I did say "exploration", not "colonization". Obviously you can not colonize using robots (although they might build the colonies before people arrive).
But equally obviously, we are not now in a position to colonize space. We are in exploration mode.
My point is this: Anything that can be done by robots should be done by robots. And exploring Mars can be done by robots.
Q: Without humans in the mix, what does that leave us with?
A: Scientific exploration.
One day I see humans flying to the moon or Mars, but right now they are just in the way - an enormous expense when, as you state, many people fail to see the point of exploring space.
I'm sure there are things an astronaut in a space suit can do that a remotely controlled robot can not, but the gap is closing quickly. And there are things a robot can do that an astronaut can not (e.g., go for a 10-day walkabout), and that gap will only increase.
If you're looking for drama, go join a theatre company. It's not ethical to waste astronaut's lives solely for our entertainment.
Robots are all well and good, but contrary to the popular conceit, you can't explore with telescopes and probes. To do anything truly worth the effort, you need to send people there, and there'll never be a shortage of willing souls, so why not go for it?
Actually, robots have been great explorers, and will only get better. What's more, they are an order of magnitude cheaper than humans because they don't require food, water, or air, they don't defecate, you don't have to return them to earth (astronauts are picky about that one), and they eat sunshine. As well, they don't mind being sent on multi-year missions (being far more patient than us apes) and if things go horribly wrong, it's a disappointment but not a tragedy.
Because of the difference in cost and risk, you can do vastly more exploration with robots than with people. I think sending people is the real conceit, and one that costs lives.
What we really need from government is an investigation of the long-term effects of OSS on our indigenous software industry, assistance to combat the threat to the industry's livelihood that OSS might pose and the development of a strategy to build on the opportunities that OSS has created. Without prompt action, my fear is that a further move towards OSS could result in the nightmare scenario of OSS at one extreme and Microsoft at the other with nothing else in between. Where would our freedom of choice be then?
I have a few issues with OSS myself, but the above
paragraph is dumb on a number of counts.
First, industry and OSS are not at odds. OSS is a boon to industry (although perhaps not Microsoft in particular). This is because (1) developers benefit greatly from common standards and platforms, and (2) it makes no economic sense to keep reinventing the wheel. This is why industry has donated so much software, and supports OSS through consortiums such as OSDL
http://www.osdl.org/, which pays Linus Torvalds' salary.
Second, the author seems to think that OSS hurts programmers. Wrong. It helps programmers because it makes them more productive. If individual programmers can generate more functionality for the end user, then there will be more, not less, demand for their services.
It's a bit like arguing that bulldozers are bad because they put manual diggers out of work. Well good - those diggers should be off doing something more economical worthwhile anyway. Constantly redigging the same ditch is not suitable work for human beings.
Third, how can one possibly slow down OSS without
infringing on people's rights? These are the actions of free people in a free society.
The author's point of view seems to "something unusual is happening so had we better try to regulate it". I say let free people in a free society do their thing, and let the chips fall where they may (okay, call me a classic liberal). A rush to regulate will do far more harm than good, to the benefit of special interests alone.
Adam Smith was right. Self interest more often than not benefits all of society. Without win-win situations, economies would not function.
We can add to this list based on demographic arguments:
Retirement of long-term employees allows for promotions all the way down the food chain, enabling IBM to keep valuable employees of all ages. This
is particularly viable since, with current demographics, your average IBM employee might be over-qualified for their position.
It allows IBM to flatten out their demographic profile, thus improving IBM's long-term prospects, and preventing a huge disruption when baby boomers begin retiring en masse.
This is particularly pertinent given that just yesterday W committed U.S. taxpayers to rebuilding New Orleans. A cynic (not me, of course) might suggest he did this primarily to resuscitate his presidency.
On the plus side, it might be good practise if the warmings predictions are correct.
Ever notice how the open source community is full of really cool 90% finished products? People like to spend their spare time doing stuff thats fun, not mundane crap that occupies 10% of software development.
But as we all know, that last 10% takes 90% of the time. Thus people are really only doing 10% of the project.
I find many people seem prone to categorizing everything as either good or evil:
Good Companies: IBM, Google, Apple
Evil Companies: Microsoft, SCO
And let's not even start with people's opinions on George W. Bush.
The idea that such categorization is not only wrong, but actually harmful to clear thinking, seems to send some into apoplectic shock.
