...at least from a layman's standpoint. A dumb interceptor has a 50/50 chance of hitting the right target in such a test. They've only done 1 test with the decoy. I wouldn't say that they've proved that the decoy avoidance test has worked. (At least to the public, I'm sure their scientists are analyzing the data to see if the detection scheme they're using is actually up to snuff.)
For me to be convinced, they'd need to either do a 100 more similar tests, or a few more tests where they had more decoys along with the single warhead. But the fact that they hit anything AT ALL is still pretty impressive, if the test wasn't rigged.
The DMCA was written so the United States could be WIPO treaty compliant. Basically, if your home country's name is on this list, you're in deep trouble.
Hopefully not. Looks like the two congressmen who commissioned the report said they can't legislate the problem away:
Two congressmen who commissioned the report said parents should monitor their children's computer use to minimize the problem, as new laws would prove ineffective.
``In this case, parental awareness and parental involvement matter more than legislation,'' said California Democratic Rep. Henry Waxman, who along with Oklahoma Republican Rep. Steve Largent commissioned the report.
Congressmen who are actually slightly clued in? It was hard for me to believe, too.
However, the report is a pretty big weapon in the *AA arsenal. We'll undoubtedly see lots of propoganda for protecting the children. How ironic, when they make boatloads of money selling explicitly-themed movies and music to non-adults. Or maybe it's not - that damned Alanis Morrisette song has got me confused.
I'm sure his wife and kids would disagree. I've never read that he wants to be a martyr for the anti-DMCA cause, and until I do I'm all for getting him out of prison ASAP.
Excellent. Maybe Europe can teach sleepwalking Americans to be more mindful of their vanishing liberties.
I wouldn't go that far. Remember the DMCA wasn't passed in a US centered vacuum - it was passed so the US could be WIPO treaty compliant - a treaty that almost all of Europe signed on too without much public outcry. Look for a version of a the DMCA in a European country near you soon. Whether it will be less or more draconian than the DMCA is really up to them, so soon we'll see how alert they really are.
Agreed. I think Will's priority should be to get Dmitry out of jail, not to challenge the DMCA in court. I've read no indication that Dmitry wishes to be a martyr in the anti-DMCA cause, so he shouldn't be made one against his will.
China has 20 or so CSS-4 ICBMs targeted at US cities. Don't think they'd use them?
Actually, no I don't think so. The Chinese Communist Party is obsessed with survival and staying in power. Tiananmen Square, Falun Gong, and Tibet is consistent with their obsession. Starting a nuclear war with the United States runs counter to that obsession. 20 ICBMs is NOWHERE near enough to prevent the second strike that would wipe them off the face of the earth forever. Their arsenal is there to prevent the US from using nuclear blackmail like we did in the 40s and 50s. Apply the same logic when it comes to the governments of North Korea, Iran, or Iraq. Saddam Hussein may be a bit loopy, but he's still got that pesky survival instinct.
Besides, I thought ABM wasn't supposed to be directed against China? At least that's what W said. Well since it appears to be, China will definitely build enough missiles to overcome the shield. This will spur neighbor and strategic competitor India to build more missiles to defend itself against a Chinese buildup. This will in turn spur Pakistan to build more missiles. The world suddenly gets a lot more dangerous.
First of all, you have to get a suitcase nuke. They're not exactly easy to make
The suitcase nuke question is tricky. I remember Russia saying at one point they'd lost over 100 of the suitcase bombs, and then later denying that they ever had anything like that in the first place. Whether or not they exist is not important, although I'm sure they're hard to make. So long as the bomb is small enough to fit in a semi-truck, shipping container, or railway car, it's possible to sneak it into the country and get it to whatever city they feel like blowing up. Cocaine and immigrants sneak in to the US this way all the time.
the US is pushing for increased Canadian border security and unified policies on security and entry into North America.
Canada has a lot less population than the U.S., with a lot more ground to guard. I think we're more likely to see cold fusion than we are to see a totally secured Canadian border. We can't even secure our own borders. Despite activities like the crackdown on illegal immigration and the war on drugs, people who want to sneak things into this country still manage to do so.
I would bet there are hidden radiation detectors at all the border crossings.
