Luring? Maybe the smartest and hardest working people are smart enough to realize that, if they're willing to work hard, America offers them the best chance to have a better life.
Best chance to have a better life? Define better life. What America does is sell false hope to the young in other countries. It might be the reason we are hated and the source of jelousy. America flashes something bright and shinny, and says you can be rich too. Big TV's, sound systems, and cars. This can all be yours too...
Real wealth has nothing to do with money. It is good friends, family, feeling connected to a place with history, enough food and drink; and everything else will work itself out. What the USA does is go into foriegn countries and lure the smartest out. It is like Google with their puzzle, if you figure it out quick enough, you get to apply for a job. But what is different with the USA, is when we pull out a smart kid from Kenya, that country loses the guy who might have had the imagination or talent or intellect to make the country a better place. And that kid could have worked within his system, within his culture, and it would have been his countries pride.
You mean there are other countries involved in 'world' baseball apart from the US and Canada?
If the Yankees are the USA, who is Canada? and which countries are all the rest of the 'world' baseball teams?
Canada would be the Cubs. They sometimes make some noise, but in the end, they don't really do anything. Nobody expects they ever will do anything. Mexico is the Pittsburgh Pirates. Their best day is opening day, because that is the highest in the standing's they will ever be. They always sink to dead last, and their players try anything they can to get traded to better teams. France is like the Braves. They do it the time-honored way, they get every drop out of pitching they can. And they always seem to be invloved in determining who wins, they are in the race until the last day. Russia is like the Mets. They used to be the best competition, 2 decades ago, but they have fallen to second fiddle to the Yankees. They make bad deals trying to reclaim what they lost, but each deal sinks them deeper. And China, they might be like the twins. The smallest payroll, but the smartest managment of assets. They can't hold on to talent, because as soon as someone makes a name, they find their way to the Yankee's. But they seem to have an endless supply of young people with potential.
Even granting that, it would indicate that said MIT education didn't make them any better. And think, all those student loans for nothing?;)
This reminds me of Good Will Hunting. LOL. "You could have got your Harvard education for 10 cents in library late fee's".
I agree, I have met many people from the MIT's of the world, and they don't really impress me as better human beings than I've met elsewhere. In some cases, they were complete asshats. The problem is, everyone in highschool knows the next best secret to getting in MIT, besides being rich. Get the best scores on tests, any way you can. Often, this means no social life, and people who have not developed fully as human beings. They think they know more about Humanity because they have read Hawthorn, although they have never done anything really stupid, for no reason, just because friends were doing it too.
Before this deteriorates in to a Pro/Anti Immigration flame fest, I cannot but feel awe for these four kids who braced odds to be where they are at now.
I also can't help but think what a loss to their original country they are. America has a way of luring the smartest and most hard working people here with the hopes of a better life. And the country where they came from losses one more leader, one more person who could have had an impact.
It is like the USA is the Yankee's of world baseball. We don't have to grow our own talent. We can buy it elsewhere. And then, what do we give back to other countries? We open HUGE factories where we move jobs, like when GM closed the plants in Michigan and moved them to Mexico because people there would work for pennies on the dollar.
What does this say about how the world is being organized?
"Talent" is not something exclusive to MIT people.
But schools like MIT do everything they can to segregate intellect. They only select the "brightest" and the "best". They pick through thousands of applications, looking for the best grades, toughest curriculum, and highest test scores.
So, how come they failed against some high school kids? What happened to the Feynmans?
The private university only has 1 true purpose for exsisting. It is a segregated place where the legacies of the rich and powerful can meet who they believe to be the brightest and best of the future, to start their collusions. The best jobs often go to these graduates, and the contacts they make seem to impact where they work and what they do. And for being so bright, they have no clue what's really going on. It is like the Firm- they get offered a ton of money and a Wall Street job, and before they know how they are impacting society, they are a cog in a bureaucracy forcing people to move out of housing or doing something as children they would have found reprehensible. Money really is the root of all evil, and it seems kids who had a geniune joy for robotics beat the mighty MIT team.
But I am getting a good belly laugh that their formula for finding the "best" and the "brightest" was blown out of the water by a bunch of high school kids.
One of the biggest blunders generals tend to make is to try to fight the last war instead of the war they are actually in
We are in wars we don't even know about, and probably won't know about for 20 to 30 years. Not only did we assasinate duly elected heads of state in democratic countries, and replace them with dictators, but we did it and nobody knew. Check out what the CIA did in South America the past couple decades to get a clue.
It is WELL KNOWN that politicians don't even view people as important. Watch "War Room" to get an idea how political insiders think. According to "them" there is 38% of the country as red, 38% of the country as blue, and the middle is what they are interested in. The will do whatever they can during an election to capture the middle. States where more than 60% of the base is either makes candidates not campaign there. I remember visiting Ohio during the last election. There was a 30 second commerical for either Bush or Kerry almost every half hour. I was shocked. In my state, I could go a whole day and see 2 or 3 or 4; In Ohio I saw 30 a day.
One of the major instruments of the ruling political class is to divide and distract public opinion with intense moral-laden debate
The first part is correct, the second is wrong. Politicians divide not based on intense moral issues, they polarize their base when needed. Bush claimed we MUST fight the war in Iraq because WE were THREATENED. It turned out later, when the threat was shown to be non-exsistant, his reasons changed. Morality had very little to do with it. Morals have little to do with Social Security or Taxes or where government should build schools or highways. Governments function has very little to do with religion, unless you count the prayer the Senate says each morning.
