First, try ebay. A year or so ago I bought a beatifull burgundy leather-bound complete macro/micropedia with yearbooks. It's the 15th edition (mid-80s). I paid a good bit of money for it ($300.00, I think) but, for my needs, it's well worth it. I'm 36, so I suppose I might have a connection to printed books that future generations may lack (thinking of the Star Trek movie in which the old-fashioned Kirk was sitting around reading a book, rather than living it, or whatever, on the holodeck). One of the hurdles of net-based 'pedias must leap: they can't be read while on the 'throne', at least not easily. When the equivalent of the Encycolpedia Britannica can fit on a hand-held device I'll be more interested in non-print versions.
Second, I've not yet seen a software encyclopedia that could compare to the Britannica. Furthermore, while the Net has some fantastic sources of information there are gaps and it's occasionally difficult to find just that tidbit of data you're interested in. Usenet is one of the best sources of information on the Net. However, when seeking a definition or data to illuminate a passage in a book or an article in a magazine I don't care to wait for the turn-around time of Usenet, particularly if the Group in question is moderated. If you're a reader of non-fiction, particularly history, then a set of Britannica's is invaluable.
For my money the Internet is the perfect complement to the Britannica, e.g. The Britannica provides basic information on Submarines, Battles ships and the Second World War but, should I desire more detail about U-Boats there's Uboat.Net and, if I want answers to questions re. the triple 16" turrets on the USS Alabama I post a question to soc.history.war.world-war-ii.
I'm not arguing that there's no merit in 'figuring out how to do cool stuff'. However, I can't imagine that there's no way to do something cool without disrupting one of the major arteries of Central, Coastal California, both a vital waterway and a roadway. Is it neccesary to risk harm to others in pursuit of 'cool'? Is this the sort of tendency we wish to reward in the Aeronautical, Nuclear, and Automotive Engineers of tomorrow?
I don't see the 'cool' in it anyway: it was merely lazy. They opted for disruptive impact over substance, they took the "Jenny Jones" road to fame (or, rather, notoriety). Rather than create something truly innovative that would spark public interest and admiration on it's merits alone, they gave the public a slap in the face to get their attention. But hey, they got what they wanted: they're on TV.
Ah, some might say, "Lighten up, Dude, it was just a joke!" Yeah, ha ha. Thousands, possibly tens of thousands of people inconvenieced (hours late for work, missed plane flights, late deliveries, on and on, how many here have been on the Golden Gate on a Monday morning?) shipping diverted, certainly the potential for harm, and, on top of that, one more piece of scrap metal dumped in the bay. And why Monday morning, with tens of thousands that live to the north of the bridge headed to work south of it? Hey, but it's all in the name of some sort of 'science', and it was COOL, so screw 'em!
Look, this was all about the "Jerry Springer" syndrome, 15 seconds of fame, no matter what, etc etc. The engineering involved was merely an appendage to the prank, an excuse. The location and time were selected specifically because the stunt would have maximum disruptive impact, and thus maximum publicity potential.
Let's be sure to heap as much praise on these children as we can: let's let them know that 'Cool' take precedence over safety and the public good.
In closing, a slight clarification as to the future of the 'kids' in question: those kids will almost certainly become professionals, not tradesman (Craftsmen/Artisans). They're tomorrow's Engineers. The men that will turn their designs into reality are Tradesmen.
"However, the long term benefits of pioneering the coolest hack (on-line or off-a-bridge), far outweigh any temporary inconvenience"
What are some of the "long-term benefits" of hanging a Volkswagen off of a bridge? How is the prank "pioneering"? Is this some sort of breakthrough event that will pave the way for the next bunch of silly college students to hang a tractor-trailer rig off of the Bay Bridge?
The stunt was a juvenile, disruptive, and life-threatening bit of pointless nonsense.
The ridiculous press release proudly proclaims that the prank was done to "draw attention to the masterful feats of professional engineers and to celebrate the skills of the tradespeople who built the bridges" but Ms. Steele is at least honest enough to admit its true purpose: "someone has found a way to put us on the TV"
I found the remark about the 'tradespeaople' especially immature: the tradesemen that built the bridge risked their lives to feed their families and create a beautifull and functional structure that has great practical and aesthetic merit. Invoking the name of the 'tradespeople' in an attempt to justify a worthless, potentially harmfull prank is offensive.
Regarding my previous post: I inadvertantly omitted the word "virtual" from the last two uses of the phrase "pedophiliac pornography". Apologies for the omission.
First, I'd like to thank you for a detailed, interesting, and genuinely thought provoking reply. I'll respond line by line:
What constitutes pornography is certainly not easy to determine.
As I said: "For me, in most cases, it's not at all difficult to determine what constitutes pornography" I qualified that statement in two respects by using the words "For me" and "in most cases". In other words, although I generally find it a good rule of thumb, I don't expect it to be a simple matter for everyone and, in some cases, I find my own standard difficult to apply meaningfully. NYPD Blue is a good example: although the program contains scenes depicting nudity and sex, and they're certainly intended to titillate (if mildly), those scenes are merely footnotes to a thoughtful and well written program. Does the inclusion of a small portion of mildy pornographic content demand that the entire program be labelled pornographic? Of course not.
But we're not talking about programs like NYPD Blue, are we? For the moment, let's stick with the question at hand: Is it acceptable to depict real or virtual children in a pornographic manner? Pressing on:
First of all, a work may very well be sexually exciting to some, or even all, of it's audience, but that doesn't make it pornographic unless the intent of the work is to cause sexual excitement.
I agree.
You touch upon it yourself, by interjecting the "presented merely to tickle the libido".
I tried to do more than "touch upon it". The Mirriam Webster definition was included to support the case for the importance of "intent" when determining what constitutes pornography. As you mention, I used the word "presented" towards the same end, and used the word "depict" when describing a hypothetical pornographic production of "Romeo and Juliet"
How do you know if that's the intent?
Good question. Pornograpy is, usually, anything but subtle. I think I can percieve intent, generally, and I think most others can too, whether or not they're willing to admit it. However, the more important question: how does society determine intent in these matters? Of course, it's up to the Courts to split that hair.
How do you know if the intended audience would be turned on by seeing it?
The question of whether or not it's effective pornography is beside the point.
And you draw lines based on your moral standards
On the question of the pornographic depiction of children, virtual or otherwise, I draw the same line that the vast majority of people in this country do. I'll say for the record, here and now, that, despite the examples of ancient Athenians, various Roman Emperors, the occasional Pope, and other pederasters throughout Occidental history, in America, sex between adults and children is wrong, depictions of sex between children is at the very least, troubling, and any obviously pornographic depiction of children is as wrong as anything in our society can be.
And you have no right to say that any set of moral standards "right" or "wrong".
I certainly do have the right to determine for my self what is right and wrong. I assume though, that you're referring to the application of my belief-set onto society. Of course, I modulate my beliefs somewhat when applying or projecting them onto society, because I recognize that there can be, and is, disagreement between reasonable people as to an abolute standard of right and wrong. However, as to the question of the morality of pedophiliac pornography, virtual or not, I believe that there would be very little disagreement among most Americans.
But don't you even see the paradox presented in this case, revolving around simulated child porn?
I do see that this case circumvents at least one of the standard arguments against pedophiliac pornography, which you mention in your next sentence.
It does not hurt children in it's production.
Exactly. That fact removes the most inarguable impediment to child pornography. Other arguments are more difficult to make: the moral question, the question of whether or not media encourages viewers to mimic the things they see and hear, etc.
And it is a work of fiction.
I'm not sure why that's relative.
Where do you draw the line, if you don't allow this?
I've told you where I, personally, would draw the line. For our society, it will be drawn in a Court of Law.
If your reason is that the depictions are revolting...
Although I mention that the practice is "disgusting", in no way did I use my disgust to make my case.
If your argument is that the pictures can incite pedophile behaviour...
I'm not sure why you mention that, I certainly didn't. That's the Prosecutor's argument, not mine.
Let's move this issue from the theoretical to hypthetical: Would you support the legalization of movies that depict virtual children having various forms of consensual sex with other children or adults? Movies with titles such as "Kindergarden Gangbang" and "Playground Rape"? What about bestiality? If pedophiliac porn is OK, why not pedophiliac bestiality? How about pedophiliac 'snuff' films? Another possibility: pictures of the faces of real children, modeled in 3D, placed on a virtual child's body and used in pornographic movies.
The sad thing about that last sentence: some readers, rather than being horrified by the thought of someone's child being used in such a manner, will immediately argue that it would be illegal to use someone's image without their consent.
If you think these titles and subjects unlikely then consider the titles of the porn videos (actaully, these are series, not single titles) currently available, and legal, in this country, titles such as "Cherry Poppers", "Hardcore Schoolgirls", "Young and Anal", "Bring 'em Young", and many others all depicting adult females acting, more or less believably, as adolescent girls engaged in EXTREME sex acts.
If you're incapable of completely endorsing the legalization of pedophiliac pornography,in the forms that I've described, I'd like to know why.
There is a moral standard in this country that the vast majority of it's citizens share. People who have forgotten that fact, or would like to, will be reminded of it when they bump up against issues such as this. Look in your heart: do you really believe that legalisation of virtual child pornography is a good thing? Is this what the Creators of the Declaration of Independance, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights had in mind for America?
Once again I say, if pedophilia isn't wrong, then nothing is. Like it or not, there is a standard of right and wrong in America. Imperfect as it may be, this Country was founded on a set of Moral principles, and has prospered by them. Many people in this country would disagree on the fine print. However, I think it very safe to say that the overwhelming majority of Americans would vehemently oppose the legality of pedophiliac pornography. Thank God for that.
Apples and oranges: the issue is pornography, defined by Mirriam Webster ( http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=pornograp hy ):
1 : the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement
For me, in most cases, it's not at all difficult to determine what constitutes pornography: the depiction of children, real or simulated, engaged in sexual activity, presented merely to tickle the libido, besides being disgusting, is wrong. It's as wrong as anything can be.
As to the argument regarding "Romeo and Juliet": the play, both as written and as performed (every performance I've seen, and am aware of) doesn't depict the relationship between the two children in a pornographic manner. If a production chose to focus on a sexual relationship, as well as the adolecence of the couple, in order to appeal to pedophiliac tastes, then it crosses the line.
How anyone can defend (as some have done in this forum) such "art" is absolultely beyond my ability to comprehend. Pornography involving children is immoral. In the words of a recent "Weekly Standard" article on the subject: If child pornography isn't wrong, then nothing is.
Libertarianism isn't about "middle ground": it's a philosophy that dictates that people should be free to make decisions for themselves as long as those decisions do not harm others. Libertarians reluctantly recognize the need for government, but maintain that individual freedom is inversely proportional to government's size and role in our lives and, therefore, government should always be as small, and limited, as possible.
Define 'losing all touch with reality: interesting that you mention income tax: this country survived and flourished for 100+ years without it (with the exception of it's implementation during the Civil War). Ah, you say, look how America has blossomed since implementation of income tax. Libertarians would say that we've flourished in spite of income tax, not because of it.
Read the history behind the income tax, and you'll understand Libertarian's objections to it: Early this century the Supreme Court ruled that the graduated income tax was unconstitutional. Despite that fact, politicians were then, just as they are now, desperate to dip into the citezenry's pocketbooks. An end-run around the Supreme Court was developed and thus was born the 13th Amendment. However, politicians understood that the only way to get the amendment ratified was to structure it so that it was extremely graduated: only the top 1% of the population had to pay it, and they only paid from 1 to 5% of their income. I've always felt that this was particularly outrageous: politicians knew that if a significant percentage of the population were obligated to pay, the amendment wouldn't have stood a snowball's chance in hell of being ratified. So, they concocted a strategy that would, essentially, screw over 1% of the country for the benefit of the other 99% and themselves and, sadly, the amendment was ratified. The hypocrisy politicians successfully appealed went something like this: "If I have to pay the tax, it's a horrible idea, but as long as someone else pays it and I benefit from it, then it's a great idea." That was wrong in 1913, and it's wrong today.
