Let me see if I can remember: Free market - no barriers to entry or exit (people are free to participate without having to fulfill a bunch of check-boxes (e.g. licensing, large capital outlays for equipment, etc). Also, the consumer has perfect information, meaning that they understand what the value of a product is when compared to every other similar good. There was something else, too, but I can't remember it. You can see why it's theoretical.
Anyhow, "unregulated" means that there are no rules. Think about a situation where MS could force the industry in whatever direction they wanted - not too hard to imagine, actually. It could be argued that the defense companies have already bought half of our political system and the insurance industry has bought the other half. (We're nearly there!) These industries, controlled by an interlocking directorate, would control the country. It's easy to see why that's fascism.
This, I think, is where you got lost: Corporations don't want an absence of regulation either, as they like the rules that they create. Every company/producer will ALWAYS try to create barriers in the market so that the fundamental rule doesn't apply: "There are no long-term profits in a free market." We see profit degradation most in businesses more closely affected by the Internet for these reasons. The Internet provides much closer to 'perfect information' to the consumer. The rules that "free market capitalists" abhor are those that seek to create (closer to) perfect markets, limit the "capitalist's" influence, or keep them from limitless profit.
As an aside, the record industry has been 'hammered' by the fundamental rule - and I like it. They tried to stop it (DMCA) with their rules, but didn't succeed because the draw was too strong to the free market. Incidentally, they're busy PRing themselves back to profitability ("but, we DESERVE profits..."), which proves that greed is a much larger part of human nature than Adam Smith thought.
As far as I understand it, a long-term, perfect, free market is very close to socialism. There are no profits, just people making a living and paying what an item costs to produce. The difference from communism is that the people, not the gov't, run the companies.
The obvious question in your mind is probably about incentives to participate. The incentive (if it's profit that is the incentive) is in the short-term in new industries. There, the profits could be high for a long time. In the US, profits are a right, though. No one thinks anyone will work unless there's something in it for them. I, personally, think that's BS.
Greed is the real enemy of the free market; greed causes class stratification, strife, and (eventually) revolution.
Now, I'm a little worried about birds, but this (academic) study is just calling our attention to the fact that wind-power is a great alternative. Don't get too worked up about it!
BTW, I'm a proponent of Nuc. power, too. However, it will take another 20 years (or so) for the generation of people that were brainwashed to die off (or become a small minority) before we can seriously consider it on its merits.
The personification of gov't into one evil entity incapable of multi-tasking is lame... (as are all the rest of these over-simplifying personifications).
I have a java project, which basically exposes web-services (jax-ws) and it's built on java 1.5+ standard. I considered Spring when I was starting the project a couple years ago. However, I thought that they didn't offer much (for me) with regards to web services and I thought that the point of Spring was to get away from EJBs, which as of java 1.5 are vastly simpler and lighter weight.
So, I've basically been under the impression that Spring would die either as java dies, or as java integrates much of its functionality. What do they bring to the table? I'd honestly like to know.
To me, this is a dying company struggling to stay relevant - but I could certainly be wrong.
So, if MS is supposed to be releasing a new OS every couple (2) years and it's SOP to RC them for free for a year... doesn't that mean that we get free MS Windows (RC)? I'll get nailed for this, but really most linux distro's are RC's, too ('LTS' version or the paid version being the actual product).
So, hey, short of 'Free (as in speech),' and 'Open Source' MS is definitely learning from FOSS. hehe. The new MS tagline: It's 'Free (as in beer)' and it's 'software.' So, we're halfway to the FOSS ideal! (j/k)
Perhaps more clearly: Which economic philosophy is closer to your own: Alfred Keynes' or Milton Freidman's? How does this relate to your economic policy?
If we knew how to get the parents involved, then we could probably figure out how to get the kids involved-- which is really the point, no?
The problem, IMO, is that we're all selfish in the US. Anything that gets in the way of our Fritos, beer and pr0n is not appreciated (or funded).
If you could change the 'every man for himself' culture in the US into a 'help thy neighbor' culture, then you deserve your own Nobel Prize.
I saw Wieman speak years ago about how to reform the US math/science curriculum in public education. It's sad that he's moved on to Canada where he got some funding for those efforts.
K. It's a bit of a troll, but you should seriously all recognize that Kucinich is actually fighting for a fair electoral process in Nevada, Texas and New Hampshire. He might be 'loopy' but he's being the best political activist a elf-looking dude with a hot wife can be. I'm gonna vote for him in our primaries (as if it mattered, it's Utah). Why? Because I'm convinced that he doesn't represent big-business interests.
I honestly think that it's between him and Paul (as far as an actual public servant), but Paul can't seem to organize a nap. Paul has stunning supporters, but can't seem to get the train out of the station. Meanwhile, he maintains the status quo-- no fight in him.
Edwards campaign is based on 'fight.' Obama, etc. pump 'change.' One candidate is out there trying to DO something. I like his fight and a lot of his ideas. I'm voting for that 'loopy' guy.
