I recently switched from oil-fired water baseboard to forced air and had to choose between gas, propane, and electric. The existing oil boiler was the most expensive, primarily because the efficiency was 54% when it was brand new 40 years ago. Next was Propane, at about $34 per million BTUs with a 97% efficient gas boiler, then a new oil-boiler at $18.50 or so, then electric resistance at $16.50 or $16.75, then natural gas a $14.50. For me, I would have had to spend $3k to get the natural gas to the house. Also, with a heat pump, I can figure getting about 1.5-1.7x the electric in as heat out, over the course of a season (yes, techically the HSPF is 8.7 on my unit, for a COP of 2.5, but I derate those numbers). I use resistance strips in the rarely used bedrooms where the ductwork couldn't be economically run (the ducts were in for AC already).
So, in reality, heating your house with incandescent lightbulbs is only about 10-12% less cost efficent (in my area) than natural gas, and half the cost of heating with propane.
As for the ratios - my eyes will claim about 3:1 in light output on a good CFL over incandescent. Where I had 60W incandescents and swapped them for CFLs, I found I had to go up to a 100W equivalent (22W, iirc) lamp. I don't have a good handle on lifespan, but my R20s I have in the kitchen are probably the most abused, and I expect them to last 2 years, minimum. While CFLs will pay back in electricity, the capital cost, accounting for lost investment opportunity, is about even.
I agree with you. There is little reason to have a PC at home today. The one thing still going for MS is that everybody understands MS. Different==scary in America.
The reason most people used to have MS at home was that they had MS at work - and in the days before IT departments, you just took the software from work home and loaded it onto your personal computer. The company paid, and you played. Not that it mattered much - hardware costs easily outstripped software costs in those days, and the BSA and product activiation wasn't even a twinkle in the eye of the industry.
Today, software is guarded under lock and key in the corporate IT office, and rightly so now that one computer-one license activation is prevalent in the higher cost packages. People are either getting pirated copies off the net, or buying them outright. Pirating software, btw, is still heavily in favor of the PC, which is what keeps it out there. People will spend hours to save a few bucks.
You could save half of the development costs upfront, as pharma companies already spend more on marketing than on research and development. BTW - only a small fraction of that money goes to the commercials you see - most comes from the armies of representatives that ply doctors offices with samples, notepads, pens, junkets, and other freebies. And it works - they doctors get the dog and pony show, and even if they don't take the free trips/tickets/gifts, they remember the sales pitch.
I happen to be suceptable to sinusitis, and twice in the past (when under full healthcare) I have been given Augmentin, then later Augmentin XR when it came out. A 10 day treatment, I found out once I switched to a high-deductible plan without a pharm co-pay, runs about $300. Now, it turns out that Augmentin is just a large-dose amoxicillin with a bit of clavulanic acid, a beta-lactamase inhibitor, which is added to extend the life of the amoxicillin. This winter I ended up with sinusitis following a mild head cold, and sucessfully treated it (with the doctor's permission) using a 14 day course of equivalent-dose amoxicillin. For $10. The previous physician had the big sell on Augmentin, and since it was "better" and most doctors don't keep up on drug costs the latest and greatest was prescribed. This is small change when you look at bigger, long-term drugs, but is indicative of the effect of the one-on-one marketing, and the return.
If it's 14k a year for Hep-C treatment, van you imagine what the potential "cure" for Diabetes would go for. I'm putting the Vegas over-under at $185k right now, but I think I may be setting it a bit low.
This is going to sound crazy to/.ers, but why would I want to put multiple OSes on my business laptop? Because you can isn't good enough. Is there really a sound financial case for buying more expensive hardware, with extra memory, and buying a second OS (I'm presuming windows, of course) just so that I can run some included Apple apps that are mostly home-based?
Now, I am presuming many things: - Most laptops will still be bought by businesses. - Most businesses don't do the media stuff that is so well optimized on Macs - The vast majority of MS-only IT departments would rather gouge their eyes out than add Macs to the support list (not because they're macs, but because they're not Windows; they wouldn't want a bunch of new Linux laptops on the system either)
If you exclude the limited number of Mac shops and exclude the top executive class that gets to break all the internal rules anyway, arent the purchaseing decisions still going to be based on Win apps and minimum cost per functional unit? Or is the Wired office so myopic that they don't really understand what really happens in the rest of the US?
