Or basically sell off the project to an appropriate "qualified purchaser". Japan wants to get their space program going-perhaps their government would like to take over the Voyager project. The EU might be another option here. For that matter, some of the oil rich states have some interest in basic science. Even Singapore could take this one on-it would be nice world-class project for a city-state. Gates or Ellison(for that matter most of the richest 500 people in the US) could do this if they were seriously interested in space. I can imagine some of the larger private foundations might be interested to.
Mars has serious potential scientific interest. The Asteroid belt can provide the same essential elements but can be used with fewer environmental concerns. Once there exists serious robotics technology, it would make much more sense to develop the resources in the asteroid belt first(as Gerard O'Neill pointed out).
Why this is biotech and why it matters
on
Juiced
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
HGH like this guy is using is made possible because of recent advances is recominant DNA research. Maintaining HGH and testosterone levels is claimed by some doctors(Dr Elmer Cranton is and example) to help with mental performance and memory(other docs are real suspect of this particular therapy). Now, I put use of testosterone to maintain youthful levels and maintaining youthful levels of HGH in a different category than I do use of steroids-which are new substances the long term effects of which aren't really well understood. Still, what a lot of this stuff in baseball means: will these substances gain enough acceptence for research to continue with potential introduction into the mainstream?
This is especially important because some docs are thinking HGH/bioidentical hormonal supplementation just may have life extension possibilities. Whether life extension technology takes off-and how it is accepted is an important question. It would be a shame IMHO if baseball players were prevented from using the best available medical technology for purposes of life extension. There is a fine line between experimental life extension treatments and risky practices.
It isn't that the code _doesn't_ fall under copyright, it is that the GPL doesn't override confidentiality agreements. It is up to the company to distribute the code-not the employee/consultant.
The GPL does not require that a company distribute changes. It simply says that if they distribute binaries, they have to make source available to whoever they distributed those binaries to.
In this case: if the GPL code was used in house and the company wants to keep this modified code for in house use they legally can. A corporation can prevent folks from distributing mods to GPL code by a non-disclosure agreement. If the company wants to distribute a product outside their company, they'll need to provide source-and can't prevent other folks from distributing that product.
This is a subtle issue. I tend to think the GPL gives a free ride to large organizations-in way that the RPL(Reciprocal Public License) at least attempts to avoid.
Odds are the Bigelow space prize will be won well before 2015. That means a private space shuttle will be available for purchase. The best thing nasa can do is focus on scientific missions and provide a market for the contestant in that prize-instead of trying to compete against them.
There was a lot of talk about invention being important-but virtually know rewards for the folks that helped create patents the company owned.
There were entire projects organized that had as their major purpose obtaining as many H-1b Visas for friends and family of managers as humanly possible.
The lack of imagination of the management at HP is really sad-as is the fact that there is very little incentive there to really do accurate forecasting and business analysis.
The next step is to make sure there is good encrption/authentication at each step where the votes are recorded _and_ to have good control of the physical ballots. For example, at each point when a machine is step up and an observer is placed, that observer/tech should record their key. Similarly, whenever ballots are transferred, multiple folks(of different parties) should be in control of the ballots. Still, there is at least a start here.
Omitting the world corruption(see my explaination elsewhere), what are the implications if Japan does what the US couldn't(despite being a 'superpower' with vast natural resources, enormous ability to borrow and a much larger population)?
The issues with the corruption of the current administration are _many_ going back to the appointment of Bush by the Supreme Court. I didn't say the US is corrupt-but its leadership is. Stuff that relates to space here:
Nasa consistently promised more than they could deliver with the shuttle-and actively discouraged investment in private alternatives. Given how badly things turned out, I consider that corruption. The organization of space efforts in the US has _serious_ problems. There need to be solid incentives that apply not just to folks with the right political connections-or ability to maneuver in a goverment bureacracy, but those simply able to produce results. If Nasa had funded something like the X-Prize 15 years ago, where would we be today?--and there were folks around DC proposing similar policies. Why aren't those folks getting seriously listened to?
For all its many flaws, I suspect Japan may have more results oriented leadership than the US does today. The test here will be to see how the US does vs. Japan--those if Japan beats the US, it will be doing so with one hand tied behind its back because it has fewer natural resources and a much smaller population.
I'm _not_ an America basher-but the present elite has _nothing_ to do with the revolution fought in 1776. I think men like Franklin and Jefferson would be utterly disgusted by men like Bush-and for that matter Clinton.
