Slashdot Mirror

There was an article on the ABC show Catalyst last week. Apparently 802.11g/n has its roots in radio astronomy. You can see the boffins for real on these vodcasts: http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/tv/geo/catalyst/catalyst_2009_ep29.mp4 http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/tv/geo/catalyst/catalyst_2009_ep29.wmv

http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/2708730.htm

If you're lucky, this might work in your region.

Isn't this an indication that the system is severely flawed when someone pops up very late to the table and claims that they own it?

[...] Softwares and methods are too easy to re-invent all over again, and who can tell if a certain solution has been available before and then silently put to the grave for one reason or another?

Speaking of trolls, you are one yourself. Before you mod me into oblivion, hear me out.

In your post, you seem to claim that (1) CSIRO is a patent troll; and that (2) the patent is a software patent, thus is unethical. Both claims are patently false. (ha ha)

For starters, to address claim (1), CSIRO is not a patent troll. What is a patent troll? A patent troll is an organisation that exists only to accumulate patents (and make a profit off royalties). CSIRO is not a patent troll! They are an Australian Government-funded organisation that does real research. They actually researched and patented the technology back in the early '90s. (Source)

To address claim (2), the patent in question is not a software patent! Thus the entire basis for your argument...

Softwares and methods are too easy to re-invent all over again, and who can tell if a certain solution has been available before and then silently put to the grave for one reason or another?

...is completely baseless. The patent in question covers the duplication and redundancy of radio waves, so it is obviously not a software patent. Basically the patent covers the way modern WiFi works, in that instead of serial (just one radio wave with error correction), parallel and redundant streams are sent, which allows you to have much greater bandwidth without losing the reliability. (And yes, that source again)

Isn't this an indication that the system is severely flawed when someone pops up very late to the table and claims that they own it?

[...] Softwares and methods are too easy to re-invent all over again, and who can tell if a certain solution has been available before and then silently put to the grave for one reason or another?

Speaking of trolls, you are one yourself. Before you mod me into oblivion, hear me out.

In your post, you seem to claim that (1) CSIRO is a patent troll; and that (2) the patent is a software patent, thus is unethical. Both claims are patently false. (ha ha)

For starters, to address claim (1), CSIRO is not a patent troll. What is a patent troll? A patent troll is an organisation that exists only to accumulate patents (and make a profit off royalties). CSIRO is not a patent troll! They are an Australian Government-funded organisation that does real research. They actually researched and patented the technology back in the early '90s. (Source)

To address claim (2), the patent in question is not a software patent! Thus the entire basis for your argument...

Softwares and methods are too easy to re-invent all over again, and who can tell if a certain solution has been available before and then silently put to the grave for one reason or another?

...is completely baseless. The patent in question covers the duplication and redundancy of radio waves, so it is obviously not a software patent. Basically the patent covers the way modern WiFi works, in that instead of serial (just one radio wave with error correction), parallel and redundant streams are sent, which allows you to have much greater bandwidth without losing the reliability. (And yes, that source again)

Yes, a country without guns... That most be HORRIBLE!? There can be no high school shootings when there's no access to guns!

Yes, you're right. That's exactly why kitchen knives et al should be banned as well! Will someone please think of the children?!? http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/05/12/2568031.htm
http://www.pomsinoz.com/forum/news-gossip-chat/26459-stabbing-mountain-creek-high-school.html
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-42523133.html

A gun is a tool exactly like a knife is a tool, except of course for those who gleefully eat meat and yet seriously have no idea where it comes from.

Driving can be a particularly difficult subject area because it's generally governed by different state laws. Another problem is intentional actions verses unintentional actions and reckless verses careless defining the difference between an accident and assault in most cases. However, in general, the owner of the vehicle is the primary resource of liability and damages recovery and in some states like mine, it's encoded in law (except with rentals and leases then it's the contracting party).

Anyways, there are mitigating circumstances here that should be discussed. For one, the different states have different state laws but it could be possible that neither you or the company was issued a citation because the cop couldn't determine actual wrong doing. An example of this is where two cars on a country road with no center line collide and both drivers claim the other person cross the center of the road. Often neither driver is cited unless skid marks or witnesses can clearly show one person was in the wrong with the other in the right. But both drivers or vehicle owners would be responsible for the damages to the other vehicles (insurance requirements). Now if the cop couldn't show that you were speeding, driving recklessly, failed to obey some law or whatever, Lets say there was an oil slick at the intersection causing you to lose traction on what would otherwise be a normal and legal drive or perhaps you looked away and got distracted for a split second before it was too late to stop, you could have been spared the citation. Some states even limit liability when no personal injury has happened to just repair or replacement of the vehicle. Some states automatically require the Pizza shop to purchase and maintain insurance on all it's delivery drivers regardless of who owns the vehicle. The liability you didn't see was most likely already covered by the insurance.

