The web hasn't made this behavior any less prevalent, it's just made it easier for people to fall into the trap. There are two camps in the medical community right now; Those who think that medical knowledge should be contained to those who are properly licensed, and those who think knowledge is power (but hope people use it responsibly). If this sounds familiar, it should -- our community (the technical and engineering disciplines) have had the same debate. We've all had our share of "technocondriacs" -- people who insist there's something wrong with their computer, even when we've scanned it with everything, reloaded the operating system, and defragged the drive five times... They somehow think it should run faster, or that there's a button somewhere to do X when there's never been X in that application. And no sniggering about literacy or operating system of choice here -- it happens to users of all backgrounds.
One example is pharmaceutical advertisements. Five years ago, using the words "Erectile Dysfunction" would have left people giggling on the floor. These days, it gets an eye roll and a remembrance of those commercials. It's undisputed some people have a problem rising to the challenge and may not have known there was a treatment for it, but the unintended consequence is a lot of people are taking medications that aren't medically necessary because of self-esteem problems, obesity, or a plethora of other causes that can be treated without a pill. Which of course leads to the "Solve everything with a pill" attitude that our society seems to enjoy, but that's a topic for another day.
I have to side with the idea that knowledge should be out there. My friend just got a horrible ear infection that resulted in extreme pain and puss coming out of her ear because the doctor misdiagnosed it as "swimmers ear"; She needed strong antibiotics and he prescribed drops, and so for three days she's been laid out on a couch screaming and crying every few minutes. She only went back to ER after researching out what else it could be besides swimmers ear, and an ear infection turned up -- there was no difference in the symptoms list, except the pain level. And her mother is a registered nurse who works in a hospital -- she didn't find anything wrong with the diagnosis either. My friend's access to the internet may very well have just saved her some hearing loss this week!
A "horrible" confluence of hacks that is fast, low-level, reliable, and object oriented and gives the programmer full access to everything? So you prefer slow, high-level, unreliable, procedural-based languages that give you little to no access to the underlying infrastructure? You're a visual basic programmer, aren't you?
A "real" language has been classically defined to mean "a language which can compile itself." Perl, Python, and Ruby cannot do that (to my knowledge). Most languages used by web developers are interpretive languages, which fail this test.
Call me jaded, old, and behind the times... But what ever happened to a web browser just being a web browser instead of a development platform with three heads breathing fire, half a dozen plugins, six months of combatability testing, and a kitchen sink? Is there ever a point where a web developer will concede that the web is not the Best Platform for Everything in The Universe(tm)? Or is it just that they were never schooled in the old temple and given a proper appreciation of a real language like C++? Help me out here -- this isn't intended as a flame but an honest question -- where does this attitude that everything has to be crowbar'd into a web interface to be considered modern these days? Because a lot of the problems in this article come down to programmers expanding and bloating their platform/language of choice to do something it was never designed for because That's Just What I Know(tm).:( I cry for these languages. I know after 5pm they go home and hit the frozen dairy products hard to feel better about how fat they've become.
Well, Hawking did suggest that anything at the event horizon would generate anti-matter of an equivalent mass... So the real Hawking could emerge, but not without sending an anti-hawking back. We can test this theory by waiting for the anti-Hawking to run for public office.
I think I see a flaw in your logic... See, crossing the US/Canada border *is* the event horizon. At that point hawking will split into a finite number of hawkings will cross the event horizon, while an equal number of anti-hawkings will stay inside. I'm guessing they'll head to Ohio as soon as they figure out their better halves are sitting down for tea.
I seem to recall that he did a lot of research into black holes. Maybe he's done studying now and is leaving the country so he can get outside the event horizon to publish his findings.
Yeah, I took her to see Twilight on opening day with a friend, and she is reading the book. She's also interested in Harry Potter but it's above her reading level so far. The problem is that it's easier for her to just sit down and watch youtube and play webkinz all day and reading is hard.
It gets easier if you stick with it as we all know, yet it takes drive and ambition to accomplish that. Being told over and over that you're special and gifted leads to the conclusion that if something doesn't come easily right away there's something wrong with you. But if you're told that you start in the same place as everyone else, then you understand its a race and you need to put effort in to be special. Not everyone is a winner then-- So if you don't immediately succeed, you don't look inside and see yourself as ugly or lacking and instead tell yourself -- I just have to try harder. People who know they're in a race don't give up when they see they're falling behind, they push themselves harder and in the end they're better for making it to the finish line even if they didn't finish first because they have the belief that if they keep working at it, someday they'll cross that finish line ahead of the rest. In the long run, earning those victories puts a person's self-esteem on a firm foundation because it's not dependent on the approval of others.
