Squalor is an excellent word for such a description, but I was thinking of squander (I misspelled it squandor, sorry) as webster defines it, to lose (as an advantage or opportunity) through negligence or inaction. I meant they really aren't being given priority, although that is debatable through indirect action being taken with its movement towards economic diversity in the global scheme of things and all.
I wouldn't say as strongly. The system has its faults in extremely high initial investment cost. Particularly, the infrastructure has to be built ground up based on not having tracks. At a distance of 750 miles, that is quite a large sum of faith. The 9 year project has already cost an arm and a leg. I'm not so sure I would be willing to fork over such large sums of money like that when other technologies exist that have proven themselves, are cheaper, and almost as fast (~300km/h).
A study done by a railway consultancy group in Germany has postulated through computer simulation models the efficiency of a Transrapid system is about equal if not less of a "standard" (not maglev) railway. In fact, their conjectures show two to three times more energy required over the marketed ramblings of Transrapid. However I can't speak for the validity of this company, and this study was done more than four years ago from which there have been about 50 patents issued since the published article, and there have been 29 patents filed (but not issued), I'm guessing the situation is more like the situation featured by MegaRail Transportation Systems Inc which is still a year and a half lagging.
I know for certain though that maglev has not become drastically cheaper in initial construction. It is only in the chance of longer term fuel and cost efficiencies it may pay off to invest in it. This is why I think 750 miles is a bit far at this point and would be much better suited for changing over the city subway system network in the richer parts.
As of this moment, in rural areas, the Chinese people live in squandor. It really is a depressing sight and the awareness of such situations will spread with the ease of transportation to such areas. When people have more and more free time to devote to issues that they may otherwise glance over in effect to pay a bill, priorities may not always be akin to someone who lives in a more relaxed state. Given a Transrapid system would cost quite a bit, one trip costing roughly 1/20th of one person's income for a month, there should be more attention focused on that of the 1 billion or so population that does not live in the top 1% of wealth for the country. It is not the United States there, and people are not often exuberantly wealthy as they may be in the good ole' west. It is usually governemnt officials yes, but they also have insight into making their lives filled with more power and that of their family and descendants. As a result, the country must prosper the same and it would not be able to do as much through this system.
Of course I am not making China out to be concerned about their people because they generally are not except in the image they may portray to their trading partners, or at least in any public news stories. Rather, the social implications are only a sidestep to other motivations which I have only briefed upon, namely control and power distributed through their descendants. It should be understood that this method values is prevalent all the way to the lower classes except of those in
Because the USA was in a unique position of having all the resources it needed
Bah, the USA had resources, but it was unknown how they would be powerful. It was ideals that led to innovation to be able to exploit those resources. So we had resources, but not an understanding of them. The time of the colonial states was under hard times. If you wanted to wage how it was deemed possible, I would declare the exploitation of slave-type workers. And gawd, this included whites too so whatever.
being politically and socially stable
This is just plain wrong. Do you honestly think so many were against the British? So very many were in support. The French had interesting motives to make us win. Things were quieted and representatives were drafted because of the long trek it would take to reach
and not having more powerful countries meddle in its internal affairs
Dude, Britain was the power country. That is exactly what was retaliated against.
The same cannot be said of most third world countries today.
How about Guinea? They have a commanding resource tap. They have recently (1958) broke free from French dominion control, yet they are in social unrest on the largest of all scales.
OK, I acknowledge that what mostly what I'm saying is bunk in trying to apply those things of the past into this modern era, but it's also true emotional characteristics of humans do not change much so it would only make sense they would want freedom that USians don't even understand (troll comment).
I would answer my own question and refine your statement by saying the reason for Guinea, for instance, not living up to US standards would be not excessive powerful country intrusions, but rather excessively poor countries intruding on that nation. For instance, Sierra Leone is rather a corrupt, in fact that whole area is. Ghana is rather free from that, but bribery and high distinctions from those living in western civilization and those caught up in their "poor" traditional villages is quite distinct.
I think I can conservatively say it is an issue with distribution of wealth. Just as when you win a million dollars and everyone around you hordes you, desiring a piece. Poor people will horde around those rich folk, fighting for their fair share. I wouldn't say those people are better or worse, things just happened differently to them.
I hope I made some sense, and if you had anything further to add I would be interested in hearing it. I don't formally study sociological issues, but I believe to have a pretty good grasp on them. I don't intend to come off as condescending either, I'm merely hoping you will further refine what you're thinking.
I was just thinking, remember when we were third world? You say look at the past 500 years. Well, since Columbus (who introduced Europeans to the Americas) only arrived in 1492. I would have to say for the past 500 years or so, we were a third world country. Of course we had the basis of beginning on new footing, but the principle is we produced agriculture for our big brothers back home. Remember? I think it was called something like tobacco or something like that. Wasn't that what this nation was founded off of? Tobaccy? Yeah because the pompous folk "back home" didn't even know about it until the 16th century. Funny how USians where that cheap labour not too long ago. Hell, it was only 1776, and the industrial revolution was far off. I would have to say that the US has been a new player in the market of innovation.
More so what I am thinking of is, when will these working countries wakeup to any sort of realization that they are in fact working for "superiors" and will want to declare their indendence, if you will. USians did it. Why couldn't others? History has repeated itself before, why couldn't it happen again?
It is ironic that the GPL, which really rattels the libery saber, is out libertied by the BSD licences, which generally do no such saber ratteling.
That's probably because of the clause required, advocating the great folk of BSD up until 1999. So up to a point, the GPL was more free (liberty) on a democratic standpoint. This and the popularity to those hobbyists is definitely more popular with Linux. The community is larger because they (linux community) have had since '91 to get out and BSD has been a newcomer to the field of '99. I for one would have definitely chose the GPL given the choice between the two.
Anyways, I project the BSD license as starting to gain recognition as this sort of info finds its way to the surface, and turning more towards public domain as we progress to the future. Afterall, isn't it required for us to act in such a way while all joining hands around a fire singing kum ba yah as opposed to worldwide destruction by nuclear forces...
Once upon a time, developers were promoted if they had the stomach for Gantt charts and paperwork. The engineers delivered functionality to the business: there was a clear power hierarchy. If you were lucky, you had an administrator who did exactly what you asked, and kept the systems running without imposing on development.
This was a time when innovation ran rampant. Every business in the industry was trying to capitalize on a brave insight into how the future would be governed by this "tool". It was a period of risk and reward. The "administration" saw this as the period of growth or the techies were in fact the administration.
Today it's a very different picture. Your typical IT director in a large corporate is surrounded by an entourage of software administrators. It was interesting listening to a famous British filmmaker (David Putnam) comment on how the gaggle of administrators surrounding Hollywood stars tried to make them as paranoid as possible about needing their administrative skills.
