OT-Junk science targeted
 

?The incoming Republican majority in the House of Representatives has
selected the National Science Foundation (NSF) as the first target for a
"YouCut Citizen Review", in which ordinary Americans are being asked to
identify "wasteful spending that should be cut".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=LSYTS-nRt4o

http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/sh...lay-judge.html

Fraudsters in academia may have to get real jobs.

Best Regards
Tom.

OT-Junk science targeted
 

On Thu, 9 Dec 2010 02:38:15 -0800, "azotic"
wrote:

?The incoming Republican majority in the House of Representatives has
selected the National Science Foundation (NSF) as the first target for a
"YouCut Citizen Review", in which ordinary Americans are being asked to
identify "wasteful spending that should be cut".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=LSYTS-nRt4o

I LIKE it and just signed up for YouCut!


http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/sh...lay-judge.html

Same video, 1 second shorter. ?!?


Fraudsters in academia may have to get real jobs.

Sacre bleu! That'd be a first.


--
Invest in America: Buy a CONgresscritter today!

OT-Junk science targeted
 

"Junk Finance" is overwhelmingly more costly than
"Junk Science".

For every $454 we throw down the 'mortgage backed securities'
rathole, we invest $1 in basic science research.

If we reduced the flow to our financial hemorrhage by 1%,
we could increase our investment in basic research by
4.46 times it's current value.

NSF 'General Science' budget for FY 2011 is projected
to be about $7.4 billion. or 0.22 % of the $33 trillion
given to Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch
and many other corporations, domestic and foreign.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/defa...ts/science.pdf

http://good-b.com/blog/?p=1753

--Winston

OT-Junk science targeted
 

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 9 Dec 2010 02:38:15 -0800, "azotic"
wrote:

?The incoming Republican majority in the House of Representatives has
selected the National Science Foundation (NSF) as the first target for a
"YouCut Citizen Review", in which ordinary Americans are being asked to
identify "wasteful spending that should be cut".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=LSYTS-nRt4o

I LIKE it and just signed up for YouCut!


http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/sh...lay-judge.html

Same video, 1 second shorter. ?!?


Fraudsters in academia may have to get real jobs.

Sacre bleu! That'd be a first.


--
Invest in America: Buy a CONgresscritter today!

So who, exactly, summarizes the research projects for the layman vote on?
A congressman from a state that is pushing to teach creationism? A sleazy
politician can make anything sound bad (and this guy has never been anything
but a politician
http://www.adriansmith.house.gov/ind...1&It emid=61).

He gave an example of modeling the sound of things breaking for the video
game industry, and asked, "do we want to subsidize the gaming industry?"
What he misses is that synthesizing the sound of something breaking is an
extraordinarily complex problem of applied math and physics that has never
been solved before now. The applications could be applied to video games,
but they also could also be applied to modeling effects of sonic booms,
explosions and all kinds of things yet to be thought of. This research made
news in the engineering magazines I read. In any case basic science is not
supposed to be driven by applications but by pushing the bounds of what has
not been done before. But even if the Congressman was perfectly accurate and
the research could only ever be useful for the video game industry, this
industry is one of the few growth industries in the US worth many billions
of dollars and thousands of jobs.

Here is an article describing how misleading his summary is. Remember, these
are probably the most egregious examples he could find.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/...ismisleadin g

OT-Junk science targeted
 

On Dec 9, 11:45*am, Winston wrote:
"Junk Finance" is overwhelmingly more costly than
"Junk Science".

For every $454 we throw down the 'mortgage backed securities'
rathole, we invest $1 in basic science research.

If we reduced the flow to our financial hemorrhage by 1%,
we could increase our investment in basic research by
4.46 times it's current value.

NSF 'General Science' budget for FY 2011 is projected
to be about $7.4 billion. or 0.22 % of the $33 trillion
given to Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch
and many other corporations, domestic and foreign.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/defa...t/fy2011/asset...

http://good-b.com/blog/?p=1753

--Winston

Don't confuse them with facts.

OT-Junk science targeted
 

rangerssuck wrote:
On Dec 9, 11:45 am, wrote:
"Junk Finance" is overwhelmingly more costly than
"Junk Science".

