Aside from that, what's needed for meaningful open source development is not "here's some code, have fun". Th
But what you are really asking for is free infrastructure. Give us the collaborative tools, documentation, and money, then, you say, you can make an open source system. Well guess what, all of that stuff is part of what the development of non-free software costs. If open source is really going to be free, it means that, you know, it has to be free. You can't really go and sock someone with a bill for a bunch of money to have your "free" project now, can you?
If the Linux community wants open driver development, then, it should write them. Intel made an open source driver, and now the author is condemning the code? Geez, how about fixing it! If you want something to be community owned, well that community has to step up. It's not Intel's responsibility.
Proponent : Oh, you fool! Smokestacks are the sign of prosperity! Modern science is bringing you low cost energy and consumer goods! What could go wrong!
Proponent : Hey, instead of using whales for oil, why not get with the program, you luddite, and get it from the ground? Nothing could go wrong!
Proponent: Oh, what are you, a fireman or something? Trains are obsolete! Get onboard with the modern car! What could possibly go wrong!
Well its funny because every manner of fossil fuel is in a state where we are getting "not as good" raw material out of the ground. I'm hardly a big environmentalist but I can't see how anyone can deny any peak fossil fuel or even nearly planetary resource.
The oil we are getting is not as good and harder to extract. In old oil fields you drilled a few hundred feet and you could just pipe it onto a rail car and you were good to go. Now you have to go thousands of feet, blow compressed air into the ground to smash up rocks, heat the oil so you can pump it, and then you have to refine the crap out of it to use it. Even good old coal is certainly not as good - Germany is practically onto burning lignite and that's pretty crappy coal and even in America the good hard stuff is getting used up and we're onto lower grades of coal.
Even for metals you have to wonder where all the good stuff is. In the 19th century, people were getting gold out of the ground and you could SEE chunks of it. Now, when they talk about gold mining, they don't even bother screening the miners because the gold content of the earth is so low that a miner would have to take out an F-150 sized truck of the stuff to get a few bucks.
Meanwhile, up in space, we have an asteroid that is quite literally made out of 20 trillion dollars worth of practically pure iron and precious metals, a planet made out of methane, and we're sitting here with our thumbs up our rears, barring ourselves from using nuclear power to make spaceships with, when unimaginable wealth is in the skies above us.
You don't need to be a scientist or a genius to see where the future is. All you need is to read an assay of a asteroid, and compare that to an assay of what's considered to be a good project today. Right now, if we took a tenth of the capital we spend on developing technologies to get every last scrap of goodness out of our used up planet, we could have enough materials of any kind to essentially end all of poverty on this planet.
There is no long term environmentalism without the conquest of space.
Yeah, that would be pretty crazy. I think more rationally, the Chinese are probably hoping that the USA gets into a nuclear pissing match with the middle east - and THEIR population can expand.
The reality is this article is an escape clause for scientists. Now, we're going to spend trillions of dollars and impoverish millions of people fighting the global warming man, and then, after that, when we go to check to see if this is shit worked, we'll hear from the environmentalists that, "it will work in a thousand years". WTF!
That's not science. That's religion. And just like every 1000 labelled year, we'll find a new reason that Jesus didn't come back, in the form of some new thing that says we should worship mother earth more, so that she will come back to us.
People that believe this stuff are idiots. Maybe we should have US troops in Iraq for a thousand years, because they will be a democracy by then. Maybe we should let the free market handle this current economic crisis, because it will be ok in a thousand years. A thousand years! If the plan that we are to embark on -might- show progress in a thousand years, then our plan is stupid, how about that!
Stupid climate scientist. I wonder if they will come up with something intelligent, before Jesus comes back!
I doubt she genuinely modelled the technology correctly but what you could do is model technological improvement as a multi-faceted project plan with dollars and deadlines and scientific managers assigned to each breakthrough. This would be more of a manhattan style or Apollo style project. This top down approach to science is in the reverse of the present basic US science policy, which is basic research oriented. But, you could have all US science policy be top down, with branches for different paths that might emerge as discoveries are made and a process to invalidate branches, and then reassign or dismiss the scientists that worked on those invalidated branches. From there, you can calculate the best case, cost benefit, by examining the research branch that yields the highest climate alteration per $ spent, and then, various other branches.
