What is Digg?180 Comments
- toastybeast, on 11/11/2008, -10/+96I can hear the rednecks bitching already...
- phreak79, on 11/11/2008, -3/+64Taking the lead in science and industry is how America came to be the leading nation, she should return to doing what she used to do best rather than relying on her military might for global dominance (written as a Brit who is fond of America).
- Vriess, on 11/11/2008, -0/+40This is why we are losing so many jobs, people just don't need the services being offered by so many companies anymore. Green technology will be a great boon to this country and the world in general because it's about sustainable life.
- seltaeb4, on 11/11/2008, -7/+45Oh, you mean like the Internet and stuff like that? Big-government spending programs like that, that came right out of DARPA? All of that taxpayer money that was wasted on things like materials science and genomic research in a bunch of giveaway handouts for those damn lib'ruls at those Commie universities to fill up everyone's heads with that book-learnin'?
God, you Limbaugh-fellaters really just need to shut the ***** up. Better yet, just ***** off and die. - seltaeb4, on 11/11/2008, -3/+34A LOT of people like Obama. Most rational people do, with very good reason.
But for idiots who spend their days and nights tuned in to Fox and AM radio, it probably does seem otherwise. - dithyrambica, on 11/11/2008, -5/+36SCIENCE!
(as in she blinded me with)
No Really, SCIENCE! - zerosum, on 11/11/2008, -2/+26Good luck changing a culture of ignorance, Obama.
- seltaeb4, on 11/11/2008, -3/+26At long last, the celebration of belligerent ignorance is dead in America.
- id000001, on 11/11/2008, -4/+26"they could invest in whatever research they wanted themselves?"
LOL - jboskoff, on 11/11/2008, -3/+24The difference between progressive ("liberal") and regressive ("conservative") is clear as day.
- inactive, on 11/11/2008, -3/+20Have you actually *listened* to Obama?
I have a feeling you'd bitch no matter who was in office. Troll. - inactive, on 11/11/2008, -2/+18You know what? Why don't you read some about what Bush has done and what Obama plans to do before you express you opinion on an international website. Really? You don't know how much the scientific community hates Bush? And you have a digg account? Really?
- inactive, on 11/11/2008, -3/+16Wow I can totally hear the rednecks. Good call toastybeast.
And theantirobot, like it or not, the masses did say "you're fired" to the republicans and call for Obama, so say what you want about him, that's what America wants, and thanks to the founding fathers, we had the chance to take our country back. - inactive, on 11/11/2008, -1/+14You know what's killing us in science? More and more schools embracing this "evolution is just a theory" *****. In that respect, science is directly led by government initiative, as it is in our schools where scientific minds are developed. But I guess we could just keep up the trend and remove all science from the classrooms - yeah, let's see where that gets us.
- kingmanic, on 11/11/2008, -0/+13The reason so much of it comes form defense research is because that is one of the few areas that gets consistent funding. Often it's tangential research only tenuously military but the Military is patient. Like the Navy funding cold fusion research which is still decades away form practicality. It's one of their virtues but it may be more a matter of funding proportion rather then military research being superior.
- BossKey, on 11/11/2008, -0/+13Too true. In 1969 we were in a long expensive war, and we put two men on the Moon.
Guess which one humanity will remember in 1000 years. - inactive, on 11/11/2008, -0/+12Hint, loki: People live in the environment. If it goes, we go.
- secrity, on 11/11/2008, -0/+11It isn't the actual number of men who were put on the moon in 1969 that is important, that man went to the moon in 1969 is the important fact.
- Specializedone, on 11/11/2008, -0/+11No offense, but Bush has placed a moratorium on anything science related. Stem cells, endangered species, and basic research funding to name a few. Basic research funding has been at a stand still for about 7 years ...
- kingmanic, on 11/11/2008, -2/+12Industry does a piss poor job at basic (pure) research. It does a better job once a technology is close to marketable. Every major discovery is done in basic research and the corporations eventually find a way to use it (internet, lasers, computers, etc . . .). Industry left on it's own would happily simply change the color of their product every 6 months and call that innovation.
