MIT's Tech newspaper reports on a growing list of MIT faculty who have signed a statement opposing a number of Donald Trump's cabinet appointments and "reaffirming their dedication to 'principles at the core of MIT's mission.'"
The statement denounces discrimination, promotes open communication, and asserts the need to respect the scientific method. Signatories include four out of the ten Nobel Prize winners currently part of the MIT faculty, as well as author Junot Diaz and Affordable Care Act architect Jonathan Gruber. [...]
About 25 percent of MIT faculty have now signed the statement. [The School of Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences], which comprises 17 percent of MIT faculty, represents a disproportionately large percentage of the signatories at about 22 percent. The School of Engineering is underrepresented, with also about 22 percent of signatories, but comprising 37 percent of total faculty. These differences may be a result of the thus far uneven dissemination of the statement across departments.
The MIT statement joins a growing litany of open letters from scientists to the Trump administration, with over 2300 scientists -- including 22 Nobel Prize winners -- signing another statement asking for a "strong and open culture of science" and "adhering to high standards of scientific integrity and independence." A group of female scientists concerned about racism and sexism in science initially aimed for 500 signatures from women scientists, but their list now has grown to over 11,000 worldwide.
The actual MIT statement with list of signatories can be found here. At the time of this submission, it had grown by over 10% since the Tech report was written on Wednesday afternoon and now has over 500 signatures.
[Continues...]
The complete text of the statement reads:
The President-elect has appointed individuals to positions of power who have endorsed racism, misogyny and religious bigotry, and denied the widespread scientific consensus on climate change. Regardless of our political views, these endorsements violate principles at the core of MIT's mission. At this time, it is important to reaffirm the values we hold in common.
We, the undersigned faculty at MIT, thus affirm the following principles:
- We unconditionally reject every form of bigotry, discrimination, hateful rhetoric, and hateful action, whether directed towards one's race, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, religion, national origin, disability, citizenship, political views, socioeconomic status, veteran status, or immigration status.
- We endorse MIT's values of open, respectful discourse and exchange of ideas from the widest variety of intellectual, religious, class, cultural, and political perspectives.
- We uphold the principles of the scientific method, of fact- and reason-based objective inquiry. Science is not a special interest; it is not optional. Science is a foundational ingredient in how we as a society analyze, understand, and solve the most difficult challenges that we face.
For any member of our community who may feel fear or oppression, our doors are open and we are ready to help. We pledge to work with all members of the community – students, faculty, staff, postdoctoral researchers, and administrators – to defend these principles today and in the times ahead.
I imagine some reactions may be to dismiss this as yet another college appeal for "safe spaces" and "diversity," but from first-hand experience with the MIT community, I can say it's definitely distinct from the average "liberal arts school" environment. When they say "open, respectful discourse and exchange of ideas" from different perspectives, they generally mean it; I've personally seen debates there that would be instantly "shut down" elsewhere. I only wish they had reversed the order of the three bullet points and put science upfront, because that's what really distinguishes their message from many other groups.
More coverage on these letters expressing concern about science in the new administration in the Guardian and the Washington Post.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by DannyB on Friday December 02 2016, @02:45PM
Just because they are distinguished in their fields . . .
Just because they are associated with a highly notable institution of higher learning . . .
Just because they are known for sound reason, supporting facts, reproducible results . . .
. . . does NOT mean that you should give credibility to what they say!
/sarcasm
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday December 02 2016, @02:56PM
You're right, it doesn't. You don't take car-care advice from your doctor, do you?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday December 02 2016, @03:21PM
If the doctor says "You really ought not to piss in your gas tank and follow it up with a bag of sugar" then yes, yes I do. Because that is what this administration is doing to the US legislative, executive, and very soon judicial branches.
This is a fallacy on your part. Again.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @03:27PM
The fallacies are yours!
* This administration doesn't even exist yet; you cannot yet say that it is ruining things.
* You are confusing your own understanding for your mythical doctor's understanding that it is bad to piss in the gas tank; you already know that it's bad to piss in your gas tank, rendering your doctor's advice irrelevant both to you and to the point in question.
Fool.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @03:34PM
We also know it's stupid to publicly threaten to pull out of already agreed deals, imply you won't support your existing alliances, or to have a VP that thinks you can shock the gay out of people.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday December 02 2016, @04:08PM
The US has historically discarded treaties when and as it chose to do so. Ask any of the Indian Nations. A treaty is worthless - less than worthless - we wipe our arses with them.
Deals count less than treaties. You're talking about trade deals? Maybe you've missed the point of the election - Trump was elected BECAUSE he said the trade deals suck ass, and they need to go.
As for the VP, and shocking the gay out of people - it worked for him!! He no longer wants to suck a dick.
Stop your sniveling, FFS. We're America, we do whatever the hell we want, damn alliances, deals, and gays.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday December 02 2016, @03:34PM
1) You are a special kind of stupid. Just because they aren't technically in office yet doesn't mean we don't know exactly what they're planning. These appointments are no accident; they're the Dominionists and corporatists setting up the system exactly as they want it. This has been at least 40 years in the making. Learn some fucking history.
2) I personally am not dumb enough to piss in my own gas tank. Many people are, metaphorically, and they seem to be PROUD of it. And they brag about it. A lot. So when someone tells them "that's fucking dumb, don't do that" their "you're not a mechanic, piss off" response is as harmful as it is predictable.
Fool.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @03:39PM
I'm astonished that you think you've provided a rebuttal. Why are you so bad at thinking?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday December 02 2016, @03:51PM
Yes, it means precisely that unless you can read minds. I mean, fuck, you're going by reports of what they've said by a media that outright and blatantly hates them. This is less than wise by any stretch of the word.
And there we go demonizing the people who disagree with you. Standard tactic from the regressive left. Do please call me a racist/misogynist/something-phobe next. I mean that is the only approved response in your official playbook.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @04:07PM
For someone who didn't vote for trump you sure get upset when people criticize him. Maybe you're just upset that things look like more of the status quo? Except with a real chance of regressive policies which will roll back civil rights...
(Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday December 02 2016, @04:21PM
Oh I'm not upset. I'm quite enjoying this discussion. And if it looks like I'm defending Trump simply because I dislike the bullshit that comes out of the regressive left, that's probably because you're a member and can't conceive of anyone thinking differently than you.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @06:07PM
Then hop out of the conversation, you're just trolling for lulz. You want people to ignore statements of reality, Trump's own words, his cabinet choices, their opinion/stances on policy. Yes the media lies, on both sides, and you need to stop using that as some magic catch-all for your arguments. The media bias isn't even a factor in this current discussion.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @06:03PM
Yes, it means precisely that unless you can read minds. I mean, fuck, you're going by reports of what they've said by a media that outright and blatantly hates them. This is less than wise by any stretch of the word.
If all reporting on these people is untrustworthy why would you trust the reporting on what they actually do?
Once you start in with the lügenpresse, it is turtles all the way down.
The things they've said and done previously aren't made up. Its verifiable from multiple sources going back years, including video. Sometimes from their own websites because they don't think there is anything wrong with their positions.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday December 02 2016, @07:20PM
Believe me, Uzzard, when I call you "a special kind of stupid," this is not an insult so much as a fair description backed up by a couple years' observation. Stick to coding; you're useless at everything else.
You're deflecting here, thinking your tone-policing bullshit is going to shut me down--and the projection, Jesus fuck, you don't seem to get that the "regressives" as you call them are a direct, mirror-image response to what your kind has been doing for decades. Fortunately for you, they suck at it, possibly because most of them at least have good intentions instead of being sociopathic drones.
I am repeating nothing from the media about these people in his cabinet. I have researched them. They are a motley crew of Theonomists, kleptocrats, white supremacists, "race realists," and wealthy elite.
For a guy who didn't vote for Trump or any of his cabinet you are weirdly quick to rush to their defense when someone dares to point out the truth about them.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @08:29PM
For a guy who didn't vote for Trump or any of his cabinet you are weirdly quick to rush to their defense when someone dares to point out the truth about them.
That guy is deeply wedded to his pet theory that Trump will be unable to accomplish anything because "the establishment" abhors him. I've told him multiple times that regardless of how effective Trump is personally, he will end up surrounded by savvy political operators with the worsts intentions, exactly like Manafort. And being so firmly connected to the establishment they will be able to achieve all kinds of destructive goals.
Now that it is exactly what is happening. Buzzer so poorly understands human nature and politics that when easily predicted reality starts to slap him in the face, he's got nothing left but baldfaced denial.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday December 02 2016, @08:52PM
I really want to hope that's true, tat he's more stupid than evil, but Hanlon's Razor is starting to lose its edge. Stupidity of this kind becomes a sort of secondhand malice.
And that's assuming that he isn't actually the complete trash-fire of a human being I suspect very heavily he is. As they say, when someone shows you what they are, BELIEVE THEM THE FIRST TIME.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @03:52PM
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
You got your car analogy all wrong. Trump's supporters are the gas tank, and Trump is the one doing all the pissing. Let's hope they can catch every drop of that sweet sweet trickle down. ~ Anonymous 0x9932FE2729B1D963
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2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=R1Hi
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @04:03PM
It's astonishing that you think you've provided a rebuttal. Why are you so terrible at thinking?
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by Runaway1956 on Friday December 02 2016, @04:12PM
At least 40 years in the making - yeah, probably so. On the other side of the street, we have a vast left wing conspiracy that's been in the making for at least 100 years.
Looks like the right wing are better conspirators than the left wing?
(Score: 2) by DECbot on Friday December 02 2016, @05:14PM
Democrat conspiracy, Republican conspiracy, humbug!
This is a long running Whig conspiracy to regain the House.
cats~$ sudo chown -R us /home/base
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @06:34PM
This is a long running Whig conspiracy to regain the House.
