That is the essence of a bubble, being that it occurs at an accelerated rate with an increased production of companies that will fail. In other words, in a bubble many more companies based on unworkable, unsustainable or even crackpot ideas and plans will be generated and subsequently fail.
Any tool used improperly will lead to undesirable results. Turning someone loose with something like VS or KDevelop/Qt Designer when they don't already have a grounding in programming is like showing someone how to use a handsaw and then taking them into a woodshop and telling them to figure out the rest of the cutting tools on their own. The real failure here was not in "allowing" the use of VS, but in doing so without providing any real background on what programming is really about beforehand. In fact, the same argument was (and still is) made regarding calculators and mathematics classes. Sure, the calculator can do all the work, but the student still needs to have the relevant understanding of the concepts behind it to truly succeed. Of course, if all you really want is an eye candy code monkey, then damn the torpedoes and bring on VB.NET!
is that the shuttle is a built-to-fail enterprise from start to finish. Since they let the military muck with the operational requirements from the start, they ended up with an overly complex machine that cannot do any of it's supposed jobs very well. Everything the shuttle does can be done more cheaply and safely by other means. Want some examples: 1) Lofting satellites - use unmanned payload rockets; Ariane or Atlas 2) Space experiments - a space station with regular supply runs can do this better 3) Satellite repair missions - this is a toss-up due to complexity, but I would give slight edge to robotic repair missions just because of the lesser cost (launch-wise) and the safety issue (no humans risked for little gain)
The supposed reusability of the shuttles is also a sham. Significant amounts of component replacements are performed after every mission. This also kills the turnaround time, removing another supposed design advantage.
It shouldn't take an economist to figure out that sending cargo and personnel up on separate vehicles of much simpler design (compared to the shuttle; it is still rocket science after all) that have minimal reuse capabilities but are 10-20 times safer and cheaper per launch is a much better solution to maintaining regular space access.
I would argue that the money and lives already wasted on the shuttle program has seriously damaged U.S. space aspirations. Billions have been spent with very few tangible benefits. In my opinion, we would have a serious space station and a viable moon base right now if NASA had pursued these proposed shuttle replacement concepts from the start instead of all the effort put into the shuttles.
Oh hey, that ought to get them a huge NEA grant as it fulfills 2 of the most important requirements:
NEA Grant Proposal Requirements
Section II, Subsection B:
1) The submitted "piece of art" (POA) shall be as offensive as possible to a majority of the public viewers or, alternately, shall incite a significant minority of the public viewers to outright violence.
...
4) All POA's shall incorporate at least one significant scatological reference, either through concept or materials.
Why would Apple design a 2 button mouse? Is that not insane? Wouldn't it make more sense to design at least a 3 button mouse with a wheel? What would really be gained by simply adding a second button?
Whoa there, kemosabe! Let's not get ahead of ourselves. 20 years is already way too fast to move from 1 button to 2 and now you want to just chuck it all and go straight for 3 and a wheel? I'm feeling a great disturbance in the reality-distortion field.
I'm sorry you're cursed with self-serving incompetent politicians, but I think that must be part of the definition as they seem to be in the majority everywhere. Of course, the solution is an informed electorate that only votes in those who are competent to do the job....Sorry, I had to pause a moment and finish laughing.
In any case, traffic laws in most municipalities in the U.S. are not subject to such whims, although many drivers might feel that way. One thing about them is that they are mainly there to account for human error in driving. Remove the human from the driving equation and driving laws can become much more efficient.
I do agree that the ability to choose whate rules to obey or not is not something to be lightly altered. However, I feel that any law-breaking actions that can directly result in the serious injury or death of others should be strongly prevented. As Oliver Wendell Holmes said, "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins."
And I must disagree that Microsoft will be able to jump into the automated vehicle market. The rules for that will have to be as strict as those for aircraft control software as people's lives are involved. Of course, this means that fully automated traffic will not spring into being overnight, but will have to be a gradual process driven by a joint effort between the Federal government and the car manufacturers. Already we are starting to see some automated driving systems being introduced into high-end luxury vehicles; things like parking assistance and adaptive cruise control (where positions of nearby cars are taken into account in regulating speed).
I would like to say that rebooting of the autopilot will almost certainly be necessary on occasion, and that is why both the onboard system and the wider area routing software must account for these occurrences (e.g., the onboard system must have a backup capability for guiding the vehicle out of the flow of traffic in case of failures).
