," thinks Ballmer would make good tech policy, etc. That's NOT what I'd call a "savvy technologist."
I note that you're trying to make your case by implication (because of X, he SHOULD know about Y), rather than citing anything specific that he knows. This is a common rhetorical trick, but it won't work on me. The more you rely on inference than direct evidence, the weaker I know your claims are.
NASA wasn't around in 1952.
There is a war going on for your mind.
Then again, if I were to pick a presidential candidate to be an expert at ONE thing, it would probably be constitutional law.
Unfortunately, that means you get an expert on the *law* regarding the constitution, and it's the lawyers that have done a lot of the damage to the constitution. The whole function of a lawyer is to bend the law to fit the desires of whoever is paying them.
I think what you really want is an expert on constitutional *history*, if that's what your priority really is. It's the first principles and idealism of the constitution that's really important.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
Would you trust a study funded by the tobacco industry which showed cigarettes to be harmless?
Of course not. That's the problem -- publicly-funded research is presumed to be impartial, when in practice the bias is just more deeply buried under layers of politics.
Would you trust a government-funded study showing cigarettes to be dangerous? It's just as much in the government's interests to promote regulation as it is in the tobacco industry's interests to make their product appear safe.
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
And don't forget with enough votes, the 3rd parties will federally matched funds during the next election cycle. If that doesn't make the Republicrats stand up & take notice, nothing will.
There is a war going on for your mind.
And now, imagine 100 million people voluntarily contributing funds to a foundation of their choice, as suggested by their pastor/priest/mullah.
I don't mean to be snarky, it's just that I do not trust the wisdom of the crowds (although the tyranny of the majority poses its own problems). WRT research, the problem is that then funds are subject to the 'sexiness' of the research even moreso than now. There is a lot of very valuable unsexy research being done, and I think it would be a big mistake to allow discretionary directed funding of research by the individual taxpayer.
Of course, you may believe differently -- I just have a lot of disdain for the wisdom of the crowds.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
If you can't get the SEforA site to load go to ScienceDebate2008.com McCain and Obama sent their answers in response to the 14 Science Debate quesitons. The answers are posted there side by side for comparison. I keep checking the site and it loads pretty well right now.
Deregulation only let it be seen when they were run into the ground. Without deregulation they could just soak tax money without being forced to be profitable, and nobody would have ever known anything other than "there's another one of those failing money soaking arms of the government". As it is at least now we can be indignant that they lost money instead of ignorant. There is blood on both isles hands here. To pin this on either isle and not both is just dooming us to the same fate again.
1: They should have never been government backed corporations.. isn't that fascism?
2: They should have never been allowed to get so large that if one or two failed then it would demolish our economy. Isn't that what antitrust laws are all about?
3: The Govt never should have pushed for ease of lending to low income or underprivileged people. Just because healthy economies have high rates of home ownership doesn't mean you can scam your way into high rates of home ownership and create a healthy economy out of it. That's the wagon trying to pull the horse.
4: The government should have never backed the loans. The real reason we can't let them go bankrupt is because it's the same damn thing as taking them over economically. The tax payer still foots the bill.
5: How in hell was it not illegal for these fascist companies to spend so much on lobbying?
6: How about if we all just buy our own damn houses. If we can't get great mortgage rates, and we can't afford to put down enough to buy a home then guess what, supply will rise, and demand will fall creating CHEAPER HOUSING. Flooding the damn market with loans is what caused housing to get unbearably expensive and cause us to go from 15 year fixed rates as a standard, to 30 year, or adjustable rates as being the standard.
You may disagree with me, but in my opinion no legislation is often the best legislation. Why have the government mucking around in high tech/internet/ecomm that, with few minor exceptions, works just fine without them? Let the industry set their standards, and let us as consumers dictate what we want by who we give our business to.
Listen, I totally agree with you on one point, McCain knows f-hole about technology... but on the same point I'm sure you'd be hard pressed to find a politician who can hold their weight on tech issues. Only more of a reason not to have any of them writing legislation for it. A free market works when it's truly free, artificial limitations and caps imposed by the fed undermine the free market and actually stop it from working as it should.
And you trust politicians more than "the crowds"?? Why???
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
You can't see Russia from Wasilla or Anchorage or Juneau. It's like saying you can see Indiana or Ohio from New York City. The only place in Alaska where you can actually see a small (very small!) chunk of Russia is from the Bering strait (~50 km). Claiming you can see the actual Russia from anywhere in Alaska is a plain lie and shows how little these folks know about geography. Besides, It's not that you see the real Russia from Alaska anyway. As many Russian commentators said, that part is a chunk of ice. The place in Russia where the power, the economy sits is in a different timezone. But I am sure Alaskans know that.
"This rationale was proposed, and discredited, over 150 years ago. Trade secrets are notoriously hard to keep, as the poster JesseMcDonald points out."
Oh really? Pop quiz time then....
Name the 12 secret herbs and spices in Original recipe KFC, and their proportions therein.
Chicken Grease Salt!
Bow-ties are cool.
OTOH, after Perot got 20% of the popular vote in 1992, the Republican Congress actually balanced the budget. Too bad it didn't last.
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
"Down, boy!" -Bob Dole in soda pop commercial featuring a pop singer with big titties
Free Martian Whores!
