"Since the advent of congressionally mandated computers in vehicles more than 15 years ago (for emissions)"
YES!!!! OMFG GOVERNMENT CAUSED THE PROBLEM!!!!
When will you drones figure it out. I dont want government regulating every thing. All it ever does is destroy industries to such an extent that it creates a barrier to entry to where they are reduced to several large megaconglomerates that become "too big to fail". Ever hear of the law of unintended consequences? All this law is going to do is give automotive lobbyists (and unions to boot) more legitimacy in demanding "bail out" money. I mean, they are going to create a cost, and either that cost is going to be passed to the consumer via increased vehicle price, taxes, or both (hey, fuck they the little guy all around).
I am fairly certain, not even having read the law, that this would be like using cyanide to cure a headache. Patient dead, but the pain is gone.
Fuck Oregon and all the fucking progressives in your fascist fucking state. Pass more taxes, and regulations. Drive businesses out in DROVES. Eat dirt and live in tents. Live the social and environmental justice utopia of your fantasies.
Just stay in your state. Dont leave when your living without electricity. Dont leave when you figure out that NATURE FUCKING HATES YOU and starts wiping you out in droves, like nature has been doing to all living creatures, forever.
Just stay out of our pathetic "red states" with our low taxes and lack of regulations. Let us live with our guns and our God and our electricity and our gas burning cars and our farms and all of our food.
We'll be alright without you and you are all so fucking smart, you'll figure it out. Just stay in Oregon.
"Their claim was that they intended to create small explosions in airports as a political act or protest. That claim seems more inline with the evidence to me, but I didn't look into it in any detail."
If you didnt look into any detail, perhaps you should not endorse, even in passing, EITHER side of the situation. For example, I could say, " I believe you endorse the goals of radical, terrorist Islam by reading your post, but I dont have any further details." See, I'm creating speculation to support my theory that you are part of a system whose strict purpose is to undermine the fundamental principles of our society by picking it apart piece by piece, case by case, basing the WHOLE on small inconsistencies. Not a true straw man, but not an accurate portrayal.
For example, if a US Soldier kills a child, someone could claim that the US military killed that child. On one hand, that soldier WAS in the employ of the US government, further making everyone in that soldiers chain of command a child killer. That would mean that now, according to events in Afghanistan, President Obama is a child killer.
Ooooh. I like these little pro-progressive, anti-American arguments! They are fun!
Or we can stick with the constitution and cut from, I dunno, Social services spending (the other 40% of wasted tax money that isnt part of the governments constitutional mandate).
I mean, look at how much good social security has done for us. Dont believe me, ride into the projects of Los Angeles or Washington DC. Those people have greately benefited from the benevolent government teet.
Yeah, f' the military. What has THAT ever done for us? I mean, the internet is over rated and Japan and German are much superior languages and cultures (well, at least they were under homicidal fascism).
Hehe... I was thinking about doing a car analogy to make a mockery of your post (to the meta-mods: parent making far fetched predictions about future of the internet), but I guess I can sum it up asking where is my flying car?
The internet was the most unlikely of inventions to begin with, and the personal civilian application of the internet being the most unexpected application of computers and networking. I cant think of much fiction pre-dating the early 80's that predicted the internet as it is today (yes yes, porn... I know).
How is that informative? What EXACTLY has Obama changed or plans to change?
Oh, right. Very different. Record deficit spending: $700 billion stimulus package... which was just a massive pork project for congress. Lets not forget, Ben Bernanke. Didnt Obama JUST reappoint him to the SAME POST as GW Bush?
Jobless recovery, I believe those were the EXACT same words Obama used to describe our current "recovery" (like we are really in a recovery). Cash for clunkers is responsible spending?!? Exactly how?
Yeah, Obama is a different bird. His "advisors" are a bunch of Socialists and Communists (Van Jones professed to be one).
