No this really helps. This will *really* help a lot with dumb bad guys on the outside (like, say the storm botnet).
If the connections between different departments are also forced to go through only these 50 departments, that would ensure a further layer of protection.
It is *much* easier to defend a centralized infrastructure (like this) then to defend something random.
This is the same like in real life. Defending a castle is much simpler than defending the village. Yes castle failures are more spectacular and do more damage, but they occur so much less that it's worth to build them anyway. Breaches in the security of a "village" are constant, unfollowable and you cannot prevent them.
I think nuclear is a great idea. I don't think it is such a great idea that solar research should just be shelved(especially when current capital recovery times are approaching 10 years. Get that down to 3-5 years and people are going to start offsetting their air conditioning and what not).
Nobody's saying to shelve solar research. But that's not what al gore's demanding.
He's demanding we cut ALL current energy generation techniques COMPLETELY. And that is a very, very bad idea. We need to build at least some more nuclear infrastructure, and we need to do it now.
Where feasible(cost, demand profile, etc.), replacing coal with something with much a clearer environmental impact(I think this includes nuclear, good luck at town hall meetings...) is a good thing.
Coal is not such a bad thing. CO2 is overblown as a greenhouse gas.
Okay... taking only population growth into account you need to improve efficiency (AVERAGE efficiency, ie. both ocean liners and cigarette lighters and everything between count)... let's see
Population growth rate for the world : 1.159% (this is *not* counting the fact that we live longer)... population doubles every 60 years.
That means *average* efficiency for everything must double every 60 years, from now until forever. Do I really need to paint a picture showing how incredibly unrealistic this is ? Doing that even *once*, without massacres, would be a completely unprecedented feat in human history.
We need a new energy source. Conservation doesn't work. Well perhaps that's "strictu sensu" wrong. But it doesn't help enough.
So here's the real conclusion : either we need a new energy source, and soon, or we need to die (rougly 90% of the human population, and that number is rising*)
* even though it's rising, it will never reach 100%, it's simply rising because the number of people that can be supported by "oil-free" agriculture is constant, while world population is growing, therefore the percentage that can survive without a huge energy source is dropping
Not at all. Such decisions are made by consensus. No single human being makes the call, and censorship is not permitted.
So groups of more than one person (which kick out "undesireables" no less) are not capable of doing censorship ?/me takes a look at *any* muslim country... yep... censorship... that's a billion people total, who are clearly unfairly biased. And it's by consensus (well... "mostly").
Communists, the largest atheist group... yep... that's another billion people (partly overlapping)... also unfairly biased.
Iran... decisions by consensus ? Yep... do they still execute homosexuals for the crime of being homosexual ? Yep. Do they execute people for thinking different from them ("apostates")? Yep. Is that by consensus ? Yep... the consensus amongst Iran's imam's is indeed that homosexuals must be executed, anyone who thinks differently from them not merely silenced, but killed.
That's group consensus for ya.
Slashdot...
decisions made by consensus... yep
fair reporting... nope
On wikipedia the majority view is the only one presented, except that the majority accepts that *some* minorities with alternative views have the right to be mentioned.
I'm not saying wikipedia's no better than something like Iran. But to say it's fair and gives everyone's viewpoint... that's idiotic.
Everybody's biased. Every consensus is therefore biased too.
This estimate for solar power does not include transmission losses, and assumes you can losslessly transmit power from mexico to alaska (which is a location where you couldn't place this power station).
So in practice, even today, we'd need at least 120% of the stated figure. If all in one plant we'd need 300%.
So you need 12200 square miles for to even start.
Note that this is already bigger than some states. Let's perhaps put this in a better perspective : this would take 0.3% (low estimate) of the surface area of the united states, 1% for the bad estimate.
How long could one do this ? Well in 235 years the entire surface area of the United States would be necessary to generate energy (again : low estimate).
Half of the surface area would be used in 200 years. A small table :
Year - Area Used (low estimate) - (high estimate) 2008 - 0.3 - 1 2055 - 1 - 5 2084 - 2 - 15 2120 - 5 - 50 2141 - 10 - 100... (high estimate includes a demand growth of 3.5% per year, which is the expected value if energy prices remain constant at higher demand, which is presumably what you want to do, especially since the alternative is letting people freeze)
By contrast, energy generation by new generation nuclear power plants will last, with the large growth, over 600 years, with current technology, with thorium reactors, with negligeable surface area used. In that time, they will generate only 500 tons of problematic waste, ie. nothing we can't handle. And if we still don't have fusion power by then, well, then nobody can say we didn't give the scientists as much time as possible to study it.
