Good question. I think the difference is that political problems are closer to our everyday experiences, therefore we have the background knowledge needed to think about them. You don't need to spend four years taking classes to understand what "war" is, or what "religion" is, or what a "sect" is. Reasonably well-informed people form sensible opinons on things like the Iraq war, because they already have a substantial amount of background knowledge. With science problems, you really do need to spend time learning esoteric things just to get the background info you need to start forming opinions. I guess in a real sense, we ARE all experts in matters of politics!
When top scientists are fucking stealing NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY and attempting to sell it to foreign fucking countries...A BODY CAVITY SEARCH SHOULD ONLY BE THE BEGININNG!!! We are talking about national security and the security of this entire fucking planet you morons! Do you honestly think it isn't worth making you piss in a bottle to save billions of lives!?!
Oh, calm down. The guy with his finger on the nuke button isn't required to take any drug tests, yet Western Civilization has somehow survived.
Gen iPodder here. Not that space research isn't interesting/useful, but there are so many other worthy scientific projects that deserve funding. At some point, we've got to do a cost/benefit analysis. Take the Human Genome Project, for example, which cost only a fraction of NASA's yearly budget. I'd argue that projects like the HGP are just as inspiring and far more important than putting a man on the moon.
Slashdot Mirror
That does explain his obsession with the V2 rocket program. And maybe the moustache. Hmmm....
Refering to government research funding as "hand outs" and "feed at the public trough" really isn't going be persuasive here on Slashdot.
Good question. I think the difference is that political problems are closer to our everyday experiences, therefore we have the background knowledge needed to think about them. You don't need to spend four years taking classes to understand what "war" is, or what "religion" is, or what a "sect" is. Reasonably well-informed people form sensible opinons on things like the Iraq war, because they already have a substantial amount of background knowledge. With science problems, you really do need to spend time learning esoteric things just to get the background info you need to start forming opinions. I guess in a real sense, we ARE all experts in matters of politics!
When top scientists are fucking stealing NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY and attempting to sell it to foreign fucking countries...A BODY CAVITY SEARCH SHOULD ONLY BE THE BEGININNG!!! We are talking about national security and the security of this entire fucking planet you morons! Do you honestly think it isn't worth making you piss in a bottle to save billions of lives!?!
Oh, calm down. The guy with his finger on the nuke button isn't required to take any drug tests, yet Western Civilization has somehow survived.
That fits the description of nearly every science grad student I know.
This reminds me of the classic question posed by a researcher at Stanford: why do the bubbles in a pint of Guinness sink? http://www.stanford.edu/group/Zarelab/guinness/ind ex.html
I forget who it was that once said: "The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all possible worlds; and the pessimist fears this is true."
Gen iPodder here. Not that space research isn't interesting/useful, but there are so many other worthy scientific projects that deserve funding. At some point, we've got to do a cost/benefit analysis. Take the Human Genome Project, for example, which cost only a fraction of NASA's yearly budget. I'd argue that projects like the HGP are just as inspiring and far more important than putting a man on the moon.