Slashdot Mirror

A Slashdot comment is too short to be a full discussion of a complex issue. I don't think that being a billionaire necessarily makes someone arrogant. I've never thought Warren Buffett is arrogant, for example.

Here is some Microsoft history. Microsoft is much worse than anyone says, simply because recording all the abuses would take a lifetime of writing:

1994 October: IBM released OS/2 version 3.0, an operating system far superior to anything Microsoft had, or would have for years. IBM launched a major campaign to get software developed for it. Many major software houses signed up to port their applications, but nearly all had to drop OS/2 development when they read the NDA (Non-Disclosure Agreement) for the Windows 95 development kit. If you were developing anything for OS/2, you could not participate in the Windows 95 program. The NDA itself required total secrecy, so the reason everyone dropped OS/2 development was only rumored for years.

1995 August: Microsoft and Department of Justice finalize the antitrust Consent Decree. Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson is ordered to sign it, since Judge Stanley Sporkin refused, indicating it was too easy on Microsoft. Microsoft immediately starts publicly ridiculing the Department of Justice, changes the names of the practices forbidden by the Concent Decree, and continues business as usual.

1995 November: Intel released the Pentium Pro chip. Microsoft was livid because Pentium Pro was optimized for 32-bit code. Windows 95 runs like a dog on the Pentium Pro, exposing Microsoft's "32-bit" claims to be lies. OS/2 and Unix run just fine.

1998 June: Microsoft releases Windows 98. While it contained bug fixes for Windows 95 the real reason for its release was to bury Internet Explorer in Windows so the Justice Department couldn't make them take it out.

1998 October: Novell introduces NetWare 5.0. NetWare gets great reviews, and Microsoft feels the heat, especially from comparisons between NetWare 5.0 (shipping, works great) and Windows NT 5.0 (very, very late; very, very buggy, not shipping yet), so renames Windows NT 5.0 to Windows 2000 to stop the 5.0 vs 5.0 comparisons.

1998 November: AOL purchases Netscape for $4.2 billion. Netscape has been crushed by Microsoft's monopolist business proactices, but Microsoft spin doctors say it proves the vitality of the market.

1999 April: the Melissa virus is released, bringing down Windows-based networks worldwide.

1999 November: Guilty! Judge Jackson's Finding Of Fact in the Justice Department suit was released, declaring that Microsoft has a monopoly and has knowingly abused its monopoly position.

2000 February: Microsoft can't take the heat - buys off Caldera evil business practices lawsuit. Microsoft demands a gag order as always to keep the truth from getting out. Microsoft announces a charge of $150 million and implies that was the total price (so Caldera position must have been weak). Experts estimate the actual buy-out was between $350 million and $500 million based on $150 million added to pre-existing reserves.

2000 April: Guilty! Judge Jackson's Finding of Law is released immediately after DOJ / Microsoft settlement negotiations break down. Microsoft guilty on nearly all counts, "not proven" on a couple, and innocent on none.

2000 November: George W. Bush is elected president of the U.S. under suspicious circumstances. The business world presumes this means Microsoft will be let off on anti-trust charges.

2001 June: A pro-business, Libertarian leaning Court of Appeals unanimously upholds all 8 counts of Microsoft's conviction for abusing its monopoly. The court then set aside the penalty for retrial due to an "appearance" of bias on the part of judge Thomas Jackson.

2001 September

The Republican argument was dividend taxes were double taxation, because the company paid taxes on it when the money was made and it was unfair to tax it again when it was paid out as a dividend. The little catch they didn't mention was big corporations exploit so many loopholes in the tax code, and take advantage of so many shelters they often don't pay any taxes in the first iteration.

You don't even need to mention a "catch". This argument was always stupid on its face. This cartoon explains all you need to know about what people mean when they refer to "money being taxed twice".

Money is taxed an indefinite number of times, whenever it moves from one hand to another. The idea that this should not apply when one of the hands belongs to a wealthy individual is quite new.

Whose statement? He scammed in, repeatedly, under McClellan's wing. No one has answered specifically which of his names was on the pass. How hard is it for you to be unhappy at this security breach, to say nothing of the layers of scamming and deception?

' McClellan did confirm he knew previously that "Jeff Gannon" was not the reporter's real name.'

You won't get anywhere with that imaginary "uber-liberal" BS. Whatever you're having, I'll have a double.

It was discovered that he was using an alias to get past White House security.

Uh, no. He was using an alias, but White House security requires you to give your name, address and social security # to get press credentials and access to CIA documents. They do a background check.

No, this guy did not "get past" White House security. He was a ringer, a shill, for the White House. A go-to guy when questions get tough.

How long had Talon news existed when "Gannon" got his press credentials? I just heard (have not yet confirmed) it was less than a week. And Talon News (Metatag: "Talon News is your source for unbiased news coverage and no-spin reporting. If you want the facts without all the slant, Talon News is the place to go for political, national, and international news.") is affiliated with who?

GOPUSA. How many of their 'no-spin' news stories were rewrites of GOP press releases?

Never mind that they've been paying off reporters to promote their agenda. Does anyone remember reporters Karen Ryan or Alberto Garcia from last year?