Now also, if the company pays the damages, the liability is gone. The injured are not entitled to twice the damages because two parties might be liable. They are entitled to just the legal damages however it can be collected. Most states hold the company liable for damages from actions of the employee. This is a legal concept known as Respondeat superior (let the master answer). However, if the company folds before paying the damages, you can be included in the liability from your actions. It just happens that you weren't needed to be in your scenario.

Here are a few examples of where drivers- while driving company trucks, have been held personally liable for their actions. Not all of them are from America but it's a common thing around the world. Those are some pretty serious offenses where more then property damage happened. I know of two truck drivers in the US who were in accidents and one wasn't cited or sued or anything because it was someone else' fault. The other one ended up losing a lawsuit for over 2 million dollars and spent 18 months in jail because he was doing 20 MPH over the speed limit and someone died in the accident. Of course he doesn't have the 2.something million dollars, and his wife got the house several years before that.

Fructose actually is a hepato-toxin; now fructose is fruit sugar but we were never designed to take in so much fructose. Our consumption of fructose has gone from less than half a pound per year in 1970 to 56 pounds per year in 2003.

World's lamest rebranding in my book: The Australian icon Vegemite being renamed iSnack 2.0. Sounds like a joke, but...

This guys particular tale of developing this software, patenting it, going to court against Microsoft over the (now overturned) infringement, and present day life was actually recently covered in an episode of Australian Story. I remember watching it and not coming away particularly impressed with Ric Richardson by the conclusion.

I'll be honest and state I haven't read the patent in its entirety, and so I could be entirely wrong about this, but the impression I got throughout the entire show was that it's just a fairly generic patent that covers what most today would refer to as "Online Product Activation". Microsoft has used such a scheme since Windows XP as most Slashdotters would be aware, but so have countless other software programs and associated corporations for protecting their proprietary applications. To be fair, he did develop this technology quite some time ago before OPA was in any way a standard or at least regular affair, but that doesn't in my view legitimise it. I can't support patenting abstract program technologies.

I'll withold judgement until I actually bother to read or learn about the real contents of the patent in its entirety, but if it is of the generic type, and I distinctly got this impression, then I have to say I'd probably come down on Microsoft's side. Which is tough, as they don't exactly have a pristine past on responsible and ethical usage of software patents, but that doesn't permit me to be hypocritical, and this guy is nothing more than a "patent troll" if the patent is as vague as I've been led to believe.

That, and if you watch the particular episode (I'm unsure if it's available for streaming outside of Australia), you may well find that you pick up a certain vibe about this guy that he is quite patent happy, but I might just be overly biased.

This guys particular tale of developing this software, patenting it, going to court against Microsoft over the (now overturned) infringement, and present day life was actually recently covered in an episode of Australian Story. I remember watching it and not coming away particularly impressed with Ric Richardson by the conclusion.

I'll be honest and state I haven't read the patent in its entirety, and so I could be entirely wrong about this, but the impression I got throughout the entire show was that it's just a fairly generic patent that covers what most today would refer to as "Online Product Activation". Microsoft has used such a scheme since Windows XP as most Slashdotters would be aware, but so have countless other software programs and associated corporations for protecting their proprietary applications. To be fair, he did develop this technology quite some time ago before OPA was in any way a standard or at least regular affair, but that doesn't in my view legitimise it. I can't support patenting abstract program technologies.

I'll withold judgement until I actually bother to read or learn about the real contents of the patent in its entirety, but if it is of the generic type, and I distinctly got this impression, then I have to say I'd probably come down on Microsoft's side. Which is tough, as they don't exactly have a pristine past on responsible and ethical usage of software patents, but that doesn't permit me to be hypocritical, and this guy is nothing more than a "patent troll" if the patent is as vague as I've been led to believe.

That, and if you watch the particular episode (I'm unsure if it's available for streaming outside of Australia), you may well find that you pick up a certain vibe about this guy that he is quite patent happy, but I might just be overly biased.