The autobahns are a very good example of how good driving rules and polite drivers can perform at higher efficiency. The exceptions are those horrific accidents that occur in fog or storms where the drivers do not reduce speed to match conditions.
On a personal note, I was complaining one time to a German friend about how I wished U.S. drivers would be as courteous as those I saw on the autobahns instead of clogging up the nominal passing lanes. Ironically my friend expressed a preference for the U.S.-style of highway driving as he felt it kept traffic flow at safer relative speeds.
Confused is a very appropriate nick for you. Your argument here wanders from lamenting the loss of the ability to break traffic laws and perform other illegal activities into a diatribe on a loss of privacy into your intentions to commit illegal activities.
For one thing, how is an "autopilot" for a car different than riding on a bus or a train? Individual riders have no personal control over those and yet no one laments the inability to get to work 2 minutes faster (while endangering others) or to drive through the neighbors yard.
One more time now; driving is a privilege, NOT a right.
Having seen far too many people operating automobiles who apparently don't have the wit or regard for others to even operate a bicycle safely, I eagerly await the day when all driving is handled by onboard computers. Let's list a few reasons why, shall we?
Traffic accidents and fatalities reduced to near zero.
Collision insurance would become unnecessary.
Travel time calculations become much more reliable and predictable.
Construction delays are automatically reduced or even eliminated through intelligent routing.
Mechanical breakdowns (and the resulting traffic jams) are reduced to near zero through pre-emptive maintenance enforced by the onboard systems.
In short, automotive transportation becomes truly safer, cheaper and more reliable.
Now everything has its drawbacks, but I don't see how the ones you've mentioned can even begin to compare to the benefits I've listed above.
1) People will not fly it, the onboard computer will. 2) No aircar will be able to fly outside of the defined 3D airlanes (think multi-level tunnels through the air), designated and computer-controlled by the FAA (or possibly NASA). 3) Regular vehicle maintenance will be required and enforced by the onboard computers. 4) Catastrophic engine failure is mitigated with parachute airfoils. 5) System hacking attempts will be prevented by hardwired security measures. (Multiple interlocking security features will be needed to prevent capable "hobbyists" from circumventing these for personal and/or illegal reasons.) 6) People who willfully violate the flight rules and/or hack the systems will be quickly removed from the airspace either by remote pilot override or air-to-air missile in extreme cases, i.e., criminals or terrorists.
The car people are bringing out all the wrong analogies of bad drivers, DMV licensure, etc.
The aviation people are bring out all the wrong analogies of pilot training and requirements.
Flying cars will NOT have the autonomy of regular cars and they will NOT require the rigorous pilot training needed for true aircraft. These vehicles will need to be rigorously computer-controlled for them to be allowed into use. Any other mode of operation leads to chaos (car-centric autonomy) or overly-strict training requirements (as in current light plane aviation). Now, this does not preclude the ability to have a real pilots licensure capability that would allow for "off-roading" as it were by licensed pilots. This could have the additional benefit of either lowering light plane cost-of-entry or replacing that class of aircraft entirely.
OK, suppose this were a known threat. Of course the ASW coverage would be extended to cover it. Now, let's think about another flaw in your scenario. Time of flight is the biggest issue; 6 minutes for ~250 miles means the carrier is pretty far away from the initial targeting point (and where did the sub get that info from, hmm?) and in an unknown direction. So, do you then counter this by expanding the targeting area into a circle with a radius big enough to cover all the possible avoidance maneuvers? Not likely; how would the sub carry and launch that much munitions? At this point, a sub popping up a hundred miles or so away and launching a few Harpoons becomes a much more likely and cost effective solution.
Nice short summary on the Nazi takeover of Germany.
But you're missing the most important point of comparing current Patriot Act-style restrictions with the early Nazi movement. It's a matter of slippery slopes all leading downhill. After the Beer Hall Putsch (Munich, 1923), Hitler appears to have realized that the downfall of the Weimar Republic would occur not with a bang but a whimper. Thus he proceeded to take the incremental steps that led to his receiving the Chancellorship from von Hindenburg in 1933.
While a direct analogy with Hitler's rise to power is not truly applicable, an appreciation of the total effect of the small, steady encroachments on the democratic freedoms given to Germans under the Weimar constitution is very relevant.
