Joined: Mar. 2009
For the record, these are what I tried posting on Vox's site: though my browser or something keeps mutilating my comments:
|Answer this question. If science produces technology, and not the other way around, why was technological advancement almost completely frozen in the Soviet Union for fifty years when they devoted a larger percentage of their GDP to science research than the United States did?|
"Technological advancement almost completely frozen"? Their space program sent a satellite and a man in space before the americans did. They got the bomb (atomic and hydrogen) very soon after the states did.
"Completely frozen"? Not always. Only when their ideology ruled the day. For example, that Lysenko guy didn't believe in the chromosomal theory of heredity and got Stalin convinced of his views, and from there on, their agriculture got screwed. As well, many geneticists were executed.
Science has to be free to go wherever the evidence leads, that's how science works. It won't work if you suppress it!
|I further note that your argument that one must know science to create technology is disproven by your own statements. You previously asserted that I know less science than a fifth-grader, and yet I have been a successful, ground-breaking professional technology designer for 20 years.|
So a second question: is science unnecessary for technological development or am I, in fact, a master of science?
Let's look at some of your "groundbreaking" work shall we? The one game that you designed by yourself bombed, and other games like Rebel Moon Rising didn't seem to do very well.
Care to explain just what ground you broke?
As for new or "ground-breaking" ideas, how's the "Failmouse" uh, sorry "Warmouse" thing working out?
Science is necessary for technological development and you're not a "master" of anything.
Speaking of you and PZ Myers, didn't you once say that Myers didn't have the guts to go through with his cracker desecration idea?
|The saltines are safe, for just as there are no atheists in foxholes, there is no vow that the militant atheist will not violate if he perceives any risk to his material well-being.|
"No athiests in foxholes"? Really?
So, less than one full day and you go and make a post about how I have not answered any of your questions?
Not only is that impatient as hell, but that's dishonest. I have answered several of your questions.
You just find some excuse to disregard them (see your post above) and then claim that I've never answered them.
I was warned that you were a dishonest prick, looks like they were right.
From the previous post:
|2. If science produces technology, and not the other way around, why was technological advancement almost completely frozen in the Soviet Union for fifty years when they devoted a larger percentage of their GDP to science research than the United States did? (Your attempt to argue that Soviet technology was essentially equal to the USA is false.)|
Did you miss the reason I gave about what happened when ideology got thrown into the mix?
"Contradictory assertions" about science and technological develpment? Huh? Care to spell out what they were? I said that technology is dependent on science. It's basically applied science, really. Like with the computer:
Regardless of motives, one still needs to understand materials science, conductivity, etc. to be able to devise the plans to build one.
Let's see: "bleeding edge technology developer"? Is that why you have so many patents? Or is that why your're still trying to get that ergonomic monstrosity of a "warmouse" going after a few years? If it's so "bleeding edge" why are the reviews so mixed? The only positive review I found was one saying that maybe for a niche market it'd be ok But for the most part, they'd prefer some other kind of mouse.
You even quote from the post where I do answer at least some of your questions at 8/29/11 9:59 AM, but you keep claiming that I haven't answered them? Even if you consider my answers wrong, which you say you do in this post, that's NOT the same damned thing.
For the questions I haven't already answered:
|1. Would you seriously consider it meaningful, or even remotely relevant, if JD were to debate me on Paul Zachary's behalf, so long as he felt he has a good understanding of Paul Zachary's words?|
JD agrees with you, not with PZ. I'm trying to get him to accept PZ's challenge to see if he can back up the claims that Coulter made in her book since he seems to believe that her book is accurate. In other words, he agrees with her. That's where your question falls apart.
Paul seems to want to know why people would think that, since he and other actual scientists have taken her book apart.
|4. Now that I have answered all his questions and proved that "marital rape" can be reasonably defended under the principle of Common Law, is he willing to admit that by his own metric, the adjectives "inane" and "unworthy" no longer apply to me as a potential debate opponent for Paul Zachary Myers?|
Your defense of marital rape through the use of common law? As George, I'd love to see you try that in a real court of law. "inane" and "unworthy" still apply to you as a person.
I'll leave it up to Myers whether he wants to deal with you or not. Lord knows you're certainly odious enough just through this medium. In person, holy crap.
Gee, I guess I'll have to try harder...