Nope. just had ice cream, your opinion is invalid

I'm lactose intolerant, you insensitive clod!

In any case, everyone knows sorbet is far better than ice cream.

Your move.

I like to play a game called "Troll the Internet"

You pick some category (music, books, movies, etc) and then ask a question along the lines of "Which is better?". You can even do it with entire categories (e.g. "What are the best songs to have in my music collection?" "What are the best books to read?")

It's hilarious watching the infighting and attempts to justify responses to a subjective question.

The game has gotten a bit out of hand though. I've even seen it being played on popular tech forums like "Slashdot".

that last sentence *is* pretty clear about forbidding intelligent design, or young earth, or anything like that being taught.

Really? I read that last line as:
"prohibit political or religious interpretation of scientific facts in favor of another political or religious interpretation".

I just wonder who decides what a "political interpretation" is?

Could a teacher teach the "political" interpretation that the fossil record implies evolution in favor of the "religious" interpretation that God created the fossil record to test man's faith?

It's just stupid legislation, likely crafted to show that originators stood up to Washington and their "common core" standards.

Explain again how a "focus on scientific knowledge " somehow magically prohibits teaching knowledge of microorganisms? About that Bible thing - I guess you missed "prohibit religious " in the law.

Simple: "focus on academic and scientific knowledge rather than scientific processes;"
If microbiology isn't a process, I don't know what is.

That entire section of the bill is terribly worded, incredibly vague and leaves it open to a great deal of misinterpretation. It is an blank cheque to allow legislators to bring in what they feel is "correct science" and get rid of whatever they think is "bad science".

Take the following line":
"prohibit political or religious interpretation of scientific facts in favor of another."

It looks like this means a teacher cannot favor a political or religious interpretation of scientific fact in favor of a different political or religious interpretation. Who exactly get's to decide what a political or religious interpretation is?

Is the idea that homosexuality is a genetic trait a political interpretation of science? Does this go against (some) religious interpretations that it is a punishment for sin?

Is the interpretation of the fossil record as evidence of evolution political?

How about the interpretation of the temperature of white dwarfs putting a limit on the minimum age of the universe? This goes against the 6000-year old creationist interpretation that "God did it that way"

And if this is such a grand idea for science, why not the same for mathematics? Why not have mathematics "focus on academic and mathematical knowledge rather than mathematical processes".

Because that would be insane. Just like this bill is.

I kind of prefer scientific knowledge myself.

So basically you want to limit what we teach to simple observation, with no grasp of what to do with those observations or how to advance knowledge based on it.

Teacher: Ok, class today in biology we're going to learn that penicillin kills bacteria

Little Johnny: How does it do that?

Teacher: Sorry Johnny, that's a process question. We've talked about this, I can't answer process questions.

Little Johnny: Well, how did we find out that penicillin kills bacteria?

Teacher: Well, there was this very smart man named Alexander Fleming who discovered it. I can't tell you how he discovered it, but just trust this big book of Science on my desk. That book says penicillin kills bacteria, and Alexander Fleming discovered it, so you can be sure that it's true.

Teacher: On another note, there's another big book on my desk you should all recognize from Sunday school. You can trust what it says too! After all, we all know that no one interpretation of facts should be favored over another!

If you skip past the BS /. headline and read the bill, TFS, or even the subtitle of TFS, the bill basically requires teaching science

Really? Because that's not what one of the bills sponsors said. If you even bothered to RTFA:
"he told The Columbus Dispatch that the bill would open the door to instruction on intelligent design"

And
"he said it's all about the political interpretation of science. And his example of politicized science, naturally, was climate change"

So basically he wants the bill passed to get intelligent design in the classroom and climate change out. Wow, that really helps out in teaching science!

I am kind of curious what he meant by it though.

You could, you know, RTFA and find that one sponsor for the bill:

"told The Columbus Dispatch that the bill would open the door to instruction on intelligent design: “I think it would be good for them to consider the perspectives of people of faith. That’s legitimate."

And
"he said it's all about the political interpretation of science. And his example of politicized science, naturally, was climate change. ...as evidence of climate change's political nature, he cites past estimates of agricultural productivity and the availability of fossil fuels."

So basically he wants intelligent design on the table and climate change off the table. Hmmm...I wonder if he has some sort of agenda?

don't ask why it just is memorize it and every other result of a process!

You've just described 90% of the software developers I've had to work with. No idea why a routine works, but it was highly rated on stackoverflow, so it must be the right answer!

... and sixty years later we were walking on the moon. Sixty years after the first fusion reactor, where are we?

So are you saying we should shut down most medical research? Modern medicine has been around for at least sixty years and we still don't have a cure for cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer's, ALS, Parkinson's or internet stupidity.

As well...my analogy was incorrect. The analogy should be the time from the first research into powered flight until the first successful powered flight.

Guess what....that was a heck of a lot longer than 60 years.

How come no one mentions that the world's most powerful fusion reactor consumes more energy than it produces?

The first airplane only flew 120 feet. Clearly air travel should never have been researched after such an abysmal failure in one of the first attempts.

That's it's only a suspicion, rather than "drawing conclusions based on life experiences and circumstantial evidence".

Damnit, I need more coffee. I keep words in my sentences. That should read:

That's why it's only a suspicion, rather than "drawing conclusions based on life experiences and circumstantial evidence".

No, just circumstantial evidence.

That's it's only a suspicion, rather than "drawing conclusions based on life experiences and circumstantial evidence".

If everyone waited to be spoon-fed facts about the world around them, rather than drawing conclusions based on life experiences and circumstantial evidence, we'd still be trying to figure out that whole "fire" thing.

Funny, I'm suspect the NSA terrorist identification manual has a very similar idea in it.

Once we start relying on gut instinct and circumstantial evidence to determine who the bad guys are, we've gone a long way down the path of becoming the bad guys ourselves.

can cause so much havoc and panic that everything comes to a stop.

A plane landed in Phoenix instead of San Diego.

It doesn't appear that this involved "so much havoc or panic", or that "everything" depended on John Smedley reaching San Diego on time.

If it did, my Emergency Broadcast System must be broken. They should test that thing some time!

Yea, that's almost as crazy at the NSA hacking and tracking pretty much everything and everyone. Oh wait...

I'll take "Things we actually have evidence of" for $100, Alex.

Just because a major hacking incident by a corporate/government power occurred, doesn't mean that they all occurred.