Slashdot Mirror

Percentage of US consumers using broadband 74%
http://www.forbes.com/sites/gr...

Percentage of US marketshare served by Comcast 25%
http://www.dailytech.com/Marke...

Percentage of Comcast customers on IPV6 30%
RTFS

Percentage of people that use Google 100%
http://google.com/

ASSUMING NOBODY ELSE HAS IPV6 EXCEPT COMCAST 5.5% PRODUCT

Google says 4%

Some higher altitude cities in the US show lower average performance in Luminosity's tests. http://www.dailytech.com/Lumos... Though Provo and Ft. Collins are doing OK.

Myhrvold's role was essentially to be the futurist at Microsoft. He was their forward thinker and gave them the geeky excitement that allowed them to make many of the right choices throughout the '80s and '90s. Ignoring him and concentrating instead of the business and litigation-driven path resulted in the gradual slide to the barely relevant, spiteful and fading dinosaur, shedding workers and market share we're saddled with today.

I'm at work, so haven't had the time to properly read the articles et al. However, it's been known for years that MS *have* been doing a lot of serious research with talented people- the research they needed to avoid the position they're now in. The problem is that the vast majority never made its way out for short-term business and political reasons, and they're reaping that failure now. Here's a post I originally made in early 2012 in turn referencing someone else's *very* informative comment (itself dating back to 2010):-

"It's been commented on for *years* that Microsoft have labs stuffed full of very clever and innovative people, yet still seem to end up churning out mediocre, uninspiring crap. One explanation is that internal politics are responsible- this article comment from someone who claims to have worked at Microsoft (click link for full version) is informative:-

There have been many instances at Microsoft where genuine innovations have sat on the shelf or been half-heartedly brought to market [.. In 2002 MS had..] a prototype smartphone that had (essentially) all the useability features of an iPhone, including a trick interface, accelerometer and multi-touch. It was cobbled together and not very pretty, but as a proof of concept, it worked. Yet it never saw the light of day. Why?

Brass’s tablet project was well advanced in the labs too, but somehow never got the traction it deserved internally. [..]

Microsoft has a Darwinian internal structure. Each business unit has to fight for scarce resources, - they compete with each other and only the strong survive. Succeeding in that environment involves more than just having a good (or even great) product or project. Unless you’re Office or Windows, you have to build symbiotic relationships with other business units (preferably the big guys) just to ensure your survival. You have to make their success (at least partially) dependent on yours

[..Secondly..] in its youth, Microsoft could afford to hire only the best and the brightest. Smart people are flexible and innovative in their approach and this reflects in the company’s culture. As the enormous growth of the late 90s took hold, we couldn’t keep up with the demand for more employees and as a consequence, the quality bar dropped. We started employing people who were merely good, not outstanding. These new people were less flexible, less able to handle organisational ambiguity and less passionate about what they were doing. They started to build bureaucracy as a safety-net and as a structure in which they were comfortable operating. Goodbye to dynamic decision-making and rapid market responses.

Anyway, bottom line; the "smart" people starting work there know (or must be really, *really* blinkered not to know) of this reputation, so why are they working there? Silly money?

I'll grant that they came up with Kinect recently, which was pretty innovative (albeit as a response to the Wii controller) and smacked of research turned into a workable product. But that was pretty recent (so couldn't have inspired any but the newes

Myhrvold's role was essentially to be the futurist at Microsoft. He was their forward thinker and gave them the geeky excitement that allowed them to make many of the right choices throughout the '80s and '90s. Ignoring him and concentrating instead of the business and litigation-driven path resulted in the gradual slide to the barely relevant, spiteful and fading dinosaur, shedding workers and market share we're saddled with today.

I'm at work, so haven't had the time to properly read the articles et al. However, it's been known for years that MS *have* been doing a lot of serious research with talented people- the research they needed to avoid the position they're now in. The problem is that the vast majority never made its way out for short-term business and political reasons, and they're reaping that failure now. Here's a post I originally made in early 2012 in turn referencing someone else's *very* informative comment (itself dating back to 2010):-

"It's been commented on for *years* that Microsoft have labs stuffed full of very clever and innovative people, yet still seem to end up churning out mediocre, uninspiring crap. One explanation is that internal politics are responsible- this article comment from someone who claims to have worked at Microsoft (click link for full version) is informative:-

There have been many instances at Microsoft where genuine innovations have sat on the shelf or been half-heartedly brought to market [.. In 2002 MS had..] a prototype smartphone that had (essentially) all the useability features of an iPhone, including a trick interface, accelerometer and multi-touch. It was cobbled together and not very pretty, but as a proof of concept, it worked. Yet it never saw the light of day. Why?

