I agree with you that Reese smashes scientific and philosophic conclusions together a little too hastily (ie, without giving the reader any reason to believe that either neccessitates the other), but I believe this is only a personal problem for him and not the multiverse theory.
For example, David Deutsch's book "The Fabric of Reality" gives a nice broad explanation of multiverse stuff, and comes directly to the opposite conclusion that there is no God. Or, at least, that there is no need to use God to explain the reason for reality if instead one takes a multiverse view. No need for a God in the explanation means that there is no diety manifesting itself, through actions or otherwise, and thus whether one is there or not is ultimately irrelevant because it isn't affecting anything. At least, that's what I understand him to have said.;-)
So, it isn't so bad that these "high-level" theories come out to the public, especially in books like Deutsch's (I'm sure a religious person would argue the opposite). Knock Reese's opinions and faulty logic if you will, but please don't be so quick to assume that all the multiverse pushers are out to make some link between science and God. Whatever link they make there is ultimately nothing more than an opinion and doesn't represent any part of the theory itself.
While the other 4 replies to this post (as of the time I read it) seem to think that your code is company property, I tend to disagree.
You said: "my boss tells me: We need a program that does foo", but the repliers here seem to have read "my boss tells me: Write me a program that does foo"
People, there's no reason to tell your boss that you wrote the damn program if you want to release it open-source, so long as you don't release trade secrets or other confidential info in the process. Tell him you downloaded it open-source and modified it to suit your needs.
If he just "needs a program that does foo" he won't care where it came from so long as it works. It's more likely anyway that the boss would instead say "do foo" and leave it to you to determine how this should be handled.
I happen to be lucky enough to work in academia where sharing information and source code is vital to the continuation of our projects... and it's not like we're volunteers, but here the programs are simply a means to an end rather than an end in and of themselves.
If this is the case in the company you work for, it's likely that your boss also doesn't care if you release something you wrote on-the-job open-source, so long as you aren't revealing any secrets by doing so. Of course, if you're a programmer for a software firm... well, that's a horse of a different color.;-)
Re:Why? - For all those who continue to ask.
on
Updates on War in Iraq
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
if you want our species to aspire to something greater than self-inflicted violence, we need to be rid of fascists, isolationists and xenophobes.
My friend, I'm terrribly sorry to let you down, but that statement must be one of the most logically self-inconsistent arguments I've ever read. What you are proposing is nothing short of genocide when applied to Iraq and the middle east! The entire Arab culture revolves around these ideas. Once upon a time they had amassed a vast, technologically rich empire based on the same sociologic and political standards that they still hold today. The "problem" is that their empire fell and the rest of the world changed around them while they've stagnated and allowed themselves to fall into an incredibly unstable state of affairs, which scares the shit out of us if they have nukes. The US is the biggest "threat" to Iraqi (and in general, Arab) pride, in that the importation of western culture and technology isn't meshing well with their old-way ideals. Naturally, to them, ours is the way of the devil, and must be kept out.
In truth, I don't believe they have nukes, or at least not powerful ones. I don't believe this is a war for oil. I don't believe this is a war purely to "establish democracy" in Iraq.
I do believe that the war is based on the "erradication of terrorism" through the removal of "rogue states", classified as I suppose any who hate us because we won't leave them alone culturally or on any other level. This reasoning has a fatal failure in the assumption that we can't leave them alone, and thus is not logically sound.
However, assuming that we can't leave them alone *and* shouldn't go to war is even more flawed, because only one can be true.
Either we can leave these people alone entirely, and leave them to die a horribly diseased and slow death on their own (or even better, but highly unlikely, for them to grow and prosper on their own), and completely cut them off from the rest of civilization, and thus avoid a war... OR we can have this war and completely annihilate them (or replace their culture, what's the difference, really?) so that no one has to worry about that annoying thorn in our side any longer.
Unfortunately, neither of these choices is right. *Both* are wrong for humanitarian reasons, but it's not like this is an issue that can be solved with diplomacy either. What we have here is a zero-sum game, and there is no way to win.
