As indirectly noted elsewhere in the thread, the system doesn't mean very much unless they can tie it to real people. That calls for two extensions.
The minor one is that they need some external system to detect a human presence. This covers both the cases of one student trying to carry several students' IDs, or the case of someone who does not have an ID.
The more serious and intrusive extension is to link the ID to the bearer. There are various ways this could be done. For example, a proximity-linked surgical implant would be hard to beat, but not necessary. For example, the ID could include a finger scanner and at random times it would beep and require the bearer to press a finger on it. (Also required when a thermal sensor indicated it had been too far away from the bearer.)
The solution? A legal principle that you own the data about you, with Fifth Amendment protection. They could collect any data they want, but if it identifies you, they have to let you store it on your own computer. If they want to access that data at any later time, they have to show probable cause and get a search warrant.
No, the dumb people like Dubya still make bad decisions. It's just that pressure isn't the reason. I guess it's called paralysis by analysis, but not a problem when you're just a puppet.
Gee, the whole topic makes me nostalgic. I was a pretty heavy user of Ichitaro many years ago. I think I started with Version 3, and I definitely remembering having Version 6 on a machine around 1995. However Word was already becoming pretty dominant in the market by then, and I really don't think they would care enough about JustSystems as competition to get involved in this. I think it's just sort of law of the jungle stuff ("jyaku niku kyo shoku" (weak meat strong eat) in Japanese), and probably with some revenge for seasoning. The guy in my office says they're going to appeal, so it's not yet over--but almost.
Not sure if anyone interested in the trivia, but here's a bit just in case... The old Ichitaro actually had a lot of elements copied from ancient WordStar, but the interface got pretty much tortured to death when they were trying to add a Windows-style menu system. I'm pretty sure some versions had both interfaces. They had originally been almost completely dominant in the software word processor market, but that was back when NEC had the lock on proprietary Japanese hardware. Their foundation was their Japanese input system, which was still better than Microsoft's for many years. That was called ATOK, and was also sold separately for use as an IME replacement. They tried to expand into integrated office suites about the same time Lotus was getting beaten out of that market. Later on they tried to become an ISP with a system called JustNet, but I think they eventually sold it to someone else. (But I did see a few of their boxes in a large computer store just this weekend, when I was visiting Akihabara.)
FUNNY! You actually think I have time to argue with an idiot? Or are you fantacizing someone else is actually going to read your tripe? I just hope you live long enough to learn better, but it ain't my problem.
This is the first post that even comes close to dealing with the (dare I say) insightful issue of the transition costs. There is no surprise that technology has advanced since Hubble was designed and built, and that we could build a better one now using less money. It's called the advantage of hindsight, or getting behind the learning curve, etc.
The way this issue should be addressed in (again dare I say) scientific and economic terms would be based on the value of the scientific research Hubble can perform versus the lost opportunity costs from the interval when there would be no such telescope available.
Not the reality, but a deliberate exaggeration to clarify the issue: Imagine that we needed a space telescope to detect asteroids that were liable to strike the earth. In that case, we would absolutely need to keep the Hubble in service until a replacement telescope could be prepared--and better to have several in orbit all the time.
Unfortunately, the current reality is that this is mostly a political issue, and the deeper danger is that scientific research is not important to the religious fanatics in charge, since they already know all the answers. It's not a matter of spending $1 billion on Hubble or committing $0.5 billion for a better replacement--it's that they would prefer to spend zilch on science and $200 billion on getting rid of Saddam. (If Saddam was worth $200 billion, it certainly makes one shudder to imagine the costs for getting rid of the other tyrants, since Saddam was one of the weakest and least important ones.)
Actually, this is tightly linked to politics surrounding the Space Shuttle. I heard this story from the same fellow who wrote most of Reagan's Star Wars speech (though he specifically disavowed the specific bit about Star Wars). He was chancellor of the UT system at that time. The Space Shuttle part was actually related to Nixon, however. As Apollo was winding down, NASA went to Nixon with a very ambitious proposal for a much more flexible kind of Space Shuttle system, but Nixon said it was *way* too expensive. The current version was actually the third or fourth reduced proposal. In the long term, the compromise was bad pretty much every way you slice it. America's manned space program is nearly dead, and 13 astronauts and one teacher are very dead.
You might take another look at the dates of the statements and when President Bush was first elected - or do you honestly mean to suggest that Bush is somehow 'accountable' for these Democrats coming to the same exact conclusions about Iraq and WMDs years before he became president?
