Slashdot Mirror

Yes, that could happen. But look at the number of bystanders killed by these guys. You reduce the number of innocent people killed if you go after the bad guys when you can.

Maybe if we'd focused on Afghanistan instead of switching to Iraq for no damn good reason, things would be different. The United States' policy is an abject failure. Drone strikes by the United States are making that failure worse.

One whole person in an apartment...

Wrong-way [automobile] crashes kill 11 in Florida, California yesterday.

Let's apply your `dangerous machines' yip yap to drivers and see how many minutes it takes the AARP to squash it.

You have no rational basis for your double standard. It's just the tyranny of the majority where pilots are a small constituency. Exactly what one expects from a government dominated welfare state self-inflicting its own decline.

Yes, that could happen. But look at the number of bystanders killed by these guys. You reduce the number of innocent people killed if you go after the bad guys when you can.

Let's get one thing straight here, the only reason why Microsoft dropped $300m into the Nook business was to bury a antitrust suit by Barnes and Noble over the patents they were allegedly infringing by using Android. Fearing failure and their Android licensing business drying up, they decided to make the whole lot go away.

http://blogs.reuters.com/aliso...

Surely they have plenty of really cold places in the Noth of Siberia - with the added bonus that that it would be further away from the muzzy threat. Why did they hold it in Sochi?

The FCC tried.

Two judges, with partial support from a third, said the commission has the authority to regulate broadband access but had failed to show that it has a mandate to impose the anti-discrimination rules on broadband providers.

You forgot to mention (if I'm not mistaken) how the court practically invited the FCC simply to invoke common carrier regulation as the legally proper way to achieve it's Net Neutrality anti-discrimination rules. While the "FCC tried", the FCC also _has not tried_ to reinstate Net Neutrality via its legal authority to regulate common carriers that way (vs 'information services'). The FCC, also, after a year and a lot of press, has never given me a single sentence of analysis of my 53 page Net Neutrality complaint I filed with them, via the Kansas Attorney General's Office, over GoogleFiber's (terms of service) blocking of residential servers. (after my cause inspired some protesters in Utah, Google backed down and narrowed the blockage to 'commercial servers', whatever that means. I.e. a Quake3 server is a commercial server making money for Id Software. Somehow that is OK, but god forbid any innovator in their own home makes a profit)

The FCC tried.

Two judges, with partial support from a third, said the commission has the authority to regulate broadband access but had failed to show that it has a mandate to impose the anti-discrimination rules on broadband providers.

In the end, I am unsure how the FCC lets this occur.

They tried but a U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit struck down their rules.

Two judges, with partial support from a third, said the commission has the authority to regulate broadband access but had failed to show that it has a mandate to impose the anti-discrimination rules on broadband providers.

(Reuters) - The U.S. Marine Corps has extended indefinitely its use of two unmanned K-MAX heavy lift helicopters in Afghanistan, a Navy spokeswoman said, noting the aircraft kept re-supply trucks off the road and reduced the threat of roadside bombs.
The Marine Corps sent the new autonomous helicopters, which were developed by Lockheed Martin Corp and privately-held Kaman Aerospace, to Afghanistan in November 2011 for an initial, limited deployment, but has extended their use several times.
Now, Naval Air Systems Command has decided to continue using the aircraft indefinitely, said Jamie Cosgrove, a spokeswoman for the Navy command, which also oversees Marine Corps aircraft.

http://www.reuters.com/article...

Nuclear cannot be varied, so it cannot meet demand by itself either. We were already building hydropower capacity to store the excess from the so-called "baseload" nuclear.

As nuclear subsides, that storage capacity will be used increasingly for wind and solar instead.

The real differences here are:

1) Solar and wind variations substantially match peak usage patterns. This is the main reason we're having this discussion at all, because these new generators are cutting into the most profitable parts of the day for established generators.

2) Nuclear is highly centralized and requires police-state protections to function in the face of an emergency. The downside of the Fukushima incident is that the Japanese government has enacted strict state secrecy to punish the kind of disobedience and truth-telling that probably saved much of Japan from a worse turn of events.

Note that even in the US, you can be arrested for taking pictures of a nuclear power plant from a public space (these days, more likely by a SWAT officer or other paramilitary goon).

TL;DR - An expansion of nuclear energy is likely to spread militarism.

3) Funding... How do you get backers for new nuclear power plants when massive cost overruns are the rule rather than the exception? As with the need for secrecy and militarism, nuclear has a problem with corruption in its finances, too.

I almost forgot this report:

Nuclear plant security to be designated as state secret

Information on the way Japan’s nuclear power plants are guarded by police and security officers will be designated as a state secret by a government-sponsored confidentiality bill, said Masako Mori, minister in charge of the legislation.

“If we make public the security plans of police, such information could reach terrorists,” Mori said Friday in a meeting of a Lower House special committee on national security that kicked off full deliberations on the bill.

The legislation designates such information as a state secret under the category of terrorism prevention.

The state secrets crackdown in Japan was enacted to prevent further embarrassing information about the Fukushima reactors from getting to the public. Which means there is no accountability mechanism left for nuclear power in Japan.

