Republicans hate science [Archive]

diamond geezer

Jul 6, 2004, 10:34 PM

or at least science that doesn't fit with their way of thinking.
Add this to the whole WOMD/Iraq-Al Queada link and it appears they have a real issue with reality.

link (http://www.thedailycamera.com/bdc/opinion_columnists/article/0,1713,BDC_2490_3008977,00.html)

Dean: Bush's war on science

By Gov. Howard Dean M.D.
July 5, 2004

I write this week's column as a physician.

The Bush administration has declared war on science. In the Orwellian world of 21st century America, two plus two no longer equals four where public policy is concerned, and science is no exception. When a right-wing theory is contradicted by an inconvenient scientific fact, the science is not refuted; it is simply discarded or ignored.

Egregious examples abound. Over-the-counter morning-after contraceptive sales are banned, despite the recommendation for approval by an independent panel of the Food and Drug Administration review board. The health risks of mercury were discounted by a White House staffer who simply crossed out the word "confirmed" from a phrase describing mercury as a "confirmed public health risk." A National Cancer Institute fact sheet was doctored to suggest that abortion increases breast-cancer risk, even though the American Cancer Society concluded that the best study discounts that. Reports on the status of minority health and the importance of breast feeding are similarly watered down to appease right-wing ideologies.

What about global warming? After withdrawing from the Kyoto Treaty, the Bush administration distanced itself from a climate report the Environmental Protection Agency wrote, because it affirmed the potential worldwide harm of global warming, the existence of which Bush had denied. The global-warming section of the 2003 EPA report on the environment was extensively rewritten, then dropped entirely.

Fighting HIV? Bush's initiative to help fund HIV efforts in Africa was trumpeted by the press, while the National Institutes of Health and Centers for Disease Control quietly removed information on the benefits of condoms and safe sex education from domestic HIV Web sites.

Presidential scientific commissions have long enjoyed relative immunity from politics. Presidents of both parties have depended on impartial, rational advice from such groups for decades. Yet under the Bush administration, there has been a concerted effort, led by Karl Rove and other political ideologues based in the White House, to stack these commissions with Republican loyalists, especially those who espouse fundamentalist views on scientific issues.

Recently, a scientist and a bioethics professor were dismissed from the blue-ribbon Council on Bioethics when they disagreed with the Bush administration's proposed ban on new stem-cell line development to cure a variety of diseases. In a similar vein and an unusual move, the nomination of public-health experts to a CDC lead paint advisory panel were rejected by Secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy Thompson, and replaced with researchers with financial ties to the lead industry. The Union of Concerned Scientists, with 20 Nobel laureates and several former scientific advisers to Republican presidents, has issued its scathing Report on Scientific Integrity condemning these practices.

Is it any wonder that these outrages have been perpetrated on an unsuspecting public and an enfeebled press? Not when you consider that this is an administration that has put forth deliberately misleading proposals like the Healthy Forests Initiative, which removes barriers to clear-cutting, and the Clear Skies Initiative, which weakens existing safeguards on mercury, sulfur dioxide and other pollutants dumped into the air by power plants. When the oil industry writes national energy policy and the HMOs and drug companies draft our Medicare legislation, who is looking out for truth, scientific integrity and the public interest?

Will it be long before a prominent panel of fundamentalist theologians, conservative columnists and a few token scientists take up the question of whether the theory of evolution should be banned from the nation's classrooms? Stay tuned. In George Bush's America, ignorance is strength.

Howard Dean, former governor of Vermont, is the founder of Democracy for America, a grassroots organization that supports socially progressive and fiscally responsible political candidates. Email Howard Dean at howarddean@democracyforamerica.com.

Neserk

Jul 6, 2004, 10:51 PM

where is my take a deep breath and count to 10 thread?

:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

zimv20

Jul 6, 2004, 10:57 PM

where is my take a deep breath and count to 10 thread?

i don't think mr. dean knows about it

Neserk

Jul 6, 2004, 10:57 PM

i don't think mr. dean knows about it

I meant for me ;) I had to count to 100!

themadchemist

Jul 6, 2004, 11:07 PM

The only republican science is creation science. :rolleyes:

IJ Reilly

Jul 6, 2004, 11:25 PM

The only republican science is creation science. :rolleyes:

Come on guys, that isn't exactly fair.

blackfox

Jul 6, 2004, 11:47 PM

Come on guys, that isn't exactly fair.
Of course it isn't, but neither is the article quoted...plus he forgot weapon-related science...

Seriously, as the article states, generally speaking, Science has been left out of Partisan politics...as everyone has an interest in it...

Desertrat

Jul 7, 2004, 12:10 AM

I dunno. I don't like some of the ties between religious views and judgements regarding scientific matters; I think it's wrong. But, not all of the allegations are apt insofar as "hating science".

And, the whole deal varies from one side to the other. Back in my environmental engineering days I saw a fair number of Democrats who ignored science in favor of their own preconceived notions.

"Equal opportunity BS"

'Rat

Neserk

Jul 7, 2004, 12:19 AM

YEah, but since a Repub. is in office we get to pick on the Repubs. :p

zimv20

Jul 7, 2004, 12:34 AM

YEah, but since a Repub. is in office we get to pick on the Repubs. :p
i feel fine picking on the bush administration for its dodgy science, but i agree w/ IJR that it's unfair to smear republicans in general for this.

Neserk

Jul 7, 2004, 12:36 AM

i feel fine picking on the bush administration for its dodgy science, but i agree w/ IJR that it's unfair to smear republicans in general for this.

You mean the Creation comment? I agree. Although they need to get the religious-freak-monkey off their back. So in that sense they deserve it :p

When you hang out with certain types of people, people tend to assume that you are like those certain types of people.

davecuse

Jul 7, 2004, 05:54 AM

I meant for me ;) I had to count to 100!

Is that how many days we have to wait till November?

Chip NoVaMac

Jul 7, 2004, 06:13 AM

i feel fine picking on the bush administration for its dodgy science, but i agree w/ IJR that it's unfair to smear republicans in general for this.

Yeah, but it the conservatives that seem to do the most damage to our health and environment as a nation and a world in my view.

Lyle

Jul 7, 2004, 08:33 AM

You mean the Creation comment? I agree. Although they need to get the religious-freak-monkey off their back.That's Mister Religious-Freak-Monkey to you, Madam. ;)

By the way, didn't Kerry slip up a few days ago and say that he believes life begins at conception (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/07/05/life_begins_at_conception_kerry_says)? Just curious, how does that rank on the "religious freak monkey" scale?

Sayhey

Jul 7, 2004, 08:42 AM

That's Mister Religious-Freak-Monkey to you, Madam. ;)

By the way, didn't Kerry slip up a few days ago and say that he believes life begins at conception (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/07/05/life_begins_at_conception_kerry_says)? Just curious, how does that rank on the "religious freak monkey" scale?

High. But at least he said he'd keep his beliefs to himself and not impose it on the rest of us. That's all I ask - Mr. Ashcroft, are you listening? ;)

Desertrat

Jul 7, 2004, 08:44 AM

There's so much anti-science running loose...Seems to me that the political problem is the mix of neo-con and religionists that have come into power. It's less the political party per se.

A problem with the cited article in the opening post is that there is the occasional grain of truth, and a big batch of chaffish BS. There is the assumption that all environmental regulations are perfection as written, and no possibility that they might go beyond necessity.

The overall tone of the cite also equates profitability with evil and destruction. Yet, we've had lengthy discussion here about jobs going overseas, and that's a direct correlation with profitability.

We've even discussed "rollback" issues here. I've noted that the EPA limit on Cesium is 2/3 the natural content in the soil in Nueces County, Texas, but that doesn't stop all manner of protests against harbor dredging at Corpus Christi--even though the dredged material is identical to the ground on which it's placed. Duh? Could it be the regulation is not written in a scientific manner?

The water where I live is well above the state health department's limit for TDS as sulphates. We having people around who've lived here for decades, and they die in their eighties and nineties and a few in the early 1-0-somethings. Could there be some purely-opinion in the science leading to the limit?

I prefer to pick targets with rifles rather than shotguns. Our discussion here about the gasoline additive problem for groundwater in California was right on target...

Overall, my gripe is the lack of personal knowledge of technical matters on the part of almost all politicos I've ever met. It doesn't matter if you're talking environment or cars or industrial processes; they haven't a clue. I'm waiting for a resurrection of a law making Pi equal to 3.0000000... so life isn't so complicated for geometry or trig students.

:), 'Rat

Neserk

Jul 7, 2004, 08:45 AM

Is that how many days we have to wait till November?

I saw something that said Bush's reign of terror was 86.something % over :D

Neserk

Jul 7, 2004, 08:46 AM

That's Mister Religious-Freak-Monkey to you, Madam. ;)

Wasn't talking to or about you ;)

By the way, didn't Kerry slip up a few days ago and say that he believes life begins at conception (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/07/05/life_begins_at_conception_kerry_says)? Just curious, how does that rank on the "religious freak monkey" scale?

No. He has been very upfront about his personal views which are inline with the Catholic church. But he doesn't believe that his personal views should become public policy!

Sayhey

Jul 7, 2004, 08:50 AM

There's so much anti-science running loose...Seems to me that the political problem is the mix of neo-con and religionists that have come into power. It's less the political party per se.

I agree with the sentiment, 'Rat. Let's not bash all Republicans for the failings of the administration. Only small change I'd make is that, and this may shock you, I don't think the neocons are the source of this problem. It is more the mix of "religionists," as you put it, and corporate science "whores" (to put it bluntly.)

Chip NoVaMac

Jul 7, 2004, 08:59 AM

By the way, didn't Kerry slip up a few days ago and say that he believes life begins at conception (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/07/05/life_begins_at_conception_kerry_says)? Just curious, how does that rank on the "religious freak monkey" scale?

Very, very low.

'Vatican II is very clear. There is something called freedom of conscience in the Catholic Church," Kerry told the Telegraph Herald of Dubuque in a story in its Sunday editions. ''I oppose abortion, personally. I don't like abortion. I believe life does begin at conception. But I can't take my Catholic belief, my article of faith, and legislate it on a Protestant or a Jew or an atheist . . . who doesn't share it. We have separation of church and state in the United States of America."

It is time for politicians not to inject their personal beliefs into the political decision process. They should represent all, even those that did not vote for them.

Lyle

Jul 7, 2004, 09:33 AM

It is time for politicians not to inject their personal beliefs into the political decision process.Wow. I mean, do you seriously believe that?

It sort-of ties into this opinion piece (http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2004/07/07/its_time_to_quiz_kerry) I also found at the Boston Globe's web site. To hit the highlights:
"I did not know that Senator John F. Kerry believes that life begins at conception. Now that I do know, I do not understand 20 years of votes supporting a woman's right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy...

I, and I suspect many others who support legal abortion, had mistakenly assumed that, on this very personal issue, Kerry's conscience was at odds with the teaching of his church. His consistent record in favor of abortion rights, family planning, and reproductive freedom was, I thought, a courageous reflection of an independent mind.

Now, I don't know what to think."
I'd recommend reading the whole thing (it's short).

skunk

Jul 7, 2004, 10:22 AM

I'd recommend reading the whole thing (it's short).
If the quotes are for real, it certainly raises some interesting questions.

It is time for politicians not to inject their personal beliefs into the political decision process.
Depends on their personal beliefs, surely? I'd like to know what their beliefs were, at any rate. And I'd like to know when they were acting contrary to their beliefs, and why.

IJ Reilly

Jul 7, 2004, 10:31 AM

i feel fine picking on the bush administration for its dodgy science, but i agree w/ IJR that it's unfair to smear republicans in general for this.

Yes, thank you -- that was my point exactly.

skunk

Jul 7, 2004, 10:34 AM

There's much more chance of getting Republican voters to change sides if you don't trash the whole party. Better to treat GW&Co as an aberration.

Chip NoVaMac

Jul 7, 2004, 12:06 PM

Wow. I mean, do you seriously believe that?

It sort-of ties into this opinion piece (http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2004/07/07/its_time_to_quiz_kerry) I also found at the Boston Globe's web site. To hit the highlights:

I'd recommend reading the whole thing (it's short).

Some of the issues we face as a nation are based on a singular view that ones position is the only right one.

Using the abortion issue, I think that abortion is wrong. But then I support a woman's right to choose also. It is a matter of personal choice. There are those, dare I say on the Right, that do not want people to live by the God given Free Will.

A politician is also supposed to up hold the law of the land. And so far the SCOTUS has held that a woman has the right to choose. I would be very worried, as I am with many of the GOP, if their beliefs got in the way of what the laws were and what the majority of the people desire.

Otherwise we are no longer a democracy, but a totalitarian society ruled by the religious elite.

Your insistence that ones religious beliefs should be part of the decision on how you vote when a member of Congress, or how you lead the nation is troublesome. If you want that, go find a nation that you can become dictator of, or be led by a dictator.

Sure is sounding a lot like the Taliban in this nation.

Taft

Jul 7, 2004, 12:19 PM

Some of the issues we face as a nation are based on a singular view that ones position is the only right one.

Using the abortion issue, I think that abortion is wrong. But then I support a woman's right to choose also. It is a matter of personal choice. There are those, dare I say on the Right, that do not want people to live by the God given Free Will.

A politician is also supposed to up hold the law of the land. And so far the SCOTUS has held that a woman has the right to choose. I would be very worried, as I am with many of the GOP, if their beliefs got in the way of what the laws were and what the majority of the people desire.

Otherwise we are no longer a democracy, but a totalitarian society ruled by the religious elite.

Your insistence that ones religious beliefs should be part of the decision on how you vote when a member of Congress, or how you lead the nation is troublesome. If you want that, go find a nation that you can become dictator of, or be led by a dictator.

Sure is sounding a lot like the Taliban in this nation.

Good post.

I think that many people in this country don't understand that "I think abortion is wrong" is often different from "I think abortion should be illegal."

The only scenario in which they would mean the same thing is if a person believes that morality should be legislated and enforced by the state. And if you believe the state should impose the religion of the majority on the entire nation, perhaps America, with its concepts of freedom and protection of the rights of the minority, isn't for you.

Lyle should think long and hard about the phrase "minority rights" and what that means to our country and its constitution.

Taft

zimv20

Jul 7, 2004, 12:33 PM

so it boils down to: is the purpose of gov't to...
1) serve as many people as possible as fairly as possible, or
2) enforce a moral standing?

Voltron

Jul 7, 2004, 12:35 PM

Good post.

I think that many people in this country don't understand that "I think abortion is wrong" is often different from "I think abortion should be illegal."

The only scenario in which they would mean the same thing is if a person believes that morality should be legislated and enforced by the state. And if you believe the state should impose the religion of the majority on the entire nation, perhaps America, with its concepts of freedom and protection of the rights of the minority, isn't for you.

Lyle should think long and hard about the phrase "minority rights" and what that means to our country and its constitution.

Taft
I don't believe that morality should be legislated and enforced by the any government state or otherwise, at least not one I live in. However, what is a human life? I don't know. If human life begins at conception as I heard reported that Kerry himself has stated then it is like saying I don't believe in murder but nobody should make it illegal. And that is just plain nuts.http://sharevana.com/forums/images/generalsmileys/conf11.gif About as nutty as saying "I voted for the 87 Billion before I voted against it." and think you are actually making a point about something.

skunk

Jul 7, 2004, 12:36 PM

so it boils down to: is the purpose of gov't to...
1) serve as many people as possible as fairly as possible, or
2) enforce a moral standing?
Can you separate fairness from morality?

zimv20

Jul 7, 2004, 12:42 PM

Can you separate fairness from morality?
yes, i can :-)

i'd start w/ the notion of equality as fairness. of course, the quality of such equality is relative (e.g. we could _all_ be shot in the foot), but so is morality.

Chip NoVaMac

Jul 7, 2004, 12:51 PM

Well, 27 hours of rational debate in the political forums was nice....

Lyle

Jul 7, 2004, 01:01 PM

If the quotes are for real, it certainly raises some interesting questions.Which quotes? You mean, the quotes attributed by the author to Betsy Cavendish (the interim president of NARAL Pro Choice America)? I think the quotes attributed to Kerry have been pretty widely reported at this point (and not disputed by Kerry).

Ugg

Jul 7, 2004, 01:12 PM

Frohickey

Jul 7, 2004, 01:23 PM

Chip NoVaMac

Jul 7, 2004, 01:27 PM

Personally I don't think it's a matter of hating science, where would they be without their SUV's, cellphones, and learjets? It's more a matter of loving money. If science can be disproved to their advantage by a hefty contribution to gw's campaign, then so be it, as long as their ability to make money is unhindered by some scientist's report.

It depends on the science. If it is in regards to the environment, then money speaks. If it is medical, then religious/moral issues play into it. Take HIV as an example. Religious conservatives (in both Parties) feel that any sex outside of marriage is wrong. And sex between the same sex is down right evil. Never mind that because of Free Will, people will have sex whether married or not. And if they will do it any ways, should not the info to prevent the spread of STD's and unwanted pregnancies by contraceptive means be a part of the message from the government?

On the religion aspect, who is an elected official duty bound to? His god or his country? If it's his god then he needs to find another country because in this one the people come first not the politico's deity.

Amen to that! :D

Sorry, the Devil made me do it!

Desertrat

Jul 7, 2004, 01:29 PM

No argument, Sayhey. I recall a professional group called the American Appraisers Institute. They were also called "Appraised As Instructed".

Ugg, you'd be amazed at how many people don't (emotionally) connect science with cell phones, etc. Just like the people at a computer who post superflames against drilling for oil and gas--without which there are no cellphones or computers.

Just a point to ponder: The movie "Star Wars" is anti-science fiction. Don't believe me? Okay. Explain how "The Force" is scientific. :)

'Rat

Frohickey

Jul 7, 2004, 01:30 PM

Personally I don't think it's a matter of hating science, where would they be without their SUV's, cellphones, and learjets? It's more a matter of loving money. If science can be disproved to their advantage by a hefty contribution to gw's campaign, then so be it, as long as their ability to make money is unhindered by some scientist's report.

On the religion aspect, who is an elected official duty bound to? His god or his country? If it's his god then he needs to find another country because in this one the people come first not the politico's deity.

Huh? Loving money? If science can be disproved, then its not valid and correct, now is it. If the underpinnings of the scientific research hold its own, then its is by definition, proven and valid, and its now time to put that scientific research into practice, and make it serve mankind. And if it just so happens that we can earn a buck or two, why is that so bad? Besides, the few bucks that we earn makes it possible to undertake more advanced scientific research, and to make it serve mankind more (and make a few more bucks). :p

As to the religion aspect, where do you draw the line, or is there no line to be drawn? Do we allow polygamy, as espoused by the early Mormons? Do we allow honor killings, as espoused by current Muslims? Do we allow human sacrifice, as done by past Aztecs? Cannibalism? Genital mutilation? Foot binding of women?

themadchemist

Jul 7, 2004, 01:42 PM

You mean the Creation comment? I agree. Although they need to get the religious-freak-monkey off their back. So in that sense they deserve it :p

When you hang out with certain types of people, people tend to assume that you are like those certain types of people.

guys, I was being facetious. But Neserk, it's one thing for you to hang out with certain types of people, it's entirely another to select those people to be your leaders.

I hardly call Bush a fringe Republican--he's the party leader. It frightens me how many Republicans still deny evolution.

Chip NoVaMac

Jul 7, 2004, 01:58 PM

As to the religion aspect, where do you draw the line, or is there no line to be drawn? Do we allow polygamy, as espoused by the early Mormons? Do we allow honor killings, as espoused by current Muslims? Do we allow human sacrifice, as done by past Aztecs? Cannibalism? Genital mutilation? Foot binding of women?

But yet Christian texts allow for owning slaves as long as they are properly cared for. So I guess we should bring back slavery then too?

Nice fearful arguments though. If polygamy (as a note the practice is not just the Mormons) allowed by the religions teachings, then there should be no laws against it. If the law allows it, that does not mean that you have to do it. Also I believe religions require that all wives be treated equally. That the case how is polygamy harmful to society?

With honor killings I am not sure that is a religious or cultural matter. I assume that someone here will inform us. No current religion that I am aware of espouses any of the other examples you posted. There again if I am wrong, I welcome to be corrected.

In the US at least, it is up to the courts to rule where the law starts and stops on differences on religious beliefs. That is why polygamy is illegal in the US, the courts of the time trumped religious freedom. There is the matter of "public good" in the law. That is there to prevent fear mongering.

If all of your examples are current and valid expressions of religious worship, there is a way to correct for differences of what we want for religious and democratic principles. It is called a Constitutional Convention.

Though be careful on calling for one. You might not like the total outcome.

Lyle

Jul 7, 2004, 02:42 PM

Using the abortion issue, I think that abortion is wrong. But then I support a woman's right to choose also. It is a matter of personal choice.
I absolutely agree that it is every individual's right to choose for themselves whether they think abortion is "right" or "wrong."

However, if that individual says, "I believe abortion is wrong, because I believe life begins at conception," it would seem to follow that they also believe that abortion ends a life. And if that person is a politician who subsequently votes in favor of abortion rights, despite their personal belief that abortion is in fact murder? Well, yes, I have a big time problem with that.

A politician is also supposed to up hold the law of the land. And so far the SCOTUS has held that a woman has the right to choose. I would be very worried, as I am with many of the GOP, if their beliefs got in the way of what the laws were and what the majority of the people desire... Your insistence that ones religious beliefs should be part of the decision on how you vote when a member of Congress, or how you lead the nation is troublesome.I guess this is where our points of view on this issue really diverge. It is "troublesome" to me that an elected official wouldn't vote his or her conscience, even if it meant that he alienated his base and risked his political future.

Lyle

Jul 7, 2004, 02:43 PM

so it boils down to: is the purpose of gov't to...
1) serve as many people as possible as fairly as possible, or
2) enforce a moral standing?It sounds like the purpose of government is to do whatever it takes to get re-elected, regardless of your personal convictions.

Lyle

Jul 7, 2004, 02:45 PM

Lyle should think long and hard about the phrase "minority rights" and what that means to our country and its constitution.How about I don't tell you what to think, and you don't tell me what to think?

Chip NoVaMac

Jul 7, 2004, 02:57 PM

I guess this is where our points of view on this issue really diverge. It is "troublesome" to me that an elected official wouldn't vote his or her conscience, even if it meant that he alienated his base and risked his political future.

So the law and the democratic principals of our nation be damned then?

So given that our electors are by a majority. wealthy individuals, if they said they feel that anyone earning more that $200K a year shouldn't pay taxes because that is what their "conscience" says that is right. They then should do it?

If these are conservative values, then we are doomed.

kuyu

Jul 7, 2004, 03:15 PM

Yeah, but it the conservatives that seem to do the most damage to our health and environment as a nation and a world in my view.

Conservatives or Republicans???

Conservatism is simply the belief that each of us are better suited to run our own lives and care for ourselves than the government. Thus the con's stances on welfare, etc.

Republicans have a litany of stances that have plagued our environment and health, so to speak. Like Bush's repeal of clean air standards for factories. Republicans see this as tearing down a multi-million dollar barrier to entering manufacturing for small business's (thereby making 'tycooning' harder) in turn, the environment suffers.

I see what you meant, but I think you are talking about republicans. Not all conservatives are rep's.

Frohickey

Jul 7, 2004, 03:20 PM

But yet Christian texts allow for owning slaves as long as they are properly cared for. So I guess we should bring back slavery then too?

Nice fearful arguments though. If polygamy (as a note the practice is not just the Mormons) allowed by the religions teachings, then there should be no laws against it. If the law allows it, that does not mean that you have to do it. Also I believe religions require that all wives be treated equally. That the case how is polygamy harmful to society?

With honor killings I am not sure that is a religious or cultural matter. I assume that someone here will inform us. No current religion that I am aware of espouses any of the other examples you posted. There again if I am wrong, I welcome to be corrected.

In the US at least, it is up to the courts to rule where the law starts and stops on differences on religious beliefs. That is why polygamy is illegal in the US, the courts of the time trumped religious freedom. There is the matter of "public good" in the law. That is there to prevent fear mongering.

If all of your examples are current and valid expressions of religious worship, there is a way to correct for differences of what we want for religious and democratic principles. It is called a Constitutional Convention.

Though be careful on calling for one. You might not like the total outcome.

I'd welcome a Constitutional Convention. As ol' TJ himself said: "What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance?"
or...

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."

Frohickey

Jul 7, 2004, 03:26 PM

I guess this is where our points of view on this issue really diverge. It is "troublesome" to me that an elected official wouldn't vote his or her conscience, even if it meant that he alienated his base and risked his political future.

I think that if an elected official were to vote for a particular issue that is alien to his constituency, then he should both try and explain his viewpoint and why its the correct one, and if his constituency is swayed, vote accordingly. If not, then abstain or resign.

