Money has to be trusted but it also has to be cheap to produce. The article noted that it now costs about nine cents to produce the hundered dollar bill as opposed to six and a half cents before. This is a significant increase. It shows they are taking counterfitting seriously.
There are many things that can be done to make money safer - including RFID type technologies. But each one of them adds cost to the production of the note. It can actually make it too expensive to produce I suppose. The money to do this comes from somewhere.
Speaking in general terms all costs are always passed on to the consumer somehow. So in a sense, the more it costs to make a bill, the less value the bill actually represents.
How can you reduce costs and stop counterfitters? By the methods most countries are trying today. Using special papers, special inks, special printing methods and extreme quality control.
Visa, Master Card and others would prefeer that money be replaced by little plastic cards and a great deal of trust in the banking system. But that cost is just to extreme to justify. Besides, there is a tradition that is hard to break.
Counterfitters are sure to be around for a very long time. The people charged with protecting the monitary systems will have to continue to make adjustments to ensure these crooks can be caught. But in the long run, it will be their own greed that will do them in every time.
Would it be waste or product? If I am not mistaken, the reactors were created with the intent of making the matterial. So, no it was product used.
Still I doubt that many would agree that it would be wise to use nuclear weapons willy-nilly to dispose of all of our nuclear waste. Is that what you are advocating?
It has been many years since I read the headlines and articles about Chernobyl and I am by no means an educated physicist. I only have a very elementary grasp of the physics involved. I am a lay-person.
As I recall, the Russians (up to the accident) felt that their reactor design had some significant advantages over the much more complex American designs. The fact that carbon was used to moderate the process along with the simple method of controlling the fuel (where they felt if something were to happen the rods would be immediately quenched) was much safer. They were (of course) proven wrong by the accident. The super-overheated steam in essence pushed the rods in the wrong direction starting a fire and blowing the top off of the pile.
Am I in essence right? Or did I not understand something? It has been a long time.
I remember thinking about it like what happens when you put tiny bit of hamburger on a red-hot skillet - it just sort of dances and lifts off of the metal or maybe a better mental picture is like when you pour a big gulp of water in the radiator of a very overheated car - the water just about instantly pukes back out because of the steam.
TMI did release a small amount of radioactive gasses.
TMI was a failure of a nuclear plant. The safety systems worked and stopped it just short of a meltdown. But it was far too close.
Chernobyl was a terrible disaster but the pile itself was engineered with safety in mind. In many ways, this kind of reactor was considered safer than the kinds of reactors common in the US.
Re:Chernobyl was largely due to human fault
on
Port-A-Nuke
·
· Score: 1
So, it was fool-proof until someone went and designed a better fool?
Actually I do agree with you. But this is the USA and politics are how these things get done. The idea behind Yucca mountain is probably very safe and sound but in the 1970's when Swedish scientists were looking at a similar scenereo they discovered that drilling holes into a granite mountain caused what they described as micro-fissures that spread much like a crack in a windshield. For that reason, they felt that the 10,000 year goal was unattainable using the "mined mountain" method.
I don't know if there is a solution that will pass the legal, political, and scientific muster. Yucca mountain may be as close as it gets. I'm not saying that I agree or disagree but that I am sceptical that all the hurdles will really be cleared. We are closer today than we ever have been - I'll agree with that but until the first casks are sealed in the mountain, we don't have it. Even then, we may see some sort of failure or legal problem that could stop the facility.
But it sure beats big casks stored all over the place.
I'm melting!!!
on
Port-A-Nuke
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Perhaps I'm showing my unorthidox leftist leanings here but I really don't think of this as a political issue. I think of it as an environmental issue.
The US has not properly disposed of one ounce of high level nuclear reactor waste ever. We are storing it until a safe disposal facility is built. There are a lot of politics surrounding that with Nevada being the loser. Yucca mountain is really far from complete and may never be finished if the opponents win when they have their day in court.
If the US can not properly dispose of the waste, how can we expect a developing nation to do so?
The US has had Three Mile Island and Russia has had Chernobyl. Both of these countries have significant resources to bring to bear against the problem but have suffered the consiquences of accidents. How could Hati, Trinidad, or some other less sophisticated, resource poor nation deal? The answer is pretty obvious. If something goes wrong, they couldn't. And we probably couldn't get there in time.
Chernobyl was designed to be "accident proof" if anything went wrong, the pile would quench itself.
Three Mile Island was designed with multiple redundant safety systems and was manned by skilled engineers around the clock.
Can we really believe that these machines are so well engineered that they can withstand thirty years of use without an accident?