In conclusion, I don't support the war. I don't support non-war. I don't support diplomacy-only solutions. I don't support bombing-the-hell-out-of-em solutions. I don't support infiltrating their culture, but I don't support cutting them off. I don't support feeding their people (they live in a fucking desert!) or killing their people. I don't support replacing their government, but I don't support their government as it stands. I don't support any of these things because with the causes for them listed above, this can be extended ad infinitum and will never, ever produce a winning result.
Even worse than all that, besides being illogical, it would be utterly futile for me to take a position on this. The legislations and rules which have been brought about in the name of erradicating terrorism have served as the largest red flag for the erosion and eventual failure of "democracy" here in the US. I don't think I need to elaborate on what I mean here. This worries me more deeply than any war, and the similarities with *only the worst* bits of political statements made in Brazil, 1984, Brave New World, and Plato's Republic hit just a little to close for me.
I'm nowhere near the crackpot point of making aluminum hats, stockpiling assault rifles, or trying to declare myself a sovreign nation, but I am *very* deeply concerned and afraid for the future, and feel utterly helpless to the cause of it all.
The first AC here obviously didn't read the article. The Indian workers were "exempt" from evaluations that determined who would be fired, purely because they were new. It's not like Sun did this over night; they'd bring in a few Indian workers and can a few Americans, then have an evaluation a few weeks later, and can and replace a few more Americans -- no one can compete with someone who's "above" evaluation by virtue of some management policy designed specifically for that purpose. It has very little to do wih the skills and experience of either person, and more to do with a desire by the company to cut costs (and then *still* charge $30,000 for a workstation!).
The second AC has not only misinterpreted the first AC, but additionally has come to believe that technology is all that's preventing cannibalism. Simple logic will tell anyone that if humans ate each other in the time before they invented weapons, we wouldn't have survived to invent them. Further, even if that statement was logically sound, it has nothing at all do do with the issue. I understand if you support unions, but a lack of unions doesn't make people cannibals.
I believe that Sun is just asking for a lawsuit.
Firing 52-yr-olds (aka "people who are about to collect pension for loyalty to the same co for 30 yrs") in order to replace them with two 25-yr-olds is sleazy to begin with. I mean, wait 3 years, let the guys retire and collect the pension they've been promised for 30 years, and then hire replacements.
Firing *good* American workers to hire foreign workers, or not allowing them to compete with one another *at all*, is also sleazy.
So that's a double-sleaze count for Sun, which means double incentive for someone to sue them, especially in California.
I'm not sure where this guy got the idea that EM waves don't interfere, or why he tries to point to quantum mechanics to somehow back this up. Interference patterns are a very well-known effect, which exist due to the wave and probabalistic (quantum mechanical) nature of photons, and have nothing to do with whether or not they pass through one another. Interference patterns are the primary method of studying solid state physics, without which we wouldn't have any of the great technology we have today, even the ones this guy disputes. The hole used in a pinhole camera is much too large to get noticeable interference fringes.
Waves interfere. Period. And this is the reason the FCC sells licenses to use certain bands in certain areas. (Note: I understand why the FCC sells licenses, but that doesn't mean I support the pricing and regulation scheme they use to divy it all up)
Currently, the dividing of radio waves is done such that most radios can discern between messages on differing frequencies. In theory, with a perfectly tunable receiver one could divide the spectrum with much more miniscule divisions and allow billions more licenses to be distributed. At that point, the only limitation would be the monochroism (frequency spread) of the transmitter. However, trouble would arise when anyone tried to pick up the signal whilst driving or flying, thus red- or blue-shifting the signals they receive, depending on the transmitter locations. They will certainly red-shift some and blue-shift others, allowing interference that a stationary receiver wouldn't pick up. This extremely common scenario (people listening to the radio in their car) is the reason that the current alotted bands are so wide.
Another method of getting around interference would be to transmit several encrypted digital signals on the same radio band and allow them to be decrypted by the receivers. Several applications of this technology are already in use, including wireless LANs.
