It is a term perpetuated by the government to mean certain things to insiders within the government and corporations that service government contracts. If you are familiar with terms like "war-fighter" and "joint + anything" then you will know what I mean.
Statically linked libraries are no panacea either. For example, suppose that a flaw is discovered in a version of a library which is statically linked into your app. Unless the app is re-compiled with the the newer fixed version of the library your app will continue to use the flawed version and remain vulnerable to whatever code might be injected and executed via the flaw.
Apparently it's a major pain the arse for them but it makes the site on of the best places to buy stuff too.
It is also good business for Amazon. Could Amazon boost sales short term by screening their reviews to satisfy third party affiliates and manufacturers? Yes they could, but in the long run the damage to their business from violating the trust of their users on product reviews would completely outweigh any short term gains from temporarily boosted sales.
Milton Waddams: Excuse me? Excuse me, senor? May I speak to you please? I asked for a mai tai, and they brought me a pina colada, and I said no salt, NO salt for the margarita, but it had salt on it, big grains of salt, floating in the glass...
Mexican Waiter: Lo siento mucho, senor.
[Under his breath]
Mexican Waiter: Pinche gringo.
Milton Waddams: [as the waiter walks away] And yes, I won't be leaving a tip, 'cause I could... I could shut this whole resort down. Sir? I'll take my traveler's checks to a competing resort. I could write a letter to your board of tourism and I could have this place condemned. I could put... I could put... strychnine in the guacamole. There was salt on the glass, BIG grains of salt.
The democrats don't want "head on debate", because such debates always involve propaganda from the bill's opponents.
It is possible to conduct the debate in a setting where such propaganda would not be able to interfere, but it would require a more formal setting and rules. The series of debates recently conducted by The Economist provide good examples of how real debates should be conducted.
the Republicans have been pushing flat-out lies about this bill. Like "death panels".
This is true. The "death panels" and "pulling the plug on grandma" were equally bad and dishonest tactics. However, two wrongs don't make a right as they say.
Or that it constitutes socialism.
If a system is not voluntary then it is socialism. Whether this is a good or bad thing depends upon your points of view, but we should not confuse socialism with freedom because in fact they are opposites.
Lots of capitalist countries have socialized medicine...it's not the same thing as a socialist economy.
It takes one major sector of the economy and socializes it. Again, whether you believe that is good or bad depends upon your point of view but it means that some part of the economy is now socialist. Socialism is an easy concept to grasp. It sounds good to many people and it is easy to understand the appeal, but the promises of socialism often ring empty in the end. The arguments for freedom, free enterprise and free trade on the other hand are much more subtle and difficult to understand. However, they ultimately produce a better and more prosperous society where they are allowed to grow and reach their full potential.
If you believe that socialized medicine is a good idea then ask yourself this: if taxes are high to pay for, among other things, universal single-payer health care would you feel like working as much or as hard? In the UK, for example, taxes are very high in order to pay for the National Health Service. High taxes create disincentives to work on an individual basis AND they create disincentives for businesses to hire additional workers. As former prime minister Margaret Thatcher put it, "The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money".
I believe that we could have the best system in the world, better than what we have right now and better than socialized systems overseas, if we would just following this plan, which was proposed by Milton Friedman back in 2001 (he was a bit ahead of the times on the health care debate). So actually, a lot of us want the same thing: good quality health care at reasonable prices. We simply disagree on the best means to obtain it.
Ordinarily I don't reply to trolls. Howver, I felt compelled to respond in this case due to the completely false portrayal of my own position on the health care debate; which, I might add, was neither stated nor implied by my previous post; which focused on why the left resorts to dishonest chicanery to sell their bill while attacking critics with vicious ad-hominem instead of arguing the merits.
The parent should remember that most of us, at least those who have insurance, do not pay for it directly. We receive our health insurance through our employers and the price is reflected somewhat in our wages in that, at least theoretically, those wages are lower than they otherwise would be if we did not receive health insurance as part of the bargain. In fact, the only reason why most of us presently get our health insurance through our employers is due to an accident of history, dating back to WWII, and continued up to the present day through perverse incentives in the tax codes. For those who are interested might I suggest the following article?
Now as for all of us paying through higher hospital bills, if the parent had taken the time to read my entire original post then he would have seen that I do indeed acknowledge that hospitals pass costs onto patients who are both more able and have greater incentives to pay (i.e. they have assets and they care about their credit). However, it is NOT true that all of us use the same amount of hospital services. Some of us use more and some of us use less. I myself have been in hospitals only a couple of times in my entire life thus far and none recently (last 10 years). So, even if it did cost somewhat more I am probably still ahead of the cost curve on hospital expenses vs having to pay regularly for 10 years (through taxes) even though I didn't use any hospital services. I suspect that many younger people fall into this same category.
