Legislation now states that television sets, air-conditioners, washing machines and refrigerators must be between 50% and 60% recyclable.
It is now the law in Japan to enforce recycling. I doubt the companies would be pursuing this even with the concerns of Japan's small geographic size due to cost, but government legislation is requiring it.
I'm not usually a fan of legislation like this, but sometimes it is necessary to ensure that businesses do not cause great harm to society or the environment (example, uncontrolled mining). However, in order to protect our own companies, if any such legislation is introduced, we should expect and enforce the same for all imported products. We should not expect our companies to abide by certain environmental laws without forcing their competition to do the same... especially when we are already having a problem with losing money and jobs to foreign offices.
From the article:
"N the 1997"
N?! Now even the New York Times is slipping into Net-speak. *sigh* My old high school English teachers must be in agony. So much for the American education system....
Something else that I have yet to see in this discussion is the cost for safety and environmental laws. The American government has been many restrictions and regulations on companies that have made it very expensive to produce physical goods. These restrictions are much reduced or non-existent in most of the countries that provide these materials. Now, I am not saying that we should remove these measures -- taking care of the environment and people's safety is important -- however we are adding an extra cost to American companies that other countries do not need to face putting local production at a disadvantage. As a result, we no longer have the ability to produce steel in our country, and our manufacturing capability is extremely small.
It makes me more than a little nervous to realize that we have virtually no production capability within our country. We had better hope that our neighbors will continue to be willing to trade hard goods for our "information" technology. I really wonder sometimes on what exactly our economy is running other than an increasingly large bubble of debt (you consumers better go out and buy more, though, for the sake of the economy). Scary.
"Realistically, I believe it will take about
7-10 years of hard work to get a MXER flight demonstration into orbit," Hoyt told SPACE.com. Under the new In-Space Propulsion contracts, research teams will be busy over the next couple of years using simulations and ground tests to show that the technical challenges of MXER tethers can be solved, he said.
"If those efforts are successful, I expect that it would take about 5 years to get a flight program off the ground," Hoyt senses.
However, this does sound like it is quite feasible. We just have to realize that all projects, even ones for which we have the technology, take time to implement.
Generally because of infrastructure. In the cities, you have a much higher number of people per mile of phone line than you do out in the country. For example, here in Montana, you could have a phone line running for 15-20 miles just to reach two or three ranches. Building and maintaining all of those miles of phone line is very expensive, and if the people in rural areas were required to pay for this, they would likely not be able to afford phones at all.
That said, when I hear about the billions involved in this project ($6 billion), my mind just screams pork-barrel. Like most governement projects, I am certain there is a very large percentage of waste.
Sure. I'm thinking that is almost the entire cast with the exception of Obi Wan. Ewan MacGregor is an incredible actor that somehow managed to breathe life into an otherwise horrendous script. Whenever he was on screen, there was an energy that was severely lacking anywhere else. Maybe they should just forget the whole Anakin story and just follow Obi Wan for a while! That might actually be slightly entertaining (afterall, the best lines from the movie are all his).
The only other hilight I can possibly think of was Yoda's little battle, but after the "Yo-da-man" commercials, even that scene leaves a bad taste in my mouth. *sigh*
As for Natalie Portman, while she is a very attractive gal, she is an incredibly stiff actor. Of course, given the overall quality of the film, that may have a lot to do with the director and his fascination with technology over story-telling and character.
Between X-Men, Matrix, and Lord of the Rings, the new Star Wars trilogy is scarcely worth mentioning.
Funny, I had the opposite reaction. Why are we equating the teachings of an amazing work of literature, indeed the very Word of God Himself, that teaches deep theological truths and a way to lead a wholesome, meaningful life in service and love to man as an act of worship to God with a collection of adrenaline-filled, pop-culture eye candy (albeit entertaining eye candy) that encourages immorality and speaks nothing of God at all. Besdies, the movies are obviously not based on Christianity alone, but rather it is a strange conglomeration of many religions with heavy emphasis on gnosticism.
Also, it is actually nearly impossible for a film made by people from the United States not to have some Christian overtones. This is a country based on Christian values (if not beliefs). Given our nations strong Christian history, there is bound to be more than a fair amount of influence. I believe it is this influence that people are seeing and clinging to, but I must emphasize (and I believe the makers of the Matrix would agree) it is influence not belief.