For every $454 we throw down the 'mortgage backed securities'
rathole, we invest $1 in basic science research.

If we reduced the flow to our financial hemorrhage by 1%,
we could increase our investment in basic research by
4.46 times it's current value.

NSF 'General Science' budget for FY 2011 is projected
to be about $7.4 billion. or 0.22 % of the $33 trillion
given to Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch
and many other corporations, domestic and foreign.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/defa...t/fy2011/asset...

http://good-b.com/blog/?p=1753

--Winston

Don't confuse them with facts.

My bad. :)

--Winston

OT-Junk science targeted
 

On 2010-12-09, azotic wrote:
?The incoming Republican majority in the House of Representatives has
selected the National Science Foundation (NSF) as the first target for a
"YouCut Citizen Review", in which ordinary Americans are being asked to
identify "wasteful spending that should be cut".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=LSYTS-nRt4o

http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/sh...lay-judge.html

Fraudsters in academia may have to get real jobs.

I have to admit that as a regular citizen, if I was given, say, two
quantum physics projects and needed to decide which one to cut from
funding, I would probbaly not do a very good job.

Maybe the rest of the public is more intelligent than me. Perhaps they
would cancel all projects that do not support creationism, all physics
etc.

i

OT-Junk science targeted
 

On 2010-12-09, anorton wrote:
So who, exactly, summarizes the research projects for the layman vote on?
A congressman from a state that is pushing to teach creationism? A sleazy
politician can make anything sound bad (and this guy has never been anything
but a politician
http://www.adriansmith.house.gov/ind...1&It emid=61).

He gave an example of modeling the sound of things breaking for the
video game industry, and asked, "do we want to subsidize the gaming
industry?"

Yeah, and while we are at it, let's cancel all game theory research,
we do not need no ****ing games, we only need serious research, not
some "game" theories.

While we are at it, let's not fund any genetics research, because it
is against God's will.

What he misses is that synthesizing the sound of something breaking
is an extraordinarily complex problem of applied math and physics
that has never been solved before now. The applications could be
applied to video games, but they also could also be applied to
modeling effects of sonic booms, explosions and all kinds of things
yet to be thought of. This research made news in the engineering
magazines I read. In any case basic science is not supposed to be
driven by applications but by pushing the bounds of what has not
been done before. But even if the Congressman was perfectly accurate
and the research could only ever be useful for the video game
industry, this industry is one of the few growth industries in the
US worth many billions of dollars and thousands of jobs.

Here is an article describing how misleading his summary is. Remember, these
are probably the most egregious examples he could find.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/...ismisleadin g

I think that letting truck drivers vote down funding for scientists is
a really great idea! Let those game theory mother****ers get real
jobs!

i

OT-Junk science targeted
 

On Thu, 9 Dec 2010 10:21:03 -0800, "anorton"
wrote:

So who, exactly, summarizes the research projects for the layman vote on?

I don't know yet. They're probably suggested by anyone who reads a
real unfundable loser of a project, like AGWK stuff.


A congressman from a state that is pushing to teach creationism? A sleazy
politician can make anything sound bad (and this guy has never been anything
but a politician
http://www.adriansmith.house.gov/ind...1&It emid=61).

He gave an example of modeling the sound of things breaking for the video
game industry, and asked, "do we want to subsidize the gaming industry?"
What he misses is that synthesizing the sound of something breaking is an
extraordinarily complex problem of applied math and physics that has never
been solved before now.

Come now. CD collections of any possible sound are available on the
Internet for ten bucks a pop. Why is synthesis even necessary?


The applications could be applied to video games,
but they also could also be applied to modeling effects of sonic booms,
explosions and all kinds of things yet to be thought of. This research made
news in the engineering magazines I read. In any case basic science is not
supposed to be driven by applications but by pushing the bounds of what has
not been done before. But even if the Congressman was perfectly accurate and
the research could only ever be useful for the video game industry, this
industry is one of the few growth industries in the US worth many billions
of dollars and thousands of jobs.

Oh, please!

Here is an article describing how misleading his summary is. Remember, these
are probably the most egregious examples he could find.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/...ismisleadin g

They found some nice rationalizations there, didn't they? g

CUT!

