Ah, no, in constant 2007 dollars it hasn't declined (that is what the chart is in and what I was using as a metric). But feel free to continue being stupid!
Same development platform != same malware. Not every program made with Visual Studio is identical, for example (an analogy, but you get the idea). Also, the development program supposedly underwent large changes in 2010 (after 7 came out). Not that Windows 7 is super-secure, you just have to make better arguments that it isn't.
Just to clarify: NASA's budget itself hasn't declined much at all since ~1970, only as a percentage of the total Federal budget. It has remained fairly steady at around 15 billion (with a significant dip at the late 1970-early 1980 period to around 11 billion.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA#Annual_budget.2C_1958-2011
I remember thinking this. The Tea Party and the OWS (both at the beginning) had much the same message. The trouble was, the OWS people focused most of their energy towards the wrong place, and went about it in the wrong way. Looking like a bunch of losers and druggies isn't a good way to spread your message. And the Tea Party allowed itself to get co-opted by a bunch of loons. Actually, come to think of it they both did.
a) That means very little. Also, I'm talking ten years down the line, when the situation might very well be quite different
b) [citation needed]. I know of the Russian 23mm autocannon and their Fractional Orbital Bombardment System, but have never heard a single example of a US space based weapon. Ever. Nothing on Wikipedia, either. The US does have an ASAT system, but then again so does the Chinese.
c) 2.8%. Or about inflation. The budget expanded previously to cover the active wars. Whereas China has no such involvement, and has spiked their military budget suddenly.
d) Tinfoil? Nah, I don't bother. The mind rays can't penetrate the 20 meter concrete bunker I live in.
e) I'm aware of this. You think I trust the US leaders to act rationally? Also, why do you think that is my "sentiment"? I was pointing out the actual worst case scenario as a devil's advocate, not what I thought would happen. I even made that pretty clear. Even there I was wrong: real worst case they preemptively nuke everyone out of paranoia.
Worse case scenario, things don't work out and remain as they are(not counting deaths here since that's always a possibility with these and NASA as well as the Russians have had their fair share.
Worst case scenario is actually: they mount weapons on space stations (nuclear, most likely) and start an arms race that ends in all out war. But the aggressive expansionist Chinese government surely wouldn't do anything like that. It's not like they expanded their military budget by 12% last year or anything.
'But much of what transpires in the name of military research and development is not research in the sense that it produces scientific and technical knowledge widely applicable inside and outside the Defense Department. A large part of defense R&D activity revolves around building very expensive gadgets that are often based on unsound technology and frequently fail to perform as required.'
I thought that was the definition of practical research?
Oh no, it isn't research in the pure scientific sense. It's the damned military: they don't do research in the sense you want. In the practical field, a failure is a success, of a sort. You now know what doesn't work. I mention this because TFA specifically brings it up. The military did a missile test that failed, and called it a success because it was the first of it's kind, and now they know what went wrong and how to fix it. TFA criticizes them for it. Maybe the program is a waste: faulty arguments like that do little to convince me of it.
There is a crapload of waste in the defense department, but this doesn't exactly seem the most sound way of attacking it. And as producing little of value: well, I'm not exactly in a position to judge, but things like the Keyhole program, GPS advancements, UAVs, even the F-22 (as bloated as it was) seem like they are pretty valuable. And that is all we know about: the stealth helicopters that were supposedly used in assassinating Osama seem like, well, like a massive advantage.
I'm also aware that Mr. Subrata Ghoshroy is far more well informed than I am. This just seems like a really lousy argument.
Well, so far. Their site says they are working on earlier models ATM. Whether that extends to before 2011 devices or just before September 2011 devices is slightly unclear.
TFS says "Had Apple created a really low minimum price for apps — say $0.15 — instead of offering free apps on day one, Ariely suggests,". This means the article is implying Apple should (have) force(d) Apps on their store to cost money and prevent them from being free, or exactly what bky1701 said. In other words, the developer wouldn't have been free to choose, had Ariely had his way.
Unless the CVN changed, which it probably did. Mine does anyways. Which makes it worthless for online purchases. Might still be able to abuse it, but much less easily.
What's next, an article about humans and dinosaurs living together
Nah, Slashdot's always late. They won't post that story until dinosaurs actually do go extinct. (Birds: Class Aves, Branch:Avialae. Order: Saurischia Superorder:Dinosauria
Yes, "Dinosauria" means exactly what you should think it does. Source BTW)
Oops, my first "around" should have been "at". As in, they benchmarked it exactly at 2.6W and 3.6W idle and active, respectively (and rounded it down - way down - in the summary)
It gets worse: the summary is actually misleading. They benchmarked it around 2.6 idle and 3.6 active ("around", right), and it "aims" to get down to 2W idle and 2.6 active by next year.
