Exactly. Who wants to sit around in a space station for a year, with little entertainment and 24x7 responsibility, to conduct experiments? Astronauts used to have the prestige of being explorers, today they are viewed as scientists that must work more hours, for less pay, little prestige, all while putting their bodies through unbelievable stresses, and risking their lives in the process. If you saw those characteristics on a job posting, would you apply?
If there was a good chance of going to space when applying to become an astronaut/cosmonaut, I think more people would do it. But everyone knows that it's ridiculously difficult to get into the training program if you're not a highly specialized scientist and/or fighter pilot, then your chances of being put on a manned mission are rather small as well.
I agree 100%. The Mars missions are 100% worth the investment if they can reduce the crash likelihood of future robotic explorers (or even manned explorers). As NASA gets closer to a manned mission, unmanned missions will likely become more sophisticated and costly, so spending the money now on relatively inexpensive surveyors is far preferrable to embarking on multiple multi-year missions just because of poor landing site selection.
Regardless of your opinion on God (and evolution vs. intelligent design), it's readily apparent that the teacher was stepping outside his defined role as a science teacher. If the school district and state dictates that a science teacher should teach evolution, that's what they need to teach. If they dictate they should teach intelligent design, that's what they should teach. And if the standards are to teach that humans come from storks and that pigs fly, the instructors should teach this or go to a different state/private school. Public schools are kind of like McDonalds... you may not receive the top of line, but it should always be consistent.
If this pastor/teacher thought that he was going to convert a bunch of high schoolers by damning them all to hell, he must not have a very successful church, and certainly should be fired immediately. If he really wanted to use the classroom as a pulpit, he should have chose philosophy as a subject, or just taught at a parochial school. The most he could have done was to just express his religion very simply (e.g. a cross around his neck, picture on his desk, whatever), and use kids' natural curiousity as a chance to invite them to his church to learn more outside of school. This is dangerously close to some line in the sand, but better to toe the line than to jump clear over it like he did.
They are trying to "protect" tiny parts of programs. This essentially stops anyone else from creating a program that does roughly the same thing
You hit the nail on the head. The smaller the software component, the more ridiculous it becomes to patent. Patenting the doubly linked list just takes this to the extreme.
For argument's sake, tell me the difference between these two scenarios:
A large oil company spends $1 Billion developing a 3d nuclear imaging robot that burrows into the ground to explore for oil. This robot is so effective at what it does that they patent it to ensure they protect their investment.
A large oil company spends $1 Billion developing software that takes existing geological maps and analyzes it in a novel way. This robot is so effective at what it does that they patent it to ensure they protect their investment.
The investment and results are the same in either case, the only difference is that we're talking about something physical instead of software. An outright "No Software Patents" stance would say that any company could then duplicate the oil company's unique software, leaving them no protection for their massive investment and intellectual property. Why would software be any different than a machine here?
If we remove all software patents, we also remove part of the incentive for large corporations to invest in software. There needs to be some protections, they just need to be smart.
While one could at least make a somewhat intelligent argument why software that costed companies like Apple or Microsoft Millions (or even Billions) of dollars to create should be patented, there's no logical argument for patenting data structures. This patent was first submitted in 2002, which probably means it was turned down and appealed at least twice. As anyone who has gone through the patent process knows, if you appeal enough times eventually you might find an examiner who is clueless enough to grant the patent.
I couldn't imagine LSI ever intends to protect the patent (since it obviously would never stand up in court). Most likely, they are just seeking bragging rights "Hey look, we had 30 patents approved this year".
Our government needs to more clearly delineate what software can and cannot be patented in order to prevent more ridiculous patents. I'm more in the 'No Software Patents' camp, but I think there are exceptions, particularly for very specialized software in specific industries.
Given that the U.S. government and military has made it obvious that it plans to dominate space I would guess this project has far more ambitious intents than simple orbital research. A small unmanned shuttle would provide the perfect capabilities for detection, destruction, and possibly even retrieval of "enemy" satellites. Add some radar absorbing materials/techniques to the X-37B mini shuttle and you have the perfect space based weapon.