Maybe North Dakota should hire the same marketing firm. They just keep getting stuck on Dakota, but it's going to take a lot more than that to convice people that it's not damned cold.
If you keep running into abusive bosses in all the jobs you take, maybe the problem isn't your boss...
Truer words were never spoken.
I saw the numbers and immediately realized that they were typical human-interaction numbers. I have left a job becuase of a boss. We just didn't see eye to eye on anything, and neither of us really respected the other in certain ways. Once I realized that, I knew that he or I would have to go, and he was a part owner in the company. I don't bear him any ill-will, there are some people who just don't get along. I would say that I've been very lucky with bosses, and have had very good relationships with almost all of them. I'm pretty sure the the reverse of your statement is probably true. Now I'm the boss, and I've found that it takes a lot of work to be a good one - far from impossible, though.
There are back-stabbing bosses out there, but I would suspect the numbers down in the single digit percentages.
Oh, you've stepped into it. I try and bring this stuff up from time to time, but it seems that/. is populated by fry cook sysadmins that value their time as $0 and figure if they get paid $9/hr, it cost $9/hr to the company. Your post should be at +5, but the mods who have never run a business will ensure that you never make it that high.
FWIW, I have tried the same thing with a small (3-4 person) engineering firm I run. WinXP, for us, costs $0, as we buy Dell products (cheap on sale, good support if you buy the right product/support service), and they all come with the software, and there's no discount for Linux on machines on sale. (servers excluded, of course). I tried OO, and gave up due to comaptibility problems with Office docs. There is no good calendar/contact program or simple-to-use, inexpensive Quickbooks equivalent. I'm not about to tackle AutoCAD and Wine - Acad barely runs reliably on a native OS, I doubt it would be more stable under Linux. As for viruses, I haven't had one in a decade (knock on wood), and the decent antivirus software we use (AVG) is cheap. We sit behind a commercial (though consumer grade) firewall, and the employees generally don't do stupid stuff.
Especially true for small businesses is that most hires know MS products, many are not OS savvy (suprisingly so), and training costs in time and money is just not a real possibility. By the time a really small firm gets a new hire, they REALLY need that persons skills, and to get them up to speed is just painful. It's probably the main reason I use AutoCAD - everybody in my industry knows how to use it. I used to use it because my clients used it, but with the vertical products and 2D-3D imcompatibilities we may as well get dxfs.
Anyway, I'm really just posting to say, "yeah, you're damned right." When you run the numbers, the costs of OSs are just diminshingly small, and the cost to manage them in a small environment is similar.
Find me a competent IT person I can contract with for $10 and hour that will cater to my business for 200 hours a year (I have a smaller shop) and you've got a job. Burger flippers cost more.
Thirty-one percent of respondents reported that their supervisor gave them the "silent treatment" in the past year.
Thirty-seven percent reported that their supervisor failed to give credit when due.
Thirty-nine percent noted that their supervisor failed to keep promises.
Twenty-seven percent noted that their supervisor made negative comments about them to other employees or managers.
Twenty-four percent reported that their supervisor invaded their privacy.
Twenty-three percent indicated that their supervisor blames others to cover up mistakes or to minimize embarrassment.
Bosses might actually have been better than if you interviewed coworkers. I know this is going to sound sexist, and maybe it is, but if I think of the offices which are mostly women, I would expect number in the high fifties to low eighties on items 1-4.
Eragon? You've got to be kidding...of course there weren't any legislators there.
You can't take money without being beholden. Whether the money was for a first election or a subsequent one, there is no denying that money buys face time. Now, face time doesn't always equal agreement, but those reps aren't exactly foaming at the mouth screaming that the world will end if they dont' get thier way. There is a resonable, rational way to describe your position, and if there is nobody else to refute your side - especially on tecnhically complex issues - then support is pretty likely. There are obvious exceptions - guns, hard left environmentalism, abortion - all are too popular to not have multiple sides.
Almost any "national" issue can be made to have local consequences by the right connections. For $100k, I can get face time with both of my senators. For $1M, I can probably get face time with any senator - I'm not asking for a vote, just asking to present "my side" - if he/she choses not to support me, the money can be donated to a charity in his/her district. The price would be much cheaper for those I know support my cause.
Growing up in DC, I know that there are firms which throw money at brick walls - but the congresspeople still pick up the cash on the ground when they think nobody is looking, and they know who threw it to begin with. It may not change a vote, but it does have an impact.
I'm not suggesting they leave without a reason. It sounds like they've voiced their opinions and the powers have decided they really want it.
