Re:Simplfy the game and the AI gets better
on
Most Impressive Game AI?
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Eh, the chess programs are mostly just pattern matching against libraries of stored games and brute force projection of all possible moves from a given point. They rank the options and the top option always wins. I suppose when considering that the computer is storing your games (ie growing its library) then its responses could change over time. Not because it learned, but because the same 'intelligence' is applied to a different data set. Given the same data set the ranking system will always react the same way in the same circumstances. A very rudimentary form of 'learning'. Really it isn't learning any more than say the Pythagorean theorem which also gives different results based on different inputs despite the fact its method does not change.
I can't say I buy your neural net deal either. At least not as a distinction between 'real' and 'non-real'. Will certainly agree in your examples there is a distinct split between computationally expensive and computationally cheap ways of determining courses of action for a computer program. But no "real" AI exists yet, that is no Turing test capable AI... neural nets or no neural nets. I think the point the other response was trying to point out is that regardless of the method used to simulate intelligence (static script vs adaptive code) the important factor in determining if something is actually artificially intelligent is generally agreed to be the Turing test. That is in interaction with humans it is impossible for a human to distinguish if the responses of the machine are from a human or not.
Frankly, 'real' AI from something like neural net code is not something game companies desire at all (computationally expensive or not). The problem is such code is by its nature un-predictable because any such system of learning/mutation has to be based on the unpredictable input of the player. A game which is unpredictable is bad from an investment standpoint because you don't know what it will do or how it will respond. Thus deterministic scripts that can be relied upon to act in a consistent way beneficial to the game are generally far more desirable. Not to say I don't want to see it come to be... just that the likely hood of seeing serious work along these lines is pretty slim right now barring some kind of breakthrough.
You know I have never understood this argument. We learn to communicate primarily through speech, we only learn writing and reading at a later time. Now Lose and Loose is an iffy example for my purposes so I will use there and their for the moment and then get back to lose and loose. You see when speaking there is no need to explain to if it is their 'e i r' or there 'e r e'. It is a simple matter of context. And it is the context which defines the spelling and not the other way around. In that sense the spelling difference is a bit arbitrary. Lose and Loose are similar in my experience when reading. The meaning of the two words is so different that regardless of the number of 'o's I read the meaning indicated by context by default over the literal meaning of the word with 1 or 2 'o's respectively. To me, this is a similar process to distinguishing the meaning of there and their in conversation. Just that one happens due to visually similar words and one happens with phonetically similar (or identical) words.
While I am sure the misspelling does indeed register as "being poked with a fork" for you, I have to say that I didn't even register the above mis-spelling in the original post. Context determined it was a case where something was lost, not something in need of tightening. And I do not mean I sat for a second and considered the possibility, I mean I read through it interpreting lose and didn't even realize that isn't what it was untill I picked it up as a focus in the grammar Nazi flame war going on.
I suppose in the end it has something to do with differences in the brains method of cognition. To you it was a figurative poke in the eye... to me it is something that didn't even register. Something I find interesting because having read numerous posts you have made I know damn good and well you almost always focus on the meat of a post rather than incidentals.
Dought, messed up the first calculation on the bracket system example. The tax amounts would have been less in the example I have (Exemption on the first 10k). Just assume instead of 20% and 30% I used the rates that would generate the values used. It would be 30% for B and 33.3% I believe. Not the greatest for exemplifing different brackets... but still effective. Would probably necessitate a larger spending percentage assumption of the rich but not to much more... maybe 110% of B. Or adjust all the numbers to reflect 4,000 tax for B in the first example and 27,000. That would be more effective for what I was saying, but I am to lazy to set it up again. Damn the no editing.
Anyway, obviously the easy to attack point is in the spending percentage. You said 20% which I think is to low... but in those examples it would obviously present a disturbingly low rate on the rich and it would certainly be present in some of the more insane examples.
The point I mostly make about the fair tax system is it can be set up to present a zero sum game for the middle class based on where we are... and it would create an opt in system for the rich so they have less to bitch and moan about since even if they spend all of their money they pay the same percentage as the middle class even though it is a much larger sum.
The only way to not screw the middle class is to screw the upper class and that means a progressive system (tax brackets increasing with income). TANSTAAFL. And justifiable or not, it is no more fair to screw the rich than it is to screw the middle class.... just much more understandable.
Agreed. By all means bring on a flat tax. But my dear Netizen (ok shoot me for that) I think you will find the fair tax IS a flat tax. The difference between the two forms is merely where in the process dear old Uncle Sam (or government of choice) takes his slice.
Take the slice on the way in (flat income tax) Just means prices are lower to reflect the fact taxes have already been taken.
Take the slice on the way out then prices are higher because taxes are included.
I suppose you would point out again that the rich don't spend all their money so they don't get taxed as hard under the outgoing method of flat taxation. But then again the Middle class won't even get that reprieve on the 10% the perhaps manage to NOT spend. Perhaps it is a meaningless victory as goods cost more when tax is included. But for myself I would at least prefer the illusion of having a choice. IE I COULD scrape by on minimal expenditure and get a lower tax rate. This is not an option when the cut is taken on income. True the rich pay a set amount... but a set flat rate is effectively limited by the highest rate you can levy on the middle class... meaning the percentage of tax on the rich will be lower than currently anyway. Ultimately the middle is screwed in just about any system.
However, down with this notion of an income tax AND sales tax. That insanity along with the nutzo code are the cornerstones of how unfair the current system is. My effective tax rate when considering I am one of the poor schleps who has to pay 90% of my income effectively raises by 4-5% once sales tax is included (higher for folks with high sin tax burdens). A fact of life for the middle class that puts their true tax bracket on par with those in the highest tax bracket on average when considered in totality. Sales tax is often overlooked in such arguments.
Some numbers.
Person A makes 100k (Top 1%) Person B Makes 30k (somewhere in the neighborhood of the average single income) Person C makes 10k (~ approximately minimum wage).
Now lets use 10k for the no tax max for arguments sake.
Tax Bracket System A pays 30% B pays 20% C pays 0%
A pays 30k and takes home 70k B pays 6k and takes home 24K C pays nothing and takes home 10K
Flat Income tax of 30%.
A pays 30k (27k if only taxed above 10k) B pays 8.4k (6k if only taxed above 10k) C pays nothing
Tax burden ~ equal between A and B at 30% whether flat or bracketed. Though when considered in margin to live it obviously does not look very fair. The effective tax burden in a pure flat tax is and always has been regressive. The more you make the more you can pay. The less you make the less you can afford to part with Tax dollars. Simple enough maxim. And in a flat rate the burden is NEVER equal or higher on the rich. It is ALWAYS lower. Whereas in a bracket progressive system you can sometime reach burden equalities... but only rarely. An issue of perception.
Flat Sales Tax of 30%
Assuming 54% of their income is expended for A or twice as much as B to live "the good life". 90% for B to scrape by in the middle. 100% for C and needs more. Rebates received by all on the first 10k in the amount of 3000K.
A pays 16,200, receives 3,000k for 13,200 tax burden B pays 8,100, receives 3,000k for 5,100 tax burden C pays 3000 , receives 3,000k for 0 tax burden
Obviously the numbers are not revenue neutral... is it possible to get there? According to the old spread sheet you can certainly get in the neighborhood. In order to get the tax rates up close to what they were for the flat income rate and bracket income system you have to jump the sales tax up to about 35.3%. Using that number and the same expenditures you get
Flat Sales Tax of 35.3%
Assuming 54% of their income is expended for A or twice as much as B to live "the good life". 90% for B to scrape by in the middle. 100% for C and needs more. Rebates received by all on the first 10k in the amount of 4600K.
Why would you have to create a whole new infrastructure for collecting taxes? We are already set up to take in taxes at the cash register which is the primary avenue for tax collection via the Fair Tax system.
As for your argument about the middle class families spending a higher percentage? Well that is true and bully for you. But the effective tax rates for the rich are ALREADY lower than they are for the middle class. The key issue for a successful adoption of the fair tax system is to make sure the percentages of tax paid by the various economic strata do not undergo noticeable changes. Because if they manage that the fair tax system is no more and no LESS fair than the current system. However, it would serve to concentrate tax collection into easier to manage points of economic transfer as opposed to the current insane morass of collecting and analyzing 200+ million individual tax returns yearly in addition to all business returns. Taking the yearly nightmare of filling and analyzing individual tax returns off the plate is a VERY worthy goal. Effectively checking all the returns is all but impossible, and when individuals are confronted by the government very few posses the resources to successfully defend against an audit and are effectively at the mercy of the IRS. Limiting such processes to a business with staff dedicated to documenting its economic activity and in possession larger resources would make audit's a much fairer confrontation. Additionally if the program is implemented correctly you get to throw out the currently incomprehensible Rube Goldberg inspired tax code out the window and replace it with the simple dictum of collecting X amount of retail sales.
