Ugh, it sometimes seems like the election process is the kind of choice we get when we choose vanilla or French vanilla. Is one much better than the other?
I am an American. As such I've been told many times, many ways, that I live in the greatest and most free country in the world. I'm not really buying it any more than I buy the belief that Ford is indeed superior to Chevrolet. But when I see the choices, I mean the bona fide choices, that we are given to vote for for President, I don't buy the arguments. Are these two really the best people in the country to hold the office?
The whole process is not much more than a sales pitch for white bread. When it comes down to the taste test, what is better Wonder or Tastee? I can't tell much of a difference. But it is what it is and we are stuck with it.
We are rich and powerfull nation. We can exert out influenence on almost anyone anywhere. Face it, if we don't like someone our president can sic our military on them and we are all but assured of victory. Isn't that really what happened in Iraq?
In the past four years, we have seen our freedoms eroded with things like the DCMA and the Patriot Act. If Bush is elected we are in for more of the same. If Kerry is elected, do we really expect to see much change? I don't, not really. Perhaps, but just perhaps, he is the lesser of two evils.
Is that any way to vote? To pick the lesser of two evils? Is this what makes America great? I sure as hell don't think so. There has to be a better way. The system we have may have made a hell of a lot of sense two hundred years ago when representation meant an arduous journey of hundreds of miles. But today, with the technology we have, every person who cares could actually be self-representing.
Change comes slowly to established machines like American politics. I recognise and understand that. Hell, I'd even say that is a good thing - that it changes slowly. But there comes a time where a catalyist exists and changes can be sudden. Like the end of communisim in the USSR and the taking down of the Berlin wall. Then change can come suddenly.
An idea occured to me that maybe we just don't see this kind of event coming. Maybe the electronic voting machines are the key to the ignition of change? I'm really just rambling now, but what I am saying is that we need REAL CHANGE not just a slight step from center but a full on change of course! We have the means - but do we have the courage or do we need some sort of catayist to kick us out of idle and into gear?
I'm not preaching revolution here. Really, I'm not. I'm just trying to say that our form of government is out dated and in need of serious change and that to me, the time seems right for something to happen.
Will we be the generation to do it? Frankly, I hope so. But we have to come up with better choices than we have on the ballot this year.
RFID chips can be engineered to be readable over very short distances too. I have two I use. One I am stuck with has to be placed within 3" of the reader. In many cases, I find that I actually have to hold the card against the reader and wiggle it a bit in order for it to be read.
The other one is in a fob and it too has to get close to the reader. It seems to be less sensitive. It is read quickly as I move the fob in the direction of the reader. This works pretty nice for me as it controls a security gate and I have to lean out the window to reach the reader.
I also for a time had a Speed Pass. It read slowly and I always had to touch the pump to make it work.
This is one of those cases where a little "privacy invasion" may in the long run be a good idea. First, I don't have a passport and have no intention of getting one anytime soon so maybe it's just that it doesn't involve me.
Those people I know who have passports do not carry them every day. IF they are going to tavel, they take them out of the top dresser drawer and have them ready. My point in mentioning this is that a passport is only carried when it is needed.
Second, the RFID chip is not easy to forge like a paper document is. The chip probably will only be a serial number that will allow a customs officer to access info in a database. Most of this info will be redundant to the information already in the passport.
I can see how an RFID chip in a passport could be used to smooth access at busy places like airports. Scan the passport and confirm the information and all but waive the frequent flyer through.
Passports must already contain some identifier that can be typed into a terminal by a customs officer which accesses the same kind of DB. So, law enforcement types probably already have the access to the data already.
Being a somewhat frequent flier, anything that can speed up those blessed lines is fine by me.
Yeah, I read the article and I know that it isn't tied into the low level systems but it is still funny to think about.
There is a lot of room for additional computing in a car. I have no doubt that in some day we will have smart cars capable of doing a whole lot. To some degree it is already here. GM offers On-Star which integrates a cellular system with GPS and remote control of things like door locks. There are plenty of sound systems that have MP3 playback ability and there are DVD players in cars (along with the LCD displays).
It doesn't seem a reach to incorporate voice activation technology with the GPS, cellular, and entertainment systems adding system monitoring functionality and that kind of stuff. I suppose it would even be possible for smart cars to communicate with eachother to make sure they stay a certain distance away for safety. I don't think any of this will be done at the expense of the driver experience, we treasure that too much.
One concern that I have is where is big-brother in all of this? Could these systems be used to catch speeders? Reconstruct a driver's path and driving habits? Could your car "tattle" on you in court? It is a fine line we walk between freedom to use these devices and the way they can be used against us. Can a company use built in electronics to check on their employees? Can a spouse use them to check on their other half? Can a parent check on a child?
