If somebody put out a faked photo "proving" Bush was AWOL, how many of you would cheer?
I guess the republicans would have cheered since they would finally get proof that the democrats are as dirty as they are.
Since you bring up Bush's AWOL, compare how Clinton was treated because he used the chance he had to not get sent to Vietnam. Compare that with how Bush is treated for using daddy to get out safe of the war he supported, then taking an AWOL and getting paid for it.
What I remember is that the republicans are accused of having policies that are made to protect the rich while being harsh on the weakest in the soceity. That the average democrate are richer seems to show that they have more sense of handling their own economy while still having moral clarity on how the government policies have to be shaped to also protect the poor. This possible interpretation fits well with the record of Bush and Clinton on taxes, economy and employment.
An interesting piece about politicians grades in the New York Times, gives a rare acknowledgement to Dan Quayle since Dan actually had a C+ average while Bush only managed a straight C. But the one everyone forgets about is Cheney who flunked out of Yale twice. I wonder if Cheney manages to spell potatoe.
Well, a Canadian official called Bush a moron, and a German justice minister likend Bush's political methods to those of Adolf Hitler... I can see how they'd make that mistake!;-)
But both these politicians were fired because they did not know where the line is for what heads of governments can say in public, even if it is just a joke or clumsy choice of words made at a small event. If this administration has some decency they should fire that Education Secretary who thinks it is OK to compare the people he works for to al-quada and other murders.
GW Bush was the head of the CIA for a while, but he was rich before that.
George W. Bush has never been head of the CIA (thank God). You are thinking of the father of the present joke in the White House, George H.W. Bush who was appointed head of the CIA in 1976.
First of all Newton was not proven wrong by quantum mechanics and the general relativity, in a way Newton's law has been put on a more secure footing by being supported by these two breakthroughs of modern physics. Sure, modern physics understands that Newton's laws don't apply for high velocities (close to the speed of light, c) and very small systems (when Planck's constant h becomes a siginificant number). But both quantum mechanics and general relativity gives you Newton's equations when c = infinity and h=0, which means that for most situations Newton's laws are "exact". Even to simulate molecules and galaxies Newton's equations are "exact enough".
Second, chaos is a general property of any differential equation which is complex enough. So, chaos can appear in classical mechanical systems and are not related to quantum effects or relativity (even though chaos phenomen also appear in these).
Ether was discharged as a hyphotesis by Einstein and others since something that could not be experimentally observed or was not needed theoretically to explain the observations, is per definition an empty concept. If dark matter can explain experimental observation or makes a nice theoretical framework for what is observed, then one should not discharge it even though it is still a bit an empty concept (which is why it is called "dark matter" I guess, can't be seen, don't know what it is). The judge is still out if dark matter will help us in understanding the universe, but it is better to start by building on the fundament of previous physics, instead of throughing out Newton's laws that have passed the test of three hundred years of observations.
Remember - The U.N. does not answer to any voter in the world. Instead, the U.N. answers to... politicians!
No, the UN answers to the news media around the world and the opinions of them in the many different countries where they have operations going on. Do you think that Kofi Annan would be safe in his chair or any other UN officials if the Wall Street Journal had actual proof of corruption in Iraq or any other place? If Wall Street Journal has found something (more than vague allegation) then the world wants to see it.
I'm known for my rather critical attitude towards the US but if there was a general opinion that MS was buying favour with US politicians then I think it will be a lot worse in the international sphere as the price of a third world ignoramus sitting in some UN committe panel is certainly not higher than that of a corrupt US politician.
How would a "third world ignoramus" end up on a UN committe? Does Kofi Annan fit your view of third world people in the UN system? The FUD about the UN is staggering.
Is the UN really much of a controlling body anymore. The more time goes on the more it is shown to be ineffective. Does anyone really listen to them anymore?
If the UN is so irrelevant and ineffective, why is the Bush administration begging the UN to clean up the election mess of the administration in Iraq? It is not like it is much at stake for them, just the re-election chances of chimp.
UN is doing a lot of good, but boring work all over the world. Things like bring in food where there is shortage, educating about AIDS, or having conferences where they try to discuss and resolve issues before they become big problems. They are also engaged in hot spots where the UN staff are risking their life everyday (Iraq is the biggest mass murder of UN staff, but each year all over the world UN staff are killed while on duty). This, even though they don't carry arms and try to be neutral. Iraq is a good example of the UN staffs dangers, where they are seen as US lackeys by parts of the Iraq population, while they are despised by the neo-cons and actively undermined by the current US administration. Fought by both sides that they try to help.
