Slashdot Mirror

Vivek Wadhwa is a self-promoter who puts a lot of effort into getting his name in the press, but hasn't actually done much. He once had a company doing Y2K COBOL conversions with semi-automatic tools. It did not do too well. His academic positions are all hanger-on type, like "Senior Research Associate at Harvard Law School's Labor and Worklife Program". That's not being on the Harvard faculty.

This guy is on Slashdot twice today.

Oh, that guy again. A few weeks ago, he was acting like an authority on web search. Last week, he was giving talks about how Boston is failing as a high-tech hub.

His actual career was in tools for modernizing COBOL programs. Even that wasn't too successful. Read "Mouth piece: Vivek Wadhwa''s talent for trumpeting his company shines, but observers want to see another kind of performance ".

Depends on the courtroom. In most states, it is at the judge's discretion whether to allow the juror to be an active participant in the process or merely a passive observer. There are many judges that welcome juror questioning, but others do not. It's usually in the form of a written question passed to the bailiff, who them passes it to the judge, who then determines whether or not to allow the juror to ask the question, though as I understand it, in some (rare) courtrooms, the judges do allow spontaneous questions from the jurors.

more info

California defines gross negligence as either a "want of even scant care" or "an extreme departure from the ordinary standard of conduct." In contrast, ordinary negligence consists of a "failure to exercise the degree of care in a given situation that a reasonable person under similar circumstances would employ to protect others from harm."

The "traditional skepticism" concerning agreements to release liability for future torts is expressed, the court said, in a California statute providing that all contracts with the purpose of exempting anyone from their "own fraud, or willful injury to the person or property of another, or violation of law, whether willful or negligent, are against the policy of the law."

I'd be interested if a lawyer (or other slashdotter) knew of a case where someone was denied remedy in a negligence case because they waived liability.

I'm sure it'll be producing cheap, abundant power.... in about 20 years.

Just ignore the fact that we've been 20 years away from cheap, abundant fusion power for the last 50 years.

Naah. The situation is much worse than that.

When controlled thermonuclear research started in the early 1950s as part of the highly classified Project Sherwood it was expected that viable power plants were only 10 years away (the expectation of comparative ease of development is why it was so secret).

Now, 55 years later, the official ITER schedule envisions that "Experiments with deuterium-tritium plasmas would begin in mid 2026, according to the plan, with high gain (Q=10), long pulse (15 min) operation in 2028". In other words, simply beginning to operate ITER like a power plant won't happen for almost 20 years, a full 43 years after the project's start, and 27 years after the acceptance of the detailed design in 2001. See: http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-11125488/New-ITER-schedule.html.

Any real power plant would be a new, even larger facility that would follow ITER and which is not even on the drawing boards. If we assume that a real power plant design will be available the day ITER starts full power operation with a D-T plasma (i.e. we have already learned all the lessons we need to learn), but that it take the same length of time to build and start it at full power, then we are looking at 46 years before the first fusion power plant starts producing power.

The article's notion that fusion power will be around in 10 years, is astonishing ignorance (well, not so astonishing given science reporting standards). Evidently the reporter made this number up without asking anyone who knew anything about the subject. I haven't seen any prognostications by the tokamak community positing a prototype power plant (actually producing net electricity) before 2050 for years.

Industrial logging and agriculture is also replacing them at a rapid rate. The trees used for the wood in your home are typically fast-growing and planted deliberately in farms, and replanted after harvest. There's concern about losing unique habitat such as in many rainforests, but the raw number of trees is in no way threatened.

What actually happens to shares that fail to deliver? Well, that question can best be answered by folks actually doing the cypherin', Perhaps there are different means that can be used. But the best explanation is the "window call flip", which basically is stock kiting. Simply put, I sell to you. In the prescribed period of time, I owe you real shares. Instead, I show you a "confirm" that I bought shares from another participant. Imagine, say, five or fifty five participants, all in a circle. As you can imagine, a tremendous number of shares can float between participants without ever landing in one spot.

