Does the community here accept that blocking funding to something is the same thing as blocking something? Or does blocking something require creating laws making some such or another illegal at the federal level (this probably being unconstitutional on the face of it).
Collecting more taxes than the federal government will spend themselves and giving it back to state governments with strings attached is unconstitutional in and of itself. Sadly, it will probably never be stopped without a revolution. Given that, blocking federal funding also blocks local government funding in most cases in all but the wealthiest states, because there is a limit to how much you can tax people. It effectively blocks such research and has a "chilling effect" just as government monitoring of libraries was ruled unconstitutional because it had a "chilling effect" upon free speech.
Your grasp of history, even recent history, is wanting. Darfur is a tragedy of politics, not global warming.
Darfur is a tragedy of politics failing to deal with climate change. The water dried up, people moved to where there still was some water, and thus they came into conflict with the people already there.
Really, it takes a complete miscreant to tie the tragedy of Darfur with Global Warming. Have you no shame?
I'm trying to point out the dangers of ignoring climate change. You don't think politics will fail to deal well with major cities flooding, droughts, and other changing weather patterns. You're the one arguing that rapid warming and its accompanying changes will be a good thing, with your simplistic warm=good theory.
The bias in the peer review process has been well documented. It's a closed system and requires payment to participate.
[citation needed]
That's consensus science at work. You need that consensus, I don't.
It's not about consensus it's about fully published data and methodology and discussion of how that study could influence our current models. Do you even read peer reviewed journals?
If the scientific community supported by consensus something you knew to be false, would you change your mind? Because that's what you are arguing for.
No, I'm not. I'm arguing that if you want to have your data taken seriously, you have to resent it ad your theory and methodology and submit it for review. If you're publishing vague assertions with no data and no methodology that attacks studies that have published data and methodology and have been repeated... then you have no credibility. The problem I have with global warming deniers is not that they are bucking the trend, but that they're not meeting the rigorous standards of disclosure require for publication in a real scientific journal, but instead paying to have their crap published in non-scientific media in the hope of influencing general public opinion. That's not science... it's public relations.
It took an outsider to point out the flaws in the data on global temperatures that all of the scientists were using, not peer review.
What do you think peer review is?
As far as GW deniers muddying the waters and preventing action, there is no consensus on what should be done.
There's a lot of consensus among the scientific community. Reduce emissions is the number on thing everyone can agree is a good idea. You might notice the vast majority of the world's governments have signed a treaty to do it.
The problem is all the public relations work on the part of oil companies has managed to confuse the issue in the minds of average people enough such that politicians in a few countries can keep their citizens from demanding action from them.
Great, you've reached the understanding level the rest of the world reached long ago. There's a huge body of scientific work describing the best models we have as to what is most likely to happen in reaction to this rapid change. Most of them have proved too conservative in the last few years.
Humanity has always done better in warmer periods. That's historically and scientifically provable, although not supported by consensus.
Wow, there goes your credibility. Darfur recently got warmer, that's been a lot better for humanity, huh? It's scientifically provable?
Rapid climate change leads to rapid weather change. We don't even know for sure what the long term result of a rapid upward change will be. It could be an ice age. The point is, we do know what rapid change is very likely to cause in the short term, and that is droughts in some places there was water, heavy rainfall in places that normally don't have it, and sea levels above large arts of most major cities around the world. In short, it is causing and will increasingly cause a huge expense in resources and lives. It almost certainly won't wipe out our species, but one would hope that we could motivate ourselves to work against slightly lesser threats, like ones that will only result in millions of lost lives and trillions of wasted dollars.
For the love of Buddha, go to the library pick up a copy of New Scientist or some other peer reviewed scientific journal and actually read the bloody papers and then look for actual data to refute them. You'll notice and interesting disparity. Almost everyone with real data and anything new on the topic seems to be adding to a large body of work that has a very clear consensus... because it is well supported.
Linux (with KDE) has both system wide mouse gestures and system wide spellchecking. Both have been around for many years now.
Sadly, I've never found a Linux desktop to be usable without a combination of Gnome and KDE apps and the spellchecking and mouse gestures only work in KDE apps. Also, as far as both spell checking and gestures are concerned, I've never found a way to use them for applications where the developers did not specifically include them. Assigning a gesture or using spell checking in Konsole, for example, does not seem to be a task doable for a normal user.
Note, I gave up on Kubuntu years ago because of numerous stability problems, so things might have changed. If so, I'd love to hear about it.
Debate of any kind is helpful to science and life in general.
More particular and staying on topic, debate of a well supported theory and a completely unsupported hypothesis, in a high school classroom is often not helping anything and lending undue weight to nonsense while wasting time that could be spent learning useful things.
Critics of evolution have pointed out gaps in the fossil record that have been closed. Is that not a good thing?
Of course not! Every time a gap is filled it creates two more gaps, thus making evolution less believable! Okay that was sarcasm. There will always be gaps in the fossil record and we will always be finding more fossils to form a more complete lineage. Pointing out those gaps is pointing out the obvious and not really useful at all. It does absolutely nothing to discredit the absurdly well supported theory of evolution. Finding a new fossil that fills a gap in the record helps the theory of evolution the same way whenever a metallurgist makes a new alloy and it doesn't go whizzing off the planet supports the theory of gravity. That is to say, it is just one more thing that fits into the model after thousands and thousands of other pieces of evidence.
Critics of global warming have pointed out flaws in the data, flaws in the collection of data (urbanization around temperature measuring sites) and other things. Those are all good things.
Most commonly critics of global warming have muddied the waters with patently false claims and by bringing up factors like urbanization that were long ago factored into the models being used. This is done to try to make it seem like there is some credibility to the view that warming is not happening, or is not happening more rapidly than has happened in the past or can be explained by natural phenomenon or that humans are not a the most likely influencing factor causing this rapid change.
They are not contributing to the model, but trying to spread unfounded doubt about it. That is not good, because it gives both politicians and normal individuals a way to justify actions that in truth cannot be justified.
What I don't understand is the need for consensus by otherwise rationale human beings. Does a lack of consensus diminish your beliefs?
No, but lack of action made possible by lack of consensus may result in my little nieces growing up in a world that is a much worse place than it would otherwise be. It stifles progress.
If you truly believe you are correct, then have the balls to stand up to your critics.
