When the mark holder fails to protect their mark from dilution, without taking aggressive steps to prevent the confusion in the market, they can lose their exclusive rights in the mark. Those steps include at least sending the violator a cease & desist message.
Since these trademark infringements are used to defraud banking, interstate and internationally, over wire services, I expect the FBI would find jurisdiction.
Well, they do have conventional fuel, just not conventional for rockets, which use an unconventional fuel that's also used as the reaction mass in exhaust.
Has anyone tried powering an ion engine vehicle with an external laser? How about a laser-driven interplanetary scoop that collects ions from interstellar space to drive as reaction mass powered by that remote laser?
By "efficient" I mean how much potential energy in the fuel is converted by the engine into kinetic energy of the vehicle. I suppose that a smaller reaction mass that's expended by the engine per distance means less reaction mass carried before it's expended, which means the vehicle can be less massive, therefore require less energy to move. But if the lighter vehicle is overbalanced by a less efficient energy conversion from potential in the fuel into kinetic of the vehicle, then it's not really worth it. It's just a cool way to build a TIE Fighter replica.
The FBI routinely conducts global criminal investigations, or just foreign ones. The locations of the phishing servers, and the trails of traffic among them, are often published, so focused covert investigation could probably bust at least a few rings.
Except that the FBI doesn't seem interested. Not as interested as it is in all manner of crap that doesn't protect us from anything.
Are these ion engines more efficient in turning the power stored in their fuel into kinetic energy of the vehicle than the efficiency of, say, liquid fuel rockets we use to launch satellites and the Space Shuttle?
A lot less phishing would go on if PayPal would just enforce it's trademark and force the FBI to investigate these phishers using those marks to compete with PayPal and rip off its customers.
All these banks should be doing that. The FBI should be busy protecting us from these modern bank robbers, not all the domestic snooping and other abuses they waste their time and our money on.
Trademark holders are supposed to lose their trademarks when they don't defend them against imitators. Banks are supposed to secure their transaction systems from fraud.
I guess since they're making so much money doing their bad jobs, they don't miss it much when we lose our money. They'll just get it back when the phisher deposits it in their own accounts later.
Actually, I don't see at all why having 10 serial 1Gb-e connections that are each serial at the packet level would not be something like 10x as fast as a single connection.
No, not improved latency. But I'm not talking about latency, I never said anything but that I didn't want more than minimal extra latency, not that I want the parallelism to reduce latency.
The question is whether 802.3ad multiplies bandwidth over multiple parallel connections. For decreasing latency, of course each of the parallel links has to be faster, lowered latency. But the problem of one ethernet link isn't its latency (not for me), but its bandwidth. You don't mention increased bandwidth, only reliability from redundancy. Don't you get more bandwidth?
They are nuts, so it's hard to say exactly what "their dreams" really are.
But if the way they ran Afghanistan was any example, or their slightly less nuts/fanatical/medieval fellow Salafists the Saud family tells us anything, then they would of course love total control of national snooping infrastructure.
But of course I'm not saying that some Qaeda jerkoffs are in a cave somewhere plotting to do stuff like that. They barely hijacked some planes, after years of planning, fanatical (if sometimes inconsistently virtuous) supporters, $millions in budget, and a completely compliant US "defense" leaving the gates wide open. They're not up to doing more than signing up each other in their cellphone friends plan.
What I am saying is that these Qaeda enemies are most certainly happy when our governments crack down on our liberty on the pretext of fighting the Qaeda. Because they know it makes us less safe when we distrust our governments, when our governments are preoccupied spying on us instead of catching and killing them.
Now, you want to see some Qaeda plans? OK, look at how the Qaeda has planned since 2003 not to attack the US directly, but to pressure our allies (like Australia) to drive everyone against our governments. Stunts like this one in Australia are part of how our governments play right into Qaeda hands by working against them.
That's their plan to eradicate us. By using our own stupid reactions to their small, asymmetrical tipping point pressures against us.
And if you don't think stimulating Big Brother into taking away our liberties is part of those reactions, that it doesn't please them because they're winning by it, then you're part of how they're beating us, too. I don't think you are. So try to take in this bigger picture with a little more perspective.
You should look up "semantics" before you use the word again. Also "ad hominem". And "personally". Because they don't mean what you're using them to mean. Here's a hint: just because I used the word "you" in that last sentence doesn't make it "ad hominem", or "personal" - or that it's therefore just a "semantic" argument, because I'm talking about what your words mean.
