Well, this was back in 2001. At the time, the truck had GPS so that the company, Swift Transportation, could monitor it. However, this did not translate into the cab--you had no cute little map display or anything like that and you still had to get your directions from your Driver Manager (which were frequently wrong).
"Nearly one in eight did not even bother to check out a route they were unfamiliar with and simply relied on the technology to get them to their destination.
Heavens! Relying on Technology! Burn them at the stake!"
Relying on technology without any clue will always cause problems. Remember that example years ago when they gave inaccurate calculators to a class of students who were taking a test and only one of them questioned the answers that were coming from his calculator?
My roomate used to drive 18 wheel trucks cross-country. On her first trip, she partnered with another new driver who used to work in the IT field. Needless to say, he loved his technology and ran out and got a GPS card and software for his laptop. He thought this was incredibly cool and paid very close attention to his GPS.
The first problem came when they were switching freeways. Even though he knew he should get over to the right hand side because he knew the exit was coming up, he wouldn't move over until the GPS software told him to. One time he almost missed an exit because the GPS software was a little late in telling him to move over (map inaccuracy, GPS inaccuracy, whatever). Let's just say he was lucky it was late and there was no cop around, because he'd have lost his license and/or caused an accident.
The next time, my roomate was sleeping when she was awakened by city traffic. His mapping software had told him the fastest route was on surface streets, so he obediently got off the freeway. The road narrowed from 8 lanes to four to two. When she looked out from behind the sleeping curtain, he was driving 30 miles per hour while staring at his laptop--not even looking at the road (and, remember, you don't necessarily stop so fast with a 30,000 pound trailer). She decided that if she wanted to live the night, she'd better get out there and get him out of the mess he'd gotten himself into.
Finally, he got completely confused when there was construction and suddenly the place his GPS told him to exit was closed. He had no idea what to do, so he just kept driving. When my roomate woke up a couple of hours later and asked him where they were, he had no clue and the GPS wasn't much help either. She took over the wheel, got off on the next exit, turned the truck back around, and followed the plain ol' paper map to get back to exit he was supposed to take (it was open on the eastbound leg)
When they finally got back, she decided to drive solo. He decided to become a Driver Manager...
Now, in the guy's defense, he'd obviously gotten hold of some crappy software which, at the very least, didn't account for the fact that the vehicle he was driving was not a passenger car. But he became so fixated on doing what the software told him that he didn't pay attention to what the road signs, his training, or just plain ol' common sense told him to do. He would just slavishly follow the computer's instructions.
I've seen MapQuest have the same effect, too. MapQuest seems to like to save you a couple tenths of a mile by making you "drive the hypotenuse." Turn left, turn right, turn left, turn right. If you just zoom the map out a little, you'll see you can just drive a quarter-mile, turn left, and drive another quarter-mile and be there.
When I bought my Audi TT, the optional GPS system (which I didn't buy) would only talk to you. You would see a little thing on the display saying "Turn Left in 100 feet" or something like that.
Audi claimed it was better because you weren't distracted by a map. Personally, I think it was just an excuse for not putting in a map display (especially because the other models very quickly got a map display).
"[...] Hmmm, the Russians used Progress to dump Mir trash? Dayam, I'm either a chump, or some aspect of the ISS trash needed the Shuttle to handle."
You're a chump, but we love you anyway...:^)
Here's a NASA article. Scroll down to "Who takes out the trash?" You'll like the line about how, when the Shuttle leaves ISS, it "becomes the world's most expensive trash hauler." But read the next paragraph.
That said, there are different sorts of trash. For example, if you look at this article, you'll note that things like coffee cups end up in the Progress. But things like broken exercise equipment end up waiting for the Shuttle.
"My understanding of why the ISS was limited to two people was the garbage problem, or else we could have had a third ISS crewmember doing the useful microgravity experiments you talk about."
Garbage is probably part of it. But it has more to do with consumables like air and water. Less people means fewer resupply missions necessary. Of course, fewer resupply missions means fewer Progress drones to get rid of garbage in.
"You seem to be moving the bar here, I never said there were not any Nut-Jobs who called themselves Christians, I said there were note 'plenty' of people calling themselves Christians and being violent."
Okay, okay. Let me make sure I've got this straight.
