Slashdot Mirror

http://spectrum.ieee.org/energ...

Who's the cat that won't cop out when there's danger all about? (Schaft)
Right on

You need to be kinda old to get this one.

Yeah, well, welcome to Slashdot.

Hmmph. If this were properly Slashdot, it would have been the correct old reference. Schaft Enterprises was originally a fictional manufacturer of military Labors in Europe and the US in the Patlabor anime series from 1989-1990. The company designed and manufactured the Griffin Labor, a recurring (and starring) antagonist. The real Japanese company Schaft was founded in 2012, with the name obviously chosen as an homage to the series/movies/manga.

You'd have thought they'd have chosen Shinohara Heavy Industries instead (the Japanese company in the series that manufactures the starring Ingram Labor), but they were indulging in a quintessentially Japanese bit of irony. Schaft was founded to allow its principals to accept money from military sources, specifically the US DARPA, who had issued their Grand Challenge in robotics, with prize money. As researchers at the University of Tokyo, they would not have been allowed to accept any money from DARPA. So naturally when choosing a name, they went with the rebellious criminal company name, rather than the establishment respectable name.

And get off my lawn!

AMD64 was introduced back in 2000.

You know, long before Moore's law became bow-legged from the heavy burden of asterisks. (Yes, like always before, we do indeed have more transistors, but just try to use them all at the same time and see what happens ...)

So that's seventeen years ago. Subtract another seventeen years, and we're back to 1983.

Back in 2000, your karmic twin would have been moaning about the loss of 8-bit software compatibility.

Subtract another seventeen years, and we're back to 1965.

Back in 1983, your karmic triplet would have been moaning about the loss of slide rules.

Lament for the Slide Rule — August 1985

Unfortunately, that's paywalled, so we're stuck with this belated cuckoo:

When Slide Rules Ruled — Cliff Stoll (2006)

Check out this giant pull-quote:

The slide rule helped to design the very machines that would render it obsolete.

Nice. That saves me from craning my neck to look through my window for plummeting petunias. You just never know anything with absolute certainty.

I didn't vote for the "Republican" guys either. I'm just pointing out, that people that like to equate (R) with evil and corrupt every time some Chairman of some company is Republican and does something evil, are the same people who make excuses when it is a (D) doing it.

Your case just proves my point. When everything the left hates is "Political" and when it is something that shines poorly upon the (D), it is "Get Fucked trying to make this political".

Being a Libertarian, I understand the dangers of political manipulation of the Economy, at both the micro and macro points of the model. I am actually probably, on your side on this one. However, my solution isn't "more government control" and "Regulation" it is less. You see, since the whole problem was caused by government regulation in the first place (half dozen key regulations in fact). But that doesn't work for liberals who think that the first and only solution to a problem is "MOAR GOVERNMENT".

And here is a key fact, there are other ways to administer Epinephrine besides EpiPen. In fact there are several "open source" style kits out there that do the same kind of thing, for a whole lot less money.

http://www.consumerreports.org...
http://spectrum.ieee.org/the-h...

Instead of whining about EpiPen costs, vote with your dollars and get the less expensive version of your choice. And ask that the Government deregulate the mandates to use EpiPens.

The key to power is information and choice. Government regulations that remove "choices" are to blame here. But so is being lazy, and not getting the information you need to make the choices you could be making.

Even the older system that beat Lee Sidol was not running on a humongous supercomputer.

It was over 1000 CPUs and over 200 GPUs. That's rather beefy, mate.

As recently as 2010, AI textbooks were typically writing that the field was 20-30 years away from creating a machine that could beat professional Go players

As you can see here, there was definitely an inflection point in Go progress around 2005 (when the monte carlo algorithm first was applied). And the trajectory continued that way (you'll have to look for your own graph though). 5 years wouldn't have been surprising at all. Anyone who predicted 20-30 years away wasn't paying attention to the field.

Well that seems to be at odds with what the IEEE found - http://spectrum.ieee.org/green...

I'm not sure what you mean by "at odds," since the IEEE Spectrum article doesn't even discuss energy payback time. Here's an article showing an energy payback time of 3.7 years for a typical home rooftop PV system, or 2 years for a slightly more efficient panel: http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04o... Graph 2 shows a panel produces 20 times more energy over the 30-year lifetime (which is the PV panel typical warranty) than the energy used to produce it and mount it on the roof.

