Hey buddy, why don't you take your useless partisan bullshit rhetoric somewhere else? Yes, I am sorry to interrupt your Bush-bashing "discourse" with the facts.
In summary: you're not helping. In fact, you're harming America by trying to turn thinking people into raving partisan sheeple like yourself. So shut the fuck up, and get the fuck out! That's the problem with giving people like you a voice: they try to take it away from others.
Four more years of a jug-eared dry drunk in the White House. Well, at least this "dry drunk" isn't starting another NAFTA, gutting our military, selling the nuke/laser/rocketry tech to China, or fingering interns like his predecessor.
I for one do not use p2p filesharing, ever. Even a one month discount in return for throttling gnutella and such to say 56 kbps would be fine with me.
Very likely most home users fall into the same category as me regarding filesharing (i.e. doing some web, news, VoIP, family videos on youtube, some shopping, and church newsletters).
Note that the 1% of users that know about filesharing are probably the ones using up 50% of the total bandwidth. I don't mind my ISP dropping those in exchange for a 10% service discount for the rest.
(And if are one of those people that need to share 160GB worth of files a month, you should probably paying for a dedicated line anyways).
Fair enough. The term 'liberal' means just too many things to many different people.
I appologize for the confusion: I hoped that it was clear from the context that I was referring to the likes of Franklin D. Roosevelt, Ted Kennedy, and the Barak Obama wing of the Democrat party.
Do you know who was the first President to allow Federal funds to go to stem cell research? George W. Bush President who doubled NIH funding in the last five years? George W. Bush
What liberals want is more "education," but they don't give a crap about science at large. They demand specific results (usually related to their socialist agendas: heart desease and cancer treatment, high fructose corn syrup, ethanol, etc.), but don't want to fund research to actually get even these few out. Finally, liberals I know oppose scientific exchanges and object to training foreign grad students and postdocs, or offering research positions to foreigners. They certainly treat science as some sort of welfare program for the masses.
so you suggest that scientists should not look to the government for funding. No, that's not at all what I suggest. I said the scientists should not look forward to socialized research funding.
I am using the definition of socialism as a system where the society/govt controls the ownership and distribution of wealth and related things.
Socialized funding of your research would mean the govt would tell you exactly what you should be interested in, exactly which project is important, and exactly what happens with the results. Here is a recent example of how well that worked for the Soviet Union: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppressed_research_in_the_Soviet_Union As a neuroscientist, you are probably quite aware of what that did to their genetics and cybernetics fields.
In the US, the govt funding of basic research is relatively free market-based: the govt simply collects and passes on the money from the market, then lets the scientists (the market) decide which ideas to pursue. The results also go back to the market (in case of applied research these go to the companies and the university spinoffs, in case of basic research, these go to the scientist 'consumers' [and several research cycles down the line, to the companies]).
I am not as sure about NIH, but in NSF the govt literally gets no say as to how the money is spent. Peer review of grant applications, one might argue, is the scientific equivalent of a free market... supply and demand at its finest! Now compare and contrast that with Lysenkoism.
Could it be more market-based? Could we have the equivalent of Bell Labs today, where the market monopolies drive the basic research? I am not sure.
== Congrats on being a neuroscientist, by the way. I have a few neuroscientist friends, and they seem to be the most altruistic and/or masochistic people I have ever met.
Well, Bush just doubled NIH budget during his first term in office.
The funny thing is, those good old socialist countries in Western Europe invest jack shit in basic research, and get away with it by riding USA's back.
So socialism is not the answer to basic research funding, it's the question. (and NO is the answer)
The question was about ways in which America was more Free than the countries in Western Europe.
My answer is that America allows much greater levels of immigration in general, and skilled immigration in particular. Immigrants receive greater welcome and are significantly better integrated.
In what way do you think any western European country is not as free as America? Immigration, for one. If some foreign wiz-kid wants to study in the US, it's pretty easy for her to get in, and even get a scholarship. In turn, the US gets all the benefits from her work (research, publications, patents, etc.)
If a non-European wants to study in Europe, she has to both pay her way AND deal with the immigration roadblocks.