Lies! This is all lies! Trump is not a Whig! That is his own hair!! It just looks like an extinct conservative political party.
(Score: 2, Flamebait) by Runaway1956 on Friday December 02 2016, @09:19PM
Some liberal minded person believes that plain facts are properly moderated "flamebait". So - tell me - which of the American parties embraces the idea of abortion, and ridding themselves of "human weeds"? Marge Sanger was a liberal, after all, a feminist, and a racist. Remember that, children!!
(Score: 2) by turgid on Friday December 02 2016, @07:28PM
I'm afraid that's the way the world is going. It's going to get a whole lot worse before it gets better. Hopefully it won't take the stupid too long to learn their hard lesson.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday December 02 2016, @07:33PM
I gave up on them after this election. I don't care whether they learn it or not, they can all go to hell. Right now my concern is getting the ever-merciful fuck out of Dodge before that "lesson" kills me in the backsplash.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @07:51PM
Have a nice trip, and don't let the screen door hit you in the ass on the way out.
(Score: 1, Redundant) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday December 02 2016, @08:07PM
Laugh while you can, idiot. You and your kind have condemned this nation to a Hell the likes of which you cannot possibly imagine.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @09:39PM
In Indiana, did Trump make United Technologies/Carrier "pay a damn tax" the way he promised?
Nope. The deal he made keeps FEWER THAN HALF of those jobs in the USA and to do that Trump gave Carrier a tax BREAK (with any other concessions to be revealed in the course of time).
Trump, at best, is a bag of hot air.
The only bright spot left is that the Blue minority in the Senate can use the auto-filibuster to make sure that nothing clears the Congress (the way that the Reds in Congress have been doing for 8 years to Obama's Neoliberal proposals).
It is indeed in the Executive Branch that the Trum Administration will do lots of damage.
Trump will cancel Obama's (already timid) executive orders on Day 1.
The 3 Reactionaries that Trump has lined up for the FCC will kill Net Neutrality on Day 1 as well as set-top box rule reforms.
The Interior Department will start rubberstamping oil lease approvals (more fracking) at a furious rate.
OSHA will be completely neutered and workplace safety will plummet even farther.
Yada, yada, yada.
Good luck, USA. You're gonna need it.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 03 2016, @07:48AM
Trump has no chance to win the primary.
Trump has no chance to win the election.
Trump is going to lose to Hillary in a landslide.
Trump is going to cause a stock market crash when he wins.
Don't you arrogant fucking losers ever get tired of being wrong? Ever?
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday December 03 2016, @08:32PM
Hey, dumbfuck: I was one of the people who was telling others not to get complacent. Trump's win is a bad idea whose time has come, much like, and for much the same reasons as, the Third Reich.
And if you think this win is a good thing for you and yours...well, give it a couple of years. If you're somehow still alive you'll envy the dead.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 3, Funny) by aristarchus on Friday December 02 2016, @06:16PM
OK, I have recently warned people about bad car analogies, but this one has just turned around and bit the Trumpheteers in the behind. Yes, we already know peeing into your gas tank was not good, no mechanic needed to tell us that, or even a doctor. But what trump is doing is the equivalent, so we do not need MIT boffins to tell us it is bad, very bad. Everyone knows you only pee into diesel vehicles, and not VWs! Everyone knows the Trump cabinet will be full of deplorables. Alex Jones for Secretary of Education! Yeeeee-haaa!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 03 2016, @07:08AM
You fool. VW's are diesels!!
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Saturday December 03 2016, @07:28AM
You even more phool! VW was supposed to have the "Clean Diesel" tech that allowed them to meet emission regs. They lied. Part of what made people suspicious was that that VW did not use the "Blue" tech that other manufacturers were using, which involved injecting urea (this is where the "piss" comes in, so to speak), to react with the nitrogen compounds that diesels produce. So no, you should not pee into a VW diesel, but you can into your BMW or Mercedes. It is a little tank to the side of the engine compartment, labeled "give a piss about the environment". I hope I have remedied your invincible ignorance.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by schad on Friday December 02 2016, @04:08PM
You're begging the question. Try it with advice you don't already know to be good. What if your doctor told you to switch your car's motor oil to Motul 8100 X-CESS 5w40 from the brand (and viscosity!) your manufacturer recommends? And that doing so would get you 10% more power and fuel economy, not to mention smoother performance and increased engine life? Would you go out and do it? I mean, those are pretty big advantages. And if your highly-educated and trained doctor recommends it, it must be a good idea, right?
Only the executive branch. The president doesn't appoint people to Congress; we voters are responsible for that shit show. You can't even claim gerrymandering. Congressional districts are drawn up by the states: usually the state legislatures, though in some cases by the judiciary or independent panels, but in no case by the federal government. And while the president does appoint people to the judicial branch, they must be confirmed by the Senate. If our senators aren't doing the advice-and-consent thing, it is, again, our fault as voters for not holding them responsible.
If you think the executive generally and the president specifically has too much power, I absolutely and completely agree with you. Unfortunately, empowerment of the executive branch is something that's been going on at least since Jackson. And Congress's abrogation of its Constitutional responsibilities has been going on at least since FDR. So while Republicans will try to tell you that this is a new thing (OBAMA RULED BY EXECUTIVE ORDER) and Democrats will try to tell you that this is an almost-as-new thing (BUSH LIED) the reality is that both parties have been complicit in making the executive branch increasingly authoritarian. And now, thanks to the shortsightedness of those idiots, Donald J. Trump, reality TV star, can start a global thermonuclear war on his own authority.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday December 02 2016, @07:16PM
Regarding the first point, my response would be "Now that sounds good. I'm going to go look up peoples' experiences with this stuff and see a) if they say the same things and b) if something like the model or weight of my car an affect this."
Second point...yeah the executive is way too powerful, but I don't think the legislature is as open to and amenable to the voting public and its wishes as you think. It's too complex for most people to understand, hence low midterm turnouts, and as it is, the entire thing's turned into an old-boys' club with a cycle of lobbying and legislation. The judicial branch...this may be the scariest part, since we have a good idea of what kind of judges a Dominionist would appoint.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Friday December 02 2016, @05:57PM
I pinched a disk in my back quite a few years back.
My doctor told me to lay in bed on my back with a heating pad under me.
The physiotherapist sighed when i told her this: i should have done the opposite. Lay on my stomach with ice packs on my back.
If that first doctor told me not to piss in my gas tank, i'd go to a mechanic for a second opinion.
Some people are smart, some are stupid.
A bunch of nobel prize winners (in categories as stupid as the peace prize) say that GMO's are safe: MIT "humanities" people say that Trump is doing wrong. Listen to them with the same care you would listen to your cat telling you about physics.
https://soylentnews.org/article.pl?sid=16/07/04/1249257 [soylentnews.org]
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @07:01PM
I pinched a disk
Seems like it was a disagreement over the diagnosis. The doctor who suggested heat believed it was a muscle issue instead of the disk and the physiotherapist believed that it was a disk issue and suggested ice to relieve the inflammation. Depending on the description of the pain (which is sometimes subjective) and the tests done (MRI is the only way to be sure) the correct diagnosis may be hard to arrive at.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @03:56PM
I realize that that the professors at Devry, or wherever Buzzard went to college don't necessarily have expertise in the many areas where the Trump administration will make policy and enforce, or not enforce, existing laws.
But it's different with professors at a top university such as MIT.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday December 02 2016, @04:00PM
Yes, it absolutely is. They're so highly specialized that they have virtually no expertise outside their chosen field. Being a rocket surgeon does not qualify you to speak on anything but rocket surgery.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @04:16PM
Only problem with your theory is statistics. If we're going to listen to anyone I'll put my money on hundreds of top level professors.
By your reasoning what in the HELL is trump doing in the whitehouse? He is less qualified than any president in history, but like others have said that seems to be a point of pride for his supporters. His cabinet choices are a very clear indication of the path they will take, and its this: more corporate welfare, congrats Goldman Sachs, and repressive legislation to undo civil rights.
If you can't see that then you are the one who nerds rocket surgery...
(Score: 1, Disagree) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday December 02 2016, @04:24PM
No, Obama is less qualified than any President in history. Trump has held real jobs. The rest of your argument essentially boils down to "they agree with me so their opinions are wise".
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @05:31PM
Trump has no experience in government and zero concept of what diplomacy is all about. The only thing going for him is the sheer military and economic power of the US, so his bully tactics might actually get results. If we were a smaller country he'd just be ignored and the country would become the butt of political jokes like North Korea.
My argument is that I'll take the opinion of 500 of our top scientists over ... wait, over nothing. Trump and his cabinet have been pretty clear about what they will do, this isn't some debate about opinions. You want us to NOT listen to dire warnings from our top minds? You want us to wait and see if every horrible thing Trump said was just hot air? It becomes ever increasingly clear that you and your fellows are ruled by hatred and fear, not logic and critical thinking.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @05:33PM
My prediction is Trump's presidency will go much like Obama's, the major promises will fall through and we'll just experience 4-8 years of increased surveillance and corporate welfare.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @07:33PM
While Neoliberal do-nothing-useful Obama is among the worst ever, your memory is too short.
I remember Gerald Ford and his "brilliant" plan to deal with inflation: Buttons [google.com]
Reagan's plan to build a 600-ship Navy while building a new generation of nuclear-tipped missiles and simultaneously building a "new" generation of strategic bombers (which the U-2 shootdown of 1960 showed were already out of date) was also pretty stupid.
(Militarism has an extremely low multiplier effect and borrowing to accomplish that is simply moronic.)
Clinton's gutting of Glass-Steagall set up the 2nd giant crash of the USAian economy in less than a century.
