"By the way I was a member of the Socialist Worker Student Society when I was a student because I was trying to impress a girl."
Boys do stupid things to impress girls sometimes. Considering who you were hanging out with, perhaps a simple compliment would have won her heart... something like "Wow, your legs are hairier than mine!"
... then start by making games that can run on the vast majority of hardware that's sold... boxes off the shelf from a Wal Mart or Target that have a Celeron or Sempron, and low-end onboard video.
That means sacrificing graphics, but so what? Games like Wolfenstien: Enemy Territory, will play fine with newer off the shelf boxes. And that standard of graphics is good enough for a lot of people. Many people would take an ET-caliber graphics game with superior gameplay and story over a Gee-Wiz supergraphical art wonder that sucks to play.
With the economics of making and selling PC's, you're just not going to get a lot of boxes out there off the shelf with a 512 mb Nvidia card in it. Either compromise for the PC platform, or look forward to most of your sales being on console platforms.
With Putin doing his best Stalin imitation lately, it's moronic to trust the Russians to be a reliable stopgap until our new rockets and spacecraft are ready. We need to simply accept the fact that we'll be needing the Shuttle for a little while longer, and budget appropriately.
While I'm sympathetic to some of your argument, I'm dead set against other parts.
"Another restriction on freedom that's absolutely essential for a free society is mandatory education. Without education, the population does not develop critical thinking skills and falls prey to the first charismatic demagogue that comes along."
First, we (the US in particular) were a free society long before schooling was mandatory. Add to that the fact that even in the most free countries, education isn't a guarantee of good judgement (or "critical thinking", in your parlance). So education does not equal democracy... or for that matter, good judgement, as I said before. Consider that you still have Marxist "critical theory" types in the university system that say they're teaching critical thinking, but are mostly chucking dogma at their students.
Timothy McVeigh went to mandatory schools. The London Tube Bombers had a fine education. The followers of Jim Jones and Charles Manson all had to go to school. Mandatory schooling didn't seem to help their defenses against charisma and demagoguery. The people in 1930's Germany were pretty well educated compared to most populations, very advanced by the standards of the day. It didn't seem to help their judgment much. Sorry, I think the education=judgment is mostly a fallacy.
"Critical Thinking" is one of those things that we can try to teach... like public speaking or etiquette or ballroom dancing... and it just comes to some people better than others, and it doesn't necessarily have to come from a book or teacher, just an inborn sense of skepticism. In short, skeptical people in school were likely skeptical before they ever walked through the classroom doors. Skepticism, and thus "critical thinking" tends to be a personality trait, not necessarily a learned skill.
As far as charismatic demagogues,
"These things are restrictions on freedom, and for everyone's good."
And those restrictions have to be kept to a minimum, or it's not freedom anymore.
"Not only should school attendance be required, but private schools should be audited to ensure that their curriculum at least resembles reality."
We've had this thing called "accreditation" for quite some time now. And even if you didn't go to an accredited school, we have other ways to measure competence in learning... exit exams, the GED, etc.
"The more people are deluded by things like creationism and homeopathy, the weaker our democracy becomes."
Rubbish. One, we're not a democracy, we're a republic that simply uses democratic methods to govern. Two, if someone believes that a pill will make their penis larger, or that a magnet will take their pain away, the Constitution says they're still citizens with rights. The Constitution says nothing about them having to have a strong scientific education in order to keep those rights and vote their leaders in. In fact, the Constitution says nothing about requiring schooling at all. Because many of our forefathers couldn't even read.
Our country... our system... is about inalienable rights. Look up the word inalienable and get back to me.
Lastly, not only do I not agree with you that we should have some Orwellian standard for accrediting institutions, frankly, I've come to the conclusion that perhaps we'd appreciate education more if it wasn't mandatory. Right now, kids (and I include us when we were young as well) consider mandatory school a chore, work, a bore... something to be forced upon them and endured, and not appreciated. Simply put, things aren't appreciated if they're free. Furthermore, "free things" that are forced upon us are resented.
"I think you'll find that this is precisely the problem - education is being replaced with rote learning of stuff "
One, you're wrong. Two, I wish you were right.
Rote learning used to be part and parcel of US education, especially at the middle and high school level. It was absolutely essential. And we chucked it aside starting in the late 1960's in favor of more "organic" learning methods.
