OK, fine. As a scientist and reasonable person, I must admit the possibility that our activities are having absolutely no effect on the environment, and the measurements of climate change are just part of the small natural oscillations in our system. I must admit this possibility, because we don't have enough evidence yet, and to dogmatically cling to a belief without evidence does us no credit, and is the mark of a different ideology.
But on the other hand, look at the problem from a practical perspective. Suppose that global warming is "false" (ie. we're not causing it). Then our actions now have no effect and by reducing emissions, curbing pollution, we do nothing (except improve our own cities, etc. a little bit). But if the phenomenon is real, and our actions now make it better or worse, then by continuing on our present course, we are making the problem worse.
Given these choices, in the absence of information, isn't it more logical to bet on the second? Isn't it safer to assume the worst case scenario? I.e. let's stop doing the things that people suggest may be harming the environment, because if they actually do, we'll be screwed in 50 years? And if they're not harming the environment, we did no harm anyway?
Well, the reason I generalize to organic chemists is because they're the ones who are dominating the field in sheer number. Physical and theoretical chemistry is fairly constant in this regard -- always approximately the same number of students, professors, etc. But in organic chemistry, and especially bioorganic, medicinal, and related fields, there is an explosion of people joining the subject. And I have to say, they're not all Alfred Einsteins....:)
It may be just my opinion (as a former chemist turned physicist), but I think that chemists are rather limited. They're (in general) not very well versed in technological issues and the hard science -- I've found that they're usually an "end-user" of other disciplines' accomplishments.
For example, organic chemists probably have no idea what a fast fourier transform is, although it powers one of their most important instruments, namely the NMR. And don't ever try to ask a chemist to explain quantum mechanics to you. They're taught a completely hand-waving version of it in school, and pass it on from generation to generation.
That said, sometimes it's pretty frustrating because while they don't seem to have as good a fundamental knowledge of the physics or math, they get a damn lot more money in grants etc. I guess practical things, like medicines, are important in that sense.
Look at any large organic chemistry group around the country, and I guarantee they'll have power macs up the wazoo, origin 3000 machines configured as mail servers, stereoscopic visualization goggles, etc. And they generally have no idea what to do with them....
Upon reading this thread further, I've also changed my mind about the wiretapping definition. Wiretapping, it seems to me, is something that records a conversation neither party expected to keep a record of, or give others easy access to. Voice conversations clearly fall into this area, because as soon as they are spoken, they're understood to evaporate. But most people know that email is not priviliged communication (as shown by employers monitoring/reading employees' emails, and text of emails being subpoenaed for various purposes).
Many people here seem to be surprised that whether this is wiretapping is even a question -- as if it should obviously be classified as wiretapping. But if we take the approach that whatever you do on the internet may be public information (no guarantee of privacy), then reading someone else's public messages might not be infringing on privacy -- there was no expectation of it to begin with! Just because someone hears or sees you do something, doesn't mean that your privacy was invaded!
However, I am interested in seeing what the courts have to say about this, as my interpretation is only a casual one. As people come to expect more privacy from the internet, will the law extend the privacy people expect? Are encrypted email messages entitled to special protection? I wonder what instant messages between cellphones will be classified as? Will these be priviliged "wire-tappable" communications?
A professor in our department hired a research assistant a while ago, who worked for him for about a year. After the assistant left, the professor noticed that his computer was running really sluggish at all hours, but b/c he wasn't really familiar with the system, assumed it was just getting slower with all the data processing algorithms he was running.
A couple of months later, the network admin starts nosing around, and sends the professor an embarassing note asking to take down the web server about hot leather pants from his computer, since it was overloading the network...
The Reversal is coming!!!
Well, in about 300,000 years, that is.
For those who aren't familiar with this physical phenomenon, the Earth's magnetic field reverses itself (changes polarity) every 300,000 years or so. Rather quick on a planetary time scale, huh?
There are lots of geophysicists interested in this field (paleomagnetism) because it requires some sophisticated modeling of how geodynamos work. Take a look: here for supercomputer modeling of the reversal
I'm not sure which to place my bets on first -- a) the Moon flying away from the Earth, b) the magnetic field reversing, or c) the Earth stopping its spin... Well, ok. It's b). But between a) and c)? I'm not so sure.
