Because the amount of water that a supersized oil tanker can carry is but drop in the big scheme of things.
Just compare your own fuel consumption and domestic water consumption. Your total water consumption is a lot higher than the domestic consumption, because, as TFA says, agriculture uses the most. So, in a nutshell, the answer to your suggestion is: "No, that's pointless, because we just use too much frickin' water to start transporting it across the globe".
I prefer the situation where everybody is watching everybody, with nobody in command, to the situation where a powerful government is watching everybody with only a handful in command.
We cannot stop technology. Cameras are getting too small, and computers too fast and both get too cheap to realistically think they won't be applied on a massive scale. The big question is who controls the data, and what happens to it.
Since when do the real numbers matter? What really matters is that some politician has shown to "Fight against Crime" (note the capital letters, those are important).
People demand that action is taken against the nuisances and crime. Whether the action actually works is really not so important, as the results of pretty much every election around the world show.
A feeling of safety is far more emotional than rational. So, go away with your statistics, and leave us emotional non-rational people alone.
And obviously, in about a year from now, we demand Action against Crime. Again.
Such a mandate is often already in the policy of the university (they publish any results in peer reviewed papers). So, I guess it's just a formality to include that in any deal with NASA and the government... so, yes, that's a good safeguard against abuse by commercial parties with good connections with the senators.
The only hurdle left is that peer reviewed papers aren't "free" (you have to pay like 20/30 euro for them - which is ridiculously expensive). But that goes for all research that is published in journals. arXiv.org is a good exception though.
Win 1. It gets NASA some money. Compared to no money at all, that's a win. Win 2. It gets a university or other institute a fantastic toy for a bargain price. Compared to a new satellite, that's a win.
Why spy on your citizens when the overwhelmingly large majority never do anything seriously wrong? Seems this is not a cost-effective way to catch some bad guys.
Of course, it is cheaper than have helicopters with a 2-man crew... but "cheaper than ridiculously expensive" can still mean "too expensive".
When I walk into a bar, I need only seconds to check out all the people. And I will definitely form an opinion about the women. Who says men aren't picky in the real world? And I suspect that women are even quicker at forming an opinion.
Study: it's easier to study the online world than the offline world.
They already come out with a new version every 6 months. The two different desktop environments was not necessary. And it's not like KDE stops to exist now. It's just that the newbies who are clueless will face less options.
It's easy enough to sign up, and to say you hate Elsevier (so do I). But if you're in a research group at a university, and you're the PhD student, you're probably not doing yourself a favor by signing this. Your name will show up in search results, so people may know you signed (if you used your own name and institute). In order to get your PhD, you will need to publish somewhere, and your prof will want you to get the highest "impact factor", because that's good for the whole group. You're in a way just an employee, so you better listen to the boss.
By effectively saying "screw you" to the whole system of publications, and going online to a really open system, you gamble. Better make sure the prof agrees.
There are many things you shouldn't do every day that are certainly worth trying once in your life.
And you can bet it's good weather that night, with good visibility (apart from the fact that it's dark). It won't be foggy, rainy or snowing, because of... well... star gazing, you know. So, yes, those light are for safety, and yes, it's totally worth it to ignore that safety once, on a beautiful clear day. Especially when the entire town/country was warned in advance.
Of course I am mocking a bit. Still, there are people who have less motivation to do updates, because it brings changes.
Personally, I just hated it when ubuntu moved the minimize/maximize/close buttons to the top-left corner. I hated it when the "home" button on firefox wasn't next to the "back / forwards" button anymore, or when the addressbar's autocomplete changed, or when the gmail look changed. I have habits, and I want those respected by the developers... when I update, I don't want to go through some options>settings>advanced>"are you sure" to figure out what checkbox to uncheck to get stuff the way I am used to.
And if the actual UI does not change, then why change the looks (the 'skin' or whatever)?? I will decide if I want that. Make it optional to get a new look, instead of making it optional to make it look like an older version!