I'm building a robot soldier. It will have a pistol in one hand, and a club in another, so it can club a bunch of people, and shoot the rest, because the pistol will be fed by 2000 rounds stored in its arm. It will weight 400lbs. Build 500,000 of these things, and we won't have to worry about hearts and minds. We'll just unleash fire breathing metal terror on our enemies, and they to us, and all that will be left is a bunch of robots running in circles until they run out humans and batteries. But hey, I'll get tons of government money to do research.
I thought one of the deals holding up the big wheel spinning in space for artificial gravity - like the station in 2001 A Space Odyssey was connections between the core and the spinning part. Maybe somehow this will help.
Well if some malicious person uses your computer, it's your fault for not protecting it.
No its not, not at all. You don't blame the victims for being criminals, you blame the criminals. Instead of saying that women shouldn't wear pretty sundresses in strange places or people should run virus protection software, how about we just start executing rapists and hackers instead?
Criminals have too many rights. I say, every time we catch an identity thief, we hang the son of a bitch in the public square so we can watch him rot until he's a skeleton.
I actually can see the Democrats' point in banning Trans fat, if the science were actually trustworthy and not subject to political manipulation. But I don't trust that it is, so therefor, I'd say throw a label on it and in doing so agree with you.
Even in a free market system, government has the right to regulate commerce. The difference between Soviet Russia and the West is that generally, the person who engages in commerce in the West is entitled to a right to private property whereas there is little private property in Soviet Russia. Note that, even though Democrats are often tagged as being "socialist", at their political worst, they would still be considered free marketers, largely because they invented free trade (credit Wilson/Roosevelt), and although they have higher taxes and redistribution of wealth.
Wouldn't IPv6 adoption solve this problem? The whole reason that you have to use CAPTCHAS, I thought, was to guard against machine generated registrations. If you have a high number of registrations per IP address, then you could probably rule that out as a bot. But... you can't do that now because of NATs. In an IPv6, un-NATed world, you could. Even more, you could create a world wide database of suspected BOT computers and simply block them altogether. Perhaps if companies doing business online began pushing for IPv6 adoption themselves, the process might be moved along a bit more rapidly.
At least we can safely say that Democrats have no problem with corporate welfare either. Yep, all of these embryonic stem cells are miracle cures, but, god forbid, every biotech company feels the need to pony up to Washington so Obama can pay for the research.
Man, there's been a law that said that private companies can't do their own stem cell research, its only been federal funding. And if these stem cells require so much federal funding to research, just how great can they really be? I would think a farsighted company would invest in this stuff on its own merit. I mean, if Microsoft can blow $100 million in 199x dollars to make Bob and Clippy, don't you think a big pharma company could fund a drug based on stem cells that might make people walk again? Geez, I would think the demand justifies the research. But oh no, scientists and the suits they work for are too lazy to even take that risk, and its taxpayers on the hook for that too.
It's bad enough that universities are already allowed to patent research that taxpayers pay for, which is pretty much bullshit. Now, we have to pay these people to research something that they will patent so that they can turn around and charge us millions of dollars for a drug we've already paid for. What a bunch of crooks. Burn Harvard down!
Uh, this isn't just government. Pretty much anything that anyone does has some negative impact to someone else. That's just life.
The problem is one of scale. Everyone can do something that impacts someone else, but when the government does it, it impacts a lot of people. You want the shiny new national power grid? Fine, but what about the thousands of people who are going to have their land taken and property values skewered by the eminent domain needed to get it.
Your words would mean a lot more if red states didn't still take more federal aid dollars than they paid out in taxes. They consistently leech money off the blue states
Have you looked at the news lately? All the blue states are in debt up to their eyeballs, have these huge entitlement bills and are facing population declines, and crying for help.
But with that said, I would think most red states would prefer to not have the federal aid and be allowed to develop their own land as they see fit, without interference from the blue states. But alas, red states cannot mine, cannot drill, cannot do anything without the hand of the blue state holding it down. Look at what Bush did for the red states, when he let them finally get a fair market value for their oil, coal and food last summer. And what did the blue states do? Cry, cry cry. I mean, how much federal aid would Alaska need, if it were allow to drill ANWR, and what about Georgia, to drill off of its coast, or, the Dakotas and Colorado drill and to make shale oil. The blue states block all of that, hand the red states a nickel, and expect we red staters to be grateful?
