I think Microsoft got their money's worth out of this -- even despite the horrific quality problems that plague the piece. Consider:
- It was probably pretty cheap (based on the low quality content and diminutive scale of the report)
- It is prime FUD
- FUD works
Microsoft (among others) has learned that a false statement repeated often enough will become indistinguishable from the truth. This is simply another statement proclaiming their alternative truth.
Furthermore this report, aimed at an audience on Capitol Hill, was carefully targeted. It adds to a substantial existing body of anti-GPL and pro-Microsoft propoganda. And it includes keywords (airplanes, security, jobs) intended to evoke emotional -- not logical -- reactions on the part of the intended audience.
The fact that the content is ridiculous is largely irrelevant; Microsoft doesn't care if anyone actually reads it, especially since most of the people in the intended audience scarcely know the first thing about technology to begin with. As long as it's occasionally and casually mentioned in conversations as being against GPL, it will have the intended effect.
Think carefully about the last time well founded logic, clear thinking, or common sense interfered with lawmaking in the areas of technology or security. I'm not holding my breath that this report will suddenly be skeptically and thoughtfully analyzed by the lawmakers whose interests are served by it!
Also keep in mind: the Greeks were wrong; it's not our capacity for logic that makes us different from the other animals. It's our capacity for creative and abstract delusion that makes us different.
Gonzales doesn't justify his conclusions
on
Milky Way Inhospitable?
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
I haven't read any comments that point out one of the severe flaws in the implied logic of the article. Specifically, that Gonzales assumes these characteristics necessarily preclude the frequent formation of earth-like planets. The fact is, however, that such a leap of logic is unjustified. Such a claim requires more detailed explanation of how each of the identified conditions would interact with an actual solar system, down to the climate of the affected planets. We are frequently surprised both in Astronomy and on Earth by the huge impact of seemingly subtle details. The fact that this article offers few (zero) details and utterly lacks careful explorations of the interactions Gonzalez mentions, suggests that his conclusions cannot be taken as more than vague musings.
It also strikes me that Gonzales may have decided what he wants to believe, and then went looking for justification. The only problem is, he didn't actually find that justification; he just found hints that he selectively presented to bolster his assumption. He says something to the effect of "the galaxy is a scary place, therefore Earth-like planets hardly ever form." That makes for an interesting conversation, but by itself is very far from convincing.
Until we understand in great detail how planet forming processes & external factors interact, or can exlicitly look for extrasolar Earth-like planets, we can't disprove these assertions. That doesn't,however, mean we should assume, as Gonzales would like us to, that nice planets necessarily can't be common.
There are, however, hints to believe Earth-like planets could be common. Distant solar systems are, for example, discovered regularly. Unfortunately we don't have the equipment to determine if classicly habitable planets exist in those solar systems. But if we assume the presence of solar systems indicates any likelihood of habitable planets, then there's a hint that habitable planets could be common. It's far from convincing, but no less so than the assertions in this article.
(As an aside, Gonzalez also ignores the possibility that there may be certain areas of space that make Earth-like planets significantly more likely to form. For example, maybe in some parts of the outer edges of the galaxy one or two Earth like planet are the norm in one-star solar systems. The point is, we don't know and can't fairly assume either way.)
When I worked in computer repair shop, I saw quite a few destroyed laptops; it was always sad to see someone bringing me their computer in a paper bag...
Most severe laptop damage involves broken LCDs. Plastic case components seem the second most common point of failure, and hard drives actually seem to be relatively uncommon victims of laptop castastrophes.
Common ways of breaking the LCD included:
* leaving a pencil on the keyboard and closing the lid
* dropping something on top of the laptop screen with the screen closed, breaking the screen from behind
* otherwise putting pressure on top of the screen such that the screen breaks from behind (such as putting it in a briefcase with a mouse, and setting the briefcase upside so the closed laptop is sitting screen-down on top of the mouse pressure point)
* dropping the laptop
Contrary to popular belief, hard drives will usually survive fairly severe drops as long as they aren't running when they fall. They're also often suspended on anti-shock mounts in modern laptops. I never saw a signifcantly higher rate of failure in laptop drives than desktop drives.
Some laptops don't even survive themselves, let alone physical abuse. Laptop screen hinges are particularly a point of stress and must be well engineered. There was a time when PowerBook 5300 screens would spontaneously snap off, along with most the rest of the plastic parts on those computers; it turned out to be a design flaw in the plastics, and they were repaired for free with updated plastic parts.
Right now I'm using a 2001 iBook, and it lives in my backpack with 15+ pounds of books, etc. To prevent damage I put it in the middle of the books so that when I throw the backpack down the stress is distributed across the entire laptop evenly. So far the iBook's high gloss finish has been scuffed to hell, and all the little feet have rubbed off, but there have been no mechanical failures despite almost a year of such abuse. I treat my backpack with the laptop exactly as I did before I carried the laptop in it.
The advertisement of Microsoft software in the United States Post Office should be subject to public policy review, irrespective of the Postals Service's technical corporate status.
Microsoft is a convicted monopolist that has shown no remorse for its actions, and scarcely acknowledges that it has done any wrong. Ideally, the government would not be helping to pormote this malignancy.
It has been repeated many times throughout this discussion, first that the Post Office is part of the US government, only to have that assertion contradicted to the effect that the Postal Service is actually an independant corporation established and run by the government -- posters have also pointed out that the Federal Government is the sole shareholder, appoints the directors, and as needed bails the service out to the tune of a billion dollars.
All this is missing the point: the government shouldn't be helping spread the monopoly even if the post office is technically independent. The service still answers to Congress, and does arguably more so than most other businesses. This sort of issue is well within the domain of public policy -- even if no policies currently exist that are relevant to this situation.
