×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

829 comments

Innovation (5, Informative)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 5 years ago | (#25011281)

In the "innovation" category, one of the first things McCain mentions is

"I am committed to streamlining burdensome regulations and effectively protecting American intellectual property in the United States and around the globe."

I'll leave it up to the rest of you to flame McCain for that! I believe that it is also worth mentioning that Obama didn't bring up "regulation" or "protecting intellectual property" at all, especially not in the first paragraph as McCain did.

Re:Innovation (1, Insightful)

tjstork (137384) | more than 5 years ago | (#25011375)

I'll leave it up to the rest of you to flame McCain for that! I believe that it is also worth mentioning that Obama didn't bring up "regulation" or "protecting intellectual property" at all, especially not in the first paragraph as McCain did.

Um, yeah, but let's face it... Republicans aren't the type that exactly cares whether or not someone rips off a Madonna or a Kanye West song... if the whole media business went under because it was obsolete, don't you think Republicans would benefit more? Democrats -must- have a profitable media...but with Republicans well, its not like there's bootleg Rush Limbaugh shows out there.

Re:Innovation (4, Informative)

gfxguy (98788) | more than 5 years ago | (#25011527)

It was also democrats who proposed and extended copyright terms and signed the DMCA into law.

There's no party that is inculpable here.

Re:Innovation (4, Informative)

torstenvl (769732) | more than 5 years ago | (#25011631)

Erm. The DMCA came to being under a Republican Senate and Republican House, and introduced by Republican Rep. Howard Coble. The only major part the Dems played was Clinton signing it into law, and his State Dep't helping to negotiate the treaties it's related to.

Re:Innovation (4, Informative)

FishWithAHammer (957772) | more than 5 years ago | (#25011787)

Yes, and that's what he said. The "and" connects two separate clauses here.

It was also [D]emocrats who proposed and extended copyright terms

and

signed the DMCA into law.

His point remains correct.

Re:Innovation (5, Insightful)

bill_kress (99356) | more than 5 years ago | (#25011803)

It'll make a lot more sense when you realize that we only have one party, and both wings of the Commercial party are pretty much the same when it comes to issues like NAFTA and DMCA and copyright.

I don't believe Obama is "in", so I'm fairly sure he'll be neutralized. It will either be strange voting machine results or something worse...

Re:Innovation (4, Insightful)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 5 years ago | (#25012119)

Erm. The DMCA came to being under a Republican Senate and Republican House, and introduced by Republican Rep. Howard Coble. The only major part the Dems played was Clinton signing it into law, and his State Dep't helping to negotiate the treaties it's related to.

Which is what the OP said: "It was also democrats who proposed and extended copyright terms and signed the DMCA into law. There's no party that is inculpable here."
Copyright was EXTENDED in 1978(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_copyright_law#Duration_of_copyright) when Jimmy Carter was President and Congress was controlled by Democrats. The DMCA was SIGNED into law by Bill Clinton.

Re:Innovation (1)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 5 years ago | (#25011595)

Hmm, I don't believe its fair to tie the Democrats to the entertainment industry.

Sure, Obama has a reputation for being "celebrity-like" but that has more to do with him being young and black(in short, "different") in a nation weary of being raped by the "good ole boys", a nation hungry for chance -- and that makes it easy for Obama to tell people want they want to hear, even if he dosen't mean what he says.

Hell, McCain's choosing of Palin is much more of a "Hollywood" spectacle than Obama's speeches or his choosing of Biden.

Re:Innovation (2, Insightful)

mi (197448) | more than 5 years ago | (#25012023)

Hmm, I don't believe its fair to tie the Democrats to the entertainment industry.

Uhm, with all due respect, what [broadcastingcable.com] planet [cnet.com] are [bbc.co.uk] you [hollywood-newsroom.com] f-ing [swamppolitics.com] from [foxnews.com] ?!

Both the recently deceased Jack Valenti [latimes.com] and the current MPAA chairman Dan Glickman [wikipedia.org] are loyal Democrats.

This is the point, where an honest man in your shoes either commits suicide or promises to vote for a Republican as a penance...

Re:Innovation (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25011411)

What do you expect?

John McCain is a puppet of the Jew.

Re:Innovation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25011477)

wtf?

Re:Innovation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25011537)

No more than Obama is...everyone swears they loyalty to Israel if they want to have any chance of success...

Re:Innovation (5, Funny)

eln (21727) | more than 5 years ago | (#25011807)

John McCain is a puppet of the Jew.

Sure, but which Jew? I bet it's Woody Allen, since they have so much in common: They both used to be entertaining and relevant, but now they're just churning out derivative crap.

