No, really, I don't care what international law says - my work is my own, unless I release it. But unless someone is deliberately making money by deliberately robbing my idea/work, I won't care anyway.
That's my take, basically. I don't mind commercials, I don't mind commercialism/consumerism, I don't mind capitalism. What I do mind is a push-button McSociety. But I don't watch tv much anyway, so it doesn't matter to me. As for the 'really targeted' advertising, I don't mind it either - I have no problem giving up my first name, general location, cable box serial number, and personality profile - if it means more great free history channel shows etc. Think about it.
That's exactly why I advocated 'breathing room' in my above post - solutions often come to mind when you're not digging for them. And there are many activities that I would encourage my employees to engage in, such as reading national and world news, browsing slashdot, or giving their pregnant wife a 'hello' call. It makes a person more intelligent, more happy, and in the end, more useful to me. Besides, I am empathetic, I can understand their distractions (such as mine, right now, leaving my girlfriend hanging while I pursue a slashdot item that greatly interests me *chuckle* and btw, she's not angry or upset, either, because she appreciates my interest - just as an employer should)
Technically, no. Privacy at work is a contradiction in terms. But I do think any company who values their employees and wishes to foster a comfortable, reasonable work environment, will allow a little bit of leeway. For instance, while I think they should be allowed to search every single file on your work machine, I think they should be reasonable and leave your browser cookies and history alone - checking your personal email (on their OWN account, not the work account!) is no big deal, especially when it's done while waiting for a meeting or on lunch break. To put it simply, they do not and should not have to give you a single moment of privacy - but I would not feel comfortable working for a company that did not appreciate the fact that I'm a human being and give me a few inches of breathing room.
and you shouldn't be doing anything on it or with it that they would not approve of. Why is it that so many people tend to ignore/forget property rights? Monitoring a home user is evil, monitoring your employees is just smart. If I'm paying someone to do work, I want to know that they're doing it - and if they're getting it done in half the time, then spending the other half browsing porn and napstering, I'll want a goddamn good explanation. Either reward them for their efficiency, or give them more work to do (probably accompanied by a raise due to their heightened value to the company). Sheesh, guys - if it's not your box, and not your network pipes, then shut the fuck up and recognize the owner's rights to his own property.
The courts are doing something to protect our rights. This was wonderful news to wake up to. I remember reading about the guy who was arrested for growing pot in his house based on evidence gathered with heat-sensing technology (this item was probably about that - haven't read it yet)... and I remember the sinking, sad, sickening feeling that came with it. Now this - our freedom from unwarranted searches and seizures, and perhaps even our protection from testifying against ourselves (nevermind mandatory breathalizers etc..) may be getting a bit of real protection. I wish I could say that I hope things get better - but I suspect the best I can realistically expect is for the damage to our liberties to slow down a bit. As I've heard others say, I love my country and the ideas it was founded upon - but I fear my government and the socialistic trend it is following. Speaking of, I admire Timothy McVeigh - what he did was wrong, but he at least understood that there was something wrong with America. I am glad he died, I am glad a monster is removed from society - but I must admire his recognition of the failures of government and his resolve, his confident and solid worldview (yes, it was wrong, but at least he took a stand, at least he bit the bullet, at least he had the guts to do what he thought was right). Monster, bastard, hell-bound (if there was a hell, that is, which there's not) freak - but still a man of conviction, of independent thought and iron will. If there were men with that kind of inner strength, and the right ideas in their head, the world might be a much different place.
... owns me. Not really, but I admire and respect him massively. His statements on individuality, the nature of role models, and self-determination are rare and precious these days. That, in addition to what he's actually DOING - he amazes me. I wish him the best.
This item is related to an earlier post of mine. This event is exactly what I was talking about, and what the Discovery (it wasn't TLC, I was wrong) show was talking about. Example:
Preliminary estimates, Dr. ReVelle said, are that the cosmic intruder was the third largest since the Pentagon began making global satellite observations a quarter century ago. Its explosion in the atmosphere had nearly the force of the
atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima.
Imagine something only 80 feet across causing this kind of reaction. Then imagine something much larger.
