The mission is all about the science, so you pick your instruments accordingly. The microscope is for geology, not biology. They want to know the structure of the rocks.
Why do you think a geologist would put a microscope better suited for biology on the rover? It doesn't make any sense.
Common? Not really, but there is awareness. I've been aware of this for years too, doesn't make it any less evil, does it?
It wasn't just about having modified crops, it was about the whole way it worked: They're not modifiying crops to make them better, they're modifiying them so they sell more of their pesticide.
Batteries add mass, and mass adds cost. Even if you shut down the lander until Cassini is back in range, you have to warm it up (from about 70K). Since it's not mobile, there isn't a lot you can do over time with a payload of its size. You'd just end up taking the same readings over and over. It might be nice to have data on the landing site over time, but you're not going to be able to power the lander for such a period. I don't think even an RTG would be of much use.
So, why do we keep sending only B&W cameras on these things?
Because that's just how cameras (even film) work. Your $100 webcam only senses brightness, not color, just like the cameras on Huygens and the Mars rovers. With the rovers, they have filters which only allow certain frequencies (colors) to hit the sensor, just like your digicam/webcam/film camera. The difference is the filters on the consumer camera are fixed on the CCD (or film), while NASA's are in front of the lens, so you can mix and match.
If your goal is *only* to make pretty pictures, sure, send up a digicam. If your goal is science, you use interchangeable filters, or just a single, fixed filter across all pixels.
This is not only better science, but also higher resolution. Your digicam (say, 4MP), has 2million green pixels, 1 million red, and 1 million blue (in one common configuration, there are other mixes and colors), and the raw image is processed to simulate 4 million RGB pixels. But using a 4MP sensor with filters over the lens, you get all 4 million pixels at the selected wavelength. This provides more information, and science is all about information.
Re:Ugh, pretentious art alert
on
Farklempt!
·
· Score: 1
As far as I can tell, I just clicked on some circles and made them smaller.
Capitalism is about control of capital, not "making capital available".
Open Source is not Capitalism, because it does not allow anyone a monopoly on the use of the capital involved. Calling "Open Source" Capitalism is just a way of avoiding the fear involved in calling it what it actually is, which is "Socialism". The fact that it's voluntary scares some people, because they equate Socialism with Totalitarianism, and a counterexample is just too myth-shattering for them.
It's not about not socializing with others, or placing a fake reality in the place of reality, but it's all about entertainment. For most people, entertainment is some form of "fake" reality, be it movies, video games, plays, or sports.
Different strokes for different folks, and all that, so people will prefer varying forms of entertainment. It would be a shame to have such a shallow set of interests that all you do is play one game nonstop, but at least if the obsession is Sims 2, you're actually doing something. Better than spending yor spare time in front of the TV (like far too many do).
Treating a crowd as an entity in itself has considerable scientific and practical evidence in its favor.
And treating a crowd just like a person is scientifically retarded. Most of your argument has nothing to do with mine.
Ummm... A corporation, when you come right down to it, is nothing more nor anything less than a bunch of people (investors, employees, etc.).
"Nothing more"? Are the posters on slashdot a corporation? No. A corporation is a legal entity to describe, define, and organize a group of people. It's like saying a baseball team is nothing more than a group of people. It's a certain type of group of people plus the rules and structure of baseball.
A bunch of people can certainly invent something, and I see no reason why they shouldn't collectively own it.
I've never argued that a group of people can't own or invent something collectively or cooperatively. But, the corporation "IBM" never invented anything. It's impossible. The employees (who aren't necessarily even members of the IBM corporation (ie: they have no ownership of IBM)) do the inventing. Yet IBM, the corporation, gets the rewards of the inventions. My post was meant to point out that we give IBM and Matsushita, etc, credit for all of their "inventions", when the actual inventors (for whom you'd want the patent system to protect) don't get much protection, in effect, at all.
Which was never the point. The point is to point out the absurdity of confusing a corporation with a person.
The following is what has happened:
1. In order to facilitate productivity for limited and specific purposes, people were allowed to form a corporation, being granted status similar to that of a person.
2. To gain more power, corporations exploited that status to gain rights they were never meant to have.
3. Time has passed, and now it's normal to think of a corporation as a natural entity, worthy of rights equal to that of a person, and any attempt to point out the absurdity of such a claim is met with, "but a corporation is a person, legally speaking!".
Well, technically, a corporation is a legal "person" of its own. Pays taxes, has legal rights and obligations etc. This is why corporations can be sued directly, and also why corporations themselves can sue.
And why they can be put in jail, and even executed when they themselves kill?
