×

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

1618 comments

News Agencies Deny NK Blast was a Nuke (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10264557)

News Agencies Deny NK Blast was a Nuke
GNAA reveals the truth - Nigger Operatives Responsible
MudanJiang, People's Republic of China: 13 August 2004

The GNAA has today broken the media lockout on North Korea's nuclear explosion. With governmental and press agencies everywhere desperately lying [cnn.com] to the sheep-like public, the GNAA has had to step forward.

"We did it", the words of Gay Nigger Association President timecop. Nigger agent Relex is believed have penetrated deep into DPRK [korea-dpr.com] territory and conducted sabotage missions culminating in the recent Nuke blast. His weeklong absence from #GNAA (on irc.gnaa.us) was cause for suspicions that dangerous operations were afoot. Intelligence sources indicate that Relex did not have enough time to escape the lethal zone of the warhead, and was well within its kill radius at the time of detonation.

A pink ROFLcopter [roflcopter.com] was seen speeding across the DPRK-Chinese border late Saturday night. Murmurs of Relex's successful extraction were confirmed finally on Sunday, 12 August by his personal appearance in #GNAA. He refused to comment on any operations at the time, claiming to have been "in Mexico".

His miraculous survival has led many to hypothesize about his invincibility. Some suggest the Holy Gay Nigger Seed may have "life-sustaining" properties, suggestions that the white medical establishment has dismissed. There is an ongoing debate surrounding this idea, with both sides throwing arguments back and forth. Supporters point to GNAA Terrorist Tar_Baby's unverified survival of the OSTG [lunix.com] disaster [www.gnaa.us] , that killed over 300 Indians. The opposing camp points to the recent capture and possible death of GNAA broadcast propagandist l0de [www.gnaa.us] after he made threats to "crash a cruise ship into the Whitehouse". As of this release, the issue is not resolved, and hard evidence is lacking.

The GNAA's North Korea operations are believed to stem from the ongoing Korean/Black [emergency.com] hatred.



About GNAA:
GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) is the first organization which gathers GAY NIGGERS from all over America and abroad for one common goal - being GAY NIGGERS.

Are you GAY [klerck.org] ?
Are you a NIGGER [mugshots.org] ?
Are you a GAY NIGGER [gay-sex-access.com] ?

If you answered "Yes" to all of the above questions, then GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) might be exactly what you've been looking for!
Join GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) today, and enjoy all the benefits of being a full-time GNAA member.
GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) is the fastest-growing GAY NIGGER community with THOUSANDS of members all over United States of America and the World! You, too, can be a part of GNAA if you join today!

Why not? It's quick and easy - only 3 simple steps!
  • First, you have to obtain a copy of GAYNIGGERS FROM OUTER SPACE THE MOVIE [imdb.com] and watch it. You can download the movie [idge.net] (~130mb) using BitTorrent.
  • Second, you need to succeed in posting a GNAA First Post [wikipedia.org] on slashdot.org [slashdot.org] , a popular "news for trolls" website.
  • Third, you need to join the official GNAA irc channel #GNAA on irc.gnaa.us, and apply for membership.
Talk to one of the ops or any of the other members in the channel to sign up today! Upon submitting your application, you will be required to submit links to your successful First Post, and you will be tested on your knowledge of GAYNIGGERS FROM OUTER SPACE.

If you are having trouble locating #GNAA, the official GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA irc channel, you might be on a wrong irc network. The correct network is NiggerNET, and you can connect to irc.gnaa.us as our official server. Follow this link [irc] if you are using an irc client such as mIRC.

If you have mod points and would like to support GNAA, please moderate this post up.

.________________________________________________.
| ______________________________________._a,____ | Press contact:
| _______a_._______a_______aj#0s_____aWY!400.___ | Gary Niger
| __ad#7!!*P____a.d#0a____#!-_#0i___.#!__W#0#___ | gary_niger@gnaa.us [mailto]
| _j#'_.00#,___4#dP_"#,__j#,__0#Wi___*00P!_"#L,_ | GNAA Corporate Headquarters
| _"#ga#9!01___"#01__40,_"4Lj#!_4#g_________"01_ | 143 Rolloffle Avenue
| ________"#,___*@`__-N#____`___-!^_____________ | Tarzana, California 91356
| _________#1__________?________________________ |
| _________j1___________________________________ | All other inquiries:
| ____a,___jk_GAY_NIGGER_ASSOCIATION_OF_AMERICA_ | Enid Indian
| ____!4yaa#l___________________________________ | enid_indian@gnaa.us [mailto]
| ______-"!^____________________________________ | GNAA World Headquarters
` _______________________________________________' 160-0023 Japan Tokyo-to Shinjuku-ku Nishi-Shinjuku 3-20-2

Copyright (c) 2003-2004 Gay Nigger Association of America [www.gnaa.us]

MoOsEb0y 0wnz

Problems in Firefox.. (-1, Offtopic)

NeuralAbyss (12335) | more than 9 years ago | (#10264564)

Is it just me, or does that webpage have problems in Firefox, such as the answers not scrolling..? Or is it just Flash for Linux being, well, less than capable?