The problem is most of the ocean is dark. Like, really, really, dark. The depth alone isn't a problem. The darkness, combined with the extremely limited visibility, is. You can see the entire surface of the moon from, well, just step outside on a night with a full moon. The bottom of ocean? Not so much. You can even make a precise survey of the lunar surface's height using laser rangefinding. Down to about 40m (vertical, 100m horizontal), which isn't bad at all. The closest thing for the ocean is sonar, and that is nowhere near as precise.
Don't remember where I heard it, but some scientist once commented that we know more about the surface of Mars than we do about our own ocean. It is surprisingly difficult to survey the ocean. According to the NOAA: "Yet for all of our reliance on the ocean, 95 percent of this realm remains unexplored, unseen by human eyes." (source). There is a reason we are still discovering new life in the ocean (and a lot of it too).
Now THAT is customer service. Not that it actually changes anything, but it is polite, respectful... everything Paul was not. And of course, it gets a little plug in on the controller on the side... but that is marketing for you.
In this case, however, it seems justified. The controller isn't out yet: that is the point. How do you warn people on the product page about things like this if you don't "review" it without actually owning it? Besides, any good review site (Amazon included) has some sort of "verified owner" tag to eliminate spam like this.
However, Internet justice is rarely just, that is quite correct. And oh so easily abused. By both sides.
which is hilarious because our manufacturing base is gone.
Which is why we still have more manufacturing capability than any other country in the world, including China? Granted those stats are a bit old, it's still true. The number of jobs is down (by a lot), because US manufacturing has grown more efficient, which creates the impression that we lack manufacturing capability. Well, that and all the "Made in China" crap you find at Walmart. The reality is the US makes ~18% of the worlds manufactured stuff. And that is considered a "small fraction" of the US's economy. In an international context, the US is massive. Still by far the biggest player.
Also, the US probably should ban Chinese electronics in defense applications, but they don't.
I've seen no indication that kids gain a love of reading anything besides more fluff books from the Harry Potter series. The distinct lack of well educated individuals in America seems to agree with that. A "love of reading" is all fine and dandy, but when it is a love of reading just Stephen King or (*shudder*) Stephanie Meyer, it doesn't carry forwards to very much. May even be counter-productive in some cases, since they grow so used to such simple works that they never move on. It's the literary equivalent of eating baby food your whole life (or, well, mac'n'cheese anyways: it's still tasty to adults, but it won't provide what you need to grow intellectually.) Now, if they read Isaac Asimov (or Mark Twain et al.) afterwards, that would be different. But they usually don't.
And unfortunately the thousands that don't succeed generally don't because they produce little to nothing of worth. Some of them do and simply never get recognized, sure, but to pay every one who simply "wants to write" to do so with no guarantee that what they produce will be of value is a waste of money. Unless, of course, the government starts to regulate which jobs each individual can go into (which is historically how all such socialist systems have worked, by necessity), and then of course you have no freedom. A system where this is only true for a handful of people works, true, but only if you only allow a few individuals to partake. How do you decide who? Track record. And then you have something pretty close to the present system.
The problem with socialism is it just doesn't work on a widespread scale. I'm not entirely opposed to a few socialized services (like health care), but for productive work like writing I think it is a bad and counter-productive idea.
Actually America already does precisely that in the universities for research. Historically, writers of philosophy, politics, and science have been funded that way across the world. A few literature writers as well (Tolkien and C.S. Lewis come to mind). I believe that is still pretty common. However, authors like J.K Rowling (who IMO don't contribute to the advancement of knowledge) can't succeed under such a system. Or would you propose that we should pay any writer who wants it no matter the actual contribution to society of their work? No, that system would never work because everyone wants to become the next billionaire runaway success writer. The writers themselves wouldn't agree to it: if they actually wanted to, that system is already in place (as I said: university professors do pretty much exactly that in many cases).
How do they keep top secret data from leaking out to third parties?
First of all, you don't put top secret stuff on your phone. That is a quick way to lose your security clearance. There are very strict rules about what top secret data can and cannot be placed on: putting it on public-internet facing devices like a phone will get you in shitloads of trouble. It's possible they have Android builds that work on SIPRNET (I've heard the President gets something like that from Blackberry) with a physical switch (SIPRNET devices have to be physically separate in some way from ARPANET devices), but this doesn't sound at all similar. So classified information should never be on these devices to be leaked.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, no, in constant 2007 dollars it hasn't declined (that is what the chart is in and what I was using as a metric). But feel free to continue being stupid!
