You need to learn the differences. Your "million dollar question" is invalid on it's face.
FTA:
Chinese hackers have......attacks originating from computer crackers largely located in China's Guangdong province...
It's not the first time hackers in China have been accused of launching cyber-attacks on the computer systems of Western governments. Attacks on UK government systems using a then unpatched Microsoft Windows Meta File (WMF) exploit last Christmas were traced back to China.
The closest thing to saying the Chinese Government is doing it is a reference to an AFP article, with the words "tacit approval". So let us examine said article.
Computer security crackers based in China have launched sustained attacks on the computers of a United States Commerce Department technology export office, a department official has said.
The official, who requested anonymity, said the attacks had originated from websites registered with Chinese Internet service providers.
Chinese-based security crackers, especially in the Chinese province of Guangdong, have mounted systematic efforts to penetrate US government and industry computer networks in order to access secret information, according to computer security experts.
The experts and some US lawmakers believe the attacks are sanctioned by Chinese government agencies.
So there you have it. The only reference is an unreferenced and unsubstantiated claim that some lawmakers believe the Chinese government sanctioned them. That is to say they aren't doing anything about it. If in fact the origin has been determined to be hackers in China, and the Chinese government did nothing about it, then they are essentially correct to say that there is a minimum of tacit approval and one could say even a sanctioning of the actions.
If the boxes were so secure, how did they get in there?
You must be new to computer security. No box connected to a network is 100% secure.
Consider you have to hack into Us givernment servers with confidential data. Even if you're not an incredible hax0r, it's obvious that if they find out about you, you're totally screwed. Not necessarily. If you are from a country that has no extradition agreement, or has no interest in helping the US out and may even privately applaud or benefit from your results there may be no reckoning coming. They may not have commissioned you to do the work but if they do nothing to stop you, where is the risk?
So the first thing you do, the MOMENT you grab the data, is cut the PC off the network.... Even before this, you'd turn off all possible logging activity, lock up the security, stop unneeded services, so that you can be relatively secure during the attack.
And trigger systems that monitor for systems to drop off the network and/or cease logging, thus giving you less time to cover your tracks elsewhere, or at least get out of reach. Duh. I've got systems that monitor themselves (in addition to non-local monitoring) and in certain cases (such as logging being disabled w/o the proper auth sequence) will cut off all but a single local IP on the administration network (different interface). Windows boxen can be powered off via remote access cards installed in the machine and triggered when certain conditions arise such as a combination of a sudden loss of reporting and higher than normal IP traffic from a non-registered (aka non-standard) IP. Pull your alleged sure-thing activity and you lose immediately.
Why were the Windows boxes having "logs" of where the data was sent and so on. What kind of trojan would log their own activity on the compromised machine?
Because external log creation and storage is a key factor in Intrusion Detection Systems, and logging network conenctions is a key element in tracing what happened and where thigns went to. It is also a key ele
It also runs counter to most of the non-military goals of space exploration to talk about engaging in warfare in orbit.
Quite the contrary. It'd be foolish not to. By show of hands how many people here *honestly* expected mankind to return to space without a hint of military purpose? War has been fought everywhere man goes, and until man eliminates conflict (haha, yeah right) there will be a need for combative space assets. I say conflict and combative for a reason. Law enforcement is another aspect. Space exploration will largely utilize the government's military purposed space network.
Cheap(er) access to space means the barrier to entry is lower. This means that the risks become greater as the threat becomes greater.
If I were to put say twenty tons of metal, rock, and other dense materials into orbit each launch, send up a dozen of these, combine them wrap them in firepast, then set that object on a trajectory to your city, suddenly you'd be demanding a means to deny that action. With cheap access to LEO this becomes a very real and very dangerous threat. Even a 100% accurate and effective anti-ballistic missile system would fail to destroy this threat. There would be no nuclear involvement in the process either. But the impact would seem like a nuclear blast, and likely be more immediately devastating.
On a smaller scale imagine your nice little space station sitting up there. Unprotected. How easy will it be to eviscerate your space station?
What is throwing people into a tizzy is that contrary to the past, this document is up front and literal about it. Kudos for that.
The attitude of "journal articles need to be cryptic or they must not be important" needs to go.
More importantly, the attitude of "journal articles must be liked by the so-called referrees and reviewers and meet current politically correct (science and public) beliefs" needs to go.
Great. I think I can imagine Rummy's plans to improve space exploration. He'll take NASA's crew recommendations and cut them in half, send only enough fuel to get there, but not back, and ditch all the unnecessaries like food and water. It will be a leaner, more mobile space force.
You mean he'll follow the recommendations of experts? Only fools, laymen, and people who want to spend someone else's money think you need to send all the fuel food and water you need to get back. Sometimes you do not. It depends on where you are going. Look up Mars Direct for an example of not needing to send everything with you. Do you think the settlers and explorers of teh western US took all their food, water, and fuel (read: feed for horses and mules)?
Reading carefully, this parapgraph suggests that the US is planning to engage in a kind of "tit for tat" crippling of Chinese satellites. This is a bad thing for strategic stability.
You mean to say "Reading as my bias indicates, this paragraph...". The ability described is fundamentally no different than the same capability we have for air, land, and sea. We are enterign a world where cheaper access to space is looming, and eventually will be as commoditized as air and sea travel are. The US doesn't want to lag behind in it's ability to perform military actions in space. Nor should it.
"ensure freedom of action in space, and, if directed, deny such freedom of action to adversaries"... means "ensure only we have freedom of action in space"... which means "no freedom of action in space".
That's pretty much what we'd expect from that source, but it doesn't make it any better.
Surely there should be some sort of Logic Advisor sitting next to the President's speech writers. I don't imagine that he wants to look evil and dishonest in front of a world audience well versed in elementary logic.
Seems you could use the Advisor. Jet fighters and anti-aircraft missiles, guns and artillery are all means to deny an adversary freedom of movement in the air. Yet would you claim you do not have freedom of movement in the Terrestrial Atmosphere because of them and their potential use against you?
You have conflated the ability to take out enemy targets with the complete elimination of the ability for the targets to peacefully exist otherwise. You have conflated a temporary action with a full-time one. You have thus committed a logical fallacy - in the process of trying to impugne another's ability in logic. You have further assumed that the President wrote that document. A fallacious assumption I am certain.
Logic is not a form of universal truth, it is a means of confirming that a given conclusion is an accurate conclusion based on the premises presented, and nothing more. The premises can be false, but the conclusion could still be logical.
In the argument you failed to logically analyzed we have the following:
Argument 1: Premise 1: Freedom of action in space is important Premise 2: Freedom of action in space is important to the US and it's interests Conclusion 1: The US should have freedom of action in space
Argument 2: Premise 1: The US (and US interests') should have freedom of action in space Premise 2: Other entities may strive to prevent or hinder US (and US interests') action in space Premise 3: Threats to US freedom action in space will involve non-US utilization of action in space Conclusion: The US needs to be able to deny such action in space in order to protect it's freedom of action in space
The above arugments, premises, and conclusions do not logically lead to the "There will be no freedom of action in space". Your argument that they do is unsupported and erroneous, not to mention fallacious. To demonstrate further, change the word space to the word sea, or to air, or to land.
Furthermore, you assertion that the speech writers need a logic advisor is also erroneous. This wasn't a speech, it was/is a document not designed to be read aloud by the President. Surely you should have a reality advisor as well as a logic advisor sitting next to you. I don't imagine you want to look dumb in front of the world of well-versed, informed, and logical slashdot readers.;^)
"The United States shall seek to minimize the creation of orbital debris by government and non-government operations in space in order to preserve the space environment for future generations,"
Translation: "A method to keep those pesky private launches and private activities to a minimum by creating standards they have to maintain while we the government exempt ourselves as we do with everything else"
"Any concerns over the environmental effects of launch are much more effectively handled by environmental groups rather than treaties" No not really. The environmental groups protest everything with involving the "n word". It is almost to the point that they are the boy that cried wolf. I fear that if a project has any real danger involved that they will be ignored as they have been for all the launches where they where just being silly. I would rather have the treaties. I actually do trust the experts more than people the environmental groups.
Actually, treaties are a second-best option since they ignore experts and changing technology. The best option would be an industry group doing private certifications such as is done with electronics equipment (Underwriter Laboratories, for example). Failing that, a government panel of experts. The latter is the approach described in the document. Treaties are too static for a moving technology field.