My wife worked for the U.N. in Africa for 5 years and saw first hand the corruption.
Corruption is a huge problem all over Africa. It is a common phenomena in under-developed nations were business laws are weak. It is even found on a large scale in some very developed countries (France and Italy are good examples, while USA has its fair share). Corruption comes in many disguises, from money under the table, to advanced lawyer set up money schemes.
Now, what did your "wife" see? And this corruption she saw, was it UN staff taking money illegally? If she has some good example or even proofs of this, I am sure many neo-cons wants to hear about it. The UN is one of the more scrutinized organizations in the world and any proof of misconduct will be used against it.
You sound like a true astro-turfer to me and I doubt you or your family have worked inside the UN. Remember that the U.N.s Oil for Food program was set up by the USA after the first Gulf war and the UN did the best it could with the rules for the program set down. And it seems to have worked pretty well in the way that Saddam was not able to get new or maintain his old WMD. It was so successful that Saddam spend all his energy trying to undermind the program. Now, show some proof instead of neo-con hate speech that the Oil for food program was a UN and France conspiracy. And please, add some more substance to your FUD about UN in Africa. I am sure your "wife" can give some concrete examples.
Fine. I congratulate the German people on living under a democracy, and I do not seek to minimize the effort that must have taken, emerging from dictatorship, ruin, and division in 1945. (And to some extent I must also claim credit for my country and, specifically, the Marshall Fund and the US policies toward the BRD after the war.)
This is the efforts of the previous German and USA generation, and is of no credit to our generation. Just as it is unfair to blame the young Germans for what they grandfather did or did not do (many Germans fought Hitler), it is a bit fresh to take credit for the Marshal plan of our grandfather generation. I am proud that my grandfather fought in the war, but that is no proof that I would pass the test if I would end up in the hell war is (it can be an inspiration, but not an excuse for not taking responsibility in my own life). The concept of past greatness as proof of present superiority is what the nazis did to keep control of the German nation if you don't mind me reminding you.
Each generation have to be vigilant and protect democracy, liberty, and the other things we value for the next generation (our children). The mistake of Germany in the 1930's was to think that a country like theirs, a great and proud nation of Europe would always be at the hart of civilization. The shock for the world and most Germans was to discover after the war that Hitler had turned the cultural nation Germany into a barbaric slaughter house (remember, few in the west knew about the concentration camps in the early years of the war, and the presence of these camps was denied or kept secret until the war was over).
It is disingenuous to blame the parent post for emphasizing the need to protect democracy first and then to claim that Germans have not learned their lesson. First of all, it is our lesson, the whole God damn western world. It would be pure racism to suggest that the Germans are a murderous "race" (what does this word "race" really mean anyway) while the rest of the west (or at least the holly allies) has democracy in their genes.
Second, Hitler never won an election (the Nazis got at their peak below 30 % of the votes). Hitler did not believe in democracy, he just manipulated the process (and the voters insecurity) to get a foot hole and then he did a coup d'etat. This is why in Germany they have had difficult debates for the last decades what how to deal with parties that has at their core to get rid of democracy (is it democratic to ban anti-democratic parties?) and balance between free-speech and nazi propaganda (is it hate speech, speech having as a direct consequence violence and death?). It is similar to US discussion about how much protection the president should have compared to the right of protesters to be heard (the so-called free speech areas). Or if it helps the democratic process when democrats and republicans redraw districts to make elections a formality. Democracy is a process which has to constantly change to meet the constantly changing challenges that any nation have to deal with.
I'm not saying the current German government will abuse its iris-scanning. It probably will not. But how sure can you be -- especially in the face of German history -- that every future German government will resist the temptation to use these records in abusive ways? That's the lesson Germany needs to have learned from the Nazi era.
No, the lessons is ours to learn. And the current USA generation, since the USA is the leader of the free world with its huge military advantage, probably has the largest responsibility to learn this (responsability is tough, live with it). Remember that the iris scan tests in Germany -- whatever its merits -- follows directly
I cannot see any excuse from Intel to wait a whole year to get out a drivers for linux.