If I were president, I'd accomplish what they all accomplish... very little. Presidents don't make laws, they are supposed to administer the enforcement of them... Of course, all of my ideas could be implemented with the right blend of congress-critters, too.
If I were KING, well, I'd make a few adjustments (in no particular order)...
1. Disrupt the power-base. I'd get rid of the inherent advantages that D's and R's have in elections. 2. Reform campaigning. All campaign funding needs to be equalized-- all campaign donations should be made to the US gov and doled out to the top 5 candidates in equal portions. All travel for campaigning will be handled by the National Guard. Each candidate will spend one day in each venue (at least 1 per state) and will host a 'town hall meeting.' After the candidates have had a chance to visit, then the elections would be held in each state-- all voting confidential until all 50 states have results. 3. Make life fair to *people.* I'd Remove many of the rights/protections of US corporations 4. Reduce the costs of health care. I'd fund infrastructure for health care-- make more medical schools and create publicly funded hospitals (equipment only) as infrastructure and rent space to Dr's 5. Stimulate the economy. I'd pump a ton of money into the middle class (quite a bit into law enforcement-- I'm sick of corruption) 6. Clean the environment and re-vitalize our engineering sector. I'd jack emissions standards to near unbearable levels and FORCE the adoption of cleaner technologies. 7. I'd repeal veto power (it violates separation of powers, IMO) 8. I'd prosecute the entire lot of current *and recent* senators and representatives for failing to uphold their oaths (same for the current crop of executive branch idiots). 9. I'd create trade barriers to keep money in the country and reduce trade deficits. 10. I'd change the way that laws are drafted-- one law per bill AND IT CAN'T BE RESUBMITTED FOR 3 YEARS, IF IT DOESN'T PASS! 11. Figure out a way to fix the credit-crazed economy of the past 16 years. I don't really know how, but it'd be a priority. We are selling ourselves into slavery. 12. I'd re-write IP/copyright laws. Enough said.... man, I could go on all day.
I would add to that the idea that only PEOPLE can own patents-- not companies. If a company bankrolls the R&D, then the chief scientist should own the patent.
Also, "realize a given patent" is pretty vague. Does that mean "establish a reasonable market for the product?" Does that mean "produce a prototype?" Or, does it mean "to produce the machinery that will produce many products that can be sold?" The devil's in the details, I guess.
However, I think that you've misconstrued my meaning of "values." I'll try an example: In Russian the verb contains quite a lot of the information that is contained within the sentence. In English... well, "to get" is a powerful verb for English. It doesn't contain nearly as much information that a normal Russian verb contains. This, to me, means that because the verb is generally at the end of the sentence (and is so meaningful) that the Russian culture will hold more information in memory until the verb brings the sentence together-- sort of delayed gratification. Something that, say, a chess player might enjoy. I certainly didn't mean to infer that they had the same MORAL values... that differs from family to family, in my experience.
Regarding fluency: I think that much of foreign fluency is a process of learning to 'chunk' ideas. Native fluency is something different. Of course, I'll never know for sure, since I only learned English natively. I can only speak from my year or two of Russian study, which in a very few areas I consider(ed) myself fluent.
I agree with your assessment as well, but I have something to add.
I studied Russian for awhile (I'm American) and found the methods that they used to construct sentences underlie a different thought process. For example the sentence structure in the US is subj, verb, predicate; in Russia (okay, I'm no expert) it is subj, predicate, verb. Now, when I was learning to speak the language (terribly) I found that I had to PLAN a little differently. Strict grammar and coordinating declensions, etc. are clues that a society THINKS differently or has different values than in English. I think that cognitive ability and structure is tightly bound to language. There is some research that indicates that even spacial organizational skills are tied to language, too.
So, to avoid global groupthink on a very basic level, it's a bad thing that language will lose some of its color.
I plan to vote for you (I decided awhile back). I'm not a democrat (or a republican). I'm an 'issue' voter. I like your ideas on 'fair' elections. Fairness in the electoral process is really the biggest problem that this country faces (that we *could* control), IMO.
Incumbent advantage isn't far enough, though. The last pres. campaigns cost $600M (per side), IIRC. The 'alternate' parties cannot hope to raise that money. They have valid viewpoints, and yet cannot get on the ballot in all 50 states without draining off their meager donations (which the dems and reps don't even have to do). The Dems and the Reps have a serious advantage that isn't fair. It's caustic... no one believes that politics are in their best interests any more and they don't think they have a choice. Only the wealthy and corporate-connected can hope to run a successful election (you are both). These candidates no longer represent the growing lower-middle class. It's wrong.
Your sort of idealistic campaign pledge virtually assures that you will get no funding from either Rep. or Dem. parties-- it's not in their best interests. This is really a case, though, where you've chosen a good fight. You may not win (sadly), but you should be proud of yourself.
I've seen lots of signs, and I'm hopeful that you win. GOOD LUCK!