--
Invest in America: Buy a CONgresscritter today!

OT-Junk science targeted
 

On Dec 9, 5:29*pm, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Thu, 9 Dec 2010 10:21:03 -0800, "anorton"

wrote:
So who, exactly, summarizes the research projects for the layman vote on?

I don't know yet. *They're probably suggested by anyone who reads a
real unfundable loser of a project, like AGWK stuff. *

A congressman from a state that is pushing to teach creationism? *A sleazy
politician can make anything sound bad (and this guy has never been anything
but a politician
http://www.adriansmith.house.gov/ind...nt&view=ar...).

He gave an example of modeling the sound of things breaking for the video
game industry, and asked, "do we want to subsidize the gaming industry?"
What he misses is that synthesizing the sound of something breaking is an
extraordinarily complex problem of applied math and physics that has never
been solved before now.

Come now. *CD collections of any possible sound are available on the
Internet for ten bucks a pop. *Why is synthesis even necessary?

The applications could be applied to video games,
but they also could also be applied to modeling effects of sonic booms,
explosions *and all kinds of things yet to be thought of. This research made
news in the engineering magazines I read. *In any case basic science is not
supposed to be driven by applications but by pushing the bounds of what has
not been done before. But even if the Congressman was perfectly accurate and
the research could only ever be useful for the video game industry, this
industry is one of the few growth industries in the US worth many billions
of dollars and thousands of jobs.

Oh, please!

Here is an article describing how misleading his summary is. Remember, these
are probably the most egregious examples he could find.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/...ence/scientist...

They found some nice rationalizations there, didn't they? *g

CUT!

--
Invest in America: Buy a CONgresscritter today!

How very sad for you. We don't need no stinkin' email, we gots a post
office. We CERTAINLY don't need no stinkin' usenet. We gots
newspapers.

OT-Junk science targeted
 

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 9 Dec 2010 10:21:03 -0800, "anorton"
wrote:

So who, exactly, summarizes the research projects for the layman vote on?

I don't know yet. They're probably suggested by anyone who reads a
real unfundable loser of a project, like AGWK stuff.


A congressman from a state that is pushing to teach creationism? A sleazy
politician can make anything sound bad (and this guy has never been
anything
but a politician
http://www.adriansmith.house.gov/ind...1&It emid=61).

He gave an example of modeling the sound of things breaking for the video
game industry, and asked, "do we want to subsidize the gaming industry?"
What he misses is that synthesizing the sound of something breaking is an
extraordinarily complex problem of applied math and physics that has never
been solved before now.

Come now. CD collections of any possible sound are available on the
Internet for ten bucks a pop. Why is synthesis even necessary?



Come now. Why are CDs necessary? My Gramophone works perfectly fine.




The applications could be applied to video games,
but they also could also be applied to modeling effects of sonic booms,
explosions and all kinds of things yet to be thought of. This research
made
news in the engineering magazines I read. In any case basic science is
not
supposed to be driven by applications but by pushing the bounds of what
has
not been done before. But even if the Congressman was perfectly accurate
and
the research could only ever be useful for the video game industry, this
industry is one of the few growth industries in the US worth many billions
of dollars and thousands of jobs.

Oh, please!


Ok, lets not advance scientific understanding of a physical phenomenon that
happens every day. Lets not support a growing industry that successfully
competes with foreign companies. Instead, lets fund that same Nebraska
Congressman's beloved corn subsidies and corn ethanol mandates. We will
have to cut quite a few more projects to even come close.




Here is an article describing how misleading his summary is. Remember,
these
are probably the most egregious examples he could find.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/...ismisleadin g

They found some nice rationalizations there, didn't they? g

CUT!

--
Invest in America: Buy a CONgresscritter today!

OT-Junk science targeted
 

You are sitting in front of the most sophisticated machine
science has ever devised - whining like a spoiled child.

OT-Junk science targeted
 

On Thu, 09 Dec 2010 14:43:26 -0600, Ignoramus28131
wrote:

On 2010-12-09, azotic wrote:
?The incoming Republican majority in the House of Representatives has
selected the National Science Foundation (NSF) as the first target for a
"YouCut Citizen Review", in which ordinary Americans are being asked to
identify "wasteful spending that should be cut".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=LSYTS-nRt4o

http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/sh...lay-judge.html

Fraudsters in academia may have to get real jobs.

