1. Atmosphere. The atmosphere around Titan helps to reduce craters just like it does here on Earth.
2. Saturn. Saturn's gravity well sucks asteroids and other debri into it thus protecting Titan.
3. Volume. The distance between Saturn and the asteroid belt is almost ten times as great as the volume between the asteroid belt and the Sun. That's a lot of space. So again, since Saturn is huge and Titan is like a dot against Saturn - it is more likely that Saturn would get hit than Titan.
4. Incorrect. The heat of a planet may or may not play a part in life forming. We are biased by what we know but we know so little that life could be as simple as the heat generated by the impact of one asteroid. After all, there is enough energy generated by it.
All planets (and moons) have magnetic fields. They also have gravitational fields. Titan's core could be different from our own. Our planet, due to it's proximity to the Sun and the fact that we are in a smaller area with more planets, is affected to a greater extent than Titan would be. (Titan is more affected by Saturn and any of the other moons around Saturn.) In our world, we have enough gravity to hold a denser atmosphere than Titan or Mars. Thus, we can live but also, because we are bombarded by and affected by cosmic, solar, gamma, gravitational, and other forces, our world is actually unsteady, volatile, and changeable or mutable. Our world is actually quite deadly to us it is just that the speed at which things change is very slow. Still, remember the massive earthquake in California just a few years ago that destroyed freeways, buildings, and killed many people. That is just a tiny fraction of the forces which could be unleashed. Mount St. Helens, 20 mile in diameter blast radius. Or the island of Krakatoa. Dust scattered all around the world when that volcanoe blew up.
But to answer your questions:
1. Yes, it could have a liquid core and probably does but also just as likely that the core is no where near as large as our own.
2. Not true. An extremely small liquid core (a few thousand miles across) would not be large enough to case the crust to move. Parts under the crust maybe - but not the crust itself. And even then the movement would be constrained well below the surface.
3. Untrue again. It is composition of the core and not whether the core is liquid or not which would give the moon/planet/whatever a magnetic field. A world made of balsa wood the size of Jupiter would not have a magnetic core - but it would have a gravitational field. A world made up almost entirely of metallic molecules would have both a magnetic as well as a gravitational field.
I believe the following will probably be put forwards:
1. Since Titan is a moon and since it appears dead (so far), then - like our moon - there wouldn't be a lot of geological shifts (ie: Mountains, valleys, active volcanoes, and the like).
2. Since Titan has an atmosphere (unlike our moon), and since the particles in atmospheres tend to erode things over time (and how many millions or billions of years has this been going on?) it is likely that the reason there aren't large mountains, valleys, and the like is because if #1 is true, then - unlike our world - there hasn't been geological activities going on for a long time and any mountains have been worn down and any valleys have been filled.
3. Given #1 and #2, then you would wind up with a nearly smooth surface over the entire planet - given enough time.
As has already been said in the report - the lights near the southern pole are up for grabs. It is likely that, similar to our planet's poles, the radiation bombaring Titan is concentrated on or near the poles. Especially the pole which is pointed more towards the sun. So the lights could just be the same types of lights we get here in our far northern and southern realms.
And now for speculation:
1. The lights could be some form of life or an indication of life or civilization. More likely something along the lines of plankton. Plankton can sometimes emit light also. Before the seas were harvested for seaweed, polluted, etc... there were tales/stories by those who plied the seas about the entire ocean glowing (which would make it somewhere around a 20 mile across area which glowed). This would make it possible that, given no higher order creatures eating the light emitting air plankton, that they could be hundreds of miles across.
As for the lighter/darker areas if the darker areas are oil areas then it is the largest oil spill ever. (Just joking!) Really though, it is more likely they are areas of a liquid gas. I only say this because a gas like natural gas usually stays a gas unless the temperature is reduce to the point where the molecules slow down and create a liquid. For all we know, the dark areas could be a highly corrosive substance we've never even run into before. It is also highly likely that no matter what it turns out to be - it will be highly poisoneous to a human being. (I say this only because there are so many naturally occurring substances which are toxic to people in general.)
What would be more interesting would be that we actually find some kind of creatures living on Titan with a different metabolic make-up. Such as silicon (Horta anyone?). That would be the most interesting thing I would think. I also believe that Titan holds a much better chance of containing some kind of life than Mars. This is only because Titan has a bit more atmosphere than Mars and thus has a somewhat better protection against the radiation Saturn and the Sun are throwing at it.
Reducing the number of political ads has nothing to do with eliminating who those ads are for. Nor did I mean that only ONE political ad can be aired per hour. I was talking about each group. So one ad for the republicans, one for the democrats, one for the Green party, one for the Libertarians, and so forth. This would allow all parties to have a level playing field. Since only one ad from each party can be aired at given intervals.
But it should also be looked at differently. The restriction should be one ad period - no matter who it is from. Thus, subgroups which want to air their ads for a particular candidate would also be restricted by this.
And yes, you would have to divy up the air time between the different groups (ie: Reps/Dems Party, Coalitions for Reps/Dems, People for Reps/Dems, and the like) - but then that is as it should be.
The idea is that each party can only air so many ads a day rather than allowing whoever has the most money to buy up all of the air time and push out the other candidates. Level the field by making it be no matter how much money you raise you are only allowed to do so much and no more. The penalties also should not be in dollars. Which mean nothing when you have millions. The penalties should be in lost air time.
I also think that if the news media is going to cover the big guys that they should be forced to cover the small guys as well. I'm not going to say do it one for one but it would be nice to hear from some of the other candidates and their views.
