Yawn, this trite and dismissive view is so 1980's.
The reason people in Britain have to spend hundreds of UKP every year - on top of the £150 - or whatever it is now, tax that the government demands, to finance the BBC is because the terrestrial stations churn out nothing but "braindead" reality shows, quizzes, soap-operas and consumer programmes. For anyone who wants an alternative to the lowest-common-denominator crap we're mugged, annually, to pay for you have to get satellite or cable. Even then it's full of american programmes 'cos the british can't make any original programming pay unless it's yet another remake of Robin (sodding) Hood, or cliches that feature footage of Tower Bridge every few seconds - for foreign audiences.
Further, the reason the independent channels are so terrible, is that they have to compete with the government financed BBC, who have a guaranteed income, no commercial imperatives and no advertisements. Even setting aside the problem that advertisement revenues have dropped through the floor in the recession, when your only competitor is effectively giving away their product, what alternatives are there. The BBC has moved into the "popular" market - eschewing it's obligations to provide alternative. It's merely chasing viewing figures. In any other country this would be considered an extremely anti-competitive situation.
The only reason Sky can afford to innovate liek this is because their subscription based model gives them a revenue stream that is not dependent on paid-for advertisements.
You also get a greater yield per unit land area and less spoilage from pests / disease. Between them, this makes intensively farmed crops much better for the planet in terms of energy efficiency and much better for humanity, as more plentiful food means less global hunger - or would do, if the high-yield crops can be grown in the overpopulated parts of the world, where food is scarce.
In summary, the article claims that the destructive power of nuclear weapons is not matched by the security and safeguards in place to prevent mistaken use. While the story uses "terrorists" as the universal boogie-man (and presumably to sucker in more readers and spread a bit more FUD in the process), there's nothing here that would have stopped them saying "criminal mastermind" or "sufficiently resourced private individual" either. However, those terms would put an entirely different spin on the article. One where the fault has been shifted from the bad-people-who-just-want-to-kill-us-all to an incompetent nuclear strike force that has failed in it's duty to protect the population from misuse of it's weapons.
When you take out all the emotional triggers from the piece, what it boils down to is that there appear (although this is mere conjecture) to be flaws in the security and procedures involved in verifying launch orders. Flaws that anyone or any organisation or government with sufficient knowledge, inclination and technical ability could exploit. The result could be one or more unauthorised launches. Whether the systems are sufficiently slack to allow this launch to proceed to target (or the rocket/payload is sufficiently reliable to actually go BANG, or not) is not addressed by the newspaper. However, the nice juicy headline has done it's job, so why dilute it with more credible possibilities?
Well this assumption is clearly nonsensical. In times gone by (when, according to this "research" women weren't so beautiful), they had lots of children - sometimes a dozen or more. The reason being that so many of them (and the mothers too) died young due to lack of medical knowledge, hygiene, no drugs and prevalent diseases. So there is clearly an anti-correlation between one of this guy's central tenets and reality.
If there has been an increase in womens' beauty in the past two or three generations, then it is far too quick for it to have been genetic or evolutionary - where the effect would become noticeable over thousands of years.
A far simpler explanation is that it is due (if it has happened at all - rather than merely being a cultural effect in one country that is only a small proportion of the overall population) then it's due to better diet, health and vastly improved cosmetics and has absolutely nothing to do with evolution or genetics..
Whether they controlled for other factors properly I have no idea
There's no indication they controlled any factors, at all.
Over the generations? How, can they tell - we've only had photography for (maybe) 4 or 5 generations, which is certainly not enough time for evolution to have a noticeable effect on people. then again, which women? precisely? Have these scientists invented some way of objectively measuring beauty (ans. No, despite what the article says. Beauty is not the same as attractiveness and I absolutely don't believe there are any methods of determining attractiveness that don't involve subjective opinions and questionnaires). Are they able to take into account cultural differences (again, same answer). Given that this "study" was only performed in one country that accounts for just 5% of the planet's population there is nothing here that bears any resemblance to the scientific method.