And don't think I take you that "personally". Just keep in mind that when you're going to contradict me with nothing but fallacies, and if you're going to say
If and when I do become concerned with AT&T and my privacy I'll write them a letter or contact my political representatives.
and then claim you "do care about privacy", or when you say
Basically all I'm saying is AT&T, just like everyone else, is free do do research and create new products. I can not believe you would suggest otherwise.
but then when I push back you have to admit that I'm not saying that, well, why should I have any respect for what you're saying? It's a mound of fallacies, which you perpetuate when challenged, showing that there's no likelihood you're going to say anything worth hearing. On top of which you already said you don't care about privacy (though you're changing your tune when your nose is rubbed in it), so there's no basis for respect there at all.
Solar panels cost a lot more energy to transport to the Moon, or to build there, than growing plants could cost. They also don't produce the other benefits for humans.
Let's say your math on energy costs is correct - I'm not even going to bother to check it. The US consumes 3.35TW, which over 8765.81277 hours a year * 3600 seconds an hour is 1.05715702 x 10^20 joules. Which is 1174.61891 times the 9 *10^16 joules you say it would produce. Sounds like we could build a $TRILLION base at those prices and still need more energy beamed home, just for the US alone (which, as usual, is of course who we're talking about building and buying this project).
About 1.3KW falls on each square meter of the Moon about half the time, for 650KW:m^2. If the plants get only 5% efficiency by the time it's beamed to the Earth (Soviet tech for their energy space station was already 98% efficient between orbit and base station by 1990), that's still 32.5W:m^2. 3.35TW would take a Lunar area 321055.95m on a side, 0.0367977612% of the Lunar surface. At 3520.43295Mj:L in crude oil, your 90E16j comes in 255650374 barrels at 100% efficiency, which is closer to 30% (at best) after production, delivery and conversion by engines, or 7.66951122E7 barrels. At $115 (the low end in the timeframe we're talking about), that's $8,819,937,903 but as it goes closer to $200 or more by the time we're actually using it as energy the way power arriving by laser would be usable. That's $15,339,022,440 of oil we wouldn't have to pay for, because we replaced it with a $1B investment on the Moon. That's over a 15x ROI.
But of course your math isn't how we'd measure the operation. Because a Lunar solar base wouldn't deliver 90 petajoules and then quit. It would deliver energy in watts. So after that first 7.5 hours in which those 90Pj were generated at the scale you described, it would continue to pay off. As I noted, even just 5% efficiency means a 15x ROI. But the money isn't the limit. The real limit is the carbon, oxygen and water (H2O). Which is OK, because though the moon has hydrogen and oxygen, and would need most of the carbon making much of the plants' mass to be imported, the scale of the humans is pretty small compared to all these numbers we've been throwing around. And with new highly efficient PV at 45% (not the 5% I've used here), before we even make the huge R&D investment (of the kind at NASA that generations ago invented PV cells, fuel cells, and so many other techs we'd use), we're looking at well under 1/7 the scale of operation necessary to reap the vast benefits.
My point has been to show that the Moon is a huge potential source of energy from the Sun, without many of the political, ecological and physical problems of tapping it here on Earth. It should be clear that there is that amount, and even if Lunar farming were all we were doing (independent of a PV operation), we could still be talking about energy export at those scales, because it's so energy productive.
We might invest some energy lasering to the Moon to get started, but the overall direction of any serious effort will be from the Moon to the Earth. Food for thought.
Of course AT&T is free to research if that's what it wants. Of course I never said it's not free to do so. It's free to be wrong. I'm free to say that it's wrong to do so. By your "logic", since you said I was wrong, you're therefore saying that I'm not free to say it's wrong. Obvious nonsense. But that didn't stop you from saying it. You're free to be wrong, but that means nothing to me.
You've got similarly powerful "logic" equating Bell Labs, with its history, with AT&T Labs, which has got nothing. "Research is research"? Am I supposed to read another word after you say that? But I've got some time to shred, so why not. How about this: the difference between those labs isn't "semantic" (whatever you think that means), it's substantial. Substance makes the difference, don't you think? Wait, why am I asking you?
AT&T managed to take an existing browser that can run on most any HW, even 5+ year old notebooks, and turn it into a behemoth. That kind of "research" would make Bell Labs barf. And in so doing, it's making yet another browser, this one with extensions divergent from standards. How's this for some more logic for you to learn: the part that's standards compliant because it's the same as what others are using is irrelevant if the rest that is new is not standards compliant, making the app break standards overall.
But the kicker is that you don't care about AT&T destroying privacy. You don't think that AT&T is going to further destroy privacy with its own browser? Bundled end-to-end with its increasinly exclusive and proprietary network?