Re:Security with a stick does not work...
on
VoIP Wiretapping
·
· Score: 1
Get off your "it is all those damn republicans" high horse and realize that both parties could care less about your privacy.
I am already there. I am starting to view republicans and democrats as the same party. Can you honestly say that on matters of economics that Bush is more conservative than Clinton? While Bush has much hot air with social security, Clinton ended welfare. You could argue that Newt Gingrich and congress deserves the credit. But what I am getting at more than who did what; the important thing is in many instances you could take away party labels and just look at votes, and you would probably have an easier time predicting what lobby groups fund candidates rather than what party they belong to.
But for my lifetime, the dominant party is the Republican party. We had 8 years of Reagan, who could do no wrong. Lou Cannon, considered the best Reagan biographer, writes what made Reagan so effective was "if they offered 80% of what I wanted, I took it and would go after the other 20% tomorrow". After Reagan we had Bush, then 8 years of a republican Clinton. I was born in a family with roots in the democratic party, and Clinton is about as far away as one can get from the ideals of JFK or Johnson.
smart people fooled into the "good cop, bad cop" game that both parties play on this kind of issue
This is very true, and a good observation on your part. Until a few years ago, I used to think those presidential debates were done by the news organization, and oversight was conducted by some government agency. They even had a really official sounding name "Commision on Presidential Debates" or something along those lines. Boy was I shocked when I found out that commision is a negotiation between Republicans and Democrats in choosing who will moderate, what questions will be asked. Even in those town hall meatings, all the questions were selected ahead of time. But it was made to look like a spontanious exchange. It was not. I think we need the Ross Perot, the Ralph Nader, the outsiders that can get 1% or more of the popular vote included in the debates. But both parties fear that these outsiders can cut into their votes, so they get excluded. Bush blamed Perot for loosing to Clinton. Gore blamed Nader for loosing to Bush. So both sides are closing the system even more. The only ones who get inside are the people who offer money, who contribute to a campaign.
I don't know what the anwser is. I think if money is removed from politics, that is a good start. I would trust my elected officials more if they spent 100% of their job worrying about the issues, instead of also having to worry about raising money and getting re-elected.
And I can't resist it... the only guy to lose his senate seat to a dead guy. What an asshat.
BTW, even though Ashcroft is gone, that does not mean that many people he hired are gone. The people he advanced to leadership positions are now the ones running the show. Think about that. That is how a shadow government forms. Right now Ashcroft is probably in some high level burrocrat's office lighting up a cigarette while influencing world events.
Security with a stick does not work...
on
VoIP Wiretapping
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
That is what Isreal has been doing for how many years? Somehow, there is always an endless supply of people willing to blow themseleves up in a final statement of resistance. Often, taking your loved ones with them.
Personally, I don't have a problem with the security thing. It's just for the police, and I personally don't have anything to hide from them.
The USA is not designed to have a transparent citizenship. The USA was designed for government to be transparent. Everything our founding fathers did was designed for maximum personal freedom, maximum personal privacy, and to minimize the chance of government curruption. And over the past 20 years, under republican control, we have lost many rights your grandparents took for granted.
During WWII we locked up anyone who had slanted eyes because they *might* sympathize with the enemy. We tried countless times to kill Casto. We assasinated the head of state of Chili. Lets face it, the USA does not have a good history when it comes to human rights. Whenever someone with money thinks someone without money is a threat, the powers that be make life a living hell on everyone.
Call me old fashioned...
on
VoIP Wiretapping
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
But I think phone calls should be private, and the only way for a police department or FBI to wiretap should be with a court order. There should be hoops to jump through, and it should not be easy to do.
But maybe there is more to it?
Congress gave telephone companies $500 million to buy new equipment to comply with CALEA. Why should Internet companies not receive the same treatment? Is it because Verizon, SBC and the other former Bells have well-connected lobbying outposts in Washington, D.C.--but Vonage, 8x8 and other VoIP start-ups do not?
According to the article, congress gave telcom companies $500,000,000 to enforce the laws they passed? Why doesn't the government give me money to enforce their pollution laws, so I can get my car fixed up. Instead I have to pay to comply with the law.
People must be aware they are giving something up here. They are giving away freedom. What if some day comes, when a David Duke wins the white house? Congress is filled with people who vote along lobbyist lines. And we end up with laws that remove our consitutional rights- like having police wiretap without a warrent or snoop around the library to see what we are reading. What if they take away our 2nd amendment rights, first by requiring registration, than banning assult style wepons, then slowly, state by state, taking away wepons you already own. What if the states decide to put up a camera on every street corner.... then one day in your house.
The point is the founding fathers did not add the Bill or Rights because it sounded like a nice set of rights. They added those Rights so the people could fight an overbearing government if the need ever came. What if England had decided the colony could not have any guns, and decided that neighbors must report what other neighbors say. We would not be a country today, we would be English. The founding fathers gave people certain Rights to make sure we stay free.
Those that give away those Rights are comminting suicide for the rest of us. They are chaining us all. Rossoue was right "Man is born free, yet everywhere he is in chains". People, don't give you your rights!
He wasn't mispeling (except once). Repeating leters is just unecesary. You, to, can improve keyboard longevity!
I am a horrible speller. I speak three languages, english is my second (and I was born in the USA... but my folks were determined I get my ass beat from grades 3 through 7). I am not the spelling bee champ. I always wondered, why a speller's arguments make more sense. I knew people in college who could spell, but you would not want them giving you an emergency tracheotomy. tracheotomy... t-r-a-c... oh, my god, the BLOOD, it is EVERYWHERE. antiquated system of learning? or way of making smart people feel as dumb as everyone else. I guess maybe the PE department should have hired Randy Johnson for batting practice. the bird was pretty cool.
