"Often for 10-20 times the cost of a T1 I can get an OC3 link thats have 100 times the carring capacity only usefull if you need the move data all the time."
Good if you can share costs of an OC-3 with 10 to 20 other companies. Maybe when the office space market heats up a bit, then more buildings will just start providing this service to their tennants. Wonder if the idea of sharing anything would fly in a board room.
"My point is that if the piece of foam broke off the the top of the shuttle when the craft was doing many hundreds of miles per hour (like when the ET separates - the last time the foam (covering the ET) is on the shuttle) the air is not dense enough to slow the piece of foam enough to possibly impact the shuttle at hundreds of miles per hour."
Well, the shuttle ends up going 17,500 miles per hour. I don't know what speed it was going at when the piece fell off, but it was a heck of a lot faster than a few hundred mile per hour. So your math is way off. Anything falling off the shuttle will find itself going at a substantially different speed than the shuttle very shortly, even in a very thin atmosphere.
"Any tags need to be attached to the garment in such a way that they can be removed after purchase."
Yes, agreed. Very simple and non invasive solution, these should just replace bar codes, not be a marketing and surveilance power grab. Mandate that they be removeable and not part of the product. RFID would be a useful inventory tool and that is all.
"I would say it is more likely that Reasoning is just using this "study" as a marketing tool."
No, the results were released, not the company's name. So, unless they just didn't like the results, which is possible since the conclusion was that the error rates are nearly the same, then this is a legit analysis of code and they are relatively open about their methods.
A reasonable conclusion about what this group has found is that error rates in open source projects are relatively the same as in commercial projects, but as they mature a greater number of errors are fixed in Open Source vs Commercial Software... this is not negative towards Open Source.
Just last year we were discussing data transfer over the time it would take to overnight some data in a package, worked out that it was faster and wouldn't clog up our line to burn the DVDs and send them through an international package service vs send it over the T1s. I think with all but the largest businesses this is probably still true for larger (Gigabytes) amounts of data. Network costs are too high to be putting data far from where it is to be used. Whether CEOs realize it or not, this has a great effect on the ways businesses with multiple locations structure their company and work together.
"to examine defect density rates in a less mature Open Source application and compare it with the commercial equivalent."
I read that to mean that they looked at a development version of a commercial project also. Which means that the company had to decide that the commercial company decided that their project was at a similar place to Apache's development project. Given the subjective nature of that determination, this is essentially an endorsement of the Apache Development effort.
Essentially, a Software company wanted to check it's development against an open source project and found out that a certain error rate was about the same, which seems likely given that they were looking at essentially were syntax errors not design flaws or anything else more complicated to look at.
I read this as finding out that essentially a programmers fallability is about the same regardless of whether they are being paid or not.
Problem with dogs that are trained to sniff anything, be it drugs, bombs or cancer vs some man made technology is the inconsistency between dogs and dog trainers. Although, they may be more sensitive than any man-made device, they also have bad days and can get sick without their handlers noticing. Better to have a device that while not necesarily more reliable or sensitive, might be more easily tested for variations in performance. In other words, are dogs really going to be accurately tested every day to make sure their performance isn't slipping? But maybe a device can be tested more easily and regularly to ensure quality.
So, why are dogs so heavily relied upon at airports and for other security. Because simply put, security doesn't need to be 100%, it is largely the deterrent that the dogs provide that provides the actual security. Knowing that these dogs are being used will deter the less serious drug smugler or terrorist from the attempt. But with something like cancer screaning you really have to have a high degree of certainty and invariability in order for it to be useful.
So the reason dogs wouldn't be used is that they just add to the cost of diagnosis, but can't rule out cancer to a high enough degree, making additional more invasive diagnostic procedures needed anyway.
If this electronic device can be 99.9% accurate at determining that a person doesn't have cancer when used properly, then you can then focus resources on those remaining. Which is better for those that are shown to be clear of cancer. But it also changes the economics for those devices that require greater capital expenditures, they are only economical when used on larger numbers of people, but if this screaning reduces those numbers of false positives, then a fewer number of truly sick people will be left paying for the more expensive machines. So either the number of expensive diagnostic machines will need to be reduced, the price will have to come down, or the cancer sick individuals will be charged more money.
Imagine you are a technician working on this surveillance system, you'd be able to tell when that girl you've had a crush on has just broken up with her boyfriend and has just gone on a shopping spree to make herself feel better, then you'd know just the right time to call since you would know when the car pulled into the driveway. All from the comfort of your own keyboard... it isn't stalking right? That involves hiding in bushes, right? Of course, you caused this girl to break up in the first place by casually suggesting that she stop by a certain bar with her friends, since you knew her boyfriend was chatting up women there every Thursday.
Or imagine knowing exactly where your political opponent is at every moment and being able to send over your paid "protestors" at a moments notice. And anonymously alert the media to cover the event. Of course you couldn't come out and say exactly how you knew he was having an affair with a well know socialite since that would be unethical use of a public resource, but that's what anonymous tips to the press are for. Once the Press finds out something "on their own" then they won't care who or how they were tipped off in the first place.
The point here isn't that people can't and don't have the ability to do this today, since you could hire a private detective or just spy on people yourselves, but rather that "privacy concerns" will likely concentrate this new ease and power of surveillance in the hands of just a few. Likely those in government will have an additional edge over those not, those with connections the same edge.
Let nobody think that knowledge of other people's business isn't power of a particularly potent kind and will be used for other than stated or intended purposes. It will be used by individuals both important and not important for their own benefit. Maybe it will be good for others, harmless to others or perhaps it will ruin people's lives, but what is certain is that those with access to any knowledge will be superior to those that don't. This system will corrupt and be corrupted, it is a certainty, the only things we can do to mitigate the effects of such corruption are to be completely open about it's use so we can better judge those that use it.
