What the hell is an USian test? Is that like an UKian test or an EUian or an AUian test?
I'm not sure if you meant this in jest, but for example, I believe WAIS-III (Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale) norms are created with people living in the US.
Also, let's not forget the other theories (Steinberg's Triarchic Theory of Intelligence, for example) which I think put a different--and very utilitarian--spin on what intelligence is.
Just because someone's smart doesn't mean that they're guaranteed to be successful. Lots of smart people flounder because they're poor communicators, are socially inept, etc. Hence, I think Steinberg's theory is intriguing.
My main grip is with the whole line of using Linux for this is wrong and needs to be stopped.
People periodically say things that are idiotic, or do not converge with my personal views. That is a consequence of the notion of 'free speech.'
Free software is similarly unfettered, and should be viewed solely as a means to an end. If we do not like that end, the matter should be taken up within the context of ethics, not software dissemination philosophies.
I have an idea: let the readers meta-moderate people with the ability to post new stories. As the months pass, why do I feel that I'm being had when I see an exhortation to "Meta-Moderate for Slashdot"? I just feel like I'm contributing free labor to a downward-trending initiative.
I worked on a transmission sales automation project at BPA, and I seem to recall some very good explanations for why they had a 2000+ MW, 400kV transmission hop.
This is exactly what happened with GM food - their was a wide spread, and as far as I can tell completely baseless, belief that the technology was inherently unsafe.
Your use of superlatives here is troubling. A few issues to consider here:
* Monsanto's development of genetically-modified Bt Corn and significant potential problems with certain bug populations.
* The use of GMOs to create "pharmafoods"--foods with pharmaceutical-levels of drugs, and issues with these foods intermingling with other crops via pollen transfer.
* The fact that seeds from crops that are genetically modified can be rendered "sterile," by design, thus preventing farmers from creating "seed banks." One has to consider the value of putting so much power over agriculture into the hands of governments with questionable social values (e.g., developing and emerging countries) or large corporations. Remember the Nestle incident involving baby formula in sub-Saharan Africa.
One defense raised for the "need" for GMOs is hunger. Unfortunately, many issues with hunger in developing nations stem from socio-political and logistical issues, not the ability to raise crops.
Anyone that denies that cultural, sociological and ethical considerations of new technology are important are doomed to repeat a history littered with the bodies of the inconsiderate.
Ahh, another sucker who bought the consultants' scare stories... You don't get the big fines and jail times for inadvertent disclosures.
Please show me a citation in HIPPA regulations where "inadvertent" is a factor. The very large health insurance company I work with had Privacy training that noted $10K-ish penalties for inadvertent disclosures of HIPPA-protected patient information, and MUCH BIGGER ones if they were intentional.
This would make sense for a number of reasons: 1) How do you show that a disclosure was inadvertent?
2) Quite frankly, "inadvertent" or not, the disclosure of some kinds of information can be very damaging to a person. For instance, releasing information "inadvertently" that someone has AIDS or other STDs could mean ruining the future of someone, especially if they live in a conservative area.
I think the HIPPA regulations may have gone overboard in some areas, but quite frankly, I think it's reasonable for the public to expect that organizations are more than capable of implementing business practices and systems security to protect individual privacy. Quite frankly, if they're incapable of doing this, I believe they should be fined.
Note that the concept of "duty to act" in Tort law doesn't include "inadvertent." It does, however, include the notions that harm was done by a failure to act and that damage occurred, among other things.
The text of the comment link above: Re:Perhaps they need a team of paid editors (Score:5, Interesting) by theLOUDroom (556455) Alter Relationship on Tuesday October 18, @07:09PM (#13823457) Jimbo started by trying paid editors
What wikipedia needs to do is have both "stable" and "unstable" branches of wikipedia, like the linux kernel does.
Make searches default to the stable page, with the option to add in the more recent changes by clicking a button.
