From an economic standpoint, it is absolutely wasteful for these kids to fudge their way through to a BA in Communication or whatever. I've known too many of them. It makes a mockery of academia.
I agree. The US should do what Europe and Australia have done for years: bring in more vocational institutions or high schools should at least encourage students to consider all options (not all do, because we don't want to "hurt" students' self esteem). There are some people who have absolutely no business setting foot in a university because, as you stated, they essentially just waste everyone else's time (sometimes even public funds). Mind you, this is the price of a free society: If someone wants to pursue a degree in mathematics and hasn't a clue what they're doing, you can't really turn them down. The best we can do is advise them as appropriate.
Having said that, I do think there is room for having a well-educated populace. It's just that the majority of people don't really care... Consider that if the structure of the solar system weren't taught endlessly in primary school, most of the population would likely still believe in a geocentric universe.
Yeah, you're right. In retrospect, I should've used the term "consumer" instead, and I concede your point.
I suppose an appreciable number of cancellations from various providers (Comcast, DirecTV, etc) probably wouldn't make much of a difference then as advertisers are fickle beasts and more likely to stick with established networks (CNN, ABC, and so forth) regardless of how many estimated viewers they have.
*sigh* Maybe I'm in a hugely cynical mood today, but it pretty well seems we're screwed either way. It's depressing. IIRC, it wasn't that long ago when the president of Song/BMG (was it?) went on a tirade about how the Internet has never done anything good for society and is destructive to the economy or some such nonsense. That's to say nothing about Murdoch, either......and these are people controlling what the masses see and hear.
I think I'm going to go stick my head in the sand or something.
It's worse when he uses prophecy out of order. There's a number of things that would have to happen before he can invoke the judgment of the angels and such as some posters pointed out below.
What he's doing is nothing more than scaremongering and appealing to an authoritative religious text in the hopes of getting Christians worked up about this for some silly reason. I wonder what he's selling or if he's hoping to use this event as a means of bolstering his portfolio...
I still disagree somewhat. I see the point you're making, and it's certainly a good one.
It is true that the networks "sell" viewers in the form of advertising (they're a product but they're a "fuzzy" product), but as I understand it, the numbers are based off of largely guestimates. (You wouldn't sell "somewhere between" 50,000 and 100,000 pounds of farmed salmon--you probably ought to know an exact quantity!) Then again, I always hated marketing and marketing classes. I'm sure there's statistical data that's pretty spot on, but uncertain quantities tend to make me nervous. Maybe it was a bad experience in a statistics course once upon a time or a recurring relativistic nightmare.
Looking back on some of my replies to other threads in the last half hour, I'm starting to realize that my thoughts are grossly incoherent, so I'm simply going to state that I remember something a few years ago related to direct and indirect consumers. I should think then that viewers are to some degree or another indirect customers that can still have a very real impact--and do--on the television networks.
I also think it's much more complicated than farmed fish, though the analogy is pretty good.
I haven't watched television for years except for those occasional visits to friends and/or family who happen to be watching something. I didn't expect I was missing out on much.
The ironic part is that sometimes it's the simple stuff that bites you in the ass.
Also, I hope this isn't going to be a duplicate comment. I hit submit and it appeared to take it, but I don't see it under my account comments or in the generated content. Here's hoping... (maybe this is a sign I should go to bed?).
Either way, it will tell a lot about the Linux market as a whole. I hope it does well, but I'm not terribly optimistic. I know there's a good deal of desire for games among Linux users, but X11 OpenGL drivers, audio libraries, different package managers and repositories, etc.,
I tend to agree. I do have a few points:
1) I'm thinking this whole fiasco with World of Goo and company was something of a market probing attempt to see how various flavors of OSes fare against each other insofar as games are concerned. Whether or not this really provides anything meaningful, as you alluded to, remains to be seen. If nothing else, it suggests that Linux users might be willing to fork over cash for games, too.
