Seems to be the parent's objections are a classic case of "perfect being the enemy of the good." Of course the metadata definitions won't be complete enough when these documents are scanned. This leaves the user with having to digitally search through the records (if they OCR'ed decently). How is this not an order of magnitude better than going through the paper?
I agree with the parent. The adage that one man's trash is another man's treasure is no where as true as with "Nuclear waste". The rarity of the elements contained in that waste and their unique characteristics means that it is likely we will find important uses for them. So it may make more sense to store them in a way that allows us to get back at them. Even if we don't find uses for them, we will surely develop better processes and technologies to extract and render them less dangerous.
Unless, of course, you subscribe to the pessimistic view that we are inevitably going to see the collapse of civilization and the return of illiterate barbarism. In which case, I would suggest that you are focusing on one of the smaller risks in that post-apocalyptic world.
My suggestion would be to find a way to safely store them for 50 years. If, at the end of that time, we still haven't found a better use for the "waste", then we repackage it for the next 50 years using the superior knowledge and technology that will then be available.
Of course such a rule could (and inevitably would) be misused by a teacher or principal. What rules would be left if we eliminated all of them that could be misapplied by corrupt or selfish authorities?
As to your broad assertion that anyone claiming anything done for the children is lying, I know that to be false. (The way you framed the argument only requires a single counter example). My wife has been teaching for many, many years and I have been a part of decisions she has made to confront parents, argue with administration and generally do things not in her self interest. On those occasions it has been for the good of a child.
Although I agree that unscientifically founded optimism is frustrating, so is pessimism based on unnecessarily limiting the options. The choices are not limited to 1) find liveable planets outside the solar system or 2) make other planets in the solar system liveable. That's Planetary Chauvinism: Planetary Chauvinism
Back in 1976, Princeton Prof Gerard K. O'Neill and a NASA sponsored study designed some alternatives.
Human colonies in space
>>>As for asteroids that caused massive extinctions, the previous one was 70 million years ago. And 250 million years ago. During that timespan we evolved from small rodent-like lizards into modern mammals. Who knows where we'll be in another 70 million years.
This is the kind of guy that should be looking for building opportunities after a "hundred year flood event". After all, he's got another hundred years without a flood. Right?
I live in Illinois and use a Livescribe pen at work. I use it to record and take notes at meetings. Illinois requires all parties to be notified and approve recordings. I guess I should stop using the pen, but it's so damn handy!
Why do we need another card? Seems to me that identity thieves have enough things to use already.
Did you miss the part about it being biometric? This would seem to be the best tool to fight identity theft.
Now for all of those slashdotters who will start fretting over the misuse of this card -- get over it. You are not likely to find yourself in Dr. Richard Kimble's situation (unjustly convicted of murder and needing to hide from Tommy Lee Jones). And as for the government having too much power, please note that these are the people who have our guns, tanks, drones and hydrogen bombs. No, we shouldn't trust them -- we should watch them for any abuse of power and call them out when necessary. But a system that insists we should maintain personal security through making personal identification more difficult is misguided.
I don't know about the motives of the parent AC, but a lot of people worry about privacy because they have something to hide. In this case they don't want their vehicle to rat them out with hard facts about how they were driving in the seconds before their air bags deployed.
If this evidence was easily available, we might realize that our big problem with traffic accidents, injuries and deaths aren't hardware or software -- it's the driver, stupid.
We don't need "amazing and so-far-unforeseen" advances in technology for large-scale, independent colonies in space. We just need to get over our "planetary chauvanism." The feasibility of space colonies was largely proven in the 1970's by studies at the NASA Ames Research Center. We just need to build some of these.
For variety, and to show an author that understands language as well as technology, have them try Cordwainer Smith. "Norstralia" if they have the time for a novel, "Dead Lady of Clown Town" or "A Planet Named Shayol" for short stories.
My instructor in a class called "Literature of Fantasy and Imagination" in junior college introduced me to this author. I seldom re-read a book just for pleasure -- Smith's are the exception.
One of today's Nobel Prize winners (Carol W. Greider) was quoted in the New York Times:
People might make predictions of who might win, but one never expects it, she said, adding that ''It's like the Monty Python sketch, 'Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!'''
You're probably right. I think there will be at least as many opportunities to replace humans with robots based on ethical weakness as there are for our physical weakness.
A robot solder won't be prone to anger, fear and revenge when his robot buddy is killed.
And a robot postal worker won't be likely to go "postal" because he has a soul-numbing job.
