Slashdot Mirror

Amazons profits in 2012 are not applicable. Those are its profits under the Agency model.
2008 Amazon's profit doubles, shares decline http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2004155275_amazon31.html
2009 Amazon profit surges 69% http://money.cnn.com/2009/10/22/technology/Amazon_earnings/index.htm
2010 Amazon Profits Climb 71% http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-205_162-6151729.html

Another angle on this opportunity that we may not be addressing is the working conditions at Amazon fulfillment centers.

Workers in Amazon's fulfillment centers often complain that they are "held to unreasonable metrics" and that they are "worked to death and then fired."

Employees are required to work through burning heat and freezing cold with hand held computers constantly nagging them that they're moving too slow. They have to run from pick job to pick job all day long.

One report claimed that:

"So many ambulances responded to medical assistance calls at the warehouse during a heat wave in May...that the retailer paid Cetronia Ambulance Corps to have paramedics and ambulances stationed outside the warehouse during several days of excess heat over the summer. About 15 people were taken to hospitals, while 20 or 30 more were treated right there, the ambulance chief told The Call."

There are numerous blogs and news stories on the matter, I'll share just a few.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2017901782_amazonwarehouse04.html
http://heizerrenderom.wordpress.com/2012/04/06/om-in-the-news-amazon-warehouse-jobs-push-workers-to-the-limit/
http://www.ohioworkerscompattorneys.com/2012/04/amazon-warehouse-employees-instructed-to-misreport-work-injuries.shtml

The technology to abort a takeoff in the last 1/2 second is truly amazing, and because of high combustion pressure in an engine is a perfect catch. If the Boeing Delta II in 1997 had had the same type of status checking, it might have discovered the 17 foot crack in the booster, and aborted also, instead of blowing up on launch: http://www.cnn.com/TECH/9701/17/rocket.explosion/index.html. And a Delta III had a rocket engine failure in 1999, which ruined the mission: http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19990626&slug=2968601. So the ability to detect an engine problem and shutdown before liftoff is again an amazing feat, and shows advancing technology. SpaceX is doing this right!

Actually, it is flawed, because automobiles are just about the only things for which the courts have upheld this idea...

Oil tanker owner held liable for captain being negligent and crashing. Owner of a building complex that caught fire held liable, even though he wasn't the one who started the fire. Hotel owner held liable for meth lab being setup in room. Owners of male cattle not held responsible for bull killing someone. By the way, that's a biblical reference; I just wanted to demonstrate it's not a new concept. I can provide many, many more examples. It's not just cars. If you own something, you can be held responsible if you're neglegent in the maintenance of it.
Your failure to secure your wifi connection and then having it used in the commission of a crime makes you liable for damages. This has already happened in the UK and Germany. It's currently being looked into in several jurisdictions in the United States. Bottom line here, there is plenty of legal precident here and globally to create, enforce, and have upheld, a law that makes the owners of an unsecured network legally liable for illegal activity which occurs on it.

No, there isn't. I know for an absolute fact that my state laws contradict every single thing you have stated here, the sole exception being the part about automobile liability. And I am pretty sure that most other states are similar.

I have provided several links indicating that at the state and national level, this is something that is being considered, has legal merit, and may be enforceable. Your turn.

Didn't Gm pay almost all of it back.

Not really. It used some Government tax dollars in an escrow account to pay back some of its Government loans. And the Government has lost billions on GM stock. So we gave GM some money, we got some stock. GM used some of that Government money to pay back Government loans, and the Government sold some of the stock at a loss. Not even close to paying all of it back.

For the last 10 years, the Washington State revenues have increased beyond the rate of inflation plus population growth. There are plenty of revenues coming in to cover the increase in delivery of services AND the increase in the number of people using those services. What has NOT matched the growth of revenues is spending - the Legislature consistently spends even more, adding new programs and wasting money (see the current Seattle Times article about wasted money on expensive SUVs) with glee. The State does not have a revenue problem; it has a significant spending problem, and cranking more dollars into Olympia will not solve the issue.

And hey, they're 'stopping terrorists' but they're letting drug dealers right on through!

Of course, it says something that the only reason the authorities found out about this going on was that one of the drug couriers was too friggin' stupid to go to the terminal with the bribed TSA agents.

The NBA hall of famer and TV basketball analyst once responded to criticism by explaining he had been misquoted in his own autobiography

Their stories always seem to have a pro-Microsoft angle to them. Here are a few examples:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2017860635_microsoftmundie01.html
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2017932842_inpersonkrumm09.html
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/microsoftpri0/2017939774_microsoft_starts_its_marketing_for_the_nokia_lumia.html

It's nothing to do with supporting a local company either, because they've been doing a round of very anti-Amazon articles too...

