If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Addicting Info)   Comrade Lamar Szmith of Soviet Texasz introduces bill to require Politburo approval before being allowed to publish any scientific papers. до свидания моя родина   (addictinginfo.org) divider line 246
    More: Sick, politburos, scientific papers, gold standards  
•       •       •

6700 clicks; posted to Politics » on 04 May 2013 at 1:34 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



246 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-05-03 10:08:39 PM  
So stupid I cant even form a worthwhile comment
 
2013-05-03 10:38:06 PM  

mtlls: So stupid I cant even form a worthwhile comment


It's not as if you've received approval to submit such a comment anyways.
 
2013-05-03 10:38:09 PM  
Congressman Lamar Smith is a leading example as to the disconnect within the Republican Party and reality. His "improvement" would compromise scientific research, and dismantle what little America has left for integrity.

Too late.  I dont think anyone sees America as having scientific or political integrity any more.
 
2013-05-03 10:58:46 PM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: Congressman Lamar Smith is a leading example as to the disconnect within the Republican Party and reality. His "improvement" would compromise scientific research, and dismantle what little America has left for integrity.

Too late.  I dont think anyone sees America as having scientific or political integrity any more.


Pretty much. We've ceded that to the Asians and the Europeans.
 
2013-05-03 11:17:41 PM  
 
2013-05-04 12:24:49 AM  
Hey, remember a few threads ago when I accused Smith of wanting to put zampolits in charge of the NSF?  And remember those folks who told us we were overreacting and that Smith's requests were perfectly reasonable?  Fark all of you.
 
2013-05-04 12:52:48 AM  
Is this a repeat or some fresh bullshiat from Lamar?
 
2013-05-04 01:08:40 AM  
fta If the findings are not agreed to, the research is taken from the researchers and disposed of by Congress as it sees fit.

On the side wall of everyone's cubicle will be an oblong slit protected by a wire grating. Inside will be a current of warm air.
 
2013-05-04 01:38:00 AM  
And we have our next nominee to who should be strapped to a rocket and hurled into the Sun.  He can have the lone remaining seat right next to Alex Jones, since's he's gonna take up two.

/thinking a Soyuz-style capsule here
 
2013-05-04 01:41:31 AM  
This was expected when the noted anti-science Texan was appointed to the Congressional Committee on Science, Space and Technology

Damn terrifying that this jackass has this much political clout.
 
2013-05-04 01:42:43 AM  
That's frightening.
 
2013-05-04 01:43:08 AM  

bluorangefyre: And we have our next nominee to who should be strapped to a rocket and hurled into the Sun.  He can have the lone remaining seat right next to Alex Jones, since's he's gonna take up two.

/thinking a Soyuz-style capsule here


Since the research for this endeavor is against the will of Congress, all its funding has been revoked and the research destroyed
 
2013-05-04 01:48:03 AM  
why would you link to the bill in question if your plan is to dishonestly characterize what it says?
 
2013-05-04 01:51:28 AM  
When future historians are autopsying the corpse of the american empire, I think this kind of thing is going to be very interesting.
 
2013-05-04 01:53:46 AM  

brichter: When future historians are autopsying the corpse of the american empire, I think this kind of thing is going to be very interesting.


People blindly accepting claims that an article makes without actually reading what it refers to?
 
2013-05-04 01:55:44 AM  
Eppur si vitun muove, saatana!!
 
2013-05-04 02:00:34 AM  
File photo of Lamar Smith:

encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com
 
2013-05-04 02:01:16 AM  

skullkrusher: brichter: When future historians are autopsying the corpse of the american empire, I think this kind of thing is going to be very interesting.

People blindly accepting claims that an article makes without actually reading what it refers to?


you're right, the article was inaccurate.  They just have to approve that the research follows the board's political agenda BEFORE instead of after.

That's way better.
 
2013-05-04 02:01:40 AM  

Apos: Is this a repeat or some fresh bullshiat from Lamar?


Wondering that myself.

*checks*

Ah, the last one was an attempt to strip the peer-review requirement for federally funded research.

SOPA writer Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) fresh off not knowing how the internet works, writes a bill not knowing how science works either and removing peer-review from NSF grant requirements

So not really "fresh" as much as "re-heated".
 
2013-05-04 02:03:57 AM  

skullkrusher: brichter: When future historians are autopsying the corpse of the american empire, I think this kind of thing is going to be very interesting.

People blindly accepting claims that an article makes without actually reading what it refers to?


There was a link to the draft bill. Here, read it yourself.
 
2013-05-04 02:07:17 AM  

The All-Powerful Atheismo: skullkrusher: brichter: When future historians are autopsying the corpse of the american empire, I think this kind of thing is going to be very interesting.

People blindly accepting claims that an article makes without actually reading what it refers to?

you're right, the article was inaccurate.  They just have to approve that the research follows the board's political agenda BEFORE instead of after.

That's way better.


the author of TFA just made some shiat up
 
2013-05-04 02:07:54 AM  
Here guys, I'll save you the trouble (though the draft is only 2 pages long):

i39.tinypic.com

"Finest quality", "Ground breaking", "Utmost importance"? How does anyone get away with trying to pass a law with such vague-ass language?
 
2013-05-04 02:07:57 AM  

fusillade762: skullkrusher: brichter: When future historians are autopsying the corpse of the american empire, I think this kind of thing is going to be very interesting.

People blindly accepting claims that an article makes without actually reading what it refers to?

There was a link to the draft bill. Here, read it yourself.


yeah, that's the point. I read the bill. The author clearly did not
 
2013-05-04 02:10:29 AM  
Why is this farkstick in charge of anything having to do with science?
 
2013-05-04 02:10:31 AM  

skullkrusher: The All-Powerful Atheismo: skullkrusher: brichter: When future historians are autopsying the corpse of the american empire, I think this kind of thing is going to be very interesting.

People blindly accepting claims that an article makes without actually reading what it refers to?

you're right, the article was inaccurate.  They just have to approve that the research follows the board's political agenda BEFORE instead of after.

That's way better.

the author of TFA just made some shiat up


Point and you are in no danger of a mid-air collision
 
2013-05-04 02:12:35 AM  

The All-Powerful Atheismo: skullkrusher: The All-Powerful Atheismo: skullkrusher: brichter: When future historians are autopsying the corpse of the american empire, I think this kind of thing is going to be very interesting.

People blindly accepting claims that an article makes without actually reading what it refers to?

you're right, the article was inaccurate.  They just have to approve that the research follows the board's political agenda BEFORE instead of after.

That's way better.

the author of TFA just made some shiat up

Point and you are in no danger of a mid-air collision


ah, the old "any criticism of undesirable thing X is valid regardless of veracity". You win
 
2013-05-04 02:13:42 AM  

skullkrusher: The All-Powerful Atheismo: skullkrusher: The All-Powerful Atheismo: skullkrusher: brichter: When future historians are autopsying the corpse of the american empire, I think this kind of thing is going to be very interesting.

People blindly accepting claims that an article makes without actually reading what it refers to?

you're right, the article was inaccurate.  They just have to approve that the research follows the board's political agenda BEFORE instead of after.

That's way better.

the author of TFA just made some shiat up

Point and you are in no danger of a mid-air collision

ah, the old "any criticism of undesirable thing X is valid regardless of veracity". You win


Point and you are in separate time zones
 
2013-05-04 02:17:51 AM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: Too late. I dont think anyone sees America as having scientific or political integrity any more.


Nope. There are multiple topics where if the research comes out of America, we need to substantiate the hell out of it from other sources outside at which point, why not just use that other research?
 
2013-05-04 02:21:44 AM  
These hillbilly POS d!ckheads need to secede or STFU. I don't want to be in a country that's associated with these dumbshiats anymore. These rednecks need to GTFO or STFU.
 
2013-05-04 02:30:46 AM  
WTF? this bill needs to die so fast it catches fire.
 
2013-05-04 02:30:51 AM  
Its the party of "small" government at it again.

i.qkme.me
 
2013-05-04 02:43:02 AM  
It's funny how much Republicans mirror Communists. They have their own huge propaganda network in Fox News and co., Presidents and presidential candidates who make the Party look bad are basically ignored, other Presidents are elevated to near-legendary status, they attempt to force their political system onto other nations because it's CLEARLY the best....

Like I said, funny.
 
2013-05-04 02:45:15 AM  
The government shouldn't be in the business of funding research anyway.
 
2013-05-04 02:48:19 AM  

LordJiro: It's funny how much Republicans mirror Communists. They have their own huge propaganda network in Fox News and co., Presidents and presidential candidates who make the Party look bad are basically ignored, other Presidents are elevated to near-legendary status, they attempt to force their political system onto other nations because it's CLEARLY the best....

Like I said, funny.


Seems a bit like Animal Farm, Part 2.
 
2013-05-04 02:51:33 AM  

make me some tea: Benevolent Misanthrope: Congressman Lamar Smith is a leading example as to the disconnect within the Republican Party and reality. His "improvement" would compromise scientific research, and dismantle what little America has left for integrity.

Too late.  I dont think anyone sees America as having scientific or political integrity any more.

Pretty much. We've ceded that to the Asians and the Europeans.


Credibility has resided in multinational reviewed journals pretty exclusively for a little over half a century now.  Though, that said, European and American researchers certainly have a leg up on the "actually considered real scientists" thing since China and eastern Asia in general have produced a large volume of blatantly incorrect papers in the last few decades.

Basically, if the government of the UK or France or whatever publishes something, it won't be particularly considered necessarily reliable either.  Which is why we mostly just fund it and it's reviewed and published by, y'know, science orgs instead of governments.
 
2013-05-04 02:53:24 AM  
Wait, you mean Canada has done something before the United States?

thanks a lot Harper you ass-clown.
 
2013-05-04 02:53:50 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy: The government shouldn't be in the business of funding research anyway.


After all, the only things we need as a society are things that CEOs can profit off of, right? Or will corporations sink money into research with no immediately-obvious profit potential?
 
2013-05-04 02:55:51 AM  
Sounds about like what I would expect from a defanged head crab.
 
2013-05-04 02:58:41 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy: The government shouldn't be in the business of funding research anyway.


and research universities should be defunded. All those graduate students are wasting their time and should get real jobs in the food services.
 
2013-05-04 03:00:16 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy: The government shouldn't be in the business of funding research anyway.


So who exactly should be funding basic research in your opinion?  The tooth fairy?
 
2013-05-04 03:02:07 AM  

ucfknightryan: AverageAmericanGuy: The government shouldn't be in the business of funding research anyway.

So who exactly should be funding basic research in your opinion?  The tooth fairy?


I think he was sarcastic, but it's hard to tell.
 
2013-05-04 03:05:22 AM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: Congressman Lamar Smith is a leading example as to the disconnect within the Republican Party and reality. His "improvement" would compromise scientific research, and dismantle what little America has left for integrity.

Too late.  I dont think anyone sees America as having scientific or political integrity any more.


Or integrity for that matter
 
2013-05-04 03:06:33 AM  

Phoenix87ta: mtlls: So stupid I cant even form a worthwhile comment

It's not as if you've received approval to submit such a comment anyways.

Animooted
 
2013-05-04 03:10:54 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy: The government shouldn't be in the business of funding research anyway.


This is such an obviously idiotic statement I don't even have to make a joke about your impressive stupidity. Thanks a lot jerk!
 
2013-05-04 03:11:34 AM  

Zeppelininthesky: Why is this farkstick in charge of anything having to do with sciencepossession of his own skin?


This is what tarring and feathering were made for.
 
