Reading through the article, I can't find an actual argument against E-Voting. She claims that too many people involved in the companies have ties to "conservative political groups". So what? CEOs of many companies have ties to political groups, both right and left. Just because someone is connected to the Cato Institute or the Christian Coalition doesn't mean they can't develop a decent product. And nearly everyone out there working the polls is politically active, meaning that they are generally either tied to conservatives or liberals. And nowadays massive fraud is relatively rare, not counting old people who aren't strong enough to punch holes in cards.
It seems all she can do is bash other people personally. It mentions that she even trashed Bob Woodward on her website because he didn't return her calls. That might qualify her for psycho-chick of the year, but it won't convince me to oppose e-voting.
Eco-terrorism isn't a new phrase, even today the FBI takes it seriously. Groups like ALF and ELF are especially bad. A couple of weeks ago there was even a of terror alert set because the FBI suspecting ELF of planning a string of attacks (it started after they set a fire to a lumberyard to protest that their forklifts pollute too much. By that logic, what ELF property should I burn down to protest that their fires pollute too much?). They don't get too much attention because they don't target human beings (although there was a scary quote from a big shot in PETA that basically said terror attacks that did target humans would be acceptable), though that doesn't mean they aren't dangerous. When they burn down a drug research company, think of all the people who will die because drug research was set back a few years. And its only a matter of time before some innocent security guard gets trapped in one of those fires.
If you and sufficiently many other people feel that way, pool your money together and raise a "Save the Hubble fund". NASA has already budgeted away their taxpayer funds for other projects which they deem more worthy, but if you voluntarily give them a billion bucks for the purpose of keeping the Hubble in orbit for a few more years, I'm sure they won't object.
"Although its used in openoffice and jedit, no other java programs I use regularly spring to mind (unless they're masquerading as something else)."
Well if we are limiting this discussion to desktop applications (which is not always Java's forte), eclipse and netbeans come to mind (though they are primarily used by Java developers).
You do have to keep in mind Java is still somewhat new, so of course most of the 'base' programs are done in C. That doesn't mean people aren't using Java, it means they are not re-writing all the old stuff that was done in C (I don't think there are any plans with replacing vi with a Java clone anytime soon). I can tell you I do some development on Linux with Java.
Lets see now, professional astronomers who have an inherent interest in a large telescope which gives their profession great PR, or NASA officials in charge of the project and who understand that the government has limited resources which means limited budgets which means they can't have unlimited funding for every project under the sky (or, in this case, in the sky). Which should we trust with an objective analysis?
Your inability to grasp the reality of the situation, that it is impossible for every project to recieve unlimited funding, is just scary. In an ideal world, yes we would keep Hubble up there. In an ideal world, we would have a dozen telescopes up there. But as most of us know, this is not an ideal world.
Once again, you are only looking at one side of the equation. For every project there is a cost. Those costs must be balanced against each other and only then can you say you have made an objective analysis of the situation. NASA looked at those costs and decided there are other projects with more value than keeping up an old telescope. You can second guess as long as you want, but just realize you are not looking at it in the objective fashion that would be required in order for your opinion to carry any weight at all.
If they have decent Internet access, I would suggest loading it up with Internet software (mozilla, an email program, etc.). After all there is more to the Internet than porn and the Drudge Report. There are many educational sites out there that kids will get a lot out of, plus they don't always require the latest hardware to work. Hell some of them may show up on slashdot.
"Arguable. People can use more than one kind of radio, televsion, car, etc, etc. People now cope with more than one kind of game console."
Yeah but those are much simpler interfaces. Computer perform many more functions and thus their interfaces tend to be much more complicated that shifting gears, pushing in a pedal, and turning on and off the AC.
"As for integration; a browser SHOULD NOT be integrated into the OS, aside from that, whatever happens under the hood (which is important, the impossible uninstall problem) as far as grandma is concerned she clicks on an icon (IE, Opera, Firefox, etc) and up comes the browser. Same with an email link if she wants to send money to Nigeria. The problem now is that in some cases, no matter what preferences you have, IE still pops up."
No argument here, but you will find one from some people. I can tell you from personal experience, my mother (and here I am talking about a specific person, not a general class) doesn't consider Internet Explorer a seperate program. She just considers it part of the computer. I tried explaining to her what web browsers are and she just got confused.