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2017883596_amazonintro25.html

Their stories always seem to have a pro-Microsoft angle to them. Here are a few examples:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2017860635_microsoftmundie01.html
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2017932842_inpersonkrumm09.html
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/microsoftpri0/2017939774_microsoft_starts_its_marketing_for_the_nokia_lumia.html

It's nothing to do with supporting a local company either, because they've been doing a round of very anti-Amazon articles too...

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2017883596_amazonintro25.html

Their stories always seem to have a pro-Microsoft angle to them. Here are a few examples:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2017860635_microsoftmundie01.html
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2017932842_inpersonkrumm09.html
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/microsoftpri0/2017939774_microsoft_starts_its_marketing_for_the_nokia_lumia.html

It's nothing to do with supporting a local company either, because they've been doing a round of very anti-Amazon articles too...

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2017883596_amazonintro25.html

Their stories always seem to have a pro-Microsoft angle to them. Here are a few examples:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2017860635_microsoftmundie01.html
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2017932842_inpersonkrumm09.html
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/microsoftpri0/2017939774_microsoft_starts_its_marketing_for_the_nokia_lumia.html

It's nothing to do with supporting a local company either, because they've been doing a round of very anti-Amazon articles too...

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2017883596_amazonintro25.html

How about the surveillance video from the police station showing Zimmerman with no injuries after he was brought in? If his head was slammed into concrete such that he was at risk of dying, you would have been able to see it half an hour later. Here's the link you asked for. [cbslocal.com] I bet you don't even view it - you've already made up your mind.

Yes, I've seen that video. Now I've got a few things for you.

When the 6'3" (1.9m) tall Martin slammed Zimmerman's head into the concrete, it represented a lethal danger, not actual damage. It is like you playing in traffic on a freeway that doesn't stop - you are in danger of being hit and killed, but you aren't dead yet. Martin banged up Zimmerman, but didn't inflict mortal damage to him. Understand the difference?

Here is the police report that states he was injured and treated at the scene:

"While I was in such close contact with Zimmerman, I could observe that his back appeared to be wet and was covered in grass, as if he had been laying on his back on the ground. Zimmerman was also bleeding from the nose and back of his head. . . .

Zimmerman was placed in the rear of my police vehicle and was given first aid by the SFD.

Police surveillance video of Zimmerman may show head injury

Now that you have direct police testimony (go ahead, download the original), and a different view, you're left with a question - what do you believe now, and why? If you believe Zimmerman wasn't injured, you're simply wrong.

Actually, the price of photovoltaics has dropped tremendously in the recent years, and with advances like these, it's not hard to predict that it will continue. The subsidies for solar power development have paid off tremendously in the way they were supposed to, by driving research that have cut prices.

For the photovoltaics industry, though, this hasn't been an unmixed blessing, since it has become so competitive, prices are now being driven so low by more efficient production that many struggle to get by.

It's completely wrong that "nothing has changed", you're just not paying attention.

Better than the space tether crap which requires manufacturing capabilities we don't have.

I like the idea of building it on the ground then mag lev'ing it up. Makes building it a lot easier....

20 years is in my lifetime and 60 billion is less than 4 years of NASA's current budget. So 20 years of NASA's budget should easily be able to pay for this AND still have money for other stuff.

That might be the case if the estimate had any basis in reality whatsoever.
Hell, a high-speed rail system of similar length to the launch track using conventional, proven technology is expected to cost around $100 billion; evolutionary development of a new airliner is running about $30 billion; somehow I think it is extremely unlikely they could come anywhere near their cost estimate given the scale and number of unknowns here. It would probably take 50% of the budget just to design and build the launch vehicle, never mind designing and building the enormous launch structure.

Have you noticed that EVERYTHING seems to cause cancer?

It is a wonder that not everyone has cancer, with so many things causing it. (*)

I really doubt all the different classes of sleep meds are carcinogenic.

*

Too much sun
http://www.webmd.com/healthy-beauty/guide/sun-exposure-skin-cancer

Not enough sun
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/health/2004179538_vitamind13m.html

Being overweight
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/obesity

Being underweight
http://foodforbreastcancer.com/news/underweight-women-have-higher-risks-of-breast-cancer-recurrence-and-metastasis

Too little exercise
http://m.theglobeandmail.com/life/health/new-health/health-nutrition/leslie-beck/prolonged-bouts-of-sitting-increase-cancer-risk/article2229466/?service=mobile

Too much exercise
http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2006/12/too-much-exercise-causes-cancer.html

Too little vegetables
http://www.cancer.org/Healthy/EatHealthyGetActive/EatHealthy/fruits-and-vegetables-do-you-get-enough

Too many vegetables
http://www.keytobeing.com/2009/pesticides-in-fruits-veggies-linked-to-cancer-parkinsons-more

Even chemo"therapy"
http://www.cancer-free-for-life.com/articles/chemotherapy.php

Money doesn't spoil character, money reveals character.

