Want to do it better and cheaper than me? By all means, be my guest.
I'm certain the AMA would have no problem with me practicing medicine.
I'm not advocating that anyone should be able to practice medicine. Obviously, some strict regulation is required. But anytime a monopoly is granted, there is no competition. Prices soar, while quality takes a nose dive. The question becomes, how do we regulate medical practice while avoiding a monopoly?
they present with atypical symptoms, or a less-than-classic history
You're really making my point for me. Expert systems are much better than humans at extracting useful data from noisy datasets and eliminating extraneous noise. It's no surprise that this is true in the specific case of medical diagnosis, which is a nearly ideal application for this technology. Humans tend to focus on the specific items they recognize, ignore the data they don't recognize, and jump to conclusions. Anybody who has tried to describe a medical problem to a doctor, only to present the first sentence of what they intend to be a one minute concise description and be cut off by the doctor who has already used divine insight to ascertain the problem knows exactly what I'm talking about. It's very difficult to find a doctor who will allow the patient two minutes to describe the problem. Two minutes. Is that so much to ask? It's much faster than one minute, followed by a misdiagnosis and treatment.
You're an engineer claiming to be better than most doctors, and they have the ego problem?
I thought that would probably be misinterpretted. My claim was that I felt I was better at diagnosing problems in general than most doctors, but was obviously not as good at diagnosing medical problems because I have almost no medical database of information and doctors have vast training in that area. But just as Gray's Anatomy contains a lot of information but can't diagnose a simple broken bone, many doctors are walking encyclopedias of information that is little better than medical trivia because their strength is remembering facts, not applying them. In general, engineers are more inclined to be problem solvers than doctors, even though troubleshooting is probably a larger part of what doctors do every day.
erroneously state that we do pap smears to detect Ovarian Cancer
Sorry. Because of a poor attempt at brevity, that sentence did not properly convey my meaning. CA125 is a marker that is useful in identifying cervical cancer, uterine cancer, ovarian cancer, and several other health issues. It's not very specific, so it isn't a good test for ovarian cancer. But there are currently no good tests that detect ovarian cancer in the early stages when it could be successfully treated. A CA125 test could add to the set of diagnostic tools. My intended point was not that a pap smear should detect ovarian cancer. What I was trying to say is that the pap smear has been around since the 1940s and we need much better diagnostic tools as part of a regular checkup. Women are better than men at getting regular exams, but there is a false sense of security when a woman can visit a gynecologist, be given a clean bill of health, then be diagnosed with a fatal ovarian cancer a month later. It happens.
Even when restricted to the diagnosis of cervical cancer, the pap smear is a bad test. It has too many false positives and way too many false negatives. The current PSA test is not very good for detecting prostate cancer either. Fortunately, better tests are on their way, albeit a decade later than we could have reasonably expected. Blame insurance companies and lawyers all you want for the lack of progress in key areas of medicine, but there is good progress in other areas of medicine where competition between companies serving the medical indu
When expert systems were all the rage in the early 1980s, someone had the idea to train a computer using the diagnostic techniques of a bunch of really good doctors. The goal was a "doctor" for every third world village. The computer ordered simple tests and posed diagnostic questions in the proper sequence. A nurse or similarly skilled technician did all the hands-on stuff. They tested the effectiveness of this fairly simple prototype. It was *way* better than the average American doctor at diagnosing illness and injury and recommending appropriate treatment.
Tin foil hat time: We don't hear about this project anymore. Why not? The evil AMA (probably in league with those guys in the black helicopters) suppressed the technology. OK, I'm mostly joking... but not entirely.
We think of doctors as nearly omnipotent. They are not gods. From my experience, half of them function as trained technicians. I feel that my engineering background has made me a better diagnostician than most doctors. Of course, they have a huge database of medical info that I don't have, but if I had the same info they have, I think I could do a better job of diagnosing medical problems because I'm skilled in the diagnostic process. Google and some online medical sites are rapidly closing the gap.
There is some intuition involved in diagnosing illness, but it's mostly a logical process. Many doctors are good at memorizing and regurgitating information, but not very good at applying that information and thinking logically.
To prove my point that the medical community behaves more as technicians than scientists, I offer the example of ulcers. Dr. Robin Warren tried desperately for almost a decade to convince the global medical community that most ulcers are caused by H. pylori bacteria. He was publically ridiculed. He finally ingested the bacteria, gave himself the worst case of ulcers ever, and then cured himself with antibiotics. The pill pushers who make money with routine patient visits to prescribe various medications to help people cope with the painful condition were finally forced to accept the truth. The antibiotics were already approved for human use, so the entire world needlessly suffered with ulcers for about a decade. Why? Arrogance. The medical community still operates largely as an authoritarian society, rather than an objective scientific meritocracy.
If the medical community would check their egos at the door and do what was in the best interest of their patients, there would be much more emphasis on prevention and early detection instead of heroic intervention, often when it's too late. We are starting to see blood tests that detect early markers for cancer, so hopefully women won't get a pap smear and an "all OK" diagnosis from their doctor, only to be diagnosed a month later with a five pound ovarian tumor. The use of CAT scans and other noninvasive diagnostic tools, coupled with computer image recognition, should allow detection of many problems early enough to treat successfully.
People don't want computer doctors, and our current wetware doctors certainly don't want computer doctors. But I think we'd be a lot healthier and would spend a lot less money if there was a standard expert system responsible for healthcare. Every community could have the same access to GOOD healthcare that now exists only sporadically in larger cities, and there would be almost no malpractice lawsuits because the standard of care would be uniform and very good. Then, if we could just manage to get the insurance companies out of the game, we'd have healthcare nirvana.
nobody should be suprised when people like me support the RIAA or MPAA when they do this stuff.
Perhaps you believe in Boolean logic, where two wrongs make a right. In the real world, supporting the suppression of rights results in fewer rights for individuals. This is true even when you believe the RIAA and MPAA has an agenda that aligns with your own.
I'm certain that a lot of people thought Nazis would create an ordered and law abiding society, and even if they didn't agree with all of their methods, they supported them because they thought their goals would be in their best interest. Right and wrong are seldom absolute qualities, but if we take a look at what's happening and think about it for a few minutes, we can usually tell the difference.
I support reasonable intellectual property rights, but the one sided view of copyrights held by the RIAA and MPAA is wrong, and so are their anti-competitive business practices.
There are problems with revert wars and pontification, and various biases working their way into the articles. People are aware of these issues and discuss them. They're already improved, and will be resolved.
There is one subtle problem that will be difficult to fix, and it's common to all other types of encyclopedias as well. Perhaps the concept is a bit more engaing in the case of Wikipedia. The problem is, knowledge does not follow Democratic principles. You can't take a vote and determine absolute truth.
Gallileo said a lot of things The Church didn't like, so they placed him under house arrest until he died as an old man. But despite his various astronomical beliefs being in the extreme minority, he was right and almost everyone else was wrong.
It's easy to say that was a long time ago, and we're a lot more enlightened now. In some ways yes, but in many important ways, no. For example:
After trying for about a decade to convince the global medical community that H. pylori bacteria cause most peptic ulcers, Robin Warren finally drank the bacteria, gave himself a horrible case of ulcers, then cured himself with antibiotics. The medical profession finally paid attention to the science.
So, the truth is not always well represented by the popular belief.
But Wikipedia is still a great idea and in practice, it works very well. My thanks to all involved.
Your comment about all the many indirect costs in the traditional record / CD distribution channel raises two big issues for me.
1) It seems like a good reason to change the distribution method. They could take advantage of new technologies to make content distribution more efficient and less costly. In a free market, competitors would be racing to adopt more efficient technology to gain a temporary advantage over their competitors. The cost savings would be passed to the consumer to increase market demand for the lower priced products. But, instead of adopting new technology that benefits them and their customers, it looks like the RIAA is clinging desperately to their antiquated distribution methods. The only reason I can imagine is that they are afraid that the new technology will not be as easy to control and they'll lose a monopoly if anyone can make and distribute music.
