The Union of Concerned Scientists is a special interest group with a political agenda. It's not a merit association. Any scientist can join as long as he pays the dues. The scientists who belong to this interest group join because they all share the SAME political philosophy.
There is no difference between this group and PETA except for the knee scraping worship they are given by idiots who think that a PhD and Nobel Prize Winner after your name somehow makes you infallible.
This would be the same Nobel committee that admitted it gave the award to Carter to make a political statement to Bush?
The Union of Concerned Scientists is an organization of politcally liberal scientists. They belong to the organization because of the organization's POLITICAL goals.
Why should the Feds put more emphasis on education than they do on Defense? Defense is a constitutionally mandated responsiblity of the feds. Education is not. My state can do just fine providing education, thank you, and my governor is a whole heck of a lot more accessible than some DOE bureaucrat.
What? Federal tax dollars are somehow superior to state and local tax dollars? I didn't realize that my money that I paid to the feds was more important than the money I paid to my state.
You cut education spending that much, and there would be a huge outcry.
In 1998, estimated education spending at ALL levels was about $618 billion dollars. That value has increased each year since.
Defense spending is about $350 billion.
Source:
gov/us/fed/congress/record/2000/nov/03/2000CRE2079 [Congressional Record: November 3, 2000 (Extensions)] [Page E2079] From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:cr03no00-23]
No, DARPA wants fighting men and women to be able to cope with the psychological traumas of battle without losing the intiative, insight, intelligence and independence that makes an American soldier such a formidable warrior.
You obviously are a clueless idiot as to what the military in this country is like. You've been listening to too much John Kerry/Jane Fonda love festing.
The whole notion of a "new economy" is the myth. Economics will be what it always has been: People offering something that other people want/need. The only thing that changes is what is offered.
Those who understand that have successful internet businesses. Those who don't have failed internet businesses.
You're car's tires are defective: Drive no faster than 35 MPH anywhere and do it now. What? Change the tires? You're an idiot. Don't drive any faster than 35 MPH and you'll be perfectly safe. What do you mean that limits the power and flexibility of your vehicle? Do you want to be safe or not? Drive no faster than 35 MPH and do it now!
What you're referring to is known as Haldane's dilemna. It's been conveniently swept under the rug because it basically states that taking the drag of unfavorable mutations on evolution into account, the earth is only about a tenth as old as it needs to be for life to have evolved to its current levels.
Since even the most liberal interpretations of radiolgic and geologic dating can't get the Earth anywhere near 40 billion years old, this evolutionary headache, like many others, has been wilfully ignored.
OK. Step one: Differentiate between micro and macro evolution. One is experimentally verifiable. The other has a lot of problems.
Nearly every evolutionist I've met is just as blinded by dogmatism as any "fundie" Christian. This continued delusion that micro and macro evolution are one and the some is just one of the primary symptoms.
"Wherefore, no man can behold all my works, except he behold all my glory; and no man can behold all my glory, and afterwards remain in the flesh on the earth."
A baby is simply a lay term for a stage of development for a member of the species Homo Sapiens.
It's an important point to make because of the dangerous attitude prevalent in our society that human beings are only worthy of life at certain, arbitrary stages of development.
OK. Explain to me exactly how cheap food causes people to be hungry? Is there some law of nature I'm not aware of that causes starvation if a person can't eat food grown by a local farmer?
This is not a difficult premise to check. Look where hunger is most rampant in the world. Now look at the types of governments those nations have. You will find, without exception, that dictatorships, communists and extreme socialist nations are nations where famine is rampant.
Hong Kong has the highest population density in the world. No famine there. Japan has the second highest population density in the world and is self-sufficient in foodstuffs.
------ You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
Just like you'll never find an unregenerate Calvinist, you will never find a person calling for the elimination of the stupid who doesn't consider themselves smarter than everyone else.
You're engaging in a clasic fallacy of composition. Study a biology book on sexual reproduction. At the point where the gametes fuse, a new member of the species is created. The fact that it doesn't LOOK the same at a later stage of development doesn't change the fact of its biological identity.
People in the world aren't hungry because evil Americans build cities on fertile land. People in the world are hungry because they live under the thumb of brutal dictators. You want to feed the world? Promote freedom and capitalism around the world.
Cool. A fallacy refuted with another fallacy: false equivalence. SMOKING cigarettes is harmful. Being near a dispenser isn't. And then we follow up again with another swing of the begging the question fallacy. There's no evidence that EM from HV lines is harmful AT ALL. Close up or far away. Saying they are only harmful close up is the same begging the question fallacy the original article had, just rephrased.
You'll never make the future happen if all you live on is memories. It's a tower for crying out loud. You want to build a true monument to the Apollo program, get us back on the moon and quit wasting your time trying to save a steel scaffolding.
Slashdot Mirror
People,
The Union of Concerned Scientists is a special interest group with a political agenda. It's not a merit association. Any scientist can join as long as he pays the dues. The scientists who belong to this interest group join because they all share the SAME political philosophy.
There is no difference between this group and PETA except for the knee scraping worship they are given by idiots who think that a PhD and Nobel Prize Winner after your name somehow makes you infallible.
