Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
Biology
BiologyBotanyMicrobiologyEntomologyEvolutionPaleontology
Chemistry
General ChemistryAnalytical ChemistryElectrochemistryOrganic Synthesis
Earth Science
GeologyMineralogyOceanographyMeteorologyEarthquakes
Physics
General PhysicsResearchRelativityParticle PhysicsElectromagnetismFusionOpticsAcousticsNew Theories

Natural Science Forum / Physics / General Physics / February 2008



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

WHAT’S NEW   Robert L. Park    Friday, 29 Feb 08,   Washington,  DC

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Sam Wormley - 29 Feb 2008 22:00 GMT
WHAT’S NEW   Robert L. Park   Friday, 29 Feb 08,   Washington, DC

1. FENCES: SOMETHING THERE IS THAT DOESN’T LOVE A WALL.
Technology makes us arrogant.  A 28-mile pilot project for a high-
tech "virtual fence" south of Tucson, which cost $100M, is now
acknowledged to be a failure. The history of the world is a story of
fences that failed: the Great Wall of China, the Red Sea, the Berlin Wall,
Robert McNamara’s electronic wall dividing Vietnam, followed by the horror
of Agent Orange.  Securing the 2,000 mile border was expected to cost
$7.6B; the estimate will now go up. But desperate people will find a way
in spite of obstacles.  By contrast, the border with Canada remains
unsecured. Why would Canadians want to come here? About 200,000 illegal
immigrants enter from Mexico each year.  For $7.6B we could pay them
$38,000 each to stay in Mexico.  We would all be better off.

2. EVOLUTION:  THE GOOD NEWS IS FROM FLORIDA.
Last week WN reported the happy news that the Board of Education had
approved science standards that call for teaching "the scientific theory
of evolution."  As Harold Kroto, 1996 Nobel Prize and professor of
chemistry at Florida State, put it, "The phrase 'scientific theory' gives
us the leverage to differentiate between theories that are supported by
evidence and those that aren’t." It also pleased a conservative legislator
who was happy it wasn’t called a "scientific fact."  Scientists should
make it a point to distinguish between "scientific theory" and biblical
revelation, which is "not even a theory." It never ends; legislation is
now being considered that would allow criticisms of evolution to be
taught.

3. CREATIONISM: THE BAD NEWS IS FROM TEXAS.
A strong editorial in today’s issue of Nature warns that the Institute for
Creation Research (ICR), which moved from San Diego to Dallas last year,
has applied to the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board for the right
to grant online master’s degrees in science education. An advisory board
has recommended acceptance. Founded by Henry Morris in 1972, the ICR
regards the Bible as an inerrant source of scientific and historical fact.
The Board had been expected to vote on the application in January, but
requested additional information.  The vote is now expected at the boards
24 April meeting.  Steven Weinberg, Physics Nobel 1979, who five years ago
defended the rights of Texas school children to learn the natural laws
that govern our existence
http://bobpark.physics.umd.edu/WN03/wn091903.html , has urged the board to
deny accreditation to the Creation Research Institute.  Every Texas
scientist should do the same.

4.  PEW FORUM: THE U.S. RELIGIOUS LANDSCAPE.
Based on interviews with more than 35,000 Americans age 18 and older, the
Pew survey finds a changing landscape. More than a quarter of Americans
have left the faith they were born in. Americans who are unaffiliated with
any religion have seen the greatest growth in numbers as a result.
Catholicism has experienced the greatest net losses. Is there any
indication that Americans are becoming more rational?  Perhaps. About a
fourth of those who are unaffiliated describe themselves as atheist or
agnostic.

THE UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND.
Opinions are the author's and not necessarily shared by the
University of Maryland, but they should be.
---
hanson - 29 Feb 2008 23:59 GMT
Robert L. Park   Friday, 29 Feb 08,   Washington, DC
FENCES: SOMETHING THERE IS THAT DOESN’T LOVE A WALL.
Technology makes us arrogant.  A 28-mile pilot project for a high-
tech "virtual fence" south of Tucson, which cost $100M, is now
acknowledged to be a failure. The history of the world is a story
of fences that failed: the Great Wall of China, the Red Sea, Robert
McNamara’s electronic wall dividing Vietnam, followed by the horror
of Agent Orange, the Berlin Wall....

hanson wrote:
What is even more hilarious is the fact that Reagan hollered:
"Take that wall down, Mr. Gorbachov!"... went home and then
just a years later the new US admins decided to make not
one but 2 walls, in the US... "the land of the free!" ... ahahaha...
But even more phony in that immigration debate/debacle is
that practically everybody beats on the wrong people, the Mexers
and the Employers. --- We would not have this "problem" in
the first place if the a.shole politicians AND the f.cked up
immigration bureaucrats would have done their job properly
& issued sufficient visas to cover the influx of immigrants...

Park wrote:
Securing the 2,000 mile border was expected to cost $7.6B;
the estimate will now go up. But desperate people will find a way
in spite of obstacles.  By contrast, the border with Canada remains
unsecured. Why would Canadians want to come here? About
200,000 illegal immigrants enter from Mexico each year.
For $7.6B we could pay them $38,000 each to stay in Mexico.

hanson wrote:
That is a good one!... ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA... But now
all the bureaucrats, consultants & contractors are gonna be mad
at you, Park, for fear that instead of them, the Mexers are getting
the windfall. ... Thanks for the laughs... ahahahaha... ahahahanson
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2009 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.