Finally, the tone of the parent in suggesting that "public health care creates freedom" suggests that he is not among those of us who pay a lot of the taxes in this country. I am now in the top quintile (according to the IRS) and let me tell you, I pay a lot of taxes. If paying even more taxes creates "more freedom" then it certainly isn't creating it for me. Lastly, if the parent is going to ask me to pay for his health care through higher taxes then he can at least extend me some common courtesy and ask nicely instead of spitting in my face and demanding that I pay to take care of him (the sense of entitlement among some on the left is really quite incredible actually).
How is that different than the situation we have today?
The taxpayer would get stuck with all of the unpaid hospital bills (right now the hospitals eat them or try to make up the cost on those who have credit and can pay). Right now you only pay if you visit the hospital, but if the taxpayer has to pick up the tab then everyone pays regularly, even healthy people who rarely need hospital services. As bad as the present situation is this only makes it worse. The grandparents are correct: this bill is dishonest and the Democrats are pushing it dishonestly...period. Why do the Democrats shy away from having a head on debate about socialism and socialized medicine? Shouldn't they be proud of their socialism? Why do they try to sneak it through the back door? If their true position is too weak to stand up to real debate then they deserve to fail.
The last time I rode the train from Nevada to Berkeley (well, Emeryville...the Berkeley station was closed) the train was delayed for over four hours. With no explanation or estimate of when the problem would be fixed.
Which is about par for the course here in California with Amtrak. To pull over onto a side track and wait for an hour so that one can watch a freight train loaded with sugar beats go by is annoying to say the least (wasting the time of hundreds of passengers for freight doesn't bother the freight companies in the least). Almost without exception, the only people who ride Amtrak are those who either (a) haven't already done so and vow never again after their first trip or (b) want to travel between northern and southern California as cheaply as possible AND don't care how long the journey takes. The last time I rode the Amtrak here in California was back in my college days when I had plenty of time and little money. It would be cheaper for the government to give away free bus tickets to college students returning home for the holiday breaks than to continue subsidizing the terrible Amtrak passenger service.
To be fair though, there are other expenses when operating a private vehicle besides simply filling up the gas tank. There is insurance (liability at a minimum and probably collision too if it is a newer model vehicle), parts and maintenance (or expensive repairs for failing to maintain the vehicle), parking expenses, toll road fees, etc. For many people, the freedom to go wherever whenever conveniently and quickly is worth the price; but the gap between the Metro and driving in Los Angeles is narrower than a simple comparison of fuel and ticket prices alone would suggest.
What CS's really need to do is stop going to work as business software programmers...
Businesses are willing to pay us to write business software. He who pays the piper calls the tune after all.
I don't see many structural engineers actually welding steel, many chemists pumping gas, or many electrical engineers wiring houses.
It probably wouldn't be their first choice, but in this economy who can afford to be so choosy?
A CS degree needs to mean something... and writing code for a living when you have a CS degree only perpetuates the myth that a CS degree is required to write software.
So it is my fault that I took a job which pays the bills, puts food in my stomach and keeps a roof over my head with my CS degree because it perpetuates a misconception in HR? Somehow I struggle to care. Would I like to work on interesting projects in robotics, electronics or aerospace? It might be interesting I suppose, but the problem with defense is that while it may not be subject to the whims of the business cycle it is subject to the whims of the political cycle and right now it looks like the powers that be are getting set to spend a whole lot less of the national budget on fancy weapons systems, advanced fighter jets, and terminator style robots with laser beams attached to their foreheads (pew-pew-pew). I work on software projects because they interest me personally or because someone pays me (mostly the later and not the former due to time constraints) and I make no apologies for doing that.
or how about a few shares of their stock? It never hurts to save for the day when we can no longer drive the compiler (or at least not as well as we could when we were younger); even nerds need to retire someday after all.
That was when I switched to T-Mobile - they're not perfect by a long shot, but at least their not overtly hostile towards their customers. With T-Mobile I could... GASP... use Bluetooth to sync my Mac's addressbook with my phone! Move pictures to and from my phone! Do my own ringtones! What a concept...
