Don't mix up "spying" with "copying" and "copyright infringement". For businesses the second and third are more of a direct problem than the first; especially when looking at China. The spying part is probably not seriously worse in China than in other parts of the developed world. It's just that they may be not as good at hiding it.
That said, it is not mentioned in tfs (and of course I did not rtfa) whether this girl was targeting him for being an important government official, or just for being a rich westerner that can be robbed of valuable stuff. If she were a spy, she would be a poor one, as a good spy would not leave a trace of spying, i.e. doesn't take things. A spy would just copy the information.
When it comes to advertising prices, the rest of the world is doing it better indeed. I have never, ever seen prices advertised ex. taxes (except air fares) anywhere in Europe, in and out of the EU, nor in Asia. And if it were excluding surcharge, this was always published, e.g. "10% service charge and 5% government taxes apply" for a hotel bill.
So sorry AC, it's the USA that is to blame here, really.
At least in The Netherlands, it has always been like that for phone bills. What is published is what you pay. Better yet: at the moment this also accounts (by law) for air tickets, figure that! Advertised fee is what you actually have to pay, not 30-40% extra in taxes and surcharges!
What does this have to do with the iPhone, really? Is 3G in the USA really limited to the iPhone? I may hope not so for you guys!
Luckily in my place there is no such thing as unpublished taxes and fees on your mobile phone account. And for unlimited data (actually I have a plan that automatically steps up depending on data use - use no data, pay very little) I pay about USD 50 per month. Not too bad, and prices will come down in time.
Actually to get back on topic: how can one even check whether the bill is correct, if the fees and taxes are unpublished? How can you tell whether you have been overcharged?
What about registering a plan, and then when the bill comes in, refusing to pay until the phone company gives you a written account on how the fees and taxes are calculated, simply so you can check whether the amount charged is correct? It may be a bitch to do, but I actually doubt they can sue you for it. Or is the USA's system so messed up that one even has to pay bills that one can not verify of being legit?
There is a major difference between income tax and the fees and taxes AT&T charges: the income tax is published, you can simply ask your government on the tax tables, and then you can calculate your own taxes. Whether it's an easy job or not will depend on where you live.
At the very least you not only know beforehand what you are supposed to pay, you can even check on it afterwards that it is the correct amount.
False, why? Can you prove it? (I can't either way) The makers of the software will probably be very interested if you can. If I understand the workings well, they did a pretty decent job.
Or go a bit further: show the actual exploit that tells where other people's laptops are. Abuse the system, show the faults. Adeona will only get better because of that.
We all know the word. We all have an idea of what it means
This bill has nothing to do with terrorism.
Of course, I know that. The bill itself at least. The word however made the summary here on/., so that is how close the bill is related to terrorism. It is what is used to push it through, and to silence opponents. Just like the "think of the children" argument, it is like that.
Then lets first treat Joe Terrorist as just any other criminal. Why is a terrorist different, anyway? They should be tracked down using the normal, existing and highly effective police methods, after which specific individuals (mind: specific) can be put under closer surveillance. Just like nowadays the drug cartels are being investigated. No need to randomly start to survey individuals because "they may be terrorists".
There is no reason why "terrorists" should be treated differently, they are not worth it in either personal status, or the number of victims they make. Compare the number of victims of terrorism in the USA of the last, say, 10 years, with the number of victims from drug lords. Not convinced? Take the last, say, five years. See? Drug lords kill many many more. But do they get a special status? Are there special surveillance laws because of them? No!
I am not an American citizen. I have never even visited America, not a single part of it. Yet I am seriously affected by the US anti-terror legislations, primarily through air travel. All these travel restrictions largely originate in USA (and their colony, the UK). Either directly, or indirectly (I consider the USA as one of the main causes of terrorism - which I loosely define as "violent attacks on civilian targets not taking place in a war zone").