While refreshingly not the usual malcontent group-think we indulge around here, you're still wrong.

In the context of wealth disparity, character and morals are orthogonal, and money is the consequence of character. The bulk of the 'rich' are those of us that seek and obtain great rewards from our fellow primates. People with the nerve, charm, guile, and/or wit to lead, own, govern, defy, entertain, intimidate, etc. in ways that appeal to their peers accrue greater wealth. Among them are people for whom static speed limits are completely intolerable; traffic cops and fines do not scare them. This trait is, unsurprisingly, not limited to commuting.

There are people that can't not be in charge, take responsibility and face the powers that be. They will be recognized. They. Will. Be. Recognized. Many people can achieve the conditioning to run and throw well, but only those that can stand toe to toe with the rest of the locker room have any future in the sport. You can prove the Poincaré conjecture, but if you can't face the world -- as it is -- you will stay in your hovel. There are women with super model bodies that subsist on cash payouts for porn work, because it takes more than good equipment.

Go read the SEC Madoff investigation transcripts. He survived multiple audits over decades by intimidating junior auditors, bureaucrats and co-conspirators with nothing more threatening than some dropped names. He lived in terror someone would have the wit to kick over the obvious rocks, but he never once let that be seen. When you encountered Madoff you knew you were dealing with a force of nature, and most people would rather get home on time and have supper than cope with that phenomena. Throw him in the can and the first thing he does is cow the other inmates.

This life is a popularity contest, and morals are a factor in popularity only in as much as the morals of others are not offended ... too much.

BTW, I don't advocate any of this; it's just the world observed without shit/rose colored glasses. I don't expect a lot of affirmation here because too many would rather reality be politely ignored.

Movie and TV producers have been dubbing in bird sounds for decades, including one infamous time CBS backed a golf match with the sounds of birds that have never lived anywhere near the game's location.

Wow, even Edvard Munch's "The Scream" doesn't depict anxiety and despair as effectively as a Venn diagram showing the union of the sets: "pedants", "birders" & "golf watchers". I'd rather have my goolies trapped in a white-hot vice for an hour than go to that party.

Movie and TV producers have been dubbing in bird sounds for decades, including one infamous time when CBS backed a golf match with the sounds of birds that have never lived anywhere near the game's location.

Never heard of it in sports television, but it happens often in TV series and movies. Woodland birds in farmland settings; Old World birds in the US or Australia; the spring calls of birds in scenes shot in the summer, and so on. To be fair, they seem to often make an effort to get it right, too.

What's not explicitly mentioned is whether the bird sounds were recorded at the same time as the video, or whether they were dubbed in after the fact.

If the latter, it's entirely possible that he's using a recording that was made, and consequently copyrighted by someone else.

Movie and TV producers have been dubbing in bird sounds for decades, including one infamous time when CBS backed a golf match with the sounds of birds that have never lived anywhere near the game's location.

Anyhow, the point is that while you can't (yet!) copyright a bird song, you can copyright a specific recording of a sound.

(none of this should be taken to mean that Google does not have it's head up its ass.)

What's next? Banning [...] outdoor recess?

Yes. Recess is dangerous.

No, they are not off. Yours are four years outdated, and I already mentioned everything you brought up.

Please site your sources.

I did. Note the use of a link to a 2010 survey covering the period I was discussing (ironically, you even quoted the link). Nearly everything I mentioned is from there, though I'll admit to having pulled a few general assertions (e.g. higher volume of patent cases) from uncited sources.

Since Ward initially joined the Eastern District of Texas, the district has seen a tenfold increase in cases since 1999.[8] There were 14 patent cases in 1999,[8] 32 in 2002,[1] 155 in 2005,[8] and 234 in 2006.[1] The district is one of eight with more than 100 new patent filings each year.[8] Ward heard more than 160 patent cases in his first seven years on the bench.[3] He had been handling 90% of the patent cases in Marshall, but later was reduced to 60%.[6]

I'm confused. I said that the East Texas district has a high volume of patent cases at the end of my fourth paragraph, and...you agree? Your quote substantiates what I said. Yes, they have a lot of patent cases. We agree! Hurrah!

