As a libertarian (e-gads! Can it be true?) I've really enjoyed all the responses to my original post.
Let's recap:
Tony says "the bills signed into law determine what is "legal" and "illegal." -- No Tony, they do not. The bills signed into law determine what the law is. Whether any one act is legal or illegal is dependant on the other branch of government: the courts.
thoelin says "So, if you're a big GB fan, why don't you just admit it?" -- I'm a libertarian. Registered independent. Voted for folks from all parties. Thanks for the ad hominem attack, though. You can go play with your toys some more now.
Abcd1234 says "the *law*, dipshit. You know, those things that congress and the senate pass" -- please see earlier answer.
Rezjac -- "might paralell a soldier's responsibility to not execute an illegal order" -- good analogy, which, as I recall, involves the soldier being court-martialed if he/she is incorrect. Show me an equal situation in this case.
Sloppy -- award for best post. Yes, there are some tricky wickets here. If you can explain how ANY secret program could work where people just get to play judge and jury on their own, I'll gladly take another tact. But it can't be allright for this guy, and somehow bad for the Rosenbergs (who gave away the atomic secrets to the Russians). You can't have it both ways.
Look at it this way: the reason it's a secret program (whatever it is) is because it's politically dangerous for the people in power and for the country if it was leaked. If LBJ ran ops into Laos and denied it, not only was it for the national interest, LBJ was also playing CYA. If we didn't give up the nuclear secrets in the 40s, not only was it good for us, but it gave us a big stick to use in international politics.
Now I can't separate the part where the politician is CYA from the part where it is in the national interest. Perhaps you can. But I can tell you that all of these "decisions of conscience" might not look so noble in ten years time. Maybe they will. Even if you WERE somehow gifted with the ability to determine for the rest of us what was legal, what should be one way or another, who gave you the right to do so? At least we elected the joker at 1600 PA Avenue. Joe sixpack at the FBI seems to want to take on the power but none of the responsibility. I got a problem with that -- even if on the larger case I agree with the civil liberties problems.
I understand that, of late, the game is rigged on/. Bush and his cronies are all fascists, keeping a war alive in order to keep up oppression, yadda, yadda, yadda.
But I honestly wonder how much of this response is based on what we think of as being "right". This guy was right because he exposed an "illegal" program. He narked on a program we don't like, therefore he is a hero.
But who is to determine what an illegal program is? Should each federal employee sworn to secrecy decide on his own whether something is legal or illegal?
I can hear the "heck yeah!" calls right now. You will say it was obvious that it was illegal. He had a moral duty to leak.
The problem with these moral arguments is that one can always take another tack -- perhaps it was legal. Or rather, perhaps it was illegal, but known to all branches of the government, which was working to make it legal. Or perhaps it was legal all along. The way we figure out whether something is legal or not is we have a charge, we have a trial, and we have a verdict.
If the employee sued the government for illegal acts (using the FISA court), then I would agree he was acting on his morals. But to hide behind anonymity, make his own decision for the entire country, and then claim to he a hero? Heck no. I will not condone such actions, EVEN if they are for a greater good. If we can't keep secrets, we're screwed. End of story. I'd rather have illegal acts by a country that has dedicated public servants, than each servant deciding on his own whether he likes a program or not.
This is the problem with the highly-charged partisan BS we have going on. It's not just that Bush had a program, it's that it was BUSH. Heck -- he's like the devil or something. We must stop him before he gets to the children! In an atmosphere like that, each side plays to the public servants to do the "moral" thing. The system just won't work like that, guys. We got a lot more problems than one president or program going on here.
Does anybody know how great this force is? I mean, say with one-meter-square plates, each suspended above each other, how much force would be required to push the two plates together? If the answer is two pounds (er, kilograms) then that's one thing, but if it's thousand hogsheads, that's a whole nother thing entirely.
Seems like you could build a nano/macro motor out of both the regular casmir and the anit-casmir materials. Somehow I smell perpetual motion in there somewhere.
Okay, if space exploration is a non zero-sum game, then what's the sum?
Seven? 42? Come on! Don't leave us hanging like that!
Seriously. We need cheap cost-to-orbit. After that, there's no "sum" in the game. As long as shooting a box into orbit costs as much as a new office building, there might be something to fight about. Make it 1/100 of the cost (using space elevators, mass drivers for non-human loads, or blimps-to-orbit) then who cares so much any more? Pay to reduce costs for everyone, skip the missions, and the rest will take care of itself.
The war on terror is a political war involving violence, not a shoot-em-up war involving armies (although they might be useful) It's the result of a small number of crazy people being able to control large populations through the use of stealth and violence.
Because it's a political war, it gets more money than other stuff. Same reason AIDS research in the U.S. gets more money than heart disease, even though heart disease kills a lot more people. Politicians are supposed to make political threats go away. That's the way it's supposed to work.
I now return you to your evening.
It seems the normal way of business here any more is to have some politically-charged headline, then all the commenters take their partisan sides and go at it.
