Let's see... we could spend lots of money putting more security and watchdogs in, to make it harder for disgruntled employees to engage in sabotage or espionage - and make sure, all the while, to let our employees know that we don't trust them even a tiny bit...
Or... perhaps companies could learn to treat their employees better, pay them fairly, and get rid of sucky employees so that people who have good work ethics can find jobs?
Will it take into consideration that my heart rate will be elevated if I'm annoyed because I think there's strange people monitoring my heart rate through the walls?
... was that if the person refused to provide his driver's license during a traffic stop, that he deserved what he got. It's a driver's license after all. And while I can think of instances where, on principle, I would refuse to provide identification if it were not required by law to do so... this sounds like the man was wrongly accused of a crime, sought redress, then was punished for demanding that his legal rights be upheld.
That's called corruption, children.
Perhaps the guy was being a jerk or annoying. But it's not okay to use the law to harrass someone for demanding protection under the law.
Over the years, I've watched a zillion methods employed to prevent various forms of digital piracy. Generally, the more comfortable a company is that a method will safeguard their product from piracy, the more annoying it is for their legitimate users to employ it. Anyone remember dongle-protected software?
I've worked at several places that legitimately purchased licenses to software, then used cracked versions of what they'd paid for, simply so that they could work in piece without juggling dongles, CD Keys, and other such.
Essentially, any wall that can keep out invaders also hinders legitimate travelers. Any wall that allows access to legitimate guests also allows for the egress of the unwanted.
When we employ truly draconian or paranoid means to safeguard intellectual property, it carries with it subtle risks. Among them, the risk that it won't work well, or will hinder legitimate users while still being exploitable by illegitimate ones.
It's a little like the death penalty. A lot of people would be more in favor of it, if they didn't fear that it was employed unfairly against people who don't deserve it.
If a system is put into place to protect a company against digital pirates, that randomly hassles the company's legitimate users, or if it is, as many pieces of software are today, just completely buggy and bloated (the product of an industry driven just as much, if not moreso, by marketing and artificial deadlines as by a desire for a properly-working product), is it worth it?
Probably most iPhone users will go with AT&T, even if it is possible to hack the phone. Some of them may do it because it is easier, or they are not technically savvy/confident enough to feel comfortable using a crack, or because they don't trust the crack to continue working, or fear some sort of reprisal.
But, if there are a significant enough percentage of people who are willing to use the crack in order to use another service, perhaps AT&T can keep those customers in the old-fashioned way... by providing a decent service for a decent price. I'd encourage them to do so.
Ha ha! Sorry. Couldn't say that with a straight face.
Heh... shortly after I moved to Athens, Georgia a few years ago, our internet and cable went down because someone shot through the cable in our neighborhood - while trying to kill a squirrel.
When I was a kid, they were still teaching us "nuclear preparedness drills."
They included such gems as (I am not making these up):
"If you hear the nuclear explosion, do not look toward the sound, because the flash of light will blind you." (Wow! I guess atomic sound travels faster than the speed of light!)
and...
"Hide under your desks until the teacher says it is okay."
and...
"If you see a bright flash of light, and there is a giant cloud shaped like a mushroom, tell your teacher immediately."
I grow weary, at times, of science fiction writers who attempt to teach us about science. Perhaps it is simply that Michael Crichton has left a bad taste in my mouth.
I used to be a publisher. I've read enough science fiction to know that even sci-fi writers who claim to be scientists - indeed even those who seem to have been educated as such - do not necessarily know what the heck they're talking about on a given subject.
When a science fiction writer says something is possible or impossible, I think back to that commercial that began "I'm not a doctor, but I play one on TV..."
I don't want to come across as mean. I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings. But really...
When people say things like "impossible" or "never" it makes me suspicious. It makes me just as suspicious as when someone tells me I should believe in God because there's no proof he's not there.
Half the time, someone's saying that something is impossible because "science hasn't found it yet."
The other half, they are saying "Oh, don't worry, we don't have to be careful with because someone will invent a technology that fixes our problem someday, even though we have no sign of that now."
A few years back, Vernor Vinge (one of my favorite sci-fi authors) wrote a book (one of my favorite books), where one of the major plot elements was the idea that information could never travel faster than 56k modem speeds.
Before that, Robert Heinlein (one of my all-time favorites), wrote books where computers used ticker tape to be programmed long after we had moon colonies.
I don't even want to discuss Michael Crichton, because my granny used to say, "If you can't say something nice..." - he's supposedly a scientist by profession, yet everything of his I've ever read had numerous factual errors, common layman's misconceptions of technology and principles, and even errors in internal consistency. (I won't even mention his supposed nonfiction).
Please people... don't let science-fiction writers tell you what can't be done. Let them help you dream about what might happen, and what we might reach for even if we can't make it.
Hell... you probably shouldn't even be letting scientists tell you what can be done. Half of them I've met wouldn't know recognize the scientific method if it fell on them.
I love when science writers of various stripes insist certain things are impossible, based on what we know currently.
When I was a kid, there were both science writers and actual scientists explaining how we'd never be able to send anything faster than 56kbps, or that computer processors could _never_ go past 100Mhz.
It was once believed it would be impossible to break the speed of sound.
I believe we have many of the stepping-stone technologies already that will ultimately lead to the human ability to expand into space (assuming we don't blow each other up, or back into the stone age, or collapse our economy in the next few years).
My concern is not that we'll be unable to develop the technology to explore the larger universe, or to colonize it. My concerns are that we'll live long enough to do so, or that we'll have grown wise enough by the time we develop that technology that we don't simply carry a bunch of fallacies and bad behaviors with us where we travel. Perhaps we will never meet another sentient species, but if we did, it would be nice if we weren't a scourge.
