What other nation of the world could guarantee the free speech implicit to the internet, as sites like slashdot are testament to?
I agree with you about US internet governance. But the slashdot moderation process creates effective censorship, so I wouldn't hold it up as a shining example of free speech. Your posting is a good example. It is labelled as a troll. I think it is a serious statement. But those who disagree with it can hide it though moderation, rather than take the time to refute it.
Yeah but that was 20 years ago. Just like USA used to be able to land on the Moon 30 years ago. Try it right now and you will see that USA is not capable of doing these things anymore. It just costs too much for you to pay for it.
I'm sure it is an attractive prospect for you, but you are dillusional. The post shuttle expendable launch vehicles use the best of shuttle technology that NASA has mastery of already - the SSME, shuttle tankage, and the SRB. The the effort fits within NASA's budget, minus the space shuttle. It will take a few years to extricate ourselves from the shuttle/space station mess. I remind you that the US has lofted the vast majority of that boondoggle.
Now, take China. It seems quite likely that they will rule the world in 20 years time. 1 billion people working for the government, you just can't beat that.
I am not so sure. China exports neither culture nor technology. They are a low cost producer but do not innovate. They have a second rate military. Nobody other than a starving North Korean would ever try to immigrate. I do not know how you foresee them achieving world hegemony. They are certainly able to cause mischief, with Taiwan and Japan. But we in the US are lucky to have them because their products and government supported currency raise our standard of living.
Maybe you missed the connection that the Space shuttle is a government vehicle, and is not accepting or launching commercial payload?
Are you suggesting that the Arianne V is a commercial vehicle developed by a few free market entrepreneurs? How ridiculous! Its development was subsidized by Europe to the tune of billions of Euros. Niether it nor the US EELV's will ever loft enough commercial payloads to pay for its development.
I came across this as shining example of some of the pointless projects going on at M$ Labs.
The goal of the "New dimensions in Excel" project is to empower end-user programmers (that is, Excel users who are not professional programmers) to tackle more challenging applications. At the moment, larger and more complex spreadsheets often require the help of a professional programmer to write part of the application in Visual Basic. Our extensions would extend the "reach" of what can be done without leaving the familiar cells-and-formulae paradigm that has proved so successful in practice.
...They're at the cutting edge, and they're well financed.
Guffaw! At least they are well financed.
Let me be the first to say...
on
Hardening Linux
·
· Score: 1, Funny
Strewth, Americans really have a thing about socialism. Just invoking the word scares people,
I'd say it is more like loathing. In 1980 when President Reagan came to power a general concensus formed. The US would seek an increase in standards of living through maximizing economic growth and levels of employment, not through government control of the economy or wealth redistribution. This is the basis modern conservatism in the US. The policy was a departure from a 20+ year flirtation with socialism that culminated in Carter's disastrous presidency.
even though the rest of the Western world has, to some degree or other, accepted and embraced facets socialism (the Welfare State, socialised medicine).
The US is attuned to ideas from the rest of the world. But we believe most socialist ideas have been discredited.
When your elderly people have to travel to Canada to buy cheap drugs, it's socialism that they're benefiting from.
Simple microeconomics. Naturally Canadian price distortions will attract American buyers. The question is does the Canadian model promote a healty, innovative drug industry? You could just as easily talk about the many Canadians that come to the US for surgery because it is rationed there.
Now, I'm not an apologist for Stalinism, but socialism, in it's most basic form means "sharing." It means looking after your fellow man, particularly those who have nothing. Attach a bearded guy, and a couple of nails and it turns into Christianity.
In the US we have enumerable charitable religious organisations who live by the ethos you describe. The question is if it is the role of government to implement it. In the US you have the right to pursue happiness. The rest is up to you.
The experiment adds weight to the theory of panspermia - that life could somehow be transported between planets.
Given that the panspermia theory has the weight of a neutrino, that isn't very much. Organisms in small asteroids would be incinerated in earth's atmosphere. Bugs ridding larger ones would have to survive awesome shock forces and intense kinetic heating. Earth is such an ideal organic molecular playground it doesn't seem necessary to invoke some outside agent, like Mars. I think Occam's Razor applies here. I do not doubt that meteor and cometary infall were sources of lots of organic material during the period of heavy bombardment, and that they enhanced conditions for the formation of life.
While not condoning blogs that incited violence, he said that there was a lack of media coverage explaining why ethnically segregated inhabitants of some of France's poorest cities have been driven to riot.
