It depends on the article. If the article makes grand claims, it deserves a nitpick or two. Grand claims require grand evidence.
In this submission it was questioned whether this would "Usher in Big Changes" in the automotive world. The veracity of that is entirely up for discussion and if you've evert tried to get funding for company, you'd want to post the idea here. That way you'll know all the possible failure modes.
Will this make a big change in the automotive world? No. It is not cost effective nor space effective for most people.
For single persons having two cars that carry the same amount of people is wasteful, and takes up more parking spaces in their apartment complexes - spaces they may not have available. Most families of >2 members already have two vehicles, so this would make a third one. Again most families have at most a two-car garage (and many of those are actually wide opening single-car garages). Thus the space issue hits home, no pun intended, for them.
Further, the cost of this car versus their current car makes it cost more to buy and use than to continue driving their existing car, for most people that it is alleged would be the target.
All that boils down to who the real market, targeted or not, is. People who only need this car and are OK with it's limitations (all cars have them). That market is demonstrably small. I d even suggest that teenage drivers make the most logical target market. These markets are a small, small measure of the overall market. From this standpoint the answer to "big changes" is a flat "no".
On the standpoint of whether the method of selling will usher big changes, again, no. The reasons are different here. The existing model consists of manufacturers selling their product to dealers, who then sell it again. The automaker is already selling direct in this model. Selling directly to the customer would represent a breach of contract with their dealers. It would also put them in competition with their largest block of customers. So no, that won't change either.
It isn't a matter of opinion as to whether or not the questions asked represent a likely future, it is an analysis. Just as with the hype of the Segway. Does the Segway work as a means of transportation? Yes, it is functional. Is it cool? arguably, yes. Did it represent a fundamental shift of how we the people would get around? No. Did it cause a "rethinking" of how we get around? No.
See, that is the problem. Every "new idea" is touted as a funadmental shift, a paradigm change, a "world changing idea", or some such notion. So of course, we the thinkers, analyze that. And due to the nature of the frequency of truly world changing ideas, more often than not the answer is "no it is not a world changing idea". An idea can be a good one without being a world changing one.
Then again, if you believe that the majority of people are not entitled to their opinions, you probably believe they are entitled to your opinion.
Look, I know it's standard groupthink around here to hate patents and anything patent related, but we don't need blatently false stories to rile everyone up.
Funding is a form of speech, an individual should be allowed to give money to whomever he or she wants to.
A corporation or any entity that enjoys special protections under the law should not be allowed to influence the government that provides it with immunities and privileges. To that end, only people should be allowed to give money to a political campaign - without getting permission from the government. Further you should be allowed to give as much as you can and want to to a campaign.
This is along the same lines as the AGWH disasterbator's "cure" of going after the automobile. Dollar for dollar insulating residential units and offices to be more energy efficient, as well as build new ones to be more efficient, is far more effective in terms of reducing fossil fuel use, and subsequent emissions than anything you do for automobiles, to include converting them all to electricity.
If the goal were to light up a sign about energy use you could use batteries and LEDs to be far, far more efficient. The energy cost of installing and maintaining the active flooring would be orders of magnitude more than an LED powered sign wired in to the existing light system - even if you considered the installation and 30 year energy cost of the sign.
You did know that an attempt to commit a crime is itself a crime? Try forcing a lock the charge will be attempted burglary.
Actually, no it would be attempted breaking and entering. Successfully picking a lock is not burglary - that requires theft. If you forced the lock by bashing the door open it would be vandalism unless intent to enter the facility could be proven.
That said, B&E or burglary are crimes. Simple IP infringement is not, it is a civil matter. Why do you think the RIAA and MPAA are suing people, instead of the government arresting them?
This would criminalize, at best, attempts to commit a civil violation. Attempting to do something that is not a crime should not be a crime. That's absurd, or "absurdis extremis".
Take this into another context to better understand it. You sign a contract to love a person for the rest of your life "in sickness and in health, for richer or poorer", until death do you part. Should it be a crime to attempt to not live up to that civil agreement? Would flirting become illegal for those who are married, as it could be said to be attempting to commit adultery or infidelity, even if adultery isn't illegal?
What this is is a very bad deal. The RIAA is baiting people online with files that are not the music they claim to be. People download these. No copyright infringement has occurred as they do not have the song they thought they were getting. This would shift the onus from the RIAA suing people to reporting them to the government for arrest, accusation, and trial, followed by imprisonment. Now, with that in mind, and without regard to whether filesharing is moral or not, would that be moral, right, or even legal?
IMO the answer on all three accounts is not just no but hell no.
Simple. Buy the CDs on the used market. RIAA doesn't get a cent for it. Same for DVDs, buy them on the used market as well. It'll lower your cost of fulfilling your pledge as well. Most CDs used are half the price, or less, than new.
Dude, corporations are a government creation. A Corporation can only exist by the force of government; it is not a natural entity. Thus your assertion of government by corporation is shortsighted, it is still government by government.
Why is he speaking out? Because the Surgeon General's job is to warn me of things that are dangerous to my health.
