Okay you know that it is Liquid Crystal Display but you say LCD Displays! Come on editors someone should have caught that and changed it so it doesn't look so bad.
It is no surprise to me that comments like this are starting to appear from people who should know better. In the past century much of the impetus for innovation in the day to day lives of Americans, has come from, at some point, basic research. In the past few decades we have been reducing funding on basic research and thus less is being done. Now with that said Mr. Donofrio obviously isn't aware of other sectors of technology. Biotech is getting funded by both private donors as well as government agencies. I am reasonably sure there will continue to be breakthroughs in that field for at least a few years to come. But all of science relies on developing technologies that are needed to learn more about some basic system. These type of experiments are not being funded. And in the long run if this does not change I could see Mr. Donofrio statement being closer to reality.
So here we are again, another long rant from two sides of an argument where those arguing are not in possesion of most of the facts.
It always amazes me that these two sides will get into bitter feuds over this subject and no one seems to want to put it in any context. For me what it comes down to is this: we can spend a lot of money, time, and research trying to find out if we are a contributing factor to global warming, only to discover it may be too late, or we can spend even more money, time, and research trying to change the way we interact with the atmosphere. And in the end if those who claim that global warming is impacted by humans are right and we listened to them then we are on our way to fixing it and have a cleaner environment for the future. If they are wrong and we listened to them we still have a cleaner environment and we might just find that all those chemicals we were pumping into the atmosphere had other effects which would then be limited. If, on the other hand we don't listen to them and they are right then we have to learn to live in a new world climate and deal with the vast ammounts of crap we have been pumping into the atmosphere for centuries.
What it comes down to, for me, is this: do we want to risk the global climate on this? Is it worth the piece of mind to know that what happens is out of our control instead of our fault?
I am not sure what senior managment means in your organisation but if what you call "senior managment" can't get the IT department to change, then the organisation has bigger problems. What I suspect is that senior management actually could get the IT department to change but thinks it is best to do what the IT department says and tell you that they can't change anything.
If my suspicions are true then you should listen to the other posts and take a good look at your job and see if you would be best served by finding a new employer.
Yeah so we should just ignore that China has a repressive regeme! What is your point here? That you can criticize something if you have, at anytime, in anyway supported it? Why can't people seem to understand that hypocriocy doesn't mean that the criticism is wrong. Sure I have no clue where most of this Dell I am typing on was made and I am almost certain that someone was underpaid, abused, or enslaved to make something in it. Should I then accept that it is okay to underpay, abuse or enslave workers?
Sure it makes perfect sense. You see there are parts of our government that are controlled by the people and parts that are controlled by corps. MFN trading status is given out by the latter and this is being implemented by the former.
Your analogy concerning OSHA is very wrong. First the companies that we would be censuring are US companies, i.e. we can and do censure our own companies for not doing business in the way we want them to. This is how government works, if those companies want to get the benefits the US provides them in dealing with other countries we have every right to say how they can do business. Sure if we say you can't abide by Chinese law China also has every right to say they cannot do business in their country. Seems to make sense to me.
Wait so you think that the GPL, which is simply a copyright license, should be changed to make it so that totalitiarian governments could not use them? Do you really think this would have ANY effect on said governments? China in particular has shown it does not respect US copyrights when it isn't in its own best interests.
Making a rule in the GPL might send a message to those who actually read the full license but it certainly isn't going to stop any totalitiarian government from taking the code and using it as they see fit.
How is it inconsistent to be able to destroy something but not be able to fix it. I can push a glass of the table very easily but putting all the pieces back is near impossbile. And even if I get it back to something that looks like a glass doesn't mean that it will hold water. There are many things in the world that we can have some effect on but very few that we can reliably control that effect. Weather is a very good example of this. We try and seed rain but don't have any control on where it goes after we made the clouds. Basically all I am saying is that there is a very large difference between ablity to cause change and ability to regulate. Change can be easy consistent regulation is very hard.
The sun doesn't raise the average temperature systematically, otherwise we would all be dead. The ammount of energy that the Earth gets from the Sun is, over time, exactly the same as it puts out. This fluctuates with the ammount of green house gasses in the atmosphere, but in general the Earth re-radiates the energy it gets from the Sun.
