Why is it the Government never has things on the chopping block we WANT to see reduced? Pensions, bloated pay, meaningless programs, wasteful practices.... Why are none of these ever in danger of losing their funding in a budget crisis? Why is the answer always more taxes?
My hope is these findings will make the people who are considering a crackpot point of view to choose to believe otherwise.
I feel we should treat the "9/11 Truthers" the same way we should treat the "Flat Earth Society." Ignore the loonies and not give them the satisfaction of any attention.
When I was a young child, I finished all the class assignments in almost half the time of other students. Because I then had nothing to do, I would get bored and goof off, prompting the teachers to tell my parents I was a troublemaker. My parents indicated that they should simply give me more work to do, and the teachers replied "That's not fair to the other students." And so, I was home-schooled until high school, where I received 4 years of high honors, and then went on to get a degree in Computer Science in college.
The concept of holding back high achievers in order to draw attention away from poor grades has been around for quite a while. Unfortunately, it's getting worse, not better. Our nation is quickly becoming stupider thanks largely to cowardice and greed.
I recall a while back there was this little boot-sector virus which contained code to modify a motherboard's CMOS data, potentially causing a milder version of "Phlashing." However, that portion of the virus had a bug which made it almost impossible for the payload to be executed.
This virus was first found over 14 years ago, so the idea of remotely causing hardware failure isn't new. However no one has tried to implement it on a serious scale since. Given that so many modern-day devices and software are able to automatically flash/patch, this is something which, if done right, could adversely affect a significant number of systems.
Having worked as an educator at a public aquarium, this was a topic which was talked about quite a bit.
Invasive species are always a potential problem, and even though there are countless species that have already entrenched themselves in foreign ecosystems, this measure is a very good idea to prevent the problem from spreading further.
Previously, the only method to offset this was to introduce chlorine into the ballast tanks to kill off "hitchhikers." But that has its own negative ecological impact, so microwaving would be a much better alternative.
Actually it's because the SR-71 doesn't use normal Jet Fuel. Typical fuel for large jet engines is US Jet A1 which is a kerosene-based fuel and it is very flammable. The Blackbird's engines used something called JP7 which has a very high flash point. You can actually drop a lit match into a bucket of JP7 and the match will simply go out.
In order to get ignition to start the engines initially, an additive chemical needed to be used to get the fuel's flash point temporarily lowered.
And don't get me started on the "Pierre Salinger Syndrome."
On a serious note, a web page which automatically plays music prevents a blind person from being able to use the page at all. The music overpowers their screen reader so they cannot navigate. And even though there might be a control to switch the music off, you have to be able to see the control in order to use it.
Musical home pages need to die, for all of humanity's sake.
About 3 years ago there was a TV special on Bikini Atoll and how the wildlife there has exploded due to lack of all human intervention (read harvesting). All of the shipwrecks are now beautiful artificial reefs teeming with life of all kinds and on all levels of the food chain. (The shark population alone is staggering)
The background radiation levels underwater are zero, so the entire area is now open for private SCUBA charters, with dive packages including boat dives on many of the largest ships sunk there. (The Saratoga, The Nagato, etc)
As for the coconuts, that's true of any radioactively contaminated area. Living things absorb radioactive material. Especially plants. Plant life and soil are the most radioactive things surrounding Chernobyl. (Unless you're inside the sarcophagus staring at the "elephant's foot" http://youtube.com/watch?v=u5EAS5PT7Q8)
This begs the question: Could you seed a contaminated area with plants which are good at absorbing radioactive isotopes and harvest/dispose of them to clean up an area? Could we clean Bikini over time by going through several years of coconut harvesting?
Reaction Engines needs to take a lesson from BAE and the fact that all the Concordes are in museums, not the air.
Right now, the industry is looking for more efficient and cheaper forms of air travel, not necessarily faster ones. As Concorde proved, the extra couple hours which the SST shaved off flight time was nowhere near enough to counter the cost of the aircraft's operation. Plus, the fact that a sonic boom forced the planes to fly either over water or unpopulated areas further limited their usefulness.
Operating an SST will be slightly easier with new advances in fly-by-wire technology and materials research. However that "ease" comes at the cost of a massive price tag associated with the aircraft's production and maintenance. Frankly, Concorde was one of the most technologically advanced failures of our time. It was not a functional failure, because it did precisely what it was designed to do. But, it was a financial failure which doomed it to the realm of "novelty travel" all the way until its retirement. Meanwhile the 747, which entered service 6 years earlier than the Concorde, is an airframe which still flies today and will probably be flying in new revisions for another two decades. The 747 carries many more people and has almost 8 times the fuel efficiency. This means cheaper tickets and more customers.
Concorde was a beautiful and impressive airplane which deserves admiration, but it or any other SST in commercial service is doomed to be a financial white elephant.
