Actually one of the primary Command and Control Networks has no encryption. It drives me nuts on a regular basis (mostly because it makes the network unusable for vast portions of C2 work.) A lot of the legacy comms for various (primarily airborne) platforms have either no encryption or insufficient encryption. As noted by others, its a lot of work to fix this, and then get it flight certified, and deploy it theatre-wide, etc. etc. etc.
Sounds about the ages I used to visit the children's museum. I mean, you're right, you can't really do something that will really span that age range, but with some work, you can do something that would (for example in the maze thing above) be interesting for mixed-age-groups. 3 is probably a bit young, but 4 is kindergarten age in some places. The trick is to lure them in with the shiny and then as they grow older make the shiny actually teach them something. I can remember more than a few exhibits that I revisited many times over the years as I grew older, going back to them because I remembered how much fun they were, and then again (towards the end of my children's museum years) because of how cool the concepts that made them work were.
And then we get into a world where people bundle sets of extensions into different 'standard' feature sets, call them distributions, and different distributions being subtly incompatible with eachother . . . have we been down this road before, maybe? The strictly bare bones approach you advocate doesn't work for anything but the smallest percentage of users.
Okay let us be clear here about treaties. This process does not follow the normal process for laws because its . . . different.
The president gets to negotiate a treaty with a foreign power or powers. The senate then has to ratify it with 51 votes (but really 60 for the usual reasons in the senate.) The senate can't override the president on a treaty.
Now, that said, while the senators don't have any authority as to the terms of the treaty, its a problem for the president if he negotiates a treaty the senate won't ratify. It reduces his credibility for all future treaties, so generally if two senators make a request, he's at least going to listen. Especially when those votes are ones he's counting on for his agenda in other matters.
And yes, despite the irregular nature of it all, a treaty once negotiated by the president and ratified by the senate becomes part of the law of the land, unless it otherwise violates the constitution.
Sir, you are forgetting one very important point: of those three things, only the property tax usually goes to the city.
And, in fact, the students often do NOT pay that. Universities are non profits, and in may states, non-profits don't pay property taxes. He at least has some measure of a valid complaint here. I would say, though, that for most cities, universities raise property values, so its not entirely valid. Plus while many students live in the dorms, in any university of significant size in a major city like pittsburgh, many do not as well.
Not that I approve of this, at all. But . . . I'm willing to bet that a full copy of the town's laws and regulations can be found, and read, for free, at the town library.
Add to that the fact that vaccines are a low margin product
I have trouble believing that.:P
Even $6 profit on a vaccine is still 1.2 billion dollars profit if you have 200 million vaccinations.
But honestly, I've seen the way some of these vaccines are produced, so I have trouble believing they cost more than $0.50 per dose. I haven't kept up on what an H1N1 vaccine costs our governments per dose, but I'm betting the profit is higher than $6.
Its not the production cost. Once you develop the vaccine it is, actually pretty cheap to produce (although distribution is non-trivial)
Mostly though, they're recouping a crash development cost. I don't know factually either way, but I've always been under the impression that vaccines were low margin as well. And I doubt, highly, that they cost.50 a dose.
The CSM is a serious paper which tends to focus on international news. Probably one of the best, actually. It is owned and operated by the Christian Science church (of which, to be clear, I am not a member.) But other than the rare editorial, that doesn't really influence the reporting at all. Its reporting style makes it something like the NPR of news papers.
I dare anybody to show an independent private "inventor" who creates something and makes money by selling the idea to some mega-corporation for royalties. It doesn't happen.
Huh? This happens all the time. Its a well-known business model. An entrepeneur comes up with a new idea, if its patentable typically patents it, develops the business, and then sells it to a larger company for big bucks. While IP isn't the only thing being bought in these cases, its typically a non-trivial portion of it.
I don't really know where this myth that the founding fathers were all talking about random inventors in their homes etc. came from. It is worth bearing in mind that the period American government was being developed pretty much coincides precisely with the lifetime of Adam Smith and the development of the corporation -- and more than a few of the founding fathers were heavily involved in some of those concepts. Benjamin Franklin, who more or less got the patent stuff in place, not least of them. And, for that matter, its worth noting that Benjamin Franklin, while he certainly felt that it would benefit the nation as a whole, was not exactly a disinterested party when it came to the subject of Patent Law.
