What usually happens with government owned labs like these is that a group interested in doing research will submit a proposal to obtain facility usage. The proposal will contain what they plan to do, why they want to do it, and how long it will take. A committee made up of professional scientists/engineers and lab executives will convene usually once a year to evaluate how feasible and realistic these proposals are and weigh their feasibility against how likely the group is to produce useful results (regardless of success or failure, they will still produce results).
If the proposal is accepted it will be given lab time. What might be creating confusion is that these labs are NOT free and charge a good amount of money per hour/day/whatever which is decided by the amount of proposals the committee receives (supply and demand at its finest).
As for your "what about the small college students?" question, (having learned this from personal experience) these kinds of labs are hardcore, with big bucks on the line so I wouldn't think it wise to have an undergraduate hogging up time in a nanotechnology lab no matter how gifted he or she is. The undergrad could possibly get a position with the group but definitely will not get lab time solo; other than that REUs (Research Experience for Undergraduates) will probably be hosted by the labs (which will probably just be lab slave work, but is none-the-less interesting).
No, they've spent the last 35 years putting their minuscule budget (http://science.slashdot.org/science/07/11/17/0549234.shtml) to work doing ACTUAL science, like they're supposed to. Now, after the Bush administration's great idea to go back to the moon, NASA has had to slash budgets on real science experiments in order to do what the four-year thinkers (politicians) have decided is "best" for the country.
You'd better believe that it's the truth, there is a huge shortage of "skilled IT workers." Main word being skilled! During my short stint into IT work as a high school student I worked for the most incompotent system administrator ever. By the second month of working for him half of the people that used to come to him with their problems, started coming to me. Except I got the distinct impression that they came to me, not for my knowledge, but for my skill of being able to effectively communicate with them.
So yes, the the 'myth' of a lack of skilled IT workers is true, except the parent would have you believe that IT workers do not need to be skilled in communications, etc.
Actually considering that they're hoping to use a lot of cell phones for this system i'd guess that it was a simple gieger instead of a full spectroscopic set up. A net of these seem much more likely because of the issues you brought up with electronic components and battery life. I'm only taking a guess here but they would probably only care about a high exposure rate (in the Curie and above range) picked up by multiple cell phones. If I were designing this program I would set it up so that if it got a very high hit in a suspicious region (ie. fifth avenue, etc; but not a hospital, university, or any other place with regestered nuclear material) they would send someone with a nice germanium detector to investigate.
But then again, that's only what I would do if I was making the system
I'm not worried what our new baby robot overlords will do, in fact i'm not even worried what our adult robot overlords (our deaths will be fast - see: skynet) will do.
I'm worried about the angsty teen robot overlord that doesn't really know their place in the world yet but still thinks they're god. That and forcing everyone to listen to crappy emo music.
It still surprises me that they don't start building cities that can adapt to these kinds of changes without having to dig up ground, etc. Build the city like a decently designed data center which utilizes false floors to keep cables out of the way yet are still semi-accessible. Like some kind of sewer system for electronics or something.
Perhaps if every slashdot reader contributed $10, we could get one. The highest rated comment ideas would be placed into a slashdot poll to decide what to do with it.
I vote for geostationary orbit over Natalie Portman's house.
I vote instead of a satelite we just get a bunch of spy cams....
the problem with nasa is that it IS a government run institution, which means that politicians have a decently sized say in how it's run.
now this wouldn't be a problem if politicians were well educated or atleast made an effort to learn about a program before saying "let's take in a new direction," but they're not, they're dumb as hell and love to change things at the first sign of trouble.
of course this might just go straight back to john q. taxpayer, who isn't very smart either and doesn't understand what CNTs are and doesn't see NASA being worth the "DoD sized" budget that they think NASA has http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1000/1, but john q. taxpayer understands "nasa goes to moon again" as something tangible and worth while. while i won't argue against it being tangible or worth while, it definitely isn't the best way to spend the limited amount of time/money that nasa is given
My cat has the "bat the mouse around for two hours until it dies of a heart attack" reflex too but instead of leaving it somewhere it has the "bring it to the food bringer while he's asleep" reflex... not a pleasant thing to way to wake up to
LoL this is what i get for slashdotting while writing a paper and helping a friend study for a test, i've lost track of the discussion.
What I was originally suggesting was that a divorce is needed between an action and the consequence of that action. Say for the sake of argument that clinton did lie (not under oath but just in general to the american public), I'm saying that clinton's lie should be equally as bad as bush's lie(s).
What I'm saying is that the nature of the lie shouldn't matter. Lying should hold the same weight no matter the reason, consequence, severity, et cetera. And yes, I would prohibit the president from calling his opposition something that he's not, people in general and a person of this much importance especially should tell it like it is, no lies, no fluff, no PC bullshit and actually tell people what he's thinking. This isn't a game of chess, this is life.