2013-05-04 03:12:28 AM  

ScaryBottles: AverageAmericanGuy: The government shouldn't be in the business of funding research anyway.

This is such an obviously idiotic statement I don't even have to make a joke about your impressive stupidity. Thanks a lot jerk!


You done bit on one of our more infamous trolls.

/Welcome to Fark.
 
2013-05-04 03:17:26 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy: The government shouldn't be in the business of funding research anyway.


It takes someone who received a SPECIAL brand of EDUCATION to make a comment that enlightened.
 
2013-05-04 03:20:08 AM  
The party of small government, ladies and gentlemen!
 
2013-05-04 03:20:18 AM  

ucfknightryan: AverageAmericanGuy: The government shouldn't be in the business of funding research anyway.

So who exactly should be funding basic research in your opinion?  The tooth fairy?


If a student is dead set on investigating a topic, then he should pay for the chance to research it. If a school feels that such research is worthwhile, the school ought to provide additional funds to allow the student to see the research to fruition. Those funds can come from tuition, private grants, alumni endowments, partnerships with business, or bake sales, if that's what it takes to raise those funds.

Demanding that the entire nation pay up so some 23 year old can study the mating habits of high school graduates in a high-pressure academic environment is worse than demanding that we all pay up for socialized medicine. At least we all benefit from socialized medicine.
 
2013-05-04 03:20:34 AM  
Inquisitors and apparatchiks implementing their progrom, that is all, comrade citizen. In order to prove, once and for all, that `big' government is the enemy, they throw wrecking bars into the turbines and then, when the lights start going out, blame the `regulations; of Big Government for the blackout.

If any of this shiat actually made it past the `nuisance' stage, just who did Smith appoint to chair the Science Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight?  Why, Rep. Broun, of course.  You remember:

All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and Big Bang theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of hell.

/only thing that would improve my outlook on these two would be their commitment to testing their research hypothesis on the existence of heaven by eating their NRA issued side arms immediately
//peer reviews? anyone??
 
2013-05-04 03:22:38 AM  

fusillade762: Here guys, I'll save you the trouble (though the draft is only 2 pages long):

[i39.tinypic.com image 471x552]

"Finest quality", "Ground breaking", "Utmost importance"? How does anyone get away with trying to pass a law with such vague-ass language?



Damn good question.
 
2013-05-04 03:23:05 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy: ucfknightryan: AverageAmericanGuy: The government shouldn't be in the business of funding research anyway.

So who exactly should be funding basic research in your opinion?  The tooth fairy?

If a student is dead set on investigating a topic, then he should pay for the chance to research it. If a school feels that such research is worthwhile, the school ought to provide additional funds to allow the student to see the research to fruition. Those funds can come from tuition, private grants, alumni endowments, partnerships with business, or bake sales, if that's what it takes to raise those funds.

Demanding that the entire nation pay up so some 23 year old can study the mating habits of high school graduates in a high-pressure academic environment is worse than demanding that we all pay up for socialized medicine. At least we all benefit from socialized medicine.


That is so full of stupid... I dont even... Poes Law?... Troll... Its starting to burn!
 
2013-05-04 03:30:17 AM  

skullkrusher: why would you link to the bill in question if your plan is to dishonestly characterize what it says?


This.  While the bill is preposterous, it doesn't do anything the author of TFA claims.
 
2013-05-04 03:31:15 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy: Demanding that the entire nation pay up so some 23 year old can study the mating habits of high school graduates in a high-pressure academic environment is worse than demanding that we all pay up for socialized medicine. At least we all benefit from socialized medicine.


Yeah, and why even bother investigating, say, bacteria that don't cause human diseases? Especially if the petri dishes get contaminated with mold when you're away on vacation,
 
2013-05-04 03:34:29 AM  
Constitutionally tricky.  While the 1st Amendment says no, accepting federal money opens the door to all kinds of government interference.  In the long run, I would hope the Supreme Court says, "oh hellz no!"
 
2013-05-04 03:35:40 AM  
I'm pretty sure this means I can submit a grant request for $50,000,000 to determine if "The Yellow Rose of Texas" is objectively the greatest song ever written and have a giant box labeled "Wad o' Cash From Gub'mint" on my porch no later than Tuesday.
 
2013-05-04 03:37:39 AM  

OgreMagi: Constitutionally tricky.  While the 1st Amendment says no, accepting federal money opens the door to all kinds of government interference.  In the long run, I would hope the Supreme Court says, "oh hellz no!"


It violates the establishment clause beacause science is a religion.

/derrrr
 
2013-05-04 03:47:34 AM  

Mithiwithi: AverageAmericanGuy: Demanding that the entire nation pay up so some 23 year old can study the mating habits of high school graduates in a high-pressure academic environment is worse than demanding that we all pay up for socialized medicine. At least we all benefit from socialized medicine.

Yeah, and why even bother investigating, say, bacteria that don't cause human diseases? Especially if the petri dishes get contaminated with mold when you're away on vacation,


The government was frantically looking for a solution to the polio problem. Salk was being funded out of a pointed government effort to find a vaccine. That he discovered it accidentally is a bit of serendipity, but it wasn't because he was blindly funded to study the construction of handicraft ovum holders in aqueous solutions.
 
2013-05-04 03:51:14 AM  

Zeppelininthesky: Why is this farkstick in charge of anything having to do with science?


Same reason that wench in New Hampshire who thinks she can tell how someone whose legs have just been blown off should be reacting: He was elected to office by the people of his state, and placed on a committee by people just like him.
 
2013-05-04 03:57:58 AM  

fusillade762: Here guys, I'll save you the trouble (though the draft is only 2 pages long):

[i39.tinypic.com image 471x552]

"Finest quality", "Ground breaking", "Utmost importance"? How does anyone get away with trying to pass a law with such vague-ass language?


I fear it may be code.

"Finest quality" = "intelligently designed"
"Ground breaking" = "fits with the latest rebranding"
"Utmost importance" = "high potential for kickbacks"
 
2013-05-04 04:28:38 AM  
In Soviet Texas, Alamo remembers you!
 
2013-05-04 04:44:15 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy: Mithiwithi: AverageAmericanGuy: Demanding that the entire nation pay up so some 23 year old can study the mating habits of high school graduates in a high-pressure academic environment is worse than demanding that we all pay up for socialized medicine. At least we all benefit from socialized medicine.

Yeah, and why even bother investigating, say, bacteria that don't cause human diseases? Especially if the petri dishes get contaminated with mold when you're away on vacation,

The government was frantically looking for a solution to the polio problem. Salk was being funded out of a pointed government effort to find a vaccine. That he discovered it accidentally is a bit of serendipity, but it wasn't because he was blindly funded to study the construction of handicraft ovum holders in aqueous solutions.


dude you are confusing polio with antibiotics.
 
2013-05-04 04:49:26 AM  
Wow, Texas.  Just wow. Your elected representatives suck.
 
2013-05-04 05:09:40 AM  

LordJiro: AverageAmericanGuy: The government shouldn't be in the business of funding research anyway.

After all, the only things we need as a society are things that CEOs can profit off of, right? Or will corporations sink money into research with no immediately-obvious profit potential?


Apparently he sees no irony at all in posting this comment on the internet.
 
2013-05-04 05:21:56 AM  
Thanks to Texas gerrymandering and splitting Austin up into 6 different districts, this asshat is my representative. I went from one of the most liberal house members (Lloyd Doggett) to the most derpiest without ever changing addresses back in 2010.

But all my letter writing and calling won't make a difference, since thanks to gerrymandering, the rest of his district will vote for him as long as he doesn't insult the Jesus. Our system is so farked up.
 
2013-05-04 05:23:41 AM  
Whatever.

Mods? Please delete this thread.

It is the single most stupid thing we've been forced to comment on..

Just for the record: f*ck this right wing Navy Bullshiat. I hope none of you are that eager to get on the ignore list.
 
2013-05-04 05:26:21 AM  

whidbey: It is the single most stupid thing we've been forced to comment on..


LOLWUT?
 
2013-05-04 05:30:55 AM  

Apos: This was expected when the noted anti-science Texan was appointed to the Congressional Committee on Science, Space and Technology

Damn terrifying that this jackass has this much political clout.


It's not 'clout', it's what passes for strategy in the modern GOP:
Step 1: Decry 'wasteful' spending (FDA, EPA, Planned Parenthood, Science Committees, etc.)
Step 2: Appoint people with a vested interest in seeing these agencies/committees fail, to run them
Step 3: When the agencies start failing, point at them and say "SEE! WASTEFUL AND USELESS PORK!"
Step 4: Gut program, Profit
Step 5: We all win! (No wait, the other thing...)
 
2013-05-04 05:33:46 AM  

fusillade762: SOPA writer Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) fresh off not knowing how the internet works, writes a bill not knowing how science works either and removing peer-review from NSF grant requirements


That was one of my better headlines, but seriously, fark Lamar Smith and fark all the blind, reasonless republicans.
 
2013-05-04 05:49:09 AM  
stupid headline is still stupid, and subby makes the point of ignorance just as much as those who green lit it.
 
2013-05-04 06:40:06 AM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: Too late.  I dont think anyone sees America as having scientific or political integrity any more.


This pisses me off. We were once a nation that held a dead man's promise to go the moon by the decade's end.

And we did it. Math and science were sexy. Great minds were given carte blanche to do what they do. It was an era when "American exceptionalism" actually existed beyond our proclivity for producing a war machine. You didn't fark with America in, I dunno, 1969.

These days we are a joke, and seem to take pride in it.
 
2013-05-04 06:42:12 AM  

dickfreckle: Benevolent Misanthrope: Too late.  I dont think anyone sees America as having scientific or political integrity any more.

This pisses me off. We were once a nation that held a dead man's promise to go the moon by the decade's end.

And we did it. Math and science were sexy. Great minds were given carte blanche to do what they do. It was an era when "American exceptionalism" actually existed beyond our proclivity for producing a war machine. You didn't fark with America in, I dunno, 1969.

These days we are a joke, and seem to take pride in it.


Amen:

www.addictinginfo.org
 
2013-05-04 06:49:15 AM  

dickfreckle: You didn't fark with America in, I dunno, 1969.


Yes, I know that plenty of guerrillas farked with us in 1969. I just meant that at the time America was something to have pride in. Dude, a man walked on the moon to spite the Soviets. These days we seem to eschew science and tech.
 
2013-05-04 07:48:52 AM  
So the author went with Thomas Dolby instead of Falco?  What has happened to our 80s pop culture educationz?
 
2013-05-04 07:56:27 AM  

skullkrusher: fusillade762: skullkrusher: brichter: When future historians are autopsying the corpse of the american empire, I think this kind of thing is going to be very interesting.

People blindly accepting claims that an article makes without actually reading what it refers to?

There was a link to the draft bill. Here, read it yourself.

yeah, that's the point. I read the bill. The author clearly did not


It doesn't matter whether the author read it or not, he achieved his goal.  He has a certain portion of the internet convinced that his headline is true (including about 95% of FARK).
 
2013-05-04 07:58:38 AM  

fusillade762: Apos: Is this a repeat or some fresh bullshiat from Lamar?

Wondering that myself.

*checks*

Ah, the last one was an attempt to strip the peer-review requirement for federally funded research.

SOPA writer Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) fresh off not knowing how the internet works, writes a bill not knowing how science works either and removing peer-review from NSF grant requirements

So not really "fresh" as much as "re-heated".


I was going to go with a continuation, maybe even a 'doubling down of derp'

Either way, this guys an idiot, and those that voted for him are even worse.
 