Patent law is, at least in theory, one of the most innovative things in the US constitution, and is almost certainly responsible for a great deal of our success in technology innovation. It was created in an environment where it was quite common for small companies to invent things and large companies to just outright steal it. And while you can argue about how well patent/copyright law protects actual content creators, it is certainly the case that things are better now than they were in, say, the days of Shakespeare, where anyone could make a copy of his plays once a single version was out (Shakespeare himself was somewhat involved in the creation of the concept of Copyright, and even at that time it was heavily weighted towards the publisher. At least that's what my vague memory of research I did some years ago says.)
Fundamentally a number of the founding fathers were pretty ruthless businessmen, and while the level of abuse of patent and copyright law we see today was not what they intended, I don't think you should overestimate the extent this was intended to protect the individual creator vs. the investor in the creation. Patent and Copyright laws have done a lot for innovation in our country. Which doesn't mean that they haven't also been systematically abused in recent decades as well. But lets not throw out the baby with the bathwater, hmm?
Why flamebait? You are correct. I would also like to add the US military budget...
The US has the means to fund this research. It has chosen not to do so.
Ummmm. Just want to note that historically speaking the Department of Energy has funded nearly as much in research dollars as the Department of Defense, and that the amount of money spent on (failed) attempts at fusion is not insignificant by any means. You don't see all that much money going to fusion research these days because not many people have come up with NEW ideas that have any sort of solid backing in theoretical physics. In fact, most physicists would argue that its STILL way, way, too easy to get research dollars for purely ridiculous ideas of generating fusion.
I will also add that there are still relatively substantial funds going into hot fusion and attempts to improve the energy balance from there.
Finally, this whole point is irrelevant to the parent -- large government grants for basic research usually don't go to startups simply because there's no track record of research success etc. Instead they typically go to universities and other established research centers -- and I assure you that the average university has plenty of grants awarded for stuff pretty far out there. On the other hand the Small Business Initative Research grants from DoD etc. are actually a fairly impressive program. While there is definitely no such thing as spending too much money on research, so far as I am aware the US is still on the leader board in terms of research spending.
Just feel obliged to point out that Clippy's base code actually came from MS's basic research lab and he was, in his day, the most powerful "AI" ever marketed to consumers.
Okay, I'm an army contractor, so maybe the rest of the government is different. But . . . P2P is ALREADY very, very, very, high on the list of forbidden applications. Really, this whole thing confuses me. How did sensitive (and presumably classified??) information get into this state to be compromised on a machine having a P2P server. I mean, how did it get on an internet machine, one, and two . . . what sort of unregulated machine was it on that it had P2P apps on it?? Installing a P2P app on an army-owned machine is illegal;)
I'm man enough to admit that I'm a horrible driver. Hell, in the morning I'm not really awake enough to have any business on the road, and during the day I'm usually thinking about anything but driving. I mitigate this by arranging my life so I don't have to drive very much, and when i do have to drive its mostly clean driving on fairly empty highways.
I frequently use my cell when I drive, (typically on the aforementioned highways), and actually it probably makes me safer . . . I will call someone if I think I'm too tired to stay awake properly and have a fairly inane conversation
Killing the study? Others have posted plenty of studies that are, honestly more than sufficient to demonstrate the risks. I don't actually think cell phones are necessarily more dangerous than many other things (such as eating in the car, fixing one's hair etc.)
There's really only one solution: Where possible, let the damned cars drive themselves. Its scary and dangerous people say, but is it really more dangerous than what we've got now, or just scarier? (And, of course, a much bigger liability problem for those involved in the technology)
I am confused. This looks like basic Corporate Espionage, not DMCA. This isn't about somebody trying to unscramble the signal, in my opinion. Reverse engineering somebody else's hardware/software based on knowledge of the original source (this isn't Pheonix BIOS here), for which reasonable protections have been provided, is and should remain a gross violation of various laws. Isn't there anything better than DMCA (which is a bad law) to charge the guy with?
