Please, no flames about Control-Click, I'm a Mac user, yet respect the right-click.
Speaking as a Mac/PC user, I still fail to see why Macintosh thinks that a second mouse button is far too difficult for people to grasp, yet using two hands to control-click somehow isn't.
so that also depends on whether he makes his saving throw.
Once, a friend of mine got a very unpleasant voice message from a girl he'd just broken up with. He said, rather stunned, "It was like... an icy blast."
I said, "You feel an icy blast; saving throw vs. ex-girlfriend fails. Take 50 points of damage".
The fact that average joe clueless still thinks that space should be one huge dick size comparison is a big part of what's preventing us from doing truly collaborative big science missions on a regular basis.
I'd like to take this opportunity to point out that the largest rocket in the world is the United States' Saturn V. The tiny, flaccid French Ariane boosters hardly compare. As for the Russian Proton rocket... well, let's just say that they've had a little trouble with the machinery that gets it into the upright launch position. But don't worry Russia- it happens to a lot of people they say.
What does the military need a robo-car for anyway?
It's simple: if a soldier isn't behind the wheel of a supply truck, then he can be out shooting at insurgents. Another issue is that the long supply lines of the U.S. army are currently one of its weak points- Jessica Lynch was part of a supply convoy, for instance. Taking the soldiers off the trucks probably doesn't make the supplies safer but it could reduce the number of casualties. Further on down the line, the military will probably be fielding robots with wheels and tanks, first for reconnaissance and later with guns and missiles aboard. This technology brings us closer to being able to do that.
Personally, I think the whole thing misses the point. Technology is great and all, but it would save a lot more American lives if you followed the Powell Doctrine: go to war only after all other options are exhausted, and then go in with a clear mission, overwhelming force, and a plan on how to get out. The Bush Administration didn't do any of those things in Iraq which is why the situation is such a royal fuckup.
Personally, I have trouble with his vision of NASA. People in space is cool, yeah; I'm not against that. But alongside an 800 million dollar increase in the NASA budget, the National Science Foundation- the major United States source of funding for doctoral students, postdocs, and University researchers- was cut by 100 million. The NSF funds computer science, biology, astronomy, geology, engineering, medicine, paleontology, damn near everything. Basic, fundamental research. I'm not saying that a moonbase isn't cool or won't have payoffs. What I am saying is that it will cost far more, and have far fewer payoffs, than investing in something like the NSF, or if you favor basic space research, unmanned probes and rovers.
That, and there's just no way in hell we're going to be able to afford a Mars mission considering we're spending tens of billions a year in Iraq while reducing tax revenues. It would have been hard to fund even if the budget was balanced, but as things stand, one of Bush's successors is going to be forced to kill any serious Moon or Mars program.
While I agree with your assessment of manned space flight, all I can say about bringing sanity is: fat chance. Here's an article from nytimes.com. Anyone care to speculate where the 15% workforce reduction is going to come from?
WASHINGTON, March 11 - President Bush today nominated Dr. Michael D. Griffin, a physicist and engineer who is a strong advocate of human space flight, to be the next administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Dr. Griffin, who is head of the Space Department at the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, in Laurel, Md., would become the 11th director of the nation's space program if confirmed by the Senate. He would replace Sean O'Keefe, who left the post last month after three years to become chancellor of Louisiana State University in Baton Rouge.
Dr. Griffin, 55, served at NASA during the 1990's, where he was chief engineer and the associate administrator for exploration.
He also has held numerous posts in the aerospace industry and was president and chief operating officer of In-Q-Tel, a private, nonprofit organization sponsored by the Central Intelligence Agency to invest in companies developing new technology with applications for national security. He also served as the deputy for technology of the Strategic Defense Initiative Organization, working on missile systems.
The new NASA administrator will inherit an agency that is undergoing a major transition as it recovers from the loss of the space shuttle Columbia on Feb. 1, 2003, and embarks on Mr. Bush's new vision of space exploration, which would involve sending humans back to the moon and later on to Mars.
In Congressional testimony, Dr. Griffin supported the new direction for NASA, arguing that the agency could expand exploration beyond the Earth within its budget of about $16 billion a year by early termination of the shuttle program and reduced support for the International Space Station.
Speaking before the House Science Committee last March, Dr. Griffin called for streamlining and redirecting NASA while continuing human space exploration. "The United States will not abandon manned space flight," he said. "Not to have the capability to fly humans in space, when other nations do and more will follow, is simply unacceptable for a great nation."