Aversion to regulation. Check. I love this new administration and its wonderful new regulation. Wait till cap-n-tax takes hold. Jobless recovery... lol. Universal health care... even lol'er. Fiscal responsible regulatory regime is not Obama. An economic illiterate with a desire to force dramatic socialist policies without consideration of the reality, check.
How many articles need to be posted on Slashdot.org about the feasibility of "clean energy resources" replacing carbon based fuels? The math is out there, but dont let physics or science get in the way of "Eco-Religion".
Bush was a huge asshat who increased the size of government and spent like a drunken sailor. Screw him. But if you are pissed at Bush for his poor policies, how can you turn around and embrace Obama who has already outspent Bush in just 6 months?
Increase propaganda through FUD is pretty bad as well. In relation to the USA.
Regular Flu: Since January, more than 13,000 have died of complications from seasonal flu (April 2009)
Swine Flu: Since January, 10 reported deaths (May 2009)
In 1976, when 40 million people received the H1N1 vaccination over a period of a few months, the incidence of Guillain-Barre syndrome was about one out of 150,000.
"The flu season is upon us. Which type will we worry about this year, and what kind of shots will we be told to take? Remember the swine flu scare of 1976? That was the year the U.S. government told us all that swine flu could turn out to be a killer that could spread across the nation, and Washington decided that every man, woman and child in the nation should get a shot to prevent a nation-wide outbreak, a pandemic." (Mike Wallace, CBS, 60 Minutes, November 4, 1979)
I think the article just uses bad semantics. Of course the helmet isnt actually causing brain damage. The critique is in the design not preventing something that could be fixed by filling the space between the Kevlar and the skull.
The big problem is with people who have no experience with the military outside of hollywood productions. See, those of us who have military experience have learned early on that all of our equipment is made by the lowest bidder. In fact, most of the equipment that soldiers use is rather old, with better alternatives found in the free market. I dont have to go over this again, but many soldiers opt to purchase their own body armor and ancillary equipment.
Kevlars suck. I've always hated them, but they were better than the alternative, but not great. I'm sure there are plenty of free market products out there that are far superior. If I'd ever got sucked back in the military, I'm buying my own gear (outside the uniforms).
Sure, should be no problem building something that can filter out a mass of pollution LARGER THAN TEXAS.
How long do you think that would take exactly? How much energy would that take? How are you going to transport the debris that is collected? Where are you going to put it? Is the solution more "green" than the problem?
This is a repeat thread with the same recommended, knee jerk solutions.
I'm all for space travel (I think this is one of the few useful things a government agency does well), but like many people here have said many times before, we need to do it in ways that make sense and that we can build on. What started out with a quick dabble in LEO was slung shot to a space race to the moon. While some of the technology that came from that competition (mind you, many products were developed outside of the space program and adapted TO the space program where it became famous) has found great uses, the push to the moon did not yield much outside of the international political arena.
With that said, there has been a correction. The nations of the earth have begun to utilize low earth orbit: satellites (for various uses). This is the number 1 use of LEO. As time goes on and people begin to find ways to exploit LEO there will be more challenges to face (advantages and disadvantages to be gained). This analysis of the moon shows us how far we have come and how far we have to go. The moon is close, and cheapest heavenly body to get to. If we cant put and maintain a base there, how can we expect to exploit asteroids or even attempt to wrestle with landing and take offs on other planets (for example: tag: gettomars).
Every mistake made provides an opportunity to improve and do it again. Its best we learn (and we will learn many things) trying to land and establish outposts on the moon before we go any further, and this will likely be the case for the next several generations (unless some crazy breakthrough in physics occurs that results in easy and safe departure from the earths surface).
Legislation that regulates competition is bad. Customers will decide if their carriers are doing whats best for them. People will talk, with or without the internet. As long as competitors are not locked out of the market by stupid government, bad businesses will die, better businesses will surface, and services will improve. While the system is not always perfect, and sometimes business do the "wrong thing" (this is where government SHOULD come in), it is best for the government to act ON THE EXCEPTION rather than try and shape the course of the industry.
