A matter of opinion, surely, but one I strongly agree with.
Tb has much unrealized potential, but all anyone seems to care about nowadays is the browser. "Those who don't understand Unix are doomed to reinvent it, poorly." I think the same principle applies to the browser-vs-native issue. Web apps are just reimplementing the entire software stack from the kernel to the GUI in a much less efficient manner, wasting our CPU cycles, battery power, not to mention the man-years wasted waiting for the computer to do something at the same apparent speed that computers did it 10 or more years ago. I wonder how fast the typical set of Windows 95-era apps would run on Core i7 CPUs. But now we need these new CPUs to get the same apparent performance for the same tasks because of all the stupid bloat. Yeah, development turnaround is quicker, but the users' time is wasted, and that's multiplied by the number of users! Development time is an investment that pays dividends in saved user time, but I feel like most developers nowadays are so self-absorbed that they only care about their own experience.
As for Tb, I think Maildir support should be the top priority. mbox is a joke comparatively. When I read up on it and think about the potential for corruption and the inefficiencies (like having to rewrite the entire mbox file, potentially hundreds of megs to gigs, just to actually delete mail), I shudder.
If you use NoScript (and I think you should, if for no other reason than to lower CPU usage running dumb JS), you don't need FlashBlock, because NoScript does the same thing.
Maybe part of the problem is, with these large development organizations, and the turnover they incur, individual developers feel less of a sense of ownership over the project (which is also a product, regardless of price). With that comes less pride in their workmanship, and motivation and quality suffer.
Sometimes I think smaller projects are better for FOSS (with notable exceptions, like the kernel, Apache, etc, which tend to be more foundational projects than user-facing ones).
"These people aren't simply saying that they heard someone else say something."
About 2/3rds of it was *exactly* that. There were even times where one of them mentioned hearing someone else talk about what someone else had said.
As I said, some of their testimony was hearsay, but not all of it. Hearsay does not prove anything, however it can be considered with other evidence and suggest that further investigation is warranted. This is a red herring.
From what I heard and saw, I do not believe any of them are credible. I do not believe they are qualified to scientifically evaluate anything that they claim they witnessed. They *presented* absolutely *no* evidence at that talk.
They did not present evidence in a way that proves anything--that is true.
However, you still are not reasonably considering their credibility regarding their ability to evaluate what they personally witnessed and experienced (those who did talk about personal experiences). For example, returning to the FAA investigator, he would obviously be qualified to evaluate the experience and evidence he claimed to have, which was radar data and radio transcripts regarding a UFO. He certainly knows enough about aircraft and radar systems to evaluate whether his experience was unusual.
Your comment about their not being "qualified to scientifically evaluate anything" is another red herring; not everything is a science experiment. The possible performance characteristics of known aircraft is common knowledge. This doesn't prove that they were ETs, but it is quite reasonable to conclude that he witnessed something unusual, outside the known envelope of aircraft performance.
If one accepts that, then his testimony regarding the coverup attempt seems reasonable. And if that event was covered up, it's reasonable to consider whether other, similar events have been covered up.
Now, back to his credibility: if you do not consider him credibly capable of evaluating such an experience as he claims to have had, then who would you consider credibly capable of doing so? You asked me what my metric is--what is yours?
So far, the only metric I have seen from you is, "That isn't possible as far as I know, so it must be untrue." That is simply illogical.
You may call them "reputable". I call them "loons". I have at least as much right to come to my conclusion as you do to yours. Concluding they are loons is the logical from the input I have at my disposal (namely that video).
You have the "right" to conclude whatever you want--that is another red herring.
I consider that people who have had such power and responsibility as they had are far more reputable than your average person on the street, especially within their areas of expertise. I consider that such people are far less likely to be psychologically unstable than average people--the government doesn't hand over nuclear launch capability to just anyone. This doesn't mean that they have perfect morals or ethics, or are infallible in any way--they are just as human as you and I are--but they are far more likely to be reasonable and trustworthy than an average person who hasn't been through the processes required to be in their positions.
If you disagree with that reasoning, I'd be glad to hear about your logic.