Of course, the percentage of people paying the tax, and the percentage of income that each pays, has increased beyond all proportion to it's beginnings and the size of government, and it's influence in our lives, has kept pace accordingly. Income tax is, in large part, the power that feeds the government, and Libertarians understand that to eliminate the Income tax is to begin to remove the unfairness of the tax code as well as reduce the size and role of the Federal government.
Of course, the income tax is still extremely graduated. If you believe the "class envy" crap that Gore continuously spews about Bush's "Tax cut for the rich" then you're unaware of the percentage of the tax burden that the rich are paying. The top 1% pays 30% of the income tax in this country. His constant spewing of that line is almost as offensive as his oft repeated claim that he and Clinton are responsible for the economic boom we're now enjoying. Wrong! Entrepreneurs and innovators are responsible: the ONLY thing that government can do to assist is to get the hell out of the way and let the market move. So "I've shepherded this economy" actually means "I got out of the way" and there is certainly some doubt as to the validity of that claim, just as there's doubt about many of Gore's other claims. And, in the end, Clinton, not Gore, set the policy, and negotiated with a Republican led congress. The best that any politician can say, Republican, Democrat, or Libertarian is that they've merely allowed entrepreneurs and innovators to do what they're born to do, unfettered by government.
It's a testament to the strength of the 'Big Lie' concept that many of us are, essentially, brainwashed into believing that the government is responsible for prosperity. Libertarians know what a ridiculous idea that is, and they understand that government often interferes with prosperity rather than promoting it.
Libertarians understand the natural tendency for government to grow, both in size and in function. And, again, to the extent that government grows, our freedom is limited. Therefore, Libertarians are anti-government: they believe that YOU are best capable of running your life, of making your own retirement investments, of owning and operating a firearm, of spending your money rather that it being taken from you and spent on your behalf by politicians.
I don't want Libertarians to adopt a "middle ground" and I don't believe for an instant that they're "losing all touch with reality". Libertarians understand the nature of politicians and governments better than most, IMHO, and, as a result, they seek to limit the role of government. Freedom, at least freedom of speech, is a highly prized commodity here on SlashDot: there is much in Libertarian philosophy that will, I think, naturally appeal to SlashDotters. In fact, I believe that the Internet has, and will continue to, move the country towards Libertarian ideals.
Let me begin by stating that anyone that understands anything at all about US Air Traffic Control (ATC) knows one thing: the system is enormously vast, varied, and complex. And that would be true if one were just considering the types of equipment used, and the way in which they're interconnected. Include the demands and pressures placed upon the Agency that operates it, and a few more layers of convolution are added. The argument for throwing into that mix a demand for "Open Source" principles would have to be extemely compelling. And, of course, it's usually impossible to make a compelling argument without understanding the facts, which brings us back to the complexity of the ATC system, and the scarcity of those intimately familar with it. In other words, it's easy for someone that knows nothing of the system to suggest all sorts of solutions, and I'm constantly reminded of that fact nearly every time I read an article written by an "Aviation-Industry Journalist" and occasionally while reading posts here on/.
Here's a single, small, and simplified example of the issues involved:
The FAA is no in the process of purchasing over 100 new radar systems, known as the ASR-11, from Raytheon, a company that's been a leader in the Radar business for 50 years. The Department of Defense is purchasing approximately 100 more. Each system has, at it's core, two Sun Sparc 5 workstations (soon to be upgraded to UltraSparc). Of course, the workstations run on Solaris. However, the software that controls the radar and performs much of the data processing, is a proprietary product of Raytheon. Although it's likely that the FAA will gain the rights to the source code, they'll (you'll) pay dearly for it. What's more, some portions of the code, perhaps not in that software, but in other parts of the radar, are essentially "trade secrets" and Raytheon would be loathe to part with it at any price, particularly if they knew that it would be released to the public and, of course, their competitors.
How might Open-Source principles be implemented in this case? Raytheon engineers are the experts, and the FAA wisely allows them to design the hardware and write the code. Are there those that would suggest that all of the Radar's code should be made available to the public once purchased, at great cost, from Raytheon? Or is it a matter of writing a contract that demands that the Manufacturer use open source principles in every aspect of Radar design, and/or that the radar itself use open source applications to perform ever function? Would some suggest that, when planning the purchase of future Radar systems, that Raytheon design the hardware and the FAA write the code?
Finally, and perhaps most significantly, in this case how would Open-Source principles benefit the FAA and the public?
This is not a "new" idea. The Federal Aviation Administrationn (FAA) has been experimenting with various forms of GPS navigation in lieu of radar for years. However, Radar-based Air Traffic Control has advantages that no GPS can offer.
Before proceeding it might help to explain the basic structure of the United State's Air Traffic Control (ATC) system. Afterwards, a bit of analysis/comments.
Air Traffic Control is divided into two seperate entities : Terminal and En-Route. Terminal facilities control traffic in the immediate vicinity of an airport. En-Route facilities control traffic across country and national borders. Both facilities interface with one another at the points which their "airspace" intersects. In other words, an aircraft departing Dulles International for Chicago-OHare initially communicates with the Terminal facility at Dulles. The Controllers at Dulles direct his takeoff and then "Hands Off" the aircraft to an En-Route facility. En-Route facilities then monitor that aircarft untill it approaches it's destination. The En-Route facility then "Hands Off" the aircraft to the Terminal facility at "Chicago-OHare", and the OHare Controllers guide the approach into the runway. (For the experts: I've ignored Super Tracon's for the sake of simplicity).
Each environment, Terminal and En-Route, uses different types of radar. Terminal environments use radar capable of detecting aircraft within a 60 nautical mile (NMI) radius from the radar site (usually the airport). En-Route radars detect aircraft within a 200 or 250 NMI radius (depending upon the site). Whatever the radar type, it's important (when considering GPS) to note that the cost of radar is tremendous: Initial cost is great, and the cost of replacement parts and staffing of qualified maintenance personel is substantial.
A detail of the FAA Terminal environment: Radar is only used to guide the aircraft to the approach path. Other equipment, known as Instrument Landing Systems (ILS) is then used by the pilot, independantly of the Air Traffic Controller, to land it.
A few details about the arrangement and usage of En-Route airspace. Jetliners don't fly randomly, as the crow flies, across country. Commercial airspace is arranged into corridors of travel and levels of altitude. Using the example above, an pilot doesn't depart Dulles, point the nose to OHare, and head on untill he spots Sear's Tower. Instead, that aircraft has to navigate air highways to reach OHare, just as a car would if travelling from DC to Chicago. And, just as cars travelling in opposite directions use different lanes of a highway, aircraft travelling across country in a particular corridor, going in opposite directions, use different altitudes. The corridors and altitudes have been mapped out by the FAA and a commercial aircrafts flight plan, created before departure, specifies the route which the flight will take.
En-Route radars aren't, of course, placed randomly. There are many En-Route radars spread throughout the United States, and the matrix is arranged such that each bit of national airspace is covered by at least one radar, and many corridors are covered by two, or even three radars. That's particularly true of the most widely travelled air-lanes.
En-Route radar data is sent to En-Route control centers. Computers analyze each radar's data in three square mile segments and, where coverage overlaps, the highest quality data is used. In other words, the En-Route Controller uses the best data available to control traffic.
It's important to note that the safety record of the Air Traffic Control systems, Radar, ILS, or any of the other system maintained by the FAA, is superlative. NO loss of life (and, I'm almost certain, no aviatiion accident at all) has ever been caused by a failure of an FAA mechanical or electronic system. That's not to say that no FAA system has ever failed. However, the system is designed such that any single failure is virtually incapable of bringing ATC capability to it's knees.
I've attempted, in the description above, to give the reader some small idea of the vastness and complexity of the United State's ATC system. I've merely explained the 'bare-bones' of a few aspects of the systems. It would require volumes to explain all of it's nuances.
To wrap-up, there are essentially 2 different environments (Terminal and En-Route), and within one environment, Terminal, there are two functions (approach control and landing) whose current equipment can/might/will be replaced/augmented by GPS. Apparently, from what I read at the ADS-B site, their product is designed to replace both Terminal and En-Route radars as well as ASDE, and ATCBIs (won't get into them due to time limitations) and, possibly, ILS.
Some form of GPS has been experimented with in the Terminal environment: Several years ago GPS landings were tried at Seattle-Tacoma but, as I recall, for various reasons were found to be inadequate, at least not advantageous enough to warrant use of GPS over current technologies.
At about the same time it was widely rumored that GPS-based systems were poised to replace En-Route environment radars. This, of course, didn't materialize. However, at that point I was convinced that, eventually, GPS capabilities would be refined and expanded suffciently to replace some, if not all, Radars in the Air Traffic Control system.
Advantages of Radar:
1. Radar based ATC has a proven, decades long track record of reliability and safety.
When considering FAA GPS implementation It's important to understand that the current system is dependant upon information provided by hundreds of radars. Furthermore, the system as it's configured now has proven extremley reliable and safe. As such, fundamental changes, such as the replacement of radar by ADS-B are, IMHO, viewed with caution by ATC planners. Of course, ATC planners are aware of the potential benefits of new technologies such as ADS-B, but they must weigh the advantages of those technologies against the potential for decreased Air Traffic safety and, therefore, the increased likelihood of loss of human life.
A response to this might be "But that's the point of ADS-B: to increase the margin of safety!" However, the current system is KNOWN to be safe and, while the proposed system claims to provide more safety, it's an UNKNOWN and, as such, is worrisome. I've been a SlashDotter long enough to know that this crowd relishes many forms of change and is certainly prone to welcome new technologies, so this arguement may be anathema to many in the audience. Keep in mind that those making the decisions aren't always Techie types. Those folks making the decisions have to weigh the safety of consumers with the demands of the airline industry and the flying public, amid the often politically motivated pressures of the politicians that appoint and monitor them and the enticing promises of companies like those promoting ADS-B. Despite all of that, I'm confident that the right decisions willl be made and the FAA will eventually implement some form of GPS replacement of most, if not all ATC radar. But I don't expect to see it in the first half of this decade, and possibly not untill the next decade.
2. Radar independantly detects aircraft .
In other words, using radar the Air Traffic Control system can locate and control aircraft independant of ANY piece of equipment (other than radios) on board the aircraft. This is not the case with GPS. Radar certainly has an advantage for purposes of drug traffic interdiction and strategic issues, as trafficers and potential unfreindlies will disable any equipped GPS.
Of course, the likelihood of enemy incursion into our airspace at normal detection altitudes, in aircraft capable of being detected by ATC radar, is extremely minimal. However, the FAA ATC En-Route radar system is the ONLY radar system that monitors every inch of airspace in the country. The military has none (at least none they admit to) However, the coastal and border En-Route radars provide a data feed to military command centers, and that data is used to monitor potential threats.
3. Radar detects weather.
ATC radars, both Terminal and En-Route, not only detect aircraft. They are also used to detect inclement weather, and the data is used by Controllers to route aircraft around potentially hazardous areas. GPS doesn't meet this need.
A counter argument might mention the existence of the National Weather Service's NEXRAD weather radars across the country, systems that might be used more effectively for the same purposes, as well as Terminal Doppler Weather Radars located at many high volume airports.. Unfortunately, I'm not an expert on the range of coverage of NEXRADs, but I doubt that it's as extensive as En-Route radar's
Advantages of GPS:
1. Cost.
Inital implementation might be expensive, but compared to radar, I would guess that ongoing expenses would be greatly reduced.