The researcher may have come up with a nice, politically correct headline for an inconsistent and highly questionable piece of work, but common sense tells us otherwise. The number of children a woman has is hugely affected by her position in society, normative pressures, intelligence (women graduates have fewer children, on average, than those with less education - does that mean being clever makes you ugly - ridiculous idea!), amount and availability of welfare and frequently whether she works for a living, or stays at home.
rather than declaring your best result early, the Belkor team should have employed a bit of strategy and only declared a lesser result (if any). That would give the other teams something to aim at, without giving away their best results. These would be held back right up until the last minute and then submitted, so that other teams would not have time to make any further improvements (in fact, maybe this IS what they're doing). It's been a successful bidding strategy on eBay for years, so why wouldn't it translate into other competitive areas too?
Python is better than Perl because for beginners would takes weeks just to learn all the different possibilities
You don't need to learn them all - you just need to learn ONE to start with, then others can be added as the newbie's level of competence grows.
The biggest barrier to programming is a steep learning curve - too much time spent before something tangible can be produced. Any language that lets someone just type stuff, then press "run" is a good start - maybe even Python.
... that doesn't need an IDE, require objects or lots of definitions and has a printable form will do fine.
The reason I exclude the above three attributes is that they lengthen the learning curve to getting a "hello world" program written and working. If a newbie's first exposure to programming is spending hours in a classroom without producing any output, the teacher will start to hear CLICKing noises after the first five minutes as the children switch off (metaphorically speaking). After that, they're lost.
Everybody has "bright" ideas. Most of them turn out to be dumb, impractical, already known or based on a knowledge gap or misapprehension.
The few useful and sound ideas that people have are probably re-invented a thousand times a year across the world. What makes the difference between "genius" and forgotten is whether the person who thinks of it (again) has the ability, resources and interest to follow through and make a success of it. It's not the idea itself, but how you progress it that is the difference between success and failure..
On that basis, so long as you don't disqualify your idea by disclosing it, if you wish to patent it, discuss it with anyone you like - it won't make any difference. A true expert will either have already thought of it and discounted it for th reasons they will tell you, has thought of it but has no interest in pursuing it or hasn't thought of it and therefore won't really be in a position to offer advice on whether it would or would not work[1]. If you think they'll steal "your" idea, you've been watching too many bad TV dramas.
One last thing - I hope you're expecting to pay the experts who's advice you are seeking. If so, just draw up a contract with an NDA in it - there, I bet you didn't think of that simple "genius" solution or yo wouldn't have had to ask the question, would you?
[1] generally if an "expert" hasn't thought of an idea themself, they will tell you that it won't work and give you various technical reasons why theu're right. However, since you had to go and ask them to start with, that shows that you do not have the knowledge to judge for yourself - so are unable to make an assessment of whether they're right or wrong. Experts are not that good at saying "yes, even though you are a layman, you've come up with an idea that none of the learned professionals in this field have ever considered before." It may be that they're so bad at saying this because it never actually happens.
Astronomers (whether amateur or pro.) frequently get meteor trails or satellite trails in photos. if they are too intrusive the shot is often discarded as a failure. I have had many images inadvertently capture things like this - it's just pure dumb luck. I've also occasionally made an effort, when a meteor shower is expected, to put a digital camera in the garden to repeatedly photograph the part of the sky where meteors should occur. Guess what? I get some!
Looking at this accidental photograph, the trail does look quite bright and shows other trails running parallel to the main one. Where I live, this happens when you get an aircraft running across the field of view. Maybe it was a meteor, maybe it was man-made, however there's no usable information in the photo, except that this guy's polar alignment needs adjusting, the stars should be perfect dots, not showing lines as in the blow-up..
While they might claim a 90% rate of success, there are so few terrorists - real ones, not people accused of it, that they'd have to scan everyone for years to get a statistically accurate sample size of "real" terrorists who they've actually caught. As it is, the number of terrorists who would try to use the tactic (of blowing up a plane in flight) is not constant. Once they've done it once, and succeeded in their goal of instilling fear and uncertainty, there's nothing to be gained from continuing the same sort of attack. They just move on to a different strategy: one that the security people haven't considered yet.
