If you think the problem is the availability of guns, think about this. The US has had easily available guns for 200 years. In fact, guns are far more difficult to get than they've ever been. Yet, this problem of children going berserk killing people is only a relatively recent phenomenom.
If guns are the problem, why hasn't this always been a problem throughout history?
Guns are not the problem, people are. The problem is cultural. Not all modern cultural trends are bad (I don't think video games are), but quite a few are.
In the meantime, the U.S. government is approaching the problem by eliminating regulations on the Baby Bells, which is sort of like combating street crime by taking police officers off the street.
Uh huh. Because as we all know, all good things come from government! We can't trust that no good public sector to actually produce things that people want.
In fact, Michael is right. Clearly things are moving too slow, so the government needs to turn the Internet into a utility! Water pipes are utilities, why not data pipes?
Before you know it, we'll have a nirvana of 100mb fiber running to everyone's home! Universal access at last! And the best of all... a benevolent government running it all, watching out for our best interests. No one getting mislead into choose the eevil AOL, you will only be allowed to choose the friendly, helpful government.
The defensiveness! Just because you suck at writing, don't take it out on the poster. I always find it amazing that people who can't write worth a damn seem to need to imply that it's some sort of useless skill that you shouldn't be judged by.
There is no question that a lack of writing skills limits your effectiveness.
Instead of whining, why don't you take a few classes and learn to write? Your coworkers who have to read your pathetic specs, and your boss who can't trust you to respond to customer questions would surely appreciate it.
Apparently you've never had to hire anyone. The poster is correct -- if you can't be bothered to proofread your resume, which is your ticket to livelihood, the chances are excellent that you will suck as an employee.
It's not a question of "mistakes happen". Yes, in a first pass of writing something, it is easy to make a mistake. What's not forgivable is not going back to double and triple check your work. It's about being meticulous and careful.
There is no excuse -- none -- for mistakes in a resume.
It's simple: Microsoft is simply deploying.net technology for Linux in order to take over the Linux market. It's the old "embrace and extend" strategy. First they will embrace Linux, get a lot of people hooked on.net technology (which will be forced on people through Windows licensing requirements on manufacturers), then they will come out with incompatible technology that requires changes to the Linux kernel. Since so many people will be using.net, the major packages will be forced to mold the kernel to Microsoft's specifications. If they don't, then the kernel will have to split because of the public outcry.
And thus it's done: Microsoft will have taken over Linux. They will have taken control of the kernel.
And if you believe any of that bullshit above, you may be ready to join the Slashdot "inner circle".:)
Nope, Clinton has beat Nixon by a long shot. Nixon had one screw up -- a big screw up, but just one. With Clinton, it's just one big long string of corruption.
All I get out of your statements is that the politicians should leave NASA alone and not use them to do favors for their constituents. That doesn't seem very damning to NASA.
That's where you are going wrong. You still think of NASA as they the same dedicated group of engineers who went to the moon. They are gone! NASA is just another government agency that happens to have more engineers, but the people in charge are politicians.
A simple question: if the budget doubled during the 80s, and we had big deficits, what is the other part of the equation? Answer: spending. And who was in control of Congress? That's right -- your buddies, the Democrats. And who controls the budget? Quick, consult the Constitution... That's right! Congress!
Oh, I forgot, if Reagan proposed tax cuts, and we had deficits, then it must have been the tax cuts. It couldn't have been the fact that government spending by the Democrat-controlled congress went crazy.
And now that Republicans have been in charge in Congress for the last few terms... guess what! The deficits went away! Ohmygod!
The Democrat's ability to ignore reality and the truth is absolutely unlimited.
At any rate, it just irks me when people (not you) try to portray NASA as some sort of Cash Black Hole where the taxpayers' money is sucked in, never to be seen again. The majority of that money is pumped right back out into the private sector.
A turning point for me with regards to NASA was a tour through a Space Station tour facility in Huntington Beach, CA. It showed all the versions of the space station, along with all the redesigns. It was supposed to impress people, but it had exactly the opposite effect on me. It was a monument to government waste.
It was unbelievable. So much money spent on designs, then thrown away after the next redesign. But what struck me the most and stayed with me to that day was seeing how the work was doled out. It was totally political -- each representative wanted some of the money for their district, so they would think of something for them to do. I swear I am not joking. I wish I could remember specific examples, but it was just sickening how inefficient the whole thing was set up. It was solid politics.
There is no doubt that NASA did some great things in the past. But that era is gone. It's just another government agency trying to justify its existence.
The last time we tried your little "experiment" the result was crippling debt...
