Slashdot Mirror

i was *going* to put in my two cents about the poorly phrased comments of the original message, but they have already been said. so i will simply take this time to give you some worthwhile charities that anyone (geek or non-geek) should give to, as they are well worth your time and provide some much needed services.

Southern Poverty Law Center

Hatewatch.org

Anti-Defamation League

Even if you don't agree with my policies, please give SOMETHING to a good cause this holiday season, whether that would be PBS or NPR or one of your own pet causes. we're so saturated with "be a good capitalist" in the media, we often forget about what truly makes a good person. give it some thought... it can give you a good break from the equally abstract concept of programming. :)

I'm pretty sure that stocks price (or value) has nothing to do with the persistance of an operating system.

All those stocks you listed where pretty worthless before the companies existed. Hell, Apple stock price (according to an analysis by cringelyhere) at one time had very little to do with the value of the company.

Stock price isn't a good indication of how successfully a company's strategy. Stock price is a good indication of ignorance.

Tech stocks are the best example of the idiot margin. (where this is probably some idiot who will pay more money for your stock than you.)

1. Open source library of knowledge for developing nations (making the world's intellectual wealth available to all)
http://www.oneworld.org/globalp roj ects/humcdrom/
http://www.oneworld.org/globalprojects/& lt;/a>
http://www.oneworld .or g/globalprojects/humcdrom/copyrigh.htm
http://payson.tulane.edu:8888/
; http://www.globalprojects.org/
; http://www.humanitylibraries.net/ http://www.villageearth.org/
http://www.villageearth.org/ATLi bra ry/cdrom.htm

2. Open source knowledge management systems
http://www.bootstrap.org/
http://bootstrap.org/colloquium/ar chi ves.html
http://www.bootstrap.org/dkr/discussion /

3. Self-replicating space habitats (support trillions of humans in style without overrunning the earth)
http://members.aol.com/oscarcombs/s ett le.htm
http://members.aol.com/oscarcombs /sp acsetl.htm
http://www.permanent.com/
http://science.n as. nasa.gov/Services/Education/SpaceSettlement/
http://www.luf.org/
http://www.ssi.org/
http://www.ssi.org/alt-plan.html http://www.spacedev.com/
http://www.spacehab.com/
http://www.kurtz-fernhout.com/oscomak/

4. Pursue the "Ecocity Berkley" vision in the book by that name by Richard Register and look for related visions of sustainable development
http://www.amazon.com/exec/ob ido s/ASIN/1556430094/
http://www.co-intelligence.or g/y 2k_commtyorgs.html
http://www.fuzzylu.com/greencenter/h ome .htm
http://www.ulb.ac.be/ceese/meta/sust vl. html
http://www.rmi.org/

5. Work towards ending the drug war and pardoning hundreds of thousands of Americans imprisoned on non-violent drug charges. (I believe drug use is wrong and should be avoided, and by all means as it is now illegal, so don't do drugs! But as with alcohol and tobacco and caffeine, drug abuse should be considered a medical problem, not a legal one (except when like DUI it hurts or puts at risk others directly)).
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pag es/ frontline/shows/drugs/
http://www.drcnet.org/facts/

6. Teaching tolerance and compassion
http://www.splcenter.org/
http://www.splcenter.or g/t eachingtolerance/tt-index.html

7. Open source educational simulations and simulation construction toolkits (one of the most meaningful ways to use computers in the classroom).
http://www.gardenwithinsight.com/ http://riceinfo.ri ce. edu/armadillo/Simulations/simserver.html
http://www.creativeteachingsite .co m/edusims.html
http://www.workingmodel.com/
http://www.idsia.ch/~andrea/simtools.h tml

8. Preserving biodiversity (when it's gone, it's gone forever)
http://www.tnc.org/
http://www.environment.about.com/newsissues/enviro nment/library/weekly/aa091700.htm

9. Develop any specific sustainable technology in energy (e.g. solar), recycling (e.g. recycle computers), materials (e.g. plastics from starch), society (e.g. participatory democracy & social justice).
http://www.google.com/sear ch? q=sustainable+technology
http://www.edf.org/issues/Recycling.htm l
http://www.sustainable.doe.gov/

10. Make corporations more accountable to human needs
http://www.adbusters.org/inform ati on/foundation/
http://www.adbusters.org/c amp aigns/charter/death.html
Previous link vanished, try instead:
http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:www.adbuste rs.org/ campaigns/charter/death.html+corporate+death+penal ty&hl=en
http://www.cwsl.edu/news/n_corpo rat e_death.html
http://monkeyfist.com/articles/340& lt;br> http://www.chaordic.org/

11. Reform the "Intellectual property" laws and their related organizations, perhaps so that copyrights are for a couple decades and most patents are for a dozen years and only for true innovations. Ensure that any IP developed with any government money is immediately put into the public domain.
http://danny.oz.au/fre e-s oftware/advocacy/against_IP.html
(Lots of other Slashot links!)