We can't trust the science. We are not told the truth until it's too late. Now we can't trust the independent reporting of what we think is the media.

Our country is in some deep trouble.

Actually, while the White House still hasn't answered questions like "which name was on Guckert/Gannon's day passes", he very clearly scammed his way in. You don't know the answer, either, unless... is that you, McClellan? Still trying to get those softball questions across the media radar, huh? I guess requiring questions in advance, and paying journalists to spin your press releases isn't enough - you're really putting in the overtime.

But hey, that's just my opinion ... Sorry for the OT.

The hit-the-target promotion from Taco Bell began with the deorbiting of MIR in 2001. Here's an article from Salon about it.

Will Taco Bell be doing another of their brain dead marketing schemes and offer free food like sudstance if the Hubble hits an a given target?

Prove it. The only proven vote fraud is being done by Democrats (remember "Votes for Cigarettes 2000" for homeless people and tire slashing by Democrat-paid thugs in 2004 in Wisconsin?).

Let's not even talk about Catherine Harris, who outright stole the election by selectively obeying the intent of the law.

Prove it. (And its spelled "Katherine". Try to keep up.)

This is now a one party dictatorship, using the law as window dressing to get anything it wants and destroy whomever it hates.

Prove it.

accepted by the Katie Courics of the news media almost immediately.

You honestly believe that Katie "... they haven't been able to confirm reports [Saddam] was taken to Tikrit, and then Mosul, and then hopefully Syria" Couric is right wing? ROFL!!!!

Snip remainder of Michael Moore-inspired paranoia. That by the way would be the corpulent propagandist Michael Moore:

- Who sends his own daughter to private school .

- Who unsuccessfully pressured the writing staff of his 'TV Nation' not to join the Writer's Guild.

- Whose bodyguard got arrested for carrying an unlicensed firearm at JFK airport. A FIREARM? For the writer/author of "Bowling for Columbine"? No more tinfoil for you - you've obviously ODed on the stuff.

- Whose own hometown high school refuses to induct him into its Hall of Fame.

YOU grow up and stop whining. Bush won, Kerry lost. Get over it.

Since Salon is quite restrictive in access, I put a DRM-free txt/html version on my blog along with a review.

The story itself is here(txt) and here(html).

A review of the story is also on my blog

As is par for Cory's work, the topics are cutting edge - dealing with ebay-driven in-game economics, dietary restrictions on kids,anti-globalization criticism, puns on the Bradbury/Moore controversy and female rights a la SuicideGirls(?). In another time, a little girl might play with a golliwog, a Barbie or a teaset. In this post-modern age, she is a skilled character in a game that borrows from Everquest, Ray Bradbury, Quake and Tolkien - more a killer than a wayfarer. Her participation in, and then disavowal of, an in-game conspiracy to terminate characters who produce in-game gold to be sold for real money on ebay, is bracketed with the onset of youthful diabetes, induced perhaps by the sweetshops just outside the 500 m sugar-free zone at her school.

Here's a link (think there might be a commercial to go through, but there it is:)

http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2004/11/15/andas _game/index.html

A story about what MMRPG's might be like in the future, and the repercussions of that in our lives, including the "sweat shop" idea. The first half made me go "Eh, another story about MMRPG's and the evils of playing all the time", but then when the meat of the story came in it had me thinking.

Seems the future is now.

http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2004/11/15/andas _game/index_np.html

not a novel, but a short story from cory doctorow.

It has come to my attention that the entire Linux community is a hotbed of so called 'alternative sexuality,' which includes anything from hedonistic orgies to homosexuality to pedophilia.

What better way of demonstrating this than by looking at the hidden messages contained within the names of some of Linux's most outspoken advocates:

• Linus Torvalds [microsoft.com] is an anagram of slit anus or VD 'L,' clearly referring to himself by the first initial.
• Richard M. Stallman [geocities.com], spokespervert for the Gaysex's Not Unusual 'movement' is an anagram of mans cram thrill ad.
• Alan Cox [microsoft.com] is barely an anagram of anal cox which is just so filthy and unchristian it unnerves me.

I'm sure that Eric S. Raymond, composer of the satanic homosexual [goatse.cx] propaganda diatribe The Cathedral and the Bizarre, is probably an anagram of something queer, but we don't need to look that far as we know he's always shoving a gun up some poor little boy's rectum. Update: Eric S. Raymond is actually an anagram for secondary rim and cord in my arse. It just goes to show you that he is indeed queer.

Update the Second: It is also documented that Evil Sicko Gaymond is responsible for a nauseating piece of code called Fetchmail [microsoft.com], which is obviously sinister sodomite slang for 'Felch Male' -- a disgusting practise. For those not in the know, 'felching' is the act performed by two perverts wherein one sucks their own post-coital ejaculate out of the other's rectum. In fact, it appears that the dirty Linux faggots set out to undermine the good Republican institution of e-mail, turning it into 'e-male.'

As far as Richard 'Master' Stallman goes, that filthy fudge-packer was actually quoted [salon.com] on leftist commie propaganda site Salon.com as saying the following: 'I've been resistant to the pressure to conform in any circumstance,' he says. 'It's about being able to question conventional wisdom,' he asserts. 'I believe in love, but not monogamy,' he says plainly.