This has a number of advantages:
* Removes the immediate payback for defacing a page.
* Makes it possible to cite a stable version of a wikipedia page in an academic work without it being completely screwed up at a later date. (They should be archived quarterly/yearly/whatever).
* Still allows up-to-the-minute information to be accessed by those looking for it.
* (personal belief here) It would increase the credibility of the information. It's easier to research and verify a small set of changes to a stable page, than to check out a whole page. It's better that this research is done BEFORE some hapless individual uses incorrect information.
Footnotes would solve this problem, since a researcher could then follow those footnotes and get the information directly from its source.
Some articles aren't footnoted, others are. This would most certainly be an improvement, but can be very time-consuming. An inferred principle of Wikipedia is that people who are intimately knowledgeable with the subject will provide the material. In my article additions, I would be hard pressed to have to come up with footnotes for everything I do (for instance, in an addition I made to a First Aid article on oxygen administration).
I hope you acknowledged Wikipedia in you bibliography!
Sheesh, this isn't amateur hour--of course I did. It's not that hard to create an APA-compliant footnote for stuff on the web.
If your sociology teacher allowed you to cite Wikipedia as an authoritative text, you have been done a great academic disservice.
You're jumping to conclusions here. The section I found on Lev Vygotsky was in line with what I had learned about him, and served as an excellent, simple reference. This was not an instance where I needed a peer-reviewed, academia-vetted citation--just a simple explanation.
Keep in mind that not everything you find in a journal or book is necessarily appropriate or correct for citing. One must take into account the source, the context of how the citation was explained in a larger sense, and how it's being integrated into a document. I see this problem frequently in discussions regarding pharmacology: certain drugs are frequently described as being "safe" (especially psychotropic ones), yet the drug trials (which are frequently neither longitudinal or cross-sectional) are used to justify patient usage which isn't aligned well with the measures of the research.
Wikipedia is worthless, from anything other than a triva perspective. Silly me, I once tried to include literature citations in the entry for Julius Caesar, they were promptly deleted and someone re-entered demonstrably false information.
That's a specious statement you make. I've used Wikipedia as a significant source of information and links to other material for sociology papers I've written. The sociology professor (the head of the department and well-published) felt that my paper was good enough to be selected from a field of several hundred for nomination for a school award.
I think it's completely believable that the Wikipedia system may have failed you, and I'm truly sorry to hear that. I am a big fan of classical Western literature, and it's unfortunate that your additions were rejected. That said, you can't just throw your hands up in the air and say "screw it"--do something: delete the incorrect information, with citations, and re-add what you think is right, or add something to the talk page. Stand up for yourself, man.
Or, even better, BUY a program that ALREADY WORKS CORRECTLY.
There are a fair number of musicians I know who can't afford the software. I remember putting together a very nice digital audio workstation setup for one of my clients who produced radio spots about seven years ago. After all was said and done, we had spent around $10,000 for the hardware, software, and storage array. And that was before their organization had paid for my consulting time.
Those musicians I was referring to? Many of them started off by pirating the software from their friends. After many years, the ones who ended up getting better paying gigs did buy the software they liked.
I think it's nice that you have all the resources you need to get the software and equipment you want, but try seeing things from the perspectives of others who may not be so fortunate, and are lucky to have choices that are open source.
They also offer services that allow local merchants to accept student ID debit accounts as payment.
Yes, but what happens if someone is able to obtain these numbers in the aforementioned "man-in-the-middle"-type attack, and uses easily obtained mag strip encoders to encode someone else's number onto their card? Sounds like one could go on a fine shopping spree with that at the bookstore, local merchants, etc.
There's been little real innovation in them in the past few years so the OS ones have a static target to shoot for and lots of schools are really, really sick of the companies backing them.
