Slashdot Mirror

It's not quite at that stage yet...I will keep everyone posted. When the website's up there will be an announcement in my journal.

Call it vaporware if you must, but "trial balloon" is a more accurate word for my post. And my evil plan is working...I got two offers to alpha test in my email box this afternoon. ;-)

But this is VERY serious. The stories about computer waste being dumped on the 3rd World makes this very, very necessary.

Again, you can email me if you are interested in the project.

"Here in the USA, everyone (schoolkids upwards) has one"

You really don't see them use their cell phones as much in the US as you do in Europe.

Actually, Cell phone use in Europe has consistently been higher in Europe since at least 1998

Handset prices and cell phone subscriptions in Europe are lower than in the US. Low enough in Sweden to outnumber land lines in that country. Actually low enough so that vending machines dont accept coins or bills, you pay by calling a special number with your cell phone.

And what about what Gartner Group has found: "Cell phone problems are more common here than many places in Europe and Asia because the USA has multiple wireless systems and has been slower to adopt wireless technology, says Ken Dulaney of Gartner consulting firm in San Jose, Calif."

Facts and fiction...

In the spirit of piling on, let's run with this quote: "One of the things we're discovering is that people are not aware that that they are engaging in conduct which is clearly illegal."
You mean like the very recent price-fixing case the RIAA lost to the tune of $143 million? This is their *2nd* price fixing settlement in 2 years, the first one happened in 2000.

Peace.

Enclosed, careful descriptions of how Microsoft is (1) going bankrupt; and (2) ripping everyone off in the process; and (3) effectively stealing from every US taxpayer; and (4) thereby destabilisiing the whole economy. Who needs terrorists?

Proposed HP Merger: Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS) Found Not Independent and along with Barclays plays key Role in Microsoft Pyramid Scheme

Inside Story on Microsoft and Enron

Senate Proposal Could Cost Microsoft Billions

Microsoft Circles of Influence and Enron's Collapse

http://www.billparish.com/20010404americaonline.ht ml and Microsoft Collapses AOL Part II - FTC Inquiry Requested

Buybacks Backfire, Microsoft Loses $8.4B Speculating on Own Stock

Microsoft Scheme Costs Seattle Its Largest Employer, Boeing

"How Cisco Systems and Microsoft Avoid Tax"

Microsoft Financial Pyramid Summary and Microsoft Financial Pyramid Summary Updated

How Microsoft Pays No Federal Income Tax on Current Income ...and so on, ad nauseum, plenty more waiting to be read...

1. http://www.usatoday.com/life/cyber/tech/ctg000.htm
   "I think that the old arguments that will come up at the (UCLA) conference and have come up over and over is everybody is claiming responsibility for everything at this point," says [Lawrence] Roberts, who was the designer and developer of ARPANET.
   
   But one thing all agree on is that the Internet was not conceived as a fail-safe communications tool in case of nuclear war, a much-promulgated myth over the years. The Rand Research Institute was developing a study shortly after ARPANET's birth that has been confused with the research-oriented ARPANET and subsequent developments.
   
   Nuclear war "wasn't the reason we did anything," Roberts says. "That story is just wrong."
   
2. http://www2.aus.us.mids.org/mn/1002/myth.html[In 1999], Alex McKenzie (BBN 1967-1976) posted the following:
   
   While it is true that the design of the ARPANET was not at all influenced by concerns about surviving a nuclear attack, it is also true that the designers of the ARPANET and other ARPA-sponsored networks were always concerned about "robustness", which means the ability to keep operating in spite of failures in individual nodes or the circuits connecting them.
   
3. http://www.ibiblio.org/pioneers/
   The architecture of the ARPANET relied heavily on the ideas of Paul Baran who co-invented a new system known as packet-switching.( A British computer scientist, Donald Davies, independently came up with his own theories of packet-switching). Baran also suggested that the network be designed as a distributed network. This design, which included a high level of redundancy, would make the network more robust in the case of a nuclear attack. This is probably where the myth that the Internet was created as a communications network for the event of a nuclear war comes from. As a distributed network the ARPANET definitely was robust, and possibly could have withstood a nuclear attack, but the chief goal of its creators was to facilitate normal communications between researchers.

The nice thing about this site is that it isn't nearly as busy as other news sites. Try CNN or USA TODAY or something like that, and you can see how truly busy the site can appear. CNN's new layout makes it look like a million things are going on everywhere. It's a giant page of links. I've noticed that Google's new news site seems to encapsulate everything without being very messy and with separation. Additionally, there aren't thousands of links to go in every direction. The comprehensive aspect is probably one of the greatest features too.

Wow... I sound like a Google Executive pushing the excellence of the new product -- sorry ;)

Toronto is another one of those cities. Actually, it played here September 7th (dub) and 9th (sub) at the Toronto International Film Festival. I tried to get tickets, but was denied. I'm going to try and head to a matinee this afternoon, yipee! I hope this film does well, so that I can see more anime films at my local theatre. For those who need convincing, check out some reviews here, and here.

All right, but in all seriousness this is a serious problem in our country. Stringent lobbying agaisnt tobacco companies has forced them to explore new markets.