Government created utopia is the fantasy of the intellectual elite. Its the masturbatory fantasy that "I could do it better, if only everyone will listen to me". Let the internet be free. Let the service providers restrict services on THEIR networks if THEY WANT TO. The customers on the receiving end will decide whether or not they want to endure it, and move on if it impacts them. Keep the government out of it. Keep the law out of it. Stop the insanity of the over regulation and let markets emerge, and let the government deal with those who would break that natural system of "supply and demand" and free market competition.
Recommend all of you in favor of government intervention take a look at the US Housing Market. You can also take a look at the demise of the Soviet Union.
"the public concerned about launching a nuclear power source and placing it on the Moon or another planet"
Its not the public. These whack-job left overs from the 70's and 80's are hardly contributing members of the public. Its these degenerate retards that should be pinned up on TV and ridiculed. But no. The media is full of sympathetic whack job lefties that call these freaks "the public" and senior citizens worried about socialized medicine "angry mobs".
For those of you out there that got swept up in the anti-Bush frenzy of the past 4 years, take a deep breath and take a look at who is leading the way. Economic illiterates, race bating agitators, and pandering populists that only have one thing on their mind: control. Don't worry, as bad as the republicans were, these lefties are by far worse. Dont believe me? Pick up a history book and reference Eastern Europe circa 1950 - 1989. Thats where the "benevolent" environmentalists want to take you. Not forward, but into shackles.
You cant trust them. You shouldnt trust them. You shouldnt trust them, or your secretary, or your accountant, or your air condition repairman.
You can only trust people to do what you want them to do, and nothing more. Your network administrator should be watched by a security administrator who in turn is regularly polygraphed by an external polygrapher.
The problem with your question, is your understanding of the problem.
If your asking if you can trust your network administrator, you need to hire a competent IT manager who has an understanding of how IT works, and let him/her decide how to run things. They will know whether or not your network administrator can do his job remotely or not without putting your company at risk. They will evaluate your IT infrastructure with an understanding of the technology that will be used to get into the network, and how much damage can be done by that particular individual with the rights and privileges they have.
Its a complicated answer to a poorly composed question. Sorry if I'm sounding harsh, but I'm doing it for your own good.
Eliminate wealth, and you still have systems of division. The smart will surpass the "stupid" AND "mediocre" students, thus having a minority who surpasses the majority. This will create the same exact social bias that exists with wealth.
Perhaps you should put down Marx and Engles and pick up a history book and look what happened to the intellectual elites during the Social Justice revolutions of the 20th century. My point has already been proven by history.
Good link, though I'm familiar with Eugenics. Eugenics is not my point. My point is that modern technology can more adequately accommodate students of different capability without having to resort to "eugenic" type social experiments. I firmly believe that all people have some sort of contribution to give, regardless of birth, parents, culture of societal origination. My problem is with the education "system", not the people. Not the dumb, not the lazy. My problem is with a "mandatory" system that holds back the gifted while "torturing" those who are not wired for it.
There are many good examples of how much trauma the artificial school system can cause for young people. I wont go into that, but part of that problem is because we are still using 17th century teaching techniques.
You wouldnt need only 1 teacher. You'd need 1 teacher, and perhaps 3 teachers aides. One person with a big degree, three people with little degrees, or no degrees, or just certification to deal with "child care". Cuts costs and perhaps can even lead to increase of compensation for education employees (complete speculation).
Technology has provided the tools (aka: computers and audio visual) to allow every student go at their own pace. The artificial advancement system in place, especially in North America, is a creation of the necessity of times past. Today, a child can read history, hear a lecture, take quizes, exams, look up information, etc. all from the computer screen. If you allow a child to learn and achieve at their own pace, everyone earns what they are capable of earning. Your better adjusted children with natural ability to achieve in certain subjects are going to bypass other children their age, and even children who are older than them. Others will continue to lag behind, but they will do so at their own pace, not according to the humiliating schematic used today.
