No we wouldn't. The problems are deep rooted in various areas aside from inevitable apparent bureaucracy in NASA.
- NASA is VASTLY underfunded, with it's funding being cut on key projects year by year - Most of the American public don't give a crap about the pre-history of space, such as throwing up robots and plants and 'seeing what happens'. It's hard to gain funding if noone cares. - The current presidency has no charisma or enthusiasm to push space travel, it is simply not in his interests. - Space travel is expensive and overall, has very little capitalist pleasing return. When it comes to space, what money you throw up there certainly does not come down. Scientific merit is in hoardes, but it's hard to argue with wall street that it has any merit. - Some space technology does not follow 'Moores Law' so sometimes progress slows considerably. In some fields such as propulsion we really are waiting for a breakthrough that is not just 'proven on paper'. - Putting humans in space holds very little merit to many scientists. Even NASA don't want people getting sent up for no good reason.
There's 100 more reasons why we're not living some SciFi dream. I want my space habitat as much as any geek, but I know why I don't have it...
You have a fair point but it's not that simple - you are missing the point of the meaning of top speed and why it is selected higher than speed limits.
1. In Germany it's not, which is by far one of the most famous car-making places... so not insignificant. 2. If you are in trouble on the motorway, if it's really blocked and you've got an ambulance behind, it is good to be able to pull away. If you are going 70 and a car behind is going 90 and there's no room to move out the way, you'll be pleased of another 10mph to push you out and to safety. 3. A top speed denotes that you will be at 'redline', which means that the gearbox won't go any higher and your engine won't rev any higher. You don't want your car to have to redline at the country's perfectly acceptable speed limit - heck, you shouldn't drive at redline for more than a few seconds with most engines.
Even my 1972 MG Midget has a top speed of 96mph. Mine's modified heavily so it could cope with it, but would I take a stock Midget to 96? God no, it'd be pushing the engine too far.
Anecdotal evidence does not define something as useless.
I have anecdotal evidence of 99% of buildings not collapsing.
Licensing is there to protect the public. It may not catch the offender right away (I suppose you are proposing Tarot readers for that?) but when they slip up, they are screwed, totally screwed.
My driving license does not say I'm a great driver (even if I did pass with only 2 minors), but it does say if I do anything dangerous, I won't have a license, won't have a car and probably will go to prison. That is deterrant enough for most.
Of course why don't you bring out anecdotal evidence of a person driving without a license causing harm? THAT PROVES licenses SUCK!
Except they don't. They are a reasonable solution to a hugely complex problem in all areas of business and public life.
Considering that McCartney is worth £900M (~$1600M) himself I have very little doubt that they've grossed that much. I am still endlessly amazed just how much they have grossed in the end.
I'm not entirely sure that would be cheap! And then if you, in a magical world far in the future, create a viable constant mining business/supply chain from Uranus, you're dealing with the fact that you're creating increased supply so the price/value of diamond by definition goes down, unless demand outstrips supply.
"So this idea may be useful in 3rd world countries where power grids are not available."
Ranting for no good cause. That's EXACTLY where it is aimed at, anyway. May I also point out that lifting those weights is not going to produce signficant enegy usage that someone is going to have to change their diet in the richer parts of the world. Don't forget that one of the biggest problems in the wealthy world is OVER eating not undereating!
I'm sorry but you are just stating the obvious and ignoring the issue. The issue with guns is that aside from safe use they are a very effective and simple way to cause serious harm. It doesn't really matter if you personally are educated about their use, someone else might not be.
I'm a brit, and for our culture the general consensus is that we're better without than with most of the time. Of course I could 'defend myself' if someone held a gun to my head if I had a gun, but if I had a gun, there'd probably be a lot more people also with guns who'd feel inclined to hold a gun to my head.
It's a numbers game; even if there's a minority of mentalists, I'd rather not have to think about them getting guns any easier than they already can on the black market.
"Of course, once the rental market took off, it was all over for Beta, mostly because Sony didn't want porn on Beta tapes, so the early adopters all had VHS."
HOW many more times is someone going to spout this urban myth?
In your very very very very very very very very long post, you failed to add the main issue with banning botnet-member computers; they're generally on dynamic IPs.
BUT, I wouldn't regard it as as a 'tech' product. It's much more of a yuppie product, hence why techs I meet don't have one, but middle managers seem to have them pouring out their ears.
"They get all uppity when it comes to trademark names."...and just generally a bit more logical about user of grammar, wouldn't you say? Lego sell products, made by Lego. 'Lego' is a brand for a collection of products, not any single product that can be put into a plural. I think it makes sense grammatically not just on a trademark level; interestingly, I never hear it in the UK said as 'legos', it only seems to be said on american sites. Maybe this is where I'm supposed to grumble about the breakdown of the English language?