However, your argument seems to boil down to, "What they are claiming is far beyond known phenomena and beyond our knowledge and understanding--therefore they are loons." That is not a logical conclusion by any means--it is an irrational leap to an irrational conclusion which bypasses logical reasoning and labels them with an ad hominem. If you are so fond of the scientific process, this is as far from it as one can get.
History is full of people who pioneered fields of science and engineering who were called loons who later proved to be correct--the real loons were the irrational ones who said, "That's impossible--he's a loon!" S
There you go with calling them loons again. I could say the same about you because you're making false, irrational statements.
1. The FAA investigator in question showed, in his hands, evidence from the event he described, including stacks of papers, a videotape, and an audiotape. Of course you and I can't vet it, but to say that the physical evidence in his hands is hearsay makes no sense. You and I both know what hearsay is. Did you forget about it when you wrote, or are you deliberately trying to misrepresent the content of the video? Who's the one acting like a loon here?
2. You have not comprehended the video, or you actually don't know what hearsay is. These people aren't simply saying that they heard someone else say something. Some of them do mention overhearing things (including a radio transmission from an Apollo mission), but that is not the entirety of their testimony. These people are testifying to what they personally witnessed and experienced. That is not hearsay. If I talked about what someone else said they saw, that would be hearsay. If I talked about something that I personally experienced and witnessed, that is not hearsay, that is first-person testimony. Maybe you should read this.
3. It's not absurd at all to say that the people of the USA indirectly trusted these people. The entire point is that it's indirect trust. Whether you believe the government is, as a whole, worthy of trust is another matter entirely. The point is that these people were entrusted with powers and responsibilities that average people would not have been. But let's not argue over semantics--surely you know what I mean.
4. I'm not claiming that ETs do exist or that zero-point energy exists or works. But it's irrational to say that something which one, by definition, cannot yet understand, is impossible. A few hundred years ago, would anyone have believed in nuclear power? What would people have said about subatomic particles or quantum theory before things like microscopes existed? People used to think the world was flat and that the sun revolved around it. Electromagnetic radiation? Radio? Magic, evil! When such things are completely beyond one's knowledge or comprehension, they seem impossible. How many millennia of history do you require to understand this? The rational thing to say is, "I don't know how that could be possible. But just because I don't know how doesn't mean it is impossible."
5. They are not claiming to perform or practice science. I'm guessing now that you haven't actually watched the video well enough to comprehend it. You're arguing with a strawman on this point.
What it boils down to is this: This man, Greer, is collecting testimony from reputable individuals. Some of the testimony independently corroborates other testimony about specific events. Added up, it seems to point to a large-scale coverup. It doesn't necessarily prove that ETs or zero-point energy exists. What it does do is make the case that further investigation is warranted--that there might really be a coverup relating to ETs and technology derived from ET vehicle crashes. Every one of his witnesses has said that he or she is willing to testify before the Congress. And I think it's interesting that most of these people are past retirement: you don't find many people willing to put their careers on the line to make these statements, and at this point in these people's lives, they have nothing to gain from doing so--only the potential to be labeled as "loons," as you have so aptly demonstrated.
I'd be interested to see you set aside your ad hominems and name-calling and discuss this rationally. If there are rational arguments to discredit their testimony or credibility, please make them. It'd also be interesting to discuss, from a devil's advocate standpoint, what some reasons would be to create a coverup of such claims. And it would be interesting to consider "what if?" the claims are true, what the implications would be.
Sometimes the most reasonable, rational, logical thing to say is, "I don't know yet."
My metric includes the power and responsibilities they held. As I mentioned elsewhere in this thread, they included people responsible for investigating aviation accidents and the official finding of fact and truth. They also included people responsible for the launch control of nuclear weapons during the Cold War. Compared to your everyday citizen, or even average government employee or military personnel, they were definitely among the most trusted individuals who existed at the time, considering the power and responsibilities they held.
One could even say that you did indirectly trust some of those people, since (if you're American--otherwise, nevermind) your government trusted them to not misuse nuclear weapons, leading the rest of the nation to its potential demise.
Other than that video, the project has videotaped interviews with other people, including a NASA astronaut from the Mercury and Gemini projects, flag officers from the American and British military (i.e. generals and admirals), and other high-ranking military officers.