My first thought is that, of course, it's nice to save money but let's not allow the holy grail of reduced cost to drive the debate. Ultimately, when considering risk the cost of a human life must enter the equation (do we really want to increase the safety factor by.05% if it means the cost to consumers equates to a Las Vegas to Los Angeles fare of $20,000.00?) but the potential for savings should be secondary to fundamental questions of safety and reliability.
2. Improved accuracy.
While improved accuracy is an admirable goal, I'm not sure of it's value. If accuracy currently provided by radar is adequate, and as far as I know it is, then why is improved resolution an advantage? Ultimately, the question of resolution must be based upon the issue of aircraft velocity and congestion.
Old En-Route radars have, at worst, 1/2 mile range resolution and the seperation between the commercial aircraft within traffic corridors is much, much greater than that.
There's also the question of the ASDE but, as in the case of the other radars, it's accuracy out of the box is designed to meet the requiremnts of it's task.
3. Simplification.
This appears to be one the greatest potential benefits of ADS-B. Many different types of systems could be replaced with a single system, Terminal and En-Route radars, ASDE, ATCBIs (another one I don't have time to describe), and possibly ILS's other NavAids equipment. Sounds like some On-Board systems could be simplified as well. For instance, the On-Board ILS and the collision detection equipment are now seperate systems. However, it appears that, with ADS-B, these two systems would, essentially, be the same, or at least use the same source of information.
There are other advantages, but time doesn't permit me to continue. Hopefully this will provide those interested with a bit of information.
A few comments regarding the claims of the manufacturer of ADS, found at the link provided in the article:
"And, since the equipment is so small and light, it can be made a standard part of the equipment on board an aircraft, allowing pilots to see an accurate depiction of real-time air traffic, along with controllers."
The current Air Traffic Control system is based on Air Traffic Control system analyzing air traffic and, based upon that analysis, communicating directions to the pilot of an aircraft. The advantage of that arrangement: the pilot is completly free to focus on controlling and monitoring his plane. He doesn't have to divide his time between caculating the best approach into, or monitoring the airspace of, say, a large airport during peak usage times all the while navigating his aircraft into position. I want the aircrew on my flight to pay attention to NOTHING but the aircraft while landing, and I want an Air Traffic System that will allow them to do that. ATC completly removes the burden of approach control and airspace monitoring out of the cockpit and allows the crew to worry about nothing other than the aircraft during a very critical time.
Obviously, ADS-B would be very useful as an on-board tool for monitoring nearby traffic and alerting pilots to potential collisions. There are, of course, devices in use today that perform this funcion, but I'm not qualified to judge their capabilities as compared to ADS-B.
"And it is effective in remote areas or in mountainous terrain where there is no radar coverage, or where radar coverage is limited."
Marketing hype, misleading at best.
Next time you fly into Salt Lake City keep an eye out for a large dome on top of the mountains just to the north of the City. That's an En-Route radar. That radar's not perched up there so the guys at the site can have a nice view. It's located there to optimize the radar's coverage of mountainous terrain. There are many such radars in the mountains of the western United States. As I've said there is NO portion of the CoNUS that is not covered by radar and many, if not most are covered by two and even three radars. Of course, these radars aren't desinged or located to detect A10s cruising at 100' above the floor of a mountain canyon. Obviously, there aren't many Jetliners down at that altitude. They stick to the airlanes I've described above.
And, from the article:
"aircraft are no longer dependant upon crypic orders from the gound to understand where everyone else in the sky is"
Cryptic orders from the ground providing the positional information of other aircraft? One of the purposes of the ATC system is to remove the burden of airspace monitoring from the pilots. Controllers monitors airspace, and route aircraft accordingly. Controllers don't communicate the location of every aircraft in the immediate vicintiy to every pilot in the vicintiy and let them take their chances. They provide, among other things, heading and altitude commands to the pilot and he directs the aircraft accordingly.
As for "cryptic orders", I suppose the ATC lingo might be considered cryptic to some, but certainly no more so than a lot of the discussions that take place on Slashdot regarding network protocols, UNIX, or any number of topics. ATC language is merely a strict language designed to communicate required informatiion in a standardized manner. Perhaps the biggest "ATC Lingo" issue is the fact that it's based soley on english. I believe there was a deadly aviation accident in India some years ago that was rooted to the fact that english wan't the first language of the pilots or controllers. Technologies are being developed to remove the potential for misunderstanding: In future, Pilots might hear, or read on a display screen, in their native language, the Controllers instructions, regardless of the Controllers native language.
Two final footnotes.
1. SlashDotters may be pleased (and, if you're a frequent flier, relieved) to hear that Unix-based workstations are at the core of several new FAA systems, including, most prominently, the ASR-11, a Terminal environment radar. The ASR-11 as at it's core two Ultra Sparc 5s. Furthermore, communication between primary components within the radar and between the radar and the Tracon (the building/s that houses the Controllers and all of the equipment they use to control aircarft) is via Ethernet. I've just bought Spurgeon's "Ehternet: The Definitive Guide" in order to study up on the subect (I'll be maintaining an ASR-11 beginning sometime next year.
Other Sparc Station-based systems: Terminal Doppler Weather Radar and the ASR-9's WSP.
The use of networks and Unix is becoming so prevalent that both a Unix and a Networking course are taught by the FAA at it's Oklahoma City training center and are requirements for some (many, all?) of it's radar courses.
2. Now, for a pet peeve: the absolute ignorance, if not sheer stupidity, of mass media when reporting FAA issues. I'm a PBS NewsHour afficianado, and anyone familar with the NewsHour knows that excellent panel debates are one of the best features of the program. However, I've seen some so-called media aviation experts on the NewsHour that couldn't tell sh$^ from shinola, but acted as though they were the burning bush. Furthermore, another media source that I usually have great respect for, the New York Times has, in recent years, featured some FAA ATC articles that completely missed the mark.
The reason? In my opinion it has to do with the vast complexity of the FAA ATC system that I've described in very limited detail above. No one not intimately familar with the system, over a period of years, could possibly comment on it intelligently. Keep that in mind the next time you hear some talking head lambasting the FAA ATC system. For that matter, keep it in mind the next time you see some idiot politician hold up an old vacuum tube and use it as proof that the FAA ATC system is outdated and unreliable (for those of you that don't recall, that was Al Gore)
Commercialism has taken something that was supposed to unite many countries and turned it into something ugly fast.
I disagree. Commercial interest in the games is a healthy and crucial source of support. The problem lies with the incometence, shortsightedeness, and corruption of the IOC. It's up to the IOC to uphold the reputation of the games, support new technologies, provide complete, timely, multi-faceted methods of event coverage and reporting, and strike a balance between commercial interests and propriety. The Salt Lake City fiasco, the persecution of websites with domain names containing forms of the word Olympic, the banning of non-Sponsor Internet broadcasting, the manipulation of event broadcast times to capture peak time slots, and now the muzzling of the Athletes themselves are all proof that the IOC, as it's now structured, is incapable of providing proper direction of the games.
Another part of the problem: other than the Salt Lake City affair, how much of this sort of thing makes the evening news? News outlets need to let citizens know about the IOC's many bad habits.
Alfredo was dead-on: a review of 'independant' browsers with a mere three browsers reviewed is like a review of the year's new cars including only Ford, Lotus, and Chevy. Of course, the playing field would have been severly limited if CNet had chosen to define 'independant' as specifying a browser that did not require NS and particularly IE as a backbone. However, the inclusion of Neoplanet should have opened the competition to some other notable browsers, namely, Netcaptor, Power Browser, and K-Meleon. My personal favorite, excepting Opera, is Netcaptor: Captorgroups and tabs are invaluable, and the author is very responsive to users. Power Browser is tabbed, and has a handy little feature that allows notes to be added to a a web page. K-Meleon, while still in it's infancy, should have at least been mentioned as perhaps the only alternative interface app for Netscape in the Windows world.
Will the influence of the Internet create a new political ideology, and will that ideology be similar to Libertarianism? Libertariansim's free-market, "Don't Tread on Me", philosophy seems to go hand in hand with the beliefs of many SlashDot users. On the other hand, there was at least a moderate level of Internet support for the DOJ in DOJ vs MS, a sentiment certainly not shared by most Libertarians. How might the Internet impact the philosophies and, by extension, the politics of the next generation? I'm primarily interested in the way the Internet will impact the philosophy and beliefs of the average user, rather than it's impact upon politics although, of course, one will certainly impact the other.
I'm sure that there is a demand for the sort of service you suggest, but I doubt that there's enough of a demand to make it commercially feasible. In my opinion, if it could have been a money maker, then Deja would have hit the jackpot. The changes they made (or tried to make) to their service a year or so ago were innovative and interesting, but never seemed to catch on, or perhaps weren't implemented properly. For instance, Deja created a feature that would generate an E-Mail message to a user's mailbox if a response to his post was detected: what a great idea! However, it never seemed to work.
I was really excited when the new Deja went into Beta testing of their expanded capabilities. Unfortunately, the potential was never completely developed, and now Deja has changed directions: Usenet is almost an after-thought, now.
Another example of Deja's Usenet scale-back: some of the slick graphical Usenet navigation tools have been removed. Remember the four-way arrows introduced early last year? I believe the up and down arrow would jump to the next thread. The left and right arrow allowed movement within a thread. Very handy tool. Now it's back to the old style, still effective, but not as user-freindly as the arrows.
It's a shame that Deja has moved away from Usenet, but I suppose it was inevitable. As a 5 year veteran of Usenet, a self admitted newsgroup junkie, and an unapologetic devotee to Agent, a piece of software that's seen little modification in two years, I have to admit that Usenet is not a tool that is easily mastered. Well, at least not by the majority of moderate-use Internet visitors, that is. I'm still explaining the concept to my co-workers but, for some odd reason, they seem to be intimidated by Usenet. Guess if it gets beyond point and click, homepage and favorites, most people lose interest.
To sum up, although I'd like to see a service similar to the one that you mention, I don't think it's a money maker. If it were, then Deja would be promoting, expanding, and improving their Usenet capability, rather than scaling back and minimizing it.
There is, of course, at least one alternative possibility: Deja mismanaged their upgrade, and squandered it's potential.
I don't know enough about the inner workings of the company to say one way or the other. However, I tend to think that the problem lies not with Deja, but with the nature of Usenet. Usenet is intimidating to many Internet users. For some, the concept can be difficult to grasp. Obviously, it's not as simple as the Web, and of course, the simplicity of the Web spoils many Internet users. My point is this: I don't believe Usenet, outside of the binary groups, particularly MP3 and porno, will ever attract the level of usage that the Web generates, even with tools such as you propose. And, of course, you specify that binary groups will not be implemented in the proposed service (and rightly so). So, although I'd like to see you give a favorable report, I doubt that you will. Please let us know one way or the other.
One good thing that will come of this: Deja's "Power Search" has had some of it's fangs pulled: all of those embarrasing posts I made to Usenet years ago, before I realized they could all be traced back to me, as the years go by and Deja loses Interest in archiving, they'll be that much harder to access:)
Typical state tactic: under the ubiquitous "for the children" umbrella the government attempts to imfringe upon the rights of the citizenry. It's nearly a foolproof plan: obviously, if you disagree with the policy, you don't give a damn about children, and you're promoting the sort of activity that led to Columbine. Similar arguments have been made in legislation promoting internet censorship, gun control, and a number of other 'hot-button' topics.
Ultimately, it's up to parents to decide which games their children should and shouldn't play. That's especially true in this case, given that there's been no credible link between gaming violence and violent behaviour. The city's reaction is knee-jerk and, of course, is designed to appease or appeal to a certain critical constituency: the Mayor is simply trading policy for votes.
