No, I'm pretty sure the original soundstage was destroyed by the mobsters that hired Lee Harvey in a black helicopter training exercise. The mobsters were inexperienced with operating the super stealthy aircraft, and when they tried to lift the loch ness monster with a couple, they dropped the monster, destroying the original forever.
Any advancement that gives us the ability to use airways as the primary channel of day to day travel would probably signify sufficient advancement to automate ground travel, making traffic shaping more effective and congestion a non-issue.
So in terms of today's tech, flying cars are too expensive with regard to energy and would lead to a sky filled with death. In terms of tomorrow's tech, they are simply superfluous. Not to mention, still constrained by the same fact that flying takes more energy than traveling on the ground.
Well I was promised not to be sold into slavery on the black market in Asia, having to fight my way through the criminal underworld with guns to make it out alive. Deal with it!
Anyways, flying cars are a stupid idea. Three dimensional traffic would be a major headache, just ask a flight controller how they would feel about adding several billion more vehicles to the sky in order to make flying cars ubiquitous. However, I guess it is should be of some solace to the person who first dreamed them up that they will live on forever as indestructible meme of Internet culture.
Well, I think you're forgetting the fact that he got sued into the poorhouse by the guy who invented string and cans, subsequently dying of starvation.
Hmmmm... let's see. Producing crappy music, rampant file sharing and piracy, exorbitant prices for music, and the healthy and growing independent production of music couldn't bankrupt them. However, somehow stationery is going to bankrupt them? Sounds solid!
... Laser based thief destruction system. If there is anything you learn from being an American, and I am proudly one, it is that you can't overspend on defense. You gotta make all those thieving morons out there realize that they are dealing with death here.
Also, to back up the laser grid, I'd go with some more conventional systems, eg an automated machine gun turret and an anti-personnel mine field.
I think you've got it mixed up a little bit. I could much more readily see a person who is a hobbyist with technology, or a professional, switching to a new OS based on merit of the situation than I could a non-tech oriented person. I used the term consumer very selectively. Software consumers, at least in the OS market, are rather uninformed. Microsoft's business model has been using that naivete and incremental improvements to milk money from them. That chain has been broken, and their inherent disinterest in technology and inherent resistance to change is potentially changing the game.
The merits of Vista aside, I think most people have finally realized what everyone on slashdot already knew. To use e-mail, browse the web, and do some word processing you don't need a new OS every five years or so. Once the illusion that MS, coupled with hardware pushers, had going is broken, well then the whole market changes. People will start to realize that freedom is important, and maybe they should be a little more skeptical about when someone pumps them for money on a regular basis for what is little more than a black magical box, to quite a few.
This incipient consumer rebellion is a relatively new phenomenon, even in the short history of PCs. For most of the '90s, Microsoft couldn't bring out new products fast enough to satisfy customers.
This is sort of empirical proof, to me at least, for what I have long thought, and I'm sure a lot around here thought as well. The days of an OS revolutionizing or vastly enhancing the way someone, especially a consumer, computes are long behind us. The OS has suffered from feature bloat for forever, and for the most part, a successful new OS is one that just doesn't hinder the work to be done. For most people, their computing needs have been satisfied, but they are pushed into a perpetual cycle of upgrading for upgrades sake. This "rebellion" is a symptom of this. XP satisfied people, and some of them are starting to realize what the terms "lock-in" and "monopoly" actually mean.
We're coming to a point where freedom in software is gaining in market value. I know it's cliche, and people have been spouting it for a over a decade, but I suspect that the general populace has come to a point where they can see that dollars and cents are in favor of not being tied to a corporation that makes money by selling solutions for the same problems over and over again. I don't know what iteration of "free" software will fill this void, but this mess with XP is not good for them. It won't be the downfall of Windows, they are far to crafty and firmly positioned for that to happen. However, the old business model of theirs is losing its effectiveness.
I hope I'm right, but even more so I hope I'm not turning into a linux nut that shouts "It's the year..." every time MS slips up.
