| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Yang, AthD h.c" |
| Date: |
04 Apr 2007 02:03:40 AM |
| Object: |
Bush Institutues New Gag Rule on Scientists |
Yep, more of that GOP open-mindedness on science.
Hmmm I wonder what they are trying to hide?
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/4/3/132447/7483
Under rules posted last week, these federal scientists must obtain
agency pre-approval to speak or write, whether on or off-duty,
concerning any scientific topic deemed "of official interest."
--
Yang
a.a. #28
AthD (h.c.) conferred by the regents of the LCL
a.a. pastor #-273.15, the most frigid church of Celcius nee Kelvin
EAC Econometric Forecast and Sorcery Division
The Bush 'balanced' budget: -3 trillion and worsening
The Bush 'economic' policy: 12.5 million FEWER jobs than Clinton and counting
The Bush Iraq lie: -3256 GIs, one friend's co-worker's son and mounting
Having Bush ***** up my country: Worthless
newsgroups Yang promises not to revenge post
in response to Sound-of-Trumpet's *****:
rec.art.scifi.written
sci.archaeology
soc.history.what-if
.
|
|
| User: "Ben Kaufman" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Institutues New Gag Rule on Scientists |
04 Apr 2007 11:03:00 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 00:03:40 -0700, "Yang, AthD (h.c)"
<eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> wrote:
Yep, more of that GOP open-mindedness on science.
Hmmm I wonder what they are trying to hide?
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/4/3/132447/7483
Under rules posted last week, these federal scientists must obtain
agency pre-approval to speak or write, whether on or off-duty,
concerning any scientific topic deemed "of official interest."
Maybe there is such a thing as resurrection? Welcome to the rebirth of the
USSR. :-(
Ben
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "toor" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Institutues New Gag Rule on Scientists |
04 Apr 2007 05:15:28 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 00:03:40 -0700, Yang, AthD (h.c) wrote:
Yep, more of that GOP open-mindedness on science.
Hmmm I wonder what they are trying to hide?
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/4/3/132447/7483
Under rules posted last week, these federal scientists must obtain
agency pre-approval to speak or write, whether on or off-duty,
concerning any scientific topic deemed "of official interest."
The Ministry of Propaganda must not be left out of the loop.
--
MarkA
(insert clever sig line here)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Yang, AthD h.c" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Institutues New Gag Rule on Scientists |
04 Apr 2007 09:33:57 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 06:15:28 -0400, toor <joe@nowhere.com> wrote:
On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 00:03:40 -0700, Yang, AthD (h.c) wrote:
Yep, more of that GOP open-mindedness on science.
Hmmm I wonder what they are trying to hide?
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/4/3/132447/7483
Under rules posted last week, these federal scientists must obtain
agency pre-approval to speak or write, whether on or off-duty,
concerning any scientific topic deemed "of official interest."
The Ministry of Propaganda must not be left out of the loop.
Welcome to the GOP creationist reality.
--
Yang
a.a. #28
AthD (h.c.) conferred by the regents of the LCL
a.a. pastor #-273.15, the most frigid church of Celcius nee Kelvin
EAC Econometric Forecast and Sorcery Division
The Bush 'balanced' budget: -3 trillion and worsening
The Bush 'economic' policy: 12.5 million FEWER jobs than Clinton and counting
The Bush Iraq lie: -3256 GIs, one friend's co-worker's son and mounting
Having Bush ***** up my country: Worthless
newsgroups Yang promises not to revenge post
in response to Sound-of-Trumpet's *****:
rec.art.scifi.written
sci.archaeology
soc.history.what-if
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "TheLetterK" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Institutues New Gag Rule on Scientists |
04 Apr 2007 08:12:59 AM |
|
|
Yang, AthD (h.c) wrote:
Yep, more of that GOP open-mindedness on science.
Hmmm I wonder what they are trying to hide?
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/4/3/132447/7483
Under rules posted last week, these federal scientists must obtain
agency pre-approval to speak or write, whether on or off-duty,
concerning any scientific topic deemed "of official interest."
This could be one of the best things that could happen to US science. If
it keeps going, it might actually prompt an increase in privately-funded
scientific ventures.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Geoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Institutues New Gag Rule on Scientists |
04 Apr 2007 08:49:15 AM |
|
|
TheLetterK wrote:
Under rules posted last week, these federal scientists must obtain
agency pre-approval to speak or write, whether on or off-duty,
concerning any scientific topic deemed "of official interest."
This could be one of the best things that could happen to US science.
If it keeps going, it might actually prompt an increase in
privately-funded scientific ventures.
Government funding of strategic research is essential. Private funding is
too myopic and far to subject to the whims of the moment and short-term
profitability.
