Can Tech Help Monitor or Mitigate a Mine-Flooded Ecosystem?
Yes. The first tech to start out with is a motorboat, a Van Dorn bottle, and a sediment sampler. Then pick out a lab or two that are capable of testing for the things that might be in the water, particularly nickel, arsenic, lead, copper, TSS, phosphorus, and nitrogen. Take your water samples at several locations and depths using said motorboat with said Van Dorn bottle and sediment sampler.
Okay, okay, I was kinda being a smartass. I get it, you have 5 days to complete your detailed action plan, and in a desperate Hail Mary you're hoping somebody here will reply with, "I was just about to launch my Kickstarter project for my solar powered 3-D printed heavy-metal-cleaning-superdrone running Linux on Raspberry Pi! I'll UPS my prototype to you tomorrow!" But that's not gonna happen. I'm sure you've already hired consultants to write things like, "if levels of A are above B mcg/L then C will be done over D timespan, until levels of A drop below B, at which point E will be done." D and E may have to be investigated if you don't know what they are yet. That's about as good as you're gonna get at this point.
Don't forget that your spill probably didn't just contaminate the lake with the metals you dumped in it, but also normal things (i.e. nutrients) that tons of sediment contain that could have various biological effects such as algal blooms. In addition to supplying them with clean water, I hope your mining company also reimburses the residents of the area for the economic (both short term and long term) impact this incident is having on them. You've been reaping the benefit of the rewards, now it's time to pay the price of the risk.
911 calls are by nature a conversation, a two-way exchange of details from the caller and suggestions from the operator as the situation unfolds. That will (likely) be lost in a text exchange - what parent will keep texting 'she's not breathing, she's turning blue' to 911 when they are standing by their choking child?
There are some situations where it's very difficult to make a call, particularly noisy situations. For example, I had to call 911 for a car accident where one of the car's horn was blaring (presumably the front impact had shorted something out). I couldn't hear the 911 operator and she couldn't hear me. I had to walk far enough away that we could hear each other. It would have been much easier to send a text saying something like "Car accident at intersection of X and Y, one driver with non-life-threatening injury." Of course, in most situations it would be better to call. They're not proposing to replace voice with text for 911, it is in addition to voice.
"Planes Can Be Hacked" really means "Planes' Satellite Communication System Can be Hacked." That's a huge distinction. A malicious hacker still can't control the plane or it's radio communications, which are the important things. There are good reasons why the FAA is strict rules about airplanes not relying on satellites.
To give you an idea of the technical prowess of the article: "he discovered the vulnerabilities by "reverse engineering" - or decoding - highly specialized software known as firmware." But it seems the "researcher" is trying to sensationalize things: "In theory, a hacker could use a plane's onboard WiFi signal or inflight entertainment system to hack into its avionics equipment, potentially disrupting or modifying satellite communications, which could interfere with the aircraft's navigation and safety systems, Santamarta said." Now let's read between the lines. Avionics is any kind of electronics, even the entertainment system, so really no big deal, they can't hack anything important. For the "navigation" systems, he's not talking about GPS (even if he were it wouldn't be a big deal, airplanes can navigate just fine without GPS), but the communication system does send the GPS location, altitude, and speed back home. If that goes down, not a big deal because that's not what air traffic control relies on.
The worst that could happen is causing a panic by putting porn up on a flight to Disneyland and reporting back an altitude and speed of zero, which I'm sure would prompt a quick call to someone with air traffic control info who would say everything is fine. It would also prompt a lawsuit from the parents of small children for subjecting them to porn, but that would be made up for by ticket sales from college students wanting to fly that airline for their spring break vacation.
Hmm, I don't know. This is the first time I've heard of something like this from Google, so it could have been just an inquiry into a random technical problem, a Google employee suspicious of their neighbor, a Google employee who got a tip-off from his best friend, or anything, really.
All of those scenarios just go to show that, contrary to what Google has claimed in the past, their employees can and do view emails even without a court order.
The sole source of information for the article is "Aviad Dadon of Israeli cyber-security firm AdoreGroup." Is that an independent source?
Of course. As we have seen here in the US, heads of intelligence organizations never lie. Even more so, heads of a corporation with a financial interest in conflict. Nope, they would never lie in a case like that to justify to a country's citizens a government giving it tons of money. Nope, it's totally 100% reliable.
A good common sense opinion from Mr. Wheeler and the FCC. So where's that common sense when it comes to net neutrality?