Corporations are not people, regardless of the legal definition (along the lines of Mississippi(?) passing a law that the value of pi equals three, doesn't make it true). No corporation has *ever* invented anything. That's because it's impossible, only people (and presumably some other animals) can actually 'invent' something.
38cm = 14.9606299 inches, or about a foot and two inches
Judge me by my size, do you?
Re:any reactions from the M$ booth to the...
on
Microsoft At Macworld
·
· Score: 5, Funny
I'd say the lack of a spreadsheet app is bone thrown to Microsoft to placate them that iWork is not an enterprise office suite.
I really doubt that. Bill has already proven that if you throw him a bone, he'll beat you over the head with it, break it in two and stab you with the pointy end while choking you with the smaller piece, metaphorically speaking.
In other words, one should be careful what bones you toss to someone with Bill's business acumen (and utter ruthlessness). Steve probably knows this better than anyone else on the planet.
Re:any reactions from the M$ booth to the...
on
Microsoft At Macworld
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
any reactions from the M$ booth to steve's glitch during the keynote..?
Yeah, probably something like, "Wow! How did you recover so quickly? Bill would like to integrate that into his keynotes."
Conan: Looks like you're having a little trouble there.
Bill: But wait! Thanks to our new innovation in keynote demo technology, I'm able to swap a few cables here, and insert my DRM keychain into this slot, and after it authenticates with the Palladium servers... Yes, here it goes. Viola, I'm able to continue the demo!
It was my understanding that the totalitarian regime argument was more of a small group of people (politicians) problem whereas campaign finance reform is more of a 'broken system' problem.
But you said:
Seriously though, do you think this push for punishment stems from a lust to control, or is it more readily explained as the natural progressoin of capitolism's affects on politics when campaign contributions go unchecked?
Which amounts to: "Is this totalitarianism because of lust for control, or totalitarianism because of lust for control of money?" It's not an either/or situation.
In response to your clarification above, yeah, it's due to the weakening (and subsequent breaking) of a system due to an unabated march towards Capitalism. The current trend of the US can best be described as "fascism", a form of totalitarianism which results from the combining of corporate and government power, which is being facilitated by religion, belligerant nationalism and a "common enemy".
Rational self interest requires the recognition not only of one's own rights, but the rights of others.
That's irrational without the proper (subjective) assumptions.
Therefore, to violate the natural rights of others is to declare your own rights to be invalid and subject to violation.
Your own rights are already subject to violation. The Bill of Rights is irrational from the absolute, objective, viewpoint. It's only the subjective values of humans that must first be assumed in order to make such things rational.
Without getting into the nature of the charges against Ken Lay, I will say that committing fraud is not rational and self-interested.
It was rational (based on reason) and self-interested (bling-bling$$).
As stated, to commit such an act is to invalidate one's own right to avoid fruadulent dealings. It is not rational to subject oneself to fraudulent dealings.
How does being dishonest subject oneself to dishonesty? Is the US Government going to treat him dishonestly now? Are the stockholders going to treat him dishonestly?
And conversely, had he been honest, would other dishonest people have somehow decided instead to treat him honestly? I'm sure there will be some consequences along those lines, but nothing that changes the overall make-up of honesty/dishonesty in his life. Karma is a statistical thing, not an absolute causality sort of thing.
Also, as with all immoral acts and [violating the rights of others is] the only type of action that can be considered "immoral"
Morality is subjective.
so violating the rights of others... has negative reprecussions, and is therefore not self-interested
Violating the rights of others runs the risk of negative repercussions. So does driving on the freeway. It's still rational to drive on the freeway because the potential rewards are worth the risk. From Ken Lay's point of view, his rewards were worth the risk. Additionally, even if he gets the book thrown at him, he'll likely make off quite well money-wise and spend a few (about 5) years in minimum security prison. Not a trade *I* would make, but I have different values. From *his* values (entirely subjective, as are mine), his action was completely rational and self-interested.
Besides, for every Ken Lay, there's a thousand who get away with it.
Slashdot Mirror
The mission is all about the science, so you pick your instruments accordingly. The microscope is for geology, not biology. They want to know the structure of the rocks.
Why do you think a geologist would put a microscope better suited for biology on the rover? It doesn't make any sense.
Is this not common knowledge in the US?
:-D
Common? Not really, but there is awareness. I've been aware of this for years too, doesn't make it any less evil, does it?
It wasn't just about having modified crops, it was about the whole way it worked: They're not modifiying crops to make them better, they're modifiying them so they sell more of their pesticide.
Well, "duh" back at ya!
