In a classical prisoners dilemma, we are thus forced to develop our own anti-satellite weapons to protect our existing infrastructure -- we can't risk being left behind in this matter because the security of our other military capabilities rests upon,/>
This doesn't make sense. No weapon is going to DEFEND a satellite. You can make a ground based weapon. You can use a laser or, as another poster mentioned "a million ball bearings". I think the fear that drives this is that we could get blind-sided. But, unless the US goes into an expensive and wasteful space weapon race, nobody is going to bother. Some nation might use EMPs or lasers to kill GPS satellites or spy satellites -- but we can't DEFEND these with another satellite. If we run headlong into space weapons, we will spend billions if no trillions of taxpayer money on something we will never know actually works. (see Patriot Missile system. OK, it works now, but that didn't stop the BS that it worked in the first Gulf War).
It would be better to try and get a treaty to NOT WEAPONIZE SPACE. Spy satellites might help enforce the treaty.
But this also depends upon the US as a credible and trustworthy country that abides by treaties and conventions. So if we continue on our policy of trying to be the biggest bad-ass, then we will have to spend accordingly.
Personally, I would prefer this money spent on real energy solutions and conservation. Not depending on foreign oil will reduce our need to prop up despotic governments. Perhaps if we actually stood up for real Democracy and integrity, we might be able to reduce our dependency on exotic weapons. Oh, and may be more than 3/10ths of 1% of GDP on helping countries that multinationals have ruined. Of course, this idea is seen as being a wimp and somehow everyone will play nice with us -- but this is the same presumption that weapons increases are based upon -- we have to have more weapons because others have more weapons. The only way out of the prisoners dilemma is to show good faith and reduce weapons. If the adversary reduces weapons -- then you can reduce some more.
Sounds like Nextel has been doing a good job of investing in politicians -- which is a good idea since it has about a 1000% return for every "donation" dollar spent.
rtb61 is right. Sony has to wait and see what Microsoft does, not only with games, but how this console "ties in" with the computer and other devices in the living room. There are a lot of Digital Rights and device issues to consider and how MS will attempt to lock out Sony. The next year is a pivitol time for change -- but what matters is what happens after 2006. That will lay the groundwork to come.
Sony is being very smart to wait and not commit. They are probably very right to be scared and excited at the same time.
My guess is that the winner will be decided by whichever company installs iTunes on their console.
I hate to point this out (OK, I enjoy it), but Sega got Microsoft to help them with the Dreamcast. Flash forward a few years and Sega doesn't make a console, but Microsoft does.
Then look at the cell phone Microsoft "helped with" and why the maker ended up suing them.
Before that, Microsoft "helped" with OS/2 development.
Before that, Microsoft "helped" themselves to the code and API behind QuickTime and remarketed it as Video for Windows. 1.4d.
Before that, Microsoft "helped" IBM clone CPM.
Before that, Microsoft "helped" Apple computers.
Before that, Bill Gates helped early pioneers in software and then copyrighted their work as Basic.
And I know, I missed about 90% of the other instances of Microsoft helping a company to their doom.
I got a Dreamcast and it was a good box. Sega should have made money on it.
My understanding was there were left-wing zealots who hacked the websites of right-wing zealots then posted personal information on Indymedia with messages of "harass these people, burn their house down, add them to all sorts of spamming lists"
I think I just made the point that all the secrecy and powerlessness felt by a group of people leads to violence. Whether it was actual, legitimate FBI activity or domestic spying doesn't really matter -- since neither "SIDE" believes anything the other side has to say anymore.
I'm willing to believe however, if you can point to any source for this story.
Indeed. If I were a Rackspace customer, I'd be looking for a new host right about now.
Since these investigations are now secret, how do you know the new company just doesn't allow the FBI or Homeland Security continual remote access? It's not too big of a conspiracy theory to suggest that the Government has already requested and received access to Slashdot's member list--because a lot of reactionaries discuss things on this website.
Now, under the Patriot Act, if Slashdot was told to give up its member list, they could not respond to my comment. If they haven't been contacted, they would tell me I'm crazy.
But this is my point about how horrible this "new secrecy for security is" -- I have no clue whether I am anonymous or not. I figure that, if the Gov had access to this blog, posting as an Anonymous Coward would not be any protection either, because the IP address can be backtraced to your ISP, and your ISP could then reveal the user -- or if you are constantly sniffing addresses on a regular basis, you could use statistical analysis to discover all users.
So, I would think that after this controversy, Rackspace might actually be the one place you had a chance of privacy. Better the devil you know than the one you don't.
Again, this situation begs the question; what kind of people are accessing Indymedia? Why, people looking at the other side of the argument--Liberals and Progressives.
