does he know what a homeobox gene is? the riemann hypothesis? punctuated equilibrium? cherenkov radiation?
probably none of that
and yet he shows incredieel devotion to science, out of simple policy and strategy, as a pure leader
fact: you don't need to know ANY science to be a leader of a country, and in fact, you can be a very pro-science leader and know very little. this man probably knows less science than bush, and bush pursues an actively anti-science agenda to court his fundamentalist base. how much science you know as a leader means ZERO
"hi, this is some random yahoo you don't know who is looking at your website. i have my own agenda about what needs to be 'fixed' on your website. whenever i go to your website it doesn't do x, and i want that done"
"oh, ok sir, we'll get right on that, give me a few hours"
when was that ever a valid scenario for you
i hope you're talking about fighting email spam or worms from rogue domains
or if automobiles are a threat to the locomotive industry
well, duh
if it's a better way to do things, that's progress. get over it and move on
for a site which regularly bashes music, television, and movie execs for not seeing progress in digital content and fighting it with stupid legal maneuvers, this certainly is a case of utter hypocrisy here on slashdot
oh, and btw, what i just said applies to outsourcing too: if some guy can do what you do in india for half your salary, well then suck it up, shut up, and move on. and i say that as someone who works in IT
i hate people with a sense of entitlement. no, you are not entitled to absolute security in your job, sorry, not yours. life changes. deal with it, retrain, move on, get a better job. most of those who in fact do complain are dead weight who can't adapt to begin with. whining about entitlement is all they have for them, not real computer science skill. it's a suckers game in the end
what happened is some people had some convictions, and canada saw that on their files, and wouldn't let them in the country
it doesn't have anything to do with bush or his policies, it doesn't have anything to do with "peace protestors"
but as you can see in posts below, the usual kneejerk idiots are inflating their sense of outrage over further proof of the machinations of the eviiiiil bush
look, bush is a moron, probably the worst president the usa ever had. but if this situation seriously inflames your passions about him, you are bigger moron than he is. what happened would happen under any administration, at any time
furthermore, in a little over a year, he will be gone from the white house. then who will you complain about? you think anything will change?
some of you really need to stop being such obvious propagandized partisan morons
because if you are not, your lack of understanding of what really matters in politics is profound. kind of like a politician declaring the earth to be flat
leadership has nothing to do with anything you think it does, and your test is about as applicable as a car driving test for a fishing boat captain
a good leader can go into a room, or on tv, or in front of a news reporter, and say something in such a way that the majority of people reading or hearing what he says find it compelling
it's an art form you apparently don't have an appreciation for. which is fine, but all that measn is you'll never be a leader, and you speak from a pov of ignorance on the issue of what leadership is, and so what you say doesn't mean anything
well, i'm not a very good football player. so if i sit here and say how stupid football is and how useless it is and how anyone could do it or how it doesn't matter, etc., will this negate the existence of football or the existence of people who are good at it?
that's what you do einstein, on the question of leadership
let's say bush knew ALL of the things you say he doesn't know. that would make him a good leader? so we send bush to military strategy schoo. suddenly he's going to come out of that and be a godo president? you believe that?
name one great president who passes your test:
"the president doesn't need to know any military strategy, doesn't need to know anything about those strange foreigners, doesn't need to know anything about finance, doesn't need to know anything about the law, doesn't need to know anything about diplomacy doesn't need to know anything about policy."
FDR, lincoln, washington... i'll bet any president you choose fails at least 2 to 3 of those assertions, and fails on the science questions too
because good true leadership isn't about omniscience, about knowing everything, it's about knowing people, and leading them, and delegating when you realize something is outside of your scope of knowledge
bush, indeed, doesn't know much, but it's poor leadership skills he fails on, not not knowing these things
as for you, you fail it on knowing anything about what it takes to be a good leader
i am certain bush would pass your basic knowledge of science test with flying colors
but bush isn't hampered by lack of knowledge, bush is hampered by pandering to special interests: the avowedly antiscience fundamentalist right
there are two kinds of failures then on the question of failing science in leadership: stupidity and evil. stupidity is breaking the cookie jar by accident. evil is breaking the cookie jar on purpose
in other words, ignorance of science isn't the problem with bush. an active disavowal of it is. bush is evil on the question of science, not stupid
which sheds some further light on your constant unwavering problem when it comes to leadership and science: you see in bush stupidity, when there is really active evil at work
the truth: knowledge of science just doesn't f***ing matter. a complete and utter science moron could have a better science policy than a scientifically proficient but anti-science leader
do you really think the saudi king has a sound scientific education? in the most fundamentalist country in the world?