I have habits, and I want the developers of the newest versions to respect those. I am happy if security gets improved, if plugins work better, if things go faster. But when moving forward means I first need to take a step back, my motivation soon vanishes.
There comes a time and age when all changes are bad. Also IE9, firefox or chrome are bad when you're happy with IE6.
That beat up old car is still running, and you're also happy with the old TV. All those new things are for younger people. You just have the computer to talk to the grandkids who apparently cannot write a normal letter anymore. Still, that's better than not hearing from them at all.
I agree that you should subsidize research, not production. But the fact is that coal is also subsidized, and therefore it is only fair to subsidize the competition too - to level the playing field. They compete on the electricity market.
But seriously now, weren't apps called programs in an earlier age? And wasn't it possible to copy them from floppy disks and such? And aren't we therefore used to them being free of cost? And wasn't Apple's app-store much too late anyway?
Almost all consumers choose to use Google, instead of other search engines. Almost everybody has tried several other ways to search, but Google simply gives the best results the quickest, and consumers voluntarily choose to ignore the competition. What's the problem?
Oh well, I guess this gives the politicians something to do. Whatever keeps them busy, and doesn't harm the public too much is a good activity for politicians.
Slashdot Mirror
I borrowed a newspaper today. I didn't pay for it, but I still read it.
Also, I have 3 books at home which aren't mine (borrowed, not stolen).
Basically, that's at least 30 euro of lost revenue for the industry.
Yet I don't feel guilty...
The earth must have rotated faster around the sun 6000 years ago. I guess the earth was more streamlined when it was still flat.
Because the amount of water that a supersized oil tanker can carry is but drop in the big scheme of things.
Just compare your own fuel consumption and domestic water consumption. Your total water consumption is a lot higher than the domestic consumption, because, as TFA says, agriculture uses the most. So, in a nutshell, the answer to your suggestion is: "No, that's pointless, because we just use too much frickin' water to start transporting it across the globe".
I prefer the situation where everybody is watching everybody, with nobody in command, to the situation where a powerful government is watching everybody with only a handful in command.
We cannot stop technology. Cameras are getting too small, and computers too fast and both get too cheap to realistically think they won't be applied on a massive scale. The big question is who controls the data, and what happens to it.
Since when do the real numbers matter? What really matters is that some politician has shown to "Fight against Crime" (note the capital letters, those are important).
People demand that action is taken against the nuisances and crime. Whether the action actually works is really not so important, as the results of pretty much every election around the world show.
A feeling of safety is far more emotional than rational. So, go away with your statistics, and leave us emotional non-rational people alone.
And obviously, in about a year from now, we demand Action against Crime. Again.
Such a mandate is often already in the policy of the university (they publish any results in peer reviewed papers). So, I guess it's just a formality to include that in any deal with NASA and the government... so, yes, that's a good safeguard against abuse by commercial parties with good connections with the senators.
The only hurdle left is that peer reviewed papers aren't "free" (you have to pay like 20/30 euro for them - which is ridiculously expensive). But that goes for all research that is published in journals. arXiv.org is a good exception though.
It's a win win situation.
Win 1. It gets NASA some money. Compared to no money at all, that's a win.
Win 2. It gets a university or other institute a fantastic toy for a bargain price. Compared to a new satellite, that's a win.
If making a law is so dirty, it's about time it makes the show.
Why spy on your citizens when the overwhelmingly large majority never do anything seriously wrong?
Seems this is not a cost-effective way to catch some bad guys.
Of course, it is cheaper than have helicopters with a 2-man crew... but "cheaper than ridiculously expensive" can still mean "too expensive".
... often screws up your chances too.
When I walk into a bar, I need only seconds to check out all the people. And I will definitely form an opinion about the women. Who says men aren't picky in the real world? And I suspect that women are even quicker at forming an opinion.
Study: it's easier to study the online world than the offline world.
They already come out with a new version every 6 months. The two different desktop environments was not necessary. And it's not like KDE stops to exist now. It's just that the newbies who are clueless will face less options.
[...]they're not exactly small and hard to spot. [...]