That's roughly comparable to the values shown in other sources. Here's a review paper saying that the Energy Return on Investment (EROI) is from 8.7 to 34.2 (depending on things such as where it's located, and what technology is used): http://www.sciencedirect.com/s...

The IEEE article is a caution saying that the Chinese module manufacturers don't necessarily pay attention to the environmental effects of manufacturing. This is a problem with any manufacturing, though, not particular to solar panels. They export about 180 billion dollars worth of stuff to us every month, so if you're worried about the environmental impact of Chinese manufacturing, that's laudable, but solar panels aren't even one percent of that.

Well that seems to be at odds with what the IEEE found - http://spectrum.ieee.org/green... . I'm waiting for this situation to change. I still have to wait.

There is also the twist that people don't want them on houses. Wife is into real estate and she's telling me that every house that has been on the market in the past 5 years, and up to a month ago, the new buyers wanted them all removed. Concerns about roof leaking, or some such BS (IMHO it's BS, last one was on a roof just 1 year old, there were no leaks). I just don't get it.

At least no one's life is dependent on these devices..yet. If we started adopting these things carelessly in situations that could endanger lives, we'd be in serious trouble. Perhaps this is the wake up call we've desperately needed.

We already have life critical devices compromised. Remember that the early adopters of the IoT was hospitals, which have been compromised already. http://spectrum.ieee.org/view-...

While this case was not the result of a hacker, but software error, todays radiation dispenser is about 100 percent likely to be attached to the internet. http://ccnr.org/fatal_dose.htm....

And it wouldn't be too surprising if people have been killed already. We just wouldn't hear abou tit, or the operators might not even know.

http://spectrum.ieee.org/green...

Most of the waste can indeed be recycled:

http://spectrum.ieee.org/green...

Meanwhile, coal power plants spew radioactive waste from smokestacks, the ground is pumped full of earthquake-enabling mystery sauce for hydrofracking, and oil refineries guzzle energy to transform fossil fuels from one form to another before they're even used, all while literally causing floods of toxic waste, and nobody on the right bats an eye at those environmental disasters that happen in the process of releasing fossil CO2. They have much bigger problems to worry about - an environmentally unremarkable electronics manufacturing industry that's giving us devices that produce carbon-neutral energy.

Why not use autonomous ships on the dangerous passage instead? Autonomous ships are expected in the next few years, even before autonomous cars. Granted, this would not solve the problem of transporting passengers safely, but it would mean much less concern for cargo shipments.

That being said, a ship tunnel sounds like a cool idea.

IEEE The STEM Crisis is a myth http://spectrum.ieee.org/at-wo...

They have an entire issue devoted to the topic and a static discussion

http://spectrum.ieee.org/stati...

The only shortage of degreed professionals are MD's and Lawyers and that's because their numbers are controlled and kept artificially low.

Somebody at a school trying to sell you a degree, make sure they back it up with a job guarantee, or at least a track record that you can sue them over.

Shortage of lawyers, you say? Last I heard, the US has a glut of law school graduates, particularly from anything less than a Tier 1 school.

IEEE The STEM Crisis is a myth http://spectrum.ieee.org/at-wo...

They have an entire issue devoted to the topic and a static discussion

http://spectrum.ieee.org/stati...

The only shortage of degreed professionals are MD's and Lawyers and that's because their numbers are controlled and kept artificially low.

Somebody at a school trying to sell you a degree, make sure they back it up with a job guarantee, or at least a track record that you can sue them over.

Shortage of lawyers, you say? Last I heard, the US has a glut of law school graduates, particularly from anything less than a Tier 1 school.

IEEE The STEM Crisis is a myth http://spectrum.ieee.org/at-wo...

They have an entire issue devoted to the topic and a static discussion

http://spectrum.ieee.org/stati...

The only shortage of degreed professionals are MD's and Lawyers and that's because their numbers are controlled and kept artificially low.

Somebody at a school trying to sell you a degree, make sure they back it up with a job guarantee, or at least a track record that you can sue them over.

IEEE The STEM Crisis is a myth http://spectrum.ieee.org/at-wo...

They have an entire issue devoted to the topic and a static discussion

http://spectrum.ieee.org/stati...