I use T-Mobile for the same reasons. What really bugs the crap out of me is how Verizon consistently leverages their dominant network position (gained through bidding very high prices for the spectrum and then passing those costs along to the consumers with nickle-and-dime-you-to-death charges for every single feature which should already work on your phone) to quash innovations in cell phones. There is a reason why Apple went with AT&T and NOT Verizon for the iPhone. Cell phone service in the US really sucks donkey balls compared to what is available in the UK, Japan, Europe or South Korea AND for less money! Verizon is a stubborn bully standing in the way of progress here in the US and we are all paying the price, whether we use Verizon services or not.
Don't be so naïve. Long term taxes and other anti substance or activity laws have a way of escalating into a ban. Look at the times when things have been banned in American history. The ban creeps up on us gradually over time until suddenly, one day, the ban is in effect. It happened with alcohol (repealed) and with drugs and it is in the process of happening with abortion right now. That is why it is never good to give, even a little bit, in politics because only a fool fails to recognize the power of momentum in government policy or doing things in stages gradually rather than all at once (the proverbial frog in a pot of boiling water).
Show me the European country that has banned any of the activities you listed.
First off, it would be more fair to use either France or England as a comparison for a "socialized medicine" system than Germany, which retains essentially a private practice and hospital medical system; albeit with price controls (Germany was one of the health systems featured in Sick Around the World on Frontline). Take the English system, which is heavily socialized, as the example (not an unfair comparison since England and America enjoy the "special friendship" and are closer as two peoples than the French and other European systems). In Britain one sees high taxes on alcohol and tobacco use in addition to public advertising campaigns by the National Health Service against unhealthy activities and lifestyles, all promoted using public money (since the public is ultimately footing the bill for the NHS after all). The doctors also receive bonuses if their patients meet health statistic targets (BMI, cholesterol, blood pressure, etc) AND if they quit smoking. As you might suppose, such campaigns and incentives create intense pressure on people to conform to the state messages concerning too many fast food cheeseburgers, smoking, drinking, etc in addition to the taxes. It may not be a ban in force of law, but it could be considered abusive or at least bothersome to have the government constantly saying that you are a baaaad person for not giving up smoking or eating too many cheeseburgers or being overweight etc. Frankly, I don't think most Americans want the government that much into their personal business, especially when it comes to their lifestyle choices and health care. For all the history that we share in common with the English, we Americans are different when it comes to appropriate amount of and intrusiveness of government into the lives of ordinary citizens.
So is it an outright ban? Not yet, but the first step to ultimately banning some substance or activity is to start beating it down in the public debate until one thing leads to another and the substance or activity in question really is banned (or effectively so through regulations and taxes). We see this here in the United States in the abortion debates where each side fights vehemently against any further restrictions on one side and any further expansions on the other (each side views the loss of an INCH to the other side as an absolute loss and a move towards outright permission or a complete ban). Personally, I would prefer not to get started down that road myself with health choices here in America.
Once it's been established that an individual's health care costs are the governments business, there's no logical stopping point
Bingo. Give the man a gold star. This is a consequence of socialized medicine that is much less frequently discussed and often willfully ignored by single-payer boosters. Socialized health care IS the nanny state incarnate. If your life is to be preserved at cost by the state then the choices you make that effect that life (which is just about everything worth doing if we take that line of reasoning to its logical conclusion) are the de-facto business of the state. Want to eat that cheesburger? Forget about it. How about a beer? No way! Like to mountain bike or bunjee jump or how about alpine skiing or skateboarding? All banned by the cost-conscious nanny state health system as "unnecessary risks which result in increased health care costs". Socialized health care makes children of us all, constantly being reminded to eat our vegetables, go to bed early, and avoid dangerous sports and activities. Some people, may be willing to trade many freedoms away as long as someone else picks up their health care bills, but only dishonest socialists, terminal cancer patients and ignorant people would do so willingly.
A better use of tax money would be battery research that is released under Open Access, with the patents going to the public domain.
A better use of tax money would be for the government to give it back to the people they took it from in the first place. Why should I be forced to "invest" (if you can even call it that given the track record of government spending) my hard-earned money in battery research through taxes? Has anyone else ever noticed that very often these sorts of "investments" are the very same ones that the private sector won't touch with a ten foot pole? If these "investments" are so worthwhile and good then why must the government fund them? That sounds like a come-on to a sucker bet. This battery research will be a boondoggle (like all government spending programs) and long after the money has all been spent, with little or nothing to show for it, they will have to raise taxes even more to pay the interest on our surging national debt. The average American has lost his job or is in danger of losing his job, his retirement accounts have been decimated, and if he is really unlucky then his home is in danger of foreclosure. We need our tax money back in our pockets a hell of a lot more than some elitist environmental wacko needs it to develop a sports car for millionaires.