Also the enormous amount of information demanded by the USA on air travelers going there is an issue. Doing business with the USA is an issue as this enormous privacy intrusion for merely wanting to visit the territory is stopping me from going there. It sometimes makes me wonder whether mere phone calls and e-mails between me and US customers are safe from this. Though that does not hit me directly or visibly - yet.
And of course, last but not least, the USA is pushing many other countries to implement intrusive laws similar to their own. And even in that way the USA legislation is reaching me.
If only through air travel, middle class America has been impacted. Look at the state of the airliners: that they are still going bankrupt one after another can not be just because the fuel cost is up. It is also because there are so much less passengers: a direct effect of the anti-terror legislations, so much security hassle, and I can't stop thinking "oh, so much security, then really everyone is trying to get us! Must be dangerous in the skies!". Airlines going bankrupt means more unemployment, etc. It is not that the US economy is doing so well, and making people live in fear is not known to give a great stimulus to your economy.
So middle class America is hit by these measures, they just probably do not realise how much, and their politicians will never dare to explain.
We all know the word. We all have an idea of what it means. But is there a legal definition of "terrorism" already? Something that clearly defines what a terrorist is, and under which someone can be charged for being terrorist?
We have clear definitions of "rape", what has to be done to make an indecent assault become "rape". We are quite clear what is "indecent assault". Murder, in all it's gradations from criminal negligence causing death to first degree premeditated murder, it is clear. We know what someone has to do to become murderer. Or rapist. Or thief.
But what does someone really have to do to become a terrorist? Be scary? Then everyone celebrating Halloween may be a terrorist. Being foreigner, and having ideas that oppose the American culture? Can't be enough to be a criminal.
It is really high time to define: what is a terrorist. Then, and only then, we can make this kind of laws actually work, without all kinds of unintended(?) side effects. Then also the risk of being thrown in jail just for being "a terrorist" without clear accusations can go. And of course, only when we define "terrorist" we can accuse people of actually being one, and judge them accordingly.
Blackberries are imho meant for those people who for whatever reason can't stop working. Business owners, sales people working on commission only, that idea. And of course that are exactly the people for whom working hours don't count. I'm one of them, even though I don't have nor want a blackberry. If people need to reach me so urgently they can use the phone.
This also makes me wonder, what is a blackberry doing in the hands of employees with fixed working hours? Why are they given one by the company in the first place? This are generally the lower ranked people (now I don't know US labour laws very much) - they have fixed working hours obviously, and are supposed to do (and finish) their work within those hours. I can't think of any reason why they would possibly need one such devices. They are at work, then work, and then will have a computer at hand. If it is the kind of employee that is supposed to run around all the time, e-mail won't be of much interest for them either.
No matter what I think this is mostly a story about the inappropriate use of a technology. The enormous urge of being "ahead of the pack" when it comes to adapting new tech. It is high tech, it is new, "everybody" uses it, etc. That kind of thinking. It sounds like a disconnect between the ideas of the top management and the actual tasks of the workers.
Add to that the idea that all employees want to be important, and having a blackberry these days is for sure equivalent to being important (until recently it were only the high-fliers that would have a need for it and could afford one), so everybody will happily accept a blackberry without thinking about whether they really need one. And then those lower ranked employees also get addicted, forget that they have working hours, start working overtime, and poof, lawsuit!
I truly hope the employees lose in this case, as I consider it unasked for overtime. Completely voluntary overtime. Unless the employers gave the blackberry with the message "now you are reachable at all times", in which case the employer deserves to lose - if only for sheer stupidity.
Laptops will keep the same form factor, I'm sure. But things do change.
The keyboard will remain the same size: this is based on the average size of a human hand, and that's pretty much a given. My EEE has a much smaller keyboard, but I wouldn't use it for coding or other bigger jobs. Maybe for posting on/. but even then I prefer my iBook with full sized keyboard.