.
|
|
|
| User: "TheLetterK" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Institutues New Gag Rule on Scientists |
04 Apr 2007 10:40:11 AM |
|
|
Geoff wrote:
TheLetterK wrote:
Under rules posted last week, these federal scientists must obtain
agency pre-approval to speak or write, whether on or off-duty,
concerning any scientific topic deemed "of official interest."
This could be one of the best things that could happen to US science.
If it keeps going, it might actually prompt an increase in
privately-funded scientific ventures.
Government funding of strategic research is essential. Private funding is
too myopic and far to subject to the whims of the moment and short-term
profitability.
Which is as much a symptom of government funding as a cause for it.
Private organizations don't put a ton of money into it *because* the
government is already doing that. If the government start putting more
strings on the money, most people might start turning to private
funding, which would be a good thing.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Yang, AthD h.c" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Institutues New Gag Rule on Scientists |
04 Apr 2007 09:36:56 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 4 Apr 2007 09:49:15 -0400, "Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com>
wrote:
TheLetterK wrote:
Under rules posted last week, these federal scientists must obtain
agency pre-approval to speak or write, whether on or off-duty,
concerning any scientific topic deemed "of official interest."
This could be one of the best things that could happen to US science.
If it keeps going, it might actually prompt an increase in
privately-funded scientific ventures.
Government funding of strategic research is essential. Private funding is
too myopic and far to subject to the whims of the moment and short-term
profitability.
If the internet was invented by a private enterprise rather than by
DARPA seed money, I'm guessing that we'd have to pay $300/month per
peson for the rights to use the internet just so the inventer can
recoup the cost on basic research.
There is a role for both government and private research.
--
Yang
a.a. #28
AthD (h.c.) conferred by the regents of the LCL
a.a. pastor #-273.15, the most frigid church of Celcius nee Kelvin
EAC Econometric Forecast and Sorcery Division
The Bush 'balanced' budget: -3 trillion and worsening
The Bush 'economic' policy: 12.5 million FEWER jobs than Clinton and counting
The Bush Iraq lie: -3256 GIs, one friend's co-worker's son and mounting
Having Bush ***** up my country: Worthless
newsgroups Yang promises not to revenge post
in response to Sound-of-Trumpet's *****:
rec.art.scifi.written
sci.archaeology
soc.history.what-if
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ben Kaufman" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Institutues New Gag Rule on Scientists |
04 Apr 2007 11:04:44 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 07:36:56 -0700, "Yang, AthD (h.c)"
<eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 4 Apr 2007 09:49:15 -0400, "Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com>
wrote:
TheLetterK wrote:
Under rules posted last week, these federal scientists must obtain
agency pre-approval to speak or write, whether on or off-duty,
concerning any scientific topic deemed "of official interest."
This could be one of the best things that could happen to US science.
If it keeps going, it might actually prompt an increase in
privately-funded scientific ventures.
Government funding of strategic research is essential. Private funding is
too myopic and far to subject to the whims of the moment and short-term
profitability.
If the internet was invented by a private enterprise rather than by
DARPA seed money, I'm guessing that we'd have to pay $300/month per
peson for the rights to use the internet just so the inventer can
recoup the cost on basic research.
There is a role for both government and private research.
Maybe not $300/month but it would require the Vista O.S. :-)
Ben
.
|
|
|
| User: "Yang, AthD h.c" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Institutues New Gag Rule on Scientists |
04 Apr 2007 08:06:22 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 12:04:44 -0400, Ben Kaufman
<spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-dollars@pobox.com> wrote:
On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 07:36:56 -0700, "Yang, AthD (h.c)"
<eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 4 Apr 2007 09:49:15 -0400, "Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com>
wrote:
TheLetterK wrote:
Under rules posted last week, these federal scientists must obtain
agency pre-approval to speak or write, whether on or off-duty,
concerning any scientific topic deemed "of official interest."
This could be one of the best things that could happen to US science.
If it keeps going, it might actually prompt an increase in
privately-funded scientific ventures.
Government funding of strategic research is essential. Private funding is
too myopic and far to subject to the whims of the moment and short-term
profitability.
If the internet was invented by a private enterprise rather than by
DARPA seed money, I'm guessing that we'd have to pay $300/month per
peson for the rights to use the internet just so the inventer can
recoup the cost on basic research.
There is a role for both government and private research.
Maybe not $300/month but it would require the Vista O.S. :-)
Hmm...