If you don't honestly think that generals and admirals and early astronauts were among the most trusted individuals in the world, I'd like to hear why. Just think about the millions of dollars invested into these people and their careers.
Your argument against their trustworthiness is that you think of the word "loon." That is an irrational argument. I'm not saying that what they say is actually true. I'm saying that it should be considered rationally and thoughtfully, not dismissed out of hand because it doesn't SEEM plausible.
In fact, if what they claim is true, dismissing them as loons is simply SOP for those who are part of the coverup. An irrational attack against their credibility is the easiest, cheapest, and most difficult to defend against.
So I ask you, if you have any interest in the subject, to consider what they have to say and the other evidence relating to it in a rational and thoughtful way, rather than dismissing them because it doesn't seem plausible. Airplanes, spaceflight, splitting the atom, radio communication, Relativity, biology, chemistry, astronomy...the list of things which were once dismissed as loony, implausible ideas goes on and on. It's not a rational argument against it.
That's not a bad point. However, I think those reports weren't restricted. I think it was simply a case of interesting reports slipping through a government bureaucracy's attempted coverup. That particular FAA investigator wasn't directly responsible for investigating UFO incidents--he just happened to be in the right place at the right time to be involved in that incident. My perception is that, knowing something fishy was going on, and that a coverup was being attempted, he deliberately only gave them the data they specifically requested.
Whether he intended to reveal it after his retirement, or whether he rediscovered it years later and then decided to, I don't know. But I don't think I can blame him for waiting until he retired to do so. Otherwise he'd be throwing his career away, and possibly risking jail time.
Regarding "most trusted": compared to your everyday citizen, and even compared to your average government employee, people like this man were definitely among the most trusted. This man you mentioned was an official FAA investigator charged with the finding of fact and truth in many situations for many years. Some of those other people in the video were directly responsible for the launch control of nuclear weapons. They weren't in the public eye, they weren't elected, but they were definitely among the most trusted individuals who existed at the time, if you consider the power and responsibilities they held.
If what these people say is true--many of whom have been among the most trusted individuals in the world, even working with nuclear launch authorization codes--then SETI is truly a tragic waste of time and money.
I'm not saying it's true. But what if it is? What are the implications? What if these petroleum corporations would put their billions of dollars into researching and developing technology that's just waiting to be used?
These people who claim to be witnesses were trusted to the utmost, including some who were trusted with nuclear launch authorization codes. No nuts would be given a job like that.
What happens when Microsoft removes the requirement to be able to disable Secure Boot? It may be cheaper for OEMs to only make one part, one that can't disable it.
What happens when the only way to install Linux is to buy parts off NewEgg and assemble your own system? Potential new Linux users won't be interested in buying a new computer to install an unknown OS that can't even stream Netflix. And would you still be able to install Windows on such systems if you needed to dual-boot?
What happens when only a few motherboard manufacturers are making boards that can disable Secure Boot? Will they be more expensive, being lower-volume? Will Microsoft and others pressure them to stop making such boards? Will the market sustain such boards from their bean-counting perspective?
What happens when their chip suppliers aren't interested in making such chips anymore? Will it be cheaper to just make chips that can't disable it? Will Microsoft force them to stop making them?
What happens when only enterprise users and server farmers can afford systems that are open enough to install whatever software you want? What happens when you have to get a license or authorization of some kind to get unlocked hardware?
What happens when the only unlocked hardware available is old and dying? What happens when there are no more old parts to buy on eBay? What happens when all that's left is low-end stuff like Raspberry Pi?
I sure hope all this doesn't happen--but it wouldn't surprise me if it does.
"Building a "standard" building (1000 sq ft home) in the US costs about $250,000-350,000 without the lot (just building costs). The lot is not necessarily the expensive part, where I live you can get a residential zoned lot at $20k for half an acre although there are more expensive parts to the country."
Batters don't have time to judge the ball's trajectory itself so they rely on the pitcher's delivery to tell them where the pitch is going.
Yeesh. You're just plain wrong. At least you were nice about it. But you're just wrong.
Hitters watch the pitcher's release point and try to "pick up" the ball as soon as it leaves his hand. If a hitter doesn't visually lock onto the ball as soon as it leaves the pitcher's hand, he probably won't hit it--at best, he'll foul it off.
