Our biological forms are too fragile to survive anywhere long term except here on Earth. Even if we found a way to terraform other worlds, we would still need intelligent machines to do it for us and then to get us there.
And as many futurologists have pointed out, if we do pursue such technology, there *will* come a point in the next few decades when our creations' intelligence finally surpasses our own.
So what are you going to do? Crawl back to your cave, maybe even give up using fire because of the risk of where it might lead? We need to meet this challenge head on; prepare for it, make room for it in our plans.
I think what it boils down to is this: will our creations tolerate us, can we co-exist? I think the answer lies here: if we ourselves are moral then so will be our children and we will live in peace. If we are not, though, and we create children without any moral spirit, well yes, then as a biogical species we're doomed.
The assertion that the OSV will fail has been made before, so this is hardly out of the blue. and given that the Space Shuttle didn't live up to it's primary requirement (to make access to space cheaper) it's not so implausible either.
If Bell's figures are correct, then the OSV will be so overweight that the available rocketry will be unable to lift the cargos it is designed for, into orbit.
You appear to be saying that the OSV will be successful because it has to be. But all the wishing in the world won't make it so, if the technology we have can't get us there. NASA appears to be burying its collective head in the sand, probably because they're thinking "we rode it out last time when the shuttle failed to deliver, we'll ride this one out too".
Regarding the continued use of the shuttle: if the Shuttle is all they have in 2010, they will need to continue using it or else give up going into space. No matter what you or anyone else says now. Bell thinks this is the most likely outcome so presents it almost like a straightforward prediction. But he knows as we all do that there are other possible outcomes *IF* NASA pulls it head out of its ass. To pull him up for not hedging this prediction with ifs and buts - which are already there between the lines and blatantly obvious to any reader who takes the time to understnad the article - is to miss the point altogether, and is a strong indicator that you have some kind of personal axe to grind on this issue, and just trying to knock down his argument with straw men, instead of refuting his data or his logic.
Well yes but I don't see that as a bad thing, as long as it's funded (there's no point in starting something if you don't have the resources to see it through). At worst, it's preferable to military adventurism and "violence culture", at best there could be some long-term net benefit for the entire human race. Conservative "safe" attitudes won't get us off this planet.
Blast and damn, mozilla crashed when I tried to submit my reply. Here goes again:
Look - read the article again, there is nothing you said that contradicts what he said. Here are Bell's main points:
1) Shuttle too expensive 2) There will be more shuttle accidents if it continues to fly 3) OSV will be too heavy/have too little carrying capacity, when encumbered with required safety modifications 4) For the short term at least, NASA needs light, unmanned cargo vehicle that can be snt up on current expendable boosters 5) For the short term at least, NASA needs to use tried and trusted capsule technology for use in crew return missions and as permanently moored emergency escape pods for the ISS.
The rest is extrapolation based on what must happen *if* NASA don't recognize and act on the above quickly enough. It's no good bitching about it: the OSV just won't work and unless NASA drops it quickly (and they aren't) they will indeed be continuing to rely on the Shuttle for longer than they had planned. 2010 deadlines notwithstanding.
Bell's final suggestion about re-using old museum-piece Apollo capsules is I think partly tongue-in-cheek, somewhat remniscent of the decayed NASA of Stephen Baxter's excellent novel "Titan" - but if NASA leaves it too long before getting started on a new capsule project, and especially if something else goes wrong with the shuttle - they may well be forced to do just that or lose some more astronauts.
Maybe the kazaa authors could find a way to deliver a list of "related" files anonymously along with the download. Then you'd still get the suggestions of what to try next.
Absolute rubbish. That article is the most well reasoned piece of analysis I've seen on the space business in a long time. His data is pretty strong, and his arguments logical. It all even seems obvious, with hindsight.
You might not like what Bell says, but there is no point in shooting the messenger. Judging by your infantile remarks, it's clear that you just didn't understand what he was saying. Your response is reminiscent of an infant shouting and stamping his feet.
It should be obvious to an idiot that the words "clinically proven" can be used with relative impunity. I mean, just look at the crap they spout in hair and cosmetics commercials.