Chip NoVaMac

Jul 7, 2004, 03:39 PM

Conservatives or Republicans???

Conservatism is simply the belief that each of us are better suited to run our own lives and care for ourselves than the government. Thus the con's stances on welfare, etc.

Republicans have a litany of stances that have plagued our environment and health, so to speak. Like Bush's repeal of clean air standards for factories. Republicans see this as tearing down a multi-million dollar barrier to entering manufacturing for small business's (thereby making 'tycooning' harder) in turn, the environment suffers.

I see what you meant, but I think you are talking about republicans. Not all conservatives are rep's.

For me it is a hard line to draw at times.

Do I think that there was/is a need for welfare reform? Yes. Answers for welfare, not many that all sides would like or accept. But does it mean that I would remove the government from welfare, nope. School vouchers that rob public schools while providing a source of profit for private schools? No. That simply saying abstaining from pre-marital sex as the only way of prevent STD's or unwanted pregnancies. Nice in theory, but fails in practice.

As "liberal" as I think myself, I do find that I desire some controls on what is seen on TV and in the movies. I find the language on TV and in films just appalling. just look at movies as shown in the theater or DVD, verses what is shown on commercial TV. Does the movie loose anything by eliminating the foul language, not IMO. But I am not going to demand legislation to make the world fit my personal view.

I think the issue is that as the Republicans have over the last 20+ years made "liberal" a dirty word; the Bush administration and the current crop of Republicans have ended up perverting Reagan's legacy by making "conservative" a dirty word now. Particularly in the last four years.

Chip NoVaMac

Jul 7, 2004, 03:44 PM

I'd welcome a Constitutional Convention. As ol' TJ himself said: "What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance?"
or...

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."

As divided as the nation is at this point in history, I hope that we don't see one. Neither side will be happy with the results.

I am not sure in what way T.J. made that quote, but I think that demanding more from our politicians may have been the intent. Bush and his administration is feeling that right now IMO.

Chip NoVaMac

Jul 7, 2004, 03:46 PM

King Cobra

Jul 7, 2004, 04:01 PM

I meant for me ;) I had to count to 100!
That's as far as you got? I kept counting and counting, lost track somewhere, and then I got to imaginary numbers...

back in the article:
Recently, a scientist and a bioethics professor were dismissed from the blue-ribbon Council on Bioethics when they disagreed with the Bush administration's proposed ban on new stem-cell line development to cure a variety of diseases.
Did anybody else feel sick just rereading that? My major right now is Physics, and I'll probably declare a Math major in addition. When I start graduate Physics courses in 2007, Bush had better be out of commission by then.

blackfox

Jul 7, 2004, 04:17 PM

Nothing to add at this time except to say that I am impressed by the level of debate in this thread...I guess I am busy at the wrong times...

Or perhaps my absence was the key...anyway, always nice to see...

Chip NoVaMac

Jul 7, 2004, 04:17 PM

Did anybody else feel sick just rereading that? My major right now is Physics, and I'll probably declare a Math major in addition. When I start graduate Physics courses in 2007, Bush had better be out of commission by then.

I get a sick feeling in my stomach every time I hear his voice or see that silly smirk of his. :D

I guess though to be fair any administration could be guilty of firing the messenger.

Awimoway

Jul 7, 2004, 04:30 PM

so it boils down to: is the purpose of gov't to...
1) serve as many people as possible as fairly as possible, or
2) enforce a moral standing?

Neither.

The purpose of government is to both
1) To protect the inalienable human rights (civil rights) enjoyed by citizens from infringement, whether by other citizens, people, or by government itself.

Unfortunately, at least in terms of abortion, more than one inalienable right is at stake.

Life: If life begins at conception (and when else could it possibly begin?), then the the unborn is a defenseless human being and the government has a responsibility to protect it from loss of said life since it cannot protect itself.

Liberty: The women's movement is predicated on the belief that men and women should be equals in society. This includes sex: They should be equals in sex. But they aren't. Women get pregnant, men don't. So for men (irresponsible ones, at least), sex has no strings attached. But it can ruin a woman's life if the pregnancy is unwanted. The only way to restore that equality, in their view, is to make abortion legal.

You could almost make the case that in this context it's the Democrats who are hating science — the science of reproduction. Thomas Jefferson had no control over evolution, and biology is simply the way it is. Sex does unfairly burden women, but that doesn't necessarily justify taking an innocent person's life. Abortion seems like a way of trying to cheat science.

I can't help but think that, especially now in the age of genetic science enabling us to prove paternity, a better solution would be to outlaw abortion since it's obviously a kind of murder (see Life, above) and mandate equal financial and legal responsibility for the father and mother.

Pursuit of happiness: Before you write me off as a reactionary conservative, you should know that I am a registered Democrat and the Pursuit of Happiness inalienable right is the one that brings me back to the center on the issue of abortion. If abortions were illegal, women's pursuit of happiness would be significantly hampered. They would feel oppressed for reasons outlined under Liberty (above).

Conclusion? I'm actually kind of sympathetic to John Kerry on this. I think life begins at conception, but I'm uneasy about outlawing abortion completely. Something that is morally wrong can be legal. But this is generally true of moral wrongs that only hurt yourself, not those that hurt others: we outlaw theft, rape, abuse, etc. because they hurt others. Legal abortions hurt the unborn and outlawing abortions hurt women. So which right is more important? Women's freedom or the unborn's life? I don't know, but I personally lean toward the life of the unborn.

themadchemist

Jul 7, 2004, 05:24 PM

I think that if an elected official were to vote for a particular issue that is alien to his constituency, then he should both try and explain his viewpoint and why its the correct one, and if his constituency is swayed, vote accordingly. If not, then abstain or resign.

I think there's a subtle balance to be stricken. We elect officials instead of holding referenda because we believe that a representative democracy is more efficient. In that sense, an official has a certain amout of agency to legislate on his own opinion. For example, Kennedy took a strong stand against segregation despite the fact that a large portion of his constituents supported it. He made a call as to what would be the best for the country and took steps to protect the minority in many areas from the tyranny of the majority. On the other hand, the tyranny of the majority can be exerted by voting on "conscience," especially when that conscience is heavily coupled to religious thought.

On the other, deviating too far from the will of the electorate is dangerous and irresponsible. By supporting special interest groups over the masses, politicians threaten to lose sight of the needs of their constituents.

Where must the line be drawn, then?

I think that elected officials are duty-bound to represent their constituents in a manner that protects the weak from the potential oppression of the strong. Sometimes, the majority is weak; in those cases, one must be willing to fight for the majority against a powerful minority. In other cases, the majority suppresses the freedoms of the minority; in such instances, one must defend the minority against said suppression.

Politicians, therefore, must be particularly wary in matters of religion, where the rights of the minority are easily suppressed. This is a secular state and therefore when politicians make decisions on the basis of conscience, they must strive to ensure that that conscience is a broad-based one that does not tread on the rights of some by way of tenets that are simply cultural or religious idiosyncracies.

In general, if the exercise of a particular practice does not inherently tread upon the rights of others, then politicians should champion the right to engage in those practices.

However, situations rarely exist that are so simple. That is why computers don't run our country, but humans do. That is why everyone doesn't agree. That is why there is debate.

I think the Christian right violates its duties by attempting to legislate on the basis of matters of religion. I also think that many conservative principles cause injury to our nation. However, there are conservative views with which I don't agree that one can support without letting religion dictate legislation. It's a fuzzy line, I know, and that's why, as I said, I'm open to debate. While debate predicated on the Christian religion is really inappropriate in the political arena, there's plenty of other debate about the proper direction of this country that liberals and conservatives can have while recognizing that both sides at least wish for the best interests of this country and its people.

jefhatfield

Jul 7, 2004, 05:43 PM

Ugg

Jul 7, 2004, 07:05 PM

It is "troublesome" to me that an elected official wouldn't vote his or her conscience, even if it meant that he alienated his base and risked his political future.

I don't vote for a person's conscience, I vote for them to represent the people of their district, state, nation, etc. These people are not elected solely to express their own opinion, but the opinion of those they represent.

To me conscience implies some moral ideal that is, in this country at least, all too often based on religion. I want my leaders to be moral but I don't want them to vote based on what the Koran, bible, or other religious history says. Much less being told by their imam or pope what they should vote for or against. The vatican is adamnantly opposed to abortion and the death penalty.

They are trying to take down Kerry for his stance on abortion but nary a word has been expressed about gw who allowed more people to be executed than any other us governor in recent history. For all gw's go it alone approach, his shamefulness when it comes to the vatican is unforgiveable as is the pope's to gw.

When it comes to Kyoto or GM farming or the fact that condoms can reduce the rate of HIV infection, I want a politician to resort to science in making his decision not the two bit opinion of some corner preacher.

Lyle

Jul 7, 2004, 07:50 PM

I want my leaders to be moral but I don't want them to vote based on what the Koran, bible, or other religious history says.OK, that's fair. But what do you mean when you say that you want your leaders to be "moral", then?

Chip NoVaMac

Jul 7, 2004, 08:07 PM

OK, that's fair. But what do you mean when you say that you want your leaders to be "moral", then?

I thought Ugg's comments were right on target too.

And for me I understood where I think he is coming from. There are basic morals of right and wrong. Those guide us in not lying, stealing, or killing (lets divorce the abortion issue from "murder"). I guess in a Christian sense these morals would be based on the 10 Commandments. Clinton suffered from a lapse in morals in cheating on his wife.

Then there are morals that IMO build on those initial morals. They can take on beliefs of the particular books of your chosen religion. They can be morals based on life experience. Or ones own interpretation of the "ten Commandments". An example can be a vegetarian who does not eat any living creature, because it is wrong to kill God's creatures.

Frohickey

Jul 7, 2004, 08:13 PM

Frohickey

Jul 7, 2004, 08:15 PM

I thought Ugg's comments were right on target too.

And for me I understood where I think he is coming from. There are basic morals of right and wrong. Those guide us in not lying, stealing, or killing (lets divorce the abortion issue from "murder"). I guess in a Christian sense these morals would be based on the 10 Commandments. Clinton suffered from a lapse in morals in cheating on his wife.

Then there are morals that IMO build on those initial morals. They can take on beliefs of the particular books of your chosen religion. They can be morals based on life experience. Or ones own interpretation of the "ten Commandments". An example can be a vegetarian who does not eat any living creature, because it is wrong to kill God's creatures.

Um... but aren't plants also God's creatures?
I think there was something written in the Bible about Man being given dominion over the animals. Besides, if animals are not to be eaten, why did God make them out of meat. :D :eek: :D

God could have made animals out of rocks, or air instead. :p

Voltron

Jul 7, 2004, 08:28 PM

Personally I don't think it's a matter of hating science, where would they be without their SUV's, cellphones, and learjets? It's more a matter of loving money. If science can be disproved to their advantage by a hefty contribution to gw's campaign, then so be it, as long as their ability to make money is unhindered by some scientist's report.

On the religion aspect, who is an elected official duty bound to? His god or his country? If it's his god then he needs to find another country because in this one the people come first not the politico's deity.
How about them sun spots? I heard today on Rush that scientists reported that sunspot activity on the sun is raising our temperatures. Suppose to be the highest amount of sun spot activity in I think 100 years, or was it 1000? They try to minimize it also stating "along with human created global warming." How about maybe our temperatures are rising because the sun is hotter and man's little pressures are extremely minor in comparison? How about the Kyoto treaty is full of faulty science.

Chip NoVaMac

Jul 7, 2004, 08:39 PM

GM food helps out in the arid places like Africa where genetically modified plant species can produce and thrive better in those climates. There are 2 solutions for the need for food in these continents. One would be food shipments into a continent that can't sustain that number of people, and to do that you would need trade and commerce. To do trade and commerce, you need a stabilization of the political systems and governments in the area, and how do you do that when the governments there do not want to stabilize. By the time it does, the 2nd solution would have presented itself, namely, the death of the excess population through starvation or war.

HIV transmission. Condoms is not 100%. Abstinence is. Okay, unless you are getting blood transfusions, then abstinence is not 100% either. But there is also the whole 'you-can-bring-the-horse-to-water-but-you-can't-make-it-drink' situation. If the people in Africa are not buying the condom, you actually expect them to use it?

You have a good argument for GM food, but it ignores the possible ramifications down the road. It has been said every form of technology has its own pollution. GM food may tap into unknown areas of the human genome to cause genetic issues down the road. Remember it is the additives in some foods that have been traced to carcinogens.

And in a perfect world, abstinence would be a beautiful thing. And I have no problems that being listed on a government website right along side the statement that if one is not going to abstain - THEN USE A CONDOM!

You also missed the point about the HIV reference, being that mention of condoms are being eliminated from US government websites. At least here in the US, having condoms readily and freely available has helped stemmed the transmission of HIV. So until there is a way to rid the earth of the HIV virus we need to offer all opportunities, first to the people here in the US. And then to the world as a whole.

Sorry if the lack of abstinence goes against your personal morals, but for the health of the nation, ALL HIV prevention information should be out there. All possible solutions need to be in front of people. Personal moral judgments should not enter into it.

Frohickey

Jul 7, 2004, 09:06 PM

And in a perfect world, abstinence would be a beautiful thing. And I have no problems that being listed on a government website right along side the statement that if one is not going to abstain - THEN USE A CONDOM!

Sorry if the lack of abstinence goes against your personal morals, but for the health of the nation

Two issues, that I'd like to explore.

1) Lack of abstinence does not go against my personal morals. But the lack of compensation for the cost of condom manufacturing is definitely high on the list. I think that if a thing is 'FREE', then its value is very low, and its likely to not be used. So, condoms, at least in Africa, should be assigned a value and that value should be collected from people that would pay for it, and use it.

2) The US should be only involved in trade and commerce. Aid is only for emergency purposes, and the expectation in giving aid is that eventually, when we need help ourselves, that aid would be forthcoming from these countries as well. Were there any African nations helping out in the intelligence gathering in the war on terror?

Lets see. I think that if I were to get a federal subsidy to provide Frohickey's lubed and ribbed condoms for African AIDS prevention, I would like to charge Africans a nominal charge for purchasing them. Say a chicken, or a roasted grub worm, or maybe exclusive management rights (10% fee) for the next female supermodel to come out of that country. :eek: :D :D

Desertrat

Jul 7, 2004, 09:08 PM

I detest the idea that someone's morality would impede the flow of information which will affect my health. Birth control methods fall into this category, along with info about STDs.

Shooting the messerger is low rent, as well...

'Rat

davecuse

Jul 7, 2004, 09:28 PM

As a tax paying voter, I would ideally like my hard earned tax dollars spent mainly on science and education. I am all for the furthering of the human race, and I feel as though our current government is not looking at the long term. I think that George is focused on the very near term future, and in my opinion that is simply wrong. I fully believe that my life expectancy is much longer than the 80 years that my grandparents are expected to live, as such I am spending a considerabely greater amount of time educating myself accordingly. For some reason many people have a very grim view of the future, however my view is very optimistic. I think that the future holds in store great advances in medicine and the study of longevity, I wish I had taken a route with my life that would allow me to study the human genome as I believe that this is one of the most exciting fields. The steps that science in general has taken over the past 50 years is truely astounding, and I really believe that the sky is the limit. I'm currently 23 years old, just think what the world will be like by the time I reach 100, or if John Sperling's billions have anything to say about it 500. I'm sure some will discount this as absurd, but I believe that it will be a reality in the next decade.

blackfox

Jul 7, 2004, 09:54 PM

A short comment here, and I apologize if it has been addressed either directly or obliquely previously.

While I agree (w/ 'rat among others) that morality has no place limiting my exposure to information (in this case, scientific) that I may find valuable, I do feel morality has a definite place w/in science...

While it is tempting to talk about "frankenstein" type ethical and moral quandries, those are easily visible and at least debated. It should be noted that every scientific endeavor and resultant technology is neither neutral nor placed into a vaccuum, and if humanity has shown any constant in it's time here, it is that not understanding the complex ramifications of something has not stopped us from doing it, if we suddenly find ourselves capable...

Modern technological/scientific advancements such as GM agriculture, Television, Satellite communications and pharmacology advancements (to name a few) have radically altered the structure and in some cases, orientation of our society. These things were not voted on, nor were they even discussed, and it would seem to be living in a democratic society, things that will change everyone's lives so radically needs to be discussed, even if it is at the expense of "progress" or financial gain...

Considering that societal Technological advancement has generally outpaced/superceded our cultural one, I beleive some sort of limiting factor must be imposed to redress this inequity...

Government may not be the perfect solution, but as in many cases it seems to be the best option we have. Private enterprise and private citenzenry may object to this regulation, but is it not the government's responsibility to protect the society it governs (and perhaps itself). There needs to be standards set, and given the fascination w/ progress by the general public, these standards may not initially be popular...

I admit that what I have written does not directly address some of the concerns stemming from the original post, but I thought it might be a contribution to the discussion...

FWIW

miloblithe

Jul 7, 2004, 10:15 PM

2) The US should be only involved in trade and commerce. Aid is only for emergency purposes, and the expectation in giving aid is that eventually, when we need help ourselves, that aid would be forthcoming from these countries as well.

Aid is generally not given for emergency purposes. That is a relatively small part of the global aid community. Most aid, in fact, is in the form of loans for various economic projects--not exactly giving money away for nothing (although many of the projects have been failures, leaving countries unable to repay these loans). Secondly, for the U.S., we don't give aid in the hope that some day, others will give aid to us. Realistically, that day is unlikely to ever come (who has enough to spare to give us anything that would be significant on the scale of the U.S. economy?). We give aid because it is generally, in theory, beneficial to us. A significant proportion of aid goes to things like legal reform, democracy promotion, civil society programs, etc. The theory, and it's a good one, is that it's a whole lot easier to promote democracy in other countries by supporting indigenous institutions and groups than it is to force democracy on people by invading (see Iraq). (We promote democracies based on the theory, and again a fairly good one, that we are less likely to go to war with them and more likely to trade productively with them) Of course, nothing is easy. Aid is replete with failures, full of contradictions, and often counterproductive. But it's not hard to believe that without aid, things would, for the most part, be a whole lot worse.

themadchemist

Jul 7, 2004, 10:27 PM

Kyoto was only going to buy us 6 years, and 0.2°C. (http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202004/Winter2003-4/global_warming.pdf) Does that warrant decimating the world economy?

I'm a little skeptical of a journal whose stated purpose includes:

"21st Century Science and Technology magazine challenges the assumptions of modern scientific dogma, including quantum mechanics, relativity theory, biological reductionism, and the formalization and separation of mathematics from physics."

I don't know how much stock I place in folks who don't place much stock in quantum mechanics and relativity.

Neserk

Jul 7, 2004, 10:30 PM

*WHOOSH*

That was everything going over my head :p

King Cobra

Jul 7, 2004, 10:37 PM

*fakes an italian Mario the Cook accent* - One thing you might want to try is... ... imagine that you're sliding down an endless spiral staircase at a slow speed, and count backwards from 10. Then let your imagination cook for about 5 minutes while as you continue to think about sliding down the staircase.

Voltron

Jul 7, 2004, 10:42 PM

*WHOOSH*

That was everything going over my head :p
Something about time being relative. Personally I think time is fixed and it is just our perception of it that is relative. ;)

blackfox

Jul 7, 2004, 10:44 PM

Something about time being relative. Personally I think time is fixed and it is just our perception of it that is relative. ;)
Kinda like our Administration being fixed and our perception of it being relative... ;)

Ugg

Jul 7, 2004, 11:06 PM

Kyoto was only going to buy us 6 years, and 0.2°C. (http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202004/Winter2003-4/global_warming.pdf) Does that warrant decimating the world economy?

GM food helps out in the arid places like Africa where genetically modified plant species can produce and thrive better in those climates. There are 2 solutions for the need for food in these continents. One would be food shipments into a continent that can't sustain that number of people, and to do that you would need trade and commerce. To do trade and commerce, you need a stabilization of the political systems and governments in the area, and how do you do that when the governments there do not want to stabilize. By the time it does, the 2nd solution would have presented itself, namely, the death of the excess population through starvation or war.

HIV transmission. Condoms is not 100%. Abstinence is. Okay, unless you are getting blood transfusions, then abstinence is not 100% either. But there is also the whole 'you-can-bring-the-horse-to-water-but-you-can't-make-it-drink' situation. If the people in Africa are not buying the condom, you actually expect them to use it?

As with all treaties, Kyoto was just a beginning. As I have argued before, governments and their treaties can be the driving force behind new technology and the accompanying lower costs. Kyoto is not a cure all, it is but a step in the right direction.

My problem with GM food is that there are no long term studies and the companies behind it, especially Monsanto, does everything it can to skew the results and suppress any negative news. GM food has not proven itself to be a panacea. It MIGHT help the starving masses in Africa but it MIGHT not. Show me the proof that it has made a difference in the world and we can discuss it. So far, I've found nothing to convince myself that the current science behind GM food is little more than a wolf in sheep's clothing.

As I quite clearly stated, condoms help in the prevention of the transmission of the virus. They are also not a cure=all but, it is a step in the right direction and any adminsitration that has declared a war on condom usage is morally bankrupt. Yes, there are problems in many African countries about denial and lack of equality in relationships that have led to the huge increase in infection rates, but if we look at the countries that have made huge progress we see that condom promotion is the leading reason for lower infection rates AFTER it is stressed that abstention from sex is the only way to completely prevent sexual transmission of the disease. There has been much debate recently about the lack of sterilization of needles amongst health workers that has led to a huge increase of non-sexual transmission of the virus. Plus, consumption of bush meat may be also contributing to the spread of HIV.

Throwing the baby out with the bathwater is not an effective way of dealing with any of the above. There is no one easy solution, but denial will only lead to further problems.

Ugg

Jul 7, 2004, 11:19 PM

OK, that's fair. But what do you mean when you say that you want your leaders to be "moral", then?

The idea that morality is irrevocably tied to religion just doesn't cut it with me. Morality as far as anyone can tell probably preceded religion by quite a few years. It is a central tenet of relgion and many people find moral guidance through religion but one doesn't have to be religious to be moral just as many religions eschew morality for political expediency.

As far as my own personal definition of morality, I would have to say that it rests on the do not kill, do not steal, treat your fellow 2 legged creatures with respect, don't pollute, don't lie, pedestal. These ideas are fairly universal although they vary from society to society. Some of them are clearly based in religious practice but may well precede Christianity, Islam and Judaism and instead be based upon pagan practices.

There is no universal morality and every person must choose their own set of morals. I think we would all agree that my basic set of morals is a pretty good starting point and the problems arise when we start defining what it means "to no kill". Is abortion ok, is the death penalty ok, is self-defense ok, is it ok to kill someone in a so-called pre-emptive war? In my mind, do not kill means do not kill but....... We're humans and we won't always agree.

kuyu

Jul 7, 2004, 11:30 PM

For me it is a hard line to draw at times.
Do I think that there was/is a need for welfare reform? Yes. Answers for welfare, not many that all sides would like or accept. But does it mean that I would remove the government from welfare, nope. School vouchers that rob public schools while providing a source of profit for private schools? No. That simply saying abstaining from pre-marital sex as the only way of prevent STD's or unwanted pregnancies. Nice in theory, but fails in practice.
As "liberal" as I think myself, I do find that I desire some controls on what is seen on TV and in the movies. I find the language on TV and in films just appalling. just look at movies as shown in the theater or DVD, verses what is shown on commercial TV. Does the movie loose anything by eliminating the foul language, not IMO. But I am not going to demand legislation to make the world fit my personal view.
I think the issue is that as the Republicans have over the last 20+ years made "liberal" a dirty word; the Bush administration and the current crop of Republicans have ended up perverting Reagan's legacy by making "conservative" a dirty word now. Particularly in the last four years.

Excellent post Chip!!!

I agree with your take on welfare. The extremely poor definately start in a hole in this country. The middle class is usually lucky enough to be given a start (car, insurance, college, etc.) I am totally for reform. Throwing money into someone's hole helps, but wouldn't all parties involved fair better by dropping in a rope?

Your stance on language in media is right in line with my own. I, as a conservative, feel that the language is often unnecessary. BUT, I don't think that the answer is to give the government more power. Rather, I would instead ask for the liberty to enjoy cleaner material if I choose so. Also, it's not my place to define what's decent for others.

The liberals that conservatives like the least are ones seemingly opposite of yourself. For instance, I assume that you want society to change for the better, and feel that the people of America can make America great. The "liberals" that so many on the right despise are the type that act as though we are all too ignorant to do anything for ourselves. They would ask for food, and bite the hand that gave the most. I think "liberal" in the modern sense too strong a word for most posters here.