If you build in the software to check to see where a stolen car is, then you can do all of these other things. What is there to protect us against that kind of stuff?
I'm not against this, frankly, I think it exciting. But someone has to ask the questions and the makers have to acknowlege the possibility of mis-use. Already the FBI has obtained warrants to use On-Star like equipment to wiretap.
I don't really know. The limits that they can go to to decrypt messages is probably pretty extreme, at least that has been what was talked about online. If people started encrypting more stuff they probably would step up efforts in that direction.
Wow, I would have pegged it closer to 95%. I'd say it is an annomalty to see a machine without it.
Like spam, this stuff would go away if all users were smart. The only reason it works is that someone somewhere makes money off of it.
I've found that there are some almost impossible to clean spyware's out there are easy to deal with using a Knoppix CD and deleting the necessary files. Home page hijackers and the like seem to be the hardest suckers to get rid of. At least it gives me an opportunity to use Linux in a corporate environment!
Unfortunately, I think I agree. If I were Osama Bin Laden, I'd be amazed at the return on my investment. I really very much doubt that he expected even 10% of the results that he got.
He has won in more ways than he ever imagined. His legacy will be that he managed to make the free world less free. But when you think about it, he was only the catalyst. His timing was perfect, George W. Bush accomplished more of this than Osama did. It could even be argued that George W. Bush has made Osama his puppet to help him achieve specific political goals.
More than once I've wondered if fifty years from now, we will learn that the government had fore-knowlege of this like they did of Pearl Harbor. I certainaly hope not but can not discount it as a possibility. Our history shows that it was done before. I'd like to think that this is impossible but I can't.
If some day we learn that some in government knew and took no action to protect a state secret, I'll view them in the same light that I view Bin Laden and Hitler.
I know that this has been talked about before on Slashdot but I think the most disturbing thing about Echelon isn't the hardware (although I'd bet there is a great deal more to it than the current article talks about) but the fact that it is used to spy on whoever it happens to pickup. A certain keyword in a communication is all that it takes to get Echelon's attention and then you are in it's grasp.
If you happen to be a U.S. citizen or resident, it is unlawful for the U.S. government to monitor your communications without a warrant. This is no problem for Echelon, the Canadians or the Brits will do it for the U.S. It is one giant loophole for the governments involved to spy on their own people as well as anyone else.
I don't really have that much to hide but I do value my rights and my privacy so that bothers me. I know that the powers-that-be justify this as being part of the defense of the free world, that this is a necessary component on the war on terrorisiom and that such draconian measures are justified to keep us safe. But, if I have to give up my rights, my privlidges as a resident of a free country, I can't accept that explaination. Simply because the tool has become a tool of a different kind of terror. It is a took used by a represive government, used against it's own people.
I fear a repressive regime in my own country far more than I fear Osama Bin Laden and his henchmen.
So many of the changes made since 9/11 have played into the hands of terrorists. The changes have made the way we live, the way we travel, and the way we do business much more restrictive and expensive. Airport security is probably the most glaring example of this. We aren't anonymous travelers just getting from place to place anymore. We are electronically monitored, our travels documented. Those TSA agents and airport police aren't free - every traveler and every citizen pays for them.
Echelon is worse than that in some ways. We don't know if or when our conversations and other communications are monitored. It is hidden from our view, shielded behind a digital curtain of secrecy. If it is used against us, we will probably never know.
Some people probably say: "What's the big deal if it is also used to catch drug dealers anyway? They are just criminals." I can understand that position but have to say that it is a pretty narrow view. The truth is that you can't make two wrongs make a right. A regime that turns it's military against it's own people isn't very far from being the enemy. This is the kind of thing that the Gestapo did in Germany. It is just wrong.
I'm glad to think that I live in a free country. I'm just not sure that we are as free as we think we are. I'm afraid that we already have our own version of "secret police."
I understand that. What I was trying to say is that traditionally, the FCC has not regulated powerlines although they are indeed transmitting antennas.
What I did not get out of this article but have learned elsewhere is that BPL is a "last mile" solution, intended to distribute from the substation to the end user. The signal will be carried via fiber to the substations (the fiber already exists). BPL will actually be a very low power signal.
Can it interfere? Sure. Will it? Probably sometimes - but that can be mittigated with the proper precautions (hence the need for certification).
The power company wants to provide a service. They want to do it at the lowest cost possible. I don't think that they want to interfere with anything on purpose and I hope they will be good corporate neighbors. The regulations will help to assure that but if I were them, I'd be worried that the regulations may come at such a cost that the service will be too expensive to compete (and I'd oppose regulation too).
If I were a HAM, or perhaps a wireless communications provider, I'd be on the other side of the coin, demanding that my interests be protedted.