No it isn't. his job is: 1) "To fulfill statutory and customary Departmental representational functions on a wide variety of Federal boards and governing bodies of non-Federal health organizations, including the Board of Regents of the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, the National Library of Medicine, the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, the Association of Military Surgeons of the United States, and the American Medical Association." and 2)"To administer the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) Commissioned Corps" Everything is is added on by people wanting to use the political post as more of a political post than it is. While the above stated responsibilities seem reasonable, they are actually done in the majority by minions ^w underlings. Which leaves the SG with little official and legal duties. Polticial appointees with idle hands are the statists work.
"In 1987, the Office of the Surgeon General (OSG) was reestablished as a staff office within the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health. Concomitant with this action, the Surgeon General again became responsible for management of the Commissioned Corps personnel system. (Note: The Surgeon General does not directly supervise all Commissioned Officers; most work in PHS or other agencies and report to line managers of those agencies who may or may not be in the Corps.) In carrying out all responsibilities, the Surgeon General reports to the Assistant Secretary for Health, who is the principal advisor to the Secretary on public health and scientific issues." -- http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/sghist.htm
So no, it isn't the SG's job to tell you what might be dangerous to your health (it's your responsibility to seek out your own health, but that's a separate issue), nor is it his/her job to tell the President what might be dangerous to your health, nor is it the SG's job to tell anyone these things. They may want to, but it isn't their job to. And if it isn't their job any of their superiors can inform them to stick to their job. That includes Bush, and it included Clinton. For what it's worth I think Clinton was right to do what he did wrt. Elders, even though I think Elders was right in what she said. Whether Carmona was right or wrong in what he said it would be right for Bush, or the Secretary of Health, to tell him to not say it "on company time" or using "the company" as a position of authority.
In the case of AGWH it wasn't a case lf "allowing itself" to be politicized, the proponents specifically sought out politicians. Right from the beginning. That was, and remains, the single greatest mistake of the proponents. Science should not seek politics.
As a result we have a lot of good ideas that have been hitched to the bandwagon thus tainting them. We also have a lot of good ideas that are easy to implement that get pushed aside because "the effect on Global Warming" is "insignificant" or "not enough". The proponents of true-believers of AGWH have tried to get anything and everything they can linked to their pet belief. They've tried to make it the bellwether of everything related to the environment. And in so doing they made allies of the worst kind. AGWH proponents in the news and media always like to talk about cars.Why? Because this group of them (the loud ones) have always been against cars and AGWH had momentum and now are attached at the hip.
Even if we assume for sake of discussion that AGWH is accurate, the automotive world is not where you get the most bang for your buck. It's actually in homes and offices. Modern homes are somewhat more efficient than they were 20-30 years ago. However, the majority of houses are 20+ years old. Dollar for dollar properly insulating these houses as well as older office buildings (many of which are actually old homes), and designing new manufacture to be more efficient would reduce "greenhouse emissions" more than converting all the cars to hybrids or electrics.
But it's not as much "fun" to poke at someone's house as it is their car. I wonder what the per-capita car/house situations look like in the various countries. I wonder how much the "attack on the personal car" is a proxy for "attack on American lifestyles". Seriously. We know Europe has more population than the US, so it stands to reason they have more housing. Whether it is single family homes or apartments, you know there is more housing. And, if you've been there or lived there, you know that a lot of housing in Europe is older housing. Much of it may be remodeled but the underlying structural and design flaws with regards to energy usage are still there.
Then again, it could also be that you it is held to be easier to replace your car than to replace your house. But in truth you don't need to replace your house. Apartments, now that is a different story.
In either case, or neither, it remains that the immediate reach and demand for politicians to get involved in AGWH was the catalyst for so many "hangers on" that have continued to drag down the hypothesis and keep it mired in political machinations. AGWH is kept alive by zealots. Zealots of any strip be they political, "technical", governmental, or religious, are bad business for whatever they latch onto. The higher the hype, the less believable it is. The more the zealots try to use it as a weapon to bludgeon others into submitting to their idea of control, the more resistance you'll find. The more fantastic the claims, the higher standard people will have for proof.
As far as the political aspect of POTUS vs. US Surgeon General: IMO there should be no Surgeon General. It IS a political post. Every President since Johnson abolished the Office of the Surgeon General making it a political post has used it to push their agenda. Elders was fired by Clinton because she talked about masturbation for "values contrary to the administration", for example. Bush is no different. Does that make it right? Absolutely not. But it is a good reason for eliminating the position. How about we stop pretending these positions are anything less than political tools? Every SG in the last several administrations has severely overstepped it's official and legal duties. it is used as a soapbox for getting politically favored views across.
I'd be shocked if Bush did NOT use the SG as a political tool, and anybody taking the post should know the history of the post they are taking. After Clinton fired Elders for espousing values he cl
The whole world-wide hoopola over intellectual property we're investing so much time and anxiety into these days is totally nuts.
Absolutely. Change "OUR IP" to "OUR CHILDREN". Ahh but "children are NOT property!" someone cries. I agree. Neither is something that does not physically exist. At least people are physical entities.
you hate it so much you have to make assertions that are false? For example: Can we stop pretending we're going to send astronauts to Mars? There's is no way we're going to spend the enormous amount of money required to do it, and we don't even know if the astronauts can survive the radiation exposure on the trip.