12. If you don't want to get you hands dirty volunteering your own time, look around and find good people (not organizations, although the people may be in organizations) already doing good things. Pick people with a track record of years of fighting for the common good or who have already made a major accomplishment demonstrating commitment and just anonymously give them $100K without strings attached. Example: Marty Johnson at Isles, Inc.
http://www.isles.org/mileston.html& lt;br> Find people just starting a career of public service or a charitable venture and struggling to do good things and give them $20K and tell them you believe in their promise and cause. Expect a bunch of the money to be wasted but give it anyway and learn how to give effectively. For ideas, look at the grantees list of any foundation. Then ask those people who they know who are just starting out and trying to do a good job.
http://www.beldon.org/grants2000_07.htm l

When I was about thirteen, I got about seven books out of the library on money thinking I wanted to become a millionaire. Six told me how to get rich (start a business and run it well.) One of them asked me "why do you want to be rich?" That is the one whose name I remember and the ideas in it have changed my life. For advice on setting a direction of what to do with wealth, read the Book "The Seven Laws of Money" by Michael Phillips and Sally Raspberry, especially the chapter on how foundations fail in their mission and how grants go to people who sound good but usually can't deliver (i.e. how hard it is to give money away).
http://www.seeingmoney.com/SevenLaws.ht m
http://www.hallbusi nes ses.com/biographies_primers/1420.shtml

My wife and I are working on a few of these issues ourselves (and a few example links are to our stuff). We make money contracting and spend it to "buy" our own time for making quality software the market can't or doesn't seem to want to pay for. Even without IPO riches, any competent software developer can make $75K-100K in today's market. Graduate students can live on $20K a year, and so can many software developers (kids make it harder) if they follow the path of Voluntary Simplicity. It's a question of priorities.
http://www.life.ca/subject/simplicity .ht ml
http://www.simpleliving.net/slj/ http://www.scn.org/earth/lightly/ http://www.thegarden.net/simplicity/

Voluntary simplicity leaves a lot of funds for doing good deeds - even if they are done on your own time by using your own money to take time off and develop open source software or do other worthwhile ventures. Or take a job that doesn't pay as well but involves helping an organization that you believe in.
http://www.idealist.org/

There are awesome things happening over the next twenty to forty years. According to Moore's law, desktop computers in twenty or so years will be a million times faster than today's. Already computers can drive cars somewhat well and identify vegetable better than humans.

http://www.research.ibm.com/resources/magazine/199 9/number_3/machine399.html ;

Other breakthrough innovations are happening in technological areas like energy, materials, nanotechnology, communications, agriculture, biotechnology, and robotics. Use your wealth to think deeply about what all this means and do something to ensure human survival with style.

It is saddening to see people spend so much money on less important stuff (another night club in this case). Now if it was a night club where these issues are discussed, then maybe it makes sense.

Capitalism without charity is evil, because capitalism only meets the needs of people with money.

Information:
pbs
Speakout
NY Election

Actually, following a link from a poster up above to here, they say he landed 14 minutes later. Holy shit. Can that be right?

Jason

A simulation of the Kittinger dive is on the NOVA website. Plus they also show the famous picture of him jumping out of the gondola.

Also there is a really great book written by Craig Ryan called The Pre-Astronauts. The Pre-Astronauts is all about the history of high altitude skydiving. A cool quote by Alan Shepard from the book when asked if he would have done the Kittinger jump: "Hell no. Absolutely not."

Another cool fact is that Capt. Kittinger's boss during those high skyjumps was no other than John Paul Stapp the guy who is always in those famous pictures and movies of the rocket sled. Remember those pictures of a man's face being progressively made more distorted by g-forces? That's John Paul Stapp!

Furthermore, Frontline also recently aired an incredible two pair episode on PBS called Drug Wars, which I urge everyone to see.

Basically, it shows that all the money spent on drug interdiction efforts has had ZERO effect on the availability of drugs in the U.S., and that the entire "supply side" effort of drug control has not worked. Yet, the huge funding available for enforcement has only helped to enrich the agencies competing for all this money. Basically, a drug enforcement industrial complex (to paraphrase Eisenhower).

Look up the following (if you need more just reply and I will give you a ton): Frontline:busted..how effective is D.A.R.E
War on Drugs Clock
Interesting Fact Sheet from canadian sources That should get you started on how and why D.A.R.E. does not work. The US prohibition against drugs in an incredible failure. In the first 12 years of the War on Drugs (begining with Reagan's presidency) the US Gov. spent a record 3 Trillion dollars. If you worked out the numbers that is about $12,000 for every man, woman and child in the US. I don't know about you but my feeling is that this is an incredible waste of money. I could think of agencies like NASA who I would rather see me $1,000 a year spent on rather than the bullshit we call a war on drugs. I can't find an exact figure for the model but last year the 6th largest growth industry in the US was Prisons according to a Frontline report I saw not too long ago. The War on Drugs as it is being waged is the most blatant racist violation of US citizens rights. The statistic of 3 out of 4 black males (between ages 17-34)in inner cities being incarcerated at one point or another for a drug offense should point that out. The distribution of drug use is not vastly different between any particular ethnic, racial or financial demographic yet we relentlessly persecute blacks for it. This is an utter disgrace. Caucasians do drugs too. I don't see 3 out of 4 of us in jail for it.If this were really a WAR then we would handle it completely different but we won't. It is always election fodder and makes the righteous candidates look foolish for saying truthfully that the war is dumb. Jocelyn Elders was ridiculed out of her position as Surgeon General for saying that the drug problem is a health problem not a criminal problem. The CIA was busted selling and marketing cocaine in 'Contragate' to help fund subversive actions during the Iran/Iraq war. The list goes on there I could continue to add to ad infinitum.People for the most part are opposed to legalization/decriminalization for all the wrong reasons based upon the disinformation you are presented with in the educational system. Could we please stop brainwashing the next generation and teach them the facts? How many of us were forced to watch Reefer Madness? How much of the 'facts' presented therein is totally bullshit? Will crime go UP if decriminaliztion occurs? No because a) you will kill the black market that feeds off of it b) drugs will be much cheaper c)the quality will be better d)street gangs who finance themselves on drug sales will be out of business e)we would stop letting violent offenders out of jail to house mandatory sentencing guidlined drug offenders and the rediculous 3 time offender laws that require people to be jailed the rest of thier lives for the sale or use f)the relentless seizure of properites would end. Drug use for the most part is a victimless crime.We have to stop this madness and soon. Cops needlessly are being killed. FBI agents bodies are turning up in graves in Mexico. Our Presidential candidates have used drugs: Gore and Bush links. I am totally for decriminalization and when I say that I mean clean across the board, not just pot or coke I mean EVERYTHING. What a person does in thier own home on thier own time is thier business. You do what you want. I care not. If you do drugs and get behind the wheel of a car we take away you liscense forever(something I totally advocate for DUI offenders to) end of story. The basic tenet of freedom is the right to be left alone and not be unduly harrassed. Why isn't it that way now?Please, Uncle Sam, stop blowing my hard earned tax dollars on the bullshit and stop trying to brainwash our children.

