Again with the moronic Columbus meme. If Columbus was like NASA he would have sailed around in circles about a mile and a half from port (the equivalent of LEO), for the rest of his life because there was not enough money in the world to send three ships full of crew and supplies to occupy another continent (the moon, Mars, whatever). It is a stupid analogy. Columbus took ships of the sort that already existed by the hundred, with trained crew available by the thousand, using techniques that had been used and refined over thousands of years, on a journey that required no artificial atmosphere, no fuel, and no shielding from radiation, just to mention a few of the colossal costs he did not have to face. Going into space is a whole different ballgame. The "nay sayers" you mention are probably those who correctly point out that your childish fantasies about space exploration are little more than sci fi space adventure magical religious cultism. Manned space missions restrict space exploration, they don't promote it.
Lest you have the standard knee-jerk reaction and whine about me being a Luddite or anti-space exploration, here is my take.
If they insist on human astronauts they can kiss it all goodbye right now. If they focus on exclusively robotic missions for the first 20 years or so, they can very likely have several missions under their belt and a minimal active presence in at least one lunar surface operation by 2020. All they need is half a dozen autonomous or semi-autonomous mining machines and a logistics and material support setup to start getting a little work going. Nothing a couple dozen or so Titans and Deltas couldn't manage. One rocket lifts the cargo to LEO, another lifts the vehicle to transport it the rest of the way. Do that a dozen or so times and you've got a robotic moon base. I would bet $20 that they can get at least one or two such missions in by 2020. The absence of humans has the potential of making it lean, fast, and effective.
My main concern is that no taxpayer subsidies be involved. If they want to set up their vast lunar mining industry, fine. Don't expect me to pay for even a tiny bit of it so that a handful of rich assholes can bask in luxury and privilege. VCs should fund all of it.
Those three acts are the concrete evidence of what you are saying. They exist as a direct manifestation of the unholy alliance between economic titans and the federal government, and are a proximal cause of a significant fraction of today's economic inequality.
Please sign my petition, BTW. I think we agree more than we disagree.
There's very few people here who are going to get rich in some new startup or writing the next Angry Birds.
Nobody wants to hear that. Most people cherish the fantasy that one day they'll be rich, especially while they're young. After they've been in the workforce for a few years, been at startups, or have tried to start their own small businesses, they learn the details of how societies and economies work. They slowly realize that the accumulation of great wealth is very hard to do by strictly legal or ethical means. Very hard. Very very hard. So hard in fact that one comes to question whether it is even possible at all via strictly legal or ethical means.
I disagree. I won't spam you all again, but repealing these three laws would avoid yet another economic crisis due to the sort of speculation they allowed:
Well, thanks at least for a lucid and intelligent response. I apologize for the spam. Of course, nothing is simple, especially with regard to these laws. While it is simplistic to just throw the laws out in their entirety, it is a fact demonstrated by the negotiation and passage of the third act in the list that any attempt at hashing out the details will be immediately corrupted by those who stand to lose from reinstating the controls set forth in Glass-Steagall, which were significantly reduced in the first act. The petition was intended as something more focused and concrete than the "Occupy" movement. I wonder what great benefits those three acts really provided to our economy, and whether they were worth the damage they have caused. This isn't hypothetical. The sort of destructive financial practices allowed under these laws have put us where we are today. Was it worth it? Who gained and who lost? Will it all happen again and again? Is it worth discussing the details or just repealing them as is?
And yet you didn't sign, did you? I assume my spamming made you mad, so in a tantrum you decided to punish me by not signing instead of actually proposing a concrete action that would have prevented the current recession and would prevent similar ones in the future. No, that's not childish and irrational in the slightest.
I think what is being pointed out is that those are still vague desires. A focused set of specific, actionable measures needs to be proposed. AFAIK, they have not done so.