As a libertarian, I've found both parties very willing to sell individual freedoms away. Aside from the war, which is so charged to prevent rational discourse, the Republicans were eager to sell out bankruptcy protections. The DMCA was passed by a unanimous vote in the Senate and signed by Clinton.
So for all you fanboys and fangirls, it's not related to political parties, at least not where I can see. I guess when your ATM is Hollywood, you're probably going to pander to Hollywood more and if your ATM is banks, the banks get the favors. But in general, to me the game looks rigged and the only interesting thing is the different BS excuses they use each time they take something away. Keeping people under an iron hand of debt collectors was called "promoting personal responsibility", as if eliminating risk from the creditors business plans was merely an afterthought. Reid's new idea sounds like it's out to "stop theft in publicly funded universities"
All the BS sounds good. And if it's your party, and your guy, usually you'll find some way to forgive him and/or rationalize it was the best thing to do. We have long memories for bad stuff the other guys do, but short ones for our own guys. That's a shame, really. Keeps people from ever learning anything.
Post ridiculous headline slamming Bush Administration. "Bush is coming to steal your babies!" "Bush Administration installs cameras in everybody's living room!" "Bush Administration plans to eliminate federal elections!" "Steal your cat!" "Take all your pron!"
40,000 people all rally around, probably holding torches, while some of them step forward giving impassioned pleas for our constitution, the environment, our rights, the children, Fred Rogers, etc
About ten people with patience try to speak reasonably to the mob.
A couple lawyers finally manage to point out that the president is not really going to cancel American Idol, eat the last of the cookies, or feed the dog beer -- he's just a dumb schmuck like everyone else. That's the whole point of our way of government. He can ask his folks to do stuff. They're bound by the same law as everyone else, though.
Mob continues ranting and raving, driving up more hits to/.
Of course before they use this they'll have to warn the crowd.
"Don't try anything funny, or you'll be laughing for sure"
Let's see, the Islamic terrorists are working on shemical and nuclear weapons and we're working on -- ways to make them laugh and become gay? What then, are they supposed to want to stop fighting and start redecorating their houses?
Try as I might, I just can't see John Wayne hosing down a group with a bunch of funny bullets.
"Stop right there, partner, or I'm going to make you laugh like you've never laughed before."
I know it's common practice here for the moderators to pimp up the story, and the crowd tear it apart bit-by-bit. I guess something about thinking that you're smart leads people to be overly critical, but I digress.
I found the article interesting in that it was an insight into a world I really just don't have time to study -- tweeny and college-kid social sites. It does appear from the anecdotes that the sites are experiencing some kind of market segmentation, but I found the writer limited by her own concepts of what the market segments should be.
So instead of analysis we kind of meander around, with her explaining her observations and fears and how all muddled it probably is and what a poor job she is going to do imposing a class structure onto American society. The reason this is true is somewhat obvious -- there are real market-led forces at work here. FaceBook has an image of being for older, better-off kids, partly because of it's roots as a college application. MySpace is more pedestrian.
And that's why the piece falls apart: the writer simply does not have the appropriate tools to be talking about her subject. Market segmentation is a mature field, and you could draw all sorts of parallels and lessons-learned. Instead, she seems (to me) to be mired into psycho-babble and fuzzy-headed sweeping generalizations about our society which are ill-supported.
I'll be kind and simply observe that the list is somewhat subjective.
To be more direct, it looks like a simple process:
1) Mix words 9-11, Cheney, Halliburton, Iraq, Oil, GM, etc randomly with plot, conspiracy, oppresses, torture, poison. 2) Make a list of these statements 3) Go find various left-wing web sites and groups to make these accusations 4) Claim censorship when nobody gives a flying fig 5) Tie it up in a quasi-official-looking report 6) Get Slashdot to run it (Must be cool-aid night at the Zonk household again)
Yes, I exaggerate, but not by much. I'm not sure there's anything remotely interesting in any of this. Not because it isn't exciting -- it's very inflamatory to those who buy-in to this world-view. But it's no more than you could find attending any left-wing political rally and hanging around in the bar afterwards. Got a lefty friend? Spend some time with them and you'll get all of this. It's hardly a secret. It also strikes me as very dishonest to claim censorship on important stories when the world is full of journalists and organizations that would love to break some of these big stories if they were real.
So guys, if you get a _real_ story that is along these lines, by all means grab the byline and run with it. But between reader interest and sourcing, so far you ain't got squat except a lot of whining and exaggerations about censorship.
I think the whole article is flamebait, and I think those commenters who call bullshit on Slashdot are speaking truth to power. Geesh.
It's not about partisan politcs. It's a power grab by a political system that continues to trade money to special interests for votes. Not all spending is bad. Some is. But that's a conversation for a different day.
It's not about email, sales tax, or whatever. It's about having a lot of money floating around on the net, and politicians wanting a piece of the action.
