So basically like what we have in the music and software worlds pretty much? You don't quite own that CD, you're just allowed to use it because the product they leased to you is on it... something like that?
I know what you're getting at but, under normal circumstances, there's nothing stopping you from buying and selling used CDs. Now, copying/distributing the content on those CDs via different media - That's where the system falls apart.
...but I apparently lost my cookies when I upgraded to FF3.
I had the opposite reaction. I admit to tossing my cookies after noticing the memory usage that FF2 was inflicting, but upgrading to FF3 wasn't in the least bit nauseating - Actually kind of pleasant.
The theoretical model would include physical things -- namely, silicon atoms.
But the fact remains - Even if you've got a theoretical model that contains physical things, unless you actually build it you can't put it on a scale.
Tell you what - Work up a Solidworks model of the platinum block they're using now. Print it out, set it on your scale, and adjust the calibration until that reads 1 kg. Now step on and see how much you've gained.
You can define the kg as a certain number of atoms, but unless you actually build one that doesn't buy you much.
My first thought was of more efficient ball bearings. Such perfect ball bearings alone could reduce world-wide energy usage by a large percentage. Technology like this is the truly "green" tech that we need to proliferate in addition to the other forms we are currently working on.
Only if we could make rounder bearings for roughly the same cost as the ones being produced now. Maybe worth looking at, but we're pretty damned good at making ball bearings right now. They're nearly perfectly round (not to the scale of the things in this article, but pretty good) and they're dirt cheap (low labor/material usage for production).
I'm not trying to dissuade you from what may be a good idea, but everything that we look at to possibly save energy needs to be investigated all the way from raw material collection to manufacture to energy use at the end user level.
There is beauty in many different breast shapes, though everyone will have their preferences. I think any slashdotter with access to any kind of breasts would be pretty happy. Apart from the female ones, they probably aren't too fussed.
Sadly, I suspect that a great many slashdotters have breasts. Male or female...
No, they're supposed to be maximizing shareholder profits.
That is depressingly accurate and insightful. It would be wonderful if all businesses listened to their customers. And hopefully this move by Netflix will be a good move to keep the customers happy and subscribed. But, as a publicly traded company, their obligation is to maximize their stock price through whatever ethical means necessary.
I sincerely hope that the "listen to your customers" and "provide a good service for a reasonable price" strategy works out, though. I'd love to see those principles extended into other markets.
I learned about it at a briefing from John Phillips, chief scientist with the CIA, and I cannot post the distances he was quoting with any more resolution than "surprising" - Sorry.
But be assured that some of the best optics folks in the nation are working stuff like this. And they're really good at it.
They should use the politicians that control the agency, and the upper level bosses in the agency, as the first test subjects.
Dunno about the politicians but if the upper level bosses in the agency hold security clearances (I assume they do), then if they haven't already been logged they probably will be soon. At that level, you've pretty much signed away any expectation of privacy in any part of your life.
As a matter of fact, even uncleared people within the DoE are being re-fingerprinted (used to be ink, but they're going digital now) and having their faces re-photoed. I assume that includes an iris scan with sufficient resolution for ID, but I don't know for sure. A 'relaxed' and 'expressionless' front-facing photo is mandatory and encoded onto the new badges they're rolling out. I assume that they're also kept on file.
Echo xonar's note on the psychedelics. A good healthy breakfast of funky fungus will blow your pupils to the point that the iris is difficult to find, let alone ID.
However, it's not terribly difficult to recognize when somebody is on mushrooms/LSD/etc. If they're going to detain you based on your irises, having them missing is probably just as effective a way to get arrested as springing up a positive match.
You don't fight crime by catching criminals. You don't fight crime by deterrence. You fight crime by removing the incentive.
For some people, there will always be incentive to take things they haven't worked for. And incentive to murder occasionally. And incentive to rape. Etc.
I'm all for trying to prevent criminals from becoming criminals (white collar/blue collar/no collar/whatever). But deterrence and occasional separation from society are essential tools for maintaining a safe society.
Anybody notice the mention of Lockheed Martin in the original article?
Really? Is more outsourcing of sensitive government tasks the way to go? Have we learned nothing from experience...
The federal government outsources just about all of their sensitive science and engineering. Sandia National Lab is run by Lockheed Martin. LANL and LLNL are also run by contractors. Nothing new.
