Of course there is no such thing as settled law. After 100 plus years, Einstein is still being tested again and again. and anyone who thinks he's a better theory unsettles every theory. Newton, Galileo, even Crick & Watson get questioned again, re-philosophized, and tweaked again.. and again. That's the very nature of science... Anyone who declares a law (or theory) as settled science either doesn't understand science, or is merely a political hack chasing glory or grants.
Remember the line (the accuracy/bonafides of which are still questioned) "We had to destroy the village in order to save it."? It was hailed as symbolizing the absurdity that the war had become. Certainly applies somewhat to some of the absurdities some scientists will go to as well, huh?
Not really. Only for those who don't know God, or what the Bible really says about creation. Which, unfortunately, is the case for far too many Christians.
Ignorance is no excuse Check the science, there has been NO WARMING in more than a decade. And climate is always changing, that's what it does. For billions of years. And only 30years ago the big SciFiction was Global Winter. Check the economics. The billions we spend won't cover a fraction of what THEY (the rest of the world) do to contribute carbon. But will make us all poorer. And Gov't and certain corporations much richer. Check nature. It has always thrived in the eras of high Co/Co2. And climate change has always been what it does. Check the motives of the pols who push the agenda Obama wants so bad. They get power & wealth, their friends and sponsors do too. But you don't. You just get poorer, and more controlled by rules & rulers (the bureaucrats. Check yourself. You gullible, or just like the new gov't handouts?
True, and for a long time already. In fact, the Bible itself describes a lot of them, speaking about sunlight and starlight and minerals and water and the yoman work of plate tectonic forces (leading to land, bringing outthe mineral porridge of the mantle and below, the cooling of the surface and emergence of "seas" and the atmosphere and hydrologic cycle. It even describes the "soup", by describing the waters in which life began, and from which it emerged onto the land, as "pisswaters" (read mucky shallows), etc. So Uri was hardly that much of a pioneer.
And, btw, what's wrong with a little "magic", as you call it" If I wanna make a lasagne, it helps to have the intelligence & forsight to to it, and a recipe and themagic of wallyworld to provide the various ingredients (even better with ready-made noodles and cheeses and sauces rather than trying to do it all fromcomplete scratch!) Gimme them and I can quite possibly even get the product I want by chance, if I just keep slamming the ingredients together a few (millions?) of times, in a fortuitously good environment (pan oven, etc?).
Lasagna ain't life, for sure, but I ain't nearly God. By definition, He's gotta be bigger than the universe he made and smart enough to design it and powerful enough to run it all - forever!
PS There's room enough to be open minded about this, and need enough for the tolerance tofor call off the culture and religious wars that are afflicting us, eh?
Can You? Two years ago I tried to set up an "XP Virtual Box" on advice of a computer tech, on my PC, running Win 7 Home. Wouldn't work, I was advised it was because XP Virtual won't run on a 64bit machine. They wrong? Can I upgrade and successfully get my XP VM, so I can run some prescious software (older, better version) that runs on XP, but nothing later?
I love 3D. Bought a Sony, which is a great TV system (Bravia, direct net access, etc.) even if it weren't 3D, and the glasses are no bother... you gotta use them even in theaters. So while price is a real problem, THE BIGGEST problem is there's still only 3 decent movies available yet. 3 grand for a 3D TV is silly if you can only watch 3 movies!
Actually, no one (should) think "natural selection" means what YOU think it means.
You've confused that concept/term with evolution itself. Natural selection was an idea Darwin came to to explain the improbable history of life he believed in. He believed (more or less) that the present-day array of life forms on earth was the result of eons of "general improvements over time". That species were constantly changing (probably "improving", and generally increasing in their compplexity -- not from "humus", which is the end product of the death and decay of those higher life forms we call plants, but from single cell plants and animals to very complexly organized multicellular plants and animals, including humans) in order to better meet the challenges of the physical and intra-species environment. The challenges, that in nature offered no "winning tickets" but plenty of losing tickets, were what he meant by "natural selection". Evolution resulted, Darwin surmised, from species getting past those challenges, as better designs within their population remained and gained predominance.
Darwin actually got the idea from his observation of the human practice of animal husbandry. Throughout history, humans tended to practice "artificial selection". They got rid of (ate, discarded, prohibited from breeding) specimens of their domesticated species that they deemed less desirable, and encourage/aided the development of those which had "better" characteristics (prettier, more milk, more offspring, bigger eggs or drumsticks, etc.) from their point of view. Yep, that was "evolution" by human direction, and Darwin (biased by similar values) decided the remarkable panorama of life in all its splendor and complexity in his day must have been developed not by any similasr intelligent assistance (only God could have done such a thing, and Darwin was not fond of the idea of God or any other intelligent designer) so he settled for "natural selection" and a sort of Adam Smith theory of natural economics as the unseen hand that "evolved" the obviously great web of life now on earth.