We just have to hope that the technology it produces outweighs the destruction.
We have more than hope. We have history.
Land vehicles (and their area of effect) were militarized, and we have benefited greatly from the resulting advances. Sea Vehicles (and their area of effect) were militarized, and we have benefited greatly from the resulting advances. Air Vehicles (and their area of effect) were militarized, and we have benefited greatly from the resulting advances.
The most likely result is: Space Vehicles (and their area of effect) were militarized, and we have benefited greatly from the resulting advances.
Indeed we have already benfited greatly from the effect of current militarization of space. Space was militarized decades ago folks. It is what made for cheaper launches, and GPS as well. Those cheaper launches provided for satellite TV, cable TV sattellites, and other telecommunications satellites to be launched when they were.
Many people cry out for "private space companies". Yet they already exist. Most launches in the US and Europe are done by private companies. The problem is the lack of non-telecommmunication private cargo. Anotehr problem is the tremendous amount of "red tape" to cut through and the many hurdles to getting even just a price. Fortunately, SpaceX is changing this. Boeing et al. have been primarily only onterested in big-dollar laucnhes - which means government and big corporation customers. If you need cargo launched to orbit, you don't go shoppping like normal. It is more like shopping for a new car without a starting price, and the dealer determining price by some magical proprietary formula depending on many factors that change each time you go and may have nothing to do with the features and capabilities you want.
No, the widepsread usage and increase in usage of open source products for mission critical uses, the widespread adoption of the fundamentals of open source (availability, lock-in avidance, "freedom" of your own data). through open document and data storage policies, and the evolution and security of open source code validated open source.
Who says that? According to the World Radiation Center and the Max Planck institute, there has been no increase in solar irradiance since the 40s.
Nice try. By taking a small extract you make a large conclusion. A conclusion that is false. Given that the proponents of the anthropogenice global warming hypothesis nearly all indicate the start of the period to predate 1940, your selection of that period is invalid and overly selective.
The fact is that over the last several centuries there have been significant changes in TSI.
To whit one study that produced a 1200 year history of TSI based on a large variety of known data sources and effects concluded: "solar output was significantly reduced between 1450 and 1850 AD, but slightly higher or similar to the present value during a period centered around 1200 AD."
We are currently in what is known as "The Modern Maximum". In the event the name didn't give you a hint it means there is more TSI reaching the Earth due to a variety of conditions to include solar wind effects. Research done using the records regarding the sun's activities over the past the past 1800 years shows a very strong correlation, and likely a causative one, between solar minimums an decreased temperatures.
Given that these histories are being compared to non-Terrestrial planetary temperature changes and like correlations are being found, this is strongly suggestive that the causative theory of solar cycles to global climate variations is sound. After all, there can be no anthropogenic effects on planets we do not inhabit or have industrial activity for.
This is the chief reason that solar forcing theory is the strongest theory. It is nearly the only one that can be carried to other planets that also experience thermal seaons. As such it can be either positively shown or positively disproved. As such one would think that true scientists interested in the truth about climate change would actively seek to study it, as opposed to simply ignoring the non-Terrestrial global warming ocurring in the solar system. Perhaps the answer to the question of why they do not is found in the question itself.
The problem for them is that the so-called environmentalism movement has hitched itself to GW. Without it they feel they do not have the moral authority to sway opinions and policy in the direction they want it to go. GW has become the fear stick. There are many, many valid reasons to reduce pollution, emissions, etc.. Yet these are ignored in favor of GW. This puts a large incentive to make sure the anthropogenic GW hypothesis survives: to it be disproved means they lose their "power".
An additional indication that it is ideology that drives this group is this group's avoidance of "smaller" changes. In particular changes that make significant reductions in consumption and emissions. In each of these cases the changes are "non-invasive". By which I mean that they do not force people to drive different cars, abandon their current ones, or make radical changes to their lifestyle. Indeed, in the majority of them there is no forcing or mandates at all. In some it is a reduction of current mandates regarding fuel and energy consumption and production that lead to improvements.
When the activists fail to even acknowledge these options and indeed even argue against them, it is indicative of the motivation and ideology that drives the movement. Namely that the alleged goals are not the actual goals at all.
As far as some studies that will help you learn about "who says" AND "What they say", here are some references from a few of the aforementioned studies:
Baliunas, S. and Jastrow, R. 1990. Evidence for long-term brightness changes of solar-type stars. Nature 348: 520-522.
Bard, E., Raisbeck, G., Yiou, F. and Jouzel, J. 1997. Solar modulation of cosmogenic nuclide production over the last millennium: comparison between 14C and 10Be records. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 150: 453-462.
Apparently they have container models that can produce 1200 gal/day. 20'x8'x8'. So a couple of these on office buildings would do niceley.
They seem a bit on the large side for single-family home use. Bummer. Perhaps that would improve. These seem to have a built-in generator. If attached to grid I wonder how much smaller these would be. Perhaps multi-family structures could work out well with these, depending on electrical needs. At a target price of 25 cents per gallon, I suspect many places would, for now, be cheaper to use "city water". The question however then becomes: for how long?
Even Phoenix has cheaper water than this. Much cheaper.
However, for "off the grid" types, this is the last piece of the puzzle.
Question1 L How inept are the congressional people in Washington DC?
"I was pretty blown away by the things it's able to do," Rowe said. "The fact that this technology is not tied to humidity like others are makes it an attractive alternative for military bases in the Mideast where humidity is not really an option.
Yet further down...
Aqua Sciences' machines only require 14 percent humidity,
Anybody with half a brain knows that there has to be some humidity in the air in order to extract water. Wait, that explains it.;) Moving on.
While it is an accomplishment to reduce the humidity requirement, it doe not eliminate it. Indeed given their claim of up to 600 gal/day I'd say that at the minimum required humidity of 14%, it is possible that they may require far more of them than is talked about. A key factor is how rapidly that output drops when the humidity levels drop. if it porduces 600 gal/day at optimum humidity levels, it may only put out say 10 gal/day. If that were the case you could not rely on this for troop support in such areas. A supplemental, sure.
Depending on the size and maintenance requirements, as well as the phsyical inputs other than air, it may not be cost effective to use these in more arid regions. Now, places like the southern US they would be quite useful.
What I'd like to know is the size and power requirements. Something like this could be quite useful in high-rise buildings. Pumping water to the upper levels requires a significant amount of power. If instead we could put a few of these on tops of buildings and use them to bring water down, we might see a net win in terms of supply and energy usage. Imagine places like Phoenix or Las Vegas.
Pheonix has an average daily humidity of about 55% IIRC. Thus it would stand to reason that these units could pump out their maximum output. Depending on their size and power requirements, several of these atop an office building in Phoenix could produce several thousand gallons per building. As office buildings their water requirements might be low enough to satisfy with these units. They would have the further advantage of dehumidifying the hot air of Phoenix, thus possibly resulting in a slight cooling load reduction.
Even small residential units could be tremendously benefited. The average person requires 125 gal/day. Thus one of these could supply the water needs (not counting grass lawns) of a family of four in Phoenix. If the house is designed with greywater and systems for landscaping purposes it is possible that one of these could fully supply the average water requirement of a family of four in Phoenix. Which leads to the question.. how much are they to acquire and operate?
Anyone from Phoneix care to share how much you pay for water? If you've got a spouse and a pair of kids, and this unit eliminated your water usage bill (there would still be sewage), how much would it save you per year?
40,000 of these units in Phoenix would drop the summer daily demand for water by 24Mgal/day, or 5-12% depending on the season (Summer to Winter).
Essentially, if this proved cost effective then the more arid parts of the country might be able to make large savings on their infrastructure and supply costs. Which would be yet another miltary requested technology applied to positive civilian use.
The next question is: does it scale up and down? Can it be scaled down to be an effective one-person supply? Do larger units demonstrate a better-than-linear increase in water production?
Combine this with greywater systems, solar thermal heating (water and home), and appropriate landscaping and we would be a long ways toward a more sustainable system - without major changes and reductions to our standard of living.
This spaghetti research is of course very related to the question of how the universe was created. After all, we know it was created by the FSM, and surely bending and breaking spaghetti was an integral part of the act of creation.
