Guru Zim
SQL Dejection
Administrator
Level: 136
   
Posts: 2714/5892
EXP: 29342424
For next: 754568
Since: 9.12.01
From: Bay City, OR
Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 4 hours
| AIM: |  |
| | |
|  #1 Posted on 17.9.04 2005.34
Reposted on: 17.9.11 2005.36 | http://www.nature.com/news/specials/uselection/index.html#flash
Interesting read. Here are some issues to discuss. | Promote this thread! |             | DrDirt
Banger
Level: 94
Posts: 1243/2662
EXP: 8173544
For next: 183144
Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country
Since last post: 26 days
Last activity: 1 day
| #2 Posted on 17.9.04 2255.27
Reposted on: 17.9.11 2255.33 | Interesting Guru. The biggest differences I see are in the area of nuclear weapons, global warming and to an extent, stem cell research. The most intersting thing I found was Kerry referred to himself and Edwards and "W" simply to himself.
The sad truth, no matter who is president is that there will continue to be inadequate funding for basic research in all areas as government wants to find particular solutions. Unfortunately, most great discoveries involve alot of serendipity. | Guru Zim
SQL Dejection
Administrator
Level: 136
Posts: 2716/5892
EXP: 29342424
For next: 754568
Since: 9.12.01
From: Bay City, OR
Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 4 hours
| AIM: | |
| | |
| #3 Posted on 17.9.04 2310.03
Reposted on: 17.9.11 2310.07 | | I thought that Kerry's answers were pretty vagues. Bush had concrete points for many of his, while I only remember one example where Kerry backed up his statement with legislation that he had proposed. | DrDirt
Banger
Level: 94
Posts: 1245/2662
EXP: 8173544
For next: 183144
Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country
Since last post: 26 days
Last activity: 1 day
| #4 Posted on 17.9.04 2334.37
Reposted on: 17.9.11 2335.29 | Originally posted by Guru Zim
I thought that Kerry's answers were pretty vagues. Bush had concrete points for many of his, while I only remember one example where Kerry backed up his statement with legislation that he had proposed.
Kerry's were more vague, however, while Bush sounded better, like most Presidents, the reality iasn't as good as the words. Funding for science in general is lacking excpet for purposes of national defense and I imagine they would say they are underfunded also.
What struck me is that based on those answers, with the exception of what I posted previously, they are similar in view. | Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 122
Posts: 3962/4700
EXP: 20367539
For next: 270533
Since: 11.7.02
From: MD
Since last post: 778 days
Last activity: 575 days
| #5 Posted on 18.9.04 0748.38
Reposted on: 18.9.11 0748.42 | Originally posted by John Kerry
My administration would never use biased advice as a foundation for public policy.
I'd like to see how he would pull that one off. That statement is just anethema to the political world. | AWArulz
Knackwurst
Level: 104
Posts: 883/3183
EXP: 11581590
For next: 280575
Since: 28.1.02
From: Louisville, KY
Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 17 hours
| AIM: |  |
| | | Y!: |  |
|
| #6 Posted on 18.9.04 1730.52
Reposted on: 18.9.11 1731.05 | Originally posted by Guru Zim
I thought that Kerry's answers were pretty vagues. Bush had concrete points for many of his, while I only remember one example where Kerry backed up his statement with legislation that he had proposed.
I noticed that on the first few questions their answers were somewhat similar, then they divirged and I have to agree with your assessment.
Then I got bored and had to watch my Ric Flair DVD. Science? Who needs it? 
(edited by AWArulz on 18.9.04 1831) | Dahak
Frankfurter
Level: 56
Posts: 507/772
EXP: 1365985
For next: 32200
Since: 12.5.02
From: Junction City OR.
Since last post: 1535 days
Last activity: 1187 days
| #7 Posted on 18.9.04 1736.51
Reposted on: 18.9.11 1737.22 | | I was happy with Kerry's answer though about whether he would fund a manned mission to the Moon and then Mars. I figured he would give the old liberal,"let's fix the problems on Earth first" crap. Of course NASA is a joke and I am not sure whether throwing more money at them is the answer. | DrDirt
Banger
Level: 94
Posts: 1247/2662
EXP: 8173544
For next: 183144
Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country
Since last post: 26 days
Last activity: 1 day
| #8 Posted on 18.9.04 2217.23
Reposted on: 18.9.11 2218.15 | Originally posted by Dahak
Of course NASA is a joke and I am not sure whether throwing more money at them is the answer.
NASA is a joke becuase the only way that funding could be secured was to have a military tie in to almost everything. When politics involves itself in science, science is screwed.
Grimis is right in that it is impossible to render unbiased scientific judgemants when politics is involved. Both parties are quite guilty of it.
The reason much of science is a joke is simple. Science costs money. Money comes from the government. Politicians in government don't understand research, especially basic research. Ergo, the science funded is geared to find a specific result. Almost all our great scientific acheivemnt were the result of someone noodling around to find something out that resulted in something totally unexpected. Further, pols don't have the patience or ability to reason necessary to follow research to its possible results. | PalpatineW
Lap cheong
Level: 76
Posts: 1260/1528
EXP: 3864064
For next: 142015
Since: 2.1.02
From: Getting Rowdy
Since last post: 2338 days
Last activity: 2181 days
| AIM: |  |
| | |
| #9 Posted on 19.9.04 0106.44
Reposted on: 19.9.11 0107.35 | Originally posted by DrDirt
Originally posted by Dahak
Of course NASA is a joke and I am not sure whether throwing more money at them is the answer.
NASA is a joke becuase the only way that funding could be secured was to have a military tie in to almost everything. When politics involves itself in science, science is screwed.
Grimis is right in that it is impossible to render unbiased scientific judgemants when politics is involved. Both parties are quite guilty of it.
The reason much of science is a joke is simple. Science costs money. Money comes from the government. Politicians in government don't understand research, especially basic research. Ergo, the science funded is geared to find a specific result. Almost all our great scientific acheivemnt were the result of someone noodling around to find something out that resulted in something totally unexpected. Further, pols don't have the patience or ability to reason necessary to follow research to its possible results.
I think we're missing the role of private enterprise in all this. Pharmaceutical companies, for example. And that guy who's trying to create his own spaceship, in the proud tradition of Howard Hughes. | DrDirt
Banger
Level: 94
Posts: 1249/2662
EXP: 8173544
For next: 183144
Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country
Since last post: 26 days
Last activity: 1 day
| #10 Posted on 19.9.04 1813.25
Reposted on: 19.9.11 1820.53 | Originally posted by PalpatineW
I think we're missing the role of private enterprise in all this. Pharmaceutical companies, for example. And that guy who's trying to create his own spaceship, in the proud tradition of Howard Hughes.
There is a place for both public and private research. Public for the more basic and private for the more goal/money oriented. What people don't realize is how much money the private sector pumps into universities to conduct research for the private sector. It's cheaper for them than having facilities themselves and it lends an air of credibility to the results. | | ALL ORIGINAL POSTS IN THIS THREAD ARE NOW AVAILABLE |
| | | | | | | | | | |
