I find the same problem for HD channels. Sure it's big and huge, and the resolution is better, but that can degrade quickly when it is so compressed. But the compression may not be all the cable companies fault. A lot satelite feeds are compressed to the point that the pictures looks horrible. I work for the local cable company, and can view the feed directly off the satelite, and it can still look bad.
But that being said, there is a limited amount of bandwidth and all the channels we expect to have take up a lot of space. HD is even worse, it eats up bandwidth and processing equipment.
Okay cool, just a basic disagreement. I'm glad you are happy with the system you are in.
I personally value the freedom of the individual above what may benefit society. If I person wants to live in a society where the government provides all those things fine. Those of us in the US who don't desire that just get frustrated sometimes when the our nation claims to believe all these things that our Constitution says (Lots of government officals swear to uphold the Constitution when they enter office), but then the government doesn't follow it.
A large portion of the world seems to not be the biggest fans of the US right now, and I believe that we could have avoided that, if we had just stuck to what we started out to be. It seemed to work pretty well for us for a long time...
Like I said, I don't know all that much about the PhD/Post-Doc process. I'm sure you kow better than I...
As far as scholarships, there are plenty of religious and community organizations that provide them, and plenty of companies do too. Helping a student learn is great advertising.
I don't think that scientific advances are the ultimate goal. I think personal freedom is the ultimate goal, above all else.
My bad, I assumed you were from the US. We were dicussing politics in the US and I assumed.
As far as the State/Federal government thing, the difference is that in our Constitution, the federal government was not chartered to deal with those things. State constitutions may be different, and I respect the right of a State to do those things that its Constitution allows. If my State Constitution designates the State is to build and administer bridges, then well that's something that I have to deal with, or try to change, but until I change it, it is legal for the State to do that. I personally have lots of problems with current State's(Hawaii) Constitution... one of these days I'll move.
The PhD system in the US is much different from Europe. I'm sure many PhDs/Post-Docs have gevernment funding, but many pay for their school themselves/take out student loans or recieve scholarships, etc. Many also are funded by the school itself in return for working for the school/teaching, etc. But I am no expert on the current situation...
If I misrepresented your position, I apoligize, it was not my intention. My point was that, at least under the Constitution that we have here in the US, the rights of the minority are supposed to be protected, from the beliefs of the majority. Even if 99% of our population felt that Free Speach was a bad thing, the Constitution is supposed to protect it for the last 1%. If 82% of the population feels that Jesus is the son of God, the government can't force those of us that don't, to believe in it. And it's also not supposed to force us to fund it either. I live in a VERY religious country, and I appreciate the protections the COnstitution affords me. The way we try to protect this, is by keeping the government out of religion. At least that's the way it's supposed to work... I personaly don't think it is silly to take your argument to what I see as the logical extension. If you have an rational, logical explination for where you fairly draw the line for how much money your government takes, I'd love to hear it, as I said. Is there a percentage of your money that the government knows better than you how to spend? How do you justify that percentage?
>I'm sure that 100% of people believe we should have food. Does that mean we should spend 100% of the money on food?
No that means that 100% of the people are allowed to spend THEIR money on the food THEY want to buy.
The bridges thing, I disagree. Take the example of any other good that is not funded by the government. If someone builds a house, do they build it to last their lifetime, and only their lifetime? No. They invested in it, and they want ot see the best return on their investment. They build it to last as long as it can, or at least as long as is financialy feasable. Some day they may want to sell the house, and get their investment (or more depending on the housing market) back, but no one would buy a house that was about to self-destruct. So it is in their financial intrest to build it to last a long time. It's basic free-market economics, of course.
>> Why are they forced to pay for something that doesn't benefit them.
>Because they in turn benefit from other things that they didn't pay for. How do you fulfil this obligation? Is my invention of a better paper shredder equal your invention of the cure for cancer?
That's a self-fulfilling justification. We keep doing something because, well that's the way it's always been done?
>> There are people that never send email, and never want to, but the government took their money and spent it on something that they wouldn't have spent it on themselves.