The result is that an increasing number of monkeys have started smoking. It's very sad, even monkeys in captivity are being targetted. As if this wasn't enough, Phillip-Morris has started it's own line of theatres for monkeys...just to get them to start smoking.

Now I know you guys are giving the mods flack for putting this article on front page...but there is a growing smoking monkey problem in this country. So can we please have some constructive advice on how to save the monkeys before it's too late?

Did Ashcroft help design thier logo?

Jeez. There's already plenty of places catering to this market...

Havenco (sealand)
ServerVault
Underground Secure Data Center Operations
as well as several others....

click me

Yeah, them terrorists are really clever. They started littering every US airport with clueless people dressed in an intimidating uniform, who boldly search you, frisk you and detain you at the drop of a hat. They forced a honest woman to drink her own breast milk, they pulled a women from a plane coming back from Vegas because of a sex toy...

Their cluelessness and hardnosedness turns even the shortest travel into a horrendous wasted-day experience, from which exhausted, humiliated passengers emerge swearing they'll drive next time.

And it's working too. Look, three US airline companies are currently under Chapter 11. The damage to the US economy is staggering. Airline losses are piling up, already amounting to tens of billions of dollars.

Oh, wait. The people who turned fast-food joint rejects into unfireable Federal agents are actually the gummint, not Muslim mujahidins. Ahem. Never mind.

-- SysKoll

only a few copies

Instead of just buying what the MIT lawyer says, check this URL first, and tell us what you see in the article. For the real lazy (like me): MIT released this "composite" picture to USA Today. That is not distributing just 25 copies; more like 250000, I'd say!

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washdc/2001-06-12-kyo to.htm

Let me know when it shows up in...USA Today

According to this article, MLB is continuing to alienate fans, this time by threatending fan-run websites: "On July 5, a letter from Major League Baseball's legal department arrived, telling [the webmaster of a site devoted to the Houston Astros] he was in copyright violation. He had run photographs of players in Astros uniforms."

You want tradition. You can always get her a burqa. It doesn't get more traditional than that. And it won't cost you a leg and a ball. Hell you can even have her sew it her damn self. :) Just an idea.

(disclaimer: I'm an Indian)

About 10 years back while I was still in Engineering college we had a great "scandal" about Russia being arm twisted by the USA to not provide India with cryogenic rocket engine technology to launch remote sensing satellites. It was feared that India would develop missile technology and perhaps ICBMs.

So the problem is this. No engine. No rocket. No satelite aka no space program. And on top of that no Crays to model simulations etc. The man who said "screw this" was Dr. Kalam. The man that threw caution to wind and aligned the bureaucratic/lazy govt agencies to do this.

- Develop an indigenous super computer

- Develop a liquid fuel rocket

- Put a satelite in orbit

Some years later CDAC developed PARAM supercomputer followed by ANUPAM. These inexpensive machines were put to task to solve whole bunch of vibration related problems that used to send test rockets crashing into Bay of Bengal. Quote from a news item "Likewise, the PSLV too failed on its first ever launch on September 20, 1993. The then ISRO chairman, Dr U R Rao, said this was because of a software error in the pitch control loop of the on-board guidance and control processor." There were still more problems with the re-entry stage etc.

The supercomputers enabled some new materials research and first success was almost 10 years later
PSLV (Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle). India then proceeded to deploy remote sensing satellites in orbit without depending on the French Ariane program at 1/7th the cost.

Out of this came the four Indian missiles long-range Agni (fire), medium range Akash (sky), surface-to-surface Prithvi (earth) and anti-tank Nag (cobra) and the now infamous nukes.

The satellite deployment capability bothers EU and Australia because it is clearly the loss of some "easy money". India has not yet offered satellite launching services, but for those prices even Jamaica can put a bird in the sky. At the moment ISRO toils at the GSLV (Geo Synchronous Launch Vehicle). So far they have not had any success.

This new announcement of moon shot is exciting and a cause of concern. While India has put enough weather satellites it still is ransomed by abnormal weather patterns drought, floods et al Nonetheless it's a matter of pride or rather amazement for me to witness any govt dept doing anything straight over there. Dr. Kalam is now the president of India. President of India is as we call a ceremonious office quite like the Queen of England. So I am sure the Hindu fanatic party leading the govt now is not any progressive but I am optimistic that a secular govt will be elected soon and our rocket man is in the right place trying to crack a tougher cookie. Maybe it's time for the land of zero, decimal and exponent to earn some Karma.

Yes, it sure does say that. But it it has been shown in court that the Sherman Act of 1890 in this particular case did not apply, it was found, because of the agubility of the definition of "not esseintial to the operation" of a PC without an OS. To use your poor analogy, It would be buying a car without an engine, with the intent of installing your own engine. (How well can you make use a PC with only the bios? Hmm? Can you provide a link to the case you're talking about? Seems like it was for "no" OS and not an alternative OS, anyway.) And if you actually think about what you're saying for a second, you will see that the sherman act wasn't meant to apply quite that broadly (allthough, it is somewhat disappointing it wasn't in the MS case). For example, AMI and Award produce bioses. There are several motherboards based on VIA and Ali refernce designs that can use either bios interchangably. Yet, I cannot buy a motherboard without a bios. Which, in your world, is illegal. Right?

