What about the increased amounts of persistent drag that these clouds will present to later satelite deployments? Spraying the gas does not mean it magically disappears after it has done its job. While inside the roche limit, the gas clouds will eventually (after thousands of years) fall back into the atmosphere, the cloud doesn't magically vanish after being sprayed, and widespread use of the technology would make it radically difficult to orbit new satelites.
If used outside the roche limit, the clouds become persistent!
I don't think there is much debris needing deorbited outside the roche, but with politicians and corporations at the helm, you can't be too careful.
Bees, ants, wasps, and nearly all other social insects are also adapted to living with a gender-bending endo-parasite.
Namely, the wolbachia parasite. It is a protozoan that inhabits cellular cytoplasm of the cells of those species of insects, and procreates through forcing males to develop as females, because it can only perptuate itself through the larger ova of those species, and not through the smaller sperm of those species.
As such, the centralized reproductive practice of those organisms is directly tied to the limitations imposed upon them by the highly aggressive wolbachia parasite.
Removal of the parasite through aggressive use of antibiotics has shown radical changes in cytoplasmic composition and embryonic development, which results in sexual infertility and even outright death in many infected species.
Literally, these lifeforms have become very efficient host vehicles for their parasites, and their reproductive strategies more closely favor proliferation of the parasite than their own.
Essentially, the parasites have forces their hosts to evolve in such a way that the host's behavior has been altered significantly.
The effects of wolbachia infection on the behavior of insect model species has been well researched. Take for instance, a study of wolbachia on mosquitos.
What I a getting at here is that the existence of communal reproduction centric organisms like bees and wasps does not negate the validity of the prior poster's statement, because the bees and wasps did not develop this strategy so much as have it impose upon them by a more aggressive species that does conserve the poster's conjecture.
I didn't mean for those suggestions to be strict cannon. I am only one person, and how I interperate the problem could be seen as oppressively restrictive by too many people. It was just a suggestion.
I was thinking more along the lines of bulk mailers, being created and operated with the intention of defeating inbox filtering technologies, attempting to confuse, mislead, or defraud readers, and unwanted distribution of advertising materials.
Newsletter mass mailed archives, mass mailed system messages concerning accounts, and other clearly desired and or desirable uses would not be considered willfully harmful, and I don't really see a way to say that they would be.
This is like arguing over the use of a scalpel in medicine. Sometimes you have to cut the patient to heal them, as ironic and backward as that seems. A blanket ban on mass mailers would be like banning scalpels. Pure folly.
Instead, the goal is to ensure only correct and proper use of such tools.
As for purpose, that is more external. For that, we need a history lesson.
Hippocrates was not an ordinary physician. He was the lead physician at a well respected hospital/temple of apollo. He was greatly displeased that other doctors in other cities engaged in nefarious antics, and belived strongly that medicine should only be used to heal, and medical knowledge should never be used to cause injury or harm. He couldn't force the doctors in other cities to comply with that moral vision, and didn't really attempt to explicitly.
Instead, he made all of his students swear to an oath that is basicaly the granddaddy of viral licensing. It prohibited his students from delivering medical knowledge to any physician that wasn't an oath sworn one, in their tradition.
The external factor was that the citizenry held more trust in hippocratic doctors than doctors of other schools, because of the added and strongly enforced ethos of that school of medicinal practice. As such, over time, the hippocratic school simply stole all the customers and students.
Ok, history lesson over.
I am suggesting that a community be created with the express intent that technological knowledge should never be used to willfully harm people, with similar implicit and explicit restrictions as the hippocratic oath. We should protect information with very strong asymetric keys, and exchange information only with other members. Membership should be free, but be serious business. The idea is to foster trust with industry and the citizenry at large, by being a very highly sanitized specialist forum to discuss vulnerabilities and solutions to those vulnerabilities in a sanitized environment. Failure to comply with the restrictions of the community results in having your keypair banned for life, and having your real identity added to a (searchable) wall of shame. All exchanges in the community are always encrypted, and stored in the encrypted form. Community members authorize other members to read their posts by distributing public keys. Each message is to contain a cryptographically identifiable hash, such that decrypted messages can have a unique and positive identification of which public key did the decryption. Each member retains his/her private key. To an outsider viewing the forums, they will see only huge blocks of RSA style crypto streams in nested succession. A CA should fascilitate the assignment and revocation of keys.