But, I'm neither. I'm a consumer who may be interested in this service. Actually, I know I'd be interested in this service at my weekend place where I can't get telephone service, cable service, or DSL. That makes me hopeful that BPL will be affordable.
Obviously the AARL is right in pushing for regulation that will reduce the possibility of interference of the radio spectrum. For this reason, the equipment does need to be certified and some guidelines are required on how it is implimented and the database can be used to identify and contact offenders. I have no problem with that stuff.
On the otherhand, certified equipment costs more, and meeting code requirements means that there are some things that a company may want to do that would be viable technologically, and be of a benefit to the customer, but can not be delivered because of the restrictions in the rules they are obliged to follow. The database may be required to be too thourough, requiring a great deal of administration from the company and this could be a major expense too. So, I can also see the company's side.
I hate nothing more than listening to the radio, or talking on my cel phone, or watching TV only to be victimized by radio frequency interference. For my wife, it is even worse, RFI can really mess up her hearing aids. This doesn't make us unique, it is a fact of modern life. To some extent or another, we are all annoyed (or worse) by some RFI. So I think we can all understand what the AARL is warning us about.
On the otherhand, BPL can deliver broadband to people who have not been able to get it before. BPL may be able to provide less expensive service than other methods, and just by having another player in the game, BPL may be able to spur competition and innovation in what is really a comodity service.
I have some reservations about the FCC regulating something that they have not regulated much in the past. As far as I know, the power company has not needed a license to broadcast their 60 hz signal before - yet we all recieve it and use it. They are laying this new service down on the old infrastructure and using the fiber that controls their automated substations to get the BPL "signal" into the neighborhood. So, I guess I don't see a whole lot of new broadcasting going on!
The FCC I think made a wise decision, allowing the service to go forward while requiring solid equipment. Given the FCC's (recent) friendly attitude to buisness and ability to quickly make adjustments to rules, I think that they have done the right thing. I think that there may be a few power companies out there who will decide to not offer the service because they disagree with this but I'll bet those companies that do that will be located somewhere that already had broadband providers. So, BPL will go a lonq ways to providing those who have been left behind in the broadband race!
I live in Minneapolis and am pretty sure that this project will have absolutly no effect on the population at large. I see it as an "art project" done by the Walker ART center. The majority of these transmitters will be used for a brief time and shelved. The participants in the project will feel that they have learned something about radio and will have shared a common experience and that's about it.
Commercial and to a lesser extent public radio in the Twin Cities is pretty big thing. We have a couple of "giants in the industry" here with two AM stations that are historic giants of the industry (WCCO-AM and KSTP-AM) both 50,000 watt clear channel stations and an FM station that consistantly captures the highest market share of any station in the country (KQRS-FM). On top of these giants, there are many other stations on both the AM and FM bands that cater to nearly every taste imagineable. Our airwaves are crowded.
Over the years we have had our share of pirate and "underground" stations. Most of them have gone off of the air before I even heard them - but the several that I did get a chance to hear reminded me more of "Bob and Ted's Excellent Adventure" than anything else. Nothing special at all.
I do believe that there is a major problem with public airwaves here and probably in most every major market. The stations are locked into playing the same old stuff. I really do think that stations should be required to devote a portion of their broadcast time to programming local and new talent. They are too locked into the charts, the major music labels and other things that sort of homoginize and blend the music into pablum for the masses.
There is a whole lot wrong with radio but a bunch of low power transmitters aren't going to do anything to fix it.
Electronics is all about compramise. You are trying to do something in one step that really requires a stage (or two) in between.
Capture the energy in a large capacitor and then use some circuitry to charge the battery from the stored charge in the capacitor.
It will cost you perhaps 10% in loss but that is acceptable compared to the alternitives.
You may also want to think about moving away from lead-acid batteries, some of the newer elecric and hybrids are using large banks of Nickle Metal Hydryd batteries. Litterally banking hundreds of "D" cells into a large battery.
Guns sold in gun stores are sometimes used in robberies. Cars purchased at dealerships sometimes are used to speed. Alcohol purchased at liquor stores sometimes gets used by people who then drive.
Almost anything can be misused or used for criminal purposes. In most cases the shopkeeper does not know how the produce he is selling will be used.
I submit that a computer sold with Linux installed is safer and results in less harm than the average gun, the average car, or the average bottle of booze. Unless (of course) you are Microsoft. In that case, you hire a large, influential consulting group to show how dangerous computers with Linux pre-installed is.
To me, this report is a little like BP issuing a report saying that hybrid electric cars are bad for the environment. Or like a cigarette company publishing a report that says smoking is good for you becase it calms your nerves.
These lists are worthless, I don't know what draws me to them. I see it and I just have to see who is on it.