I'm willing to agree that these events are the two extremes of the ethical spectrum, except the key difference between these two events is that Clinton was under oath to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth and he didn't, he lied and committed perjury. Bush on the other hand was not under oath and lied his ass off. While one is legally wrong but morally acceptable (Clinton), the other is morally wrong but not technically illegal (Bush).
Clinton got impeached because what he did was already legally wrong, Bush on the other hand has broken no previous laws and that is why he won't be impeached. He will however go down in the history books as a bad president and this my friend is a pretty damn good example of reaping what you sow.
ps. before this turns into a flamefest fueled by party lines/political ideals, i just want to say that i don't support either of these men more than the other. I think clinton was a pretty darn good president that did a lot to further international relations and relieve the budget crisis, while i think that bush handled the 9/11 aftermath as well as any president could.
His blowjob wasn't "morally reprehensible". Lying to cover up a blowjob isn't "morally reprehensible". It's a little immoral.
But compared with lying us into war, it's not very immoral at all.
I don't think it should make a difference WHAT the lie was about, the fact of the matter is that they lied to the american public and should be held accountable for it. Yes one lie was about a personal matter and the other was about a national matter (btw. have you seen the pattern of dem/rep scandals here? dem's get sex, rep's get money), but the subject material of the event should not be used to justify the event itself.
In general, yes it usually does cost more to design/prototype/build the craft but the kicker here is that once you've won you have a PROVEN working product that you can then sell. Which for this prize will probably be purchased by NASA.
This goes with other prizes as well, but even if you don't end up selling it to the sponsor of the competition, it does become a good marketing tool(buy now! it won the x-prize!) and are medals you can slap on to increase its perceived value.
By the way is it just me or is there something really wrong with trying to convert children? Why not wait until they're older and less easily seduced by things like video games before trying to convince them?
Haven't you heard? the church is taking its cues from the tobacco companies now. "Get 'em while they're young" or so the saying goes...
When i first saw the title i read it as: "Horse corset to reduce congestive heart failure" and i asked myself why the hell do horses need corsets? and why the hell would they reduce congestive heart failure?
At which point i re-read the title (got it correct this time) and commented to myself: "that was one hardcore corsetter that first tried this"
My mom works as a secretary at a high school in my hometown and her school system uses something like what they're describing and every time i see her she's bitching about it. Usually i just tell her about my college experiences with peoplesoft (which is a beautifully exicuted system btw) to shut her up, i think i'll give one or more of these articles to do it.
Slashdot Mirror
What usually happens with government owned labs like these is that a group interested in doing research will submit a proposal to obtain facility usage. The proposal will contain what they plan to do, why they want to do it, and how long it will take. A committee made up of professional scientists/engineers and lab executives will convene usually once a year to evaluate how feasible and realistic these proposals are and weigh their feasibility against how likely the group is to produce useful results (regardless of success or failure, they will still produce results).
If the proposal is accepted it will be given lab time. What might be creating confusion is that these labs are NOT free and charge a good amount of money per hour/day/whatever which is decided by the amount of proposals the committee receives (supply and demand at its finest).
As for your "what about the small college students?" question, (having learned this from personal experience) these kinds of labs are hardcore, with big bucks on the line so I wouldn't think it wise to have an undergraduate hogging up time in a nanotechnology lab no matter how gifted he or she is. The undergrad could possibly get a position with the group but definitely will not get lab time solo; other than that REUs (Research Experience for Undergraduates) will probably be hosted by the labs (which will probably just be lab slave work, but is none-the-less interesting).
No, they've spent the last 35 years putting their minuscule budget (http://science.slashdot.org/science/07/11/17/0549234.shtml) to work doing ACTUAL science, like they're supposed to. Now, after the Bush administration's great idea to go back to the moon, NASA has had to slash budgets on real science experiments in order to do what the four-year thinkers (politicians) have decided is "best" for the country.
Not to belittle your cause at all, but who still uses floppies any more?
You'd better believe that it's the truth, there is a huge shortage of "skilled IT workers." Main word being skilled! During my short stint into IT work as a high school student I worked for the most incompotent system administrator ever. By the second month of working for him half of the people that used to come to him with their problems, started coming to me. Except I got the distinct impression that they came to me, not for my knowledge, but for my skill of being able to effectively communicate with them.
So yes, the the 'myth' of a lack of skilled IT workers is true, except the parent would have you believe that IT workers do not need to be skilled in communications, etc.
Oh i'm totally fucked then....
My dreams usually have the sound track of Prince in the background
Actually considering that they're hoping to use a lot of cell phones for this system i'd guess that it was a simple gieger instead of a full spectroscopic set up. A net of these seem much more likely because of the issues you brought up with electronic components and battery life. I'm only taking a guess here but they would probably only care about a high exposure rate (in the Curie and above range) picked up by multiple cell phones. If I were designing this program I would set it up so that if it got a very high hit in a suspicious region (ie. fifth avenue, etc; but not a hospital, university, or any other place with regestered nuclear material) they would send someone with a nice germanium detector to investigate.