This is also not saying to let the media conglomerates control everything. I'm not suggesting that we abidcate anything to anyone. The media conglomerates charge X amount for ads. If a party can not pay to get an ad on TV then they need to raise more money. (And don't forget local TV ad charges are less than national ones. Sometimes they are as cheap as taking out a newspaper ad. And yes, I know - usually that means they air at 2:00am in the morning - but not always.)
The thing is - with a regulated amount of air time it reduces how much money needs to be raised and it allows for a more level playing field. I am not going to say it is the perfect solution - but it is a lot better than trying to control the money.
This idea can also be applied to all media (ie: Newspapers et al) to regulate ads in there as well. I think it should also be mandated that if a paper is going to cover a story about one candidate that they must also cover a story on all of the rest of the candidates so equal time is given to each and every candidate. Editorials also. A paper can print an editorial on each candidate or on all of them at once and the editorial can still state the paper is in favor of candidate X over everyone else. It is just that most newspapers only cover Reps and Dems and leave everyone else out of it. That also is not fair.
Do both. Have a machine which generates two slips. One to have and one to share (put in a locked vote box). Make the slips have each recorded vote as well as a barcode. The barcode just represents the entry into the database.
The machine registers the vote electronically. The paper slips allow vote checkers to bring up each record without having to sort through the paper slips. (Just scan the barcode.) The printed paper receipt allows a visual check of the vote against what is recorded in the database.
The paper slip also allows the person to view what they voted for in the booth. A booklet (or several for that matter) of what questions were asked on a per screen basis could be provided so people can check to make sure their questions were accurately recorded. Since the person is given both slips of paper they have the chance to check and even change a ballot by just going back into a booth, put the paper slip under the scanner found there and bringing back up their vote. Once done the machine can print back out a new set of slips as well as update the database.
Each slip of paper would have the date/time prominetly stamped on it so voters would not (hopefully) become confused on which ones are the latest vote.
The voter votes, takes the slip to a lock box, puts one slip into the lock box, and takes the other one with him/her. Each machine has a private database which, after voting is through, transmits its information to the main database. The machine could also generate a CD/DVD with a copy of the database on it.
If there is a problem, it is resolved by: 1)Checking the database on each machine against the main database, 2)Checking the individual databases against the CD/DVD for that machine, 3)Checking the slips versus the database on each machine, 4)Checking the slips everyone has (requires a recall of everyone who voted) against the slips in the lock boxes.
I think this system would be fairly fool proof. Some may say it would be too expensive to run. Not so. The paper slips do not have to be specially made. There are lots of small printers which are currently used (Heck! Walmart, Home Depot, Loews, Krogers, and many other companies use standard registers to print lists of items bought with a barcode at the bottom so they can recall exactly what was bought. So how a person votes should not be a big deal here. These registers use the standard $1.50 roll of plain paper.), and one DVD per machine is not a lot of money being spent. (Personally, I think a CD could probably handle the entire dataset so a DVD writer would be overkill. Since CDs are now down around $0.10 each - I don't think spending $1.00 for ten machines is going to break the bank and even $1,000 for 10,000 machines [Which I think at that volume the state would probably get an even better price break on a per CD amount.].)
Eliminating money only means the restriction of who can afford to pay money to get on TV, Billboards, etc..., or how many times a given ad can be shown. However, restricting the flow of money does nothing about news reports or talk shows where you can still expound your views.
Even if we stated that the people running for office could only spend a maximum of $100 million dollars. We would have to put a similar cap on anyone else who wanted to put ads up in support of their candidate. So say we put a cap of one million dollars on that. Ok, so now you go out and find one hundred people who will all purchase ads and you've circumvented the law. So restrictions based upon money do nothing at all.
A better idea is to eliminate money altogether from the restrictions and to simply state that only one ad may be aired for every X number of minutes in a given state. This would reduce the overall influence of any particular ad. For example, let's say only one ad can be aired every hour across the entire state. The question then becomes "For each radio/TV station or altogether at one time?" Personally, one ad on every station per hour would be fine with me. Others might disagree.
The important thing is: by eliminating money as the basis you eliminate the problems associated with money. You level the playing field by stating how much air time everyone can have. Since everyone can have the same amount of air time - it eliminates the need for more than a certain amount of money (because it can't be used for air time anyway). This doesn't mean the extra money can't be used for other purposes. But for air time you are max'd out.
As a side note: A friend of mine who lives in the UK said that the last thirty days of an election in the UK no ads can be aired. This is to give everyone a chance to think about what had been said. I believe that is a great idea and should be implemented in the US. Give us all a break from the name calling and mud slinging and we might actually vote someone into office who will get the job done.
..is that the wind will blow the GM plants pollen and/or seeds around and pretty soon these things show up everywhere.
There was already a case where Monsanto was growing plants across the road from a farmer and the farmer had to pay Monsanto thousands of dollars because their seeds blew over into his planting area. Seems to me that Monsanto should have been sued for polluting the farmer's planting area. Or to put that another way - GM plants should be treated like toxic waste sites. If the toxic waste contaminates the area around the site - it is the responsibility of the owner of the site to clean up their mess. Not the other way around.