>But they do use DVD players etc that were made possible because of research done well before their time. Research that they did not pay for.
These are technologies, most of which were developed by companies to make the company money, that these people payed for when they spent their money on the DVD player, etc. The companies that developed these technolgies got payed for their investment in research, when people went out and bought the DVD players, etc. The people that labored to develop them got paid for their effort by the companies.
>> That is not freedom, that is the government telling you that they know better than you do how to spend your money.
>They do know 'better than you' on how to spend your money. That's why we live in a society, rather than living as nomads. Money goes into research and development. Big science projects often take 10 to 20 >years just to build, then many years later to work out the results. Of course most people who paid for it aren't going to benefit from it.
If you honestly believe that the federal government has a better idea how to spend your money than you do, then I don't know what to say. Do you give all your money to the government? If they know better I would give them all my money and ask them to chose everything for me. Why not? It would be better for you, right? Does President Bush know best how to spend your money? Do you support the war? Why not? Government knows better than you? If you had lived in Nazi Germany, would you have supported Hitler's government? He knew better than you right?
I live in a society so that I have people to trade my goods or services with(I can program a pretty mean page of C# code, but can't farm to save my soul) and so that my rights and the rights of every citizen around me are protected. That's why I live in a society. That and because I enjoy the company of other people(A selfish goal; my body enjoys the dopamine release I get from conversation with others) How far does this go? Should the governemt take the fruit of all your labor and spend it how the majority sees fit? A 2004 Newsweek Poll of 1,009 U.S. adults, conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates, found that 82% of those surveyed believed that Jesus was God or the Son of God. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_Unite d_States Should that 82% spend your money putting a Bible in every home? A 2007 Gallup Poll found that 49%(that was the winning majority view point) of Americans don't believe in Evolution. http://www.galluppoll.com/videoArchive/?CI=27838&V AP=0&VASRCH= Does a government elected by that 49% have the right to spend your money researching Intelligent Design?
>> I think that each individual person should be free to spend their money on things that benefit them.
>So I guess in your idea world, we scrap all government research, scrap NASA and all it's space research, scrap the majority (all?) of university research, scrap the large hadron collider and all the other >accelerators, and so on? We'd also have no research papers, and much much fewer PhD students. And certainly no post-docs etc.
I'm lost? Why no research papers? Are all research papers funded by the federal government? If yo
Well, I guess I see some selfishness in it, but why you think selfishness is a bad thing is a totally different discussion...
I personally wouldn't mind paying for it, if I were given the choice. I wasn't alive at a time when I could pay for it(I'm 23), but I buy equippment and services from companies today, and part of the cost of those things go in to R&D for the future, I may not see the benefit of those future advances, but I don't mind paying for it because I use the technology we have now that others payed for. I understand that I am lucky to have to technology. But the key point, at least to me, is that I use this and I benefit from it, but what about people that don't? Why are they forced to pay for something that doesn't benefit them. It's hard to believe, but there are people that don't use the interweb. There are people that never send email, and never want to, but the government took their money and spent it on something that they wouldn't have spent it on themselves. That is not freedom, that is the government telling you that they know better than you do how to spend your money. I don't agree with that. I think that each individual person should be free to spend their money on things that benefit them. Granted, perhaps that ARPANET isn't the prime example. It was originally built to investigate pakcet-switched networks as a reliable communication channel for Command and Control messages, right? So you could argue that it was a matter of national security. But like you say there is a never ending list of these things to disucss...
We could debate the merits of every way the government spends money until we are both out of breath, but my point was just to voice my support for the original libertarian answer that perhaps the federal government should not be spending our money on things that are not directly related to it's stated (in the Constitution) goal. If the federal government let us keep a lot more of our money, then the personal views of the president would not be so importantant. It wouldn't matter if the president believed in ghosts, because I wouldn't be forced to pay for him/her to hire paranormal investigators...
If this were 1970 and I was trashing government spending, while also using the ARPANET, I could maybe understand what you're saying... But it's 37 years later and so many people have contributed to the interweb, that it's just not the same thing anymore.