When a few "Christians" commit acts of violence, it's just a few nut-jobs. When a few "Muslims" commit acts of violence, they're all crazy.
By the way, I'll also throw a religious/political struggle in here. How about Northern Ireland and the IRA? While there was a political issue here, there was plenty of problems between Catholics and Protestants that led to shootings and bombings. But, again, I suppose they were just a few nut-jobs.
By the way, here's a dare for you: Put on a T-Shirt hat says, in Spanish, "THE POPE FUCKS LITTLE BOYS." Walk through various South American cities. See how long you last.
Well, yah. They're not sure when they'll get the Shuttle back up and running. Thus, the date (y'know, that little header at the top) is under review.
"2) The ISS is not going to be completed. It costs too much for too little science."
Disagree. There's plenty of microgravity experiments which have been waiting for room on the space shuttle.
"ISS costs are not sustainable. Its going to be abandoned."
First, are you talking about building costs or support costs? There are many components of ISS which have already been built and are merely waiting for the Shuttle to return to flight. There's no real gain for abandoning those components already built.
Support costs will probably be considerably less once you're not depending on the Shuttle for supplies. Right now, the Shuttle is mainly being used to transport ISS components and extra people to install them. Don't get me wrong, I agree that the Shuttle is an incredible waste of money to supply ISS. Some Senator remarked that the Shuttle is like an SUV. Yes, it can do anything. But it's pretty wasteful to use it to haul groceries.
"3) Even if they wanted to complete the ISS, the payloads could be delivered with rockets."
Sure they could. But who's gonna attach them?
Keep in mind, when the Shuttle brings some big part up to ISS, who do you think actually installs the thing? Astronauts who have actually trained in simulators to do the job! So you'd also have to send up a few people to do the work. Or do you want to trust your multi-million dollar orbital habitat will be correctly installed by two guys who read the instruction manual?
"On the other hand, for some reason, garbage disposal seems to be a big deal, and the only thing the garbage scow Endeavor and Intrepid seem to be important for the ISS."
NASA likes to see the garbage in order to study it. For example, part of "garbage" of a Shuttle mission are parts that have failed. NASA tries to figure out why this happened so that they can make better parts. I suppose they can also test the garbage for radiation and other environmental factors and compare that with what the instruments told them. Remember that ISS is still new hardware under construction and NASA wants all the data it can get from wherever it can get it.
So, yes, when the Shuttle comes back to Earth, it carries trash for study. By the way, the Shuttle is the only vehicle that can return garbage for study. You can't fit a hell of a lot in a Soyuz.
There've been more than a few times, though, that the astronauts dump the trash into a Progress drone and burn it up in the atmosphere.
"[...] I'm surprised the ISS partners aren't designing payload delivery systems to move the garbage back to Earth."
You seem to be fixated on the garbage. Again, it's only NASA that cares about the garbage. And I'm sure they'll come up with something if they continue to really care about this after the ISS is complete.
Meanwhile, Russia has the Soyuz for manned missions and Progress for supplying the station and dumping trash. Japan's NASDA is developing the HTV for supplying the station and dumping trash. And ESA is developing the ATV for supplying the station and dumping trash. So I think the trash problem is pretty well solved.
And, of course, NASA's CEV will be able to carry astronauts to the station starting in 2014. In fact, supporting ISS is one of the goals for Stage 1 of the CEV. We tend to lose track of that.
So, if anything, Russia gets a four year exclusive for carrying people to ISS. I'm sure they'll be pretty psyched. Maybe they'll have their CEV operating by then.
"There is no useful research remaining to do in a poky little LEO space station."
Here's a somewhat old article that discusses some of the research done in microgravity.
One of the interesting comments from the article is that the problem with using the Space Shuttle is that it's flight time of about two weeks are not long enough for statistically meaningful research.
And, better yet, the Shuttle repair mission to make the Hubble Space Telescope work because they spent hundreds of millions of dollars to build a telescope with a screwed up mirror!
Oh, and to take up the solar panels and equipment to attach them, U.S. Node 2, various EXPRESS palettes, Multi-Purpose Logistics Modules, and various labs from other countries, as well as crew rotation.
Sounds like some pretty significant chunks of material to me.
"So, yes, I would expect that VP Cheney would have the authority to declassify certain information, including, most likely, whatever it is "Scooter" is up the creek over (I honestly have forgotten)."