What, don't they teach you kids how to search for things on the net? Oh, wait a sec, you are probably a BESS school.

I turned up a couple of good starting points. It is easy to find a lot of pro-DARE stuff published by the dare folk. Here is a link to some information from PBS's Front lin e. I also came across this article in the Daily Hampshire Gazette. The latter talks about negative studies from the Dept of Justice, the GAO, and the Department of Ed -- the might be worth tracking down. Hope this helps.

Frontline did a good show on marijuana law a few years ago. Hidden in the site is the most well thought out essay on the drug war I've ever read (its by an appeals court judge).

An excerpt from the transcript of the show (actually germaine to the DARE topic, the guy is a DARE person that goes to schools):

> BRET RICHARDSON: Just last week, I had one of my
> students come to me to tell me about one of his
> relatives, and he wants something done about it,
> so the information has been turned over to our
> drug task force. I tell them all the
> ramifications of that choice that they are
> making, and if they want the police involved in
> it, it's going to disrupt the family life. And
> then it's up to the student to decide if that's
> the direction they want it to go. We don't
> encourage the kids to spy. That's not my role.
> I'm there as instructor, not as an enforcement
> officer.

Hmm, "We don't encourage the kids to spy." I have to wonder if thats true. I remember the Nazi's encouraged children to rat on their parents.

> 1st BOY: I really didn't know much about
> marijuana. I didn't know what harmful effects it
> can do on your life and stuff like that. I mean,
> it's really nice to know now. And I made the
> decision not to do marijuana or any drug.
> 2nd BOY: It just- like, it can hurt you, and it
> kills you and stuff if you do too much of it.

I think the worst thing about DARE is the untruth of most of their arguments. For one they and other war on drugs propaganda organizations tend to refer to all illicit drugs as "drugs", not often making distinctions between different drugs, i.e. "Drug will kill you." Ok, that is possible with heroin, cocaine, alchol, and tobacco, but marajuana has no known toxicity. Its not possible to OD on it. Never mind the fact that legal drugs kill orders of magnitudes more people every year than illegal ones.

War on Drugs = new McCarthyism
Just as irrational, just as unjust, & just as politically devisive.

--
MT

Frontline did a good show on marijuana law a few years ago. Hidden in the site is the most well thought out essay on the drug war I've ever read (its by an appeals court judge).

An excerpt from the transcript of the show (actually germaine to the DARE topic, the guy is a DARE person that goes to schools):

> BRET RICHARDSON: Just last week, I had one of my
> students come to me to tell me about one of his
> relatives, and he wants something done about it,
> so the information has been turned over to our
> drug task force. I tell them all the
> ramifications of that choice that they are
> making, and if they want the police involved in
> it, it's going to disrupt the family life. And
> then it's up to the student to decide if that's
> the direction they want it to go. We don't
> encourage the kids to spy. That's not my role.
> I'm there as instructor, not as an enforcement
> officer.

Hmm, "We don't encourage the kids to spy." I have to wonder if thats true. I remember the Nazi's encouraged children to rat on their parents.

> 1st BOY: I really didn't know much about
> marijuana. I didn't know what harmful effects it
> can do on your life and stuff like that. I mean,
> it's really nice to know now. And I made the
> decision not to do marijuana or any drug.
> 2nd BOY: It just- like, it can hurt you, and it
> kills you and stuff if you do too much of it.

I think the worst thing about DARE is the untruth of most of their arguments. For one they and other war on drugs propaganda organizations tend to refer to all illicit drugs as "drugs", not often making distinctions between different drugs, i.e. "Drug will kill you." Ok, that is possible with heroin, cocaine, alchol, and tobacco, but marajuana has no known toxicity. Its not possible to OD on it. Never mind the fact that legal drugs kill orders of magnitudes more people every year than illegal ones.

War on Drugs = new McCarthyism
Just as irrational, just as unjust, & just as politically devisive.

--
MT

Frontline did a good show on marijuana law a few years ago. Hidden in the site is the most well thought out essay on the drug war I've ever read (its by an appeals court judge).

An excerpt from the transcript of the show (actually germaine to the DARE topic, the guy is a DARE person that goes to schools):

> BRET RICHARDSON: Just last week, I had one of my
> students come to me to tell me about one of his
> relatives, and he wants something done about it,
> so the information has been turned over to our
> drug task force. I tell them all the
> ramifications of that choice that they are
> making, and if they want the police involved in
> it, it's going to disrupt the family life. And
> then it's up to the student to decide if that's
> the direction they want it to go. We don't
> encourage the kids to spy. That's not my role.
> I'm there as instructor, not as an enforcement
> officer.