The critics are the ones not standing up. They're not publishing scientific findings in peer reviewed journals because they don't have any valid data or useful new theories to present. Instead they write vague unscientific articles and other media, which they pay to publish (just like advertising) and refuse to ever debate the specifics with real experts. I'm happy to stand up and debunk any idiotic article they present, but I sure don't have the time or money to devote my life to reading every useless puff piece they write and pointing out the complete lack of new data or factual errors and they don't care if I do, because they're already busy hiring people to write the next so-called study which they will then pay to disseminate.
Okay, my geeky nerd-speak is not what it used to be, but I'll attempt a translation. "Cha" is short for "Charisma" and "stat" is short for "statistic". Charisma is a common statistic applied to characters in role playing games to indicate how likable and persuasive they are. Thus I interpret this comment in English to mean that she is nearly as charismatic as Obama is.
At least the other responder had the good sense to note how ridiculous the same interpretations sounded. You sounded like you thought they made sense.
I wrote, "Most reasonable christians subscribe to a view that allows more leeway for interpretation than strict literalists (who tend to be either disingenuous or poorly educated, since such a view leads to numerous biblical contradictions)."
I think that pretty well states I find those interpretations to be unreasonable. The point is, those are the strict, literal interpretations and fundamentalist who believe in a strict, literal interpretation of the bible do believe these things to the point of angrily arguing that anyone who does not believe them is going to burn in hell for eternity. If this candidate is strict and literal enough in her interpretation of the bible to disbelieve in evolution because Genesis interpreted in that way conflicts with said theory, then I think it is reasonable to question what other ways she and her sect interpret the bible and what other absurdities they'd like taught in our schools.
She may, however, appeal to the evangelicals, being as she is one of them and a pro-lifer, pro-Iraq-war, creationist. That is, if they can get over their prohibition on women in positions of authority over men.
If the Democrats are smart they'll send a cat's paw to ask her about what would happen if McCain died and she was in charge of the US military giving orders to all the generals. It could well tip the balance of the evangelical voters away from the possibility, that is if they aren't convinced Obama is a muslim and the anti-christ. You never know with some of those nutjobs. They don't really live in the same reality as the rest of us.
I totally disagree with this. Evolution is an extremely simple concept for children if you humble yourself enough to accept that it is simple.
To truly understand evolution you have to understand random mutations, recessive genes, inheritance of genes, environmental pressures and how they affect survival and chances of procreation, and be able to envision all of this taking place through millions of generations of birth and death. A good, motivated teacher can teach the concept to average people, but then you have to throw in other influences such as parents, bad teachers, and religious leaders trying to miseducate them with both flawed logic and misinformation. It is a much, much harder concept to grasp than say, gravity, which a significant portion of our society still doesn't grasp given the number of americans who still can't explain why people don't fall off the earth in the southern hemisphere.
I applaud your early introduction of these concepts and I hope your child is gifted or your teaching better than that of the average school teacher, but I'm much more pessimistic about these things. Maybe it's just that I've spent too much time reading the absurd assertions of religious fundamentalists of late.
I believe evolution to be true, and I don't mind that others don't. In my HS AP biology class, the teacher separated all of the students into two groups
Perhaps you're unclear on the definition of the word "literal". Don't be ashamed, much of the US has lost understanding of the word due to regular and unabashed misuse.
literal - adjective - taking words in their usual or most basic sense without metaphor or allegory : dreadful in its literal sense, full of dread.
Before you go off on my explanations of these terms, go check out this site where you can see quotes from religious fundamentalists claiming all of the above (the world is flat, the sun moves around the earth, the world used to be covered by a magic dome of water) and justifying their beliefs because the bible says so and they believe it is literally true (some just think the English translation of the King James version is true) and the inerrant word of their god.
There is a trend in science to try to close the debate, which is very unscientific. Global warming, er, climate change is the best example of this.
I disagree. No one is trying to "close the debate" on evolution versus, whatever... but you have to have a scientific alternative in order to have a debate. You have to have a credible well tested alternative if you think said alternative should be taught alongside one of the most well supported theories in existence. As for global warming, there is a very real concern in the US and a few other countries about the campaigns of misinformation being paid for by the oil industry to make it appear there is some sort of real lack of consensus among scientists. There isn't and hasn't been for a long time.
I believe evolution to be true, and I don't mind that others don't. In my HS AP biology class, the teacher separated all of the students into two groups...
And you think this is a good thing? Do you think all those other students received the best education they could in that time? Do you think all of them even fully understood the scientific method and the theory of evolution?
Scientific debate, critical thinking, and questioning well accepted theories are all well and good, but not necessarily a good use of the limited time available to a high school science class. Most of those people will never create a useful alternative theory to anything. They should at least be taught to understand the important and well established and supported theories that form the basis of modern science. Did you teacher also divide your class up and debate the merits of the theory of gravity versus the theory of directional falling? I bet not. I bet he taught the theory of gravity, that matter attracts and how that shapes our world and then moved on to spend time on other useful theories. The same should be the case for evolution and would be if not for a campaign of misinformation by religious fundamentalists. The general populace of the US is becoming a laughingstock of the first world with this nonsense.
Cheney used Bush's inexperience to grab power. Biden will do the same. Both will make the exact same mistakes, and the American people are idiots for thinking that getting elected to the senate once is all the qualifications needed for the presidency.
I disagree. In fact, I'd say Obama's pick was because he is going to be a strong president and have a VP who has little domestic power. He picked Biden on his diplomatic credentials and so far none of Biden's policies have made their way into Obama's platform. Biden seems like a real scum bag to me and I'd hate to have him president if Obama kicked the bucket, but there is no indication Biden will be another power behind the throne like Cheney. I seriously doubt Obama (if elected) will beat Bush's record for vacation time. Obama is one of those somewhat misguided idealists who will be there doing crap, even when we might wish he weren't. Both McCain and Obama are fairly strong candidates and neither has choosen a VP that might grab too much power or stand up to them.
Far too many police departments protect bad cops. I say, kudos to Palin for cleaning house.
If this were a regular occurrence or if she went after all the cops with bad track records, I'd be all about it. When the only cop she went after happened to be in a custody battle with her sister, well that's just abuse of power in my book. Trying to phrase it impersonally, as you do, is very disingenuous.
Now see, this is exactly what she was advocating--introduce both concepts and encourage healthy debate.