- inactive, on 11/11/2008, -3/+13Please. By your definition the last 8 years must have been the best years for science. Look behind you, it's your world view falling apart.
- sprash, on 11/11/2008, -3/+13"Industries" are only interested in short term profits. Science is a long term investment. Sometimes Science does even harm existing industries (e.g. big Oil) because it makes them obsolete. That is why some corporations have a public anti-science agenda and the temporary lack of short term profit is why many corporations are not really interested in science. And that is why Non-profit organizations like the government have to take care of it since ages.
- ExoticKosher, on 11/11/2008, -7/+17The founders didn't think lower-class americans were smart enough to decide what was right for this country.(most of them were also slave owners who didnt want slavery to end) How the hell would a redneck know wat research to invest in? Thats y the electoral colleges were invented, for smart people decide who ran the country, they didnt give 2 ***** about wat the lower-class thought. And right now the masses are saying use our money in better ways than just spending it all on a pointless war. And Obama's not raising the taxes the masses. He's raising them on the upper-class. Which is a pretty small portion of America.
- BossKey, on 11/11/2008, -2/+12Under Bush, government spending increased to levels not seen since Lyndon "Vietnam and War on Poverty" Johnson. That's why a radio commentator yesterday said that "Republicans campaign right and govern left."
- inactive, on 11/11/2008, -1/+11Boy that was a stretch. So I guess the military will be studying stem cells and finding ways to power their jets with renewable energy? Sure thing, buddy.
- inactive, on 11/11/2008, -0/+10I love how Republican mofos are anti-government but pro-military industrial complex. God, we need to prevent those people from harming themselves.
- nurbsenvi, on 11/11/2008, -3/+134. So you make very little to no wine that year
5. You are fine for a while because you have barrels of fine wine from years before that.
6. 12 years later holy *****! no fine wine to sell son of a bitch! god damn it.
***** you half-wit. - seltaeb4, on 11/11/2008, -1/+10@ajimmykid: Unless you enjoy announcing to the world that you are a ***** idiot, you really should shut your damned mouth. Read, and learn:
NOBEL PRIZE FOR GENETICS OF DEVELOPMENT 1995 STOCKHOLM, Sweden - Three biologists have been awarded the Nobel Prize in Medicine for their pioneering work on the genetic control of embryonic development. The researchers work with the Drosophila melanogaster fruit fly provided key information on factors influencing human embryology and birth defects. The recipients of this year's prize are Drs. Edward Lewis, of the California Institute of Technology; Christiane Nuesslein-Volhard, of Germany's Max-Planck Institute; and Eric Wieschaus, at Princeton. Each of the three were involved in the early research to find the genes controlling development of the Drosophila fruit fly.
The fruit fly, now a standard model in genetic research, is an ideal research animal since it develops from fertilized egg to embryo within nine days. "Most of the genes studied by Nuesslein-Volhard, Wieschaus and Lewis have important functions during the early development of the human embryo. It is likely that mutations in such important genes are responsible for some of the early, spontaneous abortions that occur in man, and for some of the about 40 percent of the congenital malformations that develop due to unknown reasons,'' according to a statement from Sweden's Karolinska Institute. - lagannt, on 11/11/2008, -2/+11Yeah, so true. The military has been starved of money these past few years. It's like our military is some sort of afterthought to most people!
- inactive, on 11/11/2008, -3/+12You must be one of them conservatives. So tell which century you want us to move back to.
- Gemfinder, on 11/11/2008, -1/+10/sarcasm
There, fixed :) - Trent1492, on 11/11/2008, -3/+12
"Are they bitching about how if their wages weren't taxed, and their money wasn't being devalued via inflation they could invest in whatever research they wanted themselves?"
I can see it now: Bubba John is at the bar preparing a report for the funding of miniaturized meth labs.
- DetpackJump, on 11/11/2008, -2/+10I think the word you're looking for is "despite", not "because"
- inactive, on 11/11/2008, -0/+8loki: Is your name Ben? Are you from Nashville? If so, I know you, and you're a complete idiot. If not, I don't know you, but you're still an idiot.
