And the quest to establish humanity among the stars, or at least off of this rock, does not invoke fervor similar to what religions have in the past?
How about a small, gradual exploitation of the Moon and other resources in space to develop the propulsion and life support technologies, then get a bunch of people who know what they're doing and are completely sick and tired of the rest of humanity deciding to launch a colony ship? Technically, that has elements 2 through 5 of what you proposed, but no need for trillions of dollars from several countries.
Heck, even when we're inhabiting other planets (permanently, or at least for several years at a stretch) with massively expensive and sophisticated gear to sustain life, we'll have a better picture than we do now...
It'd be an expensive proposition for the entrants. Serious weapons cost serious money. Possibly, this show is one step towards resolving that: pay the participants (up to a certain amount) and carefully choose from among the applicants (so you can contain costs to dollars_per_team * number_of_teams - remember, the TV producers have to put food on their tables, too). You'd probably want a minimum weight limit, and minimum damage capability (i.e., "robot must be able to smash at least a 1/2 meter by 1/2 meter hole in a 5 cm thick aluminum wall"), to ensure people don't try to enter excessively wimpy bots. Maybe even specifically add "robot must be able to run upside down and/or right itself if flipped over" - it's common sense anyway, but who would bother with a wedgebot when you know everyone's going to be able to shrug off flips?
Hate to break it to you (not), but part of the activities involve sunshine (what, you think you can properly test these things indoors? Barring stadiums or the like, but few people live there) and exercise (lifting stuff, especially heavy equipment).
Shred, compact, melt...the M1 wouldn't be *useable*, but its component materials (or, at least, whatever hadn't burned into gases) would fit in the container. Think a single large ingot of (mostly) metal.
That's a more than fair criticism, and one I unfortunately have to agree with, except:
the public really doesn't care much for space
This is true in the sense that space is not as popular as, say, the military right now, but much of the public does like it when we do Bold New Ventures In Space, because decades of science fiction have sold them on that dream. But that does point to a way to break the issue, one that's already being worked on: make space accessible to the common person, such that non-elites can afford their own access to space. Once that happens, more people will start caring, for it will begin to directly affect them...but it has to be done with (even in spite of) NASA, for now.
More to the point: NASA gets its money based, in no small part, on how popular its results are. That which best captures the public imagination, can most easily get the funding to pay for the rest of NASA. Thus, poll to find out what has best captured the public imagination...
It is, of course, possible to engineer these systems to be virus-proof, mainly at the cost of letting things outside the system (like, say, the developers' update app or, more importantly, anyone who sends you an email or who has a portscanner) run just anything on the system. But will the developers' managers allow rejection of this convenience, or will they succumb to short-sighted featuritis instead of developing a product that customers won't be returning en masse in a year or two (long enough for the easiest security exploits to be reduced to scripts for kiddies)?
Problem: if you have He-3 + D, you're also going to get an occasional He-3 + He-3 or D + D, the latter of which emits neutrons...and, thus, potential radioactivity (depending on what the neutrons hit).
He-3 + He-3, with no D at all, does result in purely charged reactants.
And note that nowhere on their form is there an option to specify the development of space infrastructure like that. There are any number of possibilities; here's one of my fave examples:
Arbitrary "cheap" (by government standards - say, $1 million or $10 million a pop) prizes for the first N organzations to achieve certain milestones (for example, the X-Prize one of getting one vehicle to 100 or so miles up, twice within two weeks; next one is maybe a hypersonic transport, capable of getting a 100 kilogram payload from Los Angeles to Tokyo in under two hours, again twice within two weeks with the same craft; et cetera). Various limitations on the types of organizations, to discourage cheating (and maybe also limit to US orgs only, to help this get around national security concerns)...but, once the specs are out, they do not change. Boeing and Lockheed can maybe pick off a couple of the prizes then scrap development of their projects like they have in the past, but smaller entrants (not affiliated in any way with any other winners of the same prize, or with the US government) would pick up the rest...and then, out of (say) 5 prizes, there would be 3 viable cheap-to-orbit lauunch vehicles out there, ready for public use.
How many of the problem spammers are members of the DMA? Resume spamming services, for instance, probably are not, and thus have no reason to even be aware of the DMA.
Even if a large number of the problem spammers do belong to the DMA, how many will actually abide by DMA regulations? What penalties will (not just can) the DMA mete out to its members who violate these regulations?
