While government agencies are generally bureaucratic, corporations are also notoriously short-sighted. Excluding all the information satellites and the like, there isn't a whole lot (to my knowledge) that will make space profitable until we cut the cost (not in dollars, but in resources) to actually get into space. Mining asteroids might be feasible, but I doubt even that would be profitable in the very near future.
If, as you suggest, the government provides incentives for these companies, they'll become no better than NASA, since they'll be leeching off the government's funds, doing nothing more than "putting a guy in space".
If you read the article, you would note that this craft is not replacing the space shuttle. It is providing a cheaper way to transport "people and light cargo". NASA has plans to build a new cargo ship to replace the space shuttle, but that's a later project.
I really hate it when people use the Orwellian card to justify their fears of a new technology. Just because something is a "slippery slope" and could end up becoming a bad thing doesn't mean that it actually will. RFIDs have legitimate purposes, and there's nothing wrong with using them for that. Once they start being used to violate my privacy in some significant way, I'll start worrying.
I'll admit that these things could be used to violate people's privacy, but if they aren't, what's the big deal? I like privacy, and generally think the government (and corporations) should leave me alone unless absolutely necessary. However, this is relatively innocuous compared to the plethora of security cameras that keep popping up, especially since you can fry the RFIDs by putting your shirts in the microwave for a few seconds.
Why are they starting with the lawsuits while most college kids are on summer break, and therefore not P2P-ing on the college networks? That's where most of the filesharing occurs...
One theory (and one that makes sense, at least) is that the "weather balloon" was not a weather balloon at all, but in fact was a classified military prototype of some sort. Something like this would need to be kept secret, so that our various enemies don't learn what we're doing. This seems a lot more reasonable to me than a bunch of aliens buzzing some humans in the middle of nowhere.
I know it's not a videogame, but a perfect example of Tolkien-esque fantasy football is Blood Bowl, by Games Workshop. And there's always a chance that Games Workshop will convince someone to make a videogame based on Blood Bowl. I'm sure the developers at GW would love to see something like that.
Couldn't they just put more stuff on cable TV and make us complacent? I mean, at least that has the potential to be entertaining, too, rather than just evil.
This reminds me of a quote from Scott Adams in The Dilbert Future: "If every little pissant country - France, for example - started launching satellites into space, it wouldn't be safe to go outside."
When I refer to ability to divide by two, I don't mean mathematically. I mean, for example, looking at an object and being able to mentally divide it into x equal-sized pieces.
One of the problems with changing bases (aside from the fact that people are lazy) is really in choosing which base to use. I've seen arguments for plenty of different bases, such as 12 or 60, as you suggest (base 60 would have a few too many numbers, though) or base 16, since human beings are naturally adept at dividing things in two, and 16 is just 2^4. But then, every fraction whose denominator isn't a power of two ends up repeating indefinitely. And then, you could argue for base 32, since each hand can easily express 32 different digits (by counting in binary on your hands - I'll explain in detail if anyone asks, but essentially an extended finger is 1 and a closed finger is 0.)
True, the "try before you buy" technique is technically illegal, but in practice there is little difference between this method and listening to the radio or borrowing the CD from a friend except that you can get more variety this way.
If memory serves, the French used to use a base-20 number system, which is still sort of in place with numbers like 80 and 90. Then the Romans took Gaul, and they converted to base-10. (Roman numerals are sort of like base-10...) There may have been influence from Arabic numerals, as well.
Re:oh no... more global warming (...not...??)
on
Baked Alaska
·
· Score: 2
Before I begin, let me say that I am an independent, and (generally speaking) hate all political parties equally.
2) There is no logical reason that future generations "deserve" a "better" Earth.
This remark is probably an example of why liberals complain there is no such thing as a "compassionate conservative." You may need to be reminded that once a new generation is born, the previous one does not suddenly disappear into the mists. They stick around for a while. You may also need to be reminded that old people have more strict requirements in their environment (e.g. air purity, temperature, etc). I'm not sure about you, but when I'm old, I don't really want to be worrying about these things as I'll likely be stuck on a fixed income and will have plenty of other things to worry about. Besides that, advances in technology make it possible to improve conditions in the world. Do you have a logical reason to deny people of the improvements technology can provide?
