Having no government interdiction at all would mean the rich would take directly from the middle class until all that was left is a class of extreme wealth at the top and a massive class of abject poverty below.
How does that differ from our present system of government?
One day, scientists are going to play the wrong frequency and it is going to re-arrange all our brains.. then.. zombie apocalypse..
However, that can be circumvented if the scientists at one of those large colliders create the wrong matter that turns us all into zombies and starts a different zombie apocalypse..
I had a better story.. but it's Halloween.. go out of your house and look at the women that dress sexy. Happy Halloween!
Last month, after careful saving, I bought an xbox one. A luxury for sure but I bought it cash and I had saved up for it.
The next day I hit a pothole and destroyed two tyres on my car. With a six month old child - I don't dare buy anything but the best tyres.
Full set of new tyres was actually more expensive than the xbox one - which by South African standards costs about a quarter of my monthly income as a high earning programmer.
That was my savings gone... then I got sick. Thank bloody goodness we have sane medical insurance regulation system so I didn't need cash to go to the doctor and get medicine because really bad luck in the same month as a rare big purchase and then getting sick is something nobody could plan for - and even the relatively healthy can't control that.
The interesting thing is that I tend to think that that very political pressure is the only reason not to. NASA made raw radio telescope data available to the public and as a result at least one amateur programmer discovered some previously unknown exo planets with his home data parser. But there is no major political debates around astronomy.
It would be better if there wasn't around any science. The only valid debate around science is other science.
We have a massive cause/effect evidence set here with an effect we do not want. Politicians can and should debate which if any policies would best help alter the cause but they have no place in a debate about the validity of the theory. At least not unless they are prepared to do so scientifically.
Instead we have Republican senators declaring the science "dubious" while failing to offer a shred of scientific support for that declaration.
I don't blame scientists for getting annoyed by that. Nobody likes their field of professional expertise impugned by somebody who is utterly ignorant about it.
What he wanted was private communications among researchers not research relevant data.
He filed two suits one was thrown out of court because the grant was federal not state and so the state taxes weren't involved.
The other was thrown out since he failed to provide any just cause for suspecting that all that private communication might contain anything relevant to the validity of the research.
The case was a flagrant attempt by a rightwing politician to try and bully a university not to study something he dissaproved off and the courts agreed with my assessment.
MSNBC even admits that they are extreme leftists and that they're proud of it.
MSNBC claims to be extreme leftists, and you lap it up. Stop believing everything the television tells you, it will help.
Are republicans so stupid that they can not see it's a Republican system?
Their memories are simply that short. That's how they forget that none of their interests have been served by their elected politicians, and proceed to re-elect them.
Here in California, however, we re-relected Jerry Brown. That's very like re-electing Marion Berry. Heh heh heh.
Either we want absolute liberty and privacy, OR we want a nanny-state,
Hmm. I'm not seeing that. Perhaps you should work on your debating skills and not employ such easily dismissed false dichotomies?
Congratulations, you just attacked a straw man. Desire vs. conclusion. HTH.
Of course, those in the know should cancel their citi accounts.
this is true anyway. Citibank is pure fucking evil. Sadly, they were my only choice for a lender when I got a student loan.
Instead we have left-wing idiots protesting oil pipelines, because that's where the donation dollars come from.
so just to be clear, you are in favor of oil pipelines? which commit a valdez or a deepwater every so many days or so?
And then you have a tiny minority of the super rich, who are strongly favored by right-leaning policies, asking the government to tax them more...
FTFY. For every Warren Buffet there's a hundred fucks who won't cough up a dime unless you punch them in the gut.
This particular income redistribution plan is only different in that income is redistributed to the poor instead of the rich.
And it is no different in that income is redistributed from the middle class instead of the rich.
Like when Cucinelli tried to sue Penn state because he didn't like the results of their science ?
Its not the scientists who are politicizing things - the politicians did that. Now the scientists have no choice in the matter.
>Then there's the "Hiding the decline" remark
No. There isn't. Quoting somebody out of context is a fallacy, a variation of the strawman fallacy, ignoring the context in which it was used means you are ignoring what it actually meant.
You don't KNOW what that context was do you ? You have no idea what sentence came before do you ? What came after ?
So how can you imagine you have the slightest idea what the sentence phrase meant ? You don't even know if that was the full sentence.
For all you know that sentence read
"Make sure you remember to input the data we got today or it's absence may hide the decline we're studying".
Now I'll leave finding just the paragraph that phrase is from as an exercise for the reader and I'm prepared to bet you won't do it.
Because you don't want to know. Because you know that three separate investigations - who DID know the context all exonerated them, so you KNOW that in context that sentence clearly did not mean anything bad - and you don't want to admit that.
No, I did not threaten anybody.
I merely made an analogy. I showed, by example, what actually happened to Michael Mann - and how I could confidently say that the same could be done to absolutely anybody, indeed I could confidently predict that it could be done to a stranger since nobody could possibly be immune from it.
The only possible interpretation of any research whatever in the `social sciences' is: some do, some don't. -- Ernest Rutherford