Can I dream for a minute? I want a machine that would be different things at different times. It would function as a typical PDA when you wanted that.
When plugged into a port on your computer it would do more than "hot synch" - it would be an auxillary drive where I could store files I wanted to transport, it's display would act as an accessory display for the computer (in my case, displaying RSS feeds). It would also share the computer's peripherials when docked with that machine. A host application installed on the PC would allow me to do things on the PDA from the desktop and would allow me to "push" some applications on to the PDA.
When docked in my car, it would peform computing functions related to the car or serve up MP3 files to the stereo. It would track MPG and tell me when my car was due for service and, it would read those cryptic error codes.
When in contact with a wi-fi service, I could get a VNC connection back to my primary computer.
The IR port could intercommunicate with printers and other IR equipped machines so that a presenter could "beam" me a copy of the presentation.
Accessories for it would include wireless keyboards, mice, and other computer like peripherials. It would have a USB 2.0 port and perhaps even a firewire port.
The designers would make the machine open in the sense that they would publish everything about the interfaces allowing designers to build other cool peripherials. It would be open enough to allow ports of Linux or Windows CE to the machine.
Oh, and it would also be a phone and a "real" GPS unit.
I don't disagree with you at all. Windows must be made more secure and it should not require regular repairs by the end user (in the form of patches) very often if ever.
The only point that I was really trying to make is that the term "secure" is really unattainable. If someone wants something badly enough, has enoush resources, and enough time they can get through all of the security we can put up. Secure is different from secure enough. But secure enough is different for each individual, each company, and each kind of use.
We do not need a secure operating system, we need one that is secure enough for our needs. Yet each of us have different needs. Makes it kinda hard for the target to get defined beyond a minimum set of standards don't ya think?
So, in ten years we may have "secure enough" operating systems. Perhaps they will be sold according to security level? You pay extra for more security? Or do we all pay for Ft Knox level security when what we need is more akin to a padlock?
At first I wanted to make some wry but funny comment about Microsoft's ability to make anything secure but as I was trying to come up with something I realized that "secure" is the sort of term that is hard to define.
What is "secure" anyhow? Is "As secure as a nuclear weapons facility" really secure? Not if we believe 60 Minutes last night. How about "As secure as Ft. Knox" - there was something a few months ago that said that Ft. Knox was susceptable to attack (especially air attack if I remember right).
So, nothing is really sercure. Secure is really an analog thing. The keys to your car make your car resonably secure (and if you want more security, add an alarm). But is your car really secure? No, many a locked and alarmed car have been ripped off.
Banks are secure right? If so, why are they robbed?
Windows will never be secure, because nothing can ever be 100 percent B.S.-free "secure" Not Linux, not Windows, not Ft Knox.
Will Windows be reasonably secure in ten years? Probably by many people's standards, yes. But there will still be need for added security when it is called for. Just like a typical bank has more security than a typical house.
Of all of the freedoms that people in the United States of America enjoy, perhaps the freedom of speech is the most important. Of all forms of speech, perhaps the most important is "political speech."
Why? Because if we can't speak out against our government, we can't effect change. We end up with an oppressive government. If there is one right that sets a free country apart it is our right to agree or disagree with those in power. While there are obvious limits to other kinds of speech (you can't yell fire in a crowded theater) there really can't be the same kinds of limits to political speech in our free society (with perhaps the exception of slander/libel).
This freedom extends to such unpopular organizations as the KKK - and is what gives them the right to speak their unpopular brand of politics. It extends to every man, woman, and child regardless of their political persuasion and it trumps the rights of others who may disagree (ie the NAACP can not stop the KKK from disseminating their hate, nor can the KKK quell the NAACP from their rights to speak against the KKK).
As I've just demonstrated, the right to political speech can sometimes be uncomfortable but it is the right of every citizen of the United States.
Still, if it can be proven that using degradable, water soluble, organic chalk is a form of vandalism then perhaps the police had a right to detain and confiscate but according to the article that is not what has happened. Right now it seems like the NYC Police are acting as agents for the RNC and simply limiting this man's right to free speech.
That is un-American and unconstitutional! Not to mention unconscionable.
Someone has figured out how to build a "spam firewall" that is different from everything out there. Yeah right. No details to tell us exactly how it is different.
My guess is that they took a software based product using baysien filters and some other common anti-spam filtering technology and packaged it in hardware. Won't really improve the function of the machine but could possibly help with performance (process mail faster).
I won't believe it is anything else until I actually see it. Unfortunately, I don't think that will happen anytime soon.