They wanted to charge me extra to ensure that I got what I already paid for! Can you imagine?!
The nerve! However, did you consider that the "official" price for certain services might be regulated by the Canadian government at a rate that is too low to actually provide the service without losing money? Perhaps this "insurance" represents the difference between what it costs to actually provide that level of service and what Bell is allowed by the government to charge for it. You get what you pay for after all, even if regulators try to create "free lunches" by defying the forces of economics with impossible regulations.
but perhaps they are getting a patent on this in order for them to bring suit against any other bittorrent client that uses encryption, effectively making them to remove the encryption "feature" or face imminent pestering by a small horde of MS lawyers.
The patent covers the narrow case where encryption is used to implement a DRM-type system (which we all know is ineffective, but put that aside for a moment) NOT the more general idea of using encryption in network communications, which is both obvious to anyone "skilled in the art" (programming in this case) and well covered by prior art. Besides, do you really believe that open-source bit-torrent clients with mirrored servers located all over the world (including places which don't really give a crap about US copyright interests) are going to be deterred by lawsuits? No, this is more likely just another case of defensive patenting by Microsoft to deter future lawsuits filed against them by patent trolls and their slippery attorneys; just one more proof that the existing patent system is in desperate need of reform.
I wonder if there isn't a shoulder fired active radar missile available. The ceiling wouldn't have to be 20,000 feet, but rather 20,000 feet - the height of the mountain the defender is standing on.
Active radar homing generally requires a substantial power source and other equipment with total weight exceeding several hundred (or even several thousand) pounds. This generally precludes any man-portable active radar homing missiles as impractical because some sort of vehicle transport (motorized is preferable, but wagons and oxen with generators might possibly be made to work in a pinch) would be necessary. If vehicle transport is inevitable, then why limit the size of the missile to something that people can carry on their shoulders? Every man-portable surface-to-air missile system ever produced has used some combination of remote-control (used in the blowpipe missile, but now largely abandoned as ineffective and obsolete) with or without optical video feed OR infrared homing (used by all modern systems).
Hitting a moving target in the sky at 20,000 feet from the ground is no simple matter and is even more difficult for an enemy whose resources are limited to tribal guerrillas equipped mostly with small arms and other light weapons and with limited ability to acquire more advanced anti-air capabilities. In the case of this airship their problems are compounded by the following facts:
The airship probably makes use of Yehudi Lights designed to limit it's optical visibility from the ground against the background of the sky (forget about hearing it from the ground, it probably uses solar powered electric motors).
The airship probably incorporates radar absorbing materials and other stealthy features which make it difficult to spot on radar (i.e. small, rounded shape, mostly non-metalic structure, etc...). This is assuming that a force of irregular guerrillas, like the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, actually have the knowledge, expertise, and logistics to acquire and operate a radar network in a place where their adversaries have absolute air supremacy (not likely).
So let's review: the airship is extremely difficult to spot visually or on radar from the ground (which makes shooting at it accurately extremely difficult assuming that guns which can reach 20,000 feet, never mind accurately, are even available to the aforementioned guerrillas). The US and its allies have absolute air supremacy over all operational areas (which means that the Iranians and others cannot intervene with fighters or other attack aircraft, which would probably be shot down by US or NATO allied fighter patrols anyway, without everyone knowing that they intervened directly on behalf of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda). Finally, it probably has an extremely low or zero heat-signature (which means the sorts of MANPADs which might be supplied by a sympathetic Iran would be almost completely useless). Given all of these facts, I would have to say that an intelligence air ship for the Afghanistan theater of operations makes very good sense.
it's already been used to scrutinize helicopter pilots and Philly cab drivers
This sounds a lot like the plot of the movie Conspiracy Theory where Mel Gibson plays a paranoid cab driver who publishes a newsletter of various conspiracy theories jumbled together from random public sources (this was before the age of blogs) and is chased by personnel from a shadowy government agency in black SUVs and helicopters (ala the USSS).
The problem is if the needed feature is in front of the user and determining what is needed where. If a menu system is more than three levels deep, you've failed as a UI designer.
Excuse me, but that sounds wildly arbitrary. I agree that menus more than three levels deep are a cause for concern in the absence of a reasonable explanation. However, there are some rather complex professional programs out there (i.e. CAD and IDEs) which have a very large set of commands, all or most of which make sense to experts who have learned to use the software as part of their chosen profession. In such cases menus, command consoles, keyboard shortcuts or some combination thereof are basically unavoidable.