While I welcome a new approach to fast and efficient mesh optimization (yes, yes, our new mesh simplification overlords), it is hard to lend credence to the description of the algorithm as highly accurate. The very first example figure in the article (a mesh of a small-case letter "a" in 3D) shows a mesh reduction result that removes all of the curvature from the end of the top left "hook" of the "a". I do not consider this a highly accurate representation, unless perhaps they are referring to the bounds of the mesh reduction.
Another troubling point is the list of possible applications; retail web sites, museums, cartoon characters/video games, and CAD. Of these, the web and video game applications are reasonable, but for CAD it would be ridiculous except in the case of a quick and dirty look at a large complex assembly. For museums I know of one solution that gives exceptional speedups in rendering, but does so without loss of visual detail: Qsplat from the Michelangelo Project at Stanford.
In any case, I do look forward to hearing more about this at Siggraph 2004.
Now that I have your attention, let's summarize the threads, shall we?
48%: Dave Winer is a [great guy | internet saint | complete a**hat | arrogant prick] and something must be seriously wrong with his [health | mind | attitude | bowels] to have to abruptly discontinue this service.
47%: Blogs are a [useful tool | brilliant form of self-expression | blight on the internet | form of intellectual masturbation] and should be [lauded in all the earth | trumpeted from the hilltops | wiped from the face of the internet | grounds for committment to a mental health facility].
3%: No backups? HA HA!
1.998%: Blogs make using Google hard. Waah.
0.002%: Isn't Slashdot a form of weblogging?
Of course, the most interesting thing here is that reading the posts on each viewpoint tells you more about the writer than about the thing they are writing about. Oh no! Recursive weblogging!
Damn, and I used to have a life before this whole internet thing.
This is what happens when you ask for a concept car from an automotive engineer who has bever been out of Tokyo except on a bullet train.
This concept only has utility in a huge metropolitan area as a commuter car. In case you haven't noticed, much of the U.S. is not covered by city blocks.
I can't decide if the problem here is the Toyota P.R. department or the mass media. Every time a "cool" concept car is introduced as "The Future of Automobiles" we see that the "future" is only for a certain segment of the population (e.g., worker drones in large metro areas) or addresses a specific subset of transportation issues (e.g., efficiently transporting worker drones who deny their droneness by refusing to use mass transit).
If we really want to solve the majority of our transportation problems while still allowing for the flexibility to function in different transportation modes (commuting, long haul, recreation, etc.), then we need to get serious about removing the human from the loop. Imagine your commute or vacation driving if all vehicles were under computer control on the highways. (Wags/scoffers, insert your jokes/objections about the "Blue Highway of Death" here.) Think Hy-wire and packet routing. Now, that would be a real future of transportation.
because it is really no easier to switch between items in "3D" than with the other types of control features (taskbar, "virtual" desktops, etc.). They all require a physical action by the user to move the focus to the wanted item. Having a 3D desktop is just another take on the "virtual" desktop idea.
It really comes down to the question of how you want to deal with partitioning your work space when you have more items than can be effectively displayed at one time. Your best options are to:
Go with the desktop metaphor that has the best "virtual" desktop interaction mechanism, i.e., the one which makes it easiest for you to navigate among your various items.
Now a truly useful and cool interface would be to have the large thin panel display from "The Minority Report" with complete and accurate voice and gesture recognition.
OK, let's try on the supposition that Armadillo makes it up first (twice in 2 weeks, yada, yada, yada) and claims the X Prize. Then what?
Seriously, Armadillo's design looks to have little or no continuing commercial potential other than as a joyride for people with more money than brains.
Using a parachute for return to Earth and a crumple nosecone for landing? Why isn't Estes a big sponsor for them?
Of course, not winning the X Prize will likely have no effect on Scaled Composite's effort except for a loss of another PR opportunity. The Orteig Prize was a catalyst, but it didn't turn the competitors into the airline industry of today. (When was the last time you flew on Lindbergh Airlines, hmm?)
"As I have just hired on my girlfriend to help out with some secretarial work in my Apple consulting, sales, and technical service business, and considering having my brother work with me soon;"
Kiss all 3 of these relationships goodbye:
Your girlfriend (unless you are engaged and meant to say fiancee instead of girlfriend, this will never be a good idea).
Your brother (unless you plan to make him a legal partner; having family as employees always leads to resentment.
Your customers (when your attention starts to drift and your work suffers because you are distracted by dealing with a personal issue with your GF or brother.)
You're either figuring to get some help on the cheap or you want to work with someone who's background you already know (avoid that tedious interview process) or possibly both at the same time. In either case, it's a recipe for disaster for your business, especially if it's already well-established with your customers. You also suffer on the family side when you lose a GF and alienate your brother.