If you say, "This isn't right - it goes against my principles as a scientist. If you decide to continue, I will have to resign." and then you don't resign when they laugh in you face, then you're in it for the paycheck.
Interestingly, if you all get together and do this as an organized group, it's called a union*, which most scientists are also against.
*I'm not saying unions are a good thing or a bad thing. I think they have gotten a bit out of control, and the contracts they go for are as aggregious and self-serving as CEO contracts. Which reminds me...how 'bout that chick from JC Penney - 6 months doing a shitty job and she gets a 12M payout. Science and engineers all laugh at the communications majors, but damn they seem to pull in the cash.
What, to proud to flip burgers or work retail? They both pay money. Maybe not 3000SF custom home, a mini-van, and a new sedan evey four years. What's you're soul worth?
Is it about a paycheck you're used to, or is it about false science and principles? If it's about principles, then you all walk out and leave them without nuclear scientists. If it's about the 6 figure paycheck you use to finance your way of life, then you suck it up and answer the questions.
Not a troll, you have a valid point, but I'm curious which of the two would you rather we support?
From the information on their website, it appears that they pay a fixed percentage of sales to royalties. Registered artists, I presume, get royaties - I haven't looked into their financials, so I can't verify that. I don't read Russian either, so I probably couldn't figure it out even if I had the paperwork. The RIAA doesn't like the terms, so they don't want to play. Artists don't enter into it - they don't own their work. IF they did, they could hire a lawyer to do the paperwork, and get their money.
On a personal, philosophical level...
I'm all for compulsory licensing of any published creative work. Don't want it available? Don't publish it.
This would "fix" the Disney vault problem, and allow works to be re-published for a fixed fee. Presumably, original content owners could still create premium content by republishing with value added features. Most of the movie houses already re-release a title several times to get people to re-buy.
As for starving artists, I say get off you lazy asses, out of the studio, and go entertain in person. If your contract forbids such work...well, you signed the contract, yo ulive with the consequences. If you don't like it, go work 9-5 like everyone else. You're not required to make music to live.
Don't like it? Show 'em you mean business and take your talents elsewhere. There are lots of places that need scientific expertise. And just think of all the cool gadgets the old people play with in the country just to the south of your new home.
I actually made it through part of that. I started skimming when I hit a "variable" level of input degradation on fadein/fadeout of protected music.
I call bullshit. Inputs will be on or off, if chaged at all. Nothing in the middle based on volume of an audio sample or black-level of video sample.
As for the "tilt-bit", I'm hightly skeptical. The need to "detect" a hacking attempt and shut down the hardware will cause widespread failures in most consumer level boxes produced. Vendors will see five-fold CS support call volumes, doubling of hardware costs, and general dissatisfaction by their consumers and will start throwing chairs at Steve Ballmer.
You may not think vendors have much sway in Redmond, but I guarantee you if their (razor thin) bottom lines are threatened, they will make Microsoft toe the line.
If it's about jobs, just offer buyouts to all those Shuttle workers. It doesn't much matter because a US commercial project is going to beat you guys back to Luna, using US and Russian hardware.
Oh, we can just fire them - they're only contractors. The problem is that the executives live large off of those operations, and those executives have friends in congress. Those friends in congress also know that deleting a program means losing jobs in their district, most likely, because the programs are carefully partitioned to occur in the most different districts possible. It's like pork, but for congressional marketing purposes.
Personally, I'd like to see NASA become an actual engineering and flight design agency instead of a contract administration house. A new, improved flight vehicle every 3-5 years. Real risk taking and testing. I'd like a pony, too.
Is it any suprise that the former VP at Thiokol has suggested a "new" launch vehicle that relies on the existing Thiokol boosters? Nothing like that kind of innovation to keep you on the ground.
To get kids interested means starting young. Preferrably about 3 or 4. That and the ratio of NASA engineers to students aproaches zero. Especially if you consider that NASA contracts out most of its engineering, and most centers are primarily contract-administration houses.
As for accountancy, I was thinking public/tax accounting. The ability to sift through thousands of pages of federal, state, and local tax codes can make for a very nice living. When I said productive, I really meant "advancing the body of human knowledge for the betterment of living conditions of mankind." But productive was faster to type.