Hmm, "We don't encourage the kids to spy." I have to wonder if thats true. I remember the Nazi's encouraged children to rat on their parents.

> 1st BOY: I really didn't know much about
> marijuana. I didn't know what harmful effects it
> can do on your life and stuff like that. I mean,
> it's really nice to know now. And I made the
> decision not to do marijuana or any drug.
> 2nd BOY: It just- like, it can hurt you, and it
> kills you and stuff if you do too much of it.

I think the worst thing about DARE is the untruth of most of their arguments. For one they and other war on drugs propaganda organizations tend to refer to all illicit drugs as "drugs", not often making distinctions between different drugs, i.e. "Drug will kill you." Ok, that is possible with heroin, cocaine, alchol, and tobacco, but marajuana has no known toxicity. Its not possible to OD on it. Never mind the fact that legal drugs kill orders of magnitudes more people every year than illegal ones.

War on Drugs = new McCarthyism
Just as irrational, just as unjust, & just as politically devisive.

--
MT

Your line about WWII frankly suggests you have no clue what you're talking about.

The most direct provocation for the formal declaration of war by the US was the Japanese suprise attack on the naval base at Pearl Harbor -- 7-Dec-41 if memory serves, which crippled the Pacific fleet.

That the German Unterseeboot U-20 torpedoed and sunk the US ship Lusitania as part of its campaign of unrestricted submarine warfare in 1917 is known to be correct. The US claim that it was NOT carrying war materiel and thus should not have been targetted is, if memory serves, has been disputed. For your info, reporting noted on the PBS site (Lost Liners) suggests that indeed it was NOT smuggling ammunition as the Germans claim.

Bzzt.

Speaking of the Pasadena area, it would be truly great to see a well-detailed Quake or Unreal map of the Gamble House, a local Arts and Crafts masterpiece. Or Frank Lloyd Wright's Fallingwater. You can find books of photos from the Gamble House, even see a video tour of Fallingwater, but being able to walk around like you would in a FPS would be the next-best thing to being there.

> it started with a bang, but will it end a crunch?

Fortunaley, no. The universe is expanding. I saw a science documentary (Space 2000 I believe) that said the universe was not only expanding (which we knew for ages), but the recently (~ late 1990s) we finally deteremined the rate was accelerating. Others say the rate of expansion is constant.
In either case, the universe will eventually expand out into the void, which you can read one transcript of on pbs/a&g t;

Check out The Frontline website for more info on this two part series. I still have both parts sitting on my TiVo and haven't watched the second part yet, but the first part has been a excellent eductional experience for me and will probably be good for anybody who doesn't remember a US president before Reagan. I think PBS is re-running both parts soon so prep your VCRs/TiVos if you're interested.

Unless people have better information, I think this should put to rest
the `Bush will axe MS case' rumor.

It is in the parlance of research one area that I can personally re-assure you as totally solvable and surprisingly simple in certain ways.

Perhaps you will come up with your own elegant solution like the 'layer cake' one Sakharov did after knowing about yet another way to get to the same smashing result?

Yes I have considered going open design and open source with a POST-VLIW architectural solution from my 80's research. Any suggestions on others that have gone that way for me to study is appreciated.

Now, if you're talking about the snippy remarks about Dubya getting elected and imposing a national operating system, that was an admittedly sick joke, and nobody would be happier than I to see it remain entirely fantasy (or nightmare). However, I wouldn't rule it out that easily- the idea was, 'Here's an outlandish, nightmare projection that I HOPE can't possibly happen!', hence the 'I'm picturing Dubya getting elected' rather than 'This is going to happen! The sky is falling, we're all going to DIE!' It's a combination joke/scare tactic and shouldn't be written off _too_ easily: remember how badly Microsoft wants to in effect impose a Microsoft Tax on everyone and not have to do any more work, just do new icons and count money. You shouldn't be so quick to assume they can't get paid a tax administered by the government- haven't you heard of corporate welfare? Dubya's just the sort to rubberstamp such a proposal, too.

Sorry- you strike out ;) you have no argument but ridicule and you're asking people to stop thinking. I'm not making these arguments because of karma troll bonus points, but because the situation both alarms and fascinates me, and I want to put the same evidence in front of people and see if they reach the same conclusion. In this case, I am taking Bill Parish's figures on the breakdown of MS income (I believe he got this from their annual reports and renamed the pie pieces?) for the argument that they're making more in the stock market than they are selling products, I'm assuming the top MS people are _not_ stupid idiots, and with regard to cutting projects I don't think I really need to remind slashdotters of the list of abandoned 'strategic' MS projects that tied up competition's resources for long enough to take care of the threat through further MS expansion. The difference is that I'm suggesting there is no MS project that couldn't be abandoned or defunded if PR activities would return greater profits through stock manipulation. That said, canning Office would _hurt_ the stock price not help it, and you'll not see them admitting to such a thing. On the other hand, Farenheit/COOL/C#/.NET and on and on- which will be the next to quietly fade off the radar, and do you think these fade-offs happen because someone at MS _lost_ _track_ of the project? They're killed because new products are not the most profitable thing MS could be doing, and they're killed quietly so it doesn't hurt the stock price- which _is_ the most profitable thing MS is doing.

You may now post "*yawn*" in the classic tradition of lazy-ass Usenet trolls ;)

There is a link to the complete transcript of the show.

I highly recommend Singh's book (he helped produce the NOVA show). It gave enough of the history and the essential parts of the mathematics.

