I hate that Bush is in office, but this statement utterly nullifies any kind of rational argument.
Er, why? Because we're tired of being reminded? I worry that the same sort of political apathy will eventually settle over our perceptions of Tuesday's disaster. In a year or so, if somebody writes a post about the potential for terrorism, will we just blow them off?
Swept under the rug or not, this past election was a disaster. The events of last November will affect what happens in the next few months. Stallman may have chosen a harsh way to say it, but it's hard to forget that Bush is a controversial president. Most Americans voted for the other guy, and an unelected body declared the winner. These are the facts that we have to live with, whether we agree with the outcome or not. Not only does this call into question Bush's vision for America (in crisis or peace), but it places Bush in a weak position. A more stable president (of either party) might be more cautious, or less desperate to be perceived as taking action.
I think you're missing the point of a jihad. It's a Holy War. He can't lose.
I don't see Bin Laden as a gun-crazed madman. He may be insane, but I believe he has done a certain amount of calculation or he'd be dead by now. The first goal in a holy war is getting people to join up. A holy war that nobody embraces is dead before it gets off the ground. Bin Laden's efforts, while heinous, are calculated to bring retribution and win the hearts and minds of Muslims all over the middle east. I believe he has some idea of how far he can push before even America's foes look at him as more of a threat than a leader.
Don't forget that even a holy war can be derailed by a nuclear war. That scenario isn't imagineable at this moment, but given a large scale nuclear escalation, it might. Imagine losing 10 American cities. Would we be willing to wipe out all life in a significant portion of the Middle East? It sounds crazy, but don't you think we'd all be a little bit crazy by that point?
How about developing sustainable green sources of power (wind, tidal, solar) to lighten our economic reliance on "tradition" infrastructures of non-renewable resources and their exporters?
Yes, this goes without saying. Our continued dependence on oil is going to cost us over the long run. Unfortunately, even given a crash-program to develop alternative energy sources, it's extremely unlikely that we'd be able to fully wean ourselves within a decade.
Everything else that you say makes sense as well. Unfortunately, as you say, the cowboys have saddled up. It's hard to decide whether this reaction could ever have been avoided, given the magnitude of Tuesday's attacks. It would seem to me that our (justifiable) inability to control our rage was probably the primary reason for the action. Our only hope now is that our government is crafty enough to sidestep the trap that's been laid for us.
I read once that Sikh men are required to carry a knife on their person at all times. I don't know if this custom is still in practice, at least in the USA. If it is, the likelyhood is that we're going to be seeing a lot of "he looked like a terrorist, and whaddyaknow, we found a knife on him when we pulled him in! He must have been on his way to hijack the 7-11" from police all over the country. Or, when passed through the CNN munge filter, "an armed man [turban footage] was arrested by local police, after being reported as suspicious..."
PULL OUT OF SAUDI ARABIA, STOP SUPPORTING ISRAEL, AND MIND YOUR OWN FUCKING BUSINESS, AMERICA!
Your post was reasonably intelligent until you got to that insanity at the end. You're absolutely right. We should definitely pull out of Saudi Arabia, and hand over the world's largest oil supplies to Saddam Hussein or the next guy to come along. This is brilliant. And when the oil ceases to be available, we should just sit back and enjoy the millions of western deaths that will result (unfortunate, but true)... I mean, it's not like we (and the rest of the world) will just find ourselves fighting a much bloodier war somewhere down the line. And we'll feel great that we're not meddling, as we watch internal warfare killing tens of thousands across the region.
We should also stop supporting Israel. Because really, our activities in Israel and Saudi Arabia are the only reasons that we're disliked in the Middle East. As long as we pull out, we can be guaranteed that nobody will ever bother us again... So who needs the Mossad, which happens to be the only intelligence agency in the world that has any ability to gather intelligence in that part of the world? And don't forget about the strong possibility of a devastating nuclear war in that region. If you think Tuesday's incidents were ugly, wait until your policies are implemented.
I doubt that such a system will make too much of a difference. The pentagon attack could easily have been considered a landing by most on-board systems. A similar "landing" attack in New York could have killed thousands, without being as much of a symbolic attack.
I really doubt that Airbus can unrecoverably take control away from the pilots, anyway. Imagine if a proximity-alarm system malfunctioned and there was no way to take manual control? I would guess that the terrorists trained to use two of the most popular mid-size aircraft in domestic use. I don't think Airbuses are at that point yet in the US.