Batteries add mass, and mass adds cost. Even if you shut down the lander until Cassini is back in range, you have to warm it up (from about 70K). Since it's not mobile, there isn't a lot you can do over time with a payload of its size. You'd just end up taking the same readings over and over. It might be nice to have data on the landing site over time, but you're not going to be able to power the lander for such a period. I don't think even an RTG would be of much use.
Long answer:
So, why do we keep sending only B&W cameras on these things?
Because that's just how cameras (even film) work. Your $100 webcam only senses brightness, not color, just like the cameras on Huygens and the Mars rovers. With the rovers, they have filters which only allow certain frequencies (colors) to hit the sensor, just like your digicam/webcam/film camera. The difference is the filters on the consumer camera are fixed on the CCD (or film), while NASA's are in front of the lens, so you can mix and match.
If your goal is *only* to make pretty pictures, sure, send up a digicam. If your goal is science, you use interchangeable filters, or just a single, fixed filter across all pixels.
This is not only better science, but also higher resolution. Your digicam (say, 4MP), has 2million green pixels, 1 million red, and 1 million blue (in one common configuration, there are other mixes and colors), and the raw image is processed to simulate 4 million RGB pixels. But using a 4MP sensor with filters over the lens, you get all 4 million pixels at the selected wavelength. This provides more information, and science is all about information.
As far as I can tell, I just clicked on some circles and made them smaller.
Isn't that all games, when it comes down to it?
This is absolutely sick! Seeds float through the air, and when they land, they grow into plants, by their very nature!
That's like if I were to write a computer worm, then sue people who get infected by it for violating the terms under which I license it!
This is pure evil.
Capitalism is about control of capital, not "making capital available".
Open Source is not Capitalism, because it does not allow anyone a monopoly on the use of the capital involved. Calling "Open Source" Capitalism is just a way of avoiding the fear involved in calling it what it actually is, which is "Socialism". The fact that it's voluntary scares some people, because they equate Socialism with Totalitarianism, and a counterexample is just too myth-shattering for them.
It's not about not socializing with others, or placing a fake reality in the place of reality, but it's all about entertainment. For most people, entertainment is some form of "fake" reality, be it movies, video games, plays, or sports.
Different strokes for different folks, and all that, so people will prefer varying forms of entertainment. It would be a shame to have such a shallow set of interests that all you do is play one game nonstop, but at least if the obsession is Sims 2, you're actually doing something. Better than spending yor spare time in front of the TV (like far too many do).
The original Amiga had native graphics capabilties that still aren't available (like multiple resolutions onscreen) in PC hardware.
Quartz (the 2d graphics part of OS X) does this nicely. Actually, it does this in a way far superior to the way the Amiga did it.
Go to a Mac and press "F9" to see an example of this in action.
It's a Horta.
you are a damn idiot
No, but you're both an idiot and a coward. Look up the word "irony".
Be gone, pathetic, cowardly idiot.
Treating a crowd as an entity in itself has considerable scientific and practical evidence in its favor.
And treating a crowd just like a person is scientifically retarded. Most of your argument has nothing to do with mine.
Ummm... A corporation, when you come right down to it, is nothing more nor anything less than a bunch of people (investors, employees, etc.).
"Nothing more"? Are the posters on slashdot a corporation? No. A corporation is a legal entity to describe, define, and organize a group of people. It's like saying a baseball team is nothing more than a group of people. It's a certain type of group of people plus the rules and structure of baseball.
A bunch of people can certainly invent something, and I see no reason why they shouldn't collectively own it.
I've never argued that a group of people can't own or invent something collectively or cooperatively. But, the corporation "IBM" never invented anything. It's impossible. The employees (who aren't necessarily even members of the IBM corporation (ie: they have no ownership of IBM)) do the inventing. Yet IBM, the corporation, gets the rewards of the inventions. My post was meant to point out that we give IBM and Matsushita, etc, credit for all of their "inventions", when the actual inventors (for whom you'd want the patent system to protect) don't get much protection, in effect, at all.
They are science related topics, which fits the "News for Nerds" part of the masthead.
For example:
NASA (space) Releases (verb) Free (adjective) Global Climate Model (science) Software (computers)
How can that possibly not be appropriate for slashdot?
Yes, at least legally speaking
Which was never the point. The point is to point out the absurdity of confusing a corporation with a person.
The following is what has happened:
1. In order to facilitate productivity for limited and specific purposes, people were allowed to form a corporation, being granted status similar to that of a person.
2. To gain more power, corporations exploited that status to gain rights they were never meant to have.
3. Time has passed, and now it's normal to think of a corporation as a natural entity, worthy of rights equal to that of a person, and any attempt to point out the absurdity of such a claim is met with, "but a corporation is a person, legally speaking!".