This would allow community collaboration and exchanges on wild exploit discoveries in a more protected environment, and enable more controlled release of information with industries impacted, with the intent of proving and sustaining professional trust, making the community a preferential setting for such dicussion.
The idea is to passively win out over disreputable technology workers by concentrating information, and internally vetting members. Membership must always be free and easy to obtain. It should be difficult to RETAIN, except through strict adherence to the rules. Membership thus gives access to a potentially huge archive of very specific information, and a potentially valuable asset in security consultency.
It wouldn't hold any legal protection or authority. It would simply be a stongly enforced "club", with a strong code of conduct.
The reason for multiple keypair generation is to frustrate attempts at collecting and brute forcing the data, and just accepting the added complexity tradeoff.
Swearing in on the oath, with a community to go with it, gives a sanitized and enforced venue to communicate research and tools with less intrinic risk.
Blackhats would very quickly get permabanned by a whitehat community. By explicit need, bans really should be for life.
Think, XDAforum, but with a membership requirement, and replication prohibitions. Enforce with strong CA, and forced encryption.
It sounds like they need to isolate traffic, and increase the speed limit.
(Eg, isolate pedestrians from motorvehicle routes, with catwalks instead of crosswalks, install entry and exit lanes beside highways, and increase highway speeds.)
See for example, the East Kellog (US 400) expansion in wichita kansas on google streetview. You will notice that there is an isolated entry/exit lane that fascilitates getting into the sidstreets, and a completely uninhibited arterial flow after that on the US 400 highway. Cross streets literally either go over or under 400, as do pedestrian sidewalks.
In some places, especially near schools, you will see dedicated catwalks for pedestrians.
Quite. I am suggesting that NASA should discretely mention the prospects, in light of SpaceX being awarded a $1.6bn in launch contracts. Spin it as an opportunity to get in on the action.
The same reason you would lower the price to sell more units; price elasticity.
NASA is a garanteed repeat customer. $VacuousStarlet is not.
If russia can be assured that there will be a proscribed and agreed upon reduction in launch requests from NASA, as an inside deal to harvest money from the rich and famous, it would be financially lucrative to both agencies. In most publicly traded commoditis markets, this is known as collusion, and is the very thing that RICO act and pals are meant to prohibit, but being government agencies, they get to play with different rules.
This could be especially useful if NASA and SpaceX land an equitable partnership, as then the policy of launching rich socialites (and splitting the profit) would allow the russian space angency to profit from NASA/SpaceX launches.
SpaceX is already planning to be in the business of launching socialites and repeat customers like NASA anyway. It would not really detract from their business plan.
Agreed; just like there are legitimate reasons to create monster viruses (biological) for medical research.
In this case, the oath is to assert "I will not willfully cause harm", where "willfully" is the operant conditional.
Likewise, if you are compelled by the law to include a back door, you aren't strictly speaking doing it of your own free will, but are instead being compelled to do so by your government, etc.
I agree about the regulatory licensing group. It adds beurocracy, which is deplorable, but for the same basic reasons we license doctors, we really should license professional programmers.
(In ancient greece, they had problems with corrupt doctors killing patients for money, selling poisons to known poisoners, and a host of other unscrupulous activities, which is exactly why the hipocratic oath came into being.)
I would rather see us do what doctors in ancient greece did.
Make an oath not to willfully cause harm, and internally enforce it. Call it whatever, but we need some form of morality in our profession, and willfully creating code we KNOW to be malicious is clearly immoral, regardless of what moral compas you choose to employ.
Simple things, like "I will not create mass mailers for commercial uses", "I will not create personally identifiable tracking systems of any sort.", "I will not create nor enforce systems to hinder political speech of any kind.", "I will not willfully penetrate another computer system without permission, and will not create tools to do so either.", "I will not willingly install backdoors for spying, monitoring, or sabotage, for any agency, in any software or systems I create.", etc.
It doesn't need to be religious, like 'i will only make open code' or anything. Just things we can unilaterally agree are clear misuses of technology. Kinda like doctors refusing to create bioweapons. That kind of thing.
Clearly, there is a market for very wealthy socialites and starlets to go be pretty in outer space with some masterbating russian cosmonauts.
Nasa is currently facing severe budget cuts.
What nasa should do, instead of deploring this incident, is broker a deal with the russian space agency to split the profits from selling the occasiona NASA seat in the soyouz capsule to rich fucks.