Patent cases presented before Ward were more frequently won by the patent holder plaintiff than the defense.[9] One source claims that patent holders win 88% of the time in Ward's court, compared to an average of 68% nationwide.[3] Another source claims that patent cases in Marshall are won by patent holders 78% of the time versus 59% nationwide.[1] And a third source claims that in 90% of cases patent holders win jury verdicts.[8]

Recall, kids, that you should always check your primary sources. Had you done so, you'd have seen that the three sources cited in that paragraph are from 2006. Recall as well that I said that the East Texas district had "about a year in the mid-2000s where the plaintiffs won more frequently" and "when it deservedly earned its reputation", but that their activity returned to normal levels afterwards, hence why it was no longer deserved. Note that the survey I linked is from 2010 - four years after your sources - and took the outlying year into account when it said that the district's average trial success rate over the period from 1996-2009 was at approximately the national norm.

Any other questions?

Well, anything except actual threats. We are continually told on Slashdot that they don't exist despite continuing arrests and convictions. The lack of terrorist attacks isn't because there aren't terrorists, or that they don't wish to attack, but because they have been generally foiled to date due to good intelligence, hard work, and luck.

North of the border:
Canadian Charged in Iraq Bombing
Few Details Given as 4 Canadians Are Held in Terrorist Plot
Alleged terrorist arrested at Pearson
Canadian police arrest couple on terrorism charges
Government links boat passengers to terrorism, arrests made
Terror Arrests Reveal Reach of Canada's Surveillance Powers

South of the border:
FBI’s Top Ten News Stories for the Week Ending January 27, 2012
Denver: Man Arrested for Providing Material Support to a Designated Foreign Terrorist Organization
Baltimore: Man Pleads Guilty to Attempted Use of a Weapon of Mass Destruction in Plot to Attack Armed Forces Recruiting Center
Washington Field: Man Pleads Guilty to Shootings at Pentagon, Other Military Buildings

FBI’s Top Ten News Stories for the Week Ending January 13, 2012
Tampa: Florida Resident Charged with Plotting to Bomb Locations in Tampa
Baltimore: Former Army Solider Charged with Attempting to Provide Material Support to al Shabaab

FBI’s Top Ten News Stories for the Week Ending December 9, 2011
Seattle: Man Pleads Guilty in Plot to Attack Military Processing Center

FBI’s Top Ten News Stories for the Week Ending December 2, 2011
San Diego: Woman Guilty of Conspiring to Provide Material Support to al Shabaab

More here.

Keep in mind that Al Qeda has called off attacks that would have likely killed hundreds or thousands of people because they weren't spectacular enough for their tastes. ( New York Subway Plot and al-Qaeda's WMD Strategy )

I don't think this has been tested in court, and if it were I think it's obvious what the decision at the top would be.

Really? http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/03/judge-restores-access-to-wisconsin-capitol----but-no-staying-overnight.php

Or were you referring to parks?

This is obviously absurd. The schools are public spaces, and the courts have ruled in favor of children having all of the constitutional rights of adults.

Yeah? Go hold a rally there why don't you? I'm talking about the government being able to say "yes this is publicly owned, but you still cannot camp|hold a rally|eat your lunch|read your pornography|sleep here."

And no the courts have not held that children have all the constitutional rights of adults. In fact it's very much otherwise. Hell there are numerous clauses of the constitution that explicitly deny rights to children.

Which is comically out of sync with the letter or spirit of 1A.

Says you. The US Supreme Court Justices (and the vast majority of Americans) say otherwise which means that your opinion on this subject is irrelevant.

Cap-and-trade carbon limits are definitely a tough topic. It's inevitable that some carbon dioxide will be produced in our energy use, and reducing CO2 emissions is extremely costly and involves a high-stakes game of international poker. Also, CO2 levels would have to be tremendously higher than they are now to cause any negative environmental effects outside of warming. I personally would support some carbon taxes (I think cap-and-trade is too vulnerable to political manipulation esp. of who gets the initial credits), especially if we can get international agreement, but I know the debate won't be settled quickly.

But I'm really irritated that we're letting the debate about carbon consume all the attention and other environmental issues are getting ignored. There are a lot of actions that would come at relatively low costs and have huge positive environmental impacts, both w.r.t. warming and otherwise, but we're spending so much time avoiding doing anything about carbon that we're not getting anything else done either.

As examples, I'll mention three somewhat-related things we ought to take action on without delay. First, methane and particulate pollution are big contributors to global warming but also have tons of other negative effects including direct effects on human health. We could make drastic reductions in these at a much lower cost than cutting carbon emissions.