It's not about reason. Yes, taxing email makes no sense. Neither does taxing online sales, which will just move elsewhere or underground. This is the same political setup as DRM -- people will wave their hands around and make great moral arguments about people "paying their fair share" and "making big business pull it's weight" ad infinitum. If you choose to buy this schtick, don't come complaining to me
These things have historical patterns which are instructive. Take a look at the income tax: passed in the early 1900s to pay for WWI. Supposed to only be around a few years. The Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT), passed recenty, supposed to sock it to the rich guys who have too many tax breaks. In each of these cases and dozens more, the bozo-head making the original pitch disappears but the tax never does. Most times it just grows. "Letting the moratorium expire" or "streamlining the tax sysem" is just a way of getting a foot in the door. They know they can't go after your wallet directly, so they're willing to take a decade or two. Like the story of boiling the frog.
This isn't about good people or bad people, or good government or bad government. This is about the natural tendency of the government over the past seventy years to consume more and more resources from the people it is supposed to be protecting. I imagine most of these expenditures are great ideas. The problem is that we can't pay for the crap politicians got elected on twenty years ago, much less the crap they're promising for the upcoming election. Both parties, full of great, smart, ethical people, are stuck in a process that is always looking for more money to pay off special interests. Nobody fixes a problem that isn't immediate and crtical because they get votes for blaming things on the other guys.
It's a losing game. We can try to stop them at this line by trying to pass something like a constitutional ammendment preventing any tax on internet-based economic activity, but this is a thousand-year battle, guys. One which we'll probably lose very quickly while you-all go patting yourself on the back for not buying into the FUD and being so much smarter the the political wonks.
It'll work just like DRM. In the grand scheme, it will push the economy underground where it will be completely unregulated and offshore where people actually appreciate the business. But pay attention: soon (within ten years) we'll be hearing those same old DRM stories spun for sales taxes. Granny makes rugs in basement and goes to jail for failing to file. Big companies setting up offshore pulling american dollars for the same stuff that used to happen here. More politicians will appear on TV yelling at the other side for getting us into this mess, and promising to fix it (either by law and order or by relaxing the law). Nothing will happen, though, because this will become yet another issue that can be used to stir up support for an election. Fixing the problem would be like throwing cold water on the base, so it ain't gonna happen.
You're telling me. I've got a family to raise. After 2 years of self-study calculus in college with a 4.0, I'm just glad I got out of that math racket before I ended up so smart in one area I didn't have any sense in others. Thank goodness for that. Almost ended up some wonk with a high-priced political indoctrination and zero practical experience.
Although I welcome education in complex systems from our new masters. Whatever the masters think is necessary. As soon as I get the hand salute working, I plan on getting rid of all of my science books and buy a shiny new Al Gore poster and an electric car. I can't wait to hear more about much danger we are in and how we can fight back against the former bad, amoral, corporate overlords.
I, for one, welcome our new scientist myth-debunking overlords.
I enjoy my re-education and only wish to serve the greater good of mankind, as defined by those who know more than I do.
I reject calls for understanding that science is about observation, theory, and reproducible results. Instead, I whole-heartedly accept that science is about consensus, caring for others, and saving the planet. As a computer expert, I give up my knowledge that computer models are almost pointless when dealing with ten-thousand variable systems and accept that scientists know what is important and what is not.I reject my selfish way of wanting to keep my rich lifestle. I understand that sacrifices must be made, mostly by me, in order for the poor to survive. I gladly give up my wealth to those central managers who will take my resources and apply them where they make the most scientific sense.
Gosh. I feel so much better! This was a lot more fun than surrendering to the last overlords. Now that I've joined, do I get a brown uniform and a cool set of black leather boots? Is there a cool hand salute or anything?
Apologies if I appear cynical in any fashion. I am sure some more re-education will fix me right up. We unwashed masses are in constant need of education.
I feel a great disturbance in the force, as if millions of nerds cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced by George Lucas.
You can't get my dollars, Lucas, if you make more schlock from that Star Wars machine I'll become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
That's no moon, that's no space station, that's a self-aggregating collection of all the Star Wars merchandise. Great Scott, man, it's enough to destroy an entire planet!
After this article, I'm starting to get the hang of it. Like just now, I have invented an invisible miniature nuclear reactor. It also takes up no space. I plan on using my new invisible reactor to power my next invention, the invisible flashlight! It shoots an invisible beam of light over 50 miles through any kind of weather.
I guess I can use that to find Wonder Woman's invisible airplane when it gets lost. Man, I'm telling ya, this invisible stuff is going to be the wave of the future!
How Come these Magic Numbers are so Big?
on
Censoring a Number
·
· Score: 1
How come these magic numbers are so honking big? What? Seven was taken?
Back in MY day, kids, when we made a magic number we made it simple! Like 5! Nowadays young folks getting all fancy with hexidecimal and such, first thing you know, they're sticking these hexo deci whatchacallits into the DVD players. Dang vermin! When we wanted to watch a movie, there was only one magic number, six! That's how many beers came in the six pack you took to the drive in. If we wanted another magic number, guess what? We just made it up!