And that's precisely why students can't recall important dates, names, places, and events. This is one reason why we're worse at math. This is why we can't recite lines of important poetry anymore.
Rote learning is painful, boring, and hard work. It's also a necessary ingredient in a good, well rounded education, and I'm a bit tired of this faux-hippyish ranting against it. Learning... real learning... isn't all fun and games and personal fulfillment. Like anything else in this world worth achieving, it takes work, and not just the kinds of work we like
"Either way, under Palin, science in the USA is likely to go into steep decline with many US scientists moving to other countries to find jobs"
Yeah, because there was such an exodus when a Southern Baptist preacher was elected in 1976. There was such an exodus when a man backed by the religious right was elected twice in 1980 and 84. There was such a... well, I think you get the point by now.
In short, no one will be leaving the US unless they're a bad sport or a prima donna. Or a drama queen, in this case...
Every one of the US leaders has said they believed in a Supreme Being...
There, fixed that for you.
What, and you're a psychic now? You can insert that in any statement and it may be true, but can't be proven. What can be demonstrated is pulling out the speeches and writings of all the ex-Presidents. The parent poster at least has some documentation on his side.
I know there's a high incidence of atheism on Slashdot, but Slashdot isn't very representative of the US at all. Hell, the world for that matter.
There's a pretty good line I'll paraphrase from Contact... most of the world believes in a Supreme Being of some kind, and you guys think we all suffer from some sort of mass delusion. Well then, why should we trust you? Why should we take your advice on things like politics?
Geesus, do you have trouble understanding words as simple as "could"? No wonder you have problem with understanding much more complex things like Global Warming.
Well Lars, monkeys could fly out of your ass too, but I'm not going to actually suggest that... unlike the doofus in the article that, backed with his credentials, suggested the North Pole would be one big swimming pool.
Great, now I know why summer this year was, well, pretty nonexistant really.
It was just a cooler than normal summer. That's natural. It happens. The climate is not a static model that never changes, and frankly some of it's workings we don't understand yet, and may not for many years. But having the occasional cooler summer is no more worrisome than the occasional warmer summer. Frankly, living in the deep south, I appreciated the break this year, although it probably means we're in for a bitter winter.
Kinda funny though, how we had a mild summer, and yet in spring, you had all those people predicting that the arctic would be ice-free by July.
"Well a couple of brain dead anarchists breaking windows and throwing bottles does not create a riot."
Anyone that says the Seattle rioters (PRIOR TO the police response) were just "a few brain dead anarchists" are at best misinformed, or worse, utterly full of shit. Everyone from Greenpeace to Earth First planned "direct action" in Seattle, and lots of violence was on the menu for the Earth First types. The cops may have overreacted, but lets can this BS meme that the cops were overreacting to a handful of rowdy boys. There were people that had planned violent activities for weeks prior to those meetings, and they were certainly more than a handful. Furthermore, once they got started, the crowd seemed plenty eager to join in the festivities... including things like busting up every Starbucks and McDonalds they could find.
Don't pretend it was a bunch of naive innocents vs. the gestapo.
Could the fact that we didn't see such an article about last weeks DNC be because there wasn't anybody bothering to protest? HBO's Real Time had footage from the "Free Speech Zone" in Denver which had more kids on bikes than protesters.
That's because they were elsewhere in Denver, doing things like trying to levitate the Denver Mint, and screaming Kill Michelle Malkin!.
"And here I thought we had this thing called a "nation" which embodied some elements of teamwork and shared pain/shared gain."
That only goes so far here. This is America, and you're still expected to do what you can for yourself first. This isn't a socialist country where we care for each other's every need. If you've got a disaster, we'll pitch in and help, but when you're told to do things like, oh, get the fuck out of town, and you don't do it, then you can't blame the "Nation" for that. And it's not the "Nation's" responsibility to put you up in a FEMA trailer 3 years after Katrina. And yet there are still people that live in them, people perfectly capable of going out and getting their own place, and a new job. I'd say we go above and beyond in "Shared Pain/Gain". If you want any more, move to Sweden.
because it's their home and this isn't china where the government can forcibly move millions of people at their whim.
If people choose a really stupid place to be their home, how much sympathy should they get? Every place has drawbacks... a hurricane zone, a tornado zone, a flood zone, below sea level, etc. But no place seems to have such a geographic death wish as New Orleans. No bedrock, a bowl surrounded by water, below sea level, sinking more every year. Its an utterly stupid place to put a city. Why should other people pay for keeping them there? We can't forcibly move them, but when can tell them "if you insist on living in this place, you're on your own".