Well, technically, a corporation is a legal "person" of its own. Pays taxes, has legal rights and obligations etc. This is why corporations can be sued directly, and also why corporations themselves can sue.
And why they can be put in jail, and even executed when they themselves kill?
Corporations are not people, regardless of the legal definition (along the lines of Mississippi(?) passing a law that the value of pi equals three, doesn't make it true). No corporation has *ever* invented anything. That's because it's impossible, only people (and presumably some other animals) can actually 'invent' something.
I think you mean "sarcasm".
No, I mean "irony".
How ironic that you don't know the meaning of ironic.
You're being ironic, right?
IBM, Matsushita and Canon must be three extremely bright people to have invented so much in a single year!
It's wonderful to see the patent system work so well in protecting the rights of the individual to profit from their inventions.
[caution: this post may contain irony]
38cm = 14.9606299 inches, or about a foot and two inches
Judge me by my size, do you?
I'd say the lack of a spreadsheet app is bone thrown to Microsoft to placate them that iWork is not an enterprise office suite.
I really doubt that. Bill has already proven that if you throw him a bone, he'll beat you over the head with it, break it in two and stab you with the pointy end while choking you with the smaller piece, metaphorically speaking.
In other words, one should be careful what bones you toss to someone with Bill's business acumen (and utter ruthlessness). Steve probably knows this better than anyone else on the planet.
any reactions from the M$ booth to steve's glitch during the keynote..?
Yeah, probably something like, "Wow! How did you recover so quickly? Bill would like to integrate that into his keynotes."
Six years later...
Bill: Well, Conan, here's our upcoming Longhorn...
Conan: Looks like you're having a little trouble there.
Bill: But wait! Thanks to our new innovation in keynote demo technology, I'm able to swap a few cables here, and insert my DRM keychain into this slot, and after it authenticates with the Palladium servers... Yes, here it goes. Viola, I'm able to continue the demo!
Conan: Wow, that's amazing!
Will the little Dutch boy be executed for sticking his finger in the dike?
Depends, does this happen in a red state or a blue state?
But you said:
Which amounts to: "Is this totalitarianism because of lust for control, or totalitarianism because of lust for control of money?" It's not an either/or situation.
In response to your clarification above, yeah, it's due to the weakening (and subsequent breaking) of a system due to an unabated march towards Capitalism. The current trend of the US can best be described as "fascism", a form of totalitarianism which results from the combining of corporate and government power, which is being facilitated by religion, belligerant nationalism and a "common enemy".
Rational self interest requires the recognition not only of one's own rights, but the rights of others.
... has negative reprecussions, and is therefore not self-interested
That's irrational without the proper (subjective) assumptions.
Therefore, to violate the natural rights of others is to declare your own rights to be invalid and subject to violation.
Your own rights are already subject to violation. The Bill of Rights is irrational from the absolute, objective, viewpoint. It's only the subjective values of humans that must first be assumed in order to make such things rational.
Without getting into the nature of the charges against Ken Lay, I will say that committing fraud is not rational and self-interested.
It was rational (based on reason) and self-interested (bling-bling$$).
As stated, to commit such an act is to invalidate one's own right to avoid fruadulent dealings. It is not rational to subject oneself to fraudulent dealings.
How does being dishonest subject oneself to dishonesty? Is the US Government going to treat him dishonestly now? Are the stockholders going to treat him dishonestly?
And conversely, had he been honest, would other dishonest people have somehow decided instead to treat him honestly? I'm sure there will be some consequences along those lines, but nothing that changes the overall make-up of honesty/dishonesty in his life. Karma is a statistical thing, not an absolute causality sort of thing.
Also, as with all immoral acts
and
[violating the rights of others is] the only type of action that can be considered "immoral"
Morality is subjective.
so violating the rights of others
Violating the rights of others runs the risk of negative repercussions. So does driving on the freeway. It's still rational to drive on the freeway because the potential rewards are worth the risk. From Ken Lay's point of view, his rewards were worth the risk. Additionally, even if he gets the book thrown at him, he'll likely make off quite well money-wise and spend a few (about 5) years in minimum security prison. Not a trade *I* would make, but I have different values. From *his* values (entirely subjective, as are mine), his action was completely rational and self-interested.
Besides, for every Ken Lay, there's a thousand who get away with it.
Step 3: Complain when companies do the rational thing and opt for cheaper labor.
Ken Lay did the "rational thing" when he defrauded his employees and shareholders.
Rational does not always mean right.