Now, motivation. Why does it happen? Why aren't there "buy ins" as referenced for these Brokerage firms? The answer is rather simple. Money. The procedure stipulates that, if Broker X fails to deliver 100,000 shares in the prescribed period of time to Broker Y, "Y" can go into the market place and buy those shares, AND THEN SEND THE BILL TO X!!!!! The trader would go to the representative offer, and indicate he wants certificates. That offer would probably move away, making the trader to go to the next offer, and so on. The market for the stock, especially if it's a small issue (they usually are), would explode until the order is filled. At the same time, trading desks all over the country would be screaming "XXXX buy in coming", and the demand would sky rocket. As the reader can see, this becomes a very expensive proposition. And once 'X', sees the bill, he would most likely retaliate, and buy in "Y' on another issue.

Selling something, at least representing something as for sale, taking money for said item, and then, just pocketing the money is serious enough. But the damage done to the issuing company is at least as severe. Think of this failure as a secondary offering never approved by the company's Board of Directors, signed off on by the SEC, or benefiting the company.

Admittedly that comes from Patrick Byrne's web site.

An excerpt from here.

FTDs can be caused in several ways, but they commonly result from short sales in which the seller does not borrow or even locate the stock he sells (the infamous "naked" short sales). Regardless of how an FTD occurs, for each share not delivered the system creates a "phantom" entitlement the market treats as a real share. These "phantom shares" are supposed to be temporary in duration and few in number. Loopholes, however, are exploited on such a scale, and phantom shares are so persistent, they are corrupting the U.S. equity markets in three ways.

And from here:

The phrase "short positions at the clearing corporation" refers to "failures to deliver" (FTDS), which effectively increase the net supply of an issue in circulation and, by definition, depress price. This price depression is, of course, more significant for small and medium cap companies than for large cap companies with greater liquidity.
...

Unfortunately, the drama associated with this clash has drawn attention away from the uncomfortable fact that illegal, unsettled trades are a large and growing problem in U.S. equity markets. Those unsettled trades threaten the corporate voting system, the viability of small companies, and market integrity as a whole. Large unsettled trades persist because of loopholes in stock market institutions and apathy on the part of those charged with enforcing existing regulations.

Also a paper (PDF) from the Cato Institute.

And back to Byrne.

I personally don't think naked shorts represent the cause or even a cause of the current situation,

The D902, a three-cylinder version of the Z602, has a displacement of 0.898 L and an output of 20.6 hp at 3200 rpm. A 3600 rpm version, due for introduction next year, will be rated 23.5 hp.

I also looked for a price on this engine. The first I saw was about $2800 for a remanufactured unit, with a $700 core charge. It's used in bobcats and similar. If you're building this "car," you won't have a core, so it's going to cost you $3500.

Let me remind you that there are locations in the Netherlands which are more than two times below sea level compared to that of New Orleans. New Orleans is of course much more prone to storms than the aforementioned place but I do not see why technology could not solve this [reinforcement] issue.

A couple differences: Parts (10-20%) of New Orleans are settling an inch a year, while parts of the Netherlands are settling a tenth or a quarter of an inch a year. 55% of the Netherlands is below sea level, so efforts to preserve it will have steady national support. Only a small section of the Mississippi river delta is below sea level. Still, towns in the Netherlands are in fact being told they can't build anything new. And there are mitigation efforts that work for river flooding that won't work for hurricane flooding, such as floating foundations. All in all, the Netherlands has good reason to take their situation much more seriously than New Orleans does, and it shows in what they have done.

You're seriously fucking retarded. You say I'm lying about your stance on the 2nd Amendment, and then you go on to basically restate what I said as your actual position.

But I'm also not saying that Democrats aren't crooked.

Jesus H Fucking Christ, Hell must've just frozen over. I'm surprised you aren't retarded enough to claim just that.

That list I pointed to has many times more the indicted and convicted felons than you just posted

Maybe because I justed posted the ones from the Clinton administration. But you're probably too fucking stupid to understand that a larger pool will net more fish than a smaller pool and therefore think your larger list is somehow proof of greater criminality.