Considering the teeny budgets (comparatively) of both agencies, doing this could more than pay for quite a few fantastic developments in space technology and research.
And, maybe some starlets will get to laugh at the lowly members of the mile-high-club, after losing their hearts to a starship trooper.
I disagree. "Spam" is very much a grassroots tech crime sector. It is very mature now, but it wasn't in the early 90s when it first came into the world.
All that is needed are people with the skills, a person who wants the service, and money changing hands.
Both the person accepting the money to do the deed, and the person giving the money for the service are culpable.
Get a car dealership "on the take." The used car guy gets cash under the table to 'lose' some activated transponders, and wait before reporting them "stolen".
The car thieves remove and disable the currently installed transponder, and install the "shady" one from the used car accomplice.
They drive away with the stolen car, and offload it in say, argentina. The monitoring system records it as a valid transponder. It doesn't know the difference, because it tracks transponders, and not vehicles.
36 hours later, the car dealer reports the transponders "stolen".
By then the car could be in any number of countries.
It could be argued that pervasive and panopticon-like enforcement of traffic regulations could result in a fantastically superior motorist environment, where people speeding; performing rolling stops; and performing dangerous lane changes become a thing of the past due to automated creation of moving violations.
*reality:*
The problem however, will be with technological erros showing people speeding when they really aren't from multipath reflections, people being charged for driving without transponders illegally from having the tags fail due to water intrusions into the antenna, and a whole host of other things that would fall under the culpability of government to fix, but never will be, due to lack of incentive or interest.
And we, the technicians, geeks, engineers, and software architects of the world, greedily line up to offer suggestions on how best to feed that pernicious appetite out of either being forced into it simply to have food to eat, or for fame and fortune.
The result is the same. We make the very chains they enslave us with, and happily forge ever more diabolical pleasures to satisfy big brother.
Who made DRM? It wasn't a media executive. It was somebody in a cubicle. Think about that.
The "must be tagged" law will not prevent theft, and will not prevent other criminal activities.
It does not prevent the criminals from disabling a tag, altering a tag, or replacing the tag.
What the tracking system ultimately tracks are the tags. Not the vehicles.
As such, removing the tags, and then transporting the vehicle under a different but "valid" tag would make an effective means of breaking this system.
The real benefit to law enforcement/government is *NOT* combating criminals, it is tracking law abidding citizens.
I would expect catch-22s like "we show your vehicle at the scene" in one case and "you can't prove that isn't a fake transponder being used to put you on the other side of the country" in another, with the difference being the desire of the prosecutor.
(Eg, "iron-clad, irrefutable!" When used to show guilt, and "suspect, clearly a technological fabrication!" When used to assert innocense.)
If anything, this masure will spawn a new form of criminal activity, buying, selling, and provisioning counterfiet/shady transponders.
This case, the "third factor" DOES make sense. Hear me out here.
Natural gas deposits (the reason for the fracking) form from decomposing organic deposits trapped between shale or salt layers. This gas formation creates pressure (the reason for the earthquakes.)
So, the third factor is natural gas deposits.
The incidence of earthquakes will positiviely correlate to natural gas deposits. The incidence of fracking will correlate to natural gas deposits.
The result is a positive correlation between earthquakes and and fracking.
A test of this 3rd factor is easily accomplished, by doing a frack drilling where there is no natural gas as a control. That will provide the needed resolution of causality between fracking and earthquakes.
Well, in this case, you have a strong case for cause.
While the actual cause of the earthquakes is tectonic and geological stresses, the fracking provides lubrication for these events to occur. Without said lubrication, the quakes don't happen until stresses achieve sufficient strength to move without it. (Eg, major earthquake.)
In this context, the lubrication does indeed incite movement, but the energy for the movement coms elsewhere.
This sort of semantic argument reminds me of schoolkids saying "they didn't do anything!" After egging another kid to punch someone.
Verizon has ubiquitous buildouts of outdated wireless infrastructure. They can service a text message or a voice call almost anywhere in the US. They also charge 70+ a month for basic service, and have technological limitations on surfing while talking. I hear their customer service is legendary in the "eldritch horror" category.
ATT has the best GSM tech buildout in the US, but is SERIOUSLY oversold. They engage in abusive market tactics, pathologically insist the problem isn't from overselling, and have customer service horrible enough that even verizon could appear desirable. Theoretically can surf and talk simultaneously, but charge extra for the priviledge of tethering, drop calls horribly, and have spotty data coverage.