I've got to admit that I actually think in this case a single nuke should be used precisely for deterrent effect on future terrorist attacks... The problems I've got is that frankly, there isn't a target in Afghanistan that's worth a nuke.
Just to elaborate on this, as a resident of what is probably the most nuke-vulnerable city in the US. A couple of points:
1. There are very few tactical uses for a nuclear weapon that cannot be accomplished with a large number of conventional weapons. Especially in a country like Afghanistan. Tactical nukes might make sense as a last-ditch army-vaporizing defense, but that's a different war.
2. Even somebody like Bin Laden should realize that there is little to be gained from a nuclear attack on the US (fingers crossed.) I can only assume that Bin Laden's goal is to instigate a broad-scale American military campaign that will strengthen his following in the middle east. Incidents such as the embassy bombings, and even the horrible attack on Tuesday, can be explained to angry people who have been the victims of American bombing. A nuclear attack is a different story. For all that Bin Laden can say about American behavior in the Middle East, he can't say that we've ever engaged in genocide (though he might love it if he could say this.) It would seriously undermine his support, probably drive every sane person in the area to truly revile him... I can only assume that this wouldn't benefit him in any way.
Also, Bin Laden probably realizes that the one thing that could truly destroy him and his cause is broad-scale nuclear retaliation from the US. While a conventional campaign might kill thousands, it's likely that Bin Laden's people will see this as a recruiting bonanza, not a serious military loss. But a full scale nuclear response by the US could throw a serious wrench into his plans, even wipe him out. If he chose to escalate from that point, he could find his war rendered moot. I would assume that Bin Laden wants to needle us enough to bring on a retaliation, not complete inhilation.
3. Which brings me to my final point: why we shouldn't initiate a nuclear confrontation. It's not in Bin Laden's interest (I hope) to start a nuclear war. He may be crazy and willing to shed blood, but he wants there to be a middle east left when the jihad is over. But if we do go nuclear, it'll only be a matter of time before we can count on response in kind. Or put it this way... If we want to go nuclear, we'd better be prepared to go all the way. Otherwise, we're guaranteed to lose at least one city in the next few years-- somebody, maybe not even Bin Laden, will find a way to do it. Whatever you may feel about the US, nobody believes that we're going to initiate a decisive nuclear attack against the region (which contains many countries that are currently on our side, but might not continue to be.)
Going nuclear first is madness. Tactical nukes are unnecessary. I can only assume that the people in charge realize this as well.
A few years ago Bin Laden called for a holy war against the US. No one came.
This is an excellent point. Having digested the situation for a few days and filed away some of the emotion... It's becoming increasingly apparent that we're playing right into Bin Laden's hands. From his unusual denial of responsibility (makes it easy to say our attack was unprovoked, at least to those who'll listen) to the Taliban's call for holy war, it's clear that his group has managed the situation very carefully.
Now everything depends on our response. My only hope is that Bin Laden's craftiness is matched by that of our own government. With luck, somebody in power understands what he's trying to do, and is working on a plan to get him without giving him his holy war. I can't imagine that we have much to gain from bombing the rubble that is Afghanistan, and Bin Laden knows that. I just hope that the folks in charge know it as well.
As I understand it - if a Cell phone can't get a signal, it boosts it's power output in an attempt to connect.
My understanding (and it may be wrong) is as follows:
- The cellphone listens for a carrier signal from one or more towers.
- If a signal is detected, only then does it attempt to register with the transmitter.
That way a phone doesn't burn through its entire battery every time you leave a coverage area. There's really no reason to transmit anything if you can't hear the tower (which is a more powerful transmitter than you are.)
Usenet is too slow. Yahoo is too full of bigots and idiots. Other random discussion boards don't seem to be getting the number and quality of posts (yes, believe it or not, Slashdot's news quality has been quite good if you ignore some of the junk.)
Ever since this thing happened, I've been getting a lot of up to date information off of the Slashdot stories, browsing Newest First. I can assure you that the local news, CNN/MSNBC/BBC.com are not as quick to get this information out there.
I seriously doubt I'm going to get spied on by our government over a few mp3 files lying around...
But this sort of thing has happened in the past. It may not have involved MP3 files, but people have been persecuted for things an American might consider equally trivial. Are you, or have you ever been associated with the Communist party?