Wrong companies. You'll notice his pet companies Verizon, Comcast and Time Werner aren't helped by this. It's more complicated than pushing things in favor of big business, it's pushing things in favor of the biggest businesses. Sprint and T-mobile combined have less market share than either Verizon or AT&T individually, and I'm sure Verizon and AT&T want to keep it that way.
So, what will happen is a smaller company or combined small companies will buy the spectrum, and then get bought out by Verizon or AT&T.
So, the US government has pretty much taken the worst parts of the original idea of Fascism as described in the original Fascist Manifesto (corporatism) along with the worst parts of what Italian Fascism actually tried to be (totalitarianism, rule by elites).
but having a pathogen stored in a BSL4 lab is *much* different than trying to treat an infected patient that is bleeding out in a hospital isolation unit.
Right, I'm sure the CDC never thought of that. I'm sure their isolation unit it just a regular hospital but with some plastic sheeting draped across the door. NOT. What makes you think they don't have the same safeguards in place there as any other BSL4 lab? It's not like they're transporting them (yes, there's two, what a horrible summary) on some random airplane to some random hospital. It's a plane specifically outfitted for this purpose, being transported to a hospital with a unit specifically built for this purpose.
But I'm sure you have more expertise than the folks at the CDC because you read Outbreak and The Hot Zone.
Like if I'm arrested for smoking pot in the USA and USA prosecutors want to search my bedroom back home in Amsterdam to collect proof of my drug habit, you think its ok for USA police to force my parents to let them search my bedroom back home (or enter their home by force)? Even if my "crime" is only a crime in the USA?
I don't think that's what this ruling is saying. They're saying that you're obligated to produce the evidence. I don't know the details of how (the only thing that's certain is the articles lack of details), maybe give them remote access. Either way, there are ways to do this without stepping foot in Ireland or requiring the Irish police to do anything...the key here being that they're requiring somebody who his physically in the US to do something, and they can be in contempt if they don't. Otherwise, if they were trying to get the Irish police to do something, they'd have to request (not require, and maybe through the Department of State) that Ireland obtain the evidence and send it to them, which most countries are likely to do as long as it's a crime in both countries and they think it's important enough to spend their time on.
Even if my "crime" is only a crime in the USA?
Isn't that pretty much how extradition normally works? Yes, I realize this doesn't apply to this case, just academically interesting. CountryA will only send you back to requesting CountryB if the crime you're accused of is also a crime in CountryA, or it falls under a list of specific types of crimes. For example, the extradition treaty between the US and Netherlands specifies:
b. Offenses, whether listed in the Appendix to this Treaty or not, provided they are punishable under the Federal laws of the United States of America and the laws [10] of the Kingdom of the Netherlands.
However, it's also listed under the specific types of crimes:
28. Offenses against the laws relating to the traffic in, or the possession, production or manufacture of narcotic drugs, cannabis, psychotropic drugs, cocaine and its derivatives, and other dangerous drugs and chemicals.
Not the same thing as your analogy, but it's interesting that if you're accused of possessing weed in the US and flee to the Netherlands, the Netherlands is obligated to send you back to the US to face prosecution.
Oh, and there's also a kicker that could apply to somebody like Snowden:
1. Extradition shall not be granted when in the view of the Requested State the offense for which extradition is requested is of a political character, is connected with an offense of a political character, or it is established [12] that extradition is requested for political purposes.
When I read through Amazon's logic, they wanted to single-handedly re-write the relationship that already exists between the author and the publisher. It is a very thinly veiled move to try and cutout the publisher.
So what? Publishers have a similar role to record companies. Somebody else creates the product, they edit the product, but mostly they are just the marketing firm. Why should they be getting a bulk of the profits? When people suggest this sort of thing with music, you hear chants of hell ya, stick it to the record companies who are getting a lot more money than they deserve for what they do. Yet when it comes to book publishers, you're saying the opposite. Times, they are a changin'. No longer must an author rely solely on a publisher to create physical copies of their books and get them into book stores. E-Books can be sold on Amazon in a similar manner to how music can be sold on iTunes, at which point publishers are just the marketers. Obviously book publishers are going to fight to keep their massive piece of the pie, just as record companies do.
Did online music purchasing destroy music? Did they destroy record companies? Hell no, record company profits are up because people purchase more music. They have had a pretty big impact on physical retailers though.
Will selling e-books at an appropriate price on Amazon (and B&N etc) destroy book publishers? Why would it be any different from the record companies? They are already having an impact on physical retailers though, and that impact will likely only increase.