So even if the security people who make these bald, and unsupportable claims *did* have a large enough number of caught terrorists in, say, 2002 - the chances are that the number has dropped significantly now. Of course, once you start to reduce the level of security, the number of "incidents" will probably rise - although as said, not in the way that the security people are prepared for. All this tells yo is that the statistics are meaningless - however you view them. All they can do apply a level of security / restrictions that people, en-masse are willing to tolerate and hope that's enough.
I mean there are so few, incalculably few, terrorists that the chances of getting two, unconnected ones on the same flight are vanishingly small. The chances are probably less than for the whole plane to be abducted by aliens. So if you supply one, the odds of a "real" one drop to nothing, in practical terms. Problem solved!
p.s. for the comically inept, this is not meant as a serious suggestion. I suggest you start breathing again before you turn blue, or purple, or republican.
Too hard, you can't even teach most of ''em basic arithmetic - let alone something abstract.
The simplest way to get a message across to the "masses" is simply to have a celebrity deliver it. No explanations, no demonstrations. Simply a script that says: "you know me, I'm that nice, trustworthy person from <name of popular programme> so you know when I speak, I'm telling the truth..."
People tend to trust individuals they know, they "know" the characters on TV - even though they are actors and probably nothing like that in real-life. It doesn't matter, just think about all the causes that get a celeb on board and then effect political change, even though it's a tiny (but vocal) minority of the population involved and therefore about as non-democratic as it's possible to get.
Rather than one terrorist in 3,000 how about one in a million - or one in a billion fliers?
The basic problem is not with the screening process, but simply knowing how many "actuals" there are out there to be caught - or deterred. To put it another way: how do you know when to stop?
All these security measures assume that there are still terrorists with malevolent intentions trying to get on airplanes. As a concerned passenger, I am all for stopping them provided they still exist. However if I am being put through the whole circus of intrusive and inconvenient security restrictions when the threat disappeared long ago, I would like them to stop. Merely having some official who's job, budget and political power rests on prolonging and talking-up the level of threat, saying "Trust me, I'm in the government" is not sufficient and not credible. We need to know actual facts: who was caught, what were they trying to do, what would have actually happened if they had succeeded.
I have a sneaking suspicion that even the people in security don't know the answer to this. While they may read reports to say "X number of people were detained last month" and assume from that, that the threat is real or increasing or that they're "winning", there are no hard, auditable facts available to back up these hypotheses. If that is the case, then the measures they have put in place are probably not even the best response to the level of threat. It seems that they are basing the level of security needed (which is also variable from place to place: flights entering a country are subject to vastly different security checks from flights leaving a country) on guesswork and the probably incorrect assumption that it's working since there haven't been any more September-11 type incidents. This attitude just plays into the hands of the baddies, as they continue to strike fear into people with little or no effort on their part - while still being able to come up with new and novel strategies as the established security measures are still fighting last year's war.
Use indelible paint, or burn it into the surface of the netbook's plastic case. However you decide to do it, make sure that it's obvious and can be seen by the user and everyone around them (incl. airport security people when they inspect the device). Have a message something like:
THIS COMPUTER WAS STOLEN FROM <your name/phone number>
In large, contrasting letters - for extra points write it in the language(s) of the countries to be visited. Not only will it draw unwanted attention to whoever tries to use it, but it will make the stolen item impossible to sell on errr, auction sites, where most of this stuff ends up.
OK, you want a TERRIBLE idea - how about trying to take your booby-trapped netbook through airport security?
The OP says he's moved "overseas" so presumably some day he'll be travelling back to which ever country he came from, and I would guess that includes flying.
f the party is too loud, I'm quite sure there would be existing laws on the books to deal with tha
You'd think so, but the police don't want to know.They refer complaints to the local authority (the council) to progress under environmental health regulations. Which they'll do in their own, good, time - i.e. 9 - 5. Monday to Friday (but not national holidays).
Ask youself: when was they last time someone held a noisy party at those times.
As it is, the original story - from which this Slashdot thread was started has since been modified to give a more balanced view. It turns out that the party-giveer had been the subject of many complaints for previous, noisy parties and it was the prospect of another one, rather than the police scanning Facebook (as if they would know how to do that!) that brought about a complaint from locals which resulted int hepolice presence.