Right here you've nicely illustrated the trouble with Windows: as a power user you have no problems because you know that there's all this stuff, which is on by default, that you have to disable.
No, I know the version of Windows I am using. I am using one made for easy interoperability. I am disabling those feature because there are those out there who will exploit it.
I would love to see other options out there. Linux is one, but I don't want to learn another OS. I don't like the one I use now. Are you wondering why I am a 2000 user and not XP? Because XP is worse, more DRM, more crap, more activation, more hoops.
I am giving up. I am just going to do what my parents did. Vote to increase jail time for ALL crimes. Someone hacks a computer, life in jail. Someone kills someone, life in jail. I just don't give a damn. I have become insensitized, that is what the hackers wants us to be? Unhappy?
While I totally agree. I think your points is a bit moot considering how much effort you had to put into it after a default install to make it "secure." Or is that how you think operating systems should come?
I think Microsoft has changed a great deal in the past 5-10 years, and I think it might be our fault. When MS first came out with Windows 95, it was a HUGE improvment over Windows 3.1, it was made to be much easier to use. It trusted the user to do anything and everything. When Windows 98 came out, it was very much like Windows 95. It trusted the user. It did not expect hackers to take over a system. Windows 98 was made for multimedia use, for games, to have fun.
Somewhere after that, people started slamming Microsoft. In many cases the reasons for attacking Microsoft were valid, it was becomming a monopoly, ect, ect. But some people also decided to start hacking and cracking into Windows computers because they hated Microsoft. Some hacked just because they were curious. I will admit, when Excite@Home first offered internet service in my area, you could open Windows Explorer and browse the neighborhood. If you knew any IP address, all you had to do was assign it a new drive letter. Why would Microsoft make it so easy for computers to connect and share information? Was Microsoft out to make our lives so insecure that anyone could rob us blind?
Now Microsoft's pendulum has swung all the way to the other extreme. Now you can't get Windows without tons and tons and tons of DRM bullcrap, you can't run software your way, it has to be their way. And they are going the way of making each copy of Windows known to them, you have to call in to activate your copy, and when you do they get tons of data about your CPU, other identifiable information about your system, and so forth which they match up with the serial number of the copy of Windows you have.
I don't think people will ever be satisfied. What happens if you make it very secure and filled with DRM. Nobody except tech's will want to use it. What happens if you make it very easy to use, everything is trusted? Hackers will exploit it.
My contention is, make it reasonably secure out of the box. If 90% of the attacks come from active-x, maybe it is time to retire active-x? Yet the moment you retire active-x, there goes all the flash swf video's and games too. So, what do you do? How much are YOU willing to trust your neighbors when they have anonymity?
Or should it be, that the USER must know what they are doing? If that is the concensus that we are heading to, the personal computer will die for mainstream people, and it will go back to the backpages of popular mechanics magazines. I for one have come to the point where I could learn to live without email. There are enough ways for people to reach me that I don't need a computer. And I am old enough where I really don't care about games on the computer. If my experiance on the computer is taking HOURS AND HOURS to fight off hackers and script kiddies, then spending HOURS AND HOURS trying to find a hack to back up my DVD's, at some point I will say "this is just too much a pain in the ass" and I'll go outside and BBQ and drink beer, and talk to the neighbors and find out thier names.
I think a good test would be to take various systems, Linux, Windows, Mac, and configure them to be up to date with service packs and normal security. Have 3 of each system, 3 linux boxes, 3 windows boxes, and 3 mac boxes. Then have an expert hacker try to hack into 1 mac box, have a script try to hack into a different mac box, and have web exploits try to hack the third. Do this for all three, and publish the results. That would be interesting. My feeling is, the web exploits and scripts will not work if there is some intelligence in setting up a secure box, like disabling active-x. But I would like to know what a seasoned hacker can do. Hire MS people to hack into the linux or Mac box. I am sure enough linux hackers will salivate at the chance to hack the MS box. It could be a huge competition, with a $50k reward. I think we could learn more about what system is most secure that way.
I just got a new laptop that I had to install with XP for somebody. From behind a firewall, I installed SP2 and all patches. Just to test that it was secure , I plugged it into the net directly... bad idea. Less than 10 minutes and it was full of spyware
I am calling bullshit on this obvious lie. You had a clean instal, behind a firewall, with all the service packs installed, and in just 10 minutes after that with a direct connection to the net, someone infected it with spyware? That has to be bullshit.
I have been running Windows 2000 for years, and there is no spyware. And I am not doing anything special. I make sure to fdisk the mbr before an instal, just to make sure someone did not hide something on the hard drive before the instal. I do the instal off-line. Add a software firewall, then connect through a router to the net to get the service packs. I have never had any spyware on my system ever. I disable active-x from IE, and when I did my instal the only net protocol I install is tcp/ip, I do not instal the other 2- client or file & printer sharing.
Come on, when will all this anti-windows BS stop? The only reason people can hack it is because users don't instal service packs and because they open links in emails that use active-x. I gaurentee if those two problems are resolved, it will become 99.9% harder to infect a machine- a hacker would not just be able to run software, he would have to know your system and activly fight to get in, which would be too much work for him.
