Non-IT News Thread
-
@coliver said in Non-IT News Thread:
You'll always be Boaty McBoatface to me.
One of the support vessels is being called Boaty McBoatface as a tribute
and it's being registered in the Falkland Islands 
@RojoLoco said in Non-IT News Thread:
@coliver said in Non-IT News Thread:
You'll always be Boaty McBoatface to me.
Better they call it David Attenborough than some of the other "real person" choices. One was some kid w/ cancer... I mean, WTF is some sob story kid doing getting nominated to have a marine research vessel named after them???
yeah, especially since the girl died this week...like, do you really want a constant reminder of that, plus the fact hardly anyone knows the kid, and they did nothing for science...
-
@NattNatt said in Non-IT News Thread:
@coliver said in Non-IT News Thread:
You'll always be Boaty McBoatface to me.
One of the support vessels is being called Boaty McBoatface as a tribute
and it's being registered in the Falkland Islands @RojoLoco said in Non-IT News Thread:
@coliver said in Non-IT News Thread:
You'll always be Boaty McBoatface to me.
Better they call it David Attenborough than some of the other "real person" choices. One was some kid w/ cancer... I mean, WTF is some sob story kid doing getting nominated to have a marine research vessel named after them???
yeah, especially since the girl died this week...like, do you really want a constant reminder of that, plus the fact hardly anyone knows the kid, and they did nothing for science...
I'm very anti-sob story. everybody has problems, that doesn't make you special.
It fills my heart with joy to know that Boaty McBoatface will be there alongside the big ship
-
@RojoLoco said in Non-IT News Thread:
@NattNatt said in Non-IT News Thread:
@coliver said in Non-IT News Thread:
You'll always be Boaty McBoatface to me.
One of the support vessels is being called Boaty McBoatface as a tribute
and it's being registered in the Falkland Islands @RojoLoco said in Non-IT News Thread:
@coliver said in Non-IT News Thread:
You'll always be Boaty McBoatface to me.
Better they call it David Attenborough than some of the other "real person" choices. One was some kid w/ cancer... I mean, WTF is some sob story kid doing getting nominated to have a marine research vessel named after them???
yeah, especially since the girl died this week...like, do you really want a constant reminder of that, plus the fact hardly anyone knows the kid, and they did nothing for science...
I'm very anti-sob story. everybody has problems, that doesn't make you special.
It fills my heart with joy to know that Boaty McBoatface will be there alongside the big ship
yeah same...like, you're basically riding the coat-tails of someone else's misery/reminding yourself of a shit time in your life over and over..? That's verging on a mental illness...
Yeah, a nice tribute at least...
-
@RojoLoco said in Non-IT News Thread:
@NattNatt said in Non-IT News Thread:
@coliver said in Non-IT News Thread:
You'll always be Boaty McBoatface to me.
One of the support vessels is being called Boaty McBoatface as a tribute
and it's being registered in the Falkland Islands @RojoLoco said in Non-IT News Thread:
@coliver said in Non-IT News Thread:
You'll always be Boaty McBoatface to me.
Better they call it David Attenborough than some of the other "real person" choices. One was some kid w/ cancer... I mean, WTF is some sob story kid doing getting nominated to have a marine research vessel named after them???
yeah, especially since the girl died this week...like, do you really want a constant reminder of that, plus the fact hardly anyone knows the kid, and they did nothing for science...
I'm very anti-sob story. everybody has problems, that doesn't make you special.
It fills my heart with joy to know that Boaty McBoatface will be there alongside the big ship
I'm in the same... wait for it... boat. But kidding aside, while I feel terrible for the girl who died and the family that had to go through it, the reality is is that everyone dies and everyone wants to be honoured or wants their family member honoured or whatever. Only a tiny, tiny percentage of people can get honoured in some special way and shouldn't it be the very few people who earned it?
-
-
-
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
Meanwhile, in Latvia: http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/offbeat/a-beaver-reportedly-took-a-man-hostage-in-latvia/ar-BBs7qSJ
A lot of hilarity comes out of the Baltic states, except Estonia, they're humourless.