Do you think that anybody gets to be a congressman, senator, governor or a general without having a grade school knowledge of all grade school subjects?
A portion of McCain's response to the "Innovation" question: "Under my guiding hand, Congress developed a wireless spectrum policy that spurred the rapid rise of mobile phones and Wi-Fi technology that enables Americans to surf the web while sitting at a coffee shop, airport lounge, or public park." Isn't this along the same line as Al Gore's quote, "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system."
Isn't it great that we have so many choices for leadership?
Actually, we do. Unfortunately the corporate owned media backs the two corporate owned candidates and refuses to cover any of the other three candidates who are on enough ballots to win. They say a vote for any of the other three is wasted, well, since McCain is a shoe-in, a vote for Obama is wasted too.
Kind of silly in that light, isn't it? Unfortunately, the other three are as bad as McCain and Obama.
You can vote for the Reverend Chuck Baldwin, the Constitution Party candidate who thinks (incorrectly) that America is a Christian nation. It isn't and was never designed to be. It is a secular nation whose inhabitants mostly pretend to be Christian while actually worshiping the almighty dollar. I'm a Christian but no way could I vote for him. Real Christians respect the religious beliefs of non-Christians, even of athiests. Baldwin would disenfranchise atheists, agnostics, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Bhuddists, Wiccans, and everyone else.
Or you can vote for Cynthia McKinney, the Green Party candidate. If you're white, she has the advantage of your being able to say "I voted for the black candidate". Unfortunately, IMO she's a dangerous nut.
Or you can vote for Bob Barr, the Libertarian Party candidate. His minuses are that he's really a Republican, and the Libertarians are pro-corporate. However, I'm voting for him because a vote for someone who wants to put me in prison for smoking pot and hiring hookers is WORSE than a wasted vote. I'd have to be out of my mind to vote for Republicans and Democrats.
I don't think I need to link wiki entries on the two Corporate Republicrat candidates. The media blabber about them both constantly.
There are dozens more candidates, but the three I mentioned are the only ones with a mathematical possibility of actually winning (even though it would take the Heart Of Gold's infinite improbability field to get them elected).
Free Martian Whores!
What's that? You don't have a couple million friends? So... what? Does that give you the right to take my money and appropriate it for your selfish desires?
I'm going with a clear, "Yes, yes it does." I, being me and my government representatives, have every right to use your tax dollars on research that may benefit the society as a whole. If there is one thing a government should be doing, this would be it. So yeah, taking your money via taxation and giving you representation in the form of services that better enable society is a GOOD THING© and I am in favor of it. They have every right to use my tax dollars to fund whatever they need to in order to make a better society. You have every right to move to a society which isn't going to spend your money on research but I think you won't find the standard of living nearly as high.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Obviously compare doesn't work but the it should have read "Error establishing any connection"
Imagine if the same portion of your paycheck's federal withholding that is being spent by the feds on science, were instead voluntarily contributed, by you, to a foundation of your choosing.
Except it wouldn't happen. Outside of Slashdot, there are very few people who would voluntarily donate money to scientific research. If you accept taxation as reasonable, then spending public money on a positive externality is a good thing. Most economists consider a Pigovian subsidy to be one of the best ways to provide for a positive externality and that's what federally funded basic research does.
Everyone seems to have this idea that politicians decide that $x are sent to Professor Smith at State U to study subject A. That's not how it works. The NSF gets about $6 billion dollars and based on grant proposals which are ranked by peer review, select the funding recipients.
tl;dr version
McCain: Stem Cells bad, you kill baby, no kill baby. Why science want to eat baby? No care if you sick.
Obama: Stem Cells good, only use already dead baby, not live baby. We watch them, make sure they not eat your babys. You not have to be sick.
Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master.
Two examples:
(1) Obama wants to improve science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education by broadening its scope beyond just science and engineering majors:
All American citizens need high quality STEM education that inspires them to know more about the world around them, engages them in exploring challenging questions, and involves them in high quality intellectual work. STEM education is no longer only for those pursuing STEM careers; it should enable all citizens to solve problems, collaborate, weigh evidence, and communicate ideas.
whereas McCain sees science as being for geeks only. He wants more geeks, so the rest of the country don't have to bother their pretty heads while getting law and business degrees:
The diminishing number of science, technology, engineering and math graduates at the college level poses a fundamental and immediate threat to American competitiveness. We must fill the pipeline to our colleges and universities with students prepared for the rigors of advanced engineering, math, science and technology degrees.
(2) Obama sees technology leadership as being essential to national security:
It's essential to create a coherent new defense technology strategy to meet the kinds of threats we may faceâ"asymmetric conflicts, urban operations, peacekeeping missions, and cyber, bio, and proliferation threats, as well as new kinds of symmetric threats.
whereas McCain sees national security as essentially just military superiority:
As President, I will strengthen the military, shore up our alliances, and ensure that the nation is capable of protecting the homeland, deterring potential military challenges, responding to any crisis that endangers American security, and prevailing in any conflict we are forced to fight.
For more contrasts, see my blog post
Personally, I'd like them to be able to answer questions like, "What is the Bush Doctrine?"
Especially if they're Republican.