Even after all the terror and carnage muslim "leaders" still give tacit approval to terror. Such people should be deported without a second thought. I hope the French authorities beat the tar our of these miscreants.
That there will be active volcanos on Venus, if only for the simple fact that it's apparently close enough to the Sun to be "as hot as hell", but not quite close enough to be baked to a cinder like Mercury, plus there was some interesting things observed when we last sent a probe - even with lens-cap problem.
Venus average surface temperature is higher than Mercury. Mercury is not backed like a cinder. It is composed of basaltic silicates, iron and nickel, refractory oxides. These materials have a very high melting point. Venus has active volcanoes. We already have detailedimagesofthem.
Oh yeah - show me how ID uses mathematics. And not just "Noah's ark was 100cubits long".
I am not a proponent of 'ID'. I am a proponent of evolution. I just point out that evolutionary theory is underdeveloped. For whatever reason the ideas have stagnated since Darwin, so that now blithering idiots like yourself vehemently defend evolution without even understanding it deeply.
I have felt for a while that the long term future of space research (both commercial and for national prestige) lies in Asia. I think much of the critical materials research will come from Japan, reliable rocket technology from India and China, electronics from Taiwan and Korea, and governmental support for major advances mainly from China.
I disagree. Japan has no real manned space plan other than hitching rides on the US space shuttle. They have a decent but expensive booster in the H2. Nothing distinctive from US, Russian, or European boosters. They do not have exceptional engine technology or launch facilities. China and India have second tier programs. How you project China to be dominant in space is not clear. Maybe you just dislike the US are rooting for them.
The US and Europe will increasingly have other concerns, with the political will for expensive space projects generally lacking. While the US will probably be able to claim the "credit" for the militarisation of space, I do not believe the US desire to feed its defense industry with boondoggles like an "anti missile shield" will lead to much useful technology for space exploration, exploitation or eventual colonisation.
The US is motivated to dominate lunar exploration for the only reason that it is becoming feasable for other countries. We have already heard Mike Griffin refer to lunar landing capability as 'strategic'. Why would the US just want to abdicate its current position? You are not making sense. Furthermore military space (imaging, electronic surveillance, GPS) is more important than ever to the US with the proliferation of missle and nuclear technology. These military technologies have had profound impact on our daily lives and will continue to do so.
Certainly, national pride in its ability to achieve practical results with a lower budget than the Americans is a factor.
I love the moderators of this site. This post is so not intended as flamebait. It is a serious *critical* discussion of an important idea. The process of evolution is observational fact. I just maintain that the mechanisms are poorly understood.
All these studies apply statistical techniques that are based around the theory of evolution. I don't understand what else you are driving at to try and deny this. I also don't understand your criteria for grading theories from A to D. On the face of it it seems absurd.
I refer you to "The Emperor's New Mind" by Roger Penrose, and "Searching for Certainty" by John Casti for similar arguments about judging scientific theories are. I did not invent this idea. Penrose in particular is fairly critical about our understanding of the human brain. Neither author was as critical of evolution as I am. As for governing dynamic theory I refer you to any classical dynamics text and the Principle of Least Action, one of the most amazing ideas in theoretical physics.
And you wonder why there is no predicitivty to it. Shit man, they can't predict the weather either.
But atmospheric scientists understand why they can't. Many dynamical systems become unpredictable when initial conditions not known to high precision. It is inescapable mathematically. But there is nothing wrong with Navier-Stokes equations, just the stability of the numerical solution. Where are evolution's dynamical equations?
I do not understand what you mean by lacking predictive power.
Scientists refer to 'evolutionary forces'. Can those forces be quantified? Can they be used to predict morphological changes in subsequent generations. Can we show by mathematical deduction why humans have changed so much in 4 million years and a Coelocanth has not changed in 350 million. The theory is out there. Generations of organisms are responding to some stimulus. Mathematically, what is it?
Slashdot Mirror
What other nation of the world could guarantee the free speech implicit to the internet, as sites like slashdot are testament to?
I agree with you about US internet governance. But the slashdot moderation process creates effective censorship, so I wouldn't hold it up as a shining example of free speech. Your posting is a good example. It is labelled as a troll. I think it is a serious statement. But those who disagree with it can hide it though moderation, rather than take the time to refute it.
Does this seem like a little bit of zealotry?
Not to me. But then again I'm pissed off that the project is exporting the confusing term 'open source' instead of the clarifying 'free software'.
Check out the mission website. Cool stuff.