Its very simple. If you fail an academic school year, you are "left behind". Your friends move on, and your are clumped in with people whom you are unfamiliar with, who KNOW you failed, and will treat you accordingly. I dont think I have to go into great detail at the extreme psychological trauma a student suffers when they are "kept back".
Also note. A lot of the "dumb kids" arent stupid at all. In fact, psychologists tend to point to the social environment of the modern school system as one of the greatest obstacles of learning.
Wrong. A vast majority of people have always just learned enough just to get by. There has never been a period in human history where the vast majority of people sat around reading philosophy and physics books and discussed xyz science discovery. Call it human nature, but people tend to focus on the things that are most entertaining to them, and most people just want to know enough to have a decent discussion with the rest of the people around them.
I cant recall the last time I sat down with anyone and chatted about "Cirrus clouds", but this is the crap they teach in 5th grade. Why? Because the 14th century concept of the "new man". Its a failed paradigm that we still cling to: people being smart all around.
The education system, I'd say across the world is completely outdated and is a perfect example of a government run system. Even with all the technological advances available to schools, we still use the 17th century lecture style instruction method across the globe. We cram 30 students into the room with 1 teacher, and force everyone to learn at one pace: from the smartest to the dumbest. This made sense when schools taught the basics: reading, writing and arithmetic. This system was never meant to produce "college students". No, college students came from "wealthy" families that could afford nice schools with small classes that offered more personal attention from the academic instructor.
Intrusive government in the western world in cooperation with the unions work diligently to keep schools with a certain child to teacher ratio, in order to ensure more "jobs", not more educated children. Lets face it. You can put 100 children into a curriculum and augment it with a computer learning system and easily handle it with 1 teacher. This is being done with colleges all across the nation, right now. The teacher simply helps answer question while the computer handles the bulk of the instruction (yup, you can even complement the learning with pictures, videos, audio, etc..). Let the kids learn at their own pace and see what happens.
You wont get this though. Because we live in a world that demands "social justice" aka: forcing the smartest to be clumped in with the dumbest and the laziest.
There is currently military use of UAV... where the military isnt using many autonomous ground based vehicle. How is a URV a 2D problem? Only computer deal with 2D problems since reality is 4D, even on the ground. Air space is easier to deal with, less obstacles. The hardest part is landing, and that is already being done by computers in both the commercial cargo and passenger world. Yes, your pilot is not landing the aircraft, the computer is.
I'd imagine that satellites will contribute greatly to the automation of commercial aircraft.
I'm up in the air about this one. The US military is probably one of the biggest consumers of unmanned air craft, and has been using them extensively for quiet some time in Afghanistan. For the most part, the highlights scream "success", but I dont really trust the news for two reasons. One, the media is untrustworthy. Two, the military does not benefit by releasing news of drone failures (opsec issue and all, for those crazy left wing anti military whack jobs make of it what you will).
I'd be more inclined to support this if the military released unclassified reports on all of its unmanned UAV activities. Yes, UAV is not nearly the same as "commercial airliner" but its a good step in the right direction. The military can probably provide mountains of information on the outcome of thousands upon thousands of flights and all sorts of variable problems they have encountered (from mechanical to signal). This will be another area where military tech and military experience directly and dramatically impacts commercial applications of new technology.
Unmanned flight is going to happen. Not if, but when. This will occur with commercial cargo transports first (FedEx, UPS, etc), where saving money on "human support systems" will go a long way to reduce costs, improve route times, increase the amount of flights to be made, etc.. It only makes sense.
Slashdot Mirror
YES!!! OMFG GOVERNMENT TO THE RESCUE!!!!
"Since the advent of congressionally mandated computers in vehicles more than 15 years ago (for emissions)"
YES!!!! OMFG GOVERNMENT CAUSED THE PROBLEM!!!!