But then again, that's only what I would do if I was making the system
I'm worried about the angsty teen robot overlord that doesn't really know their place in the world yet but still thinks they're god. That and forcing everyone to listen to crappy emo music.
It still surprises me that they don't start building cities that can adapt to these kinds of changes without having to dig up ground, etc. Build the city like a decently designed data center which utilizes false floors to keep cables out of the way yet are still semi-accessible. Like some kind of sewer system for electronics or something.
Wow.... that was THE most extensive way of telling someone they were wrong i have ever seen.... i am truly impressed
I vote instead of a satelite we just get a bunch of spy cams....
Then your penis would be in a world of hurt
the problem with nasa is that it IS a government run institution, which means that politicians have a decently sized say in how it's run.
now this wouldn't be a problem if politicians were well educated or atleast made an effort to learn about a program before saying "let's take in a new direction," but they're not, they're dumb as hell and love to change things at the first sign of trouble.
of course this might just go straight back to john q. taxpayer, who isn't very smart either and doesn't understand what CNTs are and doesn't see NASA being worth the "DoD sized" budget that they think NASA has http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1000/1, but john q. taxpayer understands "nasa goes to moon again" as something tangible and worth while. while i won't argue against it being tangible or worth while, it definitely isn't the best way to spend the limited amount of time/money that nasa is given
yay... now i have bombs disguised as american flags to add to my list of paranoias...
i already look at planes suspiciously... so really, thanks a lot, dick...
Holy shit, I just got a mental image of the pissy DMV lady that renewed my license a few days ago sitting at the controls of a nuclear reactor
I'm gonna have nightmares about that tonight....
My cat has the "bat the mouse around for two hours until it dies of a heart attack" reflex too but instead of leaving it somewhere it has the "bring it to the food bringer while he's asleep" reflex... not a pleasant thing to way to wake up to
LoL this is what i get for slashdotting while writing a paper and helping a friend study for a test, i've lost track of the discussion.
What I was originally suggesting was that a divorce is needed between an action and the consequence of that action. Say for the sake of argument that clinton did lie (not under oath but just in general to the american public), I'm saying that clinton's lie should be equally as bad as bush's lie(s).
What I'm saying is that the nature of the lie shouldn't matter. Lying should hold the same weight no matter the reason, consequence, severity, et cetera. And yes, I would prohibit the president from calling his opposition something that he's not, people in general and a person of this much importance especially should tell it like it is, no lies, no fluff, no PC bullshit and actually tell people what he's thinking. This isn't a game of chess, this is life.
I'm willing to agree that these events are the two extremes of the ethical spectrum, except the key difference between these two events is that Clinton was under oath to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth and he didn't, he lied and committed perjury. Bush on the other hand was not under oath and lied his ass off. While one is legally wrong but morally acceptable (Clinton), the other is morally wrong but not technically illegal (Bush).
Clinton got impeached because what he did was already legally wrong, Bush on the other hand has broken no previous laws and that is why he won't be impeached. He will however go down in the history books as a bad president and this my friend is a pretty damn good example of reaping what you sow.
ps. before this turns into a flamefest fueled by party lines/political ideals, i just want to say that i don't support either of these men more than the other. I think clinton was a pretty darn good president that did a lot to further international relations and relieve the budget crisis, while i think that bush handled the 9/11 aftermath as well as any president could.
I believe such a thing already exists, it's called a 1-900 number
I don't think it should make a difference WHAT the lie was about, the fact of the matter is that they lied to the american public and should be held accountable for it. Yes one lie was about a personal matter and the other was about a national matter (btw. have you seen the pattern of dem/rep scandals here? dem's get sex, rep's get money), but the subject material of the event should not be used to justify the event itself.
In general, yes it usually does cost more to design/prototype/build the craft but the kicker here is that once you've won you have a PROVEN working product that you can then sell. Which for this prize will probably be purchased by NASA.
This goes with other prizes as well, but even if you don't end up selling it to the sponsor of the competition, it does become a good marketing tool(buy now! it won the x-prize!) and are medals you can slap on to increase its perceived value.
Haven't you heard? the church is taking its cues from the tobacco companies now. "Get 'em while they're young" or so the saying goes...
...the furries are going to love this.
When i first saw the title i read it as: "Horse corset to reduce congestive heart failure" and i asked myself why the hell do horses need corsets? and why the hell would they reduce congestive heart failure?
At which point i re-read the title (got it correct this time) and commented to myself: "that was one hardcore corsetter that first tried this"
I think i need some sleep
My mom works as a secretary at a high school in my hometown and her school system uses something like what they're describing and every time i see her she's bitching about it. Usually i just tell her about my college experiences with peoplesoft (which is a beautifully exicuted system btw) to shut her up, i think i'll give one or more of these articles to do it.