What happened to good old "Scientist"? It's a nice, nine letters long, and respected. "Experimentalist"... It sounds like what a social deviant might call themselves. Like some weird cult that was rejected by the mainstream sect of Scientist, so they had to add an extra six letters to their name to make up for their lack of membership. Maybe more letters makes it sounds more smart? -_-
This will be about as good for them as "Change Your Underwear, Change Your Life," and similar self-help books. Most of what people call "social skills" problems really boils down to self-esteem. I've been to more than a few support groups, talked to a lot of people about their childhood and adolescent learning experiences, coached people on interviewing skills... I don't have a degree as a therapist, but at least in my social circle I'm the go-to girl (for better and for worse!). That said, don't take what I have to say as the gospel -- it's just my own point of view.
First, there's nothing wrong with so-called "nerds", "geeks", or many other classes of people that are bright, insightful, but often shy and hard to approach. They are rarely rude, they don't insult people, they respect another's boundaries if told directly. About the only thing "wrong" with them is that they miss subtlety and sometimes lack tact. Frankly, there's a lot more wrong with people who consider themselves to have "great social skills" than those who don't -- those people are often manipulative, petty, morally underdeveloped, and often destroy group harmony to further their own ambitions. For the girls, I have two words: Queen bee. Guys who have these "great social skills" are often egotistical, inconsiderate, etc. My friends call it the "napoleon complex", after a certain short guy in history who had a real problem with the word "no."
I guess what I'm saying to the people who think their social skills have the suck... Stop beating yourself up. Contary to popular belief, none of us start out equal. And throughout life we never become equal. Trying to move towards normality is like trying to... Well, it's like the Kobashi Maru, you just can't win. So stop trying. Normal doesn't even exist. If you want these mythical social skills--Go someplace where you think there are others like you (or others who you'd like to be like if your self-concept isn't that developed) and listen to them. Watch, learn, interact. What movies do they watch? What phrases do they say? What little gestures do they make? Reason out what it all means and then practice it on your friends and anyone else you can. And don't judge yourself for awhile -- just go out and try things for a bit. The judging part everyone else will do for you (*trust me on this*), so focus on doing it instead of reviewing it. This isn't a question to be answered, but one to be lived. Someday you will find yourself experiencing the answer.
I have known several nurses, and many more in the helping professions, and their advice has been universally the same to me: Never get an organ donor card. Never. This is for two reasons. The first is that there is a huge shortage of tissue across the board. The second is that most of the hospital staff knows this and they aren't going to work as hard to save your life if you've got one of those organ donor cards. My friends have actually overheard doctors talking and saying to the effect of -- "Well, he kinda screwed himself here, hitting that other car head on at 80 MPH. Damn drunk. We could spend $40k in surgery on a 1 in 7 chance that he'll survive, or we can take his organs now and be 85% sure it was the right choice to make. And the surgeon's already put fifteen hours in today! I don't want to be the one to tell him he's got another four hours before he can go home for this bonehead..."
These people make triage decisions every day. Don't take this personally, but you aren't a person laying on the table but a machine that's broken. You're just like a thousand other lumps of flesh that come through the doors every day. Don't think you're special. Do. Not. Real life is not like those campy medical/reality TV shows you laugh along with. There are no witty one liners, there is no epic drama where the doctor comes in and realizes it's some rare disease from bum fuck egypt with a cursory glance. There's just a lot of really tired people with a dark and dry sense of humor, who live on caffeine, try not to make any big mistakes, and hope their significant other will put up with the long hours and 4am emergency pages for just a few more years until they pay off their student loans.
That doesn't mean they don't care, or that they're ghoulish devils come to suck your precious organs. But it does mean-- don't put that sticker on your license. They don't know you. They don't care. There's a thousand other people behind you and a thousand more ahead of you and they have a job to do. No. I'm not lying. No this isn't an urban legend. No I didn't hear this from a friend of a friend, I heard this directly from the mouths of the people who can point out names and faces of the people who have said stuff like this--Just so we're clear. I'm not trying to scare you, I have no hidden agenda. If you really want to be an organ donor, tell your friends and family, have it in your will, tell them where it is, and make sure they're clear that it's what you really want and you'll come back and haunt their ass if they don't make your last requests. Just don't put it on your license.