USA Today article

"The Microsoft donations, a 20-fold increase over 1996, analysts say, is part of a strategy to curry favor with the GOP in the hope a Republican president would be more eager to settle the antitrust case without the break up ordered by a U.S. judge"

If your company was threatened with distruction, wouldn't you lobby hard?

It is my opinion that the anti-trust trial is mostly the result of lobbying by Sun, AOL, Novell, Kodak, and other competitors combined with a lack of lobbying by Microsoft in the past.

I believe that in 1995, Microsoft's lobbying budget was around $15k. That isn't even enough to hire a 1/4 time contractor to talk to people!

• Bill Gates donates $100 million to AIDS research
  
• Bill Gates donates $25M for AIDS vaccine
  
• Bill Gates Donates $37 Million to Combat Hepatitis B in China
  
• Gates Donates Millions to Schools
  
• BILL GATES DONATES $2.2 BILLION TO POPULATION CONTROL
  

Here is link of efforts to convert old Cessnas to drones. Lot cheaper than $4.5 mil.

Perhaps you should go to the corrections page for usatoday.com news and politely mention it to them. I certainly did.

Dual 1GHz G4 versus 2.2-GHz Sony Vaio RX690G Digital Studio.

"Rather than argue the point, I decided to conduct my own comparison. Apple even provided the actual Photoshop picture used, a full-color photo over 44 megabytes in size, depicting seven bike riders with colorful bikes and helmets. This is the sort of file that graphic artists have to manipulate on a daily basis.

"Apple also sent me a copy of its actual test protocol, including a Photoshop Actions file, a set of scripts that automated the various rendering functions. They also provided a high-end twin-processor desktop Power Macintosh on which to run the tests.

"The Mac was upgraded to the latest version of Mac OS X, 10.1.5. The Sony had Windows XP. I installed the standard retail versions of Adobe Photoshop 7 on both computers."

"Running the tests proved exceedingly simple because Photoshop displays the actual timing of a rendering process rounded off to tenths of a second. Per Apple's directions, I conducted each test four times to deliver the most accurate results.

"Like all Adobe applications, Photoshop is a bit slow to launch. It took 15 seconds on both computers to get ready for the main event.

"In the nine test runs, the Mac came out on top five times, besting the Sony by up to 8.1 seconds. Where the PC emerged victorious, the margin was usually less than half a second.

"In all, the Mac took a total of 35.5 seconds to complete the nine rendering steps. The PC took 50.1 seconds, making it 41% slower according to my calculator's reckoning.

...

"The upshot of all this, however, is that, when someone tells you a Windows box is always faster than the Mac, point them to this article and tell them it isn't necessarily so."

Of course the PC beat the Mac in a game of Quake ;)

I live in Utah. Yea, yea, I know. Anyway, a few months ago one of the users on my network stopped me in the hall to say he had just sent an e-mail in reply to a spam requesting that he be removed from the spammer's list. I got all upset and explained (again) that all that does is confirm to the spammer that he has a live address. Then he explained that he had told the spammer that he would sue him under some bogus Utah law. He made up the number and title, etc. I was only mildly amused until the next day when he received a personal reply from the spammer. He apologized and said he would not use the address anymore. I was amazed. I don't expect this to ever work again but at least now we have the law behind us. Oh yea, I also find it typical that the Utah law has as much to do with stopping sexually explicit mail as it does with stopping spam in general. I guess that this is where the political support comes from. Don't you wish your state had it's own Porn Csar?

Using rivers isn't always clear either.
Take the case of New Hampshire vs. Maine
Which, after centuries of dispute was only recently resolved by the Supreme Court.

1. If you want to use an opensource product, where do you learn about it? I know about oracle and mysql, but who do I goto for mysql paid support?

2. What about total solutions, other than RedHat or VA Software, are there other vedors? Or do I just goto IBM and Say "Linux"?

3. Are any opensource vendors bidding on government contracts?

Let's see:

• IBM gets German government contract
• MandrakeSoft wins French government contract
• IBM sells Linux to Air Force & other government agencies

4. Do the opensource vendors support 24/7 priority support?

What about public safety? (fire/police/ambulance/etc.)

For the type of service you want for a system with Linux machines, I think IBM probably is the only way to go at this point.

It'd be cool to watch a bunch of them dancing in sequence...

Especially if they got a line of SDR as backup dancers. And then, suddenly, Dancing to an Electric Boogaloo 2002.

I agree that the New York Times article does not portray the situation accurately. I actually think that USA Today did a better job: their article.

.ad afgjk uba dooba doo DRUDGE REPORT 2002
Support The DrudgeReport; Visit Our Advertisers

WASH POST: Bush Admin Split over Iraq...