And we didn't get into a bunch of silly fights with lawyers over magic numbers neither. Aren't the lawyers making enough already? What, now we got record companies paying lawyers to sue people over magic numbers? You didn't see lawyers in my day suing over numbers. In my day, a good lawyer would only sue you if you ran over somebody. The world's going to pot, I tellya.
Just suppose, for a minute, that she lied about something else -- say her age.
Would we still be having this conversation?
How about her religion? Her High School?
Maybe her kids, or her criminal history. Is it still so serious? Would it be okay if, as a kid, she had robbed a store and never reported it?
To make the argument that she is a fraud, you are saying that her fake college history was the single most important thing that defined her, that defined what it takes to run an admissions office. I simply don't believe that. She's not a fraud, she's a person who showed how stupid the college degree requirement was in the first place. If you want to punish her for lying, fine. But don't cover your head and miss the thing that's glaring in your face -- her lying is such an academic crime exactly because it's about something that is not important. Something that has no impact on job performance, but puts the standards and values of the college up for closer inspection than they would like. Talk about the nameless people she cheated out of a job. What about all the other people who could have done just as well in many other college jobs that were discriminated because they lacked degrees? Who is really cheating whom here?
We all know she lied. The question is whether the punishment fits the crime.
It does not, by any measurement. MIT should care more about having the best admissions office in the world, not the petty failure of one of its officers 30 years ago.
In the _real_ world, you perform well, you get rewarded. College degrees are useful, just like technical certifications, as a way of introducing yourself. A degree means you were able to memorize certain facts that were deemed relevant and play whatever game your teachers set up for you. Smart people, whether in a college environment or not, get absorbed and make a difference in the world. For some stuff, like nuclear physics, you can't get absorbed by hanging out at the local 7-11. For most day-to-day stuff, however, you need to be connected to reality as much as theory. That's not saying theory isn't important, just that those folks who change our lives the most are the folks that are able to connect information from all over the place to the common guy. Higher education has gotten so compartmentalized that it's really tough for academics to do this. Don't get me wrong -- I love the theory wonks, and we absolutely must have an ability to reason at the abstract level that a university education gives most people. It's just that context is important.
Given that preface, I'm puzzled at MIT's response. Obviously this lady lied -- so fine her. Make her make a public apology. It seems, however, that her lie cuts to the core of the value of certificates of education: do they really reflect practical, real-world values to the organization and society? Or are they laudable records of achievement which do not directly correlate with future value to society? If MIT allowed her to keep her job, they would be admitting that there are very important jobs at the university that really don't require a college degree. This is obviously too much for them, so they'll trot out the honesty thing. As if lying on a resume 30 years ago is the same as knocking over a liquor store. It is painfully clear that a) a degree was not required to perform a high-level administrative role at the college, and b) the lady, by any measurements, was doing a great job.
First off, aren't the scientists going to feel pretty silly if it turns out they should have stayed closer to old Einstein all along. I'd pay good money to see Brian Greene stand up at a conference and say (in church lady voice) "String theory? Never Mind"
Secondly, this means, of course, that we're all going to need new watches. Extrapolating on our current design, the new clocks will be truly 3-dimensional, consisting of 6 wildly flailing hands poking out from a central point. We'll have the big hand, the little hand, the second hand, the other big hand, the other little hand, and the other second hand.
Kid are going to love that! "Johnny, what time is it?" "Looks like half past a quarter till 3PM after 7AM Teacher"
And when you ask a physicist what time it is, be prepared for a 10-minute response involving matrices and vectors. Actually, I gave up asking physcists what time it was long ago for this very reason. So maybe nothing much will change at all.
I meant to recap only one side. Sorry I was not clear about that. Also sorry about forgetting to check that stupid "Plain Old Text" box. I know what a paragraph is. Really.
I agree that the decision to act is more important than the tool. I would make the argument, however, that a nanny-state society that takes freedom away from citizens is one where citizens are less likely to take their own life into their own hands in situations like this.
Play back the same crime in a different sociological group, say a group of kids at West Point. Or a group of business people on an airline flight. Would the result have been the same? We'll never know, but my intuition is that it would not.
I know this post is old, so there's little chance of people reading this, but somebody needs to recap the gun argument. It's gotten short-changed.
First, for those who say "It's too early to use this tragedy for political purposes" I call bullshit. For any other political purpose -- violence in games, the Iraq war, boxers or briefs -- yes, you are correct. But all of us (and I speak as someone who lives close to VT) can put ourselves in those student's shoes. We can imagine being hunted down and killed while we wept, shaking against a wall. This emotional feeling, this empathy, is _exactly_ what is required to understand the gun argument. If we wait 'till later it will be too late.
I don't own a gun. To me, they're a good way to hurt people accidentally. But I undertsand that the purpose of gun ownership is to empower the citizen. It's not crime control, it's not to prevent the evil overlord from conquering the world. Guns are about freedom and personal power, and they represent everything that is right with the United States. In this country we proudly give people the power to hurt themselves and others. We drive cars, we fly our own airplanes, we skydive, we smoke, we own guns, and we eat cheeseburgers. We give these freedoms freely, understanding that, yes, people are stupid and citizens will misuse them and some harm will occur. We do NOT weigh the deaths that would occur one way or another in some sort of better-than-you morality equation to take our freedoms away. The greater good is served by the productive chaos of people having greater personal powers. That's the theory of our government.