Second, one of the major sources of methane pollution is the beef industry, and as people in the developing world start to mimic US lifestyles and their meat consumption explodes, the increase in cattle causes tons of other problems as well. We should do more (education, Pigovian taxes, etc) to encourage people to be moderate in meat consumption. All told, cutting meat from your diet for just one day each week does as much for the environment as switching from a gas-guzzler to a Prius.

Third, while people make a big deal about how Brazil has succeeded in reducing the rate of Amazon deforestation, "we're destroying the rainforest more slowly" is not all that great a success. Besides being one of the biggest non-oceanic carbon sinks (which gets turned into a carbon and methane source when cut down, burned, and used for cattle) it's also vital to biodiversity and South American water quality and weather patterns.

As much as I personally love bashing MS, the reality is that they've had this position for quite a while now. For instance they gave $100k to support Ref 71 which if passed would allow the everything but marriage bill to be enacted. And IIRC that was hardly the first time they supported the general cause of equality for sexual minorities either.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/microsoftpri0/2010010778_microsoftgave100000to.html

My understanding is that it was within 100 miles of the border. As far as sources I can offer these after a quick google search:

This one about searches in Tennessee

Or this from the ACLU about the constitution free zone

Or any number of incidents that have occurred. Granted the border patrol isn't the TSA but they are both part of the DHS and even have some permanent "interior checkpoints" as they call them most are on the southern border but it is mentioned that there are number in northern states within 100 miles of the Canadian border.

My understanding is that it was within 100 miles of the border. As far as sources I can offer these after a quick google search:

This one about searches in Tennessee

Or this from the ACLU about the constitution free zone

Or any number of incidents that have occurred. Granted the border patrol isn't the TSA but they are both part of the DHS and even have some permanent "interior checkpoints" as they call them most are on the southern border but it is mentioned that there are number in northern states within 100 miles of the Canadian border.

I laughed :-) we just changed that btw: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2016720231_elexliquor09m.html

I don't think I know anyone who takes pain drugs, so I have no personal knowledge. However, I found a short article about Methadone on the Seattle Times web site recently when I was looking at Google Health news. Even the summary seemed obviously suspicious, so I looked at the article.

To me, that article and all the data to which the Slashdot story linked screamed incompetence or fraud. Now that I've read a little of the linked data, I realize the writers are at least partly incompetent. Possibly only whoever started them looking was engaged in fraud to sell more expensive drugs.

I just discovered that I'm not the only one who thinks that. Short quotes, read the full comments:

"It does not matter if you switch every body to oxycontin or oxycodone. These drugs are terrible at controlling pain and all are very dangerous."

"... I have an issue with how the Seattle Times is drawing a correlation between poverty and methadone poisoning. ..."

Possibly Methadone is more often given to people who have little education, and who are therefore more likely to overdose because they didn't understand the instructions, or because they have other issues that confuse them.

The bigger concern is that despite women being just as likely to be engaged in domestic violence as men, we needed a woman specific law to deal with the problem.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2013743521_domesticviolence26.html

He also misrepresents the entire process of modern agriculture - namely, none of the inputs are implicitly dependent on the active production of more CO2

I think you forgot about tillage.

What about that is implicitly dependent on CO2 producing means?

It doesn't matter what fuel the tractors burn. Tillage produces CO2 because it oxidizes the organic matter in the soil. It's basically burning coal millions of years before it becomes a rock. FYI: Soil oxidation and erosion generates 12-15 times more CO2 annually than the burning of all fossil fuels combined.

As a result, clearing fallow land in the name of corn based biofuels has increased CO2 and increased world hunger and starvation. Ethanol is all about increasing the price of corn for midwestern US farms. If you believe anything else, you're deluding yourself.

But don't listen to a thing I say, because I'm skeptical of the IPCC and their conclusions. <sarcasm>Obviously I am receiving funds from some oil company with no scientific basis for my opinions.</sarcasm>

Have you ever used a touchscreen to play games? Constantly having your arm at attention and moving your hands around blocks screen real estate is a really big minus most people don't consider.

Have you ever used a touch-enabled device to play CARD GAMES? Touch-based devices offer more intuitive and easier-to-hit targets than the abstracted controls of something like a Nintendo hand held. Incidentally (not really), there is much anecdotal evidence that elderly people do very well with iPads. In some cases, iPads can also be used as an assistive device.

Regarding cost, iPads are right around $500. That's really not much for a device that may dramatically improve an elderly woman's quality of life. An iPad potentially be a more useful device than a Nintendo hand held, which I'm guessing would be disregarded after a few uses.

The education bubble

"students are borrowing twice what they did a decade ago after adjusting for inflation" and in the past five years total outstanding debt has doubled. That compares with falling debt on loans for houses and credit cards.