2013-05-04 08:03:23 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy: Mithiwithi: AverageAmericanGuy: Demanding that the entire nation pay up so some 23 year old can study the mating habits of high school graduates in a high-pressure academic environment is worse than demanding that we all pay up for socialized medicine. At least we all benefit from socialized medicine.

Yeah, and why even bother investigating, say, bacteria that don't cause human diseases? Especially if the petri dishes get contaminated with mold when you're away on vacation,

The government was frantically looking for a solution to the polio problem. Salk was being funded out of a pointed government effort to find a vaccine. That he discovered it accidentally is a bit of serendipity, but it wasn't because he was blindly funded to study the construction of handicraft ovum holders in aqueous solutions.


Hey, Asshole!  You are posting on forum that exists solely because the Government invested in a project that was run by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)--bolding the part about research should give you a clue.

You are healthy enough to post solely because of Government research into vaccines, food stuff, and other medical "miracles" that did not exist 100 years ago.

I could go on, but just suffice it to say that hopefully in the near future, Government research will eliminate the stupidity that you and your ilk seem to suffer from, so that future Farkers do not have to experience the discomfort, nausea and disgust that comes from reading your poorly thought-out and just plain ignorant remarks.
 
2013-05-04 08:06:51 AM  
The only thing that's sad here is that there an awful lot of dumbfarks in this thread who couldn't be bothered to take the minute required to open and read the three page bill to see it says nothing of the sort... it's just a plan to annoy the director of the NSF with inane and pointless questions from empty-headed dickcheeses like Smith.

ITT: cataholic and skullkrusher are the smart ones... wtf....
 
2013-05-04 08:09:56 AM  
He's qualified to do this because he once took a course in POLITICAL science.
 
2013-05-04 08:12:22 AM  

LordJiro: It's funny how much Republicans mirror Communists. They have their own huge propaganda network in Fox News and co., Presidents and presidential candidates who make the Party look bad are basically ignored, other Presidents are elevated to near-legendary status, they attempt to force their political system onto other nations because it's CLEARLY the best....

Like I said, funny.


You're confusing communism with dictatorship.
 
2013-05-04 08:15:15 AM  
This website sucks on mobile, much as Lamar Smith does, but at least I don't have to scroll so much to see Smith's derp.
 
2013-05-04 08:16:07 AM  

fusillade762: Ah, the last one was an attempt to strip the peer-review requirement for federally funded research.

SOPA writer Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) fresh off not knowing how the internet works, writes a bill not knowing how science works either and removing peer-review from NSF grant requirements

So not really "fresh" as much as "re-heated".


More like he had all this leftover bad legislation that nobody wanted, so he chopped it up and stuck it in a crust. Now he's trying to serve it up as if it's more appetizing.

So, not so much "reheated" as "retarted."
 
2013-05-04 08:17:25 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy: ucfknightryan: AverageAmericanGuy: The government shouldn't be in the business of funding research anyway.

So who exactly should be funding basic research in your opinion?  The tooth fairy?

If a student is dead set on investigating a topic, then he should pay for the chance to research it. If a school feels that such research is worthwhile, the school ought to provide additional funds to allow the student to see the research to fruition. Those funds can come from tuition, private grants, alumni endowments, partnerships with business, or bake sales, if that's what it takes to raise those funds.

Demanding that the entire nation pay up so some 23 year old can study the mating habits of high school graduates in a high-pressure academic environment is worse than demanding that we all pay up for socialized medicine. At least we all benefit from socialized medicine.


I get the feeling someone is going to want to screenshot that and save it for later.
 
2013-05-04 08:17:39 AM  

skullkrusher: why would you link to the bill in question if your plan is to dishonestly characterize what it says?


I noticed this in the fw:fw:fw emails I was receiving. It would link to or reference a source that contradicted the "point" that the email was making.

Funny, I stopped getting those emails when I pointed that out.
 
2013-05-04 08:22:20 AM  

Mentat: Hey, remember a few threads ago when I accused Smith of wanting to put zampolits in charge of the NSF?  And remember those folks who told us we were overreacting and that Smith's requests were perfectly reasonable?  Fark all of you.


Cite, please?

/it sounds like it was an energetic thread
 
2013-05-04 08:25:10 AM  

LordJiro: It's funny how much Republicans mirror Communists. They have their own huge propaganda network in Fox News and co., Presidents and presidential candidates who make the Party look bad are basically ignored, other Presidents are elevated to near-legendary status, they attempt to force their political system onto other nations because it's CLEARLY the best....

Like I said, funny.


I tried to click the Smart tag twice but it just un-clicked it so technically I clicked on it three times but it only registered once.
 
2013-05-04 08:29:56 AM  

Mentat: Hey, remember a few threads ago when I accused Smith of wanting to put zampolits in charge of the NSF?  And remember those folks who told us we were overreacting and that Smith's requests were perfectly reasonable?  Fark all of you.


This that these and those.
 
2013-05-04 08:35:17 AM  
At first I just skimmed the headline and thought this was actually happening in Russia and I was like "Those crazy Russians."

Then I read more closely and I facepalmed so hard I think I gave myself a concussion.
 
2013-05-04 08:53:04 AM  
The bill says research should not duplicate other research.

I guess Lamar Smith (CCCP-TX) has never heard of replication and independent verification.  If anything there should be more duplication than there currently is.
 
2013-05-04 08:56:03 AM  

starsrift: LordJiro: It's funny how much Republicans mirror Communists. They have their own huge propaganda network in Fox News and co., Presidents and presidential candidates who make the Party look bad are basically ignored, other Presidents are elevated to near-legendary status, they attempt to force their political system onto other nations because it's CLEARLY the best....

Like I said, funny.

You're confusing communism with dictatorship.


No, I'm not. I'm using Communists as an example because many Republicans seem to still be stuck in the Cold War, and thus, pointing out their similarities to the governments of the Soviets, China, North Korea and so on provides more schadenfreude.
 
2013-05-04 08:57:28 AM  

Mr. Coffee Nerves: I'm pretty sure this means I can submit a grant request for $50,000,000 to determine if "The Yellow Rose of Texas" is objectively the greatest song ever written and have a giant box labeled "Wad o' Cash From Gub'mint" on my porch no later than Tuesday.


You are questioning the awesomeness of 'The Yellow Rose of Texas'?  How dare you, with a research premise like that, there is no way you would get funding.

Now, if you wanted to do the same study on say, the acapella version, the polka version, or the gospel hymn version, then you get the cash in  heartbeat
 
2013-05-04 09:01:48 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy: The government shouldn't be in the business of funding research anyway.


Quit using electronics, then.
 
2013-05-04 09:08:07 AM  

Shakin_Haitian: AverageAmericanGuy: The government shouldn't be in the business of funding research anyway.

Quit using electronics, then.


Also, don't eat any farmed food.
 
2013-05-04 09:10:09 AM  
What "small gubbmint" means in practice:

1. Determining what science is, and is not (actual science is "religion", and vice versa)
2. Determining what proper sexual and marital relationships are
3. Snooping into every tiny detail of your life because TERROR
4. Cutting taxes and kicking off wars while fulminating about deficits
5. Building tanks that are not needed, as stated repeatedly by the Pentagon, while at the very same time fulminating against "stimulus through government spending" on things like bridges on the point of collapse
6. Defining rape as a crime committed by a woman against a man when she wants to murder his baby after having had totally consensual sex, cause otherwise she wouldn't be pregnant
7. Apologizing to international oil companies when their rigs blow up and spill millions of gallons of oil
8. Thundering condemnation against disaster relief until it's needed in your own state
9. Ensuring that you can easily buy a gun with no background check or registration whatsoever
10. Undermining, underfunding, and packing with hacks those parts of government that your constituents support (EPA) but your corporate funders hate, and then condemning the ineptitude of what you have sabotaged.
11.  Complaining about religious persecution (against Christians) while demanding religious persecution of Muslims.
 
2013-05-04 09:16:28 AM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: Congressman Lamar Smith is a leading example as to the disconnect within the Republican Party and reality. His "improvement" would compromise scientific research, and dismantle what little America has left for integrity.

Too late.  I dont think anyone sees America as having scientific or political integrity any more.


Yeah, it's sad.  When we elected the Teabaggers to the House in 2010, we pretty much told the world, "We give up on doing big and ground-breaking things that help mankind."
 
2013-05-04 09:22:32 AM  
Republicans treat committee members like ideological suicide bombers.  They slip into position and then detonate their payload for maximum effect.
 
2013-05-04 09:23:15 AM  

Mrtraveler01: dickfreckle: Benevolent Misanthrope: Too late.  I dont think anyone sees America as having scientific or political integrity any more.

This pisses me off. We were once a nation that held a dead man's promise to go the moon by the decade's end.

And we did it. Math and science were sexy. Great minds were given carte blanche to do what they do. It was an era when "American exceptionalism" actually existed beyond our proclivity for producing a war machine. You didn't fark with America in, I dunno, 1969.

These days we are a joke, and seem to take pride in it.

Amen:

[www.addictinginfo.org image 525x700]


1.  True
2.  True
3.  Nothing unreal exists
4.  False
5.  Plants, and occasionally each other
6.  See answer #3
7.  True
 
2013-05-04 09:24:30 AM  

tankjr: ScaryBottles: AverageAmericanGuy: The government shouldn't be in the business of funding research anyway.

This is such an obviously idiotic statement I don't even have to make a joke about your impressive stupidity. Thanks a lot jerk!

You done bit on one of our more infamous trolls.

/Welcome to Fark.


He finally earned his place on my Twitlist.  Took him a while, but dedication and effort got him there.

/I need to go put the same dedication and effort into finishing this gorram thesis
//If it wasn't got 11th hour miracles, I'd have no grad school career at all
 
2013-05-04 09:24:31 AM  
"Health"? This isn't the NIH, dumbass.
 
2013-05-04 09:30:47 AM  
I hear they determine quality by shredding the research, and putting it into a large vile with some liquid in it. If the mixture turns red, they drink it and become science. If it turns blue: Socialism. Pour it out.
 
2013-05-04 09:40:03 AM  
Is this some kind of surprise? When government pays for something, it will feel entitled to tell you what to do with the money. If you want to study the mating habits of left-handed red-headed Hooters girls unencumbered, get your money from private sources. Problem solved.
 
2013-05-04 09:41:21 AM  
I with they'd stop beating around the bush and introduce legislation to turn the US into a Theodemocracy which is what they want to do.
 
2013-05-04 09:42:10 AM  

m3000: Thanks to Texas gerrymandering and splitting Austin up into 6 different districts, this asshat is my representative. I went from one of the most liberal house members (Lloyd Doggett) to the most derpiest without ever changing addresses back in 2010.

But all my letter writing and calling won't make a difference, since thanks to gerrymandering, the rest of his district will vote for him as long as he doesn't insult the Jesus. Our system is so farked up.


So slip an insult to Jesus into his teleprompter. Problem solved!
 
2013-05-04 09:42:59 AM  

jjorsett: Is this some kind of surprise? When government pays for something, it will feel entitled to tell you what to do with the money. If you want to study the mating habits of left-handed red-headed Hooters girls unencumbered, get your money from private sources. Problem solved.


Again, beneficial research is not necessarily profitable. Thus, the private sector wouldn't touch it, because the private sector is concerned with profit.
 
2013-05-04 09:46:55 AM  

bighairyguy: He's qualified to do this because he once took a course in POLITICAL science.


I never understood that. It's a liberal arts degree, yet it has science in the name. There's nothing wrong with liberal arts degrees, or science degrees, it's just stupid to call one the other.
 
