> Without a clear, meaningful definition of what it is a
> person is rejecting, it makes no sense to talk about
> rejecting it, because what you are rejecting, what others
> think you are rejecting and what you think you are
> rejecting are not going to be the same
> pilots said airlines were unaware how frequently safety incidents
> occurred that could lead to serious problems or even crashes,
> The survey's purpose was to develop a new way of tracking
> safety trends and problems the airline industry could address.
> revealing the findings could damage the public's confidence
> in airlines and affect airline profits.
So NASA, worried the industry could be overlooking some bugs, initiated a code review with the intent of creating a bug-tracking system. Four years and $8.5 million later, the project presumably completed, they didn't release - because it would expose bugs?
I wouldn't have thought it was NASA's role to cover-up airline industry problems. I'd expect airline industry non-sequitors like this to have been performed by the FAA and NTSB. NASA should restrict itself to losing their own design plans, and occasionally mucking up english-metric conversions.
Thank you for this well-written and thoughtful post.
I wonder if your pollster background gives you an unrealistic perspective. You seem to believe that The People decide the outcome of elections. Besides the reality that voters are sheep, have no historical memory and are laughably gullible, it isn't clear that all voters will be actually able to vote, nor that all votes will count, nor that key election systems won't be hacked.
And besides all that, the winner of our last two presidential elections actually lost the popular vote.
> If you mean that the NRA donates money to politicians, That's exactly what I mean. Tax revenue sources don't tend to have much influence on federal policy. Campaign contributions have enormous influence.
> they haven't been donating enough to stop the gun-control Parent's point was that an organization is controlled by its funding. My point is that our elected officials are funded by special interests. That this particular special interest isn't succeeding to your satisfaction doesn't mean their campaign contributions are meaningless.
> it would be awfully hard to convince anyone that you
> need a new war just cause of some pirate DVDs.
1) There are plenty of Americans who'd never question it. What was Grenada about?
2) In today's USA, the commander-in-chief doesn't really care if anybody else is convinced.
3) We wouldn't go to war over DVDs, we'd be fighting over terrorism or child pornography.
It looks like the most privacy-friendly, hands-down, is ask.com with their opt-in "ask eraser". A distant second is aol.com. But both of them share their data with Google, which appears to have the worst policy.
Everybody seems to hang onto most everything for more than a year; better than forever I guess, but a pretty big window for, say, subpoenas.
Another option for Diebold might be to fix the problems: print a paper confirmation, make motherboard access a little harder than a luggage lock. We don't ask for much.
This is idiotic. But complicated. The alternative may be to abandon our current cheap feedlots and return to more sustainable agriculture.
By industrializing production we've dramatically reduced the expenses to get food to market. But that's only true because sustainability is not factored into current expenses. By moving cattle from open range to feedlots we've taken upon ourselves boatloads of trouble that nature used to take care of for us.
Whether voluntarily or by nature's force, we will someday return to sustainable agriculture. When we do, I wonder if we'll still be able to feed 7 billion people.
Not so strange, you say? I'm not sure which I'd prefer: a severed fingertip growing out of my palm, or some alien organism based on powdered pig bladder growing out my fingertip.
I'd add a new kind of FOSS patent, where the idea immediately becomes public domain and anybody can implement it. Useful to defend ideas from commercial interest patents.
For commercial interes patents, this is what I'd do:
1) Patent gives grantee a monopoly for three years, then it expires and becomes public domain. You've got three years to make your killing, then you have to compete on a level field.
2) Be stricter about giving them out - patent really has to be for something professionals of the field hadn't already thought of.
3) Make it easier to challenge patents; if a challenger can produce prior art, patent is immediately voided, and grantee is barred from applying for new patents for ten years. If grantee had won any civil judgments regarding the patent while it was in force, any monetary judgments must be completely refunded, along with losers' legal fees.
4) No patents may be granted that could prevent other entities from implementing official industry (IEEE, IETF, ASME, NIST,...) standards. If grantee belongs to standards bodies, they must disclose all patents granted and pending, or their behavior is tort fodder for competitors.
Slashdot Mirror
> Without a clear, meaningful definition of what it is a
> person is rejecting, it makes no sense to talk about
> rejecting it, because what you are rejecting, what others
> think you are rejecting and what you think you are
> rejecting are not going to be the same
Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.
Yes, but the bill doesn't outlaw thought, it sets up university centers to study how terrorists think.
Understanding terrorism is a good thing. The current US approach of smashing hornet nests isn't working very well.
Who are you quoting? I just read the bill, and the writeup you cite looks like a load of crap.
This is just academic research.
> pilots said airlines were unaware how frequently safety incidents
> occurred that could lead to serious problems or even crashes,
> The survey's purpose was to develop a new way of tracking
> safety trends and problems the airline industry could address.
