We need to vote in the opposite of lawmakers... we need people who seek to remove laws and return control to the people. We need politicians who don't really want the job.
You realize that these same folks you vote in tomorrow will become the same people you despise in a few years? Your solution doesn't address root cause, it only sticks a band-aid on the problem.
The only way to accomplish your goals is with term limits, public funding, and no money allowed by any public interest to be funneled to a politician. It should not take money to get an idea into congress. That's why we have representatives.
Take away the fundraising drives, "donations", and institute term limits and you remove the things that allow so much corruption and the drive to go into politics just to make money. Force them into public funding, where every candidate gets equal air time to express their beliefs, and leave money out of the equation. Do all of those things, and the only folks willing to become public servants will be those that are truly interested in doing the public good, rather than serving their own pockets.
I'm a liberal, but I have to agree. Why do they constantly feel the need to bypass the current warrant system? They can get these after the fact, yet they continue to push for ways to simply bypass them altogether. I realize it's a dangerous world, but if the end result turns the U.S. into something just as bad as that which we are trying to protect ourselves from, what's the use?
I also had to laugh a few of the choice comments in there.
(never even heard about Prodigy)
Someone in these kind of stories always suggests that you set up your own Facebook-like service or just a website. That's just thinking too much of yourself - why would people visit your site just to see your stuff?
You'd be surprised at how many people just surfed to find other people's 'home pages' on the net. I remember when I downloaded my first browser, I sat there for hours just trying random URL's to see what was out there, and trolling user home directories for HTML, Pics, etc. People have an unending curiosity about other people. Social sites like Facebook are the ultimate peeping tom sites. You get to peek into random people's lives and that seems to satisfy some weird internal need that humans have. Waaay back in the day, personal web sites were the epitome of lame, with pictures of their cats, dogs, houses, and then it just went down from there, but it let people put there stamp on a new electronic frontier of sorts. It didn't do much except to say "here I am", and it was enough.
The draw of these sites is undeniable. If they should standardize on the protocols, the existing sites would adapt, and possibly new sites would pop up. As with all things social, fads come and go, people will move from site to site, and life goes on. Even Facebook will eventually become the next AOL, even if these standards never materialize. There will always be a new site to replace it that's shiny in some weird way.
The right thing is to give these companies time to respond and to close potential security vulnerabilities before the information goes public. In this case, that obviously is not going to happen (by that I mean addressing vulnerabilities). I hate that they have to release this information in such a public way and wish they wouldn't, but I see the need for it all the same.
A $12,000 battery is nothing to sneeze at for replacement costs. If this tech proves to be as good as it sounds, it will make adoption of electric cars that much more feasible. Recharges in 5 minutes, and a huge improvement in total charge cycles, which means a huge savings for the owner, as well as better resale value.
Distances being another big concern, BUT, when someone invests in one of these cars, I would imagine they will either buy a car with a combustion backup engine like the Volt (can fall back on combustion engine to charge battery), or they have a second vehicle which is not electric. They could also fit a scenario where they simply don't travel that far and will probably fall back on rentals when needed for the occasional long trip.
This would be a boon to auto makers pushing electric automobiles. They have very poor resale value due to the fact that the battery must be replaced after a few years, and they are prohibitively expensive. Some stating they lose as much as 60% of their value compared to their combustion counterparts.
From the above wiki link above, the tradeoff for fast charging is low voltage and capacity:
"A lithium-titanate battery is a modified lithium-ion battery that uses lithium-titanate nanocrystals on the surface of its anode instead of carbon. This gives the anode a surface area of about 100 square meters per gram, compared with 3 square meters per gram for carbon, allowing electrons to enter and leave the anode quickly. This makes fast recharging possible and provides high currents when needed. The disadvantage is that lithium-titanate batteries have a lower voltage and capacity than conventional lithium-ion battery technologies."
I'd easily settle for a room temperature superconductor first, and then worry about mass producing using viable (read cheap) alternative materials later on, no?