The author appears to be coming from the perspective that robots are the best thing for humanity and U.S. Consumers don't deserve their awesomeness.
Pause it for a second.
He states that we need robots, but he never actually says what for. And the fact is, he's wrong. We don't need robots. There's absolutely nothing they can do that we can't, with the only exceptions being working in high-hazard environments or building something with extreme levels of precision. It's much safer and cheaper to have sent our two robot explorers to Mars in place of astronauts and robots are a much better candidate to clean up toxic waste dumps. Plus, I'd rather have high-tolerance construction handled by a CNC machine than a guy with a chisel. But honestly, why do we need robots as members of society?
Think about it. Cars might be smarter now than they were before, but my friend's '66 Mustang is just as capable of driving on the highway as a computer-laden 2008 BMW sedan. The difference is, we can fix his car on the side of the road in about 2 minutes if it breaks down. The BMW will need a tow. Why would an elderly person want an unfeeling automaton to carry them to bed instead of a loved one or real living person? Why would we want to make our population even more uneducated and skill-less by having robots do all the work for us? We're already up-in-arms about corporations sending all the labor overseas and laying off their U.S. employees. Why would we want to make the number of jobs even smaller? We're already trying to figure out how to get parents to socialize with their children and kids to spend time with real people and not just video games. Why would we want to spend time learning to socialize pointlessly with an automaton?
The author clearly has some satire in his tone, but he also doesn't go anywhere or have any clear message. He seems to be criticizing Americans whenever they show a fondness for robots, as well as when they show aversion. His only message seems to be "Buy robots! Why aren't you buying robots? No no, you're not supposed to like them! Just buy them!" Apparently we're "not mature enough" for his robotic vision.
Frankly, I don't think the author has any vision. He's blind and simply wants to charge ahead for no reason whatsoever.
I like the fact that we're able to see the areas where robots are helpful without having a "need" for them in our personal lives.
And as for the "they're going to kill us all" ideal which is consistently seen in fiction, I think a construct will only be as evil as its user. That's been true from day one, and it will remain true. Robots are tools and they will do whatever their owner builds or orders them to do.
Don't get me started on the people who want to play god and build intelligent robots just to feel self-empowered.
Being an "environmentalist" myself, I can understand what organizations like Greenpeace are trying to do. They're trying to raise awareness, and that's a good thing. There's a list a mile long of things which the general public had no idea were happening over the years, and those things coming to light shocked them and made them push for change.
Now, I have to say, I don't support Greenpeace financially because I feel that too many of their members tend to go too far. That is to say, they try to be shocking in and of themselves, as opposed to simply reporting the facts and letting the facts alone do the attention-getting. I've also heard the stories of them chaining the propellers of oil tankers and becoming human shields in the whaling industry.
In the insanity of the modern age, some people who believe in an ideal will resort to more extreme measures to make themselves known. Sometimes that's called for, but it can get out of hand. I don't think this was a gross negligence or corruption on Greenpeace's part, but I think they would have preserved more of their credibility if they had stuck closer to the facts. Instead, they've run the risk of being labeled as "reactionary attention whores" and having the issues they're talking about ignored.
I've been on well over 350 commercial flights in my life, and never had a single emergency, in-flight failure, diverted landing (aside from weather) or the like. And as a private pilot in training, I have serious doubt as to the source which claims these as "near-misses." I've seen many situations where uneducated people would classify a pass as an "OMG that was close!" The reality is, it wasn't at all. The distance between the aircraft was several hundred feet, but people are used to only seeing aircraft up that close when they're on the ground so they panic.
It's interesting that NASA hasn't released the findings, but being the son of a 30-year veteran airline pilot, I can say with some confidence that what this really smells of is someone trying to milk a story out of nothing. The situation in the air isn't nearly as bad as the article is hinting at.
I still feel 1,000 times safer in a plane than I do driving on the Massachusetts Turnpike.
I think the answer is both yes and no. In a way, the digital world is allowing us to extend our childhood, by enabling us to continue enjoying pastimes further on into adulthood. From re-watching old TV shows we thought were gone forever, to counter-strike tournaments between co-workers at the office.
Conversely, the nature of childhood play has drastically changed for similar reasons. Kids get less exercise (I did) when their entertainment is obtainable without even leaving their room. Kids don't develop social skills while playing video games, unless you count the meaningless and often angry banter between players online. (Sure, there's polite conversation too, but it can't take the place of real human interaction.) I'm not so sure about a lack of creativity, because I still see creativity flourishing everywhere.
The rule here is the same as everywhere else: There's such thing as too much, so take it in moderation. Kids should not be allowed to spend all their time on video games or TV, just like they shouldn't be allowed to spend all their time hanging out in front of the mall or what have you. There's good in so many different things in life, but too much of a good thing is often a bad thing.
