On January 14 President Bush announced his space plan at NASA Headquarters and indicated that he was advocating spending a total of $12 billion over five years on the plan, only $1 billion of it additional money. Many newspaper articles reported that this was not a lot of money, and in fact would come primarily from within NASA's existing budget. But despite this new information, some reporters refused to abandon the $1 trillion number, while at the same time failing to check its origins. Others erroneously reported that the primary emphasis of the new program was placing a human on Mars. For instance, a January 26 Time magazine cover contained the headline "Mission to Mars." This was the same issue that carried Easterbrook's essay on the costs.
Some large newspapers such as the New York Times and the Washington Post never mentioned the $1 trillion figure. They did, however, mention that the Bush plan would undoubtedly cost more than was in the proposed budget figures.
The combination of the widely-reported $1 trillion figure and the newly-released NASA figures created an ironic situation: some reporters and commentators assumed that NASA and White House officials must be lying (or worse) because the numbers were so completely different. Some reporters later wrote about the story as if the Bush figures had no validity at all, because other estimates had been much higher--$1 trillion. Some reporters later wrote about the story as if the Bush figures had no validity at all, because other estimates had been much higher--$1 trillion.
At the time of the Bush speech NASA released a confusing budget chart that indicated how much money the agency would spend on various projects over the next 20 years. If one carefully separated out the exploration part of the chart from the rest, it was possible to determine that NASA planned to spend approximately $170 billion on various aspects of space exploration over this period, including robotic probes to Mars and Jupiter. Lunar exploration would be only one part of this figure and human Mars exploration was not part of it at all. But in the press coverage that followed the announcement, just about the only part of this that reporters acknowledged was a 20-year timeframe. On January 19 Paul Recer wrote another article about the space plan. Despite the fact that in the intervening 11 days the new Bush plan had been released and did not contain anywhere near $1 trillion in new spending, Recer repeated in its entirety his original paragraph on the costs of the mission. More whispers
Not everyone in the media automatically repeated the trillion dollar figure, but most of the cost estimates were extremely high. The Delmarva Daily Times, a small regional newspaper in Maryland, stated that the Bush plan "has been estimated to cost up to $500 billion." The Denver Post ran an editorial stating that a Mars mission "may cost a half-trillion dollars." A left-wing website, AlterNet.org, stated that the plan would cost "hundreds of billions." The St. Louis Post-Dispatch printed a generally supportive column that stated that "the cost of going to Mars has been estimated at somewhere between $600 billion and $1 trillion." On January 18 the New York Times cited John Pike, director of GlobalSecurity.org, as claiming that the cost of establishing a base on the Moon by 2020 could be $150 billion. The article also inaccurately reported that the 1989 cost estimate for a mission to Mars was "around $400 billion."
Few reporters were skeptical of the high cost estimates that were being endlessly repeated by their colleagues. Florida Today writers John Kelly and Todd Halvorson, both knowledgeable space journalists, wrote on January 14 that "Critics pounced on the price tag given the nation's other needs, some citing erroneous estimates that ranged as high at $1 trillion." But there do not appear to be any other examples of reporters directly questioning the high numbers.
On January 20, the Seattle Post Intelligencer ran an article o
The January 8 Recer article in the Associated Press proved to have a major impact on later press reporting. Recer's story was widely distributed, appearing in dozens of newspapers across the country, such as the Fort Wayne News-Sentinel. Over the next several weeks, numerous articles by other reporters quoted the $1 trillion figure, usually for a human mission to Mars. Some of them attributed the number to the Associated Press and some did not, but nearly all had clearly gotten the number from Recer's article. Many of them stated that a single Mars expedition alone would cost $1 trillion, whereas others later stated that this was the overall cost estimate for the entire space exploration plan.
But something else often happened. One of the problems that alert reporters should have noticed with Recer's original article was that he never named his source, so there was no way for other reporters to call that source and confirm the information themselves. This did not prove much of an impediment for reporters or editors, however. Because the $1 trillion cost estimate was repeated so often, even if they were uncomfortable taking the number from Recer's piece, reporters could often quote somebody who had merely repeated the number they had read in the newspaper, therefore avoiding the problem of determining its validity. Furthermore, in at least one case it appears that sloppy editing allowed someone to invent a source for the number.
