Slashdot Mirror

What you are saying is not really a secret:

PTSD is a recognition that if you've been in the wrong place at the wrong time or have been in a place where you've had to commit acts such as shooting other combatants or civilians or driven a car that you weren't in control of and killed people or things of that sort, that these events can change the way you feel about yourself and feel about the world.

What you are saying is not really a secret:

PTSD is a recognition that if you've been in the wrong place at the wrong time or have been in a place where you've had to commit acts such as shooting other combatants or civilians or driven a car that you weren't in control of and killed people or things of that sort, that these events can change the way you feel about yourself and feel about the world.

Instead of a software approach that's unstable, why not a hardware solution. http://www.uniden.com/productpop/00_productpop.cfm ?prd_code=ELBT595 Now I have not tested this gear but if it truly supports any Bluetooth enable handset. Then it would be possible to pair your GSM phone w/ Bluetooth capabilities to the base station. Then while at home you can use the cell phone as an additional handset for your home. Additionally you could just follow this article and find out how he did it using WiFI. http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20040930. html

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/rss/

they said podcast first

@ Learner.org
Science in Focus: Energy

This video workshop for K-6 teachers explores the scientific meaning of energy and examines the role it plays in motion, machines, the body, and the universe. http://learner.org/resources/series160.html

A Private Universe This video documentary for grade 5-12 educators explores why students from early grades to Ivy League graduates don't really grasp basic science concepts.http://learner.org/resources/series28.htm l

EduMUcate Yourself man. http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/Physics/index.htm

Take a good look around those last two sites.

Ok everyone, let me proclaim my utter ignorance. I have been trying to understand E=MC^2 for years, and I don't get.

Honestly, I don't even understand many of the basics.

Sure-- it's the formula for "Energy to matter" or something. But why does this matter? How does this relate to Einstein's theories about gravity wells, speed of light, etc.

And I understand the legacy-- E=MC^2 changed how the world was viewed by theoretical physicists. It's different from the Newtonian models of the Universe. I just don't understand why.

Are there any good, visual examples of these ideas?

I'm listening to these Physicists. But again, most of these people are talking about the legacy of the equasion-- they talk about how the equasion impacted society. (Although Janet Conrad has a good brief description of why it matters)

ah here's the link he "mesh'd" 3 or 4 open AP's to be one fat connection.

*shrug*

Yeah, I knew a guy from Alaska who had stories of people carrying alcohol on hikes and taking a drink - your throat just gets frozen. Here's a link where someone almost died, but the doctor used a tube to get liquid into the victim. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/ice/filmmore/referenc e/interview/vaughan08.html

okay, this is my last post.

i can't convice you that oil companies are collaborating because it is only in their best interest and there is nothing to stop them. oh well. guess i'll just give up....

all hail the oil industry, a model of efficiency proficiency, and incorruptability that will never be topped in the history of the world...

pysche.

http://www.accc.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/ 596718/fromItemId/2332

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/economy/jan-june00/ oil_2-17.html

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c106:H.R.382 2.RFS:

http://economist.com/agenda/displayStory.cfm?story _id=1602123

http://news.cincypost.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AI D=/20050804/EDIT/508040321/1003

oh, and those links work.
unlike this one...
http://articles.roshd.ir/articles_folder/mohandesi Science/mechanic/HowstuffWorksHowGasPricesWork.htm

and they're legit, whats roshd.ir? (i can't read arabic.)

and, this final link...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2908133.stm

you wanted evidence?

well, i don't think you'll be convinced. so i can't change your mind, you can't change mind. and we both wasted time typing meaningless shit on some nerd website. good debate, but not a big fuckin' deal.

uhhh...
http://www.senate.gov/~kohl/press/statements/20053 09430.html
that ain't an idiot like me talking, that's one of your father's former colleagues who said...

"Such blatantly anti-competitive conduct by the oil cartel violates the most basic principles of fair competition and free markets and should not be tolerated."

another opinion on price fixing...
http://slate.msn.com/id/77957/

i am not a conspiracy theorist. i just think that corporations have too much power nowadays and that they have no conscience that tells them what is right and what is wrong. and that the government is not doing its job of protecting the rights of the citizens, and instead has found a higher paying job of doing what corporations want and lying to the public.
an example...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7804770/

it is only logical for corporations to try to fix prices! they are going to do whatever they can to do what they are designed to do...generate more and more profit. getting rid of competition or collaborating with competition will do that for them. that is my reason for thinking there is price/supply fixing. you can say "well, i've seen the inside of government and corporations, and, believe me, there isn't". and, even if you really believe that, i simply will still believe what i believe.