One weakness in the argument given by the article is that it seems to purposely confuse same-wavelength interference with other-objects interference. For instance, freqency hopping or encryption won't keep sufficiently opaque or reflective objects (for that freqency range) from interrupting your signal. Duh. In downtown areas, the biggest source of interference is giant steel buildings. I can't use my cellphone in the physics lab, but it has nothing to do with all the freaky equipment -- our building has lead walls.
To conclude, I can see how things like frequency hopping and signal encryption might allow more usage of the available spectrum, but I genuinely think it's impractical and expensive for everyone but the small minority of the public who're tech-oriented enough to want to broadcast things. Any average Joe can get his message out with a webpage. Additionally, the argument for the technology that's being lauded in this article is fuzzy at best, and twists terminology to get the desired agreement from the unknowing reader.
RF is low frequency compared to visible light, so less energetic and less likely to cause cancer than the fluorescent lights at the office, unless you have specific frequencies which strongly interact with organic molecules, like the one in your microwave oven.
One might as well scream: Arrgghh! Brain cancer from the RF generated by my own brain! Oh noooo!!!
Back in the day before computer modeling was the thing to do, the licensed geologists and engineers worked together to determine if a location and type of structure would be compatible for said building.
Now, they still do that, but there are also licensed geologists and engineers who write the modelling software, and other licensed geologists and engineers who use it. No information has changed hands from one profession to another until they interpret the results of the measurements and simulations they did, and inform whoever's hired them to do these measurements and simulations.
So, the people handling this aspect are still required to be licensed (most places).
Well the electron only said he was "feeling a bit down"...=P
I find it humorous that you're willing to tear apart my already-lame joke on something like whether the electron was "feeling" down or claiming to actually "be" down (which he wasn't), whilst completely ignoring the fact that these electrons are feeling and talking to a bartender in the first place, the more obvious impossibilities.;)
There is a quark named "down", but it doesn't necessarily have a spin oriented downward. Like an electron, it has a 1/2hbar spin which can be oriented in any direction to conserve angular momentum.
Well, if they were all born at the same time, that makes them identical twins so it's completely illegal for them to entangle in the first place.
You can still entangle with them, one at a time, in most states, as long as they're over 18, but since they're probably moving relativistically you'll be waiting quite some time.;)
When I worked in web-dev software, I turned into such a webhead that I'd regularly (sometimes accidentally) use netspeak in everyday language. I even didn't realize I was doing it until the Co went belly-up and I returned to college, where I frequently got "huh?" in return. I think 'googled' got the most weird looks out of any of them; "you did *what* to him?!" HEH;)
And don't forget the BSD Unix base which gives you native C and Fortran compiling capabilities along with scrpting in a hundred languages so that you can custom compile and automate all of your favorite Linux apps to run on your Mac.:)
The point of that quote is that open-source software is primarily requirements-driven, where M$ software is primarily profit-driven. It's understandable that this man believes everyone who writes a program to replace one that M$ makes is a "Microsoft wannabe"... he's been working for them most of his career.
At least he recognizes *why* people are driven to replace their M$ products.
And for that reason it's very understandable that he'd be running Apache rather than IIS. He would otherwise be quite hypocritical.
As for you, I think you're switching contexts from "open-source" to "independent". Plenty of independent software sucks, open source or not. And plenty of open source software is awesome, independent or not. You just can't combine them like that.
He clearly understands how big a force the Open Source community is becoming, and how it will affect Microsoft - but he doesn't seem to grasp the reasons.
To the contrary, it seems clear that he grasps the reasons, and points out that Microsoft isn't paying attention to those reasons. He doesn't say "requirements-driven, open source software" with nothing in mind -- this man knows exactly why open source software exists and thrives, and I believe this is main idea he's trying to get across.
He's saying "Wake up, Microsoft! You're so impractical that people have come down to making their own small software in leiu of buying your expensive bulky crap! Unless you change your closed-minded ways, the people will toss you aside in favor of the streamlined customized software they've always wanted, which the open-source movement will give them."