Yes, it's harder, but then self-esteem doesn't come out of a talking head, it comes from earned experience.
Who the hell said anything about perfection? This is about teaching kids that hard work and critical thinking skills pay dividends far more than innate ability or smarts do, an idea I happen to agree with. I didn't have everything spoon-fed to me; I learned from an early age that if I want to be better than average I needed to take my life into my own hands, take risks and eat the consequences, and that hard work eventually leads to a pay off if only I can beat my own impatience. Nothing worth having comes easy and learning to read and write was really hard for me. I have a learning disability and was left-handed... The teachers thought I was a lost cause and someone of "below average" intelligence who'd never amount to anything. It pissed me off enough to try that much harder. I hit the books every day after school and sometimes I'd do my homework crying, but I learned, oh god did I learn.
It doesn't matter how old you are, or when you start... Attitude and believing in yourself will get you far in life, but learning that meant I had to accept that I wasn't a precious snowflake. I wasn't somehow "special" just because I was a kid. I had to make myself special, and I learned a lot of things the hard way, and probably before I was ready. Yeah... She's 12. She's 12 and she can either cut on the dotted line like the teacher says, or she can pick up a book that looks interesting just because and sit down and take the time to read it. She can go with doing the assignment like everyone else, or she can make up her own mind about what it means and take her own initiative. She can learn that the judgements of her friends, teachers, and parents mean less than trusting herself to know what's right.
Why don't you shut up and graze your own spaghetti? Throwing down your parent card like having three kids means more than someone who lives with one is bullshit. I'm just as entitled to my opinion as yours, and I don't have to insult people giving mine either. What exactly is the point of your rant? Could you at least make a coherent argument, rather than just ripping into someone with a personal attack? This is a discussion about video game rating systems, and my two cents' was about the system being overly aggressive in eliminating anything that could be considered "inappropriate" to the point that the only thing left is lifeless and worthless video games that can't teach critical thinking skills or engage the user.
So-called "violent" video games very often have team play, capture the flag, and other social elements that teach people to work together. Number Munchers doesn't exactly measure up there. Does Pacman or Tetris teach them critical thinking skills? No. But Counter Strike sure does -- it teaches you to plan ahead, to know the terrain, to work with other team members... It teaches them how to think in a 3D environment. The Sims teaches people at least some basic understanding of the larger world; Barbie does not. Games like Command and Conquer teach kids that there's often more than one right answer and to adapt and think fast, and that making poor decisions leads to consequences. Webkinz teaches the opposite -- that everybody's a winner and everyone is special. That's not reality and if they grow up with that attitude they're setting themselves up for a massive letdown.
Maybe if your nephews got a few punches in the face after mouthing off, they wouldn't do it so much. Maybe if they played those "violent video games" they'd learn that a TEAM beats the INDIVIDUAL and you need to learn to control violent impulses if you're going to rise above. Maybe by squelching those impulses so much they're just having to find other avenues to release that energy in even less healthy ways. Consider that sir, while you eat your spaghetti.
Which is the least they can do. Seriously though -- they were "misinformed" that the disease that only affects white males but that doesn't excuse the fact that a disease is still a disease and they were being racist douchebags by locking it out in the first place.
I agree completely. but how do you encourage free thinking in a society that considers children the property of their parents until 18? There's an informal term for this too - "chattle", which is a combination of child and cattle.
When I was 12, I had a college-level reading comprehension and my writing was equivalent to a junior in high school. I made my own meals, did my own laundry, cleaned my room, and all the other daily things a person needs to do. Everyone else in my family was the same way by her age. The only variable here is the change in parenting style, which encourages her to be codependent and reliant on others to make every decision about her life... even down to what clothes she'll wear to school that day (not just buying them, but actually being told what she's wearing each day).
