This will keep happening until companies stop paying huge bonuses to senior executives for short term profits.
So people in the poorest countries will keep getting better and higher paying jobs so they can feed their families and eventually move beyond subsistence to some relative level of prosperity?
I hope those senior executives keep getting those huge bonuses then.
What you're doing is pointless debate about details of how budgets are calculated.
No. The budget has gone up over time. It doesn't go down. It hasn't been "slashed".
Can you point out when it was substantially higher in the past? Maybe it was 3 times as big in 2000? Maybe it was $100 billion in 1996 or something? I didn't look back that far.
My only point was that the budget hasn't been "slashed". I'm tired of hearing that every budget has been "slashed". It's never true.
No one denies that the amount of science getting funded has decreased over recent years, and that's the point.
I have made no comment on whether I think science funding should get substantial increases or not.
I'm not interested in hearing about how budgets were cut when it's not true.
Are you saying there's no way to argue the merits of big funding increases? You can't say "increase the NSF funding because we'll accomplish all these important new things"? You have to try to trick people by saying the budget was "slashed"?
If you can't make an honest case for a funding increase, people allow themselves to be persuaded by a dishonest one.
That is simply not true. You're lying. A higher number is not a lower number.
Given that wages go up by 2.5 percent that means something else has to give...
Given? My wages didn't go up by that amount. Why is it a given? How about if the NSF only raises the wages of their employees and dependents by 0.44 % that year? Or less.
Also put the expenditure in to perspective, 5.5 billion is roughly 7 cents a day (assuming 200 million tax payers in the US) for each of us. I don't think 7 cents a days too much to pay for our future.
You can pay for all of us then. Seriously, there's a line on your tax form to pay whatever additional amount you want.
You have to look at dollars adjusted for inflation.
No. Saying this number is a cut is a lie. It's a deception intended to mislead. Just because it's business as usual to lie doesn't make lies into the truth.
If you want to tell the truth, you have to say that "the number went up by too small of an amount". No one says that, because they just want the money, they don't care about the truth.
Perhaps one problem with science in the US is that a significant group of people see it as mainly useful to bash religious people. The religion-haters use "science" to try to consign religious folks to second-class citizen status.
A majority of people in the US are at least a little religious. Why would they want to support something that's consistently used as a weapon to attack them, their beliefs, and their position in society?
One of the answers is for the "science" people to stop tolerating the use of science (or pseudo-science) as a weapon in political and cultural attacks.
The article states that that is not true, but rather that a scheduled release of water was brought ahead after a government agency suggested that he do it to raise some publicity for the cause shared by the head of the agency.
I'm not seeing the distinction. The canoe and the water arrived at the same time. Had the canoe not been there, the water would not have been released at that time. It was Al Gore's canoe. There was coordination to make sure it all happened that way.
I guess it's OK because Al Gore is better than the rest of us and deserves to benefit from the environment that he demands the rest of us to sacrifice for.
The AC already said this, but you're simply splitting hairs. The article you cite indicates that the water was released from the dam for Al Gore's canoe trip.
You say the GP post is "a lie". Here's the line:
Then Al Gore forced us to buy low flow toilettes to save fresh water, but opened a Damn so he could take a canoe trip.
Are you saying this is a lie because Al Gore didn't personally go and push the button to open the dam? It was done by the people who normally push the buttons to control the dam. It was done for his canoe trip.
Maybe you don't know the definition of "lie"? It's not about whether a statement is technically incorrect in an irrelevant detail. It tends to be about whether the statement is false in a way meant to mislead. The GP's statement is essentially true with regards to the canoe trip (not sure on the toilets). Al Gore was not an innocent bystander.
I want people to read/watch/hear the news skeptically. The news is like a political ad. Do you automatically believe what you hear in political advertisements? The news should be viewed the same way.
Along with the news being like a political ad, polls are essentially a marketing survey. Did the audience of the ads (news reports) hear our message? Did they think what we wanted them to think? How do we tailor our message to convince more of the people we're trying to reach?
That's what I want. I want people to understand that they can't trust the news. Period.
"We need socialism right now or it'll be too late. [insert exclamation points] We can't afford to wait for a conclusion based on facts. There will be droughts and floods and poison monkeys. Most of Florida will be underwater. In fact, everywhere will be underwater except a few miles around Denver. There will be hurricanes bigger than the Sun every day, and they'll be twice as big at night.
Etc. Etc. Etc. Be really scared so you do what we tell you without thinking about what's in your best interests."
Whether emitting gas or validating meta-information, this gorilla has maintained his importance and kept his mass steadily high. Are there larger gorillas? And if there were, would it matter?
Some thoughts to ponder while the pr0n is loading... oh, there it's done.
I am saying that some people need to stop confusing religion with science
Maybe all the hateful bigotry that the "science" crowd directs at the "religion" crowd will help with that. Religious people will learn (correctly) that anyone involved in science is their enemy and wishes them harm.