That said if we convert the energy into electricity then use it to power our lights and stuff it will get back into the atmosphere and get radiated away. So the energy is there for the taking.
I am not a lawyer but . . . I am not sure that you are correct. I believe there would be a problem with a defendant's right to be tried only once in criminal cases, if the government could simply drop the case if they thought they were going to lose then bring it up again later. I believe there is a point, after which, you must ask the judges permission to end the trial.
That is the nail in the coffin of MOST companion models for the Sun. The Nemesis theory actually can deal with that see this article for a simple description.
If the orbits are correct then you can hide the companion from our view. Very unlikily but stranger things are seen in the galaxy.
I, perhaps alone, feel that I should put things in some perspective. There are things I can do something about and things I can't. The scale of the two are drastically different. I guess it all boils down to: there are many things that we have no control over and we really shouldn't get so angry or violent when we come across those things because they dominate not only our social circles, geographic areas, continents, solar system, etc.
I am small so I should not be annoyed that I am not bigger.
I do not know why you think that twin stars mean they are remarkably identical. There are, in fact, many examples that we know of where a star and neutron star orbit eachother, or a star and a black hole, or a neutron star and a black hole. These all came from a star orbiting star scenario and the two were not remarkably identical. Secondly it is still possible that the sun has a twin that it orbits which we have not properly characterized. A brown dwarf would be a reasonable example of a possible twin. It does not put out much light and we might have thought it was further away than it actually is or it has yet to be seen.
While we would all like it if we could tell exactly how far away things are to within a high degree of accuracy it is simply not the case for all objects we see in the sky.
In anycase you link to a comment on slashdot where some other person has used NO references and asserted something. This doesn't seem like a good choice of refrence when you want to convince someone they are wrong. Do you have any ACTUAL statisitics on the subject? Do you have references that discuss what MS is doing to correct the problem?
Basically if MS is selling a unit that is over heating on some percentage of those sold that is a problem. If it is found that the defective units can get hot enough to start a fire that is much worse. Thus far it just seems like a lot of people spent a lot of time and money so they could play the Xbox 360 the same day it came out and then got a bad unit. They are pissed and want something to correct the wrong they feel was done to them.
I can understand this, if they start saying that they want way more than their time is worth then that is a problem but as it stands it seems like some non trivial percentage of 360 owners are dissatified due to defective units. That seems like a pretty good reason to have a class action law suit. But maybe that is just me.
They did not lift a paragraph from the press release. They lifted the WHOLE press release, added NO content, and then put their name as the author. That is plagarism. If they want to reprint the press release that is fine, just put the original author on it.
While I agree with you on the principle of copyright as it pertains to making money, I disagree that that is all that is at issue. Bloggers should be concerned because when main stream media takes their content and calls it their own the bloggers lose crediblity with those coming into the blogging world. While you may believe that the newspaper is dead, most others believe that it is just starting to die and if I go to a random website and see something that I read on the New York Times website with a different author listed then I am going to assume that the random website is the plagarist NOT the New York Times.
This isn't only a problem with main stream media taking blogger's content. Main stream media outlets have been taking content off the web and calling it their own for some time.
About two years ago there was a BBC article that stated some incorrect things about angular momentum, and me being a stickler for proper use of Physics terms, contacted the author. He stated that I was wrong and he "knew" it was correct because he had got the information from the researchers. I contacted the researchers, which were NOT listed in the article nor on the page anywhere, after being given their contact info by the BBC reporter. They agreed with me that the use of the term was incorrect but gave some reasons for why they thought it would be easier for the laymen to understand. They also pointed me to their press release on the subject. Lo and behold if their press release was not taken word for word and put on the BBC and tagged with a different author. When I brought this to the attention of the BBC reporter he started ignoring me.
Main stream media has been taking the content they choose and calling it their own for some time. Unfortunatly there doesn't seem to be anyway of controlling this because the media has a vested interest maintaining the status quo.