And obviously, nuclear power works in Alaska too. Alaska receives only 16% of solar energy, so to power alaska you'd need an 8x bigger solar station.
Yet wikipedia, too, without any sort of responsability and/or splitting of articles, remains to show only one single point of view. It is however not even the viewpoint of the author, it's the "politically correct" viewpoint that's held by basically majority of interested parties. And there are plenty of subjects people just don't agree on.
They have a "neutral point of view" policy. In practice, however, this means that they just enforce point of views top-down.
Here's hoping google knol will allow for more opinions to be heard.
ESPECIALLY on the "could have made feasible electric cars a reality".
Note that this is the PAST tense. So now the burden is on you to prove that 1) electric cars were feasible before 2008, except for one single component, the battery (e.g. prove that there is extensive recharging infrastructure, anyone can look around and verify this isn't true. Oh and your home socket won't do I'm afraid. That isn't feasable). 2) prove that "oil companies" knowingly sabotaged (which means "not funding" is not enough) development of specific battery types. In essence you'd have to prove that academics have a working battery design, demonstrated, peer-reviewed, etc, again before 2008, and then prove that development was prevented by an oil company (with patent lawsuits for example).
They would be somewhat less scary than humans with guns you mean ? That's a seriously flawed AI, as was aptly demonstrated on countless occasions in history.
And a lot less scary than animals with built-in "guns" and claws, because those AI's are beyond stupid. A crow stealing seedgrains for example, can you think of a more stupid action ? Then again, humans have done the same. That, obviously does not change that it's stupid.
Stealing (a bit) of harvest (you know "taxes"), THAT I can understand. But stealing seedgrain like every crow does every spring ?
Well if it matters to you the direct approach (ie bouncing light of mirrors into* a sterling engine) is unencumbered (it *was* patented, so don't worry anyone will repatent it).
* "onto" would be the more correct term physically, but the sunlight makes the engine turn, so I'm thinking "into" is a nicer way to say that
Also oil companies have patents on solar power because solar panels are made of... (tadaa)... oil (well an oil substrate, followed by Si, followed by more oil).
If it makes you feel better, they hardly have any patents on biofuels (I guess they thought that using people's food to drive cars was both not feasible and inhumane. The "green" nuts thought that it lowered co2 and killed (faraway) humans, again lowering co2 output, so I guess for them it's just great business, right ?)
And since you are so against oil companies (not that I'm pro, but I don't believe they're evil, and I find your conspiracy idiocies truly irritating and hypocritical, since you typed said post in on a product, made by those "evil" oil companies), surely you do not have a car, or anything made of plastic ?
Right ? The keyboard you type the answer to this post on is... wood, right ? Because without oil, it couldn't have been plastic.
"The government" is a really nice abstract term, perfect for conspiracies.
The "government", aka the FBI, the NSA, etc, do not randomly break into machines.
What they do do, they do with the permission of the majority of elected representatives and thus, by proxy, with your permission.
The basic fact of government in a democracy is that, unlike in every other system of government (islamic, communist, dictatorship,...) the government itself is not above the law.
If you have proof of your claim, take it to the courts and the government WILL modify it's behavior.
Now muslim governments, or china's government, or other foreign governments will have no qualms whatsoever using these networks, and you have no legal recourse. That's what sovereignty means. Or they may buy these networks from criminals like spammers do.
Also criminals do this, you *may* have legal recourse, but they ignore it (that's the definition of the word criminal). So unless your government can use violence against said criminals, you're out of luck. Now *that* is the function of the FBI.
Or both of these may buy from eachother (like e.g. afghani drug cartels buying immunity from Chinese provincial govt. or from the taliban, you see islamic justice *is* for sale (price for murder : 200 camels, or 1 (male) slave, or 2 female slaves, payable to the victim's family, and yes you'd think this was a joke, it's not))
A real engineer would not be an asset to a terror-seeking team. If it is terror driven by religion, I can guarantee you that the engineer will always be the odd man out that won't want to stick to the rules, be it scheduling of prayers or that pork rinds are not acceptable, etc.
You *really* don't understand the difference between Christianity and islam, now do you. The reward for terrorists is indeed "72 virgins in the afterlife" HOWEVER, read chapter 9 of the quran "war booty".
