I see nothing in AC's post that implied, much less stated, a "hatred for Microsoft". All he said was that you can't create a maker-culture by corporate fiat, unless you change the whole company, and that managers (and marketing consultants) tend to forget that.
You seem to be the one projecting, not him/her/it.
I've found that each higher level of maths I studied made me much better at the previous level.
So algebra made me better at arithmetic. I now saw numbers as systems and modules, and I could pull them apart and put them back together, all in my head. Likewise, high-school calculus, stats, trig made me better at algebra. But because I didn't follow maths after high-school, I'm much less comfortable with the highest maths I studied. But I'm sure, had I gone on to more advanced calculus, etc, then I'd be using basic calculus much more often, to quickly solve problems I now have to grind through (and still aren't sure I didn't screw up.)
I assume the same is true in other areas. Learning basic coding probably taught me more about everyday computing than it taught me about coding.
I still think you should be able to sell secondhand copyrighted information, I really do. [...] Games are artwork, not vehicles.
Do you think the publishing industry that wants royalties from (or bans of) used game sales feels the same about other art resale? How many of their executives voluntarily paid the original painter/sculptor a percentage of the purchase price of the artwork they have bought or sold for their corporation or themselves? (Or only ever bought artworks directly from the artist, shunning the resale market?) I'm guessing none.
And it's that "One rule for the industry, another for the artists" that so many people despise. I might be sympathetic to artists and creators, but I know that the industry isn't. Indeed, the industry has always gone out of its way to screw the artists, needing to be dragged kicking and screaming to respect artists rights. Therefore any "moral" argument the industry makes is always going to be seen as a lie; a lie to support an immoral industry at the expense of the artists, the consumers, and our culture.
[Not a criticism of your argument, just an observation.]
NASA is buying services that it already pays for, such as supplying and re-crewing the International Space Station.
COTS-Cargo and Commercial-Crew funding are ways of developing lower cost alternatives to supply those services to NASA. (NASA currently pays the Russians around $60m per seat to fly each US astronaut to the ISS. SpaceX wants to fly 7 astronauts in their Dragon capsule for around $150m, or less than half the price.)
Frankly it's a bargain compared to the way departments (including NASA and the DoD) typically handle purchasing and development.
[And the people who are lobbying hardest against Commercial Crew, spending millions to buy Congressmen, are not doing it to save you money; they are doing it to protect the existing way of doing "business".]
Meanwhile, China is fully committed to manned space exploration missions that are soon likely to surpass those of the United States and NASA.
So? China might also beat your country in the Olympic medal tally this year. And a month later, the significance will be about the same as them beating NASA.
We need more [arrogant cunts] like you that can glean shit off a Wikipedia page.
Wikipedia has this? Which page? It'd be handy to have a central source that I could just link people to, instead of having to repeat the whole spiel every time.
True, but only in trivial amounts. Even if the price didn't drop, the whole market isn't big enough to fund a single lunar mission. Nor fund the development of the hardware. And even if you could, somehow, get the cost of development and operation down enough to make a profit, you would be talking about small robotic systems, built like current nano-sats. It'd be cool if someone did that, even China, but it wouldn't advance human spaceflight; and it's certainly not a reason to justify humans on the moon.
He-3 fusion is harder than D-D fusion. Meaning that we'll have D-D fusion decades before we have He-3 fusion. And "harder" means higher temperature, greater pressure, which means if we can develop He-3 fusion, the same technology will make D-D fusion plants smaller and more efficient, which will increase the number of applications (such as ships' powerplants.)
And one of the waste products from D-D fusion? Helium 3. It will be a century or so after we crack practical fusion before we need outside sources of He-3.
And even then, given the low density of He-3 in the regolith (it's a trace element), the amount of mining means you'd need a substantial presence on the moon. A full blown mining colony. And guess what their ships and vehicles and bases will use for power? D-D fusion plants. Coz the small amount of waste produced by neutronic fusion is just not an issue in space. And one of the waste products from D-D fusion... oh yeah.