Pitchers generally try to maintain a consistent release point; it makes it easier to develop fine control and helps prevent injury. The release point can be the same, yet the pitch location can be all over the place.
I haven't even mentioned spin yet. A four-seam fastball and a two-seam fastball behave very differently, yet they begin the same, coming straight out of the pitcher's hand with backspin. If the hitter doesn't read the spin, he probably won't hit it well. A changeup or a splitter are even more different than those pitches, yet they also come straight out of the pitcher's hand with backspin. The hitter must see the seams of the ball as it's in flight in order to recognize the pitch type and be able to estimate its trajectory. And I haven't even mentioned curveballs and sliders yet.
I'll never forget the first time I recognized a slider while hitting. I remember seeing the dot right after the ball left the pitcher's hand. I had seen enough of them on TV replays while watching games that my mind recognized it quickly, and I knew the pitch would be a ball, low and away. If I hadn't seen the dot, it would have looked like a fastball down the middle, and I would have swung and missed. And all of that visual and mental recognition and processing has to happen in a fraction of a second. It was exciting! (If only I had had my vision corrected years earlier! I didn't realize I was capable of seeing the spin on the ball.)
As for knuckleballs, it's an exaggeration to say, "even the pitcher doesn't know where it's going." Not that a pitcher has fine control over it, but if it were as wild as you suggest, it would be useless. If you can throw a baseball already with decent accuracy, you can try a knuckleball for yourself and see. It's not that hard to get it in the strike zone if you're a decent pitcher.
Yes, I used to play baseball, both pitching and hitting.
(As an aside, while you might know a lot about hockey, please don't speculate so authoritatively about something you don't actually know about. It's a shame to see a post that's just plain wrong modded +5 Insightful.)
I rest my case. You need to lighten up and not take yourself so seriously. Those guys may be old but they're young at heart. Having a low threshold of humor is healthy. I think I feel sorry for you if you feel so much hatred toward harmless, friendly, helpful guys like them.
My concern is, what is their next move? What about the specification for UEFI 2? Will the bypass still be required? Will that be a DMCA violation?
Also, sadly, requiring the BIOS bypass will probably hurt Linux adoption by the general public more than you think. If people perceive it as disabling safeguards, many people will perceive Linux as dangerous. Being ignorant of the tech and of Microsoft's maneuvering, it's practically inevitable.
Apple probably stands to gain the most in the next 5 years.
I'm a huge Linux supporter--been using it full time for going on 9 years--but I'm also realistic. I don't think MS shooting themselves in the foot with Windows 8 will help desktop use of Linux as much as you think. Apple, sure, but Linux doesn't have enough mindshare among the public to get major OEMs to consider offering Linux preinstalled for consumers. Dell practically gave up on their Ubuntu offering, sadly.
I think it will take much longer for Linux to really benefit from MS's spiral. Maybe in a few segments of enterprise markets, but most won't want to use CrossOver Office. I think what is more likely is for MS to focus more attention on Office and other products and very slowly cede OS marketshare. Most consumers still care more about gaming and random Windows software, and that will hold back Linux adoption there.
Also, KDE and GNOME have, sadly, not reached the potential they had, say, five years ago. They could be killer by now, better and prettier and easier than OS X, but other than their FOSS values, they're no better than equal. They've become bloated and awkward, and they don't care enough about the product aspect to polish anything; they just keep adding stuff, letting half-baked stuff rot, and fantasizing, releasing components that are years away from being ready for general release (eg Akonadi, Nepomuk). The CADT model is the norm, and that doesn't make for a polished product that can compete with OS X in general markets.
But as long as Linux remains usable on desktop hardware. I'll be happy. I just hope this UEFI stuff isn't the beginning of. "First they came for the..., and I said nothing..." In five years will it still be bypassable, or will that be a DMCA violation? Will we have to get a BIOS crack off TPB just to install Linux?
Slashdot Mirror
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/massiveblack/zombie-playground-zpg-3d-action-online-battle-rpg
A matter of opinion, surely, but one I strongly agree with.