Re:Problems in Firefox.. (-1, Offtopic)

dcsmith (137996) | more than 9 years ago | (#10264592)

I just read through all of the questions and answers using Firefox 0.9 on WinXP and didn't have any trouble.

Re:Problems in Firefox.. (1)

gmf (810466) | more than 9 years ago | (#10264704)

Works for me... With Firefox 0.9.3 and Flash 7.0 r25, both from Debian unstable...

Re:Problems in Firefox.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10264744)

On my IRIX, it doesn't even shows a table!

First to reply (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10264565)

Got ya Ryan & Fred

Religeon (-1, Flamebait)

tangledweb (134818) | more than 9 years ago | (#10264566)

Any president who reads the bible for help making presidential decisions cannot be pro-science,

Re:Religeon (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10264596)

http://www.gracenote.com/xm/pcd/progressmetal/4cd6 3db9d31ab2a8dc7a562a92fdc186.html

And you know you've provoked a bit of attention as a president when even a weird progressive metal band writes a song about Bush's stance on stem-cell research:

Gracenote link - it's track 4 [gracenote.com]

Re:Religeon (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10264600)

Any religious scholar who reads Nature for help making decisions regarding their faith, cannot be pro-politics.

Re:Religeon (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10264616)

Any scientist who reads political papers for help making decisions regarding their science, cannot be sane.

Re:Religeon (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10264757)

Anybody who spells Religion as Religeon shouldn't be trusted with their point of view on a subject they can't even spell.

Re:Religeon (1, Funny)

Zorilla (791636) | more than 9 years ago | (#10264647)

Anybody who trusts John Travolta for help making decisions regarding their conversion to Scientology, cannot be pro-sanity.

Re:Religeon (3, Insightful)

gowen (141411) | more than 9 years ago | (#10264605)

1st Corollary : Any slashdotter who cannot spell Religion is unlikely to have informed, intelligen opinions on the subject.

Re:Religeon (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10264628)

2nd Corollary : Any post criticising the spelling of another poster will contain at least one spelling error. (OK, mine is technically a typo).

Re:Religeon (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10264625)

Says who? Religion and science are not mutually exclusive, although most slashdotters' simplistic attitudes fail to reflect this. That's like saying that someone who enjoys music couldn't possibly be any good at nuclear physics.

I'm studying biology and chemistry in high school; I also happen to be a Christian. Science and religion simply cover different aspects of the world. As elegant as science is, and as helpful as it has been to the world around us, it has no room for things like morality.

Re:Religeon (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10264676)

Religion and science are not mutually exclusive

Religion and science? Perhaps not. Religion and the Bible in particular? Definitely.

The Bible is not self-consistent. The Bible makes claims that contradict observable phenomenon. The Christian faith requires people to make assumptions against available evidence. The Bible is inherently anti-science.

As elegant as science is, and as helpful as it has been to the world around us, it has no room for things like morality.

You are missing the point. Nobody is saying that science can replace religion. The previous poster's point was that the Christian faith in particular requires an attitude that is directly in opposition to the scientific process.

Re:Religeon (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10264715)

The previous poster's point was that the Christian faith in particular requires an attitude that is directly in opposition to the scientific process.

Newton who was a Christian. But then again, I guess Newton wasn't really a Christian.

Re:Religeon (3, Insightful)

ChzMstrX (557076) | more than 9 years ago | (#10264627)

That's simply ridiculous to say. I'm not W lover, but c'mon. The Catholic church is doing some spectacular astronomy research; and last I checked they read the Bible for guidance in decisions. Religion and science don't have to be at odds.

Re:Religeon (-1, Flamebait)

sgant (178166) | more than 9 years ago | (#10264682)

Ah, the same church that imprisoned Galileo for his findings and writings?

OK, that was a cheap shot, that was hundreds of years ago. Yet they still belive in an invisible man that lives in the sky and push "intellegent design" over evolution.