I'm fairly certain there are no cheap and easy ways to drastically reduce fuel usage, or they would have thought of it by now.

They thought of it a looooong time ago. Time to start using it again!:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/01/22/2143897.htm

It's not a hypothesis: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/08/18/2659297.htm
Cultures vary obviously.
Also, the only known pig in Afghanistan (which is kept at the zoo for curiosity) was quarantined due to the swine flu scare. Semitic peoples do not eat pig.

"Easier example: taser guns can be fired at max, 3 times"

Tell that to the guy who died in North Queensland after being tasered 28 times.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/06/18/2601290.htm.

Every one of them left an environmental mark on the world around them.

Yes, but the environmental mark was, on average, a lot smaller than modern living. The Australian Aborigines had a way of life that was essentially unchanged for tens of thousands of years. The lifestyle consisted of finding water sources, hunting for food, and collecting wild growing berries and fruits from the land (not farming). Everything that they constructed was made from wood and other natural, biodegradable materials, from completely renewable and sustainable sources. Without intervention, they would probably have continued their lifestyle for tens of thousands of more years. Modern living is not sustainable - we are facing Peak Oil in the next few decades, we have an estimated 20 years or so of coltan supplies left, and we are using up many other limited resources relatively quickly. Our current lifestyle is based on consumption of resources that we can't replace. The Aborigine way of life would still be viable in 200 years, our Western way of life may well not be (people will do their best to adapt, but that adaptation may involve going back to a lifestyle of 200 years ago, with a strong focus on manual agriculture and labour).

Native cultures were famous for "slash and burn" agriculture

Many (most?) native cultures did not practice farming, instead living off wildly growing foods and hunting. Some Aborigines practiced "fire farming" in the last 5,000 years (after 40,000 of not farming in any sense of the word). Researchers suggest that this was sustainable "Aboriginal people's use of fire involved developing a self-sustaining mosaic of burnt and unburnt areas that reduced the damaging effects of fire". The fact that it was a stable way of life for 5,000 years suggests that it was more sustainable than the current fossil fuel based lifestyle.

Two girls update their facebook page to say they are trapped in a stormwater drain, rather than calling emergency services - full story at http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/09/07/2678945.htm?section=justin

For all intents and purposes it is a tax, however the way it is raised is important.

Here in Australia we have a similar institution. However rather than being funded by a specific fee it's income is provided from general taxation revenue.

This can pose a threat to it's independence by making it more beholden to the government of the day for it's revenue stream.

Australia places very low for Internet cost-effectiveness & reach
- with only costly broadband available to many, even in larger
cities, such as Adelaide, etc.

Very FEW ISP plans offer genuinely (ie, unshaped) "unlimited"
plans, and the ones who do either charge the moon for them
(ie, if faster than 1.5 Mb/Sec) -or- they have speeds at / under
the ADSL 1 speed of 1.5 Mb/Sec - ie, too slow to share in a
larger family or modest university student house.

International students - even some from wealthy Indian families
are giving even very fast Big Pond Cable plans Thumbs Down,
because they do not "shape" after the meager 60 GB data limit
(which, by the way, counts -both- downloaded -and- uploaded
data), but "fines" or "penalizes" any use that exceeds their limit
with a whopping huge Au $ 150 / GB "excess" fee.

So, while one pays about Au $ 130 / month for the first 60 GB,
one's 61st (and any thereafter it) -each- cost an extra Au $ 150 !!!

Coincidentally...

Telstra Big Pond is mentioned in this Australian program
which explores Bankruptcy in Australia, eg, for the banc-
rupcy that followed one of its customers' running up a
not-so-large bill for Internet services:

      http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/rn/podcast/2009/08/ats_20090831.mp3

While I do not condone running up unpayably large bills
Internet (or other) bills, I consider the fee for "excess"
data an obsolete holdover from Testra's (perhaps known
as Telecom, then) earlier days as a undisputed monoply.

(Now - with well over 90% of Australia's telecommunica-
tions market, including Internet services - Telstra is just
the "de facto" monopoly... not a legislated one.)

I - for one - am obliged to choose a capped Internet plan
- far slower and limited in allocated - as a hedge against
the risk of forced bankruptcy, because Australia's ISP's
have adopted Telstra's still outrageous and presently
untenable "excess" fees, across its non-capped plans.

