The other problem with helicopters, and with any air vehicle, is it takes a tremondous amount of time to keep it tuned up and working properly. You don't exactly want a malfunction at 5,000 ft, do you? Helicopters cost thousands of dollars just in spare parts to be kept up. Fuel is extremely expensive, and you need to hire mechanics to check it out after so many flights, etc. Sure, newer military helis don't need as much time for repairing, but they cost around $6.5 million a pop. Spendy little suckers
Similar revolution the TV had on our society, too. Unfortunately, there are always good and bad points that come about because of it. Education? Only if you know what you are doing...I think its ironic how businesses now have to spend lots of time and money to train their employees how to use the software, and schools go waste money on computers that are worthless to the curriculum, while cutting back on programs like sports, art, music, and science.
However, the positive free flow of information is great-take this site for instance. It even has the "real" media (eg, TV stations) a little nervous. heh.
When I was a little kid, I had a couple of chemistry books, and some electrical books (we didn't have a computer yet). I did lots of experiments with the chemistry book-you know, soda/vinegar cannons, that sort of stuff that isn't dangerous. I even developed some electrical circuits for my race car track so I could see who won. =]
That was some pretty fun stuff...oh, I also had a telescope and a microscope, althought the latter eventually broke. =[
Also mentioned in the article was how many public high schools are dropping sciences curriculum. This is bad, as young students that go to these schools will have no opportunity to pursue their interests in the sciences. They are being channeled into "popular" money-making fields (CS).
If you do not have any background in the sciences, it sure makes it a heck of a lot harder to get started in a career in it. College, IMO, is a little late. Same goes for learning foreign languages-the earlier, the better. Our country is filled with tons of inadequately funded public schools, many do not even have enough money for technology, art, or music departments (mine had none of those).
Our country is based entirely upon technology, which is a byproduct of science. We need huge numbers of skilled, intelligent people with background in the sciences to run our infrastructure. Such as: oil drilling, mining, engineering (structural, civil, etc), geology (to name a very few). I don't know anyone who is any of those, bar engineering. We may not notice the immediate effects of fewer people pursuing the sciences, because there are older people in these positions, but what about 20 years down the road? Will we have reestablished the necessary numbers of people in these positions to run our country smoothly? Or will we have to hire people from outside-Europe, Japan, etc, to do it for us?
One last point: I don't know about you, but it seems that fewer and fewer of the mainstream populace can even understand basic scientific ideas/principles. I bring up the Galileo mission, and they look at me funny. Benjamin Franklin wrote how science and democracy go hand in hand (got this out of Science as a Candle in the Dark: by Carl Sagan). Large populations cannot possibly make logical decisions about their world in a democratic nation if they don't even grasp the fundamentals of what makes everything tick! If someone doesn't understand the harmful effects of pollution, are they going to vote for environmental legislation, or are they going to listen to the lobbying/advertising efforts of corporations such as DOW Chemical?
What would happen if fewer and fewer people took the hardcore sciences route, and the demand for CS jobs just continued to grow? Barring a change in our economy or technology, I don't see how this can be a positive thing. Isn't our whole society based upon the fruits of science (technology)? If the majority of people in our society do not understand science, I can only see the downfall of America. And with our financial institutions becoming world-wide organizations and stock markets moving towards existing completely online, we would lose the monopoly on finance. Japan already produces much more electronic devices than we do, India many more programmers. Europe, with their superior public educational system, possibly can surpass us in the technology department...and if that happens...I'm moving to Finland! Zilfondel
Whew! that was a load of BS to read through, that's for sure! Well, here goes...
Throughout this article, you refer almost exclusively to America. Given that not only can the internet be considered racially-blind, but surely it is also geographically-transparent. If this book is as significant as you suggest - surely it would have a broader perspective. Consider countries like India, China - Some of the largest populations in the world. Surely they have some significance?
Why would the specific topic discussed here have anything at all to do with another country, especially one that in NO way parallels the history and development of the United States? The book deals with the specific race issues in the United States, not China. For starters, China is a country composed of indigenous peoples. They did not kill off the natives and import slaves. This whole sentence was waaaaay off topic.
Certainly looking at the above article it seems like just another hype, bandwagon thing - but enough people have already suggested very decent arguments against what you've written. I would add, that if an article about race were to be written - it might cover more relevant topics... the BNP (British National Party) still exists and has a strong enough following in Britain... I assume the Klu Klux Klan is still surviving and the term "Redneck" was coined for a reason.