"And then all end up jail. Yeah, right."

okay, i think you're missing one of my points all along. my point, that i'm sure you know, is that things don't work like they do in theory. in theory, those fines from the crimes exxon committed would stop them from doing crimes in the future, but those fines won't. those fines are only another part of the cost/benefit analysis that a company does when it decides to do something. and even fines like $500 million are not enough of a disincentive to deter a company as big as exxon. i think the fines that these companies face should absolutely cripple them. that is the only way that corporate power can be checked, because that is the ONLY thing that it understands, money.

and, if amazon cooked the books, i don't think they would most likely end up in jail...

they might be found not guilty...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8293846/

they might not ever go to trial (5 years and waiting...)
kenneth "kenny boy" lay

or they might get a "harsh" penalty...
bernie ebbers

just look at this page...
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/features/scandal_s heet.asp?cbsReferrer=www.google.com

the majority of those on that page are NOT in jail, years after their crimes were committed. i understand that justice is slow and these cases are complicated, but still.
now, compare the page of corporate scandals' status with this one about mandatory drug dealing sentences...
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/snit ch/primer/
(scroll down to the mandatory sentences table)

now, who did more damage? the guy coming out of the ghetto, with no father, no education, a lifetime of dissapointment and discrimination, who has drugs in his pocket because that is what everyone else does and that's the only way he sees to make money or the corporate criminal destroyed the financial savings and jobs of thousands of people because he was greedy?

now do you see why i think there some type of fishy business going on? i mean look at the penalties. they fined samuel waskal $4 million dollars and sent him to jail for 7 years. but he got $73 million in compensation in ONE year! plus he'll most likely get out early. so, when he gets out he'll have millions of dollars in the bank

Google is your friend, but I found this one interesting.

Game Revolution

It's simple and very readable, and points out that violent crime because of kids has been dropping. Enough that 1985-2000 looks like an anomoly.

There's even a PBS article

Result: Violent games don't really lead to more crime.

I hope this is meant as irony, because otherwise it's kind of sad

No, sad would be the lack of democracy in Japan, or Germany. Or throughout eastern Europe. Happily that's not the case. Happier still will be democracy throughout the Middle East - not just in Israel, and partially in Egypt. That, of course, is the whole damn point of sticking it out in Iraq. Even the Saudis just started having municipal elections... these things take time.

don't think that was because of terrorism, but rather because the US forces were unable to deal with guerilla's

The last straw was the shoot-down of the Blackhawk in Mogadishu. If you'll recall, Somalia was (and still is) a hot spot for al Qaeda supported and trained insurgency. Having been deprived of their cozy little spot in Afghanistan, they're looking to set up shop in other chaotic places. That Clinton didn't send in major troops to make that problem go away right after the embassy bombings is a damn shame, really. But the bad news is that the locals and the al Qaeda people there spurring them on remain convinced that shooting up a helicopter crew was all it took to run the US out of the peacekeeping mission there. In practical effect, that's true. Just like blowing up some barracks in Beruit would be seen by the people that did it as all it took to remove our Marine presence from that trouble spot. That's the conclusion they reasonably drew, and is exactly the sort of thing that has people like Zarqawi convinced that enough car bombs in Iraq will eventually get him that country as a playground for the mysoginistic, medeival-minded theocratic thugocracy that he'd like to see running the entire Middle East.

it's also one of the biggest countries to overthrow democratically elected governments and replace them with a pro-US dictator whenever that fits better into their goals.

Help me out, here, with some post-Cold War examples. That's crucial, because stopping the tyranny of the Soviet Union was paramount. Ask the folks living in Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria, Poland etc what they think of the results of playing chess with the Soviets in their proxy/puppet conflicts in places like Central America and Asia over the last decades of their influence. It's over now. The true socialist crazies (say, Chavez in Venezuela) are now having to get support from immitation communists (like China) that are really just totalitarian-run emerging capitalist economies that won't tolerate (as a population) that crap for much longer. I'm amused that people like Chavez think China's support is idealogical.