Also a key reason that the Field's medal is restricted to under 40 is that it was considered that a mathematician does his best work under 40. An interesting article about aging and science is on www.feedmag.com.

There is a link to the complete transcript of the show.

I highly recommend Singh's book (he helped produce the NOVA show). It gave enough of the history and the essential parts of the mathematics.

Also a key reason that the Field's medal is restricted to under 40 is that it was considered that a mathematician does his best work under 40. An interesting article about aging and science is on www.feedmag.com.

I appreciate your reply. I myself find it wrong for shoving pills at people who really need therapy. What I'm interested in is placing psychology on a firmer foundation than Freud's, not discard it. There is no doubt in my mind Freud's ideas have had large impact on our society, but if they are unsound they can't help us very much. Take a look at this article for some criticism of Freud that expresses most of my sentiments concerning Freud. The statement "As a research paradigm it's pretty much dead" sums up the the author's current assesment of Freudian theories.

It was supposed to look good because the video never went through an analog stage. I've been wondering if DVD on a laptop has the same advantage? Does the video go through an analog stage before getting to the LCD display?

What about an LCD display on a desktop monitor with digital input? Anyone watched a DVD on one of those?

What about these dedicated handheld and larger, DVD players? All digital?

Does anyone make a Plasma, rather than LCD display for computers? I've seen the 'used to be $10,000 now around $3,000' consumer video versions, but never in a desktop monitor. One of the things I don't like about LCD dispays is the speed at which pixels can be turned on and off. Plasmas seem to do that much faster, and consequently have snappier, cleaner, video during scenes with lots of motion.

************************************************** *****

PBS Documentary on the 30 year War on Drugs tonight! 2 part special, tonight and tomorrow night.

Seems like this affects as many geek's lives as, say, LEGO robots, or Start Wars trailers....

I wonder if they'll mention that one of the candidates for president wants to end it.

Couple of video clips here and here.

It was supposed to look good because the video never went through an analog stage. I've been wondering if DVD on a laptop has the same advantage? Does the video go through an analog stage before getting to the LCD display?

What about an LCD display on a desktop monitor with digital input? Anyone watched a DVD on one of those?

What about these dedicated handheld and larger, DVD players? All digital?

Does anyone make a Plasma, rather than LCD display for computers? I've seen the 'used to be $10,000 now around $3,000' consumer video versions, but never in a desktop monitor. One of the things I don't like about LCD dispays is the speed at which pixels can be turned on and off. Plasmas seem to do that much faster, and consequently have snappier, cleaner, video during scenes with lots of motion.

************************************************** *****

PBS Documentary on the 30 year War on Drugs tonight! 2 part special, tonight and tomorrow night.

Seems like this affects as many geek's lives as, say, LEGO robots, or Start Wars trailers....

I wonder if they'll mention that one of the candidates for president wants to end it.

Couple of video clips here and here.

************************************************** *****

PBS Documentary on the 30 year War on Drugs tonight! 2 part special, tonight and tomorrow night.

Seems like this affects as many geek's lives as, say, LEGO robots, or Start Wars trailers....

I wonder if they'll mention that one of the candidates for president wants to end it.

Couple of video clips here and here.

************************************************** *****

PBS Documentary on the 30 year War on Drugs tonight! 2 part special, tonight and tomorrow night.

Seems like this affects as many geek's lives as, say, LEGO robots, or Start Wars trailers....

I wonder if they'll mention that one of the candidates for president wants to end it.

Couple of video clips here and here.

************************************************** *****

PBS Documentary on the 30 year War on Drugs tonight! 2 part special, tonight and tomorrow night.

Seems like this affects as many geek's lives as, say, LEGO robots, or Start Wars trailers....

I wonder if they'll mention that one of the candidates for president wants to end it.

Couple of video clips here and here.nd it.

************************************************** *****

PBS Documentary on the 30 year War on Drugs tonight! 2 part special, tonight and tomorrow night.

Seems like this affects as many geek's lives as, say, LEGO robots, or Start Wars trailers....

I wonder if they'll mention that one of the candidates for president wants to end it.

Couple of video clips here and here.nd it.

With that in mind, I just surfed over to PBS.org to see if I could find any material on nuclear power that might substantiate your half-remembered claims. The first thing I found was a Frontline special called "Nuclear Reaction: why do Americans fear nuclear power?". Here's the link to their FAQ. So here's what Frontline's Q&A says about the toxicity of plutonium:

Q: What is plutonium? Is it a metal like uranium?

A: Plutonium is, in fact, a metal very like uranium. If you hold it [in] your hand (and I've held tons of it my hand, a pound or two at a time), it's heavy, like lead. It's toxic, like lead or arsenic, but not much more so.

Q: How can plutonium harm you?

A: You have to eat it in order to harm yourself with it. It is radioactive, naturally. Radioactive, but much less so than radium, for example, which is scattered again all over the earth's crust. So it's not a very frightening material.

Q: So you say you hold it in your hand. What about the radiation that is emitted by plutonium?

A: The radiation from plutonium tends to be very easily stopped by any kind of shielding around the plutonium. A pair of gloves, paper. Certainly, a thin film of steel will stop the radiation from plutonium, so that it's perfectly safe.

Q: Is the skin on your hand is enough to shield yourself from plutonium's radiation?

A: The skin on your hand is probably sufficient to stop most of it.

Q: We've all heard that it's the most toxic substance in the world. Isn't it?

