"items like the IEDs which are showing up in public locations everywhere (and which some of us may unfortunately need some day)."
Given the state of the financial system, the ever increasing presence of the government in our lives, and the ever lessening regard citizens have for the wellbeing of their community, that may well be the most insightful typo in the history of Slashdot.
They don't use Transistors, Inductors and Capacitors at all, do they?
Functionally, the devices might not be used to perform the same precursory things... However, silicon is silicon, capacitors are still made from the same things, and inductors are little more than (get this!!!) lumps of a constant controlled by the turns ratio and other things.
Nope, totally different animals, huh?
Right. And I'm the same as Albert Einstein because I have DNA, amino acids, and funny hair. Where's my Nobel Prize?
A Pinto is the same as a Mercedes because it's made of steel, has 4 wheels, and an engine. I want $75,000 for my used Ford.
My wife is the same as Elle McPherson because she has hair, tits, and a vagina. My wife should be the supermodel (no, really, honey, I was serious on that last one. No, wait...WAIT!...")
"We don't need all the people on earth to escape. I think we can safely leave all the lawyers and politicians behind."
My strategy is to divide the populace into 3 categories - the most important, the breeders, and the non-breeders. That's also the priority for launches.
The "most important" category will be filled with those who have the power to influence the system to get themselves rescued - politicians, lawyers, Hollywood types. We load them all onto a ship and launch them first, to prepare society for the future colonists.
Then, right after launch, we blow the fucker up.
Then send up the breeders. They'll make it OK. As for the non-breeders, they really wouldn't relevant at such a point in human history.
"It may be time to put NASA brains on some more immediate problems, like alternative energy, and studying the causes of the continuing decline of every ecosystem on earth. Visiting Mars may be a lot nicer knowing that the astronauts have a habitable planet to return to."
2 comments:
1) Neither alternative energy or biodiversity is in Nasa's purview. we can debate whether it should be the business of the Federal Government at all, but NASA's not the place for it.
2) Per Larry Niven, "The dinosaurs went extinct because they didn't have a space program". If one views the survival of the human species as important, rather than the survival of the ecosystem per se, then having an escape plan is ALWAYS good policy.
I stopped reading at #1: "Fact: The same electrical components that are used in IT equipment are used in complex devices that are routinely subjected to power cycles and temperature extremes, such as factory-floor automation, medical devices, and your car."
Well, yes, except for the fact that the it's a total lie. Cars, factory automation, and medical devises most certainly do NOT use "the same" components. While they may do the same things, and even be functionally equivalent, they are rated to much higher temperature and stress levels than consumer or even server grade components. Just ask the folks who have been trying to install "in-car" PC's with consumer grade components.
I did a paper on some of these topics in 1990. In short: 1) the American scientist was a dickhead 2) Even at the time of his "discovery", it was suspected that the lab had stolen the sample from the French - I think they settled on "contamination" so that it wouldn't turn into a political incident (this happened at NIH) 3) The elephant in the room was money - there was a metric fuckton of money to be made for the people to develop a test for HIV that could be applied to the blood supply. The French and the American basically split it. 4) The American scientist made out like a bandidt - not only did he recieve credit where he shouldn't have, the NIH built him a WHOLE BUILDING to be his sandbox.
It is some small measure of justice that the Nobel committee awarded the prise thusly. Too bad the people who award the non-scientific prizes have no such measure of judgment.
"I don't even have kids yet, but the idea of them turning into teenagers scares the shit out of me."
Try being the father of a 13 year old girl - I KNOW what boys that age are like. I WAS one. It will be all I can do not to blast them off the front step preemptively when they come calling. Little perverts.
I see the same things, and I try to raise my kids with a firm but steady hand. Bedtime is 8:30 for the 13 yo and the 8 yo - there's nothing on TV that's imperative to watch, and they surely wake up a lot easier than I do.
What really strikes me is that I worry about the job I'm doing with my kids - they certainly don't show me or their mother the level of respect and obedience I think they should. But almost universally other parents remark on how pleasant and respectful my children are. I may not be doing everything right, but perhaps I'm not failing miserably. I guess I'll really know when the therapy bills start rolling in...
Me too - when my car won't start, I want to grab Obama by the ankles and swing him around to bash the hood of my car repeatedly. It won't make the car start, but I'll feel a lot better about the situation.
"Clearer? When you submit a proposal for new funding as a replacement for the original Dev team, screenshotting the existing features is a bit slimy."