Nixon said "If the president does it, it's not illegal".
Barry O'Bummer is pretty awful, but he's got lots of competition for "worst".
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 4, Informative) by edIII on Friday December 02 2016, @10:12PM
Trump has not held a real job, unless you count getting $14 million from his daddy, working for daddy's companies, and then going bankrupt as a career. He has zero experience working for anyone else other than himself or daddy, and clearly does not play well with others. You have to be joking to compare the two men. Trump couldn't touch Obama, on Obama's worst day.
Obama was not the least qualified president in history, and was actually a Constitutional scholar. His experience in politics has clearly demonstrated that he has political skills, and Hillary was absolutely more qualified than Obama even. Stop making Obama look like an inexperienced idiot, because that is just fucking moronic dude. Nobody believes that, except the people that want to believe it due to emotional motivations. Those arguments went out the window in his two terms of office.
Stick to most salient point regarding Obama; He fucking betrayed us. That's why he is worse than Bush, and why he will still be worse than Trump. Obama fucking knew better, and could have been better.
Trump is just an ignorant, bombastic piece of shit, and is easily the least experienced person to ever hold such a high office. How does being an overbearing asshole that treats his workers like shit, goes bankrupt, and refuses to pay on contracts at his whim, make him qualified? I don't expect anything better out of him, than I did Obama (after he started fucking us over). The ONLY reason why I had any hope for Hillary was because the Democratic Party underwent a far more civil reorganization with new progressive policies. That, and the rest of you act as one hell of a check and balance against her. All we have to do is look the other way, stop supporting her, and you would have had her killed within days. At least according to how much hate and vitriol came from the other side. Trump may have been likened to Hitler (which is accurate), but Hillary achieved actual anti-Christ status :)
Stop saying stupid shit like that, and call out Obama from what he actually is. A very smart and experienced con man that ran on populism, albeit a more positive form of it. Once he was done, he abandoned us. Trump is already doing the same, except I don't believe he has the maturity and discipline to deal with other world leaders like Obama did. Being the arrogant strong man isn't all that useful in international diplomacy.
Fuck, even Reagan at his most senile was better than Trump on his best day. He was an actual governor you know, not some reality TV trainwreck....
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @10:59PM
That being the case, you'd think that he'd heard of this:
So then, how is it that Obama has had USA military personnel use drone-borne munitions to whack 8 USA citizens? [google.com]
Notice also that the Bill of Rights does NOT say "No USA citizen" nor "No resident of USA".
What it says is "NO PERSON".
I'd say that knowing better, then doing evil anyway, puts Obama well into the negative column.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by edIII on Friday December 02 2016, @11:22PM
Did you think I would disagree with you or something? I was talking about experience.
Let me put to you in quasi D&D terms.
Obama: INT 19 WIS 10 CHA 25 STR 3 Alignment: Lawful Evil. Skills: Bluff, Diplomacy, and Street Wise.
XP 343,035,223
Trump: INT 4 WIS 3 CHA 15 STR 20 Alignment: Mentally Challenged Chaotic Evil. Skills: Oh So many Skills, I've Got the Best SKILLS
XP: 987
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @11:57PM
:D
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 03 2016, @07:38PM
In D&D terms, most people would have stats between 8 and 13, while anything diverging would be exceptional. A STR of 20 would make someone a professional bodybuilder, while 4INT is lower than the typical ape (who has 6). Anything above 20 is superhuman and rarely available even to lv20 characters who can strangle dragons with their bare firsts.
Turn in your nerd card right now.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Sunday December 04 2016, @12:45AM
Absolutely not!
I counter with my lvl42 Grammar Nazi and cast Your-Reading-Comprehension-Sucks And Yo-Momma-Dresses-You-Funny.
Did say quasi-D&D terms ;)
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2) by jasassin on Sunday December 04 2016, @07:53AM
If forcing people to buy insurance, (especially in states that did not accept subsidies making the cost of the shittiest plan available over $300 dollars a month) is constitutional what a magnificent scholar. What a fucking genius.
jasassin@gmail.com GPG Key ID: 0xE6462C68A9A3DB5A
(Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Saturday December 03 2016, @12:42AM
Sidestepping the issue of whether or not the MIT staff are qualified, another issue is that they're just another bunch of obnoxious academics speaking from their ivory tower and out of touch with commoners.
Anyway, just because somebody's good at being an academic doesn't mean they're any good at not only politics but also social skills and bathing. Just wait until a Black and/or Muslim student goes on another rampage on their campus, or sets up tents and shits all over the sidewalks by their houses, and their minds will change.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by AthanasiusKircher on Friday December 02 2016, @04:36PM
Being a rocket surgeon does not qualify you to speak on anything but rocket surgery.
If you are a scientist of some sort, I assume it does qualify you at least somewhat to speak on the scientific method, which is actually one of the things coming up repeatedly in these statements. We can certainly debate whether these folks have any authority beyond anyone else to speak about issues of bigotry or free speech or whatever... but surely scientists have the right (and at least some qualification) to express concern about the support of general scientific methodologies?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @04:58PM
Doctors know nothing about politics, so why do we let them vote? I propose that only politicians should be able to vote.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @05:12PM
Now you're starting to get it.
Democratic voting is a terrible way to organize society; there is little correlation between voting and competence; the weight of one's vote is virtually detached from the results of one's previous votes.
In contrast, the free market allows society to evolve under the direction of those who devise and implement objectively sustainable patterns of existence based as much as possible on each individual's voluntary choice to participate.
(Score: 1) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Friday December 02 2016, @05:51PM
Hate to burst your bubble, but the "Free market" requires strong government intervention to even work.
For example, the price system relies on money. Cyptocurrency *may* be possible without government intervention, but has scaling problems.
Contract enforcement relies on the rule of law: something the government typically provides.
The voluntary exchange of goods relies on infrastructure such as roads. Government provides that as well. Sometimes eminent domain is required to prevent somebody from blocking a road by buying up land.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @06:15PM
Money is just a commodity; it's existence is a manifestation of contract fulfillment.
Contract enforcement is just a service, and like any other service, it can be implemented as part of the free market; co-evolution of symbiotic systems is a thing.
The fact that a government has provided a service (such as building roads) does not imply that only a government can provide that service, or even that only a government can provide that service best.
Try again.
(Score: 1) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Friday December 02 2016, @07:39PM
Governments also have a monopoly on the use of force.
In the absence of government, your contract may be ignored by an armed thug.
There is also the issue that resources are collectively owned. Why are you allowed to claim full ownership merely for making improvements?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @10:46PM
No. In the absence of contract-enforcement, your contract may be ignored by an armed thug; there is no requirement that a government handle contract-enforcement.
Ownership is a property of social interaction that is hashed out through various iterations of contract negotiation and enforcement.
Come on, man! Do a little independent thinking for once in your life!
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @05:44PM
> They're so highly specialized that they have virtually no expertise outside their chosen field.
Said by the #1 over-confident ignoramus outside of his specialty on this site.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 03 2016, @06:03AM
There is some stiff competition for that title, but Buz is in the running.
(Score: 2) by Zz9zZ on Friday December 02 2016, @07:27PM
But we should take advice on who to trust from you?
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Friday December 02 2016, @08:24PM
What if your doctor is also a amateur hot roder or racer? People aren't as one dimensional as you are.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @03:11PM
I know people at MIT; the one's who are actually useful to society are too busy in the lab to bother with such political nonsense.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by AthanasiusKircher on Friday December 02 2016, @03:44PM
I know people at MIT; the one's who are actually useful to society are too busy in the lab to bother with such political nonsense.
And that's precisely what makes this effort notable. Please have a look at the list of names. I was rather shocked at how quickly this has grown and how many "big names" in many scientific fields are there. Many of these people don't strike me as folks who would normally get involved in such a thing, which makes their participation all the more remarkable.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @04:00PM
They've gotten involved in what exactly? An airy fairy puff piece that says absolutely nothing!
Currently, the penalty in academia for appearing to hold dissenting political views is a very Chilly Change in Climate indeed! You want money to continue your work? Well, you'd better toe the line, Comrade! So, signal others of your virtue, and then head back into the lab, where you can temporarily escape the fantastical make-believe world of all those "colleagues" who affirmatively weaseled their way into a once-upon-a-time hard-nosed Institution like MIT.
(Score: 5, Informative) by ikanreed on Friday December 02 2016, @04:09PM
Ah, where would fascism be without the anti-intellectuals, raving about how their bullshit is totally just as good as real science?
The reason that "no one" in academia "dissents" from global warming is quite simply because the evidence is incredibly overwhelming and you're just wrong.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @04:20PM
What does global warming have to do with anything? Red herring, much?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by ikanreed on Friday December 02 2016, @04:27PM
It's one of the central anti-science elements of Donald Trump's platform that this petition is seeking redress for?
Seems topical to me.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @04:39PM
With regard to Climate Change research, there are real, worthy questions about methodology, bias, motivation, and even mathematical soundness. The only real scientific response is to address these questions systematically, not sign petitions or lobby officials or appeal to public emotion.
If you want public money to research and implement your views, then you've got to take criticism seriously.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by ikanreed on Friday December 02 2016, @04:48PM
And now that your original point that it's irrelevant has been countered, you're awful quick to jump into the traditional anti-science classes of pseudoskepticism: "There are areas that require further investigation therefor people who call the whole thing nonsense and refuse to act on incredibly high quality information are okay in my book".
The nature of the argument is literally indistinguishable from those of
*Creationists: Do you know how organ Y evolved? Do you have transitional fossil #43245231.3? No? then evolution is obviously not science.