I'm a greedy capitalist pig, as my ex's from communist Poland and Vietnam have told me - but even to me, there are things more valuable than money. Ideas are the things that make money possible, and an idea I support is worth some financial investment. Giving back, as every person of standards should. The ideas I would be supporting by contributions are the very ideas that created the market that I make so much money in. Perhaps you should reconsider your values - life is the ultimate value, and anything that improves that life is very valuable. GNU, Linux, etc, have definitely improved my life.
... largely lies in the fact that this money will serve more than one purpose. First, it will infuse the company with fresh funds to expand/sustain operations until overhead thins and profit comes. Second, it will be a show of support for and from and of the community, an example of independent minds, many of high intelligence, agreeing on the same common principles as well as products. This would increase the feeling of community itself, most likely, and be a banner waved at investors claiming the strength of our common interest. Much good could come of this, and were it another distro, one more to my liking, I would gladly liquidate some AMD stock and grab some of say, Slack or fbsd.
the collected comments i made on the previous icann item will suffice
Re:RFC's?! We don't need no stinking RFC's!!
on
IETF vs. ICANN
·
· Score: 1
In the realm of human relationships, nothing is absolute. My comments were based on the abstract, conceptual aspects of the issue. Perhaps you should pay attention to more than just a person's opening statements? Notice words like 'ideology'?
Re:RFC's?! We don't need no stinking RFC's!!
on
IETF vs. ICANN
·
· Score: 2
Gah, I have been unclear, thus seeming to contradict myself. Let me clarify.
Anarchy is incompatible with freedom, as it is simply a form of mob rule. (We won't go into the whole 'anarchy is a system based on the denial of the validity of systems' bit..). Democracy is not much better, it is simply organized mob rule - but at least with a democracy, one has the right and power to suggest alternatives and attempt to sway the system. Look at the US government - a central authority... but we, the people, have the power to affect it, overrule it, blow it off the map if we feel too threatened (at least in theory). Under an unaccountable organization such as ICANN, an individual has no reasonable channels for voicing of concerns, complaints, etc. Vast power is consolidated in the hands of a few who sit on a panel, and individuals have no direct representation on that panel. THAT is my specific complaint. I believe it's generally bad form to complain without offering at least a possible solution, but I have none at present, other than a vague idea of a compartmental naming authority with directly-elected members.
Re:RFC's?! We don't need no stinking RFC's!!
on
IETF vs. ICANN
·
· Score: 2
I never recommended wild abandon in our internet naming system. I did not, in fact, offer any specific alternative. What I said was that a central authority with the arrogance of ICANN is wrong. I have no problem with a central authority, as long as it is chosen by the people it governs. The USA was founded on the idea of 'consent of the governed' as it's basic license for governing power - The internet deserves no less noble of an ideal.
RFC's?! We don't need no stinking RFC's!!
on
IETF vs. ICANN
·
· Score: 2
I haven't read the RFC's myself, and I don't believe I need to. Two things should be apparent to anyone with reasonable intelligence: 1) The internet is the greatest tool for human communication since spoken language; and 2) Any central authority, even if it is just a naming authority, is incompatible with the basic requirements of free expression, and thus should be regarded as a (logical, practical, ideological) contradiction of that freedom. Someone once said something along the lines of "free market economy is the worst system - unless you look at the alternatives". I believe that applies here, as well. Regardless of the technical issues, any centralization of the internet is a blow to the fundamental concepts held by the people who make the internet work. The worst part is, ICANN's power is largely political in nature - and as with all things, any ideology that is predominant is a threat to the minorities, as long as that ideology is based on the idea of control (although I suspect ICANN and it's supporters are the minority, in this case).
Pretty easy, if you ask me. 2k doesn't even offer optional components. Post-install config is a bit more complex, owing to lack of drivers and the fact that Windows actually cares what order you install them in... by the way, what exactly was your point?
Mechanics shouldn't be the only people to drive cars. Linux isn't more stable if they can't install it.
That's a great way to put it. This may seem a little off-topic, but bear with me here. You shouldn't have to know the very guts of a machine to use it - that defeats the purpose of the machine, who's purpose is to make your life easier and give you more free time. But, of course, you should have enough respect for the benefit it provides, to learn how to change your oil and tires. Likewise, Linux and BSD have their obvious redeeming qualities, but none of that matters if the user can't get the system setup properly to see the performance in the first place. The need for systems that provide intelligent install and config systems, without dumbing down the experience in a few important ways, is great - but once again, the user must take enough responsibility to understand a few basic things about the technology that so greatly enhances his life. That which improves one's life must ultimately be appreciated.
