Well yeah, by and large the libertarian movement is made up of people who historically wielded more power over others, thus they picture decrease in government power as an increase in their own. And one of the easiest ways of being relatively better off is if other outgroup people are doing worse.
While not tech specific, the libertarian movement has pretty strong representation among the tech community. It is a very popular philosophy among people who make a bit more then the general public, live a comfortable lifestyle, and generally do not interact with other segments of the population.
'Liberty' means having the government do what you want it to do and meeting your lifestyle choices, stopping other people from impacting your life while not preventing you from impacting other people's lives. Oh, and in the FSP's case, liberty also means taking away local's ability to form a government of their choosing and replacing it with one of their design.
That is a point, though even within classic libertarianism the idea was generally society improves when people have few restrictions on personal power. Thus by that argument, criminals getting off because they do not have to testify against themselves would be considered an improvement.
Since when does libertarianism worry about what is good for society or other people? The 'positive' outcome of not being able to be forced to self incriminate is the increased chance for a lighter sentence or being found innocent.
Given how glithcy this is likely to be, I am picturing people carrying around little videos of themselves so they can gesture in their password. Yes, we have come full circle to dongle authentication again....
For that matter, it does not even really say if it _means_ desktops. My guess is that the person just took the IT budgets of all the offices and divided it by the number of computers they had and came up with the number, skipping over things like server costs. The number is so silly-high that I am skeptical that it represents what they say it does.
Which is what makes this such a tricky case and why it keeps bouncing back and forth. Both sides are kinda right depending on what analogy one draws to already existing practices. It could be argued that being ordered to hand over documents and such has been a 5th ammendment violation for years, but that horse has already left.
On the other hand, he failed his various stated goals. People often forget that the attacks on the US are not some abstract 'they hate our freedom' thing, but tools towards specific political goal. To say he 'won' is like saying a barricaded criminal who manages to shoot a couple cops before the SWAT team gets them 'won' because they managed to 'hurt' the police.
The usefulness of a DSLR or EVIL camera in this case is less about the resolution of the final picture, and more about how quickly the camera can grab it. Larger sensor, faster autofocus, more lens ranges, and with a high enough resolution that you can pan out and crop down, so you have more choice for how to frame things in post processing.
The big problem is, though, that often in photojournalism you often only get one shot, so you want a tool that has the best chance of getting that shot and has the most flexible output.
And I imagine press shots often fall under that category. You only get one chance to get it right, subjects are often moving, and bosses are much less sympathetic to 'sorry things are blurry' then someone's facebook friends.
Well, no, private companies kinda depend on government backed R&D and always have. Public research is where the innovation generally initially comes from, companies figure out how to polish that work with their own R&D to bring it to market.
Sorry, but you really should go back to some basic physics texts. Both the plane and the ISS are in a state of free fall, the distance is irrelevant (ok, technically you could talk tidal forces, but LEO and atmospheric are so close together the difference is tiny).
True, but keep in mind one of the ways universities keep research going are the fees they make from patents, MTAs, etc. Unless the public is willing to invest a LOT more in public funding, Universities are going to need that revenue stream.
Since their agreement was written around the idea that only commercial applications required a fee (so other researchers and non-profits are allowed to use the data for free), they are already keeping to the spirit of public research pretty well.
There are a number of court cases working their way through the system of the US government doing such things. There is this strange little clause that allows the DoD to take patented material and hand it to other companies to develop for them, so there have been problems with small companies patenting something, a contractor not liking the terms (or simply not wanting to ask) and the DoD simply removing their liability.
I know people like to try to apply the business world to everything, but in this case, well, this isn't the business world.
Though even in the business world there are plenty of rules which, if you break them, you make more money, yet the rules are in place to (at least in theory) ensure the health of the whole system. That is the case here, the rule (at least in theory) is designed to work towards the goals of the science fair system, even if it does take away a tool that individuals could use to advance themselves..
Nope, fusion is right. If I recall correctly he built a 'fusor', a type of fusion reactor that does not even come close to producing more energy then you put in, but does preform the actual reaction. Quite a few people have been building them as hobby projects, though I believe they are also being looked into as a way of producing medically useful isotopes.
To be fair, one can look at it as a balance issue. The most capable people tend to shift their focus to the things society values the most, and right now we place a high social value on getting rich quick through finding some narcissistic niche and building something that appeals to it.
The value of helping others, helping the underclass, solving systemic problems, building shared resources, things that elevate society as a whole rather then the privileged, well, these things are often argued about and I will not even attempt to claim one way or the other is 'best', but I think it is fair to express distress regarding shifts in what people value.
Essentially, this is the same complaint as people talking about how we do not have enough STEM talent or too much manufacturing+research is moving offshore.
I think in this case neither is on the table. Someone got to buy cool but useless tech. This is more of a case of someone using taxpayer money to make it look like they were 'thinking of the childrens' without actually having any actual effect.
And, while the biotech industry has a serious lobby, the farm lobby is also pretty powerful. It would be interesting to watch evenly matched lobbies instead of the bloodbath we usually get.
I had forgotten about that element. Getting enough grant money to both do research AND eat has become increasingly difficult as it is. Additional requirements, esp requirements that might alienate other funding sources (since a great deal of research is not purely public money) could result in it being even more difficult to get anything viable done.
Slashdot Mirror
Well yeah, by and large the libertarian movement is made up of people who historically wielded more power over others, thus they picture decrease in government power as an increase in their own. And one of the easiest ways of being relatively better off is if other outgroup people are doing worse.