The Fair tax system isn't all sweetness an light as you have adequately pointed out. However that does not make it the tool of the Elite you make it out to be. I am not sure if it can be implemented in a revenue neutral manner that did not significantly shift the tax burden... or ensured any shift would be higher up the economic ladder rather than lower. But if they can solve that particular issue the plan has a great deal of merit.
Out of curiosity... do you perhaps have a tax system you favor and would like to illustrate as being a better system than either the existing or the "Fair Tax" system?
Interesting way to look at it. However, if you haven't figured it out already, most companies are trying to figure out how to suck the last erg of productivity from their workers. The bigger they are the worse this tendency is. I suppose what you are getting at is here there are examples of companies that have the audacity to attempt to make you like it. Frankly these kinds of efforts to suck me dry is a problem I wish existed with my employer.
These kinds of perks are not evil underhanded attempts to suck the life from you. To me they are a company realizing it is OK for them to try and make you like working for them and hoping that in return they get more from you. It is a win win if you ask me. One of the worst fall outs from the late 90's dot bomb crash was that seriously desirable perks got lumped in right along with non-existent business plans or a real product as reasons for these companies failing. True enough some of the companies went overboard in this area but among the reasons for their failures the perks were by and large window dressing... they were an easily remembered excess. The Corporate workplace is due for a serious overhaul. The siege mentality of most cube hell workers is not a good thing. You want to talk about places designed to suck the life out of someone... It is well past time the work place was designed to be more lived in. Hell, we spend close to a 1/3rd of our adult lives in one. Why shouldn't work spaces be more comfortable and inviting?
Who said I was separating them? I said the interaction between Congress and the President is traditionally different in a time of war due to the Presidents role as CIC. You specifically questioned why Congress has largely supported Bush on the issue of the war despite its growing unpopularity and I thought I answered it. I'll answer it another way. War aint every day politics, and using that example is a poor means by which to justify your apparent claim the president sets the legislative table period. Perhaps it could be used to justify the president setting the legislative agenda in times of war... or even better it supports the idea of the president deciding legislative agenda that pertains to the war. During the time Bush has been in office there has been one crap load of legislation that has gone through, but relatively little of it has been directly attributed to the war or even homeland security.
Look the long and short of it is the President can't legislate dick. Clinton and Bush Jr both learned that lesson the hard way by approaching congress the way you seem to think they could(should?). And both of them generally went down in flames for it with the exception of Bush's "support the war requests". Can the office be used to build coalitions and persuade members of congress to support an agenda? Yes, and I never claimed it couldn't. Is it a powerful mechanism for doing so? Yes and I never claimed it wasn't. However, you painted a picture that has a Presidential hand up Congress's ass moving its lips with regards to legislative agenda and that just isn't so.
Eh its been a good one but it does sound like we are circling now. Thanks for the brain workout. Welcome to the list of folks that at least make me sit up and think.
huh?? Aren't you taking under consideration Bush's status as commander in chief during a time of war? Things are a bit different in terms of what Congress will do to oppose presidential leadership during times of war. War calls for a leader and we decided to make the only nationally elected figure in Politics our Leader in times of war for good or ill and yes presently its decidedly looking to be for ill. It will be interesting to see what a Democratic house does with the new budget request.
Decidedly negative polls regarding the war are actually a relatively recent thing.. last year or so really. Specifically negative polls regarding support for Bush's administration of it. This war has certainly been polarizing since its inception but until recently the 'Red folks' stood pretty much shoulder to shoulder with Bush and while not a resounding mandate it was still a damn sight better than nothing. And due to the fact the "Red State" coverage actually encompasses a large majority of House and Senate seat home districts It is no wonder at all for me that Congress has not taken decisive action to thwart Bush's war efforts to date. Not to mention the slight problem of the "spilled milk" nature of the problem. Its done, so the problem is how to get out of it... well you look to your leadership.... its a vicious cycle.
How is that for the "reality of the situation"?
I have said nothing specifically to the power of a single vote. Only to their ability to actually initiate the process of legislation. Details of House & Senate protocol aside the fact remains it is their sole power to start the ball rolling.
As for my idealistic phrasing regarding election accountability for members of congress... eh perhaps that was a bit over the top ( bit more than a gov class or two, Poli Sci Major). But no matter how you phrase it they face election in their home districts and they most certainly do get held accountable for their actions in support of or against legislative measures. The Democrats got a hard lesson in that reality when the Gingrich tide rolled in during the Clinton years and recently Republicans re-learned the same as they lost the majority in both houses.
Your statements insinuate or just plain outright say that the Executive branch is the guiding light behind all legislation and that is what got me all riled up as its just nonsense. And I really would like you to point out where you think I am point plank saying the president is weaker than an individual congress critter in my OP. I for the life of me can't figure out where you are getting that from.
"Have you not been following American politics for the past, say, 20 years?".... ummm YEAH. I seem to recall a fairly popular president effectively stymied in most of his agenda goals with a congress conspicuously enacting its own agenda over his head due to the already mentioned Gingrich revolution not to mention they damn near ran him out of town on a rail over a highly suspect personal integrity issue. I also recall a lackluster Bush administration sitting under the pall of an atrocious election debacle and everyone holding their breath waiting to see if things would cool off or go nova until 9/11 stole the focus and relegated such discussions to what if status for historians.
To tell you the truth I think you and I would mostly agree if you simply inserted power of the major parties (or perhaps the major party in power) where you are saying President in regards to political reality. You want to talk about idealistic. The concept of Coalition building to pass bills these days is largely idealistic talk. The basic coalitions are already etched out by party affiliation with a few key swing votes closely identified on all major issues. And its rarely touchy feely persuasion that swings vote... it is back scratching with pork, and lots of it.
When it comes to presenting legislation the President is in fact weaker than any individual member of Congress. If they all refuse to sponsor a Presidential bill that is that. Case shut. That is all I said. Not that a member or Congress was more or less influential than the President.
Now reality is that it would be a pretty odd day the President couldn't get a sponsor for a bill either by legitimate means or by back room arm twisting. Never claimed that wasn't the case. Said so in my initial post.
Another reality is that Presidential legislation is the exception rather than the rule of Congressional business. You said he was the most powerful legislator and that the fact he could not introduce or vote on legislation was incidental. That just is not the case. Presidential influence can certainly be (and often has been) the driver behind wide sweeping legislative changes. But that falls well short in my opinion of this so called idea of an "Imperial President" setting the agenda for Congress. At best I will give you the President sets the agenda for national issues. But if you think the 500 pound gorilla bills like SS reform or Health-care are all Congress is for you had best look again.
The President Leads. And for nation wide issues of importance that makes him a key figure in defining the paths we take both in bills passed and enforcement of laws. Don't mistake that for powers the office does not have. The legislative power of the President is one entirely of image. If the President appears to be speaking with the backing of the people of the United States then yes he swings a damn big stick. But the second that is in doubt? Then Congress calls the Executive bluff because Members of Congress also answer to the people.
An interesting view point. But quite frankly if the President wielded half as big a stick as you seemed to think then it would be a presidential agenda and nothing else... and one would wonder why he hadn't bothered dissolving the troublesome houses in the first place so that they stopped getting in his way. After all the constitution has no bearing anymore right? It's just a piece of paper. *SHEESH*... is that you Dubya?
Political wheeling and dealing between the President and the Houses of Congress is more of a two way street than you give credit for. And if you don't understand the reality of that sir then it is you who has a lot to learn about US politics. By the way the idea of considering Government and Politics separately is pretty silly. Politics is government in action.
For example if the President is such the end all and be all of politics in Washington then why is it a big deal that the Democrats took back majority positions in both houses? If he wields the ultimate political power they should still be lining up to lick his boots from what you seem to think. Why were some of Bush's nominations rejected? What was all that filibustering going on in the Senate? Hell Bill Clinton couldn't get his major electoral issue of health care through despite having a democratic majority in both houses. It was a massive defeat for him. If things were as you think then they would have passed it on through and said "thank you sir may I have another.. and can I have a picture please??".
The Constitution defines the political game in Washington. It is the ground rules so to speak. Politicking is simply what brings those rules to bear. Without the constitution it would be chaos. It isn't the only document... but it is the architecture that defines the playing field.