I'll admit that the Olympics have some pretty cool devices to measure speed and performance (as well as to detect who is cheating).
I also have to wonder about why these devices are developed. I know that this is a sort of "If they can put a man on the moon why can't they..." type of arguement (but) why are people so willing to develop things for entertainment - and sports is entertainment (even the olympics) when there never seems to be enough money for developing technology that will help the poor or treat rare diseases?
I know that people are willing to pay for the products and that is why (it is the profit motive) but when you think about it, isn't that really kind of sick? That we as people care more about our entertainment than we think about other people?
Maybe it is just that I am extra grumpy tonight. I enjoy entertainment too. But when you think about it, in all seriousness, we do kinda go out of our way for things like the olympics when there are so many other serious things in this world that need money, technology, and attention.
I'm not without sympathy, I've already told my
story on Slashdot. I've seen it too, elderly grandmothers being wanded
while a obviously foreign person is all but waived through and frankly these
things offend me. It troubles me that these things work the way they do because
they seem simply setup to fail. I realize that it is probably impossible
to screen everyone to the nth degree and that a random method of
doing some extra screening is intended to make the risk for a terrorist to be
unacceptable. But grandma's and grandpa's as well as people traveling with
an extra burden (ie parents with small children, wheelchair bound
travelers and so on) should be able to be visibly excluded from these extra
security measures by any half-way intelligent TSA agent.
Recently in Minneapolis, a trial
program was launched which allows registered passengers to bypass some of
the security screening processes. Perhaps, something similar could be done to
allow these special needs customers easier access to travel.
Maybe when they make their reservations they tell the agent that they have
special needs and explain them - the information could be forwarded to the TSA
where a TSA agent could pre-qualify the traveler(s) and issue a time limited
card they could show the agent at the airport? While this would be a
slight invasion of privacy it would be less public and less humiliating than
having to undergo all the crap at the airport. For many, that would be
acceptable.
Frankly, I think that the security procedures at airports are pretty much
just pabulum for the traveling public anyhow. A lot of money is spent (er,
wasted) on it which drives the cost of flying way up. Most air traffice remains
business related so many of these costs are born by business' which must pass
them along to their customers.
I'm not saying that all security is bogus. We learned from DB Cooper
and other hijackers that some security measures are required for airlines.
This was unfortunately underscored by September 11th. I'm not
even saying that we didn't need to increase security after 9//11. All I am
really saying is that I think that much of the money that has been spend on
obvious security measures has been wasted.
We could do far better by quietly identifying threats and dealing with them
before they ever got into the airport. We could require people traveling
in the US with passports to undergo background checks and pre-register to
fly. We could require proof of citizenship and do criminal background
checks before allowing people to fly. Heck, we would probably even catch a
few drug smugglers in the process too.
Aluminum oxide is a very tough, very abrasive matterial, it is what is used in sandpaper. When it is ground very fine and mixed with acrylics or urethanes it is being applied as a finish to flooring which is guaranteed for up to fifty years by some companies.
I'm not sure that it is transparent enough to apply as a coating on a DVD or CD though. Maybe this "transparent aluminum" can cross that barrier though? I dunno. Sounds cool though.
I think what is coolest about this story is that something that was science fiction a couple of years ago is now (as in already) something that is real.
Funny you should mention that. My laptop bag has frequently been swabbed for "explosives" and none have ever been found. My job does sometimes take me to manufacturing plants where the fertilizer is made. But then again, I never take the bag into the plant, just the office. Things are pretty clean in there.
Just curious - Could we work for the same company?
I do not buy one way tickets and usually get my tickets two weeks in advance so those are not the reasons. Also, my employer is listed on the tickets (a large, well known company). We purchase our tickets from a travel agency that only does corporate work and, all of my information is registered so that the transaction is easy.
I fly quite a bit for work and know that for a time I made some sort of list somewhere. Apparently after a while, if you pass enough of their tests you are removed from the list.
The e-ticket machines would not issue me tickets, telling me that I had to get my tickets at the counter. I was no longer asked if I wanted to upgrade to first class for special price... The boarding agents stuck little colored dots with initials on them on my boarding passes - apparently as cues to people down-stream. It got frustrating that everywhere I went I and my luggage were singled out for special attention. Up to the point where my luggage would not be accepted curbside, My luggage and I would be taken into a little room and searched. In one case, even sealed packages were opened. As I boarded the airplane, I was always one of the passengers called for a random search.
Durring one of these searches, I mentioned to the agent that I must have made someone's list somewhere. He shook his head up and down as he said "I can't say that sir!" I had my answer and just resigned myself to being watched.
