I did my physics undergrad at the University of Minnesota Duluth, and they graciously let me play around in the mine on occasion. I don't do much particle physics anymore so I'm not particularily equipped to judge their results, but I can say that all kinds of seasonal errors can be introduced in these experiments. Cosmic rays have a seasonal variation for example. Another that happens at Soudan for sure and possibly in Italy is seasonal variation in background radiation. The air circulation at Soudan is largely passive, and there is lots of radon gas seeping from the rocks. In the cold winter the exchange is excellent, but in the summer the circulation is terrible and you get anywhere from 5 to 10 times the radon background in the cave (air in the cave is warmer than outside in the winter and cooler in the summer, you can do the math).
I'm not saying either of those are the cause of this, but there is good reason to squint hard at anything claiming "seasonal evidence" when the claim is extrordainary (in the sense that it is way off from any model). Scientists should be skeptical of this, especially since they are claiming a result before theory suggests a result should even be possible.
The problem I have with solar numbers like the ones you are talking about (one year is low by the way, its more like 2-3 years depending on the area) is that they only consider the solar panel, as though thats all thats required for the system. Any commercially viable solar system requires batteries to implement. Lots of them. If you weigh the price of the "total system" for solar versus anything that produces power on demand (nuclear, hydro, geothermal, and in limited areas wind) solar is still a horrendous technology (batteries are pretty universally expensive to produce and dispose of, have a short life, and are toxic as all hell). I've noticed the cost of reprocessing and disposal of solar cells generally isn't included in these estimates either, which is highly relavent to something mass producible that degrades.
Some will immediately scream in the case of nuclear (picked because you specifically mention that) that its estimates should include the cost of disasters/all future remediation operations (some do, most dont). Its not an unfair criticism, but the numbers are surprisingly low if NEW nuclear is used as the metric. You can't compare disaster predictions for reactors designed in the sixties and leverage that against nuclear forever. New nuclear is orders of magnitude safer and more efficient (I recently visited the site of the new reactors being built in SC, and the new designs produce double the power of the existing reactors on the site with half the parts/pipes, Truly impressive.), and we have reprocessing techniques that could vastly decrease our waste production. There is currently a feedback loop where anti nuclear activists block the adoption of new technology, then use the failures of the old technology (preventable accident, waste, etc.) to justify the continued blocking of the new (safer, less waste generating) technology. Its somewhat ridiculous.
The real problem that plagues lots of "green" technologies is that they are only viable if many other pieces fall into place. Solar power is only useful if it not only improves the cost and efficiency of cells far beyond current levels, but also if battery technology (or for industrial scale solar arrays other storage mediums) greatly improves, and probably only if transmission technology improves (superconductors, etc., since it is likely that electricity will have to be piped some distance). For electric cars you need drastically better batteries, massive upgrades to the current electrical infrastructure, and a "green" source of power (there are more, but I'm starting to ramble) before they even begin to be sensible. And God forbid you tell the solar people they have to try and meet the energy demands of a world filled with electric cars, because that moves the goalposts way back.
In summary, people advocating the technologies that greens hate (nuclear, biofuels, etc) aren't stupid or biased or whatever other derogatory term you were thinking of using. These technologies are understood to be flawed in pretty fundamental ways, and in an ideal world where all the various technologies have fully matured they probably wouldn't be considered. But in the real world, where people are trying to come up with solutions that can be implemented within five to 100 years on a scale large enough to matter, those "bad" technologies win. Sure a fully electric car powered from solar would be great, but a hybrid electric car powered by ethanol and nuclear isn't half bad all things considered. If the option is the former in the next century and a half or the latter in the next decade I'll take door number two, thanks. Filling the world with crappy solar panels and poor electric cars, neither of which can even be implemented on a large scale in the foreseeable future, isn't going to help anyone. And pumping obscene amounts of money into "green" tech won't help it mature any faster, any more than drinking fifty gallons of water in an hour will cure a man of dehydration. Do what you can with what makes sense.
You get "crappy" movies because that is what most people enjoy and are willing to pay for. Some people don't care about depth or creativity, they go to the theater to have an experience. Many want to experience a sappy love story, and through that story assimilate those feelings into their life (if only for a time). Some want to see explosions. Some want cheap scares. As an "movie buff" (presumably in the intellectual sense) you are a niche, as it seems most people watch and pay for movies for more primal reasons. Good or bad, thats reality.
Not to mention the math doesn't work out, unless you are claiming all pirates have your taste in movies. If piracy is dragging down the baseline of profitability for Hollywood, then in relative terms the movies you like were going to be much less profitable than the "pay $8 and forget" movies anyway. Hollywood is about $$, they don't give a rats ass about entertaining you. If you want creativity there are plenty of low budget indie directors you could donate to.
Many farmers would agree that corn subsidies need to end, but the situation is much more complicated than "evil corn lobby and farmers!" I honestly dont expect most people to dig deep enough to figure out whats actually going on, for the same reason I've stopped trying to explain to homophobes why gays aren't evil. Everyone seems to need a little "us versus them" in their diet. But I'll give a quick rundown.