And yet we are currently ruled by a very small and profoundly corrupt sociopathic minority. Taxes on the wealthy are down, down, down, and their income is up, up, up, while we the mules give them everything they have. You write as if you were presenting a cautionary tale of how our beautiful system would be ruined by direct democracy. Our beautiful system has already been ruined! We are already fucked, backwards and forwards! It isn't some vague thing that might or might not happen in the hazy future.
Sign my petition to propose concrete changes that would roll back at least some of what put us here..
Then sign my petition. If there is a single thing that would prevent another economic collapse in the future, it is the immediate repeal of these three acts:
IMHO, they are not doing anything that is likely to achieve any of their movement's ill-defined goals in practice. I would have expected something like proposing we repeal the following legislation in their entirety:
IMHO, they are not doing anything that is likely to achieve any of their movement's ill-defined goals in practice. I would have expected something like proposing we repeal the following legislation in their entirety:
As the years go by, people still stubbornly, willfully ignore the fact that candidates' "positions" on the "issues" (two laughable notions) are not in any demonstrable way predictive of future performance. That is a fancier and somewhat more precise way of repeating the obvious: it's all bullshit. There is no way around that. The system is fully owned by mobsters wielding money-soaked lobbyists. What candidates or their handlers say or do during an election has no importance whatsoever. In case that last part wasn't clear, these interviews are not necessary. They have zero importance. They will yield no new or useful information. Worse, they are a distracting nuisance because so many people actually think some sort of useful information really will come out of them. This is false. No useful information of any kind will come out of them. On the plus side, Slashdot can take any approach it likes, even random generation of character sequences for "interview questions," and it will make no difference one way or the other.
Far more interesting is the question: Given that the electoral process in the US is entirely, completely, and hopelessly corrupted, now what?
Do the numbers even add up? Let's ex recto estimate that the average cost to the carriers per Android phone is $250. $2 B / $250 = 8 M phones to be totally replaced per year. I sincerely doubt that number is even remotely representative of the number of phones that need to be replaced per year. If the average cost is less, then the number would be even greater. I would tentatively rate this report as pure and complete bullshit.
It's PC vs Mac all over again. PCs dominated because they were much cheaper than Macs. PCs failed more than Macs because they were much cheaper than Macs. PCs drove the massification of personal computing because they were much cheaper than Macs. The same dynamic will occur with Android and iDevices.
The stated claim that it is for uniform and clothing designs is ludicrous. No sane person would embark on an android creation program for such a purpose. This is part of a long-term robot creation program, pure and simple. They are coming to a city and town near you. Maybe not today, maybe not next year, but we have all just seen a snapshot of the future.
Slashdot Mirror
Probably the main reason is that it would cost a lot more than a million or two.
Lest you have the standard knee-jerk reaction and whine about me being a Luddite or anti-space exploration, here is my take.
My main concern is that no taxpayer subsidies be involved. If they want to set up their vast lunar mining industry, fine. Don't expect me to pay for even a tiny bit of it so that a handful of rich assholes can bask in luxury and privilege. VCs should fund all of it.
He'll probably mention Bill Gates or Warren Buffet. Note that I used the word "ethical." I suppose ethics is in the eye of the beholder.
Please sign my petition, BTW. I think we agree more than we disagree.
There's very few people here who are going to get rich in some new startup or writing the next Angry Birds.
Nobody wants to hear that. Most people cherish the fantasy that one day they'll be rich, especially while they're young. After they've been in the workforce for a few years, been at startups, or have tried to start their own small businesses, they learn the details of how societies and economies work. They slowly realize that the accumulation of great wealth is very hard to do by strictly legal or ethical means. Very hard. Very very hard. So hard in fact that one comes to question whether it is even possible at all via strictly legal or ethical means.
The Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 (Gramm-Leach-Bliley),
the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, and
the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010
FWIW, I also started a petition. Sad to say, it has not been successful.