On January 9 another article by Associated Press writer Scott Lindlaw included the exact same paragraph as in the Recer article, although the rest of Lindlaw's article was completely different. Lindlaw's article appeared in many places, such as the website of the liberal British newspaper The Guardian. One unusual aspect of the Lindlaw article was that in addition to the paragraph that was borrowed from the earlier story by Recer, Lindlaw also mentioned "When the first President Bush proposed such a project, the estimated price tag was $400 billion to $500 billion." Although this was accurate, it omitted the important caveat that the "project" was also only one approach to achieving the president's goals. It also omitted the fact that there had been other, much lower cost estimates.
Lindlaw's article also stated that former astronaut and senator John Glenn had commented on completing the International Space Station and setting exploration timetables. Glenn was never quoted directly in the article and Lindlaw did not quote Glenn concerning the cost of the exploration plan. The reference to Glenn occurred nine paragraphs after the mention of a $1 trillion cost estimate and two paragraphs after the reference to the $400-$500 billion estimate for the 1989 plan. The association between John Glenn and the trillion-dollar figure also became part of the mythos.
By January 15, a short Associated Press article without a byline appeared on numerous websites. It stated "The first American to orbit the globe, retired Senator John Glenn, said it could cost $1 trillion." There was only one problem with this statement--Glenn apparently never said it. The AP article appears to have been a heavily condensed version of the Scott Lindlaw article of January 9 that never attributed the cost estimate to Glenn. In the course of editing it, someone claimed that Glenn had said something he had never said.
This new AP article was extremely short and appears to have been used primarily by radio and television stations rather than the print media. It is common for radio and television stations to repeat stories that they first see in newspapers or on the news wires, usually condensed to only a few sentences. This new, shorter AP story appeared on the websites of WJAC TV in central Pennsylvania, and WCAX TV in Burlington, Vermont. On January 15 the local Washington DC Fox News affiliate, WTTG, ran a story about the Bush proposal. News anchor Allison Seymour introduced the story by saying that the Bush plan "could cost trillions." Not "a trillion," but "trillio
'With all of these people that get confused over the procedures to vote, it is my opinion that voting classes should be made available to teach people in various districts how to do it.'
I would suggest that the voting machine companies hire some user interaction designers who are not incompetent.
Until the machines work as well and as easily as:
raise your hands those who want...
to vote 'yes', put the white rock in the bucket; to vote 'no', put the black...
put a mark in the box closest to your choice; do not go outside the line; only pick one...
'it's all about product vs. service. since computers have been around the vast majority of companies have been product based.[emphasis mine] they sell wordprocessors or mainframes or videogames. this makes sense, of course, because the traditional economies have been product-based too.'
This is not quite true. The first computer companies (IBM, Univac, etc.) provided only leased machines with service contracts that included training, the OS, hardware upgrades, and so on. Additional services, such as bespoke financial software, were provided by the computer company or some third party providers such as BBN. These were not 'works for hire'; the client did not own any of this. This situation lasted throughout the '50s and '60s (and '70s for the most part) in the commercial sphere. DEC was the first major player (I know there were others) in providing computing hardware that was purchased outright by the end users. (Even their first fully fledged computers retained the name 'PDP' because the board didn't think getting into computers was a good idea!)
Productization (is that a word?) really ocurred as a result of the IBM anti-trust suit, the inroads of minicomputers, and the Apple II and really got going in the mid '80s. (Again, there are exceptions to all of this; e.g.: RDBs in the seventies and work at academic institutions.)
Re:What kind of idiot legislature...
on
USB Swiss Army Knife
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
'Passes that kind of a law banning any kind of blade in any public place? It's the kind of law that can almost only be there to provide an excuse to throw more charges at someone...'
That's the point. If enough laws and regulations are enacted, then everyone becomes (or can become) a criminal. Even if not enforced all that much, they allow for greater control of the peasantry.
Find a student who is either bright, but hasn't had the opportunity to learn or has a learning disability (e.g.: dyslexia), or is mentally defficient, but eager, and have your student tutor him (or her). The latter case may be too frustrating, but I find that a lot of intelligent people will go out of their way to make allowance for someone who tries hard, but can't quite get it. The worst choice is probably an average, uninterested person: all the frustration without the joy.