Same development platform != same malware. Not every program made with Visual Studio is identical, for example (an analogy, but you get the idea). Also, the development program supposedly underwent large changes in 2010 (after 7 came out). Not that Windows 7 is super-secure, you just have to make better arguments that it isn't.
Just to clarify: NASA's budget itself hasn't declined much at all since ~1970, only as a percentage of the total Federal budget. It has remained fairly steady at around 15 billion (with a significant dip at the late 1970-early 1980 period to around 11 billion.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA#Annual_budget.2C_1958-2011
+5 funny. That one actually took me a few seconds.
Even the BSA backed off SOPA: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/11/even-the-business-software-alliance-now-backpedaling-on-sopa-support.ars
Looking like a bunch of losers and druggies...
You said:
Essentially your fundamental belief that they were druggies and/or losers...
Learn to read before you call someone else "clueless", please.
Then again, what's Christmas mid travel but a poor substitution?
Ask Santa.
I remember thinking this. The Tea Party and the OWS (both at the beginning) had much the same message. The trouble was, the OWS people focused most of their energy towards the wrong place, and went about it in the wrong way. Looking like a bunch of losers and druggies isn't a good way to spread your message. And the Tea Party allowed itself to get co-opted by a bunch of loons. Actually, come to think of it they both did.
a) That means very little. Also, I'm talking ten years down the line, when the situation might very well be quite different
b) [citation needed]. I know of the Russian 23mm autocannon and their Fractional Orbital Bombardment System, but have never heard a single example of a US space based weapon. Ever. Nothing on Wikipedia, either. The US does have an ASAT system, but then again so does the Chinese.
c) 2.8%. Or about inflation. The budget expanded previously to cover the active wars. Whereas China has no such involvement, and has spiked their military budget suddenly.
d) Tinfoil? Nah, I don't bother. The mind rays can't penetrate the 20 meter concrete bunker I live in.
e) I'm aware of this. You think I trust the US leaders to act rationally? Also, why do you think that is my "sentiment"? I was pointing out the actual worst case scenario as a devil's advocate, not what I thought would happen. I even made that pretty clear. Even there I was wrong: real worst case they preemptively nuke everyone out of paranoia.
Worse case scenario, things don't work out and remain as they are(not counting deaths here since that's always a possibility with these and NASA as well as the Russians have had their fair share.
Worst case scenario is actually: they mount weapons on space stations (nuclear, most likely) and start an arms race that ends in all out war. But the aggressive expansionist Chinese government surely wouldn't do anything like that. It's not like they expanded their military budget by 12% last year or anything.
Unlikely? Maybe. Possible? Yes.
'But much of what transpires in the name of military research and development is not research in the sense that it produces scientific and technical knowledge widely applicable inside and outside the Defense Department. A large part of defense R&D activity revolves around building very expensive gadgets that are often based on unsound technology and frequently fail to perform as required.'
I thought that was the definition of practical research?
Copyright © 2011 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
Oh no, it isn't research in the pure scientific sense. It's the damned military: they don't do research in the sense you want. In the practical field, a failure is a success, of a sort. You now know what doesn't work. I mention this because TFA specifically brings it up. The military did a missile test that failed, and called it a success because it was the first of it's kind, and now they know what went wrong and how to fix it. TFA criticizes them for it. Maybe the program is a waste: faulty arguments like that do little to convince me of it.
There is a crapload of waste in the defense department, but this doesn't exactly seem the most sound way of attacking it. And as producing little of value: well, I'm not exactly in a position to judge, but things like the Keyhole program, GPS advancements, UAVs, even the F-22 (as bloated as it was) seem like they are pretty valuable. And that is all we know about: the stealth helicopters that were supposedly used in assassinating Osama seem like, well, like a massive advantage.
I'm also aware that Mr. Subrata Ghoshroy is far more well informed than I am. This just seems like a really lousy argument.
Well, so far. Their site says they are working on earlier models ATM. Whether that extends to before 2011 devices or just before September 2011 devices is slightly unclear.
TFS says "Had Apple created a really low minimum price for apps — say $0.15 — instead of offering free apps on day one, Ariely suggests,". This means the article is implying Apple should (have) force(d) Apps on their store to cost money and prevent them from being free, or exactly what bky1701 said. In other words, the developer wouldn't have been free to choose, had Ariely had his way.
Unless the CVN changed, which it probably did. Mine does anyways. Which makes it worthless for online purchases. Might still be able to abuse it, but much less easily.
What's next, an article about humans and dinosaurs living together
Nah, Slashdot's always late. They won't post that story until dinosaurs actually do go extinct. (Birds: Class Aves, Branch:Avialae. Order: Saurischia Superorder:Dinosauria Yes, "Dinosauria" means exactly what you should think it does. Source BTW)
Oops, my first "around" should have been "at". As in, they benchmarked it exactly at 2.6W and 3.6W idle and active, respectively (and rounded it down - way down - in the summary)
It gets worse: the summary is actually misleading. They benchmarked it around 2.6 idle and 3.6 active ("around", right), and it "aims" to get down to 2W idle and 2.6 active by next year.