They double the reward from $25,000 to $50,000 if a Symantec employee writes the virus? Most companies that run these kinds of events prohibit employees from entering because the risk of cheating is too great. Who is to say some employee from Symantec gets a hold of an entry, and changes it slightly and then submits the entry as his own? Wasn't Mcdonalds involved in an insider game scam? http://archives.cnn.com/2001/LAW/08/21/monopoly.ar rests/
So the proposed solution is to sue the pants off of anyone involved with open source and take their money.
The problem is with lobby groups, those with an adgenda who use money to fund candidates, then corner the politicians to do thier bidding. How hard is it for a politician to say no to a lobby? How hard is it on them to lose, that's how hard. I am sure more than one lobbyist has whispered you need us.
Even if laws don't exsist yet to kill Open Source, the laws are comming if they threaten the big corporations. Big corporations will use their lawyers, their lobbyists, and their fortunes to destroy those who innovate, those who want change, those who are competition. What ever happened to the monopoly laws, the collusion laws, the laws which defend the small mom and pop stores against the mega store?
Open source developers have a great defense against this: they have no money.
But the people who use their products do have money. And they are the ones who will be sued, and scared away. Even if I KNOW that I am in the right, and can win a lawsuit against me, will I want to spend thousands of dollars defending my company because we used some open source?
The anwser to this is so simple, but it will never pass. Campaign finance reform. Throw out the lobbyists from the legislative process. Let Congress make laws that benifit the people, not laws written by lobbyists. There is a conflict of interest. How can your Senator work for your benifit if he knows he can't win re-election without the money the lobbyists provide?
We need something set in the relatively near future within the Solar System without "New Types" or fast orbital transfers.
That would be cool. Just getting to Pluto, to see if it is really a planet. Maybe designing the first base on another planet, maybe on a moon of saturn. That would all be fascinating. Add in plans to try and make it to alfa-centauri, and back. The Enterprise show could have been the best. But the early shows failed to catch viewer interest, and did nothing to make a good foundation for character empathy. And there was no science. What I remember from the series was dumb action plots. The dumb action plots should come later, once we know the characters and there is good science fiction.
I can only imagine the good drama, the good science fiction, the endless oppertunity for a show to showcase its smarts.
this is a difficult matter since it conflicts with basic human emotions - greed and lazyness
Interesting. Most children are not greedy like adults are greedy. Most children work for acknowledgment, for praise. Somewhere this love of doing changes into working to satisfy greed. I wonder if this is something because of capitalism where money can buy you anything, including politicians and public opinion.
A software company for instance, can put a lot of manhours on producing a product. They then want to earn back what they've put into it (you have to feed even the programmers sometimes, you know). The easiest way to do that is sell it on a CD.
This is how it always was, and the companies made good money. I don't understand why things have changed so much, that now they are not making money. It was easier to copy software 10-20 years ago, yet today, even as it gets harder to make copies, are they are making less money?
Wouldn't people stop going to theaters if you could download the movie? Not if you have reasonable prices and give a good experience. What experience? Well I don't know, it doesn't exist yet, cause nobody cared to come up with one since what we have now is "good enough". Myself, I'd even be happy with the current one, if only they'd lower the prices. As it is, I almost never go to movies.
I think the theater and movie buisness is horrible, and a result of the industries own policies. Here is a perfect example where greed can kill something good. I used to LOVE going to the theater. Where else can you get a screen that is 15 feet wide, and a killer sound system?? I would go, and buy some candy. It was an awesome experiance. I would leave very happy. Today, it is very different. You pay $10 for a ticket, it seems the price of tickets is much more than it should be. Then you have to wait through 30 minutes of commericals. I remember when I was younger, I did not mind the 2 trailers they would play. I liked them. But when they started playing 4, then 5, then 6, then adding commercials, and these trailers became a distration, something that kept me from the movie, I started hating them. And I don't buy candy at the theater anymore. I am not about to spend $4 on a box of candy that is $1 at the grocery store. Someone should do a study, how many more boxes of candy or popcorn would a theater sell if they cut the price in half. Would they make more total money because of the increased sales? I think they would. And how much more money would a theater make if it cut those advertisments, would it save enough time to add one more showtime?
But I have a feeling that it will not last. If everybody on this planet were lazy stupid bums, the big companies would win and we would get lousy products for a high price and people would still eat it, since nobody cared
I am not as optimistic. Did you read what Dean told the democratic party? That they need to stop explaining their positions, but find catch phrases, otherwise the republicans will win the sound bites that play on the news.
The next Star Trek (if there ever is one again) will be 5-10 years down the road at least, so the cameos will be limited. Probably something similar to Scotty appearing on TNG as a tired old engineer caught in some time loop.
Wasn't this already done? LOL.
What I meant was a Star Trek where maybe Picard is a professor back at the academy, and an episode where someone goes to him for advice. Like the episode from "All Good Things" with Data. I dunno, I just like to see continuity. It is like Star Trek: "The Undiscovered Country" when you see Checkov in command of the excelcier. I dunno why, but that was an emotional experiance for me. The whole idea of Captin Kirk calling in a favor from another officer, and knowing their history together, it worked. It means more than if another starship appeared out of nowhere to save Kirk and the boys.
Plus, when they have a new Star Trek, I hope they get a HUGE budget for some good special effects.
It has been a long time since we've seen a Star Trek TV series
launch. Maybe we've forgotten how awkward it can be that first year or so.
ST:TNG was painful to watch those first few seasons. Riker had starch in his jock, Troi was whiny had spoke too much for how little she had to say, and it was always "Federation Knows Best."
It wasn't until the series found its footing later that it became interesting. Warp drive wrecks space (we don't know everything after all), Borgs eat our lunch (we aren't so tough after all), and more.
