In the olden days, we pictured guys in construction shacks building it in pieces like the Enterprise in drydock. What can we do now?
Guys and girls in construction shacks.
I'm serious - we've better tech and construction techniques than we had in the 70's.
For truly big things? Not as much as you seem to think. Seriously, there's a lot of tech in development (3d printing for example) and a lot of pie-in-the-sky tech (which you list)... but so far, there's pretty much nothing proven to scale much beyond the size of smallish house other than Joe (and Jane) Sixpack.
You don't want issue tracking - you want task scheduling and task completion methodologies. The non-engineer have schedules to fulfill which are usually not associated with a deliverable but a task. If there's no deliverable, there's no bug, no feature, i.e. no ISSUE. So tracking issues loses the focus. Issues aren't always tasks in trackers and that's why those are so tied to code, since they mold issues to whatever a release date/agile software development needs.
This ^10 - the OP is trying to force a square peg into a round hole.
Their core problem doesn't sound like it's technological. It sounds like it's organizational and managerial. You can do quite complex things with the tools listed, but only if you have the organization, methodology, and discipline to use them.
A whiteboard, or even a clipboard, with a master task list (listing what, when, who) and some form of tracking progress (which can also be as simple as a whiteboard or clipboard) is more than sufficient technology for many organizations. That's the easy part. The hard part (regardless of the technology in use) is getting and keeping people organized and in the habit of keeping the system and their peers updated.
Why does not anybody in the solar industry step up and support nuclear energy as the logical replacement for coal to fill all of the known gaps in solar power?
Because it isn't that. Nuclear can't be ramped up and down quickly, so it's not useful for filling in.
Nuclear's inability to ramp up and down quickly is a design choice, not a law of a nature.
There is a concerted effort throughout government to communicate in manners that cannot be audited.
Like phone calls, or meeting another official at a bar.
I just don't think emails should be regarded this way, they're far too casual
Maybe your emails are casual, but in this case (goverment usage), they're not. They've all but completely replaced conventional (snail) mail for routine communications.
they don't really reflect the official acts of people in the way that a true "record" does (in the sense that someone in the 1960s would understand the term "government record.")
Since we live in the 20-teen's, I completely fail to see how the opinions of someone from fifty years ago are relevant.
The government has to serve the interests of everyone. If you say "well more people live in cities" that's fine but that doesn't excuse ignoring the rest of the country.
If the rest of the country were being ignored, you'd have a point.
The FCC should make a point of getting out of the way of that stuff and not treating every part of the country like it is a major city with locally congested airwaves.
Given that 90% of the US population lives in or close to metro and dense urban areas - for all intents and purposes every part of the country *is* essentially a major city with locally congested airwaves.
You assume that those procedures are always going to work after....... a fire! Its not inconceivable that a fire on an airliner could damage vital components possibly related to the environmental, radio and even control systems. Don't get me wrong its an unlikely situation where the radio AND avionics/air handling/navigation systems and their backups (if any) are effected simultaneously but when you have 36.5 million commercial air flights per year its bound to happen eventually.
To put this in terms of a car analogy - you're saying "it's extremely unlikely that a car would have all four tires go flat, the steering wheel come off in the drivers hand, the accelerator and brake pedals fail, the brakes fail, and the gear shift broke off, and yet despite this happening on the outskirts of New York, it still made it to San Francisco without repairs or refueling and on schedule - but with [handwaving] million cars on the road it was bound to happen eventually". The problem isn't that the event is extremely unlikely - it's that the level of fire damage required to produce the event will render the aircraft unflyable. Yet it flew, and continued to do so under apparent control for hours... without executing any emergency procedures.
Learned to really concentrate while serving on a submarine in the USN - to the "music" of fans and humming power supplies... so, for heavy brainwork at the computer all I need is the noise of the computer. Music just pulls me out of what I'm doing.
Oddly enough, the opposite is true when I'm working out in my woodshop, there I like to have music.
Are you talking about France? Or Russia? Or where then?
You sure as heck aren't talking about the US. The military (read Naval) reactor program parted ways with the civilian world decades ago - they're simply too dissimilar. Nor can civilian reactors effectively make plutonium, nor were they needed to. And the for companies involved in military reactors, government contracting is only one small corner of their business. Etc... etc...
That argument only makes sense if you've downed a fifth of Jack and snorted a couple of grams a coke - or if you're completely and totally ignorant of the law.
And yet it made sense to me, and I'm sober as a judge for some reason.
