Chancellor Palpatine is *gasp* the same guy as Emperor Palpatine
While seemingly obvious, I think this is where the twist will come in. Lucas has alluded that there will be a huge surprise in the 3rd installment. Perhaps the Chancellor is actually a clone? I think it's a stretch that this guy is around as the head politico, dealing with the Jedis, and none of them notices that he's eminating the most powerful dark force of all. Then again, Lucas writes some pretty big plotholes...
I just love it when someone corrects me incorrectly. UG was *not* developed by MD, but by United Computing in the late 60s, early 70s. I don't believe any of MDC's McAuto code ever made it into UG. MDC held the company until '91, when they were bought by EDS. Most of the project work was driven by EDS/GM before this, anyway. Under the EDS umbrella, they've only added little things like NURBS support and a feature-based modeler.
My original point was, EDS has done a fine job fulfilling contracts for orgs like the Navy, and organizations that they've acquired (like UG) have gotten along just fine even after being 'pillaged'. Don't damn a $20Bil company because of the acts of one bad set of leaders.
Damn...I didn't know that! How does the Navy even keep afloat? Especially since a number of their ships subsystems were designed with EDS Unigraphics, the #2 MCAD package...um, yeah, they sound terrible.
So you're saying that a large number of people wanting to invade another country makes it right?
Nope. Never said that -- don't know why people interpreted it that way. I'm saying that the minority, in many cases, seems to believe that because there *is* a vocal minority, that its existence is reason enough to postpone war. I don't believe that's the case.
Iraq must be different somehow. Therefor, Iraq's bad govt is a pretext to attack.
Iraq's gov't *is* different somehow -- they are a destabilizing force in the Middle East. Unfortunately, it's a condition that doesn't fit into a soundbite for the 11:00 news, and it's a concept that isn't as lofty sounding as 'for the 9/11 victims' or 'WoMD'. I think it's ridiculous that it isn't acknowledged publicly as a reason more often, but you can bet this is the #1 reason for this conflict. Go read some analysis on the Middle East. You'll see some very eye-opening text on exactly how much the world economy can be destabilized by one little country in the right place, and don't think for a second that this isn't a primary reason on GDub & company's minds. Not vendetta, not *just* crude barrel prices, not 9/11, but the stabilization of one of the great pressure-points of the world. And don't think for a second that *de*stabilization isn't foremost on Saddam's mind.
It is and has been his goal for years. The alignment of other Arab countries against the US has been a longterm goal of his -- sound familiar? Al-Qaeda? I don't believe either that the two are in collusion, but ridding the Mid-East of both the Afghan religious extremists and the Iraqi secular warmongers is the start the stablization campaign.
I must confess that I truly believe that US foreign policy has made a wreck of this region for the last 75 years. But that doesn't mean they should throw their hands up in the air now and allow things to degrade further.
world governance...rids us of rogue states that persecute their own populations (Saddam)... and... curbs rogue states with semi-democratically elected leaders who want to attack other states on dodgy pretexts
This contains everything that seems to be wrong with people's concerns about war -- please explain it if I'm misunderstanding. You seem to believe that Iraq is a rogue state, the gov't does slaughter its own population, and that it would be generally a better world should Saddam et. al. be usurped.
But then you say that GDub's pretexts are dodgy? The people against war seem to cry that they are the unheard minority -- but keep in mind they are just that, a minority. Depeding on the poll you look at, 60% - 70% of Americans are in favor of war in Iraq. If they halted war every time there were significant numbers of protestors, Americans would probably all be speaking German right now. Or hell, speaking with British accents.
And I *really* don't understand why it's so many Slashdotter's and other's wish that we follow a One World Order(tm). The prevalent opinion seems to be for smaller government and smaller business, but, what, unless it's the UN or some entity like it? As far as I know, the US as a sovereign nation has the right to follow its own course, even if it's contrary to that of the rest of the world.
Frankly, I'm not saying I'm for a war -- but it's sad to me that those that are against such efforts have yet to construct an cogent argument for their cause that's more than just a personal attack on the US's incumbent Executive.