But yes, I suppose they do some good in other areas...I mean, they need to spend all those billions of tax-free dollars some where don't they? Besides legal fees in defending their priesthood that is.

Re:Religeon (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10264736)

Galileo was as much imprisoned for being an asshat to higher-ups as for what he actually discovered, if not more so.

Re:Religeon (2, Informative)

orcrist (16312) | more than 9 years ago | (#10264753)

Ah, the same church that imprisoned Galileo for his findings and writings?

OK, that was a cheap shot, that was hundreds of years ago.


No, that's not a cheap shot. In fact the "hundreds of years ago" makes it worse: they didn't admit they were wrong about Galileo until 1992!!

-chris

Re:Religeon (2, Funny)

qwijibo (101731) | more than 9 years ago | (#10264762)

Of course they tell you that they believe in an invisible man in the sky on faith alone. There are a lot more people who can accept that without question than people who can fathom the truth.

Do you really think the church is going to come out and say "we know that intelligent design is how we got here because we actually met the space aliens who put us here"? It's much easier to claim some individual omnipotent being is responsible for everything. Do you realize what it would do to society if people knew we were a science experiment by a bunch of deviant aliens? How else do you explain the anal probes?

They didn't imprison Galileo for his ideas. They imprisoned him because the church is a cash cow and Galileo met the aliens and was trying to set up a competing company. The church is the original big-faceless-corporation.

This conspiracy has been brought to you by the fine people at Halliburton and the letter W.

Re:Religeon (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10264696)

Thats just because the Catholic Church still desperately wants to prove that the Earth is flat and the center of the universe.

Re:Religeon (1)

Threni (635302) | more than 9 years ago | (#10264714)

> last I checked they read the Bible for guidance in decisions.

That's why they are anti-science. There's simply no evidence whatsoever to suggest that the Bible has any value as a method of predicting future trends.

Re:Religeon (1)

ChzMstrX (557076) | more than 9 years ago | (#10264759)

Last I read the Bible it was a bit scant on information about quasars... but that isn't my point. I don't think they're turning to John Chapter III for guidance on where to point their telescopes. What you're saying is simply ridiculous. Why does faith exclude someone from a field that is largely based on hunches and guesswork?

Re:Religeon (0, Troll)

sgant (178166) | more than 9 years ago | (#10264644)

Mod parent up before he's modded down as a troll or flamebait.

I couldn't agree more. Plus I doubt very much that George W. actually reads the bible...it's handy to say that when you're campaining in the "bible belt"...but come on.

His views on science are so medieval you'd think he'd come lumbering out of the White House and throw rocks at the Sun saying "my god, what is that ball of fire! It will destroy us! God must be angry!".

No, I won't list specifics...that's why we have Google...do your own research.

Re:Religeon (5, Insightful)

nuclear305 (674185) | more than 9 years ago | (#10264645)

While I will ignore the lack of proof in your comment to back it up (Even if it is in TFA) I must point out that looking to the bible for help does not necessarily indicate a person is not pro-science.

Being agnostic myself, I obviously don't do this...however, it is my opinion that religion as a whole is designed to instill hope, etc in a person. So what's wrong with reading a book while looking for a little help/inspiration/whatever?

Re:Religeon (4, Funny)

jbarr (2233) | more than 9 years ago | (#10264655)

I'll bet that if President Bush instead claimed that he got his inspiration from "LOTR" you'd be drumming a different beat... ;-)

Bigotry is ugly.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10264658)

...in any form.

Science != religion (3, Insightful)

amightywind (691887) | more than 9 years ago | (#10264677)

Any president who reads the bible for help making presidential decisions cannot be pro-science

+5 Insightful??? Are you saying science is a substitute for religion, or those who practice religion should be dismissed as scientists? President Bush's actions in expanding the funding of NSF, NASA and many other agencies suggest that he is pro-science. Would you have said the same thing about Jimmy Carter who was also devoutly Christian? How about Albert Einstein who was a practicing Jew, or Donald Knuth who is a devout Lutheran.

Re:Religeon (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10264713)

Agreed. I tolerate people who believe in that giant pixie in the sky who will Make It All Better[tm]. Hey, if you want to believe it, it's none of my business. But it scares me that somebody that is under the influence of such delusions can become the most powerful man in the world.

To the Christians who feel offended: imagine you found out that Bush was actually in the thralls of Scientology. How would you feel? Christianity is a lot less extreme than Scientology in my opinion, but they are travellers on the same road. So however scared, bewildered or angry you would be at somebody who believes that they are reincarnated aliens being president of the USA, tone it down about 50%, and that's how scared, bewildered and angry I am that somebody who acts on what the Giant Pixie in the Sky says is president of the USA.