Geez, isn't that the truth? I've been using WebCT at Portland Community College for over four years. It's not a bad application, but is in dire need of some enhancements. For instance, whilst registering for classes, there isn't a way to look up the classes you're interested in, and selecting it to register. I need to open up another web session, go to the PCC.edu website, find the CRN, copy it, paste it into WebCT, and then see whether or not there's room. This is far, far too many steps.
BB will survive by diversifying and moving to financial services- they sell a one-card system (doors, meals, vending machine, bookstore, etc) that is also a credit card, and they get a cut of every purchase.
I, for one, really really do not like the idea of this card. It's a debit MasterCard that's also used to provide access to campus facilities. Sorry, but that just seems like too valuable of a number to just be swiping through your random card reader around campus. I could see a "man-in-the-middle" style of compromise on this system (passively recording the debit card numbers for later use).
All financial aid disbursements are put into this card as well. Ergo, the fine folks at HigherOne, who I'm pretty sure are being paid by PSU, are making both fees for providing this 'service' to PSU, as well as money off of the interest on this card. Boo!
Of course, the reason they have these patents, in theory anyway, is because they do billions of dollars of R&D.
From what I recall from a book by Marcia Angell, US taxpayers are the ones driving the research, via the NIH. Also, Dr. Angell noted that innovation has been, in her perspective, actually decreasing over the last few decades.
Your choice of words is perfect: I was getting a dot-Bomb flashback from reading the article summary.
I'd love to chat more, but I'm too busy monetizing my core capabilities using Mark-to-Market accounting techniques and leveraging my strategic partnerships with nano-wireless-application-provider-social networking-viral marketing startups.
Technical advice is all well and good, but management is supposed to keep their eyes on the bigger picture, and part of their job is to be a filter for the business decisions the engineers should not have to worry about.
Indeed. Over the last 10 years, I've transitioned from sys admin to network engineer to QA engineering lead to (now) business systems analyst. The one thing I've really learned in all of this is that technology serves the business, not the other way around. Technology implemented at a company must serve a strategic purpose. While I love the shiny new stuff, anything implemented without a utilitarian bent is just puffed-up rump shining.
In short, if your boss tells you to do something that doesn't make sense to you, or isn't as technologically sound as the path you suggest, the solution is not to jump ship. Most people I've worked for have been happy to explain their reasoning if I've asked.
Indeed. And it would be best to be diplomatic when asking this question. If a manager is unable to answer this in an appropriate and credible manner, it's most certainly a Big Red Flag. Better managers are able to communicate (non-verbally) at times, that our team is needing to do something for less than perfect reasons, but we're doing it because it's politically expedient.
Things I wish I would have understood better in the last decade of being in IT include 1) picking battles carefully, and 2) understanding when one should stop selling one's soul to the company store.
This is the dumbest attempt at insight I've ever seen. The situation in Iraq was STABLE.
You've missed my attempt at irony. Try reading the parent post before leaping on someone.
Please shut up and let the adults chat for a while. You'll learn something from us.
Thanks for that amazingly insightful comment. I didn't know I was still a kid at 32. And, I generally hear comments like "you're dumb" and "shut up" from kids. You're how old? Try actually refuting my comments next time.
It's funny that you try to comment of foreign policy, yet have no clue what the hell you're blathering about.
Exactly what makes you knowledgeable in foreign policy? My friends (a mix of liberal and conservative thinkers) are active in local and national politics, and we speak frequently. I read books on a wide range of stances, and maintain an active interest in sociology and anthropology. In the past, I worked extensively on the Bush Sr. campaign (although I'm more liberal now). In the last few years, I've spent over 3 months abroad, taking time to speak extensively with Europeans and Asians about foreign policy. I'm certainly no expert, but it would be safe to say that I'm above average.
If you don't like the current political climate, then settle the issue. I don't care HOW, just settle it. If you don't want to be part of China, then man up and say so.
Sorry, but the way you're proposing to settle this can be extremely destabilizing. "Just settling it now" is not how things work in international relations--nothing is ever that simple. Remember that little war in Iraq we're having, where we're just settling it? I don't even know if we're aware of all the consequences quite yet from that.
