Slashdot Mirror

Oh, sorry about that...that's why I said "on a side note" about the Libertarian thing, I should have made it more clear I wasn't referring to you! Indeed, I'm in the same boat, all the "parties" have some messed up ideas. I've taken many a "what party are you" tests, they all say I'm in the middle between all of them. Honestly, I find the quote from Eisenhower, and the ideas from the Progressive Republican Platform of 1956, to be a really close match for me: "In all those things which deal with people, be liberal, be human. In all those things which deal with people's money, or their economy, or their form of government, be conservative." It's sad to me that we, as a country, are so polarized that most can't even comprehend there could be Progressives in the GOP, or Conservatives in the Dems, or socialism that is about "We the People" as opposed to Marxism. What used to be adjectives (or pronouns?) have become nouns.

Anyway, please accept my apology for inferring you labeled yourself as a Libertarian!

So your claiming that Dwight D Eisenhower hated the idea of the family unit? People like yourself show a very sad lack of historical knowledge and perspective; before Fox News and Rush / O'rielly . etc, there was this thing called the Progressive Republican Platform. Turn off the biased TV, and learn some history. Do you also throw around terms like "libtard" and "cuckservative"?

"In all those things which deal with people, be liberal, be human. In all those things which deal with people's money, or their economy, or their form of government, be conservative." - President Dwight D. Eisenhower

"The legitimate object of Government is to do for a community of people whatever they need to have done but cannot do at all, or cannot so well do, for themselves in their separate and individual capacities. But in all that people can individually do as well for themselves, Government ought not to interfere." - President Abraham Lincoln

We can be BOTH liberal and conservative; neither ideal has a 100% fit for all situations. Pushing for 100% for either is nothing except authoritarianism in disguise. We should be able to combine logic and empathy with freedom.

So while this looks like a "dud" as a fusion weapon test, they already have bombs like the ones dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Of course, Bill Clinton assured us that his 1994 "nuke deal" with North Korea would stop their nuclear weapons development program. That was the deal his "social worker" and Democrat activist friend Wendy Sherman negotiated - since innner-city poverty work is clearly the primary qualification needed for international nuclear weapons deal negotiations. Sadly, this is the same incompetent woman President Obama turned to to negotiate the equally feckless Iran nuclear deal and that Harvard will now allow to indoctrinate young Americans into terminal stupidity. Of course, as with her North Korea nuke deal, this woman was so incompetent that she never even READ the Iran "deal" she brokered. Expect Iranian nuke tests soon, and global nuclear terrorism and blackmail in the decades ahead.

Leftist lunatics with "social justice" agendas should never be allowed near serious issues. Even most right-wingers are too un-serious and insufficiently suspicious/cautious to be involved in such matters. Such negotiations should only involve people who have been on a battlefield smelling and tasting death with a gritty awareness that such things are REAL and not some damned abstract polysci exercise to slam-dunk an "achievment" or "legacy" during a short political term with no concern for the people who will face the results decades later.

Sanders is pulling in many Republicans who would have been called "Progressive Republicans" 50-60 years ago. If you read over the Republican Party Platform of 1956, you'll see many similarities between Sanders and Eisenhower, and the more knowledgeable Republicans see it too. Sadly, most people these days have no idea there ever was a "progressive Republican platform" and even when shown such proof they have no response because they've been told that "progressive" is a bad thing. The most interesting part, to me, is:

On its Centennial, the Republican Party again calls to the minds of all Americans the great truth first spoken by Abraham Lincoln: "The legitimate object of Government is to do for a community of people whatever they need to have done but cannot do at all, or cannot so well do, for themselves in their separate and individual capacities. But in all that people can individually do as well for themselves, Government ought not to interfere."

Our great President Dwight D. Eisenhower has counseled us further: "In all those things which deal with people, be liberal, be human. In all those things which deal with people's money, or their economy, or their form of government, be conservative."

The entire "civilized world" has just proven with Iran, that it lacks the will to enforce any restrictions of the spread of nukes.

If a small backward country like Iran, or North Korea cannot be prevented from becoming a nuclear power, because everybody is afraid to confront them or thinks it can make money dealing with them, then just how willing will the same nations be to enforce limits on a bigger nation that already has nukes?????

The sad fact is that the treasonous bastards at the Bulletin are just up to their old tricks - trying to convince the most-foolish portions of the populations of the best nations (who while very imperfect are none the less the least-worst nations) into limiting their power to defend themselves and deter others. The jerks at the Bulletin were somehow apparently by completely innocent oversight uninterested in worrying enough about nukes in the hands of the worst nations and uninvolved in trying to stir-up anti-nuke activities in THOSE nations. The truth, of course, is that as extreme leftists they spent the Cold War cheering for the bad guys, and they still are more interested in disarming the west than worrying about all the bad guys who are nuking-up.