The President is the only nationally elected official in the United States of America and as such he is the one person who can lay any claim that he speaks for the nation as a whole. IE his constituency is the entire electorate. Thus it is his job to keep an eye on the Big picture. To provide leadership. Yes with that position comes an amount of political currency with which to pursue an agenda. This is something the media and bobble heads love to focus on and they can make it sound like the only game in town. However, it is not an almighty whooping stick that trumps all as you naively (and not a few in the media) seem to believe.
They were mostly pointing out it was the first majority popular vote win I think since his father in 88. Clinton had his first election more or less handed to him by Ross Perot and only netted 43%, in 96 he got 50 so iffy. Not that they didn't talk it up like he had pick up 75% or something... but relatively speaking their justification was he had the largest percentage of the popular vote in 16 years.
The media has long suffered from conflicting interests... they have proven to be the 5th estate watching over the government, but they also have to sell sell sell to stay alive and we have suffered of late from a brand of talk up journalism not seen since the days of Yellow dog Journalism largely regarded as the reason we wound up with the Spanish American War.
Dude that IS the US Government. Congress critters have their own mandate from the people and they don't have to listen to a damn thing the president says regarding the introduction of legislation. And when their term is over, their constituents will judge their choices as their representation to the republic. It is THEIR JOB to determine if the direction the leader wants to go is in the interest of their electorate.
As for this trump card of "The People", No President since Regan in 84 has had more than a modicum of a mandate from the people and even his 84 "Landslide" was only 18% more of the popular vote than Mondale. Mondale still managed 4 out of every 10 votes on the national level in his "ignominious" defeat. That is not a mandate no matter what the campaign spin artists like to claim. Bush's claim to a strong mandate from the people in '04 was grounds for him to be locked up in a padded room if you ask me.
Yes the president can ask for something popular, and the congress critters risk the wrath of the people if they fail to deliver. That is the way it is supposed to work. It does not make the president a legislator. At best it makes him a coach asking his team to deliver something which they often do... and rarely if ever do they get what they ask for (or JUST what they ask for).
There is no constitutional limitation on the executive branch suggesting specific wording or even bills whole cloth to members of the house... nor any limitation on members of the house accepting such and presenting it to their respective body. The only problem I have in this is when the decision to accept such wording/bills presented by the executive branch get tied up in nasty party politics like endorsements and access to party campaign funds etc... It is one thing for a congress critter to present such a bill in good faith, quite another in acquiescence to party pressure or even worse in hopes of their own personal advancement at the expense of their constituents desires.
So yes the President can suggest, they can send bill after bill to every member of both houses in hopes they will bring it to the floor. They can stand before "The People" day after day telling them what they are asking for congress to do. But, unlike members of the houses, the President can NOT force an issue onto the floor. Just like once the houses pass legislation they must receive presidential approval barring a super majority vote.
Give and take, checks and balances... you may be familiar with the concepts. They are very much alive and well in Washington.
It may be a radical revision but I disagree with the steep learning curve assesment. The options are far less buried, making them much more visible, and the formating options are all available at the highlighted section rather than up in the window frame. It was more of a change in how the available options were organized than any real substantial change in how the program works. IE you are mostly dealing with the same tools, they are just arranged differently. And for once I think the change was for the better.
They are fully supplied from earth? Of course they are, where else are they supposed to be supplied from? Where else would a Mars mission be supported from? Is there some law stopping us from launching supplies in support of a Mars mission in the same manner as we support LEO missions? Sure the lead time is a bit more of a bitch (pretty sure you wouldn't be overtaking in transit) but it can certainly still be done.
Regarding the level of automation, I am not sure if we have read the same proposal. About the only robotic/automation elements above and beyond current systems already in use is the automated propellant generation system which is just a big gas compressor and chemical processing plant. Which he already made a technological demonstrator of. Chemical processing plants are already to large extents automated. This is not new ground to the extent you seem to suggest. Of a far larger concern than the automated nature of the plant is the actual power source for the plant. But even nuclear reactors in space are nothing new. There are several floating around in orbit even now. Not exactly common knowledge but the US launched one and the Russians have launched several over the years.
So what problem are these decades going to solving? We have the pieces of the puzzle already. What we need is the money and will to put all the pieces together and to launch a mission. Building the new gear and writing the new software in support of this specific mission just is not a decades long process. Years sure... but not enough of them to make decades.
So the fact we have maintained a presence in orbit for years at a time has no bearing? You might bring up the fact we 're-supply' the station and MIR before it but they both go for months without any re-supply as is. Two.... there is nothing saying we can't re-supply a Mars mission with similar frequency.
You keep insisting it is indeed something that will take such a great length of time without really saying why. So I ask you to please elaborate. Provide some examples of what we lack that will require such a long development time and why it is necesarry.
Have we built the actual hardware that would be used for the mission? No, but much of what would be used already exists. As for the rest I simply fail to understand why you think it would take so long to build it. Again, we built the ENTIRE shebang in less than 10 years when we initially went to the moon. We now have launch infrastructure, Rocket production lines, Man rated flight life support hardware. In other words it didn't take us decades when we INVENTED space flight. Why would it take decades to take an evolutionary (not revolutionary) next step?
LEO and going to the moon is like kitty hawk and the first early years of aviation for space flight. Going to mars is the first flight across the Atlantic. Yes, it is dangerous. No, the equipment is not yet perfect. But it is with in our grasp to do it if only we can sustain the will to accomplish it.
A Mars mission does not have to be the same. We do not have to create the space industry whole cloth. We are not discovering how to get to space while going there now. The Apollo method is not the only way to do business. Besides I am not one that thinks it is realistic for NASA to receive a full 1% of the budget ever again. NASA's current budget is 15 billion or so which is miniscule. The Air Force's gas bill is higher. Zubrin's plan could probably be funded by that amount if that is what it was dedicated too, cost plus contracting and all.
It seems to me that in saying it will take decades you are suggesting the effort needed to establish a self sustaining outpost. IE your references to fully automated manufacturing plants etc... Granted to create a self sustaining model it will take a great deal of time but that is not what is required for establishing a long term presence as opposed to flags and footprints. Your right that Rome weren't built in a day... but you don't have to wait till you CAN build Rome before you venture forth either.
Zubrin posits the ability to have a 500 day outpost provided in the same mission mass as two Apollo moon missions. That my friend is NOT something requiring decades. It would take cajones and the possibility of failure would certainly be real but no higher than it was for Apollo and perhaps even lower. With properly spaced missions it would be possible to go for a serious long term presence from the get go with a slow build up to a self sustaining infrastructure. We have been sustaining the launch costs necesarry to maintain a permanent presence (Shuttle missions cost effectively the same as if we had continued using Sat V's) on mars already if we were to use Zubrin's mars direct model... which in slightly modified form is already NASA's standing Mars mission profile.
So again why decades? I agree to build a self sustaining outpost would take decades.... but a long term presence does not have to be self sustaining.
The new businesses are no different than the old? Are you lumping Rutan's scaled composites and Bigelow aerospace in with Lockheed and Co. already?
Certainly you can't calculate your way out of physics. I was simply pointing out that we have far better tools and experience with which to tackle the problem now than we did then and for the moon venture it was to some extent a question of if it was even possible. Now we know it is possible, it is simply a matter of putting the equipment together to accomplish the mission.
While far from the world class orbital research facility NASA bills it as, the ISS does most certainly participate in Science at present and has since it's inception which is more than most research facilities can claim during their construction phases. Also, I laugh at the notion of 'easily accessible low earth orbit'. LEO is most of the way to anywhere in the solar system from a delta V standpoint. There is nothing easy about it and it's closeness is deceptive.
I grant shielding is an issue, especially in transit but it is not the overwhelming terror it is made out to be. It is somewhat akin to the risks of smoking for long term damage barring some spectacular solar flare activity without sufficient shielding options.
Your last comment disturbs me more than any of the others however as it is extremely defeatist in tone. Oh we are hopeless so we can never hope to compete with not even the slightest consideration that perhaps... just perhaps we could make changes in how we operate to BE that country.
Out of curiosity why is it that you think Zubrin's approach is something which should take decades? We effectively went to the moon with slide rules in one decade once we set it as a goal. The initial space program had less computational power in the entire program than sits on the average worker bee's desk these days. We have the last 30 years of experience in living in space (Mir and ISS together have logged close to 2 decades of human presence in micro G already). Is Mars really that more difficult a goal in your eyes? If you really think so then methinks you have not really read Zubrin yet. Feel free to provide a bit more in depth argument if you have. I do agree that the guy is a bit optimistic regarding cost but he is certainly right that current costs are severely bloated by the atrocity that is cost plus contracting.