2) Why are online music CDs almost the same price as CDs in retail stores? There is no cost for producing a CD, and the distribution costs are much less too. It sure looks like the cost of a CD has little to do with the material costs or the old fashioned distribution channel. If not, then where does the money go? I'm still thinking cocaine and hookers. :^)
I also derive a significant portion of my income from intellectual property. I provide good value and do not have problems with people copying my work and not reimbursing me for it. But then again, I'm not abusing my customers by excessive price gouging.
I'm not producing movies or music, and admittedly there will probably be a small percentage of people who will always want to make illegal copies of these items to avoid compensating the copyright holders and their agents. But if the pricing was reasonable, a lot fewer people would justify making illegal copies. The current situation is so corrupt and devoid of free market competition that for many people, illegally copying this content is almost a moral imperative, similar to an act of civil disobedience. Consumers are so abused and so powerless in this process, because there is no free market competition, that they empower themselves through illegal acts.
In a very real sense, the wide spread resentment caused by this customer abuse provides sympathy for copyright infringers, even among those of us who do not make illegal copies. The abuses of the RIAA and MPAA are weakening intellectual property for all of us. When enough people feel justified copying a music CD, then it's that much easier to copy a program, an eBook, etc.
As in all valid legal contracts, copyrights were created for the benefit of two parties. In this case it's content providers and content consumers. But lately, the RIAA and MPAA have been paying for legislation that significantly weakens the consumer's side of that agreement. In addition to exorbitant prices, they have added draconian DRM that prevents making copies for fair use. What if you bought a book, and couldn't loan it to a friend? If it's an eBook, you can't. The eBook is actually more expensive than a paperback, so you paid more, and have fewer rights. Same with CDs and DVDs. We're approaching the point where we pay more, and have a limited license instead of owning the content for our own unlimited use, as has been the case.
Copyrighted works revert to the public domain after a sufficient time for the original content creator to benefit from the exclusive rights granted by the copyright. But now, corporations own copyrights instead of humans. At first, the law was modified to accommodate corporations. The copyright was in effect for the author's lifetime. So we added, "or 100 years from the time of creation" to compensate for the immortality of corporations. But now, corporate held copyrights essentially last forever. In other words, society grants them an exclusive benefit, but society never benefits in return because their exclusive benefit never ends. In the current climate, the works of Shakespeare would be owned by one corporation, and all books, movies, plays, and other derivative works would be controlled by that company for their own financial benefit. Would that be good for society?
I don't condone illegal copying. But it isn't stealing. We need a new way to compensate the providers of content. Now that technology has given us the abilty to deliver digital content more efficiently, the monopoly on distribution should end and the prices should adequately compensate content creators and pay the small amount needed to distribute digital content. But the RIAA and MPAA don't want that, because they are taking what is of value (the content), and expect to continue making a 400% markup on it for nothing more than distribution, which is an insignificant afterthought in the digital world we now occupy.
There is a world of difference between a freelance shareware programmer and the RIAA or MPAA.
I'm not one of those people who hates capitalism and thinks everything should be free. Free is good, but we've all got to eat. I have no problem with any amount of profit a person or a company can make, as long as they are operating in a free market. Free markets are self correcting. Free markets are fair. Free markets work for the seller and the buyer. But the anti-competitive and monopolistic practices of the MPAA and particularly the RIAA are not consistent with free market economy. Introduce real competition in those markets and I'll shut up.
record companies were nailed for price fixing (but not collusion that I'm aware of
In this instance, I think collusion and price fixing are close to the same. The record companies conspired among themselves to artificially inflate the price of music CDs. The idea is that no consumer would say, "Why does this CD from Capitol cost five dollars more than this CD from BMG? That sort of anti-competitive price fixing is collusion.
you said that the settlement was discounts on future CD purchases. My recollection is that consumers got checks.
The checks were for $13.86. Imagine you bought 100 CDs at $16, when a fair market value would have been $8. You were ripped off to the tune of $800. Then you are herded into a big group of consumers with no concern whether you bought one CD or 1000 during the many years the price fixing took place. You get a check for $13.86. I called that a discount on a future CD purchase, because it won't even buy one CD at the artificially inflated prices, which still remain in effect to this day.
WAY more than any reasonable costs for the materials and reasonable compensation for the artists and distributors. Interesting, do you have a cite for that?
It's difficult to generate real numbers because the record company contracts with artists include nondisclosure agreements that prevent the artists from divulging how much their paid and how the compensation is structured. I wish we did know. It's generally believed that artists make little on the very lucrative CD sales, and the contracts are structured so the artists are paid mostly based on their touring. This gives the artists a strong incentive to promote the CDs for the record companies. The popular artists aren't starving. But there is so much money channeled into the RIAA hog trough, and the artists still see only a small percentage. Most people are offended by that. They want to encourage and reward artists for creating music, but by far the larger reward goes to record company executives, and that doesn't seem fair. It abuses the artists to some extent, and it drastically abuses the consumer.
I think many Slashdotters are confusing the gross margin (e.g. looking at the $1.50 cost of goods on a CD and thinking that's all there is to it) with the net margin, which is understandable.
I know there are a lot of little expenses and they all add up. I have a small business, so I'm all too aware of that phenomenon. But there is no way that record companies are spending anywhere close to $8 per CD (which would allow them a healthy $2 profit on a $10 wholesale CD). I've read estimates of artist royalty figures in the range of $.50 to $1.00 per CD. I have no idea if that's right. I don't read Rolling Stone or other entertainment publications, but I haven't seen ANY ads for music in a long time. Unless you count payola, I doubt their advertising expense is all that much.
and Time Warner, which owns Warner Music
I'm glad you mentioned Time Warner, who had enough money to buy AOL in their prime, and was dumb enough to do so. If it's so expensive to produce and distribute CDs, why does AOL individually mail billions of AOL CDs? Burning CDs, printing, packaging and distribution can't be all that expensive if AOL can bug us all with enough of these damn free CD offers to fill a huge landfill every year.
Again, the problem is that free market economies do not apply when all the major companies in an industry act together as a de facto monopoly to artificially inflate prices. In such a lucrative endeavor, corporate accounting is the art of making sure that revenue is offset by expenses. Corporations write off expenses that essentially subsidize the lifestyles of executives, their friends, and their families. The books show reasonable profits, but the true profits are still obscene. I wonder what expense account is used for cocaine and hookers. Probably entertainment. Be sure to keep those receipts.
I think you are toally missing the point, in at least two key areas.
The word "pirate" is a homonym, one of many, many words that have multiple meanings. Slashdotters manage to not get dogs and trees confused when they use the word "bark," so it's interesting to see folks selectively forget their elementary school education.
The difference is, the two forms of the word "bark" were not selected to be deliberately misleading. They arose because of some weird coincidences of etimology. They were not the illegitimate spawn of lawyers and marketing executives to dupe people.
If I had to pick a "criminal" here, I'd say Wal-Mart and Best Buy. A quick primer for those who've forgotten the details of the price fixing suit:
1. Wal-Mart and Best Buy began selling CDs at the front of the store at or below cost, as a loss leader to bring people into the store to buy the higher margin, higher ticket stuff.
Again, a complete red herring. The point is that the record companies, who WERE found guilty of collusion and price fixing, were the ones setting the wholesale prices, which then dictated the exorbitant retail prices. Even if WalMart and Best Buy realized that the CDs were grossly overpriced and decided to sell them at a loss to attract customers, that does not in any way take away from the fact that RIAA companies were selling CDs for WAY more than any reasonable costs for the materials and reasonable compensation for the artists and distributors.
Like the anti-trust suits against Microsoft, the settlement against the RIAA was completely without teeth, and the RIAA continues to operate in a very anticompetitive manner. They use the government to prosecute people who violate their intellectual property rights. If they wanted to stop people from making illegal copies, they should first and foremost start competing with each other, which would naturally reduce their prices. When they offered reasonable value relative to their added costs, consumers would respond in kind. A lot of people rightfully feel ripped off by the RIAA companies, and use that as a lame excuse to break copyrights. Illegal, yes, but it still isn't stealing, and it certainly isn't piracy, arr, arr.