IRAQ 'CLOSE TO NUCLEAR BOMB GOAL'

Passive smoking can kill your cat... TIMEWARNER to charge flood victims for cable boxes... Archerd: Democrats seeking Hollywood money... Republicans will tie ANWR to Iraq; Say threat in Baghdad necessitates oil drilling in Alaska... Ventura Goofs On God... AP WORLD
AP NATIONAL
AP WASHINGTON
AP BUSINESS
AP ENTERTAINMENT
AP ON THE HOUR
AP HEADLINES
AP BREAKING
SEARCH
Headline:
Date Range:
Within 14 Days Within 13 Days Within 12 Days Within 11 Days Within 10 Days Within 9 Days Within 8 Days Within 7 Days Within 6 Days Within 5 Days Within 4 Days Within 3 Days Within 2 Days Within 1 Day
Any word(s) in article:


ANANOVA
DOW JONES
BLOOMBERG
PAKISTAN WIRE
PAKISTAN BROADCASTING
ISLAMIC REPUBLIC WIRE
ITAR-TASS
KYODO WIRE
PR NEWSWIRE
[SHOWBIZ] PR WIRE
SCRIPPS HOWARD
US INFO WIRE
U.S. NEWSWIRE
WORLDWIRES
XINHUA ABC NEWS
AD AGE DEADLINE
BBC
BBC AUDIO
BILLBOARD
BOSTON GLOBE
BROADCASTING & CABLE
CBS NEWS
C-SPAN SCHEDULE
CHICAGO TRIB
CHICAGO SUN-TIMES
CHRISTIAN SCIENCE
CNN
CNN TRANSCRIPTS
DAILY VARIETY
D.C. DAYBOOK
E!
ELECTRONIC MEDIA
EMERGENCY NET
ENT WEEKLY
FINANCIAL TIMES
FORBES MAG
FOX NEWS
INTERNATIONAL HERALD TRIB
HILL
H'WOOD REPORTER
HUMAN EVENTS
INSIGHT MAG
INVEST BUS DAILY
JERUSALEM POST
JEWISH WORLD REVIEW
LA DAILY NEWS
LA TIMES
LUCIANNE.COM
MEDIA CHECK
MEDIA LIFE
MSNBC
MUCHMUSIC
NATION
NATIONAL ENQUIRER
NATIONAL REVIEW
NEW REPUBLIC
NY DAILY NEWS
NY OBSERVER
NY POST
NY TIMES
NEW YORKER
NEWSBYTES
NEWSWEEK
N. KOREAN NEWS
PEOPLE MAG
R & R
REASON MAG
ROLL CALL
SKY NEWS
SLATE: PAPERS
STAR
TIME MAG
TV SHOPTALK
[U.K.] DAILY MIRROR
DAILY RECORD
[U.K.] EVENING STANDARD
[U.K.] EXPRESS
[U.K.] GUARDIAN
[U.K.] INDEPENDENT
[U.K.] NEWS OF THE WORLD
[U.K.] PEOPLENEWS
[U.K.] STAR
[U.K.] SUN
U.K. TABLOIDS
[U.K.] TELEGRAPH
[U.K.] TIMES
US NEWS
USA TODAY
VILLAGE VOICE
WASH POST
WASH TIMES
WEEKLY STANDARD
WORLDNETDAILY
UPDATE: Mob Kills 2 in Ill. After Van Crash... US Senate Fails to Pass Medicare Drug Plan... Agents leaving Border Patrol in droves, union says... French spa to host next G8 summit... GLASSMAN/HASSETT: Dow 36000 Revisited... MATT DRUDGE
3 AM GIRLS
CINDY ADAMS
ARMY ARCHERD
DAVE BARRY
MICHAEL BARONE
PETER BART
BOB BARTLEY
STEPHEN BATTAGLIO
MARILYN BECK/SMITH
BLANKLEY
GLORIA BORGER
L. BRENT BOZELL
BRESLIN
DAVID BRODER
PAT BUCHANAN
BILL BUCKLEY
MONA CHAREN
ELEANOR CLIFT
RICHARD COHEN
PAUL COLFORD
JOE CONASON
ANN COULTER
STANLEY CROUCH
MICHAEL DALY
LOU DOBBS
MAUREEN DOWD
STEVE DUNLEAVY
ROGER EBERT
JOSEPH FARAH
SUZANNE FIELDS
ARI FLEISCHER
MICHAEL FLEMING
ROGER FRIEDMAN
JOHN FUND
LEAH GARCHIK
BILL GERTZ
GEORGIE GEYER
JONAH GOLDBERG
ELLEN GOODMAN
MARTIN GROVE
LLOYD GROVE
PETE HAMILL
CARL HIAASEN
NAT HENTOFF
CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS
H'WOOD REPORTER E-MAIL
ARIANNA HUFFINGTON
INSIDE BELTWAY
INSIDE POLITICS
INSIDE THE RING
MOLLY IVINS
AL KAMEN
MICKEY KAUS
KEITH J. KELLY
MICHAEL KELLY
MICHAEL KINSLEY
HARRY KNOWLES
MORT KONDRACKE
KRAUTHAMMER
LARRY KUDLOW
HOWIE KURTZ
JOHN LEO
DAVID LIMBAUGH
RUSH LIMBAUGH
HAL LINDSEY
RICH LOWRY
MICHELLE MALKIN
CHRIS MATTHEWS
MARY MCGRORY
MICHAEL MEDVED
DICK MORRIS
PEGGY NOONAN
BOB NOVAK
OFF THE RECORD
KATE O'BEIRNE
MARVIN OLASKY
BILL O'REILLY
PAGE SIX
ANDREA PEYSER
JIM PINKERTON
JOHN PODHORETZ
TV PROGRAMMING INSIDER
WES PRUDEN
ANNA QUINDLEN
WILLIAM RASPBERRY
REX REED
RICHARD REEVES
J. MAX ROBINS
RICHARD ROEPER
RUSH/MOLLOY
BILL SAFIRE
SCHLAFLY
TOM SHALES
GAIL SHISTER
LIZ SMITH
MICHAEL SNEED
JOE SOBRAN
THOMAS SOWELL
ANDREW SULLIVAN
HELEN THOMAS
CAL THOMAS
HUNTER S. THOMPSON
NEAL TRAVIS
TV COLUMN
DEB WEISS
JEFFREY WELLS
GEORGE WILL
WALTER WILLIAMS
WASHINGTON WHISPERS
BILL ZWECKER
GERTH ZEROS IN ON CHENEY... AIRLINES TO TRIM FLIGHTS ON SEPT 11... Accounting controls on EU budget 'unreliable'... Man Accused of Raping Nine Women He Met Through Internet... Pentagon: Hamas experimenting with chemical weapons... AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE
AFP INTERNATIONAL
AFP NEWS WRAP
AFX
UPI WIRE
UPI NATIONAL
UPI WORLD
AP/REUTERS PHOTO WIRE
REUTERS ROUNDUP
REUTERS SPOTLIGHT
REUTERS WORLD
REUTERS POLITICS
REUTERS ODD
SEARCH






