The aim of the project, funded by a grant of NZ$56,500 from the Royal Society of New Zealand, is to generate interest in science among people who might not normally be keen on the subject.
It may well be a miscalculation to think that building a stonehenge somewhere will generate interest in the public. Some people may not even know what a stonehenge is, let alone participate and visit one.
Advancement and discoveries in science are happening all the time but as amazing and awesome as they are, the fact stands that what may be interesting to some people, is trivial to others.
It could very easily get stuck there. When the rover was leaving the crater that it landed in, they had a little bit of trouble because of soil slippage, and the crater wasn't all that steep.
Considering the terrain of the red planet, NASA surely would have incorporated this into the design of the rovers. They are programmed to avoid exceeding tilts of more than 30 degrees although they can tilt up to 40 degrees without tipping over.
What would be interesting is knowing how far the rovers can go. Being robots, not humans there would be a fair few limitations in their exploration.
Like I said in my preceding post, it's not about the money but rather that he violated the law and because of his overwhelming wealth it probably won't affect him as much as if somebody in a signficantly more disadvantageous economic situation were fined the same amount.
He's broken other antitrust and competition laws which legislate against unfairness and trade practices which undermine competition within the industry.
So who says that he won't do it again? Being in as much trouble as he is already, one would think that he would try and be more careful.
Should allowances be made for certain individuals just because they have the economic power to sway the law? Of course not, just like you or I if we make a mistake then we should be responsible for it.
It's not about the money, but about enforcing the law, and generally, if the penalty doesn't hurt then it won't hurt to do it again.
It may just be pocket change for the richest man in the world, but Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates has been fined $800,000 by the federal government for violating an antitrust rule.
The ineffectiveness of the law in addressing issues of inequality is all the more evident in case law such as this. There is a lack of political will to redress inequalities even when highlighted through such powerful means as the media. The petty amount that the rich are fined could well possibly be more than some people earn in a lifetime.
The aim to ensure that everybody is equal before the law, regardless of education or socio-economic background, should result in affirmative action which reflects community standards. But of course on the flip side, the law exists to serve the short-term political and economic interests of the government.
Obviously, being worth $40 billion, the amount Billy Gates was fined is just a slap across the wrist. How's that for justice, fairness and equity?
It's worrying to think that this development might lead to people becoming complacent about their oral hygiene. Just as the pill doesn't prevent people from contracting STD's, the ability to grow teeth through stem cell technology shouldn't send the message to the general public that it's OK to cut corners with personal health.
More school funding is given to non-science activities such as sports, instead of funding a new science lab.
Because that's where the American interests lie. To be frank, a very minimal portion of society actually care about science. In this day and age, there's the attitude that says "Who cares about science when there are more interesting things to do, like watch music videos and make more money?"
Hell, what about 2004AS1? There was a 25% chance that the meteor would hit earth and it's hardly made front page news. The bottom line? Nobody cares.
But the service has also generated criticism before even rolling out to the masses. Gmail is under fire for inserting advertisements into messages based, in part, on contents. That controversy has led to one legislator calling for its ban.
I have a G-mail account. I know many people who are interested in getting one, so I'll just make sure I'll g-mail them content which contains the words 'e-bay' 'beta' and '$199' and the advertisement on e-bay should come up pronto at the end.
I'd prefer this sort of scam-baiting. If only I had the capacity to do what this dude did...
Taylor: Hello, how may I help you?
Radar: I received an email from Worldwide Global Lotto stating that I had won $193,000. I want to collect my money.
Taylor: First of all, this is a financial company. I am aware the Worldwide Global Lotto is a promotion presently going on for all Microsoft users around the world.
Radar: But I don't use Microsoft. I use Apple.
Taylor: You must have used Microsoft once in your life. Probably this is where your email address has been gathered.
Radar: Great. And how do I get the money?
Taylor: All you have to do is make available the fees and charges for the processing of your winning and legal documentation and naturalisation papers. That is an equivalent of $2400. As soon as you make this payment available in the name of our chief accountant, Mr Kelvin Duncan, within 24 hours your winnings will be transferred to you as a certified cashier's cheque or into your bank account.
Radar: There is no lotto or prize, is there?
Taylor: What? Obviously you have emerged as a winner if you have the correct email.
Look at how popular The Simpsons is. It has become rooted within a generation of people who have watched it for most of their lives. Fox are obligated to give what the actors want because ultimately, they can't afford to lose the actors. They would be better off financially to give the actors what they want than to stop airing the show.
If it stopped airing, it would mean a dramatic change in way people watch TV, and people don't like change.
It is sad how money seems has become as important as it has. It's no longer about providing people with entertainment. But with the influence that the actors have, they have the power to get what they want.