The real problem here is the lack of competition. If you want to listen to Zamfir play the pan flute, only one label represents him. You're single sourced. A monopoly is created. We need a new method to distribute music. If artists produced their own music independent of music distributors, they could take their pick of multiple competing distributors with non-exclusive distribution contracts. The artists could either use technology to produce their own music, or take their pick of competing recording studios and freelance producers. That sort of competitive market where the artists are adequately compensated for their UNIQUE contributions and the record companies are competing with their COMMODITY contributions is the last thing the RIAA wants.
I hope the replacement for RIAA arrives soon. It'll be a natural byproduct of the enabling technology, which is why the RIAA is so actively fighting the new technology. When it comes, it'll be guys like these who make it happen. They prove that not all indie music sucks.
Outlook has them beat. If only it worked on Linux.
I need better filters. My brain actually tried to imagine Outlook running on Linux and I almost lost my breakfast.
Windows can keep the security holes and Outlook Worm Of The Week.
If Mozilla offers a good alternative to Outlook, which implies Exchange interoperability and seamless data importing, then the security issues alone are a good reason to switch. If I had a business that was spending a lot of time and money trying to deal with the Outlook security issues and only succeeding most of the time, I'd write a big check for a secure Outlook alternative.
Of course, the real benefit comes when the desktops are migrated to Linux, but open source will gain a foothold in applications first. After that, the OS switch will be obvious.
You make some good points. Profit is certainly a strong motive in the commercial development of space. In the simplest analysis, profit is more revenue than expenses. At first, the costs will be higher, although still orders of magnitude less than NASA. As technology improves and economies of scale apply, the costs will come down and access to space will be more affordable.
The lack of a profit motive is the reason NASA has developed space access as they have. They are in the business of spending money, not making money. Yes, NASA has done a lot of very good research, going back to the days before space flight when they were NACA. But most of this research was expensive. I'd like to see NASA as a competitive contracting agency. Their mission would be to manage and assist various aspects of space development. They should establish clear goals for what they want to achieve without specifying the methods. Leave the matter of HOW to the entrepreneurs. Even in pure research, I think private enterprise could be much more cost effective than NASA.
I don't expect NASA to change. It's very difficult for large government agencies to change at such a fundamental level. Trying to create such change has been the undoing of some recent well-meaning NASA administrators. But rest assured, even if NASA doesn't change, commercial space development will proceed, and NASA can look out their cockpit windows and watch the rest of humanity streaking off into space.
No. The truth is, in this context, "piracy" is an emotionally charged word used to make copyright infringement sound a lot worse than it is.
Piracy involves stealing, raping and murdering innocent people when caught in remote locations where society can offer no protection. Copyright infringement is illegal, and should be punished appropriately. But calling it piracy is ridiculous. So are the ridiculous "you're punishing the gaffers and set builders" propaganda commercials.
At the heart of this is money, like everything else. this is about the MPAA and RIAA executives making a LOT of money for making the stupid executive decicisions that Michael Eisner apparently makes every day.
When something is stolen, something is missing. When a copyright is enfringed, the original work remains. Does that help clarify the difference?
If you call it piracy and stealing, you are a tool of the MPAA and RIAA viral marketing campaign.
We should all insist on the correct term "copyright enfringement" as society deals with these intellectual property issues. The illegal behavior is being made a lot worse by the RIAA and MPAA who cling to outdated distribution methods to try to maintain a profit margin that is normally only seen in organized crime and illegal narcotics. There are laws against what the RIAA does, and the major companies in the recording industry have all been found guilty of collusion and price fixing. The settlement? After consumers fill out forms and other high-hassle jumping through hoops, they get a discount on their next CD purchase. So, who are the REAL criminals here?
There is plenty of behavior among RIAA executives and those enfringing copyrights that is both illegal and immoral. I say we start calling the record company executives "rapists".
SS1 provided many contributions to the process of starting over and accomplishing the commercial development of space using The Right Stuff. A few of the highlights include:
Low cost hybrid engine using tire rubber and liquid nitrous oxide. It's much safer than other engines, has good specific impulse, and can be throttled and turned on and off.
Low cost flight simulation.
Low cost horizontal takeoff and landing for improved safety.
Low cost air launch technology and first stage turbofan powered lift vehicle.
Practical and low cost flight telemetry.
Innovative aerobrake pivoting wing. While not directly applicable to an orbital crewed flight, the same low cost reuseable vehicle could be used to reach space in a suborbital flight, then fire a third stage to boost a micro satellite into orbit.
Aerodynamics and launch profile allowing for mach 3.5 flight using low tech materials. Again, the materials and techniques are not suitable for orbital reentry, but they contribute to the science in a "crawl before you can walk" manner.
To put the acomplishments in some perspective, and properly contrast the NASA method with the private enterprise method, the entire SS1 development and three manned suborbital missions were accomplished using the amount of money that would be spent on about one hour of shuttle flight time. NASA technology is clearly not the model to use for commercializing space and making it affordable for us all.
You probably feel that a better car is bigger, heavier, burns more fuel, has a larger engine.... You probably do not consider electric or hybrid vehicles as an improvement. What if all of the computer industry placed the same value on larger and more expensive? Fortunately, there were people with vision, and we can buy screaming fast notebook computers today.
Good insight. Perhaps Scaled Composites would hire you as their Flight Safety Director. It's all monitored remotely, so you could probably continue to do it from your mom's basement.
You clearly don't understand what is happening. The X-Prize was created to change the entire process of space exploration and development. So far, it has been all about huge government projects, where the goal seems to be to spend as much money as possible while doing as little flying as possible. I'm not knocking the engineers or astronauts at NASA. In fact, I feel sorry for them, trapped in the bureaucracy that won't let them do what they want to do. Governments are not good at invention, innovation, cost reduction, or creative thinking. Entrepreneurs and free enterprise excel in these areas.
Here's the important part you're probably not getting. The recent initial foray into the privatization of space is NOT trying to carry on in the manner of NASA or any other big government or big business space program. They're starting over completely from scratch, using current technology and developing new technology to make space accessable to everyone. We are in the early crawling stages right now, but as any parent can tell you, kids grow up fast. Soon, we'll be walking, then running. There will be other goals such as altitude records, distance records in parabolic flight, etc. Soon, we'll have orbital flight. Although the SS1 can't withstand reentry at orbital velocities, a lot of the technology from SS1 is applicable to orbital flight. After that, there will be privately owned orbital resorts and microgravity manufacturing plants, and eventually private trips to the moon. Watch it happen in the next twenty years.
Private companies will make very rapid progress and will soon surpass NASA and other government sponsored space programs. The financial incentive exists, as does the technical drive to accomplish these goals. Private enterprise will recapitulate NASA's accomplishments, only much faster and for a lot less money.
Many people fail to see the analogy, but the X-Prize really was just like the Orteig Prize that encouraged the first trans-Atlantic airplane crossing in 1927. We are about to enter the era of space development that is similar to what the 1930s was to the aviation industry in all important respects.
Wind shear is a fact of life at the altitude where SS1 is in the early supersonic boost phase. It was made worse by the fact that the jet stream was farther south than normal for that time of year, but the risk was known and accounted for as much as is reasonably possible for such an innovative project.
The real cause of the uncommanded roll was an issue with the wing dihedral, which is used to provide a natural corrective tendency for crosswinds. It's difficult to design a mach 3.5 spaceship that is also a 70 knot glider.
The test pilot, Mike Melvill, had ample time to abort the flight. He felt confident and in sufficient control to continue the first suborbital flight. Burt and Mike are very close friends and have been since the 1970s. Ground control suggested an abort, but Mike was comfortable with the roll rate. Yes, he's that good. He later commented that it was "kind of cool". Mike was clearly not too upset by the 20+ rolls as he corkscrewed into space, because a minute later he was playing with M&Ms in microgravity.