When will you drones figure it out. I dont want government regulating every thing. All it ever does is destroy industries to such an extent that it creates a barrier to entry to where they are reduced to several large megaconglomerates that become "too big to fail". Ever hear of the law of unintended consequences? All this law is going to do is give automotive lobbyists (and unions to boot) more legitimacy in demanding "bail out" money. I mean, they are going to create a cost, and either that cost is going to be passed to the consumer via increased vehicle price, taxes, or both (hey, fuck they the little guy all around).
I am fairly certain, not even having read the law, that this would be like using cyanide to cure a headache. Patient dead, but the pain is gone.
Ok. Here is my thoughts on Oregon.
Fuck Oregon and all the fucking progressives in your fascist fucking state. Pass more taxes, and regulations. Drive businesses out in DROVES. Eat dirt and live in tents. Live the social and environmental justice utopia of your fantasies.
Just stay in your state. Dont leave when your living without electricity. Dont leave when you figure out that NATURE FUCKING HATES YOU and starts wiping you out in droves, like nature has been doing to all living creatures, forever.
Just stay out of our pathetic "red states" with our low taxes and lack of regulations. Let us live with our guns and our God and our electricity and our gas burning cars and our farms and all of our food.
We'll be alright without you and you are all so fucking smart, you'll figure it out. Just stay in Oregon.
Absolutely brilliant.
"Their claim was that they intended to create small explosions in airports as a political act or protest. That claim seems more inline with the evidence to me, but I didn't look into it in any detail."
If you didnt look into any detail, perhaps you should not endorse, even in passing, EITHER side of the situation. For example, I could say, " I believe you endorse the goals of radical, terrorist Islam by reading your post, but I dont have any further details." See, I'm creating speculation to support my theory that you are part of a system whose strict purpose is to undermine the fundamental principles of our society by picking it apart piece by piece, case by case, basing the WHOLE on small inconsistencies. Not a true straw man, but not an accurate portrayal.
For example, if a US Soldier kills a child, someone could claim that the US military killed that child. On one hand, that soldier WAS in the employ of the US government, further making everyone in that soldiers chain of command a child killer. That would mean that now, according to events in Afghanistan, President Obama is a child killer.
Ooooh. I like these little pro-progressive, anti-American arguments! They are fun!
Next pseudo intellectual post please.
Or we can stick with the constitution and cut from, I dunno, Social services spending (the other 40% of wasted tax money that isnt part of the governments constitutional mandate).
I mean, look at how much good social security has done for us. Dont believe me, ride into the projects of Los Angeles or Washington DC. Those people have greately benefited from the benevolent government teet.
Yeah, f' the military. What has THAT ever done for us? I mean, the internet is over rated and Japan and German are much superior languages and cultures (well, at least they were under homicidal fascism).
Just sayin.
Hehe... I was thinking about doing a car analogy to make a mockery of your post (to the meta-mods: parent making far fetched predictions about future of the internet), but I guess I can sum it up asking where is my flying car?
The internet was the most unlikely of inventions to begin with, and the personal civilian application of the internet being the most unexpected application of computers and networking. I cant think of much fiction pre-dating the early 80's that predicted the internet as it is today (yes yes, porn... I know).
I hope your the first to go.
Talk about spreading FUD.
Read the quotes (May 2009) versus the regular "flu" in (April 2009). Talk about poor reading comprehension.
How is that informative? What EXACTLY has Obama changed or plans to change?
Oh, right. Very different. Record deficit spending: $700 billion stimulus package... which was just a massive pork project for congress. Lets not forget, Ben Bernanke. Didnt Obama JUST reappoint him to the SAME POST as GW Bush?
Jobless recovery, I believe those were the EXACT same words Obama used to describe our current "recovery" (like we are really in a recovery). Cash for clunkers is responsible spending?!? Exactly how?
Yeah, Obama is a different bird. His "advisors" are a bunch of Socialists and Communists (Van Jones professed to be one).
Aversion to regulation. Check. I love this new administration and its wonderful new regulation. Wait till cap-n-tax takes hold. Jobless recovery... lol. Universal health care... even lol'er. Fiscal responsible regulatory regime is not Obama. An economic illiterate with a desire to force dramatic socialist policies without consideration of the reality, check.