I also find your description of "confused hallucinogenic gibberish" an interesting one. The Bible is actually a very logical, structured book. It is highly regarded as one of the most accurate historical books of its time (in regards to references to historical places and events). Whether you agree with its teachings or not, there is a great amount of wisdom and insight to be found in its pages. The book of Ecclesistes contains incredible observations made by King Solomon who sought meaning in life through all of the pursuits we see so prevalently in our society today (entertainment, food, career, sex, accolades). His observations are truly timeless. Also, given the fact that its contents were written over a span of 1500 years by many authors of varying social positions (kings, doctors, shepherds, etc.), the internal consistencies are nothing short of amazing.
Re:In Montana there is a river that is ...
on
Water Flows Uphill
·
· Score: 1
There is indeed much of Montana (especially eastern) that is pretty much unwired, but you would probably be surprised how much Missoula and Bozeman have changed in the last 10 years, Bozeman especially. It is no longer the small cowboy town it used to be... much to my chagrin. But compared to the big cities, yeah, I guess we have quite a ways to go. However, you do not have to go out-of-state anymore to be successful.
I must admit that I find the lack of Powder River surprising as well.
Re:In Montana there is a river that is ...
on
Water Flows Uphill
·
· Score: 1
Montana is very unwired.
Not to shatter illusions too much, but believe it or not, Montana does have Internet access (afterall, I am posting right now, eh?). In fact, there is a growing Internet community with online technology companies right here in Bozeman including Right Now Technologies and my own company, Bridger Systems. With the influx of people into the western half of the state over the past ten years, we are getting more and more infrastructure. Though cable modems have not yet arrived in my town (I believe it exists in Missoula and Billings), we have DSL and wireless broadband access. Furthermore, there is a strong computer science department at Montana State University. Montana is not quite the isolated wilderness that people think it is.
I am assuming that your response is in regard to the use of the word "perfect" in my previous post... a bad choice of words on my part. What I meant was the way that everything works together in such an orderly fashion even after the fall has corrupted the world.
In regards to time, my argument was merely the fact that our world is not nearly old enough to account for the vast amount of time required for evolution to have occurred. I apologize that I did not state this more clearly. Also, I definitely believe in the fall as is evident from my signature. I am not sure that I agree with your statement about "those who wilfully refuse" in that I am not sure I understand clearly what you are saying. I would be interested in discussing this with you off the boards. You can e-mail me at khomar_07@yahoo.com.
As a Christian, you should recognize the need to promote unity in the Body of Christ and not try to cause division ("Boy them fundies got that wrong"). The issue raised here was not based on any one denomination or theological conviction. The people who spread this myth are merely misinformed (though the original perpetrator may not have had such pure motives), and if they actually knew the truth, would not wish to spread the lie. Being a "fundamentalist" Christian merely means that they believe that the entire Bible is the inerrant word of God -- an issue that can generate interesting debate on its own merit but not with the issue at hand. Unfortunately, there are some among our camp (yes, I would be considered a fundamentalist) who are a little too zealous to spread the gospel using examples like Einstein without doing research into their sources.
As one other poster put it, even if this myth were true, all it would prove is that Einstein believed in God. There are plenty of examples of highly intelligent people on both sides of the God debate, but that does little save perhaps make one feel more confident in their position.
Also, your comment about seeing God in nature is not entirely correct. Romans 1:19-21 says
"Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath showed it unto them. For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened."
According to this passage, the proof that God exists is in fact visible within nature and the minds of man. How else can you truly explain the complexity and perfection of a young world (and it is young... how else can you explain the salt content of the ocean? Given its current input of sediment, a million year old ocean would be even saltier than the Dead Sea.) The evidence has been displayed for all to see, but we chosen to find another way rather than admit that there is a God and therefore someone to hold us accountable for our actions.
It isn't the product activation that is the problem. It is not much of an inconvienience in and of itself. Rather, it is the restriction that you can only install the operating system X number of times or make a certain number of hardware changes before the package fails. Granted, this probably won't effect too many people, but it is the trend that concerns me. If this is the addition in Windows XP, what kind of restrictions are they going to have in Longhorn?
With each release of their operating system, Microsoft is gathering more and more information about our computers and allowing less and less freedom. I find myself trusting Microsoft less and less over time which makes me nervous about any new purchases of their products. I understand their reasoning from a business perspective in trying to get increased revenue and holding onto market share, but it doesn't help me as the customer to feel too comfortable with the way things are going.