Calling for mining He-3 fusion today is like calling for airport noise regulations in the middle ages. It just makes you (and space advocacy in general) look stupid.
radiotelescope on the far side of the moon, in the giant EM shadow the moon makes of our emissions?
The first few millimetres are enough to shield a radio telescope, the remaining 3400+km are redundant.
But it would have been nice to see a copy of MSL sent to the moon a few years ago. (While they were waiting for the next Mars launch window.) The skycrane rig should have enough delta-v & more than enough thrust to land on the moon. The RTG should have been able to keep the rover warm during nightfall. And since most of the design work was already done, and I bet dollars to donuts they made multiple copies of every part, so it'd be a bargain mission. (Only the RTG would be difficult, plutonium being in short supply.) Near real-time remote control, hi-res cams, nuclear power. What a waste. They do this every time. Build it, throw away the hardware, throw away the development, disband the team, start again from scratch a year or two later. Literally reinventing the wheel.
I thought the same thing. But in Australia, mass killings vanished almost overnight after such laws were brought in. (From roughly one every 18 months to just 1 in 16 years.)
My guess is that these nutters lack the social network that allows them to bypass the laws and obtain illegal weapons, and without the feeling of overwhelming superiority are too cowardly to act. (And too stupid to think up other plans, such as the one you suggested.)
[Mass shootings seem to be the only thing you can affect. Other crimes, including gun crimes, barely budged in Australia after the laws changed.]
Did you compare that list with the US equivalent in the same article? There are more US school shootings in some individual years than in Europe for the whole decade. The difference between the US and the rest of the world is stunning.
Judging by the experience in Australia, banning "assault" rifles and putting limits on magazine capacity (and a gun buy-back), only helps prevent mass shootings.
It's weird, and, like you, I certainly didn't expect it when the laws were changed. It doesn't affect the murder rate, gun crime in general, suicide, domestic murder, gang violence, etc. It only affects mass shootings. In Australia, from about one every 18 months before the ban, to just one in the 16 years since.
Why? The only thing I can guess, and it is a completely wild-assed guess, is that these lone-nuts are more "lone" than people realise. They have no connections that they would need to circumvent the law and get access to high-capacity weapons. And without that feeling of power from an overwhelming advantage, they are cowards.
If you have Firefox/Firefox-mobile on your tablet, you can use the addon "Phony" to spoof your user-agent if you want. (Or "Modify Headers" addon for something a bit more full featured.) Chrome might have a similar addon. Opera probably already has something like that built in (it usually does).
If you're using an iPad, I can't help you.
As for google, none of my friends are over there,
G+ doesn't have friends, it has circles. So many circles...
Because of the suspicious number of anonymous trolls like you all trying to smear the guy, innocent readers may think there's something to the trolling.
Oops. Someone failed Percentages. The mass of the moon is a bit less than 1/80th of Earth's mass. Or 0.0123, which is 1.23%.
The Moon is also about 5 times Pluto's mass, and around 50 times Charon's estimated mass. If Charon gets to be a planet, the Moon should be too. (And the Galilean moons, and Titan...)
It always amazed me how utterly crap their comment system were, and why they made no effort to create an online community around themselves, turning that into a volunteer workforce. If Wikipedia can create an entire encyclopaedia around volunteers, surely a newspaper can turn readers into content providers (and I don't just mean "send in your funny snaps!")
Even in the pre-net days, pedants would mail letters in to point out errors in spelling, grammar and facts. There are bloggers and activists today who do more investigation (for free) into widely reported stories than 90% of the "investigative" journalists, and 99% of regular journalists.
It seems like a no-brainer to recruit pedantic readers to become proof-readers and fact-checkers, rewarded by seeing content ahead of time (and the feeling of self-importance.) Or volunteers to create content for the online site from the raw AP feed, the slight re-write that it usually gets. Or the barely rewritten press releases we seem plagued with, you're telling me you pay people to do that? In return, those people get access to the raw AP feed, and press-release stream, (and the sense that they are "Journalists".) The best are "allowed" to do fluff pieces like product reviews and advertorials. Likewise, layout, photo-editing, comment moderation, etc. You might even end up with volunteers doing layouts for the printed edition, in return for free subscriptions and occasional merch. Some might even end up getting paid.
