Slashdot Mirror


Lawrence Livermore Lab On The Chopping Block?

guttentag writes "According to the San Francisco Chronicle, Bush's Homeland Security plan calls for transferring $1.2 billion of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory's $1.5 billion budget to a new Department of Homeland Security under Tom Ridge. However, the plan transfers only 4 percent of the lab's employees. Ridge's explanation of the numbers: "I cannot give you the kind of explanation you need to deal with that imbalance." LLNL funded and houses the ASCI White supercomputer, among other cool projects." While Livermore has an impressive research record, we would miss most the laser lab from Tron.

134 of 249 comments (clear)

  1. Misprint by Henry+V+.009 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Cancel the flames. Tom Ridge says it is probably a misprint.

    1. Re:Misprint by SpamJunkie · · Score: 1

      Perhaps an all to convenient misprint?

    2. Re:Misprint by jralls · · Score: 1

      Probable indeed. Most of what LLNL (and its sister lab LBL) does is nuclear weapons research -- and that includes the NIF project mentioned elsewhere. Neither appropriate for the Homeland Defense folks (they couldn't get a clearance for that anyway) nor likely to be cut in the current administration.

    3. Re:Misprint by ftobin · · Score: 1, Troll

      Just curious, How many posters to Slashdot graduated from English 101?

      Why bother, when f u cn rd ths, u cn gt a gd jb n cmptr prgrmmng.

    4. Re:Misprint by ZeLonewolf · · Score: 1

      Must be some of that fuzzy math...

      --
      "If at first you don't succeed, lower your standards."
    5. Re:Misprint by John+Hasler · · Score: 2

      "Just curious, How many posters to Slashdot graduated from English 101?"

      None, since one cannot graduate from English 101 at all. Many of us received very good grades for it, though.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    6. Re:Misprint by nomadic · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And many didn't I'd bet. From the amount of spelling and grammatical errors I read on slashdots, you'd think they were pseudoliterate oafs. Point this out and we get the endless choruses of "but that's not IMPORTANT"--funny how they'll criticize some poor journalist for getting a minor technical detail incorrect, but see no problem with themselves mixing up "who's" and "whose".

      The mistakes, of course, are even funnier when they're in one of the many self-congratulatory stories that slashdot often runs insisting that geeks are more literate in the humanities than the humanities graduates are in the sciences, and that engineers are just so well-rounded as opposed to those liberal arts morons.

    7. Re:Misprint by Steve+Franklin · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it's not Homeland Security, it's the Department of Religious Affairs. Why fund scientific research when we can get all the answers we need from our new Secretary of Theology, Clarence Thomas. Be afraid. Be very afraid.

      --
      Hic iacet Arthurus, rex quondam rexque futurus.
    8. Re:Misprint by amRadioHed · · Score: 1
      Point this out and we get the endless choruses of "but that's not IMPORTANT"--funny how they'll criticize some poor journalist for getting a minor technical detail incorrect, but see no problem with themselves mixing up "who's" and "whose".

      The difference is of course, that if someone makes a grammatical or speling error, then the original intent of the messages is almost always still understood by the reader based on the context. Most of the time this is automatic, without the reader even noticing the error.

      However, if a technical mistake is made in an article, then no such built in error correction is possible, as the messages is syntactically correct, though wrong. That is why it is a much graver error to make a technical mistake then to make a spelling or grammar mistake.
      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    9. Re:Misprint by gorilla · · Score: 2

      All online fora have a high percentage of typos, spelling and grammatical errors. Humans are naturally prone to making mistakes, and without a period of reflection and revision, these mistakes get published. Non online fora are almost always validated by an editor, who can catch the errors and fix them, which is why we see a lower number of errors in them.

    10. Re:Misprint by Rupert · · Score: 2

      A billion dollar misprint.

      Hopefully it was Word's fault and they can sue Microsoft.

      --

      --
      E_NOSIG
  2. partisan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    much ado about nothing. a fairly minor mistake in the most complex reorganization of the us gov't since the truman administration. it's been seized upon and made front page news (particularly on the Left Coast) to make the Bush administration seem inept and disorganized.

    1. Re:partisan by Overfiend · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      it's been seized upon and made front page news (particularly on the Left Coast) to make the Bush administration seem inept and disorganized.

      Oh, I don't think the Bush administration needs any help in that department, especially since they're already receiving so much from Jerry Falwell and other cross-burning conservatives who use phrases like "Left Coast".

      --
      Address-collecting spam robots don't know how to crack ROT13. Do you?
    2. Re:partisan by the_radix · · Score: 3, Troll

      ...make the Bush administration seem inept and disorganized.

      Wait... you mean it isn't?

      --
      This .sig is either false or a paradox.
    3. Re: partisan by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1


      > especially since they're already receiving so much from Jerry Falwell and other cross-burning conservatives who use phrases like "Left Coast".

      How funny. "Left Coast" was pot-smoking-hippie jargon for "California" back in the '60s.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    4. Re: partisan by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1


      > No, it wasn't.

      I was there, d00d.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    5. Re: partisan by packeteer · · Score: 2, Funny

      its only the left coast if you read your map with North pointing up... dont conform to the North=Up "Man"

      --
      unzip; strip; touch; finger; mount; fsck; more; yes; unmount; sleep
    6. Re:partisan by j_w_d · · Score: 1

      I regard myself as a conservative too, registered republican, though more of a libertarian bent these days. I can see very little difference between Bush and Gore, and I believe that the Bush - Gore election was the worst catastrophe to the US and to constitutional government since Income Tax. I suspect that in the choice offered between Bush and Gore, US politics finally achieved the least common political denominator.

      I was actually joking (obviously due to 9/11 obscure humour has become bad karma ;-)) and rather doubt that the Bush administration could really be stupid. Instead, they are testing the limits of executive privelege and accountability and how far the US can be pushed toward giving up constitutional freedoms in the name of security. "Homeland security" has a dreadful ring to it that would catch the ear of both Adolf Hitler and Stalin. Saddam Hussein is probably telling his people the phrase was plagiarized from him. I see the US party system gradually decaying into unreasoning partisanship where the core leadership of the major parties is demanding a "my party right or wrong" view.

      --
      ------ The only greater hazard to your liberty than n politicians is n+1 politicians.
  3. Re:Cool project? by Kenja · · Score: 2

    Compared to testing them in the "real world" I'd say this is rather cool.

    --

    "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
  4. the wrong approach for homeland security by dirvish · · Score: 1

    Wouldn't taking away from Lawrence Livermore Labs budget be about the worst thing for homeland security, at least in the long run? I thought that is where the US develops a lot of military stuff. If GWB cuts off developed we will be fsked in the future when everyone has bad-ass weapons and we are still poking around with patriot missles.

  5. Lets not shoot ourselves in the foot by rlthomps-1 · · Score: 1

    One of our great advantages over other foreign countries/terrorist groups is our technological innovation. I can't believe that we'd devote research dollars the explicitly promote that technological advantage towards homeland security. Just because homeland security is the hot topic doesn't mean we should cut off our means of supporting ourselves in the future.

    1. Re:Lets not shoot ourselves in the foot by jukal · · Score: 2

      > foreign countries/terrorist groups

      Excellent way of putting it, anyone originating from a "foreign" country must clearly be about the same as a terrorist. Therefore, US should define everyone not born there as a terrorist and lock the doors.

      I had the same strategy as a kid when I foolishly yelled something at a group of bigger guys and tried to lock myself inside a little junk food store. It did not work very well. Then again, if I had not yelled at those guys at all, maybe...

    2. Re:Lets not shoot ourselves in the foot by colmore · · Score: 2

      total membership of terrorist organizations worldwide: maybe 100,000, tops.

      islamic population: almost 1 billion

      making terrorists 1/100th of a percent of islamics.

      so can the genocide.

      --
      In Capitalist America, bank robs you!
  6. Scary Stuff by bastion_xx · · Score: 1

    Wow. And LLNL was definitely part of the holy trinity along with LANL and Sandia as the preminent nuclear weapons sites. Getting stuck in a Kane booth at LLNL was always so much fun. :/

    From the computer science side of things though, Livermore has contributed a lot. It'd be sad to see them disbanded.

    1. Re:Scary Stuff by Slashamatic · · Score: 2
      LLNL did a lot for open-source before the FSF. They released a lot of stuff in source code form which found it's way on to the Digital User Group tapes, both Unix and VMS. Most of it was under a not very restrictive BSD-style licence and was used all over the placeFrom the point of view of management and analysis of large data sets, a lot of the stuff had many outside applications.. I certainly remember using their stuff and it was usually quite good.