I assume you're talking about the 80s... You might want to notice that the revenues to the Federal government almost doubled between 1981 and 1988 (from about 500 billion to almost 1 trillion). Now what we're you saying about this "failure"?
...and recession.
Yeah, that huge economic expansion during the 80s (again, causing the revenues to nearly double) must've been everyone's imagination.
Yes, you have been lied to by the Democratic party. Maybe you should look up facts for yourself rather than rely on their propoganda?
Get NASA out of the space elevator business!! NASA has outlived its usefulness, and it's time to encourage private space vehicles.
And by the way, it's MY money, not the governments. And I want my money back. Spending it on more useless NASA shuttles that cost 10 times what a private effort would cost is not an efficient use of MY money.
Get the government to stop road-blocking privatization of space!
It's incredible to me that there are people that think the government can spend the surplus more efficiently than private citizens. And yes, that includes rich people -- in fact, especially rich people, because they a) invest the money, and b) have a lot of money to spend back into the economy. Just because there are rich people that are too stupid to understand economics and don't want money back doesn't mean we should listen to them. Rich people do not put their money in mattresses.
To those of you bitching and whining: Instead of depending on Uncle Sugar for everything, why don't you organize an effort to privately fund a probe? If it's that important, you shouldn't have any trouble raising the funds.
Oh, I see, it's important, not not important enough to do anything personally.
I have a ruptured disk in my back. I have been hoping for years that they would invent a technology to give me new disk cartiledge before I have to have a spinal fusion in 20 years.
I'll take a limited amount of high quality hand animation over an unlimited quantity of mediocre computer generated animation.
That makes a lot of sense, particularly for animating human faces. I would imagine that it's true that an animator can do a lot more than an automated system.
But it occurs to me that perhaps both systems have their place, and it doesn't have to be a one or the other situation. For a human face, small imperfections are going to be noticed. But what about facial expressions on monsters? I would say that you have much more forgiveness on some ghoul's face than on a regular human face, particularly since you probably need to exaggerate expressions anyway when the face is usually so distorted.
Obviously there is only so much time for new features, but I wonder if the concept can be extended to a general "deformation scripting system". You could define names for particular features (corresponding to facial features in the case of a face), which are bound to particular points on the model. Then a scripting language could manipulate the symbols, and particular scripts would manipulated them for various expressions. The system could manage moving from one expression script to another.
Once you had something like that, you could possibly extend it to things like muscle contractions or flexing.
However, the problem isn't that the banners aren't being seen so much as they're being ignored.
I disagree. I think up to now banner ads are too small to be able to effectively deliver a message. Clearly the model can work, because newspaper ads are very effective. But you just can't say very much in the "traditional" banner ad size.
The result of this will be successful at first, but after a time people will learn to filter out the new bigger ads too.
I don't think that's true. Newspaper ads are effective, and there is not an "arms race" to make them bigger and bigger. Clearly bigger is better, however.
Banner ads as they exist today are much too small to effectively deliver a message. I think there is a point at which you have enough real estate to be effective.
They should do whatever it takes that will make them money.
I think a lot of people -- too many people -- forget that these web sites take money to run. Either advertisers pay for it, or you pay for it directly. Personally, I would rather have advertisers pay for it.
If it takes bigger ads to make them effective, then make them bigger.
I was really curious about something in the video, and I hope John will take the time to answer. It must be a double-edged sword showing that video; on the one hand, it's probably cool to let people see what you're working on. On the other hand, it probably generates a lot of e-mail traffic!
I was really impressed with the mouth movements on the animated faces. I was wondering if you were building in an "expression engine" that could be used on any model, or if those expressions had to be manually animated for each model.
I was thinking that if you specified points on the model face that correspond to the various facial muscles, it would be possible to do a generalized expression engine. For example, specifying the corners of the mouth, cheeks, eyebrows, etc.
I bet that would really save a lot of animating time, and make it extremely flexible to add dramatic expressions.
Socialism and freedom have nothing to do with each other, and capitalism and freedom have nothing to do with each other...
I will grant you that, in theory, Socialism could be implemented on a voluntary basis, with the citizens choosing whether to take part in fund the various programs. However, in practice, Socialism has to be implemented by force. For example, when I can't purchase health care when and how I want, that is a restriction on my freedom.
Or heck, let's cite that socialistic paradise: France. You have to love those laws that restrict the how the French language is used. Yes, they actually have laws that restrict how much foreign words can be used in public broadcasts (so as not to poison the beloved French language). If that's not anti-freedom, I don't know what is.