It's sad the the media isn't focusing more on Palin's extremist views (& piss-poor record), since of the two she's the one much more to be scared of, not just because McCain is old enough for possible succession to be an issue, but also because he's already reversed himself to agree with her on a number of issues (off-shore drilling, etc), so her views apparently trump his.
As far as Palin and science/etc:
- She's a creationist, and advocates teaching it in schools
- Up until two years ago (when she became govenor) she was a Pentacostalist for 20+ years, and still has contact with the church. Does she speak in tongues and handle snakes? Who knows, but she's apparently comfortable hanging out with people who do.
- She is totally against abortion under ANY circumstances (science would at least distinguish between prior/after the development of the nervous system, brain, etc), incuding in cases of rape and incest (science tells us that incest is likly to result in genetic abnormalities).
- She is against sex education and believes teaching abstinace as an alterntive(!). Not coincidently her teenage daugter is pregnant by some dimwit who's myspace page is full of "F" bombs and states he doesn't want kids
- While mayor of bumfuck, Alaska (pop. 5000), her only experience prior to becoming govenor two years ago, she fired the local librarian for refusing to remove books that Palin found offensive. Later, after protests, she was forced to reinstate her. As a self-professed "hockey mom" she also ignored requests to improve the town library and instead built a multi-million dollar pro-sized hockey rink. Not very science friendly to be anti-education/library.
- Her record in Alaska has been that she fires those who disagree with her, and instead surrounds herself with "yes" men. Doesn't want anyone near her more experienced who'll show her up.
- etc, etc
Oh, and despite her breezy "yeah! fer sure!" recent interview answer to the question of whether she would be qualified to be president and commander in chief in the event that happened, she herself is on record as noting that her prior job as mayor was so simple ("only $6M and 5000 people") that it didn't even need any experience (convenient as she didn't have any).
I wish the Dems had a stronger ticket, but at least it's not downright scary as hell like McCain/Palin. The last thing the USA needs is another 4 or 8 years of being run by people who make decisions based on whacky religious/gut beliefs rather that facts.
Like I said, ten years of the same.
I do find it ironic that you cry like a baby about strawmen (and you can't find one you fucking liar, I assigned NO arguments of any kind to anyone, so you're either using a word you don't understand or are lying) when that's pretty much your entire argument style.
And I'm not even going to bother pointing out that you attacked me exactly like you have anyone who disagrees with you for ten years.
Thanks for proving you're everything I said you are, I'm going to go back to improving myself, you keep screeching the same tired crap to your echo chamber.
And last, "hall of mirrors" doesn't even make any sense you idiot.
To quote LongNoi "QZTR was right and won't leave me alone because I called him a moron when I was wrong" FYS
I think that is unrealistic. None of these people is going to govern in isolation if they are elected, so you might as well have the team that's behind them involved in the election process itself.
Palin's record in Alaska has been that she fires people who disgree with her, and instead surrounds herself with "yes" men, so "team Palin" is in fact exactly the same as "just Palin". McCain apparently either wan't aware of this or approves of it (not sure which is worse), so I wouldn't get your hopes up that they'll suddenly get all executive and surround themselves with the best talent available.
Also, everyone used pencils and mechanical pencils at first, then grease pencils and slates. Fisher developed his space pens independently and then sold it both to NASA and Russia.
Source, the always correct wikipedia
Here is why I I supported Bush. (I don't mention there, that I strongly dislike Socialists and any talk of "income redistribution" — because it was not Bush-specific.)
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Uhhh, that was my point, that no child was taught about sex-education or was going to be taught sex-education and yet McCain's campaign loudly proclaimed it so. Is there a plane whooshing over my head right now because honestly, I don't see how my post was saying anything but there was no children being taught about sex-education. Lies shouldn't have been put in quotation marks in your message, as that's quite literally the kind of mud the Republicans have been slinging.
"We invented personal computing." - Bill Gates
So their money gets wasted on things of dubious value? That's sad, but it's also their problem. At least they would STFU about being forced to support "killing babies" or "global warming hysteria" and therefore wouldn't have to lobby for the government to interfere with science.
I see 100 million fundamentalists paying for quackery, as ultimately harmless. The worst I can say about it, is that they wouldn't be helping. Well, I never really had a fair expectation for them to help. If we don't all agree that science is a good thing, then we'll just have to disagree, instead of forcing someone to do something they don't' want to.
When we pretend that we have consensus of values, we guarantee that somebody will have to end up being a loser. The less power that resides in a decision-making body, the less harmful that body will be to anyone.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
If I can make them pay for my science, then they have justification for making me pay for their $WASTEFUL_PROJECT. Everybody loses.
If I pay for science and they pay for $WASTEFUL_PROJECT, then everybody wins.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
If that's how you feel, then get yourself a dictator and be done with it.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Are you a fucking moron? From the first paragraph:
Legislation to teach 'comprehensive sex education' to kindergartners. If you're going to try to argue semantics at least do it right you typical windbag. Furthermore, as outlined in the page I just linked you to, "And the bill, which would have allowed only 'age appropriate' material and a no-questions-asked opt-out policy for parents, was not his accomplishment to claim in any case, since he was not even a cosponsor - and the bill never left the state Senate."