I disagree. She advocated teaching both "theories" which strongly implies them being placed on similar standing. A discussion of what constitutes a scientific theory does have a place in the classroom, but the topic of evolution versus creationism is probably one of the worst topics to use since their are so many religious people with a vested interest in skewing the facts and hence convincing children that the latter is the truth, and in the process undermining the lesson about what the scientific method is and how it works. A less controversial example, such as the theory of gravity versus the theory of directional falling would better illustrate the subject and be less likely to be undermined by religious "leaders".
Debate requires constant research, exploration, and effort. This strengthens the mind and carries us forward.
This assumes the people are interested in logical debate instead of emotional considerations and pushing their religious beliefs. I don't think that is a safe assumption with teachers today. Schools have a limited amount of time, so they should teach the scientific method using non controversial examples and preferably real, hands on experiments, and they should teach the fundamental and well supported theories like evolution, gravity, relativity, atomic models, etc. They should not bring in unsupported hypothesis which happen to be the subject of huge misinformation campaigns. Right now a significant portion of our populace doesn't even know what the theory of evolution is and it is a complex concept for children, yet you think we should be using it as an example for teaching the scientific method at the same time? I think we should concentrate on making sure kids know what the theory is and how it works and if they want to debate the topic later in life at least they won't do so from a completely uninformed perspective.
Most pundits seem to be focused on Palin's being a woman, but I see her as a way for McCain to reach out to the libertarian crowd. One commentator described her as the "libertarian VP candidate," or at least the closest thing to a libertarian that we're likely to see on a major-party ticket:
I'm not seeing it. I'm not a libertarian, but I do agree with a good number of their ideals and have voted for their candidates in the past. I don't know a lot about Palin, but my quick research did not really shout "libertarian."
Civil rights - libertarians are very government hands off and want reduced funds for government programs and impartiality in remaining programs. Palin is a pro-lifer (as you point out), wants creationism taught in government schools and increased school funding, opposes same sex marriage (more government religious involvement).
Economics - libertarians want smaller government and less regulation. Palin dumped millions into trying to prop up a government funded dairy industry that all her advisers told her was a lost cause... and which folded anyway.
Gun Control - she seems pretty pro-gun which is in line with the libertarians.
Energy - libertarians want the government to let the market sort it out. Palin endorsed Obama's energy plan and wants tax incentives and other government involvement in directing energy going forward.
Drug Prohibition - this is a big one for many libertarians who want legalization of marijuana and other drugs. Palin has worked for harsher penalties for possession of other drugs and does not support marijuana decriminalization (let alone legalization).
In short, I see her pretty well aligned with the mainstream Republicans. I think her lack of history and relative obscurity is going to be a big asset since it lets people speculate and engage in a lot of wishful thinking. The libertarians would like her to be aligned with their position, or at least more aligned than other candidates because it provides hope. In reality, she seems more like a VP who would have little power under the assertive McCain and who is no more aligned with the libertarians than and of the other presidential or vice-presidential nominees.
That depends. How much of the scientific method was used on the creation experiments? How much was used on the ones in the textbook? In some cases, creationists do the scientific method better.
Really? I've never seen that. Can you present any paper (suitable for education or not) that presents creationism as a testable hypothesis, or better yet as a tested theory?
Personally, I don't care if the source is alien chasers or whoever. If they have a repeatable scientific experiment, regardless of whether it is damaging to some tenet of evolution or the big bang or whatever, I want it taught! Anything else is censorship of the truth, and holds back the progression of scientific understanding.
So here's the thing, not all theories are equally supported. Things like gravity and evolution have centuries of testing and support and huge amounts of known science are built upon them. They're staples of science and as such have earned a place in the basic curriculum. Even if someone comes up with a creation hypothesis and tests it with an experiment that is repeated, that doesn't bring it the level of credibility of the more tested theories.
Just last year there was a theory that there was an extrasolar planet similar in size to the earth because of a peculiar observed dimming of the star. They tested it with more observations and it seemed to hold up as a theory and was peer reviewed and repeated. Then a few months ago a counter theory appeared that it was not a planet causing the dimming and they predicted some other characteristics if it was more closely observed. Those predictions proved true and we have a new best theory to fit the data. This happens all the time. No one teaches these brand new theories in undergraduate education because they aren't the basic theories we know with great likelihood won't be outdated in another few years.
It isn't censorship to not teach either the theory about the planet I mentioned or creationism because they aren't well accepted and proven science. It is especially not censorship to not teach such unproven theories when they are championed by religious cults desperate to try to promote their religious beliefs in public schools in violation of the separation of church and state. For a creationism theory to earn a place in the basic curriculum it first needs to be proper, testable science, then it needs to build up a large supporting body of evidence such that it is not a theory of the month and we have a good and rational expectation that it is the best theory to understand the truth (or at least close to alternative theories in the amount of supporting evidence and testing).
There are a whole lot of verses that one could cite, but I'm no biblical expert. Here are a few for your perusal though. Remember, you have interpret them strictly and literally.
Ecclesiastes 1:5
The sun rises and the sun goes down, and hastens to the place where it rises.
Note, it says the sun rises, thus it is the sun moving, not the earth spinning, interpreted literally.
1 Chronicles 16:30
tremble before him, all earth; yea, the world stands firm, never to be moved.
Reinforcing that the earth does not move, thus other bodies are moving in relation to it, taken literally.
Matthew 4:8
8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;
Since you can't see all of a globe from a mountain on it, the earth must be flat. There are also repeated references to the corners and edges of the earth in other verses.
Mind you, if you read any of these passages with a little bit of metaphor, one could easily open them up to much more reasonable interpretations... but then you have to consider the possibility that other parts of the bible are also metaphorical and that is something fundamentalists strongly oppose. Most reasonable christians subscribe to a view that allows more leeway for interpretation than strict literalists (who tend to be either disingenuous or poorly educated, since such a view leads to numerous biblical contradictions).
While that technically makes him half African-American, he does not share the full cultural heritage that is commonly understood by the term "African-American."
Actually, genetic testing shows that a large percentage of african americans are actually mulatto with at least some european ancestry.
I'm no advocate of creationism, either. But, I question people who insist that it is a subject that must not be discussed.
The article I read said the following:
The volatile issue of teaching creation science in public schools popped up in the Alaska governor's race this week when Republican Sarah Palin said she thinks creationism should be taught alongside evolution in the state's public classrooms.
Palin was answering a question from the moderator near the conclusion of Wednesday night's televised debate on KAKM Channel 7 when she said, 'Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important, and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both.'
Asked for her personal views on evolution, Palin said, "I believe we have a creator."