Although any existing app could also be written to utilize multiple cores effectively, GDC makes it much easier and requires far less raw code to accomplish.
2019? By then hard drives and flash will have vastly greater and cheaper storage. We need terabyte discs NOW, not 10 years from now.
You assume the technology won't advance. You also missed the high points of holographic technology. It has the potential to offer virtually unlimited amounts of storage. The drawbacks are in it's access speed and the current capacity in the early prototypes.
You can't expect a technology to come out of the gate and stomp all competition. There are millions of dollars spent in R&D yearly on platter technology. That's not easy to overcome. I could easily see Holographic storage taking off if they can find a way to speed up access times, and they find a way to cheaply mass produce it. They already have the basics they need, and the potential is there. The HV discs prove that (although they rely on spindle tech to get the speed). It's just a matter of enhancing what they have.
If they can get away from spindle technology while utilizing true holographic displays with fast access speeds, spindle drives will die a quick death shortly after.
I'm in agreement with this except holographic storage has a few major drawbacks. Although SSD is steller for smaller storage requirements, platter drives are just too slow to be of much more use. Some highlights for holographic storage that should be pointed out first:
The theoretical limits for the storage density of this technique is approximately several tens of Terabytes (1 terabyte = 1024 gigabytes) per cubic centimeter Another factor: photographic media has the longest proven lifespan - over a century - of any modern media. Since there’s no physical contact you can read the media millions of times with no degradation.
Unfortunately, the current limitations make this a far off product that probably won't see the light of day for many years.
The initial prototype was only capable of 20 MB/sec. Although this isn't horrible for optical storage, it's hardly a top performer Although the theoretical limits are almost infinite, the reality of the prototypes were only about 300 MB. They have already fallen behind platter based storage. Seek times were in the area of 200 ms, which is also pretty poor compared to platter storage.
With all of that said, there have been viable advances in holographic storage. HVD's (Holographic Versatile Disc) show true promise.
These discs have the capacity to hold up to 6 terabytes (TB) of information. The HVD also has a transfer rate of 1 Gbit/s (125 MB/s). Sony, Philips, TDK, Panasonic and Optware all plan to release 1 TB capacity discs in 2019 while Maxell plans one for early 2020 with a capacity of 500 GB and transfer rate of 20 MB/s[2]—although HVD standards were approved and published on June 28, 2007, no company has released an HVD as of July of 2010.
No, they do not have every right to decide this. It is in direct contradiction to the 1st amendment Establishment clause as it advances religion via the Public School System. They have every right to object to what they pay taxes for, but they do not have every right to set public school curriculum to push religious teachings as fact.
Were they teaching this as a theological class, rather than a science class, then they could possibly get away with it, but that isn't at all what their proposing. They want it taught alongside evolution as a valid 'theory'.
If you don't want to accept the limitations on the warranty, then don't buy it, although I doubt you would find many hardware vendors willing to support hacking of their hardware to do something outside of it's design limits. This reminds me of the folks who would buy aftermarket additives for their engines which voided the warranties provided by the manufacturer. Why should the hardware vendor be responsible for anything you do that damages your phone? Every warranty has limitations. If you don't want to accept it's terms, then shop elsewhere. What happens if/when someone jailbreaks their phone, borks it, and then tries to warranty it? In that example, Apple would end up losing time and money to support failed jail breaking attempts. If you're going to go there, then you should just man up, and accept the result of your actions.
As to providers bricking your phone, I could see that one getting at least some legs. If they purposely damage your hardware because you chose to void your warranty, then they have proactively taken steps to cause a failure and deserve a lawsuit in return.
Why not? What makes the federal government immune to pressure from creationist groups? Isn't that a case of putting all your eggs in one basket?