"Set it loose." Does Windows 7 have rabies? Is it about to start gnawing on people passing by it? Is it not potty trained yet? More to the point... Why are we advertising Windows 7 here. It's really more something for E! Weekly -- Because as far as I can tell... Windows 7 is just Windows XP with a nose job. And dear god, has it gotten fat... Can it even fit into a size 16 now? Next week's headline: "Ballmer and Seven Check into Weight Management Clinic," with a paparazi photo showing him throwing chairs at the other inmates. Microsoft claims it was shopped... Film at 11.
As much as I don't want to say it, ethics don't mean crap these days. If you hack into a system and leave a note saying "Hey, hacked your box, here's how I did it, here's how to fix it, Thanks. Signed, Good Samaritan"... It only means they will send an army of lawyers and g-men after you because you embarassed them, and because while techies like us might understand what the hacker wanted to accomplish, management will not. Frankly, given that there is no protection for people who adhere to the hacker ethos as opposed to those who don't, there is no incentive do be nice. If you get the chance, gut the bastards and don't leave anything behind except a zero'd drive and a message on the screen saying "Next time, don't use a 'password' as the root login." Is it damaging? Yes. But if you don't crap the server, all you're doing is beating the hornet's nest with a stick.
It's sad that nobody has thought to pass a law to protect digital good samaritans -- that is, people who discover and report (in good faith) security issues either to the people running the servers directly, or the vendor(s) of the software/hardware that is vulnerable -- provided they do nothing else but confirm the exploit is present and notify the appropriate parties. And, of course, do not retain copies of any sensitive information once the report is made.
Is it any different than finding an unlocked car in the parking lot and opening the door, pushing the door lock, closing the door, and continuing on your merry way? A pity the legal system does not see it this way... Which leaves only the recourse of scorched earth to make the point.
Yes. Our community has made excellent progress this past year. We created our first undead corporation. We shall now replicate this process to form legions of unkillable tech companies that are immune to lawyers, governments, and fanboys. And Microsoft outdid themselves... We thought Microsoft Bob was their rock bottom, but Vista proved that our expectations were, perhaps, not low enough. Wonder twin powers of Vampirism and Suck unite!
Manned space exploration may not be economical given more pressing domestic needs at present. But cutting back there doesn't mean cutting back on space exploration as a whole. We still need to send people up from time to time to maintain all that stuff orbiting out there. Just maybe not as often... at least for now, until the situation on the ground improves.
None of this changes the main thrust of my argument. First, you're right - we don't know how to build any kind of fusion reactor. But the biggest source of working fusion we know of is sitting at the center of our solar system and we'd do well to investigate it. Point still stands that exploring space might open up avenues we simply won't discover terrestrially. As to microgravity research... hey, I'm just throwing it in as a potential. I'm sure there's many better examples that the slashdot crowd can come up with. Don't get all techie on me and miss the point of my argument because the details taste funny.
The reason for a civil space program is pragmatic. The military and government is concerned with goals that are separate and distinct from civilian interests. But what are those interests?
The military is concerned with control, management, and protection of national assets. Communications, surveillance, and counter-terrorism are primary goals. Towards this end, the military produces missiles and delivery systems capable of providing this. But the military has no need to explore space, or advance scientific research beyond this.
There is no military or security reason to put someone on the moon, or map out the surface of other celestial bodies. However our understanding of these can advance civilian interest. For example, the helium-3 surface deposits on the moon could provide a energy source far greater than that of fission or conventional power generation. Exploration of the martian environment could provide clues to the formation of our own planet and answer a question long-sought after by both scientists, philosophers, and theologians -- where do we come from? How did we become what we are today? By deploying powerful sensing technology into space we can peer deeper into the universe and unlock many secrets, providing advances in physics, metallurgy, and many other fields. Putting people into space allows for research in microgravity and zero gravity environments. Certain molecular structures only form in the absence of a strong gravitational field. It could provide for advances in building materials, or allow for the development of quantum devices that may not be possible to produce terrestrially (or be prohibitively expensive) en masse. Frankly, there is considerable research that needs to be done.
Military and scientific needs can sometimes be at cross purposes. The creation of a fusion power generator with a net positive output would be a major advancement for any country. Further exploration of the moon may in fact provide this as there are isotopes found there that are very amiable to this goal, much more so than any terrestrial source. However, such a powerful energy source could be used to create star-wars styled weapons, making land-based particle accelerators a reality, or other advanced weapons systems that simply aren't practical to deploy today. Localized atmospheric heating, strong RF fields to provide an ionization layer above a target, etc., all become possible with a large energy source. Because of this, the military would likely move to be an obstacle in such research because it threatens the balance of power. Perhaps it already has.