Oh ye unbelievers. When will you glean the insight that is of the Great Green Arkleseizure. You are so close, but miss the real insight. This research is useful to determining the origin of the universe. Yet more specifically it is important in that this research will reveal the lost sections of the universe. You see, on the day of the great sneeze, certain fragments of universe-ness were lost (the "Big Bang" is just your limited view of the Great Sneeze). This research will allow us to determine where and when the great stream of universe broke during the sneeze.
With this information we will be able to determine how many univeseres there and, and with further research how to find them. Once we have done this we will be able to determine which universe will be closest to the hankie by extrapolation of the relative positions of the arms (and thus hands) of the Great Green Arkleseizure. Then we can determine the day of the coming of the Great White Hankie. once we have determined these things, you the unbelievers will have no choice but to submit to our findings.
Every time a case such as this, or any other criticism of the Bush administration's policies regarding terrorism comes up, we hear all but the exact same thing: We need this [power | program | law] to fight terrorism. [If you disagree, you must support the terrorists.] Why is it that we never get to hear exactly why [power | program | law] is necessary to stop terrorists? I guess they're assuming that if they beat the drum of "We need this!!!1" long and hard enough people will believe it.
This is limited to neither Bush, nor "national security". We see this in virtually everything the government does or wants to do. 'These subsidies will make our [lobby group] stronger", "this afterschool program will make kids stronger", "this gun registration bill will stop school shootings", "this bill will stop capaign finance corruption", "this bill will help the poor", "this tax increase will help the poor", "this bill helps minorities" and so on.
I'd wager that the people we elect to "know" these things don't have a clue how the proposals allegedly work. The government is essentially about increasing it's power. The only difference between the existing parties is the priority assigned to the various powers and the language used to get their bills passed. When some of the powers the Patriot Act granted were billed as supporting the common man against the big corporation, Democrats supported them and Republicans who opposed them were on the side of the big nasty corporations and against "the little guy". When those same powers were/are packaged as a matter of national security, the tables are reversed.
When the Republicans wanted tighter immigration controls the Democrats opposed them as being racially motivated. When the Democrats charge the current amdinistration with not doing enough to "secure our borders", the tables are reversed and fighting tighter immigration controls are tantamount to wanting open borders and allowing terrorists into the country.
These are all symptoms of the same problem. Said problem being that they don't think about the full ramifications and risks of their proposals -if at all- and act solely for personal gain nearly all of the time. This is true of both Republicans and Democrats. To a lesser extent it is true for all political parties.
yet when "terrorists" come up, certain people who have all rules and regulations disappear. ...terrorists, drug dealers, pedophiles, opposing political groups, militias...
I'm not going to ask what you do for a job, but I'm curious how you found the time for that opus.
A lot of it was memory and memory inspired. Being able to recall enough specifics lets me find my references quickly. That and Beagle.;^)
I'm not giong to argue with the gist of what you're saying, because I can't. A lot of what you said I know to be true, and some of it I hadn't even considered before. Frankly I'm surprised I could be bothered to read the whole thing at all...
I'm suprised too.:) Suprised that anyone read it all. Thank you for doing so. I'm glad it encouraged you to consider things you hadn't before - even if you arrive at different conclusions than I in the end.
In my defense though, I really wasn't having a dig at the US in particular (at least, that wasn't my intention) except insofar as the parent was pointing out what a good little global player the US is. He/she seemed to have said as much without any apparent understanding of what was going on behind those figures and what the impact was.
Fair enough, I can accept that. A small tit-for-tat scneario; so be it. Most people respond as the OP did but are unable to put their finger on why exactly. For some it is simple nationalism and perceptual pride. For others, some claims simply "smell" - as certain code "smells" to a programmer. Lacking the background they latch on to the first stat that supports their gut feeling. Maybe it is the lack of good reportmaking and research skills being taught in public schools (including journalism schools!), I can't say. Nonetheless it is often perceived as smugness. Sometimes this perception is colored by reverse nationalism if I may coin a phrase.
nationalism is a palgue of every generation, and sadly it seems to be rampant in America of late (a gross generalisation, I know, but I doubt you'll have the heart to disagree). You are correct, I don't disagree. I would add however, that the generalization of it being an American trend/tendency of late is a form of nationalism as well. Sadly, it generates an increase in nationalism. Nationalism is strongest when those of a nation feel attacked or threatened. "Buy American", for example, only came about when groups wihtin America felt threatened by external competition. They parlayed this into a nationalistic push for... subsidies and tarrifs. "Oh the poor farmers" will only get you so far in the US. Add onto it a threat the the farmers are suffering becuase of other countries and now you have a winning combination.
The best advice I have for those who want to see a less nationalistic America (or any country really), is to stop making attacks against it. Ironically, this is the case for several of the problems plaguing the world today. The steps taken to combat a percevied or real problem serve nly to exacerbate the problem - much like the nuclear arms race of the Cold War Era, I readily admit I sometimes fall into the tit-for-tat scenario as wtness by my first post on this thread. However, the more I catch myself doing so the more I can resist it by becoming aware of the causes.
By all means don't merely pass the no-subsidy torch to me. Like an idea, it can be shared. The more of us there are opposing them and being able to make arguments for the people to hear as well as those who will think more about it, the better off we'll be in our fight to stop them. I certainly hope you will remain a part of that fight. This particular fight is something that extends to every country.
And the Republicans are in a much better position to pressure the machine manufacturers into subtlely changing (via software) the results in regions that matter the most, if only because they control the two electable branches of government.
On the other hand Demcrats are in a better position to do so becuase they can pressure the manufacturers by saying that they will come into power, hold an "investigation" and find no significant irregularities. Since the public, they would claim, will tend to believe the Republicans had a hand in it they (Democrats) will be more trusted to say there was nothing wrong. They can tell them "If you don't we will loudly proclaim that you conspired with the Republicans and keep the agenda on the front page thus putting you in a worse position than you are now." "Indeed", they could say, "even if you don't tamper in either direction and the Republicans win, we can capitalize on the mistrust among the public to make changes anyway, perhaps not accepting your machines at all. So either way, if you want to stay in this market, you will need our help."
And the people would accept the Democrat charade because it would satisfy their mistaken sense of "justice"; they woudl feel that "something was done" and the uppity Republicans put in their place.
What is interesting is that you drew a connection between faulty machines and Republicans the way you did. You didn't predict the Repuglicans would win because of apathy over this issue, rather that they would only win because they cheated. This line of argument is a disservice to the notion of auditable voting systems.
Instead of pointing out that either party can cheat in this regard, you chose to lay the alleged future cheating at the feet of one party. This essentially provides a scapegoat for the system. Rather than assigning cheating to any party at all a more intelligent and effective argument in the long run is to work against the opportunity to cheat, not an alleged future cheater party. By assigning a singular party as the cheaters if that party is taken from power the mind of the public is that the problem went away. And the problem will stay but the public will think it gone.
I realize it is fun to poke at your opponents, but in many cases particularly ones such as this, it is misdirected and ultimately counterproductive. Hence I had to point out a plausible scenario for the Democrats to do what you assign to the Republicans to demonstrate that it is not limited to them.
Rather than use my mod points, I'll point this out for other mods and meta-mods:
It specifically said:
What he wants now: A new database company. "
Just because you the poster failed to read that last word does not mean you get to then say what he wants as if it was your idea,and slam him for not thinking it. Mods, please take appropriate action regarding parent post.
That said, your idea is a paltry imitation of his. He wants more than a sales organization. He wants a company that can take on the big boys on their own turf: big database work. That means application support that goes beyond the little stuff done by most (all?) current DB smaller companies.
Which means that Congress can and will investigate this.
Care to show where in the constitution the investigative power has been delegated to the lawmaking body? Go ahead, give it a try.
The Congress as a body can investigate itself for certain things, though criminal investigations are the purview of the executive branch. Investigations of criminal or suspected criminal activities are supposed to be done by the executive branch and decided by the judical branch when evidence supports a case being made.
This notion that the US Congress is the investigative body of the US is a horribly dangerous one. From "investigating" baseball to alleged illegal activities, it is nothing more than a combination power grab and grandstanding opporutnity. Ever watch any? When a congress critter's turn to "ask questions" comes aorund they seem to spend the first 80% of their turn making speeches, sometimes that have absolutely nothing to do with the stated purpose of the "investigation".
The US Congress has no constitutional authority to compel testimony of any sort. It is not a lawful court for anythig beyind it's own internal squables. Not only does allowing it to act as one usurp the power of the two other branches, it serves to further exacerbate the "partisanship" and misdirection so common in the once-hallowed halls of congress.