Sadly, Enterprise was never given a chance to find its path. I'm a fan, though I was also critical of weak, pointless plot lines. But I liked the cast and thought the genesis of the universe we've come to know so well had potential.
I will miss it.
I agree, the best episodes where the ones where it was not easily predictable what would happen. I liked the episodes with the Borg because of the danger. You knew you could not just lock phasers on them and "win", you were the underdog and had to figure out a way to survive. I liked the engineering episodes the best too, where a problem had to be fixed, and it was not 100% given how it would turn out. For example, the best Voyager episode IMO was Year in Hell. They lose at the end and all die. What made it so damn good was the fight, the struggle. But even a good episode is not good enough if people don't care about the characters. I don't know why I became attached to Kirk or Bones or Picard or Janeway or Scottie or LaForge, but not to anyone on Enterprise.
I think TNG could have been the best series in the Star Trek family, if it was more about engineering and space exploration and danger, and less about Troi or the holodeck. You can get fantasy anywhere, but it is hard to get good science fiction.
Enterprise would have had a GREAT premise for a show. The very begenning. The space exploration could have been something as good as "Lost in Space" and the danger as good as "BattleStar Gallactica". All wraped up in good science fiction, with an emphisis on science. But instead, we had weak characters and stories that were not interesting. I can't recall one episode that was strong on science, but then I bailed early in the first season.
Slashdot Mirror
Best chance to have a better life? Define better life. What America does is sell false hope to the young in other countries. It might be the reason we are hated and the source of jelousy. America flashes something bright and shinny, and says you can be rich too. Big TV's, sound systems, and cars. This can all be yours too...
Real wealth has nothing to do with money. It is good friends, family, feeling connected to a place with history, enough food and drink; and everything else will work itself out. What the USA does is go into foriegn countries and lure the smartest out. It is like Google with their puzzle, if you figure it out quick enough, you get to apply for a job. But what is different with the USA, is when we pull out a smart kid from Kenya, that country loses the guy who might have had the imagination or talent or intellect to make the country a better place. And that kid could have worked within his system, within his culture, and it would have been his countries pride.
Canada would be the Cubs. They sometimes make some noise, but in the end, they don't really do anything. Nobody expects they ever will do anything. Mexico is the Pittsburgh Pirates. Their best day is opening day, because that is the highest in the standing's they will ever be. They always sink to dead last, and their players try anything they can to get traded to better teams. France is like the Braves. They do it the time-honored way, they get every drop out of pitching they can. And they always seem to be invloved in determining who wins, they are in the race until the last day. Russia is like the Mets. They used to be the best competition, 2 decades ago, but they have fallen to second fiddle to the Yankees. They make bad deals trying to reclaim what they lost, but each deal sinks them deeper. And China, they might be like the twins. The smallest payroll, but the smartest managment of assets. They can't hold on to talent, because as soon as someone makes a name, they find their way to the Yankee's. But they seem to have an endless supply of young people with potential.
See, everything boils down to baseball.
This reminds me of Good Will Hunting. LOL. "You could have got your Harvard education for 10 cents in library late fee's".
I agree, I have met many people from the MIT's of the world, and they don't really impress me as better human beings than I've met elsewhere. In some cases, they were complete asshats. The problem is, everyone in highschool knows the next best secret to getting in MIT, besides being rich. Get the best scores on tests, any way you can. Often, this means no social life, and people who have not developed fully as human beings. They think they know more about Humanity because they have read Hawthorn, although they have never done anything really stupid, for no reason, just because friends were doing it too.
I also can't help but think what a loss to their original country they are. America has a way of luring the smartest and most hard working people here with the hopes of a better life. And the country where they came from losses one more leader, one more person who could have had an impact.
It is like the USA is the Yankee's of world baseball. We don't have to grow our own talent. We can buy it elsewhere. And then, what do we give back to other countries? We open HUGE factories where we move jobs, like when GM closed the plants in Michigan and moved them to Mexico because people there would work for pennies on the dollar.
What does this say about how the world is being organized?
But schools like MIT do everything they can to segregate intellect. They only select the "brightest" and the "best". They pick through thousands of applications, looking for the best grades, toughest curriculum, and highest test scores.
So, how come they failed against some high school kids? What happened to the Feynmans?
The private university only has 1 true purpose for exsisting. It is a segregated place where the legacies of the rich and powerful can meet who they believe to be the brightest and best of the future, to start their collusions. The best jobs often go to these graduates, and the contacts they make seem to impact where they work and what they do. And for being so bright, they have no clue what's really going on. It is like the Firm- they get offered a ton of money and a Wall Street job, and before they know how they are impacting society, they are a cog in a bureaucracy forcing people to move out of housing or doing something as children they would have found reprehensible. Money really is the root of all evil, and it seems kids who had a geniune joy for robotics beat the mighty MIT team.
But I am getting a good belly laugh that their formula for finding the "best" and the "brightest" was blown out of the water by a bunch of high school kids.
We are in wars we don't even know about, and probably won't know about for 20 to 30 years. Not only did we assasinate duly elected heads of state in democratic countries, and replace them with dictators, but we did it and nobody knew. Check out what the CIA did in South America the past couple decades to get a clue.
One of the major instruments of the ruling political class is to divide and distract public opinion with intense moral-laden debate
The first part is correct, the second is wrong. Politicians divide not based on intense moral issues, they polarize their base when needed. Bush claimed we MUST fight the war in Iraq because WE were THREATENED. It turned out later, when the threat was shown to be non-exsistant, his reasons changed. Morality had very little to do with it. Morals have little to do with Social Security or Taxes or where government should build schools or highways. Governments function has very little to do with religion, unless you count the prayer the Senate says each morning.