And this isn't a made up troll bullshit either! He actually stated this tripe, which makes it obvious that he is trying to politely say that he's a flaming homo [comp-u-geek.net] slut [rotten.com]!

Speaking about 'flaming,' who better to point out as a filthy chutney ferret than Slashdot's very own self-confessed pederast Jon Katz. Although an obvious deviant anagram cannot be found from his name, he has already confessed, nay boasted of the homosexual [goatse.cx] perversion of corrupting the innocence of young children [slashdot.org]. To quote from the article linked:

'I've got a rare kidney disease,' I told her. 'I have to go to the bathroom a lot. You can come with me if you want, but it takes a while. Is that okay with you? Do you want a note from my doctor?'

Is this why you were touching your penis [rotten.com] in the cinema, Jon? And letting the other boys touch it too?

We should also point out that Jon Katz refers to himself as 'Slashdot's resident Gasbag.' Is there any more doubt? For those fortunate few who aren't aware of the list of homosexual [goatse.cx] terminology found inside the Linux 'Sauce Code,' a 'Gasbag' is a pervert who gains sexu

Trip Hawkins is an interesting choice, in that the other inductees were all heavily involved in game development, whereas he was more of a facilitator. There's also a great deal of debate on whether Hawkins is to be villified or celebrated. I'll throw in with the latter category, because he pulled together the "electronic artists" who created my favorite games of the early '80s.

An article written by the Dot Eaters does a good job of describing how I think of Electronic Arts when it was just a small studio. I'm still fond of those LP-style packages. And their toolbox-titles, such as Adventure Construction Set, Pinball Construction Set and Racing Destruction Set brought about my own interest in creating games with a strong building component to them. There was nothing in the world like M.U.L.E. before Dan Bunten/Danielle Bunten Berry created it. And I think it was Hawkins that made these things possible.

He may deserve the harsh scrutiny he receives -- and, certainly, he's not going to win any points with anyone for his comments earlier this year. But somehow I can't hate the fellow who brought together so many bright folks under one roof. Electronic Arts has recently published some of my favorite games, but it's the early ones I remember best.
___________________________________________
Inago Rage - Create and fight within your own FPS arenas.
Try the new demo for Windows!

The cover story on Salon.com today is titled Halleluja, The Mac is Back! It's a fairly interesting article, though not very technical. It talks about the resurgence of the Apple brand name, hypothesizes whether Apple can do any damage at all to Microsoft this time around with the Mini Mac (apparently people are viewing it as an appliance rather than PC replacement, which it turns out may be a good thing, strategically).

Heh. There are many things you can get monkeys to do (in the name of science).

1. It's not stealing, it's copyright infringment.
2. Blocking security updates to pirated copies frequently doesn't hurt the pirater at all, because pirates aren't likely to pony up $300 just because their computer is a little slow. However, the spam zombies installed on their computers harm the entire Internet by sending out millions of messages, clogging networks and mail servers. Salon has a nice article on the subject.

There's no shortage of gross, inexcusable fuckups by Bush. Whatever the govt's eventual position, this doesn't even register.

But sure, go ahead and paint all critics as desperate nitpickers. Good luck with that. It's almost as good as the much cherished "straw man" technique.

Day-pass is required to read.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2005/01/20/in augural_satire/index.html

I think the problem is, getting something out of a news source with a different point of view requires the ability and inclination to think critically about your own point of view, or your thinking will never rise above "what a bunch of liberal/conservative/religious/atheistic nutcases" and you'll gain nothing from the experience. Critical self-examination is not something that comes naturally to... well, anyone, really, though some people take to it more readily than others and it does get easier with practice.

Basically you have to apply something like the scientific method, or at least a healthy skepticism, to each and every one of your beliefs about the world. Including the ones your parents and community told you when you were a little kid and you've kept in your head without questioning ever since. (Those are the hardest, but parents and communities can be wrong too.) Assume for the sake of argument that you're wrong about X. What things that you've observed about the world make more sense if X isn't true?

Do that thought exercise at least once a day with some value of X that actually matters to you, and even if you don't change your mind, you'll suddenly find yourself much better able to defend your point of view.

Unfortunately, Internet or no, it's much safer and more comfortable and easier to gravitate toward people who think the same way we do than it is to think honestly about the fallibility of your own beliefs. As much as I agree that the net makes it much more practical to expose yourself to a wide variety of opinions, it also makes it equally practical to shield yourself from them. Reading Salon and The National Review Online is a lot more work than just choosing one or the other.

On the other hand, I agree that it is much more desirable to let the users decide, rather than forcing something down their throats from above. It's just too bad that the decisions they seem to be making (assuming my informal survey is representative) aren't the ones that would lead to a well-informed, thoughtful electorate.

I don't claim to be immune to this, the only on-line site I where I typically read in-depth articles is Salon.

This would have been cool...
...TWENTY YEARS AGO, when these movies were actually good! Now look at them. He's waiting for THAT?

Yes, it would have been cool twenty years ago, when we were younger. The point is that such movies are not any worse than they used to be "back in my days," but that we no longer enjoy primitive storytelling, which we would have otherwised loved as kids, and which we would now remember as the coolest thing ever, just like our first sexual intercourse or car chase, which--let's face it--was an utterly laughable softcore by our current standards. So, I must disagree with you. Those movies (and their fans) are just as cool (if not cooler) as they used to be back in our days. The problem is that we are adults now and we have much important things to do than watching fairy tales.