Yes. If we had a prison society there would be less crime. But if we had a prison society our society would be about as useless as some of those old European countries that we left to begin with. We left them because -- they took away too many freedoms. How quickly people forget.
The reason that today is exactly the right time to have this discussion is that just like you, I would want a gun if I were one of those kids. I might hurt somebody innocent. I might run like a frightened child (most likely). All sorts of bad things _might_ happen. But I know that if I were going to die, I would want the personal power to stop that from happening. Looking at our constitution and our wars for freedom, we should be absolutely ashamed that we would sit idly by with our thumbs stuck in our mouths while we take that power from folks and then say something to the effect of, "well, people are stupid, so we know we can't give them dangerous things. They'll just hurt each other."
Such paternalistic balderdash! It's a load of tripe that can't pass the real test -- how the commenter would _really_ feel if they were in those kidss' shoes. That's why the gun argument, of all arguments, is the one that is most appropriate for today.
It's not enough that we have jobs where we sit down all of the time, now we have a computer that's also a deep-fryer.
Or, if they use motor oil, will Penzoil and other oil companies start running TV ads? "I couldn't play DOOM 6 until I switch to 10W-40 ultra. Now I kick butt"
Maybe the computers can start coming with chrome valve covers.
Slashdot Mirror
As a libertarian (e-gads! Can it be true?) I've really enjoyed all the responses to my original post.
Let's recap:
Tony says "the bills signed into law determine what is "legal" and "illegal." -- No Tony, they do not. The bills signed into law determine what the law is. Whether any one act is legal or illegal is dependant on the other branch of government: the courts.
thoelin says "So, if you're a big GB fan, why don't you just admit it?" -- I'm a libertarian. Registered independent. Voted for folks from all parties. Thanks for the ad hominem attack, though. You can go play with your toys some more now.
Abcd1234 says "the *law*, dipshit. You know, those things that congress and the senate pass" -- please see earlier answer.
Rezjac -- "might paralell a soldier's responsibility to not execute an illegal order" -- good analogy, which, as I recall, involves the soldier being court-martialed if he/she is incorrect. Show me an equal situation in this case.
Sloppy -- award for best post. Yes, there are some tricky wickets here. If you can explain how ANY secret program could work where people just get to play judge and jury on their own, I'll gladly take another tact. But it can't be allright for this guy, and somehow bad for the Rosenbergs (who gave away the atomic secrets to the Russians). You can't have it both ways.
Look at it this way: the reason it's a secret program (whatever it is) is because it's politically dangerous for the people in power and for the country if it was leaked. If LBJ ran ops into Laos and denied it, not only was it for the national interest, LBJ was also playing CYA. If we didn't give up the nuclear secrets in the 40s, not only was it good for us, but it gave us a big stick to use in international politics.
Now I can't separate the part where the politician is CYA from the part where it is in the national interest. Perhaps you can. But I can tell you that all of these "decisions of conscience" might not look so noble in ten years time. Maybe they will. Even if you WERE somehow gifted with the ability to determine for the rest of us what was legal, what should be one way or another, who gave you the right to do so? At least we elected the joker at 1600 PA Avenue. Joe sixpack at the FBI seems to want to take on the power but none of the responsibility. I got a problem with that -- even if on the larger case I agree with the civil liberties problems.
Okay.
/. Bush and his cronies are all fascists, keeping a war alive in order to keep up oppression, yadda, yadda, yadda.
I understand that, of late, the game is rigged on
But I honestly wonder how much of this response is based on what we think of as being "right". This guy was right because he exposed an "illegal" program. He narked on a program we don't like, therefore he is a hero.
But who is to determine what an illegal program is? Should each federal employee sworn to secrecy decide on his own whether something is legal or illegal?
I can hear the "heck yeah!" calls right now. You will say it was obvious that it was illegal. He had a moral duty to leak.
The problem with these moral arguments is that one can always take another tack -- perhaps it was legal. Or rather, perhaps it was illegal, but known to all branches of the government, which was working to make it legal. Or perhaps it was legal all along. The way we figure out whether something is legal or not is we have a charge, we have a trial, and we have a verdict.
If the employee sued the government for illegal acts (using the FISA court), then I would agree he was acting on his morals. But to hide behind anonymity, make his own decision for the entire country, and then claim to he a hero? Heck no. I will not condone such actions, EVEN if they are for a greater good. If we can't keep secrets, we're screwed. End of story. I'd rather have illegal acts by a country that has dedicated public servants, than each servant deciding on his own whether he likes a program or not.
This is the problem with the highly-charged partisan BS we have going on. It's not just that Bush had a program, it's that it was BUSH. Heck -- he's like the devil or something. We must stop him before he gets to the children! In an atmosphere like that, each side plays to the public servants to do the "moral" thing. The system just won't work like that, guys. We got a lot more problems than one president or program going on here.