again, it's not the KNOWLEDGE that matters, it's the intent
you simply do not fucking understand what leadership, asd a subject matter, means. it's like we're talking about physics, and you insist on talking about chemistry. you'rew not wrong on the subject so much as you don't understand that what you are saying simply doesn't apply
you talk about "reasonable, working knowledge of science". well what is that? know what a gene is? know what the homeobox gene is? know the relative prevalance of the homeobox gene across various species? what?
it's all arbirtrary, pointless, and unenforceable. your standards are meaningless, because they don't actually add anything to being a president, they don't ask valid questions
here's a vlaid question:
do i know enough about this subject matter to make this decision?
no?
ok, then i will delegate this question to a panel of university department heads
end of story. the 3 sentences above is a valid leadership scenario on the question of science
that's a good leader, to think those 3 sentences. and that is the only leadership quality that is needed on scientific, economic, geographic, legal, whatever issue: the ability to understand you don't know enough about a question, and a willingness to delegate when you recognize your limitations on questions involving academic minutiae
you're sitting there with your randomly determined need to know "x" amount of science
some economist is saying the same as you about economics
some law professor is saying the same as you about law
some sinologist or russian expert is saying the same thing about knowledge of china or russia
etc., etc.: the president is deficient in his knowledge of that, the president is deficient in his knowledge of this... zzz
none of you matter at all, because none of you are asking yourself the right questions: can this be delegated so i can focus on more important things?
in short, you're poor leadership material. because you don't even understand what leadership is about
it's not a game of "i am the all and powerful omniscient wizard of oz. i know all of string theory, punctuated equilibria, and the riemann hypothesis. therefor ei am good presidential material"
"but you don't know enough about real estate law in the state of connecticut!"
"oh yes, you are correct, i guess i wouldn't make a good president after all"
you don't know every detail of tcp/ip protocols at the phd level. therefore, i find you unsuitable for posting on slashdot...that's basically the same as what you just said about the presidency and science
that someone has to meet your random arbitrary and meaningless minimum requirements of scientific knowledge in order to lead a country
no, he just has to be a good leader
and being a good leader naturally includes delegating questions properly. questions involving legal minutaie, economic minutaie, policy minutaie, or scientific knowledge minutaie
oh look! the president doesn't know the names of the sultan of brunei's brother in laws! therefore he is unfit to lead!
that's the exact same sort of "standards" you wish to think matter
i'm saying that the president need not know any science
those are two different subject matters
the problem with bush is not that he doesn't know any science, but that he happily panders to his fundamentalist christian political base by advancing their agenda
that's a completely different subject matter than knowing science or not
which further illustrates my point: the average slashbot here doesn't know his ass from his elbow when it comes to understanding what politics is all about. it's a subset of a more general problem: a lack of social skills. which is what you get when you get too buried in the pursuit of science: you can't adequately describe science in such a compelling way to other people that politicians listen to you, respect you, and follow up with your concerns. you think you can spastically yell hysterical things and people are going to respec tyou, even if you do understand science better. yeah, you understand science. you just don't understand human beings. politicians do. get the difference?
you just expect the president to know everything you do and agree with your pov, simply because you're the king of the universe for knowing science. and if he doesn't, well then you have every right to spaz out hysterically. because that behavior, of course, will make science important in politics
it is ironic really. the scientifically inclined poopooing the president's lack of knowledge on science... thereby revealing their own profound ignorance about what government and politics is all about
there's a tendency amongst the politically ignorant that every problem in the world, every pot hole, heart attack, lost job, lost football game, barking dog, homeless drug addict, etc., is the fault of the guy at the very top: "the president should be deeply involved in what matters to me, me, me" pffft
1. as if he knows 2. as if he cares 3. as if he should care
the point of government and real leadership is to delegate responsibility: the local public works department of your local city are the people to go to, not the president of the united states
the exact same logic applies with science. the president doesn't need to know ANY science
in fact, if the president were really into science, i'd be worried: he has better things to spend his time with. he should delegate the scientific inquiries to subordinates and departments. with all of the problems in the world, you really want our president spending hours exercising his mind on the homeobox gene or the source of cosmic rays?