2013-05-04 09:49:05 AM  

The Name: Benevolent Misanthrope: Congressman Lamar Smith is a leading example as to the disconnect within the Republican Party and reality. His "improvement" would compromise scientific research, and dismantle what little America has left for integrity.

Too late.  I dont think anyone sees America as having scientific or political integrity any more.

Yeah, it's sad.  When we elected the Teabaggers to the House in 2010, we pretty much told the world, "We give up on doing big and ground-breaking things that help mankind."


And leading up to the 2014 election, the world responds back: 'So, did you fully learn your farking lesson yet?'
 
2013-05-04 09:49:33 AM  

tankjr: ScaryBottles: AverageAmericanGuy: The government shouldn't be in the business of funding research anyway.

This is such an obviously idiotic statement I don't even have to make a joke about your impressive stupidity. Thanks a lot jerk!

You done bit on one of our more infamous trolls.

/Welcome to Fark.


I know it's been said before, but does it really count as trolling if it's something that some people actually believe and say?
 
2013-05-04 09:49:37 AM  
Forget terrorists.  This is a much bigger threat to America.
 
2013-05-04 09:56:35 AM  

The All-Powerful Atheismo: skullkrusher: The All-Powerful Atheismo: skullkrusher: brichter: When future historians are autopsying the corpse of the american empire, I think this kind of thing is going to be very interesting.

People blindly accepting claims that an article makes without actually reading what it refers to?

you're right, the article was inaccurate.  They just have to approve that the research follows the board's political agenda BEFORE instead of after.

That's way better.

the author of TFA just made some shiat up

Point and you are in no danger of a mid-air collision


Look man, I tend to agree that this bill is patently ridiculous.  But Skullcrusher has a valid point.  Nowhere in that bill does it say that anyone needs to get approval from any house or senate committee prior to publishing.  All the bill states is that the NSF must ensure and certify that a grant application meets some absurdly vague and stupid guidelines.  You can certainly argue the merits of this inane bill, the article DOES just make shiat up.
 
2013-05-04 09:56:48 AM  

fusillade762: Here guys, I'll save you the trouble (though the draft is only 2 pages long):

[i39.tinypic.com image 471x552]

"Finest quality", "Ground breaking", "Utmost importance"? How does anyone get away with trying to pass a law with such vague-ass language?



Meh...it's been done.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
 
2013-05-04 09:58:16 AM  

jjorsett: Is this some kind of surprise? When government pays for something, it will feel entitled to tell you what to do with the money. If you want to study the mating habits of left-handed red-headed Hooters girls unencumbered, get your money from private sources. Problem solved.


And if you are studying something important to the future of the country, but it stands in the way of the agenda outlined by Lamar Smith's donors?  Just out of luck on that one, I suppose?

This is why you people are so dangerous.  What did this country do to you that was so heinous that you'd pretend this is a good idea just to bring us down?  What imagined slight was so insulting?  I'd really like to know.
 
2013-05-04 09:59:23 AM  

Alphax: LOLWUT?


I expect he just forgot which alt he was logged in as.
 
2013-05-04 10:02:13 AM  

Apos: This was expected when the noted anti-science Texan was appointed to the Congressional Committee on Science, Space and Technology

Damn terrifying that this jackass has this much political clout.


and subcommittee
 
2013-05-04 10:02:57 AM  

dickfreckle: dickfreckle: You didn't fark with America in, I dunno, 1969.

Yes, I know that plenty of guerrillas farked with us in 1969. I just meant that at the time America was something to have pride in. Dude, a man walked on the moon to spite the Soviets. These days we seem to eschew science and tech.


Big deal, Politburo landed man on the Sun
 
2013-05-04 10:03:16 AM  
111 comments and no one's mentioned Lysenkoism yet?
 
2013-05-04 10:05:57 AM  

Spaced Lion: In Soviet Texas, Alamo remembers you!


The Lone Red Star State
 
2013-05-04 10:06:14 AM  

brichter: When future historians are autopsying the corpse of the american empire, I think this kind of thing is going to be very interesting.


"Death appears to have been caused by blindness and trauma caused by fingers rupturing eardrums"
 
2013-05-04 10:08:34 AM  
Yet another reason I no longer vote for the Stupid party.

/Bobby Jindal's words
 
2013-05-04 10:09:47 AM  
Spot the Difference:
www.50states.com
www.theflagshop.co.uk
 
2013-05-04 10:09:55 AM  

heinekenftw: brichter: When future historians are autopsying the corpse of the american empire, I think this kind of thing is going to be very interesting.

"Death appears to have been caused by blindness and trauma caused by fingers rupturing eardrums"


'So they stupided themselves into extinction.'
 
2013-05-04 10:13:13 AM  
It's also interesting how the party of small government is now sticking its nose into science.
 
2013-05-04 10:13:37 AM  

TheMysteriousStranger: The bill says research should not duplicate other research.

I guess Lamar Smith (CCCP-TX) has never heard of replication and independent verification.  If anything there should be more duplication than there currently is.


Well, that's how that influential paper on national debt/austerity vs. growth got debunked, and they can't be having that happen.
 
2013-05-04 10:14:02 AM  

KWess: fusillade762: Here guys, I'll save you the trouble (though the draft is only 2 pages long):

[i39.tinypic.com image 471x552]

"Finest quality", "Ground breaking", "Utmost importance"? How does anyone get away with trying to pass a law with such vague-ass language?


Meh...it's been done.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."


The 2nd Amendment wasn't really vague until the lawyers got a hold of it.

/I'm surprised there hasn't been any legal arguments yet about what "free" is supposed to mean in the amendment.
 
2013-05-04 10:17:56 AM  

skullkrusher: why would you link to the bill in question if your plan is to dishonestly characterize what it says?


Huh. The bill reads to me like it tells them to insure that only one person is working on a problem at a time, and all research is immediately applicable (with an emphasis on national security) The only reporting to congress I see is telling them how they're going to do it.

So basically, it's worse than what the article says, in terms of learning about the world if not in terms of being close to Soviet style control over science.
Mind you, it's still someone who doesn't understand or like science trying to tell scientists what science is.
 
2013-05-04 10:18:41 AM  
Maybe this is intended to scare people away from seeking government funding, thus reducing the size of government?
 
2013-05-04 10:20:10 AM  

s2s2s2: Maybe this is intended to scare people away from seeking government funding, thus reducing the size of government?


Your tacit approval of this sort of thing is noted.
 
2013-05-04 10:27:12 AM  

Epoch_Zero: s2s2s2: Maybe this is intended to scare people away from seeking government funding, thus reducing the size of government?

Your tacit approval of this sort of thing is noted.


You have a well developed ability to infer humor implied.

Comments from Epoch_Zero will now appear in Idiotic Yellow.
 
2013-05-04 10:37:26 AM  

s2s2s2: Epoch_Zero: s2s2s2: Maybe this is intended to scare people away from seeking government funding, thus reducing the size of government?

Your tacit approval of this sort of thing is noted.

You have a well developed ability to infer humor implied.

Comments from Epoch_Zero will now appear in Idiotic Yellow.


Funny. I have you Farkied in Sh*t Brown


/wonder why
 
2013-05-04 10:37:28 AM  

jjorsett: Is this some kind of surprise? When government pays for something, it will feel entitled to tell you what to do with the money. If you want to study the mating habits of left-handed red-headed Hooters girls unencumbered, get your money from private sources. Problem solved.


No, it's not surprise. Just like you, Lamar Smith had the pre-conceived notion that government should suck, so he's trying to make sure it does.
 
2013-05-04 10:40:58 AM  
More accountability with government funds should always be appreciated by the taxpayer.
 
2013-05-04 10:46:12 AM  

Shaggy_C: More accountability with government funds should always be appreciated by the taxpayer.


You're begging the question as to whether there's a big problem with "waste" going on, here, as well as the question about how this bill could remedy it.
 
2013-05-04 10:46:33 AM  
I haven't gotten physical with anyone for maybe 30 years but I would love to punch that POS bastard in the head repeatedly.
 
2013-05-04 10:48:11 AM  

make me some tea: Benevolent Misanthrope: Congressman Lamar Smith is a leading example as to the disconnect within the Republican Party and reality. His "improvement" would compromise scientific research, and dismantle what little America has left for integrity.

Too late.  I dont think anyone sees America as having scientific or political integrity any more.

Pretty much. We've ceded that to the Asians and the Europeans.


When, not if, the next "big thing" in science and technology happens, it will happen in Europe or China, and we will be the country left out in the cold.
 
2013-05-04 10:49:18 AM  

Shaggy_C: More accountability with government funds should always be appreciated by the taxpayer.


How is having a meeting with a committee to come up with some vague metric going to make any difference?
 
2013-05-04 10:49:31 AM  

Brainsick: s2s2s2: Epoch_Zero: s2s2s2: Maybe this is intended to scare people away from seeking government funding, thus reducing the size of government?

Your tacit approval of this sort of thing is noted.

You have a well developed ability to infer humor implied.

Comments from Epoch_Zero will now appear in Idiotic Yellow.

Funny. I have you Farkied in Sh*t Brown


/wonder why


You don't know?
 
2013-05-04 10:51:30 AM  

fusillade762: Here guys, I'll save you the trouble (though the draft is only 2 pages long):

[i39.tinypic.com image 471x552]

"Finest quality", "Ground breaking", "Utmost importance"? How does anyone get away with trying to pass a law with such vague-ass language?


Go read any 10 Congressional bills at random.

Hide any weapons or cutlery in the house before you do.
 
2013-05-04 10:51:53 AM  

Shaggy_C: More accountability with government funds should always be appreciated by the taxpayer.


Someone else who doesn't understand science funding I see.
 
2013-05-04 11:00:07 AM  

Mrtraveler01: Shaggy_C: More accountability with government funds should always be appreciated by the taxpayer.

How is having a meeting with a committee to come up with some vague metric going to make any difference?


It'll cost more, so there's that.
 
2013-05-04 11:03:37 AM  

m3000: Thanks to Texas gerrymandering and splitting Austin up into 6 different districts, this asshat is my representative. I went from one of the most liberal house members (Lloyd Doggett) to the most derpiest without ever changing addresses back in 2010.

But all my letter writing and calling won't make a difference, since thanks to gerrymandering, the rest of his district will vote for him as long as he doesn't insult the Jesus. Our system is so farked up.


The system isn't the problem, you're out numbered and surrounded by idiots, that's the problem.
 
2013-05-04 11:20:36 AM  
For those with short memory, Lamar Smith is also the person responsible for SOPA.  Good god, what a terrible human being.
 
2013-05-04 11:21:41 AM  
I'd rather see all legislation be reviewed by the scientific community.
 
2013-05-04 11:21:51 AM  

Mrtraveler01: How is having a meeting with a committee to come up with some vague metric going to make any difference?


One could ask the same about any hearing, really.  The vaguely-worded bill is a concern, of course; but I'm not opposed to having recipients of government grants defend their use of those grants before the legislature.  If you're making a living on the taxpayer's dime, the taxpayer's representatives have a duty to ensure you're using those funds appropriately.  I don't think anyone here would have a problem if this same this process were occurring with regards to other contracts with the government; maybe it's just because it is research that we are all up in arms, which, while reasonable because, after all, it is Texas, is starting us down the path of a bit of a 'slippery slope' argument is it not?
 
2013-05-04 11:26:50 AM  

Infinite Monkeys In Front Of A Computer: I'd rather see all legislation be reviewed by the scientific community.


no we gave it to the Chinese grad. student. she's now using it to build a better China. happy?
 