Setting aside how I feel about the whole unscrambling issue, I don't think this is about that, per se. This is purely about corporate bottom lines and corporate espionage. Anyone who engages in that deserves whatever they get.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually one of the primary Command and Control Networks has no encryption. It drives me nuts on a regular basis (mostly because it makes the network unusable for vast portions of C2 work.) A lot of the legacy comms for various (primarily airborne) platforms have either no encryption or insufficient encryption. As noted by others, its a lot of work to fix this, and then get it flight certified, and deploy it theatre-wide, etc. etc. etc.
Or maybe they just said "That seems fair" and went on?
Sounds about the ages I used to visit the children's museum. I mean, you're right, you can't really do something that will really span that age range, but with some work, you can do something that would (for example in the maze thing above) be interesting for mixed-age-groups. 3 is probably a bit young, but 4 is kindergarten age in some places. The trick is to lure them in with the shiny and then as they grow older make the shiny actually teach them something. I can remember more than a few exhibits that I revisited many times over the years as I grew older, going back to them because I remembered how much fun they were, and then again (towards the end of my children's museum years) because of how cool the concepts that made them work were.
And then we get into a world where people bundle sets of extensions into different 'standard' feature sets, call them distributions, and different distributions being subtly incompatible with eachother . . . have we been down this road before, maybe? The strictly bare bones approach you advocate doesn't work for anything but the smallest percentage of users.
Okay let us be clear here about treaties. This process does not follow the normal process for laws because its . . . different. The president gets to negotiate a treaty with a foreign power or powers. The senate then has to ratify it with 51 votes (but really 60 for the usual reasons in the senate.) The senate can't override the president on a treaty. Now, that said, while the senators don't have any authority as to the terms of the treaty, its a problem for the president if he negotiates a treaty the senate won't ratify. It reduces his credibility for all future treaties, so generally if two senators make a request, he's at least going to listen. Especially when those votes are ones he's counting on for his agenda in other matters. And yes, despite the irregular nature of it all, a treaty once negotiated by the president and ratified by the senate becomes part of the law of the land, unless it otherwise violates the constitution.
Sir, you are forgetting one very important point: of those three things, only the property tax usually goes to the city. And, in fact, the students often do NOT pay that. Universities are non profits, and in may states, non-profits don't pay property taxes. He at least has some measure of a valid complaint here. I would say, though, that for most cities, universities raise property values, so its not entirely valid. Plus while many students live in the dorms, in any university of significant size in a major city like pittsburgh, many do not as well.
I know this is unmanned, but does anyone else look at this article and get nostalgia for Sierra's Space Quest series?
Not that I approve of this, at all. But . . . I'm willing to bet that a full copy of the town's laws and regulations can be found, and read, for free, at the town library.
I can't decide whether I find your post or the patent filing in your sig more amusing.
Add to that the fact that vaccines are a low margin product
I have trouble believing that. :P
Even $6 profit on a vaccine is still 1.2 billion dollars profit if you have 200 million vaccinations.
But honestly, I've seen the way some of these vaccines are produced, so I have trouble believing they cost more than $0.50 per dose. I haven't kept up on what an H1N1 vaccine costs our governments per dose, but I'm betting the profit is higher than $6.
Its not the production cost. Once you develop the vaccine it is, actually pretty cheap to produce (although distribution is non-trivial) Mostly though, they're recouping a crash development cost. I don't know factually either way, but I've always been under the impression that vaccines were low margin as well. And I doubt, highly, that they cost .50 a dose.
The CSM is a serious paper which tends to focus on international news. Probably one of the best, actually. It is owned and operated by the Christian Science church (of which, to be clear, I am not a member.) But other than the rare editorial, that doesn't really influence the reporting at all. Its reporting style makes it something like the NPR of news papers.
I dare anybody to show an independent private "inventor" who creates something and makes money by selling the idea to some mega-corporation for royalties. It doesn't happen.