So what does all of this have to do with intrustion insurance and the lower opensource rates? Simple. The more complex a system is, the more prone to failure it becomes. Operating systems that try to do everything for the user will always fail - there are simply too many possibilities and branches it must be aware of in order to manage itself. We don't yet have AI, and static code is incapable of handling the infinite number of configurations and situations an operating system will encounter. With systems that bring you much closer to the metal, you tend to be dragged (or to run of your own volition) toward learning more about the system. This leads to greater competency - the insurance rates should be better. It would be the same if UPS's drivers had better training than FedEx's.
My ex-girlfriend was a web developer at Etensity. She was laid off last November along with 50-60 others, in the standard method: Walk in to work and be told to go home. The company offered two weeks pay, and warned that insurance cancellations were being issued that afternoon.
The company had hired her under the following terms:
salaried pay
400$/month car payment assistance
70% cellular phone bill
everything from health to auto to homeowners insurance
So of course she had gone out and bought a brand new Lexus RX300, and was screwed when they were no longer helping her pay for it. As for her health insurance - here's where it gets nasty. Seems Mr. Peter Noche, CEO of Etensity, had decided to save some money by cycling the employee coverage and benefits. What cycling refers to is his ingenious plan to only have insurance on 1/4 to 1/3 of his employees in any given month, the others being dropped at the end of the previous month, to be picked up again when their lot was drawn. This practice was discovered by the newly out of work girlfriend, as well as her friends who were also no longer employed, in the process of digging to find out what the status of their insurance was, because almost *all* of them had recieved bills for treatments, checkups, etc, that had originally been accepted by the insurance companies - then rejected, when their coverage was cancelled before the actual billing process.
The outcome of all of this is that there is now a possibility of a major lawsuit against Etensity and it's partner, OneSoft - if the companies survive long enough to take the beating. So my answer to the one who asked the original question is: Yes, you can probably sue. Breach of contract is no minor thing, and insurance is a vital part of your compensation package. You've done your job, you've provided the services the company needed - apparently, they didn't feel obligated to keep up their end of the deal. I would sue, and I would sue FAST. (On a side note, another insurance issue I dealt with... My mother's employers offered insurance after 3 months on the job. She worked there for 5 months, and then burned her hand. The insurance paperwork had not been filed, she threw a fit, her employers paid her expenses out of their own pockets and she later sued and recieved 15,000$ for her troubles!)
I'm not sure exactly what these bands of material are, the TLC show didn't say much about them - except that there are four primary bands, in elliptical formation around the sun, and we're due to hit one soon. There was some mention of 'debris', I couldn't hear the sentence or two because of noise here at home...
TLC and Discovery have had a lot of impact-scenario shows on lately. What's the sudden fascination about? Simple: The fact that many times in the course of natural history, entire continental, and indeed, global populations have been wiped out by these impacts - and for the first time, Earth has produced a specied that can not only survive it, but entirely prevent it (maybe).
There is an extremely low chance of such a massive collision in the next few hundred years, at least - what should be worrying, instead, is a smaller impact in the Pacific, which could wipe east-coast Japan off the map. These impacts happen much more frequently, some claim once every 10,000 years, and one might be coming soon due to the band of material the Earth is soon to encounter. The effects of such an impact on the global economy are incalculable, and the probabilities of such an occurance are much higher. The Japanese government is growing increasingly concerned, and are considering a 2 to 4 million dollar annual budget for the identification, tracking, and destruction of likely impact masses.
In fact, if the Russian impact of 1908 were in fact a metallic body (as is almost entirely disproven, at this point), and had struck the Pacific instead, this destruction of Japan would have already occured. And when you think about it, a few thousand miles of earth's surface is not a very wide safety margin, relative to the massive distances traveled by these objects.
One comment made in a recent TLC program on this issue strikes me... "Think about it: The number of people we have who are specifically employed to track these objects is smaller than the staff of a neighborhood McDonald's"
great works of art have no more more affecting lesson for us than this: they teach us to abide by our sponaneous impression with good-humoured inflexibility than most when the whole cry of voices is on the other side. Else tomorrow a stranger will say with masterly good sense precisely what we have thought and felt all the time, and we shall be forced to take with shame our own opinion from another.