Were it actually functioning, the record would reflect even the meetings at the bar.
My point is that, if the record were function, the meeting would have never taken place, and the actual economic benefit would have never happened. You need to have secrecy between parties to have honest discussions, otherwise, it doesn't happen. That's my point. Your emphasis on openness, that incidentally, you don't even think you should have to be subject to as an employee yourself, is killing the presidency just as much as you and I both know that it would kill your job too.
When you are sitting on five hundred acres of land, have a good well, a good bunch of cattle, and can grow plenty of food. Look, if anything, the northeastern liberal cities are parasites on the south and the west. Cities used to manufacture things to support themselves. Now they are just a bunch of failed banks and homeless people. At least we red staters make something. What do you blue state people make? Nothing. God help you poor welfare dudes if we get all hip to the internet, as we'll take away all your IT work just like we did your manufacturing.
While a lot of people did well with national infrastructure projects of the past, lets remember that some people did get screwed. There is always someone screwed when the government builds something, and that's why some people hate the government. This grievances are not illegitimate and you need to take the effects of them into account.
For example, let's look at how highways and hoover dam screwed some people.
First off, highways screwed cities. If you can drive anywhere, you don't need the concentration of goods that a city offers, and more so, you allow people to get to work without having to live near it. Essentially this has turned American cities into corporate islands surrounded by ghettos because nobody wants to live in cities but everyone will take the high paying jobs.
Secondly, highways screwed local stores. No national brand could exist without highways to truck goods all over the place. Everyone that bitches about the likes of Walmart, McDonalds and every other chain and laments the death of the local foods in the local store need only look at the highway to see why this took place.
Third, the highways really screwed blacks in America, because usually, in cities, all the overpasses and bridges and what not were all built in black neighborhoods, pretty much destroying the asset base of an already fragile population. New York City is a perfect example of this, and there are many black leaders that curse the name of Moses to this day - and no, not the biblical Moses.
Hoover dam screwed everyone that had local water, or needed the flow from the river downstream of the dam. You go to all this expense to get a good spot downstream and the government shuts you off. Or you go to all this expense to get your own water supply, and the government goes and doles it out to everyone else on the cheap, making your investment worthless.
In a secret situation, people are dishonest all the time. In an open situation, people are dishonest all the time.
I don't believe this at all. I've seen too many deals cut in a bar where the open documentation reflects something completely different than the real deal.
First off, failure to retain records is not a moral obligation. I would argue that, morally, keeping everyone's secrets written down and then exposed actually undermines the Presidency and significantly so. Before the PRA, if you were a private person and had a secret, and shared it with the President, it would stay secret. Now, after the PRA, anyone with a FOIA can now sue to get your secrets, as they are part of his or her official correspondence, and the only thing that stops that process is the Reagan and Bush executive orders which the House now wants to stop. It's stupid. If the left gets its way, no one in their right mind with any information of consequence would talk to the President in any way, leaving the office flying bind. Sigh.
From a "right" perspective, the right to Presidential privacy is documented in the sense that there is no enumerated power in the Constitution to actually tell the President how to conduct his or her business, or to expropriate the President's property. So, in that sense, the PRA of 1978 is flat out unconstitutional, as is the revision to the PRA coming from the Congress.
As a matter of a technicality, e-mail and chat are not covered by the PRA, because you argue that they are more like a telephone conversation, which is NOT recorded, than they are correspondence. The revision to the House is a law that "fixes this", but again, I would argue that this law is as unconstitutional as the PRA is.
I argue, again, that Obama, as does any President, has the right to set up a communications infrastructure that is private and unrecordable. But, even if we put that issue aside, how far up on the priority list is this issue, versus this list.
a) jobs b) budget deficit c) looming entitlements meltdown d) not one, but two wars e) aligning tax rates and health care with NATO allies f) trade imbalances with asia
just to throw a couple out there.
If we're going to be political, can we talk about something important?
Slashdot Mirror
It is undocumented and it has binary blob. Though scenario, even for very smart Xorg driver fellas.
And, you might think that "very smart" Xorg fellas might have some better diplomacy than ripping a company on slashdot. Yeah, that's real smart.
