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.

(White House)   Subby here, I want to make science appreciated again in the United States. So I call on my fellow farkers to help me make Nikola Tesla's birthday Science Appreciation Day   (petitions.whitehouse.gov) divider line 95
    More: Plug, Nikola Tesla, birthday Science, sciences, combustible  
•       •       •

831 clicks; posted to FarkUs » on 13 Jan 2014 at 10:05 AM (27 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-01-13 08:20:54 AM
If you really want science to be appreciated, pay more scientists.

Democrats have a bad habit of not funding science research.
 
2014-01-13 08:26:16 AM
What put that light bulb over your head?
 
2014-01-13 08:29:15 AM
I'll help you but only if you put it on Edison's birthday.
 
2014-01-13 08:32:10 AM
Start by feeding a Ken Ham sandwich to the lions.
 
2014-01-13 08:34:12 AM
Nope, July 10 has been booked as Bikini Appreciation Day ever since I was 12, along with July 1-9 and 11-31, plus August.

Make it January 17 - Ben Franklin's birthday.
 
2014-01-13 08:54:15 AM
I second the motion. All in favor?
 
2014-01-13 09:04:28 AM
I don't think so subby.  I mean, Tesla may have been a great scientist, but he was a failure at everything else.  I vote for Edison:  Not only was he a scientific master of the times, but he was a model capitalist and was canny enough to take advantage of opportunities when they arose.
 
2014-01-13 09:07:12 AM
 
2014-01-13 09:07:51 AM
Where did all these hats and rabbits come from?
 
2014-01-13 09:08:59 AM

Fubini: Democrats have a bad habit of not funding science research.


yes, because we all know how Republicans praise science at every turn for it's great advances of the human endeavor

/democrats may not fund it as much as they should, but at least they fund it sometimes
 
2014-01-13 09:15:11 AM
 
2014-01-13 09:15:49 AM
Pointless gimmicks are cute, but making the hillbillies "appreciate" science sounds like a lot of work. If we can't even teach those toothless banjo strumming retards how to form proper English sentences, what educational effort will be required if we expect them to understand basic biology?
Fortunately, we don't need to make them appreciate science in order to get their support for public science initiatives. Instead of celebrating some scientist's birthday, which the rubes will do by chewing on the corners of books and staring vacantly at whatever boring documentary gets approved by their half-witted school boards, instead of trying to teach science, we can make them fear science. We can celebrate "Destructorbot vs. Your God Day". We can pick some small Midwestern or Southern town at random, and unleash some hulking robot armed with flamethrowers and missiles, blaring "Where is your God now?" from giant speakers atop his head as he destroys every thing and creature within five miles.
It should only take a few years for the rubes to get in line, but we could continue doing that for as long as it is fun.
 
2014-01-13 09:16:13 AM

somedude210: Fubini: Democrats have a bad habit of not funding science research.

yes, because we all know how Republicans praise science at every turn for it's great advances of the human endeavor

/democrats may not fund it as much as they should, but at least they fund it sometimes


I hope the Democrats adopt that as their slogan:  We may not do what's right as much as we should, but at least we do sometimes.
 
2014-01-13 09:16:23 AM

Lucky LaRue: I vote for Edison:  Not only was he a scientific master of the times, but he was a model capitalist and was canny enough to take advantage of opportunities when they arose.


I wonder how evil he was.  In the 60s nearly every concrete company in the world was operated by groups that were heavily into illegal activities.  Edison paid for his labs from money from concrete and the monopoly he maintained over it.  Edison's labs were well known for taking lots of ideas from lots of people and then having Thomas get the credit.  William Armstrong did something similar in the UK but at least gave some underlings credit.
 
2014-01-13 09:16:36 AM

kimwim: I second the motion. All in favor?


Aye!
 
2014-01-13 09:17:51 AM

kimwim: Lucky LaRue: I vote for Edison:

Edison was a dick. http://www.historicmysteries.com/did-thomas-edison-steal-inventions/


Most people view the successful capitalist as "dickish", this is true.
 
2014-01-13 09:18:58 AM

Fubini: If you really want science to be appreciated, pay more scientists.

Democrats have a bad habit of not funding science research.


I give this troll 10/10 potatoes. You might actually get some bites off this. I didn't give you 11/10 because it was too obvious.
 
2014-01-13 09:21:25 AM

DON.MAC: Edison's labs were well known for taking lots of ideas from lots of people and then having Thomas get the credit.


That's really not any different than what happens in every lab (corporate or educational) in the world.

