does Michael honestly believe that other countries DON'T have strategic ballistic missles
Actually, they dont.
Not yet, but soon, for North Korea, Iran, Iraq, and lots of other fun-loving dictatorships out there.
Why the hell would you launch it at the US even if you had one?
If nobody is planning to launch nukes at the US or build ICBMs capable of hitting the US, why do they care if the US has an ABM system? The US isn't starting an arms race--they're trying to win the one everybody is already in. China already has 20 or so nukes pointed at the US. What more do you need to realize we're already in an arms race, a few mushroom clouds?
If you want to nuke the US, you get or make a small bomb, like one of the infamous soviet suitcase nukes
Suitcase nukes are hard to make, and harder to smuggle than you might think (please see my other post for details).
I'm going to agree with you about one point--the kinetic kill idea is silly. It's much easier to get close to a moving target than it is to hit it, and using nuclear-tipped interceptors is the easiest and most reliable way to do that. Remember that, in a nuclear missile attack, it's better to have a very small nuke explode 300 miles above your continent than a big one explode in your cities. I imagine the nuclear-tipped interceptor idea was killed because it was politically unpopular or not "green" enough or something like that. It's possible the current test result was faked to cover up that the kinetic-kill idea is stupid, but unlikely.
On the other hand, hitting something with a laser (i.e., the MIRACL airborne theatre missile defense system) isn't quite so hard, and actually sounds like it might be a good idea. I did some calculations a while back, and it seems quite possible for a laser of MIRACL's power to damage and destroy an ICBM (sorry, I'm too tired to dig up a link to my old post where I do the calcs).
In order to "work," it must intercept 100% of the incoming targets. If 1, or 5, or 100 nukes are launched at Washington DC, only 1 needs to get through
The system, as currently invisioned, is designed to work agains small attacks of one or a few ICBMs, and would involve multiple interceptors being launched against each ICBM. The capability to deal with large attacks would require an upgrade (pretty much only Russia has enough nukes to launch an attack large enough to overwhelm the system).
prevention is much more effective than interception
Prevention, in many of these cases, would mean a pre-emptive strike, or a conventional war before the country gains nuclear capability. Otherwise, you have no guarantees. Please explain to me how else the US could convince North Korea or Iran not to develop ICBMs.
This whole fucking mess is just one monstrous pork-barrel: it can't work, it won't work, it'll never be finished
My previous reservations aside, doesn't the successful test make you want to eat your words?
They're our bombs and we'll do whatever the hell we want, treaties be damned.
The US is not breaking the ABM treaty. Either party is legally allowed to withdraw after giving 6 months' notice. IMHO, the US government is doing exactly what it's supposed to--take all necessary steps to ensure the safety of its citizens from foreign powers. If the foreign powers don't like it, that's too bad, because they won't be able to do much about it.
I know somebody is going to pull out the "suitcase nuke" excuse. Read my other post to see why it's not so simple.
I'm so fucking sick and tired of Slashdot "editors" making blatant political statements when they're supposedly reporting the news. To add insult to injury, the statements are quite often false or misleading. Let's dissect this story's editorial comments:
protect us from all those ballistic missiles that foreign nations don't have
China has 20 or so CSS-4 ICBMs targeted at US cities. Don't think they'd use them? This is the same government that has executed more people in the past three months than the rest of the world has in the past three years (yes, that includes Texas, save your lame jokes). Then there's Tiananmen Square, Tibet, Falun Gong, and a whole host of other human rights breaches in China.
Then there's Iran and Iraq, with weapons programs of their own, and possibly also an interest in buying from North Korea, China, or Russia.
when you can just drive down from Canada with a suitcase nuke
First of all, you have to get a suitcase nuke. They're not exactly easy to make (remember how big the first atomic bombs were?), and only a few countries in the world can make them (Russia, US). In other words, you probably have to buy one from Russia.
Second, you have to get it in to Canada. While we do have huge unguarded borders up north, you're going to have a hell of a time getting it from the Yukon or wherever to the 49th parallel. Also, the US is pushing for increased Canadian border security and unified policies on security and entry into North America. I think they're aware of the issue.
Third, you have to cross the US border. While I don't know for sure, I would bet there are hidden radiation detectors at all the border crossings. Liquid scintillator column-style detectors are incredibly sensitive, and it would be nearly impossible to shield the near-critical fissionable material in a bomb from the detectors (the gamma rays produced have too much penetrating power). I happen to work at a particle accelerator with just such detectors on the shipping gates (to prevent accidental removal of contaminated material), and you wouldn't know they're there if there weren't signs. They just look like part of the fence posts. Of course, it would be silly for the government to make the existence of such detectors public knowledge, because that would mostly defeat the purpose, which is to catch terrorists.
Finally, suitcase nukes are low-yield (as in around one kiloton). The man-with-the-briefcase approach also doesn't have the same political or military effectiveness that a working ICBM has. Rogue Country X has to actually use a suitcase nuke to convince the world that they have the capability, and then they'll get blown to smithereens by the US. Not much is accomplished besides killing a few hundred thousand Americans (worst-case), and getting Country X's population reduced to single digits. On the other hand, if it becomes known that X has ICBMs in hardened silos, then they're suddently part of the Nuclear Club, and they get to play with the big boys. After all, look how nice the world is being to China, what with giving them the Olympics and all (worked really well in Berlin in 1936, didn't it?).
And I thought that Red Bull was, well, bull. It sounded like just another "energy drink" with a little caffeine and some hippie herbs (ginseng, bat guano, etc). Looks like it really does pack a punch.
Does anybody know where I can buy this stuff in Canada? ThinkGeek won't ship it out of the US. I promise I won't combine it with alcohol, hard exercise, or viagra.