I miss a reply. How did this have nothing to do with a newton? -- it was a direct reference to the PDA's buggy writing recognition. What, now all humour related to the topic at hand is O/T? If you like *humourless* comments, I think you can filter those out from your preferences. If you didn't get the joke, you shouldn't automatically mod it down
I read the article and it's pretty vague on how the game actually informs you of a payoff -- if all of the games are the same and give a chance at winning, you can bet that this will be cracked in less than 24 hours.
It seems like the best way to do this would be *not* having some random chance of any given game winning, but instead link in a seperate module for 1 in 260000 that has a cash redemption code at the end or some such. In other words, have a 'loser' version, and a 'winner' version, with none of the winner's code in the losing version.
Ummm....I completely agree -- but the issue we were discussing here was the relative liability of the gun-seller compared to that of the information broker -- but thanks for playing.
I think there are at least two issues at hand here: (1) You must pass a background check before you buy a gun. This is a legal device for clearing the seller of liability. There is no such equivalent amongst the major info-brokers. (2) Apples and oranges. A core issue of privacy advocates is that information specific to me is my proprietary information. You have no right to sell it or otherwise distribute it without my permission. This information can be used to harm *me* specifically, and the fact that anyone can obtain it for a price is innately harmful to me. A gun has no specific target until you point it at someone.
I have no reason to 'trust' the United States Well, then I guess there's really no use arguing with you, you're already prejudiced, which typically precludes all logic and reasoning. What evidence did you want, Blix wheeling in a vat of Anthrax? I didn't know the US was the only nation that relied on photographic and recorded intelligence...
this is only about oil so all yo' fat SUV's can keep rollin' Ah. So you're racist as well as ignorant. Lovely.
while the "Arab Class" suffer for it Ah yes, the poor 'Arab Class', with some of the highest per capita incomes in the world. And since when is economics not a reason to go to war? I know you think that the US could roll off of oil in a couple of years, but realistically we, and most other developed and developing nations, could not.
So we have a political force in the middle east that is power hungry at best, and genocidal at worst, and they have the ability to destabilize the economy of the Western world--hell, probably the whole world. If you think the only thing that would suffer is SUV sales in this case, you're more than just a troll, you're just plain stupid.
folks have been held w/o bail hearings for centuries
Just out of curiousity, could you give a specific example of this? I've heard of people being held *without bail*, or trials being postponed for long periods of time after bail is denied, but I've never heard of an accused citizen being held for months without even seeing a judge. (I'm not doubting you, 'just would like more data)
This is either a troll or the biggest flamebait ever.
they were not "heroes" - they knew the risks Soooo....Understanding the risks of your actions excludes your actions from being considered heroic? Wow, that's truly 'insightful.' And I thought most people would *define* heroism that way.
Yeah, lots of people say they would go, but these people have dedicated their lives to advancing the engineering and life sciences, and they did indeed know the risks that went with this.
*That's* the difference between the family of four that's killed on the way to church by a drunk and this disaster; these people knowlingly took the risk of dying for humanity. And don't give me crap about glory and money -- the Astronaut program pays a salary of approximately $40-$75k, the range of a decent sysadmin. And not everyone makes as much as Glenn on the tour circuit.
And yes, you could then argue that military deaths are equally as notable and noble, and at that point I would agree that the sensationalism of the vehicle and its history come into play. But for Christ's sake, these people were amongst the brightest and highest performing individuals on Earth--many would have articles and books written about them if they'd grown old and died of *natural* causes, let alone a horrific death at 200,000 feet. To say nothing of the loss humanity takes as we take one giant leap backward before crawling back to where we were yesterday.
As for cheap replacements, my dear god you must not be a design engineer. Why don't you go read about some fundamentals of aerospace and CMM level 5 coding practices, and THEN come back and talk with the big boys. This ain't no P2P software or Tivo hardware we're talking about.