Mars missions are, well, interesting. I happen to know (NASA Administrator) Mike Griffin, and he's hot on Mars. I had to do my space vehicle guidance and nav final on a mars flight; he was the professor. I am also certain that we don't have the money for Mars. My best guess is $2T for a trip, though I might be off by 20 or 30 percent. Not that it matters because we don't hav the expertise to do it efficiently now. We might have back in the 60s and early 70s, but all the brains have gone elsewhere.
We don't need a Mars mission - just a new, better capability to get into orbit, with continuous improvement. We need a guy like Burt Rutan to head up a flight vehicles section. I want to see a new model every 5 years that can take more people, more stuff, etc. We need a massive collect-and-return mission - bringing stuff back from space is cool. We need to fly more missions, build multiple spacecraft, let a few get away from us. We need to make NASA a place where you get to do stuff, and do it frequently. I knew people who had worked on the same mission for over a decade.
Some things you can't change - NASA will never hold the headlines (unless something bad happens). But I firmly believe that one reason there's no coverage on the shuttle is that it is old, outdated, and boring. You still can't send more than 7 people up at a time, and now we're so paranoid it's going to burn up on reentry we spend a significant fraction of mission time checking it out. We're so afraid that someone who doesn't like us is going to sneeze at a launch, we've made the experience inaccessible. When it's really commonplace, nobody will care about it. Better, faster, cheaper...but without the cheaper part. Commit to a long term, continuous improvement plan - not a maintenance program. Hire engineers, give them projects to learn on, recapture the corporate knowledge we've lost. Get rid of contractors and unions. Do everything in-house. Have some pride.
Um, a word meaning to distinguish oneself or to rise above others? I'm not going to defend ever microsoft name, but they do use words from the english language that don't sound stupid.
Zope and Plone. Just, wow. And don't get me started with Gimp (excuse me, GIMP). "disability of walking due to crippling of the legs or feet" - yeah, that's exactly what I want people to think when they consider using my product.
Slashdot Mirror
I recently switched from oil-fired water baseboard to forced air and had to choose between gas, propane, and electric. The existing oil boiler was the most expensive, primarily because the efficiency was 54% when it was brand new 40 years ago. Next was Propane, at about $34 per million BTUs with a 97% efficient gas boiler, then a new oil-boiler at $18.50 or so, then electric resistance at $16.50 or $16.75, then natural gas a $14.50. For me, I would have had to spend $3k to get the natural gas to the house. Also, with a heat pump, I can figure getting about 1.5-1.7x the electric in as heat out, over the course of a season (yes, techically the HSPF is 8.7 on my unit, for a COP of 2.5, but I derate those numbers). I use resistance strips in the rarely used bedrooms where the ductwork couldn't be economically run (the ducts were in for AC already).
So, in reality, heating your house with incandescent lightbulbs is only about 10-12% less cost efficent (in my area) than natural gas, and half the cost of heating with propane.
As for the ratios - my eyes will claim about 3:1 in light output on a good CFL over incandescent. Where I had 60W incandescents and swapped them for CFLs, I found I had to go up to a 100W equivalent (22W, iirc) lamp. I don't have a good handle on lifespan, but my R20s I have in the kitchen are probably the most abused, and I expect them to last 2 years, minimum. While CFLs will pay back in electricity, the capital cost, accounting for lost investment opportunity, is about even.
I agree with you. There is little reason to have a PC at home today. The one thing still going for MS is that everybody understands MS. Different==scary in America.
The reason most people used to have MS at home was that they had MS at work - and in the days before IT departments, you just took the software from work home and loaded it onto your personal computer. The company paid, and you played. Not that it mattered much - hardware costs easily outstripped software costs in those days, and the BSA and product activiation wasn't even a twinkle in the eye of the industry.
Today, software is guarded under lock and key in the corporate IT office, and rightly so now that one computer-one license activation is prevalent in the higher cost packages. People are either getting pirated copies off the net, or buying them outright. Pirating software, btw, is still heavily in favor of the PC, which is what keeps it out there. People will spend hours to save a few bucks.
You could save half of the development costs upfront, as pharma companies already spend more on marketing than on research and development. BTW - only a small fraction of that money goes to the commercials you see - most comes from the armies of representatives that ply doctors offices with samples, notepads, pens, junkets, and other freebies. And it works - they doctors get the dog and pony show, and even if they don't take the free trips/tickets/gifts, they remember the sales pitch.
