If your communication skills even remotely reflect the rest of your education I believe there are a number of people that should be deeply afraid of the products of your engineering skills.
There are two changes that I would truly like to see. The first one being a universal standard of assessment. The educational system is fraught with little fiefdoms each with their own standards and no straight comparisons. A given state for instance can tout their academic success but they can do so in the absence of comparison to everyone else. There are some very substantial differences in the education you will receive depending upon where in the nation obtain it. Further, I am highly suspicious of a US education compared to one in say Japan or South Korea. Right now we simply have to take it on faith that our children receive a competitive education but as time passes there are just too many symptoms that they are not.
The second one is a fair and accurate credit for the courses taken and the work performed in them. GPA seems all wonderful and good until you realize--which nearly every student does--that an A in home economics is worth the same as an A in political-science or an A in Algebra I is equal to an A in Calculus II. There are absolutely no motivating incentives for pursuing a rigorous and comprehensive education from the perspective of a student. If Joe Slackoff can get a 3.8 GPA by taking slider courses and be looked upon favorably by colleges and perspective employers while Mia Workshard gets a 3.2 GPA taking every advanced course she can get her hands on and is looked down upon for the low GPA what is to encourage poor Mia? GPA should be thrown in the dustbin in favor of a system that highlights the general level of difficulty of the course while at the same time applies the traditional notion of progress within it. For instance, a "C" in Advanced Calculus I would be worth more than an "A" in Algebra II. A "B" in Music Composition II worth more than an "A" in P.E., etc.. The present system is little different than being given a choice between $100K/year to sit on your butt all day watching TV or $20K/year laying bricks.
The political system is hijacked primarily by interests whose scope of activity does not rest simply in campaign contributions. We like to scapegoat there but its a partial story. Even now there are limits to how much money may flow that direction. Politicians are still held captive by the citizenry. This is unfortunately a double-edged sword.
The voting public in reality is primarily at fault because they allow themselves to become tools. It is an interesting irony for our democracy that our first-amendment protections are also our Achilles heal. They enable anything to be said regardless of merit, regardless of truth, regardless of responsibility. Organizations of every color understand this and leverage it to take advantage of the portion of our citizenry that is very active, very vocal, yet poorly educated, poorly informed and highly gullible. These organizations may operate with impunity. Accountable to no one, and with funds limited only by the wallets of their sponsor they will saturate the public with lies and fear to twist and distort our political system through the voter into whatever form suits their interests.
We had best find out how to remove the apathy and short-sightedness out of our population. Failure to do so will result in the failure of democracy. Its foundation is constructed from an active, well-informed, well-educated citizenry. To date we have never had this. The risk of failure becomes ever greater as the problems that need to be resolved become specialized and increasingly nuanced.
In large part I think what we need (forgive the cliche) is democracy 2.0. Wherein we reconstruct the hierarchy of government. Specifically, the middle portion which presently consists of senators and state representatives should be replaced with technocrats whose scope of activities are defined by their field of expertise. If you want to solve a problem don't bring it to a slimy politician, petition an engineer or scientist with subject matter expertise.
Do the academics a favor and stop being so bloody short-sighted and ignoring them. Consider what a stifled economy--because indifference permitted big content to hijack innovation and weaken our competitiveness--will do to the future job market.
Ah ha! I knew something was fishy about this story... Taisei set to introduce robots for N-cleanup. I knew my faith in Japanese robotics wasn't misplaced. This is just a PR stunt by a iRobot.
Sounds about like shipping ice to Antarctica. Surely all their robotics R&D didn't go to violin playing, grandma bathing, ramen making, Godzilla fighting bots? Am I missing something?
No one banned incandescents, they've increased the efficiency requirements for non-specialized applications. There are incandescents that actually hit that efficiency mark even. CFLs just happen to be a better technology both in terms of operating efficiency and longevity for the large majority of applications. This regulation simply helped bring a generally superior technology into a position where it could reach economies of scale and thus consumer uptake.