In a broader sense, corporations in general also answer to Congress (even in cases like Enron where they'd rather not!), and by extension we regulate all of them in numerous ways as well. In comparison to wholly indepenent and totally private corporations it should be easy to shape a public policy in regards to a pseudo-governmental organization like the post office -- even if it means appointing a board of directors who agree that convicted monopolists shouldn't have the privilege of advertising in Postal Service buildings.
This is also why this is a relevant Slashdot story. It involves what amounts to a public policy decision (or lack thereof) that affects technology that the Slashdot community cares about: Microsoft, monopolies, the blurred line between the public and private sector, and public policy regarding these topics.
The problem is not simply that information is being censored; this is to a large extent up to the Australians and they can try to censor Internet content or whatever if they so choose. The problem is that the governed aren't being told what is being censored. That is, the problem is government secrecy -- citizens cannot perform their democratic duty of overseeing their own government if the government won't reveal what it is up to.
Stories like this should alarm people who believe in government by the consent of the governed.
Granted, Australia seems much more conservative than the US when it comes to freedom of information (and other things too). However, those of us in the States shouldn't let stories like this slide off our back.
In the US it is much more difficult for the government to censor free speech, but just as in this article, our own government has grown very interested in not telling its citizens what it is up to.
In particular, the Executive Branch of the United States has been less than forthcoming on numerous occassions regarding its own activities: President Cheney won't tell us who he & others talked to while they were drafting their energy policy, they won't identify people picked up in the post-911 dragnet (nor will they tell us the standard list of questions arab looking people were asked as part of that), various federal records have been destroyed and removed from availability [as noted in earlier Slashdot story], and in general the government has exuded a contempt of those outside the administration trying to figure out what it's up to. Of course this is on top of the government's long standing infatuation with secrets -- the most recent pattern is just an escalation of the existing mindset towards secrets.
Really people, this story has a moral for those outside of Australia: it's an example of the idiocy that can take hold when people don't demand oversight of their own government!
What's being censored? Well, unless you can look at the list, you simply have to trust that the bureaucrats are doing just what they're supposed to, and that they need to be doing it. This is inherently undemocratic.
Secrets give government the opportunity to mismanage without falling under the prying eyes of the people -- you and me -- whose job it is to see to the proper maintenance of government, and whom might be upset at the revelation of any such mismanagement.
This sort of thing shouldn't be tolerated in any democratic country.
Murchinson said Microsoft considered legal action a last resort.
"Clearly we prefer to work with them to resolve this problem voluntarily. Their product name infringes on our trademark," Murchinson said. "We hope they will work with us to resolve this problem without the need for legal action."
Sobbing, he continued: "Oh why do they Force us to sue them! It hurts me right here, (Murchinson placed his hand over his heart and looks to the heavens) whenever we have to sue them."
Murchinson then, with the tears still streaming down his cheeks and shaking his head, pushed a lonely red button on his desk.
Moments later, cruel hordes of fur clad lawyers on enormous horses, gravely swinging rusted and blood stained battle axes, thrusting their hardened leather shields toward the brooding skies, with packs angry mastifs biting and growling at their hideously spurred heals, rode ravenous toward yet another glorious conquest.
Murchinson listened as the horrible clamor of the viciously armed force recedeed in to the wind. Finally he concluded the interview, "if only they hadn't forced me to do this, if only we could have worked something out..."
Thinking of that poor man, Murchinson, nearly brings tears to my eyes as well. It's just tragic how he so truly didn't want to sue them, but had to... sigh... It just breaks my heart.
That can only mean the most terrifying, powerful, and secretive agency in the whole of the government....
.
The I.R.S!!!
Ahhhhhhhh!!!!
With Oracle's powerful software they'll be able to haggle happles taxpayers over previously unimaginably complex, nuanced, obscure articles of tax code!
Why couldn't the NSA just use it implement some sort of Big-Brother national ID card thing?!
"Why pay $10/month for what is, in effect, the right to sample things?"
The music industry isn't selling you the right to sample things, they're renting you the privilege of sampling things.
Important difference. If I had any rights, could actually buy anything, or wasn't as a customer regarded by companies as their enemy, I would feel a lot better about things.
It's hard not to be cynical when the corporate motto is: the customer is always wrong!
Pay the extra money and use what is really in existance out there.
Linux and MacOS is great but it isn't what we need to be teaching.
No. We should not be teaching any operating system. We should be teaching kids math, reading, and science!
The point of computers in schools (and a point that is lost on most administrators + general public) is that computers should not be used as an end in and of themselves. That is, schools shouldn't be using computers to teach computers, they should be used to accomplish curriculum goals -- like teaching students to read, solve problems, and otherwise think.
First, learning how to use Windows, or Mac OS, or Linux, or CPM, or whatever the hell they're using, is far from guaranteed to be relevant ten, five, or even three years later when the kids graduate from high school. General skills are vastly more important.
Second, most semi-modern computers operate in basically the same way, so a kid who knows how to move a mouse on a Mac probably won't have trouble moving a mouse on a Windows computer, assuming we're still using mouses when he/she graduates. Valuable class time need not be spent teaching kids to add things to the Windows start menu, or how to place icons in the Mac's Apple menu.
Third, the computer that can most productively facilitate learning with the least training and support costs is the ideal computer for a school. Which computer that is can best be determined by the school, but in deciding on one versus the other, the issue of teaching seventh grader's Windows is wholly irrelevant.
Irrespective of whether or not he is/was any good at security, and aside from any inside knowledge he may have as an MS security advisor, it's hard to believe that he is not well steeped in MS corporate culture. Now with an apparently strong voice inside the Bush Administration, it's logical to assume that the Administration will be even more pro-MS. Even if his position doesn't directly set policy, a Microsoft-aligned philosopy may seep in to policy decisions.