Sorry to everyone else for the rant -- but jesus I'm so tired of ignorant people opining on topics of which they are clearly ignorant. 'Insightful' my ass.
Published Stories vs. Reality
on
Ask Kevin Mitnick
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
I've read a number of editorial writers that have stated that the outright menacing portrayal of you in writings such as Hafner's Cyberpunk is twisted fiction at best. To the thousands of people who've derived opinions of you based on these works, what would you say in response?
The 'ST' series was a serious little computer for its day. It certainly didn't pack the bang of Amiga, but for the price you couldn't beat it.
We certainly packed a bunch onto our 20meg ST HD -- games, music mixing software, spreadsheet data, etc.
The ST really excelled with the first two; I believe many game companies used Atari as the primary development platform and actually ported to PC and Amiga _later_. (Dungeon Master and Sundog come to mind, as well as Sierra for a while I think) As for music, I believe it was the first consumer-affordable computer to come with built-in MIDI support, so there was a ton of music software written. IIRC, some famous musician still uses his ST because he hasn't seen anything better on modern Windows boxen. (can't remember who it is).
To a great extent, tho', the average Atari ST buyer probably wasn't much different than your avg slashdotter--someone who enjoyed using the computer for the computer's sake, not just as a work tool or communication device. Before the rise of the Web, who remembers demon dialing their favorite BBS for 3 hours?;-)
You don't fucking NEED a gun, it's just a toy for your amusement
Who the hell are you to say? Have you ever: -Owned and worked on a large working farm range -Lived in a ghetto -Been a social worker -Owned & lived on a boat -Been somewhere where you COULDN'T shop at a grocery for your food
This assumption that guns are for amusement and that no one outside of the 'authorities' could possibly need one is small minded, or at least suburban minded. And as for disproportionate gun violence in the US--greater than greater-per-capita gun owning nations--welcome to a striated, diverse mix of cultures. You're beginning to see it in the UK with the Yardies, but for the most part, the UK is a VERY homogenous culture. There is no more culturally heterogeneous nation than the US--and the differences between all of these cultures manifest themselves in extremes. We have extreme victories, and extreme violence and suffering. Hopefully someday we'll all grow up. Until then, just taking away more of our priveledges, and adding more laws, is certainly not the answer.
I have to agree that car and CE manufacturers, in the face of increased costs, demand for 'more bang for the buck,' the UAW's outlandish demands, and yep, plain old greed, CAD/CAM/CAE has allowed for some pretty shoddy manufacturing trends.
BUT, as a dyed-in-the-wool CAE developer, I have to defend the honor of my humble profession. CAD/CAM/CAE offers a HUGE advantage for design engineers/analysts even if you leave out the design 'shortcuts'. Remember that NASTRAN, the grand-pappy of all FEA solvers, is a product of NASA and is still used to help analyze the designs of probably every component on the shuttle, as well as every other extreme-tolerence aerospace device manufactured in the US and the other tech-heavy countries.
Again, your point's valid, but we musn't blame the technology for what the CEOs dictate. This is no different than blaming mp3 technology for rampant copyright violations, or the Internet for rampant porn. All technology will and can be abused.
That being said, CAE is very sexy, geek-heavy technology. When we grow out of this infancy that mankind is still caught up in, someday when company heads care about products and the people that use them more than their yachts, we'll see what these products can really do for us.
And what do you mean, 'automated FEA'? They're taint much automated about it! Not many vanilla-plain CAD operaters using CAE--FEA is still an _expensive_, time-consuming endeavor, and the engineering analysts who use products the like of hypermesh and i-deas (often PhD's) are simply the bestar-teests of geekdom.;-)
I never really mentioned military hardware in this discussion, but I'll answer anyway and tell you why these things are different...
Well, having worked as an engineer with security clearance at both GD Electric Boat (maybe having helped design your sub), and having done some shuttle-specific work for BPW, I can assure that I probably have pretty good qualifications to judge.
