Because you can't even use the same equipment to do private research as government funded research if you do the embryonic stem cell research. It puts a practical barrier between privately funded research and publicly funded research, since the same organization will likely do both.
A better question is why Bush is so happy for the research to be done elsewhere, where there is less regulation.
When studying physics at the University of Auckland, New Zealand I got to visit Australia's only nuclear facility, Lucas Heights. It is a research reactor, not a power generation reactor. However there were a LOT of computers running windows 95 within only 10m of fissioning uranium.
They were only boxes for monitoring experiments, not control software, but nonetheless the proximity was SCARY.
I'm afraid you are completely incorrect on this issue. The vast bulk of poor people do not produce a surplus of food, they are either subsistence farmers, or urbanized poor. In neither case does increased food prices help them. There are now tens of millions cast back into extreme poverty because of global food prices.
Even for those in poor countries that export foods, the developed world has so many tarrifs and subsidies that they are still not able to benefit from it (USA and EU, take a bow).
Don't believe me? Fine. Last week's Economist had their leader article on exactly this topic. Go and read it. The Economist is an economic liberal, you will find them promoting trade and economic prosperity. They know far more about this issue than either you or me.
You've confused faith with trust. Faith is belief without evidence; trust is built up over time and has become a reasonable position.
Also you don't need faith in individual scientists, because that's not what you are trusting - you're trusting the method, and when repeated over again and giving consistency, you build trust.
Your argument is known as "God of the Gaps". The problem with it is that as science advances, the gaps get smaller and then so does your God. It also unnecessarily puts religion at odds with science, when they can quite happily operate separately - Science in the land of reality, and religion everywhere else.
Your claim that science is a belief system is to fundamentally misunderstand science. Science is a method of inquiry into the natural world, the only one we know of, that can identify objective truths. It takes zero faith or belief or anything like that to accept the outcomes of the scientific method.
Finally, you are also making an argument from ignorance in your discussion of the big bang. The bottom line is we don't know how it all happened. We don't know what there was before. We don't even know IF there was a "before" at all. If time began then then most of your assertions disappear. Just because you don't understand something isn't a reason to say "god did it".
You just haven't learned the difference between "can't be explained" and "hasn't yet been explained".
It's the same story, over and over again. We didn't know what the stars were, so we invented religious answers ("we don't know" is somehow unacceptable). Then we figured it out, and the solar system, and all that. But of course, this challenged religious "truth", so we locked 'em up and tortured them but it didn't make reality go away.
And so it has been with so many advances in human knowledge.
Look, I've no doubt you've had this drilled into you a million times, but Evolution says nothing about the origin of life. Nada, zip. Why would we need to identify the exact sequence for life to begin, to make the simple observation of modern day evolution? You don't.
It's like saying "you can't prove that astronomy is a science until you map out every star in the universe. Until you do that, you've got nothing".
However, I'm sure like all creationists you will ignore evidence to the contrary and continue to spout this nonsense over and again like you don't already know it's crap.
Either way, forbidding teachers to teach something is no different than the Catholic church of old forbidding teachings that said the world was round
No, that's a false analogy. Forbidding teachers to push religion in a science class is just good policy. If ID were a science, then it could be taught in science class. However, as endless posters have pointed out, ID is not a science because it is not falsifiable. How can any new piece of evidence disprove "God did it!"?. It cannot. Therefore it is not science, and cannot be taught in science class. Teach it all you like in magic class or Sunday School.
Evolution needs to be taught with both sides presented so that the students can discuss and make up their own minds.
Your assumption here is that there are two sides to this discussion. This is not true. Scientifically, there is no debate since evolution is one of the most proven theories in all of science. Read that again. To deny evolution, it's as non-sensical as saying "gravity doesn't exist", or "the earth is flat", because all those statements are equally solidly proven.
> Perhaps you could try being intellectually honest. That is unless your anti-religious zeal has blinded you to the level of intolerance and hatred you've been spewing around this article with your many posts
> Of course atheism is a religion, it is a system of belief about the supernatural nature (or lack there of) of this universe. It's the null religion. Do you believe that zero is not a number? Or perhaps that a null pointer isn't a pointer at all? Come on now. If it isn't a relgion is it a taco? I think it fits the former definition better.
Let's count the logical fallacies in this little paragraph...
Ad Hominem: You start by attacking the person, not the claim. Let's focus on the evidence and the weight of argument - the nature of the person isn't relevant
False Premise: You claim atheism is a system of belief. It is not. It simply states in the absence of evidence, I have no faith. Much like most of us do not believe in invisible pink unicorns
False Analogy: You claim that if I believe zero is a number then I must believe atheism is a religion. These two concepts are totally unrelated.
False Dichotomy: You claim that atheism must fit one of two definitions that you have arbitrarily constructed to define what is religion and what is not.
It cuts both ways. At the same time doctors need to understand that the model of healthcare is changing, and they have to include the patient in decision making and provide informed options.
Too often doctors say 'you need to take this drug', when that might not be the best option for you. I had that just the other day where before I'm even finished telling my story the doctor pipes up and tells me which steroid I need to start taking.
> A blur on the other hand, especially a gaussian blur, will mix pixels together in such a way that any recovered image will be one of many possible outcomes.
Incorrect. A pure gaussian blur is 100% reversible, except when it is applied near the edges of images (since you would need information off the side of the image). The presence of noise can make the gaussian blur difficult to undo, but nonetheless all the information is retained in the blurred image - there is only one image that will produce exactly the blurred function you see.