A few of these shuttles in orbit at any one time could provide the ability to quickly take out other countries space capabilities without being as obvious as using a ground based laser or missile. Plus it would be far more accurate.
No, it does not violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, all it does is increase the efficiency of the system. This principle has been demonstrated for over 150 years. For at least the past 20 years they've had diodes that could convert heat into energy, they were just expensive and not very efficient (in high school physics I experimented with them almost 20 years ago). This device reduces the prior technology's costs, and increases the heat-to-energy efficiency to 20-30% from miniscule percentages before.
The device sounds legit (it certainly doesn't break any laws of physics), but Eneco's plan for its longterm usage is just loopy. They say they'll initially try to improve battery life by coupling it with processors to recoup energy lost as heat. Great startup plan, but then it goes downhill... from the article:
Brown also sees the chips ultimately replacing batteries altogether. He argues that by linking the modules to a microburner - a catalytic burner that produces between 275 and 600 degrees centigrade you can heat the chips and generate enough power to run the device.
In theory this approach would be far cleaner as the burners that Eneco is planning to employ use Ethanol
So in other words, Eneco plans to replace our laptop batteries with small Ethanol burning stoves that run hotter than a car engine? How would this ever fly, given people are worried about their current laptops catching fire? Also, who wants to fill up their laptop with gas every couple days? Energy coming from the grid at least in theory can be from renewable sources (wind, solar, tides, etc.). Why push Ethanol, a fuel which cannot be used on a large scale (and arguably requires more energy to produce than it provides)? The only reason I can think of is that they are trying to ride the "Ethanol investing wave" that hit markets over the past couple years (and appears to be waning).
Hopefully investors will see through the zany longterm plan and focus on the merits of the product, it really does appear to be valuable across a wide range of industries.
Has anyone else read this book? Is this primarily focused on Apple/IBM/Novell/Microsoft, or are there other 'stupid' business decisions included as well. I'd be surprised if the AOL/TimeWarner merger wasn't included. Even decisions such as Gateway's cow themed retail stores probably rank high enough to mention. Unfortunately neither B&N or Amazon have a Look Inside or even an Index posted for this book.
Sorry, I didn't mean the registration database, but the physical registration itself. Or is this not required to be carried in the U.K. either? In the U.S., it is required that this is carried when driving, and in some states (such as Maryland) they'll take you to the police station if you do not have both a photo ID and a registration (unfortunately I speak from experience here, brand new car and left license/registration at home, oops).
Am I missing something (which is possible, since there's no article to reference), or are they spending a ton of money to solve a problem with a simple solution?
Their rational is that "it is primarily aimed at motorists because banned or uninsured drivers often give false names". Isn't this what a Driver's License is for? Or do British not have licenses (or not require that drivers carry licenses)?
If someone doesn't have a license, or any other form of photo identification, they probably shouldn't be driving. It sounds like it would be far cheaper (and less of a privacy concern) to haul in anybody driving without a valid photo ID, since these people are more likely to be uninsured or banned.
Or if the thought of hauling in folks without IDs is unappealing (since many people just forget to carry IDs), police could just ask the person a few key questions (such as name, address, city, maybe some type of social security #), which would be in the police database. Then this could be cross referenced against the auto registration. Seems easy to verify that the individual is telling the truth using existing data without resorting to finger prints.
Of course, you could have someone who stole their neighbors car + memorized their name/address/social, but this type of person would have probably created a good fake ID as well... meaning they wouldn't have been caught by the finger printing method either.
You have excellent points. Unfortunately, now that many advertising restrictions on drugs have been removed, the drug industry can effectively push drugs onto Americans without rational voices such as your own being fairly considered. Combine this with human nature to succeed and excel relative to one's peers, and you have the possibility for us to quickly go down the path of re-engineering ourselves for excellence.