I can also tell you that the shuttle, as I said before, is WAY overengineered, even when compared to the scariest nuclear beasts of the USN. If we required the same level of BS with our sub programs as we do with the shuttle program, we probably wouldn't allow our subs to dive more than 50 feet, and we certainly wouldn't have exotic, risky things like vertical launch platforms. We take WAY more risk with our sailors than with our astronauts, and you know it, bub.
Everyone that volunteers (yes, you must have) for military service adopts a certain level of risk in the name of duty and adventure. Astronauts do not take on the same level of risk that even the boatswain's mate on a nuke sub take on every day. Anyway, I made a serious effort to point out, too, that it's not the component manufacturing that's problematic, it's the process behind it. I never said subs or other military equipement were overengineered, and you damn well better believe I'm qualified to judge.
one part will malfunction every use Just not true. See the post below about component-level versus system-level reliability. The shuttle track record puts the individual parts well above the five-9 mark, probably overengineered.
The worst part about the program, though, is the overengineered nature of the design process as a whole. Too much testing, too much debate, too much bureacracy, too many signatures on a design change. These over-efficiencies add up to way more expense than the component manufacturing.
There's another comment below that discusses the need to preserve lives for altruistic as well as political reasons. I would note that every worthwhile exploration in the history of man cost many lives and suffering before the fruits of exploration could be reaped. We need to allow privatized, courageous explorers to risk untimely death if we're going to achieve the kinds of leaps we all write about here.
Sorry to enter the fray so late, but this post smacks of convenient rationalization, to say nothing of bad spelling.
If we want to talk about software IP rights in terms of 'ownership' and 'theft', we can define theft in terms of the unwillingness of the owner to part with what is rightfully his. We can then argue the 'rightful' part of this argument relative to IP, but applying the term theft is perfectly reasonable--in terms of whichever of the *thousands* of defintions of 'theft' you'd like to argue. ('Piracy', no matter how misapplied a term, has become a defacto term. There's no more use arguing it than arguing that your neighbor's hot tub isn't really a 'Jacuzzi')
I agree that this isn't necessarily a moral discussion, but one of laws--although I question your assertion that morals are arbitrary. This again sounds like convenient justification.
The bottom line is, if you're a US, British, Canadian, Russian, or one of any number of citizenry, you're obligated by the laws of your country to respect copyright, patent, and other IP-related laws. If you don't, you hurt the people that depend on these laws to make a living. If you don't like the laws, go lobby against them!
I work as an application developer. I'm not a rich man, I'm just a normal guy making a decent living. The team I work for _depends_ on people adhering to these laws to generate revenue, which ultimately generates my paycheck. If the laws change, hey, I'll go find something else to do. Consulting sounds interesting. In the meanwhile, every company that steals our software and can't think beyond convenient, bullshit semantic arguments against copyright laws puts another one of my team closer to the reduction-in-force list. You live in a country that enforces a system. You profit from the system. Respect the system until you can legitimately effect change in it.
But hey, these labels like 'piracy', and 'stealing', are inaccurate and heinous, right? So you'll just do your part for the cause not by some active means, but just by copying the occasional CD or app. They're just bits and bytes, words on a page--it's not hurting anyone--right?
Production, content and product: $9.8M(2001) $10.1M(2000)
Sales and marketing: $7.1M(2001) $15.5M(2000)
For those counting, that's over $42 MILLION in operating expenses JUST between production, sales, and marketing in JUST the past two fiscal years. Looks like to me someone's spending too much on advertising and IT support... (or they have the most overpaid writers in the world)
the subjects you list have all grown to the point that no human can obtain even a BASIC understanding of all of them
The subjects he lists, history, literature, languages, politics, economics, and arts, science, mathematics, and engineering, why would you disagree that it's possible for someone to obtain competency in these areas? It seems to me that for someone to be a modern "Rennisance Man" [sic], that he must have a basic competency in many areas, and the ability to apply them all to some goal. Now, the kind of mastery in these topics that you speak of might be rare, but so were the Da Vinci's of the time.
