This is complete bullshit. And by "this" I mean the story, not the act. The act seems to be silly, but did anyone actually <i>read</i> the draft? <a href="http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/HQRA.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/HQRA.pdf</a><p>The act has nothing to do with <i>findings</i> in any way, it simply says that the NSF (<i>prior to funding</i>) has to publicly certify that each funded project is 1) in the best interests of the country, 2) ground-breaking and important, 3) not a duplicate of any research being done by other publicly-funded projects in the US.<p>Flagged.
I'm very confused by this article, which links to the draft in question[0], which is quite short and can be seen by anyone who reads it not to say anything like what the article claims. It doesn't say anything about findings or results. It says that before a research project is funded, the director of NSF has to publicly certify that the research is worth doing.<p>Which seems pretty dumb, but as far as I can tell this article is nothing but blatant lies, banking on an assumption that readers won't check the facts. Weird.<p>[0] <a href="http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/HQRA.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/HQRA.pdf</a>
High quality site with headlines such as "Dow Jones Reaches New All Time High, Making Republicans Look Like Fools" written by Justin "Filthy Liberal Scum" Rosario.<p>Keep political bullshit off HN.