I agree completely regarding IE. I use it when I'm in windows (which is rare). I would jump at the opportunity to use another free stable browser with the funcitonality of IE, but I have not found one. One problem I have had though, if that I have not been able to feed dymanically generated pdf files to IE without it locking up. It works find on netscape. I did a google search and found other people had the same problem. Serving the page from a "GET" query instead of a "POST" query fixes it, as does returning a link to the pdf file, but the behavior is annoying, especially since it appears to be a long standing problem.
Gore can take a flying leap for all I care. He picks Lieberman, who is down right socially conservative as a running mate. He keeps a low profile for the last eight years, as the number of prosecutions of environmental crimes decreases, and as auto-makers roll out huge fuel-inneficient polluting SUVs, and then expects liberal democrats to jump through hoops for him. Well he can't. He can't count on liberals to vote for him out of fear anymore, and if it takes putting a shithead like Bush in the white house for democrats to realize this, then that's just too bad.
I just have one additional comment about Natapof's article, though few will probably read it as I'm adding a comment so late in the discussion. The argument that a voter's power is greater in the electoral college scheme is true, in certain states in a close election, but that increase in a voters power (such as those voters in Florida) comes at the expens of voters in states where the election is not so close (such as those in Massachusetts). I think it's pretty much an insult to everyone in the county to effectively weight voter power by how undecided they are in their geographic location.
I think Nader did put his energy into the liberal states. He was the only candidate to visit Massachusetts (excluding the day of the debate in Boston). And he held huge rallies in New York. I was disappointed that he didn't run any of his T.V. ads in Mass, where I think he could have gotten 10% of the vote.
I do agree though, that he should have abandoned campaigning in battleground states because in New England alone he could have raised the 5% necessary without changing the electoral votes in those states. I don't regret voting for Nader, and in the end if Gore loses he lost to Bush, not to Nader, but I think Nader's campaign should have been more focused on the 5%. I for one wanted to see the Greens get matching money.
Two or three, it's so easy since they don't check ID, all you have to do is ask a couple of friends if they are going to vote. If they say no look up their addresses, go to the polls and vote away! I was surprised they didn't require photo-ID. I needed photo-ID to rent a movie, but to pick the president? They trust me.
I keep hearing this "Nader Factor" talk, like Nader is costing Gore the election. So as a Nader supporter I get excited thinking that Nader is actually doing well. But looking at the Florida results (pre-recount) I see that Bush has 2,909,136 votes, Gore has 2,907,331 votes, and Nader has 96,698 votes. Maybe instead of complaining about Nader's votes Gore should have been more concerned with Bush's votes.
I think it's likely that there are potential Gore supporters who voted for Bush, probably more that 100,000 people in Florida could have been swayed. More than all the Nader votes put together. So if Gore loses the election, he lost to Bush, not to Nader.
It's pretty easy to figure out why you have not received anything in the mail. The last poll I saw Gore was leading Bush 3:1 in Massachusetts, so both candidated did absolutely no campaigning in Massachusetts. Ralph Nader did campaign in Massachusetts a couple of times. In the end though, there are plenty of online resources to help you make up your mind.
The highway funds legislation is just that, legislation. This change in rules governing federal highway funds just underscores my point, it's the result of legislative action, not executive order.
I do admit the executive branch can manipulate funds in very bad ways. An example in Massachusetts is the way the governor's office routinely witholds state employee's raises for one or two years after their contracts have been approved and the money has been approved by the legislature. I guess presidents and governors just feel they have to exercise their power where they can.
Although I have selected and will vote very enthusiastically for one presidential candidate tomorrow, I think we are oversimplifying things. The President's technology policy making power is limited to veto and executive order. Although it is important to find out the views of presidential candidates, it is even more important to find out the views of your local congressional candidates.
Executive orders often signal the shape of policy to come, but the real power to create technology policy lies in congress. They make the laws, and the laws they're making about technology are not good. We should take the time to research our representatives stances on technology issues and send them our opinions, because it doesn't take many letters to start changing their minds, and if they know we are watching them, they'll be a lot more careful writing technology related laws.
I would like to support those people who feel that voting is a waste of time. Some people do not feel motivated enough to go out and vote, some people just think politics are stupid, and some feel their vote doesn't make a difference. I think we should encourage these beliefs, because it makes those of us who do vote count more.
In the last presidential election only about half the population voted, so I consider that my vote counted for about 2 people. If we can further reduce the number of people who vote, my vote could count for 10 or 15 people. Eventually if voter apathy grew very large, I could just write myself in as an elector, and vote for 500,000 people.
So if you haven't made up your mind yet, or you feel like you're being guited into voting, stay away from the polls. You'd just be inserting a random factor into the election. Let those of us who can actually see the obvious differences in the candidates make the decision. You'll be better off for it.