Brass’s tablet project was well advanced in the labs too, but somehow never got the traction it deserved internally. [..]

Microsoft has a Darwinian internal structure. Each business unit has to fight for scarce resources, - they compete with each other and only the strong survive. Succeeding in that environment involves more than just having a good (or even great) product or project. Unless you’re Office or Windows, you have to build symbiotic relationships with other business units (preferably the big guys) just to ensure your survival. You have to make their success (at least partially) dependent on yours

[..Secondly..] in its youth, Microsoft could afford to hire only the best and the brightest. Smart people are flexible and innovative in their approach and this reflects in the company’s culture. As the enormous growth of the late 90s took hold, we couldn’t keep up with the demand for more employees and as a consequence, the quality bar dropped. We started employing people who were merely good, not outstanding. These new people were less flexible, less able to handle organisational ambiguity and less passionate about what they were doing. They started to build bureaucracy as a safety-net and as a structure in which they were comfortable operating. Goodbye to dynamic decision-making and rapid market responses.

Anyway, bottom line; the "smart" people starting work there know (or must be really, *really* blinkered not to know) of this reputation, so why are they working there? Silly money?

I'll grant that they came up with Kinect recently, which was pretty innovative (albeit as a response to the Wii controller) and smacked of research turned into a workable product. But that was pretty recent (so couldn't have inspired any but the newes

"Foxconn said its new "Foxbots" will cost roughly $20,000 to $25,000 to make, but individually be able to build an average of 30,000 devices."

So approximately $1.2-$1.5 of the cost of an iPhone will be eaten up by a robot that can only make 30,000 devices before having to be replaced? For some reason, I think Foxconn is probably even better at the financial math than that, and the quote seems so wrong in both a factual error and a grammatical error sense I actually had to RTFA (I hate you, redletterdave) and sure enough the quote is direct from the Businessweek article (I hate you even more, Dave Smith of Businessweek). However, reading 5 other variations of the same announcement, not one of them uses the same phraseology, which makes me wonder where the quote actually came from. Dailytech, for example, says that Foxconn will have 30,000 Foxbots installed by the end of the year and makes no mention of the speed at which they can build anything (which makes sense, since the robots are so simple- basically pick and place- that no one robot could build an entire device). Another website, Regator, gives the same clue, saying they already have 10K Foxbots, and plan to install another 20K by the end of the year.

...

So if Russia really wanted their own chips, like their own design, their own production, and all that, and wanted said chips to be on the same level as modern chips from Intel, IBM, etc, well they'd have to spend a ton of money, and a good amount of time.

...

All is as you say. But your conditional statement reveals why your argument is irrelevant.

Why do the Russian chips need "to be on the same level as modern chips from Intel, IBM, etc,"? They aren't trying to compete against those companies. They aren't selling them on the open market. They are simply using them of desktop computers and servers in the government, by government purchasing decision.

Commercial processors reached the level that they can fulfill all the real functional needs of the vast majority of desktop applications years ago. A decade old chip running decade old office software can do everything nearly everyone working in an office needs to do as well as the latest and "greatest". Microsoft, Intel, and the PC makers now work in quasi-collusion to force "upgrades" on businesses that do not need them or want them to keep the revenue flowing, but with diminishing success at doing so. Witness the fact that 28% of PCs still run Windows XP despite facing the artificial pressure of support termination by Microsoft, and not being able to buy any XP computers for years.

The advantages of using the newest chips have little or nothing to do with supporting the core office functions for which they are purchased - it is to run "eye candy", power saving (not an issue Russia cares about), or applications that actually harm typical office productivity.

The issue is a bit more complicated for servers - but most server applications only require a tiny fraction of modern chip capabilities, which is why high degrees of virtualization are now common. The Russians will have to use more server chips, but each app will still run fine.