I absolutely agree. In fact, I was hired just for the fact that I have UNIX exprience, and they wanted to at least have a little support in that area. Our company has since ported some of our more easily ported software to Linux and Solaris, and other research is being done for moving more of our software and personnel to Linux.
It's really rather sad the way I have begun to look at Microsoft releases. I used to actually look forward to them because generally they were a great improvement over their predessors. Windows 98 was a great upgrade from 95. From a purely technological point of view, Windows XP had a lot to say for its stability. The licensing scheme, however, was disturbing.
As Microsoft tightens down more and more on their licensing, I begin to dread anything that comes out of Redmond. I would embrace the improvements and innovations if it weren't for that tightening sensation of the noose around my neck. I will likely not even touch Longhorn unless I absolutely must. The cost and licensing look to be far too prohibitive, and I fear to give too much control to Microsoft lest I find all of my creations suddenly removed from my control.
At current rate, Microsoft is quickly digging their own grave. My company, formerly a very Windows centric shop, is starting to talk more and more about moving to UNIX due to the cost of upgrades. Longhorn may actually prove to be the breaking point at which, due to overly restrictive licensing, the corporate world starts seeking a cheaper solution.
It is sad that we must fear technological innovation because of the abuses that seem to abound as a result, and Microsoft is doing very little to help in this regard.
You miss my point, actually. I know that Babylon 5 was planned to end at season 5, but what TNT did to it to make it more "attractive" actually hurt the fifth season badly (for example, the sex scene with Byron and Lyta Alexander). If it were not for the few good episodes of season five (almost entirely based around the Londo/G'kar (sp?) sub-plot), the season would have been a total waste. It was a great letdown from the previous seasons. They did not kill Babylon 5 per se (it was supposed to end), but in my mind, they killed it prematurely in the midst of season 5. Maybe it would have been better to just wrap it up at the end of season 4.
Then, of course, Crusade died in favor of WWF. *sigh*
What is more interesting than the idea of being true pioneers?...A show I WOULD have watched eagerly would have been one BEFORE all this technology (save the ability to travel at warp). NO transporters, NO phasers, NO tractor beams...
Sigh... Unfortunately, that show has come and gone (Firefly). There was fast space travel, but no weapons or tractor beams (just six shooters) and silence in outer space (how many sci-fi shows can say that?). There was a sense of adventure and being on the fringe of known space (although no alien creatures). Sadly, it seems that the executives only believe in shallow cliches, sex and big explosions. Anything else, no matter how good it may be, does not hold their attention long. Just look at what TNT did with Babylon 5 in the fifth season. Were it not for "The Fall of Centauri Prime", the entire last season would have been a wash.
Wait. Is that TV executives' opinions or just most of the television audience in America? That's even more depressing.
Actually, Firefly was already quite good in its first season. The acting and writing was very good, and the crew really had excellent chemistry. It is true that the show did not really have a strong plot (it was just starting to get into the main story), but the characters were already well defined and joy to watch. There was a good amount of mystery that definitely added to the enjoyment. Unfortunately, we will never get to see where they were going.
I have over the years watched less and less television due to the poor quality of the nearly every show until Firefly came along. I did not watch it because of Whedon. I had very little experience with any of his shows, and being somewhat anit-vampires, his name was actually more of a detriment in my mind (misguided or not). I watched the show because I was hoping to find a good sci-fi show that I could really get into, and I did. In my mind, the quality of the show had little to do with names but rather the care put into the dialog, the attention to detail (no sound in space), and the incredible acting and chemistry (especially for a first season). Its really too bad that Firefly is gone for good.
I think a distinction needs to be made between the "Christian Church's suppression" in the Dark Ages, and the amazing Reformation that occurred in the Northern Europe. The former was brought about by a strict control from the leadership (the Catholic church) that discouraged an individual from reading the Bible for themselves by keeping the language primarily Latin which very few people could read and understand. With the Reformation and the freedom for people to read and learn on their own (the original idea of Christianity, by the way... people were commended by questioning the apostles' presentation by "searching the scriptures"), Northern Europe changed dramatically with an explosion of art, music, and science.
