My first sysadmin job, I supported a whole network of Solaris systems that were named after fish. The little joke was the servers were named after baitfish, and the workstations were named after gamefish. Get it? IT WAS HILARIOUS!
So what your saying is, the first strategy of a corporate-friendly government is to wantonly shut down companies on a whim, and create the added expense of shipping datacenter equipment and man-hours for agents to sift through "terrabytes" of data when it's just a "cut and dry" matter of the business handing over some records they probably should have had readily accessible anyway. Am I understanding that correctly?
6. RMS. He is the clueless wildcard. So far the only statement from his camp has been a bumbling, "It's GNU/Linux!" Nobody seems to have listened. He is definately the Ozzy of these Osbournes.
The FSF response to the SCO lawsuit was written by Eben Moglen. Also, after you get past the "It's GNU/Linux", they open up a barrage of incredible logic and common-sense, making the over-all release a good read.
The Foundation notes that despite the alarmist statements SCO's employees have made, the Foundation has not been sued, nor has SCO, despite our requests, identified any work whose copyright the Foundation holds-including all of IBM's modifications to the kernel for use with IBM's S/390 mainframe computers, assigned to the Foundation by IBM--that SCO asserts infringes its rights in any way.
Moreover, there are straightforward legal reasons why SCO's assertions concerning claims against the kernel or other free software are likely to fail. As to its trade secret claims, which are the only claims actually made in the lawsuit against IBM, there remains the simple fact that SCO has for years distributed copies of the kernel, Linux, as part of GNU/Linux free software systems. Those systems were distributed by SCO in full compliance with GPL, and therefore included complete source code. So SCO itself has continuously published, as part of its regular business, the material which it claims includes its trade secrets. There is simply no legal basis on which SCO can claim trade secret liability in others for material it widely and commercially published itself under a license that specifically permitted unrestricted copying and distribution.
Of course there is lobbying involved. And of course many business interests will be slavering for that liberated spectrum. They may even get quite a bit of it.
I'm not so naive that I can't smell the money or understand the corruption behind a lot of this, but I'm not so cynical as to think there was NO concern for public welfare in the making of this decision.
You may not have understood, I was not arguing that there will suddenly be hundreds more broadcast stations, but to move the current broadcast infrastructure to a portion of spectrum and type of technology which will allow denser packing of stations. This will result in MORE bandwidth available for other things. Not just more stations, but for stuff like Meaningful wireless internet. Of all the proposed solutions to the "Last-mile" problem for high-speed communications connectivity, two-way digital communication on the VHF spectrum is one of the best, and I bet we'll see that happen in about 20 years or so.
This doesn't mean I think we won't still have to pay for the internet. I don't think we're suddenly going to see these incredible wallhacking electromagnetic waves just given back to the public for unlimited exploitation. I don't think that would necessarily be a good thing, either, because we need to have fairly clear and simple rules for playing nice on the airwaves so that everybody can enjoy them.
Under the old paradigm, that meant only one broadcaster per frequency, and you had to have space between channels so you didn't get interference. Under the new paradigm, this will probably mean devices have to conform to a set standard for digital transmission which allows multiplexing of many transmitters with many receivers.
Yes this provides a big opportunity to people who sell TVs now. I agree it's rather inconvenient, and maybe you don't want this particular quo. I did say it was a "small, immediate quid-pro-quo". The REAL quo we're talking about is your ability to use that tasty VHF spectrum for something other than getting TV on in 20 years. What goes in that spectrum might not be free (you may have to buy new equipment, and some services may require a subscription...it's too early to tell exactly what will be there), but it WILL be available, and that's more than we can say right now.
Maybe you don't see the value in more services being offered over the air, and more commerce being conducted in the ether, but the FCC does, and is acting in what they perceive to be the interests of the American people. I personally agree this is something that needs to be done, because it's quickly becoming apparent that the TV spectrum is too valuable to be squandered on something as outdated as TV technology.
You say "satisfactory technology," but it's most assuredly NOT satisfactory, when it's proven that TV occupies ten times as much band as it needs to. The "picture" may be good enough, but given the past 40 years of advancements in efficient usage of radio waves, the "signal" is ridiculously big.