Re:Religeon (2, Insightful)

NeoSkandranon (515696) | more than 9 years ago | (#10264766)

At least a Christian has (ideally, I realize this is not always so) a somewhat consistent set of morals to base their decisions on. Whether GWB is adhering to those is a different bowl of kibble, but my point is, guidlines, right?

I would be fairly scared (regardless of the fact that I'm a christian) of someone in power who had no set of beliefs other than "Do what you can rationalize to yourself", which strikes a string on most athiests I know.

Re:Religeon (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10264740)

Any person who bases their entire argument on an ad hominem attack deserves to be kicked to the curb.

To those who "spent" their mod points to rank the parent post as "informative" - do you even understand the concept of editorial moderation? Hint: It has nothing to do supporting those who give voice to your personal biases.

Yet again, "nerds" show that, on average, they are as fallible as the rest of humanity.

Re:Religeon (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10264750)

+5 Insightful? I know most slashdotters are raving antichrists, but come on. At least try to use rational thinking when trying to take your anger out on God by attacking his followers.

Other candidates (3, Interesting)

MadFarmAnimalz (460972) | more than 9 years ago | (#10264577)

I would have liked to hear what the other candidates' responses would have been, for contrast. Kucinic in particular.

In a chart, even better.

(going to be some election, with even non-Americans like me taking this intense an interest, hm?)

Re:Other candidates (2, Insightful)

Zorilla (791636) | more than 9 years ago | (#10264623)

Yeah, too bad we're stuck with only two candidates. I'd rather see this question asked:

Interviewer: "Can either you, President Bush, or you, Senator Kerry, describe to us how your views differ on corporate elitism?"

(Tumbleweed rolls by)

Re:Other candidates (0, Flamebait)

goober (120298) | more than 9 years ago | (#10264700)

Yeah, too bad we're stuck with only two candidates.

Uh...you can vote for whoever you want, not just those two. You will prolly have to get out of your pajamas though.

Re:Other candidates (3, Insightful)

Zorilla (791636) | more than 9 years ago | (#10264724)

...and prepare for another 4 years of Bush if one decides to vote third party.

President Kang (4, Funny)

caitsith01 (606117) | more than 9 years ago | (#10264741)

Kent Brockman: Senator Dole, why should people vote for you instead of President Clinton?

Kang: It makes no difference which one of us you vote for. Either way, your planet is doomed. DOOMED!

Kent: Well, a refreshingly frank response there from senator Bob Dole. ............

Homer: America, take a good look at your beloved candidates. They're nothing but hideous space reptiles.

[audience gasps in terror]

Kodos: It's true, we are aliens. But what are you going to do about it? It's a two-party system; you have to vote for one of us.

[murmurs]

Man1: He's right, this is a two-party system.

Man2: Well, I believe I'll vote for a third-party candidate.

Kang: Go ahead, throw your vote away! ..........

Marge: I don't understand why we have to build a ray gun to aim at a planet I never even heard of.

Homer: Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.

Re:President Kang (1, Funny)

Zorilla (791636) | more than 9 years ago | (#10264780)

Aww...you left out the part with Ross Perot punching a hole through his campaign hat.

Non-Americans (3, Interesting)

caitsith01 (606117) | more than 9 years ago | (#10264664)

I suspect more non-Americans than Americans are taking a really keen interest in this election. Considering that only, what, 40-odd percent of eligible voters actually bother to turn out on election day in the states, you could hardly say interest there is raging, despite the fanatical partisans we see all the time on the news. Given the disproportionate effect that US policies have on my country (Australia), I would kill to be able to vote in this election.

Of course, if non-US citizens could vote, it's pretty clear what the result would be [cbsnews.com] . Although maybe we shouldn't publicise this, it might provoke a nationalistic wave of support for you know who...

Re:Non-Americans (4, Insightful)

Yorrike (322502) | more than 9 years ago | (#10264739)

I can't vote in the US elections either, yet the term "leader of the free world" is still used. Guess I'm not important enough to elect my "leader".

The aforementioned term springs from the same mindset from which the term "World Series" is applied to a US-only baseball league.

Re:Non-Americans (2, Insightful)

caitsith01 (606117) | more than 9 years ago | (#10264760)

My favourite US-ism from recent times is that some of the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay are charged with "attempting to kill Americans." Apparently it would have been ok if their intended victims were Canadian. Cue lame anti-Canada jokes...