Slashdot Mirror
I want to watch a holocaust survivor walk up and belt him one for comparing the murder and suffering of millions to a packet filter rule.
Why is it the Government never has things on the chopping block we WANT to see reduced? Pensions, bloated pay, meaningless programs, wasteful practices.... Why are none of these ever in danger of losing their funding in a budget crisis? Why is the answer always more taxes?
My hope is these findings will make the people who are considering a crackpot point of view to choose to believe otherwise.
I feel we should treat the "9/11 Truthers" the same way we should treat the "Flat Earth Society." Ignore the loonies and not give them the satisfaction of any attention.
When I was a young child, I finished all the class assignments in almost half the time of other students. Because I then had nothing to do, I would get bored and goof off, prompting the teachers to tell my parents I was a troublemaker. My parents indicated that they should simply give me more work to do, and the teachers replied "That's not fair to the other students." And so, I was home-schooled until high school, where I received 4 years of high honors, and then went on to get a degree in Computer Science in college.
The concept of holding back high achievers in order to draw attention away from poor grades has been around for quite a while. Unfortunately, it's getting worse, not better. Our nation is quickly becoming stupider thanks largely to cowardice and greed.
May I offer another quote then?
"All the techniques ever used to make men moral have been themselves thoroughly immoral."
-Nietzsche
http://www.symantec.com/security_response/writeup.jsp?docid=2000-121916-0457-99&tabid=2
This virus was first found over 14 years ago, so the idea of remotely causing hardware failure isn't new. However no one has tried to implement it on a serious scale since. Given that so many modern-day devices and software are able to automatically flash/patch, this is something which, if done right, could adversely affect a significant number of systems.
Invasive species are always a potential problem, and even though there are countless species that have already entrenched themselves in foreign ecosystems, this measure is a very good idea to prevent the problem from spreading further.
Previously, the only method to offset this was to introduce chlorine into the ballast tanks to kill off "hitchhikers." But that has its own negative ecological impact, so microwaving would be a much better alternative.
Actually it's because the SR-71 doesn't use normal Jet Fuel. Typical fuel for large jet engines is US Jet A1 which is a kerosene-based fuel and it is very flammable. The Blackbird's engines used something called JP7 which has a very high flash point. You can actually drop a lit match into a bucket of JP7 and the match will simply go out.
In order to get ignition to start the engines initially, an additive chemical needed to be used to get the fuel's flash point temporarily lowered.
And don't get me started on the "Pierre Salinger Syndrome."
On a serious note, a web page which automatically plays music prevents a blind person from being able to use the page at all. The music overpowers their screen reader so they cannot navigate. And even though there might be a control to switch the music off, you have to be able to see the control in order to use it.
Musical home pages need to die, for all of humanity's sake.
About 3 years ago there was a TV special on Bikini Atoll and how the wildlife there has exploded due to lack of all human intervention (read harvesting). All of the shipwrecks are now beautiful artificial reefs teeming with life of all kinds and on all levels of the food chain. (The shark population alone is staggering)
The background radiation levels underwater are zero, so the entire area is now open for private SCUBA charters, with dive packages including boat dives on many of the largest ships sunk there. (The Saratoga, The Nagato, etc)
As for the coconuts, that's true of any radioactively contaminated area. Living things absorb radioactive material. Especially plants. Plant life and soil are the most radioactive things surrounding Chernobyl. (Unless you're inside the sarcophagus staring at the "elephant's foot" http://youtube.com/watch?v=u5EAS5PT7Q8)
This begs the question: Could you seed a contaminated area with plants which are good at absorbing radioactive isotopes and harvest/dispose of them to clean up an area? Could we clean Bikini over time by going through several years of coconut harvesting?
Right now, the industry is looking for more efficient and cheaper forms of air travel, not necessarily faster ones. As Concorde proved, the extra couple hours which the SST shaved off flight time was nowhere near enough to counter the cost of the aircraft's operation. Plus, the fact that a sonic boom forced the planes to fly either over water or unpopulated areas further limited their usefulness.
Operating an SST will be slightly easier with new advances in fly-by-wire technology and materials research. However that "ease" comes at the cost of a massive price tag associated with the aircraft's production and maintenance. Frankly, Concorde was one of the most technologically advanced failures of our time. It was not a functional failure, because it did precisely what it was designed to do. But, it was a financial failure which doomed it to the realm of "novelty travel" all the way until its retirement. Meanwhile the 747, which entered service 6 years earlier than the Concorde, is an airframe which still flies today and will probably be flying in new revisions for another two decades. The 747 carries many more people and has almost 8 times the fuel efficiency. This means cheaper tickets and more customers.
Concorde was a beautiful and impressive airplane which deserves admiration, but it or any other SST in commercial service is doomed to be a financial white elephant.