Remember: Bill Clinton assured HIS treaty with North Korea, negotiated by the same team of Democrat activists, would prevent from them from going nuclear - using similar language to what Obama used re Iran. That worked out well right? (hint: N.K. now has nukes and claims to have missiles that can hit Los Angeles)

Don't take it from me, listen to Abraham Lincoln:

"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration."

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu...

Well that's in the context of the North using slavery as a pretext to destroy the South's economy, so I'll take a pass on the infinite wisdom of this quote.

Someone putting his money at risk to run a business is a piece of shit, while the people who get paid by the week for their time are the real heroes.

If someone is "putting money at risk" it's because someone, somewhere - did some real work.

Don't take it from me, listen to Abraham Lincoln:

"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration."

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu...

In a darkened environment, say at night or the cubicles of a video game company (where this plant incident occurred), plants consume oxygen (see explanation below). If the bean counters started charging for oxygen, you wouldn't want a plant to consume additional oxygen inside your darkened cube. Since the company was in a death spiral, testers started leaving before the bean counters could charge them for oxygen.

But what happens at night when there is no sunlight which is needed in photosynthesis? Interestingly, in order to maintain their metabolism and continue respiration at night, plants must absorb oxygen from the air and give off carbon dioxide (which is exactly what animals do). Fortunately for all of us oxygen breathers, plants produce approximately ten times more oxygen during the day that what they consume at night.

http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=2860

biology calling: plants both consume and produce oxygen.

the short version (without getting into the multiple types of photosynthesis and endless variation between plants) is that plants respire too, just like animals. and respiration is the chemical interaction of oxygen and food to create energy. This particularly happens at night, when photosynthesis isn't happening, so the plant burns sugars to produce energy.

http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/ge...

The quoted three sentences are in the third to last paragraph of the message. Read all of that paragraph and the next, for a fuller and somewhat more Republican context. There's a bit of the spirit of Adam Smith in there. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=29502

So, you're unaware of Abraham Lincoln's predilection for socialist statements? Why am I not surprised?

http://www.brainyquote.com/quo...

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu...

Nukes are way too dangerous. There is a reason why Jimmy Carter put a presidential order with a permanent moratorium on any and all power reactor construction.

Just compare the deaths per terawatt compared to more stable energy sources, even coal, and you will find that there is a HUGE separation between nuclear and the next runner up, even wind. Just this fact along gives credence to the people who rather live without power than deal with nuclear.

Absolutely false
There was no Jimmy Carter presidential order with a permanent moratorium on power reactor construction.
There was a temporary hold on new licenses put in place by the NRC after the Three Mile Island.
Jimmy Carter asked that the NRC complete the investigation within six months and resume licensing.

Here's his postion speech.
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu...

Did you know that Jimmy Carter was a Nuclear Engineer? He was most certainly NOT anti-nuclear power.
He went to the Three Mile Island three days after the meltdown to reassure people that the danger was minimal.
Few presidents have that kind of balls, and that wasn't President Carter's only sticking his neck out for the country.

the same team of fools produce the same foolishness.

The Democratic National Committee, and Hillary2016 do not want you to notice the FACT that the same idiotic Democrat Party activists, like Wendy Sherman negotiated both agreements and they will both result in nuclear tipped ICBMs in the hands of madmen and aimed at American cities.

"Today, after 16 months of intense and difficult negotiations with North Korea, we have completed an agreement that will make the United States, the Korean Peninsula, and the world safer. Under the agreement, North Korea has agreed to freeze its existing nuclear program and to accept international inspection of all existing facilities. This agreement represents the first step on the road to a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula. It does not rely on trust. Compliance will be certified by the International Atomic Energy Agency. The United States and North Korea have also agreed to ease trade restrictions and to move toward establishing liaison offices in each other's capitals. These offices will ease North Korea's isolation." - President Bill Clinton, Oct 18, 1994

You will notice the usual left-wing carping about the need to reduce the isolation of the bad guy, and the promise that IAEA inspections will prevent a breakout (which they did NOT in North Korea where the IAEA utterly failed and they now have nukes which they have threatened to use on Los Angeles)

Bill Clinton has been proven a fool by history, but even HE was not stupid enough to make a deal that specifically excludes American inspectors and inspections of the enemy's military facilities - and North Korea went full-on nuclear while being under Bill's agreement. The Nixon, Carter, and Reagan deals with Russia allow for both scheduled and snap inspections of military sites, as is the norm for big international arms agreements.