Because of the self-made statuse of a large portion of the right, and the perceived class warfare against them, the term Liberal has come closer to meaning communist than opposite. We need more terms for political stances. These are to exact too be representative.

zimv20

Jul 7, 2004, 11:34 PM

this study (http://www.cnn.com/2000/fyi/teachers.ednews/12/06/student.scores/) is a few years old, but i think the results are relevant:

In the Third International Mathematics and Science Study, U.S. eighth-graders trailed students from more than a dozen other countries, showing only slight improvement from the first set of tests in 1995. The study, released Tuesday, also mirrored results from 1995 that showed U.S. students performing worse as they grow older. * U.S. educators blamed a lack of follow-through on improvement plans developed after the 1995 tests, which also included fourth and 12th-graders. The latest tests, conducted in 1999, covered only eighth-graders.

[...]

The study shows that out of 23 countries which took the tests in both 1995 and 1999, U.S. students placed 17th in math and 16th in science in 1999, compared with 17th in math and 15th in science in 1995. Asian students topped the list in both categories.

Students were asked questions about algebra, geometry, physics, chemistry and other topics that children would have been expected to have covered at their grade level. Some questions required detailed calculations or explanations.

i have serious concerns about the ability of students and adults in the US to not only understand basic math and science concepts, but to appreciate its importance. when the WH and legislators -- of both parties -- choose to ignore findings and the scientific method, i think it sends absolutely the wrong message and seriously damages the US' ability to compete in the global economy, now and in the future.

it's not the right to bear arms or drive SUVs that's going to keep this country afloat, it's the ability to innovate and be productive. and i have this sinking feeling it's already too late.

IJ Reilly

Jul 7, 2004, 11:47 PM

We need more terms for political stances.

We don't really need any new language. We just need the old one back.

Ugg

Jul 8, 2004, 12:02 AM

How about them sun spots? I heard today on Rush that scientists reported that sunspot activity on the sun is raising our temperatures. Suppose to be the highest amount of sun spot activity in I think 100 years, or was it 1000? They try to minimize it also stating "along with human created global warming." How about maybe our temperatures are rising because the sun is hotter and man's little pressures are extremely minor in comparison? How about the Kyoto treaty is full of faulty science.

I was very sceptical of global warming back in the early 90s and remain sceptical of the most dire predictions. But we know that the fogs of London during the reign of Victoria were caused by burning coal, we know that the boreal forest of Alaska has been creeping further north into the tundra, we do know that irrigation in the desert called Phoenix has led to a phenomenal rise in the humidity rate, we do know that the majority of the mercury released into the air is from coal-fired power plants, we do know that the reason that New England's forests were dying was because of the massive industrial plants in the midwest, we do know that large parts of the middle east and northern Africa were much lusher at one time and the desertification is due to cutting down trees and overforaging of pastures. And, to give a glimmer of hope, the ozone hole has diminished in size since the banning of chlorofluorocarbons.

It doesn't take a lot to realize that our impact on this planet is by and large negative and that our own health and well being is totally dependent upon how we treat it.

Kyoto is not bad science, what it is is a treaty of politics, do I agree with all of it? No, I think the China and Russia and India should be more responsible for their toxic emissions. Would they sign it if they were forced to? No. Is it better to have a treaty than not have one at all? Yes.

Prove to me where the science is bad in Kyoto, prove to me where it will cost the US all those billions and billions of dollars that they naysayers say it will. That so-called proof lies in projections based on today's technology not tomorrow's.

From all your negativity, I can't help but wonder that if you were alive in the 40s what you would have said about having a man on the moon. Was that bad science that created the space program? Of course it wasn't, science isn't exact and it is full of fits and starts and lots and lots of failures. To claim that Kyoto is bad science is to ignore the political machinations that made it the messy document it is and to deny those who have studied the theory (that's all it is, a theory, just like Einstein's theory of relativity or the theory of plate tectonics) the respect that they deserve. The planet is changing and some of it can definitely be contributed to human activity. That is a fact and we can prove it, what percentage is another story.

Yeah, Rush will say anthing won't he, too bad he won't talk about the science that created oxycontin and admit that's why he lost his hearing. Talk about ignoring science at his own peril.

Ugg

Jul 8, 2004, 12:16 AM

it's not the right to bear arms or drive SUVs that's going to keep this country afloat, it's the ability to innovate and be productive. and i have this sinking feeling it's already too late.

It may not be too late but we've certainly taken a wrong turn these last four years. The dumbing down of textbooks, denying the US' top universities from attracting the world's best and brightest, and the encouragement of pseudo-science like denying the ability to clear fire hazard areas in SoCal that led to last year's fire hazards (I think most of the blame for that lies with Democrats but the owners of all those ritzy homes who opposed the logging can't all be Demos
:rolleyes: ) to lack of support for the new ocean treaty that the industry wants, to the wetland policy or the need for stricter mpg rules.

Science has always been politicized but rarely with such disastrous results. The politilization of the 60s was very positive in that it led to phenomenal growth in medicine, space and air technology, computers, the internet, etc.

'Rat you were a more than a drooling kid in diapers, as I was in the 60s, didn't Johnson's push for science lead to a phenomenal increase in knowledge and GDP? And, how political was it all, was it worth it?

Neserk

Jul 8, 2004, 12:18 AM

Something about time being relative. Personally I think time is fixed and it is just our perception of it that is relative. ;)

Now *that* I understand!

zimv20

Jul 8, 2004, 12:32 AM

Now *that* I understand!
but it's wrong. sorry. lots o' research going on wrt time. Time's Arrows (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0671617664/qid=1089264531/sr=1-5/ref=sr_1_5/103-2909500-2979069?v=glance&s=books) is a good read. it speaks of the five arrows of time, and i hear that a couple more have been theorized since its publication.

Stephen Hawking's A Brief History of Time (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0553380168/qid=1089264664/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_1/103-2909500-2979069) is also an excellent read. i particularly enjoy the chapter about the universe being a free lunch. (take that, D'Rat! :-)

Chip NoVaMac

Jul 8, 2004, 04:24 AM

1) Lack of abstinence does not go against my personal morals. But the lack of compensation for the cost of condom manufacturing is definitely high on the list. I think that if a thing is 'FREE', then its value is very low, and its likely to not be used. So, condoms, at least in Africa, should be assigned a value and that value should be collected from people that would pay for it, and use it.

Having been involved at the community level since the mid '80's in the HIV/AIDS crisis, I can say that free condoms do work here in the US. It is a matter of removing as many objections as much as possible.

Also the my comments about HIV and condoms was this from Dr. Dean:

Fighting HIV? Bush's initiative to help fund HIV efforts in Africa was trumpeted by the press, while the National Institutes of Health and Centers for Disease Control quietly removed information on the benefits of condoms and safe sex education from domestic HIV Web sites.

My focus of my original comments were on the domestic side of the coin. Removing the aspect of Safe Sex is irresponsible, and seems to be based on some peoples personal moral objections.

On the foreign side, you can only provide the tools in order to try to reach across cultural differences in order to make some sort of positive impact. And it should not be a case of what is in it for me? It should be about what is right to do for our fellow man.

Voltron

Jul 8, 2004, 09:49 AM

but it's wrong. sorry. lots o' research going on wrt time. Time's Arrows (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0671617664/qid=1089264531/sr=1-5/ref=sr_1_5/103-2909500-2979069?v=glance&s=books) is a good read. it speaks of the five arrows of time, and i hear that a couple more have been theorized since its publication.

Stephen Hawking's A Brief History of Time (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0553380168/qid=1089264664/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_1/103-2909500-2979069) is also an excellent read. i particularly enjoy the chapter about the universe being a free lunch. (take that, D'Rat! :-)
Neither of your links went to places where the information could actually be read. I've heard that if you go faster than the speed of light that you will break the time barrier. I hope that wasn't one of your opinions that you were talking about because very simply if you go faster than the speed of light you are simply going faster than the speed of light. Simply because you can look into the distance and see light from the past doesn't mean the flow of time has changed. You are simply perceiving it differently due to the limitation of the speed of light not being equal to the speed of time.

I also heard how traveling fast in ships will alter your flow of time within the ship so that time passes more slowly than on a planet. That kind of thinking is theoretical bullcrap. There is no evidence that could possibly be true. Now it might be possible for extremes in gravity waves to bend time so to speak but even that is simply a far fetched theory.

Everything we do we measure by time. We don't have a measurement method that could show time progressing at different rates in different circumstance or places. We do have methods to measure perception of time flow which isn't the same thing.

skunk

Jul 8, 2004, 10:20 AM

zimv20

Jul 8, 2004, 10:21 AM

Neither of your links went to places where the information could actually be read.
had i been eating my cheerios, i would have done a spit-take on my monitor. those are links to a place where you can buy the books to which i referred, for those who are interested in becoming informed before they prattle on.

I also heard how traveling fast in ships will alter your flow of time within the ship so that time passes more slowly than on a planet. That kind of thinking is theoretical bullcrap. There is no evidence that could possibly be true.
since you're spending my tax dollars to get an education, i ask only that you spend them well.

Sayhey

Jul 8, 2004, 10:26 AM

Hmmm... Voltron vs. Einstein's theory of relativity. Whom should I trust? Such tough choices! :eek:

kuyu

Jul 8, 2004, 11:03 AM

zimv20

Jul 8, 2004, 11:23 AM

I was actually lucky enough to have dinner with Dr. Gott one night during my Freshman year of college. One of my more memorable experiences in school to say the least.
kick ass. that is what i think college is for, and i'm glad that you not only had that opportunity, but enjoyed it as well. WOW is it always refreshing when someone is excited about education.

and thanks for the recommendation of the book.

kuyu

Jul 8, 2004, 11:26 AM

Neither of your links went to places where the information could actually be read. I've heard that if you go faster than the speed of light that you will break the time barrier. I hope that wasn't one of your opinions that you were talking about because very simply if you go faster than the speed of light you are simply going faster than the speed of light. Simply because you can look into the distance and see light from the past doesn't mean the flow of time has changed. You are simply perceiving it differently due to the limitation of the speed of light not being equal to the speed of time.

I also heard how traveling fast in ships will alter your flow of time within the ship so that time passes more slowly than on a planet. That kind of thinking is theoretical bullcrap. There is no evidence that could possibly be true. Now it might be possible for extremes in gravity waves to bend time so to speak but even that is simply a far fetched theory.

Everything we do we measure by time. We don't have a measurement method that could show time progressing at different rates in different circumstance or places. We do have methods to measure perception of time flow which isn't the same thing.

Voltron, voltron.... E=mc^2

That means you CAN NOT, under any circumstance, go faster than the speed on light. The reason is that as you go faster your "energy" is increased, and thus the energy required to go faster is exponentially higher at larger speeds.

In other words, as you approach the speed of light your "ships" mass begins to approach infinity, therefore you need infinite energy to accelerate past 186,000 miles/second. But, as we know from Newton, energy can't be created, thus you need all the energy in the universe to accel past the speed of light.

Also, the reason time slows for those in the ship RELATIVE to those on the ground is a simple illustration. If you are on a train going 200 MPH, and a laser bounces from floor to ceiling, how long did the laser travel??? Answer: lets say 1 second for this example.

Now, if I am next to the train, and I time the same laser, how does it take? How far do I see the laser travel? Answer: farther and longer than 1 second. Why, because I see the laser move with a slope, not straight up and down like you.

What if you are in the concord, pouring a drink slowly. You see the liquid go straight down into the glass, right? What would someone outside the plane see? They would see a line of liquid a two miles long and two inches high. Thus, how far did the soda move? Two inches or two miles? BOTH!!!

But, the speed of light is fixed, so time IS GOING SLOWER for whoever is moving. The degree to which time slows is RELATIVE to the motion of the object moving and the stationary one. The faster you go, the slower time goes.

Thus, if I left earth today at the speed of light (hypothetically) and went up for five years, then came back in the next five, I would be ten years older. But, I would not come back to 2014. No, in fact I would arrive back somewhere near the year 3014. I would still be in my thirties, but the earth would have aged 1000+ years!!!!

Taft

Jul 8, 2004, 12:25 PM

I also heard how traveling fast in ships will alter your flow of time within the ship so that time passes more slowly than on a planet. That kind of thinking is theoretical bullcrap. There is no evidence that could possibly be true. Now it might be possible for extremes in gravity waves to bend time so to speak but even that is simply a far fetched theory.

I darn near spit my coffee on the screen when I read this one. I'm sorry to be harsh, but you have no flippin' clue of what you speak.

Kuku's post is a good intro, but I suggest you read ANY page out there concerning special relativity and its "practical" applications. On ANY of those pages, you'll see that time moves slower both in situations of higher gravity and in situations where velocity is higher. This is a measurable and no longer disputed FACT.

Time is indeed relative and does not move at the same speed for everything in the universe. This is central to special relativity.

Here is a page which has a pretty good beginner version of special relativity: http://www.astro.uu.nl/~strous/AA/en/antwoorden/relativiteit.html

I swear, sometimes its like you post things without even thinking.

Taft

Taft

Jul 8, 2004, 12:29 PM

had i been eating my cheerios, i would have done a spit-take on my monitor. those are links to a place where you can buy the books to which i referred, for those who are interested in becoming informed before they prattle on.

I'm glad someone else had the same reaction as I did.

Un-flippin'-believable.

Taft

IJ Reilly

Jul 8, 2004, 12:55 PM

Hmmm... Voltron vs. Einstein's theory of relativity. Whom should I trust? Such tough choices! :eek:

According to Rush, only a liberal Democrat would come up with "relative" science.

themadchemist

Jul 8, 2004, 12:56 PM

Neither of your links went to places where the information could actually be read. I've heard that if you go faster than the speed of light that you will break the time barrier. I hope that wasn't one of your opinions that you were talking about because very simply if you go faster than the speed of light you are simply going faster than the speed of light. Simply because you can look into the distance and see light from the past doesn't mean the flow of time has changed. You are simply perceiving it differently due to the limitation of the speed of light not being equal to the speed of time.

I also heard how traveling fast in ships will alter your flow of time within the ship so that time passes more slowly than on a planet. That kind of thinking is theoretical bullcrap. There is no evidence that could possibly be true. Now it might be possible for extremes in gravity waves to bend time so to speak but even that is simply a far fetched theory.

Everything we do we measure by time. We don't have a measurement method that could show time progressing at different rates in different circumstance or places. We do have methods to measure perception of time flow which isn't the same thing.

And I imagine that to come to this revolutionary conclusion, you have conducted a series of groundbreaking experiments whose results have been verified by other research groups the world-over. I imagine you have a firm grounding in the developments of theoretical physics and that you have kept abreast not only of the seminal texts of the field but also of the large body of research published in the major journals. It goes without saying that your doctoral thesis was both riveting and controversial, but grounded solidly in verifiable experiments.

Because of your outstanding research, you secured a tenure track position at a powerful research institution, the kind whose theoretical physics program could sustain your level of study. After receiving tenure, you embarked on your life's dream: Of disproving the relativistic theory at the crux of modern physics.

I look forward to reading your paper on the matter in Nature, which I'm sure has given you a cover for this exciting work.

Oh wait, my mistake. You interpreted relativity as having something to do with moving "faster than the speed of light," which relativity postulates is impossible. You also mentioned "gravity waves." Get back to me after you've taken an intro college physics sequence based on a curriculum assembled after the 19th Century.

You've proven one thing, for sure...America's science education really is lacking.

Voltron

Jul 8, 2004, 01:09 PM

I darn near spit my coffee on the screen when I read this one. I'm sorry to be harsh, but you have no flippin' clue of what you speak.

Kuku's post is a good intro, but I suggest you read ANY page out there concerning special relativity and its "practical" applications. On ANY of those pages, you'll see that time moves slower both in situations of higher gravity and in situations where velocity is higher. This is a measurable and no longer disputed FACT.

Time is indeed relative and does not move at the same speed for everything in the universe. This is central to special relativity.

Here is a page which has a pretty good beginner version of special relativity: http://www.astro.uu.nl/~strous/AA/en/antwoorden/relativiteit.html

I swear, sometimes its like you post things without even thinking.

Taft
Interesting, but it still looks to me they are measuring the perception of the passing of time not the actuall passing. Since we use Time as our primary form of measurement what to you measure time against? And could it be whatever it is that is changing and not the "actual" passage of time that changes?

If you throw a ball forward from a moving car then that ball goes faster relative to the ground than if you throw it from a car that is not moving. If you throw the ball backward from a moving car, then it goes slower relative to the ground than if you throw it from a stationary car. This effect does not hold for light. Whether you shine a light forward or backward from a moving car, the light always goes equally fast relative to the ground (and also relative to you in the car!). You cannot tell how fast the sender moves from the speed at which light reaches you. If distance and time were independent and absolute, then you would be able to tell something about the speed of the sender from the speed of the received signal, so distance and time are apparently not universal.

Light moves at the same speed to an individual in a vehicle regardless to that vehicles relative velotity as the same exact light moves for someone who stands motionless, in relationship to the planet. Maybe the difference in speed between the two events is just too inconsequential to measure relative to lights speed? This would indeed be a form of proof that at least the speed of light was relative if these measurements could actually be accurately made. Doesn't hold up to logic in my mind though.

Voltron

Jul 8, 2004, 01:12 PM

The Theory of Relativity also says that clocks in stronger gravity run slower than clocks in weaker gravity, but that effect is only very small in daily life as well. A clock near the surface that is a meter (3 ft) lower than another identical clock runs about 3 nanoseconds (0.000,000,003 seconds) slow per year, compared to the other clock, because the lower clock experiences slightly stronger gravity than the higher clock.

again they are describing the passing of perceived time not actual time. There are many reasons for the clock to be running slower and the fact that actual time may or may not be moving slower isn't the only answer.

zimv20

Jul 8, 2004, 01:15 PM

you do realize you're disputing einstein, right?

Voltron

Jul 8, 2004, 01:17 PM

you do realize you're disputing einstein, right?
Not if you differentiate between perceived flow of time and actual flow of time.

skunk

Jul 8, 2004, 01:21 PM

I think you're doing rather well, actually, Voltron. Keep going! :)

zimv20

Jul 8, 2004, 01:22 PM

Not if you differentiate between perceived flow of time and actual flow of time.
please define the "actual flow of time".

the BBC is reporting that einstein is clawing his way out of his grave w/ a big bag of smackdown.

skunk

Jul 8, 2004, 01:26 PM

please define the "actual flow of time".
Presumably that's what everyone else perceives...

Or is it what happens when there are no observers around to mess it up?

Hmmm...

King Cobra

Jul 8, 2004, 01:46 PM

Let me try getting a word in now... according to my General Physics 2 (w/Calculus) professor, the speed of light is:

http://andrej.gadgetgaming.com/images/physics/cman.jpg

Correct? Now, my copy of my college physics book may be s*** in the sense that the author doesn't explain things clearly or refer to page numbers for examples (two pet peeves of mine), but the author does provide a proof for that equation using something called Maxwell's Equations, though not in differential form. So I conclude that my university (it's actually a university, not a college) has ample reading material to learn from.

I'm going to take Nonclassical Physics 1 (http://www.usm.maine.edu/~reg/courses/PHY211.html) this Fall, and one of the primary topics is the theory of special relativity. Now, to be honest, I'm not sure why as an object's velocity (v) increases, so does (m), but I'll be looking to see if I can verify Voltron's theories about special relativity in September. (Actually, for the first time, I start classes for an educational year in Auagust and not September, what a jip!)

Point is: Read up, learn, understand, and develop an interest in the topics you bring up before you try to defend what you haven't understood fully.

skunk

Jul 8, 2004, 01:55 PM

I'll be looking to see if I can verify Voltron's theories about special relativity in September.
I look forward to your findings! ;)

Sayhey

Jul 8, 2004, 01:58 PM

Point is: Read up, learn, understand, and develop an interest in the topics you bring up before you try to defend what you haven't understood fully.

King Cobra, I'm not a physicist. I'm not planning on taking any physics classes anytime soon. Still, I have no problem in giving much, much greater credence to Einstein and the many scientists that have preformed experiments to test his theory of special relativity over the protestation of Voltron. If Voltron is right and a 100 years of science is wrong then I'd be happy to see the proof. Even if I have to get a physicist to explain it to me.

kuyu

Jul 8, 2004, 02:10 PM

Voltron, the dichotemy you draw between "real" and "perceived" time is imaginary. There is only one "real" time. However, we live in a 4-D world. That is, Einstein theorized that space/time was curved. So, try to think of us on earth traveling along a straight time line at 1 second/second. When you approach the speed of light (or a massive object) think of time as being curved, not straight.

Thus, via a little calculus, you'll see that the area under the curve (aka the duration of "real" time) is different than the area under a straight line. In fact, the reason that time travel to the future is possible while going back in time is not has to do with the curve of space/time being concaved, never convexed.
****I know this is over-simplified****

So, your postulate that "real" time is constant is incorrect. Relativity does not simply refer to our "perception" of the passage of time. Rather, Relativity deals with the ACTUAL passage of time relative to moving objects in space/time.

However, as a caveat, we know that relativity is accurate, and that quantum mechanics is accurate.... but they disagree with one another. (I bet that the grand 'Theory of Everything' will be discovered by a mac user!!!)

blackfox

Jul 8, 2004, 05:07 PM

Man, this has been a funny thread...

A few books I would recommend (to Voltron and anyone else who is interested)

"Time - A Traveler's Guide" Clifford A. Pickover
"Beyond Einstein" Michio Kaku
"Hyperspace" Michio Kaku
"Synchronicity - The Bridge between Matter and MInd" F. David Peat
"Art and Physics" Leonard Shalain (not directly related, but good)
"Tao of Physics" Fritjof Capra (A classic imo)
"Turning Point" Fritjof Capra (also good)

Neserk

Jul 8, 2004, 05:10 PM

but it's wrong. sorry. lots o' research going on wrt time.

:rolleyes: I didn't say I agreed with it. I said I understood it! Heaven knows I can understand something and not agree with it!

Neserk

Jul 8, 2004, 05:12 PM

Hmmm... Voltron vs. Einstein's theory of relativity. Whom should I trust? Such tough choices! :eek:

Geesh.. I'm sure Voltron is the one who originated the theory :rolleyes:

jefhatfield

Jul 8, 2004, 07:13 PM

King Cobra, I'm not a physicist. I'm not planning on taking any physics classes anytime soon. Still, I have no problem in giving much, much greater credence to Einstein and the many scientists that have preformed experiments to test his theory of special relativity over the protestation of Voltron. If Voltron is right and a 100 years of science is wrong then I'd be happy to see the proof. Even if I have to get a physicist to explain it to me.

that quantum stuff is deep, to say the least ;)

even a physicist can't explain it clearly to the non-physicist...and then if you have two physicists in the room, they may not be in agreement on a lot of things

some of feyneman's (sp?) stuff is interesting and i am sure the field will move further and concepts we thought we understood as the way it is turns out to be wrong

what if voltron is right? ;)

Voltron

Jul 8, 2004, 07:48 PM

zimv20

Jul 8, 2004, 07:55 PM

In theory. No proof, just a bunch of theories.
how easily you dismiss the scientific method. it's sad, i think. especially considering how blindly you took it as fact when the administration asserted iraqi WMD, ties w/ AQ, how tax cuts w/ deficits help the economy...

it supports my assertion that you lack critical thinking. college is for developing these skills, so get to it. i'm paying for it, after all.

Voltron

Jul 8, 2004, 08:16 PM

how easily you dismiss the scientific method. it's sad, i think. especially considering how blindly you took it as fact when the administration asserted iraqi WMD, ties w/ AQ, how tax cuts w/ deficits help the economy...

it supports my assertion that you lack critical thinking. college is for developing these skills, so get to it. i'm paying for it, after all.
We mere mortals can't see the actual flow of time because we are stuck within its confines. In order to properly judge how the flow of time is modified, if at all, one must first be able to step outside of times influence to do so. Since to step outside of times influence is to be frozen in time it is simply not possible for us to do therefore we are stuck using theories or perceived flow of time in our experimentation.

BTW tax Cuts help the economy. Deficits aren't a real good idea and I know they are hoping the economy will grow large enough making the relative deficit in comparison to gdp or gnp or whatever shrink. Our government, both parties, need to learn how to live within a budget like the rest of the country has too.

I think I might take physics as one of my two mathamatic requirements for my AA degree. Today we learned in English how to take two completly unrelated topics and link them together. :eek: Not what I had in mind when I rejoined academia.

Neserk

Jul 8, 2004, 08:34 PM

BTW tax Cuts help the economy.