Does anybody know how great this force is? I mean, say with one-meter-square plates, each suspended above each other, how much force would be required to push the two plates together? If the answer is two pounds (er, kilograms) then that's one thing, but if it's thousand hogsheads, that's a whole nother thing entirely.
Seems like you could build a nano/macro motor out of both the regular casmir and the anit-casmir materials. Somehow I smell perpetual motion in there somewhere.
Okay, if space exploration is a non zero-sum game, then what's the sum?
Seven? 42? Come on! Don't leave us hanging like that!
Seriously. We need cheap cost-to-orbit. After that, there's no "sum" in the game. As long as shooting a box into orbit costs as much as a new office building, there might be something to fight about. Make it 1/100 of the cost (using space elevators, mass drivers for non-human loads, or blimps-to-orbit) then who cares so much any more? Pay to reduce costs for everyone, skip the missions, and the rest will take care of itself.
The war on terror is a political war involving violence, not a shoot-em-up war involving armies (although they might be useful) It's the result of a small number of crazy people being able to control large populations through the use of stealth and violence. Because it's a political war, it gets more money than other stuff. Same reason AIDS research in the U.S. gets more money than heart disease, even though heart disease kills a lot more people. Politicians are supposed to make political threats go away. That's the way it's supposed to work. I now return you to your evening.
It seems the normal way of business here any more is to have some politically-charged headline, then all the commenters take their partisan sides and go at it.
As a libertarian, I've found both parties very willing to sell individual freedoms away. Aside from the war, which is so charged to prevent rational discourse, the Republicans were eager to sell out bankruptcy protections. The DMCA was passed by a unanimous vote in the Senate and signed by Clinton.
So for all you fanboys and fangirls, it's not related to political parties, at least not where I can see. I guess when your ATM is Hollywood, you're probably going to pander to Hollywood more and if your ATM is banks, the banks get the favors. But in general, to me the game looks rigged and the only interesting thing is the different BS excuses they use each time they take something away. Keeping people under an iron hand of debt collectors was called "promoting personal responsibility", as if eliminating risk from the creditors business plans was merely an afterthought. Reid's new idea sounds like it's out to "stop theft in publicly funded universities"
All the BS sounds good. And if it's your party, and your guy, usually you'll find some way to forgive him and/or rationalize it was the best thing to do. We have long memories for bad stuff the other guys do, but short ones for our own guys. That's a shame, really. Keeps people from ever learning anything.
Heck yeah!
I completely agree with you!
No wait -- not really.
Slashdot. What has become of you?
Of course before they use this they'll have to warn the crowd.
"Don't try anything funny, or you'll be laughing for sure"
Let's see, the Islamic terrorists are working on shemical and nuclear weapons and we're working on -- ways to make them laugh and become gay? What then, are they supposed to want to stop fighting and start redecorating their houses?
Try as I might, I just can't see John Wayne hosing down a group with a bunch of funny bullets.
"Stop right there, partner, or I'm going to make you laugh like you've never laughed before."
I know it's common practice here for the moderators to pimp up the story, and the crowd tear it apart bit-by-bit. I guess something about thinking that you're smart leads people to be overly critical, but I digress.
I found the article interesting in that it was an insight into a world I really just don't have time to study -- tweeny and college-kid social sites. It does appear from the anecdotes that the sites are experiencing some kind of market segmentation, but I found the writer limited by her own concepts of what the market segments should be.
So instead of analysis we kind of meander around, with her explaining her observations and fears and how all muddled it probably is and what a poor job she is going to do imposing a class structure onto American society. The reason this is true is somewhat obvious -- there are real market-led forces at work here. FaceBook has an image of being for older, better-off kids, partly because of it's roots as a college application. MySpace is more pedestrian.
And that's why the piece falls apart: the writer simply does not have the appropriate tools to be talking about her subject. Market segmentation is a mature field, and you could draw all sorts of parallels and lessons-learned. Instead, she seems (to me) to be mired into psycho-babble and fuzzy-headed sweeping generalizations about our society which are ill-supported.
I did find it very interesting, though.
I'll be kind and simply observe that the list is somewhat subjective.
To be more direct, it looks like a simple process:
1) Mix words 9-11, Cheney, Halliburton, Iraq, Oil, GM, etc randomly with plot, conspiracy, oppresses, torture, poison.
2) Make a list of these statements
3) Go find various left-wing web sites and groups to make these accusations
4) Claim censorship when nobody gives a flying fig
5) Tie it up in a quasi-official-looking report
6) Get Slashdot to run it (Must be cool-aid night at the Zonk household again)
Yes, I exaggerate, but not by much. I'm not sure there's anything remotely interesting in any of this. Not because it isn't exciting -- it's very inflamatory to those who buy-in to this world-view. But it's no more than you could find attending any left-wing political rally and hanging around in the bar afterwards. Got a lefty friend? Spend some time with them and you'll get all of this. It's hardly a secret. It also strikes me as very dishonest to claim censorship on important stories when the world is full of journalists and organizations that would love to break some of these big stories if they were real.
