"Shirley J. Dyke, Ph.D., the Edward C. Dicke Professor of Civil Engineering and director of the Washington University Structural Control and Earthquake Engineering Laboratory"
http://news-info.wustl.edu/tips/page/normal/8961.h tml
"So, we're in a hypothetical future conflict with China. They have satellite capabilities similar to ours. Maybe not as good, but similar in ability."
You're vastly overstating the power of the Chinese military. Not only are they not on par with the U.S., they aren't even close to being so. Many of their soldiers just go trucks to move around in, previously they were walking. The Clinton Administration made it possible for them to launch an ICBM and actually hit something. Before that, their guidance systems had an error rate of a few hundred miles. Their navy is weak and cannot project power much further than Taiwan, their huge army is incapable of moving great distances quickly, and their Air force, well, it isn't worth much either. The Chinese are simply a regional power with few military interests outside of that area. They only have 22 ICBMs even capable of reaching the United States, a deterring force at most. We don't need to worry about them developing anti-satellite lasers because they've proven themselves less than capable in all other military matters.
other than global warming and evolution, what's to dislike about Bush's approach to science? Those arn't the pillars of modern science anyway, and although I'm sure many of you disagree with the President on a number of fronts he isn't exactly anti-science. Again, if you can get past evolution/global warming (which are no where near as important as this forum would lead you to believe) thing, there isn't a whole lot to critize.
You must be new to the politicial scene. If you'd be paying the slightest bit of attention you'd see that lower level positions are routinely given to lower level underlings in almost every administration. This goes for Clinton, Carter, Kennedy (brother for Attorney General anyone), and all the Republicans of the 20th century. What you should realize is that little political games (the Reno Justice department refusing to enforce laws it didn't like for example) are played all the time irrespective of who is currently in the white house.
So save your indignation for a noble field, you won't find much to love here.
Technically, we haven't been at war since World War II. Interpretations of just what declaring war amounts to has changed over the years, and I'd suggest you spend a little more time studying Constitutional Law and precidents of past presidents (Carter and Clinton ignoring FISA in the same way as the Bush administration for example) before commenting further.
The United States is unlikely to change or shut down GPS, because of the vast market penetration it has. The "but they could so we should build our own" is a little silly. We could unleash our nuclear arsenal and flatten Europe. We could withdraw all our trade and let Europe flounder on its own. We could even invade and take control of Europe. The only thing is we just don't do crazy things like that (shame on the first person to replay using Iraq as an example). As with ICANN, we've been running GPS for quite awhile and it hasn't been a problem yet. While we could shut the internet off at any time, its a bit silly to count that as anything more than the most remote of possibilities.
Filtched from Wikipedia, but a good critique of "anti-competitive" practices nonetheless.
Coercive monopolies are in a privileged position to reap economic benefits by restricting output and raising prices, without fear of competition. However, Thomas Woods asserts
that the industries most frequently accused of holding a coercive monopoly position in the late nineteenth century were neither restricting output nor raising prices.
The Results of "Predatory pricing": Commodity Prices from 1880-1890
Steel
Down 58%
Zinc
Down 20%
Sugar
Down 22%
During the 1880s output of monopolistic industries grew seven times faster than the overall economy, while prices in these industries were generally falling--even faster than
the 7% rate of decline that occurred in the economy as a whole.
Free market economist Milton Friedman states that he initially agreed with the underlying principles of antitrust laws (breaking up monopolies and oligopolies and promoting
more competition), but came to the conclusion that they do more harm than good and that therefore they should not exist.
Critics also argue that the empirical evidence shows that "predatory pricing" does not work in practice, and is better defeated by a truly free market than by anti-trust
laws.
Thomas Sowell argues that even if a superior business drives out a competitor, it doesn't follow that competition has ended:
In short, the financial demise of a competitor is not the same as getting rid of competition. The courts have long paid lip service to the distinction that economists make
between competition -- a set of economic conditions -- and existing competitors, though it is hard to see how much difference that has made in judicial decisions. Too often, it
seems, if you have hurt competitors, then you have hurt competition, as far as the judges are concerned.[3]
Alan Greenspan argues that the very existence of antitrust laws discourages businessmen from being productive for society, out of fear that their business actions will be
determined illegal and dismantled by government. In his essay entitled Antitrust, he says: "No one will ever know what new products, processes, machines, and
cost-saving mergers failed to come into existence, killed by the Sherman Act before they were born. No one can ever compute the price that all of us have paid for that Act
which, by inducing less effective use of capital, has kept our standard of living lower than would otherwise have been possible."[4]
Taken directly from Drudge:
"CLINTON ADMINISTRATION SECRET SEARCH ON AMERICANS -- WITHOUT COURT ORDER (http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-12949.htm)
CARTER EXECUTIVE ORDER: 'ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE' WITHOUT COURT ORDER (http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo12139.htm)
Bill Clinton Signed Executive Order that allowed Attorney General to do searches without court approval
Clinton, February 9, 1995: "The Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order"
Jimmy Carter Signed Executive Order on May 23, 1979: "Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order."