Do not be surprised if the US government tries to head in the same direction for the same reason.

Nuclear cannot be varied, so it cannot meet demand by itself either. We were already building hydropower capacity to store the excess from the so-called "baseload" nuclear.

As nuclear subsides, that storage capacity will be used increasingly for wind and solar instead.

The real differences here are:

1) Solar and wind variations substantially match peak usage patterns. This is the main reason we're having this discussion at all, because these new generators are cutting into the most profitable parts of the day for established generators.

2) Nuclear is highly centralized and requires police-state protections to function in the face of an emergency. The downside of the Fukushima incident is that the Japanese government has enacted strict state secrecy to punish the kind of disobedience and truth-telling that probably saved much of Japan from a worse turn of events.

Note that even in the US, you can be arrested for taking pictures of a nuclear power plant from a public space (these days, more likely by a SWAT officer or other paramilitary goon).

TL;DR - An expansion of nuclear energy is likely to spread militarism.

3) Funding... How do you get backers for new nuclear power plants when massive cost overruns are the rule rather than the exception? As with the need for secrecy and militarism, nuclear has a problem with corruption in its finances, too.

Renewables may have scaled up already too much in some countries... In January, wholesale prices for electricity in Germany & Nordic countries were negative for a brief period when the January storms sent wind & hydro production up... http://www.reuters.com/article...

Nuclear needs to be a "backup option", but it needs to be always on. What do you do, however, when renewables (solar, wind, etc.) are flooding the grid, but with production that could disappear completely with a weather change in a region within 1 hour?

Nuclear cannot be varied, so it cannot meet demand by itself either. We were already building hydropower capacity to store the excess from the so-called "baseload" nuclear.

As nuclear subsides, that storage capacity will be used increasingly for wind and solar instead.

The real differences here are:

1) Solar and wind variations substantially match peak usage patterns. This is the main reason we're having this discussion at all, because these new generators are cutting into the most profitable parts of the day for established generators.

2) Nuclear is highly centralized and requires police-state protections to function in the face of an emergency. The downside of the Fukushima incident is that the Japanese government has enacted strict state secrecy to punish the kind of disobedience and truth-telling that probably saved much of Japan from a worse turn of events.

Note that even in the US, you can be arrested for taking pictures of a nuclear power plant from a public space (these days, more likely by a SWAT officer or other paramilitary goon).

TL;DR - An expansion of nuclear energy is likely to spread militarism.

3) Funding... How do you get backers for new nuclear power plants when massive cost overruns are the rule rather than the exception? As with the need for secrecy and militarism, nuclear has a problem with corruption in its finances, too.

Because they ticket you for any nuisance thing you can do. It's impossible to drive in Rome or anywhere in Italy and not get a ticket for something. It's a revenue stream because nobody is going to argue against it. Why? We all know how good the Italian Justice system is, right? You'd have a better chance arguing your case in the Coliseum in front of a pride of hungry lions.

When driving in Rome the old saying "When in Rome, do as the Romans do." applies otherwise you'll get into an accident but then again, you'll probably get into an accident anyway. True Story: When leaving from vacation in Rome and heading to the airport in a hired car, our driver in his Mercedes did a quick lane change and turned left, cutting a car off. We felt a thud and simultaneous crash of glass, the driver shrugged, looked in his mirror and kept driving us to the airport.

.....he is also believed to have made contacts with Chinese and Russian operatives before he fled the country.

Believed by whom? Anonymous Crackpots on the Internet? Sure. They're completely trustworthy.
The only people who say Snowden was working with the Russians are the various lawbreaking members of the US government, who are actively running a smear campaign against Snowden. The FBI, however, has maintained for some time that Snowden acted alone.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-25806855
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/26/usa-security-snowden-idUSL2N0L00BR20140126

And then Boeing lost a massive contract in Brazil after a lot of these details came to light to the tune of 4 billion $.

captcha: contempt

Here in Europe we've got subsidised wind farms, lots of wind, and not enough demand because it's quite warm. The result in December was negative wholesale electricity prices.

I'll leave it to the reader to decide whether negative energy prices are good for the market or not.

Yo, moron, the ozone hole is not fixed.

While the link says it should be fixed by 2070, the fact that you claim it's fixed shows you are a lazy son of a bitch making up shit as you go. You made a demonstrably false claim that took me less than .5 seconds to debunk. Do we have to look up everything you say now? Because you clearly were either lying or pathetically ignorant of the truth. I suspect that will be the case.

This is the problem with discussions about this topic; Face Painting Homers like you don't give a shit about the facts, just your position. You are the idiot in the debate class stuck with defending Slavery and using whatever you think you can slip by people to win your argument. Unfortunately, the majority AGW advocates are like you.

After a little search.

Blair also dismissed a speeding ticket against Abadie, because an expert did not appear to testify to the calibration on the officer's speedometer. Blair said there was a lack of evidence to establish Abadie's driving speed.