Microsoft and the Administration both seem to think they're each about the best things that have ever happened to eachother, and now they may be even better friends.
A few years ago someone was planning on putting this information in a web accessible database. I don't remember if he ever did (and I'm too lazy to check), but there was a lot of fuss about it at the time and the person who was going to do it eventually backed down.
Of course, once information gets out in to the open, there's no putting it back in the bottle. Sometimes that's a good thing when it makes MS patch their bugware, but clearly there can be problems too -- as this case shows.
I think open government is vital to effective democracy, and anything that potentially limits the openness of government should be carefully scrutinized, but I also believe a line must be drawn somewhere when personal information is involved.
In government institutions, this becomes a question of how open "open government" can really be. It's not a theoretical concern; some local governments have been considering placing all their records online. So how much should they scrub out of these? What constitutes personal information that should be protected?
Credible participation in our democracy is rarely done behind a veil of anonymity. That's why we declare campaign contributions in the public record, why letters to the editor in newspapers aren't typically published unless signed, and even why Anonymous Coward postings on Slashdot don't receive an automatic +1 moderation. The underlying assumption is that if you aren't willing to identify yourself, then whatever you have to say must not be that important.
(Of course, in extreme cases, anonymity is important and protected; if you fear for your safety, or fear you would be unduly harassed by identifying yourself, anonymous participation in government is vital. But that's not usually the case with generic public records.)
How, then, do you balance open government with the potential for abuse of government records? How should the method of distributing information affect the content of the information being distributed? That is, should you be able to get copies of data with more personal information when you have to request it in person (and in the process having your own name added to the public record), one record at a time, versus download it off the web or from a CD?
The real perversity, however, is that companies can frequently buy this personal information for their own use. If you get junk mail, there's a good chance the company sending it to you got your address from a database compiled by your state's department of motor vehicles; in Oregon you have to opt out of having your personal information sold.
In a sense, I'm more concerned about corporations having free run of my personal information than governments. Corporations are not democratic bodies, their records are not open to public review, and I simply have to trust that they will do the right thing -- a trust that may be undermined by their profit motive. Open government, on the other hand, lets me participate in the fate of my information -- even if I have to identify myself to do so.
Yes, there couldn't be *anything* more block-headed than launching ore in to space!
When raw metal becomes useful in space, it will almost certainly be true that mining the moon will be economically viable. I suspect, however, that it will be some time before it is cheaper/easier to mine metal and build spacecraft from raw lunar material, than to launch pre-built spacecraft modules from Earth.
I agree with you completely that the moon is a natural starting point for further space exploration. I suspect, however, that the moon will make itself useful as a gas station before it becomes a spaceship factory -- simply because it is probably easier to produce a relatively simple product like fuel than manufacture complex items like spaceships.
Of course, the article wasn't talking about anything sensible such as future space exploration; it was talking about a bunch of idiots who want to get rich selling moon gravel. (Yeah, that might be a bit harsh, but it's not too far off the mark.)
Oh yes. I should have used Google to find the Web Elements uses for holmium site where they list the miraculous uses for this veritable wonder element.
Except that, err, the web didn't exist then, let alone a useful search engine...
To be fair, my initial research did run across its "interesting" magnetic properties, and I spent at least fifteen seconds commenting upon them in my oral report. I think the next person went on to talk about iron, or sodium, or some other glamorous element.
Fortunately holmium has found another practical application in recent years. In the words of Pomona's online periodic table "few uses were known for holmium until recently, with the development of surgical lasers using holmium."
There you have it. Using Google.
I apologize profusely for my libelous comments thrown so recklessly upon the respected name of this most venerable and miraculous element.
So by God, if there's holmium on the moon, we should feel obligated to liberate it from its lunar prison irrespective of any cost! Away to the moon we go; we haven't a day to spare!
Not half as useless as Holmium!
on
Mining On The Moon
·
· Score: 2, Funny
I had to do an oral report on holmium in high school. There were something like a dozen references to holmium in my town's university library, and half of them were in Russian. Half the rest simply noted that holmium was named for Stockholm. The remaining three merely commented that holmium is an element (with various element properties) and that it is utterly devoid of practical benefit to human kind.
My report was supposed to be seven minutes long...
If there's holmium on the moon, we should devote our vast technological resources to conquering the ocean's inky mysterious depths!
First I have to say IANAGOP (I am not a geologist or physicist -- nor am I a Republican).
Mining on Earth requires enriched deposits of whatever is being mined. That is, there's a lot of cobalt, nickel, iron, aluminum, magnesium, manganese, calcium, sodium and titanium, and most other elements already on the Earth, and are fairly common at that, they just aren't enriched enough to be worth the cost of mining.
On Earth deposits of economically viable ore minerals are frequently deposited by volcanism and/or by processes related to water. Since these processes do not presently operate on the moon, it seems likely that moon rocks will not be much more enriched in most elements than most (much more easily mined) terrestrial rocks. Aluminum, for example, is typically concentrated in ores by chemical weathering process which do not operate on the moon. Without free water, the moon could pretty mineralogically boring.
Consider the thousands of square miles of Eastern Washington and Oregon covered with huge basalt lava flows -- just as large areas of lunar highlands consists of thick basalt flows -- and ask how many people are out in Eastern Washington laying mining claims to dig up this rock? Unless this rock is enriched by some secondary process, despite all its aluminum, iron, etc., it's not worth much -- it's used mostly as crushed gravel for cheap roads. It's worth even less than a dump truck full of 8MB DIMMs leaving a Hynix factory.
As for asteroid enrichment of PGMs on the lunar surface, even this one known method of enrichment doesn't sound too promising, and the article admits as much.