Yes, Dean hired bloggers. One of the bloggers they hired stopped writing his own blog during that time. The other blogger continually posted on his original blog saying that he was salaried by the Dean campaign.

So let's not blow this out of proportion folks. If they had concealed what they were doing, that would be an entirely different beast. They met the basics of journalistic integrity, revealing that they were in fact being paid for their work.

Read more about it here.

"In the same sense, relativity as described by Albert Einstein is 'just' a theory. The notion that Earth orbits around the sun rather than vice versa, offered by Copernicus in 1543, is a theory" - The New Monkey Trial salon

Mary Jane, probably only because it was never legal, never enjoyed the same social acceptance and is of course seen as immoral.

Party's at this guys house! He's got the good shit!

Try this for starters (hint: it was made illegal in the U.S. in 1937). Then, you can move on to this for some more history on the therapeutic uses of cannabis that were taking place centuries before the U.S. government made it illegal (or for that matter, centuries before the U.S. government *existed*)...

For a more rational pilot's perspective, take a look at what Salon's "Ask the Pilot" columnist Patrick Smith has to day about the issue. he has three columns on this issue in the past month: December 17, January 4, and January 13. Smith very nicely skewers the sensationalistic nonsense that these laser incidents are some kind of terrorist conspiracy. These events happened before September 11, 2001 and they all seemed to be caused by accident or idiots like the guy in New Jersey.

For a more rational pilot's perspective, take a look at what Salon's "Ask the Pilot" columnist Patrick Smith has to day about the issue. he has three columns on this issue in the past month: December 17, January 4, and January 13. Smith very nicely skewers the sensationalistic nonsense that these laser incidents are some kind of terrorist conspiracy. These events happened before September 11, 2001 and they all seemed to be caused by accident or idiots like the guy in New Jersey.

For a more rational pilot's perspective, take a look at what Salon's "Ask the Pilot" columnist Patrick Smith has to day about the issue. he has three columns on this issue in the past month: December 17, January 4, and January 13. Smith very nicely skewers the sensationalistic nonsense that these laser incidents are some kind of terrorist conspiracy. These events happened before September 11, 2001 and they all seemed to be caused by accident or idiots like the guy in New Jersey.

I thought about writing a long list to document where Bush or a member his administration said that we had to go to war with Iraq because of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. This was about protecting America, right?

Iraq even allowed the weapons inspectors in to prove they didn't have anything. Remember how the Bush administration mocked the U.N. weapons inspectors whose search turned up nothing? Remember the ultimatum that Bush gave Iraq -- disarm within 72 hours or else? And Fox News gleefully put a countdown clock on the screen? Remember the forged documents--not the ones from CBS; the ones supposedly from Nigeria saying that Iraq tried to acquire fissionable material? Remember the aluminum tubes?

Remember how reasonable, rational people said there was no proof Iraq had WMDs? Remember how millions of people all over the world protested this war before it started? Remember when scores of diplomats resigned from the U.S. Foreign Service because of these false claims of WMDs? John Brady Kiesling wrote in his resignation letter, "We have not seen such systematic distortion of intelligence, such systematic manipulation of the American people, since the war in Vietnam."

However, I think I speak for nearly 50% of the country when I say that my head exploded from the incredible sense of "I told you so." I'm not happy to be right -- I'm sad for our country and what it turned into.

And to all the Conservatives who say, "The weapons of mass destruction may not be found, but hey Iraq is now a peaceful democracy, so it was worth it," I respond with, "The ends do not justify the means."

No, the story was also corroborated by Ben Barnes, then Republican Texas Lieutenant Governor. And others corroborated the eyewitess accounts of more recent destruction of records, like record books in trash cans. The story is plain as day, though Bush tried to bury it in avalanche after avalanche of incomplete, though announced as "final" and "thorough" documents of his service. There's lots of evidence for his favor, and not nearly enough of even the cushy service he was offered, that he apparently blew off in favor of drinking and working for a political crony of his father's.

Look, if you're so up in arms about "journalistic integrity" (though you relentlessly dispute every contrary response in every thread you post from your privileged Slashdot "author" account), why don't you post a story about the Fox station in Tampa, whose FCC license is challenged for their steady stream of rightwing lies and coverups?

With such high frequencies directional antennas are so small and the beams so tight, you aren't really dealing with interference in the normal sense. It's more like "licensing" laser colors.

The whole 'lasers as weapons against planes' hysteria has to be one of the stupidest in memory. It just doesn't work. Salon.com's Patrick Smith, author of Ask the Pilot has written about this. Today an (almost) PhD. Physicist wrote in to support Mr. Smith. Text below for those of you who don't want to view the ad.

--- Jan. 5, 2005 |

I'm a few months away from receiving my Ph.D. in physics from a highly respected physics department. A good portion of my work has involved using various types of lasers.