Tension between the branches of government is not a healthy thing. Checks and balances on powers, avoidance of power duplication and contention; these are healthy things to have.Further, your notion of tension nearly dictates and certaily perpetuates, the notion that there should be only two parties, or that there are two clear and opposing sides to each. This, too, is an unhealthy situation - both for liberty and for responsible governance. History shows us that any effectively mandated choice between two political organizations will result in a situation where it is "the lesser of two evils" that people resign themselves to. Even a review of how the two-party "system" came about in the US will show this to be the case.
Finally, given the number of Demcrats who actually support the action taken by Bush's Administration I doubt we'll see much of an "investigation", if any. They are already jockeying for the next POTUS run. At most we'll see yet another dog and steamer show claiming to be doing something.
If you'd bothered to read the rest of the thread, you'd see I quoted some figures - and pointed out how meaningless they are in context. Not quite true. You took a swipe at Americans for doing something the Europeans and Japanese do, using figures that only supported your point of view, as opposed to a more accurate usage.
Do you have any idea what it cost the US to subsidize the military defense of Europe for so long? No, you probably don't.
Subsidise Europe's war effort??? Jesus, there's a spin I haven't heard before. You're right, I don't know how much. Do you? Nor do I think that's a relevant or helpful issue.
Spin? How about a lie on your part. I said military defense, not war effort. It is you who twisted that around. Though now that you mention it, the US did have a hand in the defeat of Hitler in WWII. Not that I was referring to that.
Hardly. I'm as pissed off about them as I am about US subsidies. I'm pissed off about any subsidy that props up a first-world minor economy (agriculture is hardly our main export) at the drastic expense of third-world major economies. However, I wasn't on a moral high-horse about how the US is worse than anyone else. I was pointing out the fact that the massive food overproduction by the US is nothing to crow about, since it is supported artificially and to the detriment of most of the developing world.
You can say that now. But the fact is you poked at the US instead of pointing out subsidies in general are a bad thing.
That's a key point, in fact. The food exports would be far lower if they weren't so heavily subsidised by the US tax dollar. My point? It is not nearly as important to the US economy to be exporting food as it is for most African nations, for whom it is in fact vital to their economic wellbeing. And yet, agriculture subsidies - US, EU and any other large player - artifically keep the exports high, the price of food low and thus cripple these third-world economies. You're just supporting my point, not debunking it.
You don't actually provide any evidence that the lack of US subsides would increase the price of food and decrease US supply, though it may well do so. You do not make apoint, you make an unfounded assertion - one that may ultimately prove false. If the prices were higher and were high enough to make a profit, the supply would also be high. While we do know that there is a surplus, we can not say for certainty that US exports would actually drop. In order to support that, you would have to prove that the price increase resulting from the lack of US subsidies would leave a price still too low for US farmers to compete with, Higher prices benefit everyone who sells. If the prices without US subsidies would still be high enough to produce a profit for US farmers, they would still do it. Indeed, it may even lead to a small increase in US food exports. I suspect this is a main reason the US' proposal to eliminate all agricultural subsidies and tarrifs was rebuffed so soundly. It is likely that the increase in price would be enough to support exisitng US production levels at profit, while eliminating those in other countries that have higher costs and lower efficiencies. If the US did not think they could keep at least existing levels and leverage their advantages in a truly free market, they would not have proposed such an action. On the other hand, if ONLY the US did such an act it likely would lead to a reduction of US ag export.
However, for you to remain true to your new claim of being against subsidies by all players, you would not propose a unilateral elimination. Not if you knew the crucial ag data anyway. The US supplies two thirds of the world's corn. It would take decades to replace that output. Surely you would not propose we take such an action, would you? Mind you, if ethanol does continue to grow and as a result the price of corn in the US goes up, exports will drop regardless of subsidies and tarrifs. A unilateral e
I can't believe why so many Slashdotters are complaining about the decision to limit internet access for a product that isn't activated/paid.
Activated != Paid for. I bought a PC recently that came with XP on it. Out of curiosity to see how much crap was preinstalled "for my benefit" I booted into it. It was not activated. I clearly paid for it (major manufacturer, OEM install, purchased retail at CompUSA). Therefore your claim is baseless on this account.
Second, not all PCs are on the internet, not need they be. Face it, most companies are not full of people who need to access the Internet at work. Not even every household is full of machines that *need* Internet access. A basic priniple of security is least privilege. If the PC doesn't need access to the Web, don't give it to it. Except with Vista where apparently you will have to connect the PC to the internet for it to keep working.
And yes I will exercise my freedom of choice and choose not to use Vista. But that doesn't make what they are doing right. Nonethless, bring it on. It will only encourage more alternative OS adoption (OSX, Linux).
How much of that low-cost is due to subsidising? How does the US stack up against developing countries pre-subsidy? I'd like a figure please.
More to the point, do you have any idea what impact subsidising your food exports has on the global economy? Specifically, have you got a clue just how badly fucked the third-world, agriculture-based economies are thanks to your heroic efforts to get rid of this food that your farmers are overproducing so they can reap the benefits of such a heavily manipulated market?
You may not be sucking up other nations' resources in this regard, but you are destroying their ability to be economically profitable and competitive. The thing is, economically speaking it doesn't make much difference to the US - just a few less wasted fields here or there, a marginally improved national deficit figure - but to the countries who rely on food export to maintain any kind of currency in the global market, it is everything. Still, as long as nothing inconveniences the honest 'Merkin, yes?
You mean like nationalized companies that form a conglomerate to manipulate the price of oil, or countries that manipulate their own currency and tarrifs to keep their prices low on such items as labor and plastics, thus destroying the economic production of those resources in other countries. But it isn't politically correct to point those out, is it? As long as it makes the non-American feel beeter about themselves by putting down Americans, yes? Have you any idea what such subsidies cost the US? No, you probably don't. Do you have any idea what it cost the US to subsidize the military defense of Europe for so long? No, you probably don't. And just in case you don't get it, I'm against subsidies of all kinds. Whether you pay people to do things there is no supply for or you artificially limit the monetary representation of value, or place excessive tarrifs on imports and exports, they are all subsidies for something. Flooding the market with chips at below cost solely to eliminate competition from countries with stricter environmental controls (and thus more expensive) is the same thing.
Or how about European subsidies? Oh dirty little truth there: US subsidies and govt. spending are half European agricultural subsidies and spending. If your assertion is correct, then the EU is a greater threat to small agriculturally based countries than the US by a factor of two. But hey, that's not PC is it? Nevernind the fact that the EU spends almost half of it's budget on agricultural subsidies. If I subscribed to your thesis, I'd have to say that since the EU dedicates a much higher portion of it's budget to doing the evil deed than the US they are trying harder to do it. But that would be just as ridiculous as your assertions.
Further, agricultrual exports account for less than 10% of US exports. The lion's share? Capital goods such as transistors, aircraft, motor vehicle parts, computers, telecommunications equipment and so forth. These account for 49% of US exports. You know, things that enable other countries to produce goods.
But nonetheless, you entirely missed the point. The point is that the US is producing more key foodstuffs than it requires. Subsidy or no, that is a fact. It means we have more supply than we do demand. Which means that from a standpoint of food, we can support a much higher population. Now water on the other hand, that will get tighter until we find a better means for desalination and government lets up on it's general prohibition on greywater systems (building codes level stuff).
In fact there may be so little there, that there isn't an underground water supply to sustain a human civilization.
You mean like Phoenix?
Phoenix is actually how the Bureau of Land Management came into being. Prior to modern Phoenix natives built a civilization there that included irrigation canals - some of which are still in use today. Indeed the name came from the mythological creature because the ranchers and settlers knew they were building on top of the ruins of the last turbe to try it.
Through proper management of aquatic resources you'd be suprised how well humans can live in a desert. It would require using segregated "wastewater" systems; seperation of graywater from blackwater. Fortunately these systems ar eunderstood and relatively simple. It is primarily a matter of will to do it.
While it may seem too "sci-fi" we could dome in large areas in said desert to use for human civilization. This would provide a much more efficient system for water recirculation. We have the technology to do it. Again, it is a matter of will.
The construction of a pipeline to move desalinated water from the Texas coast to the aforementioend area would allow for the establishement of significant reseviors and feedstock for underground aquifers. Combined with other measures this woudl enable a large civilization to thrive in that location.
