Academic enviroments are usually 10x worse than work enviroments. Having just fled from gradschool I can safely say that I witnessed proffessors actively supressing students research efforts simply because the student's research made their own research look bad. (Truth and exploration be damed)
The romantic notion of pure research and a academic kinship is a load of crap. In academics funding is all that matters and funding is based on how geewiz you can make your research look. And god forbid that upstart down the hall brings your theories into questions.
I would disagree with you and say that one-click installs and easy as possible software is necessary to be competitive, because not everyone who uses a tool will want to spend the time to learn the intricacies of the whole tool. And to a lot of people a computer is just a tool.
Or if it is social engineering to make people think things have to be easy have all the auto companies socially engineered the masses into thinking one key turn car starting is necessary, after all it would certainly make it harder to steal a car if you had to manually adjust your fuel system every time you start it. (Remember when we use to actually push down on the gas petal to start a car... imagine if you had to get out and adjust a carburetor, prime the system and hand crank it.)
It's not social engineering by MS (put the foil hat away). It is what people have wanted from technology since the begining, to be easy to use.
Now imagine a car company saying", hey wouldn't it be easier if we could remotely open, start or shutoff our users cars so we can help them if they need it."
Oh wait they did do that. How come I don't hear sudden stories about massive car thefts with remote devices that can do what the manufacturer does? Or cars that won't start because they are receiving an incorrect kill signal? Oh yeah, because in the effort to make things easier car companies took the time to make them secure.
Stop blaming poor computer security on making systems easier to use and put the blame where it belongs, on those who poorly implement their ideas(be it MS or anyone else).
It was my understanding that the phone companies had to open their lines up because their infrastructure was in part funded by the government. And a lot of the initial capitol to build a reliable phone system was provided by the taxpayers.
I thought the cable companies totally funded the construction (or purchase of pre-existing) system, and had no government assistance financially or otherwise? If this is the case is it fair to force a private company to allow competitors to use the fruits of their labor?
I picture a similar case being United Parcel Services being forced to share it's truck fleet with the competition, just because no one else can afford to buy their own trucks.
Raytheon makes numerous missile systems, and of course the targeting systems that go with them.
They are currently working on a missle system called claws. The system is an air defence system and ideally deployed from the back of 2 HMMWV's one to carry the missle system and one to carry a small radar/guidence system.... hmmmmm
Yeah...
ummm..
Taxes are NOT a method of weath redistribution. Taxes are what the government forces the citizenry to pay in exchange for basic services such as roads, military protection, police, fire and schools. I am not paying taxes so my money can go to those who don't work. (And I distinguish the difference between unemployment benifits and welfare... of which the latter is abused much more often.)
I believe in helping my neighbor, but on MY terms and in amounts I deem reasonable, I don't need the government to force me to help others.
I'm sorry but I have to entirely disagree with your statements. I think the mother should be held entirely liable for what her daughter has done. I think any parent should be held entirely responsible for the actions of their children.
If a child steals a father's gun and shoots someone the father should be as responsible as the child. It is all part of raising children and if parents can't control their children then they need to get help. It may sound a bit callous, but I think parents need some harsh treatment so they wake up and stop making the movie, music, television, schools and video games raise their kids
Your dam right the politicians should be worrying about being re-elected. You know how they do that, by passing the bills that the majority of people who VOTE for them want. You can tell a congressman what you want until you are blue in face, but if you don't vote they will ignore you. And if the guy you voted for doesn't get into office, well unfortunately you are in the minority of opinion and no matter how many revelations you stage you will not change what the majority of people will want or let the government do for them. (Now don't get me started on that... the stupidity of Joe Sixpack and the short sighted desires are something that drives me up the wall.)
(Potential trolling here...) There is not secret massive population of people who are not allowed to voice their opinion, or vote. However there is a massive population of people who take no part in the government, don't even bother to learn how it works and then bitch about revolution whenever the government makes decisions they don't like.
