I think the culture argument is mostly baloney, and the state of IP in the US contributes substantially.
People 'do' science because they find it cool, not because they become rock stars. And there are of course science shows like "Numb3rs" (awful) and "CSI" and "Star Trek" and about a million others that try to some degree to spotlight science. The number of "Adventures in Engineering" or "Women in Engineering" camps has grown considerably over the last 10 years in these parts.
Also changing is the degree of security around science (this has become a major issue to research and collaboration and being able to publish). The US has also historically had the incredible ability to draw the best minds from around the world. This is also changing as world opinion of the US drops and also as the security increases. Middle eastern researchers trying to work in the US face undue scrutiny from the authorities professionally and possibly prejdice in their family personally.
Other linux flavours released in the last 24hrs include:
Piebox Enterprise Linux 3-U6, 4-U2
Frugalware Linux 0.3
Damn Small Linux 2.0 RC1
B2D Linux 20051011
PHLAK Beta 1 "Littleboy"
So why are the "-buntu" releases getting all the buzz? It's the animal names, isn't it? And is it pronounced OOBOONTOO (orangutan for overhyped) or YOU-BUNT-TOO (a veiled baseball reference)?
If, by "Republicans [and] Democrats", you mean people who are loyal to their party first and foremost, and use party affiliation as their compass for morality, then you might be right.
I, for one, don't honestly believe these people are in the majority or that public servants, including the elected ones, are trying to jeopardize the rights and ideals upon which their great nation was founded. Most of these people could be making more money and have more power in any tangible sense in the private sector.
Sometimes they lose their way or perspective, yes. Sometimes they feel the ends justify the means, yes. And the system is the worst one around -- except for any other. But it's my contention that for the most part they honestly believe they are protecting citizens rights and the nation -- even when they're wrong.
From this post:
We have already seen pseudo Christians going to extreme lengths to ban the teaching of evolution in places like Kansas and Tennessee. Would they take a similar route were discoveries that didn't mesh to well with their teachings to be found?
From another post in this thread you say to another poster:
If they're going with a flower-shaped design, then there's most likely a very good reason for it. Considering that these people are far more intelligent than you, your idea is worthless
Can you not see the irony here at all? It's exactly that type of attitude that Copernicus and Gallileo fought.
Simple. We all know the Flying Spaghetti Monster http://www.venganza.org/ changes the signals and images and space and time itself to test us and challenge our faith.
The problem with the US patent system in general, and software patents in particular, is that the whole system is setup to protect the big. Patents are being issued with limited to no validity. This fails to protect anyone who doesn't have a large enough stockpile lawyers and money and time -- and makes it hard for anyone else to challenge patents held by those who do.
The only way I see Microsoft opposing patents is if it becomes in their competitive interest to do so. This is unlikely to happen if they're big enough to defend their patents and hold enough to make some deals. If the day comes when Microsoft is no longer that big, then their opposition is not likely to matter.
If the open source and linux communities start patenting software elements "a priori" to prevent others from doing so, and if these companies are wlling to buy shares in the defense team, then we might see some movement.
The US maintains bases in these places because it's in their interest to do so -- it's not protecting Japan or Europe but it does use these places to treat its casualties, fuel it's planes and dock it's surface and submarine vessels.
They ARE protecting South Korea -- but that's because they started a police action (aka proxy war) there and, to their credit, aren't prepared to let that situation reignite by withdrawing.
The sloppy argument bit aside, some of your underlying assumptions are just plain wrong.
The US is constantly in arrieres with the UN and has the largest single debt in UN membership fees and has for years -- last I checked it was about 50% of the total membership debt of all countries. For an organization in which they have a permanent veto and which they demand support from, they don't Ted Turner felt so bad about the situation he tried to pay off a chunk of it himself some years back.
By the way, the next time someone mentions that the US should demand repayment of debt from countries it has issues with you might want to remind them that the US is the world's largest debtor. If you're going to be ashamed of something, be ashamed that your personal share in this debt is about $150 000 that you owe the rest of the world.
Hey, I know you! You're the guy who planned the introduction of new species to Australia, right? Hence making the continent more easily colonized in the long term by Europeans.
Now that Vinokourov has signed wit hLiberty Seguros.
Basso's gonna win it next year anyways.
(Note to self: what's the overlap of the nerd and bike nuts domains?)
Since almost every thread I read under this topicseems to be pumping biofuels (bad joke, I know), I thought I'd link to an article that demonstrates some problems with this line of thought.
The basic problem with biofuels and many other of these touted solutions to any looming oil crisis are that they are net energy losers. It's not dissimilar to Iceberg lettuce: the energy spent growing and shipping and harvesting the lettuce is many times the energy content that is ultimately delivered. Bioplastics make more sense in that you are forming a product at a high energy cost, but producing energy in an different form by using more of it is hardly a winning endeavour. We could turn coal into oil too (as the Germans did) but by so doing we're certainly not tapping some new energy source -- we're just changing the combustible (and incurring a substantial penalty in so doing).