The idea of everyone having an IQ of 300, being able to sleep 4 hours a week, and never getting sick may sound great to some, but where does it stop? After we've reached the point of greatly diminishing returns from drugs, do we turn to machines for enhancment? Do we augment ourselves with embedded computer chips, use genetic engineering to enhance our characteristics, or completely tailor our bodies and minds into something we can't even imagine today?
This may seem far removed from sleep drugs, but I think it is a natural progression... we are gaining the technology to enhance ourselves, and it will be a game of constant one-upmanship. Ethical discussions will prevent us from moving too fast, but I fear these concerns would have no impact on a slow progression towards turning ourselves into something unrecognizable as human by today's standards.
I don't know if I'd say this is the "beginning". Microsoft has been investing Billions in research and design for years, the new Office UI is simply an extension of that. They've also been allowing developers to use their UI components for years, the only difference here is that developers will not be able to use those UI components for a product that replicates the functionality within Excel, Word, Access, or PowerPoint.
For developers creating Windows products, this is a great license to obtain. I really don't see much of an impact on OpenOffice, as it doesn't even attempt to place any restrictions on what competitors can do, it just states that competitors can't use their Ribbon interface. Since OpenOffice is cross-platform, its developers would probably never choose to use the MS Interface outright, but likely develop their own similar Ribbon interface (if it was even worth porting, which is debatable), since it would be more compatible accross platforms and limit legal liability.
Microsoft will always spend Billions on creating slicker and easier to use interfaces. This has almost zero impact on Linux's server market (and advantages), which is why Linux has made such market share inroads on the server side. The impact is greatest though on the Desktop, where ease of use, ease of installation, and UI friendliness are far more important (and these are areas that are given a relatively lower priority by the programmers than by the Microsoft Marketing and Strategy departments).
Many CIO's probably did not realize the theoretical risks of using Linux prior to Ballmer's statement. I know I didn't. Unfortunately Ballmer was right to a degree... and while CIO's and other tech professionals can deny the validity of his statement, it will be a matter for the courts to decide at some point.
Since most companies that use Linux typically have at least some Windows machines, Microsoft's perceived threat to either sue or enforce licenses for all Linux users was highly alienating and rather disrespectful of their customer base. 'What was he thinking' is right. A smart company woudn't form a half Billion dollar agreement then tell the target client base of the agreement that they're gonna be sued... but then again, that's Microsoft's M.O. A monopoly in today's global regulatory environment takes an immensely powerful, and often ruthless, legal team. This is just Microsoft rattling that (hopefully unusable) saber...
Great points! Although even the college educated Americans (who would be a fairer comparison) seem to be far less knowledgable on these topics. Part of it could be interest as well... it's quite common to discuss things like Religion and Politics over dinner with friends in Europe, while these topics are often taboo here.
Also, I don't know if we can predict future world leadership just by population figures. By that measure, countries like Germany, Japan, and South Korea would have never achieved the industrial and intellectual lead they have/had enjoyed over much of the world (outside the U.S. that is). Sure, we probably won't be the #1 in terms of GDP in the future, but we certainly could make a concerted effort to regain the lead in per capita income and quality of life measures that we endanger by allowing the rest of the world's quality of education surpass our own.
I definitely agree here. A high school education certainly doesn't provide the opportunities that it used to (nor does a BA or BS for that matter). If we are to get in a discussion around the education levels of Americans as a whole, I'd probably agree with the use of the word "epidemic" in describing our average level of education... particularly if measured by the average person's knowledge and competence rather than degree earned.
Whenever I have traveled to foreign countries, I always find it amazing that the average foreigner seems to know far more about American culture, government, and history than the average American. This isn't just a reflection of our schools, but of our society and families as well. I also believe the problem has gotten so bad that our leadership in industry and technology cannot possibly be maintained unless we make a large-scale concerted effort to fix education, not just concentrate on statistics such as dropout rates.