How many articles need to be posted on Slashdot.org about the feasibility of "clean energy resources" replacing carbon based fuels? The math is out there, but dont let physics or science get in the way of "Eco-Religion".
Bush was a huge asshat who increased the size of government and spent like a drunken sailor. Screw him. But if you are pissed at Bush for his poor policies, how can you turn around and embrace Obama who has already outspent Bush in just 6 months?
I do agree with your point on our "frenemies".
See, I'll agree with anyone when there right.
Increase propaganda through FUD is pretty bad as well. In relation to the USA.
Regular Flu: Since January, more than 13,000 have died of complications from seasonal flu (April 2009)
Swine Flu: Since January, 10 reported deaths (May 2009)
In 1976, when 40 million people received the H1N1 vaccination over a period of a few months, the incidence of Guillain-Barre syndrome was about one out of 150,000.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guillain-Barr%C3%A9_syndrome
"The flu season is upon us. Which type will we worry about this year, and what kind of shots will we be told to take? Remember the swine flu scare of 1976? That was the year the U.S. government told us all that swine flu could turn out to be a killer that could spread across the nation, and Washington decided that every man, woman and child in the nation should get a shot to prevent a nation-wide outbreak, a pandemic." (Mike Wallace, CBS, 60 Minutes, November 4, 1979)
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14543
Old tricks with a new dog. Hope for Change. Got it. Is this administration just historically illiterate or are they up to something?
I think the article just uses bad semantics. Of course the helmet isnt actually causing brain damage. The critique is in the design not preventing something that could be fixed by filling the space between the Kevlar and the skull.
The big problem is with people who have no experience with the military outside of hollywood productions. See, those of us who have military experience have learned early on that all of our equipment is made by the lowest bidder. In fact, most of the equipment that soldiers use is rather old, with better alternatives found in the free market. I dont have to go over this again, but many soldiers opt to purchase their own body armor and ancillary equipment.
Kevlars suck. I've always hated them, but they were better than the alternative, but not great. I'm sure there are plenty of free market products out there that are far superior. If I'd ever got sucked back in the military, I'm buying my own gear (outside the uniforms).
Sweet! A flight simulator. Now all they need is an air force! Now we know what they are saving money for!
Sure, should be no problem building something that can filter out a mass of pollution LARGER THAN TEXAS.
How long do you think that would take exactly? How much energy would that take? How are you going to transport the debris that is collected? Where are you going to put it? Is the solution more "green" than the problem?
This is a repeat thread with the same recommended, knee jerk solutions.
I'm all for space travel (I think this is one of the few useful things a government agency does well), but like many people here have said many times before, we need to do it in ways that make sense and that we can build on. What started out with a quick dabble in LEO was slung shot to a space race to the moon. While some of the technology that came from that competition (mind you, many products were developed outside of the space program and adapted TO the space program where it became famous) has found great uses, the push to the moon did not yield much outside of the international political arena.
With that said, there has been a correction. The nations of the earth have begun to utilize low earth orbit: satellites (for various uses). This is the number 1 use of LEO. As time goes on and people begin to find ways to exploit LEO there will be more challenges to face (advantages and disadvantages to be gained). This analysis of the moon shows us how far we have come and how far we have to go. The moon is close, and cheapest heavenly body to get to. If we cant put and maintain a base there, how can we expect to exploit asteroids or even attempt to wrestle with landing and take offs on other planets (for example: tag: gettomars).
Every mistake made provides an opportunity to improve and do it again. Its best we learn (and we will learn many things) trying to land and establish outposts on the moon before we go any further, and this will likely be the case for the next several generations (unless some crazy breakthrough in physics occurs that results in easy and safe departure from the earths surface).
Go NASA!
Legislation that regulates competition is bad. Customers will decide if their carriers are doing whats best for them. People will talk, with or without the internet. As long as competitors are not locked out of the market by stupid government, bad businesses will die, better businesses will surface, and services will improve. While the system is not always perfect, and sometimes business do the "wrong thing" (this is where government SHOULD come in), it is best for the government to act ON THE EXCEPTION rather than try and shape the course of the industry.