Please. We know the risks, and they are not lethal. Maybe you don't know, but to say "we" don't is absolute BS. The radiation in space is called Cosmic Radiation, and about half of the radiation experienced in an average human's lifetime is CR. So we are pretty familiar with it. So then it falls to how much? How much radiation will you experience flying to Mars?
Suprisingly not as much as you think. Transatlantic trips by airline pilots and crew will get exposed over a 25 year career with more than half of the radiation you'd get spending a year in between Mars and Earth as well as a year and a half on Mars. But that only affects lifelong factors. You seem to be talking about surviving the trip TO Mars. Seems you need some education on radiation.
Radiation sickness is the immediate result of a very high dose of radiation. That threshold varies in small percentages from person to person, but it is approximately 75 rem. In a conjunction trajectory mission the worst solar flare (that wouldn't kill the people who are still on Earth) would provide a dosage of 5 rem. The whole round trip, some 30 months away from the cradle,would expose you to about 50 rem. If you condensed ALL of the CR radiation you would be exposed to into a single big burst it is unlikely to make you sick, let alone kill you. The trip out there would expose you to approximately 19 rem. Over 6 months
You would have greater risk of lifelong effects from radiation by staying home, laying on the beach w/o sunscreen and soaking up that radiation.
Besides the fact that it won't be done by any government in the next 30 years,
While I hope that's the case, I wouldn't put it past China.
I've harped on this before, but it's still true: we could send 1,000 probes similar to the Mars Lander for the price it takes to do a P.R. stunt like sending humans to Mars. Yeah, it's romantic, but if the goal is science, then it's a total waste.
And I've illustrated with facts and reality that if your goal is to do actual science you need something capable of doing actual science on Mars. Robots don't do science. They gather data. Is the battlefield robot scouting over the enemy territory doing science? No, it's doing exactly what Spirit and Opportunity do: gather data. That aside, which gathers more data per trip, humans or rovers.
Look at how much ground the rovers have covered. Look at the data points they've gathered. A team of 4-6 humans on the planet would gather orders of magnitude more data, would conduct actual science (you know: hypothesize, experiment, analyze, refine hypothesize...) than ten times as many rovers, and do it in far shorter time. As of a couple weeks ago, Spirit has traveled about 7km. If you took one Manned Lunar Lander to Mars, you'd have the ability to cover 10km out from your basecamp (20km round trip). That's using 30 year old battery technology.
Using modern technology, and using a either combination of solar and in situ produced liquid fuel, or either alone, a modern Mars rover would have more than ten to twenty times the range of the Lunar rovers. It is neither trivial nor incredibly hard/impossible for us to build and deploy a lightweight, energy flush, rover capable of supporting a 2-3 man crew traveling on the surface of Mars for up to and over more than 500km from base camp.
Yet Spirit has traveled just over 7k in what, three and half years is it? How many Spirit missions would it take to cover that kind of distance, or how long for a single Spirit? Isn't it's daily record something like 770 feet? Let's double that. Let us say that the rover could cover 250 meters per day. Well if a manned rover can take it easy and cover 20km per d
Ahh slashdot, where the ignorant can make claims that are false, and have been false for at least a couple decades. What is this, pop-news?
"The lack of any kind of spaceship capable of making the return trip...the lack of any kind of system for keeping the crew alive in space for that long"
Yeah, because we can build submarines that operate for 6+ months at a time deep under the sea but not a tin can that can keep people alive in space for that time. You seem to not know about the many humans who have lived in space for well over six months. A Conjunction Trajectory mission puts you in space for no more than 6 months. The ISS, for all it's spectacular failure and incredible appetite for money, and Mir, have proven that we can make craft to keep humans alive for mor than a year in the vacuum of space.
The lack of any serious programme to develop the above
Irrelevant. We don't have a serious program for most things that we've done or develop. It's also incorrect. It's not government funded and we don't waste -er I mean spend massive amounts of money on advertising, but it is under research and development. By people who have a clue.
The lack of the money such a programme would require
No, the money exists. The resources exist. Just as we have more than enough food to supply food to every person on the planet, and they'd eat quite well, we hav emore than enough. It's a matter of where it goes and how it is used.
The lack of the political will to address any of the points above
Don't need political will. Besides, I think this one is also false. I bet China has it.
The lack of public interest in any of the points above *this* point
Actually the interest is quite large. But again, we're not spending billions or millions in advertising.
It was done during the Cold War - and nobody blinked because the reasons were obvious and accepted: the Nuclear Cold War involved heavy space based or space transiting resources. From ICBMs to famed orbiting lasers and orbital nuclear launch facilities.
Now, the reason is not so obvious or clear. Is China engaged in a cold war with the US as the USSR was? Is China planning to have the capability to launch ICBMs a the US or carry out a large scale open war? Are they planning to attack Taiwan and want to be able to threaten CONUS in an attempt to cause the US to break it's agreements and defend Taiwan?
Are any of those reasons acceptable?
"But the US might...!". And so might anyone else. Someone perhaps with more incentive. Rational thought shows that the likelihood of the US attacking China is infinitesimal barring some major action by China - an act of war.