They probably mean limitations on supercomputers, hence the need for silicon photonics interconnects. And we all know that NAND endurance is going down as it gets smaller.

It sounds great but they need to start selling memristors already. HP/Hynix have delayed memristors to avoid killing off Hynix's NAND too early, and that's bullshit. Now Crossbar may beat them to the post-NAND market with Crossbar RRAM.

...apparently T-Mo is now America's fastest growing carrier. So maybe they're on to something.

I've already posted this below but just to repeat it so this 5% nonsense doesn't gain any more traction...

I'm afraid you underestimate the staggering power of the grand daddy of all nuclear power plants, the one that rises and sets each day. Covering some tiny percentage of the uninhabited portions of the Sahara for example, approximately the size of Wales, would supply Europe's baseload, and that's with relatively inefficient PV cells.

http://www.dailytech.com/EU+Of...

I'm afraid you underestimate the staggering power of the grand daddy of all nuclear power plants, the one that rises and sets each day. Covering some tiny percentage of the uninhabited portions of the Sahara for example, approximately the size of Wales, would supply Europe's baseload, and that's with relatively inefficient PV cells. http://www.dailytech.com/EU+Of...

Re Somebody would have caught the unusual requests.
If a gov wants to sit between you and your site, the logs of your site would reflect whatever the gov wants.
They have man in the middle, fake sites and efforts like TURBINE would show very little skilled, attentive admins.
http://www.dailytech.com/Tax+a...

You mean like this?
Posting anon. to preserve mods.

He DID publish them.

http://www.dailytech.com/ATT+A...

Quite a bit further, actually. See here.

Apple does not.

http://www.dailytech.com/Apple...

"Apple won't pay to have their products featured, but they are more than willing to hand out an endless amount of computers, iPads and iPhones," said Gavin Polone, producer of HBO's Curb Your Enthusiasm. "It's kind of a graft situation."

NSA certainly bugs ethernet sockets – see http://images.dailytech.com/ni... .
The amount of destruction on motherboard teaches us a thing: GCHQ destroyed elements they KNOW could be used for storing data/snooping. So we say ”morons”, but they actually are ahead of us in spying. And they expect other intelligences to have similar capacities as NSA/GCHQ.

This really isn't any different from the common practice of including satellite radio, usually bundled with other car options, and charging a monthly fee to keep it enabled.

It also makes sense in cases where the vast majority of consumers would opt to include a feature and it's cheaper to include it on all cars than manufacture different parts and add options to your assembly line just for a couple cars. Case in point: Tesla included 60KWh batteries on its 40KWh models and software limited them to 40KWh. (reference: http://www.dailytech.com/Tesla...). At a later time, consumers can pay to unlock the extra capacity.

It actually could be useful to enable features at a later time - you might move to a cold state and really wish your car had heated seats. If it really does increase costs so much, there will certainly be some car manufacturers who opt to save costs and we can buy from them instead.

The device as a layer of physical hardware in a USB device has been posted as a pic as part of the COTTONMOUTH I and II effort.
http://www.dailytech.com/Tax+and+Spy+How+the+NSA+Can+Hack+Any+American+Stores+Data+15+Years/article34010.htm (scroll down for the slide)
What it sends out to?
The usual new spy "rocks" or some other "network"
http://rt.com/usa/spy-rocks-lockheed-usa-771/
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/jan/19/fake-rock-plot-spy-russians

Ok, found it. Elan 2003, of Taipei. Initial Apple contact, Elan maintains that Apple "went around them" via Vancouver (Fingerworks 2005), and Elan responded by hooking up with Android. That's as deep as I can go for now. It's pretty short jump from Taipei to Vancouver in the tech world. http://www.dailytech.com/Apple+is+Forced+Into+MultiTouch+Settlements+Tastes+its+Own+Medicine/article23676.htm

Do you know why Apple has that stupid "whole screen slides to the side" unlock now? Because someone put a patent on "slide to unlock"

That wouldn't by any chance be, well, Apple.. would it?
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/10/25/apple_unlock_patent/
http://www.theverge.com/2012/10/10/3479550/apple-expands-patent-coverage-on-slide-to-unlock-feature

Though their effort to put it to legal use in Europe fizzled.
http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/04/04/apples-slide-to-unlock-patent-invalidated-in-german-litigation

Sure, maybe somebody else popped up with some prior art (like, say, http://www.dailytech.com/Analysis+Neonode+Patented+SwipetoUnlock+3+Years+Before+Apple/article24046.htm ) - but forcing Apple to change theirs just as dozens of others were forced to abandon or pre-emptively stay away from the slide-to-unlock slider button type deal entirely for years seems like just deserts.