Fight if it comes to it. You'll know you'll [Taiwan will] lose though, which is why you don't try it.
And China doesn't know if they'd win it either. The Western world is not so fond of some aspects of Chinese culture, including human rights and environmental problems. I suspect that if the PRC were to molest the ROC, there would be some VERY itchy trigger fingers in countries that resemble the ROC, including Korea, Japan, the US and Western/Central Europe.
And, forgetting the military aspects of it, I suspect the newly-affluent in power would also be quite opposed to it. After all, all of those new Benzes and BMWs in Bejing are there, in part, because of trade with Western countries. This detente works to Taiwan's advantage: Taiwan can maintain a sense of nationalism, while the PRC's new affluent generation can maintain their sense of having cash.
Slashdot Mirror
What the hell is an USian test? Is that like an UKian test or an EUian or an AUian test?
I'm not sure if you meant this in jest, but for example, I believe WAIS-III (Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale) norms are created with people living in the US.
Also, let's not forget the other theories (Steinberg's Triarchic Theory of Intelligence, for example) which I think put a different--and very utilitarian--spin on what intelligence is.
Just because someone's smart doesn't mean that they're guaranteed to be successful. Lots of smart people flounder because they're poor communicators, are socially inept, etc. Hence, I think Steinberg's theory is intriguing.
I know it's not a popular truth, but the fact of the matter is that the Windows NT-based releases are quite stable.
i =2240&p=17
Quite frankly, I don't know if what you're saying is necessarily true:
"The problems with Media Center Edition continue to be the same ones that have plagued it all of its short lived life: 1) cost, and 2) stability."
http://www.anandtech.com/multimedia/showdoc.aspx?
I was thinking more "restating what we read about yesterday."
Honestly, Cyric, originality PLEASE.
My main grip is with the whole line of using Linux for this is wrong and needs to be stopped.
People periodically say things that are idiotic, or do not converge with my personal views. That is a consequence of the notion of 'free speech.'
Free software is similarly unfettered, and should be viewed solely as a means to an end. If we do not like that end, the matter should be taken up within the context of ethics, not software dissemination philosophies.
I have an idea: let the readers meta-moderate people with the ability to post new stories. As the months pass, why do I feel that I'm being had when I see an exhortation to "Meta-Moderate for Slashdot"? I just feel like I'm contributing free labor to a downward-trending initiative.
Transmitting DC over long distances doesn't work very well
i um/PACIFIC.htm
I've heard this before, but I haven't heard a terribly good explanation for why.
HVDC Pacific Intertie between Oregon and California:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Intertie
http://www.transmission.bpa.gov/cigresc14/Compend
I worked on a transmission sales automation project at BPA, and I seem to recall some very good explanations for why they had a 2000+ MW, 400kV transmission hop.
Technically, not just a hat for El Popo:
http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/zucchetto.htm
This is exactly what happened with GM food - their was a wide spread, and as far as I can tell completely baseless, belief that the technology was inherently unsafe.
Your use of superlatives here is troubling. A few issues to consider here:
* Monsanto's development of genetically-modified Bt Corn and significant potential problems with certain bug populations.
* The use of GMOs to create "pharmafoods"--foods with pharmaceutical-levels of drugs, and issues with these foods intermingling with other crops via pollen transfer.
* The fact that seeds from crops that are genetically modified can be rendered "sterile," by design, thus preventing farmers from creating "seed banks." One has to consider the value of putting so much power over agriculture into the hands of governments with questionable social values (e.g., developing and emerging countries) or large corporations. Remember the Nestle incident involving baby formula in sub-Saharan Africa.
One defense raised for the "need" for GMOs is hunger. Unfortunately, many issues with hunger in developing nations stem from socio-political and logistical issues, not the ability to raise crops.