We don't still carry around 5-lb phones with a shoulder-strap, now that 8oz pocket-phones are available. We don't fill entire basements with a vacuum-tube computer now that a 6" cube full of transistors can accomplish the same task. We don't hire girls on rollerskates to carry cables across a switch-room and manually connect calls now that automated multiplexers can route thousands of lines at a time. Why should we keep broadcasting TV on huge stripes of the EM-band, when we can condense the signal and accomplish more stuff in there?
Again, I do acknowledge the inevitability (if not the necessity:) of the move, but question the allocation of the burdens.
There is necessity, though. The necessity is to get rid of inefficent analog TV stations which monopolize a very large and very useful portion of the spectrum, because new technology has made it possible to broadcast video and audio in much more efficient ways. Currently, the majority of VHF and UHF channels in any given area go unused, because stations cannot operate on consecutive frequencies.
Once the transition to DTV is complete, and the transmission of older analog TV is halted, that spectrum can be put to another use, in order to achieve a greater public benefit. Now, it's unlikely that this spectrum will be just opened up to unrestricted public use, but portions of it may be. Other parts may be reserved for particular applications or new appliances, which haven't even been conceived yet (a lot can happen in 15 years).
The point is, we'll never get to do new things with this spectrum if we don't stop broadcasting TV on them. But TV is (to a majority of the general public) a good thing, so we don't quite want to abandon the idea. However, we have ways now to do TV much more efficiently from a spectrum-use standpoint (which most consumers don't understand is the REAL impetus behind the government mandate for DTV), while at the same time updating broadcast and receiver technology for better picture/sound with (currently) limited interactive features, so the public receives a small immediate quid-pro-quo for the sacrifice of having to buy new equipment.
Yes, it's an uncomfortable transition, and it obsoletes a lot of gear. But we're not just doing this so that the A/Vphiles among us can get a better view of Leno's chin (which I must say is amazingly sharp on my HD-set, although I receive my signal via cable rather than over the air). Rather, it's an investment. And when the real returns on this investment start appearing in the form of new applications for the spectrum we're abandoning, I think the public will find the effort was worth it.
On my laptop at work, I use Windows (2000), but browse with Mozilla, and the error message I got was "You need IE 5 or higher".
A glance at the requirements site reveals the following:
You need Windows 98, ME, 2000, XP
You need Internet Explorer 5.0 or higher - Upgrade Now You need RealPlayer 8.0 or higher - Upgrade Now OR Windows Media Player 7.1 or higher - Upgrade Now You need a Connection Speed of 128 kbps or higher - Retake Connection Speed
I don't know what IE does that Mozilla can't, but I've already seen the "hot new releases" they're offering anyway (well, most of them, but I'm not really interested in the rest).
Gee why didn't I think of that, because an index offers huge advantages over the ability to search through large amounts of data by electronic means....
I won't deny that there are some excellent indices in some publications, but a significantly large paper volume will be a nightmare of cross-referencing, page turning, and keyword guessing if it relies on a paer index. What happens when you insert a few pages here and there, or remove some? What if you know a phrase or keyword you're looking for, but the index authors referenced it slightly differently? What about linking searches between multiple huge volumes? How good is a paper index at ranking possible results based on what I'm specifically searching for?
I KNOW how to use a damn index, and I also know that given the choice between a paper index and a robust search utility to find something in the equivalent of 400 reams of paper, I'd NEVER reach for the paper index.
I'm not a fan of Democrats or Republicans, but I have to note the following facts:
I have to call bullsh*t on this particular myth. In the 22 years since Reagan was elected in 1980 the only time the budget was balanced was when a Dem was president.
While the Presedent enjoys the power to veto any actions of Congress, he does not set the Federal budget, Congress does. In the final years of Clinton's presidency, when the government came into the black, Republicans controlled a majority in the Legislature. When Congress shifted to a Democratic majority in 2000, and Bush II was (s)elected, the budget slipped back into the red. Whether this was the fault of the Legislature or of the Executive (or of the political climate in the wake of the terrorist attacks) can be debated ad infinitum.
This is the party of corporate welfare, bloated military spending, and intrusive, unnecessary policing of its own citizens (e.g. the 'war' on drugs, which has inflated the prison populations to unprecedented levels in the industrialized world - yes, prisons do cost money).