Whatever you capture, including women (who become mere property, slaves), is yours to keep and do with as you please (as long as you let your "imam" (which means MILITARY leader, just as "mosque" means fortress, "masjid" means "prayer house", most mosques are both, but primarily military structures) have first choice, and he gets to take 20%). Even raping women kidnapped for ransom is perfectly halal (even encouraged, don't ask me why).
So why don't you think a little bit, the reward for terrorists is -> pay, payed by "islamic charities" (think about this next time a mosque wants subsidies, 20% of those subsidies are meant for buying bullets to pump into american soldiers and innocents in general, this is not a discussion, and not the choice of any muslim, this is written black and white in the hadith) -> whatever he can steal, depending on how extreme they are (specifically whether they practice takfir, now if they are terrorists, you can bet they do this) from muslims and non-muslims alike. A small portion has to be given up for "the cause" to be decided by the imam. Again this is not just "stealing", but this is a case in sharia where stealing is EXPLICITLY PERMITTED and the stolen stuff is "legally" the property of the thief. AND THIS INCLUDES WOMEN. -> admiration, imams in mosques constantly praise terrorists and "martyrs". The prophet himself was a terrorist ("I have won with terror" is a quote of his). Islam does not expect people to "submit" (that's the meaning of islam) willingly, they expect you, and born muslims alike to submit out of mortal fear. Terrorists are not something muslims are ashamed of, but proud of -> a free pass to commit any and all sins you want, ratified by the imams. Even if your parents go out to the imam and ask why you have a playboy collection, the imam will push them back if he knows you are to be a mujahid (which is a honorary title), mujahid is specified in the quran to be the highest form of honor in islam. You know, like a nobel prize for a scientist, there is nothing higher that can be accomplished. -> certainty, and singularity of purpose, religiously sanctified (even by the UN's "anti-discrimination" laws) -> death and destruction (again, as the prophet said to a messenger of the persians "you worship life, and we worship death, that's why we will win". Death, especially causing the death of unbelievers, even at the cost of muslim lives, is not negatively viewed) -> guaranteed entry to heaven, and 72 virgins, whatever other sins you commit
So please don't stare blindly at the "stupidity" of sacrificing yourself for these 72 virgins. The worldly benefits of becoming a terrorist are quite substantial.
The pay is good, and the "respect" is even better. And you get a free pass to hurt others, muslims and non-muslims alike. I'm sure you can appreciate what a pull this sort of deal must have on people living desperate lives, cut away from any instruction but memorizing a single book, and forbidden of doing ANYTHING at all involving women, TV, computers or sports. Strictly speaking, all the former are "haram", only allowed for "mujahids" in the process of hurting infidels, or to gain their trust.
What you want is a sleeper. You find the right kind of young recruit that will make a good engineering student. Indoctrinate first, engineering education later. If you try to indoctrinate an engineer you will probably end up losing your own religion over the ordeal.
Yes you want large numbers of sleepers, but they a
Exactly... why not encode a secret message in volume alteration. Or by a slight speedup or slowdown of the actual voice ? Having a background signal interfering would change exactly nothing (since the signals used to transmit the secret message are the same as the ones transmitting the public message, and they do not have permission for destroying the public message).
Okay, let's see. We create a connection to you from the ISP's headquarters. Assuming there are no problems acquiring a bit of property for receivers and that there are 500 customers in a 5-mile radius from you, and the ISP is about 50 miles away, we are looking at a cost of about 150.000$.
So you pay that, and then you can have $20-per-megabit-per-month 95% pricing.
Slashdot Mirror
No this really helps. This will *really* help a lot with dumb bad guys on the outside (like, say the storm botnet).
... good move !
If the connections between different departments are also forced to go through only these 50 departments, that would ensure a further layer of protection.
It is *much* easier to defend a centralized infrastructure (like this) then to defend something random.
This is the same like in real life. Defending a castle is much simpler than defending the village. Yes castle failures are more spectacular and do more damage, but they occur so much less that it's worth to build them anyway. Breaches in the security of a "village" are constant, unfollowable and you cannot prevent them.
So from security standpoint
I think nuclear is a great idea. I don't think it is such a great idea that solar research should just be shelved(especially when current capital recovery times are approaching 10 years. Get that down to 3-5 years and people are going to start offsetting their air conditioning and what not).
Nobody's saying to shelve solar research. But that's not what al gore's demanding.
He's demanding we cut ALL current energy generation techniques COMPLETELY. And that is a very, very bad idea. We need to build at least some more nuclear infrastructure, and we need to do it now.
Where feasible(cost, demand profile, etc.), replacing coal with something with much a clearer environmental impact(I think this includes nuclear, good luck at town hall meetings...) is a good thing.