And you people lied us into the Iraq War, and all the other catastrophes that have brought this country so low

Yeah, and Johnson lied us into the Vietnam war, and Clinton lied us into the Kosovar war, and bombed Afghanistan and the Sudan for no other reason than to distract from his little Impeachment. He even bombed Iraq during Desert Fox to shore up his ratings. So lying, and misusing force doesn't exactly seem to be just a Republican affair, you inbred socialist fucktard.

But yours does include people who the Republican Congress and many Nixon/Reagan/Bush appointed partisan judges convicted for political reasons.

Uh-huh. And the holier-than-thou Democrats would never stoop to that level, right?
http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/summary_0199-5149783_ITM

Oh yeah, the only thing you've managed to fuck your entire life is your left hand.

There is no number set in stone.

There is — or ought to be — a threshold in everybody's mind. All societies try to avoid punishing the innocent, but different ones are willing to go to different lengths to do so. Ancient Romans, for example, had some legal mechanisms for citizens inside the City (and 1.5 miles outside of it), but any further an executive's power was absolute — it was deemed acceptable to occasionally have an innocent suffer the executive's injustice so as not to burden the executive's power. Modern developed societies are nearly opposite — the executive's power was just trimmed even over non-citizens captured (very) far away.

It is all about balancing the swiftness and efficiency of just prosecution against the dangers of punishing the innocent. And it all boils down to the original question (asked centuries ago): Is it better that ten guilty persons go free than that one innocent person be convicted?.

The answer today is almost universally "yes". But what if the stakes are different — not 10:1, but 100:1?..

The idea is to set up a system with enough checks and balances to ensure that no one is punished unless they're pretty damn sure

This is a meaningless answer. All of the "checks and balances" impede prosecution. We still need them exactly for the reasons you state: to protect against accidentally punishing an innocent. And every time someone like O.J. Simpson is acquitted, we start thinking, whether there are too many impediments to prosecution — and too many guilty ones end up free.

So, what's your threshold?

The biggest problem right now is [...]

Yada-yada, yackity-yack. I asked to avoid changing the subject to "what we are"... Can't resist?

I don't have the energy to go through this all over again, so I'll punt to the experts:

http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-6700447/Scrubbing-dirty-bombs-explosive-hype.html

Steven Musolino of Brookhaven National Laboratory, who worked on the dirty bomb experiments with Harper, summed it up this way: "Pretty much everything bad happens within 500 meters, and to a large extent [the bad effects] don't happen." That conclusion jibes with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's fact sheet on dirty bombs, which says the long-term health risk of limited exposure to radioactive particles is probably "extremely small." The commission categorizes the dirty bomb not as a weapon of mass destruction, but as a weapon of mass disruption.

http://www.news.uiuc.edu/gentips/02/07dirtybomb.html

Even if terrorists got access to radioactive isotopes and wrapped them around a conventional explosive device - an unlikely scenario, according to Palmore - the real danger would come from the explosion, not the spread of radioactive material. "If you're thinking in terms of pellets of radioactive material that might be spread through an explosion," he said, the danger is minimal because "it doesn't disperse in the air; you would just go through the area with a Geiger counter and clean it up."

http://www.notposta.com/?p=19

Dirty bombs are overrated. No one receives a lethal radiation dose from a dirty bomb, besides the bomber.

http://www.onthemedia.org/yore/transcripts/transcripts_072503_fear.html

To many experts, the dirty bomb is the most over-rated weapon in the terrorist arsenal. That's because the actual loss of life and property from such an attack probably would be relatively limited.

Long story short: Dirty bombs don't work. It's not nearly as easy to distribute radioactive materials as the media would have you believe.

taxpayer subsidizing via right-of-ways,

Huh? Where I come from, we charge the phone company for use of rights-of-way.

Ahaha. Whatever dude, Oregon beer rules.
Others agree:
http://beercast.blogspot.com/2007/11/2007-world-beer-awards.html
World's Best Stout/Porter
Obsidian Stout, Deschutes Brewery, Oregon

http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-6456904/Oregon-s-BridgePort-IPA-Prevails.html
Oregon's BridgePort IPA Prevails at the Australian International Beer Awards.