Pause it for a second.
He states that we need robots, but he never actually says what for. And the fact is, he's wrong. We don't need robots. There's absolutely nothing they can do that we can't, with the only exceptions being working in high-hazard environments or building something with extreme levels of precision. It's much safer and cheaper to have sent our two robot explorers to Mars in place of astronauts and robots are a much better candidate to clean up toxic waste dumps. Plus, I'd rather have high-tolerance construction handled by a CNC machine than a guy with a chisel. But honestly, why do we need robots as members of society?
Think about it. Cars might be smarter now than they were before, but my friend's '66 Mustang is just as capable of driving on the highway as a computer-laden 2008 BMW sedan. The difference is, we can fix his car on the side of the road in about 2 minutes if it breaks down. The BMW will need a tow. Why would an elderly person want an unfeeling automaton to carry them to bed instead of a loved one or real living person? Why would we want to make our population even more uneducated and skill-less by having robots do all the work for us? We're already up-in-arms about corporations sending all the labor overseas and laying off their U.S. employees. Why would we want to make the number of jobs even smaller? We're already trying to figure out how to get parents to socialize with their children and kids to spend time with real people and not just video games. Why would we want to spend time learning to socialize pointlessly with an automaton?
The author clearly has some satire in his tone, but he also doesn't go anywhere or have any clear message. He seems to be criticizing Americans whenever they show a fondness for robots, as well as when they show aversion. His only message seems to be "Buy robots! Why aren't you buying robots? No no, you're not supposed to like them! Just buy them!" Apparently we're "not mature enough" for his robotic vision.
Frankly, I don't think the author has any vision. He's blind and simply wants to charge ahead for no reason whatsoever. I like the fact that we're able to see the areas where robots are helpful without having a "need" for them in our personal lives. And as for the "they're going to kill us all" ideal which is consistently seen in fiction, I think a construct will only be as evil as its user. That's been true from day one, and it will remain true. Robots are tools and they will do whatever their owner builds or orders them to do.
Don't get me started on the people who want to play god and build intelligent robots just to feel self-empowered.
Being an "environmentalist" myself, I can understand what organizations like Greenpeace are trying to do. They're trying to raise awareness, and that's a good thing. There's a list a mile long of things which the general public had no idea were happening over the years, and those things coming to light shocked them and made them push for change.
Now, I have to say, I don't support Greenpeace financially because I feel that too many of their members tend to go too far. That is to say, they try to be shocking in and of themselves, as opposed to simply reporting the facts and letting the facts alone do the attention-getting. I've also heard the stories of them chaining the propellers of oil tankers and becoming human shields in the whaling industry.
In the insanity of the modern age, some people who believe in an ideal will resort to more extreme measures to make themselves known. Sometimes that's called for, but it can get out of hand. I don't think this was a gross negligence or corruption on Greenpeace's part, but I think they would have preserved more of their credibility if they had stuck closer to the facts. Instead, they've run the risk of being labeled as "reactionary attention whores" and having the issues they're talking about ignored.
I've been on well over 350 commercial flights in my life, and never had a single emergency, in-flight failure, diverted landing (aside from weather) or the like. And as a private pilot in training, I have serious doubt as to the source which claims these as "near-misses." I've seen many situations where uneducated people would classify a pass as an "OMG that was close!" The reality is, it wasn't at all. The distance between the aircraft was several hundred feet, but people are used to only seeing aircraft up that close when they're on the ground so they panic.
It's interesting that NASA hasn't released the findings, but being the son of a 30-year veteran airline pilot, I can say with some confidence that what this really smells of is someone trying to milk a story out of nothing. The situation in the air isn't nearly as bad as the article is hinting at.
I still feel 1,000 times safer in a plane than I do driving on the Massachusetts Turnpike.
There are some real gems in there, thanks for sharing.
George Lucas will sue them for X-Wing design copyright infringement.
I think the answer is both yes and no. In a way, the digital world is allowing us to extend our childhood, by enabling us to continue enjoying pastimes further on into adulthood. From re-watching old TV shows we thought were gone forever, to counter-strike tournaments between co-workers at the office.
Conversely, the nature of childhood play has drastically changed for similar reasons. Kids get less exercise (I did) when their entertainment is obtainable without even leaving their room. Kids don't develop social skills while playing video games, unless you count the meaningless and often angry banter between players online. (Sure, there's polite conversation too, but it can't take the place of real human interaction.) I'm not so sure about a lack of creativity, because I still see creativity flourishing everywhere.
The rule here is the same as everywhere else: There's such thing as too much, so take it in moderation. Kids should not be allowed to spend all their time on video games or TV, just like they shouldn't be allowed to spend all their time hanging out in front of the mall or what have you. There's good in so many different things in life, but too much of a good thing is often a bad thing.