Yeah but that was 20 years ago. Just like USA used to be able to land on the Moon 30 years ago. Try it right now and you will see that USA is not capable of doing these things anymore. It just costs too much for you to pay for it.
I'm sure it is an attractive prospect for you, but you are dillusional. The post shuttle expendable launch vehicles use the best of shuttle technology that NASA has mastery of already - the SSME, shuttle tankage, and the SRB. The the effort fits within NASA's budget, minus the space shuttle. It will take a few years to extricate ourselves from the shuttle/space station mess. I remind you that the US has lofted the vast majority of that boondoggle.
Now, take China. It seems quite likely that they will rule the world in 20 years time. 1 billion people working for the government, you just can't beat that.
I am not so sure. China exports neither culture nor technology. They are a low cost producer but do not innovate. They have a second rate military. Nobody other than a starving North Korean would ever try to immigrate. I do not know how you foresee them achieving world hegemony. They are certainly able to cause mischief, with Taiwan and Japan. But we in the US are lucky to have them because their products and government supported currency raise our standard of living.
The validity of this patent remains to be seen, but the general consensus of the physics community seems to be that it is complete malarky.
Well, given this site's moderator's affinity for junk science it is no wonder that the story ended up here. You have to wonder what they are thinking.
Maybe you missed the connection that the Space shuttle is a government vehicle, and is not accepting or launching commercial payload?
Are you suggesting that the Arianne V is a commercial vehicle developed by a few free market entrepreneurs? How ridiculous! Its development was subsidized by Europe to the tune of billions of Euros. Niether it nor the US EELV's will ever loft enough commercial payloads to pay for its development.
"only commercial vehicle that can launch two mainstream telecommunications satellite payloads on the same mission."
The shuttle once launched 3 geosynchonous satellites in a single mission. This is not a big deal. I am surprised the moderators found it news worthy.
I don't know your background, but I have never met anyone with a substantial CS background to say anything bad about MS research
Does Cornell qualify as l33t enough?
For the record, I am a GNU/Linux zealot
I came across this as shining example of some of the pointless projects going on at M$ Labs.
The goal of the "New dimensions in Excel" project is to empower end-user programmers (that is, Excel users who are not professional programmers) to tackle more challenging applications. At the moment, larger and more complex spreadsheets often require the help of a professional programmer to write part of the application in Visual Basic. Our extensions would extend the "reach" of what can be done without leaving the familiar cells-and-formulae paradigm that has proved so successful in practice.
Guffaw! At least they are well financed.
GNU/Linux is hard enough
Strewth, Americans really have a thing about socialism. Just invoking the word scares people,
I'd say it is more like loathing. In 1980 when President Reagan came to power a general concensus formed. The US would seek an increase in standards of living through maximizing economic growth and levels of employment, not through government control of the economy or wealth redistribution. This is the basis modern conservatism in the US. The policy was a departure from a 20+ year flirtation with socialism that culminated in Carter's disastrous presidency.
even though the rest of the Western world has, to some degree or other, accepted and embraced facets socialism (the Welfare State, socialised medicine).
The US is attuned to ideas from the rest of the world. But we believe most socialist ideas have been discredited.
When your elderly people have to travel to Canada to buy cheap drugs, it's socialism that they're benefiting from.
Simple microeconomics. Naturally Canadian price distortions will attract American buyers. The question is does the Canadian model promote a healty, innovative drug industry? You could just as easily talk about the many Canadians that come to the US for surgery because it is rationed there.
Now, I'm not an apologist for Stalinism, but socialism, in it's most basic form means "sharing." It means looking after your fellow man, particularly those who have nothing. Attach a bearded guy, and a couple of nails and it turns into Christianity.
In the US we have enumerable charitable religious organisations who live by the ethos you describe. The question is if it is the role of government to implement it. In the US you have the right to pursue happiness. The rest is up to you.
You're right. It depends on size. I guess it doesn't hurt to look in meteorites for microbes.
The experiment adds weight to the theory of panspermia - that life could somehow be transported between planets.
Given that the panspermia theory has the weight of a neutrino, that isn't very much. Organisms in small asteroids would be incinerated in earth's atmosphere. Bugs ridding larger ones would have to survive awesome shock forces and intense kinetic heating. Earth is such an ideal organic molecular playground it doesn't seem necessary to invoke some outside agent, like Mars. I think Occam's Razor applies here. I do not doubt that meteor and cometary infall were sources of lots of organic material during the period of heavy bombardment, and that they enhanced conditions for the formation of life.
