Now I am all for ensuring a state does not move too far down the road of a controlling dictatorship with some smattering of democracy, but there comes a point when to enjoy our freedoms we must accept the state has to take certain, controlled, actions in order to protect the state and it's citizens.

I would agree that there is a fine line between monitoring, control and a semblance of a police state, but the left wing idea of doing nothing is simply not an acceptable position either.

The irony of this is that that many left wing policies of the past are partly to blame for the current state of affairs, however I would also add that many more right wing foreign policies are just as to blame in all western nations.

So instead of blaming the left or the right, why doesn't everyone simply grow the hell up and start communicating to evolve a solution that meets all the concerns of all parties...

The current policies are good enough. Canada already has all the policies in place to monitor and track potential terrorists, like they did with the guy that ended up shooting this soldier and attacking parliament. He was on a watchlist and thats why he couldn't get a passport to go to Syria or Libya or whatever, to join the extremists.

What would more government surveillance have done to prevent this?

Furthermore, lets not overstate the threat of terrorism. So yeah, there have been two attacks in Canada now and two people have died. Compared to the dozen of other things that can kill people, terrorism is only an extremely minor insignificant threat. Yet the standard response is to take far reaching measures that significantly breach peoples privacy to combat a threat that is only so minor.

But can you change the mindset of a nation that depends on weapons armaments as part of its economy let alone the ideals of those suppliers and supporters?

At least we did. ;-)

Cheers

Not watch potential terrorists
Not watch organised criminal gangs
Not gather intelligence on foreign powers who may spy on us and endanger our national security

Now I am all for ensuring a state does not move too far down the road of a controlling dictatorship with some smattering of democracy, but there comes a point when to enjoy our freedoms we must accept the state has to take certain, controlled, actions in order to protect the state and it's citizens.

I would agree that there is a fine line between monitoring, control and a semblance of a police state, but the left wing idea of doing nothing is simply not an acceptable position either.

The irony of this is that that many left wing policies of the past are partly to blame for the current state of affairs, however I would also add that many more right wing foreign policies are just as to blame in all western nations.

So instead of blaming the left or the right, why doesn't everyone simply grow the hell up and start communicating to evolve a solution that meets all the concerns of all parties...

That will likely happen, but their claim of independence will have more merit than any other colony in human history to date. Will it result in warfare..unlikely, the implications of armed conflict in controlled environments are simply too dangerous.

As time goes by the Earth would become dependent on these colonies for resources, giving them a very real bargaining chip in their negotiations. The arguments would be had of that there is no doubt, there may even be violent protests, perhaps the odd act of terrorism even, but open war, unlikely unless the colony was on another planet and had the ability to make a stand.

While we want and need the resources those colonies would provide, to say that they have a bargaining chip would be a stupid mistake on their side. Yeah sure, they provide us with valuable minerals. But everything they need to survive still comes from earth. The moon and Mars don't have breathable atmospheres, and you can only grow a limited range of food in green houses. Not to mention the fact that they need to import water (you can only recycle so much of it) as well as every other manufactured product. They can stop giving us the minerals, but we can stop giving them everything else. See which one lasts longer.

And then there is warfare. Say they want to wage war. Again, good luck to them, its gonna be Earth that has all the spaceships and its gonna be Earth that has the destructive capability to wipe them out with a few shots from orbit. They wouldn't stand a chance.

On top of that, it might very well be that the first off world colonies are not gonna set up under the flag of any nation. The way its now, with the total lack of investment going into space exploration by governments, its more likely that those first colonies are going to be set up under the banner of some corporation. And the people off world are all going to be employees of said corporation. That would make a fight for independence even more difficult.

These Colony's, after a few Decades or more, will demand Independence from 'The Mother World'. The Mother World will not accept this, and Wars of Independence will happen.

Just Human Nature and History. Nothing changes.

That is slanderous and impuning the reputation of the overwhelming majority of scientists who strive and work hard to advance science in their field. Yes they have pet ideas, and Yes they do not like to be shown wrong, but the overwhelming majority accept they are wrong if those proving them wrong can justify it, move the science forward and not make it personal, as a small number seem to do occasionally.

I know a large number of scientists in both the academic and business fields and none fit the description you have given.

Yes well, sadly its true.

Read the story

The study mentioned in the article

2% readily admit outright fraud, 33% admit professional misconduct, and it become 14% and 72% when they are talking about their colleagues. And these are conservative estimations given the fact that this data was obtained through questionnaires.

Now lets look at some real world examples. In the Netherlands there have been two well published cases of top scientists committing fraud. One was outright making up data as he went and it took them years to catch him, and the other was only polishing up numbers to make the contrast and significance bigger. In the UK there was that doctor who did the scientific research into the link between autism and vaccines. Which turned out to be one big massive case of fraud and corruption of the sort that we usually assign to politicians. In South Korea there was that guy with the stem cell research that was supposedly so promising, but in reality turned out to be nothing but fraud. And as I stated before, the whole anti climate change 'science' is bovine excrement paid for by powerful companies. Oh and before we forget, the medical industry, who happily make results showing their new medicine is unsafe disappear.

Look for the most part, all of this fraud isn't that important, because science as an institution will eventually catch on to fraud and falsehoods and corrects itself. But just don't pretend science is immune to fraud.

It's far far more likely that policemen, politicians, and lawyers are crooked
than scientists. Policemen have a "code of silence" that keeps things out of
the light of day, whereas scientist thrive on proving other scientists wrong.

That is a little naive. While ideally scientists thrive on proving each other wrong, that ideal is not what happens in real life. Every scientist has their favorite theories and even when they are proven utterly wrong a lot of scientists will have trouble adjusting or even accepting that as a fact. Furthermore, scientists often tweak the data of their experiments a little so to make outcomes more significant.

And thats just the academic side of science. It gets worse once you go to the corporate side of science, where money does play a major role and where scientific outcomes can be outright bought by corporations. The climate skeptics would be a perfect example of scientists, all on the payroll of large corporations with a vested interest in preventing tighter environmental regulations, employing a number of scientists who get paid to say that global warming isn't a thing, and even if its a thing, its probably a good thing, and dont impose tighter regulations because that would instantly sink the economy.