There's no doubt that dropout rates are a major U.S. problem, but the ABC article would make one think that dropout rates are on the rise. Nationally, this just isn't true. Between 1972 and 2004, dropout rates have fallen drastically. For all ethnicities, they are now almost half what the rates were 30 years ago (note: the full article that references this table can be found here)
This doesn't mean that isolated cities (such as Detroit and Baltimore) that have experienced serious economic problems and urban blight are better than 30 years ago, they are likely worse, but to characterize the problem as a national "epidemic" is completely ignoring the truth. Our school systems, teachers, and local governments have been working hard to raise graduation rates nationwide. And the data supports their assertion that they are seeing some success. Sure, there are MAJOR shortcomings to our public school system, but there has been major progress that shouldn't go unrecognized.
In all likelihood, the U.S. is also creeping towards a 'Surveillance Society'. Response to terrorism (from the IRA) was one of drivers of the UKs current propensity towards spying on its citizens, fear of Al Queda and Islamic Militants will be our undoing as well. In times of unease and mass fear it's often easy to give up freedoms, but ever so difficult to bring them back. Hopefully Americans will recognize this before we merrily join the UK and strap video cameras to every public park, building, and employee.
Considering that the U.S. uses over a quarter of the world's energy, I think the only thing cool about the project is that we're only contributing 10% of the total cost. The problem is that the reactor will take designs that have not been terribly successful at a smaller scale and try to prove that all of a sudden they would become commercially viable at a large scale.
Instead of devoting Billions to developing a large reactor on relatively low-yield/high-cost technology, I'd rather see the U.S. spend these Billions on researching how to create a more productive and economical fusion reaction... then once the research creates results we can devote the resources to building a test reactor. Apparently the U.S. has been thinking along similar lines since they've wavered back and forth on the project for so long, and in the end committed only a token amount towards the project.
I'd love to see people do this, but the biggest problem is that we are talking about a Desktop O/S, and most businesses (and average home users) aren't ready to start using a Linux based desktop instead of Windows. Microsoft has pushed their activation and licensing schemes in the past, and have typically backed away due to user backlash. I suspect we'll see the same scenario repeated over the coming year.
I doubt we'll see a large desktop migration to Linux just because of Vista, but we'll certainly see quite a few business clients maintaining a 'wait and see' approach longer than for past iterations of Windows software. For most business users, there's just no driving reason to upgrade from XP until software is developed that only runs on Vista... which I'd imagine would be years away.
Re:Nothing inconvenient about the results
on
An Inconvenient Truth
·
· Score: 2, Informative
'Most efficient way'? I guess it depends on how you calculate. Here's my calculation, let me know if I missed something. I'll use a Boeing 777 as an example since it is more efficient than most jets:
777:
Gallons used to travel 3000 miles (cross country): ~20,000
Average number of passengers for cross country trip: 400
Gallons per traveler: 50
Car:
Highway MPG: 30
# of gallons to travel 3000 miles: 100
Average # of travelers: 2
Gallons per traveler: 50
So as long as there are more than 2 people in a car or a 2 passenger car achieves greater than 30 miles per gallon on the highway, the car is more efficient, right? Of course, not many people would want to take a car cross country over a plane... which is why the relatively fuel inefficient planes usually win out.
That being said, Boeing is certainly far more cognizant of the need for fuel efficient airplanes than Airbus (particularly with your pending introduction of the Dreamliner). That's why I specifically singled out Airbus.;)
Re:Nothing inconvenient about the results
on
An Inconvenient Truth
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
In many respects I agree, Kyoto is NOT the answer. However, the answer will almost certainly cause a major change in our economy and definition of prosperity. The world cannot sustain 3 ton SUVs, Airbus jumbo jets, and lavish cruise ship vacations forever. We all want our children to live a better life than we do today, but in order for this to happen we need to redefine what 'better' means. If we continue to equate 'a better life' with 'having more stuff', then frankly the environment is doomed.
