Plants absorb quite a bit of carbon from the ground. That's a lot of old carbon that's released there. They estimate about 30% of the plant is old carbon.
Strictly speaking all carbon except Carbon 14 is "old" carbon. Unless a plant is growing on a coal seam or has it's roots stuck in an oil well it will not be taking up fossil carbon. Using any kind of farmed crop for fuel will tend towards a dynamic equilibrium WRT to carbon dioxide in the air.
How can this possibly be "tested?" Were any people now known to be terrorists flying on JetBlue during that time period? If not, how does anyone know whether the high-risk coding was valid?
Profiling means that the airport security has enough sense not to strip-search children and grandmothers just because some "random" sampling rule tells them to.
Thus the terrorists know which people won't be bothered by airport security.
Correlating several databases together gives you a good profile of the people on the plane, but it doesn't give you an idea if someone is a terrorist. Like the presentation sais, Find a needle in a haystack, without knowing what the needle looks like If you don't know what it looks like you won't find it.
Actually it's an even worst problem since needles are inanimate objects which don't try to hide or disguise themselves as something else.
What you do find is anamolous behaviour that points to interesting people to check.
In practice you wind up with so many "false positives", regardless of criteria, that the chances of actually catching a terrorist are remote.
Finding these people largely depends on how much they differ from the ordinary profile. Ordinary here is middle income suburbanite. So low income ghetto dwellers get singled out time and time again. Yes they might be out of the ordinary, but it doesn't mean that they will blow up the plane.
More likely that those who will will be "normal"...
Were Shakespeare alive today, he would have a fairly good lawsuit against Disney for infringing on Hamlet.
Assuming he hadn't been sued into bankruptcy over the plots of several of his plays. Anyway Disney has deep enough pockets to keep any such lawsuit going until the plaintiff runs out of money.
DU has an enormously long halflife and produces mostly alpha particles when it decays (if my sources are correct) which can be blocked with a sheet of notebook paper!
A long halflife means that it can continue to be a problem for a long time. Alpha emitters are dangerous when they get inside the body.
Now, pulverize the same DU into particles that can be airborne. Now ingest those same particles and repeat the study. I believe you will find different results.
You don't have to directly ingest the uranium. it can just as easily wind up in a plant or animal you eat. The decay of a specific atom happens at random, a U238 atom could at any time fire off an alpha particle, in the process becoming Th234 or it might do nothing for the next few billion years.
This is because ingested radioactive material producing alpha and beta radiation will not be absorbed by dead skin, but instead by live cells.
Alpha radiation is generally considered the more damaging, these have a fairly low speed, +2 electrical charge and a mass of 4. Whereas a beta particle is a fast moving electron.
Depleted uranium is not radioactive, but it is toxic.
There is no stable isotope of uranium. U238, which forms the majority of the uranium in these munitions, happens to have the longest half life. Any piece of uranium will also inevitably be contaminated with "daughter" elements of the uranium decay chain. Some of which are nastier than uranium when it comes to chemical and radioactive poisoning.
If you think it's a great idea to spray the environment with these bullets, then by all means, please allow me to dump a box of spent ammo into your water supply.
A solid lump of uranium is the safest form. The danger comes from it in dust form, most likely formed when fireing from a gun, hitting something or being left around to be "sandblasted".
You may feel that Project Censored has a political agenda, and that's certainly your privledge.
If the news media themselves have a political adgenda any review of the kind of stories they don't tend to publish will appear to have aome kind of "adgenda".
Come off it, even Microsoft doesn't follow their stated "best practices".
No doubt Microsoft have also changed what they consider "best practices" over the years. So even if an app followed such guidelines when it was written this may no longer be the case.
Usually, if someone dies before he can push the plunger on his suicide vest bomb, the bomb doesn't go off.
In which case all they need is a switch which arms the bomb when pressed and detonates when released. (With a separate switch to disarm in they cannot get close enough to their target.) People making such weapons arn't stupid they have heard of the concept of a "dead man's switch".