Your world view lacks a key element that ensures any implementation of it would be an epic fail. You assert personal responsibility over corporate (as in group of people) responsibility. You assume everyone first and foremost will act in his or her "best" interest, further you assume that while acting in their best interest that person will not cause harm to another. We have a few thousand years of documented history to prove both assumptions are false. Before you preach your "don't tread on me" mantra, I would strongly urge you to visit countries where the government hasn't stepped in with regulation having an eye towards ensuring the well being of its citizens. Their economies are worthless, their lands are toxic waste dumps, and the people live very brief and very miserable lives. You cannot have the benefits of a well regulated nation and not contribute to those benefits. Will you agree with every regulation? No. Will every regulation actually be the best thing to do? No. However, I would surely prefer government try to come up with good regulation than not bother in the first place.
I suspect the patents would be in ballast and manufacturing technologies if anywhere. Nonetheless I thought the tea party liked patents. Keeps master happy...
Regardless, if you went to your local home improvement center and priced those twist style CFLs you note that they're about the same price as pre-regulation incandescents and substantially cheaper if you factor the lifespan of each type. If someone can make money off their patents yet not charge me exorbitant prices I'm not going to care.
No, we need a moratorium on "new" reactors so that we can keep operating the 40+ year old versions that while hold up well in 8.9+ earthquakes tend to malfunction when someone throws an ocean sized bucket of water on them. Yes those 1960's engineers were good and all, got us to the moon, gave us color television, but seriously people... If we can't replace them with better designs what the **** do you expect?
Well there's a large spectrum of opinions on this one. Quality of life tends to be the "get off my lawn" argument. I can't understand how spending 14+ hours a week in a car dealing with rush hour traffic contributes positively to that but to each their own I guess. I can understand wanting space, not wanting to share common walls with neighbors, etc.. I'd suggest that there are plenty of suburbs capable of satisfy most peoples problems with urban living but convincing people of this isn't always easy.
If I were to offer up an opinion on what is a "good idea" I'd start with suggesting that finding ways to be more efficient would be a good start. Too many Americans couldn't care less what size footprint their lifestyle leaves. Minimizing or paying the full expense of an excessive lifestyle would certainly be a "good idea." If you can shrink the distance to your work and still live comfortably then certainly do so. If there is no express reason other than "I like to drive them" for commuting solo in a large truck or SUV to work everyday switch to an economical car and/or car pool. Use your car to get to the edge of an urban center, then park n' ride the rest of the way in. There are plenty of options that aren't excessively disruptive but can make a huge difference.
Using the bus for a 20mi commute isn't the same as the 50mi+ driving an SUV each way person, which is very common, and what is usually being spoken to when such statements are made. Perhaps the GP is being a bit extreme but American's do have a bit of a waste problem.
Well that's one world view... I'm pretty sure that's not what anyone was really suggesting though. It was an assertion that a large representation within the American culture have a preference towards highly inefficient lifestyles. For instance it is not uncommon for people here to work in urban centers, yet live well outside in rural areas. Each day they commute--typically driving their own vehicles, usually not very efficient ones such as trucks and SUVs--seldom car pool, and do so in excess of 50 miles each way every day. Is it their right? Sure. Is it a good idea? Probably not.
Uhh... the problem they think they're resolving with this is that vehicles are expected to continue using ever smaller quantities of taxed fuel, even no petroleum at all in some circumstance. Do you really believe that they'll stop at millage meters on cars if they find people are using bicycles and/or public transportation?
I do think it's a great way to level the playing field between gas guzzlers (the ones that tear up the road the most) and more efficient vehicles. How dare the less wasteful, lighter footprint vehicles get a tax advantage!
I know precisely what I'm talking about. Taking a collection, or even a single GPL product and placing it on a disc for sale is not what the overwhelming majority of people are talking about when they refer to commercial distribution of a product that uses GPL'd software. They are talking about their own products enabled by open-source technologies, such as libraries, or middleware. They have absolutely no desire to share the source nor communicate domain knowledge that would enable their competition. Many--regardless of their own position--are encumbered by NDAs signed with other companies.
The GPL acts in the legal sense like a virus. Anything I write for commercial purposes--which is to say I intend to limit distribution to licensed copies (purchased)--that links to GPL'd source, or by other means boxes up my work with GPL'd software in a manner that they are viewed as a single product then my product becomes infected and must be released under a GPL compatible license. Under these terms even distributing a GPL'd web server with my commercial product to be hosted on it becomes a playground for lawyers. Maybe I need to modify a configuration file on the server. Oh, jeez now I have to distribute the source-code for the server because I modified it. Nobody wants the expense nor hassle and most definitely not the legal ambiguity.