Yes, maybe at major highway border crossings, but I doubt we have the entire Canadian border, the entire Mexican border, and the entire US coastline set up with the things. Nor do I think their range extends 40 feet underground (like the cartel's drug smuggling tunnels on the Mexico border) or 30,000 feet in the air to catch a plane. Maybe the 80 billion missile defense is going to cost us would be better spent on a border sensor net.
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.
Having an ICBM with the levels of accuracy and power the United States and Russia is really only good for one thing: taking out hardened military targets like missile silos. Taking out hardened military targets is only useful if you want to try to eliminate second strike capability. No rogue nation or terrorist group will ever get enough nuclear weapons to eliminate the United States' second strike capability.
Agreed. For example, forced full disclosure of the Word and Excel file formats would severely limit one of their biggest cash cows in Office. Imagine a suite like StarOffice being able to translate MS documents flawlessly. There goes the idea of people having to pay the Microsoft bill every month.
I think it's because Dell is turning the screws. Dell recently announced they were going to slash prices to gain market share. Presumably when the PC market rebounds, the high market share will lead to higher future profits. I'd expect other major PC manufacturers to follow suit.
Dell, Compaq, and Gateway have the cash to burn for a period of aggressive pricing. VA Linux doesn't. I think the higher-ups at VA saw the writing on the wall and saw that the hardware won't bring in the revenue it once did.
Monroe:
All good points. It is clear that the Microsoft license is not well-written and has a lot of loose ends and ambiguities. And it may preclude things that Microsoft didn't intend to preclude. But I'm inclined to agree with Dave Winer: By focusing on this one license, we are losing sight of the licensing forest and focusing only upon one tree. Let's not succumb to the hype (as seen on Slashdot) which says, "This is Microsoft's new EULA! Panic, everyone!" It's just one poorly written license for a beta release of a product.
California's problem largely stem from deregulation. Before deregulation, power plants were built based on one criteria: whether or not the power was needed. This was because the state set prices and guaranteed profits for utilities.
Enter deregulation. Now power plants are built only if they seem profitable Why did no one build a power plant from 1996-1999? Because power was DIRT CHEAP then. The utilities were only too happy to sell off these "money pits." Enter 2000. Combine a shortage of power and the consolidation of the utilities' power plants in the hands of a few energy producers, and you have skyrocketing prices. Now power plants are a cash cow, and companies are scrambling to build them.
So I guess this is a case of the free market working, if you don't mind the availability of power to be dependent on business cycles.
Utilities going bankrupt is all price controls. Although I feel no pity for them because they helped to push the current system through the California legislature. It was a sweetheart deal so long as prices on the spot market stayed low - guaranteed profits. They gambled and lost. Oops.
You're right. When the tobacco industry used their scientific studies to show everyone smoking wasn't harmful, there was no need to go back and doublecheck their work.
I mean, why would they put out a product that KILLED their customers, anyways?
For the category of "Enterprise Journalism," I would say that the most important story broken last year was the Register's CPRM story (from a geek perspective, anyways). Catching media companies in the act of trying to destroy open computer standards through the backdoor was pretty impressive, and I doubt you'd find reporters from MSNBC digging around in T13 conference minutes for the dirt.
What about the mighty Colorado? What if that emptied into a lake instead of the Pacific? It's hard to believe that if the Aral were in the US or any other capitalist country, it would be much better.
The Colorado rarely reaches the Pacific anymore, due to the dams in the U.S. and irrigation in both the U.S. and Mexico. It trickles out into this mudplainy sort of thing. It was featured in a PBS miniseries about water reclamation in the Western U.S., although the name of it escapes me right now.
I was arguing the reach of a French government's jurisdiction action, not the practicality of smuggling SUV's into France. (It's not impossible to smuggle cars, there's a black market for stolen American cars in Mexico). So I doubt my argument hardly crumbles to dust.
If it makes you feel better, reread my comment and replace all instances of cars with "thimbles," and replace "low gas mileage cars" and "Excursions" with "gold thimbles."
And the physical business presence in France (i.e., the server that hosts auctions.yahoo.fr) obeys French law to the letter. However, the French government is trying to regulate Yahoo!'s physical business presence in the U.S. (the server that hosts auctions.yahoo.com). That's what irks a lot of people.