3) (Very important) Noone should be told what to do. You can advocate, but you shouldn't legislate.
So does this mean Republicans are anarchists or preachers? Of course people should be told what to do, to a degree. This is why the government made things like laws, so that instead of saying, "You shouldn't rob that man. It's impolite," the government instead says, "You shouldn't rob that man. The reward isn't worth the punishment you'll face in the future."
On another note: yes, the liberals spread FUD about global warming, and maybe global warming is all part of a long-term cycle, but we can't really figure that out until we've tested this empirically. The obvious way to do this would be to stop (cut down, restrict, etc) the emissions of "greenhouse gases" and see what happens. If nothing significant happens, then we can be confident that "greenhouse gases" aren't harming the environment, and thus the people that live in said environment.
Didn't publishers try this with books and outrage all literate people? Do the record companies think they can do this just because their demographic only needs to be able to read well enough to figure out which album they're buying? I'm sorry, but once I buy the CD, I own it (although I don't technically own the data on it) and can do whatever I darn well please with it, and it's just too bad if the record company execs can't afford a third hottub and a fifth BMW.
Thank you for providing no factual information whatsoever. While his results may be true, telling us that he is a "left-wing sympathizer who is vegetarian because he does not want to kill animals" is entirely useless. 1) He may be saying this to make people more likely to believe he is an impartial researcher, 2) acceptance of his theories should be based on their reflection of the facts, not what kind of food he eats, 3) giving lectures/debates at famous places does not make a theory true - this is similar to saying, "If it's on TV, it must be true." And remember, Gene Ray of Time Cube fame lectured/debated at MIT.
Remember: Everyone is biased. That's why you need to look at the facts instead of trying to find someone who can justify your views. But then, you have to be able to overcome your own biases for this to happen.
The government's job is to ensure that everyone has opportunities to succeed. This costs money. Rich people have more money, so taking a fixed amount from them hurts less than taking that from poor people, or even upper-middle class people. And the fact is, the rich benefit more from society than the poor, so they pay more taxes. On the other hand, rich people don't owe the poor anything, and the poor who blame their poverty on the rich are usually trying to avoid blame for their own failure.
The key is to ignore all the extremists, examine the facts (not the propaganda - or "advertising", if you like), and decide which method works the best. It's usually somewhere in the middle.
Look at it this way: if Congress moved to Toronto, they still wouldn't be in any of the fifty states, which is why the government made D.C. in the first place.
Actually, I was joking. I know there's no scientific basis to determine how intelligent we are, given that we know of no other self-aware species, and thus have no frame of reference.
Have you ever considered, even for a moment, that not all people want to be individuals? For whatever reason (maybe Darwinism - a society on the threshold of extinction (read: the Ice Age) needs some leaders and some followers), some people prefer to be told what to do. Therefore, these people will follow the pack whether or not organized herding exists. The only concern should be whether or not the government, not other citizens or specific government officials with no real power over you, are restricting your rights.
This is not to say that I believe the United States is wholly innocent of brainwashing, etc, but that, surprisingly, we do not yet live in a totalitarian state. I too am annoyed at restrictions in my freedoms, but more often than not, they come from the people themselves (e.g. not being allowed to 'offend' anyone for fear of legal action, even if they would lose in court). It's pointless to blame the government for things it hasn't done yet.
(Of course, twenty years down the road, after all these fun DMCA-like bills are passed, we may have plenty to blame the government for.)
Slashdot Mirror
While government agencies are generally bureaucratic, corporations are also notoriously short-sighted. Excluding all the information satellites and the like, there isn't a whole lot (to my knowledge) that will make space profitable until we cut the cost (not in dollars, but in resources) to actually get into space. Mining asteroids might be feasible, but I doubt even that would be profitable in the very near future.