There are many more like me...

Counterexample: Here's a reason to live in Canberra
                                                                [ Australia's Moscow in 2009 ]

Remember when life seemed - by all reports - 'good'
[only] in USSR-era Moscow - ie, for those permitted
to live there?

I am sure that Canberrans - who can pay as about $20 / mon
for even "unlimited" Off-Peak hours Internet (at 2 Mb/Sec)
feel well looked-after, perhaps like those Moscovites of
days gone by...

Nice counter argument, not that I agree but that you seem genuinely passionate about your freedom which is something I can respect.

I also admit I may have phrased the bit about those *particular* Queenslanders I disagreed with a little clumsily, although it was a particularly offensive conspiracy theory *those individuals* bought into.

Nevertheless, I'd love you to download and listen to the podcast. It makes some VERY interesting points, that says our individual freedom is best served by a flexible democratically accountable legislature NOT an unelected judiciary interpreting an ancient bit of paper with some rosy text.

Not only that, but a bill of rights can:-
* politicise the judiciary which are meant to be about interpreting law, not social policy, about which most lawyers know nothing
* promote an *absolute* formula of 'rights' as interpreted by our generation, and make them absolute for all time when 'rights' are often about social policies more appropriately held to account by the political process and democratic discussion of the day
* reflect the silly prejudices and blind spots of our day
* condense into silly summary issues that are far more complex and require weighty volumes of legal document to truly unravel. But agitators FOR a bill of rights don't want a legal document but a flowery rosy picture of the perfect society full of individual rights, yet don't give us mechanisms to get there.
* promote selfish policy at the expense of the public good, which if it suffers badly enough, can deteriorate to the point where the individuals in that public are more likely to be killed by violent crime.

Please, "Don't leave us with the bill!" Download the podcast here.

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/bigideas/stories/2009/2596855.htm

Someone who is capable of losing control during an argument and blowing someone away is equally capable of losing control and killing someone with a golf club or knife.
Yes, but it is easier for someone from the crowd to grab the knife/golf club. After our "Port Arthur massacre" a few years back our Federal government sponsored a massive gun buy back. Certain categories of self-loading weapons were banned and purchased off gun owners. It didn't stop some moronic Queensland country folk running up their web-rumours that the Fed's STAGED the massacre and killed all those people just to take our self-loading rifles, but there are always retards reacting to any good government decision. I had a friend at the Strathfield shootings. When someone is carrying a fast loading weapon on a rampage, it's just not as easy to disarm them as it might be if a few guys approached some lunatic holding a knife.

What you regard as 'paranoia' I regard as freedom. And there I was thinking sitting in a park reading a book with a nice coffee was a definition of freedom. If walking down the street with every 2nd person packing like some wild-west cliché is your definition of freedom, then you deserve your American constitution and bill of rights amendment. It just seems like some parts of your bill of rights has enshrined certain types of selfishness over the common good. Which is pretty much as our political theory has said it would. Listen to the following podcast that debunks Australia's need for a Bill of rights. We're doing fine, in fact BETTER, in that regard than you Americans.

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/bigideas/stories/2009/2596855.htm

All your lovely words on a bit of paper does not stop you invading countries on false pretexts (WMD's my arse!) or holding people for YEARS without trial. (Guantanamo bay, HELLO!?) And you're worried about our not being able to access a few kiddie porn sites? How about you get your OWN hypocritical and messed up house in order, and I'll do my best to make sure we don't vote in another sycophantic PM like John Howard that followed the USA's lead in so many illegal and anti-democratic ventures on the world stage.

Poland has an unfortunate history both during and directly after the war, extending into the 60s. The embarassing reaction to the relatively recent release of Jan T Gross's book (hereby incorporated by reference) in which the former Kaczynski, the former Primitive Polish Prime minister even tried to prosecute the author.

It's important to remember that during the war the Poles had much harder situations for rescuing Jews than in most other countries (you risked your entire family going to a concentration camp; elsewhere you risk only yourself and only prison) and many still did. It's also worth remembering that the reason Jews were in Poland was because they were historically treated better there than elsewhere. Poland is much further along coming to terms with and apologizing (though with reservations) for it's former anti-semitism (even Kaczynski has made efforts to return passports to the victims of the 60s) than a number of surrounding countries.

Essentially anyone who tells you that Poles are all good is a Holocaust revisionist. As is anyone who tells you that they are all bad.

