What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Can't get enough Dragon Age: Origins? Check out new footage. view!
DragonAge.BioWare.com - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
138 Comments
- SheilaNoya, on 07/03/2008, -17/+73It's also important to know who their technical and scientific advisors are.
Bush put Evangelical Christians in charge of science programs instead of using qualified scientists. Bush's advisors on technology related issues consisted of a lot of old men who didn't know crap about technology. Unfortunately, McCain has surrounded himself with the same incompetent "advisors" who worked for Bush and even Bush's father.
Obama has already built up a team of well qualified supporters in the fields of technology and science. This is a huge difference between the two candidates. - inactive, on 07/03/2008, -14/+45"Barack Obama's early education and K-12 plan package costs about $18 billion per year. He will maintain fiscal responsibility and prevent an increase in the deficit by offsetting cuts and revenue sources in other parts of the government. The early education plan will be paid for by delaying the NASA Constellation Program for five years"
There is your answer to Obama's commitment to space.
***** *****. - Mokole, on 07/03/2008, -4/+34I would take all the money being spent on the war and use it to support all 14 of these areas.
- mentallyinhell, on 07/03/2008, -5/+26The only thing that really bugs me is that politicians have a say in these issues at all. These are questions for scientists and people that understand these issues and the ethics involved. How many politicians know more than a slideshow about half of these issues?
- jotate, on 07/03/2008, -0/+20English hard.
- FeartheKnighted, on 07/03/2008, -1/+20Delaying Constellation 5 years!?! What the ***** are we supposed to do until then? The shuttle gets retired in 1.5 years people. Do the math. That is *****.
PS here's the link about Obama's plans for NASA: http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/11/obama-p ... - inactive, on 07/03/2008, -7/+25Without a doubt, scientific research is the most important thing that man-kind can do to ensure a continued and pro-long existence. No matter how vital it is, some people (including digg's former crush, R. Paul, as well as the libertarians) will still question the role of government in scientific research. I always thought that NSF said it best:
"Vannevar Bush clearly recognized that applications of research results often appear many years after the work is started and that there is no certainty as to which of the many national needs will benefit from this work. He also observed that "…basic research is essentially non- commercial in nature. It will not receive the attention it requires if left to industry."10 Today this concept is recognized as a lack of "appropriability." Because of the long-term nature of research and the uncertainties in predicting its practical applications, a company cannot be certain that investment in research will result in a competitive advantage in the worldwide marketplace. Indeed, the increase in global competition has exacerbated the "appropriability" issue. It consequently has increased the need for government support of research.
The Bush vision encouraged the mission agencies to support research universities in fields that were deemed to have probable long-term relevance to their missions. It also led to the establishment of the National Science Foundation and the gradual building of its budget to the point that it has become a major source of support for science and engineering in our universities. The National Science Board was created with its dual mission of overseeing the activities of NSF and monitoring the health of science in the Nation.
As a result of implementing the Bush vision, our research universities have become the envy of the world. The application of new knowledge and talent in science has indeed created handsome benefits in the three areas Bush identified. We will cite just one example in each area. The understanding of the structure and properties of DNA opened up totally new opportunities to address health issues and provided the basis for the vibrant new biotechnology industry. Polymer and photochemical research led to the creation of photoresists that are key to the success of the microelectronics industry, which accounts for well over a quarter of a million jobs in the U. S. today. The atomic clock, which was based on research in atomic physics and was stimulated by needs in astronomy, provided a foundation for the development of the Global Positioning System to satisfy a critical defense need. More recently, it is creating a large commercial marketplace for everything from ships to backpackers."
http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/documents/1997/nsb97186/nsb ...
(read section II for the full text)
The continued funding of scientific research is near the top as an issue for me. I know this view isn't shared by most americans, but hopefully one day people will stop and think about the things they are using (computers, the internet, plastics, advanced medicine) and realize just how important it is... - a1cd, on 07/03/2008, -3/+21Education is one of the biggest blackholes of government money there is, there are places where people can get a education in a small shack, 1 teacher and no textbooks... and yet here in NA, we give our kids laptops and they still fail.
There is something wrong with the school system in America.. but money is not it.
The things N.A.S.A has done with next to zero funds, is amazing.. just think what they could do with the war budget! - bxblox, on 07/03/2008, -6/+24Of all places to cut money, NASA should be at the bottom of the list.
- inactive, on 07/03/2008, -1/+18The questions are idiotic, and I'm sure most of them have already been answered on the candidates' sites or in past speeches. In any case, all of them would be answered in the same way: with stock speeches designed to say as little as possible.
What Wired needs to do is come up with much more specific questions based on things the candidates have already said.
