So... Just what republicans are you voting for, then?
I've had this conversation with my mother. She has all kinds of progressive attitudes, believes in justice and helping the poor and all that, but still habitually votes republican. We rarely bring up politics in conversation, but one day I asked her why she votes republican with such seemingly liberal attitudes.
Well, part of it is that she doesn't pay much attention to what the repubs are actually doing; she only listens to what they say. But the big thing for her is that she feels that the relatively uneducated son of a friend of hers makes way too much money working a lot of overtime as a skilled tradesman in an auto plant, all because of labor unions. She knows that the repubs hate labor unions, and so voting for them is her way of sticking it to her friend's son; I kid you not.
The repubs have known about this dynamic nearly forever. People will allow themselves to be screwed up the yinyang, as long as they get to watch someone even less fortunate getting screwed worse. They blame their problems on the people below, not on those above who are actually pulling the strings. It's all Machiavelli 101.
Convincing somebody to effectively sacrifice themselves to go around shooting people at random is hard.
Yet suicide bombing is done all of the time, all over the world. Don't undersetimate the power of rage with no legitimate outlet.
Such a group wouldn't last very long.
They wouldn't have to last long, and neither would they expect to. How long did the 9/11 terrorists expect to last?
This would spark such a massive outrage that support for bombing the shit out of X, Y, and Z will be astronomical. public support will be sufficient that G.W. will be able to do whatever he damn well pleases. Which we all know is very much against what the Terries want.
Quite the contrary. Terrorists are not out to win hearts and minds, or win political support. They are out to terrorize the public and disrupt the political system. The latter can mean either weakening it or forcing it to overreact to the point where it destroys itself. A few dudes with boxcutters bringing an end to freedom and democracy in America, and saddling it with huge debt that may cripple it for generations? That's quite a return on a relatively puny investment! They would love to see GWB serving up more of the same.
There's stupid. There's really, really stupid. Then there is mind-buggeringly space-bending stupid, which is what pretty much everything the Bush administration touches
More like genious, actually. These people have no principles whatsoever other than the ruthless pursuit of power and money, and they are very, very good at that. They don't care what scientists and intellectuals think about them, because scientists and intellectuals are a tiny minority compared to the vast voting bloc offered by organized religion. To them, "truth" is exactly what people believe it is, and nothing more. Their genius is in the manipulation and exploitation of that belief. They are shrewd and sociopathic, but hardly stupid.
Don't be alarmed. You're just witnessing the advent of the New Dark Ages. Didn't think it could happen again, did you? The republicans and their clients are going to get medieval on us in more ways than one; they'll give us neo-feudalism to go with the theocracy and abolition of Reason.
But in a few hundred years, a new dawn will break. Someone will find (and partially understand) some of the old texts that were supposed to have been destroyed, and news of the Old Wisdom will spread across the land as fast as our swiftest llamas can carry them. And with this news will come the once-banned ideas of science, of democracy, and of the rights of all men and women. The world will no longer be flat, the Earth will once again orbit the Sun, and our Republican King will no longer rule with the unquestioned authority of God. In a few short centuries thereafter we will be well on the way to regaining most of our understanding of astronomy, chemistry, and physics, and perhaps even building upon it.
So as you can see, I'm very optimistic about things, even if they're going badly at the moment.
Thank you, Mr. Douche, for setting a great example for the children of tomorrow.
That may be exactly what he is trying to do. To function successfully in this Brave New World, today's children will have to become adept at rejecting reason and empiricism wherever it may threaten their Faith in God and our Republican overlords that represent Him here on Earth.
In a universe without God (or some higher power), there can be no faith or hope for the future
I don't agree with that at all. You could just as easily say that with God there is no hope for the future, couldn't you?
In the end, I have to side with the 5+ billion people on this planet who do believe in a higher power than ourselves
As humans, we are pack animals, and for the most part are programmed to lean that way. It doesn't matter whether the higher power is an omnipotent God, a ruthless tyrant, or a totalitarian ideal. Whatever gives us direction and purpose - and relieves us from the stress of having to invent our own lives - will do.
