What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
63 Comments
- pjh3000, on 10/12/2007, -33/+50Science interferes with Bush's beliefs.
- Scott802, on 10/12/2007, -2/+18I bet they also work for the Dharma Initiative / Hanso Foundation.
- redDC143C, on 10/12/2007, -6/+20"And that's when Jeb steps in and wins in a landslide..followed by Neil in 2016."
No, it's not his turn quite yet.
Hilary will win in 2008, and again in 2012. Then Jeb will run.
Do you see the pattern?
1988 - 1992 - George Bush Sr.
1992 - 2000 - Bill Clinton
2000 - 2008 - George Bush Jr.
We've already been subjected to 2 ruling families over the coarse of 20 years.
2008 - 2016 - Hillary Clinton
Here is another 8..
Go ahead, call me a tinfoil-hatter, but how many facts does it take to make a conspiracy theory into something less "crazy"?
Sorry, the digg comment system somehow put my comment in the wrong place again - but read this anyway! - Urusai, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14Who needs a science advisory board when so many corporations are willing to provide both scientifical white papers and compaign contributions at one sitting?
- buttsakk, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12first rule of The Jasons is...
- dclowd9901, on 10/12/2007, -5/+16I'm a scientist of Booty-ology, and I'd like to know the government recruitment numbers of fine, foxy ladies. Giggity Giggity.
- zeebo, on 10/12/2007, -5/+16The left may be guilty of science politicalization, but so is the right, with their "junk science' and 'sound science' terms. Both parties abuse science to ahieve their policy goals. The elimination of congresses scientific advisory structure during the 90s was a horrible decision, as its allowed both sides to pick the opinions that they want, typically finding voices well outside of the scientific mainstream who will say exactly what they want them to.
The republicans are bad regarding any scientific issue that conflicts with literalist fundamentalist christian ideals, anything that involves military projects of questionable use and effectiveness, and environmental issues. The democrats are bad on anything that involves genetic origins of behavior, or anything that involves conflicting corporate and environmental interests.
PJh3000 is right. George W. Bush doesn't operate on any scientific principals. He operates on pure faith based initiatives. It doesn't matter what the evidence shows, he knows what he wants to do and does it. - captaindan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11Bush has the lowest second-term approval rating in history. I think calling him a lame duck is putting it gently.
- cryptocom, on 10/12/2007, -0/+81. Jason has indeed been around for several decades.
2. Jason is not a classified organization, but during the Cold War it was highly secretive in order to keep their reports unbiased and to allow them to do their research uninhibited.
3. Jason no longer considers itself a consultant group for the military. It's federal funding was stopped several years back, and they now are focused on mainly environmental issues in the private sector, though they do on occasion produce reports on federal issues. - DFchoke, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7I'm also a scientist, 50 fold seems a bit much, but Im curious to know what fields the increases are in. Do you have a source or any more detail antoniojvr?
- leitjaxon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Not so secret anymore
- Rosco, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8you do not talk about the Jasons.
The second rule of The Jasons is,,,,,, - zirtbow, on 10/12/2007, -8/+14Wonder if they had to wear hockey masks to help protect their identities.
- captaindan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7You might want to read what I wrote a little more carefully. Especially the "in history" part.
- Azewaldo, on 10/12/2007, -8/+13Hmm... I wonder if the Jasons were a part of the Bush Administration's reduction in scientific advisors? We could certainly use them right about now.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Not even the women I know would vote for hillary
- tekk2k, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5can't really be that secret if its on digg.com
- snowbooch, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4i don't normally read books (ok almost never), but the one mentioned in the article actually sounds pretty interesting
- jaiwithani, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4you DO NOT TALK ABOUT Jasons.
Third rule: If someone demonstrates contrary empirical evidence or finds a flaw in your reasoning, the thesis is over. - Latro, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5"But thankfully, she never neglects the elephant in the room: Should scientists be helping out the government -- and the military in particular -- in the first place?"
This is a staggeringly stupid sentence.
Obviously it would be better to allow bureaucrats to provide all needed input and decisionmaking ability to the government on, you know, scientific issues. - sbrown123, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Fake. This article is an attempt to make people believe that the government has some scientific or technological edge over the people and businesses it governs. All work for the government that requires ANY brain power is always contracted out. For example, if the NSA is so super-high-tech than why the hell did they contract AT&T to do the work to spy on the internet if they are soooo smart?
- MyNameIsFred, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3The linked article is rather inaccurate. It describes JASON as some super-secret, never discussed organization. The JASON program has been around for decades, and publicized many times before. Just do a Google on JASON program or better yet JASON SCIENCE IDA.
- dclowd9901, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3They don't have time for that nonsense! Marty McFly needs to go back to the future to keep it from happening!
- pradeep1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I know this is not the reason for the "Jasons" name, but traditional secret societies have the "Masons", so you'd figure the nerd secret society would be called the "Nasons".
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Whaaaaat? No, people on Digg would _never_ comment without reading the article, and would _never_ just spout off faddish political views and act like they're smart to show off.