Until we find far greater stores of cheap clean energy and raw materials, consumption will always yield pollution and environmental damage. We must reduce consumption to reduce global warming. This is the expensive and unfortunate consequence of tackling global warming... the lifestyle that we covet must change. Once/if we move down that path, it will be economically painful in the short-term, but at some point we just won't have any other choices and we'll end up with a radically different society/world (which I am optimistic will be for the better).
I'd love to use OpenOffice, but unfortunately it still can't format our stationary headers and footers correctly (also the presentation app doesn't appear to be very compatible with PowerPoint). MS Office compatibility is the largest hurdle to adoptance of OpenOffice in my opinion.
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly. Who wants to sit around in a space station for a year, with little entertainment and 24x7 responsibility, to conduct experiments? Astronauts used to have the prestige of being explorers, today they are viewed as scientists that must work more hours, for less pay, little prestige, all while putting their bodies through unbelievable stresses, and risking their lives in the process. If you saw those characteristics on a job posting, would you apply?
If there was a good chance of going to space when applying to become an astronaut/cosmonaut, I think more people would do it. But everyone knows that it's ridiculously difficult to get into the training program if you're not a highly specialized scientist and/or fighter pilot, then your chances of being put on a manned mission are rather small as well.
I agree 100%. The Mars missions are 100% worth the investment if they can reduce the crash likelihood of future robotic explorers (or even manned explorers). As NASA gets closer to a manned mission, unmanned missions will likely become more sophisticated and costly, so spending the money now on relatively inexpensive surveyors is far preferrable to embarking on multiple multi-year missions just because of poor landing site selection.
Regardless of your opinion on God (and evolution vs. intelligent design), it's readily apparent that the teacher was stepping outside his defined role as a science teacher. If the school district and state dictates that a science teacher should teach evolution, that's what they need to teach. If they dictate they should teach intelligent design, that's what they should teach. And if the standards are to teach that humans come from storks and that pigs fly, the instructors should teach this or go to a different state/private school. Public schools are kind of like McDonalds ... you may not receive the top of line, but it should always be consistent.
If this pastor/teacher thought that he was going to convert a bunch of high schoolers by damning them all to hell, he must not have a very successful church, and certainly should be fired immediately. If he really wanted to use the classroom as a pulpit, he should have chose philosophy as a subject, or just taught at a parochial school. The most he could have done was to just express his religion very simply (e.g. a cross around his neck, picture on his desk, whatever), and use kids' natural curiousity as a chance to invite them to his church to learn more outside of school. This is dangerously close to some line in the sand, but better to toe the line than to jump clear over it like he did.
You hit the nail on the head. The smaller the software component, the more ridiculous it becomes to patent. Patenting the doubly linked list just takes this to the extreme.
For argument's sake, tell me the difference between these two scenarios:
A large oil company spends $1 Billion developing a 3d nuclear imaging robot that burrows into the ground to explore for oil. This robot is so effective at what it does that they patent it to ensure they protect their investment.
A large oil company spends $1 Billion developing software that takes existing geological maps and analyzes it in a novel way. This robot is so effective at what it does that they patent it to ensure they protect their investment.
The investment and results are the same in either case, the only difference is that we're talking about something physical instead of software. An outright "No Software Patents" stance would say that any company could then duplicate the oil company's unique software, leaving them no protection for their massive investment and intellectual property. Why would software be any different than a machine here?
If we remove all software patents, we also remove part of the incentive for large corporations to invest in software. There needs to be some protections, they just need to be smart.
While one could at least make a somewhat intelligent argument why software that costed companies like Apple or Microsoft Millions (or even Billions) of dollars to create should be patented, there's no logical argument for patenting data structures. This patent was first submitted in 2002, which probably means it was turned down and appealed at least twice. As anyone who has gone through the patent process knows, if you appeal enough times eventually you might find an examiner who is clueless enough to grant the patent.
I couldn't imagine LSI ever intends to protect the patent (since it obviously would never stand up in court). Most likely, they are just seeking bragging rights "Hey look, we had 30 patents approved this year".