Reading through these comments sees the majority of people not really thinking that there was ever a problem, and even if there was it hardly affected anybody, and even if it did it's probably too expensive to fix.
Perhaps those that live under the hole (Australia, New Zealand) can give a slightly different perspective. These two countries have the highest rates of skin cancer in the world. This hole kills people, every day.
Furthermore it has proven quite cheap and easy to improve, as witnessed by the removal of CFCs. Those scoffing at environmental concerns would do well to remember that this was identifies as a real problem, an appropriate intervention was taken and this is improving the situation.
Only if you don't want an accurate number. The value of g does vary over the surface of the earth, owing to its non-spherical nature, local anomalies and so forth.
Slashdot Mirror
A better question is why Bush is so happy for the research to be done elsewhere, where there is less regulation.
They were only boxes for monitoring experiments, not control software, but nonetheless the proximity was SCARY.
Oh come on, if you're with xtra you get what you deserve. They're way more expensive and have lower caps than everyone else.
Goes through a lot of the news items, common logical fallacies, good interviews all with an entertaining cast.
Am I the only one that still uses a cast iron frying pan? I find it fantastic - great heat capacity and almost completely non-stick.
Our university taught Matlab. It simple enough to learn, has good library support.
All true, but they're still massively impacted. Don't underestimate the impact of tarrifs on your only export though.
Even for those in poor countries that export foods, the developed world has so many tarrifs and subsidies that they are still not able to benefit from it (USA and EU, take a bow).
Don't believe me? Fine. Last week's Economist had their leader article on exactly this topic. Go and read it. The Economist is an economic liberal, you will find them promoting trade and economic prosperity. They know far more about this issue than either you or me.
Also you don't need faith in individual scientists, because that's not what you are trusting - you're trusting the method, and when repeated over again and giving consistency, you build trust.
Your claim that science is a belief system is to fundamentally misunderstand science. Science is a method of inquiry into the natural world, the only one we know of, that can identify objective truths. It takes zero faith or belief or anything like that to accept the outcomes of the scientific method.
Finally, you are also making an argument from ignorance in your discussion of the big bang. The bottom line is we don't know how it all happened. We don't know what there was before. We don't even know IF there was a "before" at all. If time began then then most of your assertions disappear. Just because you don't understand something isn't a reason to say "god did it".
It's the same story, over and over again. We didn't know what the stars were, so we invented religious answers ("we don't know" is somehow unacceptable). Then we figured it out, and the solar system, and all that. But of course, this challenged religious "truth", so we locked 'em up and tortured them but it didn't make reality go away.
And so it has been with so many advances in human knowledge.
Religion retards humanity.
It's like saying "you can't prove that astronomy is a science until you map out every star in the universe. Until you do that, you've got nothing".
However, I'm sure like all creationists you will ignore evidence to the contrary and continue to spout this nonsense over and again like you don't already know it's crap.
Great times, even if just to watch the first ever water sommelier in action.
No, that's a false analogy. Forbidding teachers to push religion in a science class is just good policy. If ID were a science, then it could be taught in science class. However, as endless posters have pointed out, ID is not a science because it is not falsifiable. How can any new piece of evidence disprove "God did it!"?. It cannot. Therefore it is not science, and cannot be taught in science class. Teach it all you like in magic class or Sunday School.
Your assumption here is that there are two sides to this discussion. This is not true. Scientifically, there is no debate since evolution is one of the most proven theories in all of science. Read that again. To deny evolution, it's as non-sensical as saying "gravity doesn't exist", or "the earth is flat", because all those statements are equally solidly proven.And to add to that, how many people know what DVD stands for? The V is not video!
If you haven't seen it, his classic try against England in 95.
> Of course atheism is a religion, it is a system of belief about the supernatural nature (or lack there of) of this universe. It's the null religion. Do you believe that zero is not a number? Or perhaps that a null pointer isn't a pointer at all? Come on now. If it isn't a relgion is it a taco? I think it fits the former definition better.
Let's count the logical fallacies in this little paragraph...
With many thanks to The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe
Too often doctors say 'you need to take this drug', when that might not be the best option for you. I had that just the other day where before I'm even finished telling my story the doctor pipes up and tells me which steroid I need to start taking.
This is highly relevant for New Zealand as 50% of our greenhouse gas emissions are in fact from cow methane.
That's right. The other extraordinary thing you can do in a wave in a glider is get altitude. Like 20, 30 thousand feet of altitude.
> A blur on the other hand, especially a gaussian blur, will mix pixels together in such a way that any recovered image will be one of many possible outcomes. Incorrect. A pure gaussian blur is 100% reversible, except when it is applied near the edges of images (since you would need information off the side of the image). The presence of noise can make the gaussian blur difficult to undo, but nonetheless all the information is retained in the blurred image - there is only one image that will produce exactly the blurred function you see.
Perhaps those that live under the hole (Australia, New Zealand) can give a slightly different perspective. These two countries have the highest rates of skin cancer in the world. This hole kills people, every day.
Furthermore it has proven quite cheap and easy to improve, as witnessed by the removal of CFCs. Those scoffing at environmental concerns would do well to remember that this was identifies as a real problem, an appropriate intervention was taken and this is improving the situation.
We've been using Confluence, from Atlassian for our wiki, and it's pretty fully featured for a wiki.
Only if you don't want an accurate number. The value of g does vary over the surface of the earth, owing to its non-spherical nature, local anomalies and so forth.
You might want to try that one again.
Posted smugly from a Mac