Decades. Decades? DECADES??? What in the world has happend to this country? The concept of NASA as contractor life support is a post Apollo disease. It has resulted from having nothing for them to do so survival has become their reason to exist and we have allowed it to go on to long. It is past time NASA stopped handing contracts out on promises and started awarding money only for HARD results. There are numerous private companies competing to get into space and the prospect of real money for real goals met could be just the shot in the arm those programs need to get beyond the misty eyed dreamer phase most of them have become mired in.
First off if a student can read the books, listen to podcasts and take the tests and pass with flying colors There should be no problem. By the metric assigned to the class (tests, final exams etc...) The student covered the material. If you think not then the criteria must be deficient and the tests flawed in such a way that they did not in fact reveal and measure what was intended.
Lecture courses in large institutions can and should be allowed to deginerate all the way to classes on tape. You really think it makes a difference for a student to sit in a 200+ student lecture hall listening to a guy drone on and maybe scribble on a board as compared to having it on video and perhaps stills of the board to review in their own time ? The idea that they would somhow get more out of actually being there in those cases is absurd.
Even in smaller more discussion based courses you can still get the material so long as the proffessor has enough people there for the discussion. IE Discussion is important but more that certain lines of discussion comes up and that you take them into consideration as opposed to you having to actually be there to take part. Thus so long as the needed lines of discussion are explored and the material is captured in some form then you can still learn just as much from those materials as you can from actual attendence. So long as you are paying for the privlidge and getting what is needed then why should it be a problem for you to time shift courses ?
Again if the measuring sticks used (tests, essays, presentations etc..) are not sufficient to distinguish between someone who time shifted the material and someone who was actually present.... then whats the big hairy deal? If you are worried about students passing by slacking class and just listening to podcasts then make a meaningfull change to the material such that listening to podcasts alone is not sufficient to pass the test. And I don't mean some artificial attendence clause or equivalent irrelevant to the material method. Else put the podcasts out there and the let the students themselves find what works best for them. The ones that want to learn are goign to learn. The ones that don't won't. It doesn't matter if they are there or not.
Are you sure it isn't you who is worried about being replaced by canned recordings and media material ? If you can't jazz up your class up enough to avoid the material being just as effectively learned via an undynamic recording... then perhaps its not the students failing to attend class you (or the univiesity) should be worried about.
Which is why these tools need to become more social. Or more social tools need to be invented. We all cry foul about potential breaches of privacy and yet all this privacy is part of what isolates us. We default to shutting everyone out and it gets to be habitual.
We need more social elements to our technology. The internet makes it easier to meet someone on the otherside of the world than it does the girl/boy next door. It continually amazes me that location based net communities have not become a stronger force than they are. I guess part of it is due to the low density of users... at least here in the US. And I mean heavy social users. My Space and the like are starting to change that as you are seeing school social structures finally incorporating online methods as well. My guess is the gen or three after the myspace crowd gets old will find a far more tightly nit world than the one we live in.... because they will have embraced the new technology not just as something anoynmous but as something personal as well. The internet can provide you with both. That is the thing that is truly scaring parents and teachers etc.... its not like kids are saying anything new on myspace. Its just that now there is something for parents and teachers to see.
It often takes new generations to take the new technology of the older generationa and carry it forward... especially when it is highly socially disruptive. Older people are canalized by the values they had growing up... while kids are actually in the process of forming their systems and will actively seek out that which will distinguish them from their elders... and technology is a prime target for such difference.
Seriously. I can't wait for someone to get a nationwide wireless going. I still think Google is going to do it and usurp the old TV model. IE all you need is the hardware and an antenna and you get access. People say free net access can't pay and yet for 50 years we had free TV broadcasts via major networks and ad revenue. Then we can watch current monopolistic structures like Telco and cable based on last mile control crumble if they don't adapt some how.
With a little luck wireless will reach a capability point where we no longer need data lines run to the house and we can get rid of an awful lot of unsightly cables. Then if we could get swapped over to fuel cell powered homes we could dispense with tradditional power lines as well and nix all the above ground stuff. Fuel cells could be powered by underground gas lines. Or perhaps via liquid gas that is reformed on site. Would avoid tranmission losses and distribute the grid. Think going from main frames to PC's (central power plants to distributed).
Most games... and alot of windows software have cutomization options that essentially work like a learning universal remote. IE You pick the function you want to re-map and then click what you want to do that action be that a keyboard button/combination or mouse click etc... I haven't seen to many programs in Linux that offer that same functionality much less the OS on the whole. Though to be fair Windows doesn't offer it at the OS level either. Not sure why really. Seems like an obvious functionality.
It just works but that is because windows has shedloads of drivers inlcuded with it that manufactureres strive diligently to have included in windows. Linux does not have nearly as many included by default though it has slowly be adding them. And in many cases there are no specific drivers avaialble for a piece of hardware in linux and someone either has to custom write it by painfull/meticulous trial and error or it has limited/no support based on standard interface information (hence 3 button support generally works).
Yes there is almost always a way to make it work in Linux. And for some the challenge of finding that way is its own reward. But for most they don't just like it to work out of the box. The REQUIRE it to work out of the box as they are users who want a tool. Not a toy. IMHO this is the last real hurdle Linux has for mainstream adoption (along with better media support). The process for adding new equipment is all over the place... from plug and play on down to the endless config file tweaking adventure. Windows and mac have long since reached the point where driver nightmares are by and large the exception. In contrast under linux you are pleasently surprised when something works out of the box.
Eh I would say this sentiment has less to do with fear of death and more with the fear of a lack of meaning for life. You pish posh the memory of man and yet to our knowledge thus far it is the only record of things past. Yes perhaps it is silly to worry about whether or not you will make ink in the history books. But at the same time it is that silly notion of memory that drives folks to action. Economic rules and regulations to stave off another great depression. Forward thinking technologies to seperate our power needs from a limited supply that has reached practical limits and will run out. The list goes on. History is more than immortalization of any single individuals deeds. We could care less for the name/face ascociated with it. We care about what happend because of how it helps us in the future. We struggle to make the hard times and lessons of those before serve a purpose. And yes in the midst of it folks get remembered when they are the lucky ones in the right place... or with the right followers... at the right time to advance the story forward a little more.
Well like I said the time element is a factor. Deffinatly was simplifying the issue. However, again I have to point out that there is still no reward for answering faster than the time limit. Thus while time is a factor it is only one factor of many.
The thing with the asterix on the tests that were taken untimed is are you best serving the reasons for the test by providing that information or simply providing a means for prejudice? Personally I think if you need the asterix then they simply should not take the test period. The point of the score is to judge them equally with all others that took the test. So you have some very imperfect options.
1) make the take the test under the same time strictures despite the fact you know the scores will not be representative of their ability.
2) Same as above but also add a notation indicating their difficulty which allows for consideration that their score is not truly indicative.
3) Allow untimed testing which allows them to score in line with their known abilities with no extra notation.
4) Untimed with the notation indicated their score does not mean the same thing as the 'normal' test.
In either case with notification you segregate them from the general scale of the test which defeats the purpose of general tests like the SAT. In one you do so with results that you know are not indicative of their skill. And in the other you do so with a score which is indicative but which is now distinguished from other scores. The first option is truly horrendous unless you honestly think ADD is 'not real'.
3) is far from ideal. Yes they have taken the test under different circumstances. But it is the least evil of the options available if you ask me. You have to account for the fact of ADD (or other LD) somewhere along the line. So its really just a question of choosing your poison. The 'handicaping' of the score has to happen somewhere. IE if you have the note about the test being taken untimed what does that do to that persons score consideration ? If the answer is nothing then there is no need for the notation in the first place. If its say automatically deducting 100 points (or adding in the event that take it timed) Then you still have created a special consideration for kids with ADD. It will happen somehwere in the process.
In the end the current method was chosen because it was decided the display of knowledge period was more important that the display of that knowledge withen a specific amount of time and that if you had to sacrifice something then the choice should be made with an eye to what best represented the students previously displayed ability. Not noting the difference in the test administration removed the possibility of unwarented prejudice against the results of an either positve or negative nature. IE potentially sympathetic in the event of artificially low scores or potentially negative in the event of supposed inflated scores due to extra time available to complete the test.