It is also a plain and simple trademark issue; you'd get uppity if you knew if you were a money-hungry company who stopped defending that trademark that in a few years time people could sell 'Lego' products without buying any sort of license.
Copyright may be damaging in some industries but in the book industry it is FAR from that, at least for authors trying to earn a living.
You clearly have no clue. Without copyright, you have NO RIGHT to demand who can and can't sell your book, your work is public domain therefore ANYONE can print it. Shrinkwrap makes very little odds if someone buys the book second hand, 'never read the EULA' on the front and goes ahead and copies it down word for word.
Maybe you could invent another method 'better than copyright'? Maybe a big burly guy could come with the book, and if you try to republish it, he'll beat the crap out of you. Yeah, that's better than copyright.
Sorry, but you're plain wrong. Disclaimer for myself is that my father works for an energy company and manages various power stations.
Gas powered stations do EXACTLY what you say doesn't happen - they vary their power usage according to demand. You create less demand, less fuel is burned. It's a simple fact.
This is just ranting. Cryptography does attempt to manage rights. Certain people have the RIGHT to access x file. Many DRM solutions work on the basis that the consumer's machine has the 'key' and 'unlocks' the file with that key. JUST LIKE CRYPTOGRAPHY. In fact, some DRM uses cryptography.
Just because you don't like many of the IMPLEMENTATIONS and usages of DRM, it doesn't mean it isn't by definition a security tool, even if not many companies successfully make a secure DRM solution.
I've felt the same in many respects, and when I was just finishing school they did start to use the early incarnation of the 'interactive whiteboard' in one of the classrooms. I generally found it quite pointless, but my mind was changed when I saw that recently there's a lot of research that's been done (citation needed, I'm sorry, this is a quick post) that shows they readily improve young school children's attention span by a huge amount, even if it's what they were used to from the start. There's just something a bit more engaging about big flashy colours and what not to a small kid, rather than a teacher simply scrawling in their handwriting on a whiteboard (which they probably can't read anyway).
It's not a magic solution andit doesn't work for all subjects at all ages, but they really DO have merit, more so than us skeptics think.
Re:Yes they all work like slaves
on
Sun Buys MySQL
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Very bad translation and it simplifies a very broad issue.
Working unpaid overtime is agreed in the contract at the start, at least here in the UK - whether legal or not in EU laws, you accept it. Some jobs I've accepted that as I've enjoyed the job enough to choose to do overtime for my enjoyment, knowing that the project wouldn't even get off the ground if it weren't for more-time-invested-than-is-money-in-the-pot. This type of work especially applies to advertising where the client doesn't have the funds but you want to produce, regardless of their funds, something really fantastic for your own pleasure/portfolio/learning. Some jobs I've refused unless overtime is paid in full - it depends on the nature of the work but it doesn't make you a chump to spend more time on a product than you're paid because you know career wise (CV, portfolio work) it will pay dividends.
If you feel so strongly about unpaid overtime, don't sign a contract saying that you'll do it for free.
As a manager of a coding team I have always made it extremely clear to project managers that they are getting no overtime out of my team unless the team consent to it or the accounts team agree overtime pay. I'm all for defending teams and readily do so and discourage overtime by quoting realistic deadlines, so this way if they choose to work overtime, they're not 'chumps', they're just keen on the work.
It's also worth noting that in the past I have worked overtime because someone/else/ in the chain of work is putting more hours in than they are being granted in pay. So sometimes it's as much about caring for your fellow colleagues as it is being a 'chump'.
It's amazing how some people on Slashdot seem to have a cube mentality which suggests that work is a sterile, non-interactive environment. It really isn't in my experience.
Re:Yes they all work like slaves
on
Sun Buys MySQL
·
· Score: 1
You sound 15, not 40. Whilst I'm sure that Google are quite hard to work for, noone is FORCING anyone to work overtime. You make the choice to turn up for work - don't like it, don't go.
I hate sweatshop-esq software houses as much as anyone and have worked in companies close to that in the past but it's bullshit that anyone is 'forced' to work like that. It's not like I condone the company's behaviour but it's simply not true that it is anywhere near 'slavery'.
How can you claim something is bogus by stating one single example? You haven't even taken an average of a few chips like you seem to presume they have!
Slashdot Mirror
No we wouldn't. The problems are deep rooted in various areas aside from inevitable apparent bureaucracy in NASA.
