iNow

Using metaphor is imprecise. You will interpret it differently than I will interpret it, and I will interpret it differently than some other person will interpret it. It's a poor method of communication where science is concerned. Also, I've found that his posts often rest on incredibly false premises as a general rule, and have little value toward reality and understanding (you don't understand something if the analogy is wrong, nor if the opening premises are fallacious). I don't want this to turn into a thread bashing a member, though. My initial response was based on my past experiences with that particular member, and I can appreciate how that may not have been clear to users who are newer to the community, so I apologize for that.

I find this simple point to be very profound. We can quibble about details, but you've marvelously summed up the context of the issue with this one straight forward statement. Well said, npts2020.

Agreed. PM is best for such exchange if they occur. Perhaps a mod could do it in case mrsemmapeel no longer has the option of doing an edit to her post (I think it goes away for non-staff users after about 6 hours, IINM).

Thank you for the very cool resources, Martin. I'll be checking a few of these out myself as well. I've already got the Smolin video lecture queued up for viewing. I think my username betrays my personal interest in this type of work.

Just FYI - He was making a joke (and it was funny, too). It was a response to the post immediately before his that had a bunch of spam on how to buy flax seed at a particular website... repeated like 12 times... so his response was great since it came right after that huge spam post. Now that the spam has been deleted, the joke loses its understandability, but I'm sure he's grateful for your kindness all the same.

I'm short on time, and about the run out the door, so please don't take my short post as if I don't think this is an awesome topic idea. In short, though, pros are that it injects money and creates liquidity. Basically, it's like adding some WD-40 or all-in-one oil to the proverbial joints of our economy. Stiff joints don't move, loose ones do... and that movement is self-reinforcing. The cons are figuring out a way to pay for it later, when we can only forecast how much we'll make back on the investment... basically, huge risk with an uncertain payback or payoff time. The amount we'll recover is a really fuzzy number. Also, where we direct it matters, as recent debates can attest. More than anything else, though, it's a last resort. The only reason the government needs to do this is because they are the only ones who can right now. Yeah, I'll definitely need to come back to organize my thoughts on this and articulate better. Sorry for the curtness. There really are both good and bad parts of this, and they all have merit. What upsets me about what we here being discussed by the naysayers of the bill and shared in the media are ridiculous nonsense that really matter little in terms of scope and relative to the overall.

Exactly. It's not about them preparing for large bodies of water in space. It's about getting their bodies and minds used to doing these activities like fixing tools and gathering samples in an environment that closely approximates weightlessness. It's more about buoyancy than anything else, more specifically, "controlled neutral booyancy." Learn more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral_Buoyancy_Laboratory

This is insane. Here is audio between the pilot and the air traffic controllers. It's like they're discussing what they are having for dinner. Amazing. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/06/nyregion/06crash.html?ref=nyregion In the recording, Captain Sullenberger’s voice is deep and a bit gravelly, with a brisk cadence and clipped syntax that is normal for communications between cockpits and controllers. If there was a sign of stress, it was that the captain fumbled his call sign; “Cactus” is the correct sign for US Airways, but he was Flight 1549, not 1539. The controller replied instantly, “O.K., yeah, you need to return to La Guardia; turn left heading of, uh, 220,” that is, to the left. Captain Sullenberger acknowledged, and instantly the controller, in a windowless radar room at the New York Terminal Radar Approach Control on Long Island, used a land line to reach the control tower. “Tower, stop your departures. We got an emergency returning,” he said. The controller’s voice was urgent but not evidently stressed, until he, too, bungled the call sign, calling it “1529.” The controller turned his attention back to the plane. “Cactus 1529, if we can get it to you, do you want to try to land Runway 1-3?” Captain Sullenberger was in the unusual position of both flying an airliner and working the radio; talking on the radio is normally the job of the other pilot, but in this case the first officer, Jeffrey B. Skiles, was running through an “engine restart checklist.” “We’re unable. We may end up in the Hudson,” Captain Sullenberger replied, at 3:28:11, less than a minute after his first communication about the unfolding emergency. The controller offered him directions to the runway. “Unable,” Captain Sullenberger responded, in standard pilot phraseology. The other La Guardia runway was also available, the controller said, and Captain Sullenberger replied, “I am not sure if we can make any runway,” and asked about “anything in New Jersey, maybe Teterboro.” Given a routing there, he replied, “We can’t do it.” “O.K.,” said the controller. “Which runway would you like at Teterboro?” “We’re gonna be in the Hudson,” the captain replied. He never used the word “emergency,” although the controllers in the radar room on Long Island and the towers at La Guardia and Teterboro reacted instantly as they were drawn into the problem. His last communication was at 3:29:28, a few hundred feet over the Hudson. Captain Sullenberger, the co-pilot and three flight attendants will describe their experiences in an interview with Katie Couric on “60 Minutes,” scheduled to be broadcast on Sunday on CBS, which released a short transcript of the interview on Thursday. Full audio on the left of the page at the link above. "We're unable. We may end up in the Hudson." Out-friggin-standing. I'm really looking forward to the 60 Minutes interview this Sunday.

