Ontop of that, this is just another example of US aggression. First we militerized space, now we are militerizing the internet. Disgusting, this is an example of Bush era policy that simply must be ended if we are going to run a country which reflects our supposed "ideals."
Especially, if we are going to complain when Chinese hackers invade our power grid. We've got no right to complain if we ourselves are developing the same capability. More Bush-era hyporcrasy.
You make money by host high quality pirated torrent on fast server!! Then set membership service, people pay 5 Yuan for password to encrypted torrent since they already spend so long download it!!111
OR just burn onto CDs and sell on street
dumb American always ask dumb question... this why China rising power, America have no spirit of great business success
PS. I OFFER SPECIAL DEAL ON HIGHSCHOOL MUSICAL 3 VIDEO CD WITH CANTONESE, MANDRIN, TIBETAN, VIETNAMESE AND HMONG HARDCODE SUBTITLES. PLEASE CONTACT FOR INTEREST
That's just it though, we don't "need" corporations to fund it, if we wanted to, the public COULD fund it; its not like the government is short on credit. Besides, in theory it wouldn't even cost anything because it actually is profitable and could at least pay for itself.
Thus there is NO type of research that only a corporation can afford, and at least one type of research a corporation can't afford. That's really ALL I'm saying.
Sure, I'll agree with that.
The problem is, an unproductive and expensive private drug developer must eventually answer to the free market. Similar government programs can go on for years wasting money, the only accountability comes from voters every four years.
Furthermore, putting this in the hands of government would open the entire process to political favoritism. e.g, does one central nexus of drug research in one state sound good? Too bad, funding bills need approval from everyone, so you'd get little hundred person research facilities in every state. Want to shut down that very poorly run outdated facility in Idaho? Nope, this program is about creating jobs, let's cut funding for lab equipment in New York instead.
The government could take on all these responsibilities, but I doubt it would be more efficient. To be fair to you, I don't think you were arguing that the government should take over the whole sector, but I had to make my point;-)
So I come to Slashdot to find out if others have experienced this adversarial relationship between business and tech, and if so, what was the effect on the overall success of the business?"
Yes, it is extremely prevalent here! On the other hand, it doesn't seem to have had any negative effects. Actually, standing in the way of various technologies seems to have made our business more successful!
Opinions here do not necessarily reflect those of my employer, Exxon Mobile Corporation.
Publicly funded research CAN afford to explore those avenues, and a drug that does 'bad things' is often as valuable as a success in terms of the general advance it represents in bio-chemistry, and may lead to something that does good things. The corps can't afford to do this, they only pick up the ball once a something with a high likelihood of good things has been identified.
Exactly, basic research usually only presents a biological mechanism which a drug could possibly exploit. Basic research is a loss leader, but the scale of clinical trials means that the last mile is the most expensive part of drug development. Basic research is just the least profitable.
I'm not arguing that drug companies are acting charitably, they aren't. But the way you stated it, it seems like tax payers are paying for most of the costs of drug development only to have big-pharma snatch up the almost finished product, patent it, and make huge profits. That simply isn't the case.
To be fair, both Obama and McCain are hamstrung in certain areas by their ideological base. McCain, by the religious right - Obama by the environmental left.
McCain: As President, I will put the country on track to building 45 new reactors by 2030 so that we can meet our growing energy demand and reduce our emissions of greenhouse gases. Nuclear power is a proven, domestic, zero-emission source of energy and it is time to recommit to advancing our use of nuclear energy. The U.S. has not started construction on a new nuclear power plant in over 30 years. Currently, nuclear power provides 20 percent of our overall energy portfolio. Other countries such as China, India and Russia are looking to increase the role of nuclear power in their energy portfolio and the U.S. should not just look to maintain, but increase its own use.
Obama gives a tepid answer, and doesn't propose any increase in nuclear energy.
A new generation of nuclear electric technologies that address cost, safety, waste disposal, and proliferation risks.
McCain clearly comes out in favor of GM foods, and his voting record reflects this.
Genetic research can already provide real assistance for those in some of the poorest regions who lack access to adequate food sources. Through increased research and development, we can help foster a new Green Revolution like the one that transformed Asia several decades ago. In partnership with government institutions, our colleges and universities should help train a new generation of African agro-scientists. Our aid programs should help focus on research into higher-yielding crops and make investments in infrastructure that will help farmers increase their yields and deliver their products to market.