IT'S a chart that no one wants to top, but global warming's worst offenders, in absolute terms, are the US, China, Russia, Brazil, India, Germany and the UK. New calculations suggest that these nations are responsible for more than 60 per cent of the global warming between 1906 and 2005.

Basically, they cherry picked a small period of time. The fact that they stopped at 2005 is even more telling. Since 2005, US's emissions have dropped, while ALL of BRICS have gone way up.
Heck, here is a better map that shows more CURRENT data. It came from CO2. In this case, it shows 2008's. What is truely wicked is that China has been going up 10-15% EACH YEAR for the last 10 years.

Secondly, Europe out did America in coal emissions for centuries. In fact, they emitted more CO2 UNTIL 1998 when suddenly, they started downwards. In fact, even the UK says that they are the global historical cause of climate change.
Third, check out the following 2 reports:
Here and Here.
What do you see?
That the west, esp. USA, is dropping their emissions, but china alone, emits more each year that destroys those savings. IOW, China is increasing faster than what the entire west can cut. This does NOT include other nations.

So, if you really were the least bit honest, you will get off the high horse and realize that we are in this together. Either all nations work together on this, or we all sink. And if USA takes the same approach that EU took, it will actually RAISE emissions, not lower them. It is EU's racism against China that keeps them from moving more work to there. And sadly, American businesses have taken a non-responsibility approach to issues, so they go on over to China, while ignoring the fact that China is cheating on everything.

IT'S a chart that no one wants to top, but global warming's worst offenders, in absolute terms, are the US, China, Russia, Brazil, India, Germany and the UK. New calculations suggest that these nations are responsible for more than 60 per cent of the global warming between 1906 and 2005.

Basically, they cherry picked a small period of time. The fact that they stopped at 2005 is even more telling. Since 2005, US's emissions have dropped, while ALL of BRICS have gone way up.
Heck, here is a better map that shows more CURRENT data. It came from CO2. In this case, it shows 2008's. What is truely wicked is that China has been going up 10-15% EACH YEAR for the last 10 years.

Secondly, Europe out did America in coal emissions for centuries. In fact, they emitted more CO2 UNTIL 1998 when suddenly, they started downwards. In fact, even the UK says that they are the global historical cause of climate change.
Third, check out the following 2 reports:
Here and Here.
What do you see?
That the west, esp. USA, is dropping their emissions, but china alone, emits more each year that destroys those savings. IOW, China is increasing faster than what the entire west can cut. This does NOT include other nations.

So, if you really were the least bit honest, you will get off the high horse and realize that we are in this together. Either all nations work together on this, or we all sink. And if USA takes the same approach that EU took, it will actually RAISE emissions, not lower them. It is EU's racism against China that keeps them from moving more work to there. And sadly, American businesses have taken a non-responsibility approach to issues, so they go on over to China, while ignoring the fact that China is cheating on everything.

The FISA court has been a whitewash since the Church Committee days. FISA rejects about one warrant per 3 year period (or 1 in 3000): .... You can't rationally call rubber stamping like that "oversight."

I suppose it is out of the question to even pretend that both the Justice Department attorneys and judges approach the job seriously and professionally since going to court is always done on a lark, no preparation needed.

The judges who preside over America's secret court

In rare public remarks 10 years ago, a former presiding FISA judge, Royce Lamberth, described the process: "I ask questions. I get into the nitty-gritty. I know exactly what is going to be done and why. And my questions are answered, in every case, before I approve an application."

Syracuse University College of Law professor William C. Banks, who follows the FISA court closely, said he suspects that warrants are "modified" when judges request more information about a warrant or decide to split a warrant with multiple suspects, phone numbers and locations into several, more specific ones.

"We can't tell the extent of modification, but clearly it suggests that the judges are taking a real look at these things and are at least modifying them in some respect," said Penn Law professor Theodore Ruger.

NSA Data Mining Is Legal, Necessary, Sec. Chertoff Says

FISA warrant applications are inches thick, he said, and "if you're trying to sift through an enormous amount of data very quickly, I think it would be impractical." He said that getting an ordinary FISA warrant is "a voluminous, time-consuming process" .

The judges who preside over America's secret court

Between 2001 and 2012, the FISA judges approved 20,909 surveillance and property search warrants - an average of 33 a week. During that 12-year period, the judges denied just 10 applications. Prosecutors withdrew another 26 applications.

From 2007 to 2012, FISA judges also approved 532 "business record" warrant applications, the category used in the order that directed Verizon to release metadata on all phone calls inside the United States. No business record warrants were rejected.

The records also show that FISA judges ordered "substantial modifications" to 497 surveillance and property warrants and 428 of the business record warrants.

The statistics are especially intriguing for business record warrants for 2011 and 2012. Of 417 warrants authorized, the court "substantially modified" 376

It would be easy to get the impression that few people posting here have any concept of what true professionalism means.

Are you happier now?

The FISA court has been a whitewash since the Church Committee days. FISA rejects about one warrant per 3 year period (or 1 in 3000): .... You can't rationally call rubber stamping like that "oversight."