So guys, if you get a _real_ story that is along these lines, by all means grab the byline and run with it. But between reader interest and sourcing, so far you ain't got squat except a lot of whining and exaggerations about censorship.
I think the whole article is flamebait, and I think those commenters who call bullshit on Slashdot are speaking truth to power. Geesh.
Let's cut to the chase:
You're telling me. I've got a family to raise. After 2 years of self-study calculus in college with a 4.0, I'm just glad I got out of that math racket before I ended up so smart in one area I didn't have any sense in others. Thank goodness for that. Almost ended up some wonk with a high-priced political indoctrination and zero practical experience.
Although I welcome education in complex systems from our new masters. Whatever the masters think is necessary. As soon as I get the hand salute working, I plan on getting rid of all of my science books and buy a shiny new Al Gore poster and an electric car. I can't wait to hear more about much danger we are in and how we can fight back against the former bad, amoral, corporate overlords.
I, for one, welcome our new scientist myth-debunking overlords.
I enjoy my re-education and only wish to serve the greater good of mankind, as defined by those who know more than I do.
I reject calls for understanding that science is about observation, theory, and reproducible results. Instead, I whole-heartedly accept that science is about consensus, caring for others, and saving the planet. As a computer expert, I give up my knowledge that computer models are almost pointless when dealing with ten-thousand variable systems and accept that scientists know what is important and what is not.I reject my selfish way of wanting to keep my rich lifestle. I understand that sacrifices must be made, mostly by me, in order for the poor to survive. I gladly give up my wealth to those central managers who will take my resources and apply them where they make the most scientific sense.
Gosh. I feel so much better! This was a lot more fun than surrendering to the last overlords. Now that I've joined, do I get a brown uniform and a cool set of black leather boots? Is there a cool hand salute or anything?
Apologies if I appear cynical in any fashion. I am sure some more re-education will fix me right up. We unwashed masses are in constant need of education.
I feel a great disturbance in the force, as if millions of nerds cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced by George Lucas.
You can't get my dollars, Lucas, if you make more schlock from that Star Wars machine I'll become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
That's no moon, that's no space station, that's a self-aggregating collection of all the Star Wars merchandise. Great Scott, man, it's enough to destroy an entire planet!
Invisible technology!
After this article, I'm starting to get the hang of it. Like just now, I have invented an invisible miniature nuclear reactor. It also takes up no space. I plan on using my new invisible reactor to power my next invention, the invisible flashlight! It shoots an invisible beam of light over 50 miles through any kind of weather.
I guess I can use that to find Wonder Woman's invisible airplane when it gets lost. Man, I'm telling ya, this invisible stuff is going to be the wave of the future!
How come these magic numbers are so honking big? What? Seven was taken?
Back in MY day, kids, when we made a magic number we made it simple! Like 5! Nowadays young folks getting all fancy with hexidecimal and such, first thing you know, they're sticking these hexo deci whatchacallits into the DVD players. Dang vermin! When we wanted to watch a movie, there was only one magic number, six! That's how many beers came in the six pack you took to the drive in. If we wanted another magic number, guess what? We just made it up!
And we didn't get into a bunch of silly fights with lawyers over magic numbers neither. Aren't the lawyers making enough already? What, now we got record companies paying lawyers to sue people over magic numbers? You didn't see lawyers in my day suing over numbers. In my day, a good lawyer would only sue you if you ran over somebody. The world's going to pot, I tellya.
Let's play a little game.
Just suppose, for a minute, that she lied about something else -- say her age.
Would we still be having this conversation?
How about her religion? Her High School?
Maybe her kids, or her criminal history. Is it still so serious? Would it be okay if, as a kid, she had robbed a store and never reported it?
To make the argument that she is a fraud, you are saying that her fake college history was the single most important thing that defined her, that defined what it takes to run an admissions office. I simply don't believe that. She's not a fraud, she's a person who showed how stupid the college degree requirement was in the first place. If you want to punish her for lying, fine. But don't cover your head and miss the thing that's glaring in your face -- her lying is such an academic crime exactly because it's about something that is not important. Something that has no impact on job performance, but puts the standards and values of the college up for closer inspection than they would like. Talk about the nameless people she cheated out of a job. What about all the other people who could have done just as well in many other college jobs that were discriminated because they lacked degrees? Who is really cheating whom here?
We all know she lied. The question is whether the punishment fits the crime.
It does not, by any measurement. MIT should care more about having the best admissions office in the world, not the petty failure of one of its officers 30 years ago.
Values.
In the _real_ world, you perform well, you get rewarded. College degrees are useful, just like technical certifications, as a way of introducing yourself. A degree means you were able to memorize certain facts that were deemed relevant and play whatever game your teachers set up for you. Smart people, whether in a college environment or not, get absorbed and make a difference in the world. For some stuff, like nuclear physics, you can't get absorbed by hanging out at the local 7-11. For most day-to-day stuff, however, you need to be connected to reality as much as theory. That's not saying theory isn't important, just that those folks who change our lives the most are the folks that are able to connect information from all over the place to the common guy. Higher education has gotten so compartmentalized that it's really tough for academics to do this. Don't get me wrong -- I love the theory wonks, and we absolutely must have an ability to reason at the abstract level that a university education gives most people. It's just that context is important.