      The worst part of it is that I can't see what the Office of Homeland Security will do with the money.

  7. Re:Cool project? by johnpaul191 · · Score: 1

    yeah, i'm with you. i'll take the fake detonation anyday.

    no, my feelings were not swayed by watching Dr Strangelove this weekend...... i guess i can live without the comedy since we won't ever know the fun-fun that goes on in the war room.

  8. Re:Cool project? by Minter92 · · Score: 1

    If that aint cool what is.

  9. Wont die by NovaX · · Score: 4, Informative

    The title makes it sound like LLNL will be shut down. I know numerous people who work there, most of which on a massive project called NIF. Tron was shot in SHEVA, which was replaced by NOVA (deriving my nick), which is being replaced by NIF. NIF is the largest fusion laser, based on ICF principles, and is under full swing of construction. It will be brought up later this year. In fact, France has a smaller 8-laser version that just came up this last week and LLNL employees flown there in order to observe any difficulties. This project is a multi-billion dollar one which I severely doubt the government will allow to be scrapped due to budget cuts like this.

    So, the most I can see if LLNL being streamlined. I doubt Congress will even give 10% of what they're requesting out of LLNL's budget. LLNL does valuable research in weapon, energy, materials, etc. The government labs are run under the DOE, but do most of their expensive work for the DOD, such as NIF and ASCII being mostly for nuclear research. When the lab scare with China occured it was suggested that the DOD take over the labs, but instead they finally got their act together. Since this is most of the budget, I could only guess they are really trying to transfer the lab to this new department or the Bush administration going to screw everything up.

    --

    "Open Source?" - Press any key to continue
    1. Re:Wont die by ForExportOnly · · Score: 1

      I actually work at the Laboratory for Laser Energetics (http://www.lle.rochester.edu) - The NIF prototype. We have a laser that dumps ~30 Terrawatts in about a billionth of a second through 60 beams. All lot of our employees are Livermore folks and they were all sent an email last Friday. Ridge is right - 4% must be a typo if 80% of their budget (read: salaries) is getting transferred.

    2. Re:Wont die by NovaX · · Score: 1

      Well, the LLNL site used to be full of information and it seems their NIF site has been severly slimmed down. So I'll provide my understanding from reading various material back when the project was getting underway and when it came up during discussions.

      The 192 beams are shined on a capsol which contains a fusion fuel. It is created into a plasma and a fusion reaction occurs. The effect is that they are able to research many areas because these reactions simulate those of a star. This allows a better understanding of how the universe works (such as formation of elements and supernovas). There used to be an entire list of areas NIF would benefit and how, but that was on their older web page. The design of NIF required new technologies and will have a significant effect on many area of research. But honestly, you'll need to talk to someone who works at LLNL.

      Why NIF is being funded and built is for the nuclear reactions for weapon research, which is the same reason why its predecessors were built. I'd guess that that will likely be its main role for the first few years. I know NOVA took years to be dissembled as well as NOVET (a smaller version before NOVA was finished - like what the French have done). They ran for years doing various experiments.

      You should also remember that NIF won't be alone. When NOVA was built other countries such as Japan and the British sent scientists to observe and infact replicate exactly the laser system. The French had a very under-budgetted department and in fact had LLNL build it, which is why their system has (had?) the LLNL colors painted on it, while every other replica used different ones. NIF is headed by the U.S. but is contributed by many nations, so smaller NIF-et and full scale versions will be built. So lots of non-weapon science will be done.

      Anyway, that's all I can recall at the moment. Years back I actually looked into it and wrote a summery of how NIF operated, but that's god know's where. If your really interested, try finding someone involved or better yet go hit up usenet for someone who can explain things far better then I. Hope that answered your questions a bit.

      --

      "Open Source?" - Press any key to continue
    3. Re:Wont die by rweir · · Score: 1

      Can someone confirm or deny whether laser-based fusion is actually intended to work? I keep hearing (from people who claim to be in the know), that laser fusion is never intended to produce power, but is rather a front to heavy laser weapons research and an excuse to continue developing fusion bomb technology.

    4. Re:Wont die by UranusReallyHertz · · Score: 1

      We have a laser that dumps ~30 Terrawatts in about a billionth of a second 0 A Watt is one joule/second. 30 terrawatts is 30 trillion joules/second, or 30,000 joules/nanosecond. Does a watt/second have any meaning?

      --
      Smoking is an expensive, slow, and unreliable method of suicide.
    5. Re:Wont die by deglr6328 · · Score: 2

      Don't forget, the most important thing about NIF is that it will IGNITE IT'S PLASMA!! It will be the fist fusion experiment in the laboratory to achieve ignition. That is to say, the heat produced by the helium nuclei from the fusion of Deuterium and Tritium in the fuel capsule will be sufficient to continue powering the complete burn of the capsule without additional external
      power input.

      --
      - "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
  10. "terrorism" is being used as an excuse by g4dget · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    People in Washington are just using terrorism as an excuse to push an agenda that has nothing to do with terrorism and existed long before 9/11. LLNL, for example, has been an irritation for the Bush administration, and that kind of government funded research doesn't fit too well into their philosophy anyway; that's why they like to play football with it.

    1. Re:"terrorism" is being used as an excuse by kilgore_47 · · Score: 3, Informative

      People in Washington are just using terrorism as an excuse to push an agenda that has nothing to do with terrorism and existed long before 9/11. LLNL, for example, has been an irritation for the Bush administration, and that kind of government funded research doesn't fit too well into their philosophy anyway; that's why they like to play football with it.

      1. It's a typo. They're not getting shutdown.
      2. Defense Contractors don't fit into the Bush administration's philosophy? Wtf are you smoking?
      3. There is no step three.

      --
      ___
      The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason. --Ben Franklin
    2. Re:"terrorism" is being used as an excuse by g4dget · · Score: 2
      1. It's a typo. They're not getting shutdown.

      I didn't claim they were being shut down. They are, however, being put under "Homeland Security", which makes absolutely no sense.

      2. Defense Contractors don't fit into the Bush administration's philosophy? Wtf are you smoking?

      Yes, the Bush administration likes defense contractors. But LLNL is not a "defense contractor", it's a national lab (as in "llnl.gov"), associated with a university. Conservatives probably would like to privatize it completely, or, even better, just funnel the research money to existing defense contractors.

  11. Don't worry. Yet. by Skyshadow · · Score: 4, Insightful
    The article I read indicates that this is probably a misprint or other simple error.

    More newsworthy: The Bush Administration is holding three US citizens in military custody, with no rights to legal representation or due process.

    Jesus Christ, am I the only one who this terrifies? Am I going to someday have to explain to my kids why, on old episodes of Law & Order, the suspects weren't simply turned over to the military when they asked for a lawyer?

    --
    Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
    1. Re:Don't worry. Yet. by Kenja · · Score: 2

      Time to watch The Siege again.

      --

      "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    2. Re:Don't worry. Yet. by TWR · · Score: 3, Informative
      1. It's two citizens. One of whom hasn't lived here since he was a small child (child of Saudi nationals who happened to be born while parents were in the US. Yes, he's a citizen, but I bet he never thought of himself as an American until he found out that he could use that detail to get himself out of the pokey). The other sounds like he meets even an idiot's definition of traitor.

      2. Precedent was established in 1942 during WW II. Democratic president, even.

      -jon

      --

      Remember Amalek.

    3. Re:Don't worry. Yet. by Skyshadow · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Precedent? Oh, you mean internment camps, right?

      Look, I don't care if these guys get arrested, tried and locked up in SuperMax for the rest of time. It's the whole lack of the middle part (you know, trial?) that worries me. Civil rights are what makes America something special, and I'm not so scared of terrorists that I'm willing to flush 'em down the toilet.

      You should agree with me. Unless, of course, you're suggesting that we can trust the government to always behave reponsibly and do the right thing. Jesus, why do you think we have a court system?

      --
      Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
    4. Re:Don't worry. Yet. by cpeterso · · Score: 2

      And suppose they took him to trial but a jury of "civil rights outweigh the safety of others" kooks lets him off and he walks out a free man?

      His civil rights would entitle him to a trial, not a "get out of jail free" card. If the prosecution cannot prove to a jury that he is guity, then why should he be imprisoned?

    5. Re: Don't worry. Yet. by Black+Parrot · · Score: 2


      > Precedent was established in 1942 during WW II. Democratic president, even.

      And the government is infallible, right?

      And what does the political gender of the president at that time have to do with it? "Democrats have set aside the constitution in the past, so Republicans can do it now", kind of thing?

      (Not to imply that I think a hypothetical Gore administration would be doing anything different right now.)