I suppose it is out of the question to even pretend that both the Justice Department attorneys and judges approach the job seriously and professionally since going to court is always done on a lark, no preparation needed.

The judges who preside over America's secret court

In rare public remarks 10 years ago, a former presiding FISA judge, Royce Lamberth, described the process: "I ask questions. I get into the nitty-gritty. I know exactly what is going to be done and why. And my questions are answered, in every case, before I approve an application."

Syracuse University College of Law professor William C. Banks, who follows the FISA court closely, said he suspects that warrants are "modified" when judges request more information about a warrant or decide to split a warrant with multiple suspects, phone numbers and locations into several, more specific ones.

"We can't tell the extent of modification, but clearly it suggests that the judges are taking a real look at these things and are at least modifying them in some respect," said Penn Law professor Theodore Ruger.

NSA Data Mining Is Legal, Necessary, Sec. Chertoff Says

FISA warrant applications are inches thick, he said, and "if you're trying to sift through an enormous amount of data very quickly, I think it would be impractical." He said that getting an ordinary FISA warrant is "a voluminous, time-consuming process" .

The judges who preside over America's secret court

Between 2001 and 2012, the FISA judges approved 20,909 surveillance and property search warrants - an average of 33 a week. During that 12-year period, the judges denied just 10 applications. Prosecutors withdrew another 26 applications.

From 2007 to 2012, FISA judges also approved 532 "business record" warrant applications, the category used in the order that directed Verizon to release metadata on all phone calls inside the United States. No business record warrants were rejected.

The records also show that FISA judges ordered "substantial modifications" to 497 surveillance and property warrants and 428 of the business record warrants.

The statistics are especially intriguing for business record warrants for 2011 and 2012. Of 417 warrants authorized, the court "substantially modified" 376

It would be easy to get the impression that few people posting here have any concept of what true professionalism means.

Are you happier now?

With that defense, yeah - a total douche. She isn't "defending the future", she's trying to dodge the speeding ticket,

She tried to dodge the speeding ticket with a defense that the state had insufficient evidence that she was speeding. The Government were required to present evidence that the officer's speedometer was properly calibrated and therefore accurate. Reuters reports that the government expert did not appear at trial to give the required evidence.

Why should anyone be found guilty of a crime if the state doesn't have sufficient evidence to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, and why would anyone be a douche for challenging the government when faced with such a charge?

As I understand it, the charge relating to the google glass was entirely separate from the speeding charge.

A San Diego court commissioner dismissed a traffic ticket on Thursday against a California woman who drove with Google Glass, a tiny computer mounted on an eyeglass frame. Court Commissioner John Blair said he was dismissing the citation against Cecilia Abadie on the grounds there was no proof her Google Glass was operating when she was pulled over in October by a California Highway Patrol officer

It's good to get on top of these things.
Although, I do wonder what changed their mind, since less than a month ago there was no way, nope, not a chance that the Tesla charger had anything whatsoever to do with that garage fire. Nope, not a chance in heck.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/18/us-autos-tesla-fire-idUSBRE9BH1J020131218

Looks like MPHJ has settled in New York:

• "The settlement requires MPHJ to reveal its true identity to targets, describe with "reasonable specificity" its claims, and have a good faith basis for claiming infringements."

The settlement also appears to provide a mechanism for parties who paid MPHJ to "void their license" with MPHJ and get their money back

NY AG's press release here.

Full text of settlement (Assurance of Discontinuance) here.

Maybe some of them were bought online and then intercepted by NSA to install that hardware. There is plenty of evidence that they are doing that kind of things, including a catalog, but not a lot of reports that show how they are actually doing it.

Now, that the actual number of devices with those radios is around 100000 could be an outdated number (50k in 2008 and 85k in 2012 according to Snowden documents, and maybe 100k by now according to other sources), and anyway, seems that be considered by them an obsolete technology, and targetting mainly offline computers and closed networks. Probably the kind of installations that won't disclose that they were intruded even if they found what happened. Landline phones and faraday cages could become very popular in some installations.

Probably there aren't used in US because may have other ways to get in, even in offline networks (maybe embedded 3g radios?) without needing to have that kind of reach.

Jealousy or taking a realistic long view?

Skewed view? Yes. Realistic view? Not so much.

You're making a lot of assumptions to arrive at your point. First of all, you're assuming that this house will be built in some rural area, as opposed to being built more vertically (as a lot of modern homes are built) in an already established area. Lots of neighborhoods in major metropolitan areas are having their older, smaller, aging homes razed and replaced with homes that are more modern, and while having the same footprint, have more square footage).

Next, you're completely missing all of the energy efficient and environmentally friendly building designs and materials. Efficiency in almost all household products has skyrocketed in recent years. Compare the energy efficiency of a modern furnace or air conditioner to one from 30 years ago. It's a compelling difference. Once you start to factor in insulation and vapor barriers, lighting choices, HVAC, and many other factors, you can squeeze a surprising amount of "work" out of a relatively small amount of energy to run a home. Once you start going on about an owner filling his/her home with too much "stuff'" for yours (or George Carlin's) taste, you reveal what's really bugging you. It's fine if you choose a more minimalist lifestyle. No worries, dude. No one's judging that, or saying there's anything wrong with that. But stop throwing rocks if others choose not to (and on that note, nowhere does the poster claim that he/she is doing that.....again....an assumption on your part).