They shouldn't receive an award for this. I'm sorry, but telling the video game industry they're doing a good job of "keeping inappropriate" content out of the hands of children is both a slap in the face to the parents that should be watching what their kids are buying, and a slap in the face to the kids who buy these games hoping for something interesting, only to find talking frogs, barbie, and games where everybody gets along and wins -- when they're 14! Why can they go see a few hundred zombies get set on fire, shot at, or otherwise die in the theatre (as long as they're all non-smoking zombies), but can't get the same thing in a video game? This entire idea of "for the sake of the children" has gone too far when children aren't encouraged to take risks and make their own decisions. These "appropriate" video games... I've seen them -- They suck so hard they're in danger of forming an event horizon.
My 12 year old kid sister has been fed a steady diet of these "positive self-esteem" books, videos, and games. Last year I tried to show her Happy Feet (it's a movie, look it up) and she couldn't get past the halfway point because that's where the penguin "got sad". I tried showing her some "real" video games, only to have mom come down on me like a ton of bricks... So it's back to watching bubbles with numbers in it and talking animals. And then mom (and other parents from Generation "Precious Snowflake") wonders why she has no inclination to read, write, do her homework, clean up after herself, or even brush her teeth...
Well, duh... it's because she's being fed sanitized crap that is the electronic equivalent of valium every day!
Or we could just throw them all into a scrap heap. That'll REALLY learn 'em. Actually, let's save on the greenhouse effect even more and go back to using the horse and buggy. And who needs computers? They're just filling up landfills anyway, and we can create more jobs by having people do it the old fashioned way. The economy will be better than ever if we do this!
Okay, it might decrease the already low probability of midair accidents, but the air traffic control system has bigger problems. Firstly, that they are understaffed and overworked. It's the highest stress job in the civilian sector last I looked and these people are pulling 10 and 12 hour shifts every week. They're tired, and they make mistakes. They're also an aging group -- the certification requirements are high, and very, very few people who are under the age of 30 work these jobs. Many of them are set to retire in just a few more years which will stress an already fragile system.
Second, nobody's been investing in airport infrastructure. The planes are getting bigger but the runways aren't and we're not adding new runways either. Part of it is politics but a lot of it is economic.
Third, communications -- they're still using one-way VHF. Two people talk and the signal heterodynes and nobody knows what was said. They need a better comm system.
Lastly, much of the processing infrastructure is running on 1960s tech -- old mainframes. They haven't upgraded in all this time because there's no other options. What good will satellites do if the ground control stations are still running vaccum tubes? We need to network the ground stations together and provide a better interface with the birds in the sky. One of these big iron setups went down in New York and it paralyzed most of the eastern seaboard. That lack of redundancy in such a safety-critical environment is simply unacceptable.
The United States made an attempt at building something similar to the LHC several years ago but funding was cut. It was viewed at the time as a major setback in science and would lead to a brain drain in the United States as scientists went overseas where they could be with better equipment. Funding for the LHC was nearly cut several times amid cries that funding should be focused on "more important" science such as global warming. Part of the reason it got built was precisely because it could show that the EU succeeded where the US failed -- and there's been plenty of rivalry there. Arguably, the reason the EU was brought into existence was to compete with the US. There's a lot of pride tied into making this thing work.
There was a huge political debacle about where the LHC should be built that prevented its construction for several years. So while you can point and say "see? Look at all the cooperation!" the truth is that cooperation took a lot of time and a lot of negotiation. It didn't just happen because scientists are agreeable, friendly sorts that are great with people. And nationalism did, and continues to play a role in the LHCs funding and operational details. That's the nature of international politics -- everybody wants something in return, because there's only one Higgs-boson but there's several hundred positions at the LHC and only a few of them will be paraded through the streets when it's finally found while the rest will toil in obscurity. If you think the nationality of those people isn't important, you're in a dream world. The nationalities of those involved have been very carefully selected.
Bottom line is that they are under a lot of pressure to perform and while it's easy for you and I to understand (as engineers) that these are normal problems... How does it look for the politicians in the middle of a global recession to be looking for "god particles"? Not very and if you were running the show you'd be damn stupid not to be out there glad-handing the purse-holders and assuring them everything is fine. Politics is the reason the LHC could be built in the first place, politics is infused in every major organization -- even scientific ones.
So try and be less idealistic and more realistic. Now, again -- I'm not saying this is why the press release was delayed. I'm just saying it's as plausible a theory as the rest.