She would not say whether her belief also allowed her to accept the theory of evolution as fact.
"I'm not going to pretend I know how all this came to be," she said.
From that context is seems she personally believes in creationism as per her evangelical faith, but she doesn't want to that to be public knowledge and used against her politically. I expect she'll be waffling on this topic throughout the elections except when trying to win over fundamentalists in private meetings.
As to her position on the schools, she advocated teaching it alongside evolution, which seems to imply much more than just discussing it. Evolution is a major and well supported scientific theory and deserves to have some time spent explaining it (especially since so many people these days don't even seem to know what it is). Creationism is just the unsupported hypothesis that maybe someone created it all somehow. It takes about 30 seconds to explain. About the only reason I can see to discuss creationism in a science class is if you're trying to present an example of how the scientific method works (and why creationism is not applying that method at all). Even then it is a poor choice, since it is such an emotional topic due to the religious implications.
In short, I don't trust Palin at all to help further the educational process instead of using the system as a way to try to promote her faith, simply because she refuses to say if evolution is a fact in her opinion.
Let's be fair: the percentage of the "strict biblical literalists" teaching a geocentric model is really small, but really loud. Equating the geocentrists with the biblical literalists is a classic fallacy of composition.
Wait, what? The bible does strongly imply that the earth stands still and the sun moves around it, just as it implies that the earth is flat.
If someone is not teaching geocentrism, doesn't that mean they aren't a strict biblical literalist by definition? They might be a moderate biblical literalist, I suppose.
No, but it does enshrine the separation of church and state such that if some religion claims
You have never and will never see me argue against abortion from a religious perspective.
There's a difference between arguing against abortion and arguing for special laws to restrict the actions of others with regard to abortion. The term "pro-choice" is not just rhetoric. By not passing laws the issue is left in the hands of each individual. If human cells are growing inside my body and have no brain or intelligence, then why should you be the one to tell me if I can remove them? Whether the cells are a tumor or a fetus, what non-religious right, within the bounds of the constitution does the government have for removing my freedom to choose?
The courts have already ruled that the fetuses in question are not people with rights any more than a sperm is.
The same court once ruled that the negro had no rights that any white man was bound to respect. Bad decisions have a way of finding themselves overturned.
Yes they have, but the law in question isn't attempting to overturn said Supreme Court decision, it is trying to ignore that decision and is thus unconstitutional.
You don't even know what my religion demands. I do not oppose abortion on religious grounds.
Fine, you still haven't presented any secular grounds for such a law. Let's hear it.
Why should someone pick one team made up of people you both agree with and don't agree with? Why are you so fixated upon joining a group?
Because in a Democracy, groups are how things get done.
Bullcrap. You don't need to join a party to vote and have our vote counted. The parties undermine democracy, if anything. They're how things are prevented from getting done.
Perhaps not in yours, but in most.
Actually, exactly half of states currently have open primaries.
Your inability to follow doesn't make it a non sequitur. I'll spell it out for you. Unless you are a member of a party, you have virtually no change of getting your candidate on any ballot.
The implicit statement you make is that I have a candidate. I don't. I look at individuals, regardless of party affiliation, and choose from those running. I'm not a member of any party, but my vote counts exactly the same as yours (well maybe more since I'm in a swing state). Your argument is for why a politician should join a party to increase their chances of success and has nothing to do with why an individual voter should.
Two words: Mouse Gestures. Cannot browse without it.
I find these sorts of features discouraging, not because they are bad features, but because they're being implemented at the wrong level. Like spell checking, mouse gestures should be implemented at the OS level so all programs can take advantage of them. As far as I know, OS X is the only OS that provides an easy way to implement such functionality and we know Windows won't be getting it anytime soon. Linux might or might not, but I'm not holding my breath. I have hope that Linux on the desktop development will speed up as hardware makers start to preinstall it, but I haven't seen much real difference yet.
Mouse gestures being implemented in browsers is just another demonstration of how Microsoft and lack of competition has crippled innovation in the desktop OS market.
he particular exception you did mention is not even supported by many Republicans and shouldn't be supported by any patriot who believes in the constitution.
The constitution does not enshrine a right to infanticide.
No, but it does enshrine the separation of church and state such that if some religion claims a partially formed fetus or a banana or a sacred rock is really in infant that definition cannot be forced upon the rest of the populace unless it is supported by objective facts. The courts have already ruled that the fetuses in question are not people with rights any more than a sperm is. I can respect religious beliefs that disagree and claim the existence of a soul attached to said bundle of cells, but those beliefs cannot be enforced as a law because of the constitution. You can hold whatever beliefs you want, you just can't force other people to do what your religion demands. To do so opens up the possibility of other religions to enforce their beliefs upon you as law.
How so? What kind of an idiot thinks not choosing one of two equally wrongheaded organizations is indecisive?
There are more than two parties. Third parties can often drive the agenda for the two major parties.
Our system is weighted such that third parties are unlikely to ever have any real influence at the federal level. More importantly, their is no fundamental difference between two wrong parties and eight wrong parties. Why should someone pick one team made up of people you both agree with and don't agree with? Why are you so fixated upon joining a group? Are you that insecure?
Joining a party gives you input in the primary process. The primary is just as important as the general election.
You don't have to join a party to vote in the primaries, at least not in my state.
You don't seem to understand that being a member of a party doesn't oblige you to vote for that party.
The damage is with the self association, whereas people like you become defensive whenever their favorite party is criticized and buy into absurd bullshit about the other party out of some sort of juvenile rivalry.
This "ra ra!" sports team attitude of divisive politics is simply another sign of the decline of intellectualism in the US.
Ahh that's it. You're "too smart to make a difference"
This is a non sequitur. How does not rooting for a "team" mean my vote counts any less?
[S]hould they bless Microsoft's EOT for use on the web? Or, should they encourage normal font files on the web and help break Microsoft's forgotten monopoly?"
Am I missing something? It seems to me that the very thing Microsoft is proposing - a standard for enforcing font file copy rights - is the thing the linked article suggests is necessary to break Microsoft's "monopoly" on web fonts.
I believe the monopoly referenced is MS's monopoly influence on the Web browser and, hence, Web technologies markets.
This is beside the point, you said that Democrats supported "current" abortion laws, and I just proved you wrong.
Democrats support most all current abortion laws and have not been pressing for new ones. I'm sure you can find a few limited exceptions to this rule. The particular exception you did mention is not even supported by many Republicans and shouldn't be supported by any patriot who believes in the constitution.