COuld have fooled me. When the fool got in the WHite house and started making tax cuts the economy went down the drain. The tax cuts don't count when there has been an cut in pay ;)

Sayhey

Jul 8, 2004, 08:37 PM

what if voltron is right? ;)

Alright, jef, tell me what in the past two to three months gives you the idea that that is much of a possibility? :p

Voltron

Jul 8, 2004, 08:39 PM

COuld have fooled me. When the fool got in the WHite house and started making tax cuts the economy went down the drain. The tax cuts don't count when there has been an cut in pay ;)
someone forgot that he was handed a recession by the previous occupant of the White House, remember him the guy that stole all the W's from the White House keyboards, can we spell spoil sport? Also seemed to have forgotten a little incendent on 9/11/01.

davecuse

Jul 8, 2004, 08:43 PM

BTW tax Cuts help the economy. Deficits aren't a real good idea and I know they are hoping the economy will grow large enough making the relative deficit in comparison to gdp or gnp or whatever shrink. Our government, both parties, need to learn how to live within a budget like the rest of the country has too.

The tax cuts that took place just moved where my tax dollars go, while my federal taxes went down my local ones went way up. So as far as I can tell I'm not actually seeing any more of my paycheck, at least while Clinton was in office my stocks went through the roof and I didn't have the nightmare of a draft in the back of my mind. So please explain to me how I'm better off now than I was 4 years ago.

This country was built by the sweat equity of manual labor, I think the current administration fails to grasp that idea. Sure those of us who have had the luck to go to college and have opportunities placed in front of us can enjoy a lower tax rate when we start making big money <fingers crossed>. The fact remains that the men and women who work long hard hours for a miserable paycheck get screwed as usual. When I do start making that big money I hope to be able to promote education and science with those dollars, but "the world needs ditch diggers too". I firmly believe that those who are stuck in menial jobs deserve a piece of the pie as well, if I understand correctly this is the land of the free and the home of the brave, where dreams come true. I think that someone who spends 60 hours a week building the infrastructure of this country has enough to worry about, and those of us who marvel in the end product and make enough should have a little bit higher tax rate that would support free health care and the like for everyone.

Realize your good fortune and use it to help others, don't be greedy.

blackfox

Jul 8, 2004, 09:03 PM

We mere mortals can't see the actual flow of time because we are stuck within its confines. In order to properly judge how the flow of time is modified, if at all, one must first be able to step outside of times influence to do so. Since to step outside of times influence is to be frozen in time it is simply not possible for us to do therefore we are stuck using theories or perceived flow of time in our experimentation.

BTW tax Cuts help the economy. Deficits aren't a real good idea and I know they are hoping the economy will grow large enough making the relative deficit in comparison to gdp or gnp or whatever shrink. Our government, both parties, need to learn how to live within a budget like the rest of the country has too.

I think I might take physics as one of my two mathamatic requirements for my AA degree. Today we learned in English how to take two completly unrelated topics and link them together. :eek: Not what I had in mind when I rejoined academia.
As for your first paragraph, a couple things...first , let me preface by saying I am not particularily scientifically or mathmatically inclined or knowledgeable, so I will leave the task of elaborating on/correcting my mistakes to those who are...

It is true that we as mere humans are stuck within our universe, if not in actuality, then by our limited ability to perceive and comprehend the true nature of reality. Humans, like many animals (especially hunters) have brains designed to work in three spatial dimensions and one temporal one. This is to avoid danger (which is often moving) and to catch prey, which is also moving, and to optimize our own movement in relation to these things. Our very sight, takes an enormous amount of raw sensory data in, but analyzes only a certain (small %) of it (mostly the differences) as it is the most efficient balance between the need for accuracy and the need for quick response. The fact that we can be tricked by optical illusions and other mental logic tricks belies this underlying "cheating" we do...and there are many things our brains are not designed to conceptualize...such as four spatial dimensions (or more...as string-theory suggests).

So we rely on tricks, such as breaking down concepts to a lower dimension we can extrapolate the concept, such as the idea of two dimensional beings existing on a piece of paper, and how a higher dimensional object might appear to them (for example a sphere would appear as a dot, then an enlarging circle, a decreasing circle and a dot again...also a two dimensional being lifted into the third dimension would "disapear" to other beings.) These simple contsructs, break down complex concepts into ones we can understand and theorize from. There is also the concept of a "hypercube" which is a four-dimensional cube, which is impossible to conceptualize. We can conceptualize it's shadow however (in three dimensions) and this allows us to make some assumptions.

More so than these examples, are the use of mathmatical language to help conceptualize things that do not make traditional logic sense to us, either visually or causally...riemian<sp>geometry and calculus, probability theory and a host of concepts (such as imaginary numbers) help us to go beyond the limitations of our mind to utilize those aspects of our minds that are not as encumbered. All of these things allow us to step outside of ourselves and the world and to analyze things within the world of constucts...and much of the science of the 20th and 21st centuries have been based on these methods.

FWIW

davecuse

Jul 8, 2004, 09:07 PM

(especially hunters)

You mean "Sly Hunter"s right? :D

Frohickey

Jul 8, 2004, 09:24 PM

COuld have fooled me. When the fool got in the WHite house and started making tax cuts the economy went down the drain. The tax cuts don't count when there has been an cut in pay ;)

After Kennedy had the tax rate cut, tax revenues increased.
After Reagan had the tax rate cut, tax revenues increased.
I think that tax revenues will increase too, after the Bush tax rate cut.

The problem that we have is not a tax revenue problem. The problem we have is a government spending problem.

I should run for President. After I get elected, I will suggest/propose a bill that each Senator and Congressperson that holds office will receive $1 billion bonus each year, if and only if, after election and swearing in, they NEVER set foot in Washington DC to hold a quorum.

The outcome of that would be the nation's laws would be extremely stable, and only dire emergencies would cause Congress to reconvene. Plus, when Congress does reconvene, we have $535billion with which to spend on that emergency, that comes directly from the bonus that doesn't get paid that year. Also, emergencies would really be taken care of as quickly as possible, lest Congress have to reconvene, and forfeit their bonus for another year.

:D :D :eek:

mactastic

Jul 8, 2004, 09:30 PM

Man, I've got a copy of 'Tao of Physics' I've been meaning to dive into for a while now. Perhaps now is a good time...

Sly, do you STILL (http://dir.salon.com/politics/feature/2001/05/23/vandals/index.html?pn=1) believe that big fat lie of a story about the missing 'W's?

themadchemist

Jul 8, 2004, 09:55 PM

In theory. No proof, just a bunch of theories.

Obviously, you don't understand what a theory is. A theory is a conclusion reached after a hypothesis has been tested so rigorously that it becomes generally accepted by a scientific community. A theory doesn't graduate to any higher level. That's it.

There is PLENTY of evidence. Feel free to do a literature search on your own time. I won't be bothered to do it for you. However, there's no "proof" of anything, in the way that you define it, because nothing can be "proven" absolutely. This is become science realizes the inherent limitations of its present knowledge, unlike you. It can demonstrate the validity of certain postulates, though, beyond any measure of reasonable doubt.

jefhatfield

Jul 8, 2004, 09:58 PM

I think I might take physics as one of my two mathamatic requirements for my AA degree. Today we learned in English how to take two completly unrelated topics and link them together. :eek: Not what I had in mind when I rejoined academia.

it would be cool if you could major or minor in physics...so next time all these posters try and jump all over you, you can counter them ;)

there is this radio talk show host in my area, phd in physics or chemistry, who doesn't believe in global warming, thinks cars will never get better mileage than they do now, believes we have oil reserves to last us forever, believes there is no such thing as a meltdown possibility anywhere with nuclear reactors, and thinks environmentalists, even those with nobel peace prizes, are all idiots

while few people agree with his right wing motivated talk show, nobody can call him uneducated and he's a hard debator to argue against even though most people know most of what he says is not scientific fact, but spin to make the gop look good, and less bad when it comes to the environment

on another scientific front...

dr. atkins worked against some well known principles held by MDs and physiologists, but he did convice many that his diet was kosher because he was "dr" atkins, after all...no matter who comes out to disprove his theories, experts and doctors included, his legacy will live on with the fact that many have lost weight on his diet...but perhaps did not keep it off...but the losing weight part is what we are interested in

so i congratulate you on your studies...keep them up and the more education you have under your belt, from one physics class to a degree or two, you can choose to take an unpopular ultra conservative spin on a scientific subject, but at least defend your side with authority

equally unscientific are some ultra left wing views, but that political front has its doctors and scientists who defend their political platform

i wish scientists were motivated by science, but political affiliation, and money, can greatly affect results and interpretation of raw scientific data :)

themadchemist

Jul 8, 2004, 10:11 PM

it would be cool if you could major or minor in physics...so next time all these posters try and jump all over you, you can counter them ;)

there is this radio talk show host in my area, phd in physics or chemistry, who doesn't believe in global warming, thinks cars will never get better mileage than they do now, believes we have oil reserves to last us forever, believes there is no such thing as a meltdown possibility anywhere with nuclear reactors, and thinks environmentalists, even those with nobel peace prizes, are all idiots

while few people agree with his right wing motivated talk show, nobody can call him uneducated and he's a hard debator to argue against even though most people know most of what he says is not scientific fact, but spin to make the gop look good, and less bad when it comes to the environment

on another scientific front...

dr. atkins worked against some well known principles held by MDs and physiologists, but he did convice many that his diet was kosher because he was "dr" atkins, after all...no matter who comes out to disprove his theories, experts and doctors included, his legacy will live on with the fact that many have lost weight on his diet...but perhaps did not keep it off...but the losing weight part is what we are interested in

so i congratulate you on your studies...keep them up and the more education you have under your belt, from one physics class to a degree or two, you can choose to take an unpopular ultra conservative spin on a scientific subject, but at least defend your side with authority

equally unscientific are some ultra left wing views, but that political front has its doctors and scientists who defend their political platform

i wish scientists were motivated by science, but political affiliation, and money, can greatly affect results and interpretation of raw scientific data :)

as usual, well said jef.

Sayhey

Jul 8, 2004, 10:37 PM

Perhaps some of the physicists here can tell me where the dullards at Stanford went wrong, but statements like this jump out at even the physics challenged folks like me.

In particle accelerators, particles are moving very close to the speed of light where the length and time effects are large. This has allowed us to clearly verify that length contraction and time dilation do occur.... Observations particles with a variety of velocities have shown that time dilation is a real effect. In fact the only reason cosmic ray muons ever reach the surface of the earth before decaying is the time dilation effect.

So to the few who don't understand the difference between a scientific theory and a guess, perhaps reading the little synopsis of the special theory of relativity posted below would be helpful.

Stanford (http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/vvc/theory/relativity.html)

I think most of us could use a few classes before we start dismissing these guys.

King Cobra

Jul 8, 2004, 11:52 PM

I should run for President. After I get elected, I will suggest/propose a bill that each Senator and Congressperson that holds office will receive $1 billion bonus each year, if and only if, after election and swearing in, they NEVER set foot in Washington DC to hold a quorum.
I don't think you should run for President. I recall barely looking something over my shoulder at a kitchen television, and on it listed the President's salary. This might not be factual, but at the time, I read off the figure as only $250,000. Point is: You're better off being a weatherman.

it would be cool if you could major or minor in physics...so next time all these posters try and jump all over you, you can counter them
I seriously doubt Voltron would want to counter me by then...I will have completed my Physics major after the Spring 2007 semester. I'm planning to study Quantum Mechanics before I finish, though that's still over a year away. And if Voltron does decide to counter me, then I'll have some graduate work eventually to back me up further.

Oh, and if Voltron happens to be right, well, put it like this: Out of 10,000 students that will graduate at my University in Spring 2007, I don't think even 20 of them will be Physics majors. That's how little my University is geared towards Sciences. (It's actually very pro-literature studies...not my thing.) So if Voltron is right, then we won't have to pay too much for the cost of reprinted textbooks. Besides, the only reprinting that would be done at my University would be with laser printers and scotch tape. No big deal.

BTW tax Cuts help the economy. Deficits aren't a real good idea and I know they are hoping the economy will grow large enough making the relative deficit in comparison to gdp or gnp or whatever shrink. Our government...
This is great. I decided to take Introductory Macroeconomics, ECO 101J, to cover one of two J-core courses this past semester. Here is what I found out: GDP is the total market value of final products and services produced within a nations borders (that's borders, not boarders) in a given time period. The GNP is the total market value of final products and services sold within a nations borders in a given time period. The "Our government" part (from the above quote) is only the government within our nations borders. We are not exporting products or services to areas outside of our borders, nor are we cutting taxes or increasing deficits outside of our borders, because we are doing that inside our nation's borders. Thus, we're dealing with th GDP and not the GNP. Also, tax cuts are not always a help to the economy. If the economy is doing real well, and the government has a budget surplus, then a tax cut won't hurt too much...nor would an increase in government spending. Conclusion: Your physics and economy analysis skills are unmatchable.

I think I might take physics as one of my two mathamatic requirements for my AA degree.
On a serious note, if you're going to take any advanced calculus course involving vectors, I strongly recommend that you take General Physics 2 w/Calculus. Techniques like the right-hand rule and an understanding of the meaning of ∫B•dA or especially W=∫F•dl will give you a huge jump on vector calculus material, such as "curlF." Trust me, I took Calculus C as a summer course from May 17 to July 2, and the last two weeks of the course involved stricly vector calculus. I had already completed Gen. Physics 2 w/Calculus the semester before, so I found some of the vector calculus material easy to interpret. I received an A in both courses. It's amazing what you can do when you're only 18 and have already aced the first three levels of Calculus.

Today we learned in English how to take two completly unrelated topics and link them together. Not what I had in mind when I rejoined academia.
Sounds like College Writing, meaning, a lot of reading and writing. Def. not my thing.

jefhatfield

Jul 9, 2004, 12:03 AM

as usual, well said jef.

thanks chemist

my most well said stuff...or what i am most passionate about...is seeing macrumors go back to the community it was in the old days...people meeting each other, emailing each other outside of macrumors, and a sense of knowing or having read posts from most of the posters viewing the site on any given day

due to the large numbers of new and mostly transient members, most of whom are not mac users by their own admission or their profiles, there isn't the same sense of community built around the mac

and now there's this rudeness, within the knowledge of anonimity of such a large membership, that has necessitated a team of moderators to play police and it has changed the flavor of the site

type in politics and chatrooms on google and alta vista and macrumors is high up on the list from time to time...and i know this brings trolls big time...some may not even get the connection that macrumors.com is about rumors and discussions surrounding the macintosh computers made by apple inc

but i will stop ranting for now...only mischief and eyelikeart from those days are still here regularly from when we were that type of bonded, friendly mac users website

.........rant over, back to topic now ;)

when voltron was slyhunter, i definitely believed he was trolling for the sake of it, disguising himself in different right wing characters to bug the moderates and inflame the liberals

but i think he's actually making some good points on this thread, which may go against today's scientific consensus, but i don't see it as trolling...this time, or recently so that's a good sign...i once believed he was always going to be a troll but now i actually see him as a contributing member, so if you're out there, welcome voltron :)

it seems some people are still mean to him remembering his slyhunter days...and though he had it coming back to him in his slyhunter trolling/agitator days, i still want to hear from you scientists and science majors, is "why is he so off" on the facts

i know what i have read concerning some of the more modern theories of physics, but a lot of it is over my head

aren't theories the best things out there for some of this stuff, and aren't there contesting points of view to einstein?

out of curiosity, what would newton think? ;)

jefhatfield

Jul 9, 2004, 12:23 AM

I don't think you should run for President. I recall barely looking something over my shoulder at a kitchen television, and on it listed the President's salary. This might not be factual, but at the time, I read off the figure as only $250,000. Point is: You're better off being a weatherman.

I seriously doubt Voltron would want to counter me by then...I will have completed my Physics major after the Spring 2007 semester. I'm planning to study Quantum Mechanics before I finish, though that's still over a year away. And if Voltron does decide to counter me, then I'll have some graduate work eventually to back me up further.

i have heard the presidential salary listed as 200 to 250k over the years, and ok'd by congress/senate (?) to actually be 400k a while back but nobody has taken the new, higher figure and won't likely do so because for either major party, it just doesn't look that good while being the chief public servant...plus being president isn't about a 200k salary which can more easily be had by being a doctor or successful small business owner...certainly being president, working that hard and always knowing that at any given time a lot of people in and out of the usa want you dead is certainly worth more than 200k a year ;)

...

hey, i am glad that you chose physics for your studies...not too many kids anywhere seem to pick that one...at least i wouldn't...to do well, i would have to study very hard and read confusing stuff over and over again...it would have killed my social life in college

i have met a lot of foreign students though who would much rather major in physics, chemistry, math, cs, or engineering before taking up something very very hard, for them, like english, drama, or literature

my uncle, from japan, was always the top student in his classes, so when he came to america, instead of majoring in a science/math field (which he would have aced in his sleep), he took his terrible broken english and lack of knack for language and became an english/american lit major...he liked the challenge and being the only foreign/non english speaking student taking such a suicidal major

he couldn't read the instructions on a bayer asprin box yet he read almost a hundred (or more) pages a night, in english, all throughout his college experience...that's what studying physics would be like to most american college students

...so i commend you on your choice of choosing such a hard, and unpopular major :)

...way to go, son

blackfox

Jul 9, 2004, 12:25 AM

jefhatfield

Jul 9, 2004, 12:32 AM

Again Jef, well said...

I am truly sorry that I missed out on early macrumors, although I was a lurker back in 2001...as for this thread, I do at least have a sense of personality and beliefs of many of the posters here, which is nice.

While I love macs, usually I am not in the position to be buying a new one (unfortunately) so tend not to look at the constant updates in the mac world, and my technical skills are not usually good enough to give advice...so I do not post in the regular forums as much, but appreciate them immensely...I do get something out of this forum, especially in it's more coherent times...

As for Voltron, I do tend to give him a harder time than he deserves, I admit...but it is out of frustration, magnified by his occasional excellent post...I know he can think, if he wants to...which makes it so hard sometimes...anyway, rant..rant...

perhaps you should mod in here, if it interests you...formally or otherwise...you have my respect.

thank you

i used to play a kind of "referee" back when this community/general discussions section hosted political talk and today, actually, i offered my services as a moderator to mr.anderson

what i like about the moderators here is that they are very diverse in opinions, temperament, and overall posting style

i just wish the circumstances didn't have to make them policemen...i enjoyed them much more when they were regular posters...they spoke their opinion more and were able to have a sense of humor, and even be off color at times...somehow that has all vanished

as for voltron, i think he is actually, slowly, becoming more liberal ;)

Rower_CPU

Jul 9, 2004, 12:44 AM

...
what i like about the moderators here is that they are very diverse in opinions, temperament, and overall posting style

i just wish the circumstances didn't have to make them policemen...i enjoyed them much more when they were regular posters...they spoke their opinion more and were able to have a sense of humor, and even be off color at times...somehow that has all vanished
...

My 2¢ on the "mod mood" these days is that with the rapid growth of the site and all of us mods being busy with things outside of MR, we prioritize our time here handling administrative stuff and thus post less recreationally.

I try to focus on the Web dev forum, since it's one of my main interests, as well as the Distributed Computing forum for Folding@Home - other than that, I watch the news threads to keep the signal-noise ratio decent and browse the rest of the forums if I have time.

Like you've said, jef', these things go in waves - sometimes we're around a lot, sometimes we're not.

jefhatfield

Jul 9, 2004, 01:03 AM

My 2¢ on the "mod mood" these days is that with the rapid growth of the site and all of us mods being busy with things outside of MR, we prioritize our time here handling administrative stuff and thus post less recreationally.

I try to focus on the Web dev forum, since it's one of my main interests, as well as the Distributed Computing forum for Folding@Home - other than that, I watch the news threads to keep the signal-noise ratio decent and browse the rest of the forums if I have time.

Like you've said, jef', these things go in waves - sometimes we're around a lot, sometimes we're not.

i think of all the mods, ambitious lemon changed the least after achieving mod status ;) he was quiet before, and now that he's a mod, he's still quiet...too quiet

but i do remember getting his attention once...when he took a swipe at my college, california polytechnic state university, i took a swipe at his college, cal berkeley, by mentioning "stanford"

if cal poly is a "2" on a scale of 1 to 5, then cal berkeley, a better school, is a "3"...but stanford is definitely a "5"...i think what irks cal types, is that their great school is so overshadowed by a legend like stanford...for reference, i would place the california junior college system at a 1 in terms of reputation and difficulty, cal state and most uc schools at a 2, cal berkeley and ucla, and some of the lesser known private schools like pepperdine and pomona college at a 3, well known usc and that caliber (like cal tech) at a 4, and stanford (all alone on the west coast) at a 5...prolly as good as most ivy league schools

i am contemplating finishing my final studies at nyu and to me, that's great...i don't have the grades or smarts for a columbia...and i have read that nyu spent many years being a second rate columbia for those kids who couldn't get into columbia

but hey, i am in california, and a second rate columbia level student is smarter than anybody here on the left coast ;)

what's weird out here, as you prolly have noticed, is that employers would rather hire a graduate of a mediocore eastern school (not ivy or baby ivy) before a grad of a great west coast school...parents here in california save their whole life to send their kids "east", even if it's a place nobody has every heard of ;)

Voltron

Jul 9, 2004, 07:38 AM

Obviously, you don't understand what a theory is. A theory is a conclusion reached after a hypothesis has been tested so rigorously that it becomes generally accepted by a scientific community. A theory doesn't graduate to any higher level. That's it.

There is PLENTY of evidence. Feel free to do a literature search on your own time. I won't be bothered to do it for you. However, there's no "proof" of anything, in the way that you define it, because nothing can be "proven" absolutely. This is become science realizes the inherent limitations of its present knowledge, unlike you. It can demonstrate the validity of certain postulates, though, beyond any measure of reasonable doubt.
Yet as technology improves they seem to disprove as many old theories as they prove so doesn't matter how many scientist agree with a theory it doesn't make it fact, simply as factual as we can make it at todays technological level of advancement. I'm betting someday they'll modify this theory as our technology improves.

themadchemist

Jul 9, 2004, 07:56 AM

thanks chemist

my most well said stuff...or what i am most passionate about...is seeing macrumors go back to the community it was in the old days...people meeting each other, emailing each other outside of macrumors, and a sense of knowing or having read posts from most of the posters viewing the site on any given day

due to the large numbers of new and mostly transient members, most of whom are not mac users by their own admission or their profiles, there isn't the same sense of community built around the mac

That's a good point, but I know that at least for me I feel that there is a group of folks whose posts and personalities (at least in this forum) I can recognize pretty well. Really, the top 100 posters or so seem very familiar to me, as do some frequently posting up-and-comers. I'll admit, I haven't interacted with anyone outside these forums, but I do think that at least interaction within them is quite good. While the number of registered users might be over 30,000, you have to remember that the lion's share of those have never even posted. This is a much smaller community than the numbers would suggest, and that's a good thing.

and now there's this rudeness, within the knowledge of anonimity of such a large membership, that has necessitated a team of moderators to play police and it has changed the flavor of the site

type in politics and chatrooms on google and alta vista and macrumors is high up on the list from time to time...and i know this brings trolls big time...some may not even get the connection that macrumors.com is about rumors and discussions surrounding the macintosh computers made by apple inc

but i will stop ranting for now...only mischief and eyelikeart from those days are still here regularly from when we were that type of bonded, friendly mac users website

.........rant over, back to topic now ;)

This seems to be a usual rant for you...;) Seriously, though, you're going to have to expect a few trolls every now and then. Especially in a political forum, it keeps things interesting! :D

when voltron was slyhunter, i definitely believed he was trolling for the sake of it, disguising himself in different right wing characters to bug the moderates and inflame the liberals

Ah, so that was what that 'slyhunter' reference meant!

but i think he's actually making some good points on this thread, which may go against today's scientific consensus, but i don't see it as trolling...this time, or recently so that's a good sign...i once believed he was always going to be a troll but now i actually see him as a contributing member, so if you're out there, welcome voltron :)

I disagree with you, jef. It's one thing to disagree with a particular finding by providing some evidence. Instead, Voltron, apparently without familiarizing himself with the body of literature on the matter, just says there can be 'no evidence' to prove this. It's faulty logic to say that something can't be true because you don't understand how it could be, especially in the sciences. Relativity isn't common sense, but it doesn't have to be: Near-light speeds defy common sense. That's why it's so interesting.

aren't theories the best things out there for some of this stuff, and aren't there contesting points of view to einstein?

Theories don't graduate to anything else. If something makes it to a theory, it means it has been rigorously tested and is now accepted. If you're going to rule something out just because it's a theory, then there goes much of physics. The word 'theory' has a different meaning in science than it does elsewhere; a theory has a far greater deal of certainty in science than it does in regular use.