There is a problem with your reasoning as it pertains to the music industry: The consumer CANNOT buy the product from another producer. This makes it not a free market because there is no competition on the actual product. i.e. you can only buy the Van Zant Cd from Sony so if you want to listen to it you MUST buy it from them. However, after years of no competition, the consumer has found a way to pay what they think is reasonable, they download it off the net and say "screw you" to the producers of music in general.
The music industry has been pushing up prices without incurring new costs for years and the consumer is sick of getting LESS for then constant time dollar over the years, the current situation is the direct result of consumers being feed up with the status quo and instead of finding a new way to re-attract customers the recording industry has been treating them as criminals, which they where NOT before the RIAA got insane laws passed that criminalized copywrite infrignment.
The problem with your analogy is that the developers, in all likilihood, did not know what this is going to be used for. Sony purchased the rootkit from another company which may have some valid reason for making these. The part that is so bad is NOT the rootkit itself but that it was included in the CD.
There are a few problems with your idea:
1) The ISS does not have enough: power, people, or fuel to support a construction operation.
2) Putting enough mass for a 3 year ONE WAY voyage on a ship built to carry more than 7 people in the same orbit as the ISS is not a safe idea. If it was un powered at the time but was dragged towards the earth it could kill a lot of people on the ground.
3) Bush doesn't make the plans for how we are supposed to get to Mars. He does, however, have some say on the funding, which this whole article is about. So perhaps he should actually urge congress to properly fund NASA.
4) There is no way to get a ship to Mars in a few weeks. It is 78.32e6 km or 261 lt sec. You would need to be going.04 times the speed of light to get there in two weeks, that is not low thrust.
A Watt is a measure of power not the frequency of the carrier wave, i.e. think of this wattage as the amplitude of the sine wave. The frequency has to be much higher than than the number of bits being transmitted per second or at least the resonance modes needed to construct the square pulse from sine waves needs be.
Slashdot Mirror
Okay you know that it is Liquid Crystal Display but you say LCD Displays! Come on editors someone should have caught that and changed it so it doesn't look so bad.
It is no surprise to me that comments like this are starting to appear from people who should know better. In the past century much of the impetus for innovation in the day to day lives of Americans, has come from, at some point, basic research. In the past few decades we have been reducing funding on basic research and thus less is being done. Now with that said Mr. Donofrio obviously isn't aware of other sectors of technology. Biotech is getting funded by both private donors as well as government agencies. I am reasonably sure there will continue to be breakthroughs in that field for at least a few years to come. But all of science relies on developing technologies that are needed to learn more about some basic system. These type of experiments are not being funded. And in the long run if this does not change I could see Mr. Donofrio statement being closer to reality.
So here we are again, another long rant from two sides of an argument where those arguing are not in possesion of most of the facts.
It always amazes me that these two sides will get into bitter feuds over this subject and no one seems to want to put it in any context. For me what it comes down to is this: we can spend a lot of money, time, and research trying to find out if we are a contributing factor to global warming, only to discover it may be too late, or we can spend even more money, time, and research trying to change the way we interact with the atmosphere. And in the end if those who claim that global warming is impacted by humans are right and we listened to them then we are on our way to fixing it and have a cleaner environment for the future. If they are wrong and we listened to them we still have a cleaner environment and we might just find that all those chemicals we were pumping into the atmosphere had other effects which would then be limited. If, on the other hand we don't listen to them and they are right then we have to learn to live in a new world climate and deal with the vast ammounts of crap we have been pumping into the atmosphere for centuries.
What it comes down to, for me, is this: do we want to risk the global climate on this? Is it worth the piece of mind to know that what happens is out of our control instead of our fault?
I am not sure what senior managment means in your organisation but if what you call "senior managment" can't get the IT department to change, then the organisation has bigger problems. What I suspect is that senior management actually could get the IT department to change but thinks it is best to do what the IT department says and tell you that they can't change anything.
If my suspicions are true then you should listen to the other posts and take a good look at your job and see if you would be best served by finding a new employer.