The contest works as follows:

- every team creates a "Cyber Reasoning System", which is software that takes a vulnerable application binary as input and outputs an exploit and a patched version of the binary
- when the contest starts, DARPA releases a crap-ton of applications (for the qualifying event, there were 131, some of which complex applications that comprised multiple binaries).
- each team's CRS analyzes these binaries (without human intervention), and submits the resulting exploits and patches to DARPA

For the final event, there will be multiple "rounds", in which our CRSes will attempt to hack the *patched* binaries provided to us by our competitors. Additionally, their exploits will be actively launched against our binaries, so we can do some traffic analysis on top of our program analysis.

For the contest, Shellphish put on our researcher hats (we are a bunch of graduate students) and condensed a lot of our recent research into an automated Cyber Reasoning System. Given that this was a student effort, there was the expected level of chaos (for example, at one point, one of my teammates accidentally ran "rm -rf /cgc"), and the expected level of fun (fun being defined as staying in the lab all night, working on automated hacking systems!).

In the more general sense of what "Shellphish does", we are a CTF (Capture The Flag) team. By CTF, in this context, I mean a computer security Capture the Flag contest, in which teams have to exploit services (network applications) to steal "flags" (random, secret data) from others teams and redeem it for points. Some popular CTFs are the iCTF (run by us at UCSB for students to participate in, http://ictf.cs.ucsb.edu/), CSAW CTF (run by NYU Poly, https://ctf.isis.poly.edu/), and, of course, Defcon CTF (the world championship, http://legitbs.net/). Shellphish is, I think, the oldest CTF team that's still playing (at least, definitely the oldest still qualifying for and playing Defcon CTF). I don't know how good a distinction that is, but it's something ;-)

Did he find the answer? Even if you look past the misleading statements, distortions, and glaring ommissions in the original post, the section you quote above is a huge distortion in itself based on the omission it contains. Why do you think he omits any mention of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 passed Congress and signed by President Clinton? Because it didn't have the same list of names in it? Because the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 was passed with the support of Democrats and signed into law by a President who is a Democrat?

President William J Clinton - Statement on Signing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, October 31, 1998

Andrew Cleland and Aaron O'Connell have demonstrated macroscopic quantum behavior: http://web.physics.ucsb.edu/~m...

Yves Couder et al. have demonstrated Single-Particle Diffraction and Interference at a Macroscopic Scale.

If you're referring to the Air Traffic Controllers you may wish to consider this quote from that Tea Party wacko known as Franklin Delano Roosevelt: (emphasis mine)

All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters.

Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees. Upon employees in the Federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people, whose interests and welfare require orderliness and continuity in the conduct of Government activities. This obligation is paramount. Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable. It is, therefore, with a feeling of gratification that I have noted in the constitution of the National Federation of Federal Employees the provision that "under no circumstances shall this Federation engage in or support strikes against the United States Government."

When you say "seems" are you to referring to anecdotal comments rather than research?

No, I was referring to actual research. It was however, as I remember it, inconclusive, meaning it may as well be an anecdote. I was also too lazy to try and find a link to it.

It was something along the lines of this study (which finds similar inconclusive signs that virtual child porn increases acceptance of sexualization of children):
The effects of exposure to virtual child pornography on viewer cognitions and attitudes toward deviant sexual behavior

Mind you, I was trying to be very careful in mentioning this 'finding' as an argument against virtual child porn. I actually lean towards promoting such virtual child porn, but am worried it might exacerbate the situation. Proper and extensive research is needed before such proactive behaviour is pursued.

For an earlier comment here I did a Google Scholar search on the rate of sex-crimes before and after countries changed pornography laws, and some of those studies included changes in the legality of child pornography. It seems that every scientific study found the same result - countries where child pornography became legal experiences a decrease in rates of child molestation, countries where child pornography became illegal experienced an increase in rates of child molestation.

References would be appreciated. Specifically to studies where only child pornography laws were changed. It would be highly surprising if legalizing normal porn wouldn't also massively decrease child abuse (by reducing sexual frustration in general).

We aren't going to agree about this, because you are insistent upon conflating the social policy spectrum with the economic policy spectrum when they are orthogonal.

Consider gay rights. A "few" years ago, support for gay rights was reserved for the likes of anarchists like Emma Goldman. Now, the cultural/legal shift is all over but the whining. The Democrats were on the leftist/liberal aspect of this. So, despite your claim that there is no "left" in this country, there is indeed a true social "left" as demonstrated by this cultural revolution.

Unless you are shilling for one of the two main particular political parties, why not present objectively true statements? Here, I'll help you out: Eisenhower came into office when the top marginal tax bracket had a tax rate of 92%. He presided over having that lowered to a 91% rate... and helped to lower the deficit while still embarking on a crash program to expand our nuclear weapons program. Subsequently, LBJ lowered the top tax rate from that 91% to 77%. Who looks more Republican now?