- NASA is VASTLY underfunded, with it's funding being cut on key projects year by year
- Most of the American public don't give a crap about the pre-history of space, such as throwing up robots and plants and 'seeing what happens'. It's hard to gain funding if noone cares.
- The current presidency has no charisma or enthusiasm to push space travel, it is simply not in his interests.
- Space travel is expensive and overall, has very little capitalist pleasing return. When it comes to space, what money you throw up there certainly does not come down. Scientific merit is in hoardes, but it's hard to argue with wall street that it has any merit.
- Some space technology does not follow 'Moores Law' so sometimes progress slows considerably. In some fields such as propulsion we really are waiting for a breakthrough that is not just 'proven on paper'.
- Putting humans in space holds very little merit to many scientists. Even NASA don't want people getting sent up for no good reason.
There's 100 more reasons why we're not living some SciFi dream. I want my space habitat as much as any geek, but I know why I don't have it...
You have a fair point but it's not that simple - you are missing the point of the meaning of top speed and why it is selected higher than speed limits.
1. In Germany it's not, which is by far one of the most famous car-making places... so not insignificant.
2. If you are in trouble on the motorway, if it's really blocked and you've got an ambulance behind, it is good to be able to pull away. If you are going 70 and a car behind is going 90 and there's no room to move out the way, you'll be pleased of another 10mph to push you out and to safety.
3. A top speed denotes that you will be at 'redline', which means that the gearbox won't go any higher and your engine won't rev any higher. You don't want your car to have to redline at the country's perfectly acceptable speed limit - heck, you shouldn't drive at redline for more than a few seconds with most engines.
Even my 1972 MG Midget has a top speed of 96mph. Mine's modified heavily so it could cope with it, but would I take a stock Midget to 96? God no, it'd be pushing the engine too far.
You're just a troll.
Anecdotal evidence does not define something as useless.
I have anecdotal evidence of 99% of buildings not collapsing.
Licensing is there to protect the public. It may not catch the offender right away (I suppose you are proposing Tarot readers for that?) but when they slip up, they are screwed, totally screwed.
My driving license does not say I'm a great driver (even if I did pass with only 2 minors), but it does say if I do anything dangerous, I won't have a license, won't have a car and probably will go to prison. That is deterrant enough for most.
Of course why don't you bring out anecdotal evidence of a person driving without a license causing harm? THAT PROVES licenses SUCK!
Except they don't. They are a reasonable solution to a hugely complex problem in all areas of business and public life.
Considering that McCartney is worth £900M (~$1600M) himself I have very little doubt that they've grossed that much. I am still endlessly amazed just how much they have grossed in the end.
I'm not entirely sure that would be cheap! And then if you, in a magical world far in the future, create a viable constant mining business/supply chain from Uranus, you're dealing with the fact that you're creating increased supply so the price/value of diamond by definition goes down, unless demand outstrips supply.
"So this idea may be useful in 3rd world countries where power grids are not available."
Ranting for no good cause. That's EXACTLY where it is aimed at, anyway. May I also point out that lifting those weights is not going to produce signficant enegy usage that someone is going to have to change their diet in the richer parts of the world. Don't forget that one of the biggest problems in the wealthy world is OVER eating not undereating!
I'm sorry but you are just stating the obvious and ignoring the issue. The issue with guns is that aside from safe use they are a very effective and simple way to cause serious harm. It doesn't really matter if you personally are educated about their use, someone else might not be.
I'm a brit, and for our culture the general consensus is that we're better without than with most of the time. Of course I could 'defend myself' if someone held a gun to my head if I had a gun, but if I had a gun, there'd probably be a lot more people also with guns who'd feel inclined to hold a gun to my head.
It's a numbers game; even if there's a minority of mentalists, I'd rather not have to think about them getting guns any easier than they already can on the black market.
There's other stuff... ...that is plain lies?
"Of course, once the rental market took off, it was all over for Beta, mostly because Sony didn't want porn on Beta tapes, so the early adopters all had VHS."
HOW many more times is someone going to spout this urban myth?
In the UK you can look up any numberplate on the DVLA website and it tells you the make model, engine size of the car.
Agriculture is by definition not hunter gatherer.
In your very very very very very very very very long post, you failed to add the main issue with banning botnet-member computers; they're generally on dynamic IPs.
Every platform has developers of course! But over in the UK it is very much marketed as a 'yuppie' device.
BUT, I wouldn't regard it as as a 'tech' product. It's much more of a yuppie product, hence why techs I meet don't have one, but middle managers seem to have them pouring out their ears.