To understand the improbability of a laser attack, consider the technical requirements involved. A weak laser beam can indeed blind a person. However, hitting a small target like an eye is very difficult over long distances. In order to have a high probability of success the terrorists would need to spread out the laser beam to fill the cockpit window. That isn't so difficult, but when you spread out a beam of light it becomes weaker, so you need a more powerful laser to compensate. Terrorists would need a large laser with a portable power supply and cooling system. Such systems are available, but they are bulky and expensive.

Next, temporary blindness is certainly dangerous. However, as Patrick Smith pointed out, blinding a pilot for a few seconds is not necessarily enough to bring down a plane. To bring down a plane the terrorists would have to inflict an injury that pilots can't recover from quickly. That requires either more power or a sustained exposure.

Sustained exposure requires the ability to track a plane. Tracking a moving target is certainly possible, but it would require skilled engineers to develop a system as well as money for parts. To reduce the necessary skill and expense, they would want to illuminate the plane from a point along the flight path. They would also want to do it from a high point that has a line of sight to the cockpit during takeoff or landing. However, takeoff and landing paths are generally chosen for a lack of tall buildings and large hills.

The location requirement is by no means an impossible resource constraint, but it does add to the difficulty of the task. It is interesting that the alleged attacks are happening around the country. Each site would need to be carefully selected, to ensure a good line of sight as well as easy access for bulky equipment and little scrutiny from law enforcement or other nosy observers.

Realistically, the complete weapon system would cost a hundred thousand dollars, require at least two people to operate, and would require considerable time to setup. Not to mention considerable time to dismantle before fleeing. (Unless they want to leave behind expensive equipment that authorities can trace.) And all of this would have to be done from one of the few hills or tall buildings in the flight path.

These are not impossible hurdles for a terrorist group, but most terrorist attacks against America in the past 10 years have involved fertilizer bombs, other improvised explosives, and boxcutter knives. If terrorist groups have money, technological savvy, and a network of operatives to scope out prime sites near airports around the United States, why not do something simple like make conventional explosives and plant them in public places?

Finally, the fact that the alleged incidents have involved visible light makes me even more convinced that these are not terrorist attacks. Lasers that emit visible light would be a poor choice for a weapon system. First of all, pilots would notice that the cockpit was being illuminated and they could cover or avert their eyes while waiting for the illumination to pass. Second, a powerful laser beam passing through the sky will scatter from dust and water droplets in the air, letting l

The whole 'lasers as weapons against planes' hysteria has to be one of the stupidest in memory. It just doesn't work. Salon.com's Patrick Smith, author of Ask the Pilot has written about this. Today an (almost) PhD. Physicist wrote in to support Mr. Smith. Text below for those of you who don't want to view the ad.

--- Jan. 5, 2005 |

I'm a few months away from receiving my Ph.D. in physics from a highly respected physics department. A good portion of my work has involved using various types of lasers.

To understand the improbability of a laser attack, consider the technical requirements involved. A weak laser beam can indeed blind a person. However, hitting a small target like an eye is very difficult over long distances. In order to have a high probability of success the terrorists would need to spread out the laser beam to fill the cockpit window. That isn't so difficult, but when you spread out a beam of light it becomes weaker, so you need a more powerful laser to compensate. Terrorists would need a large laser with a portable power supply and cooling system. Such systems are available, but they are bulky and expensive.

Next, temporary blindness is certainly dangerous. However, as Patrick Smith pointed out, blinding a pilot for a few seconds is not necessarily enough to bring down a plane. To bring down a plane the terrorists would have to inflict an injury that pilots can't recover from quickly. That requires either more power or a sustained exposure.

Sustained exposure requires the ability to track a plane. Tracking a moving target is certainly possible, but it would require skilled engineers to develop a system as well as money for parts. To reduce the necessary skill and expense, they would want to illuminate the plane from a point along the flight path. They would also want to do it from a high point that has a line of sight to the cockpit during takeoff or landing. However, takeoff and landing paths are generally chosen for a lack of tall buildings and large hills.

The location requirement is by no means an impossible resource constraint, but it does add to the difficulty of the task. It is interesting that the alleged attacks are happening around the country. Each site would need to be carefully selected, to ensure a good line of sight as well as easy access for bulky equipment and little scrutiny from law enforcement or other nosy observers.

Realistically, the complete weapon system would cost a hundred thousand dollars, require at least two people to operate, and would require considerable time to setup. Not to mention considerable time to dismantle before fleeing. (Unless they want to leave behind expensive equipment that authorities can trace.) And all of this would have to be done from one of the few hills or tall buildings in the flight path.

These are not impossible hurdles for a terrorist group, but most terrorist attacks against America in the past 10 years have involved fertilizer bombs, other improvised explosives, and boxcutter knives. If terrorist groups have money, technological savvy, and a network of operatives to scope out prime sites near airports around the United States, why not do something simple like make conventional explosives and plant them in public places?

Finally, the fact that the alleged incidents have involved visible light makes me even more convinced that these are not terrorist attacks. Lasers that emit visible light would be a poor choice for a weapon system. First of all, pilots would notice that the cockpit was being illuminated and they could cover or avert their eyes while waiting for the illumination to pass. Second, a powerful laser beam passing through the sky will scatter from dust and water droplets in the air, letting l

The whole 'lasers as weapons against planes' hysteria has to be one of the stupidest in memory. It just doesn't work. Salon.com's Patrick Smith, author of Ask the Pilot has written about this. Today an (almost) PhD. Physicist wrote in to support Mr. Smith. Text below for those of you who don't want to view the ad.