*FINDS ANY STORY LINKED ON DRUDGE WEATHER ACTION
QUAKE SHEET x x x x x VISITS TO DRUDGE
07/31/02

004,776,309 IN PAST 24 HOURS
107,519,403 IN PAST 31 DAYS
895,224,122 IN PAST YEAR DRUDGE ARCHIVES DRUDGE REFERENCE DESK EMAIL: DRUDGE@DRUDGEREPORT.COM SUPER-POWERED BY ALLEGIANCE TELECOM... DRUDGE NATIONAL PRESS CLUB SPEECH TRANSCRIPT

Most U.S. newspapers are affiliated with the AP and Reuters, though a smaller number use the Agence France-Presse, which is more popular internationally. Then there's United Press International, which is practically dead, so few papers use it.

Knight Ridder and Gannett are different animals altogether. They are huge corporations which own dozens of tiny newspapers you've never heard of and a few larger papers (USA Today is Gannett's flagship paper, while the San Jose Mercury News is KR's, though KR's Miami Herald is a better paper). One of the "advantages" of these giant corporations is that they share stories with other papers in the corporation, which enables a paper in Fargo to cover an event in San Francisco without having to put up the money for a regional bureau.

Better papers (New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, etc.) maintain their own bureaus outside their hometowns (for instance, the Washington Post has about 10 bureaus in U.S. cities outside DC [Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, etc.], and about 12 bureaus in international cities [London, Tokyo, Moscow, etc.]), so they use a far higher percentage of their own content, but they still use the AP, Reuters and AFP for stories they can't afford to cover themselves or don't have the time to reach. However, you won't see a Knight Ridder story in a paper like the New York Times.

The big difference here is that aggregators/metabrowsers are computers that display headlines without discretion. Newspapers employ editors who have been trained in the art/science of news judgment. For this reason, a metabrowser will quickly become exceptionally boring and irrelevant.

You know, I'm kind of glad encryption hasn't made many inroads for regular communications of casual users. I find it really hard to be on the pro-crypto side of almost anything. (And then there's that USA Today Report on using Ebay for posted embedding messages in images...)

Then again, I've always had an underdeveloped sense of privacy. It's really never been a big concern of mine, security through obscurity (or maybe apathy...if someone wants to know enough to bother to ask I'll probably tell them)

Great company, great computers... they just don't have a clue about advertising successfully.

Ok, I'll bite on this troll....I always thought there was one thing most computer users could agree on, even if they don't like Macs. Apple does innovative advertising and marketing.

Especially with the recent coverage they've been getting (and have been getting for many years, at least since oh, 1984)

BTW, I think the computers would be "Insanely Great" Computers heh

Thomas Watson Sr. (who you say helped the Nazis did not sell tabulation machines to Nazi Germany during the war. He sold them to them before the war in hopes of turning the German government away from a path of war to a path of capitalism (it is documented in his personally writings. Once the war broke out, Germany took control of the IBM manufacturing plant in Germany and IBM no longer had a say in what they produced and for what purpose. A story that you might find interesting is here

Well, because they misreported it, that means they don't have the money! They're going to be filing for bankruptcy soon. You can't get blood out of a stone.

What counts as an attack? So worms don't count, or the number would be in the millins. Reported attacks? Those shouldn't count much because there is "little incentive for a company to report computer attacks.

Here's another story by the supposed source, but again, they don't at all define what they mean by "attack".

Are you saying that potential terrorists don't have access to tens of thousands of dollars?

If that's all that is needed to construct a virus then there is potential for a lot of harm in technology like this.

• Money section, current URL
• Money section, past Technology columns archive
• Tech section, Columnists, past columns archive

In the long run your URL will be stable as the original article and my corrected link use a URL that changes whenever Kevin writes a new article.

However, it looks like Kevin writes an article a week and with /.'s short attention span, the current article link should be fine.