And people who like science, but won't engage in hateful bigotry, will eventually choose professions that are separate from the sciences and their culture. That's either a loss or a gain, depending on how highly you value hatred.
Generally they only doctor photos, not report biased stories.
Generally, they not only doctor photos, they report biased stories, use bogus sources, edit stories out of the news when they don't fit the AP's agenda, and are just generally corrupt. The facts are an enemy of the AP.
Oh come on! Like anyone cares about what Newt actually said. Read the article summary. Read the comments. No one gives a damn about what he actually said.
Your devotion to reality is sadly anachronistic. Get with the times and start hating who they tell you to hate.
1. Don't buy their stuff or 2. Run a public campaign of hatred against Sony for YEARS, highlighting every negative story about them, even the false ones.
And you're saying choice #2 is the wise, sane choice?
I suspect that someone with a defective camera already knows he has a defective camera without reading it on Slashdot.
It also continues the trend of defective Sony components, which extends beyond just digital cameras.
And it follows the press-hated-of-Sony trend. And the Zonk anti-Sony-drumbeat trend. And the groupthink-hatred-of-Sony trend on message boards. Lots of interesting trends.
Slashdot Mirror
This will keep happening until companies stop paying huge bonuses to senior executives for short term profits.
So people in the poorest countries will keep getting better and higher paying jobs so they can feed their families and eventually move beyond subsistence to some relative level of prosperity?
I hope those senior executives keep getting those huge bonuses then.
I'm a fan of Firefly. I predict this MMOG is lame.
A cost-saving MMOG framework just doesn't seem likely to equal "fun".
NSF budget FY 1983 - just over $1 billion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Science_Foun dationn dationn fo.htmlt m
NSF budget FY 1990 - just over $2 billion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Science_Fou
NSF budget FY 1995 - $3.270 billion http://mathforum.org/social/articles/nsf.budget.i
NSF budget FY 2000 - $3.747 billion http://www.nsf.gov/about/budget/fy2000/overview.h
NSF budget FY 2005 - $5.6 billion
Those numbers are higher as time goes forward.
Deny whatever you like--decreased science funding...
I see increased science funding.
It's not exactly hard to type "NSF budget FY 1995" into Google. Anyone can do it. Even you.
What you're doing is pointless debate about details of how budgets are calculated.
No. The budget has gone up over time. It doesn't go down. It hasn't been "slashed".
Can you point out when it was substantially higher in the past? Maybe it was 3 times as big in 2000? Maybe it was $100 billion in 1996 or something? I didn't look back that far.
My only point was that the budget hasn't been "slashed". I'm tired of hearing that every budget has been "slashed". It's never true.
No one denies that the amount of science getting funded has decreased over recent years, and that's the point.
I deny it.
I have made no comment on whether I think science funding should get substantial increases or not.
I'm not interested in hearing about how budgets were cut when it's not true.
Are you saying there's no way to argue the merits of big funding increases? You can't say "increase the NSF funding because we'll accomplish all these important new things"? You have to try to trick people by saying the budget was "slashed"?
If you can't make an honest case for a funding increase, people allow themselves to be persuaded by a dishonest one.
It's a cut
That is simply not true. You're lying. A higher number is not a lower number.
Given that wages go up by 2.5 percent that means something else has to give...
Given? My wages didn't go up by that amount. Why is it a given? How about if the NSF only raises the wages of their employees and dependents by 0.44 % that year? Or less.
Also put the expenditure in to perspective, 5.5 billion is roughly 7 cents a day (assuming 200 million tax payers in the US) for each of us. I don't think 7 cents a days too much to pay for our future.
You can pay for all of us then. Seriously, there's a line on your tax form to pay whatever additional amount you want.
You have to look at dollars adjusted for inflation.
No. Saying this number is a cut is a lie. It's a deception intended to mislead. Just because it's business as usual to lie doesn't make lies into the truth.
If you want to tell the truth, you have to say that "the number went up by too small of an amount". No one says that, because they just want the money, they don't care about the truth.
NSF Budget
t ml
2002 - 4.774 billion
2003 - ?
2004 - 5.118 billion
2005 - 5.641 billion
2006 - 5.666 billion
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2006/nsf.h
and others
You hear about spending cuts all the time. But the spending in programs that were "slashed" is always higher from year to year.
The phrase "spending was cut" is simply a lie. It may be true once for every 1000 times you hear it.
Perhaps one problem with science in the US is that a significant group of people see it as mainly useful to bash religious people. The religion-haters use "science" to try to consign religious folks to second-class citizen status.
A majority of people in the US are at least a little religious. Why would they want to support something that's consistently used as a weapon to attack them, their beliefs, and their position in society?
One of the answers is for the "science" people to stop tolerating the use of science (or pseudo-science) as a weapon in political and cultural attacks.
and if so did we on earth cause it?