The state has far too much control over our lives, and their level of control is burgeoining. The state hasn't simply siezed control: citizens have increasingly traded personal sovereignity for government legislation that they favor. However, it's a dance with the devil: we may entice government to do as we wish for the moment but, eventually, some other interest group will prevail, and will bend the system towards their ends, and away from ours. The answer is to STOP relying on government of any sort, federal, state, city, as the solution to all, or most of our problems. Remove the power from the hands of the politicians, and place it firmly back into our own. Unfortunately, that's unlikely to happen as long as politicians continue to trade legislation for the votes that keep them in office.
Lets see: Internet changing the world. New World Culture being fashioned by geeks. Politicians and mainstream media don't get it. Columbine made those in meat-space suspicious of geeks.
Yes, Katz continues to beat hell out of the same old drums.
And, of course, there are always silly, completely unsubstantiated statements such as:
"a following as large or larger than that which follows many traditional forms of culture -- opera, classical music"
Most tellingly, in a story entitled "Taking Games Seriously" Katz doesn't mention a single such game by name! There are many (FO 1 and 2, PS:T, SS2, just to name a few from recent years).
Why so short on specifics? Katz is only interested in facts insofar as they provide him with an opportunity to preach about his pet peeves (see short-list above). He's not interested in, or is not capable of, giving the reader the facts, and allowing them to draw their own conclusions. Once again, Katz himself is proof positive that the "mainstream media" that he so frequently claims "doesn't get it" is still desperately needed. One good New York Times or BBC analysis of Internet related issues is worth any number of Katz pieces.
Typical Katz, theorizing, ruminating, exaggerating, interspersed with, thankfully, a minimum of Katz's usual anti-American invective.
This Katz piece is a failure, like so many others, because it's long on Katz's philosophy, but short on facts.
Understandable, of course, because the facts (the few provided) don't completely deliver the "punch" Katz seeks.
A prime example: Katz states that the boy was "sent out of the state" (implying it was at the behest of authorities) and "driven out-of-state" but the linked article makes no mention of a specfic attempt on behalf of the authorities to coerce him into leaving the state. Although the Father does use the phrase "run out of town", he plainly states that getting "run out of town" was his son's goal!
I understand the importance of Free Speach. I don't need yet another Katz diatribe against the 'anti-free-speech-machine'. What I need are facts. Tell me how and why the Principal, the Judges involved, and the Sherriff's department were able to do what they've done.
Specifically, what laws allowed the authorities to sieze the computer? I assume a court order was obtained. Under what pretext? What was the text of the court order? Why did the boy leave the state? Was a court involved in the process? Was it merely coercion on the part of an overzealous Sheriff's department, eg, "If you can get the boy out of the State we won't be obligated to pursue the matter any further. If he stays, we intend to prosecute" Was it simply the boy's choice, as the Father seems to infer? What does the ACLU have to say about it? What does the community think about the entire incident? Will it have a political impact? Will it jeopordize the Sherriff's/Judge's chances of reelection? In other words, does it appear that the communitty will correct the problem by effectively removing from office those officials whom allowed the matter to get out of hand? Is the Prosecutor's office seriously considering proffering criminal libel charges? Are there parallels to this incident in libel issues exisitng in meat space? Examples? Specifics? Facts?
Of course, Katz is incapable of providing the details so essential to understanding the issue. A competent and experienced Journalist is required to give the public the facts neccesary to fully understand the circumstances. Katz is a dilettante with an agenda, and it shows. He's keyed off of a few convenient facts, and ignored those facts that don't further his goal. The entire episode is merely a springboard for his pet causes.
It's a damn shame that a story like this, that is at the cutting edge of so many of the changes taking place in our society, is given such two-dimensional coverage. Oddly, Katz regularly criticizes traditional media sources as out of touch with the "new age", yet a 'dinosaur' like the New York Times is just what's needed, a journal that employs professionals capable of sorting out all of the details and then communicting the facts to readers who then make up their own minds. It's ironic that Katz's obvious limitations, as revealed in this piece and many others, are the proof that "dinosaurs' still have their place.
Reminds me a bit of the Ebay/Auto Dealer fiasco of about a year ago. Apparently, an auto dealer that specialized in unique used vehicles (hearses, etc) developed a "special partnership" with Ebay. The dealer realized that, with an initial feedback rating of "0" it would be difficult to entice prospective buyers to bid on a car worth thousands of dollars. So, in an attempt to circumvent the hurdle, the dealer distributed a memo to Ebay HQ (and/or possibly, to the rest of the dealership staff), encouraging those who were able to pad the dealers feedback rating. Lo and behold, immediately the dealer's feedback rating shot up as the result of numerous glowing "neutral" feedbacks, although he hadn't completed a single auction!
Of course, when a copy of the memo was leaked to Auctionwatch, or some such site, Ebay immediately issued a statement decrying the padded feedback, claiming that it was all the result of an employee at the dealership that didn't understand the "integrity" of the feedback process (conveniently removing the monkey from Ebay's back and placing it on the dealer's)
Ebay's complicity with MS and Scientology is not at all surprising: all three organizations speak the same language.
There's been some hinting that re-selling MS software is somehow illegal. Is this the case? As I recall, various court decisions over the past few years have affirmed the fact that, once boought, a legitimate copy of software is mine to do with as I please, short of copying it for the purpose of selling pirated versions.
Why doesn't it surprise me that Ebay and MS are mentioned in the same article/context as the Church of Scientology? And Gates wants the world to believe he's battling the DOJ on behalf of consumers, so that he can continue to "innovate"? Christ, I hope Jackson and the DOJ gives it to old Bill REAL GOOD!
I work for a division of the Federal government that emloys several thousand people. Many of my fellow employees are introduced to computers and the Internet on-the-job: the software they use at work will naturally tend to become the software they'll choose when the time comes to buy a home system. Microsoft is, with a single exception, the first choice of the computer specialists and network administrators who manage the systems we use. From Windows 9X to Internet Explorer to Office. The exception: CCMail is the most common E-Mail app, but Outlook is available and becoming more prevalent.
Microsoft's dominance of our computer environment has always troubled me, and not merey because of the advantage it gives MS in the marketplace. I object to MS's high-profile presence because I believe that MS often produces a lower quality product.
The French idea is an interesting solution to this problem, although I wonder how much of the "France-First" policy is involved. Is this an attempt by the French legislature to loosen the grip of MS, an American company, upon their governemnt and culture? Remember the Frenchman that bulldozed a partially built McDonald's and became a national hero for doing his part to resist the incipient influence of America? Is there something of that in the "Open Source" proposal?
Regardless of the motives of the French, the proposal is very intruiging. I'd love to see something similar implemented in my place of employment, but I'm sure that there are some, if not many, Network Administrators that would scream bloody murder.
Would "AskANigger.Com" be a Laugh?
on
80 Proof Quickies
·
· Score: 1
Strange...In a country that's constantly apologizing and correcting itself for any perceived offense, past or present, to any minority, or those of alternative sexual preferences, or females, etc, etc, it's still just peachy to offend "conservatives and humorless" and even trumpet the fact that you're doing so. Would you have posted a link to "Ask a Nigger.Com" and, in the same breath, implied that those that didn't find it funny were "humorless"? Of course not. How many of you with moderator points, after seeing the word 'nigger' in this post, immediately felt the urge to moderate it down? Somehow, American society has been programmed to be hyper-sensitive to the feelings of minorities, gays, and females, yet we can still ridicule conservatives, Christians, and their values with impunity.
Don't misunderstand me: I'm not implying that the "Political Correctness" (PC) umbrella be extended to protect conservatives and the religious. Rather, that we should all be aware that the modern mania for PC is hypocritical at it's core and, worse, tends to suppress, rather than encourage, free speech.
First, l complement you for going to the source, our Constitution, to look for an answer before going anywhere else.
However much I would like to agree with you, I have to ask this question: doesn't that apply to the implementation of such taxes by the Federal, rather than State, Government? The states are free to assign any form of tax their legislatures or citizenry desire.
I find it interesting that a fundamental issue is often ignored in arguments concerning taxation. The fact that the Federal government, and many, if not most, state governments are already scooping huge, and ever increasing, portions of dollars from our back pockets. Although the most substantial of these taxes, the Federal Income Tax, and the various State income taxes, are cleverly designed to be 'masked' from the citizens (it's paid bit by bit, throughout the year, rather than all at once and employers, rather than the 'taxpayer' actually pay it) we're still aware of the fact that an enormous amount of our income is taken by government. We naturally resist the idea of ANY sort of new taxation because we recognize that taxes are to governments what rock-cocaine is to a crackhead: their craving is essentially a bottomless pit.
So, as you say, fair or unfair is not the question. Rather, it's 'Why in hell are we paying so much in taxes in the first place?' 'Walk-in' retailers should be confronting governments with that question rather than demanding that all retailers be forced to pay equally exorbitant sales taxes.
Reminds me of a similar situation here in Oklahoma: Oklahoma has some of the worst roads I've ever seen yet it's vehicle registration fees are some of the highest in the country. Of course, the State claims that the fees are used for Highway Improvement! The citizenry has become so disgusted with the hypocrisy they've begun to register their vehicles in neighboring states, where the fees are much cheaper.
What was the States response? The imposition of stiff fines for those that register their vehicles in other states.
It never occurred to the legislature that the disconnect between expensive fees and road quality motivated citizens to circumvent state policy and that, perhaps, fees should be reduced in response to the discontent of the citizenry.
So, on the one hand the people react to unfair taxation or fees be seeking alternatives (On-Line retailers or vehicle registration in neighboring states) yet on the other hand governments ignore the deeper questions posed by the actions of its citizens and merely force all retailers, On-Line or Walk-In, to pay the same taxes or it fines those that register out of state.
I distrust, and am dissatisfied with, our government and am convinced that the implementation of the Income Tax in the early part of this century was actually the beginning of the end of our Country. Uncle Sam has access to the bottomless pit of it's citizen's income and, government being what it is, he'll not be satisfied until he wrings every spare dollar from us. Some might think that extreme, but I challenge those that do: While doing your taxes this year compare the amount you pay in Federal income tax with your overall salary and ask yourself this question: how many months did I spend working for Uncle Sam and NONONE else? I believe I worked from January through March merely to pay Federal income tax. Now add Social Security, medicare, state income tax, etc, etc....
And yet many politicians can't seem to understand the hostility of the average citizen to new forms of taxation....
The senior Bush said it best (if only he'd been able to stick to it): "NO NEW TAXES!"
Movie reviews...Finally something Katz can handle. I, for one, encourage Katz to stick to cinema reviews while leaving deeper issues to those capable of discussing them intelligently and rationally. Unfortunately, I doubt Katz will appreciate the suggestion and, of course, for some mysterious reason, SlashDot will continue to provide him with a soapbox.
I too am one of those that makes a relatively good living but, because of a shortfall in the responsibility department (or something) I fail to consitently pay some bills in a timely manner and, as a result, my credit rating has suffered.
I've decided to wait untill my small bank gears up their Billpay service rather than hook-up with Yahoo or other specialty service. My Bank is supposed to get the show on the raod early this year, but they've been dragging their heels.... I'm getting a bit irritated with them: I look forward to the day when I can set all of my bills on autopilot and let the bank do the work.
I'm not certain if my Bank is developing their own system or will be using a web-based method. I prefer the web-based: it seems tried and true.
One big perk for those who EBAY: winning bidders can use their Online Billpay service to immediately send payment to the seller: no need to go to the bank for a money order or to the post office to mail the payment, or even to spring for the cost of a stamp. I win at least 3 or 4 auctions a week on EBay: keeping track of those that have been sent and those pending is both tiresome and time consuming. With Online Billpay all one need do is enter the payee information and include a note in the comments section speciying the auction #. The bank does the rest.
I've been told that there is a drawbcack to this method: the envelopes the bank uses look generic and are occasionally assumed to be junk-mail and tossed in the trash by unsuspecting sellers. It's important to inform the seller that the payment will arrive in a business-style envelope with typewritten printing rather than the common scribbled EBay buyer's scratches.