Actually, from what I have read on George Orwell, he picked the date because he thought it was far enough in the future for him to already have died as well as the rest of his generation and the one to follow would either be dead or dying off. Sort of like other people's stories which were placed to take effect a century or so later from when they were written. We are catching up to those dates as well. So actually, the date does have something to do with the book but the contents has nothing to do with the date.:-)
If you think about it, we are now in a perpetual war. The War on Terrorism is a sham but our president has stumbled onto a way to always have the War Powers Act in effect. Terrorism is an ACT. Not an ACT OF WAR. To have a war you have to have one of two things happen (at least so far you do): 1)One country invade another or 2)Two opposing factions fighting within the same country (Civil War). An act of terrorism is just a group (usually small) of people who, because they want something (usually for people to notice something or to realize something is going on) to happen and because they feel that there is no other way to achieve that goal - they usually do something destructive to shock or change the way in which the world sees things.
We have, therefore, invaded an entire country (causing war) because a group of people (and not the entire country) did something to us. Using this mentality, when Timothy McVey blew up the Federal Building we should have invaded the state he lived in and destroyed everything and everyone. That would have shown them not to have children who grow up to be bombers. Right? Wrong. Two negatives never make a positive (except in math when multiplying so maybe we should just bomb the world and reduce us all back to the stone age thus removing the ability of anyone to send terrorists to our country).
Tower of MiniTruth: The Tower of Lies. National newspapers, TV, radio, etc.... Control the media and control the people. IndyMedia was a threat to that control. Our government is saying it wants to make us into a one world government only why are organizations like WTO, the WTAA, and others making the decisions? We never elected them president and couldn't we have just as great of a world if all of the countries kept their own rules and regulations? It has worked pretty well for the last two hundred years - why is it suddenly not working? Could it be that those businesses which would reap the greatest benefit from these changes are the ones who are trying to not make the rules work anymore?
Tower of MiniLove: The Tower of Hate. Make the people believe it is right to hate a given faction so you can channel that hatred and continue doing whatever it is you want to do. (Like have a war, remove civil liberties, or not allowing people to have access to information, make it so it is illegal to make copies of things, etc....)
Tower of MiniPeace: The Tower of War. Always look for and use any excuse to continue having a war. Talk about world peace but only give it lip service. Send troops around the world and make the people have to bear the burden of keeping such an army in existence. Even though our constitution stated that it would be the states and not the federal government who would keep a standing army and that the only time the federal government could keep a standing army was in times of war. Thus, and therefore, go back to the beginning of this paragraph and start over.
The government is of, by, and for the people. (No matter what country you want to talk about.) Not corporations. The problem though, is that people, in general, do not have the billions of dollars corporations have to spend on trying to keep our government on track. Corporations, on the other hand do. Therefore, as long as corporations are allowed to grow into multi-billion dollar international conglomerates - the people will suffer. Because their sole purpose is to make money no matter how and if they have to take away your rights to do so. To force you to buy things that you do not want. To make you work however they want. Then you will lose.
(What IS the matter with Netscape v7.2 and the arrow keys? They stop working every now and then! ARGH!)
Copyrights: Are for physical objects only such as sheet music, books, and even mechanical objects. In other words -the embodiment of an idea.
Patents: Are for ideas and/or the concept of those ideas. Thus, you can patent a method for doing something (like KFC's receipes) but you don't have to have the chicken sitting there already cooked. Patents are also given out for formulaes as well as concepts if the formulae is specific enough and has enough to back that concept.
Trademarks: Are the equivalent of logos. They are used to distinguish one <whatever> from another <whatever>. Barbie is the trademark for a doll.
This is why I say that saying Patents only cover physical objects is, I believe, incorrect.
So you make two systems. One for deep space and one for earth burn-up. You use really heavy duty trash bags (like the contractor bags), stuff them full of trash, take them out, and fire them off at the same time. (Actually, since the Space Station has to, every once in a while, fire its jets to maintain its orbit, some times you will only need one of the two systems.)
I can see it now: Centuries from now, The U.S.S. Enterprise is going along when suddenly - SLAM! One of these bags hits it. Kirk and Spock investigate it and Spock says "Jim! This is a new kind of energy! Trash velocity! It uses a solid perpellant, old clothes, and a corn beef sandwich."
Man! That's what I really call taking out the garbage!
Got a few billion dollars? I can show you how to pass any law for a few billion dollars.:-)
This is why I've stopped buying anything from software companies. I only work with open source software games anymore.:-)
Believe me when I say, if all of the little children of the world stopped buying software for a day the industry would notice. If all of you stopped buying software for a week their stocks would plumit. If you did it for a month they'd go belly up. Remember the coffee tax? I believe it was the late 1970's. Coffee prices kept going up and up and up and then everyone just said fine - we aren't going to buy it anymore. Oh, not everyone stopped, but enough people did that the price for coffee fell by half within a week.
Don't like what the industry is doing? Stop playing along with them. They'll get the message really quick. Or they will go out of business really quick.
Try it. Set the week of Thanksgiving as the week where no one will buy any computer software whatsoever. Just a week. See what happens. Remember - Thanksgiving - let them give thanks that you are willing to buy their software.
And how many of those 283 patents are based upon other patents which have already expired or are really not unique? (Many of the patents being issued today are only extensions of pre-existing patents which is why there are these long lists of other patents being referenced.) This is not to dump on those truly unique patents - it is to dump on those (like the usage of a laser light as a cat toy) patents which, to programmers, are so obvious as to make you sick that the Patent Office could actually issue a patent on the invention. As per this other/. article - there are a lot of people saying the Patent System is broken and needs to be fixed.
No. You stated that they did "lip service" which is a deroggatory statement. I said you were mistaken and provided several areas where IBM has helped the OSS movement.
You are right in that it may not qualify them as a poster boy for the OSS (which is yet another deroggatory statement) but it doesn't disqualify them either.
