Before you get on your high-horse, think about how widespread the belief in Homeopathy is in Sweden. People in Sweden aren't much different than people in the US - they just believe in different types of nonsense.
Well, Al Gore is a good example of "wholesale distortion of scientific evidence". While I don't disagree with all of his conclusions, the majority of his "research" and "evidence" is questionable at best, and outright lies at worst.
You're right in that the scale is different. The biggest worry for me personally is the republicans push for "abstinence only" sex education, and the constant attempts to bring "intelligent design" into schools. Those two alone pretty much dwarf anything the dems have done. But it's silly to pretend that the dems are much better - they just tend to be less visible because they attack "acceptable targets". When a republican claims that evolution doesn't exist, people get real upset, but when a democrat claims that nuclear power is bad, people pretty much buy it hook, line, and sinker. There's a lot of bad science out there being pushed by the dems too, but people aren't aware of it because most of us have already bought into it.
That's not really true. Republicans are no more "anti-science" than Democrats, they just tend to suppress and pursue different sciences. Republicans pursue applied, practical research, especially when it involves things like weapons, vehicles, power generation and industry. They suppress stem cell research, biological studies in general, and are generally quite opposed to evolutionary theory. Democrats on the other hand tend to be much less supportive of applied sciences, especially nuclear research and new industrial technologies. Meanwhile they have no problem supporting research into all the things that Republicans oppose.
It's just a matter of differing priorities. The typical left-wing opposition to nuclear power and incineration technology is no less "anti-science" than the right-wing opposition to evolutionary theory and stem cell research. Each side of the political spectrum has it's Sacred Cows, and they can both be equally ignorant when it comes to science. The GPP had it absolutely right - the solution isn't just excluding republicans from making scientific decisions, but rather keeping politics and science entirely separate.
I remember being taught in highschool that "we are overdue for another ice age". Scared the crap out of me. This was in early/mid-90's. Then a few years later, we started learning about holes in the ozone layer, and my first thought was "wait, if this stops the next ice age, isn't it a good thing?".
When a single volcanic eruption has the potential to put out more CO2 than all human production over the last decade, I think it's fair to say that we're a pretty insignificant factor.
Oh. I see, it's one of those "if a tree falls in the forest" questions. By definition, colour is just a certain wavelength of light. In the absence of light, there is no colour.
To make a long story short, it's because we have specialized light receptors which we use at night time that are much more sensitive, but are monochromatic. They let us see better at night time than we otherwise would, but at the expense of colour vision.
In other words, your grandfather's question was a False Dilemma
So to answer your question - no. WHEN these appear on the civ market (and it won't be for a while), they'll likely be more expensive than what the military is paying.
I guess you haven't been paying attention - not only is manned space flight not 10 years in the future, we've actually been doing it for about 4 decades now.
As to "the public, and their government" not being interested in spaceflight, that's just nonsense. Bush has ordered NASA to get a new moon program rolling. The Chinese want to land a man on the moon. The EU has it's own space agency now. Space programs world-wide may only be growing at a slow rate, but they ARE growing. I don't know where you're getting the idea that the world is losing interest in space exploration.
As disgusted as I am by the fact that you're too lazy to vote unless you get paid to do it....now that I think about it, you may be on to something. It's simple - tax every individual an extra $200 per year. Then, every 4 years, offer them $800 to go vote. It'd ensure excellent numbers at the polling booths.
Let's see....cheap...."open"....and has serious dependency issues. Plus she's pretty much impossible to understand, and has a multiple personality disorder. Great. I don't think I'll ever be THAT drunk!
The presidents friends? Don't you mean "the Dutch"? Sorry, but I don't think Shell would get any lucrative oil contracts on the moon. Ofcourse, at least the French wouldn't oppose such an invasion, since there's no oil-for-food program on the moon for them to skim off of.
Naw, surrender is too active. They'd just sit passively by while the aliens took over their country. The French don't surrender...they just don't fight.
You're saying that you think water has medicinal properties?....
I think we're done here. Thanks for the...."interesting" suggestions, I'll let yo get back to your "studies".