Maybe, if you now understand "natural selection" and "evolution" a bit more accurately, you can rethink some of your own ideas and opinions.
By the way, there has always been global warming or cooling going on, sometimes far more drastic/extreme than what we are now noticing. And the theory of a metior/asteroid destroying (or ending) the preeminance of the dinosaurs is still a theory, and is actually being challenged quite rigoursly right now. And one can see, especially if one listens to PETA and so many of the environmentalist groups, that the idea that we are the epitome, or ultimate "improvement" in life forms, that there is indeed quite a set of values and judgements that stand behind the ideas of "evolution"
I was teaching this about 40 years ago, in my Human Evolution, Anthropology, and Cultural Ecology courses at UC Santa Cruz, among other places. If this the latest at Stanford, I'd recommend some other school! Really.
OK.
Now try doing a little systems analysis:
Spend all the money on motorcycles, and have none left over for other ideas, like replacing (at least) cars used for non-emergency or "police" activities...
Think of the energy & resourcee consumed in manufacturing the new electrics (and their batteries and power supplies), and in scrapping the old gas ones, as well as the batteries, etc.
Costs of retraining cops, mechanics, etc
Added to the other issues being raised in the posts here, are we realling doing anything effective or just knee-jerk/feel-good actions?
Well, one man's (or woman's) free speech is another man's (or woman's) campaigning or lobbying speech, and do you think that once a register of bloggers is in place, restrictions as to when (i.e. pre-campaign cut-offs) or how (i.e. is it under the guidance of, or by solicitation on a candidate or advocate of the subject) or by whom/affiliation the blogging is made (i.e. as churches, union committees, PACs..) won't soon become subjects of regulation, or lawsuit, or campaigning regs?
Come on, some of you who want to disregard or make little of this would hardly be speaking like this if the Republicans or Bush admin were the PROPONENTS of it!
Not choosing sides, here, but pointing out the major fallacy of the way YOU justify the side you've chosen, to wit, Clinton's Approach: zero NK nukes
Bush's Approach, 4-10 nukes, 1 test
First, just like we don't really even know if the so-called test WAS of a nuke, we also don't know if NK has any real weapons. It's all simply their word which, as we know, is mostly BS and BS.
Second, the point those who suggest Clinton's approach was useless, or even worse, the real reason NK now has nukes is that they used the financial and technical aid they got from Clinton to help develop them, and the somkescreen/gullibility of the so-called agreement (like, the sound of one hand clapping) to carry on the program that lade the groundwork, developed the technology and nuclear weapons-grade materials and set up the next several years while Bush was in office and trusting that Clinton actually had been successful, in which the weapons were assembled.
Third, If yo momma is cooking the turkey all day before you arrive home to enjoy Thanksgiving dinner, and after you are seated she brings it out to be served, is it your fault - or responsibility - that the turkey is there and now cooked and being served?
Come on, don't let the political gamesmanship and partisanship obscure the facts: NK was building their nuke program during both Presidents' watches, and NK is really the villain here. Bush may be wrong. But Clinton obviously was wrong, and Bush is simply trying another approach. Now, as much as I have no confidence in the UN, and China and Russia, just maybe having them involved in the Bush approach (multiparty and UN involvement, and getting both their eyes involved in the watching for cheating and their reputations/political egos on the line if they are cheated on) will work.
"Battery power isn't about saving energy anyway, it's often about shifting the pollution..."
You are sooo right! And no one ever seems to finish their analysis of the whole solution. For instance, how many fans of electric or hybrid cars ever thinks about the materials, energy, and chemical consumption that goes into manufacturing and distributing and then disposing of all those billions of batteries? We haven't even managed to handle cell phone or laptop batteries!
And then there is the problem of cycling over to electric cars. We will have to "dispose" of 100's of millions of gas & diesel cars, manage to get them into the hands of the public, half of which cannot begin to afford the transition... they can hardly afford to buy a used smokey fuelish used car to keep their lives, and family ties, and employment opportunities together. Anyone out there willing to buy a few (like maybe 50) million new cars and donate them to the poor? And revoke the civil liberties of the better-off and manfate they buy their own? Most of us keep a car for 10 years.... Well, I try, anyway.
And what about the materials, energy, and trash costs of digging up and disposing of all those gas stations and replacing them with "electric" stations, and the transmission infrastructure, and generation facilitiues. Right now, by the way, we have power companies giving away refridgerators and ranges and light bulbs because giving millions of thos away is cheaper than building new power plants.