-Ag subsidies in general are a way to slow the bleeding of population out of rural America. The price of commodities in general is so low (due to advancements in machinery and genetics) that the majority of farms would simply go under without some subsidies and tax breaks (either directly or through things like ethanol). In the short term this would lead to all kinds of problems, and frankly some government intervention this way is better than welfare. In the long term all of that freed land would be acquired by superfarms, and we all know how fond slashdot is of cartels...
-Agriculture in general is used as a bargaining chip on the world market, usually in diplomatic negotiations. The money that goes into ag subsidies could be reduced substantially if actual free market forces existed internationally. As it stands, there is a curious correlation between favorable agricultural tariffs/import bans for other nations and technology/manufacturing/??? deals favoring the United States. China blatantly manipulates demand to keep its rural areas from revolting. Europe in general tends to find "health risks" in American ag exports right as their own home industries decline, and ban imports until the local prices increase. Its a dirty business.
-And just fyi, corn isn't grown because there is some large conspiracy. It is very hearty, and with the current genetic modifications can take a lot of abuse from temperamental climates. If cellulistic ethanol pans out modified switch grass will likely take its place, but at the moment there just aren't that many crops positioned to displace corn. Since we went to all the trouble developing industries to create things like bio-degradable plastics from corn, why suddenly yank the rug out and force a move back to non-renewable?
This is just my two cents of course. I just find it discouraging to see so much negativity about rural Americans and farmers specifically. Most are just trying to make minimum wage on a consistent basis. I think if people actually interacted with farmers and were exposed to agriculture (ever) positions such as yours would soften a bit.
The argument agains this is that companies like, say, Charter, will simply put the per MB price so high that consuming media through the internet is infesible. Which is oddly convenient for a company that would then control the only cost-effective media delivery system, a.k.a. cable. Perhaps they make some deal with Microsoft to route X-Box live traffic seperately for a fee, but past that I'm doubtful.
... that it is definitively legal for communities to install their own fiber and operate city-owned internet services. If metered internet and traffic shaping is actually being done to give the best price to the greatest amount of people, then certainly some small down in nowhersville Iowa is no threat. No need to sue them at all. Right?
Unless this is all an elaborate scheme to maximize profit to the detriment of the consumer. Then one self sufficient city-owned internet provider with great speed and low cost could be a dangerous thing indeed.
GPS units are primarily used in Kansas, and other extremely flat areas. There are superfarms syncing them together to allow one driver to control multiple machines as well. Though that is the stereotype of agriculture, there are many, many places that aren't flat and barren (and where the farms aren't big enough to justify the expense). In those areas the technology isn't catching on nearly as well, because of the issues I mentioned. And I don't know about you, but my car GPS loses strengh on cloudy days (and I know from firsthand accounts tractor GPSs do as well). In some areas the loss isn't nearly as significant, but for whatever reason rural areas struggle with GPS reception in general. I don't know much about how the GPS network works, so I can't comment on why that would be.
Growing up on a farm (and still occasionally going back to work on one) I can assure there are a lot of reasons we don't have robots in agriculture. Immigrants aren't the half of it.
For one, large chunks of the United States just aren't suited to using robots or GPS technology. Tremendous heat, terrible cold, thick dust, mud... creating a robot that can tolerate all of these conditions is a huge undertaking, and thats before you try and program it. You are talking military grade hardware, which isn't cheap. Not to mention no one in their right mind will create something fully autonomous, as in today's legal climate any error that results in, say, a child being run over would destroy either the farmer or the manufacturer (likely both). So you need a person right there to monitor... and in most cases that negates the whole point.
In some ideal locations farmers are experimenting with GPS to increase planting accuracy and yields, but in many places it simply doesn't work. A big farm in my area tried it, and every time the tractor hit a waterway (or if it was too cloudy) the GPS functionality would just crap out. From a cost to performance perspective, very few people are in a position to pay a lot of money for negligible gain (the interest on the loan likely offsets the profit), and so there isn't much market.
Now in the case of a strawberry farm... maybe. If they can keep the weight down I imagine it will work (the machine is far smaller, and the operating environment more consistent), and probably for a lot of fruit as well. I still think there are a lot of legal issues that will be wrestled with before anyone risks a machine mis-identifying a kid's mitten for a fruit. But honestly, don't expect to see robotic agriculture on any scale untill we at least figure out robotic cars. If you can't make a robotic car that can navigate straight lines, flat surfaces, and evaluate external inputs (pedestrians, stoplights, etc.) with 99.9999999% accuracy, then I seriously doubt you can make a "tractor" that deals with the ridiculous variables involved in everyday farming. One step at a time...
Not only is piracy unethical but it also tells people like Uwe Boll that there is actually demand for his terrible movies.
Lets be careful about using the word unethical. Illegal certainly, and for arguably good reason. Ethics is another thing entirely. Simply being "the law" doesn't lend much (if any) ethical weight to an idea.
As scientists age they become somewhat jaded, it happens to a lot of people. Hawking has seen a problem he thought was about to be solved get ever more complex while little new progress has been made. I don't blame him for changing his stance. I had a professor during my undergrad who had been a part of some of the first fusion research, and he would occasionally bring up that he didn't think it was possible. According to him, "the kids today are trying what we tried and couldn't get to work back then" (Paraphrased). Maybe doubting there is a solution to the problems you have struggled with all your life is the best way to find peace as your life winds down?