I think the article's title is a bad (aka incorrect) attempt to make the story more relevant... buzzword compliant. It also has very little to do with the common understanding of the meaning of the word nanotechnology. But the title probably got it more attention than it would have otherwise received, but then again so did the boy who cried wolf.
Scares me too, but the legal basis for infra red and x-ray seems to be different. Legally and practically the difference between an active search and passive observation are very important. With Infrared you are just taking pictures of the surface and the heat something gives off. X-rays are actually beamed at someone and go through them or their belongings, making it much much more invasive both legally and practically. It is physically similar to and should not be considered any different than going through a bag by hand.
Just because we can't see them doesn't mean X-Rays aren't physical.
So, a rational society would require the same level of due process for human searches as they would X-Ray searches. I believe as long as people can be made to understand the gyst of the physics, then it should be pretty clear that this is very much not a passive technology and should be used only with warrant or consent.
Airports are not really public places anymore, and we give our consent to searches when we go in, or at least enter the terminal areas. Which would be unacceptable if it was a public space or right or way.
well, seriously now, would they have not tried this business model if they couldn't patent it? Or in other words, if a court invalidates this patent would they just go back to doing things the old way? This patent does nothing for the public good. It isn't a fair exchange of value which is what patents are supposed to be. Legal protection for a fixed period of time in exchange for information on how to create the patented device.
And just because a business model is sucessful or even unique doesn't make it novel. This is just a subscription model for content with free postage. The only novel thing about it is that they seem to be making money at it.
Safari is doing the same exact thing with online books with their bookshelf, but they don't have to mail their content. In fact, Netflix would be smart to emulate Safari books tiered plan which allows a customer to have more content for more mone.
A solution to all this mess would be to do away with the patent office, let people hash it out in the courts and let a jury decide if an invention is novel enough to protect it just as they do with copyright. Seems that is what the patent office wants anyway.
"A lack of competition is ALWAYS bad for the consumer. In the end, it's not WalMart who's getting screwed, it's you."
Oh Not so! I can't imagine anyone would have thought of this particular method of renting DVDs unless someone at Netflix had shown us the way. That is precisely the intent of patent law, to bring innovation to the light of day so that we may all benefit in the future when the patent expires. Imagine if Netflix hadn't been able to patent this novel business method... they probably would have just decided to sell cabbages by the side of the road or something rather than share their secret. So none of us would have benefited from this "innovation" and we might have spent thousands of years before someone of similar intellect discovered this unique way to rent DVDs!;)
"I'm sure some people saw Gutenberg's printing press as the Big Devil too. And in some ways, it was."
Damn right, brother!! We'd all just be better off without the ability to copy stuff. This copying is just the devil's work. We should just experience the world for ourselves. Forget these books, papers and computer files, better to get out and talk to people. Stupid music... go buy an instrument and just start playing. Stupid engineering books! Want to build a bridge just try it out! If you really want some information, just pay someone to tell you. Word of mouth, baby, that is the future!
Why walk when you can take a car? Why take a car when you can fly? Why go anywhere at all if you can just send an email or call? Why reinvent the wheel when you can just read about it? All these things save a person time, time which they are free to use towards other ends, towards their own happiness, towards their own prupose.
One definition of decadence is: "A process, condition, or period of deterioration or decline, as in morals or art; decay." What the author really seems to be writing about is moral decadence, and the effect that it has on the devlopment of technology. But decadence is not defined by wanting to do less work. It is our very ability to live beyond mere daily survival that defines our humanity. Our ingenuity is defined by our ability to accomplish more in less time, giving us more time to conteplation and reason, for our own purpose.
The fact that some fall victim to idleness should not be an argument against the nature of invention. The fact that not everything that you can buy is particularly useful does not mean it won't be useful to some. People will decide what they want, what they can afford. I would even argue that example given of the keyless entry system of this new audi is an example of the good innovation can bring to people's lives... Unless it is faulty for some reason, this system would save people time which is what is important. Time is essentially all we have.
I remember wasting hours waiting to get into a car that I had been locked out of. A few hours that this keyless biometric entry system would have saved. Yes, just a few very wealthy people will benefit now, but so too were many inventions of profound importance limited to a wealthy few to start. The automobile and telephone come to mind as blatant examples of this.
Technology has the potential to make people's lives easier, but to make their pursuit of happiness more possible is not decadent. A Decadent morality is one that expects others to do things for you without compensation.
The author talks about "basic needs" and "brainpower" as do many of a socialist persuassion. But what does he mean, what does he want? Socialists want people to work on things that they wants them to do, not because they will compensate them for their work, but because they wish to dictate a corrupt form of materialism on others. Yes, you heard me. The author is the one being materialistic, just not on an individual level. Remember, he is the one talking about basic needs in material terms. Basic needs which can be met with technological solutions... But what are these basic needs that the human mind has not long ago met? Do somehow plants grow differently than before or animals not procreate? Has the sun stopped shinning? The basic needs of every man woman and child on earth can easily be met with existing technology. People can shape their environment like never before in history. The tinkerers job has been done. The "brainpower" of which he speaks has already invented more than enough technology to meet people's "basic needs" of food, water and shelter.
The poor people of the world suffer not from lack of existence of the technolgy that could help them, but rather they have not the means to acquire it. What is needed here is a little charity and an end to corruption which saps the limited resources of these people. And now we are full circle... what is a source of this corruption? This corruption is not substantially different from the corruption that says that I must work towards your goals without compensation. That you are the mind and I the body. I the slave and you the master. As if the reason and invention will survive such an arrangement.