On the other hand, it could be Joe Lieberman. Lieberman's clearly got his head up McCain's ass, he might have his hand up there too.

Come on man, you can't leave us hanging like this: which Jew is controlling McCain?

Re:Innovation (2, Insightful)

Henry V .009 (518000) | more than 5 years ago | (#25011429)

I know that "intellectual property" is a dirty word. But patents are useful in fields outside the computer industry (you know, fields where things actually get done or built). Now please continue with your "oh noes, but what about my pirated downloads?"

Re:Innovation (1)

pieterh (196118) | more than 5 years ago | (#25011773)

"Useful"...

The only value in patents is to record knowledge, and the penalty is a 20-year exclusion of trade in specific areas. All other rationales for patents are bogus. It's about building up the prior art and bribing people to do this.

It may be a fair trade in some domains.

Re:Innovation (3, Interesting)

tambo (310170) | more than 5 years ago | (#25012087)

All other rationales for patents are bogus.

How about: "providing an alternative to trade secret protection so that industries don't gridlock because everything is confidential?"

- David Stein

Re:Innovation (5, Insightful)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 5 years ago | (#25011881)

This is Slashdot where almost everyone wants one of those nice R&D jobs. But yet they are against the ways of funding them. If you are going to spend 10 years of R&D and millions of dollars, more to fund the R&D that doesn't work, or product a commercial use. Then have competition use that Idea and make a competing product the next month, and able to product it cheaper because they didn't spend the millions for R&D themselves.

So what will the smart business man do. There isn't any money in R&D and more in blatant copying. So those nice R&D Jobs get reduced or killed. Leaving you to either take a boring job, or going back to the Education Sector and have 3/4 of your job begging for money, and 1/4 actually do real R&D.

When analyzing these laws you need to remember rule #1, IT IS AN IMPERFECT WORLD AND THERE WILL NEVER BE A PERFECT WORLD. IP Law yes protects those big heartless corporations, but without them you may not have a job. A heartless companies are not in it for the good of man kind, but to make money, if you can do both great if they conflict then the good of man kind will get shafted. IP Protection helps isolate the risks of R&D costs, and makes it possible for Greed and Humanity to work together for a common output.

Re:Innovation (1)

Trojan35 (910785) | more than 5 years ago | (#25012019)

You would think real scientists would like that statement. Things like drug research in the US really only get funded because there is money to be made. If you don't protect science IP, there'll be a whole lot less science done.

While I get all up in arms about the RIAA, MPAA, and other stupid organizations/patents, investment in medical and science research is far more important to me than those.

So, flame me too.

Hmmm...Compare doesn't work (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25011291)

Warning: mysqli::mysqli() [function.mysqli-mysqli]: (00000/1040): Too many connections in /home/SEA/sea-trunk/includes/sharp_db.class.php on line 111

Warning: SHARP_DB::connect() [function.SHARP-DB-connect]: Couldn't fetch SHARP_DB in /home/SEA/sea-trunk/includes/sharp_db.class.php on line 113

Warning: mysqli::set_charset() [function.mysqli-set-charset]: Couldn't fetch SHARP_DB in /home/SEA/sea-trunk/includes/sharp_db.class.php on line 24

Warning: mysqli::query() [function.mysqli-query]: Couldn't fetch SHARP_DB in /home/SEA/sea-trunk/includes/sharp_db.class.php on line 134

Warning: SHARP_DB::query() [function.SHARP-DB-query]: Couldn't fetch SHARP_DB in /home/SEA/sea-trunk/includes/sharp_db.class.php on line 135
ï
Scientists & Engineers for America

        * About SEA
                    o About SEA
                    o About SEA Action Fund
                    o Mission Statement
                    o Board of Directors
                    o Board of Advisors
                    o Staff Bios
                    o Contact Us
                    o Our National Agenda
                    o Bill of Rights
        * Our Programs
                    o SHARP Network
                    o SEA Chapters
                    o Elections Training
                    o Innovation 2008
        * Get Involved
                    o Join SEA
                    o SEA News
                    o Tell a Friend
                    o Form a SEA Chapter
                    o Internships
                    o Donate
                    o Like-Minded Initiatives
        * Contact
        * Donate

Warning: mysqli::query() [function.mysqli-query]: Couldn't fetch SHARP_DB in /home/SEA/sea-trunk/includes/sharp_db.class.php on line 134

Warning: SHARP_DB::query() [function.SHARP-DB-query]: Couldn't fetch SHARP_DB in /home/SEA/sea-trunk/includes/sharp_db.class.php on line 135
Compare

Invalid parameter, please return to the Innovation & the Elections 2008 page and try again.

