The anti-science movement seems to be very active as well: vaccines, intelligent design, life-at-conception, aliens, GMOs, homeopathy et al., agw denial...
Everyone seems to pick and choose when they are pro-science depending on how pleasant the topic is to the ear.
Exactly the way the Party set it up. They got you hoodwinked with this little dog and pony show into believing there is opposition. And the decline continues...
It is such a trope that there is no difference between the political parties... and the decline continues....
They keep babbling about needing to do a better job of getting their message out, and using technology like Obama did to spread their message. Well, bullshit, we heard their message and said "no". No to bigotry against gays, no to the notion that a single cell can be a human being with a soul and consciousness, no to pushing the lie they call "creation science" into the classroom, no to lying to rape victims about the mechanism by which emergency contraception prevents pregnancy, no to all the anti-intellectual garbage that springs from twisted wacko interpretations of the old testament.
You forgot the bizarre discredited economic theories as well. Hayek would call these people a bunch of loons.
In the last 40 years, the budget has been balanced 5 times. EVERY TIME BY DEMOCRATS. The score is 5-0.
Why do you buy into the rhetoric? People should be known for their behavior. The GOP has a long history of blowing up the budget through a combination of reckless spending and reckless tax cuts. It's just history.
Even the modern Tea Party doesn't really care about balancing the budget, because it could be done a reinstating taxes on the top 1%, and modest reforms to the tax code in general. And modest spending cuts. Incremental, minimal effect on society. Balanced. If you don't support that which will work, and that which is achievable, then you yourself do not support balanced budgets.
The most important rule in American politics is that when some politician, D or R, talks about balancing the budget, then they are actually talking about something else. If you want to really know what the GOP believes is far more important than balancing the budget, then you should know.
The real theme is limiting the federal government to its enumerated Constitutional powers, not a desire to promote anarchy.
Well, Mike Lofgren who we actually there when the strategy was made reports that the official GOP strategy was to break government, and then claim it doesn't work. Deeply cynical? Yes.
To get my vote, the GOP would have to get rid of the anti-science bullpucky. The theocrats I don't mind in-so-far as they are science based. (They are not.) The Tea Party I can take in-so-far as they are science/data driven. (They are conspiratorial nutters who mistake armchair philosophy for erudition.) I am a true conservative, in that I do not believe in radical change. The GOP has too much credibility in recent years, and stand to do as much damage to society as the communists did to Eastern Europe, and for precisely the same reasons: attempting to project their psychotic "realities" on the rest of us in the name of FREEDOM!!!.
If you write down a list of position statements and don't attach a brand/party to it, and then ask people what they agree/disagree with, republican _positions_ do pretty well.
Citation need. Care to link the study that supports your position? Because the GOP is against the mainstream on all of their hobby-horses. It all depends on how you ask the questions, of course, and cue the volumous motivated reasoning. Remember, the Romney was going to win in a landslide, right? Studies showed it!
They figure because a lot of people don't like Obamacare, that it will be enough
They've convinced themselves that the ACA is a winning issue... and they've certainly screamed and hollered about it... but by 2016 it will be a totally stupid gambit to continue pushing this line. They'll have to do better than that. In particular, they'll have to grow a spin and stop pandering to the nutters.
Part of the problem is that publicly-funded science hasn't necessarily been public-access anymore.
Publically funded research has never been public-access in the sense you mean. Journals have a strangle hold, and it is difficult to pry loose the death grip. JSTOR was -- in its day -- a revolutionary step towards better public access, but with the rise of the internet, it's obvious that this is not enough. There are strong moves towards open access journals in academia (seriously, academics have no love of the journals, which are leeches), but the incentive structures that advance academic careers are a big problem. A cultural change needs to occur in how academics are assessed by their university administration in order to break the stranglehold. Furthermore, funding agencies are using their clout to change the situation as well.
In short, the situation today is far freer than even the near past, and the trajectory is against pay-walls -- so the sentiment that things were good in the past and bad now completely and utterly back to front.