Well, thanks at least for a lucid and intelligent response. I apologize for the spam. Of course, nothing is simple, especially with regard to these laws. While it is simplistic to just throw the laws out in their entirety, it is a fact demonstrated by the negotiation and passage of the third act in the list that any attempt at hashing out the details will be immediately corrupted by those who stand to lose from reinstating the controls set forth in Glass-Steagall, which were significantly reduced in the first act. The petition was intended as something more focused and concrete than the "Occupy" movement. I wonder what great benefits those three acts really provided to our economy, and whether they were worth the damage they have caused. This isn't hypothetical. The sort of destructive financial practices allowed under these laws have put us where we are today. Was it worth it? Who gained and who lost? Will it all happen again and again? Is it worth discussing the details or just repealing them as is?
Wanna see it again? You could always just sign the damn thing.
And yet you didn't sign, did you? I assume my spamming made you mad, so in a tantrum you decided to punish me by not signing instead of actually proposing a concrete action that would have prevented the current recession and would prevent similar ones in the future. No, that's not childish and irrational in the slightest.
I think what is being pointed out is that those are still vague desires. A focused set of specific, actionable measures needs to be proposed. AFAIK, they have not done so.
Sign my petition to propose concrete changes that would roll back at least some of what put us here..
The Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 (Gramm-Leach-Bliley),
The Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, and
The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010
The Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 (Gramm-Leach-Bliley),
The Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, and
The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010
If there is a single thing that would prevent another economic collapse in the future, it is the immediate repeal of those three acts.
The least they could have done was start a petition.
The Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 (Gramm-Leach-Bliley),
The Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, and
The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010
If there is a single thing that would prevent another economic collapse in the future, it is the immediate repeal of those three acts.
You can start by signing a petition.
The Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 (Gramm-Leach-Bliley),
The Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, and
The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010
If there is a single thing that would prevent another economic collapse in the future, it is the immediate repeal of those three acts.
The least they could have done was start a petition.
The Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 (Gramm-Leach-Bliley),
The Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, and
The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010
If there is a single thing that would prevent another economic collapse in the future, it is the immediate repeal of those three acts.
More useful than asking what they will do is to ask what they will undo: Repeal the Repeal of Glass-Steagall
More useful than asking what they will do is to ask what they will undo: Repeal the Repeal of Glass-Steagall
More useful than asking what they will do is to ask what they will undo: Repeal the Repeal of Glass-Steagall
As the years go by, people still stubbornly, willfully ignore the fact that candidates' "positions" on the "issues" (two laughable notions) are not in any demonstrable way predictive of future performance. That is a fancier and somewhat more precise way of repeating the obvious: it's all bullshit. There is no way around that. The system is fully owned by mobsters wielding money-soaked lobbyists. What candidates or their handlers say or do during an election has no importance whatsoever. In case that last part wasn't clear, these interviews are not necessary. They have zero importance. They will yield no new or useful information. Worse, they are a distracting nuisance because so many people actually think some sort of useful information really will come out of them. This is false. No useful information of any kind will come out of them. On the plus side, Slashdot can take any approach it likes, even random generation of character sequences for "interview questions," and it will make no difference one way or the other.
Far more interesting is the question: Given that the electoral process in the US is entirely, completely, and hopelessly corrupted, now what?
Do the numbers even add up? Let's ex recto estimate that the average cost to the carriers per Android phone is $250. $2 B / $250 = 8 M phones to be totally replaced per year. I sincerely doubt that number is even remotely representative of the number of phones that need to be replaced per year. If the average cost is less, then the number would be even greater. I would tentatively rate this report as pure and complete bullshit.
It's PC vs Mac all over again. PCs dominated because they were much cheaper than Macs. PCs failed more than Macs because they were much cheaper than Macs. PCs drove the massification of personal computing because they were much cheaper than Macs. The same dynamic will occur with Android and iDevices.
Replace them with WiFi and a small generator and you're there. This is just a prototype. A declassified prototype.
The stated claim that it is for uniform and clothing designs is ludicrous. No sane person would embark on an android creation program for such a purpose. This is part of a long-term robot creation program, pure and simple. They are coming to a city and town near you. Maybe not today, maybe not next year, but we have all just seen a snapshot of the future.