Look, it just seems like you're wound kinda tight on this issue, and are just ready to react to anyone who sees things differently than you. You're like a hammer looking for a nail. Just breath, dude, it'll be OK.

Oh, and the article you linked to with "proof" that Warren Buffet agrees with you, actually refers to this OP ED piece that Buffett wrote, in which he clearly is more making the case for the inequality of TAXES on people in different income brackets. At no point does he suggest that there's anything wrong with some folks making more (even if it's a LOT more) than other people. I respect that you choose to work for a non-profit, and I love that it is one that is centered on helping others who are not as fortunate. You ain't gonna get any shit from me for that. I think it's great to help others, and I often do so myself, not because I expect anything in return, but because it just feels right, and it's how I'm wired. However, if you're having these feelings that future generations are going to be somehow burdened because some folks today make too much money, I gotta tell ya that I sure don't get where that logic is coming from.

Your posts are certainly starting to sound like jealousy. Between declaring that a 4,000 square foot home is too big, implying that we're desperately running out of room for said houses, and posting links to pretty graphs that show how all the wealthy people are taking your money, you're coming across sounding pretty resentful.

Maybe a little introspection is in order. Or maybe a change in career or even some money management/goal setting is in order.

Jealousy or taking a realistic long view?

I never said we're running out of room for houses, only a 5 year old would think that the biggest problem with building big houses is that they take up too much land - the USA has plenty of buildable land and will continue to have buildable space for the forseeable future. Of course, if we continue to spread everyone out, we'll still need to use a lot of energy to get those people to where they work and play. And in the next energy crunch, once again people will complain about paying $5+/gallon for gas because they have a 50 mile commute to work and their rural community is not served by transit. There are land use and planning concerns, of course, but I don't see that as being the biggest problem.

I was more referring to the other resources (including energy and water) that go into building a maintaining a house. Lumber may be renewable, but the energy used to process it and haul it to your house is not, nor are a lot of other modern building materials like foam insulating sheathing, plastics, paint, etc. And a big house doesn't sit empty - the owner fills it with "stuff", stuff made from resources that are shared with the rest of the world. We'll never run out of anything, it will just become more and more scarce, and harder and more energy intensive to find and process.

It's not just me that thinks that income inequity is a growing problem. Warren Buffet thinks so too. Do you think *he* is jealous too? I'm old enough and have enough retirement savings that income inequity is not likely to affect me adversely in my lifetime - the status quo can likely continue for decades before serious problems result. I could retire today if I wanted to, but chose to work at a non-profit that is actually working to help some of the people in other countries that aren't as fortunate as me. However, if the wealth accumulation at the top continues, my children and their children may find themselves living in a much different country than me.

I think the issue is that Google is using city bus stops without permission. In other words appropriating a public asset for private use. And possibly impacting the performance of a city service, have city buses had to wait while the google shuttle cleared the stop?

If Google were picking up its employees somewhere else there would probably be no controversy.

Google is not the only company doing this by the way. Additionally, this week SF announced a pilot project to license and charge companies for the use of specific bus stops on some sort of cost-recovery basis.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/07/us-google-commuterbus-sanfrancisco-idUSBREA0517L20140107

"City rules forbid the city from collecting more than the cost of providing the service, officials said."

God forbid the city make a profit on the use of their assets. It seems like they could use this to subsidize the public system a bit and have everyone benefit. Maybe that is too much like socialism or something...

So then you agree with this case as well?

Apple pays $60 million to settle China iPad trademark dispute
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/02/us-apple-china-idUSBRE86104320120702 [reuters.com]

Well yeah, why not? Apple wanted to sell a product called iPad in a country where another company already had a trademark on the name. That company reached a court-mediated settlement under which Apple agreed to pay that company 60 million dollars for the right to use the name "iPad" in the region where the name was already trademarked.

What's there to disagree with?

So then you agree with this case as well?

Apple pays $60 million to settle China iPad trademark dispute
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/02/us-apple-china-idUSBRE86104320120702