The problem is most of the ocean is dark. Like, really, really, dark. The depth alone isn't a problem. The darkness, combined with the extremely limited visibility, is. You can see the entire surface of the moon from, well, just step outside on a night with a full moon. The bottom of ocean? Not so much. You can even make a precise survey of the lunar surface's height using laser rangefinding. Down to about 40m (vertical, 100m horizontal), which isn't bad at all. The closest thing for the ocean is sonar, and that is nowhere near as precise.
Don't remember where I heard it, but some scientist once commented that we know more about the surface of Mars than we do about our own ocean. It is surprisingly difficult to survey the ocean. According to the NOAA: "Yet for all of our reliance on the ocean, 95 percent of this realm remains unexplored, unseen by human eyes." (source). There is a reason we are still discovering new life in the ocean (and a lot of it too).
Now THAT is customer service. Not that it actually changes anything, but it is polite, respectful... everything Paul was not. And of course, it gets a little plug in on the controller on the side... but that is marketing for you.
In this case, however, it seems justified. The controller isn't out yet: that is the point. How do you warn people on the product page about things like this if you don't "review" it without actually owning it? Besides, any good review site (Amazon included) has some sort of "verified owner" tag to eliminate spam like this.
However, Internet justice is rarely just, that is quite correct. And oh so easily abused. By both sides.
which is hilarious because our manufacturing base is gone.
Which is why we still have more manufacturing capability than any other country in the world, including China? Granted those stats are a bit old, it's still true. The number of jobs is down (by a lot), because US manufacturing has grown more efficient, which creates the impression that we lack manufacturing capability. Well, that and all the "Made in China" crap you find at Walmart. The reality is the US makes ~18% of the worlds manufactured stuff. And that is considered a "small fraction" of the US's economy. In an international context, the US is massive. Still by far the biggest player.
Also, the US probably should ban Chinese electronics in defense applications, but they don't.
I've seen no indication that kids gain a love of reading anything besides more fluff books from the Harry Potter series. The distinct lack of well educated individuals in America seems to agree with that. A "love of reading" is all fine and dandy, but when it is a love of reading just Stephen King or (*shudder*) Stephanie Meyer, it doesn't carry forwards to very much. May even be counter-productive in some cases, since they grow so used to such simple works that they never move on. It's the literary equivalent of eating baby food your whole life (or, well, mac'n'cheese anyways: it's still tasty to adults, but it won't provide what you need to grow intellectually.) Now, if they read Isaac Asimov (or Mark Twain et al.) afterwards, that would be different. But they usually don't.
And unfortunately the thousands that don't succeed generally don't because they produce little to nothing of worth. Some of them do and simply never get recognized, sure, but to pay every one who simply "wants to write" to do so with no guarantee that what they produce will be of value is a waste of money. Unless, of course, the government starts to regulate which jobs each individual can go into (which is historically how all such socialist systems have worked, by necessity), and then of course you have no freedom. A system where this is only true for a handful of people works, true, but only if you only allow a few individuals to partake. How do you decide who? Track record. And then you have something pretty close to the present system.
The problem with socialism is it just doesn't work on a widespread scale. I'm not entirely opposed to a few socialized services (like health care), but for productive work like writing I think it is a bad and counter-productive idea.
Actually America already does precisely that in the universities for research. Historically, writers of philosophy, politics, and science have been funded that way across the world. A few literature writers as well (Tolkien and C.S. Lewis come to mind). I believe that is still pretty common. However, authors like J.K Rowling (who IMO don't contribute to the advancement of knowledge) can't succeed under such a system. Or would you propose that we should pay any writer who wants it no matter the actual contribution to society of their work? No, that system would never work because everyone wants to become the next billionaire runaway success writer. The writers themselves wouldn't agree to it: if they actually wanted to, that system is already in place (as I said: university professors do pretty much exactly that in many cases).
How do they keep top secret data from leaking out to third parties?
First of all, you don't put top secret stuff on your phone. That is a quick way to lose your security clearance. There are very strict rules about what top secret data can and cannot be placed on: putting it on public-internet facing devices like a phone will get you in shitloads of trouble. It's possible they have Android builds that work on SIPRNET (I've heard the President gets something like that from Blackberry) with a physical switch (SIPRNET devices have to be physically separate in some way from ARPANET devices), but this doesn't sound at all similar. So classified information should never be on these devices to be leaked.