And the fears over Three Mile Island are just plain ignorance. It was a minor incident that didn't hurt anyone. Don't believe me? Too bad. The Pennsylvania court system does. After years of litigation, the courts ruled there isn't enough evidence anyone was harmed by the accident to support even going to trial.

My favorite quote is, "The court has searched the record for any and all evidence which construed in a light most favorable to Plaintiffs creates a genuine issue of material fact warranting submission of their claims to a jury. This effort has been in vain."
Here's a link to the ruling - Click Me

I never said our opinions were equally valid. What you're missing here is the fact that nothing I have to say will do anything to influence your thinking, which really is the bottom line in any dispute. If I know you will walk away, thougts and opinions unchanged, what have I achieved? Nothing. I have accomplished the equivelant of exchanging my ideas with a pile of bricks. Your very matter-of-fact assessment of my position being "wrong," tells me anything I have to say has nearly zero chance of influence; you've already made up your mind. Even if I weren't "wrong," in your very objective opinion, any fact or point I bring forward to debate your position would be readily discounted by you as "western propaganda," and my sources of information you would find credible are extremely limited. It's kind of sad, really... you'll wander through life advocating a system that trades off limitless human potential so everyone can have the same scrap of bread, and if they're really thrifty, the same crappy car. But anyway... since you're so convinced you're right, why should I continue to discuss this with you? To what end? Perhaps I am being stubborn, but Sun Tsu sees this situation differently:

Move not unless you see an advantage; use not your troops unless there is something to be gained; fight not unless the position is critical. If it is to your advantage, make a forward move; if not, stay where you are. Anger may in time change to gladness; vexation may be succeeded by content. - Sun Tzu

Not seeing the value added in using my time to engage in this discussion further doesn't make me stubborn; it makes me a capitalist. No profit? No point! ;)

You're also missing the fact that not everything is so truly black and white. Right/wrong, better/worse... rarely are things so neatly categorized when considered in proper context. Perhaps your experience leads you to believe something different. So be it. The fact is your government failed where mine hasn't even hiccuped. Capitalism is a thriving reality while the Soviet Union is a chapter in history books. The fact is you lost when you said no country should respect the IP rights of others, as I believe our original discussion was about innovations. See, an truly innovative society doesn't have to rip-off, or lay foundations with, ideas from other nations. It comes up with its own. Unfortunately for you, it's difficult to gauge the true innovativeness of the USSR, as most of the Soviet Union was built on science and technology developed by Americans:

Essay on propaganda in the early Soviet Union - "Energetic factory workers sometimes got written up in local papers as our Russian-Americans. These propaganda terms of praise encouraged others to copy the "Americanisms": speedy, efficient work skills and willingness to adapt to new ways of doing things. Pravda, long the written propaganda bellwether noted in 1935, "Comrade Stalin teaches us to combine the broad scope of the Russian Revolution with American efficiency...For us America ought to be that standard according to which we can constantly test our technical attainments."" source = (note: PBS = Public Broadcasting System, or Public TV. About as left-thinking as you can get here in the USA)

So you were in space first. Whoopie. Innovation is about who's doing it better. If the Soviets were equally (remember, that's the context of this discussion... equally) innovative to their capitalist counterparts, what were they sharing with the rest of the world that was so great? What brand recognition did the Soviet Union enjoy? Perhaps the USSR did a fair share of business in bringing its puppet satellite nations outside of Eastern Europe out of the stone age, but never in the West did anyone ever say, "Hey, the Soviets build a better light bulb!" Fact of the matter is, if the Soviets were doing it better, they'd still be running the show over there. Sadly the short-sightedness of Soviet leadership and the narrow scope of a communist agenda prevented any chance the USSR had of sustaining itself before the horse even left the gate.

The Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway case was part of a PBS show that aired in June 2003 under the title "Bloodlines". Use this link for your local show times. http://www.pbs.org/bloodlines

"Today the average welfare recipient lives better than the kings of Europe did 250 years ago. Our poor people are fat sitting in air conditioned trailors watching color TV instead of dying in the gutters."

"12% of Americans live below the poverty line. As opposed to 10% in China, BTW."

And you trust facts and figures released by the Chinese government? Wow. (by the way, the 10% on the CIA's "factbook" was provided by the Chinese) That aside, how were your calculations made? What sources are you using?