So don't go throwing around reckless comments about Burt almost getting a test pilot killed. It's a lie, plain and simple. The truth is, Burt Rutan has done almost 400 designs and for decades has consistently averaged flight testing a couple of truly unique aircraft, and now spacecraft, per year. None of his projects have ever resulted in an injury, much less a fatality. The few incidents have all been minor, such as the SS1 test flight where the left landing gear collapsed after a rough landing. Burt Rutan has the best safety record in the industry, while simultaneously doing the most cutting edge designs. He attributes a large part of that safety to an environment that wouldn't be possible in a large bureaucracy, whether in government or big business.
The SS1 roll problem was fixed by simply changing the flight profile and the two subsequent X-Prize flights had no trouble. The dihedral issue will be corrected in SS2, which is probably one reason that SS1 is being retired after accomplishing the X-Prize mission. That, and the fact that it is a very valuable historic spacecraft.
So for anyone keeping score, NASA has lost two shuttles with all crew (14 people total) out of a little over 100 missions, for a little less than a 2% fatality rate. SS1 has been into space three times with no injuries. Safety is a big part of the SS1 design, including the novel "carefree reentry".
There were some uninformed opinions and lame attempts at sick humor prior to the SS1 success. Why do some people need to see the dark side of everything? Why do some people need to comment about things when they are totally clueless?
I think the eMac is for entry level PC users who want "the interweb" and email, and don't want the security problems and hassles of Windoze. As such, it's a reasonable enough product.
However, we are either already at the point where a nice preconfigured Linux PC will be cheaper, just as easy to use, and just as secure & reliable as a Mac. If we aren't already there on the ease of use issue for newbies, we will be in six months. I think it's ironic that the huge majority of PC users that lives at the low end may be the best target for the rapidly emerging desktop Linux market. THAT is what has Microsoft crappin' their pants.
The gamers and people running more than four applications will adopt Linux a little later, not sooner as has been the assumption. For the low end, any nice preinstalled GUI distro with Mozilla / FireFox / Thunderbird and OpenOffice will be just the thing for the old people (who typically buy based on low hassle, not bleeding edge performance and cut rate pricing). Oh yeah, add your favorite easy to use application to import digital pictures for archiving and resizing them for emailing. Nice big obvious-as-hell icons and you're done. And so is the Windows monopoly.
Re:Real world vs. fanboy fantasies
on
GIMP 2.2 Released
·
· Score: 1
I am what most people would consider a highly trained technical professional.
Even by the lowly standards of flamebait trolls, you sir are an asshat. Isn't there a nice MCSE forum where you can hang around with other room temperature IQ dweebs who imagine themselves to be oh so tech savvy? You guys can exchange virtual high fives for having the cleverness to make a career out of supporting closed source code that clearly needs a lot of support.
This article was well timed for me. I've been contemplating a teleprompter for a low budget product demo video I want to shoot. I was planning on putting my notebook PC as close to the camera lens as possible and reading my Impress (PowerPoint if you don't use OpenOffice) presentation. I was hoping Impress would scroll all the text continuously. Probably not. Oh well, page flipping won't be too bad. It'd be nice if someone wrote an open source teleprompter application. Bonus points for image reversing.
I simulated my side-by-side teleprompter by putting my digital camera to the immediate left of the notebook LCD and set the timer so it snapped a picture as I was five feet away, looking at the center of the laptop LCD. In the resulting image, I appeared to be looking into the camera. The image was framed about the way it would be on the video, so I don't think the differences in lenses would make much difference.
It will also help to place the camera as far away as possible and zoom in to frame the shot. This will minimize the angle between the camera lens and the display off to the side. It'll also help to have the camera trained on the product I want to demo so I'm to the side of the shot. When looking diagonally into the camera, the viewer's brain will probably perceive me looking at them. It'd be more obvious that I'm not if I was using a straight-on shot.
My simulation may be crap. It may be easier to detect that I'm looking to the side with the visual cues in a video as opposed to a still image. If so, I'll build a cheap teleprompter. I'm dyslexic enough that I can read backwards about as well as forwards, especially capital letters when I'm familiar with the text, so I probably won't bother to reverse the reflected mirror image.
I'm not familiar with straw bale construction, but I'm not at all sure it would be suitable in a wet, subarctic environment.
At first, damp conditions were a problem, but it's caught on very well because it is so inexpensive, has such a high R value, and it's very easy for unskilled homebuilders. Canada had never encountered it as a building method, so they required the first people applying for a building permit to test it. I think they had fears of straw bursting into flames. After the testing, Canada certified it as a fire break. Compressed bales just won't burn. Building techniques now make straw bale construction applicable in damp environments.
The initial cost was almost 30K.
Once again, the very high costs and long payback periods are the result of the very low volume. Consider what has happened with the price of just about any technology when the volumes increase. There is nothing inherently expensive in current photovoltaic solar power technology. The price would plummet once it's a commodity.
Why is it 80% of the people I talk to, who are interested in alternative power, seem to live on another planet, where they don't have to worry about money, or being practical?
On the contrary, I think the technology I proposed is very practical. I'm an engineer. I like real world solutions. I love doing things cheaper and better. What I see as impractical is continuing with fossil fuel technology that is expensive, destroys our balance of trade, results in dire geopolitical consequences and wrecks the environment. There are so many practical things we could be doing to save energy, money, and the environment. We shouldn't be lining the pockets of a few sheiks who perpetuate class inequality that leads to resentment and political unrest. We should be energy independent. We can automate our alternative energy equipment factories so the jobs are good jobs and they stay in the country where the products will be used. This looks like a win for everyone but guys like Haliburton, Enron and the Saudi royal family. We should stand up on our hind legs and demand this technology.
Solar concentrators are inexpensive to build and can use very diffuse solar thermal energy quite effectively. You'd probably need more area than a house roof, so it wouldn't be good for packed urban dwellings for space heating, but could still easily supply all the water heating needs. If you had room for larger collectors, you'd have plenty of nearly free heat. Thermal solar heating is used effectively in Alaska above the artic circle except for the time the sun is below the horizon for months at a time, so I know the northern continental US is feasible.
Wood heat is less convenient and a bit messier, but there are high tech wood solutions. We started down that path in the late 1970s but cheaper fossil fuels got us hooked again. Lots of people work out in the gym for exercise. Why not split & stack wood? Save the gym membership fee, get your exercise, and heat your house.
Talk of batteries and expensive solar panels is not relevant to thermal solar heating. That's photoelectric power generation. Yes, it's expensive now, but only because it's done in prototype quantities. With volume, the price would drop drastically. How expensive and powerful were PCs in 1980? Same sort of thing.
If cost is the issue, and it almost always is, the answer is more insulation. A $20K house that's drafty is no bargain. For the same $20K, you can build a straw bale house. A very small amount of solar heat is all that's needed to heat such an energy efficient house.
I didn't get into the nuclear power issue because it is a huge can of worms, and is loaded with political issues. Yes, Japan and France use a ton of it, and do it safely. The US had Three Mile Island, which wasn't a catastrophe, but was an expensive mess that essentially ended nuclear plant construction in this country. Russia had Chernobyl, and that WAS a catastrophe. A bigger issue for me than a nuclear explosion is the problem of storage. The waste is toxic for thousands of years. We have had problems storing it for 50 years. If there was a solution to the waste storage issue, I'd be more in favor of nuclear fission.
We should be spending a lot of money on fusion research. The waste products have much shorter half lives, and would be toxic for a much shorter time span. The energy potential is phenomenal. Unfortunately, The US pulled out of the international fusion research project. Not much of a loss there, because even though some of the basic research at the university level was good, political bickering has kept the committee from even deciding where the research facility would be built. That nonsense has been going on for several years. The US recently reduced funding for its own fusion program as well. I know we suddenly ran up a record deficit, but not funding fusion research seems very short sighted to me. Unless of course the goal is to keep us all sucking on the fossil fuel teat. I feel another conspiracy theory coming on. Where did I put my tin foil hat?
Where did you get this crap that because you pay your taxes you automatically have a right to use whatever they're spent on?
