This is not a very good argument seeing as how our weapon's research spending is many times larger than any other country. And that most other countries with significant spending (such as the EU) do weapons research only so they do not fall too far behind the us.
We can easily cut our spending by 3/4 without any fear that we will surrender our technological edge.
Sorry to reply my own post, but i just wanted to add... this game is good that eventually you will start figuring out ways to manipulate your books / stockprice and when you hear the bussiness news you will see executives using the same tricks to manipulate their books / stock prices.
Of course as far as that goes capitalism 2 is another educational game... but it is not as much fun...
Try Railroad tycoon 2. You will learn a lot about stock markets, the history of the industrial age and even geography. Sometimes when people tell me "i am from this and this city" i have to imagine the city on a railroad tycoon map i have played in order to remember where it was.
You will learn also a lot about accounting and sound bussiness practices in general. I swear, this game helped me understand a balance sheet about as much as my accounting classes did.
the article basicly means : make games stupid so every one can start playing them.
I dont think that will work because: I differ from your average entertainment industry exec. i dont think that most people are that stupid after all. Also i am pretty damn sure that if all games are stupid i will stop playing them.
Of course we should all know that the nice Xbox people do not want to make games popular in order to improve peoples lives. They just want to make money. Which is perfectly ok, but they should try to make money by giving people what they want.
What entertainment company execs essentially want for video games is the television model. That means a couple of games that everyone plays, so development cost can be spread out and most of the $50 price can come in as profit.
And of course in order for that model to work you have to sink to the lowest common denominator. So essentially you have to make the game stupid.
Luckily the television model will never again work (cross fingers). It worked until recently, because people had very few other sources of easy brain stimulation (especially when they are tired from work and are too tired to read). So they settled TV no matter how stupid it was.
Of course the large entertainment companies can make video games liked by most people. But dumbing down games wont do it. All they have to do is make a system where creative people are able to think up new and exciting games that can potentially interest different people.
That is already happening to certain extent. Witness all the bass fishing and deerhunting games. God knows i have never wanted to play one, but i hear they are popular and with people that are not really computer nerds.
Unfortunately the entertainment companies are doing the opposite. The kep bying up developers and then gutting development budgets for all games other than a couple of already established "money maker" titles. Well they can never expect to get new clients this way.
There was a previous article posted on slashdot regarding this that made a lot of sense. Unfortunately i do not remember the authors name and cannot do a search. If anyone remembers pelase post a link.
The article made a lot of sense. It basicly said the following things:
building spaceplanes is stupid. They are expensive and dangerous. And what is even worse most of the expense and danger on spaceplanes does not have to do with space exploration at all, but with take off and landing... something that can be done relatively simply and reliably using balistic capsules.
A simple ballistic capsule with a parachute is many times simpler, safer and cheaper than a space plane. Every other space agency has figured this out a long time ago, but apparently NASA has too many Billions to burn through in order to have this simple revalation.
Saying the thing is projected to cost only 2.3 billion (or whatever they said) is completely meaningless, because if anyone pays attantion to the history of these projects they would know that this is guaranteed to go over budget.
Making the craft smaller will not bring much savings in development. The greatest development costs of a space plane that carries people will go in engineering and testing to ensure safety. The level of safety required is the same for four or seven people.
Well these are not my points they are from the article i mentioned. But I think they are good points.
I am for space exploration, but lets face it projects like these are clearly wastes of money.
Nasa should develop a simple safe ballistic craft, (something like the soyuz) and use the big bucks for actual space exploration.
It is completely mindbogglig that we are wasting money and lives because nasa insists on exotic ways of going into and out of orbit.
That is called "compulsive licencing" and is currently one of the hot topics of debate in the patent world.
The debate usually centers on third world countries trying to make cheap anti AIDS drugs, but I think this shows that compulsive licencing could be very usefull in the US as well.
The power companies know very well how much power will be used. They have the necessary statistical data. When all the power use of tens of millions of people is added up, it fits very well into statistical predictions. So nobody is going to need to fill out any forms.
Of course something unusual could happen, and the power companies have to be able to deal with that as well.
But nothing unusual (as far as consumption)happened thursday afternoon. They just did not have their shit together.
So it is completely reasonable to demand that the system be improved. I know it is all very complicated stuff, but i also know that problems like this can and should be prevented.
Towards the middle the article explains how the europeans deal with the problem... they just use improved turbine designs. After you see the following paragraph:
"The idea has been slower to catch on in the United States, where GE Wind Energy, in Tehachapi, Calif., has deftly defended patents on variable-speed turbines that will be on the books through 2011. "
Nice to see the patent system working again. I guess the Europeans were lucky because GE Wind energy decided not to file their patents in europe (or they were not granted).
But then again, shouldnt patents help innovations... isnt that how it was supposed to work. Shouldn't variable speed turbines be much more developed in the us because they were patented here?
Frankly i dont know why GE systems does not promote variable speed wind turbines now that they have the protection, and if they cant, why they dont sell affordable licences to companies that can. It could be due to the usual burocratic inefficiency, or it could be something sinister.