As head of NASA, Dr. Griffin will face the challenges of overseeing the resumption of shuttle flights as early as May, completing the space station, re-evaluating Mr. O'Keefe's controversial decision not to send a shuttle to repair the Hubble Space Telescope, and selling Congress and the public on NASA's new direction in exploration.
The new NASA chief also must transform the agency to take on the new direction, which will include scaling back and redirecting its 10 centers and work force of 18,000. NASA officials said this week that the agency could reduce its work force by 15 percent by the summer of 2006 through buyouts, retirements and transfers, as well as closing down some facilities that are not essential for exploration.
Dr. Griffin's selection was greeted with bipartisan support and optimism on Capitol Hill.
"Dr. Griffin will propel NASA into the next phase of America's mission in space," the House majority leader, Tom DeLay of Texas, said in a statement.
Sen. Barbara Mikulski of Maryland, the ranking Democrat on the Senate committee that oversees NASA, praised the choice of Dr. Griffin. "He has the right combination of experience in industry, academia and government service," she said in a statement. "He has a proven record of leadership and a passion for science and exploration. I welcome his nomination."
I was thinking, "this sounds too good to be true!" until I read the SDI thing, then I started thinking, "it was too good to be true".
I'm skeptical. Bush has a history of hiring people for blind, dog-like obedience and punishing them when they show more loyalty to their country than their master- anyone remember that Colin Powell character? Valerie Plame, who was exposed as a CIA operative after her husband contradicted WMD assertions being put out by the White House? General Shinseki, who said we'd need several hundred thousand troops to successfully occupy Iraq, then got fired? The Bush White House values loyalty far more than competency. So while I hope this guy will change things at NASA, I rather doubt he will. I have a nasty feeling that we're either going to end up regretting this appointment... or else this guy's soon going to be on his way. Here's hoping I'm wrong.
A successful venture capitalist would likely tell you to have an excellent written, formal business plan. A good business plan is usually the product of at least two of the three things he mentioned.;)
Emphasis on the word "plan". Many internet bubble start-ups had smart people, had something people wanted, and no matter how much money they saved, still would have failed. They just never had a plan for how to translate products and talent into profits. It's not enough to have the greatest product in the world- you've got to market it, manufacture it, distribute it, sell it, and at the end of the day, reap a profit. Look at Apple vs. Microsoft. Apple focused on "insanely great" products but traditionally has not been able to translate these products into sales, user base, and revenues(though they've been doing much better recently). Microsoft makes products which drive you insane, and instead focused on marketing, market share, and making insanely great profits.
That being said, I think this is an area where scientists tend to underestimate the value of manned space travel. You'll notice that as long as manned space travel exists, it generates excitement in the general population. And as it advances, young people dream of one day visiting the stars themselves. Remove manned space travel, and the funding to ALL space ventures will be cut.
That's a common argument for why scientists should support astronauts, but it's bullshit.
Check the news: these proposed cuts- and the decision to terminate Hubble- come in the wake of substantial budget increases of almost a billion dollars at NASA. Bush has declared we're going to the moon and Mars; to support these quasi-scientific daydreams NASA is sacrificing projects with unquestionable scientific value.
And when is the last time the nation got excited about the manned program in a good way? Since the shuttle program got going, the manned program has seized national attention three times: with the Challenger explosion, with the Hubble repair, and with the Columbia catastrophe. The manned program's one big triumph has been to fix a robot. That says something. Meanwhile, the unmanned programs have had their share of blunders, but they've given us Shoemaker-Levy 9 impacting Jupiter, color photos of the Martian surface, pictures of Titan, planets around distant suns... not only do the probes do better science, they do the PR stunts better than the manned program.
Considering that the NPR audience has doubled in the past 10 years, I think radio is a long way from dead. Or perhaps the distribution method is dated, but new distribution methods for radio programming (streaming, MP3, satellite, wireless LAN) could produce a boom.
When I'm at my computer doing a mind-numbing task, I listen to http://www.npr.org/ or http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/. BBC news is very international, informative, and they ask penetrating, no-bullshit questions; they really make CNN look like the brain-dead losers they are. NPR has good news, interesting interviews (Fresh Air) and some really funny programs (Car Talk, Wait Wait Don't Tell Me). I'd listen to it on my iPod if I could figure out how in the hell to do that, right now the only option NPR gives you is streaming (and my university connection craps out constantly).