Oh, wait, I only took a single fact out of context, and we didn't discuss LBJ's mammoth "Great Society" social programs (economic leftist) and warmongering (is "being from Texas" a pole on the warmongering political spectrum?)

Furthermore, to take your cherry-picked choice of "universal healthcare", you should probably provide a cite indicating that Eisenhower supported such a social program because apparently 100% of modern Democrats support this. I think you'll face an uphill battle trying to paint him as a Democrat given this excerpt from his message to Congress: "For most Americans, insurance--private, voluntary insurance-provides a sound and effective method of meeting unexpected hazards which may be beyond the capacity of the individual to bear. [...] I recommend, consequently, the establishment of a Federal health reinsurance service to encourage private health insurance organizations in offering broader benefits to insured individuals and families and coverage to more people."

My point is to illustrate that the economic and social policy spectra are indeed orthogonal, that the Overton Window shifts, and therefore qualitative comparison statements like yours are misleading and/or disingenuous unless qualified to the point of being objective comparisons of fact. Otherwise, I could claim that all modern GOP presidents, including GWB, were basically Democrats because they are all deficit-spending Keynesians as opposed to the GOP of the pre-FDR era. Or that all modern Democratic presidents are basically Republican because they don't support slavery. Such a debate devolves to cherry-picking comparison points—typically outside of historical context—and it is absurd.

I do not understand the problem

If Republicans had their way, the government would have no power whatsoever to confiscate anything from you without first convicting you of a crime.

Utter and complete bullshit. The asset forfeiture regime was introduced under the Presidentâ(TM)s Commission on Organized Crime in 1986, at which time the President was Republican Saint Ronald Reagan, and was ramped up through the GHW Bush administration.

Not that I absolve the Democrats in any way of their part is this travesty, but make no mistake...when Republicans have their way, this is *exactly* the sort of corrupt power grab they are famous for.

President Obama - 79

President George W. Bush - 89

President Bill Clinton - 133

President George H. W. Bush - 143

President Reagan - 27

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu...

Hmm, Kaiser. Where have I heard that name before? Oh, I remember: in the Nixon tapes when he's discussing HMO's, which in turn created the largest rise in healthcare costs in the entire history of the United States! Well now that there is sure an unbiased source, yesiree Bob!

An Anonymous Coward does an ad hominem attack without bothering to see if his nay saying has any credibility. How useful.

You could have done a simple Google search

And when GW Bush did it he was a patriot, right? Fuck off asshole. So far Obama is on track to less use of executive orders than Bush. And here's your citation, so bite me. Fuck I'm tired of these Carl Rove say it enough and it must then be true assholes. GW Bush was an idiot. But quite frankly I'm less than impressed with Obama too, other than his Obamacare. And the Democrats in Congress fucked that up royally when they had the majority in his first term. Tea party clowns and that cunt Pelosi and her gang are both shite eating fucktards too. It's no wonder the USA is in tough these days.

But why even bitch about America? This post was about Putin and Russia.

Carter was nowhere as anti-nuke as many think and considering that Reagan was very much pro-nuke ( and wasted no time removing the solar panels from the White House roof), he certainly had the motivation & wherewithal to reverse course.
The truth is that TMI & Chernobyl galvanized public opinion and emboldened activists and the very high interest rates of the period, at one time over 20% and rarely below 8% prior to 1988, made the capital-intensive reactors very expensive to build while also battling activists in court.

Here's an excerpt from a '77 speech:

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu...

I am announcing today some of my decisions resulting from that review.

First, we will defer indefinitely the commercial reprocessing and recycling of the plutonium produced in the U.S. nuclear power programs. From our own experience, we have concluded that a viable and economic nuclear power program can be sustained without such reprocessing and recycling. The plant at Barnwell, South Carolina, will receive neither Federal encouragement nor funding for its completion as a reprocessing facility.

Second, we will restructure the U.S. breeder reactor program to give greater priority to alternative designs of the breeder and to defer the date when breeder reactors would be put into commercial use.

Third, we will redirect funding of U.S. nuclear research and development programs to accelerate our research into alternative nuclear fuel cycles which do not involve direct access to materials usable in nuclear weapons.

Fourth, we will increase U.S. production capacity for enriched uranium to provide adequate and timely supply of nuclear fuels for domestic and foreign needs.

Fifth, we will propose the necessary legislative steps to permit the U.S. to offer nuclear fuel supply contracts and guarantee delivery of such nuclear fuel to other countries.

Sixth, we will continue to embargo the export of equipment or technology that would permit uranium enrichment and chemical reprocessing.

Seventh, we will continue discussions with supplying and recipient countries alike, of a wide range of international approaches and frameworks that will permit all nations to achieve their energy objectives while reducing the spread of nuclear explosive capability. Among other things, we will explore the establishment of an international nuclear fuel cycle evaluation program aimed at developing alternative fuel cycles and a variety of international and U.S. measures to assure access to nuclear fuel supplies and spent fuel storage for nations sharing common nonproliferation objectives.