As another poster commented, the most valuable mineral on the moon is almost certainly ice*, which could be converted to rocket fuel. After that, it might make more sense to mine the asteroids directly.
Ice could also be the source of fuel for a craft headed to Mars, where there could well be a more interesting mix of mineral resources. Mars has a more complex history of volcanism, as well as excellent evidence for an abundance of water in the fairly recent geologic past.
Of any story I can remember reading on Slashdot, this one is the most frustrating and depressing.
Information is the lifeblood of a free society governed by the consent of the governed. If information is destroyed (or even made inaccessible to all but the most determined individuals armed with subpoenas), the practical effect is that the governed don't know what we're consenting to. Policies that prevent open disclosure of information are ripe for exploitation as tools to conceal embarrassing information. Public outrage is a powerful motivator in an open society, but how can the public express outrage when the information that would prompt such outrage may be cloistered away by embarrassed bureaucrats who can simply claim the information could be dangerous in the wrong hands?
I have news for everyone: almost any information can be dangerous in certain circumstances. What our illustrious and infallible (ok, only 89% infallible) administration has apparently decided is that information no longer need be imminently dangerous to fall subject to the censors. Unfortunately potentially dangerous covers a lot of vague territory (or perhaps fortunately if that information contains something personally embarrasing to you).
Now if the chemical plant down the street is poisoning your water, you just have to hope that the regulators responsible for letting the water become contaminated don't decide that the chemicals aren't too scary to talk about. If you live downstream from a dam, don't bother asking why/if the security team failed their last test. Just trust that everything will be Ok; you don't need to know about it!
This isn't about not trusting government. I don't distrust government, rather I doubt that everyone in government will always necessarily do the right things. Individually government consists of people with emotions, agendas, visions, and goals that I may not share. I can't trust that without meaningful oversight and clearly defined standards for making information secret, that everyone who governs will always do the right thing. You see, open information means I don't have to trust those in government.
Unfortunately, it is in times of crisis that open government is most important, because it is easiest to precipitate abuse when there is 89% approval and everyone is looking the other way. In fact, it is considered unpatriotic to even suggest that times of crisis are times of opportunity for abuse.
We know that with attention diverted, this would be the perfect time to make politically unpopular decisions: give vast tax breaks to huge companies, strip away environmental regulations, invalidate laws in states that legalize doctor assisted suicide, etc... Why can we rest assured that no lower level bureaucrat might take advantage of the situation to obfuscate potentially embarrasing or dangerous agency screw-ups?
Our military has many legitimate secrets, but as the agency given the greatest freedom to keep its activities secret, it has not done an excellent job of obeying the spirit of the law. Now with civilian agencies also keeping secrets (that I believe everyone agrees are less threatening than military secrets) isn't the potential for abuse proportionally greater?
If there is necessity to obscure information -- and sometimes that's hard to say because we don't know what information is being blocked -- then there should be extremely clear guidelines on exactly what should be controlled. Information that does not pose an imminent security danger should still be made available, but perhaps with some authentication of those requesting it, i.e., require written request and valid ID. Finally, the clearly defined regulations limiting access should automatically expire after five years unless Congress decides that there are ongoing security risks that require an extension of the controls. Of course it goes without saying that the information should not be destroyed.
Doubtless some of you may take the view that we need to surrender some of our typical openness to secure the safety our our nation. To this I would respond that: a) by surrendering openness we're simultaneously surrendering security -- we just don't know how much; b) if something must be surrendered we should consider very carefully what should be surrendered and how we should do so; and c) we must keep in mind that information is a double edged sword and our society is based upon the assumption that openness is our guarantee of freedom. This country would look very different without freedom of information; please consider very carefully where to draw that line.
There are consequences to viewing open information as our enemy. I can only hope that more rational minds soon prevail; rights surrendered in times of crisis are rarely returned.
Of course, all this is an aside to the question of the efficacy of blocking the information...
It would be much easier to avoid the allusions to Orwellian horrors if our own government didn't insist on Orwellian policies labeled with positively Orwellian names.
Of course, Farenheit 451 also hasn't been more relevant anytime in recent memory than now. I hope everyone reads it.
Apple's PowerBooks have been (for the most part) excellent computers from day one. They've typically been sturdy, generally comparable in speed to desktop Mac's of the same era, have great screens, are reliable, and have forced few tradeoffs versus desktops. These days they're hardly more expensive than desktop Macs, once you consider the cost of the built in LCD, and leave few reasons (other than slots) to buy a desktop Mac. Now with the new iBooks they're even affordable!
That's not to say there weren't problems. I was working as a service technician when the 5300 series machines were released. We literally had people bringing the computers to us in bags to keep all the parts together...it really was ugly. More people swore to me that they'd never buy another Mac again because of their experience with PowerBook 5300 than because of anything else Apple ever did -- except for maybe some of the Performas...
The first time I used wireless ethernet was on a PowerBook back in 1995 or 1996. The device had an enormous Motorola 68040 processor in it, the same processor as in the PowerBook it was connected to.
Here are my nominations for notable PowerBooks:
Best Screens: PowerBook 170 (incredible 1-bit active matrix display -- yeah, only 1-bit but it was still incredible.) PowerBook G4 for its ultrathin widescreen.
Best Performance: PowerBook G4, PowerBook G3 series, and PowerBook 3400c/240. The G4 and G3 paralleled performance of the reigning Mac desktops when they were released. The 3400 had a fast processor, but also had fast video for the first time in a PowerBook.
Best Size: iBook, Duo series. The first of the Duo series weighed just 4.2 pounds back in 1994(?).
Best Battery: PowerBook 170. You could turn off the backlight and run the thing literally all day.