Oh, on a personal opinion note, I doubt we will ever find a *provable* theory of everything. Eventually someone will put together something that relates a lot of complex fields, but I suspect it will be something ad hoc and beyond the practical limits of humanity to test. (*cough* string theory variant *cough*)
Given the rapid improvements we are likely to see in anti-satellite weapons in the next few decades, I doubt asteroids of that size will be any significant threat by then so long as we know about them in advance. Its small enough to blow up. Bigger asteroids, or ones we don't catch till a day before, are the ones that will kill people. Even if its solid iron I imagine we could nudge it offcourse with a handful of well aimed rockets.
Have you ever wondered why the rates of things like allergies are skyrocketing? People don't expose themselves to nature. I grew up on a farm, and I can tell you with certainty that no farm child in had hay allergies. In fact, allergies of any kind were rare.
Isolating yourself in a city drinking nothing but treated water in a perfectly sterile setting is weakening you, slowly making you dependent on that environment for survival. That's just reality, and honestly it would almost certainly be healthier for people to expose themselves to nature and gain the immunity.
There is nothing unhealthy in fresh water provided its from an untainted source. A mountain stream, or a fresh spring, will in most cases be perfectly safe to drink from. Especially in places with lots of limestone, as the stone itself is porous and filters the water (In case you don't know, this is much of the reason why the wells drilled for country homes don't have to be pumped full of chemical. Safely nature-filtered). This isn't foolproof, water paracites are still possible, but far, far less likely the smaller the body of water and the further from civilization you get.
Unfortunately, most open-air water sources aren't safe anymore simply because of urban waste, agricultural runoff, and in some places industrial mining, but in an ideal environment water isn't very dangerous (The Rockies are still pretty pristine, for example). Hence the reason Native Americans could drink their water, while Europe had to drink beer or risk death. (This assumes you know not to drink stagnant water of course.)
The new era of "common sense thinking" is at the heart of much of the political and social turmoil we see around us. Mr. Singh is absolutely correct in stating that "common sense" is the enemy, and always has been the enemy, of science. Common sense was at the heart of the Ptolemaic system of heavenly motion. Common sense refuted Einstein. Common sense has no place in real science, ever.
Our modern world has advanced to the point that science, economics, philosophy, and literature are beyond 90% of the population. The sheer amount of information required to fully understand any one of those subjects makes it impossible for a "normal" person working 40-50 hours a week with a family and a simple hobby (working on cars, poker, whatever) to grasp them. I cant pretend to be an expert in all aspects of all of them, and I spend vast amounts of time trying to understand them.
In an ideal world, we would have clear experts we could trust to tell us the reality in any of those fields. Unfortunately, for whatever reason, the public has recoiled against that, preferring instead to use "common sense" to try and solve problems that inherently cant be solved with common sense. The backlash against science is part of this. Movements like the Tea Party also reflect this idea that "the everyman should take back society" (not to say that allegations of government corruption are unfounded, I don't much care to have that debate).
I truthfully think its a fear reaction. And its understandable. But we as scientists cannot yield to it. The problems we face are too great, and the discoveries too grand, to allow "common sense" (and often superstition in its guise) to hold us back.
Being a little nitpicky here, but this isn't true. Several of the eastern religious variants make no claim to authority, and readily accept western religion as a valid expression of their own understanding of existence. Hence things like Christian Buddhists, and the fact that Hindus don't generally start religious wars.
And further back, most of the polytheistic religions in ancient times were highly inclusive. The whole "believe in my God or die" thing is more a trait of monotheistic religion, which is probably most of your western experience.
Racist is a bit harsh, from what I've seen most libertarians are more inclined to say that the loss of freedom that comes from mandating racial acceptance isn't worth it. Not that I agree with that, but lets not confuse their idealism with racism. I will agree that the majority of the economic ideas they advocate are little more than wishful thinking for times gone by, rather than anything feasible for our modern world.
You didn't catch on to my points. Agriculture is just one example of an industry that could be more efficient and productive, but isn't due to population instability. There are others. The Chinese aren't able to modernize because without production sinks like agriculture, they would have an idle, jobless population. And that is bad. It has nothing to do with corn syrup and suburbian sprawl... (which doesn't make much sense as a counter argument, unless I'm missing something).
If you think China has excellent infrastructure, you haven't been outside the tourist traps. The country as a whole is critically underdeveloped. But what I was really thinking of was, for example, their dam projects. They are wiping the country clean, destroying the land in an effort to keep up with basic demands like power. And that is with most of the country still underdeveloped. How long do you think they can strip the countryside of gravel, iron, and wood with no real reguard for their environment before it catches up with them?
And as far as a population imbalance, you can't just assume it will work itself out and everyone will just accept it. Its a phenomena we haven't ever seen before (surpluses of women, yes, but not men). You honestly think the creation of a male peasent sub-class with no hope of a family or stable existence isn't going to cause problems? Civil unrest, spikes in crime, and cultural upheval (in a fiercely conservative state like China, I'm sure the upsurge of prostitution this is bound to bring will go over well) are all possible and even likely.
China is trying to do in 50 years what the western world did over the course of almost 150, in a significantly more complex social and economic environment. They are winding up like a rubber band trying to catapult into the 21st century, and I see very little chance they dont snap like one.