Nothing to prevent it other than the courts. If each state has it's own 'agenda', you'd end up with every schools students learning different subjects, with differing standards applied to them. This is not putting all of your eggs in one basket, as you are implying if it should break, everything breaks. Obviously not the case as there is nothing to break. The government sets the standard according to the voters and that standard is then applied evenly throughout all school districts.
This will be struck down (and rightly so), by the supreme court, as they have already decided this very case:
In 1968, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in Epperson v. Arkansas that Arkansas's law prohibiting the teaching of evolution was in violation of the First Amendment. The Supreme Court held that the Establishment Clause prohibits the state from advancing any religion, and determined that the Arkansas law which allowed the teaching of creation while disallowing the teaching of evolution advanced a religion, and was therefore in violation of the 1st amendment Establishment clause. This holding reflected a broader understanding of the Establishment Clause: instead of just prohibiting laws that established a state religion, the Clause was interpreted to prohibit laws that furthered religion. Opponents, pointing to the previous decision, argued that this amounted to judicial activism. In reaction to the Epperson case, creationists in Louisiana passed a law requiring that public schools should give "equal time" to "alternative theories" of origin. The Supreme Court ruled in Edwards v. Aguillard that the Louisiana statute, which required creation to be taught alongside evolution every time evolution was taught, was unconstitutional. The Court laid out its rule as follows: "The Establishment Clause forbids the enactment of any law 'respecting an establishment of religion.' The Court has applied a three-pronged test to determine whether legislation comports with the Establishment Clause. First, the legislature must have adopted the law with a secular purpose. Second, the statute's principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion. Third, the statute must not result in an excessive entanglement of government with religion. Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 612-613, 91 S.Ct. 2105, 2111, 29 L.Ed.2d 745 (1971). State action violates the Establishment Clause if it fails to satisfy any of these prongs." Edwards v. Aguillard 482 U.S. 578, *582-583, 107 S.Ct. 2573, 2577 (U.S.La.,1987). The Court held that the law was not adopted with a secular purpose, because its purported purpose of "protecting academic freedom" was not furthered by limiting the freedom of teachers to teach what they thought appropriate; ruled that the act was discriminatory because it provided certain resources and guarantees to "creation scientists" which were not provided to those who taught evolution; and ruled that the law was intended to advance a particular religion because several state senators that had supported the bill stated that their support for the bill stemmed from their religious beliefs. While the Court held that creationism is an inherently religious belief, it did not hold that every mention of creationism in a public school is unconstitutional: "We do not imply that a legislature could never require that scientific critiques of prevailing scientific theories be taught. Indeed, the Court acknowledged in Stone that its decision forbidding the posting of the Ten Commandments did not mean that no use could ever be made of the Ten Commandments, or that the Ten Commandments played an exclusively religious role in the history of Western Civilization. 449 U.S., at 42, 101 S.Ct., at 194. In a similar way, teaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to schoolchildren
And what happens to the folks who dont' have easy access to a 'good' school?
You get the government out of schools and then you don't have fights like this and you WILL SEE natural selection at work. Some people will choose schools that teach hard science, some will not. The schools that teach the non-hard science will be un-selected by standardized tests, college admissions etc.
There are some thing that should not be left up to the states to decide as far as curriculum is concerned. Creationism is nothing more than teaching fairy tales with absolutely no scientific backing. There isn't a single shred of evidence to back up any of it. The sad point of this whole story is that these folks think they are doing a greater good when they couldn't be doing more of a disservice to their children or our country.
If you want to teach religious doctrine to your children, then by all means, send them to a private school. Public schools, funded by taxpayer dollars should not be promoting religion or it's teachings (and please don't start with the "creationism isn't religion" tripe. You can put lipstick on a pig, but it would still like an ass, as my old science teach used to be fond of saying).
A Faraday cage isn't good enough. The Earth's magnetic field will still get through. The only way to be properly protected is to live in a Faraday cage with superconducting walls.
