If you've followed Jon Stewart more, you'd know that he's painfully aware of this. On several occasions he has rather angrily taken the mainstream media to task, primarily with the tune, "I'm a comedian, why aren't YOU covering this stuff the way it ought to be!"
Jon Stewart is the Court Jester of our day. (Which is a bit more than one might think, if you look up more of the role of the Court Jester in medieval times.)
You're overgeneralizing and misplacing me. I'm a near-tin-hatter, myself. Remember that one of Obama's election issues was greater transparency in government, which is one of his biggest failings.
By the way, you guessed wrong. I get most of my news from mainstream media, along with some from Comedy Central, which I'll admit has some left leanings, but in case you didn't know, has been known to roast Obama, as well. I won't accuse you (yet) of making the argument that ALL mainstream media is liberal, and only Fox is fair an balanced.
Personally I believe Libertarians are naive and have a rather small, short-term world view. That doesn't mean that I like mainstream Republicans or Democrats, either. With increasing years I think I identify more with Goldwater Republicans.
It's the Obama administration's idea, so it must be wrong. Just like when Obama has picked up old Republican ideas and tried to push them, they become wrong.
Sometimes I wonder it Obama's support of NSA domestic spying is just a clever way to get Republicans to come out in favor of personal privacy. It wasn't that long ago that the Republicans clearly stated that there was no right to privacy enumerated in the Constitution. Now because it's against Obama, they're thumping the privacy tub really hard. (Though I'll bet they still don't think any right to privacy applies to gay conduct, even in one's own home.)
But unfortunately I've lost sufficient faith to think that that's what he's doing, The "mini-me" cartoon seems scarily accurate, and makes today's Republican Congress-critters seem all the more buffoon-ish.
> I know you were somewhat joking here, but this is exactly why we can't have nice things. > Too many damn laws stand in the way of true innovation anymore. It will be our demise.
And I suspect that some (specifically, the owners of that "Intellectual Property") peoples' real attitude is that they will be on top of you and me as we all sink, and the sinking will stop while they're still above water. Whether or not you and I are above water will not be relevant, as long there are enough left to do the necessary work for a pittance.
Ever read "Freakonomics"? The author spent some time with a gang (There's a story right there.) and found that economically the drug business resembles McDonalds. A few execs at the top make the big bucks, the rest have to live with their parents.
And doing some more reading, I see that they actually do have pumps in the Panama Canal to reduce the loss you speak of. When/where I saw this stuff in Canada, the locks were there for recreational boating, sized appropriately, and there was no shortage of water.
As fustakrakich says, no pumps needed. Need more water in the lock, get it from the higher water level side. Need less, give it to the lower water level side. As a kid, we went to a fishing camp along the Trent Waterway system in Ontario, Ca. I've had the now-rare experience of walking in circles, pushing the handles that operated the valves and doors of the locks. At that time it was fully manual, these days it's all electric. As for technology, I've also been on and to the Peterborough lift-locks, where the boats ride in pans on hydraulic rams. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peterborough_Lift_Lock But the thing I hope to see someday is the Falkirk Wheel. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkirk_Wheel
Yes, I'm a bit of a lock-junkie.
As for "succeed", China is embarking on a massive "manifest destiny" kick of their own, right now. I'll be curious to see what "Internet Time" does to that, as well as their changing demographics and internal tendency to corruption. It will be interesting to see how well they can keep their long-term focus with those other factors at work. (I'll agree that without them, China has been pretty good at long-term.)
I disagree. IMHO war has generally been about egos, and resources are frequently the excuse. Assuming we managed to come up with efficient and logical machines, they would most likely come up with some more efficient way to get their resources than war.
However if they were to decide that war was the most efficient way, watch out!
They/We already do that with history, despite similar warnings being given frequently and extensively. History is given much better lip-service than science fiction, so why should science fiction fare any better?
> That's aside, of course from the all-too-common situation where the business decision is made to push a > drug even when it's more of a medical liability than an asset just because it's more of a (potential) > financial asset than a liability.