Jennfier Aniston proclaiming "Here comes the science bit"...Where? I don't see no fucking science in this stinking ad!
I can't believe the editors allowed this tripe to be posted as an article...they obviously didn't even read it. Mind you it's so long winded and boring I suppose I shouldn't be surprised.
Yes but as regards your own pols, you have to catch them first and you need evidence, and the attention of the media. This all makes it sufficiently difficult that you only ever manage to stop a small fraction of the graft that is going on, even in your own democracy.
So both national politicians in US (and europe of course) AND the UN need to be made more accountable. Actually that is a principle I've always stood firmly behind.
America calling the UN corrupt is like the pot calling the kettle black. Are you honestly claiming that US politicians and corporate executives are immune to graft, corruption and bribery? Such a position is hardly credible. They're up to their necks in it.
Anyway, if there are problems with the UN, the correct solution is to fix those problems. Not to replace international co-operation with a US empire.
You misunderstand me. I'm not an author, so there's no return for me to expect and no personal axe to grind. I'm just a concerned consumer. I guess my rant must have been a little too heavy on the whining.
I do indeed believe that the open source way produces better results. However there are some critical, fast-moving infrastructural projects which everybody uses (like the GNU compiler suite, Linux, Apache, Samba, Perl), moreover which have major users in the business world, and for the good of everybody these need to have the principal developers funded to work on them full-time. Larry Wall should not be having to worry about his mortgage.
The UN are a more useful organization than the US government whose continual interference in UN business is not appreciated. They should participate in the democratic process like other member nations.
Regarding Yugoslavia - I don't now what lying rubbish you saw on US TV, but the UN were there *in force*. The US helped as part of that effort, but so did lots of other countries. The US contribution was of course mainly confined to carpet-bombing civilians from 50,000 feet as usual.
Regarding Liberia - who is "everyone"? I suspect in reality most people in the rest of the world couldn't care less if you go or not. Of course, as members of the UN you are expected to contribute to the overall UN effort there, as part of the team, but otherwise you should stay out of it.
The UN are right to restrict their activities there. It is not their business to invade any sovereign country and take control of the peoples destiny out of their own hands. And nor is it yours. We can well do without unilateral cowboy-style actions from the US. So either join the team and get on the bus, or go home and cool your heels. The world doesn't need your dubious "leadership" - we have already delegated that responsibility to the UN, and that's where we want it to stay.
I would have expected a citizen of a once-colonial republic to understand about the sovereignty issue. But then, increasingly many Americans don't seem to have any political understanding beyond what is spoonfed to them by the major (right wing) TV networks. If they are pretending that the world is "clamoring" for the US to go in, I guess there must be some strategic value in the place. Or some oil.
I bet you are barely thirty. In which case you're not really all that well qualified to offer an opinion, under the circumstances. And in any case, the survey looked at what happened in the experience of three hundred test cases. You are apparently choosing to disagree on the basis of just one - your own.
I'd like to remind you that when a survey like this shows how the majority of biological subjects do X when Y, this hardly ever means that ALL subjects will do X. Maybe you were the one that didn't. Or maybe you are just too young to tell yet whether you will or not.
I will tell you from my own experience that what the survey says is not only correct but even blindingly obvious. A man who has a wife and kids to go home to is less likely to spend all his time working; more likely to spend some of his shower/toilet/car time thinking about other issues than his work. A man who has already achieved a family and has at least made them comfortable, will usually feel more fulfilled and less competitive. It's the way of the world, and thank God for that. But there is always the odd exception, and thank God for that too.
I have some sympathy with what you said...but not much. You and all the people who agreed with you must be mere whippersnappers, considering that this was all done ages before with programs written for first Athena and then Motif. How many programs on your computer beginning with a 'K' or a 'G' do you have? Well, now compare them with the number you have beginning with the letter 'X'. See?
Heavy weather is being made because they made the paltry sum of $4500...and I wonder how much of that was actually contributed by people already actively contributing to the Perl canon. Probably all of it. We are talking, ladies and gentlemen, about the arrangements for funding the maintenance and development of one of the world's most widely-used development tools. Even in commercial enterprises with very deep pockets. So surely they can do better than just scraping together $4500 out of their own pockets...? But no, it appears not.