I don't think the model is to transmit video data to the monitor. I think the idea is to include the groovy computer that wirelessly downloads HD TV content onto a hard drive that's IN the monitor. The DVD drive, as long as the format survives, will also be included in the 'console' which we call the TV. No video needs to be transmitted. Am I missing something?
Think of it as a giant laptop on the wall (hopefully the non-TV components will be interchangeable). IO should be the only thing that needs to be wireless... Now, if someone said that they could transmit power wirelessly (so I wouldn't need batteries), then I'd be excited-- as long as it didn't bake my reproductive organs.
I read an article about a family who installed enough solar energy panels to cover their yearly costs... or so they thought.
The math was simple, they added up their kwh and sized their system accordingly. Winters would be balanced by summers, etc. During the summer they'd build a credit with the power co. and during the winter they'd consume the credit. Their mistake was assuming that the power company would buy the power at the same price at which they sold it. The power company actually purchased at about 50% of the charge rate for the power. So, this family (after a good effort to live 'green') ended up with a power bill anyway.
This story is interesting because they're taking methane (which is 'free' as in 'sunk cost') processing it (probably with gov't subsidy) and charging the customer more for it.
I love the idea. It's efficient, and useful. However, I hate that the power co. is charging marginally more for the 'BS energy' (which is truly BS because the energy would be produced regardless of consumption).
[You're making the (insane) assumption that your current computer usage won't ever change. ]
No. In fact I hope that there is something truly great on the horizon. I WANT to upgrade, because I like to build PCs-- it's fun. I just can't really justify the expense.
My point is this: Do YOU need a supercomputer? Does your mom? Probably not. Current processors are perfectly adequate for the VAST majority of users. Maybe I'm justifying to myself why, even if (IF) the Conroe kicks AMD ass, I'll buy an AMD... performance is given no matter which way I go. Also, why do I need to upgrade every 2 years? There are many factors to consider in a purchasing decision, no?
We've been running the 'latest and greatest for performance' race for so long, it's hard to see when other criteria may be more important than performance. I remember the power of the 386, and how long it took to load win 3.11 for workgroups. Don't think I've not pushed the edge just so that i wouldn't have to sit and wait for crap like that to load. I'm just saying, "I'm there." I rarely have to wait for the PC these days (unless I'm making huge copies of database files, or downloading updates or software-- file IO and network bandwidth are the most common things I wait for). I admit that the one processor-intensive thing that I wait for is encoding (or transcoding). I wish for a high-quality hardware accelerator....
I'm not a gamer. My computer runs fine with my XP2100+. I may upgrade to the 35W dual core 3800+. Not for performance, but for power usage/heat dissipation. However, I'll wait until the Core 2 Duo is released so that the prices will be lower:)
Unless something crazy happens, I don't think that I'll need anything faster (ever). My machine is already faster than me in all but network bandwidth and file IO.
It seems that my POV on this issue is controversial amongst my friends, too. I'll try to be brief.
We can't regulate it. I know that. So do you, I'd wager. We can't stop the application of this technology either. The genie is out of the bottle. I lament the fact that corporations (where profit is the sole motivator) are so powerful, and so devoid of ethics.
I'm not scared of learning. I embrace it. However, applying this technology has ramifications. Mainly, keeping people alive (though that's not the only one). We do that too well, now. My stance is that we should let a few people die.
There are valid ethical, logical and economic reasons that human genetics shouldn't be researched (in today's circumstances-- there are circumstances in which the research would be imperative).
Do not flame me and call me a luddite. I am not scared of the future. I think it's a mistake and would not pay for it, personally, if I had a choice. There are better uses of the talents and resources devoting themselves to that research, imho.
First, the nature vs. nurture argument is being 'spun' by biologists to placate the fears of people. Nature is a far more important element than the existing arguments would have you believe. Genetics is, without doubt, an incredibly powerful tool.
Second, we don't need any secret weapons in the race to cure disease. People are already outliving their ability to live with any quality of life. Earth is already overpopulated, and we humans are consuming far more energy than is our rightful share.
Third, we humans are not capable of making decisions with regards to what should or shouldn't be done with genetic information. Nor are we capable of enforcing our decisions with any sort of legal entity. We, unfortunately, have people who will break the law for personal gain.
Finally, bio-diversity is where genome research should be focussed, as natural balance is all about diversity. I'd much rather you studied the genome of rare animals.
However, I understand the economics of genetics (and science research in general) and realize that animal research isn't nearly as lucrative as being able to cure some wealthy (or well-insured) person of a disease at incredible mark-up. Don't be naive or suppose that we are naive when you propose your altruistic intention. It all comes back to saving the 'weak' human and indirectly making money.
My stance on this matter may change if humanity were facing extinction. However the risk/reward ratio is far too high.
"...until more of us start getting killed by terrorism on our own soil, we should simply continue the same. "Business as usual" you say?"
