Software is written because software is a set of instructions. Software is a set of scripts that respond to events.
That's probably true for a lot of software, but it isn't the only use or view of software. A lot of the stuff I use/need/write is data manipulation software. In other words, there are a lot of parameters and variables that get manipulated in a lot of sequential or conditional steps and are displayed to the user. I tend to view the "manipulation" as a box with various inputs (the data, conditionals, parameters, etc.) and outputs (manipulated data, reduced data, etc.).
Think image processing type software, or any sort of math/algorithm processing. This type of programming could be done visually quite easily. I find it a lot easier to see the data flow by drawing it out anyway. Written coding is usually just translating the drawings I do on my whiteboard into instructions. With thousands or even millions of lines of code, it's impossible to see how a bit of data gets manipulated everywhere. Visually, it's much simpler to see all the paths that it can take.
Another type of software that could be done visually quite easily is controller-type software, like a lot of embedded software. Control systems have inhently been visual for a long time.
But I suppose there is a large chunk of software that doesn't work well this way. I'm not really a programmer so there's a ton of applications I have never experienced.
Yes, I had actually written LabVIEW in originally, but then re-wrote the sentence and forgot to include it. It seems to be one of the more famous examples.
...how likely is it that a visually-designed program will be even worse than a text program...
Depends on how it is done. There are some well designed visual modeling & simulation development tools for electronics (Simulink, PSpice, etc.) and mechanical systems (finite element, etc.) These do a relatively good job of simulating "systems". Software processes are not that different from physical processes in electronics and mechanical system. Software rules (e.g., syntax) are analagous to physical laws.
I actually think this is a good idea, if done properly (i.e., not by Microsoft). I'd be a little surprised if this hasn't already been done, I guess nobody has done it well yet.
Perhaps a good open source project. In fact, it could be a big stepping stone for open source. If visual programming (no, not as in Visual C/C++, Basic, etc.) makes programming easier and faster, think of how many more people (like me) could get involved in open source projects. I actually really like this idea.
You can't sue the government generally, or it's agents, unless Congress gives you permission.
(IANAL but...) I'm not sure where this comes from. It's quite easy to sue various forms of government and government agents, such as the police (false arrest, rights violations), prosecutors (prosecutorial misconduct), Congress , and variousfederalagencies.
Remember the "correlation and causation are different things" idea
Yes, and it goes both ways. A decrease in sales doesn't mean it's piracy. So, in essence, there is no economic "proof" either way.
Also, keep in mind, that the "correlation isn't causation" is a deductive reasoning objection. It doesn't mean that correlation isn't evidence, convincing or otherwise, it just means it isn't conclusive proof.
To note the difference, we must investigate other potential explanations for the correlation. What other factors could contribute to the increase in CD sales? Has the Australian economy improved since 1998? Apparently the number of released CDs has decreased, so that can't explain it. Has music marketing gone up? Is there any other explanation? I honestly don't know, I don't have the resources to investigate these other factors.
Again, not conclusive proof, but certainly suggestive evidence.
This bill has absolutely no effect at all on your life unless you choose to do something which is against the law.
How very wrong. When rights are violated, everybody suffers. Even criminals have rights. One important right that everyone has is not to be subject to cruel and unusual punishment, i.e., the punishment fits the crime. This goes beyond "cruel and unusual". It's freakin' file-sharing for Christ sakes. It's copyright violation, and this law would treat it the same as a quite violent crime.
It is ignorant to say it doesn't affect you unless you break the law. Does that mean we should allow laws that punish littering with beheadings? Your same statement applies.
An odd statement to make given that the main article is about proof of anti-competitive and illegal activities of Microsoft, not to mention their recent European fines for similar activities.
What exactly does Microsoft have to do wrong before you'll consider "Microsoft bashing" reasonable. Perhaps if they clubbed some baby seals?
your rhetorical question "Have you never heard of a monopoly?" clearly implied it.
No, you incorrectly inferred it when it wasn't relevent to the point. You had stated "If the market is willing to pay what the seller's asking, then that's the price." in response to a comment about "over-inflated prices". Your statement rules out monopolistic pricing as a problem. Your statement and my response are not tied to any reference to the music industry.
The goods that the record companies produce are, by definition, THEIRS, and so they can charge whatever they want, take it or leave it.
Yes, and such a price might very well be over-inflated. Even you said that is possible, but when I said it you said it wasn't.