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    6. Re:Don't worry. Yet. by Skyshadow · · Score: 2
      Oh yeah? How do you know that?

      Dude, what do you think "due process" means? Why do you think I'm frightened that these people are being denied it? It means that their right to a trial is being denied to them and they can be held forever without even being charged with anything. No right to trial! No right to even a tribunal!

      Who's the moron now?

      --
      Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
    7. Re:Don't worry. Yet. by jazman_777 · · Score: 1
      Precedent was established in 1942 during WW II. Democratic president, even.

      Precedent don't mean squat. re: Dred Scott.

      --
      Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
    8. Re:Don't worry. Yet. by Auckerman · · Score: 2

      Though completely off topic (with regard to the initial thread), I'll waste my karma for this one.

      " 1. It's two citizens. One of whom hasn't lived here since he was a small child (child of Saudi nationals who happened to be born while parents were in the US. Yes, he's a citizen, but I bet he never thought of himself as an American until he found out that he could use that detail to get himself out of the pokey). The other sounds like he meets even an idiot's definition of traitor.

      2. Precedent was established in 1942 during WW II. Democratic president, even."


      1. You nor I nor the President to decide how much of a citizen someone is. You are citizen or you are not a citizen. End of story.

      2. I'll be sure to remind you of that should they have "good reason" to think you are a "bad guy" and arrest you when you come back from your vacation in Egypt.

      Doesn't anyone think its odd that the moment someone questions loudly about what the govt knew before 9/11 we get an army of "terror warnings" and just as soon as the FOIA forces the FBI to own up to investigating and smearing Berkly students and teachers in the 70's with Reagans help we hear about some felon being arrested after coming back from Pakistan, when they had him in custody for a month before hand?

      Protecting freedoms does NOT require suspension of due process. The sky isn't falling, we aren't being invaded. We don't need to go back to the days of an FBI/CIA that overstepped their powers (Nixon, anyone?).

      --

      Burn Hollywood Burn
    9. Re:Don't worry. Yet. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting
      Precedent was established in 1942 during WW II.

      The only WWII precedents that I can think of are 1) interning Japanese-Americans, for which a recent Congress apologized, to the tune of giving survivors and their descendants big heaps of money. Presumably no one, even in the Bush government, wants to go around rounding up citizens based solely on their descent anymore.

      And 2) the case of a sub full of German soldiers and spies who landed in NY (?) and were tried in front of a military tribunal. Their lawyer presented a spirited case and appealed it to the Supreme Court demanding that they be given a fair jury trial. The appeal was denied, and most of the men were sentenced to death. But they weren't citizens.

      If you know of any legally affirmed (by Congressional law, executive order, or judicial decision) precedent for holding citizens with no lawyers and no trial, present it here.

    10. Re: Don't worry. Yet. by TWR · · Score: 2
      Of course the government isn't infallible. Infallibility doesn't enter into it. Shall we get rid of all police because they sometimes arrest the wrong man?

      Political gender has everything to do with the nitwits who seem to think that the Bush (or any Republican) administration is the reincarnation of the Third Reich. Just because you don't think so doesn't invalidate the point.

      -jon

      --

      Remember Amalek.

    11. Re:Don't worry. Yet. by TWR · · Score: 2
      No, I don't mean internment camps, you uneducated troll. I'm talking about the Supreme Court decision in 1942 that allowed the US Government during WW II to execute US citizens after a military tribunal found them guilty of helping Nazis.

      As for the rest of your paranoid rantings, "The Constitution is not a suicide pact," as Justice Arthur Goldberg once said. Lincoln was the president who suspended the most civil liberties. Last time I checked, the US survived, and quite possibly did so because he played so fast and loose with civil liberties.

      I trust the government to do the right thing because in the US, the people are the government. If the awful day arrives where that is no longer the case, then we can hope that the gun "nuts" are still well armed...because they're our only hope.

      -jon

      --

      Remember Amalek.

    12. Re:Don't worry. Yet. by TWR · · Score: 2
      It's case #2. I'd have to check to be sure they weren't citizens, but several of the men executed had at least lived in the US (all were German-born):

      http://www.supremecourthistory.org/02_history/subs _history/02_c12.html

      As for other examples, Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War; it was restored in 1866.

      http://www.civil-liberties.com/pages/did_lincoln.h tm

      And repugnant or not, the Supreme Court did uphold the decision to intern Japanese-Americans (mentioned in the above supreme court link).

      -jon

      --

      Remember Amalek.

    13. Re:Don't worry. Yet. by TWR · · Score: 2
      Precedent means everything. Otherwise you have anarchy. If a judge wants to overturn precedent, he better have a damn good reason.

      -jon

      --

      Remember Amalek.

    14. Re:Don't worry. Yet. by TWR · · Score: 2
      You are right; he is a citizen. However, I bet he was pretty darned surprised to find out that he was one; most countries don't have automatic citizenship just because you were born there. Kuwait gave the world a good example of this last week. When the US revealed the name of the person who the government thinks masterminded 9/11 and said he was Kuwaiti, the Kuwaiti government said that just because he was born and raised in Kuwait doesn't make him Kuwaiti. To Americans, this is head-scratching. To most of the world, it's common sense.

      And do you really think the government is arresting people because they went to Egypt on vacation? Are you a troll or paranoid?

      The sky isn't falling, we aren't being invaded.

      Tell that to the families of the 3,000 people killed in New York. When they kick your ass, I'll be smiling.

      -jon

      --

      Remember Amalek.

    15. Re: Don't worry. Yet. by Black+Parrot · · Score: 2


      > But they weren't citizens.

      One of them supposedly was.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    16. Re: Don't worry. Yet. by Black+Parrot · · Score: 3, Insightful


      > Precedent means everything. Otherwise you have anarchy. If a judge wants to overturn precedent, he better have a damn good reason.

      You broach the heart of the matter. Most of us hold an ideal notion of what Justice means. I suspect that courts, because of their very nature, are ultimately more concerned with procedure and predictability than with idealized abstractions.

      This doesn't please me, but to some extent it's understandable. And sometimes it makes court rulings more comprehensible to the layman.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    17. Re:Don't worry. Yet. by jazman_777 · · Score: 1
      Precedent means everything. Otherwise you have anarchy. If a judge wants to overturn precedent, he better have a damn good reason.

      Eh, you're right, I'm just pissed at FDR for wrecking the Republic.

      --
      Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
    18. Re:Don't worry. Yet. by Analog+Squirrel · · Score: 1
      You want to know what frightens me? I've got a 4 year degree in physics. I'm a month or so away from completing an MS in Computer Science. I grew up your typical underachiever(above average intelligence is all that saved my grades; I'm a lousy student). I'm a private pilot, and have started hang gliding. I'm a geek and hang out with geek friends - eccentrics who aren't worried about(or don't have enough social skills to worry about) saying what on their minds. On top of that, I have long hair.

      Do you think I'm on someone's "list" somewhere? THIS is what terrifies me about MY future...

      --
      I'd rather be flying
    19. Re:Don't worry. Yet. by seeken · · Score: 1

      The 14th ammendment protects your life liberty and property against the states acting without due process. You're thinking of the 34th ammendment perhaps? You know, they one that doesn't exist?

      But otherwise I agree, noone has the right to shoot guns at any thing they don't own, unless it's in self defense. I think you're to quick to dismiss the threat that a coke can on the curb presents to some slashdotters.

      --

      Surfing the net and other cliches...
      (Who Meta-Meta-Moderates the Meta-Moderators?)
    20. Re:Don't worry. Yet. by seeken · · Score: 1

      Illegal enemy soldiers, infiltrating the country after meeting with the enemy leaders, taking money from the enemy, living among the enemy for years, training with the enemy. We don't have to charge them, they are the enemy. We can hold them until we win the war.

      By organizing themselves in the manner they have, Al Queda has scammed its troops out of POW status, and managed also to scam them out of normal criminal status. Not our fault they didn't form a country before they declared war. Not our fault they don't wear uniforms.

      The habeus corpus petition may force the gov't to explain themselves more publicly, but the gov't will win.

      --

      Surfing the net and other cliches...
      (Who Meta-Meta-Moderates the Meta-Moderators?)
    21. Re:Don't worry. Yet. by aallan · · Score: 2

      I'll be sure to remind you of that should they have "good reason" to think you are a "bad guy" and arrest you when you come back from your vacation in Egypt.

      I travel to Egypt fairly often on holiday to dive in the Red Sea, I also travel to the States a couple of times a year. Considering the rising tide of paranoia in the States I'm rather glad I've just gotten a new passport, and the only visa stamps in there so far are for Canada.