You're arguing my point, every musical era has had bad music. I recall year ago when parents called rock n roll devil's music. Many adults call what their children listen to as bad music.

Entertainment is the last thing people make cuts on during economic downturns

From American Express: "We are less weighted toward the travel and entertainment sector and have a larger presence in everyday categories where consumers don't typically reduce their spending during economic downturns to the same extent as they do in T&E spending." "Entertainment is the #1 Largest Optional Spending Catagory." "Demand shocks - reflecting changes in the level and pattern of spending by consumers owing to 'social distancing', eg cuts to travel, tourism and entertainment spending". "Customers from the financial services industry have noticeably cut back on travel and entertainment spending, AmEx believes."

Why buy a CD when you can download it at the same quality?

Same quality? I doubt much downloaded music has the same quality as CDs. I doubt even iTune's higher bit rate and DRM free music sell more than the DRM'ed and lower quality music. And iTunes owns the music download space.

In this particular story at least, no one was killed. Considering just how often SWAT teams kill innocents with their no-knock, shoot-first tactics, this kid is lucky he hasn't been implicated in a wrongful death (yet)

I wouldn't use the term "lucky"...

According to the link at: http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-4279675/Struck-by-lightning-deaths-in.html#abstract

about 82 people die each year in the US due to lightning strikes.

According to the link at: http://www.cato.org/raidmap/, at total of 82 people died in the 22 years between 1985 and 2007 due to police raids. This means that according to the Cato Institute, death by lightning strike about 22 times more likely than death due to a police raid.

According to the same site, only 299, or an average of only 13.59 cases/year of wrongful police action (lethal and nonlethal) took place. This still makes being a victim of a police raid less likely than being killed by a bolt of lightning.

I don't consider someone who wasn't struck by lightning "lucky." I consider it the normal state of affairs.

1. $100/mo buys a LOT of electricity and heat for someone living in a small apartment or basement suite. So we're not talking about someone living in a cold, unlit cave.

Let's get some datapoints with a google search.

http://www.homeabc.net/Other/2550-3-other.html
http://www.city-data.com/forum/dallas/116643-average-electricity-bill-3bdrm-apartment.html
http://message.snopes.com/showthread.php?t=23384
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE1DC153EF932A05756C0A966958260
http://boston.craigslist.org/gbs/sub/524170732.html

Arlington, 3bdrm: Multiple people saying >$200/mo
Vegas: 2bdrm, $150/mo
2bdrm house, location unknown, $60/mo
Florida 2bdrm apt, 17 years ago: $60/mo. Adjusting for inflation, $100/mo
2bdrm apt, location unknown, $150-$200/mo
2bdrm, location unknown: $80/mo
2bdrm, location unknown: $75-$90/mo
2bdrm, NC, using central air (more efficient): $60/mo
Boston, Unknown size: $40/mo
Irving, TX, 2bdrm: $300-$450/mo (poorly insulated and sealed)
"Average NYC apartment": $40/mo
Boston: $55/mo

Summary: Insulation is more important to size, and the further south you live (to an extent) in the US, the worse your bill will be because you tend to be relying on inefficient (but cheap) window units and are dealing with a lot of summer heat. Let's pretend that this covers electricity *and* gas, not just electricity. Looks like the average is around $50/mo up north and perhaps $180/mo down south. Crummy housing with low rent tends to be smaller but also less well insulated and sealed, so let's stick with these numbers.

Let's do the same for water:

http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-5812161/Unclog-your-plumbing-budget-the.html
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE3D71130F932A35754C0A966958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2004/JosephSabatelle.shtml

One says the average is 80-150 gal/day, the other says 220 gal/day. Looks like water's typically around 2 tenths of a penny per liter. Going with an average 150gal/day at that price, that's $1.20/day, or $36/mo. Let's say only $40 with sewage added in.

Overall summary: A person in a hellhole up north wouldn't have to skimp. A person in a hellhole down south would be way overbudget and have to skimp like crazy.

2. People making minimum wage rarely buy healthcare, especially if they're healthy, as is being assumed here. If they become seriously ill, they're just fucked. It's sad, but true.

