|You scored as Scientific Atheist, These guys rule. I'm not one of them myself, although I play one online. They know the rules of debate, the Laws of Thermodynamics, and can explain evolution in fifty words or less. More concerned with how things ARE than how they should be, these are the people who will bring us into the future. |
What kind of atheist are you?
created with QuizFarm.com
You can try it for yourself here: Pilot Test.
Why is this test only given to people who want to become citizens? Shouldn't everyone have to take and pass this exam? If this test was give to everyone over the age of 21, regardless of whether they were born on or above U.S soil, there would be A LOT of people who would not obtain citizenship.
I wonder what Lou Dobbs would think about this? Even he is not that radical, right?
Well, it looks like the hippies and the French were right all along. What is this world coming to? Some are hopeless romantics despite repeated heartbreak. I am still hopeful that one man can make a big positive difference. In this case, about the environment. Green Primary is a forum for about choosing the next, and hopefully, as Tom Friedman (subscription required) calls it, the first green president.
Their mission statement reads:
With other concerned citizens and organizations, we will:
- Advocate for a nonpartisan presidential debate (or debates) on New Green issues
- Publish candidate position statements and a rolling series of nonpartisan critiques by scientists, policy analysts, and others
- Create a forum for candidates and experts to respond to your questions and comments
- Offer polls to allow you to vote on top priorities and on candidate responses
Thomas Friedman is advocating a green debate this summer:
"In this election cycle, we need to hold a “Green Debate,” devoted only to energy and environmental questions. I would suggest
Unfortunately, just like other things Friedman has advocated in recent years, this will probably not happen even though polls across the board show that a majority of people want the next president to take our energy consumption and environment more seriously. All presidential hopefuls should immediately make a pledge to take radical and big steps to improve the environment and make our lives greener. Green Primary provides you with each candidates green resume so you can make a more informed decision.
Dick Cheney captures the sentiment of those in the "last throes of the insurgency" (against a cleaner and more environmentally friendly technologies) when he says that "conservation may be a sign of personal virtue, but it is not a sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy".
It is not just a personal virtue anymore. It is a growing commodity. Dick Cheney's statement assumes that the free market abhors conservation and cleaner technologies. This notion is dinosaurish and there is mounting evidence against it. From Texas to Montana and California to Massachusetts, there is a growing trend towards building a cleaner and more energy efficient U.S. Still, a lot of the technology is still in its infancy and implementation is rare. The next president must create strong policy to bring it into the mainstream and into the homes and offices of all Americans.
As we all know Kryptonite is a mineral substance originally found on the Superman's home planet of Krypton. It is composed of sodium lithium boron silicate hydroxide fluorine according to the most recent Superman movie.
Jaderite, a mineral found in a mine in Jadar, Serbia in late 2006, has the same mineral composition except without the fluorine. It is not green but it does glow a pinkish-orange color under UV light. More details about this mineral will be published in the European Journal of Mineralogy later this year.
Either way, I'm not taking any chances and plan on staying as far away as possible.
I wonder what other exotic materials and lifeforms are down there. Isn't it about time to take a journey into inner space?
But I've been wondering why, in recent years, so many people on death row have been found innocent, mainly due to DNA evidence, and released.
You would think in a death penalty case, the most serious of all legal cases, often involving murder, rape and other horrendous acts, the prosecution and the jury would be damn sure- that there would be overwhelming evidence- to not only convict the accused but then to go ahead and hand down the ultimate punishment.
It really makes me wonder of all the cases that are not so serious- where, perhaps, the person is accused of a misdemeanor or felony, or where evidence is not so cut and dry. Statistically, there must be a thousands of innocent people in prison as we speak. At any one time, according to DOJ and The Straight Dope there are about 2 million prisoners. If only one percent are innocent of the crime accused, that is about 20000 innocent people behind bars in the U.S. No one said justice was perfect and I really do not have a good solution to this problem except to point it out. I am sure race and economics figure significantly into the equation.
Nonetheless, if you think our system of justice is flawed, then be comforted by the fact that there are much worse places like China(no surprise there) and now Nicaragua.
Nicaragua, under Daniel Ortega has become more corrupt then ever. An American named Eric Volz was found guilty of murdering and raping his former girlfriend, Doris Jimenez, and given 30 years in prison. The crime is a despicable and horrible act and someone is responsible. But it doesn't appear to be Volz.