Of course it's a stupid patent no matter who 'owns' it, or any variant of it.

There have only been maybe 5000 of them made and the development is at what now over 5 years?

25k as of December, actually.

25k@$100k per gives you $2.5B in sales. Plus I just read an article about Tesla selling ZEV credits to the other manufacturers...

I can remember them licensing Honda for the batteries and Lotus for their Elise design both of which basically weren't good enough for their requirements.

The Elise frame was a deliberate design decision - it allowed them to release a car without having to design a body, allowing them to concentrate on the drive train, battery packs, etc... Also, I thought it was the opposite way round on the batteries?

Step 1: motor, battery pack, controller, interior (Roadster)
Step 2: As step 1 but the frame too, spread of charging stations/support infrastructure (Model S)
Step 3? Build a battery factory...

Which, from an academic perspective, is pretty cool.

Although we're talking about mathematically scarce numbers that have no intrinsic value, so they only have value because we believe they have value. So they're only non-traditional-fiat in the sense that they're scarce, not that they're artificial. That makes them moderately less appealing than a stock share. The currency is designed to deflate infinitely, too, and has a fixed, regressive production rate to a fixed quantity. And the designer is anonymous, which is totally not suspicious. There's no way he has 100,000 personal bitcoins that he's just waiting to sell off as soon as the price hits some ridiculous level. I mean, that would be like a pyramid scheme!

And it's decentralized... by using peer-to-peer networking to track transactions. Yeah, they just give full access to the world database of bitcoin transactions. That's totally not frightening when the database isn't FDIC insured. And as time progresses, the resources the full clients require only increases. Network latency is already a problem. Should the currency really take off, it's going to take a lot of money to operate a Bitcoin node. Well, perhaps some corporate or government interest will run it. But hey, no central bank!

But even assuming none of those problems happens... why should the average individual use it? To replace PayPal? Sure. Everybody hates PayPal. Other than that, I don't get it. I mean, except for scarcity, what's the real difference to me as a consumer between BitCoin and, say, Microsoft Points? Or WoW gold? Why would I work in exchange for BitCoins instead of USD or Euros other than purely political reasons?

Some more http://www.dailytech.com/Tax+and+Spy+How+the+NSA+Can+Hack+Any+American+Stores+Data+15+Years/article34010c.htm

I wonder how much of the occasional health panic that springs up around wifi - and indeed other technologies - can actually be attributed to the high pitched hums that can be emitted by badly manufactured devices.

It may be in your case, but I don't think that's the cause in most cases. I can also hear very high pitched sounds (transformers, bats), and while they can prevent me from sleeping, they don't make me sick otherwise.

I think the more general mechanisms at work are mass hysteria and the nocebo effect (placebo's evil twin), as evidenced by this story.

Cables are dangerous.

http://www.dailytech.com/Apple+Takes+a+Page+From+Monsters+Book+Offers+50+Thunderbolt+Cable/article22041.htm

That nice looking molded CAT6 cable could have any number of surprises inside...

Chang'e 1 was estimated cost CN¥1.4B ($230M USD); Chang'e 2 cost CN¥900M ($148.2M USD). The cost of the Chang'e mission has not yet been revealed

It's actually quite an interesting article. I'm still wondering about your earlier statement. How would you map the underground structure of the moon without actually going there? To my knowledge ground-penetrating radar only works in close proximity to the ground being examined.

http://boingboing.net/2009/01/06/naughty-speed-camera.html

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2008/12/dont-like-speed-cameras-use-them-to-punk-your-enemies/

I know someone who works for an Australian company. They put in a tender for part of the NBN project but IBM won the contract at almost twice the price. IBM then subcontracted the work back to the Australian company. It's strange - Australians seem to underestimate the abilities of their own technical community, and as slaves to community perception Australian governments are particularly bad for this bias. It seems to be part of the national psyche that we're only about agriculture and mining, and local tech comes a poor second to overseas offerings. It's no wonder we're judged an easy mark and regularly overcharged for software.