Obama is more tepid, and his voting record shows he really doesn't support government sponsored research into GM foods. Only commercial development, which means it won't be destined for those who need it most.
Advances in the genetic engineering of plants have provided enormous benefits to American farmers. I believe that we can continue to modify plants safely with new genetic methods, abetted by stringent tests for environmental and health effects and by stronger regulatory oversight guided by the best available scientific advice.
Don't get me wrong. I support Obama, but I would like to insert some balance into this discussion. (I'm sure I will be modded down, no secret on which side of the political spectrum most Slashdot readers lie).
Pharma research takes anything promising from publicly funded basic research and runs the last mile to a commericial product. (I'm not saying that last mile is 'cheap', but its not more expensive than the basic research they are building on.)
I find that difficult to believe. Multiple sources cite a figure of around 800 Million dollars for bringing a drug from Phase I trials to approval. Trials involve paying doctors to check up on patients who are often getting paid for being in the trial, free drugs for all those in the trial and then multiple trials to screen for rare but possibly deadly side effects.
If a possible side effect is discovered, then further studies must be done to figure out if these side effects are real or just an aberration due to a poorly chosen study population. If the side effects are real, and they cause someone permanent damage, then that person gets free treatment for that damage for life.
Assume one hundred "basic researchers" only find one "promising" lead a year. That makes them at least an order of magnitude more efficient than the "last mile" which drug companies must perform.
Speak for yourself. I've been using Word for 15 years (on Mac and PC), and I personally think the ribbon interface is a nice change.
Yes, you initially have to take time to figure out where things are, but when you know it's quicker.
No, you're not the only one. I prefer it also. In my opinion it's a vast improvement, and I love the fact that it never changes to make it more "convienent" for you. Open Office could add this feature (even as an option) without much effort, rearranging the menus would hardly require rebuilding the Suite from the ground up.
Perhaps not immediately, but within a few years a system will exist which will allow the streaming of any movie ever made via broadband instantly. Why would you want to bother keeping an anachronistic collection of shiny discs, when you could have anything you want, instantly.
Because any such home delivery system will be a repeat of the DIVX disaster. People don't like systems which threaten to stop working and demand continued money feeding for content they already own. The Movie Industry does though, and they'll never give up the dream.
If you've got a Blu-Ray disc in your hand it's yours, no DRM watchdog is going to one day come and smash it into pieces.
But why should students do this at all? As one law school textbook author has suggested, why not include the price of textbooks in tuition? As he notes, "It's easy for prices to drift upward when the person choosing the product doesn't really care how much it costs."
Surprise! Public highschools have been doing exactly that for the last few hundred years. Lawyers seem to have a knack for reinventing the wheel.
I graduated college last August, and I don't remember returning text books to the bookstore as a particularly exciting time - more often than not, I'd only get maybe $10-20 back on a book that cost me $100 at the beginning of the semester.
Your loss. Reselling on Ebay or Half.com would have netted you at least half the original purchase price, even better: Buy the book at half.com then resell when you're finished. I spend maybe $10 or $20 on each textbook, whereas you take $90 hit.
In the end the problem here is not the school bookstore, but the fact that you accepted their paltry offer. I'm guessing you didn't take any economics classes, either that or you graduated from Sanford Brown.
Couldn't agree more! Super Smash Brothers is the perfect game for a casual session with your girlfriend. It's easy to pick up and within five minutes having fun and there's bound to be a character that she likes.
Plus you can get a copy free with a Gamecube for $99, not a bad deal for something that can easily provide hours (days!) of entertainment (procrastination!).
I never mess with any of this silent PC stuff. I've got a Geforce 7800GTX paired with a Athlon X2 Oc'd to 260 FSB. For 80mm cooling I've got five Vantec Tornado Ex Fans all stuck on double 12v lines, each pushes about 100 CFM. As a sidemount I decided to put a Delta "The Extreme" 120mm Ulra-high CFM fan, this bad-boy is rated at 260 CFM and 62 dBA when on full speed.