Then you fall into the second category. Or you're just ignorant.
Well, works can also enter the public domain through other mechanisms, such as most famously having the copyright term expire.
Since we're talking about works that haven't been around long enough to have their copyrights expire, that's totally irrelevant.
But the earlier poster didn't say that they might become generic, he said that they might be generic. This would be the scenes a faire doctrine.
Um, no. That would not be the scenes a faire doctrine. Try searching for the terms on Google.
Bennett Haselton doesn't seem to know how Fair Use works, and is dangerously and irresponsibly mischaracterizing it as something he himself can assess and negate/affirm. The non-commercial and transformative aspects of the Power Rangers video in question might in fact hold up in court; he doesn't know otherwise, and to insist that he does is legally misguided.
All that means is Bennett Haselton is a typical Slashdot poster.
So it scores highly on all four criteria. This is absolutely fair use.
*Sigh*. Fair use is a set of legal guidelines - not a checklist or a scoresheet. You can "score highly" (whatever that means) on all four (the actual four), and still be found to be infringing. Fair Use is decided on a case-by-case basis using these guidelines and the principles behind them.
2. Is it transformative? That is, does it use the original work as raw material to create something new, rather than just copying it for the sake of copying it? Yes it is.
And this is a prime example of what you have no clue about - the question isn't "is it transformative?", it's "is it derivative or transformative?". As it re-uses character names, history, and distinctive costumes - a very strong arguement can be made that it is in fact derivative.
But in actuality, fair use of copyrighted material isn't even the issue here - it's the use of trademarked material. (The names, color schemes, costume designs, etc...) Granted, it's unfair to the public that companies can use trademarks to make an end run around copyright, but there is no fair use for trademarks.
As a derivative work, Saban doesn't own squat, and ownership, if there is any, probably belongs to Toei Company.
That depends entirely on the licensing agreement between Saban and Toei, no "probably" about it - that's how the law works.
However, as the same characters have appeared in many works *as different characters*, the argument might also be made that they are generic.
That argument only makes sense if you've downed a fifth of Jack and snorted a couple of grams a coke - or if you're completely and totally ignorant of the law. The established principle (with regards to trademarks) is that they become generic only if the owner of the mark fails to defend it against unlicensed and infringing usages. As the Saban's version of the Power Rangers is a licensed work, that principle cannot possibly apply here. There is no mechanism I am aware of for a copyrighted work to become generic. It can be formally released into the public domain, but that's another issue and is not applicable here as no such formal release has been made.
So this is basically yet another example of someone claiming ownership of something they never owned, which is precisely why copyright is such a farce in general.
No, this is another case of a Slashdot poster, ignorant of the law, creating assumptions out of thin air and then using convoluted sophomoric logic to reach a predetermined conclusion.
I note you don't debate the facts - you just throw mud to try any deny their existence. The only "point" you've proven is how far you're willing to go to deny the facts.
Nonsense. Everywhere but Gmail* that Google has tried to take on Yahoo - they've gotten their hands burned. Google does exceedingly well at buying startups and entering businesses where there's little to no competition... But (outside of search where they really did have a clear new idea), their record of taking on entrenched competition is mixed at best.
* Which was aimed as much at Microsoft as Yahoo!, and took a long time and (essentially) forcing Android users to have a Google account to best either one of them.
Thanks for saving me the trouble of rolling out my canned reply on the topic. That question gets asked and answered every time the topic of Yahoo! comes up...
The thing too is that I already had a login that worked with gmail, voice, youtube, chat and the play store. All of a sudden I need to register for a G+ profile to be able to leave comments on Youtube and Google Play because.....
You tell me.
Because... one of the keys ways for Google to compete with Facebook in the only arena that matters (the bottom line) was to compete for advertising dollars. G+ was a shortcut to more easily tracking Google users across multiple services and increasing the value (to Google) of their massive database of user information.
I've never really understood the vitriol toward G+.
That's because you've drunk deeply of the kool-aid.
The press doing what they do (and no doubt strongly encouraged by Facebook, Microsoft, Apple) created a narrative of Google taking aim at Facebook and how they will most certainly fail. Google has repeated many times what the G+ initiative was about, but the press either ignored the facts or said Google was lying. How dare Google try to disrupt their narrative with something as inconsequential as facts. G+ is a framework to unify Google services. Before, it was a complete mess. You had different userids and passwords
If all they wanted to do was to create a unified login, all they had to do was the same thing Yahoo and many other services have done... Simply announce the availability of (or requirement for) a unified account and provided a link to a page with relevant information and tools.