You are not buying stuff at the same price as 6 years ago, maybe you should actually pay attention to the receipts.

beef, pork, avocado, fruits, veggies, almonds, pinenuts, walnuts, mozarella, cheddar, other cheeses, seafood, grains, soy, soy, palm oil, milk, gasoline, beer and more beer, limes, canadian bacon, barley, restaurants, restaurants, restaurants,electrical energy, car rentals, hotel rooms, cab fairs,

air travel and air travel gets more expensive in many other ways, various extra fees, less room, more seats on planes

aluminium,

I wish people would stop using the word "Drone" unless it is a truly autonomous vehicle. What this was is a Remote Controlled quadcopter operated by a fan that wanted to watch their practice session.

Arial photography is used in many situations. A traffic helicopter, a blimp at sporting events, small planes, balloons, and even kites have been used to capture pictures and video from the air. (Kite photography circa 1889 http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff... )

If the fan had been in a tall office building next to the practice field instead, would this have been news?

I agree that the use of toy helicopters to carry cameras is a new concern for some people, but stop using the word "drone" just to sensationalize it.

~~

America looks more and more like a communist country every coming decade.

I think the words you were looking for are "totalitarian police state", or the like.

I think given this speech by Franklin Delano Roosevelt to Congress in 1938, the best description would be a fascist state. It certainly isn't communism.

The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism—ownership of Government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power.

The American government has been bought and paid for by private interests/corporations. Under FDR's description, that makes it fascist, or nearly so. Elect Chris Christy as President and that will settle it. He is a dangerous man.

What happens when you get macroscopic objects displaying quantum effects, as in the experiments of Andrew Cleland and Aaron O'Connell?

Or Yves Couder et al., who reproduce the two-slit experiment on a macroscopic scale - but it seems to require an ether if that's what's happening on the quantum level, which goes against physics dogma?

Roosevelt once stated that this type of centralization of power in the private sector that corporations have today, could eventually lead to fascism. In some way, I don't think he was too far off.

Thank you for mentioning Roosevelt. I did a search just now and came up with his address to Congress on curbing monopolies in 1938. I think it gives me more of an idea as to the real reasons for WWII: private power versus public power.

Here is an exerpt:

Unhappy events abroad have retaught us two simple truths about the liberty of a democratic people.

The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism—ownership of Government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power.

The second truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if its business system does not provide employment and produce and distribute goods in such a way as to sustain an acceptable standard of living.

Chicago Teachers Union president Karen Lewis said she'd rather see companies pay more in taxes and fund schools that way, rather than relying on their charity or free software."

She is making a dangerous assumption that if tax revenues increased the extra would be spent on schools

No, she's playing the standard public employee union game of government by the government for the government.

Screw everyone else.

It's a damn shame they've pretty much bought the Democratic Party lock, stock, and barrel. There's nothing progressive about a political structure built for milking the general populace for the gain of government employees and especially their union bosses. There's a reason why older, real progressives such as FDR actually spoke out against allowing public employees to unionize:

...

All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters.

Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees. Upon employees in the Federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people, whose interests and welfare require orderliness and continuity in the conduct of Government activities. This obligation is paramount. Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable. It is, therefore, with a feeling of gratification that I have noted in the constitution of the National Federation of Federal Employees the provision that "under no circumstances shall this Federation engage in or support strikes against the United States Government.

...

If someone reading this knows Tim, please give him my regards.

Also, if he wants to talk about the whole world going off fossil fuels to a cheap form of solar, be happy to do so. If it can't make dollar a gallon gasoline, then the idea isn't ready for prime time.

http://nextbigfuture.com/2013/...

Talk I gave at Google.

http://youtu.be/qCiw99yRBo8

A laser 33 times larger than the propulsion laser I propose.

http://www.deepspace.ucsb.edu/...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...

I call BS too. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu...

Bush: 290 orders signed
Obama: 169 orders signed

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu... ...

Congress passed the mandate and Obama immediately said "nope, I'm going to ignore the law and declare my own law instead."

Enforcement of the Law - even selective enforcement - is the purview of the President. There was an entire segment on NPR yesterday about the Executive Power of the President and how presidents have been using Executive Orders for doing this kind of thing throughout US history - back to George Washington (who issued 8).

According to that segment, and this page on Executive Orders, Obama (168) has issued fewer than Bush-II (291), Clinton (364), Bush-I (166), and Regan (381) -- even by term. FDR issued the most at 3,522.

