Science in the US (split from Donald Trump)

[Sensei]

Well, for what primary purpose does the government use atomic clocks? GPS. For what purpose does the government use GPS? Precision weapon targeting. Tracking individuals via their mobile phones. No bias? I think not.

 

Mobile phones use cell phone towers as primary method for precise localization..

If you enable localization via GPS satellite, in my smartphone, precision is poor.

After enabling localization via cell tower, precision is much greater. It tells me in which room in apartment I am in.

GPS chip by itself does not send any data to government. Cell tower can do it, when phone is communicating with it.

Couple such towers, with different delays from the same device, plus triangulation, gives precise location of device.

Conclusion, government does not need atomic clocks and GPS for tracking individual people.

Edited April 26, 2017 by Sensei

[DoYouEvenScienceBro]

Science needs to worry more about its many deeply-disturbing internal issues, not manufactured external ones.

[iNow]

Science needs to worry more about its many deeply-disturbing internal issues

Such as?

[Phi for All]

Science needs to worry more about its many deeply-disturbing internal issues, not manufactured external ones.

 

Ah, the Putin Whataboutism tactic. Forget what a stain the POTUS is, what about those deeply disturbing internal science issues?

[KipIngram]

Yes, politicians of both stripes are masters of that tactic. Pay attention to this riot over here, or that school shooting over there, or Putin, or whatever else works. But pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. In an IRC chat channel I hang out in we call it the "hey, there's a squirrel" method.

[Phi for All]

Yes, politicians of both stripes are masters of that tactic. Pay attention to this riot over here, or that school shooting over there, or Putin, or whatever else works. But pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. In an IRC chat channel I hang out in we call it the "hey, there's a squirrel" method.

 

Sorry, I meant to include a specific link to Whataboutism. It's a Soviet-style appeal to hypocrisy fallacy.

[KipIngram]

Oh, interesting. I didn't know it was a specific "named thing."

[Ten oz]

Yes, politicians of both stripes are masters of that tactic. Pay attention to this riot over here, or that school shooting over there, or Putin, or whatever else works. But pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. In an IRC chat channel I hang out in we call it the "hey, there's a squirrel" method.

I am not a fan of the platitude that "both stripes" do X, Y, Z. Saying such always seems fair. It is a centrist position which seeks to treat all sides fairly which lends it credibility. Problem is that it has no levels of accuracy or degree. If there are 2 politicians and one of them has lied a handful of times to spare themselves or others embarrassment and the other lies virtually everytime they speak with the intention of completely misleading people the two politicians are not equal. Saying both are liars because both have lied might be true but fails to distinguish them and favors the bigger liar by making them no worse than their opponent when in fact they are.

 

Yes, bothside deflect and attempt to focus attention else where but both do so to different degrees and to distract from very different things. I think it is counterproductive to say both stripes do it and move on. It provides whomever is doing it in real time cover.

[Phi for All]

I am not a fan of the platitude that "both stripes" do X, Y, Z.

 

If you think about it, it's the same appeal to hypocrisy that the Soviets perfected. "Sure I lied, but she did too." It completely ignores the ratios involved.

[GeniusIsDisruptive]

 

Are gag orders for the USDA, NPS and EPA, along with immediate elimination of competitively awarded scientific grants without review, freezing of NIH, NSF, NOAA, USDA, USGS, etc postdoctoral hiring are things you wanted from your federal government? What do you think it bodes for the state of science in the US?

 

"Science" is not advanced exclusively by government grants and largess. What do you think the $19.5 trillion debt bodes for the US, when the Left insists on increasing spending without limit, raising taxes "on the rich" without limit, and expanding the $200 TRILLION in unfunded mandates?

 

Science demands more money. Welfare proponents demand more money. Educators demand more money. Artists, environmentalists, "activists" of all kinds, you name it, everyone pretends that the well will never run dry, just keep on sticking it to "the rich." And by the way, "the rich" never includes George Soros or John Kerry or Richard Branson or Al Gore or the Obamas, who by the way continue to suck HUNDREDS of millions of dollars as the flit from Washington, D.C. to Palm Springs to the Bahamas to Indonesia to Italy to Germany.

 

And by the way, YOU cut back your carbon dioxide emissions 80%. The Obamas got places to go, people to see, beautiful, rich people. Important people.

[Arete]

 

"Science" is not advanced exclusively by government grants and largess. What do you think the $19.5 trillion debt bodes for the US, when the Left insists on increasing spending without limit, raising taxes "on the rich" without limit, and expanding the $200 TRILLION in unfunded mandates?

 

Science demands more money. Welfare proponents demand more money. Educators demand more money. Artists, environmentalists, "activists" of all kinds, you name it, everyone pretends that the well will never run dry, just keep on sticking it to "the rich." And by the way, "the rich" never includes George Soros or John Kerry or Richard Branson or Al Gore or the Obamas, who by the way continue to suck HUNDREDS of millions of dollars as the flit from Washington, D.C. to Palm Springs to the Bahamas to Indonesia to Italy to Germany.

 

And by the way, YOU cut back your carbon dioxide emissions 80%. The Obamas got places to go, people to see, beautiful, rich people. Important people.

 

Are you going for a record in non sequitur?

