Although it's probably not true, on the face of it non-profit new sources inherently seem less prone to pressure from vested interests.
Your intuition is wrong. Non-profits are directly dependent upon narrow interests that keep them financially afloat. For profit newspapers much better represent the interests of the overall community because they are directly dependent upon the community to purchase and read what they publish. The non-profit newspaper just needs to please the few large contributors who keep them operating. How would such a move improve journalism?
Currently, contributions to entities actively engaged in the political process are not tax exempt. Nor, should such contributions be tax exempt. However, newspapers, by their nature, are very often a loud voice for one political agenda or another within a community. It seems that it would be very easy to subvert the intentions of this proposal to provide tax-exempt cover for otherwise very blatant political activity. Sorry, but I don't trust politicians to police the political activities of newspapers -- particularly when politicians are directly benefiting from such activities.
I say leave things the way they are and let newspapers stand or fall on the basis as to whether people want to read what they print. Treating newspapers as charities is going in the wrong direction and opens up an opportunity that just begs to be abused.
Is there an on-line description of the icon-based UI you describe that was created to make the programming of Armbots easier? I would be interested in seeing approaches that other people have taken with such a project.
Any pointers to a fairly concise guide to what issues need to be considered when dual licensing software or pursuing the option you describe as "sharing with rules"? I'm working on code that I would like to offer under GPL3, but I would also like to retain the option to offer it to commercial companies as well. Maintaining copyright ownership of the entire codebase seems obvious first step, but it seems the devil is in the details of how one might go about this if other developers become interested in contributing to the project.
Lessons you learned (both negative and positive) while pursing a "sharing with rules" licensing approach would be useful to those of us wishing to follow this model.
I would be happy with determining some way to collect photons from the planet and thus obtain a spectrum of its atmosphere. Such an effort would be monumental achievement.
...on what ails this nation and what corrective measures should be taken (not that I agreed with McCain either). However, I respect the fact he is our nation's President and I sincerely wish him much success for everyone's sake. The stakes are too high and the consequences too grave for our leaders to continue their pattern of failed leadership.
Perhaps the scientists and policy makers just want time to get it right. Making a big announcement only to have egg or your face days, weeks or months later doesn't help anyone.
I wonder if the findings might be provocative enough to fast-track a Mars sample return mission.
I envision another lander being dispatched to the Phoenix landing site where a Sojourner sized rover collects a few kilograms of surface material. There would be minimal instrumentation, just enough to determine what samples might be the most interesting. That material is then launched back to Earth for complete analysis.
Thinking further, if we thought we had the potential to bring alien biological back to Earth, would the prudent thing be to analyze the samples on the ISS to reduce the risk of contamination of our biosphere? Of course, I believe getting the samples to the ISS would be much harder than simple soft landing them on the Earth using an heatshield/parachute.
It's fun to think about, but the overwhelming chances are the announcement will be much more mundane.
Good points. As a Tivo and Netflix subscriber I'm a very seldom use Unbox or Netflix streaming. I've really only used both so far out of curiosity. I also very much fit your model of someone who would rather watch shows on my TV on my own schedule.
In reality, streaming movies on demand from Amazon or Netflix isn't much different from streaming from a hard disk in Tivo, but there is definitely a compromise in image quality due to more limited bandwidth when streaming remotely.
Another negative aspect of streaming is that the providers can release and pull content according to their own schedule -- thus creating an artificial scarcity. With downloads, you can capture interesting content when it is available and timeshift it to when you want to watch it.
Hmmm, the article doesn't mention the impact this will have on Tivo users who use Amazon Unbox. I quickly perused the Tivo Community Forums and saw no mention or concern there. I wonder if Unbox be grandfathered in until a solution is ready for Tivo?
NASA promised the same for the shuttles in the 70's and early 80's to justify a misguided attempt to get into the satellite launch business. Developing the Ares I and denying an important market to new and existing launch companies hurts our nations space efforts rather than helps it.