Tb has much unrealized potential, but all anyone seems to care about nowadays is the browser. "Those who don't understand Unix are doomed to reinvent it, poorly." I think the same principle applies to the browser-vs-native issue. Web apps are just reimplementing the entire software stack from the kernel to the GUI in a much less efficient manner, wasting our CPU cycles, battery power, not to mention the man-years wasted waiting for the computer to do something at the same apparent speed that computers did it 10 or more years ago. I wonder how fast the typical set of Windows 95-era apps would run on Core i7 CPUs. But now we need these new CPUs to get the same apparent performance for the same tasks because of all the stupid bloat. Yeah, development turnaround is quicker, but the users' time is wasted, and that's multiplied by the number of users! Development time is an investment that pays dividends in saved user time, but I feel like most developers nowadays are so self-absorbed that they only care about their own experience.
As for Tb, I think Maildir support should be the top priority. mbox is a joke comparatively. When I read up on it and think about the potential for corruption and the inefficiencies (like having to rewrite the entire mbox file, potentially hundreds of megs to gigs, just to actually delete mail), I shudder.
If you use NoScript (and I think you should, if for no other reason than to lower CPU usage running dumb JS), you don't need FlashBlock, because NoScript does the same thing.
Thanks for sharing that.
Maybe part of the problem is, with these large development organizations, and the turnover they incur, individual developers feel less of a sense of ownership over the project (which is also a product, regardless of price). With that comes less pride in their workmanship, and motivation and quality suffer.
Sometimes I think smaller projects are better for FOSS (with notable exceptions, like the kernel, Apache, etc, which tend to be more foundational projects than user-facing ones).
New customization interface? Been there since Phoenix 0.6.
...cannot stand.
"These people aren't simply saying that they heard someone else say something."
About 2/3rds of it was *exactly* that. There were even times where one of them mentioned hearing someone else talk about what someone else had said.
As I said, some of their testimony was hearsay, but not all of it. Hearsay does not prove anything, however it can be considered with other evidence and suggest that further investigation is warranted. This is a red herring.
From what I heard and saw, I do not believe any of them are credible. I do not believe they are qualified to scientifically evaluate anything that they claim they witnessed. They *presented* absolutely *no* evidence at that talk.
They did not present evidence in a way that proves anything--that is true.
However, you still are not reasonably considering their credibility regarding their ability to evaluate what they personally witnessed and experienced (those who did talk about personal experiences). For example, returning to the FAA investigator, he would obviously be qualified to evaluate the experience and evidence he claimed to have, which was radar data and radio transcripts regarding a UFO. He certainly knows enough about aircraft and radar systems to evaluate whether his experience was unusual.
Your comment about their not being "qualified to scientifically evaluate anything" is another red herring; not everything is a science experiment. The possible performance characteristics of known aircraft is common knowledge. This doesn't prove that they were ETs, but it is quite reasonable to conclude that he witnessed something unusual, outside the known envelope of aircraft performance.
If one accepts that, then his testimony regarding the coverup attempt seems reasonable. And if that event was covered up, it's reasonable to consider whether other, similar events have been covered up.
Now, back to his credibility: if you do not consider him credibly capable of evaluating such an experience as he claims to have had, then who would you consider credibly capable of doing so? You asked me what my metric is--what is yours?
So far, the only metric I have seen from you is, "That isn't possible as far as I know, so it must be untrue." That is simply illogical.
You may call them "reputable". I call them "loons". I have at least as much right to come to my conclusion as you do to yours. Concluding they are loons is the logical from the input I have at my disposal (namely that video).
You have the "right" to conclude whatever you want--that is another red herring.
I consider that people who have had such power and responsibility as they had are far more reputable than your average person on the street, especially within their areas of expertise. I consider that such people are far less likely to be psychologically unstable than average people--the government doesn't hand over nuclear launch capability to just anyone. This doesn't mean that they have perfect morals or ethics, or are infallible in any way--they are just as human as you and I are--but they are far more likely to be reasonable and trustworthy than an average person who hasn't been through the processes required to be in their positions.
If you disagree with that reasoning, I'd be glad to hear about your logic.
However, your argument seems to boil down to, "What they are claiming is far beyond known phenomena and beyond our knowledge and understanding--therefore they are loons." That is not a logical conclusion by any means--it is an irrational leap to an irrational conclusion which bypasses logical reasoning and labels them with an ad hominem. If you are so fond of the scientific process, this is as far from it as one can get.