A: Well, I think it's absurd. It's not toxic. As I say, it's no more toxic than any other heavy metal, and its radioactivity is very considerably less than many other things that are on the earth's surface. It's an absurd statement.

[surfs a bit more...]

Okay, I think I might have found your alternative source. It's a Nova episode on global warming called "What's up with the weather: beyond fossil fuels". Here's the topmost link and here is the FAQ section. If you read it carefully you'll find some support for your position but you'll also see that most of what they are saying is perfectly compatible with what my sources have said. It's pretty clear that Hoffert isn't all that interested in nuclear power, which is fine. He takes it as a given that we won't use breeder reactors or allow reprocessing in the U.S. any time soon due to political constraints, some of which he agrees with. Given those constraints and his assumptions about what a "cost effective price" is, his conclusions follow.

This probably concludes our debate. Surf the PBS links I just gave you for a while if you need any more clarification of the issues pro or con.

With that in mind, I just surfed over to PBS.org to see if I could find any material on nuclear power that might substantiate your half-remembered claims. The first thing I found was a Frontline special called "Nuclear Reaction: why do Americans fear nuclear power?". Here's the link to their FAQ. So here's what Frontline's Q&A says about the toxicity of plutonium:

Q: What is plutonium? Is it a metal like uranium?

A: Plutonium is, in fact, a metal very like uranium. If you hold it [in] your hand (and I've held tons of it my hand, a pound or two at a time), it's heavy, like lead. It's toxic, like lead or arsenic, but not much more so.

Q: How can plutonium harm you?

A: You have to eat it in order to harm yourself with it. It is radioactive, naturally. Radioactive, but much less so than radium, for example, which is scattered again all over the earth's crust. So it's not a very frightening material.

Q: So you say you hold it in your hand. What about the radiation that is emitted by plutonium?

A: The radiation from plutonium tends to be very easily stopped by any kind of shielding around the plutonium. A pair of gloves, paper. Certainly, a thin film of steel will stop the radiation from plutonium, so that it's perfectly safe.

Q: Is the skin on your hand is enough to shield yourself from plutonium's radiation?

A: The skin on your hand is probably sufficient to stop most of it.

Q: We've all heard that it's the most toxic substance in the world. Isn't it?

A: Well, I think it's absurd. It's not toxic. As I say, it's no more toxic than any other heavy metal, and its radioactivity is very considerably less than many other things that are on the earth's surface. It's an absurd statement.

[surfs a bit more...]

Okay, I think I might have found your alternative source. It's a Nova episode on global warming called "What's up with the weather: beyond fossil fuels". Here's the topmost link and here is the FAQ section. If you read it carefully you'll find some support for your position but you'll also see that most of what they are saying is perfectly compatible with what my sources have said. It's pretty clear that Hoffert isn't all that interested in nuclear power, which is fine. He takes it as a given that we won't use breeder reactors or allow reprocessing in the U.S. any time soon due to political constraints, some of which he agrees with. Given those constraints and his assumptions about what a "cost effective price" is, his conclusions follow.

This probably concludes our debate. Surf the PBS links I just gave you for a while if you need any more clarification of the issues pro or con.

With that in mind, I just surfed over to PBS.org to see if I could find any material on nuclear power that might substantiate your half-remembered claims. The first thing I found was a Frontline special called "Nuclear Reaction: why do Americans fear nuclear power?". Here's the link to their FAQ. So here's what Frontline's Q&A says about the toxicity of plutonium:

Q: What is plutonium? Is it a metal like uranium?

A: Plutonium is, in fact, a metal very like uranium. If you hold it [in] your hand (and I've held tons of it my hand, a pound or two at a time), it's heavy, like lead. It's toxic, like lead or arsenic, but not much more so.

Q: How can plutonium harm you?

A: You have to eat it in order to harm yourself with it. It is radioactive, naturally. Radioactive, but much less so than radium, for example, which is scattered again all over the earth's crust. So it's not a very frightening material.

Q: So you say you hold it in your hand. What about the radiation that is emitted by plutonium?

A: The radiation from plutonium tends to be very easily stopped by any kind of shielding around the plutonium. A pair of gloves, paper. Certainly, a thin film of steel will stop the radiation from plutonium, so that it's perfectly safe.

Q: Is the skin on your hand is enough to shield yourself from plutonium's radiation?

A: The skin on your hand is probably sufficient to stop most of it.

Q: We've all heard that it's the most toxic substance in the world. Isn't it?

A: Well, I think it's absurd. It's not toxic. As I say, it's no more toxic than any other heavy metal, and its radioactivity is very considerably less than many other things that are on the earth's surface. It's an absurd statement.

[surfs a bit more...]

Okay, I think I might have found your alternative source. It's a Nova episode on global warming called "What's up with the weather: beyond fossil fuels". Here's the topmost link and here is the FAQ section. If you read it carefully you'll find some support for your position but you'll also see that most of what they are saying is perfectly compatible with what my sources have said. It's pretty clear that Hoffert isn't all that interested in nuclear power, which is fine. He takes it as a given that we won't use breeder reactors or allow reprocessing in the U.S. any time soon due to political constraints, some of which he agrees with. Given those constraints and his assumptions about what a "cost effective price" is, his conclusions follow.

This probably concludes our debate. Surf the PBS links I just gave you for a while if you need any more clarification of the issues pro or con.

With that in mind, I just surfed over to PBS.org to see if I could find any material on nuclear power that might substantiate your half-remembered claims. The first thing I found was a Frontline special called "Nuclear Reaction: why do Americans fear nuclear power?". Here's the link to their FAQ. So here's what Frontline's Q&A says about the toxicity of plutonium:

Q: What is plutonium? Is it a metal like uranium?