The existence of God is pertinent here in the sense that some people think that God is choosing (brown hair for this one, congenital heart defect for that one, etc.) Certainly if you start with the belief that you're putting your knowledge of the consequences against that of an omniscient being, you'd be a fool to try to interfere.
If instead you think the genetic outcome is a random occurrence, you are only pitting your limited knowledge against random chance. If we use reason and seek knowledge we are going to have a superior outcome the majority of the time. Hopefully, most will make choices based on factors that lead to healthy, happy and productive lives for their children.
Yes, surprises are wonderful. Sometimes random chance produces a great outcome -- sometimes it doesn't. Saying that making these decisions is "playing God" or that we aren't wise enough to make them is a cop out. Either you're saying that you have no preference and all outcomes are equal -- or that the choices are too hard.
The choices are hard -- avoiding them isn't the answer. As Stewart Brand said, "We are as gods and might as well get good at it."
"My opinion is that there is a huge difference between something being witnessed only by people on the scene and something that is recorded permanently on camera and can be shown to people who weren't there, even many years later."
So I can't even use my own video camera to get street scenes without infringing on your privacy?
If you're in public don't do anything you wouldn't want your mother to know about. The right to privacy in public is oxymoronic.
Post 9/11 logic:
If the cops didn't confiscate your computers and check them for evil stuff and then it turned out that you were up to no good then everyone would blame the police after you committed your horrible acts.
So all high-tech, blinky, science-fiction looking things should be taken for examination by law enforcement.
I'm too lazy to research the physics of the orbital mechanics involved -- so I'll just ask someone who sounds like he knows what he's talking about.
If this particular asteroid would be hard to capture, what about others? Are there near earth asteroids that could be captured and parked in L4, L5 or high earth orbit? What kind of orbit characteristics would make for a good candidate for capture? I like the idea of snagging some raw materials that we don't have to lift out of a gravity well.
Richard Feynman (who knew a thing or two about quantum physics) once said, "If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics."
I can add my warning that the tri-color LED quartz crystal necklace from ThinkGeek is not necessarily appreciated as a token of affection. This probably is true of any jewelry that requires batteries.
"Historically, one of the big problems with nonlethal weapons is that they can be misused."
HELLO... I think the tried and true conventional firearm has been misused plenty over its history. Are we just more comfortable with the technology of bullets and grenades?
If the argument is that a weapon that creates pain but doesn't kill will be misused by those in power, then let's be more judicious about who we put in power (e.g. politicians, police).
Capturing a near-Earth-orbit asteroid for use in space-based manufacturing will be technically difficult. It will involve creation of new techniques and technologies. It will tax the creativity and problem solving skills of our best and brightest. We can't even guarantee success.
On the other hand...
Mining, refining and even manufacturing in space makes total sense. Let's learn how to use the off-planet resources to accomplish off-planet expansion. Using huge amounts of energy resources to mine, refine and launch mass into space seems wasteful. The one thing there is no shortage of in space is energy. A few large mirrors would provide enough energy to do smelting operations that on Earth we would accomplish by burning coal or natural-gas. And, as noted in earlier posts, the gravity well of Earth makes getting sufficient quantities of materials into space to do large-scale projects very, very expensive.
From an accounting point of view the risks and difficulties presented by this kind of project make it unattractive. But, unless mankind will finish the remainder of its days stuck in the cradle of Earth, someone will have to achieve this kind of project. I would love to be part of the generation that finally attempts it.
The parent message seems to have bought into a "mother nature knows best" philosophy that is both wrong and dangerous. What does "...these things happen for a reason" mean? Yes, there is a causal reason for death -- your brain stopped functioning. Or is the suggestion that there is a supernatural, pre-ordained time to die?
The birth rate argument is also wrong. Around the globe, as countries have moved from 3rd world to developed status their birth rate has declined. In some cases goverments are offering incentives for baby making.
Some other posts here have suggested it is selfish to avoid death in old age. While I haven't seen arguments that nature wants us to suffer with arthritis, so we should accept that, there does seem to be the implication that some of us are sticking around too long. So, as the quality of life continues to be improved with modern medicine, some of us old timers will continue to selfishly enjoy life and hang around. I know I will continue to take advantage of life extending and enhancing breatkthroughs. Those of you who have a more altruistic world-view can feel free to check out as your conscience dictates.
Slashdot Mirror
Seems to be the parent's objections are a classic case of "perfect being the enemy of the good." Of course the metadata definitions won't be complete enough when these documents are scanned. This leaves the user with having to digitally search through the records (if they OCR'ed decently). How is this not an order of magnitude better than going through the paper?