The only shortage of degreed professionals are MD's and Lawyers and that's because their numbers are controlled and kept artificially low.

Somebody at a school trying to sell you a degree, make sure they back it up with a job guarantee, or at least a track record that you can sue them over.

The problem is that our industry, unlike every other single industry except acting and modeling (and note neither are known for "intelligence") worship at the altar of youth. I don't know the number of people I've encountered who tell me that by being older, my experience is worthless since all the stuff I've learned has become obsolete.

This, despite the fact that the dominant operating systems used in most systems is based on an operating system that is nearly 50 years old, the "new" features being added to many "modern" languages are really concepts from languages that are between 50 and 60 years old or older, and most of the concepts we bandy about as cutting edge were developed from 20 to 50 years ago.

It also doesn't help that the youth whose accomplishments we worship usually get concepts wrong. I don't know the number of times I've seen someone claim code was refactored along some new-fangled "improvement" over an "outdated" design pattern who wrote objects that bare no resemblance to the pattern they claim to be following. (In the case above, the classes they used included "modules" and "models", neither which are part of the VIPER backronym.) And when I indicate that the "massive view controller" problem often represents a misunderstanding as to what constitutes a model and what constitutes a view, I'm told that I have no idea what I'm talking about--despite having more experience than the critic has been alive, and despite graduating from Caltech--meaning I'm probably not a complete idiot.)

Our industry is rife with arrogance, and often the arrogance of the young and inexperienced. Our industry seems to value "cowboys" despite doing everything it can (with the management technique "flavor of the month") to stop "cowboys." Our industry is agist, sexist, one where the blind leads the blind, and seminal works attempting to understand the problem of development go ignored.

How many of you have seen code which seems developed using "design pattern" roulette? Don't know what you're doing? Spin the wheel!

Ours is also one of the fewest industries based on scientific research which blatantly ignores the research, unless it is popularized in shallow books which rarely explore anything in depth. We have a constant churn of technologies which are often pointless, introducing new languages using extreme hype which is often unwarranted as those languages seldom expand beyond a basic domain representing a subset of LISP. I can't think of a single developer I've met professionally who belong to the ACM or to IEEE, and when they run into an interesting problem tend to search Github or Stack Overflow, even when it is a basic algorithm problem. (I've met programmers with years of experience who couldn't write code to maintain a linked list.)

So what do we do?

Beats the hell out of me. You cannot teach if your audience revels in its ignorance and doesn't

Even flash memory improvements seem to be slowing down, but that may be that demand is huge and increasing.

No, charge storage scales even worse than switching—and everyone agrees. Flash has recently been kept on life support by staggering efforts in bit-error management.

Thus all the research funds right now (ST-MRAM, carbon nanotube NRAM, STT-RAM, CBRAM, not to mention Intel's new TMium) are being funneled into bulk resistive technologies, such as the chalcogenides.

The charge bottle is dead. Long live the fickle dendrite!

The problem with silicon was written about extensively in 2016 (this only a decade after the frequency free-lunch had already ended, and five years after the power-scaling free-lunch started being served up in Continental-breakfast portion sizes).

TSMC Plans New Fab for 3nm
Focus Shifts To Architectures
ITRS roadmap predicts end of process miniaturisation by 2021
Transistors Could Stop Shrinking in 2021
Alchemy Can't Save Moore's Law
Will 5nm Happen?
TSMC will begin 10nm production this year, claims 5nm by 2020

TSMC remains strangely bullish, but you also need to realize that line size is not what it used to be. It used to be they pretty much shrunk the entire lithography. Now they shrink what they can shrink, and then define the new lithography based on the skinniest resulting body part (problem: what's left to measure after the wrist? answer: a Taiwanese wrist).

So there is a niche market smaller die: imprecise computation. Occasional bit flipping could possibly be accommodated. The economics for engineering further die shrinking into that territory for a niche market may be questionable. Time will tell.

Who would have bet on self-driving cars the next 20 years in 2010? And yet, we seem to be on the brink of it.

Who would bet on self-driving cars that work safely and reliably in the next 20 years right now? It's always easy to wheel out some dandy-looking prototype that works fairly well 99% of the time. But that remaining 1% is what hurts you. Given tens of millions of people hurtling about in "self-driving" cars, how many deaths, injuries and other harm does that tiny-sounding 1% represent? http://spectrum.ieee.org/cars-...