Yeah, like before you run off to build Tesla-heaven, think about the dump you'll have to leave behind. It won't be cheap, or pretty. In fact, may well be too ugly for Tesla Heaven to be very pretty...
"You can't sit a child in front of a unionized tenured teacher and
expect him to learn things he needs to succeed in society,", think many a parent, nowadays....
Add another reason: The money (moneys I've collected from sales on ebay) I leave in Paypal "money market" account has generally gotten 2 or 3 times the interest I'd get from a bank savings or CD, and all this with no further (past the sale on ebay) effort on my part.
And in my mind, all those other "easy's" are worth a lot. "Easy's" like quick transactions, notifications of payments, provision of invoices, verified credit cards and addresses, et.
And as a matter of fact (or luck?), I've yet to have any problem (about 3 years and 100 sales and several purchases on ebay) with Paypal.
Hey, you got my "ditto". Especially on point #3, and #4. I often wonder why so many people think what they are talking about is so importasnt or significant that anyone, especially some poor NSA grunt who is 3 years behind in his caseload already, would want to listen in. Hey, even your friends are tuning you out. You think the gov't isn't?
Of course, it might be that you (the paranoid posters) really do have something interesting to say, like any good terrorist or 5th column would-be terrorist. Then I do hope they DO listen in. Rather that than you succeed in blowing up another few thousands, or infecting a few millions.
I used to be a rabid civil-libertarian. Spent my time in jail for anti-war, and civil rights work, but once I grasped the utter irrational (to us) hatred (of us) of Islamists and others, who think it a privilege and glory and the small price of eternal glory and delight, to murder/destroy millions (of us), I decided to hedge a few liberties.
Iran isn't bragging or joking when they say they have signed up 40,000 to become the next suicide/homocide patriots if we even begin to mess with their program to bring on the beloved, long awaited armageddon. And nothing will do it quicker than starting a nuke exchange in the middle east. And you know what, that's just Iran. Similar zealotry and rabid desire to end human history and begin their eternity with a few dozen virgins is in few dozen other countries too.
Now that's not paranoi or exagerated imagination on my part. That's just the facts as I know them as a professional anthropologist and student of religion, and news junkie.
Hey, glad you joined in!
I'm a bit disappointed that hardly anyone appreciated what you've done (and even raised doubt that you had) but instead took the story and ran off with it to make a bunch of political comments, etc.
I think your feats show that it's still possible to do some real science and make some significant contributions out of a living room and without multi-million dollar budgets, labs, and grad-student serfs! Like, you're almost a latter day Galileo!
So I want to both praise you, and call attention to the fact that there are now so many resources, esp on line, like NASA's maps and all the satellite imagery from them and private companies, shared computing projects like Einstein at Home and Seti, and the various genetic and species and physics and... the list goes and grows on!... out there, that a lot more folks can do likewise, in whatever topics turn them on!
Actually, I just posted a rather lengthy item about this (well, the American version) on my own blog. The statistics I quoted there are:
"surveys and polls consistently reveal that among the American people, about 90% profess a belief in God; about 75% believe that Intelligent Design has played a role in what we are; less than 50% believe in evolution at all, and half of those think it must share credit with an Intelligent Designer who either created evolution as a tool and/or maintains a certain degree of control over how and where evolution progresses; merely a fourth actually believe in that totally naturalistic version of evolution"
You might note that the reason the numbers don't add up to 100 is that people, and their beliefs, overlap. Some believe in one, some in two, etc. ideas. In fact, many, maybe the majority,believe in both evolution and ID (or in creation a la Bible, even!).
Now, you are the one, unfortunately, who is limited (narrow) in your ideas. ID and (Biblical) creationism, while similar and compatible, are not the same. Rather (should you really understand the theory of evolution) evolution and ID are complementary! ID can address those things that evolutionary theory does not, and cannot. And those people you seem to think so lowly of, actually understand that, and want both ideas to be considered, and taught to students of science.
BTW, what's so confusing about "did not know". Do you really KNOW? Of course, you have your prejudices, biases, and assumed intellectual omnipotence, but do you really know (scientists, when honest, admit they don't, and cannot), really know how (or why) the universe, and life, really started? Why not let both ideas (evolution, ID or...) have their opportunity to be heard, studied, and considered? That's what most people want. And, contrary to your rather arrogant opinions, they are not "idiots", but truly understand they don't know, and keep an OPEN mind! And to my somewhat (previously) surprised mind, neither are the Brits!
Well, my habit, usually, is to be very precise, have my citations in line, etc., but this being the day that it is, the Seahawks now on TV, my 8 year-old grand daughter pestering me to pay her more attention, I'll wing it.