Yeah so we should just ignore that China has a repressive regeme! What is your point here? That you can criticize something if you have, at anytime, in anyway supported it? Why can't people seem to understand that hypocriocy doesn't mean that the criticism is wrong. Sure I have no clue where most of this Dell I am typing on was made and I am almost certain that someone was underpaid, abused, or enslaved to make something in it. Should I then accept that it is okay to underpay, abuse or enslave workers?
Sure it makes perfect sense. You see there are parts of our government that are controlled by the people and parts that are controlled by corps. MFN trading status is given out by the latter and this is being implemented by the former.
Your analogy concerning OSHA is very wrong. First the companies that we would be censuring are US companies, i.e. we can and do censure our own companies for not doing business in the way we want them to. This is how government works, if those companies want to get the benefits the US provides them in dealing with other countries we have every right to say how they can do business. Sure if we say you can't abide by Chinese law China also has every right to say they cannot do business in their country. Seems to make sense to me.
Wait so you think that the GPL, which is simply a copyright license, should be changed to make it so that totalitiarian governments could not use them? Do you really think this would have ANY effect on said governments? China in particular has shown it does not respect US copyrights when it isn't in its own best interests.
Making a rule in the GPL might send a message to those who actually read the full license but it certainly isn't going to stop any totalitiarian government from taking the code and using it as they see fit.
How is it inconsistent to be able to destroy something but not be able to fix it. I can push a glass of the table very easily but putting all the pieces back is near impossbile. And even if I get it back to something that looks like a glass doesn't mean that it will hold water. There are many things in the world that we can have some effect on but very few that we can reliably control that effect. Weather is a very good example of this. We try and seed rain but don't have any control on where it goes after we made the clouds. Basically all I am saying is that there is a very large difference between ablity to cause change and ability to regulate. Change can be easy consistent regulation is very hard.
The sun doesn't raise the average temperature systematically, otherwise we would all be dead. The ammount of energy that the Earth gets from the Sun is, over time, exactly the same as it puts out. This fluctuates with the ammount of green house gasses in the atmosphere, but in general the Earth re-radiates the energy it gets from the Sun.
That said if we convert the energy into electricity then use it to power our lights and stuff it will get back into the atmosphere and get radiated away. So the energy is there for the taking.
I am not a lawyer but . . . I am not sure that you are correct. I believe there would be a problem with a defendant's right to be tried only once in criminal cases, if the government could simply drop the case if they thought they were going to lose then bring it up again later. I believe there is a point, after which, you must ask the judges permission to end the trial.
That is the nail in the coffin of MOST companion models for the Sun. The Nemesis theory actually can deal with that see this article for a simple description.
If the orbits are correct then you can hide the companion from our view. Very unlikily but stranger things are seen in the galaxy.
I, perhaps alone, feel that I should put things in some perspective. There are things I can do something about and things I can't. The scale of the two are drastically different. I guess it all boils down to: there are many things that we have no control over and we really shouldn't get so angry or violent when we come across those things because they dominate not only our social circles, geographic areas, continents, solar system, etc.
I am small so I should not be annoyed that I am not bigger.
We all are small. Hopefully when a majority of people realize that they will begin to see how small their problems with eachother really are.
I do not know why you think that twin stars mean they are remarkably identical. There are, in fact, many examples that we know of where a star and neutron star orbit eachother, or a star and a black hole, or a neutron star and a black hole. These all came from a star orbiting star scenario and the two were not remarkably identical. Secondly it is still possible that the sun has a twin that it orbits which we have not properly characterized. A brown dwarf would be a reasonable example of a possible twin. It does not put out much light and we might have thought it was further away than it actually is or it has yet to be seen.
While we would all like it if we could tell exactly how far away things are to within a high degree of accuracy it is simply not the case for all objects we see in the sky.
Unless the post was edited it said 1 YEN == .83 cents. That would be .0083 USD which is the number you posted.
Why must you be so rude?
In anycase you link to a comment on slashdot where some other person has used NO references and asserted something. This doesn't seem like a good choice of refrence when you want to convince someone they are wrong. Do you have any ACTUAL statisitics on the subject? Do you have references that discuss what MS is doing to correct the problem?