Most Versatile: PowerBook G3 series. They had expansion bays, PC card slots with CardBus, SCSI, serial, infrared, stereo sound in/out, VGA out, analog video out, serial, built in microphone, ADB, ethernet, upgradeable processor, two RAM slots, built in modem, optional DVD, and even third party PCI expansion chassis. Later models switched to FireWire and USB over SCSI serial and ADB.
Worst PowerBook Ever: 5300 series. Parts (including the entire screen) would snap off randomly, numerous other hardware defects, slow, prone to crashing, no ethernet, spartan set of features, and expensive at any price! I think thousands of them were finally just ground up -- they were sent back to Apple and never reappeared.
Heaviest PowerBook: Macintosh Portable. Yeah, I know it's not a PowerBook, but it was so heavy I have to include it somewhere. It used enormous lead acid batteries! It also had funky rhombal shaped 3MB memory upgrade cards.
Best PowerBook ever: ??? suggestions ???
I've owned at least the following PowerBooks over the years: 140, (three) 170s, (three) Duo 210, Duo 2300, (two) 165c,(two) 180c, 520c, (two) G3 Wallstreet, 3400/240, iBook 2001 -- but I could be forgetting a few. The 170s and G3s were my favorites.
Slashdot Mirror
- It was probably pretty cheap (based on the low quality content and diminutive scale of the report)
- It is prime FUD
- FUD works
Microsoft (among others) has learned that a false statement repeated often enough will become indistinguishable from the truth. This is simply another statement proclaiming their alternative truth.
Furthermore this report, aimed at an audience on Capitol Hill, was carefully targeted. It adds to a substantial existing body of anti-GPL and pro-Microsoft propoganda. And it includes keywords (airplanes, security, jobs) intended to evoke emotional -- not logical -- reactions on the part of the intended audience.
The fact that the content is ridiculous is largely irrelevant; Microsoft doesn't care if anyone actually reads it, especially since most of the people in the intended audience scarcely know the first thing about technology to begin with. As long as it's occasionally and casually mentioned in conversations as being against GPL, it will have the intended effect.
Think carefully about the last time well founded logic, clear thinking, or common sense interfered with lawmaking in the areas of technology or security. I'm not holding my breath that this report will suddenly be skeptically and thoughtfully analyzed by the lawmakers whose interests are served by it!
Also keep in mind: the Greeks were wrong; it's not our capacity for logic that makes us different from the other animals. It's our capacity for creative and abstract delusion that makes us different.
I haven't read any comments that point out one of the severe flaws in the implied logic of the article. Specifically, that Gonzales assumes these characteristics necessarily preclude the frequent formation of earth-like planets. The fact is, however, that such a leap of logic is unjustified. Such a claim requires more detailed explanation of how each of the identified conditions would interact with an actual solar system, down to the climate of the affected planets. We are frequently surprised both in Astronomy and on Earth by the huge impact of seemingly subtle details. The fact that this article offers few (zero) details and utterly lacks careful explorations of the interactions Gonzalez mentions, suggests that his conclusions cannot be taken as more than vague musings.
It also strikes me that Gonzales may have decided what he wants to believe, and then went looking for justification. The only problem is, he didn't actually find that justification; he just found hints that he selectively presented to bolster his assumption. He says something to the effect of "the galaxy is a scary place, therefore Earth-like planets hardly ever form." That makes for an interesting conversation, but by itself is very far from convincing.
Until we understand in great detail how planet forming processes & external factors interact, or can exlicitly look for extrasolar Earth-like planets, we can't disprove these assertions. That doesn't,however, mean we should assume, as Gonzales would like us to, that nice planets necessarily can't be common.
There are, however, hints to believe Earth-like planets could be common. Distant solar systems are, for example, discovered regularly. Unfortunately we don't have the equipment to determine if classicly habitable planets exist in those solar systems. But if we assume the presence of solar systems indicates any likelihood of habitable planets, then there's a hint that habitable planets could be common. It's far from convincing, but no less so than the assertions in this article.
(As an aside, Gonzalez also ignores the possibility that there may be certain areas of space that make Earth-like planets significantly more likely to form. For example, maybe in some parts of the outer edges of the galaxy one or two Earth like planet are the norm in one-star solar systems. The point is, we don't know and can't fairly assume either way.)
Most severe laptop damage involves broken LCDs. Plastic case components seem the second most common point of failure, and hard drives actually seem to be relatively uncommon victims of laptop castastrophes.
Common ways of breaking the LCD included:
* leaving a pencil on the keyboard and closing the lid
* dropping something on top of the laptop screen with the screen closed, breaking the screen from behind
* otherwise putting pressure on top of the screen such that the screen breaks from behind (such as putting it in a briefcase with a mouse, and setting the briefcase upside so the closed laptop is sitting screen-down on top of the mouse pressure point)
* dropping the laptop
Contrary to popular belief, hard drives will usually survive fairly severe drops as long as they aren't running when they fall. They're also often suspended on anti-shock mounts in modern laptops. I never saw a signifcantly higher rate of failure in laptop drives than desktop drives.
Some laptops don't even survive themselves, let alone physical abuse. Laptop screen hinges are particularly a point of stress and must be well engineered. There was a time when PowerBook 5300 screens would spontaneously snap off, along with most the rest of the plastic parts on those computers; it turned out to be a design flaw in the plastics, and they were repaired for free with updated plastic parts.
Right now I'm using a 2001 iBook, and it lives in my backpack with 15+ pounds of books, etc. To prevent damage I put it in the middle of the books so that when I throw the backpack down the stress is distributed across the entire laptop evenly. So far the iBook's high gloss finish has been scuffed to hell, and all the little feet have rubbed off, but there have been no mechanical failures despite almost a year of such abuse. I treat my backpack with the laptop exactly as I did before I carried the laptop in it.