If you don't vote for people who represent your issues then how are the governing officials suppose to know what you want. The PATRIOT act went through because the congress men who did not vote for it were not re-elected, and vice versa, those who did were re-elected during the mid term elections (you know there were elections in 2002). That tells the government that people like the bill. At least a majority of those who voted did, so they think a majority of the population is ok with it.
Of course there are special interest groups, but that is simply an issue of a large group of people getting together and deciding that they hold one issue as more important than any other and use it as a single selection criteria. For instance if you could show that a vast majority of the VOTING public will vote for a candidate solely on the issue of removing the PATRIOT act I guarantee you it would be gone in 2005.
Problem is people (and by people I mean the general public) still think things like abortion, affirmative action, gay sex and copyright enforcement are vitally important and reasons to select a candidate.
Actually, you can vote on this sort of thing. Happens every time you elect your congressman, senator, or other politician. Your vote can go to the man who says,"I will not buy anymore Windows products for the government." Problem is majorities of people care more about other things (Crime, moral issues, hair style, political party, just to name a few).
It is one of my pet peves when people play the apathy card. "There's nothing we could have done..." That's not true, what the politicians do and what they claim they will do is out there, you just have to spend the time to look it up.
Now in a case where the elected official lies (and we all know the NEVER do that) then you make sure that their ass is expelled next time elections come up. Not only removes him but gives his replacement a clear message.
Of Government is not a passive sport. Your either playing or being played.
How would you go about deciding who gets a vote and who does not? And how does a 'pure' democracie increase the value of your single vote in a country of Millions anyway?
Should we go back to the good old days, only land owners get a vote? Should we require an IQ test and only those who score high enough can vote?
Unfortunatly, the cost of living in a large country is living with lots of people.
I'll admit, a vote cast is only a single small voice that may make little difference. But an uncast vote WILL make NO difference.
(If 99% of the country had voted in 2000 do you think Bush would be in office... I don't blame the people who voted for him, I blame the people who did not vote against him)
Our founding fathers would be thrilled that the government they put together has lasted as long as it has. The government system is not broken, the social system is. If enough people got together and wanted change it would happen (that whole democracy thing) problem is too many people don't think their vote counts, or that it just doesn't matter because you can only vote for one or two induhviduals. That is how the majority gets wrangled by the minority.
What only ~50% of the eligiable voters voted in 2000 for our current president (and associated administration) of that only about 50% of the those who voted, voted for Bush (or less depending who you talk to). That means our current Presedent was elected by only 25% of the people (or less). Do you think with that sort of percentage, the government is going to represent the majority, hardly.
Is the system broken, no, do lazy couch potatos have to get off their @$$ and participate in the US government to work, yes. And their in lies the problem.
My only hope is that the debacle that was our last presidential election has convinced a lot of people that even their vote can count, and that participation increases. That may allow our country to be taken back from extremist groups.
I would argue that sending the money to social programs make it 'as good as gone' just as fast. With our current set up we are building a society of couch potatos who can make more money of unemployment than they can working.
I would rather see the money spend on people striving to answer a very difficult question. And in the process forced to develop technology that has very general applications. The money is not wasted... after all, all that money 'wasted' on the early space exploration only generated:
computers (no economic return there...) Plastics (nope that stuff sure dosen't get used) Fuel Cell advancement (Never see a market for those trikets) Satillites (what economic benifit could possibly come from that)
And that is the short list. People at the time groaned about the wast of money on such a useless task as 'getting to the moon' what people never understand is that it is not just the goal that is important, but everything that has to be designed or invented to reach the goal, that is where the payoff is found.
If driving was simply a function of keeping your eyes on the road, there would be no problem... the thing is you have to PAY ATTENTION when you are driving. I don't remember where I saw the numbers, but I remember recently reading an article that suggested hands free cell phone uses drive as bad and crash as often as those who do not use hands free kits.
