I personally don't pay much attention to the MSN site. I used to glance at Slate, because some of the stuff is interesting and, well, it's free as in beer.
I sometimes even enjoy the fancier sites on the Web -- providing they are well done.
But there is one thing that really annoys me -- to the point that I personally cross such sites off my list of ones to visit. Tiny fonts. What is the point of forcing people to look at Slate in tiny fonts? Slate is mostly about using words to communicate. Not sounds, not visuals (although there is a bit of both). I want to read sites with fonts that are comfortable for my eyes. Is that too much to ask?
So Goldin's gone? As another refugee from NASA put it to me in an e-mail, "Break out the champagne!"
Goldin has the reputation of being an abusive control freak. Large and increasing numbers of those can be found in NASA and the supporting aerospace companies.
Remember, folks, this is the agency that crashed probes on Mars because they failed to convert from English to metric. They also gave us the misbegotten X-33 project. The ISS is way over budget and behind schedule.
Goldin was great at external PR. So, for that matter, is NASA.
Yes, there are lots of great people still at NASA. The work will draw people in and make them suffer through all kinds of abuse and lies.
What do I think NASA should do? How about emulating the old NACA and developing technologies that will make a revitalized space industry that will benefit all humanity, not just provide a few real services and an expensive sideshow.
This question and its answer have been posted before.
Simply put, the ACLU, while famous, is a small organization with a limited budget. At the few ACLU events I've attended (yes, I am a member), I've been one of the few (perhaps only) technologically savvy persons. The ACLU does not tend to be the lead organization on information technology issues because EFF takes on that role. It's called division of labor, not lack of interest. Does the EFF take stands on racial profiling, the drug war, etc.?
This student's complaint highlights two problems with current educational practices:
College course work is an inadequate preparation for the post college world.
College faculty don't really know their students.
Teamwork is important in the real world. It's not all there is to work, but it is a significant factor. Even "lone geniuses" such as Einstein used other people's ideas and discoveries in their work. By treating students only as autonomous units, schools are significantly failing in their work.
And what about the "slacker" on a team? Yes, slackers are everywhere -- and sometimes they're hard to spot. Who's the slacker? The person who writes a 100 lines a day but whose code breaks 6 weeks after they leave or the person who writes 10 lines a day but whose program still works 5 years later (and can be modified by successors to keep working)?
A faculty member who knows the students in a class will be far better able to spot those same students' problems (whether "slacking" or rushing too quickly through work) than the faculty member who wants to "teach" 600 people and use traps to find "cheaters."
How many of you have gone out to dinner with a group of friends? It's fairly normal to divide up the bill in some fashion and everybody contribute an agreed upon amount of cash. Credit is possible, but it's certainly more difficult, especially in a cheaper restaurant.
Small groups (even with wealthy members) rely on cash for finances. Yesterday I went running with my running/social club. Every time a member shows up, he/she kicks in $4 to cover the cost of food and drink (light snacks). It's quick, it's easy and doesn't require the club to have any complicated financial tracking. Switching to credit/debit cards would be a real pain.
There's an article about the persecution of a CIA officer in connection with the Hanssen spy case. They picked out the wrong man and harrassed him and his family for two years. Competent investigation would have demonstrated his innocence quickly.
Then there is the article on Al Gore, Sr. He drew the FBI's fire for complaining about the treatment of a woman accused of the "crime" of having engaged in premarital sex.
You might want to check out your favorite bookseller for books on the FBI as well.
People who say "If you're innocent, you do have anything to worry about" should consider who is deciding what is innocent and what is not.
It's not just JPL. I used to work at Goddard and have friends scattered around other NASA centers and aerospace companies as well. Or should I say I have friends who used to work at these places. Most of us have left for pastures that, while they may not be "green" are at least less black.
Excessive, idiotic rules administered by frightened, incompetent control freaks are ruining space industry in this country. I suspect Goldin has actually made things worse. Why? Instead of freeing people up to do innovative things (the only real way to make things "faster, better, cheaper"), low and midlevel management simply flogged people to spend more time at work and obey management. In short, they pursued a typical crusade against "waste".
A tragically funny story from Goddard might amuse/.ers. Some Goddard scientists began helping school teachers plan and carry out science lessons by participating in k-12 education newsgroups. Did management praise these people for their initiative? No. Rather the Net police put a stop to this work. You see, such advice wasn't part of the scientists' jobs. They were using their government accounts for "personal" reasons. Hmm. Talk about "get assault rifle, insert clip, point at foot and pull trigger until clip is empty."
Before NASA there was the National Advisory Council on Aeronautics (NACA). NACA played a major part in jumpstarting American aviation between it's founding in 1916 and its merging into NASA in 1958. In a few years time we went from bold adventurers taking to the air in essentially experimental vehicles to the point where my father, a college student in the 30s, was able to buy a plane ticket from Chicago back to NJ after the Chicago Worlds Fair (1932). Hint: he wasn't rich.
This happenned in large part because NACA wasn't chasing glory for itself but instead supported fundamental research and worked with, not over aeronautical companies. In the 90s, the military funded a little project known as DC-X. It was an attempt to get back to the best way to do research -- build a little, test a little, see what happens, make improvements, repeat as needed. NASA chose as the successor to DC-X the X-33 -- a bureaucratic boondoggle that tried everything at once.
NASA is still in "Cold War" mode of trying to impress with spectaculars. The trouble is, the organization is now so screwed up that they're failing at too many spectaculars. NASA needs to change its mind set from trying to impress the public to developing new technologies that will involve the public, not just poorly entertain them.
What I don't like about all these authoritarian controls can be quickly summed up:
The controls are themselves an assault on a free society.
They usually don't address the real problem.
The advocates of such controls use specious arguments to divert attention from their complicity in many of the problems they denounce.
Let me use the issue of speeding to illustrate this issue. There is in the United States a powerful lobby for making people drive slowly on the highway. They claim that speeding is the cause of large numbers of accidents, many of them fatal. They supply statistics to support their position. Critics of this idea are not nearly as well organized. But, while criticism is disorganized, it appears to be well founded.