Who really wrote the answers? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25011299)

Come on, are we to believe that the candidates actually wrote their own replies to these questions? I wonder how many people came up with the answers.

Re:Who really wrote the answers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25011917)

Why the hell isn't the parent modded up? Think people, THINK!

The best answer to the science questionnaire (0, Flamebait)

dada21 (163177) | more than 5 years ago | (#25011321)

is a one line answer: "Get the Federal government out of all science research, funding, grants and accreditation of science schools."

Then maybe I'd bother reading it.

Re:The best answer to the science questionnaire (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25011399)

| is a one line answer: "Get the Federal
| government out of all science research,
| funding, grants and accreditation of
| science schools."

Ya. Because the private sector is so amazing
at funding science research, fostering
collaboration and sharing. They are especailly
good in pure research, where the time-line to
payoff is 10, 20, or 100 years!

Re:The best answer to the science questionnaire (4, Interesting)

OeLeWaPpErKe (412765) | more than 5 years ago | (#25011687)

The problem is that the "public sector" is amazing, first and foremost, in funding research ... with specific outcomes. Confirming politician's views of things. There are actual Chinese papers, peer reviewed and everything, "proving" Tibet is not a country separate from China.

If you let public funding fund science, then you might as well kill the research in social studies, psychology, languages, ethnicities, and (soon to come) evolution, history ... it will merely parrot the popular talkpoints of the day instead of science.

I'd like to agree with you, because you're right, private sector money is scarce and hard to come by, especially for pure research (then again, public money is not doing anywhere near enough to fund the only really pure science there is ... mathematics), but really, public money is only useful in sciences were people are not involved at all. Stuff like particle physics (since no particles go on any type of jihad for any type of religion or poverty), astronomy or maths. Heck even chemistry is getting infected with politics (are drugs bad for you ? Do they badly affect others around drugged people ? have become politically incorrect questions, merely because the answer is yes).

Re:The best answer to the science questionnaire (2, Insightful)

Sloppy (14984) | more than 5 years ago | (#25011897)

If you let public funding fund science, then you might as well kill the research in social studies, psychology, languages, ethnicities, and (soon to come) evolution, history ... it will merely parrot the popular talkpoints of the day instead of science.

Or anything that might have political ramifications as well. Does anyone in your research organization use stem cells that aren't from the the "right" source? No funds for you. Did your weather satellite see increased temperatures? Don't mention it in any of your papers, or you're fired.

Publicly-funded science is politicized science.

Re:The best answer to the science questionnaire (3, Insightful)

HungryHobo (1314109) | more than 5 years ago | (#25012075)

publicly-funded science is politicized science.

and research funded by companies is little better.
Would you trust a study funded by the tobacco industry which showed cigarettes to be harmless? Or a study funded by microsoft which showed FOSS to be full of bugs, viruses and child porn.

Re:The best answer to the science questionnaire (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 5 years ago | (#25011823)

And meanwhile China is dumping billions into research to play catch up. It's still a wonder to me how people can become so blinded by ideology that they literally get stomped to death by those more interested in results than in make-believe worlds.

Re:The best answer to the science questionnaire (5, Insightful)

Tekzel (593039) | more than 5 years ago | (#25011485)

That would NOT be a good idea. The reason is simple, businesses almost NEVER do pure research. Its hard to turn the results directly into money, and (rightfully) that is all a business is there for. Taxpayer funded programs do the pure research, then businesses take the result and do the research needed to turn that into a product. Take the Fed out of research and a lot of innovation will come to a grinding halt.

Re:The best answer to the science questionnaire (1)

tfoss (203340) | more than 5 years ago | (#25011515)

is a one line answer: "Get the Federal government out of all science research, funding, grants and accreditation of science schools."

So, in other words, let's just cripple scientific progress across the board.

Sounds like a great idea.

-Ted

Re:The best answer to the science questionnaire (2, Insightful)

torstenvl (769732) | more than 5 years ago | (#25011567)

Yeah... because we never got any benefit out of wasteful government programs like the search for a polio vaccine, or the integrated circuit for NASA, or the Internet.

Re:The best answer to the science questionnaire (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25011883)

The search and discovery of a polio vaccine was carried out by private funding.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_of_Dimes

The US government only stepped in once the vaccine was ready for wide spread testing.

Credit for the first successful integrated circuit is given to Jack Kilby working for Texas Instruments.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_circuit#Invention

The internet was developed by the US military but did not achieve the importance it has today until released to the private sector.

Re:The best answer to the science questionnaire (1)

torstenvl (769732) | more than 5 years ago | (#25012007)

Not true, much of the work done to find the vaccine was at public universities and private universities receiving government grants.