2) The technical challenges are a pretty big problem. I think Linux users are of the mindset that they're willing enough to muck about with something until it works, so even if the technological hurdles present something of a difficulty, they're not likely to be a huge burden since the Linux market is more willing to resolve them. It's sort of a mixed blessing: on the one hand, these difficulties are proof that the notion of "Linux on the desktop" to where Grandma could do everything she wanted without having to know anything about the underlying system is still rather far off*, but on the other hand we've got countless pioneers who are willing to spend time on excursions into new territory (popular gaming on Linux!). It's fantastic, either way.
3) There's a lot of games that have moved much of their code over to OpenAL/SDL and other related libraries which are already fairly well supported on most flavors of Linux. As another poster mentioned much farther up the chain: there's still work to be done, but the amount of work is reducing.
I confess that, like you, I'm not going to hold out much hope. I suspect we'll be favorably surprised, though.
* Note to anyone who might address this specific notion: Yes, Linux-on-the-desktop is a little closer. I'm aware of that. There's still a whole mess of difficulties, so take my sentiments as is. And yes, my mother has used Ubuntu before without *too* much difficulty (she absolutely LOVES KMahjong and the Windows port isn't too bad, either), but it's still something of a stretch.
Still, this is promising. Here's hoping Valve sticks with it!
I've had a long day, and it's kinda late. Apologies if some or all of this post is incoherent and or rambling.
This isn't even about copyright infringement. Hell, much of the copyrighted content on YouTube was uploaded by the copyright owner on purpose, to get people to watch it.
Or, IIRC, in the case of Metallica: Their label sent a take-down notice, had the music video pulled, and then re-uploaded a different version.
Btw - viewers are very rarely "customers". Certainly for TV programming they are not, the advertisers are.
The customers are those who pay money to receive a product or service. The viewers are consumers.
Actually, I would suggest there are two customers: Advertisers and network providers (such as Comcast, Dish Network, etc.). Regardless, I think it's that exact viewpoint that's gotten the networks into the mess they're in. e.g. "We don't need viewers, they're not our customers."
This, of course, puts them into a bind: Without enough viewers, you can't justify the advertising costs for specific slots so you either charge less for a specific time slot in order to attract advertisers or you lose them. If you lose them, you're not bringing in the revenue. This is precisely what's been happening to the networks and many printed media services. The consumers may not pay money specifically to the service provider in these cases, but they can still have a very real impact if they go elsewhere.
In effect, consumers of TV programming are still customers in much the same way that purchasing a product through a retailer versus directly from the manufacturer makes you a customer. While you're not an immediate customer of the manufacturer, if a sufficient number of other consumers refuse to purchase a particular product regardless of the retail outlet, it has a very real impact on the manufacturer's bottom line. I think it's time that the networks realize this.
if you went through your childhood without ever getting into trouble and had only perfect grades, you're badly prepared for adult living.
That reminds me of a story applicable (more or less) to your point.
When I was in high school (I think it was my sophomore year, I don't remember specifically), I hated geometry. More specifically, I hated my geometry teacher. I recall that I wanted to be in an algebra class, but because of the ridiculous requirements and iron-fisted approach of the guidance councellor to which I was assigned, I had no other choice but to take the course. During the second half of the year, I recall this teacher opening up with the statement "You'll never need to know any of this unless you plan on becoming a geometry teacher some day."
Now, I wasn't one of the best students in high school because the system was dreadfully boring, but I can imagine you know precisely what happened next: I didn't do crap that semester. I vaguely recall that it involved drawing repeated circles along with the teacher droning on about random proofs--and more circles. Net result? I failed it. Mind you, that didn't impact my ability to graduate, and I later discovered that college was MUCH more fun and rewarding.
However, I learned a few valuable lessons, as you suggested in your post (by way of adversity, whether or not it was self-imposed), the most important of which was thus: Success isn't determined by one's ability to perform useful work on interesting problems but by one's ability to perform useful work on uninteresting, repetitive, and often boring problems. Or as a related corollary: One's ability to efficiently and quickly process boring tasks to make room for more interesting ones.