Thank you for making my point for me as to why so many of the poor don't own cars. It can be a choice between your health and transportation.

3. Furniture, TVs, etc, can all be acquired at no cost for anyone who actually knows other people.

Great plan. Because the poor are famous for giving away furniture, right? Lots of free furniture opportunities in Compton, right? The poor spend all their time hobknobbing, right?

Yes, you can get free furniture. But it's an unreliable source. The poor make do with whatever they can get. If "whatever they can get" is nothing, then they make do with nothing. If "whatever they can get" is falling apart, then they make use of that, too. One insidious problem is that the less money you have, the more you need. For example, if you'

Because the game teaches you how to effectively become a mass murderer. Duh! Just drive into any garage to change your paint (unless you're in a taxi or LEV) and you can get away with anything.

But seriously, the idea that teaching people how to be effective killers is somehow equivalent to creating a mass murderer is absurd. True, there was the ex-Marine clocktower killer, but the overwhelming majority of the military do not go on killing sprees. Hell, most rifle hunters are effective killers, but likewise, I haven't heard of any statistically significant correlation between hunting and serial/spree killers.

Moreover, any determined individual can and likely will gain access to the tools and information necessary to perpetrate his crime. If strict gun regulations don't prevent criminals from obtaining firearms in the UK, how is a ban supposed to prevent access to a game? Clearly it doesn't; it only prevents people with a casual interest from obtaining it (to a very limited extent) -- the very people I'd argue are least likely to act out their violent fantasies.

Finally, there's a strong argument to be made that videogame violence can have a cathartic effect, much the same way it's been demonstrated that profanity is an effective, but largely innocuous, release of anger and frustration. Had a bad day? Fire up GTA and create some mayhem. Spent the ride home stuck in agonizingly slow traffic? Nothing quite like a virtual rocket launcher to deal with those pesky turtles in front of you. We are emotional beings, and while most of us balance our emotions with reason (with varying levels of success), everyone gets angry, everyone gets frustrated, and dealing with those emotions in a non-destructive manner is an important part of creating a functional society. Other forms of entertainment clearly serve that purpose (my life could be that good/thank God my life isn't that bad/my life is like that and it's funny), and we should embrace any tool which further helps to evoke the same effects.

The notion that Japan's ability to roll out broadband everywhere is somehow the result of strategic, and forward thinking lacking in the west is so much hype.

Japan is a tiny island. The United States consists of the fairly large part of the North American continent and Europe, taken together, is not entirely tiny either. Of course it will be easier to wire Japan than it would be the USA or Europe.

People that argue that Japan is somehow doing something "unprofitable" to get a strategic gain need to wonder why Japan protects its telecommunications sector to the extent it does. AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, and other telecommunications concerns would love to get into Japan, and have been pushing the governments of the USA to get Japan to open its communications backplane to foreign competition, but, really, to no avail, as evidenced by the following cites:

http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/summary_0199-3841226_ITM

http://www.clintonpresidentialcenter.org/legacy/050399-report-on-japan-deregulation.htm

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0DE5D6143DF937A15750C0A9669C8B63

So sure, you can buy into the hype, but the reality is, Japanese telecommunications are both anti-competitive and comparitively easy to do.

What do you mean that Canada is always copying from the US? What about "un gars, une fille", exported around the world? http://www.mcc.gouv.qc.ca/publications/culture_que bec_eng.pdf

Or about Just for Laughs Gags, also exported around the world? http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/summary_0199-47978 72_ITM

There are many more I could list if I wasn't too lazy to check for references on the web. "Le temps d'une paix", "Les filles de Caleb", etc...

Oh... You are talking about ENGLISH Canadian productions. You seams to put all Canadians on the same boat. To be fair, English Canada does produces "Little Mosque on the prairie", also original and IIRC, exported.