Look, I'm not trying to convince you Windows is a better operating system than Linux or Mac, I know for a fact that it is not. What I am trying to say is that it has its niche. And even if it doesn't, doesn't MS have a right to design an inferior operating system? If it is truly shown to be bad, and if there are sufficient alternatives (currently Linux is no good and Mac requires new hardware), people will be free to choose something different. They don't need Janet Reno or John Ashcroft to tell them how to use their computers.
"Do you think it is just a coincidence that you have your facts wrong and also disagree with those people who have the correct facts."
By "people who have the correct facts" do you mean NASA, the ones planning to stop funding the Hubble? Its their project, surely they know more about it than some geek who read an article in a magazine.
"1) what exactly is the benefit to me for the government letting a multi-billion dollar investment fall into the ocean?"
We knew when we first sent it up there that it wouldn't last forver. It was generally expected to last 15 years, which would mean it has lived its lifespan. You can debate all you want whether or not it was worth billions of dollars to work on something that was destined to live 15 years, but its too late to change anything. That money is spent.
So I'm only allowed to ask questions that have already been answered? Dumbass.
I was probing his claim that he finds the Hubble more interesting than other potential space telescopes to determine whether or not he thought that alone justified spending hundreds of millions of dollars and potentially more human lives on the project, and I got my answer.
Honestly, yes. I think there are much better uses of that money. However, influential figures in the government believe that money is better spent studying the formation of the universe than curing cancer and I'll let them have their way once in a while. That does not mean I think they should have an infinite budget to study every science project someone thinks up. They have to work with limited resources like everyone else.
Ok, get out your checkbook. Make out a check for $500,000,000 payable to The National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Personally I think we would be better of had you instead spent that money on cancer research or building schools in third world countries, but you are free to spend (waste) your money on whatever you want.
" He is saying as an astronomer that Hubble is worthwhile for science. "
Saying it can see things that other telescopes cannot is far from being "worthwhile", especially with a half billion price tag.
"You are bitching about money. "
Guess what? Money is important.
"You said Hubble was outdated, he proved you wrong in pointing out some technologically advanced aspects of the telescope."
Thats far from saying the whole thing isn't outdated. It was designed 30 years ago and made to last 15 years, huge advancements have been made then.
"He pointed out that other telescopes can't do the work of Hubble, and it isn't even close. "
There are a nearly infinite number of possible research areas we can look at. Guess what? We can't fund them all. Instead we have to pick and choose which to fund and which to drop. Thats life, get used to it. Whining whenever funding stops for one little program that in reality has very little benefit for humanity (compare looking at distant stars to decoding the genome or curing cancer) is not a good way to go through life.
"How are you supposed to orbit a massive telescope in space for free?"
We can't. Thus we have to drop the program in favor of other programs.
Here is the problem. I think I said this exact same thing in my last post. You are only looking at the potential benefits of Hubble. Those need to be compared to the costs. Your failure to do so only shows you to be a little closed-minded person.
It almost surely would be, in order to achieve the consistency part. You get some long time Windows user on a machine with KDE and see how long it takes before some minor difference between the two starts bugging them. The existence of a "standard" operating system actually does help many people who otherwise would never touch a computer.
"Unbundling IE doesn't mean that Grandma (we've moved a step back from your mother, I see) has to install one herself..."
Thing is, it goes beyond just having to install a new browser. Grandma (or my mother, I'm not intending to appeal to an actual person but rather to a class of people) has an easier time using a computer if it all is integrated into one product, not as a collection of different products which can be confusing. Personally I don't like that, but then again I don't use Windows.
And with today's Internet, the idea that it is too hard to aquire a new browser if someone really wants one is sort of dead. Those who would enjoy the choice of different browsers can easily find themselves alternatives and download them in seconds. The issue is with the rest of the population.
So you are saying that the small area that the Hubble allows you to study that cannot be covered by the JWST and ground based telescopes utilizing adaptive optics is worth the half billion dollars and potential risk to keep it up there for a few more years? Ok then, get out your checkbook.
I did not say that either the James Webb telescope or ground based telescopes will serve every function the Hubble currently does, merely that there are better uses of tax dollars than funding shuttle missions out to the Hubble every couple of years.