I have to admit that as a regular citizen, if I was given, say, two
quantum physics projects and needed to decide which one to cut from
funding, I would probbaly not do a very good job.

Maybe the rest of the public is more intelligent than me. Perhaps they
would cancel all projects that do not support creationism, all physics
etc.

OK, so don't weigh in on those. What about the other 632,496 things
upon which you might be more qualified to "vote" on? A whole lot of
this is common sense.

Do we continue to wage wars and waste money on frivolous crap forever,
or do we start reining in the wild horses asses in D.C. today?

--
Invest in America: Buy a CONgresscritter today!

OT-Junk science targeted
 

Larry Jaques wrote:
On Thu, 09 Dec 2010 14:43:26 -0600, Ignoramus28131
wrote:

On 2010-12-09, azotic wrote:
?The incoming Republican majority in the House of Representatives has
selected the National Science Foundation (NSF) as the first target for a
"YouCut Citizen Review", in which ordinary Americans are being asked to
identify "wasteful spending that should be cut".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=LSYTS-nRt4o

http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/sh...lay-judge.html

Fraudsters in academia may have to get real jobs.
I have to admit that as a regular citizen, if I was given, say, two
quantum physics projects and needed to decide which one to cut from
funding, I would probbaly not do a very good job.

Maybe the rest of the public is more intelligent than me. Perhaps they
would cancel all projects that do not support creationism, all physics
etc.

OK, so don't weigh in on those. What about the other 632,496 things
upon which you might be more qualified to "vote" on? A whole lot of
this is common sense.

Do we continue to wage wars and waste money on frivolous crap forever,
or do we start reining in the wild horses asses in D.C. today?

--
Invest in America: Buy a CONgresscritter today!



Larry,
Help me out here?
Which of those 632,496 subjects are you qualified to "vote" on?

Last time I checked the scientific journals were a "peer review"
system. So I guess what I'm asking is - which of the journals
have YOU been published in?


It was the politicians who came up with the term "junk science".


--

Richard Lamb
email me:
web site: www.home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb

OT-Junk science targeted
 

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 09 Dec 2010 14:43:26 -0600, Ignoramus28131
wrote:

On 2010-12-09, azotic wrote:
?The incoming Republican majority in the House of Representatives has
selected the National Science Foundation (NSF) as the first target for a
"YouCut Citizen Review", in which ordinary Americans are being asked to
identify "wasteful spending that should be cut".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=LSYTS-nRt4o

http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/sh...lay-judge.html

Fraudsters in academia may have to get real jobs.

I have to admit that as a regular citizen, if I was given, say, two
quantum physics projects and needed to decide which one to cut from
funding, I would probbaly not do a very good job.

Maybe the rest of the public is more intelligent than me. Perhaps they
would cancel all projects that do not support creationism, all physics
etc.

OK, so don't weigh in on those. What about the other 632,496 things
upon which you might be more qualified to "vote" on? A whole lot of
this is common sense.

Do we continue to wage wars and waste money on frivolous crap forever,
or do we start reining in the wild horses asses in D.C. today?

Yes, but are those wild horses asses in D.C. actually holding your reins?

Ask yourself what could possible motivate a cornbelt congressman start this
campaign at this time? Could it be to divert attention from that huge
irrigation pipe of goverment subsidies flowing to his state?

--
Invest in America: Buy a CONgresscritter today!

OT-Junk science targeted
 

On 2010-12-10, CaveLamb wrote:

Larry,
Help me out here?
Which of those 632,496 subjects are you qualified to "vote" on?

Not sure about Larry. I may be barely qualified, as in "am able to
understand the terminology" of some computer related research, at
best. I still would not want to vote on their funding.

I am hoping for some more intelligent system of allocating money, than
computer programmers voting on genetics research, machine shop
apprentices voting on computer science research, toll booth attendants
voting on high energy physics research etc.

Last time I checked the scientific journals were a "peer review"
system. So I guess what I'm asking is - which of the journals
have YOU been published in?

It was the politicians who came up with the term "junk science".