"It's simultaneously amusing and sad how Republicans have to reach back decades to find slurs for Democrats, while the current Republican Party presents such a target-rich environment for those Democrats with the guts to take advantage of it."
So, when hurricanes kill people, and Pat Robertson claims it's the wrath of God, that's just horrible. But if it gets votes for the Democratic Party, it's proof that God is on your side? No, no hypocrisy here.
Your "guts" prove nothing but that you can be just as scummy as anyone else in politics.
They would otherwise be trashed, and you have fallen for the pro-life propaganda if you think they are from abortions.
And what happens when embryonic stem cell research becomes widespread? There's a limited supply of those IVF embryos. Even with people making more of them in clinics, if ESC research really takes off, those sources alone won't be able to meet demand. What do you do then?
Either encourage abortions as sources, or grow them in factory conditions, a Pandora's Box with ethical implications that would make even Aldous Huxley shudder.
I hate to rip off a pop culture reference, but recall the first Matrix movie: "I've seen fields, Neo, vast fields, where humans aren't born. They're grown".
Think about it. If we have to resort to the factory approach, then we're literally creating human life for the sole purpose of harvesting it for destruction in huge labs. If that doesn't give your conscience pause, then nothing anyone says will either.
So both candidates say they will keep politics out of science, but what about religion?
Stem cell research for example is one of those field of research which is being blocked because of politics.. "well, because of religious groups, which uses politics as a tool to achieve their goals of blocking the research".
I wonder if each candidate is willing to tell the religious groups to grow up and let science be?, especially McCain's party
You're never going to get "religion" out of science, because science must always be governed by ethical concerns, and ethics in the west, especially the United States, is inherently tied to our religious values because our religion has influenced our ideas of ethics for thousands of years.
I realize Slashdot has a heavy Libertarian bent, with a large sympathetic atheist wing, but Slashdot is not representative of the public as a whole. Quite the opposite. So if you're hoping to let "science" work with no ethical boundaries (as most see them), then you're out of luck. Never gonna happen, at least not in this country.
Nowhere in the story you link to is she quoting as saying that. The author was her budget director, and if you actually RTFA, he states that earmarks aren't a "free lunch" because of the consequences in involved, and in the following CNN article, she used the Bridge as an example of that. Sure, she'd have liked a nice, fat, free bridge, but the project would have stuck Alaska with 80 percent of the bill. So she supported killing it.
Here'a a real quote from her on the subject:
Gov. Sarah Palin said Friday the project was $329 million short of full funding.
"We will continue to look for options for Ketchikan to allow better access to the island," the Republican governor said. "The concentration is not going to be on a $400 million bridge."
Palin directed state transportation officials to find the most "fiscally responsible" alternative for access to the airport. She said the best option would be to upgrade the ferry system.
I'm sure many others think this, but I think his strategy is to gather the Hillary voters....It's a bad strategy if you ask me because he simply brought her on just to win the election...which is just stupid.
I think McCain is looking at possible Hillary crossovers as a possible fringe benefit, but this was not just an attempt to attract women. This was about giving Obama the proverbial kick in the nuts by robbing him of press attention the morning after his nomination. On a day when everyone should be talking about Obama, the press is focused on McCain's Veep pick, especially since he so effectively kept the pic secret. As late as 8 or so this morning, the talking heads were still saying Romney or Pawlenty. As far as the press goes, McCain hit a home run here, and any Hillary voters picked up is just icing on the cake. The fact that he's apparently shored up the conservative base makes this pick even better.
Before this pick, you had people voting against Obama. Now you've got people voting for McCain.
"Considering that McCain has almost no chance of winning this election"
Obama, at the height of the buzz about him, could never muster more than 5 or 6 points over McCain. They've been statically tied for months for the most part. McCain was up by two in the big national polls prior to the DNC Convention. Obama will get a bounce from that, but I'll be shocked if this pick and the RNC convention doesn't erase that bounce with one for McCain, and they'll be right back, neck and neck in the race.
The GOP might have gloomy prospects in Congress, but in the Presidency? In a year when the Democratic nominee should be cruising, he's having trouble separating from a 72 year old man that's been treated for Melanoma twice. That tells me that your guy is in no way a shoo-in.