Don't even get me started about the legendary White House battles over Kirk vs. Picard. Most of the administration, including Bush and Rumsfeld, thought that the daring, even reckless James Tiberius Kirk was the superior captain. Colin Powell was really a voice in the wilderness when he said he preferred the more considered, even-tempered leadership style of Jean-Luc Picard. That's what ultimately led to his political isolation and departure from the Secretary of State post, of course. Well, that and he didn't like Dick Cheney's fan script.
Anyone else find it pathetic that, 50 years ago, when folks were "fighting for something they love" it was their country, home and family?
In totally unrelated news, the Bush Administration has announced that Iraq is currently harboring the network executives who cancelled 'Star Trek: Enterprise'. Bush issued a statement saying that "The enemies of freedom have cancelled 'Enterprise' but they cannot cancel freedom itself. I call upon all able-bodied Trekkies, Trekkers, and Klingons to enlist now in defense of the ideals of the Federation. May you live long and prosperate."
Meanwhile Donald Rumsfeld announced the creation of a new "Starfleet Brigade" for the recruits, which would feature multi-colored jumpsuits and flak jackets bearing the Federation insignia, and allow Klingons to serve in full battle attire. Said Rumsfeld, "Good golly, the warrior spirit of those Klingons is just what we need to put those darn Baathist insurge- excuse me, I mean, evil network executives- on the run!"
In response to criticisms that such moves violated the Prime Directive, Dick Cheney suggested that Iraq had a program under Hussein to secretly acquire warp technology, in violation of sanctions. Therefore, as a post-warp culture, the Prime Directive no longer applied to Iraq. In support of these allegations, Colin Powell gave a PowerPoint presentation showing grainy satellite photos of what he identified as warp field coils and tanker trucks filled with Dilithium crystals. When asked how the Iraqis could possibly have acquired warp technology, Cheney hinted darkly that the whole thing smelled of a Romulan plot.
ATMs could very well display ads according to your buying habits, which could be guessed from your credit card internal history.
Or they could display ads based on your balance. Depending on how much money you had, an ad would appear for (a) a new luxury yacht, (b) a Toyota Corolla, or (c) a two-for-one special on Top Ramen.
Personally, I wouldn't give a damn about ads if they'd get rid of the fees or else make them reasonable.
Could just be a problem of how government-run institutions work (often, very poorly). It seems to me that government bureacracies are awash in paperwork and rules, which stifles productivity and risk-taking. They also tend to be underfunded or have their funding priorities dictated externally, which restricts what they can do.
Meanwhile, the people who never the less try to actually get shit done take the most flak; getting anything done inevitably means stepping on toes or running against a rule or two, so the most productive people are the most likely to leave. But the people who never do anything never take any flak, since the government never cares if you actually produce anything, so they stick around forever. Plus, since no one is ever required to produce any work, they spend all their time infighting.
Anyhow, maybe I'm wrong. This is primarily based on observations of one government-based research institution. But I'd be interested in knowing if anybody else has a similar take on things. For that matter, I'm sure many corporate bureacracies feature many of the same problems.
Also, has anyone else noticed that the number of "Dilbert" cartoons posted up around an institution is a good measure of how ineffective it is? Anyone out there at NASA happen to know if there are a lot of those taped up on the doors these days?
A few years ago, a movie came out featuring some kids who lay down on the yellow line in the middle of a highway, as cars whizzed past them on either side. Soon after, some dumbass teen went and lay down in the middle of a road and got himself run over. Unfortunately I think this was before the Darwin Awards were made official. Another example: when he was in grade school, my brother stuck his tongue to a metal pole on a cold winter day and got it frozen there. Anyone have any ideas how a bunch of kids got that bright idea? Couldn't be from a certain movie that plays 24/7 around Christmas time, could it?
Point being, people learn in large part by imitation. That's a major reason we tend to end up like our parents, why children of abusive parents tend to be abusive, and soforth. So I'm going to take the unpopular stance that violent video games can and do contribute to violent behavior.Are they the only contributor? Well, bad parents, bad communities, violent upbringings, and access to weapons are probably vastly more important. Not to mention, there are plenty of other sources of violent media: Stephen King novels, comic books, Grimms Fairy Tales, violent movies, or for that matter, CNN. This isn't a new concept; Plato was against reading the _Iliad_ because it glorifies violence.