In retrospect, I probably missed out on the more rewarding principles of the class, but the teacher wasn't the sort who really engaged the students in anything worthwhile. I do think the lessons learned from that particular mistake were worth more than the class ever would have taught me, though. I know we're generally taught as a society to be adverse to failure, but sometimes I think the only way to really learn is to totally screw up.
Sometimes it's funnier to mod a funny post "insightful". It's a way of drawing even more attention to the comment in an even more serious light - which makes undercutting this with humor even more effective...
Some mods give +insightful/+interesting points because +funny has no karma benefit. It's a way of rewarding a well-thought out funny post with at least some karma.
You're right though, it is an abuse of the mod system. I've been guilty of throwing someone a bone whenever I saw a low-rated funny post with something that gives them a bit of a karma boost for actually thinking outside the box and in a funny way. I'm sure the metamods must be driven nuts.
Yeah, I know, I smoke. I made some bad decisions younger when I started, and now that I'm in a high-stress job it's very difficult to stop. Anything that raises my stress level is not good at this point. The irony, of course, is that smoking will probably result in more stress than anything else.
Yeah, that's true. I do agree with your original assertion that it may be true some smokers don't care, though I'd wager they're probably in the minority. I'm sure everyone cares to a degree, but the addictive process is really difficult to circumvent (and that applies to a bazillion other things, not just smoking--smoking just happens to be the most obvious example). For others like yourself in high stress positions, you've got much more than simply the factor of addiction--it's a stress relief, too. I think that's got to make it that much more difficult.
Regardless, I wouldn't berate your decision to smoke (or not). I don't smoke, nor can I stand the stuff (thank you, allergies), but I'm also not of the frame of mind to deprive others of the liberty to do as they wish with their bodies. And that alone is what's important!
And I agree about IE6, even in spite of its entrenchment!
I'm actually really curious now as to why this story makes you react the way it does. You seem to be actually angry about this simple, natural, human phenomenon. And when I ask you about it, you don't respond. Weird. Did a Buddhist monk beat you up when you were a kid or something?
I lol'd.
What bothers me, spun, is that there are people like this c6gunner individual who actively wish to disbelieve well documented events took place. Perhaps he's the sort who immediately assumes that if something occurred prior to his birth or without his immediate knowledge, it didn't exist.
I'm also assuming he believes humans are incapable of tolerating intense pain without being influenced by exotic substances. I wonder what his reaction would be to studies that indicate some humans actually find pain euphoric? It's puzzling.
Thanks for nothing. Not only does that article not provide the toxicology report, but it doesn't even have a link to the video. You're about as useful as tits on a nun.
I'm assuming you have two working hands. If I'm not mistaken and you're not suffering from some sort of disability that inhibits you from using your fingers to type URLs, you may instead wish to start here. There is a video of the self-immolation (parts of it) on Youtube.
However, I suspect you're unlikely to bother looking for these things yourself. You seem to doubt that a Buddhist would've done the sort of thing he did, much less assuming he did it in any rational frame of mind not himself under the influence of some sort of illegal substance.
the point you are missing here, if an object which acts on its own discretion and capable of accelerating to immense speeds almost instantly (an ufo) while 3 soviet mig 21s are chasing and filming it, can be labeled and 'debunked' as optical illusion, this fucking meteor also can.
I think you may have forgotten that some of your links pointed to shaky camera footage of clouds and/or a column of smoke.
Several of the related videos also showed shots of sun dogs and other optical phenomenon. It's unlikely HAARP and more likely natural.
As far as purported objects being chased here and there, I'm skeptical.