The Bush administration is NOT the thinking Christian's wet dream.
Really, I'm surprised that the religious right has picked this fight at all. There used to be an understanding among both scientists and theologians that science and religion operated in separate realms - Reason and Faith - and that they could coexist peacefully as masters of their own domains. By firing these shots across the border, Religion has broken the truce, and in so doing risks subjecting itself to the scrutiny of Reason in the public arena. I can see this happening already, here and elsewhere. That may not hurt yet on election day - the scientifically literate are greatly outnumbered by religious fundamentalists, I'm sure - but it will create an intellectual schism with unpredictable consequences for both sides.
Keep in mind that the Islamic countries of the middle east were once at the pinnacle of science and reason, but now have become theocracies besieged on all sides by modernity. Europe's "Dark Ages" under Christian theocracy put a lid on science for a millenium. Any good arguments why it couldn't happen again?
they'll take care of anyone who gets in their way; even their own, more moderate kind.
So true. Every dictator comes to power with a cadre of supporters who imagine that they'll do very well in the new regime if they just lick boot and sing the Party Song. Eventually, though, they'll have to choose sides in some factional dispute without knowing who the winner will be. By then, they've already helped to establish a system that makes the consequences of losing very dire indeed.
I have no idea if this is true, and suspect that it's not. But it does seem odd that no one has ever figured out where the post-9/11 anthrax attacks came from, and (more importantly) that there no longer appears to be any on-going investigation. The last I heard, several years ago, the spores had been traced to an Army lab at Fort Detrick, MD, but then the media just abruptly dropped the subject.
It's not just their religious constituency that trumps science for the Republicans; they routinely intervene on behalf of their corporate benefactors, as well. Hence the constant interference in environmental and climate-related research.
I've heard it said that the repubs don't like scientists because they tend to vote democratic, but they've really brought that on themselves. Their real problem with science - and indeed with Reason in general - is that it often limits their power, which in their minds should be total and absolute now that they have all three branches of government locked up. Their only serious opponent now is Truth, at least until the next elections.
True enough, but they've already done that now. Don't underestimate the potential impact of the smaller hits, though, now that they have our full attention. Even if there were only a handful of attacks, the media attention would make it seem like it was happening all around us. This has been the pattern in Europe and the Middle East, where terrorists often choose targets like cafes and night clubs. One of the primary goals of terrorism is to destroy people's confidence that their government can protect them.
No, there is a prefered order (5' -> 3') for reading a strand of DNA, so you can't count reversals (if that's what you mean by "flipping upside down"). I.e., a sequence is not equivalent to its inverse. There may be a complementary strand (only if the DNA is double-stranded), so you can halve the odds if that's the case.
But hey - the odds of matching the strand by chance are pretty meaningless, since nobody would seriously try to do it that way...
They are protecting it because it is a big gleeming target with a bulls eye on it.
That may be true, but you're assuming that a target has to be big and gleaming to be effective. If you're a terrorist, you want to make ordinary people feel vulnerable and frightened, every day. You don't want anybody feeling safe just because they're not at the Super Bowl. So, you hit ordinary targets in ordinary kinds of places, and let the media do the rest.
All of this "high profile" security is more about reminding Americans of the danger (thereby keeping them fearful and politically compliant), and showing them that their government is on the job. As an actual deterrent to terrorism - which can strike effectively anywhere - it's pretty much meaningless.
All a counterfeiter needs do is make it glow roughly the same green. No need to actually replicate the DNA sequence: no-one will actually check that anyway!
I assume that they're just attaching a flourescent molecule to the DNA so they can find it for sequencing when there's a dispute about authenticity. Of course, there's nothing to stop anyone from sequencing the DNA on an authentic ball, and then synthesizing more DNA with the same sequence. It's only 22 or 23 bases, and you can order customized DNA of that length pretty cheaply from many companies that do that sort of thing.
I'm not sure where they came up with the "33 trillion" figure, though. There are about 17.6 trillion (4^22) possible different 22-base strands, and 70.4 trillion possible 23-base strands...
