What about the perspective of the government making sure that a convicted monopolist (that faced only trivial penalties) doesn't continue to use their tremendous influence illicitly. That's not government intrusion, that's law enforcement. There's a huge difference.
Sorry, he doesn't specifically say we should build more nukes, and more importantly, that he would reduce the absurd amount of regulatory bureaucracy required to get a new plant approved. While he expresses reasonable concerns for the issues surrounding nuclear, there is no indication that our current nuclear power capability will, or should, be expanded. To think otherwise is, I'm afraid, wishful thinking on your part.
Being safe, is of course, very important, but the regulations in the U.S. have effectively stopped us from building nuclear power plants for decades (although I understand Virginia has finally been able to get approval for at least one new reactor). Unless he says differently, there's no reason to believe he won't change the status quo.
I'm sorry, but in all those pages, I didn't see any indication that he thinks building more nukes or drilling for more oil is a good idea or a suggestion that we should do it. I think it is ridiculous to assume that that's what he means.
The only concrete things he lists is investing in biofuel (which I agree is stupid, especially any use of corn) and investing in new technology. Investing in new technology is all well and good, but it doesn't address what we will do in the 10 to 40 years before any new technologies are developed, perfected, and deployed widely enough to have a positive effect. This is what I call "wishful thinking". I'm convinced under a President Obama gasoline will reach $10 a gallon, because nothing he proposes will help us until we have alternatives, which are all in the indefinite future.
I'm all for investing in wind, hydroelectric, geothermal, solar (with nanotechnological manufacturing processes, I'm optimistic we will see large breakthroughs in efficiency with solar power in the next couple decades), and of course the granddaddy of cheap, limitless and safe power, fusion. However, none of these are having any significant effect today (and fusion power isn't even feasible yet). We need to put ourselves in a position where we can function for the next 10 to 40 years, assuming there are _no_ new breakthroughs, because to some extent or other that is exactly where we will be.
LA has more dirt, by virtue of its size, but in DC the dirt is much more concentrated and causes more harm. But please be careful, I live about 40 miles from DC.
Nah, they'd just piss it all away on something stupid and useless.
I'm torn between the fact that it's not the Federal Government's place to be subsidizing science, and the fact that it is practically the only thing the Federal Government does that has a chance of improving something.
Obama's a cipher. People only like him because he's good-looking, has a nice voice and, this is the most important, very little political baggage, because he's done nothing. Frankly, his associations scare the crap out of me. You have to judge someone by the company he keeps, and too many of Obama's friends are racists, crooks and terrorists.
He follows Rev. Wright for 20 years, who practically worships Farrakhan, and then has the "audacity" to tell Israel he'd be their friend. Frankly, he'll probably give Israel to Iran if Iran lets us leave Iraq without a bloodbath. I'm sure Rev. Wright (who also is a big fan of Hamas) would approve.
McCain was my least favorite in a field of Republicans I didn't like at all, but at least with him there will be a chance gas won't be $10 a gallon.
Ultimately, the Presidency of the U.S. isn't an entry-level executive position, and Obama has no business trying to be the most powerful man in the world when he's never run anything bigger than a fever. But don't let that get in the way of believing his empty rhetoric about "change" and "hope".
I code exactly like the article describes women coders, not so others will understand it later, although that is a desired end, but so in 6 months I'll understand what the hell I was thinking today.
The problem is that stupidity isn't punishable by death any more. It's most often punishable by winning a nifty lawsuit and more stupid and costly government regulations to prevent evolutionary mistakes from killing themselves out of stupidity.
Basically, in the long run, stupidity is causing the death of our civilization.
We have four kids who are all very creative, intelligent and knowledgeable. I won't take credit for what the Good Lord saw fit to bless these children with, but I do what I can to nurture these gifts.
First off my wife and I are both avid _learners_ and even though we are both in our 40s we continue our educations in many formal and informal ways, both related to our careers (I've a software developer for 20_ years and she's been a stay-at-home Mom who recently got her Master's working primarily from home and is looking to restart her career) and other interests, whether useful, or just fun.
We are both voracious readers, so I think our biggest influence is possibly the example we set and the fact that there are tremendous numbers of books and other cool resources readily available for use. The children are encouraged and helped to use anything in the house that they can actually handle without breaking. I also have a bit of an arts-and-crafts bent which I pursue often, and we have plenty of artsy-craftsy resources available for the kids as well.
Next, we've done everything we can to encourage the kids' curiousities, especially in terms of them trying to understand things. My wife and I have interests that we naturally share: mine tend towards math, science and technology, but I also love films and TV, my wife loves and studies history, especially the Civil War and many other topics, and we both practice and study our religion seriously. So at any given time both of us have interesting things to talk about and share. I always have an "open door" policy of taking the time to explain anything they might have questions about... including doing research as needed, and I am always careful to take the time to listen to what the kids want to say*. Thus, I'm teaching them how to learn (or am trying anyway). Next I am very critical of any media, and if we are watching a documentary or hearing the news or something, I will comment when I disagree or explain something that I think the kids might find interesting or insightful.