If I am required to invest thousands if not millions of dollars of my company's money into R & D for a product then release the source code and what ever domain knowledge it communicate. I've given my competitor one heck of a gift and left myself without the ability to pay my employees' wages.
You have a GPL'ed program that I'd like to link with my code to build a proprietary program. Does the fact that I link with your program mean I have to GPL my program?
Not exactly. It means you must release your program under a license compatible with the GPL (more precisely, compatible with one or more GPL versions accepted by all the rest of the code in the combination that you link). The combination itself is then available under those GPL versions.
If so, is there any chance I could get a license of your program under the Lesser GPL?
You can ask, but most authors will stand firm and say no. The idea of the GPL is that if you want to include our code in your program, your program must also be free software. It is supposed to put pressure on you to release your program in a way that makes it part of our community.
You always have the legal alternative of not using our code.
What I want is the ability to use it and not be told my customers can't. GPLv3 reduces the value of anything licensed under it. It is the surest way to prevent commercial software from using that technology. If the world were a commune, commercial software wouldn't be necessary. But last I checked, the grocery store called obtaining without purchasing shoplifting.
This just goes to show how much money the RIAA is losing! Curse those evil downloaders. Just think what kind of music we could have it all the money went where it belonged...
For a very fleeting period of time. Remember the point of competition is to create a loser and a winner. We've--the west--set this example. Do you consider it likely that Asia will slow down and take us hand in hand into a glorious utopia? I don't. Soon they will be our equal, thereafter our superior. Britain, France, Spain, Portugal, Rome, Greece, Egypt, Babylon... Shall we too fall into complacency as empires of long ago?
Slashdot Mirror
If your communication skills even remotely reflect the rest of your education I believe there are a number of people that should be deeply afraid of the products of your engineering skills.
There are two changes that I would truly like to see. The first one being a universal standard of assessment. The educational system is fraught with little fiefdoms each with their own standards and no straight comparisons. A given state for instance can tout their academic success but they can do so in the absence of comparison to everyone else. There are some very substantial differences in the education you will receive depending upon where in the nation obtain it. Further, I am highly suspicious of a US education compared to one in say Japan or South Korea. Right now we simply have to take it on faith that our children receive a competitive education but as time passes there are just too many symptoms that they are not.
The second one is a fair and accurate credit for the courses taken and the work performed in them. GPA seems all wonderful and good until you realize--which nearly every student does--that an A in home economics is worth the same as an A in political-science or an A in Algebra I is equal to an A in Calculus II. There are absolutely no motivating incentives for pursuing a rigorous and comprehensive education from the perspective of a student. If Joe Slackoff can get a 3.8 GPA by taking slider courses and be looked upon favorably by colleges and perspective employers while Mia Workshard gets a 3.2 GPA taking every advanced course she can get her hands on and is looked down upon for the low GPA what is to encourage poor Mia? GPA should be thrown in the dustbin in favor of a system that highlights the general level of difficulty of the course while at the same time applies the traditional notion of progress within it. For instance, a "C" in Advanced Calculus I would be worth more than an "A" in Algebra II. A "B" in Music Composition II worth more than an "A" in P.E., etc.. The present system is little different than being given a choice between $100K/year to sit on your butt all day watching TV or $20K/year laying bricks.
The political system is hijacked primarily by interests whose scope of activity does not rest simply in campaign contributions. We like to scapegoat there but its a partial story. Even now there are limits to how much money may flow that direction. Politicians are still held captive by the citizenry. This is unfortunately a double-edged sword.
The voting public in reality is primarily at fault because they allow themselves to become tools. It is an interesting irony for our democracy that our first-amendment protections are also our Achilles heal. They enable anything to be said regardless of merit, regardless of truth, regardless of responsibility. Organizations of every color understand this and leverage it to take advantage of the portion of our citizenry that is very active, very vocal, yet poorly educated, poorly informed and highly gullible. These organizations may operate with impunity. Accountable to no one, and with funds limited only by the wallets of their sponsor they will saturate the public with lies and fear to twist and distort our political system through the voter into whatever form suits their interests.