If keeping the Hubble active didn't cost a dime, then I would be all for it. Go ahead and keep that thing in orbit until it breaks down. But that is not the case. There are more things to consider than just the benefits of the Hubble, there are also numerous costs.
Point taken, though most of the interest in the Hubble comes from the pretty pictures it gives us using the visible portion of the spectrum. No one cares about the other stuff, hence why the proposed Webb scope isn't that popular with the public.
Slashdot Mirror
Do alternate voting systems have tamper-proof paper trails?
Fine, upgrade to 4.0. That is a jump of 1996 versions. Point still stands.
It seems all she can do is bash other people personally. It mentions that she even trashed Bob Woodward on her website because he didn't return her calls. That might qualify her for psycho-chick of the year, but it won't convince me to oppose e-voting.
ELF is a spinoff group of ALF. Regardless, ELF is guilty of some dangerous acts themselves. Fires don't just destroy buildings you know.
Tell that to the dying kid whose cancer could have been cured had those morons not burned down the drug lab.
Eco-terrorism isn't a new phrase, even today the FBI takes it seriously. Groups like ALF and ELF are especially bad. A couple of weeks ago there was even a of terror alert set because the FBI suspecting ELF of planning a string of attacks (it started after they set a fire to a lumberyard to protest that their forklifts pollute too much. By that logic, what ELF property should I burn down to protest that their fires pollute too much?). They don't get too much attention because they don't target human beings (although there was a scary quote from a big shot in PETA that basically said terror attacks that did target humans would be acceptable), though that doesn't mean they aren't dangerous. When they burn down a drug research company, think of all the people who will die because drug research was set back a few years. And its only a matter of time before some innocent security guard gets trapped in one of those fires.
Don't apply logic to what those people do. As a general rule, they aren't that smart.
I find that unlikely considering how then calling W2k an upgrade to NT 5.0 would make for an even larger jump, 1995 versions to be exact.
MS doesn't have a history of using consistent names for their products. I really hope someone in marketing lost their job for that.
Windows 2000 is not the upgrade to Windows 98, its the upgrade to NT 4.0. Windows ME was the upgrade to 98.
If you and sufficiently many other people feel that way, pool your money together and raise a "Save the Hubble fund". NASA has already budgeted away their taxpayer funds for other projects which they deem more worthy, but if you voluntarily give them a billion bucks for the purpose of keeping the Hubble in orbit for a few more years, I'm sure they won't object.
Well if we are limiting this discussion to desktop applications (which is not always Java's forte), eclipse and netbeans come to mind (though they are primarily used by Java developers).
You do have to keep in mind Java is still somewhat new, so of course most of the 'base' programs are done in C. That doesn't mean people aren't using Java, it means they are not re-writing all the old stuff that was done in C (I don't think there are any plans with replacing vi with a Java clone anytime soon). I can tell you I do some development on Linux with Java.
Your inability to grasp the reality of the situation, that it is impossible for every project to recieve unlimited funding, is just scary. In an ideal world, yes we would keep Hubble up there. In an ideal world, we would have a dozen telescopes up there. But as most of us know, this is not an ideal world.
Once again, you are only looking at one side of the equation. For every project there is a cost. Those costs must be balanced against each other and only then can you say you have made an objective analysis of the situation. NASA looked at those costs and decided there are other projects with more value than keeping up an old telescope. You can second guess as long as you want, but just realize you are not looking at it in the objective fashion that would be required in order for your opinion to carry any weight at all.
If they have decent Internet access, I would suggest loading it up with Internet software (mozilla, an email program, etc.). After all there is more to the Internet than porn and the Drudge Report. There are many educational sites out there that kids will get a lot out of, plus they don't always require the latest hardware to work. Hell some of them may show up on slashdot.
Yeah but those are much simpler interfaces. Computer perform many more functions and thus their interfaces tend to be much more complicated that shifting gears, pushing in a pedal, and turning on and off the AC.
"As for integration; a browser SHOULD NOT be integrated into the OS, aside from that, whatever happens under the hood (which is important, the impossible uninstall problem) as far as grandma is concerned she clicks on an icon (IE, Opera, Firefox, etc) and up comes the browser. Same with an email link if she wants to send money to Nigeria. The problem now is that in some cases, no matter what preferences you have, IE still pops up."