"Because, when Democrats run women, it's based on a long history of, y'know, actually having supported women's issues."
What "women's" issues? You mean liberal issues. You're assuming that most women are liberal and agree with those issues. In 2004 though, married women voted Republican by 2 to 1. A wedding ring on a woman's finger was a huge indicator that she was voting for Bush. The most staunch pro-life people I know are women. There's a reason why most women aren't members of feminist groups like NOW. They don't identify with "feminism". Go look at photos of the big abortions marches in Washington DC. You'll see just as many women on the pro-life side as you do on the pro-choice side.
Here's a shocking fact for you... women are just like men in that they have different ideas and different factions, different hopes and different fears. There are issues that are of interest to most women, but very few of them are owned by any one party.
Stupid assumptions like this are one reason why Republicans have won 9 out of 14 Presidential elections since 1952.
"He just destroyed the "Obama doesn't have the experience to lead" meme. "
Oh? How? Who's going to say she's inexperienced? Barack Obama?
Just how does he attack her without the attack doing a boomerang right back on him? Her time has been spent as an executive. She's done budgets, personnel, and signed and vetoed legislation.
Obama has done, oh, none of that. This is why his campaign's statement about her being the mayor of a small rube town was so silly. It allows Palin to say "Well, by all means, lets hear of your impressive credentials as a community organizer".
The brilliance of this pick is that the Democrats can't harp on Palin's supposed Vice-Presidential inexperience without highlighting Barack Obama's Presidential inexpierience.
Slashdot Mirror
"By the way I was a member of the Socialist Worker Student Society when I was a student because I was trying to impress a girl."
Boys do stupid things to impress girls sometimes. Considering who you were hanging out with, perhaps a simple compliment would have won her heart... something like "Wow, your legs are hairier than mine!"
... then start by making games that can run on the vast majority of hardware that's sold... boxes off the shelf from a Wal Mart or Target that have a Celeron or Sempron, and low-end onboard video.
That means sacrificing graphics, but so what? Games like Wolfenstien: Enemy Territory, will play fine with newer off the shelf boxes. And that standard of graphics is good enough for a lot of people. Many people would take an ET-caliber graphics game with superior gameplay and story over a Gee-Wiz supergraphical art wonder that sucks to play.
With the economics of making and selling PC's, you're just not going to get a lot of boxes out there off the shelf with a 512 mb Nvidia card in it. Either compromise for the PC platform, or look forward to most of your sales being on console platforms.
With Putin doing his best Stalin imitation lately, it's moronic to trust the Russians to be a reliable stopgap until our new rockets and spacecraft are ready. We need to simply accept the fact that we'll be needing the Shuttle for a little while longer, and budget appropriately.
While I'm sympathetic to some of your argument, I'm dead set against other parts.
"Another restriction on freedom that's absolutely essential for a free society is mandatory education. Without education, the population does not develop critical thinking skills and falls prey to the first charismatic demagogue that comes along."
First, we (the US in particular) were a free society long before schooling was mandatory. Add to that the fact that even in the most free countries, education isn't a guarantee of good judgement (or "critical thinking", in your parlance). So education does not equal democracy... or for that matter, good judgement, as I said before. Consider that you still have Marxist "critical theory" types in the university system that say they're teaching critical thinking, but are mostly chucking dogma at their students.
Timothy McVeigh went to mandatory schools. The London Tube Bombers had a fine education. The followers of Jim Jones and Charles Manson all had to go to school. Mandatory schooling didn't seem to help their defenses against charisma and demagoguery. The people in 1930's Germany were pretty well educated compared to most populations, very advanced by the standards of the day. It didn't seem to help their judgment much. Sorry, I think the education=judgment is mostly a fallacy.
"Critical Thinking" is one of those things that we can try to teach... like public speaking or etiquette or ballroom dancing... and it just comes to some people better than others, and it doesn't necessarily have to come from a book or teacher, just an inborn sense of skepticism. In short, skeptical people in school were likely skeptical before they ever walked through the classroom doors. Skepticism, and thus "critical thinking" tends to be a personality trait, not necessarily a learned skill.
As far as charismatic demagogues,
"These things are restrictions on freedom, and for everyone's good."
And those restrictions have to be kept to a minimum, or it's not freedom anymore.
"Not only should school attendance be required, but private schools should be audited to ensure that their curriculum at least resembles reality."