Without NASA's deep pockets and absolute need for the IC, less private incentive would have existed to develop it.

The Internet would not have been possible without the years of Federally-funded network research.

Re:The best answer to the science questionnaire (3, Insightful)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 5 years ago | (#25011625)

is a one line answer: "Get the Federal government out of all science research, funding, grants and accreditation of science schools."

No, WAY!!! Where would we be without a pen that can write upside down and underwater??

Seriously though, do you really want the only scientific research to be going on sponsored by whatever makes profit? The government is clearly not the most efficient (that's why the astronauts didn't use a pencil, right? Don't answer that.) but at least it adds a counterbalance and alternative source of funding for research. Who else would support social science research? [wikipedia.org]

Re:The best answer to the science questionnaire (4, Informative)

ccandreva (409807) | more than 5 years ago | (#25012029)

They didn't use pencil because broken leads would be a big problem in zero G.

Re:The best answer to the science questionnaire (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25012071)

As would the shavings, and microscopic dust. Particulate matter in the atmosphere can damage everything from the air supply to the computers that run everything else.

Re:The best answer to the science questionnaire (2, Funny)

jep77 (1357465) | more than 5 years ago | (#25011909)

You can't take the government out of research. Think of a world without your iPod [engadget.com] . And I can't personally imagine a world without Matthew Lesko [governmentgrant.com] . Seriously though, Matthew Lesko!

Re:The best answer to the science questionnaire (1)

adiosgang (1364341) | more than 5 years ago | (#25012085)

This would be a huge mistake with ramifications felt throughout fields with even remote ties to federally funded research. It would be akin to cutting out the legs from American science. With directed research from the private sector and little room for science for the sake of science, the scientific community would begin to die. This would mark the end of cutting edge research and treatments and the end, for the large part, of new ideas. In the current system, federal money if given out in the form of grants which are awarded based on a mixture of preliminary data, ideas, plausibility, and proof you can actually accomplish what you purpose. The proposed grants are read by a study section formed from experts in a given field. This group reads proposed grants and decides which ones are the best and therefore worthy of federal money. With the current lack of money in the system, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), which are the primary funders of research in the country, have been forced to fund less and less research. Often the final cut is made based on who the scientists is or some other personal quality. There have even been stories of decisions coming down to a coin toss when two grants are so equally matched and there is only enough money to fund one. The beauty of this system can be seen in times when the NIH has more than enough money to go around. When money is plentiful a meaningful line can be drawn between grants purposing meaningful research and those of a lesser caliber. In a time of very tight funding, this line blurs and often cutting edge research is left out in the cold. It is in times like these that the idea of getting rid of all federal money is purposed. When the country needs every dime and popular opinion is that scientists are not putting their federal dollars to work. "Let the private sector fund science!" is often the call heard. At first this sounds like a great idea. The private sector, primarily pharmaceuticals, main goal is to turn a profit and so this seems like an appealing solution. Turn the job of funding research to the pharmaceuticals and in no time at all, great things will start to happen. Unfortunately, this is not the case, business being business, pharmaceuticals are only interested in what will make them money. Most researchers are working on projects that will never make anyone a dime, but add to the collective knowledge of the species. In this way, over time, it becomes possible to take in this collective knowledge and begin to look at actual marketable products. Without federally funded research, many of the miracle drugs available today would not be around. Federally funded research is a beginning, it is a start for all that we have known, all the we want to know, and all that we will ever know.

Old Skool Science Mavericks (5, Insightful)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 5 years ago | (#25011345)

Palin is a Creationist [google.com] . McCain is a fossil.

Of course they'll talk a good science game (after farming that questionnaire out to one of the lobbyist lawfirms that make up their campaign) when the geeks ask during a campaign. Then these "Compassionate Conservatives" will just show they were lying once they're past the Election Day "accountability moment", and get the power to drag us all back to the Stone Age.

Re:Old Skool Science Mavericks (5, Funny)

furball (2853) | more than 5 years ago | (#25011379)

But Palin is a hot Creationist. It's like an equation. After hot, you can drop everything else.

Re:Old Skool Science Mavericks (4, Insightful)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 5 years ago | (#25011435)

She's not that hot, except compared to McCain and the rest of the politicians we usually see. She's no hotter than my next door neighbor (who's not that hot). Neither of them are qualified to be VP (or president, which is the only mandatory qualification for a VP).

And Palin's voice actually grates my nerves like the "blackboard fingernails" that everyone says Hillary Clinton has (Clinton's not hot, either).