Looking over the paper, it smells suspiciously to me like someone with an ax to grind, who incorporates bias into their conclusions.
For one thing, it does not directly measure number of hours of television time watched by children, but infers the amount based on level of income and labor in a community - not for households, but for a wide area. It ignores that there might be other factors besides television - for instance, that families where the parents work longer hours in certain income groups might be less likely to pay attention to their kids, or give them healthy attention when they do... or that income groups capable of affording cable television (especially in the early years of cable) might be more likely to seek assistance when their kid began demonstrating signs of something wrong.
Linking TV watching to autism rates by the methodology used seems a bit sloppy to me. The conclusion hinted at by the survey seems a little irresponsible scientifically.
The only thing these statistics really show is that diagnosis of autism increased when the incidence of people working certain numbers of hours for certain wages increased, which also corresponds with an increase in the number of homes having cable television.
For one thing, I was a small child _before_ cable television, and every kid I knew had to practically be chased away from the television. There were cartoons on every afternoon, and cartoons and educational shows on in the morning until well after kids went to school. When I would _get_ to school in the morning, we were all set down in front of "Captain Kangaroo" until class was ready to start.
Don't get me wrong. It's not like I _like_ television. I've been known to write "Kill Your TV" in the dust on SUV's. I don't own a television, and haven't for years. If I even want to watch a movie DVD, I have to watch it on someone else's TV. When I do accidentally look at a television, the sheer crassness, unethical and stuporific advertising, crappy news reporting, and unwholesome memes that indicate that bitchy, stupid, greedy people are cute and funny all make me pretty nauseous.
If there _is_ a link between television and autism, poorly-crafted, biased studies will only obscure finding that out, and make people suspicious of any legitimate studies done on the subject. And if TV is _not_ really a precipitator of autism, stuff like this can attract attention _away_ from better work that might get down to more legitimate causes for it.
I _don't_ think television is that good for kids, especially in high enough doses that they don't actually interact with other human beings, or if they spend more time with the television than with their families. I think that can stunt people's social and emotional growth, as well as filling their heads with the idea that they need to buy into the latest rampant consumer craze. I don't think that's healthy for _adults_ either.
TV isn't really bad for kids, when I think about it. It's lack of real, participatory interaction between people, and when infotainment takes the place of education. It's when kids learn their values from television instead of from people (not that all the values on Sesame Street are bad... but come on... who should be showing your kid that stuff... you or the TV?)
But I digress... by which I mean rant.
My point is that this study looks, to me, like poor science, and jumping to conclusions, possibly to pander to anti-television interests, or "child safety" interests. My problem with that is that bad science leads to bad information and bad decisions. And lots of the "child safety" interests strike me more as "giant panic clubs" instead of actually doing any kids any good.
I suspect that when laymen, and some scientists, attempt to understand what happens to space in the presence or absence of matter, that they misunderstand, or lose track of, the difference between what space is, and how it _appears_ to us under different conditions.
You will notice though, that very often, when the properties of space (or space-time, in those models) are discussed, it will be said that space _appears_ to stretch, or "to the observer, space appears to change."
I suggest that you stop eating any animals or plants them. Oh, and try not to move or speak, because that will cause your body to shed cells, especially epithelial cells.
And in any case, if a stem cells _does_ happen to come from an aborted fetus, I'd prefer to think of it as life being allowed to continue when otherwise it would have been lost completely.
Human beings seem perfectly willing to destroy life to enhance their own, when it's convenient, or when they can pretend that other life is somehow less valuable than their own.
Every time I eat a steak, I'm enhancing and supporting my own life with something that's died. And every time I walk on the land, I am walking on land that was won through the suffering and death of others.
But it also came from the striving, the dreams, the hopes of those people, living and dead.
We always are taking when we live. We just need to remember to give back, and not pretend that we're the end product, or that we are _owed_ a living.
Apparently, God decided that we should have brain cells, and our brain cells give us the capacity to learn all sorts of things - including perhaps, how to properly cause planned differentiation of cells in culture.
And apparently, we are blessed with the free will to choose not to use our brains, or not use them very well.
To say "No, you should not learn this, if God wanted you to know it or be able to do it already, you'd know or be able to do it," seems silly - if you are toilet trained. We're not born knowing not to poop in our pants, either, but we learn not to do it, and learn how not to do it.
I frequently hear this kind of argument - "If God wanted it to happen, he'd have made it happen."
Maybe he's caused things to happen through us - by giving us the capacity to know, to dream, to learn.
How do you know whether, every time you close your eyes and your mind, that you are not betraying God's plan for you? I'd think, supposing that there is a God, and that there is a plan (and not everyone thinks so), that evidence would be on the side of doing, learning, knowing as the right thing to do. If God does everything for a reason, then he gave us brains for a reason.
If it is a sin to commit suicide, as many God-fearing Christians believe, because to do so is to turn one's back the gift of life we were given by the creator, then why do so many people seem to think that it's okay to turn their back their capacity to reason, to explore, and to make their knowledge manifest in the world in the form of technology, and craft?
I'm sorry... I _do_ want to know how our body's cells work and are formed. I do want to know how to create from the very building blocks of life. I do want us to be able to direct our own destiny to a better tomorrow.
If such learning forces us to also learn the wisdom and foresight to use our knowledge well, I think that's far better than hiding in the closet forever, fearing what we would become if we knew more. Many people are so afraid that we'll all make bad decisions, that they wish to keep everyone in the dark and powerless - fearing what they would do.