friction not between "native" citizens of a country and newcomers, but friction within the same ethnic group, against newcomers based on date of arrival
"once you get to a point where you have enough data, it only takes a few teams to design and test a drug. when one team is successful, it takes even fewer people to come up with a way to mass produce it."...then it requires a couple of hundred to configure and run that mass production plant...then there's the thousands to ship it, distribute it, fill the prescriptions, etc.
your mind is stuck in some sort of ivory tower where the only thing that happens in the world is academics
next survey: 110% of americans say the internet replaces their significant other
and i'm sure we can build a foot massaging internet enabled appliance or microwave-refrigerator internet protocol for the dinners if you really think you still need FOOD when you've got the INTERTUBES man!
not wanting to live on a park bench is what motivates people to higher education?
whats that now?
you seem to have a dim grasp on reality
you only need so many people to do higher level things. there are cab drivers in new york city with PhDs. they drive a cab because in their home country, there's no job for them at all
just because you have a degree, doesn't mean you're going to get a high paying job: there's only so many people actually needed to do high level things
Slashdot Mirror
this is a man from the most fundamentalist country in the world, putting his power and reputation on the line in the name of science
does he know what a homeobox gene is? the riemann hypothesis? punctuated equilibrium? cherenkov radiation?
probably none of that
and yet he shows incredieel devotion to science, out of simple policy and strategy, as a pure leader
fact: you don't need to know ANY science to be a leader of a country, and in fact, you can be a very pro-science leader and know very little. this man probably knows less science than bush, and bush pursues an actively anti-science agenda to court his fundamentalist base. how much science you know as a leader means ZERO
"hello?"
"hi, this is some random yahoo you don't know who is looking at your website. i have my own agenda about what needs to be 'fixed' on your website. whenever i go to your website it doesn't do x, and i want that done"
"oh, ok sir, we'll get right on that, give me a few hours"
when was that ever a valid scenario for you
i hope you're talking about fighting email spam or worms from rogue domains
here's a president before you who realizes everything you just say, believes and enforces the words you just wrote with strong conviction
oh shit! he doesn't know what a homeobox gene is! he can't be president!
get my point?
in fact, here's your leader... how wise on the ways of science do you think this fundamentalist is?
he's in the most fundamentalist country on earth, and yet he is more pro-science than bush!
the point is to delegate scientific knowledge, and embrace EXACTLY what you wrote above
you think what you wrote disproves my point. what you wrote IS my point
if television is a threat to radio
or if automobiles are a threat to the locomotive industry
well, duh
if it's a better way to do things, that's progress. get over it and move on
for a site which regularly bashes music, television, and movie execs for not seeing progress in digital content and fighting it with stupid legal maneuvers, this certainly is a case of utter hypocrisy here on slashdot
oh, and btw, what i just said applies to outsourcing too: if some guy can do what you do in india for half your salary, well then suck it up, shut up, and move on. and i say that as someone who works in IT
i hate people with a sense of entitlement. no, you are not entitled to absolute security in your job, sorry, not yours. life changes. deal with it, retrain, move on, get a better job. most of those who in fact do complain are dead weight who can't adapt to begin with. whining about entitlement is all they have for them, not real computer science skill. it's a suckers game in the end
you know, half-truths
what happened is some people had some convictions, and canada saw that on their files, and wouldn't let them in the country
it doesn't have anything to do with bush or his policies, it doesn't have anything to do with "peace protestors"
but as you can see in posts below, the usual kneejerk idiots are inflating their sense of outrage over further proof of the machinations of the eviiiiil bush
look, bush is a moron, probably the worst president the usa ever had. but if this situation seriously inflames your passions about him, you are bigger moron than he is. what happened would happen under any administration, at any time
furthermore, in a little over a year, he will be gone from the white house. then who will you complain about? you think anything will change?
some of you really need to stop being such obvious propagandized partisan morons
because if you are not, your lack of understanding of what really matters in politics is profound. kind of like a politician declaring the earth to be flat
leadership has nothing to do with anything you think it does, and your test is about as applicable as a car driving test for a fishing boat captain
a good leader can go into a room, or on tv, or in front of a news reporter, and say something in such a way that the majority of people reading or hearing what he says find it compelling
it's an art form you apparently don't have an appreciation for. which is fine, but all that measn is you'll never be a leader, and you speak from a pov of ignorance on the issue of what leadership is, and so what you say doesn't mean anything
well, i'm not a very good football player. so if i sit here and say how stupid football is and how useless it is and how anyone could do it or how it doesn't matter, etc., will this negate the existence of football or the existence of people who are good at it?