Now with the desire to integrate a LCD screens, DVD player, Video Games and a whole host of distractions I loath to think what driving will be like in the future. People need to just drive their car and worry about amusing themselves when they are not hurling down the road at 60 MPH.
I'm sorry but someone needs to kick these U.S. lawmakers is the ass (that means you people).
What happened to the U.S. government actually addressing serious issues in the world. We have a internal economy that is in shambles because the government can't enforce accounting regulations that (get this) ARE ALREADY ON THE BOOKS. The U.S. is in the mist of a international nightmare with two countries (Afganistan... remember them, and Iraq) waiting on us to clean up the messes we made flexing our stockpiled military hardware, and a global reputation as an angry child with a big stick. And these Congressmen think some sort of priority should be set on protecting an ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY.
Please... I understand the law should be enforced but do you think a cop is going to write out parking ticket in the middle of a murder arrest. When the FBI can tell me that organized crime has been eliminated, all escaped fellons have been captured, all murders have been prevented and all the missing children have been found. Then maybe we should let them look at the music industries small copyright issues. (and I mean small... I don't believe the industry is suffering one bit, we made only XXX billions instead of XXXX billions.. BOOO HOOOO.)
OK, I want to premise this with, I do not work for Ford or any of the other Detroit boys. However, I noticed many people bashing Ford for not implementing this tech or that tech that could produce a fuel-efficient car. Or all the pissing and moaning about not building smaller non-SUV vehicles.
Well, unlike the software industry, there is no monopoly in the auto-industry. If a manufacture wants to survive they must make what the public is buying. So if Ford wants to stay competitive and a profitable company, they have to make what people will buy.
Every one shouts about how horrible the SUVâ(TM)s are for the environment, yet I see one parked in almost every driveway. I donâ(TM)t blame Ford for building the vehicles; I blame the general populace for buying them. If everyone were to go nuts about Metroâ(TM)s you can bet your bottom dollar that every car company would be scrambling to put out the best compact car with all the toys. But as it is, the demand by those seeking compensa⦠status, skyrockes, it forces even traditionally sports car companies (Porsche) to release an SUV model just to stay competitive.
You donâ(TM)t want SUVâ(TM)s, then donâ(TM)t buy one, not even to take the kids to soccer, not even for that once, maybe twice a year when there is more than an inch of snow on the roads.
Well, the(official) technical results results of the competition are not released for a few weeks afterwards. This is so the judges and teams get first crack at examining the data and making sure there are no, hiccups in the data that was used. And believe me this has happened before, especially when you have the âOfficial testersâ(TM) driving the vehicle with all the windows open when they were suppose to be checking for best possible aero drag, not worst.
As for durability, give a crew of crack machinists welders and electricians and Iâ(TM)ll bet there would have been a lot fewer brake downs. You need to remember these students put the vehicles together themselves. Many of them have never touched a lath,soldering iron, mill or TIG welder before joining on. There are no manufacturing shops for these teams, anything they want in the vehicle they have to design AND fabricate themselves. Or in the case of premade components, they still have to integrate it into the vehicle.
Finally, the competition encourages the teams to use obscure technology on their vehicles. The point is to bring publicity to this technology (either good or bad) and to help educate EVERYONE involved about what is plausible and what is not. Would you have ever even heard of urea injection or bio-diesel if it had not been mentioned here?
(BTW. Bio-diesel is not really obscure or unlikely; it may actually be a feasible alternative fuel that could help alleviate some of our dependence on oil products and is in the works on becoming widely available.)
Ford does not necessarily implement all the ideas found in the designs of the students for mostly economic reasons. Some parts and solutions still simply cost to much to implement in anything more than a prototype vehicle.
What Ford is really after from these competitions are the students. I was a member of the UW-team in the mid to late nineties when we worked on the futurcar project. Our team took first place for a two-year running back then as well. And I would say about 7 out of the 10 core members were hired and now work in the R&D area for Ford.