The high speed grains of sand blowing around at about 30 meters/second (70 miles per hour) are nothing to blink at either, since they can damage astronauts or equipment on the Martian surface.
Damage astronauts eh? That doesn't sound good. If it wears and tears on the EVA suits that's bad but if it damages the astronauts that's real bad. I think the state of an astronaut on Mars subject to such elemental damage probably changes in quanta (alive vs. not alive).
A good analogy, but a better one would use a bank instead of a jewelery store.
You're storing other peoples valuables (be it information or money) and have an obligation to do your best to protect it. Free market forces aside, the moral obligation remains.
First let me say that I agree way too many websites request way too much personal information. Users should be (and many are) wary of giving any personal information.
That said, there are times when people want to be found and the collection of the information is legitimate. I'm guessing people who wanted to win a 50million coin or tshirt or whatever and submitted screenshots and posters and photos gave their real addresses and names so they could collect their potential prize. BANANA doesn't work here.
The point is, if you're going to collect this kind of information you have an obligation to make sure it is as secure as possible and not available to anyone through a known hole in your CMS.
Just my opinion of course (who else's would it be??)
Since the US has a permanent veto, this would never happen against the will of the administration.
If it's going to happen anyway (i.e. they don't intend to veto) and would be a real competitor, wouldn't the administration force a revisit the issue and use the existing influence/infrastructure of the ICANN rather than risk losing decision making abilities over these aspects of the Internet?
Maybe they'll set up an international ICANN council where the US has a permanent veto?
Slashdot Mirror
I think the culture argument is mostly baloney, and the state of IP in the US contributes substantially.
People 'do' science because they find it cool, not because they become rock stars. And there are of course science shows like "Numb3rs" (awful) and "CSI" and "Star Trek" and about a million others that try to some degree to spotlight science. The number of "Adventures in Engineering" or "Women in Engineering" camps has grown considerably over the last 10 years in these parts.
Also changing is the degree of security around science (this has become a major issue to research and collaboration and being able to publish). The US has also historically had the incredible ability to draw the best minds from around the world. This is also changing as world opinion of the US drops and also as the security increases. Middle eastern researchers trying to work in the US face undue scrutiny from the authorities professionally and possibly prejdice in their family personally.
Just my opinion of course...
Hygiene IS important? Well I'll be damned -- I thought my girlfriend was just being difficult.
;)
... just drench your pillow in a cocktail of fungicide and DDT and a few other nerve agents. That should lower your risk substantially.
Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees.
Other linux flavours released in the last 24hrs include:
;)
Piebox Enterprise Linux 3-U6, 4-U2
Frugalware Linux 0.3
Damn Small Linux 2.0 RC1
B2D Linux 20051011
PHLAK Beta 1 "Littleboy"
So why are the "-buntu" releases getting all the buzz? It's the animal names, isn't it? And is it pronounced OOBOONTOO (orangutan for overhyped) or YOU-BUNT-TOO (a veiled baseball reference)?
You sound like a milita man or the Unabomber.
If, by "Republicans [and] Democrats", you mean people who are loyal to their party first and foremost, and use party affiliation as their compass for morality, then you might be right.
I, for one, don't honestly believe these people are in the majority or that public servants, including the elected ones, are trying to jeopardize the rights and ideals upon which their great nation was founded. Most of these people could be making more money and have more power in any tangible sense in the private sector.
Sometimes they lose their way or perspective, yes. Sometimes they feel the ends justify the means, yes. And the system is the worst one around -- except for any other. But it's my contention that for the most part they honestly believe they are protecting citizens rights and the nation -- even when they're wrong.
Ok, but you think he'd at least be briefed on some of the aspects and likely implications of it -- if for no other reason than stay on message.
Guys like John McCain do a much better job of sounding informed.
I mean, talking points aren't just for spinning Dubya's policy and making wild accusations about the liberal left are they?
From this post: We have already seen pseudo Christians going to extreme lengths to ban the teaching of evolution in places like Kansas and Tennessee. Would they take a similar route were discoveries that didn't mesh to well with their teachings to be found?
From another post in this thread you say to another poster:
If they're going with a flower-shaped design, then there's most likely a very good reason for it. Considering that these people are far more intelligent than you, your idea is worthless
Can you not see the irony here at all? It's exactly that type of attitude that Copernicus and Gallileo fought.
Send me the $400,000 and I'll send you a nice proposal with a bunch of alternate shapes.
Remember -- I don't take checks.
Simple. We all know the Flying Spaghetti Monster http://www.venganza.org/ changes the signals and images and space and time itself to test us and challenge our faith.
It sure sounds feasible to me. No alarm bells going off at all.