What exactly are you saying here? No arguments, facts, or references to information to support a topic (if one existed) There looks to be nothing here except...filler words! Ah-ha!
And a judging one as well. I only point it out because if the topic about which you speak is so significant, then - reiterating my above point - why does it only refer to America. Given that the internet is geographically independant (for most intents and purposes) there's a lot of people reading slashdot that care of such implications outside of America.
This makes no sense. Using your line of reasoning, let's take an event: the next presidential elections. What implications does the choice of candidates pose for someone in China, Japan or Germany? NONE! Wow!
In short, this whole, entire post is one extremely long piece of BS and should be avoided like the plague by any/.er
A problem occurs when a large percentage of one population group has the "fair" advantage over another large population group. Generally, when you have 2 perfectly average people, with one having a huge advantage over the other, that person prospers more than the other. You can't get by telling anyone that the disadvantage person is going to do better than the advantaged. That's BS-only a select few can do that. You completely missed the boat here-who told you you are supposed to give up the boat to some underprivelaged kid? Noone. What SHOULD be done is aid the underprivelaged-give them the knowldedge they need to compete in our society. Don't turn your back on them. Especially in a democratic nation where attention is given to minority groups. In fact, we already do that, to an extent. It's called public schools. The only problem, however, is when schools are located and serve in neighborhoods where poverty prevails, they do not have the financial resources other schools in rich neighborhoods do. There is a high school 3 blocks down the road from where I work-Intel is based right by it, which donated over $3 million in computers last year to it (I work in Hillsboro), and there are 50+ other high tech companies, many of them who donate things to it. In addition, 90% of the kids there have parents who work in these rich high-tech companies! At the school I went to, we had used text books that were 17+ years old. 1 computer hooked up to the internet, and a library smaller than my living room in my house. Most teachers were so incompetent, I swear I know more than they do, and I'm not even through with college yet. And look: during summer, the kids from the school here intern at Intel, making some $10-15 an hour. Back where I grew up, the kids intern at gas stations, making $6 an hour (min wage). Now, who is going to do better in the long run?
And the losers just HAPPEN to be 90% of african-american households and 70% of white households? Hmm, I see a gap here! The "losers" just happened to be descendents of those captured, shipped to America, and sold as slaves! They only recently gained full citizenship in America in the last 30 + years...Yes, oh well, who the hell cares, huh? They're "just" losers! And the winners "just" happened to be those who OWNED the ancestors of the "losers!" WOW! What a coincidence!
Oh, BTW, the middle class is NOT part of the upper class, in fact, the upper class NOW has even a LARGER share of the wealth than it used to in the mideival ages. The middle class arose out of the artisans who made up a separate class from the lower and upper, but merely widened to include a larger percentage of the population.
let's see, by one report from NASA, Pluto is 4.4 billion kilometers away from Earth...that translates into 4 hours. Hmm...methinks interplanetary quake matches would not be very practical! ...although, that's a better ping than I get right now...
Theres such things as reviews, you know. I know they aren't the same as pirating the game, but the impulse is to keep the game on your computer even afterwards. On a side not, I pirate games too-sometimes I buy, sometimes I don't. Typically depends on the financial situation I'm in (car insurance comes before games)
I'm glad someone finally brought up the fact that we are fighting over the stealing of luxuries. Does anyone here who pirates software actually rely upon it for a living? Hmm...methinks that Americans are lazy F***ing ba****ds.
Best for the state? Try best for said lawyer/statesman's career. All these people care about is making this "example" a success in the eyes of their superiors, so they can get a promotion. It really sickens me as to the motiviational forces for people.
Contrary to what many of you think here, kids are impressionable. They are not born with an already intact sense of morals, values and an understanding of our world and society. They learn if from their surrounding environment-mostly when they are young, but people always adapt to their surroundings. I think many of the ultra-liberals, concerned more about their freedoms, forget that people abuse these freedoms to make money. A good example of this is the media-TV and movies which open people's eyes, usually due to sex and violence. Most of the movies people see now have significant amounts of both. The problem with violence in our society, as I see it, is not directly linked to our media (TV/movies), as is the current mainstream opinion. However, the whole 'generation X' and the one after has been completely saturated with violence-and it has to have SOME impact upon the viewer. I must have seen thousands of people die on television, and killed millions more on quake type games. I'm not about to run out and go on a shooting rampage, as I'm sure millions of other gamers won't either. But when you have kids in an unstable family, where the parents don't teach a good sense of values and morals in the first place, the addition of gatuitous violence doesn't help. This is where violence in our society starts-a combination of violence and lack of morals and standards. Seems to me that the American family needs more help than anything, and government regulations and theatres refusing to sell tickets to minors are mere stopgaps to help prevent a bad situation from getting worse. Unfortunately, these have little real impact, because we live in a society where we have a lot of freedom, so government intevention is minimal. Instead of bitching about the government, why don't you take a look at the bigger picture, and issues such as the general degradation of the quality of life in the freest country in the world?