I am already there. I am starting to view republicans and democrats as the same party. Can you honestly say that on matters of economics that Bush is more conservative than Clinton? While Bush has much hot air with social security, Clinton ended welfare. You could argue that Newt Gingrich and congress deserves the credit. But what I am getting at more than who did what; the important thing is in many instances you could take away party labels and just look at votes, and you would probably have an easier time predicting what lobby groups fund candidates rather than what party they belong to.
But for my lifetime, the dominant party is the Republican party. We had 8 years of Reagan, who could do no wrong. Lou Cannon, considered the best Reagan biographer, writes what made Reagan so effective was "if they offered 80% of what I wanted, I took it and would go after the other 20% tomorrow". After Reagan we had Bush, then 8 years of a republican Clinton. I was born in a family with roots in the democratic party, and Clinton is about as far away as one can get from the ideals of JFK or Johnson.
smart people fooled into the "good cop, bad cop" game that both parties play on this kind of issue
This is very true, and a good observation on your part. Until a few years ago, I used to think those presidential debates were done by the news organization, and oversight was conducted by some government agency. They even had a really official sounding name "Commision on Presidential Debates" or something along those lines. Boy was I shocked when I found out that commision is a negotiation between Republicans and Democrats in choosing who will moderate, what questions will be asked. Even in those town hall meatings, all the questions were selected ahead of time. But it was made to look like a spontanious exchange. It was not. I think we need the Ross Perot, the Ralph Nader, the outsiders that can get 1% or more of the popular vote included in the debates. But both parties fear that these outsiders can cut into their votes, so they get excluded. Bush blamed Perot for loosing to Clinton. Gore blamed Nader for loosing to Bush. So both sides are closing the system even more. The only ones who get inside are the people who offer money, who contribute to a campaign.
I don't know what the anwser is. I think if money is removed from politics, that is a good start. I would trust my elected officials more if they spent 100% of their job worrying about the issues, instead of also having to worry about raising money and getting re-elected.
And I can't resist it... the only guy to lose his senate seat to a dead guy. What an asshat.
BTW, even though Ashcroft is gone, that does not mean that many people he hired are gone. The people he advanced to leadership positions are now the ones running the show. Think about that. That is how a shadow government forms. Right now Ashcroft is probably in some high level burrocrat's office lighting up a cigarette while influencing world events.
Personally, I don't have a problem with the security thing. It's just for the police, and I personally don't have anything to hide from them.
The USA is not designed to have a transparent citizenship. The USA was designed for government to be transparent. Everything our founding fathers did was designed for maximum personal freedom, maximum personal privacy, and to minimize the chance of government curruption. And over the past 20 years, under republican control, we have lost many rights your grandparents took for granted.
During WWII we locked up anyone who had slanted eyes because they *might* sympathize with the enemy. We tried countless times to kill Casto. We assasinated the head of state of Chili. Lets face it, the USA does not have a good history when it comes to human rights. Whenever someone with money thinks someone without money is a threat, the powers that be make life a living hell on everyone.
But maybe there is more to it?
Congress gave telephone companies $500 million to buy new equipment to comply with CALEA. Why should Internet companies not receive the same treatment? Is it because Verizon, SBC and the other former Bells have well-connected lobbying outposts in Washington, D.C.--but Vonage, 8x8 and other VoIP start-ups do not?
According to the article, congress gave telcom companies $500,000,000 to enforce the laws they passed? Why doesn't the government give me money to enforce their pollution laws, so I can get my car fixed up. Instead I have to pay to comply with the law.
People must be aware they are giving something up here. They are giving away freedom. What if some day comes, when a David Duke wins the white house? Congress is filled with people who vote along lobbyist lines. And we end up with laws that remove our consitutional rights- like having police wiretap without a warrent or snoop around the library to see what we are reading. What if they take away our 2nd amendment rights, first by requiring registration, than banning assult style wepons, then slowly, state by state, taking away wepons you already own. What if the states decide to put up a camera on every street corner.... then one day in your house.
The point is the founding fathers did not add the Bill or Rights because it sounded like a nice set of rights. They added those Rights so the people could fight an overbearing government if the need ever came. What if England had decided the colony could not have any guns, and decided that neighbors must report what other neighbors say. We would not be a country today, we would be English. The founding fathers gave people certain Rights to make sure we stay free.
Those that give away those Rights are comminting suicide for the rest of us. They are chaining us all. Rossoue was right "Man is born free, yet everywhere he is in chains". People, don't give you your rights!
now i understand women. i say "hi" and they turn a cold shoulder. it is just a closed port. nothing personal.
I am a horrible speller. I speak three languages, english is my second (and I was born in the USA... but my folks were determined I get my ass beat from grades 3 through 7). I am not the spelling bee champ. I always wondered, why a speller's arguments make more sense. I knew people in college who could spell, but you would not want them giving you an emergency tracheotomy. tracheotomy... t-r-a-c... oh, my god, the BLOOD, it is EVERYWHERE. antiquated system of learning? or way of making smart people feel as dumb as everyone else. I guess maybe the PE department should have hired Randy Johnson for batting practice. the bird was pretty cool.
No, I know the version of Windows I am using. I am using one made for easy interoperability. I am disabling those feature because there are those out there who will exploit it.