The advocates/practitioners of each think they do. Mathematical exercises excepted, the brane folks think they are posing testable hypotheses regarding gravity, and how it scales across the universe, and as regards the cosmological constant. They also think they can use it to offer an alternative to the Big Bang, and its problems. I think they also think they may have something to offer on the subject of wormholes.
String theorists are posing hypotheses regarding elements of physics: about bosons and what new quark, or sub-quark entities we may find. They also think they can predict what we will find when a couple of higher energy smashers come on line. They also think they can give better explanations of some of the properties/mysteries in quantum theory. And they think they can account for some of what the CMB studies have revealed, and do away with those anomolies that require super-inflation, etc., adjustments to the Big Bang theory.
Of course, string theory, especially, is dealing with stuff far beyond diorect observation, and not easily experimented with. Instead, much of their rationale for earning respect and paychecksw comes from either offering verbal or computational descriptions of some of the missing links in the quantum and subquantum (say, Planc) level of things. And their wortk is conceptual, or argumentive, offering what they think are better explanations for the data and observations that others us QM or whatever. So, theirs is beginning to be predictive, after having been generally retrodictive and of the nature of "but a better explanation is...", but opponents simply say they are wrong and stick to their guns. That's real science. Eh?
So, a "testable prediction", in string theory is still more generally hitchhiking on other research intended to test predictions of those other physics. I'd say, the string theorists have been pretty persuasive, and are far from a small minority, now.
Anyway, that's as far as I can respond right now. You can continue to believe what you want. I can't say, had we the chance to really converse, we'd actually have any real disagreements. I just tend to stay pretty open to most ideas, and while I think brane theory is silly unscientific nonsense (though a number of scientists get their paychecks talking about it), I will even listen to them. But I do like string theory (theories). But, since most "discussion" in/. lasts but a day, I doubt we can go much further, here. I HAVE to take off with my grand daughter to her house to pick up the Christmas holiday with the rest of her family (4 more kids, all under 10), so you can see where my priorities must go.
Oh wow. I fully agree with you about brane theory, but I think that many scientists who are currently building their careers on it would beg to differ. And if you'll look at what's being published nowadays, there are a heap of physicists who talk, and matriculate, and offer up arguments to the contrary. Like branetheory is all over the IOP journals (electronic)!
I don't agree regarding string theory. I think it's building a pretty respectable reputation, and a paradigm that fits well with a lot of the Standard Model, and astronomical and physics data. And it certainly offers one of the best hopes for that desired "theory of everything", and it certrainly offers an intellectual picture every bit as powerful as what Einstein gave us in 1905.
As for your question: tell me what you mean by "supernatural". (I assume you are interested only in the hard physical sciences. Get over into the social sciences, and psychology, etc., and "incorporating" the "supernatural" is not uncommon.)
Actually, I really don't want to carry on a tit for tat debate, but the Chargers are doing poorly, and half-time frees me up to make a couple of points.
How I define religion is a bit broader than you might, because I spent a few years getting an MA in anthro, and in field work, cross cultural studies, and for broader scientific purposes, "religion" in many cultures around the world (and throughout history), and even for understanding a lot of folks in subcultures of our own society, you need not have a "divine being", nor the "supernatural" (as you probably concieve of it, ie, spirits and magic etc.) to have a religion. And, as the IRS has found, and you might if you look at what actually does qualify as a "church" or "religion", yes, you can start a church of naturalism or atheism or naturalism.
A "religion" is a cultural institution or set of beliefs that answer the existential questions most - if not all humans - have and need answered that they migh sleep better at night.
If "Evolution" is how someone explains the origins of the universe, and themselves, and if "evolution" is looked to for the ethics and morality that one wishes to establish or justify one's behavior, and if "Evolution" is the intellectual framework that one adopts in place of what other cultures use the Bible, or myths about the volcano out back to explain, (like the reason we are "the people", and all other humans are actually animals no more deserving respect or life than a chipmunk) well, then for most purposes, in a scientific (or social science) study, evolution is reasonably considered and treated as a religion.
Anyway, as far as I can see (and I've seen a lot), and as I've understood evolution during those many years I researched in, and taught evolution (mostly U of Cal, various campuses), it also attempts to answer the "why", not just the "how". And, especially for those who seek to get beyond the inherent limits of Darwinism, and explain the origins of life, and not just of species, they really wish to supplant the notion of "god" and any other "divine being" or force or explanations, and that makes it pretty "religious". And evolution does not merely "describe" "the natural way". It is a theory, a belief" of the "Why", with that capital "W".
