Wait, you mean fuel taxes pay for roads? What fuel taxes? Oh, you mean the absurdly low $0.46/gal (26.2c state + 18.4 fed.) that doesn't change with the price of gas and accounts for $20 billion (fed. portion of $29.6b total) out of $40 billion of federal highway spending? I don't think the electric cars are going to make that much difference--they aren't even *trying* to make gas taxes actually pay for all the roads in the country.
This sounds to me like a strong argument for a publicly-owned network infrastructure. If private companies have a constitutional right to screw with your data, then the only answer is create a municipal organization with legally instantiated regulatory oversight to ensure neutrality.
So many times the Internet has proven that you cannot build stable competitive markets on top of proprietary services (just look at Facebook, Apple, WoW, etc--what happens to all the add-on companies when the host company gets fickle or bankrupt?). In order for there to be a proper free-market in web-delivered services, the web itself has to be freely accessible and not subject to the whim of huge corporations.
Just think about the US highway system. Everyone is allowed to use it for whatever purposes they like, fees for using it are for the most part levied fairly and without favoring one member of the competition or the other. Now imagine if all the roads in the country were private toll roads. Which trucking company would come out ahead: the one with superior efficiency and service, or the one with back-room discounts granted by the toll companies?
Granted, this will not protect us from government meddling, but that's no different from the current system. There would simply be fewer layers in which to obfuscate the interference.
It is time for an open Internet, and that does not include for-profit companies with private property. The Swedish Pirate ISP is only an interim solution, but I am looking forward to seeing how it fairs.
Very possible. Wifi occupies 2.401 to 2.473 GHz. There is a Ham band occupying 2.390 to 2.450 GHz (see lower right corner). You could try looking for a house with a bunch of antennas and/or dishes on it and ask nicely what he is up to.
I agree that your example is a very good reason to make that judgment. I was about to say something about your how to judge the bias of your judgment of someone else's bias, but decided that was too much mental masturbation to handle at the moment.
Similarly some news sources are much less reliable than others. When we say "biased" we generally mean a source that deliberate seeks to mislead, rather than one that occasionally and unconsciously shades its language.
Very true, but determining the actual intent of the creator is even harder than determining the content bias (whether intentional or unintentional), therefore defining "bias" colloquially as "seeking to mislead" is extremely difficult in practice. The presence of two definitions of bias in this discussion is certainly not helping.
It's main problem is that it tends to reflect the views of the majority more than the real situations.
The biases will more closely resemble the biases of the majority.
Not necessarily. Here in the states its pretty easy for an activist minority to out-speak an apathetic majority. Or at least that's what is sounds like on the unbiased media. (We don't argue about the earth being round much, but they routinely give equal time to scientific studies and famous people claiming they are false.)
...the government needs to regulate the monopoly to ensure it doesn't abuse its power. Just the same way electric monopolies or natural gas monopolies were regulated.
You can get quite a lot of solar energy at upper latitudes, so long as your panels are pointed sideways (at the sun) instead of up. Also if there is snow you can capture the reflection off the snow and exceed the direct sunlight capture rate. I am working on a solar-powered rover to run on the Greenland ice sheet and our tests show even a panel facing away from the sun will collect 30% of nominal power from reflections alone.
But pointing all your solar panels sideways would be kind of hard on an airplane, where the most available surface is on the wings pointing straight up.
I only say this because beating dead horses is one of my hobbies, but do you have numbers to back that up? I don't, which is why I want to know if your unsupported claims are more valid than my unsupported claims.
Maybe but they won't admit it while they feel pressured by our sexist double standards. It's not that they don't want to see it, it's that we don't want them to want to see it, even though we want them to see it. Or maybe we want to not want them to want to see it, but we want them to want to see it anyways. Personally I find the whole gender issues mess totally confusing (and no i've never had a gf.)
My post was intended to convey the fact that your computer will be damaged by a much smaller energy spike than one that would destroy a transformer. Therefore, the shorter wires near a computer may be able to absorb enough energy to damage the computer even though they are not kilometers long.
So your business owner can safely put the files onto the thumb drive and put the thumb drive in the safe, and be secure enough.