Government created utopia is the fantasy of the intellectual elite. Its the masturbatory fantasy that "I could do it better, if only everyone will listen to me". Let the internet be free. Let the service providers restrict services on THEIR networks if THEY WANT TO. The customers on the receiving end will decide whether or not they want to endure it, and move on if it impacts them. Keep the government out of it. Keep the law out of it. Stop the insanity of the over regulation and let markets emerge, and let the government deal with those who would break that natural system of "supply and demand" and free market competition.
Recommend all of you in favor of government intervention take a look at the US Housing Market. You can also take a look at the demise of the Soviet Union.
"the public concerned about launching a nuclear power source and placing it on the Moon or another planet"
Its not the public. These whack-job left overs from the 70's and 80's are hardly contributing members of the public. Its these degenerate retards that should be pinned up on TV and ridiculed. But no. The media is full of sympathetic whack job lefties that call these freaks "the public" and senior citizens worried about socialized medicine "angry mobs".
For those of you out there that got swept up in the anti-Bush frenzy of the past 4 years, take a deep breath and take a look at who is leading the way. Economic illiterates, race bating agitators, and pandering populists that only have one thing on their mind: control. Don't worry, as bad as the republicans were, these lefties are by far worse. Dont believe me? Pick up a history book and reference Eastern Europe circa 1950 - 1989. Thats where the "benevolent" environmentalists want to take you. Not forward, but into shackles.
Green is the new Red.
Now mod me down.
Even better.
You cant trust them. You shouldnt trust them. You shouldnt trust them, or your secretary, or your accountant, or your air condition repairman.
You can only trust people to do what you want them to do, and nothing more. Your network administrator should be watched by a security administrator who in turn is regularly polygraphed by an external polygrapher.
The problem with your question, is your understanding of the problem.
If your asking if you can trust your network administrator, you need to hire a competent IT manager who has an understanding of how IT works, and let him/her decide how to run things. They will know whether or not your network administrator can do his job remotely or not without putting your company at risk. They will evaluate your IT infrastructure with an understanding of the technology that will be used to get into the network, and how much damage can be done by that particular individual with the rights and privileges they have.
Its a complicated answer to a poorly composed question. Sorry if I'm sounding harsh, but I'm doing it for your own good.
Eliminate wealth, and you still have systems of division. The smart will surpass the "stupid" AND "mediocre" students, thus having a minority who surpasses the majority. This will create the same exact social bias that exists with wealth.
Perhaps you should put down Marx and Engles and pick up a history book and look what happened to the intellectual elites during the Social Justice revolutions of the 20th century. My point has already been proven by history.
Good link, though I'm familiar with Eugenics. Eugenics is not my point. My point is that modern technology can more adequately accommodate students of different capability without having to resort to "eugenic" type social experiments. I firmly believe that all people have some sort of contribution to give, regardless of birth, parents, culture of societal origination. My problem is with the education "system", not the people. Not the dumb, not the lazy. My problem is with a "mandatory" system that holds back the gifted while "torturing" those who are not wired for it.
There are many good examples of how much trauma the artificial school system can cause for young people. I wont go into that, but part of that problem is because we are still using 17th century teaching techniques.
You wouldnt need only 1 teacher. You'd need 1 teacher, and perhaps 3 teachers aides. One person with a big degree, three people with little degrees, or no degrees, or just certification to deal with "child care". Cuts costs and perhaps can even lead to increase of compensation for education employees (complete speculation).
Technology has provided the tools (aka: computers and audio visual) to allow every student go at their own pace. The artificial advancement system in place, especially in North America, is a creation of the necessity of times past. Today, a child can read history, hear a lecture, take quizes, exams, look up information, etc. all from the computer screen. If you allow a child to learn and achieve at their own pace, everyone earns what they are capable of earning. Your better adjusted children with natural ability to achieve in certain subjects are going to bypass other children their age, and even children who are older than them. Others will continue to lag behind, but they will do so at their own pace, not according to the humiliating schematic used today.
