1) O'Keefe made the Hubble decision based on safety concerns outlined by the CAIB report. I.e., the CAIB said a Hubble servicing mission cannot be carried out safely using the Shuttle. If O'Keefe had opted to ignore the CAIB's finding, he'd be getting pilloried for risking lives and ignoring safety concerns. No amount of money will alter than so long as the Shuttle is the only way we can get people into orbit.
2) The purpose of space travel is to put people into space -- to go someplace -- and exploit the reources we find there. Science will, and needs to, be done to support that, but space travel is not a scientific endeavor anymore than exploration and exploitation of Earth has been a soley scientific endeavor. Space travel is worth the money and lives if we do it in order to put people there. It isn't worth the money and lives if we approach it as a research project.
3) Robots should be used where we don't want to send people, but people are always better than robots. Robots are slow, stupid, limited, and not cheap. Repeat after me: Robots can show no intiative. E.g. neither Spirit or Opportunity can stop what it's been told to do, interrupt itself, and say, "Hey, look! Did that little thing over there just crawl away? I'll take a look."
4) If robots were so bloody good, CalTech, MIT, CERN, etc., would be hiring thme to replace people.
>>...goes directly against the idea that nobody can own a fact.
If you are going to argue against copyright, at least use your head.
A "fact", e.g., "4 +4 = 8" cannot be copyrighted. The symbolic representation of that fact, can be. "4 + 4 = 8" is one symbolic representation of a fact. "IV + IV = IIX" is another. Same fact, different symbols.
Facts aren't symbols. Awareness of facts can only be transmitted by symbolic expression. Those expressions are works of language and, hence, can be owned and protected, i.e., copyrighted.
(Utopian dreamers who want to rant about the wonderful ineffable nature of knowledge and its "unownability", please go away. Copyright isn't about knowledge.)
Why should I pay any attention to moderation? I know nothing about who is doing it, or why. As far as I'm concerned, moderation is just a way for a bunch of strangers to vote on posts that confirm their own biases. Why would I care about that?
If Slashdot actually had an editorial policy, published that policy, and allowed moderation only by designated (and bio'd) individuals who had to attach their names to each moderated post, according to specific and published criteria, moderation might be something useful.
Until then, moderation is just another gimmick best left ignored.
My point is that higher rated shows command higher ad rates. High ratings and "good" programming are not necessarily related. Therefore, as in most other businesses, people in the TV business are incentivized to create programs that they and their advertisers believe will have higher ratings than the shows currently running. Whether they turn out to pick the right shows is a different point.
Hard to define feeding an addiction as "voluntary". Drug dealers deliberately market addictive drugs knowing they are creating a market that is completely non-volunteer.
Equating selling spam with robbing banks (Willie Sutton's vocation) is typical for the know-nothing loons who run this place and play to a juvenile audience that can't see the difference between stealing something and selling something, however obnoxious.
Spam wouldn't disappear if companies wouod stop buying the services of spam artists, but a good chunk of it would.
ISS can handle several astronauts. The number of crew actually on the station depends on the capacity of the craft that would ferry them down in case of an emergency. Right now, that's a Soyuz docked to the station. Normally, that would equate to a crew of 3, but the rollback on supply capacity following the Shuttle's grounding requires a smller crew.
Why would you want to tether the station to either the Earth of the moon?
There's no visible indication that this effort has any funding. The Russians have designed a lot of spacecraft, but it takes money to get one off the ground.
In any case, it would be just another LEO vehicle.
The only way a TV show makes money is by selling commercials. The better the ratings, the more you bill for airtime. Advertisers do not pay for commercials based on what the network says the ratings will be.
If you are currently running a show with weak ratings, that means you aren't drawing as much revenue as you would with a show with better ratings. Why not replace it with something you believe will accomplish that?
1. What they hell is "Red Queen Run"? Some damn game for kids? Re: money -- TV execs maximize their personal revenue by selecting programs that provide higher ad revenue in their timeslots than the competition. Winning = promotion and raise; losing = getting fired.
2. If TV execs fall behind the competition, they'll risk losing their jobs. That's not staying put, that's falling behind. It's a competitive business, so maintaining the status quo is not good enough.
3. What's "good care"? The networks are after ad revenue, not good programming (however defined). You're asserting that it is always financially preferrable to nurse along a show with low ratings rather than replace it with a show that is believed will build higher ad revenue. That's an undefensible assertion.
4. See above. You're still imagining that TV is about something other than making money. From a network's point of view, the "best" program is the one with the lowest production costs and the highest ad revunue.
There's no problem if you sane. But this kind of stuff is raw meat for the tinfoiled loons who lurk around this place. They think that just because there toys are new that they're above the law.
The death of small languages is natural and positive consequence of technology breaking down the barriers between people. The internet, satellite TV, their like are logical followups to radio, roads, airplanes, ships, mail, newspapers, and, ultimately, just walking away from your tribe's village to see what's over the next hill.
Some folks will see this as evil globalization raising its head once more. But, they're wrong, as they usually are. Their logic leads to the past, and to the artificial freezing of someone else's culture in a state of suspended growth. That's OK for museum exhibits, but not for real people.