I don't think all violent media is bad. I'd say that most King books have a strong moral theme which overrides the violence, for instance, and "Saving Private Ryan" has some valuable lessons about violence. Some of it is a negative influence, however. But the answer is, as so many people have pointed out above, parenting rather than censorship. Now I'm going to shut up before someone frags me with a rocket launcher.
The insurgency in Iraq is a good case of how effective the human element is. The guys apparently know pretty much everything that's going on because they have moles and informers in the government, and because they can blackmail and threaten people for information. They just managed to take out a couple of the people in the Hussein trial. Meanwhile, for all their high-tech satellites, unmanned aerial vehicles and NSA technology, the U.S. still can't figure out where the hell Zarqawi is.
Likewise, the U.S. was able to get intelligence on the Soviets by sending a sub to tap an underwater cable in the Sea of Okhotsk. This cost tens of millions of dollars. For a couple million, the USSR bought off Aldrich Ames and got whatever intel they wanted. All in all, being able to manipulate people is probably a lot more useful and dangerous skill than being able to manipulate technology.
Slashdot Mirror
We use the power generated to drive HUMONGOUS fans to blow air and keep the wind going. Problem solved!
Speaking as a Mac/PC user, I still fail to see why Macintosh thinks that a second mouse button is far too difficult for people to grasp, yet using two hands to control-click somehow isn't.
Once, a friend of mine got a very unpleasant voice message from a girl he'd just broken up with. He said, rather stunned, "It was like... an icy blast."
I said, "You feel an icy blast; saving throw vs. ex-girlfriend fails. Take 50 points of damage".
Sweet indeed- like, once I get this set up, I'm gonna get SO many hot chicks!!!
I'd like to take this opportunity to point out that the largest rocket in the world is the United States' Saturn V. The tiny, flaccid French Ariane boosters hardly compare. As for the Russian Proton rocket... well, let's just say that they've had a little trouble with the machinery that gets it into the upright launch position. But don't worry Russia- it happens to a lot of people they say.
It's simple: if a soldier isn't behind the wheel of a supply truck, then he can be out shooting at insurgents. Another issue is that the long supply lines of the U.S. army are currently one of its weak points- Jessica Lynch was part of a supply convoy, for instance. Taking the soldiers off the trucks probably doesn't make the supplies safer but it could reduce the number of casualties. Further on down the line, the military will probably be fielding robots with wheels and tanks, first for reconnaissance and later with guns and missiles aboard. This technology brings us closer to being able to do that.
Personally, I think the whole thing misses the point. Technology is great and all, but it would save a lot more American lives if you followed the Powell Doctrine: go to war only after all other options are exhausted, and then go in with a clear mission, overwhelming force, and a plan on how to get out. The Bush Administration didn't do any of those things in Iraq which is why the situation is such a royal fuckup.
That, and there's just no way in hell we're going to be able to afford a Mars mission considering we're spending tens of billions a year in Iraq while reducing tax revenues. It would have been hard to fund even if the budget was balanced, but as things stand, one of Bush's successors is going to be forced to kill any serious Moon or Mars program.
WASHINGTON, March 11 - President Bush today nominated Dr. Michael D. Griffin, a physicist and engineer who is a strong advocate of human space flight, to be the next administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Dr. Griffin, who is head of the Space Department at the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, in Laurel, Md., would become the 11th director of the nation's space program if confirmed by the Senate. He would replace Sean O'Keefe, who left the post last month after three years to become chancellor of Louisiana State University in Baton Rouge.
Dr. Griffin, 55, served at NASA during the 1990's, where he was chief engineer and the associate administrator for exploration.
He also has held numerous posts in the aerospace industry and was president and chief operating officer of In-Q-Tel, a private, nonprofit organization sponsored by the Central Intelligence Agency to invest in companies developing new technology with applications for national security. He also served as the deputy for technology of the Strategic Defense Initiative Organization, working on missile systems.
The new NASA administrator will inherit an agency that is undergoing a major transition as it recovers from the loss of the space shuttle Columbia on Feb. 1, 2003, and embarks on Mr. Bush's new vision of space exploration, which would involve sending humans back to the moon and later on to Mars.
In Congressional testimony, Dr. Griffin supported the new direction for NASA, arguing that the agency could expand exploration beyond the Earth within its budget of about $16 billion a year by early termination of the shuttle program and reduced support for the International Space Station.