2013-05-04 11:27:22 AM  

thurstonxhowell: Just like you, Lamar Smith had the pre-conceived notion that government should suck, so he's trying to make sure it does.


The above would explain a lot about American politics.
 
2013-05-04 11:27:32 AM  

Shaggy_C: Mrtraveler01: How is having a meeting with a committee to come up with some vague metric going to make any difference?

One could ask the same about any hearing, really.  The vaguely-worded bill is a concern, of course; but I'm not opposed to having recipients of government grants defend their use of those grants before the legislature.  If you're making a living on the taxpayer's dime, the taxpayer's representatives have a duty to ensure you're using those funds appropriately.  I don't think anyone here would have a problem if this same this process were occurring with regards to other contracts with the government; maybe it's just because it is research that we are all up in arms, which, while reasonable because, after all, it is Texas, is starting us down the path of a bit of a 'slippery slope' argument is it not?


Ah, so you definitely don't understand science funding.  You could have just said that from the beginning, you know.
 
2013-05-04 11:29:34 AM  

Shaggy_C: Mrtraveler01: How is having a meeting with a committee to come up with some vague metric going to make any difference?

One could ask the same about any hearing, really.  The vaguely-worded bill is a concern, of course; but I'm not opposed to having recipients of government grants defend their use of those grants before the legislature.  If you're making a living on the taxpayer's dime, the taxpayer's representatives have a duty to ensure you're using those funds appropriately.  I don't think anyone here would have a problem if this same this process were occurring with regards to other contracts with the government; maybe it's just because it is research that we are all up in arms, which, while reasonable because, after all, it is Texas, is starting us down the path of a bit of a 'slippery slope' argument is it not?


Why should we leave it up to a bunch of politicians to determine whether a scientific study is valid or not?

That just seems to leave it open to a lot of abuse by those with an agenda.
 
2013-05-04 11:31:09 AM  

Mrtraveler01: Shaggy_C: Mrtraveler01: How is having a meeting with a committee to come up with some vague metric going to make any difference?

One could ask the same about any hearing, really.  The vaguely-worded bill is a concern, of course; but I'm not opposed to having recipients of government grants defend their use of those grants before the legislature.  If you're making a living on the taxpayer's dime, the taxpayer's representatives have a duty to ensure you're using those funds appropriately.  I don't think anyone here would have a problem if this same this process were occurring with regards to other contracts with the government; maybe it's just because it is research that we are all up in arms, which, while reasonable because, after all, it is Texas, is starting us down the path of a bit of a 'slippery slope' argument is it not?

Why should we leave it up to a bunch of politicians to determine whether a scientific study is valid or not?

That just seems to leave it open to a lot of abuse by those with an agenda.


al gore is a perfectly promulent scientificianologist!
 
2013-05-04 11:32:08 AM  

Great_Milenko: we will be the country left out in the cold.


we invented global warming - - we'll not be cold.
 
2013-05-04 11:35:41 AM  

Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: Ah, so you definitely don't understand science funding. You could have just said that from the beginning, you know.


You're right; I forgot that most scientists live as paupers.  The money they receive from grants is used in their experiments, normally as fuel for the Bunsen burners, though sometimes they also place stacks of hundred dollar bills in different liquids like sulfuric acid or liquid nitrogen.
 
2013-05-04 11:38:46 AM  

utah dude: Mrtraveler01: Shaggy_C: Mrtraveler01: How is having a meeting with a committee to come up with some vague metric going to make any difference?

One could ask the same about any hearing, really.  The vaguely-worded bill is a concern, of course; but I'm not opposed to having recipients of government grants defend their use of those grants before the legislature.  If you're making a living on the taxpayer's dime, the taxpayer's representatives have a duty to ensure you're using those funds appropriately.  I don't think anyone here would have a problem if this same this process were occurring with regards to other contracts with the government; maybe it's just because it is research that we are all up in arms, which, while reasonable because, after all, it is Texas, is starting us down the path of a bit of a 'slippery slope' argument is it not?

Why should we leave it up to a bunch of politicians to determine whether a scientific study is valid or not?

That just seems to leave it open to a lot of abuse by those with an agenda.

al gore is a perfectly promulent scientificianologist!


Is Al Gore asking for a government subsidy for research?

No...

Then what was your point again?
 
2013-05-04 11:39:34 AM  

Mrtraveler01: Why should we leave it up to a bunch of politicians to determine whether a scientific study is valid or not?


Again, the same argument can be made about any research and development.  Do you feel the same way about the funding provided to the military-industrial complex for Pentagon weapon contracts? There is a fine line between stifling creativity and maintaining accountability but in the era of decreased government revenues and budget crunches it shouldn't be unfathomable that the former may occur to a certain extent to increase the latter.  We're essentially putting science funding on a pedestal and proclaiming loudly that it cannot in any circumstance be questioned.  I think we would both agree that there is some research that is far more likely to yield results than others, so why send good money after bad?
 
2013-05-04 11:40:50 AM  

Shaggy_C: Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: Ah, so you definitely don't understand science funding. You could have just said that from the beginning, you know.

You're right; I forgot that most scientists live as paupers.  The money they receive from grants is used in their experiments, normally as fuel for the Bunsen burners, though sometimes they also place stacks of hundred dollar bills in different liquids like sulfuric acid or liquid nitrogen.


If there's a point you're trying to make here, it's getting lost in the sarcasm.
 
2013-05-04 11:40:56 AM  

Shaggy_C: Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: Ah, so you definitely don't understand science funding. You could have just said that from the beginning, you know.

You're right; I forgot that most scientists live as paupers.  The money they receive from grants is used in their experiments, normally as fuel for the Bunsen burners, though sometimes they also place stacks of hundred dollar bills in different liquids like sulfuric acid or liquid nitrogen.


No, you forgot that most scientists don't get their salaries from government grants, which is what this bill pertains to.  But we already know that reality never stops you from derping your derp here on Fark, so I guess your igorance shouldn't surprise me.
 
2013-05-04 11:43:33 AM  

Mrtraveler01: Is Al Gore asking for a government subsidy for research?


no, he rules over them.
 
2013-05-04 11:44:01 AM  

Shaggy_C: I think we would both agree that there is some research that is far more likely to yield results than others, so why send good money after bad?


Why should a politician who has no farking clue about Science be the one to determine what is "good" money and what is "bad" money?
 
2013-05-04 11:44:51 AM  

Shaggy_C: Mrtraveler01: Why should we leave it up to a bunch of politicians to determine whether a scientific study is valid or not?

Again, the same argument can be made about any research and development.  Do you feel the same way about the funding provided to the military-industrial complex for Pentagon weapon contracts? There is a fine line between stifling creativity and maintaining accountability but in the era of decreased government revenues and budget crunches it shouldn't be unfathomable that the former may occur to a certain extent to increase the latter.  We're essentially putting science funding on a pedestal and proclaiming loudly that it cannot in any circumstance be questioned by people who don't know anything about science.  I think we would both agree that there is some research that is far more likely to yield results than others, so why send good money after bad?


FTFY

If this bill were to require peer review of research topics and goals prior to funding, it might make sense as a way to make sure research money is being spent wisely.  But they're saying that people who have, at best, High School level science educations should be the ones deciding the validity and value of potential research?  That's just farking stupid.
 
2013-05-04 11:45:32 AM  

Mrtraveler01: Why should a politician who has no farking clue about Science be the one to determine what is "good" money and what is "bad" money?


this.
 
2013-05-04 11:46:04 AM  

utah dude: Mrtraveler01: Is Al Gore asking for a government subsidy for research?

no, he rules over them.


So any study that is in favor of the theory that Global Warming is caused by man is a conspiracy committed by Al Gore?

O...k... then.
 
2013-05-04 11:46:59 AM  

Mrtraveler01: So any study that is in favor of the theory that Global Warming is caused by man is a conspiracy committed by Al Gore?


yes. absolutely.
 
2013-05-04 11:48:05 AM  

utah dude: Mrtraveler01: So any study that is in favor of the theory that Global Warming is caused by man is a conspiracy committed by Al Gore?

yes. absolutely.


And your reasoning behind this is?

So anything that proves that global warming isn't caused by man should be taken as Gospel then?
 
2013-05-04 11:49:57 AM  

Mrtraveler01: So anything that proves that global warming isn't caused by man should be taken as Gospel then?


no, but anything touched by al gore should be removed from consideration. in fact, he should probably be disallowed from touching a computer, wearing a suit, or going out on any day except sunday.
 
2013-05-04 11:50:18 AM  
the majority of research is done with federal tax dollars??


i'm smelling some serious socialism in that one.  where are all those republican socialism haters??????  hummmmm.
 
2013-05-04 11:50:31 AM  

utah dude: Mrtraveler01: Is Al Gore asking for a government subsidy for research?

no, he rules over them.


What is this I don't even...
 
2013-05-04 11:52:10 AM  

Shaggy_C: More accountability with government funds should always be appreciated by the taxpayer.



and, of course, the public (tax money) funds the liability (risks) of research while the Corporations make all the profits.   i bet you love that Socialism, don't ya??
 
2013-05-04 11:53:27 AM  

Mrtraveler01: Why should a politician who has no farking clue about Science be the one to determine what is "good" money and what is "bad" money?


Politicians don't have the slightest clue about macroeconomics, international finance, or contract law, yet we expect them to make policy about all of them.  The double-edged sword with public funding is that it comes with public scrutiny.  Yes, you forgo the profit motive and the immediate need for marketable outcomes, but you do raise the stakes in terms of bureaucracy and prying eyes.
 
2013-05-04 11:55:21 AM  

Shaggy_C: Mrtraveler01: How is having a meeting with a committee to come up with some vague metric going to make any difference?

One could ask the same about any hearing, really.  The vaguely-worded bill is a concern, of course; but I'm not opposed to having recipients of government grants defend their use of those grants before the legislature.  If you're making a living on the taxpayer's dime, the taxpayer's representatives have a duty to ensure you're using those funds appropriately.  I don't think anyone here would have a problem if this same this process were occurring with regards to other contracts with the government; maybe it's just because it is research that we are all up in arms, which, while reasonable because, after all, it is Texas, is starting us down the path of a bit of a 'slippery slope' argument is it not?


What part of PEERS don't you understand?
 
2013-05-04 11:56:43 AM  

Teufelaffe: If this bill were to require peer review of research topics and goals prior to funding, it might make sense as a way to make sure research money is being spent wisely.


Now there is a nice, easy compromise solution we can all agree to.  Brilliant.  Teufelaffe for Congress!
 
2013-05-04 11:57:18 AM  

Linux_Yes: Shaggy_C: More accountability with government funds should always be appreciated by the taxpayer.


and, of course, the public (tax money) funds the liability (risks) of research while the Corporations make all the profits.   i bet you love that Socialism, don't ya??


the Accountability-Accountability-Accountability Board met with the Accountability- Accountability Board who regulates the Accountability Board, who issued a statement on 'planning to plan', afterwhich all funds were disbursed to a midget eskimo albino lesbian chicana studying the possible uses of nanorobots on color spectrum spread sensor technology using nonlinear correction models. the research was proudly presented in this month's online issue of LBGT Minority Scientific Trends and open access fees have been covered by the Barbara Streisand Kenyan Tourism Board (BSKTB).
 
2013-05-04 12:00:58 PM  

Shaggy_C: Teufelaffe: If this bill were to require peer review of research topics and goals prior to funding, it might make sense as a way to make sure research money is being spent wisely.

Now there is a nice, easy compromise solution we can all agree to.  Brilliant.  Teufelaffe for Congress!