The time where computers were an innovation in and of themselves are long gone. Computers are now a tool to create innovations rather than being an innovation. This process is like building houses. Sure you have some design, but most of the innovations have to come from new material processes whereas the builders are now the ones that simply follow the rules. Programming has become a commodity where the US doesn't follow well. US based business wants to drive a profit and as a result, doesn't surprise me one bit jobs are going to where it will drive profits higher. The dot-com bust was exemplifying this in some way. They were trying to build a basis on this notion that simply just doesn't hold true. Look at what is now becoming successful (relatively). People in other areas are becoming educated and performing our "textile" work.
Today's world is "a very different picture", but it isn't the result of managers "lost understanding", only a paradigm shift that proves beneficial to the end result. Emphasis has been dropped.
And finally to address the situation in development that is still happening in the US, poorly. It isn't just seen in this field, but all. I think the US is largely beauracratic. The US's stance is on innovation where it can drive profits. This is something that happens to all markets to stabilize a product. The New New Thing exemplifies this somewhat. Not that the book, although features Jim Clark, Netscape founder, is not technical, but only works at accentuating Jim Clark's abstract persona. But whatever.
Just in time for the holidays huh? I don't get that. Of course I will be modded to hell and of course someone will state the philanthropist slide to it all. It's all about giving. Giving you say? Right, all tucked away in your warm cozy houses while people lay in misery around the world. Oh, but of course we can't dwell on issues like that and have to let ourselves LIVE! Right. You know how about you do that, but also open your home to someone from the street. Yeah, why don't you go down to a place where people live a "different lifestyle" and show them that you are a loving group of people. Maybe you offer someone who's a recovering alcoholic because his entire family has perished in a car accident. Or maybe a young adult who lives an unorthodox lifestyle because his social circle doesn't really have the same morals as the rest of us. Yeah, I know, you can always go to the "soup kitchen" and help. What does that say? Efficiency in mode of distribution? I say it lacks deeper meaning (to some degree).
Hey, if you want to state it's a christian holiday celebrating the birth of christ himself, then great. But then why do so many people get upset when I say I'm not celebrating it? Or when I have no gifts to give?
Well yeah, this is all a huge rant and I'll stop now, but maybe I left you with something to think about. And I do know (hope) some people are still inherrently good. It's just with soup kitchens only temporarily fixing a problem, but I'll save the dead-end efforts for another day.
Wow, I see what he was getting at now or at least what you got from it. That decision bares huge responsibility in future renderings of a "free" society (think Orwell). I've been studying this stuff for awhile now, and I just was blasted away by realizing how serious this is. Particularly this decision.
Our laws are outdating their mode of use and it's scary to think of the technology sector grinding to a halt because of restrictions placed on innovations in the name of making a buck. I hate how I'm getting all melodramatic so I'm going to go think about this.
I think I would have to become a criminal... oh well.
...U.S. example, it is illegal to copy and distribute a movie. But, legally, do you *have* to watch the FBI warning at the beginning of the movie?
Am I missing something here or are you saying that just because you are ignorant of a law it doesn't exist?
I agree with the frist paragraph you make, but uh, this "example" you use doesn't correlate at all. You're getting into copyright which is detracting away from a product being capable to be "looked at" and altered. They weren't trying to copy this product, but only enhance its usability. If you wanted to use it, you would still have to go out and buy the DVD OR copy it. You see the difference? Don't confuse them. It makes us look stupid.
I would be wary of stating it "cannot be a joke" (although it may be comforting). By accepting that mathematics is unquestionable would set science as a belief paradigm where mathematics is our sacred doctrine. You have to understand I used to believe this to be true, and I admit I remain to be open-mind concerning this, but I have come to think that to create an extremely fundamental way of looking at things predisposes everything in that there can be no certainty. Though if you accept life to be either 1 or 0 or permutations of that, there wouldn't be a problem by continuing on through life content with an understanding.
We can of course be certain that at this scale of material things and in time with proper popular opinion, 2 + 2 = 4. And I realize I am not questioning any fundamental theorem (pure math) but only an observable conceptual property, nonetheless, I reiterate it is possible when we stretch a metaphysical dimension into a way we might not traditionally view it because of limitations or ignorance based on beliefs or morals.
I do realize too that I may somewhat contradict myself by creating a metaphysical dilemna whereby I create these "false" or "artificial" dimensions (read something difficult to conjecture) as proof of disbanding mathematics. That's what I'm getting at though, and you might be able to see what I'm saying if you continue to read...hopefully.
I like how you state
You start with a set of assumptions, and you end with a set of theorems, truths, which follow inevitably from those assumptions.
Note that mathematics doesn't require "logic and some set of assumptions". Pure math tries to divorce itself from whatever set of assumptions you are working with.
We are human and not devoid from bias as our brains have not even been questioned for whether we may even be capable of grasping any "larger then life" paradigms. Pure mathematics deal with reason and it is not even proven other ways of thinking about things can exist. I'm not sure even if we did acknowledge this fact much could be done with it. (That sounds really crazy and I advise you to not take it to heart because I don't have verifiable proof;) ) It's common for people to even throw that conjecture out the door though because it seems foolish because if we found a fault we wouldn't know anyway or maybe we can, that is the enigma as I see it. Paraphrasing you, when we try to divorce mathematics from whatever set of assumptions we are working with, it is inherently encompassing a possible fundamental viewpoint we might not be able to irradicate even if we tried.
You're absolutely right you know. The only difference is that this theory was proposed by a man who had just received his doctorate (PhD) from publishing "On a new determination of molecular dimensions." He was working in a patent office because he couldn't find a teaching position. Bad market, didn't have the skills, it doesn't matter much more then the guy wasn't at all crazy, just thought things out different because a lot of where things were going were becoming stale.
The real difference between his 'crazy idea' and these 'crazy ideas' is a matter of defined mathematical equations that proved to be true. As I see it, these theories are only conjectures as ways things might be with no truly defined methodology for it's reasoning other than, "hey, why couldn't it be this way instead?" (If that's true, pull up a chair and I will tantalize you into the next century with 'crazy ideas':) ) I understand it's possible all of mathematics could be a joke, but from what I have studied and know it would be highly unlikely for that to be true. Therefore, once we were able to prove his theories in lab settings, it became no more then an abstract theory and a revolutionary way. His numbers proved correct down to an arbitrarily defined decimal.
While both ideas are crazy, don't argue if you don't have some overwhelmingly surmountable proof other then a work that explains a brilliant theory in an extremely abstract way. That doesn't make the theory out to be crazy in and of itself.
Day Eight, Oct. 28: Amherst and MIT have received cease-desist letters (copy of MIT cease-desist letter). New mirrors are now up at UNC, Duke, Berkeley, NCSU and U Penn.