--- ralph waldo emerson, 'self-reliance', 1841
[emphasis mine]
The point is, think for yourself... well, see sig. Anything can be a religion, if it is 'right' for that particular person. Who is to judge what constitutes a real belief for another person? We will all have our own opinions, as well we should, but an opinion cannot condemn someone. Of course, this is a joke down in Australia, but so what? Technically, the government has every moral responsibility to uphold the citizenry's freedom of choice and expression. If they choose a Hollywood creation as their religion, so be it. If they choose to express whatever idea they deem necessary, by a civil act such as this, that is within their rights.
Ahh, I see the point of concern. No, she hasn't told me the capabilities of our newest subs, but she has let NFD (Not for Foreign Distribution, used for unclassified, but less-than-public info) slip through. Nothing illegal, http://www.fas.org has a HUGE amount of NFD posted.
And no, I don't know who tells their employees to claim DoD.... Well, ONI does, and CIA uses 'OGA', 'Other Governmental Agency'... enlighten me.
Pick her up for what? What crime has she committed? Nothing. She and I are both familiar with TS-level opsec guidelines, her more than me, and she just reviewed my post and saw no problems.:)
To reply to my reply... I'd like to add a few things.
First off, I do know that the military knows *exactly* what is going on, as well as our intelligence community. I had the distinct 'pleasure' of attending a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing, where many juicy morsels of information were dropped regarding our electronic intelligence efforts, as well as our public infrastructure protection measures. These senators (I don't know *which* ones!) are not techies, but they've been charged with keeping a legislative grip on things - and I think they do their homework. Yes, their staffers do the research, but the politicians themselves seemed to actually know what was meant by the words they said.
In addition, I've had close brushes with DoD Special Access Projects regarding electronic warfare and terrorism, and the folks over on the C ring at the Pentagon definitely know what's going on.
The question was specifically about politicians, but as others have pointed out, the focus should perhaps be on the people who tell the politicians what to do/say/think. Those are the powerful folks, and they didn't get there by accident, or by family connection. The ones I've met are all affiliated with our nation's finest learning institutes, and have a broad range of knowledge - the DoD advisor I mentioned previously is also an aerospace engineer, an accomplished economist, and an occasional instructor at Yale. These people know the story, and they know it well.
Slashdot Mirror
is very cool. if only the e-economy hadn't collapsed and i could get good consulting positions and afford one :)
No, really, I don't care what international law says - my work is my own, unless I release it. But unless someone is deliberately making money by deliberately robbing my idea/work, I won't care anyway.
That's my take, basically. I don't mind commercials, I don't mind commercialism/consumerism, I don't mind capitalism. What I do mind is a push-button McSociety. But I don't watch tv much anyway, so it doesn't matter to me. As for the 'really targeted' advertising, I don't mind it either - I have no problem giving up my first name, general location, cable box serial number, and personality profile - if it means more great free history channel shows etc. Think about it.
That's exactly why I advocated 'breathing room' in my above post - solutions often come to mind when you're not digging for them. And there are many activities that I would encourage my employees to engage in, such as reading national and world news, browsing slashdot, or giving their pregnant wife a 'hello' call. It makes a person more intelligent, more happy, and in the end, more useful to me. Besides, I am empathetic, I can understand their distractions (such as mine, right now, leaving my girlfriend hanging while I pursue a slashdot item that greatly interests me *chuckle* and btw, she's not angry or upset, either, because she appreciates my interest - just as an employer should)
Technically, no. Privacy at work is a contradiction in terms. But I do think any company who values their employees and wishes to foster a comfortable, reasonable work environment, will allow a little bit of leeway. For instance, while I think they should be allowed to search every single file on your work machine, I think they should be reasonable and leave your browser cookies and history alone - checking your personal email (on their OWN account, not the work account!) is no big deal, especially when it's done while waiting for a meeting or on lunch break. To put it simply, they do not and should not have to give you a single moment of privacy - but I would not feel comfortable working for a company that did not appreciate the fact that I'm a human being and give me a few inches of breathing room.
and you shouldn't be doing anything on it or with it that they would not approve of. Why is it that so many people tend to ignore/forget property rights? Monitoring a home user is evil, monitoring your employees is just smart. If I'm paying someone to do work, I want to know that they're doing it - and if they're getting it done in half the time, then spending the other half browsing porn and napstering, I'll want a goddamn good explanation. Either reward them for their efficiency, or give them more work to do (probably accompanied by a raise due to their heightened value to the company). Sheesh, guys - if it's not your box, and not your network pipes, then shut the fuck up and recognize the owner's rights to his own property.