When the author writes about basic needs of others, he is writing down a path not towards charity, but towards a world that stagnates and mires itself in its most base needs not its basic ones.
Truely novel and useful innovation is not dictated by the need of others.
"Basically he didnt quit outright, I guess he wants to keep his options open."
Exactly, i'd bet it probably has something to do with his stock options. Usually you have to exercise your options 30 days after leaving a company, but if technically he hasn't left, then he could hang on to his stock options just in case they are ever worth something again.
"This isn't very educated. You're suggesting that since the US promotes some form of freedom, that other governments cannot possibly produce people that feel they're pursuing a dream by going into space?"
I don't think space is a dream. It is just a place. I don't believe any government directed effort can accomplish that which needs to be accomplished to bring people to the stars. There are just too many variables, too much risk, too much uncertainty.
"Some ventures are just too risky with little chance for return. Investors don't like that, and that's why we have government sponsoring these programs. I don't see that changing in the near future."
Agreed. That is why I believe that NASA has a funding role towards basic science and engineering and even sponsering expeditions. Since I don't think capital would ever flow to pioneers or adventurers until after they have proven themselves, but look at what NASA has shown investors. They have defined space as someplace that costs billions of dollars to go to. Yes, the fuel costs and materials cost money, but billions? No, hopefully people like Burt Rutan and his Scaled Composites can succeed at launching their vehicle just to prove that it is reasonable to expect costs to come down into the reach of individuals and smaller corporations.
But do you really think that the management and political backers of NASA want to see others launching satellites or people into space at a fraction of the cost that NASA has? Sure there are many good people at NASA that probably applaud any human endevour into space, but there is too much turf protecting and not enough exploring.
As with much of the safety debate (throughout much of human history in fact) it is about politcal power and not about safety.
For every safety regulation that NASA puts into place or for that matter safety regulations that apply to any of the big industries, it means that it raises the barriers to entry for innovation and invention. The new and unknown always bring with them unknown dangers.
"I get frustrated reading stuff like this all the time. Manned orbital activities are inherently risky. You're strapping people to a huge explosive machine with tons of cargo, sending them into orbit at speeds of tens of thousands of miles an hour, and bringing them back."
I'm not sure I was clear, so let me be so. If anything I believe NASA spends too much time and too much money playing it safe. They do so because NASA is a public institution and the public and publicity surrounding the space program demand it. That is why I think it should be a private endevour. I would rather see dozens of lives lost per year with weekly or daily flights than see the scarcity of flights made by NASA.
"NASA does a hell of a lot more than operate the space shuttle and ISS. I'm going to assume that the various Mars and moon programs have been temporarily forgotten but you now realize the error of your statement. Sometimes it's hard to take note of the dozens of active NASA programs, since only one or two actually make headlines, but they're very much there and very much providing useful information."
Various mars and moon programs? The moon programs were 30 years ago. Sending a couple probes to Mars doesn't do jack. Imagine sending one or two probes to earth... you could get lucky and land in an interesting place or you could land in the middle of the Sahara. Bad odds of finding something interesting. Thousands upon thousands of probes need to be sent throughout our solar system and beyond... to do that we need a cheap way to get off the planet. Not the space shuttle.
"This is one good thing that China has going for its space program. It recognizes that progress cannot occur without risk and is prepared to lose lives for that progress. This will allow it to compete with (and potentially surpass) the western world in this area."
The US can do what other governments cannot, it can recognize the sovereign rights of the human spirit. The spririt that refuses to be held back by the bonds of earth or otehr man. The way forward will not be found by the Chinese, because it is not the willingness to sacrifice the lives of others that marks progress. Nor will NASA make the great leaps needed to bring people to the stars. It is the unbridled human spirit and mind, which will find a way to move forward.
"It's really getting to the point where we've seen the end to most any significant progress or monument in the western world. It's all far too risky now. We have safety agencies, codes and laws all there to prevent us from taking risks without an enormously expensive safety line."
We agree about the need to take risks and the burdens of so called safety regulations, but it seems you are unwilling to see that NASA is one of those impediments to progress. The codes and laws that NASA works under prevent personal travel to space and give NASA an exclusive role.
"Do you think we're ever going to see another St. Louis arch constructed anywhere in the western world?"
That is all we seem interested in doing these days...building monuments to the achievements of others, rather than hope to achieve ourselves. The greatest lie that was ever believed was that we can achieve more as a group than we can as individuals. But it is only as individuals that we can achieve anything.
All I really want is for NASA and its believers to get out of my way.
People, myself included, have faulted NASA for past mismanagement of safety concerns. But my real concern is that they spend billions upon billions of dollars and employ thousands of the brightest engineers and scientists, and still make some of the stupidest mistakes which cost lives and money, but most importantly time.
They have monopolized space exploration in the US far too long and provided a poor model for the rest of the world to follow, which has stifled innovation. They should be handing out research and exploration grants like the NSF does and performing reviews of the results to determine future funding. Not running a single space program for a single space station. All our eggs in one basket, as it goes.
Arguments about the airworthiness of the space shuttle to me are pointless. It is a big machine with lots of parts and carries some risk of failure. It has been show to be able to fly successfully a high percentage of the time. Nothing they do to it will fundamentally change that situation. But by being the only game in town there can be no comparison of risk and no judgements made based on that comparison.
NASA asks us, either fly or do not fly. This is not a free choice, to those of us that wish to see humans fly it means that we must choose the space shuttle regardless of risk or incompetence or anything.