And this is why am I not surprised: people - let alone amoral corporations - people just do not want to pay for stuff. And if the stuff that is currently free dries up from cash starvation, well, too bad - at least we got ours while it was free. In another era it was known as the Tragedy of the Commons, referring to the overgrazing and desertification of land shared by the community.
For all the high-flown talk about the "gift economy", the truth is that this exists only between a fairly small group of altruistic idealists. Most people are delighted to give nothing back at all.
This is, IMO, one of the very worst traits of humanity and very possibly the one that will do us in for good (consider what it did to the village common, and then consider what it is doing to the world's lakes rivers and oceans, the ozone layer, increasing landfill sites etc.).
This point about greed often escapes people in our own OSS-loving community because, well, most of the stuff we like is mostly just made to give away, so we are not forced to think about it and can remain guilt-free. But the P2P crowd know, all right. Less interested in software, all they have to download is copyrighted music and movies. And they *do* go at it with a vengeance. "I want mine," they say, "before the content owners get mad and shut it all off."
Thus hastening the end for all. You see, if the illegal "file sharers" weren't so damn greedy, if it was just a single file here and there, the organizations concerned wouldn't have a credible complaint, they very likely wouldn't have bothered spending all that money on developing DRM technologies and lobbying Washington etc, and we could all still get a bit of discreet copying done now and again on the occasions when we genuinely needed to through lack of practical alternatives.
But as it is, we have entire music albums and movies being downloaded by thousands before they have even reached the shops in the most extreme cases. Result: heavy handed lawsuits, and quite possibly eventual legislation to shut down all P2P services permanently (if you don't think this is possible, you seriously need to get your head out of your ass).
Now I like free stuff too, and I also despise the RIAA and the MPAA for their corporate greed and their stupidity, short-sightedness and their shark-like tactics. But I know where to draw a line. I restrict myself to downloading what is freely given in most cases, and the exceptions are few and furtive.
The P2P crowd though, they routinely brag about how much music and/or movies they have illegally copied or are planning to copy. Their sole justification (for your average P2P punter hasn't bothered to rationalize away his misdeeds with armchair economics theories), is that other people are getting away with this criminal activity so they feel obliged to try and be an even more successful criminal. So the Tragedy of the Commons is with us yet again.
At that point I inevitably lose all respect for the greedy, drooling P2P addict before me and go back to my nice legally obtained Linux etc. OK, I may not have contributed much to the OSS world in return yet - just a few detailed bug reports and the odd helping hand on a mailing list - but at least what I took was freely given, I didn't have to steal it, and I didn't have to risk hastening its demise and thus depriving others by taking it.
So I guess what I'm saying is, if you must take from the pot,
Hang on, how do they know it's a planet? Couldn't it be a stellar remnant, i.e. the core of a star that has had its outer layers blown off by a nearby nova or supernova?
Considering that it's orbiting both a white dwarf and a neutron star, and I'd definitely consider both of those to be the ultimate "smoking guns", *and* that current theories deny the existence of sufficient "metals" for planet formation in that epoch, I'd say the astronomers concerned here are jumping to unwarranted conclusions.
The academic world has had a common operating system that everybody can talk about and experiment with...
It has the downside of creating a mob culture.
Well I do have friends over there already, but I'm too often getting (or wanting to get) stuff from the States and I don't like to be a pain in the ass.
The rub is, even though I do get quite a lot of stuff, they are usually fairly low-value items so myus' prices are still way too high for me.
I remember reading a speculative futurist piece in on Wired some years ago where the prediction was that it would become as easy or even easier to order low-value items from anywhere in the world than to drive into town to get them. Like for instance, as the article suggested, a box of mangoes from a small farm co-op in South East Asia. IMHO this is how it should be.
But the international carrier companies just haven't risen to the occasion, have they? There is so much existing trade like this already that I am sure they do know it would be economical to carry much more and charge less. But I guess they are fond of their existing high-margin business models.