Then one day, as suddenly as it started, it stopped. My guess is that I satisfied the intellegence built into the database that I was not a threat and it removed me from the list.
I do not know what I did to make their list nor do I really know what I did to get off of their list. I can tell you it is an unpleasant experience being there.
As far as I know, I have never done anything anywhere that would cause someone to think of me as a potential terrorist.
I wonder if portions of the Patriot Act would make this act an act of terrorisim. I'm not sure if I feel that would be a valid use of the Patriot Act or not however, I do feel that attempting to limit someone's freedom of speech is morally, ethically, and legally wrong. Probably doubly so when it comes to limiting the political process. I am not a member of either major party but I do recognize their role in society and government.
I also know that the two groups in this country that have done the most to limit political speech in this country are the Republican and Democrat parties. Their respective politcal machines hoard the publicity and raise money and as a result they are able to out-shout all the other voices that deserve to be heard. There are other political parties out there that have valid agendas and good ideas (the Greens and the Libritarians come to mind immediately). But the reality is that the two party system that has evolved in this country has served more to divide us than unite us. Most people are members of one party or another based on their feelings about a single issue that they feel strongly about (abortion for instance). They go along with the other planks in their party's platform simply because they agree with the one issue.
In some ways, I'm pretty far to one side and in other ways I'm pretty far to the other. In general my leanings I feel are based on some core values that I got from my parents and my church others from values that I found for myself. Because of these things, I can't be a member of either major party, I run hot or cold, not lukewarm and I'm sorry but I will not comprimise my feelings just to play on one of the big teams.
Unfortunately for me, this means that I do not have much of a voice in Washington D.C.
There are a number of reasons why places like North America and Europe should be weaning themselves away from petrolium based fuels.
First, there is the economic reasons. Unless you are in a country that is a petro exporter, you have a financial reason. Why make some country overseas rich when you can grow your own fuel and keep the money in country? Any country that buys more than it sells from other countries is giving it's wealth away. Spending the money closer to home makes your economy better.
Second, there is the issue of security. If a counrty depends on imported energy, they are at the mercy of the countries that they import it from. A cartel of these exporting nations carries heavy political clout. They can in a sense control a much larger country by manipulating their production.
Third, By using agricultural products as feedstock, we are making the agricultural industry healthier and more profitable. In most first world nations, the agricultural industry has been hit hard. Many farms have failed and a "way of life" is in jepordy. What this means is that there is less diversity in that area of business which actually weakens it and makes it even more susecptible to grand scale failure.
We are at a place in our history where it appears practical to start moving away from a petro based economy (which when you think about it us what we really have today). We have successfully proven that E85 cars and trucks can and do work. Our governments can now safely mandate that internal combustion engines that run on E85 be built into all new cars and that all diesel engines be capable of burning "bio-diesel." If this is mandated, you can bet fuel producers will provide the traveling public with the fuel. Frankly, this would be less invasive than the switch to unleaded was in the 70's.
To do this in the United States, we will need a progressive leader who is not tied to the traditional oil-interests.
Think for a minute how much stronger our economy would be if we made our own fuel. Then think about how much more secure we would be if we did not have to import the lions share of our petro from oil exporting nations.
It is pretty obvious to me that this is something that needs to be started now. It will take perhaps twenty years to complete but the results will be worth it!
The problem with public terminals isn't so much the terminals but the public. Therefore thin clients are probably your best solution.
You will still have problems. Given the opportunity and enough time, the public will do things to your terminals that nobody ever imiagined anyone would do. If they can't change some software setting, they will do things like put tape under the mouse or unlpug the terminal from the wall.
To a certain sect of people, a "bullet proof" public terminal is a challenge - the fact that it is so locked down is a tempting invitation to them. If they can't break the software, then they will go after the hardware. They are like vandals. You really can't beat them but you have to find ways to endure them. Attempting to beat them will only make them do things that really make matters worse for you.
The best bet to protect public terminals is to control access by requiring identification of the users and checking thir use of the machines. Of course that makes them a little less public.
Our remote people who never go into an office (who we have well over a thousand of) have admin rights on their boxes and many (because of their location) do not have broadband service. This makes it near impossible to push out patches to them. We send them updates via CD as needed (which is too often in my book). They are the ones who get severly infected with spyware.
There are some malware that get into boxes that have less than admin rights also. This even happend to my kids at home over the weekend - and they only have user rights and the box is patched with everything except for last weeks patch!
Slashdot Mirror
Money has to be trusted but it also has to be cheap to produce. The article noted that it now costs about nine cents to produce the hundered dollar bill as opposed to six and a half cents before. This is a significant increase. It shows they are taking counterfitting seriously.