The submitters original comment was about how this doesn't seem like CERNs typical "information policy". You put this down as your subject line and then stated that this release of information may have been delayed "perhaps scientists don't like to make statements that they aren't reasonably sure of?" -- My reply was merely to point out an alternative possible explanation, namely that the delay in the release of information may have been motivated by politics. The scientists working on the project likely don't have such motivations, but the people who are providing the funding for this project certainly do, as would those managing the project (and thus responsible for press releases). I'm sure I don't need to tell you of all people the role politics plays in funding of scientific research. -_-
Well, you shouldn't use it except out of necessity, but that goes for any technology. The definition of necessity, however, is a moving target and flamebait to discuss.
It's a point of international pride. The European Union now has something bigger than the United States. They want to be the new cultural center for science. Having their baby explode and fail to do anything for two years after its completion date, when it has cost far more than originally expected (and now needs still more money) is a political black eye. This setback means that the United States is still where it's at for particle physics for the next two years now.
Not sanitizing content on the client side? You're right, it should be done on the server side. That's non negotiable. But it should also be done on the client side.
There's no reason you can't build a UI that relies on JS but degrades gracefully when it's not available, even if that means certain features being disabled.
So you're agreeing with me that you should still be able to submit data to a server via a POST submission when jscript is disabled (ie, degrades gracefully)? I think you mistook my points -- which is exactly about failing gracefully. You're adding a feature to save the user time, and that's a good thing. But if the user doesn't want to use jscript (for a multitude of reasons, including because it isn't available on their browser) -- they should still be able to submit a POST query and get useful results back.
I never said "JS is bad", and I didn't call it a theory either. But I believe accessibility is more important that features or spiffy-shiny. If JS is a requirement to use your website in a meaningful way, you had better have a strong case for that design... And frankly, 99% of what I see on the web is not a strong case for this (despite it being required). And lastly, I'm not a developer in training... I do this professionally and like everyone I have some (achem) religious beliefs about my work. One of my commandments is accessibility is king.
Slashdot Mirror
The web hasn't made this behavior any less prevalent, it's just made it easier for people to fall into the trap. There are two camps in the medical community right now; Those who think that medical knowledge should be contained to those who are properly licensed, and those who think knowledge is power (but hope people use it responsibly). If this sounds familiar, it should -- our community (the technical and engineering disciplines) have had the same debate. We've all had our share of "technocondriacs" -- people who insist there's something wrong with their computer, even when we've scanned it with everything, reloaded the operating system, and defragged the drive five times... They somehow think it should run faster, or that there's a button somewhere to do X when there's never been X in that application. And no sniggering about literacy or operating system of choice here -- it happens to users of all backgrounds.
One example is pharmaceutical advertisements. Five years ago, using the words "Erectile Dysfunction" would have left people giggling on the floor. These days, it gets an eye roll and a remembrance of those commercials. It's undisputed some people have a problem rising to the challenge and may not have known there was a treatment for it, but the unintended consequence is a lot of people are taking medications that aren't medically necessary because of self-esteem problems, obesity, or a plethora of other causes that can be treated without a pill. Which of course leads to the "Solve everything with a pill" attitude that our society seems to enjoy, but that's a topic for another day.
I have to side with the idea that knowledge should be out there. My friend just got a horrible ear infection that resulted in extreme pain and puss coming out of her ear because the doctor misdiagnosed it as "swimmers ear"; She needed strong antibiotics and he prescribed drops, and so for three days she's been laid out on a couch screaming and crying every few minutes. She only went back to ER after researching out what else it could be besides swimmers ear, and an ear infection turned up -- there was no difference in the symptoms list, except the pain level. And her mother is a registered nurse who works in a hospital -- she didn't find anything wrong with the diagnosis either. My friend's access to the internet may very well have just saved her some hearing loss this week!
So which side is right? Both. And neither.
A "horrible" confluence of hacks that is fast, low-level, reliable, and object oriented and gives the programmer full access to everything? So you prefer slow, high-level, unreliable, procedural-based languages that give you little to no access to the underlying infrastructure? You're a visual basic programmer, aren't you?
A "real" language has been classically defined to mean "a language which can compile itself." Perl, Python, and Ruby cannot do that (to my knowledge). Most languages used by web developers are interpretive languages, which fail this test.