Ford is not sponsoring the competition for new tech, they are using it as a cheap (relatively) job training program, and for the cost of a car/truck and few spare parts, Ford gets engineers fresh out of college who already have a few years (give or take) experience frankenstineing together their parts to build new and better cars.
Who do you think is designing and building the hybrid-Escape? The engineers who were leading the future car teams during the competitions back in 96-98.
Ummm... I lived in Madison for a few years while I was attending the College of Engineering there. I don't like the way they paint the city as this little town with nothing but adult bookstores and used car lots. The city is the state capitol. Aside from the capitol is a large University. The city has its fair share of malls, chain stores, as well as brand spanking new mulit-million dollar arts district being constructed down town. Hell, Raven software and a few other software companies are in Madison. I'll admit the city is no Chicago, New York or L.A., but it is hardly a po-dunk population 100 town with no oppertunites. I don't know what big city events he is looking for, but I can't imagine anything I can do here in Washington D.C. that I could not have easily done in Madison. There is just more traffic here.
As far as him finding opportunities, I think there is problem with the person not the city. If he devoted 7hrs a day to the local university Iâ(TM)ll bet he would learn more and accomplish more than he does playing A.O.
Based on previous posts, I would classify him as an addict rather than a hardcore gamer. If he is unhappy with his life then he needs to get out from behind his computer and out on the streets looking to better his life. Opportunity is won, not found or given.
Why you ask? NASA has been suffering in the last decade (or few) because Joe-public just doesn't see space exploration at 'neat' anymore. Why bother to go out into space when there is nothing but rocks and dust.
If even the simplist form of life could be found somewhere other than Earth, It may re-ignite the passion of the general public to reach out and see what we can find. The space program may recieve not only the money, but the intrest of our nation, or the world again.
Slashdot Mirror
You have a good point
Academic enviroments are usually 10x worse than work enviroments. Having just fled from gradschool I can safely say that I witnessed proffessors actively supressing students research efforts simply because the student's research made their own research look bad. (Truth and exploration be damed)
The romantic notion of pure research and a academic kinship is a load of crap. In academics funding is all that matters and funding is based on how geewiz you can make your research look. And god forbid that upstart down the hall brings your theories into questions.
I would disagree with you and say that one-click installs and easy as possible software is necessary to be competitive, because not everyone who uses a tool will want to spend the time to learn the intricacies of the whole tool. And to a lot of people a computer is just a tool.
Or if it is social engineering to make people think things have to be easy have all the auto companies socially engineered the masses into thinking one key turn car starting is necessary, after all it would certainly make it harder to steal a car if you had to manually adjust your fuel system every time you start it. (Remember when we use to actually push down on the gas petal to start a car... imagine if you had to get out and adjust a carburetor, prime the system and hand crank it.)
It's not social engineering by MS (put the foil hat away). It is what people have wanted from technology since the begining, to be easy to use.
Now imagine a car company saying", hey wouldn't it be easier if we could remotely open, start or shutoff our users cars so we can help them if they need it."
Oh wait they did do that. How come I don't hear sudden stories about massive car thefts with remote devices that can do what the manufacturer does? Or cars that won't start because they are receiving an incorrect kill signal? Oh yeah, because in the effort to make things easier car companies took the time to make them secure.
Stop blaming poor computer security on making systems easier to use and put the blame where it belongs, on those who poorly implement their ideas(be it MS or anyone else).
It was my understanding that the phone companies had to open their lines up because their infrastructure was in part funded by the government. And a lot of the initial capitol to build a reliable phone system was provided by the taxpayers.
I thought the cable companies totally funded the construction (or purchase of pre-existing) system, and had no government assistance financially or otherwise? If this is the case is it fair to force a private company to allow competitors to use the fruits of their labor?