And finally, I often make completely ridiculous statements with a straight face. Although it's often meant just for humor, I realized after many years that I was also, almost subconsciously, trying to teach them not to be gullible. They understand that at any given moment Daddy might be completely pulling their leg, and if I say something that seems unbelievable, they will challenge me. I don't deliberately mislead them, and will admit when I'm yankin' their chains, but I think it's a healthy and effective way to teach them that no authority is always right, and not to talk everything blindly or uncritically.
Oh, and one more thing, when I am wrong in matters of fact or judgement, I will freely admit it. I will come right out and say, "I was wrong. I shouldn't have done that." or "I said something that was incorrect." So that my kids see that while I like to pose as the guy with all the answers, that I recognize I am not perfect or infallible.
Oh, and one more last, very last, thing... we are all rabid fans of "The Simpsons", watching and rewatching the show often, and if that show doesn't convey a healthy dose of skepticism, nothing does.:-)
* I made this promise to myself when my oldest was a baby that I'd always take the time to listen seriously to anything the children had to say. A plus is that kids are usually not shy when speaking with adults, which is a good trait to have. The problem now is that sometimes they just don't know when to shut up without "gentle encouragement"!
No kidding. I think the only reasonable response to "we don't want to play by the rules" is:
"That's nice. Call us when you are ready to play by the rules. kthxbye"
I'm astonished that he would even say that. That's like Microsoft admitting they hate their users. They act like it. Everyone believes they do. But you'd never expect they come right out and say, "Our only interest is to keep you locked into our products, and in every other respect you can go to hell."
Typical Slashdotter. When you don't understand the details and haven't been following the news closely, bash Microsoft.
No, I was echoing commentary I've read in the past that Microsoft never really intended to acquire Yahoo. I don't pretend to understand the details, but your comment is very ignorant.
Slashdot Mirror
Congratulations, your tax dollars are providing extra Windows QA.
That's more constructive than what they are usually used for...
What about the perspective of the government making sure that a convicted monopolist (that faced only trivial penalties) doesn't continue to use their tremendous influence illicitly. That's not government intrusion, that's law enforcement. There's a huge difference.
Sorry, he doesn't specifically say we should build more nukes, and more importantly, that he would reduce the absurd amount of regulatory bureaucracy required to get a new plant approved. While he expresses reasonable concerns for the issues surrounding nuclear, there is no indication that our current nuclear power capability will, or should, be expanded. To think otherwise is, I'm afraid, wishful thinking on your part.
Being safe, is of course, very important, but the regulations in the U.S. have effectively stopped us from building nuclear power plants for decades (although I understand Virginia has finally been able to get approval for at least one new reactor). Unless he says differently, there's no reason to believe he won't change the status quo.
I'm sorry, but in all those pages, I didn't see any indication that he thinks building more nukes or drilling for more oil is a good idea or a suggestion that we should do it. I think it is ridiculous to assume that that's what he means.
The only concrete things he lists is investing in biofuel (which I agree is stupid, especially any use of corn) and investing in new technology. Investing in new technology is all well and good, but it doesn't address what we will do in the 10 to 40 years before any new technologies are developed, perfected, and deployed widely enough to have a positive effect. This is what I call "wishful thinking". I'm convinced under a President Obama gasoline will reach $10 a gallon, because nothing he proposes will help us until we have alternatives, which are all in the indefinite future.
I'm all for investing in wind, hydroelectric, geothermal, solar (with nanotechnological manufacturing processes, I'm optimistic we will see large breakthroughs in efficiency with solar power in the next couple decades), and of course the granddaddy of cheap, limitless and safe power, fusion. However, none of these are having any significant effect today (and fusion power isn't even feasible yet). We need to put ourselves in a position where we can function for the next 10 to 40 years, assuming there are _no_ new breakthroughs, because to some extent or other that is exactly where we will be.
Anything else is foolish.
LA has more dirt, by virtue of its size, but in DC the dirt is much more concentrated and causes more harm. But please be careful, I live about 40 miles from DC.
The only thing you can bake at 6 degrees Kelvin is some liquid helium!
Nah, they'd just piss it all away on something stupid and useless.
I'm torn between the fact that it's not the Federal Government's place to be subsidizing science, and the fact that it is practically the only thing the Federal Government does that has a chance of improving something.
Obama's a cipher. People only like him because he's good-looking, has a nice voice and, this is the most important, very little political baggage, because he's done nothing. Frankly, his associations scare the crap out of me. You have to judge someone by the company he keeps, and too many of Obama's friends are racists, crooks and terrorists.
He follows Rev. Wright for 20 years, who practically worships Farrakhan, and then has the "audacity" to tell Israel he'd be their friend. Frankly, he'll probably give Israel to Iran if Iran lets us leave Iraq without a bloodbath. I'm sure Rev. Wright (who also is a big fan of Hamas) would approve.
McCain was my least favorite in a field of Republicans I didn't like at all, but at least with him there will be a chance gas won't be $10 a gallon.