The result is that the US gets all the best and the brigtest, and is thus by far the largest science producer in the world. Certainly more so than the rest of Europe combined. Here are some recent stats on research paper citations: http://www.in-cites.com/countries/2007allfields.html
The basic idea is quite simple: start by sampling a whole bunch of neurons (usually a local EEG or fMRI of some sort). Then,
In humans, obtain two recordings (one blank and one while thinking about doing X), then diff the two and map to X'. In monkeys, also get two recordings (one blank and one while doing X), then diff the two and also map to X', hoping that doing X reads the same as thinking about doing X.
You'd need to repeat these steps a bunch of times to get good signal to noise, and also need several controls (thinking about Y, Z) to make sure the mapping is specific enough. Normally, the technique is just good enough to allow quadriplegics to click buttons and such, but takes lots of effort and patience (and lots of costly equipment).
By not implementing the policies of Mexico we would turn into a Mexico?
Why haven't we turned into a Britain, Germany, Ireland, Norway, or Poland then? (Hint: we welcomed their people, not their misguided policies or their predjudices).
Even your relatives strolled right in, and yet you want to shut the door on the next guy? Why are you being such a dick?
Probably a wrong kind of a person clicked on a goatse link once too many times, and caused slashdot some trouble. A congressman's kid? Congressional aide? Cat-hoarding granny living nextdoor to Taco? NSA analyst getting anal about OTP-looking messages from ClippySay?
Apparently they require people to log in to see the full thread (threat?) now.
I doubt even thousands of random murders would cause as much monetary damage in lost sales to the American movie/music industry as this pirate bay thing.
Corporations have to make profit so they understandably care much more about piracy than about murder.
Woah... wait a moment. So you're saying we should be lax with illegal immigrants, while our neighbor to the south, Mexico, will put you in jail for a couple of years just for your first offense of being illegally in their country? Yes yes, I get it that you think Mexico's doing things the right way. I still call you an idiot for advocating we try to turn US of A into another Mexico.
Slashdot Mirror
Here's just a sample link of what you leebs seem to want: http://www.cnn.com/US/9903/10/nuclear.secrets.02/
How do you know it didn't begin in 1970?
Any memories you may have originating prior to 1970 could have been planted into your brain at the start (in 1970).
Why would that be short-sighted?
I for one do not use p2p filesharing, ever. Even a one month discount in return for throttling gnutella and such to say 56 kbps would be fine with me.
Very likely most home users fall into the same category as me regarding filesharing (i.e. doing some web, news, VoIP, family videos on youtube, some shopping, and church newsletters).
Note that the 1% of users that know about filesharing are probably the ones using up 50% of the total bandwidth. I don't mind my ISP dropping those in exchange for a 10% service discount for the rest.
(And if are one of those people that need to share 160GB worth of files a month, you should probably paying for a dedicated line anyways).
An insider joke to an obscure 90's movie: some men say they are alone on a Saturday night "by choice."
An, then this kind of reasoning appeals to you, apparently:
Question: Which number is greater: x+1 or y?
Answer: y is greater
Reasoning: there is no evidence that x+1 is greater than y, therefore, the opposite is true.
--
Do you get it? There's just no way to tell for sure either way. Your answer depends solely on your belief.
Fair enough. The term 'liberal' means just too many things to many different people.
I appologize for the confusion: I hoped that it was clear from the context that I was referring to the likes of Franklin D. Roosevelt, Ted Kennedy, and the Barak Obama wing of the Democrat party.
Given that the worm penises kept evolving one way... Is Bigger still Better?
Do you know who was the first President to allow Federal funds to go to stem cell research? George W. Bush
President who doubled NIH funding in the last five years? George W. Bush
What liberals want is more "education," but they don't give a crap about science at large. They demand specific results (usually related to their socialist agendas: heart desease and cancer treatment, high fructose corn syrup, ethanol, etc.), but don't want to fund research to actually get even these few out. Finally, liberals I know oppose scientific exchanges and object to training foreign grad students and postdocs, or offering research positions to foreigners. They certainly treat science as some sort of welfare program for the masses.
I am using the definition of socialism as a system where the society/govt controls the ownership and distribution of wealth and related things.