The Clinton administration saw record levels of drug arrests, convictions and imprisonment. More Americans were prosecuted under his (Democratic) watch, than under Reagan and Bush I combined.
Now, I'm well aware that the Republicans are guilty of increasing military spending, which grants enormous windfalls to many aggressive-minded corporations, typically run by conservatives. But the arguments being presented here to dispell a "myth" are simply propogating another. There is a lot more going on in the Federal Government than simply the whims of whoever has the helm of the Executive Branch. Also, the modern left in America is way to the right of center when viewed in a global or historical context.
Simply speaking, if you're truly interested in reducing Federal expenditures, corporate handouts, and intrusive, unecessary policing, voting for Democrats OR Republicans into Federal office is going to get you further from your goals, despite the rhetoric either party uses in it's campaigning.
...was rather bothered by American bootleggers, too. But unlike Charles Dickens, he didn't go on a big U.S. tour to lobby for stronger international copyright protection. He and his publisher issued a higher-quality print of his novels, sold them for a reasonable price (a bit higher than the bootlegs, but not much), and made an appeal to his fanbase to boycott the unauthorized version.
The result was, he made a lot of money, and the unauthorized version didn't sell very well.
Neat, huh?
Re:It might look something like this
on
Wartrapping?
·
· Score: 4, Funny
Very few people who are truly that crazy have access to hypersonic ballistic nukes. Add to that the difficulty of hitting a ribbon one meter wide and a fraction of a milimeter thick with a ballistic missile. The chances of someone taking it out at far range are fairly slim.
Like I said, the danger can't be reduced to 0 possibility of a successful attack, but it can be reduced to a level low enough to justify the investment.
I was not concerned about only 1km of cable falling. It seems obvious to me that there is the potential for a lot more than that to fall (although no nearly enough to wrap around the earth). The point of noting the weight of a 1km section of cable was to emphasize the immense surface-area to weight ratio this material has. It's lighter than tissue paper. It doesn't really matter how long a section falls, because it's going to have the falling properties of a crepe-paper streamer.
Additionally, those concerned about the cable wrapping around the planet, remember that the entire structure is revolving at the same tangental velocity as the Earth's rotation, with it's center of gravity on a stable GEO. If it falls, it will fall more or less straight down (give or take a bit for winds). Most likely the part that does fall will land in the surrounding oceans.
What is not known is if or how the cable will disintigrate into individual nanotubes. If this happened, there may be some danger related to inhalation of the particles. Research is being conducted into this issue, and the designers are working on a way to insure that in the event of a catastrophic failure, the material tends to break into rather larger pieces, which couldn't be inhaled.
If you read the FAQ, you would know that a 1km-long section of the cable would weigh in at a whopping 7.5 kg (i.e. it's lighter than tissue paper). Yes, if you calculate mass alone, it holds a substantial amount of potential energy. But that energy is dispersed into the air across a HUUUUUGE surface-area to mass ratio, and the result is it would impact the surface with about as much force as a few tons of loose feathers or ticker-tape confetti.
Nothing can be protected 100% completely from attack by terrorists (or anyone for that matter). There is always a risk that if someone really wants to see something destroyed, they can do it.
That said, however, putting a ribbon to space out in the middle of the ocean, away from any shipping lanes, international flight paths, or human activity at all is a good start at protection. It's HARD to get to a location that far removed from everything without anyone noticing (especially if that location is under constant watch and guard.
Additionally, this operation, while not devoid of human workers, won't have so many people laboring at the anchor-station or on the cable to make a terrorist attack really that fruitful. There just isn't that much casualty potential (although the capital losses could be considerable).
But capital is just money. And the neat thing about money is if you spend it on projects which create wealth, you're not really losing it. If the cable can operate for a few years, it will have paid for itself, anyway, and very likely several additional cables will be built to expand capacity. These cables will most likely expand radially from earth all around the equator, under the control of diverse groups of people. We already know that humans want to get out into space and explore it, even at considerable expense. The proposed budget for the cable is not chump change, but nor is it unreasonable when compared to other space projects. America alone has spent considerably more on the Space Shuttle program over the past 25 years, and for that money, we'd be able to lift up as much material (measured by tonnage) in 2-3 years as we have in all the Shuttle missions combined. So the real risk of huge financial loss is if a terrorist destroys the cable in that initial timeframe. Additionally, since most of the cost is in the research, design and development, rather than the construction and deployment, another cable could be built if the first one is destroyed (admittedly, if the first one is destroyed very quickly, there will be a huge political barrier to overcome before a second cable could be deployed).