And you know, the reason many folks have a problem with evolutionists is precisely because the evolutionists will not let "that theory" be shown to be wrong. The evolutionists are very intolerant of every other religion (ooops, theory of the way, and why, things are the way they are), and that's why the culture wars are here. That very powerful 5% are unwilling to let any other ideas of the other 95% of the world get any hearing at all... except of course, in "religion" or "philosophy" classes or clubs.
Oh well, I DO wish you a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year. Hope, for your sake, you are right. Me, I have a lot less at stake. I know about, and have a lot of confidence/belief, and credentials, in both sides!!!
"Straw man arguments" I understand. But your point, I don't. Really.
Oh well, the Chargers are up against it with the KC Chiefs, and then the Seahawks against the Colts, so I gotta go and get serious about the really BIG matters of life. Merry Christmas!
Slashdot Mirror
Of course there is no such thing as settled law. After 100 plus years, Einstein is still being tested again and again. and anyone who thinks he's a better theory unsettles every theory. Newton, Galileo, even Crick & Watson get questioned again, re-philosophized, and tweaked again .. and again. That's the very nature of science ... Anyone who declares a law (or theory) as settled science either doesn't understand science, or is merely a political hack chasing glory or grants.
Remember the line (the accuracy/bonafides of which are still questioned) "We had to destroy the village in order to save it."? It was hailed as symbolizing the absurdity that the war had become. Certainly applies somewhat to some of the absurdities some scientists will go to as well, huh?
Not really. Only for those who don't know God, or what the Bible really says about creation. Which, unfortunately, is the case for far too many Christians.
Ignorance is no excuse Check the science, there has been NO WARMING in more than a decade. And climate is always changing, that's what it does. For billions of years. And only 30years ago the big SciFiction was Global Winter. Check the economics. The billions we spend won't cover a fraction of what THEY (the rest of the world) do to contribute carbon. But will make us all poorer. And Gov't and certain corporations much richer. Check nature. It has always thrived in the eras of high Co/Co2. And climate change has always been what it does. Check the motives of the pols who push the agenda Obama wants so bad. They get power & wealth, their friends and sponsors do too. But you don't. You just get poorer, and more controlled by rules & rulers (the bureaucrats. Check yourself. You gullible, or just like the new gov't handouts?
A lot of the initial conditions are known
True, and for a long time already. In fact, the Bible itself describes a lot of them, speaking about sunlight and starlight and minerals and water and the yoman work of plate tectonic forces (leading to land, bringing outthe mineral porridge of the mantle and below, the cooling of the surface and emergence of "seas" and the atmosphere and hydrologic cycle. It even describes the "soup", by describing the waters in which life began, and from which it emerged onto the land, as "pisswaters" (read mucky shallows), etc. So Uri was hardly that much of a pioneer.
And, btw, what's wrong with a little "magic", as you call it" If I wanna make a lasagne, it helps to have the intelligence & forsight to to it, and a recipe and themagic of wallyworld to provide the various ingredients (even better with ready-made noodles and cheeses and sauces rather than trying to do it all fromcomplete scratch!) Gimme them and I can quite possibly even get the product I want by chance, if I just keep slamming the ingredients together a few (millions?) of times, in a fortuitously good environment (pan oven, etc?).
Lasagna ain't life, for sure, but I ain't nearly God. By definition, He's gotta be bigger than the universe he made and smart enough to design it and powerful enough to run it all - forever!
PS There's room enough to be open minded about this, and need enough for the tolerance tofor call off the culture and religious wars that are afflicting us, eh?
Can You? Two years ago I tried to set up an "XP Virtual Box" on advice of a computer tech, on my PC, running Win 7 Home. Wouldn't work, I was advised it was because XP Virtual won't run on a 64bit machine. They wrong? Can I upgrade and successfully get my XP VM, so I can run some prescious software (older, better version) that runs on XP, but nothing later?
I love 3D. Bought a Sony, which is a great TV system (Bravia, direct net access, etc.) even if it weren't 3D, and the glasses are no bother ... you gotta use them even in theaters. So while price is a real problem, THE BIGGEST problem is there's still only 3 decent movies available yet. 3 grand for a 3D TV is silly if you can only watch 3 movies!
You've confused that concept/term with evolution itself. Natural selection was an idea Darwin came to to explain the improbable history of life he believed in. He believed (more or less) that the present-day array of life forms on earth was the result of eons of "general improvements over time". That species were constantly changing (probably "improving", and generally increasing in their compplexity -- not from "humus", which is the end product of the death and decay of those higher life forms we call plants, but from single cell plants and animals to very complexly organized multicellular plants and animals, including humans) in order to better meet the challenges of the physical and intra-species environment. The challenges, that in nature offered no "winning tickets" but plenty of losing tickets, were what he meant by "natural selection". Evolution resulted, Darwin surmised, from species getting past those challenges, as better designs within their population remained and gained predominance.