What about the statistics that support the claims of the antispeeding lobby? These statistics are, in too many ways, a sophisticated version of the guilt by association tactic used so often in the past. They compare two groups, A and B, without noting that group B is really composed of two readily identifiable subgroups A' and C. For example, a small subgroup of drivers who are high in extreme antisocial behavior are also responsible for a quite disproportionate number of serious accidents. Lump them in with people whose only "crime" is exceeding the speed limit and you have the statistical support for crackdowns on speeding.
This focus on individual drivers diverts attention from dangerously overcrowded highways. Whatever you think of the causes, United States' highways (at least in many places) are quite overcrowded today.
The application of this exercise to drugs, pornography, what ever ticks you off is left to the reader.
1) Aliens discover DNA bank probe travelling through space (aka needle in a haystack); or,
2) Aliens find Earth after having received over 100 years of beacon-like EM communication (radio, tv, etc).
I know which I think is the more likely scenario. (Hint: even number.)
A novel gift idea? Maybe. Valuable science? Definitely not.
You're right about the much greater likelihood of 2 rather than 1. But I think you're wrong about "Valuable Science." Think of Encounter 2001 as a test of an important new technology -- solar sails. Chafer et al. have come up with an interesting way to get ordinary people involved as sponsors of a test of a new space technology. If the test shows real promise, then their company can sell the technology to people who want to send various scientific probes around the solar system.
NASA should do this kind of technology testing? Perhaps they should. But even Congress is now aware of what a screwed up mess NASA is today. I think it's a good idea that the private sector is now stepping into this important field of endeavor -- and not just as government contractors.
I just signed up for AT&T at full price. I assume connecting at $4.95 should be the same. I've already connected via my Linux machine (running Red Hat 6.2). All I needed to do was use the Gnome Dialup configuration tool to set up the connection.
I've been somewhat seriously using The GIMP for about a year now. But, because of time pressures, I'm still learning. And I'm a bit of a perfectionist as well.
Why did I start using The GIMP? Well:
It came with Red Hat Linux.
I've been manipulating photographs in the darkroom since 1983 and wanted to try it with computer software.
It's free, as in beer. This was a bit of a consideration given the price of Photoshop.
Reactions? The book "The Artist's Guide to The GIMP" has been helpful, but it reads more like a computer manual than something an artist would write. I've been reading Popular Photography for a very long time now. It's much more oriented to how to do some project than the book is. I like Pop Photo's approach over the book's. And I make my living as a software engineer.
I have been able to do some neat things with the GIMP and I expect to be able to do more as I become more comfortable with the tool. See my current site for some samples of my manipulated images, both photographic and computer. Look quickly, though. I'm in the process of switching ISPs.
Will I move on to Photoshop? Depends upon what limitations I run into with The GIMP. No, I'm not willing to plunge into coding new things for the GIMP. I do art to get away from being a software engineer. I am willing to be a guinea pig for people developing GIMP software, though.
Is Slashdot brilliant commentary, pointless drivel or ravings of lunatics?
The answer is, of course, all of the above. It depends upon who is doing the posting, what they are posting about and what they actually know about the matter at hand. So, saying simply "Slashdot is good" or "Slashdot is bad" is inadequate. You must also consider many other conditions.
Life is like that. It's pretty messy. And complex. A can cause B or not B. Depends upon what other conditions are operating. Jumping out of an airplane can be
Lethal -- if you're at 1,000 meters and don't have a parachute
Fun -- if you're at 1,000 meters and do have a parachute
Similar things can be said about the use of computers in education. They can be used to turn children into robots or invite them into a world richer than they would ordinarily experience. Books can do similar things. Even TV can. Providing, of course, that other conditions are met.
One of the most thought provoking photgraphs I ever saw was a picture of the interior of Albert Einstein's house when he was living in Princeton NJ. The picture showed a bookcase, desk with papers and open books, and a piano.
There were no electronics in view.
This could just be the consequence of when the photograph was done. Einstein died in the mid 50s. He lived in Princeton from the early 30s until his death. Television was fairly uncommon until the 50s. Radios -- the major electronic entertainment before television -- were often hidden away in cabinets. As were early TVs and stereos. As a contrast, Stephen Hawking -- a contemporary successor to Einstein -- is such a big fan of Star Trek that he's even appeared in an episode.
Humans have an amazing capability for wasting time in frivolous ways. Before TV there were dime novels, saloons, churches, political campaigns and more.
I agree people waste too much time on TV. But blaming shortcomings of current society just on TV is not all that insightful in my view.
Time and again the Linux crowd forget that normal people DO NOT USE LINUX BECAUSE IT HAS A COMMAND LINE. The sooner you get rid of xterm and kterm
and the like, then we can consider Linux an OS
for 'the rest of us'. Until then like the stick-shift automobile, it will remain strictly a specialist interest.
This statement implies that people are forced to use the command line in contemporary Linux. I don't think this is true.
At home I run Red Hat 6.2. I use my home machine for the following:
E-mail (Netscape mail works just fine for my use.)
Browsing the Web (Netscape again)
Writing. Wordperfect for printed stuff. Use vi, emacs for Web pages, but that's just because I got used to that approach. Could use other, more user friendly tools.
Creating art with the GIMP.
And, oh, because I am a bit of a geek, writing a bit of code in C and C++. Yes, I use vi or emacs, depending upon my mood.
In short, for the things ordinary people do, Linux appears to be as friendly as other OSes. No reason to get rid of vi, emacs, xterm and the like.
To use an automobile analogy, Linux today is not like having a difficult to use race car versus an easy to drive generic mass production vehicle. It's more like having a garage with room for a race prepared Corvette, a Malibu for family transportation and several other vehicles for various uses. Windows is like having a station wagon -- great for going to the supermarket, but a sure loser on the race track.
He claims he was teaching 500 students at one time. No, he wasn't. He was entertaining people who wanted to fill a requirement as easily as possible. Whatever learning that happens in such a "class" occurs almost entirely by student effort.