People can hate on Edison all they want, but the fact is he was a marked success while Tesla faded away into obscurity.  Revisionist history has put a dent in Edison's reputation and has breathed some life in to Tesla's legacy, but the world will never celebrate Tesla's genius the way they celebrate Edison.
 
2014-01-13 09:24:09 AM

Lucky LaRue: We may not do what's right as much as we should, but at least we do sometimes.


still a better slogan than the GOP's slogan: Fark you, I've already got mine. Go die in the gutter, trash
 
2014-01-13 09:28:51 AM

Lucky LaRue: successful capitalist


Did you read the article?
 
2014-01-13 09:31:32 AM
I just have one question.

Do we get really biatchin' lightning death rays if we say yes?
 
2014-01-13 09:34:24 AM

somedude210: Fubini: Democrats have a bad habit of not funding science research.

yes, because we all know how Republicans praise science at every turn for it's great advances of the human endeavor

/democrats may not fund it as much as they should, but at least they fund it sometimes


Republicans and Independents are statistically more likely to view science as positive for society and less likely to see a conflict between science and religion.

I know that's counter-intuitive if you only watch The Daily Show, but that's what actual polling bears out.
 
2014-01-13 09:39:56 AM

Fubini: Republicans and Independents are statistically more likely to view science as positive for society and less likely to see a conflict between science and religion.

I know that's counter-intuitive if you only watch The Daily Show, but that's what actual polling bears out.


I need to see numbers on this. Please show me the polls. and it's not if you only watch the Daily Show. Watch the entire Bush presidency. Show me one time a Republican said "we can't do stem cell research because it serves no scientific purpose" and not "We can't do stem cell research because it kills unconceived babies and it's unchristian because abortion!!"
 
2014-01-13 09:46:59 AM

kimwim: Lucky LaRue: successful capitalist

Did you read the article?


Do you mean did I read the petition to make the birthday of a failure our nation's "Science Appreciation Day"?  Yes, I did.  That's why I suggested we use Edison's birthday - his genius has done more for this country than Tesla's legacy will ever be capable of.
 
2014-01-13 09:48:05 AM
Do you really want science to be appreciated again?  Or do you just want to talk about it on the internet?
 
2014-01-13 09:53:12 AM

somedude210: I need to see numbers on this. Please show me the polls. and it's not if you only watch the Daily Show. Watch the entire Bush presidency. Show me one time a Republican said "we can't do stem cell research because it serves no scientific purpose" and not "We can't do stem cell research because it kills unconceived babies and it's unchristian because abortion!!"


So, what, you're incapable of using Google?

The thing to bear in mind is that for every fundamentalist Christian Republican who denies evolution or climate change, there's a liberal hippy Democrat who wants to get rid of genetically modified foods/organisms and nuclear power.

The left likes to think that they have a monopoly on support for science. The reality is that each side picks and chooses the things they do and don't like. Science funding as a percentage of GPD has been historically higher under Republicans, since (I believe) Eisenhower.

That's all science funding, meaning the NIH, NSF, DOD, DARPA, NASA, DOE, USDA, CDC, etc.
 
2014-01-13 10:00:06 AM

Fubini: So, what, you're incapable of using Google?


no no, you made the claim, you produce the numbers to support the argument.

Fubini: The thing to bear in mind is that for every fundamentalist Christian Republican who denies evolution or climate change, there's a liberal hippy Democrat who wants to get rid of genetically modified foods/organisms and nuclear power.


Those Christian Republicans are more in power than those liberal Democrats. Also, issues like GMOs and nuclear power are environmental issues than science issues, and nuclear power is more in favor of pragmatic liberals than the likes of coal for mass power generation. Especially since science has found better ways to recycle the waste instead of polluting the environment with it.

I will agree that both parties support different agencies, but in the last 20 years, the GOP has all but given up funding science regarding anything but that which affects the DOD/DARPA
 
2014-01-13 10:16:24 AM

somedude210: Fubini: Democrats have a bad habit of not funding science research.

yes, because we all know how Republicans praise science at every turn for it's great advances of the human endeavor

/democrats may not fund it as much as they should, but at least they fund it sometimes believe it's true.


FTFY
 
2014-01-13 10:19:32 AM

somedude210: I will agree that both parties support different agencies, but in the last 20 years, the GOP has all but given up funding science regarding anything but that which affects the DOD/DARPA


Yeah, just like how NIH funding was at it's highest under George W. Bush (aside from a one-time stimulus by President Obama provided for in the American Recovery & Reinvestment Act).

somedude210: no no, you made the claim, you produce the numbers to support the argument.


No no no, see, you're a random person on the internet. It's not my job to convince you of anything. If you want to go ahead and keep your head in the sand, that's just fine.