      Fine, okay, Spetember the 11th was a tragedy, lots of people died. But your governments violation of peoples civil liberties is (to me) far scarier. Depressingly the UK government is also using the events of last September to widen their powers at the expense of our privacy (the RIPA stands out as a glaring example, but there are others).

      Al.
      --
      The Daily ACK - Eclectic posts by yet another hacker
    22. Re:Don't worry. Yet. by thogard · · Score: 1

      Have you considered why they want to kill you? You can go into a bad area and find people that want to kill you--maybe for just wearing the wrong colors. You can even find people on the highways that want to kill you. (even more likly if you drive a SUV).

      In the Real World [tm], if your doing something that pisses off someone else so much that they want to kill you, you have options 1) stop doing whats pissing them off or 2) avoid them. Most people learn about this when their brothers or sisters annoy the hell out of them. Its part of the learning process for normal children.

      If the US made SUV's illegal (and anything else that got worse than 27mpg) illegal to use for noncomerical use, the US could ignore all the oil problems in the middle east forever. That means no more spending hundreds of billions to peace in the area. Just let it go and ignore it. But theres thouse pesky sports utility cars.

    23. Re:Don't worry. Yet. by Ioldanach · · Score: 2
      1. It's two citizens. One of whom hasn't lived here since he was a small child (child of Saudi nationals who happened to be born while parents were in the US. Yes, he's a citizen, but I bet he never thought of himself as an American until he found out that he could use that detail to get himself out of the pokey). The other sounds like he meets even an idiot's definition of traitor.

      I absolutely agree on both counts. I don't want them released, I want them locked up. But before we can lock them up and throw away the key, it needs to be proven in a court of law.

      The indefinite imprisonment of someone without trial is a slippery slope, and I don't want to ever be the one who gets trapped by this constitutional violation. Let's say for a moment that carnivore gets installed and "accidentally" traps data that indicates I researched Al Qaeda, bomb making, and airline rates all in the same day. The government makes some leap of logic and decides that anyone doing all that must have terrorist intent, and locks me up for the rest of my life without trial. Yes, I know its reductio ad absurdim, but the ramifications of eliminating the right to a trial are staggering.

    24. Re:Don't worry. Yet. by TWR · · Score: 2
      Yes, you're right. This is something that America needs to be careful with. But so far, it's not a problem.

      Besides, if the government wanted to "get" you, I doubt that a jury trial would help. If you're paranoid about such things, you'd probably believe that the government would rig the trial, jury or not. The American system works because, by and large, Americans believe their government will do the right thing. Aside from the insane nut-jobs who think that Jews and/or the CIA destroyed the World Trade Center and damaged the Pentagon so the US could get oil from Central Asia, I don't think too many people think the US government has overstepped its bounds.

      Quite seriously, I think the government is the least of anyone's worries. If Palestinian-style suicide bombing (or Tamil-style, as they were the ones who really perfected the technique) becomes common in the US (as many people are predicting will happen), Muslims in the US are going to be begging the government for protection from mobs.

      -jon

      --

      Remember Amalek.

    25. Re:Don't worry. Yet. by julesh · · Score: 1

      Nah. Worry when your neighbours start describing you as "the quiet type ... wouldn't have thought he was capable of that kind of thing".

    26. Re:Don't worry. Yet. by A55M0NKEY · · Score: 1

      Actually you SHOULD be able to shoot your .357 at coke cans as long as the noise doesn't keep people up at night. But we don't live in an ideal world...

      --

      Eat at Joe's.

  12. Re:Such a shame... by rodgerd · · Score: 2

    Short sighted? It would be short sighted to let them continue research into anthrax detection. After all, the FBI investigation was pulled as soon as the evidence pointed to extremist right-wingers linked with millitary research scientists.

  13. Re:Cool project? by lingqi · · Score: 2
    Since when is it cool to simulate nuclear bombs?

    while the disagreement may come from "simulating nuclear bombs", i would like to point out that the author is focusing on the "cool-ness" of ASCI WHITE, not the experimentation that it is used for.

    You can marvel for ages at a sharp new kitchen knife in itself, while not necessarily endorse the slaughtering (of my poor, poor carrots).

    Besides, when (maybe one day) the scientists will get bored with generalized simulation of thermonuclear reactions and possibly direct this result into, say, nuclear power plants, nuclear propulsion, mars terraforming, etc etc

    --

    My life in the land of the rising sun.

  14. Unknot your panties by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    the '/' means or in this case. He is not implying that all foriegn countries are terrorists. Try to not be so thin skinned, m-kay? :)

    1. Re:Unknot your panties by jukal · · Score: 2

      > Try to not be so thin skinned, m-kay? :)

      Heh, I just saw good weather for fishing ;))

    2. Re:Unknot your panties by jukal · · Score: 2

      > Most trolls don't reveal themselves to be trolls. So what're you... some retarded troller?

      Most of your friends at kindergarten jumped into the well - so did you?

  15. Re:Such a shame... by Master+Bait · · Score: 1
    What can we expect from a man who lost his last political contest to a dead man? But it amazes me how popular the befuddled president. I think he's the worst since Grover Cleveland.

    --
    "Only in their dreams can men truly be free 'twas always thus, and always thus will be."
    --Tom Schulman
  16. corrections that's too late by lingqi · · Score: 1

    i posted and suddenly realized that carrots inevitably led to correlation that would not necessarily seem... approporiate... so -- good for you if you did not make the connection, and shame on the rest of you.

    plug in "cabbages" in there, dirty minds

    --

    My life in the land of the rising sun.

  17. Nope. by The+Turd+Report · · Score: 2

    I'd be more terrified of 3 terrorists wandering around this country detonating dirty bombs. As far as the Law&Order thing, we aren't talking about 3 kids who were caught swiping gumdrops from the corner store. We are talking about people who want to come into this country and kill as many people as they can.

    1. Re:Nope. by Skyshadow · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Some people hold the flag sacred. I, on the other hand, hold the ideas embodied in the Constitution and Bill of Rights in the same esteem.

      It frightens and dismays me that you're willing to rip up our most basic civil rights by yelling "terrorist!", "smallpox!" and "dirty bomb!" at the top of your lungs.

      And these aren't people who "come into this country", they're citizens of the US. Every American should be outraged that Bush and company are so willing to disregard the rights he's sworn to defend.

      --
      Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
    2. Re:Nope. by buck_wild · · Score: 1

      Just curious... Would you say the same thing if they were on their way to YOUR neighborhood?

      You: "Gee, they got two year's probation. I'm glad they got due-process."

      Me: "Put 'em in the same room as the bomb."

      As you can see, I prefer more of an eye-for-an-eye approach. But I'd never burn a flag.

      --
      If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
    3. Re:Nope. by The+Turd+Report · · Score: 1
      And these aren't people who "come into this country", they're citizens of the US.

      Are you trying to say the guy they just caught didn't come from Pakistan. That sounds like 'coming into the counrty' to me.
      Many of the people stopped at the border are not US citizens and citizens who are in a foriegn military are nolonger considered US citizens. But, please, enlighten us: What would YOU do to those who are comming to this country with the intent of killing hundreds, if not thousands, of your fellow Americans?

      Also, please point out where I said anything about smallpox or how I can yell with text, or retract those statements.

    4. Re:Nope. by Lictor · · Score: 2

      Maybe you should spend a little time reflecting on why it is that the U.S. is such a great country.

      I'll even get you started with a very enlightened quote from one of your own founding fathers:

      "Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither liberty nor security."
      -Benjamin Franklin

    5. Re:Nope. by The+Turd+Report · · Score: 1, Troll
      I live 15 minutes from Downtown DC. How would you react if one of these could go off in your backyard?

      Plus, if you want to argue, please argue, don't just post some overused quote and scamper off.

    6. Re:Nope. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
      I'd react the same way I would if someone, say, drove by my house and shot at it: I'd want to see them arrested and put on trial. I want to see them proved guilty and locked away according to the law.

      Why do you like living in America? If the MPAA shock troops kicked in your door and arrested you for ripping your CDs, don't you think you deserve a lawyer and a trial in front of your peers? If you were accused of killing someone, shouldn't the police have to prove that you did it before you get carted off to prison?

      You live 15 minutes from downtown DC. Go look at the war memorials and ask yourself why those people died. You think it was for some stripped scrap of cloth, or for what it represented? Look at the memorials to Jefferson and Lincoln and Washington, then tell me you think they'd toss civil liberties out the window the second it was convenient.

      People like you kill me -- you seem to know that being an American means something, but you couldn't tell me what.