*Anti-vaxxers: Can you prove with absolute certainty that there are zero side effects to the exact vaccine schedule recommended by doctors? No? Then obviously it's okay to not vaccinate my kids.
and
*Ufologists: Do you have a proven explanation for this sighting? Oh you do? But not this one, so obviously you can't know for certain that we're not being run by reptilians
But you act sanctimonious about understanding the true nature of science unlike us people who just use the evidence to compare the central hypothesis to the null hypothesis and find no compelling confounding factors that could adequately explain the data. You're wrong. You're incredibly wrong. And you're dragging us to hell with you because your ego prefers someone who tells you what you want to hear(that it's all a Chinese myth).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @05:16PM
You want other people's money? You should have to convince them to give it to you.
There are real, scientific concerns with the methodology and even the mathematics behind climate research; maligning a dissenting voice through guilt by association with other maligned ideas is what is anti-scientific.
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Friday December 02 2016, @05:31PM
You see "Your argument is of this same fallacious form as these other people" and your mind just looks for the most approximate match of a logical fallacy it can. In this case it selected the completely crazy "Guilt by association" which would requirement to say that because you have a standing relationship with those groups you're wrong.
To my knowledge, you personally know exactly zero creationists, anti-vaxxers, and ufologists. According to my post I attributed zero relationship between you and those groups other than making the same incorrect argument about the nature of scientific understanding.
You then proceed to conclude that my refutation of your bullshit is censorship, which very quickly leads me to suspect that you're not very good at this free-and-open society thing that you're pretending to care about for the sake of argument.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @09:54PM
Why do you think scientists hate grant proposals so much? They think their studies are valid and do not like wasting time having to justify them for funding. Sooo, yeah, you're really off base. I would totally have gotten my PhD if I knew the gov would just throw money at me for whatever I wanted!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Friday December 02 2016, @06:41PM
What does global warming have to do with anything? Red herring, much?
Never before have I seen on SoylentNews such an innocent, guileless admission of "did not read the FA." Do try to keep up, AC?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @07:21PM
Well, I've seen quite frequently on SoylentNews your inability to follow the argument at hand.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @07:47PM
Well, that sure doesn't address the actual topic at hand or the inability of the previous AC to realize climate change is a central theme to this discussion.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Friday December 02 2016, @10:19PM
Sorry, "guileless" means "without guile", or not intended to deceive. I will try to use smaller and more common words in the future. Sometimes I forget we have ACs of limited vocabulary. Now, what was the thing we were arguing about again? Trump the ex-Birther is now a Climate-change Denier and anti-Vaxxer, and one of the most prestigious tech university's faculty has noticed this fact? No wonder you were confused.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @07:39PM
You must be new here!
(Score: 1) by new here on Saturday December 03 2016, @06:41AM
No, I am new here, you insensitive clod.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by jmorris on Friday December 02 2016, @05:03PM
We should run the experiment. Let Trump drive out the political hacks at the National Science Foundation and install his own. When the money says AGW is false and "your sad devotion to that ancient religion" means no funding, we shall see how many so called scientists change positions with the political winds and how many truly believe. 90% of scientists continuing to ring the bell even if it meant loss of grant money, loss of prestige, etc. would carry a lot more weight than the current situation where scaremongering pays well and promises to someday give their political faction ultimate power over all economic activity and a gusher of cash to 'redistribute' as they please.
Which brings us directly to the subject at hand. On one level, this is nothing but butthurt Democrats still coming to terms with an unexpected loss since the Academy is now more reliably Democratic in their voting than even Blacks, although perhaps not quite at the level of Black Women. But on another level this is entirely practical since they all suckle the government teat and never expected a problem with the flow. Always follow the money. Money is truthful. So they are now trying to scaremonger up concessions. Being painfully ignorant outside their narrow specialty really shows here, otherwise they would know this sort of drama queen stuff is far more likely to elicit the exact opposite response from Trump.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @05:29PM
the current situation where scaremongering pays well
Do you have any evidence that scaremongering over climate change leads to more NSF grant money? If someone was really trying to make some money by trading in their credibility, then Big Business is usually the way to go.
If the, typically, liberal political views of scientists substantially affect their analysis of results, then why isn't there a strong anti-GMO or anti-vaccine consensus? The scientific consensus on both of those topics are not believed by many on the left, but the scientists don't seem to change their analysis or try to scaremonger more money.
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Friday December 02 2016, @06:46PM
"Ah, if we just let a dictator install people to spread propaganda instead of research facts then you'll see that the people for whom there is no evidence of malfeasance were exactly the same thing"
Bash the Fash. Beat every Jmorris you meet in the street.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @07:00PM
I think it might be better to start ignoring all his posts, more and more I think a lot of these guys are just trolls looking to piss people off.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by ikanreed on Friday December 02 2016, @07:07PM
Ignoring them seems smart until they start winning elections, then you realize their bullshit going uncontested has real consequences.
(Score: 2) by MostCynical on Saturday December 03 2016, @12:11AM
People want to believe AGW is lies, somthey can continue to drive a monster truck, use air conditioning every day, get tax breaks rather than investment in sustainable renewables...
Trump may have campaigned that he would "shake things up", but I think alot of people voted for him because he basically represents the status quo. No thinking, no change, no "new" (technology, jobs, taxes, etc etc)
Admitting you have a problem is the first step. Adddiction to coal and gas and other dirty, cheap fuel is not going away. People don't want change.
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @06:50PM
No, let's not run that little experiment. Historically, the way that usually plays out is (a) the best and brightest will leave this country for other countries which are much more congenial thus causing a brain drain from the USA, and (b) political pressure on scientists to toe the party line will stunt this country's scientific prowess and put us at a disadvantage for at least a generation to come. That is what you are really asking for here. Right now I fear for America's future.
(Score: 2) by fritsd on Friday December 02 2016, @07:35PM
lol.
<troll>
Yeah, you want them to concentrate on real American Physics [wikipedia.org], kick all those degenerate <outgroup> [wikipedia.org] physicists out of your country!
In fact, I'm sure some people say that all AGW believers *are* in fact <outgroup> members! Has it been proven that this is not so? Well then!
If scientists don't toe the Party line, then obviously there must be something wrong with them. Hail Myron Ebell [globalwarming.org]!
</troll>
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Friday December 02 2016, @04:29PM
Interesting. I probably shouldn't feed the trolls, but since the first AC comment has been modded up, I guess I'll reply. I don't know if you're the same AC who posted earlier, but that post argued that notable faculty were too busy to participate because it was apparently too onerous to leave their labs and sign onto a statement. Now, when notable faculty might have actually signed the statement... now signing a statement is apparently doing "nothing" and they are apparently being cajoled to by their apparent opponents on the faculty with opposing political views, and if they don't participate, they won't get funding for their research.
Are you serious? You do realize that MIT receives a lot of FEDERAL funding, right? For fiscal year 2016, they are receiving $477 million dollars from various federal departments toward research (roughly 2/3 of the research income for MIT). And you think faculty members in labs are idiotic enough to show up and sign a statement against the new federal government head because they are afraid their COLLEAGUES are going to take away their grant money?? That money comes from the government they are criticizing!
If you wanted to be really cynical, I suppose you could have taken the opposite argument -- that these "scientists" aren't seriously concerned about science, and are really just worried about their grant money. And they're afraid that the new government officials will take away their money if allowed to take office. THAT would at least be a slightly more logical argument, even though I still think it doesn't explain the actions of most of the people on this list (many and probably most of whom receive funding for stuff that is unlikely to be defunded under Trump for political reasons).
Keep trying. Instead of actually taking things at face value, eventually you'll find some random set of ideas that could create a conspiracy theory that will explain away any inconvenient set of facts.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @05:06PM
The "notable" faculty are almost certainly people who have morphed from high thinkers into figurehead managers of large organizations that have evolved to work with politically tainted bureaucracies. It is what it is.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @07:12PM
"almost certainly" correct?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday December 02 2016, @04:18PM
"Remarkable" is the correct choice of words there. Let us remark on it, and dismiss it.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by Runaway1956 on Friday December 02 2016, @04:17PM
^^^^^ THIS! A thousand times, THIS! ^^^^^
Little weenies who have time for demonstrations and open letters and activism in general aren't productive members of society. Generally speaking. Offense intended.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @04:35PM
Oh wow, you fly your FOOL flag high and proud I see. I guess this isn't about reason, just your "feels". I recall you making comments about armchair activism, so now anyone who actually does go protest is an unproductive weenie? Lol, you aren't a rational creature, just pretending to be one. Besides, these professors signed a letter and probably discussed the topic for months during lunch/coffee breaks etc. Why do you think they left their jobs to become "unproductive weenies"?
Oh right, you're not thinking, just ad homineming your way to a rage boner. Go read some breitbart and come back when your ... Ick ... Satisfied. Maybe then you'll have some decent points to make.
(Score: 1) by kurenai.tsubasa on Friday December 02 2016, @04:45PM
Well, look at all the unproductive weenies that went to Trump rallies!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @05:18PM
100 thousand people? How many millions voted for Trump?
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @05:20PM
Those don't equate, voting is easy, protesting is hard.
(Score: 1) by kurenai.tsubasa on Friday December 02 2016, @06:26PM
Um, what was it, 63 millions?
Holy cow! Voting now makes you an unproductive weenie! 128 million unproductive weenies voted somebody for president! Maybe even 129 because I didn't even look at L and G! Holy shit, we're going to be overrun with unproductive weenies!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @08:43PM
Hey, at least it should solve the population problem :D
(Score: 2) by SpockLogic on Friday December 02 2016, @09:44PM
How many millions voted for Trump?
About two and a half million less than voted for Clinton.
Overreacting is one thing, sticking your head up your ass hoping the problem goes away is another - edIII
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @03:25PM
You seem to be conflating consideration and acceptance. You should consider ideas different from yours, but you should not blindly accept anything you are told, regardless of who the speaker is.