OT-Junk science targeted
 

Ignoramus28131 wrote:
On 2010-12-10, CaveLamb wrote:
Larry,
Help me out here?
Which of those 632,496 subjects are you qualified to "vote" on?

Not sure about Larry. I may be barely qualified, as in "am able to
understand the terminology" of some computer related research, at
best. I still would not want to vote on their funding.

I am hoping for some more intelligent system of allocating money, than
computer programmers voting on genetics research, machine shop
apprentices voting on computer science research, toll booth attendants
voting on high energy physics research etc.



Or the great unwashed masses - voting for President?


--

Richard Lamb
email me:
web site: www.home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb

OT-Junk science targeted
 

CaveLamb wrote:

(...)

Or the great unwashed masses - voting for President?

You disparage the Electoral College or Congress here?

Inquiring minds etc...etc... :)

--Winston

OT-Junk science targeted
 

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 09 Dec 2010 14:43:26 -0600, Ignoramus28131
wrote:

On 2010-12-09, azotic wrote:
?The incoming Republican majority in the House of Representatives has
selected the National Science Foundation (NSF) as the first target for a
"YouCut Citizen Review", in which ordinary Americans are being asked to
identify "wasteful spending that should be cut".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=LSYTS-nRt4o

http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/sh...lay-judge.html

Fraudsters in academia may have to get real jobs.

I have to admit that as a regular citizen, if I was given, say, two
quantum physics projects and needed to decide which one to cut from
funding, I would probbaly not do a very good job.

Maybe the rest of the public is more intelligent than me. Perhaps they
would cancel all projects that do not support creationism, all physics
etc.

OK, so don't weigh in on those. What about the other 632,496 things
upon which you might be more qualified to "vote" on? A whole lot of
this is common sense.

Do we continue to wage wars and waste money on frivolous crap forever,
or do we start reining in the wild horses asses in D.C. today?

--
Invest in America: Buy a CONgresscritter today!

I want my atomic powered flying car!

OT-Junk science targeted
 

Winston wrote:
CaveLamb wrote:

(...)

Or the great unwashed masses - voting for President?

You disparage the Electoral College or Congress here?

Inquiring minds etc...etc... :)

--Winston


Just looking back on the results it generates...

--

Richard Lamb
email me:
web site: www.home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb

OT-Junk science targeted
 

Larry Jaques wrote:
On Thu, 9 Dec 2010 02:38:15 -0800, "azotic"
wrote:

?The incoming Republican majority in the House of Representatives
has selected the National Science Foundation (NSF) as the first
target for a "YouCut Citizen Review", in which ordinary Americans
are being asked to identify "wasteful spending that should be cut".

Ordinary citizens haven't the slightest clue. They want to cut 5 million
here and there and are afraid to face the reality of 500 billion in medicare
and SS.


--

Reply in group, but if emailing add one more
zero, and remove the last word.

OT-Junk science targeted
 

anorton wrote:
Ask yourself what could possible motivate a cornbelt congressman
start this campaign at this time? Could it be to divert attention
from that huge irrigation pipe of goverment subsidies flowing to his
state?

Which by itself is more than NASA gets.


--

Reply in group, but if emailing add one more
zero, and remove the last word.

OT-Junk science targeted
 

CaveLamb wrote:

Or the great unwashed masses - voting for President?

The problem there is in the primaries. Before we had them, the delegates at
the conventions picked the candidates, and they are relatively well-informed
people who made much better choices.

The primaries decide if we have a good or poor president. The general
election only decides if we have a Republican or a Democrat.

--

Reply in group, but if emailing add one more
zero, and remove the last word.

OT-Junk science targeted
 

On Fri, 10 Dec 2010 03:12:30 -0500, "Tom Gardner"
wrote:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
.. .
OK, so don't weigh in on those. What about the other 632,496 things
upon which you might be more qualified to "vote" on? A whole lot of
this is common sense.

Do we continue to wage wars and waste money on frivolous crap forever,
or do we start reining in the wild horses asses in D.C. today?

I want my atomic powered flying car!

Yeah, I wanted a Mr. Fusion the microsecond I first laid eyes on one,
too.

--
Invest in America: Buy a CONgresscritter today!