The display is another matter: that has been growing. Surface areas have about doubled, and pixel counts quadrupled over the last ten years or so. Cost is a major aspect here: it simply gets cheaper to make higher resolution, bigger panels. And as a result we see laptops with 19" screens - about as luggable as the colossus my father used to work on, now about 25 years(!) ago. That was one of the first laptops (at the time we talked about portable computer) invented. I think it even had a hard disk already but not so sure.
Screens is I think where the main innovation will be. As others argued, there is no replacement for a real mechanical keyboard - I do understand though the use of a tablet. It's still waiting for the iTablet, knowing Apple's track record that will likely shake up the industry properly. As long as it is light enough to hold up on one arm while standing in the train, I can imagine a serious use as e-book reader. Weight is a major issue here, and batteries are the main culprit these days.
Hard to predict what the laptop future will bring, or the computing future in general. I'm looking forward to it!
The main thing people like about dials is that it is analogue, so very easy to read. Albeit less accurate, but who cares whether you're going 104, 105 or 106 kph. The position of the needle on a dial is what you are after.
In many industrial settings, control dials are used a lot, and they are all turned in such a way that the needle has to point straight up in normal situation. So again the operator can easily see whether a dial is "normal" or "not normal" and thus needs more attention.
Modern aircraft do not have mechanical dials anymore - they use electronic displays. And on that display: images of dials! Again for the ease of reading them.
And if still not convinced: digital watches are gone for the exact same reason. A glance at the watch gives you the time virtually instantly, while a number requires interpretation.
Admittedly digital dials give a more exact reading (not necessarily accurate, many people mix those two up), but reading is harder than an analogue dial.
My multi-meter is analogue, because in 90% of the time that I use it, I need to know "is there a small or big resistance, or no contact at all" or "is there voltage here or not". I don't care usually about the exact value, and when I do, the analogue dial still gives me the required info.
As soon as one knows how many atoms go in a kg (the measuring of the atom weight is the tough part here), it's an easy calculation on how many atoms one needs to put that sphere together.
The tough part seems to me indeed to get the exact mass of the atoms - and an extra problem being the difference between weight and mass. I wonder how they created the reference kg in the first place, to get to that kg. Lots of other things depend on it after all, it can't be a random quantity of material.
The first article mentions only the weight loss of the original kilogram, the second article follows up on that mentioning a perfect sphere is going to be made. The current article follows up on that, announcing the actual creation of this sphere.
Now the fourth article in this series should be the announcement of the number of silicon-28 atoms needed to create exactly one kilogram.
On the other hand, isn't the exact mass of atoms known? Then it should be easy to say "this number of atoms is exactly one kilogram". The creation of the sphere being an exercise left to the reader.
I have voted, you know. So what? It's not like this is the type of action you see in your candidate's program - how could I have known if he's going to vote for or against something like that? If I had known he would vote for it, I wouldn't have voted for him.
This is exactly why I argued in another post in this discussion that this kind of major treaties should be implemented over two parliaments, with an election in between. Then all candidates can tell you how they would vote on this (and of course the rest of their agenda), and you could make your choice accordingly.
In Europe it should not be too hard to become a candidate yourself. For national elections (in The Netherlands) it requires a certain number of signatures of people supporting your candidacy or your party's candidacy; for EU elections it will be something like that. And don't forget that anyone can set up a political party, at will. Getting sufficient support is the hardest part of course, but that also prevents ballot lists to become filled up with thousands of candidates that do not stand the least of a chance.
I don't know whether the people really want it or not. No-one not deep into politics really knows, nor understands, the full meaning of this treaty. What it means for them, for their country. And that is a big problem with many of those treaties: it is also why the "EU Constitution" (which for starters shouldn't have been called like that) was voted down. This was, at least in The Netherlands, largely because of unhappiness with the Dutch government, and somewhat unhappiness with the EU, not because of rational understanding of this "constitution".
The matter is way too complex to really understand - I don't think it should have had a referendum in the first place. Instead it should have been set up by one EU parliament, and ratified by the next after the elections. Then competent people (the politicians) that can understand the meaning of the document can vote on it, and indirectly the general public votes as well. Not everything is suitable for referendum.