    7. Re:Nope. by colmore · · Score: 4, Insightful

      how can you assume that they are guilty?

      "due process" is a construction over time. you can argue with a lot of aspects about our legal system, but i doubt you seriously want to challenge innocent-until-proven-guilty

      and no, i don't trust a government that is desperate to show that the intelligence community can catch evil(TM) terrorists now, really, honest.

      on september 11th, when they cleared out a hotel near the world trade center, security thought they found a shortwave radio in the room (which overlooked the towers) of an islamic college student. pretty incriminating, right? so he was held without trial for six months. his lawyer was not given access to evidence, or even any word of who witnesses would be, or who the prosecution was. finally someone called the hotel and asked for their radio back. security had fucked up, it came from the wrong room. the guy had allready been labeled as a terrorist in his hometown and had to transfer schools. i know because i've met his lawyer, and read about it in the papers later. i had a link, but can't seem to find it now.

      your assumption that everyone that the US detains is automatically guilty is highly disturbing.

      i don't want these guys to have due process because i think criminals deserve light punishment, but because there's an excellent chance that at least one of them has *done nothing wrong* and the law should be strong enough to prosecute the guilty without endangering or disenfranchising the innocent.

      --
      In Capitalist America, bank robs you!
    8. Re:Nope. by ostrich2 · · Score: 1
      But, please, enlighten us: What would YOU do to those who are comming to this country with the intent of killing hundreds, if not thousands, of your fellow Americans?

      First, I think I'd try to determine their intentions instead of just deciding that they were hell-bent on the destruction of the state. We have a legal system exactly because we want to stop the executive branch of the government (including police and attorneys general) from deciding what someone has done/is going to do. If they have evidence and it's reasonable, then the person is in trouble. Until they prove otherwise, however, the person is wrongly accused.

    9. Re: Nope. by Black+Parrot · · Score: 2


      > Just curious... Would you say the same thing if they were on their way to YOUR neighborhood?

      Damn straight I would.

      > You: "Gee, they got two year's probation. I'm glad they got due-process."

      > Me: "Put 'em in the same room as the bomb."

      If they actually have any evidence for it they can take him to court and prove it to a jury. Otherwise, they don't have any more business holding him than they do you or me.

      Notice in passing that they got the scoop from a foreign POW who is already suspected of fabricating threat yarns just to disrupt US society.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    10. Re:Nope. by Lictor · · Score: 2

      Yeah, the quote is certainly overused, but I figured a quote on the basic philosphy of your nation carries a little more credibility coming from one of your founding fathers rather than some outsider...

      As for scampering off.. what more can I say? This isn't a black-and-white right-or-wrong type situation. Its a matter of personal opinion, and every opinion is valid.

      Several millions of people throughout history have happily handed over their civil rights for security. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Even in Stalinist Russia, there were people who were happy with the situation. Look at whats happened to crime in the former USSR since the KGB had their powers toned down.

      I'm not saying you're wrong; I'm simply saying that you are living in a society founded on principles that appear fairly antithetical to your own.

    11. Re: Nope. by Black+Parrot · · Score: 2


      > We are talking about people who want to come into this country and kill as many people as they can.

      You left out the subtle but oh-so-critical "are accused of".

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    12. Re:Nope. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Exactly when did you become so afraid of your own shadow? America was built by brave men and women who were not afraid to fight and die for there rights.

      Cowards like you make me sick.

    13. Re:Nope. by LinuxHam · · Score: 1

      security thought they found a shortwave radio in the room (which overlooked the towers) of an islamic college student. pretty incriminating, right

      It wasn't a shortwave radio, it was a 2-way aircraft band radio (which is much more incriminating). And it *was* in his room. When the pilot who's radio it was called about his radio, the security guard admitted to moving the radio down 10 stories into the student's room to incriminate him.

      I'm not defending our nation's actions, your description just annoyed me.

      --
      Intelligent Life on Earth
    14. Re:Nope. by cruelworld · · Score: 2

      http://ktla.trb.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-022 802radio.story

      http://www.newsday.com/news/local/newyork/ny-mil 02 27.story?coll=ny-homepage-more-breaking-news

    15. Re:Nope. by cruelworld · · Score: 2

      http://www.asianweek.com/2002_03_15/news_upfront.h tml

      love the quote from that one,

      Ferry's defense layer told reporters his client "thought he was being a good citizen" by building a case against Higazy.

      The really frightening part is that the FBI and CIA were heavily lobbying for the use of torture to get information from suspected terrorists. (who knows if they actually are?)

      How many months before they just round up all the middle-eastern people and put them in camps?

      The US is fucked.

    16. Re:Nope. by thogard · · Score: 1

      I live 15 minutes from Downtown DC. How would you react if one of these could go off in your backyard?

      It wouldn't be the first time. The US has dumped lots of radioactive junk on the American plublic just to see how it turns out. Only about 5 years ago they found out a test in St Louis caused lots of birth defects. The tests were done in several cities.

      The french keep tring nuke even more of Polynesia.

    17. Re:Nope. by buck_wild · · Score: 1

      Oh wait. What about the journalists? Do you think they stayed where they were through their own free will? Do you THINK they were detained?!? I'd love to hear your thoughts on what they were charged with.

      Either way, looks as though they were convicted, right. They didn't fry them though, just shot the one guy on camera.

      I may have missed one point, though: who IS being rounded up? Nobody.

      --
      If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
  18. Re:Such a shame... by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 2

    The stature he enjoys currently is so clearly the product of the public need to have an admirable figure during a time of crisis (as was, I believe, the esteem accorded the Kennedy administration - I always felt he was overrated as a President) that I consider the Great Man theory of history to have taken yet another mortal blow.

  19. Re:Such a shame... by TWR · · Score: 2
    Except that the investigation hasn't been pulled, tin foil hat boy.

    Of course, since you know everything, you can just tell us all the name of the person who sent out the anthrax letters, show us your proof (or is your word proof enough?), and show up the FBI.

    -jon

    --

    Remember Amalek.

  20. Please, more self-righteous pap by Ars-Fartsica · · Score: 2, Flamebait
    You're either bitching about inadequate security, or you're bitching about vigorously enforcement of security.

    You have an armed body claiming they have the right to kill four million Americans, who have demonstrated a high degree of lethality to date. Why don't you drop out of your naive fantasy land for a while to hazard some concern for the true physical safety of your children rather than your own patrician sensibilities.

    1. Re:Please, more self-righteous pap by buck_wild · · Score: 1

      Well put. VERY well put.

      --
      If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
    2. Re:Please, more self-righteous pap by bashibazouk · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Don't talk to me about "a high degree of lethality" or "concern for the true physical safety of your children" until the threat comes close to the yearly death rate of automobile accidents. 9/11 is down to what? 2850 or so for the twin towers and 800+ for the Pentagon. That pales compaired to the 40 to 50 thousand that die by auto every year in this country. If you really care about your kids, you should fear the car far more than al Qaueda.

    3. Re:Please, more self-righteous pap by DavittJPotter · · Score: 1

      Or, as Mrs. Flanders would say, "What about the CHILDREN?!?!?"

      Please. That's precisely the knee-jerk reaction this whole tragedy has generated, and the government and media are feeding upon. "Drugs help fund terror." "Homeland Security will protect your children."

      While we shield, mislead, and protect your children (I am thankfully childless), their minds are filled with Britney Spears, Coca Cola ads, and other drivel, so they become better consumers, better corporate citizens. (Sorry about the JonKatz-ism, but it seems appropriate here).

      So - in other words - don't tell me to protect your children with intrusive government control. Do your job as a parent - worry about yourself and your kids, not other people.

      We're on a slippery slope here - one that, I fear, looks much the same from the top as when Hitler came to power.

      --
      "If there's hope, it lies in the proles..."
    4. Re:Please, more self-righteous pap by Alsee · · Score: 1

      We have already killed approximately 1500 more Afghan civilians than died on 9/11. Let's just call it even.

      #1 The Afghan civilian death toll is a fraction of the 9/11 death toll. Check multiple credible reports.

      #2 The attacks in Afghanistan were to prevent prevent continuing attacks and civilian deaths in the US and elsewhere.

      It has nothing to do with "getting even". It's about keeping it from happening again and again and again and...

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  21. Re:Such a shame... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    well, folks, it really is that bad - the fbi is so lost they've resorted to asking random slashdotters for help in solving the anthrax case.

    a sad sight indeed.

  22. Re:Such a shame... by MaxVlast · · Score: 1

    People really don't make enough of that: Carnahan DIED! The voters of Missouri wanted him out of the Senate so badly, they voted for a DEAD man!