According this 2005 article the Delta IV or Atlas V EELVs could have been upgraded relatively easily to lift a 25 to 30 ton Orion CEV compared to designing a whole new launch system. Both Boeing and Lockheed were chomping at the bit for the CEV launch business on an EELV-derived design, but knew it was politically expedient to not raise a fuss once Griffin announced the Ares program.
The other question to ask is why must the CEV be so large? It's over designed for LEO and potentially under-designed for a moon mission. NASA may have been better off resurrecting a smaller 5 capable Apollo-style capsule rather than the 7 person CEV.
There are existing commercial launch vehicles such as the Delta IV or Atlas V rockets that can be man rated or the potential upcoming commercial launch vehicles such as the SpaceX Falcon 9 that could replace Ares I. Although man rating isn't trivial it's insane for NASA to create a new rocket to compete with existing commercial launch vehicles. NASA should encourage making manned access to low Earth orbit a low cost commercial commodity rather than using government resources to discourage such access.
In fact, NASA should contract with two independent suppliers capable of lifting the CEV to low Earth orbit and buy launch vehicles from each supplier in near equal quantities. This would add some expense, but it would make sure that should a launch accident occur our manned space program isn't grounded for years as complex accident investigations occur and fixes are implemented on the failed launch vehicle.
The Ares I is an albatross that only exists because of pride and politics. It is harmful to the exact type of space development that this nation needs. In the early 60's NASA didn't lose any face by choosing to re-purpose ICBMs for the Mercury and Gemini programs. Instead, out of necessity, NASA it's rocket building teams on the Saturn series of rockets. It was the practical decision then and it is the practical decision to re-purpose existing vehicles now for LEO access.
If NASA wants to build a launcher (and whether they should be building any is a very debatable) then they should be concentrating exclusively on the Ares V/VI which actually goes somewhere and does something that commercial space companies may not be able to do economically today.
The system that allows you to instantly track criminals is the one that allows you to instantly track everybody.
I don't see anything there that says the proposed system allows the instant tracking of criminals or by extension, everybody. This is simply making more information available to law enforcement to more narrowly define the list of potential suspects from information that may be gathered from a crime scene (i.e. closed circuit TV images and such).
Yes, it means some crimes go unsolved. I prefer that to some stupid crimes being solved.
A very small percentage of bad apples in our society spoil a lot of things for the rest of us. I'm all for using technology that makes it easier to identify the bad apples from the rest of us that just want to live our lives peacefully. The better the tools law enforcement has, the better for all of us.
This isn't going to result in a police state. Whats going on in Zimbabwe leads to a police state, not what we have here.
I agree. The concern over this seems to be making a mountain out of a molehill. Having an iris or other biometric profile for criminals is no more invasive than having images of tattoos or mug shots in a computer database. It is simply the progression of technology.
For people who have no criminal convictions, I think there are legitimate concerns and that their biometric information should be kept out of such a database. It is important that there be an open mechanism so that people with privacy concerns can request their biometric records be purged if there is no legitimate reason for the government to have them. But if you are a convicted felon, too bad. Your biometric information is kept on record to facilitate future investigations.
Even going beyond voluntary "eugenics" on the part of parents, think about what could happen to in a society that implements government mandated universal health care. Would it be reasonable for such a society to to place sanctions against carrying to term embryos that would likely develop costly health problems and burden the health care system? Could it force the termination of embryos with a propensity to develop diabetes decades in the future?
I believe, any choice ending in termination, there must be rational reasoning and it must be a humane reason.
But of course, this begs the question of who gets to decide what reasons are rational? For some people, terminating an embryo that is likely to be "gay" or under 5'6" tall would be perfectly rational. For others, such a decision would be appalling.
Slashdot Mirror
Trying to child-proof the world makes us neglect the more important task of world-proofing the child.
Wonderful quote. I'll be sure to bring this up with other parents when we discuss child rearing philosophies.
Not die, but just move on to do something more useful.
Although it's probably not true, on the face of it non-profit new sources inherently seem less prone to pressure from vested interests.