Technology isn't a one-person effort. It is the total combined efforts of a wide variety of companies, engineers, technicians, and other people doing what they do best. It is a symbiotic relationship that crosses almost any boundary put in front of it. If the plastic's people can't find an answer to a problem, maybe the ceramic's people can.
Think of the progression of the Intel processor and the hundreds or thousands of people who have had a hand in it's development along the way. Sure there are names that rise to the top, but litterally hundreds of engineers, technicians, and probably even janitors have contributed different ideas and insights into how to grow that little calculator chip into the massive CPU that we have today.
It doesn't stop there though. Someone had to take that computer chip and make it do something. Along came the hundreds of engineers from IBM and many, many other companies. They built the box that housed the chip and then found that they had something.
But what they had wasn't complete. Along came the boys from Microsoft, Digital Research and other companies. They cobbled together something that made the box do something.
What they had was a genuine invention. But someone thought they could make it do something else. They tinkered and hacked and low and behold, it did something else. And then another thing and so on and so on and so on.
By now millions of people in almost every country in the world are involved. Someone decided to make a list of the most influential people?
Isn't that like picking a few hairs out of your scalp and calling then your favorite?
I want to take my hat off and salute every single person and every single company who has ever endevoured to make something better! It is this insatiable need to improve that has taken mankind to where we are today and it is this same compulsion that will make tomorrow possible. In the grand scheme of things, Names like Torvalds, Gates, and whoever else are just figureheads for countless nameless and faceless people out there making things better.
This is a problem that goes deeper than Windows vs. Unix, it has little to do with the operating system or the hardware and even the application has little to do with it.
If you must assign blame, you should probably point fingers at the people who spec'd the system out and perhaps submitted to the cost-constraints demanded by the bean counters.
Any system that lives depend on needs to have fail-safe features and redundancy built in to it and a completely seperate fall-back proceedure that can be implimented at a moment's notice.
It can almost be assumed that something will go wrong and when it does, the equipment needs to be able to handle it as transparently as possible, otherwise you can just about count on human error to make matters worse.
These kinds of systems can end up being very expensive to build. It is very tempting to remove what can be seen as "bells and whistles" from the package to save money.
Unfortunately, these bells and whistles are designed and intended to save lives.
I honestly don't know if that is what happened in this case, but I've seen it before where lives were at stake. It is another version of the low-bidder syndrome.
I've tried it just a few times and already see that it may become my new Google. For me, the history of searches is a good addition. I'm keeping an open mind because it is new and it is good but perhaps not quite great yet. Remember when Google was new? It wasn't quite as good as it is today. I fully expect that A9's developers are hard at work doing things to make it better, just like Google's developers did.
One thing that may keep Google ahead is its sterility. You really feel like Google keeps itself quite neuteral. I don't expect that I will ever feel that way about A9. So when you are looking for "just the facts", A9 may be second choice.
Still, there are lots of times when I am looking for something that is more commercial. Like when I am looking for some sort of product. Something tells me that Amazon may actually be better in those instances.
Maybe it is best to look at Google as a marketplace while A9 is more like a mall. When you want to go to the big stores, go to A9, when you are looking for the very small niche, google it.
I really think there is ample room for both. And, I'll probably use both!
I'd like a house like this but not because it is so secure (these people seem paranoid to me). I'd like it for a couple of reasons. First, I think that a house designed like this is really capable of expressing the owner. In my case, I'd opt for a very non showy exterior (probably facing the enterances away from any visible road) and have a bright interior with lots of birch, white oak, and ash. Probably not many right angles either.
Secondly, I think I'd like it because it uses technology to answer a few of the more vexing building problems. The one thing that struck me was the self-sealing nature of the matterials used to seal the house.
I wouldn't mind the fact that it would protect me from some of the natural disasters. I probably wouldn't bury it deep enough to be a bomb shelter.
Use Ozium. It is the product used by funeral homes to remove the smell of death. You'll probably also want to use compressed air to remove all the dust bunnies that have accumulated inside the case. If the smell is really bad, you would probably want to mount a few aduo-dispensing speayers in the room too.
I can deal with poorer quality sound than I can poorer quality video. My middle-aged ears have been assulted by so much poor quality sound over the years that it has become acceptable.
I do appreciate good sound but it is something that I can do without to save a couple of bucks.
Still I run with sound off on my computer because there are so friggin many cheesy websites that think it is cool to play MIDI music or other sounds.
I only turn up the volume when I want to listen to something. Usually, my inexpensive three speaker system is satisfactory. But, I don't usually play MP3's, DVD's, or CD's from my computer. I have a stereo and a TV for that stuff.
Slashdot Mirror
Ugh, it sometimes seems like the election process is the kind of choice we get when we choose vanilla or French vanilla. Is one much better than the other?