We had best find out how to remove the apathy and short-sightedness out of our population. Failure to do so will result in the failure of democracy. Its foundation is constructed from an active, well-informed, well-educated citizenry. To date we have never had this. The risk of failure becomes ever greater as the problems that need to be resolved become specialized and increasingly nuanced.
In large part I think what we need (forgive the cliche) is democracy 2.0. Wherein we reconstruct the hierarchy of government. Specifically, the middle portion which presently consists of senators and state representatives should be replaced with technocrats whose scope of activities are defined by their field of expertise. If you want to solve a problem don't bring it to a slimy politician, petition an engineer or scientist with subject matter expertise.
Do the academics a favor and stop being so bloody short-sighted and ignoring them. Consider what a stifled economy--because indifference permitted big content to hijack innovation and weaken our competitiveness--will do to the future job market.
Ah ha! I knew something was fishy about this story... Taisei set to introduce robots for N-cleanup. I knew my faith in Japanese robotics wasn't misplaced. This is just a PR stunt by a iRobot.
Sounds about like shipping ice to Antarctica. Surely all their robotics R&D didn't go to violin playing, grandma bathing, ramen making, Godzilla fighting bots? Am I missing something?
No one banned incandescents, they've increased the efficiency requirements for non-specialized applications. There are incandescents that actually hit that efficiency mark even. CFLs just happen to be a better technology both in terms of operating efficiency and longevity for the large majority of applications. This regulation simply helped bring a generally superior technology into a position where it could reach economies of scale and thus consumer uptake.
Your world view lacks a key element that ensures any implementation of it would be an epic fail. You assert personal responsibility over corporate (as in group of people) responsibility. You assume everyone first and foremost will act in his or her "best" interest, further you assume that while acting in their best interest that person will not cause harm to another. We have a few thousand years of documented history to prove both assumptions are false. Before you preach your "don't tread on me" mantra, I would strongly urge you to visit countries where the government hasn't stepped in with regulation having an eye towards ensuring the well being of its citizens. Their economies are worthless, their lands are toxic waste dumps, and the people live very brief and very miserable lives. You cannot have the benefits of a well regulated nation and not contribute to those benefits. Will you agree with every regulation? No. Will every regulation actually be the best thing to do? No. However, I would surely prefer government try to come up with good regulation than not bother in the first place.
I suspect the patents would be in ballast and manufacturing technologies if anywhere. Nonetheless I thought the tea party liked patents. Keeps master happy...
Regardless, if you went to your local home improvement center and priced those twist style CFLs you note that they're about the same price as pre-regulation incandescents and substantially cheaper if you factor the lifespan of each type. If someone can make money off their patents yet not charge me exorbitant prices I'm not going to care.
No, we need a moratorium on "new" reactors so that we can keep operating the 40+ year old versions that while hold up well in 8.9+ earthquakes tend to malfunction when someone throws an ocean sized bucket of water on them. Yes those 1960's engineers were good and all, got us to the moon, gave us color television, but seriously people... If we can't replace them with better designs what the **** do you expect?
Well there's a large spectrum of opinions on this one. Quality of life tends to be the "get off my lawn" argument. I can't understand how spending 14+ hours a week in a car dealing with rush hour traffic contributes positively to that but to each their own I guess. I can understand wanting space, not wanting to share common walls with neighbors, etc.. I'd suggest that there are plenty of suburbs capable of satisfy most peoples problems with urban living but convincing people of this isn't always easy.
If I were to offer up an opinion on what is a "good idea" I'd start with suggesting that finding ways to be more efficient would be a good start. Too many Americans couldn't care less what size footprint their lifestyle leaves. Minimizing or paying the full expense of an excessive lifestyle would certainly be a "good idea." If you can shrink the distance to your work and still live comfortably then certainly do so. If there is no express reason other than "I like to drive them" for commuting solo in a large truck or SUV to work everyday switch to an economical car and/or car pool. Use your car to get to the edge of an urban center, then park n' ride the rest of the way in. There are plenty of options that aren't excessively disruptive but can make a huge difference.
Using the bus for a 20mi commute isn't the same as the 50mi+ driving an SUV each way person, which is very common, and what is usually being spoken to when such statements are made. Perhaps the GP is being a bit extreme but American's do have a bit of a waste problem.