OT-Junk science targeted
 

Tom Gardner wrote:

I want my atomic powered flying car!


You Lesbians want 'everything'! :)


--
For the last time: I am not a mad scientist, I'm just a very ticked off
scientist!!!

OT-Junk science targeted
 

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 10 Dec 2010 03:12:30 -0500, "Tom Gardner"
wrote:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
. ..
OK, so don't weigh in on those. What about the other 632,496 things
upon which you might be more qualified to "vote" on? A whole lot of
this is common sense.

Do we continue to wage wars and waste money on frivolous crap forever,
or do we start reining in the wild horses asses in D.C. today?

I want my atomic powered flying car!

Yeah, I wanted a Mr. Fusion the microsecond I first laid eyes on one,
too.

--
Invest in America: Buy a CONgresscritter today!

Time travel is one of my very favorite SF topics, right up there with
nanites! I just hope the first basic assemblers don't become unionized.

OT-Junk science targeted
 

On Fri, 10 Dec 2010 18:00:13 -0500, "Roy Vey" wrote:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 10 Dec 2010 03:12:30 -0500, "Tom Gardner"
wrote:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
OK, so don't weigh in on those. What about the other 632,496 things
upon which you might be more qualified to "vote" on? A whole lot of
this is common sense.

Do we continue to wage wars and waste money on frivolous crap forever,
or do we start reining in the wild horses asses in D.C. today?

I want my atomic powered flying car!

Yeah, I wanted a Mr. Fusion the microsecond I first laid eyes on one,
too.

Time travel is one of my very favorite SF topics, right up there with
nanites! I just hope the first basic assemblers don't become unionized.

OR liberalized. Either is deadly for mankind.

--
Invest in America: Buy a CONgresscritter today!

OT-Junk science targeted
 

Yea - Nixon lost to Kennedy!
Martin

On 12/10/2010 7:50 AM, CaveLamb wrote:
Winston wrote:
CaveLamb wrote:

(...)

Or the great unwashed masses - voting for President?

You disparage the Electoral College or Congress here?

Inquiring minds etc...etc... :)

--Winston


Just looking back on the results it generates...

OT-Junk science targeted
 

"CaveLamb" wrote in message
m...

You are sitting in front of the most sophisticated machine
science has ever devised - whining like a spoiled child.


Reply:
Where did the government invent the integrated circuit? Was Jack Kilby at
Texas Instruments. Let private industry have a lot more of their money and
cut government spending, and you will get a whole lot more research and
products. How much money and how many years did the government spend trying
to decode DNA. PEBios did it in less than a year.

OT-Junk science targeted
 

"CaveLamb" wrote in message
m...

Ignoramus28131 wrote:
On 2010-12-10, CaveLamb wrote:
Larry,
Help me out here?
Which of those 632,496 subjects are you qualified to "vote" on?

Not sure about Larry. I may be barely qualified, as in "am able to
understand the terminology" of some computer related research, at
best. I still would not want to vote on their funding.
I am hoping for some more intelligent system of allocating money, than
computer programmers voting on genetics research, machine shop
apprentices voting on computer science research, toll booth attendants
voting on high energy physics research etc.



Or the great unwashed masses - voting for President?


--

Richard Lamb
email me:
web site: www.home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb


Actually the unwashed masses do not vote for the President. The state
legislatures elect the President. The state can pick their Electoral
College members any which way they want. They let the voters of the state
choose them today.

OT-Junk science targeted
 

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 10 Dec 2010 18:00:13 -0500, "Roy Vey" wrote:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 10 Dec 2010 03:12:30 -0500, "Tom Gardner"
wrote:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
m...
OK, so don't weigh in on those. What about the other 632,496 things
upon which you might be more qualified to "vote" on? A whole lot of
this is common sense.

Do we continue to wage wars and waste money on frivolous crap forever,
or do we start reining in the wild horses asses in D.C. today?

I want my atomic powered flying car!

Yeah, I wanted a Mr. Fusion the microsecond I first laid eyes on one,
too.

Time travel is one of my very favorite SF topics, right up there with
nanites! I just hope the first basic assemblers don't become unionized.

OR liberalized. Either is deadly for mankind.