You, sir, have a firm grasp of the obvious. I salute you! *salutes* - snowbooch, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3i agree with you that the "cutting edge" of tech/science has migrated away from government control and into the private sector over the past century, but that doesn't mean the thousands of brilliant scientists employed by the government aren't an interesting group
- dclowd9901, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I think you're right on some accounts, however, doesn't it make sense that in this new administration, scientists are being pulled in like a gravity well? There is so much defense spending, it's not even funny. Why wouldn't the government keep it under wraps, if at all possible? Bush seems to think the US is an endless supply of money.
- FruitPicker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The article was devoid of anything except a book ad.
- antoniojvr, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6I can speak to personal experience (I work for DoD). I don't think I could get my hand on actual numbers, but I have seen ONR (Office of Naval Research) grow quite a bit.
- kupodan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I think this mostly appeals to all of us whom are attracted by secret society's and whatnot. This is a really cool thing to read. Makes you wonder what else could exist out there that saves our butts daily. Or puts them in harms way.
- marmaduke, on 10/12/2007, -6/+8Just like conservatives politicized religion.
- cathode, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I have never heard such tripe... I don't think anyone reads the article, they just come one here to spout off their faddish political views and act smart.
- OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3A more accurate name might be:
Treasonous Tax-Thieving Bastards - glibby, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3"Secret Society of Scientists"
Just try and say that 10 times fast! - websitepro, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1People don't know what they don't know.
- pr0t3st, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Indeed..
Not only is my name Jason..
I was named after the same greek Jason and am highly intereested in secret societies+what not. - starmanjones, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2the problem is that he has everything so screwed up that it will take years to straighten it out. this is the same situation that we had after reagan was gone. his policy of "spending our way out of debt" didn't work so good.... duh. the republicans went right to work making it a clinton problem while at the same time attacking him in any way possible eventually getting him impeached for... well we're not sure exactly. but it didn't have anything to do with his ability to run the country.
so here we are again. with a republican that has no respect for the united states... reagan... the iran contra thing... so now we have bush.... doing similar or worse things to american government.
so i predict that a democrat will win... to be followed by blaming them for all the money bush spent and then some sort of legal attack to obfuscate reality and give all the followers something to focus their hate on. the republicans have been taken over by the religious neandrathals. they are fighting a war in side the U.S. against the rest of us. the rest of us are just not as bloody and hate filled as their religion requires. - Osjpr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1otherland, why are you supporting them? Haven't you read the recent sh*t they are trying to introduce? They're not who you think they are.
- RaistlinMajere, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Agencies who are developing new weapons systems are hiring, that's for sure.
- antoniojvr, on 10/12/2007, -6/+7As a scientist, I must tell you that recruitment into Gov positions has gone up 50 fold since 2000...
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Anyone know of any antigrav and field theory studies going on?
- Osjpr, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2You don't even know what information Wired have at their hands here, yet you dismiss it entirely. Some things you read about are in fact based on reality (duh). By dismissing them, you are dismissing the truth. That is pretty idiotic.
- zulelord, on 10/12/2007, -7/+7Bush is now what we call a "lame duck" -- he won't have much luck pushing issues, so it will be a slow 2 years until new energy is injected.
EDIT: This is a reply to malliemcg - endernet, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2"if the NSA is so super-high-tech than why the hell did they contract AT&T to do the work to spy on the internet if they are soooo smart?"
You're kidding, right? - sagedude, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1"Captaindan, if you forgot we were at war, and that wartime presidents tend to have lower popularity ratings, well you should change your screenname to Forest Gump."
True, but idiot presidents have even lower popularity ratings. - rsims17, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1that may be the dumbest logic ever, the most advanced tech. is highly classified government "toys" trying to claim otherwise is well foolish at best. the answer to why contract out with the private sector. there is a vast sea of resources in the private sector and in the gov. why not combine the two? then you have everything from everywhere. when stealth didn't exist it was in skunk works. a division that only answers to the gov. are they private or gov. employee's then? the most cutting edge tech is always and for a reason, the money, will always be highly classified gov. projects no matter who does it some DoD engineer or some Boeing engineer that only answers to DoD.
- Atomic1fire, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1and you know what the jasons have a secret staircase under a statue in wyoming where they have a top secret lab where they ughhhhhhhhh *crash*
(the above sentence is a sarcastic remark it does not actully prove anything and the sceintist do not have rings with a image of jason engraved on them that act as keys) - websitepro, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1When asked about the Jasons, Bush was quoted as saying,
"Yes, I know about the Jasons. I particularly like their dog, Astro." - thekdegnome, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Wow, I really hadn't sen it laid out that way. Of course if you look at every single form of government in this country (city, county, state federal) you can certainly say that thousands of different people have had the chance to make different decisions. We're certainly not governed by a monarchy, and while the head of state can sway his own party it does not necessarily mean that that party has to listen. Look at some Republicans slowly changing their tune on GWB's war on terror. Congress makes the laws that we follow, and can pass a law that the president is opposed to. Same families != monarchy rule.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Interesting. In the NBC Show, Surface, they touched on this topic. Really cool. Now we just need the illuminati and NWO and Free Masons to take over the world , destroy the vatican , have a catholic VS evil masons VS NWO VS Muslims..etc..
OK done. -
Show 51 - 63 of 63 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is