All this leads to whether AT&T should be making a browser before it's done running a comms network right. Sure, if its board and shareholders want to, AT&T can run a popsicle stand instead. But should I tolerate it? Of course not. I should ridicule it. I should call it what it is: a distraction by an incompetent, monopolistic, criminal corporation from its serious problems in its core business, to throw us a worthless bloatware that will just make its problems worse.
You can believe whatever you want. Evidently you believe that AT&T criminally invading everone's privacy is OK. Like I said, you've got a right to be wrong. Just don't expect me to keep a straight face when you do so. All you'll get from that is more wrong.
That sounds like a problem with some rare edge cases. Can't the admins test the deployment to ensure the traffic is maximally using the multiple channels in the actual installation configuration? Is it that complicated to test and reconfig until it works? Maybe with a mostly automated tool?
Growing plants on the Moon could also be a fairly simple and reliable way to use solar energy to power equipment up there. Plants capture and store solar energy at up to 12% (theoretical maximum photosynthetic) efficiency, and up to 8% is some land plants (and over that in some aquatic plants). The infrastructure for maintaining it, once atmosphere and water are maintained in balance, is pretty simple and reliable. And all of that is compatible with human life, since we can eat the plants (and their products) to for not just energy but other health effects (fiber). And still get energy out of what we've passed after digestion.
That kind of setup would make a reliable Lunar colony work, that could also export surplus energy (probably by laser to the Earth via satellite). And the huge R&D investment could improve the techniques that we use down on Earth, too, for both food and energy farming.
Bell Labs is gone. I'm glad you brought up its accomplishments, because AT&T Labs developing a bloated browser when we've got several and don't need more divergence from the standards compares very poorly with the old Bell Labs. This new lab doesn't get credit for the old one. To the contrary, getting rid of the old one shows what AT&T is not interested in: science in the public interest.
I'm going to leave out how your admission that you have no gripes with AT&T's treatment of privacy reflects on your judgement. But it's relevant to privacy, and to AT&T's proper mission.
AT&T is busy researching how to snoop all over the Internet, on the pretext of "copyright police". It's already censored for its corporate political agenda some early TV broadcasts it's carried on its network, while it works on a fully declared agenda to hold routes over its backboes hostage from different content providers (and, we should now expect, depending on the political content). And of course AT&T is guilty of violating the Constitution repeatedly for years by spying on us without a warrant (not even the trivially dispensed FISA warrants), as revealed in specific operations the company has tried to suppress. It's even trying to get retroactive amnesty for its many crimes in this area.
AT&T has to clean up its act on its basic service provision. Even apart from its untrustworthiness not to spy on us, its markets still don't have anywhere near the broadband connectivity, speed or pricing that its many foreign competitors provide, even to people with a lot less money to spend on it. AT&T is trying to get into TV broadcasting over its network, by forcing down the few remaining constraints the people have in ensuring that vastly powerful weapon is not used to further abuse the public in the media market.
That fat browser is the kind of bundling that locks people into services and out of choices. It's designed to be a SW "set top box" so AT&T can compete with cablecos in TV as well as phone and Internet. All of which services AT&T is doing an inadequate job providing now, even before it spreads its quality thinner by expanding its reach.
You might be happy with AT&T, because you're paying attention only to your mobile bill (but not comparing it to, say, European bills for the same service). And because you're giving it credit for the extinct Bell Labs that had little or nothing to do with today's AT&T Labs. And also because you're turning a blind eye to how AT&T is spying on you and everyone else.
But that doesn't mean I have to trade all that in exchange for a fat browser that runs only on an upgraded Windows machine.
If these new fast ethernet specs came with specs for plugging multiple parallel paths between machines all under the same host IP#s, so we just add extra HW ports and cables between them to multiply our bandwidth, ethernet would take over from most other interconnect protocols.
Is there even a way to do this now with 1Gb-e, or even 100Mbps-e? So all I have to do is add daughtercards to an ethernet card, or multiple cards to a host bus, and let the kernel do the rest, with minimal extra latency?
AT&T is doing a terrible job just connecting our phonecalls and TCP/IP streams without spying on us or holding it for ransom to Net Doublecharge. It should spend more time getting that right before it wastes the revenue for that basic service which we're paying it every month on bloated browsers that just create demand for more expensive Windows and PC upgrades.
AT&T used to have Bell Labs, which did do basic research that wasn't just to connect calls cheaper and more reliably (and safe from snooping). But AT&T sold it off to get out of the innovation business. Let's see them stick to their mission better before stepping off that path to basic profitability.
AFAICT, there is a grand design of military dictatorship behind the actions we've seen from Bush/Cheney under their policy of "Unitary Executive".