The fact that we've not yet done any of these things on a large scale is indicative of there not being a need for it. Yet.
We just don't give a fuck. The Prime Minister of Hungary is caught admitting to lying to the public about the economy on tape and Hungarians are out RIOTING (including tear gas!) in the streets. Our President has all but been caught lying about everything, royally fucking up everthing he's touched in the process, and the best we can muster is Bill Clinton, Richard Clarke, and Cindy Sheehan.
Of which one of them lied in a court of law on a relevant matter, then lied to the public, another is using her son's death to push her own agenda, and the third claims knowledge about events and actions he was not around for and lied about authorizing a flight for Saudi nationals, and takes credit for initating a project that later became known as the department of "Homeland Security".
It is really sad when the best we can come up with confront an accused liar is proven liars.
Slashdot Mirror
FTA:
The closest thing to saying the Chinese Government is doing it is a reference to an AFP article, with the words "tacit approval". So let us examine said article.
So there you have it. The only reference is an unreferenced and unsubstantiated claim that some lawmakers believe the Chinese government sanctioned them. That is to say they aren't doing anything about it. If in fact the origin has been determined to be hackers in China, and the Chinese government did nothing about it, then they are essentially correct to say that there is a minimum of tacit approval and one could say even a sanctioning of the actions.
... Even before this, you'd turn off all possible logging activity, lock up the security, stop unneeded services, so that you can be relatively secure during the attack.
If the boxes were so secure, how did they get in there?
You must be new to computer security. No box connected to a network is 100% secure.
Consider you have to hack into Us givernment servers with confidential data. Even if you're not an incredible hax0r, it's obvious that if they find out about you, you're totally screwed.
Not necessarily. If you are from a country that has no extradition agreement, or has no interest in helping the US out and may even privately applaud or benefit from your results there may be no reckoning coming. They may not have commissioned you to do the work but if they do nothing to stop you, where is the risk?
So the first thing you do, the MOMENT you grab the data, is cut the PC off the network.
And trigger systems that monitor for systems to drop off the network and/or cease logging, thus giving you less time to cover your tracks elsewhere, or at least get out of reach. Duh. I've got systems that monitor themselves (in addition to non-local monitoring) and in certain cases (such as logging being disabled w/o the proper auth sequence) will cut off all but a single local IP on the administration network (different interface). Windows boxen can be powered off via remote access cards installed in the machine and triggered when certain conditions arise such as a combination of a sudden loss of reporting and higher than normal IP traffic from a non-registered (aka non-standard) IP. Pull your alleged sure-thing activity and you lose immediately.
Why were the Windows boxes having "logs" of where the data was sent and so on. What kind of trojan would log their own activity on the compromised machine?
Because external log creation and storage is a key factor in Intrusion Detection Systems, and logging network conenctions is a key element in tracing what happened and where thigns went to. It is also a key ele
It also runs counter to most of the non-military goals of space exploration to talk about engaging in warfare in orbit.
Quite the contrary. It'd be foolish not to. By show of hands how many people here *honestly* expected mankind to return to space without a hint of military purpose? War has been fought everywhere man goes, and until man eliminates conflict (haha, yeah right) there will be a need for combative space assets. I say conflict and combative for a reason. Law enforcement is another aspect. Space exploration will largely utilize the government's military purposed space network.
Cheap(er) access to space means the barrier to entry is lower. This means that the risks become greater as the threat becomes greater.
If I were to put say twenty tons of metal, rock, and other dense materials into orbit each launch, send up a dozen of these, combine them wrap them in firepast, then set that object on a trajectory to your city, suddenly you'd be demanding a means to deny that action. With cheap access to LEO this becomes a very real and very dangerous threat. Even a 100% accurate and effective anti-ballistic missile system would fail to destroy this threat. There would be no nuclear involvement in the process either. But the impact would seem like a nuclear blast, and likely be more immediately devastating.
On a smaller scale imagine your nice little space station sitting up there. Unprotected. How easy will it be to eviscerate your space station?
What is throwing people into a tizzy is that contrary to the past, this document is up front and literal about it. Kudos for that.
The attitude of "journal articles need to be cryptic or they must not be important" needs to go.
More importantly, the attitude of "journal articles must be liked by the so-called referrees and reviewers and meet current politically correct (science and public) beliefs" needs to go.
Great. I think I can imagine Rummy's plans to improve space exploration. He'll take NASA's crew recommendations and cut them in half, send only enough fuel to get there, but not back, and ditch all the unnecessaries like food and water. It will be a leaner, more mobile space force.
You mean he'll follow the recommendations of experts? Only fools, laymen, and people who want to spend someone else's money think you need to send all the fuel food and water you need to get back. Sometimes you do not. It depends on where you are going. Look up Mars Direct for an example of not needing to send everything with you. Do you think the settlers and explorers of teh western US took all their food, water, and fuel (read: feed for horses and mules)?
Reading carefully, this parapgraph suggests that the US is planning to engage in a kind of "tit for tat" crippling of Chinese satellites. This is a bad thing for strategic stability.
You mean to say "Reading as my bias indicates, this paragraph...". The ability described is fundamentally no different than the same capability we have for air, land, and sea. We are enterign a world where cheaper access to space is looming, and eventually will be as commoditized as air and sea travel are. The US doesn't want to lag behind in it's ability to perform military actions in space. Nor should it.
Seems you could use the Advisor. Jet fighters and anti-aircraft missiles, guns and artillery are all means to deny an adversary freedom of movement in the air. Yet would you claim you do not have freedom of movement in the Terrestrial Atmosphere because of them and their potential use against you?
You have conflated the ability to take out enemy targets with the complete elimination of the ability for the targets to peacefully exist otherwise. You have conflated a temporary action with a full-time one. You have thus committed a logical fallacy - in the process of trying to impugne another's ability in logic. You have further assumed that the President wrote that document. A fallacious assumption I am certain.
Logic is not a form of universal truth, it is a means of confirming that a given conclusion is an accurate conclusion based on the premises presented, and nothing more. The premises can be false, but the conclusion could still be logical.
In the argument you failed to logically analyzed we have the following:
Argument 1:
Premise 1: Freedom of action in space is important
Premise 2: Freedom of action in space is important to the US and it's interests
Conclusion 1: The US should have freedom of action in space
Argument 2:
Premise 1: The US (and US interests') should have freedom of action in space
Premise 2: Other entities may strive to prevent or hinder US (and US interests') action in space
Premise 3: Threats to US freedom action in space will involve non-US utilization of action in space
Conclusion: The US needs to be able to deny such action in space in order to protect it's freedom of action in space
The above arugments, premises, and conclusions do not logically lead to the "There will be no freedom of action in space". Your argument that they do is unsupported and erroneous, not to mention fallacious. To demonstrate further, change the word space to the word sea, or to air, or to land.
Furthermore, you assertion that the speech writers need a logic advisor is also erroneous. This wasn't a speech, it was/is a document not designed to be read aloud by the President. Surely you should have a reality advisor as well as a logic advisor sitting next to you. I don't imagine you want to look dumb in front of the world of well-versed, informed, and logical slashdot readers.
"The United States shall seek to minimize the creation of orbital debris by government and non-government operations in space in order to preserve the space environment for future generations,"
Translation: "A method to keep those pesky private launches and private activities to a minimum by creating standards they have to maintain while we the government exempt ourselves as we do with everything else"
"Any concerns over the environmental effects of launch are much more effectively handled by environmental groups rather than treaties"
No not really.
The environmental groups protest everything with involving the "n word".
It is almost to the point that they are the boy that cried wolf.
I fear that if a project has any real danger involved that they will be ignored as they have been for all the launches where they where just being silly.
I would rather have the treaties. I actually do trust the experts more than people the environmental groups.
Actually, treaties are a second-best option since they ignore experts and changing technology. The best option would be an industry group doing private certifications such as is done with electronics equipment (Underwriter Laboratories, for example). Failing that, a government panel of experts. The latter is the approach described in the document. Treaties are too static for a moving technology field.
We just have to hope that the technology it produces outweighs the destruction.
We have more than hope. We have history.
Land vehicles (and their area of effect) were militarized, and we have benefited greatly from the resulting advances.
Sea Vehicles (and their area of effect) were militarized, and we have benefited greatly from the resulting advances.
Air Vehicles (and their area of effect) were militarized, and we have benefited greatly from the resulting advances.