You're correct. Iris scans, as opposed to retinal scans, can be done quickly using only ambient lighting. And, with decent optics, they can be done at surprising distances. The only real limitation is the atmospheric effects you get from small air currents, thermals, etc. And, on a calm, cool day, those don't become an issue for a good way off.
DU is nasty - no doubt. But the radioactivity isn't the problem. It's an ugly heavy metal (just like lead and some others that you wouldn't want to ingest). And, like I said, I felt for the guy - really. And I understand how such an emotional event could cause him to skew his views and blame something illogical rather than accept that sometimes terrible things just happen. But that just backs up the notion that he was being driven by bias, not rational thinking.
What was bad was that there was so much blind acceptance in the crowd that the radiation from the DU had been carried back and was obviously the cause of the leukemia (based on just a few comments - I obviously didn't talk with everyone there). Also, the fact that a long half-life was called out as an additional hazard should have been flatly rejected by everyone there - Instead I hear it parroted. If the activists has even a basic knowledge of the subject matter they were complaining about, they would have known that it's ridiculous. Any idea what the half-life of gold it - It's HUGE!
Really - I realize that August 6 is a Wednesday this year, but making the 2-hour drive to Los Alamos some year may be worth it just to observe some of the goings-on.
The supplies of coal, oil, gas and fissionable materials is severely limited...
I'm with you on oil and gas but, if we re-process and use sensible nuclear plants, there's enough fissionable material to power the earth for a long, long time. Of course, those are two big ifs.
Acre after acre after acre of blank concrete roof, perhaps with a few skylights thrown in. Cover those enormous areas with solar panels, and you'd probably be generating quite a bit of power. Also, you don't need to worry about long transmission distances - your plant is pretty much right smack in the middle of the city.
That's the best idea I've heard all day. Power moguls are already leasing small pieces of land from farmers for wind turbines, why not lease unused roof space from business owners? With environmentally friendly production and no dent from large farms outside the city, it seems like a real winning situation.
Good call - Anyone know if this is already being done?
But I'm sure you've known a lot of activists personally and have direct experience with their activities, or you wouldn't have made such sweeping generalizations, right?
I wouldn't say that I know many, but that's mainly because it typically doesn't take me long to assess them and write them off as uneducated and unrecoverably biased. I do know a few and I've met a lot. Of course, it all depends on your definition - I only know one guy who takes it to the point of marching around with signs, but I know & assist a few who are the write letters/circulate petitions/work on city council types. Maybe the 'activists' you associate with are just coming from a very different pool than mine.
That doesn't describe a single activist that I've known.
Come to Los Alamos, NM on August 6 - I'll introduce you to hundreds. Last year I listened to a very well-received speech from a guy who had served overseas. He lost his son to leukemia not long after returning. Absolutely fucking tragic - I felt for him. The kicker was that he (and based on comments I heard in the crowd, many others) believed that the leukemia was a result of him being exposed to depleted uranium in the field and carrying back radiation that infected his son. He punctuated that point by pointing out the extremely long half-life of DU. The notion that radiation from DU could be carried back and induce leukemia coupled with the idea that a long half-life corresponds to high levels of radioactivity can only be produced by extreme levels of both ignorance and bias.
You wanted an argument? Oh, I'm sorry, but this is abuse...
I notice that your post and your sig are highly correlated...
It's amazing how far the technology has advanced over the last couple of years and the new products are exciting (as demonstrated by the frequency of/. posts announcing major advances) - Maybe my comment about panel production was a little hasty. But, even with the increased efficiency, that doesn't eliminate footprint associated with large solar farms. The new panels are great for home use (not affected by this interruption), but in order to put out as much energy as a coal plant (let alone nuclear) you need a huge field of these things. And the plants and critters don't respond well to that (if you're into that kind of thing).
But whatever, go denigrate people who've dedicated their lives to making the world a better place if that helps you sleep at night.
I agree that ridiculing activists is a waste of time that could be dedicated to something more useful. But, from my experience, most of the most energetic activists I see haven't dedicated their lives to making the world a better place. They've dedicated their lives to pouring huge amounts of time and effort making themselves feel like they're making the world a better place - Big difference. Writing letters and submitting petitions is typically a lot more effective than marching with signs, but not nearly as much fun nor as good a social experience. There are a lot of excellent exceptions of course, but the trend seems to be to latch on to a cause you like, find some statistics/publications that support it, ignore all contrary evidence, then make some signs and go harass anyone with an opposing opinion.
