I wish the hoard of TV and newspaper reports would point this out a bit more prominantly. Most just say "invisability cloak" or something equally ludicrous. And maybe include a line at the bottom of the article stating the severe limitations.
I got in an arguement with a friend the other day, while discussing how stupid the latest James Bond movie is (compared to previous ones) I pointed out the absurd 'invisable car' that he is given. My friend was adament however, after reading such news reports, that such technology actually exists in prototype. Refusing to accept that without an extreme technology jump such 'total invisability' is impossible.
I guess the difference is that 'protecting' kids against the imaginary thrests like terrorists & pedophiles means the creation of whole new industries (RFID tag producing companies for starters).
Protecting kids against the real threats that statistically kill the most kids (read: Cars, Large Cars, Trucks & Large Cars!) by not allowing SUV's near school grounds on the other hand is likely to damage the nearby SUV production factory.
It's a lot better for the economy therefore to go after the imaginary threats!
I agree, I bet in 15 years time such tags will be common-place in all schools.
They've decided they just need some time to break down the public's resistance to such privacy invasions and after they've had time to circulate the usual lies & propaganda proporting to save kids from pedophiles (because kids are supposably being reguarly abducted from schools!) or some other equally hyper-exaggerated threat (RFID tags to stop terrorists reguarly blowing up US schools maybe?).
Meanwhile the large SUV's will continue to be used to pick kids up from schools (because its dangerous for them to walk home!) and every so often one of those SUV's will kill a kid crossing the road but oh well, you don't have to worry about the real threats to kids safety if you have a whole heap of populist & imaginary ones to make up!
Derailing Nuclear power due to the nuclear waste issue has always been non-sensical.
Many websites (e.g. http://users.frii.com/davejen/nuclear/nuke_qa.htm) state "The net waste produced by a 1000 Megawatt nuclear plant, with the waste reprocessed via a breeder reactor, is on the order of 1 cubic meter per year. Now, this is a cubic meter of some really nasty stuff - but it is only a cubic meter. The waste can be vitrified (that is, made into a glass-like material), and a small 10x10x10 meter underground chamber would hold a thousand years of waste."
Compare this to a standard 1000Mw Coal recator: "A year's worth of running a 1000 Megawatt coal plant creates about 1.5 million tons of ash, which contains a variety of known carcinogens and can be strongly acidic or alkaline, depending on the original content of the coal. And that's just the solid waste - there's also about 600 pounds of CO2 produced every second, along with a significant amound of sulphur dioxide and various kinds of nitrogen oxides (to be fair, great progress is being made at reducing gaseous release of these latter two)."
In terms of the health effects, Bernard L. Cohen, Sc.D. Professor at the University of Pittsburghstates (http://www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/np-risk.htm) states: "If the waste behaves like other rock, it is easily shown that the waste generated by one nuclear power plant will eventually, over millions of years (if there is no cure found for cancer), cause one death from 50 years of operation. By comparison, the wastes from coal burning plants that end up in the ground will eventually cause several thousand deaths from generating the same amount of electricity."
Based on these sorts of figures it is surprising to me that the developed world doesn't totally switch to nuclear power (over coal, ignoring other power sources) purely on the basis of waste disposal and the wastes enviromental/health effects.
The west has been very good at pointing out instances of Soviet and Eastern covering up of true enviromental/health statistics from the public. But in the case of power generation, the widespread myth that nuclear power plant waste is more dangerous than coal power plant waste is so absurd that political and commerical organisations covering up of the facts can be the only explanation.
I think a lot of genetic reasearchers would disagree. I think most would point out that embreyonic stem cells have far more potential for the future than the limited functionality adult stems cells can provide. Using the fact that no cures have yet been made using them is like saying in the 50's that DNA is useless as no advances had yet been made using that either (as it hadn't been properly researched yet either).
Sure, most religous organisations will preach to the cows come home that embryonic stem cells are evil and therefore make up a whole heap of lies based on incorrect figures only they can locate and interperate in such a way.
But at the end of the day, a quick glance at the pages of university websites shows that most serious researchers count embryonic stem cells as probably the greatest chance for real medical breakthroughs over previously incurable genetic diseases.