that's what you do einstein, on the question of leadership
a good leader knows his limits and delegates
let's say bush knew ALL of the things you say he doesn't know. that would make him a good leader? so we send bush to military strategy schoo. suddenly he's going to come out of that and be a godo president? you believe that?
name one great president who passes your test:
"the president doesn't need to know any military strategy,
doesn't need to know anything about those strange foreigners,
doesn't need to know anything about finance,
doesn't need to know anything about the law,
doesn't need to know anything about diplomacy
doesn't need to know anything about policy."
FDR, lincoln, washington... i'll bet any president you choose fails at least 2 to 3 of those assertions, and fails on the science questions too
because good true leadership isn't about omniscience, about knowing everything, it's about knowing people, and leading them, and delegating when you realize something is outside of your scope of knowledge
bush, indeed, doesn't know much, but it's poor leadership skills he fails on, not not knowing these things
as for you, you fail it on knowing anything about what it takes to be a good leader
i am certain bush would pass your basic knowledge of science test with flying colors
but bush isn't hampered by lack of knowledge, bush is hampered by pandering to special interests: the avowedly antiscience fundamentalist right
there are two kinds of failures then on the question of failing science in leadership: stupidity and evil. stupidity is breaking the cookie jar by accident. evil is breaking the cookie jar on purpose
in other words, ignorance of science isn't the problem with bush. an active disavowal of it is. bush is evil on the question of science, not stupid
which sheds some further light on your constant unwavering problem when it comes to leadership and science: you see in bush stupidity, when there is really active evil at work
the truth: knowledge of science just doesn't f***ing matter. a complete and utter science moron could have a better science policy than a scientifically proficient but anti-science leader
in fact, here is such a case
do you really think the saudi king has a sound scientific education? in the most fundamentalist country in the world?
again, it's not the KNOWLEDGE that matters, it's the intent
you simply do not fucking understand what leadership, asd a subject matter, means. it's like we're talking about physics, and you insist on talking about chemistry. you'rew not wrong on the subject so much as you don't understand that what you are saying simply doesn't apply
you don't understand human nature
you talk about "reasonable, working knowledge of science". well what is that? know what a gene is? know what the homeobox gene is? know the relative prevalance of the homeobox gene across various species? what?
it's all arbirtrary, pointless, and unenforceable. your standards are meaningless, because they don't actually add anything to being a president, they don't ask valid questions
here's a vlaid question:
do i know enough about this subject matter to make this decision?
no?
ok, then i will delegate this question to a panel of university department heads
end of story. the 3 sentences above is a valid leadership scenario on the question of science
that's a good leader, to think those 3 sentences. and that is the only leadership quality that is needed on scientific, economic, geographic, legal, whatever issue: the ability to understand you don't know enough about a question, and a willingness to delegate when you recognize your limitations on questions involving academic minutiae
you're sitting there with your randomly determined need to know "x" amount of science
some economist is saying the same as you about economics
some law professor is saying the same as you about law
some sinologist or russian expert is saying the same thing about knowledge of china or russia
etc., etc.: the president is deficient in his knowledge of that, the president is deficient in his knowledge of this... zzz
none of you matter at all, because none of you are asking yourself the right questions: can this be delegated so i can focus on more important things?
in short, you're poor leadership material. because you don't even understand what leadership is about
it's not a game of "i am the all and powerful omniscient wizard of oz. i know all of string theory, punctuated equilibria, and the riemann hypothesis. therefor ei am good presidential material"
"but you don't know enough about real estate law in the state of connecticut!"