Samsung has another model as well http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samsung_SGR-A1 some silly video likely of this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oa08Gbn6iqs Static terminators, so far! Another manufacturer Video: http://www.reuters.com/video/2011/02/14/south-korean-super-gun-packs-hi-tech-kil?videoId=187406842 Transcript: " It's called the Super Aegis 2 and its one of the most advanced weapons systems ever built. Billed by its manufacturers DoDaam of South Korea as a "Total Security Solution", the Super Aegis is an automated turret system that supports a variety of weapons, from a standard machine-gun to a surface-to-air missile. It is designed to repel an attacker from up to 3 kilometres away, using sophisticated thermal imaging software and camera systems to lock onto a human-sized target even in the dead of night. The system requires no human presence. It's all operated robotically from a distant control room. DoDaam Systems Vice-President Park Sung-ho says the high-tech weapon could become an integral component in South Korea's ongoing military face-off with North Korea across the heavily armed Demilitarised Zone. SOUNDBITE: DODAAM SYSTEMS VICE PRESIDENT PARK SUNG-HO SAYING (Korean): "We have certain circumstance where North and South Korea are confronting each other and currently soldiers are operating a lot of military equipment. If the job can be replaced by non-human guarding and monitoring robots, it could reduce the number of labour forces and military forces. And it could also reduce human losses under real combat situations." Super aEgis 2 detects objects with two cameras: a low-light camera and a thermal imaging camera which senses body temperature. A laser range finder and gyroscopic stabiliser keep the weapon steady in high winds. SOUNDBITE: DODAAM SYSTEMS VICE PRESIDENT PARK SUNG-HO SAYING (Korean): "Super aEgis 2 is a guarding, monitoring combat robot composed of a video part and a shooting part. The video part consists of a day and night colour camera, thermal camera, and Laser range finder which measures the distance. The shooting part consists of a section that uses the incoming image from the video part to detect the object and to destroy it." It's not yet clear though, whether the Super aEgis 2 will be deployed along the border. The 60 year old Armistice Agreement between North and South Korea specifies limits for the weapons each side can point at one another. The super gun's presence may never be known, unless or until it starts firing. Tara Cleary, Reuters."

I was also skeptical when I first saw the news articles (like this one) that said that RSA had published a statement where they supposedly refuted the existence of that NSA deal. The existence of the deal was originally broken by Reuters in this article, where they cite "two sources familiar with the contract" as their sources. But then, after more in-depth analysis of the RSA blog post where they supposedly "denied" the existence of the deal, it was revealed that actually RSA neither denied nor acknowledged that such deal existed in their statement. They are just using general wording to give an impression, that they would certainly never do such thing. But they are not directly denying the existence of the deal.

Now, thinking logically, it's pretty damn clear that they would have denied that such a deal was ever made, if they were in the position of making such a claim. But given they don't directly deny the claims presented by Reuters, it would seem a much more logical explanation that the deal indeed was made, and RSA just went into damage control mode after the publication of the Reuters article. Lying to the public would have meant more damage if Reuters would have later been able to present the actual paper of the deal, so I suppose we can take their lack of directly denying this deal's existence as an admission of sorts. This is also the reason why speakers are canceling their appearance in the conference ("Your company has issued a statement on the topic, but you have not denied this particular claim.")

So, I think we have grounds to believe that there is actually quite much truth to the original story by Reuters. As they say, the deal was "handled by business leaders rather than pure technologists". I am pretty sure that this is a yet-another example of a major manager-level f*ck up. Tech companies very often have all the expertise on the technical personnel level, while managers are a "necessary evil" who often have much fewer insight into the technical field where the company actually operates. Of course, anyone with even the slightest idea of how the IT security field functions, would never ever endanger their company's credibility (at least for such little reward as $10 million), because deals like this tend resurface in the public sphere sooner or later. All we can assume that someone in the management made a very major f*ck-up and made this secret deal with NSA without much consulting from the technical folks. But I am pretty sure that now that this deal has surfaced in the public sphere, it will end up costing RSA a great deal more in lost sales than what the "business leaders" anticipated they could gain in short term from making the deal with NSA.

Reuters reported that they did.

Documents leaked by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden show that the NSA created and promulgated a flawed formula for generating random numbers to create a "back door" in encryption products, the New York Times reported in September. Reuters later reported that RSA became the most important distributor of that formula by rolling it into a software tool called Bsafe that is used to enhance security in personal computers and many other products.

Undisclosed until now was that RSA received $10 million in a deal that set the NSA formula as the preferred, or default, method for number generation in the BSafe software, according to two sources familiar with the contract.

So, who's going to sue them? And on what grounds?

Reuters coverage in 2011. Congressional testimony from 2011 describes a 13,000 foot tunnel.

Trenchless technology marches on. Microtunneling is getting easier. This gear is normally used to avoid digging up streets.

I was just as underwhelmed as you when I heard "coldest temperatures since... 1995!"

That said, last summer was particularly hot:

* Historical Heat Wave Expanding Across the West (June 2013)
* Death Valley Heat Breaks All-Time US June Record
* Heat Wave July 2013
* What’s Behind the Heat Wave

And in December, we did see dramatic weather extremes:

* The temperature in New York's Central Park topped out at 71 degrees on Sunday, breaking a 1998 record of 63 degrees
* The temperature had reached 65 degrees in Central Park on Saturday, breaking a 2011 record of 62 degrees.
* Temperatures in Philadelphia reached a record 68 degrees on Sunday.
* In Washington D.C., the temperature was hovering "about 40 degrees warmer than normal,"
* New York, Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine were pummeled by an ice storm
* In Nelson County, Kentucky, three drowning victims were pulled from a submerged vehicle
* A tornado touched down in the city of Redfield, Arkansas
* Widespread damage from the storm system was also reported near Dermott, Arkansas ... "We are thinking it was a tornado,"

Tornadoes in December?