What I'd like to hope that we'll all do is learn how to make good decisions with new knowledge, and choose to do good things.
Yes, there is a risk, with any new knowledge or technological advance, that people will make bad choices, evil choices in using it.
That risk is only increased when you limit people's capacity to learn, and limit their ability to ever have the experience of coming into their own power and knowledge. If we all grow up stunted creatures, who have always been kept in the dark, and away from anything sharp, we will never learn how not to cut ourselves.
I'm not satisfied with leaving any of these things up to others. I feel responsible for acting as well. When people like us sit back, it leaves our fates in the hands of people who don't.
And even when those people _mean_ well, they may not always _do_ well.
I'm not saying run out and become a lawyer (if you aren't). I'm just saying that it's not necessarily a good idea to leave everything up to others - especially the important things. That's how groups and governments get out of control in the first place.
I suffered from PTSD. Everything I was ever told led me to believe that the best I could do would be learn to cope with it, but that there was no real "cure."
I then learned that MDMA showed signs of being able to treat sufferers of PTSD, even years after the fact.
So, even though it was not legal, I researched it, including what little I could find about dosages, got some, and I used it a couple times. While under the influence of it, I made myself examine and explore the memories of the traumatic events.
I no longer exhibit any of the symptoms of PTSD. It did not require that I continue to take it for long periods. I don't think it was the chemical by itself, but I do believe that it made my recovery possible.
It has removed a looming, painful spectre from my life.
No more nightmares. No more frightening reactions to common stimuli. No more becoming overwhelmed in crowds. No more flashbacks. No more randomly having my body react as if innocent strangers were about to attack me.
In Post Traumatic Stress, (and, iirc) phobias, neural paths are formed between the hippocampus (which handles long-term memory) and the Amygdala (which, among other things, governs fear or fight/flight responses). Those paths _bypass_ your normal, conscious thought processes. That, supposedly, is why even people who have undergone desensitization therapy for phobias, so that they can handle the object of their phobia without fear, can _still_ be prompted to a phobic reaction if they are suddenly startled by the object of their fear.
_Supposedly_, the way I understand it, MDMA can help break down, or re-route those paths.
What it _felt_ like, for me, was being able to re-examine the things that caused me the initial trauma, but without pain or fear. It let me look at the memories and incorporate them in a more healthy way.
I didn't _lose_ the memory of the events. I didn't have any weird side effects. If anything, my cognitive function is better than it was beforehand, possibly because I'm not _twitchy_ all the time.
When I heard that people in the military might be given MDMA to help them with shell-shock/PTSD, I was glad. When I heard that they might be refused that assistance (because some twit decided to make MDMA illegal, instead of just limiting it's use to medical purposes), I was very angry.
My experience is anecdotal. But my take on it is, I used to have PTSD. It impacted my life _horrendously_. I couldn't go out in crowds. If someone touched me or even came near me when I was sleeping, I'd _attack_ them without even being fully conscious. I could end up sweating and flooded with adrenaline just because some stranger, at the edge of my vision, raised their hand over my head.
And now that's all _gone_. No holes in my brain, no heart attacks, no cognitive difficulties, no destruction of my brain's ability to produce seratonin. I haven't turned into a druggie. I haven't lost the ability to feel pleasure. _None_ of the scary side-effects attributed to MDMA have happened to me (or anyone I've met who has tried it). Of course, I didn't pop handfuls of it for recreation, and do it over and over every week.
I still remember everything that happened. It didn't take away my memories. But I'm not _harmed_ by them any more. I can look at them with understanding, as an adult human being. I can feel and understand what happened to me, without being torn up by it.
I had another friend who had a traumatic childhood. If anyone raised their voice to this person - a perfectly rational, brave and intelligent person, it could cause them to have a _severe_ panic attack, leaving them shaking and crying, even if no _aggression_ was being directed at them. They've taken MDMA a handful of times (not at my direction!) and this seems to have been alleviated. Just recently, they had a big strong man cussing them out and yelling in their face, and they were upset - but remained calm, rational, and in control, without the adrenaline, panic, and shaking.
It irritates me enough when a person has a lot more talent at getting a job through "schmooze" than in doing a job, but it's worse when they are deliberately appointed to a position of extreme responsibility based more on whether they'll be a "team player" than whether they'll do their job well.
It's bad enough when a company appoints people based on social skills over actual skills - how much worse when someone elects unqualified buddies into positions of _real_ importance in government?
I think it would be lovely to have consumer-available writers for RFID tags that could either erase the info in the tags, or replace it with whatever the end-user wants.
If there is a threat, it could be reduced to absurdity in this fashion, could it not? Is it difficult to hack RFID tags? Are they particularly secure?
I think it would be funny if all that could be read from the trash cans mentioned in the article is "Mortimer Snerd loves Oranges," or "Richard Nixon bought these high-heeled shoes."
It always surprises me that people don't do this type of math for themselves. : )
The only major things I can think of that make sense, currently, as a reason to do your own photo-printing, is if you need your output _immediately_, or if you plan to print out stuff you'd rather your photo shop clerks not see.
Having your own photo-printer is probably more of a convenience thing than a cost-effectiveness thing. At least some people are probably enamored of them because they are a neat gizmo that has "cool factor."
My personal concern is nearly always price, and from a price-standpoint, the cost of the media and supplies has always made the per-copy cost too high, and the quality is usually too low to justify it for me.
On the other hand, I can do my own photo-editing and touchup, to get the particular results I want, and see instant results.