The Philosopher-Scientist exists today, and in record numbers! You have but a short stroll to the bookstore to discover that there are a multitude of scholars who with unbelievable multidisciplinary knowledge have brilliantly defended theories and proposed inventions.
Unfortunately, I must agree with you that the academic establishment isn't churning out your average student with even a glimmer of 'Renaissance Man'-style education. Many an engineer can prove a book's worth of formulae, but could not assert a belief and defend it in writing with much more skill than an illiterate.
So, do I believe that anyone can have doctorate-level knowledge in all the areas described? Definitely not. Do I believe that everyone, including myself, could have a broader level of knowledge that would be helpful in everyday life? Definitely so.
but I'll bite. Nobody has paid for the their SS money 'up front'. You pay into a program to help support the current welfare output--yes, SS is welfare. Most SS recipients draw all the money they put into SS, even taking into account a healthy amount of interest and inflation, in the first five years. In case you didn't know, you don't have to have work to draw. My grandmother never paid a dime into SS (housewife for a large extended family), yet drew income from SS from the day she was eligible to the day she died. Social Security is welfare. Don't live under the illusion that it's some sort of savings system. And it's not really the current gov't's fault, or the boomers, the system's just broken. You can't have a generation as big as the boomers supported by the income of a smaller generation.
On a related note, I read somewhere back that if when the SS was initiated, if the gov't had saved the tax revenue for TWO YEARS and invested the money, the SS system would be in surplus right now...
Slashdot Mirror
While seemingly obvious, I think this is where the twist will come in. Lucas has alluded that there will be a huge surprise in the 3rd installment. Perhaps the Chancellor is actually a clone? I think it's a stretch that this guy is around as the head politico, dealing with the Jedis, and none of them notices that he's eminating the most powerful dark force of all. Then again, Lucas writes some pretty big plotholes...
My original point was, EDS has done a fine job fulfilling contracts for orgs like the Navy, and organizations that they've acquired (like UG) have gotten along just fine even after being 'pillaged'. Don't damn a $20Bil company because of the acts of one bad set of leaders.
Recheck your facts.
Care to share with the masses -- please?
Nope. Never said that -- don't know why people interpreted it that way. I'm saying that the minority, in many cases, seems to believe that because there *is* a vocal minority, that its existence is reason enough to postpone war. I don't believe that's the case.
Iraq must be different somehow. Therefor, Iraq's bad govt is a pretext to attack.
Iraq's gov't *is* different somehow -- they are a destabilizing force in the Middle East. Unfortunately, it's a condition that doesn't fit into a soundbite for the 11:00 news, and it's a concept that isn't as lofty sounding as 'for the 9/11 victims' or 'WoMD'. I think it's ridiculous that it isn't acknowledged publicly as a reason more often, but you can bet this is the #1 reason for this conflict. Go read some analysis on the Middle East. You'll see some very eye-opening text on exactly how much the world economy can be destabilized by one little country in the right place, and don't think for a second that this isn't a primary reason on GDub & company's minds. Not vendetta, not *just* crude barrel prices, not 9/11, but the stabilization of one of the great pressure-points of the world. And don't think for a second that *de*stabilization isn't foremost on Saddam's mind.
It is and has been his goal for years. The alignment of other Arab countries against the US has been a longterm goal of his -- sound familiar? Al-Qaeda? I don't believe either that the two are in collusion, but ridding the Mid-East of both the Afghan religious extremists and the Iraqi secular warmongers is the start the stablization campaign.
I must confess that I truly believe that US foreign policy has made a wreck of this region for the last 75 years. But that doesn't mean they should throw their hands up in the air now and allow things to degrade further.
This contains everything that seems to be wrong with people's concerns about war -- please explain it if I'm misunderstanding. You seem to believe that Iraq is a rogue state, the gov't does slaughter its own population, and that it would be generally a better world should Saddam et. al. be usurped.
But then you say that GDub's pretexts are dodgy? The people against war seem to cry that they are the unheard minority -- but keep in mind they are just that, a minority. Depeding on the poll you look at, 60% - 70% of Americans are in favor of war in Iraq. If they halted war every time there were significant numbers of protestors, Americans would probably all be speaking German right now. Or hell, speaking with British accents.