Sure, I understand where you're coming from but distributing under contracts would mean that the person who is entitled to be credited for the IP would not receive that credit as a copyright or a patent does.
Also, contract law, which is designed to govern the legal obligations and promises made by citizens to each other would come in and replace IP law which doesn't really solve anything. It's a bit unrealistic that every time you want to buy a CD or a book you have to sign a contract. Generally, the public would be unwilling to commit to that.
The abolition of intellectual property laws would be a violation of legal rights in itself. IP laws exist for a reason - to ensure that people are protected when it comes to their intangible property.
Whilst they are not as comprehensive as physical property laws and they have more limitations, without them it would just be anarchy under administrative law and breach the international community's understanding of natural justice.
Robots have been replacing human labour in industries for years. I don't find it surprising at all that they are now contemplating using robots in space, probably being the most advanced industry in terms of technological progression.
We bought all those songs for $US48.65, or $66 in local currency, which works out, according to our arithmetic, to 6.8 cents a track.
Obviously, the more you buy the cheaper it is. It's the "buy in bulk" incentive. These days, parents are more than happy to buy their nagging teenage kids music online because it's cheaper, it saves the hassle of being dragged into a music store blaring punk rock at 100 dB and you can pick and choose the music. Who's ever enjoyed every song of every album? Not I.
Considering that a typical CD album with about 12-15 tracks retails for 25 bucks, it's around $2 a track vs. 6.8 cents. In the end, parents will do it cheaper. Legal or not.
Slashdot Mirror
Advancement and discoveries in science are happening all the time but as amazing and awesome as they are, the fact stands that what may be interesting to some people, is trivial to others.
What would be interesting is knowing how far the rovers can go. Being robots, not humans there would be a fair few limitations in their exploration.
Like I said in my preceding post, it's not about the money but rather that he violated the law and because of his overwhelming wealth it probably won't affect him as much as if somebody in a signficantly more disadvantageous economic situation were fined the same amount.
He's broken other antitrust and competition laws which legislate against unfairness and trade practices which undermine competition within the industry.
So who says that he won't do it again? Being in as much trouble as he is already, one would think that he would try and be more careful.
Should allowances be made for certain individuals just because they have the economic power to sway the law? Of course not, just like you or I if we make a mistake then we should be responsible for it.
It's not about the money, but about enforcing the law, and generally, if the penalty doesn't hurt then it won't hurt to do it again.
The aim to ensure that everybody is equal before the law, regardless of education or socio-economic background, should result in affirmative action which reflects community standards. But of course on the flip side, the law exists to serve the short-term political and economic interests of the government.
Obviously, being worth $40 billion, the amount Billy Gates was fined is just a slap across the wrist. How's that for justice, fairness and equity?
Prevention is better than a cure any day.
Because that's where the American interests lie. To be frank, a very minimal portion of society actually care about science. In this day and age, there's the attitude that says "Who cares about science when there are more interesting things to do, like watch music videos and make more money?"
Hell, what about 2004AS1? There was a 25% chance that the meteor would hit earth and it's hardly made front page news. The bottom line? Nobody cares.
I have a G-mail account. I know many people who are interested in getting one, so I'll just make sure I'll g-mail them content which contains the words 'e-bay' 'beta' and '$199' and the advertisement on e-bay should come up pronto at the end.
Look at how popular The Simpsons is. It has become rooted within a generation of people who have watched it for most of their lives. Fox are obligated to give what the actors want because ultimately, they can't afford to lose the actors. They would be better off financially to give the actors what they want than to stop airing the show.
If it stopped airing, it would mean a dramatic change in way people watch TV, and people don't like change.
It is sad how money seems has become as important as it has. It's no longer about providing people with entertainment. But with the influence that the actors have, they have the power to get what they want.
Sure, I understand where you're coming from but distributing under contracts would mean that the person who is entitled to be credited for the IP would not receive that credit as a copyright or a patent does.
Also, contract law, which is designed to govern the legal obligations and promises made by citizens to each other would come in and replace IP law which doesn't really solve anything. It's a bit unrealistic that every time you want to buy a CD or a book you have to sign a contract. Generally, the public would be unwilling to commit to that.
Whilst they are not as comprehensive as physical property laws and they have more limitations, without them it would just be anarchy under administrative law and breach the international community's understanding of natural justice.
If green tea is all that good, just imagine when they try beer!
I don't want to know about it if they do. Green tea cleanses the insides, beer doesn't.
Come on NASA, lagging just a little aren't we? ;)
Considering that a typical CD album with about 12-15 tracks retails for 25 bucks, it's around $2 a track vs. 6.8 cents. In the end, parents will do it cheaper. Legal or not.