Microsoft is a convicted monopolist that has shown no remorse for its actions, and scarcely acknowledges that it has done any wrong. Ideally, the government would not be helping to pormote this malignancy.
It has been repeated many times throughout this discussion, first that the Post Office is part of the US government, only to have that assertion contradicted to the effect that the Postal Service is actually an independant corporation established and run by the government -- posters have also pointed out that the Federal Government is the sole shareholder, appoints the directors, and as needed bails the service out to the tune of a billion dollars.
All this is missing the point: the government shouldn't be helping spread the monopoly even if the post office is technically independent. The service still answers to Congress, and does arguably more so than most other businesses. This sort of issue is well within the domain of public policy -- even if no policies currently exist that are relevant to this situation.
In a broader sense, corporations in general also answer to Congress (even in cases like Enron where they'd rather not!), and by extension we regulate all of them in numerous ways as well. In comparison to wholly indepenent and totally private corporations it should be easy to shape a public policy in regards to a pseudo-governmental organization like the post office -- even if it means appointing a board of directors who agree that convicted monopolists shouldn't have the privilege of advertising in Postal Service buildings.
This is also why this is a relevant Slashdot story. It involves what amounts to a public policy decision (or lack thereof) that affects technology that the Slashdot community cares about: Microsoft, monopolies, the blurred line between the public and private sector, and public policy regarding these topics.
Stories like this should alarm people who believe in government by the consent of the governed.
Granted, Australia seems much more conservative than the US when it comes to freedom of information (and other things too). However, those of us in the States shouldn't let stories like this slide off our back.
In the US it is much more difficult for the government to censor free speech, but just as in this article, our own government has grown very interested in not telling its citizens what it is up to.
In particular, the Executive Branch of the United States has been less than forthcoming on numerous occassions regarding its own activities: President Cheney won't tell us who he & others talked to while they were drafting their energy policy, they won't identify people picked up in the post-911 dragnet (nor will they tell us the standard list of questions arab looking people were asked as part of that), various federal records have been destroyed and removed from availability [as noted in earlier Slashdot story], and in general the government has exuded a contempt of those outside the administration trying to figure out what it's up to. Of course this is on top of the government's long standing infatuation with secrets -- the most recent pattern is just an escalation of the existing mindset towards secrets.
Really people, this story has a moral for those outside of Australia: it's an example of the idiocy that can take hold when people don't demand oversight of their own government!
What's being censored? Well, unless you can look at the list, you simply have to trust that the bureaucrats are doing just what they're supposed to, and that they need to be doing it. This is inherently undemocratic.
Secrets give government the opportunity to mismanage without falling under the prying eyes of the people -- you and me -- whose job it is to see to the proper maintenance of government, and whom might be upset at the revelation of any such mismanagement.
This sort of thing shouldn't be tolerated in any democratic country.
Murchinson said Microsoft considered legal action a last resort.
"Clearly we prefer to work with them to resolve this problem voluntarily. Their product name infringes on our trademark," Murchinson said. "We hope they will work with us to resolve this problem without the need for legal action."
Sobbing, he continued: "Oh why do they Force us to sue them! It hurts me right here, (Murchinson placed his hand over his heart and looks to the heavens) whenever we have to sue them."
Murchinson then, with the tears still streaming down his cheeks and shaking his head, pushed a lonely red button on his desk.
Moments later, cruel hordes of fur clad lawyers on enormous horses, gravely swinging rusted and blood stained battle axes, thrusting their hardened leather shields toward the brooding skies, with packs angry mastifs biting and growling at their hideously spurred heals, rode ravenous toward yet another glorious conquest.
Murchinson listened as the horrible clamor of the viciously armed force recedeed in to the wind. Finally he concluded the interview, "if only they hadn't forced me to do this, if only we could have worked something out..."
Thinking of that poor man, Murchinson, nearly brings tears to my eyes as well. It's just tragic how he so truly didn't want to sue them, but had to... sigh... It just breaks my heart.
That can only mean the most terrifying, powerful, and secretive agency in the whole of the government... .
The I.R.S!!!
Ahhhhhhhh!!!!
With Oracle's powerful software they'll be able to haggle happles taxpayers over previously unimaginably complex, nuanced, obscure articles of tax code!
Why couldn't the NSA just use it implement some sort of Big-Brother national ID card thing?!
Dear god Ellison...have you no heart?!
"Why pay $10/month for what is, in effect, the right to sample things?"
The music industry isn't selling you the right to sample things, they're renting you the privilege of sampling things.
Important difference. If I had any rights, could actually buy anything, or wasn't as a customer regarded by companies as their enemy, I would feel a lot better about things.
It's hard not to be cynical when the corporate motto is: the customer is always wrong!
Linux and MacOS is great but it isn't what we need to be teaching.
No. We should not be teaching any operating system. We should be teaching kids math, reading, and science!
The point of computers in schools (and a point that is lost on most administrators + general public) is that computers should not be used as an end in and of themselves. That is, schools shouldn't be using computers to teach computers, they should be used to accomplish curriculum goals -- like teaching students to read, solve problems, and otherwise think.
First, learning how to use Windows, or Mac OS, or Linux, or CPM, or whatever the hell they're using, is far from guaranteed to be relevant ten, five, or even three years later when the kids graduate from high school. General skills are vastly more important.
Second, most semi-modern computers operate in basically the same way, so a kid who knows how to move a mouse on a Mac probably won't have trouble moving a mouse on a Windows computer, assuming we're still using mouses when he/she graduates. Valuable class time need not be spent teaching kids to add things to the Windows start menu, or how to place icons in the Mac's Apple menu.
Third, the computer that can most productively facilitate learning with the least training and support costs is the ideal computer for a school. Which computer that is can best be determined by the school, but in deciding on one versus the other, the issue of teaching seventh grader's Windows is wholly irrelevant.