I suppose the fact that there hasn't been a "Jeff Bezos" of the international delivery industry would tend to indicate that the barriers to entry are very high. The opportunity for the suitably spririted visionary able only to risk other people's cash, may have died along with the optimism of the dot-com boom.
The government knows that at any given moment a sizeable group of citizens has the ability to bring physical force to bear.
And a fat lot of good it has done you so far.
The US government knows that in today's largely comfortable middle class America, most people who own guns are not really so keen on using them against a bigger and more powerfully armed adversary (i.e. the Feds) while they still have the alternative of turning their backs and distracting themselves with their toys.
A threat is only effective if you mean it. It is only meaningful if you are seen to carry it out when the circumstances it's meant to defend against, actually come to pass.
Oh yeah... under what circumstances exactly were you guys with the guns going to stand up to the government, again? Was it, perchance, when the government starts ignoring the constitution?
Oops.
By the time all you weekend warriors in your nifty camo outfits decide you've had enough, there will be nothing left of your precious constitution to defend. Theory is all very well but I really don't see how you are any better protected in practice with your constitution and your right-to-bear-arms than we are in the UK with no meaningful constitution, no modern Bill of Rights and no guns. The fact is, armed to the teeth as you all are, your own government is still moving faster against you than ours is (or can) against us, when all we are armed with is a tradition of justice and fair play (as bogus as it may be).
Guns are no guarantor against tyranny. Tyranny always has bigger guns anyway. The only guarantor against tyranny is the willingness and ability of the people to get off their asses and take control from the charlatans and usurpers well before it becomes a matter of guns. That's the last thing that your government wants, so they continue to allow this token right to bear arms, (which doesn't seem to have affected their ability to pass and enforce pretty much whatever laws they damn well please).
So, bottom line: put the damn guns away and hit the campaign trail. Go out and convince people that they are being fleeced and that they need to change their voting habits. That's how to protect your rights.
Slashdot Mirror
You can't avoid the inevitable.
Our biological forms are too fragile to survive anywhere long term except here on Earth. Even if we found a way to terraform other worlds, we would still need intelligent machines to do it for us and then to get us there.
And as many futurologists have pointed out, if we do pursue such technology, there *will* come a point in the next few decades when our creations' intelligence finally surpasses our own.
So what are you going to do? Crawl back to your cave, maybe even give up using fire because of the risk of where it might lead? We need to meet this challenge head on; prepare for it, make room for it in our plans.
I think what it boils down to is this: will our creations tolerate us, can we co-exist? I think the answer lies here: if we ourselves are moral then so will be our children and we will live in peace. If we are not, though, and we create children without any moral spirit, well yes, then as a biogical species we're doomed.
Dintcha just know that was coming? :o)
The assertion that the OSV will fail has been made before, so this is hardly out of the blue. and given that the Space Shuttle didn't live up to it's primary requirement (to make access to space cheaper) it's not so implausible either.
If Bell's figures are correct, then the OSV will be so overweight that the available rocketry will be unable to lift the cargos it is designed for, into orbit.
You appear to be saying that the OSV will be successful because it has to be. But all the wishing in the world won't make it so, if the technology we have can't get us there. NASA appears to be burying its collective head in the sand, probably because they're thinking "we rode it out last time when the shuttle failed to deliver, we'll ride this one out too".
Regarding the continued use of the shuttle: if the Shuttle is all they have in 2010, they will need to continue using it or else give up going into space. No matter what you or anyone else says now. Bell thinks this is the most likely outcome so presents it almost like a straightforward prediction. But he knows as we all do that there are other possible outcomes *IF* NASA pulls it head out of its ass. To pull him up for not hedging this prediction with ifs and buts - which are already there between the lines and blatantly obvious to any reader who takes the time to understnad the article - is to miss the point altogether, and is a strong indicator that you have some kind of personal axe to grind on this issue, and just trying to knock down his argument with straw men, instead of refuting his data or his logic.