Yeah, I'd say so. Do you realize that this one terrorist attack has shaken America's faith in their government (which could easily become completely de-stabilized)? Do you realize that as a result of our government constantly eroding our freedoms ("It's only phone records"...) as a measure to stop this "war", terrorism has proven the most powerful force on Earth?
A couple thousand lives (2,500/298,709,755 =.0008% -- less than the remainder of your 'statistic'-- of the population) aren't worth that. I'm sorry. You can have mine, too. I'll gleefully submit my life (I used to serve in the armed forces-- so this is not foreign to me) to take back all of the nasty things that have occurred as a result of this terrorist act.
-- rant -- I am SUPER frustrated that we don't realize that "not bargaining with terrorists" (the legendary policy of the US gov) MEANS not being provoked into a protracted engagement on foreign soil (which in 600BC China was considered stupid, too). I can never understand why this "war" was supported; I can never understand why we invaded a third party country PREEMPTIVELY; I can never understand how so many people can support this obvious-MORON president. However, I am only one vote (I tried to changed the minds of my ultra-conservative family before the last election-- but was unable). -- end rant --
"Business as usual" is a hell of a lot better.... I, for one, DON'T welcome our new, fear-mongering overlords.
I agree... to a point. I'll admit that I recently have been moving to Ubuntu. I quite like it, by the way.
However, I'm a bit of a hack. So, I went off to install a database engine that I have some experience with (iAnywhere ASA). Now, I'm not much on Linux... I'm just switching. So, I download the tar file. Hmmm.. read the setup. It's a shell file. Should I run it? How do I run it? Will it screw something up? Let me just cut to the chase... I never got it working (it wasn't too high on my priority list).
Linux really needs a universal installation engine. I LOVE repositories. I LOVE lots of things about Ubuntu (much better than Suse, imho). I had to search around and figure out how to get this tar converted to a deb then installed.... What a mess! Once I got it "installed" (probably incorrectly) it wasn't able to load its plug-ins in the manager (Sybase Central).
On a positive note, I learned a few things (that's what makes Linux fun). On a negative note, I doubt many of my colleagues (developers in a windows shop) could have figured it out.
So, as long as it's in a repository... yes. I agree. When it's not... hmmm. No. I disagree.
Note: these things aren't cheap. Unless one level is proven, don't move on to the next.
For an IT dept., specifically, in order of importance... -phone service -a stable, available network -anti-virus/patching policies -backup/recovery systems (offsite, and local) -desktop refresh programs (so you don't have to use the same computer for 10 years) -email with adequate space -If you have applications that are internally maintained... plan on replacing them every 5-7 years. -If you have internal development and projects going on... read the following.
The biggest issue I've found was that management had been 'promoted to their level of incompetence.' Our middle management sucked, and I'm not sure, but it was likely because upper management sucked. (cliche: weak people surround themselves with weak people. Strong people surround themselves with strong people.)
There were enough bright people to do the work. However, the job was never defined and the project was never properly managed. I finally got a good project manager after 3 years (hired from outside). It was amazing what a difference it made. He quit shortly after 1 year (he recognized the futility of it all). I quit shortly after that...
My advice: put in a process (performance reviews (360 reviews, etc), interviewing practices, etc.) for hiring/promoting only EXCEPTIONAL people. Train your managers (there are certifications for them, too). MAKE SURE they have (current) technical skills, too. DO NOT demand constant 'face time' (meetings) with the techies. DO make them understand (perhaps put them through training for) the jobs of the people that they support.
My other pet peave is that companies believe that they can hire a consultant to do new development 'better' than internal people. In my experience 80% of the info necessary to build an application is business knowledge. The other 20% is technical knowledge. Subcontractors have the wrong skill set for new development, IMHO.
WORKAROUND: How about I offer a T-shirt for $50 that gets a bonus $45 in credit for our online casinos. I buy the T-shirt for $50 with an American credit card. Now, I have $45 to gamble.
End result: another stupid piece of big-brother legislation.
Also, I wonder how the companies that handle Indian Reservations credit card transactions will like this.... Was that gas, or was it online gaming? It's hard to tell given that there's only an authorization number, a customer, and a merchant....
I won't buy Sony anything. The money all goes to the corporation, whether or not it's the gaming division that generates it.... Besides, $400 is stupid for a video game system/BluRay player. Dumb. I could buy a Nintendo AND an DVD player. I just don't think it's worth the money.
I'm actually interested in the Nintendo controller. I like the idea that the controller could be used to improve the interactivity of the games. That could be so fun, it's mind-boggling.
So, I won't buy M$ (too much money) and I won't buy $ony (same reason). The price points are just insane. The Nintendo box pushes my limits, but at least it's got potential to break new ground... Oh, yeah, and the company still pushes GAMEPLAY as the most important aspect of the experience-- that's a key point, too.