Actually, both "liberal" and "conservative" seek far reaching federal control, but supposedly in different ways.
Liberals, in general, like to have the government regulate business, commerce, and organizational things (while supporting the individual) such as minimum wages, consumer protections, price caps, etc. This is under the assumption that abuse of power by businesses and organizations leads to poverty.
Conservatives, on the other hand, like to have the government regulate individual and personal things (while supporting business and commerce) like what books to read, how to have sex, who can drink what, and what to worship. This is under the assumption that moral degredation leads to poverty.
Most of our leaders are human, and have some mix of both preferences. Very few people are all-or-none. What proportion of liberalism/conservativism is needed is highly dependent on who, where, and when you ask.
I think he's referring to the American public's seeming complacency with this type of tyranny, so long as they can still have their petty materialistic existence.
The most frightening part of it is that those people don't even realize that our whole society would crumble if everyone was a mindless consumer. Who will be left to develop more technology if all the children decide science is boring, and they'd rather play video games... the all the college students decide science is worthless and major in business... then we have to import scientists and engineers from developing countries... who the government can "justify" keeping a close watch on (at least, the drones will believe it's justified).
Obviously, this is the way the current setup in Washington would like things to go: the mindless American's won't notice/complain, give them more toys and sitcoms and they'll be fine. Import foreign thinkers, but keep them from voicing their thoughts under threat of being dubbed "terrorists" and deported. Since the vapid drones can't think for themselves, they'll believe it's just their government keeping them "safe".
Seriously, thinking people are already the minority... so let's think our way out of it, and write to our representatives -- all of them. Five letters a piece, under different names, with addresses out of the phone book...
Slashdot Mirror
There's really no difference, it's just a matter of unsettled terminology ;)
I agree with you that Reese smashes scientific and philosophic conclusions together a little too hastily (ie, without giving the reader any reason to believe that either neccessitates the other), but I believe this is only a personal problem for him and not the multiverse theory.
;-)
For example, David Deutsch's book "The Fabric of Reality" gives a nice broad explanation of multiverse stuff, and comes directly to the opposite conclusion that there is no God. Or, at least, that there is no need to use God to explain the reason for reality if instead one takes a multiverse view. No need for a God in the explanation means that there is no diety manifesting itself, through actions or otherwise, and thus whether one is there or not is ultimately irrelevant because it isn't affecting anything. At least, that's what I understand him to have said.
So, it isn't so bad that these "high-level" theories come out to the public, especially in books like Deutsch's (I'm sure a religious person would argue the opposite). Knock Reese's opinions and faulty logic if you will, but please don't be so quick to assume that all the multiverse pushers are out to make some link between science and God. Whatever link they make there is ultimately nothing more than an opinion and doesn't represent any part of the theory itself.
I can't wait to put my brain in a robot body!
While the other 4 replies to this post (as of the time I read it) seem to think that your code is company property, I tend to disagree.
... and it's not like we're volunteers, but here the programs are simply a means to an end rather than an end in and of themselves.
... well, that's a horse of a different color. ;-)
You said: "my boss tells me: We need a program that does foo",
but the repliers here seem to have read "my boss tells me: Write me a program that does foo"
People, there's no reason to tell your boss that you wrote the damn program if you want to release it open-source, so long as you don't release trade secrets or other confidential info in the process. Tell him you downloaded it open-source and modified it to suit your needs.
If he just "needs a program that does foo" he won't care where it came from so long as it works. It's more likely anyway that the boss would instead say "do foo" and leave it to you to determine how this should be handled.
I happen to be lucky enough to work in academia where sharing information and source code is vital to the continuation of our projects
If this is the case in the company you work for, it's likely that your boss also doesn't care if you release something you wrote on-the-job open-source, so long as you aren't revealing any secrets by doing so. Of course, if you're a programmer for a software firm
if you want our species to aspire to something greater than self-inflicted violence, we need to be rid of fascists, isolationists and xenophobes.