The military and civilian programs should work in tandem when possible to reduce overall costs, but should also be allowed to initiate their own programs independently of each other, as the need arises. To collapse the two into a single entity gives rise to questions of trust, integrity, and overall effectiveness. Ultimately, it would not be as beneficial to society as the present system is, though in the short term it would offer some economic benefit -- but at the expense of long-term economic and social gain.
I may be skeptical. Using the Linux card is a great way to get a better deal from Microsoft. The bigger you yell the better the deal.
Eventually though they won't be able to offer discounts anymore because they won't be making any profit. It's not a sustainable model. Sooner or later, Microsoft is going to have to eat cow.
I'll start taking you "Green is BS" people a little more seriously when you stop using your FUD.
Well, as long as you asked me to look it up, and because you just had to take my general statement and turn it into a specific instance, well then okay -- here you go. Word from Toyota itself stating that most emission ratings are higher in the Prius than gasoline powered vehicles -- with exception only to the driving cycle.
In plain english, your champion green car is less green to produce than those evil gas burning cars.
What, do they paint it green? Is it because it consumes less electricity? Is it because the circuit boards are made out of cardboard and bio-degradable silly putty? Or is this whole "green" movement nothing but an excuse for the boomers to try to look responsible in the waning years of their power, covering up the gross excesses of the past few decades, living amongst superfluous abundance while the rest of us watched the economy go straight to hell? These people jabber about carbon footprints, kilowatts, and they act like this is hard science. Most of the terms these "greenies" use are vague and could be defined many ways. People think driving an electric car is green -- but then fail to take into account that those high performance batteries are highly toxic and need replaced every few years. And the aluminum required to build those cars to be light enough to be practical requires huge amounts of electricity -- and most of that energy is created by burning coal.
The problem with the green movement, and any product that caters to it, is two-fold: One, lack of total picture. There is no objective way to compare two products in a similar category in a cradle-to-grave capacity. Fundamentally, it can't yet be done because we don't know what's more or less harmful than the next thing -- does a ton of carbon monoxide in the atmosphere equate to "more harm" than several ounces of CFCs? Without a way to make a direct comparison, or have a way to objectively measure a products "green performance", calling something green is meaningless. The second problem is... Many green products are of inferior quality and are higher priced than their non-green counterparts.
Why is this sham movement getting attention in the technical community? I'm not saying this as a troll, I honestly want to know -- how can you people as engineers and scientists look at this and say that any aspect of this so-called movement is objective?
Yeah, we're unemployed because of the last job package for China and India... it was called the H1B visa program, followed by changes to tax law to allow companies to "export" the work. Hell, even Canada gets more work out of US companies than our own citizens these days.
I think you completely missed my point. Without Jobs, there is no Apple. If Apple wants to survive, it needs to move away from cult of personality and provide a brand identity that is NOT tied to any one person. A mascot, or some other abstract, which can be manipulated by the company. Like Mickey Mouse and Disney (though I want that mouse dead so bad for the copyright crap Disney pulled)
Pardon me for saying, but insider theft in every business aspect has dominated the charts -- over 80% in most cases. Most case studies I've seen in computer security point to this as the overriding concern in setting up corporate networks and systems. And now comes along a report saying that this has been turned on its head and the reverse is true?
I smell a rat, and looking at the name on the report, I think I might have found the cheese too.
Furthermore, the ability for individual investors to own small pieces as shareholders rather than putting all their wealth into a single business venture, means that such huge industry failures doesn't completely bankrupt the many.
You make spreading out risk sound like a benefit. Maybe if risk wasn't spread out to the point where billions could be lost in poor decisions by a few people -- because those few people would be the only ones harmed by it, we wouldn't see it as much. I don't think the many should pay for the mistakes of the few -- if someone truly fracked up (like the induhviduals responsible for those companies) they alone should bear the burden or at the very least removed from consideration in any future business decisions where significant amounts of money is involved by rule of law.
Nobody wants to talk about just how stupid it is to make a company with a net capitalization somewhere above $160 billion dollars based entirely on one persona. Microsoft might have had Bill Gates at the helm, but nobody ever said Bill Gates is Microsoft. Microsoft was Windows, not Bill Gates. But what's Apple? Apple is ________. Apple might have a great marketing group, but Apple as a brand identity doesn't actually mean anything. It's smoke and mirrors. You the Pepsi logo and you think "Soda". You see the Microsoft logo and think "Windows". You see CNN, T-mobile, Coca-cola, Ford, and you can put something on the other side of that equals sign.