Our government needs to more clearly delineate what software can and cannot be patented in order to prevent more ridiculous patents. I'm more in the 'No Software Patents' camp, but I think there are exceptions, particularly for very specialized software in specific industries.
Given that the U.S. government and military has made it obvious that it plans to dominate space I would guess this project has far more ambitious intents than simple orbital research. A small unmanned shuttle would provide the perfect capabilities for detection, destruction, and possibly even retrieval of "enemy" satellites. Add some radar absorbing materials/techniques to the X-37B mini shuttle and you have the perfect space based weapon.
A few of these shuttles in orbit at any one time could provide the ability to quickly take out other countries space capabilities without being as obvious as using a ground based laser or missile. Plus it would be far more accurate.
No, it does not violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, all it does is increase the efficiency of the system. This principle has been demonstrated for over 150 years. For at least the past 20 years they've had diodes that could convert heat into energy, they were just expensive and not very efficient (in high school physics I experimented with them almost 20 years ago). This device reduces the prior technology's costs, and increases the heat-to-energy efficiency to 20-30% from miniscule percentages before.
Hopefully investors will see through the zany longterm plan and focus on the merits of the product, it really does appear to be valuable across a wide range of industries.
Has anyone else read this book? Is this primarily focused on Apple/IBM/Novell/Microsoft, or are there other 'stupid' business decisions included as well. I'd be surprised if the AOL/TimeWarner merger wasn't included. Even decisions such as Gateway's cow themed retail stores probably rank high enough to mention. Unfortunately neither B&N or Amazon have a Look Inside or even an Index posted for this book.
Sorry, I didn't mean the registration database, but the physical registration itself. Or is this not required to be carried in the U.K. either? In the U.S., it is required that this is carried when driving, and in some states (such as Maryland) they'll take you to the police station if you do not have both a photo ID and a registration (unfortunately I speak from experience here, brand new car and left license/registration at home, oops).
Am I missing something (which is possible, since there's no article to reference), or are they spending a ton of money to solve a problem with a simple solution?
... meaning they wouldn't have been caught by the finger printing method either.
Their rational is that "it is primarily aimed at motorists because banned or uninsured drivers often give false names". Isn't this what a Driver's License is for? Or do British not have licenses (or not require that drivers carry licenses)?
If someone doesn't have a license, or any other form of photo identification, they probably shouldn't be driving. It sounds like it would be far cheaper (and less of a privacy concern) to haul in anybody driving without a valid photo ID, since these people are more likely to be uninsured or banned.
Or if the thought of hauling in folks without IDs is unappealing (since many people just forget to carry IDs), police could just ask the person a few key questions (such as name, address, city, maybe some type of social security #), which would be in the police database. Then this could be cross referenced against the auto registration. Seems easy to verify that the individual is telling the truth using existing data without resorting to finger prints.
Of course, you could have someone who stole their neighbors car + memorized their name/address/social, but this type of person would have probably created a good fake ID as well
You have excellent points. Unfortunately, now that many advertising restrictions on drugs have been removed, the drug industry can effectively push drugs onto Americans without rational voices such as your own being fairly considered. Combine this with human nature to succeed and excel relative to one's peers, and you have the possibility for us to quickly go down the path of re-engineering ourselves for excellence.
... we are gaining the technology to enhance ourselves, and it will be a game of constant one-upmanship. Ethical discussions will prevent us from moving too fast, but I fear these concerns would have no impact on a slow progression towards turning ourselves into something unrecognizable as human by today's standards.
The idea of everyone having an IQ of 300, being able to sleep 4 hours a week, and never getting sick may sound great to some, but where does it stop? After we've reached the point of greatly diminishing returns from drugs, do we turn to machines for enhancment? Do we augment ourselves with embedded computer chips, use genetic engineering to enhance our characteristics, or completely tailor our bodies and minds into something we can't even imagine today?