Dolan is a nutjob entertainer? Sorry, but he doesn't write with the kind of adolescent vitriol your silly post is ringing with, so I'm inclined to take an academic of his caliber rather more seriously than you. Your canned examples function on the FOX News talking point level of intelligence, and utterly fail upon close examination. -Which, if you recall from your reading of Dolan's two books on the subject, were all in fact thoughtfully deconstructed with citations and disciplined logic which must have dazzled and amazed you to such a degree that you completely forgot about them when typing out your little post. Do you also demand, "If God exists then how can there be war?".
Grow up and do some reading beyond your comfort zone, because frankly, it is very clear that you haven't the foggiest notion of what you are talking about.
Judging by the inflammatory language of your post, I am compelled to believe that my post was hugely successful in achieving its goal. That you resorted to insults speaks volumes of your level of enlightenment!
Since you didn't even bother with addressing the content of my post, it appears that I accomplished what I sought to do--and that was to illustrate that your arguments and appeals to a nutjob are moot. Thanks!
Most (though not all) concealed carry states have basic requirements that have to be met before you can legally carry a concealed weapon, and many of those requirements include classes teaching you state law with regards to self defense along with basic weapon safety.
Though, I suspect you're probably trolling since you didn't even attempt to define what you meant by "accidental," which can include self-inflicted gunshot wounds, the accidental shooting of other individuals, or generally mishandling the firearm until it goes off, injuring or killing someone.
I don't think it's that the majority of smokers don't care, I think it's that they're addicted. I can think of about 3 people off the top of my head who have tried to stop smoking at least once and weren't successful.
Assuming that's actually true (which I doubt) I would LOVE to have seen the toxicology report from his autopsy
Nice troll, but I have a question: Why ask for a link when you could have Googled it?
Start here; there's plenty of links to university pages about the individual in question if you happen to not believe Wikipedia. Spun is correct, whether you like it or not.
I'm not so sure you'll find anything on an autopsy and/or toxicology, but I would've thought that is one of the most famous pictures from the period of the Vietnam war. It's sort of surprising to me that you've never heard or seen it.
Do you always let other people's fear levels determine what is "real" for you?
Are you always so gullible that you fall for wild claims in printed works simply because they're printed?
It's important to remember that UFO means "Unidentified Flying Object." That can be anything: A bird, a plane, or debris of various sorts. It's unlikely to be extraterrestrial with the rare exception of space debris.
Worse, your source Mr. Dolan is a nutjob. He's an entertainer first and foremost. Of course, you're free to believe what you wish. That is, after all, what some fringe sites like ATS are for.
Naturally, the typical retort of those--like you--who believe such things as extensive government cover-ups of alien life is that no mainstream scholars will bother investigating UFOs because they're being bribed, threatened, brainwashed, remotely-controlled by an implanted device, or some other ridiculous claim. It's easy to appeal to something that cannot be proven (or disproven), but by that merit alone your theory fails the falsification test.
The government is lousy at keeping secrets, and for that I appeal to everything from the US atomic programs to stealth technology. As the OP stated: If there is such a wide body of evidence and observation of UFOs, why is it that a single very rare occurrence of a meteor racing through the sky suddenly gets massive coverage?
Slashdot Mirror
I agree. The US should do what Europe and Australia have done for years: bring in more vocational institutions or high schools should at least encourage students to consider all options (not all do, because we don't want to "hurt" students' self esteem). There are some people who have absolutely no business setting foot in a university because, as you stated, they essentially just waste everyone else's time (sometimes even public funds). Mind you, this is the price of a free society: If someone wants to pursue a degree in mathematics and hasn't a clue what they're doing, you can't really turn them down. The best we can do is advise them as appropriate.
Having said that, I do think there is room for having a well-educated populace. It's just that the majority of people don't really care... Consider that if the structure of the solar system weren't taught endlessly in primary school, most of the population would likely still believe in a geocentric universe.
Yeah, you're right. In retrospect, I should've used the term "consumer" instead, and I concede your point.
I suppose an appreciable number of cancellations from various providers (Comcast, DirecTV, etc) probably wouldn't make much of a difference then as advertisers are fickle beasts and more likely to stick with established networks (CNN, ABC, and so forth) regardless of how many estimated viewers they have.