Well, Scooter is up the creek for obstructing justice. The entertaining part is that Scooter is about to use the classic, "I was only following orders" defense. Since he worked for Cheney, guess where those orders came from?
So Cheney is preparing his defense, which is merely a variation of the Bush's defense, "If the President does it, it's not illegal." His defense is pretty much "I didn't know it was classified and, anyway, it's okay because if I told Scooter to tell others classified information, the mere act of my telling somebody to give out classified information means that I had declassified it." Alas, typical of this administration. Remember when these guys were going to bring honesty and integrity back to the White House? Depends on your definition of honesty and integrity, I suppose.
As I understand it, and put simply, if you're the boss of the guy who classified it, you can declassify it. Thus, the President can declassify anything because he's everybody's boss. However, Dick Cheney is not the CIA's boss and therefore cannot decide to declassify CIA materials. Only the President or DCIA can do that.
Actually, the problem I have with kids swearing has to do with their young and whiny voices.
When I grew up, it was one of those "Just hear it, don't say it." It was pretty much true for every other kid, too. So when I heard people swear, it was mostly adults. To be specific, it was mostly male adults. With deep male voices saying, "C'mon, move you goddamn pig-fuckin' bastard" while trying to move a rock out of the way or some other strenuous male activity. When women swore, it was usually in an expletive sense, like "Oh shit! I forgot to pick up milk at the store!"
But still, mature voices.
So, yes, I hate hearing little kids swear just because it sounds so wrong to hear, "motherfucking asshole" in this high-pitched voice.
"When was the last time you or any of your friends have been questioned or imprisoned for voicing your opinions."
Well, this article has some examples of people who've been questioned for voicing their opinions.
In the government's defense, though, they are following up on reports from average citizens. And for many, unfortunately, criticizing the government is the same thing as being anti-American.
"It's even more absurd that the US and worse, the United Nations refuse to recognize a soverign nation like Taiwan because China demands it."
This one I'll actually agree with, though I can sort of understand it. Essentially, no one wants to go war with China over Taiwan. From the Chinese point-of-view, it would be somewhat analogous to the State of Oregon seceding from America. Remember, we fought a war once when a bunch of states decided to secede. So in order to keep the peace, nobody makes waves. And as long as nobody starts supporting this whole "Taiwanese independence" thing, China won't start lobbing missiles around.
I admit, I tend to side with "declare Taiwan an independent nation" stance. However, you also have to ask yourself whether you would be willing to support Taiwan militarily, as that would certainly be necessary.
"The Chinese do have one thing that many Americans today lack. That's nationalistic pride. The Chinese are willing to do what it takes to get ahead in the World; the average Chinese citizen is far more likely to defend China's actions than any American would be. Many Americans are far more critical of the US government, and in fact, are quickly to defend foreign nations than they are their own."
And you're saying that's a good thing? I'm kind of confused.
According to you, it's bad that the Chinese government harshly suppresses dissent--to use a euphemism. However, your average Chinese citizen is more likely to defend China's actions (because not doing so would lead to a bullet in the head) and you think this is a good thing? Many Americans are far more critical of the US government because we can without having to worry about spending life in prison.
Consider that the average Chinese citizen gets their news from controlled government sources that are always going to paint the government's actions in the best possible light. Heck, if I got all my news from the US Government's press releases and speeches, I'd be pretty sure that our invasion--excuse me, The Coalition's invasion--of Iraq was completely justified. Of course, you say that the government controlling the media--and censoring things it doesn't like--is bad. But once again, you champion the support of the average Chinese person for their government's actions.
So are you saying that uninformed nationalistic pride is a good thing? And that Americans, with more information about what their government is doing than Chinese citizens and who actually get to hear both sides of the argument from different sources, are wrong to criticize their government?
Logan's Run, as written, would have been a great movie. Unfortunately, I don't think the effects technology was up to it.
So, instead, they rewrote it into this "machines take over the world" story. Not bad, I suppose, but actually doing the book--even with the bad special effects of the day--would have been preferable.
Of course, they're supposedly doing a remake, so there's a chance they'll get it right...
"[...] like not visiting Cuba (w/o permission) [...]"