Slashdot Mirror
Two items:
First, try ebay. A year or so ago I bought a beatifull burgundy leather-bound complete macro/micropedia with yearbooks. It's the 15th edition (mid-80s). I paid a good bit of money for it ($300.00, I think) but, for my needs, it's well worth it. I'm 36, so I suppose I might have a connection to printed books that future generations may lack (thinking of the Star Trek movie in which the old-fashioned Kirk was sitting around reading a book, rather than living it, or whatever, on the holodeck). One of the hurdles of net-based 'pedias must leap: they can't be read while on the 'throne', at least not easily. When the equivalent of the Encycolpedia Britannica can fit on a hand-held device I'll be more interested in non-print versions.
Second, I've not yet seen a software encyclopedia that could compare to the Britannica. Furthermore, while the Net has some fantastic sources of information there are gaps and it's occasionally difficult to find just that tidbit of data you're interested in. Usenet is one of the best sources of information on the Net. However, when seeking a definition or data to illuminate a passage in a book or an article in a magazine I don't care to wait for the turn-around time of Usenet, particularly if the Group in question is moderated. If you're a reader of non-fiction, particularly history, then a set of Britannica's is invaluable.
For my money the Internet is the perfect complement to the Britannica, e.g. The Britannica provides basic information on Submarines, Battles ships and the Second World War but, should I desire more detail about U-Boats there's Uboat.Net and, if I want answers to questions re. the triple 16" turrets on the USS Alabama I post a question to soc.history.war.world-war-ii.
I'm not arguing that there's no merit in 'figuring out how to do cool stuff'. However, I can't imagine that there's no way to do something cool without disrupting one of the major arteries of Central, Coastal California, both a vital waterway and a roadway. Is it neccesary to risk harm to others in pursuit of 'cool'? Is this the sort of tendency we wish to reward in the Aeronautical, Nuclear, and Automotive Engineers of tomorrow?
I don't see the 'cool' in it anyway: it was merely lazy. They opted for disruptive impact over substance, they took the "Jenny Jones" road to fame (or, rather, notoriety). Rather than create something truly innovative that would spark public interest and admiration on it's merits alone, they gave the public a slap in the face to get their attention. But hey, they got what they wanted: they're on TV.
Ah, some might say, "Lighten up, Dude, it was just a joke!" Yeah, ha ha. Thousands, possibly tens of thousands of people inconvenieced (hours late for work, missed plane flights, late deliveries, on and on, how many here have been on the Golden Gate on a Monday morning?) shipping diverted, certainly the potential for harm, and, on top of that, one more piece of scrap metal dumped in the bay. And why Monday morning, with tens of thousands that live to the north of the bridge headed to work south of it? Hey, but it's all in the name of some sort of 'science', and it was COOL, so screw 'em!
Look, this was all about the "Jerry Springer" syndrome, 15 seconds of fame, no matter what, etc etc. The engineering involved was merely an appendage to the prank, an excuse. The location and time were selected specifically because the stunt would have maximum disruptive impact, and thus maximum publicity potential.
Let's be sure to heap as much praise on these children as we can: let's let them know that 'Cool' take precedence over safety and the public good.
In closing, a slight clarification as to the future of the 'kids' in question: those kids will almost certainly become professionals, not tradesman (Craftsmen/Artisans). They're tomorrow's Engineers. The men that will turn their designs into reality are Tradesmen.
You wrote:
"However, the long term benefits of pioneering the coolest hack (on-line or off-a-bridge), far outweigh any temporary inconvenience"
What are some of the "long-term benefits" of hanging a Volkswagen off of a bridge? How is the prank "pioneering"? Is this some sort of breakthrough event that will pave the way for the next bunch of silly college students to hang a tractor-trailer rig off of the Bay Bridge?
The stunt was a juvenile, disruptive, and life-threatening bit of pointless nonsense.
The ridiculous press release proudly proclaims that the prank was done to "draw attention to the masterful feats of professional engineers and to celebrate the skills of the tradespeople who built the bridges" but Ms. Steele is at least honest enough to admit its true purpose: "someone has found a way to put us on the TV"
I found the remark about the 'tradespeaople' especially immature: the tradesemen that built the bridge risked their lives to feed their families and create a beautifull and functional structure that has great practical and aesthetic merit. Invoking the name of the 'tradespeople' in an attempt to justify a worthless, potentially harmfull prank is offensive.
Regarding my previous post: I inadvertantly omitted the word "virtual" from the last two uses of the phrase "pedophiliac pornography". Apologies for the omission.
First, I'd like to thank you for a detailed, interesting, and genuinely thought provoking reply. I'll respond line by line:
What constitutes pornography is certainly not easy to determine.
As I said: "For me, in most cases, it's not at all difficult to determine what constitutes pornography" I qualified that statement in two respects by using the words "For me" and "in most cases". In other words, although I generally find it a good rule of thumb, I don't expect it to be a simple matter for everyone and, in some cases, I find my own standard difficult to apply meaningfully. NYPD Blue is a good example: although the program contains scenes depicting nudity and sex, and they're certainly intended to titillate (if mildly), those scenes are merely footnotes to a thoughtful and well written program. Does the inclusion of a small portion of mildy pornographic content demand that the entire program be labelled pornographic? Of course not.
But we're not talking about programs like NYPD Blue, are we? For the moment, let's stick with the question at hand: Is it acceptable to depict real or virtual children in a pornographic manner? Pressing on:
First of all, a work may very well be sexually exciting to some, or even all, of it's audience, but that doesn't make it pornographic unless the intent of the work is to cause sexual excitement.
I agree.
You touch upon it yourself, by interjecting the "presented merely to tickle the libido".
I tried to do more than "touch upon it". The Mirriam Webster definition was included to support the case for the importance of "intent" when determining what constitutes pornography. As you mention, I used the word "presented" towards the same end, and used the word "depict" when describing a hypothetical pornographic production of "Romeo and Juliet"
How do you know if that's the intent?
Good question. Pornograpy is, usually, anything but subtle. I think I can percieve intent, generally, and I think most others can too, whether or not they're willing to admit it. However, the more important question: how does society determine intent in these matters? Of course, it's up to the Courts to split that hair.
How do you know if the intended audience would be turned on by seeing it?
The question of whether or not it's effective pornography is beside the point.
And you draw lines based on your moral standards
On the question of the pornographic depiction of children, virtual or otherwise, I draw the same line that the vast majority of people in this country do. I'll say for the record, here and now, that, despite the examples of ancient Athenians, various Roman Emperors, the occasional Pope, and other pederasters throughout Occidental history, in America, sex between adults and children is wrong, depictions of sex between children is at the very least, troubling, and any obviously pornographic depiction of children is as wrong as anything in our society can be.
And you have no right to say that any set of moral standards "right" or "wrong".
I certainly do have the right to determine for my self what is right and wrong. I assume though, that you're referring to the application of my belief-set onto society. Of course, I modulate my beliefs somewhat when applying or projecting them onto society, because I recognize that there can be, and is, disagreement between reasonable people as to an abolute standard of right and wrong. However, as to the question of the morality of pedophiliac pornography, virtual or not, I believe that there would be very little disagreement among most Americans.
But don't you even see the paradox presented in this case, revolving around simulated child porn?
I do see that this case circumvents at least one of the standard arguments against pedophiliac pornography, which you mention in your next sentence.
It does not hurt children in it's production.
Exactly. That fact removes the most inarguable impediment to child pornography. Other arguments are more difficult to make: the moral question, the question of whether or not media encourages viewers to mimic the things they see and hear, etc.
And it is a work of fiction.
I'm not sure why that's relative.
Where do you draw the line, if you don't allow this?
I've told you where I, personally, would draw the line. For our society, it will be drawn in a Court of Law.
If your reason is that the depictions are revolting...
Although I mention that the practice is "disgusting", in no way did I use my disgust to make my case.
If your argument is that the pictures can incite pedophile behaviour...
I'm not sure why you mention that, I certainly didn't. That's the Prosecutor's argument, not mine.
Let's move this issue from the theoretical to hypthetical: Would you support the legalization of movies that depict virtual children having various forms of consensual sex with other children or adults? Movies with titles such as "Kindergarden Gangbang" and "Playground Rape"? What about bestiality? If pedophiliac porn is OK, why not pedophiliac bestiality? How about pedophiliac 'snuff' films? Another possibility: pictures of the faces of real children, modeled in 3D, placed on a virtual child's body and used in pornographic movies.
The sad thing about that last sentence: some readers, rather than being horrified by the thought of someone's child being used in such a manner, will immediately argue that it would be illegal to use someone's image without their consent.
If you think these titles and subjects unlikely then consider the titles of the porn videos (actaully, these are series, not single titles) currently available, and legal, in this country, titles such as "Cherry Poppers", "Hardcore Schoolgirls", "Young and Anal", "Bring 'em Young", and many others all depicting adult females acting, more or less believably, as adolescent girls engaged in EXTREME sex acts.
If you're incapable of completely endorsing the legalization of pedophiliac pornography,in the forms that I've described, I'd like to know why.
There is a moral standard in this country that the vast majority of it's citizens share. People who have forgotten that fact, or would like to, will be reminded of it when they bump up against issues such as this. Look in your heart: do you really believe that legalisation of virtual child pornography is a good thing? Is this what the Creators of the Declaration of Independance, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights had in mind for America?
Once again I say, if pedophilia isn't wrong, then nothing is. Like it or not, there is a standard of right and wrong in America. Imperfect as it may be, this Country was founded on a set of Moral principles, and has prospered by them. Many people in this country would disagree on the fine print. However, I think it very safe to say that the overwhelming majority of Americans would vehemently oppose the legality of pedophiliac pornography. Thank God for that.
Apples and oranges: the issue is pornography, defined by Mirriam Webster ( http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=pornograp hy ):
1 : the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement
For me, in most cases, it's not at all difficult to determine what constitutes pornography: the depiction of children, real or simulated, engaged in sexual activity, presented merely to tickle the libido, besides being disgusting, is wrong. It's as wrong as anything can be.
As to the argument regarding "Romeo and Juliet": the play, both as written and as performed (every performance I've seen, and am aware of) doesn't depict the relationship between the two children in a pornographic manner. If a production chose to focus on a sexual relationship, as well as the adolecence of the couple, in order to appeal to pedophiliac tastes, then it crosses the line.
How anyone can defend (as some have done in this forum) such "art" is absolultely beyond my ability to comprehend. Pornography involving children is immoral. In the words of a recent "Weekly Standard" article on the subject: If child pornography isn't wrong, then nothing is.
Libertarianism isn't about "middle ground": it's a philosophy that dictates that people should be free to make decisions for themselves as long as those decisions do not harm others. Libertarians reluctantly recognize the need for government, but maintain that individual freedom is inversely proportional to government's size and role in our lives and, therefore, government should always be as small, and limited, as possible.
Define 'losing all touch with reality: interesting that you mention income tax: this country survived and flourished for 100+ years without it (with the exception of it's implementation during the Civil War). Ah, you say, look how America has blossomed since implementation of income tax. Libertarians would say that we've flourished in spite of income tax, not because of it.
Read the history behind the income tax, and you'll understand Libertarian's objections to it: Early this century the Supreme Court ruled that the graduated income tax was unconstitutional. Despite that fact, politicians were then, just as they are now, desperate to dip into the citezenry's pocketbooks. An end-run around the Supreme Court was developed and thus was born the 13th Amendment. However, politicians understood that the only way to get the amendment ratified was to structure it so that it was extremely graduated: only the top 1% of the population had to pay it, and they only paid from 1 to 5% of their income. I've always felt that this was particularly outrageous: politicians knew that if a significant percentage of the population were obligated to pay, the amendment wouldn't have stood a snowball's chance in hell of being ratified. So, they concocted a strategy that would, essentially, screw over 1% of the country for the benefit of the other 99% and themselves and, sadly, the amendment was ratified. The hypocrisy politicians successfully appealed went something like this: "If I have to pay the tax, it's a horrible idea, but as long as someone else pays it and I benefit from it, then it's a great idea." That was wrong in 1913, and it's wrong today.
