* You hire a guy, pay his salary for many years.
* You pay him to do some research.
* You don't like the results. Doesnt matter why, you just dont.
* Since you paid for the research, and paid him, do you have the right to bury the results? Or the right to disseminate the information in whatever way YOU decide suits you?
If you are a private individual or company, yes (though in the long run its bad for business to deny the truth). If you are a government employee (and that means from janitors up to and including the President/Prime Minister of a country) then no you should not have that right.
Scientific research is about trying to truthfully understand and predict the universe around us. Burying accurate scientific research you don't like is immoral. If the people paid for it, then it belongs to the people. "The Boss" we elected has no moral or ethical right to bury or distort that information because of personal beliefs or preferences. Doing so constitutes practicing propaganda against their own people.
If the scientific information is vital to the safety and welfare of the people, then agents of the government must present that information and any possible implications fairly. If they do not, then they should be considered guilty of conspiracy to commit treason against the citizenry.
You might be able to make a case for classifying certain types of scientific knowledge if that knowledge presents an immediate clear and present danger to the safety and security of the people at large. Still, those cases are few and far between. The truth is out there, and its a scientist's job to find it out and to let people know about it. If it is inconvienient politically, tough.
Never mind what is "right", or "better for Gaia". The question is: if you pay for something, do you have the right to control its distribution?
No you don't have that right if it is paid for by public taxes. Hiding the knowledge from the people that paid for it is the vilest and rankest sort of corruption. Effectively it becomes taxation without representation. It wasn't right in 1776, and it isn't right now.
which stock would be the best investment at this time?
Neither. Remember the old adage:
If you add a cup of wine to a barrel of garbage, you have a barrel of garbage. If you add a cup of garbage to a barrel of wine, you have a barrel of garbage.
There is something deeply wrong in a society in which a basketball player is paid more than an entire team of Aids researchers, and advertising copywriters are paid more than government ministers.
Well if its deeply wrong, then its been deeply wrong for a while:
"I know, but I had a better year than Hoover." -- Babe Ruth's reported reply when a reporter objected that the salary Ruth was demanding ($80,000) was more than that of President Herbert Hoover's ($75,000).
Human beings are primates. We have pecking orders and are very social. Is it any shock that the ones who get the most attention (eg money) are the ones that put on the best display?
The real losers will be people like me who'll be forced to re-buy ephemeral content that disapears with time.
How odd. Their legislation will have no real effect on sales of pirated media, but will force most consumers to buy the same content over and over again.
And this open a completely different can of worms: Campaign spending "reforms" are, IMO, unconstitutional nonsense. There's nothing in the freedom of speech clause that says its only free speech up to a certain artificially imposed spending limit.
The Supreme Court caused this horrific mess when they ruled that Money is Speech. If we did not consider money to be speech, then FEC and others would have absolutely no hook to regulate individual speech, other than by the candidates and their campaigns. They could still easily regulate money/contributions, but it would eliminate the "hey, their speech is unfair" effect we see coming to a head in this legislation.
By declaring that money is a form of speech, SCOTUS effectively birthed a system which makes speech and money interchangeable. This means every time someone modifies how money speech is handled, it slops over onto free speech. Free speech is being attacked by the monied interests because they can now argue that free speech gets an unfair advantage AND violates spending regulations (since free speech is now legally equivalent to money in a campaign, money regulations should apply even if no actual money is involved... its only fair). This essentially mutes any non-monied political players, eg anyone not plugged into one of the big-money organizations/parties/groups/etc.
We need to call a Constitutional Convention and make a few updates to the U.S. Constititution. One of those amendments should get rid of the whole idea of money-as-speech. Its killing our republican democracy.
but one of the biggest tools the White House is using is distraction. Attention is being drawn to social issues (such as gay rights, and vegetable rights - Schiavo), while significant detrimental policies are being waged against science (like barring publication of papers about global warming) and civil rights.