The smaller fans are each 56dBA - and an old sleeve bearing fan is apparently making a really loud screaching noise. My cat and dog don't like to sit in the same room but it's better that way, no dog hairs get sucked in.
The four way Raptor WD360GD 10,000 RPM RAID-5 setup isn't exactly quiet either.:)
Go back and actually read my post instead of maybe half of the last sentence...
The Chinese protests are not concerning the warcrimes of Japanese army officers specifically, rather the false perception that the Japanese government is deliberately whitewashing the past by publishing textbooks which omit or execuse these warcrimes. Furthermore even the Chinese government would say you're flat out wrong - they are opposing Japan's entry due to the actions of a handful of Modern Japanese (eg. Textbook, Visiting the Yasukuni Shrine).
Your belief the Chinese are protesting the warcrimes committed sixty years ago is at best very mislead, you obviously have a very poor understanding of Sino-Japanese relations.
Yes I'm Chinese. My parents are Chinese. I was born in China. And no we don't live in China.
Yet I still think all the mud throwing at the Chinese government is rediculous. Everybody here's making it sound like China is a hell in which you will be executed if you try to pronounce the 'd' of 'democracy'. China is not North Korea. While I think the Chinese government should be more open, they're not the Big Bad Stalinist Communist Overlords everybody claims they are.
My dad - yes yes he does NOT live in China - has an even stronger opinion than I have. He firmly believes that people are getting paid by the US government to bash the Chinese government. When the Chinese government does something, everybody yells 'OMG those communist bastards are 3v1l!!!'. But when the US government does something, almost nobody says a word.
In China people actually do get paid to write bad things about the American, Tawianese and Japanese government. Admittedly, they don't make up stories as a pure propagandist would, but they do exagerate them in exactly the manner you complain of - Not to excuse US reporters who employ this tactic.
Take the gigantic nationalistic protests against Japan. Spurred mostly by inflated or outright false reports concerning two textbooks published by a private company used in at most a handful of school districts. These textbooks were in no way ever endorsed by the Japanese government or supported by the majority of the Japanese populace. The chearleaders of these textbooks are the same in proportion to Neo Nazis in Germany.
>> And on the other-hand, how do we know the Chinese government didn't force them to say that?!?! >> *adjusts tinfoil hat*
>And on the third hand, how do we know they weren't working for the Chinese government all along, as >part of a psyops plan to discredit Chinese bloggers who oppose the government?
But on the fourth hand, how do we know the bloggers weren't all part of a large cabal desinged to discredit the chinese government by giving the impression that the chinese government would stage the shutdown of blogs, while at the same time making the entire fiasco so transparent as to be laughable, thereby making the chinese government more believable whilst casting doubt on the altruism of Chinese bloggers?
The mantra of course applies here: Unless you've programmed a totally secure operating system, keep your mouth shut.
As always. Unless you can build a space-shuttle that doesn't crash or perform a succesful heart bypass surgery you have absolutely no right to critisize those who at least gave it a try. The surgeon was drunk? NASA forgot to put fuel in the shuttle? Doesn't matter.
The same applies for leading a country - unless you think you can do a better job keep your trap shut!
Just use a password that's easy to remember or one you can guess, like your first and last name. Or you can use the old classic "password" - no need to remember anything. When prompted for your password you've got it spelled out right their in the dialogue box!
Any programmer who doesn't stop themselves and think that writing something like fprintf(logfile, "root password entered is: %s\n", password); is not the best idea should not be writing code for a secure operating system.
Isn't that redundant? A programmer that dumb can never work on a "secure" operating system, it's logically impossible. As soon as they begin coding they'll jack things up so the operating system is no longer secure.
Better said, "A programmer like that can't be allowed to compromise a secure operating system."
Slashdot Mirror
Ontop of that, this is just another example of US aggression. First we militerized space, now we are militerizing the internet. Disgusting, this is an example of Bush era policy that simply must be ended if we are going to run a country which reflects our supposed "ideals."
Especially, if we are going to complain when Chinese hackers invade our power grid. We've got no right to complain if we ourselves are developing the same capability. More Bush-era hyporcrasy.
Seriously? It sounds to me like you are defending an obviously corrupt Republican.