I think I'll pay the $300 :-)
--
Yang
a.a. #28
AthD (h.c.) conferred by the regents of the LCL
a.a. pastor #-273.15, the most frigid church of Celcius nee Kelvin
EAC Econometric Forecast and Sorcery Division
The Bush 'balanced' budget: -3 trillion and worsening
The Bush 'economic' policy: 12.5 million FEWER jobs than Clinton and counting
The Bush Iraq lie: -3258 GIs, one friend's co-worker's son and mounting
Having Bush ***** up my country: Worthless
newsgroups Yang promises not to revenge post
in response to Sound-of-Trumpet's *****:
rec.art.scifi.written
sci.archaeology
soc.history.what-if
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "TheLetterK" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Institutues New Gag Rule on Scientists |
04 Apr 2007 10:42:05 AM |
|
|
Yang, AthD (h.c) wrote:
On Wed, 4 Apr 2007 09:49:15 -0400, "Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com>
wrote:
TheLetterK wrote:
Under rules posted last week, these federal scientists must obtain
agency pre-approval to speak or write, whether on or off-duty,
concerning any scientific topic deemed "of official interest."
This could be one of the best things that could happen to US science.
If it keeps going, it might actually prompt an increase in
privately-funded scientific ventures.
Government funding of strategic research is essential. Private funding is
too myopic and far to subject to the whims of the moment and short-term
profitability.
If the internet was invented by a private enterprise rather than by
DARPA seed money, I'm guessing that we'd have to pay $300/month per
peson for the rights to use the internet just so the inventer can
recoup the cost on basic research.
Nice exaggeration, I'd like to see you support that with facts.
There is a role for both government and private research.
The only time the government should fund research is when it directly
relates to military needs. That's it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Yang, AthD h.c" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Institutues New Gag Rule on Scientists |
04 Apr 2007 07:47:12 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 11:42:05 -0400, TheLetterK <none@none.net> wrote:
Yang, AthD (h.c) wrote:
On Wed, 4 Apr 2007 09:49:15 -0400, "Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com>
wrote:
TheLetterK wrote:
Under rules posted last week, these federal scientists must obtain
agency pre-approval to speak or write, whether on or off-duty,
concerning any scientific topic deemed "of official interest."
This could be one of the best things that could happen to US science.
If it keeps going, it might actually prompt an increase in
privately-funded scientific ventures.
Government funding of strategic research is essential. Private funding is
too myopic and far to subject to the whims of the moment and short-term
profitability.
If the internet was invented by a private enterprise rather than by
DARPA seed money, I'm guessing that we'd have to pay $300/month per
peson for the rights to use the internet just so the inventer can
recoup the cost on basic research.
Nice exaggeration, I'd like to see you support that with facts.
Sure, if you have a monopoly in the internet, how much would you
charge?
There is a role for both government and private research.
The only time the government should fund research is when it directly
relates to military needs. That's it.
Name one research that's not "directly" related to military needs.
Theoretical physics? you need that to build bigger and more powerful
bombs. Clinical psychology? How else are you going to stay a step
ahead in Psy-Ops?
--
Yang
a.a. #28
AthD (h.c.) conferred by the regents of the LCL
a.a. pastor #-273.15, the most frigid church of Celcius nee Kelvin
EAC Econometric Forecast and Sorcery Division
The Bush 'balanced' budget: -3 trillion and worsening
The Bush 'economic' policy: 12.5 million FEWER jobs than Clinton and counting
The Bush Iraq lie: -3256 GIs, one friend's co-worker's son and mounting
Having Bush ***** up my country: Worthless
newsgroups Yang promises not to revenge post
in response to Sound-of-Trumpet's *****:
rec.art.scifi.written
sci.archaeology
soc.history.what-if
.
|
|
|
| User: "TheLetterK" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Institutues New Gag Rule on Scientists |
04 Apr 2007 10:15:18 PM |
|
|
Yang, AthD (h.c) wrote:
On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 11:42:05 -0400, TheLetterK <none@none.net> wrote:
Yang, AthD (h.c) wrote:
On Wed, 4 Apr 2007 09:49:15 -0400, "Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com>
wrote:
TheLetterK wrote:
Under rules posted last week, these federal scientists must obtain
agency pre-approval to speak or write, whether on or off-duty,
concerning any scientific topic deemed "of official interest."
This could be one of the best things that could happen to US science.
If it keeps going, it might actually prompt an increase in
privately-funded scientific ventures.
Government funding of strategic research is essential. Private funding is
too myopic and far to subject to the whims of the moment and short-term
profitability.
If the internet was invented by a private enterprise rather than by
DARPA seed money, I'm guessing that we'd have to pay $300/month per
peson for the rights to use the internet just so the inventer can
recoup the cost on basic research.
Nice exaggeration, I'd like to see you support that with facts.
Sure, if you have a monopoly in the internet, how much would you
charge?
It would be worthless without a low cost of entry.
There is a role for both government and private research.
The only time the government should fund research is when it directly
relates to military needs. That's it.
Name one research that's not "directly" related to military needs.
