padren

I get the impression someone doesn't like the idea of a successful athletic "role model" smoking pot, maybe it goes against their acceptable stereotypes. But if they ruin the guy's life, then the "smoke pot = your life is ruined" still holds weight I guess, and it's another ideological win in the war on drugs. In short: I hate it when people are singled out for extra-zealous enforcement of laws. It is a crime of course right now, selective enforcement always upsets me.

It would explain why it seems that if there is a Creator, he never seems to understand what it is we want to do:

Joe Biden quote:

Actually, it has the potential to cost jobs, as automation tends to do. It's like saying our auto plants are out of date and need an update, and putting in robots to replace workers - which is a good call in the long run, but not exactly job creation. In this case however, I think the risk for costs to jobs is relatively low as it seems that the current system is already over stressed and people are overworked - the result may just be the same number of people being less overworked, and if they are on salary that isn't going to cost income. It does create a few temporary contracts to get the systems installed, and if the hardware doesn't come from overseas it may increase manufacturing here somewhat, and the long term benefit is one I agree with. The real question is if it is one of the most effective job creation/stimulus programs, or one that is wanted that is hoped to "also create some jobs perhaps maybe" - by what margin does it "make the grade" to be worth inclusion into such a costly bill? The fact is the price tag is massive on this bill, and it is a gamble - if we spend this money and don't get results we are really screwed, so we should be extra critical of everything that goes in. It should just "create jobs" but create the very best jobs and stimulate the economy to the maximal capacity dollar for dollar that it can. That said Obama's strategy is a little wider than straight up economic stimulus, and happens to be one I support: modernization and improving efficiency though the use of stimulus spending. I think it's a good strategy as it cuts waste and lets us focus future budgets on their intended purposes - paves the way for less government spending in the future. The elements for scientific research and education also address some areas that we have failed in to such a degree that it probably has contributed to the mess we are in now. It's not just priming the pump but trying to make the engine more efficient at the same time. I find that worth mentioning because if you view the plan solely in terms of immediate economic stimulus some things look like pork, but if you see it as a two element plan that has a high degree of synergy (gag, is there a better word?) it really does make sense from that perspective. It should be argued from that perspective though, as it doesn't stand up well when argued solely from economic stimulus.

One, glad you aren't offended, I don't think it's anyone's intention to offend you. Second, when you mention the fact that Thor does not have many worshipers, that sounds like an appeal to a logical claim that there is a logical reason why believing in Thor would be silly, but Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, and many other mainstream religions is different due to the number of followers. I just want to mention this is 1) an assertion of logic, not belief, and as such you may find responses to be less "understanding" from a "belief" standpoint as the logically the assertion values due to the fact it's based on the fallacy of "appeal to majority" (if I remember it right) and Christianity was deemed no less viable when it only had a handful of worshipers at it's beginning. It opens the can of worms discussed in the Science could use a widespread PR shift thread. Personally I don't want to get into a discussion of why mainstream religions do not have more logical basis than Norse religions as I personally respect them both equally in terms of faith and usually that sort of discussion begins to push the boundaries that SFN seems to try to maintain on the topic.

If this should be in it's own thread, feel free to split of off, but since it's on the topic of student (children) rights at school I found this to be a rather interesting article: School makes 12 yr old take pregnancy test without parental consent: http://www.kcra.com/news/18677330/detail.html Personally I think they should have gone to her parents - but to make a 12 yr old take a pregnancy test because of rumors is pretty intrusive, imo.

You shoulda left out the link and just said the name of the service, so if someone asked what the web address was you could have: http://letmegooglethatforyou.com/?q=letmegooglethatforyou

My bad - I missed it. I saw the "sign up" and missed the answers, assumed the worst.

I'd have to say yes because, well someone's gotta be throwing those lightening bolts, and even though they don't like to mention this in public schools, there are lots of holes in modern meteorology - we can't even get a 5 day forecast with any accuracy. Thor is the only explanation for thunder and lightening that doesn't have any holes in the theory. Of Polar Air Masses and People explains it well. Wait, that's silly - I mean no.