I agree with the parent. The adage that one man's trash is another man's treasure is no where as true as with "Nuclear waste". The rarity of the elements contained in that waste and their unique characteristics means that it is likely we will find important uses for them. So it may make more sense to store them in a way that allows us to get back at them. Even if we don't find uses for them, we will surely develop better processes and technologies to extract and render them less dangerous.
Unless, of course, you subscribe to the pessimistic view that we are inevitably going to see the collapse of civilization and the return of illiterate barbarism. In which case, I would suggest that you are focusing on one of the smaller risks in that post-apocalyptic world.
My suggestion would be to find a way to safely store them for 50 years. If, at the end of that time, we still haven't found a better use for the "waste", then we repackage it for the next 50 years using the superior knowledge and technology that will then be available.
Is this an argument against trying this technology? That we would wouldn't need such safety technology if we all just drive responsibly?
Experience shows many more lives will be saved by applying technology than we could ever hope for by depending on people to behave properly.
Of course such a rule could (and inevitably would) be misused by a teacher or principal. What rules would be left if we eliminated all of them that could be misapplied by corrupt or selfish authorities?
As to your broad assertion that anyone claiming anything done for the children is lying, I know that to be false. (The way you framed the argument only requires a single counter example). My wife has been teaching for many, many years and I have been a part of decisions she has made to confront parents, argue with administration and generally do things not in her self interest. On those occasions it has been for the good of a child.
Although I agree that unscientifically founded optimism is frustrating, so is pessimism based on unnecessarily limiting the options. The choices are not limited to 1) find liveable planets outside the solar system or 2) make other planets in the solar system liveable. That's Planetary Chauvinism:
Planetary Chauvinism
Back in 1976, Princeton Prof Gerard K. O'Neill and a NASA sponsored study designed some alternatives. Human colonies in space
>>>As for asteroids that caused massive extinctions, the previous one was 70 million years ago. And 250 million years ago. During that timespan we evolved from small rodent-like lizards into modern mammals. Who knows where we'll be in another 70 million years.
This is the kind of guy that should be looking for building opportunities after a "hundred year flood event". After all, he's got another hundred years without a flood. Right?
I live in Illinois and use a Livescribe pen at work. I use it to record and take notes at meetings. Illinois requires all parties to be notified and approve recordings. I guess I should stop using the pen, but it's so damn handy!
Looking at the actuals vs. the predicted costs in the graph you linked, they underestimated by 30%. Maybe they were just having a bad day.
Why do we need another card? Seems to me that identity thieves have enough things to use already.
Did you miss the part about it being biometric? This would seem to be the best tool to fight identity theft.
Now for all of those slashdotters who will start fretting over the misuse of this card -- get over it. You are not likely to find yourself in Dr. Richard Kimble's situation (unjustly convicted of murder and needing to hide from Tommy Lee Jones). And as for the government having too much power, please note that these are the people who have our guns, tanks, drones and hydrogen bombs. No, we shouldn't trust them -- we should watch them for any abuse of power and call them out when necessary. But a system that insists we should maintain personal security through making personal identification more difficult is misguided.
I don't know about the motives of the parent AC, but a lot of people worry about privacy because they have something to hide. In this case they don't want their vehicle to rat them out with hard facts about how they were driving in the seconds before their air bags deployed.
If this evidence was easily available, we might realize that our big problem with traffic accidents, injuries and deaths aren't hardware or software -- it's the driver, stupid.
We don't need "amazing and so-far-unforeseen" advances in technology for large-scale, independent colonies in space. We just need to get over our "planetary chauvanism." The feasibility of space colonies was largely proven in the 1970's by studies at the NASA Ames Research Center. We just need to build some of these.
For variety, and to show an author that understands language as well as technology, have them try Cordwainer Smith. "Norstralia" if they have the time for a novel, "Dead Lady of Clown Town" or "A Planet Named Shayol" for short stories.
My instructor in a class called "Literature of Fantasy and Imagination" in junior college introduced me to this author. I seldom re-read a book just for pleasure -- Smith's are the exception.
One of today's Nobel Prize winners (Carol W. Greider) was quoted in the New York Times:
People might make predictions of who might win, but one never expects it, she said, adding that ''It's like the Monty Python sketch, 'Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!'''
You're probably right. I think there will be at least as many opportunities to replace humans with robots based on ethical weakness as there are for our physical weakness.
A robot solder won't be prone to anger, fear and revenge when his robot buddy is killed.