In all cases where I referenced Wikipedia, all references in the page references are incorporated by reference as material to read. There; is that enough citations for you?

Poland has an unfortunate history both during and directly after the war, extending into the 60s. The embarassing reaction to the relatively recent release of Jan T Gross's book (hereby incorporated by reference) in which the former Kaczynski, the former Primitive Polish Prime minister even tried to prosecute the author.

It's important to remember that during the war the Poles had much harder situations for rescuing Jews than in most other countries (you risked your entire family going to a concentration camp; elsewhere you risk only yourself and only prison) and many still did. It's also worth remembering that the reason Jews were in Poland was because they were historically treated better there than elsewhere. Poland is much further along coming to terms with and apologizing (though with reservations) for it's former anti-semitism (even Kaczynski has made efforts to return passports to the victims of the 60s) than a number of surrounding countries.

Essentially anyone who tells you that Poles are all good is a Holocaust revisionist. As is anyone who tells you that they are all bad.

In all cases where I referenced Wikipedia, all references in the page references are incorporated by reference as material to read. There; is that enough citations for you?

Yes, insects figured it out. Here it was done with Argentine ants: http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/2008/04/03/2207179.htm

I'd just like to point out that on Monday night EST, Four Corners one of only a small handful of highly respected journalism shows in Australia, ran a piece on "Hackers" and "cyber-crime". I use inverted commas, because although this show is highly respected it "dumbed" down all the interviewees.

1. Essentially it was about hackers who DDOS'd multi-bet and destroyed the company.
2. Essentially it was about a dumb old guy who was a victim of a simple phishing scam.
3. Essentially it was about Australian Federal Police (AFP) who were on the TV show, quite literally laughing at the hackers.

Now, I agree with the first point. I do not have time or appreciation for hackers black mailing then botnet'ting a company to Bankruptcy.

But I do want to make the point: Dumb people get what they deserve (point 2), and dumb organizations who instigate other organization that are much smarter than themselves also get what they deserve. I think "pie in the face" in an understatement in this instance.

I think the only good news in this Article was that the database didn't contain the Tax numbers or Criminal Records of every Australian. I have the highest respect for AFP and the Australia Police Service.

From the local news, it reads as if the crack was in response to the police boasting that they had the crackers under control.

The ABC (Australian Broadcast Commission) did this for a live state -vs- state football match we have here. It was quite good. Measuring sentiment of who would win based on the positiveness or negativeness of 'tweets' (or whatever the fuck they're called).

Here

But a bigger reason for this is the fact that there are very very strict laws against corporate influence on politics in Australia. And there are similarly tough regulations surrounding what companies are allowed to do when it comes to advertising, donations, etc etc.

Unfortunately not strict enough.

http://www.abc.net.au/compass/s1358912.htm
Family First: A Federal Crusade
Should give slashdot readers some ideas about the decade of work that was put into subverting both of the main Australian parties.

Please lets vote Turnbull in, enough is enough (already)

If a Double Dissolution happens Turnbull (or another Lib, I doubt Turnbull could run) that might just happen, so long as no-one utters the words "work choices" they should get in.

Last time I checked, Turnbull's popularity was at record low: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/07/28/2638114.htm. It's going to take more that just not uttering "Work Choices"...

A similar product was presented on Australian TV) in 2005.

A similar product was presented on Australian TV) in 2005.

Currently I get mu news from multiple sources, normally at least 10 with emails from 3, add to that ugh stumbleupon and even this site http://www.newspapers24.com/ (12,000 sources). So what they envisaging subscriptions to all of them, oh yeah, like that's going to happen. There is absolutely zero chance that I will pay for any news subscription, specifically because I do not and will not be tied down to one or two corporate for extreme profit, advertising as news site.

Hate to burst Rupert's bubble but typical mass media sites have very low reliability when it comes to the truth, and Murdoch's news sites represent some of the biggest most disingenuous and fraudulent liars, who not only distort the news but they also fabricate and hide the news.

What Rupert Murdoch is really saying is that his lawyers will be going on the offensive, so watch those links, content extracts and even quotes from Fox sites, they even want to be able to charge access to their B$ commentators.

Interestingly enough my two favourite news sites are http://www.bbc.co.uk/ and http://www.abc.net.au/, so bwah hah hah hah (they both have already been paid for). As for Fox news http://www.fauxnewschannel.com/ is the only version I bother with and, I even rate M$'s MSN sites and their associated sites, way, way ahead of anything associated with - not really - "News Corp" (the corporate equivalent of the Soviet version of Pravda).