That would be true if the thumb drive were not in his pocket, if it was not routinely used to transfer files between public machines, and if he was not prone to habitually losing things like keys and credit cards, never mind thumb drives. But my first reaction, never save your SSN anywhere in the first place, was something he had never even considered.
I foresee TrueCrypt's website will be getting a lot of new visitors soon.
Maybe, except most people are so clueless about security that encryption isn't even the first thing to do. Last week I had to explain to the owner of a small business that keeping saved copies of his tax forms--with SSN--on an unencrypted thumb drive was NOT safer than on his laptop ("where hackers could get into it, right?").
Wouldn't it be easier to just implant themselves directly in your bank account? Then they wouldn't even have to make the steaks, and we wouldn't get fat. Or rich, for that matter.
The brain is a muscle just like the rest of the body. If you don't exercise it regularly, it atrophies. If you spend all your time passively watching television, you are not exercising your brain and it will become more difficult perform mental tasks, thus making you dumber.
On the other hand, if you spend your free time attempting to compose cogent and grammatically-correct arguments on/. you will use at least a few brain cells in the process.
Regardless of what we can do about climate change, if we're responsible for it, or the fact that the things we do in the name of "climate change" are things we should be doing anyways, satellite observation is incredibly important. We need information about Earth so we can act in a responsible manner to preserve the planet as well as ourselves.
It's all very well and good to say "just don't fuck with it," but the truth is even if we were perfect, the world would still change in ways we cannot predict. Earth observation satellites help us understand the world we live in so that we--or at least those of us who care about science--can better predict the long-term consequences of our actions.
Wouldnt all the back to base monitoring, etc in various applications be a bit more of a concern?
Of course not! It's only a problem when someone other than the government is doing the monitoring, because then it's not in the name of "national security".
Slashdot Mirror
Wait, you mean fuel taxes pay for roads? What fuel taxes? Oh, you mean the absurdly low $0.46/gal (26.2c state + 18.4 fed.) that doesn't change with the price of gas and accounts for $20 billion (fed. portion of $29.6b total) out of $40 billion of federal highway spending? I don't think the electric cars are going to make that much difference--they aren't even *trying* to make gas taxes actually pay for all the roads in the country.
'nuff said.
This sounds to me like a strong argument for a publicly-owned network infrastructure. If private companies have a constitutional right to screw with your data, then the only answer is create a municipal organization with legally instantiated regulatory oversight to ensure neutrality.
So many times the Internet has proven that you cannot build stable competitive markets on top of proprietary services (just look at Facebook, Apple, WoW, etc--what happens to all the add-on companies when the host company gets fickle or bankrupt?). In order for there to be a proper free-market in web-delivered services, the web itself has to be freely accessible and not subject to the whim of huge corporations.
Just think about the US highway system. Everyone is allowed to use it for whatever purposes they like, fees for using it are for the most part levied fairly and without favoring one member of the competition or the other. Now imagine if all the roads in the country were private toll roads. Which trucking company would come out ahead: the one with superior efficiency and service, or the one with back-room discounts granted by the toll companies?
Granted, this will not protect us from government meddling, but that's no different from the current system. There would simply be fewer layers in which to obfuscate the interference.
It is time for an open Internet, and that does not include for-profit companies with private property. The Swedish Pirate ISP is only an interim solution, but I am looking forward to seeing how it fairs.
It's okay, because he changes his password every two weeks when the ink fades and writes the new one down on top of it. Right?
Very possible. Wifi occupies 2.401 to 2.473 GHz. There is a Ham band occupying 2.390 to 2.450 GHz (see lower right corner). You could try looking for a house with a bunch of antennas and/or dishes on it and ask nicely what he is up to.
I agree that your example is a very good reason to make that judgment. I was about to say something about your how to judge the bias of your judgment of someone else's bias, but decided that was too much mental masturbation to handle at the moment.
Similarly some news sources are much less reliable than others. When we say "biased" we generally mean a source that deliberate seeks to mislead, rather than one that occasionally and unconsciously shades its language.
Very true, but determining the actual intent of the creator is even harder than determining the content bias (whether intentional or unintentional), therefore defining "bias" colloquially as "seeking to mislead" is extremely difficult in practice. The presence of two definitions of bias in this discussion is certainly not helping.