Diebold has publicly admitted that leaked memos do not meet DMCA standards for copyright infringement. In the Associated Press article, a Diebold representative declares:
... the fact that the company sent the cease-and-desist letters does not mean the documents are authentic -- or give credence to advocates who claim lax Diebold security could allow hackers to rig machines.
"We're cautioning anyone from drawing wrong or incomplete conclusions about any of those documents or files purporting to be authentic," Jacobsen said.
Ernest Miller explains that the DMCA requires that documents be authentic; if the documents aren't authentic, it isn't copyright infringement. Our position is that even if the memos are authentic (which we believe they are, or Diebold would be pursuing a libel campaign), they are not copyright infringment as they are covered under DMCA fair use guidelines.
Since some of you have been asking, yes, Swarthmore College is still enforcing its policy of cutting off network access to students who link to information about the memos (or the memos themselves). There have been many discussions of this absurd policy -- see, for instance, LawMeme's analysis -- and we appreciate the letters that are being sent to Dean Gross and The Phoenix (e.g. Seth Finkelstein's). We hope that by expanding to other colleges and universities we can broaden the campaign while minimizing the impact of our own institution's refusal to take a stand. (If other educational institutions encounter such policies, this script may be of help.)
I agree. In particular, I was most interested in seeing Brazil reign champion of the skys. Their launch pad was the closest one built yet near the equator. Although the relatively recent fatal blast is devastating, and a sure blow to the moral. Especially since the cause is still under investigation. My hope is waning as well, it's just that Brazil has a lot of natural resources and a great potential in flexing it's might in the world market, with their MERCOSUR free trade agreement and all. It handles a hefty punch in South America, contributing to the rest of the world as they wake themselves up to irradicating their foolish trade restrictions...fools. Especially when the Andean pact has been so unsuccessful. Yeah MERCOSUR hasn't been performing in the last couple years as well since it's growth period from 1988, but I find it hard to believe it's not related to a shifting of resources. It's normal.
Clever, not many would so abhorrently create a mistake like that to cast their discerning eye over the bulk of our species...or...wait! was that just a mistake??! Kinda makes you rethink whether we're so sapient, doughnit?...
Ooo...you clever troll you...it's not a single worded answer.
Nikola didn't develop AC for profit. (AC is only what is allowing you to view these very words and propel us into this age.) I'm not sure how anyone could deny "electricity" (I understand the many implications of that word) was the single best innovation in history.
It's shit, really, to declare such a man only cared about the little green men in his pocket.
You know what he did? Westinghouse came to him and said something like;
Westinghouse: "Hey, you know those royalties we have to pay you? Well with all the strains of the business, and the capitalist asshole Edison sending out all this poor stigma(*) about our product, we can't keep the business afloat without not having to pay them."
Tesla: "Is that so? Well, if you can continue to bring AC to the masses all is kosher."
So Tesla tore up the contract that granted him $2.50/horsepower of electrical capacity sold.
I'm so sick of hearing I am another cog in the wheel. Believe it or not, there are people in this world that give a shit. Just because there is a majority, doesn't mean it applies to everyone and there is no escape. Greed has it's niche, but it's not an overly prevalent attribute in EVERYONE...jeezers.
* Edison would display public demonstrations of electrocuting animals (mostly pets) using AC. He also successfully had a criminal electrocuted by AC, thus the term, Westinghoused. Keep in mind after it was inevitable AC was clearly the dominant system, Edison became a convert.
While outright blocking can be somewhat effective, like stated in the article, it can block wanted mail as well. I'll state something that isn't new, but has to be realized...Do not click on the advertisements that you receive. Unfortunately the large proportion of those clicking on this junk aren't usually the people reading/. Perhaps then you can take it upon yourself to quietly remind people from time to time to not click on that stuff or even respond to it if they want to get it away.
Personally, I think people play way too much into it. They become so extremely adament about it. If you want something to go away you cannot do that! You can be adament about an issue, but in an honest rational away, not just FSCK SPAM! That's hardly productive. There are certain precautions that can be easily instituted to circumvent vast piles of spam.
Easiest is only give an address to a select few. Can't do that and need to remain available? Have people append something to the subject line and filter that out. Gawwd I can see the business people now, what?!? and mess up my "pretty" business card design?!? Gawwd! shut up! If you can't expect any intelligence and understanding of the people you are doing business with, then by all means, you should be forced to deal with what happens when people disregard intelligence, drudging through the filth of your inbox.
Sorry, but I don't think you can tell people this. People progress through states of mind that allow more "intense" realizations to occur. A primitive tribe is extremely hesitant to outsiders because of the overwhelming amount of change they introduce. It takes an extremely open mind to allow such a transition. That needs to be broken down first, so, how?
Questions. People need to be able to construct internal dialog or at least intelligent dialog between others. The important thing is being able to answer your own questions. This creates double the amount of work. Not only are you doubting "stuff", but you are trying to figure out that same "stuff" you're doubting.
Hence, introduce only things you believe your intended audience is ready to hear. Posting on/. more than likely fulfills that, but keep in mind when discussing such things in the real life(tm).;)
Why are we spending billions and billions of dollars and as many man hours every year, intentionally extending the lifespan of our individuals, instead of the collective species?
Creating 'super mice' might be a great novelty at first, and a boon to science, but what we learn from them certainly wont benefit our species. Just ourselves. Seems a bit selfish, ignoring the decline in quality of life many generations in the future will be faced with.
These questions are extremely short-sighted. We extend lifespans indefinitely everyday; heart, liver, and kidney transplants, immunizations (preventive measure), vaccinations, CPR, blood transfusions, diabetic shots, or even those daily vitamins you take. All are either directly, or indirectly extending your life. It's easier to see the benefit of swapping organs when your's fails to operate properly, but all those other things are more of thinking in advance. You know of another life extension tip? Eat balanced diets and exercise. Holy shit! That may as well just save your life from tragic organ failures and cause you victim of brain disease. You see my point? If you are just going to die anyway why take the further preventive measure?
By spending money on life extension, we are really understanding just more about the body. What is cancer? An abnormal cell. Why does that cell become abnormal? Well, what happens is we get a broader understanding of what is really going on. That is what I wish more people understood, knowledge is interconnected in ways we can't even imagine. If it were any other way, it would be just one person coming up with all the solutions to life.
This is getting involved, but try and think of Leonardo da Vinci. This man is a pivotal subject in my theory. His quest was for knowledge. What may come of interest is he was just as wary of the whole "blood thing" as anyone else. He insisted that it is paramount to disregard this discomfort if you ever truly wanted to understand anatomy. For the obvious few who are aware of his works, one might want to pickup Leonardo: The Artist and the Man by Dover books. Note that Dover books are excellent books, but typically only to get you thinking about a subject, not so much a reference volume.