Re:Old Skool Science Mavericks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25011471)

your misinformed posts grate on my nerves too but i've held a civil tongue until now.

Re:Old Skool Science Mavericks (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25011525)

Neither of them are qualified to be VP (or president, which is the only mandatory qualification for a VP).

And yet she has much more executive experience than Barack Hussein Obama.

Thanks for admitting Obama is not qualified to be President of a School Board, let alone President of the US.

As President, Obama can't say things are "above his pay grade" or simply vote "present".

Re:Old Skool Science Mavericks (5, Insightful)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 5 years ago | (#25011815)

So you're saying that Palin has more experience than McCain to be president. Why not reverse the ticket (other than basic sanity, because she is indeed even worse than McCain).

Palin's "executive experience", like McCain's non-executive experience, is bad experience. George Bush has loads more executive experience - and I expect that you, Anonymous Republican Coward, would prefer more Bush.

Oh, as for the rest of your zombie Republican talking points: When Obama said that deciding the moment when a collection of 46 chromosomes becomes legally a "human life" is "above his pay grade", he was referring to god. I thought you faithy Republicans went nuts for that kind of thing, not against it. And you've got a lot of nerve to whine about "voting present" when #1: Bush hasn't even been present for most of his catastrophic reign (though Cheney has no plans to leave the Cheney Bunker from which he's run the country the past 8 years). And #2: McCain has not even been present in the Senate for most of the past two years, even though Obama, Clinton, Biden, Dodd and the rest managed to do their jobs while campaigning.

And finally, thanks for admitting that you think that Barack Obama is a "secret Muslim". Though of course his Christian pastor hates America, too.

Being a Republican means never having to make any sense at all. Just stay scared and cowering at anything Karl Rove cooks up, and everyone will be OK. Except that after 8 years of Bush, ruling at the end of 12 years of the Republican Congress, every national institution is in a shambles. You personally are worse off than you were 4 years ago. Unless that is really you, Karl Rove, fat from your reign of terror, and sucking up yet more paychecks for yet another Republican campaign "gone wild".

You sick bastard.

Re:Old Skool Science Mavericks (2, Insightful)

Reality Master 201 (578873) | more than 5 years ago | (#25011965)

Yeah. Pretty much.

Of course, that's what happens when you let a bunch of people ideologically dedicated to the proposition that government can't do anything right have control over the government.

Re:Old Skool Science Mavericks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25011569)

She's not that hot,

For having five kids? She is way hot. You need to adjust your scale based on various factors.... :)

Re:Old Skool Science Mavericks (3, Insightful)

aka_big_wurm (757512) | more than 5 years ago | (#25011719)

Whatever hotness she has she loses when she opens her mouth.

Re:Old Skool Science Mavericks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25011817)

You know, some would base that as their sole criterion for hotness.

Re:Old Skool Science Mavericks (3, Insightful)

zappepcs (820751) | more than 5 years ago | (#25012101)

The first rule of picking up girls: No matter how hot she is, wait for her to speak. If you don't want to hear that at breakfast, toss her to the curb.

Me? I'm certain I don't want to hear Sarah Palin over breakfast... unless she is congratulating someone else on winning the election instead of her. No matter who is qualified and who is not, the very unfortunate state of the matter is that McSame/Pallid and Obama/whatshisname are the two main contenders. For me, I think they would all ruin a good meal if allowed to talk.

The problem at hand in this post is the response to technical questions. The only technical question Palin will get right perhaps is what type of gun is best for hunting wolves from a plane.

I've been reading the comparison at http://www.sciencedebate2008.com/www/index.php?id=42 [sciencedebate2008.com] and to be very honest, I'd like to send them a bunch more questions aimed at taking the "and how would you accomplish that in view of xyz" out of their answers. Both sets of answers sound nice but I cannot help but think that since their public appearances do not seem to hold this type of concise informed speech, these answers are typed up by lobbyists and mean absolutely nothing. One thing left out is how they get such actions passed through both houses to make good on their claims? At best, this is political gerrymandering, and at worst it complete bullshit. In either case I have no confidence that either party will pull these rabbits out of the hat.

Re:Old Skool Science Mavericks (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25011767)

Sarah Palin wouldn't be hot if you coated her in bear grease, dressed her in an oil-soaked toga, stuffed her socks with charcoal briquets, stuck a lit flare in her mouth, and threw her into an active volcano.

It might, however, raise the average IQ in Alaska by a tick.