No offense to your research, but you say it MAY have military applications in 10-20 years, which is dandy, but the money I spent on taxes this year, WOULD have application in my life, like making it possible to eat something besides instant noodles and it WOULD help ME pay for MY schooling.
I mean in no way to insult what you are doing, and I appreciate your work and understand the importance of defense to protect the liberty that I hold dear. I just some feel that some times I might have a better idea how to spend the money that I work for.
Let me begin by saying that I believe evolution is a fact. I know life has evolved over millions of years, etc. I am also a libertarian and will be voting for Ron Paul (Check him out....) Just so you know where my biases lay. (or is it lie?...)
My comment is that as technology/science people we tend to forget the world we live in. What percentage of this country is religious? What about the idea of fate? Not scientific, but how many people believe it? Or Karma? I know all kinds of people, including Christians that truly believe in Karma. How about all you men ask your wives or daughters if they believe in love at first sight? Does your wife think she is the only woman for you or you two were 'meant to be'? How about monogamy? Do you think it is the right way to live you life? Does your wife/husband? Attacking a candidate religious views may turn off a large portion of the country.
If there are a great many things that a lot of people in our culture believe in that are not supported by science, should our president be representative of the country's people? You may want the president to fund scientific research that you think is important, but that may mean a large percentage of the people paying the bill(US tax payers) are forced to pay for something that goes against what they believe in. Would you want to be forced to pay for the government to study hidden messages in the Bible, or which tree Budda used to sleep under?
I personally don't care what religion my president is, or what his/her personal beliefs are. Our President shouldn't be making policy that has to do with religious issues. Those two things should be seperate. Now, you might say that like it or not, that is the way it is, but I think that that is the problem. Instead of worrying about what god the president prays to, or what side of the inflationary/steady state debate he/she is on, I think we should worry more about finding a president who supports each persons right study and decide for themselves.
Okay sorry for the rant....
I live in Hawai`i and I just bought Test Drive: Unlimited so I could drive around on streets I know. Maybe they'll arrest me because I might go 160 in my Viper.
Slashdot Mirror
I find the same problem for HD channels. Sure it's big and huge, and the resolution is better, but that can degrade quickly when it is so compressed. But the compression may not be all the cable companies fault. A lot satelite feeds are compressed to the point that the pictures looks horrible. I work for the local cable company, and can view the feed directly off the satelite, and it can still look bad.
But that being said, there is a limited amount of bandwidth and all the channels we expect to have take up a lot of space. HD is even worse, it eats up bandwidth and processing equipment.
But I shouldn't complain... I get it for free.
Okay cool, just a basic disagreement. I'm glad you are happy with the system you are in. I personally value the freedom of the individual above what may benefit society. If I person wants to live in a society where the government provides all those things fine. Those of us in the US who don't desire that just get frustrated sometimes when the our nation claims to believe all these things that our Constitution says (Lots of government officals swear to uphold the Constitution when they enter office), but then the government doesn't follow it. A large portion of the world seems to not be the biggest fans of the US right now, and I believe that we could have avoided that, if we had just stuck to what we started out to be. It seemed to work pretty well for us for a long time... Like I said, I don't know all that much about the PhD/Post-Doc process. I'm sure you kow better than I... As far as scholarships, there are plenty of religious and community organizations that provide them, and plenty of companies do too. Helping a student learn is great advertising.
I don't think that scientific advances are the ultimate goal. I think personal freedom is the ultimate goal, above all else.
My bad, I assumed you were from the US. We were dicussing politics in the US and I assumed.
As far as the State/Federal government thing, the difference is that in our Constitution, the federal government was not chartered to deal with those things. State constitutions may be different, and I respect the right of a State to do those things that its Constitution allows. If my State Constitution designates the State is to build and administer bridges, then well that's something that I have to deal with, or try to change, but until I change it, it is legal for the State to do that. I personally have lots of problems with current State's(Hawaii) Constitution... one of these days I'll move.
The PhD system in the US is much different from Europe. I'm sure many PhDs/Post-Docs have gevernment funding, but many pay for their school themselves/take out student loans or recieve scholarships, etc. Many also are funded by the school itself in return for working for the school/teaching, etc. But I am no expert on the current situation...