All they need now is an artists impression of what it might look like.
I tend to agree.
3 8-D9FB-1055-973683414B7F0000 would not, however.
I'm sure the author of this piece http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=0006AD
Just another example of "one more thing" marketing as discussed, say, here: http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,69172,00 .html?tw=rss.TOP.
I wonder -- is preaching to the converted really sustainable though?
The problem with the US patent system in general, and software patents in particular, is that the whole system is setup to protect the big. Patents are being issued with limited to no validity. This fails to protect anyone who doesn't have a large enough stockpile lawyers and money and time -- and makes it hard for anyone else to challenge patents held by those who do.
The only way I see Microsoft opposing patents is if it becomes in their competitive interest to do so. This is unlikely to happen if they're big enough to defend their patents and hold enough to make some deals. If the day comes when Microsoft is no longer that big, then their opposition is not likely to matter.
If the open source and linux communities start patenting software elements "a priori" to prevent others from doing so, and if these companies are wlling to buy shares in the defense team, then we might see some movement.
The US maintains bases in these places because it's in their interest to do so -- it's not protecting Japan or Europe but it does use these places to treat its casualties, fuel it's planes and dock it's surface and submarine vessels.
They ARE protecting South Korea -- but that's because they started a police action (aka proxy war) there and, to their credit, aren't prepared to let that situation reignite by withdrawing.
Great post. One thing though...
The Bush people running our country today
You misspelt ruining.
The sloppy argument bit aside, some of your underlying assumptions are just plain wrong.
The US is constantly in arrieres with the UN and has the largest single debt in UN membership fees and has for years -- last I checked it was about 50% of the total membership debt of all countries. For an organization in which they have a permanent veto and which they demand support from, they don't Ted Turner felt so bad about the situation he tried to pay off a chunk of it himself some years back.
By the way, the next time someone mentions that the US should demand repayment of debt from countries it has issues with you might want to remind them that the US is the world's largest debtor. If you're going to be ashamed of something, be ashamed that your personal share in this debt is about $150 000 that you owe the rest of the world.
Hey, I know you! You're the guy who planned the introduction of new species to Australia, right? Hence making the continent more easily colonized in the long term by Europeans.
Ummm... that would be under the "Hardware" section --- and if know Slashdotters, it probably will be within a few weeks.
Go to it boys!
Until you commit to proper management of the New Orleans area. The land under the whole area will continue to subside until this is addressed.
Now that Vinokourov has signed wit hLiberty Seguros. Basso's gonna win it next year anyways. (Note to self: what's the overlap of the nerd and bike nuts domains?)
Since almost every thread I read under this topicseems to be pumping biofuels (bad joke, I know), I thought I'd link to an article that demonstrates some problems with this line of thought.
7 18/ap_on_bi_ge/ethanol_study
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050
The basic problem with biofuels and many other of these touted solutions to any looming oil crisis are that they are net energy losers. It's not dissimilar to Iceberg lettuce: the energy spent growing and shipping and harvesting the lettuce is many times the energy content that is ultimately delivered. Bioplastics make more sense in that you are forming a product at a high energy cost, but producing energy in an different form by using more of it is hardly a winning endeavour. We could turn coal into oil too (as the Germans did) but by so doing we're certainly not tapping some new energy source -- we're just changing the combustible (and incurring a substantial penalty in so doing).
The high speed grains of sand blowing around at about 30 meters/second (70 miles per hour) are nothing to blink at either, since they can damage astronauts or equipment on the Martian surface.
Damage astronauts eh? That doesn't sound good. If it wears and tears on the EVA suits that's bad but if it damages the astronauts that's real bad. I think the state of an astronaut on Mars subject to such elemental damage probably changes in quanta (alive vs. not alive).
A good analogy, but a better one would use a bank instead of a jewelery store.
You're storing other peoples valuables (be it information or money) and have an obligation to do your best to protect it. Free market forces aside, the moral obligation remains.
First let me say that I agree way too many websites request way too much personal information. Users should be (and many are) wary of giving any personal information.
That said, there are times when people want to be found and the collection of the information is legitimate. I'm guessing people who wanted to win a 50million coin or tshirt or whatever and submitted screenshots and posters and photos gave their real addresses and names so they could collect their potential prize. BANANA doesn't work here.
The point is, if you're going to collect this kind of information you have an obligation to make sure it is as secure as possible and not available to anyone through a known hole in your CMS.
Just my opinion of course (who else's would it be??)
Since the US has a permanent veto, this would never happen against the will of the administration.
If it's going to happen anyway (i.e. they don't intend to veto) and would be a real competitor, wouldn't the administration force a revisit the issue and use the existing influence/infrastructure of the ICANN rather than risk losing decision making abilities over these aspects of the Internet?
Maybe they'll set up an international ICANN council where the US has a permanent veto?