I for one don't really and fully understand the implications of these agreements. I do understand the national parties that are also active in the community, the province, and the national government. I know what they stand for, and will vote for who-ever is closest to my ideas. And with that, they can support or reject these mighty complex treaties the way I would very likely have done it, if I had the time and understanding to really know what they mean.
We should go out of our way (from an EU perspective) to make the EU just as attractive to travelers from the US as the US is to travelers from the EU.
While I really understand the feeling, I totally disagree with it, as it is the wrong thing to do. Fingerprinting and photographing people at the border is wrong. It should not be done. It doesn't stop terrorists, it may make it a bit less convenient for them to do their thing, but that inconvenience is limited to the crossing of borders. When a would-be terrorist has crossed the border, it's kinda too late already. Fingerprinting is no deterrent after the border has been crossed. It's just stupid to believe otherwise.
There are great systems in place to keep unwanted persons out of the country: normal police work, and exchange of information on criminals between governments. Osama bin Laden would not have much of a chance to enter the USA, unless he manages to get a very well done fake passport.
The EU gives a great example on how it can be done. Traveling within the EU, crossing state borders, is often so easy you don't notice it. If you miss the sign next to the road, that is. There is often not more than that to crossing a national border. And for foreigners entering the EU as visitor, that is generally also easy.
But does that make the EU borders more transparent than US borders? I truly doubt it. People from some nationalities have to apply for visa before entering - that of course includes a more thorough screening. And then of course there exists a black-list of unwanted individuals, those people trying to cross the border will likely be arrested and/or sent back.
And all this does not make the EU more susceptible to terrorism by foreigners - on the contrary. Most if not all serious attacks in the EU were all done by nationals or residents, the greatest threat comes from the inside as always.
You could have voted, you know. There are elections for the European parliament. It's just that no-one shows up (typically 20-40% of registered voters actually votes).
That would never happen as it is against EU privacy laws. And in the EU, the rule of law is pretty much respected. Unfortunately it seems less and less so on the other side of the pond. Especially when "terrorism" enters the argument.
OK, a few numbers, dug up by a simple "litigation cost in american health care" google query.
here you find:
medical-malpractice liability alone constitutes over 10 percent of the entire U.S. tort tax, which by 2003 represented over $3,300 for a family of four. And:
Wyethâ(TM)s massive reserve for Fen-Phen litigation is $21 billion,[6] and Merckâ(TM)s exposure to Vioxx lawsuits may total as much as $50 billion.[7] Such figures are astronomical in comparison with these companiesâ(TM) individual budgets, representing nine to twelve times each companyâ(TM)s annual research and development costs.[8] In fact, since each drug was only widely used for about four years, the approximate annualized liability cost of these two drugs comes to almost $18 billionâ"equivalent to 10 percent of the annual revenues for the pharmaceutical industry as a whole.[9] Massive numbers. Just massive.
It is not so much reason for concern that it is modded insightful, it is more reason for concern when you realise that it is actually a quite proper mod! I do agree with it, and yes it concerns me.
You do not sound materialistic to me, at all. What I read from your short comment is that you have some stuff, but you like mostly what you do with it.
Putting together a PVR: it doesn't sound like you went out to buy the latest and greatest hardware for that, more like cobbled together a system from the old collection. And the load it with mp3 files: the joy of listening to music!
You own a few motorcycles (that is getting quite materialistic) but the main thing you seem to want to do is the trips, and the repairs. There is no word about brands, and that is where the actual materialism comes in for me.
Everybody wants to own stuff: that is our nature. Where it becomes materialism, imho, is where it is buying just for buying's sake, and possessing just for possessing's sake. Not because you need it (to live, to do your job, or even for a hobby). But just to have it. This includes the people that buy a new mobile phone every 3-4 months, or a new laptop every half year. Who must have the latest LV hand bag, or the just released flatscreen TV. That is materialism.