of course. Politicians are so overly concerned about their lifelong careers, that they will not take any stand-moral or otherwise-that would jeopordize it. When it comes to moral issues, or even environmental ones, they just follow the most popular opinions of mainstream america, which, coincidentally, are generated by our news media.
I believe people here are getting caught up in their own definitions and opinions about what is "unnatural" and "natural." Consider: we are the only species who pumps oil out of the ground, refines it, and makes cars out of it and drives them everywhere we bulldozed all the trees down. Are bulldozers natural? Well, they are certainly man-made. We use tools on a scale unlike any other species on earth, due to our opposable thumbs and advanced brain. This is why people classify the actions of humans separately from animals...we have evolved a very complex socail, political, and economic system that does not exist ANYWHERE ELSE IN NATURE ON EARTH!!! Politicians say, "lets make jobs by pumping oil out of the arctic," and soon, you've got oil spills threating species with extinction left and right. I think its quite obvious the difference between man-made and natural activities. Of course, the speculation on whether the cloning should be done or not still stands...however, whatever you people say will have no impact whatsoever on whether the Australians will decide not to do it. Secondly, this is all just speculation; scientists do not even know about our environment to know what the ecological impact of a reintroduced species would be. I suggest looking at other species reintroduced to their previous environment. Wolves, for example.
Slashdot Mirror
You'd think they would have fixed it already.
Maybe they are out for publicity...or they're just really slow.
hmm
Zilfondel
The other problem with helicopters, and with any air vehicle, is it takes a tremondous amount of time to keep it tuned up and working properly. You don't exactly want a malfunction at 5,000 ft, do you?
Helicopters cost thousands of dollars just in spare parts to be kept up. Fuel is extremely expensive, and you need to hire mechanics to check it out after so many flights, etc. Sure, newer military helis don't need as much time for repairing, but they cost around $6.5 million a pop. Spendy little suckers
Similar revolution the TV had on our society, too. Unfortunately, there are always good and bad points that come about because of it. Education? Only if you know what you are doing...I think its ironic how businesses now have to spend lots of time and money to train their employees how to use the software, and schools go waste money on computers that are worthless to the curriculum, while cutting back on programs like sports, art, music, and science.
However, the positive free flow of information is great-take this site for instance. It even has the "real" media (eg, TV stations) a little nervous. heh.
Zilfondel
When I was a little kid, I had a couple of chemistry books, and some electrical books (we didn't have a computer yet). I did lots of experiments with the chemistry book-you know, soda/vinegar cannons, that sort of stuff that isn't dangerous. I even developed some electrical circuits for my race car track so I could see who won. =]
That was some pretty fun stuff...oh, I also had a telescope and a microscope, althought the latter eventually broke. =[
Zilfondel
Also mentioned in the article was how many public high schools are dropping sciences curriculum.
This is bad, as young students that go to these schools will have no opportunity to pursue their interests in the sciences. They are being channeled into "popular" money-making fields (CS).
If you do not have any background in the sciences, it sure makes it a heck of a lot harder to get started in a career in it. College, IMO, is a little late. Same goes for learning foreign languages-the earlier, the better.
Our country is filled with tons of inadequately funded public schools, many do not even have enough money for technology, art, or music departments (mine had none of those).
Our country is based entirely upon technology, which is a byproduct of science. We need huge numbers of skilled, intelligent people with background in the sciences to run our infrastructure. Such as: oil drilling, mining, engineering (structural, civil, etc), geology (to name a very few). I don't know anyone who is any of those, bar engineering.
We may not notice the immediate effects of fewer people pursuing the sciences, because there are older people in these positions, but what about 20 years down the road? Will we have reestablished the necessary numbers of people in these positions to run our country smoothly? Or will we have to hire people from outside-Europe, Japan, etc, to do it for us?