Well, that's the $64,000 dollar question isn't it. I applaud your use of hyperbole, but I think you give people credit far less credit than they deserve. Sure there is a fairly vocal minority that give scientists a lot of trouble, but I believe that most people more or less support the advancement of science. This doesn't mean that they are willing to sacrifice and devote themselves to an intimate understanding of say the engineering involved with an aerospace venture. The problem doesn't lie with a public that is anti-science. It lies with a congress that is irrational in spending and always looking to remain with the upper hand with regard to ever changing public opinion. The Columbia exploded, and all of a sudden it was in the political interest of those in charge of the budget to rein in NASA and start demanding "accountability."
The debate over funding NASA has been swayed out of the favor of NASA because it has been detached from science. Congress has made the cuts to NASA the poster children for the new style "fiscal responsibility" (which apparently means spend to your heart's content and then make some token cuts). Science has become unfavorably intertwined with political economics.
Therefore, the budget crisis for NASA can only be resolve by reaffirming the fact that funding NASA is funding in the interest of science, and not funding a bloated government mess. Any time someone pokes fun at NASA when the mainstream news picks up on shuttle delays, gently remind them of the unexpected successes of the rover missions. Remind them of all the technology in conductors, material science, and computing that NASA helped bring to their homes. Most of all, preach to them the evil of the mainstream media reporting on science. Again, I believe most people are in favor of science. They have just had their view towards what supporting science actually means skewed by irrational politicians and lazy, sensationalist journalists.
As an ardent anti-social who is learning the ways of open source software as we speak (puppy linux to be exact), I firmly and defiantly have only this to say:
It's more of a general rule of thumb. Scientific exploration is crucial to improving life. If the way to perfect life were readily available here already, well then there's no reason to explore. That's not the case though. Humanity is still limited by its level of comprehension of the world around it. Scientific exploration, especially in space, has proven time and time again that it is a crucial part of improving life here on earth. On top of the fact that that it's a puny, albeit strategic, $12 million we're talking about, compared to a debt that is in the trillions of dollars.
Also, did you really expect to find anyone agreeing with you here? I mean come on.
Why is she requesting that all imports of the tech in question be stopped? Doesn't this sort of thing usually just end with a licensing agreement? The inventor gets paid, and everybody goes on. The article doesn't mention that she is involved with any sort of competitor, so it just seems sort of malevolent for her to try and put a halt to the entire market.
I certainly hope there is a better explanation, though.
"Claims of entrapment have been made in similar cases, but usually do not get very far," said Stephen Saltzburg, a professor at George Washington University's law school. "The individuals who chose to log into the FBI sites appear to have had no pressure put upon them by the government...It is doubtful that the individuals could claim the government made them do something they weren't predisposed to doing or that the government overreached."
Not that that is my personal opinion, but the article points out that lawyers have said that this almost certainly is not entrapment. Apparently, the fbi is safe behind the argument that you clicked the link under your own will without unreasonable pressure from the government.
Spoofing as a link to a slashdot article would be about the least successful campaign of this type the FBI could conduct. Of all the billions and trillions of links out there, the link to an article on slashdot is going to get the fewest.
Well aside from the philosophical apprehensions one might have about such a system, biometrics, at least in current incarnations, are poorly suited for the job. It's not that hard to imagine such a system being built on the principle of the lowest bidder. There have been numerous discussions on here about how easy it is forge a print on a poorly implemented biometric system. I'll leave you to infer the problems that would quite probably ensue.
Non-trivial zeroes of the zeta function are 1/2 because they naturally form as wholes, but as we all know a grue can't resist the tasty flesh of a non-trivial zero. I posit that the only way to prove the hypothesis is to kill a grue and vivisect it to search for the other half of the non-trivial zero. So until someone is brave enough to fight a grue and extract the flesh of the non-trivial zero, that million dollars is going unclaimed.
I was searching for the humor in this, and then I got to the part about three years imprisonment. I guess that's funny in a sort "your grandmother just died, but when she did her false teeth exploded into the air, what a hoot" sort of dark way.
We just went over this exact occurrence just a month ago. Go ahead with the flatulence jokes all the same though, it would be a break of tradition if you didn't.
Why would it be in the interest of science to point out possible conflicts with non-scientific views?