Columnist Molly Ivans pointed this out about the Bush Administration well before 9/11. She called it "The Politics of Outrage". Basically the cycle goes something like this:
1) Administration does something outrageous 2) Outcry & Criticism of action erupt that day 3) Next day: Administration does new outrageous thing 4) Outcry & Criticism over new outrage, yesterday's outrage forgotten (at least by the press) 5) Lather. Rinse. Repeat, EVERY DAY.
The truly disturbing thing is this strategy seems to work.
This administration cynically manipulates news and news cycles every day. Real criticism is either ignored or jollied away as "well I disagree, but support your right to be feel differently, but we aren't changing".
When the next idiocy or outrage occurs, the previous outrageous actions are stuffed under the floor by the media. This has given them free reign to pursue every boneheaded policy, or just flat out greedy corporate wellfare program they can think of. Its no wonder at all that Science is being strangled to death in the U.S.
Rove, Bush, etc I salute you. You are the greatest marketeers the world has ever seen, and God save us all from your foolishness and greed.
IMHO, I don't think the strut failure was due to malice. I think it was simply a mistake/stupidity.
I got to watch several DC-X flights. I got to see it hover, move laterally, land, and the infamous 'dip & swoop' manuever.
I'm still dumbfounded that DC-X lost NASA's Reusable Launch Vehicle competition to the VentureStar design. Lockheed had an obviously bogus blue-sky design. McD had a working 1/3 scale proof-of-principle prototype.
A lot more design and testing would have been required to get to the full Delta Clipper orbital vehicle, but it still remains one of the better SSTO design ideas out there.
At least I got to see a rocket dance once. It was simply Incredible.
Not exactly exciting. The interesting part was how little he's received. Who knew you could buy a Congresscritter so cheap? Think I'll morgage my house and buy me one as a pet.
Seriously, who let this bozo onto the SCIENCE committee?
Imagine a society where an orchestra couldn't play any classical music without acquiring the rights to that performance from a copyright holder that has been passed down through the centuries by inane copyright law and they end up paying a large amount of money for you to enjoy their performance.
We don't have to. Spider Robinson already imagined it for us in Melancholy Elephants
Financially, this is going to be a big bump for Apple. I'm certainly not going to order any more new Macs until the Intel systems are available.
I've been itching to buy a Mac for a while now. First I waited because Apple didn't have a G5 laptop. After giving up on that, I waited on a cheap & small Mac. When the iBrick, I mean MacMini came out I thought I found a nice little box to drop on my desk. I've been waiting for a few months so that they could iron out any new product bugs. Now I hear their architecture is changing and will have a seriously reduced software halflife.
I won't be buying a Mac until they a) get the new archtecture out b) It looks stable.
Guess I won't be buying a Mac until at least 2008.
I wonder how many other folks like you and me are going to hold off on buying Apple hardware?
So Jobs is a Jedi? Does that make Bill Gates a Sith?
Hmmm. Lets see, the attributes of a Sith:
1. Ruthless. Check. 2. Almost unstoppably powerful. Check. 3. Desire to dominate all they see. Check. 4. "Always there are two, a Master and a Apprentice". Gates & 'Monkey-boy' Balmer, Check. 5. Has questionable personal hygene. (At least until he married Melinda) Check. 6. Routinely double-crosses 'partners'. Check. 7. Corrupts others with their dark power. Check.
Looks like a match so far, though I'm not convinced Jobs is a Jedi. He's more like Centauri from The Last Starfighter
While its a bit late on this thread, I have seen these movies. I enjoyed them- they are quite good- but their science fiction background isn't conceptually more advanced than the SF literature of the 60's-70's.
I can't seem to lock onto what you consider more 'conceptually advanced' SF. Most SF themes have been worked and reworked, even in books and short stories. Frankly, even extremely innovative recent SF movies, like PRIMER, are simply a moviemaker's take on a classic SF story theme. In the case of PRIMER its the unintended consequences of Time Travel.