Remember, that's a trillion dollars of debt that can't even be wiped out by bankruptcy, unlike the previous bubbles of the dot-bombs and real estate.

The headset is nearly useless. Talking over the phone is more distracting than a car passenger, because passengers realize when to stfu because of situational cues, and you aren't pressured to keep the conversation going when the situation demands all your attention since a passenger realizes this, but a phone participant doesn't and keeps on going.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002374605_cellphones12.html

I'm curious, do you have any evidence that it's not the case? We've spent a large amount of money locally cleaning up the hazardous waste left by the refining industry after they left without cleaning it up.

I take it you haven't seen http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRZ4LQSonXA This is a bit of an extreme example, but I don't personally trust the oil industry to be honest about the consequences of their spills making it into the water. Once that stuff gets into the ground water it does eventually make its way out to see. And don't forget about when they don't come clean about spills. http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20041106&slug=oilspill06m

Ultimately, the oil industry has earned it's poor reputation on the environment and having them damaging the environment which we rely upon for a large part of our income is a rather poor decision.

Sounds exactly like extortion to me.

There are grown-ups signing these licensing deals.

Companies like General Dynamics. the six largest defense contractor in the world.

General Dynamics Itronix makes the GD300, a portable computer running Android software for the military to use in the field. It can be worn on the wrist or the chest, it uses GPS and it can be connected to tactical radios. It has a touchscreen that soldiers can use even if they are wearing gloves. The device runs chips designed by ARM.

General Dynamics Itronix will pay Microsoft to use Google Android

The Sectera Edge devices the Air Force is acquiring have their own security built in. The smartphones support the Secure Communications Interoperability Protocol (SCIP) and thus interoperable with the more than 350,000 devices that use it.

The devices also are certified to provide secure data communications that the military classifies as "secret" or less, as well as secure voice communications classified as "top secret" and less. Additionally, it is compliant with the High Assurance Internet Protocol Encryptor Interoperability Specification (HAIPEIS) for interoperability with in-line encryption devices that secure information on the Secret Internet Protocol Router Network (SIPRNet) the DOD and State Department use to transmit classified information, according to General Dynamics.

Air Force Brass Get Secure Smartphones

Casio, best known for its watches and calculators, has 11,000 employees and revenues of $4.6 billion a year.

The company was founded in the darkest days of postwar industry for Japan. It is quite capable of fighting its own battles and not as weak as a kittten.

It's a bit over the top, but it's completely true.

Rape, sexual abuse, domestic violence, cancer, homelessness, those are all things for which society provides resources above and beyond what men receive. In the case of domestic violence, it's especially egregious seeing as women make up a full half of all abusers and yet are rarely targeted by public awareness campaigns.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSPAT97046720080520
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2013743521_domesticviolence26.html

What's worse is that schools are continuing to indoctrinate men with the notion that they are in some fashion inferior to women and that they are less valuable than women are.

When I was in ShenZhen last, a few Chinese had iPhone clones that looked a lot like the real deal.

Apparently, as other people have pointed out, the real iPhone has been available to Chinese consumers since last September. This announcement is just about a second carrier also getting the handset.

It was a bit funny to read this Slashdot story, since just last night I saw a news story about how the Chinese are rather taken with Obama's new ambassador to China, Gary Locke. The reason? He carries his own bags. How do they know this? A photo on their big social networking site, taken by a Chinese businessman... using an iPhone.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2015923589_whitecentershooting17m.html

The police were already here for this one. They were just one block away. And they didn't feel any collars after the gun went off.

I guess it could have been a lot worse if the police were nowhere near...

Does Boeing pay their interns (although in this case life insurance might be the more important bit)?

Since the market price for the trip is $20~35 million they are paid much better than the Boeing CEO. They are getting in one week the value of what's paid to the CEO in a year

ever notice that the recession has been more or less tied to the rise of apple and its iphone?

Did you write this gem? http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2015720742_brier25.html

Huh? Marshall TX has a US Federal Court and it has the reputation of being prime real estate for bringing patent litigation especially for patent owners. So I'm not sure how your recommendations would alleviate the issue.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2002963706_btpatentheaven01.html

You're looking at growth *rates*. The GP is looking at absolute production:

Nuclear increased by about 2 Exajoules, W+S increased by about 1 Exajoule. 2 exajoules = 2 * 1 Exajoule.

Get it?

However, if wind and solar can keep increasing at their current rates, and if Nuclear is continued to be hamstrung by the likes of Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, and Gregory Jazcko, then yes, "renewables" will outperform nuclear.