You are quite correct that sports are a good way to foster social interaction. However, karate still requires practise/competition with a partner. This can be either a good or bad way to start, depending on the person.
Other sports that can be practised individually may be better in this case. These include horse riding (which has the benefit of many many women:^), whitewater paddling (canoe or kayak), and orienteering. The major social interactions (other than training/coaching) occur as an adjunct to the sport, allowing one to ease into it. In all of these, no competition is required at any time, although it is an option at any level.
My thought exactly when I read this. It is one of the best features of OS/2 IMNSHO. I never had any performance problems with it, though.
Does anyone know if the templates apply only to files? I used this OS/2 feature extensively for creating templates of directories with standard subdirectories and files already in place. For example, just instantiate a template, rename and your src, bin, lib, Makefile, etc. are all set up and ready for a new project (or a new subsystem in an existing project).
Heck, just mail the gadget to a taxi driver in Paris or New Orleans; have him drive around (visiting bars, museums, and other tourist delights) for a day or so and mail it back to you. Then you can see what a great time you had:^)
Cheap vacations without leaving the comfort of your home!
"If someone had the secret formula that _started_ Coke's fame, they would only be known as a knockoff of Coke and not bought."
Actually, that someone would have to beat of customers with a stick! The formula that started Coca-Cola contained cocaine (the coca in the name) which has since been replaced with caffeine.
(This reply is on topic 'cause everyone knows that Darl, of The Scum Group, smokes crack.)
During the 19th century, England tightened its patent laws to the point that reverse engineering was disallowed (cf. DMCA and some EULAs). The main result was the decline of new invention and improvement originating out of England and a surge of advancement of invention in the US. (England continued to 'coast' as a world power by expending its capitol (i.e.: the empire) for another 50 - 100 years before precipitous decline was obviously evident.)
Slashdot Mirror
And even then, someone will crimp the cable in backwards :^)
The new space vision
On January 14 President Bush announced his space plan at NASA Headquarters and indicated that he was advocating spending a total of $12 billion over five years on the plan, only $1 billion of it additional money. Many newspaper articles reported that this was not a lot of money, and in fact would come primarily from within NASA's existing budget. But despite this new information, some reporters refused to abandon the $1 trillion number, while at the same time failing to check its origins. Others erroneously reported that the primary emphasis of the new program was placing a human on Mars. For instance, a January 26 Time magazine cover contained the headline "Mission to Mars." This was the same issue that carried Easterbrook's essay on the costs.
Some large newspapers such as the New York Times and the Washington Post never mentioned the $1 trillion figure. They did, however, mention that the Bush plan would undoubtedly cost more than was in the proposed budget figures.
The combination of the widely-reported $1 trillion figure and the newly-released NASA figures created an ironic situation: some reporters and commentators assumed that NASA and White House officials must be lying (or worse) because the numbers were so completely different. Some reporters later wrote about the story as if the Bush figures had no validity at all, because other estimates had been much higher--$1 trillion.
Some reporters later wrote about the story as if the Bush figures had no validity at all, because other estimates had been much higher--$1 trillion.
At the time of the Bush speech NASA released a confusing budget chart that indicated how much money the agency would spend on various projects over the next 20 years. If one carefully separated out the exploration part of the chart from the rest, it was possible to determine that NASA planned to spend approximately $170 billion on various aspects of space exploration over this period, including robotic probes to Mars and Jupiter. Lunar exploration would be only one part of this figure and human Mars exploration was not part of it at all. But in the press coverage that followed the announcement, just about the only part of this that reporters acknowledged was a 20-year timeframe. On January 19 Paul Recer wrote another article about the space plan. Despite the fact that in the intervening 11 days the new Bush plan had been released and did not contain anywhere near $1 trillion in new spending, Recer repeated in its entirety his original paragraph on the costs of the mission.