As an astronomer, I think it's vitally important that we continue to research extrasolar planets and the nearby galaxy. But at the same time, I would suggest that we have no business in sending people to these distant worlds, as some sort of "colonization" effort.
Why? The human desire to expand its territory is insatiable, but I believe that until we resolve our problems here, we shouldn't go polluting new worlds with our inevitable conflicts, waste, and all the other byproducts of humanity. Perhaps someday, when humans get over selfishness, the tendency to war, violence, and competition, traveling to these distant places will be a good thing. But I can't imagine for now, that if we were to go, these planets would turn out to be anything but Earth all over again, with poverty, suffering, and human strife.
It's romantic to believe that some great future will be opened to us when we become capable of traveling to the nearest star, but the cynical side of me says that people forget fairly quickly, and degenerate into their innate ways. As I say, perhaps we'll be ready someday, but I don't think that'll be any time soon...
Unfortunately, if it does become possible, it will be done, that's one thing I'm sure of. Don't count on people to have restraint, you can be fairly certain. Asking scientists to be responsible and not contribute to such a project doesn't work -- someone *will* do it, or work for those who want to have it done. It's just a matter of time.
For those of us who are unfamiliar with this kind of writing: 411.y0ur.b453.4r3.b3|0ng.70.us, can you give a brief tutorial, as in why do people type like this?
I get it that different characters are substituted for letters. But what's really the point? It just makes it harder to read. Am I missing something? What is 1337? Am I just too old?
"There has grown in the minds of certain groups in this country the idea that just because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with guaranteeing such a profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary to public interest. This strange doctrine is supported by neither statute or common law. Neither corporations or individuals have the right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back." - Robert A. Heinlein, "Life Line"
At the risk of being controversial, what about the compensation that was being considered for the victims of the World Trade Center? At one point, if I recall correctly, the compensation plan was in proportion to the amount of money the victim made per year, or would potentially make during his/her lifetime.
Many of the families were saying, "Look at us now, our lives will be so much harder now that he/she can't provide for us."
So my question to them is this: why should the government pay for them to maintain their level of lifestyle? When circumstances change for other, normal people, they have to deal with it. What made the WTC victims families "special"? It can be taken to extremes of course. Look at the wife of Mr. Kerkorian, who recently sued him for child support to the tune of $400,000 per month! Her justification was that "to maintain the lifestyle" she was used to, they would need that amount. It went mostly into travel budgets, party funds, pet maintainance!
You would think the republicans, so embracing of self-reliance and laissez-faire, would support leaving businesses to live or die on their own.... But they only seem to be content with letting them live on their own. When it comes to businesses failing, the government can't get enough of its hands dirty... viz Enron...
Sounds like if this works, there'll be no more surfing the web with the good ol' laptop while in the bathtub... You'd be in for a big shock! (I know people who do this!)
I guess he didn't purchase the Palm eMeatThermometer2.0(TM) attachment. That, plus the optional wireless add-on pack, should have alerted his pager to pull it out of there in time...
Sounds like a PalmPilot in the hand is better than two in the oven...
I hate to rain on Mr Cringely's parade, but...
on
Cringely's Bank Shot
·
· Score: 0, Insightful
This is precisely why we need the FCC to regulate people's use of this equipment.
Did Bob Cringely ask a single person living in downtown what they thought of his terrific internet access plan? What about the those people who use approved wireless equipment (phones, wireless networking) and now have to deal with the background noise coming from his souped up repeater?
Wait, I'm sure he did a thorough study of his setup to make sure that it didn't interfere with transmissions by public safety agencies, right? He called up the fire dept, police dept., and rescue squads to make sure that his network access wasn't leaking onto their radio channels?
Yeah, right.
What stopped him from using a 10 watt transmitter, so that the connection would be even faster? It's nice to see people being creative and getting themselves great internet access, but I'll thank you to stay out of my neighborhood, please. Follow the rules and don't subject other people to your homebrewed technology. Internet access isn't *that* important. If it is, move somewhere where you can get it.