It might be a small marked, centrino together with linux, but they are pissing off a lot of people unnecessary. Many of these people have influence in companies buying computer hardware, not only laptops but servers and workstations. Good way to make the bias towards AMD stronger.
My job gave me a dell laptop where I am not using the wireless at the moment (I don't dual boot). I am reminded everyday why the next server will be opteron since I am in charge of buying the new one.
3) The unemployment rate today is LESS than the average throughout the 1990s (ya know, when Clinton was there)
Not true. Interestingly enough, under Bush the percent working for the government has increased from 15.8 - 16.5 %. Bush is definitley a big government kind of guy.
4) Every economist is saying the economy is improving.
Why don't you just meantion one instead of this "every economist" that no one has heard about.
5) The tax cuts you are complaining about contributed to all of this. This is not a "fluke" by any stretch.
The tax cuts has lead to a huge deficit, which is basicly a huge tax increase on everyone, rich and poor. Of course, the rich are lucky, and have got most of the tax cuts to compensate for this unfortunate tax increase on the nation. Bush the tax increase.
Reagan's supply-side economics proved that huge growth can occur by cutting taxes.
Regean had to reverse his tax cuts. Bush senior had to increase taxes more (read his lips). Clinton increased them even more, and the boom came.
Bush is using the SAME policy, and we will see SIMILAR results in 5-8 years just as we did under Reagan
... when we have a fisical responsible democrate in the White house. Thank God for the republicans with their booms 8 years after leaving office, a boom they gave us even "no president has direct influence on the economy".
There is room for debate. In fact, debate is healthy and should occur.
The question we are disussing here is if this administration (or any other government for that matter) is making room for and encouraging a healthy debate. The 20 Noble prize winners claim that the Bush adminstration is not doing that, and worse even consciencely trying to put a stop to healthy debates on some topics, which is very disturbing.
If you believe exactly what they say, then you are just as dogmatic as you are accusing the Bush adminstration being.
It is more rational to believe scientist with expertise on a subject than lobby groups, either from the left or right, what ever the subject. A belief in science is much less dogmatic than a belief in a political movement or a religion, which is true just from the meaning of the word dogmatic.
I thought they are supposed to be free to do research that challeges the accepted scientific view, not just goes along with it.
Most people who have gotten a Noble prize gets it because they have challenges, and more importantely, changed the accepted scientific view in their field.
Politicians appointing committee members that share their views is as old as politics itself.
That does not make it better. And it seems like the current adminstration is much more eager in this than has been seen for a long time in the USA.
Anyone who thinks that these scientists are free of political or ideology concerns is living in a dream world.
Ultimately, the judges of science is scientists themselves. Peer review is the key. Anyone who think that you can become a recognized scientist just through connections and not through hard work and hard won respect for your published work, must had little contact with the academia. The problem is that the current administration don't put recognized scientist on scientific panels and committees, but industrial lobbiest and people from outside the peer review system of science.
I simply listed a few specific cases that I knew about and if you read the post you'll notice that I ask if there are others that I'm missing.
Many scientist have agendas, things they want to be true, even groups of scientist can have common agendas. But when you are looking for specific cases that fits with what you believe and neglecting all the other evidence, you are no longer doing science. The reason science works, is mostly because of peer review, where such bias is the first thing noticed by experts in the field.
You are right, science has been wrong in the past. Many of the things that are accepted as scientifically sound believes today will be proven wrong in the future. But this does not subtract from what scientist have achived through their method. But if you neglect to listen to all science that does not fit your believes but claim science as your fundament when it fits your world view, then you are doing yourself a disfavor.
Obviously this is BS.
When you start saying that too often, science is not your thing. Many obvious things are not true.
So called "Conclusive" proof such as Lucy, the Piltdown Man and others have been thouroughly repudiated, are there others that I'm missing?
So, this conclusive proof has been thouroughly repudiated by science? The same science that has as the best working hypothesis the theory of evolution? Am I reading it correct if you say that current science is right in thouroughly repudiated something you don't want to believe in, and therefor we should not believe in current science?
If you want to discuss a whole body of science like the theory of evolution (with its links in biology, chemistry, physics, geology etc etc), by trying to disprove it by specific examples taken out of context from that science, you are doing yourself and the debate no favor.