Actually, as I understand it, it isn't illegal for a US Citizen to visit Cuba. However, when you go to Cuba, it is illegal to give them money (thus making it difficult to actually do anything in Cuba--like stay in a hotel, go out for dinner, etc.).
Of course, the government can't actually punish you without evidence. And with little representation within Cuba, you just plead the fifth when you get back.
"To say nothing of employee's arms being taken and used to gain access."
I hear this already happened. There was this guy I heard about, see, who met this nice looking woman in a bar. She invited him up to her room, spiked his drink with some kind of knock-out agent. When he woke up, he was in a bathtub full of ice and his arm was gone.
"Did you even read the summary? Typical clueless/.er"
Yes, and the summary and all of the articles that I've read never discussed How they dealt with the threat of bloggers spreading misinformation. Of course, they can't--that would give valuable aid to the enemy.
How would the government respond--in theory, during a crisis--to misinformation being spread via a popular blog? Do you have any guesses?
I don't think that it's a huge step to say that--during a crisis, of course--whoever hosts the blog would would be asked to shut it down. Do you?
"I find it very telling that OS X already surpasses Vista's current interface [...]) but runs on much less demanding machines, like a Mac mini."
Couple of notes.
Some of the cool effects in Tiger, generated by the Core Image SDK, will not work on a Mac mini. For example, drag a new widget onto the Dashboard in Tiger and, depending on your graphics card, you will either see the ripples or not. This is similar to what is being done in Vista.
In my uneducated opinion, I rashly assume that the Aero Glass interface will be implemented on top of Microsoft's equivalent to Core Image. Thus, it's an all-or-nothing equation like Core Image is. Even if certain things could be done without a super-fancy graphics card, tough beans.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, this was back in 2001. At the time, the truck had GPS so that the company, Swift Transportation, could monitor it. However, this did not translate into the cab--you had no cute little map display or anything like that and you still had to get your directions from your Driver Manager (which were frequently wrong).
As for the trucks driving themselves, yeah, that Navitron AutoDrive has made the job a whole lot easier. Just don't tell anybody!
Relying on technology without any clue will always cause problems. Remember that example years ago when they gave inaccurate calculators to a class of students who were taking a test and only one of them questioned the answers that were coming from his calculator?
My roomate used to drive 18 wheel trucks cross-country. On her first trip, she partnered with another new driver who used to work in the IT field. Needless to say, he loved his technology and ran out and got a GPS card and software for his laptop. He thought this was incredibly cool and paid very close attention to his GPS.
The first problem came when they were switching freeways. Even though he knew he should get over to the right hand side because he knew the exit was coming up, he wouldn't move over until the GPS software told him to. One time he almost missed an exit because the GPS software was a little late in telling him to move over (map inaccuracy, GPS inaccuracy, whatever). Let's just say he was lucky it was late and there was no cop around, because he'd have lost his license and/or caused an accident.
The next time, my roomate was sleeping when she was awakened by city traffic. His mapping software had told him the fastest route was on surface streets, so he obediently got off the freeway. The road narrowed from 8 lanes to four to two. When she looked out from behind the sleeping curtain, he was driving 30 miles per hour while staring at his laptop--not even looking at the road (and, remember, you don't necessarily stop so fast with a 30,000 pound trailer). She decided that if she wanted to live the night, she'd better get out there and get him out of the mess he'd gotten himself into.
Finally, he got completely confused when there was construction and suddenly the place his GPS told him to exit was closed. He had no idea what to do, so he just kept driving. When my roomate woke up a couple of hours later and asked him where they were, he had no clue and the GPS wasn't much help either. She took over the wheel, got off on the next exit, turned the truck back around, and followed the plain ol' paper map to get back to exit he was supposed to take (it was open on the eastbound leg)
When they finally got back, she decided to drive solo. He decided to become a Driver Manager...
Now, in the guy's defense, he'd obviously gotten hold of some crappy software which, at the very least, didn't account for the fact that the vehicle he was driving was not a passenger car. But he became so fixated on doing what the software told him that he didn't pay attention to what the road signs, his training, or just plain ol' common sense told him to do. He would just slavishly follow the computer's instructions.
I've seen MapQuest have the same effect, too. MapQuest seems to like to save you a couple tenths of a mile by making you "drive the hypotenuse." Turn left, turn right, turn left, turn right. If you just zoom the map out a little, you'll see you can just drive a quarter-mile, turn left, and drive another quarter-mile and be there.