NASA will undoubtedly want more money to increase the safety of the space shuttle flights, but to what end? Any machine can be better maintained or operated, if we collectively choose a single means, and spend our collective resources and will on that means we could be on a fools errand. Like driving a car into the ocean. Sure we can keep tuning our procedures and plugging the leaks, but it ain't gonna get us to the other side. So that basic questions of design or operation are essentially meaningless when one only tries or has a single means. Like voting for the only candidate, the choice presented to us is meaningless. To go or not to go. To live or to die. Of course we must go, as we must live.
Or do we? Maybe, when such a stark choice is put before us we must refuse to make it. Refuse the question. Should the shuttle fly or not? Ignore the question, it is inconsequencial to that which many of us care about. Space exploration is the purpose and the question, not the shuttle.
Exploration of space is dangerous and will not survive safety concerns of collective action. Liken it to any human endeavor of significant unknown and danger and you will find it must be done by individuals. Individuals that have clarity of vision and certainty of purpose. It must be done by people, not by institutions or incorporations. People who know the risks, people that see the dangers, people that take the leap because they see the oppurtunity. People that learn and reason.
If we are to keep NASA at all, then it must only be to find those people and give them a little bit of money or help. Like Queen Isabella giving Christopher Columbus enough money to get the supplies and men he needed. Not too much money though, because we know that to succeed in Space one will have to travel lightly, and the tendency of people with too much money is to buy things. We know that to succeed in space one needs to be quick, but the tendency of people with too much money is to spend time spending money.
I expect the shuttle to fly again, because there are a lot of people who depend on it for their livelyhood. I expect that the shuttle will fly again because looking at the world a certain way, it makes sense to continue to do what we have been doing for the last two decades. I expect the shuttle to fly again because it is a link in a chain that could mean the end of the space station. Because it would mean the end to an entire generation's way of thinking.
So there it is, the heads of NASA would like us to choose between their shuttle and nothing. Between the aspirations of mankind and bondage to this rock. It is a false choice.
"I think they should be concentrating on improving the reliability of their service before they even think of what technology they are going to move to next."
What if the new technology fixes the problems?
This is largely just rhetorical, since I have no idea what the problems are that concern you and how they would be affected by any of these new technologies. But fundamentally the argument that you should fix your problems before trying something new is flawed, since you can never fix a problem unless you try something new.
"They have and use various PowerPC CPUs. Modern enough for you?"
The discussion was about Mars and explorer missions and reasons for their failures not NASA in general. Not the Space shuttle, its navigation systems or science payloads, which are clearly more modern. Especially not the ground computers used for data analysis which are very complex and large
I was stating a fact. That the Mars missions in the past and likely the current one do not use Gigabytes of anything and were using older less complex systems than most anything used today commercially. So that the idea that it was reasonable that computer complexity was the reason for these demises was silly. Yes even tens of thousands of lines of code can be complicated and can contain logical errors, but NASA has many engineers spending much time on the software code, making it unreasonable to expect fatal errors to be lurking around every line of code unless there are fatal errors in the assumptions that they were written for. It is also true that the reason for NASA's use of older hardware are many, but largely requirements for low power consumption, radiation hardening which requires more testing than commercial electronics and therefore takes longer and the fact that NASA projects often take years, so that any electronics that are included on these explorer missions will likely not be nearly as complex as contemporary consumer electronics and softare is often limited to very much contrained memory requirements. I'd tell you how much, but it seems NASA doesn't really release its code.
Remarks about the advanced technology used on these explorers coupled with NASA's constant assurances that the technology developed is cutting edge and could benefit mankind are hogwash. These explorers are specially designed vehicles that are meant for very specific purpose, not cutting edge general purpose technology which will benefit us all, but rather it is cutting edge space exploration.
I fault NASA on the image of its programs that it actively promotes. That every solder or wire in all its missions is a breakthrough in technology and will benefit all mankind. NASA needs to be honest, open and more scientific in its leadership. To sink or swim on the merits of the missions, not prey upon the memory of past technological breakthroughs that actually did benefit all of mankind.
"Yes, that's right. 55% of this tax will go to school internet connections, library internet access, and low-income subscribers and health care. 45% goes to the somewhat less worthy but still valid rural subscribers to keep costs equitable. Now, what was that you were about to say?"...and 100% will go right back into the pockets of the big monopolies. Whom do you think is going to get these taxes? Sure they will go toward providing "services" at a "fair" price for the poor little children. But surely the companies will be given a market rate for their services which are being mandated, one for which they will profit.
This is just another case of power hungry beaurocrats and money hungry monopolists feeding eachother. Yet another government subsidy of big business.
Please nobody forget that taxes are when people are forced to pay for something they wouldn't voluntarily pay for... if someone came to your house and took your money without your consent, then I think even the most maleable among us would be offended. Why is this money grab any different? You say because we elected them... that we collectively have chosen this?
No. Democracy thrice removed is not democracy. These people are thieves pure and simple. They do not represent me, any more than they represent you. They take our money by force and hide behind promises of job creation and benefit to children and the poor, but no good can come from a thieves gold.
Sure we have a choice to pay for these services or not... to participate in society or to not. To pay taxes or to not, but what choice is that really? Not a free one.
In my area free school access is just part of the price cable modem providers pay for cable's right of way. School access doesn't really cost much of anything for the providers beyond the istallation, so why not just mandate it from the monopolies? By my accounting it would take just a couple hundred subscribers in a community to easily defray even the commercial cost of educational access, let alone the real cost. Education access in exchange for right of way is a fair bargain, an exchange of value, not a theft like these proposed taxes and many others
Eventually this corruption will stop, either we will put a stop to it or it will stop us, but it will stop.
Slashdot Mirror
"Often for 10-20 times the cost of a T1 I can get an OC3 link thats have 100 times the carring capacity only usefull if you need the move data all the time."
