America's Turn From Science, a Danger For Democracy
The submitter is basically complaining that democratically elected policy makers responding to the desires of those who elected them and refusing to kow-tow to a panel of "experts" is a danger to democracy. Come again?
It's not particularly that scientists should make all the decisions, but rather, than we need an informed population and a very informed government in order to deal with modern problems.
Exactly what makes you think that scientists are any better informed than anyone else outside of their areas of specialization? Do people with science degrees magically become Renaissance Men, knowledgeable in all matters? I've yet to see that demonstrated.
Given that Congress is in the business of writing laws, is it really unusual that most people who aspire to congress have degrees in law? I'm not sure I buy the proposition that an education in science more greatly qualifies one to be writing laws than an education in, er, law.
Being well informed in matters of science is hardly a qualification for governing. I'd point that Albert Einstein's political view were basically communist. And if you really believe that having a science degree is essential to governing, I'll assume you'll be voting for the only presidential candidate that actually has one: Dr. Ron Paul.
...and left the scientists in charge anyway? I don't see anything in our constitution that gives the last word in policy to the scientists any more than it gives it to the priests. What makes a scientist's opinion any better than anyone else's, anyway? Government policies have a wide range of impacts, not just to science, but to the economy, human rights, etc. Why, exactly, should scientist's concerns trump everyone else's?
A policy that's "scientific" could very well be damaging to the economy, or a violation of somebody's human rights. As far as I know, eugenics theory has never been proven to be scientifically incorrect. Can I get a show of hands of people who want it implemented as policy?
Scientists, like everyone else, have a right to an opinion. They don't have a right to the last word.
The goal is to control disease outbreaks, but theoretically this technology could allow a grocer to put a picture on the store package of the pig you are eating.
Sometimes, the idea of becoming a vegan is really appealing.....
And meanwhile the scientists are debating whether we are passing the threshold of catastrophic changes the next few years, or if we already have passed it.
If we've already passed the threshold of catastrophic changes, does that mean the envirowhacks will finally shut up, leave us alone, and quietly prepare for the apocalypse?
What's wrong with doing something for middle class white hipsters? Those seem to be the people who actually seem to be doing something useful. What has Africa ever done for anyone?
He's a realist. I've still got an HP 11C (made in the USA), bought it almost 30 years ago. Its still going strong and boy do the batteries last. A pair of button batteries could last for 10/15 years of use. But that was a time when American industries acutally produced things, and management was not ruled by a band of legalised criminals.
While the rest of what you say might be true, management has *always* been ruled by a band of legalised criminals. Globalization has merely provided them with the means to dare what they wouldn't have gotten away with before.
I also found Indians say 'Yes' to everything even if they don't understand what you are talking about. That can cost days of lost work when you find out they didn't have a clue later.
Yep. At my company they even offer us a course that covers that as a "cultural difference". Now, if I did that, I'd be fired in a heartbeat. But oddly, my employer finds this acceptable from Indian resources.
You would think if my employers were cognizant of all these "cultural differences", that would be enough to scare them off, but oddly, no.
Why that is, I have no idea. But maybe that's why I'm not running a major international corporation.
Listed in her Top 20 contributors are companies like Bank of America, Blue Cross/Blue Shield, and Time Warner. The cosponsors are Michael Bennet (Comcast, Qwest, DISH Network, Level 3, Time Warner), Michael Enzi (Blue Cross/Blue Shield, and John Isakson (Home Depot, Delta, AFLAC, Cox, Citigroup, & GE). So, you know, no one that would be interested in lowering their IT costs a bit. If anyone knows where I could get numbers based on what percentage of employees at those companies are wage versus salary, I'd like to see them."
Too funny. I've worked for 4 of the companies on that list (still at one of them), and sure enough, the management at those outfits seems to work overtime dreaming up ways to screw their help. Can you say, "No surprises here!"?
As to how many are wage vs. salary, it's hard to say. All of them have outsourced large segments of their IT work to outsourcers who in turn subcontract it to 3rd parties, or just offshore it. This I can tell you - one of those outsourcers converted the majority of their help from salaried to hourly several years ago (and cut their salaries by 15%, IIRC), and then eliminated overtime for hourly workers, placing an additional burden on the few workers who were still salaried.
Definition of a scientist: A political activist that also wants to take credit for advances actually developed by engineers, entrepreneurs and lay inventors.
Did you know one of the single biggest development indicators is women's rights?
For whatever reason, if you enforce gender equality and women's education, your country will be dramatically better then it's neighbors in the long term. Standards of living go up, crime goes, productivity booms.
"Development indicators" indicating development of what? How are you defining "your country will be dramatically better"? We've had all of those policies you've mentioned in place for decades, and the result is drastically declining birthrates and basically the demographic destruction of the West. I fail to see how extinction equates to "dramatically better". Let's see how dramatically better off we are when this trend continues for several generations.