Except for when its not? It could be a bad metaphor if the assumption proves false, but it could also prove to be a good metaphor if the assumption proves to be true. It may boil down to ideological differences but I lean towards that 1) we can patch the dam, and 2) it will produce a state more desirable than the turbulent flow, especially for the long term.

And the Yankees are opposed to the ball touching the bat, but only when they are pitching. To be fair though, many Democrats railed against Bush spending when he was in power and decried the dangers of deficit spending, so now they are hypocrites too for being pro deficit. What's hypocritical is not that they are opposing the money the Dems want to spend when they didn't oppose Bush's deficits - the hypocritical part is they don't come straight out and say they don't like liberal styled programs. They claim it's because of deficits, when historical precedent says it has more to do with whether bombs or condoms appear on the check memo than the dollar figure. Of course, it could be something else: it could be that they are afraid of spending this much on top of what we already spent under Bush, which I suppose could be fair, but then they'd have to admit that spending for an unpopular war is hurting our ability to spend now, and I don't think they want to do that. Personally I find a lot of what is coming out from many conservatives on this to be rather full of hot air, tiresome and straight up hypocritical. However, what would be really scary is if they didn't oppose Dem spending at all - what would be in that bill now if the Dems knew they would have no criticism or opposition?

timely http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126921.600-why-darwin-was-wrong-about-the-tree-of-life.html personally, I'm going to wait until they come out with Darwin's Thicket of Life

1) Please state beforehand if the quiz is going to make you register/give email in order to see results. I don't start quizzes if I have to risk spam just to see the results. 2) The quiz was not that exceptional: Two questions regarding popular opinions on MMR vaccines and one about how many cups of coffee did a tabloid claim needed to be drunk to hallucinate - not reading tabloids hardly equates to been uneducated regarding good/bad science.

Well, first I think if someone makes a claim something is scientifically sound, then it is automatically open to scientific challenge. If someone wants to believe any given religious view, I personally don't mind - up until they start claiming that science supports their beliefs, at which point it's fair game. Same goes for people claiming scientific proof of alien UFOs, False Flag Ops, or alternative medicine. If someone makes the the claim x regarding an alternative medicine, (has been seen to cure xyz in n people... etc) that opens the door to pick apart that claim. If they say "I can cure cancer by hovering my hands over your body because of magical energies given to me by aliens" then that's a claim with only one testable element - is there any proof they cured cancer in any patients? The other parts are basically a belief that anyone listening should take with a grain of salt. It's pretty untestable but really it's immaterial. The claim they can cure cancer should be investigated because that's a material claim. Now, if they don't claim they can cure cancer, just that if the Aliens consider the patient "worthy" that they'll cure him. Now there really isn't anything to test but at that point the claim is pretty moot. Anyone who puts their medical health in someone making that claim is pretty much "informed" because really, they are not making any false testable claims - just untestable claims that are likely false. One point of contention - people who hold to a belief that does not originate from science, tend to be overly optimistic and overly biased towards their belief ultimately panning out scientific proof. Many "Young Earthers" still expect to find Noah's Ark or a fossil of a man riding a dinosaur or such, and believe even now their theories are fairly strong and "established science" is pretty weak simply because they are biased and don't realize how much evidence there is or how well it's been reviewed. They'll have some small "sound bite" sized point of contention with say, evolution and simply don't understand that they decided to get into a scientific discussion when they raised the contention, and start to feel their beliefs are under attack when the refuting evidence is presented. The second factor, is that many (especially in conspiracy theories, prophecy theory etc) believers that want to discuss things in a scientific manner often feel dismissed out of hand due to their claims being unpopular (hard to accept, etc), when it's really just their claims have no proof of a quality that can be part of a scientific discussion, and many people are just tired of repeating that all the time and prefer not to get into such discussions. Thirdly, someone may never make a claim any of their beliefs are scientifically testable and still have their beliefs "attacked" - if they support legislation solely based on untestable beliefs. The moment law is involved (something we all have to live under, regardless of faith or lack thereof) many people feel "faith" is not a good enough reason to interfere with a citizen's life and demand evidence to the benefit, whereas others find it perfectly nature and even urgent to legislate based entirely on a religious belief. Anyway, this is all the long way to say that science doesn't go looking to mess with anyone's beliefs, but it will make theoretical claims that contradict many people's beliefs, and the moment someone wants to use their beliefs to challenge that scientific claim, things can get ugly.