Back on topic, and why do we extend these lives everyday. To improve the collective well-being of all involved with that person. Just think of the web of relationships that individuals are usually enroped (is that a word) to. Continuing that one life is adding value to easily a hundred lives. That value may even be small keeping in mind I am thinking of second-order persons as well. You can't limit the effect of one person's death on just those directly affected by it. It should be easy to see that the creation of "good" is a worthwhile cause. Keep in mind the int
Guess how much it'll cost? - i'd guess probably a whole lot more than most people in the US and Western Europe can afford, let alone people dying of diarrhea in 3rd world countries.
I'm not sure how many people followed this, but really, diarrhea is a leading cause of death for children worldwide. It is the result of dehydration and contaminated water supplies and results in over 2 million deaths annually.
I'll rationalize my obsessive desire at making sure the AC is on just the right centrigrade, will lead to a breakthrough discovery that will allow every country to be as it wants to be immediately.;)
With people who RESPECT copyrights, for an atmosphere where intellectual work is treated equitably, so that we can build real empires of information, education, and entertainment, rather than play lowest common denominator games of today.
[begin normal homo sapien emotional response]
fsck that, seriously.
[allow adjustment for rational thinking]
Why respect copyright? Copyright was designed to give the creators exclusive rights to what is done with their material. This means they are gods of their own little universes, but people are infringing on their "rights" to this fact. I'm saying that we consider this our god-given right. Copyright is an attribute of a governing body. Yes, you are completely correct for copyright being a splendid idea for the US system and many other governing bodies around the world, however, please don't get caught up in the idea that this way will be the best for all eternity. So what I am saying is, don't consider copyright as an absolute sovereignty.
[The following paragraphs are not very coherent, proceed at your own risk. You have been warned.]
When you say "RESPECT copyrights," you're negating away from the root cause. People create the copyrights, right? We want to respect what people create, sure, but does that mean we respect the people? Well if you look at the current state of affairs, we don't really. We respect the law. We respect doctrines and paper. We respect copyright when there are rules governing us to do so. That's spiffy, but it's detracting us from something more fundamental.
It's obvious, respect people. Lemme esplain. With copyright we objectify. If we have no copyrights there is no restriction from impersonation, stealing ideas, and other bad things people can do with other person's things. There is also no restriction on creating derivative works and expanding on ideas which would otherwise (sometimes) lay stagnant. OK I know this sounds like stealing which is badBADBAD, but...
Imagine this, a world where people actually work together to get things done. Imagine the competitional greed (object = money = ideas = copyright/patent) in this world today. Right, a wonderful system if you adhere to certain rules. I'll risk destroying my argument by bringing up dee h4x0rs. They believe in a different stigma. Free access to all, right? Destroying a system will bring to light methods of improvement. So, manipulating someone's ideas allows for improvement on society as a whole. This is looking at the long term rather then the short.
As far as compensation goes for people, it will be in different forms (I'm not talking clams here). Others will grow around others and use ideas to progress their group as a whole. Note that the group might or might not be apparent. These could be researchers collaborating worldwide, or a few neighbors working on a project. Is it really worth it to withhold information that could contribute to the common good for the sake of self-gratification? Fsck your ego please so we don't have to live a life underground hiding from the robots.:)
I had better state that this is something that will be hard to make happen very soon (I mean within the next millenia (maybe it will be forced on us?)), but as I see it, inevitable. And you know what? I beg of you to alter and refine this information for publication in your next book. I hope very much you make millions of dollars from it too!:) How would you feel if you "stole" this from me and did it. You get conflicting messages, you might feel to compensate me, but I did give you permission. Aww...the perils of being human.:)
Summary
I'm not saying we should steal things, but that there should be nothing to steal.
* Profitable ideas are usually protected by a patent, but I lump it with copyright because copyright is a protection on artistic works (literary, musical, etc) and I see an elegant idea described on paper as artistic.
+5 insightful my ass. Seriously, how the hell do we as a species become so close-minded? Any mod that you got obviously did not read the article.
"Prevention of environmental disaster"
More like monitoring of onngoing environmental disasters. The money would be better spent on preventing them on the ground rather than just watching them from space.
How are we to know where to spend the money? Just blindly throw it at problems like the DEA? Naw, let's find the source and what
exactly is causing the problem.
"Creating a global network for modern communications, entertainment and networking"
I thought that was what M$ was trying to do. So our great space program is about being a slave to the telecoms... Why don't we just put a giant Verizon logo on all the rockets from now on?
Nice, relate it to M$ and telecoms. After all, they are evil. Wake up mods! It's not even relevant. I'm sure all those in remote environments where satellite are their only options for an uplink (minus dialup) are so discerning. Oh, nevermind, it's cause the telecoms are so bent on 0wnz3r3d joo.
"Global education and health services"
Give me a break. What, are we going to try to broadcast PBS to the entire world? The only people who will benefit the satalites and all the other space based comunications are the people who can afford the devices to tap into those communications. Last time I checked the poor in Africa want food, not TV's. The only people that will be able to afford these devices are the people that don't need these services.
Gawd...
seriously, the world does not revolve around your narrow-mindedness. Try reading a few international papers. Expose yourself to the vast world. Read this. There are so many reports similar to that one. Many rural communities team together to get a computer. They share the resources for it's usage. If the people can identify a use for it, it will usually be had.
"Cheap and environmentally friendly energy"
Let me guess: widespread use of potatoes to power clocks. They have gone a long way to create operational systems but they still need to develope them and they haven't been put into practice? In other words you have a coupel of ideas but you have done jack shit asbout them.
And you have probably never heard of
Project Prometheus, am I right? Sorry if this shit is way more difficult for people to figure out on the first try. Yeah, something about harnessing the most powerful known power in the universe and humans being able to deal with that. Shit, I'm surprised the ancient Romans weren't able to do it while conquering all of the Mediterranean.
"Transportation safety"
This is part of the the satalite argument. As for the rest, space travel will always be inherently unsafe. The only recourse is to deal with it. When your shuttle explodes, be a man! Face the pain! I didn't hear any of the apollo astronauts whining about safety. They flew with what they had and if that wasn't good enough, tough!
I'll somewhat agree with you here. Magellan and Columbus and the like weren't made aware of what dangers they would encounter. They didn't what they would encounter. For all Columbus knew, he could have fallen off the edge of the universe. However, the people going into space now know what they are dealing with. They know the dangers and what will kill them and what won't. It would be like going to investigate a marsh bog. You know marsh bogs sometimes emit large amounts of marsh gas which can be toxic. Of course it may be perfectly harmless and an
adventurer would fearlessly investigate the matter. While
I would suggest you go down to city hall. Just being there will give you a bit more insight of what it is like. It's kind of like installing a new operating system. You can kind of figure out basically what it is like from pictures you have seen and properties you have read about, but you get a better picture from what is going on from trying it out.