Bush/Cheney tried to use Katrina to suspend the Posse Comitatus Act, and to nationalize the Louisiana National Guard under Federal Executive control as a precondition for sending any support to Louisiana once the storm was coming, even while Bush/Cheney withheld the bureaucratically required presidential approval for other states, like New Mexico, to send their Guard to Louisiana which welcomed it.
With the state Guard both nationalized and neighboring Guard excluded, Habeas Corpus suspended for arbitrarily named people kidnapped by Federal forces, and Posse Comitatus suspended for application of "Guantanamo rules" inside the US, Bush would have ruled over a legal military dictatorship, without resorting to martial law or needing any Congressional involvement at all. If that sparked riots outside the Federally declared "state of emergency" that every state would need to get any Federal support ($$$), then Bush/Cheney could add those rioting areas (and large zones around them) to the state of emergency. The chain reaction would allow an arbitrary sized footprint of "emergency states" in which Bush/Cheney's power over life and death would be immediate and total, at the point of a gun (and squadrons of bombers, etc).
People might say that's crazy, paranoid. But that scenario is exactly the reason the Constitution, and requirements like Habeas Corpus, Posse Comitatus, and the inalienability of rights like those specified in the Fourth Amendment (and, now at last, an endangered Third Amendment against quartering troops in coerced private homes) were written: to form our government against them. The Founders were far from crazy. They were wise, and baptized by fire in the long tyranny that sparked the Revolution, and the long abuses in the Revolution itself. There is no other reason all those Bush/Cheney tyranny claws would come out on cue when the pretext appears.
There is an existing grand design of tyranny. And it's already the only force of law in places like Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, the rest of America's mostly secret global gulag network.
If there's a California earthquake in the next 8 months, we'll see some more of it spiked between our eyes, and there will be no doubt. But by then it will be too late.
The question is always how to populate the whitelist. Outgoing addresses should get autoadded to the whitelist, with opt-out the first time for each address (opt-in for subsequent sending to that address). Incoming messages filtered out by black/whitelist should be split into names matching other contacts (and in other personally read docs, including Web browsing history) and the rest, so that "greasetrap" can be checked periodically to more easily find first messages from familiar people to manually add to the whitelist (or blacklist).
And then some more help, like a list of passwords (optionally set to onetime validity) that a new incoming address can include in their message either to prompt on incoming for adding to the whitelist (default), or feature higher in the greasetrap, or to autoadd that address to the whitelist (which method can be an app preference). Failed passwords can be flagged, for further investigation (who's trying to crack your password is more serious - and possibly more illegal - abuse than just spam on open incoming accounts).
Set up that way, it all "just works" for the unsophisticated user. While accurately modeling the most common treatment of each kind of access for the convenience of any user of increasing sophistication. The same "inbox/ACL API" can be wrapped in other messaging, like a Web page that challenges people without even revealing the incoming address (and which just sends email out the backend), or even similar access by phone IVR, IM, etc.
Once enough mail user agents add those features (none of which break any existing protocols or techniques), they can be formalized in an RFC, and everyone will know what to expect, even if they don't know for sure that your messages are protected by a social network. It all both fails and works gracefully, but also securely and in imitation of our familiar real world habits.
Well, my mistake was choosing readable style over factual rigor, though perhaps necessary to be understood at all by Slashdotters who don't know the Canadian provincial capitals. I could have said "*not valid in Quebec City and sometimes Toronto, Edmonton or Ottawa;).", to be consistent in referring to the provincial/national governments by their capital cities. But then it would have been ambiguous (especially to people who don't know the provincial capitals). Canadians would know what I meant, especially by mentioning the offer is never valid in Quebec;).
I learned a great deal living in Canada. Probably more about admitting my mistakes than about the provincial capitals. Like I said: kinder, gentler nation.
Sometimes I wish America weren't so blind to our "friendly neighbor to the North", because y'all set such a good example. But then I worry about the conservation of momentum, and how Canada's gravitational pull on its 10x larger and 1000x crazier siamese twin is reciprocated, and could easily spoil such a fine and vulnerable next door neighbor. The weeds from our yard could eat the Canadian good nature alive.
In fact, I shouldn't even be posting this message on an open forum. Maybe you should move more snowblowers down to the border to discourage jealousy.
Fundamental injustices like that make the people ungovernable. Eventually they rebel completely, either all at once in civil war, or just gradually until there is no rule of law over anyone.
Maybe so, but the Constitution clearly says that Habeas Corpus may be suspended in cases of insurrection and rebellion, which the Civil War clearly was.
However, I think the Constitution is wrong about that. But that ruling can't invent a better Constitution, so it is also wrong.
That Civil War was just one screwup after another.