Slashdot Mirror
It is a term perpetuated by the government to mean certain things to insiders within the government and corporations that service government contracts. If you are familiar with terms like "war-fighter" and "joint + anything" then you will know what I mean.
Statically linked libraries are no panacea either. For example, suppose that a flaw is discovered in a version of a library which is statically linked into your app. Unless the app is re-compiled with the the newer fixed version of the library your app will continue to use the flawed version and remain vulnerable to whatever code might be injected and executed via the flaw.
Apparently it's a major pain the arse for them but it makes the site on of the best places to buy stuff too.
It is also good business for Amazon. Could Amazon boost sales short term by screening their reviews to satisfy third party affiliates and manufacturers? Yes they could, but in the long run the damage to their business from violating the trust of their users on product reviews would completely outweigh any short term gains from temporarily boosted sales.
Milton Waddams: Excuse me? Excuse me, senor? May I speak to you please? I asked for a mai tai, and they brought me a pina colada, and I said no salt, NO salt for the margarita, but it had salt on it, big grains of salt, floating in the glass...
Mexican Waiter: Lo siento mucho, senor.
[Under his breath] Mexican Waiter: Pinche gringo.
Milton Waddams: [as the waiter walks away] And yes, I won't be leaving a tip, 'cause I could... I could shut this whole resort down. Sir? I'll take my traveler's checks to a competing resort. I could write a letter to your board of tourism and I could have this place condemned. I could put... I could put... strychnine in the guacamole. There was salt on the glass, BIG grains of salt.
The democrats don't want "head on debate", because such debates always involve propaganda from the bill's opponents.
It is possible to conduct the debate in a setting where such propaganda would not be able to interfere, but it would require a more formal setting and rules. The series of debates recently conducted by The Economist provide good examples of how real debates should be conducted.
the Republicans have been pushing flat-out lies about this bill. Like "death panels".
This is true. The "death panels" and "pulling the plug on grandma" were equally bad and dishonest tactics. However, two wrongs don't make a right as they say.
Or that it constitutes socialism.
If a system is not voluntary then it is socialism. Whether this is a good or bad thing depends upon your points of view, but we should not confuse socialism with freedom because in fact they are opposites.
Lots of capitalist countries have socialized medicine...it's not the same thing as a socialist economy.
It takes one major sector of the economy and socializes it. Again, whether you believe that is good or bad depends upon your point of view but it means that some part of the economy is now socialist. Socialism is an easy concept to grasp. It sounds good to many people and it is easy to understand the appeal, but the promises of socialism often ring empty in the end. The arguments for freedom, free enterprise and free trade on the other hand are much more subtle and difficult to understand. However, they ultimately produce a better and more prosperous society where they are allowed to grow and reach their full potential.
If you believe that socialized medicine is a good idea then ask yourself this: if taxes are high to pay for, among other things, universal single-payer health care would you feel like working as much or as hard? In the UK, for example, taxes are very high in order to pay for the National Health Service. High taxes create disincentives to work on an individual basis AND they create disincentives for businesses to hire additional workers. As former prime minister Margaret Thatcher put it, "The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money".
I believe that we could have the best system in the world, better than what we have right now and better than socialized systems overseas, if we would just following this plan, which was proposed by Milton Friedman back in 2001 (he was a bit ahead of the times on the health care debate). So actually, a lot of us want the same thing: good quality health care at reasonable prices. We simply disagree on the best means to obtain it.
Ordinarily I don't reply to trolls. Howver, I felt compelled to respond in this case due to the completely false portrayal of my own position on the health care debate; which, I might add, was neither stated nor implied by my previous post; which focused on why the left resorts to dishonest chicanery to sell their bill while attacking critics with vicious ad-hominem instead of arguing the merits.
The parent should remember that most of us, at least those who have insurance, do not pay for it directly. We receive our health insurance through our employers and the price is reflected somewhat in our wages in that, at least theoretically, those wages are lower than they otherwise would be if we did not receive health insurance as part of the bargain. In fact, the only reason why most of us presently get our health insurance through our employers is due to an accident of history, dating back to WWII, and continued up to the present day through perverse incentives in the tax codes. For those who are interested might I suggest the following article?