There are many things that can be done to make money safer - including RFID type technologies. But each one of them adds cost to the production of the note. It can actually make it too expensive to produce I suppose. The money to do this comes from somewhere.
Speaking in general terms all costs are always passed on to the consumer somehow. So in a sense, the more it costs to make a bill, the less value the bill actually represents.
How can you reduce costs and stop counterfitters? By the methods most countries are trying today. Using special papers, special inks, special printing methods and extreme quality control.
Visa, Master Card and others would prefeer that money be replaced by little plastic cards and a great deal of trust in the banking system. But that cost is just to extreme to justify. Besides, there is a tradition that is hard to break.
Counterfitters are sure to be around for a very long time. The people charged with protecting the monitary systems will have to continue to make adjustments to ensure these crooks can be caught. But in the long run, it will be their own greed that will do them in every time.
Would it be waste or product? If I am not mistaken, the reactors were created with the intent of making the matterial. So, no it was product used.
Still I doubt that many would agree that it would be wise to use nuclear weapons willy-nilly to dispose of all of our nuclear waste. Is that what you are advocating?
It has been many years since I read the headlines and articles about Chernobyl and I am by no means an educated physicist. I only have a very elementary grasp of the physics involved. I am a lay-person.
As I recall, the Russians (up to the accident) felt that their reactor design had some significant advantages over the much more complex American designs. The fact that carbon was used to moderate the process along with the simple method of controlling the fuel (where they felt if something were to happen the rods would be immediately quenched) was much safer. They were (of course) proven wrong by the accident. The super-overheated steam in essence pushed the rods in the wrong direction starting a fire and blowing the top off of the pile.
Am I in essence right? Or did I not understand something? It has been a long time.
I remember thinking about it like what happens when you put tiny bit of hamburger on a red-hot skillet - it just sort of dances and lifts off of the metal or maybe a better mental picture is like when you pour a big gulp of water in the radiator of a very overheated car - the water just about instantly pukes back out because of the steam.
TMI did release a small amount of radioactive gasses.
TMI was a failure of a nuclear plant. The safety systems worked and stopped it just short of a meltdown. But it was far too close.
Chernobyl was a terrible disaster but the pile itself was engineered with safety in mind. In many ways, this kind of reactor was considered safer than the kinds of reactors common in the US.
So, it was fool-proof until someone went and designed a better fool?
I guess that about sums it up - eh?
But, it's the box they are trying to save!
Actually I do agree with you. But this is the USA and politics are how these things get done. The idea behind Yucca mountain is probably very safe and sound but in the 1970's when Swedish scientists were looking at a similar scenereo they discovered that drilling holes into a granite mountain caused what they described as micro-fissures that spread much like a crack in a windshield. For that reason, they felt that the 10,000 year goal was unattainable using the "mined mountain" method.
I don't know if there is a solution that will pass the legal, political, and scientific muster. Yucca mountain may be as close as it gets. I'm not saying that I agree or disagree but that I am sceptical that all the hurdles will really be cleared. We are closer today than we ever have been - I'll agree with that but until the first casks are sealed in the mountain, we don't have it. Even then, we may see some sort of failure or legal problem that could stop the facility.
But it sure beats big casks stored all over the place.
Perhaps I'm showing my unorthidox leftist leanings here but I really don't think of this as a political issue. I think of it as an environmental issue.
The US has not properly disposed of one ounce of high level nuclear reactor waste ever. We are storing it until a safe disposal facility is built. There are a lot of politics surrounding that with Nevada being the loser. Yucca mountain is really far from complete and may never be finished if the opponents win when they have their day in court.
If the US can not properly dispose of the waste, how can we expect a developing nation to do so?
The US has had Three Mile Island and Russia has had Chernobyl. Both of these countries have significant resources to bring to bear against the problem but have suffered the consiquences of accidents. How could Hati, Trinidad, or some other less sophisticated, resource poor nation deal? The answer is pretty obvious. If something goes wrong, they couldn't. And we probably couldn't get there in time.
Chernobyl was designed to be "accident proof" if anything went wrong, the pile would quench itself.
Three Mile Island was designed with multiple redundant safety systems and was manned by skilled engineers around the clock.
Can we really believe that these machines are so well engineered that they can withstand thirty years of use without an accident?
Can I dream for a minute? I want a machine that would be different things at different times. It would function as a typical PDA when you wanted that.