I remember my days as a physics student. I participated in three separate programs before I finally got disgusted. The first, my undergraduate program, was decent. But classes that were too large (over a dozen students) eventually wore all of us down (I think the faculty could be included in that statement). I wound up taking a four year break from academic studies after getting my batchelor's. When I decided to return to academia, I first entered a tiny program given at a liberal arts college. The faculty were quite distinguished. The year I spent in this program was, without a doubt, the best year I had in academia. The next year it was off to a major university to complete the Ph.D. After one semester I bailed out. Academic game playing and dysfunctional bureaucracies finally drove me out. I gather things are far more ridiculous today.
Addiction is a word bandied about very much today. Various kinds of addictions are cited as causes of social problems. We blame drug addicts for crime, net addicts for business failures, sex addicts for social problems such as the high divorce rate and other kinds of addicts for problems too numerous to mention in a brief post.
Yes, some people can become addicted to X -- whatever X is these days. But we should ask why do people become addicted to X? Is the addiction the true cause of the problem cited? Does citing addiction as the cause of the problem benefit in some way the person or persons making the charge?
An older kind of addiction -- that to drugs -- has been around long enough to provide some data to consider these questions. Drug addiction is higher in the United States than in other developed Western democracies. This is in spite of an extreme war on drugs. People who cite drug addiction as a cause of U.S. problems typically blame the drug addicts for their own behavior. Protests that drug addicts have been driven to their dysfunctional behavior are dismissed out of hand. Yet available evidence suggests that people turn to drugs not out of any moral failing on their part but out of a despair caused by events in their lives that are out of their control. For interesting looks at the drug culture, I recommend "Trainspotting" and "Traffic."
Is drug addiction the underlying cause of the problems cited? Yes, drug addicts can screw up. So can supposedly healthy people. I like to remind people that it wasn't stoned hippies or drunken playboys who blew up Challenger. That particular disaster can be laid at the feet of "hard working professionals" who didn't think they could stand up to unreasonable demands by management.
The example I've just cited shows that many problems faced by the United States are the result of dysfunctional bureaucracies that would rather blame somebody else -- anybody else -- for their failings rather than alter their own behavior. Similar things can be said about schools, corporations, government agencies, political movements and more.
A healthy counterpoint to this behavior is that exhibited by the U.S. military between 1975 and 1990. The Vietnam war exposed a multitude of problems with the U.S. military. Rather than attacking critics or low level personnel, however, the U.S. military undertook many significant reforms. The consequence of this behavior was a military that won back considerable respect (even from many critics) and showed demonstrably better performance.
Yes, we should all consider whether our behaviors are dysfunctional. A book like this can help many. But we should also consider the roots of these behaviors -- and not just reflexively blame the persons exhibiting them.
Like the author of the this post, I also grew up in a different country and lived there for a number of years. You see, I was born in New Jersey in 1945 (yes, I'm older than most/.ers -- deal with it).
First, a few comparisons between then and now. We had radio, TV, movies but no video games, violent or otherwise. Movies were less violent, but still sometimes shocking. Check out the late 50s Ben Hur, for instance. When George Lucas borrowed the chariot race for The Phantom Menace, he cleaned it up a good deal. He made the violence far more antiseptic.
While it's easy to compare preserved cultural artifacts, it's harder to compare the societies of the 50s and now. Since I've lived in both, let me share some significant differences:
Not only did women with small children usually remain at home, men spent much more time at home than today. My father, for instance, didn't work weekends or evenings. No, he wasn't in a union. He was an accountant. Back then, 60 hour work weeks were unusual. 80 to 100 hour weeks were unheard of.
Children had more free time than today. There wasn't the multitude of activities children are carted to by their parents today. Unsupervised play was the norm. Organized activities basically included school, Scouts, some Little League baseball (not all children participated), other things. Children didn't need calendars to organize their lives.
School was far different. High school started much later than today. We started where I lived at 8:30. And, since the school was less than 2 miles away, we walked to school. No waiting for the school bus at some ungodly hour like 6 or earlier. Schools were also smaller and served local neighborhoods. Adults knew better what was going on than I suspect parents do today. What bullies there were (and there were some) had less power and were more easily dealt with.
What were some consequences of this kind of life? We had somewhat fewer toys (adults and children both). But, in my middle class suburb, families usually had cars, TVs, radios, some stereos, some appliances such as washers and dryers. Everyone had more free time. Everyone got more sleep (sleep deprivation can drive a normal person quite up the wall). Because children had less detailed, organized supervision they could experiment with learning new behaviors and starting to figure out the world at least partially by themselves. This style of learning engenders greater independence and, odd as you might think, greater personal responsibility.
Learning was more democratic than in today's hyperorganized climate. While crusaders for today's increasingly authoritarian organizations will tell you differently, experimental evidence suggests looser, more democratic structures result in more, not less, moral behavior. (By moral behavior, I'm thinking of fair dealing with fellow humans rather than obeisance to whatever puritanical fads are in fashion).
I'm not suggesting a rigid return to the 50s (or 30s or 1890s or whatever past era you think of as ideal). For example, confining women to the home is hardly a good idea. Even my own mother in the distant time worked outside the home for most of her adult life.
But I do think it's long past time to tell the workaholics and bureaucratic empire builders to take a hike. Those long work weeks aren't really productive -- check out Peopleware by DeMarco and Lister, for example. And bureaucratic empires? Hasn't the collapse of the Soviet Union taught us anything?
It's also time for people to get more involved with each other.
A not entirely minor correction. 2001 was filmed in Cinerama. This was a film technology that required a wraparound screen. The impact was even greater than the widescreen 70 mm.
I saw the original 2001 in both San Jose and San Francisco, California in 1968 and 1969. Yes, it was a favorite of hippies and techies. Those of us who were members of both sets were particularly enthralled.
I've seen 2001 only once in a regular movie theater. It just wasn't the same. I can't abide it on TV -- any version. But, then, I'm a visual artist among other things, so I'm rather picky.