For what it's worth, Googling "NIH funding over time" or "NSF funding over time" would show you these numbers. NIH funding has been higher under Republicans, NSF funding has been slightly higher under Democrats, etc.

Put all of it together, and you get total science appropriations.
 
2014-01-13 10:19:41 AM

nekom: FTFY


thank you
 
2014-01-13 10:21:09 AM
I vote for Richard Feynman. Born of immigrant parents, encouraged his sister to study astrophysics, a great scientist, and an excellent communicator of science to laypeople.
 
2014-01-13 10:26:21 AM

Fubini: No no no, see, you're a random person on the internet. It's not my job to convince you of anything. If you want to go ahead and keep your head in the sand, that's just fine.


No no, see. if you make a claim such as "the polls tell us otherwise" you link the goddamn poll because that's your farking argument. You don't say "because the polls tell us so" and then tell the person you're debating "fark you, find your own polls, I can't be bothered"

Fubini: Yeah, just like how NIH funding was at it's highest under George W. Bush (aside from a one-time stimulus by President Obama provided for in the American Recovery & Reinvestment Act).


again, show me numbers. and the breakdown as to what it was funding. You can throw a bunch of money at the NIH and it looks good, until you find out most of it was to study the effect of prayer for healing purposes, whereas the democratic NIH funding is more towards new vaccines. This is why you provide the damn numbers when you make a claim.
 
2014-01-13 10:39:02 AM

Fubini: No no no, see, you're a random person on the internet. It's not my job to convince you of anything. If you want to go ahead and keep your head in the sand, that's just fine.


It's not your job to support your claim? What?

Geez, no wonder you're confused about who supports science more.
 
2014-01-13 10:50:26 AM

somedude210: again, show me numbers. and the breakdown as to what it was funding. You can throw a bunch of money at the NIH and it looks good, until you find out most of it was to study the effect of prayer for healing purposes, whereas the democratic NIH funding is more towards new vaccines. This is why you provide the damn numbers when you make a claim.


The thing is, when you make a counter claim, or when you think the real numbers disprove my point, you can go get them yourself.

This is the internet baby, getting the numbers is not the hard part of the equation here. Appropriations data is publicly available, and usually summarized for you on Wikipedia.

I admit that polling data can be harder to track down, but it seriously takes like five minutes, if you're all that interested.

Here's one such report:  http://www.people-press.org/2009/07/09/public-praises-science-scienti s ts-fault-public-media/

The section one (second page, top of page) shows that more Republicans think that science has a mostly positive effect on society. It also shows (second page, bottom of page) that Republicans are less likely to think that science and faith are in conflict. Note that Republicans are *more* likely to believe that their personal faith conflicts with science, but I would assume this is because Republicans are more likely to be Christian. I.e. I assume that both Democratic Christians and Republican Christians object to science at the same rate, but there are simply more Republicans who are Christian (proportionally) than Democrats. That's how I resolve the tension, though you're fine resolving it some other way.

It's also important to note that the public funding picture might very well change in the future, as the Republican attitude towards governmental science funding has shifted dramatically since the start of the new century. Section 3 (page 4, bottom of page) shows that Republicans and Democrats supported government funded science at equal rates in 2001, but in 2009 a whopping 67% of Republicans were not in favor of raising science funding. The 2009 data shows a large divide between Republicans and Democrats, due to Democrats increasing their support of government funding and Republicans decreasing their support of government funding.

Note that elsewhere in that report it shows that Republicans are much more likely to believe that private funding for R&D is sufficient, so a lack of support for government funding can't necessarily be construed as an anti-science attitude.

We'll have to wait until the next Republican administration to really see whether or not the swing in perception translates to a decrease in actual science funding.
 
2014-01-13 10:52:37 AM
July 10 is my birthday so I'm getting a kick....
 
2014-01-13 10:55:58 AM

Lucky LaRue: kimwim: Lucky LaRue: successful capitalist

Did you read the article?

Do you mean did I read the petition to make the birthday of a failure our nation's "Science Appreciation Day"?  Yes, I did.  That's why I suggested we use Edison's birthday - his genius has done more for this country than Tesla's legacy will ever be capable of.


FTFA/  "The most sinister story about Edison involves the invention of motion pictures. He is popularly regarded as the father of motion pictures, but a very strong argument could be made that Louis Le Prince, a French inventor, invented working motion pictures before Edison. Whoever got the patents for motion picture technology would become very wealthy indeed. In 1890, Le Prince was taking a trip to patent his invention in England and then would sail to America to exhibit and patent it. He got on a train on September 13, 1890, and was never seen again. His luggage vanished as well. The family continued with the patent quest. Unfortunately, in 1892, while Le Prince's son was testifying in a patent trial against Edison, the son was mysteriously shot to death by an unknown assailant. This murder was never solved."