If they wear red socks, and hide in a strawberry patch, they're quite hard to spot!
It's easy enough to sign up, and to say you hate Elsevier (so do I). But if you're in a research group at a university, and you're the PhD student, you're probably not doing yourself a favor by signing this. Your name will show up in search results, so people may know you signed (if you used your own name and institute).
In order to get your PhD, you will need to publish somewhere, and your prof will want you to get the highest "impact factor", because that's good for the whole group. You're in a way just an employee, so you better listen to the boss.
By effectively saying "screw you" to the whole system of publications, and going online to a really open system, you gamble. Better make sure the prof agrees.
But I applaud you, if you do.
Telegrams still exist in many parts of the world.
Team America: World Police
Intended as satire. Used instead as guidebook.
There are many things you shouldn't do every day that are certainly worth trying once in your life.
And you can bet it's good weather that night, with good visibility (apart from the fact that it's dark). It won't be foggy, rainy or snowing, because of ... well... star gazing, you know. So, yes, those light are for safety, and yes, it's totally worth it to ignore that safety once, on a beautiful clear day. Especially when the entire town/country was warned in advance.
You are such a pessimist, saying that in order to make money, something should actually keep to the laws of fundamental physics.
That was meant as a sarcastic joke, but while writing it down, I fear it might actually be true. There are plenty of scams out there.
Of course I am mocking a bit. Still, there are people who have less motivation to do updates, because it brings changes.
Personally, I just hated it when ubuntu moved the minimize/maximize/close buttons to the top-left corner. I hated it when the "home" button on firefox wasn't next to the "back / forwards" button anymore, or when the addressbar's autocomplete changed, or when the gmail look changed. I have habits, and I want those respected by the developers... when I update, I don't want to go through some options>settings>advanced>"are you sure" to figure out what checkbox to uncheck to get stuff the way I am used to.
And if the actual UI does not change, then why change the looks (the 'skin' or whatever)?? I will decide if I want that. Make it optional to get a new look, instead of making it optional to make it look like an older version!
I have habits, and I want the developers of the newest versions to respect those. I am happy if security gets improved, if plugins work better, if things go faster. But when moving forward means I first need to take a step back, my motivation soon vanishes.
There comes a time and age when all changes are bad. Also IE9, firefox or chrome are bad when you're happy with IE6.
That beat up old car is still running, and you're also happy with the old TV. All those new things are for younger people. You just have the computer to talk to the grandkids who apparently cannot write a normal letter anymore. Still, that's better than not hearing from them at all.
On the contrary, it should be more expensive to see a bad movie since the production cost (+ profit) has to be payed for by fewer viewers.
In Soviet Russia, prices determine the market!
I agree that you should subsidize research, not production. But the fact is that coal is also subsidized, and therefore it is only fair to subsidize the competition too - to level the playing field. They compete on the electricity market.
Coal subsidy references:
Europe: http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/12/10/us-eu-coal-idUSTRE6B93D420101210
USA: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Federal_coal_subsidies
Australia: http://www.crikey.com.au/2011/11/01/nsws-great-big-coal-subsidy-scandal/
China (no source, as you don't need to subsidize something that is already state owned)
Who pays $4 for a coffee? It's ridiculous!
But seriously now, weren't apps called programs in an earlier age? And wasn't it possible to copy them from floppy disks and such? And aren't we therefore used to them being free of cost? And wasn't Apple's app-store much too late anyway?
Companies don't outsource the core-business. They outsource everything else. NASA however...
Almost all consumers choose to use Google, instead of other search engines. Almost everybody has tried several other ways to search, but Google simply gives the best results the quickest, and consumers voluntarily choose to ignore the competition. What's the problem?
Oh well, I guess this gives the politicians something to do. Whatever keeps them busy, and doesn't harm the public too much is a good activity for politicians.
Can't beat the "what if that was your own family" argument. You win. ;-)
But as a last remark (yes, I want a -1 flamebait).: From your "perspective", do you ever discuss anything other than dead people?