But that's not what they did.
The created a "Facebook [like|light] streaming update system. ("Light" because it was very feature incomplete.) They emasculated Picasa (and their last best hope for competing with the likes of Flickr and Photobucket) in order to encourage people to use the Photos application which was integrated into that system. Pre-launch they very carefully recruited celebrities, tastemakers, and influential internet personalities across a wide range of activities to be early adopters and to provide users with a ready made suite of people to "follow" and "like". (Seriously, you don't go to the effort of recruiting the like of Thomas Hawk (photography) or Marc Spagnuolo (woodworking)* unless you intend to attract photographers and woodworkers to your service - something an integrated login doesn't need.) And then they marketed it extensively (one of the very few times Google has actively marketed anything) as a social service.
In short, they pretty much did everything possible to make G+ look like a social media system (and a successor to their previous, failed, attempts) and a competitor to Facebook. It's not all surprising in light of this that media (and the public) failed to buy their belated claim that the whole thing was nothing but a way to introduce a unified login and account system.
* Both are internet personalities with a significant following in their fields.
And in this case, the US$9.95 billion California High-Speed Rail is a huge example on how much money you can make on transportation.
The usual way to determine if a project is making money is to subtract operating costs and the amortized portion of construction costs from operating revenue - and to date the unbuilt California High-Speed Rail system has precisely zero operating revenue. It's projected to make money (according to it's backers), but projections aren't revenue.
Slashdot Mirror
Guys and girls in construction shacks.
For truly big things? Not as much as you seem to think. Seriously, there's a lot of tech in development (3d printing for example) and a lot of pie-in-the-sky tech (which you list)... but so far, there's pretty much nothing proven to scale much beyond the size of smallish house other than Joe (and Jane) Sixpack.
This ^10 - the OP is trying to force a square peg into a round hole.
Their core problem doesn't sound like it's technological. It sounds like it's organizational and managerial. You can do quite complex things with the tools listed, but only if you have the organization, methodology, and discipline to use them.
A whiteboard, or even a clipboard, with a master task list (listing what, when, who) and some form of tracking progress (which can also be as simple as a whiteboard or clipboard) is more than sufficient technology for many organizations. That's the easy part. The hard part (regardless of the technology in use) is getting and keeping people organized and in the habit of keeping the system and their peers updated.
Nuclear's inability to ramp up and down quickly is a design choice, not a law of a nature.
That's serialization (which is, in SF, far more common), not compilation (the topic of TFA).
Maybe your emails are casual, but in this case (goverment usage), they're not. They've all but completely replaced conventional (snail) mail for routine communications.
Since we live in the 20-teen's, I completely fail to see how the opinions of someone from fifty years ago are relevant.
If the rest of the country were being ignored, you'd have a point.
Given that 90% of the US population lives in or close to metro and dense urban areas - for all intents and purposes every part of the country *is* essentially a major city with locally congested airwaves.
To put this in terms of a car analogy - you're saying "it's extremely unlikely that a car would have all four tires go flat, the steering wheel come off in the drivers hand, the accelerator and brake pedals fail, the brakes fail, and the gear shift broke off, and yet despite this happening on the outskirts of New York, it still made it to San Francisco without repairs or refueling and on schedule - but with [handwaving] million cars on the road it was bound to happen eventually". The problem isn't that the event is extremely unlikely - it's that the level of fire damage required to produce the event will render the aircraft unflyable. Yet it flew, and continued to do so under apparent control for hours... without executing any emergency procedures.
Learned to really concentrate while serving on a submarine in the USN - to the "music" of fans and humming power supplies... so, for heavy brainwork at the computer all I need is the noise of the computer. Music just pulls me out of what I'm doing.
Oddly enough, the opposite is true when I'm working out in my woodshop, there I like to have music.
It's just you, and whoever modded you up - the second link in TFA takes your right to a sample.
(Don't bother though, it's lame.)
Are you talking about France? Or Russia? Or where then?
You sure as heck aren't talking about the US. The military (read Naval) reactor program parted ways with the civilian world decades ago - they're simply too dissimilar. Nor can civilian reactors effectively make plutonium, nor were they needed to. And the for companies involved in military reactors, government contracting is only one small corner of their business. Etc... etc...
Then you fall into the second category. Or you're just ignorant.
Since we're talking about works that haven't been around long enough to have their copyrights expire, that's totally irrelevant.