Take this hypothetical scenario: Ford has car dealerships in France and the U.S.. France has a law requiring all vehicles sold to French citizens get a certain gas mileage. The Ford Excursion (naturally) fails to meet these requirements. The Ford Excursion is not sold in French dealerships, but is sold in the US. Should the French government be able to force Ford's U.S. dealerships to check each buyer's proof of citizenship because a French citizen can theoretically call a Ford dealership in the U.S., buy an Excursion over the phone, and have it shipped to France? I sure don't think so.
Multiply this potential mess by having U.S. wings of multinational businesses having to comply with the laws of 100 other countries, and the result is an unworkable situation. The laws of this country are complex enough. If France doesn't want Nazi memorabilia coming into the country, tell French ISPs to block the American Yahoo! auction site or do a better job of checking imports at its borders.
If the crime was truly heinous and they can hear/see it, police have "probable cause" and can break into your house without a warrant to stop the crime. To get a conviction in court, they had to prove they had probable cause to bust in.
Slashdot Mirror
...at least from a layman's standpoint. A dumb interceptor has a 50/50 chance of hitting the right target in such a test. They've only done 1 test with the decoy. I wouldn't say that they've proved that the decoy avoidance test has worked. (At least to the public, I'm sure their scientists are analyzing the data to see if the detection scheme they're using is actually up to snuff.)
For me to be convinced, they'd need to either do a 100 more similar tests, or a few more tests where they had more decoys along with the single warhead. But the fact that they hit anything AT ALL is still pretty impressive, if the test wasn't rigged.
...if you can find it. I think it's out of print :(
The DMCA was written so the United States could be WIPO treaty compliant. Basically, if your home country's name is on this list, you're in deep trouble.
However, the report is a pretty big weapon in the *AA arsenal. We'll undoubtedly see lots of propoganda for protecting the children. How ironic, when they make boatloads of money selling explicitly-themed movies and music to non-adults. Or maybe it's not - that damned Alanis Morrisette song has got me confused.
I sure hope it's an urban legend. Otherwise, I sure hope Canada has room for one more :P
It's in the Constitution. A writ of Habeus Corpus can't be suspended unless there's a rebellion or invasion of the USA.
Whether or not it's applied today is another matter.
I'm sure his wife and kids would disagree. I've never read that he wants to be a martyr for the anti-DMCA cause, and until I do I'm all for getting him out of prison ASAP.
Agreed. I think Will's priority should be to get Dmitry out of jail, not to challenge the DMCA in court. I've read no indication that Dmitry wishes to be a martyr in the anti-DMCA cause, so he shouldn't be made one against his will.
Besides, I thought ABM wasn't supposed to be directed against China? At least that's what W said. Well since it appears to be, China will definitely build enough missiles to overcome the shield. This will spur neighbor and strategic competitor India to build more missiles to defend itself against a Chinese buildup. This will in turn spur Pakistan to build more missiles. The world suddenly gets a lot more dangerous. The suitcase nuke question is tricky. I remember Russia saying at one point they'd lost over 100 of the suitcase bombs, and then later denying that they ever had anything like that in the first place. Whether or not they exist is not important, although I'm sure they're hard to make. So long as the bomb is small enough to fit in a semi-truck, shipping container, or railway car, it's possible to sneak it into the country and get it to whatever city they feel like blowing up. Cocaine and immigrants sneak in to the US this way all the time. Canada has a lot less population than the U.S., with a lot more ground to guard. I think we're more likely to see cold fusion than we are to see a totally secured Canadian border. We can't even secure our own borders. Despite activities like the crackdown on illegal immigration and the war on drugs, people who want to sneak things into this country still manage to do so. Yes, maybe at major highway border crossings, but I doubt we have the entire Canadian border, the entire Mexican border, and the entire US coastline set up with the things. Nor do I think their range extends 40 feet underground (like the cartel's drug smuggling tunnels on the Mexico border) or 30,000 feet in the air to catch a plane. Maybe the 80 billion missile defense is going to cost us would be better spent on a border sensor net. Having an ICBM with the levels of accuracy and power the United States and Russia is really only good for one thing: taking out hardened military targets like missile silos. Taking out hardened military targets is only useful if you want to try to eliminate second strike capability. No rogue nation or terrorist group will ever get enough nuclear weapons to eliminate the United States' second strike capability.