Virtually no-one (apart from the religous organisations, who arn't generally known for their knowledge of genetics) think that adult stem cells have the potential of embryonic ones.
I run Windows XP on my main computer however would find a cheap laptop like this very useful as all I would transfer on and off of it is documents which I would rather keep in.pdf format anyway.
So far I can't be bothered with forking out the hundreds for a new laptop as they are normally very overpriced but this one might just be affordable!
Because the UK's Data Protection Act states quite clearly that personal data may not be supplied to any company/organisation residing in a country where Data Prtoection laws are not as strong as in the UK.
Normally this stops details being sent to countries like China and russia where organised criminal gangs are likely to get hold of it.
But if in the USA, the government can start peeping into whatever personal information they want then surely that would place American companies in breech of the Data Protection act and therefor make it illegal for any UK company to transmit data to a USA based company.
Is this correct or are UK companies already not supposed to do so due to the lack of (as strict) Data Protection laws in the USA?
"Actually the US has just as good a safety net for the poor (I've read a number of articles that the say $ quantity of support is even more),"
I'm sorry, but that is just absolute, total, utter c^@p!
Most international surveys rate Canada right up there with the levels of social welfare of West & Nothern Europe (which are generally accepted to have the highest levels in the world).
I doubt there has ever been a survey - not counting the ones issued by the Whitehouse and other right-wing rednecks (and I'm sure they REALLY cary about the welfare of the poor) - that places USA welfare anywhere near Canadian levels over the past 50 years! Trying to claim any sort of viable financial assistance is given to the poor in the USA that anywhere approaches Canada is just absolutly absurd and a plain lie.
I suppose with the privitisation of social security, America's poor will be given an even higher standard of living will they?
Yea, and after retiring from office, George Bush will leave his multi-million dollar texas ranch and start delivering the help himself to the ghettos full of mexican immigrants simply left to rot in nearby cities....Or atleast he may aslong as it doesn't effect Texas Social Security Corporation's profit margin!
Just a guess, I only know a tiny bit about US politics, but has the representative who proposed this bill ever recieved money (for his campaign or whatever) off the RCAA or MPAA?
Based on previous bills, I bet its very likely.
If so, its nice to see democracy working as it does: Bills like this that only a small percentage of the population want but have wealthy people/companies backers want get passed while Bills say to do with the enviroment which nearly everyone want except a few wealthy people/companies, fail miserably.
I really wish my employer would start using Mozilla/Firefox and Thunderbird/Mozilla.
I spend a fair amount of time on the internet at work and send/recieve dozens of emails a day. I know its dangerous at the moment with Internet Explorer and Outlook both being so insecure, but as I work for a large company who have an IT policy of "DO NOT INSTALL ANY SOFTWARE ON COMPUTERS OR FACE BEING FIRED" I am forced to use them and hope that one of the websites I view doesn't hijack my computer or start scanning it for bank details.
The IT department said I can't as it would interupt systems designed to check on startup for any unauthorized software. Has anyone who works for a large company ever had any luck with getting the IT department to allow the replacement of IE/Outlook?
I suggested they should do consider doing it all over the company for security reasons but they just replied saying they would "look into it"...meaning they can't be bothered doing anything.
the conclusions reached by the reviewers today are similar to those found in the 1989 review.
What? That Cold fusion would destroy the US energy industry and therefor rather than spend a small fraction of today's national energy bill researching it, should be chucked away and called a pipe-dream.
...or until a Music Industry sponsored bill decides that the database would help in the war against piracy (everything has to be called war these day doesn't it!).
I can see how it could be useful. Check to see if any students haven't brought an album in the past few months. If any haven't then they MUST of pirated some and therefor the appropriate (in their minds) action can be taken. A sort of enforcement of buying over-pricd CDs.
"Just because it doesn't create a lot of body bags, doesn't mean it's not important. It's vitally important for our economies,"
But terrorism in general doesn't create hardly any body bags compared to the USA's many other problems (e.g. in order of deaths: Atmospheric pollution, car crashes and gun crime).