Just FYI, 10% of over one billion > 12% of 285 million, so whatever point you were trying to make with this handy little factoid totally escapes me. But because you seem to think Lennin had it right where the US founding fathers did not, I ask you why China is bar none the world's biggest violator of copyright and intellictual property law if they're so capable of an economy full of technological innovation. This isn't to mention their extremely large and active network of information gatherers (read: spies) trying to "aquire" military, nuclear, engineering, and other secrets. If they're as great as you tout, why don't they just build this stuff themselves, instead of stealing it? This is just as good as the Chinese sending a Nigerian chain letter...

"Most honorable nuclear engineer, if you could just share the superuser info for the FTP you keep your most super-secret uranium refinement data on..."

Sometimes I wonder if there is a limit to how much this figure can be exaggerated. Real story: several millions died because of very bad harvest (remember, climate sucks in Russia) and destruction of economy by the Civil War. A few more millions died directly in Civil War.

Again, I'd like to know your source for the "real story." I don't doubt millions of Russians were killed during World War II, but again, I doubt you're considering the source of your information and the fact that most of the BS to come out of communist nations is propaganda.

BTW, if you meant other countries, such as Cambogia, it would have been nice of you to mention that carpet bombing by US Air Forces killed more Cambogians than Pol Pot did (news to you?)

Yes, actually, it probably is news to him, considering the high estimates for Cambodian (you did mean CamboDia, didn't you?) killed are around 500,000 (sources here or here) vs. 1.5 million killed by Pol Pot. And that's Pol Pot's low figures.

"..and total misery for the poor bastards forced to live under communist rule."

"I dunno, I rather enjoyed it. Certainly was better than having half the population living in poverty and a quarter of the population starving."

Let's put aside the fact that you claim you actually enjoyed living in nations where the thought police not only exist, but thrive, and human rights are non-existant. Didn't you just say that only 12% of Americans are living below the poverty line? In what capitalist nation have you lived where 50% of the people are poor and 25% are starving? I'm curious.

I look forward to the troll mod for this. :D

Its being done in labs right now (very slowly), and its the basis of photosynthesis. Taking water and splitting the hydrogen off to make carbohydrates. NOVA did a special last month about it: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/3210/01.ht ml

Would that they were.

You don't know that. It's an untested assertion, and a fig-leaf invented by Truman and his advisers.

I think that the atomic bomb should not have been used. The whole atomic program should have been diverted to civilian use. Without the bomb, there would have been no cold war, no nations waiting to send each other to oblivion. A whole cold war could have been avoided. The atom bomb was too terrible to invent, let alone too terrible to use and we will always live with the consequences.

Of course, you might say that someone would have to invent. I say again that this is an untested assertion and spread of the bomb would be something that could *more* easiliy have been controlled by discussion and treaty than it is now.

What apologists forget is that the bomb program was going in 1942, way before the casualties in Okinawa were even thought of. The bomb was built because they thought that if the Germans built one, then the Germans would win the war. (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/databank/entries/dp45 at.html) It had nothing to do with the Japanese.

Notably, the German research program ground to a halt because of the recalcitrance of German scientists to work on the German bomb - both Hahn and Heisenberg state this, which is a bit wierd until one considers that atomic science was tainted for the Nazis by Einsteins "jewish" science and their management structures were chaotic.

Ironically, it was Niels Bohr who speeded the Allied program with his message resulting from his famous conversation with Heisenberg. The message stated that the Germans were working on their bomb - Heisenberg later claimed that he was tryng to get Bohr *not* too work on the bomb. I am not convinced that this would have happened: there were a lot of anti-fascists of sufficient calibre to finish the bomb without Bohr, although Bohr's blessing helped. The Americans had the bit between their teeth at this stage and I think Little Man and Big Boy were to become a reality come what may. The *German* threat was felt to be that great.

The bomb, therefore, was not built in reaction to the casualties caused by the Japanese. Indeed, US casualty rates never much of a concern to anyone until Truman and his advisers came up with this fig-leaf. My opinion is that Truman did not want a large Russian presence in the Pacific. Neither would he tolerate a large British presence again. The allies were re-tooling their armed forces for the Far East prior to the bomb dropping, although it is debatable whether the British would have made a large contribution at this stage. The Russian threat seems more of a motivator.

h

Ben Franklin and another former president (in a war time), FDR or Esinhower, both said in there own words something to the effect of "A country willing to sacrifice freedom in exchnge for security, will neither have either nor diserve either."