How about facial recognition systems for airports and other public places that don't produce prohibitive numbers of false psoitives? How about speech recognition systems that get above that hard-to-improve-on 99% accuracy? (Sounds great until you work out that with 500-600 words per page, 99% accuracy means 5-6 errors per page - randomly distributed so you have to proof-read everything you have just so breezily dictated).

Read this paper. He postulates 2 soft errors per year for a Xeon 7500 with 24 MB L3 cache at sea level in New York City. He also gives figures for static RAM, which is the stuff of CPU registers.

The whole issue about Magic Leap is that they've been incredibly secretive about what they're actually developing. So the reason the articles don't explain that is because they simply don't know. Many have speculated that it's some kind of light field display, which would be a big deal, because it could solve the issues associated with all current VR headsets caused by the fact that your eyes are focussed on a fixed position screen close to your face, regardless of where in virtual space the VR object you are looking at is, amongst other things. But until they actually decide to announce a product publicly, or someone in the know leaks something concrete, we really don't know what they're doing.

Citation needed.

Here ya go .

Well, here's a servo amplifier for use under neutron flux:
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/doc...
Uses "Nuvistors" - kinda the last gasp of mainstream thermionic technology, in a metal case.
Would hate to try and implement a portable CPU like that, though.

There's the intriguing option of building a computer out of microscopic vacuum "tubes".

Here is some evidence to support the claim that the IT shortage is a myth:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-11-24/the-tech-worker-shortage-doesnt-really-exist

http://spectrum.ieee.org/at-work/education/the-stem-crisis-is-a-myth

The game being played was online poker, so nobody was reading anybody's face making it an equal contest. Check the source article.

spotted, is it intententional?

Not a new idea

I don't find it valuable enough to be able to watch Netflix anywhere on any device to pay a premium price.

As TFA says, these are fixed wireless installs. This technology is not actually relevant to Netflix "anywhere" unless you define "anywhere" as in or near your house or automobile; as TFA also points out, both Verizon and AT&T's projects are going to use millimeter-wave. These frequencies do not penetrate walls well, so they are really useful only for two purposes: fixed installs, and vehicle installs. Even vehicle installs with 5G will be of questionable value in cities as you drive in and out of radio shadows, but it's possible that with enough microcells, you could provide adequate coverage there as well.

With dislreports and other aggregation tests, the bloat for download and upload may not be symmetric. So the resulting score might not be as good as it looks.

Paying for a commercial connection? Test for this kind of performance daily and scream as soon as it drops. Otherwise why bother to pay so much?

In the United States and other jurisdictions a home 'customer' user is not expected to run a "server" on their paid for Internet connection. Downloads may be finely tuned to low bloat. But upload may have significant bufferbloat, caps and gradual dropout. For financial reasons, of course.

This upload problem may get to be much worse in the future. More and more services push data from "client" devices in the home or office. Camera phone videos, twitch streams, shared google docs and your home automation spyware upend the upload/download assumptions of last-hop telcos. P2P is impacted now. The highly asymmetric buffering of uploads is detectable using protocols like bittorrent that don't have client-server separation.

useless for other tasks like assembling Ikea furniture.

There's an app for that.

here's IEEE spectrum article, says after current use of hydrogen then deuterium used for confinement testing, but no tritium will be added later as the intent of this particular reactor is not to produce break-even but to test stellarators as alternative to tokamaks.

http://spectrum.ieee.org/energ...

I take it you haven't seen the video with the robot that doesn't require programming?

http://spectrum.ieee.org/robot...

There are possible technical solutions. In the case of the Mirai botnet attacks, the released source code identifies the affected devices. Device manufacturers can be mapped to MAC addresses. ISP's could filter traffic from known vulnerable hardware devices to known DDoS attack targets.

Is this an easy solution? No. Is this a comprehensive solution? No. Would ISP's want to take on this responsibility? No. But is it technically possible? Yes.

When these selfdriving cars have accidents because of not having been made good enough for some driving condition, or just because glitch, who's responsible?

That has already been answered presented on every major news page, including Slashdot.
Spam, spam, spam and more spam.

An in-depth article about when cop cams work and when they make things worse:
http://spectrum.ieee.org/consu...
("... the problem seems to arise mainly when officers are allowed to turn cameras on at times of their own choosing.")