When we object to "listening" to people, we object to blindly accepting someone's position just because their person, rather than the strength of their argument.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @03:33PM
Ummm.... the implication here is that "We should listen to these people, because they are MIT brains on legs!" Well, so what? Being a urologist doesn't imply you know anything about cars; that's not a good reason to heed advice on that matter.
Now, if an MIT civil engineer pointed out irrefutable mistakes in the technical proposal to Build That Wall, then you might have something worth considering.
Get it yet?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @04:25PM
We all get this "expertise" argument you're making, but those of us saying we should listen to these professors think your argument is really dumb. Now, if we were talking about actually complicated subjects like brain surgery or rocket engine design then you would have a point. But we're not, we're talking about straightforward policies everyone can understand. This anti-intellectualism must stop! It has people praising their future overlords and kicking in the teeth of those working to save our future.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @04:48PM
And to think, I'm young enough that I might yet see the Library of Congressed burned to the ground by Christians.
Not really sure why Christians like burning libraries. Probably a similar reason to why Moooooooooooooooooooooslims like destroying historical sites.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday December 02 2016, @07:30PM
You're trolling, but you are absolutely correct about the reasons. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all spring from the same poisonous root and until they die off in the collective consciousness there can and will be no peace.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 3, Insightful) by linkdude64 on Friday December 02 2016, @04:22PM
"Just because they are distinguished in their fields . . ."
Lots of people are good at what they dedicate their lives to. Most people simply don't dedicate themselves to acadamia.
"Just because they are associated with a highly notable institution of higher learning . . ."
I don't ask an English teacher - even a Triple Gold Medalist PhD Super Deluxe English Professor - how to fix my car, and I wouldn't ask a particle physicist how to run a successful business or how to keep a country safe, and I would certainly not ask a menial figure in a prestigious bueracracy how to Lead. Leading is an art in its own right.
"Just because they are known for sound reason, supporting facts, reproducible results . . ."
Yet they are as biased as anyone else when it comes to personal matters and opinions.
Again, a Triple-Platinum PhD Particle Physicist who says "Nobody needs guns" is not any more correct than a single person who responds with, "I used a gun to defend my house from a burglar with a knife. I needed a gun."
". . . does NOT mean that you should give credibility to what they say!"
Or what you say, I suppose.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Zz9zZ on Friday December 02 2016, @05:22PM
So instead you're going to let a businessman with a record of fraud and zero experience in government and foreign diplomacy decide what is best for the country? I really don't understand this level of cognitive dissonance.
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @05:45PM
That's what happens when you allow influential people to be installed through democratic voting rather than free market economics.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by linkdude64 on Friday December 02 2016, @07:44PM
"So instead you're going to let a businessman with a record of fraud"
and a current standing of billions of dollars in revenue and considerable profit whom he is entirely responsible for creating? Yes! I absolutely want that. What was that about cognitive dissonance, again?
The other option has not a "past record" but a current agenda of perpetuating war in the mid-east and destroying this country (economically and militarily at least) for the sake of campaign donors. If you would like, I can show you the Wikileaks emails - aka the evidence.
"zero experience in government and foreign diplomacy decide what is best for the country? I really don't understand this level of cognitive dissonance."
And I really don't understand your thinking that somehow having been in the government immediately qualifies you to improve the country. If Trump had been a high-up Republican politician for the past 30 years I would say that would make him less qualified than he is now! You really believe that the longer people stay in politics, the better they become at being representatives of the common man? You have your head in the MSM sand.
(Score: 2) by Zz9zZ on Friday December 02 2016, @07:53PM
I was pointing out the flaw in the argument. I don't advocate for Clinton, I know she would support terrible policies as well. The point was listening to hundreds/thousands of high level academics is statistically a much better idea than listening to a fraudulent real estate developer. He has been in court numerous times, been defeated (contrary to his statements otherwise), and hasn't even released his taxes. According to gossip and hints from his own children he is not a billionaire and made his way in life by subsidies from his father. Conning people and getting a huge amount of free seed money does not a good businessman make. Get your head out of Trump's ass, I don't even watch the news or cruise MSM websites since they're too full of propaganda bullshit.
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 2) by Zz9zZ on Friday December 02 2016, @07:59PM
To be clear, I'm not advocating that Trump step down and let Clinton be president, that was your weird take on what I said. At the very least Trump said he'll torpedo the TPP so I'm happy with that bit if it happens, but I do worry about a lot of other things. None of those things were likely to be different under Clinton anyway.
As for draining the swamp, he just filled the white house with swamp creatures! So I don't have any faith Trump will come through on that account.
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 03 2016, @12:20AM
Not to put too fine a point on this but some think Donald Trump would be richer if he'd have invested in index funds. [fortune.com] And I think it should also be pointed out that his businesses have gone into bankruptcy at least a couple of times now; the billions he has managed to keep were mostly at the expense of the creditors and contractors he has stiffed along the way. Are you really sure this is what you want? Are you sure? If I were you, I would keep a close eye on your wallet for the next four years. Just sayin'.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Phoenix666 on Friday December 02 2016, @02:48PM
A better course of action than mewling about media fabrications would be to build systems with teeth. Don't like Big Oil and its influence on government? Direct your efforts to making centrally controlled energy a thing of the past. Don't like Wall Street's vise grip on government? Make banks a thing of the past. And so on.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 3, Touché) by TheGratefulNet on Friday December 02 2016, @02:52PM
"don't like gravity? create an anti-grav device"
etc etc.
you are a funny guy. just have the science guys 'fix shit' technically, right? that's all that is needed. just that. simple.
(man... do you believe the stuff you write, or what?)
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @04:41PM
There is some merit to the idea, already renewables are covering the first point, to the degree that Florida had a vote on the matter!
The second is much more problematic because money is a system of interaction for humans, and humans can screw with it if they want. Solving human equations is hard, but I will agree with op that we could figure out something at least a little better.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday December 02 2016, @08:57PM
Yeah that's the kind of thing I had in mind in writing that. Also additive manufacturing has been in my mind the last decade as a means to undermine our centralized systems of control. If I suppose I have all the energy I need and the means to create anything I want, what power does a magnate still hold over me then? Do they chase after me and every other person forever like the RIAA does file-sharing, while they wither on the vine?
I'm ashamed to say that I have no answers here, though I studied at the Chicago School of Economics. Others came up with BitCoin, which I would never have thought of, but it strikes at one of the fundamental levers of centralized control through the money supply. It's a hell of an engineering solution to a social problem. (There are such bright lights out there and I am not among them.)
Also, Bill Gate's quote from a couple decades ago has stayed with me, that "Banking is necessary, banks are not." It's not quite what he meant, but I think it means more than he intended. Through my adventures in hedge funds I found myself wondering again and again why all the posturing psychopaths were necessary when algorithms did the work. Didn't another wise man say, "Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script?" Maybe we can give all the human bankers a pink slip and come up with a better way to manage the computers that do the work of banking and finance.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by Zz9zZ on Friday December 02 2016, @11:01PM
Careful, I can hear echoes from the future...
"OFF WITH HIS HEAD!"
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday December 02 2016, @08:39PM
You're right, that's why the things I proposed working against were immutable physical laws of the universe like how we power our society or structure our banking system. Thank you for clearing that up. Now that we know that we can all go back to threshing grain for our feudal lords because it must not have been possible for us humans to have overthrown the immutable physical law of the universe that was serfdom.
A few things: First, I never said it was easy to change received ways of doing things. Second, "system" is not a term limited to technology, and scientists are only one class of people who build them, so no magic technobabble is required from you or any scientist. Third, all of us frequently use shorthand in these threads instead of walls of text because we don't always feel like composing the longer form, and it's not reasonable to expect others to read them either; it's an error to misread that as callow or glib.
The point I was trying to make was that I believe we have agency in our own lives. We can choose what we study, where we work, who we befriend, and what we think about. So I think it makes more sense to use that agency to build systems that materially change the status quo and disempower those who keep it than to merely complain about how unfair it all is.
Do you disagree?
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by fritsd on Friday December 02 2016, @07:46PM
Sorry, your research proposal has been rejected. The new director of the NSF (ex-Exxon) offered the following explanation:
"We're American Scientists(TM) now. We don't do distributed terrorism-resilient energy studies anymore. Only foreigners study that kind of shit."
(Score: 4, Informative) by bzipitidoo on Friday December 02 2016, @02:54PM
And Trump will brush this off because his followers think professors are just a bunch of liberal academics and scientists, as if those groups are political parties and the members are typical lying politicians, not our leading minds and thinkers.
Still, the letter is a start, lays some groundwork for the day Trump tries to run roughshod over the Constitution.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @03:17PM
Humans are both malicious and incompetent; scientists are not made of finer clay.
Indeed, scientists and academicians are far more dangerous than the typical politician, because scientists and academicians can use Big Words and Intimidating Equations to make their stupid ideas appear to be inescapable Truths of Nature; sophistry is the foundation of every catastrophe.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday December 02 2016, @03:22PM
Name me the scientist, as opposed to the politician, who ever started a war. Go on.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @03:36PM
Here [yourlogicalfallacyis.com].
(Score: 2) by RamiK on Friday December 02 2016, @03:45PM
Name me the politician, as opposed to the scientist, who ever designed a toxic food additive \ toxic chemical \ drug resistant bacteria \ unsafe vehicle \ etc...
I'm often in the guy saying we should hang all the lawyers and politicians. But make no mistake, I always leave room for extra nooses.
p.s. not op
compiling...
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Friday December 02 2016, @05:48PM
The decision to put poison in food or skimp on vehicle safety is generally made by upper management.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 2) by RamiK on Friday December 02 2016, @06:11PM
And the decision to press the trigger is made by the soldier.