HOT? I think NOT. (5, Insightful)

MosesJones (55544) | more than 5 years ago | (#25011871)

Seriously the standard of "hotness" is phenomenally low in US politics. We are talking here about someone who came 2nd in Miss Alaska (population 600,000) in a state where less than 50% of the people are female and isn't exactly known as the place where attractive people flock to. Hell this makes her less attractive than the 2nd most attractive person in DETROIT (population over 800k).

Never before has a media image of what you should think been so quickly accepted by people. Palin isn't hot, she isn't an ugly bird but she isn't a stunner. Lets concentrate on her madly insane political views (abstinence teaching working for you kids Mrs Palin?) and not listen to the media's view of attractive. Put it this way, do you think that Fox News would have her as an anchor? Of course not, a we know that hot is their only real criteria.

Hot in Alaska? Let put politics first.

On the other hand look at FRENCH politics if you want seriously hot politicians with incredibly well educated views.

Re:Old Skool Science Mavericks (1)

RyansPrivates (634385) | more than 5 years ago | (#25012001)

But Palin is a hot Creationist. It's like an equation. After hot, you can drop everything else.

Agreed. I think McCain's pick of Palin was irresponsible as it will definitely contribute to global warming, at least in my neck of the crotch...

Re:Old Skool Science Mavericks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25011483)

A link to a Google query is not evidence. Not even when one remembers to include actual search terms in the link, as you failed to do.

Please try again with a real, credible source. Surely, given the subject, even you should be equal to that task?

Re:Old Skool Science Mavericks (1)

Maudib (223520) | more than 5 years ago | (#25011497)

I don't see why this is marked as a troll. This is a perfectly reasonable argument given the discrepancies between Bush in the campaign and Bush in the whitehouse.

Is the observation that politicians are duplicitous and insincere really a troll?

Re:Old Skool Science Mavericks (5, Funny)

aproposofwhat (1019098) | more than 5 years ago | (#25011627)

Palin is a Creationist [google.com]. McCain is a fossil.

Does that mean that Palin believes that McCain was carefully buried by God to confuse the evil Darwinists?

Re:Old Skool Science Mavericks (1, Insightful)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 5 years ago | (#25011667)

Moderation 0
    50% Insightful
    50% Troll

Of course when I point out that McCain/Palin is the Creationist ticket [slashdot.org] , that McCain/Palin will lie to a questionnaire until they get power to do whatever they want, the Republican TrollMods come out of the woodwork to call it "troll", rather than actually try to prove I'm wrong. Because they can't.

Anonymous TrollModding is just another Republican dirty trick. Is that you, Karl Rove?

Re:Old Skool Science Mavericks (1, Insightful)

djh101010 (656795) | more than 5 years ago | (#25011723)

Moderation 0 50% Insightful 50% Troll

Of course when I point out that McCain/Palin is the Creationist ticket [slashdot.org] , that McCain/Palin will lie to a questionnaire until they get power to do whatever they want, the Republican TrollMods come out of the woodwork to call it "troll", rather than actually try to prove I'm wrong. Because they can't.

Riiiiight, because the Democrats don't lie and promise things they won't and/or can't deliver, is that what you're claiming? (cough)2006 congressional elections (/cough) Face it, they promised a bunch of stuff that they knew they couldn't deliver, have an even lower approval rating than Bush, and...people like you are gonna fall for it yet again this November. It's almost painful to see you calling out the right for doing what the left has done for years, and you seem not to notice it because of where your selective blindness lies.

Re:Old Skool Science Mavericks (1)

Naqamel (1138771) | more than 5 years ago | (#25011801)

that McCain/Palin will lie to a questionnaire until they get power to do whatever they want,

Did the 2006 Congressional Democrats get the troops out of Iraq like they promised yet?

Bush might be Commander in Chief, but Congress controls the purse strings...

Re:Old Skool Science Mavericks (1)

djh101010 (656795) | more than 5 years ago | (#25011913)

Did the 2006 Congressional Democrats get the troops out of Iraq like they promised yet? Bush might be Commander in Chief, but Congress controls the purse strings...

Hush now, we're only supposed to notice it when Republicans do it, remember? Democrats get a free pass.

Re:Old Skool Science Mavericks (1)

Naqamel (1138771) | more than 5 years ago | (#25011985)

Hush now, we're only supposed to notice it when Republicans do it, remember? Democrats get a free pass.

Right - just like blatant and overt misogyny and sexism towards a female candidate.

Re:Old Skool Science Mavericks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25011833)

Palin is a Creationist [google.com] . McCain is a fossil.

Does that mean that Palin thinks that McCain was planted by the devil?

Re:Old Skool Science Mavericks (1)

Reality Master 101 (179095) | more than 5 years ago | (#25011843)

Palin is a Creationist. McCain is a fossil.