Corporations are also assaulting the scientific journal business as well -- esp. big pharma and the oil industry. A few hundred thousand goes a long way when it comes to buying "academia"
Well, clang uses the short-string optimization, which cannot be compatible with GCC's libstdc++. (If it were compatible, then GCC would also be using said optimization.) So that's not going to work.
For the record, most scholars think Jesus really did exist -- even the ones who don't believe in the sky daddy.
Yeah, I can see the long forgotten gospel of Kim surfacing in the unicorn cave: Jesus slapped the Jewish people around, closed the boarders, set up internment camps for political enemies, declared himself "dear leader", killed people who crossed him, and then used his huge-ass finger to wind the clock of the ancient world so that year zero was his birthday. And then crucified himself. All the while, Claudius was eating Sheppard's pie, and planning the century of humiliation with Queen Victoria's great^100 grand mother.
It's forgotten history!!! Who are you to say that it didn't happen!!!
How is this insightful? A little funny, yes, but hardly "insightful"
Seconds since 1970 has technical advantages than, say, seconds since Jesus was ostensibly born. (Like anyone wants to do the math with all the friggin changing calendars over two millennia. The classic mac system used Jan/1/1904. Big deal.
Choosing the birth of Kim Il-sung as the zero point is typical narcissistic dictatorial asshatery. If there's any "technical" reason, it is to ram the _awesomeness_ of dear leader down the throat of the North Korean people.
Slashdot Mirror
The anti-science movement seems to be very active as well: vaccines, intelligent design, life-at-conception, aliens, GMOs, homeopathy et al., agw denial...
Everyone seems to pick and choose when they are pro-science depending on how pleasant the topic is to the ear.
Exactly the way the Party set it up. They got you hoodwinked with this little dog and pony show into believing there is opposition. And the decline continues...
It is such a trope that there is no difference between the political parties... and the decline continues....
They keep babbling about needing to do a better job of getting their message out, and using technology like Obama did to spread their message. Well, bullshit, we heard their message and said "no". No to bigotry against gays, no to the notion that a single cell can be a human being with a soul and consciousness, no to pushing the lie they call "creation science" into the classroom, no to lying to rape victims about the mechanism by which emergency contraception prevents pregnancy, no to all the anti-intellectual garbage that springs from twisted wacko interpretations of the old testament.
You forgot the bizarre discredited economic theories as well. Hayek would call these people a bunch of loons.
If you think Romney was 'extreme right',
Nobody, including Romney, thinks that he is a severe conservative. And that is precisely the point being made.
i'm sorry but the tea party is driven by people who actually believe what they say, as a genuine oppositional force, that you say does not exist
Of that I have no doubt. You see, I study ignorance as part of my research in academia. The Tea Party is just popcorn fodder for me.
A giant, uncoordinated cluster fuck that had no chance of surviving intact? That was the Republican plan?
True, but the ACA was the GOP plan put forward as an alternative to Clinton's healthcare plan in the early 90s.
They are about trying to keep a balanced budget.
In the last 40 years, the budget has been balanced 5 times. EVERY TIME BY DEMOCRATS. The score is 5-0.
.
Why do you buy into the rhetoric? People should be known for their behavior. The GOP has a long history of blowing up the budget through a combination of reckless spending and reckless tax cuts. It's just history.
Even the modern Tea Party doesn't really care about balancing the budget, because it could be done a reinstating taxes on the top 1%, and modest reforms to the tax code in general. And modest spending cuts. Incremental, minimal effect on society. Balanced. If you don't support that which will work, and that which is achievable, then you yourself do not support balanced budgets.
The most important rule in American politics is that when some politician, D or R, talks about balancing the budget, then they are actually talking about something else. If you want to really know what the GOP believes is far more important than balancing the budget, then you should know
Cue motivated reasoning.
The real theme is limiting the federal government to its enumerated Constitutional powers, not a desire to promote anarchy.
Well, Mike Lofgren who we actually there when the strategy was made reports that the official GOP strategy was to break government, and then claim it doesn't work. Deeply cynical? Yes.
For the first time in history the young are voting,
Yeah, we're almost back to 1972 levels when 52% of people between 18 and 21 voted.