Slashdot Mirror
Eh, the chess programs are mostly just pattern matching against libraries of stored games and brute force projection of all possible moves from a given point. They rank the options and the top option always wins. I suppose when considering that the computer is storing your games (ie growing its library) then its responses could change over time. Not because it learned, but because the same 'intelligence' is applied to a different data set. Given the same data set the ranking system will always react the same way in the same circumstances. A very rudimentary form of 'learning'. Really it isn't learning any more than say the Pythagorean theorem which also gives different results based on different inputs despite the fact its method does not change.
I can't say I buy your neural net deal either. At least not as a distinction between 'real' and 'non-real'. Will certainly agree in your examples there is a distinct split between computationally expensive and computationally cheap ways of determining courses of action for a computer program. But no "real" AI exists yet, that is no Turing test capable AI... neural nets or no neural nets. I think the point the other response was trying to point out is that regardless of the method used to simulate intelligence (static script vs adaptive code) the important factor in determining if something is actually artificially intelligent is generally agreed to be the Turing test. That is in interaction with humans it is impossible for a human to distinguish if the responses of the machine are from a human or not.
Frankly, 'real' AI from something like neural net code is not something game companies desire at all (computationally expensive or not). The problem is such code is by its nature un-predictable because any such system of learning/mutation has to be based on the unpredictable input of the player. A game which is unpredictable is bad from an investment standpoint because you don't know what it will do or how it will respond. Thus deterministic scripts that can be relied upon to act in a consistent way beneficial to the game are generally far more desirable. Not to say I don't want to see it come to be... just that the likely hood of seeing serious work along these lines is pretty slim right now barring some kind of breakthrough.
You know I have never understood this argument. We learn to communicate primarily through speech, we only learn writing and reading at a later time. Now Lose and Loose is an iffy example for my purposes so I will use there and their for the moment and then get back to lose and loose. You see when speaking there is no need to explain to if it is their 'e i r' or there 'e r e'. It is a simple matter of context. And it is the context which defines the spelling and not the other way around. In that sense the spelling difference is a bit arbitrary. Lose and Loose are similar in my experience when reading. The meaning of the two words is so different that regardless of the number of 'o's I read the meaning indicated by context by default over the literal meaning of the word with 1 or 2 'o's respectively. To me, this is a similar process to distinguishing the meaning of there and their in conversation. Just that one happens due to visually similar words and one happens with phonetically similar (or identical) words.
While I am sure the misspelling does indeed register as "being poked with a fork" for you, I have to say that I didn't even register the above mis-spelling in the original post. Context determined it was a case where something was lost, not something in need of tightening. And I do not mean I sat for a second and considered the possibility, I mean I read through it interpreting lose and didn't even realize that isn't what it was untill I picked it up as a focus in the grammar Nazi flame war going on.
I suppose in the end it has something to do with differences in the brains method of cognition. To you it was a figurative poke in the eye... to me it is something that didn't even register. Something I find interesting because having read numerous posts you have made I know damn good and well you almost always focus on the meat of a post rather than incidentals.
Dought, messed up the first calculation on the bracket system example. The tax amounts would have been less in the example I have (Exemption on the first 10k). Just assume instead of 20% and 30% I used the rates that would generate the values used. It would be 30% for B and 33.3% I believe. Not the greatest for exemplifing different brackets... but still effective. Would probably necessitate a larger spending percentage assumption of the rich but not to much more... maybe 110% of B. Or adjust all the numbers to reflect 4,000 tax for B in the first example and 27,000. That would be more effective for what I was saying, but I am to lazy to set it up again. Damn the no editing.
Anyway, obviously the easy to attack point is in the spending percentage. You said 20% which I think is to low... but in those examples it would obviously present a disturbingly low rate on the rich and it would certainly be present in some of the more insane examples.
The point I mostly make about the fair tax system is it can be set up to present a zero sum game for the middle class based on where we are... and it would create an opt in system for the rich so they have less to bitch and moan about since even if they spend all of their money they pay the same percentage as the middle class even though it is a much larger sum.
The only way to not screw the middle class is to screw the upper class and that means a progressive system (tax brackets increasing with income). TANSTAAFL. And justifiable or not, it is no more fair to screw the rich than it is to screw the middle class.... just much more understandable.
Agreed. By all means bring on a flat tax. But my dear Netizen (ok shoot me for that) I think you will find the fair tax IS a flat tax. The difference between the two forms is merely where in the process dear old Uncle Sam (or government of choice) takes his slice.
Take the slice on the way in (flat income tax) Just means prices are lower to reflect the fact taxes have already been taken.
Take the slice on the way out then prices are higher because taxes are included.
I suppose you would point out again that the rich don't spend all their money so they don't get taxed as hard under the outgoing method of flat taxation. But then again the Middle class won't even get that reprieve on the 10% the perhaps manage to NOT spend. Perhaps it is a meaningless victory as goods cost more when tax is included. But for myself I would at least prefer the illusion of having a choice. IE I COULD scrape by on minimal expenditure and get a lower tax rate. This is not an option when the cut is taken on income. True the rich pay a set amount... but a set flat rate is effectively limited by the highest rate you can levy on the middle class... meaning the percentage of tax on the rich will be lower than currently anyway. Ultimately the middle is screwed in just about any system.
However, down with this notion of an income tax AND sales tax. That insanity along with the nutzo code are the cornerstones of how unfair the current system is. My effective tax rate when considering I am one of the poor schleps who has to pay 90% of my income effectively raises by 4-5% once sales tax is included (higher for folks with high sin tax burdens). A fact of life for the middle class that puts their true tax bracket on par with those in the highest tax bracket on average when considered in totality. Sales tax is often overlooked in such arguments.
Some numbers.
Person A makes 100k (Top 1%)
Person B Makes 30k (somewhere in the neighborhood of the average single income)
Person C makes 10k (~ approximately minimum wage).
Now lets use 10k for the no tax max for arguments sake.
Tax Bracket System
A pays 30%
B pays 20%
C pays 0%
A pays 30k and takes home 70k
B pays 6k and takes home 24K
C pays nothing and takes home 10K
Flat Income tax of 30%.
A pays 30k (27k if only taxed above 10k)
B pays 8.4k (6k if only taxed above 10k)
C pays nothing
Tax burden ~ equal between A and B at 30% whether flat or bracketed. Though when considered in margin to live it obviously does not look very fair. The effective tax burden in a pure flat tax is and always has been regressive. The more you make the more you can pay. The less you make the less you can afford to part with Tax dollars. Simple enough maxim. And in a flat rate the burden is NEVER equal or higher on the rich. It is ALWAYS lower. Whereas in a bracket progressive system you can sometime reach burden equalities... but only rarely. An issue of perception.
Flat Sales Tax of 30%
Assuming 54% of their income is expended for A or twice as much as B to live "the good life".
90% for B to scrape by in the middle.
100% for C and needs more.
Rebates received by all on the first 10k in the amount of 3000K.
A pays 16,200, receives 3,000k for 13,200 tax burden
B pays 8,100, receives 3,000k for 5,100 tax burden
C pays 3000 , receives 3,000k for 0 tax burden
Obviously the numbers are not revenue neutral... is it possible to get there? According to the old spread sheet you can certainly get in the neighborhood. In order to get the tax rates up close to what they were for the flat income rate and bracket income system you have to jump the sales tax up to about 35.3%. Using that number and the same expenditures you get
Flat Sales Tax of 35.3%
Assuming 54% of their income is expended for A or twice as much as B to live "the good life".
90% for B to scrape by in the middle.
100% for C and needs more.
Rebates received by all on the first 10k in the amount of 4600K.
Why would you have to create a whole new infrastructure for collecting taxes? We are already set up to take in taxes at the cash register which is the primary avenue for tax collection via the Fair Tax system.
As for your argument about the middle class families spending a higher percentage? Well that is true and bully for you. But the effective tax rates for the rich are ALREADY lower than they are for the middle class. The key issue for a successful adoption of the fair tax system is to make sure the percentages of tax paid by the various economic strata do not undergo noticeable changes. Because if they manage that the fair tax system is no more and no LESS fair than the current system. However, it would serve to concentrate tax collection into easier to manage points of economic transfer as opposed to the current insane morass of collecting and analyzing 200+ million individual tax returns yearly in addition to all business returns. Taking the yearly nightmare of filling and analyzing individual tax returns off the plate is a VERY worthy goal. Effectively checking all the returns is all but impossible, and when individuals are confronted by the government very few posses the resources to successfully defend against an audit and are effectively at the mercy of the IRS. Limiting such processes to a business with staff dedicated to documenting its economic activity and in possession larger resources would make audit's a much fairer confrontation. Additionally if the program is implemented correctly you get to throw out the currently incomprehensible Rube Goldberg inspired tax code out the window and replace it with the simple dictum of collecting X amount of retail sales.