Darwin actually got the idea from his observation of the human practice of animal husbandry. Throughout history, humans tended to practice "artificial selection". They got rid of (ate, discarded, prohibited from breeding) specimens of their domesticated species that they deemed less desirable, and encourage/aided the development of those which had "better" characteristics (prettier, more milk, more offspring, bigger eggs or drumsticks, etc.) from their point of view. Yep, that was "evolution" by human direction, and Darwin (biased by similar values) decided the remarkable panorama of life in all its splendor and complexity in his day must have been developed not by any similasr intelligent assistance (only God could have done such a thing, and Darwin was not fond of the idea of God or any other intelligent designer) so he settled for "natural selection" and a sort of Adam Smith theory of natural economics as the unseen hand that "evolved" the obviously great web of life now on earth.
Maybe, if you now understand "natural selection" and "evolution" a bit more accurately, you can rethink some of your own ideas and opinions.
By the way, there has always been global warming or cooling going on, sometimes far more drastic/extreme than what we are now noticing. And the theory of a metior/asteroid destroying (or ending) the preeminance of the dinosaurs is still a theory, and is actually being challenged quite rigoursly right now. And one can see, especially if one listens to PETA and so many of the environmentalist groups, that the idea that we are the epitome, or ultimate "improvement" in life forms, that there is indeed quite a set of values and judgements that stand behind the ideas of "evolution"
I was teaching this about 40 years ago, in my Human Evolution, Anthropology, and Cultural Ecology courses at UC Santa Cruz, among other places. If this the latest at Stanford, I'd recommend some other school! Really.
OK. Now try doing a little systems analysis: Spend all the money on motorcycles, and have none left over for other ideas, like replacing (at least) cars used for non-emergency or "police" activities... Think of the energy & resourcee consumed in manufacturing the new electrics (and their batteries and power supplies), and in scrapping the old gas ones, as well as the batteries, etc. Costs of retraining cops, mechanics, etc Added to the other issues being raised in the posts here, are we realling doing anything effective or just knee-jerk/feel-good actions?
I remember it well.
Well, one man's (or woman's) free speech is another man's (or woman's) campaigning or lobbying speech, and do you think that once a register of bloggers is in place, restrictions as to when (i.e. pre-campaign cut-offs) or how (i.e. is it under the guidance of, or by solicitation on a candidate or advocate of the subject) or by whom/affiliation the blogging is made (i.e. as churches, union committees, PACs..) won't soon become subjects of regulation, or lawsuit, or campaigning regs?
Come on, some of you who want to disregard or make little of this would hardly be speaking like this if the Republicans or Bush admin were the PROPONENTS of it!
Bush's Approach, 4-10 nukes, 1 test
First, just like we don't really even know if the so-called test WAS of a nuke, we also don't know if NK has any real weapons. It's all simply their word which, as we know, is mostly BS and BS.
Second, the point those who suggest Clinton's approach was useless, or even worse, the real reason NK now has nukes is that they used the financial and technical aid they got from Clinton to help develop them, and the somkescreen/gullibility of the so-called agreement (like, the sound of one hand clapping) to carry on the program that lade the groundwork, developed the technology and nuclear weapons-grade materials and set up the next several years while Bush was in office and trusting that Clinton actually had been successful, in which the weapons were assembled.
Third, If yo momma is cooking the turkey all day before you arrive home to enjoy Thanksgiving dinner, and after you are seated she brings it out to be served, is it your fault - or responsibility - that the turkey is there and now cooked and being served?
Come on, don't let the political gamesmanship and partisanship obscure the facts: NK was building their nuke program during both Presidents' watches, and NK is really the villain here. Bush may be wrong. But Clinton obviously was wrong, and Bush is simply trying another approach. Now, as much as I have no confidence in the UN, and China and Russia, just maybe having them involved in the Bush approach (multiparty and UN involvement, and getting both their eyes involved in the watching for cheating and their reputations/political egos on the line if they are cheated on) will work.
Ordered mine already!
You are sooo right! And no one ever seems to finish their analysis of the whole solution. For instance, how many fans of electric or hybrid cars ever thinks about the materials, energy, and chemical consumption that goes into manufacturing and distributing and then disposing of all those billions of batteries? We haven't even managed to handle cell phone or laptop batteries!