Coal is not such a bad thing. CO2 is overblown as a greenhouse gas.
Okay ... taking only population growth into account you need to improve efficiency (AVERAGE efficiency, ie. both ocean liners and cigarette lighters and everything between count) ... let's see
... population doubles every 60 years.
Population growth rate for the world : 1.159% (this is *not* counting the fact that we live longer)
That means *average* efficiency for everything must double every 60 years, from now until forever. Do I really need to paint a picture showing how incredibly unrealistic this is ? Doing that even *once*, without massacres, would be a completely unprecedented feat in human history.
We need a new energy source. Conservation doesn't work. Well perhaps that's "strictu sensu" wrong. But it doesn't help enough.
So here's the real conclusion : either we need a new energy source, and soon, or we need to die (rougly 90% of the human population, and that number is rising*)
* even though it's rising, it will never reach 100%, it's simply rising because the number of people that can be supported by "oil-free" agriculture is constant, while world population is growing, therefore the percentage that can survive without a huge energy source is dropping
I just heard the latest Nvidia graphics card uses 340 watt - at rest.
Do I really need to say more ? More energy = more fun.
Not at all. Such decisions are made by consensus. No single human being makes the call, and censorship is not permitted.
/me takes a look at *any* muslim country ... yep ... censorship ... that's a billion people total, who are clearly unfairly biased. And it's by consensus (well ... "mostly").
... yep ... that's another billion people (partly overlapping) ... also unfairly biased.
... decisions by consensus ? Yep ... do they still execute homosexuals for the crime of being homosexual ? Yep. Do they execute people for thinking different from them ("apostates")? Yep. Is that by consensus ? Yep ... the consensus amongst Iran's imam's is indeed that homosexuals must be executed, anyone who thinks differently from them not merely silenced, but killed.
... ... yep ... nope
... that's idiotic.
So groups of more than one person (which kick out "undesireables" no less) are not capable of doing censorship ?
Communists, the largest atheist group
Iran
That's group consensus for ya.
Slashdot
decisions made by consensus
fair reporting
On wikipedia the majority view is the only one presented, except that the majority accepts that *some* minorities with alternative views have the right to be mentioned.
I'm not saying wikipedia's no better than something like Iran. But to say it's fair and gives everyone's viewpoint
Everybody's biased. Every consensus is therefore biased too.
You mean this one [slashdot.org], where we learn about one of the many people working to keep Wikipedia articles fair? How terrible of him!
Fighting was the word used. How many people have to fight, meaning spend constant attention, in order to keep issues fair ?
Alternative views need to be presented separately, on separate pages, with separate editors. Otherwise, it's just censorship.
As for the ad-hominems, I don't dignify them with an answer.
I obviously forgot about the environmental impact of stealing 1% of sunlight from the remaining nature in America. Never mind covering 50%.
This estimate for solar power does not include transmission losses, and assumes you can losslessly transmit power from mexico to alaska (which is a location where you couldn't place this power station).
... (high estimate includes a demand growth of 3.5% per year, which is the expected value if energy prices remain constant at higher demand, which is presumably what you want to do, especially since the alternative is letting people freeze)
So in practice, even today, we'd need at least 120% of the stated figure. If all in one plant we'd need 300%.
So you need 12200 square miles for to even start.
Note that this is already bigger than some states. Let's perhaps put this in a better perspective : this would take 0.3% (low estimate) of the surface area of the united states, 1% for the bad estimate.
How long could one do this ? Well in 235 years the entire surface area of the United States would be necessary to generate energy (again : low estimate).
Half of the surface area would be used in 200 years. A small table :
Year - Area Used (low estimate) - (high estimate)
2008 - 0.3 - 1
2055 - 1 - 5
2084 - 2 - 15
2120 - 5 - 50
2141 - 10 - 100
By contrast, energy generation by new generation nuclear power plants will last, with the large growth, over 600 years, with current technology, with thorium reactors, with negligeable surface area used. In that time, they will generate only 500 tons of problematic waste, ie. nothing we can't handle. And if we still don't have fusion power by then, well, then nobody can say we didn't give the scientists as much time as possible to study it.
And obviously, nuclear power works in Alaska too. Alaska receives only 16% of solar energy, so to power alaska you'd need an 8x bigger solar station.
Why don't you just look at the slashdot reporting of a few issues.
Hillary Clinton's page was the last one.
Also Jim Wales selling (literally) favorable wikipedia pages comes to mind.