"oh yes, you are correct, i guess i wouldn't make a good president after all"
pffffffffffffft
leadership!=omniscience
you think it does
you lose
you don't know every detail of tcp/ip protocols at the phd level. therefore, i find you unsuitable for posting on slashdot ...that's basically the same as what you just said about the presidency and science
that someone has to meet your random arbitrary and meaningless minimum requirements of scientific knowledge in order to lead a country
no, he just has to be a good leader
and being a good leader naturally includes delegating questions properly. questions involving legal minutaie, economic minutaie, policy minutaie, or scientific knowledge minutaie
oh look! the president doesn't know the names of the sultan of brunei's brother in laws! therefore he is unfit to lead!
that's the exact same sort of "standards" you wish to think matter
and they used their power to evil ends
and what the hell does that have to do with the importance of knowing science as a leader again?
and some woman found a finger in her chili at wendy's
wendy's, their such cheap aholes
oh wait
hey, let's all here at slashdot pile on the bash best buy bandwagon
mob justice is always flawless
you think i'm defending bush. i'm not
i'm saying that the president need not know any science
those are two different subject matters
the problem with bush is not that he doesn't know any science, but that he happily panders to his fundamentalist christian political base by advancing their agenda
that's a completely different subject matter than knowing science or not
which further illustrates my point: the average slashbot here doesn't know his ass from his elbow when it comes to understanding what politics is all about. it's a subset of a more general problem: a lack of social skills. which is what you get when you get too buried in the pursuit of science: you can't adequately describe science in such a compelling way to other people that politicians listen to you, respect you, and follow up with your concerns. you think you can spastically yell hysterical things and people are going to respec tyou, even if you do understand science better. yeah, you understand science. you just don't understand human beings. politicians do. get the difference?
you just expect the president to know everything you do and agree with your pov, simply because you're the king of the universe for knowing science. and if he doesn't, well then you have every right to spaz out hysterically. because that behavior, of course, will make science important in politics
pfffffft
for example, you don't have any. you can't make your points without sounding spastic and hysterical
it is ironic really. the scientifically inclined poopooing the president's lack of knowledge on science... thereby revealing their own profound ignorance about what government and politics is all about
there's a tendency amongst the politically ignorant that every problem in the world, every pot hole, heart attack, lost job, lost football game, barking dog, homeless drug addict, etc., is the fault of the guy at the very top: "the president should be deeply involved in what matters to me, me, me" pffft
1. as if he knows
2. as if he cares
3. as if he should care
the point of government and real leadership is to delegate responsibility: the local public works department of your local city are the people to go to, not the president of the united states
the exact same logic applies with science. the president doesn't need to know ANY science
in fact, if the president were really into science, i'd be worried: he has better things to spend his time with. he should delegate the scientific inquiries to subordinates and departments. with all of the problems in the world, you really want our president spending hours exercising his mind on the homeobox gene or the source of cosmic rays?
i for one don't
seriously, this debate is a really stupid idea
why are they still coming oh great swami?
a better deal is a better deal is a better deal
you seem to think the squalor and the sweat shops and the child labor of the late 1800s was a nirvana of fair immigration
in short, as i've already said, you suffer form historical myopia: you believe something is changing that isn't changing at all
because, you're a retard: you loudly talk about a subject matter your ignorance of shows mightily
that's what i got, asshole
Ok, ill try harder. what happened then is also happening now. happy retard?
riiiight. i lvoe your summation of now versus then
all the previous immigrants who came here did glorious high paying jobs with their dignity intact
that's how you see history huh?
you're a genius
i mean that in the most sarcastic way possible
that you agree with my original point?
friction not between "native" citizens of a country and newcomers, but friction within the same ethnic group, against newcomers based on date of arrival
good luck selling that pov, friend
"once you get to a point where you have enough data, it only takes a few teams to design and test a drug. when one team is successful, it takes even fewer people to come up with a way to mass produce it." ...then it requires a couple of hundred to configure and run that mass production plant ...then there's the thousands to ship it, distribute it, fill the prescriptions, etc.
your mind is stuck in some sort of ivory tower where the only thing that happens in the world is academics
+0.5 Somewhat Useful Kvetching
TELEDILDONICS
next survey: 110% of americans say the internet replaces their significant other
and i'm sure we can build a foot massaging internet enabled appliance or microwave-refrigerator internet protocol for the dinners if you really think you still need FOOD when you've got the INTERTUBES man!
people who drive trains live on park benches?
huh?
not wanting to live on a park bench is what motivates people to higher education?
whats that now?
you seem to have a dim grasp on reality
you only need so many people to do higher level things. there are cab drivers in new york city with PhDs. they drive a cab because in their home country, there's no job for them at all
just because you have a degree, doesn't mean you're going to get a high paying job: there's only so many people actually needed to do high level things
you understand that, right?