A: Plutonium is, in fact, a metal very like uranium. If you hold it [in] your hand (and I've held tons of it my hand, a pound or two at a time), it's heavy, like lead. It's toxic, like lead or arsenic, but not much more so.

Q: How can plutonium harm you?

A: You have to eat it in order to harm yourself with it. It is radioactive, naturally. Radioactive, but much less so than radium, for example, which is scattered again all over the earth's crust. So it's not a very frightening material.

Q: So you say you hold it in your hand. What about the radiation that is emitted by plutonium?

A: The radiation from plutonium tends to be very easily stopped by any kind of shielding around the plutonium. A pair of gloves, paper. Certainly, a thin film of steel will stop the radiation from plutonium, so that it's perfectly safe.

Q: Is the skin on your hand is enough to shield yourself from plutonium's radiation?

A: The skin on your hand is probably sufficient to stop most of it.

Q: We've all heard that it's the most toxic substance in the world. Isn't it?

A: Well, I think it's absurd. It's not toxic. As I say, it's no more toxic than any other heavy metal, and its radioactivity is very considerably less than many other things that are on the earth's surface. It's an absurd statement.

[surfs a bit more...]

Okay, I think I might have found your alternative source. It's a Nova episode on global warming called "What's up with the weather: beyond fossil fuels". Here's the topmost link and here is the FAQ section. If you read it carefully you'll find some support for your position but you'll also see that most of what they are saying is perfectly compatible with what my sources have said. It's pretty clear that Hoffert isn't all that interested in nuclear power, which is fine. He takes it as a given that we won't use breeder reactors or allow reprocessing in the U.S. any time soon due to political constraints, some of which he agrees with. Given those constraints and his assumptions about what a "cost effective price" is, his conclusions follow.

This probably concludes our debate. Surf the PBS links I just gave you for a while if you need any more clarification of the issues pro or con.

I think you're Astroturf :) in any case, why say anything bad about a 'product' that's not likely to ever exist? Every X-Box sale made could be seen as a Windows sale lost. Particularly if MS has success in its antitrust battles, it will abandon X-Box (you're not going to claim they _can't_ _afford_ to scrap all that research? MS 'can't afford'?) which will have served its purpose- keeping PC game development from spreading out to consoles too much.

Of course, it's a good question whether decent PC game development is even feasible anymore, so why say bad things? woo xbox 'yay'. Bit of a moot point isn't it? Let it preside over a decaying empire- if it even ships- hell, let it be a puppet symbol of the strength of the industry, whatEVER.

Interesting stuff and genuine innovation will just have to go on, rough-edged and ill-funded, outside of the commercial sector. What else is new?

has an interesting article on DSL here.

• Issue 1: Internet over Power Lines.

• Issue Two: A Spaceship For A Half-Million? Apparently, it's possible to buy a kit that will let you use methane and liquid oxygen to fly sub-orbitally!

• Issue Three: Linux is the Best Way To Copy A Disk.

• Issue Four: The Presidential Quake Skins: A Threat for the future?

It doesn't have to make great advances. That's just Microsoft's hype (really part of everything they do). I think the most interesting thing I've read about the X-Box was written by Robert X Cringely:

A Shot Across the Bow

Quick summary of the article: they're basically fighting to keep Windows a monopoly. They feel threatened by the potential of Sony's Playstation 2. They will fight hard and dirty in this fight and use up a huge amount of resources. They win if they keep Sony out of the PC space and leave them in their game's space.

http://www.pbs.org/nerds/transcript.html and in particular, http://www.pbs.org/nerds/part1.html has some pretty interesting somments from the people in computing from 1975 and the launch of the Altair.

http://www.pbs.org/nerds/transcript.html and in particular, http://www.pbs.org/nerds/part1.html has some pretty interesting somments from the people in computing from 1975 and the launch of the Altair.

This is from the Robert X Cringely column at Infoworld (not to be confused with the other Robert X Cringely). It's a gossip column and should not be treated seriously. Shame on Slashdot for not flagging this.

Wide acceptance of low-emissions vehicles is almost completely dependent on the existence of a, for lack of a better word, refueling infrastructure. People don't want to have to drive across town to the one electric recharge station (or hydrogen station, or whatever) when they could drive their combustion car 2 blocks. And they dont' want to run out of whatever fuel they're using out in the middle or nowhere, or in a bad neighborhood, etc.

Interesting articles. Is N-Cube a response to Microsoft's X-Box, only cooler? Did Microsoft not want to invoke images of the Borg with its antitrust case on appeal? ;) Oh, there's another interesting article by Robert X. Cringely on Microsoft's X-Box.

While I think that the editorial author makes a few interesting arguments about the N-Cube, and is an admitted Nintendo supporter, he misses or misinterprets several crucial points in Sony's strategy.

1) The author cites that 2,200,000 PS2 units have sold, but only 4,000,000 software items have been sold. He cites the large number of PS2 units have sold primarily as a DVD player.

Be that as it may, an installed base is an installed base. I have sincere doubts as to whether Nintendo can create such a large demand for its unit, especially in the light that its N-Cube will not play back DVD's. I know many people who are only lately adopting DVD players, and Sony was wise to catch this wave. I'm precisely in that demographic, both fascinated by PlayStation 2 as a gaming console and interested in the console, but immediately converted to a buyer since I want a DVD player among my TV options as well.