Sprint-Nextel has a fairly stable network of comparatively subpar network technologies servicing cheaper prepaid type devices and feature phones. Cheap and ubiquitous, but data is a farce, IIRC.
T-Mo has very limited buildout, is not loved by the parent company (deutch telecom), and struggles in the telecom marketplace. Despite this, has fairly nice customer service, offers incentives for patronage of their users, and are trying to improve coverage maps and network tech. Currently involved in a fairly ambitious LTE 4G buildout. Reasonably inexpensive; no contract unlimited talk, text, and 2gb 4G data for 60/mo. (Not the fastest though. 5300kbps down, 1200kbps up last I measured in my area.) Spotty coverage. Claim to fame is wifi calling and free teathering.
To me, the ideal carrier could only be born from strongly enforced neutrality laws allowing cheap sublicense of spectrum and infrastructure, with a dual technology, quad-band handset, able to leverage verizon's CDMA network as a fallback, and full GSM operation on both ATT and T-Mo spectrum. Such a company could never exist in the USA under prevailing conditions, which do not foster true innovative service offerings, but rather collusion based pricing hegemonies.
That's about the schtick of it as far as I know.
I actually like T-Mo, despite the weak coverage areas. I recently got a nice promotional offer from them recently for being a long term customer. (They offered the next tier service at my current tier price for 12 months, which greatly increased my dl cap at 4G speed.)
As far as I know, ATT and verizon bend over backwards to make you lose old plans they think aren't profitable, and force you to spend money. (I can revert to my previous level of service very painlessly with T-Mo after the promotion ends.)
If you are spoiled by south korean telecom, you be mortified by the horrible state of american telecom.
Slashdot Mirror
What about the increased amounts of persistent drag that these clouds will present to later satelite deployments? Spraying the gas does not mean it magically disappears after it has done its job. While inside the roche limit, the gas clouds will eventually (after thousands of years) fall back into the atmosphere, the cloud doesn't magically vanish after being sprayed, and widespread use of the technology would make it radically difficult to orbit new satelites.
If used outside the roche limit, the clouds become persistent!
I don't think there is much debris needing deorbited outside the roche, but with politicians and corporations at the helm, you can't be too careful.
Bees, ants, wasps, and nearly all other social insects are also adapted to living with a gender-bending endo-parasite.
Namely, the wolbachia parasite. It is a protozoan that inhabits cellular cytoplasm of the cells of those species of insects, and procreates through forcing males to develop as females, because it can only perptuate itself through the larger ova of those species, and not through the smaller sperm of those species.
As such, the centralized reproductive practice of those organisms is directly tied to the limitations imposed upon them by the highly aggressive wolbachia parasite.
Removal of the parasite through aggressive use of antibiotics has shown radical changes in cytoplasmic composition and embryonic development, which results in sexual infertility and even outright death in many infected species.
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0958315031000110355
Literally, these lifeforms have become very efficient host vehicles for their parasites, and their reproductive strategies more closely favor proliferation of the parasite than their own.
Essentially, the parasites have forces their hosts to evolve in such a way that the host's behavior has been altered significantly.
The effects of wolbachia infection on the behavior of insect model species has been well researched. Take for instance, a study of wolbachia on mosquitos.
http://m.sciencemag.org/content/323/5910/141.short
What I a getting at here is that the existence of communal reproduction centric organisms like bees and wasps does not negate the validity of the prior poster's statement, because the bees and wasps did not develop this strategy so much as have it impose upon them by a more aggressive species that does conserve the poster's conjecture.
Haven't you heard about the dangerous su, sh, and dd viruses!?
Why, I hear that if you get all three, they can nuke your whole box!
(LOL!)
Oh no silly. You seem to think that this was a "pay once, and get service forever!" Type lifetime contract.
Coming from a scam farm, I would expect more "signee agrees to pay $24.95 per month in purpetuity in exchange for service."
I didn't mean for those suggestions to be strict cannon. I am only one person, and how I interperate the problem could be seen as oppressively restrictive by too many people. It was just a suggestion.
I was thinking more along the lines of bulk mailers, being created and operated with the intention of defeating inbox filtering technologies, attempting to confuse, mislead, or defraud readers, and unwanted distribution of advertising materials.
Newsletter mass mailed archives, mass mailed system messages concerning accounts, and other clearly desired and or desirable uses would not be considered willfully harmful, and I don't really see a way to say that they would be.