Yet this is not the first time i see an owner of a patent sit on the technology and not develop it while other people are perfectly able to do so. We all remember how a company that does not take the trouble to make portable email devices, tried to stop a company that does make them.
yeah, nobody wants a power plant in their back yard. It is funny how conservatives are not eager to have coal burning plants next to their houses either.
But of course that issue has nothing to do with the decision to build wind power plants.
The "not in my back yard" problem is very old and there are ways to deal with it.
natural gas... or pure hydrogen if we can get the technology to produce it. But even if you use natural gas it is much more enviromentally friendly than burning the stuff.
Well, let me see, i guess his biggest legal victory is when he defended, the creator of PGP (i think his name was zimmerman), against the government, when he was accused for exporting encryption that is too strong.
His victory subsequently allowed for strong encryption to be used accross the US border, which itself allowed international internet commerce to exist. Strong encryption also helps many dissidents in repressive countries communicate without fear for their lives.
He is also defending the kids that cracked the DVD format. This one was not going that well last time i checked, but we shall see.
Really? What happens then when someone decides that it would be a good business deal to bet an assassination, and then actually do the assassination? Do you thing that might add to the "total of risk"?
First of all, as you said investors, will not put up the money because if the goal is really the prevention of events it would be a no-win situation for honest investors. (Although dishonest investors will figure out a way to make a profit see my third point).
Second of all there are some things that are too unethical to do research on, so saying "this is just a research project" is no excuse. Imagine for a second if some hospital tried to induce artificial genetic mutations to the babies of unwilling mothers, by bombarding the pregnant mothers with radiation without their knowledge. Would saying "this is just for research purposes" be an excuse? Of course not. Well the people on whose assassinations we are supposed to bet are unwilling participants as well.
Third of all this market system is very likely to cause assassinations itself. Someone will quickly figure out that they could bet on an event happening and then cause the event to happen themselves. So essentially the result will be a killing for money scheme, funded and organized with our (us taxpayers') money.
And fourth, if markets are such good indicators, one can already examine existing markets. For example, the international dept markets should be good indicators for assassinations and revolutions.
Slashdot Mirror
The damage done in iraq and afghanistan is probably much greater than the above poster imagines.
I am pretty sure N Korea withdrew.
There is another science that you have to thank for that as well - the science of public relations.
This is not a very good argument seeing as how our weapon's research spending is many times larger than any other country. And that most other countries with significant spending (such as the EU) do weapons research only so they do not fall too far behind the us.
We can easily cut our spending by 3/4 without any fear that we will surrender our technological edge.
Typical straw man argument.
All the examples of the above post are things that are done by engineers rather than scientists. Here at slashdot we should know the difference.
Sorry to reply my own post, but i just wanted to add... this game is good that eventually you will start figuring out ways to manipulate your books / stockprice and when you hear the bussiness news you will see executives using the same tricks to manipulate their books / stock prices.
... but it is not as much fun ...
Of course as far as that goes capitalism 2 is another educational game
Try Railroad tycoon 2. You will learn a lot about stock markets, the history of the industrial age and even geography. Sometimes when people tell me "i am from this and this city" i have to imagine the city on a railroad tycoon map i have played in order to remember where it was.
You will learn also a lot about accounting and sound bussiness practices in general. I swear, this game helped me understand a balance sheet about as much as my accounting classes did.
And of course you will learn about trains...
the article basicly means : make games stupid so every one can start playing them.
I dont think that will work because: I differ from your average entertainment industry exec. i dont think that most people are that stupid after all. Also i am pretty damn sure that if all games are stupid i will stop playing them.
Of course we should all know that the nice Xbox people do not want to make games popular in order to improve peoples lives. They just want to make money. Which is perfectly ok, but they should try to make money by giving people what they want.
What entertainment company execs essentially want for video games is the television model. That means a couple of games that everyone plays, so development cost can be spread out and most of the $50 price can come in as profit.
And of course in order for that model to work you have to sink to the lowest common denominator. So essentially you have to make the game stupid.
Luckily the television model will never again work (cross fingers). It worked until recently, because people had very few other sources of easy brain stimulation (especially when they are tired from work and are too tired to read). So they settled TV no matter how stupid it was.
Of course the large entertainment companies can make video games liked by most people. But dumbing down games wont do it. All they have to do is make a system where creative people are able to think up new and exciting games that can potentially interest different people.
That is already happening to certain extent. Witness all the bass fishing and deerhunting games. God knows i have never wanted to play one, but i hear they are popular and with people that are not really computer nerds.
Unfortunately the entertainment companies are doing the opposite. The kep bying up developers and then gutting development budgets for all games other than a couple of already established "money maker" titles. Well they can never expect to get new clients this way.
We have yet to make a nanotube that is a milimeter long. The space elevator needs millions of nanotubes that are 50 miles long each.
The problem with this plan is that there is very little oppurtinity for Boeing to make money in such a deal.
There was a previous article posted on slashdot regarding this that made a lot of sense. Unfortunately i do not remember the authors name and cannot do a search. If anyone remembers pelase post a link.
... something that can be done relatively simply and reliably using balistic capsules.