2) The author cites that several longtime PlayStation developers are having problems with the learning curve that PS2's Emotion Engine/Graphics Synth computing platform presents them, requiring more programmers and programming skill to eke out the performance they want.

The thing is, I have no doubts whatsoever that the N-Cube will present a similar learning curve to developers for it as well. The virtue of having larger V-RAM than PS2 has, which some current developers have cited as a problem, won't reduce the learning curve for the platform drastically.

3) He cites that Nintendo has admitted that it will not be an internet appliance device, though it will support internet connectivity. He says that by the N-Cube not trying to be A) a DVD player, or B) an internet device, hence its focus will be only on games.

He misses the ENTIRE point of the killer app of modern gaming: MULTIPLAYER capability. Sony's strategy is hinging on A) urging developers to assume an internet connection and B) creating an infrastructure to support the consoles. Sega may have caught onto that concept first, but Sony has wholeheartedly adopted the same view that internet multiplay will be an essential component of newer games.

It's what PC gamers have come to learn over the past few years: a game may be good by itself, but it reaches a whole new level of compelling or interesting gameplay when you have a human opponent or ally. Sony and Sega are wise to cash in on this lesson from the PC, especially because homes are increasingly connected to the internet and those connected homes contain computer network at a increasingly brisk clip.

The author of the editorial may be correct on the certain advantages that the N-Cube enjoys, and my take on the gaming industry may turn out to be wrong. If that's the case, then the renewed competition in the console gaming field will be certainly welcome. Who knows, Sony, Sega, and Nintendo may have to unite to successfully defend their turf from wily Microsoft. Microsoft may often not get the first or second forays into a field right, but they learn from their mistakes, and take no prisoners.

It certainly will prove to be an interesting story.

Incidentally, Bob Cringely's Pulpit of 2000-07-27, Everybody is Wrong recalls a bit of history of the fiascoes from the people that later became AOL.

A historian of the computer business has to dig beyond corporate statements.
__

That's what pisses me off about this Global Warming crap. The Earth has been going through hot and cold cycles since it's beginning, and I'd find it odd if this wasn't part of that cycle.

Ice ages and warm spells don't just happen for no reason. They happen due to variations in Earth's orbit, or Solar output, or catastrophies like volcanic eruptions, geological upheavals, or comet/asteroid impacts. Nothing massive along those lines has happened lately.

There's only one culprit left to explain such a huge reduction in the ice caps over a short time. Us.

Just lastnight I watched the NOVA Episode Warnings from the Ice on PBS. Though they did point out that the speed of the ice melt during the 20th Century is exceptionally high compared to what can be determined from ice core samples, they indicated that it is at least partially due to volcanic activity directly under the Antarctic ice sheet.

I strongly believe that we are in a period of global warming, however, our impact is likely not as significant as geothermal activity, including ash and gases in the atmosphere from other volcanoes. I do feel though, that it is our responsibility to the future generations that we limit any negative impact we do cause to the environment. Critical at the moment is reducing forest destruction since forests are the 'lungs of the planet' removing CO2 and producing O2. (you can help the rainforest by visiting here or here.

The complete transcript of NOVA: Warnings from the Ice is available on the PBS website.

Just lastnight I watched the NOVA Episode Warnings from the Ice on PBS. Though they did point out that the speed of the ice melt during the 20th Century is exceptionally high compared to what can be determined from ice core samples, they indicated that it is at least partially due to volcanic activity directly under the Antarctic ice sheet.

I strongly believe that we are in a period of global warming, however, our impact is likely not as significant as geothermal activity, including ash and gases in the atmosphere from other volcanoes. I do feel though, that it is our responsibility to the future generations that we limit any negative impact we do cause to the environment. Critical at the moment is reducing forest destruction since forests are the 'lungs of the planet' removing CO2 and producing O2. (you can help the rainforest by visiting here or here.

The complete transcript of NOVA: Warnings from the Ice is available on the PBS website.

PBS's Rob Cringely wrote about the web kiosks at the olympics being intercepted by a carnivore-on-steroids that can choose to bounce emails--not ever deliver them.

Right. must reduce my caffeine intake before jumping three steps in /. discussion.

In fact, the years of the Hearst dominated media are a good example of business having a great, overt power over politics.

Oops, here's a link to some info on that Nova/Frontline report

"And the truly amazing part of this story is that there is nothing illegal about the data gathering, itself. Since the kiosk doesn't belong to you or me, we are bound by terms of usage that allow the kiosk provider to do pretty much whatever they want with the bits we run through their system. By simply using their machine, we give up our privacy without even knowing it."

It sounds like we need some privacy laws to fill the lupole that Carnivore seeks to exploit. I, for one, favor the british aproach to seeking the informed consent of the people providing the data before collecting it.

how else could you differentiate different emails passing through the system?

How bout using software installed on ISP systems instead of some ominous black box clearly put their by watchers to avoid being watched. And once again I have to wonder if Cringley has his finger on a better pulse than EPIC or EFF with his article suggesting the FBI wants to start the process of creating an off switch for this newfangled 'internet'.

The main point here is not that the FBI is tapping e-mails. The general trend in National Intelligence (*muffled laughter*) is obviously going to yeild things like Carnivore, but what groups like the ACLU want is what we all want, KNOWLEDGE! We simply want to know what the hell is going on in this little black box, because we as citizens have a responsibility to watch the watchers.

Red tape or not, there should have been more information available on this little gizmo before the sudden accross the board implementation came about. Steady encroachments on rights are bad enough, but sudden sweeping moves deserve intense and widely publisized scrutiny in my opinion. Sets a good example...