Exactly what kind of innovative SF do you think we are missing in the movies?
There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or a corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years , the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute nor common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped,or turned back, for their private benefit. - Robert Heinlein, 'Life-Line'
And, for what it's worth, I'm neither a creationist nor an Intelligent Design advocate - although I see some merit in the latter. I'm perfectly comfortable if Evolution turns out to be the case all along, because I believe in a God who can work through the random.
Taking the position that God is behind Evolution makes you a believer in Intelligent Design.
Intelligent Design is just a subset of Creationism. Neither are falsifiable. Both qualify as religious beliefs.
Intelligent Design is just the Creationist Wolf wearing Grandma Science's bed clothes.
Unfortunately, none of those links gives the light output in lumens or in 'bulb equivalent'. Since they list them as 'accent bulbs', they can't be very bright.
Slashdot Mirror
Try looking at it this way:
* You hire a guy, pay his salary for many years.
* You pay him to do some research.
* You don't like the results. Doesnt matter why, you just dont.
* Since you paid for the research, and paid him, do you have the right to bury the results? Or the right to disseminate the information in whatever way YOU decide suits you?
If you are a private individual or company, yes (though in the long run its bad for business to deny the truth). If you are a government employee (and that means from janitors up to and including the President/Prime Minister of a country) then no you should not have that right.
Scientific research is about trying to truthfully understand and predict the universe around us. Burying accurate scientific research you don't like is immoral. If the people paid for it, then it belongs to the people. "The Boss" we elected has no moral or ethical right to bury or distort that information because of personal beliefs or preferences. Doing so constitutes practicing propaganda against their own people.
If the scientific information is vital to the safety and welfare of the people, then agents of the government must present that information and any possible implications fairly. If they do not, then they should be considered guilty of conspiracy to commit treason against the citizenry.
You might be able to make a case for classifying certain types of scientific knowledge if that knowledge presents an immediate clear and present danger to the safety and security of the people at large. Still, those cases are few and far between. The truth is out there, and its a scientist's job to find it out and to let people know about it. If it is inconvienient politically, tough.
Never mind what is "right", or "better for Gaia". The question is: if you pay for something, do you have the right to control its distribution?
No you don't have that right if it is paid for by public taxes. Hiding the knowledge from the people that paid for it is the vilest and rankest sort of corruption. Effectively it becomes taxation without representation. It wasn't right in 1776, and it isn't right now.
- I.V.
Disney's not exactly known for it's ability to listen - to anyone. Not a matter of malevolence, just hubris.
Well thank god they will have Steve Jobs to help them out with that problem now.
- IV
Neither. Remember the old adage:
Well if its deeply wrong, then its been deeply wrong for a while:Human beings are primates. We have pecking orders and are very social. Is it any shock that the ones who get the most attention (eg money) are the ones that put on the best display?
- I.V.
The real losers will be people like me who'll be forced to re-buy ephemeral content that disapears with time.
How odd. Their legislation will have no real effect on sales of pirated media, but will force most consumers to buy the same content over and over again.
Its almost like they planned it this way...
- I.V.
And this open a completely different can of worms: Campaign spending "reforms" are, IMO, unconstitutional nonsense. There's nothing in the freedom of speech clause that says its only free speech up to a certain artificially imposed spending limit.
The Supreme Court caused this horrific mess when they ruled that Money is Speech. If we did not consider money to be speech, then FEC and others would have absolutely no hook to regulate individual speech, other than by the candidates and their campaigns. They could still easily regulate money/contributions, but it would eliminate the "hey, their speech is unfair" effect we see coming to a head in this legislation.