To get my vote, the GOP would have to get rid of the anti-science bullpucky. The theocrats I don't mind in-so-far as they are science based. (They are not.) The Tea Party I can take in-so-far as they are science/data driven. (They are conspiratorial nutters who mistake armchair philosophy for erudition.) I am a true conservative, in that I do not believe in radical change. The GOP has too much credibility in recent years, and stand to do as much damage to society as the communists did to Eastern Europe, and for precisely the same reasons: attempting to project their psychotic "realities" on the rest of us in the name of FREEDOM!!!.
If you write down a list of position statements and don't attach a brand/party to it, and then ask people what they agree/disagree with, republican _positions_ do pretty well.
Citation need. Care to link the study that supports your position? Because the GOP is against the mainstream on all of their hobby-horses. It all depends on how you ask the questions, of course, and cue the volumous motivated reasoning. Remember, the Romney was going to win in a landslide, right? Studies showed it!
They figure because a lot of people don't like Obamacare, that it will be enough
They've convinced themselves that the ACA is a winning issue... and they've certainly screamed and hollered about it... but by 2016 it will be a totally stupid gambit to continue pushing this line. They'll have to do better than that. In particular, they'll have to grow a spin and stop pandering to the nutters.
If nothing else, the far right are experts in convincing themselves of their own narratives.
The individual who engaged in fraud should go to jail. A judge should make an example of them -- stealing tax dollars. Pigs might fly.
Haha, totally agree. Now, if only GCC used the SSO like clang and MSVC.
Yeah, other people should fight societies battles for you. And academics don't have enough to do anyway.
Part of the problem is that publicly-funded science hasn't necessarily been public-access anymore.
Publically funded research has never been public-access in the sense you mean. Journals have a strangle hold, and it is difficult to pry loose the death grip. JSTOR was -- in its day -- a revolutionary step towards better public access, but with the rise of the internet, it's obvious that this is not enough. There are strong moves towards open access journals in academia (seriously, academics have no love of the journals, which are leeches), but the incentive structures that advance academic careers are a big problem. A cultural change needs to occur in how academics are assessed by their university administration in order to break the stranglehold. Furthermore, funding agencies are using their clout to change the situation as well.
In short, the situation today is far freer than even the near past, and the trajectory is against pay-walls -- so the sentiment that things were good in the past and bad now completely and utterly back to front.
Corporations are also assaulting the scientific journal business as well -- esp. big pharma and the oil industry. A few hundred thousand goes a long way when it comes to buying "academia"
Exactly. The individuals involved should come under heavy sanction. Corporations themselves are just pieces of worthless paper.
Well, clang uses the short-string optimization, which cannot be compatible with GCC's libstdc++. (If it were compatible, then GCC would also be using said optimization.) So that's not going to work.
Sanitizers? Just sayin'
Haha... *exactly* the same thing.
For the record, most scholars think Jesus really did exist -- even the ones who don't believe in the sky daddy.
Yeah, I can see the long forgotten gospel of Kim surfacing in the unicorn cave: Jesus slapped the Jewish people around, closed the boarders, set up internment camps for political enemies, declared himself "dear leader", killed people who crossed him, and then used his huge-ass finger to wind the clock of the ancient world so that year zero was his birthday. And then crucified himself. All the while, Claudius was eating Sheppard's pie, and planning the century of humiliation with Queen Victoria's great^100 grand mother.
It's forgotten history!!! Who are you to say that it didn't happen!!!
*exactly* the same thing. (face-palm.)
How is this insightful? A little funny, yes, but hardly "insightful"
Seconds since 1970 has technical advantages than, say, seconds since Jesus was ostensibly born. (Like anyone wants to do the math with all the friggin changing calendars over two millennia. The classic mac system used Jan/1/1904. Big deal.
Choosing the birth of Kim Il-sung as the zero point is typical narcissistic dictatorial asshatery. If there's any "technical" reason, it is to ram the _awesomeness_ of dear leader down the throat of the North Korean people.
Disliking all of them is a choice.
In my experience, disliking all usually stems from a rather adolescent approach to understanding politics and human motivations.
Agree.