Aside from that, what's needed for meaningful open source development is not "here's some code, have fun". Th
But what you are really asking for is free infrastructure. Give us the collaborative tools, documentation, and money, then, you say, you can make an open source system. Well guess what, all of that stuff is part of what the development of non-free software costs. If open source is really going to be free, it means that, you know, it has to be free. You can't really go and sock someone with a bill for a bunch of money to have your "free" project now, can you?
If the Linux community wants open driver development, then, it should write them. Intel made an open source driver, and now the author is condemning the code? Geez, how about fixing it! If you want something to be community owned, well that community has to step up. It's not Intel's responsibility.
The industries were created in the name of science, just as much as green industry and genetic engineering is today.
Proponent : Oh, you fool! Smokestacks are the sign of prosperity! Modern science is bringing you low cost energy and consumer goods! What could go wrong!
Proponent : Hey, instead of using whales for oil, why not get with the program, you luddite, and get it from the ground? Nothing could go wrong!
Proponent: Oh, what are you, a fireman or something? Trains are obsolete! Get onboard with the modern car! What could possibly go wrong!
Well its funny because every manner of fossil fuel is in a state where we are getting "not as good" raw material out of the ground. I'm hardly a big environmentalist but I can't see how anyone can deny any peak fossil fuel or even nearly planetary resource.
The oil we are getting is not as good and harder to extract. In old oil fields you drilled a few hundred feet and you could just pipe it onto a rail car and you were good to go. Now you have to go thousands of feet, blow compressed air into the ground to smash up rocks, heat the oil so you can pump it, and then you have to refine the crap out of it to use it. Even good old coal is certainly not as good - Germany is practically onto burning lignite and that's pretty crappy coal and even in America the good hard stuff is getting used up and we're onto lower grades of coal.
Even for metals you have to wonder where all the good stuff is. In the 19th century, people were getting gold out of the ground and you could SEE chunks of it. Now, when they talk about gold mining, they don't even bother screening the miners because the gold content of the earth is so low that a miner would have to take out an F-150 sized truck of the stuff to get a few bucks.
Meanwhile, up in space, we have an asteroid that is quite literally made out of 20 trillion dollars worth of practically pure iron and precious metals, a planet made out of methane, and we're sitting here with our thumbs up our rears, barring ourselves from using nuclear power to make spaceships with, when unimaginable wealth is in the skies above us.
You don't need to be a scientist or a genius to see where the future is. All you need is to read an assay of a asteroid, and compare that to an assay of what's considered to be a good project today. Right now, if we took a tenth of the capital we spend on developing technologies to get every last scrap of goodness out of our used up planet, we could have enough materials of any kind to essentially end all of poverty on this planet.
There is no long term environmentalism without the conquest of space.
Yeah, that would be pretty crazy. I think more rationally, the Chinese are probably hoping that the USA gets into a nuclear pissing match with the middle east - and THEIR population can expand.
The reality is this article is an escape clause for scientists. Now, we're going to spend trillions of dollars and impoverish millions of people fighting the global warming man, and then, after that, when we go to check to see if this is shit worked, we'll hear from the environmentalists that, "it will work in a thousand years". WTF!
That's not science. That's religion. And just like every 1000 labelled year, we'll find a new reason that Jesus didn't come back, in the form of some new thing that says we should worship mother earth more, so that she will come back to us.
People that believe this stuff are idiots. Maybe we should have US troops in Iraq for a thousand years, because they will be a democracy by then. Maybe we should let the free market handle this current economic crisis, because it will be ok in a thousand years. A thousand years! If the plan that we are to embark on -might- show progress in a thousand years, then our plan is stupid, how about that!
Stupid climate scientist. I wonder if they will come up with something intelligent, before Jesus comes back!
The planet is not infinite. Exponential growth will hit a ceiling, whether you want to believe it or not. Any nerd should know that.
That is why we have wars, and any nerd should know that. All we need is a little nuclear war in asia and all of our problems are solved.
I doubt she genuinely modelled the technology correctly but what you could do is model technological improvement as a multi-faceted project plan with dollars and deadlines and scientific managers assigned to each breakthrough. This would be more of a manhattan style or Apollo style project. This top down approach to science is in the reverse of the present basic US science policy, which is basic research oriented. But, you could have all US science policy be top down, with branches for different paths that might emerge as discoveries are made and a process to invalidate branches, and then reassign or dismiss the scientists that worked on those invalidated branches. From there, you can calculate the best case, cost benefit, by examining the research branch that yields the highest climate alteration per $ spent, and then, various other branches.