Well yes but I don't see that as a bad thing, as long as it's funded (there's no point in starting something if you don't have the resources to see it through). At worst, it's preferable to military adventurism and "violence culture", at best there could be some long-term net benefit for the entire human race. Conservative "safe" attitudes won't get us off this planet.
Blast and damn, mozilla crashed when I tried to submit my reply. Here goes again:
Look - read the article again, there is nothing you said that contradicts what he said. Here are Bell's main points:
1) Shuttle too expensive
2) There will be more shuttle accidents if it continues to fly
3) OSV will be too heavy/have too little carrying capacity, when encumbered with required safety modifications
4) For the short term at least, NASA needs light, unmanned cargo vehicle that can be snt up on current expendable boosters
5) For the short term at least, NASA needs to use tried and trusted capsule technology for use in crew return missions and as permanently moored emergency escape pods for the ISS.
The rest is extrapolation based on what must happen *if* NASA don't recognize and act on the above quickly enough. It's no good bitching about it: the OSV just won't work and unless NASA drops it quickly (and they aren't) they will indeed be continuing to rely on the Shuttle for longer than they had planned. 2010 deadlines notwithstanding.
Bell's final suggestion about re-using old museum-piece Apollo capsules is I think partly tongue-in-cheek, somewhat remniscent of the decayed NASA of Stephen Baxter's excellent novel "Titan" - but if NASA leaves it too long before getting started on a new capsule project, and especially if something else goes wrong with the shuttle - they may well be forced to do just that or lose some more astronauts.
Maybe the kazaa authors could find a way to deliver a list of "related" files anonymously along with the download. Then you'd still get the suggestions of what to try next.
Go on, then...
Absolute rubbish. That article is the most well reasoned piece of analysis I've seen on the space business in a long time. His data is pretty strong, and his arguments logical. It all even seems obvious, with hindsight.
You might not like what Bell says, but there is no point in shooting the messenger. Judging by your infantile remarks, it's clear that you just didn't understand what he was saying. Your response is reminiscent of an infant shouting and stamping his feet.
It should be obvious to an idiot that the words "clinically proven" can be used with relative impunity. I mean, just look at the crap they spout in hair and cosmetics commercials.
...Where? I don't see no fucking science in this stinking ad!
Jennfier Aniston proclaiming "Here comes the science bit"
I can't believe the editors allowed this tripe to be posted as an article...they obviously didn't even read it. Mind you it's so long winded and boring I suppose I shouldn't be surprised.
Yes but as regards your own pols, you have to catch them first and you need evidence, and the attention of the media. This all makes it sufficiently difficult that you only ever manage to stop a small fraction of the graft that is going on, even in your own democracy.
So both national politicians in US (and europe of course) AND the UN need to be made more accountable. Actually that is a principle I've always stood firmly behind.
America calling the UN corrupt is like the pot calling the kettle black. Are you honestly claiming that US politicians and corporate executives are immune to graft, corruption and bribery? Such a position is hardly credible. They're up to their necks in it.
Anyway, if there are problems with the UN, the correct solution is to fix those problems. Not to replace international co-operation with a US empire.
You misunderstand me. I'm not an author, so there's no return for me to expect and no personal axe to grind. I'm just a concerned consumer. I guess my rant must have been a little too heavy on the whining.
I do indeed believe that the open source way produces better results. However there are some critical, fast-moving infrastructural projects which everybody uses (like the GNU compiler suite, Linux, Apache, Samba, Perl), moreover which have major users in the business world, and for the good of everybody these need to have the principal developers funded to work on them full-time. Larry Wall should not be having to worry about his mortgage.
Regarding Yugoslavia - I don't now what lying rubbish you saw on US TV, but the UN were there *in force*. The US helped as part of that effort, but so did lots of other countries. The US contribution was of course mainly confined to carpet-bombing civilians from 50,000 feet as usual.
Regarding Liberia - who is "everyone"? I suspect in reality most people in the rest of the world couldn't care less if you go or not. Of course, as members of the UN you are expected to contribute to the overall UN effort there, as part of the team, but otherwise you should stay out of it.