My friend, I'm terrribly sorry to let you down, but that statement must be one of the most logically self-inconsistent arguments I've ever read. What you are proposing is nothing short of genocide when applied to Iraq and the middle east! The entire Arab culture revolves around these ideas. Once upon a time they had amassed a vast, technologically rich empire based on the same sociologic and political standards that they still hold today. The "problem" is that their empire fell and the rest of the world changed around them while they've stagnated and allowed themselves to fall into an incredibly unstable state of affairs, which scares the shit out of us if they have nukes. The US is the biggest "threat" to Iraqi (and in general, Arab) pride, in that the importation of western culture and technology isn't meshing well with their old-way ideals. Naturally, to them, ours is the way of the devil, and must be kept out.
In truth, I don't believe they have nukes, or at least not powerful ones. I don't believe this is a war for oil. I don't believe this is a war purely to "establish democracy" in Iraq.
I do believe that the war is based on the "erradication of terrorism" through the removal of "rogue states", classified as I suppose any who hate us because we won't leave them alone culturally or on any other level. This reasoning has a fatal failure in the assumption that we can't leave them alone, and thus is not logically sound.
However, assuming that we can't leave them alone *and* shouldn't go to war is even more flawed, because only one can be true.
Either we can leave these people alone entirely, and leave them to die a horribly diseased and slow death on their own (or even better, but highly unlikely, for them to grow and prosper on their own), and completely cut them off from the rest of civilization, and thus avoid a war
Unfortunately, neither of these choices is right. *Both* are wrong for humanitarian reasons, but it's not like this is an issue that can be solved with diplomacy either. What we have here is a zero-sum game, and there is no way to win.
In conclusion, I don't support the war. I don't support non-war. I don't support diplomacy-only solutions. I don't support bombing-the-hell-out-of-em solutions. I don't support infiltrating their culture, but I don't support cutting them off. I don't support feeding their people (they live in a fucking desert!) or killing their people. I don't support replacing their government, but I don't support their government as it stands. I don't support any of these things because with the causes for them listed above, this can be extended ad infinitum and will never, ever produce a winning result.
Even worse than all that, besides being illogical, it would be utterly futile for me to take a position on this. The legislations and rules which have been brought about in the name of erradicating terrorism have served as the largest red flag for the erosion and eventual failure of "democracy" here in the US. I don't think I need to elaborate on what I mean here. This worries me more deeply than any war, and the similarities with *only the worst* bits of political statements made in Brazil, 1984, Brave New World, and Plato's Republic hit just a little to close for me.
I'm nowhere near the crackpot point of making aluminum hats, stockpiling assault rifles, or trying to declare myself a sovreign nation, but I am *very* deeply concerned and afraid for the future, and feel utterly helpless to the cause of it all.
I disagree with both of you.
The first AC here obviously didn't read the article. The Indian workers were "exempt" from evaluations that determined who would be fired, purely because they were new. It's not like Sun did this over night; they'd bring in a few Indian workers and can a few Americans, then have an evaluation a few weeks later, and can and replace a few more Americans -- no one can compete with someone who's "above" evaluation by virtue of some management policy designed specifically for that purpose. It has very little to do wih the skills and experience of either person, and more to do with a desire by the company to cut costs (and then *still* charge $30,000 for a workstation!).
The second AC has not only misinterpreted the first AC, but additionally has come to believe that technology is all that's preventing cannibalism. Simple logic will tell anyone that if humans ate each other in the time before they invented weapons, we wouldn't have survived to invent them. Further, even if that statement was logically sound, it has nothing at all do do with the issue. I understand if you support unions, but a lack of unions doesn't make people cannibals.
I believe that Sun is just asking for a lawsuit.
Firing 52-yr-olds (aka "people who are about to collect pension for loyalty to the same co for 30 yrs") in order to replace them with two 25-yr-olds is sleazy to begin with. I mean, wait 3 years, let the guys retire and collect the pension they've been promised for 30 years, and then hire replacements.
Firing *good* American workers to hire foreign workers, or not allowing them to compete with one another *at all*, is also sleazy.