One last point: I don't know about you, but it seems that fewer and fewer of the mainstream populace can even understand basic scientific ideas/principles. I bring up the Galileo mission, and they look at me funny. Benjamin Franklin wrote how science and democracy go hand in hand (got this out of Science as a Candle in the Dark: by Carl Sagan). Large populations cannot possibly make logical decisions about their world in a democratic nation if they don't even grasp the fundamentals of what makes everything tick! If someone doesn't understand the harmful effects of pollution, are they going to vote for environmental legislation, or are they going to listen to the lobbying/advertising efforts of corporations such as DOW Chemical?
Food for Thought.
Zilfondel
What would happen if fewer and fewer people took the hardcore sciences route, and the demand for CS jobs just continued to grow? Barring a change in our economy or technology, I don't see how this can be a positive thing. Isn't our whole society based upon the fruits of science (technology)? If the majority of people in our society do not understand science, I can only see the downfall of America. And with our financial institutions becoming world-wide organizations and stock markets moving towards existing completely online, we would lose the monopoly on finance. Japan already produces much more electronic devices than we do, India many more programmers. Europe, with their superior public educational system, possibly can surpass us in the technology department...and if that happens...I'm moving to Finland! Zilfondel
Whew! that was a load of BS to read through, that's for sure! Well, here goes...
/.er
Throughout this article, you refer almost exclusively to America. Given that not only can the internet be considered racially-blind, but surely it is also geographically-transparent. If this book is as significant as you suggest - surely it would have a broader perspective. Consider countries like India, China - Some of the largest populations in the world. Surely they have some significance?
Why would the specific topic discussed here have anything at all to do with another country, especially one that in NO way parallels the history and development of the United States?
The book deals with the specific race issues in the United States, not China. For starters, China is a country composed of indigenous peoples. They did not kill off the natives and import slaves. This whole sentence was waaaaay off topic.
Certainly looking at the above article it seems like just another hype, bandwagon thing - but enough people have already suggested very decent arguments against what you've written. I would add, that if an article about race were to be written - it might cover more relevant topics... the BNP (British National Party) still exists and has a strong enough following in Britain... I assume the Klu Klux Klan is still surviving and the term "Redneck" was coined for a reason.
What exactly are you saying here? No arguments, facts, or references to information to support a topic (if one existed) There looks to be nothing here except...filler words! Ah-ha!
And a judging one as well. I only point it out because if the topic about which you speak is so significant, then - reiterating my above point - why does it only refer to America. Given that the internet is geographically independant (for most intents and purposes) there's a lot of people reading slashdot that care of such implications outside of America.
This makes no sense. Using your line of reasoning, let's take an event: the next presidential elections. What implications does the choice of candidates pose for someone in China, Japan or Germany? NONE! Wow!
In short, this whole, entire post is one extremely long piece of BS and should be avoided like the plague by any
Zilfondel
A problem occurs when a large percentage of one population group has the "fair" advantage over another large population group. Generally, when you have 2 perfectly average people, with one having a huge advantage over the other, that person prospers more than the other. You can't get by telling anyone that the disadvantage person is going to do better than the advantaged. That's BS-only a select few can do that.
You completely missed the boat here-who told you you are supposed to give up the boat to some underprivelaged kid? Noone. What SHOULD be done is aid the underprivelaged-give them the knowldedge they need to compete in our society. Don't turn your back on them. Especially in a democratic nation where attention is given to minority groups. In fact, we already do that, to an extent. It's called public schools. The only problem, however, is when schools are located and serve in neighborhoods where poverty prevails, they do not have the financial resources other schools in rich neighborhoods do. There is a high school 3 blocks down the road from where I work-Intel is based right by it, which donated over $3 million in computers last year to it (I work in Hillsboro), and there are 50+ other high tech companies, many of them who donate things to it. In addition, 90% of the kids there have parents who work in these rich high-tech companies! At the school I went to, we had used text books that were 17+ years old. 1 computer hooked up to the internet, and a library smaller than my living room in my house. Most teachers were so incompetent, I swear I know more than they do, and I'm not even through with college yet. And look: during summer, the kids from the school here intern at Intel, making some $10-15 an hour. Back where I grew up, the kids intern at gas stations, making $6 an hour (min wage).
Now, who is going to do better in the long run?