I have no political affiliation and never plan to.
That makes you indecisive, not independent.
How so? What kind of an idiot thinks not choosing one of two equally wrongheaded organizations is indecisive? Why commit to voting for either party if both have many members who act unethically? This "ra ra!" sports team attitude of divisive politics is simply another sign of the decline of intellectualism in the US.
Slashdot Mirror
Does the community here accept that blocking funding to something is the same thing as blocking something? Or does blocking something require creating laws making some such or another illegal at the federal level (this probably being unconstitutional on the face of it).
Collecting more taxes than the federal government will spend themselves and giving it back to state governments with strings attached is unconstitutional in and of itself. Sadly, it will probably never be stopped without a revolution. Given that, blocking federal funding also blocks local government funding in most cases in all but the wealthiest states, because there is a limit to how much you can tax people. It effectively blocks such research and has a "chilling effect" just as government monitoring of libraries was ruled unconstitutional because it had a "chilling effect" upon free speech.
Your grasp of history, even recent history, is wanting. Darfur is a tragedy of politics, not global warming.
Darfur is a tragedy of politics failing to deal with climate change. The water dried up, people moved to where there still was some water, and thus they came into conflict with the people already there.
Really, it takes a complete miscreant to tie the tragedy of Darfur with Global Warming. Have you no shame?
I'm trying to point out the dangers of ignoring climate change. You don't think politics will fail to deal well with major cities flooding, droughts, and other changing weather patterns. You're the one arguing that rapid warming and its accompanying changes will be a good thing, with your simplistic warm=good theory.
The bias in the peer review process has been well documented. It's a closed system and requires payment to participate.
[citation needed]
That's consensus science at work. You need that consensus, I don't.
It's not about consensus it's about fully published data and methodology and discussion of how that study could influence our current models. Do you even read peer reviewed journals?
If the scientific community supported by consensus something you knew to be false, would you change your mind? Because that's what you are arguing for.
No, I'm not. I'm arguing that if you want to have your data taken seriously, you have to resent it ad your theory and methodology and submit it for review. If you're publishing vague assertions with no data and no methodology that attacks studies that have published data and methodology and have been repeated... then you have no credibility. The problem I have with global warming deniers is not that they are bucking the trend, but that they're not meeting the rigorous standards of disclosure require for publication in a real scientific journal, but instead paying to have their crap published in non-scientific media in the hope of influencing general public opinion. That's not science... it's public relations.
It took an outsider to point out the flaws in the data on global temperatures that all of the scientists were using, not peer review.
What do you think peer review is?
As far as GW deniers muddying the waters and preventing action, there is no consensus on what should be done.
There's a lot of consensus among the scientific community. Reduce emissions is the number on thing everyone can agree is a good idea. You might notice the vast majority of the world's governments have signed a treaty to do it.
The problem is all the public relations work on the part of oil companies has managed to confuse the issue in the minds of average people enough such that politicians in a few countries can keep their citizens from demanding action from them.
Great, you've reached the understanding level the rest of the world reached long ago. There's a huge body of scientific work describing the best models we have as to what is most likely to happen in reaction to this rapid change. Most of them have proved too conservative in the last few years.
Humanity has always done better in warmer periods. That's historically and scientifically provable, although not supported by consensus.
Wow, there goes your credibility. Darfur recently got warmer, that's been a lot better for humanity, huh? It's scientifically provable?
Rapid climate change leads to rapid weather change. We don't even know for sure what the long term result of a rapid upward change will be. It could be an ice age. The point is, we do know what rapid change is very likely to cause in the short term, and that is droughts in some places there was water, heavy rainfall in places that normally don't have it, and sea levels above large arts of most major cities around the world. In short, it is causing and will increasingly cause a huge expense in resources and lives. It almost certainly won't wipe out our species, but one would hope that we could motivate ourselves to work against slightly lesser threats, like ones that will only result in millions of lost lives and trillions of wasted dollars.
For the love of Buddha, go to the library pick up a copy of New Scientist or some other peer reviewed scientific journal and actually read the bloody papers and then look for actual data to refute them. You'll notice and interesting disparity. Almost everyone with real data and anything new on the topic seems to be adding to a large body of work that has a very clear consensus... because it is well supported.
Linux (with KDE) has both system wide mouse gestures and system wide spellchecking. Both have been around for many years now.
Sadly, I've never found a Linux desktop to be usable without a combination of Gnome and KDE apps and the spellchecking and mouse gestures only work in KDE apps. Also, as far as both spell checking and gestures are concerned, I've never found a way to use them for applications where the developers did not specifically include them. Assigning a gesture or using spell checking in Konsole, for example, does not seem to be a task doable for a normal user.
Note, I gave up on Kubuntu years ago because of numerous stability problems, so things might have changed. If so, I'd love to hear about it.
Debate of any kind is helpful to science and life in general.
More particular and staying on topic, debate of a well supported theory and a completely unsupported hypothesis, in a high school classroom is often not helping anything and lending undue weight to nonsense while wasting time that could be spent learning useful things.
Critics of evolution have pointed out gaps in the fossil record that have been closed. Is that not a good thing?
Of course not! Every time a gap is filled it creates two more gaps, thus making evolution less believable! Okay that was sarcasm. There will always be gaps in the fossil record and we will always be finding more fossils to form a more complete lineage. Pointing out those gaps is pointing out the obvious and not really useful at all. It does absolutely nothing to discredit the absurdly well supported theory of evolution. Finding a new fossil that fills a gap in the record helps the theory of evolution the same way whenever a metallurgist makes a new alloy and it doesn't go whizzing off the planet supports the theory of gravity. That is to say, it is just one more thing that fits into the model after thousands and thousands of other pieces of evidence.
Critics of global warming have pointed out flaws in the data, flaws in the collection of data (urbanization around temperature measuring sites) and other things. Those are all good things.
Most commonly critics of global warming have muddied the waters with patently false claims and by bringing up factors like urbanization that were long ago factored into the models being used. This is done to try to make it seem like there is some credibility to the view that warming is not happening, or is not happening more rapidly than has happened in the past or can be explained by natural phenomenon or that humans are not a the most likely influencing factor causing this rapid change.
They are not contributing to the model, but trying to spread unfounded doubt about it. That is not good, because it gives both politicians and normal individuals a way to justify actions that in truth cannot be justified.
What I don't understand is the need for consensus by otherwise rationale human beings. Does a lack of consensus diminish your beliefs?
