Comment

Comment by Loren Miller on May 16, 2012 at 4:52pm

For any of you who may have had difficulty finding "The Higgs Boson Explained" video on the NASA site, I just reposted it here.  Please enjoy!

Comment by Dallas the Phallus on May 16, 2012 at 4:23pm

Something prayer could never give us

Comment by TNT666 on May 15, 2012 at 1:29pm

Anarchist and tea-party allies?? ha ha ha that's funny Tom.

Comment by Tom Sarbeck on May 15, 2012 at 1:10pm

Those Italian anarchists and our Tea Parties are allies in ignorance and obedience to the one percent.

Comment by Ruth Anthony-Gardner on May 15, 2012 at 12:38pm

Thanks for the post about the Italian anarchists, Rational Bunny. Note that they blamed science and scientists for nuclear power disasters, not the corporations that chose profit over security. I think that nuclear power is far too risky compared to wind, geothermal (even with earthquakes), solar, or hydroelectric technologies. But I definitely don't count these anarchists as allies.

Comment by TNT666 on May 15, 2012 at 11:34am

Well the way one perceives this sort of event kind of depends whether you consider yourself part of the 1% of humanity protecting its power status, or the 99% fighting to earn a decent living. Nuclear energy is definitely against the 99%.

Comment by Secular Forces 2013 on May 15, 2012 at 7:43am

not good:
http://freeinternetpress.com/story/Italian-Anarchists-Kneecap-Nucle...

as if scientists did not have it lame enough
w/fundies and now crazies...

Comment by Tom Sarbeck on May 1, 2012 at 1:54pm

TNT666, if your book treats only of what you've posted here, its subject matter is severely limited. The ways we human beings get what we want are far more varied.

BTW, to hear what NASA says about the Higgs boson, visit Astronomy Picture of the Day sometime today (May 1). If you miss it today, scroll down the page and click on Archive.

Comment by TNT666 on April 30, 2012 at 9:04pm

Dear me! I'm not even considering physical violence. The point of rules of procedures is to keep a meeting orderly and to allow it to finish in a prescribed amount of time. We live in a society were time is at a massive premium, and endless meetings are a major deterrent to democracy. In my book, it doesn't really matter which set of rules, as long as the goal is accomplished.

Comment by Tom Sarbeck on April 30, 2012 at 2:30pm

TNT666, other than in this sentence I will ignore your use of the word "little".

You are overlooking the amount of trust a group's members have for each other.

In a low-trust group you are right. Such people are most likely to use physical violence and need the most complex rules. In the USofA I suggest the rules the US Congress uses. Were I in the UK I would suggest the rules the Parliament uses. Such people are most likely to break whatever rules they have. When they reach a standoff they might for a short time simplify their rules.

In a high-trust group you are wrong. A rule to discuss one subject until the group disposes of it might suffice. Should a subject stir controversy, they might need a rule that only one member may have the floor at one time. 

I have a much longer sermon, in which I mention the rules of the United Nations, or the works of America's Asher Hinds or England's Thomas May. I won't lay it on you.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 17
• 18
• 19
• 20
• 21
• …
• 67
• Next ›
• Page