The UN are right to restrict their activities there. It is not their business to invade any sovereign country and take control of the peoples destiny out of their own hands. And nor is it yours. We can well do without unilateral cowboy-style actions from the US. So either join the team and get on the bus, or go home and cool your heels. The world doesn't need your dubious "leadership" - we have already delegated that responsibility to the UN, and that's where we want it to stay.
I would have expected a citizen of a once-colonial republic to understand about the sovereignty issue. But then, increasingly many Americans don't seem to have any political understanding beyond what is spoonfed to them by the major (right wing) TV networks. If they are pretending that the world is "clamoring" for the US to go in, I guess there must be some strategic value in the place. Or some oil.
I bet you are barely thirty. In which case you're not really all that well qualified to offer an opinion, under the circumstances. And in any case, the survey looked at what happened in the experience of three hundred test cases. You are apparently choosing to disagree on the basis of just one - your own.
I'd like to remind you that when a survey like this shows how the majority of biological subjects do X when Y, this hardly ever means that ALL subjects will do X. Maybe you were the one that didn't. Or maybe you are just too young to tell yet whether you will or not.
I will tell you from my own experience that what the survey says is not only correct but even blindingly obvious. A man who has a wife and kids to go home to is less likely to spend all his time working; more likely to spend some of his shower/toilet/car time thinking about other issues than his work. A man who has already achieved a family and has at least made them comfortable, will usually feel more fulfilled and less competitive. It's the way of the world, and thank God for that. But there is always the odd exception, and thank God for that too.
I have some sympathy with what you said...but not much. You and all the people who agreed with you must be mere whippersnappers, considering that this was all done ages before with programs written for first Athena and then Motif. How many programs on your computer beginning with a 'K' or a 'G' do you have? Well, now compare them with the number you have beginning with the letter 'X'. See?
This is, frankly, fucking shameful.
Heavy weather is being made because they made the paltry sum of $4500...and I wonder how much of that was actually contributed by people already actively contributing to the Perl canon. Probably all of it. We are talking, ladies and gentlemen, about the arrangements for funding the maintenance and development of one of the world's most widely-used development tools. Even in commercial enterprises with very deep pockets. So surely they can do better than just scraping together $4500 out of their own pockets...? But no, it appears not.
And this is why am I not surprised: people - let alone amoral corporations - people just do not want to pay for stuff. And if the stuff that is currently free dries up from cash starvation, well, too bad - at least we got ours while it was free. In another era it was known as the Tragedy of the Commons, referring to the overgrazing and desertification of land shared by the community.
For all the high-flown talk about the "gift economy", the truth is that this exists only between a fairly small group of altruistic idealists. Most people are delighted to give nothing back at all.
This is, IMO, one of the very worst traits of humanity and very possibly the one that will do us in for good (consider what it did to the village common, and then consider what it is doing to the world's lakes rivers and oceans, the ozone layer, increasing landfill sites etc.).
This point about greed often escapes people in our own OSS-loving community because, well, most of the stuff we like is mostly just made to give away, so we are not forced to think about it and can remain guilt-free. But the P2P crowd know, all right. Less interested in software, all they have to download is copyrighted music and movies. And they *do* go at it with a vengeance. "I want mine," they say, "before the content owners get mad and shut it all off."
Thus hastening the end for all. You see, if the illegal "file sharers" weren't so damn greedy, if it was just a single file here and there, the organizations concerned wouldn't have a credible complaint, they very likely wouldn't have bothered spending all that money on developing DRM technologies and lobbying Washington etc, and we could all still get a bit of discreet copying done now and again on the occasions when we genuinely needed to through lack of practical alternatives.
But as it is, we have entire music albums and movies being downloaded by thousands before they have even reached the shops in the most extreme cases. Result: heavy handed lawsuits, and quite possibly eventual legislation to shut down all P2P services permanently (if you don't think this is possible, you seriously need to get your head out of your ass).
Now I like free stuff too, and I also despise the RIAA and the MPAA for their corporate greed and their stupidity, short-sightedness and their shark-like tactics. But I know where to draw a line. I restrict myself to downloading what is freely given in most cases, and the exceptions are few and furtive.