More likely this is being used for a Republican pollitical pollster--it would not be the first time they have used FBI or Homeland security data for Republican pollitics.
I'm not going to bother adding the links for this because it will take time and not convince anyone.
I was going to pass on the rest of these comments. But I had to reply to this ass-hat comment; Yes, that is the issue at stake: though they ended up with the drives in their possession, the FBI did not seize the drives.
The drives are NOT important. Copying the content of IndyMedia was NOT important. What IS important is that they wanted the log files. The Log files tell you who's accessing IndyMedia.
I'm getting pissed with the "tin foil hat" comments. Because what the government under Bush has said seems to have a 0% batting average with the truth. With everything secret and so much falsehood and the lack of investigative journalism (except for with certain PBS journalists who are getting cancelled--strangely because of a Bush loyalist being plopped into control of the CPB), what else is there that we can do but speculate?
Violence comes when people become disenfranchised and feel powerless. Domestic spying, secrecy, voting irregularities and terrorism that doesn't seem to help Muslims, but does a darn good job of helping Bush -- this is only helping to create terrorism.
Every critism is chalked up to Liberalism. As soon as someone is a Liberal, you can discount what they say without addressing what they said. With such dimwitted loyalists on their side, the neocons don't need jackbooted thugs... just more people like "Sczimme".
The seizure of Indymedia's logs may or may not be innocent. But it was done in secret. Citizens have a right to a transparent and open government. The government right now, needs to bend over backward to earn the trust of the people again. People I know have very little trust right now.
What the hell were they expecting to find? A Bin Laden tape? More than likely, the logs are sufficient to track all those with an interest in the alternative viewpoint.
I'm seeing Homeland Security as something designed a lot more for control of the population than protection of it.
Can any of you think back to a time when half the population was saying it was getting totally screwed while the other half said; "quit whining, there's nothing wrong." This is always an indication that something is wrong.
Agreed. The lack of intelligence of a group does not indicate its relative harmlessness.
Why, if you stampede cattle, the can definitely flatten a whole group of MIT scientists. Or, a large cry for "free freedom fries" might do the trick with the Rush/O'Reilly crowd.
So, then, the look of characters are designed around entertainment. It may or may not be sexist--but that is part of the fun. We aren't allowed to blow up buildings in the real world. Video games are part of doing what you can't do -- excapism. So, if large breasts weren't a part of the mix or accurate physics on the jiggly bits incoporated into Beach Volleyball Extreme-- I would be suprised.
If this works on the White House press core, it will work on C|Net -- unfortuneatly. While C|Net is in dire need of a smack up side the head, and this will do nothing but help Google's cool factor -- it may become too useful a tool for companies like Google (and admit it Apple Computers), to train media companies.
It sounds like C|Net was out of line -- but I would prefer a lawsuit over blacklisting. Google has the power to do it, being the most interesting tech company as of late. Wired is now going to get all the scoops. But the cynic in me realizes that this will not be much a hinderance to C|Net, since they just might make up more stuff and then pepper every accusation with; "and Google refused to comment".
I think that the development computers are for development.
Sorry, it's smart ass but I had to say it.
So that means, that Apple could chose to go any number of directions after they move further along.
My prediction is that ONE of the reasons Apple had to choose Intel is the movement of content creators towards a DRM solution. Palladium seems to be what the content providers want. Apple is desperate to be in the living room and selling movies on iTunes and working with all the electronic gizmos that people have.
Because, the next wave of Operating Systems will be more about Device interoperability than Software compatibility. Apple will be on Motorolla sell phones and Serius (or maybe even Apple) will be piping through iTunes. And in the short term, Apple doesn't want to miss the boat, even if the DRM loving media moguls are stearing the wrong way.
Plus, for the short term, apple will have to make sure nobody puts the OS on another PC.
If you aren't, it might be better to have a handle like; "Linus Torvaalds Wet Dream". I just think that would be the respectful thing to do. If you are, well, just doing my bit to protect people from identity fraud.
****
Anyway, I more agree with what you are saying than the opinion that Developer driven stuff becomes a boon-doggle. Both bad open source projects that go nowhere and corporate shovelware are a reality. I suppose that it all comes down to leadership. If the person (or concept) leading the direction for development doesn't understand what problems the software is should solve and how to make it useful, then it is doomed to failure.