Do we really need to learn that lesson again?

Or is it that the Bush adminastration has something to hide from the public?

When you do others wrong, wouldn't you become fearful of their possible revenge?

9/11 happened because of the apparent politically controlled military force defending the trillion dollar bet

Even if those you do wrong don't take revenge, it doesn't mean another won't use it as an excuse to do so.

By removing such wrongs against others and working the genuine goal or honestly solving real world problems, it'll be damn hard for any real effort to build a terrorist following, group or army. Simply because they won't have any verifiable excuse to promote themselves. and though religion typically isn't verifiable, common principles found expressed in religion are. Thou shall not kill (Do you hear that Mr. Bush? or are you just another psuedo christian?)

Such a real world problem solving direction has already been researched, explored, put into education.... and the cost of implimenting such solutions is a fraction of current military spending.

So why is this NOT happening?

There are those who have things to hide from the public and the way they assure themselves is to compromise your freedoms so they can spy on you and try and plug any leaks of their dishoneties to the public.

Either that of Ben Franlin of a former war time president didn't know what the fuck they were talking about.

No matter, sees technology and corrupt government are going to run the test that will prove Ben and that former president are correct.

But what good is history, if you are a government and people with alzhimers excuses?

haha, anon poster word to prove I'm not a script "dopers"

Ok, so its not forgetfullness, but some sort of power trippin drugs.... wrongful world stock manipulation, oil and increased prices for gas...?? Or somethng simpler "power over others for which you can only verify by doing something against them".....

But are we paying the war on iraq via increases in gas prices???

Shouldn't freeing a country rich in oil increase availability of oil and a better market competition?

Somebodies is lying, that's pervasively obvious!!!

Who is this group of people that seem to think they can just change things that affect our freedom and security from within that freedom?

Who gave them such power?

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/economy/jan-june05/ housing_5-17.html

REIT's

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/economy/jan-june05/ housing_5-17.html

REIT's

Could you point me to some reasonable interpretations of Revelations?

Could you point me to some reasonable interpretations of Revelations?

Could you point me to some reasonable interpretations of Revelations?

I remember watching the "Beautiful Universe", Nova, in physics in high school. It was mind blowing and awesome. Thank god for PBS.

The only problem with Microsoft is they just have no taste, they have absolutely no taste, and what that means is - I don't mean that in a small way I mean that in a big way. In the sense that they they don't think of original ideas and they don't bring much culture into their product and you say why is that important. Well, you know proportionally spaced fonts come from type setting and beautiful books; that's where one gets the idea. If it weren't for the Mac they would never have that in their products and so I guess I am saddened, not by Microsoft's success - I have no problem with their success, they've earned their success for the most part. I have a problem with the fact that they just make really third rate products.

This company has obviously been an avid reader of Cringely, or has similar brain patterns. I remember reading this a while back on: http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20050623. html From that page: I received last week an announcement for a product that purports to link Skype to any mobile phone system. This is really interesting, though more as an idea than a product. This was one of those press releases that gets in its own way. It took me several readings to figure out how the product actually works. It's called the Mobile Skype Cable and comes from a Norwegian company called IPDrum (or will come when it ships in August). The cable connects a mobile phone to your computer. The illustrations all show one phone and one computer, but the power of the system can only be realized if you have at least two phones. One phone stays at your PC as the interconnect with Skype. I'm hoping the cable also charges the phone, but that, again, isn't made clear. In the simplest case you could probably pick up the phone and use it as a dedicated handset to speak over the Skype network. But the true power of the Mobile Skype Cable comes from having multiple phones and some kind of family billing plan. I'm a Verizon mobile user and so is Mrs. Cringely. Our Verizon plan allows unlimited calls between our two phones. Now imagine one of those phones (or a third, they cost $9.99 per month each here in Charleston) is attached to a PC back at our house. By calling that phone and using the IPDrum software that ships with the Mobile Skype Cable, I can be linked directly to Skype where I can dial a second call over the computer network. Since the mobile call is free and the Skype call is free, suddenly I can make unlimited mobile calls anywhere in the world. Even more powerful, by linking my Skype and mobile numbers through the IPDrum software, any Skype user anywhere in the world can call me for free.