The P2P crowd though, they routinely brag about how much music and/or movies they have illegally copied or are planning to copy. Their sole justification (for your average P2P punter hasn't bothered to rationalize away his misdeeds with armchair economics theories), is that other people are getting away with this criminal activity so they feel obliged to try and be an even more successful criminal. So the Tragedy of the Commons is with us yet again.
At that point I inevitably lose all respect for the greedy, drooling P2P addict before me and go back to my nice legally obtained Linux etc. OK, I may not have contributed much to the OSS world in return yet - just a few detailed bug reports and the odd helping hand on a mailing list - but at least what I took was freely given, I didn't have to steal it, and I didn't have to risk hastening its demise and thus depriving others by taking it.
So I guess what I'm saying is, if you must take from the pot,
OK, I'll buy it. Guess I'm a little touchy today :o)
Hang on, how do they know it's a planet? Couldn't it be a stellar remnant, i.e. the core of a star that has had its outer layers blown off by a nearby nova or supernova?
Considering that it's orbiting both a white dwarf and a neutron star, and I'd definitely consider both of those to be the ultimate "smoking guns", *and* that current theories deny the existence of sufficient "metals" for planet formation in that epoch, I'd say the astronomers concerned here are jumping to unwarranted conclusions.
Yeah, right.
"mob culture"?
Is it more likely he's talking about professors and research fellows, or wild-eyed undergrad free software advocates?
Well I do have friends over there already, but I'm too often getting (or wanting to get) stuff from the States and I don't like to be a pain in the ass.
The rub is, even though I do get quite a lot of stuff, they are usually fairly low-value items so myus' prices are still way too high for me.
I remember reading a speculative futurist piece in on Wired some years ago where the prediction was that it would become as easy or even easier to order low-value items from anywhere in the world than to drive into town to get them. Like for instance, as the article suggested, a box of mangoes from a small farm co-op in South East Asia. IMHO this is how it should be.
But the international carrier companies just haven't risen to the occasion, have they? There is so much existing trade like this already that I am sure they do know it would be economical to carry much more and charge less. But I guess they are fond of their existing high-margin business models.
I suppose the fact that there hasn't been a "Jeff Bezos" of the international delivery industry would tend to indicate that the barriers to entry are very high. The opportunity for the suitably spririted visionary able only to risk other people's cash, may have died along with the optimism of the dot-com boom.
Anybody know of a more reaonably priced version of this type of service?
Develop and test a user space driver for X Windows, 2D rendering and other non-3D related functionality.
And a fat lot of good it has done you so far.
The US government knows that in today's largely comfortable middle class America, most people who own guns are not really so keen on using them against a bigger and more powerfully armed adversary (i.e. the Feds) while they still have the alternative of turning their backs and distracting themselves with their toys.
A threat is only effective if you mean it. It is only meaningful if you are seen to carry it out when the circumstances it's meant to defend against, actually come to pass.
Oh yeah... under what circumstances exactly were you guys with the guns going to stand up to the government, again? Was it, perchance, when the government starts ignoring the constitution?
Oops.
By the time all you weekend warriors in your nifty camo outfits decide you've had enough, there will be nothing left of your precious constitution to defend. Theory is all very well but I really don't see how you are any better protected in practice with your constitution and your right-to-bear-arms than we are in the UK with no meaningful constitution, no modern Bill of Rights and no guns. The fact is, armed to the teeth as you all are, your own government is still moving faster against you than ours is (or can) against us, when all we are armed with is a tradition of justice and fair play (as bogus as it may be).
Guns are no guarantor against tyranny. Tyranny always has bigger guns anyway. The only guarantor against tyranny is the willingness and ability of the people to get off their asses and take control from the charlatans and usurpers well before it becomes a matter of guns. That's the last thing that your government wants, so they continue to allow this token right to bear arms, (which doesn't seem to have affected their ability to pass and enforce pretty much whatever laws they damn well please).
So, bottom line: put the damn guns away and hit the campaign trail. Go out and convince people that they are being fleeced and that they need to change their voting habits. That's how to protect your rights.