Anyway, how could something ever be more than a theory? Without fully understanding the universe and knowing that we fully understand the universe (the second of which is probably impossible), there is no way to proclaim with absolute certainty that our conclusions are definitely correct. What we can say is that all of the evidence points toward relativity being the real deal and until there is are verifiable experiments that can speak to the contrary, it's safe to bet that we've got the right idea.

out of curiosity, what would newton think? ;)

Newton would think that Voltron should do an experiment before he starts mouthing off. ;)

themadchemist

Jul 9, 2004, 07:59 AM

Yet as technology improves they seem to disprove as many old theories as they prove so doesn't matter how many scientist agree with a theory it doesn't make it fact, simply as factual as we can make it at todays technological level of advancement. I'm betting someday they'll modify this theory as our technology improves.

Sorry for the double post, but I'll say it again:

You can't simply say the evidence is false because evidence for other things HAS been false. That evidence has been proven false by more accurate experiments, conclusions, etc. In every process, there has been some application of the scientific method to determine whether or not the hypothesis is true.

You, however, can't argue on the basis that it defies your logic that relativity isn't correct. You have no evidence for it...No one has done verifiable experiments that "disprove" relativity.

Certainly, I'm sure that relativity will be modified a little bit; "tweaked," if you will. But that doesn't mean it's wrong.

Of course, there is a possibility that we are entirely wrong on it. However, numerous experiments in varied evironments have led to the same conclusion: This theory meshes well with reality.

My point is that you can't simply say it's wrong because it is. You need to back it up, just like the scientists who support relativity back up their claims.

Voltron

Jul 9, 2004, 08:09 AM

Sorry for the double post, but I'll say it again:

You can't simply say the evidence is false because evidence for other things HAS been false. That evidence has been proven false by more accurate experiments, conclusions, etc. In every process, there has been some application of the scientific method to determine whether or not the hypothesis is true.

You, however, can't argue on the basis that it defies your logic that relativity isn't correct. You have no evidence for it...No one has done verifiable experiments that "disprove" relativity.

Certainly, I'm sure that relativity will be modified a little bit; "tweaked," if you will. But that doesn't mean it's wrong.

Of course, there is a possibility that we are entirely wrong on it. However, numerous experiments in varied evironments have led to the same conclusion: This theory meshes well with reality.

My point is that you can't simply say it's wrong because it is. You need to back it up, just like the scientists who support relativity back up their claims.
No, They can't say it is true without provable facts to back them up. Until they can prove it is true we must assume it is false, or at least likely to be false. To simply assume something to be true limits you on other theories that might easier be proved true if you hadn't assumed this or other were true.

themadchemist

Jul 9, 2004, 08:23 AM

No, They can't say it is true without provable facts to back them up. Until they can prove it is true we must assume it is false, or at least likely to be false. To simply assume something to be true limits you on other theories that might easier be proved true if you hadn't assumed this or other were true.

Voltron, buddy, there's no such thing as absolute proof. We can't prove the existence of gravity, absolutely, but we're pretty damn sure it's there. I can't "prove" that electrons exist, but I'll trust they do because there have been a million experiments suggesting that they do.

After numerous experiments coinciding with the conclusions of relativity, we see that it's a very good theory that seems to work in all instances. That's the best we can do. If we can't trust hundreds, perhaps thousands of experiments, all of which have been repeated over and over with the same results, then what can we trust? There's no way to be able to say, "This is absolutely the case," because there's no way to know what else is out there.

Tell me, how can you "know" that something is true, with perfect certainty?

If we wait until then to apply these theories, we'll never get anywhere. If we waited to "prove" things to be absolutely true, then we wouldn't have cars or phones or electricity or medicine, for that matter. You have to demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt that a hypothesis is correct and move on from there. Sure, it might not be perfect, but if it seems to work in every instance we've explored over the course of 3/4 of a century, then that's pretty good.

As for not assuming anything...If you don't build upon the work of others, you'll just reinvent the wheel over and over again. Successful science requires relying enough on past conclusions to get something done while being skeptical enough to be flexible with respect to the work of those who have come before you.

You can't just throw everything out and start from the beginning every time.

Edit: And as far as "facts," those experiments DO provide facts. They provide verifiable data as to what happens under certain physical conditions. That data works well with the theory of relativity and thus corroborates its conclusions. As I said, do a literature search and read an article in one of many fine physics publications.

Sayhey

Jul 9, 2004, 08:48 AM

chemist,

a wonderful set of posts. Thank you.

mactastic

Jul 9, 2004, 09:12 AM

Hmmm Einstein's not good enough to take at face value, but Boortz is? WTF Sly? :eek:

themadchemist

Jul 9, 2004, 09:14 AM

chemist,

a wonderful set of posts. Thank you.

I appreciate it, especially from someone who has posted here with a great deal of reason and intelligence.

Now it's just a question of getting Voltron to understand what science is. ;)

King Cobra

Jul 9, 2004, 09:41 AM

Now it's just a question of getting Voltron to understand what science is.
For those that like to listen to rotation once in a while, this (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B00005RGO5/qid=1089384016/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-7512018-8971949?v=glance&s=music) might be science.

acdninjapan

Jul 9, 2004, 09:41 AM

zimv20

Jul 9, 2004, 10:10 AM

jefhatfield

Jul 9, 2004, 10:27 AM

I am a Canadian, with a Canadian's biases about all things American and to make my position more precarious I have been living and working in Japan and SE asia for the last 24 years.

I believe the people of the United States get the government they deserve, whether the president is an inveterate womanizer, a vindictive luddite/religious hypocrite or a respected and well known statesman of international stature–you get what you deserve or to be more precise in a democracy, it's politics of the lowest common denominator.

Your job is to raise that denominator to a higher level. Kerry can't do it, Bush won't, in fact no member of the House or Senate can do this-laws can't govern science or its achievements. That's why despite your country's best efforts there are Chinese scientists using a veritable mountain of foetal genetic material (100 million abortions done daily) to experiment and develop new genetic techniques, make major strides in transplant technology and who knows what else.

The US's only chance is to give people like Bill Gates or Burt Rutan opportunities to make their technology cheap and easily accessable to the general public.

So, it really doesn't matter who occupies the Oval Office, what does matter is that we start creatively bending those rules that hinder our development and prevent our children from learning what they need-send your kids to a good Japanese cram school, do whatever necessary to educate them to your standards and turn them into rocket scientists, genetic engineers or whatever or face the fact that the first permanent Lunar Base will be built and owned by the Chinese.

i could see your point of view, or japan's, too (my family is from japan and most of my living relatives)

in those "smaller" countries there are less need for scientists...and there are fewer jobs in those fields, so canada, and japan raise the bar of what it takes to be an engineer, for instance

i know canada has a really strict standard on what it takes to be an engineer...with all the background of math, science, and cross training in the other engineering fields to both be an expert and have a broad view

in america, there is no way we could put those high standards for our engineers...we don't have nationalized education like many other countries and if we raised the bar that high for engineers, then we could never fill the jobs out there in the paper which call for them to fill this position or that position

one can get an engineering degree in one area and not really be that good at math or science, or know about the other fields of engineering and how they interconnect

many senior/managing engineers in america are salesmen and marketing execs with business or accounting degrees instead...if all senior marketing engineers had to have an engineering degree in the usa, then we could never find enough of them...already, we have to hire tons of non american engineers to hold many of our highest paying jobs...as you know, it's politically popular to keep jobs here for americans ;)

in my field, computers/high tech, most programmers i know in silicon valley did not study computer science in college...heck, many did not go to college...on the hardware side, a third of the network engineers do not have any degree, and of the ones who do, most of those did not study computer science or any form of engineering...including me when i first entered that side of things

at the networking/computer repair school i attended, the teacher, who has a bs in electronic engineering, said almost all comptuer repairmen in the early days had at least a bs if not an ms in electrical or electronic engineering...in the early days of programming, there was much more of a need to understand mathematics and most programmers had at least a bachelor's degree in math...but with the advent of cheap, switchable motherboards and compilers every which way you turn, the bar has been lowered for hardware techies and software developers

....

educationally, i would like kerry, or bush to up our k-12 standards then, if that's done first, we could up the standards in college, and if that's done, we may end up with better engineers

i know among modern countries like usa, canada, japan, germany, etc...that our engineers on average are not the sharpest knives in the drawer...but due to our massive size, we do have great individual engineers and inventors from time to time...but in my field, i see that is not the case when i log onto dynamism.com or see other, much poorer countries with electronic gear which puts us to shame

if hp/compaq and ibm were as innovative as sony, i don't think we would be having this conversation ;)

King Cobra

Jul 9, 2004, 10:34 AM

Tell me, how can you "know" that something is true, with perfect certainty?

If we wait until then to apply these theories, we'll never get anywhere. If we waited to "prove" things to be absolutely true, then we wouldn't have cars or phones or electricity or medicine, for that matter. You have to demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt that a hypothesis is correct and move on from there. Sure, it might not be perfect, but if it seems to work in every instance we've explored over the course of 3/4 of a century, then that's pretty good.
I have a real solid example to better that...

The derivative of a mathematical function is:

Lim (f(x+h)-f(x))÷h
h->0

What is the derivative of f(x) = ln(x)?

If you try to work out the derivative by proving it using the above formula, you won't be able to solve it, because you can't simplify the ln(x+h) part in the proof appropriately. But we know that the derivative is 1/x. Now, what a lot of textbooks do is something similar "We define the derivative of ln(x) as 1/x" or "We define the integral of 1/x as ln(x)" without explaining why that derivation. So how do we know that the derivative of ln(x) is 1/x? Because a bunch of mathematicians sat down and did tables and tables of experimentation with the slope of ln(x0), where x0 is a point on the curve ln(x) that satisfies the domain of ln(x), and they found the slope to be 1/x. Now I know that because my AP Calculus AB teacher introduced the derivative of ln(x) with that theory. Point is: You can't prove that the derivative of ln(x) is 1/x, but just like scientific theories, you can verify it.

IJ Reilly

Jul 9, 2004, 10:46 AM

Assuming anyone is interested in discussing the topic of this thread,

Researchers Accuse Bush of Manipulating Science
By Elizabeth Shogren
Times Staff Writer

July 9, 2004

WASHINGTON — More than 4,000 scientists, including 48 Nobel Prize winners and 127 members of the National Academy of Sciences, accused the Bush administration Thursday of distorting and suppressing science to suit its political goals.

"Across a broad range of policy areas, the administration has undermined the quality and independence of the scientific advisory system and the morale of the government's outstanding scientific personnel," the scientists said in a letter.

The administration has frequently been accused of misusing and ignoring science to further its policy aims. The list of signatures collected by the Union of Concerned Scientists suggests that the issue has become worrisome throughout the scientific community.

Administration officials rejected the criticism Thursday, as they did when the same letter was released in February bearing the names of 62 prominent scientists.

John Marburger, director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, said the letter and a report released simultaneously by the Union of Concerned Scientists "reach conclusions that are wrong and misleading."

"This administration values and supports science, both as a vital necessity for national security and economic strength and as an indispensable source of guidance for national policy," Marburger said.

The scientists cited examples of colleagues denied seats on advisory panels, allegedly because of their political beliefs.

Dr. Gerald T. Keusch, who left his post as associate director for international research and director of the John E. Fogarty International Center at the National Institutes of Health, said the Department of Health and Human Services had rejected 19 of his 26 candidates for the center's board over three years. Among the 19 was a Nobel laureate who, Keusch said he was told, was turned down because his name had appeared in newspaper ads accusing the administration of manipulating science.

His nominations for the board — which advises on which research should receive federal grants — were accepted during the Clinton administration. But once President Bush took office, Keusch said, they "were rejected one after another."

"There are increasing bits of evidence at attempts at control over the business of science," said Keusch, now the assistant provost for global health at Boston University Medical Center.

He said he was motivated to speak out not by "political malice," but a desire to protect the "integrity of science" at the NIH.

Among the Keusch nominees rejected by the HHS was Jane Menken, a population expert at the University of Colorado at Boulder who had served on scientific advisory boards under President Reagan and the first President Bush. "I was being renominated and I was turned down," she said. "No official ever gave me any reason."

Contrary to the Bush administration, Menken supports the availability of legal abortions. She said that given her qualifications and those of two colleagues rejected with her, one a Nobel laureate, "it's very hard not to reach a conclusion that it was based on something different from scientific qualifications."

Department spokesman Bill Pierce said the appointments to many National Institutes of Health panels were made by Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy G. Thompson, not NIH directors such as Keusch.

"I completely reject the notion" that the administration is manipulating government science to bolster its policy aims, he said. "There's no evidence."

But Janet Rowley, a member of the President's Council on Bioethics, said she had seen the misuse of science firsthand.

"This administration distorts scientific knowledge on stem cell research, which makes it increasingly difficult to have an honest debate in a field that holds promise for treatment of many serious diseases like Parkinson's and juvenile diabetes," Rowley said. She added that the administration, which opposes research with most embryonic stem cells, had exaggerated the usefulness of adult stem cells.

Richard Myers, director of the Stanford Human Genome Center, said he was rejected for a seat on the National Advisory Council for Human Genome Research after he told an administration official that it was inappropriate to ask him his opinion of Bush, according to the report compiled by the Union of Concerned Scientists. He later received the post after an NIH director interceded on his behalf.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-science9jul09,1,4944289.story

acdninjapan

Jul 9, 2004, 10:49 AM

sly, you (and, i fear, thousands if not millions of other americans) need to familiarize yourself with:
1. the scientific method
2. ockham's razor
3. the laws of logic
4. the concept of continually challenging your own principles

Better hurry or the American scientific community will be watching as the Chinese do what they should be doing. But on the other hand a little competition might be good. Look at what was accomplished back in the 60's when the Russians had a viable space program. Look at all the spinoffs and companies that arose because of this program.

The greatest incentive to learning science is GREED. Pure and simple, prove to the doubters that a good grounding in science, the acceptance of Darwinism, Relativity and all of these above mentioned and much debated theories will make their proponents filthy rich, respected members of society and insanely happy and your current worries will be over.

Of course...This will create a whole new series of problems and things to worry about.

kuyu

Jul 9, 2004, 11:08 AM

This is great. I decided to take Introductory Macroeconomics, ECO 101J, to cover one of two J-core courses this past semester. Here is what I found out: GDP is the total market value of final products and services produced within a nations borders (that's borders, not boarders) in a given time period. The GNP is the total market value of final products and services sold within a nations borders in a given time period. The "Our government" part (from the above quote) is only the government within our nations borders. We are not exporting products or services to areas outside of our borders, nor are we cutting taxes or increasing deficits outside of our borders, because we are doing that inside our nation's borders. Thus, we're dealing with th GDP and not the GNP. Also, tax cuts are not always a help to the economy. If the economy is doing real well, and the government has a budget surplus, then a tax cut won't hurt too much...nor would an increase in government spending. Conclusion: Your physics and economy analysis skills are unmatchable.

Well, there isn't just one way to measure GDP. In fact, there are a series of equations that will give you the same GDP number. (remember M1, M2, etc.???) So, as I recall GDP is one way to measure all the money spent this year by everyone (output).

However, it's important to distinguish between the two types of GDP. There is nominal GDP and real GDP. Real GDP is adjusted by the "GDP Deflator" which accounts for inflationary effects. As you might have thought, their is some room to mess with data here by choosing a particularly bad or good "base year". Our goverment uses 1996 as the base year.

We also must try to remember the business cycle of the national economy. Recessions and expansions happen on a regular basis, regardless of whose president. That's because the prez only controls fiscal policy, not monetary policy. The president can't control the money supply, inflation, deflation, interest rates, etc. The only thing a president can do is write a budget. This admin has spent lots of money, but others have as well.

Actually, historical evidence suggests two real ways to increase the move to expeansion. One is too undertake HUGE public works. The other is to get the people of America to spend more money. How do we spend more money? A check in the mail helps. Tax cuts help. Taxing employers less helps create jobs, and thus more disposable income.

So, this administrations efforts to foster an environment where "real" economic expansion can happen is not some corporate pandering. Rather, it is a move to produce "real" results.

One could increase GDP by sending a check of free money to poor people, but that would up inflation, and keep real GDP unchanged. And none of us are really any better off for it.

Take monetary econ. It's a mind bender.

acdninjapan

Jul 9, 2004, 11:28 AM

in those "smaller" countries there are less need for scientists...and there are fewer jobs in those fields, so canada, and japan raise the bar of what it takes to be an engineer, for instance

I don't know about Canada as I've been out of the country for too long. I do know that Japan, China, Malaysia and Indonesia would kill for an unlimited supply of qualified engineers. Singapore has made it a national policy to have as many of their people as possible educated to the highest degree attainable. The other countries in SE Asia such as Thailand, Mynamar and Viet Nam see their role as the factories of SE Asia and are setting their educational standards accordingly.

in america, there is no way we could put those high standards for our engineers...we don't have nationalized education like many other countries and if we raised the bar that high for engineers, then we could never fill the jobs out there in the paper which call for them to fill this position or that position

The US is a country with a mature infrastructure. As a result many of the technologies in use today don't require engineers to fix or maintain them. A good technician with a degree from a community/technical college can do the job just as well.

On the other hand...

one can get an engineering degree in one area and not really be that good at math or science, or know about the other fields of engineering and how they interconnect

that really should not be a hindrance to learning. Afterall I started out my career flying C-130's for Air Transport Command, Cdn Armed Forces and later CP Air only to have medical problems force a change in my life. Fortunately a healthy dose of curiousity, my hobbies and my wife all conspired to drive me in a new direction and to a new country.

many senior/managing engineers in america are salesmen and marketing execs with business or accounting degrees instead

Greed, the profit motive at work. These people have realized that science-even a modicum of science 'pays'

i know among modern countries like usa, canada, japan, germany, etc...that our engineers on average are not the sharpest knives in the drawer...but due to our massive size, we do have great individual engineers and inventors from time to time...but in my field, i see that is not the case when i log onto dynamism.com or see other, much poorer countries with electronic gear which puts us to shame

Every country has their Dr Nakamatsu's, Einstein's and Hawking's. The US is fortunate that a population of 350 million allows for more of them to turn up and the high standards of education and living allows for them to achieve. Unfortunately, the US is not living up to its potential. It's a commonly held opinion in Asia that the US educational system turns geniuses or idiots. There is no inbetween.

if hp/compaq and ibm were as innovative as sony, i don't think we would be having this conversation

And to think that most Japanese consider Sony's products to be pure crap with a reputation similar to Mitsubishi Motors trucks.

jefhatfield

Jul 9, 2004, 11:46 AM

Every country has their Dr Nakamatsu's, Einstein's and Hawking's. The US is fortunate that a population of 350 million allows for more of them to turn up and the high standards of education and living allows for them to achieve. Unfortunately, the US is not living up to its potential. It's a commonly held opinion in Asia that the US educational system turns geniuses or idiots. There is no inbetween.

And to think that most Japanese consider Sony's products to be pure crap with a reputation similar to Mitsubishi Motors trucks.

america probably does turn out an average, low quality cadre of scientists and engineers with a tiny group of geniuses...what i would like to see is an average scientist/engineer in the usa be of the highest quality and still have our geniuses...but tell bush that education, k-12, is important instead of a 100 billion dollar war in iraq ;)

in california, schools are set up with mediocity in mind...most private colleges, the cal state and uc systems all want to have their kids get some sort of general education, but are not interested in small classes, individual attention/mentorship, and world class graduates...perhaps only 1% percent of our state's college grads have that type of world class education...stanford, usc, and cal tech...pretty much the rest of them do not strive for their average student to be world class in every aspect like those three

....

from the silicon valley perspective, sony is king....they make the coolest, most modern gear we see over here...those sony metreon stores rock

i know there are other japanese companies like toshiba, fujitstu, etc who make cool, cutting edge gear, too...but sony is what we would like to see made here in the states

when you see an hp/compaq pc, it does not make you say, "hey, look, the usa has the best high tech home computers"

dell and gateway are a little better, but not by a lot...ps, i am using a heavy, slow compaq laptop and i wish i had a thin, fast sony VAIO...but when wifie allows, i use my cool ibook...i just wish apple inc had some influence in the world, not less than 3% of the operating systems on people's desks ;)

and back to the thread's topic, yeah i would say the gop hates science, and math, and reading, and writing, and anything that would require the party to put respectable funding into our childrens' school systems...and i don't think the democrats are much better when it comes to putting our children first...but there are some democrats who are very passionate about increased funding for public schools in the right proportions, but they are marginalized as "tax and spend democrats" and put into the leftmost corner of the building, under armed guard, with tape on their mouths, so they can't be heard

...all while the usa, the world's latest empire, loses its lead and gets bled to death by unwarranted wars in iraq and unprecedented tax cuts to the ultra rich ;)

rant over...vote kerry in november!! or ABB...anything but bush ;)

acdninjapan

Jul 9, 2004, 11:57 AM

Actually, historical evidence suggests two real ways to increase the move to expeansion. One is too undertake HUGE public works. The other is to get the people of America to spend more money.

You forgot the third way to increase profitability and the GDP/GNP. That is colonization of new territories and the exploitation of new resources. Having a new frontier, a new challenge is always good for business. The USA since its advent as the Thirteen Colonies until its relinquishment of active participation in new exploration and the expansion into space in the 80's contributed more to the advancement of science and discovery than the more mature economies of Europe.

Bush and Kerry are not the answer. The answer is some maverick medical researcher who flaunts the laws and successfully creates an army of clones, then walks them into a CNN interview.

jefhatfield

Jul 9, 2004, 12:01 PM

Bush and Kerry are not the answer. The answer is some maverick medical researcher who flaunts the laws and successfully creates an army of clones, then walks them into a CNN interview.

you mean howard dean, right?

themadchemist

Jul 9, 2004, 12:09 PM

I have a real solid example to better that...

The derivative of a mathematical function is:

Lim (f(x+h)-f(x))÷h
h->0

What is the derivative of f(x) = ln(x)?

If you try to work out the derivative by proving it using the above formula, you won't be able to solve it, because you can't simplify the ln(x+h) part in the proof appropriately. But we know that the derivative is 1/x. Now, what a lot of textbooks do is something similar "We define the derivative of ln(x) as 1/x" or "We define the integral of 1/x as ln(x)" without explaining why that derivation. So how do we know that the derivative of ln(x) is 1/x? Because a bunch of mathematicians sat down and did tables and tables of experimentation with the slope of ln(x0), where x0 is a point on the curve ln(x) that satisfies the domain of ln(x), and they found the slope to be 1/x. Now I know that because my AP Calculus AB teacher introduced the derivative of ln(x) with that theory. Point is: You can't prove that the derivative of ln(x) is 1/x, but just like scientific theories, you can verify it.

actually, here's the proof right here. It's quite simple and elegant, actually. Technically, it's not the proof, because it's not a delta epsilon proof. But it does "show" in a non-rigorous fashion by the definition of the derivative that d/dx(ln(x))=1/x:

Proof! (http://www.math2.org/math/derivatives/more/ln.htm)

Math has more certainties than do the natural sciences...

Another example might be that when I work out a general chemistry enthalpy question and refer to a table of the heats of formation, I take its contents at face value. I'm not going to go verify to heats of formation for a bunch of compounds just to do a stupid chem problem. To a certain degree, you have to decide whether the source is trustworthy, and I generally consider my textbook trustworthy (though not always; it depends on the author).

acdninjapan

Jul 9, 2004, 12:24 PM

america probably does turn out an average, low quality cadre of scientists and engineers with a tiny group of geniuses...what i would like to see is an average scientist/engineer in the usa be of the highest quality and still have our geniuses...but tell bush that education, k-12, is important instead of a 100 billion dollar war in iraq ;)

in california, schools are set up with mediocity in mind...most private colleges, the cal state and uc systems all want to have their kids get some sort of general education, but are not interested in small classes, individual attention/mentorship, and world class graduates...perhaps only 1% percent of our state's college grads have that type of world class education...stanford, usc, and cal tech...pretty much the rest of them do not strive for their average student to be world class in every aspect like those three

....

from the silicon valley perspective, sony is king....they make the coolest, most modern gear we see over here...those sony metreon stores rock

i know there are other japanese companies like toshiba, fujitstu, etc who make cool, cutting edge gear, too...but sony is what we would like to see made here in the states

when you see an hp/compaq pc, it does not make you say, "hey, look, the usa has the best high tech home computers"

dell and gateway are a little better, but not by a lot...ps, i am using a heavy, slow compaq laptop and i wish i had a thin, fast sony VAIO...but when wifie allows, i use my cool ibook...i just wish apple inc had some influence in the world, not less than 3% of the operating systems on people's desks ;)

and back to the thread's topic, yeah i would say the gop hates science, and math, and reading, and writing, and anything that would require the party to put respectable funding into our childrens' school systems...and i don't think the democrats are much better when it comes to putting our children first...but there are some democrats who are very passionate about increased funding for public schools in the right proportions, but they are marginalized as "tax and spend democrats" and put into the leftmost corner of the building, under armed guard, with tape on their mouths, so they can't be heard

...all while the usa, the world's latest empire, loses its lead and gets bled to death by unwarranted wars in iraq and unprecedented tax cuts to the ultra rich ;)

rant over...vote kerry in november!! or ABB...anything but bush ;)

Of some interest would be the education in India. The country turns out an unprecedented number of scientists and engineers all on a shoestring budget.