    --
    There should be a moratorium on the use of the apostrophe.
    Max V.
    NeXTMail/MIME Mail welcome
  23. Re:Cool project? by kilgore_47 · · Score: 1

    NO FIGHTING IN THE WAR ROOM!!!

    (lameness-filter-defeating text... (I'll yell if I want to, damnit))

    --
    ___
    The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason. --Ben Franklin
  24. Re:Cool project? by colmore · · Score: 2

    you're missing the point

    they aren't simulating nuclear detonations for a fucking screensaver, they're simulating to design better (i.e. deadlier, more horrible) weapons.

    all that computing power, and this is what they do with it. they could be working on protein folding, doing advanced simulation on an alternative fuel engine, heck, they could leave it sitting there idly testing the reimann hypothesis, but they're designing bigger and supposedly better ways of killing off an entire city.

    H bombs are big and scary, supposedly the only thing we want them for is deterrant, and aren't they already big enough and scary enough for that purpose? even if you don't think the US would ever use such a weapon (though it's the only nation in history that has) eventually knowledge spreads, and someone somewhere has a bigger bomb thanks to the cool supercomputer.

    Sure it's better than turning unspoiled tropical islands into Dresden, but that doesn't make it *good*

    / end leftist, out-of-fashion, no-nukes rant.

    --
    In Capitalist America, bank robs you!
  25. Re:Cool project? by Kenja · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Unless we get rib of all such weapons testing designs is a good thing as it stops them from blowing up in the silo.

    Do you know how old our curent stockpile is? Do you know what the expected stable life time is of our curent weapons? Look both nubers up and you may be in for a shock.

    Right now we have a shortage of people able to design and maintain nukes. This is a bad thing unless we manage to get rid of every last one of them (not going to happen).

    --

    "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
  26. Re:Hello, these are US citizens you moron by Ars-Fartsica · · Score: 1

    Where in the law does holding citizenship bar you from being treated as an enemy combatant?

  27. Funding changes != budget cuts by nelsonal · · Score: 1

    Even if true, it doesn't mean that the 96% who aren't being transfered are being axed. This is fairly common in politics, the department or bill with the funding, has budgets transfered to it and the staff doesn't change. It just restructures who pays for their salary and toys. Since congress and the taxpayers seem more willing to fund homeland security now, it makes sense to bureaucrats to tranfer budgets that it would be politically impossible to increase to the new popular department.

    --
    Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
  28. Re:Hello, these are US citizens you moron by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Dance around the law as much as you want. This is what I believe in:

    Amendment V

    No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

    Amendment VI

    In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

  29. Re:Cool project? by Suicyco · · Score: 2


    ASCII White is a general purpose simulation cluster with many many uses. It currently simulates various elements of our nuclear stockpile including weapon aging and detonation. But that is only the particular simulation being run on the cluster. It can simulate virtually anything that can be simulated on a very powerfull platform, *that* is the cool part. Its a very powerfull computer. And wait until the next version... 30 tflops, currently being worked on, and which will run Linux. Talk about a beowulf cluster.

  30. Re:Cool project? by mfago · · Score: 1
    all that computing power, and this is what they do with it. they could be working on protein folding, doing advanced simulation on an alternative fuel engine, heck, they could leave it sitting there idly testing the reimann hypothesis,
    They are doing these type of things as well. But the money has to come from somewhere. And it mostly comes from DOD -- hence the weapons research.
  31. Not at all on the block by pornaholic · · Score: 1

    A job at the lab is about the most secure job on the planet. Haven't you guys counted the number of SCIAM articles based on LLNL technonology?

    We'll always need stockpile stewardship (the reason for the lab's existence), and we'll always need cutting edge projects (like the Bio-Terror detection systems used at the Olympics)

    fyi -- see

    Today's SF Chronicle:
    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article. cgi?file=/c/ a/2002/06/11/MN170910.DTL

    the jist:

    "I just have to give you a better dollar amount," Ridge said. "The bigger issue to be framed here is for you to understand that we are not going to
    take over the traditional relationship they (the Department of Energy)had with Lawrence Livermore."

    Ridge said only employees who work specifically on countermeasures to protect Americans against nuclear, biological or chemical weapons -- a small fraction of the lab's work -- would be affected.

    "Historically, and at least for now and for the future, the Department of Energy is going to control and work with Lawrence Livermore as it
    relates to nuclear weapons systems," Ridge said.

  32. Re:Such a shame... by RayBender · · Score: 1
    Well, here's an idea. Since there are only at most a few hundred people in the country with a) the knowledge to weponize antrax b) access to that particular strain, why don't we round them all up, call them potential terrorists and keep them indefinitely without trial (say, in Cuba), until one of them confesses...

    --
    Human genome = 3 billion base pairs = 6 GBit. Windows + Office = 20 Gbit. Which is more impressive?
  33. Re:Such a shame... by Ravensfire · · Score: 1

    As a Missouri resident who voted for him - let's try for the entire story.

    After the plane crash, his wife decided to "run" in his place. Given the time frame, it was impossible to change the ballot.

    There is a bit more to this, involving the governor selecting a replacement, etc, but people were voting for Jean Carnahan.

    --
    "But we decide which is right, and which is an illusion"
  34. Re:Cool project? by sigwinch · · Score: 3, Insightful
    they aren't simulating nuclear detonations for a fucking screensaver, they're simulating to design better (i.e. deadlier, more horrible) weapons.
    Bzzt, wrong! The existing bombs are aging--tritium decaying, radioactives being contaminated by their decay products, explosives reacting with themselves--and they're trying to figure out how to keep them functional. The only solution is test explosions, and you have your choice of real tests or virtual tests. Congress has chosen virtual tests, and given LLNL the job of performing them.
    they could be working on protein folding, doing advanced simulation on an alternative fuel engine, heck, they could leave it sitting there idly testing the reimann hypothesis,...
    Bzzt, wrong! They're nuke scientists and engineers, not molecular chemists. Hiring people to do your proposed jobs would dwarf the cost of the supercomputer.
    H bombs are big and scary, supposedly the only thing we want them for is deterrant, and aren't they already big enough and scary enough for that purpose?
    Bzzt, wrong! More efficient can mean bigger, but it can also mean cleaner (i.e., less fallout) and cheaper. Cleaner is obviously good: a war would kill fewer people in less gruesome ways, and clean bombs are a better deterrent. Cheaper is also good, since all the bombs will have to be rebuilt from scratch in the fairly near future. (Don't give me any garbage about nuclear disarmament. It'll never happen, anybody who thinks it will is deluded.)
    even if you don't think the US would ever use such a weapon (though it's the only nation in history that has) eventually knowledge spreads, and someone somewhere has a bigger bomb thanks to the cool supercomputer.
    Bzzt, wrong! A big room full of people running mechanical adding machines can do the calculations for the basic plutonium bomb, which is how the first bombs were designed. A modest supercomputer and a few test explosions are enough to design most any bomb. The hard parts are (1) synthesizing and/or refining the fissile material is the hard part, (2) coming up with salaries for the physicists and engineers, and (3) developing delivery vehicles (ICBMs, long-range bombers) which dwarfs the cost of the bombs.

    Besides, today's top supercomputer is tomorrow's video game CPU. Pretending that locking up a particular supercomputer can stop the work is just that: pretending.

    --

    --
    Kuro5hin.org: where the good times never end. ;-)

  35. Re:Hello, these are US citizens you moron by Black+Parrot · · Score: 2


    > Where in the law does holding citizenship bar you from being treated as an enemy combatant?

    Where does the US Constitution say "the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury unless the state accuses him of being an enemy combatant"?

    What if the state accuses you of being an enemy combatant and blackholes you, too? That's OK, right? You can trust the government to do the right thing on this?

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  36. Re:Cool project? by jazman_777 · · Score: 1
    H bombs are big and scary, supposedly the only thing we want them for is deterrant, and aren't they already big enough and scary enough for that purpose?

    Someone in the Department of War wants to be able to do "surgical nuclear strikes".

    --
    Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
  37. Beats how they used to test them. by jpellino · · Score: 2

    I think nuclear engineering is fascinating. I also think using a nuclear weapon is the single most destructive thing we could even imagine doing (thought a sequence of dumb mistakes could snowball into worse). The ability to hold those two seemingly contradictory ideas in the same mind is what makes "The Curve of Binding Energy" one of the best technology reads around. You appreciate the allure of the science and the folly of forcing new technologies as a fix for fundamental human nature issues.

    After 50+ years of nuclear weapon development, let's face it. You can't put the genie back in the bottle. We are the only country ever to use the device in a non-test, and there are two countries with far less than an escalating world war at stake who are apparently toying with the idea of tossing a few of these around in the name of God(s).