Granted, for some reason, it is very hard to convince English Canadians to watch Canadian made shows and even more, Canadian movies. However, in French Canada, in most recent years localy produced movies beat the American movies at the box office, like "Bon cop, bad cop" and "Nitro":

http://lcn.canoe.com/lcn/artsetspectacles/cinema/a rchives/2006/09/20060925-195421.html
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM .20070716.wxnitro16/BNStory/Entertainment

Please, when it comes to Canadian culture, be specific about which language you are talking about. Slashdot is read internationally and we should not generalize about Canadian cultures when there are three main ones (English, French and Aboriginal).

1. Diamond? WTF is diamond doing in the title? Cubic zirconia's nothing like diamond unless you believe the ads of people trying to sell you rings with CZ's in them. (And if you've played with gemstones, you might be able to spot those with your bare eyes: they have a 10% different index of refraction of light.

2. Zirconia has been used for a fuel cell 'catalyst' for a while. Here's a reference to a two-year-old paper about a related fuel cell system.

3. I say 'catalyst' in the above, because zirconia's only sort of a catalyst. While the zirconia remains more or less zirconia, it's not just offering a surface for reaction chemistry: it's actually exchanging oxygen with the reactants during the reaction.

4. Still, it's interesting and weird that the electrical potential is being transferred by protons, rather than electrons (as per TFA.) I'm not familiar with that, just with holes and electrons, so that bears more reading.

> The problem, in my opinion, with software patents isn't with the fact that they're software -- in my mind, software ought to
> be patented, ... -- but that they're typically of very poor quality, shoddily researched, and overbroad.

It's more fundamental than that. I understand that you're trying to find a middle ground, but there is none (at least none that is "obvious":-]). It's a

Here are four things to consider:

(1) How many people actually look at patent to come up with ideas? If no-one does, then how is it helping with innovation? What exactly is the purpose of software patents other than a way for lawyers and patent trolls to get paid for disrupting innovation?

(2) If I independently discover/reinvent the patent, then why should why should I have to pay someone else for the privilege of using *my* idea? Reinvention has nothing to do with obviousness. Sometimes the time is right for non-obvious inventions. Examples of this indepentent invention/rediscovery include quantum mechanics, light bulb, telephone, combustion engine, airplane, television, transistor, and integrated circuit. See http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/summary_0199-61065 42_ITM for a fuller description.

(3) Relating to (2), suppose you allow independent reinvention as an exception. What happens if I want to tell people about *my* idea for free? I can't (and may get sued if I do). Free speach and society loses.

(4) Software patents are supposed to protect "the little guy" but since big corps can afford to have millions of patents, it's almost certain that they have something that "the little guy" violates (or may potentially violate) and force "the little guy" to cross-license, enabling the big corps to "steal" (if you believe patents are IP) the idea. Even if "the little guy" doesn't violate any patents, it's possible for the big corps to drag the case out in court until "the little guy" is bankrupt (e.g. just look at how long SCO dragged the case out against another big corp), making it virtually impossible for "the little guy" to enforce the patent but very easy for big corps to freeze out competition.

So basically, even when you have legitimate innovation, software patents serve no good purpose and are harmful. If you have a legitimate innovation then trade secrets are a better alternative that doesn't mess with any of the above problems.

Software patents are a lot like DRM and both are like making a bed with an elastic sheet that's too small for the bed. It looks possible to have "perfect software patents" or "perfect DRM" or "to make the bed", and you may be able to tie down three of the sides, but as soon as you try to tied down the forth side either one of the other three sides come loose or the whole thing falls apart.

Please google "1994 gsm over ip"

http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-721578/ip- access-and-RigNet-deliver.html

M2 PRESSWIRE-24 February 2004-ip.access: ip.access and RigNet deliver GSM Abis over IP via satellite; ip.access and RigNet partner for implementation of GSM-over-IP-over-satellite solution; Successful trial paves way for delivery of GSM services to remote locations(C)1994-2004 M2 COMMUNICATIONS LTD

Also looks interesting:
http://kbs.cs.tu-berlin.de/~jutta/toast.html
http://kbs.cs.tu-berlin.de/~jutta/gsm/toast-igp.ht ml

It appears the lack of periods is intentional. We only thought US meant United States and Corp meant Corporation. So stealthy.

Buy the full report for $1000 and find out.