Most of the defense against ICBMs is space based. Presumably China does not currently have the resources and capacity to meet the US in terms of nuclear ICBMs. If the US has an even partially successful ABM system (and we do), that amplifies the "need" for more missiles if you want to be able to make a first strike. If the US could knock down 20% of say Russian missiles, and China has 20% or less, the odds are pretty good a Chinese first strike would be ineffectual in terms of damage.
So there are two ways to counter this. One is to build more missiles, the other to build an Anti-ABM system you take out immediately prior to first strike. The reasons for the US developing ASAT were clear and stated, and the two matched. China's claims do not match the systems developed and deployed, nor is the "threat" clear, nor stated to be.
Now, some people say that China developing a combination of ASAT and increased ICBM capability is in counter to hypothetical US aggression. Yet most of the same people deplored the US increasing it's capabilities during the Cold War, and called for the end of such efforts after the end of it. A touch of hypocrisy? Or is it Alzheimers perhaps? Compare this to the more recent US response: more defense. More ABM capability, while still decreasing ICBMs.
How many people know about China's increasing stockpile and garrisoning of offensive weapons off the coast of Taiwan? By October of last year China had garrisoned some 900 CSS-7 missiles opposite Taiwan in the straight. And that number is still increasing at a rate of 100 per year. Of it's 1.4 million military personnel, 400,000 are deployed to the military areas opposite Taiwan. Anybody care to tell me what military threat Taiwan is to China?
It is "shocking" because everyone seems intent on keeping the underlying reasons out of the public eye. On this issue the Mainstream Press and the Pentagon are unwitting co-conspirators. China is the darling of the Press these days, so they don't want to expose the ugly underbelly of it, and the Pentagon doesn't want everyone spouting off about China as a threat. Not yet anyway. China is erfectly happy with this unwitting arrangement:
"Observe calmly; secure our position; cope with affairs calmly; hide our capacities and bide our time; be good at maintaining a low profile; and never claim leadership."
- Deng Xiaoping's "24 Character Strategy"
China still claims much land that is not currently theirs. Significant parts of Japan, India (IIRC ALL of India), and various other SoPac neighbors. "Unification" is an explicitly stated purpose of their military upgrades and strategy. For the last two decades, China (The PLA at least) has explicitly stated it believes in pre-emption (i.e. first strike) for anything. They say they are only developing for their stated military objectives. While it is true from a literal standpoint that their stated objectives do not say they would initiate a war or offensive campaign, they do include "territorial unification".
So with the combination of "territorial unification", a
IMO, this would be less of a problem if the United States had socialized medical care like the rest of the modern world. However, since this isn't the case the wealthier people in the US accidentally promote R&D into non live saving medicine because it suits them more, and they're willing to pay. If medical care were socialized, there'd be less of a lure to develop so many "useless" medicines, and more of a lure to develop live saving medicine.
Yeah because socialized countries have developed cures for all those "poor people" cures. I must have missed the memo that France cured TB and AIDS, Germany cured Malaria, and Cuba's been busy curing the common cold. In reality, outside of bash-a-country-fests, the facts are that the US dominates in medical research - both in discoveries as well as spending.Over the last 22 Nobel prizes in Medicine, only 7 went to people not working in the US. http://ostina.org/downloads/pdfs/bridgesvol7_Boehm Article.pdf is an older article that talks about some of it, http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/003979.html is newer and has newer refernces.
The US spends about 100 Billion dollars per year on medical research, and over half of it is private enterprise. To contrast, Europe spends single-digit billions. IN 2000 for example, Europe spent combined 3.7B versus some 90B by the US. Private spending in the US outstrips total spending in Europe. And the US has a smaller population. Which also means the US spends more per-capita than does Europe.
This is for research, not overall medical expenses.
In cancer research in the EU, over half of the spending came from charitable organizations. IN terms of cancer research spending the US easily spends more than double the EU. An interesting note is that the EU states contributed about 1.2B in noncommercial cancer research funding, and about 1.0B in tobacco subsidies (data for 2004).
Spending is IMO a poor measure, but for many it seems to matter so I list it. By that measure the US trounces any socialist country in medical research. The US also spends more on medical research as a percentage of GDP than socialist countries; 5 times as much as the EU and 7 times as much as Europe.
A decent measure is discoveries and treatments. Again, the US puts out far more discoveries and treatments per year than any socialist country.
I know people on/. tend to think about the absurdity of software patents, but medical patents can be far more deadly and really need a review when they're used to prevent delivery of medication to people too poor to pay for medicine.
I suspect most of us are actually on about patents overall being bad in many ways, but since we are on/. we see an apparent focus on software patents. That combined with their "relative newness" makes it seem they are easier to fight.
Slashdot Mirror
If "no leaker' means the warrant-less wiretapping would still be going on, then there is no leaker.
Now take the next step. Make votes property that can be sold/traded, leased, etc..
Yet the download link on the KDE page calls it "KDE 4.0 beta"
In the US they can't determine who you voted for, only whether you did or not.
It depends on the article. If the article makes grand claims, it deserves a nitpick or two. Grand claims require grand evidence.