On the name: I took that as a given that you were not helping. But it is a fault. The OSS needs people and if you just sit on the sidelines and do nothing then you get what you deserve if you do not go out and help. Good or bad, by being someone who doesn't wish to be involved you hurt not only yourself but anyone you may have helped.
I believe this has gone as far as it needs to go. Our points have been made and further discussion would be meaningless. Peace, love, and long life.
On the other hand, IBM has given lip service (and some no-profit software) to the "free" software movement. If they're sincere, they should not be seeking patents or they should start adopting the royalty-free license I mentioned earlier.
Mmmmmmmmmmmmm.....no. I'd have to disagree. IBM has (as per the SCO vs IBM case is proving) contributed a lot more than just lip service to the OSS movement and it has allowed its employees to help other companies (such as RedHat) to reach their goals of beoming stable companies who also help to protect the OSS outlook.
Now, before you begin going "What about X or Y or Z" or anything else. I am responding to your quip about lip service. The term "Lip Service" as I define it means that they only talk about doing something and do not really do it. Your definition may be different. But according to my definition - IBM is backing its words with actual service. They not only host some OSS items but they also contributed hardware, money, people, and time into getting the OSS up and going. Without IBM there wouldn't be any respectability to the OSS movement. We'd just be considered hacks (or hackers).
Just like when Apple Computer, Inc. started up - the business world considered the Apple ][+ a hobby computer. Something not worth even thinking of or about. Then IBM entered the foray and gave the microcomputer the kiss of reality. After they entered the foray no one ever said microcomputers were hobbiest items again. (Now, they may have said with distain that the Apple computer was a kiddie toy - but that is just personal preferences.)
That was one of the reasons it was really important for IBM to back the OSS movement. When IBM said "This is for real and that we will stand behind it," it grounded everything everyone had worked so long and hard on into the business world. IBM, HP, Novell, et al could have said "We will sue those who have software which is similar to our work." But they didn't. They looked at it and realized that if they help the OSS movement that it is in turn helping them. It helps them keep the cost down on the creation of new tools. It helps to unify a broken hodge-podge of computers, computer OSs, and languages. It has helped to make the internet what it is today.
And yeah! They make quite a few bucks while helping out. So what? Nothing is keeping you from doing the same thing and starting up a small computer business that puts together the systems, installs the OSs, and installs the whole thing into someone's place of business.
Now don't take me wrong. I'm not a Big Blue hugging kind of person. But I am also not going to knock the people who are helping things out either. They've done a hell-of-a-lot for OSS and I'm glad they did. The truth is, IBM went out on a limb for OSS by even saying they were going to start supporting it and selling machines with the software installed.
And the only time, so far, that I have seen IBM swing the big bat was because SCO said "This is all our software and you don't own any of it." SCO was the culprit - not IBM. If anyone were at fault here it would be you and I. We probably are doing only a hundredth of what IBM is out there trying to do for the OSS movement. They are spending millions on ads to increase awareness, holding seminars (been invited to a few thank you! Nothing like a free lunch!), and sending out flyers to various corporations.
So let's talk about phobias. Especially the fear of some company making money off of the OSS software. Well - get over it. The fact of life is that everyone wants to get paid, and have money. In order to do that you have to have some kind of company (or work for a company). IBM is a company. It is in the business to make money - not to file bankruptcy. IBM isn't coming around and trying to steal what the OSS movement has done - it is following the rules and regulations set down by the OSS people. It is giving away source code, not asking anyone to pay them who isn't a business (like m
This is true. However, there have been many times in the past when one company (such as Macromedia) was to be sued by another company (such as Adobe) and the patents were used to ward off the attack.
As such, patents can be used both ways: Offensively and Defensively. In this case, it will prevent another company (if the patent is issued) from trying to say that IBM has infringed on their rights (aka SCO vs IBM). By holding the patents, IBM can say "No. We invented this on our own and you have no right to sue us."
It is true though, that it does not prevent IBM from going around and trying to squash everyone else - but I haven't seen IBM doing that lately. Have you?
I don't know. I've seen a lot of people going around in a fog and no camera in the world can help them see things better.;-)
I think they ought to develop a camera which can see through the BS/PR spins of some of these groups who keep trying to pass certain offensive laws. It would be nice to go "See! I told you it was all a bunch of BS!";-)
I actually understand why IBM does this. It is to protect them from other companies coming along afterwards and saying that IBM owes them money because they are infringing on their patents. At the same time I deplore the fact that anyone has to patent such blatantly obvious programming.
It is like patenting 2+2. I say it equals 5 and so I'm patenting that answer.
This is also yet another example of a patenting office failing to recognize something which is easily done in Perl or PHP (or probably any other language as well so long as you can check a link and get back the 404 error or any of the other "bad link" type of errors). Links which lead to "We are forwarding you to..." can be easily parsed and the new link substituted for the old one.
Some day, breathing, drinking, and eating will be patented. But I'm betting no one will patent going to the bathroom!;-)
Slashdot Mirror
This is a good write-up on Titan, its atmosphere, and several other things. :-)
:-)
According to the site, it is actually 10 times denser than Earth's atmosphere.
Sorry, that was supposed to be: (Titan is more affected by Saturn THAN any of the other moons around Saturn.)
You are forgetting a few things:
1. Atmosphere. The atmosphere around Titan helps to reduce craters just like it does here on Earth.
2. Saturn. Saturn's gravity well sucks asteroids and other debri into it thus protecting Titan.
3. Volume. The distance between Saturn and the asteroid belt is almost ten times as great as the volume between the asteroid belt and the Sun. That's a lot of space. So again, since Saturn is huge and Titan is like a dot against Saturn - it is more likely that Saturn would get hit than Titan.