For instance, "you said this, but evidence shows this other thing is true. Do you have evidence to support your assertion?"
If anyone wants to see real debates about various issues, help push this plan:
http://nomoreblather.com/policy-debates - alvarezg, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1515. Educational integrity: What policies would you implement to guarantee that the teaching of science is not subverted by political and religious influences?
- inactive, on 07/03/2008, -3/+15"As long as you have politicians involved in funding research you'll get moslty the research the politicians want to see"
Luckily organizations that allocate funding like the NSF and NIH are run by scientists, so this point is not nearly as valid as those who have not as much understanding of the system think it is.
"And keep in mind that a good amount of the research paid for by the government is sponsored by the defense departments."
Well i'm not sure exactly what percentage of government sponsored research goes through the DoD, it is just one segment along with those like NASA and the NIH, which some politicians view as expendable, sadly.
I'm with you on those "x-prizes" though. But they aren't perfect. Some kinds of research needs enormous amounts of capitol even just to began, where in such situations these "money later" situations just aren't ideal. - inactive, on 07/03/2008, -1/+13Yay you know in the 1960's the world was a peaceful place and that is why we decided to endeavor to go to the moon. There was nothing else going on in 1969.
- gsadamb, on 07/03/2008, -2/+13No one is saying that religious people can't be good scientists. But when they put their beliefs ahead of established science (science of course, being testable and not based on faith) when doing their job, then there's a conflict.
There's no way to test "intelligent design," but there are ways of testing and refining evolution. - doctechnical, on 07/03/2008, -0/+10?SN ERROR
- jotate, on 07/03/2008, -4/+12No asking how they feel about intelligence design in schools? You can put forth as many programs to increase scientific production as you see fit. If you let kids be taught that "evolution is just a theory" and ID is an equally reputable scientific theory, you're short changing the very base of their ability to process scientific, logical thought.
- inactive, on 07/03/2008, -3/+11Because education is a matter of national security.
- Leomarth, on 07/03/2008, -0/+7I'd be more interested in hearing them answer economics questions.
- belebih, on 07/03/2008, -2/+9Being against religious nuts who know nothing about science giving advice on scientific issues is not bigotry, just common sense.
- pintomp3, on 07/03/2008, -0/+8 Daily Star: Should intelligent design be taught in schools?
McCain: I think that there has to be all points of view presented. But they’ve got to be thoroughly presented. So to say that you can only teach one line of thinking I don’t think is - or one belief on how people and the world was created - I think there’s nothing wrong with teaching different schools of thought.
Daily Star: Does it belong in science?
McCain: There’s enough scientists that believe it does. I’m not a scientist. This is something that I think all points of view should be presented.
http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/opinion/90521 - inactive, on 07/03/2008, -5/+12http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Marburger
Are you talking about this guy?
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/03/politics/03bush. ...
"Mr. Marburger said in a telephone interview that "evolution is the cornerstone of modern biology" and "intelligent design is not a scientific concept." Mr. Marburger also said that Mr. Bush's remarks should be interpreted to mean that the president believes that intelligent design should be discussed as part of the "social context" in science classes." - treas, on 07/03/2008, -0/+6Who knows what technologies NASA might develop with their space programs. The data NASA collects could some day provide a completely renewable energy source, just as an example.
- superkendall, on 07/03/2008, -0/+6The deficit in astronomical operations are exactly why the space budget needs to be increased, and not shrunk.
People will always have problems. As a species we are better off always at least spending some resources furthering understanding, so that we can better help future generations instead of a relative handful of people live a little more comfortably today. - chukd, on 07/04/2008, -0/+6You seem to forget the advances in technology and industry that came with NASA in the 60's. A lot of current technology and material science came from that program. By placing money in NASA, they are investing in science and technology advances. This goes towards medical research, green energy, developement of technologies that can save our planet from say an asteroid, etc... . NASA is not a money drain. If anything, NASA has given more back to this country in form of advancement, then we have given them in the form of money.
- pintomp3, on 07/03/2008, -1/+7same goes for those idiots and NASA and IPCC. clearly the armchair climatologists on digg know better.
- inactive, on 07/03/2008, -10/+16Obama will be all over the second one. "Climate change? Yes, I'm for it! Change! I'm for change! Everyone look at me. Did you hear I'm for change yet?!"
- inactive, on 07/03/2008, -2/+8I agree, please please please, no more "6000 year old earth" bubba presidents!
- PeppermintPig, on 07/03/2008, -7/+13Scientist: 'Question, will you fund our experiments and programs, no matter how crazy they may sound?'
Politician: 'Sure.'