Slashdot Mirror
When the mark holder fails to protect their mark from dilution, without taking aggressive steps to prevent the confusion in the market, they can lose their exclusive rights in the mark. Those steps include at least sending the violator a cease & desist message.
Since these trademark infringements are used to defraud banking, interstate and internationally, over wire services, I expect the FBI would find jurisdiction.
Well, they do have conventional fuel, just not conventional for rockets, which use an unconventional fuel that's also used as the reaction mass in exhaust.
Has anyone tried powering an ion engine vehicle with an external laser? How about a laser-driven interplanetary scoop that collects ions from interstellar space to drive as reaction mass powered by that remote laser?
By "efficient" I mean how much potential energy in the fuel is converted by the engine into kinetic energy of the vehicle. I suppose that a smaller reaction mass that's expended by the engine per distance means less reaction mass carried before it's expended, which means the vehicle can be less massive, therefore require less energy to move. But if the lighter vehicle is overbalanced by a less efficient energy conversion from potential in the fuel into kinetic of the vehicle, then it's not really worth it. It's just a cool way to build a TIE Fighter replica.
The FBI routinely conducts global criminal investigations, or just foreign ones. The locations of the phishing servers, and the trails of traffic among them, are often published, so focused covert investigation could probably bust at least a few rings.
Except that the FBI doesn't seem interested. Not as interested as it is in all manner of crap that doesn't protect us from anything.
Are these ion engines more efficient in turning the power stored in their fuel into kinetic energy of the vehicle than the efficiency of, say, liquid fuel rockets we use to launch satellites and the Space Shuttle?
A lot less phishing would go on if PayPal would just enforce it's trademark and force the FBI to investigate these phishers using those marks to compete with PayPal and rip off its customers.
All these banks should be doing that. The FBI should be busy protecting us from these modern bank robbers, not all the domestic snooping and other abuses they waste their time and our money on.
Trademark holders are supposed to lose their trademarks when they don't defend them against imitators. Banks are supposed to secure their transaction systems from fraud.
I guess since they're making so much money doing their bad jobs, they don't miss it much when we lose our money. They'll just get it back when the phisher deposits it in their own accounts later.
Actually, I don't see at all why having 10 serial 1Gb-e connections that are each serial at the packet level would not be something like 10x as fast as a single connection.
No, not improved latency. But I'm not talking about latency, I never said anything but that I didn't want more than minimal extra latency, not that I want the parallelism to reduce latency.
The question is whether 802.3ad multiplies bandwidth over multiple parallel connections. For decreasing latency, of course each of the parallel links has to be faster, lowered latency. But the problem of one ethernet link isn't its latency (not for me), but its bandwidth. You don't mention increased bandwidth, only reliability from redundancy. Don't you get more bandwidth?
They are nuts, so it's hard to say exactly what "their dreams" really are.
But if the way they ran Afghanistan was any example, or their slightly less nuts/fanatical/medieval fellow Salafists the Saud family tells us anything, then they would of course love total control of national snooping infrastructure.
But of course I'm not saying that some Qaeda jerkoffs are in a cave somewhere plotting to do stuff like that. They barely hijacked some planes, after years of planning, fanatical (if sometimes inconsistently virtuous) supporters, $millions in budget, and a completely compliant US "defense" leaving the gates wide open. They're not up to doing more than signing up each other in their cellphone friends plan.
What I am saying is that these Qaeda enemies are most certainly happy when our governments crack down on our liberty on the pretext of fighting the Qaeda. Because they know it makes us less safe when we distrust our governments, when our governments are preoccupied spying on us instead of catching and killing them.
Now, you want to see some Qaeda plans? OK, look at how the Qaeda has planned since 2003 not to attack the US directly, but to pressure our allies (like Australia) to drive everyone against our governments. Stunts like this one in Australia are part of how our governments play right into Qaeda hands by working against them.
That's their plan to eradicate us. By using our own stupid reactions to their small, asymmetrical tipping point pressures against us.
And if you don't think stimulating Big Brother into taking away our liberties is part of those reactions, that it doesn't please them because they're winning by it, then you're part of how they're beating us, too. I don't think you are. So try to take in this bigger picture with a little more perspective.
Terrorists are people who use fear of threatened violence to coerce people into political changes.
Sounds just like the Australian government's actions here.
And don't think I take you that "personally". Just keep in mind that when you're going to contradict me with nothing but fallacies, and if you're going to say
and then claim you "do care about privacy", or when you say
but then when I push back you have to admit that I'm not saying that, well, why should I have any respect for what you're saying? It's a mound of fallacies, which you perpetuate when challenged, showing that there's no likelihood you're going to say anything worth hearing. On top of which you already said you don't care about privacy (though you're changing your tune when your nose is rubbed in it), so there's no basis for respect there at all.