I would love to see other options out there. Linux is one, but I don't want to learn another OS. I don't like the one I use now. Are you wondering why I am a 2000 user and not XP? Because XP is worse, more DRM, more crap, more activation, more hoops.
I am giving up. I am just going to do what my parents did. Vote to increase jail time for ALL crimes. Someone hacks a computer, life in jail. Someone kills someone, life in jail. I just don't give a damn. I have become insensitized, that is what the hackers wants us to be? Unhappy?
I think Microsoft has changed a great deal in the past 5-10 years, and I think it might be our fault. When MS first came out with Windows 95, it was a HUGE improvment over Windows 3.1, it was made to be much easier to use. It trusted the user to do anything and everything. When Windows 98 came out, it was very much like Windows 95. It trusted the user. It did not expect hackers to take over a system. Windows 98 was made for multimedia use, for games, to have fun.
Somewhere after that, people started slamming Microsoft. In many cases the reasons for attacking Microsoft were valid, it was becomming a monopoly, ect, ect. But some people also decided to start hacking and cracking into Windows computers because they hated Microsoft. Some hacked just because they were curious. I will admit, when Excite@Home first offered internet service in my area, you could open Windows Explorer and browse the neighborhood. If you knew any IP address, all you had to do was assign it a new drive letter. Why would Microsoft make it so easy for computers to connect and share information? Was Microsoft out to make our lives so insecure that anyone could rob us blind?
Now Microsoft's pendulum has swung all the way to the other extreme. Now you can't get Windows without tons and tons and tons of DRM bullcrap, you can't run software your way, it has to be their way. And they are going the way of making each copy of Windows known to them, you have to call in to activate your copy, and when you do they get tons of data about your CPU, other identifiable information about your system, and so forth which they match up with the serial number of the copy of Windows you have.
I don't think people will ever be satisfied. What happens if you make it very secure and filled with DRM. Nobody except tech's will want to use it. What happens if you make it very easy to use, everything is trusted? Hackers will exploit it.
My contention is, make it reasonably secure out of the box. If 90% of the attacks come from active-x, maybe it is time to retire active-x? Yet the moment you retire active-x, there goes all the flash swf video's and games too. So, what do you do? How much are YOU willing to trust your neighbors when they have anonymity?
Or should it be, that the USER must know what they are doing? If that is the concensus that we are heading to, the personal computer will die for mainstream people, and it will go back to the backpages of popular mechanics magazines. I for one have come to the point where I could learn to live without email. There are enough ways for people to reach me that I don't need a computer. And I am old enough where I really don't care about games on the computer. If my experiance on the computer is taking HOURS AND HOURS to fight off hackers and script kiddies, then spending HOURS AND HOURS trying to find a hack to back up my DVD's, at some point I will say "this is just too much a pain in the ass" and I'll go outside and BBQ and drink beer, and talk to the neighbors and find out thier names.
I think a good test would be to take various systems, Linux, Windows, Mac, and configure them to be up to date with service packs and normal security. Have 3 of each system, 3 linux boxes, 3 windows boxes, and 3 mac boxes. Then have an expert hacker try to hack into 1 mac box, have a script try to hack into a different mac box, and have web exploits try to hack the third. Do this for all three, and publish the results. That would be interesting. My feeling is, the web exploits and scripts will not work if there is some intelligence in setting up a secure box, like disabling active-x. But I would like to know what a seasoned hacker can do. Hire MS people to hack into the linux or Mac box. I am sure enough linux hackers will salivate at the chance to hack the MS box. It could be a huge competition, with a $50k reward. I think we could learn more about what system is most secure that way.
I am calling bullshit on this obvious lie. You had a clean instal, behind a firewall, with all the service packs installed, and in just 10 minutes after that with a direct connection to the net, someone infected it with spyware? That has to be bullshit.
I have been running Windows 2000 for years, and there is no spyware. And I am not doing anything special. I make sure to fdisk the mbr before an instal, just to make sure someone did not hide something on the hard drive before the instal. I do the instal off-line. Add a software firewall, then connect through a router to the net to get the service packs. I have never had any spyware on my system ever. I disable active-x from IE, and when I did my instal the only net protocol I install is tcp/ip, I do not instal the other 2- client or file & printer sharing.
Come on, when will all this anti-windows BS stop? The only reason people can hack it is because users don't instal service packs and because they open links in emails that use active-x. I gaurentee if those two problems are resolved, it will become 99.9% harder to infect a machine- a hacker would not just be able to run software, he would have to know your system and activly fight to get in, which would be too much work for him.
They double the reward from $25,000 to $50,000 if a Symantec employee writes the virus? Most companies that run these kinds of events prohibit employees from entering because the risk of cheating is too great. Who is to say some employee from Symantec gets a hold of an entry, and changes it slightly and then submits the entry as his own? Wasn't Mcdonalds involved in an insider game scam? http://archives.cnn.com/2001/LAW/08/21/monopoly.ar rests/
I think the word institute is more of a place that makes policy or defends it, not a place of higher learning.
The problem is with lobby groups, those with an adgenda who use money to fund candidates, then corner the politicians to do thier bidding. How hard is it for a politician to say no to a lobby? How hard is it on them to lose, that's how hard. I am sure more than one lobbyist has whispered you need us.
Even if laws don't exsist yet to kill Open Source, the laws are comming if they threaten the big corporations. Big corporations will use their lawyers, their lobbyists, and their fortunes to destroy those who innovate, those who want change, those who are competition. What ever happened to the monopoly laws, the collusion laws, the laws which defend the small mom and pop stores against the mega store?