But not for Apple. Apple means __________. And when Jobs is out of the picture, it's going to be very obvious to the rest of the world that Apple doesn't have a core identity. It's just a big tech investment firm run on image and glitz. And it's ruin will be textbook material for business majors for decades to come, for both how unique its promotional campaign was, but also how flawed it was as a long-term strategy.
Yes, because someone sending spam from their computer is obviously as bad as driving a car bomb into an embassy. In other news, terrorism is now a meaningless fear word. And "aiding an enemy foreign power"... is there anyone left that isn't in that category these days?
You're an idiot, don't think I can say it in any nice way.
It's fine to be a critic, but how else do you explain the total lack of progress in our industry in the past five years for any reason OTHER than the recent changes to intellectual property law? The economic downturn explains some of the reason, but it can't be the total. And what does every law have in common with every other? It advantages one group while disadvantaging another. At least I'm trying to explain the current change, whereas you seem content to sit in your chair and blow holes in anyone who's trying to reason out the problem.
The truth of DTV is that it's an excuse to force most of the population to cough up $500-$900 in a short period of time. It creates an artificial demand spike so that a select few corporations can profit from mass-exploitation. The fact that the vouchers are running out just confirms that people don't care about the Great New Wonderful High Definition Quality Orgasmic Display Technology Of Much Goodness BUY IT NOW. And why did it run out of money? Because they told the FCC that everyone wanted new TVs... I mean, who'd want to be saddled with last year's technology, right? Well, that would be us poor mother frackers who don't care to spend that much money for some passive display tech when we could just as easily go and buy a laptop and watch videos on THAT instead. And, big surprise, what's the major advertising point right now on a lot of laptops? Multimedia and a DVD drive. Go. Figure.
I hope television dies right here and now and consumers start downloading massive quantities of video online, choking the crap out of our ISPs and prompting a digital crisis as the commercial infrastructure of the internet burns. Those same corporate interests then will be scrambling to explain to congressional oversight committees why everything went to hell. And the beautiful part is that by strangling the internet, it'll force companies to compete for a limited resource -- they won't be able to ally themselves against consumer interest anymore.
The digital transition means less for television than it does for the future of the internet. Interesting, isn't it? Maybe they'll make a song about it -- "Internet Killed the TV Star?"
For every evil corporation that "stole" an idea from a student, I'd wager there's a student who went to a state school on a publicly-paid scholarship, came up with a million-dollar idea, and immediately went "MINE! MINE! ALL MINE!"
Yeah, but what's the point in funding education if not so people can make a contribution to society (and le gasp! benefit from it themselves)? Corporations by definition don't create anything -- people do. Corporations are what take from some people to give to others, as a social construct. And this is why they're evil, not because a corporation steals (it cannot do such a thing because it's an intangible), but because a corporation as a social construct enables a few to steal and profit from the work of the many. Tell Marx I said hi too, if you see him.;)
How was it that Ghandi put it? First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win? I don't think it's any different in business. No matter how good your idea, they'll ignore it or tell you it's shit so you give up, leaving them wide open to come in and take it. No, sorry -- but as an artist I know exactly how jealously one should guard their work. You have to be a puffer-fish, as my teacher once said. Or put another way --
"Many giant corporations have no need of a patent system. They may obtain patents, but only as a defense against some little machine shop operator who might otherwise invent and patent something the public would demand and the big corporation would have to negotiate for, instead of just adding the item to its product line. Many large corporations would be glad to compete on size, nationwide service, high volume, strong finance, and prompt delivery. They can kill off smaller competitors on any of those bases, unless the small competitor has a patent on a product somebody wants to buy." -- Howard Markey, Former P Chief Judge of the CAFC (In Some Patent Problems --Philosophical, Philological, and Procedural 80 F. R. D. 203, p. 210)
Well, first, be careful what you sign. And second, don't use college resources or turn in any code from your project in as homework. People wonder why America is losing its edge and it's because corporations and organizations steal ideas from the poor to make themselves rich. The net result is there is no incentive for innovation unless it is under contract, NDA, lock and key. Which is another way of saying there will be no innovation, at least not in this country. The concept of intellectual property is artificial and harmful to the public good, but our legislators don't care because they've reduced the definition of the public good to the Gross Domestic Product.
If you want to innovate... Move to a developing country. The United States is just a stagnant cesspool when it comes to science and technology these days.