Let me not address the technical issues of how people's identities will be validated if internet voting is tried -- that's an implementation problem, and I'm sort of a big picture kind of guy...:) Or just unqualified.
Instead, my question is how internet (or any type of remote, instantaneous) voting will affect people's attitudes toward elections in general.
I can, on the one hand, see how internet voting would open up great possibilities -- people's votes are counted exactly, no room for error, people don't have to trudge through rain or snow to get to the ballot box, people living overseas or traveling at the time can vote just as easily as people in their home district, and people who may not have had access to voting before now get a chance. Internet voting might also give people a more direct feeling of influence in a vote's outcome. If the results could be released immediately, you would see how your one vote stacked up with the rest of them.
But on the other hand, and what worries me more, is that these very advantages might erode the significance and importance of elections. Or, change it into something that I might not like. Is it possible that voting, if made so easy as a click of the mouse, placed right next to the CNN poll, would become as meaningless to the average person? If every day, we encountered 10 polls asking for our opinion, how would voting for a person for office be made something with more weighty consequences? I know how little thought I put into an online vote, how would most other people feel?
The thing about voting, the way it is now, is that the physical effort, trouble, or fact that it is an extra-ordinary event, gives it significance and reminds people that this isn't just another mouse click after opening a web page. I worry that if we make it too easy to vote, or too commonplace, people may forget what voting actually means. They ought to travel to polling places, and see the other people who're voting, see who the members of their community are, and at least be mildly provoked to consider thoughtfully what their physical vote translates into. To that end, we should make the current process of voting as easy and as fair as possible. We can improve the system of registration to make it easier, create more sophisticated voting machines, help people get to the polls if they have difficulty, remove barriers to people who have been unfairly treated -- by all means do these things -- but in the end, voting should remain a special event, I think.
Ahh yes, another piece of junk for us to accumulate. I think I'll shelve the used discs on my bookcase, next to the handbook on "How to reduce clutter".
Wouldn't it be nice for a change if our culture moved away from selling to people as much junk as they can buy? Disposable diapers, disposable cameras, disposable cellphones, etc. I find that many people lead just as disposable lives, unfortunately -- with the quality of life getting emptier as people get richer.
Yes, yes, I know that all marketing is about making people want something they didn't know they needed before. Just because we're accustomed to it doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. I look forward to the day when we can overcome our material desires, the need to one-up our neighbors, and express our achievement through spending money.
Maybe science, freedom of information, and education will get us there someday. I hope.
I'm not pissed off that the BSA can sue a company for using unlicensed software. That's fine. Go after them on your own time, with all the legal resources you can afford.
What pisses me off is that they can get the assistance of the US government (in the form of US Marshals) to "raid" companies suspected of using that software.
Why doesn't it work the other way? Why don't we have the US Marshals raid Microsoft when they produce security-hole-ridden software that causes a small business to lose millions? Why should our government always be on the side of the big business?
Feb 7, 2003 -- In other news, the mean air temperature around Petaluma/Santa Rosa has risen 2 degrees in the past year, scientists say. This has absolutely nothing to do with the widespread deployment of microwave towers throughout the area, according to a Vista Broadband spokesman. He added, "It's also completely unrelated to the purely coincidental increased cancer rate in many of our subscribers houses."
I have to agree that just giving people technology doesn't make them smarter. Just like so many things, previously acquired training/knowledge is essential.
Kind of reminds me of the Onion article: "Kalahari Bushman puts new modem to good use"... it's about how this guy loves his new 56.6K sportster modem -- it's sharp edges are great for scraping animal skins, pounding grains into flour, collecting water...:)
I hear that do-it-yourself home-surgery kits are also becoming popular for the cheap, yet technically adept tinkerer.
In fact, I removed my own appendix the other day, without even having to use a sterile field. If people knew how easy it is, they wouldn't pay those bastard hospitals $10,000 to do it. I'm real tired though, and the incision is still dripping quite a bit. I'm sure it'll get better in a few d
President Bush seems to forget that pure scientific research has been the most productive driver of American prosperity in the last 200 years. So many of the technologies we enjoy today are a result of research that, at the time of funding, could not be directly justified. Hopefully, universities and research institutions will be able to get through this budget crunch time intact, but the blow to students and scientists seeing their field attacked may be much more severe, I'm afraid.
