Because at NIH indeed you are placed on a grant review board because of your techical knowledge of the matter. On top of that, the applications are all supported by citations in technical (and peer-reviewed) papers.

As best I understand funding at DOE and NSF works much the same way; your odds of getting funded are astronomically better if you have good primary literature to support the experiment you propose. Now, if your funding plans revolve around convincing your favorite congress-critter to write in a line (or a full bill) to get you some money, that might work too but it generally isn't the most reliable way to establish a career path.

No, for the argument that I presented later in the same post. The problem I have is the modern hijacking of the term atheist.

If one declares there to be no god, they are making a statement of faith. It is of the same magnitude - though opposite orientation - as one made by someone declaring there to be a god.

Similarly, the classic definition of agnostic was a "doubter", one who questioned the existence of a deity. Then some of the "atheists" took on a faith of their own and pushed the classical atheists out in search of a new term to describe their standing.

Perhaps I wasn't clear on this matter. My point is that people who specifically state a belief in there not being a particular (generally Abrahamic) god are calling themselves atheists when they are showing faith in that very statement. Similarly by the way that the terms "atheist" and "agnostic" have been redefined in modern times, one could reasonably describe any random person to likely be agnostic towards a deity that they have never heard of (unless they specifically subscribe to the existence of a different one in a way that prevents them from accepting any other).

You've nearly hit the nail on the head, there - though I suspect perhaps not in the way you had intended. A lot of people who embrace the term "atheist" today do go and try to convert people. This in reality means that they are not atheists in the classic definition of the word as they are expressing a faith and a drive for that faith.

The bigger failure, from my vantage point, is that people who call themselves "atheists" today often have faith in there not being a god. At that point they are not truly atheists as the term means "without faith". They have instead hijacked the term to now mean "anyone who believes there to not be a god"; indeed it takes just as much faith to believe there to not be a god as it does to believe there to be one.

This is why while I am classically an atheist, I use the term agnostic to describe myself in the modern world.

I am about as big of a fan of Bernie Sanders as any person you will ever find (particularly hanging out in a conservative echo chamber like slashdot). However I am also enough of a realist to know that

• He will never run for president
• • and
• His ideas for dismantling the for-profit stranglehold on our federal government will never gain any traction during my lifetime (unless our country finally calls it enough and splits into two or more independent nations).

I would love to see Bernie Sanders take on the cult leader's son in a debate. Sanders would completely dismantle him.

Mostly just the lobbyists who have been busy buying up democrats. But we don't need them anyways.

And who are the anti-capitalist-empire candidates, pray tell? I haven't seen any. The empire is simply too strong for anyone to mount a resistance at the ballot box. Voting for Mickey Mouse doesn't accomplish anything either.

Every one of those functions take less time than writing a text message. Furthermore all those functions are designed to be easy and safe to do while driving. Text messaging was never designed with that in mind.

I had an idea that might not be so dangerous and pulled out my fone. âoeComputer,â I said, âoewhat's the best way to knock that bitch out?â
        The fone said âoeParse error, there are no female dogs on board and âknockâ(TM) is not in context. Please rephrase.â
        Who programs these God damned stupid things, anyway? Back when computers were new, science fiction movies had computers that could think. These stupid computers sure can't. God damn it, I was going to have to talk like I went to college... only I ain't went to college, damn it.

Texting while driving in most places can be classified as distracted driving. It doesn't need a special classification; if you were reading the newspaper while driving you could be pulled over and fined for that, texting is often handled the same way.

Some places have additional statutes and fines on the matter, but that is just to try to raise awareness - or revenue.

Unfortunately it appears that fines and education have been completely ineffective on the matter. I lived in a place for several years that would have annual campaigns to discourage drivers from texting while driving, followed by announced enhanced enforcement of the offense.

So what happened? Were people at least smart enough to send fewer messages during the enhanced enforcement period? No. Not even close. Every year the tallies went up.

For one, most of the people doing this are young and their insurance - and phone bill - are paid by the parents. So nothing is hitting their own wallets directly.

I have yet to hear of anyone having their phones confiscated. Although again as the offenders far more often than not are getting everything they need from their parents, confiscation won't do much but prevent them from sending messages for the next 24 hours or so.

For certain very lucky values of "safely", sure. Taking your eyes completely off the road to do something is, quite simply, never a good idea.

A lot of people drive drunk and don't cause accidents (or only harm themselves) yet we don't consider it to be safe.

No, it is far much more like driving drunk.

Generally only the case if your car has an automatic transmission. Rather hard to do that if you are taking a test with a standard transmission.