You're driving less, America!

[Trimdingman]

I'm sure there's a scientist of two working for the government.

 

 

Governments are based on politics. If a scientist works for the government, he will not be there long unless he tows the party line. Science and politics are oil and water. Science seeks the truth. Politics, like religion, works on a belief system and styfles anything that disproves these beliefs. That is why they say that to avoid argument, don't discuss politics or religion. If you do, you will very soon propose something that proves either politics or religion to be wrong, and the believer will become flustered and angry with you.

[Edstock]

If a scientist works for the government, he will not be there long unless he tows the party line.

Hmm . . ."tows the party line": a glib phrase, somewhat vague, so, we need to know more about how a scientist "tows(sic)" said line.

 

Does the GOP send a political commissar around to verify that the scientists are all registered Republicans?

 

Please explain the process by which the "party line" is toed.

 

Then we have to define "the party line" which this toeing process follows, and how it impinges upon scientists.

 

Is "the party line" different for different parties?

 

Please define what "the party line" is for the GOP, then what "the party line" is for the Democratic party, the Canadian Conservative party "the party line" and the Canadian Liberal "the party line" and how the "the party line" affects what science is done.

Edited August 29, 2008 by Edstock

[Edstock]

Government, by its very nature, stifles progress.

The gang that organized the Hoover Dam might disagree with you, as would most citizens of Las Vegas. In Ontario Canada, Sir Adam Beck got Niagara Falls generating power, which seemed like un-stifled progress if you lived in Ontario at the time.

[suv_guy_19]

The gang that organized the Hoover Dam might disagree with you, as would most citizens of Las Vegas. In Ontario Canada, Sir Adam Beck got Niagara Falls generating power, which seemed like un-stifled progress if you lived in Ontario at the time.

 

Yes, Churchill Falls, James Bay, Manic 5, Manitoba Hydro's Limestone and upcoming Conawapa, and those are just a few projects of one type.

[suv_guy_19]

The gang that organized the Hoover Dam might disagree with you, as would most citizens of Las Vegas. In Ontario Canada, Sir Adam Beck got Niagara Falls generating power, which seemed like un-stifled progress if you lived in Ontario at the time.

 

Yes, Churchill Falls, James Bay, Manic 5, Manitoba Hydro's Limestone and upcoming Conawapa, and those are just a few projects of one type...in one country. Government certainly does stifle progress.

[Trimdingman]

Hmm . . ."tows the party line": a glib phrase, somewhat vague, so, we need to know more about how a scientist "tows(sic)" said line.

 

Does the GOP send a political commissar around to verify that the scientists are all registered Republicans?

 

Please explain the process by which the "party line" is toed.

 

Then we have to define "the party line" which this toeing process follows, and how it impinges upon scientists.

 

Is "the party line" different for different parties?

 

Please define what "the party line" is for the GOP, then what "the party line" is for the Democratic party, the Canadian Conservative party "the party line" and the Canadian Liberal "the party line" and how the "the party line" affects what science is done.

 

 

If he has a government contract to prove man-made global warming and he comes to the conclusion that it is bunk, he will be fired.

[Trimdingman]

Yes, Churchill Falls, James Bay, Manic 5, Manitoba Hydro's Limestone and upcoming Conawapa, and those are just a few projects of one type...in one country. Government certainly does stifle progress.

 

 

We have Pickering and Darlington. Darlington is down most of the time and we are so far in debt that we will be paying way above market price for hydro forever.

[Edstock]

If he has a government contract to prove man-made global warming and he comes to the conclusion that it is bunk, he will be fired.

And this applies to how many scientists, where?

[Trimdingman]

And this applies to how many scientists, where?

 

It will apply to many scientists in the US if the Democrats are elected. Science seeks the truth. Politics and religion try to create "truths". If the government controls such things as our energy, that gives them more power over us. If we ever decided to start a civil war they would shut down the electricity. Power corrupts. The more power the government has, the more they can get. They want to control health care. There are so many laws now that everybody is a criminal. The Gulag is not far in the future. Unless the people wise up, that is where we are headed.

[Edstock]

If we ever decided to start a civil war they would shut down the electricity.