Um, no. That would not be the scenes a faire doctrine. Try searching for the terms on Google.
Yet, you blither on anyways.
All that means is Bennett Haselton is a typical Slashdot poster.
Honestly? Neither do you.
*Sigh*. Fair use is a set of legal guidelines - not a checklist or a scoresheet. You can "score highly" (whatever that means) on all four (the actual four), and still be found to be infringing. Fair Use is decided on a case-by-case basis using these guidelines and the principles behind them.
And this is a prime example of what you have no clue about - the question isn't "is it transformative?", it's "is it derivative or transformative?". As it re-uses character names, history, and distinctive costumes - a very strong arguement can be made that it is in fact derivative.
But in actuality, fair use of copyrighted material isn't even the issue here - it's the use of trademarked material. (The names, color schemes, costume designs, etc...) Granted, it's unfair to the public that companies can use trademarks to make an end run around copyright, but there is no fair use for trademarks.
You clearly have no idea how these things work - you don't even know enough to be dangerous, you're a toddler repeating words you don't understand.
That depends entirely on the licensing agreement between Saban and Toei, no "probably" about it - that's how the law works.
That argument only makes sense if you've downed a fifth of Jack and snorted a couple of grams a coke - or if you're completely and totally ignorant of the law. The established principle (with regards to trademarks) is that they become generic only if the owner of the mark fails to defend it against unlicensed and infringing usages. As the Saban's version of the Power Rangers is a licensed work, that principle cannot possibly apply here. There is no mechanism I am aware of for a copyrighted work to become generic. It can be formally released into the public domain, but that's another issue and is not applicable here as no such formal release has been made.
No, this is another case of a Slashdot poster, ignorant of the law, creating assumptions out of thin air and then using convoluted sophomoric logic to reach a predetermined conclusion.
I note you don't debate the facts - you just throw mud to try any deny their existence. The only "point" you've proven is how far you're willing to go to deny the facts.
Nonsense. Everywhere but Gmail* that Google has tried to take on Yahoo - they've gotten their hands burned. Google does exceedingly well at buying startups and entering businesses where there's little to no competition... But (outside of search where they really did have a clear new idea), their record of taking on entrenched competition is mixed at best.
* Which was aimed as much at Microsoft as Yahoo!, and took a long time and (essentially) forcing Android users to have a Google account to best either one of them.
Thanks for saving me the trouble of rolling out my canned reply on the topic. That question gets asked and answered every time the topic of Yahoo! comes up...
Because... one of the keys ways for Google to compete with Facebook in the only arena that matters (the bottom line) was to compete for advertising dollars. G+ was a shortcut to more easily tracking Google users across multiple services and increasing the value (to Google) of their massive database of user information.
Again with the complete failure to grasp reality. Facts aren't perjoratives or talking points. They're facts.
That's because you've drunk deeply of the kool-aid.
If all they wanted to do was to create a unified login, all they had to do was the same thing Yahoo and many other services have done... Simply announce the availability of (or requirement for) a unified account and provided a link to a page with relevant information and tools.
But that's not what they did.
The created a "Facebook [like|light] streaming update system. ("Light" because it was very feature incomplete.) They emasculated Picasa (and their last best hope for competing with the likes of Flickr and Photobucket) in order to encourage people to use the Photos application which was integrated into that system. Pre-launch they very carefully recruited celebrities, tastemakers, and influential internet personalities across a wide range of activities to be early adopters and to provide users with a ready made suite of people to "follow" and "like". (Seriously, you don't go to the effort of recruiting the like of Thomas Hawk (photography) or Marc Spagnuolo (woodworking)* unless you intend to attract photographers and woodworkers to your service - something an integrated login doesn't need.) And then they marketed it extensively (one of the very few times Google has actively marketed anything) as a social service.
In short, they pretty much did everything possible to make G+ look like a social media system (and a successor to their previous, failed, attempts) and a competitor to Facebook. It's not all surprising in light of this that media (and the public) failed to buy their belated claim that the whole thing was nothing but a way to introduce a unified login and account system.
* Both are internet personalities with a significant following in their fields.
The usual way to determine if a project is making money is to subtract operating costs and the amortized portion of construction costs from operating revenue - and to date the unbuilt California High-Speed Rail system has precisely zero operating revenue. It's projected to make money (according to it's backers), but projections aren't revenue.
It's not an abbreviation, it's a word. :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...
FWIW - It's "conn" (as in "conning the ship"), not "con".