By declaring that money is a form of speech, SCOTUS effectively birthed a system which makes speech and money interchangeable. This means every time someone modifies how money speech is handled, it slops over onto free speech. Free speech is being attacked by the monied interests because they can now argue that free speech gets an unfair advantage AND violates spending regulations (since free speech is now legally equivalent to money in a campaign, money regulations should apply even if no actual money is involved... its only fair). This essentially mutes any non-monied political players, eg anyone not plugged into one of the big-money organizations/parties/groups/etc.
We need to call a Constitutional Convention and make a few updates to the U.S. Constititution. One of those amendments should get rid of the whole idea of money-as-speech. Its killing our republican democracy.
-I.V.
but one of the biggest tools the White House is using is distraction. Attention is being drawn to social issues (such as gay rights, and vegetable rights - Schiavo), while significant detrimental policies are being waged against science (like barring publication of papers about global warming) and civil rights.
Columnist Molly Ivans pointed this out about the Bush Administration well before 9/11. She called it "The Politics of Outrage". Basically the cycle goes something like this:
1) Administration does something outrageous
2) Outcry & Criticism of action erupt that day
3) Next day: Administration does new outrageous thing
4) Outcry & Criticism over new outrage, yesterday's outrage forgotten (at least by the press)
5) Lather. Rinse. Repeat, EVERY DAY.
The truly disturbing thing is this strategy seems to work.
This administration cynically manipulates news and news cycles every day. Real criticism is either ignored or jollied away as "well I disagree, but support your right to be feel differently, but we aren't changing".
When the next idiocy or outrage occurs, the previous outrageous actions are stuffed under the floor by the media. This has given them free reign to pursue every boneheaded policy, or just flat out greedy corporate wellfare program they can think of. Its no wonder at all that Science is being strangled to death in the U.S.
Rove, Bush, etc I salute you. You are the greatest marketeers the world has ever seen, and God save us all from your foolishness and greed.
-I.V.
It wasn't 'created' at all - it evolved!
One of the little ironies I enjoy occasionally is seeing cars with the "christian fish eating the evolution fish" symbol.
Just once I want to let the owner know that their symbol is promoting the idea of Natural Selection, and by implication Evolution.
Until then, I'll just smile and go my merry way.
- I.V.
Here you go:
Delta Clipper Experiment
Wikipedia
If you want to see what happened here's the video
IMHO, I don't think the strut failure was due to malice. I think it was simply a mistake/stupidity.
I got to watch several DC-X flights. I got to see it hover, move laterally, land, and the infamous 'dip & swoop' manuever.
I'm still dumbfounded that DC-X lost NASA's Reusable Launch Vehicle competition to the VentureStar design. Lockheed had an obviously bogus blue-sky design. McD had a working 1/3 scale proof-of-principle prototype.
A lot more design and testing would have been required to get to the full Delta Clipper orbital vehicle, but it still remains one of the better SSTO design ideas out there.
At least I got to see a rocket dance once. It was simply Incredible.
-I.V.
While we're at it, let's make ole Joe's real financial backings public. Nothing to hide, right?
While it doesn't list his personal accounts, here is all of his campaign-related contributions:
Summary
By Industry
By Contributor
By PAC
Not exactly exciting. The interesting part was how little he's received. Who knew you could buy a Congresscritter so cheap? Think I'll morgage my house and buy me one as a pet.
Seriously, who let this bozo onto the SCIENCE committee?
-I.V.
I only hope that someone somewhere will play Amazing Grace on the pipes for him as he did for Spock at the end of Star Trek II.
Thank You! I hadn't thought of that. I'm playing it on my iPod right now. Now to go to google for some pictures while I listen.
-I.V.
Imagine a society where an orchestra couldn't play any classical music without acquiring the rights to that performance from a copyright holder that has been passed down through the centuries by inane copyright law and they end up paying a large amount of money for you to enjoy their performance.
We don't have to. Spider Robinson already imagined it for us in Melancholy Elephants
I.V.
Financially, this is going to be a big bump for Apple. I'm certainly not going to order any more new Macs until the Intel systems are available.