Having said this, I don't think it's wrong, and I agree wholeheartedly with their conclusions, but I find it silly that they refuse to accept it's a political statement.
As far as I understand it, the scientists are actually protesting against being pulled into the political prosess like this. The scientists reacts against becoming a tool in the political power game. They want to be able to do science that is independent of who-ever is president at any moment -- which is a basic right in any free country -- also the USA. The political statement is that they want politics out of their daily work.
Scientist are protesting what seems to be important to this administration is not that good science is done, but that the right conclusions are reported and "reached" from "science". Conclusions that happen to support current policies. This is an unacceptable interference by politicians into scientific institutions and work.
Science has earned its good name by being extremeely self critical and showing again and again to the public that their predictions are worth listening too. If scientists are caught making blunders or publishing deliberate misleading results, they will be punished by peers in the field, loss of private and government funding, and by the public perception (their source of future students) about that university or that scientific group. Of course, government plays it role in this process through funding (and by controlling nominations to "scientific panels").
It has of course been tempting for politicans for the last hundreds of years in different countries and settings to use the credibility scientist have build up to force through policies that current accepted scientific theories does not support. But it is a very dangerous path to go down, even if the administration strongly believe they know what is best (and even can be right in some cases).
What the Noble laurates have signed, is not about any particular policies, but the general freedom from political pressure to publish and present what is the current accepted scientific view. Then the politicians can defend or form their policies without pretending that the current scientific views in fact are something else.
To mention a (controversial) example, the current accepted scientific view is that global warming is real. Then we can start to discuss if Kyoto is a good idea or not. Or we can even discuss if sciencists in general are actually worth listening to (we should maybe trust the Bible instead), but that is different to claiming that the current accepted scientific view is something else.
And yes, you are right, the current scientific view about any subject can change in the future. And there are alway scientist that challenge the current view. But that is what science is all about, and this is how science evolves.
Part of this is the media, who seem to think that success in a given field means that somehow that equates into expertise in everything else - otherwise why would people even LISTEN to the political pronouncements of hollywood stars?
Well, here it is scientist with success in science (if you have a Noble prize, what more can you ask for proof) having opinions about science. I can not see why the media should be blamed for listening to this, even though their conclusions have political implications unpopular to the current ruler.
Some of the most blindingly leftist people I know are otherwise quite bright, but have some sort of personal insecurity or issue that defines their politics.
The left/right scale is a bit limited when discussing politics and policies, but there is no necessity to have personal insecurity to be a leftist as you call them. Or maybe this is your defence mechanism when confronted with views that challenge your world view; it is something wrong with them so I won't listen to their arguments.
On the other hand I'm not sure that UN has the position or moral authority free software want's to be associate with.
This isn't about moral authority, this about the UN giving an opportunity for world governments to meet and discuss something that has large implication in the fight against "the digital divide" and development all over the world. Who cares about moral authority, if governments from Asia and Africa and Europe come home educated about free software, what is the problem again?
Dodgy people who are mainly intrested in driving their agenda are involved in the UN.
Yes, they are called politicians. But even though there are many bad examples of politicians, that is no excuse for the US delegation of politicians to ruin a good initative taken by the UN politicians. Your argument doesn't make sense.
Actually, it is the current US government that has been shown to be a farce in the Iraq war, with their exagerated claims, and as a final humiliation, ending up begging the UN to clean up their mess in Iraq afterwards.
I could not find it easily on the freedesktop.org page; so what is the license of freedesktop.org? Is it GPL or BSD or the old XFree license or something else?
, and they don't have the manpower to get the thing flying."
But you forget that they have the support contract from SuSE and IBM. These two companies knows the high profile of Munich and I am confident they won't let it slip. Even if the Munich IT people are not the top of the crop, they can call IBM and SuSE when things get tricky, two reliable computer companies that I would have much more confidence in when making a support call than MS any day.
Slashdot Mirror
But some politicians are bigger liers than other. And republicans seems to have a big lead at the moment.
I guess the republicans would have cheered since they would finally get proof that the democrats are as dirty as they are.
Since you bring up Bush's AWOL, compare how Clinton was treated because he used the chance he had to not get sent to Vietnam. Compare that with how Bush is treated for using daddy to get out safe of the war he supported, then taking an AWOL and getting paid for it.