--
Invest in America: Buy a CONgresscritter today!

And for GOD'S sake...don't paint them ANY color!

(Slight problem with my Bikini-Waxing Parlor...it seems that it is subject
to a "Bush Cut Tax"!)

OT-Junk science targeted
 

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
m...

Tom Gardner wrote:

I want my atomic powered flying car!


You Lesbians want 'everything'! :)


Just the same thing YOU want!

OT-Junk science targeted
 

On Sat, 11 Dec 2010 05:16:43 -0500, "Roy Vey" wrote:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 10 Dec 2010 18:00:13 -0500, "Roy Vey" wrote:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 10 Dec 2010 03:12:30 -0500, "Tom Gardner"
wrote:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
om...
OK, so don't weigh in on those. What about the other 632,496 things
upon which you might be more qualified to "vote" on? A whole lot of
this is common sense.

Do we continue to wage wars and waste money on frivolous crap forever,
or do we start reining in the wild horses asses in D.C. today?

I want my atomic powered flying car!

Yeah, I wanted a Mr. Fusion the microsecond I first laid eyes on one,
too.

Time travel is one of my very favorite SF topics, right up there with
nanites! I just hope the first basic assemblers don't become unionized.

OR liberalized. Either is deadly for mankind.

--
Invest in America: Buy a CONgresscritter today!

And for GOD'S sake...don't paint them ANY color!

Or get them wet or feed them after midnight?


(Slight problem with my Bikini-Waxing Parlor...it seems that it is subject
to a "Bush Cut Tax"!)

Some librul prolly sold you on that one. Waxing is removal, not
cutting, so it is not subject to taxes, just enjoyment (after the
initial gawdawful pain.)

No Newt Taxes!

--
That is what learning is. You suddenly understand something
you've understood all your life, but in a new way.
-- Doris Lessing

OT-Junk science targeted
 

Tom Gardner wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
m...

Tom Gardner wrote:

I want my atomic powered flying car!


You Lesbians want 'everything'! :)


Just the same thing YOU want!


Just some of it. You can keep the lingerie heels and all the other
girlie stuff! ;-)


--
For the last time: I am not a mad scientist, I'm just a very ticked off
scientist!!!

OT-Junk science targeted
 

On Thu, 9 Dec 2010 02:38:15 -0800, "azotic"
wrote:

?The incoming Republican majority in the House of Representatives has
selected the National Science Foundation (NSF) as the first target for a
"YouCut Citizen Review", in which ordinary Americans are being asked to
identify "wasteful spending that should be cut".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=LSYTS-nRt4o

http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/sh...lay-judge.html

Fraudsters in academia may have to get real jobs.

Best Regards
Tom.

I find this very disturbing. One real problem is that the average
person does not think that basic research is useful. Which it
isn't... at the time it's done. Basic research helps us to understand
how matter/life/the universe works. And basic research almost always
pays off...in the long run.

A side effect of such a review: scientists writing proposals will
find ways to describe their research that border on fraud. They will
attempt to make the research sound like more than it really is.

There's a similar situation in almost every area of metalworking. Guy
Lautard referred to one such in one of his books. A person brings in
a big chunk of CRS and asks to have it planed down to make a
straightedge. The person does not understand the first thing about
what cold working does to steel. When the piece is unbolted from the
planer, it twists up like a pretzel because of released stresses. Only
then does the person realize that the machinist KNEW WHAT HE WAS
TALKING ABOUT.

If average citizens are going to make decisions about the utility of a
scientific project, those citizens must demonstrate the ability to
read and understand the refereed scientific literature. Otherwise
we're inserting a serious problem into the process.
--
Best -- Terry
PS: My personal view---worth what you paid for it---is that we should
go to the area(s) where the most money is being spent, to find
wasteful spending. It is most likely that cuts in that spending will
be most fruitful. But that's just my opinion.

OT-Junk science targeted
 

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...

No Newt Taxes!

--

What about Geckos?

OT-Junk science targeted
 

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
...

Tom Gardner wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
m...

Tom Gardner wrote:

I want my atomic powered flying car!


You Lesbians want 'everything'! :)


Just the same thing YOU want!