As sjbe states, most "secrets" aren't. How to keep an business secret? Don't tell anyone about your business.
There's a funny story that has been passed around by science fiction fans that illustrates the folly of most "secrets." Back in the 40s, the U.S. developed the first nuclear weapons. The Manhattan Project was an extraordinarily well guarded secret. Harry Truman wasn't told about it until he became President.
Now, research into nuclear physics had been ongoing for some decades -- all in the open. The first laboratory chain reaction was observed in 1938. Scientifically oriented people were speculating about the possibilities of nuclear technologies (including weapons) for some years before the Manhattan Project started. But, when the project started, everyone who worked on it stopped making public comments about their work. But not everyone who knew something about nuclear physics went to work on the project.
In 1944, the magazine Astounding Science Fiction ran a story by an engineer/writer named Cartmill about a project to develop nuclear weapons. Cartmill (probably in cooperation with friends) independently discovered some "secrets" of the Manhattan Project. The open publication of these "secrets" caused quite a stir. The FBI even investigated. Fortunately for all involved, it was easy to show that the "secrets" could be easily discovered by any reasonably intelligent person who knew something about nuclear physics. The FBI eventually even approved newstand distribution (copies had already gone out to subscribers) so as to not draw attention of enemy spies to the magazine.
Incidentally, the U.S. government gave away the biggest technological secret of the 20th century -- that nuclear weapons could work. The U.S. government gave away that particular secret at Hiroshima.
Personally, I think secrets have a very short useful life. Things kept secret aren't some kind of magic that no one else can discover. "Secrets" are a part of nature that others can learn about just as easily as the original discoverer.
Scientology and the wide variety of other cults don't have much popular support in the U.S. Most people have little or no contact with any of these fringe groups.
While most Americans consider cults harmful, they consider the harm they do to be done only to individuals and people with close connection to individuals who have been sucked into these cults. Scientologists, Moonies, Neonazis, etc., are viewed as basically powerless with regard to the larger society. That's probably why Americans are, in one respect, less concerned about these groups than, for example, Germans who have seen a fringe group (Adolf Hitler's Nazis) rise quickly to real power and do enormous damage to humanity.
Perhaps our only moderate concern is unrealistically low. Remember, though, we have had centuries of dealing with varieties of nut cases and limiting the harm they do.
I most certainly do consider social and cultural life when deciding where to work. In addition to being a software engineer, I'm an artist. I also have a varied, active social life.
Without my art and my social life, I'd soon be a basket case, burned out like entirely too many geek workaholics I've seen.
When considering a place of employment, I look at a number of factors:
What kind of work are they doing? Is it interesting or simply routine stuff that will bore me quickly?
What kind of people work there? Are they people who spend all their waking hours at work or do they have lives outside of work? Are they friendly and intelligent? Do they resent people who are different from themselves?
What are the work hours like? 60 hours/week is a recipe for slow suffocation and burnout. 80 hours/week is a formula for burning out quickly and replacing a healthy mind with one so confused that one can't even recognize how confused.
What opportunities exist to pursue my other interests in the area? Are there other artists? Galleries? Places to hang out? What about my running and skiing?
Places like Utah with their restrictive drinking laws and other puritanical excesses clearly turn me off. OTOH, places like NYC with exorbitant cost of living and general hassle factor also turn me off.
I don't know if I qualify as a child prodigy. I was and am very bright. My GRE scores put me in the top 1/1000 (yes, three zeroes) of adult humans. I was also quite good in school. There wasn't any such thing as formal "gifted and talented" education in New Jersey back in the 50s, though. I certainly wasn't treated as a "prodigy" -- just an unusually good student.
I'd expose the child to lots of stimulating things in many areas of life. For instance, this month I'd take the child to see the "Nutcracker" ballet. Children in general love the show. Science fiction aimed at adolescents and younger might also intrigue the child. I mention these things because both have interested me.
Don't be afraid to show the child what interests you. Expose him to other adults with varied interests. If you have a active local Mensa group, go to them for help. Most (not all) Mensa people have quite good social skills. The organization has made a significant commitment to helping the "gifted and talented."
Talk to him (or her, if it's a girl) about your life. Don't give boring lectures, but use short stories about meaningful incidents.
Avoid organized sports. I personally think 9 year olds are too young for that kind of nonsense. If it were up to me, I'd set a minimum age limit for participation in formal teams with uniforms, coaches, leagues, etc. My preferred limit? The minimum age for legal consumption of alcoholic beverages. Of course, I'd lower that limit. But still, I think we're forcing children into organized sports at entirely too young an age. No, this isn't the bitter comment of a geek couch potato. I run about 35 miles a week (or swim the equivalent). I've finished a marathon and my times for 10 K races are in the top 15-25% for my age group. A fair number of my friends are runners. But I've seen both physical and psychological injury happen to children who have gotten into organized sports at the tender age of 9 (or earlier).
If possible, steer the child in the direction of flexible, democratically oriented people and groups. My biggest problems have been with mildly intelligent but rigid, authoritarian people who are convinced they have The Answers -- and don't like hearing that they don't.
Most importantly, relax and enjoy yourself. If you don't like the tutoring, stop. And when you stop, let the child know why. Be honest. But also try not to hurt the child.
A few years ago I read an excellent book on sleep deprivation -- "Sleep Thieves" by Stanley Coren. It got me to thinking about work weeks. I sketched out a reasonable weekly schedule:
This adds up to 84 hours/week. Even before you've spent any time at all at work, you've used up half the week. Think you don't need that much sleep? Read the book I mentioned. Sleep deprived people literally murder patients on the operating table and blew up the Challenger. Think you don't need exercise? Ask your doctor. Spend time with friends and family, routine errands, etc. and more time is gone.
Consider now what the various work weeks really mean:
40 hours -- This leaves about 3.5 hours/day during the week for other activities than work and two full days away from work.
60 hours -- only 1.5 hours/day for "other" and one day off. Doable if you have a full time servant (the "wife" back in the 50s) to take care of you and all the other pesky things in life (like children, grocery shopping, etc.).