The Fair tax system isn't all sweetness an light as you have adequately pointed out. However that does not make it the tool of the Elite you make it out to be. I am not sure if it can be implemented in a revenue neutral manner that did not significantly shift the tax burden... or ensured any shift would be higher up the economic ladder rather than lower. But if they can solve that particular issue the plan has a great deal of merit.
Out of curiosity... do you perhaps have a tax system you favor and would like to illustrate as being a better system than either the existing or the "Fair Tax" system?
Interesting way to look at it. However, if you haven't figured it out already, most companies are trying to figure out how to suck the last erg of productivity from their workers. The bigger they are the worse this tendency is. I suppose what you are getting at is here there are examples of companies that have the audacity to attempt to make you like it. Frankly these kinds of efforts to suck me dry is a problem I wish existed with my employer.
These kinds of perks are not evil underhanded attempts to suck the life from you. To me they are a company realizing it is OK for them to try and make you like working for them and hoping that in return they get more from you. It is a win win if you ask me. One of the worst fall outs from the late 90's dot bomb crash was that seriously desirable perks got lumped in right along with non-existent business plans or a real product as reasons for these companies failing. True enough some of the companies went overboard in this area but among the reasons for their failures the perks were by and large window dressing... they were an easily remembered excess. The Corporate workplace is due for a serious overhaul. The siege mentality of most cube hell workers is not a good thing. You want to talk about places designed to suck the life out of someone... It is well past time the work place was designed to be more lived in. Hell, we spend close to a 1/3rd of our adult lives in one. Why shouldn't work spaces be more comfortable and inviting?
Who said I was separating them? I said the interaction between Congress and the President is traditionally different in a time of war due to the Presidents role as CIC. You specifically questioned why Congress has largely supported Bush on the issue of the war despite its growing unpopularity and I thought I answered it. I'll answer it another way. War aint every day politics, and using that example is a poor means by which to justify your apparent claim the president sets the legislative table period. Perhaps it could be used to justify the president setting the legislative agenda in times of war... or even better it supports the idea of the president deciding legislative agenda that pertains to the war. During the time Bush has been in office there has been one crap load of legislation that has gone through, but relatively little of it has been directly attributed to the war or even homeland security.
Look the long and short of it is the President can't legislate dick. Clinton and Bush Jr both learned that lesson the hard way by approaching congress the way you seem to think they could(should?). And both of them generally went down in flames for it with the exception of Bush's "support the war requests". Can the office be used to build coalitions and persuade members of congress to support an agenda? Yes, and I never claimed it couldn't. Is it a powerful mechanism for doing so? Yes and I never claimed it wasn't. However, you painted a picture that has a Presidential hand up Congress's ass moving its lips with regards to legislative agenda and that just isn't so.
Eh its been a good one but it does sound like we are circling now. Thanks for the brain workout. Welcome to the list of folks that at least make me sit up and think.
huh?? Aren't you taking under consideration Bush's status as commander in chief during a time of war? Things are a bit different in terms of what Congress will do to oppose presidential leadership during times of war. War calls for a leader and we decided to make the only nationally elected figure in Politics our Leader in times of war for good or ill and yes presently its decidedly looking to be for ill. It will be interesting to see what a Democratic house does with the new budget request.
Decidedly negative polls regarding the war are actually a relatively recent thing.. last year or so really. Specifically negative polls regarding support for Bush's administration of it. This war has certainly been polarizing since its inception but until recently the 'Red folks' stood pretty much shoulder to shoulder with Bush and while not a resounding mandate it was still a damn sight better than nothing. And due to the fact the "Red State" coverage actually encompasses a large majority of House and Senate seat home districts It is no wonder at all for me that Congress has not taken decisive action to thwart Bush's war efforts to date. Not to mention the slight problem of the "spilled milk" nature of the problem. Its done, so the problem is how to get out of it... well you look to your leadership.... its a vicious cycle.
How is that for the "reality of the situation"?
I have said nothing specifically to the power of a single vote. Only to their ability to actually initiate the process of legislation. Details of House & Senate protocol aside the fact remains it is their sole power to start the ball rolling.
As for my idealistic phrasing regarding election accountability for members of congress... eh perhaps that was a bit over the top ( bit more than a gov class or two, Poli Sci Major). But no matter how you phrase it they face election in their home districts and they most certainly do get held accountable for their actions in support of or against legislative measures. The Democrats got a hard lesson in that reality when the Gingrich tide rolled in during the Clinton years and recently Republicans re-learned the same as they lost the majority in both houses.
Your statements insinuate or just plain outright say that the Executive branch is the guiding light behind all legislation and that is what got me all riled up as its just nonsense. And I really would like you to point out where you think I am point plank saying the president is weaker than an individual congress critter in my OP. I for the life of me can't figure out where you are getting that from.
"Have you not been following American politics for the past, say, 20 years?".... ummm YEAH. I seem to recall a fairly popular president effectively stymied in most of his agenda goals with a congress conspicuously enacting its own agenda over his head due to the already mentioned Gingrich revolution not to mention they damn near ran him out of town on a rail over a highly suspect personal integrity issue. I also recall a lackluster Bush administration sitting under the pall of an atrocious election debacle and everyone holding their breath waiting to see if things would cool off or go nova until 9/11 stole the focus and relegated such discussions to what if status for historians.
To tell you the truth I think you and I would mostly agree if you simply inserted power of the major parties (or perhaps the major party in power) where you are saying President in regards to political reality. You want to talk about idealistic. The concept of Coalition building to pass bills these days is largely idealistic talk. The basic coalitions are already etched out by party affiliation with a few key swing votes closely identified on all major issues. And its rarely touchy feely persuasion that swings vote... it is back scratching with pork, and lots of it.
I have not changed my argument in the least.
When it comes to presenting legislation the President is in fact weaker than any individual member of Congress. If they all refuse to sponsor a Presidential bill that is that. Case shut. That is all I said. Not that a member or Congress was more or less influential than the President.
Now reality is that it would be a pretty odd day the President couldn't get a sponsor for a bill either by legitimate means or by back room arm twisting. Never claimed that wasn't the case. Said so in my initial post.
Another reality is that Presidential legislation is the exception rather than the rule of Congressional business. You said he was the most powerful legislator and that the fact he could not introduce or vote on legislation was incidental. That just is not the case. Presidential influence can certainly be (and often has been) the driver behind wide sweeping legislative changes. But that falls well short in my opinion of this so called idea of an "Imperial President" setting the agenda for Congress. At best I will give you the President sets the agenda for national issues. But if you think the 500 pound gorilla bills like SS reform or Health-care are all Congress is for you had best look again.
The President Leads. And for nation wide issues of importance that makes him a key figure in defining the paths we take both in bills passed and enforcement of laws. Don't mistake that for powers the office does not have. The legislative power of the President is one entirely of image. If the President appears to be speaking with the backing of the people of the United States then yes he swings a damn big stick. But the second that is in doubt? Then Congress calls the Executive bluff because Members of Congress also answer to the people.
An interesting view point. But quite frankly if the President wielded half as big a stick as you seemed to think then it would be a presidential agenda and nothing else... and one would wonder why he hadn't bothered dissolving the troublesome houses in the first place so that they stopped getting in his way. After all the constitution has no bearing anymore right? It's just a piece of paper. *SHEESH*... is that you Dubya?
Political wheeling and dealing between the President and the Houses of Congress is more of a two way street than you give credit for. And if you don't understand the reality of that sir then it is you who has a lot to learn about US politics. By the way the idea of considering Government and Politics separately is pretty silly. Politics is government in action.
For example if the President is such the end all and be all of politics in Washington then why is it a big deal that the Democrats took back majority positions in both houses? If he wields the ultimate political power they should still be lining up to lick his boots from what you seem to think. Why were some of Bush's nominations rejected? What was all that filibustering going on in the Senate? Hell Bill Clinton couldn't get his major electoral issue of health care through despite having a democratic majority in both houses. It was a massive defeat for him. If things were as you think then they would have passed it on through and said "thank you sir may I have another.. and can I have a picture please??".
The Constitution defines the political game in Washington. It is the ground rules so to speak. Politicking is simply what brings those rules to bear. Without the constitution it would be chaos. It isn't the only document... but it is the architecture that defines the playing field.