It's refreshing to hear from a Linux advocate who doesn't view Bill Gates as The Great Satan.
No one said that good statistics means things are good everywhere. Things are never good everywhere - there are always local conditions. These are, after all, national statistics.
It's astonishing how often I get accused of being Republican or Democrat or pro-Bush or anti-Bush on slashdot. Everyone sees every fact through the polarizing light of politics these days.
In fact I am none of these things - indeed I'm not even American. I just call em the way I see em, and if that seems to support one side or the other, well that's not my problem.
I apologize if the facts don't agree with your view of the world. I'll try to do better.
Unemployment statistics are not perfect, but this has been so for as long as there have been such statistics.
A search through Department of Labor statistics, however, show that worker productivity, total number of people working, and hourly wages have all been rising in recent years, even after inflation has been accounted for. And the unemployment rate has been dropping.
Your claims of a poor employment situation are pure fantasy.
Who said I approve of the spending habits of the American government and consumer? I never said everything about the American economy is rosy.
The fact is, however, that both economic growth and employment are strong. Look at Germany, with their 10% unemployment. They have been battling the unions for a decade trying to get barriers to employment down, and are only now making progress.
As for claiming that you need 10 years of experience to get a job, that's just plain bullshit. At 5% unemployment, someone in America is working.
Amen. It's called "the law of unintended consequences". By trying to force a result, you often achieve the opposite. Economists have found many such situations (can you say say "rent control"?).
This is why prospective politicians should not be allowed to run until they have passed a basic course on economics.
And science. Maybe a little history. Art appreciation doesn't hurt.
OSDL is a consortium whose purpose is to advance open-source software, and is a major component in the development of Linux (Linus Torvalds works for them).
I'm sure many of the companies paying for OSDL own software patents. The idea that these companies would be shut out from using GPL software is so ridiculous that I question the veracity of the article.
Yeah, drives me nuts too. People now think it means "compels one to ask". Women in particular seem to make this mistake, who, let's face it, aren't the sharpest knives in the drawer.
Actually I'm rather conservative in my views, but I believe in calling a spade a spade.
The FTA (free trade agreement between Canada and the U.S.) was initiated by Reagon and finalized by Bush The Elder, if I remember correctly. NAFTA, which included Mexico, was Clinton.
So what has George W. done for trade, except for erect barriers?
Protectionism is mostly a tool for making certain industries profitable at the expense of everyone else. It takes a brave and enlightened government to resist the urge to throw up trade barriers. The Bush administration isn't one of them.
Economists don't agree with you.
A enormous part of the U.S.'s wealth is due to trade - both imports and exports. Remove that, and U.S.'s standard of living would be cut in half. In general, free trade makes everyone wealthier.
Canadian wood? I wish. The tariffs on Canadian lumber are massive. This is a blatant transfer of money from the American home owner (who has to pay more for lumber) to the American forestry industry. It's a fine example of hurting the many for the good of the few, and why trade restrictions both suck and blow.
It's bad enough to militarily compete with China, a country where the people outweigh and outnumber Americans ten fold.
Outnumber definitely. Outweigh never! Americans are the most substantial people on earth, and they've got the jelly rolls to prove it.
China simply can't compete in the corpulence compartment, dude.
By the way, you write like a schizophrenic dope head. Nothing personal. I'm just glad you're in the NRA.
Slashdot Mirror
But equally obviously, we are not now in a position to colonize space. We are in exploration mode.
My point is this: Anything that can be done by robots should be done by robots. And exploring Mars can be done by robots.
A: Scientific exploration.
One day I see humans flying to the moon or Mars, but right now they are just in the way - an enormous expense when, as you state, many people fail to see the point of exploring space.
If you're looking for drama, go join a theatre company. It's not ethical to waste astronaut's lives solely for our entertainment.
Because of the difference in cost and risk, you can do vastly more exploration with robots than with people. I think sending people is the real conceit, and one that costs lives.
I have a few issues with OSS myself, but the above paragraph is dumb on a number of counts.
First, industry and OSS are not at odds. OSS is a boon to industry (although perhaps not Microsoft in particular). This is because (1) developers benefit greatly from common standards and platforms, and (2) it makes no economic sense to keep reinventing the wheel. This is why industry has donated so much software, and supports OSS through consortiums such as OSDL http://www.osdl.org/, which pays Linus Torvalds' salary.