However, that doesn't make such a juicy story - guaranteed to picque the sensibilities of a group who would love to see the cops ridiculded for OTT reactions. While they should be, I'm firmly of the view that this should only be done when there has been a genuine instance of brutality, stupidity, insensitivity or negligence. While this is not one of those, there are still far too many real cases there the police overstep the mark.
would subject user data associated with any service generally available online to the jurisdiction of all countries
You have organisations in one country trying to impose their rules on people in other countries. The basic problem is that the internet does not follow country boundaries and until there is some internationally agreed (as opposed to single-ended imposition) treaties to say exactly who has jusidiction, over what and where, these things will continue to cause trouble. The U.S. already assumes that any data which touches servers in their country makes the sender / receiver subject to their laws (ref: the Natwest three - look it up), so it's only fair that other countries should uphold the same standards.
They're still (mostly) about killing things, destroying things, shooting things. in that respect they have not developed past the basic premise. You vs. things that are out to kill you, unless you kill them first. Sure, there are games like The Sims and sports games which I agree are different and are popular - but the overwhelming majority (not all, just most) of the best-sellers are shoot, chop, kill, gore, weapons, enemies, destruction, targets, fire, explosions..... and so it goes on. The only thing that differentiates most of these is the level of violence, the quality of the graphics and the amount of hardware you have to throw at them to get them to work acceptably.
pretty much all the first person shooting games have this at their core.
The basics of gaming hasn't changed in over 30 years. Shortcuts, Mindless violence and the feeling of victory when you eventually "win" - which lasts all of 20 seconds until it gives way to the hollow feeling of "well, what now?"
Yes, there are graphics - which, like any addiction is never enough, is a total money sink and means you're always searching for the next high-point. And sound and vibration feedback and networks. Although these are all just peipheral to the storyline, which sadly has not progressed past new and grosser versions of a gore-fest.
Back arounf 1981, my boss at the time described the "new" rounds of video games that were coming out as "just another version of 'stomp the spider'". That observation still holds true for the vast majority of titles today. Progress?
What benefits would we have got? Hard to say, probably nothing tangible - just a group of half-a-dozen scientists and technicians spending a few months at a time far out of the public gaze. There might be the occasional documentary, but there's only so much footage of rocks and dust - and one patch of dirt looks a lot like any other. So I doubt there'd be much about it in the news (again, just like antarctica). Just about the only time it would make the headlines is when there's a debate about cutting funding (again), or when something goes wrong - or when there's an expose about the billions being spent on it, for not-much in the way of returns.
Your budget limits you to a couple of ICs a stripboard and a few other components. Use something like a 555 with an LM386 audio amp and various C / R combinations for the tones. However, before you start them on electronics, you'll have to buy some soldering irons and teach them to solder - provided your health and safety regulations allow such hazardous activities.
Everyone knows when a project is doomed. However, no-one is willing to report it. The reason is that so many people have bonuses, contracts and reputations at stake that they will always hold out, right up to the last, in the hope that someone else will fold first. Once the first guy admits "there might be a slight problem", everyone else piles in on top of that. Typically blaming the fall-guy for all of their problems, shortcomings, missed deliveries and failures.
The higher up an organisation you go, the more the people in charge have to lose. Therefore the less likely they are to admit it's a disaster. This goes as far (and often a lot further) as continually pouring in money even when all the signs are screamingly obvious that nothing good will ever come out of it.
The Emperor's New Clothes was obviously written by a long-time predecessor of this book's author.
Slashdot Mirror
braindead section of the british public
Yawn, this trite and dismissive view is so 1980's.
The reason people in Britain have to spend hundreds of UKP every year - on top of the £150 - or whatever it is now, tax that the government demands, to finance the BBC is because the terrestrial stations churn out nothing but "braindead" reality shows, quizzes, soap-operas and consumer programmes. For anyone who wants an alternative to the lowest-common-denominator crap we're mugged, annually, to pay for you have to get satellite or cable. Even then it's full of american programmes 'cos the british can't make any original programming pay unless it's yet another remake of Robin (sodding) Hood, or cliches that feature footage of Tower Bridge every few seconds - for foreign audiences.