I understood that the new vendor seemed slimy to the submitter from the original post - I did not need translation for that.
So he doesn't like the new developer - again, what is he asking? Is he looking to wrest control back? Is he trying to figure out a way to make his fork more popular than the "official" one? Overall, it comes off like my kids complaining that the gym coach took the new basketball and gave it to the mean kids, leaving them with the old flat one. Sucks, but...what?
I'm not even sure what the question is. So the project is being taken closed source? Or it's still open source but the original developers aren't included in the new plan?
From the description, it sounds like a fork is getting all the monetary attention - not unheard of.
So you are saying that we DO know the details, but you are criticizing the OP because the details are hidden? Which is it?
The OP put forth reasons why the US program was different from the Chinese program, and you dismiss him because the "real" reason and purposes behind the program are hidden due to its "beyond-top-secret" nature. But when I point out the level of secrecy you claim isn't real, you criticize me for ignorance of the very facts that the OP was using in his initial argument!
So the NYT article blew the lid off the program, but totally and completely missed the super secret "real" objectives of the program? There's a vast government conspiracy intertwined with this OTHER vast government conspiracy, and one has been exposed but the other is secure?
Here's a thought: the domestic surveillance program is wrong. The chinese surveillance program is wrong. Can't they both be objectionable and still be different?
I mean, I don't like the way cheese tastes, and I don't like the way green beans taste, so their tastes must be identical?
"No, your point was that the American surveillance program was a safe, anodyne program with limited and necessary objectives and could not possibly be compared to the ubiquitous surveillance state of China. That's why you baselessly claimed to know the design of a beyond-top-secret classified government program:"
Funny, I got an A in reading comprehension in grade school and it doesn't look to me like he said anything remotely like you are attributing to him.
Oh, and if it's a "beyond-top-secret classified government program", why does everyone and it's brother know it exists?
"100 spin points to Greenpeace for changing VOC from "volatile organic compound" to "volatile organic contaminant", by the way. It's nice to know that I can order in 99% pure bottles of "contaminant" from Sigma, or indeed that my air freshener is busily filling my surroundings with "contaminants"."
Greenpeace is to the environmental movement as nuclear power is to the power generation industry: useful if properly handled, dangerous if misapplied, and in either case you don't want to get any on you.
As God is my witness I went to wake up my 8 year old son and he wasn't cooperating, so I turned on the light and pulled the covers off him. "The Light! It burns ussss!" was his response.
"I just find it too hard to believe that we could have the technology to invent something like this and nobody else could figure it out, no scientists involved with the creation got cold feet, etc. It seems too James Bondian."
Can you prove the Government DIDN'T custom build AIDS? No? Well there you go - the theory is fully supported.
In another post I mentioned the 2 competing theories of the disease, behavioral and infectious agent, and how the latter "won". The interesting part is that the treatment model that accompanied the behavioral theory - i.e. "stop fucking people you aren't married/monogamous with" - would have had a BETTER societal outcome than the current treatment model. Right now we have lifetime drug therapy and HIV infection has transitioned from "acute" to "chronic", and researchers have noted that the incidence of casual and unprotected sex in increasing because HIV infection is being viewed not as a fatal disease but as a manageble condition. Great for drug companies; but perhaps not so great for society at large.
You also might want to read the law that allows the government to experiment on its own citizens just about anytime it wants.
(b) Exceptions
Subject to subsections (c), (d), and (e) of this section, the
prohibition in subsection (a) of this section does not apply to a
test or experiment carried out for any of the following purposes:
(1) Any peaceful purpose that is related to a medical,
therapeutic, pharmaceutical, agricultural, industrial, or
research activity.
(2) Any purpose that is directly related to protection against
toxic chemicals or biological weapons and agents.
(3) Any law enforcement purpose, including any purpose related
to riot control.
You might have quoted Sections C and D which are referenced:
(c) Informed consent required
The Secretary of Defense may conduct a test or experiment
described in subsection (b) of this section only if informed
consent to the testing was obtained from each human subject in
advance of the testing on that subject.
(d) Prior notice to Congress
Not later than 30 days after the date of final approval within
the Department of Defense of plans for any experiment or study to
be conducted by the Department of Defense (whether directly or
under contract) involving the use of human subjects for the testing
of a chemical agent or a biological agent, the Secretary of Defense
shall submit to the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and
the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives a
report setting forth a full accounting of those plans, and the
experiment or study may then be conducted only after the end of the
30-day period beginning on the date such report is received by
those committees.