Just imagine 30 million angry Canadians hopped up on Red Bull, with hockey sticks and no teeth, bearing down on California to collect the few hundred million dollars they owe us for electricity. Maybe that's why they won't sell Red Bull to us.
I used to work for a certain company which had the world's biggest moron as its COO. He couldn't figure out how to send email from his laptop on the road by changing his outgoing SMTP server, so he tried to force me to open the SMTP relay to save him from the terrible effort of learning (I was perfectly willing to teach him). I resisted, but I probably wouldn't have been able to weather the political fallout if I hadn't been a co-op student.
I know, I know, I should have LARTed him, then fled to another job, but it isn't always an option (say, for poor co-op students).
What we really need to do is create public awareness of spamming and open relays, and villify it to the extent that smoking has. We want the general public to view spaming as more evil than forcing your two year-old to smoke 6 packs a day of unfiltered cigs.
I'll tell you why people don't want to pay for content--it's too frickin' hard and nobody is about to spend huge amounts of time throwing their money away when free content is probably available with a little more looking.
Don't believe me? Here's my PayPal experience. (PayPal being arguably the most popular micropayment system on the 'net).
Finally decided to get a PayPal account. Went to the site, jumped through the hoops, gave them my credit card number. Waited 3 weeks for next credit card bill so I could give them the verification number. Get bill, with PayPal transaction, but no verification number. Emailed PayPal. They tell me to fax them my credit card bill. I don't have a fax. Fuck this.
That's why I'm not using PayPal--I don't need to, and it's not worth the hassle. Most of the other micropayment systems online either require you to install some lame program that doesn't support my OS, charge steep transaction fees, or are just too small to be trustworthy.
What will it take to get people to pay for content?
Good, simple micropayment system. This is critical. Imagine if a brick-and-mortar store owner told you that you had to pay him in 1957 pennies, and nothing else would be accepted. You'd just walk out, unless you absolutely had to have whatever he was selling, and he was the only guy selling it.
Lack of free content. People will only pay for shit if they can't get shit free (easily). Duh. I've always wondered how all the pay porn sites exist when there are so many free porn sites, but I suppose people don't act rationally when they're horny and lonely.
Content worth paying for. Most of the content people look at on the net is for entertainment (I'm counting most news in that category--if you're not the freaking President, it's not your job to know what's going on). To be worth paying for, content has to be significantly better than TV. TV content is free (sure, you pay for cable, but that's like paying for your ISP, and you don't have to think about that, nor does watching an episode of Seinfeld cost you extra), and TV is a much higher-bandwidth medium than most people's internet connections. To be worth paying for, content providers either need to come up with some very good original content, or bandwidth needs to get better.
Reasonable prices. I am not going to pay the RIAA $2.99 for a single track at less-than-CD quality when I could either pay $12 Canadian (yes, that's right--our CDs are way the hell cheaper than yours) for the entire CD, or just download it free from Gnutella. I'll probably just not bother, if I can't get it easily for cheaper than a dollar.
What do you really need on the internet, that you can't get from a million sites? Weather, I can always look out the window. Web comics are nice, but not essential (although I did donate to Penny Arcade). Online technical support and product information should be provided free, and I'd avoid any company that tried to charge for it. Slashdot? I'd expect editors who can spell and fact-check before I'd pay for this (and it would be nice if they didn't ask such ridiculous questions as whether it's OK to burn private property of people who disagree with you). The only thing I'd pay for is Google. Think about it--if you can still remember back to the pre-Google days, remember how bad the other search engines were? Think about how much time Google has saved you. That's worth something. Not much else is.
All you have proven beyond a reasonable doubt is that the data was signed by someone with your private key. Nothing else. It is impossible to prove that YOU signed the data.
Assuming you've done the usual PGP thing and haven't been careless with giving away your key, you should be the only one who has your private key, and thus, the only one who can sign things with it. Normally, your private key is encrypted with a passphrase only you (should) know. For someone else to sign stuff with your private key, they'd need to copy the key from your hard drive, then steal your passphrase. Possible, but fairly secure if your systems are secure.
If you then also immediately send the log files to a Notary Public who digitally signs them, then you have a secure datestamp from a third party.
It was indeed the Secret Service, but my main beef is with the next line or two of the story post:
(Long-time Internetters will recall that the FBI raid on SJG was one of the first causes celebre of the Electronic Frontier Foundation.)"
It wasn't just one of the first causes, it was the reason for the founding of the EFF. The Electronic Frontier Foundation, for all those who are new here, is the organization dedicated to protecting all internet-related civil liberties, and they generally fight injustice in the electronic world. Think ACLU without the penchant for being rabidly anti-religious or doing other silly things occasionally.
Does anybody know what happens if you fill a supersoaker with gas, and light the gas as it sprays out? Instant flamethrower? Or do you just blow yourself up? I've wanted to try this to get rid of wasp hives, but was a little scared about the possibility of horrible flaming death ("tastes like burning").
Another cool variation would be a 50/50 mix of water and alcohol. Spray on something valuable, ignite, watch people scream before they realize it's not actually being hurt by the flames (because alcohol doesn't burn very hot and the water protects it from the heat).
I seem to remember the TV and telephone being invented over here
No, buddy, telephone was Alexander Graham Bell. Canada, the United States, and Britain all have a claim on him... I believe he was born in Britain, lived in Canada, and did his research in the US. You guys used to be scientific powerhouses, but that distinction, along with the dubious title "Leaders of the Free World", has transfered to the US.
...I can only go by what Cafeglobe's translation says, but here's the summary:
It looks like they have a system with a 5 metre (16 ft) range. You mount a "base" unit on the ceiling, and then attach little satellite units to your computers. Communication is line of sight, and utilizes LEDs. The system can apparently find new or relocated nodes in an average of 5 seconds.