I've been itching to buy a Mac for a while now. First I waited because Apple didn't have a G5 laptop. After giving up on that, I waited on a cheap & small Mac. When the iBrick, I mean MacMini came out I thought I found a nice little box to drop on my desk. I've been waiting for a few months so that they could iron out any new product bugs. Now I hear their architecture is changing and will have a seriously reduced software halflife.
I won't be buying a Mac until they a) get the new archtecture out b) It looks stable.
Guess I won't be buying a Mac until at least 2008.
I wonder how many other folks like you and me are going to hold off on buying Apple hardware?
Hope they have lots of cash in the bank.
I.V.
So Jobs is a Jedi?
Does that make Bill Gates a Sith?
Hmmm. Lets see, the attributes of a Sith:
1. Ruthless. Check.
2. Almost unstoppably powerful. Check.
3. Desire to dominate all they see. Check.
4. "Always there are two, a Master and a Apprentice". Gates & 'Monkey-boy' Balmer, Check.
5. Has questionable personal hygene. (At least until he married Melinda) Check.
6. Routinely double-crosses 'partners'. Check.
7. Corrupts others with their dark power. Check.
Looks like a match so far, though I'm not convinced Jobs is a Jedi. He's more like Centauri from The Last Starfighter
Thanks for that. I'm going to request she sing that one at Fencon this year.
- I.V.
My favorite part is anything "In defiance to you Kent..."
Actually the line is "Put simply,in deference to you Kent...".
One of the best throw away lines ever. Great movie. Lousy science, but great movie.
-I.V.
And what is the point of leaving your computer on if you are at work or sleeping?
Bittorrent.
- I.V.
While its a bit late on this thread, I have seen these movies. I enjoyed them- they are quite good- but their science fiction background isn't conceptually more advanced than the SF literature of the 60's-70's.
I can't seem to lock onto what you consider more 'conceptually advanced' SF. Most SF themes have been worked and reworked, even in books and short stories. Frankly, even extremely innovative recent SF movies, like PRIMER, are simply a moviemaker's take on a classic SF story theme. In the case of PRIMER its the unintended consequences of Time Travel.
Exactly what kind of innovative SF do you think we are missing in the movies?
Movies haven't made it past the 70's (Bladerunner, the Matrix) other than perhaps 'Eternal Sunshine' (similar to a few 80's stories)
... to name a few.
You have missed seeing:
Gattica
Equilibrium
The Final Cut
Sure, space opera and adventure SF dominiate the movies (why not, they're fun), but there is good stuff out there. Don't paint with too wide a brush.
- IV
The room went dead silent. Another student goes "You're in fourth year physics and you dont know who Patrick Stewart is?", agast.
That reminds me of a line from the StarGate:SG1 episode "The Other Guys". It went something like:
'How can you call yourself a Scientist and not worship at the alter of Roddenbery?!?'
I find it very funny that something like it happened in real life. I hope its a true story.
- I.V.
- I.V.
And, for what it's worth, I'm neither a creationist nor an Intelligent Design advocate - although I see some merit in the latter. I'm perfectly comfortable if Evolution turns out to be the case all along, because I believe in a God who can work through the random.
Taking the position that God is behind Evolution makes you a believer in Intelligent Design.
Intelligent Design is just a subset of Creationism. Neither are falsifiable. Both qualify as religious beliefs.
Intelligent Design is just the Creationist Wolf wearing Grandma Science's bed clothes.
- I.V.
I don't work for Lockheed, my friends do. We have a local t-shirt place we use occasionally to make club t-shirts.
Thanks for the info though.
I.V.
I posted this to my local SF group boards a while back. Hope you like it:
Several guys in the group work for Lockheed and want it on a T-shirt.
Cheers,
I.V.
Unfortunately, none of those links gives the light output in lumens or in 'bulb equivalent'. Since they list them as 'accent bulbs', they can't be very bright.