It seems strange to us that an otherwise sane populace could ever elect or support some of the totalitarian regimes that we read about in history textbooks. Strange, at least, unless people's actions are taken in the proper context. Fear and uncertainty, continuous crisis-- these things gradually lead people down a dangerous path. Fascism wasn't born full-grown; it developed over time in people's minds as a reaction to constant fear and anger.
You imagine that Americans are too sane to give up any of the really important liberties. You imagine that we're a strong people, not capable of being manipulated by our leaders. If that's the case, then how did we arrive at McCarthyism? What about Vietnam, the bombing of Cambodia? Japanese internment camps? Yes, we moved on from many of these mistakes, but only because we realized that the threat was not what we thought it was. And not before we'd done a lot of damage. But if we're really "at war" now, meaning that this Tuesday's horror will become a way of life for us, look for America to change in a great many ways. Don't count on our sense of morality and righteousbess to hold us back from great mistakes.
In any case, don't expect simple black-and-white arguments and solutions. It's the nature of society that we all have to give up some of our freedoms. But we all have a duty to prevent this abdication from snowballing into totalitarianism. We have to prevent ourselves from doing harm to our fellows-- this is why we have a case against Microsoft. But it's also important that we question every act that is taken in our name that might impact our freedom. There are plenty who have desperately tried to keep the government away from Microsoft, regardless of the court findings, simply because they believe the government should exercise great restraint when interfering with a corporation's rights. Hopefully there would be an even greater number who who would defend our right to communicate privately because this issue affects all of us. Unfortunately, after this disaster, those people are likely to be more concerned with the perception of safety than with abstract concepts such as personal freedom.
I believe in safety too. But what we need to ask ourselves, before we shrug this law off, is whether it provides enough safety to balance out its impact on our freedom. In order to do so, we need to be rational about it. At this point, there is unlikely to be any sort of rational discussion on the issue, and this is why we have an even greater duty to bring it up.
A system should be designed to take the warm air from all the floors and pass it through turbines before it exits the roof
There is an article on Discover's website about a similar technology for gleaning energy from very limited heat sources, such as roof-top solar collectors or even waste heat. It uses Ammonia because of the lower boiling point.
This scenario isn't specifically mentioned (actually, the article is about powering an air conditioning system with solar heat), but I can imagine that this would be a good application.
A known backdoor significantly decreases confidence in a crypto-system and will cause the bad guys to be more vague and/or use the uncrackable but less convenient "one time pad".
Why use one-time-pads when they can just go on using the algorithms that're out there? As others on this thread have said, you can't put the genie back in the bottle. Of course, preventing the development of more sophisticated systems will be a long-term goal (but don't expect it to be effective for many years.)
Look for steganography to become popular among terrorists.
The statement that George Bush "fled to various bunkers and seemed to shrink throughout the day" is rather disingenuous and short-sighted.
You're absolutely right on one point. It's not Bush's fault that he was shuttled all over the country.
I will say this, though. I've never truly understood the public function of the presidency. I've sometimes wondered why the nation so desperately needs a charismatic figure to line up behind, to the point where we elect criminals and people we don't entirely trust. But yesterday changed all of that. I saw the towers burning with my own eyes, and I was shaken up-- I didn't know if more was on the way, if I was safe where I was, what to do next. I wanted somebody to get on TV and say "this is a tragedy, but we've got things under control." Even though I've never liked Bush, I was glad that someone existed to fill that role.
It didn't bother me that Bush was in the air, I was glad that the Chief Executive was safe. And then he reached Louisiana and gave a speech, and it was devastating. I've never seen such a short, useless, unempathetic performance. He was reading off of a goddamn teleprompter, for chrissake! And he was reading poorly! I've seen fifth-grade plays that convey more emotion, confidence and skill.
Perhaps irrationally, I lost a lot of confidence in this nation at that point. The knowledge that Bush surrounds himself with intelligent people was not enough to reassure me; I wanted to know that we have a president who cares. I didn't expect him to shed tears-- I just wanted some emotion, be it anger, sadness, grief, anything. I also wanted something more substantial. Perhaps this last could have been attributed to lack of time... But when he reached the White House and for the rest of the day, we got little more; better reading skills, perhaps. But nothing to convince me that the guy cared.
I understand that Bush is a busy man, but we needed somebody to be there. There isn't a president we've elected in the last 20 years who couldn't have handled that situation. Why couldn't Bush?