The most likely result is:
Space Vehicles (and their area of effect) were militarized, and we have benefited greatly from the resulting advances.
Indeed we have already benfited greatly from the effect of current militarization of space. Space was militarized decades ago folks. It is what made for cheaper launches, and GPS as well. Those cheaper launches provided for satellite TV, cable TV sattellites, and other telecommunications satellites to be launched when they were.
Many people cry out for "private space companies". Yet they already exist. Most launches in the US and Europe are done by private companies. The problem is the lack of non-telecommmunication private cargo. Anotehr problem is the tremendous amount of "red tape" to cut through and the many hurdles to getting even just a price. Fortunately, SpaceX is changing this. Boeing et al. have been primarily only onterested in big-dollar laucnhes - which means government and big corporation customers. If you need cargo launched to orbit, you don't go shoppping like normal. It is more like shopping for a new car without a starting price, and the dealer determining price by some magical proprietary formula depending on many factors that change each time you go and may have nothing to do with the features and capabilities you want.
The SCO lawsuit has validated open source ...
No, the widepsread usage and increase in usage of open source products for mission critical uses, the widespread adoption of the fundamentals of open source (availability, lock-in avidance, "freedom" of your own data). through open document and data storage policies, and the evolution and security of open source code validated open source.
Who says that? According to the World Radiation Center and the Max Planck institute, there has been no increase in solar irradiance since the 40s.
Nice try. By taking a small extract you make a large conclusion. A conclusion that is false. Given that the proponents of the anthropogenice global warming hypothesis nearly all indicate the start of the period to predate 1940, your selection of that period is invalid and overly selective.
The fact is that over the last several centuries there have been significant changes in TSI.
To whit one study that produced a 1200 year history of TSI based on a large variety of known data sources and effects concluded:
"solar output was significantly reduced between 1450 and 1850 AD, but slightly higher or similar to the present value during a period centered around 1200 AD."
We are currently in what is known as "The Modern Maximum". In the event the name didn't give you a hint it means there is more TSI reaching the Earth due to a variety of conditions to include solar wind effects. Research done using the records regarding the sun's activities over the past the past 1800 years shows a very strong correlation, and likely a causative one, between solar minimums an decreased temperatures.
Given that these histories are being compared to non-Terrestrial planetary temperature changes and like correlations are being found, this is strongly suggestive that the causative theory of solar cycles to global climate variations is sound. After all, there can be no anthropogenic effects on planets we do not inhabit or have industrial activity for.
This is the chief reason that solar forcing theory is the strongest theory. It is nearly the only one that can be carried to other planets that also experience thermal seaons. As such it can be either positively shown or positively disproved. As such one would think that true scientists interested in the truth about climate change would actively seek to study it, as opposed to simply ignoring the non-Terrestrial global warming ocurring in the solar system. Perhaps the answer to the question of why they do not is found in the question itself.
The problem for them is that the so-called environmentalism movement has hitched itself to GW. Without it they feel they do not have the moral authority to sway opinions and policy in the direction they want it to go. GW has become the fear stick. There are many, many valid reasons to reduce pollution, emissions, etc.. Yet these are ignored in favor of GW. This puts a large incentive to make sure the anthropogenic GW hypothesis survives: to it be disproved means they lose their "power".
An additional indication that it is ideology that drives this group is this group's avoidance of "smaller" changes. In particular changes that make significant reductions in consumption and emissions. In each of these cases the changes are "non-invasive". By which I mean that they do not force people to drive different cars, abandon their current ones, or make radical changes to their lifestyle. Indeed, in the majority of them there is no forcing or mandates at all. In some it is a reduction of current mandates regarding fuel and energy consumption and production that lead to improvements.
When the activists fail to even acknowledge these options and indeed even argue against them, it is indicative of the motivation and ideology that drives the movement. Namely that the alleged goals are not the actual goals at all.
As far as some studies that will help you learn about "who says" AND "What they say", here are some references from a few of the aforementioned studies:
Baliunas, S. and Jastrow, R. 1990. Evidence for long-term brightness changes of solar-type stars. Nature 348: 520-522.
Bard, E., Raisbeck, G., Yiou, F. and Jouzel, J. 1997. Solar modulation of cosmogenic nuclide production over the last millennium: comparison between 14C and 10Be records. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 150: 453-462.
Bard, E., Raisbeck, G., Yiou, F.
In an attemot to answer some of my questions ...here is the company's site and product listing.
http://www.aquasciences.com/
Apparently they have container models that can produce 1200 gal/day. 20'x8'x8'. So a couple of these on office buildings would do niceley.
They seem a bit on the large side for single-family home use. Bummer. Perhaps that would improve. These seem to have a built-in generator. If attached to grid I wonder how much smaller these would be. Perhaps multi-family structures could work out well with these, depending on electrical needs. At a target price of 25 cents per gallon, I suspect many places would, for now, be cheaper to use "city water". The question however then becomes: for how long?
Even Phoenix has cheaper water than this. Much cheaper.
However, for "off the grid" types, this is the last piece of the puzzle.
Yet further down
Anybody with half a brain knows that there has to be some humidity in the air in order to extract water. Wait, that explains it.
While it is an accomplishment to reduce the humidity requirement, it doe not eliminate it. Indeed given their claim of up to 600 gal/day I'd say that at the minimum required humidity of 14%, it is possible that they may require far more of them than is talked about. A key factor is how rapidly that output drops when the humidity levels drop. if it porduces 600 gal/day at optimum humidity levels, it may only put out say 10 gal/day. If that were the case you could not rely on this for troop support in such areas. A supplemental, sure.
Depending on the size and maintenance requirements, as well as the phsyical inputs other than air, it may not be cost effective to use these in more arid regions. Now, places like the southern US they would be quite useful.
What I'd like to know is the size and power requirements. Something like this could be quite useful in high-rise buildings. Pumping water to the upper levels requires a significant amount of power. If instead we could put a few of these on tops of buildings and use them to bring water down, we might see a net win in terms of supply and energy usage. Imagine places like Phoenix or Las Vegas.
Pheonix has an average daily humidity of about 55% IIRC. Thus it would stand to reason that these units could pump out their maximum output. Depending on their size and power requirements, several of these atop an office building in Phoenix could produce several thousand gallons per building. As office buildings their water requirements might be low enough to satisfy with these units. They would have the further advantage of dehumidifying the hot air of Phoenix, thus possibly resulting in a slight cooling load reduction.
Even small residential units could be tremendously benefited. The average person requires 125 gal/day. Thus one of these could supply the water needs (not counting grass lawns) of a family of four in Phoenix. If the house is designed with greywater and systems for landscaping purposes it is possible that one of these could fully supply the average water requirement of a family of four in Phoenix. Which leads to the question
Anyone from Phoneix care to share how much you pay for water? If you've got a spouse and a pair of kids, and this unit eliminated your water usage bill (there would still be sewage), how much would it save you per year?
40,000 of these units in Phoenix would drop the summer daily demand for water by 24Mgal/day, or 5-12% depending on the season (Summer to Winter).
Essentially, if this proved cost effective then the more arid parts of the country might be able to make large savings on their infrastructure and supply costs. Which would be yet another miltary requested technology applied to positive civilian use.
The next question is: does it scale up and down? Can it be scaled down to be an effective one-person supply? Do larger units demonstrate a better-than-linear increase in water production?
Combine this with greywater systems, solar thermal heating (water and home), and appropriate landscaping and we would be a long ways toward a more sustainable system - without major changes and reductions to our standard of living.
This spaghetti research is of course very related to the question of how the universe was created. After all, we know it was created by the FSM, and surely bending and breaking spaghetti was an integral part of the act of creation.
Oh ye unbelievers. When will you glean the insight that is of the Great Green Arkleseizure. You are so close, but miss the real insight. This research is useful to determining the origin of the universe. Yet more specifically it is important in that this research will reveal the lost sections of the universe. You see, on the day of the great sneeze, certain fragments of universe-ness were lost (the "Big Bang" is just your limited view of the Great Sneeze). This research will allow us to determine where and when the great stream of universe broke during the sneeze.
With this information we will be able to determine how many univeseres there and, and with further research how to find them. Once we have done this we will be able to determine which universe will be closest to the hankie by extrapolation of the relative positions of the arms (and thus hands) of the Great Green Arkleseizure. Then we can determine the day of the coming of the Great White Hankie. once we have determined these things, you the unbelievers will have no choice but to submit to our findings.