I'm sure the DMA wants to avoid regulations hitting their entire industry, but the facts are that they haven't been effective in the past. Junk faxes - including the infamous ones for more fax toner - are still regularly sent (I get a few every week at home). So, why should anyone reasonably expect anything they do to make a difference now?
Shorting involves someone to take the other side of the bet. "One month from now, I will buy this type of blade for you for whatever the price is at the time, then sell it to you for today's street price".
Instant gratification - who in that world would wait a month to buy something?
Persistance - how do I know the character I made the deal with will be around (player still has an active account) in a month?
Contract enforcement - even if someone signs the deal, what is to stop the other party from simply reneging when a month passes and the other party realises it is a bum deal for them?
That last one is the real killer for being able to short.
Even assuming the moderation system works well enough to do this (I don't think it does, but that aside), what is to stop these "least coherent" people from simply submitting the comments to the DOJ directly?
Nothing but their own inertia. Which is often enough.
And how would submitting them to Slashdot make this easier? Submitting a comment to Slashdot and submitting a comment to the DOJ directly both take approximately the same amount of effort: typing in some text and then executing some sort of submit/send function. Why should they "waste their time" submitting comments to Slashdot? (Note: I ask myself this question quite often; in fact, I find myself asking it right now:)
And thus you already know part of my answer. The important thing is that people do submit to Slashdot more freely than to the DOJ. There are any number of theories why - perhaps it is actually easier to submit to Slashdot, since that's where your attention already is and you don't have to fight the expectation that the recipient (DOJ in one case, Slashdot's audience in the other) will be hostile to your comments, et cetera - but the fact remains: there are more comments by our side posted here than go to the DOJ.
If there is an explanation of the system, and the judge gives it any thought, she is likely to come to believe the moderation system doesn't work very well (considering it lets through submissions that are obvious trolls, have nothing to do with the subject at hand, have no understanding of the basics of copyright/trademark law, etc.)
Only if she bothers to actually read Slashdot to see its actual effectiveness, instead of judging the system by what it is supposed to do. I'd almost be willing to bet money that she wouldn't bother.
To weed out the least coherent, which might do more harm than good.
Because, no matter how much people whine, beg, and plead, not that many comments will actually be submitted. Face it: given how prior similar comments have gone, there's good reason for the non-thoroughly-informed to believe this will be no different, and any comments disagreeing with Big Money (in this case, Microsoft and the DoJ attorneys) will be ignored. Given that, why should they waste their time? (Ignoring certain realities, including that it's partly a self-fulfilling prophecy.)
If there is any explanation of the moderation system included, the judge may be influenced by the fact that others have basically said "I agree with this" by modding it up (granted, that's not entirely accurate, but it is likely what the judge would come to believe if she gives it any thought).
So...if AOLTW wins, but MS manages to fight it all the way to the Supremes, using their usual legal stalling tactics, such that AOLTW files for bankruptcy and dissolves just as it extracts so much money from MS that MS has to do likewise...
For once, there might be a silver lining to the cloud of huge legal bills.
I'm sure a bunch of others will post similar sentiments, but...
The average computer user - who knows nothing about the pros and cons of various choices - would gain nothing from having this ability. Now, it would be nice to include this program, so that it does not take as much knowledge or effort to build a custom kernel if one wants to, but a significant amount of attention should be paid to the defaults, because those are what most people in practice will use. Even the knowledgeable: if I know Web services like the back of my hand, but I don't know about setting up email servers, I might install an insecure version of BIND if that was the default (say, because mail servers were listed in a dropdown with "None" at the end, and the others sorted by name and version, placing "BIND 0.9" at the top of the list).
Most users do not, and do not wish to, know how the guts of their computer works, no matter what. They want black boxes. Building one's own kernel - unless it is done automatically, to the level that it isn't really one's own kernel but a recompile of a standard build - goes against this.
With one of these, you probably wouldn't be a pedestrian any longer. Last I heard, under California law, this would be legally classed as a non-four-wheeled motorized vehicle, and basically be equivalent to a motorcycle (helmet and license plate required, et cetera). Which probably makes sense: like a motorcycle, you might be able to squeeze between cars, and you'd usually be going fast enough that the sidewalks would have to be out of bounds. Unless, say, they added a low gear for slow, precise movement...in which case, you could take it indoors, right up to your cubicle; no worried about parking space, and you could plug it in to charge while you worked (assuming it had batteries for electric motors - likely, for at least the "low gear" - and that normal indoor current could significantly charge this). But wipe your feet before coming in, unless you got the self-cleaning boots. ^_-
"legitimate need" == "right". If you need something you have no right to, then your need itself is not legitimate, and continues to be so until either you get rid of the need or you obtain the right (usually by earning it).