The idea that China is anywhere near the United States in development is largely propaganda. There are huge, frightening issues that the Chinese know about and are trying desperately to fix, all the while trying to come off as a superpower.
Take, for example, agriculture. Chinese agriculture is a hundred years behind the United States, and not just because they can't afford to upgrade. The government forces manual labor simply to try and keep living inland viable. Were they to mechanize the labor needs of the central part of the nation would plummet, and massive migrations to coastal areas would take place: coastal areas that are already largely squalid pits. This has been commented on off the record by Chinese officials, but they would never openly admit it.
Infrastructure in China is hugely underdeveloped, to the point where the government there is raping local ecosystems in a desperate attempt to keep up with growth. The United States did the same thing, though spread over a longer period and with 1/5 the population. This will catch up with them in the not-too-distant future, and there will be hell to pay.
Then there is the problem of population imbalance. Most of us know about the "one child" restriction many Chinese are under. Most of those children born are boys, for cultural reasons. The male/female gap in China is in the tens of millions. And those young men are just reaching relationship age. What happens when 50 million men realize it is mathematically impossible to have a family? Talk about a social experiment.
Combine these with the typical problems associated with repressive governments, and we have ourselves an interesting pot of instability. The "growing middle class" is just the cream floating on top of a vat of very rotten milk, and I suspect we are going to see just how unsavory it is in not too long. I'd say India is far more likely to become a power than China, if we were betting. Though in reality, we might be looking at a superpower-less world in the near future...
My introductory rate through Charter communications for a cable+internet bundle was $60. Then , at the end of that year, it jumped to almost $120. I told them to screw off, and a year and a half ago I switched to Quest 7Mb dsl. For $45 a month and the week spent dicking around getting them to disable interleaving (so I now have latency no worse than cable) I have a snappy connection and access to any media I want. Most of my shows are on either Hulu or Syfy.com, and if its something new that I just cant wait for I'll just torrent the episode to watch.
If one of the major channels I watch (like Syfy) offered me a personal monthy web subscription for a couple bucks I would gladly pay, and would love if I could mark my favorite show or three on an anonymous survey as I paid. I would even watch on their ad supported viewer without complaint, provided the extra income went to higher quality/longer running shows on the network. Nothing is worse than seeing a show get axed on a cliffhanger because "it wasn't profitable enough." Hell, if a studio would get the rights to something like stargate and offered it as a subscription show through their own website viewer once a week I'd give them a dollar or two a month for sure.
We are seeing the internet break up the traditional media cartels, and they will fight tooth and nail to control the net either as a new revenue source or to stop the transition. We need to shift to the public mentality of "internet as infrastructure," otherwise this bright new future where we as people have better choices for cheaper will turn into the same old crap warmed over and sold for $120 a month...
This probably isn't true. The point of the article is that the entertainment industry is trying to push obscene measures to stop "piracy." While in a normal market situation people would just stop supporting these companies and go to a competitor, such a scenario is unlikely to play out since there are no real competitors besides companies that will probably be squelched as illegal.
Think of it this way: would the automobile ever have taken off if the buggy industry owned and legally controlled all materials and technology related to the making of wheels? Sure the buggy makers could adopt the new automotive technology, and it would be better for the consumer if they did, but there is no immediate incentive for them to do so.
The music industry as a whole controls the vast majority of music, and are pushing laws to crush emerging technologies that might obsolete their main revenue source. There is no reason for them to switch and take advantage of these new technologies, because they don't have to. The average consumer of entertainment just doesn't have the self control to stop listening to songs or watching films for an unknown amount of time just to put pressure on the industry, and groups like the RIAA know this. Thus, they have every incentive to try and legislate the problem away, as the market has no way to correct. Only if their grip on copyright is loosened, or some form of piracy allowed to flourish, is there any pressure to adapt to changing realities in the world.
Generally the best way to evaluate a difficult problem in any field is to look at extremely similar events as well. If you come to radically different conclusions on nearly identical issues your thought process is likely flawed. So lets try another one...
1.)I know a douchebag. Occasionally, after being in his presence, I imagine myself punching him. I cant help it, primal rage at his douchebagginess forces these thoughts.
2.)In an attempt to relieve said rage, I photoshop a picture of me punching a punching-bag onto a picture of said douchebag, thereby making it look like I punched him.
3.)One day, I actually punch the douchebag in the face.
Is number 2 assault? Definitely no. Are number 2 and 3 remotely equivalent? I think most would argue no. Would number 2 be enough to get a restraining order against me? Probably.
This doesn't seem to pass the sniff test, as a similar situation fails in equivalency. If the parties involved feel threatened or defamed they have other private legal recourse.
On a personal note, I think this is a bit creepy, and I might not want to hang around that guy. I somewhat understand the prosecutors discomfort with whats being done here. But thats no excuse for some zealot to bend moral equivalency to the breaking point. I suspect those pushing this know darn well they are legally crippled, and are instead trying to spread fear by ruining this mans life with a high profile case. After all, something doesn't have to be illegal (or even have to have taken place) if simply being accused of it will destroy your life. Thats as good a deterrent as any legislation. A lot of witches found that out, as did homosexuals. If there is justice in the world these law enforcement officials will lose their jobs, but we are talking about Tennessee...