WASH POST, July 15, 1994: Extend not only to searches of the homes of U.S. citizens but also -- in the delicate words of a Justice Department official -- to "places where you wouldn't find or would be unlikely to find information involving a U.S. citizen... would allow the government to use classified electronic surveillance techniques, such as infrared sensors to observe people inside their homes, without a court order."
Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick, the Clinton administration believes the president "has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches for foreign intelligence purposes."
Secret searches and wiretaps of Aldrich Ames's office and home in June and October 1993, both without a federal warrant."
Any opinions?
Just one more reason why the continued control of ICANN over the internet is a wonderful thing. Just imagine if a world body got control and decided to put China, Iran, or apparently Australia on the board governing it. No bit tax, free access to whatever sites you want, the only way to go is down.
It's easier to give a few big raises than many small ones.
30 executives getting million dollar raises is $30 million.
30,000 workers getting 1,000 dollar raises is $30 million
Considering top level talent is easy to lose and hard to find while low level talent is harder to lose and easier to find I know which of the former I'd choose.
By asking whether or not it is worse than malware, you are implying it is harmful. However, in the very end, you suggest that it is only worse in the sense that you can't get rid of it. That is very misleading.
Not necessarily, and it was clarified in the article that harm was not the issue.
Is Star Wars worse than Star Trek? Harm is not implied.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think that's iLlowed.
"Shirley J. Dyke, Ph.D., the Edward C. Dicke Professor of Civil Engineering and director of the Washington University Structural Control and Earthquake Engineering Laboratory" http://news-info.wustl.edu/tips/page/normal/8961.h tml
Yea, Economics!
The term electrocution cannot be used except to refer to death by electric shock. Non-fatal shocking is not electrocution.
until Microsoft drops the price of the 360 models by $100 right before the launch.
"So, we're in a hypothetical future conflict with China. They have satellite capabilities similar to ours. Maybe not as good, but similar in ability."
You're vastly overstating the power of the Chinese military. Not only are they not on par with the U.S., they aren't even close to being so. Many of their soldiers just go trucks to move around in, previously they were walking. The Clinton Administration made it possible for them to launch an ICBM and actually hit something. Before that, their guidance systems had an error rate of a few hundred miles. Their navy is weak and cannot project power much further than Taiwan, their huge army is incapable of moving great distances quickly, and their Air force, well, it isn't worth much either. The Chinese are simply a regional power with few military interests outside of that area. They only have 22 ICBMs even capable of reaching the United States, a deterring force at most. We don't need to worry about them developing anti-satellite lasers because they've proven themselves less than capable in all other military matters.
"The question of how dinosaur fossils could be submerged to that depth is pretty interesting."
A worldwide flood perhaps?
Nevermind tar sands and shale. Both of these will provide oil hundreds of years into the future.
It's a bird!! It's a plane!!! No, it's a UAV!!!
Bananas are 65% like us... yet noone seems rushed to declare us fruit.
other than global warming and evolution, what's to dislike about Bush's approach to science? Those arn't the pillars of modern science anyway, and although I'm sure many of you disagree with the President on a number of fronts he isn't exactly anti-science. Again, if you can get past evolution/global warming (which are no where near as important as this forum would lead you to believe) thing, there isn't a whole lot to critize.
You must be new to the politicial scene. If you'd be paying the slightest bit of attention you'd see that lower level positions are routinely given to lower level underlings in almost every administration. This goes for Clinton, Carter, Kennedy (brother for Attorney General anyone), and all the Republicans of the 20th century. What you should realize is that little political games (the Reno Justice department refusing to enforce laws it didn't like for example) are played all the time irrespective of who is currently in the white house. So save your indignation for a noble field, you won't find much to love here.
We need to warm up before the mid-21st century ice age... http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?StoryID=2006 0207-041447-2345r
Technically, we haven't been at war since World War II. Interpretations of just what declaring war amounts to has changed over the years, and I'd suggest you spend a little more time studying Constitutional Law and precidents of past presidents (Carter and Clinton ignoring FISA in the same way as the Bush administration for example) before commenting further.