What I remember is that the republicans are accused of having policies that are made to protect the rich while being harsh on the weakest in the soceity. That the average democrate are richer seems to show that they have more sense of handling their own economy while still having moral clarity on how the government policies have to be shaped to also protect the poor. This possible interpretation fits well with the record of Bush and Clinton on taxes, economy and employment.
An interesting piece about politicians grades in the New York Times, gives a rare acknowledgement to Dan Quayle since Dan actually had a C+ average while Bush only managed a straight C. But the one everyone forgets about is Cheney who flunked out of Yale twice. I wonder if Cheney manages to spell potatoe.
But both these politicians were fired because they did not know where the line is for what heads of governments can say in public, even if it is just a joke or clumsy choice of words made at a small event. If this administration has some decency they should fire that Education Secretary who thinks it is OK to compare the people he works for to al-quada and other murders.
George W. Bush has never been head of the CIA (thank God). You are thinking of the father of the present joke in the White House, George H.W. Bush who was appointed head of the CIA in 1976.
Or maybe it was one of those Freudian slips where you speak more truth than you want to.
First of all Newton was not proven wrong by quantum mechanics and the general relativity, in a way Newton's law has been put on a more secure footing by being supported by these two breakthroughs of modern physics. Sure, modern physics understands that Newton's laws don't apply for high velocities (close to the speed of light, c) and very small systems (when Planck's constant h becomes a siginificant number). But both quantum mechanics and general relativity gives you Newton's equations when c = infinity and h=0, which means that for most situations Newton's laws are "exact". Even to simulate molecules and galaxies Newton's equations are "exact enough".
Second, chaos is a general property of any differential equation which is complex enough. So, chaos can appear in classical mechanical systems and are not related to quantum effects or relativity (even though chaos phenomen also appear in these).
Ether was discharged as a hyphotesis by Einstein and others since something that could not be experimentally observed or was not needed theoretically to explain the observations, is per definition an empty concept. If dark matter can explain experimental observation or makes a nice theoretical framework for what is observed, then one should not discharge it even though it is still a bit an empty concept (which is why it is called "dark matter" I guess, can't be seen, don't know what it is). The judge is still out if dark matter will help us in understanding the universe, but it is better to start by building on the fundament of previous physics, instead of throughing out Newton's laws that have passed the test of three hundred years of observations.
No, the UN answers to the news media around the world and the opinions of them in the many different countries where they have operations going on. Do you think that Kofi Annan would be safe in his chair or any other UN officials if the Wall Street Journal had actual proof of corruption in Iraq or any other place? If Wall Street Journal has found something (more than vague allegation) then the world wants to see it.
How would a "third world ignoramus" end up on a UN committe? Does Kofi Annan fit your view of third world people in the UN system? The FUD about the UN is staggering.
If the UN is so irrelevant and ineffective, why is the Bush administration begging the UN to clean up the election mess of the administration in Iraq? It is not like it is much at stake for them, just the re-election chances of chimp.
Corruption is a huge problem all over Africa. It is a common phenomena in under-developed nations were business laws are weak. It is even found on a large scale in some very developed countries (France and Italy are good examples, while USA has its fair share). Corruption comes in many disguises, from money under the table, to advanced lawyer set up money schemes.
Now, what did your "wife" see? And this corruption she saw, was it UN staff taking money illegally? If she has some good example or even proofs of this, I am sure many neo-cons wants to hear about it. The UN is one of the more scrutinized organizations in the world and any proof of misconduct will be used against it.
You sound like a true astro-turfer to me and I doubt you or your family have worked inside the UN. Remember that the U.N.s Oil for Food program was set up by the USA after the first Gulf war and the UN did the best it could with the rules for the program set down. And it seems to have worked pretty well in the way that Saddam was not able to get new or maintain his old WMD. It was so successful that Saddam spend all his energy trying to undermind the program. Now, show some proof instead of neo-con hate speech that the Oil for food program was a UN and France conspiracy. And please, add some more substance to your FUD about UN in Africa. I am sure your "wife" can give some concrete examples.