Also, government is a huge hierarchy as you might already know, I guess like a filesystem. So you have your local, state, and country.
Cities
Pretty much all large cities have a website where you can download the city code or get information on various meetings and events that will allow you to get involved. Don't bitch about city decisions unless you don't take the effort to acquaint yourselves with current happenings every month or so. To visit your city website alter the "XX" in the following URL to reflect your state abbreviation (ie. ca - california, ny - new york)
http://www.statelocalgov.net/local-XX.htm
State
Your state government is the accumulation of all local governments within a set boundry. Do the same thing with the following URL as the one above.
http://www.statelocalgov.net/state-XX.htm
National
Here we have all those states to create a national charter of if...then statements governing your way of life. These are ultimate and cannot be evaded by each lesser government (local, state). It should be noted that those smaller governments can choose to enact various further restrictions that they see fit, as long as it does not interfere with the national charter.
Here are two portals for the huge national government.
A bit more on elections specifically
Relatively recently unveiled on slashdot , Project opengov contains a wealth of information. I would recommend spending much of your time here to acquaint yourselves with the people running your government.
Alternatively, enter your zipcode to get quick summary of who's working for you in government.
Project vote-smart
There are a few other good sites, one at the tip of my tongue, it features detailed financial recordings of government election campaigns. I'm sure you have enough data to grok though;)
Can anyone recommend any other programming challenges which focus on developing new algorithms which may be useful in other disciplines?
The only example I can think of is the many "robot" fighting challenges, where you write a program for a robot, and it has to destroy the other robots within the battlefield using its own "wits" and no human input. You might remember PC-ROBOTS from the early 90's if you're a real geek ^v^
It sounds like you are making reference to
robocode, but it's hard to tell since you mention PCRobots. If you weren't, well then you might want to check it out.
Imagine a 100,000 km cable falling to earth.. I wouldn't want to be under it.
I don't mean to sound too condescending, but really, the centrifugal force of earth's rotation makes that impossible. I would have been humoured if you would have stated imagine a 100,000 km cable being hurtled at the moon when I move there. For it to fall to earth would mean the earth would stop spinning...highly unlikely given what we know.
You might be able to argue that inertia from the atmosphere would allow it to operate like a whip, but even that is farfetched. I doubt they would implement such a system without properly addressing such an issue.
Be more afraid of NearEarthObjects. Of course those things fall from roughly 4.7E17 km. Why the hell don't people imagine that?
Slashdot Mirror
Squalor is an excellent word for such a description, but I was thinking of squander (I misspelled it squandor, sorry) as webster defines it, to lose (as an advantage or opportunity) through negligence or inaction . I meant they really aren't being given priority, although that is debatable through indirect action being taken with its movement towards economic diversity in the global scheme of things and all.
I wouldn't say as strongly. The system has its faults in extremely high initial investment cost. Particularly, the infrastructure has to be built ground up based on not having tracks. At a distance of 750 miles, that is quite a large sum of faith. The 9 year project has already cost an arm and a leg. I'm not so sure I would be willing to fork over such large sums of money like that when other technologies exist that have proven themselves, are cheaper, and almost as fast (~300km/h).
A study done by a railway consultancy group in Germany has postulated through computer simulation models the efficiency of a Transrapid system is about equal if not less of a "standard" (not maglev) railway. In fact, their conjectures show two to three times more energy required over the marketed ramblings of Transrapid. However I can't speak for the validity of this company, and this study was done more than four years ago from which there have been about 50 patents issued since the published article, and there have been 29 patents filed (but not issued), I'm guessing the situation is more like the situation featured by MegaRail Transportation Systems Inc which is still a year and a half lagging.
I know for certain though that maglev has not become drastically cheaper in initial construction. It is only in the chance of longer term fuel and cost efficiencies it may pay off to invest in it. This is why I think 750 miles is a bit far at this point and would be much better suited for changing over the city subway system network in the richer parts.
As of this moment, in rural areas, the Chinese people live in squandor. It really is a depressing sight and the awareness of such situations will spread with the ease of transportation to such areas. When people have more and more free time to devote to issues that they may otherwise glance over in effect to pay a bill, priorities may not always be akin to someone who lives in a more relaxed state. Given a Transrapid system would cost quite a bit, one trip costing roughly 1/20th of one person's income for a month, there should be more attention focused on that of the 1 billion or so population that does not live in the top 1% of wealth for the country. It is not the United States there, and people are not often exuberantly wealthy as they may be in the good ole' west. It is usually governemnt officials yes, but they also have insight into making their lives filled with more power and that of their family and descendants. As a result, the country must prosper the same and it would not be able to do as much through this system.
Of course I am not making China out to be concerned about their people because they generally are not except in the image they may portray to their trading partners, or at least in any public news stories. Rather, the social implications are only a sidestep to other motivations which I have only briefed upon, namely control and power distributed through their descendants. It should be understood that this method values is prevalent all the way to the lower classes except of those in
Because 70 is the atomic number for Ytterbium and SCO is not ready to take on the town Ytterby for infringing upon their copyrighted company values.
Interestingly enough, searching values site:www.sco.com brings up:
Your search - values site:www.sco.com - did not match any documents.
Hrmm...
Bah, the USA had resources, but it was unknown how they would be powerful. It was ideals that led to innovation to be able to exploit those resources. So we had resources, but not an understanding of them. The time of the colonial states was under hard times. If you wanted to wage how it was deemed possible, I would declare the exploitation of slave-type workers. And gawd, this included whites too so whatever.
being politically and socially stable
This is just plain wrong. Do you honestly think so many were against the British? So very many were in support. The French had interesting motives to make us win. Things were quieted and representatives were drafted because of the long trek it would take to reach
and not having more powerful countries meddle in its internal affairs
Dude, Britain was the power country. That is exactly what was retaliated against.The same cannot be said of most third world countries today.
How about Guinea? They have a commanding resource tap. They have recently (1958) broke free from French dominion control, yet they are in social unrest on the largest of all scales.
OK, I acknowledge that what mostly what I'm saying is bunk in trying to apply those things of the past into this modern era, but it's also true emotional characteristics of humans do not change much so it would only make sense they would want freedom that USians don't even understand (troll comment).
I would answer my own question and refine your statement by saying the reason for Guinea, for instance, not living up to US standards would be not excessive powerful country intrusions, but rather excessively poor countries intruding on that nation. For instance, Sierra Leone is rather a corrupt, in fact that whole area is. Ghana is rather free from that, but bribery and high distinctions from those living in western civilization and those caught up in their "poor" traditional villages is quite distinct.