I understand that it's a failing of us humans to comprehend multi-dimensional data, but reducing a programming language's "popularity" to a single value really helps no-one. But because we're obsessed with such things, at least choose measures that place the weightings back into the hands of those that wish to match the data to their needs. Try the IEEE Spectrum interactive rankings: http://spectrum.ieee.org/stati... where Go performs even better - except for jobs.

Software engineers should read the IEEE Code of Ethics, especially the part about "avoid injuring others, their property, reputation, or employment by false or malicious action."

CAT5 doesn't have the tolerance for 1GBps transmission while CAT5e does

Presumably you mean 1Gbps, but do you have a reference for that? 802.3ab defines 1Gbps operation over 100 meters of CAT5 or better:

(...) 1000BASE-T project specifically requires operation on four pair 100 ohm Category 5 balanced copper cabling as defined by TIA/EIA-568-A

I first did cabling back in 1995 for my home network; and I think all the cable I've done has been CAT-5e.

The best quote I can find is from here:

The reality therefore is the CAT5 is in fact CAT5e. It just not certified as such. Below is a comparison of the extra specifications.

They also have a nice little chart showing the differences between CAT-5, CAT-5e, and CAT-6. And the differences between CAT-5e and CAT-6 make a world a difference in sustainable 1Gbps transmission speeds. That's not to say it's not possible over CAT-5 (original) or CAT-5e, but it's a lot more efficient over CAT-6, which was designed for 10Gbps.

However, keep in mind that while a standard may be designed to operate over a given cable spec, that doesn't mean that the performance will actually be met in real-life.

CAT5 doesn't have the tolerance for 1GBps transmission while CAT5e does

Presumably you mean 1Gbps, but do you have a reference for that? 802.3ab defines 1Gbps operation over 100 meters of CAT5 or better:

(...) 1000BASE-T project specifically requires operation on four pair 100 ohm Category 5 balanced copper cabling as defined by TIA/EIA-568-A

the headline should read. As the parent points out, they are not powering their data centers with renewable energy, just playing a shell game. Google knows it won't work, but soaking up subsidies is rational, and the appearance of looking "green" is a bonus.

Sorry you are incorrect. The EXACT SAME hardware did NOT malfunction at sea level altitude, but when relocated to Denver at 5000+ ft above sea level it displayed a statistically significant increase in single bit ECC errors.This behavior has been studied by numerous organizations, including IBM, Sun Microsystems, and others. See this IEEE technical talk: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/r6/scv...

Actually, we don't. The most expensive cars are simply good for "in this region." The less expensive cars are only good for "around town." The batteries run down far too quickly, and take too long to recharge. No electric car today can perform as well as a 1989 Yugo. In 1989, some friends of mine drove a 1989 Yugo in the 1 Lap of America rally, 9000 miles in 10 days of circumnavigating the USA. No electric car could do that today. Then there's the trucks, locomotives, ships, boats, and airplanes. We absolutely do need to leave the oil in the ground, because the CO2 in the atmosphere is going to take 100,000 years to be scrubbed clean as it is. We're just adding to it every day.

And there's not a lot of hope in sight. People currently working the battery problem are not having a lot of success. See:

http://spectrum.ieee.org/at-wo...

This scientists are currently coming up with just one answer on batteries, it is Lithium, and Lithium is inadequate. And we can't simply say that Lithium batteries are expensive and we'll just spend what it takes because that hammers the poor, driving those that are in poverty deeper into it and casting those that are just making it now into poverty. Poverty is more deadly than smoking, as it will take up to 10 years off your life. Smoking is only "good" for 7. Converting to batteries now would be a cruel, elitist thing to do.

We're either going to have to solve the battery problem, or solve some way to operate our vehicles on grid electricity done with nukes and geo. Wind and solar are too intermittent - the wind stops blowing at night and your iron lung becomes your coffin.... Not many iron lungs left, but there's the emergency room operation that goes dark, the backup generators fail to start, and the patient dies for lack of electricity in the ER. Dunno how to get grid electricity even to cars, let alone airplanes and boats in rivers and ships at sea.

Right now, we're really screwed. Will the brave scientists find the magic battery and save us like they did when they invented nuclear weapons and ended WW2? Stay tuned.