This transformation is largely ignored by modern historians, perhaps because of its religious overtones, but it was just as transforming as the Renaissance and took place nearly a century before. Certainly, the amazing feats of the Arabs influenced the Renaissance, but you must not forget the profound impact of the Reformation as well.
Also, this notion of the Christianity being anti-science is completely wrong. The Bible is filled with many accurate references to the animals and environment of the Middle East including interesting references to creatures that are now extinct. It also encourages proper use of the land by commanding that the land be left fallow every seven years to preserve it. It actually should encourage Christians to research and discover more about the universe as it is a reflection on the power and person of God. In Genesis, it records that God gave man dominion over the earth and its inhabitants. I know many intelligent Christians who pursue science just for this very reason. Just because a few people took over the religion for their own purposes and powerbase does not mean that the religion itself is to blame. Those who propose that Islam is a good religion understand this well with some of the current (and recently deposed) regimes in the Middle East.
That was definitely an interesting article, and I appreciate what he is trying say (I actually rather liked LISP), but unfortunately, the one thing that stuck with me is his comments on the SUV. Give me a break!
I just recently purchased an SUV, and it was not so I could buy a "masculine" van. It was because I live in Montana where a four wheel drive vehicle is almost a necessity. I wanted to have a vehicle that could comfortably carry passengers (most trucks do not qualify here unless they are even more wasteful than the SUV) and also sensitive sound equipment while driving on often sub-optimal roads (especially in the winter). Vans just don't cut it when driving on difficult roads like an SUV can (ie. rutted dirt roads), and the extra clearance is definitely a good thing.
I wish very much that my SUV got better gas milage, but until they can build a hibrid that can perform like my current car for an affordable price (ie. not 50% more if the option even exists), I will stick with my SUV. To all of you who bash and hate SUV's: don't judge those who drive them until you have walked in their shoes.
A quick question for someone who might know. This talk of taking out satellites got me wondering if an EMP could be used to accomplish this. Can EMP's travel into space? Do the satellites have shielding against this? It is just an interesting thought especially when one considers how much intelligence and surveillance means to a successful war. Building a device that could generate a blanket EMP would probably be easier to accomplish (or aquire) than targeting with missles.
Admittedly, I am out of my area of expertise here, so if someone more knowlegable than I could comment, I would greatly appreciate it. I certainly hope that this is not a possibility.
What theological implications? I find this argument actually rather funny. It is not as if the existence of life on other planets suddenly disproves religion (or Christianity in specifics). The Bible never says that there is not life on other planets, nor does any of its doctrine rely upon this fact -- especially in the case of non-intelligent life which is what we are dealing with here. Discovery of life on Mars would not destroy my faith. Rather, it would merely show more of God's glory in the variety of His creation.
True, but what on earth are these scripts supposed to do? You could not tell except by opening them one at a time and examining the code (which was uncommented).
A working programmer often has to solve business problems that aren't unique or exciting.
Quite true. However, speaking as a programmer, I have found that even in mundane tasks I get enjoyment out of perfecting my craft. I look to make my processes just a little faster or more robust, even when doing something that I have done before (if I cannot use or do not have access to a library). I also find that the creation of new libraries is frequently needed which also allows me to perfect my ability to design and develop useful libraries.
I have worked on many projects both interesting and not, but that does not mean that enjoyment cannot be found in even the mundane things. If nothing else, I find enjoyment in the ability to pump out a simple program very swiftly without errors. There is always room for improvement.
The key, of course, to any job is to learn to enjoy what you do, even when this task is difficult. About the only time I have had morale problems with work related to people I had to work with (or insane MFC libraries... but I digress). The work of developing itself remains a joy to me.
I have seen something much like this. I was going through some directories of a previous employee whose code I was inheriting, and I came across a directory filled with SQL scripts. They were all named:
z.sql
zz.sql
zzz.sql
zzzz.sql
zzzzz.sql ... all the way to zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.sql. I kid you not!
Even individual speech is not entirely protected by the constitution. For example, you cannot openly talk about an assasination on the President without getting into serious legal trouble. Free speech is allowed only until it starts seriously infringing on other people's rights.
I am not sure, however, if this would apply to the issue of e-mail, and I am really not sure how to stop the spam problem without a change in the SMTP protocol. Legislation will still require implementation which will be difficult given the way e-mail currently works. It will take a great deal of time and money to track down the source of spam and prosecute. While it may save people some headaches, it will only shift some of the monetary cost to the government (and then, of course, to use tax payers -- remember, nothing is free). The best bet will probably be a technological change.