This is like arguing over the use of a scalpel in medicine. Sometimes you have to cut the patient to heal them, as ironic and backward as that seems. A blanket ban on mass mailers would be like banning scalpels. Pure folly.
Instead, the goal is to ensure only correct and proper use of such tools.
As for purpose, that is more external. For that, we need a history lesson.
Hippocrates was not an ordinary physician. He was the lead physician at a well respected hospital/temple of apollo. He was greatly displeased that other doctors in other cities engaged in nefarious antics, and belived strongly that medicine should only be used to heal, and medical knowledge should never be used to cause injury or harm. He couldn't force the doctors in other cities to comply with that moral vision, and didn't really attempt to explicitly.
Instead, he made all of his students swear to an oath that is basicaly the granddaddy of viral licensing. It prohibited his students from delivering medical knowledge to any physician that wasn't an oath sworn one, in their tradition.
The external factor was that the citizenry held more trust in hippocratic doctors than doctors of other schools, because of the added and strongly enforced ethos of that school of medicinal practice. As such, over time, the hippocratic school simply stole all the customers and students.
Ok, history lesson over.
I am suggesting that a community be created with the express intent that technological knowledge should never be used to willfully harm people, with similar implicit and explicit restrictions as the hippocratic oath. We should protect information with very strong asymetric keys, and exchange information only with other members. Membership should be free, but be serious business. The idea is to foster trust with industry and the citizenry at large, by being a very highly sanitized specialist forum to discuss vulnerabilities and solutions to those vulnerabilities in a sanitized environment. Failure to comply with the restrictions of the community results in having your keypair banned for life, and having your real identity added to a (searchable) wall of shame. All exchanges in the community are always encrypted, and stored in the encrypted form. Community members authorize other members to read their posts by distributing public keys. Each message is to contain a cryptographically identifiable hash, such that decrypted messages can have a unique and positive identification of which public key did the decryption. Each member retains his/her private key. To an outsider viewing the forums, they will see only huge blocks of RSA style crypto streams in nested succession. A CA should fascilitate the assignment and revocation of keys.
This would allow community collaboration and exchanges on wild exploit discoveries in a more protected environment, and enable more controlled release of information with industries impacted, with the intent of proving and sustaining professional trust, making the community a preferential setting for such dicussion.
The idea is to passively win out over disreputable technology workers by concentrating information, and internally vetting members. Membership must always be free and easy to obtain. It should be difficult to RETAIN, except through strict adherence to the rules. Membership thus gives access to a potentially huge archive of very specific information, and a potentially valuable asset in security consultency.
It wouldn't hold any legal protection or authority. It would simply be a stongly enforced "club", with a strong code of conduct.
The reason for multiple keypair generation is to frustrate attempts at collecting and brute forcing the data, and just accepting the added complexity tradeoff.
Swearing in on the oath, with a community to go with it, gives a sanitized and enforced venue to communicate research and tools with less intrinic risk.
Blackhats would very quickly get permabanned by a whitehat community. By explicit need, bans really should be for life.
Think, XDAforum, but with a membership requirement, and replication prohibitions. Enforce with strong CA, and forced encryption.
It sounds like they need to isolate traffic, and increase the speed limit.
(Eg, isolate pedestrians from motorvehicle routes, with catwalks instead of crosswalks, install entry and exit lanes beside highways, and increase highway speeds.)
See for example, the East Kellog (US 400) expansion in wichita kansas on google streetview. You will notice that there is an isolated entry/exit lane that fascilitates getting into the sidstreets, and a completely uninhibited arterial flow after that on the US 400 highway. Cross streets literally either go over or under 400, as do pedestrian sidewalks.
In some places, especially near schools, you will see dedicated catwalks for pedestrians.
Quite. I am suggesting that NASA should discretely mention the prospects, in light of SpaceX being awarded a $1.6bn in launch contracts. Spin it as an opportunity to get in on the action.
Not if the NASA/SpaceX relationship fully matures.
The same reason you would lower the price to sell more units; price elasticity.
NASA is a garanteed repeat customer. $VacuousStarlet is not.
If russia can be assured that there will be a proscribed and agreed upon reduction in launch requests from NASA, as an inside deal to harvest money from the rich and famous, it would be financially lucrative to both agencies. In most publicly traded commoditis markets, this is known as collusion, and is the very thing that RICO act and pals are meant to prohibit, but being government agencies, they get to play with different rules.