For every addict, there's enablers. And both politicians and scientists play their roles in keeping corruption in place. That is, it's systematic. You can't just ignore the fact the US academia generally supported the economic polices of the last couple of decades.
compiling...
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday December 02 2016, @07:23PM
I'm not saying all non-politicians/non-management are angels just by virtue of being STEM types. God, no, we've had enough examples just in peacetime (Midgley for example...) to scrap THAT idea. But you do have to admit most of the shady shit that gets pushed on people is pushed because some bureaucrat somewhere allows or even forced it.
Take that Chinese milk scandal, the one with the melamine. Some scientist may have noticed that you CAN beat the protein-analysis test with melamine, but some management fucker said the company WOULD do it.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Friday December 02 2016, @06:21PM
Followed by:
* skimping on vehicle safety get some kind of liability attached
* upper management writes some custom made laws
* upper management purchases some politicians at market rate
* politicians pass the custom made legislation
* now its okay to skimp on vehicle safety
So politics IS involved. Not just upper management.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @08:08PM
Ja, der scientiztz vas only following orders! Nuremburg much?
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Friday December 02 2016, @05:17PM
Well I can certainly name a University President who got us into a war. Woodrow Wilson, formerly President of Princeton University, about as Ivy League as you can get. Being an academic doesn't make you a better person, and the available evidence shows that the current people infesting our academies of of higher learning would best be driven out and replaced root and branch.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday December 02 2016, @07:11PM
Oh, sure, because it's become another big business...and the ivies, let's be honest here, never were much other than finishing schools for the elite, outside of most of the science programs. Why are you surprised? Power goes to power, wealth to wealth, and privilege to privilege.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @03:43PM
Indeed, scientists and academicians are far more dangerous than the typical politician
Me right now [youtube.com]
because scientists and academicians can use Big Words and Intimidating Equations to make their stupid ideas appear to be inescapable Truths of Nature
Scientists produce verifiable evidence which can be tested by any third party with the know-how and resources and in many cases this means anyone with a garage and some college mathematics.
sophistry is the foundation of every catastrophe
I think you might be confusing scientists with post-modernist pseudo-scientists. It's true that the social sciences are full of dumb hacks armed with a political agenda in lieu of science skills *cough*genderstudies*cough*, but that's no good reason to dismiss legitimate academics.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @03:51PM
Christopher Monckton has just produced and will within the next year have published a peer-reviewed article showing that all of the dire predictions of Global Climate Change are based on an incorrect application of mathematics. Somebody is wrong, and it wouldn't be the first time that it's the majority of "people who should know best"; I repeat myself: Humans are both malicious and incompetent. Surrounding your dumb ideas in loads of mathematics and journal entries and "non-profit" organizations and virtue signalling doesn't make them better.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @04:49PM
If I've learned anything it is to dismiss people who over use buzzwords. It is a clear indication that they aren't thinking, just applying a specific argument for too wide a base. There is generally some truth in just about every opinion, but buzzwords indicate that what they contain is thoughtless garbage. Your point about bad ideas cloaked in big words and equations is not wrong, plenty of crappy ideas are published. But, for such a large group this point falls apart. You want us to not listen to hundreds of top academics with little to no political ties just because they are academics? I think you're way off base here... Guess we can leave it to the MSM and shitty news websites to tell us what to think instead.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @05:23PM
No... I don't want that; please, take your straw man elsewhere.
The whole of human history is replete with examples of "The People Who Should Know Best" getting it totally fucking wrong.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @07:17PM
Instead we'll let the bright minds of the Trump administration figure it out? Creationism, shock the gay out, nuke the middle east, bring back coal... It just doesn't make sense!!! Listen to these proven idiots, and NOT these proven smart people. Its not like this letter has a specific game plan, they just oppose regressive policies.
JESUS FUCKING CHRIST I CAN'T TAKE THIS THREAD ANYMORE!! just a bunch of anti-intellectual bullshit with no alternative solutions, what the actual fuck?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @07:27PM
As noted, a urologist is a proven smart person... just not necessarily regarding cars...
You don't want idiots in power? Then push for a Free Market, where those who want power both have to earn it and have to maintain it by providing an objectively profitable service to society; you get idiots in power when people are installed into lofty office by a vote that is virtually zero correlation with competence or previous success.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @07:49PM
providing an objectively profitable service to society
El Chapo for president!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @10:14PM
Since you're so completely ignorant of History and how unregulated business made the USA a Dickensian place, here are a few topics to investigate.
Robber barons - A nation of a few superwealthy families and everybody else is poor.
Dumping (trade) - Selling below your cost until the competition is driven out of business.
Cartel - Carving up the market the way that the gangs of the 1920s did in Chicago.
.
There is no such thing as a "Free Market".
Markets are functions of governments.
Without regulation, you have The Law of the Jungle.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @10:43PM
You're confusing governmental meddling and governmental cronyism for a Free Market; you cannot be blamed though, because that's the kind of pablum you've been force-fed as part of your government-dominated education.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 03 2016, @04:23AM
Ummm, re-read the post you replied to please.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by bzipitidoo on Friday December 02 2016, @05:41PM
Here's what we should do about Climate Change:
1) Replace gasoline and diesel vehicles with electric ones with decent batteries, as soon as possible. If Climate Change is wrong, that still saves us a whole lot of money because electric motors are far, far better than combustion engines. It's also a lot of work, and will create lots of jobs. You go ahead and blow hundreds of $ on gas for your thirsty car, and breathe fumes and make noise, then whine that you can't afford a place to live, me, I'm switching to electric the moment it's practical to do a road trip in them and their prices come down to near parity with gasoline. Changing to electric motors is a huge improvement, well worth doing whether or not Climate Change is real.
2) Replace coal and natural gas power plants with solar, wind, and hydroelectric power plants. Also worth doing whether or not Climate Change is real. Also more work, more jobs.
3) We're going to need seawalls. Which would you rather build, a wall on the US-Mexico border, or walls to save our coastal cities? Let's see, which kind of wall works better? The Netherlands' dikes have been keeping the sea back for centuries. The Maginot Line was a total failure that was quickly circumvented at the start of WWII, afer a mere decade of existence. The Berlin Wall and the whole Iron Curtain were loser moves, showed the world that the entire Communist block was a giant prison. Walls didn't stop the barbarians from destroying Rome.
4) Build more reservoirs, perhaps including salt water ones in the few areas we have below sea level. It's not much, can't possibly impound enough water to reduce sea levels significantly, but has a lot of other uses-- agriculture, water supply, and of course hydroelectric power.
Doing nothing doesn't create jobs. Are you a Job Killer? Why do you hate work? You'd rather go to war?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Friday December 02 2016, @07:37PM
Christopher Monckton has just produced and will within the next year have published a peer-reviewed article showing that all of the dire predictions of Global Climate Change are based on an incorrect application of mathematics.
Now, if only he was a mathematician we could be getting somewhere!
I'm sure his diploma in journalism studies [wikipedia.org] provides a strong foundation for this mathematical research.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 03 2016, @06:15AM
A peer-reviewed article is a peer-reviewed article.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by FatPhil on Friday December 02 2016, @02:57PM
Logic lobe of my brain just kaboomed.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @03:52PM
It's not hateful to disagree.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @06:55PM
To be clear, there is not a single policy position that is being disagreed with. They are essentially saying "we don't like you".
Similarly with the protest against Trump's election. These were not protests against the electoral college, protests for proportional representation, or even protests that the vote was rigged.
These were temper-tantrums about not getting their way.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @08:20PM
It's eggheads saying that they don't like the results of democracy. They are saying that they know better than you about who will act in your best interest. But they don't even know anything about you or your best interests. I suspect it's all about *their* best interests Why else would they whine about it publicly?
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Friday December 02 2016, @07:24PM
I'm a Brit, I'm suffering Brexit; and I mean suffering - I will lose rights that I currently depend on month-to-month when brexit goes through. However, I got over it quicker very quickly, way quicker than these whining SJW-infected (oops, meant to write infested, but it's the same general thrust) anti-democrats, apparently. If the system is broken, don't attack the person who's getting the most from the system, that makes you a sore loser, attack the system itself.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @07:36PM
Writing a fucking petition that effectively says "we hate trump and what he stands for" is an *action*.
That is not a fair characterization of this particular petition. All they are doing is asking him to reconsider some of his choices based on the concerns outlined.
Tough shit - you didn't make any attempt to fix your pathetic approximation to democracy whilst your guy was in the lead, why should we listen to you now your guy isn't in the lead.
Partisan bullshit. How do you know these people voted Obama? Why do you assume they didn't vote FOR Trump? And why do you think it's wrong to petition the politicians who are supposed to represent you and your concerns?
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @07:48PM
The President-elect has appointed individuals to positions of power who have endorsed racism, misogyny and religious bigotry, and denied the widespread scientific consensus on climate change. Regardless of our political views, these endorsements violate principles at the core of MIT’s mission. At this time, it is important to reaffirm the values we hold in common.
Those aren't concerns as much as an agenda wrapping itself in the halo of science. i mean exactly how has M.I.T. lead the way in combating racism, misogyny, or religious bigotry? Can I audit how they made determinations of who resides on their faculty?
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2963425?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents [jstor.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 03 2016, @12:43AM
If I understand correctly, FatPhil is a Brit. Apparently, they don't think all that much of our First Amendment over in the UK.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @04:57PM
Its funny (haha not so much) that the conservative base has repeatedly pointed out that liberals attack the for disagreeing, but now its ok to do the same because they disagree with you??
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @08:20PM
Yes. Turnabout is fair play. Goose, meet gander.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 03 2016, @04:35PM
Its not fair play when you complain about such tactics. Does the word "integrity" ring a bell?