Slashdot Mirror
That is the essence of a bubble, being that it occurs at an accelerated rate with an increased production of companies that will fail. In other words, in a bubble many more companies based on unworkable, unsustainable or even crackpot ideas and plans will be generated and subsequently fail.
Any tool used improperly will lead to undesirable results. Turning someone loose with something like VS or KDevelop/Qt Designer when they don't already have a grounding in programming is like showing someone how to use a handsaw and then taking them into a woodshop and telling them to figure out the rest of the cutting tools on their own.
The real failure here was not in "allowing" the use of VS, but in doing so without providing any real background on what programming is really about beforehand. In fact, the same argument was (and still is) made regarding calculators and mathematics classes. Sure, the calculator can do all the work, but the student still needs to have the relevant understanding of the concepts behind it to truly succeed.
Of course, if all you really want is an eye candy code monkey, then damn the torpedoes and bring on VB.NET!
is that the shuttle is a built-to-fail enterprise from start to finish. Since they let the military muck with the operational requirements from the start, they ended up with an overly complex machine that cannot do any of it's supposed jobs very well. Everything the shuttle does can be done more cheaply and safely by other means.
Want some examples:
1) Lofting satellites - use unmanned payload rockets; Ariane or Atlas
2) Space experiments - a space station with regular supply runs can do this better
3) Satellite repair missions - this is a toss-up due to complexity, but I would give slight edge to robotic repair missions just because of the lesser cost (launch-wise) and the safety issue (no humans risked for little gain)
The supposed reusability of the shuttles is also a sham. Significant amounts of component replacements are performed after every mission. This also kills the turnaround time, removing another supposed design advantage.
It shouldn't take an economist to figure out that sending cargo and personnel up on separate vehicles of much simpler design (compared to the shuttle; it is still rocket science after all) that have minimal reuse capabilities but are 10-20 times safer and cheaper per launch is a much better solution to maintaining regular space access.
I would argue that the money and lives already wasted on the shuttle program has seriously damaged U.S. space aspirations. Billions have been spent with very few tangible benefits. In my opinion, we would have a serious space station and a viable moon base right now if NASA had pursued these proposed shuttle replacement concepts from the start instead of all the effort put into the shuttles.
Oh hey, that ought to get them a huge NEA grant as it fulfills 2 of the most important requirements:
NEA Grant Proposal Requirements
Section II, Subsection B:
It's zooplankton eggs, so it's more like...
~~~~~ 40 year time warp ~~~~~
Real Live Sea Monkeys(TM)!
Mail us this coupon along with $1.89 and in 2-3 weeks you will receive your very own package of Sea Monkeys(TM).
No, no, it's:
"Hi Karl, what are we doing today?"
"The same thing we do every day, Pinky. We try to take over the world."
Whoa there, kemosabe! Let's not get ahead of ourselves. 20 years is already way too fast to move from 1 button to 2 and now you want to just chuck it all and go straight for 3 and a wheel?
I'm feeling a great disturbance in the reality-distortion field.
I'm sorry you're cursed with self-serving incompetent politicians, but I think that must be part of the definition as they seem to be in the majority everywhere. Of course, the solution is an informed electorate that only votes in those who are competent to do the job. ...Sorry, I had to pause a moment and finish laughing.
In any case, traffic laws in most municipalities in the U.S. are not subject to such whims, although many drivers might feel that way. One thing about them is that they are mainly there to account for human error in driving. Remove the human from the driving equation and driving laws can become much more efficient.
I do agree that the ability to choose whate rules to obey or not is not something to be lightly altered. However, I feel that any law-breaking actions that can directly result in the serious injury or death of others should be strongly prevented. As Oliver Wendell Holmes said, "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins."
And I must disagree that Microsoft will be able to jump into the automated vehicle market. The rules for that will have to be as strict as those for aircraft control software as people's lives are involved. Of course, this means that fully automated traffic will not spring into being overnight, but will have to be a gradual process driven by a joint effort between the Federal government and the car manufacturers. Already we are starting to see some automated driving systems being introduced into high-end luxury vehicles; things like parking assistance and adaptive cruise control (where positions of nearby cars are taken into account in regulating speed).
I would like to say that rebooting of the autopilot will almost certainly be necessary on occasion, and that is why both the onboard system and the wider area routing software must account for these occurrences (e.g., the onboard system must have a backup capability for guiding the vehicle out of the flow of traffic in case of failures).