Speaking before the House Science Committee last March, Dr. Griffin called for streamlining and redirecting NASA while continuing human space exploration. "The United States will not abandon manned space flight," he said. "Not to have the capability to fly humans in space, when other nations do and more will follow, is simply unacceptable for a great nation."
As head of NASA, Dr. Griffin will face the challenges of overseeing the resumption of shuttle flights as early as May, completing the space station, re-evaluating Mr. O'Keefe's controversial decision not to send a shuttle to repair the Hubble Space Telescope, and selling Congress and the public on NASA's new direction in exploration.
The new NASA chief also must transform the agency to take on the new direction, which will include scaling back and redirecting its 10 centers and work force of 18,000. NASA officials said this week that the agency could reduce its work force by 15 percent by the summer of 2006 through buyouts, retirements and transfers, as well as closing down some facilities that are not essential for exploration.
Dr. Griffin's selection was greeted with bipartisan support and optimism on Capitol Hill. "Dr. Griffin will propel NASA into the next phase of America's mission in space," the House majority leader, Tom DeLay of Texas, said in a statement. Sen. Barbara Mikulski of Maryland, the ranking Democrat on the Senate committee that oversees NASA, praised the choice of Dr. Griffin. "He has the right combination of experience in industry, academia and government service," she said in a statement. "He has a proven record of leadership and a passion for science and exploration. I welcome his nomination."
I'm skeptical. Bush has a history of hiring people for blind, dog-like obedience and punishing them when they show more loyalty to their country than their master- anyone remember that Colin Powell character? Valerie Plame, who was exposed as a CIA operative after her husband contradicted WMD assertions being put out by the White House? General Shinseki, who said we'd need several hundred thousand troops to successfully occupy Iraq, then got fired? The Bush White House values loyalty far more than competency. So while I hope this guy will change things at NASA, I rather doubt he will. I have a nasty feeling that we're either going to end up regretting this appointment... or else this guy's soon going to be on his way. Here's hoping I'm wrong.
In other news, Vladimir Putin has announced that Deep Blue will be joining his cabinet...
Emphasis on the word "plan". Many internet bubble start-ups had smart people, had something people wanted, and no matter how much money they saved, still would have failed. They just never had a plan for how to translate products and talent into profits. It's not enough to have the greatest product in the world- you've got to market it, manufacture it, distribute it, sell it, and at the end of the day, reap a profit. Look at Apple vs. Microsoft. Apple focused on "insanely great" products but traditionally has not been able to translate these products into sales, user base, and revenues(though they've been doing much better recently). Microsoft makes products which drive you insane, and instead focused on marketing, market share, and making insanely great profits.
That's a common argument for why scientists should support astronauts, but it's bullshit.
Check the news: these proposed cuts- and the decision to terminate Hubble- come in the wake of substantial budget increases of almost a billion dollars at NASA. Bush has declared we're going to the moon and Mars; to support these quasi-scientific daydreams NASA is sacrificing projects with unquestionable scientific value.
And when is the last time the nation got excited about the manned program in a good way? Since the shuttle program got going, the manned program has seized national attention three times: with the Challenger explosion, with the Hubble repair, and with the Columbia catastrophe. The manned program's one big triumph has been to fix a robot. That says something. Meanwhile, the unmanned programs have had their share of blunders, but they've given us Shoemaker-Levy 9 impacting Jupiter, color photos of the Martian surface, pictures of Titan, planets around distant suns... not only do the probes do better science, they do the PR stunts better than the manned program.
Waitaminit- are you saying I should NOT have used my blog to post photos of me and the bosses' daughter at it on top of the copy machine?
When I'm at my computer doing a mind-numbing task, I listen to http://www.npr.org/ or http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/. BBC news is very international, informative, and they ask penetrating, no-bullshit questions; they really make CNN look like the brain-dead losers they are. NPR has good news, interesting interviews (Fresh Air) and some really funny programs (Car Talk, Wait Wait Don't Tell Me). I'd listen to it on my iPod if I could figure out how in the hell to do that, right now the only option NPR gives you is streaming (and my university connection craps out constantly).
Don't even get me started about the legendary White House battles over Kirk vs. Picard. Most of the administration, including Bush and Rumsfeld, thought that the daring, even reckless James Tiberius Kirk was the superior captain. Colin Powell was really a voice in the wilderness when he said he preferred the more considered, even-tempered leadership style of Jean-Luc Picard. That's what ultimately led to his political isolation and departure from the Secretary of State post, of course. Well, that and he didn't like Dick Cheney's fan script.