There is, for instance, some very strange data about successful homeopathy, only partially repeated, but statistically significant. Adequate data, however, is lacking.
Placebo. Homoeopathic medicine is nothing but water. For most homoeopathic medicines, you'd have to drink thousands of litres of "medicine" before you ingested a single molecule of the "active ingredient". The fact that you don't understand this tells me that you're quite ignorant about what homoeopathic medicine actually IS.
I have serious doubts about the claims of those who imply that Science has reached apotheosis and the current paradigms are adequate to explain everything.
And this tells me that you're quite ignorant about what science is. Science is a method of examination, not a system of belief. The scientific approach IS adequate to explain everything - it is only our level of technology that may be lagging. However, when it comes to things like "ghosts", successful "homoeopathy", "psychics", etc, no technology is required. These things have not even been shown to EXIST. For fuck's sake, a 9 YEAR OLD GIRL disproved therapeutic touch, yet grown adults continue to believe in that nonsense! It's absolutely incredible.
Randi's intentions may be noble but his methods, predictably, are more like a circus act.
Really? How so? Considering that his approach has often been more scientific than the "scientists" whom he was countering, I think you'd better justify your accusation.
It's like two runners, one carrying a 20kg weight. The runners are not competing on equal terms but one could in theory put in an equal time to the other.
No, it's more like two runners, one an olympic athlete in his prime, and the other an 800 lb blob of rolling flesh. Now, I'm sure that you could find a way to "debate" whether the 800 lb runnier is a "world class athlete", but to me it's just laughable.
Right, because you do all your repair work on your car I guess that makes sense that the entire spectrum of consumers will be able to do the same? You're a dolt.
So you change the argument and then call me names? Good debating tactic. Just to be clear, your original argumt was that modern cars are too complex for most garages to repair. I responded that I do my own repairs. Ergo, a modern car is certainly NOT too complex for most garages to repair. Are you understanding me yet?
Bullshiat. If it was that easy, it would have been done by now.
It hasn't been done yet because the product doesn't exist yet. Give it a decade or two.
I can tell you haven't done repair work on cars say from the 70s and then done some serious work on the cars of today. With the multitude of electronic gizmos, you need special machines just to diagnose the problem.
A basic diagnostic computer costs between $300 and $800. I spent $350 on mine.
Slashdot Mirror
Before you get on your high-horse, think about how widespread the belief in Homeopathy is in Sweden. People in Sweden aren't much different than people in the US - they just believe in different types of nonsense.
Good point. I don't know what's wrong with the other 67%, but I'm guessing it can be attributed to drugs and television.
Well, Al Gore is a good example of "wholesale distortion of scientific evidence". While I don't disagree with all of his conclusions, the majority of his "research" and "evidence" is questionable at best, and outright lies at worst.
You're right in that the scale is different. The biggest worry for me personally is the republicans push for "abstinence only" sex education, and the constant attempts to bring "intelligent design" into schools. Those two alone pretty much dwarf anything the dems have done. But it's silly to pretend that the dems are much better - they just tend to be less visible because they attack "acceptable targets". When a republican claims that evolution doesn't exist, people get real upset, but when a democrat claims that nuclear power is bad, people pretty much buy it hook, line, and sinker. There's a lot of bad science out there being pushed by the dems too, but people aren't aware of it because most of us have already bought into it.
That's not really true. Republicans are no more "anti-science" than Democrats, they just tend to suppress and pursue different sciences. Republicans pursue applied, practical research, especially when it involves things like weapons, vehicles, power generation and industry. They suppress stem cell research, biological studies in general, and are generally quite opposed to evolutionary theory. Democrats on the other hand tend to be much less supportive of applied sciences, especially nuclear research and new industrial technologies. Meanwhile they have no problem supporting research into all the things that Republicans oppose.
It's just a matter of differing priorities. The typical left-wing opposition to nuclear power and incineration technology is no less "anti-science" than the right-wing opposition to evolutionary theory and stem cell research. Each side of the political spectrum has it's Sacred Cows, and they can both be equally ignorant when it comes to science. The GPP had it absolutely right - the solution isn't just excluding republicans from making scientific decisions, but rather keeping politics and science entirely separate.