(Score: 2, Insightful) by kurenai.tsubasa on Friday December 02 2016, @03:13PM
A group of female scientists concerned about racism and sexism in science initially aimed for 500 signatures from women scientists, but their list now has grown to over 11,000 worldwide.
This is going to amuse me to no end. Shouldn't have rallied and voted for him then! It's a bit too late to put a stop to it all now!
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Friday December 02 2016, @03:22PM
I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that the 11,000 female scientists currently signing petitions and engaged in other ineffective gestures of virtue signalling against Trump are not the same women that rallied and voted for Trump.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by Hyperturtle on Friday December 02 2016, @05:29PM
I'd like to add that the "worldwide" seems to indicate that the opinions of said women are unlikely to be those of a host of women that were legally eligble to have voted for Trump, due to the simple logistics of citizenship. Unless they all are taking business trips and mailed in their ballots... Or are part of the millions of fraudlent votes Trump has mentioned.
Of course, if they are not citizens and were not eligble to vote (and did not vote), it somewhat lessens the impact of the petition. I am not sure many people are going to take heed to what someone on the other side of the world thinks about Trump. I already can sense that half of the US doesn't care what the other half of the US thinks about Trump already; expecting a warm response to a petition of female scientists worldwide that are upset with Trump; this is not something I would expect to happen.
(All the more power to them, though... if people that one would not expect to care, are upset about it and take the time to say that, they at least deserve to be acknowledged)
(Score: 3, Touché) by DannyB on Friday December 02 2016, @06:26PM
If I understand you, you are suggesting the radical idea that women can be divided into more than one single large group? (sarcasm)
Some are female scientists against Trump's policies, while other women rallied for Trump.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Friday December 02 2016, @11:18PM
You laugh, but the way political pundits tend to talk there are a lot of people who haven't figured out that 100 million people or so might have a wide range of opinions about many important topics gripping the nation. They're always saying things like "How can $CANDIDATE win women?" like they aren't individuals. A lot of them haven't even figured out that women outnumber men in the US (and everywhere else, actually).
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @03:14PM
Even if it is directed against Trump?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @05:02PM
They aren't directing hateful rhetoric against Trump... they are stating their opinion.
What you have used is a logical trap trying to use the righteous outrage liberals have so effectively (and quite often wrongly) used against people they don't like. There is a huge difference between hateful rhetoric and not wanting someone in office / disagreeing with their policies. You didn't like that tactic before, but now that its in your favor you're ok with it?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @05:51PM
Puhlease.
Your point boils down to making all forms of disagreement morally equal. That rhetoric which unfairly stigmatizes groups of people, especially groups of people with the least political capital, is the equivalent of criticizing those in power for their actual stated goals and policies.
It doesn't get any more intellectually dishonest than that.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @03:23PM
I checked the first signatory, the most recent paper is behind a paywall: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27618266 [nih.gov]
However, she does share all her publications on her webpage, which is good: http://web.mit.edu/bcs/nklab/publications.shtml [mit.edu]
Unfortunately the supplements are still behind the paywall though.
(Score: 2) by RamiK on Friday December 02 2016, @03:23PM
I'd be really worried if the same people who were happy about the last cabinet were satisfied with the new one.
compiling...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @06:51PM
Who says they were happy?
All you know is that they just weren't unhappy enough to make such a unified and public protest.
The last cabinet's policies were within the norms and thus the tactics for dealing with it were also within the norms.
This crew is not.
(Score: 2) by RamiK on Friday December 02 2016, @10:38PM
The last cabinet's policies were within the norms and thus the tactics for dealing with it were also within the norms.
Considering said norm disenfranchised anyone that isn't from heavy silicone, finance or the military-industrial complex from meaningfully participating in political processes, I'd say a change is due.
compiling...
(Score: 5, Insightful) by WillR on Friday December 02 2016, @03:26PM
(Score: 3, Insightful) by AthanasiusKircher on Friday December 02 2016, @04:42PM
While I agree that such letters are probably unlikely to win over Trump supporters to their cause, I'm legitimately curious -- what would recommend people concerned about Trump's potential science policies do instead? Just shut up, let the "bully" take their lunch money, and hope he goes away? He's going to be President, so I think the time for hoping he might just go away has passed. So what should they do now?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @05:51PM
Start implementing the only thing that can save them: Society built on The Free Market.
You don't want idiots installed into power? Well, make people work not only to gain power, but also to maintain their power over time.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @09:59PM
Umm, that is how it currently works. They work through the system then use corruption and incumbency to maintain their power. Take the money out of politics, not inject it directly into the system. Your idea is so very terrible, it would be a very short run until we are in a dictatorship.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Thexalon on Friday December 02 2016, @04:58PM
I don't think that was even close to the entirety of why the "common clay of the new west" voted for Trump.
I think a lot of it came down to this: The Clinton campaign refused to recognize or respond to the problems of poor rural white people. And those problems were serious and significant: Life expectancy is going down, suicides are going up, use of heroin and other serious drugs is going up, teenage pregnancy is unusually high, unemployment is going up, etc etc. The Clinton campaign not once addressed any of this, there was no plan about this anywhere on her website, and her ads said absolutely nothing about it either. Donald Trump was offering them nothing but platitudes, bigotry, and false promises, (and a lot of Trump supporters knew it) but that was more than Clinton was giving them.
The grievances are real. Trump's response was incredibly stupid and wrong, but the "egg-headed liberal coastal elites" over at Clinton HQ deserved to have their butts handed to them. I only wish that in doing so they hadn't handed power to somebody else who absolutely deserved to have his butt handed to him.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Friday December 02 2016, @07:39PM
"[R]aising incomes for hardworking Americans" was featured prominently on her Web site.
https://web.archive.org/web/20151106180118/https://www.hillaryclinton.com/ [archive.org]
https://web.archive.org/web/20151013200347/https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/plan-raise-american-incomes/ [archive.org]
But Rupert Murdoch's New York Post ran a story about her wearing designer suits and how "her spending [was] out of touch with her message" that was widely repeated.
http://nypost.com/2016/06/05/hillarys-extravagant-campaign-wardrobe-costs-at-least-200k/ [nypost.com]
http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-armani-jacket/ [snopes.com]
https://duckduckgo.com/html?q=%22But+an+everywoman+she+is+not+%E2%80%94+she+gave+the+speech+in+a+%2412%2C495+Giorgio+Armani+tweed+jacket.%22 [duckduckgo.com]
(Score: 1) by WillR on Friday December 02 2016, @08:00PM
Clinton's rural jobs policy looked weak because there's not a lot the federal government can realistically do to bring back coal or timber or the one big factory that used to support a lot of dying small towns (and even less it can do over the objections of a Republican state government). Sometimes the truth hurts. Coal is uncompetitive, and it's going to stay uncompetitive even if you round up all the pesky climatologists and dump them in the ocean, natural gas is cheaper to extract. It's not the spotted owl's fault that yellow pine from plantations in Mississippi is cheaper than douglas fir from Washington, it grows fast and takes a lot less labor to harvest. And I guarantee Carrier is going to take the windfall they just got for not moving a plant to Mexico and spend it on automation, not more union line jobs that provide a middle-class lifestyle and a pension.
Semi-related, Clinton really should have hammered on the shitshow in Kansas, because the "1: Deregulate everything and cut corporate taxes. 2: ??? 3: Good jobs for everyone!" magical thinking that failed there is going to be national policy now that the Republicans have the presidency and both houses of congress.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @09:29PM
> Life expectancy is going down, suicides are going up, use of heroin and other serious drugs is going up, teenage pregnancy is unusually high, unemployment is going up, etc etc.
Well shit, boy! The Bible will fix all that!
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Zz9zZ on Friday December 02 2016, @05:15PM
In case the conservative base on this site doesn't get it yet, the majority (I'd like to say all) of the more liberal user base here aren't rabidly hating Trump. It isn't about us vs. them, its about more of the status quo with a worrisome amount of potential dictatorship level shit. Like the conservative reactions to Obama worried that he was going to come take their guns and send people to death camps... most is overblown and unlikely to occur, but the worry is real. We're hoping that its just more crony corporate welfare, not WW3.
We had the same fears with Dubya, and he basically validated them by creating Gitmo and eventually throwing innocents in their because they were brown and had connections (6 degrees of of Kevin Bacon anyone?), along with sending the war profit machine into overdrive. Obama failed miserably in his promise to close gitmo and get us out of the middle east and actually increased domestic spying and drone programs (so fuck him). Now we have Trump who is potentially more scary than any of his predecessors, and we have real actions confirming our fears with his cabinet picks.
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 2) by Zz9zZ on Monday December 05 2016, @08:03PM
So should I complain about the person repeatedly modding me down? Or would that make me too similar to the special snowflakes who think there is a leftist agenda out to git em'? /troll
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 2) by fubari on Friday December 02 2016, @05:24PM
Vague hand-wavy protests like this may be almost as productive as the Occupy Wallstreet effort.
Long on principle yet short on actionable == waste of time.
Would prefer the "Trump Sucks" factions pick something to actually work on.
I'm looking for ideas. I haven't had any seem solid yet, please mention any ideas you've seen that do (seem solid, e.g. actionable and productive).
(Score: 2, Funny) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Friday December 02 2016, @06:07PM
My favourite Youtuber suggested having an actionable plan to get out of the country.
She was vague on anything specific beyond that.
(Score: 1) by RS3 on Friday December 02 2016, @10:45PM
I laughed out loud when I saw this: http://i.imgur.com/nhK73xcl.jpg [imgur.com]
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @06:31PM
Well, no.