Are you asserting that you have some RIGHT to Britney Spears music.
My god, no. If anything, the opposite. However, you seem to be confusing the concept of "over-inflated" with a "right" to a price. As a recap, here's the progression of points:
I said "They are trying to maintain overinflated prices", which you quoted directly and responded with "If the market is willing to pay what the seller's asking, then that's the price. That's how markets work. If you don't like the pricing, don't buy." Which lead to where we are now.
The point is, and has always been, that they are improperly, and possibly illegally, trying to force out competing technology which would reduce prices. That is anti-competitive. You seem to claim that they can set whatever price they want, but they can't do so by eliminating competition. Competition doesn't only mean companies, it also includes technologies and processes.
It sounded as if you advocated completely scrapping the existing business.
No, not at all. The business model, yes. It is inherently inefficient and artificially expensive at the expense of both consumers and artists. It's the middle-men who profit from inefficiency and they control it all, and are working hard to eliminate any competition or loss of this control.
The bullshit-mongerers need to be fired and real engineers brought in who will come up with a real answer.
As one of the engineers who is working on getting the shuttles back up and flying, I take offense to that. Just getting them back up to the ISS is extremely expensive and difficult. Examining the thermal protection system for damage is no simple task. And that's just detecting and measuring damage. Fixing damage in space is far more difficult and expensive to develop. Finally, the necessity for an alternate return method, i.e., a lifeboat, can't be met going to Hubble.
Can the shuttle be made to go to Hubble safely. Probably. But the expense and time involved would be astronomical. It'd probably be cheaper to build and send up a new Hubble on a rocket.
But if you think the problem is people making excuses, you're full of crap. Real engineers are working their asses off just to get the shuttles to return to the ISS. Hubble is a magnitude more difficult and expensive to reach. It's simply been decided that it is not worth it. Nobody is burying their head in the sand here.
I am not saying we shouldn't go to Hubble. But the problem, as I see it, is that nobody has even come close to demonstrating that the effort and expense are worth it yet. Yes, some areas of scientific work will suffer for a few years, but these are just a small fraction of the whole field of astronomy. There are alternatives to some of this work, like the Keck I and II observatories and other adaptive optics telescopes which can rival or better Hubble in many areas. Yes, admittedly, there are some wavelengths that can't be matched by ground-based. But I have yet to hear any convincing argument about why the work in these wavelengths over the few lost years of Hubble would be significant enough to make the expense and effort to get the shuttles safely to Hubble worth it. For the most part, it sounds more like impatience with a little bit of "spoiled" whining thrown in. (That is, a lot of "We've been able to use Hubble before so why should we give it up now.") No, I don't believe that is the "best" level of argument for keeping Hubble, but it's hard to find the good arguments through all the "noise".
To me, the "bullshit-mongers" are those who suggest that NASA isn't looking at this seriously, or those who seem to think Hubble is some sacred god that must be saved at any expense. Most people arguing it needs to be saved don't understand the amount of time, expense, and effort to do so. The opposite also applies somewhat, those who would have to make this effort (and time and expense) don't fully understand the importance of this apparently "short-term" loss of data over a "few" wavelengths. You'd do much better to make your case on why this is necessary than spewing untrue claims and insults about "heads in the sand". My mind is open, but all I'm hearing is insults and contempt, not reasons.
Do they remember that if it weren't for America most of Europe would be speaking Russian ?
What the...? Is it April 1st already? Or were you serious? Please clarify with documentation of Russia's plan to conquer Europe. This is big news that the rest of the world wasn't aware of. Good thing you have these secret documents in your possession.
Or that Europe would still be a pile of bombed ruins ?
Double-"huh?" Why would it "still" be a pile of ruins. When was it in the first place. Are you talking about post-WWII? How was the U.S. responsible for cleaning up after WWII? So this secret Russian plan was to conquer Europe and leave it a mess? Sounds like a visit from some moocher relatives crashing at my place.
And we actually knew all along about this particular problem
If you mean the foam, yes, that's the point. NASA knew about it, but didn't consider it to be serious because it had been seen a number of times before without damaging the wing, and therefore is withing "engineering experience".
What nobody paid attention to was the seriosness of this danger, and the logical fallacy of the "it hasn't caused significant damage yet, therefore it must be ok" belief.