And you seem to be pretty well clear from that. I do my best to stay clear as well, minimise the stuff that I own to the necessary.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't mix up "spying" with "copying" and "copyright infringement". For businesses the second and third are more of a direct problem than the first; especially when looking at China. The spying part is probably not seriously worse in China than in other parts of the developed world. It's just that they may be not as good at hiding it.
That said, it is not mentioned in tfs (and of course I did not rtfa) whether this girl was targeting him for being an important government official, or just for being a rich westerner that can be robbed of valuable stuff. If she were a spy, she would be a poor one, as a good spy would not leave a trace of spying, i.e. doesn't take things. A spy would just copy the information.
When it comes to advertising prices, the rest of the world is doing it better indeed. I have never, ever seen prices advertised ex. taxes (except air fares) anywhere in Europe, in and out of the EU, nor in Asia. And if it were excluding surcharge, this was always published, e.g. "10% service charge and 5% government taxes apply" for a hotel bill.
So sorry AC, it's the USA that is to blame here, really.
At least in The Netherlands, it has always been like that for phone bills. What is published is what you pay. Better yet: at the moment this also accounts (by law) for air tickets, figure that! Advertised fee is what you actually have to pay, not 30-40% extra in taxes and surcharges!
What does this have to do with the iPhone, really? Is 3G in the USA really limited to the iPhone? I may hope not so for you guys!
Luckily in my place there is no such thing as unpublished taxes and fees on your mobile phone account. And for unlimited data (actually I have a plan that automatically steps up depending on data use - use no data, pay very little) I pay about USD 50 per month. Not too bad, and prices will come down in time.
Actually to get back on topic: how can one even check whether the bill is correct, if the fees and taxes are unpublished? How can you tell whether you have been overcharged?
What about registering a plan, and then when the bill comes in, refusing to pay until the phone company gives you a written account on how the fees and taxes are calculated, simply so you can check whether the amount charged is correct? It may be a bitch to do, but I actually doubt they can sue you for it. Or is the USA's system so messed up that one even has to pay bills that one can not verify of being legit?
There is a major difference between income tax and the fees and taxes AT&T charges: the income tax is published, you can simply ask your government on the tax tables, and then you can calculate your own taxes. Whether it's an easy job or not will depend on where you live.
At the very least you not only know beforehand what you are supposed to pay, you can even check on it afterwards that it is the correct amount.
False, why? Can you prove it? (I can't either way) The makers of the software will probably be very interested if you can. If I understand the workings well, they did a pretty decent job.
Or go a bit further: show the actual exploit that tells where other people's laptops are. Abuse the system, show the faults. Adeona will only get better because of that.
We all know the word. We all have an idea of what it means
This bill has nothing to do with terrorism.
Of course, I know that. The bill itself at least. The word however made the summary here on /., so that is how close the bill is related to terrorism. It is what is used to push it through, and to silence opponents. Just like the "think of the children" argument, it is like that.
There is no reason why "terrorists" should be treated differently, they are not worth it in either personal status, or the number of victims they make. Compare the number of victims of terrorism in the USA of the last, say, 10 years, with the number of victims from drug lords. Not convinced? Take the last, say, five years. See? Drug lords kill many many more. But do they get a special status? Are there special surveillance laws because of them? No!
I am not an American citizen. I have never even visited America, not a single part of it. Yet I am seriously affected by the US anti-terror legislations, primarily through air travel. All these travel restrictions largely originate in USA (and their colony, the UK). Either directly, or indirectly (I consider the USA as one of the main causes of terrorism - which I loosely define as "violent attacks on civilian targets not taking place in a war zone").
Also the enormous amount of information demanded by the USA on air travelers going there is an issue. Doing business with the USA is an issue as this enormous privacy intrusion for merely wanting to visit the territory is stopping me from going there. It sometimes makes me wonder whether mere phone calls and e-mails between me and US customers are safe from this. Though that does not hit me directly or visibly - yet.
