I 'll play devil's advocate below- so, under the assumption that the TSA and their paraphernalia are vital in present-day USA:
.. spending millions [..] upgrading magnetometers to the new body scanners..
As most of you probably know, the "new scanner" operates at the THz range: that wavelength is being exploited because a) it "sees" through clothes and b) it gives a nice contrast.
A little more detail: the incoming radiation mostly penetrates clothing both in its way in and out -- i.e., penetrates clothing in its way in, does not penetrate skin and instead gets reflected back, it then passes again through clothing on its way out and gets registered on the machine. Now, other material (say a ceramic knife, that does not register in the magnetometer) or a "suspicious" looking box strapped on the body, will reflect the incoming THz radiation but on a different way: by taking advantage of this, a contrast image can be constructed, and what is not skin becomes conspicuous. So you can obvisouly see why this is something an authority appreciates, and you would be in denial if you don't believe that the scanners are here to stay. Sorry, but now they have established their foothold in reality, so you have to learn to get used to them being around for quite a while.
.. spending $7 million [to] replace the passenger's image with an avatar
Okay, now I am done playing advocate- my points:
a) $7 million for software development seems a lot in the expensive side, or so I think. Anyway the federal budget for toilet paper is probably higher. And
b) most importantly, couldn't that had been implemented from the start of the project, out of respect for the citizen? I mean, how hard can it be? Is there a reason why this "extra humiliation" factor had to linger around for so long?
c) I wouldn't hate TSA so much: the guilt will be hard to cope with once the cumulative radiation damage becomes apparent on its not very bright staff. I don't think there will ever be a concensus regarding the damage one gets (or not) from the respective radiation: just see how after more than a decade the cellphone radiation is still supposed to be under debate, and how results are "inconlcusive".
.. defensive installation that we have offered them unfettered access to..
Signed,
An American Soldier
You are only presenting selected parts of the picture there, Soldier:
a) A missile array is a missile array: with todays modular technologies "defensive" can become "area denial" or "offensive" in a matter of minutes; if you are saying otherwise (i.e. that the array "poses no threat") bear in mind that you are not trying to convince the evening news audience, but experienced war generals that command the world's largest arsenal;
b) how about the Russians offering you "unfettered access" to a similar system in Cuba, established there to protect their interests (perhaps Russian businesses in the US) from potential radical central and south american rogue elements;
c) I am no pronounced military strategist, but opening many fronts (as the US is doing in the present era) comes with benefits as well as costs: there is NO WAY today's superpowers can tackle conflicts like the ones the US is maintaining, and at the SAME time take on skirmishes with another superpower: the Russians are well aware of this, and they know that they absolutely can vaporize the array and get away with it- and they are letting you know that they will do it. Remember that China is also a superpower, and good luck getting them on the table and heaving them your way while engaged in tens of other conflicts, especially in a decade or so when their orbital, ICBM, naval and electronic warfare capabilities will be much more enhanced in comparison with the present day.
d) as a soldier, I am sure you know that the one who strikes first, strikes many times and keeps on striking, get's to win. This array is just too close, its implementation is seen as an act of aggression, and you and I or anybody else might claim otherwise but that is of no consequence: the truth is that the Russians see it as a threat, and they are issuing a warning that if built, they are going to blow it into pieces. Not you, not your cities, not your country: only a base such as this one.
Bottomline, you can't have the cake and eat it. So go on, be my guest, spend billions of dollars and thousands of manhours to see it all vaporized in a jiffy, ignite global tensions, destroy families and sacrifise young soldier's lives (I don't expect the array to be unmanned when it gets hit) to back up a bunch of retarded arguments.
but it's easiest to sell to the general public on the green aspects.
Thank you. Because, really, I need to establish how many people bite in this "green" paraphernalia.
Is it green because it doesn't burn much? Because it runs on electricity? What about the means and methods that this electricity was made, before it was pumped into the battery? Where those methods green? How do they compare in their "carbon footprint" (the universal measure for anything green these days) with electricity generated from other means? How about the battery's material itself, and the material of the rest of the aircraft? How much water was contaminated, how much ore was mined, how much synthetic material was produced, and did the machines that mined and processed all that ran on fossil fuel, or on soyabeans and rainbows?
To potential trolls & ACs: No, I am not astroturfing for Lockheed Martin (though I probably wouldn't mind doing so, since they kick some serious ass)
"All things Green" argumentation: OF COURSE it makes sense to assess environmental impacts of *pads, washing machines, aircraft, sextoys- resources are expended, water is poisoned and humanity may very well soon drown in its own excrement. But spitting out some "carbon footprint" number along with a smiley green logo appeals to the vanity of the potential driver and his release of guilt, not towards responsibly stating the amount by which the planet was f*cked in order for this aircraft to be produced.