Hopefully Godwin's law doesn't cover this...

You, sir, are a grammar nazi.

The use of "like" as a non-literal quotative signal is both longstanding and widespread.
See http://www.pbs.org/speak/words/sezwho/like/

Of course, this use has a patina of validity, so instead of complaining about the actual way that "like" is used by the speaker, you manufacture uses of "like" that I haven't heard in decades to assassinate their character. Like, you suck, like.

English is not French -- there is no committee that has the power to declare which English is proper versus which English is improper. From TFA: "The like quotative has become a part of the English of virtually all native speakers of American English under the age of forty. As such, it can be said to be part of the grammar of English." (Q2). Prominent writers have used and continue to use "like" in this context, so I have to ask, what makes you the superior authority?

FYI... Cringely's Column this week is on the same topic

Once the old-guard of the movie industry give up on maintaining their monopoly profits that are based upon a tightly controlled distribution network, that complex and unwieldy distribution network becomes a hindrance.

It comes as no surprise that they'd look to cut the cost of distributing content by removing the slowest most expensive part of the system and replacing it with a free and open alternative.

Cringely has some excellent insight to offer on this topic, specifically in his recent column on podcasting and in relation to the long tail school of thought as applied to PBS shows. If shows can be distributed at radically lower costs due to p2p networks, and content owners don't act like dicks by demanding monopolistic profit levels, television and movies will move to a p2p medium because it make the most economic sense.

Don't forget the additional advertising opportunities that a custom p2p app provides, in the app itself, in the movies and shows downloaded, etc. I hate ads myself but marketers will line up for this once producers figure it out.

Once the old-guard of the movie industry give up on maintaining their monopoly profits that are based upon a tightly controlled distribution network, that complex and unwieldy distribution network becomes a hindrance.

It comes as no surprise that they'd look to cut the cost of distributing content by removing the slowest most expensive part of the system and replacing it with a free and open alternative.

Cringely has some excellent insight to offer on this topic, specifically in his recent column on podcasting and in relation to the long tail school of thought as applied to PBS shows. If shows can be distributed at radically lower costs due to p2p networks, and content owners don't act like dicks by demanding monopolistic profit levels, television and movies will move to a p2p medium because it make the most economic sense.

Don't forget the additional advertising opportunities that a custom p2p app provides, in the app itself, in the movies and shows downloaded, etc. I hate ads myself but marketers will line up for this once producers figure it out.

Because the United States and China are so similar when it comes to oppressing free speech and jailing political dissidents.

You're reading into his statement more than was said. China and the U.S. need not be similar in the degree to which they oppress free speech for someone in the U.S. to have legitimate need for

If anyone can give actual provable examples of the US government abridging Constitutionally protected free speech, I'd love to hear it.

Geez. Those who are ignorant of history...

Try the Alien and Sedition of 1798 and the Sedition Act of 1918 for starters. Also the Espionage Act which was used to send labor leader and presidential candidate Eugene Debs to jail for a decade.

We can dance around semantics as to whether HUAC's actions during the 1950s constituted "censorship", but certainly it was government action in supression of certain viewpoints.

More recently the Istook Amendment attempted to deny federal transportation funds to localities that accept advertisements critical of federal drug policy.

What makes this shuttle mission different is that they now have new views of the space shuttle. So they are equipped to see and fix problem areas they were previously ignorant of. They have landed with dangling gap filler before. However now because of Columbia that are very wary of such things. So this repair is more of a "just in case" scenario rather than "omg the shuttle is going to blow up".

A good recap (RealPlayer) can found from the News Hour on PBS.

Why would a child seeing two consenting adults having sex "corrupt" them.

That's not where the corruption occurs.

Sex is a natural thing that happens between two people who like each other a lot.

The corruption happens when an industry forces two people to have sex who do not know one another. Then the industry sells those photos. Millions of them. And anybody in that photograph who is unable to cope with the public exploitation of their personal self will be permanently scarred for the rest of their life. That's where the corruption begins.

Far from damaging my psyche, it made me a lot less nervous about my sexuality. I look back and see that period of my life as an important part of my sexual development.

Everything is exposed and nothing is forbidden when it comes to the pornography industry. Perhaps it doesn't damage your psyche, but it certainly damages the women who are used for your own entertainment.