I believe in de-evolution. God made the world perfect, man fell, and its been going downhill ever since!
Slashdot Mirror
From the article:
It is now the law in Japan to enforce recycling. I doubt the companies would be pursuing this even with the concerns of Japan's small geographic size due to cost, but government legislation is requiring it.
I'm not usually a fan of legislation like this, but sometimes it is necessary to ensure that businesses do not cause great harm to society or the environment (example, uncontrolled mining). However, in order to protect our own companies, if any such legislation is introduced, we should expect and enforce the same for all imported products. We should not expect our companies to abide by certain environmental laws without forcing their competition to do the same... especially when we are already having a problem with losing money and jobs to foreign offices.
From the article: "N the 1997" N?! Now even the New York Times is slipping into Net-speak. *sigh* My old high school English teachers must be in agony. So much for the American education system....
Something else that I have yet to see in this discussion is the cost for safety and environmental laws. The American government has been many restrictions and regulations on companies that have made it very expensive to produce physical goods. These restrictions are much reduced or non-existent in most of the countries that provide these materials. Now, I am not saying that we should remove these measures -- taking care of the environment and people's safety is important -- however we are adding an extra cost to American companies that other countries do not need to face putting local production at a disadvantage. As a result, we no longer have the ability to produce steel in our country, and our manufacturing capability is extremely small.
It makes me more than a little nervous to realize that we have virtually no production capability within our country. We had better hope that our neighbors will continue to be willing to trade hard goods for our "information" technology. I really wonder sometimes on what exactly our economy is running other than an increasingly large bubble of debt (you consumers better go out and buy more, though, for the sake of the economy). Scary.
Um... not really. As in the article:
However, this does sound like it is quite feasible. We just have to realize that all projects, even ones for which we have the technology, take time to implement.
Generally because of infrastructure. In the cities, you have a much higher number of people per mile of phone line than you do out in the country. For example, here in Montana, you could have a phone line running for 15-20 miles just to reach two or three ranches. Building and maintaining all of those miles of phone line is very expensive, and if the people in rural areas were required to pay for this, they would likely not be able to afford phones at all.
That said, when I hear about the billions involved in this project ($6 billion), my mind just screams pork-barrel. Like most governement projects, I am certain there is a very large percentage of waste.
Sure. I'm thinking that is almost the entire cast with the exception of Obi Wan. Ewan MacGregor is an incredible actor that somehow managed to breathe life into an otherwise horrendous script. Whenever he was on screen, there was an energy that was severely lacking anywhere else. Maybe they should just forget the whole Anakin story and just follow Obi Wan for a while! That might actually be slightly entertaining (afterall, the best lines from the movie are all his).
The only other hilight I can possibly think of was Yoda's little battle, but after the "Yo-da-man" commercials, even that scene leaves a bad taste in my mouth. *sigh*
As for Natalie Portman, while she is a very attractive gal, she is an incredibly stiff actor. Of course, given the overall quality of the film, that may have a lot to do with the director and his fascination with technology over story-telling and character.
Between X-Men, Matrix, and Lord of the Rings, the new Star Wars trilogy is scarcely worth mentioning.
Funny, I had the opposite reaction. Why are we equating the teachings of an amazing work of literature, indeed the very Word of God Himself, that teaches deep theological truths and a way to lead a wholesome, meaningful life in service and love to man as an act of worship to God with a collection of adrenaline-filled, pop-culture eye candy (albeit entertaining eye candy) that encourages immorality and speaks nothing of God at all. Besdies, the movies are obviously not based on Christianity alone, but rather it is a strange conglomeration of many religions with heavy emphasis on gnosticism.
Also, it is actually nearly impossible for a film made by people from the United States not to have some Christian overtones. This is a country based on Christian values (if not beliefs). Given our nations strong Christian history, there is bound to be more than a fair amount of influence. I believe it is this influence that people are seeing and clinging to, but I must emphasize (and I believe the makers of the Matrix would agree) it is influence not belief.