Of course, the percentage of people paying the tax, and the percentage of income that each pays, has increased beyond all proportion to it's beginnings and the size of government, and it's influence in our lives, has kept pace accordingly. Income tax is, in large part, the power that feeds the government, and Libertarians understand that to eliminate the Income tax is to begin to remove the unfairness of the tax code as well as reduce the size and role of the Federal government.
Of course, the income tax is still extremely graduated. If you believe the "class envy" crap that Gore continuously spews about Bush's "Tax cut for the rich" then you're unaware of the percentage of the tax burden that the rich are paying. The top 1% pays 30% of the income tax in this country. His constant spewing of that line is almost as offensive as his oft repeated claim that he and Clinton are responsible for the economic boom we're now enjoying. Wrong! Entrepreneurs and innovators are responsible: the ONLY thing that government can do to assist is to get the hell out of the way and let the market move. So "I've shepherded this economy" actually means "I got out of the way" and there is certainly some doubt as to the validity of that claim, just as there's doubt about many of Gore's other claims. And, in the end, Clinton, not Gore, set the policy, and negotiated with a Republican led congress. The best that any politician can say, Republican, Democrat, or Libertarian is that they've merely allowed entrepreneurs and innovators to do what they're born to do, unfettered by government.
It's a testament to the strength of the 'Big Lie' concept that many of us are, essentially, brainwashed into believing that the government is responsible for prosperity. Libertarians know what a ridiculous idea that is, and they understand that government often interferes with prosperity rather than promoting it.
Libertarians understand the natural tendency for government to grow, both in size and in function. And, again, to the extent that government grows, our freedom is limited. Therefore, Libertarians are anti-government: they believe that YOU are best capable of running your life, of making your own retirement investments, of owning and operating a firearm, of spending your money rather that it being taken from you and spent on your behalf by politicians.
I don't want Libertarians to adopt a "middle ground" and I don't believe for an instant that they're "losing all touch with reality". Libertarians understand the nature of politicians and governments better than most, IMHO, and, as a result, they seek to limit the role of government. Freedom, at least freedom of speech, is a highly prized commodity here on SlashDot: there is much in Libertarian philosophy that will, I think, naturally appeal to SlashDotters. In fact, I believe that the Internet has, and will continue to, move the country towards Libertarian ideals.
Let me begin by stating that anyone that understands anything at all about US Air Traffic Control (ATC) knows one thing: the system is enormously vast, varied, and complex. And that would be true if one were just considering the types of equipment used, and the way in which they're interconnected. Include the demands and pressures placed upon the Agency that operates it, and a few more layers of convolution are added. The argument for throwing into that mix a demand for "Open Source" principles would have to be extemely compelling. And, of course, it's usually impossible to make a compelling argument without understanding the facts, which brings us back to the complexity of the ATC system, and the scarcity of those intimately familar with it. In other words, it's easy for someone that knows nothing of the system to suggest all sorts of solutions, and I'm constantly reminded of that fact nearly every time I read an article written by an "Aviation-Industry Journalist" and occasionally while reading posts here on /.
Here's a single, small, and simplified example of the issues involved:
The FAA is no in the process of purchasing over 100 new radar systems, known as the ASR-11, from Raytheon, a company that's been a leader in the Radar business for 50 years. The Department of Defense is purchasing approximately 100 more. Each system has, at it's core, two Sun Sparc 5 workstations (soon to be upgraded to UltraSparc). Of course, the workstations run on Solaris. However, the software that controls the radar and performs much of the data processing, is a proprietary product of Raytheon. Although it's likely that the FAA will gain the rights to the source code, they'll (you'll) pay dearly for it. What's more, some portions of the code, perhaps not in that software, but in other parts of the radar, are essentially "trade secrets" and Raytheon would be loathe to part with it at any price, particularly if they knew that it would be released to the public and, of course, their competitors.
How might Open-Source principles be implemented in this case? Raytheon engineers are the experts, and the FAA wisely allows them to design the hardware and write the code. Are there those that would suggest that all of the Radar's code should be made available to the public once purchased, at great cost, from Raytheon? Or is it a matter of writing a contract that demands that the Manufacturer use open source principles in every aspect of Radar design, and/or that the radar itself use open source applications to perform ever function? Would some suggest that, when planning the purchase of future Radar systems, that Raytheon design the hardware and the FAA write the code?
Finally, and perhaps most significantly, in this case how would Open-Source principles benefit the FAA and the public?
This is not a "new" idea. The Federal Aviation Administrationn (FAA) has been experimenting with various forms of GPS navigation in lieu of radar for years. However, Radar-based Air Traffic Control has advantages that no GPS can offer.
.05% if it means the cost to consumers equates to a Las Vegas to Los Angeles fare of $20,000.00?) but the potential for savings should be secondary to fundamental questions of safety and reliability.
Before proceeding it might help to explain the basic structure of the United State's Air Traffic Control (ATC) system. Afterwards, a bit of analysis/comments.
Air Traffic Control is divided into two seperate entities : Terminal and En-Route. Terminal facilities control traffic in the immediate vicinity of an airport. En-Route facilities control traffic across country and national borders. Both facilities interface with one another at the points which their "airspace" intersects. In other words, an aircraft departing Dulles International for Chicago-OHare initially communicates with the Terminal facility at Dulles. The Controllers at Dulles direct his takeoff and then "Hands Off" the aircraft to an En-Route facility. En-Route facilities then monitor that aircarft untill it approaches it's destination. The En-Route facility then "Hands Off" the aircraft to the Terminal facility at "Chicago-OHare", and the OHare Controllers guide the approach into the runway. (For the experts: I've ignored Super Tracon's for the sake of simplicity).
Each environment, Terminal and En-Route, uses different types of radar. Terminal environments use radar capable of detecting aircraft within a 60 nautical mile (NMI) radius from the radar site (usually the airport). En-Route radars detect aircraft within a 200 or 250 NMI radius (depending upon the site). Whatever the radar type, it's important (when considering GPS) to note that the cost of radar is tremendous: Initial cost is great, and the cost of replacement parts and staffing of qualified maintenance personel is substantial.
A detail of the FAA Terminal environment: Radar is only used to guide the aircraft to the approach path. Other equipment, known as Instrument Landing Systems (ILS) is then used by the pilot, independantly of the Air Traffic Controller, to land it.
A few details about the arrangement and usage of En-Route airspace. Jetliners don't fly randomly, as the crow flies, across country. Commercial airspace is arranged into corridors of travel and levels of altitude. Using the example above, an pilot doesn't depart Dulles, point the nose to OHare, and head on untill he spots Sear's Tower. Instead, that aircraft has to navigate air highways to reach OHare, just as a car would if travelling from DC to Chicago. And, just as cars travelling in opposite directions use different lanes of a highway, aircraft travelling across country in a particular corridor, going in opposite directions, use different altitudes. The corridors and altitudes have been mapped out by the FAA and a commercial aircrafts flight plan, created before departure, specifies the route which the flight will take.
En-Route radars aren't, of course, placed randomly. There are many En-Route radars spread throughout the United States, and the matrix is arranged such that each bit of national airspace is covered by at least one radar, and many corridors are covered by two, or even three radars. That's particularly true of the most widely travelled air-lanes.
En-Route radar data is sent to En-Route control centers. Computers analyze each radar's data in three square mile segments and, where coverage overlaps, the highest quality data is used. In other words, the En-Route Controller uses the best data available to control traffic.
It's important to note that the safety record of the Air Traffic Control systems, Radar, ILS, or any of the other system maintained by the FAA, is superlative. NO loss of life (and, I'm almost certain, no aviatiion accident at all) has ever been caused by a failure of an FAA mechanical or electronic system. That's not to say that no FAA system has ever failed. However, the system is designed such that any single failure is virtually incapable of bringing ATC capability to it's knees.
I've attempted, in the description above, to give the reader some small idea of the vastness and complexity of the United State's ATC system. I've merely explained the 'bare-bones' of a few aspects of the systems. It would require volumes to explain all of it's nuances.
To wrap-up, there are essentially 2 different environments (Terminal and En-Route), and within one environment, Terminal, there are two functions (approach control and landing) whose current equipment can/might/will be replaced/augmented by GPS. Apparently, from what I read at the ADS-B site, their product is designed to replace both Terminal and En-Route radars as well as ASDE, and ATCBIs (won't get into them due to time limitations) and, possibly, ILS.
Some form of GPS has been experimented with in the Terminal environment: Several years ago GPS landings were tried at Seattle-Tacoma but, as I recall, for various reasons were found to be inadequate, at least not advantageous enough to warrant use of GPS over current technologies.
At about the same time it was widely rumored that GPS-based systems were poised to replace En-Route environment radars. This, of course, didn't materialize. However, at that point I was convinced that, eventually, GPS capabilities would be refined and expanded suffciently to replace some, if not all, Radars in the Air Traffic Control system.
Advantages of Radar:
1. Radar based ATC has a proven, decades long track record of reliability and safety.
When considering FAA GPS implementation It's important to understand that the current system is dependant upon information provided by hundreds of radars. Furthermore, the system as it's configured now has proven extremley reliable and safe. As such, fundamental changes, such as the replacement of radar by ADS-B are, IMHO, viewed with caution by ATC planners. Of course, ATC planners are aware of the potential benefits of new technologies such as ADS-B, but they must weigh the advantages of those technologies against the potential for decreased Air Traffic safety and, therefore, the increased likelihood of loss of human life.
A response to this might be "But that's the point of ADS-B: to increase the margin of safety!" However, the current system is KNOWN to be safe and, while the proposed system claims to provide more safety, it's an UNKNOWN and, as such, is worrisome. I've been a SlashDotter long enough to know that this crowd relishes many forms of change and is certainly prone to welcome new technologies, so this arguement may be anathema to many in the audience. Keep in mind that those making the decisions aren't always Techie types. Those folks making the decisions have to weigh the safety of consumers with the demands of the airline industry and the flying public, amid the often politically motivated pressures of the politicians that appoint and monitor them and the enticing promises of companies like those promoting ADS-B. Despite all of that, I'm confident that the right decisions willl be made and the FAA will eventually implement some form of GPS replacement of most, if not all ATC radar. But I don't expect to see it in the first half of this decade, and possibly not untill the next decade.
2. Radar independantly detects aircraft .
In other words, using radar the Air Traffic Control system can locate and control aircraft independant of ANY piece of equipment (other than radios) on board the aircraft. This is not the case with GPS. Radar certainly has an advantage for purposes of drug traffic interdiction and strategic issues, as trafficers and potential unfreindlies will disable any equipped GPS.
Of course, the likelihood of enemy incursion into our airspace at normal detection altitudes, in aircraft capable of being detected by ATC radar, is extremely minimal. However, the FAA ATC En-Route radar system is the ONLY radar system that monitors every inch of airspace in the country. The military has none (at least none they admit to) However, the coastal and border En-Route radars provide a data feed to military command centers, and that data is used to monitor potential threats.
3. Radar detects weather.
ATC radars, both Terminal and En-Route, not only detect aircraft. They are also used to detect inclement weather, and the data is used by Controllers to route aircraft around potentially hazardous areas. GPS doesn't meet this need.
A counter argument might mention the existence of the National Weather Service's NEXRAD weather radars across the country, systems that might be used more effectively for the same purposes, as well as Terminal Doppler Weather Radars located at many high volume airports.. Unfortunately, I'm not an expert on the range of coverage of NEXRADs, but I doubt that it's as extensive as En-Route radar's
Advantages of GPS:
1. Cost.
Inital implementation might be expensive, but compared to radar, I would guess that ongoing expenses would be greatly reduced.