And I *really* don't understand why it's so many Slashdotter's and other's wish that we follow a One World Order(tm). The prevalent opinion seems to be for smaller government and smaller business, but, what, unless it's the UN or some entity like it? As far as I know, the US as a sovereign nation has the right to follow its own course, even if it's contrary to that of the rest of the world.
Frankly, I'm not saying I'm for a war -- but it's sad to me that those that are against such efforts have yet to construct an cogent argument for their cause that's more than just a personal attack on the US's incumbent Executive.
I miss a reply. How did this have nothing to do with a newton? -- it was a direct reference to the PDA's buggy writing recognition. What, now all humour related to the topic at hand is O/T? If you like *humourless* comments, I think you can filter those out from your preferences. If you didn't get the joke, you shouldn't automatically mod it down
It seems like the best way to do this would be *not* having some random chance of any given game winning, but instead link in a seperate module for 1 in 260000 that has a cash redemption code at the end or some such. In other words, have a 'loser' version, and a 'winner' version, with none of the winner's code in the losing version.
101st use for a Trojan...
Ummm....I completely agree -- but the issue we were discussing here was the relative liability of the gun-seller compared to that of the information broker -- but thanks for playing.
(1) You must pass a background check before you buy a gun. This is a legal device for clearing the seller of liability. There is no such equivalent amongst the major info-brokers.
(2) Apples and oranges. A core issue of privacy advocates is that information specific to me is my proprietary information. You have no right to sell it or otherwise distribute it without my permission. This information can be used to harm *me* specifically, and the fact that anyone can obtain it for a price is innately harmful to me. A gun has no specific target until you point it at someone.
Well, then I guess there's really no use arguing with you, you're already prejudiced, which typically precludes all logic and reasoning. What evidence did you want, Blix wheeling in a vat of Anthrax? I didn't know the US was the only nation that relied on photographic and recorded intelligence...
this is only about oil so all yo' fat SUV's can keep rollin'
Ah. So you're racist as well as ignorant. Lovely.
while the "Arab Class" suffer for it
Ah yes, the poor 'Arab Class', with some of the highest per capita incomes in the world. And since when is economics not a reason to go to war? I know you think that the US could roll off of oil in a couple of years, but realistically we, and most other developed and developing nations, could not.
So we have a political force in the middle east that is power hungry at best, and genocidal at worst, and they have the ability to destabilize the economy of the Western world--hell, probably the whole world. If you think the only thing that would suffer is SUV sales in this case, you're more than just a troll, you're just plain stupid.
Just out of curiousity, could you give a specific example of this? I've heard of people being held *without bail*, or trials being postponed for long periods of time after bail is denied, but I've never heard of an accused citizen being held for months without even seeing a judge. (I'm not doubting you, 'just would like more data)
they were not "heroes" - they knew the risks
Soooo....Understanding the risks of your actions excludes your actions from being considered heroic? Wow, that's truly 'insightful.' And I thought most people would *define* heroism that way.
Yeah, lots of people say they would go, but these people have dedicated their lives to advancing the engineering and life sciences, and they did indeed know the risks that went with this.
*That's* the difference between the family of four that's killed on the way to church by a drunk and this disaster; these people knowlingly took the risk of dying for humanity. And don't give me crap about glory and money -- the Astronaut program pays a salary of approximately $40-$75k, the range of a decent sysadmin. And not everyone makes as much as Glenn on the tour circuit.
And yes, you could then argue that military deaths are equally as notable and noble, and at that point I would agree that the sensationalism of the vehicle and its history come into play. But for Christ's sake, these people were amongst the brightest and highest performing individuals on Earth--many would have articles and books written about them if they'd grown old and died of *natural* causes, let alone a horrific death at 200,000 feet. To say nothing of the loss humanity takes as we take one giant leap backward before crawling back to where we were yesterday.