Personally though I don't think corps should be taxed at all [..] The income to individuals from corps would then be taxable as ordinary income..
In principle this does not sound like a bad idea, but there is a number of ways by which it can be abused (read: sidestepping away from payment).
Consider this (which already happens a lot): everything that would 'matter' in a taxing scenario that you propose, could be logged as 'a corporate expense'- car, travelling, 'per diem' allowance or even a house can be provided by the company. Since technical ownership would remain in the company and enjoy a tax-free status, the employee (or even the boss or whatever 'golden boys' are involved) could roam about living like kings, ripping all the benifits and paying zero tax -or even getting tax returns- since, technically, they wouldn't own anything.
In such a scenario, what is supposed to (or what it should) be the prime reasoning behind the concept of taxation is being violated, since taxing will not reflect the level of consumption of goods and use of services rendered for said bodies.
For a car analogy, in Scandinavia where taxes are generally seen as 'severe', cumulative costs for car ownership typically are of the order of $30 - $50 per day, excluding the already elevated sales tax that burdens the end customer. One can still acquire a corporate car, with its corporate status reflected on its conspicuous yellow licence plates. Though those cars are dirt cheap compared to the private ones, the rules for them are pretty strict: they are to be used only for specific purposes, no more than 2 people allowed on board etc. Point being that the letter of the law is there, and is very descriptive in order to cover loopholes, but most importantly it is being enforced.
I know you don't RTFA, at least google the story a bit or follow a wikipedia reference or two. It's not that someone will duplicate your scoop in the few moments it takes to at least try to verify the story.
Cosmologists in particular should not complain at all for at least the next 20 years: look just how many cosmology missions get to fly. I think that point in the summary is kind of moot, since cosmology is a very fine example of how much money gets pumped into a field of science with presently zero practical applications; consider how many missions don't get to fly, for every cosmology one that does.
In short, they understand language, and they know how to speek it. They just act as if they don't, because if they reveal it, then humans are going to put them to labor immediately.
When Microsoft cuts the chord on XP in two years it will effectively leave millions of existing Windows-based computers vulnerable to continued and undeterred cyberattacks
I can't say I'm going to miss Microsoft XP support.
I can't say I 've ever had Microsoft XP support, either-
Your tin foil hats will protect you no more! Mwahahahaha!
Tin foil is irrelevant. What is relevant, is:
predicated on the fact that shopkeepers will know the moment you walk by their front door, or when you are looking at a particular product,
Maybe shopkeepers have a higher chance of me buying something if they leave me the fuck alone, and not swarm me like flies in shit "the moment I walk by their front door".
Yes, especially with their cameras providing a constant feed on central, eh? Hey! Here is you looting the screen! And here is you urinating! And it's Fox News!
The technologies being developed by the Navy also have another use [..]
Very interesting- because the numbers do not add up: as far as I know, piracy in the region has been occuring for several years now, and policing the area is simply more expensive than paying ransom. It is not clear to me what has the motivation been (besides money) to "clear the waters". And when I say "clear to me" I mean from an economic planning point of view, because I am pretty sure that this is an issue that always comes up in meeting rooms. Police the waters, okay, but how much does it cost? The obvious choice in such a large-scale project is a (or a few) military body(-ies), and several nations have vessels operating already. But the military is also very good at estimating costs, and for that kind of ongoing operation I would not be surprised if costs are measured in tens or hundreds of millions of dollars per day. Pit that against the few millions of dollars every now and then for ransom, insurance policies, plus the "not my problem" attitude, and there you go: you are on your own.
Sadly, field-testing military technology sound like a much, much more plausible explanation for the sudden spike of interest into "solving the piracy problem".
Slashdot Mirror
they could raise the heat levels for municipal boilers, causing them to explode.
Yes, and splash toxic oxygen dihydride all around.
then solution = buy the new version.
Adobe's fix? You need to pay to upgrade to Photoshop CS6.
A reasonable fix? Get GIMP.
Combine it with Inkscape for your vector needs.
You are welcome to try and convince me as to why I should ever go for the Adobe options.
I 'll play devil's advocate below- so, under the assumption that the TSA and their paraphernalia are vital in present-day USA:
.. spending millions [..] upgrading magnetometers to the new body scanners ..
As most of you probably know, the "new scanner" operates at the THz range: that wavelength is being exploited because a) it "sees" through clothes and b) it gives a nice contrast.