Slashdot Mirror
I did my physics undergrad at the University of Minnesota Duluth, and they graciously let me play around in the mine on occasion. I don't do much particle physics anymore so I'm not particularily equipped to judge their results, but I can say that all kinds of seasonal errors can be introduced in these experiments. Cosmic rays have a seasonal variation for example. Another that happens at Soudan for sure and possibly in Italy is seasonal variation in background radiation. The air circulation at Soudan is largely passive, and there is lots of radon gas seeping from the rocks. In the cold winter the exchange is excellent, but in the summer the circulation is terrible and you get anywhere from 5 to 10 times the radon background in the cave (air in the cave is warmer than outside in the winter and cooler in the summer, you can do the math).
I'm not saying either of those are the cause of this, but there is good reason to squint hard at anything claiming "seasonal evidence" when the claim is extrordainary (in the sense that it is way off from any model). Scientists should be skeptical of this, especially since they are claiming a result before theory suggests a result should even be possible.
The problem I have with solar numbers like the ones you are talking about (one year is low by the way, its more like 2-3 years depending on the area) is that they only consider the solar panel, as though thats all thats required for the system. Any commercially viable solar system requires batteries to implement. Lots of them. If you weigh the price of the "total system" for solar versus anything that produces power on demand (nuclear, hydro, geothermal, and in limited areas wind) solar is still a horrendous technology (batteries are pretty universally expensive to produce and dispose of, have a short life, and are toxic as all hell). I've noticed the cost of reprocessing and disposal of solar cells generally isn't included in these estimates either, which is highly relavent to something mass producible that degrades.
Some will immediately scream in the case of nuclear (picked because you specifically mention that) that its estimates should include the cost of disasters/all future remediation operations (some do, most dont). Its not an unfair criticism, but the numbers are surprisingly low if NEW nuclear is used as the metric. You can't compare disaster predictions for reactors designed in the sixties and leverage that against nuclear forever. New nuclear is orders of magnitude safer and more efficient (I recently visited the site of the new reactors being built in SC, and the new designs produce double the power of the existing reactors on the site with half the parts/pipes, Truly impressive.), and we have reprocessing techniques that could vastly decrease our waste production. There is currently a feedback loop where anti nuclear activists block the adoption of new technology, then use the failures of the old technology (preventable accident, waste, etc.) to justify the continued blocking of the new (safer, less waste generating) technology. Its somewhat ridiculous.
The real problem that plagues lots of "green" technologies is that they are only viable if many other pieces fall into place. Solar power is only useful if it not only improves the cost and efficiency of cells far beyond current levels, but also if battery technology (or for industrial scale solar arrays other storage mediums) greatly improves, and probably only if transmission technology improves (superconductors, etc., since it is likely that electricity will have to be piped some distance). For electric cars you need drastically better batteries, massive upgrades to the current electrical infrastructure, and a "green" source of power (there are more, but I'm starting to ramble) before they even begin to be sensible. And God forbid you tell the solar people they have to try and meet the energy demands of a world filled with electric cars, because that moves the goalposts way back.
In summary, people advocating the technologies that greens hate (nuclear, biofuels, etc) aren't stupid or biased or whatever other derogatory term you were thinking of using. These technologies are understood to be flawed in pretty fundamental ways, and in an ideal world where all the various technologies have fully matured they probably wouldn't be considered. But in the real world, where people are trying to come up with solutions that can be implemented within five to 100 years on a scale large enough to matter, those "bad" technologies win. Sure a fully electric car powered from solar would be great, but a hybrid electric car powered by ethanol and nuclear isn't half bad all things considered. If the option is the former in the next century and a half or the latter in the next decade I'll take door number two, thanks. Filling the world with crappy solar panels and poor electric cars, neither of which can even be implemented on a large scale in the foreseeable future, isn't going to help anyone. And pumping obscene amounts of money into "green" tech won't help it mature any faster, any more than drinking fifty gallons of water in an hour will cure a man of dehydration. Do what you can with what makes sense.
You get "crappy" movies because that is what most people enjoy and are willing to pay for. Some people don't care about depth or creativity, they go to the theater to have an experience. Many want to experience a sappy love story, and through that story assimilate those feelings into their life (if only for a time). Some want to see explosions. Some want cheap scares. As an "movie buff" (presumably in the intellectual sense) you are a niche, as it seems most people watch and pay for movies for more primal reasons. Good or bad, thats reality.
Not to mention the math doesn't work out, unless you are claiming all pirates have your taste in movies. If piracy is dragging down the baseline of profitability for Hollywood, then in relative terms the movies you like were going to be much less profitable than the "pay $8 and forget" movies anyway. Hollywood is about $$, they don't give a rats ass about entertaining you. If you want creativity there are plenty of low budget indie directors you could donate to.
Many farmers would agree that corn subsidies need to end, but the situation is much more complicated than "evil corn lobby and farmers!" I honestly dont expect most people to dig deep enough to figure out whats actually going on, for the same reason I've stopped trying to explain to homophobes why gays aren't evil. Everyone seems to need a little "us versus them" in their diet. But I'll give a quick rundown.
-Ag subsidies in general are a way to slow the bleeding of population out of rural America. The price of commodities in general is so low (due to advancements in machinery and genetics) that the majority of farms would simply go under without some subsidies and tax breaks (either directly or through things like ethanol). In the short term this would lead to all kinds of problems, and frankly some government intervention this way is better than welfare. In the long term all of that freed land would be acquired by superfarms, and we all know how fond slashdot is of cartels...