No, but lack of action made possible by lack of consensus may result in my little nieces growing up in a world that is a much worse place than it would otherwise be. It stifles progress.
If you truly believe you are correct, then have the balls to stand up to your critics.
The critics are the ones not standing up. They're not publishing scientific findings in peer reviewed journals because they don't have any valid data or useful new theories to present. Instead they write vague unscientific articles and other media, which they pay to publish (just like advertising) and refuse to ever debate the specifics with real experts. I'm happy to stand up and debunk any idiotic article they present, but I sure don't have the time or money to devote my life to reading every useless puff piece they write and pointing out the complete lack of new data or factual errors and they don't care if I do, because they're already busy hiring people to write the next so-called study which they will then pay to disseminate.
She has a Cha stat
I'm sorry, but a what?
Okay, my geeky nerd-speak is not what it used to be, but I'll attempt a translation. "Cha" is short for "Charisma" and "stat" is short for "statistic". Charisma is a common statistic applied to characters in role playing games to indicate how likable and persuasive they are. Thus I interpret this comment in English to mean that she is nearly as charismatic as Obama is.
At least the other responder had the good sense to note how ridiculous the same interpretations sounded. You sounded like you thought they made sense.
I wrote, "Most reasonable christians subscribe to a view that allows more leeway for interpretation than strict literalists (who tend to be either disingenuous or poorly educated, since such a view leads to numerous biblical contradictions)."
I think that pretty well states I find those interpretations to be unreasonable. The point is, those are the strict, literal interpretations and fundamentalist who believe in a strict, literal interpretation of the bible do believe these things to the point of angrily arguing that anyone who does not believe them is going to burn in hell for eternity. If this candidate is strict and literal enough in her interpretation of the bible to disbelieve in evolution because Genesis interpreted in that way conflicts with said theory, then I think it is reasonable to question what other ways she and her sect interpret the bible and what other absurdities they'd like taught in our schools.
She may, however, appeal to the evangelicals, being as she is one of them and a pro-lifer, pro-Iraq-war, creationist. That is, if they can get over their prohibition on women in positions of authority over men.
If the Democrats are smart they'll send a cat's paw to ask her about what would happen if McCain died and she was in charge of the US military giving orders to all the generals. It could well tip the balance of the evangelical voters away from the possibility, that is if they aren't convinced Obama is a muslim and the anti-christ. You never know with some of those nutjobs. They don't really live in the same reality as the rest of us.
I totally disagree with this. Evolution is an extremely simple concept for children if you humble yourself enough to accept that it is simple.
To truly understand evolution you have to understand random mutations, recessive genes, inheritance of genes, environmental pressures and how they affect survival and chances of procreation, and be able to envision all of this taking place through millions of generations of birth and death. A good, motivated teacher can teach the concept to average people, but then you have to throw in other influences such as parents, bad teachers, and religious leaders trying to miseducate them with both flawed logic and misinformation. It is a much, much harder concept to grasp than say, gravity, which a significant portion of our society still doesn't grasp given the number of americans who still can't explain why people don't fall off the earth in the southern hemisphere.
I applaud your early introduction of these concepts and I hope your child is gifted or your teaching better than that of the average school teacher, but I'm much more pessimistic about these things. Maybe it's just that I've spent too much time reading the absurd assertions of religious fundamentalists of late.
I believe evolution to be true, and I don't mind that others don't. In my HS AP biology class, the teacher separated all of the students into two groups
Perhaps you're unclear on the definition of the word "literal". Don't be ashamed, much of the US has lost understanding of the word due to regular and unabashed misuse.
literal - adjective - taking words in their usual or most basic sense without metaphor or allegory : dreadful in its literal sense, full of dread.
Before you go off on my explanations of these terms, go check out this site where you can see quotes from religious fundamentalists claiming all of the above (the world is flat, the sun moves around the earth, the world used to be covered by a magic dome of water) and justifying their beliefs because the bible says so and they believe it is literally true (some just think the English translation of the King James version is true) and the inerrant word of their god.
There is a trend in science to try to close the debate, which is very unscientific. Global warming, er, climate change is the best example of this.
I disagree. No one is trying to "close the debate" on evolution versus, whatever... but you have to have a scientific alternative in order to have a debate. You have to have a credible well tested alternative if you think said alternative should be taught alongside one of the most well supported theories in existence. As for global warming, there is a very real concern in the US and a few other countries about the campaigns of misinformation being paid for by the oil industry to make it appear there is some sort of real lack of consensus among scientists. There isn't and hasn't been for a long time.
I believe evolution to be true, and I don't mind that others don't. In my HS AP biology class, the teacher separated all of the students into two groups...
And you think this is a good thing? Do you think all those other students received the best education they could in that time? Do you think all of them even fully understood the scientific method and the theory of evolution?
Scientific debate, critical thinking, and questioning well accepted theories are all well and good, but not necessarily a good use of the limited time available to a high school science class. Most of those people will never create a useful alternative theory to anything. They should at least be taught to understand the important and well established and supported theories that form the basis of modern science. Did you teacher also divide your class up and debate the merits of the theory of gravity versus the theory of directional falling? I bet not. I bet he taught the theory of gravity, that matter attracts and how that shapes our world and then moved on to spend time on other useful theories. The same should be the case for evolution and would be if not for a campaign of misinformation by religious fundamentalists. The general populace of the US is becoming a laughingstock of the first world with this nonsense.
Cheney used Bush's inexperience to grab power. Biden will do the same. Both will make the exact same mistakes, and the American people are idiots for thinking that getting elected to the senate once is all the qualifications needed for the presidency.
I disagree. In fact, I'd say Obama's pick was because he is going to be a strong president and have a VP who has little domestic power. He picked Biden on his diplomatic credentials and so far none of Biden's policies have made their way into Obama's platform. Biden seems like a real scum bag to me and I'd hate to have him president if Obama kicked the bucket, but there is no indication Biden will be another power behind the throne like Cheney. I seriously doubt Obama (if elected) will beat Bush's record for vacation time. Obama is one of those somewhat misguided idealists who will be there doing crap, even when we might wish he weren't. Both McCain and Obama are fairly strong candidates and neither has choosen a VP that might grab too much power or stand up to them.
Far too many police departments protect bad cops. I say, kudos to Palin for cleaning house.