I think that the most astronomy that's going to get done in these next few years is astronomy by the Air Force, with satellites that are pointing down at the Earth, instead of up at the skies. There never seems to be a shortage of funding for those projects, even though diverting 1% of that money would probably save NASA and the US space research program.
This is what bothers me about the telecom companies in general. They've caught on to the fact (either from discovered from their own research or customer "choices") that people will buy service that they don't use, as long as it looks like a good deal. And its picking our pockets clean.
So all around the industry, you find that companies are now offering "unlimited" services for a set fee per month, while product quality is undefined, or going down the crapper. They seem to have forgotten that there's an option called pay-as-you-go with reasonable rates. (Although many of the debates this thread are about just that)
Just look at cell phone pricing plans. This is why I've never gotten a cell phone, though I would use one if I had reasonable options. Who among us uses up 3000 minutes after 9pm, or only on weekends? Have you ever wondered why you can only purchase plans that basically start around $40/month? I don't want a plan with 3000 useless minutes for $40/month, and charges me $0.35 for each minute over the piddling 200 minutes during the hours when I actually need it. I want to pay a reasonable fee per minute, something like $0.07 and not have upper, or lower boundaries on my use.
The only reason the phone companies keep doing this is because 1. it's obviously making money, charging people for service they won't use (yet making them think it's a good deal) and 2. they think that customers are ok with it, because enough people are buying into it.
We all know the traditional telecoms are struggling right now, you can see it from your phone bill. Why does caller ID cost $8? You can bet it doesn't really cost that much. They're just trying to make up in a losing game (and they'll even resort to padding the bill with dubious "taxes") I guess enough people are willing to drop that money on a service that doesn't satisfy them that the telco wins in the end. Sad.
Slashdot Mirror
OK, fine. As a scientist and reasonable person, I must admit the possibility that our activities are having absolutely no effect on the environment, and the measurements of climate change are just part of the small natural oscillations in our system. I must admit this possibility, because we don't have enough evidence yet, and to dogmatically cling to a belief without evidence does us no credit, and is the mark of a different ideology.
But on the other hand, look at the problem from a practical perspective. Suppose that global warming is "false" (ie. we're not causing it). Then our actions now have no effect and by reducing emissions, curbing pollution, we do nothing (except improve our own cities, etc. a little bit). But if the phenomenon is real, and our actions now make it better or worse, then by continuing on our present course, we are making the problem worse.
Given these choices, in the absence of information, isn't it more logical to bet on the second? Isn't it safer to assume the worst case scenario? I.e. let's stop doing the things that people suggest may be harming the environment, because if they actually do, we'll be screwed in 50 years? And if they're not harming the environment, we did no harm anyway?
Do some people not understand this logic??
Well, the reason I generalize to organic chemists is because they're the ones who are dominating the field in sheer number. Physical and theoretical chemistry is fairly constant in this regard -- always approximately the same number of students, professors, etc. But in organic chemistry, and especially bioorganic, medicinal, and related fields, there is an explosion of people joining the subject. And I have to say, they're not all Alfred Einsteins.... :)
It may be just my opinion (as a former chemist turned physicist), but I think that chemists are rather limited. They're (in general) not very well versed in technological issues and the hard science -- I've found that they're usually an "end-user" of other disciplines' accomplishments.
For example, organic chemists probably have no idea what a fast fourier transform is, although it powers one of their most important instruments, namely the NMR. And don't ever try to ask a chemist to explain quantum mechanics to you. They're taught a completely hand-waving version of it in school, and pass it on from generation to generation.
That said, sometimes it's pretty frustrating because while they don't seem to have as good a fundamental knowledge of the physics or math, they get a damn lot more money in grants etc. I guess practical things, like medicines, are important in that sense.
Look at any large organic chemistry group around the country, and I guarantee they'll have power macs up the wazoo, origin 3000 machines configured as mail servers, stereoscopic visualization goggles, etc. And they generally have no idea what to do with them....