Re:Non-Americans (5, Interesting)

amightywind (691887) | more than 9 years ago | (#10264763)

Although maybe we shouldn't publicise this, it might provoke a nationalistic wave of support for you know who...

It already has. One of the most effective slurs against Kerry has been "he looks French."

We non-Americans are hoping.... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10264767)

that this time your president will be the one who actually wins the election.

Re:Non-Americans (1)

evslin (612024) | more than 9 years ago | (#10264772)

Can you really blame those who don't show up? There are folks out there who don't like Bush, but won't vote for Kerry because all he's done so far is talk about Vietnam. And there's people who don't like Kerry but won't vote for Bush because they don't like the way he handled Iraq. And then there's your oddball few that like Ralph Nader but don't want to vote for him because he's not going to win anyway.

Re:Other candidates (1)

Coryoth (254751) | more than 9 years ago | (#10264758)

I would have liked to hear what the other candidates' responses would have been, for contrast. Kucinic in particular.

In a chart, even better.


I would have liked to have seen responses from Cobb, Badnarik and Nader. I think that would have made the whole thing look a lot less bland. We might actually have a few radically different opinions interjected in there instead of the usual bland drivel.

Jedidiah

The printable version... (5, Interesting)

jbarr (2233) | more than 9 years ago | (#10264578)

...in .pdf format is here [nature.com] if you don't want to hassle with the Flash presentation.

Re:The printable version... (1)

Zorilla (791636) | more than 9 years ago | (#10264673)

Now we have a choice between two irritating formats (from the perspective of other users, not necessarily myself). Great, now we need a new Slashdot poll: "Which file format boils your blood the most?"

1) PDF
2) Flash
3) XML
4) RM
5) tar.baseCowboyNeal

Re:The printable version... (2, Funny)

Lextar (810141) | more than 9 years ago | (#10264683)

Could you please warn us that there is a high resolution image of a presidential candidate on the first page of the pdf?

I didn't really want to know about all of his skin problems :)

No thanks (0, Troll)

wombatmobile (623057) | more than 9 years ago | (#10264588)

"Read the candidates' responses on topics such as stem cell research, greenhouse emissions, and manned spaceflight to Mars."

Part of me is loathe to RTA. From here outside of the USA, I imagine the dialog to be stupefying.

I hope I'm wrong. Meanwhile, I'll read other articles.

wowzers! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10264737)

Meanwhile, I'll read other articles.

what an incredibly way to remain stupified.

It doesn't take a scientist to figure out... (3, Funny)

caitsith01 (606117) | more than 9 years ago | (#10264598)

...that Bush didn't write those answers himself. For one thing there are words of more than three syllables used throughout. For another it appears that the person who wrote them was actually familiar with Whitehouse briefing papers and current scientific issues. And the final clue is the use of the word 'nuclear' instead of GW's preferred 'nucular'.

I'm sure the same goes for Kerry, although he is actually able to spell and say most of the words used in his responses.

I really don't see the point of this kind of 'interview.' Basically, each candidate is asked a series of questions, each of which has a 'good' or 'bad' answer. The results will shock you.

Re:It doesn't take a scientist to figure out... (-1, Offtopic)

Almost A Knave (734703) | more than 9 years ago | (#10264668)

Haha, it's funny because it's fresh, topical humor! I was unaware that the president had trouble pronouncing multisyllabic words, but your clever jab at his English skills has left me rolling. The Internet needs more cutting-edge, fun-loving jokesters like you.

Re:It doesn't take a scientist to figure out... (2, Funny)

caitsith01 (606117) | more than 9 years ago | (#10264708)

Well, you've outdone me by a good ten years with your unique take on sarcastic parody. Your brilliant feigning of ignorance and faux-praise have cut through me like a rapier. I was unprepared for this level of subtlety and satire on the Internet which to me has previously been the most unassuming and earnest of places. And from a ./ nerd of all people! Well I never.

Re:It doesn't take a scientist to figure out... (-1, Flamebait)

amightywind (691887) | more than 9 years ago | (#10264693)

...that Bush didn't write those answers himself.

No indeed. His answers were forged by Dan Rather!

Re:It doesn't take a scientist to figure out... (2, Interesting)

jeffkjo1 (663413) | more than 9 years ago | (#10264702)

...that Bush didn't write those answers himself. For one thing there are words of more than three syllables used throughout.

