Why the state level? Why not county, city or individual level?
And how do you plan to get a consensus? Vote for every single science initiative? Vote based on fields, general research categories? My previous post showed how childish it is to think one can say "I want to help the blind" and have any idea (without a lot of research, and I mean a lot) what research they should support. That is assuming anyone can even predict what effects certain research will have.
What about those who don't agree in your state, how are they different than those who disagree with a federal decision?
You somehow think the state will do something different, in the end it will just end up the same as the federal level but with less money and more overall bureaucracy (as half the states, hopefully, have the same redundant programs). The individual citizens will never really decide, except for some specific "media rich" situations about research but simply will allocate some money for your bureaucrats to make agencies to allocate it with.
Frankly, I don't really care if my attacker was caught on CCTV, or even brought to justice. What I care about is not being mugged in the first place, feeling safe and protecting my privacy.
You're contradicting yourself, fear of justice makes people less likely to commit crimes so you imply that support such cameras. Also, safety and privacy are exclusive in numerous regards.
To increase our knowledge, and you yourself just said "prepare". Knowledge is preparation, doesn't mean it'll lead to anything soon. Robotics are much better at gaining information and for now are the best approach honestly.
Also the knowledge we'd gain from finding life or its remains on Mars is far, far greater than what some half-assed manned mission could ever hope to achieve.
Personally, I'd love to go to space although going to another planet is iffy. Given current technology such a journey would not be exactly pleasant and the effects on my body would be rather bad (as I said humans and zero-G don't mix very well). As for qualifying, I doubt I'd pass the physicals and I have enough allergies to disqualify me from most things, although I'd probably satisfy any non-physical requirements. It's interesting and cool until you look at the details, for example one of the Apollo astronauts didn't take a shit during the whole mission due to the annoyance of the act.
Yup, humans are not designed for space and only real reason for them is: politics (robots have a hard time asking congress for funding) and processing power (we are better than computers at many problems especially ones not thought of before).
We've been sending humans to LOE for 40 years or so, and that makes it old and not that innovative. Robot rovers on the other hand are a new thing, especially in the sense of exploring another planet. If anyone thinks doing so is easy they are a fool who has seen too much sci-fi. Also, if anyone says we should send humans to Mars I'll simply say the following: humans cannot be decontaminated and until we know with very high probability that there is no life (or remains of it) on Mars sending humans there is stupid.
...and how much did the x-prize base on previous research in rocket and airplanes, including that done by NASA and other government agencies?
And research does not mean "market a device that does X" but usually more like "go find the basic principles so some company can make a device that does X".
And why do you say "commercial space flight", by saying "commercial" you are no longer talking about research so your point is useless. Now if you say "space-flight" then please explain how NASA fails to do that, and how the x-prize managed to do that (which they didn't really, they barely reached space)?
Also, the space comparison isn't exactly good since space lacks pre-existing companies and the cost makes it hard for new companies to enter, so NASA can't just do pure research right now. Many other fields already have companies or allow companies to enter relatively easily, so that governments can fund basic research while the companies can go and make commercial products if they wish to.
Which models gives more money to research? "Good clip" and "great clip" can mean a lot in science, especially biology. The Howard Hughes Medical Institute (which I assume you meant) is nice however it is nowhere near NIH in grants and did not have a lot of money till the 80s.
I'd like to note, that if most people agreed with you then we wouldn't have the government spending on research however it seems most people do agree (as California's vote has showed if you don't believe that the government really represents the voters).
Are you aware of how much research there is and do you think you can for every piece of research figure out what the potential effects are? The thing about research is that in numerous cases it DOESN'T have specific uses or its uses are not known at the time, for example no one envisioned what the laser could do when it was first invented. So you want to help the blind, eh? What about growing new eyes using stem cells? How about research in growing organs, developmental biology research (ie: how does the body grow eyes), general implants, immune system research, neurobiology, computer science (better software control), electrical engineering (smaller electronics), camera research? How specific does it have to be?
So all those embryos which are destroyed right now should go to waste instead of being harvested? If you have no idea what I'm talking about then maybe you should go look at what in-vitro fertilization entails and then come back.