A little more detail: the incoming radiation mostly penetrates clothing both in its way in and out -- i.e., penetrates clothing in its way in, does not penetrate skin and instead gets reflected back, it then passes again through clothing on its way out and gets registered on the machine. Now, other material (say a ceramic knife, that does not register in the magnetometer) or a "suspicious" looking box strapped on the body, will reflect the incoming THz radiation but on a different way: by taking advantage of this, a contrast image can be constructed, and what is not skin becomes conspicuous. So you can obvisouly see why this is something an authority appreciates, and you would be in denial if you don't believe that the scanners are here to stay. Sorry, but now they have established their foothold in reality, so you have to learn to get used to them being around for quite a while.
.. spending $7 million [to] replace the passenger's image with an avatar
Okay, now I am done playing advocate- my points:
a) $7 million for software development seems a lot in the expensive side, or so I think. Anyway the federal budget for toilet paper is probably higher. And
b) most importantly, couldn't that had been implemented from the start of the project, out of respect for the citizen? I mean, how hard can it be? Is there a reason why this "extra humiliation" factor had to linger around for so long?
c) I wouldn't hate TSA so much: the guilt will be hard to cope with once the cumulative radiation damage becomes apparent on its not very bright staff. I don't think there will ever be a concensus regarding the damage one gets (or not) from the respective radiation: just see how after more than a decade the cellphone radiation is still supposed to be under debate, and how results are "inconlcusive".
It would just end up snatched up by Europe and other countries that want dollars
Sure. As far as they actually want dollars. The more you print, the less they want.
.. defensive installation that we have offered them unfettered access to ..
Signed, An American Soldier
You are only presenting selected parts of the picture there, Soldier:
a) A missile array is a missile array: with todays modular technologies "defensive" can become "area denial" or "offensive" in a matter of minutes; if you are saying otherwise (i.e. that the array "poses no threat") bear in mind that you are not trying to convince the evening news audience, but experienced war generals that command the world's largest arsenal;
b) how about the Russians offering you "unfettered access" to a similar system in Cuba, established there to protect their interests (perhaps Russian businesses in the US) from potential radical central and south american rogue elements;
c) I am no pronounced military strategist, but opening many fronts (as the US is doing in the present era) comes with benefits as well as costs: there is NO WAY today's superpowers can tackle conflicts like the ones the US is maintaining, and at the SAME time take on skirmishes with another superpower: the Russians are well aware of this, and they know that they absolutely can vaporize the array and get away with it- and they are letting you know that they will do it. Remember that China is also a superpower, and good luck getting them on the table and heaving them your way while engaged in tens of other conflicts, especially in a decade or so when their orbital, ICBM, naval and electronic warfare capabilities will be much more enhanced in comparison with the present day.
d) as a soldier, I am sure you know that the one who strikes first, strikes many times and keeps on striking, get's to win. This array is just too close, its implementation is seen as an act of aggression, and you and I or anybody else might claim otherwise but that is of no consequence: the truth is that the Russians see it as a threat, and they are issuing a warning that if built, they are going to blow it into pieces. Not you, not your cities, not your country: only a base such as this one.
Bottomline, you can't have the cake and eat it. So go on, be my guest, spend billions of dollars and thousands of manhours to see it all vaporized in a jiffy, ignite global tensions, destroy families and sacrifise young soldier's lives (I don't expect the array to be unmanned when it gets hit) to back up a bunch of retarded arguments.
which makes them much quieter.
"much quieter" than what? An earthquake? Seriously, the noise out of that thing?
Meh. It's been done.
By "Burning Man" enthousiasts with lots of drive and tens of thousands of dollars available. And it's formidable, sure.
So for this one a) it is going to be mass-produced, therefore it is different, so stop "meh"-ing, or
b) it is not going to be mass-produced, therefore it is derivative work and so, yes, "meh, it's been done".
but it's easiest to sell to the general public on the green aspects.
Thank you. Because, really, I need to establish how many people bite in this "green" paraphernalia.
Is it green because it doesn't burn much? Because it runs on electricity? What about the means and methods that this electricity was made, before it was pumped into the battery? Where those methods green? How do they compare in their "carbon footprint" (the universal measure for anything green these days) with electricity generated from other means? How about the battery's material itself, and the material of the rest of the aircraft? How much water was contaminated, how much ore was mined, how much synthetic material was produced, and did the machines that mined and processed all that ran on fossil fuel, or on soyabeans and rainbows?
To potential trolls & ACs: No, I am not astroturfing for Lockheed Martin (though I probably wouldn't mind doing so, since they kick some serious ass)
"All things Green" argumentation: OF COURSE it makes sense to assess environmental impacts of *pads, washing machines, aircraft, sextoys- resources are expended, water is poisoned and humanity may very well soon drown in its own excrement. But spitting out some "carbon footprint" number along with a smiley green logo appeals to the vanity of the potential driver and his release of guilt, not towards responsibly stating the amount by which the planet was f*cked in order for this aircraft to be produced.