I'm building a robot soldier. It will have a pistol in one hand, and a club in another, so it can club a bunch of people, and shoot the rest, because the pistol will be fed by 2000 rounds stored in its arm. It will weight 400lbs. Build 500,000 of these things, and we won't have to worry about hearts and minds. We'll just unleash fire breathing metal terror on our enemies, and they to us, and all that will be left is a bunch of robots running in circles until they run out humans and batteries. But hey, I'll get tons of government money to do research.
I thought one of the deals holding up the big wheel spinning in space for artificial gravity - like the station in 2001 A Space Odyssey was connections between the core and the spinning part. Maybe somehow this will help.
Well if some malicious person uses your computer, it's your fault for not protecting it.
No its not, not at all. You don't blame the victims for being criminals, you blame the criminals. Instead of saying that women shouldn't wear pretty sundresses in strange places or people should run virus protection software, how about we just start executing rapists and hackers instead?
Criminals have too many rights. I say, every time we catch an identity thief, we hang the son of a bitch in the public square so we can watch him rot until he's a skeleton.
I actually can see the Democrats' point in banning Trans fat, if the science were actually trustworthy and not subject to political manipulation. But I don't trust that it is, so therefor, I'd say throw a label on it and in doing so agree with you.
Even in a free market system, government has the right to regulate commerce. The difference between Soviet Russia and the West is that generally, the person who engages in commerce in the West is entitled to a right to private property whereas there is little private property in Soviet Russia. Note that, even though Democrats are often tagged as being "socialist", at their political worst, they would still be considered free marketers, largely because they invented free trade (credit Wilson/Roosevelt), and although they have higher taxes and redistribution of wealth.
Wouldn't IPv6 adoption solve this problem? The whole reason that you have to use CAPTCHAS, I thought, was to guard against machine generated registrations. If you have a high number of registrations per IP address, then you could probably rule that out as a bot. But... you can't do that now because of NATs. In an IPv6, un-NATed world, you could. Even more, you could create a world wide database of suspected BOT computers and simply block them altogether. Perhaps if companies doing business online began pushing for IPv6 adoption themselves, the process might be moved along a bit more rapidly.
At least we can safely say that Democrats have no problem with corporate welfare either. Yep, all of these embryonic stem cells are miracle cures, but, god forbid, every biotech company feels the need to pony up to Washington so Obama can pay for the research.
Man, there's been a law that said that private companies can't do their own stem cell research, its only been federal funding. And if these stem cells require so much federal funding to research, just how great can they really be? I would think a farsighted company would invest in this stuff on its own merit. I mean, if Microsoft can blow $100 million in 199x dollars to make Bob and Clippy, don't you think a big pharma company could fund a drug based on stem cells that might make people walk again? Geez, I would think the demand justifies the research. But oh no, scientists and the suits they work for are too lazy to even take that risk, and its taxpayers on the hook for that too.
It's bad enough that universities are already allowed to patent research that taxpayers pay for, which is pretty much bullshit. Now, we have to pay these people to research something that they will patent so that they can turn around and charge us millions of dollars for a drug we've already paid for. What a bunch of crooks. Burn Harvard down!
Uh, this isn't just government.
Pretty much anything that anyone does has some negative impact to someone else. That's just life.
The problem is one of scale. Everyone can do something that impacts someone else, but when the government does it, it impacts a lot of people. You want the shiny new national power grid? Fine, but what about the thousands of people who are going to have their land taken and property values skewered by the eminent domain needed to get it.
Your words would mean a lot more if red states didn't still take more federal aid dollars than they paid out in taxes. They consistently leech money off the blue states
Have you looked at the news lately? All the blue states are in debt up to their eyeballs, have these huge entitlement bills and are facing population declines, and crying for help.