Call me jaded, old, and behind the times... But what ever happened to a web browser just being a web browser instead of a development platform with three heads breathing fire, half a dozen plugins, six months of combatability testing, and a kitchen sink? Is there ever a point where a web developer will concede that the web is not the Best Platform for Everything in The Universe(tm)? Or is it just that they were never schooled in the old temple and given a proper appreciation of a real language like C++? Help me out here -- this isn't intended as a flame but an honest question -- where does this attitude that everything has to be crowbar'd into a web interface to be considered modern these days? Because a lot of the problems in this article come down to programmers expanding and bloating their platform/language of choice to do something it was never designed for because That's Just What I Know(tm). :( I cry for these languages. I know after 5pm they go home and hit the frozen dairy products hard to feel better about how fat they've become.
Well, Hawking did suggest that anything at the event horizon would generate anti-matter of an equivalent mass... So the real Hawking could emerge, but not without sending an anti-hawking back. We can test this theory by waiting for the anti-Hawking to run for public office.
We poured over $700 billion into it, and I doubt even he will discover Hawking radiation leaking out. Maybe a few nickels, but that's it.
That's because the black hole is surrounded by a large cloud of Administratium, which absorbs any spare change that might escape.
I think I see a flaw in your logic... See, crossing the US/Canada border *is* the event horizon. At that point hawking will split into a finite number of hawkings will cross the event horizon, while an equal number of anti-hawkings will stay inside. I'm guessing they'll head to Ohio as soon as they figure out their better halves are sitting down for tea.
I seem to recall that he did a lot of research into black holes. Maybe he's done studying now and is leaving the country so he can get outside the event horizon to publish his findings.
See? Even an Anonymous Coward figured it out.
Yes, but even a broken clock is right once a day. ;)
Then I apologize. Clearly I misunderstood. Next time add a smiley face and it'll save us both looking like idiots. :)
Yeah, I took her to see Twilight on opening day with a friend, and she is reading the book. She's also interested in Harry Potter but it's above her reading level so far. The problem is that it's easier for her to just sit down and watch youtube and play webkinz all day and reading is hard.
It gets easier if you stick with it as we all know, yet it takes drive and ambition to accomplish that. Being told over and over that you're special and gifted leads to the conclusion that if something doesn't come easily right away there's something wrong with you. But if you're told that you start in the same place as everyone else, then you understand its a race and you need to put effort in to be special. Not everyone is a winner then-- So if you don't immediately succeed, you don't look inside and see yourself as ugly or lacking and instead tell yourself -- I just have to try harder. People who know they're in a race don't give up when they see they're falling behind, they push themselves harder and in the end they're better for making it to the finish line even if they didn't finish first because they have the belief that if they keep working at it, someday they'll cross that finish line ahead of the rest. In the long run, earning those victories puts a person's self-esteem on a firm foundation because it's not dependent on the approval of others.
Yes, it's harder, but then self-esteem doesn't come out of a talking head, it comes from earned experience.
Who the hell said anything about perfection? This is about teaching kids that hard work and critical thinking skills pay dividends far more than innate ability or smarts do, an idea I happen to agree with. I didn't have everything spoon-fed to me; I learned from an early age that if I want to be better than average I needed to take my life into my own hands, take risks and eat the consequences, and that hard work eventually leads to a pay off if only I can beat my own impatience. Nothing worth having comes easy and learning to read and write was really hard for me. I have a learning disability and was left-handed... The teachers thought I was a lost cause and someone of "below average" intelligence who'd never amount to anything. It pissed me off enough to try that much harder. I hit the books every day after school and sometimes I'd do my homework crying, but I learned, oh god did I learn.
It doesn't matter how old you are, or when you start... Attitude and believing in yourself will get you far in life, but learning that meant I had to accept that I wasn't a precious snowflake. I wasn't somehow "special" just because I was a kid. I had to make myself special, and I learned a lot of things the hard way, and probably before I was ready. Yeah... She's 12. She's 12 and she can either cut on the dotted line like the teacher says, or she can pick up a book that looks interesting just because and sit down and take the time to read it. She can go with doing the assignment like everyone else, or she can make up her own mind about what it means and take her own initiative. She can learn that the judgements of her friends, teachers, and parents mean less than trusting herself to know what's right.
And that's not egotistical... That's wisdom.
