I am not backpedaling in the least. A scientist who makes his living promoting a scientific position is compromised in providing assessment of that position, period. The quotes aren't to scare, they are to point out the dubious nature of the science they promote. The only scientists in love with nuclear power are nuclear scientists making their living off nuclear technology. That's not to say that nuclear does not have some advantage over such as fossil fuels, as with the greenhouse gases, but the rosy view of nuclear we have been fed since the 1950s has been in large measure hype. Of course, the greenhouse gas problem is the result of science disregarding the ramifications of the work of John Tyndall for a century-and-a-half.
If you are going to impugn someone else's intellectual integrity, you had best develop some intellect and integrity of your own.
As an addendum, since you cite financial gain as the mechanism of intellectual corruption, let me ask: How many nuclear scientists do you think make a living by decrying nuclear technology?
No, I spoke of "scientific integrity", which is a narrower subject, by far. And it doesn't really matter how many or by what means they are bought off, does it? Far more minds are subverted by the arguments they want to hear than by pure financial gain, though that is rarely far behind.
You can be sure that nuclear power is safe when those advocating it choose to house their families and themselves at the generation facilities and waste repositories.
We have long been told that science had nuclear technology in the bag, be it for military or civilian use. Of course, at the same time "scientists" have told us there was no link between smoking and cancer, or, more recently, between human activities and global warming.
It is little wonder that the public distrusts scientists, (unless, of course, they say what the public wants to hear), for many put their integrity up for sale. To paraphrase Twain, "There are lies, damned lies, and science." It is truly sad for those who recognize the importance of scientific integrity.
While it doesn't appear to be mentioned in the Wikipedia article, some analysts in the wake of WWII attributed more enemy deaths to the original Liberator than to all Allied automatic weapon fire in the war. I guess you had to be there.
Although it may be hard to know an individual's history, if they have ever uttered the words, "I don't want to learn anything new," they're done. It doesn't matter if it's programming, educating or most anything else, once someone rejects further learning they are a drag on the organization they serve. Those seven words are, perhaps, the best test of burn out.
By your calculation, a smart physicist, understanding the forces and their outcomes, would never choose to bungee jump, but some do. Why? It's the experience, Mr. Tyma, the experience.
... may derive from the popular hew and cry about Android being "fragmented". Of course, this might open the door for Microsoft to plead, in the future, that their offerings are schizophrenic.
While Nixon's actions certainly border on treason, he was dealing with South Vietnam, an ally. On the other hand, prior to the 1980 election Reagan bargained with Iran, an enemy, to keep Americans imprisoned and subvert the election. It's hard to see that as anything less than treason.
Slashdot Mirror
I am not backpedaling in the least. A scientist who makes his living promoting a scientific position is compromised in providing assessment of that position, period. The quotes aren't to scare, they are to point out the dubious nature of the science they promote. The only scientists in love with nuclear power are nuclear scientists making their living off nuclear technology. That's not to say that nuclear does not have some advantage over such as fossil fuels, as with the greenhouse gases, but the rosy view of nuclear we have been fed since the 1950s has been in large measure hype. Of course, the greenhouse gas problem is the result of science disregarding the ramifications of the work of John Tyndall for a century-and-a-half.
If you are going to impugn someone else's intellectual integrity, you had best develop some intellect and integrity of your own.
News of the World or something? They can't get away with this; Rupert Murdoch doesn't even own them!
As an addendum, since you cite financial gain as the mechanism of intellectual corruption, let me ask: How many nuclear scientists do you think make a living by decrying nuclear technology?
No, I spoke of "scientific integrity", which is a narrower subject, by far. And it doesn't really matter how many or by what means they are bought off, does it? Far more minds are subverted by the arguments they want to hear than by pure financial gain, though that is rarely far behind.
You can be sure that nuclear power is safe when those advocating it choose to house their families and themselves at the generation facilities and waste repositories.
We have long been told that science had nuclear technology in the bag, be it for military or civilian use. Of course, at the same time "scientists" have told us there was no link between smoking and cancer, or, more recently, between human activities and global warming.
It is little wonder that the public distrusts scientists, (unless, of course, they say what the public wants to hear), for many put their integrity up for sale. To paraphrase Twain, "There are lies, damned lies, and science." It is truly sad for those who recognize the importance of scientific integrity.
In the pantheon of cinematic-effects geniuses, Harryhausen stands among the masters, such as Georges Melies.
... just put iPad users in the same boat as MS Office users after a new release?
While it doesn't appear to be mentioned in the Wikipedia article, some analysts in the wake of WWII attributed more enemy deaths to the original Liberator than to all Allied automatic weapon fire in the war. I guess you had to be there.
... but, there's a solution at hand: Drink fast!
... when reading dies. Or, alternatively, when everyone has bionic, microscopic vision to make out the fine print on small screens.
Although it may be hard to know an individual's history, if they have ever uttered the words, "I don't want to learn anything new," they're done. It doesn't matter if it's programming, educating or most anything else, once someone rejects further learning they are a drag on the organization they serve. Those seven words are, perhaps, the best test of burn out.
Clearly, they need to test against a placebo. Or is religious belief already the placebo?
By your calculation, a smart physicist, understanding the forces and their outcomes, would never choose to bungee jump, but some do. Why? It's the experience, Mr. Tyma, the experience.
... that when funding runs out in April, because of an Excel error, the kindergartener's whiteboards will all go BSOD?
... didn't stink enough, already.
... may derive from the popular hew and cry about Android being "fragmented". Of course, this might open the door for Microsoft to plead, in the future, that their offerings are schizophrenic.
Kdenlive has the potential to be one of the best NLEs out there, but bugs have held it back. It sure would be nice to see the problems kleaned up.
"Military intelligence" just met its match in the oxymoron sweepstakes.
... one more thing not to believe in?
... the patent office folks remember that bit about "obvious".
Apparently, you missed the Iran-Contra hearings.
While Nixon's actions certainly border on treason, he was dealing with South Vietnam, an ally. On the other hand, prior to the 1980 election Reagan bargained with Iran, an enemy, to keep Americans imprisoned and subvert the election. It's hard to see that as anything less than treason.
"... they'd seen too much."
I believe the TSA may have dibs on the X-ray app.
Does this mean you're suggesting the city council go for the nouns?