*sigh* Maybe I'm in a hugely cynical mood today, but it pretty well seems we're screwed either way. It's depressing. IIRC, it wasn't that long ago when the president of Song/BMG (was it?) went on a tirade about how the Internet has never done anything good for society and is destructive to the economy or some such nonsense. That's to say nothing about Murdoch, either... ...and these are people controlling what the masses see and hear.
I think I'm going to go stick my head in the sand or something.
Fair enough.
It's worse when he uses prophecy out of order. There's a number of things that would have to happen before he can invoke the judgment of the angels and such as some posters pointed out below.
What he's doing is nothing more than scaremongering and appealing to an authoritative religious text in the hopes of getting Christians worked up about this for some silly reason. I wonder what he's selling or if he's hoping to use this event as a means of bolstering his portfolio...
Not to nitpick, but I think you meant with regards to a species or species:
Then it would be an extinction event. I'm not aware of any definition of "extinct" that is a synonym for endangered.
I just had a troubling thought... imagine telling them how the sun works.
I can see it now: A mad rush to mail/telephone their representatives to ban that burning thermonuclear device in the sky.
I still disagree somewhat. I see the point you're making, and it's certainly a good one.
It is true that the networks "sell" viewers in the form of advertising (they're a product but they're a "fuzzy" product), but as I understand it, the numbers are based off of largely guestimates. (You wouldn't sell "somewhere between" 50,000 and 100,000 pounds of farmed salmon--you probably ought to know an exact quantity!) Then again, I always hated marketing and marketing classes. I'm sure there's statistical data that's pretty spot on, but uncertain quantities tend to make me nervous. Maybe it was a bad experience in a statistics course once upon a time or a recurring relativistic nightmare.
Looking back on some of my replies to other threads in the last half hour, I'm starting to realize that my thoughts are grossly incoherent, so I'm simply going to state that I remember something a few years ago related to direct and indirect consumers. I should think then that viewers are to some degree or another indirect customers that can still have a very real impact--and do--on the television networks.
I also think it's much more complicated than farmed fish, though the analogy is pretty good.
That's kind of humorous.
I haven't watched television for years except for those occasional visits to friends and/or family who happen to be watching something. I didn't expect I was missing out on much.
The ironic part is that sometimes it's the simple stuff that bites you in the ass.
Also, I hope this isn't going to be a duplicate comment. I hit submit and it appeared to take it, but I don't see it under my account comments or in the generated content. Here's hoping... (maybe this is a sign I should go to bed?).
I tend to agree. I do have a few points:
1) I'm thinking this whole fiasco with World of Goo and company was something of a market probing attempt to see how various flavors of OSes fare against each other insofar as games are concerned. Whether or not this really provides anything meaningful, as you alluded to, remains to be seen. If nothing else, it suggests that Linux users might be willing to fork over cash for games, too.
2) The technical challenges are a pretty big problem. I think Linux users are of the mindset that they're willing enough to muck about with something until it works, so even if the technological hurdles present something of a difficulty, they're not likely to be a huge burden since the Linux market is more willing to resolve them. It's sort of a mixed blessing: on the one hand, these difficulties are proof that the notion of "Linux on the desktop" to where Grandma could do everything she wanted without having to know anything about the underlying system is still rather far off*, but on the other hand we've got countless pioneers who are willing to spend time on excursions into new territory (popular gaming on Linux!). It's fantastic, either way.
3) There's a lot of games that have moved much of their code over to OpenAL/SDL and other related libraries which are already fairly well supported on most flavors of Linux. As another poster mentioned much farther up the chain: there's still work to be done, but the amount of work is reducing.
I confess that, like you, I'm not going to hold out much hope. I suspect we'll be favorably surprised, though.