Odd, I'd swear that there was no hard evidence that al Qaeda actually committed the WTC attack.
There is not that much hard evidence that Al-Qaeda has done most of the things it is accused of. Effectivly "Al-Qaeda did it" is the response the (Western) press has to a recent set of attacks where there is no claim of responsibility and little (if any) hard evidence.
From my experience, once you have a decent basic unix skill set and know how to use some of the basic tools, learning how to do more advanced things on unix is far easier than MS Windows.
With unix quite a bit of the "hard stuff" comes at the beginning. With Windows the hard stuff tends to come after people think they know what's happening. One "learning curve" is of the form y=x^(1/n) the other of the form y=x^n.
As an admin, admining a lot of Windows desktops and servers, let me tell you 'I don't know, try rebooting" *IS* a totally valid answer, and one I hear, and have even suggested many times. There are things Windows does, that cannot be explained by common sense alone. Rebooting tends to be the easiest way to fix them.
Which should hardly inspire confidence to use it for anything remotly critical...
Some app mysteriously fails, leaves no trace, doesn't log. A reboot is the only way to solve it! Hence, I dont know, try rebooting, is a perfectly valid answer for a Windows admin.
Yet the phrase "Windows Wizard" never appears to have caught on. Even though it makes more sense than "Unix Wizard".
Windows is very complex; however, Microsoft has successfully brainwashed the masses to think otherwise.
Through a combination of marketing and what appears, at first sight, to be a simple interface.
For example, how does a person successfully troubleshoot Windows? Saying "I don't know, try rebooting" is not a valid answer.
Very few people know how to actually troubleshoot Windows. Understanding what is actually going on just dosn't appear to be part of the "Windows culture". A culture which can quite often come across as anti-sysadmin.
More importantly I hate the fact that windows wont allow you to move even slightly away from what they decide you are allowed to do. Linux on the other hand is a nice mix of smaller pieces I can string together.
Thus you close something which Windows allows you to do easily for such a comparison. Which may or may not be something you need to do...
So far as leaking secrets to competitors, the DRM "solution" simply requires you to convert across an independent medium... printout, screenshot, photograph of screen.
The most obvious "hole" being a "print to file" option.
The only thing this "DRM" provides is the ability to mass-distribute a document within a company without worrying that someone might be on a mailing list that they're not supposed to be on...
Not even that, if the mailing list and list of authorised users is derived from the same source.
They still don' t get it. Even though the article is moderately positive, any article about Linux that starts with "the Jury is in" was written by someone who does not fully understand the dynamics of Open Source. How can "the jury" be "in" on an environment that changes so rapidly as Linux does?
Much the same can be said about Windows. If anything Windows is worst, since it's changes are at least as likely to be made for pure marketing reasons as an actual attempt to improve function.
There's no such thing as a "nuclear powered destroyer." The Navy has nuke subs, carriers, and two cruisers (the Texas and the Virginia), but all destroyers are powered by gas turbines (basically, the same engines found on large aircraft).
Gas turbines are used on a lot of aircraft, including helicopters. They have the advantage of less moving parts than other internal combustion engines. A nuclear ship will generally use a steam turbine.
If I were to put windows in a nuclear power plant, I would sign the proper NDAs with microsoft and view their source, just like others before have already done.
Which is an additional cost and hurdle with Windows. Then if your audit team recommend that the code needs changing with an open source system then you have nothing stopping you getting that done, with a proprietary system you need to convince the vendor. If they are under contract to you then that is probably possible, with an "off the shelf" system then good luck!
Using Windows in a public library or an Internet cafe is probably a reasonable choice. Simplicity is a greater priority, because users can't be expected to be savvy in technology. Everybody should have equal access to the resources in a library, no matter what their knowledge.
The last thing you want is Windows "ease of use" enabling someone to put up pornographic (or political) desktops or screensavers on such machines though. Anyway if the interface is sufficently similar to (one of) the Windows interface(s) there really is no issue.