His wife, on the other hand, was extraordinary on TV this morning. Not to mention Guiliani, who could for all intents and purposes have been the president.
Can't the anti-Katz contigent give their damn mouths a rest for a couple of days? I live in NYC, and any sort of coherent description of the scene is welcome.
Please. Don't be ridiculous. For anyone who has seen the cloud where downtown used to be... I can't imagine any sane person in this city giving the Red Cross a hard time.
A remaining amount up to $5 million in services, software and volunteers
First of all, this is a great thing. Thanks to Microsoft and all of the corporations for their generosity in the face of this disaster.
Having said that-- does anyone know how the software component of the second $5 million is being valued? How much does it cost Microsoft that much to give out software licenses?
I'm not trying to tear down what I consider to be an act of great good-- especially as Microsoft has also donated $5 million in cash. But the overvaluing of software and information has been used in so many negative ways that I would hate to see it here. It would be somewhat tasteless to inflate your perceived generosity by valuing software at list price. Perhaps this is not at all what Microsoft is doing. Please set me straight.
I'm thrilled to hear that they just found five firefighters downtown.
There have apparently been a couple of building evacuations this morning, and there is currently a certain amount of police/fire-dept activity in midtown. I'm going to hope this stuff is nothing more than precaution.
Unfortunately, the WTC-site seems to be a news black hole, even when nothing is actually happening on site. How many people heard that Israel has been running major manuevers in the West Bank? I only caught this at the bottom of the BBCs page. I would like to know what's going on elsewhere, especially if it's in Manhattan.
Re:Times of London says bin Laden under house arre
on
More WTC News
·
· Score: 1
Although it would appear that they are now in line for some serious bombage. If they didn't have Bin Laden, they might have an excuse for not putting him in our hands. Now that they say they've got him, they can't avoid responsibility if he isn't delivered to justice.
Re:fill the steel columns with water.
on
More WTC News
·
· Score: 1
Interesting. But what happens to those millions of gallons of encased water when they're super-heated? Aside from the possibility of explosion, super-heated steams is incredibly dangerous. The same would probably go for any other substance or gas. At worst, the survivors could drown in the stairwells.
Why does all of CNN's WTC-crash footage say "CNN Exclusive" on it?
Cheering and Killing in Brooklyn...????
on
More On Tragedy
·
· Score: 1
Extremely disturbing:
I don't know what to say about this. A friend of mine in [a Brooklyn neighborhood that shall remain nameless] just called and told me that a number of arabs (??) are dancing and cheering in the streets. One of them went up to her and said "why do you look so sad? this is a joyous day." I know that she isn't lying about this, but I'm not sure about her interpretation.
In addition, a Muslim woman hung a (Palestinian?) flag out of her window sometime today. Someone entered her apartment, beat up her husband and killed her (???). I find all of this hard to believe. Somebody please tell me that I'm wrong.
Re:A Day That Will Live In Irony
on
More On Tragedy
·
· Score: 1
Amazing.
But, as we all know by now, the buildings were actually designed to withstand the impact of a 707-- which is much smaller than the 757 and 767 that were used in this attack, let alone the monster that is a 747. The 707 was about the biggest jet around when Yamasaki & Co. designed the towers way back when.
Slashdot Mirror
Er, why? Because we're tired of being reminded? I worry that the same sort of political apathy will eventually settle over our perceptions of Tuesday's disaster. In a year or so, if somebody writes a post about the potential for terrorism, will we just blow them off?
Swept under the rug or not, this past election was a disaster. The events of last November will affect what happens in the next few months. Stallman may have chosen a harsh way to say it, but it's hard to forget that Bush is a controversial president. Most Americans voted for the other guy, and an unelected body declared the winner. These are the facts that we have to live with, whether we agree with the outcome or not. Not only does this call into question Bush's vision for America (in crisis or peace), but it places Bush in a weak position. A more stable president (of either party) might be more cautious, or less desperate to be perceived as taking action.
I don't see Bin Laden as a gun-crazed madman. He may be insane, but I believe he has done a certain amount of calculation or he'd be dead by now. The first goal in a holy war is getting people to join up. A holy war that nobody embraces is dead before it gets off the ground. Bin Laden's efforts, while heinous, are calculated to bring retribution and win the hearts and minds of Muslims all over the middle east. I believe he has some idea of how far he can push before even America's foes look at him as more of a threat than a leader.