Good if you can share costs of an OC-3 with 10 to 20 other companies. Maybe when the office space market heats up a bit, then more buildings will just start providing this service to their tennants. Wonder if the idea of sharing anything would fly in a board room.
"My point is that if the piece of foam broke off the the top of the shuttle when the craft was doing many hundreds of miles per hour (like when the ET separates - the last time the foam (covering the ET) is on the shuttle) the air is not dense enough to slow the piece of foam enough to possibly impact the shuttle at hundreds of miles per hour."
Well, the shuttle ends up going 17,500 miles per hour. I don't know what speed it was going at when the piece fell off, but it was a heck of a lot faster than a few hundred mile per hour. So your math is way off. Anything falling off the shuttle will find itself going at a substantially different speed than the shuttle very shortly, even in a very thin atmosphere.
"Any tags need to be attached to the garment in such a way that they can be removed after purchase."
Yes, agreed. Very simple and non invasive solution, these should just replace bar codes, not be a marketing and surveilance power grab. Mandate that they be removeable and not part of the product. RFID would be a useful inventory tool and that is all.
"I would say it is more likely that Reasoning is just using this "study" as a marketing tool."
No, the results were released, not the company's name. So, unless they just didn't like the results, which is possible since the conclusion was that the error rates are nearly the same, then this is a legit analysis of code and they are relatively open about their methods.
A reasonable conclusion about what this group has found is that error rates in open source projects are relatively the same as in commercial projects, but as they mature a greater number of errors are fixed in Open Source vs Commercial Software... this is not negative towards Open Source.
Just last year we were discussing data transfer over the time it would take to overnight some data in a package, worked out that it was faster and wouldn't clog up our line to burn the DVDs and send them through an international package service vs send it over the T1s. I think with all but the largest businesses this is probably still true for larger (Gigabytes) amounts of data. Network costs are too high to be putting data far from where it is to be used. Whether CEOs realize it or not, this has a great effect on the ways businesses with multiple locations structure their company and work together.
"to examine defect density rates in a less mature Open Source application and compare it with the commercial equivalent."
I read that to mean that they looked at a development version of a commercial project also. Which means that the company had to decide that the commercial company decided that their project was at a similar place to Apache's development project. Given the subjective nature of that determination, this is essentially an endorsement of the Apache Development effort.
Essentially, a Software company wanted to check it's development against an open source project and found out that a certain error rate was about the same, which seems likely given that they were looking at essentially were syntax errors not design flaws or anything else more complicated to look at.
I read this as finding out that essentially a programmers fallability is about the same regardless of whether they are being paid or not.
Problem with dogs that are trained to sniff anything, be it drugs, bombs or cancer vs some man made technology is the inconsistency between dogs and dog trainers. Although, they may be more sensitive than any man-made device, they also have bad days and can get sick without their handlers noticing. Better to have a device that while not necesarily more reliable or sensitive, might be more easily tested for variations in performance. In other words, are dogs really going to be accurately tested every day to make sure their performance isn't slipping? But maybe a device can be tested more easily and regularly to ensure quality.
So, why are dogs so heavily relied upon at airports and for other security. Because simply put, security doesn't need to be 100%, it is largely the deterrent that the dogs provide that provides the actual security. Knowing that these dogs are being used will deter the less serious drug smugler or terrorist from the attempt. But with something like cancer screaning you really have to have a high degree of certainty and invariability in order for it to be useful.
So the reason dogs wouldn't be used is that they just add to the cost of diagnosis, but can't rule out cancer to a high enough degree, making additional more invasive diagnostic procedures needed anyway.
If this electronic device can be 99.9% accurate at determining that a person doesn't have cancer when used properly, then you can then focus resources on those remaining. Which is better for those that are shown to be clear of cancer. But it also changes the economics for those devices that require greater capital expenditures, they are only economical when used on larger numbers of people, but if this screaning reduces those numbers of false positives, then a fewer number of truly sick people will be left paying for the more expensive machines. So either the number of expensive diagnostic machines will need to be reduced, the price will have to come down, or the cancer sick individuals will be charged more money.
Imagine you are a technician working on this surveillance system, you'd be able to tell when that girl you've had a crush on has just broken up with her boyfriend and has just gone on a shopping spree to make herself feel better, then you'd know just the right time to call since you would know when the car pulled into the driveway. All from the comfort of your own keyboard... it isn't stalking right? That involves hiding in bushes, right? Of course, you caused this girl to break up in the first place by casually suggesting that she stop by a certain bar with her friends, since you knew her boyfriend was chatting up women there every Thursday.
Or imagine knowing exactly where your political opponent is at every moment and being able to send over your paid "protestors" at a moments notice. And anonymously alert the media to cover the event. Of course you couldn't come out and say exactly how you knew he was having an affair with a well know socialite since that would be unethical use of a public resource, but that's what anonymous tips to the press are for. Once the Press finds out something "on their own" then they won't care who or how they were tipped off in the first place.
The point here isn't that people can't and don't have the ability to do this today, since you could hire a private detective or just spy on people yourselves, but rather that "privacy concerns" will likely concentrate this new ease and power of surveillance in the hands of just a few. Likely those in government will have an additional edge over those not, those with connections the same edge.
Let nobody think that knowledge of other people's business isn't power of a particularly potent kind and will be used for other than stated or intended purposes. It will be used by individuals both important and not important for their own benefit. Maybe it will be good for others, harmless to others or perhaps it will ruin people's lives, but what is certain is that those with access to any knowledge will be superior to those that don't. This system will corrupt and be corrupted, it is a certainty, the only things we can do to mitigate the effects of such corruption are to be completely open about it's use so we can better judge those that use it.