Cars are one of the major sources of pollution, about 25% of total.
Cite your source on that figure. And Cite a US figure, not the world. The US car pollution standards are much stricter than much of the rest of the world.
Big cars use more fuel, need more material, bigger roads, etc. They pollute more by any standard.
Today's big cars pollute way less than the death boxes of yesterday. Look up the figures. The answer to technology's problems is more technology, not conservation. Restricting freedom is never the answer.
The US was the country that shot down an international enviromental treaty recently.
Damn right. Gee, I can't imagine why the US would refuse to sign a treaty that required the US to implement huge restrictions while paying huge amounts of money. That treaty is primarily money grab by the 3rd world countries.
I found the US *much* *much* worse enviromentally.
LOL! I see you haven't been to Italy. Or Greece. Or hell, try parts of Germany. The Rhine isn't exactly crystal pure. Please cite specific examples of how you found the US "*much* *much*" worse.
I'd say europe in general is 50-100 years ahead of the US in the ethical evolution of mankind.
Do you know why the US cares so much less about the environment and Europe cares so much more? There is a simple and obvious answer. Because Europe is so much more polluted! Duh. Of course people are going to care about something that pertains to their everyday life. The poorest American lives better than the average European in a lot of countries. You are crazy if you think the US has any sort of pollution problem compared to the rest of the world. And I'm speaking of Western Europe, let's not even talk about Eastern Europe.
I'd say europe in general is 50-100 years ahead of the US in the ethical evolution of mankind.
Nope, they are at least 200 years behind. Europe has only lukewarmly embraced the concept of freedom, which should be the underpinnings of any progressive society. Instead, they have chosen to worship the false idol of government, and assume the solution to all problems is more government. The ultimate example of this is health care. When you make it illegal to purchase health care, and the government decides when and whether you get health care, that is one step to fascism.
And no, I'm not a libertarian. I believe government and even (horrors) regulation have their place, but Socialism is an evil that must be extinguished by the light of freedom. And will.
Slashdot Mirror
If you think the problem is the availability of guns, think about this. The US has had easily available guns for 200 years. In fact, guns are far more difficult to get than they've ever been. Yet, this problem of children going berserk killing people is only a relatively recent phenomenom.
If guns are the problem, why hasn't this always been a problem throughout history?
Guns are not the problem, people are. The problem is cultural. Not all modern cultural trends are bad (I don't think video games are), but quite a few are.
--
oops
--
In the meantime, the U.S. government is approaching the problem by eliminating regulations on the Baby Bells, which is sort of like combating street crime by taking police officers off the street.
Uh huh. Because as we all know, all good things come from government! We can't trust that no good public sector to actually produce things that people want.
In fact, Michael is right. Clearly things are moving too slow, so the government needs to turn the Internet into a utility! Water pipes are utilities, why not data pipes?
Before you know it, we'll have a nirvana of 100mb fiber running to everyone's home! Universal access at last! And the best of all... a benevolent government running it all, watching out for our best interests. No one getting mislead into choose the eevil AOL, you will only be allowed to choose the friendly, helpful government.
Man, I can't wait until Michael is President.
--
The vanity. The arrogance.
The defensiveness! Just because you suck at writing, don't take it out on the poster. I always find it amazing that people who can't write worth a damn seem to need to imply that it's some sort of useless skill that you shouldn't be judged by.
There is no question that a lack of writing skills limits your effectiveness.
Instead of whining, why don't you take a few classes and learn to write? Your coworkers who have to read your pathetic specs, and your boss who can't trust you to respond to customer questions would surely appreciate it.
--
Apparently you've never had to hire anyone. The poster is correct -- if you can't be bothered to proofread your resume, which is your ticket to livelihood, the chances are excellent that you will suck as an employee.
It's not a question of "mistakes happen". Yes, in a first pass of writing something, it is easy to make a mistake. What's not forgivable is not going back to double and triple check your work. It's about being meticulous and careful.
There is no excuse -- none -- for mistakes in a resume.
--
It's simple: Microsoft is simply deploying .net technology for Linux in order to take over the Linux market. It's the old "embrace and extend" strategy. First they will embrace Linux, get a lot of people hooked on .net technology (which will be forced on people through Windows licensing requirements on manufacturers), then they will come out with incompatible technology that requires changes to the Linux kernel. Since so many people will be using .net, the major packages will be forced to mold the kernel to Microsoft's specifications. If they don't, then the kernel will have to split because of the public outcry.
And thus it's done: Microsoft will have taken over Linux. They will have taken control of the kernel.