--- Jan. 5, 2005 |

I'm a few months away from receiving my Ph.D. in physics from a highly respected physics department. A good portion of my work has involved using various types of lasers.

To understand the improbability of a laser attack, consider the technical requirements involved. A weak laser beam can indeed blind a person. However, hitting a small target like an eye is very difficult over long distances. In order to have a high probability of success the terrorists would need to spread out the laser beam to fill the cockpit window. That isn't so difficult, but when you spread out a beam of light it becomes weaker, so you need a more powerful laser to compensate. Terrorists would need a large laser with a portable power supply and cooling system. Such systems are available, but they are bulky and expensive.

Next, temporary blindness is certainly dangerous. However, as Patrick Smith pointed out, blinding a pilot for a few seconds is not necessarily enough to bring down a plane. To bring down a plane the terrorists would have to inflict an injury that pilots can't recover from quickly. That requires either more power or a sustained exposure.

Sustained exposure requires the ability to track a plane. Tracking a moving target is certainly possible, but it would require skilled engineers to develop a system as well as money for parts. To reduce the necessary skill and expense, they would want to illuminate the plane from a point along the flight path. They would also want to do it from a high point that has a line of sight to the cockpit during takeoff or landing. However, takeoff and landing paths are generally chosen for a lack of tall buildings and large hills.

The location requirement is by no means an impossible resource constraint, but it does add to the difficulty of the task. It is interesting that the alleged attacks are happening around the country. Each site would need to be carefully selected, to ensure a good line of sight as well as easy access for bulky equipment and little scrutiny from law enforcement or other nosy observers.

Realistically, the complete weapon system would cost a hundred thousand dollars, require at least two people to operate, and would require considerable time to setup. Not to mention considerable time to dismantle before fleeing. (Unless they want to leave behind expensive equipment that authorities can trace.) And all of this would have to be done from one of the few hills or tall buildings in the flight path.

These are not impossible hurdles for a terrorist group, but most terrorist attacks against America in the past 10 years have involved fertilizer bombs, other improvised explosives, and boxcutter knives. If terrorist groups have money, technological savvy, and a network of operatives to scope out prime sites near airports around the United States, why not do something simple like make conventional explosives and plant them in public places?

Finally, the fact that the alleged incidents have involved visible light makes me even more convinced that these are not terrorist attacks. Lasers that emit visible light would be a poor choice for a weapon system. First of all, pilots would notice that the cockpit was being illuminated and they could cover or avert their eyes while waiting for the illumination to pass. Second, a powerful laser beam passing through the sky will scatter from dust and water droplets in the air, letting l

The whole 'lasers as weapons against planes' hysteria has to be one of the stupidest in memory. It just doesn't work. Salon.com's Patrick Smith, author of Ask the Pilot has written about this. Today an (almost) PhD. Physicist wrote in to support Mr. Smith. Text below for those of you who don't want to view the ad.

--- Jan. 5, 2005 |

I'm a few months away from receiving my Ph.D. in physics from a highly respected physics department. A good portion of my work has involved using various types of lasers.

To understand the improbability of a laser attack, consider the technical requirements involved. A weak laser beam can indeed blind a person. However, hitting a small target like an eye is very difficult over long distances. In order to have a high probability of success the terrorists would need to spread out the laser beam to fill the cockpit window. That isn't so difficult, but when you spread out a beam of light it becomes weaker, so you need a more powerful laser to compensate. Terrorists would need a large laser with a portable power supply and cooling system. Such systems are available, but they are bulky and expensive.

Next, temporary blindness is certainly dangerous. However, as Patrick Smith pointed out, blinding a pilot for a few seconds is not necessarily enough to bring down a plane. To bring down a plane the terrorists would have to inflict an injury that pilots can't recover from quickly. That requires either more power or a sustained exposure.

Sustained exposure requires the ability to track a plane. Tracking a moving target is certainly possible, but it would require skilled engineers to develop a system as well as money for parts. To reduce the necessary skill and expense, they would want to illuminate the plane from a point along the flight path. They would also want to do it from a high point that has a line of sight to the cockpit during takeoff or landing. However, takeoff and landing paths are generally chosen for a lack of tall buildings and large hills.

The location requirement is by no means an impossible resource constraint, but it does add to the difficulty of the task. It is interesting that the alleged attacks are happening around the country. Each site would need to be carefully selected, to ensure a good line of sight as well as easy access for bulky equipment and little scrutiny from law enforcement or other nosy observers.

Realistically, the complete weapon system would cost a hundred thousand dollars, require at least two people to operate, and would require considerable time to setup. Not to mention considerable time to dismantle before fleeing. (Unless they want to leave behind expensive equipment that authorities can trace.) And all of this would have to be done from one of the few hills or tall buildings in the flight path.

These are not impossible hurdles for a terrorist group, but most terrorist attacks against America in the past 10 years have involved fertilizer bombs, other improvised explosives, and boxcutter knives. If terrorist groups have money, technological savvy, and a network of operatives to scope out prime sites near airports around the United States, why not do something simple like make conventional explosives and plant them in public places?