And then there is the problem of cycling over to electric cars. We will have to "dispose" of 100's of millions of gas & diesel cars, manage to get them into the hands of the public, half of which cannot begin to afford the transition... they can hardly afford to buy a used smokey fuelish used car to keep their lives, and family ties, and employment opportunities together. Anyone out there willing to buy a few (like maybe 50) million new cars and donate them to the poor? And revoke the civil liberties of the better-off and manfate they buy their own? Most of us keep a car for 10 years. ... Well, I try, anyway.
And what about the materials, energy, and trash costs of digging up and disposing of all those gas stations and replacing them with "electric" stations, and the transmission infrastructure, and generation facilitiues. Right now, by the way, we have power companies giving away refridgerators and ranges and light bulbs because giving millions of thos away is cheaper than building new power plants.
Yeah, like before you run off to build Tesla-heaven, think about the dump you'll have to leave behind. It won't be cheap, or pretty. In fact, may well be too ugly for Tesla Heaven to be very pretty...
"You can't sit a child in front of a unionized tenured teacher and expect him to learn things he needs to succeed in society,", think many a parent, nowadays....
And in my mind, all those other "easy's" are worth a lot. "Easy's" like quick transactions, notifications of payments, provision of invoices, verified credit cards and addresses, et.
And as a matter of fact (or luck?), I've yet to have any problem (about 3 years and 100 sales and several purchases on ebay) with Paypal.
Methinks you flatter yourself too much.
And, what's so interesting (like 5 points!) about rude crude ranting, and paranoia? Come on, moderators.
Of course, it might be that you (the paranoid posters) really do have something interesting to say, like any good terrorist or 5th column would-be terrorist. Then I do hope they DO listen in. Rather that than you succeed in blowing up another few thousands, or infecting a few millions.
I used to be a rabid civil-libertarian. Spent my time in jail for anti-war, and civil rights work, but once I grasped the utter irrational (to us) hatred (of us) of Islamists and others, who think it a privilege and glory and the small price of eternal glory and delight, to murder/destroy millions (of us), I decided to hedge a few liberties.
Iran isn't bragging or joking when they say they have signed up 40,000 to become the next suicide/homocide patriots if we even begin to mess with their program to bring on the beloved, long awaited armageddon. And nothing will do it quicker than starting a nuke exchange in the middle east. And you know what, that's just Iran. Similar zealotry and rabid desire to end human history and begin their eternity with a few dozen virgins is in few dozen other countries too.
Now that's not paranoi or exagerated imagination on my part. That's just the facts as I know them as a professional anthropologist and student of religion, and news junkie.
I think your feats show that it's still possible to do some real science and make some significant contributions out of a living room and without multi-million dollar budgets, labs, and grad-student serfs! Like, you're almost a latter day Galileo!
So I want to both praise you, and call attention to the fact that there are now so many resources, esp on line, like NASA's maps and all the satellite imagery from them and private companies, shared computing projects like Einstein at Home and Seti, and the various genetic and species and physics and ... the list goes and grows on! ... out there, that a lot more folks can do likewise, in whatever topics turn them on!
Way to go!
"surveys and polls consistently reveal that among the American people, about 90% profess a belief in God; about 75% believe that Intelligent Design has played a role in what we are; less than 50% believe in evolution at all, and half of those think it must share credit with an Intelligent Designer who either created evolution as a tool and/or maintains a certain degree of control over how and where evolution progresses; merely a fourth actually believe in that totally naturalistic version of evolution" You might note that the reason the numbers don't add up to 100 is that people, and their beliefs, overlap. Some believe in one, some in two, etc. ideas. In fact, many, maybe the majority,believe in both evolution and ID (or in creation a la Bible, even!).
Now, you are the one, unfortunately, who is limited (narrow) in your ideas. ID and (Biblical) creationism, while similar and compatible, are not the same. Rather (should you really understand the theory of evolution) evolution and ID are complementary! ID can address those things that evolutionary theory does not, and cannot. And those people you seem to think so lowly of, actually understand that, and want both ideas to be considered, and taught to students of science.
BTW, what's so confusing about "did not know". Do you really KNOW? Of course, you have your prejudices, biases, and assumed intellectual omnipotence, but do you really know (scientists, when honest, admit they don't, and cannot), really know how (or why) the universe, and life, really started? Why not let both ideas (evolution, ID or...) have their opportunity to be heard, studied, and considered? That's what most people want. And, contrary to your rather arrogant opinions, they are not "idiots", but truly understand they don't know, and keep an OPEN mind! And to my somewhat (previously) surprised mind, neither are the Brits!
The advocates/practitioners of each think they do. Mathematical exercises excepted, the brane folks think they are posing testable hypotheses regarding gravity, and how it scales across the universe, and as regards the cosmological constant. They also think they can use it to offer an alternative to the Big Bang, and its problems. I think they also think they may have something to offer on the subject of wormholes.