Ultimately, the Presidency of the U.S. isn't an entry-level executive position, and Obama has no business trying to be the most powerful man in the world when he's never run anything bigger than a fever. But don't let that get in the way of believing his empty rhetoric about "change" and "hope".
No, 70 degrees is about four-fifths of a right angle.
I just hope someone doesn't come around and rotate my trees, because they might die!
I've read Obama's energy policy and it consists solely of biofuel and hopeful thinking.
HAW HAW!
Sorry, I couldn't resist.
If you can work in some pirates and ninjas you'll gross nine figures easily!
So you're implying you'll get better results than when using Office itself?
Because in my experience, Office, or more specifically Word, doesn't work well at anywhere near 99%.
I "reverse pass" people like that: Move over a lane, slow down and get behind them.
Microsoft: We're A Whole Lotta Fail
I would think that "Linux 2.0" refers to the 2.0 kernel. I run Linux 2.6.
I code exactly like the article describes women coders, not so others will understand it later, although that is a desired end, but so in 6 months I'll understand what the hell I was thinking today.
Or if he's lucky, he'll get super powers. It's gotta happen eventually, right?
If you don't want to donate them make your own gauss cannon!
The problem is that stupidity isn't punishable by death any more. It's most often punishable by winning a nifty lawsuit and more stupid and costly government regulations to prevent evolutionary mistakes from killing themselves out of stupidity.
Basically, in the long run, stupidity is causing the death of our civilization.
Or the Mars probe that was supposedly lost due to a misplaced semi-colon in the code.
Or the other Mars probe that was lost due to incorrectly mixing Imperial and metric measurements.
Or the Hubble going up with a incorrectly shaped main mirror.
Or... and someone has to say it, why not me... Vista.
We have four kids who are all very creative, intelligent and knowledgeable. I won't take credit for what the Good Lord saw fit to bless these children with, but I do what I can to nurture these gifts.
:-)
First off my wife and I are both avid _learners_ and even though we are both in our 40s we continue our educations in many formal and informal ways, both related to our careers (I've a software developer for 20_ years and she's been a stay-at-home Mom who recently got her Master's working primarily from home and is looking to restart her career) and other interests, whether useful, or just fun.
We are both voracious readers, so I think our biggest influence is possibly the example we set and the fact that there are tremendous numbers of books and other cool resources readily available for use. The children are encouraged and helped to use anything in the house that they can actually handle without breaking. I also have a bit of an arts-and-crafts bent which I pursue often, and we have plenty of artsy-craftsy resources available for the kids as well.
Next, we've done everything we can to encourage the kids' curiousities, especially in terms of them trying to understand things. My wife and I have interests that we naturally share: mine tend towards math, science and technology, but I also love films and TV, my wife loves and studies history, especially the Civil War and many other topics, and we both practice and study our religion seriously. So at any given time both of us have interesting things to talk about and share. I always have an "open door" policy of taking the time to explain anything they might have questions about... including doing research as needed, and I am always careful to take the time to listen to what the kids want to say*. Thus, I'm teaching them how to learn (or am trying anyway). Next I am very critical of any media, and if we are watching a documentary or hearing the news or something, I will comment when I disagree or explain something that I think the kids might find interesting or insightful.
And finally, I often make completely ridiculous statements with a straight face. Although it's often meant just for humor, I realized after many years that I was also, almost subconsciously, trying to teach them not to be gullible. They understand that at any given moment Daddy might be completely pulling their leg, and if I say something that seems unbelievable, they will challenge me. I don't deliberately mislead them, and will admit when I'm yankin' their chains, but I think it's a healthy and effective way to teach them that no authority is always right, and not to talk everything blindly or uncritically.
Oh, and one more thing, when I am wrong in matters of fact or judgement, I will freely admit it. I will come right out and say, "I was wrong. I shouldn't have done that." or "I said something that was incorrect." So that my kids see that while I like to pose as the guy with all the answers, that I recognize I am not perfect or infallible.
Oh, and one more last, very last, thing... we are all rabid fans of "The Simpsons", watching and rewatching the show often, and if that show doesn't convey a healthy dose of skepticism, nothing does.
* I made this promise to myself when my oldest was a baby that I'd always take the time to listen seriously to anything the children had to say. A plus is that kids are usually not shy when speaking with adults, which is a good trait to have. The problem now is that sometimes they just don't know when to shut up without "gentle encouragement"!
No kidding. I think the only reasonable response to "we don't want to play by the rules" is:
"That's nice. Call us when you are ready to play by the rules. kthxbye"
I'm astonished that he would even say that. That's like Microsoft admitting they hate their users. They act like it. Everyone believes they do. But you'd never expect they come right out and say, "Our only interest is to keep you locked into our products, and in every other respect you can go to hell."
Typical Slashdotter. When you don't understand the details and haven't been following the news closely, bash Microsoft.
No, I was echoing commentary I've read in the past that Microsoft never really intended to acquire Yahoo. I don't pretend to understand the details, but your comment is very ignorant.
I'm glad my wife _doesn't_ read /.
She'd probably think less of me.
If there was one Microsoft gazillionaire I'd actually want to meet, it would be Paul Allen.