More accurately that person lied about a personal condition in order to profit and then wants more fame by public announcing the deceit and proclaiming that based upon their lack of intellect, that 'all' people are unaffected by electro magnetic radiation, why, because this uninformed liar says so.

Here is an interesting example to review http://www.abc.net.au/http/sfist/cellrad.htm this is a wonderful example of how lies survive and grow based upon greed. It would appear that corporations will absolutely not fund any research that might have negative affects on their bottom line, unless whoops, research they hoped would assist in sales does the opposite, then the pretend it doesn't exist.

So cook away people and just think about the noble sacrifice you make to promote other peoples profit margins. So light up that smoke, drink that alcohol, eat junk food, live on a cell phone, wireless broadcast you existence, a soak up all those wonderful chemicals released into your environment, you'll be fine, no really, believe it because how can anything that generates a profit for the rich be bad for you. ;D.

...for people engaged in petrol sniffing.

The part that is most amazing to me is that the software was was spitting errors the whole time the LEM was landing. It seems like that would make it awfully difficult to concentrate on landing when you're basically getting out-of-memory exceptions the whole way down. I think that they wound up landing with something like 17 seconds of fuel left. It's really a wonder we made it as far as we did on that technology.

In your earlier post, you did not give enough information to use my "google finger". What google terms do you derive from "In science, a 2 year old can be dated 14 million years old."? You said nothing about snails. It has been known for some time that radiocarbon dating of snails is unreliable because they ingest limestone and incorporate it into their shells. Tamers (1970) citing a 1963 study observed "The use of terrestrial shells for radiocarbon dating is generally regarded as giving unreliable results". Of course, your original assertion that "a 2 year old [snail] can be dated to 14 million years" is false, I notice you amended that to "thousands of year (sic) old" in your later post, which is in the right order of magnitude.

You can use your brain if you want to. There is more to it then just snails, that why I pointed to your google finger. Coal test wrong, oceanic fossils on mountain ranges test differently as the elevation goes up and so on. There is also the problem of people on here thinking that carbon dating goes back to prove a time line of the dinosaurs which is impossible.

The link you provided mentions nothing about your original assertions. It is a collection of quotes on the methods used for fossil dating.

Your right, I can't find the link I was presenting and don't know why the page is different now. Anyways, here are a few links that shouldn't change.
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/secrets/previous_seasons/case_firsthuman/index.html
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42940
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200503/s1331570.htm

I will probably find my link to the fossils not lining up or running through several periods of time like trees extending through several thousand years of sediment or diamond necklaces found in coal mines embedded in coal supposedly dating back to millions of years before man has been around.

I know your time is very valuable (for example, it takes an immense amount of time to learn the difference between waist and waste) but would it really take that long to back up your statements? You make outlandish claims, then when asked for evidence say "you are in charge of proving my claims" and "It's a widely believed fact!".

Actually, you made a false asertion so you show where the bible says only adam and eve was here. Everyone I know who has actually read a bible knows the bible says nothing of the sort. Either pony up or shut up about it. The only way I could disprove your so called widely believe fact is to paste the entire bible here. You know that's impossible so show your evidence.

Haven't been keeping up with the developments, have you?

This "laughably insane" idea is alive and well, as of two hours ago.

And with precisely the same reasoning - any time you disagree with the government... "but, child porn!". The filters won't work, they'll be trivial to defeat. "Child porn!". This is a top-secret blacklist without a scrap of accountability, confirmed to contain mostly adult pornography... "CHILD PORN!"... and multiple political websites "you don't support child porn do you?". Your top-secret list of the most evil content on the internet leaked, exactly as we told you it would "kiddy fiddler!". Even PG-rated material is on the blacklist... "PEDOPHILE!".

Ugh. And more depressingly, the tactic's working.

For Kids, Dr Karl Kruszelnicki's books would help to generate a fairly broad interest in science. His books are written in fairly short chapters on various topics which would help with kid's attention spans.
.
See wikipedia or Dr Karl's Page on ABC Science

Dr Karl has written a few books and publish papers, is on TV and Radio in Australia http://www.abc.net.au/profiles/content/s2193276.htm?site=science/k2

If anybody is interested the two inventors of this technology where recently on the ABC's show "New Inventors". The episode they were in is here (mp4 format). Or you can probably find the clip which has only their invention here.