Also, since the thing is so cheap to operate, many more nations, companies, and individuals will be able to afford to undertake space-based projects.
The thing is, if the whole world is given access to space, There won't be that much motivation to destroy the means to that access. If one country or company jealously hordes the cable and doesn't lease out usage to everyone else, that country or company will:
1. Risk considerable reprisal, both in the form of economic sanctions by the rest of the world, possible military threats, and very likely terrorist threats
2: Miss out on a fantastic opportunity to enhance the economy of the entire planet, and line its own pockets considerably in the process.
Therefore, it will be in the interest of whoever builds such a machine to let the rest of the world use it as well, including the deployment of components for the construction of additional cables.
Programmers in America see themselves as professionals. The ones who do it on the cheap in India, don't.
$5/hr affords a very comfortable lifestyle in India. The programmers are well-rewarded for their efforts, in comparison to the cost of living where they reside.
In comparison, a McDonalds grill-cook makes $5-6/hr here in FL, but makes $8-10/hr in Manhattan. You'd be hard pressed to find a lawyer or doctor making less than six figures in New York, but in Tennessee, many live comfortably on $50-70k.
In India, $5/hr buys about as much as $20/hr does here. It's a function of the local economy.
There is a significantly different approach to revealing spoilers about plot hooks in a movie with a "fresh" script, and one based on a novel that's over 60 years old. Just too many people have read this story already. It's part of our culture. I'm not just talking about Geeks and slashdotters here, but literally tens (if not hundreds) of millions of people have read LotR.
There's no real secret that this trilogy of films has been crafted by lovers of Tolkein's writing FOR lovers of Tolkein's writing. It's safely assumed that most viewers of the movie, and people slavering for advance looks at the trailers and film footage, are already enthusiasts who know what's coming, and are (generally) interested in glimpses of the world, creatures, and artistic vision, not the plot, which is familiar to them.
I don't defend any University's right to enforce the law as they interpret it, as law enforcement is clearly the responsibility of government executives, and not any business of University professors or administrators.
Slashdot Mirror
My first sysadmin job, I supported a whole network of Solaris systems that were named after fish. The little joke was the servers were named after baitfish, and the workstations were named after gamefish. Get it? IT WAS HILARIOUS!
I sort of miss that place sometimes though.
So what your saying is, the first strategy of a corporate-friendly government is to wantonly shut down companies on a whim, and create the added expense of shipping datacenter equipment and man-hours for agents to sift through "terrabytes" of data when it's just a "cut and dry" matter of the business handing over some records they probably should have had readily accessible anyway. Am I understanding that correctly?
The FSF response to the SCO lawsuit was written by Eben Moglen. Also, after you get past the "It's GNU/Linux", they open up a barrage of incredible logic and common-sense, making the over-all release a good read.
not only did I, but I did it while logged in, and I stand by it. Penny Arcade is consistently weak.
I thought copyright law had exemptions for satire and humour.
It does. The problem here is that Penny Arcade isn't funny.
This was already mentioned in one comment, but it was in a reply to another comment WAY down the page.
For REAL potato-gun/homemade cannon fun, Check out Sam Barros' PowerLabs cannon research page, which includes photos and videos of some amazing fun.
I think he meant those things weren't available on the net. It made sense to me.
Of course there is lobbying involved. And of course many business interests will be slavering for that liberated spectrum. They may even get quite a bit of it.
I'm not so naive that I can't smell the money or understand the corruption behind a lot of this, but I'm not so cynical as to think there was NO concern for public welfare in the making of this decision.
You may not have understood, I was not arguing that there will suddenly be hundreds more broadcast stations, but to move the current broadcast infrastructure to a portion of spectrum and type of technology which will allow denser packing of stations. This will result in MORE bandwidth available for other things. Not just more stations, but for stuff like Meaningful wireless internet. Of all the proposed solutions to the "Last-mile" problem for high-speed communications connectivity, two-way digital communication on the VHF spectrum is one of the best, and I bet we'll see that happen in about 20 years or so.