Further, the reason the independent channels are so terrible, is that they have to compete with the government financed BBC, who have a guaranteed income, no commercial imperatives and no advertisements. Even setting aside the problem that advertisement revenues have dropped through the floor in the recession, when your only competitor is effectively giving away their product, what alternatives are there. The BBC has moved into the "popular" market - eschewing it's obligations to provide alternative. It's merely chasing viewing figures. In any other country this would be considered an extremely anti-competitive situation.
The only reason Sky can afford to innovate liek this is because their subscription based model gives them a revenue stream that is not dependent on paid-for advertisements.
They were using their own products and they failed. Or if they weren't using their own products - why not?
You also get a greater yield per unit land area and less spoilage from pests / disease. Between them, this makes intensively farmed crops much better for the planet in terms of energy efficiency and much better for humanity, as more plentiful food means less global hunger - or would do, if the high-yield crops can be grown in the overpopulated parts of the world, where food is scarce.
When you take out all the emotional triggers from the piece, what it boils down to is that there appear (although this is mere conjecture) to be flaws in the security and procedures involved in verifying launch orders. Flaws that anyone or any organisation or government with sufficient knowledge, inclination and technical ability could exploit. The result could be one or more unauthorised launches. Whether the systems are sufficiently slack to allow this launch to proceed to target (or the rocket/payload is sufficiently reliable to actually go BANG, or not) is not addressed by the newspaper. However, the nice juicy headline has done it's job, so why dilute it with more credible possibilities?
Attractive women have more kids
Well this assumption is clearly nonsensical. In times gone by (when, according to this "research" women weren't so beautiful), they had lots of children - sometimes a dozen or more. The reason being that so many of them (and the mothers too) died young due to lack of medical knowledge, hygiene, no drugs and prevalent diseases. So there is clearly an anti-correlation between one of this guy's central tenets and reality. If there has been an increase in womens' beauty in the past two or three generations, then it is far too quick for it to have been genetic or evolutionary - where the effect would become noticeable over thousands of years.
A far simpler explanation is that it is due (if it has happened at all - rather than merely being a cultural effect in one country that is only a small proportion of the overall population) then it's due to better diet, health and vastly improved cosmetics and has absolutely nothing to do with evolution or genetics..
Whether they controlled for other factors properly I have no idea
There's no indication they controlled any factors, at all.
The researcher may have come up with a nice, politically correct headline for an inconsistent and highly questionable piece of work, but common sense tells us otherwise. The number of children a woman has is hugely affected by her position in society, normative pressures, intelligence (women graduates have fewer children, on average, than those with less education - does that mean being clever makes you ugly - ridiculous idea!), amount and availability of welfare and frequently whether she works for a living, or stays at home.
rather than declaring your best result early, the Belkor team should have employed a bit of strategy and only declared a lesser result (if any). That would give the other teams something to aim at, without giving away their best results. These would be held back right up until the last minute and then submitted, so that other teams would not have time to make any further improvements (in fact, maybe this IS what they're doing). It's been a successful bidding strategy on eBay for years, so why wouldn't it translate into other competitive areas too?
Python is better than Perl because for beginners would takes weeks just to learn all the different possibilities
You don't need to learn them all - you just need to learn ONE to start with, then others can be added as the newbie's level of competence grows. The biggest barrier to programming is a steep learning curve - too much time spent before something tangible can be produced. Any language that lets someone just type stuff, then press "run" is a good start - maybe even Python.
The reason I exclude the above three attributes is that they lengthen the learning curve to getting a "hello world" program written and working. If a newbie's first exposure to programming is spending hours in a classroom without producing any output, the teacher will start to hear CLICKing noises after the first five minutes as the children switch off (metaphorically speaking). After that, they're lost.
The few useful and sound ideas that people have are probably re-invented a thousand times a year across the world. What makes the difference between "genius" and forgotten is whether the person who thinks of it (again) has the ability, resources and interest to follow through and make a success of it. It's not the idea itself, but how you progress it that is the difference between success and failure..