For many people, perhaps the little bit extra they pay per-print is worth it to not have to wait, go to a photo-mat, or take a chance that the neat boudoir pictures they made with their spouse will end up in some photo-lab's scrapbook. ; )
Personally, I'm simultaneously amused and dismayed that there are now so many printers that cost less than their refill supplies. Seems like a case of "Give away the razor for free, so you can sell the refill blades."
Seriously though... I'm honestly not sure which entity(ies) I would trust to manage things like domains.
I hate to say it, but I'm not sure I trust my own government to do a good job of this for the rest of the world, but at the same time, am not sure that the UN would do a good job of managing these vital services for the internet either.
I'm thinking the internet needs it's own "UN" in a way... an impartial group that represents the best interests of everyone, and whose goal is to make the internet work... not decide who uses it, how much it should cost, who gets to sneak peeks into other people's stuff, etc.
I agree. I have been saying for years that copy protection and other forms of DRM create difficulty and inconvenience for legitimate users of products, without doing anything other than giving pirates an interesting way to spend a few hours.
At several places I worked (that legally purchased software), it was easier to use cracked versions of software (especially those requiring dongles), than to use the expensive thing purchased out-of-box.
Worse, part of DRM laws have nothing to do with actual copy prevention - they exist to allow litigation against legitimate criticism or competition.
I do believe that software and media piracy is theft. And I believe that the creator of a technology or a piece of art, or whatever should benefit from it's use.
But I think that Digital Rights Management, as it exists, to my knowledge, does more harm than good, and tends to inconvenience legitimate customers.
I am also concerned that some of the DRM laws set precedents that could conceivably have much darker consequences than someday not being able to share a book with a friend.
I think the concern might be that fast authorization for wiretaps might _conceivably_ (perish the thought), be used for inappropriate reasons, that have nothing to do with national security, and that the power would be abused.
I'm sorry, but I think Americans kill other Americans at a more alarming rate than foreign terrorists do, and they don't generally use commercial airplaces to do it.
I'm personally getting a bit annoyed at the "terrorist" excuse being pulled out like a trump card whenever anyone complains about police or executive powers being increased, or personal freedom or privacy being threatened.
"Oh, but a terrorist might..." or "What if a terrorist..."
What if monkeys fly outta my butt, or I get run over by a car, or a meteor crashes through my roof?
In order to fight terrorism, we need better foreign and domestic policies. We need to make fewer enemies. We need to take the moral high ground and live up to a high example. We need to have better communication, cooperation, and information analysis - not excessive domestic police powers, excuses to eavesdrop on innocent people, or more ways for people to put requests for wiretaps on the fast track.
Our intelligence services need to cooperate with one another and share information. The goals must be to protect the safety and freedom of our people, not find ways to exploit people's propensity for fear so that the laws protect people _less_. We need law enforcement that is skilled, impartial, fair, and well-funded. We don't need to take shortcuts through personal freedoms or privacy.
Some things _should_ be hard to do. Some things should not be shortcut for convenience.
Whenever I hear "we need special powers to protect you from terrorists", I _really_ hear "We don't have a good reason for this, so we'll pull out some BS about terrorists so that nobody will question too closely.
I simply lose trust at this point when I hear "terrorists". I begin to assume that the terrorist card is played not because there is a real danger of terror attacks that will be able to be stopped by whatever new tactic is employes... but because the real reasons are dubious, unethical, or unecessary, and nobody would _like_ the real reasons.
Have no fear though. Apparently, enough Americans are willing to support any stupid, greedy, or evil thing our "leaders" decide to do in order to become more wealthy and powerful, that I'm sure that we'll only be seeing more stuff like this in the future.
Apologies for the bitter tone of my response. It's not that I don't feel that terror attacks could conceivably occur. It's not that I don't want to see them prevented. It's simply that I don't feel any safer since many of these new abrogations or infringements on civil rights and privacy began. I'm thinking that instead of being afraid of terrorists, I now have to be afraid of the government of my own country... plus the terrorists.
Yep. I've been doing that for years. I tried all sorts of applications designed for note-taking and organization, and always ended up making "quick notes" in my e-mail client that I would intend to "file properly later".
After a while, I realized that I never really copied over the information into anything else, because it was easier to find in my e-mail client (Eudora).
I am gay, and I still enjoy Card's books. I disagree with his stance on gay marriage. I also respect his right to hold an opinion and his willingness to speak up for his belief system, even if I disagree with it.
This is America after all.
I've never noticed, in any of his writing that I have read, that he's included those stances which people are offended by.
Besides... Karma in action: The screenwriter of that stinker, Troy (I made the token effort of asking for my money back from the theater after that one), will be working on the movie adaptation of what are probably his best-known books. That will teach him!
Coyote
If you did it carelessly, without any plan for what to replace the job with, because you didn't want to learn something that would further your skills, then perhaps.
But if you quit a job that you knew would make you miserable, doing something that you don't want to do, all you've probably done is decrease the amount of time you'd be doing something you hate, and increased the amount of time you could be doing something else.
If you hate a job, and something you have to do to keep that job is going to rankle and stress you, or make you do something that goes against your principles or sense of self-respect... you're probably going to lose that job at some point anyway, because your heart won't be in it, you'll hate it, and you'll either quit or be let go. That won't do wonders for your self-respect. Or, you may end up getting into the habit of putting up with crap and letting things that bother you slide, which also isn't much good for your self-respect.
If it's not something you want to do... then don't do it. You have to be willing to face the _consequences_ of that decision, of course.
Consider though... a certain amount of ability to put up with crap _is_ a survival trait.
Slashdot Mirror
Let's see... we could spend lots of money putting more security and watchdogs in, to make it harder for disgruntled employees to engage in sabotage or espionage - and make sure, all the while, to let our employees know that we don't trust them even a tiny bit...