• Money section, current URL
• Money section, past Technology columns archive
• Tech section, Columnists, past columns archive

In the long run your URL will be stable as the original article and my corrected link use a URL that changes whenever Kevin writes a new article.

However, it looks like Kevin writes an article a week and with /.'s short attention span, the current article link should be fine.

• Money section, current URL
• Money section, past Technology columns archive
• Tech section, Columnists, past columns archive

In the long run your URL will be stable as the original article and my corrected link use a URL that changes whenever Kevin writes a new article.

However, it looks like Kevin writes an article a week and with /.'s short attention span, the current article link should be fine.

Does anyone read the article? This is the wrong column. this link actually works.

here
Please mod me down if an editor corrects it.

Here's the fixed link. The submitter didn't code the HTML correctly.

Huzzah for proofreading!

url is supposed to be url

I hope you find this discussion as interesting as I do because I really took some time to write a reply.

Perhaps to the Chinese a reduction in freedom is a small price to pay. They don't have a very large tradition of "freedom." Overpopulation also isn't a problem in most of the developed world, so imposing those kinds of reductions in freedoms would be unnecessesary.

I think this particular reduction of freedom is not yet necessesary in most countries, but it "solves" the problems for China. Most countries don't have a huge population like China, with all the problems coming with it. But these kind of situations (hunger, overpopulation, desease) also have effect on the rest of the world. Just like the economy in the US has effect on the economy in the EU. I'll come back this subject later on.

I'm sorry, my freedoms are not negotiable. As the saying goes, "Those that give up freedom to ensure security deserve neither."

Can you specify 'freedom' for me. To me absolute freedom doesn't exist. I have the freedom to drive a car, but not to speed. In a very direct way that is a limitation of my freedom to use a car the way I could want, but we all agreed to accept that limitation. To me responsability is a duty that comes with freedom. We can apply that to nature too. We have the freedom to do with it whatever we want, but we have to do it in a responsable way.

The concept of freedom and responsability is interesting. I'd say freedom a universal right. Or is freedom a privilege for the ones who can afford it? And what gives one the right to take advantage from another person or country? We already spoke earlyer about investing in poor countries. Do we have the right to force poor farmers to buy our seeds for a high price by refusing to buy their regular product if they don't? Is it right to cut rainforests in other countries because they hardly have any other resources? Even if it supports OUR economy?
No. Those countries can't do anything about it. They're with their backs against the wall. They have no other options that to do what we want them to do. That is no freedom for them. They're working for us. In the case of sweatshops even in circumstances that we wouldn't accept here. Compared to what their work is worth we pay hardly them. That is slavery. The only difference is that it's not happening in our oun countries, but far far away so that we don't have to think about it. (This is no attack on America's history. The Dutch also have a slave history.)

If environmentalists ever present a convincing case based on science and logic...

Isn't it safe to assume that something that has bad effects locally, also has bad effects globally??

... rather than politics and fear, I think you will see that a vast majority of Americans will take action without someone forcing it on us.

The problem with these things is that it is so damn hard to proove. And worse, scientific proof is based on measurements and facts, but in this case it's impossible to conduct a scientific experiment. Firstly because it would require two testsets to compare with eachother and we only have one earth. And secondly because to proove beyond any doubt that the way we live and use the earth will cause a disaster is TO CAUSE that desaster. If you're using a mathematical model there will ALWAYS be someone saying that the model is flawed.

Example. The Marlboro man. All the tabacco companies for years denied smoking is bad for your health. How many people have died of cancer before FINALLY they admit it is bad? You see, if companies don't have any short term interest in ecological measures, they'll deny the facts, but sadly, we don't have thousands of worlds to proove the way we live is wrong. We have assumptions and theories.

On the other hand, there are enough signs that indicate that the way we use the earth isn't the right way. For example cutting down trees to make skiing possible. In the Swiss Alps there's a lot of skiing going on. Lot's of trees are cut down to make place for the ski pistes. As a result the rain washes the soil away because there is no vegetation left to keep the soil in place. Without the soil an inportant buffer for the rain is gone and the rain will flow directly in the Rhine.
Down the Rhine in Germany the same thing is happening. The result is that with heavy rain and in the spring (melting snow) the amount of water in the Rhine has increased and causes floods in Germany like in Kohln (Colonge) and the Netherlands.
[Background info on the Rhine is found here]

Now what's the point of this water story? There are three points. 1. Just cutting down some trees CAN have big (unforseen) ecological effects. 2. Assume Swiss has the right / freedom to cut down their trees. Does this give them the right to cause floodings and damage in Germany and the Netherlands? 3. The economical profit the Swiss makes with tourism is good for them, but has a counterside in enormous (economical) damage in other countries. Do they have the right / freedom to cause (economical) damage in other countries?

I don't know about the cause of the floods in Texas, but the economical damage is enormous and I'm not even talking about personal tragedy. The way we treath the earth IS backfiering on us.
I tried to point out that small actions (cutting down trees) can have big unforseen effects many miles away. This is a PROOVEN fact, and there are big discussions going on about CO2 and NO.
Is it a good idea to dispute the assumptions until they ARE prooven, and take the risk in the mean time that we do irreversable damage to the environment (quitting smiking can be too late to and cancer still is hard to cure), destroying human life and therefore destroying economy? Or is it better to play it safe and take measures?