So what the hell are you talking about again? This is legislation he didn't sponsor that had plenty of ways for parents to keep the information away from their children if they so desired. Get a clue before you start trying to act like some pathetic internet toughguy on Slashdot.
P.S. -- You don't have to answer every single goddamn "WHY?" question a child asks, and if you're trying to tell them don't talk to strangers, don't take candy from strangers, and don't let strangers treat you like you're their best friend, and here's what to look out for, you are in no way saying the bad man wants to get off on you with his penis. Jesus Christ, you must be a horrible person to ask for directions and advice for sensitive subjects if you haven't the slightest idea how to speak in generalities and non-specifics when necessary.
"We invented personal computing." - Bill Gates
It's funny that McCain dances around an answer and Obama lines out the methods in which he hopes to achieve his goals. One blows the typical smoke the other seems to have thought some of this through.
if the candidate himself could pass a grade school science exam before he gets to make calls on science policy
No need to be an expert... just needs to be able to tell if someone is selling him crap and calling it gold, or if they really are an expert. To do that, the candidate needs to know at least the basics.
Before commenting on the Bible, please read it first
Carly Fiorina severly damaged Hewlett-Packard as its CEO, and has been campaigning for McCain ever since HP fired her.
With that kind of endorsement, America's tech industry should fear McCain as Fiorina's choice for president.
--
make install -not war
"Listen, I'm a politician, which means I'm a cheat and a liar, and when I'm not kissing babies, I'm stealing their lollipops ..."
"We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
Actually, they did use a pencil, and so did the Russians. A private company invented the space pen, and sold them to NASA. I have the bullet model, which (according to wikipedia) is also on display at the museum of modern art. It is a great pen, one of the smoothest with which I have had the pleasure of writing, not to mention its simple but elegant form.
I initially decided to post a snappy comeback, but I sat there with a blank reply for a few seconds before I realized I didn't have one. What is there to say when people jump right to the "dictator" comment? I hope you were just being facetious and don't literally think there are no other options, like, I dunno, having educated and vetted representatives hired to do the heavy lifting that the average American is generally not educated enough to do themselves. Just stabbing in the dark here, we could hire them for a limited duration, and rehire them if they keep doing a good job. Ideally we would be smart enough to put limits on them, and keep an eye on them to make sure they aren't doing things they shouldn't, like getting blow jobs in the oval office, passing laws that blatantly violate our constitutional rights (PATRIOT act anyone?), having gay affairs with interns (just a little stab at the republicans there, the gay part isn't bad unless you publicly denounce them and hypocritically do it in private), stuff like that. We would keep the power and make sure we execute it when appropriate to bring the mighty hammer of the governed down upon their heads when they screw up.
Oh well, it looked good on paper.
Because politicians are, to a certain extent, held responsible for their decisions.
Not to get too sidetracked, but the real problem is that the reins of power are held by those so removed from the citizenry that they really aren't answerable. One senator per 300,000 people is ridiculous... most people have never met their Senator, or even their federal Representative. There is no accountability, except for the need to be accountable to the soundbytes of the evening news.
At any rate... I don't trust politicians to be !evil. But I don't trust the general public to be !stupid. And I'd rather take my chances that a politician might do the right thing, than trust in the general public even knowing what the right thing is.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
You're exaggerating, you're lying, you're stupid, and you aren't goingto convince me that Palin is even in the top hundred Republican politicians in terms of her qualifications for the presidency. But let's not continue this conversation. Please just designate me as your foe so I can more conveniently ignore you in the future.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
But there's a huge opportunity cost in paying for quackery instead of paying for valuable research.
Plus, if the quackery is well-funded, it will continue to mislead people. I think it's irresponsible to allow the anti-science nutjobs to grow in power and influence. The US is already becoming a scientific laughing-stock, and it's not getting better.
It's easy to say that any institution will be less able to do damage if it has less power. I think that the general public is just as capable of doing damage, and that power in the hands of the general public can be perhaps *more* dangerous. I greatly fear the tyranny of the majority... but just as much, I fear the idiocy of the majority.
As for consensus of values... well, we've never had that. There has always been contention, which is why we have things like elections. If we weren't stuck in a two-party system, it would probably work a bit better, in making sure the minority voice gets heard. At any rate, I think that direct democracy is a very bad idea when you have an uneducated populace... and I'm not sure it wuold be possible to have a populace educated enough to make direct democracy tenable in a large society.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
Not surprised. McCain's made no secret of his desire to have Steve Ballmer in his cabinet. Ballmer himself probably put those words right in McCain's mouth
Product Placement reaches new lows
Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
turks, japanese, africans, almost entire middle east, and even some russians.
basically he has the approval of the world.
Read radical news here
McCain accused Obama of teaching about sex. Not about sex-education , as you, amazingly, continue to repeat! Sorry, kid, you aren't qualified to talk on an adults' forum.
Adults don't quibble semantics to weasel out of addressing a valid point when it's obvious what he meant. Only high school debate club kids who are far too impressed with the form of their arguments to care about the substance of the other side's do that kind of childish, "but that's not what you said" flouncing about.
Do you honestly feel that that's an intellectually honest way to address the other poster's point, or do you just have such open disrespect for rational discourse that you don't care?