Every technilogical breakthrough is like this
on
Frankenstein Time
·
· Score: 4
Since the discovery of fire and the wheel (both of which have been used to good and evil) every technological breakthrough has had both wonderful and disasterous consequences. Everything we discover can be used for both good and evil. Should we stop making breakthroughs and abandon research all together?
Hell no!
The discoveries are neutral, and we're the ones who make good and bad uses of these discoveries. Unfortunately some people irresponsibly pervert our best intentions, and though unfortunate, I do not see this ending any time soon. However, I believe the benefits of research outweigh the bad consequences derived from it, and far outweigh the consequences of abandoning research on any subject.
It looks like the NAIC which runs the Arecibo observatory received approximately 10 million dollars in grants this fiscal year. These grants helped fund not only this research, but research by more than 150 scientists who use the observatory each year. So if you assume that each scientist uses the same portion of resources, as a first approximation, this project cost about $67,000. Now compare that to NASA satellite missions which typically cost several hundred million dollars, and I think that this research has been very cost effective.
I would also keep in mind that much of that money goes to the staff which keeps the observatory, and other facilities operational. I count about 147 people on the directory, though I admit some are listed twice, this includes a scientific staff of about 24 research scientists, but most of the staff is made up of mechanics, electical workers, cooks, janitors, security, and staff for the visitor's center. So though it's true that many people are starving in the world, this observatory is giving people jobs so they can put food on the table.
So maybe it's better to view astronomical observatories in this way: We learn about the composition, physical processes, and origins of the Universe around us, and at the same time provide jobs for a lot of people.
So far this morning I have received 6 copies of the I Love You virus, and 7 warning emails about the virus from sysadmins, friends, and concerned department secretaries. I sometimes wonder if the barrage of alerts I get is worse than the actual virus.
I do not think there would be any widespread support for this, especially since most Astronomers are thankful that Iridium may soon be a thing of the past. The frequency band that the satellites use interferes with the OH maser transition. Most radio observatories vehemently opposed Iridium's use of this frequency, which led to some concessions on their part, however for many astronomers it became impossible to detect faint OH masers once the satellite system became operational.
On the practical side, though I do not know the details, I imagine that the receivers on the iridium satellites are much less efficient that receivers being used for astronomical research and SETI. Also, it may be cheaper to build a network of small telescopes on the ground then to retask and maintain the Iridium satellite network.
Personally, as a radio astronomer, I'm happy to see that network fall. I am disheartened by the fact that corporations can essentially buy their way into protected frequencies, and astronomers can do very little to stop them.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree completely regarding IE. I use it when I'm in windows (which is rare). I would jump at the opportunity to use another free stable browser with the funcitonality of IE, but I have not found one. One problem I have had though, if that I have not been able to feed dymanically generated pdf files to IE without it locking up. It works find on netscape. I did a google search and found other people had the same problem. Serving the page from a "GET" query instead of a "POST" query fixes it, as does returning a link to the pdf file, but the behavior is annoying, especially since it appears to be a long standing problem.
Gore can take a flying leap for all I care. He picks Lieberman, who is down right socially conservative as a running mate. He keeps a low profile for the last eight years, as the number of prosecutions of environmental crimes decreases, and as auto-makers roll out huge fuel-inneficient polluting SUVs, and then expects liberal democrats to jump through hoops for him. Well he can't. He can't count on liberals to vote for him out of fear anymore, and if it takes putting a shithead like Bush in the white house for democrats to realize this, then that's just too bad.
I just have one additional comment about Natapof's article, though few will probably read it as I'm adding a comment so late in the discussion. The argument that a voter's power is greater in the electoral college scheme is true, in certain states in a close election, but that increase in a voters power (such as those voters in Florida) comes at the expens of voters in states where the election is not so close (such as those in Massachusetts). I think it's pretty much an insult to everyone in the county to effectively weight voter power by how undecided they are in their geographic location.
You've got to watch the Boy Scouts: first they ban gays, now they're working for Microsoft. I remember when it was all about the camping.
I think Nader did put his energy into the liberal states. He was the only candidate to visit Massachusetts (excluding the day of the debate in Boston). And he held huge rallies in New York. I was disappointed that he didn't run any of his T.V. ads in Mass, where I think he could have gotten 10% of the vote.
I do agree though, that he should have abandoned campaigning in battleground states because in New England alone he could have raised the 5% necessary without changing the electoral votes in those states. I don't regret voting for Nader, and in the end if Gore loses he lost to Bush, not to Nader, but I think Nader's campaign should have been more focused on the 5%. I for one wanted to see the Greens get matching money.
Two or three, it's so easy since they don't check ID, all you have to do is ask a couple of friends if they are going to vote. If they say no look up their addresses, go to the polls and vote away! I was surprised they didn't require photo-ID. I needed photo-ID to rent a movie, but to pick the president? They trust me.