Unlimited bandwidth is not possible. You can make it illegal all you want. It doesn't trump physics.
Solution: Don't lie and call it unlimited. The point is that customers are paying for something Verizon calls "unlimited" which is not actually unlimited. The customers contracts are up so they can put those customers on other plans, the problem is when they still call the altered plan "unlimited."
Why should Verizon spend many billions of dollars to subsidize Netflix?
They're not. Verizon's customers are paying them to provide a service. Just because a bulk of the traffic is coming from a particular source doesn't mean it's okay for them to charge their customers for a service that they're not providing. It all comes down to Verizon trying to double-dip.
The barrier to entry is so absurdly low that I dont think anyone needs to worry about Amazon's monopoly, at least in the shopping sector.
The barrier to entry is significant. Not necessarily on the logistics/shipping side, but most certainly on the marketing side. In Q2 of 2014, Amazon spent $943 million on marketing. In 2013, they spent $3.1 Billion (yes, with a "B") on marketing. How money potential online retail start-ups have even a fraction of that amount? The online retail market isn't a "if you build it they will come" thing, hasn't been for awhile. You either need a really innovative and unique product to sell to carve out a yet-to-exist niche, or marketing to drive customers to you instead of the other guys.
Your next supercar will be ugly as hitting your father with a sweaty sock, but really efficient because, as we all know, people buy supercars for their efficiency.
People buy super cars because they consider them to be cool (and they have nothing better to spend their money on). New technology is cool. If this is cool new tech, a super car seems like a logical place to start. Also note that efficiency isn't necessarily solely fuel economy, but can also affect top speed.
As far as making it's way into the mass market...it seems like the "morphing" would be the expensive part. Why not just have it be a fixed dimple on a mass-production car? Perhaps it wouldn't be quite as efficient as one that optimized the dimple depth for the speed of the car, but ought to be a helluva lot cheaper. A disadvantage is that the dimples are going to fill up with grime and will be a PITA to clean.
I think you're missing the point. It's not that this gives them permission to track you, like you said that's probably already in your service contract. The point is that it gives explicit permission to sell that data to somebody else, thus legitimizing it and making it more valuable by decreasing legal and PR risk.
After what's come out about corporations having to feed the surveillance beast, anyone who opts in should be subjected to having their house and cars wiretapped in perpetuity by the NSA with a direct feed to the FBI as the price for their nonchalance toward surveillance.
This is already a service being provided to everyone, no need to opt-in. Plus, we only have to pay the subscription fee once a year on April 15.
I see the exchange of value in one business plan, and not the other.
And there's another big difference. Google gives you services for free (which many people find useful) in exchange for exploiting your info. Verizon is going to give you discounts for third party services that will still cost money in exchange for exploiting your info while overcharging you money for using their services.
Unlike in other countries such as the US, there is no such thing as an unconstitutional law, or an act of parliament being "illegal" if properly passed
The ExoLance folks don't seem to claim that the idea of going below the surface is novel, only the "news" article does that. It is apparent, however, that their ideas for the design are different from DS2: http://exploremars.org/exolanc...
Additionally, their video mentions DS2, they themselves don't say that the idea of subsurface is novel, but that their implementation is.
Thanks for that. It would be doubly helpful if we knew which congressmen were supporting this, I'm sure that it's more than just R's that are getting big campaign contributions. The article only says "some House members." I'd like to know if mine is supporting it. A quick Google search finds another article that says it's being introduced by Marsha Blackburn (R-TN). There's another one, HR 4752 being introduced by Bob Latta (R-OH) that would prevent the FCC from regulating ISPs under Title II (common carrier).
OTOH, there is a group of senators who are pushing the FCC to reclassify ISPs so they can be regulated: Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), Ed Markey (D-MA), Al Franken (D-MN) and Bernie Sanders (I-VT), and Ron Wyden (D-OR). Once again Wyden falls on the side of sanity.
Slashdot Mirror
Can Tech Help Monitor or Mitigate a Mine-Flooded Ecosystem?
Yes. The first tech to start out with is a motorboat, a Van Dorn bottle, and a sediment sampler. Then pick out a lab or two that are capable of testing for the things that might be in the water, particularly nickel, arsenic, lead, copper, TSS, phosphorus, and nitrogen. Take your water samples at several locations and depths using said motorboat with said Van Dorn bottle and sediment sampler.