Don't forget that even a holy war can be derailed by a nuclear war. That scenario isn't imagineable at this moment, but given a large scale nuclear escalation, it might. Imagine losing 10 American cities. Would we be willing to wipe out all life in a significant portion of the Middle East? It sounds crazy, but don't you think we'd all be a little bit crazy by that point?
Yes, this goes without saying. Our continued dependence on oil is going to cost us over the long run. Unfortunately, even given a crash-program to develop alternative energy sources, it's extremely unlikely that we'd be able to fully wean ourselves within a decade.
Everything else that you say makes sense as well. Unfortunately, as you say, the cowboys have saddled up. It's hard to decide whether this reaction could ever have been avoided, given the magnitude of Tuesday's attacks. It would seem to me that our (justifiable) inability to control our rage was probably the primary reason for the action. Our only hope now is that our government is crafty enough to sidestep the trap that's been laid for us.
I read once that Sikh men are required to carry a knife on their person at all times. I don't know if this custom is still in practice, at least in the USA. If it is, the likelyhood is that we're going to be seeing a lot of "he looked like a terrorist, and whaddyaknow, we found a knife on him when we pulled him in! He must have been on his way to hijack the 7-11" from police all over the country. Or, when passed through the CNN munge filter, "an armed man [turban footage] was arrested by local police, after being reported as suspicious..."
Your post was reasonably intelligent until you got to that insanity at the end. You're absolutely right. We should definitely pull out of Saudi Arabia, and hand over the world's largest oil supplies to Saddam Hussein or the next guy to come along. This is brilliant. And when the oil ceases to be available, we should just sit back and enjoy the millions of western deaths that will result (unfortunate, but true)... I mean, it's not like we (and the rest of the world) will just find ourselves fighting a much bloodier war somewhere down the line. And we'll feel great that we're not meddling, as we watch internal warfare killing tens of thousands across the region.
We should also stop supporting Israel. Because really, our activities in Israel and Saudi Arabia are the only reasons that we're disliked in the Middle East. As long as we pull out, we can be guaranteed that nobody will ever bother us again... So who needs the Mossad, which happens to be the only intelligence agency in the world that has any ability to gather intelligence in that part of the world? And don't forget about the strong possibility of a devastating nuclear war in that region. If you think Tuesday's incidents were ugly, wait until your policies are implemented.
I really doubt that Airbus can unrecoverably take control away from the pilots, anyway. Imagine if a proximity-alarm system malfunctioned and there was no way to take manual control? I would guess that the terrorists trained to use two of the most popular mid-size aircraft in domestic use. I don't think Airbuses are at that point yet in the US.
Just to elaborate on this, as a resident of what is probably the most nuke-vulnerable city in the US. A couple of points:
1. There are very few tactical uses for a nuclear weapon that cannot be accomplished with a large number of conventional weapons. Especially in a country like Afghanistan. Tactical nukes might make sense as a last-ditch army-vaporizing defense, but that's a different war.
2. Even somebody like Bin Laden should realize that there is little to be gained from a nuclear attack on the US (fingers crossed.) I can only assume that Bin Laden's goal is to instigate a broad-scale American military campaign that will strengthen his following in the middle east. Incidents such as the embassy bombings, and even the horrible attack on Tuesday, can be explained to angry people who have been the victims of American bombing. A nuclear attack is a different story. For all that Bin Laden can say about American behavior in the Middle East, he can't say that we've ever engaged in genocide (though he might love it if he could say this.) It would seriously undermine his support, probably drive every sane person in the area to truly revile him... I can only assume that this wouldn't benefit him in any way.
Also, Bin Laden probably realizes that the one thing that could truly destroy him and his cause is broad-scale nuclear retaliation from the US. While a conventional campaign might kill thousands, it's likely that Bin Laden's people will see this as a recruiting bonanza, not a serious military loss. But a full scale nuclear response by the US could throw a serious wrench into his plans, even wipe him out. If he chose to escalate from that point, he could find his war rendered moot. I would assume that Bin Laden wants to needle us enough to bring on a retaliation, not complete inhilation.
