I don't think you've thought this through. Some of the most political people I know are also some of the most scientifically minded people I know. Some of the most political organizations are scientific organizations. With big science, you can't escape politics because there is a limited number of resources. Someone might want to spend $500,000 on MRI technology, while someone else wants to buy a $500,000 STM. Which one is right? Well, that's a political decision.
You can't excape it. You might as well learn to live with it.
Fusion is the one technology among a handful of others that will fundametally change the face of the world in the next 20-30 years and the U.S., the last "Superpower", is going to let that technology be developed on foreign soil.
ITER has only survived because of international funding. The US came late in the game.
If you come to the bar when the lights are just being turned on, you don't get to take anyone home.
There are quite a few of comments here about the thing going boom and spilling radioactive waste Chernobyl style. Is there anyone out there who can clarify what the safety issues with ITER are? What kind of radioactive materials are generated, if any? I know the fusion process generates lots of radiation (neutrons if I recall), but how much of that translates into radiative/activated materials that are long-lived and a danger to public safety?
I had thought that the international community was hesitant to build ITER in Japan because of earthquakes. But, I found
this article that seems to say that earquakes will not be a problem for this cite, for anyone who is interested.
ITER is not for practical power generation. The article says:
"Its goal will be to produce 500 megawatts of fusion power for 500 seconds or longer during each individual fusion experiment and, in doing so, demonstrate essential technologies for a commercial reactor."
It's only a demo. Fusion won't be practival for some time to come, if ever.
This could be devastating for the Dilbert cartoons.
If no one works in a cubicle, how will we relate to Dilbert's cubicle trials?
We'll all just sit there and go "Huh, I don't get it"!
[A] successful attack will occur that could compromise the High Value and/or Highest Value data class.
Hey, even without all the security holes this would happen! Let me re-define some terms to my liking.
A successful attack: Linux on more machines.
High Value data class: Microsoft's stock price.
Highest Value data class: Bill's bank account.
See, if you twist a quote out of context, it can mean whatever you want!
Here's my moderately-educated opinion on a few of the items. They're a bit tongue-in-cheek but I think I make a point or two. Please feel free to rip any of them to shreds with your verbal wit and superior knowledge of the facts. I post to learn!
1) ITER - Fusion. Yay. A bit late but it would be nice.
2) USSCC - A big computer for big corporations and the US military...
3) JDEM - Let's break the standard model! Always fun!
4) LCLS - When will I be able to get a free electron laster from Think-Geek? Screw Green! Seriously, this one is good.
5) RIA - "Improve our ability to model the explosion of nuclear weapons." enough said.
6) CEBAF - See 3).
7) ESnet - Didn't I see this in T3?
8) NERSC - "Unclassified research" means not good enough for 2)
9) TEAM - resolution of 50nm sounds useful to me. Could someone tell me how this compares to STM or AFM?
10) BTeV - See 3)
I was disapointed to find that the ALS and APS came in so far behind.
[I]n order to get Linux to the enterprise desktop, the Linux community should base their efforts on one single distribution... based on Debian.
If everything what based on Debian, how could we Zealots say that Debian is better than your distribution?
Seriously, is this really a good idea for enterprise, Linux or Debian?
I feel the need to make a standard 'the strength of Linux is in the diversity of its distributions' comment.
Also, I doubt that enterprise and Debian really see eye to eye.
Debian is based on a community oriented software development model.
Enterprise is based on $$$.
I'm not sure a world where everything was a fork of Debian would be good for Linux or Debian.
Blacklisting spammers is a bad idea. Hey, I hate spam just as much as the next guy but it sets a dangerous precedent. Blacklisting gives one entity, such as an ISP, the ability to censor what others can read.
Rather than trying to eliminate spam, we should be trying to manage it. For instance, my university quarantines all messages that are likely spam and sends me a daily report. I quickly scan the report to make sure the software didn't snag a legitimate piece of e-mail.
In fact, the software has, on occasion, quarantined legitimate e-mail. Now, if the sender had been blacklisted, I would never have gotten it. However, I was able to rescue my poor e-mail from quarantine.
It may be just a coincidence, but the e-mail that was unjustly quarantined was of a political nature. Thus, there is a fine line between what the governing body considers spam and what I do. If the sender had been blacklisted, it would have been equivalent to political censorship. That is why blacklisting is such a bad idea. We need to manage spam, not blacklist.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think you've thought this through. Some of the most political people I know are also some of the most scientifically minded people I know. Some of the most political organizations are scientific organizations. With big science, you can't escape politics because there is a limited number of resources. Someone might want to spend $500,000 on MRI technology, while someone else wants to buy a $500,000 STM. Which one is right? Well, that's a political decision.
You can't excape it. You might as well learn to live with it.
Fusion is the one technology among a handful of others that will fundametally change the face of the world in the next 20-30 years and the U.S., the last "Superpower", is going to let that technology be developed on foreign soil.
ITER has only survived because of international funding. The US came late in the game.