I think the article's title is a bad (aka incorrect) attempt to make the story more relevant... buzzword compliant. It also has very little to do with the common understanding of the meaning of the word nanotechnology. But the title probably got it more attention than it would have otherwise received, but then again so did the boy who cried wolf.
Scares me too, but the legal basis for infra red and x-ray seems to be different. Legally and practically the difference between an active search and passive observation are very important. With Infrared you are just taking pictures of the surface and the heat something gives off. X-rays are actually beamed at someone and go through them or their belongings, making it much much more invasive both legally and practically. It is physically similar to and should not be considered any different than going through a bag by hand.
Just because we can't see them doesn't mean X-Rays aren't physical.
So, a rational society would require the same level of due process for human searches as they would X-Ray searches. I believe as long as people can be made to understand the gyst of the physics, then it should be pretty clear that this is very much not a passive technology and should be used only with warrant or consent.
Airports are not really public places anymore, and we give our consent to searches when we go in, or at least enter the terminal areas. Which would be unacceptable if it was a public space or right or way.
well, seriously now, would they have not tried this business model if they couldn't patent it? Or in other words, if a court invalidates this patent would they just go back to doing things the old way? This patent does nothing for the public good. It isn't a fair exchange of value which is what patents are supposed to be. Legal protection for a fixed period of time in exchange for information on how to create the patented device.
And just because a business model is sucessful or even unique doesn't make it novel. This is just a subscription model for content with free postage. The only novel thing about it is that they seem to be making money at it.
Safari is doing the same exact thing with online books with their bookshelf, but they don't have to mail their content. In fact, Netflix would be smart to emulate Safari books tiered plan which allows a customer to have more content for more mone.
A solution to all this mess would be to do away with the patent office, let people hash it out in the courts and let a jury decide if an invention is novel enough to protect it just as they do with copyright. Seems that is what the patent office wants anyway.
"A lack of competition is ALWAYS bad for the consumer. In the end, it's not WalMart who's getting screwed, it's you."
;)
Oh Not so! I can't imagine anyone would have thought of this particular method of renting DVDs unless someone at Netflix had shown us the way. That is precisely the intent of patent law, to bring innovation to the light of day so that we may all benefit in the future when the patent expires. Imagine if Netflix hadn't been able to patent this novel business method... they probably would have just decided to sell cabbages by the side of the road or something rather than share their secret. So none of us would have benefited from this "innovation" and we might have spent thousands of years before someone of similar intellect discovered this unique way to rent DVDs!
"what about those fancy shmancy computer programmers."
Yes, you are right. We do control you.
"AltaVista can afford to defend themselves"
these days... i doubt it.
"I'm sure some people saw Gutenberg's printing press as the Big Devil too. And in some ways, it was."
Damn right, brother!! We'd all just be better off without the ability to copy stuff. This copying is just the devil's work. We should just experience the world for ourselves. Forget these books, papers and computer files, better to get out and talk to people. Stupid music... go buy an instrument and just start playing. Stupid engineering books! Want to build a bridge just try it out! If you really want some information, just pay someone to tell you. Word of mouth, baby, that is the future!
The past is just over rated.
Leisure is the mother of invention.
Why walk when you can take a car? Why take a car when you can fly? Why go anywhere at all if you can just send an email or call? Why reinvent the wheel when you can just read about it? All these things save a person time, time which they are free to use towards other ends, towards their own happiness, towards their own prupose.
One definition of decadence is: "A process, condition, or period of deterioration or decline, as in morals or art; decay." What the author really seems to be writing about is moral decadence, and the effect that it has on the devlopment of technology. But decadence is not defined by wanting to do less work. It is our very ability to live beyond mere daily survival that defines our humanity. Our ingenuity is defined by our ability to accomplish more in less time, giving us more time to conteplation and reason, for our own purpose.
The fact that some fall victim to idleness should not be an argument against the nature of invention. The fact that not everything that you can buy is particularly useful does not mean it won't be useful to some. People will decide what they want, what they can afford. I would even argue that example given of the keyless entry system of this new audi is an example of the good innovation can bring to people's lives... Unless it is faulty for some reason, this system would save people time which is what is important. Time is essentially all we have.
I remember wasting hours waiting to get into a car that I had been locked out of. A few hours that this keyless biometric entry system would have saved. Yes, just a few very wealthy people will benefit now, but so too were many inventions of profound importance limited to a wealthy few to start. The automobile and telephone come to mind as blatant examples of this.
Technology has the potential to make people's lives easier, but to make their pursuit of happiness more possible is not decadent. A Decadent morality is one that expects others to do things for you without compensation.
The author talks about "basic needs" and "brainpower" as do many of a socialist persuassion. But what does he mean, what does he want? Socialists want people to work on things that they wants them to do, not because they will compensate them for their work, but because they wish to dictate a corrupt form of materialism on others. Yes, you heard me. The author is the one being materialistic, just not on an individual level. Remember, he is the one talking about basic needs in material terms. Basic needs which can be met with technological solutions... But what are these basic needs that the human mind has not long ago met? Do somehow plants grow differently than before or animals not procreate? Has the sun stopped shinning? The basic needs of every man woman and child on earth can easily be met with existing technology. People can shape their environment like never before in history. The tinkerers job has been done. The "brainpower" of which he speaks has already invented more than enough technology to meet people's "basic needs" of food, water and shelter.
The poor people of the world suffer not from lack of existence of the technolgy that could help them, but rather they have not the means to acquire it. What is needed here is a little charity and an end to corruption which saps the limited resources of these people. And now we are full circle... what is a source of this corruption? This corruption is not substantially different from the corruption that says that I must work towards your goals without compensation. That you are the mind and I the body. I the slave and you the master. As if the reason and invention will survive such an arrangement.