    "The valley is an emerald set in pearls; a land of lakes, clear streams, green turf, magnificient trees and mighty mountains where the air is cool, and the water sweet, where men are strong, and women vie with the soil in fruitfulness. " (Walter Lawrence) which India and Pakistan are willing to use as their nuclear badminton court. Nice.

    We'd better know how they work and how to handle them.

    Additionally, this is the sort of research that also allowed us to spend enough money to make the USSR play catch-up and collapse their regime. Forcing the Soviets into the poor house and then getting them towards a market economy, a seat outside the door at NATO and increasingly open communication is also far better than blowing them (and likely ourselves) off the map. If simulations got us along this path, then fine.

    Do I agree that this was all the best way to do things? Nope. Were there scary possibilities that were minutes from happening along the way? Devastatingly so.

    Does saber-rattling with nukes suck? Yes.
    But saber-rattling with virtual nukes sucks far less.

    As you live longer, one of the things you realize is that all to often you're lucky if it's only two evils you have to choose the lesser of.

    Sobering, sad, but often true.

    --
    "Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
  38. race? by cpeterso · · Score: 2

    And these aren't people who "come into this country", they're citizens of the US. Every American should be outraged that Bush and company are so willing to disregard the rights he's sworn to defend.


    Why does John Walker Lindh get a trial before running home to his mommy and daddy while Jose Padilla is held using secret evidence but without trial or a lawyer? John Walker was captured on the battlefield fighting with the Taliban, while Jose Padilla is guilty of maybe having met with al-Quaida and maybe having thought about planning to build a bomb.

    Is there a double standard? They are both US citizens, but John Walker is white and Jose Padilla is not. Has that affected their treatment?

  39. money... and cosmic evil by commodoresloat · · Score: 2

    My guess is money has more to do with it than race in this situation; Lindh has not only his white skin but his rich parents who have hired good lawyers to defend his rights. Also Lindh had no priors and was widely regarded as a good kid; Padilla is a former gang member with weapons charges and widely regarded as a thug.

    Either way it is ridiculous to consider either a threat to the fabric of the nation; the symbolic significance these people have been granted by the Bush administration's treatment of them as devil incarnates is pretty much guaranteed to backfire. Incidentally, it's pretty much the mirror image of the Manichaean worldview held by the type of people who join al Qaeda.

    So let's not piss on the Constitution in our morbid fear of a few thousand fanatics who want to light their shoes on fire. Find these bastards, try them, and destroy their ability to threaten us, of course, but let's not pretend the threat they pose is part of a cosmic battle between good and evil. That gives them way more power than they deserve. And if we're willing to trash our most precious liberties to run away from them, then perhaps we really are as weak as they say we are.

  40. however! by cpeterso · · Score: 1


    I heard that when the police confronted Jose Padilla, he pulled out two light sabers and proceeded to KICK ASS. Now if that is not evil, I don't know what is.

  41. ASCI nuclear bombs? by commodoresloat · · Score: 2
    LLNL funded and houses the ASCI White supercomputer, among other cool projects.

    Since when is it cool to simulate nuclear bombs?

    When it's done with ASCII

  42. Re:Hello, these are US citizens you moron by Dolly_Llama · · Score: 3
    except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger

    as much as it scares me to give additional powers to someone like GWB I believe terrorist attacks and potential attacks constitute a public danger as good as anything you could think up. so it appears to be constitutional to my eyes. Whether we're going after the cause or the symptoms is another story however...

    --

    Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known. -- Carl Sagan

  43. Presumption of innocence by nixterino · · Score: 1

    We're talking about citizens of this country, who are still to be considered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Sounds like you've already made up your mind, doesn't it?

  44. Re: Hello, these are US citizens you moron by Black+Parrot · · Score: 2


    > > except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger

    > as much as it scares me to give additional powers to someone like GWB I believe terrorist attacks and potential attacks constitute a public danger as good as anything you could think up. so it appears to be constitutional to my eyes.

    Sounds to me like the "when" clause qualifies "in the land or naval forces, or in the militia". I.e., the requirement for a grand jury indictment holds even in the armed forces, except "when in actual service in time of war or public danger".

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  45. Precedent was during a declared war by smiff · · Score: 4, Informative
    Precedent was established in 1942 during WW II.

    The USA-PATRIOT act specifically requires the Attorney General or President to declare someone an enemy combatant. One of the restrictions is that the person must not be a US citizen.

    The 1942 case involved persons who worked for an enemy that congress had declared war on. Congress has not declared war on Al Queda.

    To deny the civil rights of a certain class of people amounts to a Bill of Attainder. The constitution specifically prohibits bills of attainder.

    All the protections in the constitution are worthless if they can be eroded with a simple accusation. Even if one supports military tribunals for enemies of the state, the state should be required to prove, in open court, that the defendent is indeed an enemy of the state. In the 1942 case, the defendents did not dispute that they took orders from the German High Command.

    Should you lose your right to a public jury trial if a member of Al Queda claims that you work for them? What burdon should the state have to meet before taking away someone's right to a public jury trial?

    1. Re:Precedent was during a declared war by seeken · · Score: 1

      http://slate.msn.com/?id=2059825

      And the one lower court case that most directly applies this test is pretty bad (or, as we'll see, good) for Walker. In United States v. Schiffer (1993), a federal trial judge concluded that a U.S. citizen voluntarily surrendered his citizenship by fighting in the Romanian army in World War II, when Romania was at war with the United States.

      "[N]o conduct," the court said, is "more demonstrative of an intent to relinquish American citizenship than voluntary service in the armed forces of a country at war with the United States." A federal appellate court case, Breyer v. Meissner (2000), supports this approach. So does a formal 1969 opinion by Attorney General Ramsey Clark.

      ------------------

      A law that applies only to a spcific person or group of people is a bill of attainder. The action of the executive branch, which cannot pass laws, by definition cannot be a bill of attainder. Why do you think the bill of attainder prohibition is in Article 1? Or weren't you aware that article 1 creates the legislative branch? I think you're looking for one of the amendments in the bill of rights.

      Proving in open court that someone is an enemy of the state could involve comprimising intelligence sources, and would therefore be stupid. We've had quite enough stupidity on the part of gov't, don't you think?

      --

      Surfing the net and other cliches...
      (Who Meta-Meta-Moderates the Meta-Moderators?)
  46. Court ruled that citizenship is irrelevant by smiff · · Score: 1
    the case of a sub full of German soldiers and spies who landed in NY (?)

    In the German sub case, there were two subs. One landed in New York, the other landed in Florida.

    But they weren't citizens.

    One of them claimed US citizenship. He was born in Germany. He moved to the US when he was five. His parants became naturalized citizens. He later returned to Germany. He claimed that he never lost his citizenship.

    The Government, however, takes the position that on attaining his majority he elected to maintain German allegiance and citizenship or in any case that he has by his conduct renounced or abandoned his United States citizenship.

    The court never resolved the issue, instead claiming that:

    Citizenship in the United States of an enemy belligerent does not relieve him from the consequences of a belligerency which is unlawful because in violation of the law of war. Citizens who associate themselves with the military arm of the enemy government, and with its aid, ... guidance and direction enter this country bent on hostile acts are enemy belligerents within the meaning of the Hague Convention and the law of war.

    Haupt never disputed that he took orders from the German High Command.

    There is also the fact that congress had already declared war on Germany.

    Finally, there is the issue that the USA PATRIOT act only allows for military tribunals of non-US citizens.

  47. Re:Cool project? by joib · · Score: 2


    Bzzt, wrong! More efficient can mean bigger, but it can also mean cleaner (i.e., less fallout) and cheaper. Cleaner is obviously good: a war would kill fewer people in less gruesome ways, and clean bombs are a better deterrent. Cheaper is also good, since all the bombs will have to be rebuilt from scratch in the fairly near future. (Don't give me any garbage about nuclear disarmament. It'll never happen, anybody who thinks it will is deluded.)

    Bzzt, wrong! (heard that one before? :)) In real life, bigger does not mean cleaner. Well, yes theoretically it's possible to design a big bomb with relatively smaller fallout than a smaller one (there's a minimum size for the fission trigger which in this hypothetical weapon would be the main cause of fallout). But, in real life the current generation warheads have about 50% of the energy output coming from fission. The reason is that as you said in another paragraph the cost of the delivery vehicles dwarf the cost of the warheads themselves. Making the bomb casing (which needs to be made of a high-Z material anyway) of a fissile material (usually enriched uranium) gets you a bigger bang for the buck. Read the Nuclear Weapons FAQ by Carey Sublette for a more thorough explanation of this.