Very clever. I like it. Perhaps the same could be said about cereal being a great snack for people with the munchies? Or, perhaps not: http://www.usatoday.com/sports/olympics/2009-02-05-phelps-kellogg_N.htm Cereal and snack maker Kellogg Co. says it will not renew its sponsorship contract with Olympic swimmer Michael Phelps because of the photo that showed him smoking marijuana last fall. The Battle Creek, Mich.-based company said Thursday that Phelps's behavior — caught on camera and published Sunday — is "not consistent with the image of Kellogg." Yeah, because commercials with talking roosters remind nobody of illicit drugs.

Much more likely is that I'm sometimes prone to idiocy. Thanks for clarifying. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged I see the point you're making, and found your analogy insightful, but isn't "leaving the economy alone" part of what caused this whole mess? Even Greenspan, poster child of the free market, conceded that reality doesn't seem to fit the ideal of a free market he'd held for so many years.

Schools seem to be able to do just about anything they want. Just recently, a teacher in Texas was suspended just for being an atheist and "too" liberal. http://democracyforamerica.com/blog_posts/27752-texas-teacher-suspended-for-being-liberal-and-an-atheist Then on January 7th, a student in my classroom in second period left my class, went to the Principal's office, and told him that there was an inappropriate discussion in my classroom. I was informed by the principal, Richard Turner, that I needed to talk to her mother because she was very upset. Her mother came to class on January 7th, came to the school January 7th, very upset. She made some threats to me in the hallway. And then on January 8th, Mr. Turner informed me that I needed to call the parent, Mrs. Lowe. On January 9th, I had Vicki Smith, the school secretary, call "REDACTED" on my behalf to arrange a conference at 10:35 Monday, January 12th. Monday the 12th, I met with REDACTED and School Principal Richard Turner in his office. REDACTED was very angry. She accused me of being an atheist, saying I was too liberal, and that I allowed the students to talk about inappropriate things in the classroom. I told her that occasionally students would get on topics and say things, but I was unable to censor them before they were able to say them. She said that I called her daughter a name and I denied the accusation. But then she said that I didn't believe in god and shouldn't be teaching. She also said that she had spoken to 3 other board members who agreed with her that I shouldn't be teaching because I was too liberal and I was an atheist. On January 15th, there was a board meeting. Nothing was on the agenda concerning me. During the open forum, several audience members spoke to their concerns that I was an atheist and I was too liberal. On January 16th, I was called to Mr. Richard Turner's office (my principal), and he informed me that I had been put on administrative leave with pay. The reasons, as stated to me by Mr. Turner at the time, were that I was accused of being an atheist and teaching atheism in the classroom, and I was too liberal. On January 23rd, Mr. Turner and members of the board met behind closed doors concerning my suspension and allegations that were directed at me. On January 24th, I received a certified letter from Mr. Turner that stated that the causes for my suspension apparently had been changed to inappropriate contact with students and comments. As PZ noted, it sure is a good thing they didn't think he was a witch, or he'd have been strung up and hung, or possibly burned at the stake by now.