To begin with, at least 10 people confirm that Volz was in his house in Managua over two hours at the time of the murder. Cell Site records show that he was far away at the time of the murder. Instant Messages show him conversing with a friend in Atlanta before and during the murder took place. The only witness who said he saw Volz at the murder scene was a suspect himself who agreed to testify that he saw Volz after he was given full immunity from the prosecution. Most importantly, there was absolutely no physical evidence- blood, hair or fluids found at the scene that matched Volz. There wasn't even any physical evidence of rape. We only know she was strangled. Eric Volz is obviously appealing this decision from a jail in Nicaragua where no members of the press are allowed to interview him. You can read a lot more about the evidence for his innocence and the lack of evidence for his guilt in the links. Either way, at minimum, he was not given a fair trial (far from it), at worst he is innocent.
Don't think for a second that this can't happen here because it can and it has. Many times we don't know if we've made a serious mistake in taking away an innocent persons freedom. This time we do. The only way to stop it is to get Congress to put pressure on the Nicaraguan government. As Martin Luther King said, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere".
From childhood's hour I have not been
As others were---I have not seen
As others saw---I could not bring
My passions from a common spring.
From the same source I have not taken
My sorrow; I could not awaken
My heart to joy at the same tone;
And all I lov'd, I loved alone.
Then---in my childhood---in the dawn
Of a most stormy life---was drawn
From ev'ry depth of good and ill
The mystery which binds me still:
From the torrent, or the fountain,
From the red cliff of the mountain,
From the sun that 'round me roll'd
In its autumn tint of gold---
From the lightning in the sky
As it pass'd me flying by---
From the thunder and the storm,
And the cloud that took the form
(When the rest of Heaven was blue)
Of a demon in my view.
It was many and many a year ago,
In a kingdom by the sea,
That a maiden there lived whom you may know
By the name of Annabel Lee;
And this maiden she lived with no other thought
Than to love and be loved by me.
I was a child and she was a child,
In this kingdom by the sea;
But we loved with a love that was more than love -
I and my Annabel Lee;
With a love that the winged seraphs of heaven
Coveted her and me.
And this was the reason that, long ago,
In this kingdom by the sea,
A wind blew out of a cloud, chilling
My beautiful Annabel Lee;
So that her highborn kinsman came
And bore her away from me,
To shut her up in a sepulcher
In this kingdom by the sea.
The angels, not half so happy in heaven,
Went envying her and me
Yes! that was the reason
(as all men know, In this kingdom by the sea)
That the wind came out of the cloud by night,
Chilling and killing my Annabel Lee.
But our love was stronger by far than the love
Of those who were older than we
Of many far wiser than we
And neither the angels in heaven above,
Nor the demons down under the sea,
Can ever dissever my soul from the soul
Of the beautiful Annabel Lee.
For the moon never beams without bringing me dreams
Of the beautiful Annabel Lee;
And the stars never rise but I feel the bright eyes
Of the beautiful Annabel Lee;
And so, all the night-tide, I lie down by the side
Of my darling, my darling, my life and my bride,
In the sepulcher there by the sea,
In her tomb by the sounding sea.
As we know,
There are known knowns.
There are things we know we know.
We also know
There are known unknowns.
That is to say
We know there are some things
We do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns,
The ones we don't know
We don't know.
—Donald Rumsfeld Feb. 12, 2002, Department of Defense news briefing
Inspired by the poetry of Donald Rumsfeld and Alexander Hamilton, I will attempt to categorize what scientists can mean when they use the word 'theory' into three categories.
In everyday usage it is often used to portray an idea or opinion like "I theorize that these pretzels are making me thirsty". However, scientists use this word very differently. For them, it is a model that attempts to describe some part of the real world. It is this gap between the public and scientific notions of the word that leads to widespread confusion. Admittedly, even in scientific circles, theories fall somewhere on a spectrum. General Relativity and Evolution on one end and notions about the Flying Spaghetti Monster on the other end.
To prove an idea wrong, scientists hold themselves to the highest of standards. It just takes ONE counterexample to, either, prompt us to make adjustments to the theory to match observation or go back to the drawing board all together.