Think about that. If you and like-minded individuals started a "civil war", the power grid would be one of the first pieces of infrastructure destroyed; not turned off by "they", but destroyed by forces on both sides.

 

Anyway, science has always had its own internal politics and scientific "party line", and it's those scientists who toe the "party line" who get the funding.

 

The "party line" varies with the part of science being worked on.

 

For example, nuclear fusion. The orthodox "party line" with the scientific "establishment", especially after the cold-fusion follies, is that somehow, if they throw enough money at the problem, they will make the Tokamak approach a practical reality.

 

Others, like the late Dr. Bussard, believe another approach is the one that works, but, getting funding is hard when you're seen as a heretic.

 

Check out http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/200...28/1301440.aspx This will be an important report.

 

And check out http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=199...ssard&hl=en

 

It's a video of Dr. Bussard explaining the difference between fission, and fusion, and the different fusion paths, and how they arrived where they are, thanks to the U.S. Navy's good sense. He shows the Tokamak, and why it is never going to work, and shows their early fusion reactors, and where they went wrong. The admission of mistakes, of missing what was seen as obvious, later, is very refreshing.

[Trimdingman]

Think about that. If you and like-minded individuals started a "civil war", the power grid would be one of the first pieces of infrastructure destroyed; not turned off by "they", but destroyed by forces on both sides.

 

Anyway, science has always had its own internal politics and scientific "party line", and it's those scientists who toe the "party line" who get the funding.

 

The "party line" varies with the part of science being worked on.

 

For example, nuclear fusion. The orthodox "party line" with the scientific "establishment", especially after the cold-fusion follies, is that somehow, if they throw enough money at the problem, they will make the Tokamak approach a practical reality.

 

Others, like the late Dr. Bussard, believe another approach is the one that works, but, getting funding is hard when you're seen as a heretic.

 

Check out http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/200...28/1301440.aspx This will be an important report.

 

And check out http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=199...ssard&hl=en

 

It's a video of Dr. Bussard explaining the difference between fission, and fusion, and the different fusion paths, and how they arrived where they are, thanks to the U.S. Navy's good sense. He shows the Tokamak, and why it is never going to work, and shows their early fusion reactors, and where they went wrong. The admission of mistakes, of missing what was seen as obvious, later, is very refreshing.

 

 

With unlimited taxpayer money, they will "study" anything. If nuclear fusion is viable, the private sector will invent a way to do it. I remember a few years back some con artist claimed to have accomplished cold fusion. It seems that they are at it again. People who belong to the green religion will believe anything that a green prophet pushes on them. Green is now politically favorable, so the money and the votes will flow.

 

The reason that science has become tainted by politics is because government has gotten involved. That just proves my point. There should be no government funding of scientific research. Scientific discoveries need to stand on their own. The private sector will be more responsible in dishing out funds because the bang for the buck has to be there. When government funding is there, you get a lot of con men making up bogus proposals to get it.

Edited August 31, 2008 by Trimdingman

[Edstock]

There should be no government funding of scientific research. Scientific discoveries need to stand on their own. The private sector will be more responsible in dishing out funds because the bang for the buck has to be there. When government funding is there, you get a lot of con men making up bogus proposals to get it.

Well, the private sector isn't holding up their end. Bell Labs no longer does basic research. That's theoretical research, not applied research.

 

Private enterprise is great with applied research. That's the process of developing what's already known. However, most of the real breakthroughs, like the transistor, come from theoretical research, not applied research.

 

So U.S. private enterprise isn't willing to invest, and people like you don't want government funding. The good news is that research in theretical science won't stop, it will just be done outside the U.S. That's OK, as long as you've got the small government you want, why should you care about the future?

[Trimdingman]

Well, the private sector isn't holding up their end. Bell Labs no longer does basic research. That's theoretical research, not applied research.

 

Private enterprise is great with applied research. That's the process of developing what's already known. However, most of the real breakthroughs, like the transistor, come from theoretical research, not applied research.

 

So U.S. private enterprise isn't willing to invest, and people like you don't want government funding. The good news is that research in theretical science won't stop, it will just be done outside the U.S. That's OK, as long as you've got the small government you want, why should you care about the future?