Slashdot Mirror
Bert is right. I'll try to help the conversation:
Let me see if I can remember: Free market - no barriers to entry or exit (people are free to participate without having to fulfill a bunch of check-boxes (e.g. licensing, large capital outlays for equipment, etc). Also, the consumer has perfect information, meaning that they understand what the value of a product is when compared to every other similar good. There was something else, too, but I can't remember it. You can see why it's theoretical.
Anyhow, "unregulated" means that there are no rules. Think about a situation where MS could force the industry in whatever direction they wanted - not too hard to imagine, actually. It could be argued that the defense companies have already bought half of our political system and the insurance industry has bought the other half. (We're nearly there!) These industries, controlled by an interlocking directorate, would control the country. It's easy to see why that's fascism.
This, I think, is where you got lost: Corporations don't want an absence of regulation either, as they like the rules that they create. Every company/producer will ALWAYS try to create barriers in the market so that the fundamental rule doesn't apply: "There are no long-term profits in a free market." We see profit degradation most in businesses more closely affected by the Internet for these reasons. The Internet provides much closer to 'perfect information' to the consumer. The rules that "free market capitalists" abhor are those that seek to create (closer to) perfect markets, limit the "capitalist's" influence, or keep them from limitless profit.
As an aside, the record industry has been 'hammered' by the fundamental rule - and I like it. They tried to stop it (DMCA) with their rules, but didn't succeed because the draw was too strong to the free market. Incidentally, they're busy PRing themselves back to profitability ("but, we DESERVE profits..."), which proves that greed is a much larger part of human nature than Adam Smith thought.
As far as I understand it, a long-term, perfect, free market is very close to socialism. There are no profits, just people making a living and paying what an item costs to produce. The difference from communism is that the people, not the gov't, run the companies.
The obvious question in your mind is probably about incentives to participate. The incentive (if it's profit that is the incentive) is in the short-term in new industries. There, the profits could be high for a long time. In the US, profits are a right, though. No one thinks anyone will work unless there's something in it for them. I, personally, think that's BS.
Greed is the real enemy of the free market; greed causes class stratification, strife, and (eventually) revolution.
You've heard of trees. They block the wind, too.
Now, I'm a little worried about birds, but this (academic) study is just calling our attention to the fact that wind-power is a great alternative. Don't get too worked up about it!
BTW, I'm a proponent of Nuc. power, too. However, it will take another 20 years (or so) for the generation of people that were brainwashed to die off (or become a small minority) before we can seriously consider it on its merits.
The personification of gov't into one evil entity incapable of multi-tasking is lame... (as are all the rest of these over-simplifying personifications).
I have a java project, which basically exposes web-services (jax-ws) and it's built on java 1.5+ standard. I considered Spring when I was starting the project a couple years ago. However, I thought that they didn't offer much (for me) with regards to web services and I thought that the point of Spring was to get away from EJBs, which as of java 1.5 are vastly simpler and lighter weight.
So, I've basically been under the impression that Spring would die either as java dies, or as java integrates much of its functionality. What do they bring to the table? I'd honestly like to know.
To me, this is a dying company struggling to stay relevant - but I could certainly be wrong.
So, if MS is supposed to be releasing a new OS every couple (2) years and it's SOP to RC them for free for a year... doesn't that mean that we get free MS Windows (RC)? I'll get nailed for this, but really most linux distro's are RC's, too ('LTS' version or the paid version being the actual product).
So, hey, short of 'Free (as in speech),' and 'Open Source' MS is definitely learning from FOSS. hehe. The new MS tagline: It's 'Free (as in beer)' and it's 'software.' So, we're halfway to the FOSS ideal! (j/k)
Perhaps more clearly: Which economic philosophy is closer to your own: Alfred Keynes' or Milton Freidman's? How does this relate to your economic policy?
Ok, if that's not your question, it's mine :)
If we knew how to get the parents involved, then we could probably figure out how to get the kids involved-- which is really the point, no? The problem, IMO, is that we're all selfish in the US. Anything that gets in the way of our Fritos, beer and pr0n is not appreciated (or funded). If you could change the 'every man for himself' culture in the US into a 'help thy neighbor' culture, then you deserve your own Nobel Prize. I saw Wieman speak years ago about how to reform the US math/science curriculum in public education. It's sad that he's moved on to Canada where he got some funding for those efforts.
K. It's a bit of a troll, but you should seriously all recognize that Kucinich is actually fighting for a fair electoral process in Nevada, Texas and New Hampshire. He might be 'loopy' but he's being the best political activist a elf-looking dude with a hot wife can be. I'm gonna vote for him in our primaries (as if it mattered, it's Utah). Why? Because I'm convinced that he doesn't represent big-business interests.
I honestly think that it's between him and Paul (as far as an actual public servant), but Paul can't seem to organize a nap. Paul has stunning supporters, but can't seem to get the train out of the station. Meanwhile, he maintains the status quo-- no fight in him.
Edwards campaign is based on 'fight.' Obama, etc. pump 'change.' One candidate is out there trying to DO something. I like his fight and a lot of his ideas. I'm voting for that 'loopy' guy.