When I bought my Audi TT, the optional GPS system (which I didn't buy) would only talk to you. You would see a little thing on the display saying "Turn Left in 100 feet" or something like that.
Audi claimed it was better because you weren't distracted by a map. Personally, I think it was just an excuse for not putting in a map display (especially because the other models very quickly got a map display).
Just in the order that caught my eye...
:^)
"[...] Hmmm, the Russians used Progress to dump Mir trash? Dayam, I'm either a chump, or some aspect of the ISS trash needed the Shuttle to handle."
You're a chump, but we love you anyway...
Here's a NASA article. Scroll down to "Who takes out the trash?" You'll like the line about how, when the Shuttle leaves ISS, it "becomes the world's most expensive trash hauler." But read the next paragraph.
That said, there are different sorts of trash. For example, if you look at this article, you'll note that things like coffee cups end up in the Progress. But things like broken exercise equipment end up waiting for the Shuttle.
"My understanding of why the ISS was limited to two people was the garbage problem, or else we could have had a third ISS crewmember doing the useful microgravity experiments you talk about."
Garbage is probably part of it. But it has more to do with consumables like air and water. Less people means fewer resupply missions necessary. Of course, fewer resupply missions means fewer Progress drones to get rid of garbage in.
"You seem to be moving the bar here, I never said there were not any Nut-Jobs who called themselves Christians, I said there were note 'plenty' of people calling themselves Christians and being violent."
Okay, okay. Let me make sure I've got this straight.
When a few "Christians" commit acts of violence, it's just a few nut-jobs. When a few "Muslims" commit acts of violence, they're all crazy.
By the way, I'll also throw a religious/political struggle in here. How about Northern Ireland and the IRA? While there was a political issue here, there was plenty of problems between Catholics and Protestants that led to shootings and bombings. But, again, I suppose they were just a few nut-jobs.
By the way, here's a dare for you: Put on a T-Shirt hat says, in Spanish, "THE POPE FUCKS LITTLE BOYS." Walk through various South American cities. See how long you last.
"1) Note every mission is labeled 'under review'.
Well, yah. They're not sure when they'll get the Shuttle back up and running. Thus, the date (y'know, that little header at the top) is under review.
"2) The ISS is not going to be completed. It costs too much for too little science."
Disagree. There's plenty of microgravity experiments which have been waiting for room on the space shuttle.
"ISS costs are not sustainable. Its going to be abandoned."
First, are you talking about building costs or support costs? There are many components of ISS which have already been built and are merely waiting for the Shuttle to return to flight. There's no real gain for abandoning those components already built.
Support costs will probably be considerably less once you're not depending on the Shuttle for supplies. Right now, the Shuttle is mainly being used to transport ISS components and extra people to install them. Don't get me wrong, I agree that the Shuttle is an incredible waste of money to supply ISS. Some Senator remarked that the Shuttle is like an SUV. Yes, it can do anything. But it's pretty wasteful to use it to haul groceries.
"3) Even if they wanted to complete the ISS, the payloads could be delivered with rockets."
Sure they could. But who's gonna attach them?
Keep in mind, when the Shuttle brings some big part up to ISS, who do you think actually installs the thing? Astronauts who have actually trained in simulators to do the job! So you'd also have to send up a few people to do the work. Or do you want to trust your multi-million dollar orbital habitat will be correctly installed by two guys who read the instruction manual?
"On the other hand, for some reason, garbage disposal seems to be a big deal, and the only thing the garbage scow Endeavor and Intrepid seem to be important for the ISS."
NASA likes to see the garbage in order to study it. For example, part of "garbage" of a Shuttle mission are parts that have failed. NASA tries to figure out why this happened so that they can make better parts. I suppose they can also test the garbage for radiation and other environmental factors and compare that with what the instruments told them. Remember that ISS is still new hardware under construction and NASA wants all the data it can get from wherever it can get it.
So, yes, when the Shuttle comes back to Earth, it carries trash for study. By the way, the Shuttle is the only vehicle that can return garbage for study. You can't fit a hell of a lot in a Soyuz.
There've been more than a few times, though, that the astronauts dump the trash into a Progress drone and burn it up in the atmosphere.