 

The individual scientist will invent and then sell to the private developer or develop it himself, like Bill Gates. People who work for the government will stall and milk a project for all they can get and usually come up with nothing. Sometimes the whole project is based on some political hogwash, like man-made global warming, and the scientists are paid by politicians to lie about it.

Edited September 1, 2008 by Trimdingman

[Joe771476]

So the question is: Does government REALLY want you to drive less? Of course not! It's less tax revenue! So do the states REALLY want smokers to stop smoking and lose tax revenue? They REALLY don't because of the lost tax revenue, however they should for one reason and one reason only. Smoking kills taxpayers! Taxpayers who pay sales, property and income taxes! Of course they also benefit when you die, so it's almost a win/win scenario for the states. But for the life of me I can't understand why they don't execute murderers because they kill taxpayers too! Instead they get three square meals a day, gym equipment (to resist arrest the next time they get caught), and law books (so they can get out of jail using the courts to their benefit!). What a country!

[Trimdingman]

So the question is: Does government REALLY want you to drive less? Of course not! It's less tax revenue! So do the states REALLY want smokers to stop smoking and lose tax revenue? They REALLY don't because of the lost tax revenue, however they should for one reason and one reason only. Smoking kills taxpayers! Taxpayers who pay sales, property and income taxes! Of course they also benefit when you die, so it's almost a win/win scenario for the states. But for the life of me I can't understand why they don't execute murderers because they kill taxpayers too! Instead they get three square meals a day, gym equipment (to resist arrest the next time they get caught), and law books (so they can get out of jail using the courts to their benefit!). What a country!

 

 

What the government wants is to have as many people working for them and dependent on them as possible. Once you have a criminal record, they have you just where they want you, so they set you free. A person with a criminal record has the same rights as a communist. In Canada, the government controls health care. Now they are instilling fear in everybody by coming up with all kinds of new diseases so that they can get more control. Taxes will go up to pay for all this health care. Soon, we will all have the same take-home pay, which will be minimal. We will be provided for totally by the government.

[Edstock]

The individual scientist will invent and then sell to the private developer or develop it himself, like Bill Gates.

You obviously don't see how stupid this statement is.

 

"The individual scientist will invent" — sounds wonderful, but how does he earn a living while it takes time to invent? How does the individual scientist get the equipment required? Gonna need some funding from somewhere.

 

"or develop it himself, like Bill Gates" — Bill Gates did not develop anything; the original DOS was created by somebody else; he bought the Disk Operating System, and sold a non-exclusive licence to IBM for its IBM PC. Since then, MS has developed very little original product, instead, buying-out small start-ups, like the outfit that invented FrontPage sitebuilding software.

 

Again, when it comes to basic theoretical research, North American industry is increasingly reducing investment. You don't want the US or Canadian governments to fund basic theoretical research, so I guess the Japanese, the Chinese and the Germans will do it. Mankind is going to the stars, but mind-sets like yours virtually guarantee that they'll be speaking Cantonese or Mandarin.

[fmccap]

You obviously don't see how stupid this statement is.

 

"The individual scientist will invent" — sounds wonderful, but how does he earn a living while it takes time to invent? How does the individual scientist get the equipment required? Gonna need some funding from somewhere.Isn't that where the Free Market and investors are supposed to come in???

 

"or develop it himself, like Bill Gates" — Bill Gates did not develop anything; the original DOS was created by somebody else; he bought the Disk Operating System, and sold a non-exclusive licence to IBM for its IBM PC. Since then, MS has developed very little original product, instead, buying-out small start-ups, like the outfit that invented FrontPage sitebuilding software.Where did he get the funding???

 

Again, when it comes to basic theoretical research, North American industry is increasingly reducing investment.Get rid of costly regulations and then they would have the money. If you look R&D has dropped as regulations have increased. You don't want the US or Canadian governments to fund basic theoretical research, so I guess the Japanese, the Chinese and the Germans will do it. Mankind is going to the stars, but mind-sets like yours virtually guarantee that they'll be speaking Cantonese or Mandarin.

[Edstock]

"The individual scientist will invent" — sounds wonderful, but how does he earn a living while it takes time to invent? How does the individual scientist get the equipment required? Gonna need some funding from somewhere.Isn't that where the Free Market and investors are supposed to come in???