Of course if the NRC is not allowed to certify designs and provide construction/operation licenses to utilities, if the NRC *Chairman* is blocking scientific study of whether or not a waste repository should be licensed (not based on the MERITS - because the NRC review should be about determining the merits; but simply because he got his appointment to the NRC by being hand-picked by Harry Reid with a simple mission: stop the licensing process for Yucca, no matter what it takes), and if anti-nuclear groups can constantly harass licensees (who've done years of preparatory work with NRC, EPA, etc to properly site a plant) with lawsuits that each add 6 months or a year of delay to the construction, nobody is going to build nuclear.

We've made it way too easy for a very small, but well funded minority of people in the country to block the business of companies who have done everything right - gone through all the regulatory hoops, done everything asked of them to comply with Federal law, and who have committed billions of dollars to the projects, to have those multi-billion dollar projects derailed.

Microsoft pays their interns, and pays them around 80% of a full time employee salary, although that depends on the length of the internship, a summer internship pays less. They also provide housing for some and other perks.

"While the outcome is not what we had hoped for, we will continue to advocate for changes to the law that will prevent abuse of the patent system and protect inventors who hold patents representing true innovation", Microsoft said in a statement.

Someone needs to let Paul Allen know about MS's change in attitude about patents.

When Microsoft speaks of "true innovation" it does not mean what you or I or any normal person would mean. Microsoft's "right to innovate" has historically been an euphemism for its right to disregard antitrust law. With Microsoft, words are never enough. You should judge Microsoft by its actions.

I don't drink and drive and I also don't enjoy being hit by asshole drunk drivers. I'll bet that the parents of my friends would wait through a thousand checkpoints to have another day with their children.
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20031026&slug=fugitive26m0

Now, if I told you that just about any person can close a distance of 21 feet in approximately 1.5 seconds would you be surprised? Would you be more surprised to learn that the typical police officer needs approximately 1.5 seconds to draw his pistol from his holster and bring the front sight to eye level? Now remember, most if not all cops have retention holsters, i.e., holsters that must me manipulated in a certain way to release the firearm. And, brining the front sight to eye even doesn't mean you have actually had time to put that sight to the center mass of the person you are about to shoot.

I would not be surprised that someone could do that. I have timed myself and how fast I can move at various times, and that doesn't strike me as being all that difficult, even from a standing start. It's also not too surprising that a police officer's weapon isn't drawn trivially easily. That makes it so that someone's surprise attempt to steal their weapon turns into a struggle instead of shots being fired.

Also, read the rest of Birk's testimony: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2013905500_inquest12m.html [nwsource.com]

...

"Seattle Police Detective Jeffery Mudd also testified that he would have dropped a knife if ordered to do so at gunpoint by a police officer.

I have read that. And my opinion on his culpability drops from 2nd degree murder to manslaughter.

Ian Burke was a rookie cop who created a situation for himself that he couldn't handle appropriately. Detective Mudd's comment is completely irrelevant here. Almost anybody will do almost anything a police officer demands they do at gunpoint. Refusing to do so when you are not actually committing a crime (or, if for some weird reason, that is a crime, then some other crime), should not be considered grounds for shooting someone. And I don't think it should be considered a crime at all.

The officer created the situation by giving confronting the guy and giving the order in the first place. As far as I can tell from what I've read of the case, the guy was wandering along with a knife in his hand before Ian Burke decided that wasn't something he liked to see. Ian then decided to hop out of his car and do something about this scary looking (but, as far as he could ascertain) law abiding citizen. This citizen did not comply relatively quickly with a yelled order at gunpoint, and as far as Ian was concerned (since we only have his word on the topic) looked ever scarier than before he decided to confront him. So Ian shot him because he felt that he was now in danger.

If anybody but a police officer had done those things, they would be convicted of (at the very least) voluntary manslaughter. I'm willing to give Ian Burke the benefit of a doubt for being a frightened rookie cop who was out of his depth and say that's all he should be convicted of too.

It definitely is and assuming that this is a somewhat accurate description of what happened, the police officers involved could easily find themselves behind bars for witness tampering, destruction of evidence amongst other things. And police officers do get sent to prison from time to time for this sort of behavior.

Every once in a great while when there is a massive public outcry and there are no other politically viable alternatives, yes, they do. This is far, far less often than it should happen. Of the instances of police overstepping their bounds I have heard of exactly one police officer being fired, and that was for a clear case of murder that was committed on camera and the victim was a homeless person who was well known and liked. The officer's excuse was that the man (who was known as 'the woodcarver' by locals) had a knife, and he did not put it down in the 2.5 seconds between the time the officer told him to and the time he fired. The man made no threatening gesture with the knife.

I have never heard of a police officer going to jail.

You're either making stuff up or you clearly have no idea what the hell you're talking about.