It was George Bush's fault.
The article states that that is not true, but rather that a scheduled release of water was brought ahead after a government agency suggested that he do it to raise some publicity for the cause shared by the head of the agency.
I'm not seeing the distinction. The canoe and the water arrived at the same time. Had the canoe not been there, the water would not have been released at that time. It was Al Gore's canoe. There was coordination to make sure it all happened that way.
I guess it's OK because Al Gore is better than the rest of us and deserves to benefit from the environment that he demands the rest of us to sacrifice for.
The AC already said this, but you're simply splitting hairs. The article you cite indicates that the water was released from the dam for Al Gore's canoe trip.
You say the GP post is "a lie". Here's the line:
Then Al Gore forced us to buy low flow toilettes to save fresh water, but opened a Damn so he could take a canoe trip.
Are you saying this is a lie because Al Gore didn't personally go and push the button to open the dam? It was done by the people who normally push the buttons to control the dam. It was done for his canoe trip.
Maybe you don't know the definition of "lie"? It's not about whether a statement is technically incorrect in an irrelevant detail. It tends to be about whether the statement is false in a way meant to mislead. The GP's statement is essentially true with regards to the canoe trip (not sure on the toilets). Al Gore was not an innocent bystander.
Your post appears to be a lie.
Do you really want that?
I want people to read/watch/hear the news skeptically. The news is like a political ad. Do you automatically believe what you hear in political advertisements? The news should be viewed the same way.
Along with the news being like a political ad, polls are essentially a marketing survey. Did the audience of the ads (news reports) hear our message? Did they think what we wanted them to think? How do we tailor our message to convince more of the people we're trying to reach?
That's what I want. I want people to understand that they can't trust the news. Period.
You don't understand.
The response to this is:
"We need socialism right now or it'll be too late. [insert exclamation points] We can't afford to wait for a conclusion based on facts. There will be droughts and floods and poison monkeys. Most of Florida will be underwater. In fact, everywhere will be underwater except a few miles around Denver. There will be hurricanes bigger than the Sun every day, and they'll be twice as big at night.
Etc. Etc. Etc. Be really scared so you do what we tell you without thinking about what's in your best interests."
The point is that in reporting the facts, you don't "pick a side".
"Reporting" hasn't been about "facts" in a long time. No one cares about "facts" any more. You're out of step with the times.
Mod all "climate change deniers" down to -1 to prove that there's no censorship in the climate change discussion.
This gorilla was last seen apparently emitting methane gas. Who knows where it will be seen next? In an electronic voting machine or a DRM format war perhaps?
... oh, there it's done.
Whether emitting gas or validating meta-information, this gorilla has maintained his importance and kept his mass steadily high. Are there larger gorillas? And if there were, would it matter?
Some thoughts to ponder while the pr0n is loading
I am saying that some people need to stop confusing religion with science
Maybe all the hateful bigotry that the "science" crowd directs at the "religion" crowd will help with that. Religious people will learn (correctly) that anyone involved in science is their enemy and wishes them harm.
And people who like science, but won't engage in hateful bigotry, will eventually choose professions that are separate from the sciences and their culture. That's either a loss or a gain, depending on how highly you value hatred.
Any argument that starts with "Go read [some book] ..." is a poor (or poorly communicated) argument.
I didn't read the rest of your post. I'll wait until the author of that book posts and them I might read his.
From the Associated Press: ...
Generally they only doctor photos, not report biased stories.
Generally, they not only doctor photos, they report biased stories, use bogus sources, edit stories out of the news when they don't fit the AP's agenda, and are just generally corrupt. The facts are an enemy of the AP.
Oh come on! Like anyone cares about what Newt actually said. Read the article summary. Read the comments. No one gives a damn about what he actually said.
Your devotion to reality is sadly anachronistic. Get with the times and start hating who they tell you to hate.
I, for one, would like to see more prevalent use of critical reading skills.
On that note, I'd like to assert that the author of this piece almost seems to be living in a fantasy world. Apparently, they have WiMax phones there.
Boo fricken hoo.
So the choices are:
1. Don't buy their stuff or
2. Run a public campaign of hatred against Sony for YEARS, highlighting every negative story about them, even the false ones.
And you're saying choice #2 is the wise, sane choice?
Just because you made the mistake of buying Sony stock...
wrong.
I'm just not a big fan of hate campaigns. Also, there's no real explanation for this one that I can see. What's the motivation supposed to be?
I suspect that someone with a defective camera already knows he has a defective camera without reading it on Slashdot.
It also continues the trend of defective Sony components, which extends beyond just digital cameras.
And it follows the press-hated-of-Sony trend. And the Zonk anti-Sony-drumbeat trend. And the groupthink-hatred-of-Sony trend on message boards. Lots of interesting trends.