So to the government, the amount of body bags created is not the point. The point is more likly to be something to do with being able to say to the public "Terrorists want and could (no matter how infilitesimally small the chance is) kill you, fear them...and vote for me while your scared".
Cyberterrorism can't do this at the moment, its not a simple concept like bombs are.
I agree, its an amazing testament to the Oil industries stranglehold over US national & state government the way gas is barely or not at all taxed.
Taxing fuel is surely one of the best ways (not to mention A FAR LOT easier to impliment unlike the proposed idea) to ensure relativly fair payment towards road infastructure costs, while helping to encourage uptake of more efficient vehicles (which are undenaiably better in terms of overall-cost-to-society and the enviroment and everyone except the Oil industry shareholders).
Not if, like me, you live in a small town with only 2 supermarkets (both owned by national chains) and have both started requiring sign-up to loyalty cards to recieve deals on products and to recieve free parking at the supermarket (which previously used to have free parking anyway, as part of the planning permission).
Its not so easy to change supermaket if you have to drive 20km to the nearest non-loyalty card one, or if supermarket offers items (often due to exclusive distrobution deals) not found at local compeditors.
You guys voted in these people who had recieved A LOT of campaigning money from large companies....Now these companies are turning around to the puppets they helped to elect and are expecting a return for all that commerical investment.
Apparently this isn't corruption though. Although its hard to see how it isn't corruption when as you say, elected representatives are making decisions which stand to benefit only the select few who gave them campaign money.
Personally I can't think of anything that would be better at the moment for IT customers and consumers than regulation.
Sure, FCC aren't the ones to do it (A bunch of religous zealots censoring anything which isn't aimed at maintaining the status quo of US ultra-commericalised culture is not what we want regualting an industry which should be based on innovation).
But that doesn't mean we shouldn't have a regulating body making sure the innovation isn't overshadowed by commerical deals and marketing like it often is now.
Sadly, with George Bush back in office (thanks in a small part due to Microsoft's corrupt *cough*,...I mean campaigning money) I doubt a regulator aiming to create competition in the IT sector is much of a possability.
Microsoft isn't where it is because it produces crap software, it's successful because people can do lots of stuff with that crap software, more than the competition
I think a more correct version of the statement is people are forced to do lots of stuff with that crap software
Everyone has to buy Windows because most of the big suppliers only sell computers with Windows runing on it (never will more than a small minority uninstall an OS they have already paid for and install another). Then once its on, desktop links to buy software life Microsoft OFfice are displayed, (ask the average person what alternatives to Microsoft Office are?).
You can't say "Don't blame microsoft for them running unchallenged.", its like saying don't blame a dictator for the lack of their countries democracy as no-one challanges him. Why does no-one challange him? because if they do they get shot!
Do you know what percentage of China's GDP and exports are produced using actual slave and prison labour?
Figures are hard to come by but they all indicate that it is far less than 1%.
Sure, 'Sweat Shops' and the like (where people are paid dismal amounts by western standards) contribute a LOT to China's export market. But people arn't forced to work in these places. They work there because its still preferable to not eating.
Besides, America has millions of people working on extremely low wages in it's factories. In fact, if you compare the cost of living and average household weath between America and China it becomes apparent that many of the workers sweating it out in American factories arn't on that much a better deal than their Chinese counterparts!
Niether workers get access to health care (whether public or company based) and neither get access to many other basic rights that are assumed in more meritocratic countries such as Western European ones.
So why does the US like trading so much with China?
Same reason North Korea likes to sell missles to Iran and such, none of the countries really care about the morality of the whole situation as long a packet load of money is made (and everyone gets their cheap Chinese toys which break after 3 weeks).
You'd have to be an idiot to use Windows on a cluster anyway, it just cause SO many problems and costs with no real incentives....No matter what Microsoft's sponsored and umm 'creative' research says.
Slashdot Mirror
I wish the hoard of TV and newspaper reports would point this out a bit more prominantly. Most just say "invisability cloak" or something equally ludicrous. And maybe include a line at the bottom of the article stating the severe limitations.
I got in an arguement with a friend the other day, while discussing how stupid the latest James Bond movie is (compared to previous ones) I pointed out the absurd 'invisable car' that he is given. My friend was adament however, after reading such news reports, that such technology actually exists in prototype. Refusing to accept that without an extreme technology jump such 'total invisability' is impossible.