You make money by host high quality pirated torrent on fast server!! Then set membership service, people pay 5 Yuan for password to encrypted torrent since they already spend so long download it!!111
OR just burn onto CDs and sell on street
dumb American always ask dumb question... this why China rising power, America have no spirit of great business success
PS. I OFFER SPECIAL DEAL ON HIGHSCHOOL MUSICAL 3 VIDEO CD WITH CANTONESE, MANDRIN, TIBETAN, VIETNAMESE AND HMONG HARDCODE SUBTITLES. PLEASE CONTACT FOR INTEREST
Thirty years, and the graphics still suck.
That's just it though, we don't "need" corporations to fund it, if we wanted to, the public COULD fund it; its not like the government is short on credit. Besides, in theory it wouldn't even cost anything because it actually is profitable and could at least pay for itself.
Thus there is NO type of research that only a corporation can afford, and at least one type of research a corporation can't afford. That's really ALL I'm saying.
Sure, I'll agree with that.
The problem is, an unproductive and expensive private drug developer must eventually answer to the free market. Similar government programs can go on for years wasting money, the only accountability comes from voters every four years.
Furthermore, putting this in the hands of government would open the entire process to political favoritism. e.g, does one central nexus of drug research in one state sound good? Too bad, funding bills need approval from everyone, so you'd get little hundred person research facilities in every state. Want to shut down that very poorly run outdated facility in Idaho? Nope, this program is about creating jobs, let's cut funding for lab equipment in New York instead.
The government could take on all these responsibilities, but I doubt it would be more efficient. To be fair to you, I don't think you were arguing that the government should take over the whole sector, but I had to make my point ;-)
So I come to Slashdot to find out if others have experienced this adversarial relationship between business and tech, and if so, what was the effect on the overall success of the business?"
Yes, it is extremely prevalent here! On the other hand, it doesn't seem to have had any negative effects. Actually, standing in the way of various technologies seems to have made our business more successful!
Opinions here do not necessarily reflect those of my employer, Exxon Mobile Corporation.
Publicly funded research CAN afford to explore those avenues, and a drug that does 'bad things' is often as valuable as a success in terms of the general advance it represents in bio-chemistry, and may lead to something that does good things. The corps can't afford to do this, they only pick up the ball once a something with a high likelihood of good things has been identified.
Exactly, basic research usually only presents a biological mechanism which a drug could possibly exploit. Basic research is a loss leader, but the scale of clinical trials means that the last mile is the most expensive part of drug development. Basic research is just the least profitable.
I'm not arguing that drug companies are acting charitably, they aren't. But the way you stated it, it seems like tax payers are paying for most of the costs of drug development only to have big-pharma snatch up the almost finished product, patent it, and make huge profits. That simply isn't the case.
To be fair, both Obama and McCain are hamstrung in certain areas by their ideological base. McCain, by the religious right - Obama by the environmental left.
In my opinion, the environmental left has created a lot more devastation through forcing coal power on us. Back in the 1970s we could have gone 80% nuclear and 20% renewable like France, instead (thanks to the anti-nuclear left) we are at a paltry 20%. The emissions from this dirty industry kill thousands of US citizens every year. Carter was nothing less than a disaster for fission power research.
McCain:
As President, I will put the country on track to building 45 new reactors by 2030 so that we can meet our growing energy demand and reduce our emissions of greenhouse gases. Nuclear power is a proven, domestic, zero-emission source of energy and it is time to recommit to advancing our use of nuclear energy. The U.S. has not started construction on a new nuclear power plant in over 30 years. Currently, nuclear power provides 20 percent of our overall energy portfolio. Other countries such as China, India and Russia are looking to increase the role of nuclear power in their energy portfolio and the U.S. should not just look to maintain, but increase its own use.
Obama gives a tepid answer, and doesn't propose any increase in nuclear energy.
A new generation of nuclear electric technologies that address cost, safety, waste disposal, and proliferation risks.
Sure the religious right accomplished relatively minor, but worrying, changes to education curriculum in a few states. On the other hand, anti-GM people have got the democrats to cut government research into GM crops with real world consequences.
McCain clearly comes out in favor of GM foods, and his voting record reflects this.