It's main problem is that it tends to reflect the views of the majority more than the real situations. The biases will more closely resemble the biases of the majority.
Not necessarily. Here in the states its pretty easy for an activist minority to out-speak an apathetic majority. Or at least that's what is sounds like on the unbiased media. (We don't argue about the earth being round much, but they routinely give equal time to scientific studies and famous people claiming they are false.)
...the government needs to regulate the monopoly to ensure it doesn't abuse its power. Just the same way electric monopolies or natural gas monopolies were regulated.
FTFY
You can get quite a lot of solar energy at upper latitudes, so long as your panels are pointed sideways (at the sun) instead of up. Also if there is snow you can capture the reflection off the snow and exceed the direct sunlight capture rate. I am working on a solar-powered rover to run on the Greenland ice sheet and our tests show even a panel facing away from the sun will collect 30% of nominal power from reflections alone.
But pointing all your solar panels sideways would be kind of hard on an airplane, where the most available surface is on the wings pointing straight up.
I only say this because beating dead horses is one of my hobbies, but do you have numbers to back that up? I don't, which is why I want to know if your unsupported claims are more valid than my unsupported claims.
Plato was a student of Socrates, so presumably he wrote this around the time of Socrates' death and GP is correct.
Maybe but they won't admit it while they feel pressured by our sexist double standards. It's not that they don't want to see it, it's that we don't want them to want to see it, even though we want them to see it. Or maybe we want to not want them to want to see it, but we want them to want to see it anyways. Personally I find the whole gender issues mess totally confusing (and no i've never had a gf.)
The transmission line is an antenna that absorbs the magnetic energy, but after it is absorbed it causes a power surge on the lines that makes some common types of transformers explode.
My post was intended to convey the fact that your computer will be damaged by a much smaller energy spike than one that would destroy a transformer. Therefore, the shorter wires near a computer may be able to absorb enough energy to damage the computer even though they are not kilometers long.
...the effect on your ~1m PC will be ~1000 times less than the effect on a ~1km power cable.
That doesn't help if your computer is a million times more sensitive than the power transformers.
So your business owner can safely put the files onto the thumb drive and put the thumb drive in the safe, and be secure enough.
That would be true if the thumb drive were not in his pocket, if it was not routinely used to transfer files between public machines, and if he was not prone to habitually losing things like keys and credit cards, never mind thumb drives. But my first reaction, never save your SSN anywhere in the first place, was something he had never even considered.
I foresee TrueCrypt's website will be getting a lot of new visitors soon.
Maybe, except most people are so clueless about security that encryption isn't even the first thing to do. Last week I had to explain to the owner of a small business that keeping saved copies of his tax forms--with SSN--on an unencrypted thumb drive was NOT safer than on his laptop ("where hackers could get into it, right?").
When your mom kicks you out of her basement?
Wouldn't it be easier to just implant themselves directly in your bank account? Then they wouldn't even have to make the steaks, and we wouldn't get fat. Or rich, for that matter.
Internet exacerbates the gap between the knowledgeable and the ignorant.
FTFY. Now guess which group I'm in :P
The brain is a muscle just like the rest of the body. If you don't exercise it regularly, it atrophies. If you spend all your time passively watching television, you are not exercising your brain and it will become more difficult perform mental tasks, thus making you dumber.
On the other hand, if you spend your free time attempting to compose cogent and grammatically-correct arguments on /. you will use at least a few brain cells in the process.
Regardless of what we can do about climate change, if we're responsible for it, or the fact that the things we do in the name of "climate change" are things we should be doing anyways, satellite observation is incredibly important. We need information about Earth so we can act in a responsible manner to preserve the planet as well as ourselves.
It's all very well and good to say "just don't fuck with it," but the truth is even if we were perfect, the world would still change in ways we cannot predict. Earth observation satellites help us understand the world we live in so that we--or at least those of us who care about science--can better predict the long-term consequences of our actions.
Wouldnt all the back to base monitoring, etc in various applications be a bit more of a concern?
Of course not! It's only a problem when someone other than the government is doing the monitoring, because then it's not in the name of "national security".
Sounds like a job for Chrome 4 and its supposedly lightning-fast JS/HTML5 engine.
I read "beer" instead of "beets" and was about to give him a pat on the back...