-
Keeping it classy, Florida...
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/05/08/us/man-allegedly-kills-brother-over-cheeseburger/index.html
-
This post is deleted! -
-
I saw that, rebuilt with the original stones (mostly.)
-
http://technology.nasa.gov/patents
Good for NASA.
-
@coliver said in Non-IT News Thread:
http://technology.nasa.gov/patents
Good for NASA.
Sort of. Their site says that their patents "benefits American citizens" but then say that "companies can license them." So basically, they are just acting like any business selling patent licensing. It's not like they are opening their portfolio or using it to promote non-aggression. Really, as a part of the government, they shouldn't even be allowed to have patents and/or their patents should be automatically the property of the nation, not just NASA. I think they are falling short of even a minimally acceptable standard.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@coliver said in Non-IT News Thread:
http://technology.nasa.gov/patents
Good for NASA.
Sort of. Their site says that their patents "benefits American citizens" but then say that "companies can license them." So basically, they are just acting like any business selling patent licensing. It's not like they are opening their portfolio or using it to promote non-aggression. Really, as a part of the government, they shouldn't even be allowed to have patents and/or their patents should be automatically the property of the nation, not just NASA. I think they are falling short of even a minimally acceptable standard.
Since NASA only gets about half of one percent of the federal budget, why not let them try to make some more fundage?
-
@RojoLoco said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@coliver said in Non-IT News Thread:
http://technology.nasa.gov/patents
Good for NASA.
Sort of. Their site says that their patents "benefits American citizens" but then say that "companies can license them." So basically, they are just acting like any business selling patent licensing. It's not like they are opening their portfolio or using it to promote non-aggression. Really, as a part of the government, they shouldn't even be allowed to have patents and/or their patents should be automatically the property of the nation, not just NASA. I think they are falling short of even a minimally acceptable standard.
Since NASA only gets about half of one percent of the federal budget, why not let them try to make some more fundage?
Half of one percent? Damn it that's why my taxes are so high! Cancel the whole thing!
-
@RojoLoco said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@coliver said in Non-IT News Thread:
http://technology.nasa.gov/patents
Good for NASA.
Sort of. Their site says that their patents "benefits American citizens" but then say that "companies can license them." So basically, they are just acting like any business selling patent licensing. It's not like they are opening their portfolio or using it to promote non-aggression. Really, as a part of the government, they shouldn't even be allowed to have patents and/or their patents should be automatically the property of the nation, not just NASA. I think they are falling short of even a minimally acceptable standard.
Since NASA only gets about half of one percent of the federal budget, why not let them try to make some more fundage?
Because it isn't fundage, it's limiting what we have paid for only to big companies. It's stuff that the public has already paid for. If only big companies can access it, they are then using our tax dollars to withhold our own technology from us so that they can force us to pay for something we already paid for.
-
Sorry, this was what I meant to post not sure how I got the previous link.
Overall I agree with @scottalanmiller, NASA has often operated as an R&D department for big/wealthy companies. I would love to see their entire patent portfolio turn into public domain.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@RojoLoco said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@coliver said in Non-IT News Thread:
http://technology.nasa.gov/patents
Good for NASA.
Sort of. Their site says that their patents "benefits American citizens" but then say that "companies can license them." So basically, they are just acting like any business selling patent licensing. It's not like they are opening their portfolio or using it to promote non-aggression. Really, as a part of the government, they shouldn't even be allowed to have patents and/or their patents should be automatically the property of the nation, not just NASA. I think they are falling short of even a minimally acceptable standard.
Since NASA only gets about half of one percent of the federal budget, why not let them try to make some more fundage?
Because it isn't fundage, it's limiting what we have paid for only to big companies. It's stuff that the public has already paid for. If only big companies can access it, they are then using our tax dollars to withhold our own technology from us so that they can force us to pay for something we already paid for.