I happen to be suceptable to sinusitis, and twice in the past (when under full healthcare) I have been given Augmentin, then later Augmentin XR when it came out. A 10 day treatment, I found out once I switched to a high-deductible plan without a pharm co-pay, runs about $300. Now, it turns out that Augmentin is just a large-dose amoxicillin with a bit of clavulanic acid, a beta-lactamase inhibitor, which is added to extend the life of the amoxicillin. This winter I ended up with sinusitis following a mild head cold, and sucessfully treated it (with the doctor's permission) using a 14 day course of equivalent-dose amoxicillin. For $10. The previous physician had the big sell on Augmentin, and since it was "better" and most doctors don't keep up on drug costs the latest and greatest was prescribed. This is small change when you look at bigger, long-term drugs, but is indicative of the effect of the one-on-one marketing, and the return.
If it's 14k a year for Hep-C treatment, van you imagine what the potential "cure" for Diabetes would go for. I'm putting the Vegas over-under at $185k right now, but I think I may be setting it a bit low.
This is going to sound crazy to /.ers, but why would I want to put multiple OSes on my business laptop? Because you can isn't good enough. Is there really a sound financial case for buying more expensive hardware, with extra memory, and buying a second OS (I'm presuming windows, of course) just so that I can run some included Apple apps that are mostly home-based?
Now, I am presuming many things:
- Most laptops will still be bought by businesses.
- Most businesses don't do the media stuff that is so well optimized on Macs
- The vast majority of MS-only IT departments would rather gouge their eyes out than add Macs to the support list (not because they're macs, but because they're not Windows; they wouldn't want a bunch of new Linux laptops on the system either)
If you exclude the limited number of Mac shops and exclude the top executive class that gets to break all the internal rules anyway, arent the purchaseing decisions still going to be based on Win apps and minimum cost per functional unit? Or is the Wired office so myopic that they don't really understand what really happens in the rest of the US?
Maybe North Dakota should hire the same marketing firm. They just keep getting stuck on Dakota, but it's going to take a lot more than that to convice people that it's not damned cold.
If you keep running into abusive bosses in all the jobs you take, maybe the problem isn't your boss...
Truer words were never spoken.
I saw the numbers and immediately realized that they were typical human-interaction numbers. I have left a job becuase of a boss. We just didn't see eye to eye on anything, and neither of us really respected the other in certain ways. Once I realized that, I knew that he or I would have to go, and he was a part owner in the company. I don't bear him any ill-will, there are some people who just don't get along. I would say that I've been very lucky with bosses, and have had very good relationships with almost all of them. I'm pretty sure the the reverse of your statement is probably true. Now I'm the boss, and I've found that it takes a lot of work to be a good one - far from impossible, though.
There are back-stabbing bosses out there, but I would suspect the numbers down in the single digit percentages.
Oh, you've stepped into it. I try and bring this stuff up from time to time, but it seems that /. is populated by fry cook sysadmins that value their time as $0 and figure if they get paid $9/hr, it cost $9/hr to the company. Your post should be at +5, but the mods who have never run a business will ensure that you never make it that high.
FWIW, I have tried the same thing with a small (3-4 person) engineering firm I run. WinXP, for us, costs $0, as we buy Dell products (cheap on sale, good support if you buy the right product/support service), and they all come with the software, and there's no discount for Linux on machines on sale. (servers excluded, of course). I tried OO, and gave up due to comaptibility problems with Office docs. There is no good calendar/contact program or simple-to-use, inexpensive Quickbooks equivalent. I'm not about to tackle AutoCAD and Wine - Acad barely runs reliably on a native OS, I doubt it would be more stable under Linux. As for viruses, I haven't had one in a decade (knock on wood), and the decent antivirus software we use (AVG) is cheap. We sit behind a commercial (though consumer grade) firewall, and the employees generally don't do stupid stuff.
Especially true for small businesses is that most hires know MS products, many are not OS savvy (suprisingly so), and training costs in time and money is just not a real possibility. By the time a really small firm gets a new hire, they REALLY need that persons skills, and to get them up to speed is just painful. It's probably the main reason I use AutoCAD - everybody in my industry knows how to use it. I used to use it because my clients used it, but with the vertical products and 2D-3D imcompatibilities we may as well get dxfs.
Anyway, I'm really just posting to say, "yeah, you're damned right." When you run the numbers, the costs of OSs are just diminshingly small, and the cost to manage them in a small environment is similar.
Find me a competent IT person I can contract with for $10 and hour that will cater to my business for 200 hours a year (I have a smaller shop) and you've got a job. Burger flippers cost more.