Now, feeling charitable, I'll explain, that one simply can not teach about "sexual predators" without also mentioning "sex" in some way (and answering related questions from curious toddlers).
McCain's ad was an out and out lie. You can teach little kids about "bad touches" without explaining to them why those touches feel bad or why adults would be interested in touching them in bad places.
I mean, did no one teach you as a kid (a) not to take candy from strangers, (b) not to get in a car with a stranger, or (c) to tell an adult if someone touched you in a place that made you feel bad? Did anyone explain to you why they were telling you those things -- that every one of those was about keeping kids away from sexual predators and their (a) temptations, (b) abductions, and (c) molestation?
Geez, it's like some people want to believe the other side is so full of rotten and evil people that they throw all common sense and past experiences out the window to keep themselves ideologically "pure."
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
and what cabinet position would Steve Ballmer have?
McCain's temper is even more notorious than Ballmer's. So it would be poetic justice if Ballmer's title started with "Chair of the ..."
I think you are implying that the DMCA "extended copyright terms." That is not correct, at least not in the way that poster intended. The term of a copyright was extended at an earlier time (I want to say the most recent time was in the 1980s), when Democrats were in control of Congress. Then, when the DMCA was passed by (a Republican) Congress, a Democrat president (Clinton) signed it into law.
So both statements WERE true.
If you think that removing all funding for research that doesn't turn a profit will help advance the sciences, then it's not surprising that intellectual curiosity isn't a strong suit.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
But what if the wrong lizard gets in?
"Physics is to math as sex is to masturbation." -R. Feynman
I wish I had mod points, I'd mod you back up. In an era where the public can so easily exchange ideas, coalescing into like-minded groups that bear no relation to geography, it makes sense that those groups should each have some sort of representation in government. As much as I despise the French and/or Israeli systems, I think we need to move toward some form of proportional representation -- at least for half of our bicameral legislature.
But of course that can NEVER happen. The two-party system is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Why would either major party (even when it's in the minority) really want to give up the possibility of being in complete control after the next election cycle?
Not to mention the fact that this would require a change to our Constitution. Right now most of the people in our country are so incredibly polarized into these major divisions that I can't imagine getting the types of supermajorities needed for ANY constitutional amendment, let alone something as fundamental as reformulating the allocation of legislators.
So we're stuck with our decaying government. As I've heard many people say before, this experiment in democratic representation had a good run. Maybe next time we'll get it right.
The original FNMA organization was split in 2: GNMA and FNMA. GNMA was and is fully backed by federal guarantee. FNMA became a Government Sponsored Enterprise. This meant that people assumed (correctly as it turns out) that the government will back the FNMA bonds. Thus, FNMA was able to use much higher leverage than the private loan issuers and enjoyed a low borrowing rate. The FNMA stock holders benefited until this year. The leveraged portfolio and loan guarantees are the risks that the federal government is taking on now. However, up to this point, FNMA is NOT losing significant amount of money yet. The fear is on future losses.
In contrast, GNMA remained small and is in no danger at all. One more case of a federal program that is working fine.
"Teach education" is what they do, when preparing teachers. Compare with "Teach Mathematics".
So it was somebody else's foot in your mouth, I see...
He was not accused of sponsoring it — only of voting for it. Technically, the ad was true...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
"Teach education" is what they do, when preparing teachers. Compare with "Teach Mathematics".
So it was somebody else's foot in your mouth, I see...
He was not accused of sponsoring it — only of voting for it. Technically, the ad was true...
Your first point identifies how much of a pointlessly pedantic debater you are. Your second point is purely ludicrous and false, it was chalked up as his one accomplishment, why would anyone seriously say that it's anything of an accomplishment to simply vote for a bill? Technically, the ad was false and it used heavy suggestion and spin to make it seem like Obamas position included teaching "comprehensive sex education" to kindergartners.
I'm done feeding this troll, all you're interested in doing is trying to justify the dishonorable campaign a man I used to respect has been running. Instead of backpedaling when you should realize you were shown wrong, you insist on trying to cloud the real topic of discussion, just like the man you're defending.
"We invented personal computing." - Bill Gates
OK, first let me say I'm a Barack Obama supporter. I just sent Obama what (for me) is a pretty big donation.
But I don't have to demonize McCain just because I think he'll be a lousy president. There's lots of people in the country who are OK where they are, but would be lousy presidents. Practically everybody.
So, give the guy a break here. He never learned to use email because his arms got so messed up in the Hanoi Hilton he can't use a keyboard.
I don't give this guy a POW get out of jail free on things like his tax plan (bad), his proposing to put a creationist a heartbeat away from the Presidency (bad), or his flip flopping on offshore drilling (pretending this will make us the kind of power Saudi Arabia has over oil prices -- bad). But on this one, he gets a POW get out of jail card.
In any case, it wouldn't matter if his arms were fine. Give me somebody who understands the economy and values human and civil rights and understands the Constitution. Then I won't care if he uses white out on his computer screen.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Not surprised. McCain's made no secret of his desire to have Steve Ballmer in his cabinet.
Also would like to point out that one of McCain's top advisors has been Carly Fiorina. At one time she was rumored as a possible VP candidate pick, and she quite possibly would end up with some official position in a McCain presidency.