Slashdot Mirror
What happened to good old "Scientist"? It's a nice, nine letters long, and respected. "Experimentalist"... It sounds like what a social deviant might call themselves. Like some weird cult that was rejected by the mainstream sect of Scientist, so they had to add an extra six letters to their name to make up for their lack of membership. Maybe more letters makes it sounds more smart? -_-
This will be about as good for them as "Change Your Underwear, Change Your Life," and similar self-help books. Most of what people call "social skills" problems really boils down to self-esteem. I've been to more than a few support groups, talked to a lot of people about their childhood and adolescent learning experiences, coached people on interviewing skills... I don't have a degree as a therapist, but at least in my social circle I'm the go-to girl (for better and for worse!). That said, don't take what I have to say as the gospel -- it's just my own point of view.
First, there's nothing wrong with so-called "nerds", "geeks", or many other classes of people that are bright, insightful, but often shy and hard to approach. They are rarely rude, they don't insult people, they respect another's boundaries if told directly. About the only thing "wrong" with them is that they miss subtlety and sometimes lack tact. Frankly, there's a lot more wrong with people who consider themselves to have "great social skills" than those who don't -- those people are often manipulative, petty, morally underdeveloped, and often destroy group harmony to further their own ambitions. For the girls, I have two words: Queen bee. Guys who have these "great social skills" are often egotistical, inconsiderate, etc. My friends call it the "napoleon complex", after a certain short guy in history who had a real problem with the word "no."
I guess what I'm saying to the people who think their social skills have the suck... Stop beating yourself up. Contary to popular belief, none of us start out equal. And throughout life we never become equal. Trying to move towards normality is like trying to... Well, it's like the Kobashi Maru, you just can't win. So stop trying. Normal doesn't even exist. If you want these mythical social skills--Go someplace where you think there are others like you (or others who you'd like to be like if your self-concept isn't that developed) and listen to them. Watch, learn, interact. What movies do they watch? What phrases do they say? What little gestures do they make? Reason out what it all means and then practice it on your friends and anyone else you can. And don't judge yourself for awhile -- just go out and try things for a bit. The judging part everyone else will do for you (*trust me on this*), so focus on doing it instead of reviewing it. This isn't a question to be answered, but one to be lived. Someday you will find yourself experiencing the answer.
I have known several nurses, and many more in the helping professions, and their advice has been universally the same to me: Never get an organ donor card. Never. This is for two reasons. The first is that there is a huge shortage of tissue across the board. The second is that most of the hospital staff knows this and they aren't going to work as hard to save your life if you've got one of those organ donor cards. My friends have actually overheard doctors talking and saying to the effect of -- "Well, he kinda screwed himself here, hitting that other car head on at 80 MPH. Damn drunk. We could spend $40k in surgery on a 1 in 7 chance that he'll survive, or we can take his organs now and be 85% sure it was the right choice to make. And the surgeon's already put fifteen hours in today! I don't want to be the one to tell him he's got another four hours before he can go home for this bonehead..."
These people make triage decisions every day. Don't take this personally, but you aren't a person laying on the table but a machine that's broken. You're just like a thousand other lumps of flesh that come through the doors every day. Don't think you're special. Do. Not. Real life is not like those campy medical/reality TV shows you laugh along with. There are no witty one liners, there is no epic drama where the doctor comes in and realizes it's some rare disease from bum fuck egypt with a cursory glance. There's just a lot of really tired people with a dark and dry sense of humor, who live on caffeine, try not to make any big mistakes, and hope their significant other will put up with the long hours and 4am emergency pages for just a few more years until they pay off their student loans.
That doesn't mean they don't care, or that they're ghoulish devils come to suck your precious organs. But it does mean-- don't put that sticker on your license. They don't know you. They don't care. There's a thousand other people behind you and a thousand more ahead of you and they have a job to do. No. I'm not lying. No this isn't an urban legend. No I didn't hear this from a friend of a friend, I heard this directly from the mouths of the people who can point out names and faces of the people who have said stuff like this--Just so we're clear. I'm not trying to scare you, I have no hidden agenda. If you really want to be an organ donor, tell your friends and family, have it in your will, tell them where it is, and make sure they're clear that it's what you really want and you'll come back and haunt their ass if they don't make your last requests. Just don't put it on your license.
"Hello Lexus Owner! This Car will self destruct in 10...9...8..." ... For extra evil, make the first two minutes of the audio dead air.
"Set it loose." Does Windows 7 have rabies? Is it about to start gnawing on people passing by it? Is it not potty trained yet? More to the point... Why are we advertising Windows 7 here. It's really more something for E! Weekly -- Because as far as I can tell... Windows 7 is just Windows XP with a nose job. And dear god, has it gotten fat... Can it even fit into a size 16 now? Next week's headline: "Ballmer and Seven Check into Weight Management Clinic," with a paparazi photo showing him throwing chairs at the other inmates. Microsoft claims it was shopped... Film at 11.
