I don't mean to sound totally against non-applied sciences, but to me this has gone beyond the science and has now created a tool based around the science. The inventors must have had some purpose for this tool when they decided to create it. I just think that the author did a poor job of researching the technology by not stating what it's possible uses might be.
Maybe I'm missing something, but I just don't see how this helps mankind? Do we really think we're going to shield the Earth from these solar storms? Should we? If the concern is really with the danger to electronics, then shouldn't we spending the time and money on enhancing electronic shielding instead? Or is this part of a military agenda so that attacks can be coordinated with a nuclear storm so that the enemy is disoriented while we are shielded... I love science but I'm not an advocate of science without a purpose (or at least not until all of our current problems are solved). Someone please enlighten me.
I must appologize to all of my UK friends out there.
You must understand where my comment comes from... Here in the U.S., the use of "learnt" is a big joke in the South and a reference to those who belong to the "Red Neck" clan (the not so intelligent).
Thank you for keeping me straight.
I've had the opportunity to work with several Microsoft groups over the years in development projects and one thing that always impressed me about the insight that I got about the culture there is that they are always allowed to use the best tools available. Regardless of whether it's a Microsoft tool or one of their competitors, management doesn't care. The objective is always to empower their employees with the best tools available. Of course, this also allows them better insight into what their competition is doing and helps them focus on the tools that they need to improve upon. I seriously doubt that you'll see MS blocking google.com anytime soon...
Slashdot Mirror
I don't mean to sound totally against non-applied sciences, but to me this has gone beyond the science and has now created a tool based around the science. The inventors must have had some purpose for this tool when they decided to create it. I just think that the author did a poor job of researching the technology by not stating what it's possible uses might be.
Maybe I'm missing something, but I just don't see how this helps mankind? Do we really think we're going to shield the Earth from these solar storms? Should we? If the concern is really with the danger to electronics, then shouldn't we spending the time and money on enhancing electronic shielding instead? Or is this part of a military agenda so that attacks can be coordinated with a nuclear storm so that the enemy is disoriented while we are shielded... I love science but I'm not an advocate of science without a purpose (or at least not until all of our current problems are solved). Someone please enlighten me.
I must appologize to all of my UK friends out there. You must understand where my comment comes from... Here in the U.S., the use of "learnt" is a big joke in the South and a reference to those who belong to the "Red Neck" clan (the not so intelligent). Thank you for keeping me straight.
I've had the opportunity to work with several Microsoft groups over the years in development projects and one thing that always impressed me about the insight that I got about the culture there is that they are always allowed to use the best tools available. Regardless of whether it's a Microsoft tool or one of their competitors, management doesn't care. The objective is always to empower their employees with the best tools available. Of course, this also allows them better insight into what their competition is doing and helps them focus on the tools that they need to improve upon. I seriously doubt that you'll see MS blocking google.com anytime soon...
http://blog.wired.com/fightclub/index.album?i=0