While my dislike for Fiorina is personal (as she downsized/outsourced my uncle together with much of the department he was part of), it is safe to say she was the most divisive and hated CEO of HP in the company's history, thanks to her combination of ruthlessness and avarice (Fox News loves her, however).
If I can make them pay for my science, then they have justification for making me pay for their $WASTEFUL_PROJECT. Everybody loses.
No, they don't. I gave specific reasons why public science funding is warranted. $WASTEFUL_PROJECT should have to match similar criteria to get funding. If it does match those criteria, then it isn't wasteful.
While I agree with the general point you're making, you must recall that Bush spent hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars on his Iraq adventure, and that's nowhere near over.
I'm pretty sure the US economy wasn't helped by vast sums of money being pumped into a war against a dictator who was being effectively controlled. The whole thing may yet pay dividends for the people of Iraq, in that they're finally starting to get back on their feet, but it cost the US taxpayers a *lot* of money to help out a foreign country.
What could that money have accomplished in the US? Better healthcare, better education, improved roads, meaningful job creation... It's pretty easy to draw up a long list.
A: "Wut?"
We live, as we dream -- alone....
and just to be clear, I'm not trying to demonize McCain. I'm trying to humiliate him in a public forum.
Stephen Hawking writes on a computer.
An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
But of course that can NEVER happen. The two-party system is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Why would either major party (even when it's in the minority) really want to give up the possibility of being in complete control after the next election cycle?
I agree completely with this. The only way a multi-party system could come about in the US is for a good, strong third party (or more) to start from the local government levels to build a strong, competitive organization that can get people elected at all levels.
Not to mention the fact that this would require a change to our Constitution. Right now most of the people in our country are so incredibly polarized into these major divisions that I can't imagine getting the types of supermajorities needed for ANY constitutional amendment, let alone something as fundamental as reformulating the allocation of legislators.
How do you get this? Political parties aren't mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. In fact, the Founding Fathers were deeply skeptical of political parties. The parties in power have changed over our history, and there's no structural reason why we couldn't have multiple viable parties - what we can't have without a Constitutional amendment is a Parliamentary system, where the leader of the majority party automatically becomes Head of Government, and the Executive Branch is structurally dependent on the Legislative Branch.
I'm responding to you to undo a mis-moused moderation: I modded you down when I meant to mod you up. Sorry about that.
Although there's a certain irony, or something, that a moment of horribly uncoordinated computing occur on this little sub-thread...
How much you tax doesn't really matter in the long run--it is how much you spend. You will eventually have to either tax or inflate to pay for what you spend, and Bush spent way more than Clinton. AND it was spent mostly on destroying things rather than working towards any progress.
--
WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?
Which is why not filling up governmental leadership positions with your high-school buddies is such a good step towards not being an authoritarian, fascist regime, don't you agree?
More than mere navel gazing.
Yes, but that's also the easiest way for Hawking to communicate. If Hawking could speak, I'd bet he'd have somebody typing for him rather than tapping out his words using his cheek. Then, presumably, you'd be criticizing Hawking for not being a computer user.
If you're going to argue by analogy, at least pick and analogous analogy.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Do you understand what that implies? It means that everything is more expensive so people can't afford the luxuries anymore and have to buy the necessities to keep living.
Yes, you are right. But, here's the deal... there's two billion more people, at least, sharing the world's commodities, essentially doubling demand over the last decade or so and into the next. Therefor, if commodity production does not increase, the prices surely must. As it turns out, we have peak oil, and, if you really looked at coal, you would see that the better grades of coal have in fact peaked, as has natural gas. There's only so much arable land and to a certain extent agriculture depends on the availability of energy, so yes, it has.
Of course the dollar is weaker, there are more people buying stuff and more powers with more money, so you go from being the only major international currency to one of several.
Neither currency competition or rising global demand are forces that Obama can control or even put back in the bag. What is he going to do, tell the Chinese to starve or the Europeans to bail on the Euro.... oh yeah, if you think Bush is unpopular abroad, either of those moves would make Obama genuinely hated.
The way out, of course, is to have more energy and more commodities production....the demand is there, for sure, to support it, but NIMBY in the west and the environmental movement essentially doom those efforts. Therefor, since we can't manufacture, can't drill, can't use newer industrial farming techniques, to satisfy environmental concerns, then yes, higher prices for commodities are the norms for now and in the future.
This is my sig.
Eh?
(1) Yes, it was forty years ago. That's a long time not being able to do things like comb your hair. If he's not comfortable on a keyboard, I'm OK with that.
(2) Not being a user doesn't preclude understanding the economic and strategic technology issues. If he had spent the last ten years working a help desk, it wouldn't make him one wit more ready to be president.
(3) That's clearly an exaggeration.
I'm sorry. I'm quite comfortable in my belief McCain has the temperament to be a good president, I don't feel the need to gild the lily, especially if the material we're gilding with is BS.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Wrong, here is some more info on this.
I'm quite comfortable in my belief McCain would not be a good president. Being a POW should get you a parade, not a free pass on an election.
How does that work exactly? The government wants tax revenue and it wants votes, nothing else. Draconian regulation of tobacco reduces cigarette sales - otherwise what's the point? - and hence also reduces the tax revenue raised by that trade. And it upsets millions of voters who happen to enjoy smoking.