Finally, the fact that the alleged incidents have involved visible light makes me even more convinced that these are not terrorist attacks. Lasers that emit visible light would be a poor choice for a weapon system. First of all, pilots would notice that the cockpit was being illuminated and they could cover or avert their eyes while waiting for the illumination to pass. Second, a powerful laser beam passing through the sky will scatter from dust and water droplets in the air, letting l

Pilot/columnist Patrick Smith keeps pointing out that takeoff is really the vulnerable time for large aircraft, not approach or landing. See his last column at Salon.com (not free)

Salon published a letter to the editor today regarding their prior story about the potential for lasers being used to blind pilots. In the letter the physicist argues that to use a laser properly for this task would require expensive and large equipment, at least two men, and good site selection. Basically, much cheaper and deadlier weapons are available to the motivated terrorist than lasers. The article and letter in reply are worth a read... --M

Salon published a letter to the editor today regarding their prior story about the potential for lasers being used to blind pilots. In the letter the physicist argues that to use a laser properly for this task would require expensive and large equipment, at least two men, and good site selection. Basically, much cheaper and deadlier weapons are available to the motivated terrorist than lasers. The article and letter in reply are worth a read... --M

As explained in the Ask the Pilot column, this threat is severely over-hyped. The probability of success is so low compared to the risk of detection, that its unlikely that terrorsits would try this tact.

Then why don't you tell that asshat at the UN to quit bitching at the "Western", aka the US, nations for not donating money.

Awww, poor little persecuted American. We're all crying rivers of tears over here.

Like hell! USA contributes 0.1% of income to foreign aid. That's one quarter of what France donates! How does it feel to be stingier than France.

Let's look at the figures. With 300 million people you donated ODA $6.9 billion in foreign aid in 1997. That's a mere $23 per person. You stingy fuckers. Even Australia came in at twice that. And we're all bastards compared to the Norway who contributed a whopping $311 per person in foreign aid in 1998.

Bunch of selfish whiney "me me me" Americans with their non-stop martyr complex. Give me a break.

Not any more: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000102&si d=ash4iKmCSW6Y&refer=uk

And from http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/index.html:

U.S. is the world's Scrooge

"The United States is not stingy," Colin Powell said on CNN this morning. "We are the greatest contributor to international relief efforts in the world."

Powell was responding to comments yesterday by Jan Egeland, the United Nation's emergency relief coordinator, who suggested that wealthy countries' initial pledges of assistance in response to the Asian disaster had been insufficient. "It is beyond me, why are we so stingy, really," Egeland said. So far, the U.S. has pledged $35 million in relief aid for victims of the earthquake and tsunamis, and Powell insisted today that the U.S. will give much more -- possibly into the billions -- as the scope of the disaster becomes better known.

Let's hope so, because as it is, despite Powell's assurances, the rest of the world regards the U.S. as a heartless Scrooge -- and for good reason. A couple weeks ago Jeffrey Sachs, the Columbia University economist who heads the United Nation's Millennium Project to reduce poverty, hunger, and disease in developing nations, stopped by Salon's offices to discuss how the United States was shirking its responsibilities to the world's poorest people. In much of the world, Sachs told us, there remains the impression that the U.S. is interested in helping people only when it has something to gain -- and these days we only engage with the rest of the world on anti-terrorism policy, more often than not through war. The United States contributes about a tenth of one percent of its income in aid to poor countries -- an abysmal rate that falls below that of all industrialized nations, and is dwarfed by the giving rate of Canada (0.26 percent), Germany (0.28 percent), the United Kingdom (0.34 percent), and France (0.42 percent).

What's worse, this situation doesn't seem to be improving. Indeed, in just the past two months, the Bush administration has quietly reduced its commitments to global anti-poverty programs, cutting its contributions to groups like Save the Children and Catholic Relief Services by as much as $100 million. The move prompted the New York Times to ask in an editorial: "The administration can conjure up $87 billion for the fighting in Iraq, but can it really not come up with more than $15.6 billion -- our overall spending on development assistance in 2002 -- to help stop an 8-year-old AIDS orphan in Cameroon from drinking sewer water or to buy a mosquito net for an infant in Sierra Leone?"

When the state of Florida suffered four hurricanes this summer, the Bush administration quickly and admirably pried open the federal wallet, and so far Floridians have received more than $3 billion in federal and state disaster assistance. Nobody's saying that Floridians didn't deserve that aid; they surely did. But what happened in Asia over the weekend may turn out to be one of the worst natural disasters in human history. More than 40,000 people are now believed dead, and officials fear that the toll may surpass 60,000. A good test of the Bush administration's generosity -- not to mention the generosity of all Americans -- is whether our government can now muster as much money for far-off foreigners as we could for Americans in an all-important swing state.

Essentially this is a device to 'tune' to any of the millions of frequencies that are in the upper part of the non-visible Electromagnetic spectrum. TV and Radio are broadcast in the long wavelength low frequency part of the specturm. Pretty pictures at Nasa

Anyway, Here's a Salon Article about the polictical & technical aspects of it:
http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2003/03/12/spect rum/index.html (Warning: you may have to click through a stupid ad.)