I never said that. In the case of GPS, why shouldn't I get to use it? My use doesn't degrade the system in any way, so the military use is unaffected. My point is simply that the military didn't get a job and earn the money to develop a global satellite based navigation system. They make their money the old fashioned way. They take it from the serfs. When it's so easy to accumulate billions of dollars, there is little incentive to operate efficiently. If they had to get a job and earn the money, they'd be less wasteful in the way they spent it. On the occasions they produce something that can be used by the taxpayers who funded it, why shouldn't the taxpayers be allowed to use it? Why should we feel like it's some great gift and we should be so grateful. We paid for it. It's ours.
It's ignorant and divisive attitudes like that which are making it so easy for the federal government to take away pilot's rights to fly. With that fine precedent, they'll eliminate sailing and other pleasure boats. Then off road vehicles. Pretty soon, you'll need special permission to drive a car to visit grandma in another state. And they'll tell you they took away your rights to protect you, for national security, or some other garbage. Benjamin Franklin was right when he said that those who would give up essential liberty for temporary security deserve neither.
Ask yourself what special thing you enjoy, and how would you feel when the government decided you represented a sufficient minority that it could take away your right and most people wouldn't care.
Contrary to all the ignorant opinions, most private pilots are regular people. There are a couple elitist snob types, but so few I never see them. Certainly no more than in the general population. Most private pilots simply enjoy the view from above.
Most private pilots don't fly jets. My plane has a 118 HP engine. It gets more MPG than my small 4 cylinder pickup truck, and does so at 165 MPH. Small planes almost never fly into larger airports, so there they don't contribute to airport congestion. In fact, to a small extent they reduce airline congestion.
You're entitled to an opinion, even if it is completely uninformed and based on stupid misconceptions. That's what being an anonymous coward is all about.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm certain the AMA would have no problem with me practicing medicine.
I'm not advocating that anyone should be able to practice medicine. Obviously, some strict regulation is required. But anytime a monopoly is granted, there is no competition. Prices soar, while quality takes a nose dive. The question becomes, how do we regulate medical practice while avoiding a monopoly?
You're really making my point for me. Expert systems are much better than humans at extracting useful data from noisy datasets and eliminating extraneous noise. It's no surprise that this is true in the specific case of medical diagnosis, which is a nearly ideal application for this technology. Humans tend to focus on the specific items they recognize, ignore the data they don't recognize, and jump to conclusions. Anybody who has tried to describe a medical problem to a doctor, only to present the first sentence of what they intend to be a one minute concise description and be cut off by the doctor who has already used divine insight to ascertain the problem knows exactly what I'm talking about. It's very difficult to find a doctor who will allow the patient two minutes to describe the problem. Two minutes. Is that so much to ask? It's much faster than one minute, followed by a misdiagnosis and treatment.
I thought that would probably be misinterpretted. My claim was that I felt I was better at diagnosing problems in general than most doctors, but was obviously not as good at diagnosing medical problems because I have almost no medical database of information and doctors have vast training in that area. But just as Gray's Anatomy contains a lot of information but can't diagnose a simple broken bone, many doctors are walking encyclopedias of information that is little better than medical trivia because their strength is remembering facts, not applying them. In general, engineers are more inclined to be problem solvers than doctors, even though troubleshooting is probably a larger part of what doctors do every day.
Sorry. Because of a poor attempt at brevity, that sentence did not properly convey my meaning. CA125 is a marker that is useful in identifying cervical cancer, uterine cancer, ovarian cancer, and several other health issues. It's not very specific, so it isn't a good test for ovarian cancer. But there are currently no good tests that detect ovarian cancer in the early stages when it could be successfully treated. A CA125 test could add to the set of diagnostic tools. My intended point was not that a pap smear should detect ovarian cancer. What I was trying to say is that the pap smear has been around since the 1940s and we need much better diagnostic tools as part of a regular checkup. Women are better than men at getting regular exams, but there is a false sense of security when a woman can visit a gynecologist, be given a clean bill of health, then be diagnosed with a fatal ovarian cancer a month later. It happens.
Even when restricted to the diagnosis of cervical cancer, the pap smear is a bad test. It has too many false positives and way too many false negatives. The current PSA test is not very good for detecting prostate cancer either. Fortunately, better tests are on their way, albeit a decade later than we could have reasonably expected. Blame insurance companies and lawyers all you want for the lack of progress in key areas of medicine, but there is good progress in other areas of medicine where competition between companies serving the medical indu
Tin foil hat time: We don't hear about this project anymore. Why not? The evil AMA (probably in league with those guys in the black helicopters) suppressed the technology. OK, I'm mostly joking... but not entirely.
We think of doctors as nearly omnipotent. They are not gods. From my experience, half of them function as trained technicians. I feel that my engineering background has made me a better diagnostician than most doctors. Of course, they have a huge database of medical info that I don't have, but if I had the same info they have, I think I could do a better job of diagnosing medical problems because I'm skilled in the diagnostic process. Google and some online medical sites are rapidly closing the gap.
There is some intuition involved in diagnosing illness, but it's mostly a logical process. Many doctors are good at memorizing and regurgitating information, but not very good at applying that information and thinking logically.
To prove my point that the medical community behaves more as technicians than scientists, I offer the example of ulcers. Dr. Robin Warren tried desperately for almost a decade to convince the global medical community that most ulcers are caused by H. pylori bacteria. He was publically ridiculed. He finally ingested the bacteria, gave himself the worst case of ulcers ever, and then cured himself with antibiotics. The pill pushers who make money with routine patient visits to prescribe various medications to help people cope with the painful condition were finally forced to accept the truth. The antibiotics were already approved for human use, so the entire world needlessly suffered with ulcers for about a decade. Why? Arrogance. The medical community still operates largely as an authoritarian society, rather than an objective scientific meritocracy.
If the medical community would check their egos at the door and do what was in the best interest of their patients, there would be much more emphasis on prevention and early detection instead of heroic intervention, often when it's too late. We are starting to see blood tests that detect early markers for cancer, so hopefully women won't get a pap smear and an "all OK" diagnosis from their doctor, only to be diagnosed a month later with a five pound ovarian tumor. The use of CAT scans and other noninvasive diagnostic tools, coupled with computer image recognition, should allow detection of many problems early enough to treat successfully.
People don't want computer doctors, and our current wetware doctors certainly don't want computer doctors. But I think we'd be a lot healthier and would spend a lot less money if there was a standard expert system responsible for healthcare. Every community could have the same access to GOOD healthcare that now exists only sporadically in larger cities, and there would be almost no malpractice lawsuits because the standard of care would be uniform and very good. Then, if we could just manage to get the insurance companies out of the game, we'd have healthcare nirvana.
Fascism comes in many flavors. RIAA and MPAA might be Fascism Lite, but that still doesn't make them right.
Perhaps you believe in Boolean logic, where two wrongs make a right. In the real world, supporting the suppression of rights results in fewer rights for individuals. This is true even when you believe the RIAA and MPAA has an agenda that aligns with your own.
I'm certain that a lot of people thought Nazis would create an ordered and law abiding society, and even if they didn't agree with all of their methods, they supported them because they thought their goals would be in their best interest. Right and wrong are seldom absolute qualities, but if we take a look at what's happening and think about it for a few minutes, we can usually tell the difference.
I support reasonable intellectual property rights, but the one sided view of copyrights held by the RIAA and MPAA is wrong, and so are their anti-competitive business practices.
First, I'd like to say I really like Wikipedia.
There are problems with revert wars and pontification, and various biases working their way into the articles. People are aware of these issues and discuss them. They're already improved, and will be resolved.
There is one subtle problem that will be difficult to fix, and it's common to all other types of encyclopedias as well. Perhaps the concept is a bit more engaing in the case of Wikipedia. The problem is, knowledge does not follow Democratic principles. You can't take a vote and determine absolute truth.
Gallileo said a lot of things The Church didn't like, so they placed him under house arrest until he died as an old man. But despite his various astronomical beliefs being in the extreme minority, he was right and almost everyone else was wrong.
