no, American voters are not as informed about science as they should be. They're not as well informed about anything as they should be. Ignorant people shouldn't be allowed to vote, or have any say in the lives of others -- especially if they're white protestant Christians.
I hate it when I see statements like this about ignorance of particular issues being a valid reason for disenfranchisment. Who are you to decide what topics people need to be informed of in order to qualify to vote? You seem to be ignorant of the cultural importance of religion in this country. Maybe you shouldn't be allowed to vote? I hope that in your rationality you can see that anyone can be painted as ignorant in at least one domain that could be important to selecting a president. And in your rationality hopefully you can see that universal suffrage is a much better route to take. You wouldn't want to lose your vote because of you "ignorance", and as such you probably shouldn't wish the same on those you deem "ignorant".
This is a good point. I wonder how many people spout out the "information wants to be free" line, yet don't want their own information to be free. Why is it just other people's intellectual property that wants to be free, but not your own date of birth?
Yeah, I am sure that the "gestapo" took the site down because they don't want anybody to see it...it couldn't possibly be that the pdf that was linked to was several MB, and there are a lot of people trying to get to it.
Well the name "Criminal Database" sure sounds like a list of Criminals... being arrested is not itself a crime and doesnt make you a criminal you have to be charged, tried and convicted first.
That is true enough. Do you know whether they we charged, tried, or convicted as a result of any of their arrests? I was hoping to find out becuase that does make a big difference. All of the articles I have looked at have been full of outrage, but devoid of facts about what their actual criminal record is.
I think it is hard to make to claim without knowing what these arrests were for. Just because they activists for peace does not mean that they are harmless criminals. As I understand it (from this post and other sources http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=344011&cid=21169011 this list show arrests and convicitions and the border guards have to decide based on the information whether to allow entry. As I understand it inclusion on this list does not bar people entering Canada, but is rather a tool for evaluating if they have a criminal record. If it is a ticket for jaywalking that got them on the list that would be crazy, but these are arrests for real crimes, so why shouldn't they wind up in a criminal database.
I was interested in the crime as well, it seems hard to filter through the fear mongering that has errupted from this and try to find any of the actual facts. But I did check Ann Wright's wikipedia entry and there are two statements about arrests and citations quoted below:
"Wright has willingly been arrested as part of anti-war demonstrations, the first such arrest occurring in front of the White House on September 26, 2005. Wright has said in interviews of how she does not remove her arrest bracelets, attached to her wrists upon the processing of her arrest, but rather collects them."
"On April 1, 2007 Wright was cited, with 38 other activists, for tresspassing at the Nevada Test Site at a Nevada Desert Experience event protesting the Nevada Test Site."
She obviously has been arrested several times in the last two years if she can refer to it as collecting arrest bracelets. Unfortunately it does not say what she was charged with in those arrests. Either way I have trouble blaming a government for not welcoming with open arms a person who has been arrested multiple times in a two year span, with at least one incident involving trespassing on a military test site.
What you have said in this post is disgusting. I have seen some pretty bad things said on/. but this is by far the worst (and to see that you have been modded up for it hurts my faith in humanity). I feel sorry for you that you have this increadible burden of hatred for approximately half of the country, that you would generalize all of them to fit this description. The worst part is that there is no good way to respond to it, it is like trying to convince a racist of their error. When the hatred runs this deeply it is rare for any logic to make any difference.
How convenient. The person who does not bring up any evidence says that the investigation into the polls was blocked, so any evidence provided by the networks is false and can't be used as refutation!?! But at least there was some real data there. Do you believe that CNN is acting for the republican party? Is there any evidence at all that the exit polls are flawless? At least the CNN peice provides some evidence that there are problems with the polls.