...managers are human.
C'mon - did you read the list?
Thirty-one percent of respondents reported that their supervisor gave them the "silent treatment" in the past year.
Thirty-seven percent reported that their supervisor failed to give credit when due.
Thirty-nine percent noted that their supervisor failed to keep promises.
Twenty-seven percent noted that their supervisor made negative comments about them to other employees or managers.
Twenty-four percent reported that their supervisor invaded their privacy.
Twenty-three percent indicated that their supervisor blames others to cover up mistakes or to minimize embarrassment.
Bosses might actually have been better than if you interviewed coworkers. I know this is going to sound sexist, and maybe it is, but if I think of the offices which are mostly women, I would expect number in the high fifties to low eighties on items 1-4.
If Henry Kissnger gets to run for president, he's going to have to win the nomination away from Arnold.
Think about it.
Eragon? You've got to be kidding...of course there weren't any legislators there.
You can't take money without being beholden. Whether the money was for a first election or a subsequent one, there is no denying that money buys face time. Now, face time doesn't always equal agreement, but those reps aren't exactly foaming at the mouth screaming that the world will end if they dont' get thier way. There is a resonable, rational way to describe your position, and if there is nobody else to refute your side - especially on tecnhically complex issues - then support is pretty likely. There are obvious exceptions - guns, hard left environmentalism, abortion - all are too popular to not have multiple sides.
Almost any "national" issue can be made to have local consequences by the right connections. For $100k, I can get face time with both of my senators. For $1M, I can probably get face time with any senator - I'm not asking for a vote, just asking to present "my side" - if he/she choses not to support me, the money can be donated to a charity in his/her district. The price would be much cheaper for those I know support my cause.
Growing up in DC, I know that there are firms which throw money at brick walls - but the congresspeople still pick up the cash on the ground when they think nobody is looking, and they know who threw it to begin with. It may not change a vote, but it does have an impact.
I'm not suggesting they leave without a reason. It sounds like they've voiced their opinions and the powers have decided they really want it.
If you say, "This isn't right - it goes against my principles as a scientist. If you decide to continue, I will have to resign." and then you don't resign when they laugh in you face, then you're in it for the paycheck.
Interestingly, if you all get together and do this as an organized group, it's called a union*, which most scientists are also against.
*I'm not saying unions are a good thing or a bad thing. I think they have gotten a bit out of control, and the contracts they go for are as aggregious and self-serving as CEO contracts. Which reminds me...how 'bout that chick from JC Penney - 6 months doing a shitty job and she gets a 12M payout. Science and engineers all laugh at the communications majors, but damn they seem to pull in the cash.
If you don't want it published, don't make it.
For the "what about surruptitious photos/video" crowd - the cat's already out of the bag. Have you never browsed in the alt.binaries.* heirarchy?
Didn't they make a movie about that?
No, I guess that was mind control. Black power, Brother!
What, to proud to flip burgers or work retail? They both pay money. Maybe not 3000SF custom home, a mini-van, and a new sedan evey four years. What's you're soul worth?
Is it about a paycheck you're used to, or is it about false science and principles? If it's about principles, then you all walk out and leave them without nuclear scientists. If it's about the 6 figure paycheck you use to finance your way of life, then you suck it up and answer the questions.
Not a troll, you have a valid point, but I'm curious which of the two would you rather we support?
From the information on their website, it appears that they pay a fixed percentage of sales to royalties. Registered artists, I presume, get royaties - I haven't looked into their financials, so I can't verify that. I don't read Russian either, so I probably couldn't figure it out even if I had the paperwork. The RIAA doesn't like the terms, so they don't want to play. Artists don't enter into it - they don't own their work. IF they did, they could hire a lawyer to do the paperwork, and get their money.
On a personal, philosophical level...
I'm all for compulsory licensing of any published creative work. Don't want it available? Don't publish it.
This would "fix" the Disney vault problem, and allow works to be re-published for a fixed fee. Presumably, original content owners could still create premium content by republishing with value added features. Most of the movie houses already re-release a title several times to get people to re-buy.
As for starving artists, I say get off you lazy asses, out of the studio, and go entertain in person. If your contract forbids such work...well, you signed the contract, yo ulive with the consequences. If you don't like it, go work 9-5 like everyone else. You're not required to make music to live.
Ask for the WTO to censure the US and the RIAA for coercive business tactics.
