That does not change the fact that politics is the #1 factor for all of the nobels. Someone could discover the cure for cancer, but if they are a known opponent of man made global whateveritscalledthisweek, there is NO chance they could win. And yes, IN THE PAST there are a few winners with some warts, BUT THAT WAS IN THE PAST. Sorry for the all caps, but I'm am good at anticipating the argument style of autistic spectrum people.
You act like every scientist is capable of winning the nobel. Even in science, there are those who fill the fry cook and janitor jobs. Besides, the nobel seems to have turned into a political award. Before you retort, please explain the substantive contributions to the world that won President-elect Obama his nobel peace prize.
Maybe linking to a page with an incredibly hard political viewpoint is a bad idea?
You can always tell who bases their opinion on science: they use science to back up their opinions.
Faux science folks like to use name calling and character assassination.
Nowadays scientific method consists of making sure that your "research" ends up hitting a prearranged target. Only this will keep the funding coming.
That's what you get when you make a science issue a political issue. Liberals, I'm looking at you.
Propaganda only works if you control access to opposing ideas. Thus since the left has *everything* invested in forcing global cooling/warming/change down everyone's throats, the only place you can get access to contrary ideas is on conservative sites.
If you compare the way *men of science* handle climate science with literally any other scientific idea, you'll see a massive difference in the conversation.
There is no conversation - because this is not about science. It's about damaging democracy and capitalism.
That's what you get when you politicize science. You get this.
You're not allowed to mention that here. Everyone knows that the scientific method is critical to the proper development of our world. So for you to bring up an idea that may confuse the masses is heretical. You might shake the faith of those weak-minded individuals who don't have kool-aid spewing from every orifice.
Remember that in science, extraordinary claims (like man made global cool
Also, you are safe espousing *any* idea as long as you say it is an consensus amongst scientists who only receive funding if their theories match the consensus. That is how science works.
Nowadays a scientist who shouts "eureka" has just discovered that their results closely match the demanded result. Thus the money train continues.
If you thought people would agree with you, why didn't you post under your own account to reap the sweet, sweet karma?
Is this a bot? And by bot, I mean a complete idiot spewing kool-aid with no more self-awareness than an inanimate object.
Is that the media decided not to cover it because it was not on either coast and they didn't have a clear way to blame it on the Bush administration.
The pointy headed suits at dice want to make *more* money from slashdot. These changes are designed to give them better analytics to sell to others. They could give a fuck about our community. It won't even be a big deal to them if this destroys slashdot - they have other toys to play with.
It seems to me that the one unifying opinion of those critical of the changes is that *no changes are necessary*. So, clearly this is NOT something that is meant to benefit the users - it's more likely part of some monetization plan.
Just admit it and move on - stop blowing smoke up our asses like our opinion actually matters. Maybe it did once, but that hasn't been the case for quite a while now.
Isn't that you?
I'm pretty sure that the consensus opinion of scientists is that they cannot and never will be wrong. So by definition, you are a religious zealot (or whatever label would be most damaging to your reputation).
It's science!
Why do you waste your time? This country is going right down the tubes, and arguing with these mind-numbed robots is not going to accomplish anything. There can be no agreement between two parties with mutually exclusive goals.
Your goal seems to be wanting to be left alone - and their goal requires you to tow the line and dance to their tune. No agreement is possible.
Is this now the Argument Sketch from Monty Python? You made the laughable point that Obama is really a Moderate Republican - and I called you an deranged idiot. Prove your initial point (about Mr. Obama) or slink away you fucking chode.
Perhaps you can explain why this "moderate republican" frames every problem as caused by the private sector, and every solution from government?
Like I said, you are clearly deranged. I'll add that you are clearly hard autistic spectrum as well - it's sooooo easy to manipulate people who do not *innately* understand human interaction.
Solutions are obvious if one only has the optical power to observe them over the horizon. -- K.A. Arsdall