Now as for all of us paying through higher hospital bills, if the parent had taken the time to read my entire original post then he would have seen that I do indeed acknowledge that hospitals pass costs onto patients who are both more able and have greater incentives to pay (i.e. they have assets and they care about their credit). However, it is NOT true that all of us use the same amount of hospital services. Some of us use more and some of us use less. I myself have been in hospitals only a couple of times in my entire life thus far and none recently (last 10 years). So, even if it did cost somewhat more I am probably still ahead of the cost curve on hospital expenses vs having to pay regularly for 10 years (through taxes) even though I didn't use any hospital services. I suspect that many younger people fall into this same category.
Finally, the tone of the parent in suggesting that "public health care creates freedom" suggests that he is not among those of us who pay a lot of the taxes in this country. I am now in the top quintile (according to the IRS) and let me tell you, I pay a lot of taxes. If paying even more taxes creates "more freedom" then it certainly isn't creating it for me. Lastly, if the parent is going to ask me to pay for his health care through higher taxes then he can at least extend me some common courtesy and ask nicely instead of spitting in my face and demanding that I pay to take care of him (the sense of entitlement among some on the left is really quite incredible actually).
How is that different than the situation we have today?
The taxpayer would get stuck with all of the unpaid hospital bills (right now the hospitals eat them or try to make up the cost on those who have credit and can pay). Right now you only pay if you visit the hospital, but if the taxpayer has to pick up the tab then everyone pays regularly, even healthy people who rarely need hospital services. As bad as the present situation is this only makes it worse. The grandparents are correct: this bill is dishonest and the Democrats are pushing it dishonestly...period. Why do the Democrats shy away from having a head on debate about socialism and socialized medicine? Shouldn't they be proud of their socialism? Why do they try to sneak it through the back door? If their true position is too weak to stand up to real debate then they deserve to fail.
Yes, but "premium" electrons pumped though a triple-shielded transducer produce the best possible sound, just ask any audiophile.
The last time I rode the train from Nevada to Berkeley (well, Emeryville...the Berkeley station was closed) the train was delayed for over four hours. With no explanation or estimate of when the problem would be fixed.
Which is about par for the course here in California with Amtrak. To pull over onto a side track and wait for an hour so that one can watch a freight train loaded with sugar beats go by is annoying to say the least (wasting the time of hundreds of passengers for freight doesn't bother the freight companies in the least). Almost without exception, the only people who ride Amtrak are those who either (a) haven't already done so and vow never again after their first trip or (b) want to travel between northern and southern California as cheaply as possible AND don't care how long the journey takes. The last time I rode the Amtrak here in California was back in my college days when I had plenty of time and little money. It would be cheaper for the government to give away free bus tickets to college students returning home for the holiday breaks than to continue subsidizing the terrible Amtrak passenger service.
Are they going to pay people to travel on the train or what?
Who knows, but stranger things have happened in the California political system...
To be fair though, there are other expenses when operating a private vehicle besides simply filling up the gas tank. There is insurance (liability at a minimum and probably collision too if it is a newer model vehicle), parts and maintenance (or expensive repairs for failing to maintain the vehicle), parking expenses, toll road fees, etc. For many people, the freedom to go wherever whenever conveniently and quickly is worth the price; but the gap between the Metro and driving in Los Angeles is narrower than a simple comparison of fuel and ticket prices alone would suggest.
Ukraine is game to you!?
What CS's really need to do is stop going to work as business software programmers...
Businesses are willing to pay us to write business software. He who pays the piper calls the tune after all.
I don't see many structural engineers actually welding steel, many chemists pumping gas, or many electrical engineers wiring houses.
It probably wouldn't be their first choice, but in this economy who can afford to be so choosy?
A CS degree needs to mean something... and writing code for a living when you have a CS degree only perpetuates the myth that a CS degree is required to write software.
So it is my fault that I took a job which pays the bills, puts food in my stomach and keeps a roof over my head with my CS degree because it perpetuates a misconception in HR? Somehow I struggle to care. Would I like to work on interesting projects in robotics, electronics or aerospace? It might be interesting I suppose, but the problem with defense is that while it may not be subject to the whims of the business cycle it is subject to the whims of the political cycle and right now it looks like the powers that be are getting set to spend a whole lot less of the national budget on fancy weapons systems, advanced fighter jets, and terminator style robots with laser beams attached to their foreheads (pew-pew-pew). I work on software projects because they interest me personally or because someone pays me (mostly the later and not the former due to time constraints) and I make no apologies for doing that.
I'll go buy a copy of Red Hat.
or how about a few shares of their stock? It never hurts to save for the day when we can no longer drive the compiler (or at least not as well as we could when we were younger); even nerds need to retire someday after all.