I've been involved in a few projects (useually from the Interface side). And from what I've seen, a lot of programmers fall into the Term Paper or the Novelist category. Meaning; most programmers know how to solve a specific problem if they plug away long enough at it. But at the end, they've just made a useful widget--somebody else has to plug it into a useful context. The Novelist, understands the storey--they get the "big picture". The programmers churned out in college with their Microsoft Visual Basic or C # training are often people with some ability but not necessarily any love towards making poetry or a great storey. People who want to do "great things", I think, tend to move towards the *NIX's or the Java or something where you "understand the whole storey". They want to understand why everything is working rather than memorize how to get the software to work.
Not that the "Term Paper" programmer couldn't create a large application with enough time and resources. But, it invariable becomes something unwieldy. I guess, the best way to describe this idea is if I can go off on another analogy-- a great musician doesn't need to poll the audience to make great music -- but they naturally "get" the audience because they love the music and want to please the listeners. Someone else may know all the notes and studied at the best schools, but nobody wants to listen to someobody just banging out technically correct snippets of sound that have no storey or concrete evolution (of course, maybe a few people for a brief and masochistic period of experimental music in the 1980's).
I'm glossing over a lot and sterotyping a bit. But I don't think I'm uselessly off track either. From my limited experience with Visual Basic, I got really turned off by the "Cook Book" method. Meaning that you looked up a recipe or a wizard and hammered out a useful thing very easily. If you couldn't find the wizard or the recipe, then you were in for a world of pain. Later, after toiling with debugging convoluted JavaScript, I really appreciated Flash, because it was much cleaner and more object based and you could "create the whole widget". But, these are just tools -- I'm just pointing out that the type of developer is also attracted to certain "types" of tools. So that business get Term Paper developers who got good grades, and UNIX and Java get hackers and poets who like good code. On average.
One of the chief things that most all programs tend to lack, is things like usability. Many programmers don't "get it" when it comes to the interface--or in their hearts, they actually don't like things to be "easy". But some people intrinsically understand the user, and work from the audience back down the the algorithm. Other than bad marketing, I think the most common thing to kill off popular acceptance of programs is that they have bad interfaces. Give the common man eye candy and a way to get something done with it easily and you are 90% on the way to success.
But how does bad software get made so often? I think the whole problem comes down to how corporations award and identify merit. Personality, loyalty and other issues tend to trump ability--this more than anything else means that the corporate model tends to lead to bad design. Whereas past success in the open source world, tends to create a good reputation, and so
Intelligent Design needs to have a THEORY before it can get equal time.
Step 1; Learn what a theory actually is.
Step 2; Research.
Step 3; Propose Theory.
Step 4; Submit for peer review and have said Theory torn apart.
Step 5; Repeat process (you can skip ahead to step 2 this time).
Really, I can completely understand this confusion Bush has with Evolution. It never happened to him and Intelligent Design hasn't been disproven. And, you know, the mother giving birth to babies and all is another thing that is just a theory. Nobody has disproven that whole "Stork thing". So, I think that prenatal medicine needs to give equal time to the Stork Theory.
Has anyone thought about putting a pile of straw and some bird seed on the ledge at the hospital? Maybe infant mortality would go down.
(I've got to credit Randy Rhodes for that previous bit. The Stork Theory has as much weight as intelligent design, and it just adds the right touch of the rediculous.)
OK, so weak piss flavor is better than strong piss flavor. I didn't know that rice beers had wheat in them (hops). Though, I haven't done anything more than drink these beverages.
Amstel Light is one of the few light American Beers I like. But I'm also a fan of Australian Beers like Fosters. But, none of this really matters.
There are puff pieces for almost any candidate. Bill Clinton isn't any more of a sleaze than any other pollitician -- I'd say probably less of one, actually. People need to get over the idea that they can "KNOW" anyone they see on TV -- that is the single greatest myth and trap that Democracy faces. The biggest phoney who does is guided the most my PR agencies and polls is George Bush-- yet everyone thinks they know him.
I was working with a business that was actively trying to hire Newt Gingrich's mistress to get him to help our company -- while he was grandstanding about Clinton's morals. Was Newt and great and honorable man until you learned that?
The truth is that the media and the public is in love with STOREY. Its a good storey to sell an impression of a pollitician. Than, in ten hours of footage, you get one "Yahoo" from Howard Dean. Bam! He is reckless and crazy. This has nothing to do with anything about the actual man. But they media hung on the idea of Howard Dean the crazy guy -- plus, he was talking about repealing the 1997 (I think it was that year) bill that allowed for more media consolidation just the week before.
Anyway, you know less about anyone on TV than you do about your next door neighbor. And most of America doesn't really know their next door neighbor.
People should stick to looking at the track record of polliticians and see how they vote. Read the actual bill and not just the title of the "Happy Veterans Bill".