Upon reading this thread further, I've also changed my mind about the wiretapping definition. Wiretapping, it seems to me, is something that records a conversation neither party expected to keep a record of, or give others easy access to. Voice conversations clearly fall into this area, because as soon as they are spoken, they're understood to evaporate. But most people know that email is not priviliged communication (as shown by employers monitoring/reading employees' emails, and text of emails being subpoenaed for various purposes).
Many people here seem to be surprised that whether this is wiretapping is even a question -- as if it should obviously be classified as wiretapping. But if we take the approach that whatever you do on the internet may be public information (no guarantee of privacy), then reading someone else's public messages might not be infringing on privacy -- there was no expectation of it to begin with! Just because someone hears or sees you do something, doesn't mean that your privacy was invaded!
However, I am interested in seeing what the courts have to say about this, as my interpretation is only a casual one. As people come to expect more privacy from the internet, will the law extend the privacy people expect? Are encrypted email messages entitled to special protection? I wonder what instant messages between cellphones will be classified as? Will these be priviliged "wire-tappable" communications?
A professor in our department hired a research assistant a while ago, who worked for him for about a year. After the assistant left, the professor noticed that his computer was running really sluggish at all hours, but b/c he wasn't really familiar with the system, assumed it was just getting slower with all the data processing algorithms he was running.
A couple of months later, the network admin starts nosing around, and sends the professor an embarassing note asking to take down the web server about hot leather pants from his computer, since it was overloading the network...
ha ha... I think they're swamped because Drudgereport.com is pointing everyone to read this article!! : U.C. Berkeley students watched as instructor had sex at strip club, participated in orgy...
The Reversal is coming!!! Well, in about 300,000 years, that is.
For those who aren't familiar with this physical phenomenon, the Earth's magnetic field reverses itself (changes polarity) every 300,000 years or so. Rather quick on a planetary time scale, huh?
There are lots of geophysicists interested in this field (paleomagnetism) because it requires some sophisticated modeling of how geodynamos work. Take a look: here for supercomputer modeling of the reversal
I'm not sure which to place my bets on first -- a) the Moon flying away from the Earth, b) the magnetic field reversing, or c) the Earth stopping its spin... Well, ok. It's b). But between a) and c)? I'm not so sure.
As an astronomer, I think it's vitally important that we continue to research extrasolar planets and the nearby galaxy. But at the same time, I would suggest that we have no business in sending people to these distant worlds, as some sort of "colonization" effort.
Why? The human desire to expand its territory is insatiable, but I believe that until we resolve our problems here, we shouldn't go polluting new worlds with our inevitable conflicts, waste, and all the other byproducts of humanity. Perhaps someday, when humans get over selfishness, the tendency to war, violence, and competition, traveling to these distant places will be a good thing. But I can't imagine for now, that if we were to go, these planets would turn out to be anything but Earth all over again, with poverty, suffering, and human strife.
It's romantic to believe that some great future will be opened to us when we become capable of traveling to the nearest star, but the cynical side of me says that people forget fairly quickly, and degenerate into their innate ways. As I say, perhaps we'll be ready someday, but I don't think that'll be any time soon...
Unfortunately, if it does become possible, it will be done, that's one thing I'm sure of. Don't count on people to have restraint, you can be fairly certain. Asking scientists to be responsible and not contribute to such a project doesn't work -- someone *will* do it, or work for those who want to have it done. It's just a matter of time.
For those of us who are unfamiliar with this kind of writing: 411.y0ur.b453.4r3.b3|0ng.70.us, can you give a brief tutorial, as in why do people type like this?
I get it that different characters are substituted for letters. But what's really the point? It just makes it harder to read. Am I missing something? What is 1337? Am I just too old?
If you want your privacy, why don't you just pay with cash?
Who's going to track you then? It's not like the library, where they know everything you took out, and where you live...
"There has grown in the minds of certain groups in this country the idea that just because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with guaranteeing such a profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary to public interest. This strange doctrine is supported by neither statute or common law. Neither corporations or individuals have the right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back." - Robert A. Heinlein, "Life Line"
At the risk of being controversial, what about the compensation that was being considered for the victims of the World Trade Center? At one point, if I recall correctly, the compensation plan was in proportion to the amount of money the victim made per year, or would potentially make during his/her lifetime.