When plugged into a port on your computer it would do more than "hot synch" - it would be an auxillary drive where I could store files I wanted to transport, it's display would act as an accessory display for the computer (in my case, displaying RSS feeds). It would also share the computer's peripherials when docked with that machine. A host application installed on the PC would allow me to do things on the PDA from the desktop and would allow me to "push" some applications on to the PDA.
When docked in my car, it would peform computing functions related to the car or serve up MP3 files to the stereo. It would track MPG and tell me when my car was due for service and, it would read those cryptic error codes.
When in contact with a wi-fi service, I could get a VNC connection back to my primary computer.
The IR port could intercommunicate with printers and other IR equipped machines so that a presenter could "beam" me a copy of the presentation.
Accessories for it would include wireless keyboards, mice, and other computer like peripherials. It would have a USB 2.0 port and perhaps even a firewire port.
The designers would make the machine open in the sense that they would publish everything about the interfaces allowing designers to build other cool peripherials. It would be open enough to allow ports of Linux or Windows CE to the machine.
Oh, and it would also be a phone and a "real" GPS unit.
I don't disagree with you at all. Windows must be made more secure and it should not require regular repairs by the end user (in the form of patches) very often if ever.
The only point that I was really trying to make is that the term "secure" is really unattainable. If someone wants something badly enough, has enoush resources, and enough time they can get through all of the security we can put up. Secure is different from secure enough. But secure enough is different for each individual, each company, and each kind of use.
We do not need a secure operating system, we need one that is secure enough for our needs. Yet each of us have different needs. Makes it kinda hard for the target to get defined beyond a minimum set of standards don't ya think?
So, in ten years we may have "secure enough" operating systems. Perhaps they will be sold according to security level? You pay extra for more security? Or do we all pay for Ft Knox level security when what we need is more akin to a padlock?
At first I wanted to make some wry but funny comment about Microsoft's ability to make anything secure but as I was trying to come up with something I realized that "secure" is the sort of term that is hard to define.
What is "secure" anyhow? Is "As secure as a nuclear weapons facility" really secure? Not if we believe 60 Minutes last night. How about "As secure as Ft. Knox" - there was something a few months ago that said that Ft. Knox was susceptable to attack (especially air attack if I remember right).
So, nothing is really sercure. Secure is really an analog thing. The keys to your car make your car resonably secure (and if you want more security, add an alarm). But is your car really secure? No, many a locked and alarmed car have been ripped off.
Banks are secure right? If so, why are they robbed?
Windows will never be secure, because nothing can ever be 100 percent B.S.-free "secure" Not Linux, not Windows, not Ft Knox.
Will Windows be reasonably secure in ten years? Probably by many people's standards, yes. But there will still be need for added security when it is called for. Just like a typical bank has more security than a typical house.
Of all of the freedoms that people in the United States of America enjoy, perhaps the freedom of speech is the most important. Of all forms of speech, perhaps the most important is "political speech."
Why? Because if we can't speak out against our government, we can't effect change. We end up with an oppressive government. If there is one right that sets a free country apart it is our right to agree or disagree with those in power. While there are obvious limits to other kinds of speech (you can't yell fire in a crowded theater) there really can't be the same kinds of limits to political speech in our free society (with perhaps the exception of slander/libel).
This freedom extends to such unpopular organizations as the KKK - and is what gives them the right to speak their unpopular brand of politics. It extends to every man, woman, and child regardless of their political persuasion and it trumps the rights of others who may disagree (ie the NAACP can not stop the KKK from disseminating their hate, nor can the KKK quell the NAACP from their rights to speak against the KKK).
As I've just demonstrated, the right to political speech can sometimes be uncomfortable but it is the right of every citizen of the United States.
Still, if it can be proven that using degradable, water soluble, organic chalk is a form of vandalism then perhaps the police had a right to detain and confiscate but according to the article that is not what has happened. Right now it seems like the NYC Police are acting as agents for the RNC and simply limiting this man's right to free speech.
That is un-American and unconstitutional! Not to mention unconscionable.
Gee life is a bunch of disappointments. First I found out Santa was really daddy and now SCO tells me Linux doesn't exist!
I think I'm gonna take a nap. Wake me when this is over.
You smell that vapor? Sounds like bullshit to me.
Someone has figured out how to build a "spam firewall" that is different from everything out there. Yeah right. No details to tell us exactly how it is different.
My guess is that they took a software based product using baysien filters and some other common anti-spam filtering technology and packaged it in hardware. Won't really improve the function of the machine but could possibly help with performance (process mail faster).
I won't believe it is anything else until I actually see it. Unfortunately, I don't think that will happen anytime soon.