Huh? This happens all the time. Its a well-known business model. An entrepeneur comes up with a new idea, if its patentable typically patents it, develops the business, and then sells it to a larger company for big bucks. While IP isn't the only thing being bought in these cases, its typically a non-trivial portion of it. I don't really know where this myth that the founding fathers were all talking about random inventors in their homes etc. came from. It is worth bearing in mind that the period American government was being developed pretty much coincides precisely with the lifetime of Adam Smith and the development of the corporation -- and more than a few of the founding fathers were heavily involved in some of those concepts. Benjamin Franklin, who more or less got the patent stuff in place, not least of them. And, for that matter, its worth noting that Benjamin Franklin, while he certainly felt that it would benefit the nation as a whole, was not exactly a disinterested party when it came to the subject of Patent Law. Patent law is, at least in theory, one of the most innovative things in the US constitution, and is almost certainly responsible for a great deal of our success in technology innovation. It was created in an environment where it was quite common for small companies to invent things and large companies to just outright steal it. And while you can argue about how well patent/copyright law protects actual content creators, it is certainly the case that things are better now than they were in, say, the days of Shakespeare, where anyone could make a copy of his plays once a single version was out (Shakespeare himself was somewhat involved in the creation of the concept of Copyright, and even at that time it was heavily weighted towards the publisher. At least that's what my vague memory of research I did some years ago says.) Fundamentally a number of the founding fathers were pretty ruthless businessmen, and while the level of abuse of patent and copyright law we see today was not what they intended, I don't think you should overestimate the extent this was intended to protect the individual creator vs. the investor in the creation. Patent and Copyright laws have done a lot for innovation in our country. Which doesn't mean that they haven't also been systematically abused in recent decades as well. But lets not throw out the baby with the bathwater, hmm?
Why flamebait? You are correct. I would also like to add the US military budget...
The US has the means to fund this research. It has chosen not to do so.
Ummmm. Just want to note that historically speaking the Department of Energy has funded nearly as much in research dollars as the Department of Defense, and that the amount of money spent on (failed) attempts at fusion is not insignificant by any means. You don't see all that much money going to fusion research these days because not many people have come up with NEW ideas that have any sort of solid backing in theoretical physics. In fact, most physicists would argue that its STILL way, way, too easy to get research dollars for purely ridiculous ideas of generating fusion. I will also add that there are still relatively substantial funds going into hot fusion and attempts to improve the energy balance from there. Finally, this whole point is irrelevant to the parent -- large government grants for basic research usually don't go to startups simply because there's no track record of research success etc. Instead they typically go to universities and other established research centers -- and I assure you that the average university has plenty of grants awarded for stuff pretty far out there. On the other hand the Small Business Initative Research grants from DoD etc. are actually a fairly impressive program. While there is definitely no such thing as spending too much money on research, so far as I am aware the US is still on the leader board in terms of research spending.
Just feel obliged to point out that Clippy's base code actually came from MS's basic research lab and he was, in his day, the most powerful "AI" ever marketed to consumers.
Okay, I'm an army contractor, so maybe the rest of the government is different. But . . . P2P is ALREADY very, very, very, high on the list of forbidden applications. Really, this whole thing confuses me. How did sensitive (and presumably classified??) information get into this state to be compromised on a machine having a P2P server. I mean, how did it get on an internet machine, one, and two . . . what sort of unregulated machine was it on that it had P2P apps on it?? Installing a P2P app on an army-owned machine is illegal ;)
I'm man enough to admit that I'm a horrible driver. Hell, in the morning I'm not really awake enough to have any business on the road, and during the day I'm usually thinking about anything but driving. I mitigate this by arranging my life so I don't have to drive very much, and when i do have to drive its mostly clean driving on fairly empty highways. I frequently use my cell when I drive, (typically on the aforementioned highways), and actually it probably makes me safer . . . I will call someone if I think I'm too tired to stay awake properly and have a fairly inane conversation Killing the study? Others have posted plenty of studies that are, honestly more than sufficient to demonstrate the risks. I don't actually think cell phones are necessarily more dangerous than many other things (such as eating in the car, fixing one's hair etc.) There's really only one solution: Where possible, let the damned cars drive themselves. Its scary and dangerous people say, but is it really more dangerous than what we've got now, or just scarier? (And, of course, a much bigger liability problem for those involved in the technology)
I am confused. This looks like basic Corporate Espionage, not DMCA. This isn't about somebody trying to unscramble the signal, in my opinion. Reverse engineering somebody else's hardware/software based on knowledge of the original source (this isn't Pheonix BIOS here), for which reasonable protections have been provided, is and should remain a gross violation of various laws. Isn't there anything better than DMCA (which is a bad law) to charge the guy with? Setting aside how I feel about the whole unscrambling issue, I don't think this is about that, per se. This is purely about corporate bottom lines and corporate espionage. Anyone who engages in that deserves whatever they get.