This isn't more detailed, it's just more strict, but unlike the recent pollution spat in California, there is no proof that radiation from a cell phone is harmful (as opposed to auto emissions). There is a reason that the FCC has jurisdiction here. It would make things nearly impossible for a company to sell a product at a national level if every state had different standards. Imagine if USB devices had different standards for 50 states. It would be an absolute nightmare, and not only for the vendor.
If the radiation level is far below the 'dangerous' level, then how is it even relevant unless they are measuring every bit of EM they are receiving from every electronic device they are exposed to? If the science behind a municipal decision isn't sound, but it gives the impression that it is, it can create FUD just by it's existence. In some cases, it is necessary to have standards at a federal level.
In the case of auto/pollution standards stink (no pun intended) raised in California, there is an obvious public benefit to stricter standards, which California felt wasn't being met at the federal level. There are obvious health risks to exposure to those emissions, and countless studies proving that. Cell phones, on the contrary, have zero proof that they are dangerous to the public health.
I agree wholeheartedly. These folks are exposed to electromagnetic radiation on all sides, every day of their lives. They get it from the power lines, their appliances, and every other powered device on the planet. Unless they live in a cave (cage), these folks are deluding themselves. Of course video's like these don't help the stupidity...
And again, you assume that every router in every home offered the user an option to setup a secure network, when you know for a fact that only in recent years has the configuration software gotten better in that aspect. I still run into open home networks, even on new routers. Did they purposely ignore the warnings? No. Chances are they didn't read, or understand the warnings.
You are confusing intent with result. You are implying these people specifically set up their home routers to broadcast their wireless signal to the street when common sense dictates that's highly unlikely. It's more likely they don't understand that it is broadcasting out to the street and they have no idea what WEP or WPA is.
Slashdot Mirror
You realize that these same folks you vote in tomorrow will become the same people you despise in a few years? Your solution doesn't address root cause, it only sticks a band-aid on the problem.
The only way to accomplish your goals is with term limits, public funding, and no money allowed by any public interest to be funneled to a politician. It should not take money to get an idea into congress. That's why we have representatives.
Take away the fundraising drives, "donations", and institute term limits and you remove the things that allow so much corruption and the drive to go into politics just to make money. Force them into public funding, where every candidate gets equal air time to express their beliefs, and leave money out of the equation. Do all of those things, and the only folks willing to become public servants will be those that are truly interested in doing the public good, rather than serving their own pockets.
I'm a liberal, but I have to agree. Why do they constantly feel the need to bypass the current warrant system? They can get these after the fact, yet they continue to push for ways to simply bypass them altogether. I realize it's a dangerous world, but if the end result turns the U.S. into something just as bad as that which we are trying to protect ourselves from, what's the use?
The end does not justify the means...
I also had to laugh a few of the choice comments in there.
You'd be surprised at how many people just surfed to find other people's 'home pages' on the net. I remember when I downloaded my first browser, I sat there for hours just trying random URL's to see what was out there, and trolling user home directories for HTML, Pics, etc. People have an unending curiosity about other people. Social sites like Facebook are the ultimate peeping tom sites. You get to peek into random people's lives and that seems to satisfy some weird internal need that humans have. Waaay back in the day, personal web sites were the epitome of lame, with pictures of their cats, dogs, houses, and then it just went down from there, but it let people put there stamp on a new electronic frontier of sorts. It didn't do much except to say "here I am", and it was enough.
The draw of these sites is undeniable. If they should standardize on the protocols, the existing sites would adapt, and possibly new sites would pop up. As with all things social, fads come and go, people will move from site to site, and life goes on. Even Facebook will eventually become the next AOL, even if these standards never materialize. There will always be a new site to replace it that's shiny in some weird way.
The right thing is to give these companies time to respond and to close potential security vulnerabilities before the information goes public. In this case, that obviously is not going to happen (by that I mean addressing vulnerabilities). I hate that they have to release this information in such a public way and wish they wouldn't, but I see the need for it all the same.