I remember being taught in highschool that "we are overdue for another ice age". Scared the crap out of me. This was in early/mid-90's. Then a few years later, we started learning about holes in the ozone layer, and my first thought was "wait, if this stops the next ice age, isn't it a good thing?".
When a single volcanic eruption has the potential to put out more CO2 than all human production over the last decade, I think it's fair to say that we're a pretty insignificant factor.
I think you forgot to add "ha ha" at the end :)
Oh. I see, it's one of those "if a tree falls in the forest" questions. By definition, colour is just a certain wavelength of light. In the absence of light, there is no colour.
To make a long story short, it's because we have specialized light receptors which we use at night time that are much more sensitive, but are monochromatic. They let us see better at night time than we otherwise would, but at the expense of colour vision.
In other words, your grandfather's question was a False Dilemma
Gen 3 NVG's - $3695.00
Gen 4 weapon sight - $4999.00
So to answer your question - no. WHEN these appear on the civ market (and it won't be for a while), they'll likely be more expensive than what the military is paying.
I guess you haven't been paying attention - not only is manned space flight not 10 years in the future, we've actually been doing it for about 4 decades now.
As to "the public, and their government" not being interested in spaceflight, that's just nonsense. Bush has ordered NASA to get a new moon program rolling. The Chinese want to land a man on the moon. The EU has it's own space agency now. Space programs world-wide may only be growing at a slow rate, but they ARE growing. I don't know where you're getting the idea that the world is losing interest in space exploration.
Ah, yes, the end is coming! You must Confess your Sins to the Goracle before it is Too Late! REPENT ALL YEE SINNERS!!!
Seriously, how 'bout 20 years from now I look you up and cook you a nice dinner of "Incontinent Truth" DVD's, and paper printouts of your comment?
Good luck with that. You seem like a nice guy, so I'll cross my fingers for you and hope that the IRS at least uses some lube.
As disgusted as I am by the fact that you're too lazy to vote unless you get paid to do it....now that I think about it, you may be on to something. It's simple - tax every individual an extra $200 per year. Then, every 4 years, offer them $800 to go vote. It'd ensure excellent numbers at the polling booths.
You're advocating vote-buying? Uh...this thing you're doing...it's self-parody, right?
Total non-sequitor. You may as well say "this is why I never buy ice-cream, and never will!"
Ofcourse they're designed to do that. Here's the way they test 'em:
777 Wing Flex Test
Let's see....cheap...."open"....and has serious dependency issues. Plus she's pretty much impossible to understand, and has a multiple personality disorder. Great. I don't think I'll ever be THAT drunk!
The presidents friends? Don't you mean "the Dutch"? Sorry, but I don't think Shell would get any lucrative oil contracts on the moon. Ofcourse, at least the French wouldn't oppose such an invasion, since there's no oil-for-food program on the moon for them to skim off of.
Naw, surrender is too active. They'd just sit passively by while the aliens took over their country. The French don't surrender...they just don't fight.
I'm sorry, but your "we don't really know anything" approach is of no use to me. And now we really are done here.
You're saying that you think water has medicinal properties? ....
I think we're done here. Thanks for the...."interesting" suggestions, I'll let yo get back to your "studies".
And this tells me that you're quite ignorant about what science is. Science is a method of examination, not a system of belief. The scientific approach IS adequate to explain everything - it is only our level of technology that may be lagging. However, when it comes to things like "ghosts", successful "homoeopathy", "psychics", etc, no technology is required. These things have not even been shown to EXIST. For fuck's sake, a 9 YEAR OLD GIRL disproved therapeutic touch, yet grown adults continue to believe in that nonsense! It's absolutely incredible.
Really? How so? Considering that his approach has often been more scientific than the "scientists" whom he was countering, I think you'd better justify your accusation.
It hasn't been done yet because the product doesn't exist yet. Give it a decade or two.
A basic diagnostic computer costs between $300 and $800. I spent $350 on mine.
CFS? You're surprised that there's a lot of people who are tired?? Gee. That's not a normal human condition at all!