Goodbye.
If the Qaeda's dreams came true, it would have us hand it our huge telecom infrastructure so their terrorists could spy on our every move.
Why bother fighting when we're just laying down and surrendering?
Solar panels cost a lot more energy to transport to the Moon, or to build there, than growing plants could cost. They also don't produce the other benefits for humans.
Let's say your math on energy costs is correct - I'm not even going to bother to check it. The US consumes 3.35TW, which over 8765.81277 hours a year * 3600 seconds an hour is 1.05715702 x 10^20 joules. Which is 1174.61891 times the 9 *10^16 joules you say it would produce. Sounds like we could build a $TRILLION base at those prices and still need more energy beamed home, just for the US alone (which, as usual, is of course who we're talking about building and buying this project).
About 1.3KW falls on each square meter of the Moon about half the time, for 650KW:m^2. If the plants get only 5% efficiency by the time it's beamed to the Earth (Soviet tech for their energy space station was already 98% efficient between orbit and base station by 1990), that's still 32.5W:m^2. 3.35TW would take a Lunar area 321055.95m on a side, 0.0367977612% of the Lunar surface. At 3520.43295Mj:L in crude oil, your 90E16j comes in 255650374 barrels at 100% efficiency, which is closer to 30% (at best) after production, delivery and conversion by engines, or 7.66951122E7 barrels. At $115 (the low end in the timeframe we're talking about), that's $8,819,937,903 but as it goes closer to $200 or more by the time we're actually using it as energy the way power arriving by laser would be usable. That's $15,339,022,440 of oil we wouldn't have to pay for, because we replaced it with a $1B investment on the Moon. That's over a 15x ROI.
But of course your math isn't how we'd measure the operation. Because a Lunar solar base wouldn't deliver 90 petajoules and then quit. It would deliver energy in watts. So after that first 7.5 hours in which those 90Pj were generated at the scale you described, it would continue to pay off. As I noted, even just 5% efficiency means a 15x ROI. But the money isn't the limit. The real limit is the carbon, oxygen and water (H2O). Which is OK, because though the moon has hydrogen and oxygen, and would need most of the carbon making much of the plants' mass to be imported, the scale of the humans is pretty small compared to all these numbers we've been throwing around. And with new highly efficient PV at 45% (not the 5% I've used here), before we even make the huge R&D investment (of the kind at NASA that generations ago invented PV cells, fuel cells, and so many other techs we'd use), we're looking at well under 1/7 the scale of operation necessary to reap the vast benefits.
My point has been to show that the Moon is a huge potential source of energy from the Sun, without many of the political, ecological and physical problems of tapping it here on Earth. It should be clear that there is that amount, and even if Lunar farming were all we were doing (independent of a PV operation), we could still be talking about energy export at those scales, because it's so energy productive.
We might invest some energy lasering to the Moon to get started, but the overall direction of any serious effort will be from the Moon to the Earth. Food for thought.
Your entire post is a giant heap of fallacies.
Of course AT&T is free to research if that's what it wants. Of course I never said it's not free to do so. It's free to be wrong. I'm free to say that it's wrong to do so. By your "logic", since you said I was wrong, you're therefore saying that I'm not free to say it's wrong. Obvious nonsense. But that didn't stop you from saying it. You're free to be wrong, but that means nothing to me.
You've got similarly powerful "logic" equating Bell Labs, with its history, with AT&T Labs, which has got nothing. "Research is research"? Am I supposed to read another word after you say that? But I've got some time to shred, so why not. How about this: the difference between those labs isn't "semantic" (whatever you think that means), it's substantial. Substance makes the difference, don't you think? Wait, why am I asking you?
AT&T managed to take an existing browser that can run on most any HW, even 5+ year old notebooks, and turn it into a behemoth. That kind of "research" would make Bell Labs barf. And in so doing, it's making yet another browser, this one with extensions divergent from standards. How's this for some more logic for you to learn: the part that's standards compliant because it's the same as what others are using is irrelevant if the rest that is new is not standards compliant, making the app break standards overall.
But the kicker is that you don't care about AT&T destroying privacy. You don't think that AT&T is going to further destroy privacy with its own browser? Bundled end-to-end with its increasinly exclusive and proprietary network?
All this leads to whether AT&T should be making a browser before it's done running a comms network right. Sure, if its board and shareholders want to, AT&T can run a popsicle stand instead. But should I tolerate it? Of course not. I should ridicule it. I should call it what it is: a distraction by an incompetent, monopolistic, criminal corporation from its serious problems in its core business, to throw us a worthless bloatware that will just make its problems worse.