4. Incorrect. The heat of a planet may or may not play a part in life forming. We are biased by what we know but we know so little that life could be as simple as the heat generated by the impact of one asteroid. After all, there is enough energy generated by it.
All planets (and moons) have magnetic fields. They also have gravitational fields. Titan's core could be different from our own. Our planet, due to it's proximity to the Sun and the fact that we are in a smaller area with more planets, is affected to a greater extent than Titan would be. (Titan is more affected by Saturn and any of the other moons around Saturn.) In our world, we have enough gravity to hold a denser atmosphere than Titan or Mars. Thus, we can live but also, because we are bombarded by and affected by cosmic, solar, gamma, gravitational, and other forces, our world is actually unsteady, volatile, and changeable or mutable. Our world is actually quite deadly to us it is just that the speed at which things change is very slow. Still, remember the massive earthquake in California just a few years ago that destroyed freeways, buildings, and killed many people. That is just a tiny fraction of the forces which could be unleashed. Mount St. Helens, 20 mile in diameter blast radius. Or the island of Krakatoa. Dust scattered all around the world when that volcanoe blew up.
But to answer your questions:
1. Yes, it could have a liquid core and probably does but also just as likely that the core is no where near as large as our own.
2. Not true. An extremely small liquid core (a few thousand miles across) would not be large enough to case the crust to move. Parts under the crust maybe - but not the crust itself. And even then the movement would be constrained well below the surface.
3. Untrue again. It is composition of the core and not whether the core is liquid or not which would give the moon/planet/whatever a magnetic field. A world made of balsa wood the size of Jupiter would not have a magnetic core - but it would have a gravitational field. A world made up almost entirely of metallic molecules would have both a magnetic as well as a gravitational field.
I believe the following will probably be put forwards:
:-)
1. Since Titan is a moon and since it appears dead (so far), then - like our moon - there wouldn't be a lot of geological shifts (ie: Mountains, valleys, active volcanoes, and the like).
2. Since Titan has an atmosphere (unlike our moon), and since the particles in atmospheres tend to erode things over time (and how many millions or billions of years has this been going on?) it is likely that the reason there aren't large mountains, valleys, and the like is because if #1 is true, then - unlike our world - there hasn't been geological activities going on for a long time and any mountains have been worn down and any valleys have been filled.
3. Given #1 and #2, then you would wind up with a nearly smooth surface over the entire planet - given enough time.
As has already been said in the report - the lights near the southern pole are up for grabs. It is likely that, similar to our planet's poles, the radiation bombaring Titan is concentrated on or near the poles. Especially the pole which is pointed more towards the sun. So the lights could just be the same types of lights we get here in our far northern and southern realms.
And now for speculation:
1. The lights could be some form of life or an indication of life or civilization. More likely something along the lines of plankton. Plankton can sometimes emit light also. Before the seas were harvested for seaweed, polluted, etc... there were tales/stories by those who plied the seas about the entire ocean glowing (which would make it somewhere around a 20 mile across area which glowed). This would make it possible that, given no higher order creatures eating the light emitting air plankton, that they could be hundreds of miles across.
As for the lighter/darker areas if the darker areas are oil areas then it is the largest oil spill ever. (Just joking!) Really though, it is more likely they are areas of a liquid gas. I only say this because a gas like natural gas usually stays a gas unless the temperature is reduce to the point where the molecules slow down and create a liquid. For all we know, the dark areas could be a highly corrosive substance we've never even run into before. It is also highly likely that no matter what it turns out to be - it will be highly poisoneous to a human being. (I say this only because there are so many naturally occurring substances which are toxic to people in general.)
What would be more interesting would be that we actually find some kind of creatures living on Titan with a different metabolic make-up. Such as silicon (Horta anyone?). That would be the most interesting thing I would think. I also believe that Titan holds a much better chance of containing some kind of life than Mars. This is only because Titan has a bit more atmosphere than Mars and thus has a somewhat better protection against the radiation Saturn and the Sun are throwing at it.
Just my $0.02 worth.
Linux Today?
I think one of the nicest things they could do in the movie is to have Superman put flowers on Superman's grave.
No. that is not what I meant.
Reducing the number of political ads has nothing to do with eliminating who those ads are for. Nor did I mean that only ONE political ad can be aired per hour. I was talking about each group. So one ad for the republicans, one for the democrats, one for the Green party, one for the Libertarians, and so forth. This would allow all parties to have a level playing field. Since only one ad from each party can be aired at given intervals.
But it should also be looked at differently. The restriction should be one ad period - no matter who it is from. Thus, subgroups which want to air their ads for a particular candidate would also be restricted by this.
And yes, you would have to divy up the air time between the different groups (ie: Reps/Dems Party, Coalitions for Reps/Dems, People for Reps/Dems, and the like) - but then that is as it should be.
The idea is that each party can only air so many ads a day rather than allowing whoever has the most money to buy up all of the air time and push out the other candidates. Level the field by making it be no matter how much money you raise you are only allowed to do so much and no more. The penalties also should not be in dollars. Which mean nothing when you have millions. The penalties should be in lost air time.
I also think that if the news media is going to cover the big guys that they should be forced to cover the small guys as well. I'm not going to say do it one for one but it would be nice to hear from some of the other candidates and their views.