Genetic research can already provide real assistance for those in some of the poorest regions who lack access to adequate food sources. Through increased research and development, we can help foster a new Green Revolution like the one that transformed Asia several decades ago. In partnership with government institutions, our colleges and universities should help train a new generation of African agro-scientists. Our aid programs should help focus on research into higher-yielding crops and make investments in infrastructure that will help farmers increase their yields and deliver their products to market.
Obama is more tepid, and his voting record shows he really doesn't support government sponsored research into GM foods. Only commercial development, which means it won't be destined for those who need it most.
Advances in the genetic engineering of plants have provided enormous benefits to American farmers. I believe that we can continue to modify plants safely with new genetic methods, abetted by stringent tests for environmental and health effects and by stronger regulatory oversight guided by the best available scientific advice.
Don't get me wrong. I support Obama, but I would like to insert some balance into this discussion. (I'm sure I will be modded down, no secret on which side of the political spectrum most Slashdot readers lie).
Pharma research takes anything promising from publicly funded basic research and runs the last mile to a commericial product. (I'm not saying that last mile is 'cheap', but its not more expensive than the basic research they are building on.)
I find that difficult to believe. Multiple sources cite a figure of around 800 Million dollars for bringing a drug from Phase I trials to approval. Trials involve paying doctors to check up on patients who are often getting paid for being in the trial, free drugs for all those in the trial and then multiple trials to screen for rare but possibly deadly side effects.
If a possible side effect is discovered, then further studies must be done to figure out if these side effects are real or just an aberration due to a poorly chosen study population. If the side effects are real, and they cause someone permanent damage, then that person gets free treatment for that damage for life.
Assume one hundred "basic researchers" only find one "promising" lead a year. That makes them at least an order of magnitude more efficient than the "last mile" which drug companies must perform.
http://healthcare-economist.com/2006/04/29/802m/
Speak for yourself. I've been using Word for 15 years (on Mac and PC), and I personally think the ribbon interface is a nice change.
Yes, you initially have to take time to figure out where things are, but when you know it's quicker.
No, you're not the only one. I prefer it also. In my opinion it's a vast improvement, and I love the fact that it never changes to make it more "convienent" for you. Open Office could add this feature (even as an option) without much effort, rearranging the menus would hardly require rebuilding the Suite from the ground up.
Perhaps not immediately, but within a few years a system will exist which will allow the streaming of any movie ever made via broadband instantly. Why would you want to bother keeping an anachronistic collection of shiny discs, when you could have anything you want, instantly.
Because any such home delivery system will be a repeat of the DIVX disaster. People don't like systems which threaten to stop working and demand continued money feeding for content they already own. The Movie Industry does though, and they'll never give up the dream.
If you've got a Blu-Ray disc in your hand it's yours, no DRM watchdog is going to one day come and smash it into pieces.
But why should students do this at all? As one law school textbook author has suggested, why not include the price of textbooks in tuition? As he notes, "It's easy for prices to drift upward when the person choosing the product doesn't really care how much it costs."
Surprise! Public highschools have been doing exactly that for the last few hundred years. Lawyers seem to have a knack for reinventing the wheel.
I graduated college last August, and I don't remember returning text books to the bookstore as a particularly exciting time - more often than not, I'd only get maybe $10-20 back on a book that cost me $100 at the beginning of the semester.
Your loss. Reselling on Ebay or Half.com would have netted you at least half the original purchase price, even better: Buy the book at half.com then resell when you're finished. I spend maybe $10 or $20 on each textbook, whereas you take $90 hit.
In the end the problem here is not the school bookstore, but the fact that you accepted their paltry offer. I'm guessing you didn't take any economics classes, either that or you graduated from Sanford Brown.
Why are they going after google?
Good quesiton, why would they sue a company with Billions in the bank? I mean there must be some reason...
Couldn't agree more! Super Smash Brothers is the perfect game for a casual session with your girlfriend. It's easy to pick up and within five minutes having fun and there's bound to be a character that she likes.
http://www.smashbros.com/
Plus you can get a copy free with a Gamecube for $99, not a bad deal for something that can easily provide hours (days!) of entertainment (procrastination!).
We need a workaround for the FCC. Why not have local rules instead of national.
We already have that! It's called the internet.