Anyone that denies that cultural, sociological and ethical considerations of new technology are important are doomed to repeat a history littered with the bodies of the inconsiderate.
Ninja, pffft! We both know that I'm training to be a cage fighter.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0374900/quotes
Ahh, another sucker who bought the consultants' scare stories... You don't get the big fines and jail times for inadvertent disclosures.
Please show me a citation in HIPPA regulations where "inadvertent" is a factor. The very large health insurance company I work with had Privacy training that noted $10K-ish penalties for inadvertent disclosures of HIPPA-protected patient information, and MUCH BIGGER ones if they were intentional.
This would make sense for a number of reasons:
1) How do you show that a disclosure was inadvertent?
2) Quite frankly, "inadvertent" or not, the disclosure of some kinds of information can be very damaging to a person. For instance, releasing information "inadvertently" that someone has AIDS or other STDs could mean ruining the future of someone, especially if they live in a conservative area.
I think the HIPPA regulations may have gone overboard in some areas, but quite frankly, I think it's reasonable for the public to expect that organizations are more than capable of implementing business practices and systems security to protect individual privacy. Quite frankly, if they're incapable of doing this, I believe they should be fined.
Note that the concept of "duty to act" in Tort law doesn't include "inadvertent." It does, however, include the notions that harm was done by a failure to act and that damage occurred, among other things.
I don't mind people repeating a comment. Not citing where you got your text from, however, is questionable:
8 23457
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=165699&cid=13
The text of the comment link above:
Re:Perhaps they need a team of paid editors
(Score:5, Interesting)
by theLOUDroom (556455) Alter Relationship on Tuesday October 18, @07:09PM (#13823457)
Jimbo started by trying paid editors
What wikipedia needs to do is have both "stable" and "unstable" branches of wikipedia, like the linux kernel does.
Make searches default to the stable page, with the option to add in the more recent changes by clicking a button.
This has a number of advantages:
* Removes the immediate payback for defacing a page.
* Makes it possible to cite a stable version of a wikipedia page in an academic work without it being completely screwed up at a later date. (They should be archived quarterly/yearly/whatever).
* Still allows up-to-the-minute information to be accessed by those looking for it.
* (personal belief here) It would increase the credibility of the information. It's easier to research and verify a small set of changes to a stable page, than to check out a whole page. It's better that this research is done BEFORE some hapless individual uses incorrect information.
--
Life is too short to proofread.
Footnotes would solve this problem, since a researcher could then follow those footnotes and get the information directly from its source.
o l
Some articles aren't footnoted, others are. This would most certainly be an improvement, but can be very time-consuming. An inferred principle of Wikipedia is that people who are intimately knowledgeable with the subject will provide the material. In my article additions, I would be hard pressed to have to come up with footnotes for everything I do (for instance, in an addition I made to a First Aid article on oxygen administration).
I've generally found that the links at the end of the page are more useful if one wants authoritative source material. Example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highlander_Folk_Scho
I hope you acknowledged Wikipedia in you bibliography!
Sheesh, this isn't amateur hour--of course I did. It's not that hard to create an APA-compliant footnote for stuff on the web.
If your sociology teacher allowed you to cite Wikipedia as an authoritative text, you have been done a great academic disservice.
You're jumping to conclusions here. The section I found on Lev Vygotsky was in line with what I had learned about him, and served as an excellent, simple reference. This was not an instance where I needed a peer-reviewed, academia-vetted citation--just a simple explanation.
Keep in mind that not everything you find in a journal or book is necessarily appropriate or correct for citing. One must take into account the source, the context of how the citation was explained in a larger sense, and how it's being integrated into a document. I see this problem frequently in discussions regarding pharmacology: certain drugs are frequently described as being "safe" (especially psychotropic ones), yet the drug trials (which are frequently neither longitudinal or cross-sectional) are used to justify patient usage which isn't aligned well with the measures of the research.
