I think you missed Schneier's point, if you RTFA. The approach to dealing with threats should be intelligence gathering, our criminal justice system, and resilience in response to successful attacks.
Were Schneier an actually security professional, even fairly knowledgeable about the field, he'd know that's just one side of security. (And one we actually are doing.)
But Schneier isn't a security professional, he's a consultant and columnist and a pundit. (OK, I'll grant he's a professional in computer security, but that's not the same thing as physical security. They aren't even close.) He makes his money by getting his name in print pontificating about things he not only doesn't understand, he makes no effort to understand. Were he an actual security professional or even knowledgeable about the field, he's understand that there is a second side to the coin - deterrence. Intelligence gathering and criminal justice doesn't deter, but visible security does. That's why stores have silent alarms and physical barriers. That's why military security at bases housing nuclear weapons have gate guards - and an armed and short tempered Marine company inside. Real security has multiple layers, with backups, and works as a concerted whole.
You also cannot (as Schneier haughtily and ignorantly does) discount the positive effects of visible security. If people feel secure, they keep flying. As a google chunk of the US economy depends on those passengers, keeping 'em flying is a good thing.
Now, I'd be the first to agree that the TSA's response to the latest attack is wrong headed, but to roll back physical security to pre-911 levels (as Schneier proposes in the article) and relying only on law enforcement methods is just stupid.
It's a bit like the transcontinental railroad was in the middle of the 19th century here. Nobody really wanted to go to any of the whistle stops between Sacramento and Chicago, but since the train went there, communities sprung up. But when the railroad was built, there was nothing there.
Actually, that's not quite right. Many of those communities 'sprung up' because either a) the railroad built maintenance infrastructure there and the workers had to live somewhere and a town grew up to support them, or b) the railroad planted colonies on land they owned on the theory that the population thus planted was connected to the outside world only via the railroad and would generate passenger and cargo traffic.
The US had a high speed passenger network - which collapsed when the incomes sources that the network's owners depended on to subsidize the network themselves all but collapsed.
Now, we certainly could build a several tens of billions of dollars worth of rail line between NYC and Atlanta, but shall we charge the passengers full price for the line or make it affordable and find someone to subsidize it?
even if it is on a channel with advertising you only get adverts at half time and before and after the match so there are two 45 minute blocks of uninterrupted football with decent commentators in general.
The down side is you're forced to watch 45 uninterrupted minutes of European football, which is probably the only sport more boring than baseball.
I find that baseball is like NASA TV, unless you're educated and understand what you're watching - you'll find it boring.
At the very least, do what CNN does when they're waiting for stuff to happen on camera, like someone to come out of a courthouse...have a bunch of random 'experts' sitting around a table in the studio, and cut to them for a few minutes at a time, and back when things actually happen.
And frankly, the random 'experts' are pretty effin' useless really. They rarely add anything new, aren't too terribly exciting, and tend to repeat themselves ad nauseam.
He said that because Bing used more imagery than other search engines, it attracted more children.
Funny, this is the opposite reasoning as to why I started using Google over yahoo/excite/altavista. All the other search providers started cluttering their pages up. Google was simple and clean and did what I wanted.
And of course, your preferences and idiosyncrasies are exactly the same as everyone else's. Not to mention the difference between search providers results pages as so small, as far as clutter goes, that one suspects 'prejudices' is a better term for your behavior than 'preferences'.
Now look, the moment new tech comes onto the field, it's usually kids or other youths who, after somehow obtaining it, are the ones most comfortable with it.
So the folklore has it. But like all folklore, it's only partly truth.
You don't need to make a "kiddy" version of the search engine. Children will learn to use the adult tools easily and will be prepared for the future. If we force them to use dumbed down versions, eventually dumbed down versions will be the norm since the next generation will be against changing it.
If 'searching' were a technology - you'd have a point. But searching is only the first step, then you need to evaluate the search results to determine if they really do hold the answer you seek. This, like any intellectual activity, requires a certain amount of experience and education, something kids lack.
Actually, it's the typical outcome of a project whose goals are political and philosophical, being executed by someone with little or no real world experience. The outcome is even more certain when you consider the real goal (outflanking wintel in the developing world and spreading the Holy Gospel of F/OSS) had to be carried out covertly under the guise of the 'cover story' - educating the world's poor.
So you're saying that if it was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard' then it's not being published? I'd argue that it's not accessible, but I certainly wouldn't translate that to "not published".
Had I said any such thing, you'd have point. But I didn't. Weasel, handwave, and smokescreen all you want - but facts are facts. Publishing complete unexpurgated police blotters appears to be an exception, not a rule.