Better yet, allow the unrestricted imposition of punitive tarrifs on all RIAA member company merchandise by all WTO member countries.
I dare you.
...you drink the KoolAid.
Don't like it? Show 'em you mean business and take your talents elsewhere. There are lots of places that need scientific expertise. And just think of all the cool gadgets the old people play with in the country just to the south of your new home.
I actually made it through part of that. I started skimming when I hit a "variable" level of input degradation on fadein/fadeout of protected music.
I call bullshit. Inputs will be on or off, if chaged at all. Nothing in the middle based on volume of an audio sample or black-level of video sample.
As for the "tilt-bit", I'm hightly skeptical. The need to "detect" a hacking attempt and shut down the hardware will cause widespread failures in most consumer level boxes produced. Vendors will see five-fold CS support call volumes, doubling of hardware costs, and general dissatisfaction by their consumers and will start throwing chairs at Steve Ballmer.
You may not think vendors have much sway in Redmond, but I guarantee you if their (razor thin) bottom lines are threatened, they will make Microsoft toe the line.
If it's about jobs, just offer buyouts to all those Shuttle workers. It doesn't much matter because a US commercial project is going to beat you guys back to Luna, using US and Russian hardware.
Oh, we can just fire them - they're only contractors. The problem is that the executives live large off of those operations, and those executives have friends in congress. Those friends in congress also know that deleting a program means losing jobs in their district, most likely, because the programs are carefully partitioned to occur in the most different districts possible. It's like pork, but for congressional marketing purposes.
Personally, I'd like to see NASA become an actual engineering and flight design agency instead of a contract administration house. A new, improved flight vehicle every 3-5 years. Real risk taking and testing. I'd like a pony, too.
Is it any suprise that the former VP at Thiokol has suggested a "new" launch vehicle that relies on the existing Thiokol boosters? Nothing like that kind of innovation to keep you on the ground.
To get kids interested means starting young. Preferrably about 3 or 4. That and the ratio of NASA engineers to students aproaches zero. Especially if you consider that NASA contracts out most of its engineering, and most centers are primarily contract-administration houses.
As for accountancy, I was thinking public/tax accounting. The ability to sift through thousands of pages of federal, state, and local tax codes can make for a very nice living. When I said productive, I really meant "advancing the body of human knowledge for the betterment of living conditions of mankind." But productive was faster to type.
Mars missions are, well, interesting. I happen to know (NASA Administrator) Mike Griffin, and he's hot on Mars. I had to do my space vehicle guidance and nav final on a mars flight; he was the professor. I am also certain that we don't have the money for Mars. My best guess is $2T for a trip, though I might be off by 20 or 30 percent. Not that it matters because we don't hav the expertise to do it efficiently now. We might have back in the 60s and early 70s, but all the brains have gone elsewhere.
We don't need a Mars mission - just a new, better capability to get into orbit, with continuous improvement. We need a guy like Burt Rutan to head up a flight vehicles section. I want to see a new model every 5 years that can take more people, more stuff, etc. We need a massive collect-and-return mission - bringing stuff back from space is cool. We need to fly more missions, build multiple spacecraft, let a few get away from us. We need to make NASA a place where you get to do stuff, and do it frequently. I knew people who had worked on the same mission for over a decade.
Some things you can't change - NASA will never hold the headlines (unless something bad happens). But I firmly believe that one reason there's no coverage on the shuttle is that it is old, outdated, and boring. You still can't send more than 7 people up at a time, and now we're so paranoid it's going to burn up on reentry we spend a significant fraction of mission time checking it out. We're so afraid that someone who doesn't like us is going to sneeze at a launch, we've made the experience inaccessible. When it's really commonplace, nobody will care about it. Better, faster, cheaper...but without the cheaper part. Commit to a long term, continuous improvement plan - not a maintenance program. Hire engineers, give them projects to learn on, recapture the corporate knowledge we've lost. Get rid of contractors and unions. Do everything in-house. Have some pride.
Um, a word meaning to distinguish oneself or to rise above others? I'm not going to defend ever microsoft name, but they do use words from the english language that don't sound stupid.
Zope and Plone. Just, wow. And don't get me started with Gimp (excuse me, GIMP). "disability of walking due to crippling of the legs or feet" - yeah, that's exactly what I want people to think when they consider using my product.
There wasn't a single mention of an increase in penny-stock pumping emails.
Screw the rest of the world, if those would go away I'd consider 2007 a success.