This doesn't mean I think we won't still have to pay for the internet. I don't think we're suddenly going to see these incredible wallhacking electromagnetic waves just given back to the public for unlimited exploitation. I don't think that would necessarily be a good thing, either, because we need to have fairly clear and simple rules for playing nice on the airwaves so that everybody can enjoy them.
Under the old paradigm, that meant only one broadcaster per frequency, and you had to have space between channels so you didn't get interference. Under the new paradigm, this will probably mean devices have to conform to a set standard for digital transmission which allows multiplexing of many transmitters with many receivers.
Yes this provides a big opportunity to people who sell TVs now. I agree it's rather inconvenient, and maybe you don't want this particular quo. I did say it was a "small, immediate quid-pro-quo". The REAL quo we're talking about is your ability to use that tasty VHF spectrum for something other than getting TV on in 20 years. What goes in that spectrum might not be free (you may have to buy new equipment, and some services may require a subscription...it's too early to tell exactly what will be there), but it WILL be available, and that's more than we can say right now.
Maybe you don't see the value in more services being offered over the air, and more commerce being conducted in the ether, but the FCC does, and is acting in what they perceive to be the interests of the American people. I personally agree this is something that needs to be done, because it's quickly becoming apparent that the TV spectrum is too valuable to be squandered on something as outdated as TV technology.
You say "satisfactory technology," but it's most assuredly NOT satisfactory, when it's proven that TV occupies ten times as much band as it needs to. The "picture" may be good enough, but given the past 40 years of advancements in efficient usage of radio waves, the "signal" is ridiculously big.
We don't still carry around 5-lb phones with a shoulder-strap, now that 8oz pocket-phones are available. We don't fill entire basements with a vacuum-tube computer now that a 6" cube full of transistors can accomplish the same task. We don't hire girls on rollerskates to carry cables across a switch-room and manually connect calls now that automated multiplexers can route thousands of lines at a time. Why should we keep broadcasting TV on huge stripes of the EM-band, when we can condense the signal and accomplish more stuff in there?
Again, I do acknowledge the inevitability (if not the necessity :) of the move, but question the allocation of the burdens.
There is necessity, though. The necessity is to get rid of inefficent analog TV stations which monopolize a very large and very useful portion of the spectrum, because new technology has made it possible to broadcast video and audio in much more efficient ways. Currently, the majority of VHF and UHF channels in any given area go unused, because stations cannot operate on consecutive frequencies.
Once the transition to DTV is complete, and the transmission of older analog TV is halted, that spectrum can be put to another use, in order to achieve a greater public benefit. Now, it's unlikely that this spectrum will be just opened up to unrestricted public use, but portions of it may be. Other parts may be reserved for particular applications or new appliances, which haven't even been conceived yet (a lot can happen in 15 years).
The point is, we'll never get to do new things with this spectrum if we don't stop broadcasting TV on them. But TV is (to a majority of the general public) a good thing, so we don't quite want to abandon the idea. However, we have ways now to do TV much more efficiently from a spectrum-use standpoint (which most consumers don't understand is the REAL impetus behind the government mandate for DTV), while at the same time updating broadcast and receiver technology for better picture/sound with (currently) limited interactive features, so the public receives a small immediate quid-pro-quo for the sacrifice of having to buy new equipment.
Yes, it's an uncomfortable transition, and it obsoletes a lot of gear. But we're not just doing this so that the A/Vphiles among us can get a better view of Leno's chin (which I must say is amazingly sharp on my HD-set, although I receive my signal via cable rather than over the air). Rather, it's an investment. And when the real returns on this investment start appearing in the form of new applications for the spectrum we're abandoning, I think the public will find the effort was worth it.
If you want some real overanylization, check out this article, written by a UC-Berkeley PhD candidate (seriously).
One of the better quotes:
"What The Overfiend's gigantic, mutated penises and sperm grotesquely caricature, I would suggest, is American imperialism in Japan."
I'm reluctant to shout "Looney!", but...well...no, it really is looney.
A glance at the requirements site reveals the following:
I don't know what IE does that Mozilla can't, but I've already seen the "hot new releases" they're offering anyway (well, most of them, but I'm not really interested in the rest).