If you want to setup your own local police blotter website/newspaper, with no omissions, no one will stop you. If you file a Freedom of Information Act request for the last 10 years of arrest records, the police will have to give it to you.
That falls under the category of "so the fuck what?", having precisely nothing to do with the discussion.
I don't see how it matters whether the arrest record is published on a ledger in the station house or on an officially sanctioned twitter feed.
Well, I'll repeat myself in hopes you'll read and comprehend this time: A twitter feed is not a formal legal document, a police blotter is.
Unless you're a minor, the fact of your arrest and the charges surrounding it are part of a public record that gets published daily.
In my community the police blotter isn't published daily, but the local paper does print selected excerpts.) In fact, it appears, from your own link, that any portion of the blotter being published [by the police] is scarce. If they are published, it's excerpts by the local media. (My local paper doesn't print names in their blotter excerpts, only in full stories.) Or, in other words, "public record" != "published".
Another thing to consider is that a blotter is a formal legal record, a Twitter post isn't.
Progress requires funding. Funding requires public interest.
Again, this is an opinion rather than a fact. (You really need to learn to tell the difference.) There's funding and progress in dozens of fields with barely a shred of public interest.
[Remainder of unfounded assumptions and opinions snipped.]
I note your response to my request to justify your assumption is simply to repeat the assumption.
We have a shuttle launch every few months, and every time the general public's reaction is almost total apathy. Satellites are launched into space all the time, and nobody cares.
Cruise ships depart US ports almost daily, airliners depart from where in the US every second, rail cars by the thousands are in motion day in and day out - and nobody cares. It's all routine. If space travel and access is all routine, then that's usually considered a sign of maturity.
We don't need more frequent launches, we need a manned space program that actually makes progress if we want people to get excited about space travel.
You state that as if not being able to make progress without getting people excited was a fact, as opposed to the opinion it actually is. Research ships leave US ports routinely, and there are probably a thousand or more science teams in the field in the US at any given time. (Well, maybe not this week with the holidays and all.) All of this happens almost completely without public notice, and the lack of such notice impedes progress not at all. (And that doesn't even touch on the [probably] tens of thousands of lab bench bound research projects or researchers toiling away in libraries and archives.)
Which is a long winded way of saying that before you propose expensive stunts to draw public interest, first justify your claim that without interest progress won't occur.
The only advantage of lithium batteries is high energy density, which is irrelevant for a static installation.
On the contrary, I know of no static installation with unlimited floorspace or volume, let alone floorspace or volume without competing demands.
For powering something as long lasting as a house it would be better to use something more robust. Nickel-iron batteries have low energy density but are very robust. I wouldn't want a house battery I'd have to replace every few years.
If you want a battery you don't have to replace every few years, look into the new 'fairy dust and unicorn pelt' battery technology.
It would be possible with standard deep cycle lead acid batteries, but than you have to have climate control for your batteries above and beyond that proposed, and than your dedicating a good chunk of floorspace to batteries (You can't stack them because of heat buildup when discharging).
Nonsense. The Central Offices you refer to stack their batteries. I've seen many instances of deep cycle setups for off-the-grid power installations where the batteries are stacked... And the lead-acid backup batteries of US submarines (far bigger than any you're likely to see for home installation) air 'climate controlled' with just a fan.
Assuming, of course, that DIRECT doesn't behave like pretty much any other large scale aerospace engineering project and end up cost well above estimates while performing well below predictions.
It uses exactly the same engines as the space shuttle stack
In a world where a booster consists of only the engines, that would be a useful statement. We don't live in such a world.
As far as development, the only difficult thing that needs developing is the avionics. Everything else is fairly simple (changing the end cap on the tank, aft thrust structure, payload fairing).
For certain large and handwaving values of 'fairly simple', sure. In reality, you're creating the most difficult parts of the structure from scratch, almost completely recreating the difficult parts of the fuel system, and creating the avionics and flight software from scratch.
Engines are already built, in stock, and paid for. SRBs are already built, in stock, and paid for. There's more metal "bent" for Jupiter than ARES.
In a world where how much metal is bent is a useful metric, that would be a useful statement. We don't live in such a world. In reality, your big costs are in integration and engineering - two tasks that for DIRECT/Jupiter are as big if not bigger than for Ares.
Not only that, but Space-X's Falcon/Dragon vehicle will be ready well before then.
Unless you are a time traveler, that's an opinion - not a fact.
Of course, NASA always has the option of building an alternative launch system for a lot less money than the ARES craft.
Assuming, of course, that DIRECT doesn't behave like pretty much any other large scale aerospace engineering project and end up cost well above estimates while performing well below predictions.