Now that's a good idea - and if we make the magnet strong enough, all you have to do is raise the stick above the bike and you get a flying bike!

Hey Mooey, thanks for turning me on to this stuff - pretty interesting effects. Here's something I found that combines NN Goo with vibration, makes for an interesting video... even if I am still figuring out exactly how it works http://www.viddler.com/explore/techeblog/videos/217/

It's worth noting that in her condition we have to insert the "be forced to" in just about any statement as to what she could do. "She could be forced to have children." has a slightly different ring to it...

I find it more offensive that Kelloggs tries to boost the sales of it's products by manipulating the emotions of young children via their propensity to idealize athletes.

Either you misunderstood what I mean or I misunderstand what you meant, so I'll try to be more specific and if I just misunderstood you please feel free to clarify. 1) One suggestion I've heard quoted is during this sort of crisis, the government should pay people to dig holes and fill them back up again. That creates jobs, but doesn't really net any larger benefit. 2) Another approach would be to pay people to dig holes that we've needed to make larger, and fill wholes we've been trying to fill, so we create jobs and net some benefit in the long run. 3) Another approach (less beneficial as stimulus than the first I would imagine) is give the money to people who will move it into Swiss bank accounts, and sit on it until they feel better about using it. What I see most of this bill being about, is #2, but it has problems. Since the Dems are in control, they are deciding which holes should be bigger, and which we should be trying to fill. Some of those holes they want to fill up, Republicans have been trying to dig deeper for years and some that Dems want to dig deeper, Republicans have been trying to fill - specifically because of an ideological difference of opinion between the two parties on which holes are best filled/dug to improve the welfare of the nation. The problem I have is right now I see most of the attacks on the bill coming against spending that runs against a specific ideology - without addressing it's relative effectiveness at stimulating the economy. I am no fan of funding faith based programs - but if we crunched the numbers and determined that was the best bang for our buck I'd put ideology aside in the name of getting our economy rolling again. The last thing I would want to see is Democrats railing against it because it's a Republican idea that gains favor with their base. If the Democrats wanted to oppose such spending, it better be about it's relative effectiveness compared to other programs we could fund so as to get the highest possible return on our money. The thing is I am sure a lot of the spending based more on ideology (to the point of abuse) than it is on it's effectiveness, and if the drafters were not biased, it would never make it in. At the same time, the people critiquing the spending are doing so based on ideology, not based on an item's relative effectiveness. That said, I think a lot of what is considered "slipped in for ideology" was actually included innocently as stimulus... whether the drafters objectively assessed that effectiveness well or not is another matter - but those aren't the result of abusing the crisis. That's basically why I started this thread: to try to discuss the actual effectiveness of the various elements spending proposed in terms of maximizing return on investment towards stimulating the economy without concern as to whether it leads us in a more liberal or conservative direction. It's not about if any given element has any economic benefit at all, but which ones have the best, which ones that have the best could be larger or if they max out at a point, and which ones are completely useless. It's probably more complex, as some may provide great benefits in the long term but yield poorly in the short with various shades of gray in between. But the question of how you spend money best to jump start an economy is one I find rather interesting, and sadly there is very little talk about those mechanics going on in the national debate - it's all ideological political rhetoric at this point. Due to that, I figure at least we can have that discussion here.

You know, this may be the first time that "We need a flow chart!" has been uttered and there is no xkcd to link to. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Ya know - you just gave me an idea for a completely different sort of zombie attack strategy: Be the biggest, rough talk'n wise crack'n cigar smoke'n hard drink'n (yet intriguing) badass with the biggest guns. When in groups utter phrases like "Sounds like a good plan....if you're trying to get yourself killed" and make sure everyone knows not to say "you didn't warn them" whenever you can. Even if you are, never look surprised, and when zombies start attacking at the absolute worst time sigh like it's a mild inconvenience because you really wanted to finish whatever you were doing before saving everyone's butts. Attempt great feats of heroics and when you succeed don't only act as if it's nothing, give everyone looks as if you can't fathom how they managed to survive normal life before the zombpocalypse. Don't focus on the fact you just killed 10,000 with a daring improvised plan, two paperclips a roll of duct tape and molative cocktail... instead just say in a displeased tone "damn, I spilled my scotch" like that is all that mattered. If zombie movies have taught me anything - that's how you survive zombies1. 1. One caveat: make sure the people you are with are not on some super important mission that they are ill prepared for, or you could find yourself in a "last stand" position sacrificing yourself at the last minute so they can save the world. If you find a group of people like that run and let them die, find a completely different ragtag collection of survivors.