Scientist: 'You're qualified!' - rewinn, on 07/03/2008, -5/+11Well, I disagree. Read the questions carefully.
They aren't questions like "Is evolution real?" or "How old is the earth?" which are scientific matters, not to be decided by politicians (...although it would be amusing to see McCain struggle with them...). The questions are "How would you prioritize...." which, in an era of limited resources (...resources are ALWAYS limited...) is the right question in a hiring interview for an executive. - Nietz1950, on 07/04/2008, -0/+5That's an odd perspective. Usually, those in academia are highly critical of programs like manned-space because it provides little scientific value per dollar compared to other fields. I usually see people defend the space program on emotional grounds... it inspires the youth to become engineers or gives Americans something to be proud of.
- Nietz1950, on 07/03/2008, -0/+5But even those "commercial research" discoveries you listed were primarily funded from government grants. Bell Labs or IBM wouldn't even have existed with the government funding. Such basic research is really not common in today's competitive environment though, as most research is now applied and needs bottom-line justifications.
- LeeSoong, on 07/04/2008, -2/+7#1a.
Life develops through :
a.) Evolution, or
b.) Sky boogie man ?
Take your time, think it over before you answer 'a' or 'b'.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o - wilhoitm, on 07/03/2008, -1/+6My question for the Presidential nominees is - "What is your web site written in?"
- oldgal, on 07/04/2008, -0/+5I don't remember "social context" being a part of my science classes. Put it in history or philosophy classes along with the creationist ideas of other religions.
- shauntacular, on 07/03/2008, -1/+6This would've been a lot funnier if it read "14 Science Quetions the Current President Should Answer"
- pintomp3, on 07/03/2008, -0/+5both are courting the evangelical vote, i doubt either would commit to that.
- pilot3033, on 07/03/2008, -5/+10"I hate bigots"
Any witty remark from me is not needed. - Hortnon, on 07/03/2008, -7/+11@doctechnical
Then you have xxxxx state teaching kids God is why science exists, and California handing out free Marijuana to all its students. And none of the people that went to either of these systems will be able to work together in adulthood.
Standardization is important. Choice is fine, as long as they all get some degree of equivelant education. - Hetman, on 07/03/2008, -0/+4Those questions will never be answered by any politician. Politicians only answer vague questions as to not upset one of there lobbyists.
- Nidy1, on 07/03/2008, -1/+515. Net Neutrality.
- PeppermintPig, on 07/04/2008, -1/+5Government taints the things it touches by enabling unaccountability (this would be an argument, and you're welcome to refute it). It's more than opinion, it's observation, study, and what passes for 'factual' knowledge. I mean, we can have a discussion about things happening in the real world, judging the activities of people in government, can't we?
"As for the rest of your libertarian "all taxes are evil" talking points, well, as long as you hold that opinion there is no point in further discussion."
When I argue a point, I at least back it up, illustrating the economic or moral blind spots people may have in asserting a belief or plan of action.
You can't do one aggressive act to prevent another without initiating violence (this is another argument, which you're welcome to refute if you can).
If you don't want to face these issues, that's fine, but at least know what you're talking about. The attack you make against libertarianism is an amusing way of avoiding the discussion.
You shouldn't be surprised by the opposition when you advocate the slavery of others. Here, again, you can laugh and set it aside by ignoring the context within which the statement is made, but that's how you typically act. You might make an argument, but I doubt it. - PeppermintPig, on 07/04/2008, -1/+5Not to say that this is besides the point, but what's so special about what government is doing as opposed to what individuals can do on their own in terms of education?
"No country developed a large educated workforce without the government providing most of the cost."
Are you suggesting it's impossible?
"General research has always been done by the government, simply because you cannot keep basic discoveries from your competitors."
Do people in government become somehow infallible? I read many stories of government agents misplacing laptops.
Private industry does not in fact need patents, though many want a system like that. That doesn't mean government needs to provide an IP infrastructure and judicial system to protect these things.
Academia and science are not open. They are insulated communities. - PeppermintPig, on 07/03/2008, -2/+6onetimer: "No matter how vital it is, some people (including digg's former crush, R. Paul, as well as the libertarians) will still question the role of government in scientific research."
Of course they will, because that's a completely absurd notion. No matter how good the intention is, it's not government's role to do any and everything it can think of. The market drives a healthy growth and development of technology. Government regulation, including privileged monopoly, has stifled advancement. For example, government's claiming dominance over radio spectrum to regulate its use.
The more you forcefully take from people to fund these things, the less freedom of choice people have for all things, including scientific development. Uninformed politicians begin to dictate what is studied, or not studied. By condoning government's involvement in these things, you tacitly approve Bush's agenda, however grossly negligent it may be.