Agreed. For example, forced full disclosure of the Word and Excel file formats would severely limit one of their biggest cash cows in Office. Imagine a suite like StarOffice being able to translate MS documents flawlessly. There goes the idea of people having to pay the Microsoft bill every month.
I think it's because Dell is turning the screws. Dell recently announced they were going to slash prices to gain market share. Presumably when the PC market rebounds, the high market share will lead to higher future profits. I'd expect other major PC manufacturers to follow suit.
Dell, Compaq, and Gateway have the cash to burn for a period of aggressive pricing. VA Linux doesn't. I think the higher-ups at VA saw the writing on the wall and saw that the hardware won't bring in the revenue it once did.
I had an Apple ][ clone too. Was it the Boston IV? The neat thing about it was a special function key that automatically typed BASIC commands for you.
California's problem largely stem from deregulation. Before deregulation, power plants were built based on one criteria: whether or not the power was needed. This was because the state set prices and guaranteed profits for utilities.
Enter deregulation. Now power plants are built only if they seem profitable Why did no one build a power plant from 1996-1999? Because power was DIRT CHEAP then. The utilities were only too happy to sell off these "money pits." Enter 2000. Combine a shortage of power and the consolidation of the utilities' power plants in the hands of a few energy producers, and you have skyrocketing prices. Now power plants are a cash cow, and companies are scrambling to build them.
So I guess this is a case of the free market working, if you don't mind the availability of power to be dependent on business cycles.
Utilities going bankrupt is all price controls. Although I feel no pity for them because they helped to push the current system through the California legislature. It was a sweetheart deal so long as prices on the spot market stayed low - guaranteed profits. They gambled and lost. Oops.
You're right. When the tobacco industry used their scientific studies to show everyone smoking wasn't harmful, there was no need to go back and doublecheck their work.
I mean, why would they put out a product that KILLED their customers, anyways?
For the category of "Enterprise Journalism," I would say that the most important story broken last year was the Register's CPRM story (from a geek perspective, anyways). Catching media companies in the act of trying to destroy open computer standards through the backdoor was pretty impressive, and I doubt you'd find reporters from MSNBC digging around in T13 conference minutes for the dirt.
:)
That's my two cents. Feel free to disagree
The Colorado rarely reaches the Pacific anymore, due to the dams in the U.S. and irrigation in both the U.S. and Mexico. It trickles out into this mudplainy sort of thing. It was featured in a PBS miniseries about water reclamation in the Western U.S., although the name of it escapes me right now.
I was arguing the reach of a French government's jurisdiction action, not the practicality of smuggling SUV's into France. (It's not impossible to smuggle cars, there's a black market for stolen American cars in Mexico). So I doubt my argument hardly crumbles to dust.
If it makes you feel better, reread my comment and replace all instances of cars with "thimbles," and replace "low gas mileage cars" and "Excursions" with "gold thimbles."
And the physical business presence in France (i.e., the server that hosts auctions.yahoo.fr) obeys French law to the letter. However, the French government is trying to regulate Yahoo!'s physical business presence in the U.S. (the server that hosts auctions.yahoo.com). That's what irks a lot of people.
Take this hypothetical scenario: Ford has car dealerships in France and the U.S.. France has a law requiring all vehicles sold to French citizens get a certain gas mileage. The Ford Excursion (naturally) fails to meet these requirements. The Ford Excursion is not sold in French dealerships, but is sold in the US. Should the French government be able to force Ford's U.S. dealerships to check each buyer's proof of citizenship because a French citizen can theoretically call a Ford dealership in the U.S., buy an Excursion over the phone, and have it shipped to France? I sure don't think so.
Multiply this potential mess by having U.S. wings of multinational businesses having to comply with the laws of 100 other countries, and the result is an unworkable situation. The laws of this country are complex enough. If France doesn't want Nazi memorabilia coming into the country, tell French ISPs to block the American Yahoo! auction site or do a better job of checking imports at its borders.
If the crime was truly heinous and they can hear/see it, police have "probable cause" and can break into your house without a warrant to stop the crime. To get a conviction in court, they had to prove they had probable cause to bust in.
If you go to the Sahara in Las Vegas, there are still $1 blackjack tables.
I imagine there are other casinos in Vegas and Reno that are that cheap. It depends on how "ghetto" you are willing to go.
how long it will be before the "NewOS is dying trolls" come out of the woodwork :)