Why don't you shut up and graze your own spaghetti? Throwing down your parent card like having three kids means more than someone who lives with one is bullshit. I'm just as entitled to my opinion as yours, and I don't have to insult people giving mine either. What exactly is the point of your rant? Could you at least make a coherent argument, rather than just ripping into someone with a personal attack? This is a discussion about video game rating systems, and my two cents' was about the system being overly aggressive in eliminating anything that could be considered "inappropriate" to the point that the only thing left is lifeless and worthless video games that can't teach critical thinking skills or engage the user.
So-called "violent" video games very often have team play, capture the flag, and other social elements that teach people to work together. Number Munchers doesn't exactly measure up there. Does Pacman or Tetris teach them critical thinking skills? No. But Counter Strike sure does -- it teaches you to plan ahead, to know the terrain, to work with other team members... It teaches them how to think in a 3D environment. The Sims teaches people at least some basic understanding of the larger world; Barbie does not. Games like Command and Conquer teach kids that there's often more than one right answer and to adapt and think fast, and that making poor decisions leads to consequences. Webkinz teaches the opposite -- that everybody's a winner and everyone is special. That's not reality and if they grow up with that attitude they're setting themselves up for a massive letdown.
Maybe if your nephews got a few punches in the face after mouthing off, they wouldn't do it so much. Maybe if they played those "violent video games" they'd learn that a TEAM beats the INDIVIDUAL and you need to learn to control violent impulses if you're going to rise above. Maybe by squelching those impulses so much they're just having to find other avenues to release that energy in even less healthy ways. Consider that sir, while you eat your spaghetti.
Which is the least they can do. Seriously though -- they were "misinformed" that the disease that only affects white males but that doesn't excuse the fact that a disease is still a disease and they were being racist douchebags by locking it out in the first place.
I agree completely. but how do you encourage free thinking in a society that considers children the property of their parents until 18? There's an informal term for this too - "chattle", which is a combination of child and cattle.
When I was 12, I had a college-level reading comprehension and my writing was equivalent to a junior in high school. I made my own meals, did my own laundry, cleaned my room, and all the other daily things a person needs to do. Everyone else in my family was the same way by her age. The only variable here is the change in parenting style, which encourages her to be codependent and reliant on others to make every decision about her life... even down to what clothes she'll wear to school that day (not just buying them, but actually being told what she's wearing each day).
They shouldn't receive an award for this. I'm sorry, but telling the video game industry they're doing a good job of "keeping inappropriate" content out of the hands of children is both a slap in the face to the parents that should be watching what their kids are buying, and a slap in the face to the kids who buy these games hoping for something interesting, only to find talking frogs, barbie, and games where everybody gets along and wins -- when they're 14! Why can they go see a few hundred zombies get set on fire, shot at, or otherwise die in the theatre (as long as they're all non-smoking zombies), but can't get the same thing in a video game? This entire idea of "for the sake of the children" has gone too far when children aren't encouraged to take risks and make their own decisions. These "appropriate" video games... I've seen them -- They suck so hard they're in danger of forming an event horizon.
My 12 year old kid sister has been fed a steady diet of these "positive self-esteem" books, videos, and games. Last year I tried to show her Happy Feet (it's a movie, look it up) and she couldn't get past the halfway point because that's where the penguin "got sad". I tried showing her some "real" video games, only to have mom come down on me like a ton of bricks... So it's back to watching bubbles with numbers in it and talking animals. And then mom (and other parents from Generation "Precious Snowflake") wonders why she has no inclination to read, write, do her homework, clean up after herself, or even brush her teeth...
Well, duh... it's because she's being fed sanitized crap that is the electronic equivalent of valium every day!
Or we could just throw them all into a scrap heap. That'll REALLY learn 'em. Actually, let's save on the greenhouse effect even more and go back to using the horse and buggy. And who needs computers? They're just filling up landfills anyway, and we can create more jobs by having people do it the old fashioned way. The economy will be better than ever if we do this!
Baka.
Okay, it might decrease the already low probability of midair accidents, but the air traffic control system has bigger problems. Firstly, that they are understaffed and overworked. It's the highest stress job in the civilian sector last I looked and these people are pulling 10 and 12 hour shifts every week. They're tired, and they make mistakes. They're also an aging group -- the certification requirements are high, and very, very few people who are under the age of 30 work these jobs. Many of them are set to retire in just a few more years which will stress an already fragile system.
Second, nobody's been investing in airport infrastructure. The planes are getting bigger but the runways aren't and we're not adding new runways either. Part of it is politics but a lot of it is economic.