Its very simple. If you fail an academic school year, you are "left behind". Your friends move on, and your are clumped in with people whom you are unfamiliar with, who KNOW you failed, and will treat you accordingly. I dont think I have to go into great detail at the extreme psychological trauma a student suffers when they are "kept back".
Also note. A lot of the "dumb kids" arent stupid at all. In fact, psychologists tend to point to the social environment of the modern school system as one of the greatest obstacles of learning.
Wrong. A vast majority of people have always just learned enough just to get by. There has never been a period in human history where the vast majority of people sat around reading philosophy and physics books and discussed xyz science discovery. Call it human nature, but people tend to focus on the things that are most entertaining to them, and most people just want to know enough to have a decent discussion with the rest of the people around them.
I cant recall the last time I sat down with anyone and chatted about "Cirrus clouds", but this is the crap they teach in 5th grade. Why? Because the 14th century concept of the "new man". Its a failed paradigm that we still cling to: people being smart all around.
The education system, I'd say across the world is completely outdated and is a perfect example of a government run system. Even with all the technological advances available to schools, we still use the 17th century lecture style instruction method across the globe. We cram 30 students into the room with 1 teacher, and force everyone to learn at one pace: from the smartest to the dumbest. This made sense when schools taught the basics: reading, writing and arithmetic. This system was never meant to produce "college students". No, college students came from "wealthy" families that could afford nice schools with small classes that offered more personal attention from the academic instructor.
Intrusive government in the western world in cooperation with the unions work diligently to keep schools with a certain child to teacher ratio, in order to ensure more "jobs", not more educated children. Lets face it. You can put 100 children into a curriculum and augment it with a computer learning system and easily handle it with 1 teacher. This is being done with colleges all across the nation, right now. The teacher simply helps answer question while the computer handles the bulk of the instruction (yup, you can even complement the learning with pictures, videos, audio, etc..). Let the kids learn at their own pace and see what happens.
You wont get this though. Because we live in a world that demands "social justice" aka: forcing the smartest to be clumped in with the dumbest and the laziest.
Huh? This doesnt make any sense...
There is currently military use of UAV... where the military isnt using many autonomous ground based vehicle. How is a URV a 2D problem? Only computer deal with 2D problems since reality is 4D, even on the ground. Air space is easier to deal with, less obstacles. The hardest part is landing, and that is already being done by computers in both the commercial cargo and passenger world. Yes, your pilot is not landing the aircraft, the computer is.
I'd imagine that satellites will contribute greatly to the automation of commercial aircraft.
The government doesnt need computers anymore.
Its got the SEIU to beat up seniors now!
I'm up in the air about this one. The US military is probably one of the biggest consumers of unmanned air craft, and has been using them extensively for quiet some time in Afghanistan. For the most part, the highlights scream "success", but I dont really trust the news for two reasons. One, the media is untrustworthy. Two, the military does not benefit by releasing news of drone failures (opsec issue and all, for those crazy left wing anti military whack jobs make of it what you will).
I'd be more inclined to support this if the military released unclassified reports on all of its unmanned UAV activities. Yes, UAV is not nearly the same as "commercial airliner" but its a good step in the right direction. The military can probably provide mountains of information on the outcome of thousands upon thousands of flights and all sorts of variable problems they have encountered (from mechanical to signal). This will be another area where military tech and military experience directly and dramatically impacts commercial applications of new technology.
Unmanned flight is going to happen. Not if, but when. This will occur with commercial cargo transports first (FedEx, UPS, etc), where saving money on "human support systems" will go a long way to reduce costs, improve route times, increase the amount of flights to be made, etc.. It only makes sense.
Well if you feel there are too many people, do the greater good, and mother earth a service and check out early.
No?
Guess its not /that/ over populated. Is it?