Let me put it this way...tell me, how long is your erect penis? How many times do you mastrabate in a given week? How many times do you have sex each week? With a woman or a man? Do you have multiple partners at once? Do you like to receive anal stimulation or penetration? Have you ever had more than one partner at a given moment? Oh, and to top things off, could you include your real name and a picture of yourself, preferably naked, so that we all can see the complete you.

Are you comfortable with answering and doing all those things I asked you to do? I would hope not, but the problem far to often is that women who sign on into the industry have all these private details about themselves exposed for nothing more than male fantasy. While you were developing your sexual self, these women had it stripped from them and put into public view.

I highly recommend watching PBS's Frontline Documentary on the Pornography. It really gives a lot of insight about the emotional abuse women go through and the price they pay for the money they earn.

This posting reminded me of an article I had read way back when (I couldn't remember) about why the NYC Subway System should be free. I found the article and was surprised. It's by Cringley and was, I think, posted on /. It's how I started reading Cringley's column. Here's a snip:

When I visit New York City, I like to ride the subway. It is the fastest way to get around town and stay out of the weather at the same time. The New York City subway system is a remarkable engineering achievement, but there is one aspect of it that I can't understand -- why they charge people money to ride it.

If, like me, you had literally grown up covering city council meetings for bad newspapers, you'd know that just about every transit agency in America claims that ticket sales cover only 10 to 15 percent of the actual cost of providing their service. The rest of the money apparently comes from government and from annoying transit ads. And if you bothered to wade through those transit committee budget reports, you'd make the startling discovery that the cost of creating and selling transit tickets followed by carrying the money here and there also costs 10 to 15 percent of the actual cost of providing the service. So if we eliminated the money infrastructure from our transit systems, they would run faster and simpler than they do today, nobody would have to buy a ticket, and it would all still cost the same.

Why, knowing this, do they still charge to ride the subway? Part of the reason is that Federal transit money is often configured as matching funds, and the Feds like to match against ticket revenue. No revenue (no tickets), no Federal matching funds. Now that's a silly reason. Another reason is a Puritan work ethic that says people just ought to pay to ride the train, darn it. Of course, there are transit unions that don't want their members to lose their jobs. And finally, there is the argument that making the subway free would lead to its overcrowding with rowdy folks generally going nowhere. Having lost MY work ethic way back in the Summer of Love, I find all these arguments bogus. If people are already paying for the service through their taxes, then they are paying for the service, not freeloading. And the freeloaders can think of many places more comfortable than the subway.

So I think all transit should be free. Poor people could get to work and back, kids could get home easier in the dark, there might be less driving and more fuel efficiency. And the very fact that it would be easier to get to work might make more people inclined to go there, leading to greater economic development. This isn't socialism, it's trickle-down transit.

The rest of the article is here:

http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20010208. html

Go read it and while you're at it, read the rest of his stuff. He's smart, he write's well, and he admits when he's wrong. When someone has those three attributes, he or she is deserving of our time.

Of course, whether or not you think any of this has anything to do with free wi-fi is up to you. Me, I access the web on a 33.6 modem and don't have a laptop, alas.

But I've got a four-digit /. ID. So there.

a)the earth's magnetic field does reverse every so often, b)we're overdue (by a huge margin) and c)we probably would be slightly fucked, because during the flip, we'd have no protection from cosmic and solar radiation.

NOVA

Wikipedia Article on Geomagnetic Reversal

As for the aliens- yep, she's off her rocker on that one, but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

"How do you distinguish - discriminate - between damage which is critical and damage which is inconsequential?" asked Dr. David Wolf, an astronaut who spent four months aboard the Russian space station Mir. "We could be faced with very difficult decisions, in part because of all this additional information that we will be presented with."

I guess someone who spent time on Mir could be considered something of an expert on impact damage to spacecraft, though I'd like to hear what Michael Foale would have to say.

• SCO news
• Apple gossip
• Latest Dvorak bollocks
• Latest Cringely bollocks

In the mean time, your geek card is hereby revoked. While you've made an honest attempt to pretend to be one, your lack of interest in an actual computing project that works well for the minority that uses it and uses technology in ways uncommon today shows a clear preference for the mainstream. Please return to Python "programming" and obsessing over how "Linux" will not be "ready for the desktop" until "Grandma" can use it, where I suspect, in pseudo-geekdom, never straying too far from the mainstream while dabbling in all that tech stuff, you'll feel more at home.