Just to make it clear to folks who haven't followed this, the "ozone hole" is not a fixed feature of the Antarctic; it's like weather, it grows and shrinks in different years based on local atmospheric conditions, causing many to have declared premature victory. However the ozone levels in the Antarctic have stabilized and are expected to recover to pre-industrial levels over the coming decades.

This is not a case of the problem "fixing itself", it's a case of people deciding to take effective action by banning ozone depleting chemicals (thank you President Reagan).

Food stamps have a long history in the US with various small programs starting during the Great Depression, and other programs put in place by Kennedy and Johnson.

However the current comprehensive program really dates from the administration of Richard M Nixon.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=2038

Nothing to do with the Supreme Court.

Government intelligence agencies have been involved in quantum computing research for ages. Just look at the funding agencies listed at the end of a typical research paper:

This research was funded by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), Intelligence Advanced Research (ODNI), Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity (IARPA), through Army Research grant...

http://web.physics.ucsb.edu/~martinisgroup/papers/Wenner2013.pdf

Is it a surprise that they're doing work in house as well?

Hell even, Northrop Grumman (and possibly other big defense contractors) is trying to build quantum computers too, and it's not because they need quantum computers to design airplanes...

and the noose tightens a little bit more...

It should be mentioned that Google's admob transfers your location data using a constant encryption key. According to the Snowden leaks, the NSA decided using cell tower data to track everyone's location was too inefficient and ultimately gave it up. Now I think I see why. I'm sure no one at the NSA has ever decompiled Google's code and snarfed their constant encryption keys.

These invasive practices should be outlawed. The people working at Google should be ashamed of themselves. They are exactly what facilitates the NSA and their ilk in stalking every phone carrying person on the planet.

Maybe you could be more specific than claiming that I'm "wrong on all counts?" If I'm wrong on all counts, then the Constitution isn't a constitution, it says nothing about the form of government, and nothing about various rights and responsibilities. It would also have to specify the budget for the Marines for the last 200 years, and anticipate Social Security by about 140 years. I'm pretty certain that isn't true.

You may want to review the article on the Bonus Bill of 1817, especially the final paragraph, , and possibly the referenced document: Special Message to the House of Representatives Containing the Views of the President of the United States on the Subject of Internal Improvements.

There may be some history you are unaware of.

Not precisely. The Democrats have moved very far left over recent decades, and are now functionally the same as 60s-70s Republicans. Obama's further right still.

Presumably you meant "very far right over recent decades" (see, for example, this Democratic president's 1949 State Of The Union speech).

The US position relative to the rest of the globe is irrelevant in this discussion. What is relevant is the relative positions of the parties compared to each other in American politics.

How about the positions of the parties relative to themselves at other times in American history? Liberal Democrats today would be conservative Republicans in the 1960s. You want to read an eye opener? Go back and read The Republican Party Platform of 1960 and compare it to the 2012 GOP Platform. Much of today's Republican Party is still present in the party of 1960, but there's a lot in there that has been carved off of the party and rejected as "liberal." Here's some gems from the 1960 platform:

"To this end [opposing the Soviets] we will continue to support and strengthen the United Nations as an instrument for peace, for international cooperation, and for the advancement of the fundamental freedoms and humane interests of mankind."

"Our mutual security program of economic help and technical assistance; the Development Loan Fund, the Inter-American Bank, the International Development Association and the Food for Peace Program, which create the conditions for progress in less-developed countries; our leadership in international efforts to help children, eliminate pestilence and disease and aid refugeesâ"these are programs wise in concept and generous in purpose. We mean to continue in support of them."

"Republican policy firmly supports the right of employers and unions freely to enter into agreements providing for the union shop and other forms of union security as authorized by the Labor-Management Relations Act of 1947 (the Taft-Hartley Act )."

"Republican action has given to millions of American working men and women new or expanded protection and benefits, such as: Increased federal minimum wage; Extended coverage of unemployment insurance and the payment of additional temporary benefits provided in 1958-59; Improvement of veterans' re-employment rights; Extension of federal workman's compensation coverage and increase of benefits..."

"Congress should submit a constitutional amendment providing equal rights for women."

"Strengthened federal enforcement powers in combatting water pollution and additional resources for research and demonstration projects. Federal grants for the construction of waste disposal plants should be made only when they make an identifiable contribution to clearing up polluted streams."

"Federal authority to identify, after appropriate hearings, air pollution problems and to recommend proposed solutions."

"Immigration has been reduced to the point where it does not provide the stimulus to growth that it should, nor are we fulfilling our obligation as a haven for the oppressed. Republican conscience and Republican policy require that ... the annual number of immigrants we accept be at least doubled."

These are all positions that would have Tea Party nuts screaming to unseat them in a primary challenge. The GOP has taken a hard shift to the right of center, and they've dragged the Democrats behind them by framing and controlling the debate and by shedding moderates by labeling them as liberals.