I am an American. As such I've been told many times, many ways, that I live in the greatest and most free country in the world. I'm not really buying it any more than I buy the belief that Ford is indeed superior to Chevrolet. But when I see the choices, I mean the bona fide choices, that we are given to vote for for President, I don't buy the arguments. Are these two really the best people in the country to hold the office?
The whole process is not much more than a sales pitch for white bread. When it comes down to the taste test, what is better Wonder or Tastee? I can't tell much of a difference. But it is what it is and we are stuck with it.
We are rich and powerfull nation. We can exert out influenence on almost anyone anywhere. Face it, if we don't like someone our president can sic our military on them and we are all but assured of victory. Isn't that really what happened in Iraq?
In the past four years, we have seen our freedoms eroded with things like the DCMA and the Patriot Act. If Bush is elected we are in for more of the same. If Kerry is elected, do we really expect to see much change? I don't, not really. Perhaps, but just perhaps, he is the lesser of two evils.
Is that any way to vote? To pick the lesser of two evils? Is this what makes America great? I sure as hell don't think so. There has to be a better way. The system we have may have made a hell of a lot of sense two hundred years ago when representation meant an arduous journey of hundreds of miles. But today, with the technology we have, every person who cares could actually be self-representing.
Change comes slowly to established machines like American politics. I recognise and understand that. Hell, I'd even say that is a good thing - that it changes slowly. But there comes a time where a catalyist exists and changes can be sudden. Like the end of communisim in the USSR and the taking down of the Berlin wall. Then change can come suddenly.
An idea occured to me that maybe we just don't see this kind of event coming. Maybe the electronic voting machines are the key to the ignition of change? I'm really just rambling now, but what I am saying is that we need REAL CHANGE not just a slight step from center but a full on change of course! We have the means - but do we have the courage or do we need some sort of catayist to kick us out of idle and into gear?
I'm not preaching revolution here. Really, I'm not. I'm just trying to say that our form of government is out dated and in need of serious change and that to me, the time seems right for something to happen.
Will we be the generation to do it? Frankly, I hope so. But we have to come up with better choices than we have on the ballot this year.
RFID chips can be engineered to be readable over very short distances too. I have two I use. One I am stuck with has to be placed within 3" of the reader. In many cases, I find that I actually have to hold the card against the reader and wiggle it a bit in order for it to be read.
The other one is in a fob and it too has to get close to the reader. It seems to be less sensitive. It is read quickly as I move the fob in the direction of the reader. This works pretty nice for me as it controls a security gate and I have to lean out the window to reach the reader.
I also for a time had a Speed Pass. It read slowly and I always had to touch the pump to make it work.
This is one of those cases where a little "privacy invasion" may in the long run be a good idea. First, I don't have a passport and have no intention of getting one anytime soon so maybe it's just that it doesn't involve me.
Those people I know who have passports do not carry them every day. IF they are going to tavel, they take them out of the top dresser drawer and have them ready. My point in mentioning this is that a passport is only carried when it is needed.
Second, the RFID chip is not easy to forge like a paper document is. The chip probably will only be a serial number that will allow a customs officer to access info in a database. Most of this info will be redundant to the information already in the passport.
I can see how an RFID chip in a passport could be used to smooth access at busy places like airports. Scan the passport and confirm the information and all but waive the frequent flyer through.
Passports must already contain some identifier that can be typed into a terminal by a customs officer which accesses the same kind of DB. So, law enforcement types probably already have the access to the data already.
Being a somewhat frequent flier, anything that can speed up those blessed lines is fine by me.
Yeah, I read the article and I know that it isn't tied into the low level systems but it is still funny to think about.
There is a lot of room for additional computing in a car. I have no doubt that in some day we will have smart cars capable of doing a whole lot. To some degree it is already here. GM offers On-Star which integrates a cellular system with GPS and remote control of things like door locks. There are plenty of sound systems that have MP3 playback ability and there are DVD players in cars (along with the LCD displays).
It doesn't seem a reach to incorporate voice activation technology with the GPS, cellular, and entertainment systems adding system monitoring functionality and that kind of stuff. I suppose it would even be possible for smart cars to communicate with eachother to make sure they stay a certain distance away for safety. I don't think any of this will be done at the expense of the driver experience, we treasure that too much.
One concern that I have is where is big-brother in all of this? Could these systems be used to catch speeders? Reconstruct a driver's path and driving habits? Could your car "tattle" on you in court? It is a fine line we walk between freedom to use these devices and the way they can be used against us. Can a company use built in electronics to check on their employees? Can a spouse use them to check on their other half? Can a parent check on a child?
If you build in the software to check to see where a stolen car is, then you can do all of these other things. What is there to protect us against that kind of stuff?