Zilfondel
And the losers just HAPPEN to be 90% of african-american households and 70% of white households? Hmm, I see a gap here!
The "losers" just happened to be descendents of those captured, shipped to America, and sold as slaves! They only recently gained full citizenship in America in the last 30 + years...Yes, oh well, who the hell cares, huh? They're "just" losers! And the winners "just" happened to be those who OWNED the ancestors of the "losers!" WOW! What a coincidence!
Oh, BTW, the middle class is NOT part of the upper class, in fact, the upper class NOW has even a LARGER share of the wealth than it used to in the mideival ages. The middle class arose out of the artisans who made up a separate class from the lower and upper, but merely widened to include a larger percentage of the population.
Zilfondel
let's see, by one report from NASA, Pluto is 4.4 billion kilometers away from Earth...that translates into 4 hours.
Hmm...methinks interplanetary quake matches would not be very practical!
...although, that's a better ping than I get right now...
Zilfondel
Theres such things as reviews, you know. I know they aren't the same as pirating the game, but the impulse is to keep the game on your computer even afterwards. On a side not, I pirate games too-sometimes I buy, sometimes I don't. Typically depends on the financial situation I'm in (car insurance comes before games)
I'm glad someone finally brought up the fact that we are fighting over the stealing of luxuries. Does anyone here who pirates software actually rely upon it for a living? Hmm...methinks that Americans are lazy F***ing ba****ds.
Best for the state? Try best for said lawyer/statesman's career. All these people care about is making this "example" a success in the eyes of their superiors, so they can get a promotion. It really sickens me as to the motiviational forces for people.
Such a lame article...sure there isn't anything else to write about that's newsworthy? =D
Contrary to what many of you think here, kids are impressionable. They are not born with an already intact sense of morals, values and an understanding of our world and society. They learn if from their surrounding environment-mostly when they are young, but people always adapt to their surroundings. I think many of the ultra-liberals, concerned more about their freedoms, forget that people abuse these freedoms to make money. A good example of this is the media-TV and movies which open people's eyes, usually due to sex and violence. Most of the movies people see now have significant amounts of both.
The problem with violence in our society, as I see it, is not directly linked to our media (TV/movies), as is the current mainstream opinion. However, the whole 'generation X' and the one after has been completely saturated with violence-and it has to have SOME impact upon the viewer. I must have seen thousands of people die on television, and killed millions more on quake type games. I'm not about to run out and go on a shooting rampage, as I'm sure millions of other gamers won't either. But when you have kids in an unstable family, where the parents don't teach a good sense of values and morals in the first place, the addition of gatuitous violence doesn't help. This is where violence in our society starts-a combination of violence and lack of morals and standards.
Seems to me that the American family needs more help than anything, and government regulations and theatres refusing to sell tickets to minors are mere stopgaps to help prevent a bad situation from getting worse. Unfortunately, these have little real impact, because we live in a society where we have a lot of freedom, so government intevention is minimal.
Instead of bitching about the government, why don't you take a look at the bigger picture, and issues such as the general degradation of the quality of life in the freest country in the world?
of course. Politicians are so overly concerned about their lifelong careers, that they will not take any stand-moral or otherwise-that would jeopordize it. When it comes to moral issues, or even environmental ones, they just follow the most popular opinions of mainstream america, which, coincidentally, are generated by our news media.
I believe people here are getting caught up in their own definitions and opinions about what is "unnatural" and "natural." Consider: we are the only species who pumps oil out of the ground, refines it, and makes cars out of it and drives them everywhere we bulldozed all the trees down. Are bulldozers natural? Well, they are certainly man-made. We use tools on a scale unlike any other species on earth, due to our opposable thumbs and advanced brain. This is why people classify the actions of humans separately from animals...we have evolved a very complex socail, political, and economic system that does not exist ANYWHERE ELSE IN NATURE ON EARTH!!!
Politicians say, "lets make jobs by pumping oil out of the arctic," and soon, you've got oil spills threating species with extinction left and right.
I think its quite obvious the difference between man-made and natural activities. Of course, the speculation on whether the cloning should be done or not still stands...however, whatever you people say will have no impact whatsoever on whether the Australians will decide not to do it.
Secondly, this is all just speculation; scientists do not even know about our environment to know what the ecological impact of a reintroduced species would be. I suggest looking at other species reintroduced to their previous environment. Wolves, for example.