I find that really upsetting, but do we have any figures as to what the current spending levels are on those programs? For instance, I see NASA's budget on Wikipedia is proposed to be $20.211B, up from $17.318B in 2008. I am guessing that $1.5B is being added on top of the budget via the stimulus package, which they propose cutting to an increase of only $0.75B. While I'd prefer the cut didn't happen at all, it accounts for under 5% of NASA's total budget. I am sure that money would go to very good use, regardless of percent, but the percents work out pretty heavily on some other programs. The National Science Foundation only has a budget of $6.02 billion for 2008 and a $1.4B proposed added in the package. This amounts to nearly 25% of the overall budget, which could have a high impact. I am curious about how the other numbers stack up for the rest of their cuts, but I don't really have time to dig into it at the moment. I am admittedly very biased, but to call science funding "useless" and laud themselves on "uncovering such blatant pork" (how I read it) it's one of the few times the world "audacity" actually comes up in my mind.

I believe Navajo is way up there.

I agree with the general assessment, but I am curious about how much 'stimulus return' we get for various types of spending of stimulus money. Personally I like the "big infrastructure" ideas that both inject money and create a better more efficient state (investing in green tech, better roads, better science, etc) but I can't help but to think as we "target in" on specific objectives, we also narrow the target of who gets that money to those that improve infrastructure... who may or may not be the best targets for immediate "economic lubrication" for the short term goal of the stimulus. You risk targeting the few businesses doing well, and just stealing workers from successful sectors, which has a lower benefit in job creation. Essentially, I am curious about all the "pork" in the bill that gets discussed as if it's burning money - those railing against money for contraception because, while planned parenthood may be against their ideology, they make no argument one way or another if people that work at planned parenthood will use that money in a manner that stimulates the economy, nor whether preventing unexpected pregnancies will allow young couples to continue with schooling/get better jobs... or if it will lessen spending because they don't have the spending pressures of a growing family. It's a rather small amount of the total money - hardly worth mentioning if not for the ideological conflicts, but I find it really interesting as a case in point because all the talk is about ideology, and none is about it's merits towards the economy. It's just assumed if it's "bad ideology" it's bad stimulus period, which is a gross partisan assumption in my mind. Applying that logic to other contended issues - health care, unemployment reform, education funding etc, I wonder where these issues that are being called "liberal trojans bursting the seams of their wooden horse" but I find it really interesting to evaluate these in terms of their economic impacts, on sliding scale regarding their effectiveness at achieving the goal of economic stimulus. I think if we had a Republican president, house and senate, we'd see the exact same thing but in the other direction. Dems would be decrying stimulus spending that favored Republican solutions as an ideological trojan horse. I think it would again be important to evaluate the merits of each line item separate from ideology, but it makes me skeptical of both sides to think of how much we've been "stimulating" the economy in terms of giving huge contracts to Haliburton and the like through out the course of the Iraq war. I thought war spending tended to create jobs and stave off recessions, but clearly that has not been happening, and I wouldn't mind understanding the answer to that better. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged I know that's a factor, but at the same time I think you can't ignore underlying issues that could lead to persistent problems. To use a very remedial example (which is probably the most advanced that I can fully wrap my head around ) you can take a small town as an example, with lots of local businesses and such. The economy is good, they produce goods that are sold out of town, they buy goods from out of town, but employment is up. Then you get a "super store" and food chains coming in, which undercut local businesses and send large amounts of money out. (Note: I know lots of extremists out there over hype this issue, I'm just using it as an example) Next thing you know the local economy is suffering, and no one is exactly sure why. Once the psychological factor kicks in and no one dares invest things really get bad, but it's not the only issue. If everyone woke up the next day and forgot, they'd still be in a town where a huge amount of money goes out every month - perhaps more than comes in. That's a somewhat remedial example, and personally I favor globalization in the long term (not an isolationist) but I if such a situation can occur even in a small town what risks are there for a nation? This one type of issue probably wouldn't be enough to make or break an economy, but I am quite ignorant to the myriad of other factors that could have a real impact, that have nothing to do with psychology. They may not even exist in any measurable manner and it could all be psychological, I am just not prepared to dismiss the possibility just yet, which leads me to the thought the underlying economy may need to be tuned up for it to function globally in a way that doesn't lead directly to the state we are in now.