I did say "average", thereby excluding most of us here.

And, "eww" to that mental image.

On the bright side, apparently masturbation has many health benefits. ;-)

The guy "looking at his GPS" said, "I can't look at a map? What's the difference between looking at a paper map and looking at a map on the phone?"

Seriously? He thinks it's OK to do this?! Applying eyeliner, fiddling with phones, swatting at flying ants, switching out 8-tracks, refilling your coffee mug from a Thermos. All of these are dangerous/stupid to do while driving; I've done at least two of them at highway speeds. And I knew damn well I should have just pulled over first. The difference with texting is that you have people who do it habitually -- even continuously -- while driving. That is a big problem.

it's clear to me that the issue isn't with science itself, or how it's "done" in some sort of ontological sense.

I disagree with the terminology here, because while "science" never changes the politics around what is approved for teaching has always been political. I believe that's much of the concern with shutting down blog posts, as is discussed very well here. If a person points out a typographical error, it's beneficial to the article. If a person points out a different study with different results, it is also beneficial to the science. Shutting down comments removes both of those possibilities.

the issue is with how people perceive science, and how they perceive others' perceptions of science to be. These meta-perceptions are really what the whole issue is about.

I disagree with this also, because people believe what they are taught. I'm giving an extreme point here intentionally, so don't be offended. You and I might be able to have a lengthy and healthy discussion on the merits of a creator from a Philosophical perspective. That is science, like it or not, though people tend to jump to immediately defending their beliefs (which is why I italicized "might"). We can each have competing theories, and we can each present our points. Today, it's nearly impossible to have a rational discussion on the topic because people have only been taught one side of the debate, in addition to all of the propaganda to support their beliefs. If people were taught to recognize fallacy and taught to be neutral in beliefs until their are no questionable facts remaining we could have such a debate. (I realize that facts are limited in this discussion, the extreme is being used to amplify the point).

If you only read one persons point and never question that point, you are not doing science. You are being propagandized. Unless of course you are talking about very basic things, like 2+2=4 which are unquestionable facts. Point being, complex science requires complex debate and study.

For a comment to further scientific discourse, not only does it have to contribute a constructive thought, but others need to perceive it as constructive and build further on it. Web comments are often exactly the opposite - people make a mental impression of your comment without fully trying to comprehend (or even read!) it, and respond based on that. So you get what we have here today. Trolls, shills, pedants, and grammar nazis.

Actually, my favorite comments are at the right-wing rag Daily Caller. Every single comment thread devolves into one party accusing the other party of being closet democrats.

That statement I agree with. If a post is ad homimen, off topic, flaming, trolling, or factually incorrect a moderator should remove the comment. As hinted at, I don't see an issue with the first person pointing out a spelling or grammar error. Redundant corrections could also be removed. This is what moderators are supposed to do.

This does bring up a question of paying moderators for sites like PopSci, but I don't see that as a huge issue. If the company can't afford moderators, hell they could ask the community to assist. I'm sure that they could vet a couple volunteers and occasionally check to make sure they are not abusing moderator powers. It works for Wiki pretty well doesn't it?

To me, I'm concerned that people are already being propagandized too much. Look at the current Global Warming debate and be amazed at how little people actually know, and how they simply repeat propaganda. We need more science in the world, and less propaganda. Offering open debate allows us to question the arguments and selective facts. If opens the doors for people to question who is funding certain "scientific reports" and "scientific data".

http://www.dailytech.com/Tesla+Motors+Successfully+Fights+Off+Auto+Dealership+Assault+in+North+Carolina/article31854.htm

"A North Carolina House committee denied a bill that tried to stop Tesla from selling directly to consumers

Tesla Motors landed a major win in North Carolina this week when the state threw out a bill that attempted to block the automaker from selling its vehicles directly to consumers. "