I think you might want to check out the wiki page about the Kyoto Protocol itself. It looks as if that should be reducing emissions by 5% from their 1990 levels. Also, there is some interesting information about the inequalities in the 1990 levels. For instance in 1990 Russia had not almost nothing to reduce emissions, so in 1990 their emissions were at their worst level. And because of the carbon trading that the Protocol allows Russia can actually make money by trading the excess. That hardly sounds like a good system to me. Or at the very least this protocol is not the thing that will save humanity from itself. Like most things there is good and bad in the treaty and it should not be assumed that by not ratifying it the current government hates the environment. I would also point out that even the Clinton Administration did not submit the protocol for ratification, and that was an adminitration Gore was involved it.
I don't know when changed jaw shapes, but why did the teeth not change at the same time. It seems to be of little survival benefit to change jaw shapes at the cost of intense pain upon reaching adulthood when the teeth that no longer fit grow in. It seems that those would be the least likely to survive.
As a disclaimer, I do believe in some form of ID, but I am not anti-evoltion. I don't think ID should be taught in class, but I think critical thinking should be taught. There are problems with our current understanding of evolution (or possibly by the theory itself, we will find out). As humanity continues to learn how little we actually know it will be important to have people who do not put blind faith in the infallability of evolution, or those who blindly fight against it. Instead we need people who will expand our knowledge by digging deeper.
This same argument can be turned back to say the opposite. Why would such traits survive the process of evolution. You argue that God would have no reason to give us wisdom teeth, but how could an individual with them survive. Obviously people without them are better suited for survival, and yet people still have them. I don't know why we would be designed with wisdom teeth, but unless you can answer why/how we have them it doesn't help your case.
That being said, the Evangelical Christians are a real threat to this country; I would argue it is every bit as dangerous as Islamic Fundamentalists although some may call that statement flamebait. The fuckers are setting up schools to teach young politicians how to use the bible to make lawmaker-type decisions. If that isn't the most absurd, dangerous and stupidest thing I've ever heard than I'll run around naked for a week. And yes, I think I'm employing the user of hyperbole here;)
I have two comments to make here. First, the comment about the schools. As I have seen on at least one other reply, why is it any worse that it is a Christian basis for ethics? And to expand, do you have a problem with a school that teaches young politicians ethics? I expect politicians to make choices based largely on their ethical ideas. And I happen to believe that Christian ideas are pretty good. So are a number of religions. At least one atheist I know follows a ethical schema very similar to Christianity. I am not trying to provoke you, I just want to know what the difference is between a school teaching secular ethics to one teaching Christian ethics? What is the great danger that you see? I see an opportunity for people to take the ethical/religious beliefs and actually incorporate them into their actions, and hopefully avoiding the hypocrisy of believing one way and acting another.
Second, I wince every time I hear the term Evangelical Christians. I know it has become common usage, but I imagine the people you are talking about are Christian fanatics. Evangelical is actually a denomination in the Christian Church. One way or another the term Evangelical Christian has become a brand with which people can label Christian ideas and Christians themselves with whom the labeler does not agree. Anyone who hold Christian beliefs and actually tries to act on them is fitted with this label and discounted. For that matter the term Islamic Fundamentalist is used in a similar fashion.
Nonsense. There are plenty of examples in Nature where simple situations give rise to complex results without a designer or without intelligence.
I am not trying to be picky, but I hate to see a general statement like that without an example. If there are plenty of examples, then I would be happy to hear about one of them.
First of all, what do you do when you hear about massive casualties? You complain about others seeing it and moving on with their lives, but what do you do? You see it, post on slashdot and then ask what is on TV? Are you different from those people you criticize?
Second, what is it that we are doing in Iraq that would make China nuke us? If China nuked us I would wonder why, and I feel that I would be well justified to do so. Even if we are doing horrible things in our war in Iraq (hypothetically), and even if this were an unjust war, why should China care? And even more so, why should they care enough to risk their lives, and economy to nuke us?
Finally, are you saying the Chinese would be justified nuking our country (and killing many civilians) for "what we're doing right now"? And yet our country is unjust in attempting to stop a brutal dictator for murdering, torturing, and suppressing civilians?