First, some simple facts. Ian Birk, the police officer who shot the "wood carver", resigned after he learned that there would *no* criminal charges filed against him. [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41632205/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/t/seattle-cop-who-fatally-shot-woodcarver-quits-force/]

Second, wood carver John T. Williams, the person who was shot bu Birk, had 2 knives on him when he was shot, one which was open a and visible to Birk when Williams walked past his police cruiser. Williams also has an extensive criminal record, a substance abuser and alcoholic. This article doesn't make him seem as dangerous and violent as these people can really be: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2012784234_copshooting02m.html I say this as a 14 year full-time paramedic who has worked (and still does) the street of the South Bronx, Alphabet City, Harlem and Spanics Harlem.

Third, the actual shooting was not recorded by video camera, only audio of the officer telling the suspect to put the knife down and then the gunshots. So, you didn't see what happened and *you* sure as hell were not there see it.

Lastly, the officer had a bit more than an excuse of not putting down a 3" blade in "2.5 seconds between the time the officer told him to and the time he fired." Here: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2013905500_inquest12m.html

Now, if I told you that just about any person can close a distance of 21 feet in approximately 1.5 seconds would you be surprised? Would you be more surprised to learn that the typical police officer needs approximately 1.5 seconds to draw his pistol from his holster and bring the front sight to eye level? Now remember, most if not all cops have retention holsters, i.e., holsters that must me manipulated in a certain way to release the firearm. And, brining the front sight to eye even doesn't mean you have actually had time to put that sight to the center mass of the person you are about to shoot.

What I just described above was the result of a officer named Dennis Tueller. He came up with what is now famously (among cops and people with pistol permits who take training) know as the Tueller drill: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tueller_Drill You can read the article he wrote called "How Close Is Too Close: http://www.theppsc.org/Staff_Views/Tueller/How.Close.htm Videos on YouTube demonstrating this: http://www.youtube.com/results

It definitely is and assuming that this is a somewhat accurate description of what happened, the police officers involved could easily find themselves behind bars for witness tampering, destruction of evidence amongst other things. And police officers do get sent to prison from time to time for this sort of behavior.

Every once in a great while when there is a massive public outcry and there are no other politically viable alternatives, yes, they do. This is far, far less often than it should happen. Of the instances of police overstepping their bounds I have heard of exactly one police officer being fired, and that was for a clear case of murder that was committed on camera and the victim was a homeless person who was well known and liked. The officer's excuse was that the man (who was known as 'the woodcarver' by locals) had a knife, and he did not put it down in the 2.5 seconds between the time the officer told him to and the time he fired. The man made no threatening gesture with the knife.

I have never heard of a police officer going to jail.

You're either making stuff up or you clearly have no idea what the hell you're talking about.

First, some simple facts. Ian Birk, the police officer who shot the "wood carver", resigned after he learned that there would *no* criminal charges filed against him. [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41632205/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/t/seattle-cop-who-fatally-shot-woodcarver-quits-force/]

Second, wood carver John T. Williams, the person who was shot bu Birk, had 2 knives on him when he was shot, one which was open a and visible to Birk when Williams walked past his police cruiser. Williams also has an extensive criminal record, a substance abuser and alcoholic. This article doesn't make him seem as dangerous and violent as these people can really be: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2012784234_copshooting02m.html I say this as a 14 year full-time paramedic who has worked (and still does) the street of the South Bronx, Alphabet City, Harlem and Spanics Harlem.

Third, the actual shooting was not recorded by video camera, only audio of the officer telling the suspect to put the knife down and then the gunshots. So, you didn't see what happened and *you* sure as hell were not there see it.

Lastly, the officer had a bit more than an excuse of not putting down a 3" blade in "2.5 seconds between the time the officer told him to and the time he fired." Here: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2013905500_inquest12m.html

Now, if I told you that just about any person can close a distance of 21 feet in approximately 1.5 seconds would you be surprised? Would you be more surprised to learn that the typical police officer needs approximately 1.5 seconds to draw his pistol from his holster and bring the front sight to eye level? Now remember, most if not all cops have retention holsters, i.e., holsters that must me manipulated in a certain way to release the firearm. And, brining the front sight to eye even doesn't mean you have actually had time to put that sight to the center mass of the person you are about to shoot.

What I just described above was the result of a officer named Dennis Tueller. He came up with what is now famously (among cops and people with pistol permits who take training) know as the Tueller drill: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tueller_Drill You can read the article he wrote called "How Close Is Too Close: http://www.theppsc.org/Staff_Views/Tueller/How.Close.htm Videos on YouTube demonstrating this: http://www.youtube.com/results