As much as I don't want to say it, ethics don't mean crap these days. If you hack into a system and leave a note saying "Hey, hacked your box, here's how I did it, here's how to fix it, Thanks. Signed, Good Samaritan"... It only means they will send an army of lawyers and g-men after you because you embarassed them, and because while techies like us might understand what the hacker wanted to accomplish, management will not. Frankly, given that there is no protection for people who adhere to the hacker ethos as opposed to those who don't, there is no incentive do be nice. If you get the chance, gut the bastards and don't leave anything behind except a zero'd drive and a message on the screen saying "Next time, don't use a 'password' as the root login." Is it damaging? Yes. But if you don't crap the server, all you're doing is beating the hornet's nest with a stick.
It's sad that nobody has thought to pass a law to protect digital good samaritans -- that is, people who discover and report (in good faith) security issues either to the people running the servers directly, or the vendor(s) of the software/hardware that is vulnerable -- provided they do nothing else but confirm the exploit is present and notify the appropriate parties. And, of course, do not retain copies of any sensitive information once the report is made.
Is it any different than finding an unlocked car in the parking lot and opening the door, pushing the door lock, closing the door, and continuing on your merry way? A pity the legal system does not see it this way... Which leaves only the recourse of scorched earth to make the point.
Yes. Our community has made excellent progress this past year. We created our first undead corporation. We shall now replicate this process to form legions of unkillable tech companies that are immune to lawyers, governments, and fanboys. And Microsoft outdid themselves... We thought Microsoft Bob was their rock bottom, but Vista proved that our expectations were, perhaps, not low enough. Wonder twin powers of Vampirism and Suck unite!
Manned space exploration may not be economical given more pressing domestic needs at present. But cutting back there doesn't mean cutting back on space exploration as a whole. We still need to send people up from time to time to maintain all that stuff orbiting out there. Just maybe not as often... at least for now, until the situation on the ground improves.
None of this changes the main thrust of my argument. First, you're right - we don't know how to build any kind of fusion reactor. But the biggest source of working fusion we know of is sitting at the center of our solar system and we'd do well to investigate it. Point still stands that exploring space might open up avenues we simply won't discover terrestrially. As to microgravity research... hey, I'm just throwing it in as a potential. I'm sure there's many better examples that the slashdot crowd can come up with. Don't get all techie on me and miss the point of my argument because the details taste funny.
The reason for a civil space program is pragmatic. The military and government is concerned with goals that are separate and distinct from civilian interests. But what are those interests?
The military is concerned with control, management, and protection of national assets. Communications, surveillance, and counter-terrorism are primary goals. Towards this end, the military produces missiles and delivery systems capable of providing this. But the military has no need to explore space, or advance scientific research beyond this.
There is no military or security reason to put someone on the moon, or map out the surface of other celestial bodies. However our understanding of these can advance civilian interest. For example, the helium-3 surface deposits on the moon could provide a energy source far greater than that of fission or conventional power generation. Exploration of the martian environment could provide clues to the formation of our own planet and answer a question long-sought after by both scientists, philosophers, and theologians -- where do we come from? How did we become what we are today? By deploying powerful sensing technology into space we can peer deeper into the universe and unlock many secrets, providing advances in physics, metallurgy, and many other fields. Putting people into space allows for research in microgravity and zero gravity environments. Certain molecular structures only form in the absence of a strong gravitational field. It could provide for advances in building materials, or allow for the development of quantum devices that may not be possible to produce terrestrially (or be prohibitively expensive) en masse. Frankly, there is considerable research that needs to be done.
Military and scientific needs can sometimes be at cross purposes. The creation of a fusion power generator with a net positive output would be a major advancement for any country. Further exploration of the moon may in fact provide this as there are isotopes found there that are very amiable to this goal, much more so than any terrestrial source. However, such a powerful energy source could be used to create star-wars styled weapons, making land-based particle accelerators a reality, or other advanced weapons systems that simply aren't practical to deploy today. Localized atmospheric heating, strong RF fields to provide an ionization layer above a target, etc., all become possible with a large energy source. Because of this, the military would likely move to be an obstacle in such research because it threatens the balance of power. Perhaps it already has.