We've had this thing called "accreditation" for quite some time now. And even if you didn't go to an accredited school, we have other ways to measure competence in learning... exit exams, the GED, etc.
"The more people are deluded by things like creationism and homeopathy, the weaker our democracy becomes."
Rubbish. One, we're not a democracy, we're a republic that simply uses democratic methods to govern. Two, if someone believes that a pill will make their penis larger, or that a magnet will take their pain away, the Constitution says they're still citizens with rights. The Constitution says nothing about them having to have a strong scientific education in order to keep those rights and vote their leaders in. In fact, the Constitution says nothing about requiring schooling at all. Because many of our forefathers couldn't even read.
Our country... our system... is about inalienable rights. Look up the word inalienable and get back to me.
Lastly, not only do I not agree with you that we should have some Orwellian standard for accrediting institutions, frankly, I've come to the conclusion that perhaps we'd appreciate education more if it wasn't mandatory. Right now, kids (and I include us when we were young as well) consider mandatory school a chore, work, a bore... something to be forced upon them and endured, and not appreciated. Simply put, things aren't appreciated if they're free. Furthermore, "free things" that are forced upon us are resented.
"Yeah, the scientifically criminal "teach the controversy" bullshit."
Hyperbole much there, Mr. Scientist Cop?
"I think you'll find that this is precisely the problem - education is being replaced with rote learning of stuff "
One, you're wrong. Two, I wish you were right.
Rote learning used to be part and parcel of US education, especially at the middle and high school level. It was absolutely essential. And we chucked it aside starting in the late 1960's in favor of more "organic" learning methods.
And that's precisely why students can't recall important dates, names, places, and events. This is one reason why we're worse at math. This is why we can't recite lines of important poetry anymore.
Rote learning is painful, boring, and hard work. It's also a necessary ingredient in a good, well rounded education, and I'm a bit tired of this faux-hippyish ranting against it. Learning... real learning... isn't all fun and games and personal fulfillment. Like anything else in this world worth achieving, it takes work, and not just the kinds of work we like
"Either way, under Palin, science in the USA is likely to go into steep decline with many US scientists moving to other countries to find jobs"
Yeah, because there was such an exodus when a Southern Baptist preacher was elected in 1976. There was such an exodus when a man backed by the religious right was elected twice in 1980 and 84. There was such a... well, I think you get the point by now.
In short, no one will be leaving the US unless they're a bad sport or a prima donna. Or a drama queen, in this case...
Every one of the US leaders has said they believed in a Supreme Being...
There, fixed that for you.
What, and you're a psychic now? You can insert that in any statement and it may be true, but can't be proven. What can be demonstrated is pulling out the speeches and writings of all the ex-Presidents. The parent poster at least has some documentation on his side.
I know there's a high incidence of atheism on Slashdot, but Slashdot isn't very representative of the US at all. Hell, the world for that matter.
There's a pretty good line I'll paraphrase from Contact... most of the world believes in a Supreme Being of some kind, and you guys think we all suffer from some sort of mass delusion. Well then, why should we trust you? Why should we take your advice on things like politics?
Geesus, do you have trouble understanding words as simple as "could"? No wonder you have problem with understanding much more complex things like Global Warming.
Well Lars, monkeys could fly out of your ass too, but I'm not going to actually suggest that... unlike the doofus in the article that, backed with his credentials, suggested the North Pole would be one big swimming pool.
Excuse me? Who predicted all the Arctic ice would be gone?
CNN: North Pole could be Ice-Free this summer, scientists say
Great, now I know why summer this year was, well, pretty nonexistant really.
It was just a cooler than normal summer. That's natural. It happens. The climate is not a static model that never changes, and frankly some of it's workings we don't understand yet, and may not for many years. But having the occasional cooler summer is no more worrisome than the occasional warmer summer. Frankly, living in the deep south, I appreciated the break this year, although it probably means we're in for a bitter winter.
Kinda funny though, how we had a mild summer, and yet in spring, you had all those people predicting that the arctic would be ice-free by July.
"Well a couple of brain dead anarchists breaking windows and throwing bottles does not create a riot."