Hardly "just about anytime it wants". So what else did you cherry pick from your other cites?
Slashdot Mirror
Given the state of the financial system, the ever increasing presence of the government in our lives, and the ever lessening regard citizens have for the wellbeing of their community, that may well be the most insightful typo in the history of Slashdot.
Right. And I'm the same as Albert Einstein because I have DNA, amino acids, and funny hair. Where's my Nobel Prize?
A Pinto is the same as a Mercedes because it's made of steel, has 4 wheels, and an engine. I want $75,000 for my used Ford.
My wife is the same as Elle McPherson because she has hair, tits, and a vagina. My wife should be the supermodel (no, really, honey, I was serious on that last one. No, wait...WAIT!...")
"We don't need all the people on earth to escape. I think we can safely leave all the lawyers and politicians behind."
My strategy is to divide the populace into 3 categories - the most important, the breeders, and the non-breeders. That's also the priority for launches.
The "most important" category will be filled with those who have the power to influence the system to get themselves rescued - politicians, lawyers, Hollywood types. We load them all onto a ship and launch them first, to prepare society for the future colonists.
Then, right after launch, we blow the fucker up.
Then send up the breeders. They'll make it OK. As for the non-breeders, they really wouldn't relevant at such a point in human history.
"It may be time to put NASA brains on some more immediate problems, like alternative energy, and studying the causes of the continuing decline of every ecosystem on earth. Visiting Mars may be a lot nicer knowing that the astronauts have a habitable planet to return to."
2 comments:
1) Neither alternative energy or biodiversity is in Nasa's purview. we can debate whether it should be the business of the Federal Government at all, but NASA's not the place for it.
2) Per Larry Niven, "The dinosaurs went extinct because they didn't have a space program". If one views the survival of the human species as important, rather than the survival of the ecosystem per se, then having an escape plan is ALWAYS good policy.
Anyone else thinking that this is just a smokescreen to develop the most awesomest Battlebot ever?
I stopped reading at #1: "Fact: The same electrical components that are used in IT equipment are used in complex devices that are routinely subjected to power cycles and temperature extremes, such as factory-floor automation, medical devices, and your car."
Well, yes, except for the fact that the it's a total lie. Cars, factory automation, and medical devises most certainly do NOT use "the same" components. While they may do the same things, and even be functionally equivalent, they are rated to much higher temperature and stress levels than consumer or even server grade components. Just ask the folks who have been trying to install "in-car" PC's with consumer grade components.
Gallo! Thanks for the name - I did a whole paper on that ass in 1990 and couldn't remember the name.
"If Mr. Gallo had only half the talent for science as he did for obfuscation, he would've been a great scientist indeed."
Don't worry too much about Gallo's fate - the NIH built him a whole new building to house his little empire.
I did a paper on some of these topics in 1990. In short:
1) the American scientist was a dickhead
2) Even at the time of his "discovery", it was suspected that the lab had stolen the sample from the French - I think they settled on "contamination" so that it wouldn't turn into a political incident (this happened at NIH)
3) The elephant in the room was money - there was a metric fuckton of money to be made for the people to develop a test for HIV that could be applied to the blood supply. The French and the American basically split it.
4) The American scientist made out like a bandidt - not only did he recieve credit where he shouldn't have, the NIH built him a WHOLE BUILDING to be his sandbox.
It is some small measure of justice that the Nobel committee awarded the prise thusly. Too bad the people who award the non-scientific prizes have no such measure of judgment.
"describes how quickly a discussion will turn a) political or b) toward Bush bashing."
On slashdot, that's a distinction without a difference.
I'm betting on Fidel Castro for the first peaceful transition in power in Cuba in 40 years.
"I don't even have kids yet, but the idea of them turning into teenagers scares the shit out of me."
Try being the father of a 13 year old girl - I KNOW what boys that age are like. I WAS one. It will be all I can do not to blast them off the front step preemptively when they come calling. Little perverts.
I see the same things, and I try to raise my kids with a firm but steady hand. Bedtime is 8:30 for the 13 yo and the 8 yo - there's nothing on TV that's imperative to watch, and they surely wake up a lot easier than I do.
What really strikes me is that I worry about the job I'm doing with my kids - they certainly don't show me or their mother the level of respect and obedience I think they should. But almost universally other parents remark on how pleasant and respectful my children are. I may not be doing everything right, but perhaps I'm not failing miserably. I guess I'll really know when the therapy bills start rolling in...