Put them both in a room, and watch the room implode. Read Cringely's article at http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20050714. html, and contrast with Robertson's.

I seems like it's not all IBM failing to deliver the horsepower; there may be more to the story,

This is what we get for handing our children's education over to the government.

You say that as if public education is a recent development. American Public Education goes back as far as the American Revolution, and has roots that go back even further. It sounds like you are not aware of this history, so here's a primer. Read and learn.

Abandoning the poor people is bad for the American economy and American democracy. If anything, you can trace the growing ruin of American society to increased privatization and reduced funding of public services such as Public Education.

I'd rather pay the full cost for a product than pay a lesser price so I can watch advertising. If you can't produce the thing for a low enough cost such that people value it enough for you to recoup your costs, dont make it.

Funny, I don't see an asterisk by your UID showing that you're a subscriber. I don't have one either, because at this point in my life I'd rather see a few /. ads than pay to view them ad-free.

Truth is, some services work really well subsidized by advertising. Newspapers, magazines, Google, etc. Google is the only place on the internet where I've found ads so relevant to what I'm looking for (especially when I'm looking to buy something) that I've clicked on them a fair amount.

If you're a news junkie like me, are you really willing to pay the full price of something like the NYT, WSJ, etc. to get it completely without advertisement? I'm wondering just how much that would be, but I'd venture to guess that it'd at least triple the cost.

So it's easy to sit there and be up in arms about advertising creeping into your life. Trouble is, most of us enjoy the substantially lower prices. The argument can be made, however, about increasing advertising in public places (highways, malls, etc) becoming more distracting.

For an interesting documentary about modern advertising, check out this Frontline episode on PBS. You'll be pleased to note that PBS programs run without commercial interruption, and that this Frontline episode is available in streaming format.

I suggest you look up "Apollo 1" as to why that is.

As I understand it, the big problem with Apollo 1 was that it had 100% oxygen ... at over one atmosphere. Had they used 100% oxygen and 1/4 or so atmosphere, like used in space, the fire would not have burned out of control like that.

Space Shuttle, as an example, is 20% oxygen, 80% nitrogen, much like earth.

The government is doubly guilty here:

1. They spend billions on cleanup programs that go nowhere
2. They fail to allow nuclear reprocessing, which would turn most of the waste into reusable nuclear fuel

Check out this great frontline that describes the whole reprocessing issue.

..You must watch the outstanding PBS Nova episode titled "The Trillion Dollar Bet".

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/stockmarket/

I must say the article is the most interesting internet article I have every read. Maybe because I actually understand every part of it.. even the math.

The nova episode is also the most exciting I have ever seen... especially when you come to understand the real finanical implications of the option-pricing forumula at work in the real world.

Nobel Prize in Economics stuff hear folks.

>but why is our security being contacted out? That is what worries me. Where is the accountability???

this is exactly how some soldiers feel in iraq
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/warr iors/faqs/

"but only an extremely facist government could hope to prevent crimes before they occur."

And I quote:
"So we had to make a shift in the way we thought about things. So being reactive, waiting for a crime to be committed or waiting for there to be evidence of the commission of a crime, didn't seem to us to be an appropriate way to protect the American people." - John Ashcroft; June 5th, 2003

As far as I know, most of congress hasn't read the blasted Patriot Act.

So to answer your question: No, I have not read the Patriot Act. But the people who wrote it have and they know exactly how to use it.

No big suprise that it has had it's life lengthened.

George W Bush was quoted saying "If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier... ( Chuckles ) ( laughter ) ...just so long as I'm the dictator. ( Laughter )"

He thinks it's funny! Something is only funny if both people laugh George.

Link to quote: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec00 /trans_12-18.htm

They would use tap code. Seems to me it is much better suited as there is only tap and no tap unlike Morse cope which is dot, dash and silence.

You might be interested to note that riots happen in other locations around the world other than the US. And it might also interest you to note that it doesn't take a major US sporting event to bring one about.

He's right! Sometimes all it takes is a few already rich beurocrats selling some of their nation's own natural resources, like, say, water, to overseas interests, whereby said overseas interests proceed to hike the rates so high that the poor can no longer afford it.

Hey, your population (from whom you derive your governing authority in a democracy) is rioting! Let's ignore the reason and shoot them.