I'll admit that the Olympics have some pretty cool devices to measure speed and performance (as well as to detect who is cheating).
I also have to wonder about why these devices are developed. I know that this is a sort of "If they can put a man on the moon why can't they..." type of arguement (but) why are people so willing to develop things for entertainment - and sports is entertainment (even the olympics) when there never seems to be enough money for developing technology that will help the poor or treat rare diseases?
I know that people are willing to pay for the products and that is why (it is the profit motive) but when you think about it, isn't that really kind of sick? That we as people care more about our entertainment than we think about other people?
Maybe it is just that I am extra grumpy tonight. I enjoy entertainment too. But when you think about it, in all seriousness, we do kinda go out of our way for things like the olympics when there are so many other serious things in this world that need money, technology, and attention.
I'm not without sympathy, I've already told my story on Slashdot. I've seen it too, elderly grandmothers being wanded while a obviously foreign person is all but waived through and frankly these things offend me. It troubles me that these things work the way they do because they seem simply setup to fail. I realize that it is probably impossible to screen everyone to the nth degree and that a random method of doing some extra screening is intended to make the risk for a terrorist to be unacceptable. But grandma's and grandpa's as well as people traveling with an extra burden (ie parents with small children, wheelchair bound travelers and so on) should be able to be visibly excluded from these extra security measures by any half-way intelligent TSA agent.
Recently in Minneapolis, a trial program was launched which allows registered passengers to bypass some of the security screening processes. Perhaps, something similar could be done to allow these special needs customers easier access to travel. Maybe when they make their reservations they tell the agent that they have special needs and explain them - the information could be forwarded to the TSA where a TSA agent could pre-qualify the traveler(s) and issue a time limited card they could show the agent at the airport? While this would be a slight invasion of privacy it would be less public and less humiliating than having to undergo all the crap at the airport. For many, that would be acceptable.
Frankly, I think that the security procedures at airports are pretty much just pabulum for the traveling public anyhow. A lot of money is spent (er, wasted) on it which drives the cost of flying way up. Most air traffice remains business related so many of these costs are born by business' which must pass them along to their customers.
I'm not saying that all security is bogus. We learned from DB Cooper and other hijackers that some security measures are required for airlines. This was unfortunately underscored by September 11th. I'm not even saying that we didn't need to increase security after 9//11. All I am really saying is that I think that much of the money that has been spend on obvious security measures has been wasted.
We could do far better by quietly identifying threats and dealing with them before they ever got into the airport. We could require people traveling in the US with passports to undergo background checks and pre-register to fly. We could require proof of citizenship and do criminal background checks before allowing people to fly. Heck, we would probably even catch a few drug smugglers in the process too.
Aluminum oxide is a very tough, very abrasive matterial, it is what is used in sandpaper. When it is ground very fine and mixed with acrylics or urethanes it is being applied as a finish to flooring which is guaranteed for up to fifty years by some companies.
I'm not sure that it is transparent enough to apply as a coating on a DVD or CD though. Maybe this "transparent aluminum" can cross that barrier though? I dunno. Sounds cool though.
I think what is coolest about this story is that something that was science fiction a couple of years ago is now (as in already) something that is real.
Funny you should mention that. My laptop bag has frequently been swabbed for "explosives" and none have ever been found. My job does sometimes take me to manufacturing plants where the fertilizer is made. But then again, I never take the bag into the plant, just the office. Things are pretty clean in there.
Just curious - Could we work for the same company?
I do not buy one way tickets and usually get my tickets two weeks in advance so those are not the reasons. Also, my employer is listed on the tickets (a large, well known company). We purchase our tickets from a travel agency that only does corporate work and, all of my information is registered so that the transaction is easy.
I fly quite a bit for work and know that for a time I made some sort of list somewhere. Apparently after a while, if you pass enough of their tests you are removed from the list.
The e-ticket machines would not issue me tickets, telling me that I had to get my tickets at the counter. I was no longer asked if I wanted to upgrade to first class for special price... The boarding agents stuck little colored dots with initials on them on my boarding passes - apparently as cues to people down-stream. It got frustrating that everywhere I went I and my luggage were singled out for special attention. Up to the point where my luggage would not be accepted curbside, My luggage and I would be taken into a little room and searched. In one case, even sealed packages were opened. As I boarded the airplane, I was always one of the passengers called for a random search.
Durring one of these searches, I mentioned to the agent that I must have made someone's list somewhere. He shook his head up and down as he said "I can't say that sir!" I had my answer and just resigned myself to being watched.
Then one day, as suddenly as it started, it stopped. My guess is that I satisfied the intellegence built into the database that I was not a threat and it removed me from the list.