Am I the only one who sees no freaking point? Here's a comparison between this and 802.11b (aka AirPort):
Range 802.11b: 45 metres (150 ft)
Optical: 5 metres (16 ft)
Winner: 802.11b by a mile (at least, if you get a crazy antenna).
Reliability 802.11b: Bandwidth drops slightly when somebody uses the office microwave
Optical: You're booted from your Quake game every time that tall guy with big hair walks by your desk
Winner: 802.11b, by two frags
Cost 802.11b: Base station - $299. Satellite - $99.
Optical: Base station - $1190. Satellite - $400.
Winner: 802.11b, by about the cost of a new PC (and some long EtherNet cables).
Mobility 802.11b: Still works even if you run with your laptop.
Optical: Drops the connection every time your annoying office-mate bumps the cubicle wall.
Winner: 802.11b can handle any move you make.
Security 802.11b: Shitty, unless you live in a Faraday Cage.
Optical: Shitty, unless you live in a windowless hole.
Winner: Tie. Use IPSec and/or SSH, and it won't matter if you're using RFC 1149 or any other wireless network.
Bandwidth 802.11b: 11Mbps
Optical: 100 Mbps
Winner: Optical, until somebody stands in your line-of-sight.
Overall Score 802.11b, 4. Optical, 1.
In short, forget about optical unless you need 100 Mbps, can't string EtherNet cable, and don't mind if it goes down every time somebody walks by your desk. I'd say it would be good for LAN parties, except it's too expensive. I'd say it's good for trade shows and other temporary large gatherings of computers, except you just know the Microsoft guys would be throwing paper airplanes at the RedHat booth optical transmitter. I have no clue who would actually want this, other than a rich gadget freak.
If I were going to design my own optical networking gadget, it would be peer-to-peer, with each peer having multiple line-of-sight connections to neighbours. That way, if one is interrupted, packets are instantly rerouted through the other links. Unless a crowd of people is standing around your desk, you're fine. It would probably cost way too much, though. Until that gets cheaper, 100BaseT cables duct-taped to the floor, ceiling, and walls are the way to go for quick, cheap connectivity.
We have an older story about building-to-building optical networks, but I think this is first inter-office optical LAN I've seen.
First of all, I think you mean intra-office optical LAN. Second, sometimes, when you get an idea, and nobody else has done it, it means you're a genius. Sometimes, it means you're a moron.
OK, folks, I know you're all just jumping to flame George W. Bush and any other right-wingers you can find, but slow down a second.
What really happened is that the appeals court says that the original judge gave the impression he was biased against Microsoft, due to the nasty remarks he made about the company and the secret press conferences he held. The appeals court then overturned the sentencing portion of the verdict, and remanded the case to a different judge, to craft a new sentence. Nobody's saying Microsoft isn't guilty, they just want a judge who's not biased to sentence MS.
If you remember some of the comments Judge Thomas Jackson made about MS, you'll probably agree he was about as biased against MS as the average Slashdotter. As much as we may think that he was biased "the right way", a judge is supposed to be unbiased, and to allow otherwise is to corrupt the judicial system. This is justice being done (slowly), even if we don't like all the steps along the way.
Besides, who here thinks that just splitting MS in half is the best remedy? Each half will just be as bad as before... I'd much rather see carefully tailored prohibitions against some of the nastier anti-competitive elements of.NET and their new licensing system, and a ban on the embrace-and-extend strategy.
Maybe you think splitting MS is suitable "punishment". But who does it punish? Microsoft itself is a name and some legal documents, and can't feel pain or unhappiness. The executives won't mind, because, with a split, there will be twice as many positions, and all but the most senior execs will probably get promoted. Does Bill Gates care? It would probably hurt his pride a little (about as much as a cream pie in the face), but it's not like he'll end up homeless on the street. Shareholders might get burned. Before you get excited, remember that your grandmother's pension (or yours, or your teachers') may be heavily invested in MS, without their knowledge. Burning MS might also send the tech economy even farther down the toilet. How many more of you want to be unemployed?
Seriously, folks, this is probably just justice being done (very) slowly and carefully, and it's probably for the best, even if it means we don't get the satisfaction of seeing MS split in two.
Somebody is going to mod me down as a troll, because they think that no person in their right mind could be anything but foaming-at-the-mouth anti-MS. Before you do, ask yourself, what contributes more to a debate, a hundred people agreeing with each other, or rational disagreement?
My family's computers survived a direct strike with nothing more than your average $15 surge protectors. What do I mean by direct? The lightning hit the power pole 20 feet from my house and blew up the transformer.
The only equipment to get fried was stuff connected directly to telephone lines (modem, answering machine, phone, fax).
For the average user, a $15 power strip/surge protector is probably enough. For the paranoid, get something with a replacement warranty. It may not work any better, but at least you'll get a new computer if you do get hit by lightning (and the magic smoke is released).
Is this the same Dr. Hardy who was at the U of Arkansas about ten years ago working with Dr. Sheng? If it is, and I'm not saying it is, I always got the impression that he was a public relations guy and Sheng was the real horsepower.
Nope. Hardy has been at UBC for decades, and has won a shitload of awards. Take a look at his bio, which I linked to in my last message. Also, producing highest-Tc superconductors is mostly a game right now, since it's all very small incremental improvements. The real research involves growing and studying high-quality single-crystal samples to learn how they work, so we can make the next big leap. That's where Canada leads.
Uh, first of all, which U of A? The University of Alberta is also known as the U of A, and it's definitely in Canada. I'm guessing that's not the one you mean.