80 hours -- essentially no time left for anything else but work. No days off.
The long work hours phenomenon is a relatively recent phenomenon. Two centuries ago (not long in the span of human civilization) people did not have electric light. Pratically all human activity was limited to daylight hours. Back then people did accomplish some very remarkable things. For example, starting the United States, learning much about the universe, creating great art.
A final note: people have incredible abilities for self deception. When I hear people bragging about how much they've accomplished by working long hours, I wonder if it's true or they're just deluding themselves. Remember, people in the Soviet Union also deluded themselves about their accomplishments for literally decades.
During much of what we call civilization, personal attacks on
ideological opponents have been considered uncivil, a kind of social
cheating that violates the rules of coherent debate and social relations.
We generally don't attack other people unless we covet their land or
property, are enraged by unreasonable provocation, or paid to do it.
But online, people continuously attack others for less obvious reasons.
Has he read any history of the 19th Century? Gross personal attacks were the norm in 19th Century American politics. Grover Cleveland, a candidate for President, was attacked as the father of an illegitimate child. (He won the election.) Abraham Lincoln was denounced as the "Great Ape" by his opponents.
Was Katz alive and conscious during the 1960s? Civility was hardly the hallmark of that era.
And what about more recent American politics? The attacks on Clinton and others hardly rank as meeting the standards of civility.
These are just a few examples from American history. I'm sure others could name more. Foreign (to the U.S.) readers may cite evidence from their cultures.
Slashdot Mirror
I personally don't pay much attention to the MSN site. I used to glance at Slate, because some of the stuff is interesting and, well, it's free as in beer.
I sometimes even enjoy the fancier sites on the Web -- providing they are well done.
But there is one thing that really annoys me -- to the point that I personally cross such sites off my list of ones to visit. Tiny fonts. What is the point of forcing people to look at Slate in tiny fonts? Slate is mostly about using words to communicate. Not sounds, not visuals (although there is a bit of both). I want to read sites with fonts that are comfortable for my eyes. Is that too much to ask?
So Goldin's gone? As another refugee from NASA put it to me in an e-mail, "Break out the champagne!"
Goldin has the reputation of being an abusive control freak. Large and increasing numbers of those can be found in NASA and the supporting aerospace companies.
Remember, folks, this is the agency that crashed probes on Mars because they failed to convert from English to metric. They also gave us the misbegotten X-33 project. The ISS is way over budget and behind schedule.
Goldin was great at external PR. So, for that matter, is NASA.
Yes, there are lots of great people still at NASA. The work will draw people in and make them suffer through all kinds of abuse and lies.
What do I think NASA should do? How about emulating the old NACA and developing technologies that will make a revitalized space industry that will benefit all humanity, not just provide a few real services and an expensive sideshow.
This question and its answer have been posted before.
Simply put, the ACLU, while famous, is a small organization with a limited budget. At the few ACLU events I've attended (yes, I am a member), I've been one of the few (perhaps only) technologically savvy persons. The ACLU does not tend to be the lead organization on information technology issues because EFF takes on that role. It's called division of labor, not lack of interest. Does the EFF take stands on racial profiling, the drug war, etc.?
This student's complaint highlights two problems with current educational practices:
Teamwork is important in the real world. It's not all there is to work, but it is a significant factor. Even "lone geniuses" such as Einstein used other people's ideas and discoveries in their work. By treating students only as autonomous units, schools are significantly failing in their work.
And what about the "slacker" on a team? Yes, slackers are everywhere -- and sometimes they're hard to spot. Who's the slacker? The person who writes a 100 lines a day but whose code breaks 6 weeks after they leave or the person who writes 10 lines a day but whose program still works 5 years later (and can be modified by successors to keep working)?
A faculty member who knows the students in a class will be far better able to spot those same students' problems (whether "slacking" or rushing too quickly through work) than the faculty member who wants to "teach" 600 people and use traps to find "cheaters."
There's also a convenience factor to consider.
How many of you have gone out to dinner with a group of friends? It's fairly normal to divide up the bill in some fashion and everybody contribute an agreed upon amount of cash. Credit is possible, but it's certainly more difficult, especially in a cheaper restaurant.
Small groups (even with wealthy members) rely on cash for finances. Yesterday I went running with my running/social club. Every time a member shows up, he/she kicks in $4 to cover the cost of food and drink (light snacks). It's quick, it's easy and doesn't require the club to have any complicated financial tracking. Switching to credit/debit cards would be a real pain.
There's an article about the persecution of a CIA officer in connection with the Hanssen spy case. They picked out the wrong man and harrassed him and his family for two years. Competent investigation would have demonstrated his innocence quickly.
Then there is the article on Al Gore, Sr. He drew the FBI's fire for complaining about the treatment of a woman accused of the "crime" of having engaged in premarital sex.
You might want to check out your favorite bookseller for books on the FBI as well.
People who say "If you're innocent, you do have anything to worry about" should consider who is deciding what is innocent and what is not.
It's not just JPL. I used to work at Goddard and have friends scattered around other NASA centers and aerospace companies as well. Or should I say I have friends who used to work at these places. Most of us have left for pastures that, while they may not be "green" are at least less black.
Excessive, idiotic rules administered by frightened, incompetent control freaks are ruining space industry in this country. I suspect Goldin has actually made things worse. Why? Instead of freeing people up to do innovative things (the only real way to make things "faster, better, cheaper"), low and midlevel management simply flogged people to spend more time at work and obey management. In short, they pursued a typical crusade against "waste".
A tragically funny story from Goddard might amuse /.ers. Some Goddard scientists began helping school teachers plan and carry out science lessons by participating in k-12 education newsgroups. Did management praise these people for their initiative? No. Rather the Net police put a stop to this work. You see, such advice wasn't part of the scientists' jobs. They were using their government accounts for "personal" reasons. Hmm. Talk about "get assault rifle, insert clip, point at foot and pull trigger until clip is empty."
AARRGH!!!!