Central planning is inadequate for the task of integrating technological developments and resisting its abuse (and it seems we've had quite enough abuse of technology by the state lately, no??). Science through government funding is parasitic, and its results are generally not as utilitarian in nature as people like yourself, who support government funding for science, imagine them to be. Rather, government funds programs strongly in the interest of the state, and not the people, including reinforcing the pharmaceutical industry, and the vast military industrial complex.
By deviating from a respect for the individual, and for property, the funding of science, as well as the nature of the science studied is similarly deviant in nature. If it is your intention to have a society that enjoys the fruits of technological discovery that they are funding, while minimizing the hazards and abuses of the technology, why the hell would you let government make all decisions here?? - Nietz1950, on 07/03/2008, -0/+4The Department of Education has been around for more than a century - it was just a cabinet with the same responsibilities as those of the DOE. The US has the highest proportion of private education of any country outside the 3rd world, a trend that didn't even start until the the 80s. Prior to this, education was more than 95% public.
The OECD's education at a Glance report even cites the reason for the US' early lead in education was the huge government spending and the GI Bill, which created the highest graduation rates in the world.
In the 70s and 80s, the rest of the industrialized world saw the US' success and copied the national education systems. Those considered to "surpass" the US have much larger relative public education programs and even offer free university-education.
The OECD also points out the US didn't get worse - the countries that invested more in education simply grew faster. Do these seem like small-government countries to you? Most have public spending that accounts for half of the economy.
"The contrast is even more pronounced when comparing the current output of high schools: The proportion of the typical age cohort graduating from upper secondary education in 2004 was 90% or more in Denmark, Finland, Germany, Ireland, Japan, France and Norway. At 75%, the graduation rate for the United States was below the OECD average of 81%"
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/41/13/35341210.pdf
You're trying to suggest the US education became worse, when no objective measure says this. The US is no longer the leader because some countries created huge government-funded education systems and grew faster. - WasabiBomb, on 07/03/2008, -0/+4In my opinion, education is the single most important issue... or, at least, it SHOULD be. It doesn't matter what social, economic, or militaristic plans a President has for a country... if the country's children aren't getting a proper education, those plans will ultimately fail.
I've always felt that the highest-paid position in any field should be that of a teacher in that field. We should have professionals fighting to get teaching jobs, so we can get the best possible teachers. Instead, education pays so poorly that we've even got a saying describing the situation: "Those what can't do, teach."
That's just sad. - ryleyleckie, on 07/03/2008, -0/+4use your words...
- FeartheKnighted, on 07/03/2008, -3/+6There were a lot more important things going on in Spain in the 1490s, but nobody gives a ***** about them now. A lot of people care about what CC did though.
People like you make me sick. - OnlyGirlOnDigg, on 07/03/2008, -3/+6You may think that finding the "quantization of ionic hadron bursts" may have no practical applications, but I beg to differ. I will be able to build the next generation SSD for your Iphone, knowing this "impractical" stuff.
- PeppermintPig, on 07/04/2008, -3/+61. Innovation.
"Science and technology have been responsible for half of the growth of the American economy since WWII."
And??
"What policies will you support to ensure that America remains the world leader in innovation?"
End corporate welfare. Eliminate every tax I can within my authority.
2. Climate Change.
Captain trade? Isn't that a cereal? Have you noticed the economy is a flaming wreck, and you suggest we make it worse by setting regulations which destroy productivity? The question I would pose is this: Why aren't people able to buy more fuel efficient cars? Why are companies not working hard enough to give people what they want? Perhaps it costs more to be more environmentally friendly? That's not always the case, but I will remove barriers to innovation so that companies and people can connect in the marketplace with environmentally conscious solutions. The way things currently are, we're looking to lose footing as a producer nation, as manufacturing and engineering jobs are no longer cost effective.
3. Energy. "Many policymakers and scientists say energy security and sustainability are major problems facing the United States this century. What policies would you support to meet demand for energy while ensuring an economically and environmentally sustainable future?"
We've spent more money starting wars that have increased the cost of energy than focused on improving the environment to allow for more energy choices. Choice lowers costs. Mandating ethanol in gasoline is not only corrupt, but asinine. Ethanol as it is produced from corn costs more to make than one can earn from it. Why are we seeing it in our fuel? Because this government is subsidizing it, at the expense of everyone else. I strongly encourage alternate fuels, but delivery of Ethanol is simply not cost effective. Farming communities may benefit by producing fuel locally, but I believe this is a choice for individuals to make.
4. Education. "What role do you think the federal government should play in preparing K-12 students for the science and technology driven 21st Century?"