That was when I switched to T-Mobile - they're not perfect by a long shot, but at least their not overtly hostile towards their customers. With T-Mobile I could... GASP... use Bluetooth to sync my Mac's addressbook with my phone! Move pictures to and from my phone! Do my own ringtones! What a concept...
I use T-Mobile for the same reasons. What really bugs the crap out of me is how Verizon consistently leverages their dominant network position (gained through bidding very high prices for the spectrum and then passing those costs along to the consumers with nickle-and-dime-you-to-death charges for every single feature which should already work on your phone) to quash innovations in cell phones. There is a reason why Apple went with AT&T and NOT Verizon for the iPhone. Cell phone service in the US really sucks donkey balls compared to what is available in the UK, Japan, Europe or South Korea AND for less money! Verizon is a stubborn bully standing in the way of progress here in the US and we are all paying the price, whether we use Verizon services or not.
"Not yet BUT"
Don't be so naïve. Long term taxes and other anti substance or activity laws have a way of escalating into a ban. Look at the times when things have been banned in American history. The ban creeps up on us gradually over time until suddenly, one day, the ban is in effect. It happened with alcohol (repealed) and with drugs and it is in the process of happening with abortion right now. That is why it is never good to give, even a little bit, in politics because only a fool fails to recognize the power of momentum in government policy or doing things in stages gradually rather than all at once (the proverbial frog in a pot of boiling water).
Show me the European country that has banned any of the activities you listed.
First off, it would be more fair to use either France or England as a comparison for a "socialized medicine" system than Germany, which retains essentially a private practice and hospital medical system; albeit with price controls (Germany was one of the health systems featured in Sick Around the World on Frontline). Take the English system, which is heavily socialized, as the example (not an unfair comparison since England and America enjoy the "special friendship" and are closer as two peoples than the French and other European systems). In Britain one sees high taxes on alcohol and tobacco use in addition to public advertising campaigns by the National Health Service against unhealthy activities and lifestyles, all promoted using public money (since the public is ultimately footing the bill for the NHS after all). The doctors also receive bonuses if their patients meet health statistic targets (BMI, cholesterol, blood pressure, etc) AND if they quit smoking. As you might suppose, such campaigns and incentives create intense pressure on people to conform to the state messages concerning too many fast food cheeseburgers, smoking, drinking, etc in addition to the taxes. It may not be a ban in force of law, but it could be considered abusive or at least bothersome to have the government constantly saying that you are a baaaad person for not giving up smoking or eating too many cheeseburgers or being overweight etc. Frankly, I don't think most Americans want the government that much into their personal business, especially when it comes to their lifestyle choices and health care. For all the history that we share in common with the English, we Americans are different when it comes to appropriate amount of and intrusiveness of government into the lives of ordinary citizens.
So is it an outright ban? Not yet, but the first step to ultimately banning some substance or activity is to start beating it down in the public debate until one thing leads to another and the substance or activity in question really is banned (or effectively so through regulations and taxes). We see this here in the United States in the abortion debates where each side fights vehemently against any further restrictions on one side and any further expansions on the other (each side views the loss of an INCH to the other side as an absolute loss and a move towards outright permission or a complete ban). Personally, I would prefer not to get started down that road myself with health choices here in America.
Once it's been established that an individual's health care costs are the governments business, there's no logical stopping point
Bingo. Give the man a gold star. This is a consequence of socialized medicine that is much less frequently discussed and often willfully ignored by single-payer boosters. Socialized health care IS the nanny state incarnate. If your life is to be preserved at cost by the state then the choices you make that effect that life (which is just about everything worth doing if we take that line of reasoning to its logical conclusion) are the de-facto business of the state. Want to eat that cheesburger? Forget about it. How about a beer? No way! Like to mountain bike or bunjee jump or how about alpine skiing or skateboarding? All banned by the cost-conscious nanny state health system as "unnecessary risks which result in increased health care costs". Socialized health care makes children of us all, constantly being reminded to eat our vegetables, go to bed early, and avoid dangerous sports and activities. Some people, may be willing to trade many freedoms away as long as someone else picks up their health care bills, but only dishonest socialists, terminal cancer patients and ignorant people would do so willingly.
A better use of tax money would be battery research that is released under Open Access, with the patents going to the public domain.