If anybody is interested the two inventors of this technology where recently on the ABC's show "New Inventors". The episode they were in is here (mp4 format). Or you can probably find the clip which has only their invention here.

A report on Antarctic ice from this year concludes that "On average, west Antarctica is losing more ice than the east is gaining." To see the effects of global warming most clearly, you should look to the Arctic, where the warming is expected to be greatest. Climate models predict that that the temperatures in the Antarctic will change little due to the deep ocean currents there. It's no coincidence that we see exactly this predicted pattern of warming.

There are some interviews with Flynt on youtube, I got the info from a doco I watched on Australian TV. I had a "seniors moment" on the Afghan thing and was corrected by another poster below, the supreme court refused to hear his appeal and he lost.

Indeed. This is the primary reason I have never used Pandora and why I did end up using Last.fm. Pandora has never been accessible to me from where I've been in the world. With Last.fm no longer being free to listen on, options are limited, though, if you continue using scrobbling, you can still use Last.fm to find some decent recommendations to check out. Then you can turn to other sources to sample that music.

Though it isn't the same thing, in that you have no control over what you listen to, I'm going to go ahead and give a shout out to Triple J Radio, a radio station out of Melbourne, Australia that plays a wide range of music and very little top-40 crap.

If anyone is looking for legal free music, it is worth surfing around Archive.org and/or LegalTorrents. There are a lot of good independent artists out there giving their music away.

The point is, maybe the US are unable to build profitable nuclear power, but that doesn't make nuclear power unprofitable.

Except that even a Freemarket think tank and business magazines say that even China, France, India, and Russis doesn't have profitable nuclear power plants. Or do you not consider the Wall Street Journal, Forbes, or Fortune reputable.

Well what that article mainly states is that the capital costs are rising. While this might affect nuclear power plants more than many other energy production methods, the current economic situation probably corrects some of this. But anyway, capital costs aren't bound to one specific energy production type, all of them are affected.

The same stands for uranium mining. Just because the US has one/some mines that have issues,

And what of other nations? The US isn't the only nation that has had problems with uranium mining. Canada has had problems, so has Austrslia.

I'm not saying that uranium mines can't be a problem. Any mines can have huge ecological impact. However it can't be generalized to all of them.

I dug out the following page about nuclear power in Finland.

I have one question and one problem. The question is is nuclear power profitable in Finland without government subsidies? And the problem is is that that webpage is on the industry's website and is therefor biased. Sure, the links I provided are to websites that are biased as well, but they are biased to the free market and business. If there were money to be made in nuclear power, without government subsidies, they're be at the head of the line in support of nuclear power.

Uhm nuclear power is _not_ subsidised in Finland, so please, welcome to the ranks :).

Firstly, like Gospodin (547743), I looked at the headline story and smelled a rat in the methodology. Internal Rate of Return (IIR) (aka "Time Value of Money") works to 'normalise' the figures to "today-dollars". Not only is there an efficiency reduction, the value of $3,000 now is reduced by the rate of inflation over the period, which on face value was not counted by the article's author with the effect that the pay-back period is lengthened. I'll accept the figures by Gospodin (547743).

Secondly, I'm in Australia, where the Federal Government has just abruptly cancelled two rebate schemes and thereby markedly increased the cost of solar systems to consumers. There is some politics involved, but the consumer who was having a system installed in the last few weeks suddenly has a very significant real cost increase on the systems, and prospective customers are cancelling in great numbers. Great outcome!

The point is, maybe the US are unable to build profitable nuclear power, but that doesn't make nuclear power unprofitable.

Except that even a Freemarket think tank and business magazines say that even China, France, India, and Russis doesn't have profitable nuclear power plants. Or do you not consider the Wall Street Journal, Forbes, or Fortune reputable.

The same stands for uranium mining. Just because the US has one/some mines that have issues,

And what of other nations? The US isn't the only nation that has had problems with uranium mining. Canada has had problems, so has Austrslia.

I dug out the following page about nuclear power in Finland.

I have one question and one problem. The question is is nuclear power profitable in Finland without government subsidies? And the problem is is that that webpage is on the industry's website and is therefor biased. Sure, the links I provided are to websites that are biased as well, but they are biased to the free market and business. If there were money to be made in nuclear power, without government subsidies, they're be at the head of the line in support of nuclear power.