If I misrepresented your position, I apoligize, it was not my intention. My point was that, at least under the Constitution that we have here in the US, the rights of the minority are supposed to be protected, from the beliefs of the majority. Even if 99% of our population felt that Free Speach was a bad thing, the Constitution is supposed to protect it for the last 1%. If 82% of the population feels that Jesus is the son of God, the government can't force those of us that don't, to believe in it. And it's also not supposed to force us to fund it either. I live in a VERY religious country, and I appreciate the protections the COnstitution affords me. The way we try to protect this, is by keeping the government out of religion. At least that's the way it's supposed to work... I personaly don't think it is silly to take your argument to what I see as the logical extension. If you have an rational, logical explination for where you fairly draw the line for how much money your government takes, I'd love to hear it, as I said. Is there a percentage of your money that the government knows better than you how to spend? How do you justify that percentage?
>I'm sure that 100% of people believe we should have food. Does that mean we should spend 100% of the money on food?
No that means that 100% of the people are allowed to spend THEIR money on the food THEY want to buy.
The bridges thing, I disagree. Take the example of any other good that is not funded by the government. If someone builds a house, do they build it to last their lifetime, and only their lifetime? No. They invested in it, and they want ot see the best return on their investment. They build it to last as long as it can, or at least as long as is financialy feasable. Some day they may want to sell the house, and get their investment (or more depending on the housing market) back, but no one would buy a house that was about to self-destruct. So it is in their financial intrest to build it to last a long time. It's basic free-market economics, of course.
>> Why are they forced to pay for something that doesn't benefit them.
>Because they in turn benefit from other things that they didn't pay for. How do you fulfil this obligation? Is my invention of a better paper shredder equal your invention of the cure for cancer?
That's a self-fulfilling justification. We keep doing something because, well that's the way it's always been done?
>> There are people that never send email, and never want to, but the government took their money and spent it on something that they wouldn't have spent it on themselves.
>But they do use DVD players etc that were made possible because of research done well before their time. Research that they did not pay for.
These are technologies, most of which were developed by companies to make the company money, that these people payed for when they spent their money on the DVD player, etc. The companies that developed these technolgies got payed for their investment in research, when people went out and bought the DVD players, etc. The people that labored to develop them got paid for their effort by the companies.
>> That is not freedom, that is the government telling you that they know better than you do how to spend your money.
>They do know 'better than you' on how to spend your money. That's why we live in a society, rather than living as nomads. Money goes into research and development. Big science projects often take 10 to 20 >years just to build, then many years later to work out the results. Of course most people who paid for it aren't going to benefit from it.
If you honestly believe that the federal government has a better idea how to spend your money than you do, then I don't know what to say. Do you give all your money to the government? If they know better I would give them all my money and ask them to chose everything for me. Why not? It would be better for you, right? Does President Bush know best how to spend your money? Do you support the war? Why not? Government knows better than you? If you had lived in Nazi Germany, would you have supported Hitler's government? He knew better than you right?
I live in a society so that I have people to trade my goods or services with(I can program a pretty mean page of C# code, but can't farm to save my soul) and so that my rights and the rights of every citizen around me are protected. That's why I live in a society. That and because I enjoy the company of other people(A selfish goal; my body enjoys the dopamine release I get from conversation with others) How far does this go? Should the governemt take the fruit of all your labor and spend it how the majority sees fit? A 2004 Newsweek Poll of 1,009 U.S. adults, conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates, found that 82% of those surveyed believed that Jesus was God or the Son of God. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_Unite d_States Should that 82% spend your money putting a Bible in every home? A 2007 Gallup Poll found that 49%(that was the winning majority view point) of Americans don't believe in Evolution. http://www.galluppoll.com/videoArchive/?CI=27838&V AP=0&VASRCH= Does a government elected by that 49% have the right to spend your money researching Intelligent Design?
>> I think that each individual person should be free to spend their money on things that benefit them.