So that's a double-sleaze count for Sun, which means double incentive for someone to sue them, especially in California.
I'm a Physics student, and I sort of agree.
I'm not sure where this guy got the idea that EM waves don't interfere, or why he tries to point to quantum mechanics to somehow back this up. Interference patterns are a very well-known effect, which exist due to the wave and probabalistic (quantum mechanical) nature of photons, and have nothing to do with whether or not they pass through one another. Interference patterns are the primary method of studying solid state physics, without which we wouldn't have any of the great technology we have today, even the ones this guy disputes. The hole used in a pinhole camera is much too large to get noticeable interference fringes.
Waves interfere. Period. And this is the reason the FCC sells licenses to use certain bands in certain areas. (Note: I understand why the FCC sells licenses, but that doesn't mean I support the pricing and regulation scheme they use to divy it all up)
Currently, the dividing of radio waves is done such that most radios can discern between messages on differing frequencies. In theory, with a perfectly tunable receiver one could divide the spectrum with much more miniscule divisions and allow billions more licenses to be distributed. At that point, the only limitation would be the monochroism (frequency spread) of the transmitter. However, trouble would arise when anyone tried to pick up the signal whilst driving or flying, thus red- or blue-shifting the signals they receive, depending on the transmitter locations. They will certainly red-shift some and blue-shift others, allowing interference that a stationary receiver wouldn't pick up. This extremely common scenario (people listening to the radio in their car) is the reason that the current alotted bands are so wide.
Another method of getting around interference would be to transmit several encrypted digital signals on the same radio band and allow them to be decrypted by the receivers. Several applications of this technology are already in use, including wireless LANs.
One weakness in the argument given by the article is that it seems to purposely confuse same-wavelength interference with other-objects interference. For instance, freqency hopping or encryption won't keep sufficiently opaque or reflective objects (for that freqency range) from interrupting your signal. Duh. In downtown areas, the biggest source of interference is giant steel buildings. I can't use my cellphone in the physics lab, but it has nothing to do with all the freaky equipment -- our building has lead walls.
To conclude, I can see how things like frequency hopping and signal encryption might allow more usage of the available spectrum, but I genuinely think it's impractical and expensive for everyone but the small minority of the public who're tech-oriented enough to want to broadcast things. Any average Joe can get his message out with a webpage. Additionally, the argument for the technology that's being lauded in this article is fuzzy at best, and twists terminology to get the desired agreement from the unknowing reader.
RF is low frequency compared to visible light, so less energetic and less likely to cause cancer than the fluorescent lights at the office, unless you have specific frequencies which strongly interact with organic molecules, like the one in your microwave oven.
One might as well scream: Arrgghh! Brain cancer from the RF generated by my own brain! Oh noooo!!!
Back in the day before computer modeling was the thing to do, the licensed geologists and engineers worked together to determine if a location and type of structure would be compatible for said building.
Now, they still do that, but there are also licensed geologists and engineers who write the modelling software, and other licensed geologists and engineers who use it. No information has changed hands from one profession to another until they interpret the results of the measurements and simulations they did, and inform whoever's hired them to do these measurements and simulations.
So, the people handling this aspect are still required to be licensed (most places).
Well the electron only said he was "feeling a bit down" ...=P
;)
I find it humorous that you're willing to tear apart my already-lame joke on something like whether the electron was "feeling" down or claiming to actually "be" down (which he wasn't), whilst completely ignoring the fact that these electrons are feeling and talking to a bartender in the first place, the more obvious impossibilities.
Forgot to add:
There is a quark named "down", but it doesn't necessarily have a spin oriented downward. Like an electron, it has a 1/2hbar spin which can be oriented in any direction to conserve angular momentum.
Here is a click-through standard model chart, and Here is an easy description of electron spin.
Sure they can. Electrons have a 1/2hbar spin, which can be oriented in any direction, depending on how you set its basis.
"I'm feeling a bit down today."
The other two respond, "Wow, that really puts a whole new spin on things."