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
Or anything that might have political ramifications as well. Does anyone in your research organization use stem cells that aren't from the the "right" source? No funds for you. Did your weather satellite see increased temperatures? Don't mention it in any of your papers, or you're fired.
Actually you might want to visit an actual research department. It's the reports of reduced temperatures (especially the reports of massively reduced temperatures in the sun's corona. (well yes, I know were talking 0.3-0.5% but given that tiny percentage that is enough to boil the oceans into space, it's still rather massive), and it's showing signs of cooling down further.
It has "something" to do with the sun's magnetic field (which has gone down a hell of a lot), but it seems only God has any ideas about the connection.
There's also the little, but very inconvenient truth, that the last "small" ice age (but more than large enough to render canada uninhabitable) was caused by a reduction in solar output that was at most 2%, but more likely something like 0.5-0.8%.
If the sun doesn't heat up soon (it's probably too late already), no amount of scientific shenanigans by the IPCC is going to cover the obvious truth : this winter is going to be a cold one, and the next one is going to be even colder, and this is going to keep going on for 10 years at least. It's probably going to change the average temperature more than 0.5 degrees too). And yes this sounds like a stupid joke, but Canadians best be prepared to either move or pay large, very large heating bills.
Perhaps the problem is the chances of realistically blaming Bush for a reduction in the sun's magnetic field are ... somewhat remote.
This is true. Minor party ideas can make their way into the mainstream: many of the past policies of the Official Monster Raving Loony Party have gone on to be adopted by the sensible parties and become law.
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
It's called self deprecating humor. It's like when Biden notes he isn't as pretty as Sarah Palin.
I think McCain can be called to task over the way he's run his 2008 campaign. This particular "issue" is just phony, like the one about his supposedly crashing five jets.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Looking at the policy, where is he going to come up with the money for all the tax breaks?
With a roughly $400 billion deficit in the budget, how is reducing personal taxes, reducing corporate taxes, tax breaks on vehicles, and tax breaks on corporate R&D ever going to make for a moderately balanced budget? All this while saber rattling and having your VP talk about butting heads with Russia.
The things I'm most concerned about are net neutrality and the IP issues. To most techies, he's on the wrong side of that fight.
How does that work exactly? The government wants tax revenue and it wants votes, nothing else. Draconian regulation of tobacco reduces cigarette sales - otherwise what's the point? - and hence also reduces the tax revenue raised by that trade. And it upsets millions of voters who happen to enjoy smoking.
Bzzzzt. Wrong. The government neither wants tax revenue nor votes. It wants power. Power to regulate how people live their lives. Power to "organise" people's lives ...
Why does the government jump on the GW bandwagon like islamic prophets jump on underage girls ? Simple : they get to regulate every powered system on the planet (otherwise why would anyone try to make the ridiculous point that nuclear is carbon-intensive ? The IPCC however, does).
Governments want power. Money and votes are the means, not the end. You should be careful about separating the two.
and McCain isn't? I believe the stat was 43 lobbyists or former lobbyists are McCain advisers. That's a hell of a lot.
No politician is free of them, but when you specifically say you're "cleaning up Washington" and kicking "special interests," then run around with a team full of lobbyists you have some serious honesty issues.
I believe I'm just going to vote third party this year. I may be throwing my vote away, but so be it.
I hate to break it to you, but life isn't always about winning this or that.
The private organizations that fund research are not competing with government funded research. It's not like only one is able to fund research.
I would disagree with that to a large extent. Some things are politicized, but for the most part the researchers do report what they find. Politicians then just pick and choose the reports that support their view. In the grand scheme of things, there are very few topics that fall into this regime (basically climate change and energy studies).
I would say that privately (corporate) funded research is much worse. Drug industries and Tobacco industries are two prime examples where negative research gets suppressed and positive results get released.
...I'm voting for him because a vote for someone who wants to put me in prison for smoking pot and hiring hookers is WORSE than a wasted vote.
You do know that Bob Barr was one of the most committed supporters of the War on Drugs in the congress, right?
http://forums.cannabisculture.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showthreaded&Number=1416835
And, similar to Baldwin, he is no friend of religious freedom. He was responsible for trying to ban the practice of the Wiccan faith from US military bases:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/burn_aw2.htm
Such a record qualifies him to run on the Libertarian Party ticket?
Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
Then you must do a thing that no american could ever consider doing, learn about the rest of the world.
Geez, god. Ever heard of Blair? That is a popular guy in britain. The US had Ronald "howdee dodey" Reagan, britain had MadCow Thatcher.
The netherlands? We had "do nothing" Kok, and "if you don't vote for the new EU constitution it will start WW3" Balkende, a guy who nobody likes and only got into power because the popular guy got killed.
France had so choose between the crook and the fascist. Italy keeps re-electing Berlusconie, a guy so corrupt the mafia thinks he should clean up his act.
Frankly, democracy is in trouble. We are no longer comfortable with just letting the powers that be run our lives for us on the understanding that for the right to tell us how to run our lives, they leave us alone. That system is a bit hard to understand unless you actually understand human beings. Remember the age when Rome told catholics not to have sex outside marriage. All catholics agreed with that, just didn't follow it.