At the time, there was no way to get it working, but not for lack of trying
Actually, it was in large part due to lack of trying. Nobody considered it a priority or a serious problem. That's a major point in the CAIB report. Part of the problem was also that the technology didn't exist to detect the damage they need to look for. The high precision 3D sensors they are putting on the shuttle for inspection (as low as 1/4" holes and 0.03" wide cracks) didn't exist at the time.
It's ridiculous to change our tune this late in the game
What?!?!?! So you're telling me that once a serious risk has been identified, and that we've been putting things at great risk for years, that it is wrong to now recognize it is a serious risk and act accordingly. Does this make the least bit of sense? It's a serious risk. People's lives are in danger. Billions of dollars are at risk. Whole space programs could shut down if another shuttle is lost. We've been doing it wrong for years, and you seem to think this is justification for continuing to do it wrong. That just baffles me, and makes me glad you are running any high-risk programs that I'm involved with. Perhaps you should re-think your case here.
Read the CAIB report. Nobody really understood the risk then. The shuttle had been prematurely declared "operational" (for political reasons) when it was (and is) still experimental. NASA had become complacent in failures and irregularities because they were "within experience", meaning they were using the faulty logic of "these things have gone wrong before without disaster, therefore they are ok".
And yes, "we" (NASA) were a little stupid to go to Hubble in the first place with an experimental vehicle with multiple known problems and little means of detecting or fixing them. It was, and is, a big risk. We just got lucky for awhile but the odds finally caught up with us.
1) What is between the planets?
In my experience when asking college educated people, at least 25%+ answer stars.
Well, that could be a correct answer. If the universe is closed (e.g., like the "surface of a sphere" analogy), you could take a direct route in which there'd be many stars between planets in our solar system.
... continue to do so if a small investment is made...
This is why your analogy is bad. The point is that it is not a small investment. NASA would have to violate the recommendations of the CAIB report for safety, actually create known unsafe conditions, and risk the entire shuttle (and ISS) program just to keep the Hubble alive. This is most definitely not a small investment.
But is it worth the substantial risk? I'm not sure. I'd need to know more about what progress can be achieved in the few years between Hubble's planned shutdown and James Webb coming online. Would this loss put science decades behind in progress, or just a few years? It's something the whole community (NASA, astronomers, Congress, public) would have to decide, with promises not to shut down NASA programs if things go awry.
...don't buy the music, and let them know that you didn't buy the music because they had no samples available.
You seem to be an idealist. You may think this is the way things work, but it doesn't. There is no central location where we can all go and tell artists/record companies that we didn't buy their album because there were no samples? There is no easy way to contact artists/companies to let them know. Even if we did know how do contact them, most people don't have the time or the motivation to do so.
And when would you do this? If you haven't heard the artist through samples, how do you know to check them out or contact them about not having samples? If there are dozens of artists you might be interested in, do you track each one separately and contact them? This approach is just unfeasible.
The realistic way to demonstrate the point that they should have samples is to show that artists with samples, available in a common easy to access location, sell better. Unfortunately, there isn't an easy way to do that right now. P2P is the closest, and the connection isn't direct because it isn't easy to track all music and correlate it with sales.
This is exactly what airline passengers have been hoping for.
No, this isn't. It actually decreases security. Israel has had success because they've implemented security measures that actually increase security. (Read the above link to see the difference.)
If this were additional and everyone "designated green and allowed through routine screening" were still subject to the same level of random screening then security would only be increased.
No, you didn't understand the paper. You have added resources (personnel doing screening and/or more screenings) to the equation. The question is, would those new resources be better put to use doing the "flagged" screenings or random screenings. The answer is still that random is better.
It's not the resources that is the problem, it's that passengers can figure out their rating by taking a number of flights. Under those circumstances, random will always be best for security.
Try this example. Suppose the "general public" searches occur 8% of the time, and the "flagged" searches occur 25% of the time. You take a few trips and notice you get searched about 25% of the time, but your buddy only gets searched about 8% of the time. If you wanted to smuggle something on board, you should let your friend do it since he has only an 8% chance of getting caught and you have 25%.
Now, suppose the people doing the "flagged" searches stopped doing them and instead started doing random searches in addition to the ones being doing (say, 10% of passengers now). Now you and your buddy both have the same 10% chance of getting caught. It doesn't matter if you give the "stuff" to your friend or not, the chance of them finding it now is 10% instead of 8%. So random searches are more secure.
Perhaps you should read the other posts about the Carnival Booth algorithm which demonstrates (quite effectively) that this approach actually decreases security, and that it puts you (and other passengers) at higher risk.