Socialized funding of your research would mean the govt would tell you exactly what you should be interested in, exactly which project is important, and exactly what happens with the results. Here is a recent example of how well that worked for the Soviet Union: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppressed_research_in_the_Soviet_Union
As a neuroscientist, you are probably quite aware of what that did to their genetics and cybernetics fields.
In the US, the govt funding of basic research is relatively free market-based: the govt simply collects and passes on the money from the market, then lets the scientists (the market) decide which ideas to pursue. The results also go back to the market (in case of applied research these go to the companies and the university spinoffs, in case of basic research, these go to the scientist 'consumers' [and several research cycles down the line, to the companies]).
I am not as sure about NIH, but in NSF the govt literally gets no say as to how the money is spent. Peer review of grant applications, one might argue, is the scientific equivalent of a free market... supply and demand at its finest! Now compare and contrast that with Lysenkoism.
Could it be more market-based? Could we have the equivalent of Bell Labs today, where the market monopolies drive the basic research? I am not sure.
==
Congrats on being a neuroscientist, by the way. I have a few neuroscientist friends, and they seem to be the most altruistic and/or masochistic people I have ever met.
Well, Bush just doubled NIH budget during his first term in office.
The funny thing is, those good old socialist countries in Western Europe invest jack shit in basic research, and get away with it by riding USA's back.
So socialism is not the answer to basic research funding, it's the question. (and NO is the answer)
The question was about ways in which America was more Free than the countries in Western Europe.
My answer is that America allows much greater levels of immigration in general, and skilled immigration in particular. Immigrants receive greater welcome and are significantly better integrated.
Since when is Canada a part of Europe, genius?
OK, so the US is at 5% of the world population, yet we get over 40% of research citations.
So, per capita, America does 13 times more research than the rest of the world.
Numbers here: http://www.in-cites.com/countries/2007allfields.html
Notably, our relative position has declined due to the homegrown bigots, socialists, and liberals demanding to be more like Europe.
If a non-European wants to study in Europe, she has to both pay her way AND deal with the immigration roadblocks.
The result is that the US gets all the best and the brigtest, and is thus by far the largest science producer in the world. Certainly more so than the rest of Europe combined. Here are some recent stats on research paper citations: http://www.in-cites.com/countries/2007allfields.html
Yes, but which one of them is the ground pin?
Oh well, only one way to find out...
W: Still our President.
The basic idea is quite simple: start by sampling a whole bunch of neurons (usually a local EEG or fMRI of some sort). Then,
In humans, obtain two recordings (one blank and one while thinking about doing X), then diff the two and map to X'.
In monkeys, also get two recordings (one blank and one while doing X), then diff the two and also map to X', hoping that doing X reads the same as thinking about doing X.
You'd need to repeat these steps a bunch of times to get good signal to noise, and also need several controls (thinking about Y, Z) to make sure the mapping is specific enough. Normally, the technique is just good enough to allow quadriplegics to click buttons and such, but takes lots of effort and patience (and lots of costly equipment).
By not implementing the policies of Mexico we would turn into a Mexico?
Why haven't we turned into a Britain, Germany, Ireland, Norway, or Poland then?
(Hint: we welcomed their people, not their misguided policies or their predjudices).
Even your relatives strolled right in, and yet you want to shut the door on the next guy? Why are you being such a dick?
Probably a wrong kind of a person clicked on a goatse link once too many times, and caused slashdot some trouble. A congressman's kid? Congressional aide? Cat-hoarding granny living nextdoor to Taco? NSA analyst getting anal about OTP-looking messages from ClippySay?
Apparently they require people to log in to see the full thread (threat?) now.
I doubt even thousands of random murders would cause as much monetary damage in lost sales to the American movie/music industry as this pirate bay thing.
Corporations have to make profit so they understandably care much more about piracy than about murder.
Well, it's illegal due to DMCA but could be allowed under Fair Use. It probably won't be settled until someone gets a case and lets the judges decide.
Well, it sure is hell going to hose EndNote support in MS Word... Which will make a lot of biologists angry (and you wouldn't like to see them angry!)