But now we want our leaders to actually do what we want them to do except we have no idea what we want them to do and no clue how to tell if they are telling what we want them to do.
Democracy, as we have it, just doesn't work. You can't vote for one guy, who somehow got into a position to be elected and then have him work for you. Doesn't work, you are just one voter but he owes allegiance to all those who backed his rise.
Further, all the voters for that one guy have different agenda's, with just the one popularity vote, who is to say what all those voters REALLY want. Even in the netherlands with dozens of parties there is not a single party that I completely agree with.
The best alternative would be to go purely referendum. Bring up each issue for a vote and work with that. Problem, the existing parties don't like that people can then vote against their policies. See the EU problems with getting the new constitution accepted. ALL political parties said yes. The voters ALWAYS said NO. Big embarresment and happily avoided the second time around by not listening to those pesky voters (the referendum is still a no-vote in holland, but there bill has been changed, so now they don't need a new vote because the voter didn't agree the first time so they surely agree this time)
If that doesn't make sense, well that is politics.
So be ashamamed of Bush and Reagan and the like, but other countries ain't doing any better. Frankly, the current system will never bring forward the honest and competent. An honest politician would never get elected because he would tell you the truth. You don't get popular with the truth.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
[government inefficiency is] why the astronauts didn't use a pencil, right?
Pencils make graphite dust, which doesn't settle in orbit.
When I read that, I thought, "Oh dear, I was probably an asshole," and was all set to apologize. Then I looked at what you wrote and thought, "oh wait, it was appropriate after all." It's obvious you don't trust people to decide important things. But you want them to figure out who to vote for, who is fit? It ain't gonna work. If they're as dumb as you say they are, they'll blow that decision too.
Um.. but anyway.
Hey, I think that's a great idea. But why hire jack-of-all-trade "heavy lifters" to figure out everything and get nothing quite right. The chances aren't very good, that person who has your favorite foreign policy also happens to have the best ideas for making retirement pyramid schemes hold out until after you're dead, and it's a long shot that this person will put protecting citizens' freedom on the right slot on his list of priorities.
Will he also have a good attitude about science? Will he be free from having to pander to fundamentalists? We'll get more performance if we separate all these roles as much as we can.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Everyone disagrees about what is warranted and what isn't. We can't even agree about basic constitutional issues like whether or not to protect our simplest freedoms. We can't even agree on whether or not to start a war, and you think we can agree about using embryonic stem cells for medical research, or agree that people shouldn't be fired for telling us what their weather satellite is seeing?
You're can't reason with fundamentalists and fascists, and they will vote against you time and time again. Moving powers away from the government, gives us a way to agree to disagree and let everyone pursue their own goals.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Where did Palin enter into this thread?
This was about McCain and his (in)ability to use a computer, which is well documented outside of Fox news and has been for several years.
And the award for complete nonsequiter to avoid a debate goes to ........
Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
the trash in administration as of now have weakened your country in every aspect of international relations to the extent that everyone hates you unanimously. as a result all your positions ranging from military alliances to trade relations suffered.
mccain, is more of the same crap.
with obama, you have the chance to prove youre a good neighbor. nobody likes bad neighbors.
Read radical news here
he would do a very good planetary president, or un general secretary.
Read radical news here
the stupid paranoia you employ in u.s. towards other ethnicities or countries, do not exist elsewhere in the world. at least not in the psychopath form you have in the u.s.
each country in this small planet are neighbors of each other. rest of the world wants GOOD NEIGHBORS. nobody likes a bad neighbor. think of your neighborhood and what kind of person you would want to see there.
bush was a bad neighbor. mccain, is not even a neighbor, he is probably not for long on this world. one foot in the grave. if he lived, he would be a stupid, and a bad neighbor. the hag he has in his ticket, is worse. a religious version of a crazy cat lady.
we dont want that kind of shit. we want people who are REASONABLE, who knows to talk, who we can trade with, and ally with.
choice is yours. world can do well without united states - there is eu now, and there are southeastern asian economies. a lot of economies are emerging in africa.
you can either join in with the rest of us and prosper together, or you can elect a dead man and a religious hag and isolate yourselves. your country, your call.
Read radical news here
I'm voting for him because he'll lose. I'm voting "none of the above". Barr may be anti-drug, but his party is anti-"victimless crime laws".
If they stopped their stupid war on drugs, they could close half the prisons in America down and at the same time solve all the problems the counterproductive drug laws purport to solve.
Once you meet a crackhead that's lost everything because of her addiction (I'm thinking of the whore who stole my car, it's in a NSFW /. journal somewhere) there's no way any sane person would for a moment ever contemplate using the stuff.
Free Martian Whores!
Hear hear!
Looking at their answers to the Global Warming hoax, it's clear that BOTH intend to destroy the economy to deal with this non-problem.
Of course, both contradict this when they answer the very next question . Nothing new for a politician.
Since both are promising to do the impossible, I, too, shall be voting for Barr this year.
In times of universal deceit, telling the truth gets you modded -1 Troll
Physical inability to type does not mean he should be ignorant of the issues that face a major part of our economy.
Xavier Rabourdin for president 2012
Hey, stupid. I asked you relatively politely to designate me as a foe. I am *NOT* at all interested in exploring the limits of your stupidity.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.