First, I will admit my first reaction to this is a sentimental one, but that doesn't make it irrelevant. A currency's appearance --the artwork people, places, and events depicted-- demonstrate the identity of a nation. Canada's $5 bill has hockey players on it. Another bill has the queen of England for historical and even current international relations reasons. We in the US have our dearest founding fathers on our monetary notes. (Side Note: I'd really like to have some bill introduced with Frederick Douglass on it.) I'm not opposed to the idea of digital currency. Heck, we pretty much have it with our banking system now. Second, I wonder if a 100% digital currency in the US would make it easier for the Fed to engage in quantitative easing. My first guess is that it would. And if keeping paper and coin notes in circulations at least slows down the Fed's ability to do so, I'm all for maintaining physical currency.

I think if your company is basically asking its employees to voluntarily "like" the app in the spirit of trying to help the company, I find that completely in bounds. Of course, each person who "like"s it, to preserve the perception that he/she genuinely likes it should probably have at least some experience with it. On the other hand, if you company is expecting this as a condition of working for them or treating employees who do or don't do this differently, I think that's crossing the line from professional life into personal life, and hence not in bounds.

I'm not sure how this relates to preventing businesses from requesting facebook passwords of personal accounts, as the law Maryland has passed, because they don't need that information to necessarily see what you as an employee "like". They do, however, have to have you "friend" them, assuming that's information you keep private. And requiring that is definitely crossing the line that divides professional life from personal life. So at this point, since such a law is about passwords, my best guess is that a judicial court would interpret the intent of the law such that it would prevent a business from requiring that employee or perspective employee "friend" the business.

On those grounds, I think you could take a fairly strong case to your HR department that a requirement. However, I'm neither a lawyer or a judge, so keep that in mind. :-)

Again, more baseless assumptions. There's a lot more media that calling these conclusions into question beyond those under the Murdoch umbrella. So why hesitation to post a citation? Afraid you may expose your predisposition to biases sources? But really, your tone is that of a 12 year old, not an adult, and certainly not of a scientist.

I'm not sure where you're going with this and "admitting ignorance".

I'm not "forced" to continue re-evaluate my thoughts, I pursue it. If every person were forced to do so, all of these threads would be intellectual discussions rather than some of the smug, confrontational, and insecure lambasts I've had directed at me. Just being a new idea doesn't make it a better idea. Science must provably demonstrate an advance by some measure. For instance, no conservatives have ever favored continued use of the vacuum tube over more advanced technology, right? ..unless we're talking about guitar amps. As for your academia comments, I see both of those to be true.

You've put your finger exactly on the point I'm trying to make. You don't know much about me, so if you're going to take the time to read my post, I'm taking it on face value that you'll believe me when I say I have read on this subject. The facts are that dissenting opinions have met great hostility for simply being dissenting opinions, and that's not science.

What I've written in that paragraph is a summary of what I have seen via my own experiences and study where the roads of engineering and public policy cross. You have a certain perspective on this; I know. But my experiences are mine, and that's what I've seen. However, if you think that I'm calling engineers and scientists un-compassionate, you misread what I wrote. I am one myself, and I work with many. Most of them are very sensitive, caring people. The point I stated is that when engineers and scientists solve problems, they can unwittingly forget that the _system_ they are trying to create is made of people who may have values, dreams, and desires that the problem solver doesn't account into his system. Finally, I have not called science inhumane, nothing near it. And I don't appreciate have my words restated as such. Caution and skepticism, however, are as important to science as curiosity and human intelligence.

My "precious ideology"? Excuse you, but you don't have any more insight into my personal ideology beyond a single slashdot post, so spare us all from your foregone conclusions. (side node: pattern here?) If you think something critical is missing from this discussion, share it or don't bother to get involved. If you're posting to one-up somebody else to inflate your ego, I beg you to consider posting somewhere else, because slashdot isn't the venue for you.

A very typical attack on conservatism. All insults. No facts. No intellectual discussion. Just a hint, your smug attitude isn't lending credence to your statements.

Understood. Evolution is a theory, not proved, and I don't mean to suggest somebody isn't smart for not believing in it. I, on the other hand, do subscribe to it.

Would you speak to my points about denials of FOIA requests? If an open an transparent IV&V process happened, why --for example-- did the CRU withhold information from Stephen McIntyre and subsequently prevent him from contributing his research in climate science related journals and IPCC reports? Why did the CRU destroy raw data that underwent preprocessing for their simulation and analysis? Good science welcomes all points of view, and the CRU is not practicing good science.

As a conservative and a catholic who has spent 14 years working as a software engineer and has some limited public policy background, I think I have a perspective worth sharing on this topic.

The headline doesn't surprise me at all, but I think some of the conclusions about why stem from speculation on stereotypes rather than a comprehensive understanding of conservatism. As a practicing catholic, I accept the teachings of the church in the Bible; however, I also accept the theory of evolution based on my studies of bioinformatics related subjects. My interpretation of the Bible does not stand in conflict. For instance, the Bible says God created Earth in seven days. Since so much of the Bible's teaching comes in the form of metaphors, I interpret seven days a metaphor for people of ancient times with no access to education so they could easily relate concepts they understood to the formation of a planet. Many of my fellow catholics and conservatives express their beliefs in similar fashion.

In coming to where the distrust of science arises, I consider several data points. First, Left leaning thinkers dominate most of academia. Polls show this overwhelmingly, and I'm pretty sure most reading this don't disagree. Second, causes of environmental extremism frequently only present a partial view of science to justify an agenda. Consider the claims that man made CO2 emissions are causing the planet to warm. Much of the research upon which scientists have based these claims is not public. They have taken steps to avoid Freedom of Information Act requests, even to the extent that a frustrated whistleblower dumped a series of emails that blew up into the scandal now known as Climategate. For instance, proper simulation analysis undergoes a process called Independent Validation and Verification (IV&V). This involves third parties reproducing results against known outcomes, and anyone wishing to challenge the assertions may openly participate. However; this is not what's happened. Rather than openly engaging skeptics, even those with scientific backgrounds, the proponents tarnish, ridicule, and exclude such people from the process. Given the substantial financial gains some stand to make with the implementation of CO2 emissions policy, conservatives not welcoming such changes will naturally express a high degree of skepticism. Efforts such as capping CO2 emissions, elimination of DDT, etc. span back as early as the 1970s. Third, it's natural for conservatives to distrust anyone with the power of public policy making. There are exceptions, but not many.

On the other side, I think some of my fellow conservatives sometimes fail to look at the whole picture of an issue. For instance, the US energy sector stands to gain a great deal of efficiency with the implementation of SmartGrid technology. However, it has an Orwellian aspect to it in that a central office can manipulate the amount of power applied at the point of consumption. Conservatives, myself included, don't want somebody in a central office controlling what happens within their homes, and this sentiment sometimes overshadows the other benefits of SmartGrid technology, such as synchrophasers. So rather than simply opposing the single invasive aspect of SmartMeters, they oppose the entirely of all SmartGrid technology.

Lastly, I think that scientists naturally tend to drift towards Left leaning ideology because of their problem solver mentality. When an engineer builds something, a car or rocket or software application, he/she aims to develop it in such a manner that it functions in the most optimal way possible, time and money permitting of course. The building blocks are mechanical parts, 0's and 1's, or other types of inanimate objects. They don't have consciousness, feeling, dreams, desires, or rights. When science enters the realm of public policy, however, those building blocks are individual persons. I think it's too easy for scientific based public policy makers to forget that and consequently dehumanize the problems they are trying to solve. That's what I consider the essence of conservative based skepticism of science in today's world.