Peak tornado season in the southern states is March through May; in the northern states, it is late spring through early summer.

Just two weeks later, it's a cold snap: Chicago already broke it's record low -- more to follow.

In theory a pest resistant crop might have fewer pesticides/herbicides

And in reality, more pesticides are used on pesticide-resistant crops. FTA:

"Resistant weeds have become a major problem for many farmers reliant on GE crops, and are now driving up the volume of herbicide needed each year by about 25 percent," Benbrook said.

Monsanto officials had no immediate comment.

That's a slight bit of a strawman argument. Or whatever it is when you pick the dumbest arguments made by the dumbest, loudest people one one side and write off the entire side. GMOs aren't "unhealthy," you're right. But a lot of people who are concerned about GMO are concerned first about the transgenes spreading. Resistance to glyphosphate is spreading to pests, and transgenes have contaminated other crops. Normal pollution can be cleaned up and doesn't multiply. Polluting the gene pool is much more problematic and should require MUCH higher standards.

A lot of opposition to GMO also has more to do with economics than with health issues. Specifically, I don't want anyone to have a monopoly on food. Monsanto especially, given their past behavior. GMO has a huge advantage over non-GMO, and monsanto is a dominant (if not THE dominant) player in GMO. My fear is that they're going to get us to a monoculture with major foodstocks, changing legislation around the world to fortify their position. As mentioned in the previous links, glyphosphate resistance already exists and is spreading. So we need to buy the next version from Monsanto at increased cost and decreased quality of life for farmers and everyone else.

Your last bit about "once other countries start making their own versions" is flawed I think. Monsanto has been aggressive with their patenting. Other countries aren't going to reinvent the wheel to avoid monsantos patents and still make a product which is competitive.

TLDR, I think you dislike a subset of stupid anti-GMO activists who are, sure, very annoying, but there are still important objections to GMO.

And yet, no one would say the same of breeding for higher yield or disease resistance, but suddenly when you use technology, it is wrong.

Not "wrong". Untested, unproven, with insufficient research on safety. Also, GM crops have thus far failed to deliver on the higher yield claims: http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/our-failing-food-system/genetic-engineering/failure-to-yield.html

And the farmers, and the people, and the environment.

Well, let's see. Your first link leads to a German academic paper that would cost me 40 bucks in PDF to debunk. But the summary provides a few bar graphs which immediately give the lie to the text -- at best, pesticide use is only *slightly* reduced on Bt cotton.

The third link is an advertisement, full of lies, damned lies, statistics, and weasel language. Its authors, Graham Brookes and Peter Barfoot of
PG Economics Ltd., Dorchester, UK, trace back to here -- http://www.pgeconomics.co.uk/who-we-are.php -- where it says things like: "PG Economics Limited is a specialist provider of advisory and consultancy services to agriculture and other natural resource-based industries. Our specific areas of specialisation are plant biotechnology, agricultural production systems, agricultural markets and policy." and "...on-going management consultancy and advice in the following core areas: Commercialisation of new technology/biotechnology". Translation, in case you didn't catch it: they're selling something.

The advertisement's premise is that chemical use is reduced because of herbicide-tolerant GM crops. Sounds great. Except, well... it's bullshit. A quick Google search kicks out 14 million results for "pesticide use up", this one from Reuters at the top: Pesticide use ramping up as GMO crop technology backfires: study The chemical companies are selling more herbicide than ever, because farmers didn't used to spray herbicide on crops because it would fucking kill them! Topping that off, the weeds are developing herbicide resistance... so... now what?

Things look pretty grim when you ignore a lot of facts.

Try harder next time; I've got plenty more ammo.

Just one more way... ...that going through US customs could ruin your life. DON'T DO IT.

The US has about 62 million visitors per year. I would expect that you could find the occasional horror story given the sample size and the vagaries of human behavior, especially when faced with a highly regulated activity such as crossing international borders.

Are you suggesting there are none to be found in Europe in general, or your country? No occasional injustice or difficulty? Care to test that?

Foreign visitors to U.S. hit record in 2011

The number of foreign tourists hit a record 62 million last year, up 4 percent from 2010, the department said in a statement.

If you want to argue about the safety of oil transport then I'll have that argument. I'd then demonstrate the statistical safety, low cost, and minimal carbon output of nuclear power.

Nuclear power has an intrinsic government subsidy that you (and all nuclear advocates) ignore: disaster insurance

Insurance available to the operators of nuclear power plants varies by nation. The worst case nuclear accident costs are so large that it would be difficult for the private insurance industry to carry the size of the risk, and the premium cost of full insurance would make nuclear energy uneconomic.

The next paragraph says the same about installations like dams, but you made a blanket statement about nuclear power, and I'm addressing that topic.

For a real world example, what is the cost of the Fukushima disaster? I suspect that this question literally has no answer, since there are so many unknowns in dealing with the aftermath. One figure is $58 billion. I suspect this is wildly optimistic, since every evaluation to come out of official channels in Japan has been that way since the earthquake hit. Other values are $100 billion and $250 billion. Some of this variation may be due to what is considered a direct cost vs. what is being ignored.