No, they did not reach the "exact conclusions" and they were not arguing for war. Dubya is they fool responsible for the $300 billion (so far) and tens of thousands of deaths. (Not to say he actually made those decisions. The actual decisions are handled by Rove and Cheney, but Dubya doesn't mind or care or even know what is going on--the actual decision makers know how to pull Dubya's strings. However, Dubya is still "responsible", at least technically speaking.)
With your typical intellectual dishonesty, now you're supposed to claim Saddam would have eventually killed them anyway.
However, I do thank you for posting with an actual name (in contrast to the noisy anonymous coward defending your positions elsewhere in this discussion). It let's me mark you a a fool^h^h^h^h foe so I'll be less likely to see your future posts. Not censorship. Your right to free speech does not imply any right to force anyone to listen to your blathersome lies.
Remember that the TTS (text to speech) programs are mostly developed by sighted people, and to them listening is kind of secondary. Blind people get lots of extra practice and learn to concentrate very well on the words. They actually did some research on this and found that experienced blind computer users could understand speech at rates well beyond the fastest settings of their TTS systems.
I wonder if they could practice doing it with different voices in each ear? That would be pretty amazing...
The greatest service you can do to them is make sure all web pages you make are HTML 4.01 compliant though. Alt tags for pictures are of course important (even if it just saying "logo"), and screen reader programs are not as forgiving as IE/Mozilla/Firefox et al when it comes to confusing tags.
I can't ignore that one since I do a lot of work with some of the accessibility researchers, including one who is blind. Meaningless ALT tags are more of a nuisance than a help. HTML compliance is not a bad thing per se, but the biggest problem is actually visual complexity, especially when it results in pages that take several minutes of screen reading to get to the actual content. Another hassle is tables that look great, but run in completely different directions when a screen reader tries to deal with them (especially true for embedded tables). Structuring the page well and including a jump-to-main-content link are the kinds of things that they really like. Remember that listening is basically slower than looking.
If you're seriously interested in this area, aDesigner is worth a bit of your time. A big chunk of the idea is to give sighted designers some experience of what it's like when you can't see well or at all. Sorry if it seems like a plug, but I do think it's an impressive tool... And no, I'm not directly involved.
First the disclaimer. I'm not IBM, but just sub of a sub. However, my perspective is that there are three major drags.
I think the most important resisting factor is actually the customers. As much as IBM likes to lead, they can't leave the customers behind, and the customers are mostly locked into Microsoft's "tender" embrace. A lot of that could be addressed alternatives that use compatible file formats, but even there Microsoft has a high measure of control.
The drag of support problems has already been mentioned. That actually involves several parts. The easier part creating is installable versions of various programs and the OS itself. The real problem there is that Linux is not so monolithic, whereas defining a set of "official" software is essentially a monolithic task. The other side is help desk support, and IMO no one has that down pat for Linux.
Drag #3 is the migration path. I think there has to be an overlap period, but how to do that is tricky. Give people two machines? Use something like VMware?
George B.: Condi! Nice to see you. What's happening? Condie R.: Sir, I have the report here about the new leader of China. George B.: Great. Lay it on me. Condie R.: Hu is the new leader of China. George B.: That's what I want to know. Condie R.: That's what I'm telling you. George B.: That's what I'm asking you. Who is the new leader of China? Condie R.: Yes. George B.: I mean the fellow's name. Condie R.: Hu. George B.: The guy in China. Condie R.: Hu. George B.: The new leader of China. Condie R.: Hu. George B.: The Chinaman! Condie R.: Hu is leading China. George B.: Now whaddya' asking me for? Condie R.: I'm not asking you, I'm telling you. Hu is leading China. George B.: Well, I'm asking you. Who is leading China? Condie R.: That's the man's name. George B.: That's who's name? Condie R.: Yes. George B.: Will you or will you not tell me the name of the new leader of China? Condie R.: Yes, sir. George B.: Yassir? Yassir Arafat is in China? I thought he was in the Middle East. Condie R.: That's right. George B.: But Yassir's a leftie. Then who is in China? Condie R.: Yes, sir. George B.: Yassir is in China? Condie R.: No, sir. George B.: Then who is? Condie R.: Yes, sir. George B.: Yassir? Condie R.: No, sir. George B.: Look, Condi. I need to know the name of the new leader of China. Get me the Secretary General of the U.N. on the phone. Condie R.: Kofi? George B.: No, thanks. Condie R.: You want Kofi? George B.: No. Condie R.: You don't want Kofi. George B.: No. But now that you mention it, I could use a glass of milk. And then get me the U.N. Condie R.: Yes, sir. George B.: Not Yassir! The guy at the U.N. Condie R.: Kofi? George B.: Milk! Will you please make the call? Condie R.: And call who? George B.: Who is the guy at the U.N? Condie R.: Hu is the guy in China. George B.: Will you stay out of China?! Condie R.: Yes, sir. George B.: And stay out of the Middle East! Just get me the guy at the U.N. Condie R.: Kofi. George B.: All right! With cream and two sugars. Now get on the phone. Condie R. (into phone): Rice, here. George B.: Rice? Good idea. And a couple of egg rolls, too. Maybe we should send some to the guy in China. And the Middle East.