I do not know what I did to make their list nor do I really know what I did to get off of their list. I can tell you it is an unpleasant experience being there.
As far as I know, I have never done anything anywhere that would cause someone to think of me as a potential terrorist.
Will it make the fishing better? Where are the warm water return pipes located? I'm gonna get my fishing rod!
Oops that was two questions. If I only get one I'll make it the second question.
I wonder if portions of the Patriot Act would make this act an act of terrorisim. I'm not sure if I feel that would be a valid use of the Patriot Act or not however, I do feel that attempting to limit someone's freedom of speech is morally, ethically, and legally wrong. Probably doubly so when it comes to limiting the political process. I am not a member of either major party but I do recognize their role in society and government.
I also know that the two groups in this country that have done the most to limit political speech in this country are the Republican and Democrat parties. Their respective politcal machines hoard the publicity and raise money and as a result they are able to out-shout all the other voices that deserve to be heard. There are other political parties out there that have valid agendas and good ideas (the Greens and the Libritarians come to mind immediately). But the reality is that the two party system that has evolved in this country has served more to divide us than unite us. Most people are members of one party or another based on their feelings about a single issue that they feel strongly about (abortion for instance). They go along with the other planks in their party's platform simply because they agree with the one issue.
In some ways, I'm pretty far to one side and in other ways I'm pretty far to the other. In general my leanings I feel are based on some core values that I got from my parents and my church others from values that I found for myself. Because of these things, I can't be a member of either major party, I run hot or cold, not lukewarm and I'm sorry but I will not comprimise my feelings just to play on one of the big teams.
Unfortunately for me, this means that I do not have much of a voice in Washington D.C.
There are a number of reasons why places like North America and Europe should be weaning themselves away from petrolium based fuels.
First, there is the economic reasons. Unless you are in a country that is a petro exporter, you have a financial reason. Why make some country overseas rich when you can grow your own fuel and keep the money in country? Any country that buys more than it sells from other countries is giving it's wealth away. Spending the money closer to home makes your economy better.
Second, there is the issue of security. If a counrty depends on imported energy, they are at the mercy of the countries that they import it from. A cartel of these exporting nations carries heavy political clout. They can in a sense control a much larger country by manipulating their production.
Third, By using agricultural products as feedstock, we are making the agricultural industry healthier and more profitable. In most first world nations, the agricultural industry has been hit hard. Many farms have failed and a "way of life" is in jepordy. What this means is that there is less diversity in that area of business which actually weakens it and makes it even more susecptible to grand scale failure.
We are at a place in our history where it appears practical to start moving away from a petro based economy (which when you think about it us what we really have today). We have successfully proven that E85 cars and trucks can and do work. Our governments can now safely mandate that internal combustion engines that run on E85 be built into all new cars and that all diesel engines be capable of burning "bio-diesel." If this is mandated, you can bet fuel producers will provide the traveling public with the fuel. Frankly, this would be less invasive than the switch to unleaded was in the 70's.
To do this in the United States, we will need a progressive leader who is not tied to the traditional oil-interests.
Think for a minute how much stronger our economy would be if we made our own fuel. Then think about how much more secure we would be if we did not have to import the lions share of our petro from oil exporting nations.
It is pretty obvious to me that this is something that needs to be started now. It will take perhaps twenty years to complete but the results will be worth it!
The problem with public terminals isn't so much the terminals but the public. Therefore thin clients are probably your best solution.
You will still have problems. Given the opportunity and enough time, the public will do things to your terminals that nobody ever imiagined anyone would do. If they can't change some software setting, they will do things like put tape under the mouse or unlpug the terminal from the wall.
To a certain sect of people, a "bullet proof" public terminal is a challenge - the fact that it is so locked down is a tempting invitation to them. If they can't break the software, then they will go after the hardware. They are like vandals. You really can't beat them but you have to find ways to endure them. Attempting to beat them will only make them do things that really make matters worse for you.
The best bet to protect public terminals is to control access by requiring identification of the users and checking thir use of the machines. Of course that makes them a little less public.
Our remote people who never go into an office (who we have well over a thousand of) have admin rights on their boxes and many (because of their location) do not have broadband service. This makes it near impossible to push out patches to them. We send them updates via CD as needed (which is too often in my book). They are the ones who get severly infected with spyware.
There are some malware that get into boxes that have less than admin rights also. This even happend to my kids at home over the weekend - and they only have user rights and the box is patched with everything except for last weeks patch!
DRM them, DRM them to hell, DRM them anyhow!