To give some perspective of how things are being managed, consider this recent report on labor used for the cleanup

In January, October and November, Japanese gangsters were arrested on charges of infiltrating construction giant Obayashi Corp's network of decontamination subcontractors and illegally sending workers to the government-funded project.

In the October case, homeless men were rounded up at Sendai's train station by Sasa, then put to work clearing radioactive soil and debris in Fukushima City for less than minimum wage, according to police and accounts of those involved. The men reported up through a chain of three other companies to Obayashi, Japan's second-largest construction company.

Do you expect that homeless exploited workers who suffer from exposure to radiation and other environmental toxins will be accurately accounted for in the cost of the cleanup? Does this give you any confidence that the cleanup process itself is going to be done correctly, even with a multibillion dollar price tag?

And remember, the disaster isn't over yet. Of the four units that had explosions, two of them have not had a survey of reactor damage because no technology exists that can stand up to the radiation. They could be going through a process that could release more radiation and the only way we would find is is when it happens. Speaking of which: steam of unknown origin is coming out of Unit 3.

Fresh plumes of most probably radioactive steam have been detected rising from the reactor 3 building at the crippled Fukushima nuclear plant, said the facility’s operator company.

The steam has been detected by surveillance cameras and appeared to be coming from the fifth floor of the mostly-destroyed building housing crippled reactor 3, according to Tokyo Electric Power Co (TEPCO), the plant’s operator.

This started on Dec 24, i.e. last week, and is continuing intermittently. It could be rain water contacting surfaces heated by radioactive decay, or an early warning of the damaged core or fuel pool becoming critical.

Churches lobby heavily, and support candidates.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/21/usa-tax-churches-irs-idUSL1E8HED5Z20120621

My eldest son stopped attending church because of electioneering from his Pastor.

This is representation.

Some churches have even lost their tax exempt status because of it.

cf Church at Pierce Creek in Binghamton, New York which took out full page advertisements opposing Bill Clinton.

Some flirt with it by endorsing specific candidates, however IRS enforcement of the law is very weak.

Because of this weak enforcement I think the law exempting churches should be scrapped completely.

Trying to find out anything from public sources is pretty tiring, as they start out partisan and get worse. I rather liked this one from Reuters

I don't think there was a real System Integrator on the whole project. The guys at CMS were out of their depth. They had their doubts about the delivery date quite early. But as we all know, the customer manager and the salesmen have the last word on that! Responsibility without power leads to insanity.

The CGI contract was apparently based on the ongoing contract for IT services, based on an older RFP. (The same sort of thing goes on in NYC, for instance. You have to use on of the short list of pre-qualified contractors.) It appears that CGI were responsible for "the website", which to my mind is only part of the project. But integration with the middleware, back end, and inter-system communications is SOMEONE'S responsibility. That is why there is all this finger-pointing.

It appears also that CGI were more or less successful in the smaller implementations by the states that took responsibility. Possibly their management skills were spread too thin. Well, it all seems to be more or less working now, which is a great accomplishment. Thanks to all who participated over many sleepless nights!

There is no misunderstanding. It is an just yet another attempt to misinform the public in hopes to gather support to continue their illegal ways. Do not forget, government sponsored propaganda is legal now and they are doing everything they can to manipulate what you see and hear.

Just another blatant lie on top of the pile.

A hoax Jeff Bezos invested in. I'll take it you didn't bother to read any of the links.

Try Amazon, after all Jeff Bezos already invested.

You don't need giant indoor dam, you just need a giant outdoor tank higher than the surrounding region. The problem is, big tanks like that are kinda expensive. Millions of dollars.

Expensive and, more importantly, dangerous - storing large amounts of power would risk a rather large flood. It would make more sense to excavate an underground cavern and pump water out of it to store power. This is (likely) cheaper, safer and allows far more height difference, thus more power per same amount of water and storage space. And of course you get a huge cistern out of the deal, too.

Let's assume we excavate our cistern so we get a water head of 100m for our turbine. Also, let's assume the turbine+generator is 80% efficient. A single cubic meter of water weights one metric ton, so we'll get 1000kg*100m*9.8m/s^2 * 0.8 = 784 kJ = 217.8 kWh out of it.

According to Reuters, New York State's electricity usage peaked last summer at 33,955MW, so if we'd want to provide every single watt for, say, two weeks from our reservoir when fully loaded (completely empty of water) at maximum power draw, we'd ned to excavate 24h/d*14d*33955MW/217.8kWh/m^3= 53 million cubic meters of rock. This works out to a square 10 meters high and 2.3 kilometers on each direction (plus enough to compensate for support pillars). Expensive, yes, but also ridiculously oversized and perfectly doable with today's technology. Also, doubling the depth doubles the power contained in every cubic foot of water, leading to smaller cistern required.

Funny you should mention credit card surcharges. Those are on the way after a long court battle, and a federal judge has already declared it unconstitutional for states to block it.