If, as you suggest, the government provides incentives for these companies, they'll become no better than NASA, since they'll be leeching off the government's funds, doing nothing more than "putting a guy in space".
If you read the article, you would note that this craft is not replacing the space shuttle. It is providing a cheaper way to transport "people and light cargo". NASA has plans to build a new cargo ship to replace the space shuttle, but that's a later project.
I really hate it when people use the Orwellian card to justify their fears of a new technology. Just because something is a "slippery slope" and could end up becoming a bad thing doesn't mean that it actually will. RFIDs have legitimate purposes, and there's nothing wrong with using them for that. Once they start being used to violate my privacy in some significant way, I'll start worrying.
I'll admit that these things could be used to violate people's privacy, but if they aren't, what's the big deal? I like privacy, and generally think the government (and corporations) should leave me alone unless absolutely necessary. However, this is relatively innocuous compared to the plethora of security cameras that keep popping up, especially since you can fry the RFIDs by putting your shirts in the microwave for a few seconds.
Besides, I don't shop at Walmart anyway.
Why are they starting with the lawsuits while most college kids are on summer break, and therefore not P2P-ing on the college networks? That's where most of the filesharing occurs...
One theory (and one that makes sense, at least) is that the "weather balloon" was not a weather balloon at all, but in fact was a classified military prototype of some sort. Something like this would need to be kept secret, so that our various enemies don't learn what we're doing. This seems a lot more reasonable to me than a bunch of aliens buzzing some humans in the middle of nowhere.
The Dinosaurs were big and dominated the earth and THEY DIED OUT.
That analogy doesn't fit very well. Dinosaurs were cold-blooded carnivores*... oh wait.
* (Yes, I know some dinosaurs were also wussy Vegans.)
I know it's not a videogame, but a perfect example of Tolkien-esque fantasy football is Blood Bowl, by Games Workshop. And there's always a chance that Games Workshop will convince someone to make a videogame based on Blood Bowl. I'm sure the developers at GW would love to see something like that.
Couldn't they just put more stuff on cable TV and make us complacent? I mean, at least that has the potential to be entertaining, too, rather than just evil.
Quoth the parent: There MUST be people out there who can make good decisions?
I'm sure this is a great decision, depending on whose point of view you're using. I mean, I'm sure the politicians' wallets are very happy now....
Yeah, but the average EverQuest player doesn't buy 8 copies of the game.
This reminds me of a quote from Scott Adams in The Dilbert Future:
"If every little pissant country - France, for example - started launching satellites into space, it wouldn't be safe to go outside."
When I refer to ability to divide by two, I don't mean mathematically. I mean, for example, looking at an object and being able to mentally divide it into x equal-sized pieces.
One of the problems with changing bases (aside from the fact that people are lazy) is really in choosing which base to use. I've seen arguments for plenty of different bases, such as 12 or 60, as you suggest (base 60 would have a few too many numbers, though) or base 16, since human beings are naturally adept at dividing things in two, and 16 is just 2^4. But then, every fraction whose denominator isn't a power of two ends up repeating indefinitely. And then, you could argue for base 32, since each hand can easily express 32 different digits (by counting in binary on your hands - I'll explain in detail if anyone asks, but essentially an extended finger is 1 and a closed finger is 0.)
True, the "try before you buy" technique is technically illegal, but in practice there is little difference between this method and listening to the radio or borrowing the CD from a friend except that you can get more variety this way.
If memory serves, the French used to use a base-20 number system, which is still sort of in place with numbers like 80 and 90. Then the Romans took Gaul, and they converted to base-10. (Roman numerals are sort of like base-10...) There may have been influence from Arabic numerals, as well.
...before we see something like this?
Before I begin, let me say that I am an independent, and (generally speaking) hate all political parties equally.
2) There is no logical reason that future generations "deserve" a "better" Earth.