"[...] I'm surprised the ISS partners aren't designing payload delivery systems to move the garbage back to Earth."
You seem to be fixated on the garbage. Again, it's only NASA that cares about the garbage. And I'm sure they'll come up with something if they continue to really care about this after the ISS is complete.
Meanwhile, Russia has the Soyuz for manned missions and Progress for supplying the station and dumping trash. Japan's NASDA is developing the HTV for supplying the station and dumping trash. And ESA is developing the ATV for supplying the station and dumping trash. So I think the trash problem is pretty well solved.
And, of course, NASA's CEV will be able to carry astronauts to the station starting in 2014. In fact, supporting ISS is one of the goals for Stage 1 of the CEV. We tend to lose track of that.
So, if anything, Russia gets a four year exclusive for carrying people to ISS. I'm sure they'll be pretty psyched. Maybe they'll have their CEV operating by then.
By the way, to wander back on ta
"There is no useful research remaining to do in a poky little LEO space station."
Here's a somewhat old article that discusses some of the research done in microgravity.
One of the interesting comments from the article is that the problem with using the Space Shuttle is that it's flight time of about two weeks are not long enough for statistically meaningful research.
Anyway, read the article.
Yeah! Like the Hubble Space Telescope!
And, better yet, the Shuttle repair mission to make the Hubble Space Telescope work because they spent hundreds of millions of dollars to build a telescope with a screwed up mirror!
Good thing that shuttle was just sitting there.
"Face it, the only significant mission of the US space shuttle program is the same as the TV show Quark; haul garbage from the ISS."
Right.
Oh, and to take up the solar panels and equipment to attach them, U.S. Node 2, various EXPRESS palettes, Multi-Purpose Logistics Modules, and various labs from other countries, as well as crew rotation.
Sounds like some pretty significant chunks of material to me.
Okay. How about this one from 2002. And, I quote, "Quartz Extreme is Apple's name for the new GPU accelerated version of the Quartz Compositor."
"So, yes, I would expect that VP Cheney would have the authority to declassify certain information, including, most likely, whatever it is "Scooter" is up the creek over (I honestly have forgotten)."
Well, Scooter is up the creek for obstructing justice. The entertaining part is that Scooter is about to use the classic, "I was only following orders" defense. Since he worked for Cheney, guess where those orders came from?
So Cheney is preparing his defense, which is merely a variation of the Bush's defense, "If the President does it, it's not illegal." His defense is pretty much "I didn't know it was classified and, anyway, it's okay because if I told Scooter to tell others classified information, the mere act of my telling somebody to give out classified information means that I had declassified it." Alas, typical of this administration. Remember when these guys were going to bring honesty and integrity back to the White House? Depends on your definition of honesty and integrity, I suppose.
As I understand it, and put simply, if you're the boss of the guy who classified it, you can declassify it. Thus, the President can declassify anything because he's everybody's boss. However, Dick Cheney is not the CIA's boss and therefore cannot decide to declassify CIA materials. Only the President or DCIA can do that.
Actually, the problem I have with kids swearing has to do with their young and whiny voices.
When I grew up, it was one of those "Just hear it, don't say it." It was pretty much true for every other kid, too. So when I heard people swear, it was mostly adults. To be specific, it was mostly male adults. With deep male voices saying, "C'mon, move you goddamn pig-fuckin' bastard" while trying to move a rock out of the way or some other strenuous male activity. When women swore, it was usually in an expletive sense, like "Oh shit! I forgot to pick up milk at the store!"
But still, mature voices.
So, yes, I hate hearing little kids swear just because it sounds so wrong to hear, "motherfucking asshole" in this high-pitched voice.
"When was the last time you or any of your friends have been questioned or imprisoned for voicing your opinions."
Well, this article has some examples of people who've been questioned for voicing their opinions.
In the government's defense, though, they are following up on reports from average citizens. And for many, unfortunately, criticizing the government is the same thing as being anti-American.
"It's even more absurd that the US and worse, the United Nations refuse to recognize a soverign nation like Taiwan because China demands it."
This one I'll actually agree with, though I can sort of understand it. Essentially, no one wants to go war with China over Taiwan. From the Chinese point-of-view, it would be somewhat analogous to the State of Oregon seceding from America. Remember, we fought a war once when a bunch of states decided to secede. So in order to keep the peace, nobody makes waves. And as long as nobody starts supporting this whole "Taiwanese independence" thing, China won't start lobbing missiles around.