I'm sorry to have to say that, but that is a very ignorant and claptrap post. Maglev trains by design cannot be derailed. Even the non-superconducting Transrapid by Siemens (Germany) that commutes between Shanghai Airport and Downtown cannot leave his tracks instead of catastrophic failure of the whole track. That's because the tracks are shaped like this c-× so the magnets push the "c"-shaped guides away from the "-"-shaped track in every direction. The worst that can happen is that the "c" hits the track in which case the train simply brakes because of friction. In the case of the L0, consider this picture: http://static4.businessinsider.com/image/51b73df36bb3f78825000002-2238-1678-400-/japan-maglev-train-may-2010.jpg Yes, the track is almost straight. No, there are no sharp curves as in Spain, else it couldn't go that fast. For a more informed article with some tech specs, check here: http://www.dailytech.com/Japanese+Maglev+Train+Begins+Full+Speed+Testing+at+310+mph/article33281.htm Please don't ask questions just for the sake of asking something. A very academic thing to do, but trust me, everybody hates the frustrated postdocs who do this.

Boycott Netflix. They don't want the business, don't give them money. Send the message DRM is unacceptable.

Is Netflix the right target though? What makes you think they want to have DRM in their product? The answer is, they don't. Netflix was forced by its content providers to use DRM.

Setting aside the debate around the value of content protection and DRM, they are requirements we must fulfill in order to obtain content from major studios for our subscribers to enjoy.

Netflix is not the only online delivery service forced to use DRM. Lovefilm, which operates in the UK was also forced to switch from using flash to Silverlight by the studios.

We’ve been asked to make this change by the Studios who provide us with the films in the first place, because they’re insisting – understandably – that we use robust security to protect their films from piracy, and they see the Silverlight software as more secure than Flash.

I agree that as customers, we should not have DRM forced on us. And yes, a consumer boycott is a way to show our displeasure. But to be consistent, target the true masterminds behind the DRM scheme, the movie studios by refusing to watch their movies on any medium. Consider this -if you boycott and kill Netflix, the studios will be happier because they earned more from the old system pre-Netflix.

Now, contrast the studios' dismal quarterly numbers with Netflix's performance during the same period. The video-rental service, which mails DVDs to subscribers as well as streams films and TV shows over the Web, added 3 million subscribers in the quarter--largely on the growing popularity of its streaming service, the company said.

It's not an apples-to-apples comparison, but it shows significant numbers of consumers are moving to Netflix, a service that all but eliminates the need to own movies.

Yeah... tell that to the operators of all the compromised *nix systems over the years... Linux is so secure and so is osx. Windows had a *LOT* of security issues, the most exploited one in 1999 being the fact that email (outlook and outlook express) ran javascript, and put it in the *LOCAL* (unrestricted) security domain as opposed to say *UNTRUSTED*. That was 14 years ago... they have gotten a lot better. At this point, between Windows, OSX and Linux, I would probably put Windows slightly ahead. Most Windows exploits come from popular 3rd party apps/plugins (Acrobat, Flash, Java) and not so much the OS, or core parts.

With Linux, you *could* argue that a flaw in OpenSSL isn't an OS flaw, but considering windows is a lot more than the kernel, and most distros will use OpenSSL it can be included. They all have their flaws. Windows is more targeted as a numbers game... 90% of the users, running with 95% compatibility across versions... vs. OSX 10-13% of users with 85% compatibility, or Linux which has maybe 30% compatibility between differing systems. Linux attacks are precisely targeted, Windows are scatter-gun any exploit you can find, push it out, and OSX is mostly targeted via Trojans inside pirated software releases.

It is emphatically *not* that they are more secure... also, you do *NOT* need root for an effective exploit.. most user systems only have a single user account, and as long as that account is compromised, you have all you need.

Sorry, but HTC hasn't been able to keep up with demand for the One

Sorry, but that's because they had manufacturing issues with the camera, not because demand is insanely high. In fact, sales were below expectations, causing them to lose a rank or two in the smartphone market, and the One's sales are actually expected to drop off sharply in the next quarter, which would lead to an even greater decline. The One had a lot of promise, but has failed to deliver on it.