Your intuition is wrong. Non-profits are directly dependent upon narrow interests that keep them financially afloat. For profit newspapers much better represent the interests of the overall community because they are directly dependent upon the community to purchase and read what they publish. The non-profit newspaper just needs to please the few large contributors who keep them operating. How would such a move improve journalism?
Exactly. I'm glad others are modding your comment as insightful. Turning newspapers into charities is just begging for corruption.
Currently, contributions to entities actively engaged in the political process are not tax exempt. Nor, should such contributions be tax exempt. However, newspapers, by their nature, are very often a loud voice for one political agenda or another within a community. It seems that it would be very easy to subvert the intentions of this proposal to provide tax-exempt cover for otherwise very blatant political activity. Sorry, but I don't trust politicians to police the political activities of newspapers -- particularly when politicians are directly benefiting from such activities.
I say leave things the way they are and let newspapers stand or fall on the basis as to whether people want to read what they print. Treating newspapers as charities is going in the wrong direction and opens up an opportunity that just begs to be abused.
Is there an on-line description of the icon-based UI you describe that was created to make the programming of Armbots easier? I would be interested in seeing approaches that other people have taken with such a project.
Any pointers to a fairly concise guide to what issues need to be considered when dual licensing software or pursuing the option you describe as "sharing with rules"? I'm working on code that I would like to offer under GPL3, but I would also like to retain the option to offer it to commercial companies as well. Maintaining copyright ownership of the entire codebase seems obvious first step, but it seems the devil is in the details of how one might go about this if other developers become interested in contributing to the project.
Lessons you learned (both negative and positive) while pursing a "sharing with rules" licensing approach would be useful to those of us wishing to follow this model.
I would be happy with determining some way to collect photons from the planet and thus obtain a spectrum of its atmosphere. Such an effort would be monumental achievement.
...on what ails this nation and what corrective measures should be taken (not that I agreed with McCain either). However, I respect the fact he is our nation's President and I sincerely wish him much success for everyone's sake. The stakes are too high and the consequences too grave for our leaders to continue their pattern of failed leadership.
The team at the University of Reading in the UK hope their research will help provide treatments for diseases like Alzheimer's and epilepsy.
Or, a whole new line of really cool robotic rat-brain controlled toys.
Oh nevermind...
... come with guns?
Perhaps the scientists and policy makers just want time to get it right. Making a big announcement only to have egg or your face days, weeks or months later doesn't help anyone.
I wonder if the findings might be provocative enough to fast-track a Mars sample return mission.
I envision another lander being dispatched to the Phoenix landing site where a Sojourner sized rover collects a few kilograms of surface material. There would be minimal instrumentation, just enough to determine what samples might be the most interesting. That material is then launched back to Earth for complete analysis.
Thinking further, if we thought we had the potential to bring alien biological back to Earth, would the prudent thing be to analyze the samples on the ISS to reduce the risk of contamination of our biosphere? Of course, I believe getting the samples to the ISS would be much harder than simple soft landing them on the Earth using an heatshield/parachute.
It's fun to think about, but the overwhelming chances are the announcement will be much more mundane.
now we have something to water the asparagus with.
Good points. As a Tivo and Netflix subscriber I'm a very seldom use Unbox or Netflix streaming. I've really only used both so far out of curiosity. I also very much fit your model of someone who would rather watch shows on my TV on my own schedule.
In reality, streaming movies on demand from Amazon or Netflix isn't much different from streaming from a hard disk in Tivo, but there is definitely a compromise in image quality due to more limited bandwidth when streaming remotely.
Another negative aspect of streaming is that the providers can release and pull content according to their own schedule -- thus creating an artificial scarcity. With downloads, you can capture interesting content when it is available and timeshift it to when you want to watch it.
Hmmm, the article doesn't mention the impact this will have on Tivo users who use Amazon Unbox. I quickly perused the Tivo Community Forums and saw no mention or concern there. I wonder if Unbox be grandfathered in until a solution is ready for Tivo?