I also find your description of "confused hallucinogenic gibberish" an interesting one. The Bible is actually a very logical, structured book. It is highly regarded as one of the most accurate historical books of its time (in regards to references to historical places and events). Whether you agree with its teachings or not, there is a great amount of wisdom and insight to be found in its pages. The book of Ecclesistes contains incredible observations made by King Solomon who sought meaning in life through all of the pursuits we see so prevalently in our society today (entertainment, food, career, sex, accolades). His observations are truly timeless. Also, given the fact that its contents were written over a span of 1500 years by many authors of varying social positions (kings, doctors, shepherds, etc.), the internal consistencies are nothing short of amazing.
There is indeed much of Montana (especially eastern) that is pretty much unwired, but you would probably be surprised how much Missoula and Bozeman have changed in the last 10 years, Bozeman especially. It is no longer the small cowboy town it used to be... much to my chagrin. But compared to the big cities, yeah, I guess we have quite a ways to go. However, you do not have to go out-of-state anymore to be successful.
I must admit that I find the lack of Powder River surprising as well.
Not to shatter illusions too much, but believe it or not, Montana does have Internet access (afterall, I am posting right now, eh?). In fact, there is a growing Internet community with online technology companies right here in Bozeman including Right Now Technologies and my own company, Bridger Systems. With the influx of people into the western half of the state over the past ten years, we are getting more and more infrastructure. Though cable modems have not yet arrived in my town (I believe it exists in Missoula and Billings), we have DSL and wireless broadband access. Furthermore, there is a strong computer science department at Montana State University. Montana is not quite the isolated wilderness that people think it is.
I am assuming that your response is in regard to the use of the word "perfect" in my previous post... a bad choice of words on my part. What I meant was the way that everything works together in such an orderly fashion even after the fall has corrupted the world.
In regards to time, my argument was merely the fact that our world is not nearly old enough to account for the vast amount of time required for evolution to have occurred. I apologize that I did not state this more clearly. Also, I definitely believe in the fall as is evident from my signature. I am not sure that I agree with your statement about "those who wilfully refuse" in that I am not sure I understand clearly what you are saying. I would be interested in discussing this with you off the boards. You can e-mail me at khomar_07@yahoo.com.
As a Christian, you should recognize the need to promote unity in the Body of Christ and not try to cause division ("Boy them fundies got that wrong"). The issue raised here was not based on any one denomination or theological conviction. The people who spread this myth are merely misinformed (though the original perpetrator may not have had such pure motives), and if they actually knew the truth, would not wish to spread the lie. Being a "fundamentalist" Christian merely means that they believe that the entire Bible is the inerrant word of God -- an issue that can generate interesting debate on its own merit but not with the issue at hand. Unfortunately, there are some among our camp (yes, I would be considered a fundamentalist) who are a little too zealous to spread the gospel using examples like Einstein without doing research into their sources.
As one other poster put it, even if this myth were true, all it would prove is that Einstein believed in God. There are plenty of examples of highly intelligent people on both sides of the God debate, but that does little save perhaps make one feel more confident in their position.
Also, your comment about seeing God in nature is not entirely correct. Romans 1:19-21 says
According to this passage, the proof that God exists is in fact visible within nature and the minds of man. How else can you truly explain the complexity and perfection of a young world (and it is young... how else can you explain the salt content of the ocean? Given its current input of sediment, a million year old ocean would be even saltier than the Dead Sea.) The evidence has been displayed for all to see, but we chosen to find another way rather than admit that there is a God and therefore someone to hold us accountable for our actions.
Oh, and by the way, it is spelled Pentecost.
He is risen indeed!
It isn't the product activation that is the problem. It is not much of an inconvienience in and of itself. Rather, it is the restriction that you can only install the operating system X number of times or make a certain number of hardware changes before the package fails. Granted, this probably won't effect too many people, but it is the trend that concerns me. If this is the addition in Windows XP, what kind of restrictions are they going to have in Longhorn?
With each release of their operating system, Microsoft is gathering more and more information about our computers and allowing less and less freedom. I find myself trusting Microsoft less and less over time which makes me nervous about any new purchases of their products. I understand their reasoning from a business perspective in trying to get increased revenue and holding onto market share, but it doesn't help me as the customer to feel too comfortable with the way things are going.
I absolutely agree. In fact, I was hired just for the fact that I have UNIX exprience, and they wanted to at least have a little support in that area. Our company has since ported some of our more easily ported software to Linux and Solaris, and other research is being done for moving more of our software and personnel to Linux.