Okay, okay, I was kinda being a smartass. I get it, you have 5 days to complete your detailed action plan, and in a desperate Hail Mary you're hoping somebody here will reply with, "I was just about to launch my Kickstarter project for my solar powered 3-D printed heavy-metal-cleaning-superdrone running Linux on Raspberry Pi! I'll UPS my prototype to you tomorrow!" But that's not gonna happen. I'm sure you've already hired consultants to write things like, "if levels of A are above B mcg/L then C will be done over D timespan, until levels of A drop below B, at which point E will be done." D and E may have to be investigated if you don't know what they are yet. That's about as good as you're gonna get at this point.
Don't forget that your spill probably didn't just contaminate the lake with the metals you dumped in it, but also normal things (i.e. nutrients) that tons of sediment contain that could have various biological effects such as algal blooms. In addition to supplying them with clean water, I hope your mining company also reimburses the residents of the area for the economic (both short term and long term) impact this incident is having on them. You've been reaping the benefit of the rewards, now it's time to pay the price of the risk.
911 calls are by nature a conversation, a two-way exchange of details from the caller and suggestions from the operator as the situation unfolds. That will (likely) be lost in a text exchange - what parent will keep texting 'she's not breathing, she's turning blue' to 911 when they are standing by their choking child?
There are some situations where it's very difficult to make a call, particularly noisy situations. For example, I had to call 911 for a car accident where one of the car's horn was blaring (presumably the front impact had shorted something out). I couldn't hear the 911 operator and she couldn't hear me. I had to walk far enough away that we could hear each other. It would have been much easier to send a text saying something like "Car accident at intersection of X and Y, one driver with non-life-threatening injury." Of course, in most situations it would be better to call. They're not proposing to replace voice with text for 911, it is in addition to voice.
If you think about it, that's *precisely* what the NSA should be doing: precision strikes, rather than carpet bombing, so to speak.
You do mean with probable cause and a legal search warrant, right?
"Planes Can Be Hacked" really means "Planes' Satellite Communication System Can be Hacked." That's a huge distinction. A malicious hacker still can't control the plane or it's radio communications, which are the important things. There are good reasons why the FAA is strict rules about airplanes not relying on satellites.
To give you an idea of the technical prowess of the article: "he discovered the vulnerabilities by "reverse engineering" - or decoding - highly specialized software known as firmware." But it seems the "researcher" is trying to sensationalize things:
"In theory, a hacker could use a plane's onboard WiFi signal or inflight entertainment system to hack into its avionics equipment, potentially disrupting or modifying satellite communications, which could interfere with the aircraft's navigation and safety systems, Santamarta said."
Now let's read between the lines. Avionics is any kind of electronics, even the entertainment system, so really no big deal, they can't hack anything important. For the "navigation" systems, he's not talking about GPS (even if he were it wouldn't be a big deal, airplanes can navigate just fine without GPS), but the communication system does send the GPS location, altitude, and speed back home. If that goes down, not a big deal because that's not what air traffic control relies on.
The worst that could happen is causing a panic by putting porn up on a flight to Disneyland and reporting back an altitude and speed of zero, which I'm sure would prompt a quick call to someone with air traffic control info who would say everything is fine. It would also prompt a lawsuit from the parents of small children for subjecting them to porn, but that would be made up for by ticket sales from college students wanting to fly that airline for their spring break vacation.
Hmm, I don't know. This is the first time I've heard of something like this from Google, so it could have been just an inquiry into a random technical problem, a Google employee suspicious of their neighbor, a Google employee who got a tip-off from his best friend, or anything, really.
All of those scenarios just go to show that, contrary to what Google has claimed in the past, their employees can and do view emails even without a court order.
The sole source of information for the article is "Aviad Dadon of Israeli cyber-security firm AdoreGroup." Is that an independent source?
Of course. As we have seen here in the US, heads of intelligence organizations never lie. Even more so, heads of a corporation with a financial interest in conflict. Nope, they would never lie in a case like that to justify to a country's citizens a government giving it tons of money. Nope, it's totally 100% reliable.
A good common sense opinion from Mr. Wheeler and the FCC. So where's that common sense when it comes to net neutrality?
Wrong companies. You'll notice his pet companies Verizon, Comcast and Time Werner aren't helped by this. It's more complicated than pushing things in favor of big business, it's pushing things in favor of the biggest businesses. Sprint and T-mobile combined have less market share than either Verizon or AT&T individually, and I'm sure Verizon and AT&T want to keep it that way.