Given that preface, I'm puzzled at MIT's response. Obviously this lady lied -- so fine her. Make her make a public apology. It seems, however, that her lie cuts to the core of the value of certificates of education: do they really reflect practical, real-world values to the organization and society? Or are they laudable records of achievement which do not directly correlate with future value to society? If MIT allowed her to keep her job, they would be admitting that there are very important jobs at the university that really don't require a college degree. This is obviously too much for them, so they'll trot out the honesty thing. As if lying on a resume 30 years ago is the same as knocking over a liquor store. It is painfully clear that a) a degree was not required to perform a high-level administrative role at the college, and b) the lady, by any measurements, was doing a great job.
MIT needs to get honest with itself.
First off, aren't the scientists going to feel pretty silly if it turns out they should have stayed closer to old Einstein all along. I'd pay good money to see Brian Greene stand up at a conference and say (in church lady voice) "String theory? Never Mind"
Secondly, this means, of course, that we're all going to need new watches. Extrapolating on our current design, the new clocks will be truly 3-dimensional, consisting of 6 wildly flailing hands poking out from a central point. We'll have the big hand, the little hand, the second hand, the other big hand, the other little hand, and the other second hand.
Kid are going to love that! "Johnny, what time is it?" "Looks like half past a quarter till 3PM after 7AM Teacher"
And when you ask a physicist what time it is, be prepared for a 10-minute response involving matrices and vectors. Actually, I gave up asking physcists what time it was long ago for this very reason. So maybe nothing much will change at all.
I meant to recap only one side. Sorry I was not clear about that. Also sorry about forgetting to check that stupid "Plain Old Text" box. I know what a paragraph is. Really.
I agree that the decision to act is more important than the tool. I would make the argument, however, that a nanny-state society that takes freedom away from citizens is one where citizens are less likely to take their own life into their own hands in situations like this.
Play back the same crime in a different sociological group, say a group of kids at West Point. Or a group of business people on an airline flight. Would the result have been the same? We'll never know, but my intuition is that it would not.
I know this post is old, so there's little chance of people reading this, but somebody needs to recap the gun argument. It's gotten short-changed. First, for those who say "It's too early to use this tragedy for political purposes" I call bullshit. For any other political purpose -- violence in games, the Iraq war, boxers or briefs -- yes, you are correct. But all of us (and I speak as someone who lives close to VT) can put ourselves in those student's shoes. We can imagine being hunted down and killed while we wept, shaking against a wall. This emotional feeling, this empathy, is _exactly_ what is required to understand the gun argument. If we wait 'till later it will be too late. I don't own a gun. To me, they're a good way to hurt people accidentally. But I undertsand that the purpose of gun ownership is to empower the citizen. It's not crime control, it's not to prevent the evil overlord from conquering the world. Guns are about freedom and personal power, and they represent everything that is right with the United States. In this country we proudly give people the power to hurt themselves and others. We drive cars, we fly our own airplanes, we skydive, we smoke, we own guns, and we eat cheeseburgers. We give these freedoms freely, understanding that, yes, people are stupid and citizens will misuse them and some harm will occur. We do NOT weigh the deaths that would occur one way or another in some sort of better-than-you morality equation to take our freedoms away. The greater good is served by the productive chaos of people having greater personal powers. That's the theory of our government. Yes. If we had a prison society there would be less crime. But if we had a prison society our society would be about as useless as some of those old European countries that we left to begin with. We left them because -- they took away too many freedoms. How quickly people forget. The reason that today is exactly the right time to have this discussion is that just like you, I would want a gun if I were one of those kids. I might hurt somebody innocent. I might run like a frightened child (most likely). All sorts of bad things _might_ happen. But I know that if I were going to die, I would want the personal power to stop that from happening. Looking at our constitution and our wars for freedom, we should be absolutely ashamed that we would sit idly by with our thumbs stuck in our mouths while we take that power from folks and then say something to the effect of, "well, people are stupid, so we know we can't give them dangerous things. They'll just hurt each other." Such paternalistic balderdash! It's a load of tripe that can't pass the real test -- how the commenter would _really_ feel if they were in those kidss' shoes. That's why the gun argument, of all arguments, is the one that is most appropriate for today.
It's not enough that we have jobs where we sit down all of the time, now we have a computer that's also a deep-fryer.
Or, if they use motor oil, will Penzoil and other oil companies start running TV ads? "I couldn't play DOOM 6 until I switch to 10W-40 ultra. Now I kick butt"
Maybe the computers can start coming with chrome valve covers.
You think it's tough getting tech support now? Wait until field-patchable hardware hits the market.
Can't read the screen? First you call the O/S manufacturer, then you call the video card guys, then you call the RISC chips guys, and so on.
That'll be loads of fun.