Microsoft and the Administration both seem to think they're each about the best things that have ever happened to eachother, and now they may be even better friends.
MS security, of all things...
Of course, once information gets out in to the open, there's no putting it back in the bottle. Sometimes that's a good thing when it makes MS patch their bugware, but clearly there can be problems too -- as this case shows. I think open government is vital to effective democracy, and anything that potentially limits the openness of government should be carefully scrutinized, but I also believe a line must be drawn somewhere when personal information is involved.
In government institutions, this becomes a question of how open "open government" can really be. It's not a theoretical concern; some local governments have been considering placing all their records online. So how much should they scrub out of these? What constitutes personal information that should be protected?
Credible participation in our democracy is rarely done behind a veil of anonymity. That's why we declare campaign contributions in the public record, why letters to the editor in newspapers aren't typically published unless signed, and even why Anonymous Coward postings on Slashdot don't receive an automatic +1 moderation. The underlying assumption is that if you aren't willing to identify yourself, then whatever you have to say must not be that important.
(Of course, in extreme cases, anonymity is important and protected; if you fear for your safety, or fear you would be unduly harassed by identifying yourself, anonymous participation in government is vital. But that's not usually the case with generic public records.)
How, then, do you balance open government with the potential for abuse of government records? How should the method of distributing information affect the content of the information being distributed? That is, should you be able to get copies of data with more personal information when you have to request it in person (and in the process having your own name added to the public record), one record at a time, versus download it off the web or from a CD?
The real perversity, however, is that companies can frequently buy this personal information for their own use. If you get junk mail, there's a good chance the company sending it to you got your address from a database compiled by your state's department of motor vehicles; in Oregon you have to opt out of having your personal information sold.
In a sense, I'm more concerned about corporations having free run of my personal information than governments. Corporations are not democratic bodies, their records are not open to public review, and I simply have to trust that they will do the right thing -- a trust that may be undermined by their profit motive. Open government, on the other hand, lets me participate in the fate of my information -- even if I have to identify myself to do so.
When raw metal becomes useful in space, it will almost certainly be true that mining the moon will be economically viable. I suspect, however, that it will be some time before it is cheaper/easier to mine metal and build spacecraft from raw lunar material, than to launch pre-built spacecraft modules from Earth.
I agree with you completely that the moon is a natural starting point for further space exploration. I suspect, however, that the moon will make itself useful as a gas station before it becomes a spaceship factory -- simply because it is probably easier to produce a relatively simple product like fuel than manufacture complex items like spaceships.
Of course, the article wasn't talking about anything sensible such as future space exploration; it was talking about a bunch of idiots who want to get rich selling moon gravel. (Yeah, that might be a bit harsh, but it's not too far off the mark.)
Except that, err, the web didn't exist then, let alone a useful search engine...
To be fair, my initial research did run across its "interesting" magnetic properties, and I spent at least fifteen seconds commenting upon them in my oral report. I think the next person went on to talk about iron, or sodium, or some other glamorous element.
Fortunately holmium has found another practical application in recent years. In the words of Pomona's online periodic table "few uses were known for holmium until recently, with the development of surgical lasers using holmium."
There you have it. Using Google.
I apologize profusely for my libelous comments thrown so recklessly upon the respected name of this most venerable and miraculous element.
So by God, if there's holmium on the moon, we should feel obligated to liberate it from its lunar prison irrespective of any cost! Away to the moon we go; we haven't a day to spare!
My report was supposed to be seven minutes long...
If there's holmium on the moon, we should devote our vast technological resources to conquering the ocean's inky mysterious depths!
Yeah...so I'm bitter, Ok?
Mining on Earth requires enriched deposits of whatever is being mined. That is, there's a lot of cobalt, nickel, iron, aluminum, magnesium, manganese, calcium, sodium and titanium, and most other elements already on the Earth, and are fairly common at that, they just aren't enriched enough to be worth the cost of mining.
On Earth deposits of economically viable ore minerals are frequently deposited by volcanism and/or by processes related to water. Since these processes do not presently operate on the moon, it seems likely that moon rocks will not be much more enriched in most elements than most (much more easily mined) terrestrial rocks. Aluminum, for example, is typically concentrated in ores by chemical weathering process which do not operate on the moon. Without free water, the moon could pretty mineralogically boring.
Consider the thousands of square miles of Eastern Washington and Oregon covered with huge basalt lava flows -- just as large areas of lunar highlands consists of thick basalt flows -- and ask how many people are out in Eastern Washington laying mining claims to dig up this rock? Unless this rock is enriched by some secondary process, despite all its aluminum, iron, etc., it's not worth much -- it's used mostly as crushed gravel for cheap roads. It's worth even less than a dump truck full of 8MB DIMMs leaving a Hynix factory.
As for asteroid enrichment of PGMs on the lunar surface, even this one known method of enrichment doesn't sound too promising, and the article admits as much.
As another poster commented, the most valuable mineral on the moon is almost certainly ice*, which could be converted to rocket fuel. After that, it might make more sense to mine the asteroids directly.
Ice could also be the source of fuel for a craft headed to Mars, where there could well be a more interesting mix of mineral resources. Mars has a more complex history of volcanism, as well as excellent evidence for an abundance of water in the fairly recent geologic past.
* ...yes, ice is a mineral.
Information is the lifeblood of a free society governed by the consent of the governed. If information is destroyed (or even made inaccessible to all but the most determined individuals armed with subpoenas), the practical effect is that the governed don't know what we're consenting to. Policies that prevent open disclosure of information are ripe for exploitation as tools to conceal embarrassing information. Public outrage is a powerful motivator in an open society, but how can the public express outrage when the information that would prompt such outrage may be cloistered away by embarrassed bureaucrats who can simply claim the information could be dangerous in the wrong hands?