Wikipedia is worthless, from anything other than a triva perspective. Silly me, I once tried to include literature citations in the entry for Julius Caesar, they were promptly deleted and someone re-entered demonstrably false information.
That's a specious statement you make. I've used Wikipedia as a significant source of information and links to other material for sociology papers I've written. The sociology professor (the head of the department and well-published) felt that my paper was good enough to be selected from a field of several hundred for nomination for a school award.
I think it's completely believable that the Wikipedia system may have failed you, and I'm truly sorry to hear that. I am a big fan of classical Western literature, and it's unfortunate that your additions were rejected. That said, you can't just throw your hands up in the air and say "screw it"--do something: delete the incorrect information, with citations, and re-add what you think is right, or add something to the talk page. Stand up for yourself, man.
Hmm, I guess that is why all the movie studios are using MS Windows XP to edit their blockbusters...
All might be a stretch. There are other proprietary systems out there, as well as Final Cut Pro.
Or, even better, BUY a program that ALREADY WORKS CORRECTLY.
There are a fair number of musicians I know who can't afford the software. I remember putting together a very nice digital audio workstation setup for one of my clients who produced radio spots about seven years ago. After all was said and done, we had spent around $10,000 for the hardware, software, and storage array. And that was before their organization had paid for my consulting time.
Those musicians I was referring to? Many of them started off by pirating the software from their friends. After many years, the ones who ended up getting better paying gigs did buy the software they liked.
I think it's nice that you have all the resources you need to get the software and equipment you want, but try seeing things from the perspectives of others who may not be so fortunate, and are lucky to have choices that are open source.
They also offer services that allow local merchants to accept student ID debit accounts as payment.
Yes, but what happens if someone is able to obtain these numbers in the aforementioned "man-in-the-middle"-type attack, and uses easily obtained mag strip encoders to encode someone else's number onto their card? Sounds like one could go on a fine shopping spree with that at the bookstore, local merchants, etc.
There's been little real innovation in them in the past few years so the OS ones have a static target to shoot for and lots of schools are really, really sick of the companies backing them.
Geez, isn't that the truth? I've been using WebCT at Portland Community College for over four years. It's not a bad application, but is in dire need of some enhancements. For instance, whilst registering for classes, there isn't a way to look up the classes you're interested in, and selecting it to register. I need to open up another web session, go to the PCC.edu website, find the CRN, copy it, paste it into WebCT, and then see whether or not there's room. This is far, far too many steps.
BB will survive by diversifying and moving to financial services- they sell a one-card system (doors, meals, vending machine, bookstore, etc) that is also a credit card, and they get a cut of every purchase.
Geez, I hope this isn't related to the PortlandState OneCard (from the creepily named Higher One company):
http://www.psuone.pdx.edu/onecardinfo.html
I, for one, really really do not like the idea of this card. It's a debit MasterCard that's also used to provide access to campus facilities. Sorry, but that just seems like too valuable of a number to just be swiping through your random card reader around campus. I could see a "man-in-the-middle" style of compromise on this system (passively recording the debit card numbers for later use).
All financial aid disbursements are put into this card as well. Ergo, the fine folks at HigherOne, who I'm pretty sure are being paid by PSU, are making both fees for providing this 'service' to PSU, as well as money off of the interest on this card. Boo!
Oh, and that's $20 to you if you're not interested in having this card:
http://www.psuone.pdx.edu/faq01.html#4
You know, I wonder what they do when someone actually answers "yes" to this? Log an IP?
Does this mean that Homeland SeKKKurity will be at my door in a matter of minutes, or what? Just curious.
"Gee, boss, some guy named Osama B. Laden wants the J2EE Development Environment."
Of course, the reason they have these patents, in theory anyway, is because they do billions of dollars of R&D.