It's easy to say that was a long time ago, and we're a lot more enlightened now. In some ways yes, but in many important ways, no. For example:
After trying for about a decade to convince the global medical community that H. pylori bacteria cause most peptic ulcers, Robin Warren finally drank the bacteria, gave himself a horrible case of ulcers, then cured himself with antibiotics. The medical profession finally paid attention to the science.
So, the truth is not always well represented by the popular belief.
But Wikipedia is still a great idea and in practice, it works very well. My thanks to all involved.
I was of course referring to the work related duties. What you do on your own time is your business.
Arrrr.
As before, you make good points.
Your comment about all the many indirect costs in the traditional record / CD distribution channel raises two big issues for me.
1) It seems like a good reason to change the distribution method. They could take advantage of new technologies to make content distribution more efficient and less costly. In a free market, competitors would be racing to adopt more efficient technology to gain a temporary advantage over their competitors. The cost savings would be passed to the consumer to increase market demand for the lower priced products. But, instead of adopting new technology that benefits them and their customers, it looks like the RIAA is clinging desperately to their antiquated distribution methods. The only reason I can imagine is that they are afraid that the new technology will not be as easy to control and they'll lose a monopoly if anyone can make and distribute music.
2) Why are online music CDs almost the same price as CDs in retail stores? There is no cost for producing a CD, and the distribution costs are much less too. It sure looks like the cost of a CD has little to do with the material costs or the old fashioned distribution channel. If not, then where does the money go? I'm still thinking cocaine and hookers.
:^)
I'm not producing movies or music, and admittedly there will probably be a small percentage of people who will always want to make illegal copies of these items to avoid compensating the copyright holders and their agents. But if the pricing was reasonable, a lot fewer people would justify making illegal copies. The current situation is so corrupt and devoid of free market competition that for many people, illegally copying this content is almost a moral imperative, similar to an act of civil disobedience. Consumers are so abused and so powerless in this process, because there is no free market competition, that they empower themselves through illegal acts.
In a very real sense, the wide spread resentment caused by this customer abuse provides sympathy for copyright infringers, even among those of us who do not make illegal copies. The abuses of the RIAA and MPAA are weakening intellectual property for all of us. When enough people feel justified copying a music CD, then it's that much easier to copy a program, an eBook, etc.
As in all valid legal contracts, copyrights were created for the benefit of two parties. In this case it's content providers and content consumers. But lately, the RIAA and MPAA have been paying for legislation that significantly weakens the consumer's side of that agreement. In addition to exorbitant prices, they have added draconian DRM that prevents making copies for fair use. What if you bought a book, and couldn't loan it to a friend? If it's an eBook, you can't. The eBook is actually more expensive than a paperback, so you paid more, and have fewer rights. Same with CDs and DVDs. We're approaching the point where we pay more, and have a limited license instead of owning the content for our own unlimited use, as has been the case.
Copyrighted works revert to the public domain after a sufficient time for the original content creator to benefit from the exclusive rights granted by the copyright. But now, corporations own copyrights instead of humans. At first, the law was modified to accommodate corporations. The copyright was in effect for the author's lifetime. So we added, "or 100 years from the time of creation" to compensate for the immortality of corporations. But now, corporate held copyrights essentially last forever. In other words, society grants them an exclusive benefit, but society never benefits in return because their exclusive benefit never ends. In the current climate, the works of Shakespeare would be owned by one corporation, and all books, movies, plays, and other derivative works would be controlled by that company for their own financial benefit. Would that be good for society?
I don't condone illegal copying. But it isn't stealing. We need a new way to compensate the providers of content. Now that technology has given us the abilty to deliver digital content more efficiently, the monopoly on distribution should end and the prices should adequately compensate content creators and pay the small amount needed to distribute digital content. But the RIAA and MPAA don't want that, because they are taking what is of value (the content), and expect to continue making a 400% markup on it for nothing more than distribution, which is an insignificant afterthought in the digital world we now occupy.
There is a world of difference between a freelance shareware programmer and the RIAA or MPAA.
I'm not one of those people who hates capitalism and thinks everything should be free. Free is good, but we've all got to eat. I have no problem with any amount of profit a person or a company can make, as long as they are operating in a free market. Free markets are self correcting. Free markets are fair. Free markets work for the seller and the buyer. But the anti-competitive and monopolistic practices of the MPAA and particularly the RIAA are not consistent with free market economy. Introduce real competition in those markets and I'll shut up.
In this instance, I think collusion and price fixing are close to the same. The record companies conspired among themselves to artificially inflate the price of music CDs. The idea is that no consumer would say, "Why does this CD from Capitol cost five dollars more than this CD from BMG? That sort of anti-competitive price fixing is collusion.
The checks were for $13.86. Imagine you bought 100 CDs at $16, when a fair market value would have been $8. You were ripped off to the tune of $800. Then you are herded into a big group of consumers with no concern whether you bought one CD or 1000 during the many years the price fixing took place. You get a check for $13.86. I called that a discount on a future CD purchase, because it won't even buy one CD at the artificially inflated prices, which still remain in effect to this day.
It's difficult to generate real numbers because the record company contracts with artists include nondisclosure agreements that prevent the artists from divulging how much their paid and how the compensation is structured. I wish we did know. It's generally believed that artists make little on the very lucrative CD sales, and the contracts are structured so the artists are paid mostly based on their touring. This gives the artists a strong incentive to promote the CDs for the record companies. The popular artists aren't starving. But there is so much money channeled into the RIAA hog trough, and the artists still see only a small percentage. Most people are offended by that. They want to encourage and reward artists for creating music, but by far the larger reward goes to record company executives, and that doesn't seem fair. It abuses the artists to some extent, and it drastically abuses the consumer.
I know there are a lot of little expenses and they all add up. I have a small business, so I'm all too aware of that phenomenon. But there is no way that record companies are spending anywhere close to $8 per CD (which would allow them a healthy $2 profit on a $10 wholesale CD). I've read estimates of artist royalty figures in the range of $.50 to $1.00 per CD. I have no idea if that's right. I don't read Rolling Stone or other entertainment publications, but I haven't seen ANY ads for music in a long time. Unless you count payola, I doubt their advertising expense is all that much.
I'm glad you mentioned Time Warner, who had enough money to buy AOL in their prime, and was dumb enough to do so. If it's so expensive to produce and distribute CDs, why does AOL individually mail billions of AOL CDs? Burning CDs, printing, packaging and distribution can't be all that expensive if AOL can bug us all with enough of these damn free CD offers to fill a huge landfill every year.
Again, the problem is that free market economies do not apply when all the major companies in an industry act together as a de facto monopoly to artificially inflate prices. In such a lucrative endeavor, corporate accounting is the art of making sure that revenue is offset by expenses. Corporations write off expenses that essentially subsidize the lifestyles of executives, their friends, and their families. The books show reasonable profits, but the true profits are still obscene. I wonder what expense account is used for cocaine and hookers. Probably entertainment. Be sure to keep those receipts.
I think you are toally missing the point, in at least two key areas.
The difference is, the two forms of the word "bark" were not selected to be deliberately misleading. They arose because of some weird coincidences of etimology. They were not the illegitimate spawn of lawyers and marketing executives to dupe people.
Again, a complete red herring. The point is that the record companies, who WERE found guilty of collusion and price fixing, were the ones setting the wholesale prices, which then dictated the exorbitant retail prices. Even if WalMart and Best Buy realized that the CDs were grossly overpriced and decided to sell them at a loss to attract customers, that does not in any way take away from the fact that RIAA companies were selling CDs for WAY more than any reasonable costs for the materials and reasonable compensation for the artists and distributors.
Like the anti-trust suits against Microsoft, the settlement against the RIAA was completely without teeth, and the RIAA continues to operate in a very anticompetitive manner. They use the government to prosecute people who violate their intellectual property rights. If they wanted to stop people from making illegal copies, they should first and foremost start competing with each other, which would naturally reduce their prices. When they offered reasonable value relative to their added costs, consumers would respond in kind. A lot of people rightfully feel ripped off by the RIAA companies, and use that as a lame excuse to break copyrights. Illegal, yes, but it still isn't stealing, and it certainly isn't piracy, arr, arr.