The Chinese who have turned into clones of the Japanese only worse (copycats and pirates at heart) are also making great strides ineducation. They are focusing on math and science and letting geography, history and art slide into oblivion–most mainland Chinese in their 20's think Canada is part of Europe but, ask them to calculate pi to 30 places and they can do it in their head or on their fingers. And these are massage girls!

Sony VIAO's look nice but, they are fragile and high maintenance somewhat like a 'Shibuya Kogaru'. The iBook is much better, I wish they would run cooler and I wish Apple would port Panther to run on other manufacturers machines.

Of course while I'm wishing for the impossible let's add a G5 titanium, a working copy of Tiger, Microsoft Corp moving their operation to Vangroovie, Burt Rutlan putting out a cheap, easily maintainable, production model of his spacecraft and a $1 million in an account in the Channel Islands.

Bush vs Kerry–I hope your guy wins. I have too many friends over in Iraq-read their bylines all the time.

King Cobra

Jul 9, 2004, 12:42 PM

Well, there isn't just one way to measure GDP. In fact, there are a series of equations that will give you the same GDP number. (remember M1, M2, etc.???) So, as I recall GDP is one way to measure all the money spent this year by everyone (output).

Take monetary econ. It's a mind bender.
The only thing I think we studied about M1 and M2 was its general contents and how the money multiplier changes the money supply. What you're talking about sounds more like intermediate macroeconomics. But I decided to take Intro. Macroeconomics to cover one of two J-core courses. Since I didn't develop an interest in the material, I don't think I'll be taking any more economy courses.

actually, here's the proof right here. It's quite simple and elegant, actually. Technically, it's not the proof, because it's not a delta epsilon proof. But it does "show" in a non-rigorous fashion by the definition of the derivative that d/dx(ln(x))=1/x:

Proof! (http://www.math2.org/math/derivatives/more/ln.htm)
Damnit. Well, I guess my AP Calculus AB teacher isn't perfect.

themadchemist

Jul 9, 2004, 01:19 PM

Of some interest would be the education in India. The country turns out an unprecedented number of scientists and engineers all on a shoestring budget.

The country definitely has some fine educational institutions. World-class institutions like the Indian Institue of Technology (IIT) produce brilliant scientists and engineers every year.

However, do you think the fact that the country produces, in your words, an "unprecedented number of scientists and engineers all on a shoestring budget," might have something to do with the law of large numbers?

gooddog

Jul 9, 2004, 01:37 PM

[QUOTE=Desertrat]There's so much anti-science running loose...Seems to me that the political problem is the mix of neo-con and religionists that have come into power. It's less the political party per se.

**********************

I think the decerebrates from the Left give license to the criminals on the Right to shift the center of idiocy and ignorance further toward the * Duhhh * end of our culture's collective IQ scale.

The allegedly "New" Age fad has nothing but bile for any scientific work that isn't convenient to their frauds. Yet the NAMES and well-earned status of those like Einstein, Heissenberg, et al are bandied about and high-jacked by these same "New" Age frauds whenever their re-hashed 1920's horseZhit needs to be spiced up to kill the taste of what they sell.

I run into countless "liberal" ignoramuses who harbor hatred for Blacks and find comfort in the "New" Age literature that identifies Blacks with the evil race
that allegedly ruined the civilization of Atlantis. This is just good old preacher swill from the South ( when Blacks were identified with the biblical sons of Ham and were "marked" for social opprobrium ) wrapped in a Madam Blavatsky label.

These same "New" Age bigots take pride in the arrogant derrision of Darwin without having EVER turned a single page of the 100 year-old works they discard.

Many, who failed Algebra I, with flying colors, nevertheless form opinions on General Relativity and offer hints as to where "Einstein went wrong" . This is done with a straight face and a seemingly profound air, as if drinking deep draughts from the fountain of knowledge when, in fact, they are merely gargling there.

At the same time, these idiots solemnly mouth belief in stupidities that fed the Inquisition and were abandoned by decent people only after the sacrifice and infinite courage of the likes of Salazar y Frias who looked the church-state criminals square in the eye and declared that an accused can not be in two places at once to commit crimes in their "spirit" form. Just try to argue this with a "New" Age moron who is "absolutely convinced" of the reality of "bi-location" and then consider that the findings of juries in future courts of law will be determined by the percentage of such fools in the pool of available jury-duty candidates.

Similarly, the hatred of "main-stream" medicine and physicians seems to have no bounds that are in any way connected to reason and fairness.

Frauds who claim to have telepathy own and use cell phones just as the rest of us do -- without fear of being asked why.

Frauds who claim to fly, levitate, bi-locate, and such ride crude Boeing 737's to their next "seminar" without fear of being questioned as to why they use such crude methods of transportation.

That's how confident they are of the docility they can expect from their suck-ups.

A college graduate ( respiratory therapist ) actually asked me where the Sun goes at night. The subject came up when she appeared at my door-step fearing that Saturn was about to impact our Earth : there was a glowing pink blob in the sky with a yellowish glowing streak through its diameter that looked like Saturn to her. It was a cloud of radioactive Barium released by a rocket to study the upper atmosphere.

I think we are spoiling for another dance with the Dark Ages. The Right does this in a way that is heartless and the Left does it in a way that is brainless ---- as each is naturally inclined to do.

---gooddog

Frohickey

Jul 9, 2004, 01:51 PM

I think the decerebrates from the Left give license to the criminals on the Right to shift the center of idiocy and ignorance further toward the * Duhhh * end of our culture's collective IQ scale.

I think we are spoiling for another dance with the Dark Ages. The Right does this in a way that is heartless and the Left does it in a way that is brainless ---- as each is naturally inclined to do.

You should just console yourself that when the time comes that the human race is in correction, that the stupid ones will be the first ones to be food, or fertilizer. :eek:

themadchemist

Jul 9, 2004, 02:16 PM

skunk

Jul 9, 2004, 02:38 PM

The allegedly "New" Age fad has nothing but bile for any scientific work that isn't convenient to their frauds. Yet the NAMES and well-earned status of those like Einstein, Heissenberg, et al are bandied about and high-jacked by these same "New" Age frauds whenever their re-hashed 1920's horseZhit needs to be spiced up to kill the taste of what they sell.---gooddog
Nicely put. There is a very good site called Butterflies and Wheels which debunks great numbers of these quasi-truths:

www.butterfliesandwheels.com

A great antidote to foolish but fashionable "science".

pooky

Jul 9, 2004, 03:00 PM

<A bunch of random drivel demonstrating that he knows next to nothing about how physics or science in general work.>

Wow...I was so close to blocking this guy's posts, then I read all of this and have spent the last half hour cracking up. Thanks Sly, that was incredibly entertaining. I think I'll read more of your posts from now on just for their laugh value.

King Cobra - great point about inductive vs. deductive reasoning. Math is a great example of a field that can be both. In most sciences, the deductive route (i.e. proving something indisputably) is not an option, so we go the inductive route (i.e. demonstrate something so many times we figure it's probably pretty close to the truth).

My geometry teacher in high school hated proofs, so instead of doing them, we did "inductive geometry." If we wanted to demonstrate that the sum of the angles of a triangle must equal 180 degrees, we drew lots of triangles, and measured them. While I never "proved" that every triangle possible summed to 180, after I measured 15 or so ranging in all shapes from oblique to isosceles to equilateral, I was fairly well convinced. Repeat that for all 30 students in the class, and we had developed a theoretical model for the relationships of angles in a triangle. Not a proof, but a pretty good theory.

King Cobra

Jul 9, 2004, 03:06 PM

King Cobra - great point about inductive vs. deductive reasoning. Math is a great example of a field that can be both. In most sciences, the deductive route (i.e. proving something indisputably) is not an option, so we go the inductive route (i.e. demonstrate something so many times we figure it's probably pretty close to the truth).
I didn't realize I made that point, but appreciations nonetheless.

Wow...I was so close to blocking this guy's posts, then I read all of this and have spent the last half hour cracking up. Thanks Sly, that was incredibly entertaining. I think I'll read more of your posts from now on just for their laugh value.
Excellent. I propose that Voltron be supreme leader of the political forums. All in favor, say "Physics rules!"

Sayhey

Jul 9, 2004, 04:17 PM

blackfox

Jul 9, 2004, 04:37 PM

Can the "New Age" crowd really be considered Left? I could imagine something like this being discussed:

"We reject the term "left" as indicitive of the false dichotomy of the oppressive regime of the word. Groupings of letters demean myself and my spirit which is above the patriachal linearity of syntax. "left" and "right" are but shackles put upon the human condition which bind us and impoverish our inner light which does not deal in directions, only in the directionaless beauty of the one. So to protest this unfair and limited "term" foisted upon us by those who refuse to let themselves see the truth, we will henceforth consider our political leanings as "transcendentleftiests" Thankyou."

Sayhey

Jul 9, 2004, 04:41 PM

Chip NoVaMac

Jul 9, 2004, 04:45 PM

blackfox

Jul 9, 2004, 04:48 PM

LOL, I think I've been in this debate before! I think you may have the same niece that I have. I didn't know I had relatives in the Northwest?
Oh, If I had a nickel for every person...

As far as the relative comment...I would suppose that you and I are "ideological cousins". As are many on this board...

So when's the Reunion? I'll bring the chicken-salad...

skunk

Jul 9, 2004, 05:00 PM

So when's the Reunion? I'll bring the chicken-salad...
Not another of those parties where nobody brings the beer, I hope.

themadchemist

Jul 9, 2004, 05:18 PM

Excellent. I propose that Voltron be supreme leader of the political forums. All in favor, say "Physics rules!"

...or "Physics doesn't exist!"

blackfox

Jul 9, 2004, 05:25 PM

Not another of those parties where nobody brings the beer, I hope.
You just nominated yourself, Buddy...

Or you provide the airfare, and I'll buy you all the beer you can drink...<gauntlet thrown down>

skunk

Jul 9, 2004, 05:27 PM

You just nominated yourself, Buddy...

Or you provide the airfare, and I'll buy you all the beer you can drink...<gauntlet thrown down>
I'll be right over. :D

Voltron

Jul 9, 2004, 10:33 PM

I understand light without having to push a load can travel faster than anything we can come up with. Sticking a nuclear bomb up somethings rear or any kind of propellant just could not keep up. I still don't believe moving faster than light = moving faster than time.

Stick a clock in high gravity and it runs slow, so do I, not proof that time ran slower.
Break that clock down to its atomic particles or include radioactive particles we typically use to age things with and my guess is they break down faster. Not proof that time moved faster only proof that high gravity makes particles break down faster.

There is no proof whatsoever that time's speed changes one iota. There is no way possible to measure time that would show it moves at different rates. It may be possible to so someday that how we perceive the flow of time does change, but that will not so any actual changes in the flow of time.

I remember something about Quarks moved faster than light? If that is true then do you believe they move faster than time? If that was true by modifing electrons or whatever inside of a quark we would be able to communicate with the future. But then so does burrying some stupid box in the corner of a building. Could just mean the Quark stuck around till the future, and not instantaneously appeared in the future.

Maybe someday there will be a method to sideslip time, step out so to speak and then pick a point to reenter it. But I don't believe mortal man will ever travel faster than it. Although we may someday travel as fast as light, but not in my lifetime.

oopsie

A question you might well ask! If we cannot separate them out, how do we know they are there? The answer is simply that all our calculations depend on their existence and give the right answers for the experiments.

http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/vvc/theory/quarks.html
All of their calculations depend on an imaginery item in order for their experiments to be correct? I don't call this serious science.

So Quark is the missing link in their experiment therefore it must be real.http://sharevana.com/forums/images/generalsmileys/conf11.gif

Voltron

Jul 9, 2004, 10:40 PM

I'm not the first one to think this.

Galilean Space-Time
In Galilean Space-Time the physical existence of an absolute time is assumed. The pioneer of physics Isaac Newton defined it in the following way [1]:
"Absolute, true and mathematical time, in itself, and from its own nature, flows equally, without relation to any thing external; and by other name called Duration. Relative, apparent, and vulgar time, is some sensible and external measure of duration by motion, whether accurate or unequable, which is commonly used instead of true time; as an hour, a day, a month, a year. It may be, that there is no equable motion, whereby time may be accurately measured. All motions may be accelerated and retarded, but the flowing of absolute time is liable to no change."
Because of this absolute time the global notion of past, present and future is the same in all reference frames. If two events are simultaneous in one particular reference frame, this means that they are also simultaneous in all reference frames. Thus, there is a unique separation between past and future events - the line of present in the space-time diagram (see below). Within the framework of Galilean Space-Time, faster-than-light speeds are possible in principle. However, electromagnetical waves are limited not to exceed the speed of light c, which usually depends on the direction of the light signal the reference frame in which it is measured. The speed of light is constant only in the absolute space-time frame, which is also called the Newtonian rest frame.
http://homepage.sunrise.ch/homepage/schatzer/st-GST.gif

http://homepage.sunrise.ch/homepage/schatzer/space-time.html

I don't buy this completly either. Time will tell.

Sayhey

Jul 9, 2004, 10:44 PM

Oh, If I had a nickel for every person...

As far as the relative comment...I would suppose that you and I are "ideological cousins". As are many on this board...

So when's the Reunion? I'll bring the chicken-salad...

OK, cuz. I'll bring a good Napa Valley red.

zimv20

Jul 9, 2004, 11:36 PM

I understand light without having to push a load can travel faster than anything we can come up with. Sticking a nuclear bomb up somethings rear or any kind of propellant just could not keep up. I still don't believe moving faster than light = moving faster than time.

Stick a clock in high gravity and it runs slow, so do I, not proof that time ran slower.
Break that clock down to its atomic particles or include radioactive particles we typically use to age things with and my guess is they break down faster. Not proof that time moved faster only proof that high gravity makes particles break down faster.

There is no proof whatsoever that time's speed changes one iota. There is no way possible to measure time that would show it moves at different rates. It may be possible to so someday that how we perceive the flow of time does change, but that will not so any actual changes in the flow of time.

I remember something about Quarks moved faster than light? If that is true then do you believe they move faster than time? If that was true by modifing electrons or whatever inside of a quark we would be able to communicate with the future. But then so does burrying some stupid box in the corner of a building. Could just mean the Quark stuck around till the future, and not instantaneously appeared in the future.

Maybe someday there will be a method to sideslip time, step out so to speak and then pick a point to reenter it. But I don't believe mortal man will ever travel faster than it. Although we may someday travel as fast as light, but not in my lifetime.

oopsie

http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/vvc/theory/quarks.html
All of their calculations depend on an imaginery item in order for their experiments to be correct? I don't call this serious science.

So Quark is the missing link in their experiment therefore it must be real.http://sharevana.com/forums/images/generalsmileys/conf11.gif
i got yer proof. time slowed down when i read your post.

Sayhey

Jul 9, 2004, 11:51 PM

http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/vvc/theory/quarks.html
All of their calculations depend on an imaginery item in order for their experiments to be correct? I don't call this serious science.

So Quark is the missing link in their experiment therefore it must be real.http://sharevana.com/forums/images/generalsmileys/conf11.gif

YOU DON'T CALL THIS SERIOUS SCIENCE!!! :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

Ok, I've calmed down. Would you be so kind as to write up you disapproval of Stanford's work and I'll forward your proofs along with this amazing reasoning to their poor stupid physicists. I'm sure they could use a laugh.

blackfox

Jul 10, 2004, 12:01 AM

hehehe...I love this thread...Voltron, have you considered discussed the nature of time? How is it measured? By hands on a clock? By nanoseconds? How do you define time? Because you need some sort of yardstick to say that it has sped up, slowed down or stayed the same, right?
Just Curious, I quite like your ideas...please expand upon them...

zimv20

Jul 10, 2004, 12:20 AM

from his posts, i've concluded that when sly enters a room:
- objects defy gravity
- gold is teleported in from ft. knox
- the UN argues over the last pint of ice cream while it melts

pooky

Jul 10, 2004, 02:19 AM

from his posts, i've concluded that when sly enters a room:
- objects defy gravity
- gold is teleported in from ft. knox
- the UN argues over the last pint of ice cream while it melts

And the dolphins say, "So long, and thanks for all the fish."

Chip NoVaMac

Jul 10, 2004, 02:45 AM

And the dolphins say, "So long, and thanks for all the fish."

Thought they said."EEEEE... EEEEE.....EEEE".

acdninjapan

Jul 10, 2004, 05:28 AM

However, do you think the fact that the country produces, in your words, an "unprecedented number of scientists and engineers all on a shoestring budget," might have something to do with the law of large numbers?

Definitely! With over a billion served and the brass ring being a job either with a company such as Microsoft or a cushy government job developing software to build a better A-bomb, the motivation to excel is very strong.

But, what is astounding is that most of this is accomplished with a dearth of school equipment-few if any textbooks, not teaching aids and later when they are studying computer sciences-the computers are decades out of date.

For many years Japan was like this-little if any actual investment in education, in fact the education system lagged far behind the needs of the corporations that caused Japan's economic miracle and they were successful only because it was recognized that to succeed you had to be motivated enough to study on your own.

acdninjapan

Jul 10, 2004, 05:37 AM

kuyu

Jul 10, 2004, 11:32 AM

I remember something about Quarks moved faster than light? If that is true then do you believe they move faster than time? If that was true by modifing electrons or whatever inside of a quark we would be able to communicate with the future. But then so does burrying some stupid box in the corner of a building. Could just mean the Quark stuck around till the future, and not instantaneously appeared in the future.

Maybe someday there will be a method to sideslip time, step out so to speak and then pick a point to reenter it. But I don't believe mortal man will ever travel faster than it. Although we may someday travel as fast as light, but not in my lifetime.

Good question about the quarks. In fact, they do travel faster than light, sort of. I believe the phenomenon you're referring to is called "quantum tunneling". This is basically the 'teleportation' of a substance.

However, as stated in a previous post, quantum mechanics and relativity seem to juxtapose eachother. Thus the quest for the theory of everything that explains them both.

For your question about absolute time and proof. I believe that experiments have been carried out using atomic clocks. These measure the osilation of particles and thereby measure time accurately within 0.0000000001 second per 8000 years. Pretty accurate. In any case, these clocks run differently at different G's and speeds. Weird???

The best way to "sidestep" time involves superstrings. These massive building blocks of reality and dimension (perhaps 11-12 dimensions!!!) could be used to travel back in time. By darting between two superstrings that are traveling towards eachother at near light speed, the curve of space-time funnels to such an extent that it is possible to beat a beam of light. Thus, in theory, time travel to the past is acheived. However, such a funneling of space-time could implode the universe too.

Voltron, your opposition to these theories (even though they make your computer possible) is nice. Perhaps the theory of everything will be discovered by someone who questions the conventions and thinks outside the box.

Oh yeah. I'm no republican but definately a conservative, and I LOVE SCIENCE!!! ;)

kuyu

Jul 10, 2004, 11:34 AM

I guess we'll know if Einstein's right sooner than later!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3596499.stm

cool

gooddog

Jul 10, 2004, 11:39 AM

gooddog,

great post, but why do we on the political left have to take credit for this "New Age" anti-science crap? It has nothing to do with any coherent left/progressive approach to politics that I know about. Now, if we elect a progressive President and he/she starts appointing experts in "Yogic Flying" techniques to NASA panels then I'll concede the point and join you in condemning stupid lefties. ;)

********************************

Well, it's not your fault, of course.
The Left is , by definition, more inclusive than the Right and their criminal elite.

This opens the door to unfiltered participation by anyone who can afford Birkenstocks and natural fiber Chino's.

Visualize hoards of remora fish people vapor locked onto the flanks of a hard-working Trotsky type and feeling good about themselves and their moral superiority - not to mention their inside track on all manner of arcana concerning our place in history and in the cosmos.

The Right have their flakes too. But the Right is money-ed and exclusive and not too shy to "purify" their ranks. Very keen on "purity", these folks.

So much of the brilliance and ethical push that I loved in the Left of the seventies and sixties was just swept away and diluted to homeopathic levels by huge waves of "Sunday hippies" who were but a larval form of 90's Yuppies poised to gentrify the poor out of house and home.

I think these intellectual bird baths are to be found in the "New" Age Conceit Club.

It saddens me because much of the flavor of a very happy and dynamic time in my life persists like an after-taste of ambrosia gone sour. I meet someone who looks like a survivor of the Reagan Calamity only to find a common bigot or a proud ignoramus or a nazi hatchling mouthing bumper stickers.

I know, the seeds of this were already sprouting during the height of the New Left movement - as in the famous Bosch tryptic of heaven, Earth, and hell.

Well, this is an historical dilema that has eaten the guts out of so many populist and proletarian movements ... the Intelligentsia versus their rank and file rubes. I certainly don't know how to resolve it. But I suspect it will require brutal honesty between those two groups as to their respective areas of expertise or ability. And there must be more cultural exchange between the two -- professors taking a manual labor sabatical and rubes locked in a library or laboratory where gravitation is demonstrated. And if being uneducated is as embarrassing as having a bad odor, then being a pseudo-intellectual yam-with-a-necktie would be an even worse thing to face ( I should know :) ).

How do you feel when a discussion of Moore's film is interrupted by someone who expresses concern that he may be abducted by the Greys and implanted with an alien chip ? LAXATIVE isn't it ? :)

---gooddog

King Cobra

Jul 10, 2004, 12:11 PM

And the dolphins say, "So long, and thanks for all the fish."
Something fishy is going on here...I just saw 42 dolphins leave the Portland bay area.

pseudobrit

Jul 10, 2004, 12:22 PM

from his posts, i've concluded that when sly enters a room:
- objects defy gravity
- gold is teleported in from ft. knox
- the UN argues over the last pint of ice cream while it melts

When I first saw the title to this thread I thought it was a little unfair. I stand corrected.

Whodathunk we had an accredited expert in quantum physics in our midst? And he's disproving the latest theories with Google-found links, no less!

I have to admit, it's a compelling argument, "your theory on subatomic particles can't possibly be accurate because it's imaginary." Even Newton isn't safe.

Sayhey

Jul 10, 2004, 12:42 PM

********************************

Well, it's not your fault, of course....

Thank you, I'm very much relieved. ;)

Your post made my morning, I haven't laughed that hard in quite a while. I particularly liked,

Visualize hoards of remora fish people vapor locked onto the flanks of a hard-working Trotsky type and feeling good about themselves and their moral superiority - not to mention their inside track on all manner of arcana concerning our place in history and in the cosmos.

Amazing stuff, gooddog!

IJ Reilly

Jul 10, 2004, 12:51 PM

Yeah, absolutely the "post of the week." Keep it coming, gooddog!

Sayhey

Jul 10, 2004, 12:53 PM

And the dolphins say, "So long, and thanks for all the fish."

Hmmm... the paranoid part of me reads this and thinks that Voltron is the creation of a group of banned members who are pulling our chains. Nobody could possibly really believe this stuff!

OTOH, the side of me that experimented with illegal mind altering substances in the '60s and '70s (don't try this at home, kids!) thinks this kind of surrealism is a normal everyday response to the type of discussion we are involved in. You're welcome, flipper! I think I'll go bake some more brownies and stare at my hand.

IJ Reilly

Jul 10, 2004, 01:15 PM

You're welcome, flipper! I think I'll go bake some more brownies and stare at my hand.

Still looking for your porpoise in life?

Voltron

Jul 10, 2004, 01:20 PM

For your question about absolute time and proof. I believe that experiments have been carried out using atomic clocks. These measure the osilation of particles and thereby measure time accurately within 0.0000000001 second per 8000 years. Pretty accurate. In any case, these clocks run differently at different G's and speeds. Weird???

;)
That proove these particles run differently in different gravities, it does not prove that actual time runs differently in different gravities. Making their +- accuracy is what is actually affective in these different gravity forces not changes in the flow of time?

zimv20

Jul 10, 2004, 01:33 PM

Still looking for your porpoise in life?
OW

Sayhey

Jul 10, 2004, 01:34 PM

Still looking for your porpoise in life?

IJ, that was sooo bad it hurt! :p

pseudobrit

Jul 10, 2004, 01:44 PM

Still looking for your porpoise in life?

Can you hear the dolphins cry?

Sayhey

Jul 10, 2004, 01:55 PM

Can you hear the dolphins cry?

During the 1985 Super Bowl (http://www.sf49ers.com/history/superbowl_xix.asp) I could!

gooddog

Jul 10, 2004, 06:33 PM

Yeah, absolutely the "post of the week." Keep it coming, gooddog!