This could be especially useful if NASA and SpaceX land an equitable partnership, as then the policy of launching rich socialites (and splitting the profit) would allow the russian space angency to profit from NASA/SpaceX launches.
SpaceX is already planning to be in the business of launching socialites and repeat customers like NASA anyway. It would not really detract from their business plan.
Agreed; just like there are legitimate reasons to create monster viruses (biological) for medical research.
In this case, the oath is to assert "I will not willfully cause harm", where "willfully" is the operant conditional.
Likewise, if you are compelled by the law to include a back door, you aren't strictly speaking doing it of your own free will, but are instead being compelled to do so by your government, etc.
I agree about the regulatory licensing group. It adds beurocracy, which is deplorable, but for the same basic reasons we license doctors, we really should license professional programmers.
(In ancient greece, they had problems with corrupt doctors killing patients for money, selling poisons to known poisoners, and a host of other unscrupulous activities, which is exactly why the hipocratic oath came into being.)
I would rather see us do what doctors in ancient greece did.
Make an oath not to willfully cause harm, and internally enforce it. Call it whatever, but we need some form of morality in our profession, and willfully creating code we KNOW to be malicious is clearly immoral, regardless of what moral compas you choose to employ.
Simple things, like "I will not create mass mailers for commercial uses", "I will not create personally identifiable tracking systems of any sort.", "I will not create nor enforce systems to hinder political speech of any kind.", "I will not willfully penetrate another computer system without permission, and will not create tools to do so either.", "I will not willingly install backdoors for spying, monitoring, or sabotage, for any agency, in any software or systems I create.", etc.
It doesn't need to be religious, like 'i will only make open code' or anything. Just things we can unilaterally agree are clear misuses of technology. Kinda like doctors refusing to create bioweapons. That kind of thing.
Clearly, there is a market for very wealthy socialites and starlets to go be pretty in outer space with some masterbating russian cosmonauts.
Nasa is currently facing severe budget cuts.
What nasa should do, instead of deploring this incident, is broker a deal with the russian space agency to split the profits from selling the occasiona NASA seat in the soyouz capsule to rich fucks.
Considering the teeny budgets (comparatively) of both agencies, doing this could more than pay for quite a few fantastic developments in space technology and research.
And, maybe some starlets will get to laugh at the lowly members of the mile-high-club, after losing their hearts to a starship trooper.
I disagree. "Spam" is very much a grassroots tech crime sector. It is very mature now, but it wasn't in the early 90s when it first came into the world.
All that is needed are people with the skills, a person who wants the service, and money changing hands.
Both the person accepting the money to do the deed, and the person giving the money for the service are culpable.
Low tech solution for organized car theft:
Get a car dealership "on the take."
The used car guy gets cash under the table to 'lose' some activated transponders, and wait before reporting them "stolen".
The car thieves remove and disable the currently installed transponder, and install the "shady" one from the used car accomplice.
They drive away with the stolen car, and offload it in say, argentina. The monitoring system records it as a valid transponder. It doesn't know the difference, because it tracks transponders, and not vehicles.
36 hours later, the car dealer reports the transponders "stolen".
By then the car could be in any number of countries.
Devil's advocate pedantry:
It could be argued that pervasive and panopticon-like enforcement of traffic regulations could result in a fantastically superior motorist environment, where people speeding; performing rolling stops; and performing dangerous lane changes become a thing of the past due to automated creation of moving violations.
*reality:*
The problem however, will be with technological erros showing people speeding when they really aren't from multipath reflections, people being charged for driving without transponders illegally from having the tags fail due to water intrusions into the antenna, and a whole host of other things that would fall under the culpability of government to fix, but never will be, due to lack of incentive or interest.
And we, the technicians, geeks, engineers, and software architects of the world, greedily line up to offer suggestions on how best to feed that pernicious appetite out of either being forced into it simply to have food to eat, or for fame and fortune.
The result is the same. We make the very chains they enslave us with, and happily forge ever more diabolical pleasures to satisfy big brother.
Who made DRM? It wasn't a media executive. It was somebody in a cubicle. Think about that.
The "must be tagged" law will not prevent theft, and will not prevent other criminal activities.
It does not prevent the criminals from disabling a tag, altering a tag, or replacing the tag.
What the tracking system ultimately tracks are the tags. Not the vehicles.