You're forgetting about "gun type" bombs, which are basically a sawn-off naval cannon, and are so trivial to build that the Americans didn't even bother testing the design before dropping it on Japan.
They're trivial to build, once you've done the non trivial tasks of designing them and creating the infrastructure to obtain the fuel. But the real reason the American's didn't test the design is that they used a generous amount of design margin to ensure it didn't need to be tested.
A rogue state that just wants to build a "few" nukes could easily make these. As long as the intended use was terrorism, and not strategic ICBM warfare, then the weight is not an issue. Several analysts have pointed out that one could simply ship such a weapon to any major city in a standard shipping container, and it's unlikely to be detected, as the gamma radiation scanning devices installed in US ports are trivially defeated by several types of shielding, including the natural Uranium casing used for most gun type bombs!
The problem with the above is multi fold: First, if a state is using them weapons, then it is warfare rather than terrorism. Secondly, letting a nuclear weapon leave the tight control of a highly trusted group of people is an exercise few dictators are likely to indulge in. (There's way too high a chance that the weapons will be used against them.) Lastly, no gun type bomb uses natural Uranium. (Fission reactions don't produce neutrons of the energy range needed to fission raw Uranium - that takes fusion reactions.)
Just about the only 'hard' part is the purification of Uranium, but even that's getting progressively easier as new techniques are discovered and related industries bring costs down by using the same underlying technologies at a large scale.
Well, given that no major new technique has been discovered in a couple of decades, and that no industry significantly uses any of the enrichment technologies/systems... (Some use related technologies, but outside of nuclear fuel reprocessing there is no dual use.)
Is anyone else a bit frightened that the Guangdong plant picture shows what looks to be simple trusses and corrugated aluminum siding over the turbine section, where others use poured concrete and I-beams?
Given that the others mostly use simple trusses or lightweight I-beams, I don't see what there is to be frightened about. Doubly so since you don't need anything more than light construction over the turbine hall.
Slashdot Mirror
Is that internet pundits with perfect knowledge and 20/20 hindsight can Monday morning quarterback.
Were Schneier an actually security professional, even fairly knowledgeable about the field, he'd know that's just one side of security. (And one we actually are doing.)
But Schneier isn't a security professional, he's a consultant and columnist and a pundit. (OK, I'll grant he's a professional in computer security, but that's not the same thing as physical security. They aren't even close.) He makes his money by getting his name in print pontificating about things he not only doesn't understand, he makes no effort to understand. Were he an actual security professional or even knowledgeable about the field, he's understand that there is a second side to the coin - deterrence. Intelligence gathering and criminal justice doesn't deter, but visible security does. That's why stores have silent alarms and physical barriers. That's why military security at bases housing nuclear weapons have gate guards - and an armed and short tempered Marine company inside. Real security has multiple layers, with backups, and works as a concerted whole.
You also cannot (as Schneier haughtily and ignorantly does) discount the positive effects of visible security. If people feel secure, they keep flying. As a google chunk of the US economy depends on those passengers, keeping 'em flying is a good thing.
Now, I'd be the first to agree that the TSA's response to the latest attack is wrong headed, but to roll back physical security to pre-911 levels (as Schneier proposes in the article) and relying only on law enforcement methods is just stupid.
I'll wish for a Unicorn too, because that's equally likely to appear under the tree next Christmas.
Actually, that's not quite right. Many of those communities 'sprung up' because either a) the railroad built maintenance infrastructure there and the workers had to live somewhere and a town grew up to support them, or b) the railroad planted colonies on land they owned on the theory that the population thus planted was connected to the outside world only via the railroad and would generate passenger and cargo traffic.
The US had a high speed passenger network - which collapsed when the incomes sources that the network's owners depended on to subsidize the network themselves all but collapsed.
Now, we certainly could build a several tens of billions of dollars worth of rail line between NYC and Atlanta, but shall we charge the passengers full price for the line or make it affordable and find someone to subsidize it?
Reading comprehension, get some.
No, as well as having experience I have an actual attention span.
I find that baseball is like NASA TV, unless you're educated and understand what you're watching - you'll find it boring.
And frankly, the random 'experts' are pretty effin' useless really. They rarely add anything new, aren't too terribly exciting, and tend to repeat themselves ad nauseam.
And of course, your preferences and idiosyncrasies are exactly the same as everyone else's. Not to mention the difference between search providers results pages as so small, as far as clutter goes, that one suspects 'prejudices' is a better term for your behavior than 'preferences'.
So the folklore has it. But like all folklore, it's only partly truth.