Or... perhaps companies could learn to treat their employees better, pay them fairly, and get rid of sucky employees so that people who have good work ethics can find jobs?
Wouldn't a discount on a game, based on a report card, have been a better idea?
Will it take into consideration that my heart rate will be elevated if I'm annoyed because I think there's strange people monitoring my heart rate through the walls?
... was that if the person refused to provide his driver's license during a traffic stop, that he deserved what he got. It's a driver's license after all. And while I can think of instances where, on principle, I would refuse to provide identification if it were not required by law to do so... this sounds like the man was wrongly accused of a crime, sought redress, then was punished for demanding that his legal rights be upheld.
That's called corruption, children.
Perhaps the guy was being a jerk or annoying. But it's not okay to use the law to harrass someone for demanding protection under the law.
Over the years, I've watched a zillion methods employed to prevent various forms of digital piracy. Generally, the more comfortable a company is that a method will safeguard their product from piracy, the more annoying it is for their legitimate users to employ it. Anyone remember dongle-protected software?
I've worked at several places that legitimately purchased licenses to software, then used cracked versions of what they'd paid for, simply so that they could work in piece without juggling dongles, CD Keys, and other such.
Essentially, any wall that can keep out invaders also hinders legitimate travelers. Any wall that allows access to legitimate guests also allows for the egress of the unwanted.
When we employ truly draconian or paranoid means to safeguard intellectual property, it carries with it subtle risks. Among them, the risk that it won't work well, or will hinder legitimate users while still being exploitable by illegitimate ones.
It's a little like the death penalty. A lot of people would be more in favor of it, if they didn't fear that it was employed unfairly against people who don't deserve it.
If a system is put into place to protect a company against digital pirates, that randomly hassles the company's legitimate users, or if it is, as many pieces of software are today, just completely buggy and bloated (the product of an industry driven just as much, if not moreso, by marketing and artificial deadlines as by a desire for a properly-working product), is it worth it?
Probably most iPhone users will go with AT&T, even if it is possible to hack the phone. Some of them may do it because it is easier, or they are not technically savvy/confident enough to feel comfortable using a crack, or because they don't trust the crack to continue working, or fear some sort of reprisal.
But, if there are a significant enough percentage of people who are willing to use the crack in order to use another service, perhaps AT&T can keep those customers in the old-fashioned way... by providing a decent service for a decent price. I'd encourage them to do so.
Ha ha! Sorry. Couldn't say that with a straight face.
Heh... shortly after I moved to Athens, Georgia a few years ago, our internet and cable went down because someone shot through the cable in our neighborhood - while trying to kill a squirrel.
When I was a kid, they were still teaching us "nuclear preparedness drills."
They included such gems as (I am not making these up):
"If you hear the nuclear explosion, do not look toward the sound, because the flash of light will blind you." (Wow! I guess atomic sound travels faster than the speed of light!)
and...
"Hide under your desks until the teacher says it is okay."
and...
"If you see a bright flash of light, and there is a giant cloud shaped like a mushroom, tell your teacher immediately."
I grow weary, at times, of science fiction writers who attempt to teach us about science. Perhaps it is simply that Michael Crichton has left a bad taste in my mouth.
I used to be a publisher. I've read enough science fiction to know that even sci-fi writers who claim to be scientists - indeed even those who seem to have been educated as such - do not necessarily know what the heck they're talking about on a given subject.
When a science fiction writer says something is possible or impossible, I think back to that commercial that began "I'm not a doctor, but I play one on TV..."
I don't want to come across as mean. I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings. But really...
When people say things like "impossible" or "never" it makes me suspicious. It makes me just as suspicious as when someone tells me I should believe in God because there's no proof he's not there.
Half the time, someone's saying that something is impossible because "science hasn't found it yet."
The other half, they are saying "Oh, don't worry, we don't have to be careful with because someone will invent a technology that fixes our problem someday, even though we have no sign of that now."
A few years back, Vernor Vinge (one of my favorite sci-fi authors) wrote a book (one of my favorite books), where one of the major plot elements was the idea that information could never travel faster than 56k modem speeds.
Before that, Robert Heinlein (one of my all-time favorites), wrote books where computers used ticker tape to be programmed long after we had moon colonies.
I don't even want to discuss Michael Crichton, because my granny used to say, "If you can't say something nice..." - he's supposedly a scientist by profession, yet everything of his I've ever read had numerous factual errors, common layman's misconceptions of technology and principles, and even errors in internal consistency. (I won't even mention his supposed nonfiction).
Please people... don't let science-fiction writers tell you what can't be done. Let them help you dream about what might happen, and what we might reach for even if we can't make it.
Hell... you probably shouldn't even be letting scientists tell you what can be done. Half of them I've met wouldn't know recognize the scientific method if it fell on them.
I love when science writers of various stripes insist certain things are impossible, based on what we know currently.
When I was a kid, there were both science writers and actual scientists explaining how we'd never be able to send anything faster than 56kbps, or that computer processors could _never_ go past 100Mhz.
It was once believed it would be impossible to break the speed of sound.
I believe we have many of the stepping-stone technologies already that will ultimately lead to the human ability to expand into space (assuming we don't blow each other up, or back into the stone age, or collapse our economy in the next few years).
My concern is not that we'll be unable to develop the technology to explore the larger universe, or to colonize it. My concerns are that we'll live long enough to do so, or that we'll have grown wise enough by the time we develop that technology that we don't simply carry a bunch of fallacies and bad behaviors with us where we travel. Perhaps we will never meet another sentient species, but if we did, it would be nice if we weren't a scourge.