The article made a lot of sense. It basicly said the following things:
building spaceplanes is stupid. They are expensive and dangerous. And what is even worse most of the expense and danger on spaceplanes does not have to do with space exploration at all, but with take off and landing
A simple ballistic capsule with a parachute is many times simpler, safer and cheaper than a space plane. Every other space agency has figured this out a long time ago, but apparently NASA has too many Billions to burn through in order to have this simple revalation.
Saying the thing is projected to cost only 2.3 billion (or whatever they said) is completely meaningless, because if anyone pays attantion to the history of these projects they would know that this is guaranteed to go over budget.
Making the craft smaller will not bring much savings in development. The greatest development costs of a space plane that carries people will go in engineering and testing to ensure safety. The level of safety required is the same for four or seven people.
Well these are not my points they are from the article i mentioned. But I think they are good points.
I am for space exploration, but lets face it projects like these are clearly wastes of money.
Nasa should develop a simple safe ballistic craft, (something like the soyuz) and use the big bucks for actual space exploration.
It is completely mindbogglig that we are wasting money and lives because nasa insists on exotic ways of going into and out of orbit.
well there seems to be a market since other companies are trying to do design arounds.
That is called "compulsive licencing" and is currently one of the hot topics of debate in the patent world.
The debate usually centers on third world countries trying to make cheap anti AIDS drugs, but I think this shows that compulsive licencing could be very usefull in the US as well.
The power companies know very well how much power will be used. They have the necessary statistical data. When all the power use of tens of millions of people is added up, it fits very well into statistical predictions. So nobody is going to need to fill out any forms.
Of course something unusual could happen, and the power companies have to be able to deal with that as well.
But nothing unusual (as far as consumption)happened thursday afternoon. They just did not have their shit together.
So it is completely reasonable to demand that the system be improved. I know it is all very complicated stuff, but i also know that problems like this can and should be prevented.
Towards the middle the article explains how the europeans deal with the problem ... they just use improved turbine designs. After you see the following paragraph:
... isnt that how it was supposed to work. Shouldn't variable speed turbines be much more developed in the us because they were patented here?
"The idea has been slower to catch on in the United States, where GE Wind Energy, in Tehachapi, Calif., has deftly defended patents on variable-speed turbines that will be on the books through 2011. "
Nice to see the patent system working again. I guess the Europeans were lucky because GE Wind energy decided not to file their patents in europe (or they were not granted).
But then again, shouldnt patents help innovations
Frankly i dont know why GE systems does not promote variable speed wind turbines now that they have the protection, and if they cant, why they dont sell affordable licences to companies that can. It could be due to the usual burocratic inefficiency, or it could be something sinister.
Yet this is not the first time i see an owner of a patent sit on the technology and not develop it while other people are perfectly able to do so. We all remember how a company that does not take the trouble to make portable email devices, tried to stop a company that does make them.
yeah, nobody wants a power plant in their back yard. It is funny how conservatives are not eager to have coal burning plants next to their houses either.
But of course that issue has nothing to do with the decision to build wind power plants.
The "not in my back yard" problem is very old and there are ways to deal with it.
I know at least in mocroprocessors, wires that contain DC current that is always in one direction have a tendency to break...
natural gas... or pure hydrogen if we can get the technology to produce it. But even if you use natural gas it is much more enviromentally friendly than burning the stuff.
People will use hotmail for a while. But after a while they will get so utterly sick of the spam they will look for alternatives.
Well, let me see, i guess his biggest legal victory is when he defended, the creator of PGP (i think his name was zimmerman), against the government, when he was accused for exporting encryption that is too strong.
His victory subsequently allowed for strong encryption to be used accross the US border, which itself allowed international internet commerce to exist. Strong encryption also helps many dissidents in repressive countries communicate without fear for their lives.
He is also defending the kids that cracked the DVD format. This one was not going that well last time i checked, but we shall see.
Really? What happens then when someone decides that it would be a good business deal to bet an assassination, and then actually do the assassination? Do you thing that might add to the "total of risk"?
First of all, as you said investors, will not put up the money because if the goal is really the prevention of events it would be a no-win situation for honest investors. (Although dishonest investors will figure out a way to make a profit see my third point).
Second of all there are some things that are too unethical to do research on, so saying "this is just a research project" is no excuse. Imagine for a second if some hospital tried to induce artificial genetic mutations to the babies of unwilling mothers, by bombarding the pregnant mothers with radiation without their knowledge. Would saying "this is just for research purposes" be an excuse? Of course not. Well the people on whose assassinations we are supposed to bet are unwilling participants as well.
Third of all this market system is very likely to cause assassinations itself. Someone will quickly figure out that they could bet on an event happening and then cause the event to happen themselves. So essentially the result will be a killing for money scheme, funded and organized with our (us taxpayers') money.
And fourth, if markets are such good indicators, one can already examine existing markets. For example, the international dept markets should be good indicators for assassinations and revolutions.
yeah and thats the same reason the Russians got stuck with having their launch pads in kazakstan.
Thats the best troll i have seen on slashdot for years.