The autobahns are a very good example of how good driving rules and polite drivers can perform at higher efficiency. The exceptions are those horrific accidents that occur in fog or storms where the drivers do not reduce speed to match conditions.
On a personal note, I was complaining one time to a German friend about how I wished U.S. drivers would be as courteous as those I saw on the autobahns instead of clogging up the nominal passing lanes. Ironically my friend expressed a preference for the U.S.-style of highway driving as he felt it kept traffic flow at safer relative speeds.
For one thing, how is an "autopilot" for a car different than riding on a bus or a train? Individual riders have no personal control over those and yet no one laments the inability to get to work 2 minutes faster (while endangering others) or to drive through the neighbors yard. One more time now; driving is a privilege, NOT a right.
Having seen far too many people operating automobiles who apparently don't have the wit or regard for others to even operate a bicycle safely, I eagerly await the day when all driving is handled by onboard computers. Let's list a few reasons why, shall we?
- Traffic accidents and fatalities reduced to near zero.
- Collision insurance would become unnecessary.
- Travel time calculations become much more reliable and predictable.
- Construction delays are automatically reduced or even eliminated through intelligent routing.
- Mechanical breakdowns (and the resulting traffic jams) are reduced to near zero through pre-emptive maintenance enforced by the onboard systems.
In short, automotive transportation becomes truly safer, cheaper and more reliable.Now everything has its drawbacks, but I don't see how the ones you've mentioned can even begin to compare to the benefits I've listed above.
1) People will not fly it, the onboard computer will.
2) No aircar will be able to fly outside of the defined 3D airlanes (think multi-level tunnels through the air), designated and computer-controlled by the FAA (or possibly NASA).
3) Regular vehicle maintenance will be required and enforced by the onboard computers.
4) Catastrophic engine failure is mitigated with parachute airfoils.
5) System hacking attempts will be prevented by hardwired security measures. (Multiple interlocking security features will be needed to prevent capable "hobbyists" from circumventing these for personal and/or illegal reasons.)
6) People who willfully violate the flight rules and/or hack the systems will be quickly removed from the airspace either by remote pilot override or air-to-air missile in extreme cases, i.e., criminals or terrorists.
The car people are bringing out all the wrong analogies of bad drivers, DMV licensure, etc.
The aviation people are bring out all the wrong analogies of pilot training and requirements.
Flying cars will NOT have the autonomy of regular cars and they will NOT require the rigorous pilot training needed for true aircraft. These vehicles will need to be rigorously computer-controlled for them to be allowed into use. Any other mode of operation leads to chaos (car-centric autonomy) or overly-strict training requirements (as in current light plane aviation). Now, this does not preclude the ability to have a real pilots licensure capability that would allow for "off-roading" as it were by licensed pilots. This could have the additional benefit of either lowering light plane cost-of-entry or replacing that class of aircraft entirely.
OK, suppose this were a known threat. Of course the ASW coverage would be extended to cover it.
Now, let's think about another flaw in your scenario. Time of flight is the biggest issue; 6 minutes for ~250 miles means the carrier is pretty far away from the initial targeting point (and where did the sub get that info from, hmm?) and in an unknown direction. So, do you then counter this by expanding the targeting area into a circle with a radius big enough to cover all the possible avoidance maneuvers? Not likely; how would the sub carry and launch that much munitions? At this point, a sub popping up a hundred miles or so away and launching a few Harpoons becomes a much more likely and cost effective solution.
Nice short summary on the Nazi takeover of Germany.
But you're missing the most important point of comparing current Patriot Act-style restrictions with the early Nazi movement. It's a matter of slippery slopes all leading downhill. After the Beer Hall Putsch (Munich, 1923), Hitler appears to have realized that the downfall of the Weimar Republic would occur not with a bang but a whimper. Thus he proceeded to take the incremental steps that led to his receiving the Chancellorship from von Hindenburg in 1933.
While a direct analogy with Hitler's rise to power is not truly applicable, an appreciation of the total effect of the small, steady encroachments on the democratic freedoms given to Germans under the Weimar constitution is very relevant.
While I welcome a new approach to fast and efficient mesh optimization (yes, yes, our new mesh simplification overlords), it is hard to lend credence to the description of the algorithm as highly accurate. The very first example figure in the article (a mesh of a small-case letter "a" in 3D) shows a mesh reduction result that removes all of the curvature from the end of the top left "hook" of the "a". I do not consider this a highly accurate representation, unless perhaps they are referring to the bounds of the mesh reduction.