At UBC, Dr. Hardy's lab grows the world's highest-quality YBCO superconductors in the world. (YBCO is the common abbreviation for them--yes, I know the proper name, but it's too ugly in HTML). He is part of a larger Superconductivity Research Group at the University of British Columbia. That group also works closely with the Muon Spin Rotation Group based at UBC and nearby TRIUMF. Disclaimer: I'm part of the Muon Spin Rotation Group.
We're also in the process of commissioning a Beta-Nuclear Magnetic Resonance apparatus and beamline at TRIUMF, which will be very useful for probes of the local magnetic fields within superconductors (and other condensed matter physics applications).
This is by no means an exhaustive list of the areas in which Canada leads in physics--it's just what I'm familiar with. I know we also recently opened a (privately funded) institute for theoretical physics, and they pay very generous salaries. We've also managed to recruit a few key quantum computing people up from the US.
I'm not trying to say Canada is the best in the world at everything, but we do have some very solid, well-respected programs in physics.
Can't make a decent beer? Try Sleeman's or Granville Island Brewery or some other microbrew. Hell, even Kokanee isn't too bad.
I can't believe that someone from the United States, home of beer with alcohol content so low it has to be expressed in scientific notation, is insulting Canadian beer.
I find it hard to believe that Canada has the scientific know how to be trusted
In certain areas, such as some types of condensed matter physics (Mu-SR, beta-NMR), superconductor research, and some other fields, Canada leads the world. Our research programs are not as large as the US (since we're a smaller country, population-wise), but they're top-notch.
I got modded down because I said mean things (that were entirely true) about the French for collaborating with the Nazis. Come on, people. What's next, are people who condemn the holocaust going to be modded as "Flamebait" because they might upset neo-Nazis?
To the spineless moderator: fuck you, I'm still at the karma cap.
Speaking of wavelengths, I'm trying to modify my computer case to add some extra EM sheilding. (The computer currently affects the TV, radio, cordless phones, etc). Using metal mesh, I don't suppose you (or anyone else) would know a) how small the holes have to be to block all the useful frequencies, b) how great the metal-to-hole ratio has to be, to be effective, and c) if a mesh of wires will do it, even if the wires are insulated and thus the horizontal ones don't connect with the vertical where they cross/touch, (though are elsewhere both connected to each and ground)?
I'm way too lazy to do the calculation for you, but I'd say if the holes are less than 1/4 wavelength in diameter (figure out what wavelength you want to block first), and that the thing is at least 30% metal, you should probably do OK. I don't think there's a clearcut point at which the signal is blocked/not blocked--it's a matter of degree. More metal will block more signal, although making the holes small compared to the wavelength is important. I would recommend using a solid mesh instead of a mesh of insulated wires, though. The extra resistance between two perpendicular wires (if they're connected farther away) might not help. Also, make sure the shielding is grounded.
One thing you might want to do is check the grounds in your house to see if they're working properly. Bad grounds could be causing/aggravating the interference. Buy a ground tester or call an electrician...
DVD Region Encoding is about letting a company control the marketing, distrubution, and use of its own products. The Yahoo/France case is about a foreign government trying to control a company outside its borders. They're entirely different.
IMHO, there's nothing morally wrong with DVD Region Encoding, but it shouldn't be illegal to defeat it.
I don't get why Communist stuff can be sold and Nazi stuff can't.
Because the French were spineless cowards that collaborated with the Nazis to save their own skins, and they're embarrassed by that fact. This is harsh, but entirely true.
At the beginning of the war, France had more planes, more tanks, more of just about everything than Germany. They lost because they're morons when it comes to strategy (Maginot Line! Great idea! Let's build half a wall and hope they don't go around!), and because they just outright surrendured (Vichy, etc.).
Oh sure, if Yahoo lost, your privacy would be better protected at Amazon. The only problem is book prices would double, since Amazon's legal department would have to increase in size 10-fold to ensure they complied with every country's laws. Plus, Amazon wouldn't be able to sell you anything not approved by the Vatican, the Taliban, and the PRC government. In other words, Amazon would be reduced to selling math textbooks at even higher prices than the average campus bookstore.
If the cutoff is in the UV band, then cellphone radiation (microwaves) must be ionising radiation, as microwaves are higher energy than UV AFAIK.
Nope, they're not. The wavelength of microwaves is on the order of centimetres, while the wavelength of UV is on the order of tens or hundreds of nanometres (much smaller). Shorter wavelengths imply higher frequencies which imply higher energies, thus microwaves are non-ionizing.
This is probably the most significant online-freedom case, ever. Sure, it's about a company selling Nazi crap, not some hackers trying to [insert DeCSS/reverse engineering/etc here], but don't let that fool you.
What this case is really about is this: when publishing content online, do you have to comply with your own country's laws, or every country's laws? This ties in with RMS's recent Harm from the Hague piece that Slashdot ran. If you think the DMCA is bad, just wait until you have to comply with 50 different versions of it.
I know the geek answer--cyberspace is global, nobody can regulate the internet, information wants to be free, etc., but I don't think the rest of the world is ready for that answer. They're not willing to take the plunge into some sort of cyber-anarchy (damn, I hate the word "cyber"), and there's no chance in hell everyone will agree on a uniform set of laws (god help us if they do). I don't have an easy solution. I understand the reasons for IP laws (promoting innovation), and I can also see how broken they've become, but I don't see a magical fix. I don't know how jurisdiction conflicts should be resolved over the internet. The same treaty that would allow the US to go after child porn in Amsterdam would allow the Taliban in Afghanistan to censor half the non-porn sites in the US.
One more thing--if you think things are messy now, with the internet and computers, you ain't seen nothin' yet. Biotech is going to shake things up even more, and nanotech is going to make or break the human race... We have to get our act together before it's too late.