The real problem here is the lack of competition. If you want to listen to Zamfir play the pan flute, only one label represents him. You're single sourced. A monopoly is created. We need a new method to distribute music. If artists produced their own music independent of music distributors, they could take their pick of multiple competing distributors with non-exclusive distribution contracts. The artists could either use technology to produce their own music, or take their pick of competing recording studios and freelance producers. That sort of competitive market where the artists are adequately compensated for their UNIQUE contributions and the record companies are competing with their COMMODITY contributions is the last thing the RIAA wants.
I hope the replacement for RIAA arrives soon. It'll be a natural byproduct of the enabling technology, which is why the RIAA is so actively fighting the new technology. When it comes, it'll be guys like these who make it happen. They prove that not all indie music sucks.
http://tempusband.com/
I need better filters. My brain actually tried to imagine Outlook running on Linux and I almost lost my breakfast.
Windows can keep the security holes and Outlook Worm Of The Week.
If Mozilla offers a good alternative to Outlook, which implies Exchange interoperability and seamless data importing, then the security issues alone are a good reason to switch. If I had a business that was spending a lot of time and money trying to deal with the Outlook security issues and only succeeding most of the time, I'd write a big check for a secure Outlook alternative.
Of course, the real benefit comes when the desktops are migrated to Linux, but open source will gain a foothold in applications first. After that, the OS switch will be obvious.
No. Don't worry Microsoft. Your monopoly is secure. All is well. Go back to sleep.
[cue sinister laughter]
The lack of a profit motive is the reason NASA has developed space access as they have. They are in the business of spending money, not making money. Yes, NASA has done a lot of very good research, going back to the days before space flight when they were NACA. But most of this research was expensive. I'd like to see NASA as a competitive contracting agency. Their mission would be to manage and assist various aspects of space development. They should establish clear goals for what they want to achieve without specifying the methods. Leave the matter of HOW to the entrepreneurs. Even in pure research, I think private enterprise could be much more cost effective than NASA.
I don't expect NASA to change. It's very difficult for large government agencies to change at such a fundamental level. Trying to create such change has been the undoing of some recent well-meaning NASA administrators. But rest assured, even if NASA doesn't change, commercial space development will proceed, and NASA can look out their cockpit windows and watch the rest of humanity streaking off into space.
No. The truth is, in this context, "piracy" is an emotionally charged word used to make copyright infringement sound a lot worse than it is.
Piracy involves stealing, raping and murdering innocent people when caught in remote locations where society can offer no protection. Copyright infringement is illegal, and should be punished appropriately. But calling it piracy is ridiculous. So are the ridiculous "you're punishing the gaffers and set builders" propaganda commercials.
At the heart of this is money, like everything else. this is about the MPAA and RIAA executives making a LOT of money for making the stupid executive decicisions that Michael Eisner apparently makes every day.
When something is stolen, something is missing. When a copyright is enfringed, the original work remains. Does that help clarify the difference?
If you call it piracy and stealing, you are a tool of the MPAA and RIAA viral marketing campaign.
We should all insist on the correct term "copyright enfringement" as society deals with these intellectual property issues. The illegal behavior is being made a lot worse by the RIAA and MPAA who cling to outdated distribution methods to try to maintain a profit margin that is normally only seen in organized crime and illegal narcotics. There are laws against what the RIAA does, and the major companies in the recording industry have all been found guilty of collusion and price fixing. The settlement? After consumers fill out forms and other high-hassle jumping through hoops, they get a discount on their next CD purchase. So, who are the REAL criminals here?
There is plenty of behavior among RIAA executives and those enfringing copyrights that is both illegal and immoral. I say we start calling the record company executives "rapists".
SS1 is distinctly *backwards* in every respect.
SS1 provided many contributions to the process of starting over and accomplishing the commercial development of space using The Right Stuff. A few of the highlights include:
Low cost hybrid engine using tire rubber and liquid nitrous oxide. It's much safer than other engines, has good specific impulse, and can be throttled and turned on and off.
Low cost flight simulation.
Low cost horizontal takeoff and landing for improved safety.
Low cost air launch technology and first stage turbofan powered lift vehicle.
Practical and low cost flight telemetry.
Innovative aerobrake pivoting wing. While not directly applicable to an orbital crewed flight, the same low cost reuseable vehicle could be used to reach space in a suborbital flight, then fire a third stage to boost a micro satellite into orbit.
Aerodynamics and launch profile allowing for mach 3.5 flight using low tech materials. Again, the materials and techniques are not suitable for orbital reentry, but they contribute to the science in a "crawl before you can walk" manner.
To put the acomplishments in some perspective, and properly contrast the NASA method with the private enterprise method, the entire SS1 development and three manned suborbital missions were accomplished using the amount of money that would be spent on about one hour of shuttle flight time. NASA technology is clearly not the model to use for commercializing space and making it affordable for us all.
You probably feel that a better car is bigger, heavier, burns more fuel, has a larger engine.... You probably do not consider electric or hybrid vehicles as an improvement. What if all of the computer industry placed the same value on larger and more expensive? Fortunately, there were people with vision, and we can buy screaming fast notebook computers today.
Here's the important part you're probably not getting. The recent initial foray into the privatization of space is NOT trying to carry on in the manner of NASA or any other big government or big business space program. They're starting over completely from scratch, using current technology and developing new technology to make space accessable to everyone. We are in the early crawling stages right now, but as any parent can tell you, kids grow up fast. Soon, we'll be walking, then running. There will be other goals such as altitude records, distance records in parabolic flight, etc. Soon, we'll have orbital flight. Although the SS1 can't withstand reentry at orbital velocities, a lot of the technology from SS1 is applicable to orbital flight. After that, there will be privately owned orbital resorts and microgravity manufacturing plants, and eventually private trips to the moon. Watch it happen in the next twenty years.
Private companies will make very rapid progress and will soon surpass NASA and other government sponsored space programs. The financial incentive exists, as does the technical drive to accomplish these goals. Private enterprise will recapitulate NASA's accomplishments, only much faster and for a lot less money.
Many people fail to see the analogy, but the X-Prize really was just like the Orteig Prize that encouraged the first trans-Atlantic airplane crossing in 1927. We are about to enter the era of space development that is similar to what the 1930s was to the aviation industry in all important respects.
The real cause of the uncommanded roll was an issue with the wing dihedral, which is used to provide a natural corrective tendency for crosswinds. It's difficult to design a mach 3.5 spaceship that is also a 70 knot glider.
The test pilot, Mike Melvill, had ample time to abort the flight. He felt confident and in sufficient control to continue the first suborbital flight. Burt and Mike are very close friends and have been since the 1970s. Ground control suggested an abort, but Mike was comfortable with the roll rate. Yes, he's that good. He later commented that it was "kind of cool". Mike was clearly not too upset by the 20+ rolls as he corkscrewed into space, because a minute later he was playing with M&Ms in microgravity.
So don't go throwing around reckless comments about Burt almost getting a test pilot killed. It's a lie, plain and simple. The truth is, Burt Rutan has done almost 400 designs and for decades has consistently averaged flight testing a couple of truly unique aircraft, and now spacecraft, per year. None of his projects have ever resulted in an injury, much less a fatality. The few incidents have all been minor, such as the SS1 test flight where the left landing gear collapsed after a rough landing. Burt Rutan has the best safety record in the industry, while simultaneously doing the most cutting edge designs. He attributes a large part of that safety to an environment that wouldn't be possible in a large bureaucracy, whether in government or big business.
The SS1 roll problem was fixed by simply changing the flight profile and the two subsequent X-Prize flights had no trouble. The dihedral issue will be corrected in SS2, which is probably one reason that SS1 is being retired after accomplishing the X-Prize mission. That, and the fact that it is a very valuable historic spacecraft.