Looking over the paper, it smells suspiciously to me like someone with an ax to grind, who incorporates bias into their conclusions.
For one thing, it does not directly measure number of hours of television time watched by children, but infers the amount based on level of income and labor in a community - not for households, but for a wide area. It ignores that there might be other factors besides television - for instance, that families where the parents work longer hours in certain income groups might be less likely to pay attention to their kids, or give them healthy attention when they do... or that income groups capable of affording cable television (especially in the early years of cable) might be more likely to seek assistance when their kid began demonstrating signs of something wrong.
Linking TV watching to autism rates by the methodology used seems a bit sloppy to me. The conclusion hinted at by the survey seems a little irresponsible scientifically.
The only thing these statistics really show is that diagnosis of autism increased when the incidence of people working certain numbers of hours for certain wages increased, which also corresponds with an increase in the number of homes having cable television.
For one thing, I was a small child _before_ cable television, and every kid I knew had to practically be chased away from the television. There were cartoons on every afternoon, and cartoons and educational shows on in the morning until well after kids went to school. When I would _get_ to school in the morning, we were all set down in front of "Captain Kangaroo" until class was ready to start.
Don't get me wrong. It's not like I _like_ television. I've been known to write "Kill Your TV" in the dust on SUV's. I don't own a television, and haven't for years. If I even want to watch a movie DVD, I have to watch it on someone else's TV. When I do accidentally look at a television, the sheer crassness, unethical and stuporific advertising, crappy news reporting, and unwholesome memes that indicate that bitchy, stupid, greedy people are cute and funny all make me pretty nauseous.
If there _is_ a link between television and autism, poorly-crafted, biased studies will only obscure finding that out, and make people suspicious of any legitimate studies done on the subject. And if TV is _not_ really a precipitator of autism, stuff like this can attract attention _away_ from better work that might get down to more legitimate causes for it.
I _don't_ think television is that good for kids, especially in high enough doses that they don't actually interact with other human beings, or if they spend more time with the television than with their families. I think that can stunt people's social and emotional growth, as well as filling their heads with the idea that they need to buy into the latest rampant consumer craze. I don't think that's healthy for _adults_ either.
TV isn't really bad for kids, when I think about it. It's lack of real, participatory interaction between people, and when infotainment takes the place of education. It's when kids learn their values from television instead of from people (not that all the values on Sesame Street are bad... but come on... who should be showing your kid that stuff... you or the TV?)
But I digress... by which I mean rant.
My point is that this study looks, to me, like poor science, and jumping to conclusions, possibly to pander to anti-television interests, or "child safety" interests. My problem with that is that bad science leads to bad information and bad decisions. And lots of the "child safety" interests strike me more as "giant panic clubs" instead of actually doing any kids any good.
Maybe it's just me.
Coyote
I suspect that when laymen, and some scientists, attempt to understand what happens to space in the presence or absence of matter, that they misunderstand, or lose track of, the difference between what space is, and how it _appears_ to us under different conditions.
You will notice though, that very often, when the properties of space (or space-time, in those models) are discussed, it will be said that space _appears_ to stretch, or "to the observer, space appears to change."
I suggest that you stop eating any animals or plants them. Oh, and try not to move or speak, because that will cause your body to shed cells, especially epithelial cells.
And in any case, if a stem cells _does_ happen to come from an aborted fetus, I'd prefer to think of it as life being allowed to continue when otherwise it would have been lost completely.
Human beings seem perfectly willing to destroy life to enhance their own, when it's convenient, or when they can pretend that other life is somehow less valuable than their own.
Every time I eat a steak, I'm enhancing and supporting my own life with something that's died. And every time I walk on the land, I am walking on land that was won through the suffering and death of others.
But it also came from the striving, the dreams, the hopes of those people, living and dead.
We always are taking when we live. We just need to remember to give back, and not pretend that we're the end product, or that we are _owed_ a living.
Apparently, God decided that we should have brain cells, and our brain cells give us the capacity to learn all sorts of things - including perhaps, how to properly cause planned differentiation of cells in culture.
And apparently, we are blessed with the free will to choose not to use our brains, or not use them very well.
To say "No, you should not learn this, if God wanted you to know it or be able to do it already, you'd know or be able to do it," seems silly - if you are toilet trained. We're not born knowing not to poop in our pants, either, but we learn not to do it, and learn how not to do it.
I frequently hear this kind of argument - "If God wanted it to happen, he'd have made it happen."
Maybe he's caused things to happen through us - by giving us the capacity to know, to dream, to learn.
How do you know whether, every time you close your eyes and your mind, that you are not betraying God's plan for you? I'd think, supposing that there is a God, and that there is a plan (and not everyone thinks so), that evidence would be on the side of doing, learning, knowing as the right thing to do. If God does everything for a reason, then he gave us brains for a reason.
If it is a sin to commit suicide, as many God-fearing Christians believe, because to do so is to turn one's back the gift of life we were given by the creator, then why do so many people seem to think that it's okay to turn their back their capacity to reason, to explore, and to make their knowledge manifest in the world in the form of technology, and craft?
I'm sorry... I _do_ want to know how our body's cells work and are formed. I do want to know how to create from the very building blocks of life. I do want us to be able to direct our own destiny to a better tomorrow.
If such learning forces us to also learn the wisdom and foresight to use our knowledge well, I think that's far better than hiding in the closet forever, fearing what we would become if we knew more. Many people are so afraid that we'll all make bad decisions, that they wish to keep everyone in the dark and powerless - fearing what they would do.