History is full of people who pioneered fields of science and engineering who were called loons who later proved to be correct--the real loons were the irrational ones who said, "That's impossible--he's a loon!" S
It's legal to record off the radio or television--why in the world would it be legal to record from the airwaves but not from the REAL AIRwaves?
There you go with calling them loons again. I could say the same about you because you're making false, irrational statements.
1. The FAA investigator in question showed, in his hands, evidence from the event he described, including stacks of papers, a videotape, and an audiotape. Of course you and I can't vet it, but to say that the physical evidence in his hands is hearsay makes no sense. You and I both know what hearsay is. Did you forget about it when you wrote, or are you deliberately trying to misrepresent the content of the video? Who's the one acting like a loon here?
2. You have not comprehended the video, or you actually don't know what hearsay is. These people aren't simply saying that they heard someone else say something. Some of them do mention overhearing things (including a radio transmission from an Apollo mission), but that is not the entirety of their testimony. These people are testifying to what they personally witnessed and experienced. That is not hearsay. If I talked about what someone else said they saw, that would be hearsay. If I talked about something that I personally experienced and witnessed, that is not hearsay, that is first-person testimony. Maybe you should read this.
3. It's not absurd at all to say that the people of the USA indirectly trusted these people. The entire point is that it's indirect trust. Whether you believe the government is, as a whole, worthy of trust is another matter entirely. The point is that these people were entrusted with powers and responsibilities that average people would not have been. But let's not argue over semantics--surely you know what I mean.
4. I'm not claiming that ETs do exist or that zero-point energy exists or works. But it's irrational to say that something which one, by definition, cannot yet understand, is impossible. A few hundred years ago, would anyone have believed in nuclear power? What would people have said about subatomic particles or quantum theory before things like microscopes existed? People used to think the world was flat and that the sun revolved around it. Electromagnetic radiation? Radio? Magic, evil! When such things are completely beyond one's knowledge or comprehension, they seem impossible. How many millennia of history do you require to understand this? The rational thing to say is, "I don't know how that could be possible. But just because I don't know how doesn't mean it is impossible."
5. They are not claiming to perform or practice science. I'm guessing now that you haven't actually watched the video well enough to comprehend it. You're arguing with a strawman on this point.
What it boils down to is this: This man, Greer, is collecting testimony from reputable individuals. Some of the testimony independently corroborates other testimony about specific events. Added up, it seems to point to a large-scale coverup. It doesn't necessarily prove that ETs or zero-point energy exists. What it does do is make the case that further investigation is warranted--that there might really be a coverup relating to ETs and technology derived from ET vehicle crashes. Every one of his witnesses has said that he or she is willing to testify before the Congress. And I think it's interesting that most of these people are past retirement: you don't find many people willing to put their careers on the line to make these statements, and at this point in these people's lives, they have nothing to gain from doing so--only the potential to be labeled as "loons," as you have so aptly demonstrated.
I'd be interested to see you set aside your ad hominems and name-calling and discuss this rationally. If there are rational arguments to discredit their testimony or credibility, please make them. It'd also be interesting to discuss, from a devil's advocate standpoint, what some reasons would be to create a coverup of such claims. And it would be interesting to consider "what if?" the claims are true, what the implications would be.
Sometimes the most reasonable, rational, logical thing to say is, "I don't know yet."
My metric includes the power and responsibilities they held. As I mentioned elsewhere in this thread, they included people responsible for investigating aviation accidents and the official finding of fact and truth. They also included people responsible for the launch control of nuclear weapons during the Cold War. Compared to your everyday citizen, or even average government employee or military personnel, they were definitely among the most trusted individuals who existed at the time, considering the power and responsibilities they held.
One could even say that you did indirectly trust some of those people, since (if you're American--otherwise, nevermind) your government trusted them to not misuse nuclear weapons, leading the rest of the nation to its potential demise.
Other than that video, the project has videotaped interviews with other people, including a NASA astronaut from the Mercury and Gemini projects, flag officers from the American and British military (i.e. generals and admirals), and other high-ranking military officers.
If you don't honestly think that generals and admirals and early astronauts were among the most trusted individuals in the world, I'd like to hear why. Just think about the millions of dollars invested into these people and their careers.