Because some of the people who are in charge hold non-scientific views. Reconciling these differences is important. Also it wouldn't hurt to take the imperious venom out of the situation. A lot of people think holding to the scientific method is a de facto increase in your as a human being, which can sometimes lead to scientists that are jerks. It's important for us all from time to time to remember that we are human and how we interact with each other is one of the most important things there is to be discussed.
Science is good and not at all incompatible with being a decent person and taking the time to try and bridge gaps between you and your fellow man.
When discussing evolution, natural selection, abiogenesis, cosmology, climatology etc. just don't be jerks. Speak with a level head and a personable tone. Speak to what you can prove scientifcally, and don't make things personal by introducing subjectivity. Keep in mind who you are speaking to.
Also, avoid divisive figures. It's possible to talk about climatology without bringing up Al Gore, in fact we'd all probably be a little better off if we didn't. No disrespect to the man's scientific endeavors, but it's probably best to leave Richard Dawkins out of your discourse as well. Figures like Dawkins and Gore only add political, religious, and whatever other fires to already testy subjects. You have to stress the point that science isn't based on emotion and feeling. In short, keep it academic and logical. Don't use ad hominems or appeals to emotion.
But there are a number of other possibilities for a depth-information camera: biological imaging, 3-D printing, creation of 3-D objects or people to inhabit virtual worlds, or 3-D modeling of buildings...
... that cute girl next door, the cute girl that works across the street, the cute girl walking down the street.
This could revolutionize the entire practice of voyeurism completely! Stanford == science for the masses.
Well you see... no one ever expects the Strategic Alliance Cyber Crime Working Group!! Among their many weapons are a fanatical devotion to fighting cyber injustice and an acronym that rolls sweetly off the tongue...
"It exiled all my Nvidia drivers to the Bermuda Triangle."
I always thought the Bermuda Triangle was caused by Satan or some paranormal magnetic field, but being a magical disturbance from a portal that Microsoft malevolently banishes things to makes much a lot of sense.
Slashdot Mirror
No, I'm pretty sure the original soundstage was destroyed by the mobsters that hired Lee Harvey in a black helicopter training exercise. The mobsters were inexperienced with operating the super stealthy aircraft, and when they tried to lift the loch ness monster with a couple, they dropped the monster, destroying the original forever.
Original Fake Moon Landing Sound Stage... it's the truth.
Any advancement that gives us the ability to use airways as the primary channel of day to day travel would probably signify sufficient advancement to automate ground travel, making traffic shaping more effective and congestion a non-issue.
So in terms of today's tech, flying cars are too expensive with regard to energy and would lead to a sky filled with death. In terms of tomorrow's tech, they are simply superfluous. Not to mention, still constrained by the same fact that flying takes more energy than traveling on the ground.
Well I was promised not to be sold into slavery on the black market in Asia, having to fight my way through the criminal underworld with guns to make it out alive. Deal with it!
Anyways, flying cars are a stupid idea. Three dimensional traffic would be a major headache, just ask a flight controller how they would feel about adding several billion more vehicles to the sky in order to make flying cars ubiquitous. However, I guess it is should be of some solace to the person who first dreamed them up that they will live on forever as indestructible meme of Internet culture.
Well, I think you're forgetting the fact that he got sued into the poorhouse by the guy who invented string and cans, subsequently dying of starvation.
Just don't name any missions to Europa after him! That would probably upset him.
Hmmmm... let's see. Producing crappy music, rampant file sharing and piracy, exorbitant prices for music, and the healthy and growing independent production of music couldn't bankrupt them. However, somehow stationery is going to bankrupt them? Sounds solid!
... Laser based thief destruction system. If there is anything you learn from being an American, and I am proudly one, it is that you can't overspend on defense. You gotta make all those thieving morons out there realize that they are dealing with death here.
Also, to back up the laser grid, I'd go with some more conventional systems, eg an automated machine gun turret and an anti-personnel mine field.
I think you've got it mixed up a little bit. I could much more readily see a person who is a hobbyist with technology, or a professional, switching to a new OS based on merit of the situation than I could a non-tech oriented person. I used the term consumer very selectively. Software consumers, at least in the OS market, are rather uninformed. Microsoft's business model has been using that naivete and incremental improvements to milk money from them. That chain has been broken, and their inherent disinterest in technology and inherent resistance to change is potentially changing the game.