Slashdot Mirror
does Michael honestly believe that other countries DON'T have strategic ballistic missles
Actually, they dont.
Not yet, but soon, for North Korea, Iran, Iraq, and lots of other fun-loving dictatorships out there.
Why the hell would you launch it at the US even if you had one?
If nobody is planning to launch nukes at the US or build ICBMs capable of hitting the US, why do they care if the US has an ABM system? The US isn't starting an arms race--they're trying to win the one everybody is already in. China already has 20 or so nukes pointed at the US. What more do you need to realize we're already in an arms race, a few mushroom clouds?
If you want to nuke the US, you get or make a small bomb, like one of the infamous soviet suitcase nukes
Suitcase nukes are hard to make, and harder to smuggle than you might think (please see my other post for details).
I'm going to agree with you about one point--the kinetic kill idea is silly. It's much easier to get close to a moving target than it is to hit it, and using nuclear-tipped interceptors is the easiest and most reliable way to do that. Remember that, in a nuclear missile attack, it's better to have a very small nuke explode 300 miles above your continent than a big one explode in your cities. I imagine the nuclear-tipped interceptor idea was killed because it was politically unpopular or not "green" enough or something like that. It's possible the current test result was faked to cover up that the kinetic-kill idea is stupid, but unlikely.
On the other hand, hitting something with a laser (i.e., the MIRACL airborne theatre missile defense system) isn't quite so hard, and actually sounds like it might be a good idea. I did some calculations a while back, and it seems quite possible for a laser of MIRACL's power to damage and destroy an ICBM (sorry, I'm too tired to dig up a link to my old post where I do the calcs).
In order to "work," it must intercept 100% of the incoming targets. If 1, or 5, or 100 nukes are launched at Washington DC, only 1 needs to get through
The system, as currently invisioned, is designed to work agains small attacks of one or a few ICBMs, and would involve multiple interceptors being launched against each ICBM. The capability to deal with large attacks would require an upgrade (pretty much only Russia has enough nukes to launch an attack large enough to overwhelm the system).
prevention is much more effective than interception
Prevention, in many of these cases, would mean a pre-emptive strike, or a conventional war before the country gains nuclear capability. Otherwise, you have no guarantees. Please explain to me how else the US could convince North Korea or Iran not to develop ICBMs.
This whole fucking mess is just one monstrous pork-barrel: it can't work, it won't work, it'll never be finished
My previous reservations aside, doesn't the successful test make you want to eat your words?
They're our bombs and we'll do whatever the hell we want, treaties be damned.
The US is not breaking the ABM treaty. Either party is legally allowed to withdraw after giving 6 months' notice. IMHO, the US government is doing exactly what it's supposed to--take all necessary steps to ensure the safety of its citizens from foreign powers. If the foreign powers don't like it, that's too bad, because they won't be able to do much about it.
I know somebody is going to pull out the "suitcase nuke" excuse. Read my other post to see why it's not so simple.
I'm so fucking sick and tired of Slashdot "editors" making blatant political statements when they're supposedly reporting the news. To add insult to injury, the statements are quite often false or misleading. Let's dissect this story's editorial comments:
protect us from all those ballistic missiles that foreign nations don't have
China has 20 or so CSS-4 ICBMs targeted at US cities. Don't think they'd use them? This is the same government that has executed more people in the past three months than the rest of the world has in the past three years (yes, that includes Texas, save your lame jokes). Then there's Tiananmen Square, Tibet, Falun Gong, and a whole host of other human rights breaches in China.
Then there's North Korea, which is quite close to developing the ICBM technology to hit the US with nukes or biological or chemical warfare.
Then there's Iran and Iraq, with weapons programs of their own, and possibly also an interest in buying from North Korea, China, or Russia.
when you can just drive down from Canada with a suitcase nuke
First of all, you have to get a suitcase nuke. They're not exactly easy to make (remember how big the first atomic bombs were?), and only a few countries in the world can make them (Russia, US). In other words, you probably have to buy one from Russia.
Second, you have to get it in to Canada. While we do have huge unguarded borders up north, you're going to have a hell of a time getting it from the Yukon or wherever to the 49th parallel. Also, the US is pushing for increased Canadian border security and unified policies on security and entry into North America. I think they're aware of the issue.
Third, you have to cross the US border. While I don't know for sure, I would bet there are hidden radiation detectors at all the border crossings. Liquid scintillator column-style detectors are incredibly sensitive, and it would be nearly impossible to shield the near-critical fissionable material in a bomb from the detectors (the gamma rays produced have too much penetrating power). I happen to work at a particle accelerator with just such detectors on the shipping gates (to prevent accidental removal of contaminated material), and you wouldn't know they're there if there weren't signs. They just look like part of the fence posts. Of course, it would be silly for the government to make the existence of such detectors public knowledge, because that would mostly defeat the purpose, which is to catch terrorists.
Finally, suitcase nukes are low-yield (as in around one kiloton). The man-with-the-briefcase approach also doesn't have the same political or military effectiveness that a working ICBM has. Rogue Country X has to actually use a suitcase nuke to convince the world that they have the capability, and then they'll get blown to smithereens by the US. Not much is accomplished besides killing a few hundred thousand Americans (worst-case), and getting Country X's population reduced to single digits. On the other hand, if it becomes known that X has ICBMs in hardened silos, then they're suddently part of the Nuclear Club, and they get to play with the big boys. After all, look how nice the world is being to China, what with giving them the Olympics and all (worked really well in Berlin in 1936, didn't it?).
And I thought that Red Bull was, well, bull. It sounded like just another "energy drink" with a little caffeine and some hippie herbs (ginseng, bat guano, etc). Looks like it really does pack a punch.