3. Which brings me to my final point: why we shouldn't initiate a nuclear confrontation. It's not in Bin Laden's interest (I hope) to start a nuclear war. He may be crazy and willing to shed blood, but he wants there to be a middle east left when the jihad is over. But if we do go nuclear, it'll only be a matter of time before we can count on response in kind. Or put it this way... If we want to go nuclear, we'd better be prepared to go all the way. Otherwise, we're guaranteed to lose at least one city in the next few years-- somebody, maybe not even Bin Laden, will find a way to do it. Whatever you may feel about the US, nobody believes that we're going to initiate a decisive nuclear attack against the region (which contains many countries that are currently on our side, but might not continue to be.)
Going nuclear first is madness. Tactical nukes are unnecessary. I can only assume that the people in charge realize this as well.
This is an excellent point. Having digested the situation for a few days and filed away some of the emotion... It's becoming increasingly apparent that we're playing right into Bin Laden's hands. From his unusual denial of responsibility (makes it easy to say our attack was unprovoked, at least to those who'll listen) to the Taliban's call for holy war, it's clear that his group has managed the situation very carefully.
Now everything depends on our response. My only hope is that Bin Laden's craftiness is matched by that of our own government. With luck, somebody in power understands what he's trying to do, and is working on a plan to get him without giving him his holy war. I can't imagine that we have much to gain from bombing the rubble that is Afghanistan, and Bin Laden knows that. I just hope that the folks in charge know it as well.
My understanding (and it may be wrong) is as follows:
- The cellphone listens for a carrier signal from one or more towers.
- If a signal is detected, only then does it attempt to register with the transmitter.
That way a phone doesn't burn through its entire battery every time you leave a coverage area. There's really no reason to transmit anything if you can't hear the tower (which is a more powerful transmitter than you are.)
Ever since this thing happened, I've been getting a lot of up to date information off of the Slashdot stories, browsing Newest First. I can assure you that the local news, CNN/MSNBC/BBC.com are not as quick to get this information out there.
But this sort of thing has happened in the past. It may not have involved MP3 files, but people have been persecuted for things an American might consider equally trivial. Are you, or have you ever been associated with the Communist party?
It seems strange to us that an otherwise sane populace could ever elect or support some of the totalitarian regimes that we read about in history textbooks. Strange, at least, unless people's actions are taken in the proper context. Fear and uncertainty, continuous crisis-- these things gradually lead people down a dangerous path. Fascism wasn't born full-grown; it developed over time in people's minds as a reaction to constant fear and anger.
You imagine that Americans are too sane to give up any of the really important liberties. You imagine that we're a strong people, not capable of being manipulated by our leaders. If that's the case, then how did we arrive at McCarthyism? What about Vietnam, the bombing of Cambodia? Japanese internment camps? Yes, we moved on from many of these mistakes, but only because we realized that the threat was not what we thought it was. And not before we'd done a lot of damage. But if we're really "at war" now, meaning that this Tuesday's horror will become a way of life for us, look for America to change in a great many ways. Don't count on our sense of morality and righteousbess to hold us back from great mistakes.
In any case, don't expect simple black-and-white arguments and solutions. It's the nature of society that we all have to give up some of our freedoms. But we all have a duty to prevent this abdication from snowballing into totalitarianism. We have to prevent ourselves from doing harm to our fellows-- this is why we have a case against Microsoft. But it's also important that we question every act that is taken in our name that might impact our freedom. There are plenty who have desperately tried to keep the government away from Microsoft, regardless of the court findings, simply because they believe the government should exercise great restraint when interfering with a corporation's rights. Hopefully there would be an even greater number who who would defend our right to communicate privately because this issue affects all of us. Unfortunately, after this disaster, those people are likely to be more concerned with the perception of safety than with abstract concepts such as personal freedom.
I believe in safety too. But what we need to ask ourselves, before we shrug this law off, is whether it provides enough safety to balance out its impact on our freedom. In order to do so, we need to be rational about it. At this point, there is unlikely to be any sort of rational discussion on the issue, and this is why we have an even greater duty to bring it up.
What sort of damage would those spinning turbine blades do if they were shattered, perhaps by the impact (accidental, even) of a small plane?
There is an article on Discover's website about a similar technology for gleaning energy from very limited heat sources, such as roof-top solar collectors or even waste heat. It uses Ammonia because of the lower boiling point.
This scenario isn't specifically mentioned (actually, the article is about powering an air conditioning system with solar heat), but I can imagine that this would be a good application.
Why use one-time-pads when they can just go on using the algorithms that're out there? As others on this thread have said, you can't put the genie back in the bottle. Of course, preventing the development of more sophisticated systems will be a long-term goal (but don't expect it to be effective for many years.)