[With apologies to Abbott and Costello--"Who's on First?"]
Actually, now that you mention it, my recollection is that IBM doesn't donate any money to political parties. I can imagine how that might bother certain politicians...
Well, you obviously have something against IBM, but your "facts" are totally bogus. The lack of evidential links is obvious enough.
IBM support is not going anywhere. It's profitable and has a very high reputation. The main concern on the IBM side is whether or not Lenovo will stay with IBM after the transition period.
Dell does not sell IBM ThinkPad computers. The only thing I can imagine you are talking about is some kind of really screwy deal where Dell salesmen are playing some kind of marketing middleman game. Of course, in that case, I can quite well understand why it would be in Dell's interest to foul things up as long they thought they could blame it on someone else. That would also explain the rolling heads, come to think of it.
Well, actually there is no easy way to tell in advance whether or not a site would die under the/. effect. The only solution I can think of would be for them to make a local copy of the site, post the link, and wait 10 or 15 minutes to see if the servier has died--at which point they would switch the link to their cached copy with an apology to the webmaster for the crash.
Well, actually if/. has a zombie network of their own they could try a little DDoS test before the posting.;-)
Does that mean you're the anonymous coward removing your mask now? If so, the new comment is "I don't argue with fools." I just put them on the foe list and they pretty much disappear.
That'll teach me for taking a look at -1, but I was hoping for another mirror site, since the link was apparently already/.ed before the first mirror managed to get a copy. If someone wants to complain about the editors, it might be reasonable to suggest that they set up mirrors and include the links before they publish the URL of those wimpy little servers.
What a dweeb. Say, if you don't like/., how about you just go away? The main effect of your ranting is to make me rather like "michael", whoever he is. He's certainly an improvement on you.
I know you're trying to be funny (and get first post), but there's nothing funny in this topic. We already have enough trouble with war crimes committed by human beings who ought to know better. At least "they ought to know better" is the theory.
My initial reaction is that the Geneva Conventions will need to be re-evaluated in light of this technology, and I'd certainly think that the use of combat robots resulting in civilian deaths has to be some kind of war crime. Unfortunately, that would also make them pretty much useless for a situation like Iraq, where the civilians are so thoroughly mixed in with the "enemy".
I don't see any way to work around it. For example, let's say they define the rules of engagement such that the robot cannot use deadly force until it is attacked. In that case, the insurgents will either attack in a way so that it looks like civilians did it, or they will only attack after they are assure they have sufficient force to destroy the robot--at which point it will be too late for the robot to do anything.
Even worse, if the use of such robots becomes widespread, then ultimate victory will belong to the country with the manufacturing capacity. China.
Then consider the possibilities for hacking the robots, either on the battlefield or with secret back doors installed in advance... Madness. Sheer madness.
Then again, look at who's in charge of the Pentagon.
Someone post a list of the corporate sponsors for the inauguration, then boycott their products/services until they agree to pay the same amount to fund a Hubble rescue operation.
That is a really stupid comment. The amount of money involved is several orders of magnitude off. However, it does show (yet again) why private enterprise cannot afford a real space program.
I don't hate America. Actually, I never really understood hate, especially. However, I am learning to hate morons like you who are destroying the nation.
Too late, however. Karl Rove (using Dubya) has already harnessed too much hate power for America to survive.
Are you a troll? Or did you just miss the last election?
It doesn't even matter whether or not it was legit, though in scientific terms it seems mathematically impossible that Dubya actually won. It doesn't matter because Dubya evidently does have roughly half of the roughly 60% of the voters that actually bothered.
On his demerits and incompetence, Dubya should have support from maybe 10% of true morons.