The courts are doing something to protect our rights. This was wonderful news to wake up to. I remember reading about the guy who was arrested for growing pot in his house based on evidence gathered with heat-sensing technology (this item was probably about that - haven't read it yet)... and I remember the sinking, sad, sickening feeling that came with it. Now this - our freedom from unwarranted searches and seizures, and perhaps even our protection from testifying against ourselves (nevermind mandatory breathalizers etc..) may be getting a bit of real protection. I wish I could say that I hope things get better - but I suspect the best I can realistically expect is for the damage to our liberties to slow down a bit. As I've heard others say, I love my country and the ideas it was founded upon - but I fear my government and the socialistic trend it is following. Speaking of, I admire Timothy McVeigh - what he did was wrong, but he at least understood that there was something wrong with America. I am glad he died, I am glad a monster is removed from society - but I must admire his recognition of the failures of government and his resolve, his confident and solid worldview (yes, it was wrong, but at least he took a stand, at least he bit the bullet, at least he had the guts to do what he thought was right). Monster, bastard, hell-bound (if there was a hell, that is, which there's not) freak - but still a man of conviction, of independent thought and iron will. If there were men with that kind of inner strength, and the right ideas in their head, the world might be a much different place.
... owns me. Not really, but I admire and respect him massively. His statements on individuality, the nature of role models, and self-determination are rare and precious these days. That, in addition to what he's actually DOING - he amazes me. I wish him the best.
This item is related to an earlier post of mine. This event is exactly what I was talking about, and what the Discovery (it wasn't TLC, I was wrong) show was talking about. Example:
Preliminary estimates, Dr. ReVelle said, are that the cosmic intruder was the third largest since the Pentagon began making global satellite observations a quarter century ago. Its explosion in the atmosphere had nearly the force of the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima.
Imagine something only 80 feet across causing this kind of reaction. Then imagine something much larger.
I'm a greedy capitalist pig, as my ex's from communist Poland and Vietnam have told me - but even to me, there are things more valuable than money. Ideas are the things that make money possible, and an idea I support is worth some financial investment. Giving back, as every person of standards should. The ideas I would be supporting by contributions are the very ideas that created the market that I make so much money in. Perhaps you should reconsider your values - life is the ultimate value, and anything that improves that life is very valuable. GNU, Linux, etc, have definitely improved my life.
... largely lies in the fact that this money will serve more than one purpose. First, it will infuse the company with fresh funds to expand/sustain operations until overhead thins and profit comes. Second, it will be a show of support for and from and of the community, an example of independent minds, many of high intelligence, agreeing on the same common principles as well as products. This would increase the feeling of community itself, most likely, and be a banner waved at investors claiming the strength of our common interest. Much good could come of this, and were it another distro, one more to my liking, I would gladly liquidate some AMD stock and grab some of say, Slack or fbsd.
the collected comments i made on the previous icann item will suffice
In the realm of human relationships, nothing is absolute. My comments were based on the abstract, conceptual aspects of the issue. Perhaps you should pay attention to more than just a person's opening statements? Notice words like 'ideology'?
Gah, I have been unclear, thus seeming to contradict myself. Let me clarify.
Anarchy is incompatible with freedom, as it is simply a form of mob rule. (We won't go into the whole 'anarchy is a system based on the denial of the validity of systems' bit..). Democracy is not much better, it is simply organized mob rule - but at least with a democracy, one has the right and power to suggest alternatives and attempt to sway the system. Look at the US government - a central authority... but we, the people, have the power to affect it, overrule it, blow it off the map if we feel too threatened (at least in theory). Under an unaccountable organization such as ICANN, an individual has no reasonable channels for voicing of concerns, complaints, etc. Vast power is consolidated in the hands of a few who sit on a panel, and individuals have no direct representation on that panel. THAT is my specific complaint. I believe it's generally bad form to complain without offering at least a possible solution, but I have none at present, other than a vague idea of a compartmental naming authority with directly-elected members.