This may seem far removed from sleep drugs, but I think it is a natural progression
I don't know if I'd say this is the "beginning". Microsoft has been investing Billions in research and design for years, the new Office UI is simply an extension of that. They've also been allowing developers to use their UI components for years, the only difference here is that developers will not be able to use those UI components for a product that replicates the functionality within Excel, Word, Access, or PowerPoint.
For developers creating Windows products, this is a great license to obtain. I really don't see much of an impact on OpenOffice, as it doesn't even attempt to place any restrictions on what competitors can do, it just states that competitors can't use their Ribbon interface. Since OpenOffice is cross-platform, its developers would probably never choose to use the MS Interface outright, but likely develop their own similar Ribbon interface (if it was even worth porting, which is debatable), since it would be more compatible accross platforms and limit legal liability.
Microsoft will always spend Billions on creating slicker and easier to use interfaces. This has almost zero impact on Linux's server market (and advantages), which is why Linux has made such market share inroads on the server side. The impact is greatest though on the Desktop, where ease of use, ease of installation, and UI friendliness are far more important (and these are areas that are given a relatively lower priority by the programmers than by the Microsoft Marketing and Strategy departments).
Many CIO's probably did not realize the theoretical risks of using Linux prior to Ballmer's statement. I know I didn't. Unfortunately Ballmer was right to a degree ... and while CIO's and other tech professionals can deny the validity of his statement, it will be a matter for the courts to decide at some point.
... but then again, that's Microsoft's M.O. A monopoly in today's global regulatory environment takes an immensely powerful, and often ruthless, legal team. This is just Microsoft rattling that (hopefully unusable) saber ...
Since most companies that use Linux typically have at least some Windows machines, Microsoft's perceived threat to either sue or enforce licenses for all Linux users was highly alienating and rather disrespectful of their customer base. 'What was he thinking' is right. A smart company woudn't form a half Billion dollar agreement then tell the target client base of the agreement that they're gonna be sued
Great points! Although even the college educated Americans (who would be a fairer comparison) seem to be far less knowledgable on these topics. Part of it could be interest as well ... it's quite common to discuss things like Religion and Politics over dinner with friends in Europe, while these topics are often taboo here.
Also, I don't know if we can predict future world leadership just by population figures. By that measure, countries like Germany, Japan, and South Korea would have never achieved the industrial and intellectual lead they have/had enjoyed over much of the world (outside the U.S. that is). Sure, we probably won't be the #1 in terms of GDP in the future, but we certainly could make a concerted effort to regain the lead in per capita income and quality of life measures that we endanger by allowing the rest of the world's quality of education surpass our own.
I definitely agree here. A high school education certainly doesn't provide the opportunities that it used to (nor does a BA or BS for that matter). If we are to get in a discussion around the education levels of Americans as a whole, I'd probably agree with the use of the word "epidemic" in describing our average level of education ... particularly if measured by the average person's knowledge and competence rather than degree earned.
Whenever I have traveled to foreign countries, I always find it amazing that the average foreigner seems to know far more about American culture, government, and history than the average American. This isn't just a reflection of our schools, but of our society and families as well. I also believe the problem has gotten so bad that our leadership in industry and technology cannot possibly be maintained unless we make a large-scale concerted effort to fix education, not just concentrate on statistics such as dropout rates.
There's no doubt that dropout rates are a major U.S. problem, but the ABC article would make one think that dropout rates are on the rise. Nationally, this just isn't true. Between 1972 and 2004, dropout rates have fallen drastically. For all ethnicities, they are now almost half what the rates were 30 years ago (note: the full article that references this table can be found here)
This doesn't mean that isolated cities (such as Detroit and Baltimore) that have experienced serious economic problems and urban blight are better than 30 years ago, they are likely worse, but to characterize the problem as a national "epidemic" is completely ignoring the truth. Our school systems, teachers, and local governments have been working hard to raise graduation rates nationwide. And the data supports their assertion that they are seeing some success. Sure, there are MAJOR shortcomings to our public school system, but there has been major progress that shouldn't go unrecognized.