String theorists are posing hypotheses regarding elements of physics: about bosons and what new quark, or sub-quark entities we may find. They also think they can predict what we will find when a couple of higher energy smashers come on line. They also think they can give better explanations of some of the properties/mysteries in quantum theory. And they think they can account for some of what the CMB studies have revealed, and do away with those anomolies that require super-inflation, etc., adjustments to the Big Bang theory.
Of course, string theory, especially, is dealing with stuff far beyond diorect observation, and not easily experimented with. Instead, much of their rationale for earning respect and paychecksw comes from either offering verbal or computational descriptions of some of the missing links in the quantum and subquantum (say, Planc) level of things. And their wortk is conceptual, or argumentive, offering what they think are better explanations for the data and observations that others us QM or whatever. So, theirs is beginning to be predictive, after having been generally retrodictive and of the nature of "but a better explanation is...", but opponents simply say they are wrong and stick to their guns. That's real science. Eh?
So, a "testable prediction", in string theory is still more generally hitchhiking on other research intended to test predictions of those other physics. I'd say, the string theorists have been pretty persuasive, and are far from a small minority, now.
Anyway, that's as far as I can respond right now. You can continue to believe what you want. I can't say, had we the chance to really converse, we'd actually have any real disagreements. I just tend to stay pretty open to most ideas, and while I think brane theory is silly unscientific nonsense (though a number of scientists get their paychecks talking about it), I will even listen to them. But I do like string theory (theories). But, since most "discussion" in /. lasts but a day, I doubt we can go much further, here. I HAVE to take off with my grand daughter to her house to pick up the Christmas holiday with the rest of her family (4 more kids, all under 10), so you can see where my priorities must go.
Sorry I gotta go, but...
I don't agree regarding string theory. I think it's building a pretty respectable reputation, and a paradigm that fits well with a lot of the Standard Model, and astronomical and physics data. And it certainly offers one of the best hopes for that desired "theory of everything", and it certrainly offers an intellectual picture every bit as powerful as what Einstein gave us in 1905.
As for your question: tell me what you mean by "supernatural". (I assume you are interested only in the hard physical sciences. Get over into the social sciences, and psychology, etc., and "incorporating" the "supernatural" is not uncommon.)
How I define religion is a bit broader than you might, because I spent a few years getting an MA in anthro, and in field work, cross cultural studies, and for broader scientific purposes, "religion" in many cultures around the world (and throughout history), and even for understanding a lot of folks in subcultures of our own society, you need not have a "divine being", nor the "supernatural" (as you probably concieve of it, ie, spirits and magic etc.) to have a religion. And, as the IRS has found, and you might if you look at what actually does qualify as a "church" or "religion", yes, you can start a church of naturalism or atheism or naturalism.
A "religion" is a cultural institution or set of beliefs that answer the existential questions most - if not all humans - have and need answered that they migh sleep better at night.
If "Evolution" is how someone explains the origins of the universe, and themselves, and if "evolution" is looked to for the ethics and morality that one wishes to establish or justify one's behavior, and if "Evolution" is the intellectual framework that one adopts in place of what other cultures use the Bible, or myths about the volcano out back to explain, (like the reason we are "the people", and all other humans are actually animals no more deserving respect or life than a chipmunk) well, then for most purposes, in a scientific (or social science) study, evolution is reasonably considered and treated as a religion.
Anyway, as far as I can see (and I've seen a lot), and as I've understood evolution during those many years I researched in, and taught evolution (mostly U of Cal, various campuses), it also attempts to answer the "why", not just the "how". And, especially for those who seek to get beyond the inherent limits of Darwinism, and explain the origins of life, and not just of species, they really wish to supplant the notion of "god" and any other "divine being" or force or explanations, and that makes it pretty "religious". And evolution does not merely "describe" "the natural way". It is a theory, a belief" of the "Why", with that capital "W".
And you know, the reason many folks have a problem with evolutionists is precisely because the evolutionists will not let "that theory" be shown to be wrong. The evolutionists are very intolerant of every other religion (ooops, theory of the way, and why, things are the way they are), and that's why the culture wars are here. That very powerful 5% are unwilling to let any other ideas of the other 95% of the world get any hearing at all... except of course, in "religion" or "philosophy" classes or clubs.
Oh well, I DO wish you a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year. Hope, for your sake, you are right. Me, I have a lot less at stake. I know about, and have a lot of confidence/belief, and credentials, in both sides!!!
Oh well, the Chargers are up against it with the KC Chiefs, and then the Seahawks against the Colts, so I gotta go and get serious about the really BIG matters of life. Merry Christmas!