I'm not against this, frankly, I think it exciting. But someone has to ask the questions and the makers have to acknowlege the possibility of mis-use. Already the FBI has obtained warrants to use On-Star like equipment to wiretap.
With all the bosses in most offices, there should be no shortage of hot air.
Make something idiot proof and along comes a better class of idiots!
URL:http://wearabledissent.com/101/floridavote.htm l
I don't really know. The limits that they can go to to decrypt messages is probably pretty extreme, at least that has been what was talked about online. If people started encrypting more stuff they probably would step up efforts in that direction.
Wow, I would have pegged it closer to 95%. I'd say it is an annomalty to see a machine without it.
Like spam, this stuff would go away if all users were smart. The only reason it works is that someone somewhere makes money off of it.
I've found that there are some almost impossible to clean spyware's out there are easy to deal with using a Knoppix CD and deleting the necessary files. Home page hijackers and the like seem to be the hardest suckers to get rid of. At least it gives me an opportunity to use Linux in a corporate environment!
Overflow...System Halted
Unfortunately, I think I agree. If I were Osama Bin Laden, I'd be amazed at the return on my investment. I really very much doubt that he expected even 10% of the results that he got.
He has won in more ways than he ever imagined. His legacy will be that he managed to make the free world less free. But when you think about it, he was only the catalyst. His timing was perfect, George W. Bush accomplished more of this than Osama did. It could even be argued that George W. Bush has made Osama his puppet to help him achieve specific political goals.
More than once I've wondered if fifty years from now, we will learn that the government had fore-knowlege of this like they did of Pearl Harbor. I certainaly hope not but can not discount it as a possibility. Our history shows that it was done before. I'd like to think that this is impossible but I can't.
If some day we learn that some in government knew and took no action to protect a state secret, I'll view them in the same light that I view Bin Laden and Hitler.
I know that this has been talked about before on Slashdot but I think the most disturbing thing about Echelon isn't the hardware (although I'd bet there is a great deal more to it than the current article talks about) but the fact that it is used to spy on whoever it happens to pickup. A certain keyword in a communication is all that it takes to get Echelon's attention and then you are in it's grasp.
If you happen to be a U.S. citizen or resident, it is unlawful for the U.S. government to monitor your communications without a warrant. This is no problem for Echelon, the Canadians or the Brits will do it for the U.S. It is one giant loophole for the governments involved to spy on their own people as well as anyone else.
I don't really have that much to hide but I do value my rights and my privacy so that bothers me. I know that the powers-that-be justify this as being part of the defense of the free world, that this is a necessary component on the war on terrorisiom and that such draconian measures are justified to keep us safe. But, if I have to give up my rights, my privlidges as a resident of a free country, I can't accept that explaination. Simply because the tool has become a tool of a different kind of terror. It is a took used by a represive government, used against it's own people.
I fear a repressive regime in my own country far more than I fear Osama Bin Laden and his henchmen.
So many of the changes made since 9/11 have played into the hands of terrorists. The changes have made the way we live, the way we travel, and the way we do business much more restrictive and expensive. Airport security is probably the most glaring example of this. We aren't anonymous travelers just getting from place to place anymore. We are electronically monitored, our travels documented. Those TSA agents and airport police aren't free - every traveler and every citizen pays for them.
Echelon is worse than that in some ways. We don't know if or when our conversations and other communications are monitored. It is hidden from our view, shielded behind a digital curtain of secrecy. If it is used against us, we will probably never know.
Some people probably say: "What's the big deal if it is also used to catch drug dealers anyway? They are just criminals." I can understand that position but have to say that it is a pretty narrow view. The truth is that you can't make two wrongs make a right. A regime that turns it's military against it's own people isn't very far from being the enemy. This is the kind of thing that the Gestapo did in Germany. It is just wrong.
I'm glad to think that I live in a free country. I'm just not sure that we are as free as we think we are. I'm afraid that we already have our own version of "secret police."
I understand that. What I was trying to say is that traditionally, the FCC has not regulated powerlines although they are indeed transmitting antennas.
What I did not get out of this article but have learned elsewhere is that BPL is a "last mile" solution, intended to distribute from the substation to the end user. The signal will be carried via fiber to the substations (the fiber already exists). BPL will actually be a very low power signal.
Can it interfere? Sure. Will it? Probably sometimes - but that can be mittigated with the proper precautions (hence the need for certification).
The power company wants to provide a service. They want to do it at the lowest cost possible. I don't think that they want to interfere with anything on purpose and I hope they will be good corporate neighbors. The regulations will help to assure that but if I were them, I'd be worried that the regulations may come at such a cost that the service will be too expensive to compete (and I'd oppose regulation too).
If I were a HAM, or perhaps a wireless communications provider, I'd be on the other side of the coin, demanding that my interests be protedted.