I can easily imagine that Japan may be able to seriously leverage the commercial use of space the way the current corrupt leadership in the US cannot. What mean if the Japanese seriously started space based businesses while the US did not?
It would be pretty easy to rate the technical ability of the CEO's of major publicly traded companies. i.e. technical degree 5 points, previous experience in a tech company 5 points etc..
My expectation here:companies with intensive need for ongoing technical innovation need technical leaders. Larger companies need folks with a broader array of skills.
Now, that said, I think the first really successful "AI" Programs will essentially handle all of the functions of a CEO-so at that point, what you'll really need is a mascot that inspires the troops and customers. Look at what a CEO does:
a) write memos/emails to various folks
b) analyzes budgets and produces appropriate goals/strategic documents
c) reviews contributions to the above from subordinates
d) interact with/motivates subordinates.
e) makes various ceromonial speeches.
Why can't software do essentially the same thing? Instead of hiring a CEO, the board could just choose a software program and a real life mascot(maybe an experienced actor) for the situations where a human really was necessary.
SQL Server has some features that aren't yet in Postgresql(I'm thinking clustering and some aspects of the web services interface). Shared Source SQL Server would mean that folks like the Wine team could probably get SQL Server running flawlessly under Linux/FreeBSD. I can believe some folks might actually use this configuration-but I suspect Postgresql and MySQL will get equivalent features soon enough there won't be much point.
When property is taken by eminent domain, there is a requirement that the company in question be given "fair compensation". If the patent is owned by a publicly traded company, that would imply that appplication of eminent domain to an especially valuable patent that constituted a heft share of that company's value wouldn't affect stock price at all.
Personally, I think there are cases where eminent domain should be applied to patents-and cases where the government should offer prizes for creation of patents that will be placed in the public domain. The only real dangers of application of Eminent Domain to patents are
a) the price will be too low so folks have their property expropriated
b) the price is too high-so companies lobby to get Eminent Domain applied to their patents
Algae based biodiesel may have a lot more promise. I've seen it claimed that a small part of the Mojave desert could supply the US with all necessary vehicle fuel.
Frankly it seems to me there ought to be free wifi in: libraries, shopping malls, hotels, pretty much _anyplace_ that wants to attract foot traffic.
Personally I think eventually free wifi will be as important a piece of infrastructure as free roads. It wouldn't cost that much to unwire the whole country.
It would be _REAL_ simply to just raise the gas tax-and change the registration fees. This is the sort of thing that makes me glad I moved out of California.
Dean just plain hasn't got the right mix to make a viable party in the two party system. He's hanging with the GOP on unpopular issues like immigration(where he basically endorses Bush's Open Borders policy) and failing to properly handle the social issues like Gun Control, Gay Rights,Drugs, Abortion(which constitutionally should all be state issues.
I would also suggest that the LP is _way_ ouf of step with the American public on the issue of immigration-though there are some folks like Libertarian Professor Hans-Hermann Hoppe.
I think you are correct about the logical strategy for third parties-and I would include Reform and Green in the list here. However, I think you miss what happened with the Socialist Party. There was _one_ important issue from the 1932 Socialis platform the Dems did not adopt: Land Value Taxation-- a policy that some Libertarian sympathizers like Milton Friedman have kinder things to say about than many of the other policies.
Democrats like Huey Long did adopt policies like a tax on concentrated wealth-but over extreme hostility to the Democratic party bosses.
Another way the LP can get a voice would be to move the US towards proportional Representation-which is something that could be done on a state/local level.
Bigelow's America's Space Prize is already funded. This Nasa program sounds like yet another boondoggle with no real clear criteria for success(which means "customer management" can determine the winner). I'm not saying Bigelow's prize is _perfect_ but it sounds like more a real competition.
What I'd rather see here: a series of smaller prizes that required the winner to disclose their technology(as effectively Open Source). The reason for smaller prizes is that is would make the financial entry ticket less-which would mean more competitors. Basically you break the project down-and the end result is a working launch system--but even if you get it wrong, you've still disclosed a lot of decent technology that can be used by other folks.
I have an 8 year old son that likes Civilization. What I like about this is that he might learn python to make changes to a favorite game.
Outing Corporate Political Influence
on
The Naked Corporation
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Open Secrets publishes a lot of interesting info on how various corporation's employees and officers use money to influence the political process. You can go there and tell who they are donating too. What needs to be done is correlate that data with stuff like the ratings of groups like Better Immigration. There are a lot of congressional ratings-what we need to figure out is what are the kinds of voting behavior that really elicit funds from various corporate interests.