This would be the same Nobel committee that admitted it gave the award to Carter to make a political statement to Bush?
The Union of Concerned Scientists is an organization of politcally liberal scientists. They belong to the organization because of the organization's POLITICAL goals.
Why should the Feds put more emphasis on education than they do on Defense? Defense is a constitutionally mandated responsiblity of the feds. Education is not. My state can do just fine providing education, thank you, and my governor is a whole heck of a lot more accessible than some DOE bureaucrat.
What? Federal tax dollars are somehow superior to state and local tax dollars? I didn't realize that my money that I paid to the feds was more important than the money I paid to my state.
You cut education spending that much, and there would be a huge outcry.
9
In 1998, estimated education spending at ALL levels was about $618 billion dollars. That value has increased each year since.
Defense spending is about $350 billion.
Source:
gov/us/fed/congress/record/2000/nov/03/2000CRE207
[Congressional Record: November 3, 2000 (Extensions)]
[Page E2079]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:cr03no00-23]
I assume you volunteer to be the first casualty on the next terror attack, then?
Al Qaeda laugh their heads off every time they hear some fool like you spout off.
"If only the US had a President like that," they say. "We could fly a jet into a building once a month."
No, DARPA wants fighting men and women to be able to cope with the psychological traumas of battle without losing the intiative, insight, intelligence and independence that makes an American soldier such a formidable warrior.
You obviously are a clueless idiot as to what the military in this country is like. You've been listening to too much John Kerry/Jane Fonda love festing.
The whole notion of a "new economy" is the myth. Economics will be what it always has been: People offering something that other people want/need. The only thing that changes is what is offered.
Those who understand that have successful internet businesses. Those who don't have failed internet businesses.
In 1969, the world stood breathless as an American stepped onto the surface of a new world.
Today, we get all excited because a golf cart moves 80 feet.
You're car's tires are defective: Drive no faster than 35 MPH anywhere and do it now. What? Change the tires? You're an idiot. Don't drive any faster than 35 MPH and you'll be perfectly safe. What do you mean that limits the power and flexibility of your vehicle? Do you want to be safe or not? Drive no faster than 35 MPH and do it now!
What you're referring to is known as Haldane's dilemna. It's been conveniently swept under the rug because it basically states that taking the drag of unfavorable mutations on evolution into account, the earth is only about a tenth as old as it needs to be for life to have evolved to its current levels.
Since even the most liberal interpretations of radiolgic and geologic dating can't get the Earth anywhere near 40 billion years old, this evolutionary headache, like many others, has been wilfully ignored.
So, true. If people were swayed by facts, things like Haldane's Dilemna and irreducible complexity wouldn't be swept under the rug.
OK. Step one: Differentiate between micro and macro evolution. One is experimentally verifiable. The other has a lot of problems.
Nearly every evolutionist I've met is just as blinded by dogmatism as any "fundie" Christian. This continued delusion that micro and macro evolution are one and the some is just one of the primary symptoms.
Or the following could be true:
"Wherefore, no man can behold all my works, except he behold all my glory; and no man can behold all my glory, and afterwards remain in the flesh on the earth."
Moses 1:5
A baby is simply a lay term for a stage of development for a member of the species Homo Sapiens.
It's an important point to make because of the dangerous attitude prevalent in our society that human beings are only worthy of life at certain, arbitrary stages of development.
OK. Explain to me exactly how cheap food causes people to be hungry? Is there some law of nature I'm not aware of that causes starvation if a person can't eat food grown by a local farmer?
This is not a difficult premise to check. Look where hunger is most rampant in the world. Now look at the types of governments those nations have. You will find, without exception, that dictatorships, communists and extreme socialist nations are nations where famine is rampant.
Hong Kong has the highest population density in the world. No famine there. Japan has the second highest population density in the world and is self-sufficient in foodstuffs.
------
You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
Just like you'll never find an unregenerate Calvinist, you will never find a person calling for the elimination of the stupid who doesn't consider themselves smarter than everyone else.
You do realize that the medical industry underwrites a lot of this research, right?
You mean other than all the age-related problems all cloned animals have experienced?
You're engaging in a clasic fallacy of composition. Study a biology book on sexual reproduction. At the point where the gametes fuse, a new member of the species is created. The fact that it doesn't LOOK the same at a later stage of development doesn't change the fact of its biological identity.
People in the world aren't hungry because evil Americans build cities on fertile land. People in the world are hungry because they live under the thumb of brutal dictators. You want to feed the world? Promote freedom and capitalism around the world.
Tell you what. Incompetent jackass progammers of the home grown variety are available by the truckload, too.
Cool. A fallacy refuted with another fallacy: false equivalence. SMOKING cigarettes is harmful. Being near a dispenser isn't. And then we follow up again with another swing of the begging the question fallacy. There's no evidence that EM from HV lines is harmful AT ALL. Close up or far away. Saying they are only harmful close up is the same begging the question fallacy the original article had, just rephrased.
You'll never make the future happen if all you live on is memories. It's a tower for crying out loud. You want to build a true monument to the Apollo program, get us back on the moon and quit wasting your time trying to save a steel scaffolding.