In this submission it was questioned whether this would "Usher in Big Changes" in the automotive world. The veracity of that is entirely up for discussion and if you've evert tried to get funding for company, you'd want to post the idea here. That way you'll know all the possible failure modes.
Will this make a big change in the automotive world? No. It is not cost effective nor space effective for most people.
For single persons having two cars that carry the same amount of people is wasteful, and takes up more parking spaces in their apartment complexes - spaces they may not have available. Most families of >2 members already have two vehicles, so this would make a third one. Again most families have at most a two-car garage (and many of those are actually wide opening single-car garages). Thus the space issue hits home, no pun intended, for them.
Further, the cost of this car versus their current car makes it cost more to buy and use than to continue driving their existing car, for most people that it is alleged would be the target.
All that boils down to who the real market, targeted or not, is. People who only need this car and are OK with it's limitations (all cars have them). That market is demonstrably small. I
d even suggest that teenage drivers make the most logical target market. These markets are a small, small measure of the overall market. From this standpoint the answer to "big changes" is a flat "no".
On the standpoint of whether the method of selling will usher big changes, again, no. The reasons are different here. The existing model consists of manufacturers selling their product to dealers, who then sell it again. The automaker is already selling direct in this model. Selling directly to the customer would represent a breach of contract with their dealers. It would also put them in competition with their largest block of customers. So no, that won't change either.
It isn't a matter of opinion as to whether or not the questions asked represent a likely future, it is an analysis. Just as with the hype of the Segway. Does the Segway work as a means of transportation? Yes, it is functional. Is it cool? arguably, yes. Did it represent a fundamental shift of how we the people would get around? No. Did it cause a "rethinking" of how we get around? No.
See, that is the problem. Every "new idea" is touted as a funadmental shift, a paradigm change, a "world changing idea", or some such notion. So of course, we the thinkers, analyze that. And due to the nature of the frequency of truly world changing ideas, more often than not the answer is "no it is not a world changing idea". An idea can be a good one without being a world changing one.
Then again, if you believe that the majority of people are not entitled to their opinions, you probably believe they are entitled to your opinion.
Look, I know it's standard groupthink around here to hate patents and anything patent related, but we don't need blatently false stories to rile everyone up.
Right, we prefer patently false ones.
The most insightful part of this comment:
"It appears that every day the US are inching slowly but surely towards a police state,"
Wonder how many people think that is actually invalid grammar..
Funding is a form of speech, an individual should be allowed to give money to whomever he or she wants to.
A corporation or any entity that enjoys special protections under the law should not be allowed to influence the government that provides it with immunities and privileges. To that end, only people should be allowed to give money to a political campaign - without getting permission from the government. Further you should be allowed to give as much as you can and want to to a campaign.
This is along the same lines as the AGWH disasterbator's "cure" of going after the automobile. Dollar for dollar insulating residential units and offices to be more energy efficient, as well as build new ones to be more efficient, is far more effective in terms of reducing fossil fuel use, and subsequent emissions than anything you do for automobiles, to include converting them all to electricity.
If the goal were to light up a sign about energy use you could use batteries and LEDs to be far, far more efficient. The energy cost of installing and maintaining the active flooring would be orders of magnitude more than an LED powered sign wired in to the existing light system - even if you considered the installation and 30 year energy cost of the sign.
Seems a bit Rube Goldberg-ish to me.
In other words if we ignore it now, it will sail on through next year because there will be no impetus to resist it.
Yes but the implementation differential between the two is decreasing exponentially.
You did know that an attempt to commit a crime is itself a crime? Try forcing a lock the charge will be attempted burglary.
Actually, no it would be attempted breaking and entering. Successfully picking a lock is not burglary - that requires theft. If you forced the lock by bashing the door open it would be vandalism unless intent to enter the facility could be proven.
That said, B&E or burglary are crimes. Simple IP infringement is not, it is a civil matter. Why do you think the RIAA and MPAA are suing people, instead of the government arresting them?
This would criminalize, at best, attempts to commit a civil violation. Attempting to do something that is not a crime should not be a crime. That's absurd, or "absurdis extremis".
Take this into another context to better understand it. You sign a contract to love a person for the rest of your life "in sickness and in health, for richer or poorer", until death do you part. Should it be a crime to attempt to not live up to that civil agreement? Would flirting become illegal for those who are married, as it could be said to be attempting to commit adultery or infidelity, even if adultery isn't illegal?
What this is is a very bad deal. The RIAA is baiting people online with files that are not the music they claim to be. People download these. No copyright infringement has occurred as they do not have the song they thought they were getting. This would shift the onus from the RIAA suing people to reporting them to the government for arrest, accusation, and trial, followed by imprisonment. Now, with that in mind, and without regard to whether filesharing is moral or not, would that be moral, right, or even legal?
IMO the answer on all three accounts is not just no but hell no.
Simple. Buy the CDs on the used market. RIAA doesn't get a cent for it. Same for DVDs, buy them on the used market as well. It'll lower your cost of fulfilling your pledge as well. Most CDs used are half the price, or less, than new.