The President is the only nationally elected official in the United States of America and as such he is the one person who can lay any claim that he speaks for the nation as a whole. IE his constituency is the entire electorate. Thus it is his job to keep an eye on the Big picture. To provide leadership. Yes with that position comes an amount of political currency with which to pursue an agenda. This is something the media and bobble heads love to focus on and they can make it sound like the only game in town. However, it is not an almighty whooping stick that trumps all as you naively (and not a few in the media) seem to believe.
They were mostly pointing out it was the first majority popular vote win I think since his father in 88. Clinton had his first election more or less handed to him by Ross Perot and only netted 43%, in 96 he got 50 so iffy. Not that they didn't talk it up like he had pick up 75% or something... but relatively speaking their justification was he had the largest percentage of the popular vote in 16 years.
The media has long suffered from conflicting interests... they have proven to be the 5th estate watching over the government, but they also have to sell sell sell to stay alive and we have suffered of late from a brand of talk up journalism not seen since the days of Yellow dog Journalism largely regarded as the reason we wound up with the Spanish American War.
Dude that IS the US Government. Congress critters have their own mandate from the people and they don't have to listen to a damn thing the president says regarding the introduction of legislation. And when their term is over, their constituents will judge their choices as their representation to the republic. It is THEIR JOB to determine if the direction the leader wants to go is in the interest of their electorate.
As for this trump card of "The People", No President since Regan in 84 has had more than a modicum of a mandate from the people and even his 84 "Landslide" was only 18% more of the popular vote than Mondale. Mondale still managed 4 out of every 10 votes on the national level in his "ignominious" defeat. That is not a mandate no matter what the campaign spin artists like to claim. Bush's claim to a strong mandate from the people in '04 was grounds for him to be locked up in a padded room if you ask me.
Yes the president can ask for something popular, and the congress critters risk the wrath of the people if they fail to deliver. That is the way it is supposed to work. It does not make the president a legislator. At best it makes him a coach asking his team to deliver something which they often do... and rarely if ever do they get what they ask for (or JUST what they ask for).
There is no constitutional limitation on the executive branch suggesting specific wording or even bills whole cloth to members of the house... nor any limitation on members of the house accepting such and presenting it to their respective body. The only problem I have in this is when the decision to accept such wording/bills presented by the executive branch get tied up in nasty party politics like endorsements and access to party campaign funds etc... It is one thing for a congress critter to present such a bill in good faith, quite another in acquiescence to party pressure or even worse in hopes of their own personal advancement at the expense of their constituents desires.
So yes the President can suggest, they can send bill after bill to every member of both houses in hopes they will bring it to the floor. They can stand before "The People" day after day telling them what they are asking for congress to do. But, unlike members of the houses, the President can NOT force an issue onto the floor. Just like once the houses pass legislation they must receive presidential approval barring a super majority vote.
Give and take, checks and balances... you may be familiar with the concepts. They are very much alive and well in Washington.
It may be a radical revision but I disagree with the steep learning curve assesment. The options are far less buried, making them much more visible, and the formating options are all available at the highlighted section rather than up in the window frame. It was more of a change in how the available options were organized than any real substantial change in how the program works. IE you are mostly dealing with the same tools, they are just arranged differently. And for once I think the change was for the better.
They are fully supplied from earth? Of course they are, where else are they supposed to be supplied from? Where else would a Mars mission be supported from? Is there some law stopping us from launching supplies in support of a Mars mission in the same manner as we support LEO missions? Sure the lead time is a bit more of a bitch (pretty sure you wouldn't be overtaking in transit) but it can certainly still be done.
Regarding the level of automation, I am not sure if we have read the same proposal. About the only robotic/automation elements above and beyond current systems already in use is the automated propellant generation system which is just a big gas compressor and chemical processing plant. Which he already made a technological demonstrator of. Chemical processing plants are already to large extents automated. This is not new ground to the extent you seem to suggest. Of a far larger concern than the automated nature of the plant is the actual power source for the plant. But even nuclear reactors in space are nothing new. There are several floating around in orbit even now. Not exactly common knowledge but the US launched one and the Russians have launched several over the years.
So what problem are these decades going to solving? We have the pieces of the puzzle already. What we need is the money and will to put all the pieces together and to launch a mission. Building the new gear and writing the new software in support of this specific mission just is not a decades long process. Years sure... but not enough of them to make decades.
So the fact we have maintained a presence in orbit for years at a time has no bearing? You might bring up the fact we 're-supply' the station and MIR before it but they both go for months without any re-supply as is. Two.... there is nothing saying we can't re-supply a Mars mission with similar frequency.
You keep insisting it is indeed something that will take such a great length of time without really saying why. So I ask you to please elaborate. Provide some examples of what we lack that will require such a long development time and why it is necesarry.
Have we built the actual hardware that would be used for the mission? No, but much of what would be used already exists. As for the rest I simply fail to understand why you think it would take so long to build it. Again, we built the ENTIRE shebang in less than 10 years when we initially went to the moon. We now have launch infrastructure, Rocket production lines, Man rated flight life support hardware. In other words it didn't take us decades when we INVENTED space flight. Why would it take decades to take an evolutionary (not revolutionary) next step?
LEO and going to the moon is like kitty hawk and the first early years of aviation for space flight. Going to mars is the first flight across the Atlantic. Yes, it is dangerous. No, the equipment is not yet perfect. But it is with in our grasp to do it if only we can sustain the will to accomplish it.
Rueful laugh on my part there. I have met and heard FAR to many people who say things like that SERIOUSLY. Pardon me for lumping you in.
A Mars mission does not have to be the same. We do not have to create the space industry whole cloth. We are not discovering how to get to space while going there now. The Apollo method is not the only way to do business. Besides I am not one that thinks it is realistic for NASA to receive a full 1% of the budget ever again. NASA's current budget is 15 billion or so which is miniscule. The Air Force's gas bill is higher. Zubrin's plan could probably be funded by that amount if that is what it was dedicated too, cost plus contracting and all.
It seems to me that in saying it will take decades you are suggesting the effort needed to establish a self sustaining outpost. IE your references to fully automated manufacturing plants etc... Granted to create a self sustaining model it will take a great deal of time but that is not what is required for establishing a long term presence as opposed to flags and footprints. Your right that Rome weren't built in a day... but you don't have to wait till you CAN build Rome before you venture forth either.
Zubrin posits the ability to have a 500 day outpost provided in the same mission mass as two Apollo moon missions. That my friend is NOT something requiring decades. It would take cajones and the possibility of failure would certainly be real but no higher than it was for Apollo and perhaps even lower. With properly spaced missions it would be possible to go for a serious long term presence from the get go with a slow build up to a self sustaining infrastructure. We have been sustaining the launch costs necesarry to maintain a permanent presence (Shuttle missions cost effectively the same as if we had continued using Sat V's) on mars already if we were to use Zubrin's mars direct model... which in slightly modified form is already NASA's standing Mars mission profile.
So again why decades? I agree to build a self sustaining outpost would take decades.... but a long term presence does not have to be self sustaining.
The new businesses are no different than the old? Are you lumping Rutan's scaled composites and Bigelow aerospace in with Lockheed and Co. already?
Certainly you can't calculate your way out of physics. I was simply pointing out that we have far better tools and experience with which to tackle the problem now than we did then and for the moon venture it was to some extent a question of if it was even possible. Now we know it is possible, it is simply a matter of putting the equipment together to accomplish the mission.
While far from the world class orbital research facility NASA bills it as, the ISS does most certainly participate in Science at present and has since it's inception which is more than most research facilities can claim during their construction phases. Also, I laugh at the notion of 'easily accessible low earth orbit'. LEO is most of the way to anywhere in the solar system from a delta V standpoint. There is nothing easy about it and it's closeness is deceptive.
I grant shielding is an issue, especially in transit but it is not the overwhelming terror it is made out to be. It is somewhat akin to the risks of smoking for long term damage barring some spectacular solar flare activity without sufficient shielding options.
Your last comment disturbs me more than any of the others however as it is extremely defeatist in tone. Oh we are hopeless so we can never hope to compete with not even the slightest consideration that perhaps... just perhaps we could make changes in how we operate to BE that country.
Out of curiosity why is it that you think Zubrin's approach is something which should take decades? We effectively went to the moon with slide rules in one decade once we set it as a goal. The initial space program had less computational power in the entire program than sits on the average worker bee's desk these days. We have the last 30 years of experience in living in space (Mir and ISS together have logged close to 2 decades of human presence in micro G already). Is Mars really that more difficult a goal in your eyes? If you really think so then methinks you have not really read Zubrin yet. Feel free to provide a bit more in depth argument if you have. I do agree that the guy is a bit optimistic regarding cost but he is certainly right that current costs are severely bloated by the atrocity that is cost plus contracting.