//Edison was a dick
 
2014-01-13 11:00:50 AM

Lucky LaRue: We may not do what's right as much as we should, but at least we do sometimes.


That's... exactly what they do?  I mean, 100% the definition of the party, and why I end up voting for them a lot of times.

//Winner take all systems bite.
 
2014-01-13 11:03:07 AM

somedude210: Fubini: Democrats have a bad habit of not funding science research.

yes, because we all know how Republicans praise science at every turn for it's great advances of the human endeavor

/democrats may not fund it as much as they should, but at least they fund it sometimes


His statement is true. Democrats DO have a bad habit of not funding science research.
He just omitted to mention the Republicans.
As far as it went, the statement was accurate.
It's a cool way to lie without technically lying.
 
2014-01-13 11:15:43 AM
How about making it "Fun with High Voltage Day" instead ?

Start'm young.
 
2014-01-13 11:42:22 AM
If we are looking for someone of science that symolizes what American's consider to be successful, then Thomas Edison would be the best choice.  His statement of "Genius is 1 percent inspiration and 99 percent persiration" is statement to this.  That he was a thief of ideas, a swindler and outright con-man actually adds credence for his nomination.  Science in the world today is more about recognition, prestige, fame and money than the actual pursuit of scietific discovery.

Also, if there were such a holiday, then it should be worldwide and not restricted to the US.  Nikola Tesla was not born in the US (he was Serbian I believe - too lazy to google it) so he may not be the best poster child for a US Holiday anyway.

Making it a global holiday also fits the mindset that science is not political or religous or anything other divider we can place on it.  It simply IS.  We need to recognize inquisitive minds (so let's make the holiday June 25 - as it is exactly half a year from Christmas - just because)
 
2014-01-13 11:48:08 AM

kimwim: Lucky LaRue: I vote for Edison:

Edison was a dick. http://www.historicmysteries.com/did-thomas-edison-steal-inventions/


Required: 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJ1Mz7kGVf0
 
2014-01-13 11:48:56 AM
Tesla was not a scientist, he was an engineer.
 
2014-01-13 11:51:04 AM

talkertopc: Tesla was not a scientist, he was an engineer.


Engineering is just applied science
 
2014-01-13 11:53:29 AM

somedude210: Engineering is just applied science


img.fark.net
 
2014-01-13 12:00:29 PM

somedude210: Fubini: Republicans and Independents are statistically more likely to view science as positive for society and less likely to see a conflict between science and religion.

I know that's counter-intuitive if you only watch The Daily Show, but that's what actual polling bears out.

I need to see numbers on this. Please show me the polls. and it's not if you only watch the Daily Show. Watch the entire Bush presidency. Show me one time a Republican said "we can't do stem cell research because it serves no scientific purpose" and not "We can't do stem cell research because it kills unconceived babies and it's unchristian because abortion!!"


Bush wasn't as anti-science as we think.

And I HATE Bush, so don't make me defend him again goddammit.
 
2014-01-13 12:10:30 PM

YodaBlues: Bush wasn't as anti-science as we think.


Bush wasn't. That doesn't mean the Republicans in Congress (who held the pursestrings) did.

YodaBlues: And I HATE Bush, so don't make me defend him again goddammit.


sorry, have a beer on me
 
2014-01-13 12:11:32 PM

Fubini: somedude210: Engineering is just applied science

[img.fark.net image 500x369]


It's clearly a test of the hypothesis: "If I build a death ray, I will take over the world", but lacking in adequate controls for possible other variables, like orbital doom stations.
 
2014-01-13 12:14:30 PM

somedude210: YodaBlues: Bush wasn't as anti-science as we think.

Bush wasn't. That doesn't mean the Republicans in Congress (who held the pursestrings) did.


Publicly against, yes, but they still cut the checks.

i.imgur.com

/source
 
2014-01-13 12:21:36 PM

Pentaxian: I vote for Richard Feynman. Born of immigrant parents, encouraged his sister to study astrophysics, a great scientist, and an excellent communicator of science to laypeople.


Not a bad choice.  I would add that, if we are shooting for a particular era, James Clerk Maxwell would be a hell of a more appropriate than Tesla.  Certainly choosing an actual scientist would be preferable.
 
2014-01-13 12:25:21 PM
Why so S.A.D?

www.janetvanfleet.com
 
Displayed 50 of 95 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report