The wording of this post is already allowing "them" to change the terms of the debate to their advantage. Will the carriers really be charging for guaranteed fast delivery, or extorting money from internet companies to avoid artificial delays?
...but I just don't have the time/space for my darkroom anymore.
We've become accustomed now to imagery being cheap, fast, and easy. It makes us look at the effort required to achieve a chemical photograph - and maybe even the value of the result - a lot differently.
Slashdot Mirror
I've had this conversation with my mother. She has all kinds of progressive attitudes, believes in justice and helping the poor and all that, but still habitually votes republican. We rarely bring up politics in conversation, but one day I asked her why she votes republican with such seemingly liberal attitudes.
Well, part of it is that she doesn't pay much attention to what the repubs are actually doing; she only listens to what they say. But the big thing for her is that she feels that the relatively uneducated son of a friend of hers makes way too much money working a lot of overtime as a skilled tradesman in an auto plant, all because of labor unions. She knows that the repubs hate labor unions, and so voting for them is her way of sticking it to her friend's son; I kid you not.
The repubs have known about this dynamic nearly forever. People will allow themselves to be screwed up the yinyang, as long as they get to watch someone even less fortunate getting screwed worse. They blame their problems on the people below, not on those above who are actually pulling the strings. It's all Machiavelli 101.
Sure hope my Mom doesn't see this...
Yet suicide bombing is done all of the time, all over the world. Don't undersetimate the power of rage with no legitimate outlet.
Such a group wouldn't last very long.
They wouldn't have to last long, and neither would they expect to. How long did the 9/11 terrorists expect to last?
This would spark such a massive outrage that support for bombing the shit out of X, Y, and Z will be astronomical. public support will be sufficient that G.W. will be able to do whatever he damn well pleases. Which we all know is very much against what the Terries want.
Quite the contrary. Terrorists are not out to win hearts and minds, or win political support. They are out to terrorize the public and disrupt the political system. The latter can mean either weakening it or forcing it to overreact to the point where it destroys itself. A few dudes with boxcutters bringing an end to freedom and democracy in America, and saddling it with huge debt that may cripple it for generations? That's quite a return on a relatively puny investment! They would love to see GWB serving up more of the same.
More like genious, actually. These people have no principles whatsoever other than the ruthless pursuit of power and money, and they are very, very good at that. They don't care what scientists and intellectuals think about them, because scientists and intellectuals are a tiny minority compared to the vast voting bloc offered by organized religion. To them, "truth" is exactly what people believe it is, and nothing more. Their genius is in the manipulation and exploitation of that belief. They are shrewd and sociopathic, but hardly stupid.
But in a few hundred years, a new dawn will break. Someone will find (and partially understand) some of the old texts that were supposed to have been destroyed, and news of the Old Wisdom will spread across the land as fast as our swiftest llamas can carry them. And with this news will come the once-banned ideas of science, of democracy, and of the rights of all men and women. The world will no longer be flat, the Earth will once again orbit the Sun, and our Republican King will no longer rule with the unquestioned authority of God. In a few short centuries thereafter we will be well on the way to regaining most of our understanding of astronomy, chemistry, and physics, and perhaps even building upon it.
So as you can see, I'm very optimistic about things, even if they're going badly at the moment.
That may be exactly what he is trying to do. To function successfully in this Brave New World, today's children will have to become adept at rejecting reason and empiricism wherever it may threaten their Faith in God and our Republican overlords that represent Him here on Earth.
I don't agree with that at all. You could just as easily say that with God there is no hope for the future, couldn't you?
In the end, I have to side with the 5+ billion people on this planet who do believe in a higher power than ourselves
As humans, we are pack animals, and for the most part are programmed to lean that way. It doesn't matter whether the higher power is an omnipotent God, a ruthless tyrant, or a totalitarian ideal. Whatever gives us direction and purpose - and relieves us from the stress of having to invent our own lives - will do.
Well, Germany calls itself Deutschland. What's up with that?
I heard he was doing a heckuva job!