Basically if MS is selling a unit that is over heating on some percentage of those sold that is a problem. If it is found that the defective units can get hot enough to start a fire that is much worse. Thus far it just seems like a lot of people spent a lot of time and money so they could play the Xbox 360 the same day it came out and then got a bad unit. They are pissed and want something to correct the wrong they feel was done to them.
I can understand this, if they start saying that they want way more than their time is worth then that is a problem but as it stands it seems like some non trivial percentage of 360 owners are dissatified due to defective units. That seems like a pretty good reason to have a class action law suit. But maybe that is just me.
They did not lift a paragraph from the press release. They lifted the WHOLE press release, added NO content, and then put their name as the author. That is plagarism. If they want to reprint the press release that is fine, just put the original author on it.
While I agree with you on the principle of copyright as it pertains to making money, I disagree that that is all that is at issue. Bloggers should be concerned because when main stream media takes their content and calls it their own the bloggers lose crediblity with those coming into the blogging world. While you may believe that the newspaper is dead, most others believe that it is just starting to die and if I go to a random website and see something that I read on the New York Times website with a different author listed then I am going to assume that the random website is the plagarist NOT the New York Times.
Just something to think about.
This isn't only a problem with main stream media taking blogger's content. Main stream media outlets have been taking content off the web and calling it their own for some time.
About two years ago there was a BBC article that stated some incorrect things about angular momentum, and me being a stickler for proper use of Physics terms, contacted the author. He stated that I was wrong and he "knew" it was correct because he had got the information from the researchers. I contacted the researchers, which were NOT listed in the article nor on the page anywhere, after being given their contact info by the BBC reporter. They agreed with me that the use of the term was incorrect but gave some reasons for why they thought it would be easier for the laymen to understand. They also pointed me to their press release on the subject. Lo and behold if their press release was not taken word for word and put on the BBC and tagged with a different author. When I brought this to the attention of the BBC reporter he started ignoring me.
Main stream media has been taking the content they choose and calling it their own for some time. Unfortunatly there doesn't seem to be anyway of controlling this because the media has a vested interest maintaining the status quo.
Well that ends my rant.
It was translated from latin, which allows essentially infinite sentences.
There is a problem with your reasoning as it pertains to the music industry: The consumer CANNOT buy the product from another producer. This makes it not a free market because there is no competition on the actual product. i.e. you can only buy the Van Zant Cd from Sony so if you want to listen to it you MUST buy it from them. However, after years of no competition, the consumer has found a way to pay what they think is reasonable, they download it off the net and say "screw you" to the producers of music in general.
The music industry has been pushing up prices without incurring new costs for years and the consumer is sick of getting LESS for then constant time dollar over the years, the current situation is the direct result of consumers being feed up with the status quo and instead of finding a new way to re-attract customers the recording industry has been treating them as criminals, which they where NOT before the RIAA got insane laws passed that criminalized copywrite infrignment.
endrant
The problem with your analogy is that the developers, in all likilihood, did not know what this is going to be used for. Sony purchased the rootkit from another company which may have some valid reason for making these. The part that is so bad is NOT the rootkit itself but that it was included in the CD.
There are a few problems with your idea: .04 times the speed of light to get there in two weeks, that is not low thrust.
1) The ISS does not have enough: power, people, or fuel to support a construction operation.
2) Putting enough mass for a 3 year ONE WAY voyage on a ship built to carry more than 7 people in the same orbit as the ISS is not a safe idea. If it was un powered at the time but was dragged towards the earth it could kill a lot of people on the ground.
3) Bush doesn't make the plans for how we are supposed to get to Mars. He does, however, have some say on the funding, which this whole article is about. So perhaps he should actually urge congress to properly fund NASA.
4) There is no way to get a ship to Mars in a few weeks. It is 78.32e6 km or 261 lt sec. You would need to be going
A Watt is a measure of power not the frequency of the carrier wave, i.e. think of this wattage as the amplitude of the sine wave. The frequency has to be much higher than than the number of bits being transmitted per second or at least the resonance modes needed to construct the square pulse from sine waves needs be.