And I do know from experience that alternative views don't last, if they aren't reversed directly.
An article in proper NPOV attempts to present all sides of an issue with appropriate (not equal) weight
... a biased human being ...
Exactly what I am saying. Who decides what's "appropriate" and then makes things unequal ?
So let's summarize this "choosing appropriate sides and removing inappropriate ones". One word : "censorship"
Yet wikipedia, too, without any sort of responsability and/or splitting of articles, remains to show only one single point of view. It is however not even the viewpoint of the author, it's the "politically correct" viewpoint that's held by basically majority of interested parties. And there are plenty of subjects people just don't agree on.
They have a "neutral point of view" policy. In practice, however, this means that they just enforce point of views top-down.
Here's hoping google knol will allow for more opinions to be heard.
Anything plastic is made from oil, with all associated problems ... muslim terrorism, co2 production, the works.
:-p
Until oil hits somewhere near $700/barrel, it will remain cheaper than the next best method too. Except perhaps making it from coal.
Now *that* will solve environmental problems
ESPECIALLY on the "could have made feasible electric cars a reality".
... you vote democrat :-p.
Note that this is the PAST tense. So now the burden is on you to prove that
1) electric cars were feasible before 2008, except for one single component, the battery (e.g. prove that there is extensive recharging infrastructure, anyone can look around and verify this isn't true. Oh and your home socket won't do I'm afraid. That isn't feasable).
2) prove that "oil companies" knowingly sabotaged (which means "not funding" is not enough) development of specific battery types. In essence you'd have to prove that academics have a working battery design, demonstrated, peer-reviewed, etc, again before 2008, and then prove that development was prevented by an oil company (with patent lawsuits for example).
Let me guess
When I get paid for it. I want about 3000$/month. The state here wants another 3000.
When do I start ?
They would be somewhat less scary than humans with guns you mean ? That's a seriously flawed AI, as was aptly demonstrated on countless occasions in history.
And a lot less scary than animals with built-in "guns" and claws, because those AI's are beyond stupid. A crow stealing seedgrains for example, can you think of a more stupid action ? Then again, humans have done the same. That, obviously does not change that it's stupid.
Stealing (a bit) of harvest (you know "taxes"), THAT I can understand. But stealing seedgrain like every crow does every spring ?
Well if it matters to you the direct approach (ie bouncing light of mirrors into* a sterling engine) is unencumbered (it *was* patented, so don't worry anyone will repatent it).
... (tadaa) ... oil (well an oil substrate, followed by Si, followed by more oil).
... wood, right ? Because without oil, it couldn't have been plastic.
* "onto" would be the more correct term physically, but the sunlight makes the engine turn, so I'm thinking "into" is a nicer way to say that
Also oil companies have patents on solar power because solar panels are made of
If it makes you feel better, they hardly have any patents on biofuels (I guess they thought that using people's food to drive cars was both not feasible and inhumane. The "green" nuts thought that it lowered co2 and killed (faraway) humans, again lowering co2 output, so I guess for them it's just great business, right ?)
And since you are so against oil companies (not that I'm pro, but I don't believe they're evil, and I find your conspiracy idiocies truly irritating and hypocritical, since you typed said post in on a product, made by those "evil" oil companies), surely you do not have a car, or anything made of plastic ?
Right ? The keyboard you type the answer to this post on is
Great ! Start by finding a new maneuvre.
That's a patent btw. A new maneuvre. You get paid for publicizing all about it, that's the idea of patents.
"The government" is a really nice abstract term, perfect for conspiracies.
...) the government itself is not above the law.
The "government", aka the FBI, the NSA, etc, do not randomly break into machines.
What they do do, they do with the permission of the majority of elected representatives and thus, by proxy, with your permission.
The basic fact of government in a democracy is that, unlike in every other system of government (islamic, communist, dictatorship,
If you have proof of your claim, take it to the courts and the government WILL modify it's behavior.
Now muslim governments, or china's government, or other foreign governments will have no qualms whatsoever using these networks, and you have no legal recourse. That's what sovereignty means. Or they may buy these networks from criminals like spammers do.
Also criminals do this, you *may* have legal recourse, but they ignore it (that's the definition of the word criminal). So unless your government can use violence against said criminals, you're out of luck. Now *that* is the function of the FBI.
Or both of these may buy from eachother (like e.g. afghani drug cartels buying immunity from Chinese provincial govt. or from the taliban, you see islamic justice *is* for sale (price for murder : 200 camels, or 1 (male) slave, or 2 female slaves, payable to the victim's family, and yes you'd think this was a joke, it's not))
Is less than 200 mbit. Separation of religion and state is probably worth even less.