Different brother :)

Her brother that passed in the fire was:

http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-784260/Man -dies-in-fire-at.html

9/11/04. Man does time fly. Crazy.

I did find cursory info about Colvin:

http://listings.allpages.com/mi-0010935235-commerc e-township.html

http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/product-compint-00 01259831-page.html

Seems like a company that does web design for someone else should have a webpage of their own, right?

Oh, and they gave $500 http://www.campaignmoney.com/political/contributio ns/michigan_commerce_township_48382.asp?cycle=00

Their general US patent:
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/search-bool.html&r =1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=ptxt&s1=6,015,258.WKU.&OS=PN /6,015,258&RS=PN/6,015,258
I didn't bother making links to non-US patents but you can find them at the company website. According to the company the patent process is still continuing.

Contact information (note that it is a private company):
http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/merc-compint-00005 70076-Moya-Terra-Aqua-Inc.html

Their website:
http://www.tmainc.net/

I'm not impressed with the journalistic and editorial abilities of either Slashdot or OpenSourceEnergy. And I guess there shouldn't be any need to mention that most people on Slashdot talk out of their asses... (some even try to hide behind PhD's instead of actually making an argument - that's low!).

I suggest people do a bit of searching and reading on their own before making absolute statements about the "newsstories", be it this one or about hydrinos or whatever, otherwise all you're doing is succumbing to groupthink and knee-jerk reactionism. Have some pride (irrespective of whatever opinion you end up with).

What I, however, would most like to see, is a collaborative effort between NASA and the fledgeling private sector space initiatives.

It's called the Centennial Challenges Program:

http://exploration.nasa.gov/centennialchallenge/cc _index.html

Basically, NASA's been partnering up with private organizations to offer cash prizes for space-related achievements. Congress has unfortunately put a limit on how much of their budget they're allowed to devote to competitive prizes, but they've still been able to offer prizes for space tethers, beam power, and extracting oxygen from lunar regolith.

A while back I also tried submitting an article about NASA and its plans for commercial delivery of cargo and passengers to the ISS, but the story was rejected. Here's the text of it:

At a recent talk, Michael Griffin outlined NASA's plans for helping to generate a robust and competitive commercial market in orbital spaceflight. The speech and Q&A transcripts from the talk are available. In a move reminiscent of the US government kickstarting the early airline industry by purchasing airmail services, NASA plans on supplementing government-derived transport by purchasing cargo delivery services to the International Space Station from commercial providers, followed by crew transportation after the systems have proven themselves. Unlike traditional government contracts, sellers wouldn't see a profit before the services are delivered and the emphasis will be on actual performance instead of process and specifications. Aviation Week has some commentary on the announcement.

It's not the first step, but not because of the reasons you mentioned. SaskTel (provincial telephone company in Saskatchewan) has already had this service available for several years. I get my phone, TV an Internet althrough my phone line.

Try googling for SaskTel Max. One particular link of interest is this: http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-3515636/Fo cal-launches-managed-Internet-access.html. The article really isn't about Max, but it's worth reading at least the headline: Article: Pace boxes Power SaskTel's Max Interactive Services largest deployment of TV over ADSL in North America.(Canada)

So no, this isn't new. At least not in the corner of the Earth we call Saskatchewan.

A few weeks ago I tried submitting the following story to slashdot, but it kept on getting rejected (same with these stories). As seems to be becoming tradition, I thought it would be relevant to the current topic, so I've pasted the text here. And no, it's not Karma-whoring if my Karma's already been maxed out for years. :)

At a recent talk, Michael Griffin outlined NASA's plans for helping to generate a robust and competitive commercial market in orbital spaceflight. The speech and Q&A transcripts from the talk are available. In a move reminiscent of the US government kickstarting the early airline industry by purchasing airmail services, NASA plans on supplementing government-derived transport by purchasing cargo delivery services to the International Space Station from commercial providers, followed by crew transportation after the systems have proven themselves. Unlike traditional government contracts, sellers wouldn't see a profit before the services are delivered and the emphasis will be on actual performance instead of process and specifications. Aviation Week has some commentary on the announcement.