Does anybody know where I can buy this stuff in Canada? ThinkGeek won't ship it out of the US. I promise I won't combine it with alcohol, hard exercise, or viagra.
Just imagine 30 million angry Canadians hopped up on Red Bull, with hockey sticks and no teeth, bearing down on California to collect the few hundred million dollars they owe us for electricity. Maybe that's why they won't sell Red Bull to us.
I used to work for a certain company which had the world's biggest moron as its COO. He couldn't figure out how to send email from his laptop on the road by changing his outgoing SMTP server, so he tried to force me to open the SMTP relay to save him from the terrible effort of learning (I was perfectly willing to teach him). I resisted, but I probably wouldn't have been able to weather the political fallout if I hadn't been a co-op student.
I know, I know, I should have LARTed him, then fled to another job, but it isn't always an option (say, for poor co-op students).
What we really need to do is create public awareness of spamming and open relays, and villify it to the extent that smoking has. We want the general public to view spaming as more evil than forcing your two year-old to smoke 6 packs a day of unfiltered cigs.
Konqueror is getting support for The Force? Sweet! Or is it just Force-compatible? Sigh... I was so looking forward to saying,
to Internet Explorer... .
Don't believe me? Here's my PayPal experience. (PayPal being arguably the most popular micropayment system on the 'net).That's why I'm not using PayPal--I don't need to, and it's not worth the hassle. Most of the other micropayment systems online either require you to install some lame program that doesn't support my OS, charge steep transaction fees, or are just too small to be trustworthy.
What will it take to get people to pay for content?
Good, simple micropayment system. This is critical. Imagine if a brick-and-mortar store owner told you that you had to pay him in 1957 pennies, and nothing else would be accepted. You'd just walk out, unless you absolutely had to have whatever he was selling, and he was the only guy selling it.
Lack of free content. People will only pay for shit if they can't get shit free (easily). Duh. I've always wondered how all the pay porn sites exist when there are so many free porn sites, but I suppose people don't act rationally when they're horny and lonely.
Content worth paying for. Most of the content people look at on the net is for entertainment (I'm counting most news in that category--if you're not the freaking President, it's not your job to know what's going on). To be worth paying for, content has to be significantly better than TV. TV content is free (sure, you pay for cable, but that's like paying for your ISP, and you don't have to think about that, nor does watching an episode of Seinfeld cost you extra), and TV is a much higher-bandwidth medium than most people's internet connections. To be worth paying for, content providers either need to come up with some very good original content, or bandwidth needs to get better.
Reasonable prices. I am not going to pay the RIAA $2.99 for a single track at less-than-CD quality when I could either pay $12 Canadian (yes, that's right--our CDs are way the hell cheaper than yours) for the entire CD, or just download it free from Gnutella. I'll probably just not bother, if I can't get it easily for cheaper than a dollar.
What do you really need on the internet, that you can't get from a million sites? Weather, I can always look out the window. Web comics are nice, but not essential (although I did donate to Penny Arcade). Online technical support and product information should be provided free, and I'd avoid any company that tried to charge for it. Slashdot? I'd expect editors who can spell and fact-check before I'd pay for this (and it would be nice if they didn't ask such ridiculous questions as whether it's OK to burn private property of people who disagree with you). The only thing I'd pay for is Google. Think about it--if you can still remember back to the pre-Google days, remember how bad the other search engines were? Think about how much time Google has saved you. That's worth something. Not much else is.
All you have proven beyond a reasonable doubt is that the data was signed by someone with your private key. Nothing else. It is impossible to prove that YOU signed the data.
Assuming you've done the usual PGP thing and haven't been careless with giving away your key, you should be the only one who has your private key, and thus, the only one who can sign things with it. Normally, your private key is encrypted with a passphrase only you (should) know. For someone else to sign stuff with your private key, they'd need to copy the key from your hard drive, then steal your passphrase. Possible, but fairly secure if your systems are secure.
If you then also immediately send the log files to a Notary Public who digitally signs them, then you have a secure datestamp from a third party.
He said mass market.
Apple will soon be the world's largest *nix vendor, thanks to OS X. How do you like them Apples, Tux?
It was indeed the Secret Service, but my main beef is with the next line or two of the story post:
(Long-time Internetters will recall that the FBI raid on SJG was one of the first causes celebre of the Electronic Frontier Foundation.)"
It wasn't just one of the first causes, it was the reason for the founding of the EFF. The Electronic Frontier Foundation, for all those who are new here, is the organization dedicated to protecting all internet-related civil liberties, and they generally fight injustice in the electronic world. Think ACLU without the penchant for being rabidly anti-religious or doing other silly things occasionally.
Does anybody know what happens if you fill a supersoaker with gas, and light the gas as it sprays out? Instant flamethrower? Or do you just blow yourself up? I've wanted to try this to get rid of wasp hives, but was a little scared about the possibility of horrible flaming death ("tastes like burning").
Another cool variation would be a 50/50 mix of water and alcohol. Spray on something valuable, ignite, watch people scream before they realize it's not actually being hurt by the flames (because alcohol doesn't burn very hot and the water protects it from the heat).
I seem to remember the TV and telephone being invented over here
No, buddy, telephone was Alexander Graham Bell. Canada, the United States, and Britain all have a claim on him... I believe he was born in Britain, lived in Canada, and did his research in the US. You guys used to be scientific powerhouses, but that distinction, along with the dubious title "Leaders of the Free World", has transfered to the US.
...I can only go by what Cafeglobe's translation says, but here's the summary:
It looks like they have a system with a 5 metre (16 ft) range. You mount a "base" unit on the ceiling, and then attach little satellite units to your computers. Communication is line of sight, and utilizes LEDs. The system can apparently find new or relocated nodes in an average of 5 seconds.