Slashdot Mirror
You're right, but that wasn't the point he was trying to make. People do strange things when concentrating on unusual goals. ;)
And the quest to establish humanity among the stars, or at least off of this rock, does not invoke fervor similar to what religions have in the past?
How about a small, gradual exploitation of the Moon and other resources in space to develop the propulsion and life support technologies, then get a bunch of people who know what they're doing and are completely sick and tired of the rest of humanity deciding to launch a colony ship? Technically, that has elements 2 through 5 of what you proposed, but no need for trillions of dollars from several countries.
Heck, even when we're inhabiting other planets (permanently, or at least for several years at a stretch) with massively expensive and sophisticated gear to sustain life, we'll have a better picture than we do now...
It'd be an expensive proposition for the entrants. Serious weapons cost serious money. Possibly, this show is one step towards resolving that: pay the participants (up to a certain amount) and carefully choose from among the applicants (so you can contain costs to dollars_per_team * number_of_teams - remember, the TV producers have to put food on their tables, too). You'd probably want a minimum weight limit, and minimum damage capability (i.e., "robot must be able to smash at least a 1/2 meter by 1/2 meter hole in a 5 cm thick aluminum wall"), to ensure people don't try to enter excessively wimpy bots. Maybe even specifically add "robot must be able to run upside down and/or right itself if flipped over" - it's common sense anyway, but who would bother with a wedgebot when you know everyone's going to be able to shrug off flips?
...and the looks on the Area 51 techs when MIT, with a bit more practical experience, wins. ;)
Hate to break it to you (not), but part of the activities involve sunshine (what, you think you can properly test these things indoors? Barring stadiums or the like, but few people live there) and exercise (lifting stuff, especially heavy equipment).
Nah. Rimmer for this one (ultra-secret, pseudo-military ops). Save Cat for the one that happens in some big metro's downtown.
Ok, ok, I'm typecasting, I know...
Shred, compact, melt...the M1 wouldn't be *useable*, but its component materials (or, at least, whatever hadn't burned into gases) would fit in the container. Think a single large ingot of (mostly) metal.
That's a more than fair criticism, and one I unfortunately have to agree with, except:
the public really doesn't care much for space
This is true in the sense that space is not as popular as, say, the military right now, but much of the public does like it when we do Bold New Ventures In Space, because decades of science fiction have sold them on that dream. But that does point to a way to break the issue, one that's already being worked on: make space accessible to the common person, such that non-elites can afford their own access to space. Once that happens, more people will start caring, for it will begin to directly affect them...but it has to be done with (even in spite of) NASA, for now.
More to the point: NASA gets its money based, in no small part, on how popular its results are. That which best captures the public imagination, can most easily get the funding to pay for the rest of NASA. Thus, poll to find out what has best captured the public imagination...
It is, of course, possible to engineer these systems to be virus-proof, mainly at the cost of letting things outside the system (like, say, the developers' update app or, more importantly, anyone who sends you an email or who has a portscanner) run just anything on the system. But will the developers' managers allow rejection of this convenience, or will they succumb to short-sighted featuritis instead of developing a product that customers won't be returning en masse in a year or two (long enough for the easiest security exploits to be reduced to scripts for kiddies)?
What if the scrubber fails, regardless of whether it's powered or not?
Problem: if you have He-3 + D, you're also going to get an occasional He-3 + He-3 or D + D, the latter of which emits neutrons...and, thus, potential radioactivity (depending on what the neutrons hit).
He-3 + He-3, with no D at all, does result in purely charged reactants.
And note that nowhere on their form is there an option to specify the development of space infrastructure like that. There are any number of possibilities; here's one of my fave examples:
Arbitrary "cheap" (by government standards - say, $1 million or $10 million a pop) prizes for the first N organzations to achieve certain milestones (for example, the X-Prize one of getting one vehicle to 100 or so miles up, twice within two weeks; next one is maybe a hypersonic transport, capable of getting a 100 kilogram payload from Los Angeles to Tokyo in under two hours, again twice within two weeks with the same craft; et cetera). Various limitations on the types of organizations, to discourage cheating (and maybe also limit to US orgs only, to help this get around national security concerns)...but, once the specs are out, they do not change. Boeing and Lockheed can maybe pick off a couple of the prizes then scrap development of their projects like they have in the past, but smaller entrants (not affiliated in any way with any other winners of the same prize, or with the US government) would pick up the rest...and then, out of (say) 5 prizes, there would be 3 viable cheap-to-orbit lauunch vehicles out there, ready for public use.