Or cable television if you actually pay for content.
I never mess with any of this silent PC stuff. I've got a Geforce 7800GTX paired with a Athlon X2 Oc'd to 260 FSB. For 80mm cooling I've got five Vantec Tornado Ex Fans all stuck on double 12v lines, each pushes about 100 CFM. As a sidemount I decided to put a Delta "The Extreme" 120mm Ulra-high CFM fan, this bad-boy is rated at 260 CFM and 62 dBA when on full speed.
:)
The smaller fans are each 56dBA - and an old sleeve bearing fan is apparently making a really loud screaching noise. My cat and dog don't like to sit in the same room but it's better that way, no dog hairs get sucked in.
The four way Raptor WD360GD 10,000 RPM RAID-5 setup isn't exactly quiet either.
Go back and actually read my post instead of maybe half of the last sentence...
The Chinese protests are not concerning the warcrimes of Japanese army officers specifically, rather the false perception that the Japanese government is deliberately whitewashing the past by publishing textbooks which omit or execuse these warcrimes. Furthermore even the Chinese government would say you're flat out wrong - they are opposing Japan's entry due to the actions of a handful of Modern Japanese (eg. Textbook, Visiting the Yasukuni Shrine).
Your belief the Chinese are protesting the warcrimes committed sixty years ago is at best very mislead, you obviously have a very poor understanding of Sino-Japanese relations.
for about the price of seven ounces of weed.
My dad - yes yes he does NOT live in China - has an even stronger opinion than I have. He firmly believes that people are getting paid by the US government to bash the Chinese government. When the Chinese government does something, everybody yells 'OMG those communist bastards are 3v1l!!!'. But when the US government does something, almost nobody says a word.
In China people actually do get paid to write bad things about the American, Tawianese and Japanese government. Admittedly, they don't make up stories as a pure propagandist would, but they do exagerate them in exactly the manner you complain of - Not to excuse US reporters who employ this tactic.
Take the gigantic nationalistic protests against Japan. Spurred mostly by inflated or outright false reports concerning two textbooks published by a private company used in at most a handful of school districts. These textbooks were in no way ever endorsed by the Japanese government or supported by the majority of the Japanese populace. The chearleaders of these textbooks are the same in proportion to Neo Nazis in Germany.
Why would the Chinese government want to add fuel to this fire you ask? Because it gave them ammo to deny Japan on a cherished seat on the UN security council. At the same time China supports Germany's (ever heard of the holocaust?) bid for a seat on the security council... something doesn't add up
>> And on the other-hand, how do we know the Chinese government didn't force them to say that?!?!
>> *adjusts tinfoil hat*
>And on the third hand, how do we know they weren't working for the Chinese government all along, as >part of a psyops plan to discredit Chinese bloggers who oppose the government?
But on the fourth hand, how do we know the bloggers weren't all part of a large cabal desinged to discredit the chinese government by giving the impression that the chinese government would stage the shutdown of blogs, while at the same time making the entire fiasco so transparent as to be laughable, thereby making the chinese government more believable whilst casting doubt on the altruism of Chinese bloggers?
Let's see just how deep this rabbit hole goes...
*swallows red pill*
...in any form, even the hash!! Anything less is simply a huge security hole.
The mantra of course applies here: Unless you've programmed a totally secure operating system, keep your mouth shut.
As always. Unless you can build a space-shuttle that doesn't crash or perform a succesful heart bypass surgery you have absolutely no right to critisize those who at least gave it a try. The surgeon was drunk? NASA forgot to put fuel in the shuttle? Doesn't matter.
The same applies for leading a country - unless you think you can do a better job keep your trap shut!
Just use a password that's easy to remember or one you can guess, like your first and last name. Or you can use the old classic "password" - no need to remember anything. When prompted for your password you've got it spelled out right their in the dialogue box!
Any programmer who doesn't stop themselves and think that writing something like fprintf(logfile, "root password entered is: %s\n", password); is not the best idea should not be writing code for a secure operating system.
Isn't that redundant? A programmer that dumb can never work on a "secure" operating system, it's logically impossible. As soon as they begin coding they'll jack things up so the operating system is no longer secure.
Better said, "A programmer like that can't be allowed to compromise a secure operating system."