My first thought is that, of course, it's nice to save money but let's not allow the holy grail of reduced cost to drive the debate. Ultimately, when considering risk the cost of a human life must enter the equation (do we really want to increase the safety factor by
2. Improved accuracy.
While improved accuracy is an admirable goal, I'm not sure of it's value. If accuracy currently provided by radar is adequate, and as far as I know it is, then why is improved resolution an advantage? Ultimately, the question of resolution must be based upon the issue of aircraft velocity and congestion.
Old En-Route radars have, at worst, 1/2 mile range resolution and the seperation between the commercial aircraft within traffic corridors is much, much greater than that.
There's also the question of the ASDE but, as in the case of the other radars, it's accuracy out of the box is designed to meet the requiremnts of it's task.
3. Simplification.
This appears to be one the greatest potential benefits of ADS-B. Many different types of systems could be replaced with a single system, Terminal and En-Route radars, ASDE, ATCBIs (another one I don't have time to describe), and possibly ILS's other NavAids equipment. Sounds like some On-Board systems could be simplified as well. For instance, the On-Board ILS and the collision detection equipment are now seperate systems. However, it appears that, with ADS-B, these two systems would, essentially, be the same, or at least use the same source of information.
There are other advantages, but time doesn't permit me to continue. Hopefully this will provide those interested with a bit of information.
A few comments regarding the claims of the manufacturer of ADS, found at the link provided in the article:
"And, since the equipment is so small and light, it can be made a standard part of the equipment on board an aircraft, allowing pilots to see an accurate depiction of real-time air traffic, along with controllers."
The current Air Traffic Control system is based on Air Traffic Control system analyzing air traffic and, based upon that analysis, communicating directions to the pilot of an aircraft. The advantage of that arrangement: the pilot is completly free to focus on controlling and monitoring his plane. He doesn't have to divide his time between caculating the best approach into, or monitoring the airspace of, say, a large airport during peak usage times all the while navigating his aircraft into position. I want the aircrew on my flight to pay attention to NOTHING but the aircraft while landing, and I want an Air Traffic System that will allow them to do that. ATC completly removes the burden of approach control and airspace monitoring out of the cockpit and allows the crew to worry about nothing other than the aircraft during a very critical time.
Obviously, ADS-B would be very useful as an on-board tool for monitoring nearby traffic and alerting pilots to potential collisions. There are, of course, devices in use today that perform this funcion, but I'm not qualified to judge their capabilities as compared to ADS-B.
"And it is effective in remote areas or in mountainous terrain where there is no radar coverage, or where radar coverage is limited."
Marketing hype, misleading at best.
Next time you fly into Salt Lake City keep an eye out for a large dome on top of the mountains just to the north of the City. That's an En-Route radar. That radar's not perched up there so the guys at the site can have a nice view. It's located there to optimize the radar's coverage of mountainous terrain. There are many such radars in the mountains of the western United States. As I've said there is NO portion of the CoNUS that is not covered by radar and many, if not most are covered by two and even three radars. Of course, these radars aren't desinged or located to detect A10s cruising at 100' above the floor of a mountain canyon. Obviously, there aren't many Jetliners down at that altitude. They stick to the airlanes I've described above.
And, from the article:
"aircraft are no longer dependant upon crypic orders from the gound to understand where everyone else in the sky is"
Cryptic orders from the ground providing the positional information of other aircraft? One of the purposes of the ATC system is to remove the burden of airspace monitoring from the pilots. Controllers monitors airspace, and route aircraft accordingly. Controllers don't communicate the location of every aircraft in the immediate vicintiy to every pilot in the vicintiy and let them take their chances. They provide, among other things, heading and altitude commands to the pilot and he directs the aircraft accordingly.
As for "cryptic orders", I suppose the ATC lingo might be considered cryptic to some, but certainly no more so than a lot of the discussions that take place on Slashdot regarding network protocols, UNIX, or any number of topics. ATC language is merely a strict language designed to communicate required informatiion in a standardized manner. Perhaps the biggest "ATC Lingo" issue is the fact that it's based soley on english. I believe there was a deadly aviation accident in India some years ago that was rooted to the fact that english wan't the first language of the pilots or controllers. Technologies are being developed to remove the potential for misunderstanding: In future, Pilots might hear, or read on a display screen, in their native language, the Controllers instructions, regardless of the Controllers native language.
Two final footnotes.
1. SlashDotters may be pleased (and, if you're a frequent flier, relieved) to hear that Unix-based workstations are at the core of several new FAA systems, including, most prominently, the ASR-11, a Terminal environment radar. The ASR-11 as at it's core two Ultra Sparc 5s. Furthermore, communication between primary components within the radar and between the radar and the Tracon (the building/s that houses the Controllers and all of the equipment they use to control aircarft) is via Ethernet. I've just bought Spurgeon's "Ehternet: The Definitive Guide" in order to study up on the subect (I'll be maintaining an ASR-11 beginning sometime next year.
Other Sparc Station-based systems: Terminal Doppler Weather Radar and the ASR-9's WSP.
The use of networks and Unix is becoming so prevalent that both a Unix and a Networking course are taught by the FAA at it's Oklahoma City training center and are requirements for some (many, all?) of it's radar courses.
2. Now, for a pet peeve: the absolute ignorance, if not sheer stupidity, of mass media when reporting FAA issues. I'm a PBS NewsHour afficianado, and anyone familar with the NewsHour knows that excellent panel debates are one of the best features of the program. However, I've seen some so-called media aviation experts on the NewsHour that couldn't tell sh$^ from shinola, but acted as though they were the burning bush. Furthermore, another media source that I usually have great respect for, the New York Times has, in recent years, featured some FAA ATC articles that completely missed the mark.
The reason? In my opinion it has to do with the vast complexity of the FAA ATC system that I've described in very limited detail above. No one not intimately familar with the system, over a period of years, could possibly comment on it intelligently. Keep that in mind the next time you hear some talking head lambasting the FAA ATC system. For that matter, keep it in mind the next time you see some idiot politician hold up an old vacuum tube and use it as proof that the FAA ATC system is outdated and unreliable (for those of you that don't recall, that was Al Gore)
Commercialism has taken something that was supposed to unite many countries and turned it into something ugly fast.
I disagree. Commercial interest in the games is a healthy and crucial source of support. The problem lies with the incometence, shortsightedeness, and corruption of the IOC. It's up to the IOC to uphold the reputation of the games, support new technologies, provide complete, timely, multi-faceted methods of event coverage and reporting, and strike a balance between commercial interests and propriety. The Salt Lake City fiasco, the persecution of websites with domain names containing forms of the word Olympic, the banning of non-Sponsor Internet broadcasting, the manipulation of event broadcast times to capture peak time slots, and now the muzzling of the Athletes themselves are all proof that the IOC, as it's now structured, is incapable of providing proper direction of the games.
Another part of the problem: other than the Salt Lake City affair, how much of this sort of thing makes the evening news? News outlets need to let citizens know about the IOC's many bad habits.
Alfredo was dead-on: a review of 'independant' browsers with a mere three browsers reviewed is like a review of the year's new cars including only Ford, Lotus, and Chevy. Of course, the playing field would have been severly limited if CNet had chosen to define 'independant' as specifying a browser that did not require NS and particularly IE as a backbone. However, the inclusion of Neoplanet should have opened the competition to some other notable browsers, namely, Netcaptor, Power Browser, and K-Meleon. My personal favorite, excepting Opera, is Netcaptor: Captorgroups and tabs are invaluable, and the author is very responsive to users. Power Browser is tabbed, and has a handy little feature that allows notes to be added to a a web page. K-Meleon, while still in it's infancy, should have at least been mentioned as perhaps the only alternative interface app for Netscape in the Windows world.
Will the influence of the Internet create a new political ideology, and will that ideology be similar to Libertarianism? Libertariansim's free-market, "Don't Tread on Me", philosophy seems to go hand in hand with the beliefs of many SlashDot users. On the other hand, there was at least a moderate level of Internet support for the DOJ in DOJ vs MS, a sentiment certainly not shared by most Libertarians. How might the Internet impact the philosophies and, by extension, the politics of the next generation? I'm primarily interested in the way the Internet will impact the philosophy and beliefs of the average user, rather than it's impact upon politics although, of course, one will certainly impact the other.
I'm sure that there is a demand for the sort of service you suggest, but I doubt that there's enough of a demand to make it commercially feasible. In my opinion, if it could have been a money maker, then Deja would have hit the jackpot. The changes they made (or tried to make) to their service a year or so ago were innovative and interesting, but never seemed to catch on, or perhaps weren't implemented properly. For instance, Deja created a feature that would generate an E-Mail message to a user's mailbox if a response to his post was detected: what a great idea! However, it never seemed to work.
:)
I was really excited when the new Deja went into Beta testing of their expanded capabilities. Unfortunately, the potential was never completely developed, and now Deja has changed directions: Usenet is almost an after-thought, now.
Another example of Deja's Usenet scale-back: some of the slick graphical Usenet navigation tools have been removed. Remember the four-way arrows introduced early last year? I believe the up and down arrow would jump to the next thread. The left and right arrow allowed movement within a thread. Very handy tool. Now it's back to the old style, still effective, but not as user-freindly as the arrows.
It's a shame that Deja has moved away from Usenet, but I suppose it was inevitable. As a 5 year veteran of Usenet, a self admitted newsgroup junkie, and an unapologetic devotee to Agent, a piece of software that's seen little modification in two years, I have to admit that Usenet is not a tool that is easily mastered. Well, at least not by the majority of moderate-use Internet visitors, that is. I'm still explaining the concept to my co-workers but, for some odd reason, they seem to be intimidated by Usenet. Guess if it gets beyond point and click, homepage and favorites, most people lose interest.
To sum up, although I'd like to see a service similar to the one that you mention, I don't think it's a money maker. If it were, then Deja would be promoting, expanding, and improving their Usenet capability, rather than scaling back and minimizing it.
There is, of course, at least one alternative possibility: Deja mismanaged their upgrade, and squandered it's potential.
I don't know enough about the inner workings of the company to say one way or the other. However, I tend to think that the problem lies not with Deja, but with the nature of Usenet. Usenet is intimidating to many Internet users. For some, the concept can be difficult to grasp. Obviously, it's not as simple as the Web, and of course, the simplicity of the Web spoils many Internet users. My point is this: I don't believe Usenet, outside of the binary groups, particularly MP3 and porno, will ever attract the level of usage that the Web generates, even with tools such as you propose. And, of course, you specify that binary groups will not be implemented in the proposed service (and rightly so). So, although I'd like to see you give a favorable report, I doubt that you will. Please let us know one way or the other.
One good thing that will come of this: Deja's "Power Search" has had some of it's fangs pulled: all of those embarrasing posts I made to Usenet years ago, before I realized they could all be traced back to me, as the years go by and Deja loses Interest in archiving, they'll be that much harder to access
Typical state tactic: under the ubiquitous "for the children" umbrella the government attempts to imfringe upon the rights of the citizenry. It's nearly a foolproof plan: obviously, if you disagree with the policy, you don't give a damn about children, and you're promoting the sort of activity that led to Columbine. Similar arguments have been made in legislation promoting internet censorship, gun control, and a number of other 'hot-button' topics.
Ultimately, it's up to parents to decide which games their children should and shouldn't play. That's especially true in this case, given that there's been no credible link between gaming violence and violent behaviour. The city's reaction is knee-jerk and, of course, is designed to appease or appeal to a certain critical constituency: the Mayor is simply trading policy for votes.
