You are right, to some extent. I doubt that current military spending gives good value for money in terms of useful civilian spinoffs. The jet/space examples originate in World War II, which was a very productive period for military research and far from typical.
Yeah, it's like patents, but I'm against the entire concept of patents so there is no inconsistency.
It's true that people don't necessarily retire once they have guaranteed security for life. Some would, some would not. I certainly would, or at least I would get out of the rat race and do what I please. Anything that came out of that that would be of use to anybody else would be purely coincidental.
If you are defending yourself against somebody with a baseball bat then maybe buying a gun will help. But the guy with the baseball bat will buy a gun too. It's just an arms race with no ultimate benefit.
Likewise making things sell better is often the same kind of "arms race": doing things just because a competitor does them and consumers for some reason prefer it that way, but without getting any benefit from it. Compare with the peacock's tail feathers.
I don't think much of this prizes idea. It seems fundamentally unjust that a number of scientists could spend several years working on something but the one that finishes a few weeks earlier takes the entire reward.
Furthermore, the one that takes the reward in your system has guaranted security for life, so may as well immediately retire. They won't necessarily do anything useful for anybody else after that.
When considering how many scientists actually change the world for the better, you can start by discounting the ones that work for military or security organisations, or work on somewhat pointless projects for commercial reasons (the car tail fins of the 1960s, that kind of thing). In the USA this probably reduces the number significantly.
Yes, so the equivalent question here is whether net gambling is just the same thing as gambling in a "bricks and mortar" establishment. If they want to ban gambling completely, that may be fine under WTO rules, but banning only the online version could be argued to make foreign competition in gambling more difficult.
25W per machine is presumably better than you could achieve using a dedicated server farm though? And you also save the energy costs of building the machines and shipping them from China.
Most likely their true purpose is something mostly harmless, such as CGI scenes for the next Doctor Who series, or perhaps an accounting system for the billions they collect in licence fees.
What is "that poor kursk", exactly, the Russian city or submarine? Neither was constructed on British CPU time as far as I know.
I still don't see how a bit of bureaucracy is going to freeze out "straight, white, christian males". These are the sort of people who thrive on bureaucracy.
Companies would want to reduce it, if this thing was taken seriously. Otherwise they'd be forced to select from the tiny number of applicants who have somehow managed to tick off all of the requirements.
The applicants with the greatest diversity of "skills" could be the ones who have moved jobs a lot, and presumably won't stay long with the new employer either.
It also gives a big boost to the applicants who are prepared to use a bit of creative exageration on their CV. Some of these things may be plausibly too hard or too time-consuming to verify.
True, the final product with a screw panel in the side is a bit disappointing. The whole point of putting the thing in a bottle is to keep people guessing how you got it in there.
Explaining the entire process on a website doesn't help either.
Some raw converters (and the jpgs produced by the camera) seem to omit a few boundary pixels. Using UFRaw for example gives 3039 x 2014 images, which is 6120546 pixels.
Anything that has been obfuscated is no longer source code either.
Re:The future is tangiable
on
The New Boom
·
· Score: 1
It's irrelevant whether Google will become a has-been or not. Even if they remain the dominant search engine, their income seems a bit low for their current stock price.
Compare with Amazon for an example of a crash, followed by a partial recovery, in fact it's looking overvalued again too.
Slashdot Mirror
You are right, to some extent. I doubt that current military spending gives good value for money in terms of useful civilian spinoffs. The jet/space examples originate in World War II, which was a very productive period for military research and far from typical.
It's true that people don't necessarily retire once they have guaranteed security for life. Some would, some would not. I certainly would, or at least I would get out of the rat race and do what I please. Anything that came out of that that would be of use to anybody else would be purely coincidental.
If you are defending yourself against somebody with a baseball bat then maybe buying a gun will help. But the guy with the baseball bat will buy a gun too. It's just an arms race with no ultimate benefit.
Likewise making things sell better is often the same kind of "arms race": doing things just because a competitor does them and consumers for some reason prefer it that way, but without getting any benefit from it. Compare with the peacock's tail feathers.
Furthermore, the one that takes the reward in your system has guaranted security for life, so may as well immediately retire. They won't necessarily do anything useful for anybody else after that.
When considering how many scientists actually change the world for the better, you can start by discounting the ones that work for military or security organisations, or work on somewhat pointless projects for commercial reasons (the car tail fins of the 1960s, that kind of thing). In the USA this probably reduces the number significantly.
Yes, so the equivalent question here is whether net gambling is just the same thing as gambling in a "bricks and mortar" establishment. If they want to ban gambling completely, that may be fine under WTO rules, but banning only the online version could be argued to make foreign competition in gambling more difficult.
25W per machine is presumably better than you could achieve using a dedicated server farm though? And you also save the energy costs of building the machines and shipping them from China.
Most likely their true purpose is something mostly harmless, such as CGI scenes for the next Doctor Who series, or perhaps an accounting system for the billions they collect in licence fees.
What is "that poor kursk", exactly, the Russian city or submarine? Neither was constructed on British CPU time as far as I know.
I think it's going to be linked to residence permits, which up to now have been voluntary for EU citizens living in the UK.
Now we can be equally baffled about how the 2003 press articles suddenly appear on Yahoo/Slashdot.
You bastard!
My fingers are itching to play Angband again. Hopefully I'll be able to resist.
I still don't see how a bit of bureaucracy is going to freeze out "straight, white, christian males". These are the sort of people who thrive on bureaucracy.
The applicants with the greatest diversity of "skills" could be the ones who have moved jobs a lot, and presumably won't stay long with the new employer either.
It also gives a big boost to the applicants who are prepared to use a bit of creative exageration on their CV. Some of these things may be plausibly too hard or too time-consuming to verify.
Explaining the entire process on a website doesn't help either.
Some raw converters (and the jpgs produced by the camera) seem to omit a few boundary pixels. Using UFRaw for example gives 3039 x 2014 images, which is 6120546 pixels.
Try telnet to port 80. Mature software doesn't crash.
I don't consider APL (or TeX or Perl) to be deliberately obfuscated, althought I suppose the effect is the same in the end.
Wikipedia seems to bring out the worst in some people. My favourite example is this. Do these people have nothing better to do?
Anything that has been obfuscated is no longer source code either.
Compare with Amazon for an example of a crash, followed by a partial recovery, in fact it's looking overvalued again too.
i.e.,Chapter III, Acts Permitted in relation to Copyright Works
It doesn't necessary cover the example given above though.
Or fraud, for trying to pass off baking soda as cocaine.
The source code is what the programmer writes and maintains. Anything that has been encrypted is no longer source code.
Surely they would be off the christmas card list, and most likely disinherited.
Presumably there's less hostility to multinationals now, in much of the world, than to the USA.
What about software built into automobiles? Perhaps this was what the previous poster was alluding to?