It's really rather sad the way I have begun to look at Microsoft releases. I used to actually look forward to them because generally they were a great improvement over their predessors. Windows 98 was a great upgrade from 95. From a purely technological point of view, Windows XP had a lot to say for its stability. The licensing scheme, however, was disturbing.
As Microsoft tightens down more and more on their licensing, I begin to dread anything that comes out of Redmond. I would embrace the improvements and innovations if it weren't for that tightening sensation of the noose around my neck. I will likely not even touch Longhorn unless I absolutely must. The cost and licensing look to be far too prohibitive, and I fear to give too much control to Microsoft lest I find all of my creations suddenly removed from my control.
At current rate, Microsoft is quickly digging their own grave. My company, formerly a very Windows centric shop, is starting to talk more and more about moving to UNIX due to the cost of upgrades. Longhorn may actually prove to be the breaking point at which, due to overly restrictive licensing, the corporate world starts seeking a cheaper solution.
It is sad that we must fear technological innovation because of the abuses that seem to abound as a result, and Microsoft is doing very little to help in this regard.
You miss my point, actually. I know that Babylon 5 was planned to end at season 5, but what TNT did to it to make it more "attractive" actually hurt the fifth season badly (for example, the sex scene with Byron and Lyta Alexander). If it were not for the few good episodes of season five (almost entirely based around the Londo/G'kar (sp?) sub-plot), the season would have been a total waste. It was a great letdown from the previous seasons. They did not kill Babylon 5 per se (it was supposed to end), but in my mind, they killed it prematurely in the midst of season 5. Maybe it would have been better to just wrap it up at the end of season 4.
Then, of course, Crusade died in favor of WWF. *sigh*
What is more interesting than the idea of being true pioneers?...A show I WOULD have watched eagerly would have been one BEFORE all this technology (save the ability to travel at warp). NO transporters, NO phasers, NO tractor beams...
Sigh... Unfortunately, that show has come and gone (Firefly). There was fast space travel, but no weapons or tractor beams (just six shooters) and silence in outer space (how many sci-fi shows can say that?). There was a sense of adventure and being on the fringe of known space (although no alien creatures). Sadly, it seems that the executives only believe in shallow cliches, sex and big explosions. Anything else, no matter how good it may be, does not hold their attention long. Just look at what TNT did with Babylon 5 in the fifth season. Were it not for "The Fall of Centauri Prime", the entire last season would have been a wash.
Wait. Is that TV executives' opinions or just most of the television audience in America? That's even more depressing.
Actually, Firefly was already quite good in its first season. The acting and writing was very good, and the crew really had excellent chemistry. It is true that the show did not really have a strong plot (it was just starting to get into the main story), but the characters were already well defined and joy to watch. There was a good amount of mystery that definitely added to the enjoyment. Unfortunately, we will never get to see where they were going.
I have over the years watched less and less television due to the poor quality of the nearly every show until Firefly came along. I did not watch it because of Whedon. I had very little experience with any of his shows, and being somewhat anit-vampires, his name was actually more of a detriment in my mind (misguided or not). I watched the show because I was hoping to find a good sci-fi show that I could really get into, and I did. In my mind, the quality of the show had little to do with names but rather the care put into the dialog, the attention to detail (no sound in space), and the incredible acting and chemistry (especially for a first season). Its really too bad that Firefly is gone for good.
I think a distinction needs to be made between the "Christian Church's suppression" in the Dark Ages, and the amazing Reformation that occurred in the Northern Europe. The former was brought about by a strict control from the leadership (the Catholic church) that discouraged an individual from reading the Bible for themselves by keeping the language primarily Latin which very few people could read and understand. With the Reformation and the freedom for people to read and learn on their own (the original idea of Christianity, by the way... people were commended by questioning the apostles' presentation by "searching the scriptures"), Northern Europe changed dramatically with an explosion of art, music, and science.
This transformation is largely ignored by modern historians, perhaps because of its religious overtones, but it was just as transforming as the Renaissance and took place nearly a century before. Certainly, the amazing feats of the Arabs influenced the Renaissance, but you must not forget the profound impact of the Reformation as well.