A better use of tax money would be for the government to give it back to the people they took it from in the first place. Why should I be forced to "invest" (if you can even call it that given the track record of government spending) my hard-earned money in battery research through taxes? Has anyone else ever noticed that very often these sorts of "investments" are the very same ones that the private sector won't touch with a ten foot pole? If these "investments" are so worthwhile and good then why must the government fund them? That sounds like a come-on to a sucker bet. This battery research will be a boondoggle (like all government spending programs) and long after the money has all been spent, with little or nothing to show for it, they will have to raise taxes even more to pay the interest on our surging national debt. The average American has lost his job or is in danger of losing his job, his retirement accounts have been decimated, and if he is really unlucky then his home is in danger of foreclosure. We need our tax money back in our pockets a hell of a lot more than some elitist environmental wacko needs it to develop a sports car for millionaires.
They wanted to charge me extra to ensure that I got what I already paid for! Can you imagine?!
The nerve! However, did you consider that the "official" price for certain services might be regulated by the Canadian government at a rate that is too low to actually provide the service without losing money? Perhaps this "insurance" represents the difference between what it costs to actually provide that level of service and what Bell is allowed by the government to charge for it. You get what you pay for after all, even if regulators try to create "free lunches" by defying the forces of economics with impossible regulations.
but perhaps they are getting a patent on this in order for them to bring suit against any other bittorrent client that uses encryption, effectively making them to remove the encryption "feature" or face imminent pestering by a small horde of MS lawyers.
The patent covers the narrow case where encryption is used to implement a DRM-type system (which we all know is ineffective, but put that aside for a moment) NOT the more general idea of using encryption in network communications, which is both obvious to anyone "skilled in the art" (programming in this case) and well covered by prior art. Besides, do you really believe that open-source bit-torrent clients with mirrored servers located all over the world (including places which don't really give a crap about US copyright interests) are going to be deterred by lawsuits? No, this is more likely just another case of defensive patenting by Microsoft to deter future lawsuits filed against them by patent trolls and their slippery attorneys; just one more proof that the existing patent system is in desperate need of reform.
I wonder if there isn't a shoulder fired active radar missile available. The ceiling wouldn't have to be 20,000 feet, but rather 20,000 feet - the height of the mountain the defender is standing on.
Active radar homing generally requires a substantial power source and other equipment with total weight exceeding several hundred (or even several thousand) pounds. This generally precludes any man-portable active radar homing missiles as impractical because some sort of vehicle transport (motorized is preferable, but wagons and oxen with generators might possibly be made to work in a pinch) would be necessary. If vehicle transport is inevitable, then why limit the size of the missile to something that people can carry on their shoulders? Every man-portable surface-to-air missile system ever produced has used some combination of remote-control (used in the blowpipe missile, but now largely abandoned as ineffective and obsolete) with or without optical video feed OR infrared homing (used by all modern systems).
In mission to provide big target in sky?
Hitting a moving target in the sky at 20,000 feet from the ground is no simple matter and is even more difficult for an enemy whose resources are limited to tribal guerrillas equipped mostly with small arms and other light weapons and with limited ability to acquire more advanced anti-air capabilities. In the case of this airship their problems are compounded by the following facts:
So let's review: the airship is extremely difficult to spot visually or on radar from the ground (which makes shooting at it accurately extremely difficult assuming that guns which can reach 20,000 feet, never mind accurately, are even available to the aforementioned guerrillas). The US and its allies have absolute air supremacy over all operational areas (which means that the Iranians and others cannot intervene with fighters or other attack aircraft, which would probably be shot down by US or NATO allied fighter patrols anyway, without everyone knowing that they intervened directly on behalf of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda). Finally, it probably has an extremely low or zero heat-signature (which means the sorts of MANPADs which might be supplied by a sympathetic Iran would be almost completely useless). Given all of these facts, I would have to say that an intelligence air ship for the Afghanistan theater of operations makes very good sense.
it's already been used to scrutinize helicopter pilots and Philly cab drivers
This sounds a lot like the plot of the movie Conspiracy Theory where Mel Gibson plays a paranoid cab driver who publishes a newsletter of various conspiracy theories jumbled together from random public sources (this was before the age of blogs) and is chased by personnel from a shadowy government agency in black SUVs and helicopters (ala the USSS).
The problem is if the needed feature is in front of the user and determining what is needed where. If a menu system is more than three levels deep, you've failed as a UI designer.
Excuse me, but that sounds wildly arbitrary. I agree that menus more than three levels deep are a cause for concern in the absence of a reasonable explanation. However, there are some rather complex professional programs out there (i.e. CAD and IDEs) which have a very large set of commands, all or most of which make sense to experts who have learned to use the software as part of their chosen profession. In such cases menus, command consoles, keyboard shortcuts or some combination thereof are basically unavoidable.