I picture a similar case being United Parcel Services being forced to share it's truck fleet with the competition, just because no one else can afford to buy their own trucks.
Please correct me if I am wrong.
Raytheon makes numerous missile systems, and of course the targeting systems that go with them.
They are currently working on a missle system called claws. The system is an air defence system and ideally deployed from the back of 2 HMMWV's one to carry the missle system and one to carry a small radar/guidence system.... hmmmmm
Yeah... ummm.. Taxes are NOT a method of weath redistribution. Taxes are what the government forces the citizenry to pay in exchange for basic services such as roads, military protection, police, fire and schools. I am not paying taxes so my money can go to those who don't work. (And I distinguish the difference between unemployment benifits and welfare... of which the latter is abused much more often.) I believe in helping my neighbor, but on MY terms and in amounts I deem reasonable, I don't need the government to force me to help others.
I'm sorry but I have to entirely disagree with your statements. I think the mother should be held entirely liable for what her daughter has done. I think any parent should be held entirely responsible for the actions of their children.
If a child steals a father's gun and shoots someone the father should be as responsible as the child. It is all part of raising children and if parents can't control their children then they need to get help. It may sound a bit callous, but I think parents need some harsh treatment so they wake up and stop making the movie, music, television, schools and video games raise their kids
Your dam right the politicians should be worrying about being re-elected. You know how they do that, by passing the bills that the majority of people who VOTE for them want. You can tell a congressman what you want until you are blue in face, but if you don't vote they will ignore you. And if the guy you voted for doesn't get into office, well unfortunately you are in the minority of opinion and no matter how many revelations you stage you will not change what the majority of people will want or let the government do for them. (Now don't get me started on that... the stupidity of Joe Sixpack and the short sighted desires are something that drives me up the wall.)
(Potential trolling here...)
There is not secret massive population of people who are not allowed to voice their opinion, or vote. However there is a massive population of people who take no part in the government, don't even bother to learn how it works and then bitch about revolution whenever the government makes decisions they don't like.
If you don't vote for people who represent your issues then how are the governing officials suppose to know what you want. The PATRIOT act went through because the congress men who did not vote for it were not re-elected, and vice versa, those who did were re-elected during the mid term elections (you know there were elections in 2002). That tells the government that people like the bill. At least a majority of those who voted did, so they think a majority of the population is ok with it.
Of course there are special interest groups, but that is simply an issue of a large group of people getting together and deciding that they hold one issue as more important than any other and use it as a single selection criteria. For instance if you could show that a vast majority of the VOTING public will vote for a candidate solely on the issue of removing the PATRIOT act I guarantee you it would be gone in 2005.
Problem is people (and by people I mean the general public) still think things like abortion, affirmative action, gay sex and copyright enforcement are vitally important and reasons to select a candidate.
Actually, you can vote on this sort of thing. Happens every time you elect your congressman, senator, or other politician. Your vote can go to the man who says,"I will not buy anymore Windows products for the government." Problem is majorities of people care more about other things (Crime, moral issues, hair style, political party, just to name a few).
It is one of my pet peves when people play the apathy card. "There's nothing we could have done..." That's not true, what the politicians do and what they claim they will do is out there, you just have to spend the time to look it up.
Now in a case where the elected official lies (and we all know the NEVER do that) then you make sure that their ass is expelled next time elections come up. Not only removes him but gives his replacement a clear message.
Of Government is not a passive sport. Your either playing or being played.
How would you go about deciding who gets a vote and who does not? And how does a 'pure' democracie increase the value of your single vote in a country of Millions anyway?
Should we go back to the good old days, only land owners get a vote? Should we require an IQ test and only those who score high enough can vote?
Unfortunatly, the cost of living in a large country is living with lots of people.
I'll admit, a vote cast is only a single small voice that may make little difference. But an uncast vote WILL make NO difference.