  48. Can't spell non-sequitur, much less recognize one. by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is a complete and total non-sequiter. What does the rate of deaths by car accident have to do with anything???

    First of all, it's non-sequitur, not "non-sequiter".

    Second, you only think it's a straw man or a non-sequitur because you don't get his point. Let's put it this way. Something like 10,000 people die every year from gun-related deaths. We have not implemented gun control, because we have a Second Amendment. We have decided that 10,000 casualties per year is a price that we are willing to pay for the Second Amendment. Whatever your feelings about the Second Amendment are, you have to concede that the casualties we tolerate on its behalf are somewhat illustrative of the value we place on it.

    Sept 11 comes, there is a terrorist attack that kills a mere 3000 people, and all of a sudden people are "forefeiting" their Fourth Amendment rights. Does this not concern you? The going rate for a constitutional right should be much higher than this. You can make an argument that possibly saving lives should be worth more than worrying about the civil rights of crazy Islamic black guys. But if you're going to view civil liberties via this public safety perspective, you should at least be consistent with it and favor gun control with as much enthusiasm. That would save way more lives, wouldn't it?

    I haven't heard any sensible argument in favor of this guy's incarceration. They've all been variations of "oh so you would like a dirty bomb in your neighborhood then huh!" Which is like saying "Why are you defending whichcraft? Why are you in favor of witches?" to accusations of a witch hunt. We've got a guy who's in jail for wishing he could build a dirty bomb. He's doing time for surfing the web as far as I can tell. For typing "dirty bomb recipe" into Google and "researching" their construction. (1. Wrap deadly isotope around dynamite. 2. Light dynamite. 3. Run away.) Merely planning to do something is not a crime. You now live in a country where citizens are put in "indefinite detention" with no trial for a thought crime. This is a major milestone toward a police state. You should be alarmed that this is happening.

    And it's not as if wanting to build a dirty bomb means you're going to do it. Does he have any radioactive material with which to make one? "Planning" to build a dirty bomb doesn't amount to a hell of a lot if you don't have any dirt. It's fairly obvious the only reason he's being held in military detention is because Ashcroft knows this crappy evidence would be laughed out of any legal court. They wouldn't even have enough for an indictment. And by arresting rather than monitoring and following this guy, they screwed up one of the only good leads they've gotten from their Camp X-Ray interrogations- which have otherwise been a complete fiasco. All they can do to cover their asses now is keep the guy in jail forever by inventing new laws for themselves as they go along.

  49. Another Source by s.fontinalis · · Score: 1

    NIF isn't solely being built for Nuclear Weapons research - indeed it's predecessor as the largest laser in the world, the University of Rochester's Omega Laser (a mere 60 beams
    www.lle.rochester.edu
    was only used for classified research 2 weeks a year. The primary purpose of the NIF laser is to research is to research Inertial confinement fusion reactions - by studying the reaction we learn how to build better bombs, by studying the reaction & it's confinement, we learn how to build the holy grail of power sources - a fusion reactor.

  50. Re:Hello, these are US citizens you moron by Analog+Squirrel · · Score: 1

    What I find interesting and what many people seem to miss is that the Constitution does not refer to US citezens. "No person". "Any person". "The accused". It doesn't matter if you're a US citizen or a foreign national - you should be entitled to the same basic rights. It seems clear to me that the authors of the Constitution valued these things as fundamental things, not privledges of US citizens; their merit is that they apply univerally.

    --
    I'd rather be flying
  51. Re:Cool project? by trailerparkcassanova · · Score: 1

    Simulating isn't that cool. But atmospheric tests.... now that's really cool!!!!

  52. Re:Hello, these are US citizens you moron by Ioldanach · · Score: 2
    Where in the law does holding citizenship bar you from being treated as an enemy combatant?

    Where in the law does saying you're an "enemy combatant" supercede your right to a grand jury and a speedy trial? Giving someone a new label doesn't mean the constitution no longer applies.

  53. Re: Hello, these are US citizens you moron by Black+Parrot · · Score: 2


    > > land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger

    > Seems to me these are parallel constructs:

    That would require another "or". The only grammatical question is whether the the "when" clause modifies all the preceding, or just "in the militia", and the comma makes it all but certain that it is intended to modify all the preceding.

    > It never ceases to amaze me that the same people who scream the loudest when the government does something they don't like tend to be the very same folks who support giving the government more and more power.

    The government is grabbing more and more power right now, and I don't support it.

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  54. Re:Cool project? by jneemidge · · Score: 1

    The fallacy to all of this is the assumption that designers are interested in _bigger_ bombs. Bigger bombs are easy; we've known for years how to build very big bombs. No one's interested.

    Most of the work done on nuclear weapons at these labs falls into two categories: verifying that aging weapons still work (instead of testing them) as already mentioned, and designing new, _smaller_ bombs. Smaller bombs are considered more destabilizing by the anti-nuclear movement -- hence all the protestation. However, the general public doesn't see smaller as a threat, so the misconception that bomb designers have any interest in bigger bombs goes unchecked.

    If you do the research, you'll find out that during the 80's, the number of nuclear weapons in the US arsenal went up several times, but the aggregate megatonnage went _down_ by a factor of 10. Weapons were converted to MIRV's, large bombs were discontinued entirely, and a number of smaller (field artillery, SAM supression, etc) weapons were added. Since the 80's, this trend has continued, though cutbacks in weapons production have curtained the trend.

    Personally, my feeling is that the world is safer with the enormous decrease in megatonnage, even if smaller weapons slightly increase the liklihood some nuclear weapon will be used ("it's only a small bomb"). Smaller weapons are, as a general rule (easy to violate, but as a general rule) cleaner, more precise, and more likely to be used against a military target (missile launcher, ship, base) than indiscriminately against a large urban target. The problem with that is that it takes out the Mutual Assured Destruction doctrine; if neither side is losing cities, they might fight a limited nuclear war. I come down on the side that says MAD was useful, but lost relevance a long time ago -- and that it's better to be physically incapable of large-scale destruction than to be limited merely by the fear "they'll do it back to us!"

  55. Re:Can't spell non-sequitur, much less recognize o by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 2

    Re the second amendment: I differ in opinion. What you've called a trade-off in human lives is more indicative, I think, of a recognition of the infeasibility of gun control with respect to limiting said gun-related deaths.

    Yes, that's a valid argument. But it goes both ways. Ashcroft has been eviscerating the Fourth Amendment ostensibly to protect us against terrorism, but I don't feel any safer. In fact, I think this business of arresting anyone with a turban is more of a show for us to make us feel safer than any real strategy.

  56. Re:This is not a criminal case by colmore · · Score: 2

    then Congress should declare war. does anyone else find the new tradition of fighting undeclared wars a bit disturbing?

    i mean the Spanish-American war was declared and that was much smaller than Vietnam, Desert Storm or (most likely) whatever mess we're about to get ourselves into.

    --
    In Capitalist America, bank robs you!
  57. Re:Can't spell non-sequitur, much less recognize o by neocon · · Score: 1

    You miss two key points here: first off, there are strong arguments that banning guns would result in more crime deaths, not less -- indeed this has been the experience in the UK, which finally banned handguns several years back, and in the years since has seen skyrocketing rates not only of violent crime, but of gun crime. London is now more dangerous to live in than any large city in the US.

    Secondly, Mr. al-Muhajir is not under arrest for `planning' to do something without falling through. He is under arrest for entering the nation as an enemy combatant in the service of such actions. This is a crime, and under the supreme court precedent set in the case Ex Parte Quirin is subject to military jurisdiction.

    (Quirin, by the way, was a case stemming from a very similar precedent -- several Germans agents, including one American citizen, were infiltrated into the US from an enemy submarine with plans to blow up dams, power plants and Jewish-owned businesses in the US. They were caught by the FBI and tried by military tribunal, a procedure which the supreme court upheld.)

    As for whether Mr. al-Muhajir should have been arrested at once or tailed, I doubt that you are in possession of enough information to make that judgement at this point, and I'm not sure that such monday-morning quarterbacking accomplishes anything...

  58. Re:Can't spell non-sequitur, much less recognize o by neocon · · Score: 1

    Ashcroft has been eviscerating the Fourth Amendment ... arresting anyone with a turban

    Care to back up either of these claims? At all?

    ostensibly to protect us against terrorism, but I don't feel any safer

    Oh, ok. If Mr. MillionthMonkey doesn't feel any safer, let's call the whole thing off. Open up the border, boys! Call the troops home! Forget preventing further attacks, and let's focus on making Mr. Monkey feel safer instead!