As for crime rates dropping, that's a rather predictable consequence of having an aging and declining population. And the only place I see productivity and standards of living increasing are in China and other Asian countries. How many young people are living better than their parents did at their age these days? Given the trend of more and more adult children still living at home, I doubt that many of them would say their prospects are improving.
What I wonder is why Climate scientists are estimating CO2 levels, rather than theorizing effects of CO2, or showing how CO2 has affected climate in the past. This only proves that they're not scientists, but alarmists.
Scientist: A political activist that also tries to take credit for advances actually developed by engineers, entrepreneurs and lay inventors.
Still pretty sure there's plenty of blame to go around. This administration has not been very forthcoming when it comes to things like tax payers' money flushed down the toilet propping up "green" companies, where bailout money has been spent, how American made weapons are ending up in the hands of illegal alien murderers, and why there are so many illegal aliens in this country in the first place.
As if the next administration will do any better? Surely you jest. I suspect that at this point we're in a death spiral. I'm not sure that at this point even an honest reformer could clean up the mess.
Indeed. Symphony is a truly putrid product. The only thing it accomplishes is letting IBM fool itself into believing they won't have to shell out for Microsoft Office licenses.
Truly tragic, but not really unexpected. When he stepped down from Apple you had to believe there was something critical going on behind the scenes. He wasn't the kind of guy who would have walked away if he'd had any other choice.
It's not like Brazil had any obvious advantages over China. Apparently they were relying on some special breaks from the government. Absent those, they're prolly better off staying in China.
It'd be interesting to know what those reasons are - I'm still not seeing the incentive here. I note that the Brazilian factory is still owned by Foxconn, so it's not like they're changing manufacturers. I'd expect Foxconn would manufacture them wherever they could build them the cheapest. What advantage does Brazil offer? Still not seeing it....
Slashdot Mirror
The submitter is basically complaining that democratically elected policy makers responding to the desires of those who elected them and refusing to kow-tow to a panel of "experts" is a danger to democracy. Come again?
It's not particularly that scientists should make all the decisions, but rather, than we need an informed population and a very informed government in order to deal with modern problems.
Exactly what makes you think that scientists are any better informed than anyone else outside of their areas of specialization? Do people with science degrees magically become Renaissance Men, knowledgeable in all matters? I've yet to see that demonstrated.
Given that Congress is in the business of writing laws, is it really unusual that most people who aspire to congress have degrees in law? I'm not sure I buy the proposition that an education in science more greatly qualifies one to be writing laws than an education in, er, law.
Being well informed in matters of science is hardly a qualification for governing. I'd point that Albert Einstein's political view were basically communist. And if you really believe that having a science degree is essential to governing, I'll assume you'll be voting for the only presidential candidate that actually has one: Dr. Ron Paul.
...and left the scientists in charge anyway? I don't see anything in our constitution that gives the last word in policy to the scientists any more than it gives it to the priests. What makes a scientist's opinion any better than anyone else's, anyway? Government policies have a wide range of impacts, not just to science, but to the economy, human rights, etc. Why, exactly, should scientist's concerns trump everyone else's?
A policy that's "scientific" could very well be damaging to the economy, or a violation of somebody's human rights. As far as I know, eugenics theory has never been proven to be scientifically incorrect. Can I get a show of hands of people who want it implemented as policy?
Scientists, like everyone else, have a right to an opinion. They don't have a right to the last word.
I wonder what the "came from" list would look like on a package of htodogs.
Do you really want to see the pictures of the rats and cockroaches you're eating?
Maybe this is how they're planning to keep track of their global work force.
Sometimes, the idea of becoming a vegan is really appealing.....
And meanwhile the scientists are debating whether we are passing the threshold of catastrophic changes the next few years, or if we already have passed it.
If we've already passed the threshold of catastrophic changes, does that mean the envirowhacks will finally shut up, leave us alone, and quietly prepare for the apocalypse?
I didn't think so.
What's wrong with doing something for middle class white hipsters? Those seem to be the people who actually seem to be doing something useful. What has Africa ever done for anyone?
Are you a communist?
He's a realist. I've still got an HP 11C (made in the USA), bought it almost 30 years ago.
Its still going strong and boy do the batteries last. A pair of button batteries could last for 10/15 years of use. But that was a time when American industries acutally produced things, and management was not ruled by a band of legalised criminals.
While the rest of what you say might be true, management has *always* been ruled by a band of legalised criminals. Globalization has merely provided them with the means to dare what they wouldn't have gotten away with before.
I also found Indians say 'Yes' to everything even if they don't understand what you are talking about. That can cost days of lost work when you find out they didn't have a clue later.