My decision making process goes like this; Voted Yes for any 3 of the 7 following bills and you don't get my vote. Patriot Act II, Media Consolidation Act of 1997, NAFTA, CAFTA, 2005 Energy Bill, 2003 Health Care Bill, Bankruptcy Reform Act (I think 2002).
Every one of the previous bills I mention was a total ripoff that harmed the American people (note, two were on Clinton's watch, but at least he vetoed the Bankruptcy Reform Act.
Don't even look at the polliiticians face. Don't look to see if they have an R or a D after their name. This is all a puppet show, and its special interests with their hands up everyone's backside. The only measure that matters is whether a pollitician is interested in what is good for society and the citizen or whether they are interested in corporate thievery. Of course, that does tend to lean towards Progressive Democrats who are not members of the DLC and even a few Libertarians and Independants.
You cannot trust articles anymore and you cannot trust experts that appear on CNN and Fox. Just watch the votes and the money -- because that is what matters.
Capsule versus shuttle is very debatable--there are too many designs to consider to rule anything out. Though as material technology gets better, reusable shuttles get better.
But also, disposable electronics get cheaper--so it goes on. Just take a look at the X-33 and others. The space shuttle we currently have is big and expensive. Also, an airplane is much more efficient for lifting at lower altitudes where you have an atmosphere -- but the shuttle doesn't take advantage of this -- so it doesn't represent what could be its a winged space planes greatest asset.
Also, I'll disagree with you about the safety of Nuclear fuel. They ship nuclear fuel on the highways in the US-- and it would take much more than your average highway reck with a bomb blast to open it up.
Basically, a nuclear rocket could use thousands of small bomblets. Each one sealed and only able to go critical at a neutron bombarded chamber for propulsion. If the space ship cracks up, you don't even get any fire (other than liquid oxygen that might be used for the crew). With proper precausions and small parachutes for nuclear fuel (there are many thigs you can do for a rare exploding vehicle) the risks involved in a nuclear rocket could be many times safer than liquid or solid rocket propellent. Nothing would burn or explode except for the controlled chamber.
Like I said, you say; "NUCLEAR" and logic goes out the window. The only problem with Nuclear is if you combine it with cost cutting and greed -- now that creates risk.
These web sites need some sort of moderation like Slashdot--but perhaps with a little more "professional" scoring. Users who login and have a history of responsible opinion should be rated higher than others.
In addition, when it comes to product reviews, there needs to be a weighting system by date. Saying a camera is 4 out of 5 doesn't mean much if it is two years old. A new model at the bottom of the barrel may be better than the best of two years ago with the way the technology changes. So I find reading the reviews and looking for intelligent comments and noticing the date of the comment helps me more than just knowing how many people thought a camera was great.
But in general, systems need to weed the good from the bad... not all opinions are equal--that is just a fact of life.
The idea of the Shuttle is to work as a service module and to allow astronauts to exit and re-enter the vehicle. Rockets are still used to launch satellites--but they can't be used for space stations and repair missions. Or at least, you would have to add a lot more of a return payload to the lifting body and add other complicated devices that would have to be thrown away. So the thought is, by the time you fix a rocket to do this type of work, you are better of with some kind of shuttle (not necessarily the one we have).
America is violent for some other reason than video games/TV. This is a dumb/old argument. Japan has more sex and violence on TV and less of the issues we deal with. So what is left? America has more religion, more guns, and more junk food--that's about the major difference I can see from Japan and other European nations. What do you think will get blamed from that list? Nothing.
But is anyone really after a solution? No.
It's amazing when you consider that during the wild west and middle ages -- there was a lot more violence and nobody had TV. Any kid who commits violence that copies GTA would have committed violence based on a comic book, or the whispering of the neighborhood bully. Nature abhors a vacuum, so kids without any other outlet or purpose or mentor in life are going to get involved with something of no merit.
We need better diets and more things for teens to do--that is accessible by teens with no money or overworked parents. I would bet that his mom is either a single parent or the parents are working two or more jobs. More opportunity in America will yield less divorce and crime. Jobs are paying less and less with fewer benefits now. I expect the trend if violence to go back up.
Slashdot Mirror
In a classical prisoners dilemma, we are thus forced to develop our own anti-satellite weapons to protect our existing infrastructure -- we can't risk being left behind in this matter because the security of our other military capabilities rests upon,/>
This doesn't make sense. No weapon is going to DEFEND a satellite. You can make a ground based weapon. You can use a laser or, as another poster mentioned "a million ball bearings". I think the fear that drives this is that we could get blind-sided. But, unless the US goes into an expensive and wasteful space weapon race, nobody is going to bother. Some nation might use EMPs or lasers to kill GPS satellites or spy satellites -- but we can't DEFEND these with another satellite. If we run headlong into space weapons, we will spend billions if no trillions of taxpayer money on something we will never know actually works. (see Patriot Missile system. OK, it works now, but that didn't stop the BS that it worked in the first Gulf War).