Sorry for the slightly off-topic rant - I'm hopped up on chocolate-covered espresso beans. =)
They may not be desirable to humans, but there is no shortage of species that call a desert home.
Hey - I'm a member of one of those species, you insensitive clod! New Mexico has some terrific deserts with thriving human (and other) populations. You're spot on - They're not collapsed nor undesirable ecosystems, it's just that many people don't think they're as pretty as the really wet areas and those of us that inhabit them have to live a bit differently than those in the rain forest/marshlands/etc.
And, even though I'm a solar-skeptic, deserts are terrific places for wind turbines.
Seriously, anyone who has seriously looked into green energy has found just this one huge drawback (there are others which I will not go into now) insurmountable for large scale operation.
I agree with what you have to say, but feel the need to run off on a tangent.
The term 'green' bugs me when applied to solar power. Producing solar cells isn't a very friendly process and the environmental footprint of a large solar farm is worse than that of an oil-rig or gas mine. Just because they don't create waste while operating, IMHO, doesn't make them green. Hopefully this hiatus will yield a rational analysis of that. Nuclear power seems much 'greener' to me despite the fact that it's rarely labeled as such.
I think the summary just misspoke a little. It says that they were each caught with $800k but, if you assume that $800k was the total between the two, it works out to ~$2.7M with ~$1.9M going to Russia.
No - he's spot on. Of course biometric scanners can be deceived. His point is that it's much more difficult to trick a fingerprint scanner than it is to type in four numbers. There's no infallible way to secure the machines - But they could be made much more secure without a major inconvenience to the end user.
Slashdot Mirror
So basically like what we have in the music and software worlds pretty much? You don't quite own that CD, you're just allowed to use it because the product they leased to you is on it ... something like that?
I know what you're getting at but, under normal circumstances, there's nothing stopping you from buying and selling used CDs. Now, copying/distributing the content on those CDs via different media - That's where the system falls apart.
...but I apparently lost my cookies when I upgraded to FF3.
I had the opposite reaction. I admit to tossing my cookies after noticing the memory usage that FF2 was inflicting, but upgrading to FF3 wasn't in the least bit nauseating - Actually kind of pleasant.
So how do you define a pound?
My driver's license (a legal document!) says that I weigh 185 lbs. So, 1 lb is defined as my weight divided by 185.
Therefore, 1 kg = 2.20462262 * (1 gnick-weight) / 185. Was that so hard? A measurable quantity.
The only problem I see is that I don't to live out my days on some shelf in France.
The theoretical model would include physical things -- namely, silicon atoms.
But the fact remains - Even if you've got a theoretical model that contains physical things, unless you actually build it you can't put it on a scale.
Tell you what - Work up a Solidworks model of the platinum block they're using now. Print it out, set it on your scale, and adjust the calibration until that reads 1 kg. Now step on and see how much you've gained.
You can define the kg as a certain number of atoms, but unless you actually build one that doesn't buy you much.
My first thought was of more efficient ball bearings. Such perfect ball bearings alone could reduce world-wide energy usage by a large percentage. Technology like this is the truly "green" tech that we need to proliferate in addition to the other forms we are currently working on.
Only if we could make rounder bearings for roughly the same cost as the ones being produced now. Maybe worth looking at, but we're pretty damned good at making ball bearings right now. They're nearly perfectly round (not to the scale of the things in this article, but pretty good) and they're dirt cheap (low labor/material usage for production).
I'm not trying to dissuade you from what may be a good idea, but everything that we look at to possibly save energy needs to be investigated all the way from raw material collection to manufacture to energy use at the end user level.
I'm just saying.
There is beauty in many different breast shapes, though everyone will have their preferences. I think any slashdotter with access to any kind of breasts would be pretty happy. Apart from the female ones, they probably aren't too fussed.
Sadly, I suspect that a great many slashdotters have breasts. Male or female...
No, they're supposed to be maximizing shareholder profits.
That is depressingly accurate and insightful. It would be wonderful if all businesses listened to their customers. And hopefully this move by Netflix will be a good move to keep the customers happy and subscribed. But, as a publicly traded company, their obligation is to maximize their stock price through whatever ethical means necessary.