So is Ron Paul (and Ron Paul fans *hate* to have this brought up). Does that automatically make him unsuitable to be elected?/p

Re:Old Skool Science Mavericks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25011943)

Yes.

In Soviet Russia... (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25011481)

I just *know* there's a good reason you linked to the hl=ru cache, but for the life of me, I can only think of /. memes.

Re:Google cache link (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25011927)

That's not the article. That was clearly written before McCain answered the questions.

Hmm. Something's amiss. (3, Funny)

Tibor the Hun (143056) | more than 5 years ago | (#25011391)

I think he errs when he tries to establish a database connection.

I think it's a pretty common problem for older guys though.

"Error establishing a database connection" (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25011439)

"Error establishing a database connection"

That's supposed to be a joke about McCain, right?

Database Connection Error (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25011475)

There were only 3 comments when I tried to open the links in the article but I'm already getting a database connection error.

Either this has been spread around digg, reddit, or somewhere else already or their servers can't handle much of a load.

Re:Database Connection Error (4, Funny)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 5 years ago | (#25011533)

...or their servers can't handle much of a load.

Oh, don't be silly. We all know McCain's/Palin's "science policy" is a huge load.

Choices, choices (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25011489)

Isn't it great that we have so many choices for leadership? If we don't like the opinions of one person, we have one other person to choose from. Certainly each one of us can find one of these two people who will agree with and advocate for all that we believe in. Right?

Has anyone noticed that instead of having one person in control of everything, we now actually have technology that can do better? Isn't that the whole point behind this Web 2.0 thing?

There is now a very rapidly-growing movement for various forms of "electronic direct democracy [wikipedia.org] ." No, that doesn't mean "mob rule." Unless you think that every Web 2.0 system is a degenerative mob of babble-heads? The promise of Web 2.0 is that it can build something out of a group of people that is greater than the sum of its parts. One of the leading, global projects [metagovernment.org] is maintaining a growing list of the other electronic direct democracy projects [metagovernment.org] around the world.

So why do we keep limiting ourselves to a choice between two people, neither of whom is going to agree with anything we want? OK, so there's Ron Paul, but... that didn't work now did it? And honestly, did you actually agree with every single thing Ron Paul advocated?

Re:Choices, choices (1)

east coast (590680) | more than 5 years ago | (#25011577)

So why do we keep limiting ourselves to a choice between two people, neither of whom is going to agree with anything we want? OK, so there's Ron Paul, but... that didn't work now did it? And honestly, did you actually agree with every single thing Ron Paul advocated?

Even if it were Paul (who I supported in his bid, although I couldn't vote for him since I'm not a Rep) there would still only be two choices. I think those who supported Paul should keep an eye on their local elections and seek more leadership like his out. There are people who want to do it. Put your support behind them.

In any case Paul supporters should also look into Bob Barr.

Re:Choices, choices (2, Interesting)

Jaeph (710098) | more than 5 years ago | (#25011779)

> And honestly, did you actually agree with every single thing Ron Paul advocated?

Forgive me, but that's childish. Are you suggesting that only a leader who agrees with you 100% of the time will be effective?

Like many here, I have a day job. I read a bit here and there, watch a little TV, and come to some conclusions. But in the end, I know that my judgement is easily flawed because I don't have the time or staff to properly evaluate the available information. So even if my core principals are somehow "right", my decisions are likely to be wildly askew from reality.

Therefore, I think it's ludicrous to pick someone who agrees with you 100%, or even close. See if you can match up some core values, check a couple of "key" (in your mind) decisions a bit more thoroughly, do a gut-check on the person, and vote. But trying for 100% is a laughable criteria.

-Jeff

I hate these; they are SOOO rigged (5, Insightful)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 5 years ago | (#25011503)

All of these kind of things are answered to encourage whatever somebody wants to believe. In the end, I think that we are far better off looking at the candidates voting record AND life. Look at W. He has bankrupted multiple companies; he mismanaged and lied on a number of items PRIOR to running as pres. Clinton, well known womanizer PRIOR to president. reagan, nixon, etc all had their issues before they got president (reagan ran up monster deficit in CA, and then got out of trouble because JFK started NASA).

What it comes down to, is these ppl already have their behavior in place. Just look at how they acted over the last 5 years and it will give you a better idea of what to expect.

Who did you say was answering the questionnaire? (4, Insightful)

hyades1 (1149581) | more than 5 years ago | (#25011511)

The only way something like this makes sense is if a candidate has to respond on the record in real time. Otherwise, they just farm it out to an underling, who will provide a nice, safe, reasonably accurate series of answers.