Anyone that says the Seattle rioters (PRIOR TO the police response) were just "a few brain dead anarchists" are at best misinformed, or worse, utterly full of shit. Everyone from Greenpeace to Earth First planned "direct action" in Seattle, and lots of violence was on the menu for the Earth First types. The cops may have overreacted, but lets can this BS meme that the cops were overreacting to a handful of rowdy boys. There were people that had planned violent activities for weeks prior to those meetings, and they were certainly more than a handful. Furthermore, once they got started, the crowd seemed plenty eager to join in the festivities... including things like busting up every Starbucks and McDonalds they could find.
Don't pretend it was a bunch of naive innocents vs. the gestapo.
Could the fact that we didn't see such an article about last weeks DNC be because there wasn't anybody bothering to protest? HBO's Real Time had footage from the "Free Speech Zone" in Denver which had more kids on bikes than protesters.
That's because they were elsewhere in Denver, doing things like trying to levitate the Denver Mint, and screaming Kill Michelle Malkin!.
"Just 20 or 30 years ago, demonstrations could get out of hand, but I think that is part of free speech. "
Throwing urine on convention attendees is free speech? Do you yell "fire" in crowded theaters for fun too?
"And here I thought we had this thing called a "nation" which embodied some elements of teamwork and shared pain/shared gain."
That only goes so far here. This is America, and you're still expected to do what you can for yourself first. This isn't a socialist country where we care for each other's every need. If you've got a disaster, we'll pitch in and help, but when you're told to do things like, oh, get the fuck out of town, and you don't do it, then you can't blame the "Nation" for that. And it's not the "Nation's" responsibility to put you up in a FEMA trailer 3 years after Katrina. And yet there are still people that live in them, people perfectly capable of going out and getting their own place, and a new job. I'd say we go above and beyond in "Shared Pain/Gain". If you want any more, move to Sweden.
because it's their home and this isn't china where the government can forcibly move millions of people at their whim.
If people choose a really stupid place to be their home, how much sympathy should they get? Every place has drawbacks... a hurricane zone, a tornado zone, a flood zone, below sea level, etc. But no place seems to have such a geographic death wish as New Orleans. No bedrock, a bowl surrounded by water, below sea level, sinking more every year. Its an utterly stupid place to put a city. Why should other people pay for keeping them there? We can't forcibly move them, but when can tell them "if you insist on living in this place, you're on your own".
"It's simultaneously amusing and sad how Republicans have to reach back decades to find slurs for Democrats, while the current Republican Party presents such a target-rich environment for those Democrats with the guts to take advantage of it."
I can find plenty of deserving slurs for Democrats in the here and now, thanks. And your "target rich environment" the past few days seems to include starting rumors that Sarah Palin faked her pregnancy with Trig, that the baby actually belongs to her daughter, and that Hurricane Gustav killing people in the gulf is a good thing because it'll help Democrats. God, according to this ex-DNC chairman, is on your side. The hurricane is proof.
So, when hurricanes kill people, and Pat Robertson claims it's the wrath of God, that's just horrible. But if it gets votes for the Democratic Party, it's proof that God is on your side? No, no hypocrisy here.
Your "guts" prove nothing but that you can be just as scummy as anyone else in politics.
They would otherwise be trashed, and you have fallen for the pro-life propaganda if you think they are from abortions.
And what happens when embryonic stem cell research becomes widespread? There's a limited supply of those IVF embryos. Even with people making more of them in clinics, if ESC research really takes off, those sources alone won't be able to meet demand. What do you do then?
Either encourage abortions as sources, or grow them in factory conditions, a Pandora's Box with ethical implications that would make even Aldous Huxley shudder.
I hate to rip off a pop culture reference, but recall the first Matrix movie: "I've seen fields, Neo, vast fields, where humans aren't born. They're grown".
Think about it. If we have to resort to the factory approach, then we're literally creating human life for the sole purpose of harvesting it for destruction in huge labs. If that doesn't give your conscience pause, then nothing anyone says will either.
So both candidates say they will keep politics out of science, but what about religion?
Stem cell research for example is one of those field of research which is being blocked because of politics.. "well, because of religious groups, which uses politics as a tool to achieve their goals of blocking the research".
I wonder if each candidate is willing to tell the religious groups to grow up and let science be?, especially McCain's party
You're never going to get "religion" out of science, because science must always be governed by ethical concerns, and ethics in the west, especially the United States, is inherently tied to our religious values because our religion has influenced our ideas of ethics for thousands of years.