And of course, last but not least, the USA is pushing many other countries to implement intrusive laws similar to their own. And even in that way the USA legislation is reaching me.
If only through air travel, middle class America has been impacted. Look at the state of the airliners: that they are still going bankrupt one after another can not be just because the fuel cost is up. It is also because there are so much less passengers: a direct effect of the anti-terror legislations, so much security hassle, and I can't stop thinking "oh, so much security, then really everyone is trying to get us! Must be dangerous in the skies!". Airlines going bankrupt means more unemployment, etc. It is not that the US economy is doing so well, and making people live in fear is not known to give a great stimulus to your economy.
So middle class America is hit by these measures, they just probably do not realise how much, and their politicians will never dare to explain.
We all know the word. We all have an idea of what it means. But is there a legal definition of "terrorism" already? Something that clearly defines what a terrorist is, and under which someone can be charged for being terrorist?
We have clear definitions of "rape", what has to be done to make an indecent assault become "rape". We are quite clear what is "indecent assault". Murder, in all it's gradations from criminal negligence causing death to first degree premeditated murder, it is clear. We know what someone has to do to become murderer. Or rapist. Or thief.
But what does someone really have to do to become a terrorist? Be scary? Then everyone celebrating Halloween may be a terrorist. Being foreigner, and having ideas that oppose the American culture? Can't be enough to be a criminal.
It is really high time to define: what is a terrorist. Then, and only then, we can make this kind of laws actually work, without all kinds of unintended(?) side effects. Then also the risk of being thrown in jail just for being "a terrorist" without clear accusations can go. And of course, only when we define "terrorist" we can accuse people of actually being one, and judge them accordingly.
Blackberries are imho meant for those people who for whatever reason can't stop working. Business owners, sales people working on commission only, that idea. And of course that are exactly the people for whom working hours don't count. I'm one of them, even though I don't have nor want a blackberry. If people need to reach me so urgently they can use the phone.
This also makes me wonder, what is a blackberry doing in the hands of employees with fixed working hours? Why are they given one by the company in the first place? This are generally the lower ranked people (now I don't know US labour laws very much) - they have fixed working hours obviously, and are supposed to do (and finish) their work within those hours. I can't think of any reason why they would possibly need one such devices. They are at work, then work, and then will have a computer at hand. If it is the kind of employee that is supposed to run around all the time, e-mail won't be of much interest for them either.
No matter what I think this is mostly a story about the inappropriate use of a technology. The enormous urge of being "ahead of the pack" when it comes to adapting new tech. It is high tech, it is new, "everybody" uses it, etc. That kind of thinking. It sounds like a disconnect between the ideas of the top management and the actual tasks of the workers.
Add to that the idea that all employees want to be important, and having a blackberry these days is for sure equivalent to being important (until recently it were only the high-fliers that would have a need for it and could afford one), so everybody will happily accept a blackberry without thinking about whether they really need one. And then those lower ranked employees also get addicted, forget that they have working hours, start working overtime, and poof, lawsuit!
I truly hope the employees lose in this case, as I consider it unasked for overtime. Completely voluntary overtime. Unless the employers gave the blackberry with the message "now you are reachable at all times", in which case the employer deserves to lose - if only for sheer stupidity.
Are you trying to be stupid or just xenophobic American?
Laptops will keep the same form factor, I'm sure. But things do change.
The keyboard will remain the same size: this is based on the average size of a human hand, and that's pretty much a given. My EEE has a much smaller keyboard, but I wouldn't use it for coding or other bigger jobs. Maybe for posting on /. but even then I prefer my iBook with full sized keyboard.
The display is another matter: that has been growing. Surface areas have about doubled, and pixel counts quadrupled over the last ten years or so. Cost is a major aspect here: it simply gets cheaper to make higher resolution, bigger panels. And as a result we see laptops with 19" screens - about as luggable as the colossus my father used to work on, now about 25 years(!) ago. That was one of the first laptops (at the time we talked about portable computer) invented. I think it even had a hard disk already but not so sure.