In all likelihood, the U.S. is also creeping towards a 'Surveillance Society'. Response to terrorism (from the IRA) was one of drivers of the UKs current propensity towards spying on its citizens, fear of Al Queda and Islamic Militants will be our undoing as well. In times of unease and mass fear it's often easy to give up freedoms, but ever so difficult to bring them back. Hopefully Americans will recognize this before we merrily join the UK and strap video cameras to every public park, building, and employee.
They will, but not yet ... currently China expends about 15% of the world's energy, the U.S. about 25%. In the next couple decades though, China should take the lead.
Also, our per capita energy expenditure is massively higher than China's:
U.S. - 11,571 KWh per person
China - 637 KWh per person
It's scary to think of China's demands if their per capita wealth (and consumption) reaches levels anywhere close to that of the U.S.
Considering that the U.S. uses over a quarter of the world's energy, I think the only thing cool about the project is that we're only contributing 10% of the total cost. The problem is that the reactor will take designs that have not been terribly successful at a smaller scale and try to prove that all of a sudden they would become commercially viable at a large scale.
... then once the research creates results we can devote the resources to building a test reactor. Apparently the U.S. has been thinking along similar lines since they've wavered back and forth on the project for so long, and in the end committed only a token amount towards the project.
Instead of devoting Billions to developing a large reactor on relatively low-yield/high-cost technology, I'd rather see the U.S. spend these Billions on researching how to create a more productive and economical fusion reaction
I'd love to see people do this, but the biggest problem is that we are talking about a Desktop O/S, and most businesses (and average home users) aren't ready to start using a Linux based desktop instead of Windows. Microsoft has pushed their activation and licensing schemes in the past, and have typically backed away due to user backlash. I suspect we'll see the same scenario repeated over the coming year.
... which I'd imagine would be years away.
I doubt we'll see a large desktop migration to Linux just because of Vista, but we'll certainly see quite a few business clients maintaining a 'wait and see' approach longer than for past iterations of Windows software. For most business users, there's just no driving reason to upgrade from XP until software is developed that only runs on Vista
'Most efficient way'? I guess it depends on how you calculate. Here's my calculation, let me know if I missed something. I'll use a Boeing 777 as an example since it is more efficient than most jets:
... which is why the relatively fuel inefficient planes usually win out.
;)
777:
Gallons used to travel 3000 miles (cross country): ~20,000
Average number of passengers for cross country trip: 400
Gallons per traveler: 50
Car:
Highway MPG: 30
# of gallons to travel 3000 miles: 100
Average # of travelers: 2
Gallons per traveler: 50
So as long as there are more than 2 people in a car or a 2 passenger car achieves greater than 30 miles per gallon on the highway, the car is more efficient, right? Of course, not many people would want to take a car cross country over a plane
That being said, Boeing is certainly far more cognizant of the need for fuel efficient airplanes than Airbus (particularly with your pending introduction of the Dreamliner). That's why I specifically singled out Airbus.
In many respects I agree, Kyoto is NOT the answer. However, the answer will almost certainly cause a major change in our economy and definition of prosperity. The world cannot sustain 3 ton SUVs, Airbus jumbo jets, and lavish cruise ship vacations forever. We all want our children to live a better life than we do today, but in order for this to happen we need to redefine what 'better' means. If we continue to equate 'a better life' with 'having more stuff', then frankly the environment is doomed.
... the lifestyle that we covet must change. Once/if we move down that path, it will be economically painful in the short-term, but at some point we just won't have any other choices and we'll end up with a radically different society/world (which I am optimistic will be for the better).
Until we find far greater stores of cheap clean energy and raw materials, consumption will always yield pollution and environmental damage. We must reduce consumption to reduce global warming. This is the expensive and unfortunate consequence of tackling global warming
I'd love to use OpenOffice, but unfortunately it still can't format our stationary headers and footers correctly (also the presentation app doesn't appear to be very compatible with PowerPoint). MS Office compatibility is the largest hurdle to adoptance of OpenOffice in my opinion.