I am not trying to be hostile, but I would like to know your defenses for your verbal attack on the American people.
That's an interesting story, but it really has nothing at all to do with what I said. An analogy can be a dangerous tool when used incorrectly. In order to make your story fit what I said it would go more like trying to design a plane entirely on paper, and then building it and expecting to immeditately fly it to Austrailia.
I have done some aeronautical and astronautical engineering, plus I have worked with many engineers in both fields. I know for a fact that you cannot expect a technology to work without both design/modeling and actual testing. Much of technology development comes from real world tests. If we wait until we have the perfect technology (which we won't even have until we try to use it and discover the faults, and places for improvement), then we will never proceed into space. What will we have gained? A lot of technology which we haven't even used.
I am not suggesting we swim across the ocean, but instead we use the airplanes we have, and through use discover improvements, until we can cross the ocean even faster and safer. I never once suggested reverting technologically, but we can't go forward without incremental steps.
"A good plan executed now is better than a perfect plan next week." -Gen George S. Patton, USA.
Putting it that way makes a lot more sense. I can understand putting off human spaceflight for a time to perfect spaceflight in general. Especially considering the surprising success of the Mars rovers which have been able to stay there much longer than a human could have.
Another argument in favor of that position is that it is not worth the risk to life when we can still gain so much for so much cheaper by not sending people yet.
I think I am still going to disagree with you in the end, but not as emphatically as before. I still think that it is worth the cost and effort to send humans now. For one thing I do think that human missions are an important goal, and we cannot build towards that goal without developing the technologies and sending people with them. Another reason is to maintain the investments we have already made. I know that is a dangerous line of reasoning (to say that we have already spent money on it, so we should go ahead and spend some more), but I think the ISS and other investments are worth manning and maintaining even if we still have some technological improvements still to make.
But, in consession to your point, I do think that a larger focus should be invested in machine manned missions in the meantime.
I understand what you are trying to say, but I have to ask the question: how do you expect to develop spacefaring technologies without actually going into space? I agree that it would be great if we could focus for a decade or so on developing the technologies here on Earth and have them work in our goals for space, but I don't see how that could happen.
The development cycle needs to be composed of lab work and real world usage. We need to do a lot of developing, but hand-in-hand must go actual usage. Waiting around is not the answer.
Slashdot Mirror
I hate it when I see statements like this about ignorance of particular issues being a valid reason for disenfranchisment. Who are you to decide what topics people need to be informed of in order to qualify to vote? You seem to be ignorant of the cultural importance of religion in this country. Maybe you shouldn't be allowed to vote? I hope that in your rationality you can see that anyone can be painted as ignorant in at least one domain that could be important to selecting a president. And in your rationality hopefully you can see that universal suffrage is a much better route to take. You wouldn't want to lose your vote because of you "ignorance", and as such you probably shouldn't wish the same on those you deem "ignorant".
This is a good point. I wonder how many people spout out the "information wants to be free" line, yet don't want their own information to be free. Why is it just other people's intellectual property that wants to be free, but not your own date of birth?
Yeah, I am sure that the "gestapo" took the site down because they don't want anybody to see it...it couldn't possibly be that the pdf that was linked to was several MB, and there are a lot of people trying to get to it.
I think it is hard to make to claim without knowing what these arrests were for. Just because they activists for peace does not mean that they are harmless criminals. As I understand it (from this post and other sources http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=344011&cid=21169011 this list show arrests and convicitions and the border guards have to decide based on the information whether to allow entry. As I understand it inclusion on this list does not bar people entering Canada, but is rather a tool for evaluating if they have a criminal record. If it is a ticket for jaywalking that got them on the list that would be crazy, but these are arrests for real crimes, so why shouldn't they wind up in a criminal database.
I was interested in the crime as well, it seems hard to filter through the fear mongering that has errupted from this and try to find any of the actual facts. But I did check Ann Wright's wikipedia entry and there are two statements about arrests and citations quoted below:
"Wright has willingly been arrested as part of anti-war demonstrations, the first such arrest occurring in front of the White House on September 26, 2005. Wright has said in interviews of how she does not remove her arrest bracelets, attached to her wrists upon the processing of her arrest, but rather collects them."