So, what will happen is a smaller company or combined small companies will buy the spectrum, and then get bought out by Verizon or AT&T.
So, the US government has pretty much taken the worst parts of the original idea of Fascism as described in the original Fascist Manifesto (corporatism) along with the worst parts of what Italian Fascism actually tried to be (totalitarianism, rule by elites).
but having a pathogen stored in a BSL4 lab is *much* different than trying to treat an infected patient that is bleeding out in a hospital isolation unit.
Right, I'm sure the CDC never thought of that. I'm sure their isolation unit it just a regular hospital but with some plastic sheeting draped across the door. NOT. What makes you think they don't have the same safeguards in place there as any other BSL4 lab? It's not like they're transporting them (yes, there's two, what a horrible summary) on some random airplane to some random hospital. It's a plane specifically outfitted for this purpose, being transported to a hospital with a unit specifically built for this purpose.
But I'm sure you have more expertise than the folks at the CDC because you read Outbreak and The Hot Zone.
There's some good info here that's worth a read:
http://www.iflscience.com/heal...
Like if I'm arrested for smoking pot in the USA and USA prosecutors want to search my bedroom back home in Amsterdam to collect proof of my drug habit, you think its ok for USA police to force my parents to let them search my bedroom back home (or enter their home by force)? Even if my "crime" is only a crime in the USA?
I don't think that's what this ruling is saying. They're saying that you're obligated to produce the evidence. I don't know the details of how (the only thing that's certain is the articles lack of details), maybe give them remote access. Either way, there are ways to do this without stepping foot in Ireland or requiring the Irish police to do anything...the key here being that they're requiring somebody who his physically in the US to do something, and they can be in contempt if they don't. Otherwise, if they were trying to get the Irish police to do something, they'd have to request (not require, and maybe through the Department of State) that Ireland obtain the evidence and send it to them, which most countries are likely to do as long as it's a crime in both countries and they think it's important enough to spend their time on.
Even if my "crime" is only a crime in the USA?
Isn't that pretty much how extradition normally works? Yes, I realize this doesn't apply to this case, just academically interesting. CountryA will only send you back to requesting CountryB if the crime you're accused of is also a crime in CountryA, or it falls under a list of specific types of crimes.
For example, the extradition treaty between the US and Netherlands specifies:
b. Offenses, whether listed in the Appendix to this Treaty or not, provided they are punishable under the Federal laws of the United States of America and the laws [10] of the Kingdom of the Netherlands.
However, it's also listed under the specific types of crimes:
28. Offenses against the laws relating to the traffic in, or the possession, production or manufacture of narcotic drugs, cannabis, psychotropic drugs, cocaine and its derivatives, and other dangerous drugs and chemicals.
Not the same thing as your analogy, but it's interesting that if you're accused of possessing weed in the US and flee to the Netherlands, the Netherlands is obligated to send you back to the US to face prosecution.
Oh, and there's also a kicker that could apply to somebody like Snowden:
1. Extradition shall not be granted when in the view of the Requested State the offense for which extradition is requested is of a political character, is connected with an offense of a political character, or it is established [12] that extradition is requested for political purposes.
When I read through Amazon's logic, they wanted to single-handedly re-write the relationship that already exists between the author and the publisher. It is a very thinly veiled move to try and cutout the publisher.
So what? Publishers have a similar role to record companies. Somebody else creates the product, they edit the product, but mostly they are just the marketing firm. Why should they be getting a bulk of the profits? When people suggest this sort of thing with music, you hear chants of hell ya, stick it to the record companies who are getting a lot more money than they deserve for what they do. Yet when it comes to book publishers, you're saying the opposite. Times, they are a changin'. No longer must an author rely solely on a publisher to create physical copies of their books and get them into book stores. E-Books can be sold on Amazon in a similar manner to how music can be sold on iTunes, at which point publishers are just the marketers. Obviously book publishers are going to fight to keep their massive piece of the pie, just as record companies do.
Did online music purchasing destroy music? Did they destroy record companies? Hell no, record company profits are up because people purchase more music. They have had a pretty big impact on physical retailers though.
Will selling e-books at an appropriate price on Amazon (and B&N etc) destroy book publishers? Why would it be any different from the record companies? They are already having an impact on physical retailers though, and that impact will likely only increase.
Out of 290 seats the Iranian parliament have 3 Jewish, 4 Catholic and another 7 occupied by non-muslim minorities. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I...