*******************************

Well, here's a good licking for each of you :)

But don't get overly aroused .... I am only
after the salt.

Oh, and the unemployed physicist too .

I feel his pain: I too have found no worthwhile, secure employment in theoretical physics. Only, I actually paid tuition for my M.S. ---- so embarrased :o

---gooddog

King Cobra

Jul 10, 2004, 07:15 PM

Oh, and the unemployed physicist too .

I feel his pain: I too have found no worthwhile, secure employment in theoretical physics. Only, I actually paid tuition for my M.S. ---- so embarrased :o
Tell me that once I finish college I won't have to deal with that as well.

Desertrat

Jul 10, 2004, 07:20 PM

"one can get an engineering degree in one area and not really be that good at math or science, or know about the other fields of engineering and how they interconnect..."

Mebbeso, nowadays?

I got my BSME in '62. (That's 1962, dangit!) Calculus, advanced calculus, statics, dynamics, strength of materials, machine design, nuclear physics, two semesters of power reactor design, a civil engineering course, an electrical engineering course...144 hours, total; had to get humanities, English, chemistry, trig, basic physics...

(Physics and trig were reinforcements of my high school courses, which had helped immeasurably in my billiards playing. :) ) My high school daze included a couple of years of Algebra, plane and solid geometry and analyt.

During the 1970s, the distaste for the Vietnam war had many college profs making it easier for their students to get passing grades and retain their 1-S deferments. Unfortunately, this held true in engineering colleges as well as the liberal arts colleges. In many universities, the curricula haven't, apparently, been returned to the higher requirements of earlier times...

'Rat

pooky

Jul 10, 2004, 08:01 PM

That proove these particles run differently in different gravities, it does not prove that actual time runs differently in different gravities. Making their +- accuracy is what is actually affective in these different gravity forces not changes in the flow of time?

Ok, now you're just being silly. What is time? Do you see how this could could get mystical really fast? What you're doing is changing the definition of time in order to prove your rather ridiculous point. Physics defines time by the oscillations of these particles. The current definition of a second is "the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium 133 atom."

Therefore, if you stick a CS-133 atom in a gravity well, and that period slows down, time has indeed slowed down. You can't redefine time to suit yourself, so try again.

Voltron

Jul 10, 2004, 09:15 PM

Ok, now you're just being silly. What is time? Do you see how this could could get mystical really fast? What you're doing is changing the definition of time in order to prove your rather ridiculous point. Physics defines time by the oscillations of these particles. The current definition of a second is "the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium 133 atom."

Therefore, if you stick a CS-133 atom in a gravity well, and that period slows down, time has indeed slowed down. You can't redefine time to suit yourself, so try again.
You can define time however you want it doesn't make it so.
perhaps a cessium 133 atom transition radiation at a different rate in different gravities but that does not prove time has changed one iota. It does not prove that cessium 133 could jump forward in time, backwards in time, or come anywhere near slowing the real flow of time.

jefhatfield

Jul 10, 2004, 09:52 PM

During the 1970s, the distaste for the Vietnam war had many college profs making it easier for their students to get passing grades and retain their 1-S deferments. Unfortunately, this held true in engineering colleges as well as the liberal arts colleges. In many universities, the curricula haven't, apparently, been returned to the higher requirements of earlier times...

'Rat

a friend of mine, or future employee or future employer??? (small town i live in, ok ;) ) is a college professor who teaches computer science the easy way and hard way

to today's standards, we do what other colleges do...java, visual basic, c++, electronics class, computer repair class, some math, science and liberal arts and voila...an AS degree in computer science...ditto with more of that for the BS and then MS, etc...

but being old school like you, he had to learn engineering and mathematics the old fashioned way...without the help of modern computers, silicon, and low cost solutions like, "electronic gear broke?, well then let's just order another one"

...instead of the use of compilers and more advanced languages that did a lot of the calculations for you...and oh yeah, a math co-processor, one had to do the math themselves if they wanted to be a programmer or electronic repair person...and high math at that much of the time...basically to be a software developer, per se, you had to be a mathematician...and when it came to fixing motherboards, well, there were tubes instead of transistors so you had to know electronic/electrical engineering sometimes...that's old school and once in a while, my phd friend blows away the minds of the class letting them know he had to know all this stuff...and at the same age no less

what i learned in an advanced math class in graduate school he had to learn as a freshman in college so he can get the "basics" down in order to be a programmer

the early silicon valley jobs in high tech were proportionally much higher pay and not as common as today in the region, so employers could demand that their employees have nothing less than a full fledged engineering and/or math degree...today's 18 month trade school does away with the need to do all the math, science and required encyclopedic knowledge of electronics, and has their students start right away on powerful computer languages and fix computer hardware without the need to use tons of oscilliscopes and surgeon like skill with a soldering iron and other tools the younguns would never be able to identify

at least for today's computer field, one does not have to be a full fledged engineer or mathematician to get a well paying job and work up the ladder in a small to large business

people who are even sketchy at math and engineering can become network engineers/administrators and programmers...you could have a knack for foreign languages and that will help you more with being a software developer than being a top notch mathematician ;)

the old school techies with their bachelor's and master's degrees like to scoff at the mostly young, non college educated (or liberal arts degreed) crop of techies who are replacing them, but whether it stemmed from technology that dismissed having to be a mini einstein, or a general softening of academica as described by you in the 60s and 70s, or a combination of both, the high tech/computer field continues to evolve :)

-jef
computer techie without an advanced math degree or knowledge of whatever law of thermodynamics may or may not have contributed in me being able to make this post ;)

gooddog

Jul 10, 2004, 10:18 PM

Tell me that once I finish college I won't have to deal with that as well.

******************************
October 17, 1989
Saratoga, CA

SETI project defunded again by Sen.
Proxmire of Golden Fleece fame.

Got to find new work fast.

Weeks left to find work or go back to living in luxurious Honda Civic parked outside the 24-hour Nautilus - where all like me went.

Go to huge tech job fair in San Francisco --

Get in the queue to key in my resume and get a printout of tables to visit.

Everyone ( engineers ) gets several pages of printout.

I get one (1) line.

I kick the printer to get it unstuck.

It only applies an equal and opposite reaction force to my foot, then stares back at me defiantly.

Guy behind me suggests I lie.

I lie : something about a unified field and references from the Archbishop of Canterburry.

The printer relinquishes one (1) additional line --- SLAC ( did it mean SLACK ? ) ...

I leave the printout and go in anyway.

One table had a huge banner with red block capitals : " NO ENTRY LEVEL PHYSICS POSITIONS "

So I approached the gravelly-voiced rottweiler man at the table and suggested he file my resume, in case something opens up in the future -- a standard courtesy.

He answers : " SON, CAN'T YOU READ THE DAMN SIGN ? " also in large red capitals.

I wonder aimlessly for hours, bump into the SLAC table in a mean-free-path, four sigma way. Guy looks really sloppy : there is hope here.

He tells me they hired someone just like me last week for a swing-shift, catch-protons-with-your-ass kind of job. But he was now really looking to "hire a chick".
His voice was just like Carlton the doorman's in the Mary Tyler Moore show.

On my way home, I take a wrong turn into the double-decker Bay Bridge and wind up in Oakland where I am also not wanted.

Before being asked to leave, I figured, best to turn around and cross the nice bridge again.

The Fates chuckle : " Nahhh, he's too easy, let us stay our hand awhile."

I get home - fat, white, and stupid. My feet ache; my back about to cramp; my yam tie offers to cut off my carotid --- I choose Life instead and take it off.

I get up, walk two steps to the fridge for its life giving waters - as the world begins to tremble.

By my third step, it is clear I need to detour right and go out the door.

Looking up for debris, I hurry down the stairway as it snakes under my feet.

I tumble down to the base of the stairs where all the cars and vans are hopping and bucking as if alive, their alarms all blaring and the palm trees shaking violently like dusters. A van under repairs jumps the wheel block and starts rolling toward me as I lie crumppled on the floor and fearing to look at my ankle as it felt like a bone might be sticking out.

I look at it -- barely a bruise.

Turns out I am a wuss.

A two-foot wall of water comes around the corner from the pool area.

I get up and hop to that area anyway.

After all , I did start out to get some water, right?

It was the pool water -- sloshing enough
back and forth to expose the bottom at the shallow end. Half the water had jumped out.

Got to meet the neighbors that evening, under a gorgeous, dark sky -- no electricity.
The Milky Way was breathtakingly beautiful.

Braved a quick trip upstairs to call home in Miami and tell them I was alive, and fetch my battery-powered mini TV/VCR 8mm SONY.

In the dark apartment it smelled great !

Why ?

Used flashlight -- all the spices were on the kitchen floor and a large knife stuck perfectly upright on the linoleum.

My huge , 300 lb, $25 TV was teeter-tottering right over my little $ 1200 SONY machine. I dove for it and pushed the TV back into the shelves. All the floor lamps were just fine and vertical.

Downstairs again, I turned on the news as a dozen neighbors crowded behind me --
slowly the news of the Bay Bridge and others trickled in.

All of us were in tears.

Next day I call the Red Cross to volunteer in any capacity -- they turned me down too.

One week later I was living in my car again.

-------------------------- EPILOGUE-----

A 1988 study from Utah ( I think from the Bring'em Young and Bring'em Often University ) placed a Master's in physics at the dead bottom of 85 degrees surveyed regarding employment.

The Reagan pack had decimated every job opportunity in the entire Office of Personnel Management data base except for those involved directly in weapons research.

After 800 years in graduate school, I graduated into homelessness, thousands of miles away from home -- alone.

I part-timed in several excellent magnet colleges, worked at Ames Research Center, in the SETI project, and successfully sued the college who had fraudulently recruited me for political reasons and then denied tenure suddenly and unfairly ( per virtually all of my students as well as every one else involved -- except the respondents )-- got six figures in the college's first and only settlement ever.

At times, I held three part-time/temp jobs at once : two colleges and NASA.

And I attended almost all depositions at discovery, from Saratoga to San Francisco and kept tabs on all witnesses, documents, world-class attorneys on contingency for me - bless them ! as well as helping to nail the bigots' legal asses -- oh, how I wanted them in front of a jury ... for 4 1/2 years.

All this, while living in my car, bathing and exercising in the Nautilus Gym, processing applications at the college library, eating at the Burger King salad bar , receiving mail and phone messages at the Mail Boxes etc. PLUS next to the Nautilus, doing my wash at the Laundrette, pressing my interview suit under the matress I had installed where the passenger seats had been, ...
a total of 1 and 1/2 years homeless.

How I mourn the passing of the Guipper.

----------------

I am SURE you will do better than this.

I have found the steady employment I need in Middle School teaching -- although Comm. College physics is my favorite teaching job by far.

I had arrived at SF airport on X-mas of 1985 with not a single key in my key chain.
I had sold all my furniture and belongings to catch a plane to Saratoga, CA on four days notice. But it was a trap. The college railroaded me in, then back out to appear compliant with a quota system they themselves had implemented - and they were under-represented in Hispanic physics faculty : like one of them told me later,

"Who ever heard of a Cuban physicist anyway ?" and called me a "turd from Sh_t-hole, Florida."

After a very successful first 5 quarters,
I was to leave quietly and leave them saying -- " Hey, we tried to hire a Hispanic, but he just didn't work out ."

Ironically, the inside buddy they had lined up for the job WAS born in Mexico, but in years of teaching there, they had not known this :) !!!!

One of my possible witnesses who committed to my case was to be Carl Sagan, who was already very ill at the time.

This must have helped to take the wind out of the college's sail.

Anyway, I teach math to very reluctant kiddies now. It's honest work.

Some of us do not have a Mom with a basement room where we can wait out the job market droughts.

The settlement is now nearing 7 figures.

And it was only a $25 K per year job that Waste Valley College, in the heart of Silicon Valley, blew nearly a million in litigation to unfairly and outrageously deny me tenure.

This totally blew my East-coast belief in the "Liberals" of California.

---gooddog

King Cobra

Jul 10, 2004, 10:24 PM

So... I guess that means I still have a chance.

BTW: Nobody better quote that whole long post, or we're gonna see some big-time scrolling action.

jefhatfield

Jul 10, 2004, 10:52 PM

So... I guess that means I still have a chance.

BTW: Nobody better quote that whole long post, or we're gonna see some big-time scrolling action.

son, you will do well...you don't take sh** from anybody...but in case that's not the "real" you...

you could take the safe path and major in something "not too artsy" or "too easily ported to asia/india" and go for something like operations management, tax law, or accounting

since those are among topics least favored by most college students, there is a great need and thus great salaries waiting for those individuals who study something in demand in the united states...with the excepion of accounting, the other two have among the highest starting wages year after year...accountants, who stay with the field and don't get bored/stressed to tears, there are real financial opportunities

software development and many sciences take tons of devotion in college, no doubt, but american employers can easily port that type of work out or give it to third world, college educated immigrants who will work more hours for less money and live eight to a house in america's cities

some, like me, would rather study what interests them and realize that college is first for personal enrichment, second for hireability...otherwise all we would see is business school grads who specialized in operations management, dark suit accountants, and friendly neighborhood tax consultants with their quaint little signs in anytown, usa charging MD fees to keep uncle sam off your back every april

i pay my tax accountant $130 dollars for less than 30 minutes of work and she's worth every penny

an old wise man once said there are three men you need in your life..."your priest, your doctor, and your accountant"

;)

blackfox

Jul 10, 2004, 10:57 PM

Gooddog, nice to see a sense of humor made the trip intact (or fortified)...

was planning on commenting about the fraudulance of the demographics of homeless/unemployed or of the conventional wisdom of the effort/intelligence ratio to successful employment opportunities...decided too polemic...

This continues to be my favorite thread for a while...

(oh, BTW...I am a grad student in International Relations...had an undergrad degree in Marine Biology...took classes on tech stuff inbetween...

I feel I may be qualified one day to reconcile the differences between warring factions of Tuna located in the North Atlantic and S. China sea...)

gooddog

Jul 10, 2004, 11:10 PM

So... I guess that means I still have a chance.

BTW: Nobody better quote that whole long post, or we're gonna see some big-time scrolling action.

****************************

In a word --- Yep ! :)

Sorry for the long post.

I majored in physics out of love for it.

I would not change a thing about that.

But, jefhatfields advice is very sound.

And your luck has to be better.

My case was a freak of statistics -- obviously it's too long to tell why.

---gooddog

gooddog

Jul 10, 2004, 11:14 PM

themadchemist

Jul 10, 2004, 11:14 PM

[a long story]
---gooddog

Thanks for sharing. I agreee with blackfox, this is a great thread. Your post, gooddog, has been by far the most thought-provoking read.

jefhatfield

Jul 10, 2004, 11:21 PM

themadchemist

Jul 10, 2004, 11:24 PM

goodog,

it's amazing what you went through and it kind of reminds me of the movie "reality bites" which accurately portrays what a lot of college grads experienced for that ten year stretch between the mid-80s and the mid-90s

if bushie gets in for a second term, he does still lead in the cnn polls, barely, we could be in for more college grad stories of being homeless or having a whole group of unemployed college grads hanging out with nothing to do in coffeehouses with the gap manager's job as the best financial opportunity for the lot

I hope not...

Well, July polls don't mean anything. Both Dukakis and Mondale had leads in July polls...See where that got them. That also means that Kerry's lead (which is shown in several polls) probably doesn't mean much. It's anybody's game, really.

jefhatfield

Jul 10, 2004, 11:45 PM

I hope not...

Well, July polls don't mean anything. Both Dukakis and Mondale had leads in July polls...See where that got them. That also means that Kerry's lead (which is shown in several polls) probably doesn't mean much. It's anybody's game, really.

it's still a crapshoot

kerry has a lot of labor votes for nothing more than being in the correct party, the democrats

bush has a lot of religious votes for nothing more than being nicer (legislatively) to christians in america and being pro-life and thus bush belongs to the correct party

mostly, i respect somebody who votes for kerry or bush based on more than just one or two issues and sees the good and bad in both party's platforms...coming to a decision quickly because your demographic group tends towards that candidate is not the way to go

i am going for kerry, but in california, that is the norm...many i have met have already said they will vote democratic, but have little more than one or two reasons why they feel that way...it is these fair weather voters who may not even come out on election day

i am convinced that if everybody looked at clinton's national surplus, his mostly peaceful eight years, and his cooperation with the republicans in positive ways and compared it against bush's slow economy and defecit, a long drawn out war on two fronts, and an inability to even make many members of his own party happy, then bush would not lead in any poll

but knowing i live in america, educated but lazy (opiated??), and not willing to delve into political issues, i fear that we may have junior run this country for another four years...he is the dumb president for a dumb country...educate america and think out the issues and then i could say with all confidence that kerry would win in november

if americans spent even a minimal 20 hours reading and seriously debating the issues between now and november and still decided on bush, after very careful consideration, then i would welcome him to a second term in the white house and feel that he is truly representing the majority of america

i am ok with what the majority votes, even when i disagree

but the way i see it, bush is representing a very small cross-section of rich americans and "pretending" to stand up for god and religion in america...i would have loved to see billy graham, a democrat, run for office

democrats can carry that large religious vote...jimmy carter did in 1976

kuyu

Jul 11, 2004, 12:50 AM

You can define time however you want it doesn't make it so.
perhaps a cessium 133 atom transition radiation at a different rate in different gravities but that does not prove time has changed one iota. It does not prove that cessium 133 could jump forward in time, backwards in time, or come anywhere near slowing the real flow of time.

Then what does prove that time is not static? There seems to be a mountain of evidence (no for sure proof, but evidence) in favor of Einstein's universe.

While cessium 133 exudes certain atomic properties that change PREDICTABLY when different velocity and gravitational forces act on it, you say this means nothing???

***If 2 dollars plus 2 dollars equals four dollars, and four plus four equals 8, perhaps only green paper possesses this property. This doesn't prove that 2 + 2 = 4****

How do you define the real flow of time??? How do you define the real flow of space (they are the same thing)???

Sorry volt, but you sound like someone claiming the Earth is flat because if it were round all the water would fall off.

Desertrat

Jul 11, 2004, 01:03 AM

I find this thread interesting in the comparisons of types of education and the problems related to jobs.

I started out with the Chevrolet Test Lab in Detroit in '62. Engine development stuff, on "Dynamometer Row". The job was great, but my wife hated Detroit and I was sorta homesick for Austintatious. I worked a year for the City of Austin's electric department, learning about overhead distribution, cable TV installation, and generators.

The workload lessened and I was given two months' notice. I went to work for a water resource development agency for the state, becoming a civil engineer--an expert on water and dirt. Eleven years' worth of interesting but too-easy stuff. I did manage to crank and grind by hand a design and cost estimate for a monster state-wide water project*. And, I edged into the world of environmental engineering.

In mid-'75 I was hired into a consulting firm for the Coastal Zone Management Program, which led to a lot of brain-picking of the "bug-and-bunny" biologists in marine science stuff. This all led to political engineering and too much dealing with the Texas Lege, which can be bothersome to one's stomach. Ask Molly Ivins; she wuz there. :)

And so I dropped out in 1979 and made my hobbies my business: Coin shows, gun shows, and mechanical rebuilds on sports cars. Since then, not only history but fun and quite a bit of uselessness. :)

If there's a point to this ramble, I guess it's that the old-style full-fledged engineering curriculum allowed a lot of crossing the lines from one discipline to another.

'Rat

* Computers? Hah! Not even the world of punch cards had programs which could calculate trapezoidal volumes across 400 miles of Texas!

gooddog

Jul 11, 2004, 01:39 AM

[QUOTE=jefhatfield]goodog,

it's amazing what you went through and it kind of reminds me of the movie "reality bites" which accurately portrays what a lot of college grads experienced for that ten year stretch between the mid-80s and the mid-90s

*********************************

I find it irritating when those who landed a good job during a favorable season and thereafter secured their roots there, find it necessary to read too much into their mixture of hard work and good luck. They would have you believe that Hard Work and Good Genes is all they used.

Ever get one of those ?

Some people flatter themselves way too much , that luck had nothing to do with their situations. Even some who inherit or bought homes at $10,000 in CA and are now millionaires, look down on others in subtle ways and presume themselves to be shrewd business men and Hard Workers.

I want to let King Cobra know some things that he may find at NASA :

* because it is such a prestigious place to work, they pay less than industry,

* without a Ph.D. , you will almost certainly not be able to seek funding for a project of your own and will need to work under the wing of those with doctorates,

* as such, you will likely roam from one project to another over the years - never being sure of employment , regardless of your skills, ( This is so because the needs of a project evolve as the various stages are completed : this year the may need a team of theoreticians to cut out the work and next year only one to guide a team of software developers to use the mathematical model. The year after that, they may need mostly electrical engineers to hard-wire the model into the instruments to be used etc.)

The most amazing mind I met at SETI spent more than a decade being strung along this way.

The permanent civil servants, it seems, sit on the money like dragons and take their precious time making decisions. The lower critters like me were told in October that they have been hired for the year that only has 2 months left to go ! You can't plan a family or pay a mortgage that way.

So a junior scientist or engineer has a life that is a little like a musician's -- always looking out for the next gig.

To get out of this, one moves into management.

But then you do less science, you lose much of your romance, and you drown in pettiness from time to time. (But make more $$$$ :) )

As told to me by someone VERY high up in the Personnel area at JPL : "Flush ALL references to any kind or level of teaching jobs from your resume." When project managers see teaching in your resume, your application goes right into the trash can in almost every case. "Even night manager at 7-11 is more easily explained as resiliency in a tight financial spot than a teaching job." "Find ANY kind of job for three years or so, until you can flush the teaching jobs out of your resume."

Most "outreach" programs to the "inner city" schools to :" teach teachers to teach tomorrows teachers and scientists " are mostly ways to curry favor with politicians in Congress to justify funding of the project.

I know of only one exception -- a remarkable guy I worked with who is absolutely sincere in his respect for teachers.

And finally, don't ever miss a "MILESTONE" in your project : Washington will eat your legs out from under you :)

These things were a great disappointment to me. Of course, there are exceptions, and tenured professors on leave to work with NASA have the best deal of all, IMHO.

----

One really good thing to do, is to get some kind of Internship at a corporation while you are still in school. This will prove to be a wonderful cure for all the pitfalls I have related here. You graduate a little later, but infinitely more secure and confident in your professional standing.

Even the Feds have recruitment programs that lead you into a Ph.D. as well as a job that pays well as you go instead of student loans. I declined one offer in my sophomore year to train as an analyst of LANDSAT imagery --- no Einstein in it :(

But the pay was awesome and working conditions were a dream.

Good luck :)

---gooddog

acdninjapan

Jul 11, 2004, 02:07 AM

You can define time however you want it doesn't make it so.
perhaps a cessium 133 atom transition radiation at a different rate in different gravities but that does not prove time has changed one iota. It does not prove that cessium 133 could jump forward in time, backwards in time, or come anywhere near slowing the real flow of time.

But, some element of time has affected the cessium and this shows up as an aberation. The results, when properly monitored and documented speak for themselves.

And, if a horde of researchers in North Korea, China, India and Pakistan see fit to use these results to build the next great weapon... I think you know the procedure "Upon seeing the flash of a North Korean protonuclear bomb, bend over etc, etc."

jefhatfield

Jul 11, 2004, 02:11 AM

Some people flatter themselves way too much , that luck had nothing to do with their situations. Even some who inherit or bought homes at $10,000 in CA and are now millionaires, look down on others in subtle ways and presume themselves to be shrewd business men and Hard Workers.

being a former human resources officer, i can definitely agree that luck has played a factor in most people's work lives...some people with the right qualifications never landed anything good, and other self taught people ended up with high paying positions of authority

even at nasa, one of their top scientists, on the mercury and apollo project, a man i got to meet in person, was a self taught rocket scientist who along with some wwII german scientists, helped the space program greatly

he was definitely in the right place at the right time in history...i would doubt that nasa would hire a self taught, non degreed scientist to head up any major programs today :)

we needed to get into space and this man was a key player...i met him at microsoft school since his grandson was one of the students...already a high school graduate at 14 and headed to be one of the youngest systems engineers in the world...i guess he had his grandfather's smarts ;)

acdninjapan

Jul 11, 2004, 02:18 AM

goodog,

it's amazing what you went through and it kind of reminds me of the movie "reality bites" which accurately portrays what a lot of college grads experienced for that ten year stretch between the mid-80s and the mid-90s

if bushie gets in for a second term, he does still lead in the cnn polls, barely, we could be in for more college grad stories of being homeless or having a whole group of unemployed college grads hanging out with nothing to do in coffeehouses with the gap manager's job as the best financial opportunity for the lot

Or you could ask Burt for the loan of Spaceship One and go into the travel/tour business.

zimv20

Jul 11, 2004, 02:18 AM

I'm a great believer in luck and I find the harder I work, the more I have of it. -Thomas Jefferson, third US president, architect and author (1743-1826)

jefhatfield

Jul 11, 2004, 02:24 AM

I'm a great believer in luck and I find the harder I work, the more I have of it. -Thomas Jefferson, third US president, architect and author (1743-1826)

i think to a point, extermely hard work can increase one's luck

some people work hard, like da vinci, and his now working blueprint of a flying machine, but all the work in the world would not have garnered him the chance to make his invention be practical for the world and help its economy

the wright brothers came right in the middle of the industrial revolution and there was a long overdue need for air transportation

da vinci had all the groundwork in place...yes, with a lot of extremely hard work, but he was not lucky enough to be born in the industrial revolution ;)

pooky

Jul 11, 2004, 03:37 AM

pseudobrit

Jul 11, 2004, 04:47 AM

Ouch, it hurts, make the pain stop...