The Bush campaign hasn't suffered at all from this attack on Bush's intelligence. It didn't suffer in 2000 either. However, Al Gore's campaign did latch onto it in an attempt to put down Bush and gain more support for the Dem's. It didn't work, in fact, it played to Bush's advantage. Instead of focusing on real issues, Gore was busy telling us all what a moron W was. You'll notice Kerry hasn't taken that strategy. There's a reason.

Re:It doesn't take a scientist to figure out... (1)

bo0ork (698470) | more than 9 years ago | (#10264703)

Yeah, the disparity between how Bush will handle an interview on-screen (when he's not being given all the answers beforehand) and the text of those answers says it all. To be fair, I'm sure he was at least consulted about what his stance should be. All the Bush answers say "my adminstration" and use complex sentences like we've never heard him say. Kerry's answers are more like how he talks, and they're all "I think, I believe", making it sound like he actually took time to write the answers himself.

Re:It doesn't take a scientist to figure out... (5, Insightful)

Coryoth (254751) | more than 9 years ago | (#10264734)

I really don't see the point of this kind of 'interview.' Basically, each candidate is asked a series of questions, each of which has a 'good' or 'bad' answer. The results will shock you.

You mean the fact that, even on the fairly open questions, they bot do their best to hedge their bets and say as little as is possible with as many words as possible? Yes, that's what happens when you interview professional politicians, and I have begun to wonder about the point as well.

Why do we put up with interviews that simply give these politicians a platform to speak, rather than interviews that actually question them in depth? How about trying to actually fish a position and some definitive words out of them, instead of letting them answer with the usual nice sounding but empty rhetoric.

Okay, to be fair to Nature this was a written interview, so they didn't really have much choice, but this style of political interview is pretty much all you see in the US.

1. Politician is asked a question.
2. Politician gives a stirring mostly pre-prepared speech that may even have some vague relevance to the question asked.
3. Interviewer moves on to the next question.

What's with that?! Watch some BBC interviewers - I'd love to see nice half hour or hour interview of Kerry or Bush conducted by some of the BBC political interviewers. I think I would learn far more in that half hour than I have in all the election coverage so far.

Jedidiah.

for lazy slashdoters (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10264604)


Climate change

Throughout his time in office, President George Bush has been slammed by environmentalists for avoiding steps to reduce global warming. Climate experts recommend cuts in greenhouse-gas emissions - and John Kerry pledges to take a greener stance.

Yucca Mountain

Twenty years ago an act of Congress put forward Yucca Mountain as a possible repository for the nation's nuclear waste - but fierce disputes over whether the site might leak radioactive material have held up its construction ever since. Now the mountain, in the political swing state of Nevada, has emerged as a hot campaign issue in the US presidential race, and both candidates claim that sound science is on their side

Stem cells

Before President George W. Bush arrived in the Oval Office, most Americans had never heard of a stem cell - a microscopic biological entity that can transform into hair, muscle or other human cell types. But four years on, the issue has escalated into a divisive one in US politics, and looks set to attract continued attention in the forthcoming election.

Manipulation of science

George Bush's presidency has suffered a rash of accusations that he is either ignoring or manipulating science. Democratic rival John Kerry, meanwhile, pledges to follow impartial scientific advice - but observers say that they are yet to be persuaded.

Nuclear weapons research

Late in 2002, the Bush administration proposed controversial plans to begin work on new designs for nuclear weapons. The idea has prompted fierce scientific and political opposition ever since.

Re:for lazy slashdoters (5, Insightful)

Coryoth (254751) | more than 9 years ago | (#10264777)

Throughout his time in office, President George Bush has been slammed by environmentalists for avoiding steps to reduce global warming. Climate experts recommend cuts in greenhouse-gas emissions - and John Kerry pledges to take a greener stance.

Kerry is also very careful to not actually commit to anything. He'll consider options, but potentially he could continue right along with Bush's current policy, and it would not actually contradict what he said.

Jedidiah

Bush couldn't have answered the questions. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10264610)

And I doubt if he even bothered to try to understand the answers that were provided in his name. No way this incurious, verbally-challenged president could have given articulate, well-informed answers to those questions. For the sake of science and many, many other things that we care for, let's hope for regime change on Nov 2. Things don't look too good now, though.

How about interviews? (1)

two-tail (803696) | more than 9 years ago | (#10264613)

Hopefully only partially offtopic

I want more.

I wonder how hard it would be to do a /. interview with each candidate, similar to the interview with R. Glaser. I kindof doubt that it would happen, but you never know!