Not so. The values being quoted for electric batteries are putting a real damper on sales.
http://rumors.automobilemag.com/6659473/green/will-battery-costs-bring-down-ev-resale-values/index.html
A $12,000 battery is nothing to sneeze at for replacement costs. If this tech proves to be as good as it sounds, it will make adoption of electric cars that much more feasible. Recharges in 5 minutes, and a huge improvement in total charge cycles, which means a huge savings for the owner, as well as better resale value.
Distances being another big concern, BUT, when someone invests in one of these cars, I would imagine they will either buy a car with a combustion backup engine like the Volt (can fall back on combustion engine to charge battery), or they have a second vehicle which is not electric. They could also fit a scenario where they simply don't travel that far and will probably fall back on rentals when needed for the occasional long trip.
This would be a boon to auto makers pushing electric automobiles. They have very poor resale value due to the fact that the battery must be replaced after a few years, and they are prohibitively expensive. Some stating they lose as much as 60% of their value compared to their combustion counterparts.
From the above wiki link above, the tradeoff for fast charging is low voltage and capacity:
I'd easily settle for a room temperature superconductor first, and then worry about mass producing using viable (read cheap) alternative materials later on, no?
Man in the middle attack? Similar has been done already with drive by clicking where mouse clicks are redirected.
My thoughts exactly. This goes beyond searches submitted to Google. Hopefully it will be opt-in only.
Any OS X app that leverages GCD could benefit from those cores.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Central_Dispatch
Although any existing app could also be written to utilize multiple cores effectively, GDC makes it much easier and requires far less raw code to accomplish.
You assume the technology won't advance. You also missed the high points of holographic technology. It has the potential to offer virtually unlimited amounts of storage. The drawbacks are in it's access speed and the current capacity in the early prototypes.
You can't expect a technology to come out of the gate and stomp all competition. There are millions of dollars spent in R&D yearly on platter technology. That's not easy to overcome. I could easily see Holographic storage taking off if they can find a way to speed up access times, and they find a way to cheaply mass produce it. They already have the basics they need, and the potential is there. The HV discs prove that (although they rely on spindle tech to get the speed). It's just a matter of enhancing what they have.
If they can get away from spindle technology while utilizing true holographic displays with fast access speeds, spindle drives will die a quick death shortly after.
I'm in agreement with this except holographic storage has a few major drawbacks. Although SSD is steller for smaller storage requirements, platter drives are just too slow to be of much more use. Some highlights for holographic storage that should be pointed out first:
The theoretical limits for the storage density of this technique is approximately several tens of Terabytes (1 terabyte = 1024 gigabytes) per cubic centimeter
Another factor: photographic media has the longest proven lifespan - over a century - of any modern media. Since there’s no physical contact you can read the media millions of times with no degradation.
Unfortunately, the current limitations make this a far off product that probably won't see the light of day for many years.
The initial prototype was only capable of 20 MB/sec. Although this isn't horrible for optical storage, it's hardly a top performer
Although the theoretical limits are almost infinite, the reality of the prototypes were only about 300 MB. They have already fallen behind platter based storage.
Seek times were in the area of 200 ms, which is also pretty poor compared to platter storage.
With all of that said, there have been viable advances in holographic storage. HVD's (Holographic Versatile Disc) show true promise.
Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_Versatile_Disc
No, they do not have every right to decide this. It is in direct contradiction to the 1st amendment Establishment clause as it advances religion via the Public School System. They have every right to object to what they pay taxes for, but they do not have every right to set public school curriculum to push religious teachings as fact.
Were they teaching this as a theological class, rather than a science class, then they could possibly get away with it, but that isn't at all what their proposing. They want it taught alongside evolution as a valid 'theory'.