None. Next question?
5. National Security. "Science and technology are at the core of national security like never before. What is your view of how science and technology can best be used to ensure national security and where should we put our focus?"
We shouldn't use technology to rape individuals of their rights. Science didn't solely get us into the trouble we're in politically, and science will not be the solution... unless you worship the bomb, which I do not.
6. Pandemics and Biosecurity. "In an era of constant and rapid international travel, what steps should the United States take to protect our population from global pandemics or deliberate biological attacks?"
For one, we should stop forcing government solutions, such as mandatory drugs and antibiotic use: Diseases continue to become increasingly resistant to our drugs because there is no consistent application of these drugs. I support the preservation of ecological diversity and will work with environmental organizations interested in purchasing land for preservation and scientific use.
7. Genetics research. "The field of genetics has the potential to improve human health and nutrition, but many people are concerned about the effects of genetic modification both in humans and in agriculture. What is the right policy balance between the benefits of genetic advances and their potential risks?"
The right policy is no policy. Do people actually want to live in a Gattaca world with extreme genetic discrimination?
8. Stem cells. "Stem cell research advocates say it may successfully lead to treatments for many chronic diseases and injuries, saving lives, but opponents argue that using embryos as a source for stem cells destroys human life. What is your position on government regulation and funding of stem cell research?"
I was under the impression that stem cell research was legal. If you want to study it, go to it. Again, I support measures to reduce all spending and eliminate taxes so that research support may come from individuals, who will have more money to do so by choosing how their wealth is used.
9. Ocean Health. "Scientists estimate that some 75 percent of the world’s fisheries are in serious decline and habitats around the world like coral reefs are seriously threatened. What steps, if any, should the United States take during your presidency to protect ocean health?"
Destruction of ocean habitat is a tragedy. I'm afraid the situation will get worse before it gets better. Will I solve the issue in my time as president? I would like to believe I can get the ball rolling. Sea law must be changed: I'm open to recognizing property law for the oceans, establishing protected areas of sensitive or damaged ocean space, to be purchased by environmental organizations which can provide active programs to maintain and improve aquatic ecosystems. Until interest to maintain the ocean catches up with the interest to gather its resources, it will be a difficult period of transition, but the end results shall be worthwhile.
10. Water. "Thirty-nine states expect some level of water shortage over the next decade, and scientific studies suggest that a majority of our water resources are at risk. What policies would you support to meet demand for water resources?"
I detest the implication that we need policies to solve our problems. Most problems are caused by government. I do not seek to dictate scientific study in the US. Technological innovation is promising in the area of water resourcing. I have faith that the market will solve this.
11. Space. The study of Earth from space can yield important information about climate change; focus on the cosmos can advance our understanding of the universe; and manned space travel can help us inspire new generations of youth to go into science. Can we afford all of them? How would you prioritize space in your administration?
To hell with studying earth from space: Let's advance the study of the earth by going to other planets and solar systems. I strongly believe in space exploration, but I cannot endorse government involvement as such activity can be twisted to undesirable ends. NASA will be scrapped, and make way to private exploration of space. I strongly advise the growth of un-manned space mining to facilitate the development of orbital stations and bases on the moon and mars to prepare for colonization.
12. "Scientific Integrity. Many government scientists report political interference in their job. Is it acceptable for elected officials to hold back or alter scientific reports if they conflict with their own views, and how will you balance scientific information with politics and personal beliefs in your decision-making?"
If you would never hire such politically motivated people to work with you on your scientific team, why would you tolerate government officials doing the same things?
We should never give people money without strings attached. This is a violation of principle. If you want to get government out of your science, get your science out of government funding. Stop panhandling for money.
13. "Research. For many years, Congress has recognized the importance of science and engineering research to realizing our national goals. Given that the next Congress will likely face spending constraints, what priority would you give to investment in basic research in upcoming budgets?"
***** nationalism? I will invest a great deal of time in basic research, to determine the best course of action in decimating the budget.
14. "Health. Americans are increasingly concerned with the cost, quality and availability of health care. How do you see science, research and technology contributing to improved health and quality of life? "
I see science, research, and technology contributing to the improvement of health and quality of life. :P
Despite the advance of innovation, government continues to increase taxes and regulations... many people are just barely surviving, heads above the water. I will remove these bonds and allow people to realize the fruits of their labor, and appreciate just how advanced our society is when we have time to be with our families, living more healthy lives in the pursuit of our dreams.
I'm not really running for president, but if you'd vote for me, just let me know. :P - InfiniteNothing, on 07/03/2008, -4/+7I love NASA but I question the urgency of that program.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 141 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