-Agriculture in general is used as a bargaining chip on the world market, usually in diplomatic negotiations. The money that goes into ag subsidies could be reduced substantially if actual free market forces existed internationally. As it stands, there is a curious correlation between favorable agricultural tariffs/import bans for other nations and technology/manufacturing/??? deals favoring the United States. China blatantly manipulates demand to keep its rural areas from revolting. Europe in general tends to find "health risks" in American ag exports right as their own home industries decline, and ban imports until the local prices increase. Its a dirty business.
-And just fyi, corn isn't grown because there is some large conspiracy. It is very hearty, and with the current genetic modifications can take a lot of abuse from temperamental climates. If cellulistic ethanol pans out modified switch grass will likely take its place, but at the moment there just aren't that many crops positioned to displace corn. Since we went to all the trouble developing industries to create things like bio-degradable plastics from corn, why suddenly yank the rug out and force a move back to non-renewable?
This is just my two cents of course. I just find it discouraging to see so much negativity about rural Americans and farmers specifically. Most are just trying to make minimum wage on a consistent basis. I think if people actually interacted with farmers and were exposed to agriculture (ever) positions such as yours would soften a bit.
The argument agains this is that companies like, say, Charter, will simply put the per MB price so high that consuming media through the internet is infesible. Which is oddly convenient for a company that would then control the only cost-effective media delivery system, a.k.a. cable. Perhaps they make some deal with Microsoft to route X-Box live traffic seperately for a fee, but past that I'm doubtful.
... that it is definitively legal for communities to install their own fiber and operate city-owned internet services. If metered internet and traffic shaping is actually being done to give the best price to the greatest amount of people, then certainly some small down in nowhersville Iowa is no threat. No need to sue them at all. Right?
Unless this is all an elaborate scheme to maximize profit to the detriment of the consumer. Then one self sufficient city-owned internet provider with great speed and low cost could be a dangerous thing indeed.
GPS units are primarily used in Kansas, and other extremely flat areas. There are superfarms syncing them together to allow one driver to control multiple machines as well. Though that is the stereotype of agriculture, there are many, many places that aren't flat and barren (and where the farms aren't big enough to justify the expense). In those areas the technology isn't catching on nearly as well, because of the issues I mentioned. And I don't know about you, but my car GPS loses strengh on cloudy days (and I know from firsthand accounts tractor GPSs do as well). In some areas the loss isn't nearly as significant, but for whatever reason rural areas struggle with GPS reception in general. I don't know much about how the GPS network works, so I can't comment on why that would be.
Growing up on a farm (and still occasionally going back to work on one) I can assure there are a lot of reasons we don't have robots in agriculture. Immigrants aren't the half of it.
For one, large chunks of the United States just aren't suited to using robots or GPS technology. Tremendous heat, terrible cold, thick dust, mud... creating a robot that can tolerate all of these conditions is a huge undertaking, and thats before you try and program it. You are talking military grade hardware, which isn't cheap. Not to mention no one in their right mind will create something fully autonomous, as in today's legal climate any error that results in, say, a child being run over would destroy either the farmer or the manufacturer (likely both). So you need a person right there to monitor... and in most cases that negates the whole point.
In some ideal locations farmers are experimenting with GPS to increase planting accuracy and yields, but in many places it simply doesn't work. A big farm in my area tried it, and every time the tractor hit a waterway (or if it was too cloudy) the GPS functionality would just crap out. From a cost to performance perspective, very few people are in a position to pay a lot of money for negligible gain (the interest on the loan likely offsets the profit), and so there isn't much market.
Now in the case of a strawberry farm... maybe. If they can keep the weight down I imagine it will work (the machine is far smaller, and the operating environment more consistent), and probably for a lot of fruit as well. I still think there are a lot of legal issues that will be wrestled with before anyone risks a machine mis-identifying a kid's mitten for a fruit. But honestly, don't expect to see robotic agriculture on any scale untill we at least figure out robotic cars. If you can't make a robotic car that can navigate straight lines, flat surfaces, and evaluate external inputs (pedestrians, stoplights, etc.) with 99.9999999% accuracy, then I seriously doubt you can make a "tractor" that deals with the ridiculous variables involved in everyday farming. One step at a time...
Not only is piracy unethical but it also tells people like Uwe Boll that there is actually demand for his terrible movies.
Lets be careful about using the word unethical. Illegal certainly, and for arguably good reason. Ethics is another thing entirely. Simply being "the law" doesn't lend much (if any) ethical weight to an idea.
So if we launch all of our nukes now, how long would they take to get there? Goddamn furries.
As scientists age they become somewhat jaded, it happens to a lot of people. Hawking has seen a problem he thought was about to be solved get ever more complex while little new progress has been made. I don't blame him for changing his stance. I had a professor during my undergrad who had been a part of some of the first fusion research, and he would occasionally bring up that he didn't think it was possible. According to him, "the kids today are trying what we tried and couldn't get to work back then" (Paraphrased). Maybe doubting there is a solution to the problems you have struggled with all your life is the best way to find peace as your life winds down?