Ecco Pro, which was commercially developed until 1998, is powerful, stable, free to download now, and may soon be open sourced. It is a fantastic contact and project manager, and a good PIM. I still haven't found a better program for journalists and researchers. Other fans include Scott Rosenberg at Salon.

I am not trying to flame you but - you are a complete idiot when it comes to economics or a troll. I have seen other somewhat intelligent posts from you, but this one actually puts the rest into context. You must be too young to remember the issues that MS has faced already.

Microsoft IS a monopoly. If you don't beleive me, look at the USDOJ findings of fact (specifically Section III, article 33) US vs. Microsoft of maybe this one, or for a slightly slanted, but nonetheless relevant take. I could add other links, but I will stop there for now. It doesn't matter if they have "active and serious competitors" (which would be Apple on a completely different platform, and Linux on x86), they have a large percentage of the marketplace which puts them into a monopoly position, ergo, they have to play by certain rules which are afforded to those in that position.

I have stated this before, Microsoft, regrdless of the fact there may be other Media Players - is using it's position in the marketplace, using it's existing monopoly to leverage it's weight into the new "Media Player" market. That market not only entails the software on the Windows box - and subsequently keeps other operating systems out of the game by tying their media player, drm and codecs to their WIndows operating system. It now also allows them to leverage the umbiquity into other spinoff markets such as hardware media players (dvd players, etc), and distribution of digital media (theatres, etc).

Once they use this position of dominance to weasel their way into these other emerging markets, which is an obvious "next step" which thay have already started, they do nothing other than solidify their Windows buisness. It's using one's dominant position in the market to break into other markets which is what the EU is trying to stop and I commend them for that.

The US tried to do it in regards to the internet browser and did, then the decision was struck down by a certain newly elected government at the time. I am glad that politics aren't getting in the way this time and someone is putting their foot down.

Pretty sure you are mistakenly thinking of Dani Bunten, who wrote M.U.L.E. while Dan Bunten.

Yes, the ladies do have Grace Hopper, and...Ada Byron (who was pretty poor with the technical details by all acounts), and...that's about it?

And Dani Bunten (of M.U.L.E. fame). I'd love to know who else, there have to be more role models than that...

If this protection became widespread, I'd bet on a compromise shortly after it does, possibly within weeks to a month. So how much would record companies have to pay for this, and how much are they going to jack up our CD prices because they did so?

I think this is where the real "cost of piracy" comes in. Not in the piracy itself, but in the idiotic measures they pay for in attempts to limit access to paid-for media.

Mind you, it won't cost as much as the other factors in a CD:

1. coke for the music execs
2. whores for the music execs (I know, kind of redundant - should be "whores for the whores")
3. fast cars and fat wallets for the music execs
4. payola from the music execs to radio playlist directors
5. fast women and loose crack for the radio playlist directors (or is that "loose women and fast crack")
6. studio overhead - later charged back to the performers

Choice quote:

All of those independent promotion costs are charged to the band.

Since the original million-dollar advance is also recoupable, the band owes $2 million to the record company.

If all of the million records are sold at full price with no discounts or record clubs, the band earns $2 million in royalties, since their 20 percent royalty works out to $2 a record.

Two million dollars in royalties minus $2 million in recoupable expenses equals ... zero!

How much does the record company make?

They grossed $11 million.

It costs $500,000 to manufacture the CDs and they advanced the band $1 million. Plus there were $1 million in video costs, $300,000 in radio promotion and $200,000 in tour support.

The company also paid $750,000 in music publishing royalties.

They spent $2.2 million on marketing. That's mostly retail advertising, but marketing also pays for those huge posters of Marilyn Manson in Times Square and the street scouts who drive around in vans handing out black Korn T-shirts and backwards baseball caps. Not to mention trips to Scores and cash for tips for all and sundry.

Add it up and the record company has spent about $4.4 million.

So their profit is $6.6 million; the band may as well be working at a 7-Eleven.

Here's a link to the whole article suitable for printing

Besides, for a reasonable financial contribution, I could have piloted a large US Navy vessel, up until the time some civilian contributors were piloting a nuclear submarine during a simulated emergency surfacing maneuver when it struck a Japanese vessel and killed four students and five adults.
http://archive.salon.com/news/feature/2001/02/17/s ub/

I think the biggest paper-killer, though, is that by the time the news is printed and in your hands, it's out of date. For local news where not much happens (or if it does, everyone immediately knows), a paper might still work - but for national/international news, it just lacks the immediacy of online news sources.

do we really need split-second news reporting 24-7? the tiny tiny tiny % of people who's day-to-day functioning depends on knowing exactly what happened the moment it does don't get their news from either newspapers or the internet.... they've got an AP or reuters wire in the office, or more likely, a branch in the relevant location

for the rest of us, ya know, news that's a day or so old is really not the end of the world... where i live, the english language newspapers are three days behind, because they are just translations of the local papers, but i don't mind one bit... i get most of my news fresh, from the bbc and salon, and then happily read it again in the paper three days later, mostly because i'm interested in the local editorial slant

so, wherever the future of news reporting is, i just don't buy the timeliness argument much anyway... people like newspapers