Cute. You restate what I said and get a juvenile insult into the mix. Feel better?
It's the job of TV execs to maximize revenue, not make programming that people like you, or me, think is "good". Once you get one, it'll be your job to make more money, too.
TV shows are cancelled when the network thinks thay can make more money running something else. Just making money isn't good enough. You need to convince people that you will make more money than a potential replacement.
Besides, TV is an advertising medium. Get over it.
I'll miss it. The show has never fully realized its potential. But, Angel "Will age too much for his immortality to be believable"? What, we all die at 30 these days?
It's because most slashdotters don't remember much from 20 years ago, don't really know much about techology, and even less about business. Bashing Microsoft is just another politically correct rant, geek-style.
Your analogy is addressing responsibility. I'm talking about criminality.
People who create and release viruses are the criminals. They are engaging in criminal behavior. And, yes, given the presence of criminals and the threat they pose, people should assume some personal responsibility for their own protection.
But, note that the need for that protection and that responsibility exists only because some number of people create and release viruses. It is the criminal behavior that creates the need for personal responsibility.
Falling victim to a criminal attack may indicate that you weren't exercising enough responsibility, but it doesn't mean you are the criminal. The criminal is the virus creator.
Beyond that, I'm don't see how your car and fuel analogy applies to the subject of the threat to Linux posed by public association of it with virus writers.
It may be ill-advised to click on a link in an email from someone you don't know, but it isn't criminal. The criminal behavior is on the part of the virus writers. You're attempting to excuse criminals by shifting responsibility to their victims.
If Linux was as popular as Windows, it , too, would be the target of just as many virus writers. So long as people want to send binary data to each other, people will write viruses to exploit that.
As the internet becomes increasingly intertwined in our daily lives, and as we all become more and more dependent on it, it is inevitable that it is regulated.
That's why we regulate the airlines, the highways, the telephone companies, and use of the airwaves. None of these industries was regulated when they were in their nascent stage. Within a few years, however, each became so critical to our economic and social welfare that regulation was needed.
THe internet is following the same path, because it is too important to be left alone with techies. No one should be surprised.
Slashdot Mirror
To cut through the usual silliness:
1) O'Keefe made the Hubble decision based on safety concerns outlined by the CAIB report. I.e., the CAIB said a Hubble servicing mission cannot be carried out safely using the Shuttle. If O'Keefe had opted to ignore the CAIB's finding, he'd be getting pilloried for risking lives and ignoring safety concerns. No amount of money will alter than so long as the Shuttle is the only way we can get people into orbit.
2) The purpose of space travel is to put people into space -- to go someplace -- and exploit the reources we find there. Science will, and needs to, be done to support that, but space travel is not a scientific endeavor anymore than exploration and exploitation of Earth has been a soley scientific endeavor. Space travel is worth the money and lives if we do it in order to put people there. It isn't worth the money and lives if we approach it as a research project.
3) Robots should be used where we don't want to send people, but people are always better than robots. Robots are slow, stupid, limited, and not cheap. Repeat after me: Robots can show no intiative. E.g. neither Spirit or Opportunity can stop what it's been told to do, interrupt itself, and say, "Hey, look! Did that little thing over there just crawl away? I'll take a look."
4) If robots were so bloody good, CalTech, MIT, CERN, etc., would be hiring thme to replace people.
>> ...goes directly against the idea that nobody can own a fact.
If you are going to argue against copyright, at least use your head.
A "fact", e.g., "4 +4 = 8" cannot be copyrighted. The symbolic representation of that fact, can be. "4 + 4 = 8" is one symbolic representation of a fact. "IV + IV = IIX" is another. Same fact, different symbols.
Facts aren't symbols. Awareness of facts can only be transmitted by symbolic expression. Those expressions are works of language and, hence, can be owned and protected, i.e., copyrighted.
(Utopian dreamers who want to rant about the wonderful ineffable nature of knowledge and its "unownability", please go away. Copyright isn't about knowledge.)
...a pocket mirror that's also a TV.
If you can't publish anywhere else, you can't publish on the web. It's just another medium.
Timothy's silly notion of "freedom of expression online" is bogus. But, it plays up to people who think the web is different. It ain't.
Sorry, but no amount of money will buy peace.
People will fight and kill for what they want. Peace always takes a back seat to anger, greed, ideology and a belief in inevitable victory.
Sigh...
No, the lack of a stampede to Venus is not evidence of a loss of "advanced space travel capabiilty".
It is a function of limited resources and the obvious sense that Mars is more likely to have been, or be, hospitable to life than Venus.
Why should I pay any attention to moderation? I know nothing about who is doing it, or why. As far as I'm concerned, moderation is just a way for a bunch of strangers to vote on posts that confirm their own biases. Why would I care about that?
If Slashdot actually had an editorial policy, published that policy, and allowed moderation only by designated (and bio'd) individuals who had to attach their names to each moderated post, according to specific and published criteria, moderation might be something useful.