If this were a regular occurrence or if she went after all the cops with bad track records, I'd be all about it. When the only cop she went after happened to be in a custody battle with her sister, well that's just abuse of power in my book. Trying to phrase it impersonally, as you do, is very disingenuous.
Now see, this is exactly what she was advocating--introduce both concepts and encourage healthy debate.
I disagree. She advocated teaching both "theories" which strongly implies them being placed on similar standing. A discussion of what constitutes a scientific theory does have a place in the classroom, but the topic of evolution versus creationism is probably one of the worst topics to use since their are so many religious people with a vested interest in skewing the facts and hence convincing children that the latter is the truth, and in the process undermining the lesson about what the scientific method is and how it works. A less controversial example, such as the theory of gravity versus the theory of directional falling would better illustrate the subject and be less likely to be undermined by religious "leaders".
Debate requires constant research, exploration, and effort. This strengthens the mind and carries us forward.
This assumes the people are interested in logical debate instead of emotional considerations and pushing their religious beliefs. I don't think that is a safe assumption with teachers today. Schools have a limited amount of time, so they should teach the scientific method using non controversial examples and preferably real, hands on experiments, and they should teach the fundamental and well supported theories like evolution, gravity, relativity, atomic models, etc. They should not bring in unsupported hypothesis which happen to be the subject of huge misinformation campaigns. Right now a significant portion of our populace doesn't even know what the theory of evolution is and it is a complex concept for children, yet you think we should be using it as an example for teaching the scientific method at the same time? I think we should concentrate on making sure kids know what the theory is and how it works and if they want to debate the topic later in life at least they won't do so from a completely uninformed perspective.
Most pundits seem to be focused on Palin's being a woman, but I see her as a way for McCain to reach out to the libertarian crowd. One commentator described her as the "libertarian VP candidate," or at least the closest thing to a libertarian that we're likely to see on a major-party ticket:
I'm not seeing it. I'm not a libertarian, but I do agree with a good number of their ideals and have voted for their candidates in the past. I don't know a lot about Palin, but my quick research did not really shout "libertarian."
In short, I see her pretty well aligned with the mainstream Republicans. I think her lack of history and relative obscurity is going to be a big asset since it lets people speculate and engage in a lot of wishful thinking. The libertarians would like her to be aligned with their position, or at least more aligned than other candidates because it provides hope. In reality, she seems more like a VP who would have little power under the assertive McCain and who is no more aligned with the libertarians than and of the other presidential or vice-presidential nominees.
That depends. How much of the scientific method was used on the creation experiments? How much was used on the ones in the textbook? In some cases, creationists do the scientific method better.
Really? I've never seen that. Can you present any paper (suitable for education or not) that presents creationism as a testable hypothesis, or better yet as a tested theory?
Personally, I don't care if the source is alien chasers or whoever. If they have a repeatable scientific experiment, regardless of whether it is damaging to some tenet of evolution or the big bang or whatever, I want it taught! Anything else is censorship of the truth, and holds back the progression of scientific understanding.
So here's the thing, not all theories are equally supported. Things like gravity and evolution have centuries of testing and support and huge amounts of known science are built upon them. They're staples of science and as such have earned a place in the basic curriculum. Even if someone comes up with a creation hypothesis and tests it with an experiment that is repeated, that doesn't bring it the level of credibility of the more tested theories.
Just last year there was a theory that there was an extrasolar planet similar in size to the earth because of a peculiar observed dimming of the star. They tested it with more observations and it seemed to hold up as a theory and was peer reviewed and repeated. Then a few months ago a counter theory appeared that it was not a planet causing the dimming and they predicted some other characteristics if it was more closely observed. Those predictions proved true and we have a new best theory to fit the data. This happens all the time. No one teaches these brand new theories in undergraduate education because they aren't the basic theories we know with great likelihood won't be outdated in another few years.
It isn't censorship to not teach either the theory about the planet I mentioned or creationism because they aren't well accepted and proven science. It is especially not censorship to not teach such unproven theories when they are championed by religious cults desperate to try to promote their religious beliefs in public schools in violation of the separation of church and state. For a creationism theory to earn a place in the basic curriculum it first needs to be proper, testable science, then it needs to build up a large supporting body of evidence such that it is not a theory of the month and we have a good and rational expectation that it is the best theory to understand the truth (or at least close to alternative theories in the amount of supporting evidence and testing).
Do you mind pointing out where it says this?
There are a whole lot of verses that one could cite, but I'm no biblical expert. Here are a few for your perusal though. Remember, you have interpret them strictly and literally.
Ecclesiastes 1:5 The sun rises and the sun goes down, and hastens to the place where it rises.
Note, it says the sun rises, thus it is the sun moving, not the earth spinning, interpreted literally.
1 Chronicles 16:30 tremble before him, all earth; yea, the world stands firm, never to be moved.
Reinforcing that the earth does not move, thus other bodies are moving in relation to it, taken literally.
Matthew 4:8 8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;
Since you can't see all of a globe from a mountain on it, the earth must be flat. There are also repeated references to the corners and edges of the earth in other verses.
Mind you, if you read any of these passages with a little bit of metaphor, one could easily open them up to much more reasonable interpretations... but then you have to consider the possibility that other parts of the bible are also metaphorical and that is something fundamentalists strongly oppose. Most reasonable christians subscribe to a view that allows more leeway for interpretation than strict literalists (who tend to be either disingenuous or poorly educated, since such a view leads to numerous biblical contradictions).
While that technically makes him half African-American, he does not share the full cultural heritage that is commonly understood by the term "African-American."
Actually, genetic testing shows that a large percentage of african americans are actually mulatto with at least some european ancestry.
I'm no advocate of creationism, either. But, I question people who insist that it is a subject that must not be discussed.
The article I read said the following:
The volatile issue of teaching creation science in public schools popped up in the Alaska governor's race this week when Republican Sarah Palin said she thinks creationism should be taught alongside evolution in the state's public classrooms. Palin was answering a question from the moderator near the conclusion of Wednesday night's televised debate on KAKM Channel 7 when she said, 'Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important, and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both.' Asked for her personal views on evolution, Palin said, "I believe we have a creator." She would not say whether her belief also allowed her to accept the theory of evolution as fact. "I'm not going to pretend I know how all this came to be," she said.
From that context is seems she personally believes in creationism as per her evangelical faith, but she doesn't want to that to be public knowledge and used against her politically. I expect she'll be waffling on this topic throughout the elections except when trying to win over fundamentalists in private meetings.