That is some serious twisting you did there.
Esp since vast amounts of material is simply 'secret by default'.
While not tech specific, the libertarian movement has pretty strong representation among the tech community. It is a very popular philosophy among people who make a bit more then the general public, live a comfortable lifestyle, and generally do not interact with other segments of the population.
'Liberty' means having the government do what you want it to do and meeting your lifestyle choices, stopping other people from impacting your life while not preventing you from impacting other people's lives. Oh, and in the FSP's case, liberty also means taking away local's ability to form a government of their choosing and replacing it with one of their design.
That is a point, though even within classic libertarianism the idea was generally society improves when people have few restrictions on personal power. Thus by that argument, criminals getting off because they do not have to testify against themselves would be considered an improvement.
Since when does libertarianism worry about what is good for society or other people? The 'positive' outcome of not being able to be forced to self incriminate is the increased chance for a lighter sentence or being found innocent.
Given how glithcy this is likely to be, I am picturing people carrying around little videos of themselves so they can gesture in their password. Yes, we have come full circle to dongle authentication again....
For that matter, it does not even really say if it _means_ desktops. My guess is that the person just took the IT budgets of all the offices and divided it by the number of computers they had and came up with the number, skipping over things like server costs. The number is so silly-high that I am skeptical that it represents what they say it does.
Which is what makes this such a tricky case and why it keeps bouncing back and forth. Both sides are kinda right depending on what analogy one draws to already existing practices. It could be argued that being ordered to hand over documents and such has been a 5th ammendment violation for years, but that horse has already left.
On the other hand, he failed his various stated goals. People often forget that the attacks on the US are not some abstract 'they hate our freedom' thing, but tools towards specific political goal. To say he 'won' is like saying a barricaded criminal who manages to shoot a couple cops before the SWAT team gets them 'won' because they managed to 'hurt' the police.
Agreed. As I recall there are recurring problems with dashboard cameras 'loosing' recording as it is.
The usefulness of a DSLR or EVIL camera in this case is less about the resolution of the final picture, and more about how quickly the camera can grab it. Larger sensor, faster autofocus, more lens ranges, and with a high enough resolution that you can pan out and crop down, so you have more choice for how to frame things in post processing.
The big problem is, though, that often in photojournalism you often only get one shot, so you want a tool that has the best chance of getting that shot and has the most flexible output.
And I imagine press shots often fall under that category. You only get one chance to get it right, subjects are often moving, and bosses are much less sympathetic to 'sorry things are blurry' then someone's facebook friends.
Well, no, private companies kinda depend on government backed R&D and always have. Public research is where the innovation generally initially comes from, companies figure out how to polish that work with their own R&D to bring it to market.
Sorry, but you really should go back to some basic physics texts. Both the plane and the ISS are in a state of free fall, the distance is irrelevant (ok, technically you could talk tidal forces, but LEO and atmospheric are so close together the difference is tiny).
People tend to forget that one of the points of NASA is to do work that is no where near ready for profit driven companies to invest in.
True, but keep in mind one of the ways universities keep research going are the fees they make from patents, MTAs, etc. Unless the public is willing to invest a LOT more in public funding, Universities are going to need that revenue stream.
Since their agreement was written around the idea that only commercial applications required a fee (so other researchers and non-profits are allowed to use the data for free), they are already keeping to the spirit of public research pretty well.
There are a number of court cases working their way through the system of the US government doing such things. There is this strange little clause that allows the DoD to take patented material and hand it to other companies to develop for them, so there have been problems with small companies patenting something, a contractor not liking the terms (or simply not wanting to ask) and the DoD simply removing their liability.
I know people like to try to apply the business world to everything, but in this case, well, this isn't the business world.
Though even in the business world there are plenty of rules which, if you break them, you make more money, yet the rules are in place to (at least in theory) ensure the health of the whole system. That is the case here, the rule (at least in theory) is designed to work towards the goals of the science fair system, even if it does take away a tool that individuals could use to advance themselves..
Nope, fusion is right. If I recall correctly he built a 'fusor', a type of fusion reactor that does not even come close to producing more energy then you put in, but does preform the actual reaction. Quite a few people have been building them as hobby projects, though I believe they are also being looked into as a way of producing medically useful isotopes.
To be fair, one can look at it as a balance issue. The most capable people tend to shift their focus to the things society values the most, and right now we place a high social value on getting rich quick through finding some narcissistic niche and building something that appeals to it.
The value of helping others, helping the underclass, solving systemic problems, building shared resources, things that elevate society as a whole rather then the privileged, well, these things are often argued about and I will not even attempt to claim one way or the other is 'best', but I think it is fair to express distress regarding shifts in what people value.
Essentially, this is the same complaint as people talking about how we do not have enough STEM talent or too much manufacturing+research is moving offshore.
I think in this case neither is on the table. Someone got to buy cool but useless tech. This is more of a case of someone using taxpayer money to make it look like they were 'thinking of the childrens' without actually having any actual effect.
And, while the biotech industry has a serious lobby, the farm lobby is also pretty powerful. It would be interesting to watch evenly matched lobbies instead of the bloodbath we usually get.
I had forgotten about that element. Getting enough grant money to both do research AND eat has become increasingly difficult as it is. Additional requirements, esp requirements that might alienate other funding sources (since a great deal of research is not purely public money) could result in it being even more difficult to get anything viable done.