Am I the only one who sees no freaking point? Here's a comparison between this and 802.11b (aka AirPort):
Range
802.11b: 45 metres (150 ft)
Optical: 5 metres (16 ft)
Winner: 802.11b by a mile (at least, if you get a crazy antenna).
Reliability
802.11b: Bandwidth drops slightly when somebody uses the office microwave
Optical: You're booted from your Quake game every time that tall guy with big hair walks by your desk
Winner: 802.11b, by two frags
Cost
802.11b: Base station - $299. Satellite - $99.
Optical: Base station - $1190. Satellite - $400.
Winner: 802.11b, by about the cost of a new PC (and some long EtherNet cables).
Mobility
802.11b: Still works even if you run with your laptop.
Optical: Drops the connection every time your annoying office-mate bumps the cubicle wall.
Winner: 802.11b can handle any move you make.
Security
802.11b: Shitty, unless you live in a Faraday Cage.
Optical: Shitty, unless you live in a windowless hole.
Winner: Tie. Use IPSec and/or SSH, and it won't matter if you're using RFC 1149 or any other wireless network.
Bandwidth
802.11b: 11Mbps
Optical: 100 Mbps
Winner: Optical, until somebody stands in your line-of-sight.
Overall Score
802.11b, 4. Optical, 1.
In short, forget about optical unless you need 100 Mbps, can't string EtherNet cable, and don't mind if it goes down every time somebody walks by your desk. I'd say it would be good for LAN parties, except it's too expensive. I'd say it's good for trade shows and other temporary large gatherings of computers, except you just know the Microsoft guys would be throwing paper airplanes at the RedHat booth optical transmitter. I have no clue who would actually want this, other than a rich gadget freak.
If I were going to design my own optical networking gadget, it would be peer-to-peer, with each peer having multiple line-of-sight connections to neighbours. That way, if one is interrupted, packets are instantly rerouted through the other links. Unless a crowd of people is standing around your desk, you're fine. It would probably cost way too much, though. Until that gets cheaper, 100BaseT cables duct-taped to the floor, ceiling, and walls are the way to go for quick, cheap connectivity.
We have an older story about building-to-building optical networks, but I think this is first inter-office optical LAN I've seen.
First of all, I think you mean intra-office optical LAN. Second, sometimes, when you get an idea, and nobody else has done it, it means you're a genius. Sometimes, it means you're a moron.
OK, folks, I know you're all just jumping to flame George W. Bush and any other right-wingers you can find, but slow down a second.
.NET and their new licensing system, and a ban on the embrace-and-extend strategy.
What really happened is that the appeals court says that the original judge gave the impression he was biased against Microsoft, due to the nasty remarks he made about the company and the secret press conferences he held. The appeals court then overturned the sentencing portion of the verdict, and remanded the case to a different judge, to craft a new sentence. Nobody's saying Microsoft isn't guilty, they just want a judge who's not biased to sentence MS.
If you remember some of the comments Judge Thomas Jackson made about MS, you'll probably agree he was about as biased against MS as the average Slashdotter. As much as we may think that he was biased "the right way", a judge is supposed to be unbiased, and to allow otherwise is to corrupt the judicial system. This is justice being done (slowly), even if we don't like all the steps along the way.
Besides, who here thinks that just splitting MS in half is the best remedy? Each half will just be as bad as before... I'd much rather see carefully tailored prohibitions against some of the nastier anti-competitive elements of
Maybe you think splitting MS is suitable "punishment". But who does it punish? Microsoft itself is a name and some legal documents, and can't feel pain or unhappiness. The executives won't mind, because, with a split, there will be twice as many positions, and all but the most senior execs will probably get promoted. Does Bill Gates care? It would probably hurt his pride a little (about as much as a cream pie in the face), but it's not like he'll end up homeless on the street. Shareholders might get burned. Before you get excited, remember that your grandmother's pension (or yours, or your teachers') may be heavily invested in MS, without their knowledge. Burning MS might also send the tech economy even farther down the toilet. How many more of you want to be unemployed?
Seriously, folks, this is probably just justice being done (very) slowly and carefully, and it's probably for the best, even if it means we don't get the satisfaction of seeing MS split in two.
Somebody is going to mod me down as a troll, because they think that no person in their right mind could be anything but foaming-at-the-mouth anti-MS. Before you do, ask yourself, what contributes more to a debate, a hundred people agreeing with each other, or rational disagreement?
My family's computers survived a direct strike with nothing more than your average $15 surge protectors. What do I mean by direct? The lightning hit the power pole 20 feet from my house and blew up the transformer.
The only equipment to get fried was stuff connected directly to telephone lines (modem, answering machine, phone, fax).
For the average user, a $15 power strip/surge protector is probably enough. For the paranoid, get something with a replacement warranty. It may not work any better, but at least you'll get a new computer if you do get hit by lightning (and the magic smoke is released).
Is this the same Dr. Hardy who was at the U of Arkansas about ten years ago working with Dr. Sheng? If it is, and I'm not saying it is, I always got the impression that he was a public relations guy and Sheng was the real horsepower.
Nope. Hardy has been at UBC for decades, and has won a shitload of awards. Take a look at his bio, which I linked to in my last message. Also, producing highest-Tc superconductors is mostly a game right now, since it's all very small incremental improvements. The real research involves growing and studying high-quality single-crystal samples to learn how they work, so we can make the next big leap. That's where Canada leads.
Uh, first of all, which U of A? The University of Alberta is also known as the U of A, and it's definitely in Canada. I'm guessing that's not the one you mean.