Gee why didn't I think of that, because an index offers huge advantages over the ability to search through large amounts of data by electronic means....
I won't deny that there are some excellent indices in some publications, but a significantly large paper volume will be a nightmare of cross-referencing, page turning, and keyword guessing if it relies on a paer index. What happens when you insert a few pages here and there, or remove some? What if you know a phrase or keyword you're looking for, but the index authors referenced it slightly differently? What about linking searches between multiple huge volumes? How good is a paper index at ranking possible results based on what I'm specifically searching for?
I KNOW how to use a damn index, and I also know that given the choice between a paper index and a robust search utility to find something in the equivalent of 400 reams of paper, I'd NEVER reach for the paper index.
Plus, it's real easy to search for arbitrary data through 6000 pages!
I'm not a fan of Democrats or Republicans, but I have to note the following facts:
I have to call bullsh*t on this particular myth. In the 22 years since Reagan was elected in 1980 the only time the budget was balanced was when a Dem was president.
While the Presedent enjoys the power to veto any actions of Congress, he does not set the Federal budget, Congress does. In the final years of Clinton's presidency, when the government came into the black, Republicans controlled a majority in the Legislature. When Congress shifted to a Democratic majority in 2000, and Bush II was (s)elected, the budget slipped back into the red. Whether this was the fault of the Legislature or of the Executive (or of the political climate in the wake of the terrorist attacks) can be debated ad infinitum.
This is the party of corporate welfare, bloated military spending, and intrusive, unnecessary policing of its own citizens (e.g. the 'war' on drugs, which has inflated the prison populations to unprecedented levels in the industrialized world - yes, prisons do cost money).
The Clinton administration saw record levels of drug arrests, convictions and imprisonment. More Americans were prosecuted under his (Democratic) watch, than under Reagan and Bush I combined.
Now, I'm well aware that the Republicans are guilty of increasing military spending, which grants enormous windfalls to many aggressive-minded corporations, typically run by conservatives. But the arguments being presented here to dispell a "myth" are simply propogating another. There is a lot more going on in the Federal Government than simply the whims of whoever has the helm of the Executive Branch. Also, the modern left in America is way to the right of center when viewed in a global or historical context.
Simply speaking, if you're truly interested in reducing Federal expenditures, corporate handouts, and intrusive, unecessary policing, voting for Democrats OR Republicans into Federal office is going to get you further from your goals, despite the rhetoric either party uses in it's campaigning.
...was rather bothered by American bootleggers, too. But unlike Charles Dickens, he didn't go on a big U.S. tour to lobby for stronger international copyright protection. He and his publisher issued a higher-quality print of his novels, sold them for a reasonable price (a bit higher than the bootlegs, but not much), and made an appeal to his fanbase to boycott the unauthorized version.
The result was, he made a lot of money, and the unauthorized version didn't sell very well.
Neat, huh?
d'Oh!
I mean like this.
blargle...now it's not even funny anymore.
I think it would look more like this.
Very few people who are truly that crazy have access to hypersonic ballistic nukes. Add to that the difficulty of hitting a ribbon one meter wide and a fraction of a milimeter thick with a ballistic missile. The chances of someone taking it out at far range are fairly slim.
Like I said, the danger can't be reduced to 0 possibility of a successful attack, but it can be reduced to a level low enough to justify the investment.
I was not concerned about only 1km of cable falling. It seems obvious to me that there is the potential for a lot more than that to fall (although no nearly enough to wrap around the earth). The point of noting the weight of a 1km section of cable was to emphasize the immense surface-area to weight ratio this material has. It's lighter than tissue paper. It doesn't really matter how long a section falls, because it's going to have the falling properties of a crepe-paper streamer.
Additionally, those concerned about the cable wrapping around the planet, remember that the entire structure is revolving at the same tangental velocity as the Earth's rotation, with it's center of gravity on a stable GEO. If it falls, it will fall more or less straight down (give or take a bit for winds). Most likely the part that does fall will land in the surrounding oceans.
What is not known is if or how the cable will disintigrate into individual nanotubes. If this happened, there may be some danger related to inhalation of the particles. Research is being conducted into this issue, and the designers are working on a way to insure that in the event of a catastrophic failure, the material tends to break into rather larger pieces, which couldn't be inhaled.