"I want to use Obama as a tool for my car"
Me too - when my car won't start, I want to grab Obama by the ankles and swing him around to bash the hood of my car repeatedly. It won't make the car start, but I'll feel a lot better about the situation.
"I'm from Baton Rouge. It's snowed there ONCE and stuck in the last 25 years."
So snowballs DID have a chance in Hell!
"Clearer? When you submit a proposal for new funding as a replacement for the original Dev team, screenshotting the existing features is a bit slimy."
I understood that the new vendor seemed slimy to the submitter from the original post - I did not need translation for that.
So he doesn't like the new developer - again, what is he asking? Is he looking to wrest control back? Is he trying to figure out a way to make his fork more popular than the "official" one? Overall, it comes off like my kids complaining that the gym coach took the new basketball and gave it to the mean kids, leaving them with the old flat one. Sucks, but...what?
I'm not even sure what the question is. So the project is being taken closed source? Or it's still open source but the original developers aren't included in the new plan?
From the description, it sounds like a fork is getting all the monetary attention - not unheard of.
"do I really want to waste all those hours writing demo code for the 120 people who are likely to ever see it?"
You'd be in good company if the number and statistics of projects on SourceForge is any indication.
So you are saying that we DO know the details, but you are criticizing the OP because the details are hidden? Which is it?
The OP put forth reasons why the US program was different from the Chinese program, and you dismiss him because the "real" reason and purposes behind the program are hidden due to its "beyond-top-secret" nature. But when I point out the level of secrecy you claim isn't real, you criticize me for ignorance of the very facts that the OP was using in his initial argument!
So the NYT article blew the lid off the program, but totally and completely missed the super secret "real" objectives of the program? There's a vast government conspiracy intertwined with this OTHER vast government conspiracy, and one has been exposed but the other is secure?
Here's a thought: the domestic surveillance program is wrong. The chinese surveillance program is wrong. Can't they both be objectionable and still be different?
I mean, I don't like the way cheese tastes, and I don't like the way green beans taste, so their tastes must be identical?
"No, your point was that the American surveillance program was a safe, anodyne program with limited and necessary objectives and could not possibly be compared to the ubiquitous surveillance state of China. That's why you baselessly claimed to know the design of a beyond-top-secret classified government program:"
Funny, I got an A in reading comprehension in grade school and it doesn't look to me like he said anything remotely like you are attributing to him.
Oh, and if it's a "beyond-top-secret classified government program", why does everyone and it's brother know it exists?
Don't bother.
The First rule of Slashdot (and US liberalism in general) is that it's ALWAYS the fault of the US.
The Second rule is that if it isn't the fault of the US, what he US does is equally bad or worse.
The Third rule is that, if a situation arises that doesn't fall neatly into the rules above, see the rules above.
"100 spin points to Greenpeace for changing VOC from "volatile organic compound" to "volatile organic contaminant", by the way. It's nice to know that I can order in 99% pure bottles of "contaminant" from Sigma, or indeed that my air freshener is busily filling my surroundings with "contaminants"."
Greenpeace is to the environmental movement as nuclear power is to the power generation industry: useful if properly handled, dangerous if misapplied, and in either case you don't want to get any on you.
As God is my witness I went to wake up my 8 year old son and he wasn't cooperating, so I turned on the light and pulled the covers off him. "The Light! It burns ussss!" was his response.
No more Rings Trilogy before bedtime.
"I just find it too hard to believe that we could have the technology to invent something like this and nobody else could figure it out, no scientists involved with the creation got cold feet, etc. It seems too James Bondian."
Can you prove the Government DIDN'T custom build AIDS? No? Well there you go - the theory is fully supported.
In another post I mentioned the 2 competing theories of the disease, behavioral and infectious agent, and how the latter "won". The interesting part is that the treatment model that accompanied the behavioral theory - i.e. "stop fucking people you aren't married/monogamous with" - would have had a BETTER societal outcome than the current treatment model. Right now we have lifetime drug therapy and HIV infection has transitioned from "acute" to "chronic", and researchers have noted that the incidence of casual and unprotected sex in increasing because HIV infection is being viewed not as a fatal disease but as a manageble condition. Great for drug companies; but perhaps not so great for society at large.
You might have quoted Sections C and D which are referenced:
Hardly "just about anytime it wants". So what else did you cherry pick from your other cites?