Oh, on a personal opinion note, I doubt we will ever find a *provable* theory of everything. Eventually someone will put together something that relates a lot of complex fields, but I suspect it will be something ad hoc and beyond the practical limits of humanity to test. (*cough* string theory variant *cough*)
Given the rapid improvements we are likely to see in anti-satellite weapons in the next few decades, I doubt asteroids of that size will be any significant threat by then so long as we know about them in advance. Its small enough to blow up. Bigger asteroids, or ones we don't catch till a day before, are the ones that will kill people. Even if its solid iron I imagine we could nudge it offcourse with a handful of well aimed rockets.
Have you ever wondered why the rates of things like allergies are skyrocketing? People don't expose themselves to nature. I grew up on a farm, and I can tell you with certainty that no farm child in had hay allergies. In fact, allergies of any kind were rare.
Isolating yourself in a city drinking nothing but treated water in a perfectly sterile setting is weakening you, slowly making you dependent on that environment for survival. That's just reality, and honestly it would almost certainly be healthier for people to expose themselves to nature and gain the immunity.
There is nothing unhealthy in fresh water provided its from an untainted source. A mountain stream, or a fresh spring, will in most cases be perfectly safe to drink from. Especially in places with lots of limestone, as the stone itself is porous and filters the water (In case you don't know, this is much of the reason why the wells drilled for country homes don't have to be pumped full of chemical. Safely nature-filtered). This isn't foolproof, water paracites are still possible, but far, far less likely the smaller the body of water and the further from civilization you get.
Unfortunately, most open-air water sources aren't safe anymore simply because of urban waste, agricultural runoff, and in some places industrial mining, but in an ideal environment water isn't very dangerous (The Rockies are still pretty pristine, for example). Hence the reason Native Americans could drink their water, while Europe had to drink beer or risk death. (This assumes you know not to drink stagnant water of course.)
The new era of "common sense thinking" is at the heart of much of the political and social turmoil we see around us. Mr. Singh is absolutely correct in stating that "common sense" is the enemy, and always has been the enemy, of science. Common sense was at the heart of the Ptolemaic system of heavenly motion. Common sense refuted Einstein. Common sense has no place in real science, ever.
Our modern world has advanced to the point that science, economics, philosophy, and literature are beyond 90% of the population. The sheer amount of information required to fully understand any one of those subjects makes it impossible for a "normal" person working 40-50 hours a week with a family and a simple hobby (working on cars, poker, whatever) to grasp them. I cant pretend to be an expert in all aspects of all of them, and I spend vast amounts of time trying to understand them.
In an ideal world, we would have clear experts we could trust to tell us the reality in any of those fields. Unfortunately, for whatever reason, the public has recoiled against that, preferring instead to use "common sense" to try and solve problems that inherently cant be solved with common sense. The backlash against science is part of this. Movements like the Tea Party also reflect this idea that "the everyman should take back society" (not to say that allegations of government corruption are unfounded, I don't much care to have that debate).
I truthfully think its a fear reaction. And its understandable. But we as scientists cannot yield to it. The problems we face are too great, and the discoveries too grand, to allow "common sense" (and often superstition in its guise) to hold us back.
Being a little nitpicky here, but this isn't true. Several of the eastern religious variants make no claim to authority, and readily accept western religion as a valid expression of their own understanding of existence. Hence things like Christian Buddhists, and the fact that Hindus don't generally start religious wars.
And further back, most of the polytheistic religions in ancient times were highly inclusive. The whole "believe in my God or die" thing is more a trait of monotheistic religion, which is probably most of your western experience.
Racist is a bit harsh, from what I've seen most libertarians are more inclined to say that the loss of freedom that comes from mandating racial acceptance isn't worth it. Not that I agree with that, but lets not confuse their idealism with racism. I will agree that the majority of the economic ideas they advocate are little more than wishful thinking for times gone by, rather than anything feasible for our modern world.
...till someone hacks one of their polls and a half-million votes appear for puppy meat as the national food. I only see this ending well.
You didn't catch on to my points. Agriculture is just one example of an industry that could be more efficient and productive, but isn't due to population instability. There are others. The Chinese aren't able to modernize because without production sinks like agriculture, they would have an idle, jobless population. And that is bad. It has nothing to do with corn syrup and suburbian sprawl... (which doesn't make much sense as a counter argument, unless I'm missing something).
If you think China has excellent infrastructure, you haven't been outside the tourist traps. The country as a whole is critically underdeveloped. But what I was really thinking of was, for example, their dam projects. They are wiping the country clean, destroying the land in an effort to keep up with basic demands like power. And that is with most of the country still underdeveloped. How long do you think they can strip the countryside of gravel, iron, and wood with no real reguard for their environment before it catches up with them?
And as far as a population imbalance, you can't just assume it will work itself out and everyone will just accept it. Its a phenomena we haven't ever seen before (surpluses of women, yes, but not men). You honestly think the creation of a male peasent sub-class with no hope of a family or stable existence isn't going to cause problems? Civil unrest, spikes in crime, and cultural upheval (in a fiercely conservative state like China, I'm sure the upsurge of prostitution this is bound to bring will go over well) are all possible and even likely.
China is trying to do in 50 years what the western world did over the course of almost 150, in a significantly more complex social and economic environment. They are winding up like a rubber band trying to catapult into the 21st century, and I see very little chance they dont snap like one.