When the author writes about basic needs of others, he is writing down a path not towards charity, but towards a world that stagnates and mires itself in its most base needs not its basic ones.
Truely novel and useful innovation is not dictated by the need of others.
"Basically he didnt quit outright, I guess he wants to keep his options open."
Exactly, i'd bet it probably has something to do with his stock options. Usually you have to exercise your options 30 days after leaving a company, but if technically he hasn't left, then he could hang on to his stock options just in case they are ever worth something again.
I assume Linus already has a good spam filter.
But just in case, maybe someone should throw a "NOSPAM" in there or the like to slow down some of the bots.
"This isn't very educated. You're suggesting that since the US promotes some form of freedom, that other governments cannot possibly produce people that feel they're pursuing a dream by going into space?"
I don't think space is a dream. It is just a place. I don't believe any government directed effort can accomplish that which needs to be accomplished to bring people to the stars. There are just too many variables, too much risk, too much uncertainty.
"Some ventures are just too risky with little chance for return. Investors don't like that, and that's why we have government sponsoring these programs. I don't see that changing in the near future."
Agreed. That is why I believe that NASA has a funding role towards basic science and engineering and even sponsering expeditions. Since I don't think capital would ever flow to pioneers or adventurers until after they have proven themselves, but look at what NASA has shown investors. They have defined space as someplace that costs billions of dollars to go to. Yes, the fuel costs and materials cost money, but billions? No, hopefully people like Burt Rutan and his Scaled Composites can succeed at launching their vehicle just to prove that it is reasonable to expect costs to come down into the reach of individuals and smaller corporations.
But do you really think that the management and political backers of NASA want to see others launching satellites or people into space at a fraction of the cost that NASA has? Sure there are many good people at NASA that probably applaud any human endevour into space, but there is too much turf protecting and not enough exploring.
As with much of the safety debate (throughout much of human history in fact) it is about politcal power and not about safety.
For every safety regulation that NASA puts into place or for that matter safety regulations that apply to any of the big industries, it means that it raises the barriers to entry for innovation and invention. The new and unknown always bring with them unknown dangers.
"I get frustrated reading stuff like this all the time. Manned orbital activities are inherently risky. You're strapping people to a huge explosive machine with tons of cargo, sending them into orbit at speeds of tens of thousands of miles an hour, and bringing them back."
I'm not sure I was clear, so let me be so. If anything I believe NASA spends too much time and too much money playing it safe. They do so because NASA is a public institution and the public and publicity surrounding the space program demand it. That is why I think it should be a private endevour. I would rather see dozens of lives lost per year with weekly or daily flights than see the scarcity of flights made by NASA.
"NASA does a hell of a lot more than operate the space shuttle and ISS. I'm going to assume that the various Mars and moon programs have been temporarily forgotten but you now realize the error of your statement. Sometimes it's hard to take note of the dozens of active NASA programs, since only one or two actually make headlines, but they're very much there and very much providing useful information."
Various mars and moon programs? The moon programs were 30 years ago. Sending a couple probes to Mars doesn't do jack. Imagine sending one or two probes to earth... you could get lucky and land in an interesting place or you could land in the middle of the Sahara. Bad odds of finding something interesting. Thousands upon thousands of probes need to be sent throughout our solar system and beyond... to do that we need a cheap way to get off the planet. Not the space shuttle.
"This is one good thing that China has going for its space program. It recognizes that progress cannot occur without risk and is prepared to lose lives for that progress. This will allow it to compete with (and potentially surpass) the western world in this area."
The US can do what other governments cannot, it can recognize the sovereign rights of the human spirit. The spririt that refuses to be held back by the bonds of earth or otehr man. The way forward will not be found by the Chinese, because it is not the willingness to sacrifice the lives of others that marks progress. Nor will NASA make the great leaps needed to bring people to the stars. It is the unbridled human spirit and mind, which will find a way to move forward.
"It's really getting to the point where we've seen the end to most any significant progress or monument in the western world. It's all far too risky now. We have safety agencies, codes and laws all there to prevent us from taking risks without an enormously expensive safety line."
We agree about the need to take risks and the burdens of so called safety regulations, but it seems you are unwilling to see that NASA is one of those impediments to progress. The codes and laws that NASA works under prevent personal travel to space and give NASA an exclusive role.
"Do you think we're ever going to see another St. Louis arch constructed anywhere in the western world?"
That is all we seem interested in doing these days...building monuments to the achievements of others, rather than hope to achieve ourselves. The greatest lie that was ever believed was that we can achieve more as a group than we can as individuals. But it is only as individuals that we can achieve anything.
All I really want is for NASA and its believers to get out of my way.
People, myself included, have faulted NASA for past mismanagement of safety concerns. But my real concern is that they spend billions upon billions of dollars and employ thousands of the brightest engineers and scientists, and still make some of the stupidest mistakes which cost lives and money, but most importantly time.
They have monopolized space exploration in the US far too long and provided a poor model for the rest of the world to follow, which has stifled innovation. They should be handing out research and exploration grants like the NSF does and performing reviews of the results to determine future funding. Not running a single space program for a single space station. All our eggs in one basket, as it goes.
Arguments about the airworthiness of the space shuttle to me are pointless. It is a big machine with lots of parts and carries some risk of failure. It has been show to be able to fly successfully a high percentage of the time. Nothing they do to it will fundamentally change that situation. But by being the only game in town there can be no comparison of risk and no judgements made based on that comparison.
NASA asks us, either fly or do not fly. This is not a free choice, to those of us that wish to see humans fly it means that we must choose the space shuttle regardless of risk or incompetence or anything.