>So I guess in your idea world, we scrap all government research, scrap NASA and all it's space research, scrap the majority (all?) of university research, scrap the large hadron collider and all the other >accelerators, and so on? We'd also have no research papers, and much much fewer PhD students. And certainly no post-docs etc.
I'm lost? Why no research papers? Are all research papers funded by the federal government? If yo
Well, I guess I see some selfishness in it, but why you think selfishness is a bad thing is a totally different discussion...
I personally wouldn't mind paying for it, if I were given the choice. I wasn't alive at a time when I could pay for it(I'm 23), but I buy equippment and services from companies today, and part of the cost of those things go in to R&D for the future, I may not see the benefit of those future advances, but I don't mind paying for it because I use the technology we have now that others payed for. I understand that I am lucky to have to technology. But the key point, at least to me, is that I use this and I benefit from it, but what about people that don't? Why are they forced to pay for something that doesn't benefit them. It's hard to believe, but there are people that don't use the interweb. There are people that never send email, and never want to, but the government took their money and spent it on something that they wouldn't have spent it on themselves. That is not freedom, that is the government telling you that they know better than you do how to spend your money. I don't agree with that. I think that each individual person should be free to spend their money on things that benefit them. Granted, perhaps that ARPANET isn't the prime example. It was originally built to investigate pakcet-switched networks as a reliable communication channel for Command and Control messages, right? So you could argue that it was a matter of national security. But like you say there is a never ending list of these things to disucss...
We could debate the merits of every way the government spends money until we are both out of breath, but my point was just to voice my support for the original libertarian answer that perhaps the federal government should not be spending our money on things that are not directly related to it's stated (in the Constitution) goal. If the federal government let us keep a lot more of our money, then the personal views of the president would not be so importantant. It wouldn't matter if the president believed in ghosts, because I wouldn't be forced to pay for him/her to hire paranormal investigators...
If this were 1970 and I was trashing government spending, while also using the ARPANET, I could maybe understand what you're saying... But it's 37 years later and so many people have contributed to the interweb, that it's just not the same thing anymore.
No offense to your research, but you say it MAY have military applications in 10-20 years, which is dandy, but the money I spent on taxes this year, WOULD have application in my life, like making it possible to eat something besides instant noodles and it WOULD help ME pay for MY schooling.
I mean in no way to insult what you are doing, and I appreciate your work and understand the importance of defense to protect the liberty that I hold dear. I just some feel that some times I might have a better idea how to spend the money that I work for.
Let me begin by saying that I believe evolution is a fact. I know life has evolved over millions of years, etc. I am also a libertarian and will be voting for Ron Paul (Check him out....) Just so you know where my biases lay. (or is it lie?...) My comment is that as technology/science people we tend to forget the world we live in. What percentage of this country is religious? What about the idea of fate? Not scientific, but how many people believe it? Or Karma? I know all kinds of people, including Christians that truly believe in Karma. How about all you men ask your wives or daughters if they believe in love at first sight? Does your wife think she is the only woman for you or you two were 'meant to be'? How about monogamy? Do you think it is the right way to live you life? Does your wife/husband? Attacking a candidate religious views may turn off a large portion of the country. If there are a great many things that a lot of people in our culture believe in that are not supported by science, should our president be representative of the country's people? You may want the president to fund scientific research that you think is important, but that may mean a large percentage of the people paying the bill(US tax payers) are forced to pay for something that goes against what they believe in. Would you want to be forced to pay for the government to study hidden messages in the Bible, or which tree Budda used to sleep under? I personally don't care what religion my president is, or what his/her personal beliefs are. Our President shouldn't be making policy that has to do with religious issues. Those two things should be seperate. Now, you might say that like it or not, that is the way it is, but I think that that is the problem. Instead of worrying about what god the president prays to, or what side of the inflationary/steady state debate he/she is on, I think we should worry more about finding a president who supports each persons right study and decide for themselves. Okay sorry for the rant....
I live in Hawai`i and I just bought Test Drive: Unlimited so I could drive around on streets I know. Maybe they'll arrest me because I might go 160 in my Viper.