I think I can conservatively say it is an issue with distribution of wealth. Just as when you win a million dollars and everyone around you hordes you, desiring a piece. Poor people will horde around those rich folk, fighting for their fair share. I wouldn't say those people are better or worse, things just happened differently to them.
I hope I made some sense, and if you had anything further to add I would be interested in hearing it. I don't formally study sociological issues, but I believe to have a pretty good grasp on them. I don't intend to come off as condescending either, I'm merely hoping you will further refine what you're thinking.
I was just thinking, remember when we were third world? You say look at the past 500 years. Well, since Columbus (who introduced Europeans to the Americas) only arrived in 1492. I would have to say for the past 500 years or so, we were a third world country. Of course we had the basis of beginning on new footing, but the principle is we produced agriculture for our big brothers back home. Remember? I think it was called something like tobacco or something like that. Wasn't that what this nation was founded off of? Tobaccy? Yeah because the pompous folk "back home" didn't even know about it until the 16th century. Funny how USians where that cheap labour not too long ago. Hell, it was only 1776, and the industrial revolution was far off. I would have to say that the US has been a new player in the market of innovation.
More so what I am thinking of is, when will these working countries wakeup to any sort of realization that they are in fact working for "superiors" and will want to declare their indendence, if you will. USians did it. Why couldn't others? History has repeated itself before, why couldn't it happen again?
That's probably because of the clause required, advocating the great folk of BSD up until 1999. So up to a point, the GPL was more free (liberty) on a democratic standpoint. This and the popularity to those hobbyists is definitely more popular with Linux. The community is larger because they (linux community) have had since '91 to get out and BSD has been a newcomer to the field of '99. I for one would have definitely chose the GPL given the choice between the two.
Anyways, I project the BSD license as starting to gain recognition as this sort of info finds its way to the surface, and turning more towards public domain as we progress to the future. Afterall, isn't it required for us to act in such a way while all joining hands around a fire singing kum ba yah as opposed to worldwide destruction by nuclear forces...
This was a time when innovation ran rampant. Every business in the industry was trying to capitalize on a brave insight into how the future would be governed by this "tool". It was a period of risk and reward. The "administration" saw this as the period of growth or the techies were in fact the administration.
Today it's a very different picture. Your typical IT director in a large corporate is surrounded by an entourage of software administrators. It was interesting listening to a famous British filmmaker (David Putnam) comment on how the gaggle of administrators surrounding Hollywood stars tried to make them as paranoid as possible about needing their administrative skills.
The time where computers were an innovation in and of themselves are long gone. Computers are now a tool to create innovations rather than being an innovation. This process is like building houses. Sure you have some design, but most of the innovations have to come from new material processes whereas the builders are now the ones that simply follow the rules. Programming has become a commodity where the US doesn't follow well. US based business wants to drive a profit and as a result, doesn't surprise me one bit jobs are going to where it will drive profits higher. The dot-com bust was exemplifying this in some way. They were trying to build a basis on this notion that simply just doesn't hold true. Look at what is now becoming successful (relatively). People in other areas are becoming educated and performing our "textile" work.
Today's world is "a very different picture", but it isn't the result of managers "lost understanding", only a paradigm shift that proves beneficial to the end result. Emphasis has been dropped.
And finally to address the situation in development that is still happening in the US, poorly. It isn't just seen in this field, but all. I think the US is largely beauracratic. The US's stance is on innovation where it can drive profits. This is something that happens to all markets to stabilize a product. The New New Thing exemplifies this somewhat. Not that the book, although features Jim Clark, Netscape founder, is not technical, but only works at accentuating Jim Clark's abstract persona. But whatever.
Hey, if you want to state it's a christian holiday celebrating the birth of christ himself, then great. But then why do so many people get upset when I say I'm not celebrating it? Or when I have no gifts to give?
Well yeah, this is all a huge rant and I'll stop now, but maybe I left you with something to think about. And I do know (hope) some people are still inherrently good. It's just with soup kitchens only temporarily fixing a problem, but I'll save the dead-end efforts for another day.
Our laws are outdating their mode of use and it's scary to think of the technology sector grinding to a halt because of restrictions placed on innovations in the name of making a buck. I hate how I'm getting all melodramatic so I'm going to go think about this.
I think I would have to become a criminal ... oh well.
I agree with the frist paragraph you make, but uh, this "example" you use doesn't correlate at all. You're getting into copyright which is detracting away from a product being capable to be "looked at" and altered. They weren't trying to copy this product, but only enhance its usability. If you wanted to use it, you would still have to go out and buy the DVD OR copy it. You see the difference? Don't confuse them. It makes us look stupid.
We can of course be certain that at this scale of material things and in time with proper popular opinion, 2 + 2 = 4. And I realize I am not questioning any fundamental theorem (pure math) but only an observable conceptual property, nonetheless, I reiterate it is possible when we stretch a metaphysical dimension into a way we might not traditionally view it because of limitations or ignorance based on beliefs or morals.
I do realize too that I may somewhat contradict myself by creating a metaphysical dilemna whereby I create these "false" or "artificial" dimensions (read something difficult to conjecture) as proof of disbanding mathematics. That's what I'm getting at though, and you might be able to see what I'm saying if you continue to read...hopefully.
I like how you state
We are human and not devoid from bias as our brains have not even been questioned for whether we may even be capable of grasping any "larger then life" paradigms. Pure mathematics deal with reason and it is not even proven other ways of thinking about things can exist. I'm not sure even if we did acknowledge this fact much could be done with it. (That sounds really crazy and I advise you to not take it to heart because I don't have verifiable proofThe real difference between his 'crazy idea' and these 'crazy ideas' is a matter of defined mathematical equations that proved to be true. As I see it, these theories are only conjectures as ways things might be with no truly defined methodology for it's reasoning other than, "hey, why couldn't it be this way instead?" (If that's true, pull up a chair and I will tantalize you into the next century with 'crazy ideas' :) ) I understand it's possible all of mathematics could be a joke, but from what I have studied and know it would be highly unlikely for that to be true. Therefore, once we were able to prove his theories in lab settings, it became no more then an abstract theory and a revolutionary way. His numbers proved correct down to an arbitrarily defined decimal.
While both ideas are crazy, don't argue if you don't have some overwhelmingly surmountable proof other then a work that explains a brilliant theory in an extremely abstract way. That doesn't make the theory out to be crazy in and of itself.
Day Eight, Oct. 28: Amherst and MIT have received cease-desist letters (copy of MIT cease-desist letter). New mirrors are now up at UNC, Duke, Berkeley, NCSU and U Penn.