My point is that NASA is severely under funded. We can only afford to send our astronauts to the ISS by launching them from Chechnya. If NASA's budget remains the same, it will be Richard Branson and Elon Musk that put colonies on the moon or Mars (a necessity because we have severely f@cked this planet over).
-
@RojoLoco said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@RojoLoco said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@coliver said in Non-IT News Thread:
http://technology.nasa.gov/patents
Good for NASA.
Sort of. Their site says that their patents "benefits American citizens" but then say that "companies can license them." So basically, they are just acting like any business selling patent licensing. It's not like they are opening their portfolio or using it to promote non-aggression. Really, as a part of the government, they shouldn't even be allowed to have patents and/or their patents should be automatically the property of the nation, not just NASA. I think they are falling short of even a minimally acceptable standard.
Since NASA only gets about half of one percent of the federal budget, why not let them try to make some more fundage?
Because it isn't fundage, it's limiting what we have paid for only to big companies. It's stuff that the public has already paid for. If only big companies can access it, they are then using our tax dollars to withhold our own technology from us so that they can force us to pay for something we already paid for.
My point is that NASA is severely under funded. We can only afford to send our astronauts to the ISS by launching them from Chechnya. If NASA's budget remains the same, it will be Richard Branson and Elon Musk that put colonies on the moon or Mars (a necessity because we have severely f@cked this planet over).
Being afraid of "socialism" is what is going to destroy America's dominance, not a "liberal" conspiracy (not that you said this, but it's something I see said a lot), and I think the space program and education system are good signs of things to come. As things fall apart, it's easy to say "ah, see, these underfunded projects aren't working, therefore defund them completely."
Combine it with identity politics, which is essentially almost all it is now, it's no wonder some of the highest taxes in the world don't even go to anything useful, but rather keeping it running.
I think in addition to private entities on the Moon and/or Mars in the future, it may be governments which aren't afraid to take the same sort of risks America used to take, instead of being locked into an ideology which it never followed in the first place.
I don't see a future for America in the world, I don't see it collapsing or anything like that, but it certainly will become increasing irrelevant. I think it's a shame because there's a lot of creativity and extremely innovative approaches which have come out of America and would continue to, but it won't be funded, and the drop in creativity/productivity/output will be blamed on the same ol' things, and in response to this fantasy enemy, they'll make things worse yet again.
I can't imagine the latter half of the 21st century including America as much of anything other than a consumer of others output being incapable of creating its own, but hey, at least they didn't give in to "socialism" like they did in the 40s and 50s. It's shocking now even views, promoted by some, of FDR are that he was a terrible president who essentially created the great deprssion, and that the KKK is a "progressive and liberal" organisation.
So, I'll see you on the Moon, but I'm betting you wouldn't have gotten there on an American rocket.
-
@tonyshowoff said in Non-IT News Thread:
@RojoLoco said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@RojoLoco said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@coliver said in Non-IT News Thread:
http://technology.nasa.gov/patents
Good for NASA.
Sort of. Their site says that their patents "benefits American citizens" but then say that "companies can license them." So basically, they are just acting like any business selling patent licensing. It's not like they are opening their portfolio or using it to promote non-aggression. Really, as a part of the government, they shouldn't even be allowed to have patents and/or their patents should be automatically the property of the nation, not just NASA. I think they are falling short of even a minimally acceptable standard.
Since NASA only gets about half of one percent of the federal budget, why not let them try to make some more fundage?
Because it isn't fundage, it's limiting what we have paid for only to big companies. It's stuff that the public has already paid for. If only big companies can access it, they are then using our tax dollars to withhold our own technology from us so that they can force us to pay for something we already paid for.
My point is that NASA is severely under funded. We can only afford to send our astronauts to the ISS by launching them from Chechnya. If NASA's budget remains the same, it will be Richard Branson and Elon Musk that put colonies on the moon or Mars (a necessity because we have severely f@cked this planet over).
Being afraid of "socialism"
...YAWN. You lost me at "ism". Couldn't care less about politics.