What I'd like to hope that we'll all do is learn how to make good decisions with new knowledge, and choose to do good things.
Yes, there is a risk, with any new knowledge or technological advance, that people will make bad choices, evil choices in using it.
That risk is only increased when you limit people's capacity to learn, and limit their ability to ever have the experience of coming into their own power and knowledge. If we all grow up stunted creatures, who have always been kept in the dark, and away from anything sharp, we will never learn how not to cut ourselves.
I'm not satisfied with leaving any of these things up to others. I feel responsible for acting as well. When people like us sit back, it leaves our fates in the hands of people who don't.
And even when those people _mean_ well, they may not always _do_ well.
I'm not saying run out and become a lawyer (if you aren't). I'm just saying that it's not necessarily a good idea to leave everything up to others - especially the important things. That's how groups and governments get out of control in the first place.
I suffered from PTSD. Everything I was ever told led me to believe that the best I could do would be learn to cope with it, but that there was no real "cure."
I then learned that MDMA showed signs of being able to treat sufferers of PTSD, even years after the fact.
So, even though it was not legal, I researched it, including what little I could find about dosages, got some, and I used it a couple times. While under the influence of it, I made myself examine and explore the memories of the traumatic events.
I no longer exhibit any of the symptoms of PTSD. It did not require that I continue to take it for long periods. I don't think it was the chemical by itself, but I do believe that it made my recovery possible.
It has removed a looming, painful spectre from my life.
No more nightmares. No more frightening reactions to common stimuli. No more becoming overwhelmed in crowds. No more flashbacks. No more randomly having my body react as if innocent strangers were about to attack me.
In Post Traumatic Stress, (and, iirc) phobias, neural paths are formed between the hippocampus (which handles long-term memory) and the Amygdala (which, among other things, governs fear or fight/flight responses). Those paths _bypass_ your normal, conscious thought processes. That, supposedly, is why even people who have undergone desensitization therapy for phobias, so that they can handle the object of their phobia without fear, can _still_ be prompted to a phobic reaction if they are suddenly startled by the object of their fear.
_Supposedly_, the way I understand it, MDMA can help break down, or re-route those paths.
What it _felt_ like, for me, was being able to re-examine the things that caused me the initial trauma, but without pain or fear. It let me look at the memories and incorporate them in a more healthy way.
I didn't _lose_ the memory of the events. I didn't have any weird side effects. If anything, my cognitive function is better than it was beforehand, possibly because I'm not _twitchy_ all the time.
When I heard that people in the military might be given MDMA to help them with shell-shock/PTSD, I was glad. When I heard that they might be refused that assistance (because some twit decided to make MDMA illegal, instead of just limiting it's use to medical purposes), I was very angry.
My experience is anecdotal. But my take on it is, I used to have PTSD. It impacted my life _horrendously_. I couldn't go out in crowds. If someone touched me or even came near me when I was sleeping, I'd _attack_ them without even being fully conscious. I could end up sweating and flooded with adrenaline just because some stranger, at the edge of my vision, raised their hand over my head.
And now that's all _gone_. No holes in my brain, no heart attacks, no cognitive difficulties, no destruction of my brain's ability to produce seratonin. I haven't turned into a druggie. I haven't lost the ability to feel pleasure. _None_ of the scary side-effects attributed to MDMA have happened to me (or anyone I've met who has tried it). Of course, I didn't pop handfuls of it for recreation, and do it over and over every week.
I still remember everything that happened. It didn't take away my memories. But I'm not _harmed_ by them any more. I can look at them with understanding, as an adult human being. I can feel and understand what happened to me, without being torn up by it.
I had another friend who had a traumatic childhood. If anyone raised their voice to this person - a perfectly rational, brave and intelligent person, it could cause them to have a _severe_ panic attack, leaving them shaking and crying, even if no _aggression_ was being directed at them. They've taken MDMA a handful of times (not at my direction!) and this seems to have been alleviated. Just recently, they had a big strong man cussing them out and yelling in their face, and they were upset - but remained calm, rational, and in control, without the adrenaline, panic, and shaking.
I'm _very_
It irritates me enough when a person has a lot more talent at getting a job through "schmooze" than in doing a job, but it's worse when they are deliberately appointed to a position of extreme responsibility based more on whether they'll be a "team player" than whether they'll do their job well.
It's bad enough when a company appoints people based on social skills over actual skills - how much worse when someone elects unqualified buddies into positions of _real_ importance in government?
I think it would be lovely to have consumer-available writers for RFID tags that could either erase the info in the tags, or replace it with whatever the end-user wants.
If there is a threat, it could be reduced to absurdity in this fashion, could it not? Is it difficult to hack RFID tags? Are they particularly secure?
I think it would be funny if all that could be read from the trash cans mentioned in the article is "Mortimer Snerd loves Oranges," or "Richard Nixon bought these high-heeled shoes."
It always surprises me that people don't do this type of math for themselves. : )
The only major things I can think of that make sense, currently, as a reason to do your own photo-printing, is if you need your output _immediately_, or if you plan to print out stuff you'd rather your photo shop clerks not see.
Having your own photo-printer is probably more of a convenience thing than a cost-effectiveness thing. At least some people are probably enamored of them because they are a neat gizmo that has "cool factor."
My personal concern is nearly always price, and from a price-standpoint, the cost of the media and supplies has always made the per-copy cost too high, and the quality is usually too low to justify it for me.
On the other hand, I can do my own photo-editing and touchup, to get the particular results I want, and see instant results.