Also, this notion of the Christianity being anti-science is completely wrong. The Bible is filled with many accurate references to the animals and environment of the Middle East including interesting references to creatures that are now extinct. It also encourages proper use of the land by commanding that the land be left fallow every seven years to preserve it. It actually should encourage Christians to research and discover more about the universe as it is a reflection on the power and person of God. In Genesis, it records that God gave man dominion over the earth and its inhabitants. I know many intelligent Christians who pursue science just for this very reason. Just because a few people took over the religion for their own purposes and powerbase does not mean that the religion itself is to blame. Those who propose that Islam is a good religion understand this well with some of the current (and recently deposed) regimes in the Middle East.
That was definitely an interesting article, and I appreciate what he is trying say (I actually rather liked LISP), but unfortunately, the one thing that stuck with me is his comments on the SUV. Give me a break!
I just recently purchased an SUV, and it was not so I could buy a "masculine" van. It was because I live in Montana where a four wheel drive vehicle is almost a necessity. I wanted to have a vehicle that could comfortably carry passengers (most trucks do not qualify here unless they are even more wasteful than the SUV) and also sensitive sound equipment while driving on often sub-optimal roads (especially in the winter). Vans just don't cut it when driving on difficult roads like an SUV can (ie. rutted dirt roads), and the extra clearance is definitely a good thing.
I wish very much that my SUV got better gas milage, but until they can build a hibrid that can perform like my current car for an affordable price (ie. not 50% more if the option even exists), I will stick with my SUV. To all of you who bash and hate SUV's: don't judge those who drive them until you have walked in their shoes.
Okay, I will get off my soap box now. *sigh*
A quick question for someone who might know. This talk of taking out satellites got me wondering if an EMP could be used to accomplish this. Can EMP's travel into space? Do the satellites have shielding against this? It is just an interesting thought especially when one considers how much intelligence and surveillance means to a successful war. Building a device that could generate a blanket EMP would probably be easier to accomplish (or aquire) than targeting with missles.
Admittedly, I am out of my area of expertise here, so if someone more knowlegable than I could comment, I would greatly appreciate it. I certainly hope that this is not a possibility.
Aside from all of the theoligical implications
What theological implications? I find this argument actually rather funny. It is not as if the existence of life on other planets suddenly disproves religion (or Christianity in specifics). The Bible never says that there is not life on other planets, nor does any of its doctrine rely upon this fact -- especially in the case of non-intelligent life which is what we are dealing with here. Discovery of life on Mars would not destroy my faith. Rather, it would merely show more of God's glory in the variety of His creation.
True, but what on earth are these scripts supposed to do? You could not tell except by opening them one at a time and examining the code (which was uncommented).
A working programmer often has to solve business problems that aren't unique or exciting.
Quite true. However, speaking as a programmer, I have found that even in mundane tasks I get enjoyment out of perfecting my craft. I look to make my processes just a little faster or more robust, even when doing something that I have done before (if I cannot use or do not have access to a library). I also find that the creation of new libraries is frequently needed which also allows me to perfect my ability to design and develop useful libraries.
I have worked on many projects both interesting and not, but that does not mean that enjoyment cannot be found in even the mundane things. If nothing else, I find enjoyment in the ability to pump out a simple program very swiftly without errors. There is always room for improvement.
The key, of course, to any job is to learn to enjoy what you do, even when this task is difficult. About the only time I have had morale problems with work related to people I had to work with (or insane MFC libraries... but I digress). The work of developing itself remains a joy to me.
I have seen something much like this. I was going through some directories of a previous employee whose code I was inheriting, and I came across a directory filled with SQL scripts. They were all named:
z.sqlzz.sql
zzz.sql
zzzz.sql
zzzzz.sql
...
all the way to zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.sql. I kid you not!
Even individual speech is not entirely protected by the constitution. For example, you cannot openly talk about an assasination on the President without getting into serious legal trouble. Free speech is allowed only until it starts seriously infringing on other people's rights.
I am not sure, however, if this would apply to the issue of e-mail, and I am really not sure how to stop the spam problem without a change in the SMTP protocol. Legislation will still require implementation which will be difficult given the way e-mail currently works. It will take a great deal of time and money to track down the source of spam and prosecute. While it may save people some headaches, it will only shift some of the monetary cost to the government (and then, of course, to use tax payers -- remember, nothing is free). The best bet will probably be a technological change.
I believe in de-evolution. God made the world perfect, man fell, and its been going downhill ever since!