If you come to the bar when the lights are just being turned on, you don't get to take anyone home.
There are quite a few of comments here about the thing going boom and spilling radioactive waste Chernobyl style. Is there anyone out there who can clarify what the safety issues with ITER are? What kind of radioactive materials are generated, if any? I know the fusion process generates lots of radiation (neutrons if I recall), but how much of that translates into radiative/activated materials that are long-lived and a danger to public safety?
I had thought that the international community was hesitant to build ITER in Japan because of earthquakes. But, I found this article that seems to say that earquakes will not be a problem for this cite, for anyone who is interested.
ITER is not for practical power generation. The article says:
"Its goal will be to produce 500 megawatts of fusion power for 500 seconds or longer during each individual fusion experiment and, in doing so, demonstrate essential technologies for a commercial reactor."
It's only a demo. Fusion won't be practival for some time to come, if ever.
"This development was largely due in part to the legal support of the Electronic Frontier Foundation."
Let's hear it for the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Without the EFF, there'd be much more doom and gloom on Slashdot than there already is.
Although, "largely due in part" is an odd statement.
Oui. Je suis desole.
In North America maybe, but not around the world.
Amtrak and VIA might not be popular, but the TVG is well used.
Don't forget Debian GNU/NetBSD and GNU/FreeBSD!
Why are they releasing 3.0r2 now? Aren't they going to release 3.1 on December 1st? Has sarge been set back?
apt-get update
apt-get upgrade
Fiber keeps my downloads regular...
This could be devastating for the Dilbert cartoons. If no one works in a cubicle, how will we relate to Dilbert's cubicle trials? We'll all just sit there and go "Huh, I don't get it"!
Priorities, people, priorities!
[A] successful attack will occur that could compromise the High Value and/or Highest Value data class.
Hey, even without all the security holes this would happen! Let me re-define some terms to my liking.
A successful attack: Linux on more machines.
High Value data class: Microsoft's stock price.
Highest Value data class: Bill's bank account.
See, if you twist a quote out of context, it can mean whatever you want!
Tempting the moderators with -1, Offtopic, are we?
Why would you need a 'print' magazine when you have Slashdot?
Unless the magazine is about Debian-stable, then it will be out of date by the time it gets to you!
Here's my moderately-educated opinion on a few of the items. They're a bit tongue-in-cheek but I think I make a point or two. Please feel free to rip any of them to shreds with your verbal wit and superior knowledge of the facts. I post to learn!
1) ITER - Fusion. Yay. A bit late but it would be nice.
2) USSCC - A big computer for big corporations and the US military...
3) JDEM - Let's break the standard model! Always fun!
4) LCLS - When will I be able to get a free electron laster from Think-Geek? Screw Green! Seriously, this one is good.
5) RIA - "Improve our ability to model the explosion of nuclear weapons." enough said.
6) CEBAF - See 3).
7) ESnet - Didn't I see this in T3?
8) NERSC - "Unclassified research" means not good enough for 2)
9) TEAM - resolution of 50nm sounds useful to me. Could someone tell me how this compares to STM or AFM?
10) BTeV - See 3)
I was disapointed to find that the ALS and APS came in so far behind.
[I]n order to get Linux to the enterprise desktop, the Linux community should base their efforts on one single distribution... based on Debian.
If everything what based on Debian, how could we Zealots say that Debian is better than your distribution?
Seriously, is this really a good idea for enterprise, Linux or Debian? I feel the need to make a standard 'the strength of Linux is in the diversity of its distributions' comment. Also, I doubt that enterprise and Debian really see eye to eye. Debian is based on a community oriented software development model. Enterprise is based on $$$.
I'm not sure a world where everything was a fork of Debian would be good for Linux or Debian.
If quantum mechanics applied to IBM:
|IBM>= 1/sqrt(2) |good> + 1/sqrt(2) |evil>
Observing a Slashdot article seems to collapse this wave function. Thus, for any slashdot article, IBM is either good or bad.
My constants might be a bit off depending on what SCO is doing.
Blacklisting spammers is a bad idea. Hey, I hate spam just as much as the next guy but it sets a dangerous precedent. Blacklisting gives one entity, such as an ISP, the ability to censor what others can read. Rather than trying to eliminate spam, we should be trying to manage it. For instance, my university quarantines all messages that are likely spam and sends me a daily report. I quickly scan the report to make sure the software didn't snag a legitimate piece of e-mail. In fact, the software has, on occasion, quarantined legitimate e-mail. Now, if the sender had been blacklisted, I would never have gotten it. However, I was able to rescue my poor e-mail from quarantine. It may be just a coincidence, but the e-mail that was unjustly quarantined was of a political nature. Thus, there is a fine line between what the governing body considers spam and what I do. If the sender had been blacklisted, it would have been equivalent to political censorship. That is why blacklisting is such a bad idea. We need to manage spam, not blacklist.
You can get complex systems at absolutely NO COST!
Remember, it's free as in freedom.
[Insert standard Debian zealot message here]