Look for steganography to become popular among terrorists.
Wait, are they being donated at cost (ie Salaries plus expenses), or at market billing rates?
You're absolutely right on one point. It's not Bush's fault that he was shuttled all over the country.
I will say this, though. I've never truly understood the public function of the presidency. I've sometimes wondered why the nation so desperately needs a charismatic figure to line up behind, to the point where we elect criminals and people we don't entirely trust. But yesterday changed all of that. I saw the towers burning with my own eyes, and I was shaken up-- I didn't know if more was on the way, if I was safe where I was, what to do next. I wanted somebody to get on TV and say "this is a tragedy, but we've got things under control." Even though I've never liked Bush, I was glad that someone existed to fill that role.
It didn't bother me that Bush was in the air, I was glad that the Chief Executive was safe. And then he reached Louisiana and gave a speech, and it was devastating. I've never seen such a short, useless, unempathetic performance. He was reading off of a goddamn teleprompter, for chrissake! And he was reading poorly! I've seen fifth-grade plays that convey more emotion, confidence and skill.
Perhaps irrationally, I lost a lot of confidence in this nation at that point. The knowledge that Bush surrounds himself with intelligent people was not enough to reassure me; I wanted to know that we have a president who cares. I didn't expect him to shed tears-- I just wanted some emotion, be it anger, sadness, grief, anything. I also wanted something more substantial. Perhaps this last could have been attributed to lack of time... But when he reached the White House and for the rest of the day, we got little more; better reading skills, perhaps. But nothing to convince me that the guy cared.
I understand that Bush is a busy man, but we needed somebody to be there. There isn't a president we've elected in the last 20 years who couldn't have handled that situation. Why couldn't Bush?
His wife, on the other hand, was extraordinary on TV this morning. Not to mention Guiliani, who could for all intents and purposes have been the president.
Resume your Katz-bashing on Monday.
Please. Don't be ridiculous. For anyone who has seen the cloud where downtown used to be... I can't imagine any sane person in this city giving the Red Cross a hard time.
First of all, this is a great thing. Thanks to Microsoft and all of the corporations for their generosity in the face of this disaster.
Having said that-- does anyone know how the software component of the second $5 million is being valued? How much does it cost Microsoft that much to give out software licenses?
I'm not trying to tear down what I consider to be an act of great good-- especially as Microsoft has also donated $5 million in cash. But the overvaluing of software and information has been used in so many negative ways that I would hate to see it here. It would be somewhat tasteless to inflate your perceived generosity by valuing software at list price. Perhaps this is not at all what Microsoft is doing. Please set me straight.
There have apparently been a couple of building evacuations this morning, and there is currently a certain amount of police/fire-dept activity in midtown. I'm going to hope this stuff is nothing more than precaution.
Unfortunately, the WTC-site seems to be a news black hole, even when nothing is actually happening on site. How many people heard that Israel has been running major manuevers in the West Bank? I only caught this at the bottom of the BBCs page. I would like to know what's going on elsewhere, especially if it's in Manhattan.
Although it would appear that they are now in line for some serious bombage. If they didn't have Bin Laden, they might have an excuse for not putting him in our hands. Now that they say they've got him, they can't avoid responsibility if he isn't delivered to justice.
Interesting. But what happens to those millions of gallons of encased water when they're super-heated? Aside from the possibility of explosion, super-heated steams is incredibly dangerous. The same would probably go for any other substance or gas. At worst, the survivors could drown in the stairwells.
Why does all of CNN's WTC-crash footage say "CNN Exclusive" on it?
I don't know what to say about this. A friend of mine in [a Brooklyn neighborhood that shall remain nameless] just called and told me that a number of arabs (??) are dancing and cheering in the streets. One of them went up to her and said "why do you look so sad? this is a joyous day." I know that she isn't lying about this, but I'm not sure about her interpretation.
In addition, a Muslim woman hung a (Palestinian?) flag out of her window sometime today. Someone entered her apartment, beat up her husband and killed her (???). I find all of this hard to believe. Somebody please tell me that I'm wrong.
But, as we all know by now, the buildings were actually designed to withstand the impact of a 707-- which is much smaller than the 757 and 767 that were used in this attack, let alone the monster that is a 747. The 707 was about the biggest jet around when Yamasaki & Co. designed the towers way back when.