* Note to anyone who might address this specific notion: Yes, Linux-on-the-desktop is a little closer. I'm aware of that. There's still a whole mess of difficulties, so take my sentiments as is. And yes, my mother has used Ubuntu before without *too* much difficulty (she absolutely LOVES KMahjong and the Windows port isn't too bad, either), but it's still something of a stretch.
Still, this is promising. Here's hoping Valve sticks with it!
I've had a long day, and it's kinda late. Apologies if some or all of this post is incoherent and or rambling.
Or, IIRC, in the case of Metallica: Their label sent a take-down notice, had the music video pulled, and then re-uploaded a different version.
Bittersweet irony.
Actually, I would suggest there are two customers: Advertisers and network providers (such as Comcast, Dish Network, etc.). Regardless, I think it's that exact viewpoint that's gotten the networks into the mess they're in. e.g. "We don't need viewers, they're not our customers."
This, of course, puts them into a bind: Without enough viewers, you can't justify the advertising costs for specific slots so you either charge less for a specific time slot in order to attract advertisers or you lose them. If you lose them, you're not bringing in the revenue. This is precisely what's been happening to the networks and many printed media services. The consumers may not pay money specifically to the service provider in these cases, but they can still have a very real impact if they go elsewhere.
In effect, consumers of TV programming are still customers in much the same way that purchasing a product through a retailer versus directly from the manufacturer makes you a customer. While you're not an immediate customer of the manufacturer, if a sufficient number of other consumers refuse to purchase a particular product regardless of the retail outlet, it has a very real impact on the manufacturer's bottom line. I think it's time that the networks realize this.
That reminds me of a story applicable (more or less) to your point.
When I was in high school (I think it was my sophomore year, I don't remember specifically), I hated geometry. More specifically, I hated my geometry teacher. I recall that I wanted to be in an algebra class, but because of the ridiculous requirements and iron-fisted approach of the guidance councellor to which I was assigned, I had no other choice but to take the course. During the second half of the year, I recall this teacher opening up with the statement "You'll never need to know any of this unless you plan on becoming a geometry teacher some day."
Now, I wasn't one of the best students in high school because the system was dreadfully boring, but I can imagine you know precisely what happened next: I didn't do crap that semester. I vaguely recall that it involved drawing repeated circles along with the teacher droning on about random proofs--and more circles. Net result? I failed it. Mind you, that didn't impact my ability to graduate, and I later discovered that college was MUCH more fun and rewarding.
However, I learned a few valuable lessons, as you suggested in your post (by way of adversity, whether or not it was self-imposed), the most important of which was thus: Success isn't determined by one's ability to perform useful work on interesting problems but by one's ability to perform useful work on uninteresting, repetitive, and often boring problems. Or as a related corollary: One's ability to efficiently and quickly process boring tasks to make room for more interesting ones.
In retrospect, I probably missed out on the more rewarding principles of the class, but the teacher wasn't the sort who really engaged the students in anything worthwhile. I do think the lessons learned from that particular mistake were worth more than the class ever would have taught me, though. I know we're generally taught as a society to be adverse to failure, but sometimes I think the only way to really learn is to totally screw up.
Some mods give +insightful/+interesting points because +funny has no karma benefit. It's a way of rewarding a well-thought out funny post with at least some karma.
You're right though, it is an abuse of the mod system. I've been guilty of throwing someone a bone whenever I saw a low-rated funny post with something that gives them a bit of a karma boost for actually thinking outside the box and in a funny way. I'm sure the metamods must be driven nuts.
Considering the subject matter, I'd hope readers would be able to detect a play on words when they see one.
Nevertheless, it got your attention, didn't it?
Yeah, that's true. I do agree with your original assertion that it may be true some smokers don't care, though I'd wager they're probably in the minority. I'm sure everyone cares to a degree, but the addictive process is really difficult to circumvent (and that applies to a bazillion other things, not just smoking--smoking just happens to be the most obvious example). For others like yourself in high stress positions, you've got much more than simply the factor of addiction--it's a stress relief, too. I think that's got to make it that much more difficult.