And until then no one can use it unless they license, and given what I've heard about the paten system most scientists won't even be allowed (by their companies) to see what is happening for fear of unintentionally using patented information. In other words, research is slowed to a halt as no one can do anything with recent research unless they work for the same company (they can't even license it since they won't know about it). Research in areas like bio-informatics (at least some parts) gets revolutionized every decade, so your decade old paper is basically worthless
Then who is supposed to fund it? The average person? Amusing since I'd say most people have no idea what research is going on, much less so than the people in Washington. Then again those people in Washington don't decide all that much who really don't do much themselves (besides some broad things), they send it to other agencies which at some point have scientists involved. And if you say "well regular people can do that too" then I'm going to counter with "yeah, if they want to waste time finding all those agencies." The truth is that the world is a very complex place and you can't decide everything yourself, I trust the government more than I do myself since I doubt I'd like to spend the effort figuring all the crap out about who to fund and so on.
Private companies? Say good bye to anything which doesn't give them a profit in the short term and probably most research period. I doubt it's easy to do research where every company guards what they do with an iron fist.
Huh? And in some places (Poland last I checked) it's common to pay per minute for cell phone usage, and text messages cost less to send than the equivalent voice conversation (which is of course rounded up to the nearest minute).
"Perhaps since you read slashdot you're aware of the many number of investigations under the Patriot act that had nothing to do with terrorism."
Are you honestly trying to claim that given the power a Law Enforcement agency would not use it? Your argument does not hold water unless you provide direct evidence that such usage is not a by-product but a reason for the act. It's quite possible that the law was passed with the intention of making terrorism easier to stop however law enforcement realized that it could be used for other reasons so they did.
No, it's not just "machine-readable technology" but "'common machine-readable technology' that Homeland Security will decide on." There is a difference.
*shrugs*, hope you like your tin foil hat.
Cookies are probably used with caching since it allows google servers to get pages more quickly (no need to talk to your computer, etc.). In other words, a perfectly legitimate use so your argument fails.
Huh? From what I can see the only thing it "shares" are web-pages not cookies. Thus you can see another user's page but can't actually do anything (it loads the page from cache so the cookies are ignored). Of course, if the page was set to not be cached then this problem would not exist.
While that is somewhat true from a historical perceptive, it doesn't exclude it being a collectivist society (which is the term I should have used, my apologizes). India asfaik is listed as one due to its society, in simple terms, putting the group in front of the individual. It's not a clear cut term and every society has parts of both however India seems to be more collectivist.
*shrugs* Someone please post studies as both views have merit. I've heard some down right scary stories of how some Japanese adults can't do anything because their mother did everything for them until way into adulthood. Now these may be isolated incident or rumors, which is why I am wondering if anyone knows of any studies.
However, disregarding culture (and upbringing in general) as a large factor in how a person acts is plain stupid as studies have shown. For example a person from an individualistic society (like say Poland) WILL on average react quite differently than a person from a collective society (like say India, China, Japan, etc.) to the same situation. It makes a lot of sense since one society stresses you over society while the other stresses society over you. Nonetheless, I haven't read anything yet on the effects of culture on creative ability and so would be quite interested.
Seeing as sex offenders have an insanely high rate of committing such crimes again, yes it does help keep society safe.
And of course, fear drives us. We make money because we're afraid of what happens if we don't, we save up in case something happens (fear again), we have a military to defend us (fear again), we have laws to punish criminals with jail sentences (fear yet again, it's not rehabilitation but removal from society), we follow laws for fear of punishment, etc. Have you seen the last election? We vote for candidates because we're afraid of what the other guy will do. We had a Cold War because we were afraid of the soviets and their nukes, hell the whole concept of mutual annihilation is based on fear.
They already do that in certain states, a breath analyzer is added to your car and it won't start unless you prove clean. I consider such things much better than sticking people in jail for long periods of time, which is the only real alternative.
Make a virtual hd? (memdrive or whatever its called).
It seems that php docs state: " Optionally you can use shared memory allocation (mm), developed by Ralf S. Engelschall, for session storage. You have to download mm and install it. This option is not available for Windows platforms. Note that the session storage module for mm does not guarantee that concurrent accesses to the same session are properly locked. It might be more appropriate to use a shared memory based filesystem (such as tmpfs on Solaris/Linux, or/dev/md on BSD) to store sessions in files, because they are properly locked."
Somewhere else it says: "To use shared memory allocation (mm) for session storage configure PHP --with-mm[=DIR]."
You can probably google to get more info, but it seems that mm is a viable alternative.
Slashdot Mirror
Why the state level? Why not county, city or individual level?
And how do you plan to get a consensus? Vote for every single science initiative? Vote based on fields, general research categories? My previous post showed how childish it is to think one can say "I want to help the blind" and have any idea (without a lot of research, and I mean a lot) what research they should support. That is assuming anyone can even predict what effects certain research will have.