Your argument against their trustworthiness is that you think of the word "loon." That is an irrational argument. I'm not saying that what they say is actually true. I'm saying that it should be considered rationally and thoughtfully, not dismissed out of hand because it doesn't SEEM plausible.
In fact, if what they claim is true, dismissing them as loons is simply SOP for those who are part of the coverup. An irrational attack against their credibility is the easiest, cheapest, and most difficult to defend against.
So I ask you, if you have any interest in the subject, to consider what they have to say and the other evidence relating to it in a rational and thoughtful way, rather than dismissing them because it doesn't seem plausible. Airplanes, spaceflight, splitting the atom, radio communication, Relativity, biology, chemistry, astronomy...the list of things which were once dismissed as loony, implausible ideas goes on and on. It's not a rational argument against it.
That's not a bad point. However, I think those reports weren't restricted. I think it was simply a case of interesting reports slipping through a government bureaucracy's attempted coverup. That particular FAA investigator wasn't directly responsible for investigating UFO incidents--he just happened to be in the right place at the right time to be involved in that incident. My perception is that, knowing something fishy was going on, and that a coverup was being attempted, he deliberately only gave them the data they specifically requested.
Whether he intended to reveal it after his retirement, or whether he rediscovered it years later and then decided to, I don't know. But I don't think I can blame him for waiting until he retired to do so. Otherwise he'd be throwing his career away, and possibly risking jail time.
Regarding "most trusted": compared to your everyday citizen, and even compared to your average government employee, people like this man were definitely among the most trusted. This man you mentioned was an official FAA investigator charged with the finding of fact and truth in many situations for many years. Some of those other people in the video were directly responsible for the launch control of nuclear weapons. They weren't in the public eye, they weren't elected, but they were definitely among the most trusted individuals who existed at the time, if you consider the power and responsibilities they held.
http://youtu.be/lkswXVmG4xM
If what these people say is true--many of whom have been among the most trusted individuals in the world, even working with nuclear launch authorization codes--then SETI is truly a tragic waste of time and money.
Please proofread your posts.
http://youtu.be/lkswXVmG4xM
I'm not saying it's true. But what if it is? What are the implications? What if these petroleum corporations would put their billions of dollars into researching and developing technology that's just waiting to be used?
These people who claim to be witnesses were trusted to the utmost, including some who were trusted with nuclear launch authorization codes. No nuts would be given a job like that.
What happens when Microsoft removes the requirement to be able to disable Secure Boot? It may be cheaper for OEMs to only make one part, one that can't disable it.
What happens when the only way to install Linux is to buy parts off NewEgg and assemble your own system? Potential new Linux users won't be interested in buying a new computer to install an unknown OS that can't even stream Netflix. And would you still be able to install Windows on such systems if you needed to dual-boot?
What happens when only a few motherboard manufacturers are making boards that can disable Secure Boot? Will they be more expensive, being lower-volume? Will Microsoft and others pressure them to stop making such boards? Will the market sustain such boards from their bean-counting perspective?
What happens when their chip suppliers aren't interested in making such chips anymore? Will it be cheaper to just make chips that can't disable it? Will Microsoft force them to stop making them?
What happens when only enterprise users and server farmers can afford systems that are open enough to install whatever software you want? What happens when you have to get a license or authorization of some kind to get unlocked hardware?
What happens when the only unlocked hardware available is old and dying? What happens when there are no more old parts to buy on eBay? What happens when all that's left is low-end stuff like Raspberry Pi?
I sure hope all this doesn't happen--but it wouldn't surprise me if it does.
and give him a sandvich.
"Building a "standard" building (1000 sq ft home) in the US costs about $250,000-350,000 without the lot (just building costs). The lot is not necessarily the expensive part, where I live you can get a residential zoned lot at $20k for half an acre although there are more expensive parts to the country."
Where did you obtain your data?
Batters don't have time to judge the ball's trajectory itself so they rely on the pitcher's delivery to tell them where the pitch is going.
Yeesh. You're just plain wrong. At least you were nice about it. But you're just wrong.
Hitters watch the pitcher's release point and try to "pick up" the ball as soon as it leaves his hand. If a hitter doesn't visually lock onto the ball as soon as it leaves the pitcher's hand, he probably won't hit it--at best, he'll foul it off.