> revealing the findings could damage the public's confidence
> in airlines and affect airline profits.
So NASA, worried the industry could be overlooking some bugs, initiated a code review with the intent of creating a bug-tracking system. Four years and $8.5 million later, the project presumably completed, they didn't release - because it would expose bugs?
I wouldn't have thought it was NASA's role to cover-up airline industry problems. I'd expect airline industry non-sequitors like this to have been performed by the FAA and NTSB. NASA should restrict itself to losing their own design plans, and occasionally mucking up english-metric conversions.
Probably just needs a little wetware.
Thank you for this well-written and thoughtful post.
I wonder if your pollster background gives you an unrealistic perspective. You seem to believe that The People decide the outcome of elections. Besides the reality that voters are sheep, have no historical memory and are laughably gullible, it isn't clear that all voters will be actually able to vote, nor that all votes will count, nor that key election systems won't be hacked.
And besides all that, the winner of our last two presidential elections actually lost the popular vote.
> The Google Phone ... will not compete with the iPhone
I don't really think they expect me to carry a gPhone in one pocket and an iPhone in another.
> the empire ... will send the death star to blow up Earth.
Not likely.
If I weld four rockets to it, I wonder if my '67 Impala could fly...
> I had no idea the American system was still capable of curing these problems
The fat lady has not yet sung. There's still the Supreme Court.
"The US Gov't. Defending international megacorporations from our citizens since 1787."
> The legal aspect should be limited to what we do
> with the contents of said box once we're in.
Makes sense. So do you intend to accept Kwikset's challenge and break into my house?
> If you mean that the NRA donates money to politicians,
That's exactly what I mean. Tax revenue sources don't tend to have much influence on federal policy. Campaign contributions have enormous influence.
> they haven't been donating enough to stop the gun-control
Parent's point was that an organization is controlled by its funding. My point is that our elected officials are funded by special interests. That this particular special interest isn't succeeding to your satisfaction doesn't mean their campaign contributions are meaningless.
> do you want the NRA to be government funded as well?
We already have that, backwards. The government is NRA funded.
> it would be awfully hard to convince anyone that you
> need a new war just cause of some pirate DVDs.
1) There are plenty of Americans who'd never question it. What was Grenada about?
2) In today's USA, the commander-in-chief doesn't really care if anybody else is convinced.
3) We wouldn't go to war over DVDs, we'd be fighting over terrorism or child pornography.
The report is actually here:
It looks like the most privacy-friendly, hands-down, is ask.com with their opt-in "ask eraser". A distant second is aol.com. But both of them share their data with Google, which appears to have the worst policy.
Everybody seems to hang onto most everything for more than a year; better than forever I guess, but a pretty big window for, say, subpoenas.
Another option for Diebold might be to fix the problems: print a paper confirmation, make motherboard access a little harder than a luggage lock. We don't ask for much.
This is idiotic. But complicated. The alternative may be to abandon our current cheap feedlots and return to more sustainable agriculture.
By industrializing production we've dramatically reduced the expenses to get food to market. But that's only true because sustainability is not factored into current expenses. By moving cattle from open range to feedlots we've taken upon ourselves boatloads of trouble that nature used to take care of for us.
Whether voluntarily or by nature's force, we will someday return to sustainable agriculture. When we do, I wonder if we'll still be able to feed 7 billion people.
It doesn't cost more. EMI is just doing it's best to live up to it's name - Electro Magnetic Interference.
"'Common sense' is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen."
Just so you know your audience.
> wouldn't 'Commonsense Homeland Security' be
> a winning political banner
Nope. The media won't understand it. That banner has too many words.
Not so strange, you say? I'm not sure which I'd prefer: a severed fingertip growing out of my palm, or some alien organism based on powdered pig bladder growing out my fingertip.
> It's not reasonable to bar entities from applying for patents
You're right. Thanks.
I'd add a new kind of FOSS patent, where the idea immediately becomes public domain and anybody can implement it. Useful to defend ideas from commercial interest patents.
...) standards. If grantee belongs to standards bodies, they must disclose all patents granted and pending, or their behavior is tort fodder for competitors.
For commercial interes patents, this is what I'd do:
1) Patent gives grantee a monopoly for three years, then it expires and becomes public domain. You've got three years to make your killing, then you have to compete on a level field.
2) Be stricter about giving them out - patent really has to be for something professionals of the field hadn't already thought of.
3) Make it easier to challenge patents; if a challenger can produce prior art, patent is immediately voided, and grantee is barred from applying for new patents for ten years. If grantee had won any civil judgments regarding the patent while it was in force, any monetary judgments must be completely refunded, along with losers' legal fees.
4) No patents may be granted that could prevent other entities from implementing official industry (IEEE, IETF, ASME, NIST,
...where did I leave that key?