I guess the difference is that 'protecting' kids against the imaginary thrests like terrorists & pedophiles means the creation of whole new industries (RFID tag producing companies for starters).
Protecting kids against the real threats that statistically kill the most kids (read: Cars, Large Cars, Trucks & Large Cars!) by not allowing SUV's near school grounds on the other hand is likely to damage the nearby SUV production factory.
It's a lot better for the economy therefore to go after the imaginary threats!
I agree, I bet in 15 years time such tags will be common-place in all schools.
They've decided they just need some time to break down the public's resistance to such privacy invasions and after they've had time to circulate the usual lies & propaganda proporting to save kids from pedophiles (because kids are supposably being reguarly abducted from schools!) or some other equally hyper-exaggerated threat (RFID tags to stop terrorists reguarly blowing up US schools maybe?).
Meanwhile the large SUV's will continue to be used to pick kids up from schools (because its dangerous for them to walk home!) and every so often one of those SUV's will kill a kid crossing the road but oh well, you don't have to worry about the real threats to kids safety if you have a whole heap of populist & imaginary ones to make up!
Derailing Nuclear power due to the nuclear waste issue has always been non-sensical.
) state "The net waste produced by a 1000 Megawatt nuclear plant, with the waste reprocessed via a breeder reactor, is on the order of 1 cubic meter per year. Now, this is a cubic meter of some really nasty stuff - but it is only a cubic meter. The waste can be vitrified (that is, made into a glass-like material), and a small 10x10x10 meter underground chamber would hold a thousand years of waste."
Many websites (e.g. http://users.frii.com/davejen/nuclear/nuke_qa.htm
Compare this to a standard 1000Mw Coal recator: "A year's worth of running a 1000 Megawatt coal plant creates about 1.5 million tons of ash, which contains a variety of known carcinogens and can be strongly acidic or alkaline, depending on the original content of the coal. And that's just the solid waste - there's also about 600 pounds of CO2 produced every second, along with a significant amound of sulphur dioxide and various kinds of nitrogen oxides (to be fair, great progress is being made at reducing gaseous release of these latter two)."
In terms of the health effects, Bernard L. Cohen, Sc.D. Professor at the University of Pittsburghstates (http://www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/np-risk.htm) states: "If the waste behaves like other rock, it is easily shown that the waste generated by one nuclear power plant will eventually, over millions of years (if there is no cure found for cancer), cause one death from 50 years of operation. By comparison, the wastes from coal burning plants that end up in the ground will eventually cause several thousand deaths from generating the same amount of electricity."
Based on these sorts of figures it is surprising to me that the developed world doesn't totally switch to nuclear power (over coal, ignoring other power sources) purely on the basis of waste disposal and the wastes enviromental/health effects.
The west has been very good at pointing out instances of Soviet and Eastern covering up of true enviromental/health statistics from the public. But in the case of power generation, the widespread myth that nuclear power plant waste is more dangerous than coal power plant waste is so absurd that political and commerical organisations covering up of the facts can be the only explanation.
I think a lot of genetic reasearchers would disagree. I think most would point out that embreyonic stem cells have far more potential for the future than the limited functionality adult stems cells can provide. Using the fact that no cures have yet been made using them is like saying in the 50's that DNA is useless as no advances had yet been made using that either (as it hadn't been properly researched yet either).
Sure, most religous organisations will preach to the cows come home that embryonic stem cells are evil and therefore make up a whole heap of lies based on incorrect figures only they can locate and interperate in such a way.
But at the end of the day, a quick glance at the pages of university websites shows that most serious researchers count embryonic stem cells as probably the greatest chance for real medical breakthroughs over previously incurable genetic diseases.
Virtually no-one (apart from the religous organisations, who arn't generally known for their knowledge of genetics) think that adult stem cells have the potential of embryonic ones.
I strongly disagree.
.pdf format anyway.
I run Windows XP on my main computer however would find a cheap laptop like this very useful as all I would transfer on and off of it is documents which I would rather keep in
So far I can't be bothered with forking out the hundreds for a new laptop as they are normally very overpriced but this one might just be affordable!