That's how it works now.  In order to get NSF funding, a proposal has to go through a funding committee made up of actual scientists.  If it ain't broke, don't fark with it.

http://www.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/merit_review/

Scroll down to the graphic.  Phase II, Step 5: Peer Review.
 
2013-05-04 12:02:51 PM  

Shaggy_C: Teufelaffe: If this bill were to require peer review of research topics and goals prior to funding, it might make sense as a way to make sure research money is being spent wisely.

Now there is a nice, easy compromise solution we can all agree to.  Brilliant.  Teufelaffe for Congress!


We already do this though. NSF peer reviews all of the grants they give before funding them. It's a multi-year application process with grant ranking and committee reviews of topics, with potential outcome assessments.
 
2013-05-04 12:03:11 PM  

Bondith: don't fark with it.

http://www.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/merit_review/

Scroll down to the graphic.  Phase II, Step 5: Peer Review.


haha you used the word 'merit' and the word 'NSF' in the same... hahaha. . h.ah.a.ha.hahahhahhahahh
 
2013-05-04 12:05:03 PM  

utah dude: Bondith: don't fark with it.

http://www.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/merit_review/

Scroll down to the graphic.  Phase II, Step 5: Peer Review.

haha you used the word 'merit' and the word 'NSF' in the same... hahaha. . h.ah.a.ha.hahahhahhahahh


If you've got nothing meaningful to contribute, the kids' table is over there.  Meanwhile, the grownups are trying to have a conversation.
 
2013-05-04 12:07:20 PM  
Sounds like Lamar Smith has taken an aromatic interest in Louie Gohmert's farts.
 
2013-05-04 12:07:45 PM  

Bondith: Shaggy_C: Teufelaffe: If this bill were to require peer review of research topics and goals prior to funding, it might make sense as a way to make sure research money is being spent wisely.

Now there is a nice, easy compromise solution we can all agree to.  Brilliant.  Teufelaffe for Congress!

That's how it works now.  In order to get NSF funding, a proposal has to go through a funding committee made up of actual scientists.  If it ain't broke, don't fark with it.

http://www.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/merit_review/

Scroll down to the graphic.  Phase II, Step 5: Peer Review.


I don't believe this bill alters that.  However they want to have political approval to publish the results which is pants-on-head retarded.
 
2013-05-04 12:09:14 PM  

Bondith: If you've got nothing meaningful to contribute, the kids' table is over there.  Meanwhile, the grownups are trying to have a conversation.


grownups. haha. man you just won't quit. haha,

get back to me after your defense, signatures, and about three years of postdoc'ing.
 
2013-05-04 12:10:22 PM  

Fart_Machine: Bondith: Shaggy_C: Teufelaffe: If this bill were to require peer review of research topics and goals prior to funding, it might make sense as a way to make sure research money is being spent wisely.

Now there is a nice, easy compromise solution we can all agree to.  Brilliant.  Teufelaffe for Congress!

That's how it works now.  In order to get NSF funding, a proposal has to go through a funding committee made up of actual scientists.  If it ain't broke, don't fark with it.

http://www.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/merit_review/

Scroll down to the graphic.  Phase II, Step 5: Peer Review.

I don't believe this bill alters that.  However they want to have political approval to publish the results which is pants-on-head retarded.


Not if you want to approve funding just for the projects that you agree with.

Which I imagine was the real intent behind this bill.
 
2013-05-04 12:11:30 PM  

Rann Xerox: Sounds like Lamar Smith has taken an aromatic interest in Louie Gohmert's farts.


"the aromats? nah brah, it was all over after i saw the UV absorption bands in those other conjugated pi systems. damn. that's some sexy resonance."
 
2013-05-04 12:15:01 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Not if you want to approve funding just for the projects that you agree with.


photogenic analysis and evolutionary history elucidation placing dinosaurs in same geological era as Jesus, calculated at under 6,000 years using multiple modern molecular clock methods, divergence estimation models.
 
2013-05-04 12:19:12 PM  
"GOP, the party of small government". Try saying this without laughing
 
2013-05-04 12:21:06 PM  
Some people in this thread believe money is thrown randomly and without hesitation at scientific projects. It is not.

The community does well in its self regulation since it actually uses facts to project its course.

When politicians start screwing with said self regulation is when the problems start. Want to lower funding across the board or raise it? By all means. But science should not be dictated by those who do not understand it.
 
2013-05-04 12:22:13 PM  

Teufelaffe: Shaggy_C: Mrtraveler01: Why should we leave it up to a bunch of politicians to determine whether a scientific study is valid or not?

Again, the same argument can be made about any research and development.  Do you feel the same way about the funding provided to the military-industrial complex for Pentagon weapon contracts? There is a fine line between stifling creativity and maintaining accountability but in the era of decreased government revenues and budget crunches it shouldn't be unfathomable that the former may occur to a certain extent to increase the latter.  We're essentially putting science funding on a pedestal and proclaiming loudly that it cannot in any circumstance be questioned by people who don't know anything about science.  I think we would both agree that there is some research that is far more likely to yield results than others, so why send good money after bad?

FTFY

If this bill were to require peer review of research topics and goals prior to funding, it might make sense as a way to make sure research money is being spent wisely.  But they're saying that people who have, at best, High School level science educations should be the ones deciding the validity and value of potential research?  That's just farking stupid.


Actually, the bill says that the Director of the NSF is to make that decision.  But then you trusted someone who writes for Addicting Info (and may or may not have a college education) to interpret and decide the validity and value of a congressional bill.  Most people rely on someone with a legal degree or a background in reading legislation (more than just a High School level legal education) to do that.  I smell a slight whiff of irony in that.
 
2013-05-04 12:22:52 PM  

corronchilejano: Some people in this thread believe money is thrown randomly and without hesitation at scientific projects. It is not.

The community does well in its self regulation since it actually uses facts to project its course.

When politicians start screwing with said self regulation is when the problems start. Want to lower funding across the board or raise it? By all means. But science should not be dictated by those who do not understand it.


Mrtraveler already nailed this.
 
2013-05-04 12:27:41 PM  

starsrift: LordJiro: It's funny how much Republicans mirror Communists. They have their own huge propaganda network in Fox News and co., Presidents and presidential candidates who make the Party look bad are basically ignored, other Presidents are elevated to near-legendary status, they attempt to force their political system onto other nations because it's CLEARLY the best....

Like I said, funny.

You're confusing communism with dictatorship.


To be fair, so did the Communists
 
2013-05-04 12:32:13 PM  

utah dude: corronchilejano: Some people in this thread believe money is thrown randomly and without hesitation at scientific projects. It is not.

The community does well in its self regulation since it actually uses facts to project its course.

When politicians start screwing with said self regulation is when the problems start. Want to lower funding across the board or raise it? By all means. But science should not be dictated by those who do not understand it.

Mrtraveler already nailed this.


Some things bear repeating.
 
2013-05-04 12:32:38 PM  

utah dude: corronchilejano: Some people in this thread believe money is thrown randomly and without hesitation at scientific projects. It is not.

The community does well in its self regulation since it actually uses facts to project its course.

When politicians start screwing with said self regulation is when the problems start. Want to lower funding across the board or raise it? By all means. But science should not be dictated by those who do not understand it.

Mrtraveler already nailed this.


Exactly which side are you on, here?  You seem to be swinging between derper-troll and cynical science advocate.  Are you forgetting to change logins or something?

Your run of the mill troll shouldn't be able to come up with this:

"the aromats? nah brah, it was all over after i saw the UV absorption bands in those other conjugated pi systems. damn. that's some sexy resonance."

just from the word "aromatic".

/you're throwing off my calibration
//so confused
 
2013-05-04 12:32:55 PM  

jjorsett: Is this some kind of surprise? When government pays for something, it will feel entitled to tell you what to do with the money. If you want to study the mating habits of left-handed red-headed Hooters girls unencumbered, get your money from private sources.


Who will tell you what to do with the money.  (Just try funding global warming research with a grant from ExxonMobil.)

Problem solved.

Hardly.
 
2013-05-04 12:33:09 PM  
Goddamed be internet memes...
 
2013-05-04 12:34:19 PM  

LectertheChef: bighairyguy: He's qualified to do this because he once took a course in POLITICAL science.

I never understood that. It's a liberal arts degree, yet it has science in the name. There's nothing wrong with liberal arts degrees, or science degrees, it's just stupid to call one the other.


"I got a BA in Political Arts" lacks gravitas.
 
2013-05-04 12:35:37 PM  

corronchilejano: Some things bear repeating.


better amplify it, then. you're going to see attenuation and signal/noise ratio issues going up against commies, socialists, scientists that believe in the system, and fundie christians, bro.
 
2013-05-04 12:41:16 PM  

Bondith: utah dude: corronchilejano: Some people in this thread believe money is thrown randomly and without hesitation at scientific projects. It is not.

The community does well in its self regulation since it actually uses facts to project its course.

When politicians start screwing with said self regulation is when the problems start. Want to lower funding across the board or raise it? By all means. But science should not be dictated by those who do not understand it.

Mrtraveler already nailed this.

Exactly which side are you on, here?  You seem to be swinging between derper-troll and cynical science advocate.  Are you forgetting to change logins or something?

Your run of the mill troll shouldn't be able to come up with this:

"the aromats? nah brah, it was all over after i saw the UV absorption bands in those other conjugated pi systems. damn. that's some sexy resonance."

just from the word "aromatic".

/you're throwing off my calibration
//so confused


i'm a scientist, dawg. but i'm living in the US - - so unless u can score me a postdoc in canada or singapore or something i'm going full-derp- until endtimes.
 
2013-05-04 12:43:18 PM  

phaseolus: 111 comments and no one's mentioned Lysenkoism yet?


Came to say this.  Nailed it.
 
2013-05-04 12:43:34 PM  
Quit stealing my current policies you big bunch of meanies whom are my Masters.
i.imgur.com
 
2013-05-04 12:43:47 PM  

corronchilejano: Some people in this thread believe money is thrown randomly and without hesitation at scientific projects. It is not.

The community does well in its self regulation since it actually uses facts to project its course.

When politicians start screwing with said self regulation is when the problems start. Want to lower funding across the board or raise it? By all means. But science should not be dictated by those who do not understand it.


It's already bad enough that funding priorities change from administration to administration or Congress to Congress.  You invest years in setting up a lab, training your people, getting decent results and publishing them only to discover that the new regime doesn't think your field is interesting anymore.  If you're high profile enough you can keep going as an established leader in your field, but most of the mid-level people now have to refocus on the new topic du jour until the next regime changes the priorities again.  Republican zampolits would only make the process worse.
 
2013-05-04 12:45:11 PM  
You are all accused of heresy against doctrine.
s23.postimg.org
 
2013-05-04 12:45:47 PM  

utah dude: i'm a scientist, dawg. but i'm living in the US - - so unless u can score me a postdoc in canada or singapore or something i'm going full-derp- until endtimes.


In that case, I retract my kids' table comment.

What's your field?  Canada's heading down the same road as the States, so I can't promise much except a lack of competition from me - my path leads to teaching, not post-dockery.
 
2013-05-04 12:50:44 PM  
B

ondith: Shaggy_C: Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: Ah, so you definitely don't understand science funding. You could have just said that from the beginning, you know.

You're right; I forgot that most scientists live as paupers.  The money they receive from grants is used in their experiments, normally as fuel for the Bunsen burners, though sometimes they also place stacks of hundred dollar bills in different liquids like sulfuric acid or liquid nitrogen.

If there's a point you're trying to make here, it's getting lost in the sarcasm.