Every time a case such as this, or any other criticism of the Bush administration's policies regarding terrorism comes up, we hear all but the exact same thing: We need this [power | program | law] to fight terrorism. [If you disagree, you must support the terrorists.] Why is it that we never get to hear exactly why [power | program | law] is necessary to stop terrorists? I guess they're assuming that if they beat the drum of "We need this!!!1" long and hard enough people will believe it.
...terrorists, drug dealers, pedophiles, opposing political groups, militias...
This is limited to neither Bush, nor "national security". We see this in virtually everything the government does or wants to do. 'These subsidies will make our [lobby group] stronger", "this afterschool program will make kids stronger", "this gun registration bill will stop school shootings", "this bill will stop capaign finance corruption", "this bill will help the poor", "this tax increase will help the poor", "this bill helps minorities" and so on.
I'd wager that the people we elect to "know" these things don't have a clue how the proposals allegedly work. The government is essentially about increasing it's power. The only difference between the existing parties is the priority assigned to the various powers and the language used to get their bills passed. When some of the powers the Patriot Act granted were billed as supporting the common man against the big corporation, Democrats supported them and Republicans who opposed them were on the side of the big nasty corporations and against "the little guy". When those same powers were/are packaged as a matter of national security, the tables are reversed.
When the Republicans wanted tighter immigration controls the Democrats opposed them as being racially motivated. When the Democrats charge the current amdinistration with not doing enough to "secure our borders", the tables are reversed and fighting tighter immigration controls are tantamount to wanting open borders and allowing terrorists into the country.
These are all symptoms of the same problem. Said problem being that they don't think about the full ramifications and risks of their proposals -if at all- and act solely for personal gain nearly all of the time. This is true of both Republicans and Democrats. To a lesser extent it is true for all political parties.
yet when "terrorists" come up, certain people who have all rules and regulations disappear.
Fuck. I mean, er, bravo.
;^)
:) Suprised that anyone read it all. Thank you for doing so. I'm glad it encouraged you to consider things you hadn't before - even if you arrive at different conclusions than I in the end.
... subsidies and tarrifs. "Oh the poor farmers" will only get you so far in the US. Add onto it a threat the the farmers are suffering becuase of other countries and now you have a winning combination.
I'm not going to ask what you do for a job, but I'm curious how you found the time for that opus.
A lot of it was memory and memory inspired. Being able to recall enough specifics lets me find my references quickly. That and Beagle.
I'm not giong to argue with the gist of what you're saying, because I can't. A lot of what you said I know to be true, and some of it I hadn't even considered before. Frankly I'm surprised I could be bothered to read the whole thing at all...
I'm suprised too.
In my defense though, I really wasn't having a dig at the US in particular (at least, that wasn't my intention) except insofar as the parent was pointing out what a good little global player the US is. He/she seemed to have said as much without any apparent understanding of what was going on behind those figures and what the impact was.
Fair enough, I can accept that. A small tit-for-tat scneario; so be it. Most people respond as the OP did but are unable to put their finger on why exactly. For some it is simple nationalism and perceptual pride. For others, some claims simply "smell" - as certain code "smells" to a programmer. Lacking the background they latch on to the first stat that supports their gut feeling. Maybe it is the lack of good reportmaking and research skills being taught in public schools (including journalism schools!), I can't say. Nonetheless it is often perceived as smugness. Sometimes this perception is colored by reverse nationalism if I may coin a phrase.
nationalism is a palgue of every generation, and sadly it seems to be rampant in America of late (a gross generalisation, I know, but I doubt you'll have the heart to disagree).
You are correct, I don't disagree. I would add however, that the generalization of it being an American trend/tendency of late is a form of nationalism as well. Sadly, it generates an increase in nationalism. Nationalism is strongest when those of a nation feel attacked or threatened. "Buy American", for example, only came about when groups wihtin America felt threatened by external competition. They parlayed this into a nationalistic push for
The best advice I have for those who want to see a less nationalistic America (or any country really), is to stop making attacks against it. Ironically, this is the case for several of the problems plaguing the world today. The steps taken to combat a percevied or real problem serve nly to exacerbate the problem - much like the nuclear arms race of the Cold War Era, I readily admit I sometimes fall into the tit-for-tat scenario as wtness by my first post on this thread. However, the more I catch myself doing so the more I can resist it by becoming aware of the causes.
By all means don't merely pass the no-subsidy torch to me. Like an idea, it can be shared. The more of us there are opposing them and being able to make arguments for the people to hear as well as those who will think more about it, the better off we'll be in our fight to stop them. I certainly hope you will remain a part of that fight. This particular fight is something that extends to every country.
And the Republicans are in a much better position to pressure the machine manufacturers into subtlely changing (via software) the results in regions that matter the most, if only because they control the two electable branches of government.
On the other hand Demcrats are in a better position to do so becuase they can pressure the manufacturers by saying that they will come into power, hold an "investigation" and find no significant irregularities. Since the public, they would claim, will tend to believe the Republicans had a hand in it they (Democrats) will be more trusted to say there was nothing wrong. They can tell them "If you don't we will loudly proclaim that you conspired with the Republicans and keep the agenda on the front page thus putting you in a worse position than you are now." "Indeed", they could say, "even if you don't tamper in either direction and the Republicans win, we can capitalize on the mistrust among the public to make changes anyway, perhaps not accepting your machines at all. So either way, if you want to stay in this market, you will need our help."
And the people would accept the Democrat charade because it would satisfy their mistaken sense of "justice"; they woudl feel that "something was done" and the uppity Republicans put in their place.
What is interesting is that you drew a connection between faulty machines and Republicans the way you did. You didn't predict the Repuglicans would win because of apathy over this issue, rather that they would only win because they cheated. This line of argument is a disservice to the notion of auditable voting systems.
Instead of pointing out that either party can cheat in this regard, you chose to lay the alleged future cheating at the feet of one party. This essentially provides a scapegoat for the system. Rather than assigning cheating to any party at all a more intelligent and effective argument in the long run is to work against the opportunity to cheat, not an alleged future cheater party. By assigning a singular party as the cheaters if that party is taken from power the mind of the public is that the problem went away. And the problem will stay but the public will think it gone.
I realize it is fun to poke at your opponents, but in many cases particularly ones such as this, it is misdirected and ultimately counterproductive. Hence I had to point out a plausible scenario for the Democrats to do what you assign to the Republicans to demonstrate that it is not limited to them.
It specifically said:
Just because you the poster failed to read that last word does not mean you get to then say what he wants as if it was your idea,and slam him for not thinking it. Mods, please take appropriate action regarding parent post.
That said, your idea is a paltry imitation of his. He wants more than a sales organization. He wants a company that can take on the big boys on their own turf: big database work. That means application support that goes beyond the little stuff done by most (all?) current DB smaller companies.
Which means that Congress can and will investigate this.
Care to show where in the constitution the investigative power has been delegated to the lawmaking body? Go ahead, give it a try.
The Congress as a body can investigate itself for certain things, though criminal investigations are the purview of the executive branch. Investigations of criminal or suspected criminal activities are supposed to be done by the executive branch and decided by the judical branch when evidence supports a case being made.
This notion that the US Congress is the investigative body of the US is a horribly dangerous one. From "investigating" baseball to alleged illegal activities, it is nothing more than a combination power grab and grandstanding opporutnity. Ever watch any? When a congress critter's turn to "ask questions" comes aorund they seem to spend the first 80% of their turn making speeches, sometimes that have absolutely nothing to do with the stated purpose of the "investigation".
The US Congress has no constitutional authority to compel testimony of any sort. It is not a lawful court for anythig beyind it's own internal squables. Not only does allowing it to act as one usurp the power of the two other branches, it serves to further exacerbate the "partisanship" and misdirection so common in the once-hallowed halls of congress.
Tension between the branches of government is not a healthy thing. Checks and balances on powers, avoidance of power duplication and contention; these are healthy things to have.Further, your notion of tension nearly dictates and certaily perpetuates, the notion that there should be only two parties, or that there are two clear and opposing sides to each. This, too, is an unhealthy situation - both for liberty and for responsible governance. History shows us that any effectively mandated choice between two political organizations will result in a situation where it is "the lesser of two evils" that people resign themselves to. Even a review of how the two-party "system" came about in the US will show this to be the case.