How does this work for the UK then?
Because the UK's Data Protection Act states quite clearly that personal data may not be supplied to any company/organisation residing in a country where Data Prtoection laws are not as strong as in the UK.
Normally this stops details being sent to countries like China and russia where organised criminal gangs are likely to get hold of it.
But if in the USA, the government can start peeping into whatever personal information they want then surely that would place American companies in breech of the Data Protection act and therefor make it illegal for any UK company to transmit data to a USA based company.
Is this correct or are UK companies already not supposed to do so due to the lack of (as strict) Data Protection laws in the USA?
"Actually the US has just as good a safety net for the poor (I've read a number of articles that the say $ quantity of support is even more),"
...Or atleast he may aslong as it doesn't effect Texas Social Security Corporation's profit margin!
I'm sorry, but that is just absolute, total, utter c^@p!
Most international surveys rate Canada right up there with the levels of social welfare of West & Nothern Europe (which are generally accepted to have the highest levels in the world).
I doubt there has ever been a survey - not counting the ones issued by the Whitehouse and other right-wing rednecks (and I'm sure they REALLY cary about the welfare of the poor) - that places USA welfare anywhere near Canadian levels over the past 50 years! Trying to claim any sort of viable financial assistance is given to the poor in the USA that anywhere approaches Canada is just absolutly absurd and a plain lie.
I suppose with the privitisation of social security, America's poor will be given an even higher standard of living will they?
Yea, and after retiring from office, George Bush will leave his multi-million dollar texas ranch and start delivering the help himself to the ghettos full of mexican immigrants simply left to rot in nearby cities.
Not only that, but apparently the coder's only live in California. Other states (e.g. Washington) must also be too backward to write software.
Or maybe the RCAA and MPAA just decided its either to buy out state senators rather than federal ones.
Just a guess, I only know a tiny bit about US politics, but has the representative who proposed this bill ever recieved money (for his campaign or whatever) off the RCAA or MPAA?
Based on previous bills, I bet its very likely.
If so, its nice to see democracy working as it does: Bills like this that only a small percentage of the population want but have wealthy people/companies backers want get passed while Bills say to do with the enviroment which nearly everyone want except a few wealthy people/companies, fail miserably.
Yay for corporate democracy.
I really wish my employer would start using Mozilla/Firefox and Thunderbird/Mozilla.
...meaning they can't be bothered doing anything.
I spend a fair amount of time on the internet at work and send/recieve dozens of emails a day. I know its dangerous at the moment with Internet Explorer and Outlook both being so insecure, but as I work for a large company who have an IT policy of "DO NOT INSTALL ANY SOFTWARE ON COMPUTERS OR FACE BEING FIRED" I am forced to use them and hope that one of the websites I view doesn't hijack my computer or start scanning it for bank details.
The IT department said I can't as it would interupt systems designed to check on startup for any unauthorized software. Has anyone who works for a large company ever had any luck with getting the IT department to allow the replacement of IE/Outlook?
I suggested they should do consider doing it all over the company for security reasons but they just replied saying they would "look into it"
the conclusions reached by the reviewers today are similar to those found in the 1989 review.
What? That Cold fusion would destroy the US energy industry and therefor rather than spend a small fraction of today's national energy bill researching it, should be chucked away and called a pipe-dream.
...or until a Music Industry sponsored bill decides that the database would help in the war against piracy (everything has to be called war these day doesn't it!).
I can see how it could be useful. Check to see if any students haven't brought an album in the past few months. If any haven't then they MUST of pirated some and therefor the appropriate (in their minds) action can be taken. A sort of enforcement of buying over-pricd CDs.
Nope. You have to fork out the several hundred dollars every couple of years.
It may only be so that the taskbar can be turned blue and so that basic security holes are fixed but thats no excuse not to pay the Windows Tax!
But terrorism in general doesn't create hardly any body bags compared to the USA's many other problems (e.g. in order of deaths: Atmospheric pollution, car crashes and gun crime).