Actually, if you read the paper, pure random screen is even better than weighted, which is suprisingly few (I believe they estimated 6 flights). The point is that the passengers can determine their own rating given enough flights to get representative statistics. Even in a weighted case, you could determine your own probability of getting searched.
In a truly random search, your chance would be X%. If you adjust the security resources to do more searches on "weighted" individuals, everybody else drops below X%, say to (X-Y)%, (since the "weighted" ones will be higher than X%, and the total searches hasn't changed. So terrorist groups would just have to find those who are in the (X-Y)% category and use them as terrorists. The chances of discovering them is (X-Y)% in the "weigted" approach, and X% in the purely random approach. Clearly, random is better.
"Flagged" screening only works if the passengers don't know it's being done to them. This means do random searches of passengers, but do "flagged" searches on luggage without the passenger's knowledge.
You don't seem able to understand your own statements:
1. I never said the record companies were monopolies, though they arguably are. You said "If the market is willing to pay what the seller's asking, then that's the price. That's how markets work. If you don't like the pricing, don't buy.". This is a general statement. By this definition, monopolies are fair, regardless of the market or context.
As to whether the record/movie companies are a monopoly or not, it's a grey area. First, there's the RIAA and MPAA which set policy for their member companies. Second, you missed the point that these companies control both the recording services and the distribution, and lock the artist into these. If you want to buy music from a certain artist, the competition only shows up at the record store level, and at that point the costs have already been jacked up because of the recording and distribution costs. These companies benefit by being inefficient and charging the end user for their inefficiency. We can't get the same product through a competitor who is more efficient.
2. Now you are saying there's no such thing as "jacking up" prices? This rules out the possibility of gouging. Are these just made up words? You seem to rule them out as possible by your definition that whatever they want to charge is a fair price.
3. That's fine. If your mom wants to pay more for what is "easiest" for her, that's her prerogative. Nobody said they couldn't still produce CDs and distribute them in the same way. The point is that this inefficient approach is not necessary and artificially inflates the prices for end-users.
The technology is there, give us the option. Stop forcing us into a bloated inefficient business model that costs us extra. Competition is supposed to create progress and lower prices in this way. The RIAA approach is counter to the point of competition. That's the point you're missing.
Well, let's see. There's the RIAA possibly having a big hand in writing California's policy on P2P. Then there's antitrust exemption. There's also the DMCA, which among other things give the RIAA the power to issue supoenas. So I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest the government is "hand-holding".
On the other hand, there are also many examples of Senators and Congressmen who oppose the RIAA approach and these laws. So it's not a black-and-white issue of where the government stands.
Slashdot Mirror
That's probably true for a lot of software, but it isn't the only use or view of software. A lot of the stuff I use/need/write is data manipulation software. In other words, there are a lot of parameters and variables that get manipulated in a lot of sequential or conditional steps and are displayed to the user. I tend to view the "manipulation" as a box with various inputs (the data, conditionals, parameters, etc.) and outputs (manipulated data, reduced data, etc.).
Think image processing type software, or any sort of math/algorithm processing. This type of programming could be done visually quite easily. I find it a lot easier to see the data flow by drawing it out anyway. Written coding is usually just translating the drawings I do on my whiteboard into instructions. With thousands or even millions of lines of code, it's impossible to see how a bit of data gets manipulated everywhere. Visually, it's much simpler to see all the paths that it can take.
Another type of software that could be done visually quite easily is controller-type software, like a lot of embedded software. Control systems have inhently been visual for a long time.
But I suppose there is a large chunk of software that doesn't work well this way. I'm not really a programmer so there's a ton of applications I have never experienced.
Yes, I had actually written LabVIEW in originally, but then re-wrote the sentence and forgot to include it. It seems to be one of the more famous examples.
Depends on how it is done. There are some well designed visual modeling & simulation development tools for electronics (Simulink, PSpice, etc.) and mechanical systems (finite element, etc.) These do a relatively good job of simulating "systems". Software processes are not that different from physical processes in electronics and mechanical system. Software rules (e.g., syntax) are analagous to physical laws.
I actually think this is a good idea, if done properly (i.e., not by Microsoft). I'd be a little surprised if this hasn't already been done, I guess nobody has done it well yet.
Perhaps a good open source project. In fact, it could be a big stepping stone for open source. If visual programming (no, not as in Visual C/C++, Basic, etc.) makes programming easier and faster, think of how many more people (like me) could get involved in open source projects. I actually really like this idea.