Lastly, and perhaps most topically on the subject of the debt.

"In order of priority, federal revenues should be used: first, to meet the needs of national security; second, to fulfill the legitimate and urgent needs of the nation that cannot be met by the States, local governments or private action; third, to pay down on the national debt in good times; finally, to improve our tax structure."

It seems like our current GOP has a different set of priorities: 4,1,3,2. Well, with the furloughs hitting defense contracts and late pay for servicemen and their families, perhaps it should be 4,3,1,2.

Plants produce oxygen, but they also need oxygen to live in the first place (reference: http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=760 ). So you need oxygen to start it off.

Oh please spare your bleeding heart bullshit. At a time when we needed a leader we got a dumbfuck who was inept at everything:

1) There was an Embargo in 1973 and in 1977. The difference between those two, we had better leadership in the WH in 1973 than in 1977. Great leaders work around problems, motivate their constituents and forge ahead. Carter layed there like a bowl of jello. He couldn't forge alliances and he didn't reach out to try and bridge the gaps. Yes there's hate in the Middle East, there was hate before so I can't blame him for that and instead of in 1977 he waited till 1979 to promote domestic production by deregulation of oil prices. Something the Industry had been clamoring for since 1973. At least he learned from his first mistake.

2) Interest rates were rampant, that's failed economic policies and the president sets the agenda. He had a willing congress who'd pass is legislative agenda, but he didn't lead. Inaction in this case led to the biggest drop in our standard of living

3) His foreign policy failings led to the invasion of Afghanistan because the Soviets saw an opportunity with the turmoil in Iran and the US helpless to stop them. The US couldn't build a coalition and the only response we had "boycott the olympics" Who didn't go? Oh yeah I think it was just us a handful of nations. Hell he even sent Mohammad Ali to convince African Nations to boycott the games. Even the British went to the games! That was his diplomacy; what a fucking joke.

4) The US had interests in Iran, we f*d up with the CIA and by helping the British but in for a penny in for a pound and we abandoned our allies at their time of need and got a radical regime instead. The Shaw was horrible and he did horrible things to his people but the way we just sat there and said "Meh" gave all of our other allies in the world a chance to think and say "They didn't step in to help? What happens if I'm in trouble?" Supporting Dictators and repressive regimes is bad but you also don't turn your back on friends. I can't blame him for what happened in Iran but I can blame every president since for not even trying to heal that wound.

5) Give him credit for the Camp David Accords, that was good work but he ignored everything else and tried to tell Americans out of work, with prices skyrocketing that he was good leader.

The country was poorer and still is because of his tenure in office. Even his "malaise" speech showed that he was a defeatist and not a leader.

He's done good work since then but you still can't paint over the fact that he was a bumbling idiot. History may paint a rosier picture of him but living with him as our president was a bad bad time. People were even longing for Gerald Ford, he was so bad. His end approval rating was in the low 34%. Put that into perspective: Even the people who voted for him thought he sucked, Democrats, Independents and Republicans after 4 years. He does share that with Dubya but more people in Dubya's case were against him vs. undecided. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/final_approval.php but it took 8 years to get that kind of coverage.. So, twice as bad as Dubya? Maybe...

Obama is on his way there now... just watch.

[quote]
The Presidential Leadership Index fell to 43.2 from 48.9 a month earlier. The 11.7% slide was the worst since Obama took office. For the fourth straight month, the reading stood below 50, signaling disapproval.
[/quote]

And he's not even done with his first year of his second term. Let's all give him a round of applause folks!

Schroedinger was a mystic. Read some of his quotations about Nirvana and Hinduism at http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Erwin_Schr%C3%B6dinger

Here's a sample:

The observing mind is not a physical system, it cannot interact with any physical system. And it might be better to reserve the term "subject" for the observing mind. ... For the subject, if anything, is the thing that senses and thinks. Sensations and thoughts do not belong to the "world of energy."

Another sample:

The world is given to me only once, not one existing and one perceived. Subject and object are only one. The barrier between them cannot be said to have broken down as a result of recent experience in the physical sciences, for this barrier does not exist.

Another:

Nirvana is a state of pure blissful knowledge... It has nothing to do with the individual. The ego or its separation is an illusion. Indeed in a certain sense two "I"'s are identical namely when one disregards all special contents -- their Karma. The goal of man is to preserve his Karma and to develop it further... when man dies his Karma lives and creates for itself another carrier.

Andrew Cleland and Aaron O'Connell have recently done experiments putting a macroscopic object in a superpositional state.

O'Connell's PhD dissertation: http://web.physics.ucsb.edu/~martinisgroup/theses/OConnell2010.pdf

In O'Connell's words, from http://www.nature.com/nature/podcast/v464/n7287/nature-2010-03-18.html:

the swing both swings back and forth and stays perfectly still at the same time.