But, I'm neither. I'm a consumer who may be interested in this service. Actually, I know I'd be interested in this service at my weekend place where I can't get telephone service, cable service, or DSL. That makes me hopeful that BPL will be affordable.
Obviously the AARL is right in pushing for regulation that will reduce the possibility of interference of the radio spectrum. For this reason, the equipment does need to be certified and some guidelines are required on how it is implimented and the database can be used to identify and contact offenders. I have no problem with that stuff.
On the otherhand, certified equipment costs more, and meeting code requirements means that there are some things that a company may want to do that would be viable technologically, and be of a benefit to the customer, but can not be delivered because of the restrictions in the rules they are obliged to follow. The database may be required to be too thourough, requiring a great deal of administration from the company and this could be a major expense too. So, I can also see the company's side.
I hate nothing more than listening to the radio, or talking on my cel phone, or watching TV only to be victimized by radio frequency interference. For my wife, it is even worse, RFI can really mess up her hearing aids. This doesn't make us unique, it is a fact of modern life. To some extent or another, we are all annoyed (or worse) by some RFI. So I think we can all understand what the AARL is warning us about.
On the otherhand, BPL can deliver broadband to people who have not been able to get it before. BPL may be able to provide less expensive service than other methods, and just by having another player in the game, BPL may be able to spur competition and innovation in what is really a comodity service.
I have some reservations about the FCC regulating something that they have not regulated much in the past. As far as I know, the power company has not needed a license to broadcast their 60 hz signal before - yet we all recieve it and use it. They are laying this new service down on the old infrastructure and using the fiber that controls their automated substations to get the BPL "signal" into the neighborhood. So, I guess I don't see a whole lot of new broadcasting going on!
The FCC I think made a wise decision, allowing the service to go forward while requiring solid equipment. Given the FCC's (recent) friendly attitude to buisness and ability to quickly make adjustments to rules, I think that they have done the right thing. I think that there may be a few power companies out there who will decide to not offer the service because they disagree with this but I'll bet those companies that do that will be located somewhere that already had broadband providers. So, BPL will go a lonq ways to providing those who have been left behind in the broadband race!
http://64.203.97.121/images/gallery/19.jpg http://64.203.97.121/images/gallery/19.jpg
I live in Minneapolis and am pretty sure that this project will have absolutly no effect on the population at large. I see it as an "art project" done by the Walker ART center. The majority of these transmitters will be used for a brief time and shelved. The participants in the project will feel that they have learned something about radio and will have shared a common experience and that's about it.
Commercial and to a lesser extent public radio in the Twin Cities is pretty big thing. We have a couple of "giants in the industry" here with two AM stations that are historic giants of the industry (WCCO-AM and KSTP-AM) both 50,000 watt clear channel stations and an FM station that consistantly captures the highest market share of any station in the country (KQRS-FM). On top of these giants, there are many other stations on both the AM and FM bands that cater to nearly every taste imagineable. Our airwaves are crowded.
Over the years we have had our share of pirate and "underground" stations. Most of them have gone off of the air before I even heard them - but the several that I did get a chance to hear reminded me more of "Bob and Ted's Excellent Adventure" than anything else. Nothing special at all.
I do believe that there is a major problem with public airwaves here and probably in most every major market. The stations are locked into playing the same old stuff. I really do think that stations should be required to devote a portion of their broadcast time to programming local and new talent. They are too locked into the charts, the major music labels and other things that sort of homoginize and blend the music into pablum for the masses.
There is a whole lot wrong with radio but a bunch of low power transmitters aren't going to do anything to fix it.
Electronics is all about compramise. You are trying to do something in one step that really requires a stage (or two) in between.
Capture the energy in a large capacitor and then use some circuitry to charge the battery from the stored charge in the capacitor.
It will cost you perhaps 10% in loss but that is acceptable compared to the alternitives.
You may also want to think about moving away from lead-acid batteries, some of the newer elecric and hybrids are using large banks of Nickle Metal Hydryd batteries. Litterally banking hundreds of "D" cells into a large battery.
Someone had to say it, may as well be me!
Guns sold in gun stores are sometimes used in robberies. Cars purchased at dealerships sometimes are used to speed. Alcohol purchased at liquor stores sometimes gets used by people who then drive.
Almost anything can be misused or used for criminal purposes. In most cases the shopkeeper does not know how the produce he is selling will be used.
I submit that a computer sold with Linux installed is safer and results in less harm than the average gun, the average car, or the average bottle of booze. Unless (of course) you are Microsoft. In that case, you hire a large, influential consulting group to show how dangerous computers with Linux pre-installed is.
To me, this report is a little like BP issuing a report saying that hybrid electric cars are bad for the environment. Or like a cigarette company publishing a report that says smoking is good for you becase it calms your nerves.