Before NASA there was the National Advisory Council on Aeronautics (NACA). NACA played a major part in jumpstarting American aviation between it's founding in 1916 and its merging into NASA in 1958. In a few years time we went from bold adventurers taking to the air in essentially experimental vehicles to the point where my father, a college student in the 30s, was able to buy a plane ticket from Chicago back to NJ after the Chicago Worlds Fair (1932). Hint: he wasn't rich.
This happenned in large part because NACA wasn't chasing glory for itself but instead supported fundamental research and worked with, not over aeronautical companies. In the 90s, the military funded a little project known as DC-X. It was an attempt to get back to the best way to do research -- build a little, test a little, see what happens, make improvements, repeat as needed. NASA chose as the successor to DC-X the X-33 -- a bureaucratic boondoggle that tried everything at once.
NASA is still in "Cold War" mode of trying to impress with spectaculars. The trouble is, the organization is now so screwed up that they're failing at too many spectaculars. NASA needs to change its mind set from trying to impress the public to developing new technologies that will involve the public, not just poorly entertain them.
What I don't like about all these authoritarian controls can be quickly summed up:
Let me use the issue of speeding to illustrate this issue. There is in the United States a powerful lobby for making people drive slowly on the highway. They claim that speeding is the cause of large numbers of accidents, many of them fatal. They supply statistics to support their position. Critics of this idea are not nearly as well organized. But, while criticism is disorganized, it appears to be well founded.
What about the statistics that support the claims of the antispeeding lobby? These statistics are, in too many ways, a sophisticated version of the guilt by association tactic used so often in the past. They compare two groups, A and B, without noting that group B is really composed of two readily identifiable subgroups A' and C. For example, a small subgroup of drivers who are high in extreme antisocial behavior are also responsible for a quite disproportionate number of serious accidents. Lump them in with people whose only "crime" is exceeding the speed limit and you have the statistical support for crackdowns on speeding.
This focus on individual drivers diverts attention from dangerously overcrowded highways. Whatever you think of the causes, United States' highways (at least in many places) are quite overcrowded today.
The application of this exercise to drugs, pornography, what ever ticks you off is left to the reader.
1) Aliens discover DNA bank probe travelling through space (aka needle in a haystack); or,
2) Aliens find Earth after having received over 100 years of beacon-like EM communication (radio, tv, etc).
I know which I think is the more likely scenario. (Hint: even number.)
A novel gift idea? Maybe. Valuable science? Definitely not.
You're right about the much greater likelihood of 2 rather than 1. But I think you're wrong about "Valuable Science." Think of Encounter 2001 as a test of an important new technology -- solar sails. Chafer et al. have come up with an interesting way to get ordinary people involved as sponsors of a test of a new space technology. If the test shows real promise, then their company can sell the technology to people who want to send various scientific probes around the solar system.
NASA should do this kind of technology testing? Perhaps they should. But even Congress is now aware of what a screwed up mess NASA is today. I think it's a good idea that the private sector is now stepping into this important field of endeavor -- and not just as government contractors.
I just signed up for AT&T at full price. I assume connecting at $4.95 should be the same. I've already connected via my Linux machine (running Red Hat 6.2). All I needed to do was use the Gnome Dialup configuration tool to set up the connection.
AT&T also has a document at http://www.wurd.com/eng/setup/dialers/linux.html to guide you through dialing in via Linux.
I've been somewhat seriously using The GIMP for about a year now. But, because of time pressures, I'm still learning. And I'm a bit of a perfectionist as well.
Why did I start using The GIMP? Well:
Reactions? The book "The Artist's Guide to The GIMP" has been helpful, but it reads more like a computer manual than something an artist would write. I've been reading Popular Photography for a very long time now. It's much more oriented to how to do some project than the book is. I like Pop Photo's approach over the book's. And I make my living as a software engineer.
I have been able to do some neat things with the GIMP and I expect to be able to do more as I become more comfortable with the tool. See my current site for some samples of my manipulated images, both photographic and computer. Look quickly, though. I'm in the process of switching ISPs.
Will I move on to Photoshop? Depends upon what limitations I run into with The GIMP. No, I'm not willing to plunge into coding new things for the GIMP. I do art to get away from being a software engineer. I am willing to be a guinea pig for people developing GIMP software, though.
Is Slashdot brilliant commentary, pointless drivel or ravings of lunatics?
The answer is, of course, all of the above. It depends upon who is doing the posting, what they are posting about and what they actually know about the matter at hand. So, saying simply "Slashdot is good" or "Slashdot is bad" is inadequate. You must also consider many other conditions.
Life is like that. It's pretty messy. And complex. A can cause B or not B. Depends upon what other conditions are operating. Jumping out of an airplane can be
Similar things can be said about the use of computers in education. They can be used to turn children into robots or invite them into a world richer than they would ordinarily experience. Books can do similar things. Even TV can. Providing, of course, that other conditions are met.
One of the most thought provoking photgraphs I ever saw was a picture of the interior of Albert Einstein's house when he was living in Princeton NJ. The picture showed a bookcase, desk with papers and open books, and a piano.
There were no electronics in view.
This could just be the consequence of when the photograph was done. Einstein died in the mid 50s. He lived in Princeton from the early 30s until his death. Television was fairly uncommon until the 50s. Radios -- the major electronic entertainment before television -- were often hidden away in cabinets. As were early TVs and stereos. As a contrast, Stephen Hawking -- a contemporary successor to Einstein -- is such a big fan of Star Trek that he's even appeared in an episode.
Humans have an amazing capability for wasting time in frivolous ways. Before TV there were dime novels, saloons, churches, political campaigns and more.
I agree people waste too much time on TV. But blaming shortcomings of current society just on TV is not all that insightful in my view.
This statement implies that people are forced to use the command line in contemporary Linux. I don't think this is true.
At home I run Red Hat 6.2. I use my home machine for the following:
In short, for the things ordinary people do, Linux appears to be as friendly as other OSes. No reason to get rid of vi, emacs, xterm and the like.