Screens is I think where the main innovation will be. As others argued, there is no replacement for a real mechanical keyboard - I do understand though the use of a tablet. It's still waiting for the iTablet, knowing Apple's track record that will likely shake up the industry properly. As long as it is light enough to hold up on one arm while standing in the train, I can imagine a serious use as e-book reader. Weight is a major issue here, and batteries are the main culprit these days.
Hard to predict what the laptop future will bring, or the computing future in general. I'm looking forward to it!
The main thing people like about dials is that it is analogue, so very easy to read. Albeit less accurate, but who cares whether you're going 104, 105 or 106 kph. The position of the needle on a dial is what you are after.
In many industrial settings, control dials are used a lot, and they are all turned in such a way that the needle has to point straight up in normal situation. So again the operator can easily see whether a dial is "normal" or "not normal" and thus needs more attention.
Modern aircraft do not have mechanical dials anymore - they use electronic displays. And on that display: images of dials! Again for the ease of reading them.
And if still not convinced: digital watches are gone for the exact same reason. A glance at the watch gives you the time virtually instantly, while a number requires interpretation.
Admittedly digital dials give a more exact reading (not necessarily accurate, many people mix those two up), but reading is harder than an analogue dial.
My multi-meter is analogue, because in 90% of the time that I use it, I need to know "is there a small or big resistance, or no contact at all" or "is there voltage here or not". I don't care usually about the exact value, and when I do, the analogue dial still gives me the required info.
As soon as one knows how many atoms go in a kg (the measuring of the atom weight is the tough part here), it's an easy calculation on how many atoms one needs to put that sphere together.
The tough part seems to me indeed to get the exact mass of the atoms - and an extra problem being the difference between weight and mass. I wonder how they created the reference kg in the first place, to get to that kg. Lots of other things depend on it after all, it can't be a random quantity of material.
Not a dupe - a follow-up.
The first article mentions only the weight loss of the original kilogram, the second article follows up on that mentioning a perfect sphere is going to be made. The current article follows up on that, announcing the actual creation of this sphere.
Now the fourth article in this series should be the announcement of the number of silicon-28 atoms needed to create exactly one kilogram.
On the other hand, isn't the exact mass of atoms known? Then it should be easy to say "this number of atoms is exactly one kilogram". The creation of the sphere being an exercise left to the reader.
I have voted, you know. So what? It's not like this is the type of action you see in your candidate's program - how could I have known if he's going to vote for or against something like that? If I had known he would vote for it, I wouldn't have voted for him.
This is exactly why I argued in another post in this discussion that this kind of major treaties should be implemented over two parliaments, with an election in between. Then all candidates can tell you how they would vote on this (and of course the rest of their agenda), and you could make your choice accordingly.
In Europe it should not be too hard to become a candidate yourself. For national elections (in The Netherlands) it requires a certain number of signatures of people supporting your candidacy or your party's candidacy; for EU elections it will be something like that. And don't forget that anyone can set up a political party, at will. Getting sufficient support is the hardest part of course, but that also prevents ballot lists to become filled up with thousands of candidates that do not stand the least of a chance.
I don't know whether the people really want it or not. No-one not deep into politics really knows, nor understands, the full meaning of this treaty. What it means for them, for their country. And that is a big problem with many of those treaties: it is also why the "EU Constitution" (which for starters shouldn't have been called like that) was voted down. This was, at least in The Netherlands, largely because of unhappiness with the Dutch government, and somewhat unhappiness with the EU, not because of rational understanding of this "constitution".
The matter is way too complex to really understand - I don't think it should have had a referendum in the first place. Instead it should have been set up by one EU parliament, and ratified by the next after the elections. Then competent people (the politicians) that can understand the meaning of the document can vote on it, and indirectly the general public votes as well. Not everything is suitable for referendum.