So to the government, the amount of body bags created is not the point. The point is more likly to be something to do with being able to say to the public "Terrorists want and could (no matter how infilitesimally small the chance is) kill you, fear them
Cyberterrorism can't do this at the moment, its not a simple concept like bombs are.
I agree, its an amazing testament to the Oil industries stranglehold over US national & state government the way gas is barely or not at all taxed.
Taxing fuel is surely one of the best ways (not to mention A FAR LOT easier to impliment unlike the proposed idea) to ensure relativly fair payment towards road infastructure costs, while helping to encourage uptake of more efficient vehicles (which are undenaiably better in terms of overall-cost-to-society and the enviroment and everyone except the Oil industry shareholders).
Not if, like me, you live in a small town with only 2 supermarkets (both owned by national chains) and have both started requiring sign-up to loyalty cards to recieve deals on products and to recieve free parking at the supermarket (which previously used to have free parking anyway, as part of the planning permission).
Its not so easy to change supermaket if you have to drive 20km to the nearest non-loyalty card one, or if supermarket offers items (often due to exclusive distrobution deals) not found at local compeditors.
Sorry, but as a non-American I can only laugh.
...Now these companies are turning around to the puppets they helped to elect and are expecting a return for all that commerical investment.
You guys voted in these people who had recieved A LOT of campaigning money from large companies.
Apparently this isn't corruption though. Although its hard to see how it isn't corruption when as you say, elected representatives are making decisions which stand to benefit only the select few who gave them campaign money.
A simple search on a search engine or a visit to any of the major security websites will document some of them.
Just in my other browser tab I have been reading the article on 10 newly discovered holes: http://www.windowsitpro.com/Article/ArticleID/4450 2/44502.html
Whats wrong with regulation?
...I mean campaigning money) I doubt a regulator aiming to create competition in the IT sector is much of a possability.
Personally I can't think of anything that would be better at the moment for IT customers and consumers than regulation.
Sure, FCC aren't the ones to do it (A bunch of religous zealots censoring anything which isn't aimed at maintaining the status quo of US ultra-commericalised culture is not what we want regualting an industry which should be based on innovation).
But that doesn't mean we shouldn't have a regulating body making sure the innovation isn't overshadowed by commerical deals and marketing like it often is now.
Sadly, with George Bush back in office (thanks in a small part due to Microsoft's corrupt *cough*,
I think a more correct version of the statement is people are forced to do lots of stuff with that crap software
Everyone has to buy Windows because most of the big suppliers only sell computers with Windows runing on it (never will more than a small minority uninstall an OS they have already paid for and install another). Then once its on, desktop links to buy software life Microsoft OFfice are displayed, (ask the average person what alternatives to Microsoft Office are?).
You can't say "Don't blame microsoft for them running unchallenged.", its like saying don't blame a dictator for the lack of their countries democracy as no-one challanges him. Why does no-one challange him? because if they do they get shot!
What cr@p,
Do you know what percentage of China's GDP and exports are produced using actual slave and prison labour?
Figures are hard to come by but they all indicate that it is far less than 1%.
Sure, 'Sweat Shops' and the like (where people are paid dismal amounts by western standards) contribute a LOT to China's export market. But people arn't forced to work in these places. They work there because its still preferable to not eating.
Besides, America has millions of people working on extremely low wages in it's factories. In fact, if you compare the cost of living and average household weath between America and China it becomes apparent that many of the workers sweating it out in American factories arn't on that much a better deal than their Chinese counterparts!
Niether workers get access to health care (whether public or company based) and neither get access to many other basic rights that are assumed in more meritocratic countries such as Western European ones.
So why does the US like trading so much with China?
Same reason North Korea likes to sell missles to Iran and such, none of the countries really care about the morality of the whole situation as long a packet load of money is made (and everyone gets their cheap Chinese toys which break after 3 weeks).
You'd have to be an idiot to use Windows on a cluster anyway, it just cause SO many problems and costs with no real incentives. ...No matter what Microsoft's sponsored and umm 'creative' research says.
Maybe if people didn't hate America so much they would be less inclined to blow themselves up to kill Americans.
Or maybe thats just hippy talk. Then again Hitler could of ruled the world if it wasn't for the fact the rest of the world hated him so much.
Its already on Gnutella