It does offer more proof to those that were concerned about protests at Yale and Missouri that maybe there is something disturbing going on in college campuses across North America. I mean how awkward it must be for the students or faculty that supported Trump at MIT to have some 5% prostitute MIT's good name for essentially virtue signaling. I mean the head of the political science department couldn't even be arsed to sign.
And certainly this doesn't have the aura of talking down to people, I mean we're at M.I.T. you buffoon. How dare you entertain a political stance different from ours?
Very apt recent interview about the degree of indoctrination going on in education today, where even a former communist student radical has some concern about education today:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=me9km8M0l1o [youtube.com]
(Score: 2) by shortscreen on Friday December 02 2016, @07:04PM
I would take all these Trump complainers more seriously if they said something like "Dear Mr. Trump, we don't want a police state, we don't want pointless wars, and let's try to not screw up the environment too badly."
Instead their mantra seems to be "racism! sexism! blah, blah, blah." It's just a continuation of the Clinton campaign, after the election has already ended.
MIT of all places should be writing to Trump about something like Net Neutrality, instead of wasting everyone's time with this virtue signaling crap.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @10:08PM
Ah yes, virtue signalling, the new favorite buzzword.
Their statement is explaining why the wrote the letter, the actual letter reads a bit differently (quoted below). "Virtue Signalling" is something college kids do to let their peers know how hip they are, or to get laid. It is just a buzzword that lets you escape responsibility for whatever bigotry you prefer. Maybe you're not a bigot, but Trump and a lot of his new cabinet have made statements on many occasions that indicate that bigotry is a significant concern. Maybe help fix the country instead of burying your head in denial? Unless you think denial is a river in Egypt, then go ahead I won't stop you :P
An Open Letter to President-Elect Trump and the 115th Congress
Scientific knowledge has played a critical role in making the United States a powerful and prosperous nation and improving the health and well-being of Americans and people around the world. From disease outbreaks to climate change to national security to technology innovation, people benefit when our nation’s policies are informed by science unfettered by inappropriate political or corporate influence.
To build on this legacy and extend the benefits of science to all people, including Americans who have been left behind, the federal government must support and rely on science as a key input for crafting public policy. Policy makers and the public alike require access to high-quality scientific information to serve the public interest. There are several actions Congress and the Trump administration should take to strengthen the role that science plays in policy making.
First, creating a strong and open culture of science begins at the top. Federal agencies should be led by officials with demonstrated track records of respecting science as a critical component of decision making. Further, recognizing that diversity makes science stronger, administration officials should welcome and encourage all scientists regardless of religious background, race, gender, or sexual orientation.
Second, Congress and the Trump administration should ensure our nation’s bedrock public health and environmental laws—such as the Clean Air Act and the Endangered Species Act—retain a strong scientific foundation, and that agencies are able to freely collect and draw upon scientific data to effectively carry out statutory responsibilities established by these laws. They should also safeguard the independence of those outside the government who provide scientific advice.
Third, Congress and the Trump administration should adhere to high standards of scientific integrity and independence in responding to current and emerging public health and environmental threats. Decision makers and the public need to know what the best-available scientific evidence is, not what vested interests might wish it to be. Federally funded scientists must be able to develop and share their findings free from censorship or manipulation based on politics or ideology. These scientists should, without fear of reprisal or retaliation, have the freedom and responsibility to:
conduct their work without political or private-sector interference
candidly communicate their findings to Congress, the public, and their scientific peers
publish their work and participate meaningfully in the scientific community
disclose misrepresentation, censorship, and other abuses of science
ensure that scientific and technical information coming from the government is accurate
Finally, Congress and the Trump administration should provide adequate resources to enable scientists to conduct research in the public interest and effectively and transparently carry out their agencies’ missions. The consequences are real: without this investment, children will be more vulnerable to lead poisoning, more people will be exposed to unsafe drugs and medical devices, and we will be less prepared to limit the impacts of increasing extreme weather and rising seas.
These steps are necessary to create a thriving scientific enterprise that will strengthen our democracy and bring the full fruits of science to all Americans and the world. The scientific community is fully prepared to constructively engage with and closely monitor the actions of the Trump administration and Congress. We will continue to champion efforts that strengthen the role of science in policy making and stand ready to hold accountable any who might seek to undermine it.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Friday December 02 2016, @10:19PM
Some people are figuring that out:
- The Right Way to Resist Trump [nytimes.com] (Not seeing a pay-wall on my end)
By LUIGI ZINGALESNOV. 18, 2016
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @06:53PM
Liberal establishments hate conservative establishments! Read all about it!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @08:46PM
So top level US university is a liberal establishment? STOP THE PRESSES EVERYONE! AC just uncovered a conspiracy SO YUGE it will blow your mind! Click here to find out ten ways you can keep your family safe...
(Score: 3, Funny) by snufu on Friday December 02 2016, @07:07PM
"We wish to express our profound and unanimous approval of the President-elect's cabinet choices.
Sincerely,
The Faculty
Trump University."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @07:51PM
Teach the controversy!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @07:53PM
I'm curious to know what the Electoral College will have to say.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @07:10PM
b/c only the pissed off demonic version of mccarthy could eradicate the shear volumes of communist scum in our nation's universities. that or millions of well armed militia...sounds like a good idea for a national holiday, ala The Purge.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @08:48PM
Go back inside grandpa, your overdue for your nap.
(Score: 0, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @07:45PM
We need an option to disable down voting in certain threads. Or rather than an option, some sort of impartial algorithm. I'm seeing very shitty modding behavior in this thread where it looks like one side is just down voting all arguments from the other side. Please contain yourself, this is not a (((mainstream media))) site where we will want to suppress half of the position and then claim fascism, or whatever other ism you can come up with to toss and your enemies. If you do not agree with people and you cannot contain yourself, just walk away from the discussion. If I wanted to visit echo chamber I can head over to CNN, MSN, et al.
Objectively this "letter" is utter bullshit and will do diddly squat. We are not a theocracy, and the people have had their chance to pick the direction of this country and they have done so. It is even waste of my time to read it, but if others wish to waste their time with such pointless grand-stands then by all means have at it, it will only cost you more next election cycle. This is simply a way for them to cash in later with an "I told you so" all the while they are betting that America fails. At the same time, should Trump succeed, and I believe he will be effective at least in some regard, the same people would never admit they were wrong. They are de-valuating their credibility, much like all liberal media has done for the last 12+ months. They will be left with people not giving a damn what they have to say.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @07:57PM
This has been the norm for a while. It's already been mention that a particular group seems to rely on censorship more than pointed counter-argument to get their ideas across.
As such, you can safely ignore most mods when perusing the comments, although it completely defeats the purpose of having mods in the first place.
But at least certain groups can validate themselves.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @08:57PM
Well, when you mod
You're right, it doesn't. You don't take car-care advice from your doctor, do you?
as +5 insightful what do you expect? There are horrendous logical fallacies going on, and quite a few insightful/informative comments are just ad-hominem baseless crap which SHOULD be modded down. You're angry that people think a specific point is garbage and shouldn't be rated highly and equate that to censorship, and you conservative types think the liberal types are whiny little children??
I noticed a significant amount of upmodding of dumb posts that are against the MIT letter, and that upmodding happened near instantly. The more "liberal" stuff seems to be upmodded over a longer period of time. The conservative base has been brigading online forums for a while now because they want to appear like their ideas have more traction than they actually do. I don't see you complaining about that form of manipulation.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @09:50PM
This "censorship" thing is already tiring. So many whinging little snowflakes who think it's their God-given right that every publisher out there be forced to publish their opinions. That's not how it works. I was expecting I'd have to wait 4 or 5 years before the hypocrisy started coming home to roost, but it's already so stupid.
I browse at -1 for what it's worth and often don't even look at the comment score. Username here I look at, just because so many regulars are complete characters.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 03 2016, @03:15AM
This fits in with the left's no-platforming, "fake" news purge, and unilateral support of corporations along as it's censoring the other.
Much like speakers the left disagrees with getting shouted down at universities, they've expanded the enterprise.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 03 2016, @04:44PM
Speaking of whiny little snowflakes....
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 03 2016, @08:11PM
Ah yes, the distinction being one set of values tends to restrict free speech while another tends towards expansion. It's a trifling distinction to be sure, but one that somehow certain groups always seem to get wrong.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @07:47PM
Meh.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @09:36PM
There are exactly 500 people who give a shit what 500 coddled, elitist academics think.
The Sky Is Falling! Hillary Didn't Get Elected. Whoopee.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @09:39PM
It doesn't take much imagination to see how this will end.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @09:51PM
Well thankfully the US has a large streak of "freedom is great" so it would be very hard to pass this off to the public. If the gov really does start rounding up dissenters it will start a civil war, or if the public knuckles under it will be the death toll of the US.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 03 2016, @12:19AM
FIrst of all, 500 is NOTHING. 2nd, they are students, they dont understand the real world yet and live in a bubble. Who gives a damn what they say?
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Sunday December 04 2016, @02:33AM
I browsed http://www.mitvalues.org/ [mitvalues.org] with Javascript turned off. It showed me the names of 573 people under the heading "Faculty, Lecturers and Research Scientists." I don't know how many such people work at MIT but I imagine this is a sizable fraction of them.
I see that there's also a "MIT Community" heading which, I'm guessing, would show the names of students and non-teaching staff members who "signed" the statement. A password is required to view that, so I doubt that you saw it.
(Score: 2) by Username on Saturday December 03 2016, @01:11AM
How do these cabinet picks go against any kind of applied science? Didn’t break out of the while loop? Made of white metal instead of spring steel? Too small of resistor for the wattage?
The School of Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences
Oh, my bad, I thought this was Massachusetts Institute of Technology, not Menstruation Instructional Theory.