Open source developers have a great defense against this: they have no money.
But the people who use their products do have money. And they are the ones who will be sued, and scared away. Even if I KNOW that I am in the right, and can win a lawsuit against me, will I want to spend thousands of dollars defending my company because we used some open source?
The anwser to this is so simple, but it will never pass. Campaign finance reform. Throw out the lobbyists from the legislative process. Let Congress make laws that benifit the people, not laws written by lobbyists. There is a conflict of interest. How can your Senator work for your benifit if he knows he can't win re-election without the money the lobbyists provide?
That would be cool. Just getting to Pluto, to see if it is really a planet. Maybe designing the first base on another planet, maybe on a moon of saturn. That would all be fascinating. Add in plans to try and make it to alfa-centauri, and back. The Enterprise show could have been the best. But the early shows failed to catch viewer interest, and did nothing to make a good foundation for character empathy. And there was no science. What I remember from the series was dumb action plots. The dumb action plots should come later, once we know the characters and there is good science fiction.
I can only imagine the good drama, the good science fiction, the endless oppertunity for a show to showcase its smarts.
Interesting. Most children are not greedy like adults are greedy. Most children work for acknowledgment, for praise. Somewhere this love of doing changes into working to satisfy greed. I wonder if this is something because of capitalism where money can buy you anything, including politicians and public opinion.
A software company for instance, can put a lot of manhours on producing a product. They then want to earn back what they've put into it (you have to feed even the programmers sometimes, you know). The easiest way to do that is sell it on a CD.
This is how it always was, and the companies made good money. I don't understand why things have changed so much, that now they are not making money. It was easier to copy software 10-20 years ago, yet today, even as it gets harder to make copies, are they are making less money?
Wouldn't people stop going to theaters if you could download the movie? Not if you have reasonable prices and give a good experience. What experience? Well I don't know, it doesn't exist yet, cause nobody cared to come up with one since what we have now is "good enough". Myself, I'd even be happy with the current one, if only they'd lower the prices. As it is, I almost never go to movies.
I think the theater and movie buisness is horrible, and a result of the industries own policies. Here is a perfect example where greed can kill something good. I used to LOVE going to the theater. Where else can you get a screen that is 15 feet wide, and a killer sound system?? I would go, and buy some candy. It was an awesome experiance. I would leave very happy. Today, it is very different. You pay $10 for a ticket, it seems the price of tickets is much more than it should be. Then you have to wait through 30 minutes of commericals. I remember when I was younger, I did not mind the 2 trailers they would play. I liked them. But when they started playing 4, then 5, then 6, then adding commercials, and these trailers became a distration, something that kept me from the movie, I started hating them. And I don't buy candy at the theater anymore. I am not about to spend $4 on a box of candy that is $1 at the grocery store. Someone should do a study, how many more boxes of candy or popcorn would a theater sell if they cut the price in half. Would they make more total money because of the increased sales? I think they would. And how much more money would a theater make if it cut those advertisments, would it save enough time to add one more showtime?
But I have a feeling that it will not last. If everybody on this planet were lazy stupid bums, the big companies would win and we would get lousy products for a high price and people would still eat it, since nobody cared
I am not as optimistic. Did you read what Dean told the democratic party? That they need to stop explaining their positions, but find catch phrases, otherwise the republicans will win the sound bites that play on the news.
This is karmic payback for the DUMBEST OPENING THEME SONG IN THE HISTORY OF TV.
regards,
I agree, it was hard to get in the mood for Star Trek after the opening song. The music makes one think they are about to watch homosexuals in space.
It makes me think of this:
http://graphics.stanford.edu/~pkeyani/links/aliens /spock_naked.jpg
or, this:
http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:mrQWaxAGFxEJ :www.tekwh0re.net/wp/wp-content/Anki-Spock-shirtle ss.jpg
Wasn't this already done? LOL.
What I meant was a Star Trek where maybe Picard is a professor back at the academy, and an episode where someone goes to him for advice. Like the episode from "All Good Things" with Data. I dunno, I just like to see continuity. It is like Star Trek: "The Undiscovered Country" when you see Checkov in command of the excelcier. I dunno why, but that was an emotional experiance for me. The whole idea of Captin Kirk calling in a favor from another officer, and knowing their history together, it worked. It means more than if another starship appeared out of nowhere to save Kirk and the boys.
Plus, when they have a new Star Trek, I hope they get a HUGE budget for some good special effects.
I agree, the best episodes where the ones where it was not easily predictable what would happen. I liked the episodes with the Borg because of the danger. You knew you could not just lock phasers on them and "win", you were the underdog and had to figure out a way to survive. I liked the engineering episodes the best too, where a problem had to be fixed, and it was not 100% given how it would turn out. For example, the best Voyager episode IMO was Year in Hell. They lose at the end and all die. What made it so damn good was the fight, the struggle. But even a good episode is not good enough if people don't care about the characters. I don't know why I became attached to Kirk or Bones or Picard or Janeway or Scottie or LaForge, but not to anyone on Enterprise.
I think TNG could have been the best series in the Star Trek family, if it was more about engineering and space exploration and danger, and less about Troi or the holodeck. You can get fantasy anywhere, but it is hard to get good science fiction.
Enterprise would have had a GREAT premise for a show. The very begenning. The space exploration could have been something as good as "Lost in Space" and the danger as good as "BattleStar Gallactica". All wraped up in good science fiction, with an emphisis on science. But instead, we had weak characters and stories that were not interesting. I can't recall one episode that was strong on science, but then I bailed early in the first season.