The merits of Vista aside, I think most people have finally realized what everyone on slashdot already knew. To use e-mail, browse the web, and do some word processing you don't need a new OS every five years or so. Once the illusion that MS, coupled with hardware pushers, had going is broken, well then the whole market changes. People will start to realize that freedom is important, and maybe they should be a little more skeptical about when someone pumps them for money on a regular basis for what is little more than a black magical box, to quite a few.
This incipient consumer rebellion is a relatively new phenomenon, even in the short history of PCs. For most of the '90s, Microsoft couldn't bring out new products fast enough to satisfy customers.
This is sort of empirical proof, to me at least, for what I have long thought, and I'm sure a lot around here thought as well. The days of an OS revolutionizing or vastly enhancing the way someone, especially a consumer, computes are long behind us. The OS has suffered from feature bloat for forever, and for the most part, a successful new OS is one that just doesn't hinder the work to be done. For most people, their computing needs have been satisfied, but they are pushed into a perpetual cycle of upgrading for upgrades sake. This "rebellion" is a symptom of this. XP satisfied people, and some of them are starting to realize what the terms "lock-in" and "monopoly" actually mean.
We're coming to a point where freedom in software is gaining in market value. I know it's cliche, and people have been spouting it for a over a decade, but I suspect that the general populace has come to a point where they can see that dollars and cents are in favor of not being tied to a corporation that makes money by selling solutions for the same problems over and over again. I don't know what iteration of "free" software will fill this void, but this mess with XP is not good for them. It won't be the downfall of Windows, they are far to crafty and firmly positioned for that to happen. However, the old business model of theirs is losing its effectiveness.
I hope I'm right, but even more so I hope I'm not turning into a linux nut that shouts "It's the year..." every time MS slips up.
Well, that's the $64,000 dollar question isn't it. I applaud your use of hyperbole, but I think you give people credit far less credit than they deserve. Sure there is a fairly vocal minority that give scientists a lot of trouble, but I believe that most people more or less support the advancement of science. This doesn't mean that they are willing to sacrifice and devote themselves to an intimate understanding of say the engineering involved with an aerospace venture. The problem doesn't lie with a public that is anti-science. It lies with a congress that is irrational in spending and always looking to remain with the upper hand with regard to ever changing public opinion. The Columbia exploded, and all of a sudden it was in the political interest of those in charge of the budget to rein in NASA and start demanding "accountability."
The debate over funding NASA has been swayed out of the favor of NASA because it has been detached from science. Congress has made the cuts to NASA the poster children for the new style "fiscal responsibility" (which apparently means spend to your heart's content and then make some token cuts). Science has become unfavorably intertwined with political economics.
Therefore, the budget crisis for NASA can only be resolve by reaffirming the fact that funding NASA is funding in the interest of science, and not funding a bloated government mess. Any time someone pokes fun at NASA when the mainstream news picks up on shuttle delays, gently remind them of the unexpected successes of the rover missions. Remind them of all the technology in conductors, material science, and computing that NASA helped bring to their homes. Most of all, preach to them the evil of the mainstream media reporting on science. Again, I believe most people are in favor of science. They have just had their view towards what supporting science actually means skewed by irrational politicians and lazy, sensationalist journalists.
first open-source social application server
As an ardent anti-social who is learning the ways of open source software as we speak (puppy linux to be exact), I firmly and defiantly have only this to say:
DO NOT WANT!
It's more of a general rule of thumb. Scientific exploration is crucial to improving life. If the way to perfect life were readily available here already, well then there's no reason to explore. That's not the case though. Humanity is still limited by its level of comprehension of the world around it. Scientific exploration, especially in space, has proven time and time again that it is a crucial part of improving life here on earth. On top of the fact that that it's a puny, albeit strategic, $12 million we're talking about, compared to a debt that is in the trillions of dollars.