That's a feature, not a bug. Some posters like to use heavy sarcasm so that when the point they are obviously making is shown to be pure unadulterated hoersecrap, they can say "I never said that" or "I was just asking questions" .They're not interested in discussion, they just want to score some points for their team

Most of them don't have the balls to make their assertions in a clear, straightforward way.
 
2013-05-04 12:50:56 PM  

m3000: But all my letter writing and calling won't make a difference, since thanks to gerrymandering, the rest of his district will vote for him as long as he doesn't insult the Jesus. Our system is so farked up.


while i agree in principle and sympathize i still email regularly. if nothing else i can say i did something even knowing it's far too little.
 
2013-05-04 12:54:07 PM  

Bondith: not post-dockery.


I've never seen that spelling before. damn, that's good.

Bondith: What's your field?


currently chemistry and herbal supplements. but doctorate was more bioinformatics, plant genetics, genomics, biostats.
 
2013-05-04 12:54:36 PM  
Vague bill is very vague. I read it... It seems to want the director to post that this is approved by the director before funding... and then a year later report to the senate.
 
2013-05-04 12:59:55 PM  

utah dude: Bondith: not post-dockery.

I've never seen that spelling before. damn, that's good.


*bows*  Can't do research worth shiat, but I have a way with words.

Bondith: What's your field?

currently chemistry and herbal supplements. but doctorate was more bioinformatics, plant genetics, genomics, biostats.


Go chemistry.  We're an organometallic catalysis group (I see plants as merely a source of biofuels), and the natural products prof at this school is going back to emeritus status (dude just won't retire).  I think there are groups over in the Bio department that do stuff similar to your PhD work - I know I presented a chem magic show once with a guy who was doing something involving biostats.

http://www.biology.uottawa.ca/bio/professors.html
 
2013-05-04 01:01:35 PM  

Ctrl-Alt-Del: Most of them don't have the balls to make their assertions in a clear, straightforward way.


your call, let me answer it:

- our country is currently run by rich republican business owners
- liberals in science and science-politics are handing all monies to minorities to try and re balance the system.
- republicans and/or christians think they should influence these funding decisions out a of position of moral self-righteousness
- the advent of communication and the internet is fostering  pro-science, pro-liberalism, pro-atheism movements which has republicans and/or christians pushing back even harder
- a divisiveness is growing in our country because of urban liberal hip culture is at war with traditional agrarian  republicans and/or christians people
- fark-all is getting accomplished in the meantime in terms of advancing governmental structure and/or scientific advancement because of all the aforementioned conflicts
 
2013-05-04 01:04:37 PM  

Bondith: Go chemistry.  We're an organometallic catalysis group (I see plants as merely a source of biofuels), and the
 ...
was doing something involving biostats.


i've never met a canadian or canadian scientist that i haven't loved. you don't have to extol the merits of your country. everybody knows it's cool, it's just hard to change countries and getting used to cold weather would be difficult.
 
2013-05-04 01:09:08 PM  

utah dude: Ctrl-Alt-Del: Most of them don't have the balls to make their assertions in a clear, straightforward way.

your call, let me answer it:

- our country is currently run by rich republican business owners
- liberals in science and science-politics are handing all monies to minorities to try and re balance the system.
- republicans and/or christians think they should influence these funding decisions out a of position of moral self-righteousness
- the advent of communication and the internet is fostering  pro-science, pro-liberalism, pro-atheism movements which has republicans and/or christians pushing back even harder
- a divisiveness is growing in our country because of urban liberal hip culture is at war with traditional agrarian  republicans and/or christians people
- fark-all is getting accomplished in the meantime in terms of advancing governmental structure and/or scientific advancement because of all the aforementioned conflicts


Heh. That wasn't directed at you, dude. But thanks for being the first to jump in the pool. I throw the sarcasm around sometimes too, but my comment was directed at those who do it fairly regularly as a substitute for discussion rather than a tool within a discussion to make a point
 
2013-05-04 01:10:44 PM  

utah dude: Bondith: Go chemistry.  We're an organometallic catalysis group (I see plants as merely a source of biofuels), and the
 ...
was doing something involving biostats.

i've never met a canadian or canadian scientist that i haven't loved. you don't have to extol the merits of your country. everybody knows it's cool, it's just hard to change countries and getting used to cold weather would be difficult.


*beams*  This thread got warm and fuzzy in a hurry.

Canadian government scientists aren't allowed to report findings now without getting approval from their overseers.  I feel your pain.

/PS, Vancouver's not that cold, and there are a lot of "herbal supplements" there.
 
2013-05-04 01:12:05 PM  

Ctrl-Alt-Del: Heh. That wasn't directed at you, dude. But thanks for being the first to jump in the pool. I throw the sarcasm around sometimes too, but my comment was directed at those who do it fairly regularly as a substitute for discussion rather than a tool within a discussion to make a point


well, it's a hell of a lot safer to be silent or hide behind sarcasm then be arrested, jailed, fired, pariah'd, etc. these days.
 
2013-05-04 01:13:29 PM  

Bondith: /PS, Vancouver's not that cold, and there are a lot of "herbal supplements" there.


PCR-marker based Cannabisbreeding. joy.
 
2013-05-04 01:16:04 PM  

utah dude: Bondith: /PS, Vancouver's not that cold, and there are a lot of "herbal supplements" there.

PCR-marker based Cannabisbreeding. joy.


I understand the part about changing countries being hard.  There comes a time when you just want some stability and not have to move every few months or years.  I've been in grad school for the better part of a decade now, with a gap in the middle.  Longest I've stayed in one residence is three years.  I am truly sick and tired of packing up all my possessions.

A steady paycheque would be nice, too, but let's not get ahead of ourselves.
 
2013-05-04 01:26:28 PM  

Mrtraveler01: dickfreckle: Benevolent Misanthrope: Too late.  I dont think anyone sees America as having scientific or political integrity any more.

This pisses me off. We were once a nation that held a dead man's promise to go the moon by the decade's end.

And we did it. Math and science were sexy. Great minds were given carte blanche to do what they do. It was an era when "American exceptionalism" actually existed beyond our proclivity for producing a war machine. You didn't fark with America in, I dunno, 1969.

These days we are a joke, and seem to take pride in it.

Amen:


WTF? Vegan creationists?

Not a single redeeming quality.
 
2013-05-04 01:41:12 PM  

utah dude: Ctrl-Alt-Del: Most of them don't have the balls to make their assertions in a clear, straightforward way.

your call, let me answer it:

- our country is currently run by rich republican business owners
- liberals in science and science-politics are handing all monies to minorities to try and re balance the system.
- republicans and/or christians think they should influence these funding decisions out a of position of moral self-righteousness
- the advent of communication and the internet is fostering  pro-science, pro-liberalism, pro-atheism movements which has republicans and/or christians pushing back even harder
- a divisiveness is growing in our country because of urban liberal hip culture is at war with traditional agrarian  republicans and/or christians people
- fark-all is getting accomplished in the meantime in terms of advancing governmental structure and/or scientific advancement because of all the aforementioned conflicts


Oh, it's much more basic than that.  The GOP is an authoritarian party and the authoritarians always go after the intellectuals first.
 
2013-05-04 01:47:24 PM  

Mentat: Oh, it's much more basic than that.  The GOP is an authoritarian party and the authoritarians always go after the intellectuals first.


which is gay, because i'm an intellectual and a GOP member.
 
2013-05-04 02:16:02 PM  

utah dude: liberals in science and science-politics are handing all monies to minorities to try and re balance the system.


wat
 
2013-05-04 02:16:38 PM  

utah dude: Mentat: Oh, it's much more basic than that.  The GOP is an authoritarian party and the authoritarians always go after the intellectuals first.

which is gay, because i'm an intellectual and a GOP member.


Call me crazy, but an intellectual would be above calling something "gay" which is non-sexual in nature.
 
2013-05-04 02:20:30 PM  

utah dude: Mentat: Oh, it's much more basic than that.  The GOP is an authoritarian party and the authoritarians always go after the intellectuals first.

which is gay, because i'm an intellectual and a GOP member.


...why?  Why be part of a party that is so dedicated to working against your interests?

Do the rest of them know?  I'd imagine they'd chase you out if they knew you were some sort of pointy-headed academic.
 
2013-05-04 02:25:48 PM  
So long as the political officer's identity is a secret and he is killed in the first half of the movie, I'm fine with that.

blog.blinkbox.com
//Never wanted to visit Montana
 
2013-05-04 02:33:12 PM  

AverageAmericanGuy: The government shouldn't be in the business of funding research anyway.


For your sake I hope you're trolling.  That's possibly the dumbest thing I've ever read.
 
2013-05-04 02:36:14 PM  

Epoch_Zero: Spot the Difference:
[www.50states.com image 384x256]
[www.theflagshop.co.uk image 533x333]


Iran is more highly educated.
 
2013-05-04 02:41:42 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Amen:

[www.addictinginfo.org image 525x700]


Tell me that's not real.  TELL ME IT'S NOT REAL!!!!!
 
2013-05-04 02:43:54 PM  

Don't Troll Me Bro!: For your sake I hope you're trolling. That's possibly the dumbest thing I've ever read.


Lewis and Clarke's expedition was labeled as a science mission in the course of it being funded.
 
2013-05-04 02:48:31 PM  
 
2013-05-04 02:58:54 PM  

Don't Troll Me Bro!: AverageAmericanGuy: The government shouldn't be in the business of funding research anyway.

For your sake I hope you're trolling.  That's possibly the dumbest thing I've ever read.


Think about how smart the average american guy is.
 
2013-05-04 03:19:58 PM  

make me some tea: Benevolent Misanthrope: Congressman Lamar Smith is a leading example as to the disconnect within the Republican Party and reality. His "improvement" would compromise scientific research, and dismantle what little America has left for integrity.

Too late.  I dont think anyone sees America as having scientific or political integrity any more.

Pretty much. We've ceded that to the Asians and the Europeans.


So much for the American hegemony.
 
2013-05-04 03:32:27 PM  

fusillade762: Here guys, I'll save you the trouble (though the draft is only 2 pages long):

[i39.tinypic.com image 471x552]

"Finest quality", "Ground breaking", "Utmost importance"? How does anyone get away with trying to pass a law with such vague-ass language?


The worst thing that gets me is that with such powerful language any moron can take research like the penguin spray shiat research and say "Why are we looking at how far a penguin can squirt it's shiat?" Not that such research would be particularly useful to people who design very small, very powerful spary or mixer nozzles. Adding this layer of "accountability" by more bureacrats only further stifles research. The process for grants is already hard enough, what with having to rigorously justify research and all, but also because of the limited funding we already get.

Rant:
At work, we have an apparatus designed by some USGS guy so he could split off jars of water equally so that each sp-lit jar will have equal concentrations of sand, water, pesticides, etc. Well, the design sorta works, and can be greatly improved. I can't build a new one because of how stretched our schedules are, which greatly diminishes the quality of our laboratory results, especially since it is a low tech problem that directly affects high tech post-processing (chemical assays, spectrometers, etc) by other scientists. If the splitter worked correctly, we'd have much more confidence in our results because we take out many more variables.

Our work is already hobbled enough as it is because of management issues related to lack of funding. We are stretched so thin we make lots of costly mistakes, can't calmly think through our designs, and have to scrounge around for scrap metal and instruments, so lots of money is also wasted that way. It's easier, faster, and cheaper to take your time and do it right the first time. I see this every day. If you have a bug up your ass about cutting funding, you should give us more grant money and time on the front end so we don't have to go back later and spend more salary money cleaning up.
 