To use an automobile analogy, Linux today is not like having a difficult to use race car versus an easy to drive generic mass production vehicle. It's more like having a garage with room for a race prepared Corvette, a Malibu for family transportation and several other vehicles for various uses. Windows is like having a station wagon -- great for going to the supermarket, but a sure loser on the race track.
is the professor who gave this gut course.
He claims he was teaching 500 students at one time. No, he wasn't. He was entertaining people who wanted to fill a requirement as easily as possible. Whatever learning that happens in such a "class" occurs almost entirely by student effort.
I remember my days as a physics student. I participated in three separate programs before I finally got disgusted. The first, my undergraduate program, was decent. But classes that were too large (over a dozen students) eventually wore all of us down (I think the faculty could be included in that statement). I wound up taking a four year break from academic studies after getting my batchelor's. When I decided to return to academia, I first entered a tiny program given at a liberal arts college. The faculty were quite distinguished. The year I spent in this program was, without a doubt, the best year I had in academia. The next year it was off to a major university to complete the Ph.D. After one semester I bailed out. Academic game playing and dysfunctional bureaucracies finally drove me out. I gather things are far more ridiculous today.
Names withheld to protect the innocent.
Addiction is a word bandied about very much today. Various kinds of addictions are cited as causes of social problems. We blame drug addicts for crime, net addicts for business failures, sex addicts for social problems such as the high divorce rate and other kinds of addicts for problems too numerous to mention in a brief post.
Yes, some people can become addicted to X -- whatever X is these days. But we should ask why do people become addicted to X? Is the addiction the true cause of the problem cited? Does citing addiction as the cause of the problem benefit in some way the person or persons making the charge?
An older kind of addiction -- that to drugs -- has been around long enough to provide some data to consider these questions. Drug addiction is higher in the United States than in other developed Western democracies. This is in spite of an extreme war on drugs. People who cite drug addiction as a cause of U.S. problems typically blame the drug addicts for their own behavior. Protests that drug addicts have been driven to their dysfunctional behavior are dismissed out of hand. Yet available evidence suggests that people turn to drugs not out of any moral failing on their part but out of a despair caused by events in their lives that are out of their control. For interesting looks at the drug culture, I recommend "Trainspotting" and "Traffic."
Is drug addiction the underlying cause of the problems cited? Yes, drug addicts can screw up. So can supposedly healthy people. I like to remind people that it wasn't stoned hippies or drunken playboys who blew up Challenger. That particular disaster can be laid at the feet of "hard working professionals" who didn't think they could stand up to unreasonable demands by management.
The example I've just cited shows that many problems faced by the United States are the result of dysfunctional bureaucracies that would rather blame somebody else -- anybody else -- for their failings rather than alter their own behavior. Similar things can be said about schools, corporations, government agencies, political movements and more.
A healthy counterpoint to this behavior is that exhibited by the U.S. military between 1975 and 1990. The Vietnam war exposed a multitude of problems with the U.S. military. Rather than attacking critics or low level personnel, however, the U.S. military undertook many significant reforms. The consequence of this behavior was a military that won back considerable respect (even from many critics) and showed demonstrably better performance.
Yes, we should all consider whether our behaviors are dysfunctional. A book like this can help many. But we should also consider the roots of these behaviors -- and not just reflexively blame the persons exhibiting them.
Like the author of the this post, I also grew up in a different country and lived there for a number of years. You see, I was born in New Jersey in 1945 (yes, I'm older than most /.ers -- deal with it).
First, a few comparisons between then and now. We had radio, TV, movies but no video games, violent or otherwise. Movies were less violent, but still sometimes shocking. Check out the late 50s Ben Hur, for instance. When George Lucas borrowed the chariot race for The Phantom Menace, he cleaned it up a good deal. He made the violence far more antiseptic.
While it's easy to compare preserved cultural artifacts, it's harder to compare the societies of the 50s and now. Since I've lived in both, let me share some significant differences:
What were some consequences of this kind of life? We had somewhat fewer toys (adults and children both). But, in my middle class suburb, families usually had cars, TVs, radios, some stereos, some appliances such as washers and dryers. Everyone had more free time. Everyone got more sleep (sleep deprivation can drive a normal person quite up the wall). Because children had less detailed, organized supervision they could experiment with learning new behaviors and starting to figure out the world at least partially by themselves. This style of learning engenders greater independence and, odd as you might think, greater personal responsibility.
Learning was more democratic than in today's hyperorganized climate. While crusaders for today's increasingly authoritarian organizations will tell you differently, experimental evidence suggests looser, more democratic structures result in more, not less, moral behavior. (By moral behavior, I'm thinking of fair dealing with fellow humans rather than obeisance to whatever puritanical fads are in fashion).
I'm not suggesting a rigid return to the 50s (or 30s or 1890s or whatever past era you think of as ideal). For example, confining women to the home is hardly a good idea. Even my own mother in the distant time worked outside the home for most of her adult life.
But I do think it's long past time to tell the workaholics and bureaucratic empire builders to take a hike. Those long work weeks aren't really productive -- check out Peopleware by DeMarco and Lister, for example. And bureaucratic empires? Hasn't the collapse of the Soviet Union taught us anything?
It's also time for people to get more involved with each other.
A not entirely minor correction. 2001 was filmed in Cinerama. This was a film technology that required a wraparound screen. The impact was even greater than the widescreen 70 mm.
I saw the original 2001 in both San Jose and San Francisco, California in 1968 and 1969. Yes, it was a favorite of hippies and techies. Those of us who were members of both sets were particularly enthralled.
I've seen 2001 only once in a regular movie theater. It just wasn't the same. I can't abide it on TV -- any version. But, then, I'm a visual artist among other things, so I'm rather picky.
As sjbe states, most "secrets" aren't. How to keep an business secret? Don't tell anyone about your business.
There's a funny story that has been passed around by science fiction fans that illustrates the folly of most "secrets." Back in the 40s, the U.S. developed the first nuclear weapons. The Manhattan Project was an extraordinarily well guarded secret. Harry Truman wasn't told about it until he became President.