For many people, perhaps the little bit extra they pay per-print is worth it to not have to wait, go to a photo-mat, or take a chance that the neat boudoir pictures they made with their spouse will end up in some photo-lab's scrapbook. ; )
Personally, I'm simultaneously amused and dismayed that there are now so many printers that cost less than their refill supplies. Seems like a case of "Give away the razor for free, so you can sell the refill blades."
Gee, I hope the UN proves better at managing domains than they are at peacekeeping in Haiti.
http://www.ipsnews.net/new_nota.asp?idnews=29506
Seriously though... I'm honestly not sure which entity(ies) I would trust to manage things like domains.
I hate to say it, but I'm not sure I trust my own government to do a good job of this for the rest of the world, but at the same time, am not sure that the UN would do a good job of managing these vital services for the internet either.
I'm thinking the internet needs it's own "UN" in a way... an impartial group that represents the best interests of everyone, and whose goal is to make the internet work... not decide who uses it, how much it should cost, who gets to sneak peeks into other people's stuff, etc.
I agree. I have been saying for years that copy protection and other forms of DRM create difficulty and inconvenience for legitimate users of products, without doing anything other than giving pirates an interesting way to spend a few hours.
At several places I worked (that legally purchased software), it was easier to use cracked versions of software (especially those requiring dongles), than to use the expensive thing purchased out-of-box.
Worse, part of DRM laws have nothing to do with actual copy prevention - they exist to allow litigation against legitimate criticism or competition.
I do believe that software and media piracy is theft. And I believe that the creator of a technology or a piece of art, or whatever should benefit from it's use.
But I think that Digital Rights Management, as it exists, to my knowledge, does more harm than good, and tends to inconvenience legitimate customers.
I am also concerned that some of the DRM laws set precedents that could conceivably have much darker consequences than someday not being able to share a book with a friend.
I think the concern might be that fast authorization for wiretaps might _conceivably_ (perish the thought), be used for inappropriate reasons, that have nothing to do with national security, and that the power would be abused. I'm sorry, but I think Americans kill other Americans at a more alarming rate than foreign terrorists do, and they don't generally use commercial airplaces to do it. I'm personally getting a bit annoyed at the "terrorist" excuse being pulled out like a trump card whenever anyone complains about police or executive powers being increased, or personal freedom or privacy being threatened. "Oh, but a terrorist might..." or "What if a terrorist..." What if monkeys fly outta my butt, or I get run over by a car, or a meteor crashes through my roof? In order to fight terrorism, we need better foreign and domestic policies. We need to make fewer enemies. We need to take the moral high ground and live up to a high example. We need to have better communication, cooperation, and information analysis - not excessive domestic police powers, excuses to eavesdrop on innocent people, or more ways for people to put requests for wiretaps on the fast track. Our intelligence services need to cooperate with one another and share information. The goals must be to protect the safety and freedom of our people, not find ways to exploit people's propensity for fear so that the laws protect people _less_. We need law enforcement that is skilled, impartial, fair, and well-funded. We don't need to take shortcuts through personal freedoms or privacy. Some things _should_ be hard to do. Some things should not be shortcut for convenience. Whenever I hear "we need special powers to protect you from terrorists", I _really_ hear "We don't have a good reason for this, so we'll pull out some BS about terrorists so that nobody will question too closely. I simply lose trust at this point when I hear "terrorists". I begin to assume that the terrorist card is played not because there is a real danger of terror attacks that will be able to be stopped by whatever new tactic is employes... but because the real reasons are dubious, unethical, or unecessary, and nobody would _like_ the real reasons. Have no fear though. Apparently, enough Americans are willing to support any stupid, greedy, or evil thing our "leaders" decide to do in order to become more wealthy and powerful, that I'm sure that we'll only be seeing more stuff like this in the future. Apologies for the bitter tone of my response. It's not that I don't feel that terror attacks could conceivably occur. It's not that I don't want to see them prevented. It's simply that I don't feel any safer since many of these new abrogations or infringements on civil rights and privacy began. I'm thinking that instead of being afraid of terrorists, I now have to be afraid of the government of my own country... plus the terrorists.
Yep. I've been doing that for years. I tried all sorts of applications designed for note-taking and organization, and always ended up making "quick notes" in my e-mail client that I would intend to "file properly later". After a while, I realized that I never really copied over the information into anything else, because it was easier to find in my e-mail client (Eudora).
I am gay, and I still enjoy Card's books. I disagree with his stance on gay marriage. I also respect his right to hold an opinion and his willingness to speak up for his belief system, even if I disagree with it. This is America after all. I've never noticed, in any of his writing that I have read, that he's included those stances which people are offended by. Besides... Karma in action: The screenwriter of that stinker, Troy (I made the token effort of asking for my money back from the theater after that one), will be working on the movie adaptation of what are probably his best-known books. That will teach him! Coyote
If you did it carelessly, without any plan for what to replace the job with, because you didn't want to learn something that would further your skills, then perhaps.
But if you quit a job that you knew would make you miserable, doing something that you don't want to do, all you've probably done is decrease the amount of time you'd be doing something you hate, and increased the amount of time you could be doing something else.
If you hate a job, and something you have to do to keep that job is going to rankle and stress you, or make you do something that goes against your principles or sense of self-respect... you're probably going to lose that job at some point anyway, because your heart won't be in it, you'll hate it, and you'll either quit or be let go. That won't do wonders for your self-respect. Or, you may end up getting into the habit of putting up with crap and letting things that bother you slide, which also isn't much good for your self-respect.
If it's not something you want to do... then don't do it. You have to be willing to face the _consequences_ of that decision, of course.
Consider though... a certain amount of ability to put up with crap _is_ a survival trait.