This remark is probably an example of why liberals complain there is no such thing as a "compassionate conservative." You may need to be reminded that once a new generation is born, the previous one does not suddenly disappear into the mists. They stick around for a while. You may also need to be reminded that old people have more strict requirements in their environment (e.g. air purity, temperature, etc). I'm not sure about you, but when I'm old, I don't really want to be worrying about these things as I'll likely be stuck on a fixed income and will have plenty of other things to worry about. Besides that, advances in technology make it possible to improve conditions in the world. Do you have a logical reason to deny people of the improvements technology can provide?
3) (Very important) Noone should be told what to do. You can advocate, but you shouldn't legislate.
So does this mean Republicans are anarchists or preachers? Of course people should be told what to do, to a degree . This is why the government made things like laws, so that instead of saying, "You shouldn't rob that man. It's impolite," the government instead says, "You shouldn't rob that man. The reward isn't worth the punishment you'll face in the future."
On another note: yes, the liberals spread FUD about global warming, and maybe global warming is all part of a long-term cycle, but we can't really figure that out until we've tested this empirically. The obvious way to do this would be to stop (cut down, restrict, etc) the emissions of "greenhouse gases" and see what happens. If nothing significant happens, then we can be confident that "greenhouse gases" aren't harming the environment, and thus the people that live in said environment.
Didn't publishers try this with books and outrage all literate people? Do the record companies think they can do this just because their demographic only needs to be able to read well enough to figure out which album they're buying? I'm sorry, but once I buy the CD, I own it (although I don't technically own the data on it) and can do whatever I darn well please with it, and it's just too bad if the record company execs can't afford a third hottub and a fifth BMW.
Thank you for providing no factual information whatsoever. While his results may be true, telling us that he is a "left-wing sympathizer who is vegetarian because he does not want to kill animals" is entirely useless. 1) He may be saying this to make people more likely to believe he is an impartial researcher, 2) acceptance of his theories should be based on their reflection of the facts, not what kind of food he eats, 3) giving lectures/debates at famous places does not make a theory true - this is similar to saying, "If it's on TV, it must be true." And remember, Gene Ray of Time Cube fame lectured/debated at MIT.
Remember: Everyone is biased. That's why you need to look at the facts instead of trying to find someone who can justify your views. But then, you have to be able to overcome your own biases for this to happen.
The government's job is to ensure that everyone has opportunities to succeed. This costs money. Rich people have more money, so taking a fixed amount from them hurts less than taking that from poor people, or even upper-middle class people. And the fact is, the rich benefit more from society than the poor, so they pay more taxes. On the other hand, rich people don't owe the poor anything, and the poor who blame their poverty on the rich are usually trying to avoid blame for their own failure.
The key is to ignore all the extremists, examine the facts (not the propaganda - or "advertising", if you like), and decide which method works the best. It's usually somewhere in the middle.
Look at it this way: if Congress moved to Toronto, they still wouldn't be in any of the fifty states, which is why the government made D.C. in the first place.
Actually, I was joking. I know there's no scientific basis to determine how intelligent we are, given that we know of no other self-aware species, and thus have no frame of reference.
Maybe they mean intelligent life. Most people can agree that that is experimentally nonexistant so far.
That's why we should support tattooing all citizens with barcodes.
I'm joking.
Have you ever considered, even for a moment, that not all people want to be individuals? For whatever reason (maybe Darwinism - a society on the threshold of extinction (read: the Ice Age) needs some leaders and some followers), some people prefer to be told what to do. Therefore, these people will follow the pack whether or not organized herding exists. The only concern should be whether or not the government, not other citizens or specific government officials with no real power over you, are restricting your rights.
This is not to say that I believe the United States is wholly innocent of brainwashing, etc, but that, surprisingly, we do not yet live in a totalitarian state. I too am annoyed at restrictions in my freedoms, but more often than not, they come from the people themselves (e.g. not being allowed to 'offend' anyone for fear of legal action, even if they would lose in court). It's pointless to blame the government for things it hasn't done yet.
(Of course, twenty years down the road, after all these fun DMCA-like bills are passed, we may have plenty to blame the government for.)