Why do you consider God and Science as mutually exclusive?
What do your morals ("I shall not steal or kill...") have to do with your scientific knowledge ("Permeability of Free Space is 4*Pi Henries over meters)?
Didn't you just yourself say in the GP post that we should look for talented people? Here:
Being truly competent (much less exceptional) in any complex field is a fortuitous combination of training, experience and talent. Time and money provide the first two, and can produce at best a merely competent worker. Being the very best requires actual talent, but talent is a rarity in any area of human endeavor.
And just minutes later you are proposing forget looking for the "rare" talent and focus on race. Do you see an inconsistency here?
Current supply of H1B candidates does not satisfy the demand for good programmes, you say? Then perhaps we need to provide more visas for good programmers.
If DOE wants access to it, they should pay for that access. Given how little money pure science already receives from the government, handing over this computer to nuke research would be little short of treason.
The issue here is doing what's right vs doing what's popular. The Democrats always went where the vote is, and the vote just wasn't in "helping terrorists win."
Face it, the American public at large does not care about FISA issues, Free Speech, or Habeas Corpus.
basic research doesn't lead to profitable products/technologies
Good, now finish that thought... Would YOU do the work if some stranger could collect all of your paychecks? Would YOU date a girl and give her the attention and presents if another guy takes her to the altar (or bed)?
Then why would any company (non-monopoly) invest in basic research?
Of course it does matter, since only monopolies can make basic research profitable. Any other company investing in non-patentable research might as well just hand over the cash to their competitors which would steal the discoveries in any case.
The real question is, are some teens getting less sex because they are smart, or are they smart because they are getting less sex (for whatever reason)?
That's not how it works. Licensed spectrum means you still need a licence to operate almost anything in that part of spectrum. Unless you follow the frequency band owner's rules (assuming ATT) you would be breaking the law.
You might get away with it in your garage in the middle of nowhere, but you would certainly not be able to run anything large-scale or commercial, without ATT's permit. Since the network will be closed, they do not have to sell it to you unless they feel like it, and at whatever conditions and pricing they feel like.
Even if you are doing it out of your garage, getting caught without a license will mean fines and/or jail (also consider the possible terrorism charges now that the 'first-responder' links are moving to the band).
Don't worry, the almighty Darwin will sort it all out.
The 'slow' nations will lose, the weaker will win and rebuild the weaker ones in their image. All for the best, really. (Though it'll be a bitch to learn to speak Chinese)
No, as long as they control the network they can mandate how your device should behave. They can require that any "open" device you have connects only to their closed routers using their closed protocols, say at a low-low price of $0.99/min
To summarize, if you were really looking forward to getting cheap all-you-can-eat wireless broadband you should have bought your own Senator instead of relying on ATT's.
Slashdot Mirror
Why do you consider God and Science as mutually exclusive?
What do your morals ("I shall not steal or kill...") have to do with your scientific knowledge ("Permeability of Free Space is 4*Pi Henries over meters)?
That's why the Democrats push for paper trail/voter receipts, silly.
In real world people get paid by using the right tools to get the job done.
In some cases, Perl is the right tool.
Presumably the emetic flashlight would be used indoors, at night, or in the dark. I doubt a lot of people would wear sunglasses just then.
And just minutes later you are proposing forget looking for the "rare" talent and focus on race. Do you see an inconsistency here?
Current supply of H1B candidates does not satisfy the demand for good programmes, you say?
Then perhaps we need to provide more visas for good programmers.
I am pretty sure IT bosses are not messing with the schedule to keep all the women out.
I mean, would you think the Airforce is conspiring against people that are scared of heights?
Let's see how much each one gets each year:
DoD: 400 bil. US$ (not including the Iraq war costs, read another 90 bil.)
DoE: 25 bil.
NASA: 15 bil.
EPA: 8 bil.
NSF: 6 bil.
I say screw them, let them buy their own damn computer.
If DOE wants access to it, they should pay for that access. Given how little money pure science already receives from the government, handing over this computer to nuke research would be little short of treason.
The issue here is doing what's right vs doing what's popular. The Democrats always went where the vote is, and the vote just wasn't in "helping terrorists win."
Face it, the American public at large does not care about FISA issues, Free Speech, or Habeas Corpus.
Women tend to be good at social engineering and networking. She might be pretty good at 'hacking' horny geek brains.
Wouldn't it be funny if she were outed as the original tubgirl? Ultimate payback for nosing around, eh?
I think men are safe so long as there are rodents or big scary spiders to be disposed of.
How would you like to be the first to person "sorted out," hmm?
Gives a whole new meaning to your password isn't long enough, eh?
Phonetic misspelling should be nipped in the butt.
basic research doesn't lead to profitable products/technologies
Good, now finish that thought...
Would YOU do the work if some stranger could collect all of your paychecks? Would YOU date a girl and give her the attention and presents if another guy takes her to the altar (or bed)?
Then why would any company (non-monopoly) invest in basic research?
Of course it does matter, since only monopolies can make basic research profitable.
Any other company investing in non-patentable research might as well just hand over the cash to their competitors which would steal the discoveries in any case.
The real question is, are some teens getting less sex because they are smart, or are they smart because they are getting less sex (for whatever reason)?
Ma Bell had no competitors (a monopoly) so research costs were not an issue for them.
That's not how it works. Licensed spectrum means you still need a licence to operate almost anything in that part of spectrum. Unless you follow the frequency band owner's rules (assuming ATT) you would be breaking the law.
You might get away with it in your garage in the middle of nowhere, but you would certainly not be able to run anything large-scale or commercial, without ATT's permit. Since the network will be closed, they do not have to sell it to you unless they feel like it, and at whatever conditions and pricing they feel like.
Even if you are doing it out of your garage, getting caught without a license will mean fines and/or jail (also consider the possible terrorism charges now that the 'first-responder' links are moving to the band).
Why don't you get an LCD computer monitor and a pair of glasses instead of your HDTV?
Don't worry, the almighty Darwin will sort it all out.
The 'slow' nations will lose, the weaker will win and rebuild the weaker ones in their image. All for the best, really. (Though it'll be a bitch to learn to speak Chinese)
Assuming the starting bid for this will be around $5 billion, whatever donation cash you collect will be peanuts.
No, as long as they control the network they can mandate how your device should behave. They can require that any "open" device you have connects only to their closed routers using their closed protocols, say at a low-low price of $0.99/min
To summarize, if you were really looking forward to getting cheap all-you-can-eat wireless broadband you should have bought your own Senator instead of relying on ATT's.