When the black ops section of intelligence agencies make this type of opperations, one of the first thing they do is planing what story to feed the press.
So, apparently BBC got a planned press release 20 min. to early.
Din't you find it strange that they could identify the teorists as fast as they did, when identifying other victims took months.
In that way the Hippocratic principles can be enforced.
Actually it is against Hippocratic principles to prescribe medicine with harmful side effects.
So, it is save to say that many doctors don't follow Hippocratic principles.
The scientific oath says: I will pursue knowledge and create knowledge for the greater good, but never to the detriment of colleagues, supervisors, research subjects or the international community of scholars of which I am now a member.
The grater good part is okey, but the second part stinks.
Because it can be interprets as: I pursue knowledge for the grater good unless it hurts colleges etc.
But imagine that you have discovered a device that lets you run a car without full (joe cell) now if you colleges have stocks in a oil company then it will hurt him financially.
Or a oil company could threaten to kill one of your colleges if you publish your discovery.
Or you might prove one of you colleague wrong and there by hurt his scientific status.
It this case the last part of the oath helps to suppress new science and discoveries.
A better oath would be:
I promise never to allow financial gain, competitiveness or ambition cloud my judgment in the conduct of ethical research and scholarship. I will pursue knowledge and create knowledge for the greater good, without harm to research subjects. I will publish the research which can serve the grater good without fear for loss of status in the scientific community, blackmail, treats or concern for safety.
You could say that this oath take a non-deal politic with respect to scientific terrorist.
TimeLETSystems is a mutual credit and exchange systems which combines elements from both LETSystems and a time bank systems.
To better understand how TimeLETSystems work we need to explain how LETSystems and time banks differ.
=== Time banks === In a time bank system time is used as the unit of credit and is based on the principle that "one hour equals one hour". This means that everyone get one hour credit for one hour of service.
While this principle might provide a feeling of fairness it also remove the basis for the principle of supply and demand and therefor goods is rarely traded in a time bank system.
=== LETSystems ===
The credit in a LETSystems is normally loosely based on a national currency. The prices in the system is determent by supply, demand and negotiation. This allow both goods and service to be exchanged via a LETSystem.
The problem with basing the system on an existing currency is that a currency is a very abstract notion which value depend on how much the uses trust it, a problem which also effects currency based LETSystems.
=== TimeLETSystems === A TimeLETSystem is LETSystem which use time as the measurement of credit which is much more concrete than a currency. In a TimeLETSystem prices is still determent by supply, demand and negotiation which allow both service and goods to be exchanges. The price for a service will typical be somewhere between the time the seller use and the time the buyer saves.
--- end qoutation ---
With an alternative currency like this it is actually possible to unite the free market with social security.
Scramjet is so last millenium, antigravity is the way to go.
Learn how to build your own antigravity generator in the book: They all told the truth: The antigravity papers by Richard P. Crandall, isbn 1-55395-723-7
I'm disgusted to see that you are wasting time on slashdot while there are still homeless people in places like Africa and America. You shouldn't spend *any* time on slashdot until all poverty is solved throughout the whole world.
Fun aside. If the 14 people at OLPC uses there time on educating the childen of the world, then that is what they have chosen to do and not for you or everyone else to decide.
If you would like to start the "one house per child" project then go ahead, don't wait for anyone to start it for you.
I did write the 2 extreme cases. Yes, in between there is many possibilities.
It might be he is a little of both. He might have or know of special needs therefore a little piece of expert. he is working for his own needs and not the projects and therefor a little piece of agent.
1) Flamewars slows the project. The only way that is possible is if the project depend on the result of the flamewar to make a decision.
So, make sure that the decision process is flame prove. See my suggestion further down.
2) Some refuse to accept majority options. The 2 extreme cases for this is. a) The majority is wrong. He is an expert. b) The majority is right. He is an agent. The first option is that he is an expert on the subject and know that the majorities solution is wrong in some way. The second options is that he works as an agent for the competitions and is here to ensure that the project fail.
Your job is determine if he is an expert or an agent and take the right action.
Some characteristics is: Expert typical work on many projects so he might not have much time to work on the projects. While agents typical have lot of time and being payed to do the "sabotage".
To make the decision process flame prove I will suggest that you organize in a democratic hierarchy.
First split your project in some working groups. (a game project might have graphic engine, play development, physic engine, AI design, etc.)