Well that's one world view... I'm pretty sure that's not what anyone was really suggesting though. It was an assertion that a large representation within the American culture have a preference towards highly inefficient lifestyles. For instance it is not uncommon for people here to work in urban centers, yet live well outside in rural areas. Each day they commute--typically driving their own vehicles, usually not very efficient ones such as trucks and SUVs--seldom car pool, and do so in excess of 50 miles each way every day. Is it their right? Sure. Is it a good idea? Probably not.
Uhh... the problem they think they're resolving with this is that vehicles are expected to continue using ever smaller quantities of taxed fuel, even no petroleum at all in some circumstance. Do you really believe that they'll stop at millage meters on cars if they find people are using bicycles and/or public transportation?
I do think it's a great way to level the playing field between gas guzzlers (the ones that tear up the road the most) and more efficient vehicles. How dare the less wasteful, lighter footprint vehicles get a tax advantage!
Which I cannot provide because I just gave away $10M worth of my company's R & D budget when I was forced to release the source to my product.
I'm not sure why I am but, I'll bite...
I know precisely what I'm talking about. Taking a collection, or even a single GPL product and placing it on a disc for sale is not what the overwhelming majority of people are talking about when they refer to commercial distribution of a product that uses GPL'd software. They are talking about their own products enabled by open-source technologies, such as libraries, or middleware. They have absolutely no desire to share the source nor communicate domain knowledge that would enable their competition. Many--regardless of their own position--are encumbered by NDAs signed with other companies.
The GPL acts in the legal sense like a virus. Anything I write for commercial purposes--which is to say I intend to limit distribution to licensed copies (purchased)--that links to GPL'd source, or by other means boxes up my work with GPL'd software in a manner that they are viewed as a single product then my product becomes infected and must be released under a GPL compatible license. Under these terms even distributing a GPL'd web server with my commercial product to be hosted on it becomes a playground for lawyers. Maybe I need to modify a configuration file on the server. Oh, jeez now I have to distribute the source-code for the server because I modified it. Nobody wants the expense nor hassle and most definitely not the legal ambiguity.
If I am required to invest thousands if not millions of dollars of my company's money into R & D for a product then release the source code and what ever domain knowledge it communicate. I've given my competitor one heck of a gift and left myself without the ability to pay my employees' wages.
You mean this one?
You have a GPL'ed program that I'd like to link with my code to build a proprietary program. Does the fact that I link with your program mean I have to GPL my program?
Not exactly. It means you must release your program under a license compatible with the GPL (more precisely, compatible with one or more GPL versions accepted by all the rest of the code in the combination that you link). The combination itself is then available under those GPL versions.
If so, is there any chance I could get a license of your program under the Lesser GPL?
You can ask, but most authors will stand firm and say no. The idea of the GPL is that if you want to include our code in your program, your program must also be free software. It is supposed to put pressure on you to release your program in a way that makes it part of our community.
You always have the legal alternative of not using our code.
What I want is the ability to use it and not be told my customers can't. GPLv3 reduces the value of anything licensed under it. It is the surest way to prevent commercial software from using that technology. If the world were a commune, commercial software wouldn't be necessary. But last I checked, the grocery store called obtaining without purchasing shoplifting.
I can't believe they think anyone would be fool enough to fall for that one again.
This just goes to show how much money the RIAA is losing! Curse those evil downloaders. Just think what kind of music we could have it all the money went where it belonged...
Running a bit off topic here, but you do realize that TARP was a series of loans, of which last I knew most if not all have been repaid.
$100 bills? No, them must be paid in pennies!
For a very fleeting period of time. Remember the point of competition is to create a loser and a winner. We've--the west--set this example. Do you consider it likely that Asia will slow down and take us hand in hand into a glorious utopia? I don't. Soon they will be our equal, thereafter our superior. Britain, France, Spain, Portugal, Rome, Greece, Egypt, Babylon... Shall we too fall into complacency as empires of long ago?
Actions against the state often, perhaps nearly always, impact the citizenry. The most blatant example of this in action are economic sanctions.
Keep them ignorant, keep them distracted, all power and honor to the M.I.C.