At this point I'm not sure you can actually yank funds from the NSA. Their budget is secret, and they have as secret court system who's records are secret that they could use to overrule pretty much any funding provision.

The NSA has positioned itself completely out of congressional and executive oversight. [snip]

Wait, isn't the NSA (and other three-letter alphabet soup of organizations) part of the executive branch anyway? Doesn't the POTUS have a say as to what's going on?

Perhaps the problem isn't that they're out of oversight - it's that they've completely corrupted it - spying on some companies (foriegn and domestic) to help their competitors who play ball - doing the same for Congress critters, and I bet they're not above threatening the POTUS himself if the soft-intimidation doesn't work (remember the outing of the MARINE1's specs? [1] ) ... hey a sitting President has been assassinated before - and we have no idea who did it. Surprised it took The agencies chartered with his protection were "above reproach" of course.

We have a shell of democracy over a seething cesspit of crony capitalism, backstabbing and all the dirty things we claim only happens in "corrupt 3rd world toilets".

[1] http://www.dailytech.com/Defense+Contractor+Leaks+Obamas+Presidential+Helicopter+Plans+to+Iran/article14446.htm

Whoa, easy on the vitriol there, bub. Don't let bad design cloud your judgment of the actual case. It matters not how badly the AT&T folks implemented security (or not) on their system. The fact is Weev "stole" it (copied without permission) and then stupidly publicized it. What's more, he "shared it with various interested parties."

If AT&T had left printouts of highly personal data in a dumpster and someone had found it right there, then I don't think you would've had a problem fingering the culprit. AT&T, right? Dumpster diving would certainly not get someone 41 months in the slammer (e.g California v Greenwood).

In other words, it was right there in the open. Hence, the blame lies squarely with AT&T for not properly securing their customers' private information.

As far as I'm concerned, anyone calling their group Goatse Security needs to be punished anyway. I'm not interested in trying to explain to my 6yo what the fuck that means.

Your obvious lack of parenting skills is not his responsibility.

Whoa, easy on the vitriol there, bub. Don't let bad design cloud your judgment of the actual case. It matters not how badly the AT&T folks implemented security (or not) on their system. The fact is Weev "stole" it (copied without permission) and then stupidly publicized it. What's more, he "shared it with various interested parties."

As far as I'm concerned, anyone calling their group Goatse Security needs to be punished anyway. I'm not interested in trying to explain to my 6yo what the fuck that means.

More like this: http://www.dailytech.com/Lockheeds+F22+Raptor+Gets+Zapped+by+International+Date+Line/article6225.htm

That may have helped ice the unanimous SCOTUS decision, but that's not what the lawsuit was really about. The lawsuit was about planting unauthorized Monsanto seeds, pure and simple. Monsanto is constantly suing farmers who never buy or plant any kind of Monsanto seeds merely because some Monsanto seeds show up in their fields from cross-pollination. In some of these cases Monsanto is even suspected of causing the cross-pollination so they can bring a lawsuit.

http://www.dailytech.com/Monsanto+Defeats+Small+Farmers+in+Critical+Bioethics+Class+Action+Suit/article24118.htm

There's a big fight going on between organic farmers and Monsanto over this issue, because the organic farmers don't want the Monsanto seed at all.

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/feb/17/local/la-me-gs-organic-farmers-sue-monsanto-to-stop-patent-suits-20120217

A quick google search shows dozens of articles about this.

https://www.google.com/search?q=monsanto+cross+pollination+lawsuit

Apple is FAR less secure and Windows.

http://www.dailytech.com/Apples+OS+X+is+First+OS+to+be+Hacked+at+This+Years+Pwn2Own/article21097.htm

transactions cannot be modified

Didn't at least one exchange deal with a rash of compromised Bitcoin accounts (which spurred a crash in the value) by rolling back transactions? Yes, they did. How is that not modifying transactions?

If someone steals US dollars out of my wallet, they're gone. If someone breaks into my bank account and transfers money out, I may get reimbursed but the money that I am compensated with more then likely comes from the bank itself; no one waves a magic wand and takes the money back from the thief.