(If 99% of the country had voted in 2000 do you think Bush would be in office... I don't blame the people who voted for him, I blame the people who did not vote against him)
Rubish
Our founding fathers would be thrilled that the government they put together has lasted as long as it has. The government system is not broken, the social system is. If enough people got together and wanted change it would happen (that whole democracy thing) problem is too many people don't think their vote counts, or that it just doesn't matter because you can only vote for one or two induhviduals. That is how the majority gets wrangled by the minority.
What only ~50% of the eligiable voters voted in 2000 for our current president (and associated administration) of that only about 50% of the those who voted, voted for Bush (or less depending who you talk to). That means our current Presedent was elected by only 25% of the people (or less). Do you think with that sort of percentage, the government is going to represent the majority, hardly.
Is the system broken, no, do lazy couch potatos have to get off their @$$ and participate in the US government to work, yes. And their in lies the problem.
My only hope is that the debacle that was our last presidential election has convinced a lot of people that even their vote can count, and that participation increases. That may allow our country to be taken back from extremist groups.
I would argue that sending the money to social programs make it 'as good as gone' just as fast. With our current set up we are building a society of couch potatos who can make more money of unemployment than they can working.
I would rather see the money spend on people striving to answer a very difficult question. And in the process forced to develop technology that has very general applications. The money is not wasted... after all, all that money 'wasted' on the early space exploration only generated:
computers (no economic return there...)
Plastics (nope that stuff sure dosen't get used)
Fuel Cell advancement (Never see a market for those trikets)
Satillites (what economic benifit could possibly come from that)
And that is the short list. People at the time groaned about the wast of money on such a useless task as 'getting to the moon' what people never understand is that it is not just the goal that is important, but everything that has to be designed or invented to reach the goal, that is where the payoff is found.
/.
We've upped our standards
Now up yours
If driving was simply a function of keeping your eyes on the road, there would be no problem... the thing is you have to PAY ATTENTION when you are driving. I don't remember where I saw the numbers, but I remember recently reading an article that suggested hands free cell phone uses drive as bad and crash as often as those who do not use hands free kits.
Now with the desire to integrate a LCD screens, DVD player, Video Games and a whole host of distractions I loath to think what driving will be like in the future. People need to just drive their car and worry about amusing themselves when they are not hurling down the road at 60 MPH.
I'm sorry but someone needs to kick these U.S. lawmakers is the ass (that means you people).
What happened to the U.S. government actually addressing serious issues in the world. We have a internal economy that is in shambles because the government can't enforce accounting regulations that (get this) ARE ALREADY ON THE BOOKS. The U.S. is in the mist of a international nightmare with two countries (Afganistan... remember them, and Iraq) waiting on us to clean up the messes we made flexing our stockpiled military hardware, and a global reputation as an angry child with a big stick.
And these Congressmen think some sort of priority should be set on protecting an ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY.
Please... I understand the law should be enforced but do you think a cop is going to write out parking ticket in the middle of a murder arrest. When the FBI can tell me that organized crime has been eliminated, all escaped fellons have been captured, all murders have been prevented and all the missing children have been found. Then maybe we should let them look at the music industries small copyright issues. (and I mean small... I don't believe the industry is suffering one bit, we made only XXX billions instead of XXXX billions.. BOOO HOOOO.)
OK, I want to premise this with, I do not work for Ford or any of the other Detroit boys. However, I noticed many people bashing Ford for not implementing this tech or that tech that could produce a fuel-efficient car. Or all the pissing and moaning about not building smaller non-SUV vehicles. Well, unlike the software industry, there is no monopoly in the auto-industry. If a manufacture wants to survive they must make what the public is buying. So if Ford wants to stay competitive and a profitable company, they have to make what people will buy. Every one shouts about how horrible the SUVâ(TM)s are for the environment, yet I see one parked in almost every driveway. I donâ(TM)t blame Ford for building the vehicles; I blame the general populace for buying them. If everyone were to go nuts about Metroâ(TM)s you can bet your bottom dollar that every car company would be scrambling to put out the best compact car with all the toys. But as it is, the demand by those seeking compensa⦠status, skyrockes, it forces even traditionally sports car companies (Porsche) to release an SUV model just to stay competitive. You donâ(TM)t want SUVâ(TM)s, then donâ(TM)t buy one, not even to take the kids to soccer, not even for that once, maybe twice a year when there is more than an inch of snow on the roads.