When you're talking about specialized machines in a professional workplace, especially when it is supposedly secure, ease-of-use is not an issue. If you don't like the GUI, pay someone to build a new one.
Assuming it even has a GUI in the first place. You even see plenty of Windows machines emulating dumb terminals.
On an Aircraft Carrier's computer network, real-time response is probably not vital. There's nothing you can really do that requires millisecond or nanosecond precision. The anti-missile systems might, but they'll have their own control systems. And, even then, you'll hit mechanical limits far sooner than you'll hit the OS limits.
The same applies to an ILS for an aircraft carrier, given that the "runway" is moving randomly in 3 dimensions.
No, for such environments, you want a Trusted OS on every box. Security is paramount. Given the costs involved, you could have 100 full-time GUI programmers developing a nice front-end, specific to the Navy, and still be adding less than 1% to the total cost.
You also need a system which is robust and redundent. Able to keep functioning so long as the ship is still afloat. Which means that components and cables need to be blast and fire resistant with battery backups for power supply. The OS or UI isn't going to help much if the hardware isn't up to the job...
Microsoft chose to treat users like idiots - think Clippy, wizards up the yin-yang, reams of obtuse dialogs and unpredictable interface behaviour.
At the same time Windows and many Windows apps tend towards letting the end user do whatever they like. Including installing software, be in a fancy screen saver or a virus. (If you want to treat end users like "idiots" you cannot at the same time allow them to go altering the way the OS and applications work in critical ways.) With file protection features of the latter versions of Windows often having to be switched off so that needed applications will run. (In some cases these arn't even old applications.)
They helped created that unknowledgeable user population, and they thus have a responsibility to provide absolutely 100% bulletproof software right out the gate - but we all know that's impossible regardless of resources.
The problem isn't just a user problem, there is just as big a problem amongst the Windows developer population.
Slashdot Mirror
By the way, this only works if you assume each burned plant will be replaced by a equivalent plant.
Thus the best option is a farmed plant.
Of course, natural decay of the shells would release the CO2 in any case.
The decay process can also produce methane. Which is worst "greenhouse gas" than carbon dioxide.
Plants absorb quite a bit of carbon from the ground. That's a lot of old carbon that's released there. They estimate about 30% of the plant is old carbon.
Strictly speaking all carbon except Carbon 14 is "old" carbon. Unless a plant is growing on a coal seam or has it's roots stuck in an oil well it will not be taking up fossil carbon.
Using any kind of farmed crop for fuel will tend towards a dynamic equilibrium WRT to carbon dioxide in the air.
How can this possibly be "tested?" Were any people now known to be terrorists flying on JetBlue during that time period? If not, how does anyone know whether the high-risk coding was valid?
Maybe they ask people "are you a terrorist?"
Profiling means that the airport security has enough sense not to strip-search children and grandmothers just because some "random" sampling rule tells them to.
Thus the terrorists know which people won't be bothered by airport security.
Correlating several databases together gives you a good profile of the people on the plane, but it doesn't give you an idea if someone is a terrorist. Like the presentation sais, Find a needle in a haystack, without knowing what the needle looks like If you don't know what it looks like you won't find it.
Actually it's an even worst problem since needles are inanimate objects which don't try to hide or disguise themselves as something else.
What you do find is anamolous behaviour that points to interesting people to check.
In practice you wind up with so many "false positives", regardless of criteria, that the chances of actually catching a terrorist are remote.
Finding these people largely depends on how much they differ from the ordinary profile. Ordinary here is middle income suburbanite. So low income ghetto dwellers get singled out time and time again. Yes they might be out of the ordinary, but it doesn't mean that they will blow up the plane.
More likely that those who will will be "normal"...
Were Shakespeare alive today, he would have a fairly good lawsuit against Disney for infringing on Hamlet.
Assuming he hadn't been sued into bankruptcy over the plots of several of his plays. Anyway Disney has deep enough pockets to keep any such lawsuit going until the plaintiff runs out of money.
DU has an enormously long halflife and produces mostly alpha particles when it decays (if my sources are correct) which can be blocked with a sheet of notebook paper!