This, in many ways, is the main difference between the eternal debate between science and religion. In science, counterexamples spell trouble for a theory. In religion, counterexamples are called miracles. Whereas, in science if 1000 identical experiments yield the same result (say, for the value of the mass of the electron) then it is safe to say the 1001st will do the same. But in religion if 1000 children born require a mother and father then 1001st might not. The latter is just one example. Anywho, I digress. Without further ado, here they are:
All theories strive to be in this category.
As mentioned earlier, I would put the theory of Evolution via Natural Selection, General Relativity, Plate Tectonics, and Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) and many others in this category. QED will not make your debts disappear and it will not tell you how to raise your children but that's OK because it doesn't intend to. Likewise, Knot Theory will not teach you how to dance and Plate Tectonics will not tell us anything about sunspots. They are only valid in the regime they claim to be valid in. This might seem obvious but too many it is not. For example, Evolution does not tell us if there is a God or if there is life on other planets. It makes testable assertions. If a baby was ever born with a tattoo that his/her mother received in her college days, our ideas about inheritance and shared traits would be in trouble.
This is not to say that these theories aren't open to further revision or interpretation. Actually, we can always add or take flesh away from the theory but, at the same time, working with the same skeletal structure. The truth takes time to develop but we know a lot more now than we did 400 years ago. In 400 years we will know a lot more assuming the human race is still around.
These theories are much more of a work in progress. I would place String Theory, MOND, or Loop Quantum Gravity here. We currently just don't know if these models work. Still, there is circumstantial evidence that they might one day make it into the first category. In this way, scientists continue to devote their careers to sculpting and refining their ideas until one day they can test them.
This is the where old, perhaps, forgotten theories come to rest. They were bravely attempting to describe the real world but, ultimately failed or something better came along. They might have been competing with another theory to describe a physical phenomenon or attempting to replace that physical theory. In the end, observations ruled them out. Some examples include Alchemy, the theory of the Static Universe, the Ptolemaic View of the Universe, or Lamarckian Evolution. Still, these theories do not get enough credit. True, they were ultimately ruled out but without them we would never get the right answers. Parts of the theory might have been true. In this way, many of the ideas in this category were stepping stones for the more correct theory. Would Sherlock Holmes have always gotten it right if Watson hadn't always gotten it wrong? Or would
Just as importantly, some of these rejected ideas were attempts made using the scientific method to try to explain reality. They were off mark but still much better than just making stuff up and describing how things work based on just one's own personal biases and emotions.
Scientists in all fields need to make a better attempt to qualify what they mean by 'theory' and where on the spectrum a particular theory falls. The lines of evidence for promoting or demoting a theory need tocommunicated more effectively. Easier said then done I know.
Don't answer that.
The 16th Amendment of the U.S constitution ratified in 1913 makes it legal and mandatory to collect taxes from personal income:
"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration."
There have many objections and alternatives proposed to our current tax code. I am not expert on this. I just want to know where do my (federal) taxes go? Well, as it turns out the nearly 3 trillion dollar budget can be summed up in a pie chart with several broad categories.
Here is the breakdown of the 2007/2008 proposed budget (via Washington Post )
FY 2008 Budget Proposal
Budget by Functional Category
Spending by Category: FY 2007 vs. FY 2008
|Veterans benefits and services||$72.4||$83.4||15.1%|
|General science, space and technology||24.9||26.6||7.1%|
|Administration of justice||45.3||47.0||3.7%|
|Natural resources and environment||35.2||32.9||-6.5%|
|Education, training, employment, and social services||94.0||82.7||-12.0%|
|Community and regional development||32.6||24.7||-24.4%|
|Commerce and housing credit||.210||-2.0||-1,071.4%|
Note: All numbers are estimates.
Source: Office of Management and Budget | Graphic: washingtonpost.com - February 5, 2007
All numbers are estimates? By estimates do they mean +/- 15% of nearly 3 trillion dollar budget. OK, I kid the Office of Management and Budget.
It is at least nice to see that science and technology will be getting a slightly larger piece of the pie next year since its share of the total has been low by historical standards. Of course, there are too many people who believe this pie chart is misleading, adds at least 214 billion to the federal deficit (slightly down from 2007) and propose a pie chart of their own.