More whispers
Not everyone in the media automatically repeated the trillion dollar figure, but most of the cost estimates were extremely high. The Delmarva Daily Times, a small regional newspaper in Maryland, stated that the Bush plan "has been estimated to cost up to $500 billion." The Denver Post ran an editorial stating that a Mars mission "may cost a half-trillion dollars." A left-wing website, AlterNet.org, stated that the plan would cost "hundreds of billions." The St. Louis Post-Dispatch printed a generally supportive column that stated that "the cost of going to Mars has been estimated at somewhere between $600 billion and $1 trillion." On January 18 the New York Times cited John Pike, director of GlobalSecurity.org, as claiming that the cost of establishing a base on the Moon by 2020 could be $150 billion. The article also inaccurately reported that the 1989 cost estimate for a mission to Mars was "around $400 billion."
Few reporters were skeptical of the high cost estimates that were being endlessly repeated by their colleagues. Florida Today writers John Kelly and Todd Halvorson, both knowledgeable space journalists, wrote on January 14 that "Critics pounced on the price tag given the nation's other needs, some citing erroneous estimates that ranged as high at $1 trillion." But there do not appear to be any other examples of reporters directly questioning the high numbers.
On January 20, the Seattle Post Intelligencer ran an article o
The echo chamber
The January 8 Recer article in the Associated Press proved to have a major impact on later press reporting. Recer's story was widely distributed, appearing in dozens of newspapers across the country, such as the Fort Wayne News-Sentinel. Over the next several weeks, numerous articles by other reporters quoted the $1 trillion figure, usually for a human mission to Mars. Some of them attributed the number to the Associated Press and some did not, but nearly all had clearly gotten the number from Recer's article. Many of them stated that a single Mars expedition alone would cost $1 trillion, whereas others later stated that this was the overall cost estimate for the entire space exploration plan.
But something else often happened. One of the problems that alert reporters should have noticed with Recer's original article was that he never named his source, so there was no way for other reporters to call that source and confirm the information themselves. This did not prove much of an impediment for reporters or editors, however. Because the $1 trillion cost estimate was repeated so often, even if they were uncomfortable taking the number from Recer's piece, reporters could often quote somebody who had merely repeated the number they had read in the newspaper, therefore avoiding the problem of determining its validity. Furthermore, in at least one case it appears that sloppy editing allowed someone to invent a source for the number.
On January 9 another article by Associated Press writer Scott Lindlaw included the exact same paragraph as in the Recer article, although the rest of Lindlaw's article was completely different. Lindlaw's article appeared in many places, such as the website of the liberal British newspaper The Guardian. One unusual aspect of the Lindlaw article was that in addition to the paragraph that was borrowed from the earlier story by Recer, Lindlaw also mentioned "When the first President Bush proposed such a project, the estimated price tag was $400 billion to $500 billion." Although this was accurate, it omitted the important caveat that the "project" was also only one approach to achieving the president's goals. It also omitted the fact that there had been other, much lower cost estimates.
Lindlaw's article also stated that former astronaut and senator John Glenn had commented on completing the International Space Station and setting exploration timetables. Glenn was never quoted directly in the article and Lindlaw did not quote Glenn concerning the cost of the exploration plan. The reference to Glenn occurred nine paragraphs after the mention of a $1 trillion cost estimate and two paragraphs after the reference to the $400-$500 billion estimate for the 1989 plan.
The association between John Glenn and the trillion-dollar figure also became part of the mythos.
By January 15, a short Associated Press article without a byline appeared on numerous websites. It stated "The first American to orbit the globe, retired Senator John Glenn, said it could cost $1 trillion." There was only one problem with this statement--Glenn apparently never said it. The AP article appears to have been a heavily condensed version of the Scott Lindlaw article of January 9 that never attributed the cost estimate to Glenn. In the course of editing it, someone claimed that Glenn had said something he had never said.
This new AP article was extremely short and appears to have been used primarily by radio and television stations rather than the print media. It is common for radio and television stations to repeat stories that they first see in newspapers or on the news wires, usually condensed to only a few sentences. This new, shorter AP story appeared on the websites of WJAC TV in central Pennsylvania, and WCAX TV in Burlington, Vermont. On January 15 the local Washington DC Fox News affiliate, WTTG, ran a story about the Bush proposal. News anchor Allison Seymour introduced the story by saying that the Bush plan "could cost trillions." Not "a trillion," but "trillio
I would suggest that the voting machine companies hire some user interaction designers who are not incompetent.