I think it might be more directly relevant to compare it to the waste of the latest incarnation of Star Wars. However, you're right that it's a matter of incorrect priorities. Well, actually "incorrect" isn't the proper word there, but I can't think of any word that comes close to capturing the badness of Dubya's non-leadership. Perhaps a string of profanity would at least express some of the emotional level?
Private funding? This is the same level of thinking that caused the problem that killed Hubble, and one of the main reasons America is so quickly falling behind in so many fields of scientific research. There are some things that private enterprise and free markets are very good at, but long-term scientific research is NOT one of them. (The other reason is religious fanaticism directed against science because of the unpleasant truths it persists in revealing.)
Significant research is very risky and rarely profitable--and never reliably profitable in the way that normal business investments are. Yes, there are enormous long-term benefits, but the current CEO will have cashed out all of his stock dividends a long time before major research produces any results. There is a fundamental mismatch between the long-term perspective of pure research and the short-term perspective of a business that will have to show its profit numbers to the SEC at the next quarter--at which time the investors will sell their shares if that company is "wasting too much money" on research.
America is becoming the land of the ignorant. Proud, boastful, even aggressive ignorance.
Is it because I'm living in Japan and out of sync with all of you?
Unfortunately, I can't think of much of substance to say on the topic. Sure, the Japanese are leaders in robotics, but everyone knows that. The dance topic itself is very complicated. My first real-life experience of watching Japanese dance was actually Noh theatre, which is a very special genre. The dancer was actually a "living cultural treasure", one of the old-timers who'd been dancing and chanting Noh for fifty years or so.
Slashdot Mirror
You can't short a stock below $5 (on that exchange), and SCOX hasn't seen that price for a *LONG* time--and won't.
The minor one is that they need some external system to detect a human presence. This covers both the cases of one student trying to carry several students' IDs, or the case of someone who does not have an ID.
The more serious and intrusive extension is to link the ID to the bearer. There are various ways this could be done. For example, a proximity-linked surgical implant would be hard to beat, but not necessary. For example, the ID could include a finger scanner and at random times it would beep and require the bearer to press a finger on it. (Also required when a thermal sensor indicated it had been too far away from the bearer.)
The solution? A legal principle that you own the data about you, with Fifth Amendment protection. They could collect any data they want, but if it identifies you, they have to let you store it on your own computer. If they want to access that data at any later time, they have to show probable cause and get a search warrant.
No, the dumb people like Dubya still make bad decisions. It's just that pressure isn't the reason. I guess it's called paralysis by analysis, but not a problem when you're just a puppet.
Not sure if anyone interested in the trivia, but here's a bit just in case... The old Ichitaro actually had a lot of elements copied from ancient WordStar, but the interface got pretty much tortured to death when they were trying to add a Windows-style menu system. I'm pretty sure some versions had both interfaces. They had originally been almost completely dominant in the software word processor market, but that was back when NEC had the lock on proprietary Japanese hardware. Their foundation was their Japanese input system, which was still better than Microsoft's for many years. That was called ATOK, and was also sold separately for use as an IME replacement. They tried to expand into integrated office suites about the same time Lotus was getting beaten out of that market. Later on they tried to become an ISP with a system called JustNet, but I think they eventually sold it to someone else. (But I did see a few of their boxes in a large computer store just this weekend, when I was visiting Akihabara.)
Bye now.
The way this issue should be addressed in (again dare I say) scientific and economic terms would be based on the value of the scientific research Hubble can perform versus the lost opportunity costs from the interval when there would be no such telescope available.
Not the reality, but a deliberate exaggeration to clarify the issue: Imagine that we needed a space telescope to detect asteroids that were liable to strike the earth. In that case, we would absolutely need to keep the Hubble in service until a replacement telescope could be prepared--and better to have several in orbit all the time.
Unfortunately, the current reality is that this is mostly a political issue, and the deeper danger is that scientific research is not important to the religious fanatics in charge, since they already know all the answers. It's not a matter of spending $1 billion on Hubble or committing $0.5 billion for a better replacement--it's that they would prefer to spend zilch on science and $200 billion on getting rid of Saddam. (If Saddam was worth $200 billion, it certainly makes one shudder to imagine the costs for getting rid of the other tyrants, since Saddam was one of the weakest and least important ones.)