The military and civilian programs should work in tandem when possible to reduce overall costs, but should also be allowed to initiate their own programs independently of each other, as the need arises. To collapse the two into a single entity gives rise to questions of trust, integrity, and overall effectiveness. Ultimately, it would not be as beneficial to society as the present system is, though in the short term it would offer some economic benefit -- but at the expense of long-term economic and social gain.
I may be skeptical. Using the Linux card is a great way to get a better deal from Microsoft. The bigger you yell the better the deal.
Eventually though they won't be able to offer discounts anymore because they won't be making any profit. It's not a sustainable model. Sooner or later, Microsoft is going to have to eat cow.
I'll start taking you "Green is BS" people a little more seriously when you stop using your FUD.
Well, as long as you asked me to look it up, and because you just had to take my general statement and turn it into a specific instance, well then okay -- here you go. Word from Toyota itself stating that most emission ratings are higher in the Prius than gasoline powered vehicles -- with exception only to the driving cycle.
In plain english, your champion green car is less green to produce than those evil gas burning cars.
What, do they paint it green? Is it because it consumes less electricity? Is it because the circuit boards are made out of cardboard and bio-degradable silly putty? Or is this whole "green" movement nothing but an excuse for the boomers to try to look responsible in the waning years of their power, covering up the gross excesses of the past few decades, living amongst superfluous abundance while the rest of us watched the economy go straight to hell? These people jabber about carbon footprints, kilowatts, and they act like this is hard science. Most of the terms these "greenies" use are vague and could be defined many ways. People think driving an electric car is green -- but then fail to take into account that those high performance batteries are highly toxic and need replaced every few years. And the aluminum required to build those cars to be light enough to be practical requires huge amounts of electricity -- and most of that energy is created by burning coal.
The problem with the green movement, and any product that caters to it, is two-fold: One, lack of total picture. There is no objective way to compare two products in a similar category in a cradle-to-grave capacity. Fundamentally, it can't yet be done because we don't know what's more or less harmful than the next thing -- does a ton of carbon monoxide in the atmosphere equate to "more harm" than several ounces of CFCs? Without a way to make a direct comparison, or have a way to objectively measure a products "green performance", calling something green is meaningless. The second problem is... Many green products are of inferior quality and are higher priced than their non-green counterparts.
Why is this sham movement getting attention in the technical community? I'm not saying this as a troll, I honestly want to know -- how can you people as engineers and scientists look at this and say that any aspect of this so-called movement is objective?
Yeah, we're unemployed because of the last job package for China and India... it was called the H1B visa program, followed by changes to tax law to allow companies to "export" the work. Hell, even Canada gets more work out of US companies than our own citizens these days.
I think you completely missed my point. Without Jobs, there is no Apple. If Apple wants to survive, it needs to move away from cult of personality and provide a brand identity that is NOT tied to any one person. A mascot, or some other abstract, which can be manipulated by the company. Like Mickey Mouse and Disney (though I want that mouse dead so bad for the copyright crap Disney pulled)
Pardon me for saying, but insider theft in every business aspect has dominated the charts -- over 80% in most cases. Most case studies I've seen in computer security point to this as the overriding concern in setting up corporate networks and systems. And now comes along a report saying that this has been turned on its head and the reverse is true?
I smell a rat, and looking at the name on the report, I think I might have found the cheese too.
Furthermore, the ability for individual investors to own small pieces as shareholders rather than putting all their wealth into a single business venture, means that such huge industry failures doesn't completely bankrupt the many.
You make spreading out risk sound like a benefit. Maybe if risk wasn't spread out to the point where billions could be lost in poor decisions by a few people -- because those few people would be the only ones harmed by it, we wouldn't see it as much. I don't think the many should pay for the mistakes of the few -- if someone truly fracked up (like the induhviduals responsible for those companies) they alone should bear the burden or at the very least removed from consideration in any future business decisions where significant amounts of money is involved by rule of law.
Nobody wants to talk about just how stupid it is to make a company with a net capitalization somewhere above $160 billion dollars based entirely on one persona. Microsoft might have had Bill Gates at the helm, but nobody ever said Bill Gates is Microsoft. Microsoft was Windows, not Bill Gates. But what's Apple? Apple is ________. Apple might have a great marketing group, but Apple as a brand identity doesn't actually mean anything. It's smoke and mirrors. You the Pepsi logo and you think "Soda". You see the Microsoft logo and think "Windows". You see CNN, T-mobile, Coca-cola, Ford, and you can put something on the other side of that equals sign.