"On April 1, 2007 Wright was cited, with 38 other activists, for tresspassing at the Nevada Test Site at a Nevada Desert Experience event protesting the Nevada Test Site."
She obviously has been arrested several times in the last two years if she can refer to it as collecting arrest bracelets. Unfortunately it does not say what she was charged with in those arrests. Either way I have trouble blaming a government for not welcoming with open arms a person who has been arrested multiple times in a two year span, with at least one incident involving trespassing on a military test site.
What you have said in this post is disgusting. I have seen some pretty bad things said on /. but this is by far the worst (and to see that you have been modded up for it hurts my faith in humanity). I feel sorry for you that you have this increadible burden of hatred for approximately half of the country, that you would generalize all of them to fit this description. The worst part is that there is no good way to respond to it, it is like trying to convince a racist of their error. When the hatred runs this deeply it is rare for any logic to make any difference.
How convenient. The person who does not bring up any evidence says that the investigation into the polls was blocked, so any evidence provided by the networks is false and can't be used as refutation!?! But at least there was some real data there. Do you believe that CNN is acting for the republican party? Is there any evidence at all that the exit polls are flawless? At least the CNN peice provides some evidence that there are problems with the polls.
I think you might want to check out the wiki page about the Kyoto Protocol itself. It looks as if that should be reducing emissions by 5% from their 1990 levels. Also, there is some interesting information about the inequalities in the 1990 levels. For instance in 1990 Russia had not almost nothing to reduce emissions, so in 1990 their emissions were at their worst level. And because of the carbon trading that the Protocol allows Russia can actually make money by trading the excess. That hardly sounds like a good system to me. Or at the very least this protocol is not the thing that will save humanity from itself. Like most things there is good and bad in the treaty and it should not be assumed that by not ratifying it the current government hates the environment. I would also point out that even the Clinton Administration did not submit the protocol for ratification, and that was an adminitration Gore was involved it.
I don't know when changed jaw shapes, but why did the teeth not change at the same time. It seems to be of little survival benefit to change jaw shapes at the cost of intense pain upon reaching adulthood when the teeth that no longer fit grow in. It seems that those would be the least likely to survive.
As a disclaimer, I do believe in some form of ID, but I am not anti-evoltion. I don't think ID should be taught in class, but I think critical thinking should be taught. There are problems with our current understanding of evolution (or possibly by the theory itself, we will find out). As humanity continues to learn how little we actually know it will be important to have people who do not put blind faith in the infallability of evolution, or those who blindly fight against it. Instead we need people who will expand our knowledge by digging deeper.
This same argument can be turned back to say the opposite. Why would such traits survive the process of evolution. You argue that God would have no reason to give us wisdom teeth, but how could an individual with them survive. Obviously people without them are better suited for survival, and yet people still have them. I don't know why we would be designed with wisdom teeth, but unless you can answer why/how we have them it doesn't help your case.
That being said, the Evangelical Christians are a real threat to this country; I would argue it is every bit as dangerous as Islamic Fundamentalists although some may call that statement flamebait. The fuckers are setting up schools to teach young politicians how to use the bible to make lawmaker-type decisions. If that isn't the most absurd, dangerous and stupidest thing I've ever heard than I'll run around naked for a week. And yes, I think I'm employing the user of hyperbole here ;)
I have two comments to make here. First, the comment about the schools. As I have seen on at least one other reply, why is it any worse that it is a Christian basis for ethics? And to expand, do you have a problem with a school that teaches young politicians ethics? I expect politicians to make choices based largely on their ethical ideas. And I happen to believe that Christian ideas are pretty good. So are a number of religions. At least one atheist I know follows a ethical schema very similar to Christianity. I am not trying to provoke you, I just want to know what the difference is between a school teaching secular ethics to one teaching Christian ethics? What is the great danger that you see? I see an opportunity for people to take the ethical/religious beliefs and actually incorporate them into their actions, and hopefully avoiding the hypocrisy of believing one way and acting another.