In totally unrelated news, the Bush Administration has announced that Iraq is currently harboring the network executives who cancelled 'Star Trek: Enterprise'. Bush issued a statement saying that "The enemies of freedom have cancelled 'Enterprise' but they cannot cancel freedom itself. I call upon all able-bodied Trekkies, Trekkers, and Klingons to enlist now in defense of the ideals of the Federation. May you live long and prosperate."
Meanwhile Donald Rumsfeld announced the creation of a new "Starfleet Brigade" for the recruits, which would feature multi-colored jumpsuits and flak jackets bearing the Federation insignia, and allow Klingons to serve in full battle attire. Said Rumsfeld, "Good golly, the warrior spirit of those Klingons is just what we need to put those darn Baathist insurge- excuse me, I mean, evil network executives- on the run!"
In response to criticisms that such moves violated the Prime Directive, Dick Cheney suggested that Iraq had a program under Hussein to secretly acquire warp technology, in violation of sanctions. Therefore, as a post-warp culture, the Prime Directive no longer applied to Iraq. In support of these allegations, Colin Powell gave a PowerPoint presentation showing grainy satellite photos of what he identified as warp field coils and tanker trucks filled with Dilithium crystals. When asked how the Iraqis could possibly have acquired warp technology, Cheney hinted darkly that the whole thing smelled of a Romulan plot.
"Libertarian, n: a Republican in favor of legalizing drugs."
Or they could display ads based on your balance. Depending on how much money you had, an ad would appear for (a) a new luxury yacht, (b) a Toyota Corolla, or (c) a two-for-one special on Top Ramen.
Personally, I wouldn't give a damn about ads if they'd get rid of the fees or else make them reasonable.
Meanwhile, the people who never the less try to actually get shit done take the most flak; getting anything done inevitably means stepping on toes or running against a rule or two, so the most productive people are the most likely to leave. But the people who never do anything never take any flak, since the government never cares if you actually produce anything, so they stick around forever. Plus, since no one is ever required to produce any work, they spend all their time infighting.
Anyhow, maybe I'm wrong. This is primarily based on observations of one government-based research institution. But I'd be interested in knowing if anybody else has a similar take on things. For that matter, I'm sure many corporate bureacracies feature many of the same problems.
Also, has anyone else noticed that the number of "Dilbert" cartoons posted up around an institution is a good measure of how ineffective it is? Anyone out there at NASA happen to know if there are a lot of those taped up on the doors these days?
Creatures with chimp-sized brains and rudimentary ability to use tools, surviving into the modern times? Presposterous.
Although, now that I think about it, this would explain a lot of posts on slashdot...
Actually, one of the rovers just crested a hill and beamed back this photo of a sign that says "Death Valley 7-11"...
Point being, people learn in large part by imitation. That's a major reason we tend to end up like our parents, why children of abusive parents tend to be abusive, and soforth. So I'm going to take the unpopular stance that violent video games can and do contribute to violent behavior.Are they the only contributor? Well, bad parents, bad communities, violent upbringings, and access to weapons are probably vastly more important. Not to mention, there are plenty of other sources of violent media: Stephen King novels, comic books, Grimms Fairy Tales, violent movies, or for that matter, CNN. This isn't a new concept; Plato was against reading the _Iliad_ because it glorifies violence.
I don't think all violent media is bad. I'd say that most King books have a strong moral theme which overrides the violence, for instance, and "Saving Private Ryan" has some valuable lessons about violence. Some of it is a negative influence, however. But the answer is, as so many people have pointed out above, parenting rather than censorship. Now I'm going to shut up before someone frags me with a rocket launcher.
Likewise, the U.S. was able to get intelligence on the Soviets by sending a sub to tap an underwater cable in the Sea of Okhotsk. This cost tens of millions of dollars. For a couple million, the USSR bought off Aldrich Ames and got whatever intel they wanted. All in all, being able to manipulate people is probably a lot more useful and dangerous skill than being able to manipulate technology.
Nah. He's being bought off with a share of this 150 million dollars which the late General Sanji Abumbo of Nigeria placed in a foreign bank...
My favorite Voyager was the episode where they make a warp drive out of coconuts.