Second, the author seems to think that OSS hurts programmers. Wrong. It helps programmers because it makes them more productive. If individual programmers can generate more functionality for the end user, then there will be more, not less, demand for their services.
It's a bit like arguing that bulldozers are bad because they put manual diggers out of work. Well good - those diggers should be off doing something more economical worthwhile anyway. Constantly redigging the same ditch is not suitable work for human beings.
Third, how can one possibly slow down OSS without infringing on people's rights? These are the actions of free people in a free society.
The author's point of view seems to "something unusual is happening so had we better try to regulate it". I say let free people in a free society do their thing, and let the chips fall where they may (okay, call me a classic liberal). A rush to regulate will do far more harm than good, to the benefit of special interests alone.
We can add to this list based on demographic arguments:
- IBM's workforce gets reduced (but only where they want).
- Their corporate image doesn't get savaged. Indeed this is excellent PR.
- They might save some money, since severence packages for long-term employees can be substantial.
-
Moral, both for current and former employees, remains intact.
Just like in their battles with SCO, IBM manages to achieve a number of things at once.This is particularly pertinent given that just yesterday W committed U.S. taxpayers to rebuilding New Orleans. A cynic (not me, of course) might suggest he did this primarily to resuscitate his presidency.
On the plus side, it might be good practise if the warmings predictions are correct.
And let's not even start with people's opinions on George W. Bush.
The idea that such categorization is not only wrong, but actually harmful to clear thinking, seems to send some into apoplectic shock. It's refreshing to hear from a Linux advocate who doesn't view Bill Gates as The Great Satan.
You should be looking at the year-by-year comparisons, not the statistics for August. That's so short term as to be meaningless.
It's astonishing how often I get accused of being Republican or Democrat or pro-Bush or anti-Bush on slashdot. Everyone sees every fact through the polarizing light of politics these days.
In fact I am none of these things - indeed I'm not even American. I just call em the way I see em, and if that seems to support one side or the other, well that's not my problem.
I apologize if the facts don't agree with your view of the world. I'll try to do better.
Some of August's statistics are at the bottom. Hit "Search" near the top right hand corner for more complete, year-over-year, statistics.
It takes some digging, but you'll better able to debate economics with something better than blind ideology.
A search through Department of Labor statistics, however, show that worker productivity, total number of people working, and hourly wages have all been rising in recent years, even after inflation has been accounted for. And the unemployment rate has been dropping.
Your claims of a poor employment situation are pure fantasy.
The fact is, however, that both economic growth and employment are strong. Look at Germany, with their 10% unemployment. They have been battling the unions for a decade trying to get barriers to employment down, and are only now making progress.
As for claiming that you need 10 years of experience to get a job, that's just plain bullshit. At 5% unemployment, someone in America is working.
This is why prospective politicians should not be allowed to run until they have passed a basic course on economics.
And science. Maybe a little history. Art appreciation doesn't hurt.
I'm sure many of the companies paying for OSDL own software patents. The idea that these companies would be shut out from using GPL software is so ridiculous that I question the veracity of the article.
Yeah, drives me nuts too. People now think it means "compels one to ask". Women in particular seem to make this mistake, who, let's face it, aren't the sharpest knives in the drawer.
The FTA (free trade agreement between Canada and the U.S.) was initiated by Reagon and finalized by Bush The Elder, if I remember correctly. NAFTA, which included Mexico, was Clinton.
So what has George W. done for trade, except for erect barriers?
Protectionism is mostly a tool for making certain industries profitable at the expense of everyone else. It takes a brave and enlightened government to resist the urge to throw up trade barriers. The Bush administration isn't one of them.
What's this "you Yankees" guff? I'm Corinthian, you insensitive clod! You know, where the leather comes from.
You should'a got in when you had the chance, loser.
Canadian wood? I wish. The tariffs on Canadian lumber are massive. This is a blatant transfer of money from the American home owner (who has to pay more for lumber) to the American forestry industry. It's a fine example of hurting the many for the good of the few, and why trade restrictions both suck and blow.
By the way, you write like a schizophrenic dope head. Nothing personal. I'm just glad you're in the NRA.
Well now, that would make your parents venture capitalist. Much more exciting than just some parents trying to pry their child out of the basement.