What about those who don't agree in your state, how are they different than those who disagree with a federal decision?
You somehow think the state will do something different, in the end it will just end up the same as the federal level but with less money and more overall bureaucracy (as half the states, hopefully, have the same redundant programs). The individual citizens will never really decide, except for some specific "media rich" situations about research but simply will allocate some money for your bureaucrats to make agencies to allocate it with.
Frankly, I don't really care if my attacker was caught on CCTV, or even brought to justice. What I care about is not being mugged in the first place, feeling safe and protecting my privacy.
You're contradicting yourself, fear of justice makes people less likely to commit crimes so you imply that support such cameras. Also, safety and privacy are exclusive in numerous regards.
To increase our knowledge, and you yourself just said "prepare". Knowledge is preparation, doesn't mean it'll lead to anything soon. Robotics are much better at gaining information and for now are the best approach honestly.
Also the knowledge we'd gain from finding life or its remains on Mars is far, far greater than what some half-assed manned mission could ever hope to achieve.
Personally, I'd love to go to space although going to another planet is iffy. Given current technology such a journey would not be exactly pleasant and the effects on my body would be rather bad (as I said humans and zero-G don't mix very well). As for qualifying, I doubt I'd pass the physicals and I have enough allergies to disqualify me from most things, although I'd probably satisfy any non-physical requirements. It's interesting and cool until you look at the details, for example one of the Apollo astronauts didn't take a shit during the whole mission due to the annoyance of the act.
Yup, humans are not designed for space and only real reason for them is: politics (robots have a hard time asking congress for funding) and processing power (we are better than computers at many problems especially ones not thought of before).
We've been sending humans to LOE for 40 years or so, and that makes it old and not that innovative. Robot rovers on the other hand are a new thing, especially in the sense of exploring another planet. If anyone thinks doing so is easy they are a fool who has seen too much sci-fi. Also, if anyone says we should send humans to Mars I'll simply say the following: humans cannot be decontaminated and until we know with very high probability that there is no life (or remains of it) on Mars sending humans there is stupid.
I was mistaken, my apologies. I should have looked it up before posting.
...and how much did the x-prize base on previous research in rocket and airplanes, including that done by NASA and other government agencies?
And research does not mean "market a device that does X" but usually more like "go find the basic principles so some company can make a device that does X".
And why do you say "commercial space flight", by saying "commercial" you are no longer talking about research so your point is useless. Now if you say "space-flight" then please explain how NASA fails to do that, and how the x-prize managed to do that (which they didn't really, they barely reached space)?
Also, the space comparison isn't exactly good since space lacks pre-existing companies and the cost makes it hard for new companies to enter, so NASA can't just do pure research right now. Many other fields already have companies or allow companies to enter relatively easily, so that governments can fund basic research while the companies can go and make commercial products if they wish to.
Which models gives more money to research? "Good clip" and "great clip" can mean a lot in science, especially biology. The Howard Hughes Medical Institute (which I assume you meant) is nice however it is nowhere near NIH in grants and did not have a lot of money till the 80s.
I'd like to note, that if most people agreed with you then we wouldn't have the government spending on research however it seems most people do agree (as California's vote has showed if you don't believe that the government really represents the voters).
That would be nice.
Are you aware of how much research there is and do you think you can for every piece of research figure out what the potential effects are? The thing about research is that in numerous cases it DOESN'T have specific uses or its uses are not known at the time, for example no one envisioned what the laser could do when it was first invented. So you want to help the blind, eh? What about growing new eyes using stem cells? How about research in growing organs, developmental biology research (ie: how does the body grow eyes), general implants, immune system research, neurobiology, computer science (better software control), electrical engineering (smaller electronics), camera research? How specific does it have to be?
So all those embryos which are destroyed right now should go to waste instead of being harvested? If you have no idea what I'm talking about then maybe you should go look at what in-vitro fertilization entails and then come back.