I realize Slashdot has a heavy Libertarian bent, with a large sympathetic atheist wing, but Slashdot is not representative of the public as a whole. Quite the opposite. So if you're hoping to let "science" work with no ethical boundaries (as most see them), then you're out of luck. Never gonna happen, at least not in this country.
"Alaska also does not face the same challenges as other states."
No, they face challenges all their own, most of which would make residents of the lower 48 run away crying.
Oh, and they're also the only state that basically borders Russia. I'd say that presents it's own unique challenges.
She said no thanks to Sen. Ted "Internet Tubes" Steven's 100 million dollar "bridge to nowhere",
Anchorage Daily News, 10/5/06: Palin Said She Supported The So-Called "Bridge To Nowhere," But Was Concerned Money "Flow" Was "Going to Slow"
Might want to revisit your history....
Nowhere in the story you link to is she quoting as saying that. The author was her budget director, and if you actually RTFA, he states that earmarks aren't a "free lunch" because of the consequences in involved, and in the following CNN article, she used the Bridge as an example of that. Sure, she'd have liked a nice, fat, free bridge, but the project would have stuck Alaska with 80 percent of the bill. So she supported killing it.
Here'a a real quote from her on the subject:
Gov. Sarah Palin said Friday the project was $329 million short of full funding.
"We will continue to look for options for Ketchikan to allow better access to the island," the Republican governor said. "The concentration is not going to be on a $400 million bridge."
Palin directed state transportation officials to find the most "fiscally responsible" alternative for access to the airport. She said the best option would be to upgrade the ferry system.
I'm sure many others think this, but I think his strategy is to gather the Hillary voters....It's a bad strategy if you ask me because he simply brought her on just to win the election...which is just stupid.
I think McCain is looking at possible Hillary crossovers as a possible fringe benefit, but this was not just an attempt to attract women. This was about giving Obama the proverbial kick in the nuts by robbing him of press attention the morning after his nomination. On a day when everyone should be talking about Obama, the press is focused on McCain's Veep pick, especially since he so effectively kept the pic secret. As late as 8 or so this morning, the talking heads were still saying Romney or Pawlenty. As far as the press goes, McCain hit a home run here, and any Hillary voters picked up is just icing on the cake. The fact that he's apparently shored up the conservative base makes this pick even better.
Before this pick, you had people voting against Obama. Now you've got people voting for McCain.
"Considering that McCain has almost no chance of winning this election"
Obama, at the height of the buzz about him, could never muster more than 5 or 6 points over McCain. They've been statically tied for months for the most part. McCain was up by two in the big national polls prior to the DNC Convention. Obama will get a bounce from that, but I'll be shocked if this pick and the RNC convention doesn't erase that bounce with one for McCain, and they'll be right back, neck and neck in the race.
The GOP might have gloomy prospects in Congress, but in the Presidency? In a year when the Democratic nominee should be cruising, he's having trouble separating from a 72 year old man that's been treated for Melanoma twice. That tells me that your guy is in no way a shoo-in.
"Because, when Democrats run women, it's based on a long history of, y'know, actually having supported women's issues."
What "women's" issues? You mean liberal issues. You're assuming that most women are liberal and agree with those issues. In 2004 though, married women voted Republican by 2 to 1. A wedding ring on a woman's finger was a huge indicator that she was voting for Bush. The most staunch pro-life people I know are women. There's a reason why most women aren't members of feminist groups like NOW. They don't identify with "feminism". Go look at photos of the big abortions marches in Washington DC. You'll see just as many women on the pro-life side as you do on the pro-choice side.
Here's a shocking fact for you... women are just like men in that they have different ideas and different factions, different hopes and different fears. There are issues that are of interest to most women, but very few of them are owned by any one party.
Stupid assumptions like this are one reason why Republicans have won 9 out of 14 Presidential elections since 1952.
"He just destroyed the "Obama doesn't have the experience to lead" meme. "
Oh? How? Who's going to say she's inexperienced? Barack Obama?
Just how does he attack her without the attack doing a boomerang right back on him? Her time has been spent as an executive. She's done budgets, personnel, and signed and vetoed legislation.
Obama has done, oh, none of that. This is why his campaign's statement about her being the mayor of a small rube town was so silly. It allows Palin to say "Well, by all means, lets hear of your impressive credentials as a community organizer".
The brilliance of this pick is that the Democrats can't harp on Palin's supposed Vice-Presidential inexperience without highlighting Barack Obama's Presidential inexpierience.