I never recommended wild abandon in our internet naming system. I did not, in fact, offer any specific alternative. What I said was that a central authority with the arrogance of ICANN is wrong. I have no problem with a central authority, as long as it is chosen by the people it governs. The USA was founded on the idea of 'consent of the governed' as it's basic license for governing power - The internet deserves no less noble of an ideal.
I haven't read the RFC's myself, and I don't believe I need to. Two things should be apparent to anyone with reasonable intelligence: 1) The internet is the greatest tool for human communication since spoken language; and 2) Any central authority, even if it is just a naming authority, is incompatible with the basic requirements of free expression, and thus should be regarded as a (logical, practical, ideological) contradiction of that freedom. Someone once said something along the lines of "free market economy is the worst system - unless you look at the alternatives". I believe that applies here, as well. Regardless of the technical issues, any centralization of the internet is a blow to the fundamental concepts held by the people who make the internet work. The worst part is, ICANN's power is largely political in nature - and as with all things, any ideology that is predominant is a threat to the minorities, as long as that ideology is based on the idea of control (although I suspect ICANN and it's supporters are the minority, in this case).
Pretty easy, if you ask me. 2k doesn't even offer optional components. Post-install config is a bit more complex, owing to lack of drivers and the fact that Windows actually cares what order you install them in... by the way, what exactly was your point?
Mechanics shouldn't be the only people to drive cars. Linux isn't more stable if they can't install it.
That's a great way to put it. This may seem a little off-topic, but bear with me here. You shouldn't have to know the very guts of a machine to use it - that defeats the purpose of the machine, who's purpose is to make your life easier and give you more free time. But, of course, you should have enough respect for the benefit it provides, to learn how to change your oil and tires. Likewise, Linux and BSD have their obvious redeeming qualities, but none of that matters if the user can't get the system setup properly to see the performance in the first place. The need for systems that provide intelligent install and config systems, without dumbing down the experience in a few important ways, is great - but once again, the user must take enough responsibility to understand a few basic things about the technology that so greatly enhances his life. That which improves one's life must ultimately be appreciated.
So what does all of this have to do with intrustion insurance and the lower opensource rates? Simple. The more complex a system is, the more prone to failure it becomes. Operating systems that try to do everything for the user will always fail - there are simply too many possibilities and branches it must be aware of in order to manage itself. We don't yet have AI, and static code is incapable of handling the infinite number of configurations and situations an operating system will encounter. With systems that bring you much closer to the metal, you tend to be dragged (or to run of your own volition) toward learning more about the system. This leads to greater competency - the insurance rates should be better. It would be the same if UPS's drivers had better training than FedEx's.
My ex-girlfriend was a web developer at Etensity. She was laid off last November along with 50-60 others, in the standard method: Walk in to work and be told to go home. The company offered two weeks pay, and warned that insurance cancellations were being issued that afternoon.
The company had hired her under the following terms:
salaried pay
400$/month car payment assistance
70% cellular phone bill
everything from health to auto to homeowners insurance
So of course she had gone out and bought a brand new Lexus RX300, and was screwed when they were no longer helping her pay for it. As for her health insurance - here's where it gets nasty. Seems Mr. Peter Noche, CEO of Etensity, had decided to save some money by cycling the employee coverage and benefits. What cycling refers to is his ingenious plan to only have insurance on 1/4 to 1/3 of his employees in any given month, the others being dropped at the end of the previous month, to be picked up again when their lot was drawn. This practice was discovered by the newly out of work girlfriend, as well as her friends who were also no longer employed, in the process of digging to find out what the status of their insurance was, because almost *all* of them had recieved bills for treatments, checkups, etc, that had originally been accepted by the insurance companies - then rejected, when their coverage was cancelled before the actual billing process.
The outcome of all of this is that there is now a possibility of a major lawsuit against Etensity and it's partner, OneSoft - if the companies survive long enough to take the beating. So my answer to the one who asked the original question is: Yes, you can probably sue. Breach of contract is no minor thing, and insurance is a vital part of your compensation package. You've done your job, you've provided the services the company needed - apparently, they didn't feel obligated to keep up their end of the deal. I would sue, and I would sue FAST. (On a side note, another insurance issue I dealt with... My mother's employers offered insurance after 3 months on the job. She worked there for 5 months, and then burned her hand. The insurance paperwork had not been filed, she threw a fit, her employers paid her expenses out of their own pockets and she later sued and recieved 15,000$ for her troubles!)