You can believe whatever you want. Evidently you believe that AT&T criminally invading everone's privacy is OK. Like I said, you've got a right to be wrong. Just don't expect me to keep a straight face when you do so. All you'll get from that is more wrong.
That sounds like a problem with some rare edge cases. Can't the admins test the deployment to ensure the traffic is maximally using the multiple channels in the actual installation configuration? Is it that complicated to test and reconfig until it works? Maybe with a mostly automated tool?
Growing plants on the Moon could also be a fairly simple and reliable way to use solar energy to power equipment up there. Plants capture and store solar energy at up to 12% (theoretical maximum photosynthetic) efficiency, and up to 8% is some land plants (and over that in some aquatic plants). The infrastructure for maintaining it, once atmosphere and water are maintained in balance, is pretty simple and reliable. And all of that is compatible with human life, since we can eat the plants (and their products) to for not just energy but other health effects (fiber). And still get energy out of what we've passed after digestion.
That kind of setup would make a reliable Lunar colony work, that could also export surplus energy (probably by laser to the Earth via satellite). And the huge R&D investment could improve the techniques that we use down on Earth, too, for both food and energy farming.
It looks like that's even supported in the Linux kernel. But does it really work?
No, it looks like what I asked about is standardized as IEEE 802.3ad, and even implemented in the Linux kernel. But does it actually work?
Bell Labs is gone. I'm glad you brought up its accomplishments, because AT&T Labs developing a bloated browser when we've got several and don't need more divergence from the standards compares very poorly with the old Bell Labs. This new lab doesn't get credit for the old one. To the contrary, getting rid of the old one shows what AT&T is not interested in: science in the public interest.
I'm going to leave out how your admission that you have no gripes with AT&T's treatment of privacy reflects on your judgement. But it's relevant to privacy, and to AT&T's proper mission.
AT&T is busy researching how to snoop all over the Internet, on the pretext of "copyright police". It's already censored for its corporate political agenda some early TV broadcasts it's carried on its network, while it works on a fully declared agenda to hold routes over its backboes hostage from different content providers (and, we should now expect, depending on the political content). And of course AT&T is guilty of violating the Constitution repeatedly for years by spying on us without a warrant (not even the trivially dispensed FISA warrants), as revealed in specific operations the company has tried to suppress. It's even trying to get retroactive amnesty for its many crimes in this area.
AT&T has to clean up its act on its basic service provision. Even apart from its untrustworthiness not to spy on us, its markets still don't have anywhere near the broadband connectivity, speed or pricing that its many foreign competitors provide, even to people with a lot less money to spend on it. AT&T is trying to get into TV broadcasting over its network, by forcing down the few remaining constraints the people have in ensuring that vastly powerful weapon is not used to further abuse the public in the media market.
That fat browser is the kind of bundling that locks people into services and out of choices. It's designed to be a SW "set top box" so AT&T can compete with cablecos in TV as well as phone and Internet. All of which services AT&T is doing an inadequate job providing now, even before it spreads its quality thinner by expanding its reach.
You might be happy with AT&T, because you're paying attention only to your mobile bill (but not comparing it to, say, European bills for the same service). And because you're giving it credit for the extinct Bell Labs that had little or nothing to do with today's AT&T Labs. And also because you're turning a blind eye to how AT&T is spying on you and everyone else.
But that doesn't mean I have to trade all that in exchange for a fat browser that runs only on an upgraded Windows machine.
If these new fast ethernet specs came with specs for plugging multiple parallel paths between machines all under the same host IP#s, so we just add extra HW ports and cables between them to multiply our bandwidth, ethernet would take over from most other interconnect protocols.
Is there even a way to do this now with 1Gb-e, or even 100Mbps-e? So all I have to do is add daughtercards to an ethernet card, or multiple cards to a host bus, and let the kernel do the rest, with minimal extra latency?
AT&T is doing a terrible job just connecting our phonecalls and TCP/IP streams without spying on us or holding it for ransom to Net Doublecharge. It should spend more time getting that right before it wastes the revenue for that basic service which we're paying it every month on bloated browsers that just create demand for more expensive Windows and PC upgrades.
AT&T used to have Bell Labs, which did do basic research that wasn't just to connect calls cheaper and more reliably (and safe from snooping). But AT&T sold it off to get out of the innovation business. Let's see them stick to their mission better before stepping off that path to basic profitability.
AFAICT, there is a grand design of military dictatorship behind the actions we've seen from Bush/Cheney under their policy of "Unitary Executive".