Now, make contributers join the groups in the area of there contribution. Then make them chose a group leader, now the way to chose a new leader for the group is for a member of the group to challenges the leader. When this happens the group vote which of them should be the new leader.
Then all group leaders join a leader-group and choce a leader for entire project in the same way.
The job of the leaders is now to listen to members and make decisions. The decision now don't depend on the result of a flame war and the work on the project can continue.
If a leader make to many bad decisions he will quickly be replaced.
You might say that a democratic hierarchy is finding a balance between the cathedral and the bazaar.
Slashdot Mirror
http://crowdnews.eu/ is an alternative news site
which is also try to break free of the mob mentality.
But the way crowdnews try to do it is very different from NewsTrust.
On Crowdnews you subscribe to the all reviewers you like, and every user can act as a reviewer.
I that way you can subscribe to those reviews which you think provide quality stuff.
Crowdnews is openid enabled and in early beta.
Science would be to publish the code and the data used in the simulation, and let other scientist check and reproduce it!
No, the entire BBC don't have to be in on it.
When the black ops section of intelligence agencies make this type of opperations, one of the first thing they do is planing what story to feed the press.
So, apparently BBC got a planned press release 20 min. to early.
Din't you find it strange that they could identify the teorists as fast as they did,
when identifying other victims took months.
That because they already knew who to blame.
Also see this video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9b4D-aO3zY
Where Silverstein amids that is was a demolition.
I am afraid that this shows that NIST is lying
to the people of USA and of the world.
To get any skeptic to believe those simulation.
They would have to open source the code,
so everyone can check that the code simulate real physics.
Also it still don't explain why bcc reported the collapse 20 min. to early.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7SwOT29gbc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mxFRigYD3s
Maybe this can be used to stress test the resolve-engine in apt-get, aptitude and synaptic.
Also Global scaling
and TESLA'S Formula of inventing
is two things that might change the world
I think trueknowledge is very cool.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IONdWQwcmxA
In that way the Hippocratic principles can be enforced.
Actually it is against Hippocratic principles to prescribe medicine with harmful side effects.
So, it is save to say that many doctors don't follow Hippocratic principles.
The scientific oath says:
I will pursue knowledge and create knowledge for the greater good, but never to the detriment of colleagues, supervisors, research subjects or the international community of scholars of which I am now a member.
The grater good part is okey, but the second part stinks.
Because it can be interprets as:
I pursue knowledge for the grater good unless it hurts colleges etc.
But imagine that you have discovered a device that
lets you run a car without full (joe cell)
now if you colleges have stocks in a oil company then it will hurt him financially.
Or a oil company could threaten to kill one of your colleges if you publish your discovery.
Or you might prove one of you colleague wrong and there by hurt his scientific status.
It this case the last part of the oath helps to suppress new science and discoveries.
A better oath would be:
I promise never to allow financial gain, competitiveness or ambition cloud my judgment in the conduct of ethical research and scholarship. I will pursue knowledge and create knowledge for the greater good, without harm to research subjects.
I will publish the research which can serve the grater good without fear for loss of status in the scientific community, blackmail, treats or concern for safety.
You could say that this oath take a non-deal
politic with respect to scientific terrorist.
for more money see
http://all-technology.com/eigenpolls/fiqbooks/
http://all-technology.com/eigenpolls/fiqgames/
I have read mr. sachs book and I think it is a piece of crap.
In short it reads more like an adverticing for himself and the UN system.
If your are interested in ending poverty I will suggest you read
The Future of Money by B.A. Lietaer
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TimeLETSystems
--- start quotation ---
TimeLETSystems is a mutual credit and exchange systems which combines elements
from both LETSystems and a time bank systems.
To better understand how TimeLETSystems work we need to explain how LETSystems and time banks differ.
=== Time banks ===
In a time bank system time is used as the unit of credit and is based
on the principle that "one hour equals one hour".
This means that everyone get one hour credit for one hour of service.
While this principle might provide a feeling of fairness
it also remove the basis for the principle of supply and demand
and therefor goods is rarely traded in a time bank system.
=== LETSystems ===
The credit in a LETSystems is normally loosely based on a national currency.
The prices in the system is determent by supply, demand and negotiation.
This allow both goods and service to be exchanged via a LETSystem.
The problem with basing the system on an existing currency
is that a currency is a very abstract notion which
value depend on how much the uses trust it, a problem
which also effects currency based LETSystems.