So for anyone keeping score, NASA has lost two shuttles with all crew (14 people total) out of a little over 100 missions, for a little less than a 2% fatality rate. SS1 has been into space three times with no injuries. Safety is a big part of the SS1 design, including the novel "carefree reentry".
There were some uninformed opinions and lame attempts at sick humor prior to the SS1 success. Why do some people need to see the dark side of everything? Why do some people need to comment about things when they are totally clueless?
Suggestion:
1) Read
2) Think
3) THEN write
However, we are either already at the point where a nice preconfigured Linux PC will be cheaper, just as easy to use, and just as secure & reliable as a Mac. If we aren't already there on the ease of use issue for newbies, we will be in six months. I think it's ironic that the huge majority of PC users that lives at the low end may be the best target for the rapidly emerging desktop Linux market. THAT is what has Microsoft crappin' their pants.
The gamers and people running more than four applications will adopt Linux a little later, not sooner as has been the assumption. For the low end, any nice preinstalled GUI distro with Mozilla / FireFox / Thunderbird and OpenOffice will be just the thing for the old people (who typically buy based on low hassle, not bleeding edge performance and cut rate pricing). Oh yeah, add your favorite easy to use application to import digital pictures for archiving and resizing them for emailing. Nice big obvious-as-hell icons and you're done. And so is the Windows monopoly.
I am what most people would consider a highly trained technical professional.
Mike? I thought your name was Tim.
Even by the lowly standards of flamebait trolls, you sir are an asshat. Isn't there a nice MCSE forum where you can hang around with other room temperature IQ dweebs who imagine themselves to be oh so tech savvy? You guys can exchange virtual high fives for having the cleverness to make a career out of supporting closed source code that clearly needs a lot of support.
Brief additional information is here.
This article was well timed for me. I've been contemplating a teleprompter for a low budget product demo video I want to shoot. I was planning on putting my notebook PC as close to the camera lens as possible and reading my Impress (PowerPoint if you don't use OpenOffice) presentation. I was hoping Impress would scroll all the text continuously. Probably not. Oh well, page flipping won't be too bad. It'd be nice if someone wrote an open source teleprompter application. Bonus points for image reversing.
I simulated my side-by-side teleprompter by putting my digital camera to the immediate left of the notebook LCD and set the timer so it snapped a picture as I was five feet away, looking at the center of the laptop LCD. In the resulting image, I appeared to be looking into the camera. The image was framed about the way it would be on the video, so I don't think the differences in lenses would make much difference.
It will also help to place the camera as far away as possible and zoom in to frame the shot. This will minimize the angle between the camera lens and the display off to the side. It'll also help to have the camera trained on the product I want to demo so I'm to the side of the shot. When looking diagonally into the camera, the viewer's brain will probably perceive me looking at them. It'd be more obvious that I'm not if I was using a straight-on shot.
My simulation may be crap. It may be easier to detect that I'm looking to the side with the visual cues in a video as opposed to a still image. If so, I'll build a cheap teleprompter. I'm dyslexic enough that I can read backwards about as well as forwards, especially capital letters when I'm familiar with the text, so I probably won't bother to reverse the reflected mirror image.
I'm not familiar with straw bale construction, but I'm not at all sure it would be suitable in a wet, subarctic environment.
At first, damp conditions were a problem, but it's caught on very well because it is so inexpensive, has such a high R value, and it's very easy for unskilled homebuilders. Canada had never encountered it as a building method, so they required the first people applying for a building permit to test it. I think they had fears of straw bursting into flames. After the testing, Canada certified it as a fire break. Compressed bales just won't burn. Building techniques now make straw bale construction applicable in damp environments.
The initial cost was almost 30K.
Once again, the very high costs and long payback periods are the result of the very low volume. Consider what has happened with the price of just about any technology when the volumes increase. There is nothing inherently expensive in current photovoltaic solar power technology. The price would plummet once it's a commodity.
Why is it 80% of the people I talk to, who are interested in alternative power, seem to live on another planet, where they don't have to worry about money, or being practical?
On the contrary, I think the technology I proposed is very practical. I'm an engineer. I like real world solutions. I love doing things cheaper and better. What I see as impractical is continuing with fossil fuel technology that is expensive, destroys our balance of trade, results in dire geopolitical consequences and wrecks the environment. There are so many practical things we could be doing to save energy, money, and the environment. We shouldn't be lining the pockets of a few sheiks who perpetuate class inequality that leads to resentment and political unrest. We should be energy independent. We can automate our alternative energy equipment factories so the jobs are good jobs and they stay in the country where the products will be used. This looks like a win for everyone but guys like Haliburton, Enron and the Saudi royal family. We should stand up on our hind legs and demand this technology.
Wood heat is less convenient and a bit messier, but there are high tech wood solutions. We started down that path in the late 1970s but cheaper fossil fuels got us hooked again. Lots of people work out in the gym for exercise. Why not split & stack wood? Save the gym membership fee, get your exercise, and heat your house.
Talk of batteries and expensive solar panels is not relevant to thermal solar heating. That's photoelectric power generation. Yes, it's expensive now, but only because it's done in prototype quantities. With volume, the price would drop drastically. How expensive and powerful were PCs in 1980? Same sort of thing.
If cost is the issue, and it almost always is, the answer is more insulation. A $20K house that's drafty is no bargain. For the same $20K, you can build a straw bale house. A very small amount of solar heat is all that's needed to heat such an energy efficient house.
I didn't get into the nuclear power issue because it is a huge can of worms, and is loaded with political issues. Yes, Japan and France use a ton of it, and do it safely. The US had Three Mile Island, which wasn't a catastrophe, but was an expensive mess that essentially ended nuclear plant construction in this country. Russia had Chernobyl, and that WAS a catastrophe. A bigger issue for me than a nuclear explosion is the problem of storage. The waste is toxic for thousands of years. We have had problems storing it for 50 years. If there was a solution to the waste storage issue, I'd be more in favor of nuclear fission.
We should be spending a lot of money on fusion research. The waste products have much shorter half lives, and would be toxic for a much shorter time span. The energy potential is phenomenal. Unfortunately, The US pulled out of the international fusion research project. Not much of a loss there, because even though some of the basic research at the university level was good, political bickering has kept the committee from even deciding where the research facility would be built. That nonsense has been going on for several years. The US recently reduced funding for its own fusion program as well. I know we suddenly ran up a record deficit, but not funding fusion research seems very short sighted to me. Unless of course the goal is to keep us all sucking on the fossil fuel teat. I feel another conspiracy theory coming on. Where did I put my tin foil hat?
Where did you get this crap that because you pay your taxes you automatically have a right to use whatever they're spent on?
I never said that. In the case of GPS, why shouldn't I get to use it? My use doesn't degrade the system in any way, so the military use is unaffected. My point is simply that the military didn't get a job and earn the money to develop a global satellite based navigation system. They make their money the old fashioned way. They take it from the serfs. When it's so easy to accumulate billions of dollars, there is little incentive to operate efficiently. If they had to get a job and earn the money, they'd be less wasteful in the way they spent it. On the occasions they produce something that can be used by the taxpayers who funded it, why shouldn't the taxpayers be allowed to use it? Why should we feel like it's some great gift and we should be so grateful. We paid for it. It's ours.
Ask yourself what special thing you enjoy, and how would you feel when the government decided you represented a sufficient minority that it could take away your right and most people wouldn't care.
Contrary to all the ignorant opinions, most private pilots are regular people. There are a couple elitist snob types, but so few I never see them. Certainly no more than in the general population. Most private pilots simply enjoy the view from above.
Most private pilots don't fly jets. My plane has a 118 HP engine. It gets more MPG than my small 4 cylinder pickup truck, and does so at 165 MPH. Small planes almost never fly into larger airports, so there they don't contribute to airport congestion. In fact, to a small extent they reduce airline congestion.
You're entitled to an opinion, even if it is completely uninformed and based on stupid misconceptions. That's what being an anonymous coward is all about.