Falcon

This is an unprecendented situation for Iran,
Robert Fisk reports the special forces troops
have been protecting the demonstrators from militia's-much to his amazement.

Robert is probalbly the preeminent western jounalist in the Middle East. He is still wandering the streets of Iran reporting despite the danger.

The courage of these people in Iran is a lesson to us all in how to respond to government excess.
It's nice to see a people willing to put their lives on the line for principle, remember when westerners used to do that?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/06/17/2600571.htm

"And should they have been prosecuted? They formented a war ya know."

Good question. After the bushfires here in Australia there was an opinion columnist in the Sydney Morning Hearald calling for greens to be hung from lamposts and even went so far as to use the Green parties emblem. Even though she clearly broke our sedition laws I don't think the hatefull bitch should be prosecuted but I do think the SMH and the mass-media in general should disown her and her kind(NSFW).

Tell me when it actually gets into stores. A few years ago the news came out about sliver cells. (site: http://www.originenergy.com.au/1257/Photos-of-SLIVER-modules)(story transcript: http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/s1865651.htm) They are bendable and even transparent, with a similar efficiency of traditional cells. (http://www.originenergy.com.au/1234/About-SLIVER - down near the bottom of the page). Could someone please tell me where to buy a sliver cell?

If you've got issues with the timeline, please read my other post in this thread. The wars were not for entirely discrete reasons. Believe it or not, the past and context DID play a role in decision making.

Yes, in the past ignoring genocide and supporting genocidal dictators was acceptable. In the context of the Cold War and the rise of an Islamic Republic with ties to Russia, it was very realpolitik to let it go on. And by realpolitik, I mean pragmatically not giving a flying dicktwitter about the gassing of the Kurds as long as it didn't hurt them politically, which is why they kept it quiet.

But in the context of the War on Terror and a nation still reeling and frightened after being attacked, it was a perfect time to put some neo-con philosophy into practice. Iraq was their perfect stepping stone into the Middle East: weak, secular and thus ripe for democracy(they thought), and with some convenient excuses that they could play up to a terrified public. It is exactly because they were not a threat that they were chosen as the target. Notice in the Axis of Evil, the two actual threats are still untouched!

There was no good reason for this war, and invoking the name of twenty-year-old genocide that they never gave a shit about in the first place and still don't is simply bullshit. Using their invasion of Iran as a justification makes even less sense (which is why even the idiots in charge didn't use it). That's not even a hypothetical reason to invade! It justifies nothing. None of this comes close to being even a pretend justification for invading Iraq in 2003. Why did we have to punish Saddam for 20 year old crimes right then? How did that 20 year old crime make him an urgent threat? We all know it didn't.

So you're left saying that it's to "clean up" the mess from Gulf War 1... Because we didn't "finish the job" we have to go back, because... Well, that's interesting, because there's plenty of Cold War messes that we never have any intention of cleaning up, usually because trying will only make things worse. Which GHWB knew would be the case in Iraq. It's not that we didn't finish, it's that we were finished with what made sense. The invasion had nothing to do with cleaning up Cold War messes, the neo-cons don't care about that. They cared about trying out their theory that if you bombed a country into oblivion, Democracy would spring forth fully formed.

To the extent that it was still, hypothetically if not practically, the right thing to do, it was still the wrong time and the wrong people. Invading Iraq while Afghanistan was ongoing was retarded beyond belief, not having a post-invasion plan was equally stupid, hell the whole thing was idiotic. When/if we finish with Afghanistan and prove that we're capable of that "nation building" thing Rummy said he doesn't do, then was the time to start worrying about Iraq. Instead, we let Afghanistan backslide while our attention was turned. Idiocy!

That's a pretty interesting allegation. Where's the proof? I've never seen any.

Pfft. How about just about everyone who has left the administration saying so, from the Richard Clark to George Tenet to Colin Powel, the one who presented the evidence to the global community and regrets it? The administration wanted to invade, and finding a justification was more important than figuring out if it was the right or necessary thing to do, so they asked for cherry-picked evidence and ignored everything that didn't match what they already believed. Since the actual result matches this scenario in every way, what's so hard to believe?

Oh you mean you need documented proof? Well you might have to wait for a while until the documents can be received via FOIA request, like the proof that we knew Saddam was gassing Kurds and Ir