It would be better to try and get a treaty to NOT WEAPONIZE SPACE. Spy satellites might help enforce the treaty.
But this also depends upon the US as a credible and trustworthy country that abides by treaties and conventions. So if we continue on our policy of trying to be the biggest bad-ass, then we will have to spend accordingly.
Personally, I would prefer this money spent on real energy solutions and conservation. Not depending on foreign oil will reduce our need to prop up despotic governments. Perhaps if we actually stood up for real Democracy and integrity, we might be able to reduce our dependency on exotic weapons. Oh, and may be more than 3/10ths of 1% of GDP on helping countries that multinationals have ruined. Of course, this idea is seen as being a wimp and somehow everyone will play nice with us -- but this is the same presumption that weapons increases are based upon -- we have to have more weapons because others have more weapons. The only way out of the prisoners dilemma is to show good faith and reduce weapons. If the adversary reduces weapons -- then you can reduce some more.
Sounds like Nextel has been doing a good job of investing in politicians -- which is a good idea since it has about a 1000% return for every "donation" dollar spent.
NextSex or Sprint 'n Tell.
rtb61 is right. Sony has to wait and see what Microsoft does, not only with games, but how this console "ties in" with the computer and other devices in the living room. There are a lot of Digital Rights and device issues to consider and how MS will attempt to lock out Sony. The next year is a pivitol time for change -- but what matters is what happens after 2006. That will lay the groundwork to come.
Sony is being very smart to wait and not commit. They are probably very right to be scared and excited at the same time.
My guess is that the winner will be decided by whichever company installs iTunes on their console.
I hate to point this out (OK, I enjoy it), but Sega got Microsoft to help them with the Dreamcast. Flash forward a few years and Sega doesn't make a console, but Microsoft does.
Then look at the cell phone Microsoft "helped with" and why the maker ended up suing them.
Before that, Microsoft "helped" with OS/2 development.
Before that, Microsoft "helped" themselves to the code and API behind QuickTime and remarketed it as Video for Windows. 1.4d.
Before that, Microsoft "helped" IBM clone CPM.
Before that, Microsoft "helped" Apple computers.
Before that, Bill Gates helped early pioneers in software and then copyrighted their work as Basic.
And I know, I missed about 90% of the other instances of Microsoft helping a company to their doom.
I got a Dreamcast and it was a good box. Sega should have made money on it.
***
Just doing my bit to fan the flame on MS.
Sounds to me like "mrRay720" had read the "information wants to be free" blog and was just making a joke.
My understanding was there were left-wing zealots who hacked the websites of right-wing zealots then posted personal information on Indymedia with messages of "harass these people, burn their house down, add them to all sorts of spamming lists"
I think I just made the point that all the secrecy and powerlessness felt by a group of people leads to violence. Whether it was actual, legitimate FBI activity or domestic spying doesn't really matter -- since neither "SIDE" believes anything the other side has to say anymore.
I'm willing to believe however, if you can point to any source for this story.
Great. Now your going to show up on Fox news as "an anonymous expert believes..."
I really doubt that this sort of attention could actually help RackSpace. At least not in this universe.
Indeed. If I were a Rackspace customer, I'd be looking for a new host right about now.
Since these investigations are now secret, how do you know the new company just doesn't allow the FBI or Homeland Security continual remote access? It's not too big of a conspiracy theory to suggest that the Government has already requested and received access to Slashdot's member list--because a lot of reactionaries discuss things on this website.
Now, under the Patriot Act, if Slashdot was told to give up its member list, they could not respond to my comment. If they haven't been contacted, they would tell me I'm crazy.
But this is my point about how horrible this "new secrecy for security is" -- I have no clue whether I am anonymous or not. I figure that, if the Gov had access to this blog, posting as an Anonymous Coward would not be any protection either, because the IP address can be backtraced to your ISP, and your ISP could then reveal the user -- or if you are constantly sniffing addresses on a regular basis, you could use statistical analysis to discover all users.
So, I would think that after this controversy, Rackspace might actually be the one place you had a chance of privacy. Better the devil you know than the one you don't.
Again, this situation begs the question; what kind of people are accessing Indymedia? Why, people looking at the other side of the argument--Liberals and Progressives.
More likely this is being used for a Republican pollitical pollster--it would not be the first time they have used FBI or Homeland security data for Republican pollitics.
I'm not going to bother adding the links for this because it will take time and not convince anyone.