If I were president, I'd accomplish what they all accomplish... very little. Presidents don't make laws, they are supposed to administer the enforcement of them... Of course, all of my ideas could be implemented with the right blend of congress-critters, too.
... man, I could go on all day.
If I were KING, well, I'd make a few adjustments (in no particular order)...
1. Disrupt the power-base. I'd get rid of the inherent advantages that D's and R's have in elections.
2. Reform campaigning. All campaign funding needs to be equalized-- all campaign donations should be made to the US gov and doled out to the top 5 candidates in equal portions. All travel for campaigning will be handled by the National Guard. Each candidate will spend one day in each venue (at least 1 per state) and will host a 'town hall meeting.' After the candidates have had a chance to visit, then the elections would be held in each state-- all voting confidential until all 50 states have results.
3. Make life fair to *people.* I'd Remove many of the rights/protections of US corporations
4. Reduce the costs of health care. I'd fund infrastructure for health care-- make more medical schools and create publicly funded hospitals (equipment only) as infrastructure and rent space to Dr's
5. Stimulate the economy. I'd pump a ton of money into the middle class (quite a bit into law enforcement-- I'm sick of corruption)
6. Clean the environment and re-vitalize our engineering sector. I'd jack emissions standards to near unbearable levels and FORCE the adoption of cleaner technologies.
7. I'd repeal veto power (it violates separation of powers, IMO)
8. I'd prosecute the entire lot of current *and recent* senators and representatives for failing to uphold their oaths (same for the current crop of executive branch idiots).
9. I'd create trade barriers to keep money in the country and reduce trade deficits.
10. I'd change the way that laws are drafted-- one law per bill AND IT CAN'T BE RESUBMITTED FOR 3 YEARS, IF IT DOESN'T PASS!
11. Figure out a way to fix the credit-crazed economy of the past 16 years. I don't really know how, but it'd be a priority. We are selling ourselves into slavery.
12. I'd re-write IP/copyright laws. Enough said.
I would add to that the idea that only PEOPLE can own patents-- not companies. If a company bankrolls the R&D, then the chief scientist should own the patent.
Also, "realize a given patent" is pretty vague. Does that mean "establish a reasonable market for the product?" Does that mean "produce a prototype?" Or, does it mean "to produce the machinery that will produce many products that can be sold?" The devil's in the details, I guess.
I like your ideas, though.
I'll readily agree that I'm stretching here.
However, I think that you've misconstrued my meaning of "values." I'll try an example: In Russian the verb contains quite a lot of the information that is contained within the sentence. In English... well, "to get" is a powerful verb for English. It doesn't contain nearly as much information that a normal Russian verb contains. This, to me, means that because the verb is generally at the end of the sentence (and is so meaningful) that the Russian culture will hold more information in memory until the verb brings the sentence together-- sort of delayed gratification. Something that, say, a chess player might enjoy. I certainly didn't mean to infer that they had the same MORAL values... that differs from family to family, in my experience.
Regarding fluency: I think that much of foreign fluency is a process of learning to 'chunk' ideas. Native fluency is something different. Of course, I'll never know for sure, since I only learned English natively. I can only speak from my year or two of Russian study, which in a very few areas I consider(ed) myself fluent.
I agree with your assessment as well, but I have something to add.
I studied Russian for awhile (I'm American) and found the methods that they used to construct sentences underlie a different thought process. For example the sentence structure in the US is subj, verb, predicate; in Russia (okay, I'm no expert) it is subj, predicate, verb. Now, when I was learning to speak the language (terribly) I found that I had to PLAN a little differently. Strict grammar and coordinating declensions, etc. are clues that a society THINKS differently or has different values than in English. I think that cognitive ability and structure is tightly bound to language. There is some research that indicates that even spacial organizational skills are tied to language, too.
So, to avoid global groupthink on a very basic level, it's a bad thing that language will lose some of its color.
*cue the "in soviet Russia" hilarity*
I plan to vote for you (I decided awhile back). I'm not a democrat (or a republican). I'm an 'issue' voter. I like your ideas on 'fair' elections. Fairness in the electoral process is really the biggest problem that this country faces (that we *could* control), IMO.
Incumbent advantage isn't far enough, though. The last pres. campaigns cost $600M (per side), IIRC. The 'alternate' parties cannot hope to raise that money. They have valid viewpoints, and yet cannot get on the ballot in all 50 states without draining off their meager donations (which the dems and reps don't even have to do). The Dems and the Reps have a serious advantage that isn't fair. It's caustic... no one believes that politics are in their best interests any more and they don't think they have a choice. Only the wealthy and corporate-connected can hope to run a successful election (you are both). These candidates no longer represent the growing lower-middle class. It's wrong.
Your sort of idealistic campaign pledge virtually assures that you will get no funding from either Rep. or Dem. parties-- it's not in their best interests. This is really a case, though, where you've chosen a good fight. You may not win (sadly), but you should be proud of yourself.