Personally though I don't think corps should be taxed at all [..] The income to individuals from corps would then be taxable as ordinary income ..
In principle this does not sound like a bad idea, but there is a number of ways by which it can be abused (read: sidestepping away from payment).
Consider this (which already happens a lot): everything that would 'matter' in a taxing scenario that you propose, could be logged as 'a corporate expense'- car, travelling, 'per diem' allowance or even a house can be provided by the company. Since technical ownership would remain in the company and enjoy a tax-free status, the employee (or even the boss or whatever 'golden boys' are involved) could roam about living like kings, ripping all the benifits and paying zero tax -or even getting tax returns- since, technically, they wouldn't own anything.
In such a scenario, what is supposed to (or what it should) be the prime reasoning behind the concept of taxation is being violated, since taxing will not reflect the level of consumption of goods and use of services rendered for said bodies.
For a car analogy, in Scandinavia where taxes are generally seen as 'severe', cumulative costs for car ownership typically are of the order of $30 - $50 per day, excluding the already elevated sales tax that burdens the end customer. One can still acquire a corporate car, with its corporate status reflected on its conspicuous yellow licence plates. Though those cars are dirt cheap compared to the private ones, the rules for them are pretty strict: they are to be used only for specific purposes, no more than 2 people allowed on board etc. Point being that the letter of the law is there, and is very descriptive in order to cover loopholes, but most importantly it is being enforced.
This news is at least 2 years old, and it could be as old as 5 years or more.
I know you don't RTFA, at least google the story a bit or follow a wikipedia reference or two. It's not that someone will duplicate your scoop in the few moments it takes to at least try to verify the story.
Cosmologists in particular should not complain at all for at least the next 20 years: look just how many cosmology missions get to fly. I think that point in the summary is kind of moot, since cosmology is a very fine example of how much money gets pumped into a field of science with presently zero practical applications; consider how many missions don't get to fly, for every cosmology one that does.
Iran's military has started to build a copy of a U.S. surveillance drone
What are they going to do with it, fly it over Texas?
Remember Saddam Hussain saying that he had hundreds of WMDs when when he didn't and was being invaded because of this claim?
Did he really say that? The claim was there, but as far as I recall it was George, Tony and co. that placed it.
What's next, the Relativistic Travelling Salesman problem? How about that for a challenge!
But perhaps they know how to use a spell checker...
Let's not take this too far- you wouldn't want them to turn to some sort of Nazis now, would you.
Oh, the times ahead! There is so much fun to come! That will give a whole new meaning to the word 'entertainment' !
Drugs are bad, m'kay?
We only have his word that he actually stopped.
Not only that, but his publication mentions ZERO (0) references: he cites noone!
Not only accused of wreckless driving, he is doing some pretty wreckless sciencing too!
One. But it looks like many.
I know about the target price. What is the actual price?
In wonder if it would be considered cruel...
In short, they understand language, and they know how to speek it. They just act as if they don't, because if they reveal it, then humans are going to put them to labor immediately.
When Microsoft cuts the chord on XP in two years it will effectively leave millions of existing Windows-based computers vulnerable to continued and undeterred cyberattacks
I can't say I'm going to miss Microsoft XP support.
I can't say I 've ever had Microsoft XP support, either-
Just close all universities and turn them into LSD churches.
Fixed that for you.
Your tin foil hats will protect you no more! Mwahahahaha!
Tin foil is irrelevant. What is relevant, is:
predicated on the fact that shopkeepers will know the moment you walk by their front door, or when you are looking at a particular product,
Maybe shopkeepers have a higher chance of me buying something if they leave me the fuck alone, and not swarm me like flies in shit "the moment I walk by their front door".
Yes, especially with their cameras providing a constant feed on central, eh? Hey! Here is you looting the screen! And here is you urinating! And it's Fox News!
The technologies being developed by the Navy also have another use [..]
Very interesting- because the numbers do not add up: as far as I know, piracy in the region has been occuring for several years now, and policing the area is simply more expensive than paying ransom. It is not clear to me what has the motivation been (besides money) to "clear the waters". And when I say "clear to me" I mean from an economic planning point of view, because I am pretty sure that this is an issue that always comes up in meeting rooms. Police the waters, okay, but how much does it cost? The obvious choice in such a large-scale project is a (or a few) military body(-ies), and several nations have vessels operating already. But the military is also very good at estimating costs, and for that kind of ongoing operation I would not be surprised if costs are measured in tens or hundreds of millions of dollars per day. Pit that against the few millions of dollars every now and then for ransom, insurance policies, plus the "not my problem" attitude, and there you go: you are on your own.
Sadly, field-testing military technology sound like a much, much more plausible explanation for the sudden spike of interest into "solving the piracy problem".