Diebold has publicly admitted that leaked memos do not meet DMCA standards for copyright infringement. In the Associated Press article, a Diebold representative declares:
Ernest Miller explains that the DMCA requires that documents be authentic; if the documents aren't authentic, it isn't copyright infringement. Our position is that even if the memos are authentic (which we believe they are, or Diebold would be pursuing a libel campaign), they are not copyright infringment as they are covered under DMCA fair use guidelines .Since some of you have been asking, yes, Swarthmore College is still enforcing its policy of cutting off network access to students who link to information about the memos (or the memos themselves). There have been many discussions of this absurd policy -- see, for instance, LawMeme's analysis -- and we appreciate the letters that are being sent to Dean Gross and The Phoenix (e.g. Seth Finkelstein's). We hope that by expanding to other colleges and universities we can broaden the campaign while minimizing the impact of our own institution's refusal to take a stand. (If other educational institutions encounter such policies, this script may be of help.)
I agree. In particular, I was most interested in seeing Brazil reign champion of the skys. Their launch pad was the closest one built yet near the equator. Although the relatively recent fatal blast is devastating, and a sure blow to the moral. Especially since the cause is still under investigation. My hope is waning as well, it's just that Brazil has a lot of natural resources and a great potential in flexing it's might in the world market, with their MERCOSUR free trade agreement and all. It handles a hefty punch in South America, contributing to the rest of the world as they wake themselves up to irradicating their foolish trade restrictions...fools. Especially when the Andean pact has been so unsuccessful. Yeah MERCOSUR hasn't been performing in the last couple years as well since it's growth period from 1988, but I find it hard to believe it's not related to a shifting of resources. It's normal.
Clever, not many would so abhorrently create a mistake like that to cast their discerning eye over the bulk of our species...or...wait! was that just a mistake??! Kinda makes you rethink whether we're so sapient, doughnit?...
Ooo...you clever troll you...it's not a single worded answer.
Nikola didn't develop AC for profit. (AC is only what is allowing you to view these very words and propel us into this age.) I'm not sure how anyone could deny "electricity" (I understand the many implications of that word) was the single best innovation in history.
It's shit, really, to declare such a man only cared about the little green men in his pocket.
You know what he did? Westinghouse came to him and said something like;
Westinghouse: "Hey, you know those royalties we have to pay you? Well with all the strains of the business, and the capitalist asshole Edison sending out all this poor stigma(*) about our product, we can't keep the business afloat without not having to pay them."
Tesla: "Is that so? Well, if you can continue to bring AC to the masses all is kosher."
So Tesla tore up the contract that granted him $2.50/horsepower of electrical capacity sold.
I'm so sick of hearing I am another cog in the wheel. Believe it or not, there are people in this world that give a shit. Just because there is a majority, doesn't mean it applies to everyone and there is no escape. Greed has it's niche, but it's not an overly prevalent attribute in EVERYONE...jeezers.
* Edison would display public demonstrations of electrocuting animals (mostly pets) using AC. He also successfully had a criminal electrocuted by AC, thus the term, Westinghoused. Keep in mind after it was inevitable AC was clearly the dominant system, Edison became a convert.
Personally, I think people play way too much into it. They become so extremely adament about it. If you want something to go away you cannot do that! You can be adament about an issue, but in an honest rational away, not just FSCK SPAM! That's hardly productive. There are certain precautions that can be easily instituted to circumvent vast piles of spam.
Easiest is only give an address to a select few. Can't do that and need to remain available? Have people append something to the subject line and filter that out. Gawwd I can see the business people now, what?!? and mess up my "pretty" business card design?!? Gawwd! shut up! If you can't expect any intelligence and understanding of the people you are doing business with, then by all means, you should be forced to deal with what happens when people disregard intelligence, drudging through the filth of your inbox.
Sorry, but I don't think you can tell people this. People progress through states of mind that allow more "intense" realizations to occur. A primitive tribe is extremely hesitant to outsiders because of the overwhelming amount of change they introduce. It takes an extremely open mind to allow such a transition. That needs to be broken down first, so, how?
Questions. People need to be able to construct internal dialog or at least intelligent dialog between others. The important thing is being able to answer your own questions. This creates double the amount of work. Not only are you doubting "stuff", but you are trying to figure out that same "stuff" you're doubting.
Hence, introduce only things you believe your intended audience is ready to hear. Posting on /. more than likely fulfills that, but keep in mind when discussing such things in the real life(tm). ;)
Why are we spending billions and billions of dollars and as many man hours every year, intentionally extending the lifespan of our individuals, instead of the collective species?
Creating 'super mice' might be a great novelty at first, and a boon to science, but what we learn from them certainly wont benefit our species. Just ourselves. Seems a bit selfish, ignoring the decline in quality of life many generations in the future will be faced with.
These questions are extremely short-sighted. We extend lifespans indefinitely everyday; heart, liver, and kidney transplants, immunizations (preventive measure), vaccinations, CPR, blood transfusions, diabetic shots, or even those daily vitamins you take. All are either directly, or indirectly extending your life. It's easier to see the benefit of swapping organs when your's fails to operate properly, but all those other things are more of thinking in advance. You know of another life extension tip? Eat balanced diets and exercise. Holy shit! That may as well just save your life from tragic organ failures and cause you victim of brain disease. You see my point? If you are just going to die anyway why take the further preventive measure?
By spending money on life extension, we are really understanding just more about the body. What is cancer? An abnormal cell. Why does that cell become abnormal? Well, what happens is we get a broader understanding of what is really going on. That is what I wish more people understood, knowledge is interconnected in ways we can't even imagine. If it were any other way, it would be just one person coming up with all the solutions to life.
This is getting involved, but try and think of Leonardo da Vinci. This man is a pivotal subject in my theory. His quest was for knowledge. What may come of interest is he was just as wary of the whole "blood thing" as anyone else. He insisted that it is paramount to disregard this discomfort if you ever truly wanted to understand anatomy. For the obvious few who are aware of his works, one might want to pickup Leonardo: The Artist and the Man by Dover books. Note that Dover books are excellent books, but typically only to get you thinking about a subject, not so much a reference volume.
Back on topic, and why do we extend these lives everyday. To improve the collective well-being of all involved with that person. Just think of the web of relationships that individuals are usually enroped (is that a word) to. Continuing that one life is adding value to easily a hundred lives. That value may even be small keeping in mind I am thinking of second-order persons as well. You can't limit the effect of one person's death on just those directly affected by it. It should be easy to see that the creation of "good" is a worthwhile cause. Keep in mind the int
I'm not sure how many people followed this, but really, diarrhea is a leading cause of death for children worldwide. It is the result of dehydration and contaminated water supplies and results in over 2 million deaths annually.
http://www.who.int/health-topics/diarrhoeal.htm
I'll rationalize my obsessive desire at making sure the AC is on just the right centrigrade, will lead to a breakthrough discovery that will allow every country to be as it wants to be immediately. ;)
[begin normal homo sapien emotional response]
fsck that, seriously.