Actually, this is tightly linked to politics surrounding the Space Shuttle. I heard this story from the same fellow who wrote most of Reagan's Star Wars speech (though he specifically disavowed the specific bit about Star Wars). He was chancellor of the UT system at that time. The Space Shuttle part was actually related to Nixon, however. As Apollo was winding down, NASA went to Nixon with a very ambitious proposal for a much more flexible kind of Space Shuttle system, but Nixon said it was *way* too expensive. The current version was actually the third or fourth reduced proposal. In the long term, the compromise was bad pretty much every way you slice it. America's manned space program is nearly dead, and 13 astronauts and one teacher are very dead.
No, they did not reach the "exact conclusions" and they were not arguing for war. Dubya is they fool responsible for the $300 billion (so far) and tens of thousands of deaths. (Not to say he actually made those decisions. The actual decisions are handled by Rove and Cheney, but Dubya doesn't mind or care or even know what is going on--the actual decision makers know how to pull Dubya's strings. However, Dubya is still "responsible", at least technically speaking.)
With your typical intellectual dishonesty, now you're supposed to claim Saddam would have eventually killed them anyway.
However, I do thank you for posting with an actual name (in contrast to the noisy anonymous coward defending your positions elsewhere in this discussion). It let's me mark you a a fool^h^h^h^h foe so I'll be less likely to see your future posts. Not censorship. Your right to free speech does not imply any right to force anyone to listen to your blathersome lies.
I wonder if they could practice doing it with different voices in each ear? That would be pretty amazing...
I can't ignore that one since I do a lot of work with some of the accessibility researchers, including one who is blind. Meaningless ALT tags are more of a nuisance than a help. HTML compliance is not a bad thing per se, but the biggest problem is actually visual complexity, especially when it results in pages that take several minutes of screen reading to get to the actual content. Another hassle is tables that look great, but run in completely different directions when a screen reader tries to deal with them (especially true for embedded tables). Structuring the page well and including a jump-to-main-content link are the kinds of things that they really like. Remember that listening is basically slower than looking.
If you're seriously interested in this area, aDesigner is worth a bit of your time. A big chunk of the idea is to give sighted designers some experience of what it's like when you can't see well or at all. Sorry if it seems like a plug, but I do think it's an impressive tool... And no, I'm not directly involved.
I think the most important resisting factor is actually the customers. As much as IBM likes to lead, they can't leave the customers behind, and the customers are mostly locked into Microsoft's "tender" embrace. A lot of that could be addressed alternatives that use compatible file formats, but even there Microsoft has a high measure of control.
The drag of support problems has already been mentioned. That actually involves several parts. The easier part creating is installable versions of various programs and the OS itself. The real problem there is that Linux is not so monolithic, whereas defining a set of "official" software is essentially a monolithic task. The other side is help desk support, and IMO no one has that down pat for Linux.
Drag #3 is the migration path. I think there has to be an overlap period, but how to do that is tricky. Give people two machines? Use something like VMware?
[One of the key figures is already missing...]
George B.: Condi! Nice to see you. What's happening?
Condie R.: Sir, I have the report here about the new leader of China.
George B.: Great. Lay it on me.
Condie R.: Hu is the new leader of China.
George B.: That's what I want to know.
Condie R.: That's what I'm telling you.
George B.: That's what I'm asking you. Who is the new leader of China?
Condie R.: Yes.
George B.: I mean the fellow's name.
Condie R.: Hu.
George B.: The guy in China.
Condie R.: Hu.
George B.: The new leader of China.
Condie R.: Hu.
George B.: The Chinaman!
Condie R.: Hu is leading China.
George B.: Now whaddya' asking me for?
Condie R.: I'm not asking you, I'm telling you. Hu is leading China.
George B.: Well, I'm asking you. Who is leading China?
Condie R.: That's the man's name.
George B.: That's who's name?
Condie R.: Yes.
George B.: Will you or will you not tell me the name of the new leader of China?
Condie R.: Yes, sir.
George B.: Yassir? Yassir Arafat is in China? I thought he was in the Middle East.
Condie R.: That's right.
George B.: But Yassir's a leftie. Then who is in China?
Condie R.: Yes, sir.
George B.: Yassir is in China?
Condie R.: No, sir.
George B.: Then who is?
Condie R.: Yes, sir.
George B.: Yassir?
Condie R.: No, sir.
George B.: Look, Condi. I need to know the name of the new leader of China. Get me the Secretary General of the U.N. on the phone.
Condie R.: Kofi?
George B.: No, thanks.
Condie R.: You want Kofi?
George B.: No.
Condie R.: You don't want Kofi.
George B.: No. But now that you mention it, I could use a glass of milk. And then get me the U.N.
Condie R.: Yes, sir.
George B.: Not Yassir! The guy at the U.N.
