But to have a car drive me around on its own free will is a level of trust I wouldn't leave with Microsoft or any car manufacturer around today.
I would certainly let a computer drive me around in a car -- whenever I fly somewhere I'm already trusting my life to a computer.
Modern commercial passanger airplanes come with fly-by-wire flight control system. That means that the onboard computers essentially decide whether or not to adjust the flight surfaces according to the pilot's wishes -- if the computer system gets fuxored, there's no way to fly the plane manually. Doesn't seem to be that big a problem.
What ever happened to the straightforward and honest approach to getting shopping habits demographic information?
Not efficient and comprehensive enough. Too many a people will refuse to give that information and the companies want information... information... information...
It's kind of funny that this subject gets so much time on/.
If you're a minor, you've got no say in the matter. If you're an adult, why the hell should you care? If you want to buy a restricted game to your kid, go ahead and make his/her day.
Of course the science should not overrule the democratic process.
Scientists and other logically thinking people must work within the system to guarantee that logical decisions are made. I don't quite understand why you are so hell-bent on emphasizing the undemocratic ways of influencing the society.
As stupid and ignorant as the people supporting all the anti-science BS are, they have a right not to have their tax money spent on things they consider sinful and immoral.
Uh. No they don't. Where you live, they have the right to take their kid out of the class and homeschool them. Over here, there is not even the homeschool option.
I pay taxes and my money is used on stuff that I don't approve of. Do I have a problem with it? Of course not. That's the way how a society works! Sharing and making compromises. "My tax money should not be used on stuff that I don't like" is nothing but self-centered Ayn Rand inspired whining.
public schools should be banned from teaching science because they incapable of presenting it correctly and will only cause confusion
Uh. What's that? Are you advocating that schools should stop teaching science altogether or that just public school should stop teaching science? If you think the problem is with the public schools, then the obvious strategy is to increase the funding so that they can do their job right. If you're saying that teaching science in schools should be dropped altogether, then I don't know what to say.
I don't understand how you can use X-windows as an example of a standardized GUI and still quote two GUI kits in the same sentence. X-windows is still seriously broken in the way that it doesn't enforce a single, unified and standardized interface. Until there's only one window manager and widget set, the problem has not been solved.
It's time to stop using the internet and just pull the plug. The spammers and hackers have won. Usenet's already useless, e-mail's getting close to it and web's getting there as well. Game over.
I don't want to maintain a firewall just to prevent some dickhead trashing my home computer. I don't want to keep updating browsers and patching the operating system in an obsessive-compulsive manner so that I can browse the net.
Why should Microsoft be forced to help their competitors? If the competitors get stomped, it's their bloody fault for not coming up with a better product.
Uh. Are the books that Google's service provides copyrighted or has their copyright already expired (as is the case in the project Gutenberg)?
If they are still under a copyright, I don't see how Google could provide such a service. AFAIK, I am not allowed to borrow a book from a library and make a complete photocopy of it even for private use.
send a robot with a scanning tunneling electron microscope, a chemistry package, a DNA sequencer, and 10 other instruments related to the science of microbes, and then study the collected data remotely.
And how many such probes have we have sent out? How much have we missed out by not having people out (desk jockeys with joysticks don't count) there deciding what to probe with the existing hardware we have actually managed to land?
Quite frankly, as a professional scientist, the argument that computers and probes make better scientists than us human beings offends me. It's like saying that once you've mastered how to use a chemistry package or a DNA sequencer, you're a scientist. That's just technique. Science is intuitive art.
Just watch. All this will be brought to nothing by the unmanned space flight mafia. It's just too attractive politically to push for unmanned space flight where there are no risks. We're slowly becoming a race of cowards when it comes to exploring new frontiers.
So, what's your proposal? We don't have all the facts now, but we have circumstantial evidence and the clock for human extinction is most likely ticking.
Should we wait until we've got consensus on all scientific facts (which we'll most likely never have; just witness the recent Intelligent Design nonsense) or act rationally, assuming the worst case scenario and encourage research on new energy sources, ozone-friendly technology and so on? Us greenies are not calling for the destruction of the modern society; we want to see a rational society.
Is it really that hard to give up the gas-guzzling SUVs, oil based economy and various wasteful industrial products? Is it really hurting your geek pride so much to recycle and adopt environmentally friendly tech instead?