This is also not saying to let the media conglomerates control everything. I'm not suggesting that we abidcate anything to anyone. The media conglomerates charge X amount for ads. If a party can not pay to get an ad on TV then they need to raise more money. (And don't forget local TV ad charges are less than national ones. Sometimes they are as cheap as taking out a newspaper ad. And yes, I know - usually that means they air at 2:00am in the morning - but not always.)
The thing is - with a regulated amount of air time it reduces how much money needs to be raised and it allows for a more level playing field. I am not going to say it is the perfect solution - but it is a lot better than trying to control the money.
This idea can also be applied to all media (ie: Newspapers et al) to regulate ads in there as well. I think it should also be mandated that if a paper is going to cover a story about one candidate that they must also cover a story on all of the rest of the candidates so equal time is given to each and every candidate. Editorials also. A paper can print an editorial on each candidate or on all of them at once and the editorial can still state the paper is in favor of candidate X over everyone else. It is just that most newspapers only cover Reps and Dems and leave everyone else out of it. That also is not fair.
Yeah, I know - inflation and all. ;-)
Here is a link.
And for those TROLL moderators - GET A LIFE! IT WAS A JOKE!
Do both. Have a machine which generates two slips. One to have and one to share (put in a locked vote box). Make the slips have each recorded vote as well as a barcode. The barcode just represents the entry into the database.
The machine registers the vote electronically. The paper slips allow vote checkers to bring up each record without having to sort through the paper slips. (Just scan the barcode.) The printed paper receipt allows a visual check of the vote against what is recorded in the database.
The paper slip also allows the person to view what they voted for in the booth. A booklet (or several for that matter) of what questions were asked on a per screen basis could be provided so people can check to make sure their questions were accurately recorded. Since the person is given both slips of paper they have the chance to check and even change a ballot by just going back into a booth, put the paper slip under the scanner found there and bringing back up their vote. Once done the machine can print back out a new set of slips as well as update the database.
Each slip of paper would have the date/time prominetly stamped on it so voters would not (hopefully) become confused on which ones are the latest vote.
The voter votes, takes the slip to a lock box, puts one slip into the lock box, and takes the other one with him/her. Each machine has a private database which, after voting is through, transmits its information to the main database. The machine could also generate a CD/DVD with a copy of the database on it.
If there is a problem, it is resolved by: 1)Checking the database on each machine against the main database, 2)Checking the individual databases against the CD/DVD for that machine, 3)Checking the slips versus the database on each machine, 4)Checking the slips everyone has (requires a recall of everyone who voted) against the slips in the lock boxes.
I think this system would be fairly fool proof. Some may say it would be too expensive to run. Not so. The paper slips do not have to be specially made. There are lots of small printers which are currently used (Heck! Walmart, Home Depot, Loews, Krogers, and many other companies use standard registers to print lists of items bought with a barcode at the bottom so they can recall exactly what was bought. So how a person votes should not be a big deal here. These registers use the standard $1.50 roll of plain paper.), and one DVD per machine is not a lot of money being spent. (Personally, I think a CD could probably handle the entire dataset so a DVD writer would be overkill. Since CDs are now down around $0.10 each - I don't think spending $1.00 for ten machines is going to break the bank and even $1,000 for 10,000 machines [Which I think at that volume the state would probably get an even better price break on a per CD amount.].)
Just my $0.02 worth.
I would have to disagree.
Eliminating money only means the restriction of who can afford to pay money to get on TV, Billboards, etc..., or how many times a given ad can be shown. However, restricting the flow of money does nothing about news reports or talk shows where you can still expound your views.
Even if we stated that the people running for office could only spend a maximum of $100 million dollars. We would have to put a similar cap on anyone else who wanted to put ads up in support of their candidate. So say we put a cap of one million dollars on that. Ok, so now you go out and find one hundred people who will all purchase ads and you've circumvented the law. So restrictions based upon money do nothing at all.
A better idea is to eliminate money altogether from the restrictions and to simply state that only one ad may be aired for every X number of minutes in a given state. This would reduce the overall influence of any particular ad. For example, let's say only one ad can be aired every hour across the entire state. The question then becomes "For each radio/TV station or altogether at one time?" Personally, one ad on every station per hour would be fine with me. Others might disagree.
The important thing is: by eliminating money as the basis you eliminate the problems associated with money. You level the playing field by stating how much air time everyone can have. Since everyone can have the same amount of air time - it eliminates the need for more than a certain amount of money (because it can't be used for air time anyway). This doesn't mean the extra money can't be used for other purposes. But for air time you are max'd out.
As a side note: A friend of mine who lives in the UK said that the last thirty days of an election in the UK no ads can be aired. This is to give everyone a chance to think about what had been said. I believe that is a great idea and should be implemented in the US. Give us all a break from the name calling and mud slinging and we might actually vote someone into office who will get the job done.
Remember:It only costs air to speak your mind.
Reminds me of Bill Gates and the quip about nobody needing more than 64MB of memory. ;-)
..is that the wind will blow the GM plants pollen and/or seeds around and pretty soon these things show up everywhere.
There was already a case where Monsanto was growing plants across the road from a farmer and the farmer had to pay Monsanto thousands of dollars because their seeds blew over into his planting area. Seems to me that Monsanto should have been sued for polluting the farmer's planting area. Or to put that another way - GM plants should be treated like toxic waste sites. If the toxic waste contaminates the area around the site - it is the responsibility of the owner of the site to clean up their mess. Not the other way around.