These lists are worthless, I don't know what draws me to them. I see it and I just have to see who is on it.
Technology isn't a one-person effort. It is the total combined efforts of a wide variety of companies, engineers, technicians, and other people doing what they do best. It is a symbiotic relationship that crosses almost any boundary put in front of it. If the plastic's people can't find an answer to a problem, maybe the ceramic's people can.
Think of the progression of the Intel processor and the hundreds or thousands of people who have had a hand in it's development along the way. Sure there are names that rise to the top, but litterally hundreds of engineers, technicians, and probably even janitors have contributed different ideas and insights into how to grow that little calculator chip into the massive CPU that we have today.
It doesn't stop there though. Someone had to take that computer chip and make it do something. Along came the hundreds of engineers from IBM and many, many other companies. They built the box that housed the chip and then found that they had something.
But what they had wasn't complete. Along came the boys from Microsoft, Digital Research and other companies. They cobbled together something that made the box do something.
What they had was a genuine invention. But someone thought they could make it do something else. They tinkered and hacked and low and behold, it did something else. And then another thing and so on and so on and so on.
By now millions of people in almost every country in the world are involved. Someone decided to make a list of the most influential people?
Isn't that like picking a few hairs out of your scalp and calling then your favorite?
I want to take my hat off and salute every single person and every single company who has ever endevoured to make something better! It is this insatiable need to improve that has taken mankind to where we are today and it is this same compulsion that will make tomorrow possible. In the grand scheme of things, Names like Torvalds, Gates, and whoever else are just figureheads for countless nameless and faceless people out there making things better.
This is a problem that goes deeper than Windows vs. Unix, it has little to do with the operating system or the hardware and even the application has little to do with it.
If you must assign blame, you should probably point fingers at the people who spec'd the system out and perhaps submitted to the cost-constraints demanded by the bean counters.
Any system that lives depend on needs to have fail-safe features and redundancy built in to it and a completely seperate fall-back proceedure that can be implimented at a moment's notice.
It can almost be assumed that something will go wrong and when it does, the equipment needs to be able to handle it as transparently as possible, otherwise you can just about count on human error to make matters worse.
These kinds of systems can end up being very expensive to build. It is very tempting to remove what can be seen as "bells and whistles" from the package to save money.
Unfortunately, these bells and whistles are designed and intended to save lives.
I honestly don't know if that is what happened in this case, but I've seen it before where lives were at stake. It is another version of the low-bidder syndrome.
I've tried it just a few times and already see that it may become my new Google. For me, the history of searches is a good addition. I'm keeping an open mind because it is new and it is good but perhaps not quite great yet. Remember when Google was new? It wasn't quite as good as it is today. I fully expect that A9's developers are hard at work doing things to make it better, just like Google's developers did.
One thing that may keep Google ahead is its sterility. You really feel like Google keeps itself quite neuteral. I don't expect that I will ever feel that way about A9. So when you are looking for "just the facts", A9 may be second choice.
Still, there are lots of times when I am looking for something that is more commercial. Like when I am looking for some sort of product. Something tells me that Amazon may actually be better in those instances.
Maybe it is best to look at Google as a marketplace while A9 is more like a mall. When you want to go to the big stores, go to A9, when you are looking for the very small niche, google it.
I really think there is ample room for both. And, I'll probably use both!
I'd like a house like this but not because it is so secure (these people seem paranoid to me). I'd like it for a couple of reasons. First, I think that a house designed like this is really capable of expressing the owner. In my case, I'd opt for a very non showy exterior (probably facing the enterances away from any visible road) and have a bright interior with lots of birch, white oak, and ash. Probably not many right angles either.
Secondly, I think I'd like it because it uses technology to answer a few of the more vexing building problems. The one thing that struck me was the self-sealing nature of the matterials used to seal the house.
I wouldn't mind the fact that it would protect me from some of the natural disasters. I probably wouldn't bury it deep enough to be a bomb shelter.
Use Ozium. It is the product used by funeral homes to remove the smell of death. You'll probably also want to use compressed air to remove all the dust bunnies that have accumulated inside the case. If the smell is really bad, you would probably want to mount a few aduo-dispensing speayers in the room too.
I can deal with poorer quality sound than I can poorer quality video. My middle-aged ears have been assulted by so much poor quality sound over the years that it has become acceptable.
I do appreciate good sound but it is something that I can do without to save a couple of bucks.
Still I run with sound off on my computer because there are so friggin many cheesy websites that think it is cool to play MIDI music or other sounds.
I only turn up the volume when I want to listen to something. Usually, my inexpensive three speaker system is satisfactory. But, I don't usually play MP3's, DVD's, or CD's from my computer. I have a stereo and a TV for that stuff.
I know, I know that is "old school" but so am I.