- NarrativeCarpet, on 11/11/2008, -1/+9One of the best articles I've read in a while. As it's been said, America became so great as a result of our technological advances. A return to our scientific roots is in our best interests as it is what will return us to our status as the world leader. Plus we'll make a ton of cash.
Also, am I the only one who was a bit blown away after learning who the writer, Sir Paul Nurse, was? Noble winner and pres of Rockefeller University for 5 years? My chemistry minor is worth nothing! - kingmanic, on 11/11/2008, -1/+9We can take it out of the 110 billion "keep kids stupid" fund known as the no child left behind policy.
- inactive, on 11/11/2008, -0/+8Yes it can! But the solution can only be purchased via links found in your junk mailbox.
- Specializedone, on 11/11/2008, -0/+7Hoping that's sarcasm ...
- Specializedone, on 11/11/2008, -0/+7Amazingly enough ... military research, much like business, will only do things to help themselves win wars. Civilian research takes care of the basic science needed in order to do bigger projects that may get picked up by the government or just get published.
Just like the majority of businesses and money made is through small business companies, the majority of scientific discovery is made by the general researchers that are given grants from the national institute of health and nation science foundation. - Specializedone, on 11/11/2008, -0/+7A theocracy like Iran?
- inactive, on 11/11/2008, -3/+10Nothing happens in the free market unless there is profit involved. Do you think private industry wants to cure any disease? Tell me how anybody will profit from curing and preventing cancer. I promise you the people who make pain pills don't want cancer to go away. The market doesn't always have your best interests in mind. If allowing the government to step in and push for research into areas that will benefit mankind but won't benefit Pfizer is socialist, then I'm all for it.
I keep hearing Republicans say the market will solve all of the world's problems, but it is complete *****. The "market" is a bunch of detached rich people who's every decision is directly focused on the bottom line. Don't kid yourself. The only cure for cancer the market would offer would be a 6000 dollar shot you have to get every 2 years. If they can figure out how do do that - Destrider, on 11/11/2008, -0/+7Easy, end the Iraq occupation. That alone would free up several billion a year.
- larryodbc, on 11/11/2008, -0/+6the federal government should repatriate offshore money held in tax havens by allowing that money to be put into R&D without being taxed.
- dagnome1984, on 11/11/2008, -0/+6We need to drastically cut military spending. It's not America place to be the police man of the world.
- wunksta, on 11/11/2008, -0/+5so the conservatives in office are, by your definition, liberal now? they seem to be throwing a lot of money around.
its sad the conservatives have abandoned the fiscal conservatism that was championed a few decades ago. now the only separating factor between "liberal" and "conservative" is social views it seems, not economical ones. - inactive, on 11/11/2008, -0/+5Silence. He still thinks republicans in charge are good for his personal economy. You don't want his head to explode by providing too much truth.
- bowens44, on 11/11/2008, -1/+6This is how the cycle goes.....republicans get power and bring our country to the brink of destruction......frightened Americans elect Democrats....Democrats repair the damage done by the republicans.... stupid Americans with short memories again become greedy and complacent , believing the lies of conservatives and elect republicans....repeat.
- inactive, on 11/11/2008, -3/+8tell that technology is their car, technology is their house build making process, technology is not just shiny things sold by apple, it's the sum of human processes following a logical process for the production of useful goods.
in extension, their own speech used to attack you, may be considered a form of technology, the logical process described by linguistics for the production of proper communication. - secrity, on 11/11/2008, -1/+6Bush has cut the NSF budget:
http://www.aibs.org/washington-watch/washington_wa ...
NIH cuts:
http://arstechnica.com/journals/science.ars/2006/1 ...
Google for name_agency+budget+cut to get the budget information for the other agencies - Specializedone, on 11/11/2008, -1/+6Was JFK being fascist when he challenged the american people to be the first to the moon?
He's providing a catalyst that will allow americans to pick ourselves up and make ourselves better in the long run. Sometimes someone needs to lead the rest of the pack to get everyone out of a sticky situation. -
Show 51 - 100 of 185 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is