Slashdot Mirror
I would certainly let a computer drive me around in a car -- whenever I fly somewhere I'm already trusting my life to a computer.
Modern commercial passanger airplanes come with fly-by-wire flight control system. That means that the onboard computers essentially decide whether or not to adjust the flight surfaces according to the pilot's wishes -- if the computer system gets fuxored, there's no way to fly the plane manually. Doesn't seem to be that big a problem.
Not efficient and comprehensive enough. Too many a people will refuse to give that information and the companies want information... information... information...
You, my friend, are using slippery slope logic.
If you're a minor, you've got no say in the matter. If you're an adult, why the hell should you care? If you want to buy a restricted game to your kid, go ahead and make his/her day.
Scientists and other logically thinking people must work within the system to guarantee that logical decisions are made. I don't quite understand why you are so hell-bent on emphasizing the undemocratic ways of influencing the society.
If they are in the majority then that's what that particular country is going to do. Science cannot and should not overule the democratic process.
Uh. No they don't. Where you live, they have the right to take their kid out of the class and homeschool them. Over here, there is not even the homeschool option.
I pay taxes and my money is used on stuff that I don't approve of. Do I have a problem with it? Of course not. That's the way how a society works! Sharing and making compromises. "My tax money should not be used on stuff that I don't like" is nothing but self-centered Ayn Rand inspired whining.
Uh. What's that? Are you advocating that schools should stop teaching science altogether or that just public school should stop teaching science? If you think the problem is with the public schools, then the obvious strategy is to increase the funding so that they can do their job right. If you're saying that teaching science in schools should be dropped altogether, then I don't know what to say.
Not teaching science in schools is not an option.
I don't understand how you can use X-windows as an example of a standardized GUI and still quote two GUI kits in the same sentence. X-windows is still seriously broken in the way that it doesn't enforce a single, unified and standardized interface. Until there's only one window manager and widget set, the problem has not been solved.
I don't want to maintain a firewall just to prevent some dickhead trashing my home computer. I don't want to keep updating browsers and patching the operating system in an obsessive-compulsive manner so that I can browse the net.
Oh well. It was great as long as it lasted.
Hahahaha! Brilliant!
A "better product" is both successful (ie. popular) and technologically up to date.
Why should Microsoft be forced to help their competitors? If the competitors get stomped, it's their bloody fault for not coming up with a better product.
It's the terrible secret of space!
If they are still under a copyright, I don't see how Google could provide such a service. AFAIK, I am not allowed to borrow a book from a library and make a complete photocopy of it even for private use.
It's a long trip in an elevator and the muzak will drive you crazy.
Or are you saying that the sites and topics and be chosen "on the ground"? If that's so, then why send anything up there?
Losing dollars and euros is cheap for politicians. Human life is less so.
And how many such probes have we have sent out? How much have we missed out by not having people out (desk jockeys with joysticks don't count) there deciding what to probe with the existing hardware we have actually managed to land?
Quite frankly, as a professional scientist, the argument that computers and probes make better scientists than us human beings offends me. It's like saying that once you've mastered how to use a chemistry package or a DNA sequencer, you're a scientist. That's just technique. Science is intuitive art.
PS. It's Scanning Tunneling Microscope (STM).
So, what you're essentially saying is that robots and computers are better explorers than men with brains?
Just watch. All this will be brought to nothing by the unmanned space flight mafia. It's just too attractive politically to push for unmanned space flight where there are no risks. We're slowly becoming a race of cowards when it comes to exploring new frontiers.
That is just so wrong. See Electric Universe for the real truth about the sun and solar flares...
Should we wait until we've got consensus on all scientific facts (which we'll most likely never have; just witness the recent Intelligent Design nonsense) or act rationally, assuming the worst case scenario and encourage research on new energy sources, ozone-friendly technology and so on? Us greenies are not calling for the destruction of the modern society; we want to see a rational society.
Is it really that hard to give up the gas-guzzling SUVs, oil based economy and various wasteful industrial products? Is it really hurting your geek pride so much to recycle and adopt environmentally friendly tech instead?
What you are proposing is paralysis by analysis.
As long as you don't have a consensus on the facts, you assume and act according to the worst case scenario.