NASA will undoubtedly want more money to increase the safety of the space shuttle flights, but to what end? Any machine can be better maintained or operated, if we collectively choose a single means, and spend our collective resources and will on that means we could be on a fools errand. Like driving a car into the ocean. Sure we can keep tuning our procedures and plugging the leaks, but it ain't gonna get us to the other side. So that basic questions of design or operation are essentially meaningless when one only tries or has a single means. Like voting for the only candidate, the choice presented to us is meaningless. To go or not to go. To live or to die. Of course we must go, as we must live.
Or do we? Maybe, when such a stark choice is put before us we must refuse to make it. Refuse the question. Should the shuttle fly or not? Ignore the question, it is inconsequencial to that which many of us care about. Space exploration is the purpose and the question, not the shuttle.
Exploration of space is dangerous and will not survive safety concerns of collective action. Liken it to any human endeavor of significant unknown and danger and you will find it must be done by individuals. Individuals that have clarity of vision and certainty of purpose. It must be done by people, not by institutions or incorporations. People who know the risks, people that see the dangers, people that take the leap because they see the oppurtunity. People that learn and reason.
If we are to keep NASA at all, then it must only be to find those people and give them a little bit of money or help. Like Queen Isabella giving Christopher Columbus enough money to get the supplies and men he needed. Not too much money though, because we know that to succeed in Space one will have to travel lightly, and the tendency of people with too much money is to buy things. We know that to succeed in space one needs to be quick, but the tendency of people with too much money is to spend time spending money.
I expect the shuttle to fly again, because there are a lot of people who depend on it for their livelyhood. I expect that the shuttle will fly again because looking at the world a certain way, it makes sense to continue to do what we have been doing for the last two decades. I expect the shuttle to fly again because it is a link in a chain that could mean the end of the space station. Because it would mean the end to an entire generation's way of thinking.
So there it is, the heads of NASA would like us to choose between their shuttle and nothing. Between the aspirations of mankind and bondage to this rock. It is a false choice.
"I think they should be concentrating on improving the reliability of their service before they even think of what technology they are going to move to next."
What if the new technology fixes the problems?
This is largely just rhetorical, since I have no idea what the problems are that concern you and how they would be affected by any of these new technologies. But fundamentally the argument that you should fix your problems before trying something new is flawed, since you can never fix a problem unless you try something new.
"so we get ants being trained to sort tiny screws in orbit"
:)
nice imagery.
"They have and use various PowerPC CPUs. Modern enough for you?"
The discussion was about Mars and explorer missions and reasons for their failures not NASA in general. Not the Space shuttle, its navigation systems or science payloads, which are clearly more modern. Especially not the ground computers used for data analysis which are very complex and large
I was stating a fact. That the Mars missions in the past and likely the current one do not use Gigabytes of anything and were using older less complex systems than most anything used today commercially. So that the idea that it was reasonable that computer complexity was the reason for these demises was silly. Yes even tens of thousands of lines of code can be complicated and can contain logical errors, but NASA has many engineers spending much time on the software code, making it unreasonable to expect fatal errors to be lurking around every line of code unless there are fatal errors in the assumptions that they were written for. It is also true that the reason for NASA's use of older hardware are many, but largely requirements for low power consumption, radiation hardening which requires more testing than commercial electronics and therefore takes longer and the fact that NASA projects often take years, so that any electronics that are included on these explorer missions will likely not be nearly as complex as contemporary consumer electronics and softare is often limited to very much contrained memory requirements. I'd tell you how much, but it seems NASA doesn't really release its code.
Remarks about the advanced technology used on these explorers coupled with NASA's constant assurances that the technology developed is cutting edge and could benefit mankind are hogwash. These explorers are specially designed vehicles that are meant for very specific purpose, not cutting edge general purpose technology which will benefit us all, but rather it is cutting edge space exploration.
I fault NASA on the image of its programs that it actively promotes. That every solder or wire in all its missions is a breakthrough in technology and will benefit all mankind. NASA needs to be honest, open and more scientific in its leadership. To sink or swim on the merits of the missions, not prey upon the memory of past technological breakthroughs that actually did benefit all of mankind.
"Yes, that's right. 55% of this tax will go to school internet connections, library internet access, and low-income subscribers and health care. 45% goes to the somewhat less worthy but still valid rural subscribers to keep costs equitable. Now, what was that you were about to say?" ...and 100% will go right back into the pockets of the big monopolies. Whom do you think is going to get these taxes? Sure they will go toward providing "services" at a "fair" price for the poor little children. But surely the companies will be given a market rate for their services which are being mandated, one for which they will profit.
This is just another case of power hungry beaurocrats and money hungry monopolists feeding eachother. Yet another government subsidy of big business.
Please nobody forget that taxes are when people are forced to pay for something they wouldn't voluntarily pay for... if someone came to your house and took your money without your consent, then I think even the most maleable among us would be offended. Why is this money grab any different? You say because we elected them... that we collectively have chosen this?
No. Democracy thrice removed is not democracy. These people are thieves pure and simple. They do not represent me, any more than they represent you. They take our money by force and hide behind promises of job creation and benefit to children and the poor, but no good can come from a thieves gold.
Sure we have a choice to pay for these services or not... to participate in society or to not. To pay taxes or to not, but what choice is that really? Not a free one.
In my area free school access is just part of the price cable modem providers pay for cable's right of way. School access doesn't really cost much of anything for the providers beyond the istallation, so why not just mandate it from the monopolies? By my accounting it would take just a couple hundred subscribers in a community to easily defray even the commercial cost of educational access, let alone the real cost. Education access in exchange for right of way is a fair bargain, an exchange of value, not a theft like these proposed taxes and many others
Eventually this corruption will stop, either we will put a stop to it or it will stop us, but it will stop.