I keep hearing this "Nader Factor" talk, like Nader is costing Gore the election. So as a Nader supporter I get excited thinking that Nader is actually doing well. But looking at the Florida results (pre-recount) I see that Bush has 2,909,136 votes, Gore has 2,907,331 votes, and Nader has 96,698 votes. Maybe instead of complaining about Nader's votes Gore should have been more concerned with Bush's votes.
I think it's likely that there are potential Gore supporters who voted for Bush, probably more that 100,000 people in Florida could have been swayed. More than all the Nader votes put together. So if Gore loses the election, he lost to Bush, not to Nader.
It's pretty easy to figure out why you have not received anything in the mail. The last poll I saw Gore was leading Bush 3:1 in Massachusetts, so both candidated did absolutely no campaigning in Massachusetts. Ralph Nader did campaign in Massachusetts a couple of times. In the end though, there are plenty of online resources to help you make up your mind.
The highway funds legislation is just that, legislation. This change in rules governing federal highway funds just underscores my point, it's the result of legislative action, not executive order.
I do admit the executive branch can manipulate funds in very bad ways. An example in Massachusetts is the way the governor's office routinely witholds state employee's raises for one or two years after their contracts have been approved and the money has been approved by the legislature. I guess presidents and governors just feel they have to exercise their power where they can.
Although I have selected and will vote very enthusiastically for one presidential candidate tomorrow, I think we are oversimplifying things. The President's technology policy making power is limited to veto and executive order. Although it is important to find out the views of presidential candidates, it is even more important to find out the views of your local congressional candidates.
Executive orders often signal the shape of policy to come, but the real power to create technology policy lies in congress. They make the laws, and the laws they're making about technology are not good. We should take the time to research our representatives stances on technology issues and send them our opinions, because it doesn't take many letters to start changing their minds, and if they know we are watching them, they'll be a lot more careful writing technology related laws.
I would like to support those people who feel that voting is a waste of time. Some people do not feel motivated enough to go out and vote, some people just think politics are stupid, and some feel their vote doesn't make a difference. I think we should encourage these beliefs, because it makes those of us who do vote count more.
In the last presidential election only about half the population voted, so I consider that my vote counted for about 2 people. If we can further reduce the number of people who vote, my vote could count for 10 or 15 people. Eventually if voter apathy grew very large, I could just write myself in as an elector, and vote for 500,000 people.
So if you haven't made up your mind yet, or you feel like you're being guited into voting, stay away from the polls. You'd just be inserting a random factor into the election. Let those of us who can actually see the obvious differences in the candidates make the decision. You'll be better off for it.
Since the discovery of fire and the wheel (both of which have been used to good and evil) every technological breakthrough has had both wonderful and disasterous consequences. Everything we discover can be used for both good and evil. Should we stop making breakthroughs and abandon research all together?
Hell no!
The discoveries are neutral, and we're the ones who make good and bad uses of these discoveries. Unfortunately some people irresponsibly pervert our best intentions, and though unfortunate, I do not see this ending any time soon. However, I believe the benefits of research outweigh the bad consequences derived from it, and far outweigh the consequences of abandoning research on any subject.
It looks like the NAIC which runs the Arecibo observatory received approximately 10 million dollars in grants this fiscal year. These grants helped fund not only this research, but research by more than 150 scientists who use the observatory each year. So if you assume that each scientist uses the same portion of resources, as a first approximation, this project cost about $67,000. Now compare that to NASA satellite missions which typically cost several hundred million dollars, and I think that this research has been very cost effective.
I would also keep in mind that much of that money goes to the staff which keeps the observatory, and other facilities operational. I count about 147 people on the directory, though I admit some are listed twice, this includes a scientific staff of about 24 research scientists, but most of the staff is made up of mechanics, electical workers, cooks, janitors, security, and staff for the visitor's center. So though it's true that many people are starving in the world, this observatory is giving people jobs so they can put food on the table.
So maybe it's better to view astronomical observatories in this way: We learn about the composition, physical processes, and origins of the Universe around us, and at the same time provide jobs for a lot of people.
So far this morning I have received 6 copies of the I Love You virus, and 7 warning emails about the virus from sysadmins, friends, and concerned department secretaries. I sometimes wonder if the barrage of alerts I get is worse than the actual virus.
On the practical side, though I do not know the details, I imagine that the receivers on the iridium satellites are much less efficient that receivers being used for astronomical research and SETI. Also, it may be cheaper to build a network of small telescopes on the ground then to retask and maintain the Iridium satellite network.
Personally, as a radio astronomer, I'm happy to see that network fall. I am disheartened by the fact that corporations can essentially buy their way into protected frequencies, and astronomers can do very little to stop them.
For more information about radio interference please visit the AAS committee on Light Pollution, Radio Interference, and Space Debris homepage.