Regardless, I wouldn't berate your decision to smoke (or not). I don't smoke, nor can I stand the stuff (thank you, allergies), but I'm also not of the frame of mind to deprive others of the liberty to do as they wish with their bodies. And that alone is what's important!
And I agree about IE6, even in spite of its entrenchment!
I lol'd.
What bothers me, spun, is that there are people like this c6gunner individual who actively wish to disbelieve well documented events took place. Perhaps he's the sort who immediately assumes that if something occurred prior to his birth or without his immediate knowledge, it didn't exist.
I'm also assuming he believes humans are incapable of tolerating intense pain without being influenced by exotic substances. I wonder what his reaction would be to studies that indicate some humans actually find pain euphoric? It's puzzling.
I'm assuming you have two working hands. If I'm not mistaken and you're not suffering from some sort of disability that inhibits you from using your fingers to type URLs, you may instead wish to start here. There is a video of the self-immolation (parts of it) on Youtube.
However, I suspect you're unlikely to bother looking for these things yourself. You seem to doubt that a Buddhist would've done the sort of thing he did, much less assuming he did it in any rational frame of mind not himself under the influence of some sort of illegal substance.
I think you may have forgotten that some of your links pointed to shaky camera footage of clouds and/or a column of smoke.
Several of the related videos also showed shots of sun dogs and other optical phenomenon. It's unlikely HAARP and more likely natural.
As far as purported objects being chased here and there, I'm skeptical.
Judging by the inflammatory language of your post, I am compelled to believe that my post was hugely successful in achieving its goal. That you resorted to insults speaks volumes of your level of enlightenment!
Since you didn't even bother with addressing the content of my post, it appears that I accomplished what I sought to do--and that was to illustrate that your arguments and appeals to a nutjob are moot. Thanks!
Most (though not all) concealed carry states have basic requirements that have to be met before you can legally carry a concealed weapon, and many of those requirements include classes teaching you state law with regards to self defense along with basic weapon safety.
Though, I suspect you're probably trolling since you didn't even attempt to define what you meant by "accidental," which can include self-inflicted gunshot wounds, the accidental shooting of other individuals, or generally mishandling the firearm until it goes off, injuring or killing someone.
I don't think it's that the majority of smokers don't care, I think it's that they're addicted. I can think of about 3 people off the top of my head who have tried to stop smoking at least once and weren't successful.
Addiction is a powerful thing.
Nice troll, but I have a question: Why ask for a link when you could have Googled it?
Start here; there's plenty of links to university pages about the individual in question if you happen to not believe Wikipedia. Spun is correct, whether you like it or not.
I'm not so sure you'll find anything on an autopsy and/or toxicology, but I would've thought that is one of the most famous pictures from the period of the Vietnam war. It's sort of surprising to me that you've never heard or seen it.
Not to overstate the obvious, but you might want to look here.
Are you always so gullible that you fall for wild claims in printed works simply because they're printed?
It's important to remember that UFO means "Unidentified Flying Object." That can be anything: A bird, a plane, or debris of various sorts. It's unlikely to be extraterrestrial with the rare exception of space debris.
Worse, your source Mr. Dolan is a nutjob. He's an entertainer first and foremost. Of course, you're free to believe what you wish. That is, after all, what some fringe sites like ATS are for.
Naturally, the typical retort of those--like you--who believe such things as extensive government cover-ups of alien life is that no mainstream scholars will bother investigating UFOs because they're being bribed, threatened, brainwashed, remotely-controlled by an implanted device, or some other ridiculous claim. It's easy to appeal to something that cannot be proven (or disproven), but by that merit alone your theory fails the falsification test.
The government is lousy at keeping secrets, and for that I appeal to everything from the US atomic programs to stealth technology. As the OP stated: If there is such a wide body of evidence and observation of UFOs, why is it that a single very rare occurrence of a meteor racing through the sky suddenly gets massive coverage?