Condie R.: Kofi?
George B.: Milk! Will you please make the call?
Condie R.: And call who?
George B.: Who is the guy at the U.N?
Condie R.: Hu is the guy in China.
George B.: Will you stay out of China?!
Condie R.: Yes, sir.
George B.: And stay out of the Middle East! Just get me the guy at the U.N.
Condie R.: Kofi.
George B.: All right! With cream and two sugars. Now get on the phone.
Condie R. (into phone): Rice, here.
George B.: Rice? Good idea. And a couple of egg rolls, too. Maybe we should send some to the guy in China. And the Middle East.
[With apologies to Abbott and Costello--"Who's on First?"]
Actually, now that you mention it, my recollection is that IBM doesn't donate any money to political parties. I can imagine how that might bother certain politicians...
IBM support is not going anywhere. It's profitable and has a very high reputation. The main concern on the IBM side is whether or not Lenovo will stay with IBM after the transition period.
Dell does not sell IBM ThinkPad computers. The only thing I can imagine you are talking about is some kind of really screwy deal where Dell salesmen are playing some kind of marketing middleman game. Of course, in that case, I can quite well understand why it would be in Dell's interest to foul things up as long they thought they could blame it on someone else. That would also explain the rolling heads, come to think of it.
Who are you calling a zombie? ;-)
Well, actually if /. has a zombie network of their own they could try a little DDoS test before the posting. ;-)
That'll teach me for taking a look at -1, but I was hoping for another mirror site, since the link was apparently already /.ed before the first mirror managed to get a copy. If someone wants to complain about the editors, it might be reasonable to suggest that they set up mirrors and include the links before they publish the URL of those wimpy little servers.
What a dweeb. Say, if you don't like /., how about you just go away? The main effect of your ranting is to make me rather like "michael", whoever he is. He's certainly an improvement on you.
I didn't get to see even one. Do they have any metrics for the /. effect as related to the number of posts? (Only 9 when I went to the Web site.)
My initial reaction is that the Geneva Conventions will need to be re-evaluated in light of this technology, and I'd certainly think that the use of combat robots resulting in civilian deaths has to be some kind of war crime. Unfortunately, that would also make them pretty much useless for a situation like Iraq, where the civilians are so thoroughly mixed in with the "enemy".
I don't see any way to work around it. For example, let's say they define the rules of engagement such that the robot cannot use deadly force until it is attacked. In that case, the insurgents will either attack in a way so that it looks like civilians did it, or they will only attack after they are assure they have sufficient force to destroy the robot--at which point it will be too late for the robot to do anything.
Even worse, if the use of such robots becomes widespread, then ultimate victory will belong to the country with the manufacturing capacity. China.
Then consider the possibilities for hacking the robots, either on the battlefield or with secret back doors installed in advance... Madness. Sheer madness.
Then again, look at who's in charge of the Pentagon.
Too late, however. Karl Rove (using Dubya) has already harnessed too much hate power for America to survive.
It doesn't even matter whether or not it was legit, though in scientific terms it seems mathematically impossible that Dubya actually won. It doesn't matter because Dubya evidently does have roughly half of the roughly 60% of the voters that actually bothered.
On his demerits and incompetence, Dubya should have support from maybe 10% of true morons.
I think it might be more directly relevant to compare it to the waste of the latest incarnation of Star Wars. However, you're right that it's a matter of incorrect priorities. Well, actually "incorrect" isn't the proper word there, but I can't think of any word that comes close to capturing the badness of Dubya's non-leadership. Perhaps a string of profanity would at least express some of the emotional level?
Significant research is very risky and rarely profitable--and never reliably profitable in the way that normal business investments are. Yes, there are enormous long-term benefits, but the current CEO will have cashed out all of his stock dividends a long time before major research produces any results. There is a fundamental mismatch between the long-term perspective of pure research and the short-term perspective of a business that will have to show its profit numbers to the SEC at the next quarter--at which time the investors will sell their shares if that company is "wasting too much money" on research.
America is becoming the land of the ignorant. Proud, boastful, even aggressive ignorance.
Is it because I'm living in Japan and out of sync with all of you? Unfortunately, I can't think of much of substance to say on the topic. Sure, the Japanese are leaders in robotics, but everyone knows that. The dance topic itself is very complicated. My first real-life experience of watching Japanese dance was actually Noh theatre, which is a very special genre. The dancer was actually a "living cultural treasure", one of the old-timers who'd been dancing and chanting Noh for fifty years or so.