Until then, moderation is just another gimmick best left ignored.
My point is that higher rated shows command higher ad rates. High ratings and "good" programming are not necessarily related. Therefore, as in most other businesses, people in the TV business are incentivized to create programs that they and their advertisers believe will have higher ratings than the shows currently running. Whether they turn out to pick the right shows is a different point.
Be happy if you make it that far.
Hard to define feeding an addiction as "voluntary". Drug dealers deliberately market addictive drugs knowing they are creating a market that is completely non-volunteer.
Equating selling spam with robbing banks (Willie Sutton's vocation) is typical for the know-nothing loons who run this place and play to a juvenile audience that can't see the difference between stealing something and selling something, however obnoxious.
Spam wouldn't disappear if companies wouod stop buying the services of spam artists, but a good chunk of it would.
ISS can handle several astronauts. The number of crew actually on the station depends on the capacity of the craft that would ferry them down in case of an emergency. Right now, that's a Soyuz docked to the station. Normally, that would equate to a crew of 3, but the rollback on supply capacity following the Shuttle's grounding requires a smller crew.
Why would you want to tether the station to either the Earth of the moon?
There's no visible indication that this effort has any funding. The Russians have designed a lot of spacecraft, but it takes money to get one off the ground.
In any case, it would be just another LEO vehicle.
Don't hold your breath.
You're not making much sense.
The only way a TV show makes money is by selling commercials. The better the ratings, the more you bill for airtime. Advertisers do not pay for commercials based on what the network says the ratings will be.
If you are currently running a show with weak ratings, that means you aren't drawing as much revenue as you would with a show with better ratings. Why not replace it with something you believe will accomplish that?
1. What they hell is "Red Queen Run"? Some damn game for kids? Re: money -- TV execs maximize their personal revenue by selecting programs that provide higher ad revenue in their timeslots than the competition. Winning = promotion and raise; losing = getting fired.
2. If TV execs fall behind the competition, they'll risk losing their jobs. That's not staying put, that's falling behind. It's a competitive business, so maintaining the status quo is not good enough.
3. What's "good care"? The networks are after ad revenue, not good programming (however defined). You're asserting that it is always financially preferrable to nurse along a show with low ratings rather than replace it with a show that is believed will build higher ad revenue. That's an undefensible assertion.
4. See above. You're still imagining that TV is about something other than making money. From a network's point of view, the "best" program is the one with the lowest production costs and the highest ad revunue.
There's no problem if you sane. But this kind of stuff is raw meat for the tinfoiled loons who lurk around this place. They think that just because there toys are new that they're above the law.
The death of small languages is natural and positive consequence of technology breaking down the barriers between people. The internet, satellite TV, their like are logical followups to radio, roads, airplanes, ships, mail, newspapers, and, ultimately, just walking away from your tribe's village to see what's over the next hill.
Some folks will see this as evil globalization raising its head once more. But, they're wrong, as they usually are. Their logic leads to the past, and to the artificial freezing of someone else's culture in a state of suspended growth. That's OK for museum exhibits, but not for real people.
Cute. You restate what I said and get a juvenile insult into the mix. Feel better?
It's the job of TV execs to maximize revenue, not make programming that people like you, or me, think is "good". Once you get one, it'll be your job to make more money, too.
"Good" almost always means "I like it", anyway.
Besides, TV is an advertising medium. Get over it.
I'll miss it. The show has never fully realized its potential. But, Angel "Will age too much for his immortality to be believable"? What, we all die at 30 these days?
It's because most slashdotters don't remember much from 20 years ago, don't really know much about techology, and even less about business. Bashing Microsoft is just another politically correct rant, geek-style.
Your analogy is addressing responsibility. I'm talking about criminality.
People who create and release viruses are the criminals. They are engaging in criminal behavior. And, yes, given the presence of criminals and the threat they pose, people should assume some personal responsibility for their own protection.
But, note that the need for that protection and that responsibility exists only because some number of people create and release viruses. It is the criminal behavior that creates the need for personal responsibility.
Falling victim to a criminal attack may indicate that you weren't exercising enough responsibility, but it doesn't mean you are the criminal. The criminal is the virus creator.
Beyond that, I'm don't see how your car and fuel analogy applies to the subject of the threat to Linux posed by public association of it with virus writers.
It may be ill-advised to click on a link in an email from someone you don't know, but it isn't criminal. The criminal behavior is on the part of the virus writers. You're attempting to excuse criminals by shifting responsibility to their victims.
If Linux was as popular as Windows, it , too, would be the target of just as many virus writers. So long as people want to send binary data to each other, people will write viruses to exploit that.
Your analogy about guns is unintelligible.
As the internet becomes increasingly intertwined in our daily lives, and as we all become more and more dependent on it, it is inevitable that it is regulated.
That's why we regulate the airlines, the highways, the telephone companies, and use of the airwaves. None of these industries was regulated when they were in their nascent stage. Within a few years, however, each became so critical to our economic and social welfare that regulation was needed.
THe internet is following the same path, because it is too important to be left alone with techies. No one should be surprised.