Neither party truly supports science (4, Insightful)

Anita Coney (648748) | more than 9 years ago | (#10264620)

Each political party has agendas. Each party will use science to support their agendas. However, when there is no real science to support their agenda, or when real science contradicts the agendas, bad science will be created or the importance of science will be lessened.

Both political parties are guilty of the above. Merely because the right believes in invisible beings who control our destiny, doesn't make it worse than the left, who believes that creating a permanent welfare culture will end poverty.

Re:Mod Up! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10264675)

Its true. Even if lives are on the line. Just look at the War on Drugs. Even congressionally mandated research w/ results they 'disagree' with get ignored. And, because of this, people suffer and DIE.

From a brief glance... (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10264633)

the one thing that sticks out a mile is you can belive that Kerry could actually have written those answers, although I doubt he actually did.

Nuclear, not Nucular you idiot! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10264635)

Who cares what Bush thinks, everybody knows Cheney is the heartless brain behind current operations.

Nothing about Mars there (1)

Onceat (734080) | more than 9 years ago | (#10264639)

In my version I got there is nothing on space flight to Mars in the article, what you talking about Willis ?

Flash? (1, Insightful)

MobyDisk (75490) | more than 9 years ago | (#10264646)

Why are the answers in tiny-little barely-readable Flash movie? That must be the worst abuse of bad web design principles I've seen all year -- and on a reputable journal!

Gah...flash. (4, Interesting)

LarsWestergren (9033) | more than 9 years ago | (#10264650)

Why the hell did they need to make this into Flash? There are no animations, no images, just hyperlinked text which is rendered too small... or not at all at first actually, as I normally use Firefox with adblocker.

With regards to the questions, wouldn't it have been more fun if they had asked B and K unprepared questions on science directly in person, without any speechwriters to hide behind?

"The HIV virus is a retrovirus. Can either of you tell us what that means?"

"Give us the strongest arguments pro and con for the existance of man-made global warming."

Unfortunatly (4, Insightful)

Lifix (791281) | more than 9 years ago | (#10264656)

Bush's supporters have been shown to vote for him soely on moral ground. The poorest county in america voted more then 80% for Bush. Why you ask? Because Bush has the Christian Right, a sizeable population. Bush can screw the enviroment, tax people into the ground, reinstate the draft, declare war on canada and mexico and still have the christian right's vote.

If people will wake up and realize that voting for Bush without understanding the issues is killing our country, then perhapse they will change... but until then bush can look forward to having all the bible thumpers under his belt, and abusing his power more and more. Ah well, personally, I think you should have to have a slashdot account to vote this year.

Answers mostly content-free and evasive (1, Funny)

Compact Dick (518888) | more than 9 years ago | (#10264660)

Bush comes across as the major offender here, but Kerry isn't too far behind.

BTW, judging by the frequency of "John Edwards and I" being repeated, I'm left wondering -- is Kerry gay?

err... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10264774)

judging by your username, Compact Dick, could i ask the same?

Eurpoean perspective (5, Interesting)

Tx (96709) | more than 9 years ago | (#10264665)

I really hope you guys elect Dubya again. We in Europe need all the help we can get competing in science, so Bush is our man.

Move along Move along (2, Insightful)

booyah (28487) | more than 9 years ago | (#10264669)

Nothing to see here...

the responses are political canned responses, most likely passed off to higher ranking lackeys in both organizations...

keep moving, nothing to see here.

Front page chance to bash Bush! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10264672)

Yea!!

We hate Bush, We hate Bush, We hate Bush.

What was the topic again?

Oh, whatever, We hate Bush, We hate Bush, We hate Bush.

Who knew? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10264678)

I was surprised to see a political slashdot posting that actually had something to do with science or technology. Well done.

Interesting comparison (4, Interesting)

dcsmith (137996) | more than 9 years ago | (#10264684)

Not a bad read for anyone interested in science. In addition to revealing their stances on the individual areas of science in question, the answers also give some indications on how the candiates see science's impact on the US and global economies, the environment and even US interations with other nations. Actually more information than you might expect out of campaign rhetoric.

I was amused that most of Kerry's responses mentioned John Edwards, but Cheney is not mentioned ONCE in Bush's answers. I suppose that makes sense for the questions about energy policy...

Its clear that the candidates don't ever plan on using these responses verbally. I'd love to see W try and pronounce "carbon sequestration". (In the Bush response to question #12.)