Ofcourse it's about how efficient we pollute--or, more clearly put, it's about how efficiently we can generate wealth with the least amount of pollution.

Actually there is a very big difference between the two statements. The first statement implies polution is a goal, but it isn't. In the end it's a TOTAL amount of polution that will kill a man or damage the environent.
Something like "If you have to pollute, make sure to maximize profit, but if you have to make profit, make sure to minimize pollution."

Thinking about your and my arguments, I see that it contradicts what I said earlier about pollution/habitant (new insights are always nice). What it comes down to is the TOTAL global amount of polution that counts. Not the amount of pollution relative to something.
That left me with the question why pollution/habitant is used. What does it measure? It measures how polluting one's lifestyle is, I guess.

You can do some good for society without polluting, but for you to be able to do those things you--and the economy around you--have to be in sufficiently good shape to support those activities. If you don't have food, medicine, shelter, etc. you won't be spending much time helping society, I can assure you. And for you to have your food, medicine, and shelter certain activities much take place--and those activities create pollution.

Completely true, and I wouldn't want to do without those activities, but there are many ways to reduce the amount of pollution in the proces of conducting those activities. There are ways for example to produce energy with less pollution like wind- and solarenergy. But it takes research, investments, money to make things like solar panels profitable. It CAN be done, but one has to want it.

So what we can do is try to increase the efficiency of inefficient countries. We can try to increase our own efficiency as long as doing so provides a net gain in efficiency. If, by implementing a given policy, our GDP/pollution efficiency is reduced we've actually moved in the wrong direction.

Increasing the efficiency suggests an inproovement, but it also implies that if you find a very very profitable way to make a product which produces more pollution than a profitable way to make a product the GDP/pollution is increasing, but also the total amount of pollution is increasing. Again, what's the use of a very high GDP/pollution if the high amount of pollution will kill you. In the end it is about enjoying a good life in an economy and not about a good economy and no life at all.

"Investing" (spending) on these products needs to reduce the amount of pollution per dollar. The problem is, many times the policies actually would INCREASE the amount of pollution per dollar--although overall pollution may be reduced.

Again, the "per dollar" is not the issue. Pollution per dollar is only interesting to point out (in)efficient industries. The GDP/pollution of the US probably is higher then the GDP/pollution of Russia. This only says there is room for improovement in the Russian industry. It says nothing about the total amount of pollution produced.
Investing money in anti-pollution measures will indeed reduce the profit, but I think that is a small price to pay. In fact there are many ways of MAKING money with those investments. Underground heat storage will decrease the amount of gas used for heating and cooling a building. So therefore will safe money. At the moment such an investment already pays back in 4 to 5 years. Also solarpanels is getting more efficient by the year.

What that means is that, yes, you may have less pollution but you've also created less wealth in the world. Those that look at ONLY the environmental side of the equation without looking at the economic side are as shortsighted and out-of-touch with reality as those businesses that dump their toxic waste into rivers.

But what's the use wealth if that would cause floodings, desease and hunger? As I see it, all your agruments are ONLY based at wealth, money and economy. There are many ways that you still can make a profit, of course it's smaller profit WITH environmental investments. But take a look at your own life. Is it that bad that you need to get (much) more wealthy?

It's about both. But if we can improve our efficiency, the total amount of pollution will tend to decrease for a given amount of "social good" (wealth).

I'll stop repeating that it's a TOTAL amount that will kill you, not a relative amount. Pff. Okay, one more really silly example. What would you prefere. To die from getting wealth in 5 years, to die from getting wealthy in 10 years or get wealthy and stay alive? The second ratio is way better than the first one, but I prefere the third one. Ok, it is a silly example, but I hope you understand what I mean.

People don't like seeing the word "wealth" or "money." But these people simply don't understand that in the real world there is a very real relation between "wealth/money" and "standard of living" and "societal good." Sure, we can clean up our environment 100%--and all live like Ethiopians. But despite the fact that we'll have a cleaner environment, few would argue we've served the good of society.

Hmm. Yes and no. I think nobody with a piece of common sense will argue that money and wealth are bad. Au contraire. I would say everybody should have enough money and wealth, not too much. A big difference in wealth and money is a problem. Especially is one has way less than a certain minimum. In fact above a cartain amount of money the amount isn't imporant anymore. What does Bill Gates do with his money? Buying an even bigger villa perhaps, but I don't think he would be very unhappy about having 30,000,000 less than he does now. He'd probably even wouldn't notice it. would you miss, say $100.= a year? Same thing for a company. Many companies can perfectly function with a smaller profit and invest that in exhaust filters or other measures. Cleaning the environment for 100% is unrealistic, but refusing to do anything is rediculous.

Those few that WOULD suggest we live like Ethiopians, if that's what it takes to clean the environment, are just as extremists and without merit as those businesses that think that dumping toxic waste in rivers is ok. Neither extreme is acceptable.

I totally agree. Fortunately we're not talking about a total reduction of exhaust, but the whole concept of CO2 reduction seems out of the question. And the general reaction on /. is total denyal of the article we were reacting to. I've seen reactions like "We have a damn near infinite supply of oil..." (this person forgot the 70's oil crisis) and others talking about "treehugging extremists", not even willing to think about the possibility and the implications if even part of the story turns out to be true. The question that interests me is why the US is completely refusing to participate in Kyoto. Perhaps you can help me out?