Actually, from what I have read on George Orwell, he picked the date because he thought it was far enough in the future for him to already have died as well as the rest of his generation and the one to follow would either be dead or dying off. Sort of like other people's stories which were placed to take effect a century or so later from when they were written. We are catching up to those dates as well. So actually, the date does have something to do with the book but the contents has nothing to do with the date. :-)
If you think about it, we are now in a perpetual war. The War on Terrorism is a sham but our president has stumbled onto a way to always have the War Powers Act in effect. Terrorism is an ACT. Not an ACT OF WAR. To have a war you have to have one of two things happen (at least so far you do): 1)One country invade another or 2)Two opposing factions fighting within the same country (Civil War). An act of terrorism is just a group (usually small) of people who, because they want something (usually for people to notice something or to realize something is going on) to happen and because they feel that there is no other way to achieve that goal - they usually do something destructive to shock or change the way in which the world sees things.
We have, therefore, invaded an entire country (causing war) because a group of people (and not the entire country) did something to us. Using this mentality, when Timothy McVey blew up the Federal Building we should have invaded the state he lived in and destroyed everything and everyone. That would have shown them not to have children who grow up to be bombers. Right? Wrong. Two negatives never make a positive (except in math when multiplying so maybe we should just bomb the world and reduce us all back to the stone age thus removing the ability of anyone to send terrorists to our country).
Tower of MiniTruth: The Tower of Lies. National newspapers, TV, radio, etc.... Control the media and control the people. IndyMedia was a threat to that control. Our government is saying it wants to make us into a one world government only why are organizations like WTO, the WTAA, and others making the decisions? We never elected them president and couldn't we have just as great of a world if all of the countries kept their own rules and regulations? It has worked pretty well for the last two hundred years - why is it suddenly not working? Could it be that those businesses which would reap the greatest benefit from these changes are the ones who are trying to not make the rules work anymore?
Tower of MiniLove: The Tower of Hate. Make the people believe it is right to hate a given faction so you can channel that hatred and continue doing whatever it is you want to do. (Like have a war, remove civil liberties, or not allowing people to have access to information, make it so it is illegal to make copies of things, etc....)
Tower of MiniPeace: The Tower of War. Always look for and use any excuse to continue having a war. Talk about world peace but only give it lip service. Send troops around the world and make the people have to bear the burden of keeping such an army in existence. Even though our constitution stated that it would be the states and not the federal government who would keep a standing army and that the only time the federal government could keep a standing army was in times of war. Thus, and therefore, go back to the beginning of this paragraph and start over.
The government is of, by, and for the people. (No matter what country you want to talk about.) Not corporations. The problem though, is that people, in general, do not have the billions of dollars corporations have to spend on trying to keep our government on track. Corporations, on the other hand do. Therefore, as long as corporations are allowed to grow into multi-billion dollar international conglomerates - the people will suffer. Because their sole purpose is to make money no matter how and if they have to take away your rights to do so. To force you to buy things that you do not want. To make you work however they want. Then you will lose.
(What IS the matter with Netscape v7.2 and the arrow keys? They stop working every now and then! ARGH!)
I think that says it pretty well. :-/
Ok, IANAL - however....
Please correct me if I am wrong but:
Copyrights: Are for physical objects only such as sheet music, books, and even mechanical objects. In other words -the embodiment of an idea.
Patents: Are for ideas and/or the concept of those ideas. Thus, you can patent a method for doing something (like KFC's receipes) but you don't have to have the chicken sitting there already cooked. Patents are also given out for formulaes as well as concepts if the formulae is specific enough and has enough to back that concept.
Trademarks: Are the equivalent of logos. They are used to distinguish one <whatever> from another <whatever>. Barbie is the trademark for a doll.
This is why I say that saying Patents only cover physical objects is, I believe, incorrect.
Thank you! :-) I knew I had misspelled it but could not decide how I had misspelled it. :-)
So you make two systems. One for deep space and one for earth burn-up. You use really heavy duty trash bags (like the contractor bags), stuff them full of trash, take them out, and fire them off at the same time. (Actually, since the Space Station has to, every once in a while, fire its jets to maintain its orbit, some times you will only need one of the two systems.)
I can see it now: Centuries from now, The U.S.S. Enterprise is going along when suddenly - SLAM! One of these bags hits it. Kirk and Spock investigate it and Spock says "Jim! This is a new kind of energy! Trash velocity! It uses a solid perpellant, old clothes, and a corn beef sandwich."
Man! That's what I really call taking out the garbage!
It didn't fly then, why the hell does it fly now?
:-)
:-)
Got a few billion dollars? I can show you how to pass any law for a few billion dollars.
This is why I've stopped buying anything from software companies. I only work with open source software games anymore.
Believe me when I say, if all of the little children of the world stopped buying software for a day the industry would notice. If all of you stopped buying software for a week their stocks would plumit. If you did it for a month they'd go belly up. Remember the coffee tax? I believe it was the late 1970's. Coffee prices kept going up and up and up and then everyone just said fine - we aren't going to buy it anymore. Oh, not everyone stopped, but enough people did that the price for coffee fell by half within a week.
Don't like what the industry is doing? Stop playing along with them. They'll get the message really quick. Or they will go out of business really quick.
Try it. Set the week of Thanksgiving as the week where no one will buy any computer software whatsoever. Just a week. See what happens. Remember - Thanksgiving - let them give thanks that you are willing to buy their software.