In conclusion: 1) Schroedinger had mystical beliefs, which is relevant when you bring up his ulterior motives for the "cat" analogy; 2) modern experiments demonstrate superposition on a macroscopic scale.

I'm curious, have you looked at AppScale? http://appscale.cs.ucsb.edu/ It's an open source re-implementation of the Google App Engine APIs. It's not totally feature complete, but it has quite a bit and allows you to move your Google App Engine software (if you're using the subset of APIs AppScale supports) to Amazon EC2, your own servers, or other hosting services.

It seems to me that this kind of thing is ideal, these open source toolkits that provide the facade of Amazon Cloud and Google App Engine APIs permit competitors to challenge the giants.

I agree with the majority of your post, except for the emphasis on IF:
This is very much field-dependent. Especially in computer science, IF is not a meaningful metric, because it only considers journal publications. About a third of the CS "journals" are not actually journals (i.e., the Springer Lecture Notes in Computer Science series, which contains proceedings or extended papers from conferences), and a relatively small part of the remaining set is published by Elsevier (which is mostly junk with a few extremely good papers).

Beyond that, journals are basically an archivial tool. Papers in journals are those you use to support an argument or give to students as an introduction to a field. The real work is always in conferences - especially the higher tier ones such as the USENIX security conference, Crypto/Eurocrypt, IEEE Security & Privacy, and so on and so forth (see here and here for some stats). These conferences are generally not trivial to get in (10-20% acceptance rate) and are publishing all the work you'll be expected to cite in your next paper.

On the other hand, CS is in the unique position where there are only three publishers that matter (not counting usenix): the IEEE, the ACM and Springer. Although these cost significant money, they are so kind as to allow authors to publish an author version on their website - which nearly every author has, and which google scholar indexes. Thus it is reasonably easy for us to know which conferences and journals are worth publishing in. You don't need your supervisor to know that Globecom is a load of shit, with an acceptance rate sometimes reaching over 40%.

I agree with the majority of your post, except for the emphasis on IF:
This is very much field-dependent. Especially in computer science, IF is not a meaningful metric, because it only considers journal publications. About a third of the CS "journals" are not actually journals (i.e., the Springer Lecture Notes in Computer Science series, which contains proceedings or extended papers from conferences), and a relatively small part of the remaining set is published by Elsevier (which is mostly junk with a few extremely good papers).

Beyond that, journals are basically an archivial tool. Papers in journals are those you use to support an argument or give to students as an introduction to a field. The real work is always in conferences - especially the higher tier ones such as the USENIX security conference, Crypto/Eurocrypt, IEEE Security & Privacy, and so on and so forth (see here and here for some stats). These conferences are generally not trivial to get in (10-20% acceptance rate) and are publishing all the work you'll be expected to cite in your next paper.

On the other hand, CS is in the unique position where there are only three publishers that matter (not counting usenix): the IEEE, the ACM and Springer. Although these cost significant money, they are so kind as to allow authors to publish an author version on their website - which nearly every author has, and which google scholar indexes. Thus it is reasonably easy for us to know which conferences and journals are worth publishing in. You don't need your supervisor to know that Globecom is a load of shit, with an acceptance rate sometimes reaching over 40%.

No, I am right. It was ink cartridges. Here's a citation from the WSJ.

http://www.econ.ucsb.edu/~tedb/Courses/Ec100C/newink.htm

HP was using the razor/razor blade model where you give away the printer and make the profit on the carts.

It was the case that on special the printers were selling for less than the carts.

My friends declined. It seems that, to them at least, the so-called fiat currency actually has more value than gold.

In a way the fiat currency does have more value. First of all, the currency is easy to accept and transfer and count change. Did the buyer have real gold or just some "yellow metal" of unknown chemistry? Electroplating is part of high school chemistry; "soft gold plating" can be done entirely in a solution. Dealing with precious metals requires expensive infrastructure, such as equipment that can validate your coin. Often even banks cannot validate their stocks of metals without drilling. This is not going to work in retail. I bet your friends' cash register is not configured to receive payments in arbitrary valuables.

Secondly, the rate of exchange varies, and if the bike was purchased from the OEM for dollars it better be sold for dollars if you want to have a fixed, known margin. Selling for gold is equivalent to selling for dollars, and then the seller immediately buys gold for the whole amount. If he needs dollars to buy more products he then needs to sell this metal on the market and incur loss as the broker's fee. If the price of the metal goes down for a day then the seller will also lose money on the difference. (He of course would gain also if the price goes up; but very few bike shop owners moonlight as bullion traders.)

If I were in place of your friends, I would [also] suspect an attempt at fraud. What people say is totally irrelevant; con artists specialize in being very convincing.