As for cheap replacements, my dear god you must not be a design engineer. Why don't you go read about some fundamentals of aerospace and CMM level 5 coding practices, and THEN come back and talk with the big boys. This ain't no P2P software or Tivo hardware we're talking about.
Sorry to everyone else for the rant -- but jesus I'm so tired of ignorant people opining on topics of which they are clearly ignorant. 'Insightful' my ass.
We certainly packed a bunch onto our 20meg ST HD -- games, music mixing software, spreadsheet data, etc.
The ST really excelled with the first two; I believe many game companies used Atari as the primary development platform and actually ported to PC and Amiga _later_. (Dungeon Master and Sundog come to mind, as well as Sierra for a while I think) As for music, I believe it was the first consumer-affordable computer to come with built-in MIDI support, so there was a ton of music software written. IIRC, some famous musician still uses his ST because he hasn't seen anything better on modern Windows boxen. (can't remember who it is).
To a great extent, tho', the average Atari ST buyer probably wasn't much different than your avg slashdotter--someone who enjoyed using the computer for the computer's sake, not just as a work tool or communication device. Before the rise of the Web, who remembers demon dialing their favorite BBS for 3 hours? ;-)
Who the hell are you to say? Have you ever:
-Owned and worked on a large working farm range
-Lived in a ghetto
-Been a social worker
-Owned & lived on a boat
-Been somewhere where you COULDN'T shop at a grocery for your food
This assumption that guns are for amusement and that no one outside of the 'authorities' could possibly need one is small minded, or at least suburban minded. And as for disproportionate gun violence in the US--greater than greater-per-capita gun owning nations--welcome to a striated, diverse mix of cultures. You're beginning to see it in the UK with the Yardies, but for the most part, the UK is a VERY homogenous culture. There is no more culturally heterogeneous nation than the US--and the differences between all of these cultures manifest themselves in extremes. We have extreme victories, and extreme violence and suffering. Hopefully someday we'll all grow up. Until then, just taking away more of our priveledges, and adding more laws, is certainly not the answer.
BUT, as a dyed-in-the-wool CAE developer, I have to defend the honor of my humble profession. CAD/CAM/CAE offers a HUGE advantage for design engineers/analysts even if you leave out the design 'shortcuts'. Remember that NASTRAN, the grand-pappy of all FEA solvers, is a product of NASA and is still used to help analyze the designs of probably every component on the shuttle, as well as every other extreme-tolerence aerospace device manufactured in the US and the other tech-heavy countries.
Again, your point's valid, but we musn't blame the technology for what the CEOs dictate. This is no different than blaming mp3 technology for rampant copyright violations, or the Internet for rampant porn. All technology will and can be abused.
That being said, CAE is very sexy, geek-heavy technology. When we grow out of this infancy that mankind is still caught up in, someday when company heads care about products and the people that use them more than their yachts, we'll see what these products can really do for us.
And what do you mean, 'automated FEA'? They're taint much automated about it! Not many vanilla-plain CAD operaters using CAE--FEA is still an _expensive_, time-consuming endeavor, and the engineering analysts who use products the like of hypermesh and i-deas (often PhD's) are simply the bestar-teests of geekdom. ;-)
Well, having worked as an engineer with security clearance at both GD Electric Boat (maybe having helped design your sub), and having done some shuttle-specific work for BPW, I can assure that I probably have pretty good qualifications to judge.
I can also tell you that the shuttle, as I said before, is WAY overengineered, even when compared to the scariest nuclear beasts of the USN. If we required the same level of BS with our sub programs as we do with the shuttle program, we probably wouldn't allow our subs to dive more than 50 feet, and we certainly wouldn't have exotic, risky things like vertical launch platforms. We take WAY more risk with our sailors than with our astronauts, and you know it, bub.
Everyone that volunteers (yes, you must have) for military service adopts a certain level of risk in the name of duty and adventure. Astronauts do not take on the same level of risk that even the boatswain's mate on a nuke sub take on every day. Anyway, I made a serious effort to point out, too, that it's not the component manufacturing that's problematic, it's the process behind it. I never said subs or other military equipement were overengineered, and you damn well better believe I'm qualified to judge.