Third, communications -- they're still using one-way VHF. Two people talk and the signal heterodynes and nobody knows what was said. They need a better comm system.
Lastly, much of the processing infrastructure is running on 1960s tech -- old mainframes. They haven't upgraded in all this time because there's no other options. What good will satellites do if the ground control stations are still running vaccum tubes? We need to network the ground stations together and provide a better interface with the birds in the sky. One of these big iron setups went down in New York and it paralyzed most of the eastern seaboard. That lack of redundancy in such a safety-critical environment is simply unacceptable.
The United States made an attempt at building something similar to the LHC several years ago but funding was cut. It was viewed at the time as a major setback in science and would lead to a brain drain in the United States as scientists went overseas where they could be with better equipment. Funding for the LHC was nearly cut several times amid cries that funding should be focused on "more important" science such as global warming. Part of the reason it got built was precisely because it could show that the EU succeeded where the US failed -- and there's been plenty of rivalry there. Arguably, the reason the EU was brought into existence was to compete with the US. There's a lot of pride tied into making this thing work.
There was a huge political debacle about where the LHC should be built that prevented its construction for several years. So while you can point and say "see? Look at all the cooperation!" the truth is that cooperation took a lot of time and a lot of negotiation. It didn't just happen because scientists are agreeable, friendly sorts that are great with people. And nationalism did, and continues to play a role in the LHCs funding and operational details. That's the nature of international politics -- everybody wants something in return, because there's only one Higgs-boson but there's several hundred positions at the LHC and only a few of them will be paraded through the streets when it's finally found while the rest will toil in obscurity. If you think the nationality of those people isn't important, you're in a dream world. The nationalities of those involved have been very carefully selected.
Bottom line is that they are under a lot of pressure to perform and while it's easy for you and I to understand (as engineers) that these are normal problems... How does it look for the politicians in the middle of a global recession to be looking for "god particles"? Not very and if you were running the show you'd be damn stupid not to be out there glad-handing the purse-holders and assuring them everything is fine. Politics is the reason the LHC could be built in the first place, politics is infused in every major organization -- even scientific ones.
So try and be less idealistic and more realistic. Now, again -- I'm not saying this is why the press release was delayed. I'm just saying it's as plausible a theory as the rest.
The submitters original comment was about how this doesn't seem like CERNs typical "information policy". You put this down as your subject line and then stated that this release of information may have been delayed "perhaps scientists don't like to make statements that they aren't reasonably sure of?" -- My reply was merely to point out an alternative possible explanation, namely that the delay in the release of information may have been motivated by politics. The scientists working on the project likely don't have such motivations, but the people who are providing the funding for this project certainly do, as would those managing the project (and thus responsible for press releases). I'm sure I don't need to tell you of all people the role politics plays in funding of scientific research. -_-
Well, you shouldn't use it except out of necessity, but that goes for any technology. The definition of necessity, however, is a moving target and flamebait to discuss.
It's a point of international pride. The European Union now has something bigger than the United States. They want to be the new cultural center for science. Having their baby explode and fail to do anything for two years after its completion date, when it has cost far more than originally expected (and now needs still more money) is a political black eye. This setback means that the United States is still where it's at for particle physics for the next two years now.
Not sanitizing content on the client side? You're right, it should be done on the server side. That's non negotiable. But it should also be done on the client side.
There's no reason you can't build a UI that relies on JS but degrades gracefully when it's not available, even if that means certain features being disabled.
So you're agreeing with me that you should still be able to submit data to a server via a POST submission when jscript is disabled (ie, degrades gracefully)? I think you mistook my points -- which is exactly about failing gracefully. You're adding a feature to save the user time, and that's a good thing. But if the user doesn't want to use jscript (for a multitude of reasons, including because it isn't available on their browser) -- they should still be able to submit a POST query and get useful results back.
I never said "JS is bad", and I didn't call it a theory either. But I believe accessibility is more important that features or spiffy-shiny. If JS is a requirement to use your website in a meaningful way, you had better have a strong case for that design... And frankly, 99% of what I see on the web is not a strong case for this (despite it being required). And lastly, I'm not a developer in training... I do this professionally and like everyone I have some (achem) religious beliefs about my work. One of my commandments is accessibility is king.
Should != Must. That's my only point.