Yep. At my company they even offer us a course that covers that as a "cultural difference". Now, if I did that, I'd be fired in a heartbeat. But oddly, my employer finds this acceptable from Indian resources.
You would think if my employers were cognizant of all these "cultural differences", that would be enough to scare them off, but oddly, no.
Why that is, I have no idea. But maybe that's why I'm not running a major international corporation.
Listed in her Top 20 contributors are companies like Bank of America, Blue Cross/Blue Shield, and Time Warner. The cosponsors are Michael Bennet (Comcast, Qwest, DISH Network, Level 3, Time Warner), Michael Enzi (Blue Cross/Blue Shield, and John Isakson (Home Depot, Delta, AFLAC, Cox, Citigroup, & GE). So, you know, no one that would be interested in lowering their IT costs a bit. If anyone knows where I could get numbers based on what percentage of employees at those companies are wage versus salary, I'd like to see them."
Too funny. I've worked for 4 of the companies on that list (still at one of them), and sure enough, the management at those outfits seems to work overtime dreaming up ways to screw their help. Can you say, "No surprises here!"?
As to how many are wage vs. salary, it's hard to say. All of them have outsourced large segments of their IT work to outsourcers who in turn subcontract it to 3rd parties, or just offshore it. This I can tell you - one of those outsourcers converted the majority of their help from salaried to hourly several years ago (and cut their salaries by 15%, IIRC), and then eliminated overtime for hourly workers, placing an additional burden on the few workers who were still salaried.
http://www.examiner.com/weather-in-denver/dr-james-hansen-takes-final-leap-from-scientist-to-activist
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/18/dr-james-hansens-growing-financial-scandal-now-over-a-million-dollars-of-outside-income/
Definition of a scientist: A political activist that also wants to take credit for advances actually developed by engineers, entrepreneurs and lay inventors.
Obviously, a member of any racial minority who doesn't like that kind of treatment is free to relocate to country where they'd be a racial majority.
Curiously, not very many do. I wonder why?
Did you know one of the single biggest development indicators is women's rights?
For whatever reason, if you enforce gender equality and women's education, your country will be dramatically better then it's neighbors in the long term. Standards of living go up, crime goes, productivity booms.
"Development indicators" indicating development of what? How are you defining "your country will be dramatically better"? We've had all of those policies you've mentioned in place for decades, and the result is drastically declining birthrates and basically the demographic destruction of the West. I fail to see how extinction equates to "dramatically better". Let's see how dramatically better off we are when this trend continues for several generations.
As for crime rates dropping, that's a rather predictable consequence of having an aging and declining population. And the only place I see productivity and standards of living increasing are in China and other Asian countries. How many young people are living better than their parents did at their age these days? Given the trend of more and more adult children still living at home, I doubt that many of them would say their prospects are improving.
All they need now is for Barry Manilow to write a jingle for it.
What I wonder is why Climate scientists are estimating CO2 levels, rather than theorizing effects of CO2, or showing how CO2 has affected climate in the past. This only proves that they're not scientists, but alarmists.
Scientist: A political activist that also tries to take credit for advances actually developed by engineers, entrepreneurs and lay inventors.
\
Still pretty sure there's plenty of blame to go around. This administration has not been very forthcoming when it comes to things like tax payers' money flushed down the toilet propping up "green" companies, where bailout money has been spent, how American made weapons are ending up in the hands of illegal alien murderers, and why there are so many illegal aliens in this country in the first place.
As if the next administration will do any better? Surely you jest. I suspect that at this point we're in a death spiral. I'm not sure that at this point even an honest reformer could clean up the mess.
As Oscar Wilde said - by the age of 50 everyone has the face they deserve.
That was a particularly flattering picture. This one, not so much. Photoshop? Who knows?
And IBM begins collapsing in 3 2 1...
I don't know if IBM will collapse... but their stock sure did in the last 1/2 hour of trading. Wonder if that has anything to do with this news item?
The company name is "Fisker"? It's nice to see the American taxpayer getting exactly what he's paying for these days.
a prelude to the killing of Lotus Symphony
I fail to see a down-side to this.
Indeed. Symphony is a truly putrid product. The only thing it accomplishes is letting IBM fool itself into believing they won't have to shell out for Microsoft Office licenses.
Truly tragic, but not really unexpected. When he stepped down from Apple you had to believe there was something critical going on behind the scenes. He wasn't the kind of guy who would have walked away if he'd had any other choice.
RIP Steve.
It's not like Brazil had any obvious advantages over China. Apparently they were relying on some special breaks from the government. Absent those, they're prolly better off staying in China.
It'd be interesting to know what those reasons are - I'm still not seeing the incentive here. I note that the Brazilian factory is still owned by Foxconn, so it's not like they're changing manufacturers. I'd expect Foxconn would manufacture them wherever they could build them the cheapest. What advantage does Brazil offer? Still not seeing it....