But with that said, I would think most red states would prefer to not have the federal aid and be allowed to develop their own land as they see fit, without interference from the blue states. But alas, red states cannot mine, cannot drill, cannot do anything without the hand of the blue state holding it down. Look at what Bush did for the red states, when he let them finally get a fair market value for their oil, coal and food last summer. And what did the blue states do? Cry, cry cry. I mean, how much federal aid would Alaska need, if it were allow to drill ANWR, and what about Georgia, to drill off of its coast, or, the Dakotas and Colorado drill and to make shale oil. The blue states block all of that, hand the red states a nickel, and expect we red staters to be grateful?
Were it actually functioning, the record would reflect even the meetings at the bar.
My point is that, if the record were function, the meeting would have never taken place, and the actual economic benefit would have never happened. You need to have secrecy between parties to have honest discussions, otherwise, it doesn't happen. That's my point. Your emphasis on openness, that incidentally, you don't even think you should have to be subject to as an employee yourself, is killing the presidency just as much as you and I both know that it would kill your job too.
When you are sitting on five hundred acres of land, have a good well, a good bunch of cattle, and can grow plenty of food. Look, if anything, the northeastern liberal cities are parasites on the south and the west. Cities used to manufacture things to support themselves. Now they are just a bunch of failed banks and homeless people. At least we red staters make something. What do you blue state people make? Nothing. God help you poor welfare dudes if we get all hip to the internet, as we'll take away all your IT work just like we did your manufacturing.
While a lot of people did well with national infrastructure projects of the past, lets remember that some people did get screwed. There is always someone screwed when the government builds something, and that's why some people hate the government. This grievances are not illegitimate and you need to take the effects of them into account.
For example, let's look at how highways and hoover dam screwed some people.
First off, highways screwed cities. If you can drive anywhere, you don't need the concentration of goods that a city offers, and more so, you allow people to get to work without having to live near it. Essentially this has turned American cities into corporate islands surrounded by ghettos because nobody wants to live in cities but everyone will take the high paying jobs.
Secondly, highways screwed local stores. No national brand could exist without highways to truck goods all over the place. Everyone that bitches about the likes of Walmart, McDonalds and every other chain and laments the death of the local foods in the local store need only look at the highway to see why this took place.
Third, the highways really screwed blacks in America, because usually, in cities, all the overpasses and bridges and what not were all built in black neighborhoods, pretty much destroying the asset base of an already fragile population. New York City is a perfect example of this, and there are many black leaders that curse the name of Moses to this day - and no, not the biblical Moses.
Hoover dam screwed everyone that had local water, or needed the flow from the river downstream of the dam. You go to all this expense to get a good spot downstream and the government shuts you off. Or you go to all this expense to get your own water supply, and the government goes and doles it out to everyone else on the cheap, making your investment worthless.
In a secret situation, people are dishonest all the time. In an open situation, people are dishonest all the time.
I don't believe this at all. I've seen too many deals cut in a bar where the open documentation reflects something completely different than the real deal.
First off, failure to retain records is not a moral obligation. I would argue that, morally, keeping everyone's secrets written down and then exposed actually undermines the Presidency and significantly so. Before the PRA, if you were a private person and had a secret, and shared it with the President, it would stay secret. Now, after the PRA, anyone with a FOIA can now sue to get your secrets, as they are part of his or her official correspondence, and the only thing that stops that process is the Reagan and Bush executive orders which the House now wants to stop. It's stupid. If the left gets its way, no one in their right mind with any information of consequence would talk to the President in any way, leaving the office flying bind. Sigh.
From a "right" perspective, the right to Presidential privacy is documented in the sense that there is no enumerated power in the Constitution to actually tell the President how to conduct his or her business, or to expropriate the President's property. So, in that sense, the PRA of 1978 is flat out unconstitutional, as is the revision to the PRA coming from the Congress.
As a matter of a technicality, e-mail and chat are not covered by the PRA, because you argue that they are more like a telephone conversation, which is NOT recorded, than they are correspondence. The revision to the House is a law that "fixes this", but again, I would argue that this law is as unconstitutional as the PRA is.
I argue, again, that Obama, as does any President, has the right to set up a communications infrastructure that is private and unrecordable. But, even if we put that issue aside, how far up on the priority list is this issue, versus this list.
a) jobs
b) budget deficit
c) looming entitlements meltdown
d) not one, but two wars
e) aligning tax rates and health care with NATO allies
f) trade imbalances with asia
just to throw a couple out there.
If we're going to be political, can we talk about something important?