This is the efforts of the previous German and USA generation, and is of no credit to our generation. Just as it is unfair to blame the young Germans for what they grandfather did or did not do (many Germans fought Hitler), it is a bit fresh to take credit for the Marshal plan of our grandfather generation. I am proud that my grandfather fought in the war, but that is no proof that I would pass the test if I would end up in the hell war is (it can be an inspiration, but not an excuse for not taking responsibility in my own life). The concept of past greatness as proof of present superiority is what the nazis did to keep control of the German nation if you don't mind me reminding you.
Each generation have to be vigilant and protect democracy, liberty, and the other things we value for the next generation (our children). The mistake of Germany in the 1930's was to think that a country like theirs, a great and proud nation of Europe would always be at the hart of civilization. The shock for the world and most Germans was to discover after the war that Hitler had turned the cultural nation Germany into a barbaric slaughter house (remember, few in the west knew about the concentration camps in the early years of the war, and the presence of these camps was denied or kept secret until the war was over).
It is disingenuous to blame the parent post for emphasizing the need to protect democracy first and then to claim that Germans have not learned their lesson. First of all, it is our lesson, the whole God damn western world. It would be pure racism to suggest that the Germans are a murderous "race" (what does this word "race" really mean anyway) while the rest of the west (or at least the holly allies) has democracy in their genes.
Second, Hitler never won an election (the Nazis got at their peak below 30 % of the votes). Hitler did not believe in democracy, he just manipulated the process (and the voters insecurity) to get a foot hole and then he did a coup d'etat. This is why in Germany they have had difficult debates for the last decades what how to deal with parties that has at their core to get rid of democracy (is it democratic to ban anti-democratic parties?) and balance between free-speech and nazi propaganda (is it hate speech, speech having as a direct consequence violence and death?). It is similar to US discussion about how much protection the president should have compared to the right of protesters to be heard (the so-called free speech areas). Or if it helps the democratic process when democrats and republicans redraw districts to make elections a formality. Democracy is a process which has to constantly change to meet the constantly changing challenges that any nation have to deal with.
No, the lessons is ours to learn. And the current USA generation, since the USA is the leader of the free world with its huge military advantage, probably has the largest responsibility to learn this (responsability is tough, live with it). Remember that the iris scan tests in Germany -- whatever its merits -- follows directly
It might be a small marked, centrino together with linux, but they are pissing off a lot of people unnecessary. Many of these people have influence in companies buying computer hardware, not only laptops but servers and workstations. Good way to make the bias towards AMD stronger.
My job gave me a dell laptop where I am not using the wireless at the moment (I don't dual boot). I am reminded everyday why the next server will be opteron since I am in charge of buying the new one.
So don't vote...
DJIA
Not true. Interestingly enough, under Bush the percent working for the government has increased from 15.8 - 16.5 %. Bush is definitley a big government kind of guy.
Why don't you just meantion one instead of this "every economist" that no one has heard about.
The tax cuts has lead to a huge deficit, which is basicly a huge tax increase on everyone, rich and poor. Of course, the rich are lucky, and have got most of the tax cuts to compensate for this unfortunate tax increase on the nation. Bush the tax increase.
Regean had to reverse his tax cuts. Bush senior had to increase taxes more (read his lips). Clinton increased them even more, and the boom came.
... when we have a fisical responsible democrate in the White house. Thank God for the republicans with their booms 8 years after leaving office, a boom they gave us even "no president has direct influence on the economy".
The question we are disussing here is if this administration (or any other government for that matter) is making room for and encouraging a healthy debate. The 20 Noble prize winners claim that the Bush adminstration is not doing that, and worse even consciencely trying to put a stop to healthy debates on some topics, which is very disturbing.
It is more rational to believe scientist with expertise on a subject than lobby groups, either from the left or right, what ever the subject. A belief in science is much less dogmatic than a belief in a political movement or a religion, which is true just from the meaning of the word dogmatic.
Most people who have gotten a Noble prize gets it because they have challenges, and more importantely, changed the accepted scientific view in their field.
That does not make it better. And it seems like the current adminstration is much more eager in this than has been seen for a long time in the USA.
Ultimately, the judges of science is scientists themselves. Peer review is the key. Anyone who think that you can become a recognized scientist just through connections and not through hard work and hard won respect for your published work, must had little contact with the academia. The problem is that the current administration don't put recognized scientist on scientific panels and committees, but industrial lobbiest and people from outside the peer review system of science.