[allow adjustment for rational thinking]
Why respect copyright? Copyright was designed to give the creators exclusive rights to what is done with their material. This means they are gods of their own little universes, but people are infringing on their "rights" to this fact. I'm saying that we consider this our god-given right. Copyright is an attribute of a governing body. Yes, you are completely correct for copyright being a splendid idea for the US system and many other governing bodies around the world, however, please don't get caught up in the idea that this way will be the best for all eternity. So what I am saying is, don't consider copyright as an absolute sovereignty.
[The following paragraphs are not very coherent, proceed at your own risk. You have been warned.]
When you say "RESPECT copyrights," you're negating away from the root cause. People create the copyrights, right? We want to respect what people create, sure, but does that mean we respect the people? Well if you look at the current state of affairs, we don't really. We respect the law. We respect doctrines and paper. We respect copyright when there are rules governing us to do so. That's spiffy, but it's detracting us from something more fundamental.
It's obvious, respect people. Lemme esplain. With copyright we objectify. If we have no copyrights there is no restriction from impersonation, stealing ideas, and other bad things people can do with other person's things. There is also no restriction on creating derivative works and expanding on ideas which would otherwise (sometimes) lay stagnant. OK I know this sounds like stealing which is badBADBAD, but...
Imagine this, a world where people actually work together to get things done. Imagine the competitional greed (object = money = ideas = copyright/patent) in this world today. Right, a wonderful system if you adhere to certain rules. I'll risk destroying my argument by bringing up dee h4x0rs. They believe in a different stigma. Free access to all, right? Destroying a system will bring to light methods of improvement. So, manipulating someone's ideas allows for improvement on society as a whole. This is looking at the long term rather then the short.
As far as compensation goes for people, it will be in different forms (I'm not talking clams here). Others will grow around others and use ideas to progress their group as a whole. Note that the group might or might not be apparent. These could be researchers collaborating worldwide, or a few neighbors working on a project. Is it really worth it to withhold information that could contribute to the common good for the sake of self-gratification? Fsck your ego please so we don't have to live a life underground hiding from the robots. :)
I had better state that this is something that will be hard to make happen very soon (I mean within the next millenia (maybe it will be forced on us?)), but as I see it, inevitable. And you know what? I beg of you to alter and refine this information for publication in your next book. I hope very much you make millions of dollars from it too! :) How would you feel if you "stole" this from me and did it. You get conflicting messages, you might feel to compensate me, but I did give you permission. Aww...the perils of being human. :)
Summary
I'm not saying we should steal things, but that there should be nothing to steal.
* Profitable ideas are usually protected by a patent, but I lump it with copyright because copyright is a protection on artistic works (literary, musical, etc) and I see an elegant idea described on paper as artistic.
** Bits are free where things are "real"
"Prevention of environmental disaster"
More like monitoring of onngoing environmental disasters. The money would be better spent on preventing them on the ground rather than just watching them from space.
"Creating a global network for modern communications, entertainment and networking"
I thought that was what M$ was trying to do. So our great space program is about being a slave to the telecoms... Why don't we just put a giant Verizon logo on all the rockets from now on?
"Global education and health services"
Give me a break. What, are we going to try to broadcast PBS to the entire world? The only people who will benefit the satalites and all the other space based comunications are the people who can afford the devices to tap into those communications. Last time I checked the poor in Africa want food, not TV's. The only people that will be able to afford these devices are the people that don't need these services.
"Cheap and environmentally friendly energy" Let me guess: widespread use of potatoes to power clocks. They have gone a long way to create operational systems but they still need to develope them and they haven't been put into practice? In other words you have a coupel of ideas but you have done jack shit asbout them.
"Transportation safety" This is part of the the satalite argument. As for the rest, space travel will always be inherently unsafe. The only recourse is to deal with it. When your shuttle explodes, be a man! Face the pain! I didn't hear any of the apollo astronauts whining about safety. They flew with what they had and if that wasn't good enough, tough!
I would suggest you go down to city hall. Just being there will give you a bit more insight of what it is like. It's kind of like installing a new operating system. You can kind of figure out basically what it is like from pictures you have seen and properties you have read about, but you get a better picture from what is going on from trying it out.
Also, government is a huge hierarchy as you might already know, I guess like a filesystem. So you have your local, state, and country.
Cities
Pretty much all large cities have a website where you can download the city code or get information on various meetings and events that will allow you to get involved. Don't bitch about city decisions unless you don't take the effort to acquaint yourselves with current happenings every month or so. To visit your city website alter the "XX" in the following URL to reflect your state abbreviation (ie. ca - california, ny - new york)
http://www.statelocalgov.net/local-XX.htm
State
Your state government is the accumulation of all local governments within a set boundry. Do the same thing with the following URL as the one above.
http://www.statelocalgov.net/state-XX.htm
National
Here we have all those states to create a national charter of if...then statements governing your way of life. These are ultimate and cannot be evaded by each lesser government (local, state). It should be noted that those smaller governments can choose to enact various further restrictions that they see fit, as long as it does not interfere with the national charter.
Here are two portals for the huge national government.
Library of congress portal - Executive (links to the other two branches of government, Legislative, and Judicial are at top the top.)
Official Federal Gov portal site
A bit more on elections specifically
Relatively recently unveiled on slashdot , Project opengov contains a wealth of information. I would recommend spending much of your time here to acquaint yourselves with the people running your government.
Alternatively, enter your zipcode to get quick summary of who's working for you in government. Project vote-smart
There are a few other good sites, one at the tip of my tongue, it features detailed financial recordings of government election campaigns. I'm sure you have enough data to grok though ;)
Knowledge is power.
The only example I can think of is the many "robot" fighting challenges, where you write a program for a robot, and it has to destroy the other robots within the battlefield using its own "wits" and no human input. You might remember PC-ROBOTS from the early 90's if you're a real geek ^v^
It sounds like you are making reference to robocode, but it's hard to tell since you mention PCRobots. If you weren't, well then you might want to check it out.
I got the paper the other day...I thought it was 58 billion?
I don't mean to sound too condescending, but really, the centrifugal force of earth's rotation makes that impossible. I would have been humoured if you would have stated imagine a 100,000 km cable being hurtled at the moon when I move there. For it to fall to earth would mean the earth would stop spinning...highly unlikely given what we know.
You might be able to argue that inertia from the atmosphere would allow it to operate like a whip, but even that is farfetched. I doubt they would implement such a system without properly addressing such an issue.
Be more afraid of Near Earth Objects. Of course those things fall from roughly 4.7E17 km. Why the hell don't people imagine that?