I thought the above was a _very_ good post. The meta issue here is I think in part the basic systems of coordination in western society-both political and economic. Democracy tends to be a system of crisis management-and the varient of democracy prevalent in the US isn't real representative of the population in any meaningful sense. Furthermore, the recent trend in corporate governance has been to focus more and more on very short time horizons.
What would I do here? Well, on the Foresight Exhchange we've had some experimental financial instruments that deal with ecological issues-we need more of those and some real money items might force the issue on Wall Street. Ideally, I'd like to see the "game" on Foresight Exchange greatly improved-to the point a lot more folks would be involved and the game would have enough statistical support behind it to become influential in policy decisions-and take a lot of arguments beyond sheer emotion.
The web took the "cream" of the some of the needs that are there. However, Xanadu also developed a lot of ideas that are now being seen in Content Management Systems.
There were some fundamental problems here-but I suspect that we'll see quite a few ideas that were proposed by Nelson developed over time.
Slashdot Mirror
Or basically sell off the project to an appropriate "qualified purchaser". Japan wants to get their space program going-perhaps their government would like to take over the Voyager project. The EU might be another option here. For that matter, some of the oil rich states have some interest in basic science. Even Singapore could take this one on-it would be nice world-class project for a city-state. Gates or Ellison(for that matter most of the richest 500 people in the US) could do this if they were seriously interested in space. I can imagine some of the larger private foundations might be interested to.
Mars has serious potential scientific interest. The Asteroid belt can provide the same essential elements but can be used with fewer environmental concerns. Once there exists serious robotics technology, it would make much more sense to develop the resources in the asteroid belt first(as Gerard O'Neill pointed out).
This is especially important because some docs are thinking HGH/bioidentical hormonal supplementation just may have life extension possibilities. Whether life extension technology takes off-and how it is accepted is an important question. It would be a shame IMHO if baseball players were prevented from using the best available medical technology for purposes of life extension. There is a fine line between experimental life extension treatments and risky practices.
It isn't that the code _doesn't_ fall under copyright, it is that the GPL doesn't override confidentiality agreements. It is up to the company to distribute the code-not the employee/consultant.
In this case: if the GPL code was used in house and the company wants to keep this modified code for in house use they legally can. A corporation can prevent folks from distributing mods to GPL code by a non-disclosure agreement. If the company wants to distribute a product outside their company, they'll need to provide source-and can't prevent other folks from distributing that product.
This is a subtle issue. I tend to think the GPL gives a free ride to large organizations-in way that the RPL(Reciprocal Public License) at least attempts to avoid.
Odds are the Bigelow space prize will be won well before 2015. That means a private space shuttle will be available for purchase. The best thing nasa can do is focus on scientific missions and provide a market for the contestant in that prize-instead of trying to compete against them.
There was a lot of talk about invention being important-but virtually know rewards for the folks that helped create patents the company owned.
There were entire projects organized that had as their major purpose obtaining as many H-1b Visas for friends and family of managers as humanly possible.
The lack of imagination of the management at HP is really sad-as is the fact that there is very little incentive there to really do accurate forecasting and business analysis.
The next step is to make sure there is good encrption/authentication at each step where the votes are recorded _and_ to have good control of the physical ballots. For example, at each point when a machine is step up and an observer is placed, that observer/tech should record their key. Similarly, whenever ballots are transferred, multiple folks(of different parties) should be in control of the ballots. Still, there is at least a start here.
Omitting the world corruption(see my explaination elsewhere), what are the implications if Japan does what the US couldn't(despite being a 'superpower' with vast natural resources, enormous ability to borrow and a much larger population)?
Nasa consistently promised more than they could deliver with the shuttle-and actively discouraged investment in private alternatives. Given how badly things turned out, I consider that corruption. The organization of space efforts in the US has _serious_ problems. There need to be solid incentives that apply not just to folks with the right political connections-or ability to maneuver in a goverment bureacracy, but those simply able to produce results. If Nasa had funded something like the X-Prize 15 years ago, where would we be today?--and there were folks around DC proposing similar policies. Why aren't those folks getting seriously listened to?
For all its many flaws, I suspect Japan may have more results oriented leadership than the US does today. The test here will be to see how the US does vs. Japan--those if Japan beats the US, it will be doing so with one hand tied behind its back because it has fewer natural resources and a much smaller population.