It's like arguing with a brick wall.

Are the bricks made of cesium? Or time?

skunk

Jul 11, 2004, 04:56 AM

Are the bricks made of cesium? Or time?
Only time will tell...

blackfox

Jul 11, 2004, 05:49 AM

You can define Iraq's possession of WMD and grave US National Security threat as a case for War however you want it doesn't make it so. perhaps at one time Saddam had WMD at a different time in different places but that does not prove the factualness of this in the time leading up to the invasion (when it was given as a reason), has changed one iota. It does not prove that WMD could jump forward in time, backwards in time, or come anywhere near threatening the US, regardless of the flow of time.

...
(Color by me)

skunk

Jul 11, 2004, 05:53 AM

...
(Color by me)
Very pretty :D

gooddog

Jul 11, 2004, 06:58 AM

being a former human resources officer, i can definitely agree that luck has played a factor in most people's work lives...some people with the right qualifications never landed anything good, and other self taught people ended up with high paying positions of authority

even at nasa, one of their top scientists, on the mercury and apollo project, a man i got to meet in person, was a self taught rocket scientist who along with some wwII german scientists, helped the space program greatly

he was definitely in the right place at the right time in history...i would doubt that nasa would hire a self taught, non degreed scientist to head up any major programs today :)

we needed to get into space and this man was a key player...i met him at microsoft school since his grandson was one of the students...already a high school graduate at 14 and headed to be one of the youngest systems engineers in the world...i guess he had his grandfather's smarts ;)

*******************

These people you describe were exceptionally talented and that they were self-made adds to their merit , in my eyes.

I was refering to the average or slightly better Joe who gets his foot in the door at a good time, and happens to not be targeted by the kinds of scoundrels I encountered at Waste Valley College.

Several years down the line ( as chaos theory would have it ) his career status may be far better than a fellow who was at least as qualified as him but had some bad chance encounters.

He often feels way better than someone who simply got "mugged" and worn down by the inadequacies of our legal system :
my thugs were allowed to switch contracts three times in four years, thereby prolonging the case, raising the cost of litigation for my side, wearing our people down, etc. -- we essentially had to start over again repeatedly each time they saw themselves in the toilet. An idiot judge probably didn't bother to read our motion for summary abjudication -- we had them cold on many causes of action - and no sanctions were assigned for repeatedly mis-identifying the contract at issue.

---

I worked with a programer at SETI who had only an A.A. degree. His position and pay were much better than mine -- he could code a nice GUI for the project's signal detector.

He was far more employable than me.

But he revealed to me once that his Mom had allowed him to live in the basement for free for several years, with a top of the line
PC system and learn his graphics coding skills, when his employability was proving inadequate.

With such an advantage, I could have learned to write GUI's too and not have had to go on panic status every time a temp job came to an end.

I once met a man who got through medical school in record time, with perfect grades, while living in the back of a pick-up truck and working construction at night.

I am definitely not that good :eek:

But I could have been an excellent instructor and pretty good researcher had it not been for the Waste Valley College scoundrels or the lack of a basement during my job hunting and job cultivating years.
My current "career" doesn't come with enough autonomy, respect, etc. to allow me to do what I know I could do. Especially with bushie's "No Child Left Behind" crap -- teachers are actually blamed for the indolence of parents who apply ZERO consequences to their kids for failing a year.
All moves , by teachers to do it themselves are checked or prohibited by laws and fears of law suits. Parasitic administrators, at all levels, continually disrespect the sanctity of the classroom and disregard the teachers' authority in front of the kids. ..... it is as if a quaterback throws a great pass, the receiver smirks, flips him the bird, lets the ball bounce off his chest, and the whole world wants to investigate and penalize the QB. The idiocy, the hatred for and deliberate sabotage of public education by this jerk is palpable. But with slogans like "No Child Left Behind" , who would guess that what we really get is "No Class Allowed To Move Forward" past the most obnoxious little gangster punks in the school ?

So I wound up as a mother hen for 200 little angels who, like most people , don't want to eat any algebra, regardless of the sauce we put on it.

Once in a long while, I feel like I taught some of them something, but retention is non-existent -- no value given to the skills by anyone they know in South Central LA.

There is a saying in Cuba : if god doesn't give you daughters and sons, the devil will give you nieces and nephews.

Since I don't believe in either of those two, then "the laws of probability..." as Spock might say, " ... have given me 200 little Tribbles ."

I must say though, they can be very lovable when you get a rare chance to just talk with them a while.

---gooddog :rolleyes:

gooddog

Jul 11, 2004, 07:33 AM

I'm a great believer in luck and I find the harder I work, the more I have of it. -Thomas Jefferson, third US president, architect and author (1743-1826)

****************************

I would have expected this from Franklin.

But we can hardly compare Bushie's work input in stealing the white house, to Lincoln's, now can we.

I doubt if this clown has *ever* played on a level field.

And the scoundrels who mugged me at Waste Valley College were, we learned at discovery, very gently planted in their positions there during years and circumstances that were extremely easy on them. In fact, the one with the most impressive degree from Stanford was at a loss to answer a sophomore's question regarding the origin of a 4(pi) factor associated with Planck's constant , in Schroedinger's wave equation. I was appalled to hear him tell the young lady that "the jury is still out on that factor and that quantum mechanics is not really very rigorous and exact " :eek: !!!!!

In fact, quantum mechanics yields the most precisely known physical constants in the history of science. And the 4(pi) factor arises simply from a 4(pi) steradians integral of the angular part of the probability density wave over all space to normalize the result to a value of 1 for total certainty of finding the particle in question :
if you look over the entire volume of the Universe, the probability of finding it is defined as "certain" with a value of 1. Just as the sum of all radians around a circle is 2(pi), the sum of all steradians of solid angle around a sphere is 4(pi).

This dude took Tuesdays off to ski at a mountain resort, in violation of union contract, and forced the lab tech to grade all his papers, then enter the scores in his grade book for him. His requirements for lab reports were a joke, and my first-year students smoked his advanced sophomores routinely in all of our lab results.

He got HIS good luck with very little work input.

Have you met any of these types before ?

---gooddog

Voltron

Jul 11, 2004, 08:22 AM

Then what does prove that time is not static? There seems to be a mountain of evidence (no for sure proof, but evidence) in favor of Einstein's universe.

While cessium 133 exudes certain atomic properties that change PREDICTABLY when different velocity and gravitational forces act on it, you say this means nothing???

How do you define the real flow of time??? How do you define the real flow of space (they are the same thing)???

Sorry volt, but you sound like someone claiming the Earth is flat because if it were round all the water would fall off.
It proves that the decay rate changes in different types of gravitational forces or velocity act upon it. http://sharevana.com/forums/images/generalsmileys/banghead.gif

Voltron

Jul 11, 2004, 08:28 AM

You need to have the skill to take advantage of what luck brings you. --- Voltron.

blackfox

Jul 11, 2004, 08:32 AM

****************************

In fact, quantum mechanics yields the most precisely known physical constants in the history of science. And the 4(pi) factor arises simply from a 4(pi) steradians integral of the angular part of the probability density wave over all space to normalize the result to a value of 1 for total certainty of finding the particle in question :
if you look over the entire volume of the Universe, the probability of finding it is defined as "certain" with a value of 1. Just as the sum of all radians around a circle is 2(pi), the sum of all steradians of solid angle around a sphere is 4(pi).

---gooddog
After reading, I am convinced that I do not have a particularily scientific mind...

Although I was able to surmise that the location of my car keys at any one time seemingly lie somewhere in opposition to this... this being supported by a mountain of empirical evidence, believe me...

If I only had the time to figure out the proper equation, I might be able to accurately predict the probability of my keys being somewhere in my known universe at say 7:22 on a Monday morning...alas time allows only for dime-store detective book cliche and coffee-fueled blind hope...

or it's derivative...

acdninjapan

Jul 11, 2004, 08:44 AM

It proves that the decay rate changes in different types of gravitational forces or velocity act upon it. http://sharevana.com/forums/images/generalsmileys/banghead.gif

It proves the decay rate changes predictably when gravitational forces, velocity or some other force acts upon it. This word predictably means that some people with a solid background in science took the time to create an experiment, precisely observe it and measure the changes caused by exerting these forces on the cessium.

Even I get this! And I'm only a stupid, print journalist/photograher, cum graphic designer.

gooddog

Jul 11, 2004, 09:27 AM

After reading, I am convinced that I do not have a particularily scientific mind...

Although I was able to surmise that the location of my car keys at any one time seemingly lie somewhere in opposition to this... this being supported by a mountain of empirical evidence, believe me...

If I only had the time to figure out the proper equation, I might be able to accurately predict the probability of my keys being somewhere in my known universe at say 7:22 on a Monday morning...alas time allows only for dime-store detective book cliche and coffee-fueled blind hope...

or it's derivative...

*******************

LOL!

That was very bad teaching on my part --- sorry.

I was mostly trying to lure the Voltron entity into the thread.

As you can see, I did it.

But now I don't know what to do !

Has he been fed today ?

Will he harm me if I sit perfectly still ?

---gooddog

Voltron

Jul 11, 2004, 09:33 AM

It proves the decay rate changes predictably when gravitational forces, velocity or some other force acts upon it. This word predictably means that some people with a solid background in science took the time to create an experiment, precisely observe it and measure the changes caused by exerting these forces on the cessium.

Even I get this! And I'm only a stupid, print journalist/photograher, cum graphic designer.
Yeah and what does it have to do with the flow of time?

skunk

Jul 11, 2004, 09:36 AM

Yeah and what does it have to do with the flow of time?
How do you measure decay rate except by the flow of time?

King Cobra

Jul 11, 2004, 09:43 AM

As told to me by someone VERY high up in the Personnel area at JPL : "Flush ALL references to any kind or level of teaching jobs from your resume." When project managers see teaching in your resume, your application goes right into the trash can in almost every case. "Even night manager at 7-11 is more easily explained as resiliency in a tight financial spot than a teaching job." "Find ANY kind of job for three years or so, until you can flush the teaching jobs out of your resume."

Most "outreach" programs to the "inner city" schools to :" teach teachers to teach tomorrows teachers and scientists " are mostly ways to curry favor with politicians in Congress to justify funding of the project.
How so? And if teaching in science leads to justification of funding, what's so bad about being a teacher?

BTW: I just played all of Voltron's lectures over the sound system using Speech and TextEdit at a local Apple Store. By the time all the lectures finished, all of the managers had killed themselves.

skunk

Jul 11, 2004, 09:55 AM

I just played all of Voltron's lectures over the sound system using Speech and TextEdit at a local Apple Store. By the time all the lectures finished, all of the managers had killed themselves.
:D

Desertrat

Jul 11, 2004, 10:19 AM

Voltron, the larger issue is whether or not time is useful. It turns out that it is. In the immortal words of Travis Holland*, "Time is so everything don't happen all at once."

'Rat

*Sideman for Steve Fromholz ( http://www.stevefromholz.com ) in the daze when they were known as Cap'n Duck and the Electric Frog.

IJ Reilly

Jul 11, 2004, 11:38 AM

I find it irritating when those who landed a good job during a favorable season and thereafter secured their roots there, find it necessary to read too much into their mixture of hard work and good luck. They would have you believe that Hard Work and Good Genes is all they used.

Ever get one of those ?

Some people flatter themselves way too much , that luck had nothing to do with their situations. Even some who inherit or bought homes at $10,000 in CA and are now millionaires, look down on others in subtle ways and presume themselves to be shrewd business men and Hard Workers.

You put your finger on one of life's more common conceits. At some point, most people become overly impressed with their own ability to earn a living, as if this was somehow something unique to them, or entirely of their own doing. Surviving these yuppie years with an intact set of ideals apart from making money is a tricky business. The lure of building a career you can brag about is a powerful, and of course money is seductive. But the real hazard is beginning to judge the human worth of others by the number of zeroes attached to their names. By that measure, Bill Gates is the most valuable human being alive. You'd think that'd be evidence enough to disprove the theory, but a lot of folks are prepared to twist the facts to fit this thesis.

Voltron

Jul 11, 2004, 12:23 PM

How do you measure decay rate except by the flow of time?
Right so it is proof that the decay rate is changed not that the flow of time has changed.

Chip NoVaMac

Jul 11, 2004, 12:31 PM

You put your finger on one of life's more common conceits. At some point, most people become overly impressed with their own ability to earn a living, as if this was somehow something unique to them, or entirely of their own doing. Surviving these yuppie years with an intact set of ideals apart from making money is a tricky business. The lure of building a career you can brag about is a powerful, and of course money is seductive. But the real hazard is beginning to judge the human worth of others by the number of zeroes attached to their names. By that measure, Bill Gates is the most valuable human being alive. You'd think that'd be evidence enough to disprove the theory, but a lot of folks are prepared to twist the facts to fit this thesis.

I know where both of you are coming from. I say my prayer of thanks quite regularly for the job I have. It would be easy for me to fall in to the "trap".

I spent many years "chasing" the "American Dream" of a great income and all that gave. My field was IT (hardware) sales to the government. In 5 years I had 6 or 7 job changes. These were layoffs, buyouts, or closings.

My last IT layoff, I read something about dusting off the resume. They suggested looking at where you were the happiest. Not in terms of salary or benefits. For me it was in retail, and in the photography sector. I am now with a camera store in the DC area. Started off in sales. That has led me to heading up their advertising department. I do the billings, and because of my interest in page layout, I now do their print ads and radio ads also.

I count myself lucky and blessed. Each day that i go to work and come home with a job still intact, I give thanks. I know that there are many out there that have spent years learning to do what I just "lucked" into. And I never think for a moment that there isn't some that could do better than I do. My life is now better grounded.

Sure I am earning about half of what I could be if I stayed in the "sweat shop" of IT hardware sales. But my stomach problems have gone away. I appreciate what we are able to buy for the house more. I also have a greater appreciation for my Dad's choices for his career. Money is not the end all, job and life satisfaction is.

Just my two cents.

Neserk

Jul 11, 2004, 12:37 PM

Money is not the end all, job and life satisfaction is.

Just my two cents.

And a very valuable 2c it is!

jefhatfield

Jul 11, 2004, 12:44 PM

Money is not the end all, job and life satisfaction is.

Just my two cents.

it is one of those lessons some learn early as a teen by listening to the simple lyrics of "(money) can't buy me love", by the beatles

...or later, remembering when i read an article about a 50 or 60-ish managing mba who finally realized, "what's the point in being the richest man in the graveyard?" with a headstone that reads, "he worked really hard" ;)

Desertrat

Jul 11, 2004, 02:32 PM

"Money is not the end all, job and life satisfaction is."

I never saw a Brink's truck following a funeral procession. IMO, the only true immortality is in the memories of your relatives and friends.

Four of my five "career" jobs came from knowing somebody who knew somebody who knew of a vacancy. Right place, right time, shmoozing with friends...My final "boss", before I dropped out, rented pasture space from me for his daughter's horse. :)

Shmoozing Is Good.

:), 'Rat

pooky

Jul 11, 2004, 04:29 PM

Right so it is proof that the decay rate is changed not that the flow of time has changed.

Do you even believe half the stuff you post? Because sometimes it seems that you post indefensible opinions simply to aggravate others. It doesn't earn you much respect here, and people are less likely to take you seriously on the odd occasion you do say something intelligent. I know you're not stupid, so why not contribute when you actually have some knowledge and experience to contribute, rather than spouting off on stuff you obviously know nothing about? Or are you so arrogant as to assume you know it all, even more so than the numerous professionals who have attempted to politely correct your misconceptions?

themadchemist

Jul 11, 2004, 04:34 PM

i am going for kerry, but in california, that is the norm...many i have met have already said they will vote democratic, but have little more than one or two reasons why they feel that way...it is these fair weather voters who may not even come out on election day

A Kerry loss in California is almost unimaginable and would cost him the election without a doubt.

i am convinced that if everybody looked at clinton's national surplus, his mostly peaceful eight years, and his cooperation with the republicans in positive ways and compared it against bush's slow economy and defecit, a long drawn out war on two fronts, and an inability to even make many members of his own party happy, then bush would not lead in any poll

No, there are plenty of people who care about none of these things and who believe keeping people from getting married is the only important issue facing the country. People believe what they want to believe.

but knowing i live in america, educated but lazy (opiated??), and not willing to delve into political issues, i fear that we may have junior run this country for another four years...he is the dumb president for a dumb country...educate america and think out the issues and then i could say with all confidence that kerry would win in november

Not only has society opiated the masses, but the masses have opiated themselves. People are deluded when they should be disillusioned.

if americans spent even a minimal 20 hours reading and seriously debating the issues between now and november and still decided on bush, after very careful consideration, then i would welcome him to a second term in the white house and feel that he is truly representing the majority of america

Not necessarily. Plenty of people believe that issues like abortion and gay marriage are more than enough to decide the election. Plenty of people are opposed to social services to help the struggling.

Certainly, a careful analysis would probably lead many away from Bush, but how many of those who are movable will take the time to move?

i am ok with what the majority votes, even when i disagree

Not this time around.

but the way i see it, bush is representing a very small cross-section of rich americans and "pretending" to stand up for god and religion in america...i would have loved to see billy graham, a democrat, run for office

democrats can carry that large religious vote...jimmy carter did in 1976

I don't want democrats to carry the religious vote at the expense of the separation of church and state. As a member of a minority religion living in the South, I know how close some parts of this country can teeter toward being religiously oppressive. Keeping the hand of government out of religion and keeping religion out of the mind that controls the hand are noble and necessary duties. One of the great pathologies of the Republican Party (though by no means the only one) is the rise of the Religious Right. By playing on the religious beliefs of the majority, Republicans threaten to alienate and repress the minority. It would be a sad day when Democrats joined in, or at least, joined in more than they have.

A Congressman said that the purpose of the amendment to ban gay marriage was to encourage people to get married in order to have families that will celebrate God and this country.

How is it the business of our government to legislate in order to promote the celebration of God? It is not.

To embrace the religious demagoguery of the political right is to spit upon the foundations of our freedom. It would be folly not to politics but to justice for the Democrats to follow suit and tap the likes of Billy Graham.

King Cobra

Jul 11, 2004, 04:40 PM

Or are you so arrogant as to assume you know it all, even more so than the numerous professionals who have attempted to politely correct your misconceptions?
Wow. I've been called a professional. :D

Actually, some of Voltron's lectures have some halfway decent thought put into them, but not all of it was well thought out.

I overheard that some people from IBM were at the Apple Store when I played the lectures over the sound system. After they saw all the Apple managers committ suicide, IBM decided to rewrite the entire processor roadmap from 2004 onwards once again. Also, IBM now claims that they refuse to work with Apple because of the Speech feature in OS X.

Frohickey

Jul 11, 2004, 05:49 PM

That being said, I would rather be closer to my "heart", than being "heartless" to others.

Each person makes their own determination as to where they sit in relation to their "heart". Forcing others to be as compassionate as you, when they are not prepared to, is 'heartless' to them.

Voltron

Jul 11, 2004, 05:57 PM

Do you even believe half the stuff you post? Because sometimes it seems that you post indefensible opinions simply to aggravate others. It doesn't earn you much respect here, and people are less likely to take you seriously on the odd occasion you do say something intelligent. I know you're not stupid, so why not contribute when you actually have some knowledge and experience to contribute, rather than spouting off on stuff you obviously know nothing about? Or are you so arrogant as to assume you know it all, even more so than the numerous professionals who have attempted to politely correct your misconceptions?
You are an ass who only seems to post to aggravate me. I've yet to see you post anything worth posting, you seem to only like cutting other people down. Fact is I have a defensible arguement. His argument proves that the decay rate changes it does not prove that the flow of time changes. A rather simple thing to see.

skunk

Jul 11, 2004, 06:07 PM

pooky

Jul 11, 2004, 06:55 PM

You are an ass who only seems to post to aggravate me. I've yet to see you post anything worth posting, you seem to only like cutting other people down. Fact is I have a defensible arguement. His argument proves that the decay rate changes it does not prove that the flow of time changes. A rather simple thing to see.

Post reported...and now you're blocked. Say all you want, it doesn't matter to me. Quite frankly, I've tried to be polite, I've tried to be understanding, and no, I don't post only to aggravate you. But when you go out of your way to bait me, I can't help pointing out what I see. You've only managed to demonstrate the original point of this thread, which is that the U.S. is falling drastically behind because of people who know little about science, and use that as an excuse not to trust it.

If I've offended/irritated anyone else on the forum in my interactions with this guy, I apologize. I'm fed up with him, so I'm not going to play his games anymore.

skunk

Jul 11, 2004, 06:58 PM

If I've offended/irritated anyone else on the forum in my interactions with this guy, I apologize. I'm fed up with him, so I'm not going to play his games anymore.
No, I think you were being quite reasonable, FWIW.

gooddog

Jul 11, 2004, 07:10 PM

[QUOTE=King Cobra]How so? And if teaching in science leads to justification of funding, what's so bad about being a teacher?

*************************************

I have tried to figure this out myself and I don't know if I understand it perfectly.

There is a saying :

" THOSE WHO CAN -- DO;
THOSE WHO CAN NOT -- TEACH."

It is very well known on all campuses.

Maybe it is born of resentment toward lazy professors --- I have suffered my share of those.

And just as most people accumulate resentments toward their parents who disciplined them, so it goes with the teachers who are, in fact, the legal "loco parentis" of the student.

Maybe it comes from the fact that by choosing to teach classical physics (which doesn't change much from year to year ) professors are too busy to keep up with the latest industrial and research developments: A teacher is like the soldier in the movies who throws himself onto the barbed wire, face down, in order that his mates may step on his back and cross over to the battle front : the latter get the glory and bragging rights while the former stays behind and is forgotten. So professors who teach the basics are not admired --- only in post-graduate work where papers are being published and where you have world famous ones like Einstein will you find appreciation.

It is a characteristic of the patriarchal value system to denegrade the nurturing part and the cooperative effort ( calling these "baby-sitting" and "hive-mind" respectively ) along with the denegration of the Woman, while elevating the lone masculine hero . You see this theme woven throughout all of our culture. For example the Borg are a hive-like, collective mind. Accordingly, when it must be personified to provide a more palpable foil for the individualistic, male hero; the hive is personified by a Female villain --- remember her ?

The teacher is too much like a nurse in a hive of *not yet differentiated* students. The contest for the lone hero to emerge is yet to take place. Even among teams, one only, out of many can become # 1.
There is no glory, in this culture, for the cooperative -- only for the rogue. This is a perfectly predictable theme in all Star Trek films as well as all epic tales that form the basis of our Classical ( Greek/patriarchal ) affective inheritance. It is so deeply planted in us , that ghetto children, who have never read Homer nor Ovid , will respond to me in a 100% predictable way when I tell them that I used to work for NASA :

" If you used to work for NASA, then what are you doing here ? "

This is said with the most insulting and derrisive smirk they can manage.

They don't even take note of the insult to themselves that is tacit in their mockery.

I once saw a Black Olympic track champion do something before the cameras and reporters that was even more remarkable than winning the gold medal : after thanking his coach "who taught me how to run" he thanked " above all, my Mom, who taught me how to walk and how to be a man ".

That was not very surprising, as there is a strong Matriarchal undercurrent that flows throughtout the "inner cities" of America where the Woman must be very strong and the domineering male is often absent from the children's home environment for reasons we all know. The patriarchal imperative surfaces at bragging and bagging venues - like the classroom - while the deeper Matriarchal persuasion surfaces at times when there is no longer a need to brag and posture : on the winner's stand and - saddly - when death is near, in the alley or trauma center.

Well, those are some of my ideas as to your,
"how so?".

Voters and tuition-paying parents (who, themselves, mostly pretend to respect teachers in the flesh) are played to by politicians who want their votes. Politicians are played to by NASA who wants the voters' tax money for their projects and -- voila !--
*Today, children, we have REAL scientists from NASA here to show you how you too can become an astronaut and reach for the stars *

See how it works ?

---gooddog