Really, I'm surprised that the religious right has picked this fight at all. There used to be an understanding among both scientists and theologians that science and religion operated in separate realms - Reason and Faith - and that they could coexist peacefully as masters of their own domains. By firing these shots across the border, Religion has broken the truce, and in so doing risks subjecting itself to the scrutiny of Reason in the public arena. I can see this happening already, here and elsewhere. That may not hurt yet on election day - the scientifically literate are greatly outnumbered by religious fundamentalists, I'm sure - but it will create an intellectual schism with unpredictable consequences for both sides.
Keep in mind that the Islamic countries of the middle east were once at the pinnacle of science and reason, but now have become theocracies besieged on all sides by modernity. Europe's "Dark Ages" under Christian theocracy put a lid on science for a millenium. Any good arguments why it couldn't happen again?
So true. Every dictator comes to power with a cadre of supporters who imagine that they'll do very well in the new regime if they just lick boot and sing the Party Song. Eventually, though, they'll have to choose sides in some factional dispute without knowing who the winner will be. By then, they've already helped to establish a system that makes the consequences of losing very dire indeed.
That would make a good campaign slogan for the GOP...
I have no idea if this is true, and suspect that it's not. But it does seem odd that no one has ever figured out where the post-9/11 anthrax attacks came from, and (more importantly) that there no longer appears to be any on-going investigation. The last I heard, several years ago, the spores had been traced to an Army lab at Fort Detrick, MD, but then the media just abruptly dropped the subject.
I've heard it said that the repubs don't like scientists because they tend to vote democratic, but they've really brought that on themselves. Their real problem with science - and indeed with Reason in general - is that it often limits their power, which in their minds should be total and absolute now that they have all three branches of government locked up. Their only serious opponent now is Truth, at least until the next elections.
True enough, but they've already done that now. Don't underestimate the potential impact of the smaller hits, though, now that they have our full attention. Even if there were only a handful of attacks, the media attention would make it seem like it was happening all around us. This has been the pattern in Europe and the Middle East, where terrorists often choose targets like cafes and night clubs. One of the primary goals of terrorism is to destroy people's confidence that their government can protect them.
But hey - the odds of matching the strand by chance are pretty meaningless, since nobody would seriously try to do it that way...
That may be true, but you're assuming that a target has to be big and gleaming to be effective. If you're a terrorist, you want to make ordinary people feel vulnerable and frightened, every day. You don't want anybody feeling safe just because they're not at the Super Bowl. So, you hit ordinary targets in ordinary kinds of places, and let the media do the rest.
All of this "high profile" security is more about reminding Americans of the danger (thereby keeping them fearful and politically compliant), and showing them that their government is on the job. As an actual deterrent to terrorism - which can strike effectively anywhere - it's pretty much meaningless.
Dang! I missed a touchdown.
I assume that they're just attaching a flourescent molecule to the DNA so they can find it for sequencing when there's a dispute about authenticity. Of course, there's nothing to stop anyone from sequencing the DNA on an authentic ball, and then synthesizing more DNA with the same sequence. It's only 22 or 23 bases, and you can order customized DNA of that length pretty cheaply from many companies that do that sort of thing.
I'm not sure where they came up with the "33 trillion" figure, though. There are about 17.6 trillion (4^22) possible different 22-base strands, and 70.4 trillion possible 23-base strands...
Now there's something that inspires confidence...
Yes, but assuming $4 per home-cooked dinner, this oven pays for itself after only 750 meals. A regular oven would take nearly 40 meals to do that.
Well, contracting in Iraq certainly doesn't work this way, but the results are still pretty much the same.
No, that would have been on Ronald Reagan's watch. But thanks for asking!
The wording of this post is already allowing "them" to change the terms of the debate to their advantage. Will the carriers really be charging for guaranteed fast delivery, or extorting money from internet companies to avoid artificial delays?
We've become accustomed now to imagery being cheap, fast, and easy. It makes us look at the effort required to achieve a chemical photograph - and maybe even the value of the result - a lot differently.
For high-resolution structures of large molecules, X-Ray crystallography is still the way to go.
Very well said. If I could moderate you to a '6', I would.