I was going to pass on the rest of these comments. But I had to reply to this ass-hat comment;
Yes, that is the issue at stake: though they ended up with the drives in their possession, the FBI did not seize the drives.
The drives are NOT important. Copying the content of IndyMedia was NOT important. What IS important is that they wanted the log files. The Log files tell you who's accessing IndyMedia.
I'm getting pissed with the "tin foil hat" comments. Because what the government under Bush has said seems to have a 0% batting average with the truth. With everything secret and so much falsehood and the lack of investigative journalism (except for with certain PBS journalists who are getting cancelled--strangely because of a Bush loyalist being plopped into control of the CPB), what else is there that we can do but speculate?
Violence comes when people become disenfranchised and feel powerless. Domestic spying, secrecy, voting irregularities and terrorism that doesn't seem to help Muslims, but does a darn good job of helping Bush -- this is only helping to create terrorism.
Every critism is chalked up to Liberalism. As soon as someone is a Liberal, you can discount what they say without addressing what they said. With such dimwitted loyalists on their side, the neocons don't need jackbooted thugs... just more people like "Sczimme".
The seizure of Indymedia's logs may or may not be innocent. But it was done in secret. Citizens have a right to a transparent and open government. The government right now, needs to bend over backward to earn the trust of the people again. People I know have very little trust right now.
The police did nothing wrong?
What the hell were they expecting to find? A Bin Laden tape? More than likely, the logs are sufficient to track all those with an interest in the alternative viewpoint.
I'm seeing Homeland Security as something designed a lot more for control of the population than protection of it.
Can any of you think back to a time when half the population was saying it was getting totally screwed while the other half said; "quit whining, there's nothing wrong." This is always an indication that something is wrong.
Agreed. The lack of intelligence of a group does not indicate its relative harmlessness.
Why, if you stampede cattle, the can definitely flatten a whole group of MIT scientists. Or, a large cry for "free freedom fries" might do the trick with the Rush/O'Reilly crowd.
Games are for fun and entertainment.
So, then, the look of characters are designed around entertainment. It may or may not be sexist--but that is part of the fun. We aren't allowed to blow up buildings in the real world. Video games are part of doing what you can't do -- excapism. So, if large breasts weren't a part of the mix or accurate physics on the jiggly bits incoporated into Beach Volleyball Extreme-- I would be suprised.
If this works on the White House press core, it will work on C|Net -- unfortuneatly. While C|Net is in dire need of a smack up side the head, and this will do nothing but help Google's cool factor -- it may become too useful a tool for companies like Google (and admit it Apple Computers), to train media companies.
It sounds like C|Net was out of line -- but I would prefer a lawsuit over blacklisting. Google has the power to do it, being the most interesting tech company as of late. Wired is now going to get all the scoops. But the cynic in me realizes that this will not be much a hinderance to C|Net, since they just might make up more stuff and then pepper every accusation with; "and Google refused to comment".
I think that the development computers are for development.
Sorry, it's smart ass but I had to say it.
So that means, that Apple could chose to go any number of directions after they move further along.
My prediction is that ONE of the reasons Apple had to choose Intel is the movement of content creators towards a DRM solution. Palladium seems to be what the content providers want. Apple is desperate to be in the living room and selling movies on iTunes and working with all the electronic gizmos that people have.
Because, the next wave of Operating Systems will be more about Device interoperability than Software compatibility. Apple will be on Motorolla sell phones and Serius (or maybe even Apple) will be piping through iTunes. And in the short term, Apple doesn't want to miss the boat, even if the DRM loving media moguls are stearing the wrong way.
Plus, for the short term, apple will have to make sure nobody puts the OS on another PC.
Are you really Linus Torvaalds?
If you aren't, it might be better to have a handle like; "Linus Torvaalds Wet Dream". I just think that would be the respectful thing to do. If you are, well, just doing my bit to protect people from identity fraud.
****
Anyway, I more agree with what you are saying than the opinion that Developer driven stuff becomes a boon-doggle. Both bad open source projects that go nowhere and corporate shovelware are a reality. I suppose that it all comes down to leadership. If the person (or concept) leading the direction for development doesn't understand what problems the software is should solve and how to make it useful, then it is doomed to failure.
I've been involved in a few projects (useually from the Interface side). And from what I've seen, a lot of programmers fall into the Term Paper or the Novelist category. Meaning; most programmers know how to solve a specific problem if they plug away long enough at it. But at the end, they've just made a useful widget--somebody else has to plug it into a useful context. The Novelist, understands the storey--they get the "big picture". The programmers churned out in college with their Microsoft Visual Basic or C # training are often people with some ability but not necessarily any love towards making poetry or a great storey. People who want to do "great things", I think, tend to move towards the *NIX's or the Java or something where you "understand the whole storey". They want to understand why everything is working rather than memorize how to get the software to work.