A 3-D Shor's Algorithm, perhaps?
Well, if they were all born at the same time, that makes them identical twins so it's completely illegal for them to entangle in the first place.
;)
You can still entangle with them, one at a time, in most states, as long as they're over 18, but since they're probably moving relativistically you'll be waiting quite some time.
This has got to be the worst Slashdot story I've ever seen posted.
I truly do not give a rat's ass about this topic.
When I worked in web-dev software, I turned into such a webhead that I'd regularly (sometimes accidentally) use netspeak in everyday language. I even didn't realize I was doing it until the Co went belly-up and I returned to college, where I frequently got "huh?" in return. I think 'googled' got the most weird looks out of any of them; "you did *what* to him?!" HEH ;)
And don't forget the BSD Unix base which gives you native C and Fortran compiling capabilities along with scrpting in a hundred languages so that you can custom compile and automate all of your favorite Linux apps to run on your Mac. :)
The point of that quote is that open-source software is primarily requirements-driven, where M$ software is primarily profit-driven. It's understandable that this man believes everyone who writes a program to replace one that M$ makes is a "Microsoft wannabe" ... he's been working for them most of his career.
At least he recognizes *why* people are driven to replace their M$ products.
And for that reason it's very understandable that he'd be running Apache rather than IIS. He would otherwise be quite hypocritical.
As for you, I think you're switching contexts from "open-source" to "independent". Plenty of independent software sucks, open source or not. And plenty of open source software is awesome, independent or not. You just can't combine them like that.
He clearly understands how big a force the Open Source community is becoming, and how it will affect Microsoft - but he doesn't seem to grasp the reasons.
To the contrary, it seems clear that he grasps the reasons, and points out that Microsoft isn't paying attention to those reasons. He doesn't say "requirements-driven, open source software" with nothing in mind -- this man knows exactly why open source software exists and thrives, and I believe this is main idea he's trying to get across.
He's saying "Wake up, Microsoft! You're so impractical that people have come down to making their own small software in leiu of buying your expensive bulky crap! Unless you change your closed-minded ways, the people will toss you aside in favor of the streamlined customized software they've always wanted, which the open-source movement will give them."
How do you know what anything in space is made of?
SPECTROSCOPY is the easiest answer there.
Well, what would truly make it a "better" processor would be 128-bit processing, hell then it could be 4 times as slow and still get more done. ;)
Actually, both "liberal" and "conservative" seek far reaching federal control, but supposedly in different ways.
Liberals, in general, like to have the government regulate business, commerce, and organizational things (while supporting the individual) such as minimum wages, consumer protections, price caps, etc. This is under the assumption that abuse of power by businesses and organizations leads to poverty.
Conservatives, on the other hand, like to have the government regulate individual and personal things (while supporting business and commerce) like what books to read, how to have sex, who can drink what, and what to worship. This is under the assumption that moral degredation leads to poverty.
Most of our leaders are human, and have some mix of both preferences. Very few people are all-or-none. What proportion of liberalism/conservativism is needed is highly dependent on who, where, and when you ask.
I think he's referring to the American public's seeming complacency with this type of tyranny, so long as they can still have their petty materialistic existence.
... the all the college students decide science is worthless and major in business ... then we have to import scientists and engineers from developing countries ... who the government can "justify" keeping a close watch on (at least, the drones will believe it's justified).
... so let's think our way out of it, and write to our representatives -- all of them. Five letters a piece, under different names, with addresses out of the phone book ...
The most frightening part of it is that those people don't even realize that our whole society would crumble if everyone was a mindless consumer. Who will be left to develop more technology if all the children decide science is boring, and they'd rather play video games
Obviously, this is the way the current setup in Washington would like things to go: the mindless American's won't notice/complain, give them more toys and sitcoms and they'll be fine. Import foreign thinkers, but keep them from voicing their thoughts under threat of being dubbed "terrorists" and deported. Since the vapid drones can't think for themselves, they'll believe it's just their government keeping them "safe".
Seriously, thinking people are already the minority