The state has far too much control over our lives, and their level of control is burgeoining. The state hasn't simply siezed control: citizens have increasingly traded personal sovereignity for government legislation that they favor. However, it's a dance with the devil: we may entice government to do as we wish for the moment but, eventually, some other interest group will prevail, and will bend the system towards their ends, and away from ours. The answer is to STOP relying on government of any sort, federal, state, city, as the solution to all, or most of our problems. Remove the power from the hands of the politicians, and place it firmly back into our own. Unfortunately, that's unlikely to happen as long as politicians continue to trade legislation for the votes that keep them in office.
Lets see: Internet changing the world. New World Culture being fashioned by geeks. Politicians and mainstream media don't get it. Columbine made those in meat-space suspicious of geeks.
Yes, Katz continues to beat hell out of the same old drums.
And, of course, there are always silly, completely unsubstantiated statements such as:
"a following as large or larger than that which follows many traditional forms of culture -- opera, classical music"
Most tellingly, in a story entitled "Taking Games Seriously" Katz doesn't mention a single such game by name! There are many (FO 1 and 2, PS:T, SS2, just to name a few from recent years).
Why so short on specifics? Katz is only interested in facts insofar as they provide him with an opportunity to preach about his pet peeves (see short-list above). He's not interested in, or is not capable of, giving the reader the facts, and allowing them to draw their own conclusions. Once again, Katz himself is proof positive that the "mainstream media" that he so frequently claims "doesn't get it" is still desperately needed. One good New York Times or BBC analysis of Internet related issues is worth any number of Katz pieces.
Typical Katz, theorizing, ruminating, exaggerating, interspersed with, thankfully, a minimum of Katz's usual anti-American invective.
/Judge's chances of reelection? In other words, does it appear that the communitty will correct the problem by effectively removing from office those officials whom allowed the matter to get out of hand? Is the Prosecutor's office seriously considering proffering criminal libel charges? Are there parallels to this incident in libel issues exisitng in meat space? Examples? Specifics? Facts?
This Katz piece is a failure, like so many others, because it's long on Katz's philosophy, but short on facts.
Understandable, of course, because the facts (the few provided) don't completely deliver the "punch" Katz seeks.
A prime example: Katz states that the boy was "sent out of the state" (implying it was at the behest of authorities) and "driven out-of-state" but the linked article makes no mention of a specfic attempt on behalf of the authorities to coerce him into leaving the state. Although the Father does use the phrase "run out of town", he plainly states that getting "run out of town" was his son's goal!
I understand the importance of Free Speach. I don't need yet another Katz diatribe against the 'anti-free-speech-machine'. What I need are facts. Tell me how and why the Principal, the Judges involved, and the Sherriff's department were able to do what they've done.
Specifically, what laws allowed the authorities to sieze the computer? I assume a court order was obtained. Under what pretext? What was the text of the court order? Why did the boy leave the state? Was a court involved in the process? Was it merely coercion on the part of an overzealous Sheriff's department, eg, "If you can get the boy out of the State we won't be obligated to pursue the matter any further. If he stays, we intend to prosecute" Was it simply the boy's choice, as the Father seems to infer? What does the ACLU have to say about it? What does the community think about the entire incident? Will it have a political impact? Will it jeopordize the Sherriff's
Of course, Katz is incapable of providing the details so essential to understanding the issue. A competent and experienced Journalist is required to give the public the facts neccesary to fully understand the circumstances. Katz is a dilettante with an agenda, and it shows. He's keyed off of a few convenient facts, and ignored those facts that don't further his goal. The entire episode is merely a springboard for his pet causes.
It's a damn shame that a story like this, that is at the cutting edge of so many of the changes taking place in our society, is given such two-dimensional coverage. Oddly, Katz regularly criticizes traditional media sources as out of touch with the "new age", yet a 'dinosaur' like the New York Times is just what's needed, a journal that employs professionals capable of sorting out all of the details and then communicting the facts to readers who then make up their own minds. It's ironic that Katz's obvious limitations, as revealed in this piece and many others, are the proof that "dinosaurs' still have their place.
Reminds me a bit of the Ebay/Auto Dealer fiasco of about a year ago. Apparently, an auto dealer that specialized in unique used vehicles (hearses, etc) developed a "special partnership" with Ebay. The dealer realized that, with an initial feedback rating of "0" it would be difficult to entice prospective buyers to bid on a car worth thousands of dollars. So, in an attempt to circumvent the hurdle, the dealer distributed a memo to Ebay HQ (and/or possibly, to the rest of the dealership staff), encouraging those who were able to pad the dealers feedback rating. Lo and behold, immediately the dealer's feedback rating shot up as the result of numerous glowing "neutral" feedbacks, although he hadn't completed a single auction!
Of course, when a copy of the memo was leaked to Auctionwatch, or some such site, Ebay immediately issued a statement decrying the padded feedback, claiming that it was all the result of an employee at the dealership that didn't understand the "integrity" of the feedback process (conveniently removing the monkey from Ebay's back and placing it on the dealer's)
Ebay's complicity with MS and Scientology is not at all surprising: all three organizations speak the same language.
There's been some hinting that re-selling MS software is somehow illegal. Is this the case? As I recall, various court decisions over the past few years have affirmed the fact that, once boought, a legitimate copy of software is mine to do with as I please, short of copying it for the purpose of selling pirated versions.
Why doesn't it surprise me that Ebay and MS are mentioned in the same article/context as the Church of Scientology? And Gates wants the world to believe he's battling the DOJ on behalf of consumers, so that he can continue to "innovate"? Christ, I hope Jackson and the DOJ gives it to old Bill REAL GOOD!
I work for a division of the Federal government that emloys several thousand people. Many of my fellow employees are introduced to computers and the Internet on-the-job: the software they use at work will naturally tend to become the software they'll choose when the time comes to buy a home system. Microsoft is, with a single exception, the first choice of the computer specialists and network administrators who manage the systems we use. From Windows 9X to Internet Explorer to Office. The exception: CCMail is the most common E-Mail app, but Outlook is available and becoming more prevalent.
Microsoft's dominance of our computer environment has always troubled me, and not merey because of the advantage it gives MS in the marketplace. I object to MS's high-profile presence because I believe that MS often produces a lower quality product.
The French idea is an interesting solution to this problem, although I wonder how much of the "France-First" policy is involved. Is this an attempt by the French legislature to loosen the grip of MS, an American company, upon their governemnt and culture? Remember the Frenchman that bulldozed a partially built McDonald's and became a national hero for doing his part to resist the incipient influence of America? Is there something of that in the "Open Source" proposal?
Regardless of the motives of the French, the proposal is very intruiging. I'd love to see something similar implemented in my place of employment, but I'm sure that there are some, if not many, Network Administrators that would scream bloody murder.
Strange...In a country that's constantly apologizing and correcting itself for any perceived offense, past or present, to any minority, or those of alternative sexual preferences, or females, etc, etc, it's still just peachy to offend "conservatives and humorless" and even trumpet the fact that you're doing so. Would you have posted a link to "Ask a Nigger.Com" and, in the same breath, implied that those that didn't find it funny were "humorless"? Of course not. How many of you with moderator points, after seeing the word 'nigger' in this post, immediately felt the urge to moderate it down? Somehow, American society has been programmed to be hyper-sensitive to the feelings of minorities, gays, and females, yet we can still ridicule conservatives, Christians, and their values with impunity.
Don't misunderstand me: I'm not implying that the "Political Correctness" (PC) umbrella be extended to protect conservatives and the religious. Rather, that we should all be aware that the modern mania for PC is hypocritical at it's core and, worse, tends to suppress, rather than encourage, free speech.
My apologies, posted to the wrong forum
Excellent point, wish I had moderator capability, I'd give this one a boost.
First, l complement you for going to the source, our Constitution, to look for an answer before going anywhere else.
However much I would like to agree with you, I have to ask this question: doesn't that apply to the implementation of such taxes by the Federal, rather than State, Government? The states are free to assign any form of tax their legislatures or citizenry desire.
I find it interesting that a fundamental issue is often ignored in arguments concerning taxation. The fact that the Federal government, and many, if not most, state governments are already scooping huge, and ever increasing, portions of dollars from our back pockets. Although the most substantial of these taxes, the Federal Income Tax, and the various State income taxes, are cleverly designed to be 'masked' from the citizens (it's paid bit by bit, throughout the year, rather than all at once and employers, rather than the 'taxpayer' actually pay it) we're still aware of the fact that an enormous amount of our income is taken by government. We naturally resist the idea of ANY sort of new taxation because we recognize that taxes are to governments what rock-cocaine is to a crackhead: their craving is essentially a bottomless pit.
So, as you say, fair or unfair is not the question. Rather, it's 'Why in hell are we paying so much in taxes in the first place?' 'Walk-in' retailers should be confronting governments with that question rather than demanding that all retailers be forced to pay equally exorbitant sales taxes.
Reminds me of a similar situation here in Oklahoma: Oklahoma has some of the worst roads I've ever seen yet it's vehicle registration fees are some of the highest in the country. Of course, the State claims that the fees are used for Highway Improvement! The citizenry has become so disgusted with the hypocrisy they've begun to register their vehicles in neighboring states, where the fees are much cheaper.
What was the States response? The imposition of stiff fines for those that register their vehicles in other states.
It never occurred to the legislature that the disconnect between expensive fees and road quality motivated citizens to circumvent state policy and that, perhaps, fees should be reduced in response to the discontent of the citizenry.
So, on the one hand the people react to unfair taxation or fees be seeking alternatives (On-Line retailers or vehicle registration in neighboring states) yet on the other hand governments ignore the deeper questions posed by the actions of its citizens and merely force all retailers, On-Line or Walk-In, to pay the same taxes or it fines those that register out of state.
I distrust, and am dissatisfied with, our government and am convinced that the implementation of the Income Tax in the early part of this century was actually the beginning of the end of our Country. Uncle Sam has access to the bottomless pit of it's citizen's income and, government being what it is, he'll not be satisfied until he wrings every spare dollar from us. Some might think that extreme, but I challenge those that do: While doing your taxes this year compare the amount you pay in Federal income tax with your overall salary and ask yourself this question: how many months did I spend working for Uncle Sam and NONONE else? I believe I worked from January through March merely to pay Federal income tax. Now add Social Security, medicare, state income tax, etc, etc....
And yet many politicians can't seem to understand the hostility of the average citizen to new forms of taxation....
The senior Bush said it best (if only he'd been able to stick to it): "NO NEW TAXES!"
Movie reviews...Finally something Katz can handle. I, for one, encourage Katz to stick to cinema reviews while leaving deeper issues to those capable of discussing them intelligently and rationally. Unfortunately, I doubt Katz will appreciate the suggestion and, of course, for some mysterious reason, SlashDot will continue to provide him with a soapbox.
I too am one of those that makes a relatively good living but, because of a shortfall in the responsibility department (or something) I fail to consitently pay some bills in a timely manner and, as a result, my credit rating has suffered.
I've decided to wait untill my small bank gears up their Billpay service rather than hook-up with Yahoo or other specialty service. My Bank is supposed to get the show on the raod early this year, but they've been dragging their heels.... I'm getting a bit irritated with them: I look forward to the day when I can set all of my bills on autopilot and let the bank do the work.
I'm not certain if my Bank is developing their own system or will be using a web-based method. I prefer the web-based: it seems tried and true.
One big perk for those who EBAY: winning bidders can use their Online Billpay service to immediately send payment to the seller: no need to go to the bank for a money order or to the post office to mail the payment, or even to spring for the cost of a stamp. I win at least 3 or 4 auctions a week on EBay: keeping track of those that have been sent and those pending is both tiresome and time consuming. With Online Billpay all one need do is enter the payee information and include a note in the comments section speciying the auction #. The bank does the rest.
I've been told that there is a drawbcack to this method: the envelopes the bank uses look generic and are occasionally assumed to be junk-mail and tossed in the trash by unsuspecting sellers. It's important to inform the seller that the payment will arrive in a business-style envelope with typewritten printing rather than the common scribbled EBay buyer's scratches.