But not for Apple. Apple means __________. And when Jobs is out of the picture, it's going to be very obvious to the rest of the world that Apple doesn't have a core identity. It's just a big tech investment firm run on image and glitz. And it's ruin will be textbook material for business majors for decades to come, for both how unique its promotional campaign was, but also how flawed it was as a long-term strategy.
Yes, because someone sending spam from their computer is obviously as bad as driving a car bomb into an embassy. In other news, terrorism is now a meaningless fear word. And "aiding an enemy foreign power"... is there anyone left that isn't in that category these days?
We have always been at war with Oceana.
They create opportunities by preventing the many from bankrupting themselves through failure.
Enron. ...
Haliburton.
The auto industry.
The airline industry.
the "sub prime" market.
O RLY?
You're an idiot, don't think I can say it in any nice way.
It's fine to be a critic, but how else do you explain the total lack of progress in our industry in the past five years for any reason OTHER than the recent changes to intellectual property law? The economic downturn explains some of the reason, but it can't be the total. And what does every law have in common with every other? It advantages one group while disadvantaging another. At least I'm trying to explain the current change, whereas you seem content to sit in your chair and blow holes in anyone who's trying to reason out the problem.
The truth of DTV is that it's an excuse to force most of the population to cough up $500-$900 in a short period of time. It creates an artificial demand spike so that a select few corporations can profit from mass-exploitation. The fact that the vouchers are running out just confirms that people don't care about the Great New Wonderful High Definition Quality Orgasmic Display Technology Of Much Goodness BUY IT NOW. And why did it run out of money? Because they told the FCC that everyone wanted new TVs... I mean, who'd want to be saddled with last year's technology, right? Well, that would be us poor mother frackers who don't care to spend that much money for some passive display tech when we could just as easily go and buy a laptop and watch videos on THAT instead. And, big surprise, what's the major advertising point right now on a lot of laptops? Multimedia and a DVD drive. Go. Figure.
I hope television dies right here and now and consumers start downloading massive quantities of video online, choking the crap out of our ISPs and prompting a digital crisis as the commercial infrastructure of the internet burns. Those same corporate interests then will be scrambling to explain to congressional oversight committees why everything went to hell. And the beautiful part is that by strangling the internet, it'll force companies to compete for a limited resource -- they won't be able to ally themselves against consumer interest anymore.
The digital transition means less for television than it does for the future of the internet. Interesting, isn't it? Maybe they'll make a song about it -- "Internet Killed the TV Star?"
For every evil corporation that "stole" an idea from a student, I'd wager there's a student who went to a state school on a publicly-paid scholarship, came up with a million-dollar idea, and immediately went "MINE! MINE! ALL MINE!"
Yeah, but what's the point in funding education if not so people can make a contribution to society (and le gasp! benefit from it themselves)? Corporations by definition don't create anything -- people do. Corporations are what take from some people to give to others, as a social construct. And this is why they're evil, not because a corporation steals (it cannot do such a thing because it's an intangible), but because a corporation as a social construct enables a few to steal and profit from the work of the many. Tell Marx I said hi too, if you see him. ;)
How was it that Ghandi put it? First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win? I don't think it's any different in business. No matter how good your idea, they'll ignore it or tell you it's shit so you give up, leaving them wide open to come in and take it. No, sorry -- but as an artist I know exactly how jealously one should guard their work. You have to be a puffer-fish, as my teacher once said. Or put another way --
"Many giant corporations have no need of a patent system. They may obtain patents, but only as a defense against some little machine shop operator who might otherwise invent and patent something the public would demand and the big corporation would have to negotiate for, instead of just adding the item to its product line. Many large corporations would be glad to compete on size, nationwide service, high volume, strong finance, and prompt delivery. They can kill off smaller competitors on any of those bases, unless the small competitor has a patent on a product somebody wants to buy."
-- Howard Markey, Former P Chief Judge of the CAFC
(In Some Patent Problems --Philosophical, Philological,
and Procedural 80 F. R. D. 203, p. 210)
Well, first, be careful what you sign. And second, don't use college resources or turn in any code from your project in as homework. People wonder why America is losing its edge and it's because corporations and organizations steal ideas from the poor to make themselves rich. The net result is there is no incentive for innovation unless it is under contract, NDA, lock and key. Which is another way of saying there will be no innovation, at least not in this country. The concept of intellectual property is artificial and harmful to the public good, but our legislators don't care because they've reduced the definition of the public good to the Gross Domestic Product.
If you want to innovate... Move to a developing country. The United States is just a stagnant cesspool when it comes to science and technology these days.