I also think I remember seeing something before about NASA selling one of the launch complexes at Kennedy Space Center to SpaceX, but can't find more info. Does anybody have a link to more on that?

Well, I've been trying to submit a story to slashdot over the past few days about a "parallel path" to government-built shuttle-derived that NASA recently announced, but I haven't had any luck. I've already had four or five variations on it rejected. Anybody have ideas on what might be wrong with the following submission?

At a recent talk, Michael Griffin outlined NASA's plans for helping to generate a robust and competitive commercial market in orbital spaceflight. The speech and Q&A transcripts from the talk are available. In a move reminiscent of the US government kickstarting the early airline industry by purchasing airmail services, NASA plans on supplementing government-derived transport by purchasing cargo delivery services to the International Space Station from commercial providers, followed by crew transportation after the systems have proven themselves. Unlike traditional government contracts, sellers wouldn't see a profit before the services are delivered and the emphasis will be on actual performance instead of process and specifications. Aviation Week has some commentary on the announcement.

(The following is from a slashdot story I've tried submitting variations on a few times over the past few days, which has gotten rejected repeatedly for whatever reason. Since it's relevant to the topic of what NASA's planning on doing once the shuttle is retired, I'm posting it here)

At a recent talk, Michael Griffin outlined NASA's plans for helping to generate a robust and competitive commercial market in orbital spaceflight. The speech and Q&A transcripts from the talk are available. In a move reminiscent of the US government kickstarting the early airline industry by purchasing airmail services, NASA plans on purchasing cargo delivery services to the International Space Station from commercial providers, followed by crew transportation after the systems have proven themselves. Unlike traditional government contracts, sellers wouldn't see a profit before the services are delivered and the emphasis will be on actual performance instead of process and specifications. Non-traditional space companies such as SpaceX and t/Space have found Griffin's remarks encouraging, and Aviation Week has some commentary.

Okey. I'm trying hard to understand what you're saying, really, I am. I like to go with the Slashdot anti-patent/Free Software belief system when I can, but what you're saying is just silly. I mean, let's not get too caught up in the emotion of our own beliefs to start speaking falsities into being, okey?

When will the execs stop wasting their money on all this ineffective DRM "technology"?

Wha? As soon as it stops being profitable and effective! If you want to combat DRM, do so by telling people how their rights are being restricted by purchasing music from iTunes or Napster, not by pretending they're not effective. iTunes has sold 100,000,000+ songs, with this "ineffective DRM".Napster is growing fast, and profitably using this "ineffective DRM". And plenty of people are happy with their rights being restricted.

If it can be seen, it can be copied.

Yes, maybe in the province of Speare, but back here in the US, right or wrong, there are laws against such things. Again, try to avoid speaking things into being -- it only alienates you further from the people you're trying persuade to your argument.

The profit comes from producing a complete package experience with liner notes and pride-of-bookshelf, not just the (approximate) digital waveform.

This cannot be true. Why would services like Rhapsody, Napster and iTunes prevail if profit wouldn't come through digital waveform? But this is beside the point -- if there's no profit to be had in selling digital copies of music, what chance does that leave that we'll ever see music sold in a non-DRM'd format? I'm sorry -- I couldn't hear you over the crickets chirping.

I'm on your team; I'm not a fan of DRM and would rather it not exist. But if we're going to motivate people to quit using DRM-encumbered products, we're going to have to engage them on a rational playing field. Instead of saying the technology is "ineffective" and that profit does not lie in selling music digitally, we should instead take people back to the roots of the Free Software movement, to the roots of the country -- that is, personal rights. Obviously many of those rights are violated, but simply speaking those rights into being won't stop lawsuits. The more we chant "FUCK THE **IAA!!", "M$ IS EVIL" and "McBrid HAS SEX W/ BABY GOATS", the more radical and less appealing we seem. What we, as a collective movement, need to do is be cool -- if your neighbors, friends and family see you as a normal person who also happens to care about his rights being violated, they may approach it with a more open mind than if they see you as a zealous hippy bent on on the downfall of modern enterprise as they see it.