I'm not sure exactly what these bands of material are, the TLC show didn't say much about them - except that there are four primary bands, in elliptical formation around the sun, and we're due to hit one soon. There was some mention of 'debris', I couldn't hear the sentence or two because of noise here at home...
TLC and Discovery have had a lot of impact-scenario shows on lately. What's the sudden fascination about? Simple: The fact that many times in the course of natural history, entire continental, and indeed, global populations have been wiped out by these impacts - and for the first time, Earth has produced a specied that can not only survive it, but entirely prevent it (maybe).
There is an extremely low chance of such a massive collision in the next few hundred years, at least - what should be worrying, instead, is a smaller impact in the Pacific, which could wipe east-coast Japan off the map. These impacts happen much more frequently, some claim once every 10,000 years, and one might be coming soon due to the band of material the Earth is soon to encounter. The effects of such an impact on the global economy are incalculable, and the probabilities of such an occurance are much higher. The Japanese government is growing increasingly concerned, and are considering a 2 to 4 million dollar annual budget for the identification, tracking, and destruction of likely impact masses.
In fact, if the Russian impact of 1908 were in fact a metallic body (as is almost entirely disproven, at this point), and had struck the Pacific instead, this destruction of Japan would have already occured. And when you think about it, a few thousand miles of earth's surface is not a very wide safety margin, relative to the massive distances traveled by these objects.
One comment made in a recent TLC program on this issue strikes me... "Think about it: The number of people we have who are specifically employed to track these objects is smaller than the staff of a neighborhood McDonald's"
Emerson eh? I shall quote:
great works of art have no more more affecting lesson for us than this: they teach us to abide by our sponaneous impression with good-humoured inflexibility than most when the whole cry of voices is on the other side. Else tomorrow a stranger will say with masterly good sense precisely what we have thought and felt all the time, and we shall be forced to take with shame our own opinion from another.
--- ralph waldo emerson, 'self-reliance', 1841
[emphasis mine]
The point is, think for yourself... well, see sig. Anything can be a religion, if it is 'right' for that particular person. Who is to judge what constitutes a real belief for another person? We will all have our own opinions, as well we should, but an opinion cannot condemn someone. Of course, this is a joke down in Australia, but so what? Technically, the government has every moral responsibility to uphold the citizenry's freedom of choice and expression. If they choose a Hollywood creation as their religion, so be it. If they choose to express whatever idea they deem necessary, by a civil act such as this, that is within their rights.
Ahh, I see the point of concern. No, she hasn't told me the capabilities of our newest subs, but she has let NFD (Not for Foreign Distribution, used for unclassified, but less-than-public info) slip through. Nothing illegal, http://www.fas.org has a HUGE amount of NFD posted.
And no, I don't know who tells their employees to claim DoD.... Well, ONI does, and CIA uses 'OGA', 'Other Governmental Agency'... enlighten me.
Pick her up for what? What crime has she committed? Nothing. She and I are both familiar with TS-level opsec guidelines, her more than me, and she just reviewed my post and saw no problems. :)
To reply to my reply... I'd like to add a few things.
First off, I do know that the military knows *exactly* what is going on, as well as our intelligence community. I had the distinct 'pleasure' of attending a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing, where many juicy morsels of information were dropped regarding our electronic intelligence efforts, as well as our public infrastructure protection measures. These senators (I don't know *which* ones!) are not techies, but they've been charged with keeping a legislative grip on things - and I think they do their homework. Yes, their staffers do the research, but the politicians themselves seemed to actually know what was meant by the words they said.
In addition, I've had close brushes with DoD Special Access Projects regarding electronic warfare and terrorism, and the folks over on the C ring at the Pentagon definitely know what's going on.
The question was specifically about politicians, but as others have pointed out, the focus should perhaps be on the people who tell the politicians what to do/say/think. Those are the powerful folks, and they didn't get there by accident, or by family connection. The ones I've met are all affiliated with our nation's finest learning institutes, and have a broad range of knowledge - the DoD advisor I mentioned previously is also an aerospace engineer, an accomplished economist, and an occasional instructor at Yale. These people know the story, and they know it well.