Then 5 or 10 years back there was also the case where a very effective peanut allergy drug was nearly finished with trials and approaching approval. The developing company was bought out by a bigger rival. The new owners squashed the new drug, because they wanted to re-purpose a drug they already had for peanut allergies. It wasn't as effective as the new drug they'd just acquired, and had worse side-effects, but it was more profitable.
Urban legend or true story - I don't know. The inability to know stuff like this is a problem in itself.
Random doses of any drug can have harmful side-effects - even Tylenol.
That doesn't mean LSD and Ecstasy should be put on the market, the point was that even research has been forbidden. Perhaps with modification and/or careful dosage control they could become effective medications. With current laws we'll never know.
Thalidomide has 2 "rotations", left-handed and right-handed forms. One handedness was "effective" and the other caused the birth defects. The big Thalidomide crisis was because of bad quality control, there was significant contamination by the wrong-handed version, and we really didn't understand this stuff at the time. Therefore the "good Thalidomide" was banned along with the bad. The bad Thalidomide should be simply be considered a harmful manufacturing by-product that needs to be removed from the final product.
My impression was that RoundUp-Ready mean that the crop plant was itself resistant to RoundUp, and therefore could tolerate higher doses. In other words, more herbicide, not less.
I'm also under the impression that plants are much more promiscuous with their genes than animals, and there are already RoundUp-Ready weeds.
I'm not necessarily against the ides of GMOs, but neither am I unconditionally for them, either. Really, like most things in life the answer needs to be, "It depends."
I remember reading a news item about inserting a Vitamin A gene into rice, and that seems like a really nifty idea.
On the other hand, most of the GMO stories in the US seem to be about convenience, patents, shelf life, and such - with nothing to say about taste, nutrition, or safety. Basically in the US it's all about supply-side convenience. For instance, most of the Monsanto discussions center on Roundup-Ready - basically giving the crop the ability to tolerate higher dosages of chemicals.
I will acknowledge that supply-side convenience can result in lower prices for customers, but I would still feel better of at least SOME of the GMO stories in the US talked about making the food better in some way other than cost.
I don't remember where I saw it, and I didn't think it was so much vaporizing as dissolving. I can try finding it, again. IIRC they simply talked of lost mass after using.
> I think it's going to be very unpleasant sometime in the next 30-50 years for most humans.
But some of those who don't want to believe that global warming is real won't suffer a bit. They can afford to make sure they live in someplace nice, move to someplace else nice if needed, and will always have good food available. They're also the ones sowing the "science discord" because they know that their wealth comes from the status quo. Again, the "important people" will find life perfectly pleasant.
I would tend to prefer paper over styrofoam cups because when you pour hot beverages in them, the latter lose more mass. That mass is going into your gut. I presume it's reasonably safe, else it would be forbidden or regulated like so many other things. But I'd still just as soon minimize it. That said, I don't run around the block to avoid a styrofoam cup, but when there's a choice, I'll choose the paper.
Standardization solves your problem and mine, but that's not the carmakers' problem. His problem is to keep selling cars, and for the very reason you and I would like standardization it hurts their business. Our priorities are not aligned.
There has been enough time for it to have a known reliability - time enough to measure it.
It may well be that new tech is more reliable - but there hasn't been time to measure that. By the time there is, today's new tech will be tomorrow's old tech.
Accelerated life testing is all well and good, but sometimes there are new mechanisms that aren't kicked out by the old testing. Nothing beats time in grade like time in grade. Twas ever thus when life and liability is on the line.
Unfortunately asking the wrong questions can do a lot to make a surveillance state an annoying place to live. But I agree - failing to ask the right questions does little to prolong the life of that surveillance state - I'll grant that it may increase their luck from time to time.
Let's allow that they have the storage capacity and the capability to record everything. Let's even allow that they can query this database and find what they want to know. It's still missing the critical element.
You have to ask the right questions. Without the right questions, you almost never get the right answer - I'll allow that every now and then the right answer does smack you in the face, unbidden.
Slashdot Mirror
If you've followed Jon Stewart more, you'd know that he's painfully aware of this. On several occasions he has rather angrily taken the mainstream media to task, primarily with the tune, "I'm a comedian, why aren't YOU covering this stuff the way it ought to be!"