I sincerely hope that the "listen to your customers" and "provide a good service for a reasonable price" strategy works out, though. I'd love to see those principles extended into other markets.
I learned about it at a briefing from John Phillips, chief scientist with the CIA, and I cannot post the distances he was quoting with any more resolution than "surprising" - Sorry.
But be assured that some of the best optics folks in the nation are working stuff like this. And they're really good at it.
They should use the politicians that control the agency, and the upper level bosses in the agency, as the first test subjects.
Dunno about the politicians but if the upper level bosses in the agency hold security clearances (I assume they do), then if they haven't already been logged they probably will be soon. At that level, you've pretty much signed away any expectation of privacy in any part of your life.
As a matter of fact, even uncleared people within the DoE are being re-fingerprinted (used to be ink, but they're going digital now) and having their faces re-photoed. I assume that includes an iris scan with sufficient resolution for ID, but I don't know for sure. A 'relaxed' and 'expressionless' front-facing photo is mandatory and encoded onto the new badges they're rolling out. I assume that they're also kept on file.
Non-addictive drugs don't do jack to the pupils.
Echo xonar's note on the psychedelics. A good healthy breakfast of funky fungus will blow your pupils to the point that the iris is difficult to find, let alone ID.
However, it's not terribly difficult to recognize when somebody is on mushrooms/LSD/etc. If they're going to detain you based on your irises, having them missing is probably just as effective a way to get arrested as springing up a positive match.
You don't fight crime by catching criminals. You don't fight crime by deterrence. You fight crime by removing the incentive.
For some people, there will always be incentive to take things they haven't worked for. And incentive to murder occasionally. And incentive to rape. Etc.
I'm all for trying to prevent criminals from becoming criminals (white collar/blue collar/no collar/whatever). But deterrence and occasional separation from society are essential tools for maintaining a safe society.
Anybody notice the mention of Lockheed Martin in the original article?
Really? Is more outsourcing of sensitive government tasks the way to go? Have we learned nothing from experience...
The federal government outsources just about all of their sensitive science and engineering. Sandia National Lab is run by Lockheed Martin. LANL and LLNL are also run by contractors. Nothing new.
You're correct. Iris scans, as opposed to retinal scans, can be done quickly using only ambient lighting. And, with decent optics, they can be done at surprising distances. The only real limitation is the atmospheric effects you get from small air currents, thermals, etc. And, on a calm, cool day, those don't become an issue for a good way off.
My friends refer to it a climate-porn...
Can't say I strongly disagree since it has the feel of watching a loooong slow train wreck...
Are you implying that your porn resembles a loooong slow train wreck? I think you're doing it wrong.
DU is nasty - no doubt. But the radioactivity isn't the problem. It's an ugly heavy metal (just like lead and some others that you wouldn't want to ingest). And, like I said, I felt for the guy - really. And I understand how such an emotional event could cause him to skew his views and blame something illogical rather than accept that sometimes terrible things just happen. But that just backs up the notion that he was being driven by bias, not rational thinking.
What was bad was that there was so much blind acceptance in the crowd that the radiation from the DU had been carried back and was obviously the cause of the leukemia (based on just a few comments - I obviously didn't talk with everyone there). Also, the fact that a long half-life was called out as an additional hazard should have been flatly rejected by everyone there - Instead I hear it parroted. If the activists has even a basic knowledge of the subject matter they were complaining about, they would have known that it's ridiculous. Any idea what the half-life of gold it - It's HUGE!
Really - I realize that August 6 is a Wednesday this year, but making the 2-hour drive to Los Alamos some year may be worth it just to observe some of the goings-on.
The supplies of coal, oil, gas and fissionable materials is severely limited...
I'm with you on oil and gas but, if we re-process and use sensible nuclear plants, there's enough fissionable material to power the earth for a long, long time. Of course, those are two big ifs.
Acre after acre after acre of blank concrete roof, perhaps with a few skylights thrown in. Cover those enormous areas with solar panels, and you'd probably be generating quite a bit of power. Also, you don't need to worry about long transmission distances - your plant is pretty much right smack in the middle of the city.
That's the best idea I've heard all day. Power moguls are already leasing small pieces of land from farmers for wind turbines, why not lease unused roof space from business owners? With environmentally friendly production and no dent from large farms outside the city, it seems like a real winning situation.