I want to know if the candidate himself could pass a grade school science exam before he gets to make calls on science policy. Even somebody who gets spoon-fed their information has to have enough basic awareness of the subject to know when he's hearing a line of crap from his advisers.

Re:Who did you say was answering the questionnaire (2, Insightful)

Reality Master 101 (179095) | more than 5 years ago | (#25011949)

I want to know if the candidate himself could pass a grade school science exam before he gets to make calls on science policy.

It would be nice if our leaders were superhuman and were experts on every facet of policy, but the reality is that no one can be an expert on everything. The point of politicians is *not* for them to personally write laws. You want them be to able to surround themselves with the right experts who will do the dirty work of creating policy.

So, particularly in this case, having an underling write the policy is probably closer to the reality of what you'll get than if the candidate was giving some off-the-cuff answers on what they don't understand to any level of depth.

Or to put it another way, do you also insist your candidates to be expert artists so they can evaluate the NEA? Or experts in education so they can *personally* get involved in writing standards? I could go on and on.

First question (4, Funny)

kosanovich (678657) | more than 5 years ago | (#25011543)

Question #1: As president what will you do to ensure that our webserver doesn't die a fiery death when this article gets slashdotted?

The site (5, Insightful)

mikesd81 (518581) | more than 5 years ago | (#25011599)

does not at all have what McCain feels about science. It's just alot of "according to" or "on this date" or "this Reporter reported" There's absolutely nothing saying where he personally stands.

How the heck??? (5, Funny)

DnemoniX (31461) | more than 5 years ago | (#25011669)

McCain must have had some help with this, we all know he doesn't use computers, doesn't know how to use e-mail and admittedly depends upon his wife for that. Talk about out of touch with the 21st Century. How is he ever supposed to become a Cybernetic Overlord? I mean really!

Vote Cthulhu 08
Why vote for a lesser evil when you can vote for a greater one!

Re:How the heck??? (2, Informative)

XLR8DST8 (994744) | more than 5 years ago | (#25012031)

part of why he depends on his wife for help is his lack of manual dexterity due to torture experienced in vietnam.

the answers are completely useless (0, Flamebait)

DragonTHC (208439) | more than 5 years ago | (#25011793)

proving once and and for all, John McCain is hopelessly outmoded.

He doesn't understand technology and never will. His administration will not have a sane technology policy. He will favor what industry tells him and set his policy according to industry lobbyists.

What a waste of glue holding that bag of bones together!

Re:the answers are completely useless (2, Insightful)

wizardforce (1005805) | more than 5 years ago | (#25011971)

then there's Biden who has made it quite clear he's alright with being lead around by lobbyists...

Re:the answers are completely useless (2, Insightful)

characterZer0 (138196) | more than 5 years ago | (#25012067)

And Obama will not do whatever the industry tells him to do nor set his policy according to industry lobbyists?

Like standing up against the industry and refusing to vote for telecom immunity?

The null hypothesis of politics (4, Insightful)

Dystopian Rebel (714995) | more than 5 years ago | (#25011961)

No one believes politicians. Why should anyone believe them? From the city councillor to the President of the Benighted States, there is no punishment for incompetence or lying. If you bribe the right people, there's no punishment for crime, either. A pretty good game to play if you have cash and connections. Make billions for your circle, even if you kill millions of people in a far-away land where they don't even play baseball.

Political parties are organisms that thrive on cajolery and deception. They pick "leaders" but these leaders are really just pushed to the fore to take the spotlight away from the cunning monkeys behind the curtains writing the speeches and glad-handing the lobbyists. These leaders aren't really meant to change anything profound.

Civil servants also do their best to survive. Sometimes politicians and civil servants cooperate. Most of the time, it's a null hypothesis. Sometimes, you get a highly-motivated evil cretin in power and other evil cretins join in the convulsions. Then you have efficiency at the expense of freedom, justice, and maybe even life itself.

Listen to people everywhere speaking today. This is the age of Peter Pan. Everyone's a child, wanting other people to do the work and make the sacrifices and unwilling to grow up. Give me my ear-pod and home theatre with a screen full of high-definition retardation and don't ask me to learn about the world. Then I can spend all my time talking with my idiotic friends about about which plastic Hollywood dolls we would fuck if we had the opportunity... when we win the lottery.

And when we tire of that desperate chain of infantile hope and outright stupidity, we post on Slashdot. (o:

Horizon (2, Informative)

BigBadBus (653823) | more than 5 years ago | (#25012083)

The BBC science show Horizon is running a show tomorrow night in the UK about what the Presidential candidates think of science and what their policies are. Doesn't bode well since I found out that Palin is a creationist.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...