Discover also has an analysis... (2, Informative)

Silverlancer (786390) | more than 9 years ago | (#10264690)

Over similar issues. Except this one is just an anlysis, no interviews. The sad thing is just how horrible Bush's scientific policies are. For one, when he dropped the USA out of the Kyoto treaty, he claimed that Global Warming was an "unproven hypothesis." While it is still sometimes disputed how much of global warming is caused by humans, global warming has been well-known for decades and the proof is very solid.

Distorted views of the "Nature" of politics (1, Insightful)

adzoox (615327) | more than 9 years ago | (#10264695)

First of all, it is regularly pointed out [admittedly by Republicans] that Nature is politically far left. This generalization in the introduction to these questions from the site just stopped me from reading anything else:

" scientists [read as educators/professors] at universities have become unfriendly territory for Republicans"

Professors at universities have NEVER been Republican - republicans ask for accountability and aren't necessarily for higher teacher pay. The teacher associations are the single biggest democratic support = bias

AND


"Bush accuses the Kerry campaign"
- with no followup - Kerry accuses Bush campaign remarks = bias

I'm not just accusing Nature of being bias either.

Funding (4, Interesting)

Zorilla (791636) | more than 9 years ago | (#10264712)

It should be noted that the current ban on stem-cell research actually only prevents funding research on the topic. Has anybody else seen that piece on 60 Minutes about the Howard Hughes research center that has been able to research it anyway because of its massive private funding?

That said, I'm still against the blocking of research funds. More eyes can be useful on this subejct, obviously.

Re:Funding (5, Informative)

Blitzenn (554788) | more than 9 years ago | (#10264768)

The fact that you missed in the funding ban is that if a research lab pursues embryonic stem cell research, they will lose ALL of their funding in ALL of their areas of research. The Bush administration has made it clear that they do not want to be tie to this in any way. Nearly every major research firm in America recieves federal funds to aid their research in one fashion or another. They are not going to pursue private funding for research in this area and risk losing all of their funding in others. It is a scare tactic used by the government to stop the research and it works pretty effectively.

Please,.......PLEASE!!!! (1, Troll)

spectrokid (660550) | more than 9 years ago | (#10264721)

I am not a US national and don't have the right to vote. Yet my life will seriously be influenced by the outcome of the next elections. So please use your f*cking heads!

Answer2 - interesting reasoning... (5, Insightful)

someme2 (670523) | more than 9 years ago | (#10264735)

This is interesting: "what would you do to ensure that your administration receives genuinely impartial scientific advice?"

Both essentially answer: "It is really important to get impartial advice, that's why I will take only impartial advice."

Both don't get at all into the problem - which is "how do you know what advice is impartial?".

Both answers have nice parts like Bush's world class sentence "I have sought out the best scientific minds..." - completely ignoring that the question was "how do you deal with the problem that it is hard to know what good science is?"

Kerry's reasoning is equally interesting when he says "[Hey, how do I ensure that I receive impartial advice?] My administration would never utilize biased advice."

That's true Mr. President. You can very well be sure that you receive impartial advice when you just don't utilize the biased advice!

JUST ALWAYS BE SURE THAT YOU PERSONALLY SEEK OUT THE BEST SCIENTIFIC MINDS!

Both candidates didn't say anything about the problem itself stating trueisms of the worst order.

Missile defense (5, Insightful)

antifoidulus (807088) | more than 9 years ago | (#10264745)

They ask an interesting question about star wars here. Bush claims that the program is working, and will be much more fully operational soon, Kerry says that more research is needed. However, the question only focuses on the scientific aspects of the system, not on it's stratagic usefulness. The world is much different than it was during the Soviet era. During the soviet era, outside the possibility of submarines the only way for the Soviets to attack the US was through missiles, because we hardly did any trade at all with our "enemy", but today the world is much different.
Suppose North Korea really wanted to nuke the US. They have missiles that could potentially reach Alaska, MAYBE California, and will soon have the nuclear technology to make weapons, if they don't have it already. But if North Korea really wanted to attack the US, why would they use a missile whose source can be detectable when they could just sneak a missile on one of the thousands of Chinese ships that come to the US each year that go virtually unsearched by customs? North Korea would have to be morons not to have spies working in the Chinese shipping industry(unbeknowst to China of course).
We are just dumping money down the drain on a system that is questionable both scientifically and strategically.

I would like to reply to this article (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10264754)

But since I am pro Bush, I would be marked as offtopic or troll, so Fuck you slashdot moderators.

And in a similar vein: (1)

Illserve (56215) | more than 9 years ago | (#10264779)

Next week we'll hear about a wrestling match between a 400 lb gorilla and a 2 year old child.

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...