And until then no one can use it unless they license, and given what I've heard about the paten system most scientists won't even be allowed (by their companies) to see what is happening for fear of unintentionally using patented information. In other words, research is slowed to a halt as no one can do anything with recent research unless they work for the same company (they can't even license it since they won't know about it). Research in areas like bio-informatics (at least some parts) gets revolutionized every decade, so your decade old paper is basically worthless
Then who is supposed to fund it? The average person? Amusing since I'd say most people have no idea what research is going on, much less so than the people in Washington. Then again those people in Washington don't decide all that much who really don't do much themselves (besides some broad things), they send it to other agencies which at some point have scientists involved. And if you say "well regular people can do that too" then I'm going to counter with "yeah, if they want to waste time finding all those agencies." The truth is that the world is a very complex place and you can't decide everything yourself, I trust the government more than I do myself since I doubt I'd like to spend the effort figuring all the crap out about who to fund and so on.
Private companies? Say good bye to anything which doesn't give them a profit in the short term and probably most research period. I doubt it's easy to do research where every company guards what they do with an iron fist.
Because everyone benefits and uses the research, not just people in that state?
Also, that doesn't do anything for your first question. What is the difference between a few people in DC and even fewer people in some state capital?
...you're joking right?
Huh? And in some places (Poland last I checked) it's common to pay per minute for cell phone usage, and text messages cost less to send than the equivalent voice conversation (which is of course rounded up to the nearest minute).
"Perhaps since you read slashdot you're aware of the many number of investigations under the Patriot act that had nothing to do with terrorism."
Are you honestly trying to claim that given the power a Law Enforcement agency would not use it? Your argument does not hold water unless you provide direct evidence that such usage is not a by-product but a reason for the act. It's quite possible that the law was passed with the intention of making terrorism easier to stop however law enforcement realized that it could be used for other reasons so they did.
No, it's not just "machine-readable technology" but "'common machine-readable technology' that Homeland Security will decide on." There is a difference.
...I can only imagine the debates that would result as different groups tried to claim a given bill fits or does not fit the requirement.
*shrugs*, hope you like your tin foil hat. Cookies are probably used with caching since it allows google servers to get pages more quickly (no need to talk to your computer, etc.). In other words, a perfectly legitimate use so your argument fails.
Huh? From what I can see the only thing it "shares" are web-pages not cookies. Thus you can see another user's page but can't actually do anything (it loads the page from cache so the cookies are ignored). Of course, if the page was set to not be cached then this problem would not exist.
While that is somewhat true from a historical perceptive, it doesn't exclude it being a collectivist society (which is the term I should have used, my apologizes). India asfaik is listed as one due to its society, in simple terms, putting the group in front of the individual. It's not a clear cut term and every society has parts of both however India seems to be more collectivist.
*shrugs* Someone please post studies as both views have merit. I've heard some down right scary stories of how some Japanese adults can't do anything because their mother did everything for them until way into adulthood. Now these may be isolated incident or rumors, which is why I am wondering if anyone knows of any studies.
However, disregarding culture (and upbringing in general) as a large factor in how a person acts is plain stupid as studies have shown. For example a person from an individualistic society (like say Poland) WILL on average react quite differently than a person from a collective society (like say India, China, Japan, etc.) to the same situation. It makes a lot of sense since one society stresses you over society while the other stresses society over you. Nonetheless, I haven't read anything yet on the effects of culture on creative ability and so would be quite interested.
Seeing as sex offenders have an insanely high rate of committing such crimes again, yes it does help keep society safe.
And of course, fear drives us. We make money because we're afraid of what happens if we don't, we save up in case something happens (fear again), we have a military to defend us (fear again), we have laws to punish criminals with jail sentences (fear yet again, it's not rehabilitation but removal from society), we follow laws for fear of punishment, etc. Have you seen the last election? We vote for candidates because we're afraid of what the other guy will do. We had a Cold War because we were afraid of the soviets and their nukes, hell the whole concept of mutual annihilation is based on fear.
So most family members molest their kids... because that is what your analogy requires to make sense.
They already do that in certain states, a breath analyzer is added to your car and it won't start unless you prove clean. I consider such things much better than sticking people in jail for long periods of time, which is the only real alternative.
Make a virtual hd? (memdrive or whatever its called).
/dev/md on BSD) to store sessions in files, because they are properly locked."
."
It seems that php docs state:
" Optionally you can use shared memory allocation (mm), developed by Ralf S. Engelschall, for session storage. You have to download mm and install it. This option is not available for Windows platforms. Note that the session storage module for mm does not guarantee that concurrent accesses to the same session are properly locked. It might be more appropriate to use a shared memory based filesystem (such as tmpfs on Solaris/Linux, or
Somewhere else it says:
"To use shared memory allocation (mm) for session storage configure PHP --with-mm[=DIR]
You can probably google to get more info, but it seems that mm is a viable alternative.