"They get all uppity when it comes to trademark names." ...and just generally a bit more logical about user of grammar, wouldn't you say? Lego sell products, made by Lego. 'Lego' is a brand for a collection of products, not any single product that can be put into a plural. I think it makes sense grammatically not just on a trademark level; interestingly, I never hear it in the UK said as 'legos', it only seems to be said on american sites. Maybe this is where I'm supposed to grumble about the breakdown of the English language?
It is also a plain and simple trademark issue; you'd get uppity if you knew if you were a money-hungry company who stopped defending that trademark that in a few years time people could sell 'Lego' products without buying any sort of license.
Can't say I blame them!
End of boring post.
Copyright may be damaging in some industries but in the book industry it is FAR from that, at least for authors trying to earn a living.
You clearly have no clue. Without copyright, you have NO RIGHT to demand who can and can't sell your book, your work is public domain therefore ANYONE can print it. Shrinkwrap makes very little odds if someone buys the book second hand, 'never read the EULA' on the front and goes ahead and copies it down word for word.
Maybe you could invent another method 'better than copyright'? Maybe a big burly guy could come with the book, and if you try to republish it, he'll beat the crap out of you. Yeah, that's better than copyright.
Sorry, but you're plain wrong. Disclaimer for myself is that my father works for an energy company and manages various power stations.
Gas powered stations do EXACTLY what you say doesn't happen - they vary their power usage according to demand. You create less demand, less fuel is burned. It's a simple fact.
This is just ranting. Cryptography does attempt to manage rights. Certain people have the RIGHT to access x file. Many DRM solutions work on the basis that the consumer's machine has the 'key' and 'unlocks' the file with that key. JUST LIKE CRYPTOGRAPHY. In fact, some DRM uses cryptography.
Just because you don't like many of the IMPLEMENTATIONS and usages of DRM, it doesn't mean it isn't by definition a security tool, even if not many companies successfully make a secure DRM solution.
1. Less power consumption
2. Less weight
3. Less space taken up by not having a motor
I've felt the same in many respects, and when I was just finishing school they did start to use the early incarnation of the 'interactive whiteboard' in one of the classrooms. I generally found it quite pointless, but my mind was changed when I saw that recently there's a lot of research that's been done (citation needed, I'm sorry, this is a quick post) that shows they readily improve young school children's attention span by a huge amount, even if it's what they were used to from the start. There's just something a bit more engaging about big flashy colours and what not to a small kid, rather than a teacher simply scrawling in their handwriting on a whiteboard (which they probably can't read anyway).
It's not a magic solution andit doesn't work for all subjects at all ages, but they really DO have merit, more so than us skeptics think.
Very bad translation and it simplifies a very broad issue.
/else/ in the chain of work is putting more hours in than they are being granted in pay. So sometimes it's as much about caring for your fellow colleagues as it is being a 'chump'.
Working unpaid overtime is agreed in the contract at the start, at least here in the UK - whether legal or not in EU laws, you accept it. Some jobs I've accepted that as I've enjoyed the job enough to choose to do overtime for my enjoyment, knowing that the project wouldn't even get off the ground if it weren't for more-time-invested-than-is-money-in-the-pot. This type of work especially applies to advertising where the client doesn't have the funds but you want to produce, regardless of their funds, something really fantastic for your own pleasure/portfolio/learning. Some jobs I've refused unless overtime is paid in full - it depends on the nature of the work but it doesn't make you a chump to spend more time on a product than you're paid because you know career wise (CV, portfolio work) it will pay dividends.
If you feel so strongly about unpaid overtime, don't sign a contract saying that you'll do it for free.
As a manager of a coding team I have always made it extremely clear to project managers that they are getting no overtime out of my team unless the team consent to it or the accounts team agree overtime pay. I'm all for defending teams and readily do so and discourage overtime by quoting realistic deadlines, so this way if they choose to work overtime, they're not 'chumps', they're just keen on the work.
It's also worth noting that in the past I have worked overtime because someone
It's amazing how some people on Slashdot seem to have a cube mentality which suggests that work is a sterile, non-interactive environment. It really isn't in my experience.
You sound 15, not 40. Whilst I'm sure that Google are quite hard to work for, noone is FORCING anyone to work overtime. You make the choice to turn up for work - don't like it, don't go.
I hate sweatshop-esq software houses as much as anyone and have worked in companies close to that in the past but it's bullshit that anyone is 'forced' to work like that. It's not like I condone the company's behaviour but it's simply not true that it is anywhere near 'slavery'.
No problems that you can remember, you mean ;-)
That isn't a coincidence...
How can you claim something is bogus by stating one single example? You haven't even taken an average of a few chips like you seem to presume they have!