NASA promised the same for the shuttles in the 70's and early 80's to justify a misguided attempt to get into the satellite launch business. Developing the Ares I and denying an important market to new and existing launch companies hurts our nations space efforts rather than helps it.
According this 2005 article the Delta IV or Atlas V EELVs could have been upgraded relatively easily to lift a 25 to 30 ton Orion CEV compared to designing a whole new launch system. Both Boeing and Lockheed were chomping at the bit for the CEV launch business on an EELV-derived design, but knew it was politically expedient to not raise a fuss once Griffin announced the Ares program.
The other question to ask is why must the CEV be so large? It's over designed for LEO and potentially under-designed for a moon mission. NASA may have been better off resurrecting a smaller 5 capable Apollo-style capsule rather than the 7 person CEV.
There are existing commercial launch vehicles such as the Delta IV or Atlas V rockets that can be man rated or the potential upcoming commercial launch vehicles such as the SpaceX Falcon 9 that could replace Ares I. Although man rating isn't trivial it's insane for NASA to create a new rocket to compete with existing commercial launch vehicles. NASA should encourage making manned access to low Earth orbit a low cost commercial commodity rather than using government resources to discourage such access.
In fact, NASA should contract with two independent suppliers capable of lifting the CEV to low Earth orbit and buy launch vehicles from each supplier in near equal quantities. This would add some expense, but it would make sure that should a launch accident occur our manned space program isn't grounded for years as complex accident investigations occur and fixes are implemented on the failed launch vehicle.
The Ares I is an albatross that only exists because of pride and politics. It is harmful to the exact type of space development that this nation needs. In the early 60's NASA didn't lose any face by choosing to re-purpose ICBMs for the Mercury and Gemini programs. Instead, out of necessity, NASA it's rocket building teams on the Saturn series of rockets. It was the practical decision then and it is the practical decision to re-purpose existing vehicles now for LEO access.
If NASA wants to build a launcher (and whether they should be building any is a very debatable) then they should be concentrating exclusively on the Ares V/VI which actually goes somewhere and does something that commercial space companies may not be able to do economically today.
The system that allows you to instantly track criminals is the one that allows you to instantly track everybody.
I don't see anything there that says the proposed system allows the instant tracking of criminals or by extension, everybody. This is simply making more information available to law enforcement to more narrowly define the list of potential suspects from information that may be gathered from a crime scene (i.e. closed circuit TV images and such).
Yes, it means some crimes go unsolved. I prefer that to some stupid crimes being solved.
A very small percentage of bad apples in our society spoil a lot of things for the rest of us. I'm all for using technology that makes it easier to identify the bad apples from the rest of us that just want to live our lives peacefully. The better the tools law enforcement has, the better for all of us.
This isn't going to result in a police state. Whats going on in Zimbabwe leads to a police state, not what we have here.
I agree. The concern over this seems to be making a mountain out of a molehill. Having an iris or other biometric profile for criminals is no more invasive than having images of tattoos or mug shots in a computer database. It is simply the progression of technology.
For people who have no criminal convictions, I think there are legitimate concerns and that their biometric information should be kept out of such a database. It is important that there be an open mechanism so that people with privacy concerns can request their biometric records be purged if there is no legitimate reason for the government to have them. But if you are a convicted felon, too bad. Your biometric information is kept on record to facilitate future investigations.
Gee, I didn't know Mike Griffin read SlashDot?
Even going beyond voluntary "eugenics" on the part of parents, think about what could happen to in a society that implements government mandated universal health care. Would it be reasonable for such a society to to place sanctions against carrying to term embryos that would likely develop costly health problems and burden the health care system? Could it force the termination of embryos with a propensity to develop diabetes decades in the future?
I believe, any choice ending in termination, there must be rational reasoning and it must be a humane reason.
But of course, this begs the question of who gets to decide what reasons are rational? For some people, terminating an embryo that is likely to be "gay" or under 5'6" tall would be perfectly rational. For others, such a decision would be appalling.