Many scientist have agendas, things they want to be true, even groups of scientist can have common agendas. But when you are looking for specific cases that fits with what you believe and neglecting all the other evidence, you are no longer doing science. The reason science works, is mostly because of peer review, where such bias is the first thing noticed by experts in the field.
You are right, science has been wrong in the past. Many of the things that are accepted as scientifically sound believes today will be proven wrong in the future. But this does not subtract from what scientist have achived through their method. But if you neglect to listen to all science that does not fit your believes but claim science as your fundament when it fits your world view, then you are doing yourself a disfavor.
When you start saying that too often, science is not your thing. Many obvious things are not true.
So, this conclusive proof has been thouroughly repudiated by science? The same science that has as the best working hypothesis the theory of evolution? Am I reading it correct if you say that current science is right in thouroughly repudiated something you don't want to believe in, and therefor we should not believe in current science?
If you want to discuss a whole body of science like the theory of evolution (with its links in biology, chemistry, physics, geology etc etc), by trying to disprove it by specific examples taken out of context from that science, you are doing yourself and the debate no favor.
As far as I understand it, the scientists are actually protesting against being pulled into the political prosess like this. The scientists reacts against becoming a tool in the political power game. They want to be able to do science that is independent of who-ever is president at any moment -- which is a basic right in any free country -- also the USA. The political statement is that they want politics out of their daily work.
Scientist are protesting what seems to be important to this administration is not that good science is done, but that the right conclusions are reported and "reached" from "science". Conclusions that happen to support current policies. This is an unacceptable interference by politicians into scientific institutions and work.
Science has earned its good name by being extremeely self critical and showing again and again to the public that their predictions are worth listening too. If scientists are caught making blunders or publishing deliberate misleading results, they will be punished by peers in the field, loss of private and government funding, and by the public perception (their source of future students) about that university or that scientific group. Of course, government plays it role in this process through funding (and by controlling nominations to "scientific panels").
It has of course been tempting for politicans for the last hundreds of years in different countries and settings to use the credibility scientist have build up to force through policies that current accepted scientific theories does not support. But it is a very dangerous path to go down, even if the administration strongly believe they know what is best (and even can be right in some cases).
What the Noble laurates have signed, is not about any particular policies, but the general freedom from political pressure to publish and present what is the current accepted scientific view. Then the politicians can defend or form their policies without pretending that the current scientific views in fact are something else.
To mention a (controversial) example, the current accepted scientific view is that global warming is real. Then we can start to discuss if Kyoto is a good idea or not. Or we can even discuss if sciencists in general are actually worth listening to (we should maybe trust the Bible instead), but that is different to claiming that the current accepted scientific view is something else.
And yes, you are right, the current scientific view about any subject can change in the future. And there are alway scientist that challenge the current view. But that is what science is all about, and this is how science evolves.
Well, here it is scientist with success in science (if you have a Noble prize, what more can you ask for proof) having opinions about science. I can not see why the media should be blamed for listening to this, even though their conclusions have political implications unpopular to the current ruler.
The left/right scale is a bit limited when discussing politics and policies, but there is no necessity to have personal insecurity to be a leftist as you call them. Or maybe this is your defence mechanism when confronted with views that challenge your world view; it is something wrong with them so I won't listen to their arguments.This isn't about moral authority, this about the UN giving an opportunity for world governments to meet and discuss something that has large implication in the fight against "the digital divide" and development all over the world. Who cares about moral authority, if governments from Asia and Africa and Europe come home educated about free software, what is the problem again?
Yes, they are called politicians. But even though there are many bad examples of politicians, that is no excuse for the US delegation of politicians to ruin a good initative taken by the UN politicians. Your argument doesn't make sense.
Actually, it is the current US government that has been shown to be a farce in the Iraq war, with their exagerated claims, and as a final humiliation, ending up begging the UN to clean up their mess in Iraq afterwards.
I could not find it easily on the freedesktop.org page; so what is the license of freedesktop.org? Is it GPL or BSD or the old XFree license or something else?
But you forget that they have the support contract from SuSE and IBM. These two companies knows the high profile of Munich and I am confident they won't let it slip. Even if the Munich IT people are not the top of the crop, they can call IBM and SuSE when things get tricky, two reliable computer companies that I would have much more confidence in when making a support call than MS any day.