As such, removing the tags, and then transporting the vehicle under a different but "valid" tag would make an effective means of breaking this system.
The real benefit to law enforcement/government is *NOT* combating criminals, it is tracking law abidding citizens.
I would expect catch-22s like "we show your vehicle at the scene" in one case and "you can't prove that isn't a fake transponder being used to put you on the other side of the country" in another, with the difference being the desire of the prosecutor.
(Eg, "iron-clad, irrefutable!" When used to show guilt, and "suspect, clearly a technological fabrication!" When used to assert innocense.)
If anything, this masure will spawn a new form of criminal activity, buying, selling, and provisioning counterfiet/shady transponders.
Earthquakes from natural gas do occur, and have been recorded from pre-fracking periods. The phenomenon has already been studied.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/uq662g4351676m63/
This case, the "third factor" DOES make sense. Hear me out here.
Natural gas deposits (the reason for the fracking) form from decomposing organic deposits trapped between shale or salt layers. This gas formation creates pressure (the reason for the earthquakes.)
So, the third factor is natural gas deposits.
The incidence of earthquakes will positiviely correlate to natural gas deposits. The incidence of fracking will correlate to natural gas deposits.
The result is a positive correlation between earthquakes and and fracking.
A test of this 3rd factor is easily accomplished, by doing a frack drilling where there is no natural gas as a control. That will provide the needed resolution of causality between fracking and earthquakes.
The same reason we kill people with drone warfare, install puppet dictators, export rediculous legislation, and arrest grannies wth unsecured wifi.
The holy doctrine of "don't fuck with the money."
No silly. You misunderstand the enviroweenie movement completely!
They aren't exactly "pro-earthquake", so much as they are "anti-development".
Well, in this case, you have a strong case for cause.
While the actual cause of the earthquakes is tectonic and geological stresses, the fracking provides lubrication for these events to occur. Without said lubrication, the quakes don't happen until stresses achieve sufficient strength to move without it. (Eg, major earthquake.)
In this context, the lubrication does indeed incite movement, but the energy for the movement coms elsewhere.
This sort of semantic argument reminds me of schoolkids saying "they didn't do anything!" After egging another kid to punch someone.
Verizon has ubiquitous buildouts of outdated wireless infrastructure. They can service a text message or a voice call almost anywhere in the US. They also charge 70+ a month for basic service, and have technological limitations on surfing while talking. I hear their customer service is legendary in the "eldritch horror" category.
ATT has the best GSM tech buildout in the US, but is SERIOUSLY oversold. They engage in abusive market tactics, pathologically insist the problem isn't from overselling, and have customer service horrible enough that even verizon could appear desirable. Theoretically can surf and talk simultaneously, but charge extra for the priviledge of tethering, drop calls horribly, and have spotty data coverage.
Sprint-Nextel has a fairly stable network of comparatively subpar network technologies servicing cheaper prepaid type devices and feature phones. Cheap and ubiquitous, but data is a farce, IIRC.
T-Mo has very limited buildout, is not loved by the parent company (deutch telecom), and struggles in the telecom marketplace. Despite this, has fairly nice customer service, offers incentives for patronage of their users, and are trying to improve coverage maps and network tech. Currently involved in a fairly ambitious LTE 4G buildout. Reasonably inexpensive; no contract unlimited talk, text, and 2gb 4G data for 60/mo. (Not the fastest though. 5300kbps down, 1200kbps up last I measured in my area.) Spotty coverage. Claim to fame is wifi calling and free teathering.
To me, the ideal carrier could only be born from strongly enforced neutrality laws allowing cheap sublicense of spectrum and infrastructure, with a dual technology, quad-band handset, able to leverage verizon's CDMA network as a fallback, and full GSM operation on both ATT and T-Mo spectrum. Such a company could never exist in the USA under prevailing conditions, which do not foster true innovative service offerings, but rather collusion based pricing hegemonies.
That's about the schtick of it as far as I know.
I actually like T-Mo, despite the weak coverage areas. I recently got a nice promotional offer from them recently for being a long term customer. (They offered the next tier service at my current tier price for 12 months, which greatly increased my dl cap at 4G speed.)
As far as I know, ATT and verizon bend over backwards to make you lose old plans they think aren't profitable, and force you to spend money. (I can revert to my previous level of service very painlessly with T-Mo after the promotion ends.)
If you are spoiled by south korean telecom, you be mortified by the horrible state of american telecom.