I'm sure the DMA wants to avoid regulations hitting their entire industry, but the facts are that they haven't been effective in the past. Junk faxes - including the infamous ones for more fax toner - are still regularly sent (I get a few every week at home). So, why should anyone reasonably expect anything they do to make a difference now?
The sad thing is, that's so close to what actually happens...
- Instant gratification - who in that world would wait a month to buy something?
- Persistance - how do I know the character I made the deal with will be around (player still has an active account) in a month?
- Contract enforcement - even if someone signs the deal, what is to stop the other party from simply reneging when a month passes and the other party realises it is a bum deal for them?
That last one is the real killer for being able to short.Even assuming the moderation system works well enough to do this (I don't think it does, but that aside), what is to stop these "least coherent" people from simply submitting the comments to the DOJ directly?
:)
Nothing but their own inertia. Which is often enough.
And how would submitting them to Slashdot make this easier? Submitting a comment to Slashdot and submitting a comment to the DOJ directly both take approximately the same amount of effort: typing in some text and then executing some sort of submit/send function. Why should they "waste their time" submitting comments to Slashdot? (Note: I ask myself this question quite often; in fact, I find myself asking it right now
And thus you already know part of my answer. The important thing is that people do submit to Slashdot more freely than to the DOJ. There are any number of theories why - perhaps it is actually easier to submit to Slashdot, since that's where your attention already is and you don't have to fight the expectation that the recipient (DOJ in one case, Slashdot's audience in the other) will be hostile to your comments, et cetera - but the fact remains: there are more comments by our side posted here than go to the DOJ.
If there is an explanation of the system, and the judge gives it any thought, she is likely to come to believe the moderation system doesn't work very well (considering it lets through submissions that are obvious trolls, have nothing to do with the subject at hand, have no understanding of the basics of copyright/trademark law, etc.)
Only if she bothers to actually read Slashdot to see its actual effectiveness, instead of judging the system by what it is supposed to do. I'd almost be willing to bet money that she wouldn't bother.
So...if AOLTW wins, but MS manages to fight it all the way to the Supremes, using their usual legal stalling tactics, such that AOLTW files for bankruptcy and dissolves just as it extracts so much money from MS that MS has to do likewise...
For once, there might be a silver lining to the cloud of huge legal bills.
I'm sure a bunch of others will post similar sentiments, but...
The average computer user - who knows nothing about the pros and cons of various choices - would gain nothing from having this ability. Now, it would be nice to include this program, so that it does not take as much knowledge or effort to build a custom kernel if one wants to, but a significant amount of attention should be paid to the defaults, because those are what most people in practice will use. Even the knowledgeable: if I know Web services like the back of my hand, but I don't know about setting up email servers, I might install an insecure version of BIND if that was the default (say, because mail servers were listed in a dropdown with "None" at the end, and the others sorted by name and version, placing "BIND 0.9" at the top of the list).
Most users do not, and do not wish to, know how the guts of their computer works, no matter what. They want black boxes. Building one's own kernel - unless it is done automatically, to the level that it isn't really one's own kernel but a recompile of a standard build - goes against this.
Well...maybe, though maybe you could get away with the arm signals since your arms would be easily visible. ^_^
With one of these, you probably wouldn't be a pedestrian any longer. Last I heard, under California law, this would be legally classed as a non-four-wheeled motorized vehicle, and basically be equivalent to a motorcycle (helmet and license plate required, et cetera). Which probably makes sense: like a motorcycle, you might be able to squeeze between cars, and you'd usually be going fast enough that the sidewalks would have to be out of bounds. Unless, say, they added a low gear for slow, precise movement...in which case, you could take it indoors, right up to your cubicle; no worried about parking space, and you could plug it in to charge while you worked (assuming it had batteries for electric motors - likely, for at least the "low gear" - and that normal indoor current could significantly charge this). But wipe your feet before coming in, unless you got the self-cleaning boots. ^_-
"legitimate need" == "right". If you need something you have no right to, then your need itself is not legitimate, and continues to be so until either you get rid of the need or you obtain the right (usually by earning it).
Ah, what was that quote?
"The tighter your grip, the more planets will slip through your fingers."