If you don't want to accept the limitations on the warranty, then don't buy it, although I doubt you would find many hardware vendors willing to support hacking of their hardware to do something outside of it's design limits. This reminds me of the folks who would buy aftermarket additives for their engines which voided the warranties provided by the manufacturer. Why should the hardware vendor be responsible for anything you do that damages your phone? Every warranty has limitations. If you don't want to accept it's terms, then shop elsewhere. What happens if/when someone jailbreaks their phone, borks it, and then tries to warranty it? In that example, Apple would end up losing time and money to support failed jail breaking attempts. If you're going to go there, then you should just man up, and accept the result of your actions.
As to providers bricking your phone, I could see that one getting at least some legs. If they purposely damage your hardware because you chose to void your warranty, then they have proactively taken steps to cause a failure and deserve a lawsuit in return.
Nothing to prevent it other than the courts. If each state has it's own 'agenda', you'd end up with every schools students learning different subjects, with differing standards applied to them. This is not putting all of your eggs in one basket, as you are implying if it should break, everything breaks. Obviously not the case as there is nothing to break. The government sets the standard according to the voters and that standard is then applied evenly throughout all school districts.
This will be struck down (and rightly so), by the supreme court, as they have already decided this very case:
And what happens to the folks who dont' have easy access to a 'good' school?
There are some thing that should not be left up to the states to decide as far as curriculum is concerned. Creationism is nothing more than teaching fairy tales with absolutely no scientific backing. There isn't a single shred of evidence to back up any of it. The sad point of this whole story is that these folks think they are doing a greater good when they couldn't be doing more of a disservice to their children or our country.
If you want to teach religious doctrine to your children, then by all means, send them to a private school. Public schools, funded by taxpayer dollars should not be promoting religion or it's teachings (and please don't start with the "creationism isn't religion" tripe. You can put lipstick on a pig, but it would still like an ass, as my old science teach used to be fond of saying).
I find it funny that they modded you funny for slamming the mods for modding parent funny.
I feel like I'm stuck in an iterative funny loop...
Hah ;) Good point!
This isn't more detailed, it's just more strict, but unlike the recent pollution spat in California, there is no proof that radiation from a cell phone is harmful (as opposed to auto emissions). There is a reason that the FCC has jurisdiction here. It would make things nearly impossible for a company to sell a product at a national level if every state had different standards. Imagine if USB devices had different standards for 50 states. It would be an absolute nightmare, and not only for the vendor.
If the radiation level is far below the 'dangerous' level, then how is it even relevant unless they are measuring every bit of EM they are receiving from every electronic device they are exposed to? If the science behind a municipal decision isn't sound, but it gives the impression that it is, it can create FUD just by it's existence. In some cases, it is necessary to have standards at a federal level.
http://gov.ca.gov/press-release/8047/
In the case of auto/pollution standards stink (no pun intended) raised in California, there is an obvious public benefit to stricter standards, which California felt wasn't being met at the federal level. There are obvious health risks to exposure to those emissions, and countless studies proving that. Cell phones, on the contrary, have zero proof that they are dangerous to the public health.
I agree wholeheartedly. These folks are exposed to electromagnetic radiation on all sides, every day of their lives. They get it from the power lines, their appliances, and every other powered device on the planet. Unless they live in a cave (cage), these folks are deluding themselves. Of course video's like these don't help the stupidity...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQr6SbYpTYM&feature=related
These guys were even too dumb to use a hotplate. Looks like they used a lighter instead ;)
Apple doesn't install said Fart apps. rather the end users choose to. Not so with bloatware...
And again, you assume that every router in every home offered the user an option to setup a secure network, when you know for a fact that only in recent years has the configuration software gotten better in that aspect. I still run into open home networks, even on new routers. Did they purposely ignore the warnings? No. Chances are they didn't read, or understand the warnings.
You are confusing intent with result. You are implying these people specifically set up their home routers to broadcast their wireless signal to the street when common sense dictates that's highly unlikely. It's more likely they don't understand that it is broadcasting out to the street and they have no idea what WEP or WPA is.
Doh..quoted the wrong text.
You realize you just won the States arguments against Google right?
Who would get the reference to iPood without Apple?