Not that the "Term Paper" programmer couldn't create a large application with enough time and resources. But, it invariable becomes something unwieldy. I guess, the best way to describe this idea is if I can go off on another analogy-- a great musician doesn't need to poll the audience to make great music -- but they naturally "get" the audience because they love the music and want to please the listeners. Someone else may know all the notes and studied at the best schools, but nobody wants to listen to someobody just banging out technically correct snippets of sound that have no storey or concrete evolution (of course, maybe a few people for a brief and masochistic period of experimental music in the 1980's).
I'm glossing over a lot and sterotyping a bit. But I don't think I'm uselessly off track either. From my limited experience with Visual Basic, I got really turned off by the "Cook Book" method. Meaning that you looked up a recipe or a wizard and hammered out a useful thing very easily. If you couldn't find the wizard or the recipe, then you were in for a world of pain. Later, after toiling with debugging convoluted JavaScript, I really appreciated Flash, because it was much cleaner and more object based and you could "create the whole widget". But, these are just tools -- I'm just pointing out that the type of developer is also attracted to certain "types" of tools. So that business get Term Paper developers who got good grades, and UNIX and Java get hackers and poets who like good code. On average.
One of the chief things that most all programs tend to lack, is things like usability. Many programmers don't "get it" when it comes to the interface--or in their hearts, they actually don't like things to be "easy". But some people intrinsically understand the user, and work from the audience back down the the algorithm. Other than bad marketing, I think the most common thing to kill off popular acceptance of programs is that they have bad interfaces. Give the common man eye candy and a way to get something done with it easily and you are 90% on the way to success.
But how does bad software get made so often?
I think the whole problem comes down to how corporations award and identify merit. Personality, loyalty and other issues tend to trump ability--this more than anything else means that the corporate model tends to lead to bad design. Whereas past success in the open source world, tends to create a good reputation, and so
Intelligent Design needs to have a THEORY before it can get equal time.
Step 1; Learn what a theory actually is.
Step 2; Research.
Step 3; Propose Theory.
Step 4; Submit for peer review and have said Theory torn apart.
Step 5; Repeat process (you can skip ahead to step 2 this time).
Really, I can completely understand this confusion Bush has with Evolution. It never happened to him and Intelligent Design hasn't been disproven. And, you know, the mother giving birth to babies and all is another thing that is just a theory. Nobody has disproven that whole "Stork thing". So, I think that prenatal medicine needs to give equal time to the Stork Theory.
Has anyone thought about putting a pile of straw and some bird seed on the ledge at the hospital? Maybe infant mortality would go down.
(I've got to credit Randy Rhodes for that previous bit. The Stork Theory has as much weight as intelligent design, and it just adds the right touch of the rediculous.)
OK, so weak piss flavor is better than strong piss flavor. I didn't know that rice beers had wheat in them (hops). Though, I haven't done anything more than drink these beverages.
Amstel Light is one of the few light American Beers I like. But I'm also a fan of Australian Beers like Fosters. But, none of this really matters.
There are puff pieces for almost any candidate. Bill Clinton isn't any more of a sleaze than any other pollitician -- I'd say probably less of one, actually. People need to get over the idea that they can "KNOW" anyone they see on TV -- that is the single greatest myth and trap that Democracy faces. The biggest phoney who does is guided the most my PR agencies and polls is George Bush-- yet everyone thinks they know him.
I was working with a business that was actively trying to hire Newt Gingrich's mistress to get him to help our company -- while he was grandstanding about Clinton's morals. Was Newt and great and honorable man until you learned that?
The truth is that the media and the public is in love with STOREY. Its a good storey to sell an impression of a pollitician. Than, in ten hours of footage, you get one "Yahoo" from Howard Dean. Bam! He is reckless and crazy. This has nothing to do with anything about the actual man. But they media hung on the idea of Howard Dean the crazy guy -- plus, he was talking about repealing the 1997 (I think it was that year) bill that allowed for more media consolidation just the week before.
Anyway, you know less about anyone on TV than you do about your next door neighbor. And most of America doesn't really know their next door neighbor.
People should stick to looking at the track record of polliticians and see how they vote. Read the actual bill and not just the title of the "Happy Veterans Bill".
My decision making process goes like this; Voted Yes for any 3 of the 7 following bills and you don't get my vote. Patriot Act II, Media Consolidation Act of 1997, NAFTA, CAFTA, 2005 Energy Bill, 2003 Health Care Bill, Bankruptcy Reform Act (I think 2002).