Great to know.
A real engineer would not be an asset to a terror-seeking team. If it is terror driven by religion, I can guarantee you that the engineer will always be the odd man out that won't want to stick to the rules, be it scheduling of prayers or that pork rinds are not acceptable, etc.
You *really* don't understand the difference between Christianity and islam, now do you. The reward for terrorists is indeed "72 virgins in the afterlife" HOWEVER, read chapter 9 of the quran "war booty".
Whatever you capture, including women (who become mere property, slaves), is yours to keep and do with as you please (as long as you let your "imam" (which means MILITARY leader, just as "mosque" means fortress, "masjid" means "prayer house", most mosques are both, but primarily military structures) have first choice, and he gets to take 20%). Even raping women kidnapped for ransom is perfectly halal (even encouraged, don't ask me why).
So why don't you think a little bit, the reward for terrorists is
-> pay, payed by "islamic charities" (think about this next time a mosque wants subsidies, 20% of those subsidies are meant for buying bullets to pump into american soldiers and innocents in general, this is not a discussion, and not the choice of any muslim, this is written black and white in the hadith)
-> whatever he can steal, depending on how extreme they are (specifically whether they practice takfir, now if they are terrorists, you can bet they do this) from muslims and non-muslims alike. A small portion has to be given up for "the cause" to be decided by the imam. Again this is not just "stealing", but this is a case in sharia where stealing is EXPLICITLY PERMITTED and the stolen stuff is "legally" the property of the thief. AND THIS INCLUDES WOMEN.
-> admiration, imams in mosques constantly praise terrorists and "martyrs". The prophet himself was a terrorist ("I have won with terror" is a quote of his). Islam does not expect people to "submit" (that's the meaning of islam) willingly, they expect you, and born muslims alike to submit out of mortal fear. Terrorists are not something muslims are ashamed of, but proud of
-> a free pass to commit any and all sins you want, ratified by the imams. Even if your parents go out to the imam and ask why you have a playboy collection, the imam will push them back if he knows you are to be a mujahid (which is a honorary title), mujahid is specified in the quran to be the highest form of honor in islam. You know, like a nobel prize for a scientist, there is nothing higher that can be accomplished.
-> certainty, and singularity of purpose, religiously sanctified (even by the UN's "anti-discrimination" laws)
-> death and destruction (again, as the prophet said to a messenger of the persians "you worship life, and we worship death, that's why we will win". Death, especially causing the death of unbelievers, even at the cost of muslim lives, is not negatively viewed)
-> guaranteed entry to heaven, and 72 virgins, whatever other sins you commit
So please don't stare blindly at the "stupidity" of sacrificing yourself for these 72 virgins. The worldly benefits of becoming a terrorist are quite substantial.
The pay is good, and the "respect" is even better. And you get a free pass to hurt others, muslims and non-muslims alike. I'm sure you can appreciate what a pull this sort of deal must have on people living desperate lives, cut away from any instruction but memorizing a single book, and forbidden of doing ANYTHING at all involving women, TV, computers or sports. Strictly speaking, all the former are "haram", only allowed for "mujahids" in the process of hurting infidels, or to gain their trust.
What you want is a sleeper. You find the right kind of young recruit that will make a good engineering student. Indoctrinate first, engineering education later. If you try to indoctrinate an engineer you will probably end up losing your own religion over the ordeal.
Yes you want large numbers of sleepers, but they a
Mod parent up !
"Centrist" != "equal to my own ideas"
Exactly ... why not encode a secret message in volume alteration. Or by a slight speedup or slowdown of the actual voice ? Having a background signal interfering would change exactly nothing (since the signals used to transmit the secret message are the same as the ones transmitting the public message, and they do not have permission for destroying the public message).
Okay, let's see. We create a connection to you from the ISP's headquarters. Assuming there are no problems acquiring a bit of property for receivers and that there are 500 customers in a 5-mile radius from you, and the ISP is about 50 miles away, we are looking at a cost of about 150.000$.
So you pay that, and then you can have $20-per-megabit-per-month 95% pricing.
Do we have a deal ?
If you're into C/C++ check out KDE ! You'll receive mentoring, and money.
http://techbase.kde.org/index.php?title=Projects/Summer_of_Code/2008/Ideas
How exactly do you legitimately purchase a book on thepiratebay ? Because it seems they forgot to tell me.