(IANAL but...) I'm not sure where this comes from. It's quite easy to sue various forms of government and government agents, such as the police (false arrest, rights violations), prosecutors (prosecutorial misconduct), Congress , and various federal agencies.
Yes, and it goes both ways. A decrease in sales doesn't mean it's piracy. So, in essence, there is no economic "proof" either way.
Also, keep in mind, that the "correlation isn't causation" is a deductive reasoning objection. It doesn't mean that correlation isn't evidence, convincing or otherwise, it just means it isn't conclusive proof.
To note the difference, we must investigate other potential explanations for the correlation. What other factors could contribute to the increase in CD sales? Has the Australian economy improved since 1998? Apparently the number of released CDs has decreased, so that can't explain it. Has music marketing gone up? Is there any other explanation? I honestly don't know, I don't have the resources to investigate these other factors.
Again, not conclusive proof, but certainly suggestive evidence.
How very wrong. When rights are violated, everybody suffers. Even criminals have rights. One important right that everyone has is not to be subject to cruel and unusual punishment, i.e., the punishment fits the crime. This goes beyond "cruel and unusual". It's freakin' file-sharing for Christ sakes. It's copyright violation, and this law would treat it the same as a quite violent crime.
It is ignorant to say it doesn't affect you unless you break the law. Does that mean we should allow laws that punish littering with beheadings? Your same statement applies.
Eat up Martha.
An odd statement to make given that the main article is about proof of anti-competitive and illegal activities of Microsoft, not to mention their recent European fines for similar activities.
What exactly does Microsoft have to do wrong before you'll consider "Microsoft bashing" reasonable. Perhaps if they clubbed some baby seals?
Which immediately makes the script more appealing.
No, you incorrectly inferred it when it wasn't relevent to the point. You had stated "If the market is willing to pay what the seller's asking, then that's the price." in response to a comment about "over-inflated prices". Your statement rules out monopolistic pricing as a problem. Your statement and my response are not tied to any reference to the music industry.
The goods that the record companies produce are, by definition, THEIRS, and so they can charge whatever they want, take it or leave it.
Yes, and such a price might very well be over-inflated. Even you said that is possible, but when I said it you said it wasn't.
Are you asserting that you have some RIGHT to Britney Spears music.
My god, no. If anything, the opposite. However, you seem to be confusing the concept of "over-inflated" with a "right" to a price. As a recap, here's the progression of points:
I said "They are trying to maintain overinflated prices", which you quoted directly and responded with "If the market is willing to pay what the seller's asking, then that's the price. That's how markets work. If you don't like the pricing, don't buy." Which lead to where we are now.
The point is, and has always been, that they are improperly, and possibly illegally, trying to force out competing technology which would reduce prices. That is anti-competitive. You seem to claim that they can set whatever price they want, but they can't do so by eliminating competition. Competition doesn't only mean companies, it also includes technologies and processes.
It sounded as if you advocated completely scrapping the existing business.
No, not at all. The business model, yes. It is inherently inefficient and artificially expensive at the expense of both consumers and artists. It's the middle-men who profit from inefficiency and they control it all, and are working hard to eliminate any competition or loss of this control.
As one of the engineers who is working on getting the shuttles back up and flying, I take offense to that. Just getting them back up to the ISS is extremely expensive and difficult. Examining the thermal protection system for damage is no simple task. And that's just detecting and measuring damage. Fixing damage in space is far more difficult and expensive to develop. Finally, the necessity for an alternate return method, i.e., a lifeboat, can't be met going to Hubble.
Can the shuttle be made to go to Hubble safely. Probably. But the expense and time involved would be astronomical. It'd probably be cheaper to build and send up a new Hubble on a rocket.
But if you think the problem is people making excuses, you're full of crap. Real engineers are working their asses off just to get the shuttles to return to the ISS. Hubble is a magnitude more difficult and expensive to reach. It's simply been decided that it is not worth it. Nobody is burying their head in the sand here.