And a robot postal worker won't be likely to go "postal" because he has a soul-numbing job.
The existence of God is pertinent here in the sense that some people think that God is choosing (brown hair for this one, congenital heart defect for that one, etc.) Certainly if you start with the belief that you're putting your knowledge of the consequences against that of an omniscient being, you'd be a fool to try to interfere.
If instead you think the genetic outcome is a random occurrence, you are only pitting your limited knowledge against random chance. If we use reason and seek knowledge we are going to have a superior outcome the majority of the time. Hopefully, most will make choices based on factors that lead to healthy, happy and productive lives for their children.
Yes, surprises are wonderful. Sometimes random chance produces a great outcome -- sometimes it doesn't. Saying that making these decisions is "playing God" or that we aren't wise enough to make them is a cop out. Either you're saying that you have no preference and all outcomes are equal -- or that the choices are too hard.
The choices are hard -- avoiding them isn't the answer. As Stewart Brand said, "We are as gods and might as well get good at it."
"My opinion is that there is a huge difference between something being witnessed only by people on the scene and something that is recorded permanently on camera and can be shown to people who weren't there, even many years later."
So I can't even use my own video camera to get street scenes without infringing on your privacy?
If you're in public don't do anything you wouldn't want your mother to know about. The right to privacy in public is oxymoronic.
Thanks for clearing this up. It certainly wasn't "obvious" to me that a rockets maximum velocity was limited by its propellant velocity.
Post 9/11 logic: If the cops didn't confiscate your computers and check them for evil stuff and then it turned out that you were up to no good then everyone would blame the police after you committed your horrible acts.
So all high-tech, blinky, science-fiction looking things should be taken for examination by law enforcement.
I'm too lazy to research the physics of the orbital mechanics involved -- so I'll just ask someone who sounds like he knows what he's talking about.
If this particular asteroid would be hard to capture, what about others? Are there near earth asteroids that could be captured and parked in L4, L5 or high earth orbit? What kind of orbit characteristics would make for a good candidate for capture? I like the idea of snagging some raw materials that we don't have to lift out of a gravity well.
Thanks
Richard Feynman (who knew a thing or two about quantum physics) once said, "If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics."
I can add my warning that the tri-color LED quartz crystal necklace from ThinkGeek is not necessarily appreciated as a token of affection. This probably is true of any jewelry that requires batteries.
From the article
"Historically, one of the big problems with nonlethal weapons is that they can be misused."
HELLO... I think the tried and true conventional firearm has been misused plenty over its history. Are we just more comfortable with the technology of bullets and grenades?
If the argument is that a weapon that creates pain but doesn't kill will be misused by those in power, then let's be more judicious about who we put in power (e.g. politicians, police).
Capturing a near-Earth-orbit asteroid for use in space-based manufacturing will be technically difficult. It will involve creation of new techniques and technologies. It will tax the creativity and problem solving skills of our best and brightest. We can't even guarantee success.
On the other hand...
Mining, refining and even manufacturing in space makes total sense. Let's learn how to use the off-planet resources to accomplish off-planet expansion. Using huge amounts of energy resources to mine, refine and launch mass into space seems wasteful. The one thing there is no shortage of in space is energy. A few large mirrors would provide enough energy to do smelting operations that on Earth we would accomplish by burning coal or natural-gas. And, as noted in earlier posts, the gravity well of Earth makes getting sufficient quantities of materials into space to do large-scale projects very, very expensive.
From an accounting point of view the risks and difficulties presented by this kind of project make it unattractive. But, unless mankind will finish the remainder of its days stuck in the cradle of Earth, someone will have to achieve this kind of project. I would love to be part of the generation that finally attempts it.
The parent message seems to have bought into a "mother nature knows best" philosophy that is both wrong and dangerous. What does "...these things happen for a reason" mean? Yes, there is a causal reason for death -- your brain stopped functioning. Or is the suggestion that there is a supernatural, pre-ordained time to die?
The birth rate argument is also wrong. Around the globe, as countries have moved from 3rd world to developed status their birth rate has declined. In some cases goverments are offering incentives for baby making.
Some other posts here have suggested it is selfish to avoid death in old age. While I haven't seen arguments that nature wants us to suffer with arthritis, so we should accept that, there does seem to be the implication that some of us are sticking around too long. So, as the quality of life continues to be improved with modern medicine, some of us old timers will continue to selfishly enjoy life and hang around. I know I will continue to take advantage of life extending and enhancing breatkthroughs. Those of you who have a more altruistic world-view can feel free to check out as your conscience dictates.