The idea that China is anywhere near the United States in development is largely propaganda. There are huge, frightening issues that the Chinese know about and are trying desperately to fix, all the while trying to come off as a superpower.
Take, for example, agriculture. Chinese agriculture is a hundred years behind the United States, and not just because they can't afford to upgrade. The government forces manual labor simply to try and keep living inland viable. Were they to mechanize the labor needs of the central part of the nation would plummet, and massive migrations to coastal areas would take place: coastal areas that are already largely squalid pits. This has been commented on off the record by Chinese officials, but they would never openly admit it.
Infrastructure in China is hugely underdeveloped, to the point where the government there is raping local ecosystems in a desperate attempt to keep up with growth. The United States did the same thing, though spread over a longer period and with 1/5 the population. This will catch up with them in the not-too-distant future, and there will be hell to pay.
Then there is the problem of population imbalance. Most of us know about the "one child" restriction many Chinese are under. Most of those children born are boys, for cultural reasons. The male/female gap in China is in the tens of millions. And those young men are just reaching relationship age. What happens when 50 million men realize it is mathematically impossible to have a family? Talk about a social experiment.
Combine these with the typical problems associated with repressive governments, and we have ourselves an interesting pot of instability. The "growing middle class" is just the cream floating on top of a vat of very rotten milk, and I suspect we are going to see just how unsavory it is in not too long. I'd say India is far more likely to become a power than China, if we were betting. Though in reality, we might be looking at a superpower-less world in the near future...
My introductory rate through Charter communications for a cable+internet bundle was $60. Then , at the end of that year, it jumped to almost $120. I told them to screw off, and a year and a half ago I switched to Quest 7Mb dsl. For $45 a month and the week spent dicking around getting them to disable interleaving (so I now have latency no worse than cable) I have a snappy connection and access to any media I want. Most of my shows are on either Hulu or Syfy.com, and if its something new that I just cant wait for I'll just torrent the episode to watch.
If one of the major channels I watch (like Syfy) offered me a personal monthy web subscription for a couple bucks I would gladly pay, and would love if I could mark my favorite show or three on an anonymous survey as I paid. I would even watch on their ad supported viewer without complaint, provided the extra income went to higher quality/longer running shows on the network. Nothing is worse than seeing a show get axed on a cliffhanger because "it wasn't profitable enough." Hell, if a studio would get the rights to something like stargate and offered it as a subscription show through their own website viewer once a week I'd give them a dollar or two a month for sure.
We are seeing the internet break up the traditional media cartels, and they will fight tooth and nail to control the net either as a new revenue source or to stop the transition. We need to shift to the public mentality of "internet as infrastructure," otherwise this bright new future where we as people have better choices for cheaper will turn into the same old crap warmed over and sold for $120 a month...
This probably isn't true. The point of the article is that the entertainment industry is trying to push obscene measures to stop "piracy." While in a normal market situation people would just stop supporting these companies and go to a competitor, such a scenario is unlikely to play out since there are no real competitors besides companies that will probably be squelched as illegal.
Think of it this way: would the automobile ever have taken off if the buggy industry owned and legally controlled all materials and technology related to the making of wheels? Sure the buggy makers could adopt the new automotive technology, and it would be better for the consumer if they did, but there is no immediate incentive for them to do so.
The music industry as a whole controls the vast majority of music, and are pushing laws to crush emerging technologies that might obsolete their main revenue source. There is no reason for them to switch and take advantage of these new technologies, because they don't have to. The average consumer of entertainment just doesn't have the self control to stop listening to songs or watching films for an unknown amount of time just to put pressure on the industry, and groups like the RIAA know this. Thus, they have every incentive to try and legislate the problem away, as the market has no way to correct. Only if their grip on copyright is loosened, or some form of piracy allowed to flourish, is there any pressure to adapt to changing realities in the world.
Generally the best way to evaluate a difficult problem in any field is to look at extremely similar events as well. If you come to radically different conclusions on nearly identical issues your thought process is likely flawed. So lets try another one...
1.)I know a douchebag. Occasionally, after being in his presence, I imagine myself punching him. I cant help it, primal rage at his douchebagginess forces these thoughts.
2.)In an attempt to relieve said rage, I photoshop a picture of me punching a punching-bag onto a picture of said douchebag, thereby making it look like I punched him.
3.)One day, I actually punch the douchebag in the face.
Is number 2 assault? Definitely no. Are number 2 and 3 remotely equivalent? I think most would argue no. Would number 2 be enough to get a restraining order against me? Probably.
This doesn't seem to pass the sniff test, as a similar situation fails in equivalency. If the parties involved feel threatened or defamed they have other private legal recourse.
On a personal note, I think this is a bit creepy, and I might not want to hang around that guy. I somewhat understand the prosecutors discomfort with whats being done here. But thats no excuse for some zealot to bend moral equivalency to the breaking point. I suspect those pushing this know darn well they are legally crippled, and are instead trying to spread fear by ruining this mans life with a high profile case. After all, something doesn't have to be illegal (or even have to have taken place) if simply being accused of it will destroy your life. Thats as good a deterrent as any legislation. A lot of witches found that out, as did homosexuals. If there is justice in the world these law enforcement officials will lose their jobs, but we are talking about Tennessee...