I am not saying we shouldn't go to Hubble. But the problem, as I see it, is that nobody has even come close to demonstrating that the effort and expense are worth it yet. Yes, some areas of scientific work will suffer for a few years, but these are just a small fraction of the whole field of astronomy. There are alternatives to some of this work, like the Keck I and II observatories and other adaptive optics telescopes which can rival or better Hubble in many areas. Yes, admittedly, there are some wavelengths that can't be matched by ground-based. But I have yet to hear any convincing argument about why the work in these wavelengths over the few lost years of Hubble would be significant enough to make the expense and effort to get the shuttles safely to Hubble worth it. For the most part, it sounds more like impatience with a little bit of "spoiled" whining thrown in. (That is, a lot of "We've been able to use Hubble before so why should we give it up now.") No, I don't believe that is the "best" level of argument for keeping Hubble, but it's hard to find the good arguments through all the "noise".
To me, the "bullshit-mongers" are those who suggest that NASA isn't looking at this seriously, or those who seem to think Hubble is some sacred god that must be saved at any expense. Most people arguing it needs to be saved don't understand the amount of time, expense, and effort to do so. The opposite also applies somewhat, those who would have to make this effort (and time and expense) don't fully understand the importance of this apparently "short-term" loss of data over a "few" wavelengths. You'd do much better to make your case on why this is necessary than spewing untrue claims and insults about "heads in the sand". My mind is open, but all I'm hearing is insults and contempt, not reasons.
What the...? Is it April 1st already? Or were you serious? Please clarify with documentation of Russia's plan to conquer Europe. This is big news that the rest of the world wasn't aware of. Good thing you have these secret documents in your possession.
Or that Europe would still be a pile of bombed ruins ?
Double-"huh?" Why would it "still" be a pile of ruins. When was it in the first place. Are you talking about post-WWII? How was the U.S. responsible for cleaning up after WWII? So this secret Russian plan was to conquer Europe and leave it a mess? Sounds like a visit from some moocher relatives crashing at my place.
momentum
If you mean the foam, yes, that's the point. NASA knew about it, but didn't consider it to be serious because it had been seen a number of times before without damaging the wing, and therefore is withing "engineering experience".
What nobody paid attention to was the seriosness of this danger, and the logical fallacy of the "it hasn't caused significant damage yet, therefore it must be ok" belief.
At the time, there was no way to get it working, but not for lack of trying
Actually, it was in large part due to lack of trying. Nobody considered it a priority or a serious problem. That's a major point in the CAIB report. Part of the problem was also that the technology didn't exist to detect the damage they need to look for. The high precision 3D sensors they are putting on the shuttle for inspection (as low as 1/4" holes and 0.03" wide cracks) didn't exist at the time.
It's ridiculous to change our tune this late in the game
What?!?!?! So you're telling me that once a serious risk has been identified, and that we've been putting things at great risk for years, that it is wrong to now recognize it is a serious risk and act accordingly. Does this make the least bit of sense? It's a serious risk. People's lives are in danger. Billions of dollars are at risk. Whole space programs could shut down if another shuttle is lost. We've been doing it wrong for years, and you seem to think this is justification for continuing to do it wrong. That just baffles me, and makes me glad you are running any high-risk programs that I'm involved with. Perhaps you should re-think your case here.
Read the CAIB report. Nobody really understood the risk then. The shuttle had been prematurely declared "operational" (for political reasons) when it was (and is) still experimental. NASA had become complacent in failures and irregularities because they were "within experience", meaning they were using the faulty logic of "these things have gone wrong before without disaster, therefore they are ok".
And yes, "we" (NASA) were a little stupid to go to Hubble in the first place with an experimental vehicle with multiple known problems and little means of detecting or fixing them. It was, and is, a big risk. We just got lucky for awhile but the odds finally caught up with us.
Well, that could be a correct answer. If the universe is closed (e.g., like the "surface of a sphere" analogy), you could take a direct route in which there'd be many stars between planets in our solar system.
This is why your analogy is bad. The point is that it is not a small investment. NASA would have to violate the recommendations of the CAIB report for safety, actually create known unsafe conditions, and risk the entire shuttle (and ISS) program just to keep the Hubble alive. This is most definitely not a small investment.
But is it worth the substantial risk? I'm not sure. I'd need to know more about what progress can be achieved in the few years between Hubble's planned shutdown and James Webb coming online. Would this loss put science decades behind in progress, or just a few years? It's something the whole community (NASA, astronomers, Congress, public) would have to decide, with promises not to shut down NASA programs if things go awry.
You seem to be an idealist. You may think this is the way things work, but it doesn't. There is no central location where we can all go and tell artists/record companies that we didn't buy their album because there were no samples? There is no easy way to contact artists/companies to let them know. Even if we did know how do contact them, most people don't have the time or the motivation to do so.