Bush/Cheney tried to use Katrina to suspend the Posse Comitatus Act, and to nationalize the Louisiana National Guard under Federal Executive control as a precondition for sending any support to Louisiana once the storm was coming, even while Bush/Cheney withheld the bureaucratically required presidential approval for other states, like New Mexico, to send their Guard to Louisiana which welcomed it.
With the state Guard both nationalized and neighboring Guard excluded, Habeas Corpus suspended for arbitrarily named people kidnapped by Federal forces, and Posse Comitatus suspended for application of "Guantanamo rules" inside the US, Bush would have ruled over a legal military dictatorship, without resorting to martial law or needing any Congressional involvement at all. If that sparked riots outside the Federally declared "state of emergency" that every state would need to get any Federal support ($$$), then Bush/Cheney could add those rioting areas (and large zones around them) to the state of emergency. The chain reaction would allow an arbitrary sized footprint of "emergency states" in which Bush/Cheney's power over life and death would be immediate and total, at the point of a gun (and squadrons of bombers, etc).
People might say that's crazy, paranoid. But that scenario is exactly the reason the Constitution, and requirements like Habeas Corpus, Posse Comitatus, and the inalienability of rights like those specified in the Fourth Amendment (and, now at last, an endangered Third Amendment against quartering troops in coerced private homes) were written: to form our government against them. The Founders were far from crazy. They were wise, and baptized by fire in the long tyranny that sparked the Revolution, and the long abuses in the Revolution itself. There is no other reason all those Bush/Cheney tyranny claws would come out on cue when the pretext appears.
There is an existing grand design of tyranny. And it's already the only force of law in places like Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, the rest of America's mostly secret global gulag network.
If there's a California earthquake in the next 8 months, we'll see some more of it spiked between our eyes, and there will be no doubt. But by then it will be too late.
The question is always how to populate the whitelist. Outgoing addresses should get autoadded to the whitelist, with opt-out the first time for each address (opt-in for subsequent sending to that address). Incoming messages filtered out by black/whitelist should be split into names matching other contacts (and in other personally read docs, including Web browsing history) and the rest, so that "greasetrap" can be checked periodically to more easily find first messages from familiar people to manually add to the whitelist (or blacklist).
And then some more help, like a list of passwords (optionally set to onetime validity) that a new incoming address can include in their message either to prompt on incoming for adding to the whitelist (default), or feature higher in the greasetrap, or to autoadd that address to the whitelist (which method can be an app preference). Failed passwords can be flagged, for further investigation (who's trying to crack your password is more serious - and possibly more illegal - abuse than just spam on open incoming accounts).
Set up that way, it all "just works" for the unsophisticated user. While accurately modeling the most common treatment of each kind of access for the convenience of any user of increasing sophistication. The same "inbox/ACL API" can be wrapped in other messaging, like a Web page that challenges people without even revealing the incoming address (and which just sends email out the backend), or even similar access by phone IVR, IM, etc.
Once enough mail user agents add those features (none of which break any existing protocols or techniques), they can be formalized in an RFC, and everyone will know what to expect, even if they don't know for sure that your messages are protected by a social network. It all both fails and works gracefully, but also securely and in imitation of our familiar real world habits.
Well, my mistake was choosing readable style over factual rigor, though perhaps necessary to be understood at all by Slashdotters who don't know the Canadian provincial capitals. I could have said "*not valid in Quebec City and sometimes Toronto, Edmonton or Ottawa ;).", to be consistent in referring to the provincial/national governments by their capital cities. But then it would have been ambiguous (especially to people who don't know the provincial capitals). Canadians would know what I meant, especially by mentioning the offer is never valid in Quebec ;).
I learned a great deal living in Canada. Probably more about admitting my mistakes than about the provincial capitals. Like I said: kinder, gentler nation.
Sometimes I wish America weren't so blind to our "friendly neighbor to the North", because y'all set such a good example. But then I worry about the conservation of momentum, and how Canada's gravitational pull on its 10x larger and 1000x crazier siamese twin is reciprocated, and could easily spoil such a fine and vulnerable next door neighbor. The weeds from our yard could eat the Canadian good nature alive.
In fact, I shouldn't even be posting this message on an open forum. Maybe you should move more snowblowers down to the border to discourage jealousy.
Fundamental injustices like that make the people ungovernable. Eventually they rebel completely, either all at once in civil war, or just gradually until there is no rule of law over anyone.
Heckuva job, Bushie!
Maybe so, but the Constitution clearly says that Habeas Corpus may be suspended in cases of insurrection and rebellion, which the Civil War clearly was.
However, I think the Constitution is wrong about that. But that ruling can't invent a better Constitution, so it is also wrong.
That Civil War was just one screwup after another.