Finally, given the number of Demcrats who actually support the action taken by Bush's Administration I doubt we'll see much of an "investigation", if any. They are already jockeying for the next POTUS run. At most we'll see yet another dog and steamer show claiming to be doing something.
Bear in mind that this is one of the very few people whose position on price really matters.
Wal-Mart is NOT a person. Bear that in mind.
Not quite true. You took a swipe at Americans for doing something the Europeans and Japanese do, using figures that only supported your point of view, as opposed to a more accurate usage.
Spin? How about a lie on your part. I said military defense, not war effort. It is you who twisted that around. Though now that you mention it, the US did have a hand in the defeat of Hitler in WWII. Not that I was referring to that.
Hardly. I'm as pissed off about them as I am about US subsidies. I'm pissed off about any subsidy that props up a first-world minor economy (agriculture is hardly our main export) at the drastic expense of third-world major economies. However, I wasn't on a moral high-horse about how the US is worse than anyone else. I was pointing out the fact that the massive food overproduction by the US is nothing to crow about, since it is supported artificially and to the detriment of most of the developing world.
You can say that now. But the fact is you poked at the US instead of pointing out subsidies in general are a bad thing.
That's a key point, in fact. The food exports would be far lower if they weren't so heavily subsidised by the US tax dollar. My point? It is not nearly as important to the US economy to be exporting food as it is for most African nations, for whom it is in fact vital to their economic wellbeing. And yet, agriculture subsidies - US, EU and any other large player - artifically keep the exports high, the price of food low and thus cripple these third-world economies. You're just supporting my point, not debunking it.
You don't actually provide any evidence that the lack of US subsides would increase the price of food and decrease US supply, though it may well do so. You do not make apoint, you make an unfounded assertion - one that may ultimately prove false. If the prices were higher and were high enough to make a profit, the supply would also be high. While we do know that there is a surplus, we can not say for certainty that US exports would actually drop. In order to support that, you would have to prove that the price increase resulting from the lack of US subsidies would leave a price still too low for US farmers to compete with, Higher prices benefit everyone who sells. If the prices without US subsidies would still be high enough to produce a profit for US farmers, they would still do it. Indeed, it may even lead to a small increase in US food exports. I suspect this is a main reason the US' proposal to eliminate all agricultural subsidies and tarrifs was rebuffed so soundly. It is likely that the increase in price would be enough to support exisitng US production levels at profit, while eliminating those in other countries that have higher costs and lower efficiencies. If the US did not think they could keep at least existing levels and leverage their advantages in a truly free market, they would not have proposed such an action. On the other hand, if ONLY the US did such an act it likely would lead to a reduction of US ag export.
However, for you to remain true to your new claim of being against subsidies by all players, you would not propose a unilateral elimination. Not if you knew the crucial ag data anyway. The US supplies two thirds of the world's corn. It would take decades to replace that output. Surely you would not propose we take such an action, would you? Mind you, if ethanol does continue to grow and as a result the price of corn in the US goes up, exports will drop regardless of subsidies and tarrifs. A unilateral e
I can't believe why so many Slashdotters are complaining about the decision to limit internet access for a product that isn't activated/paid.
Activated != Paid for. I bought a PC recently that came with XP on it. Out of curiosity to see how much crap was preinstalled "for my benefit" I booted into it. It was not activated. I clearly paid for it (major manufacturer, OEM install, purchased retail at CompUSA). Therefore your claim is baseless on this account.
Second, not all PCs are on the internet, not need they be. Face it, most companies are not full of people who need to access the Internet at work. Not even every household is full of machines that *need* Internet access. A basic priniple of security is least privilege. If the PC doesn't need access to the Web, don't give it to it. Except with Vista where apparently you will have to connect the PC to the internet for it to keep working.
And yes I will exercise my freedom of choice and choose not to use Vista. But that doesn't make what they are doing right. Nonethless, bring it on. It will only encourage more alternative OS adoption (OSX, Linux).
Jesus, all the numbers and none of the context.
How much of that low-cost is due to subsidising? How does the US stack up against developing countries pre-subsidy? I'd like a figure please.
More to the point, do you have any idea what impact subsidising your food exports has on the global economy? Specifically, have you got a clue just how badly fucked the third-world, agriculture-based economies are thanks to your heroic efforts to get rid of this food that your farmers are overproducing so they can reap the benefits of such a heavily manipulated market?
You may not be sucking up other nations' resources in this regard, but you are destroying their ability to be economically profitable and competitive. The thing is, economically speaking it doesn't make much difference to the US - just a few less wasted fields here or there, a marginally improved national deficit figure - but to the countries who rely on food export to maintain any kind of currency in the global market, it is everything. Still, as long as nothing inconveniences the honest 'Merkin, yes?
You mean like nationalized companies that form a conglomerate to manipulate the price of oil, or countries that manipulate their own currency and tarrifs to keep their prices low on such items as labor and plastics, thus destroying the economic production of those resources in other countries. But it isn't politically correct to point those out, is it? As long as it makes the non-American feel beeter about themselves by putting down Americans, yes? Have you any idea what such subsidies cost the US? No, you probably don't. Do you have any idea what it cost the US to subsidize the military defense of Europe for so long? No, you probably don't. And just in case you don't get it, I'm against subsidies of all kinds. Whether you pay people to do things there is no supply for or you artificially limit the monetary representation of value, or place excessive tarrifs on imports and exports, they are all subsidies for something. Flooding the market with chips at below cost solely to eliminate competition from countries with stricter environmental controls (and thus more expensive) is the same thing.
Or how about European subsidies? Oh dirty little truth there: US subsidies and govt. spending are half European agricultural subsidies and spending. If your assertion is correct, then the EU is a greater threat to small agriculturally based countries than the US by a factor of two. But hey, that's not PC is it? Nevernind the fact that the EU spends almost half of it's budget on agricultural subsidies. If I subscribed to your thesis, I'd have to say that since the EU dedicates a much higher portion of it's budget to doing the evil deed than the US they are trying harder to do it. But that would be just as ridiculous as your assertions.
Further, agricultrual exports account for less than 10% of US exports. The lion's share? Capital goods such as transistors, aircraft, motor vehicle parts, computers, telecommunications equipment and so forth. These account for 49% of US exports. You know, things that enable other countries to produce goods.
But nonetheless, you entirely missed the point. The point is that the US is producing more key foodstuffs than it requires. Subsidy or no, that is a fact. It means we have more supply than we do demand. Which means that from a standpoint of food, we can support a much higher population. Now water on the other hand, that will get tighter until we find a better means for desalination and government lets up on it's general prohibition on greywater systems (building codes level stuff).
In fact there may be so little there, that there isn't an underground water supply to sustain a human civilization.
You mean like Phoenix?
Phoenix is actually how the Bureau of Land Management came into being. Prior to modern Phoenix natives built a civilization there that included irrigation canals - some of which are still in use today. Indeed the name came from the mythological creature because the ranchers and settlers knew they were building on top of the ruins of the last turbe to try it.
Through proper management of aquatic resources you'd be suprised how well humans can live in a desert. It would require using segregated "wastewater" systems; seperation of graywater from blackwater. Fortunately these systems ar eunderstood and relatively simple. It is primarily a matter of will to do it.
While it may seem too "sci-fi" we could dome in large areas in said desert to use for human civilization. This would provide a much more efficient system for water recirculation. We have the technology to do it. Again, it is a matter of will.
The construction of a pipeline to move desalinated water from the Texas coast to the aforementioend area would allow for the establishement of significant reseviors and feedstock for underground aquifers. Combined with other measures this woudl enable a large civilization to thrive in that location.
The fact that we've not yet done any of these things on a large scale is indicative of there not being a need for it. Yet.
We just don't give a fuck. The Prime Minister of Hungary is caught admitting to lying to the public about the economy on tape and Hungarians are out RIOTING (including tear gas!) in the streets. Our President has all but been caught lying about everything, royally fucking up everthing he's touched in the process, and the best we can muster is Bill Clinton, Richard Clarke, and Cindy Sheehan.
Of which one of them lied in a court of law on a relevant matter, then lied to the public, another is using her son's death to push her own agenda, and the third claims knowledge about events and actions he was not around for and lied about authorizing a flight for Saudi nationals, and takes credit for initating a project that later became known as the department of "Homeland Security".
It is really sad when the best we can come up with confront an accused liar is proven liars.