I like how you left out my actual argument in that post over in the Salary Cap Bailout thread. Clever way to try making a point. I'm not against striking high value targets which are confirmed. I just took issue with this idea that we could bomb our way into a better future, or that heavy bombing was some sort of solution. Fair enough?

I sincerely hope that you don't mean that you find it uncomfortable to post honestly about your feelings here. I don't think many of us are necessarily "for" a bailout, but we can at least see both benefits and costs about doing one. That's how I've, at least, tried to position my own arguments. Either way, I know it can be hard to post and feel like you're part of a minority, but I respect your opinion on this (as well as others), as it has helped me to shape my opinion and adjust much of my own lop-sided thinking. I find your viewpoints on these issues incredibly beneficial, and I'd be mighty pissed off if you stopped sharing them honestly, or even stopped sharing them at all.

Lol. You rock, dude! I was SO going to post about this in a coupla' days. What is really interesting to me is just how VERY MANY regular PBS Nova viewers wrote to them in protest about this program (because it offended their religious sensibilities, I suppose). I agree with your take that it is simply one of the best programs out on the ID/Evolution debate. I've seen it like 3 times already, and I'm planning to watch it yet again, myself. :thumbs_up

...

What a simple, yet brilliant, idea. I love it. But, yeah... can't trust science. None of the money should be spent on that.

Why am I reminded of how McCain and Palin criticized research on fruit flies during the campaign?

Ah, yes. Of course, I was just making things up. How COULD I be so deceitful? Err... wait a second. You said this when I engaged you on this point: Yeah. You're right. That comment just reeks of precision targeting and me putting words in your mouth about lack of discrimination of targets. My discussionary engagement with you on this topic is done, now. Ridicule is not a valid form of argument.

We're pretty well aligned. What would you think if the populace were given a "seat" and a vote on the Board of Directors? Basically, the board votes every quarter on what to allow and what initiatives to follow, and we somehow can "text our votes" for one of the available options if they took a bailout from our tax dollars. Our votes are then aggregated into "One Vote" and that gets added to the hopper. The board then casts their votes, ours is included, and we influence the outcome, but don't dicate it. I haven't thought that through. It's just something that came to me while reading your response.

I'm more curious how I_A knows what the track and field teams feet taste like.

Yeah, but most people don't get dressed in the morning thinking, "I wonder whether or not I'll be putting gas into my car today."

I don't disagree with the tone of your post, but there is no investigation necessary. He confessed. Case closed. They can now charge him if they have jurisdiction to do so. I suspect that's the focus of their efforts (deciding if they have the proper jurisdiction to pursue it and whether or not it's worth it), not DNA samples or other CSI type stuff.

For someone who speaks so powerfully against the idea of socialism, I must admit that I found your comment below a bit shocking. Leaving aside my shock, let me address the operational aspect of this idea. Ever heard the phrase "death by committee?" Thinking of my own work, I know that we sometimes limit ourselves to "tiger" teams, where we put a few bright and able decision makers in place to drive a process forward, with only the occasional check point for overview and status update. We do this, because through experience we've found that getting too many sources of outside input ultimately kill the program... The more people we involve (as a general rule), the more their competing interests ultimately kill the project... We wind up "n=Nickling and diming" it to a hollow and worthless change. I'm okay with capping the CEO, and also the other senior executives, and potentially driving what the milestones should be for progress (like asking Detroit to build greener cars, etc.), but that's about as far as I'm willing to go right now. Interesting that you consistently speak more against the idea of socialism than I do, yet you are willing to go farther with government control of the company in this approach than me. Strange juxtiposition, that.

The stupid! It burns!!

And again, here we can relate. Cheers, man.