Jon Stewart is the Court Jester of our day. (Which is a bit more than one might think, if you look up more of the role of the Court Jester in medieval times.)
You're overgeneralizing and misplacing me. I'm a near-tin-hatter, myself. Remember that one of Obama's election issues was greater transparency in government, which is one of his biggest failings.
By the way, you guessed wrong. I get most of my news from mainstream media, along with some from Comedy Central, which I'll admit has some left leanings, but in case you didn't know, has been known to roast Obama, as well. I won't accuse you (yet) of making the argument that ALL mainstream media is liberal, and only Fox is fair an balanced.
Personally I believe Libertarians are naive and have a rather small, short-term world view. That doesn't mean that I like mainstream Republicans or Democrats, either. With increasing years I think I identify more with Goldwater Republicans.
It's the Obama administration's idea, so it must be wrong. Just like when Obama has picked up old Republican ideas and tried to push them, they become wrong.
Sometimes I wonder it Obama's support of NSA domestic spying is just a clever way to get Republicans to come out in favor of personal privacy. It wasn't that long ago that the Republicans clearly stated that there was no right to privacy enumerated in the Constitution. Now because it's against Obama, they're thumping the privacy tub really hard. (Though I'll bet they still don't think any right to privacy applies to gay conduct, even in one's own home.)
But unfortunately I've lost sufficient faith to think that that's what he's doing, The "mini-me" cartoon seems scarily accurate, and makes today's Republican Congress-critters seem all the more buffoon-ish.
> I know you were somewhat joking here, but this is exactly why we can't have nice things.
> Too many damn laws stand in the way of true innovation anymore. It will be our demise.
And I suspect that some (specifically, the owners of that "Intellectual Property") peoples' real attitude is that they will be on top of you and me as we all sink, and the sinking will stop while they're still above water. Whether or not you and I are above water will not be relevant, as long there are enough left to do the necessary work for a pittance.
Goes to show it was quite a few years back when I read the book.
Ever read "Freakonomics"? The author spent some time with a gang (There's a story right there.) and found that economically the drug business resembles McDonalds. A few execs at the top make the big bucks, the rest have to live with their parents.
And doing some more reading, I see that they actually do have pumps in the Panama Canal to reduce the loss you speak of. When/where I saw this stuff in Canada, the locks were there for recreational boating, sized appropriately, and there was no shortage of water.
Multiple comments...
As fustakrakich says, no pumps needed. Need more water in the lock, get it from the higher water level side. Need less, give it to the lower water level side. As a kid, we went to a fishing camp along the Trent Waterway system in Ontario, Ca. I've had the now-rare experience of walking in circles, pushing the handles that operated the valves and doors of the locks. At that time it was fully manual, these days it's all electric. As for technology, I've also been on and to the Peterborough lift-locks, where the boats ride in pans on hydraulic rams. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peterborough_Lift_Lock But the thing I hope to see someday is the Falkirk Wheel. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkirk_Wheel
Yes, I'm a bit of a lock-junkie.
As for "succeed", China is embarking on a massive "manifest destiny" kick of their own, right now. I'll be curious to see what "Internet Time" does to that, as well as their changing demographics and internal tendency to corruption. It will be interesting to see how well they can keep their long-term focus with those other factors at work. (I'll agree that without them, China has been pretty good at long-term.)
I disagree. IMHO war has generally been about egos, and resources are frequently the excuse. Assuming we managed to come up with efficient and logical machines, they would most likely come up with some more efficient way to get their resources than war.
However if they were to decide that war was the most efficient way, watch out!
They/We already do that with history, despite similar warnings being given frequently and extensively. History is given much better lip-service than science fiction, so why should science fiction fare any better?
> That's aside, of course from the all-too-common situation where the business decision is made to push a
> drug even when it's more of a medical liability than an asset just because it's more of a (potential)
> financial asset than a liability.
Then 5 or 10 years back there was also the case where a very effective peanut allergy drug was nearly finished with trials and approaching approval. The developing company was bought out by a bigger rival. The new owners squashed the new drug, because they wanted to re-purpose a drug they already had for peanut allergies. It wasn't as effective as the new drug they'd just acquired, and had worse side-effects, but it was more profitable.