Just some of it. You can keep the lingerie heels and all the other
girlie stuff! ;-)


--

That's the "gift wrapping"!

OT-Junk science targeted
 

On Sat, 11 Dec 2010 12:25:54 -0500, "Tom Gardner"
wrote:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
.. .

No Newt Taxes!


What about Geckos?

Don't tax them, either.

--
That is what learning is. You suddenly understand something
you've understood all your life, but in a new way.
-- Doris Lessing

OT-Junk science targeted
 

On Thu, 9 Dec 2010 10:21:03 -0800, "anorton"
wrote:

Here is an article describing how misleading his summary is. Remember, these
are probably the most egregious examples he could find.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/...ismisleadin g

"It is a gross misrepresentation of our activities and their intent,"
James wrote in an e-mail to LiveScience.

Sounds like he is calling the Congresscritter a Leftwinger, doesnt it?

Gunner

Top 10 Democrat Party Slogans

10. Bitterly clinging to aborton and taxes
9. We didnt destroy your freedoms, you can
visit them at the Smithstonian
8. If you want us to listen to your opinion, move to Europ
7. Someday none of this will be yours
6. We can't tax terrorism, so who cares?
5. Please don't vote us out!! None of us can hold a real job!
4. Why the Founding Fathers limited Government:
Racism!
3. Reducing America's carbon footprint, one job at a time.
2. America: We just cant wait to see how it ends!!
1. Making everything in this country free, except you.

OT-Junk science targeted
 

On Thu, 09 Dec 2010 14:54:20 -0600, Ignoramus28131
wrote:

On 2010-12-09, anorton wrote:
So who, exactly, summarizes the research projects for the layman vote on?
A congressman from a state that is pushing to teach creationism? A sleazy
politician can make anything sound bad (and this guy has never been anything
but a politician
http://www.adriansmith.house.gov/ind...1&It emid=61).

He gave an example of modeling the sound of things breaking for the
video game industry, and asked, "do we want to subsidize the gaming
industry?"

Yeah, and while we are at it, let's cancel all game theory research,
we do not need no ****ing games, we only need serious research, not
some "game" theories.

While we are at it, let's not fund any genetics research, because it
is against God's will.

What he misses is that synthesizing the sound of something breaking
is an extraordinarily complex problem of applied math and physics
that has never been solved before now. The applications could be
applied to video games, but they also could also be applied to
modeling effects of sonic booms, explosions and all kinds of things
yet to be thought of. This research made news in the engineering
magazines I read. In any case basic science is not supposed to be
driven by applications but by pushing the bounds of what has not
been done before. But even if the Congressman was perfectly accurate
and the research could only ever be useful for the video game
industry, this industry is one of the few growth industries in the
US worth many billions of dollars and thousands of jobs.

Here is an article describing how misleading his summary is. Remember, these
are probably the most egregious examples he could find.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/...ismisleadin g

I think that letting truck drivers vote down funding for scientists is
a really great idea! Let those game theory mother****ers get real
jobs!

i

Ive noticed that a very large number of you..particulary those with
Leftwing world views...seem to forget that the US is undergoing the
Great Depression Part 2.

Thats fine. Shrug. Whats more critical..is that these very same people
consider the People to be a herd of the great Unwashed and such
decisions processes should NOT be considered, particularly when its the
favored projects/world view of those same Leftwingers at risk.

So it is with great dismay..find it to be obvious that these very same
Leftwingers consider themselves to be an elite from whom all decisions
on spending limited tax dollars should be derived from.

Lets hope the People are smarter than you think, because in less than 2
yrs..a significant number of those selfsame "elite" Leftwingers will be
bulldozed into mass graves all across the land.

Gunner

Top 10 Democrat Party Slogans

10. Bitterly clinging to aborton and taxes
9. We didnt destroy your freedoms, you can
visit them at the Smithstonian
8. If you want us to listen to your opinion, move to Europ
7. Someday none of this will be yours
6. We can't tax terrorism, so who cares?
5. Please don't vote us out!! None of us can hold a real job!
4. Why the Founding Fathers limited Government:
Racism!
3. Reducing America's carbon footprint, one job at a time.
2. America: We just cant wait to see how it ends!!
1. Making everything in this country free, except you.