And if you believe any of that bullshit above, you may be ready to join the Slashdot "inner circle". :)
--
Nope, Clinton has beat Nixon by a long shot. Nixon had one screw up -- a big screw up, but just one. With Clinton, it's just one big long string of corruption.
--
All I get out of your statements is that the politicians should leave NASA alone and not use them to do favors for their constituents. That doesn't seem very damning to NASA.
That's where you are going wrong. You still think of NASA as they the same dedicated group of engineers who went to the moon. They are gone! NASA is just another government agency that happens to have more engineers, but the people in charge are politicians.
--
By the way, if you want to be taken at all seriously by anyone who isn't a rabid Republican (i.e. most of us), you should get rid of that sig.
Why? It's true. Name me a more corrupt politician of any party.
--
A simple question: if the budget doubled during the 80s, and we had big deficits, what is the other part of the equation? Answer: spending. And who was in control of Congress? That's right -- your buddies, the Democrats. And who controls the budget? Quick, consult the Constitution... That's right! Congress!
Oh, I forgot, if Reagan proposed tax cuts, and we had deficits, then it must have been the tax cuts. It couldn't have been the fact that government spending by the Democrat-controlled congress went crazy.
And now that Republicans have been in charge in Congress for the last few terms... guess what! The deficits went away! Ohmygod!
The Democrat's ability to ignore reality and the truth is absolutely unlimited.
--
The linear aerospike engine was in test, the frame and skin were waiting for the tank, and the launchpad is almost done.
If all that is true, then let NASA release the design to the public domain, and let private companies build it. That would create a lot more jobs.
--
A turning point for me with regards to NASA was a tour through a Space Station tour facility in Huntington Beach, CA. It showed all the versions of the space station, along with all the redesigns. It was supposed to impress people, but it had exactly the opposite effect on me. It was a monument to government waste.
It was unbelievable. So much money spent on designs, then thrown away after the next redesign. But what struck me the most and stayed with me to that day was seeing how the work was doled out. It was totally political -- each representative wanted some of the money for their district, so they would think of something for them to do. I swear I am not joking. I wish I could remember specific examples, but it was just sickening how inefficient the whole thing was set up. It was solid politics.
There is no doubt that NASA did some great things in the past. But that era is gone. It's just another government agency trying to justify its existence.
--
They are against repealing of estate taxes, not tax cuts. Two totally different issues.
--
Are you aware that the vast majority of the work done for NASA missions is done by private contractors...
There's a huge difference between private companies working for the government and private ones working for themselves.
--
The last time we tried your little "experiment" the result was crippling debt...
I assume you're talking about the 80s... You might want to notice that the revenues to the Federal government almost doubled between 1981 and 1988 (from about 500 billion to almost 1 trillion). Now what we're you saying about this "failure"?
Yeah, that huge economic expansion during the 80s (again, causing the revenues to nearly double) must've been everyone's imagination.
Yes, you have been lied to by the Democratic party. Maybe you should look up facts for yourself rather than rely on their propoganda?
But we both know you won't.
--
Get NASA out of the space elevator business!! NASA has outlived its usefulness, and it's time to encourage private space vehicles.
And by the way, it's MY money, not the governments. And I want my money back. Spending it on more useless NASA shuttles that cost 10 times what a private effort would cost is not an efficient use of MY money.
Get the government to stop road-blocking privatization of space!
It's incredible to me that there are people that think the government can spend the surplus more efficiently than private citizens. And yes, that includes rich people -- in fact, especially rich people, because they a) invest the money, and b) have a lot of money to spend back into the economy. Just because there are rich people that are too stupid to understand economics and don't want money back doesn't mean we should listen to them. Rich people do not put their money in mattresses.
--
To those of you bitching and whining: Instead of depending on Uncle Sugar for everything, why don't you organize an effort to privately fund a probe? If it's that important, you shouldn't have any trouble raising the funds.
Oh, I see, it's important, not not important enough to do anything personally.
--
I have a ruptured disk in my back. I have been hoping for years that they would invent a technology to give me new disk cartiledge before I have to have a spinal fusion in 20 years.
Come on medical science, hurry up!
--
I'll take a limited amount of high quality hand animation over an unlimited quantity of mediocre computer generated animation.
That makes a lot of sense, particularly for animating human faces. I would imagine that it's true that an animator can do a lot more than an automated system.
But it occurs to me that perhaps both systems have their place, and it doesn't have to be a one or the other situation. For a human face, small imperfections are going to be noticed. But what about facial expressions on monsters? I would say that you have much more forgiveness on some ghoul's face than on a regular human face, particularly since you probably need to exaggerate expressions anyway when the face is usually so distorted.