I have feeling that Bitcoin is secure the same way Mac OS X was "secure" for a long time: because there wasn't enough of a profit motive for attacking it. The more people that flock to Bitcoin, the more bad guys will start to work on breaking it to their advantage. (I'm happy to be proven wrong, though.)

company will sue the cancer patients

You might by trying for cynicism, but this is just all too similar to cases already won by Monsanto

The cell phone guys already know this - people report symptoms even when the tower isn't powered on.

One day, they'll come after you. She was ordered to stop singing, but eventually (because of backlash) she was able to sing. That doesn't mean that you can play the radio in public, though. Read the follow up article carefully.

You forgot your sarcasm tag. Just in case you were actually serious.

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2012/07/tapp-j10.html
http://www.dailytech.com/Report+Obama+Administration+to+Spy+on+Citizens+Online+to+Fight+Terror/article19734.htm
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/28/warrantless-electronic-surveillance-obama_n_1924508.html
http://reason.com/archives/2012/10/03/warrantless-spying-skyrockets-under-obam

Warrant-less spying has surged under the Obama administration. From what I understand he has maintained every domestic spying program created under the Bush administration, and even expanded some of them and created new ones. Not that I think a republican would do any better mind you. Both parties have little interest in protecting any of our rights, they are far too interested in pandering to corporate lobbyists and expanding their own powers beyond all reason.

The complete list is here http://www.dailytech.com/Of+Lawsuits+and+Licensing+The+Full+Microsoft+v+Android+Story/article23088.htm

Any remnants of Fat32 is exhausted after 2013.

I'll bite...
    "How does the lack of pollution from the process compare against that generated from the acquisition of the coal?"
In many places, coal is mined using giant shovels that are electrically powered. Underground mines also tend to use electric shovels and other machinery, though not all. From the mine pit or shafts, its either directly loaded into train cars or haul trucks to trains cars. So its pretty much the same.

"Is it possible/practical to convert an existing coal power plant?"
Impossible? No. Impracticle, yes. It all comes down to cost. I once toured the Poletti Power plant in Long Island City, New York City. The entire plant was mostly boiler, a big multistory boiler. We first walked past the generator (875MW) which was tiny compared to the boiler. So you are looking at removing a major portion of the plant to fit it with the new boiler. My bet is it's more costly to upgrade than to demolish an existing plant and start from scratch.

"Is there an appreciable energy/pollution cost to produce the fine powder coal used in the process?"
They already use coal dust in boilers. They use coal mills to pulverize it and blow it into the boiler where its burned like a jet of gas/air. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulverized_coal-fired_boiler

"How much energy is consumed or how much pollution is produced in transporting the coal to the reactor?"
Again, the same method used today, train. If trains were electrified (difficult, given the geography they need to cover) then they would be much cleaner. But today's locomotives are pretty damn efficient. We went from needing 5000-6000HP to 4000-4500HP. And it goes without saying, trains are pretty clean when you take into account the amount of weight moved vs. fuel burned. They mentioned burning syngas which is used as feed gas for the Fischer-Tropsch process which converts feed gas into liquid fuels like diesel and gasoline using a nickel/iron catalyst and heat. H2, CO and CO2 are the components of syngas and it looks like they could make plenty on-site which could be used to generate clean diesel for the trains delivering the coal.

"Is the process itself efficient in regards to the energy output when compared against the total energy costs?
I would assume if they get the same efficiency as coal plant then they are already ahead of the game. The infrastructure is already there, we just need to build the plants. Hopefully this is a real development that could be put into commercial use.

To take power stations a step further: they generate plenty of waste heat that can be used for Fischer-Tropsch process reactors to produce fuels. If the plants were located in rural or low density areas, how difficult would it be to pump some of that flue gas CO2 into large algae farms to produce bio fuels? There are plenty of things we could do to boost power plant efficiency. And if you are wondering why power plants produce waste heat, the steam can not condense inside the turbine otherwise water could destroy the blades. The steam is super heated, often to over 1000 degrees F by passing it through tubes inside the boiler. So the steam is well over 212F/100C when it exits the turbine into condensers. Though, there are super-critical steam generators that don't boil water. Rather the water is put under such high pressure that it does not boil and its allowed to expand directly into steam just before entering the turbine housing.

Well, to be fair if they fly anywhere near a lightning storm the F-35s are screwed.