On that basis, so long as you don't disqualify your idea by disclosing it, if you wish to patent it, discuss it with anyone you like - it won't make any difference. A true expert will either have already thought of it and discounted it for th reasons they will tell you, has thought of it but has no interest in pursuing it or hasn't thought of it and therefore won't really be in a position to offer advice on whether it would or would not work[1]. If you think they'll steal "your" idea, you've been watching too many bad TV dramas.
One last thing - I hope you're expecting to pay the experts who's advice you are seeking. If so, just draw up a contract with an NDA in it - there, I bet you didn't think of that simple "genius" solution or yo wouldn't have had to ask the question, would you?
[1] generally if an "expert" hasn't thought of an idea themself, they will tell you that it won't work and give you various technical reasons why theu're right. However, since you had to go and ask them to start with, that shows that you do not have the knowledge to judge for yourself - so are unable to make an assessment of whether they're right or wrong. Experts are not that good at saying "yes, even though you are a layman, you've come up with an idea that none of the learned professionals in this field have ever considered before." It may be that they're so bad at saying this because it never actually happens.
Looking at this accidental photograph, the trail does look quite bright and shows other trails running parallel to the main one. Where I live, this happens when you get an aircraft running across the field of view. Maybe it was a meteor, maybe it was man-made, however there's no usable information in the photo, except that this guy's polar alignment needs adjusting, the stars should be perfect dots, not showing lines as in the blow-up..
So even if the security people who make these bald, and unsupportable claims *did* have a large enough number of caught terrorists in, say, 2002 - the chances are that the number has dropped significantly now. Of course, once you start to reduce the level of security, the number of "incidents" will probably rise - although as said, not in the way that the security people are prepared for. All this tells yo is that the statistics are meaningless - however you view them. All they can do apply a level of security / restrictions that people, en-masse are willing to tolerate and hope that's enough.
I mean there are so few, incalculably few, terrorists that the chances of getting two, unconnected ones on the same flight are vanishingly small. The chances are probably less than for the whole plane to be abducted by aliens. So if you supply one, the odds of a "real" one drop to nothing, in practical terms. Problem solved!
p.s. for the comically inept, this is not meant as a serious suggestion. I suggest you start breathing again before you turn blue, or purple, or republican.
The simplest way to get a message across to the "masses" is simply to have a celebrity deliver it. No explanations, no demonstrations. Simply a script that says: "you know me, I'm that nice, trustworthy person from <name of popular programme> so you know when I speak, I'm telling the truth ..."
People tend to trust individuals they know, they "know" the characters on TV - even though they are actors and probably nothing like that in real-life. It doesn't matter, just think about all the causes that get a celeb on board and then effect political change, even though it's a tiny (but vocal) minority of the population involved and therefore about as non-democratic as it's possible to get.
The basic problem is not with the screening process, but simply knowing how many "actuals" there are out there to be caught - or deterred. To put it another way: how do you know when to stop? All these security measures assume that there are still terrorists with malevolent intentions trying to get on airplanes. As a concerned passenger, I am all for stopping them provided they still exist. However if I am being put through the whole circus of intrusive and inconvenient security restrictions when the threat disappeared long ago, I would like them to stop. Merely having some official who's job, budget and political power rests on prolonging and talking-up the level of threat, saying "Trust me, I'm in the government" is not sufficient and not credible. We need to know actual facts: who was caught, what were they trying to do, what would have actually happened if they had succeeded.
I have a sneaking suspicion that even the people in security don't know the answer to this. While they may read reports to say "X number of people were detained last month" and assume from that, that the threat is real or increasing or that they're "winning", there are no hard, auditable facts available to back up these hypotheses. If that is the case, then the measures they have put in place are probably not even the best response to the level of threat. It seems that they are basing the level of security needed (which is also variable from place to place: flights entering a country are subject to vastly different security checks from flights leaving a country) on guesswork and the probably incorrect assumption that it's working since there haven't been any more September-11 type incidents. This attitude just plays into the hands of the baddies, as they continue to strike fear into people with little or no effort on their part - while still being able to come up with new and novel strategies as the established security measures are still fighting last year's war.