Well, the(official) technical results results of the competition are not released for a few weeks afterwards. This is so the judges and teams get first crack at examining the data and making sure there are no, hiccups in the data that was used. And believe me this has happened before, especially when you have the âOfficial testersâ(TM) driving the vehicle with all the windows open when they were suppose to be checking for best possible aero drag, not worst.
As for durability, give a crew of crack machinists welders and electricians and Iâ(TM)ll bet there would have been a lot fewer brake downs. You need to remember these students put the vehicles together themselves. Many of them have never touched a lath,soldering iron, mill or TIG welder before joining on. There are no manufacturing shops for these teams, anything they want in the vehicle they have to design AND fabricate themselves. Or in the case of premade components, they still have to integrate it into the vehicle.
Finally, the competition encourages the teams to use obscure technology on their vehicles. The point is to bring publicity to this technology (either good or bad) and to help educate EVERYONE involved about what is plausible and what is not. Would you have ever even heard of urea injection or bio-diesel if it had not been mentioned here?
(BTW. Bio-diesel is not really obscure or unlikely; it may actually be a feasible alternative fuel that could help alleviate some of our dependence on oil products and is in the works on becoming widely available.)
Ford does not necessarily implement all the ideas found in the designs of the students for mostly economic reasons. Some parts and solutions still simply cost to much to implement in anything more than a prototype vehicle.
/truck and few spare parts, Ford gets engineers fresh out of college who already have a few years (give or take) experience frankenstineing together their parts to build new and better cars.
What Ford is really after from these competitions are the students. I was a member of the UW-team in the mid to late nineties when we worked on the futurcar project. Our team took first place for a two-year running back then as well. And I would say about 7 out of the 10 core members were hired and now work in the R&D area for Ford.
Ford is not sponsoring the competition for new tech, they are using it as a cheap (relatively) job training program, and for the cost of a car
Who do you think is designing and building the hybrid-Escape? The engineers who were leading the future car teams during the competitions back in 96-98.
Shouldn't they reschedule the launch for the Fourth of July??
Ummm... I lived in Madison for a few years while I was attending the College of Engineering there. I don't like the way they paint the city as this little town with nothing but adult bookstores and used car lots. The city is the state capitol. Aside from the capitol is a large University. The city has its fair share of malls, chain stores, as well as brand spanking new mulit-million dollar arts district being constructed down town. Hell, Raven software and a few other software companies are in Madison. I'll admit the city is no Chicago, New York or L.A., but it is hardly a po-dunk population 100 town with no oppertunites. I don't know what big city events he is looking for, but I can't imagine anything I can do here in Washington D.C. that I could not have easily done in Madison. There is just more traffic here. As far as him finding opportunities, I think there is problem with the person not the city. If he devoted 7hrs a day to the local university Iâ(TM)ll bet he would learn more and accomplish more than he does playing A.O. Based on previous posts, I would classify him as an addict rather than a hardcore gamer. If he is unhappy with his life then he needs to get out from behind his computer and out on the streets looking to better his life. Opportunity is won, not found or given.
Why you ask? NASA has been suffering in the last decade (or few) because Joe-public just doesn't see space exploration at 'neat' anymore. Why bother to go out into space when there is nothing but rocks and dust. If even the simplist form of life could be found somewhere other than Earth, It may re-ignite the passion of the general public to reach out and see what we can find. The space program may recieve not only the money, but the intrest of our nation, or the world again.