I admit, I tend to side with "declare Taiwan an independent nation" stance. However, you also have to ask yourself whether you would be willing to support Taiwan militarily, as that would certainly be necessary.
"The Chinese do have one thing that many Americans today lack. That's nationalistic pride. The Chinese are willing to do what it takes to get ahead in the World; the average Chinese citizen is far more likely to defend China's actions than any American would be. Many Americans are far more critical of the US government, and in fact, are quickly to defend foreign nations than they are their own."
And you're saying that's a good thing? I'm kind of confused.
According to you, it's bad that the Chinese government harshly suppresses dissent--to use a euphemism. However, your average Chinese citizen is more likely to defend China's actions (because not doing so would lead to a bullet in the head) and you think this is a good thing? Many Americans are far more critical of the US government because we can without having to worry about spending life in prison.
Consider that the average Chinese citizen gets their news from controlled government sources that are always going to paint the government's actions in the best possible light. Heck, if I got all my news from the US Government's press releases and speeches, I'd be pretty sure that our invasion--excuse me, The Coalition's invasion--of Iraq was completely justified. Of course, you say that the government controlling the media--and censoring things it doesn't like--is bad. But once again, you champion the support of the average Chinese person for their government's actions.
So are you saying that uninformed nationalistic pride is a good thing? And that Americans, with more information about what their government is doing than Chinese citizens and who actually get to hear both sides of the argument from different sources, are wrong to criticize their government?
No, I'm thinking of the book. Big differences. [spoilers, too]
Logan's Run, as written, would have been a great movie. Unfortunately, I don't think the effects technology was up to it.
So, instead, they rewrote it into this "machines take over the world" story. Not bad, I suppose, but actually doing the book--even with the bad special effects of the day--would have been preferable.
Of course, they're supposedly doing a remake, so there's a chance they'll get it right...
You're fired.
Concept 3: Raise and train cute puppies to fight and kill other cute puppies. Network it, of course. Best of both worlds!
What do you expect from UCLA?
What do you expect from UCLA...
"[...] like not visiting Cuba (w/o permission) [...]"
Actually, as I understand it, it isn't illegal for a US Citizen to visit Cuba. However, when you go to Cuba, it is illegal to give them money (thus making it difficult to actually do anything in Cuba--like stay in a hotel, go out for dinner, etc.).
Of course, the government can't actually punish you without evidence. And with little representation within Cuba, you just plead the fifth when you get back.
"To say nothing of employee's arms being taken and used to gain access."
I hear this already happened. There was this guy I heard about, see, who met this nice looking woman in a bar. She invited him up to her room, spiked his drink with some kind of knock-out agent. When he woke up, he was in a bathtub full of ice and his arm was gone.
(Yes, I'm joking.)
"Did you even read the summary? Typical clueless /.er"
Yes, and the summary and all of the articles that I've read never discussed How they dealt with the threat of bloggers spreading misinformation. Of course, they can't--that would give valuable aid to the enemy.
How would the government respond--in theory, during a crisis--to misinformation being spread via a popular blog? Do you have any guesses?
I don't think that it's a huge step to say that--during a crisis, of course--whoever hosts the blog would would be asked to shut it down. Do you?
"I find it very telling that OS X already surpasses Vista's current interface [...]) but runs on much less demanding machines, like a Mac mini."
Couple of notes.
Some of the cool effects in Tiger, generated by the Core Image SDK, will not work on a Mac mini. For example, drag a new widget onto the Dashboard in Tiger and, depending on your graphics card, you will either see the ripples or not. This is similar to what is being done in Vista.
In my uneducated opinion, I rashly assume that the Aero Glass interface will be implemented on top of Microsoft's equivalent to Core Image. Thus, it's an all-or-nothing equation like Core Image is. Even if certain things could be done without a super-fancy graphics card, tough beans.
...and your point?
Are you implying that articles on Windows vulnerabilities are outdated and half-true?
"[...] can't find a single 360 on the shelves anywhere in the entire state of New Mexico."
"What the hell backwater swamp do you live in?"
Hey, if you believe this guy, I have some swampland in New Mexico to sell you...