I've seen lots of signs, and I'm hopeful that you win. GOOD LUCK!
I don't think the model is to transmit video data to the monitor. I think the idea is to include the groovy computer that wirelessly downloads HD TV content onto a hard drive that's IN the monitor. The DVD drive, as long as the format survives, will also be included in the 'console' which we call the TV. No video needs to be transmitted. Am I missing something?
Think of it as a giant laptop on the wall (hopefully the non-TV components will be interchangeable). IO should be the only thing that needs to be wireless... Now, if someone said that they could transmit power wirelessly (so I wouldn't need batteries), then I'd be excited-- as long as it didn't bake my reproductive organs.
I read an article about a family who installed enough solar energy panels to cover their yearly costs... or so they thought.
The math was simple, they added up their kwh and sized their system accordingly. Winters would be balanced by summers, etc. During the summer they'd build a credit with the power co. and during the winter they'd consume the credit. Their mistake was assuming that the power company would buy the power at the same price at which they sold it. The power company actually purchased at about 50% of the charge rate for the power. So, this family (after a good effort to live 'green') ended up with a power bill anyway.
This story is interesting because they're taking methane (which is 'free' as in 'sunk cost') processing it (probably with gov't subsidy) and charging the customer more for it.
I love the idea. It's efficient, and useful. However, I hate that the power co. is charging marginally more for the 'BS energy' (which is truly BS because the energy would be produced regardless of consumption).
Hey, milking them would be easy! You're onto something there :)
[You're making the (insane) assumption that your current computer usage won't ever change. ]
No. In fact I hope that there is something truly great on the horizon. I WANT to upgrade, because I like to build PCs-- it's fun. I just can't really justify the expense.
My point is this: Do YOU need a supercomputer? Does your mom? Probably not. Current processors are perfectly adequate for the VAST majority of users. Maybe I'm justifying to myself why, even if (IF) the Conroe kicks AMD ass, I'll buy an AMD... performance is given no matter which way I go. Also, why do I need to upgrade every 2 years? There are many factors to consider in a purchasing decision, no?
We've been running the 'latest and greatest for performance' race for so long, it's hard to see when other criteria may be more important than performance. I remember the power of the 386, and how long it took to load win 3.11 for workgroups. Don't think I've not pushed the edge just so that i wouldn't have to sit and wait for crap like that to load. I'm just saying, "I'm there." I rarely have to wait for the PC these days (unless I'm making huge copies of database files, or downloading updates or software-- file IO and network bandwidth are the most common things I wait for). I admit that the one processor-intensive thing that I wait for is encoding (or transcoding). I wish for a high-quality hardware accelerator....
I'm not a gamer. My computer runs fine with my XP2100+. I may upgrade to the 35W dual core 3800+. Not for performance, but for power usage/heat dissipation. However, I'll wait until the Core 2 Duo is released so that the prices will be lower :)
Unless something crazy happens, I don't think that I'll need anything faster (ever). My machine is already faster than me in all but network bandwidth and file IO.
The server market is where it's at...
It seems that my POV on this issue is controversial amongst my friends, too. I'll try to be brief.
We can't regulate it. I know that. So do you, I'd wager. We can't stop the application of this technology either. The genie is out of the bottle. I lament the fact that corporations (where profit is the sole motivator) are so powerful, and so devoid of ethics.
I'm not scared of learning. I embrace it. However, applying this technology has ramifications. Mainly, keeping people alive (though that's not the only one). We do that too well, now. My stance is that we should let a few people die.
There are valid ethical, logical and economic reasons that human genetics shouldn't be researched (in today's circumstances-- there are circumstances in which the research would be imperative).
Do not flame me and call me a luddite. I am not scared of the future. I think it's a mistake and would not pay for it, personally, if I had a choice. There are better uses of the talents and resources devoting themselves to that research, imho.
I'd like to make several points.
First, the nature vs. nurture argument is being 'spun' by biologists to placate the fears of people. Nature is a far more important element than the existing arguments would have you believe. Genetics is, without doubt, an incredibly powerful tool.
Second, we don't need any secret weapons in the race to cure disease. People are already outliving their ability to live with any quality of life. Earth is already overpopulated, and we humans are consuming far more energy than is our rightful share.
Third, we humans are not capable of making decisions with regards to what should or shouldn't be done with genetic information. Nor are we capable of enforcing our decisions with any sort of legal entity. We, unfortunately, have people who will break the law for personal gain.
Finally, bio-diversity is where genome research should be focussed, as natural balance is all about diversity. I'd much rather you studied the genome of rare animals.
However, I understand the economics of genetics (and science research in general) and realize that animal research isn't nearly as lucrative as being able to cure some wealthy (or well-insured) person of a disease at incredible mark-up. Don't be naive or suppose that we are naive when you propose your altruistic intention. It all comes back to saving the 'weak' human and indirectly making money.
My stance on this matter may change if humanity were facing extinction. However the risk/reward ratio is far too high.