Dude, corporations are a government creation. A Corporation can only exist by the force of government; it is not a natural entity. Thus your assertion of government by corporation is shortsighted, it is still government by government.
and the highest TV ratings in history.
Why is he speaking out? Because the Surgeon General's job is to warn me of things that are dangerous to my health.
No it isn't. his job is:
1) "To fulfill statutory and customary Departmental representational functions on a wide variety of Federal boards and governing bodies of non-Federal health organizations, including the Board of Regents of the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, the National Library of Medicine, the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, the Association of Military Surgeons of the United States, and the American Medical Association."
and
2)"To administer the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) Commissioned Corps"
Everything is is added on by people wanting to use the political post as more of a political post than it is. While the above stated responsibilities seem reasonable, they are actually done in the majority by minions ^w underlings. Which leaves the SG with little official and legal duties. Polticial appointees with idle hands are the statists work.
"In 1987, the Office of the Surgeon General (OSG) was reestablished as a staff office within the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health. Concomitant with this action, the Surgeon General again became responsible for management of the Commissioned Corps personnel system. (Note: The Surgeon General does not directly supervise all Commissioned Officers; most work in PHS or other agencies and report to line managers of those agencies who may or may not be in the Corps.) In carrying out all responsibilities, the Surgeon General reports to the Assistant Secretary for Health, who is the principal advisor to the Secretary on public health and scientific issues." -- http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/sghist.htm
So no, it isn't the SG's job to tell you what might be dangerous to your health (it's your responsibility to seek out your own health, but that's a separate issue), nor is it his/her job to tell the President what might be dangerous to your health, nor is it the SG's job to tell anyone these things. They may want to, but it isn't their job to. And if it isn't their job any of their superiors can inform them to stick to their job. That includes Bush, and it included Clinton. For what it's worth I think Clinton was right to do what he did wrt. Elders, even though I think Elders was right in what she said. Whether Carmona was right or wrong in what he said it would be right for Bush, or the Secretary of Health, to tell him to not say it "on company time" or using "the company" as a position of authority.
In the case of AGWH it wasn't a case lf "allowing itself" to be politicized, the proponents specifically sought out politicians. Right from the beginning. That was, and remains, the single greatest mistake of the proponents. Science should not seek politics.
As a result we have a lot of good ideas that have been hitched to the bandwagon thus tainting them. We also have a lot of good ideas that are easy to implement that get pushed aside because "the effect on Global Warming" is "insignificant" or "not enough". The proponents of true-believers of AGWH have tried to get anything and everything they can linked to their pet belief. They've tried to make it the bellwether of everything related to the environment. And in so doing they made allies of the worst kind. AGWH proponents in the news and media always like to talk about cars.Why? Because this group of them (the loud ones) have always been against cars and AGWH had momentum and now are attached at the hip.
Even if we assume for sake of discussion that AGWH is accurate, the automotive world is not where you get the most bang for your buck. It's actually in homes and offices. Modern homes are somewhat more efficient than they were 20-30 years ago. However, the majority of houses are 20+ years old. Dollar for dollar properly insulating these houses as well as older office buildings (many of which are actually old homes), and designing new manufacture to be more efficient would reduce "greenhouse emissions" more than converting all the cars to hybrids or electrics.
But it's not as much "fun" to poke at someone's house as it is their car. I wonder what the per-capita car/house situations look like in the various countries. I wonder how much the "attack on the personal car" is a proxy for "attack on American lifestyles". Seriously. We know Europe has more population than the US, so it stands to reason they have more housing. Whether it is single family homes or apartments, you know there is more housing. And, if you've been there or lived there, you know that a lot of housing in Europe is older housing. Much of it may be remodeled but the underlying structural and design flaws with regards to energy usage are still there.
Then again, it could also be that you it is held to be easier to replace your car than to replace your house. But in truth you don't need to replace your house. Apartments, now that is a different story.
In either case, or neither, it remains that the immediate reach and demand for politicians to get involved in AGWH was the catalyst for so many "hangers on" that have continued to drag down the hypothesis and keep it mired in political machinations. AGWH is kept alive by zealots. Zealots of any strip be they political, "technical", governmental, or religious, are bad business for whatever they latch onto. The higher the hype, the less believable it is. The more the zealots try to use it as a weapon to bludgeon others into submitting to their idea of control, the more resistance you'll find. The more fantastic the claims, the higher standard people will have for proof.
As far as the political aspect of POTUS vs. US Surgeon General: IMO there should be no Surgeon General. It IS a political post. Every President since Johnson abolished the Office of the Surgeon General making it a political post has used it to push their agenda. Elders was fired by Clinton because she talked about masturbation for "values contrary to the administration", for example. Bush is no different. Does that make it right? Absolutely not. But it is a good reason for eliminating the position. How about we stop pretending these positions are anything less than political tools? Every SG in the last several administrations has severely overstepped it's official and legal duties. it is used as a soapbox for getting politically favored views across.
I'd be shocked if Bush did NOT use the SG as a political tool, and anybody taking the post should know the history of the post they are taking. After Clinton fired Elders for espousing values he cl
Sounds to me like that's may have happened already.
Then you need to call the tallyman to come tally it.