I have news for everyone: almost any information can be dangerous in certain circumstances. What our illustrious and infallible (ok, only 89% infallible) administration has apparently decided is that information no longer need be imminently dangerous to fall subject to the censors. Unfortunately potentially dangerous covers a lot of vague territory (or perhaps fortunately if that information contains something personally embarrasing to you).
Now if the chemical plant down the street is poisoning your water, you just have to hope that the regulators responsible for letting the water become contaminated don't decide that the chemicals aren't too scary to talk about. If you live downstream from a dam, don't bother asking why/if the security team failed their last test. Just trust that everything will be Ok; you don't need to know about it!
This isn't about not trusting government. I don't distrust government, rather I doubt that everyone in government will always necessarily do the right things. Individually government consists of people with emotions, agendas, visions, and goals that I may not share. I can't trust that without meaningful oversight and clearly defined standards for making information secret, that everyone who governs will always do the right thing. You see, open information means I don't have to trust those in government.
Unfortunately, it is in times of crisis that open government is most important, because it is easiest to precipitate abuse when there is 89% approval and everyone is looking the other way. In fact, it is considered unpatriotic to even suggest that times of crisis are times of opportunity for abuse.
We know that with attention diverted, this would be the perfect time to make politically unpopular decisions: give vast tax breaks to huge companies, strip away environmental regulations, invalidate laws in states that legalize doctor assisted suicide, etc... Why can we rest assured that no lower level bureaucrat might take advantage of the situation to obfuscate potentially embarrasing or dangerous agency screw-ups?
Our military has many legitimate secrets, but as the agency given the greatest freedom to keep its activities secret, it has not done an excellent job of obeying the spirit of the law. Now with civilian agencies also keeping secrets (that I believe everyone agrees are less threatening than military secrets) isn't the potential for abuse proportionally greater?
If there is necessity to obscure information -- and sometimes that's hard to say because we don't know what information is being blocked -- then there should be extremely clear guidelines on exactly what should be controlled. Information that does not pose an imminent security danger should still be made available, but perhaps with some authentication of those requesting it, i.e., require written request and valid ID. Finally, the clearly defined regulations limiting access should automatically expire after five years unless Congress decides that there are ongoing security risks that require an extension of the controls. Of course it goes without saying that the information should not be destroyed.
Doubtless some of you may take the view that we need to surrender some of our typical openness to secure the safety our our nation. To this I would respond that: a) by surrendering openness we're simultaneously surrendering security -- we just don't know how much; b) if something must be surrendered we should consider very carefully what should be surrendered and how we should do so; and c) we must keep in mind that information is a double edged sword and our society is based upon the assumption that openness is our guarantee of freedom. This country would look very different without freedom of information; please consider very carefully where to draw that line.
There are consequences to viewing open information as our enemy. I can only hope that more rational minds soon prevail; rights surrendered in times of crisis are rarely returned.
Of course, all this is an aside to the question of the efficacy of blocking the information...
It would be much easier to avoid the allusions to Orwellian horrors if our own government didn't insist on Orwellian policies labeled with positively Orwellian names.
Of course, Farenheit 451 also hasn't been more relevant anytime in recent memory than now. I hope everyone reads it.
God help this country.
That's not to say there weren't problems. I was working as a service technician when the 5300 series machines were released. We literally had people bringing the computers to us in bags to keep all the parts together...it really was ugly. More people swore to me that they'd never buy another Mac again because of their experience with PowerBook 5300 than because of anything else Apple ever did -- except for maybe some of the Performas...
The first time I used wireless ethernet was on a PowerBook back in 1995 or 1996. The device had an enormous Motorola 68040 processor in it, the same processor as in the PowerBook it was connected to.
Here are my nominations for notable PowerBooks:
Best Screens: PowerBook 170 (incredible 1-bit active matrix display -- yeah, only 1-bit but it was still incredible.) PowerBook G4 for its ultrathin widescreen.
Best Performance: PowerBook G4, PowerBook G3 series, and PowerBook 3400c/240. The G4 and G3 paralleled performance of the reigning Mac desktops when they were released. The 3400 had a fast processor, but also had fast video for the first time in a PowerBook.
Best Size: iBook, Duo series. The first of the Duo series weighed just 4.2 pounds back in 1994(?).
Best Battery: PowerBook 170. You could turn off the backlight and run the thing literally all day.
Most Versatile: PowerBook G3 series. They had expansion bays, PC card slots with CardBus, SCSI, serial, infrared, stereo sound in/out, VGA out, analog video out, serial, built in microphone, ADB, ethernet, upgradeable processor, two RAM slots, built in modem, optional DVD, and even third party PCI expansion chassis. Later models switched to FireWire and USB over SCSI serial and ADB.
Worst PowerBook Ever: 5300 series. Parts (including the entire screen) would snap off randomly, numerous other hardware defects, slow, prone to crashing, no ethernet, spartan set of features, and expensive at any price! I think thousands of them were finally just ground up -- they were sent back to Apple and never reappeared.
Heaviest PowerBook: Macintosh Portable. Yeah, I know it's not a PowerBook, but it was so heavy I have to include it somewhere. It used enormous lead acid batteries! It also had funky rhombal shaped 3MB memory upgrade cards.
Best PowerBook ever: ??? suggestions ???
I've owned at least the following PowerBooks over the years: 140, (three) 170s, (three) Duo 210, Duo 2300, (two) 165c,(two) 180c, 520c, (two) G3 Wallstreet, 3400/240, iBook 2001 -- but I could be forgetting a few. The 170s and G3s were my favorites.
It's been a fascinating ten years.