Until the machines work as well and as easily as:
- raise your hands those who want
... - to vote 'yes', put the white rock in the bucket; to vote 'no', put the black
... - put a mark in the box closest to your choice; do not go outside the line; only pick one
...
they are not well designed.([ASIDE] To be fair (though why I should, I don't know!), I believe their ATM division is a purchased company.)
This is not quite true. The first computer companies (IBM, Univac, etc.) provided only leased machines with service contracts that included training, the OS, hardware upgrades, and so on. Additional services, such as bespoke financial software, were provided by the computer company or some third party providers such as BBN. These were not 'works for hire'; the client did not own any of this. This situation lasted throughout the '50s and '60s (and '70s for the most part) in the commercial sphere. DEC was the first major player (I know there were others) in providing computing hardware that was purchased outright by the end users. (Even their first fully fledged computers retained the name 'PDP' because the board didn't think getting into computers was a good idea!)
Productization (is that a word?) really ocurred as a result of the IBM anti-trust suit, the inroads of minicomputers, and the Apple II and really got going in the mid '80s. (Again, there are exceptions to all of this; e.g.: RDBs in the seventies and work at academic institutions.)
In Canada, they're even larger:^)
Those that want to still be in existence in many years.
They'll be ready to deploy when the time is right; the others will have to play catchup and most likely decline (or whine about how unfair it is).
Another British first was the in-house system described in this show (episode 5)
I think Pepsi and Pizza Hut may may already have done this. (Could one say a spaceship 'pops up'?)
That's the point. If enough laws and regulations are enacted, then everyone becomes (or can become) a criminal. Even if not enforced all that much, they allow for greater control of the peasantry.
And here's a power shovel (go to page bottom) that shows how tiny that Cat 797 is!
(high res image here (1.66 MiB)
Well, not quite; as a student, I wanted my teachers to be smarter than I, but it was so rarely the case :^)
Find a student who is either bright, but hasn't had the opportunity to learn or has a learning disability (e.g.: dyslexia), or is mentally defficient, but eager, and have your student tutor him (or her).
The latter case may be too frustrating, but I find that a lot of intelligent people will go out of their way to make allowance for someone who tries hard, but can't quite get it.
The worst choice is probably an average, uninterested person: all the frustration without the joy.
However, karate still requires practise/competition with a partner. This can be either a good or bad way to start, depending on the person.
Other sports that can be practised individually may be better in this case. These include horse riding (which has the benefit of many many women :^), whitewater paddling (canoe or kayak), and orienteering. The major social interactions (other than training/coaching) occur as an adjunct to the sport, allowing one to ease into it.
In all of these, no competition is required at any time, although it is an option at any level.
Personally, I hope to make big bucks off of them with:
NoTiVo, the new digital technology that allows you to selectively not record the shows you aren't going to watch!
(I figure a gaily coloured cardboard box with painted dials and switches could work).
Does anyone know if the templates apply only to files? I used this OS/2 feature extensively for creating templates of directories with standard subdirectories and files already in place. For example, just instantiate a template, rename and your src, bin, lib, Makefile, etc. are all set up and ready for a new project (or a new subsystem in an existing project).
You mean like professional engineers, medical doctors, lawyers, architects, or accountants, for example?
C3PO lives!
(runs screaming in terror)
Cheap vacations without leaving the comfort of your home!
(ob IANAL)
Actually, that someone would have to beat of customers with a stick! The formula that started Coca-Cola contained cocaine (the coca in the name) which has since been replaced with caffeine.
(This reply is on topic 'cause everyone knows that Darl, of The Scum Group, smokes crack.)
Graphs and dictionaries/hash-tables.
Or one can go (e.g.) to the original from IBM (first introduced in 1967).
During the 19th century, England tightened its patent laws to the point that reverse engineering was disallowed (cf. DMCA and some EULAs).
The main result was the decline of new invention and improvement originating out of England and a surge of advancement of invention in the US.
(England continued to 'coast' as a world power by expending its capitol (i.e.: the empire) for another 50 - 100 years before precipitous decline was obviously evident.)