And when would you do this? If you haven't heard the artist through samples, how do you know to check them out or contact them about not having samples? If there are dozens of artists you might be interested in, do you track each one separately and contact them? This approach is just unfeasible.
The realistic way to demonstrate the point that they should have samples is to show that artists with samples, available in a common easy to access location, sell better. Unfortunately, there isn't an easy way to do that right now. P2P is the closest, and the connection isn't direct because it isn't easy to track all music and correlate it with sales.
As pointed out in other posts, not only with this decrease security, apparently "behavior that may seem "too normal" might be flagged".
No, this isn't. It actually decreases security. Israel has had success because they've implemented security measures that actually increase security. (Read the above link to see the difference.)
No, you didn't understand the paper. You have added resources (personnel doing screening and/or more screenings) to the equation. The question is, would those new resources be better put to use doing the "flagged" screenings or random screenings. The answer is still that random is better.
It's not the resources that is the problem, it's that passengers can figure out their rating by taking a number of flights. Under those circumstances, random will always be best for security.
Try this example. Suppose the "general public" searches occur 8% of the time, and the "flagged" searches occur 25% of the time. You take a few trips and notice you get searched about 25% of the time, but your buddy only gets searched about 8% of the time. If you wanted to smuggle something on board, you should let your friend do it since he has only an 8% chance of getting caught and you have 25%.
Now, suppose the people doing the "flagged" searches stopped doing them and instead started doing random searches in addition to the ones being doing (say, 10% of passengers now). Now you and your buddy both have the same 10% chance of getting caught. It doesn't matter if you give the "stuff" to your friend or not, the chance of them finding it now is 10% instead of 8%. So random searches are more secure.
Perhaps you should read the other posts about the Carnival Booth algorithm which demonstrates (quite effectively) that this approach actually decreases security, and that it puts you (and other passengers) at higher risk.
Actually, if you read the paper, pure random screen is even better than weighted, which is suprisingly few (I believe they estimated 6 flights). The point is that the passengers can determine their own rating given enough flights to get representative statistics. Even in a weighted case, you could determine your own probability of getting searched.
In a truly random search, your chance would be X%. If you adjust the security resources to do more searches on "weighted" individuals, everybody else drops below X%, say to (X-Y)%, (since the "weighted" ones will be higher than X%, and the total searches hasn't changed. So terrorist groups would just have to find those who are in the (X-Y)% category and use them as terrorists. The chances of discovering them is (X-Y)% in the "weigted" approach, and X% in the purely random approach. Clearly, random is better.
"Flagged" screening only works if the passengers don't know it's being done to them. This means do random searches of passengers, but do "flagged" searches on luggage without the passenger's knowledge.
1. I never said the record companies were monopolies, though they arguably are. You said "If the market is willing to pay what the seller's asking, then that's the price. That's how markets work. If you don't like the pricing, don't buy.". This is a general statement. By this definition, monopolies are fair, regardless of the market or context.
As to whether the record/movie companies are a monopoly or not, it's a grey area. First, there's the RIAA and MPAA which set policy for their member companies. Second, you missed the point that these companies control both the recording services and the distribution, and lock the artist into these. If you want to buy music from a certain artist, the competition only shows up at the record store level, and at that point the costs have already been jacked up because of the recording and distribution costs. These companies benefit by being inefficient and charging the end user for their inefficiency. We can't get the same product through a competitor who is more efficient.
2. Now you are saying there's no such thing as "jacking up" prices? This rules out the possibility of gouging. Are these just made up words? You seem to rule them out as possible by your definition that whatever they want to charge is a fair price.
3. That's fine. If your mom wants to pay more for what is "easiest" for her, that's her prerogative. Nobody said they couldn't still produce CDs and distribute them in the same way. The point is that this inefficient approach is not necessary and artificially inflates the prices for end-users.
The technology is there, give us the option. Stop forcing us into a bloated inefficient business model that costs us extra. Competition is supposed to create progress and lower prices in this way. The RIAA approach is counter to the point of competition. That's the point you're missing.
Well, let's see. There's the RIAA possibly having a big hand in writing California's policy on P2P. Then there's antitrust exemption. There's also the DMCA, which among other things give the RIAA the power to issue supoenas. So I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest the government is "hand-holding".
On the other hand, there are also many examples of Senators and Congressmen who oppose the RIAA approach and these laws. So it's not a black-and-white issue of where the government stands.