The whole world-wide hoopola over intellectual property we're investing so much time and anxiety into these days is totally nuts.
Absolutely. Change "OUR IP" to "OUR CHILDREN". Ahh but "children are NOT property!" someone cries. I agree. Neither is something that does not physically exist. At least people are physical entities.
you hate it so much you have to make assertions that are false? For example:
Can we stop pretending we're going to send astronauts to Mars? There's is no way we're going to spend the enormous amount of money required to do it, and we don't even know if the astronauts can survive the radiation exposure on the trip.
Please. We know the risks, and they are not lethal. Maybe you don't know, but to say "we" don't is absolute BS. The radiation in space is called Cosmic Radiation, and about half of the radiation experienced in an average human's lifetime is CR. So we are pretty familiar with it. So then it falls to how much? How much radiation will you experience flying to Mars?
Suprisingly not as much as you think. Transatlantic trips by airline pilots and crew will get exposed over a 25 year career with more than half of the radiation you'd get spending a year in between Mars and Earth as well as a year and a half on Mars. But that only affects lifelong factors. You seem to be talking about surviving the trip TO Mars. Seems you need some education on radiation.
Radiation sickness is the immediate result of a very high dose of radiation. That threshold varies in small percentages from person to person, but it is approximately 75 rem. In a conjunction trajectory mission the worst solar flare (that wouldn't kill the people who are still on Earth) would provide a dosage of 5 rem. The whole round trip, some 30 months away from the cradle,would expose you to about 50 rem. If you condensed ALL of the CR radiation you would be exposed to into a single big burst it is unlikely to make you sick, let alone kill you. The trip out there would expose you to approximately 19 rem. Over 6 months
You would have greater risk of lifelong effects from radiation by staying home, laying on the beach w/o sunscreen and soaking up that radiation.
Besides the fact that it won't be done by any government in the next 30 years,
While I hope that's the case, I wouldn't put it past China.
I've harped on this before, but it's still true: we could send 1,000 probes similar to the Mars Lander for the price it takes to do a P.R. stunt like sending humans to Mars. Yeah, it's romantic, but if the goal is science, then it's a total waste.
And I've illustrated with facts and reality that if your goal is to do actual science you need something capable of doing actual science on Mars. Robots don't do science. They gather data. Is the battlefield robot scouting over the enemy territory doing science? No, it's doing exactly what Spirit and Opportunity do: gather data. That aside, which gathers more data per trip, humans or rovers.
Look at how much ground the rovers have covered. Look at the data points they've gathered. A team of 4-6 humans on the planet would gather orders of magnitude more data, would conduct actual science (you know: hypothesize, experiment, analyze, refine hypothesize...) than ten times as many rovers, and do it in far shorter time. As of a couple weeks ago, Spirit has traveled about 7km. If you took one Manned Lunar Lander to Mars, you'd have the ability to cover 10km out from your basecamp (20km round trip). That's using 30 year old battery technology.
Using modern technology, and using a either combination of solar and in situ produced liquid fuel, or either alone, a modern Mars rover would have more than ten to twenty times the range of the Lunar rovers. It is neither trivial nor incredibly hard/impossible for us to build and deploy a lightweight, energy flush, rover capable of supporting a 2-3 man crew traveling on the surface of Mars for up to and over more than 500km from base camp.
Yet Spirit has traveled just over 7k in what, three and half years is it? How many Spirit missions would it take to cover that kind of distance, or how long for a single Spirit? Isn't it's daily record something like 770 feet? Let's double that. Let us say that the rover could cover 250 meters per day. Well if a manned rover can take it easy and cover 20km per d
Ahh slashdot, where the ignorant can make claims that are false, and have been false for at least a couple decades. What is this, pop-news?
"The lack of any kind of spaceship capable of making the return trip...the lack of any kind of system for keeping the crew alive in space for that long"
Yeah, because we can build submarines that operate for 6+ months at a time deep under the sea but not a tin can that can keep people alive in space for that time. You seem to not know about the many humans who have lived in space for well over six months. A Conjunction Trajectory mission puts you in space for no more than 6 months. The ISS, for all it's spectacular failure and incredible appetite for money, and Mir, have proven that we can make craft to keep humans alive for mor than a year in the vacuum of space.
The lack of any serious programme to develop the above
Irrelevant. We don't have a serious program for most things that we've done or develop. It's also incorrect. It's not government funded and we don't waste -er I mean spend massive amounts of money on advertising, but it is under research and development. By people who have a clue.
The lack of the money such a programme would require
No, the money exists. The resources exist. Just as we have more than enough food to supply food to every person on the planet, and they'd eat quite well, we hav emore than enough. It's a matter of where it goes and how it is used.
The lack of the political will to address any of the points above
Don't need political will. Besides, I think this one is also false. I bet China has it.
The lack of public interest in any of the points above *this* point
Actually the interest is quite large. But again, we're not spending billions or millions in advertising.
It was done during the Cold War - and nobody blinked because the reasons were obvious and accepted: the Nuclear Cold War involved heavy space based or space transiting resources. From ICBMs to famed orbiting lasers and orbital nuclear launch facilities.