Another troubling point is the list of possible applications; retail web sites, museums, cartoon characters/video games, and CAD. Of these, the web and video game applications are reasonable, but for CAD it would be ridiculous except in the case of a quick and dirty look at a large complex assembly. For museums I know of one solution that gives exceptional speedups in rendering, but does so without loss of visual detail: Qsplat from the Michelangelo Project at Stanford.
In any case, I do look forward to hearing more about this at Siggraph 2004.
Now that I have your attention, let's summarize the threads, shall we?
48%: Dave Winer is a [great guy | internet saint | complete a**hat | arrogant prick] and something must be seriously wrong with his [health | mind | attitude | bowels] to have to abruptly discontinue this service.
47%: Blogs are a [useful tool | brilliant form of self-expression | blight on the internet | form of intellectual masturbation] and should be [lauded in all the earth | trumpeted from the hilltops | wiped from the face of the internet | grounds for committment to a mental health facility].
3%: No backups? HA HA!
1.998%: Blogs make using Google hard. Waah.
0.002%: Isn't Slashdot a form of weblogging?
Of course, the most interesting thing here is that reading the posts on each viewpoint tells you more about the writer than about the thing they are writing about. Oh no! Recursive weblogging! Damn, and I used to have a life before this whole internet thing.
This is what happens when you ask for a concept car from an automotive engineer who has bever been out of Tokyo except on a bullet train.
This concept only has utility in a huge metropolitan area as a commuter car. In case you haven't noticed, much of the U.S. is not covered by city blocks.
I can't decide if the problem here is the Toyota P.R. department or the mass media. Every time a "cool" concept car is introduced as "The Future of Automobiles" we see that the "future" is only for a certain segment of the population (e.g., worker drones in large metro areas) or addresses a specific subset of transportation issues (e.g., efficiently transporting worker drones who deny their droneness by refusing to use mass transit).
If we really want to solve the majority of our transportation problems while still allowing for the flexibility to function in different transportation modes (commuting, long haul, recreation, etc.), then we need to get serious about removing the human from the loop. Imagine your commute or vacation driving if all vehicles were under computer control on the highways. (Wags/scoffers, insert your jokes/objections about the "Blue Highway of Death" here.) Think Hy-wire and packet routing. Now, that would be a real future of transportation.
because it is really no easier to switch between items in "3D" than with the other types of control features (taskbar, "virtual" desktops, etc.). They all require a physical action by the user to move the focus to the wanted item. Having a 3D desktop is just another take on the "virtual" desktop idea.
It really comes down to the question of how you want to deal with partitioning your work space when you have more items than can be effectively displayed at one time. Your best options are to:
Now a truly useful and cool interface would be to have the large thin panel display from "The Minority Report" with complete and accurate voice and gesture recognition.
OK, let's try on the supposition that Armadillo makes it up first (twice in 2 weeks, yada, yada, yada) and claims the X Prize. Then what?
Seriously, Armadillo's design looks to have little or no continuing commercial potential other than as a joyride for people with more money than brains. Using a parachute for return to Earth and a crumple nosecone for landing? Why isn't Estes a big sponsor for them?
Of course, not winning the X Prize will likely have no effect on Scaled Composite's effort except for a loss of another PR opportunity. The Orteig Prize was a catalyst, but it didn't turn the competitors into the airline industry of today. (When was the last time you flew on Lindbergh Airlines, hmm?)
"As I have just hired on my girlfriend to help out with some secretarial work in my Apple consulting, sales, and technical service business, and considering having my brother work with me soon;"
Kiss all 3 of these relationships goodbye:- Your girlfriend (unless you are engaged and meant to say fiancee instead of girlfriend, this will never be a good idea).
- Your brother (unless you plan to make him a legal partner; having family as employees always leads to resentment.
- Your customers (when your attention starts to drift and your work suffers because you are distracted by dealing with a personal issue with your GF or brother.)
You're either figuring to get some help on the cheap or you want to work with someone who's background you already know (avoid that tedious interview process) or possibly both at the same time. In either case, it's a recipe for disaster for your business, especially if it's already well-established with your customers. You also suffer on the family side when you lose a GF and alienate your brother.This would mean that Pluto counts and that Sedna is technically the 11th planet.