=== TimeLETSystems ===
A TimeLETSystem is LETSystem which use time as the measurement of credit
which is much more concrete than a currency.
In a TimeLETSystem prices is still determent by supply, demand and negotiation
which allow both service and goods to be exchanges.
The price for a service will typical be somewhere between the time the seller
use and the time the buyer saves.
--- end qoutation ---
With an alternative currency like this it is actually possible to unite the free market with social security.
Well, the term quantum teleportation is just science PR
for coping a quantum stat from one atom to another.
Many of the experiments with real teleportation (starting with Tesla)
have been kept secret.
But you can find some experiments here.
A super effective solar heat engine have
already been invented it is called a repulsin.
Try google it.
Scramjet is so last millenium, antigravity is the way to go.
Learn how to build your own antigravity generator in the book:
They all told the truth: The antigravity papers by Richard P. Crandall, isbn 1-55395-723-7
see
http://www.scribd.com/groups/view/223-extreme-physics
Here is a list of books on accelerated learning techniques to help you grow your brain.
http://all-technology.com/eigenpolls/altbooks/
Yes, I agree teach science via science fiction is very broken.
But giving children an interest for science via science fiction
is a very good idea.
Actully some studies have shown that an early interest in science fiction
is the top one reason for students to study science.
Like this http://www.scribd.com/doc/25047/Full-body-teleport ation-system
I'm disgusted to see that you are wasting time on slashdot while there are still homeless people in places like Africa and America.
You shouldn't spend *any* time on slashdot until all poverty is solved throughout the whole world.
Fun aside.
If the 14 people at OLPC uses there time on educating the childen of the world,
then that is what they have chosen to do and not for you or everyone else to decide.
If you would like to start the "one house per child" project then go ahead,
don't wait for anyone to start it for you.
I did write the 2 extreme cases.
Yes, in between there is many possibilities.
It might be he is a little of both.
He might have or know of special needs therefore a little piece of expert.
he is working for his own needs and not the projects and therefor
a little piece of agent.
Let us take your issues one by one.
1) Flamewars slows the project.
The only way that is possible is if the
project depend on the result of the flamewar to make a decision.
So, make sure that the decision process is flame prove.
See my suggestion further down.
2) Some refuse to accept majority options.
The 2 extreme cases for this is.
a) The majority is wrong. He is an expert.
b) The majority is right. He is an agent.
The first option is that he is an expert on the subject and
know that the majorities solution is wrong in some way.
The second options is that he works as an agent for
the competitions and is here to ensure that the project fail.
Your job is determine if he is an expert or an agent
and take the right action.
Some characteristics is:
Expert typical work on many projects so he might not have much time to work on the projects.
While agents typical have lot of time and being payed to do the "sabotage".
To make the decision process flame prove I will suggest
that you organize in a democratic hierarchy.
First split your project in some working groups.
(a game project might have graphic engine, play development, physic engine, AI design, etc.)
Now, make contributers join the groups in the area of there contribution.
Then make them chose a group leader, now the way to chose a new leader for the group
is for a member of the group to challenges the leader.
When this happens the group vote which of them should be the new leader.
Then all group leaders join a leader-group and choce a leader for entire project in the same way.
The job of the leaders is now to listen to members and make decisions.
The decision now don't depend on the result of a flame war and
the work on the project can continue.
If a leader make to many bad decisions he will quickly be replaced.
You might say that a democratic hierarchy is finding a balance
between the cathedral and the bazaar.
Well, the hard problems is not making a car which follow those specs.
The problem is making the cars available for the consumers.
Historical all ip rights for this types of cars have been brought or worse by big oil.
So, I think the winner should be the first team which
manage to sell 10000 cars of this type to consumers.
Have you checked the one laptop per child project ??
http://www.olpc.com/
http://www.laptop.org/
Or else try a search for
tablet thin client
Install the clients as linux terminals. http://www.ltsp.org/
Connect them to a mosix cluster http://www.mosix.org/
Use rdesktop for those apps which still need windows. http://www.rdesktop.org/
A normal bussiness is typical a top-down organization.
A problem with such a organizatin is that it's
promoting people to there highest level of incompetents !
As long as they do a good job they get promoted
and then they get stock in a position where they don't do well.
The way to solve this is to use a bottom-up organization and make every employee
stock holders.
In at bottom-up organization the project group chose there own project manager.
The project manager chose a department manager and etc. to the top.
But every member can challenges his manager for his position,
and then the group vote between the 2 candidates.