/ m_angell.htm/
From what I recall from a book by Marcia Angell, US taxpayers are the ones driving the research, via the NIH. Also, Dr. Angell noted that innovation has been, in her perspective, actually decreasing over the last few decades.
http://www.pbs.org/healthcarecrisis/Exprts_intrvw
An excellent book. One of the first books in the required reading list for my Sociology course.
Your choice of words is perfect: I was getting a dot-Bomb flashback from reading the article summary.
I'd love to chat more, but I'm too busy monetizing my core capabilities using Mark-to-Market accounting techniques and leveraging my strategic partnerships with nano-wireless-application-provider-social networking-viral marketing startups.
Technical advice is all well and good, but management is supposed to keep their eyes on the bigger picture, and part of their job is to be a filter for the business decisions the engineers should not have to worry about.
Indeed. Over the last 10 years, I've transitioned from sys admin to network engineer to QA engineering lead to (now) business systems analyst. The one thing I've really learned in all of this is that technology serves the business, not the other way around. Technology implemented at a company must serve a strategic purpose. While I love the shiny new stuff, anything implemented without a utilitarian bent is just puffed-up rump shining.
In short, if your boss tells you to do something that doesn't make sense to you, or isn't as technologically sound as the path you suggest, the solution is not to jump ship. Most people I've worked for have been happy to explain their reasoning if I've asked.
Indeed. And it would be best to be diplomatic when asking this question. If a manager is unable to answer this in an appropriate and credible manner, it's most certainly a Big Red Flag. Better managers are able to communicate (non-verbally) at times, that our team is needing to do something for less than perfect reasons, but we're doing it because it's politically expedient.
Things I wish I would have understood better in the last decade of being in IT include 1) picking battles carefully, and 2) understanding when one should stop selling one's soul to the company store.
Wow, I thought you were joking, but...
r oversy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wangari_Maathai#Cont
This is the dumbest attempt at insight I've ever seen. The situation in Iraq was STABLE.
You've missed my attempt at irony. Try reading the parent post before leaping on someone.
Please shut up and let the adults chat for a while. You'll learn something from us.
Thanks for that amazingly insightful comment. I didn't know I was still a kid at 32. And, I generally hear comments like "you're dumb" and "shut up" from kids. You're how old? Try actually refuting my comments next time.
It's funny that you try to comment of foreign policy, yet have no clue what the hell you're blathering about.
Exactly what makes you knowledgeable in foreign policy? My friends (a mix of liberal and conservative thinkers) are active in local and national politics, and we speak frequently. I read books on a wide range of stances, and maintain an active interest in sociology and anthropology. In the past, I worked extensively on the Bush Sr. campaign (although I'm more liberal now). In the last few years, I've spent over 3 months abroad, taking time to speak extensively with Europeans and Asians about foreign policy. I'm certainly no expert, but it would be safe to say that I'm above average.
If you don't like the current political climate, then settle the issue. I don't care HOW, just settle it. If you don't want to be part of China, then man up and say so.
Sorry, but the way you're proposing to settle this can be extremely destabilizing. "Just settling it now" is not how things work in international relations--nothing is ever that simple. Remember that little war in Iraq we're having, where we're just settling it? I don't even know if we're aware of all the consequences quite yet from that.
Fight if it comes to it. You'll know you'll [Taiwan will] lose though, which is why you don't try it.
And China doesn't know if they'd win it either. The Western world is not so fond of some aspects of Chinese culture, including human rights and environmental problems. I suspect that if the PRC were to molest the ROC, there would be some VERY itchy trigger fingers in countries that resemble the ROC, including Korea, Japan, the US and Western/Central Europe.
And, forgetting the military aspects of it, I suspect the newly-affluent in power would also be quite opposed to it. After all, all of those new Benzes and BMWs in Bejing are there, in part, because of trade with Western countries. This detente works to Taiwan's advantage: Taiwan can maintain a sense of nationalism, while the PRC's new affluent generation can maintain their sense of having cash.