Research into alternative forms of energy. There are indirect
applications for the military, but nothing direct.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Yang, AthD h.c" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Institutues New Gag Rule on Scientists |
04 Apr 2007 10:44:25 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 23:15:18 -0400, TheLetterK <none@none.net> wrote:
Yang, AthD (h.c) wrote:
On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 11:42:05 -0400, TheLetterK <none@none.net> wrote:
Yang, AthD (h.c) wrote:
On Wed, 4 Apr 2007 09:49:15 -0400, "Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com>
wrote:
TheLetterK wrote:
Under rules posted last week, these federal scientists must obtain
agency pre-approval to speak or write, whether on or off-duty,
concerning any scientific topic deemed "of official interest."
This could be one of the best things that could happen to US science.
If it keeps going, it might actually prompt an increase in
privately-funded scientific ventures.
Government funding of strategic research is essential. Private funding is
too myopic and far to subject to the whims of the moment and short-term
profitability.
If the internet was invented by a private enterprise rather than by
DARPA seed money, I'm guessing that we'd have to pay $300/month per
peson for the rights to use the internet just so the inventer can
recoup the cost on basic research.
Nice exaggeration, I'd like to see you support that with facts.
Sure, if you have a monopoly in the internet, how much would you
charge?
It would be worthless without a low cost of entry.
I assume you mean cost of entry in terms of the customer rather than
competitor. And I disagree. A smart monopolist will charge different
prices for the same product to different person so as to maximize
his/her profit. So I might charge a poor college student $10/month,
but I would definitely charge people like you and me $300/month.
There is a role for both government and private research.
The only time the government should fund research is when it directly
relates to military needs. That's it.
Name one research that's not "directly" related to military needs.
Research into alternative forms of energy. There are indirect
applications for the military, but nothing direct.
I disagree. When rubber supply from the East Indies was cut off during
WWII, US had to figure out a quick substitute that can be produced en
masse. Why shouldn' the US army have a contingency plan in case of
pertoleum shortage?
--
Yang
a.a. #28
AthD (h.c.) conferred by the regents of the LCL
a.a. pastor #-273.15, the most frigid church of Celcius nee Kelvin
EAC Econometric Forecast and Sorcery Division
The Bush 'balanced' budget: -3 trillion and worsening
The Bush 'economic' policy: 12.5 million FEWER jobs than Clinton and counting
The Bush Iraq lie: -3258 GIs, one friend's co-worker's son and mounting
Having Bush ***** up my country: Worthless
newsgroups Yang promises not to revenge post
in response to Sound-of-Trumpet's *****:
rec.art.scifi.written
sci.archaeology
soc.history.what-if
.
|
|
|
| User: "TheLetterK" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Institutues New Gag Rule on Scientists |
05 Apr 2007 08:36:14 PM |
|
|
Yang, AthD (h.c) wrote:
On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 23:15:18 -0400, TheLetterK <none@none.net> wrote:
Yang, AthD (h.c) wrote:
On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 11:42:05 -0400, TheLetterK <none@none.net> wrote:
Yang, AthD (h.c) wrote:
On Wed, 4 Apr 2007 09:49:15 -0400, "Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com>
wrote:
TheLetterK wrote:
Under rules posted last week, these federal scientists must obtain
agency pre-approval to speak or write, whether on or off-duty,
concerning any scientific topic deemed "of official interest."
This could be one of the best things that could happen to US science.
If it keeps going, it might actually prompt an increase in
privately-funded scientific ventures.
Government funding of strategic research is essential. Private funding is
too myopic and far to subject to the whims of the moment and short-term
profitability.
If the internet was invented by a private enterprise rather than by
DARPA seed money, I'm guessing that we'd have to pay $300/month per
peson for the rights to use the internet just so the inventer can
recoup the cost on basic research.
Nice exaggeration, I'd like to see you support that with facts.
Sure, if you have a monopoly in the internet, how much would you
charge?
It would be worthless without a low cost of entry.
I assume you mean cost of entry in terms of the customer rather than
competitor. And I disagree. A smart monopolist will charge different
prices for the same product to different person so as to maximize
his/her profit. So I might charge a poor college student $10/month,
but I would definitely charge people like you and me $300/month.
It never would have gone anywhere without an extremely low cost of
entry. "The Internet" was going nowhere fast until it was within the
price range of the average person. If this mythical owner of the
Internet was charging $300/month to average users, it would be well out
of the price range of just about everyone, and thus have almost no use
whatsoever (and be a worthless technology for them). When your product
is only truly useful and attractive when millions of people are using
it, trying to keep the price artificially high is a stupid move. It's
the same reason AT&T didn't price telephone service out of the range
that people could actually afford--without a large user base, there is
no reason to buy.
Besides, getting IP rights on "the Internet" would have been quite
impossible. Even if the current model could have been patented,
something else would have come about that worked just as well.
Why shouldn' the US army have a contingency plan in case of
pertoleum shortage?
Hence why I said "direct" military research. What you're describing is
an indirect usage.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