Decades. Decades? DECADES??? What in the world has happend to this country? The concept of NASA as contractor life support is a post Apollo disease. It has resulted from having nothing for them to do so survival has become their reason to exist and we have allowed it to go on to long. It is past time NASA stopped handing contracts out on promises and started awarding money only for HARD results. There are numerous private companies competing to get into space and the prospect of real money for real goals met could be just the shot in the arm those programs need to get beyond the misty eyed dreamer phase most of them have become mired in.
First off if a student can read the books, listen to podcasts and take the tests and pass with flying colors There should be no problem. By the metric assigned to the class (tests, final exams etc...) The student covered the material. If you think not then the criteria must be deficient and the tests flawed in such a way that they did not in fact reveal and measure what was intended.
Lecture courses in large institutions can and should be allowed to deginerate all the way to classes on tape. You really think it makes a difference for a student to sit in a 200+ student lecture hall listening to a guy drone on and maybe scribble on a board as compared to having it on video and perhaps stills of the board to review in their own time ? The idea that they would somhow get more out of actually being there in those cases is absurd.
Even in smaller more discussion based courses you can still get the material so long as the proffessor has enough people there for the discussion. IE Discussion is important but more that certain lines of discussion comes up and that you take them into consideration as opposed to you having to actually be there to take part. Thus so long as the needed lines of discussion are explored and the material is captured in some form then you can still learn just as much from those materials as you can from actual attendence. So long as you are paying for the privlidge and getting what is needed then why should it be a problem for you to time shift courses ?
Again if the measuring sticks used (tests, essays, presentations etc..) are not sufficient to distinguish between someone who time shifted the material and someone who was actually present.... then whats the big hairy deal? If you are worried about students passing by slacking class and just listening to podcasts then make a meaningfull change to the material such that listening to podcasts alone is not sufficient to pass the test. And I don't mean some artificial attendence clause or equivalent irrelevant to the material method. Else put the podcasts out there and the let the students themselves find what works best for them. The ones that want to learn are goign to learn. The ones that don't won't. It doesn't matter if they are there or not.
Are you sure it isn't you who is worried about being replaced by canned recordings and media material ? If you can't jazz up your class up enough to avoid the material being just as effectively learned via an undynamic recording... then perhaps its not the students failing to attend class you (or the univiesity) should be worried about.
Which is why these tools need to become more social. Or more social tools need to be invented. We all cry foul about potential breaches of privacy and yet all this privacy is part of what isolates us. We default to shutting everyone out and it gets to be habitual.
We need more social elements to our technology. The internet makes it easier to meet someone on the otherside of the world than it does the girl/boy next door. It continually amazes me that location based net communities have not become a stronger force than they are. I guess part of it is due to the low density of users... at least here in the US. And I mean heavy social users. My Space and the like are starting to change that as you are seeing school social structures finally incorporating online methods as well. My guess is the gen or three after the myspace crowd gets old will find a far more tightly nit world than the one we live in.... because they will have embraced the new technology not just as something anoynmous but as something personal as well. The internet can provide you with both. That is the thing that is truly scaring parents and teachers etc.... its not like kids are saying anything new on myspace. Its just that now there is something for parents and teachers to see.
It often takes new generations to take the new technology of the older generationa and carry it forward... especially when it is highly socially disruptive. Older people are canalized by the values they had growing up... while kids are actually in the process of forming their systems and will actively seek out that which will distinguish them from their elders... and technology is a prime target for such difference.
Seriously. I can't wait for someone to get a nationwide wireless going. I still think Google is going to do it and usurp the old TV model. IE all you need is the hardware and an antenna and you get access. People say free net access can't pay and yet for 50 years we had free TV broadcasts via major networks and ad revenue. Then we can watch current monopolistic structures like Telco and cable based on last mile control crumble if they don't adapt some how.
With a little luck wireless will reach a capability point where we no longer need data lines run to the house and we can get rid of an awful lot of unsightly cables. Then if we could get swapped over to fuel cell powered homes we could dispense with tradditional power lines as well and nix all the above ground stuff. Fuel cells could be powered by underground gas lines. Or perhaps via liquid gas that is reformed on site. Would avoid tranmission losses and distribute the grid. Think going from main frames to PC's (central power plants to distributed).
Most games... and alot of windows software have cutomization options that essentially work like a learning universal remote. IE You pick the function you want to re-map and then click what you want to do that action be that a keyboard button/combination or mouse click etc... I haven't seen to many programs in Linux that offer that same functionality much less the OS on the whole. Though to be fair Windows doesn't offer it at the OS level either. Not sure why really. Seems like an obvious functionality.
It just works but that is because windows has shedloads of drivers inlcuded with it that manufactureres strive diligently to have included in windows. Linux does not have nearly as many included by default though it has slowly be adding them. And in many cases there are no specific drivers avaialble for a piece of hardware in linux and someone either has to custom write it by painfull/meticulous trial and error or it has limited/no support based on standard interface information (hence 3 button support generally works).
Yes there is almost always a way to make it work in Linux. And for some the challenge of finding that way is its own reward. But for most they don't just like it to work out of the box. The REQUIRE it to work out of the box as they are users who want a tool. Not a toy. IMHO this is the last real hurdle Linux has for mainstream adoption (along with better media support). The process for adding new equipment is all over the place... from plug and play on down to the endless config file tweaking adventure. Windows and mac have long since reached the point where driver nightmares are by and large the exception. In contrast under linux you are pleasently surprised when something works out of the box.
Eh I would say this sentiment has less to do with fear of death and more with the fear of a lack of meaning for life. You pish posh the memory of man and yet to our knowledge thus far it is the only record of things past. Yes perhaps it is silly to worry about whether or not you will make ink in the history books. But at the same time it is that silly notion of memory that drives folks to action. Economic rules and regulations to stave off another great depression. Forward thinking technologies to seperate our power needs from a limited supply that has reached practical limits and will run out. The list goes on. History is more than immortalization of any single individuals deeds. We could care less for the name/face ascociated with it. We care about what happend because of how it helps us in the future. We struggle to make the hard times and lessons of those before serve a purpose. And yes in the midst of it folks get remembered when they are the lucky ones in the right place... or with the right followers... at the right time to advance the story forward a little more.
Well like I said the time element is a factor. Deffinatly was simplifying the issue. However, again I have to point out that there is still no reward for answering faster than the time limit. Thus while time is a factor it is only one factor of many.
The thing with the asterix on the tests that were taken untimed is are you best serving the reasons for the test by providing that information or simply providing a means for prejudice? Personally I think if you need the asterix then they simply should not take the test period. The point of the score is to judge them equally with all others that took the test. So you have some very imperfect options.
1) make the take the test under the same time strictures despite the fact you know the scores will not be representative of their ability.
2) Same as above but also add a notation indicating their difficulty which allows for consideration that their score is not truly indicative.
3) Allow untimed testing which allows them to score in line with their known abilities with no extra notation.
4) Untimed with the notation indicated their score does not mean the same thing as the 'normal' test.
In either case with notification you segregate them from the general scale of the test which defeats the purpose of general tests like the SAT. In one you do so with results that you know are not indicative of their skill. And in the other you do so with a score which is indicative but which is now distinguished from other scores. The first option is truly horrendous unless you honestly think ADD is 'not real'.
3) is far from ideal. Yes they have taken the test under different circumstances. But it is the least evil of the options available if you ask me. You have to account for the fact of ADD (or other LD) somewhere along the line. So its really just a question of choosing your poison. The 'handicaping' of the score has to happen somewhere. IE if you have the note about the test being taken untimed what does that do to that persons score consideration ? If the answer is nothing then there is no need for the notation in the first place. If its say automatically deducting 100 points (or adding in the event that take it timed) Then you still have created a special consideration for kids with ADD. It will happen somehwere in the process.
In the end the current method was chosen because it was decided the display of knowledge period was more important that the display of that knowledge withen a specific amount of time and that if you had to sacrifice something then the choice should be made with an eye to what best represented the students previously displayed ability. Not noting the difference in the test administration removed the possibility of unwarented prejudice against the results of an either positve or negative nature. IE potentially sympathetic in the event of artificially low scores or potentially negative in the event of supposed inflated scores due to extra time available to complete the test.