A long halflife means that it can continue to be a problem for a long time. Alpha emitters are dangerous when they get inside the body.
Now, pulverize the same DU into particles that can be airborne. Now ingest those same particles and repeat the study. I believe you will find different results.
You don't have to directly ingest the uranium. it can just as easily wind up in a plant or animal you eat. The decay of a specific atom happens at random, a U238 atom could at any time fire off an alpha particle, in the process becoming Th234 or it might do nothing for the next few billion years.
This is because ingested radioactive material producing alpha and beta radiation will not be absorbed by dead skin, but instead by live cells.
Alpha radiation is generally considered the more damaging, these have a fairly low speed, +2 electrical charge and a mass of 4. Whereas a beta particle is a fast moving electron.
Depleted uranium is not radioactive, but it is toxic.
There is no stable isotope of uranium. U238, which forms the majority of the uranium in these munitions, happens to have the longest half life. Any piece of uranium will also inevitably be contaminated with "daughter" elements of the uranium decay chain. Some of which are nastier than uranium when it comes to chemical and radioactive poisoning.
If you think it's a great idea to spray the environment with these bullets, then by all means, please allow me to dump a box of spent ammo into your water supply.
A solid lump of uranium is the safest form. The danger comes from it in dust form, most likely formed when fireing from a gun, hitting something or being left around to be "sandblasted".
You may feel that Project Censored has a political agenda, and that's certainly your privledge.
If the news media themselves have a political adgenda any review of the kind of stories they don't tend to publish will appear to have aome kind of "adgenda".
Come off it, even Microsoft doesn't follow their stated "best practices".
No doubt Microsoft have also changed what they consider "best practices" over the years. So even if an app followed such guidelines when it was written this may no longer be the case.
Usually, if someone dies before he can push the plunger on his suicide vest bomb, the bomb doesn't go off.
In which case all they need is a switch which arms the bomb when pressed and detonates when released. (With a separate switch to disarm in they cannot get close enough to their target.) People making such weapons arn't stupid they have heard of the concept of a "dead man's switch".
Odd, I'd swear that there was no hard evidence that al Qaeda actually committed the WTC attack.
There is not that much hard evidence that Al-Qaeda has done most of the things it is accused of. Effectivly "Al-Qaeda did it" is the response the (Western) press has to a recent set of attacks where there is no claim of responsibility and little (if any) hard evidence.
From my experience, once you have a decent basic unix skill set and know how to use some of the basic tools, learning how to do more advanced things on unix is far easier than MS Windows.
With unix quite a bit of the "hard stuff" comes at the beginning. With Windows the hard stuff tends to come after people think they know what's happening. One "learning curve" is of the form y=x^(1/n) the other of the form y=x^n.
As an admin, admining a lot of Windows desktops and servers, let me tell you 'I don't know, try rebooting" *IS* a totally valid answer, and one I hear, and have even suggested many times. There are things Windows does, that cannot be explained by common sense alone. Rebooting tends to be the easiest way to fix them.
Which should hardly inspire confidence to use it for anything remotly critical...
Some app mysteriously fails, leaves no trace, doesn't log. A reboot is the only way to solve it! Hence, I dont know, try rebooting, is a perfectly valid answer for a Windows admin.
Yet the phrase "Windows Wizard" never appears to have caught on. Even though it makes more sense than "Unix Wizard".
Windows is very complex; however, Microsoft has successfully brainwashed the masses to think otherwise.
Through a combination of marketing and what appears, at first sight, to be a simple interface.
For example, how does a person successfully troubleshoot Windows? Saying "I don't know, try rebooting" is not a valid answer.
Very few people know how to actually troubleshoot Windows. Understanding what is actually going on just dosn't appear to be part of the "Windows culture". A culture which can quite often come across as anti-sysadmin.
More importantly I hate the fact that windows wont allow you to move even slightly away from what they decide you are allowed to do. Linux on the other hand is a nice mix of smaller pieces I can string together.