In parallel, have a mechanism for signed-up members to create their own, public facing, "Front page", selecting the content that they like from any of the newspapers in the corporate family. Costs almost nothing to host, creates entirely new "papers" with their own readership. The best pages share ad-revenue from their page-views. Hell, the best might get their own website. (And the best of those might get a print edition!)
And host blogs from members to comment at length on stories of the day. The best of the latter not only share ad-revenue, but might end up getting paid for actual opinion columns in the printed version.
All of this was possible from day one, and certainly became obvious once Wikipedia and blogs exploded, along with user-content driven sites like Slashdot. But the publishers couldn't do it. Hell, it's still possible, but they don't see the enormous resource in their viewers to generate and maintain content. Instead they want paywalls, and whine about google and news-aggregators.
Hell, we're talking about an industry that basically gave away their prime source of income, classified ads (the so-called "rivers of gold"), to eBay. They couldn't figure out how to put their classifieds online until long after some piss-ant little dot.com had already eaten their lunch, how the hell are they going to figure out how to save their rest of their business?
Slashdot Mirror
I see nothing in AC's post that implied, much less stated, a "hatred for Microsoft". All he said was that you can't create a maker-culture by corporate fiat, unless you change the whole company, and that managers (and marketing consultants) tend to forget that.
You seem to be the one projecting, not him/her/it.
I've found that each higher level of maths I studied made me much better at the previous level.
So algebra made me better at arithmetic. I now saw numbers as systems and modules, and I could pull them apart and put them back together, all in my head. Likewise, high-school calculus, stats, trig made me better at algebra. But because I didn't follow maths after high-school, I'm much less comfortable with the highest maths I studied. But I'm sure, had I gone on to more advanced calculus, etc, then I'd be using basic calculus much more often, to quickly solve problems I now have to grind through (and still aren't sure I didn't screw up.)
I assume the same is true in other areas. Learning basic coding probably taught me more about everyday computing than it taught me about coding.
By Asimov?
KUATO: Start the reactor.
I still think you should be able to sell secondhand copyrighted information, I really do. [...] Games are artwork, not vehicles.
Do you think the publishing industry that wants royalties from (or bans of) used game sales feels the same about other art resale? How many of their executives voluntarily paid the original painter/sculptor a percentage of the purchase price of the artwork they have bought or sold for their corporation or themselves? (Or only ever bought artworks directly from the artist, shunning the resale market?) I'm guessing none.
And it's that "One rule for the industry, another for the artists" that so many people despise. I might be sympathetic to artists and creators, but I know that the industry isn't. Indeed, the industry has always gone out of its way to screw the artists, needing to be dragged kicking and screaming to respect artists rights. Therefore any "moral" argument the industry makes is always going to be seen as a lie; a lie to support an immoral industry at the expense of the artists, the consumers, and our culture.
[Not a criticism of your argument, just an observation.]
NASA is buying services that it already pays for, such as supplying and re-crewing the International Space Station.
COTS-Cargo and Commercial-Crew funding are ways of developing lower cost alternatives to supply those services to NASA. (NASA currently pays the Russians around $60m per seat to fly each US astronaut to the ISS. SpaceX wants to fly 7 astronauts in their Dragon capsule for around $150m, or less than half the price.)
Frankly it's a bargain compared to the way departments (including NASA and the DoD) typically handle purchasing and development.
[And the people who are lobbying hardest against Commercial Crew, spending millions to buy Congressmen, are not doing it to save you money; they are doing it to protect the existing way of doing "business".]
Meanwhile, China is fully committed to manned space exploration missions that are soon likely to surpass those of the United States and NASA.
So? China might also beat your country in the Olympic medal tally this year. And a month later, the significance will be about the same as them beating NASA.
We need more [arrogant cunts] like you that can glean shit off a Wikipedia page.
Wikipedia has this? Which page? It'd be handy to have a central source that I could just link people to, instead of having to repeat the whole spiel every time.