I'm _not_ an America basher-but the present elite has _nothing_ to do with the revolution fought in 1776. I think men like Franklin and Jefferson would be utterly disgusted by men like Bush-and for that matter Clinton.
I can easily imagine that Japan may be able to seriously leverage the commercial use of space the way the current corrupt leadership in the US cannot. What mean if the Japanese seriously started space based businesses while the US did not?
My expectation here:companies with intensive need for ongoing technical innovation need technical leaders. Larger companies need folks with a broader array of skills.
Now, that said, I think the first really successful "AI" Programs will essentially handle all of the functions of a CEO-so at that point, what you'll really need is a mascot that inspires the troops and customers. Look at what a CEO does:
a) write memos/emails to various folks
b) analyzes budgets and produces appropriate goals/strategic documents
c) reviews contributions to the above from subordinates
d) interact with/motivates subordinates.
e) makes various ceromonial speeches.
Why can't software do essentially the same thing? Instead of hiring a CEO, the board could just choose a software program and a real life mascot(maybe an experienced actor) for the situations where a human really was necessary.
SQL Server has some features that aren't yet in Postgresql(I'm thinking clustering and some aspects of the web services interface). Shared Source SQL Server would mean that folks like the Wine team could probably get SQL Server running flawlessly under Linux/FreeBSD. I can believe some folks might actually use this configuration-but I suspect Postgresql and MySQL will get equivalent features soon enough there won't be much point.
Personally, I think there are cases where eminent domain should be applied to patents-and cases where the government should offer prizes for creation of patents that will be placed in the public domain. The only real dangers of application of Eminent Domain to patents are
a) the price will be too low so folks have their property expropriated
b) the price is too high-so companies lobby to get
Eminent Domain applied to their patents
Of these, I tend to see 2 as the lessor danger.
Algae based biodiesel may have a lot more promise. I've seen it claimed that a small part of the Mojave desert could supply the US with all necessary vehicle fuel.
Frankly it seems to me there ought to be free wifi in :
libraries, shopping malls, hotels, pretty much _anyplace_ that wants to attract foot traffic.
Personally I think eventually free wifi will be as important a piece of infrastructure as free roads. It wouldn't cost that much to unwire the whole country.
It would be _REAL_ simply to just raise the gas tax-and change the registration fees. This is the sort of thing that makes me glad I moved out of California.
Dean just plain hasn't got the right mix to make a viable party in the two party system.
He's hanging with the GOP on unpopular issues like immigration(where he basically endorses Bush's Open Borders policy) and failing to properly handle the social issues like Gun Control, Gay Rights,Drugs, Abortion(which constitutionally should all be state issues.
I would also suggest that the LP is _way_ ouf of step with the American public on the issue of immigration-though there are some folks like Libertarian Professor Hans-Hermann Hoppe.
Land Value Taxation-- a policy that some Libertarian sympathizers like Milton Friedman have kinder things to say about than many of the other policies.
Democrats like Huey Long did adopt policies like a tax on concentrated wealth-but over extreme hostility to the Democratic party bosses.
Another way the LP can get a voice would be to move the US towards proportional Representation-which is something that could be done on a state/local level.
What I'd rather see here:
a series of smaller prizes that required the winner to disclose their technology(as effectively Open Source). The reason for smaller prizes is that is would make the financial entry ticket less-which would mean more competitors. Basically you break the project down-and the end result is a working launch system--but even if you get it wrong, you've still disclosed a lot of decent technology that can be used by other folks.
I have an 8 year old son that likes Civilization. What I like about this is that he might learn python to make changes to a favorite game.
Open Secrets publishes a lot of interesting info on how various corporation's employees and officers use money to influence the political process. You can go there and tell who they are donating too. What needs to be done is correlate that data with stuff like the ratings of groups like Better Immigration. There are a lot of congressional ratings-what we need to figure out is what are the kinds of voting behavior that really elicit funds from various corporate interests.
What would I do here? Well, on the Foresight Exhchange we've had some experimental financial instruments that deal with ecological issues-we need more of those and some real money items might force the issue on Wall Street. Ideally, I'd like to see the "game" on Foresight Exchange greatly improved-to the point a lot more folks would be involved and the game would have enough statistical support behind it to become influential in policy decisions-and take a lot of arguments beyond sheer emotion.
There were some fundamental problems here-but I suspect that we'll see quite a few ideas that were proposed by Nelson developed over time.