What you and many forget is that our health AND our quality live are very tightly linked to "hard bucks." I know it's an unpopular view, but it's the truth.

They are linked, but having $10,000 or $100,000 doesn't make me 10 times healthier, while at the same time there are many who have to do with less than $1.00 a day. We ARE wealthy, we even have time to worry or discuss the environment while others have to worry about food. No, making just a little less profit shouldn't make us unwealthe and poor. Most of us (1st world) can do with a little less.

Without the hard bucks, we will not have the money to support medical research to produce new medicines that save millions of lives per year. Or reduce the pain and suffering of those that are sick. Or distribute food to those that are starving.

I could have said the same :) But why are big industrials asking $60.= for an AIDS medicine in Africa. The people there can't afford it, while prople here can. There it is. Health. Only for the ones who can afford it. I would say something like health is a right, not a privilegde. Remember the Bayer(?) medicine against Anthrax? Suddenly the government ordered that the price should be, I can't remember how much, but much lower than the official price. But if in Africa they BEG for cheaper medicine suddenly the same medicin companies are protected and not forced do reduce the prices. Health. From the ones that can spare it.

These are ALL aspects of health and quality of life that cannot be addressed without a thriving economy ("hard bucks") to support it. If certain policies that "save our environment" but destroy our economy are implemented, any potential gains in quality of life and health due to a cleaner environment very easily will be overshadowed by the decreases in our ability to address other issues of quality of life.

Without hard bucks, we're nowhere, but I seriously doubt that environmental friendly policies will destroy the economy. Without a doubt here will be less profit, but healthy companies are resourcefull and a bad company will go bankrupt one way or another. In Europe the environment gets quite some attention, but is our economy destroyed by it? Economy ALWAYS will find it's way. That's economy.

So it's ok to let developing countries pollute the world for money, but developed countries cannot? I don't see the consistency in that argument based on the rest of your post that seems to imply that the environment is more important than "hard bucks."

Good point. First of all, I would say that you're almost right about the base of my argument. They're both important. But I would say in the end "hard bucks" are less important than a healthy environment. I want to be healthy, wealthy, have food and have a roof over my head. I have those. I don't want more food, more wealth and a bigger roof over my head if that is for account of the smell of a forest after a summers rainfall. A strong economy results in more wealth, but wealth is more than a strong economy. A healthy environment also contributes to more wealth.

But the argument goes like this. Stimulating economy will pay back. I think you'll agree. Stimulating the economy in the developint countries will eventually benefit us. Just think about Taiwan. The last time I saw a 'made in Taiwan' watch is long time ago. Now they produce high tech products. It takes 20, 30 years, but it will pay off. Therefore I say we have to invest in the developing countries. They need to grow to a point where they can compete with our industry. Helping eachother getting to higher standards will in long term benefit us all. Look at Taiwan.
Our economies won't be destroyed by implementing cleaner techniques and filters. We have the money for it. In the developing countries they don't. Then need to grow, with our help, first. We were the ones buiding the factories in Taiwan, we will build factories in the developing countries. But with our possibilities we can build cleaner factories there. We can spare more money on environmental measures than they can so that's why we should start implementing those techniques first.

Pledge of Allegiance: One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all...

I think I get the idea. But maybe you can tell me a little more about it. About the history of it and the deeper meaning for America.

Let me try to make a globalized version of it: One world, respecting race, religion and each other, because we're all in it together, striving for equality and equal opportunities for all in a healthy world.

Which brings me to an other subject: Anti-globalisation. The short short version. The movement got the international interest with the riots in Seattle and other riots gave them a really bad name, but their intentions are clouded by the term 'anti-globalists' which doesn't cover their ideas the right way. Mainly they're against THE WAY the globalisation process takes place.

• does anyone actually believe the Russian promise to fund 30% (6 billion +) of the mission? Given their record with the ISS and the sorry state of their economy, I highly doubt it.

Does anyone believe the US promise to fund $14.5 billion of the ISS? Given their record with the UN and the sorry state of their economy, I highly doubt it.

Oh, plus Bush has already reneged. Perhaps if we renamed it the "US Anti Terrorist Orbitting Death Platform" it could get funding under the current climate.

Enough with the petty bitterness. Instead of casting stones at Russia for doing what we won't, why not spend some energy exhorting your elected representative to support, or if you prefer, to compete with them. If you're looking for suggestions as to where we could get the money from, how about a reform of tort law that cost $82 billion a year. Back in 1990, that is. Want to bet that it isn't $100 billion a year now? We could fund a Mars mission easily if we just stopped parasiting off of ourselves and start looking outwards instead of inwards.

Given the fact that both germany, france and others are buying into Linux now, with good support from IBM, I see very little chance that this will succeed in Europe or Asia (the latter being the most important since they make our motherboards). Also the heavy investments in Linux from IBM will leave at least one major player out of the conspiracy. Palladium won't work unless M$ can control the server side too, and with all the Apache servers out there and with players like Sun and IBM not buying into this, it will probably die a slow but certain death.