According to the actual survey linked from TFA, this is the actual survey question and response data (sorry for no table formatting):
13. Do you think the scientific theory of evolution is well-supported by evidence and widely accepted within the scientific community?
Well-supported Not well-supported Don't Know Current Total 48% 39% 13%
Evangelical Protestants 25% 63% 12% Non-Evangelical Protestants 57% 24% 19% Catholics 58% 33% 9% Agnostics/Atheists 73% 18% 9% From this information, it would appear as though 48% of Americans think evolution is BOTH well-supported AND well-accepted in the scientific community. (The question, of course, is terribly constructed because it conflates two potentially divergent beliefs.) 39% believe EITHER it's not well-supported by evidence OR it's not well-accepted in the scientific community, and it's easy to see how propaganda would make it easy to influence people on one of those two variables.
Certainly, it doesn't seem to support the proposition from TFA, that "Nearly half (48 percent) of the public rejects the scientific theory of evolution".
Is it possible MSNBC/Newsweek didn't get their facts straight? Or am I missing something?
Um, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the wind "solar powered"? So humankind has been circumnavigating the globe in "solar-powered" boats for many centuries!
Note: I know some wind currents are driven by the earth's rotation, but the earth rotates because it's orbiting the sun, right? Still solar-powered!:-)
Despite the implications of this statement, what it probably really involves is paying off a student or two to sniff out and inform on filesharing activity, either by running RIAA apps or just manual searching. It wouldn't be the first time they've used this method.
If they did indeed adopt this method it would be a truly breathtaking step. Think about all the OTHER kinds of behaviors going on inside universities that administrators spend much more of their time worrying about (as well they should): drug use and drug dealing, alcohol abuse and alcoholism, sexual and physical abuse (including hazing), and cutting to the core of their academic missions, cheating. Have universities ever paid informants to root out these behaviors? I have *never* heard of such a thing, and I ask somebody please to demonstrate otherwise.
No, I doubt universities will pay students to fink on each other. More likely they'll just send out an e-mail to the whole campus and turn a blind eye to everyone except the most eggregious violators.
Not sure what the law is like in China, but it would reek of antitrust violations and corruption if a foreign company teamed up with George W. Bush to announce huge cash influxes combined with an articulated goal of "establishing dominance" in that country.
The article says "[t]he aim is to reduce piracy rates and establish Windows as the dominant operating system in the region," but its unclear whether that's the author editorializing or an goal that Microsoft has publicly and openly articulated.
If China doesn't care too much about competition in the political marketplace, maybe they don't care about competition in the actual marketplace as well.
In all seriousness, though, does anyone know if doing the exact same thing in the USA would be against any U.S. laws, or not?
I'm curious to know, and I think the point about oligopoly (made below) was spot-on: the fewer choices you have for ISPs (and the sunk costs involved make it a virtual certainty that there will be few), the less likely that you can "vote with your wallet" as a writer above suggests.
Slashdot Mirror
Well-supported Not well-supported Don't Know
Current Total 48% 39% 13%
Evangelical Protestants 25% 63% 12%
Non-Evangelical Protestants 57% 24% 19%
Catholics 58% 33% 9%
Agnostics/Atheists 73% 18% 9% From this information, it would appear as though 48% of Americans think evolution is BOTH well-supported AND well-accepted in the scientific community. (The question, of course, is terribly constructed because it conflates two potentially divergent beliefs.) 39% believe EITHER it's not well-supported by evidence OR it's not well-accepted in the scientific community, and it's easy to see how propaganda would make it easy to influence people on one of those two variables.
Certainly, it doesn't seem to support the proposition from TFA, that "Nearly half (48 percent) of the public rejects the scientific theory of evolution".
Is it possible MSNBC/Newsweek didn't get their facts straight? Or am I missing something?
Um, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the wind "solar powered"? So humankind has been circumnavigating the globe in "solar-powered" boats for many centuries!
Note: I know some wind currents are driven by the earth's rotation, but the earth rotates because it's orbiting the sun, right? Still solar-powered!
Despite the implications of this statement, what it probably really involves is paying off a student or two to sniff out and inform on filesharing activity, either by running RIAA apps or just manual searching. It wouldn't be the first time they've used this method.
If they did indeed adopt this method it would be a truly breathtaking step. Think about all the OTHER kinds of behaviors going on inside universities that administrators spend much more of their time worrying about (as well they should): drug use and drug dealing, alcohol abuse and alcoholism, sexual and physical abuse (including hazing), and cutting to the core of their academic missions, cheating. Have universities ever paid informants to root out these behaviors? I have *never* heard of such a thing, and I ask somebody please to demonstrate otherwise.
No, I doubt universities will pay students to fink on each other. More likely they'll just send out an e-mail to the whole campus and turn a blind eye to everyone except the most eggregious violators.
Not sure what the law is like in China, but it would reek of antitrust violations and corruption if a foreign company teamed up with George W. Bush to announce huge cash influxes combined with an articulated goal of "establishing dominance" in that country.
The article says "[t]he aim is to reduce piracy rates and establish Windows as the dominant operating system in the region," but its unclear whether that's the author editorializing or an goal that Microsoft has publicly and openly articulated.
If China doesn't care too much about competition in the political marketplace, maybe they don't care about competition in the actual marketplace as well.
Well spotted! If so, as Cartman would say, "Lame."
In all seriousness, though, does anyone know if doing the exact same thing in the USA would be against any U.S. laws, or not?
I'm curious to know, and I think the point about oligopoly (made below) was spot-on: the fewer choices you have for ISPs (and the sunk costs involved make it a virtual certainty that there will be few), the less likely that you can "vote with your wallet" as a writer above suggests.