Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
In Brazil, another western (but underdeveloped) democracy, we barely even have religious classes, only philosophy, and the religious classes are only those ministered by the church in dominical schools.
I reckon the main problem is that americans love the word 'scientist'. It's has a catchy sound and makes us think about reclusive people dressed in white overalls with deep glasses and making experiments with colorful liquids that might explode. Since people don't quite understand what these 'scientists' do, or how they become scientists, they tend to treat science with skepticism. That old eureka! image of someone coming up with a theory right out of the bat is what people think went down when charles darwin came up with his 'ideas'.
Here (again in Brazil) the good schools don't have a science class for anyone past the age 10. Right from the early days we already separate what is biology, what is chemistry, physics and so on. So the 'scientist' is not a nutjob that pulls out ideas out of his ass, he's simply an chemistry, biology, etc. teacher whose job is to research and than write the books that children and adults use to study. That's how you make people to trust science despite religion telling you the opposite: get them early like religion does. Every time I read 'scientists claim that...' or 'sc
Science is a word that should be forbidden. It oversimplifies everything that gathered, empirically tested and accepted knowledge is. Since people don't quite understand what 'science' is all about, they think it's something to 'believe' or 'have faith' in. I grew up to be a skeptical and rational man, and I have my chemestry, biology and physics teachers to thank.
what's the difference, in purpose or availability, from the so-called flying car and an actual helicopter? Fuel is carbon based, as small as 4 passengers models available, reliable and fast. Just because they don't look like cars they won't fit the utopia of flying cars?
The concerns about safety, procedure of taking off and landing and range, payload and necessity of documentation are the same as the requirements for a flying car would be.
this poll is absurd assuming that a flying transport has to look like a car.