Pitchers generally try to maintain a consistent release point; it makes it easier to develop fine control and helps prevent injury. The release point can be the same, yet the pitch location can be all over the place.
I haven't even mentioned spin yet. A four-seam fastball and a two-seam fastball behave very differently, yet they begin the same, coming straight out of the pitcher's hand with backspin. If the hitter doesn't read the spin, he probably won't hit it well. A changeup or a splitter are even more different than those pitches, yet they also come straight out of the pitcher's hand with backspin. The hitter must see the seams of the ball as it's in flight in order to recognize the pitch type and be able to estimate its trajectory. And I haven't even mentioned curveballs and sliders yet.
I'll never forget the first time I recognized a slider while hitting. I remember seeing the dot right after the ball left the pitcher's hand. I had seen enough of them on TV replays while watching games that my mind recognized it quickly, and I knew the pitch would be a ball, low and away. If I hadn't seen the dot, it would have looked like a fastball down the middle, and I would have swung and missed. And all of that visual and mental recognition and processing has to happen in a fraction of a second. It was exciting! (If only I had had my vision corrected years earlier! I didn't realize I was capable of seeing the spin on the ball.)
As for knuckleballs, it's an exaggeration to say, "even the pitcher doesn't know where it's going." Not that a pitcher has fine control over it, but if it were as wild as you suggest, it would be useless. If you can throw a baseball already with decent accuracy, you can try a knuckleball for yourself and see. It's not that hard to get it in the strike zone if you're a decent pitcher.
Yes, I used to play baseball, both pitching and hitting.
(As an aside, while you might know a lot about hockey, please don't speculate so authoritatively about something you don't actually know about. It's a shame to see a post that's just plain wrong modded +5 Insightful.)
Mod parent up! Great article. Thanks for sharing.
I rest my case. You need to lighten up and not take yourself so seriously. Those guys may be old but they're young at heart. Having a low threshold of humor is healthy. I think I feel sorry for you if you feel so much hatred toward harmless, friendly, helpful guys like them.
Wow, that's twice my home bandwidth cap. Would you share the URL for them please?
Yes. Thanks for all that.
My concern is, what is their next move? What about the specification for UEFI 2? Will the bypass still be required? Will that be a DMCA violation?
Also, sadly, requiring the BIOS bypass will probably hurt Linux adoption by the general public more than you think. If people perceive it as disabling safeguards, many people will perceive Linux as dangerous. Being ignorant of the tech and of Microsoft's maneuvering, it's practically inevitable.
Apple probably stands to gain the most in the next 5 years.
Careful, man, you're starting to sound like APK there.
I'm a huge Linux supporter--been using it full time for going on 9 years--but I'm also realistic. I don't think MS shooting themselves in the foot with Windows 8 will help desktop use of Linux as much as you think. Apple, sure, but Linux doesn't have enough mindshare among the public to get major OEMs to consider offering Linux preinstalled for consumers. Dell practically gave up on their Ubuntu offering, sadly.
I think it will take much longer for Linux to really benefit from MS's spiral. Maybe in a few segments of enterprise markets, but most won't want to use CrossOver Office. I think what is more likely is for MS to focus more attention on Office and other products and very slowly cede OS marketshare. Most consumers still care more about gaming and random Windows software, and that will hold back Linux adoption there.
Also, KDE and GNOME have, sadly, not reached the potential they had, say, five years ago. They could be killer by now, better and prettier and easier than OS X, but other than their FOSS values, they're no better than equal. They've become bloated and awkward, and they don't care enough about the product aspect to polish anything; they just keep adding stuff, letting half-baked stuff rot, and fantasizing, releasing components that are years away from being ready for general release (eg Akonadi, Nepomuk). The CADT model is the norm, and that doesn't make for a polished product that can compete with OS X in general markets.
But as long as Linux remains usable on desktop hardware. I'll be happy. I just hope this UEFI stuff isn't the beginning of. "First they came for the ..., and I said nothing..." In five years will it still be bypassable, or will that be a DMCA violation? Will we have to get a BIOS crack off TPB just to install Linux?
Holding back the tide gets tiring.