Firstly, an administration doesn't get to choose who gets elected by the student body, the student body does by electing them, they are generally organized so haphazardly that there are not any real fixed rules as to who is allowed to run or not. Secondly, it's a public school, so the teachers and administrators are there to provide a public service that the students are (within reason*) entitled to. If this was a private school I wouldn't doubt the student could be expelled without the school overstepping any boundaries whatsoever. * by within reason, of course schools can expel or suspend students that disrupt the environment that other students are entitled to and such. Actually I am not sure if they even had a direct policy on what students can write at home. If they clearly stated in their rules that actions such as hers would result in a punishment at least then there was fair warning, but if not it makes the punishment worse, as it's basically saying a student can be punished for breaking a rule that didn't exist until they decided it was one after the fact.

I thought the question itself could use a thread, since a lot of posts right now sort of go around this question. After seeing some of the "pork" highlighted by republicans that is just "flagrant spending" and not economic stimulus really made me wonder about what exactly is good economic stimulus. There are some ideological differences in approach, but from what I can tell: 1) Job Creation. Spend money putting people to work. Most easily done from the public center (parks, roads, etc) but perhaps increases in grants could help businesses higher more employees, if the grants had stipulations regarding use for hiring US citizens. The private sector job creation (other than via private companies bidding on public projects) seems messy, because businesses often hire to steal employees away from other businesses, and moving employees around doesn't help in the long run. At the same time, people may quit to get a government job or work on a government contract for a private company, so I guess it works both ways. I am curious which works better. One risk is of course, private businesses will have to do well enough to keep those people on a year from now, or the economy will have to pick up so employees can get into new jobs before the money goes dry. Government spending programs that simply increase of course run a risk of getting grandfathered - and dismantling them can be wasteful I suppose. It has the benefit that we can create jobs that also help towards a better future - better roads, infrastructure, upgraded computers, etc. But as you tune the job creation schemes towards any given end, I would guess you run a risk of targeting a specific workforce which may not be hurting that bad...and just stealing employees from solvent companies. 2) Free Money. Perhaps "free" is not the correct term for bailout money but banks wouldn't be lining up for it if the free market could offer deals that good, so it must at least be "freer" in the long run. I guess it makes banks more solvent so they can feel more confident loaning out money, but I also wonder if people are actually solvent enough to borrow more money. If you don't have a job, it's hard to justify a new loan. 3) Tax breaks. This item kind of confuses me - I understand the principles of Milton economics but is the argument about entitlement (those who pay out should get back first) or that it is the most efficient way to move that money, by not collecting it in the first place? I could see it being more efficient (from china -> US gov -> program spending vs. people -> us gov & china -> us gov -> program spending & us gov -> people) but I have to admit I personally don't feel too confident that most of that would be spent in the economy, but I honestly don't know. I do think this becomes a point of contention because of a confusion between whether it is sound economically vs. if it is ethically imperative, by which I mean if someone is predisposed to small government then it's easy to feel tax cuts should morally be the first step, without discussing the actual pros and cons of it's use as an economic stimulant. Anyway, these are just some of my thoughts, which as I am sure everyone can tell are somewhat confused. I somewhat accept it is needed at this point, but I find it hard to evaluate the elements of what should be in such a plan because politically it seems to be more based on partisan ideology rather than a crunching of the numbers. So, what really are the pros and cons of the various approaches, if we ignore whether they lean towards bigger government or lower taxes, or whatnot?