Many of the families were saying, "Look at us now, our lives will be so much harder now that he/she can't provide for us."
So my question to them is this: why should the government pay for them to maintain their level of lifestyle? When circumstances change for other, normal people, they have to deal with it. What made the WTC victims families "special"? It can be taken to extremes of course. Look at the wife of Mr. Kerkorian, who recently sued him for child support to the tune of $400,000 per month! Her justification was that "to maintain the lifestyle" she was used to, they would need that amount. It went mostly into travel budgets, party funds, pet maintainance!
You would think the republicans, so embracing of self-reliance and laissez-faire, would support leaving businesses to live or die on their own.... But they only seem to be content with letting them live on their own. When it comes to businesses failing, the government can't get enough of its hands dirty... viz Enron...
Sounds like if this works, there'll be no more surfing the web with the good ol' laptop while in the bathtub... You'd be in for a big shock! (I know people who do this!)
I guess he didn't purchase the Palm eMeatThermometer2.0(TM) attachment. That, plus the optional wireless add-on pack, should have alerted his pager to pull it out of there in time...
Sounds like a PalmPilot in the hand is better than two in the oven...
This is precisely why we need the FCC to regulate people's use of this equipment.
Did Bob Cringely ask a single person living in downtown what they thought of his terrific internet access plan? What about the those people who use approved wireless equipment (phones, wireless networking) and now have to deal with the background noise coming from his souped up repeater?
Wait, I'm sure he did a thorough study of his setup to make sure that it didn't interfere with transmissions by public safety agencies, right? He called up the fire dept, police dept., and rescue squads to make sure that his network access wasn't leaking onto their radio channels?
Yeah, right.
What stopped him from using a 10 watt transmitter, so that the connection would be even faster? It's nice to see people being creative and getting themselves great internet access, but I'll thank you to stay out of my neighborhood, please. Follow the rules and don't subject other people to your homebrewed technology. Internet access isn't *that* important. If it is, move somewhere where you can get it.
Let me not address the technical issues of how people's identities will be validated if internet voting is tried -- that's an implementation problem, and I'm sort of a big picture kind of guy... :) Or just unqualified.
Instead, my question is how internet (or any type of remote, instantaneous) voting will affect people's attitudes toward elections in general.
I can, on the one hand, see how internet voting would open up great possibilities -- people's votes are counted exactly, no room for error, people don't have to trudge through rain or snow to get to the ballot box, people living overseas or traveling at the time can vote just as easily as people in their home district, and people who may not have had access to voting before now get a chance. Internet voting might also give people a more direct feeling of influence in a vote's outcome. If the results could be released immediately, you would see how your one vote stacked up with the rest of them.
But on the other hand, and what worries me more, is that these very advantages might erode the significance and importance of elections. Or, change it into something that I might not like. Is it possible that voting, if made so easy as a click of the mouse, placed right next to the CNN poll, would become as meaningless to the average person? If every day, we encountered 10 polls asking for our opinion, how would voting for a person for office be made something with more weighty consequences? I know how little thought I put into an online vote, how would most other people feel?
The thing about voting, the way it is now, is that the physical effort, trouble, or fact that it is an extra-ordinary event, gives it significance and reminds people that this isn't just another mouse click after opening a web page. I worry that if we make it too easy to vote, or too commonplace, people may forget what voting actually means. They ought to travel to polling places, and see the other people who're voting, see who the members of their community are, and at least be mildly provoked to consider thoughtfully what their physical vote translates into. To that end, we should make the current process of voting as easy and as fair as possible. We can improve the system of registration to make it easier, create more sophisticated voting machines, help people get to the polls if they have difficulty, remove barriers to people who have been unfairly treated -- by all means do these things -- but in the end, voting should remain a special event, I think.
Ahh yes, another piece of junk for us to accumulate. I think I'll shelve the used discs on my bookcase, next to the handbook on "How to reduce clutter".
Wouldn't it be nice for a change if our culture moved away from selling to people as much junk as they can buy? Disposable diapers, disposable cameras, disposable cellphones, etc. I find that many people lead just as disposable lives, unfortunately -- with the quality of life getting emptier as people get richer.