True, but only in trivial amounts. Even if the price didn't drop, the whole market isn't big enough to fund a single lunar mission. Nor fund the development of the hardware. And even if you could, somehow, get the cost of development and operation down enough to make a profit, you would be talking about small robotic systems, built like current nano-sats. It'd be cool if someone did that, even China, but it wouldn't advance human spaceflight; and it's certainly not a reason to justify humans on the moon.
Mining for Helium-3
He-3 fusion is harder than D-D fusion. Meaning that we'll have D-D fusion decades before we have He-3 fusion. And "harder" means higher temperature, greater pressure, which means if we can develop He-3 fusion, the same technology will make D-D fusion plants smaller and more efficient, which will increase the number of applications (such as ships' powerplants.)
And one of the waste products from D-D fusion? Helium 3. It will be a century or so after we crack practical fusion before we need outside sources of He-3.
And even then, given the low density of He-3 in the regolith (it's a trace element), the amount of mining means you'd need a substantial presence on the moon. A full blown mining colony. And guess what their ships and vehicles and bases will use for power? D-D fusion plants. Coz the small amount of waste produced by neutronic fusion is just not an issue in space. And one of the waste products from D-D fusion... oh yeah.
Calling for mining He-3 fusion today is like calling for airport noise regulations in the middle ages. It just makes you (and space advocacy in general) look stupid.
radiotelescope on the far side of the moon, in the giant EM shadow the moon makes of our emissions?
The first few millimetres are enough to shield a radio telescope, the remaining 3400+km are redundant.
But it would have been nice to see a copy of MSL sent to the moon a few years ago. (While they were waiting for the next Mars launch window.) The skycrane rig should have enough delta-v & more than enough thrust to land on the moon. The RTG should have been able to keep the rover warm during nightfall. And since most of the design work was already done, and I bet dollars to donuts they made multiple copies of every part, so it'd be a bargain mission. (Only the RTG would be difficult, plutonium being in short supply.) Near real-time remote control, hi-res cams, nuclear power. What a waste. They do this every time. Build it, throw away the hardware, throw away the development, disband the team, start again from scratch a year or two later. Literally reinventing the wheel.
The last line should include an reference to the season.
Get your ass to Mars!
No cash for a rocket ship?
China is in bloom...
until we regulated industry out of the US
And it all went to a country that believes in the principle of small government: China.
... what if I'm ACTUALLY going to lunch?
Then you're going meet a client during your lunch-break.
Just $10M Keeping "Red Neck Rocket Scientist" From Reaching Space
So how much should we be spending to keep him from reaching space?
So Credo fired first?
I thought the same thing. But in Australia, mass killings vanished almost overnight after such laws were brought in. (From roughly one every 18 months to just 1 in 16 years.)
My guess is that these nutters lack the social network that allows them to bypass the laws and obtain illegal weapons, and without the feeling of overwhelming superiority are too cowardly to act. (And too stupid to think up other plans, such as the one you suggested.)
[Mass shootings seem to be the only thing you can affect. Other crimes, including gun crimes, barely budged in Australia after the laws changed.]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_shooting#Europe
Did you compare that list with the US equivalent in the same article? There are more US school shootings in some individual years than in Europe for the whole decade. The difference between the US and the rest of the world is stunning.
Would the gun control have helped?
Judging by the experience in Australia, banning "assault" rifles and putting limits on magazine capacity (and a gun buy-back), only helps prevent mass shootings.
It's weird, and, like you, I certainly didn't expect it when the laws were changed. It doesn't affect the murder rate, gun crime in general, suicide, domestic murder, gang violence, etc. It only affects mass shootings. In Australia, from about one every 18 months before the ban, to just one in the 16 years since.
Why? The only thing I can guess, and it is a completely wild-assed guess, is that these lone-nuts are more "lone" than people realise. They have no connections that they would need to circumvent the law and get access to high-capacity weapons. And without that feeling of power from an overwhelming advantage, they are cowards.