Now, research into nuclear physics had been ongoing for some decades -- all in the open. The first laboratory chain reaction was observed in 1938. Scientifically oriented people were speculating about the possibilities of nuclear technologies (including weapons) for some years before the Manhattan Project started. But, when the project started, everyone who worked on it stopped making public comments about their work. But not everyone who knew something about nuclear physics went to work on the project.
In 1944, the magazine Astounding Science Fiction ran a story by an engineer/writer named Cartmill about a project to develop nuclear weapons. Cartmill (probably in cooperation with friends) independently discovered some "secrets" of the Manhattan Project. The open publication of these "secrets" caused quite a stir. The FBI even investigated. Fortunately for all involved, it was easy to show that the "secrets" could be easily discovered by any reasonably intelligent person who knew something about nuclear physics. The FBI eventually even approved newstand distribution (copies had already gone out to subscribers) so as to not draw attention of enemy spies to the magazine.
Incidentally, the U.S. government gave away the biggest technological secret of the 20th century -- that nuclear weapons could work. The U.S. government gave away that particular secret at Hiroshima.
Personally, I think secrets have a very short useful life. Things kept secret aren't some kind of magic that no one else can discover. "Secrets" are a part of nature that others can learn about just as easily as the original discoverer.
Scientology and the wide variety of other cults don't have much popular support in the U.S. Most people have little or no contact with any of these fringe groups.
While most Americans consider cults harmful, they consider the harm they do to be done only to individuals and people with close connection to individuals who have been sucked into these cults. Scientologists, Moonies, Neonazis, etc., are viewed as basically powerless with regard to the larger society. That's probably why Americans are, in one respect, less concerned about these groups than, for example, Germans who have seen a fringe group (Adolf Hitler's Nazis) rise quickly to real power and do enormous damage to humanity.
Perhaps our only moderate concern is unrealistically low. Remember, though, we have had centuries of dealing with varieties of nut cases and limiting the harm they do.
I most certainly do consider social and cultural life when deciding where to work. In addition to being a software engineer, I'm an artist. I also have a varied, active social life. Without my art and my social life, I'd soon be a basket case, burned out like entirely too many geek workaholics I've seen.
When considering a place of employment, I look at a number of factors:
Places like Utah with their restrictive drinking laws and other puritanical excesses clearly turn me off. OTOH, places like NYC with exorbitant cost of living and general hassle factor also turn me off.
I don't know if I qualify as a child prodigy. I was and am very bright. My GRE scores put me in the top 1/1000 (yes, three zeroes) of adult humans. I was also quite good in school. There wasn't any such thing as formal "gifted and talented" education in New Jersey back in the 50s, though. I certainly wasn't treated as a "prodigy" -- just an unusually good student.
I'd expose the child to lots of stimulating things in many areas of life. For instance, this month I'd take the child to see the "Nutcracker" ballet. Children in general love the show. Science fiction aimed at adolescents and younger might also intrigue the child. I mention these things because both have interested me.
Don't be afraid to show the child what interests you. Expose him to other adults with varied interests. If you have a active local Mensa group, go to them for help. Most (not all) Mensa people have quite good social skills. The organization has made a significant commitment to helping the "gifted and talented."
Talk to him (or her, if it's a girl) about your life. Don't give boring lectures, but use short stories about meaningful incidents.
Avoid organized sports. I personally think 9 year olds are too young for that kind of nonsense. If it were up to me, I'd set a minimum age limit for participation in formal teams with uniforms, coaches, leagues, etc. My preferred limit? The minimum age for legal consumption of alcoholic beverages. Of course, I'd lower that limit. But still, I think we're forcing children into organized sports at entirely too young an age. No, this isn't the bitter comment of a geek couch potato. I run about 35 miles a week (or swim the equivalent). I've finished a marathon and my times for 10 K races are in the top 15-25% for my age group. A fair number of my friends are runners. But I've seen both physical and psychological injury happen to children who have gotten into organized sports at the tender age of 9 (or earlier).
If possible, steer the child in the direction of flexible, democratically oriented people and groups. My biggest problems have been with mildly intelligent but rigid, authoritarian people who are convinced they have The Answers -- and don't like hearing that they don't.
Most importantly, relax and enjoy yourself. If you don't like the tutoring, stop. And when you stop, let the child know why. Be honest. But also try not to hurt the child.
Good luck!
A few years ago I read an excellent book on sleep deprivation -- "Sleep Thieves" by Stanley Coren. It got me to thinking about work weeks. I sketched out a reasonable weekly schedule:
This adds up to 84 hours/week. Even before you've spent any time at all at work, you've used up half the week. Think you don't need that much sleep? Read the book I mentioned. Sleep deprived people literally murder patients on the operating table and blew up the Challenger. Think you don't need exercise? Ask your doctor. Spend time with friends and family, routine errands, etc. and more time is gone.
Consider now what the various work weeks really mean:
The long work hours phenomenon is a relatively recent phenomenon. Two centuries ago (not long in the span of human civilization) people did not have electric light. Pratically all human activity was limited to daylight hours. Back then people did accomplish some very remarkable things. For example, starting the United States, learning much about the universe, creating great art.
A final note: people have incredible abilities for self deception. When I hear people bragging about how much they've accomplished by working long hours, I wonder if it's true or they're just deluding themselves. Remember, people in the Soviet Union also deluded themselves about their accomplishments for literally decades.
Jon Katz wrote:
Has he read any history of the 19th Century? Gross personal attacks were the norm in 19th Century American politics. Grover Cleveland, a candidate for President, was attacked as the father of an illegitimate child. (He won the election.) Abraham Lincoln was denounced as the "Great Ape" by his opponents.
Was Katz alive and conscious during the 1960s? Civility was hardly the hallmark of that era.
And what about more recent American politics? The attacks on Clinton and others hardly rank as meeting the standards of civility.
These are just a few examples from American history. I'm sure others could name more. Foreign (to the U.S.) readers may cite evidence from their cultures.