THIS COMPUTER WAS STOLEN FROM <your name/phone number>
In large, contrasting letters - for extra points write it in the language(s) of the countries to be visited. Not only will it draw unwanted attention to whoever tries to use it, but it will make the stolen item impossible to sell on errr, auction sites, where most of this stuff ends up.
The OP says he's moved "overseas" so presumably some day he'll be travelling back to which ever country he came from, and I would guess that includes flying.
OK, who put those british supermarket bags in with the south-american waste?
f the party is too loud, I'm quite sure there would be existing laws on the books to deal with tha
You'd think so, but the police don't want to know.They refer complaints to the local authority (the council) to progress under environmental health regulations. Which they'll do in their own, good, time - i.e. 9 - 5. Monday to Friday (but not national holidays).
Ask youself: when was they last time someone held a noisy party at those times.
As it is, the original story - from which this Slashdot thread was started has since been modified to give a more balanced view. It turns out that the party-giveer had been the subject of many complaints for previous, noisy parties and it was the prospect of another one, rather than the police scanning Facebook (as if they would know how to do that!) that brought about a complaint from locals which resulted int hepolice presence. However, that doesn't make such a juicy story - guaranteed to picque the sensibilities of a group who would love to see the cops ridiculded for OTT reactions. While they should be, I'm firmly of the view that this should only be done when there has been a genuine instance of brutality, stupidity, insensitivity or negligence. While this is not one of those, there are still far too many real cases there the police overstep the mark.
would subject user data associated with any service generally available online to the jurisdiction of all countries
You have organisations in one country trying to impose their rules on people in other countries. The basic problem is that the internet does not follow country boundaries and until there is some internationally agreed (as opposed to single-ended imposition) treaties to say exactly who has jusidiction, over what and where, these things will continue to cause trouble. The U.S. already assumes that any data which touches servers in their country makes the sender / receiver subject to their laws (ref: the Natwest three - look it up), so it's only fair that other countries should uphold the same standards.
They're still (mostly) about killing things, destroying things, shooting things. in that respect they have not developed past the basic premise. You vs. things that are out to kill you, unless you kill them first. Sure, there are games like The Sims and sports games which I agree are different and are popular - but the overwhelming majority (not all, just most) of the best-sellers are shoot, chop, kill, gore, weapons, enemies, destruction, targets, fire, explosions ..... and so it goes on. The only thing that differentiates most of these is the level of violence, the quality of the graphics and the amount of hardware you have to throw at them to get them to work acceptably.
The basics of gaming hasn't changed in over 30 years. Shortcuts, Mindless violence and the feeling of victory when you eventually "win" - which lasts all of 20 seconds until it gives way to the hollow feeling of "well, what now?"
Yes, there are graphics - which, like any addiction is never enough, is a total money sink and means you're always searching for the next high-point. And sound and vibration feedback and networks. Although these are all just peipheral to the storyline, which sadly has not progressed past new and grosser versions of a gore-fest.
Back arounf 1981, my boss at the time described the "new" rounds of video games that were coming out as "just another version of 'stomp the spider'". That observation still holds true for the vast majority of titles today. Progress?
What benefits would we have got? Hard to say, probably nothing tangible - just a group of half-a-dozen scientists and technicians spending a few months at a time far out of the public gaze. There might be the occasional documentary, but there's only so much footage of rocks and dust - and one patch of dirt looks a lot like any other. So I doubt there'd be much about it in the news (again, just like antarctica). Just about the only time it would make the headlines is when there's a debate about cutting funding (again), or when something goes wrong - or when there's an expose about the billions being spent on it, for not-much in the way of returns.
Is that what we thought we'd get?
Your budget limits you to a couple of ICs a stripboard and a few other components. Use something like a 555 with an LM386 audio amp and various C / R combinations for the tones. However, before you start them on electronics, you'll have to buy some soldering irons and teach them to solder - provided your health and safety regulations allow such hazardous activities.
The higher up an organisation you go, the more the people in charge have to lose. Therefore the less likely they are to admit it's a disaster. This goes as far (and often a lot further) as continually pouring in money even when all the signs are screamingly obvious that nothing good will ever come out of it.
The Emperor's New Clothes was obviously written by a long-time predecessor of this book's author.