Really? Free-market investment in basic research? Yeah, right, the gang who are fixated on next-quarter returns invest in projects that may or may not pan out?

 

Since then, MS has developed very little original product, instead, buying-out small start-ups, like the outfit that invented FrontPage sitebuilding software.Where did he get the funding???

The rich are different from you and I. They have sources.

 

Again, when it comes to basic theoretical research, North American industry is increasingly reducing investment.Get rid of costly regulations and then they would have the money. If you look R&D has dropped as regulations have increased.

Actually, the Reagan regime started a process of de-regulation that led to Enron and today's airline industry. We have regulations because some business people don't want to play by the rules. This isn't, as a lot of conservatives knee-jerk, a beat-up on big business, because regulations are necessary for small business too, like, say, the industrial unit local electro-plating shop, where acids are used, and toxic elements are plated. Dump that crap down the sewer, as some feel they are entitled to do, and people suffer. Life gets complicated. For example, asbestos in brake linings. Some local health codes require masks for service people, and this can be seen as a "costly regulation". Depends how much you care, I guess.

[Trimdingman]

Some regulation is necessary, but now regulations are being imposed for political reasons. Maybe the upstart company can't afford to jump through the hoops like the giant competitor can. Maybe it is in the interest of the giant corporation for the government to impose more regulations. The more rules there are, the less freedom there is. We should be expending more energy trying to get rid of unnecessary regulations than looking for new ones.

[Edstock]

Some regulation is necessary, but now regulations are being imposed for political reasons.

Examples, please, or all we have here is a brain-fart.

[Trimdingman]

Examples, please, or all we have here is a brain-fart.

 

The auto industry is an example. Seat belts, air bags, emission controls, fuel economy regulations. When was the last time a new car manufacturer started up?

There is the lobster fishery. The penalties for poaching lobster are way out of line. No new licenses are being issued. The present operators have the industry completely sewn up.

The regulations for the oil industry vary from state to state.

Income tax becomes more complicated every year. Most people have to hire an accountant to do it for them. This is a bit off topic, but I am sure that there is some corporate influence involved.

Zoning laws for type of construction: There is the creation of green spaces to urbanize existing areas. This increases the property values of these buildings, and keeps new builders out.

These examples are just off the top of my head. There are thousands of others, obviously.

Edited September 5, 2008 by Trimdingman

[Edstock]

The auto industry is an example. Seat belts, air bags, emission controls, fuel economy regulations. When was the last time a new car manufacturer started up?

There is the lobster fishery. The penalties for poaching lobster are way out of line. No new licenses are being issued. The present operators have the industry completely sewn up.

The regulations for the oil industry vary from state to state.

Income tax becomes more complicated every year. Most people have to hire an accountant to do it for them. This is a bit off topic, but I am sure that there is some corporate influence involved.

Zoning laws for type of construction: There is the creation of green spaces to urbanize existing areas. This increases the property values of these buildings, and keeps new builders out.

These examples are just off the top of my head. There are thousands of others, obviously.

So those are examples of "regulations are being imposed for political reasons"?

 

We have:

 

"Seat belts, air bags, emission controls, fuel economy regulations" Maybe they came about "for political reasons", but, IMHO, most people in North America see these as good things. Look at pictures of LA from 50-60 years ago, and look at the smog; look at pictures of collisions of pre-safety equipment cars.

 

"There is the lobster fishery. The penalties for poaching lobster are way out of line. No new licenses are being issued. The present operators have the industry completely sewn up." Lower the penalties, so you can break the law whenever you feel like it? That's like saying, "laws are for other people, I want to do what I want to do when I want to do it". That sure is a responsible attitude.

 

"Income tax becomes more complicated every year. Most people have to hire an accountant to do it for them. " For that, you can thank your wealthy friends. Joe Average, with a standard paycheck has a simple tax return, but the rich have accountants and tax lawyers to protect their pile. Of course, the cost for this is tax-deductible.

 

"Zoning laws for type of construction: There is the creation of green spaces to urbanize existing areas. This increases the property values of these buildings, and keeps new builders out." Zoning laws have been around for a long time. They seem to work, on the whole. Keeps people from building industrial units across the street from already-existing houses, for example.