At UBC, Dr. Hardy's lab grows the world's highest-quality YBCO superconductors in the world. (YBCO is the common abbreviation for them--yes, I know the proper name, but it's too ugly in HTML). He is part of a larger Superconductivity Research Group at the University of British Columbia. That group also works closely with the Muon Spin Rotation Group based at UBC and nearby TRIUMF. Disclaimer: I'm part of the Muon Spin Rotation Group.
We're also in the process of commissioning a Beta-Nuclear Magnetic Resonance apparatus and beamline at TRIUMF, which will be very useful for probes of the local magnetic fields within superconductors (and other condensed matter physics applications).
This is by no means an exhaustive list of the areas in which Canada leads in physics--it's just what I'm familiar with. I know we also recently opened a (privately funded) institute for theoretical physics, and they pay very generous salaries. We've also managed to recruit a few key quantum computing people up from the US.
I'm not trying to say Canada is the best in the world at everything, but we do have some very solid, well-respected programs in physics.
They can't even make a decent beer.
Can't make a decent beer? Try Sleeman's or Granville Island Brewery or some other microbrew. Hell, even Kokanee isn't too bad.
I can't believe that someone from the United States, home of beer with alcohol content so low it has to be expressed in scientific notation, is insulting Canadian beer.
I find it hard to believe that Canada has the scientific know how to be trusted
In certain areas, such as some types of condensed matter physics (Mu-SR, beta-NMR), superconductor research, and some other fields, Canada leads the world. Our research programs are not as large as the US (since we're a smaller country, population-wise), but they're top-notch.
I got modded down because I said mean things (that were entirely true) about the French for collaborating with the Nazis. Come on, people. What's next, are people who condemn the holocaust going to be modded as "Flamebait" because they might upset neo-Nazis?
To the spineless moderator: fuck you, I'm still at the karma cap.
Speaking of wavelengths, I'm trying to modify my computer case to add some extra EM sheilding. (The computer currently affects the TV, radio, cordless phones, etc). Using metal mesh, I don't suppose you (or anyone else) would know a) how small the holes have to be to block all the useful frequencies, b) how great the metal-to-hole ratio has to be, to be effective, and c) if a mesh of wires will do it, even if the wires are insulated and thus the horizontal ones don't connect with the vertical where they cross/touch, (though are elsewhere both connected to each and ground)?
I'm way too lazy to do the calculation for you, but I'd say if the holes are less than 1/4 wavelength in diameter (figure out what wavelength you want to block first), and that the thing is at least 30% metal, you should probably do OK. I don't think there's a clearcut point at which the signal is blocked/not blocked--it's a matter of degree. More metal will block more signal, although making the holes small compared to the wavelength is important. I would recommend using a solid mesh instead of a mesh of insulated wires, though. The extra resistance between two perpendicular wires (if they're connected farther away) might not help. Also, make sure the shielding is grounded.
One thing you might want to do is check the grounds in your house to see if they're working properly. Bad grounds could be causing/aggravating the interference. Buy a ground tester or call an electrician...
DVD Region Encoding is about letting a company control the marketing, distrubution, and use of its own products. The Yahoo/France case is about a foreign government trying to control a company outside its borders. They're entirely different.
IMHO, there's nothing morally wrong with DVD Region Encoding, but it shouldn't be illegal to defeat it.
I don't get why Communist stuff can be sold and Nazi stuff can't.
Because the French were spineless cowards that collaborated with the Nazis to save their own skins, and they're embarrassed by that fact. This is harsh, but entirely true.
At the beginning of the war, France had more planes, more tanks, more of just about everything than Germany. They lost because they're morons when it comes to strategy (Maginot Line! Great idea! Let's build half a wall and hope they don't go around!), and because they just outright surrendured (Vichy, etc.).
Oh sure, if Yahoo lost, your privacy would be better protected at Amazon. The only problem is book prices would double, since Amazon's legal department would have to increase in size 10-fold to ensure they complied with every country's laws. Plus, Amazon wouldn't be able to sell you anything not approved by the Vatican, the Taliban, and the PRC government. In other words, Amazon would be reduced to selling math textbooks at even higher prices than the average campus bookstore.
Or maybe they just wouldn't sell you books.
If the cutoff is in the UV band, then cellphone radiation (microwaves) must be ionising radiation, as microwaves are higher energy than UV AFAIK.
Nope, they're not. The wavelength of microwaves is on the order of centimetres, while the wavelength of UV is on the order of tens or hundreds of nanometres (much smaller). Shorter wavelengths imply higher frequencies which imply higher energies, thus microwaves are non-ionizing.
This is probably the most significant online-freedom case, ever. Sure, it's about a company selling Nazi crap, not some hackers trying to [insert DeCSS/reverse engineering/etc here], but don't let that fool you.
What this case is really about is this: when publishing content online, do you have to comply with your own country's laws, or every country's laws? This ties in with RMS's recent Harm from the Hague piece that Slashdot ran. If you think the DMCA is bad, just wait until you have to comply with 50 different versions of it.
I know the geek answer--cyberspace is global, nobody can regulate the internet, information wants to be free, etc., but I don't think the rest of the world is ready for that answer. They're not willing to take the plunge into some sort of cyber-anarchy (damn, I hate the word "cyber"), and there's no chance in hell everyone will agree on a uniform set of laws (god help us if they do). I don't have an easy solution. I understand the reasons for IP laws (promoting innovation), and I can also see how broken they've become, but I don't see a magical fix. I don't know how jurisdiction conflicts should be resolved over the internet. The same treaty that would allow the US to go after child porn in Amsterdam would allow the Taliban in Afghanistan to censor half the non-porn sites in the US.
One more thing--if you think things are messy now, with the internet and computers, you ain't seen nothin' yet. Biotech is going to shake things up even more, and nanotech is going to make or break the human race... We have to get our act together before it's too late.