Obviously there is only so much time for new features, but I wonder if the concept can be extended to a general "deformation scripting system". You could define names for particular features (corresponding to facial features in the case of a face), which are bound to particular points on the model. Then a scripting language could manipulate the symbols, and particular scripts would manipulated them for various expressions. The system could manage moving from one expression script to another.
Once you had something like that, you could possibly extend it to things like muscle contractions or flexing.
--
However, the problem isn't that the banners aren't being seen so much as they're being ignored.
I disagree. I think up to now banner ads are too small to be able to effectively deliver a message. Clearly the model can work, because newspaper ads are very effective. But you just can't say very much in the "traditional" banner ad size.
--
The result of this will be successful at first, but after a time people will learn to filter out the new bigger ads too.
I don't think that's true. Newspaper ads are effective, and there is not an "arms race" to make them bigger and bigger. Clearly bigger is better, however.
Banner ads as they exist today are much too small to effectively deliver a message. I think there is a point at which you have enough real estate to be effective.
--
They should do whatever it takes that will make them money.
I think a lot of people -- too many people -- forget that these web sites take money to run. Either advertisers pay for it, or you pay for it directly. Personally, I would rather have advertisers pay for it.
If it takes bigger ads to make them effective, then make them bigger.
--
I was really curious about something in the video, and I hope John will take the time to answer. It must be a double-edged sword showing that video; on the one hand, it's probably cool to let people see what you're working on. On the other hand, it probably generates a lot of e-mail traffic!
I was really impressed with the mouth movements on the animated faces. I was wondering if you were building in an "expression engine" that could be used on any model, or if those expressions had to be manually animated for each model.
I was thinking that if you specified points on the model face that correspond to the various facial muscles, it would be possible to do a generalized expression engine. For example, specifying the corners of the mouth, cheeks, eyebrows, etc.
I bet that would really save a lot of animating time, and make it extremely flexible to add dramatic expressions.
--
Socialism and freedom have nothing to do with each other, and capitalism and freedom have nothing to do with each other...
I will grant you that, in theory, Socialism could be implemented on a voluntary basis, with the citizens choosing whether to take part in fund the various programs. However, in practice, Socialism has to be implemented by force. For example, when I can't purchase health care when and how I want, that is a restriction on my freedom.
Or heck, let's cite that socialistic paradise: France. You have to love those laws that restrict the how the French language is used. Yes, they actually have laws that restrict how much foreign words can be used in public broadcasts (so as not to poison the beloved French language). If that's not anti-freedom, I don't know what is.
--
Cars are one of the major sources of pollution, about 25% of total.
Cite your source on that figure. And Cite a US figure, not the world. The US car pollution standards are much stricter than much of the rest of the world.
Big cars use more fuel, need more material, bigger roads, etc. They pollute more by any standard.
Today's big cars pollute way less than the death boxes of yesterday. Look up the figures. The answer to technology's problems is more technology, not conservation. Restricting freedom is never the answer.
The US was the country that shot down an international enviromental treaty recently.
Damn right. Gee, I can't imagine why the US would refuse to sign a treaty that required the US to implement huge restrictions while paying huge amounts of money. That treaty is primarily money grab by the 3rd world countries.
I found the US *much* *much* worse enviromentally.
LOL! I see you haven't been to Italy. Or Greece. Or hell, try parts of Germany. The Rhine isn't exactly crystal pure. Please cite specific examples of how you found the US "*much* *much*" worse.
I'd say europe in general is 50-100 years ahead of the US in the ethical evolution of mankind.
Do you know why the US cares so much less about the environment and Europe cares so much more? There is a simple and obvious answer. Because Europe is so much more polluted! Duh. Of course people are going to care about something that pertains to their everyday life. The poorest American lives better than the average European in a lot of countries. You are crazy if you think the US has any sort of pollution problem compared to the rest of the world. And I'm speaking of Western Europe, let's not even talk about Eastern Europe.
I'd say europe in general is 50-100 years ahead of the US in the ethical evolution of mankind.
Nope, they are at least 200 years behind. Europe has only lukewarmly embraced the concept of freedom, which should be the underpinnings of any progressive society. Instead, they have chosen to worship the false idol of government, and assume the solution to all problems is more government. The ultimate example of this is health care. When you make it illegal to purchase health care, and the government decides when and whether you get health care, that is one step to fascism.
And no, I'm not a libertarian. I believe government and even (horrors) regulation have their place, but Socialism is an evil that must be extinguished by the light of freedom. And will.
--