No argument here, but you will find one from some people. I can tell you from personal experience, my mother (and here I am talking about a specific person, not a general class) doesn't consider Internet Explorer a seperate program. She just considers it part of the computer. I tried explaining to her what web browsers are and she just got confused.
Look, I'm not trying to convince you Windows is a better operating system than Linux or Mac, I know for a fact that it is not. What I am trying to say is that it has its niche. And even if it doesn't, doesn't MS have a right to design an inferior operating system? If it is truly shown to be bad, and if there are sufficient alternatives (currently Linux is no good and Mac requires new hardware), people will be free to choose something different. They don't need Janet Reno or John Ashcroft to tell them how to use their computers.
By "people who have the correct facts" do you mean NASA, the ones planning to stop funding the Hubble? Its their project, surely they know more about it than some geek who read an article in a magazine.
We knew when we first sent it up there that it wouldn't last forver. It was generally expected to last 15 years, which would mean it has lived its lifespan. You can debate all you want whether or not it was worth billions of dollars to work on something that was destined to live 15 years, but its too late to change anything. That money is spent.
Can you honestly not comprehend the benefits of limited budgets for government programs?
I was probing his claim that he finds the Hubble more interesting than other potential space telescopes to determine whether or not he thought that alone justified spending hundreds of millions of dollars and potentially more human lives on the project, and I got my answer.
Honestly, yes. I think there are much better uses of that money. However, influential figures in the government believe that money is better spent studying the formation of the universe than curing cancer and I'll let them have their way once in a while. That does not mean I think they should have an infinite budget to study every science project someone thinks up. They have to work with limited resources like everyone else.
Personally I think we would be better of had you instead spent that money on cancer research or building schools in third world countries, but you are free to spend (waste) your money on whatever you want.
Saying it can see things that other telescopes cannot is far from being "worthwhile", especially with a half billion price tag.
"You are bitching about money. "
Guess what? Money is important.
"You said Hubble was outdated, he proved you wrong in pointing out some technologically advanced aspects of the telescope."
Thats far from saying the whole thing isn't outdated. It was designed 30 years ago and made to last 15 years, huge advancements have been made then.
"He pointed out that other telescopes can't do the work of Hubble, and it isn't even close. "
There are a nearly infinite number of possible research areas we can look at. Guess what? We can't fund them all. Instead we have to pick and choose which to fund and which to drop. Thats life, get used to it. Whining whenever funding stops for one little program that in reality has very little benefit for humanity (compare looking at distant stars to decoding the genome or curing cancer) is not a good way to go through life.
"How are you supposed to orbit a massive telescope in space for free?" We can't. Thus we have to drop the program in favor of other programs.
Here is the problem. I think I said this exact same thing in my last post. You are only looking at the potential benefits of Hubble. Those need to be compared to the costs. Your failure to do so only shows you to be a little closed-minded person.
It almost surely would be, in order to achieve the consistency part. You get some long time Windows user on a machine with KDE and see how long it takes before some minor difference between the two starts bugging them. The existence of a "standard" operating system actually does help many people who otherwise would never touch a computer.
"Unbundling IE doesn't mean that Grandma (we've moved a step back from your mother, I see) has to install one herself..."
Thing is, it goes beyond just having to install a new browser. Grandma (or my mother, I'm not intending to appeal to an actual person but rather to a class of people) has an easier time using a computer if it all is integrated into one product, not as a collection of different products which can be confusing. Personally I don't like that, but then again I don't use Windows.
And with today's Internet, the idea that it is too hard to aquire a new browser if someone really wants one is sort of dead. Those who would enjoy the choice of different browsers can easily find themselves alternatives and download them in seconds. The issue is with the rest of the population.
I did not say that either the James Webb telescope or ground based telescopes will serve every function the Hubble currently does, merely that there are better uses of tax dollars than funding shuttle missions out to the Hubble every couple of years.
If keeping the Hubble active didn't cost a dime, then I would be all for it. Go ahead and keep that thing in orbit until it breaks down. But that is not the case. There are more things to consider than just the benefits of the Hubble, there are also numerous costs.
Point taken, though most of the interest in the Hubble comes from the pretty pictures it gives us using the visible portion of the spectrum. No one cares about the other stuff, hence why the proposed Webb scope isn't that popular with the public.