"...until more of us start getting killed by terrorism on our own soil, we should simply continue the same. "Business as usual" you say?"
.0008% -- less than the remainder of your 'statistic'-- of the population) aren't worth that. I'm sorry. You can have mine, too. I'll gleefully submit my life (I used to serve in the armed forces-- so this is not foreign to me) to take back all of the nasty things that have occurred as a result of this terrorist act.
Yeah, I'd say so. Do you realize that this one terrorist attack has shaken America's faith in their government (which could easily become completely de-stabilized)? Do you realize that as a result of our government constantly eroding our freedoms ("It's only phone records"...) as a measure to stop this "war", terrorism has proven the most powerful force on Earth?
A couple thousand lives (2,500/298,709,755 =
-- rant --
I am SUPER frustrated that we don't realize that "not bargaining with terrorists" (the legendary policy of the US gov) MEANS not being provoked into a protracted engagement on foreign soil (which in 600BC China was considered stupid, too). I can never understand why this "war" was supported; I can never understand why we invaded a third party country PREEMPTIVELY; I can never understand how so many people can support this obvious-MORON president. However, I am only one vote (I tried to changed the minds of my ultra-conservative family before the last election-- but was unable).
-- end rant --
"Business as usual" is a hell of a lot better.... I, for one, DON'T welcome our new, fear-mongering overlords.
I agree... to a point. I'll admit that I recently have been moving to Ubuntu. I quite like it, by the way.
However, I'm a bit of a hack. So, I went off to install a database engine that I have some experience with (iAnywhere ASA). Now, I'm not much on Linux... I'm just switching. So, I download the tar file. Hmmm.. read the setup. It's a shell file. Should I run it? How do I run it? Will it screw something up? Let me just cut to the chase... I never got it working (it wasn't too high on my priority list).
Linux really needs a universal installation engine. I LOVE repositories. I LOVE lots of things about Ubuntu (much better than Suse, imho). I had to search around and figure out how to get this tar converted to a deb then installed.... What a mess! Once I got it "installed" (probably incorrectly) it wasn't able to load its plug-ins in the manager (Sybase Central).
On a positive note, I learned a few things (that's what makes Linux fun). On a negative note, I doubt many of my colleagues (developers in a windows shop) could have figured it out.
So, as long as it's in a repository... yes. I agree. When it's not... hmmm. No. I disagree.
Note: these things aren't cheap. Unless one level is proven, don't move on to the next.
For an IT dept., specifically, in order of importance...
-phone service
-a stable, available network
-anti-virus/patching policies
-backup/recovery systems (offsite, and local)
-desktop refresh programs (so you don't have to use the same computer for 10 years)
-email with adequate space
-If you have applications that are internally maintained... plan on replacing them every 5-7 years.
-If you have internal development and projects going on... read the following.
The biggest issue I've found was that management had been 'promoted to their level of incompetence.' Our middle management sucked, and I'm not sure, but it was likely because upper management sucked. (cliche: weak people surround themselves with weak people. Strong people surround themselves with strong people.)
There were enough bright people to do the work. However, the job was never defined and the project was never properly managed. I finally got a good project manager after 3 years (hired from outside). It was amazing what a difference it made. He quit shortly after 1 year (he recognized the futility of it all). I quit shortly after that...
My advice: put in a process (performance reviews (360 reviews, etc), interviewing practices, etc.) for hiring/promoting only EXCEPTIONAL people. Train your managers (there are certifications for them, too). MAKE SURE they have (current) technical skills, too. DO NOT demand constant 'face time' (meetings) with the techies. DO make them understand (perhaps put them through training for) the jobs of the people that they support.
My other pet peave is that companies believe that they can hire a consultant to do new development 'better' than internal people. In my experience 80% of the info necessary to build an application is business knowledge. The other 20% is technical knowledge. Subcontractors have the wrong skill set for new development, IMHO.
WORKAROUND: How about I offer a T-shirt for $50 that gets a bonus $45 in credit for our online casinos. I buy the T-shirt for $50 with an American credit card. Now, I have $45 to gamble.
End result: another stupid piece of big-brother legislation.
Also, I wonder how the companies that handle Indian Reservations credit card transactions will like this.... Was that gas, or was it online gaming? It's hard to tell given that there's only an authorization number, a customer, and a merchant....
I won't buy Sony anything. The money all goes to the corporation, whether or not it's the gaming division that generates it.... Besides, $400 is stupid for a video game system/BluRay player. Dumb. I could buy a Nintendo AND an DVD player. I just don't think it's worth the money.
I'm actually interested in the Nintendo controller. I like the idea that the controller could be used to improve the interactivity of the games. That could be so fun, it's mind-boggling.
So, I won't buy M$ (too much money) and I won't buy $ony (same reason). The price points are just insane. The Nintendo box pushes my limits, but at least it's got potential to break new ground... Oh, yeah, and the company still pushes GAMEPLAY as the most important aspect of the experience-- that's a key point, too.