That beats the US congress, which has only 2 muslims and 3 buddhists.
Although they should be throttling everyone on that tower, not just the people who happen to use a lot of data elsewhere.
What they should be doing is being honest and not calling it unlimited, and charging a reasonable amount for overage (not $10/gb!).
Unlimited bandwidth is not possible. You can make it illegal all you want. It doesn't trump physics.
Solution: Don't lie and call it unlimited. The point is that customers are paying for something Verizon calls "unlimited" which is not actually unlimited. The customers contracts are up so they can put those customers on other plans, the problem is when they still call the altered plan "unlimited."
Why should Verizon spend many billions of dollars to subsidize Netflix?
They're not. Verizon's customers are paying them to provide a service. Just because a bulk of the traffic is coming from a particular source doesn't mean it's okay for them to charge their customers for a service that they're not providing. It all comes down to Verizon trying to double-dip.
The barrier to entry is so absurdly low that I dont think anyone needs to worry about Amazon's monopoly, at least in the shopping sector.
The barrier to entry is significant. Not necessarily on the logistics/shipping side, but most certainly on the marketing side. In Q2 of 2014, Amazon spent $943 million on marketing. In 2013, they spent $3.1 Billion (yes, with a "B") on marketing. How money potential online retail start-ups have even a fraction of that amount? The online retail market isn't a "if you build it they will come" thing, hasn't been for awhile. You either need a really innovative and unique product to sell to carve out a yet-to-exist niche, or marketing to drive customers to you instead of the other guys.
Your next supercar will be ugly as hitting your father with a sweaty sock, but really efficient because, as we all know, people buy supercars for their efficiency.
People buy super cars because they consider them to be cool (and they have nothing better to spend their money on). New technology is cool. If this is cool new tech, a super car seems like a logical place to start. Also note that efficiency isn't necessarily solely fuel economy, but can also affect top speed.
As far as making it's way into the mass market...it seems like the "morphing" would be the expensive part. Why not just have it be a fixed dimple on a mass-production car? Perhaps it wouldn't be quite as efficient as one that optimized the dimple depth for the speed of the car, but ought to be a helluva lot cheaper. A disadvantage is that the dimples are going to fill up with grime and will be a PITA to clean.
FTA:
The helmet runs for about $600,000, which doesn't include software integration with the aircraft’s systems.
I think you're missing the point. It's not that this gives them permission to track you, like you said that's probably already in your service contract. The point is that it gives explicit permission to sell that data to somebody else, thus legitimizing it and making it more valuable by decreasing legal and PR risk.
After what's come out about corporations having to feed the surveillance beast, anyone who opts in should be subjected to having their house and cars wiretapped in perpetuity by the NSA with a direct feed to the FBI as the price for their nonchalance toward surveillance.
This is already a service being provided to everyone, no need to opt-in. Plus, we only have to pay the subscription fee once a year on April 15.
I see the exchange of value in one business plan, and not the other.
And there's another big difference. Google gives you services for free (which many people find useful) in exchange for exploiting your info. Verizon is going to give you discounts for third party services that will still cost money in exchange for exploiting your info while overcharging you money for using their services.
Every single government department that has power over other people needs a watchdog or oversight committee.
It's called the judicial branch. Unfortunately, they suck at their jobs.
Unlike in other countries such as the US, there is no such thing as an unconstitutional law, or
an act of parliament being "illegal" if properly passed
There isn't in the US anymore either.
The ExoLance folks don't seem to claim that the idea of going below the surface is novel, only the "news" article does that. It is apparent, however, that their ideas for the design are different from DS2:
http://exploremars.org/exolanc...
Additionally, their video mentions DS2, they themselves don't say that the idea of subsurface is novel, but that their implementation is.
on the House of Reppresentatives website.
Thanks for that. It would be doubly helpful if we knew which congressmen were supporting this, I'm sure that it's more than just R's that are getting big campaign contributions. The article only says "some House members." I'd like to know if mine is supporting it. A quick Google search finds another article that says it's being introduced by Marsha Blackburn (R-TN). There's another one, HR 4752 being introduced by Bob Latta (R-OH) that would prevent the FCC from regulating ISPs under Title II (common carrier).
OTOH, there is a group of senators who are pushing the FCC to reclassify ISPs so they can be regulated: Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), Ed Markey (D-MA), Al Franken (D-MN) and Bernie Sanders (I-VT), and Ron Wyden (D-OR). Once again Wyden falls on the side of sanity.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/...