Just not true. See the post below about component-level versus system-level reliability. The shuttle track record puts the individual parts well above the five-9 mark, probably overengineered.
The worst part about the program, though, is the overengineered nature of the design process as a whole. Too much testing, too much debate, too much bureacracy, too many signatures on a design change. These over-efficiencies add up to way more expense than the component manufacturing.
There's another comment below that discusses the need to preserve lives for altruistic as well as political reasons. I would note that every worthwhile exploration in the history of man cost many lives and suffering before the fruits of exploration could be reaped. We need to allow privatized, courageous explorers to risk untimely death if we're going to achieve the kinds of leaps we all write about here.
If we want to talk about software IP rights in terms of 'ownership' and 'theft', we can define theft in terms of the unwillingness of the owner to part with what is rightfully his. We can then argue the 'rightful' part of this argument relative to IP, but applying the term theft is perfectly reasonable--in terms of whichever of the *thousands* of defintions of 'theft' you'd like to argue. ('Piracy', no matter how misapplied a term, has become a defacto term. There's no more use arguing it than arguing that your neighbor's hot tub isn't really a 'Jacuzzi')
I agree that this isn't necessarily a moral discussion, but one of laws--although I question your assertion that morals are arbitrary. This again sounds like convenient justification.
The bottom line is, if you're a US, British, Canadian, Russian, or one of any number of citizenry, you're obligated by the laws of your country to respect copyright, patent, and other IP-related laws. If you don't, you hurt the people that depend on these laws to make a living. If you don't like the laws, go lobby against them!
I work as an application developer. I'm not a rich man, I'm just a normal guy making a decent living. The team I work for _depends_ on people adhering to these laws to generate revenue, which ultimately generates my paycheck. If the laws change, hey, I'll go find something else to do. Consulting sounds interesting. In the meanwhile, every company that steals our software and can't think beyond convenient, bullshit semantic arguments against copyright laws puts another one of my team closer to the reduction-in-force list. You live in a country that enforces a system. You profit from the system. Respect the system until you can legitimately effect change in it.
But hey, these labels like 'piracy', and 'stealing', are inaccurate and heinous, right? So you'll just do your part for the cause not by some active means, but just by copying the occasional CD or app. They're just bits and bytes, words on a page--it's not hurting anyone--right?
Operating expenses:
Production, content and product: $9.8M(2001) $10.1M(2000)
Sales and marketing: $7.1M(2001) $15.5M(2000)
For those counting, that's over $42 MILLION in operating expenses JUST between production, sales, and marketing in JUST the past two fiscal years. Looks like to me someone's spending too much on advertising and IT support... (or they have the most overpaid writers in the world)
The subjects he lists, history, literature, languages, politics, economics, and arts, science, mathematics, and engineering, why would you disagree that it's possible for someone to obtain competency in these areas? It seems to me that for someone to be a modern "Rennisance Man" [sic], that he must have a basic competency in many areas, and the ability to apply them all to some goal. Now, the kind of mastery in these topics that you speak of might be rare, but so were the Da Vinci's of the time.
The Philosopher-Scientist exists today, and in record numbers! You have but a short stroll to the bookstore to discover that there are a multitude of scholars who with unbelievable multidisciplinary knowledge have brilliantly defended theories and proposed inventions.
Unfortunately, I must agree with you that the academic establishment isn't churning out your average student with even a glimmer of 'Renaissance Man'-style education. Many an engineer can prove a book's worth of formulae, but could not assert a belief and defend it in writing with much more skill than an illiterate.
So, do I believe that anyone can have doctorate-level knowledge in all the areas described? Definitely not. Do I believe that everyone, including myself, could have a broader level of knowledge that would be helpful in everyday life? Definitely so.
On a related note, I read somewhere back that if when the SS was initiated, if the gov't had saved the tax revenue for TWO YEARS and invested the money, the SS system would be in surplus right now...