2013-05-04 03:34:15 PM  

Alphax: whidbey: It is the single most stupid thing we've been forced to comment on..

LOLWUT?


No kidding. So drunk I don't even remember making the comment. Not sure why I was anti-Navy, either.

A fresh perspective however shows that this proposed shiat is scary and does need to be commented on.
Don't want a bunch of flat-earthers "approving" science.
 
2013-05-04 03:38:44 PM  

Zeppelininthesky: Why is this farkstick in charge of anything


ftfy
 
2013-05-04 03:43:57 PM  

utah dude: Mentat: Oh, it's much more basic than that.  The GOP is an authoritarian party and the authoritarians always go after the intellectuals first.

which is gay, because i'm an intellectual and a GOP member.


Apparently not intellectual enough to avoid using  "gay" to mean "bad" or "stupid". Amazing that someone with so much education is still using fifth grade slurs
 
2013-05-04 04:05:56 PM  

Ctrl-Alt-Del: utah dude: Mentat: Oh, it's much more basic than that.  The GOP is an authoritarian party and the authoritarians always go after the intellectuals first.

which is gay, because i'm an intellectual and a GOP member.

Apparently not intellectual enough to avoid using  "gay" to mean "bad" or "stupid". Amazing that someone with so much education is still using fifth grade slurs


hey i was using 'gay' before it was outted for furthering negative stereotypes. give me the right to squat on my fifth grade vocabulary. also, i want the rainbow back. and purple, too.
 
2013-05-04 04:11:46 PM  

utah dude: Ctrl-Alt-Del: utah dude: Mentat: Oh, it's much more basic than that.  The GOP is an authoritarian party and the authoritarians always go after the intellectuals first.

which is gay, because i'm an intellectual and a GOP member.

Apparently not intellectual enough to avoid using  "gay" to mean "bad" or "stupid". Amazing that someone with so much education is still using fifth grade slurs

hey i was using 'gay' before it was outted for furthering negative stereotypes. give me the right to squat on my fifth grade vocabulary. also, i want the rainbow back. and purple, too.


You sound repressed.

/NTTAWWT.
 
2013-05-04 04:59:37 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: You sound repressed.

/NTTAWWT.


yah rite i wish i was gay but i'm not attracted to guys so i should probably be straight instead.
 
2013-05-04 05:20:56 PM  

utah dude: Ctrl-Alt-Del: utah dude: Mentat: Oh, it's much more basic than that.  The GOP is an authoritarian party and the authoritarians always go after the intellectuals first.

which is gay, because i'm an intellectual and a GOP member.

Apparently not intellectual enough to avoid using  "gay" to mean "bad" or "stupid". Amazing that someone with so much education is still using fifth grade slurs

hey i was using 'gay' before it was outted for furthering negative stereotypes. give me the right to squat on my fifth grade vocabulary. also, i want the rainbow back. and purple, too.


And watching you try to justify that usage as OK when called out on it fits in perfectly with the "I'm a GOP member" as well
 
2013-05-04 05:50:54 PM  

Ctrl-Alt-Del: utah dude: Ctrl-Alt-Del: utah dude: Mentat: Oh, it's much more basic than that.  The GOP is an authoritarian party and the authoritarians always go after the intellectuals first.

which is gay, because i'm an intellectual and a GOP member.

Apparently not intellectual enough to avoid using  "gay" to mean "bad" or "stupid". Amazing that someone with so much education is still using fifth grade slurs

hey i was using 'gay' before it was outted for furthering negative stereotypes. give me the right to squat on my fifth grade vocabulary. also, i want the rainbow back. and purple, too.

And watching you try to justify that usage as OK when called out on it fits in perfectly with the "I'm a GOP member" as well


Also note earlier (nonsensical) assertions about minorities and use of BSABSVR.  Brian?  Is that you?
 
2013-05-04 05:52:24 PM  

utah dude: cameroncrazy1984: You sound repressed.

/NTTAWWT.

yah rite i wish i was gay but i'm not attracted to guys so i should probably be straight instead.


Your grammar and syntax also suggests that you are not a member of the intellectual class that you so wish you were.
 
2013-05-04 05:58:51 PM  
Also, 'gay' as a slur against homosexuals is the only negative meaning that word ever had.  So unless your sentence was supposed to mean, "it is a happy and cheerful thing that the GOP hates me even though I am a party member," you're a liar/really special kind of buffoon.
 
2013-05-04 06:10:18 PM  

TheBigJerk: Also, 'gay' as a slur against homosexuals is the only negative meaning that word ever had.  So unless your sentence was supposed to mean, "it is a happy and cheerful thing that the GOP hates me even though I am a party member," you're a liar/really special kind of buffoon.


except when it meant 'happy', but re-writing history. u libs is good at dat.
 
2013-05-04 06:11:14 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: so wish you were.


or so wish i WASN'T. haha. ur teh awesome. go team.
 
2013-05-04 06:50:05 PM  

utah dude: TheBigJerk: Also, 'gay' as a slur against homosexuals is the only negative meaning that word ever had.  So unless your sentence was supposed to mean, "it is a happy and cheerful thing that the GOP hates me even though I am a party member," you're a liar/really special kind of buffoon.

except when it meant 'happy', but re-writing history. u libs is good at dat.


Reading, it's fundamental.
 
2013-05-04 07:00:18 PM  

utah dude: TheBigJerk: Also, 'gay' as a slur against homosexuals is the only negative meaning that word ever had.  So unless your sentence was supposed to mean, "it is a happy and cheerful thing that the GOP hates me even though I am a party member," you're a liar/really special kind of buffoon.

except when it meant 'happy', but re-writing history. u libs is good at dat.


Yeah - I especially like "Bush kept us safe for 8 years" - that was some great re-writing.
 
2013-05-04 07:22:23 PM  

Bondith: Your run of the mill troll shouldn't be able to come up with this:

"the aromats? nah brah, it was all over after i saw the UV absorption bands in those other conjugated pi systems. damn. that's some sexy resonance."


He's never been serious about trolling. I have him Farkied as "troll troll troll your boat".
 
2013-05-04 08:27:52 PM  

utah dude: Mentat: Oh, it's much more basic than that.  The GOP is an authoritarian party and the authoritarians always go after the intellectuals first.

which is gay, because i'm an intellectual and a GOP member.


Based on your posts in this thread, I'm going to have to challenge you on the intellectual label.
 
2013-05-04 08:42:28 PM  

Mentat: utah dude: Mentat: Oh, it's much more basic than that.  The GOP is an authoritarian party and the authoritarians always go after the intellectuals first.

which is gay, because i'm an intellectual and a GOP member.

Based on your posts in this thread, I'm going to have to challenge you on the intellectual label.


Frankly, it wouldn't surprise me if he were a real scientist. But his trolling is neither interesting nor funny, so Ignore it is
 
2013-05-04 10:51:28 PM  

ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha: utah dude: TheBigJerk: Also, 'gay' as a slur against homosexuals is the only negative meaning that word ever had.  So unless your sentence was supposed to mean, "it is a happy and cheerful thing that the GOP hates me even though I am a party member," you're a liar/really special kind of buffoon.

except when it meant 'happy', but re-writing history. u libs is good at dat.

Reading, it's fundamental.


Seriously.
 
2013-05-05 12:27:03 AM  

Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: Shaggy_C: Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: Ah, so you definitely don't understand science funding. You could have just said that from the beginning, you know.

You're right; I forgot that most scientists live as paupers.  The money they receive from grants is used in their experiments, normally as fuel for the Bunsen burners, though sometimes they also place stacks of hundred dollar bills in different liquids like sulfuric acid or liquid nitrogen.

No, you forgot that most scientists don't get their salaries from government grants, which is what this bill pertains to.  But we already know that reality never stops you from derping your derp here on Fark, so I guess your igorance shouldn't surprise me.


Actually, at universities they do.  A professor in the sciences on the tenure track who does not pull down enough grant money to support himself and a raft of grad students and postdocs becomes an ex-scientist rather quickly.
 
2013-05-05 12:46:23 AM  
50%+ of every grant goes directly to the University to cover overhead.  A huge chuck of the rest goes to paying salaries, benefits and tuition.  The professor usually only gets a fraction of his salary from an individual grant, if any.  Then you have to account for travel and publication costs which run into the thousands.  Whatever is left goes to actual science, which usually isn't very much.
 
2013-05-05 04:00:42 AM  

Mentat: 50%+ of every grant goes directly to the University to cover overhead.  A huge chuck of the rest goes to paying salaries, benefits and tuition.  The professor usually only gets a fraction of his salary from an individual grant, if any.  Then you have to account for travel and publication costs which run into the thousands.  Whatever is left goes to actual science, which usually isn't very much.


Things do cost things. Clean labs, equipment maintenance etc.

Or do you imagine science takes place by magic?
 
2013-05-05 06:43:53 AM  

Don't Troll Me Bro!: Mrtraveler01: Amen:

[www.addictinginfo.org image 525x700]

Tell me that's not real.  TELL ME IT'S NOT REAL!!!!!



It's real, unfortunately. The second page is worse Link
 
2013-05-05 08:13:56 AM  

OgreMagi: Constitutionally tricky.  While the 1st Amendment says no, accepting federal money opens the door to all kinds of government interference.  In the long run, I would hope the Supreme Court says, "oh hellz no!"


I would hope the other members of the House fail to pass this bill (which we know the GOP will force through).  At least the Senate would not even take this piece of legislation into consideration.
 
2013-05-05 10:28:31 AM  

fusillade762: Here guys, I'll save you the trouble (though the draft is only 2 pages long):

[i39.tinypic.com image 471x552]

"Finest quality", "Ground breaking", "Utmost importance"? How does anyone get away with trying to pass a law with such vague-ass language?


That's US legislation for you; or at least, US legislation that isn't being written and proposed by some corporate backer.

Skullcrusher is, for once, actually a bit(but just a bit) right on this one. The bill only requires the Director to post a public statement that each funded research project is all that crap under section a on their website. If made into law, this would certainly lead to an increase in "paperwork" at the NSF (they'd need someone to write out all that pablum for each project), but it wouldn't really stop any funding since all it requires is that the Director say those things about each project.

What's actually wrong about this is two-fold. First, research doesn't work that way. Science isn't like a Masters of Orion tech tree; you don't just say, "I'm going to research 20% more efficient heart meds", assign six scientists, and out pop those heart meds 6 years later. Research is a lot more nebulous than that, and as such, you can't always say exactly what the marketable result of any specific research proposal is going to be before starting it, or if it will have directly marketable results. For instances, understanding redshift is hella useful, but nobody makes actual money off of it; if cosmological and physics research of the early 1900s had endured Mr. Smith's rule we'd be a hell of a lot stupier, and know a lot less about molecular physics right now. Secondly, while Skull's right that it doesn't explicitly establish a political review committee, it does potentially subject NSF-funded research to political review depending on who, exactly, gets to make those section b "Transfer of Funds" decisions. The bill is vague on that (and everything), but considering Congress is the branch of government which holds both the purse-strings, and Smith sits on the Science committee, and there's a long tradition of Congressional committees making those sorts of determinations, it's not much of a leap to suggest it'll be Congress and the Science committee specifically. Even if hearings weren't held, Congress could still aplly a political test legislatively though a follow-up bill defining section b procedure. For instance, another bill could be proposed and passed which would lay out how section b decisions are supposed to be made in detail, and that rubric -which the NSF would be forced to comply with- would be include the political test to proposed research in its body, thereby applying such a test without direct Congressional intervention on each instance.
 
Displayed 246 of 246 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report