If 'searching' were a technology - you'd have a point. But searching is only the first step, then you need to evaluate the search results to determine if they really do hold the answer you seek. This, like any intellectual activity, requires a certain amount of experience and education, something kids lack.
Based, seemingly, on a very rose colored remembrance of days past.
Actually, it's the typical outcome of a project whose goals are political and philosophical, being executed by someone with little or no real world experience. The outcome is even more certain when you consider the real goal (outflanking wintel in the developing world and spreading the Holy Gospel of F/OSS) had to be carried out covertly under the guise of the 'cover story' - educating the world's poor.
Had I said any such thing, you'd have point. But I didn't. Weasel, handwave, and smokescreen all you want - but facts are facts. Publishing complete unexpurgated police blotters appears to be an exception, not a rule.
That falls under the category of "so the fuck what?", having precisely nothing to do with the discussion.
Well, I'll repeat myself in hopes you'll read and comprehend this time: A twitter feed is not a formal legal document, a police blotter is.
In my community the police blotter isn't published daily, but the local paper does print selected excerpts.) In fact, it appears, from your own link, that any portion of the blotter being published [by the police] is scarce. If they are published, it's excerpts by the local media. (My local paper doesn't print names in their blotter excerpts, only in full stories.) Or, in other words, "public record" != "published".
Another thing to consider is that a blotter is a formal legal record, a Twitter post isn't.
Again, this is an opinion rather than a fact. (You really need to learn to tell the difference.) There's funding and progress in dozens of fields with barely a shred of public interest.
I note your response to my request to justify your assumption is simply to repeat the assumption.
Cruise ships depart US ports almost daily, airliners depart from where in the US every second, rail cars by the thousands are in motion day in and day out - and nobody cares. It's all routine. If space travel and access is all routine, then that's usually considered a sign of maturity.
You state that as if not being able to make progress without getting people excited was a fact, as opposed to the opinion it actually is. Research ships leave US ports routinely, and there are probably a thousand or more science teams in the field in the US at any given time. (Well, maybe not this week with the holidays and all.) All of this happens almost completely without public notice, and the lack of such notice impedes progress not at all. (And that doesn't even touch on the [probably] tens of thousands of lab bench bound research projects or researchers toiling away in libraries and archives.)
Which is a long winded way of saying that before you propose expensive stunts to draw public interest, first justify your claim that without interest progress won't occur.
I don't sound anything like him, but I was channeling him... :)
On the contrary, I know of no static installation with unlimited floorspace or volume, let alone floorspace or volume without competing demands.
If you want a battery you don't have to replace every few years, look into the new 'fairy dust and unicorn pelt' battery technology.
Nonsense. The Central Offices you refer to stack their batteries. I've seen many instances of deep cycle setups for off-the-grid power installations where the batteries are stacked... And the lead-acid backup batteries of US submarines (far bigger than any you're likely to see for home installation) air 'climate controlled' with just a fan.
In a world where a booster consists of only the engines, that would be a useful statement. We don't live in such a world.
For certain large and handwaving values of 'fairly simple', sure. In reality, you're creating the most difficult parts of the structure from scratch, almost completely recreating the difficult parts of the fuel system, and creating the avionics and flight software from scratch.
In a world where how much metal is bent is a useful metric, that would be a useful statement. We don't live in such a world. In reality, your big costs are in integration and engineering - two tasks that for DIRECT/Jupiter are as big if not bigger than for Ares.
Unless you are a time traveler, that's an opinion - not a fact.
Assuming, of course, that DIRECT doesn't behave like pretty much any other large scale aerospace engineering project and end up cost well above estimates while performing well below predictions.
They're trivial to build, once you've done the non trivial tasks of designing them and creating the infrastructure to obtain the fuel. But the real reason the American's didn't test the design is that they used a generous amount of design margin to ensure it didn't need to be tested.
The problem with the above is multi fold: First, if a state is using them weapons, then it is warfare rather than terrorism. Secondly, letting a nuclear weapon leave the tight control of a highly trusted group of people is an exercise few dictators are likely to indulge in. (There's way too high a chance that the weapons will be used against them.) Lastly, no gun type bomb uses natural Uranium. (Fission reactions don't produce neutrons of the energy range needed to fission raw Uranium - that takes fusion reactions.)
Well, given that no major new technique has been discovered in a couple of decades, and that no industry significantly uses any of the enrichment technologies/systems... (Some use related technologies, but outside of nuclear fuel reprocessing there is no dual use.)
Well, they *are* essentially the same. They differ greatly in details because the technology was evolving at a fairly good clip.
Given that the others mostly use simple trusses or lightweight I-beams, I don't see what there is to be frightened about. Doubly so since you don't need anything more than light construction over the turbine hall.