Your signature is incorrect. Those lyrics are from wish you were here not dark side of the moon.
The United States is unlikely to change or shut down GPS, because of the vast market penetration it has. The "but they could so we should build our own" is a little silly. We could unleash our nuclear arsenal and flatten Europe. We could withdraw all our trade and let Europe flounder on its own. We could even invade and take control of Europe. The only thing is we just don't do crazy things like that (shame on the first person to replay using Iraq as an example). As with ICANN, we've been running GPS for quite awhile and it hasn't been a problem yet. While we could shut the internet off at any time, its a bit silly to count that as anything more than the most remote of possibilities.
You don't need to spend 5 minutes in law school to understand that logical consistency is rarely a part of law.
Coercive monopolies are in a privileged position to reap economic benefits by restricting output and raising prices, without fear of competition. However, Thomas Woods asserts that the industries most frequently accused of holding a coercive monopoly position in the late nineteenth century were neither restricting output nor raising prices.
The Results of "Predatory pricing": Commodity Prices from 1880-1890
Steel Down 58% Zinc Down 20% Sugar Down 22%During the 1880s output of monopolistic industries grew seven times faster than the overall economy, while prices in these industries were generally falling--even faster than the 7% rate of decline that occurred in the economy as a whole.
Free market economist Milton Friedman states that he initially agreed with the underlying principles of antitrust laws (breaking up monopolies and oligopolies and promoting more competition), but came to the conclusion that they do more harm than good and that therefore they should not exist.
Critics also argue that the empirical evidence shows that "predatory pricing" does not work in practice, and is better defeated by a truly free market than by anti-trust laws.
Thomas Sowell argues that even if a superior business drives out a competitor, it doesn't follow that competition has ended:
In short, the financial demise of a competitor is not the same as getting rid of competition. The courts have long paid lip service to the distinction that economists make between competition -- a set of economic conditions -- and existing competitors, though it is hard to see how much difference that has made in judicial decisions. Too often, it seems, if you have hurt competitors, then you have hurt competition, as far as the judges are concerned.[3]Alan Greenspan argues that the very existence of antitrust laws discourages businessmen from being productive for society, out of fear that their business actions will be determined illegal and dismantled by government. In his essay entitled Antitrust, he says: "No one will ever know what new products, processes, machines, and cost-saving mergers failed to come into existence, killed by the Sherman Act before they were born. No one can ever compute the price that all of us have paid for that Act which, by inducing less effective use of capital, has kept our standard of living lower than would otherwise have been possible." [4]
Taken directly from Drudge: "CLINTON ADMINISTRATION SECRET SEARCH ON AMERICANS -- WITHOUT COURT ORDER (http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-12949.htm) CARTER EXECUTIVE ORDER: 'ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE' WITHOUT COURT ORDER (http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo12139.htm) Bill Clinton Signed Executive Order that allowed Attorney General to do searches without court approval Clinton, February 9, 1995: "The Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order" Jimmy Carter Signed Executive Order on May 23, 1979: "Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order." WASH POST, July 15, 1994: Extend not only to searches of the homes of U.S. citizens but also -- in the delicate words of a Justice Department official -- to "places where you wouldn't find or would be unlikely to find information involving a U.S. citizen... would allow the government to use classified electronic surveillance techniques, such as infrared sensors to observe people inside their homes, without a court order." Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick, the Clinton administration believes the president "has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches for foreign intelligence purposes." Secret searches and wiretaps of Aldrich Ames's office and home in June and October 1993, both without a federal warrant." Any opinions?
Just one more reason why the continued control of ICANN over the internet is a wonderful thing. Just imagine if a world body got control and decided to put China, Iran, or apparently Australia on the board governing it. No bit tax, free access to whatever sites you want, the only way to go is down.
Why would anyone bother writing viruses or spyware for an operating system that services much less than 2% of the overall market?
There are better games around. http://tinyurl.com/7hfl9
It's easier to give a few big raises than many small ones. 30 executives getting million dollar raises is $30 million. 30,000 workers getting 1,000 dollar raises is $30 million Considering top level talent is easy to lose and hard to find while low level talent is harder to lose and easier to find I know which of the former I'd choose.
By asking whether or not it is worse than malware, you are implying it is harmful. However, in the very end, you suggest that it is only worse in the sense that you can't get rid of it. That is very misleading.
Not necessarily, and it was clarified in the article that harm was not the issue.
Is Star Wars worse than Star Trek?
Harm is not implied.