Thus you close something which Windows allows you to do easily for such a comparison. Which may or may not be something you need to do...
So far as leaking secrets to competitors, the DRM "solution" simply requires you to convert across an independent medium... printout, screenshot, photograph of screen.
The most obvious "hole" being a "print to file" option.
The only thing this "DRM" provides is the ability to mass-distribute a document within a company without worrying that someone might be on a mailing list that they're not supposed to be on...
Not even that, if the mailing list and list of authorised users is derived from the same source.
Just imagine the backlash that will come from inter-company communication via Excel and Word.
:)
Since Microsoft want a good revenue generator maybe in the future you will need a special licence to exchange office format docs
They still don' t get it. Even though the article is moderately positive, any article about Linux that starts with "the Jury is in" was written by someone who does not fully understand the dynamics of Open Source. How can "the jury" be "in" on an environment that changes so rapidly as Linux does?
Much the same can be said about Windows. If anything Windows is worst, since it's changes are at least as likely to be made for pure marketing reasons as an actual attempt to improve function.
There's no such thing as a "nuclear powered destroyer." The Navy has nuke subs, carriers, and two cruisers (the Texas and the Virginia), but all destroyers are powered by gas turbines (basically, the same engines found on large aircraft).
Gas turbines are used on a lot of aircraft, including helicopters. They have the advantage of less moving parts than other internal combustion engines. A nuclear ship will generally use a steam turbine.
If I were to put windows in a nuclear power plant, I would sign the proper NDAs with microsoft and view their source, just like others before have already done.
Which is an additional cost and hurdle with Windows.
Then if your audit team recommend that the code needs changing with an open source system then you have nothing stopping you getting that done, with a proprietary system you need to convince the vendor. If they are under contract to you then that is probably possible, with an "off the shelf" system then good luck!
Using Windows in a public library or an Internet cafe is probably a reasonable choice. Simplicity is a greater priority, because users can't be expected to be savvy in technology. Everybody should have equal access to the resources in a library, no matter what their knowledge.
The last thing you want is Windows "ease of use" enabling someone to put up pornographic (or political) desktops or screensavers on such machines though. Anyway if the interface is sufficently similar to (one of) the Windows interface(s) there really is no issue.
When you're talking about specialized machines in a professional workplace, especially when it is supposedly secure, ease-of-use is not an issue. If you don't like the GUI, pay someone to build a new one.
Assuming it even has a GUI in the first place. You even see plenty of Windows machines emulating dumb terminals.
On an Aircraft Carrier's computer network, real-time response is probably not vital. There's nothing you can really do that requires millisecond or nanosecond precision. The anti-missile systems might, but they'll have their own control systems. And, even then, you'll hit mechanical limits far sooner than you'll hit the OS limits.
The same applies to an ILS for an aircraft carrier, given that the "runway" is moving randomly in 3 dimensions.
No, for such environments, you want a Trusted OS on every box. Security is paramount. Given the costs involved, you could have 100 full-time GUI programmers developing a nice front-end, specific to the Navy, and still be adding less than 1% to the total cost.
You also need a system which is robust and redundent. Able to keep functioning so long as the ship is still afloat. Which means that components and cables need to be blast and fire resistant with battery backups for power supply. The OS or UI isn't going to help much if the hardware isn't up to the job...
Microsoft chose to treat users like idiots - think Clippy, wizards up the yin-yang, reams of obtuse dialogs and unpredictable interface behaviour.
At the same time Windows and many Windows apps tend towards letting the end user do whatever they like. Including installing software, be in a fancy screen saver or a virus. (If you want to treat end users like "idiots" you cannot at the same time allow them to go altering the way the OS and applications work in critical ways.) With file protection features of the latter versions of Windows often having to be switched off so that needed applications will run. (In some cases these arn't even old applications.)
They helped created that unknowledgeable user population, and they thus have a responsibility to provide absolutely 100% bulletproof software right out the gate - but we all know that's impossible regardless of resources.
The problem isn't just a user problem, there is just as big a problem amongst the Windows developer population.