I read a number of newspapers and Internet news sites, and this is the first I've heard of it,
MSNBC: http://www.technolog.msnbc.msn.com/technology/technolog/cyborg-steve-mann-details-alleged-mcdonalds-assault-889595
Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2012/07/17/cyborg-discrimination-scientist-says-mcdonalds-staff-tried-to-pull-off-his-google-glass-like-eyepiece-then-threw-him-out/
The Huff: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/17/steve-mann-attacked-paris-mcdonalds-digital-eye-glass-photos_n_1680263.html
NYT Daily: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/cyborg-professor-claims-assault-paris-mcdonald-digital-glasses-article-1.1116246
Canadian news: http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2012/07/17/tech-mann-digital-eye-glass-assault.html and a few others.
Plus El Reg, CNET, Network World, and the usual tech news sites. And the story is the second top google-news results for "McDonald's".
It's also the second article on Slashdot itself about the incident. http://news.slashdot.org/story/12/07/17/0335227/man-physically-assaulted-at-mcdonalds-for-wearing-digital-eye-glasses
If you have Firefox/Firefox-mobile on your tablet, you can use the addon "Phony" to spoof your user-agent if you want. (Or "Modify Headers" addon for something a bit more full featured.) Chrome might have a similar addon. Opera probably already has something like that built in (it usually does).
If you're using an iPad, I can't help you.
As for google, none of my friends are over there,
G+ doesn't have friends, it has circles. So many circles...
Because of the suspicious number of anonymous trolls like you all trying to smear the guy, innocent readers may think there's something to the trolling.
You're assuming he left on good terms....
Oops. Someone failed Percentages. The mass of the moon is a bit less than 1/80th of Earth's mass. Or 0.0123, which is 1.23%.
The Moon is also about 5 times Pluto's mass, and around 50 times Charon's estimated mass. If Charon gets to be a planet, the Moon should be too. (And the Galilean moons, and Titan...)
It always amazed me how utterly crap their comment system were, and why they made no effort to create an online community around themselves, turning that into a volunteer workforce. If Wikipedia can create an entire encyclopaedia around volunteers, surely a newspaper can turn readers into content providers (and I don't just mean "send in your funny snaps!")
Even in the pre-net days, pedants would mail letters in to point out errors in spelling, grammar and facts. There are bloggers and activists today who do more investigation (for free) into widely reported stories than 90% of the "investigative" journalists, and 99% of regular journalists.
It seems like a no-brainer to recruit pedantic readers to become proof-readers and fact-checkers, rewarded by seeing content ahead of time (and the feeling of self-importance.) Or volunteers to create content for the online site from the raw AP feed, the slight re-write that it usually gets. Or the barely rewritten press releases we seem plagued with, you're telling me you pay people to do that? In return, those people get access to the raw AP feed, and press-release stream, (and the sense that they are "Journalists".) The best are "allowed" to do fluff pieces like product reviews and advertorials. Likewise, layout, photo-editing, comment moderation, etc. You might even end up with volunteers doing layouts for the printed edition, in return for free subscriptions and occasional merch. Some might even end up getting paid.
In parallel, have a mechanism for signed-up members to create their own, public facing, "Front page", selecting the content that they like from any of the newspapers in the corporate family. Costs almost nothing to host, creates entirely new "papers" with their own readership. The best pages share ad-revenue from their page-views. Hell, the best might get their own website. (And the best of those might get a print edition!)
And host blogs from members to comment at length on stories of the day. The best of the latter not only share ad-revenue, but might end up getting paid for actual opinion columns in the printed version.
All of this was possible from day one, and certainly became obvious once Wikipedia and blogs exploded, along with user-content driven sites like Slashdot. But the publishers couldn't do it. Hell, it's still possible, but they don't see the enormous resource in their viewers to generate and maintain content. Instead they want paywalls, and whine about google and news-aggregators.
Hell, we're talking about an industry that basically gave away their prime source of income, classified ads (the so-called "rivers of gold"), to eBay. They couldn't figure out how to put their classifieds online until long after some piss-ant little dot.com had already eaten their lunch, how the hell are they going to figure out how to save their rest of their business?