And how many of those 283 patents are based upon other patents which have already expired or are really not unique? (Many of the patents being issued today are only extensions of pre-existing patents which is why there are these long lists of other patents being referenced.) This is not to dump on those truly unique patents - it is to dump on those (like the usage of a laser light as a cat toy) patents which, to programmers, are so obvious as to make you sick that the Patent Office could actually issue a patent on the invention. As per this other /. article - there are a lot of people saying the Patent System is broken and needs to be fixed.
No. You stated that they did "lip service" which is a deroggatory statement. I said you were mistaken and provided several areas where IBM has helped the OSS movement.
You are right in that it may not qualify them as a poster boy for the OSS (which is yet another deroggatory statement) but it doesn't disqualify them either.
On the name: I took that as a given that you were not helping. But it is a fault. The OSS needs people and if you just sit on the sidelines and do nothing then you get what you deserve if you do not go out and help. Good or bad, by being someone who doesn't wish to be involved you hurt not only yourself but anyone you may have helped.
I believe this has gone as far as it needs to go. Our points have been made and further discussion would be meaningless. Peace, love, and long life.
On the other hand, IBM has given lip service (and some no-profit software) to the "free" software movement. If they're sincere, they should not be seeking patents or they should start adopting the royalty-free license I mentioned earlier.
Mmmmmmmmmmmmm.....no. I'd have to disagree. IBM has (as per the SCO vs IBM case is proving) contributed a lot more than just lip service to the OSS movement and it has allowed its employees to help other companies (such as RedHat) to reach their goals of beoming stable companies who also help to protect the OSS outlook.
Now, before you begin going "What about X or Y or Z" or anything else. I am responding to your quip about lip service. The term "Lip Service" as I define it means that they only talk about doing something and do not really do it. Your definition may be different. But according to my definition - IBM is backing its words with actual service. They not only host some OSS items but they also contributed hardware, money, people, and time into getting the OSS up and going. Without IBM there wouldn't be any respectability to the OSS movement. We'd just be considered hacks (or hackers).
Just like when Apple Computer, Inc. started up - the business world considered the Apple ][+ a hobby computer. Something not worth even thinking of or about. Then IBM entered the foray and gave the microcomputer the kiss of reality. After they entered the foray no one ever said microcomputers were hobbiest items again. (Now, they may have said with distain that the Apple computer was a kiddie toy - but that is just personal preferences.)
That was one of the reasons it was really important for IBM to back the OSS movement. When IBM said "This is for real and that we will stand behind it," it grounded everything everyone had worked so long and hard on into the business world. IBM, HP, Novell, et al could have said "We will sue those who have software which is similar to our work." But they didn't. They looked at it and realized that if they help the OSS movement that it is in turn helping them. It helps them keep the cost down on the creation of new tools. It helps to unify a broken hodge-podge of computers, computer OSs, and languages. It has helped to make the internet what it is today.
And yeah! They make quite a few bucks while helping out. So what? Nothing is keeping you from doing the same thing and starting up a small computer business that puts together the systems, installs the OSs, and installs the whole thing into someone's place of business.
Now don't take me wrong. I'm not a Big Blue hugging kind of person. But I am also not going to knock the people who are helping things out either. They've done a hell-of-a-lot for OSS and I'm glad they did. The truth is, IBM went out on a limb for OSS by even saying they were going to start supporting it and selling machines with the software installed.
And the only time, so far, that I have seen IBM swing the big bat was because SCO said "This is all our software and you don't own any of it." SCO was the culprit - not IBM. If anyone were at fault here it would be you and I. We probably are doing only a hundredth of what IBM is out there trying to do for the OSS movement. They are spending millions on ads to increase awareness, holding seminars (been invited to a few thank you! Nothing like a free lunch!), and sending out flyers to various corporations.
So let's talk about phobias. Especially the fear of some company making money off of the OSS software. Well - get over it. The fact of life is that everyone wants to get paid, and have money. In order to do that you have to have some kind of company (or work for a company). IBM is a company. It is in the business to make money - not to file bankruptcy. IBM isn't coming around and trying to steal what the OSS movement has done - it is following the rules and regulations set down by the OSS people. It is giving away source code, not asking anyone to pay them who isn't a business (like m
This is true. However, there have been many times in the past when one company (such as Macromedia) was to be sued by another company (such as Adobe) and the patents were used to ward off the attack.
As such, patents can be used both ways: Offensively and Defensively. In this case, it will prevent another company (if the patent is issued) from trying to say that IBM has infringed on their rights (aka SCO vs IBM). By holding the patents, IBM can say "No. We invented this on our own and you have no right to sue us."
It is true though, that it does not prevent IBM from going around and trying to squash everyone else - but I haven't seen IBM doing that lately. Have you?
I don't know. I've seen a lot of people going around in a fog and no camera in the world can help them see things better. ;-)
;-)
I think they ought to develop a camera which can see through the BS/PR spins of some of these groups who keep trying to pass certain offensive laws. It would be nice to go "See! I told you it was all a bunch of BS!"
I actually understand why IBM does this. It is to protect them from other companies coming along afterwards and saying that IBM owes them money because they are infringing on their patents. At the same time I deplore the fact that anyone has to patent such blatantly obvious programming.
;-)
It is like patenting 2+2. I say it equals 5 and so I'm patenting that answer.
This is also yet another example of a patenting office failing to recognize something which is easily done in Perl or PHP (or probably any other language as well so long as you can check a link and get back the 404 error or any of the other "bad link" type of errors). Links which lead to "We are forwarding you to..." can be easily parsed and the new link substituted for the old one.
Some day, breathing, drinking, and eating will be patented. But I'm betting no one will patent going to the bathroom!