Those governments and NGOs are going to need something to actually kill the mosquitoes. That's where capitalism is itching to step in. There's no shortage of companies who would just love to have juicy government mosquito-eradication contracts.

This is in fact how they already do it to an extent. Nearly all the autonomous vehicles in testing have lidar sensors which do give that kind of shape for modeling. They've got some really cool, lower cost LIDAR sensors like these. http://spectrum.ieee.org/cars-...

As a side note, the actual hardware is doable. 6 or so LIDAR sensors, a dozen or so fixed position camera, a couple of radars, and a computational architecture that probably uses FPGAs and custom ASICS for the machine vision and machine learning and a bunch of ARM processors. Mere thousands of dollars worth of physical hardware at the mass production stage. The high cost is obviously the development.

The IEEE seems to have a much better methodology and ways to look at the data based on web, mobile, enterprise and embedded markets.

http://spectrum.ieee.org/stati...

It just seems that the TIOBE results are much easier to bias by things like universities using a language as a teaching language. There are far more online courses on things like java and languages commonly used for web work but that does not make them more commonly used just more common to have webpages written about them.

For those wondering why the distrust, here is a good article describing why the US govt is not to be trusted.

There are technical dictionaries online now you know.

Apparently you should inform the editorial staff of the IEEE and Linus Torvalds as well, they too seem to refer to both the operating system and the kernel as Linux.
http://spectrum.ieee.org/compu...

I work in automotive software/systems security. You have one thing precisely on the money: automotive is very competitive and, therefore, anally cost sensitive, especially cost-per-vehicle.

The main reason vehicles are so insecure is simply broken assumptions. Legacy designs, specifically in-vehicle network architecture choices, never factored in the connected car. The threat model only included local actors, and no one ever revisited that assumption until the problem was on the news.

Automakers were extremely slow to actually acknowledge this problem, and redesigning the internal electrical architectures in vehicles is not an overnight job. For the foreseeable future car security is going to revolve around more or less bandages to try to keep the legacy designs as secure as possible. Basically, a coconut design with high attention paid to safety electronics and ingress points. Depth solutions are a ways out.

The big problem is that the control networks in the vehicle have no security mitigations whatsoever. The were designed with local threats in mind only. Ditto with the network topologies. Security design flaws are broken assumptions, either broken from the get-go or broken because the world changed and the design didn't.

Your GET vs POST analogy is probably on the money, but there are actually worse problems than that. A lot of the data gathering performed in-vehicle is done over diagnostics protocols which are request/response formatted, meaning that in order to READ data, the telematics device must actually first request it. Combined with the fact that any party on a CAN network can send anything they want, you start to see the problem. A compromised telematics unit with access to a CAN network can impersonate the control systems on that network or anything else, like a mechanics tool. Firewalling does exist in some places, but these devices are often not given the security scrutiny required. To us in the industry, the interesting part of the famous Jeep hack last year, was that Miller and Valasek were able to get past the infotainment firewall by exploiting an insecure software update mechanism on the firewall device.

In conclusion, in modern cars, there are a few layers of defense, but not many, and, for something as critical as control of your vehicle, today, there are not enough. There are still several places in modern cars where, if a few layers are broken, many control features are at your command. Adding proper authentication mitigations is coming, but a bit slowly.

Yep, stem crisis is a myth. http://spectrum.ieee.org/at-wo... Behind every diversity push, is the desire to save money. Whether through h1b, diluting the labor market, or in ed tech, the desire to make money by controlling tools of propaganda/indoctrination The "War on Women in Tech" is Fabricated seattle4truth https://www.youtube.com/watch?... Most hilarious part pointed out by seattle4truth, in their effort to "equalize" women's supposed disadvantage in salary negotiations, they removed salary negotiations from everyone, which is a rather convenient way for a company to save money, simply declare no one can ask for a higher salary....because "social justice". Common Core, Propaganda, and #GamerGate LeoPirate https://www.youtube.com/watch?... #GamerGate/Ouya/Common Core Connection Unveiled: [SHUT IT DOWN! THEY KNOW!! Edition] seattle4truth https://www.youtube.com/watch?... #GamerGate: Actually, it's About... https://www.youtube.com/watch?... Polygon/Vox Founders Lecture Microsoft on How to Use Blogging for Propaganda in 2006 seattle4truth https://www.youtube.com/watch?...