Also, did you really expect to find anyone agreeing with you here? I mean come on.
beer > coffee/caffeine >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> girls
Why is she requesting that all imports of the tech in question be stopped? Doesn't this sort of thing usually just end with a licensing agreement? The inventor gets paid, and everybody goes on. The article doesn't mention that she is involved with any sort of competitor, so it just seems sort of malevolent for her to try and put a halt to the entire market.
I certainly hope there is a better explanation, though.
"Claims of entrapment have been made in similar cases, but usually do not get very far," said Stephen Saltzburg, a professor at George Washington University's law school. "The individuals who chose to log into the FBI sites appear to have had no pressure put upon them by the government...It is doubtful that the individuals could claim the government made them do something they weren't predisposed to doing or that the government overreached."
Not that that is my personal opinion, but the article points out that lawyers have said that this almost certainly is not entrapment. Apparently, the fbi is safe behind the argument that you clicked the link under your own will without unreasonable pressure from the government.
Spoofing as a link to a slashdot article would be about the least successful campaign of this type the FBI could conduct. Of all the billions and trillions of links out there, the link to an article on slashdot is going to get the fewest.
Well aside from the philosophical apprehensions one might have about such a system, biometrics, at least in current incarnations, are poorly suited for the job. It's not that hard to imagine such a system being built on the principle of the lowest bidder. There have been numerous discussions on here about how easy it is forge a print on a poorly implemented biometric system. I'll leave you to infer the problems that would quite probably ensue.
Non-trivial zeroes of the zeta function are 1/2 because they naturally form as wholes, but as we all know a grue can't resist the tasty flesh of a non-trivial zero. I posit that the only way to prove the hypothesis is to kill a grue and vivisect it to search for the other half of the non-trivial zero. So until someone is brave enough to fight a grue and extract the flesh of the non-trivial zero, that million dollars is going unclaimed.
I was searching for the humor in this, and then I got to the part about three years imprisonment . I guess that's funny in a sort "your grandmother just died, but when she did her false teeth exploded into the air, what a hoot" sort of dark way.
We just went over this exact occurrence just a month ago. Go ahead with the flatulence jokes all the same though, it would be a break of tradition if you didn't.
Why would it be in the interest of science to point out possible conflicts with non-scientific views?
Because some of the people who are in charge hold non-scientific views. Reconciling these differences is important. Also it wouldn't hurt to take the imperious venom out of the situation. A lot of people think holding to the scientific method is a de facto increase in your as a human being, which can sometimes lead to scientists that are jerks. It's important for us all from time to time to remember that we are human and how we interact with each other is one of the most important things there is to be discussed.
Science is good and not at all incompatible with being a decent person and taking the time to try and bridge gaps between you and your fellow man.
When discussing evolution, natural selection, abiogenesis, cosmology, climatology etc. just don't be jerks. Speak with a level head and a personable tone. Speak to what you can prove scientifcally, and don't make things personal by introducing subjectivity. Keep in mind who you are speaking to.
Also, avoid divisive figures. It's possible to talk about climatology without bringing up Al Gore, in fact we'd all probably be a little better off if we didn't. No disrespect to the man's scientific endeavors, but it's probably best to leave Richard Dawkins out of your discourse as well. Figures like Dawkins and Gore only add political, religious, and whatever other fires to already testy subjects. You have to stress the point that science isn't based on emotion and feeling. In short, keep it academic and logical. Don't use ad hominems or appeals to emotion.
But there are a number of other possibilities for a depth-information camera: biological imaging, 3-D printing, creation of 3-D objects or people to inhabit virtual worlds, or 3-D modeling of buildings...
... that cute girl next door, the cute girl that works across the street, the cute girl walking down the street.
This could revolutionize the entire practice of voyeurism completely! Stanford == science for the masses.
Well you see... no one ever expects the Strategic Alliance Cyber Crime Working Group!! Among their many weapons are a fanatical devotion to fighting cyber injustice and an acronym that rolls sweetly off the tongue...
You see where I'm going with this.
"It exiled all my Nvidia drivers to the Bermuda Triangle."
I always thought the Bermuda Triangle was caused by Satan or some paranormal magnetic field, but being a magical disturbance from a portal that Microsoft malevolently banishes things to makes much a lot of sense.