As to her position on the schools, she advocated teaching it alongside evolution, which seems to imply much more than just discussing it. Evolution is a major and well supported scientific theory and deserves to have some time spent explaining it (especially since so many people these days don't even seem to know what it is). Creationism is just the unsupported hypothesis that maybe someone created it all somehow. It takes about 30 seconds to explain. About the only reason I can see to discuss creationism in a science class is if you're trying to present an example of how the scientific method works (and why creationism is not applying that method at all). Even then it is a poor choice, since it is such an emotional topic due to the religious implications.
In short, I don't trust Palin at all to help further the educational process instead of using the system as a way to try to promote her faith, simply because she refuses to say if evolution is a fact in her opinion.
Let's be fair: the percentage of the "strict biblical literalists" teaching a geocentric model is really small, but really loud. Equating the geocentrists with the biblical literalists is a classic fallacy of composition.
Wait, what? The bible does strongly imply that the earth stands still and the sun moves around it, just as it implies that the earth is flat.
If someone is not teaching geocentrism, doesn't that mean they aren't a strict biblical literalist by definition? They might be a moderate biblical literalist, I suppose.
No, but it does enshrine the separation of church and state such that if some religion claims
You have never and will never see me argue against abortion from a religious perspective.
There's a difference between arguing against abortion and arguing for special laws to restrict the actions of others with regard to abortion. The term "pro-choice" is not just rhetoric. By not passing laws the issue is left in the hands of each individual. If human cells are growing inside my body and have no brain or intelligence, then why should you be the one to tell me if I can remove them? Whether the cells are a tumor or a fetus, what non-religious right, within the bounds of the constitution does the government have for removing my freedom to choose?
The courts have already ruled that the fetuses in question are not people with rights any more than a sperm is.
The same court once ruled that the negro had no rights that any white man was bound to respect. Bad decisions have a way of finding themselves overturned.
Yes they have, but the law in question isn't attempting to overturn said Supreme Court decision, it is trying to ignore that decision and is thus unconstitutional.
You don't even know what my religion demands. I do not oppose abortion on religious grounds.
Fine, you still haven't presented any secular grounds for such a law. Let's hear it.
Why should someone pick one team made up of people you both agree with and don't agree with? Why are you so fixated upon joining a group?
Because in a Democracy, groups are how things get done.
Bullcrap. You don't need to join a party to vote and have our vote counted. The parties undermine democracy, if anything. They're how things are prevented from getting done.
Perhaps not in yours, but in most.
Actually, exactly half of states currently have open primaries.
Your inability to follow doesn't make it a non sequitur. I'll spell it out for you. Unless you are a member of a party, you have virtually no change of getting your candidate on any ballot.
The implicit statement you make is that I have a candidate. I don't. I look at individuals, regardless of party affiliation, and choose from those running. I'm not a member of any party, but my vote counts exactly the same as yours (well maybe more since I'm in a swing state). Your argument is for why a politician should join a party to increase their chances of success and has nothing to do with why an individual voter should.
Two words: Mouse Gestures. Cannot browse without it.
I find these sorts of features discouraging, not because they are bad features, but because they're being implemented at the wrong level. Like spell checking, mouse gestures should be implemented at the OS level so all programs can take advantage of them. As far as I know, OS X is the only OS that provides an easy way to implement such functionality and we know Windows won't be getting it anytime soon. Linux might or might not, but I'm not holding my breath. I have hope that Linux on the desktop development will speed up as hardware makers start to preinstall it, but I haven't seen much real difference yet.
Mouse gestures being implemented in browsers is just another demonstration of how Microsoft and lack of competition has crippled innovation in the desktop OS market.
he particular exception you did mention is not even supported by many Republicans and shouldn't be supported by any patriot who believes in the constitution.
The constitution does not enshrine a right to infanticide.
No, but it does enshrine the separation of church and state such that if some religion claims a partially formed fetus or a banana or a sacred rock is really in infant that definition cannot be forced upon the rest of the populace unless it is supported by objective facts. The courts have already ruled that the fetuses in question are not people with rights any more than a sperm is. I can respect religious beliefs that disagree and claim the existence of a soul attached to said bundle of cells, but those beliefs cannot be enforced as a law because of the constitution. You can hold whatever beliefs you want, you just can't force other people to do what your religion demands. To do so opens up the possibility of other religions to enforce their beliefs upon you as law.
How so? What kind of an idiot thinks not choosing one of two equally wrongheaded organizations is indecisive?
There are more than two parties. Third parties can often drive the agenda for the two major parties.
Our system is weighted such that third parties are unlikely to ever have any real influence at the federal level. More importantly, their is no fundamental difference between two wrong parties and eight wrong parties. Why should someone pick one team made up of people you both agree with and don't agree with? Why are you so fixated upon joining a group? Are you that insecure?
Joining a party gives you input in the primary process. The primary is just as important as the general election.
You don't have to join a party to vote in the primaries, at least not in my state.
You don't seem to understand that being a member of a party doesn't oblige you to vote for that party.
The damage is with the self association, whereas people like you become defensive whenever their favorite party is criticized and buy into absurd bullshit about the other party out of some sort of juvenile rivalry.
This "ra ra!" sports team attitude of divisive politics is simply another sign of the decline of intellectualism in the US.
Ahh that's it. You're "too smart to make a difference"
This is a non sequitur. How does not rooting for a "team" mean my vote counts any less?
[S]hould they bless Microsoft's EOT for use on the web? Or, should they encourage normal font files on the web and help break Microsoft's forgotten monopoly?"
Am I missing something? It seems to me that the very thing Microsoft is proposing - a standard for enforcing font file copy rights - is the thing the linked article suggests is necessary to break Microsoft's "monopoly" on web fonts.
I believe the monopoly referenced is MS's monopoly influence on the Web browser and, hence, Web technologies markets.
This is beside the point, you said that Democrats supported "current" abortion laws, and I just proved you wrong.
Democrats support most all current abortion laws and have not been pressing for new ones. I'm sure you can find a few limited exceptions to this rule. The particular exception you did mention is not even supported by many Republicans and shouldn't be supported by any patriot who believes in the constitution.
I have no political affiliation and never plan to.
That makes you indecisive, not independent.
How so? What kind of an idiot thinks not choosing one of two equally wrongheaded organizations is indecisive? Why commit to voting for either party if both have many members who act unethically? This "ra ra!" sports team attitude of divisive politics is simply another sign of the decline of intellectualism in the US.