[Phi for All]

What do you think the $19.5 trillion debt bodes for the US, when the Left insists on increasing spending without limit, raising taxes "on the rich" without limit, and expanding the $200 TRILLION in unfunded mandates?

 

Without limit? How vividly misleading, and patently untrue. Do you understand what "without limit" means with regard to money? Are you lying or just exaggerating?

 

If the tax structure for the rich was similar to what is was during the Eisenhower administration, is that "without limit"? Do you think we could afford more science research with the added revenue?

[Arete]

 

Without limit? How vividly misleading, and patently untrue. Do you understand what "without limit" means with regard to money? Are you lying or just exaggerating?

 

If the tax structure for the rich was similar to what is was during the Eisenhower administration, is that "without limit"? Do you think we could afford more science research with the added revenue?

 

 

Not to mention the irony, that historically, Republicans spend more on government funded science than Democrats. Making it a "left vs right" issue displays considerable ignorance.

 

Edit to add the Committee on appropriations in a Republican held house elected to INCREASE the NIH budget by $2 billion, hold the DOE budget steady and decrease the NSF budget by 1.7% - supposedly none of which will come from grant programs. So the Republican government is at odds with significant cuts to science proposed by the White House.

Edited July 12, 2017 by Arete

[GeniusIsDisruptive]

 

Without limit? How vividly misleading, and patently untrue. Do you understand what "without limit" means with regard to money? Are you lying or just exaggerating?

 

If the tax structure for the rich was similar to what is was during the Eisenhower administration, is that "without limit"? Do you think we could afford more science research with the added revenue?

 

Why no, as a nine-year-old, according to koti, I have not the slightest idea of "without limit." So please, tell me, would you?

 

"Science research" has included funding studies on why lesbians get drunk more often than normal women.

"Science research" has included funding studies on how climate change is impacting malaria in South Africa.

"Science research" has been lampooned for many years for squandering taxpayers' funds. Do you understand what "scarce resources" are?

Or do you not consider them remotely scarce, but falling from government troughs like so much slop?

 

A teaching moment, courtesy of Professor Walter Williams, of George Mason University:

 

"Ninety percent of government spending is unconstitutional." A profound and enlightening commentary, for those who would learn.

 

Not to mention the irony, that historically, Republicans spend more on government funded science than Democrats. Making it a "left vs right" issue displays considerable ignorance.

 

 

It is virtually impossible for a Democrat to comment on a conservative without making gratuitous references to our "ignorance" and "anti-science" mentality. So Arete makes a "left vs right" issue and says that doing so "displays considerable ignorance" without noting the irony of his smear.

 

He validates my point of the widespread condescension by the Left here. Nor is there ever an apology made to me, even after I have been called a "nine year old."

Edited July 13, 2017 by GeniusIsDisruptive

[iNow]

Nor is there ever an apology made to me, even after I have been called a "nine year old."

I agree. That really was unfair to nine year olds.

[Arete]

 

So Arete makes a "left vs right" issue

 

That's the exact opposite of what I actually said. You do realize that people can actually read the posts in order, right?

 

Also, I've never actually commented on my political position, so you're now assuming I am a Democrat when I'm not actually a US citizen at all. You understand how casting unfounded aspersions and stereotyping anyone who disagrees with you into a convenient pigeonhole then stramanning them that makes you look, right?

Edited July 13, 2017 by Arete

[CharonY]

 

That's the exact opposite of what I actually said. You do realize that people can actually read the posts in order, right?

 

To be fair, to some it may appear to be an extraordinary skill.

[GeniusIsDisruptive]

 

That's the exact opposite of what I actually said. You do realize that people can actually read the posts in order, right?

 

Also, I've never actually commented on my political position, so you're now assuming I am a Democrat when I'm not actually a US citizen at all. You understand how casting unfounded aspersions and stereotyping anyone who disagrees with you into a convenient pigeonhole then stramanning them that makes you look, right?

 

 

"So you're now assuming I am a Democrat" is what YOU said.

 

 

THIS is what I said:

He validates my point of the widespread condescension by the Left here.

 

 

I say "Left." You say "Democrat." You understand how that makes you look, right?

 

I didn't think so. It's always one way with you Leftists. YOU'RE smarter, more environmentally conscious, more genuinely moral and decent, more giving, ever so much more scientific, and smarter. Did I say smarter?

 

Leftists from any country can be expected to pounce on Donald Trump, after he defeated Hillary Clinton in the election, despite all the best efforts of the Fake News Media. That's why your Leftist nature is abundantly clear.

 

He validates my point of the widespread condescension by the Left here.

 

To be fair, to some it may appear to be an extraordinary skill.

 

I say "Leftist." Your Leftist friend says he's not a "Democrat." And that is supposed to make ME look.....

 

You kind and gentle folks enjoy ganging up on one newcomer here who rejects your political correctness, and you attack relentlessly, giggling at your own cleverness at every step. How utterly "scientific" and "rational" of you. Really.

 

The "extraordinary skills" are all yours. I'm just a simple nine year old. Ask your friend koti.

[Arete]

"So you're now assuming I am a Democrat" is what YOU said...I say "Left." You say "Democrat." You understand how that makes you look, right?

 

Literate?

 

It is virtually impossible for a Democrat to comment on a conservative without making gratuitous references to our "ignorance" and "anti-science" mentality

 

Edited July 13, 2017 by Arete

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

Aaaand, we're done here.