Every one of the previous bills I mention was a total ripoff that harmed the American people (note, two were on Clinton's watch, but at least he vetoed the Bankruptcy Reform Act.
Don't even look at the polliiticians face. Don't look to see if they have an R or a D after their name. This is all a puppet show, and its special interests with their hands up everyone's backside. The only measure that matters is whether a pollitician is interested in what is good for society and the citizen or whether they are interested in corporate thievery. Of course, that does tend to lean towards Progressive Democrats who are not members of the DLC and even a few Libertarians and Independants.
You cannot trust articles anymore and you cannot trust experts that appear on CNN and Fox. Just watch the votes and the money -- because that is what matters.
Capsule versus shuttle is very debatable--there are too many designs to consider to rule anything out. Though as material technology gets better, reusable shuttles get better.
But also, disposable electronics get cheaper--so it goes on. Just take a look at the X-33 and others. The space shuttle we currently have is big and expensive. Also, an airplane is much more efficient for lifting at lower altitudes where you have an atmosphere -- but the shuttle doesn't take advantage of this -- so it doesn't represent what could be its a winged space planes greatest asset.
Also, I'll disagree with you about the safety of Nuclear fuel. They ship nuclear fuel on the highways in the US-- and it would take much more than your average highway reck with a bomb blast to open it up.
Basically, a nuclear rocket could use thousands of small bomblets. Each one sealed and only able to go critical at a neutron bombarded chamber for propulsion. If the space ship cracks up, you don't even get any fire (other than liquid oxygen that might be used for the crew). With proper precausions and small parachutes for nuclear fuel (there are many thigs you can do for a rare exploding vehicle) the risks involved in a nuclear rocket could be many times safer than liquid or solid rocket propellent. Nothing would burn or explode except for the controlled chamber.
Like I said, you say; "NUCLEAR" and logic goes out the window. The only problem with Nuclear is if you combine it with cost cutting and greed -- now that creates risk.
These web sites need some sort of moderation like Slashdot--but perhaps with a little more "professional" scoring. Users who login and have a history of responsible opinion should be rated higher than others.
In addition, when it comes to product reviews, there needs to be a weighting system by date. Saying a camera is 4 out of 5 doesn't mean much if it is two years old. A new model at the bottom of the barrel may be better than the best of two years ago with the way the technology changes. So I find reading the reviews and looking for intelligent comments and noticing the date of the comment helps me more than just knowing how many people thought a camera was great.
But in general, systems need to weed the good from the bad... not all opinions are equal--that is just a fact of life.
The big block engine may be too heavy. You have to look at tables of "Thrust to Payload" ratios to get a good idea of efficiency. http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/a_single_stage_ to_orbit_thought_experiment.shtml
e ltav.html
l ement/75SummerStudy/4appendM.html But it is quite feasible to create a safe and effective nuclear rocket.
The idea of the Shuttle is to work as a service module and to allow astronauts to exit and re-enter the vehicle. Rockets are still used to launch satellites--but they can't be used for space stations and repair missions. Or at least, you would have to add a lot more of a return payload to the lifting body and add other complicated devices that would have to be thrown away. So the thought is, by the time you fix a rocket to do this type of work, you are better of with some kind of shuttle (not necessarily the one we have).
There is also the Delta-V to consider. Weight of propellant is not the only issue--its Volume to Mass ratio also has an effect, giving denser fuel an advantage. http://yarchive.net/space/rocket/fuels/hydrogen_d
Anyway, the ideal engine would be an Atomic engine for real power. But say "Nuclear" to anyone and rationality goes out the window. http://www.nas.nasa.gov/About/Education/SpaceSett
America is violent for some other reason than video games/TV. This is a dumb/old argument. Japan has more sex and violence on TV and less of the issues we deal with. So what is left? America has more religion, more guns, and more junk food--that's about the major difference I can see from Japan and other European nations. What do you think will get blamed from that list? Nothing.
But is anyone really after a solution? No.
It's amazing when you consider that during the wild west and middle ages -- there was a lot more violence and nobody had TV. Any kid who commits violence that copies GTA would have committed violence based on a comic book, or the whispering of the neighborhood bully. Nature abhors a vacuum, so kids without any other outlet or purpose or mentor in life are going to get involved with something of no merit.
We need better diets and more things for teens to do--that is accessible by teens with no money or overworked parents. I would bet that his mom is either a single parent or the parents are working two or more jobs. More opportunity in America will yield less divorce and crime. Jobs are paying less and less with fewer benefits now. I expect the trend if violence to go back up.