 

Then there's building codes. Building codes are designed to protect you from people who are either too stupid to build properly, or who just don't care. A lot of these codes are written in the blood of those who died when things went wrong.

 

"There is the creation of green spaces to urbanize existing areas" You seem to be a little confused.

 

Urban areas, are built-up areas, with little green space. That's why people moved to the suburban areas in droves, after WW2. Perhaps you remember. Well, people started to look at urban areas, and realized that maybe more plantlife might make urban areas look less like a Wal-Mart parking lot.

 

So, bringing green stuff to urban areas "keeps new builders out"? Maybe for quality of life for people who are already there, that's a good thing. Besides, new builders have the option of tearing down and replacing old, derelict urban buildings.

[Trimdingman]

So those are examples of "regulations are being imposed for political reasons"?

 

We have:

 

"Seat belts, air bags, emission controls, fuel economy regulations" Maybe they came about "for political reasons", but, IMHO, most people in North America see these as good things. Look at pictures of LA from 50-60 years ago, and look at the smog; look at pictures of collisions of pre-safety equipment cars.

 

"There is the lobster fishery. The penalties for poaching lobster are way out of line. No new licenses are being issued. The present operators have the industry completely sewn up." Lower the penalties, so you can break the law whenever you feel like it? That's like saying, "laws are for other people, I want to do what I want to do when I want to do it". That sure is a responsible attitude.

 

"Income tax becomes more complicated every year. Most people have to hire an accountant to do it for them. " For that, you can thank your wealthy friends. Joe Average, with a standard paycheck has a simple tax return, but the rich have accountants and tax lawyers to protect their pile. Of course, the cost for this is tax-deductible.

 

"Zoning laws for type of construction: There is the creation of green spaces to urbanize existing areas. This increases the property values of these buildings, and keeps new builders out." Zoning laws have been around for a long time. They seem to work, on the whole. Keeps people from building industrial units across the street from already-existing houses, for example.

 

Then there's building codes. Building codes are designed to protect you from people who are either too stupid to build properly, or who just don't care. A lot of these codes are written in the blood of those who died when things went wrong.

 

"There is the creation of green spaces to urbanize existing areas" You seem to be a little confused.

 

Urban areas, are built-up areas, with little green space. That's why people moved to the suburban areas in droves, after WW2. Perhaps you remember. Well, people started to look at urban areas, and realized that maybe more plantlife might make urban areas look less like a Wal-Mart parking lot.

 

So, bringing green stuff to urban areas "keeps new builders out"? Maybe for quality of life for people who are already there, that's a good thing. Besides, new builders have the option of tearing down and replacing old, derelict urban buildings.

 

 

If you go down to the shore at low tide and gaff a couple of lobsters from under some rocks, you will lose your vehicle, pay many thousand dollars in fines, and do prison time. Does that seem reasonable? These millionaire lobster fishermen have a monopoly and are supported by the full weight of the government.

Another example, in Canada is the 407 toll highway. If you do not pay your bill on time, you cannot renew your license plates. The 407 is owned by a foreign private company.

The green space to which I was referring is land surrounding existing built-up areas. Any new construction would have to be beyond the green belt, which could extend for several miles. This puts existing properties inside the green belt at a premium. Tell me that someone will not have something to gain by this.

[suv_guy_19]

If you go down to the shore at low tide and gaff a couple of lobsters from under some rocks, you will lose your vehicle, pay many thousand dollars in fines, and do prison time. Does that seem reasonable? These millionaire lobster fishermen have a monopoly and are supported by the full weight of the government.

Another example, in Canada is the 407 toll highway. If you do not pay your bill on time, you cannot renew your license plates. The 407 is owned by a foreign private company.

The green space to which I was referring is land surrounding existing built-up areas. Any new construction would have to be beyond the green belt, which could extend for several miles. This puts existing properties inside the green belt at a premium. Tell me that someone will not have something to gain by this.

 

 

Do you have any objectivity, of any kind?

[Trimdingman]

Do you have any objectivity, of any kind?

 

 

100%.