Second, I wince every time I hear the term Evangelical Christians. I know it has become common usage, but I imagine the people you are talking about are Christian fanatics. Evangelical is actually a denomination in the Christian Church. One way or another the term Evangelical Christian has become a brand with which people can label Christian ideas and Christians themselves with whom the labeler does not agree. Anyone who hold Christian beliefs and actually tries to act on them is fitted with this label and discounted. For that matter the term Islamic Fundamentalist is used in a similar fashion.
Nonsense. There are plenty of examples in Nature where simple situations give rise to complex results without a designer or without intelligence. I am not trying to be picky, but I hate to see a general statement like that without an example. If there are plenty of examples, then I would be happy to hear about one of them.
I've got a few questions for you.
First of all, what do you do when you hear about massive casualties? You complain about others seeing it and moving on with their lives, but what do you do? You see it, post on slashdot and then ask what is on TV? Are you different from those people you criticize?
Second, what is it that we are doing in Iraq that would make China nuke us? If China nuked us I would wonder why, and I feel that I would be well justified to do so. Even if we are doing horrible things in our war in Iraq (hypothetically), and even if this were an unjust war, why should China care? And even more so, why should they care enough to risk their lives, and economy to nuke us?
Finally, are you saying the Chinese would be justified nuking our country (and killing many civilians) for "what we're doing right now"? And yet our country is unjust in attempting to stop a brutal dictator for murdering, torturing, and suppressing civilians?
I am not trying to be hostile, but I would like to know your defenses for your verbal attack on the American people.
That's an interesting story, but it really has nothing at all to do with what I said. An analogy can be a dangerous tool when used incorrectly. In order to make your story fit what I said it would go more like trying to design a plane entirely on paper, and then building it and expecting to immeditately fly it to Austrailia.
I have done some aeronautical and astronautical engineering, plus I have worked with many engineers in both fields. I know for a fact that you cannot expect a technology to work without both design/modeling and actual testing. Much of technology development comes from real world tests. If we wait until we have the perfect technology (which we won't even have until we try to use it and discover the faults, and places for improvement), then we will never proceed into space. What will we have gained? A lot of technology which we haven't even used.
I am not suggesting we swim across the ocean, but instead we use the airplanes we have, and through use discover improvements, until we can cross the ocean even faster and safer. I never once suggested reverting technologically, but we can't go forward without incremental steps.
"A good plan executed now is better than a perfect plan next week." -Gen George S. Patton, USA.
Putting it that way makes a lot more sense. I can understand putting off human spaceflight for a time to perfect spaceflight in general. Especially considering the surprising success of the Mars rovers which have been able to stay there much longer than a human could have.
Another argument in favor of that position is that it is not worth the risk to life when we can still gain so much for so much cheaper by not sending people yet.
I think I am still going to disagree with you in the end, but not as emphatically as before. I still think that it is worth the cost and effort to send humans now. For one thing I do think that human missions are an important goal, and we cannot build towards that goal without developing the technologies and sending people with them. Another reason is to maintain the investments we have already made. I know that is a dangerous line of reasoning (to say that we have already spent money on it, so we should go ahead and spend some more), but I think the ISS and other investments are worth manning and maintaining even if we still have some technological improvements still to make.
But, in consession to your point, I do think that a larger focus should be invested in machine manned missions in the meantime.
I understand what you are trying to say, but I have to ask the question: how do you expect to develop spacefaring technologies without actually going into space? I agree that it would be great if we could focus for a decade or so on developing the technologies here on Earth and have them work in our goals for space, but I don't see how that could happen.
The development cycle needs to be composed of lab work and real world usage. We need to do a lot of developing, but hand-in-hand must go actual usage. Waiting around is not the answer.