Now, the reason is not so obvious or clear. Is China engaged in a cold war with the US as the USSR was? Is China planning to have the capability to launch ICBMs a the US or carry out a large scale open war? Are they planning to attack Taiwan and want to be able to threaten CONUS in an attempt to cause the US to break it's agreements and defend Taiwan?
Are any of those reasons acceptable?
"But the US might...!". And so might anyone else. Someone perhaps with more incentive. Rational thought shows that the likelihood of the US attacking China is infinitesimal barring some major action by China - an act of war.
Most of the defense against ICBMs is space based. Presumably China does not currently have the resources and capacity to meet the US in terms of nuclear ICBMs. If the US has an even partially successful ABM system (and we do), that amplifies the "need" for more missiles if you want to be able to make a first strike. If the US could knock down 20% of say Russian missiles, and China has 20% or less, the odds are pretty good a Chinese first strike would be ineffectual in terms of damage.
So there are two ways to counter this. One is to build more missiles, the other to build an Anti-ABM system you take out immediately prior to first strike. The reasons for the US developing ASAT were clear and stated, and the two matched. China's claims do not match the systems developed and deployed, nor is the "threat" clear, nor stated to be.
Now, some people say that China developing a combination of ASAT and increased ICBM capability is in counter to hypothetical US aggression. Yet most of the same people deplored the US increasing it's capabilities during the Cold War, and called for the end of such efforts after the end of it. A touch of hypocrisy? Or is it Alzheimers perhaps? Compare this to the more recent US response: more defense. More ABM capability, while still decreasing ICBMs.
How many people know about China's increasing stockpile and garrisoning of offensive weapons off the coast of Taiwan? By October of last year China had garrisoned some 900 CSS-7 missiles opposite Taiwan in the straight. And that number is still increasing at a rate of 100 per year. Of it's 1.4 million military personnel, 400,000 are deployed to the military areas opposite Taiwan. Anybody care to tell me what military threat Taiwan is to China?
It is "shocking" because everyone seems intent on keeping the underlying reasons out of the public eye. On this issue the Mainstream Press and the Pentagon are unwitting co-conspirators. China is the darling of the Press these days, so they don't want to expose the ugly underbelly of it, and the Pentagon doesn't want everyone spouting off about China as a threat. Not yet anyway. China is erfectly happy with this unwitting arrangement:
- Deng Xiaoping's "24 Character Strategy"
China still claims much land that is not currently theirs. Significant parts of Japan, India (IIRC ALL of India), and various other SoPac neighbors. "Unification" is an explicitly stated purpose of their military upgrades and strategy. For the last two decades, China (The PLA at least) has explicitly stated it believes in pre-emption (i.e. first strike) for anything. They say they are only developing for their stated military objectives. While it is true from a literal standpoint that their stated objectives do not say they would initiate a war or offensive campaign, they do include "territorial unification".
So with the combination of "territorial unification", a
IMO, this would be less of a problem if the United States had socialized medical care like the rest of the modern world. However, since this isn't the case the wealthier people in the US accidentally promote R&D into non live saving medicine because it suits them more, and they're willing to pay. If medical care were socialized, there'd be less of a lure to develop so many "useless" medicines, and more of a lure to develop live saving medicine.
m Article.pdf is an older article that talks about some of it, http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/003979.html is newer and has newer refernces.
/. tend to think about the absurdity of software patents, but medical patents can be far more deadly and really need a review when they're used to prevent delivery of medication to people too poor to pay for medicine.
/. we see an apparent focus on software patents. That combined with their "relative newness" makes it seem they are easier to fight.
Yeah because socialized countries have developed cures for all those "poor people" cures. I must have missed the memo that France cured TB and AIDS, Germany cured Malaria, and Cuba's been busy curing the common cold.
In reality, outside of bash-a-country-fests, the facts are that the US dominates in medical research - both in discoveries as well as spending.Over the last 22 Nobel prizes in Medicine, only 7 went to people not working in the US. http://ostina.org/downloads/pdfs/bridgesvol7_Boeh
The US spends about 100 Billion dollars per year on medical research, and over half of it is private enterprise. To contrast, Europe spends single-digit billions. IN 2000 for example, Europe spent combined 3.7B versus some 90B by the US. Private spending in the US outstrips total spending in Europe. And the US has a smaller population. Which also means the US spends more per-capita than does Europe.
This is for research, not overall medical expenses.
In cancer research in the EU, over half of the spending came from charitable organizations. IN terms of cancer research spending the US easily spends more than double the EU. An interesting note is that the EU states contributed about 1.2B in noncommercial cancer research funding, and about 1.0B in tobacco subsidies (data for 2004).
Spending is IMO a poor measure, but for many it seems to matter so I list it. By that measure the US trounces any socialist country in medical research. The US also spends more on medical research as a percentage of GDP than socialist countries; 5 times as much as the EU and 7 times as much as Europe.
A decent measure is discoveries and treatments. Again, the US puts out far more discoveries and treatments per year than any socialist country.
I know people on
I suspect most of us are actually on about patents overall being bad in many ways, but since we are on
Wouldn't that be GILF? (Grandmother...)