If you read the FAQ, you would know that a 1km-long section of the cable would weigh in at a whopping 7.5 kg (i.e. it's lighter than tissue paper). Yes, if you calculate mass alone, it holds a substantial amount of potential energy. But that energy is dispersed into the air across a HUUUUUGE surface-area to mass ratio, and the result is it would impact the surface with about as much force as a few tons of loose feathers or ticker-tape confetti.
Big mess? Yes.
Tidal Wave? More like a ripple.
Nothing can be protected 100% completely from attack by terrorists (or anyone for that matter). There is always a risk that if someone really wants to see something destroyed, they can do it.
That said, however, putting a ribbon to space out in the middle of the ocean, away from any shipping lanes, international flight paths, or human activity at all is a good start at protection. It's HARD to get to a location that far removed from everything without anyone noticing (especially if that location is under constant watch and guard.
Additionally, this operation, while not devoid of human workers, won't have so many people laboring at the anchor-station or on the cable to make a terrorist attack really that fruitful. There just isn't that much casualty potential (although the capital losses could be considerable).
But capital is just money. And the neat thing about money is if you spend it on projects which create wealth, you're not really losing it. If the cable can operate for a few years, it will have paid for itself, anyway, and very likely several additional cables will be built to expand capacity. These cables will most likely expand radially from earth all around the equator, under the control of diverse groups of people. We already know that humans want to get out into space and explore it, even at considerable expense. The proposed budget for the cable is not chump change, but nor is it unreasonable when compared to other space projects. America alone has spent considerably more on the Space Shuttle program over the past 25 years, and for that money, we'd be able to lift up as much material (measured by tonnage) in 2-3 years as we have in all the Shuttle missions combined. So the real risk of huge financial loss is if a terrorist destroys the cable in that initial timeframe. Additionally, since most of the cost is in the research, design and development, rather than the construction and deployment, another cable could be built if the first one is destroyed (admittedly, if the first one is destroyed very quickly, there will be a huge political barrier to overcome before a second cable could be deployed).
Also, since the thing is so cheap to operate, many more nations, companies, and individuals will be able to afford to undertake space-based projects.
The thing is, if the whole world is given access to space, There won't be that much motivation to destroy the means to that access. If one country or company jealously hordes the cable and doesn't lease out usage to everyone else, that country or company will:
1. Risk considerable reprisal, both in the form of economic sanctions by the rest of the world, possible military threats, and very likely terrorist threats
2: Miss out on a fantastic opportunity to enhance the economy of the entire planet, and line its own pockets considerably in the process.
Therefore, it will be in the interest of whoever builds such a machine to let the rest of the world use it as well, including the deployment of components for the construction of additional cables.
Programmers in America see themselves as professionals. The ones who do it on the cheap in India, don't.
$5/hr affords a very comfortable lifestyle in India. The programmers are well-rewarded for their efforts, in comparison to the cost of living where they reside.
In comparison, a McDonalds grill-cook makes $5-6/hr here in FL, but makes $8-10/hr in Manhattan. You'd be hard pressed to find a lawyer or doctor making less than six figures in New York, but in Tennessee, many live comfortably on $50-70k.
In India, $5/hr buys about as much as $20/hr does here. It's a function of the local economy.
Regarding Spoilers:
There is a significantly different approach to revealing spoilers about plot hooks in a movie with a "fresh" script, and one based on a novel that's over 60 years old. Just too many people have read this story already. It's part of our culture. I'm not just talking about Geeks and slashdotters here, but literally tens (if not hundreds) of millions of people have read LotR.
There's no real secret that this trilogy of films has been crafted by lovers of Tolkein's writing FOR lovers of Tolkein's writing. It's safely assumed that most viewers of the movie, and people slavering for advance looks at the trailers and film footage, are already enthusiasts who know what's coming, and are (generally) interested in glimpses of the world, creatures, and artistic vision, not the plot, which is familiar to them.
I don't defend any University's right to enforce the law as they interpret it, as law enforcement is clearly the responsibility of government executives, and not any business of University professors or administrators.
...they changed the headline, so that makes it all okay, right?