Yes, yes, I know that all marketing is about making people want something they didn't know they needed before. Just because we're accustomed to it doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. I look forward to the day when we can overcome our material desires, the need to one-up our neighbors, and express our achievement through spending money.
Maybe science, freedom of information, and education will get us there someday. I hope.
I'm not pissed off that the BSA can sue a company for using unlicensed software. That's fine. Go after them on your own time, with all the legal resources you can afford.
What pisses me off is that they can get the assistance of the US government (in the form of US Marshals) to "raid" companies suspected of using that software.
Why doesn't it work the other way? Why don't we have the US Marshals raid Microsoft when they produce security-hole-ridden software that causes a small business to lose millions? Why should our government always be on the side of the big business?
Feb 7, 2003 -- In other news, the mean air temperature around Petaluma/Santa Rosa has risen 2 degrees in the past year, scientists say. This has absolutely nothing to do with the widespread deployment of microwave towers throughout the area, according to a Vista Broadband spokesman. He added, "It's also completely unrelated to the purely coincidental increased cancer rate in many of our subscribers houses."
:)
I have to agree that just giving people technology doesn't make them smarter. Just like so many things, previously acquired training/knowledge is essential.
:)
Kind of reminds me of the Onion article: "Kalahari Bushman puts new modem to good use"... it's about how this guy loves his new 56.6K sportster modem -- it's sharp edges are great for scraping animal skins, pounding grains into flour, collecting water...
But I made sure to use the plastic wrap! What happened?
I hear that do-it-yourself home-surgery kits are also becoming popular for the cheap, yet technically adept tinkerer.
In fact, I removed my own appendix the other day, without even having to use a sterile field. If people knew how easy it is, they wouldn't pay those bastard hospitals $10,000 to do it. I'm real tired though, and the incision is still dripping quite a bit. I'm sure it'll get better in a few d
(dull thud of body hitting floor)
So you say the aquapad has no hard drive, or document storage system?
Sounds perfect for the busy Enron executive on the go...
President Bush seems to forget that pure scientific research has been the most productive driver of American prosperity in the last 200 years. So many of the technologies we enjoy today are a result of research that, at the time of funding, could not be directly justified. Hopefully, universities and research institutions will be able to get through this budget crunch time intact, but the blow to students and scientists seeing their field attacked may be much more severe, I'm afraid.
I think that the most astronomy that's going to get done in these next few years is astronomy by the Air Force, with satellites that are pointing down at the Earth, instead of up at the skies. There never seems to be a shortage of funding for those projects, even though diverting 1% of that money would probably save NASA and the US space research program.
This is what bothers me about the telecom companies in general. They've caught on to the fact (either from discovered from their own research or customer "choices") that people will buy service that they don't use, as long as it looks like a good deal. And its picking our pockets clean.
So all around the industry, you find that companies are now offering "unlimited" services for a set fee per month, while product quality is undefined, or going down the crapper. They seem to have forgotten that there's an option called pay-as-you-go with reasonable rates. (Although many of the debates this thread are about just that)
Just look at cell phone pricing plans. This is why I've never gotten a cell phone, though I would use one if I had reasonable options. Who among us uses up 3000 minutes after 9pm, or only on weekends? Have you ever wondered why you can only purchase plans that basically start around $40/month? I don't want a plan with 3000 useless minutes for $40/month, and charges me $0.35 for each minute over the piddling 200 minutes during the hours when I actually need it. I want to pay a reasonable fee per minute, something like $0.07 and not have upper, or lower boundaries on my use.
The only reason the phone companies keep doing this is because 1. it's obviously making money, charging people for service they won't use (yet making them think it's a good deal) and 2. they think that customers are ok with it, because enough people are buying into it.
We all know the traditional telecoms are struggling right now, you can see it from your phone bill. Why does caller ID cost $8? You can bet it doesn't really cost that much. They're just trying to make up in a losing game (and they'll even resort to padding the bill with dubious "taxes") I guess enough people are willing to drop that money on a service that doesn't satisfy them that the telco wins in the end. Sad.
sorry about the bold face running over. hit submit when it should have been "preview."