Good call - Anyone know if this is already being done?
But I'm sure you've known a lot of activists personally and have direct experience with their activities, or you wouldn't have made such sweeping generalizations, right?
I wouldn't say that I know many, but that's mainly because it typically doesn't take me long to assess them and write them off as uneducated and unrecoverably biased. I do know a few and I've met a lot. Of course, it all depends on your definition - I only know one guy who takes it to the point of marching around with signs, but I know & assist a few who are the write letters/circulate petitions/work on city council types. Maybe the 'activists' you associate with are just coming from a very different pool than mine.
That doesn't describe a single activist that I've known.
Come to Los Alamos, NM on August 6 - I'll introduce you to hundreds. Last year I listened to a very well-received speech from a guy who had served overseas. He lost his son to leukemia not long after returning. Absolutely fucking tragic - I felt for him. The kicker was that he (and based on comments I heard in the crowd, many others) believed that the leukemia was a result of him being exposed to depleted uranium in the field and carrying back radiation that infected his son. He punctuated that point by pointing out the extremely long half-life of DU. The notion that radiation from DU could be carried back and induce leukemia coupled with the idea that a long half-life corresponds to high levels of radioactivity can only be produced by extreme levels of both ignorance and bias.
You wanted an argument? Oh, I'm sorry, but this is abuse...
I notice that your post and your sig are highly correlated...
It's amazing how far the technology has advanced over the last couple of years and the new products are exciting (as demonstrated by the frequency of /. posts announcing major advances) - Maybe my comment about panel production was a little hasty. But, even with the increased efficiency, that doesn't eliminate footprint associated with large solar farms. The new panels are great for home use (not affected by this interruption), but in order to put out as much energy as a coal plant (let alone nuclear) you need a huge field of these things. And the plants and critters don't respond well to that (if you're into that kind of thing).
But whatever, go denigrate people who've dedicated their lives to making the world a better place if that helps you sleep at night.
I agree that ridiculing activists is a waste of time that could be dedicated to something more useful. But, from my experience, most of the most energetic activists I see haven't dedicated their lives to making the world a better place. They've dedicated their lives to pouring huge amounts of time and effort making themselves feel like they're making the world a better place - Big difference. Writing letters and submitting petitions is typically a lot more effective than marching with signs, but not nearly as much fun nor as good a social experience. There are a lot of excellent exceptions of course, but the trend seems to be to latch on to a cause you like, find some statistics/publications that support it, ignore all contrary evidence, then make some signs and go harass anyone with an opposing opinion.
Sorry for the slightly off-topic rant - I'm hopped up on chocolate-covered espresso beans. =)
They may not be desirable to humans, but there is no shortage of species that call a desert home.
Hey - I'm a member of one of those species, you insensitive clod! New Mexico has some terrific deserts with thriving human (and other) populations. You're spot on - They're not collapsed nor undesirable ecosystems, it's just that many people don't think they're as pretty as the really wet areas and those of us that inhabit them have to live a bit differently than those in the rain forest/marshlands/etc.
And, even though I'm a solar-skeptic, deserts are terrific places for wind turbines.
Seriously, anyone who has seriously looked into green energy has found just this one huge drawback (there are others which I will not go into now) insurmountable for large scale operation.
I agree with what you have to say, but feel the need to run off on a tangent.
The term 'green' bugs me when applied to solar power. Producing solar cells isn't a very friendly process and the environmental footprint of a large solar farm is worse than that of an oil-rig or gas mine. Just because they don't create waste while operating, IMHO, doesn't make them green. Hopefully this hiatus will yield a rational analysis of that. Nuclear power seems much 'greener' to me despite the fact that it's rarely labeled as such.
You know, reading the article really takes the fun out of wildly speculating based on the summary. Did you really need to ruin it for us?
I think the summary just misspoke a little. It says that they were each caught with $800k but, if you assume that $800k was the total between the two, it works out to ~$2.7M with ~$1.9M going to Russia.
No - he's spot on. Of course biometric scanners can be deceived. His point is that it's much more difficult to trick a fingerprint scanner than it is to type in four numbers. There's no infallible way to secure the machines - But they could be made much more secure without a major inconvenience to the end user.
The big problem is the expense of implementation.