Urban legend or true story - I don't know. The inability to know stuff like this is a problem in itself.
Random doses of any drug can have harmful side-effects - even Tylenol.
That doesn't mean LSD and Ecstasy should be put on the market, the point was that even research has been forbidden. Perhaps with modification and/or careful dosage control they could become effective medications. With current laws we'll never know.
I remember reading somewhere that...
Thalidomide has 2 "rotations", left-handed and right-handed forms. One handedness was "effective" and the other caused the birth defects. The big Thalidomide crisis was because of bad quality control, there was significant contamination by the wrong-handed version, and we really didn't understand this stuff at the time. Therefore the "good Thalidomide" was banned along with the bad. The bad Thalidomide should be simply be considered a harmful manufacturing by-product that needs to be removed from the final product.
My impression was that RoundUp-Ready mean that the crop plant was itself resistant to RoundUp, and therefore could tolerate higher doses. In other words, more herbicide, not less.
I'm also under the impression that plants are much more promiscuous with their genes than animals, and there are already RoundUp-Ready weeds.
I'm not necessarily against the ides of GMOs, but neither am I unconditionally for them, either. Really, like most things in life the answer needs to be, "It depends."
I remember reading a news item about inserting a Vitamin A gene into rice, and that seems like a really nifty idea.
On the other hand, most of the GMO stories in the US seem to be about convenience, patents, shelf life, and such - with nothing to say about taste, nutrition, or safety. Basically in the US it's all about supply-side convenience. For instance, most of the Monsanto discussions center on Roundup-Ready - basically giving the crop the ability to tolerate higher dosages of chemicals.
I will acknowledge that supply-side convenience can result in lower prices for customers, but I would still feel better of at least SOME of the GMO stories in the US talked about making the food better in some way other than cost.
I don't remember where I saw it, and I didn't think it was so much vaporizing as dissolving. I can try finding it, again. IIRC they simply talked of lost mass after using.
> I think it's going to be very unpleasant sometime in the next 30-50 years for most humans.
But some of those who don't want to believe that global warming is real won't suffer a bit. They can afford to make sure they live in someplace nice, move to someplace else nice if needed, and will always have good food available. They're also the ones sowing the "science discord" because they know that their wealth comes from the status quo. Again, the "important people" will find life perfectly pleasant.
I would tend to prefer paper over styrofoam cups because when you pour hot beverages in them, the latter lose more mass. That mass is going into your gut. I presume it's reasonably safe, else it would be forbidden or regulated like so many other things. But I'd still just as soon minimize it. That said, I don't run around the block to avoid a styrofoam cup, but when there's a choice, I'll choose the paper.
I wonder how David Brin's (fictional) Kanten would feel about this...
Reminds me of Waterhouse's Army unit in "Cryptonomicon" - Show another way that we know what we know, so they don't know how we really found out.
Standardization solves your problem and mine, but that's not the carmakers' problem. His problem is to keep selling cars, and for the very reason you and I would like standardization it hurts their business. Our priorities are not aligned.
There has been enough time for it to have a known reliability - time enough to measure it.
It may well be that new tech is more reliable - but there hasn't been time to measure that. By the time there is, today's new tech will be tomorrow's old tech.
Accelerated life testing is all well and good, but sometimes there are new mechanisms that aren't kicked out by the old testing. Nothing beats time in grade like time in grade. Twas ever thus when life and liability is on the line.
Unfortunately asking the wrong questions can do a lot to make a surveillance state an annoying place to live. But I agree - failing to ask the right questions does little to prolong the life of that surveillance state - I'll grant that it may increase their luck from time to time.
Let's allow that they have the storage capacity and the capability to record everything. Let's even allow that they can query this database and find what they want to know. It's still missing the critical element.
You have to ask the right questions. Without the right questions, you almost never get the right answer - I'll allow that every now and then the right answer does smack you in the face, unbidden.
So now they're flashable, most likely remote-flashable.
New attack vector - flash all of the meters into bricks.