I for one don't really and fully understand the implications of these agreements. I do understand the national parties that are also active in the community, the province, and the national government. I know what they stand for, and will vote for who-ever is closest to my ideas. And with that, they can support or reject these mighty complex treaties the way I would very likely have done it, if I had the time and understanding to really know what they mean.
We should go out of our way (from an EU perspective) to make the EU just as attractive to travelers from the US as the US is to travelers from the EU.
While I really understand the feeling, I totally disagree with it, as it is the wrong thing to do. Fingerprinting and photographing people at the border is wrong. It should not be done. It doesn't stop terrorists, it may make it a bit less convenient for them to do their thing, but that inconvenience is limited to the crossing of borders. When a would-be terrorist has crossed the border, it's kinda too late already. Fingerprinting is no deterrent after the border has been crossed. It's just stupid to believe otherwise.
There are great systems in place to keep unwanted persons out of the country: normal police work, and exchange of information on criminals between governments. Osama bin Laden would not have much of a chance to enter the USA, unless he manages to get a very well done fake passport.
The EU gives a great example on how it can be done. Traveling within the EU, crossing state borders, is often so easy you don't notice it. If you miss the sign next to the road, that is. There is often not more than that to crossing a national border. And for foreigners entering the EU as visitor, that is generally also easy.
But does that make the EU borders more transparent than US borders? I truly doubt it. People from some nationalities have to apply for visa before entering - that of course includes a more thorough screening. And then of course there exists a black-list of unwanted individuals, those people trying to cross the border will likely be arrested and/or sent back.
And all this does not make the EU more susceptible to terrorism by foreigners - on the contrary. Most if not all serious attacks in the EU were all done by nationals or residents, the greatest threat comes from the inside as always.
You could have voted, you know. There are elections for the European parliament. It's just that no-one shows up (typically 20-40% of registered voters actually votes).
That would never happen as it is against EU privacy laws. And in the EU, the rule of law is pretty much respected. Unfortunately it seems less and less so on the other side of the pond. Especially when "terrorism" enters the argument.
OK, a few numbers, dug up by a simple "litigation cost in american health care" google query. here you find:
medical-malpractice liability alone constitutes over 10 percent of the entire U.S. tort tax, which by 2003 represented over $3,300 for a family of four. And: Wyethâ(TM)s massive reserve for Fen-Phen litigation is $21 billion,[6] and Merckâ(TM)s exposure to Vioxx lawsuits may total as much as $50 billion.[7] Such figures are astronomical in comparison with these companiesâ(TM) individual budgets, representing nine to twelve times each companyâ(TM)s annual research and development costs.[8] In fact, since each drug was only widely used for about four years, the approximate annualized liability cost of these two drugs comes to almost $18 billionâ"equivalent to 10 percent of the annual revenues for the pharmaceutical industry as a whole.[9] Massive numbers. Just massive.It is not so much reason for concern that it is modded insightful, it is more reason for concern when you realise that it is actually a quite proper mod! I do agree with it, and yes it concerns me.
You do not sound materialistic to me, at all. What I read from your short comment is that you have some stuff, but you like mostly what you do with it.
Putting together a PVR: it doesn't sound like you went out to buy the latest and greatest hardware for that, more like cobbled together a system from the old collection. And the load it with mp3 files: the joy of listening to music!
You own a few motorcycles (that is getting quite materialistic) but the main thing you seem to want to do is the trips, and the repairs. There is no word about brands, and that is where the actual materialism comes in for me.
Everybody wants to own stuff: that is our nature. Where it becomes materialism, imho, is where it is buying just for buying's sake, and possessing just for possessing's sake. Not because you need it (to live, to do your job, or even for a hobby). But just to have it. This includes the people that buy a new mobile phone every 3-4 months, or a new laptop every half year. Who must have the latest LV hand bag, or the just released flatscreen TV. That is materialism.
And you seem to be pretty well clear from that. I do my best to stay clear as well, minimise the stuff that I own to the necessary.