While not condoning blogs that incited violence, he said that there was a lack of media coverage explaining why ethnically segregated inhabitants of some of France's poorest cities have been driven to riot.
Even after all the terror and carnage muslim "leaders" still give tacit approval to terror. Such people should be deported without a second thought. I hope the French authorities beat the tar our of these miscreants.
That there will be active volcanos on Venus, if only for the simple fact that it's apparently close enough to the Sun to be "as hot as hell", but not quite close enough to be baked to a cinder like Mercury, plus there was some interesting things observed when we last sent a probe - even with lens-cap problem.
Venus average surface temperature is higher than Mercury. Mercury is not backed like a cinder. It is composed of basaltic silicates, iron and nickel, refractory oxides. These materials have a very high melting point. Venus has active volcanoes. We already have detailed images of them.
You should also consider: http://pluto.jhuapl.edu/ http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/ http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/mro/ ...
And your point is?
I say, send these Intelligent Drivers ideologues back to Kansas where they came from!
(1) No need to be available publicly for the driver (They can distribute it as the closed source software)
I'm from Kansas. These fellers don't sound like they're from around here.
Oh yeah - show me how ID uses mathematics. And not just "Noah's ark was 100cubits long".
I am not a proponent of 'ID'. I am a proponent of evolution. I just point out that evolutionary theory is underdeveloped. For whatever reason the ideas have stagnated since Darwin, so that now blithering idiots like yourself vehemently defend evolution without even understanding it deeply.
I have felt for a while that the long term future of space research (both commercial and for national prestige) lies in Asia. I think much of the critical materials research will come from Japan, reliable rocket technology from India and China, electronics from Taiwan and Korea, and governmental support for major advances mainly from China.
I disagree. Japan has no real manned space plan other than hitching rides on the US space shuttle. They have a decent but expensive booster in the H2. Nothing distinctive from US, Russian, or European boosters. They do not have exceptional engine technology or launch facilities. China and India have second tier programs. How you project China to be dominant in space is not clear. Maybe you just dislike the US are rooting for them.
The US and Europe will increasingly have other concerns, with the political will for expensive space projects generally lacking. While the US will probably be able to claim the "credit" for the militarisation of space, I do not believe the US desire to feed its defense industry with boondoggles like an "anti missile shield" will lead to much useful technology for space exploration, exploitation or eventual colonisation.
The US is motivated to dominate lunar exploration for the only reason that it is becoming feasable for other countries. We have already heard Mike Griffin refer to lunar landing capability as 'strategic'. Why would the US just want to abdicate its current position? You are not making sense. Furthermore military space (imaging, electronic surveillance, GPS) is more important than ever to the US with the proliferation of missle and nuclear technology. These military technologies have had profound impact on our daily lives and will continue to do so.
Certainly, national pride in its ability to achieve practical results with a lower budget than the Americans is a factor.
Lower wages help too.
Thanks. You summarize my point exactly. What is wrong with judging the status of science, an evolving, and never finished body knowledge?
I love the moderators of this site. This post is so not intended as flamebait. It is a serious *critical* discussion of an important idea. The process of evolution is observational fact. I just maintain that the mechanisms are poorly understood.
All these studies apply statistical techniques that are based around the theory of evolution. I don't understand what else you are driving at to try and deny this. I also don't understand your criteria for grading theories from A to D. On the face of it it seems absurd.
I refer you to "The Emperor's New Mind" by Roger Penrose, and "Searching for Certainty" by John Casti for similar arguments about judging scientific theories are. I did not invent this idea. Penrose in particular is fairly critical about our understanding of the human brain. Neither author was as critical of evolution as I am. As for governing dynamic theory I refer you to any classical dynamics text and the Principle of Least Action, one of the most amazing ideas in theoretical physics.
And you wonder why there is no predicitivty to it. Shit man, they can't predict the weather either.
But atmospheric scientists understand why they can't. Many dynamical systems become unpredictable when initial conditions not known to high precision. It is inescapable mathematically. But there is nothing wrong with Navier-Stokes equations, just the stability of the numerical solution. Where are evolution's dynamical equations?
I do not understand what you mean by lacking predictive power.
Scientists refer to 'evolutionary forces'. Can those forces be quantified? Can they be used to predict morphological changes in subsequent generations. Can we show by mathematical deduction why humans have changed so much in 4 million years and a Coelocanth has not changed in 350 million. The theory is out there. Generations of organisms are responding to some stimulus. Mathematically, what is it?