I would challenge you to find a published report of a mass killing in Iraq in a cafe, shopping plaza or similar location that did not involve a suicide bomber - either wearing a bomb vest or driving a explosive laden car. The bombers in Iraq are not using high tech devices to set off the bombs. They are using humans to identify the target and detonate the bomb.
See for example this discussion of IEDs used against the troops in Iraq.
but isn't the whole point of counterterrorism to reduce the useful options?
In my view the cellphone detonator is a simple variation on an age old means of detonating bombs. Bombs have been detonated using radios (e.g, walkie talkies) for ages. Cellphone detonators are an obvious and straight forward variation on that idea. They don't involve writing software, as some of the RFID examples in this thread describe. They are relatively uncomplicated. You could do the same thing with a walkie talkie, a RF-control for a model car or plane, or a garage door opener. Since murderers and terrorists use these routinely in their bombs, should we ban them? No.
I am asking for common sense. Any technology can be used for evil. You need to compare the good to the evil, which comes out on top. When I was in high school, one of my teachers told me how many people were against electricity because "because people could die from electrocution." Something that obviously happens. But balancing it against the good things that it provides, the lives saved by monitors in hospitals, the quality of life improvements it brings to everyone, the good outweighs the evil. I argue the same thing is true for cellphones, batteries, and RFID which all have murder and terrorist applications.
True, and they all used low tech methods. My whole point is that people talk about this as an enabling technology for murder and terror. But murderers and terrorists don't generally use high tech. They use low tech. (I consider a cellphone as a detonator low tech.) They don't use sophisticated technology to locate their victim or victims, they use common sense. For crowds, they go where the crowds are. For a specific individual, they go to where they know the individual will be - his home, his workplace, or an well-known meeting. Do the Palestinians have a difficult time finding crowds in Israel? No. Did Booth have a hard time finding Lincoln? No.
But there are far easier ways to do this - Attack a Mosque or a Church on a religious holiday. Attack an office building in the middle of the work day. Attack a shopping mall on Black Friday. Attack a train station during rush hour. Its easy to find a crowd, I don't need to go to high tech means to find one. More layers of complexity you add to a plot, the greater the likelihood that it will fail. Terrorism follows the KISS principle - keep it simple, stupid.
They could do the same thing today with cellphones that have unique IDs and are common. Or with ID badges that have technology similar to RFIDs that are also common. In the town I live in, a high percentage of workers wear them. My point, just because you can, doesn't mean it will happen.
We'll just have to agree to disagree. In my view, this "RFID process" that you're talking about is overkill. Is it possible, certainly. Do I think it is likely or even probable, no. I will be very surprised to see it used as a terror weapon.
If you're wanting to kill a specific person there are a lot of ways that are low tech and don't require you to be near them. Poison in their sack lunch. A bomb connected to the ignition of their car. A high-powered rifle and a sniper position. Poison in their heart/blood pressure/or whatever medication. A bomb hidden under their bed set to go off in the middle of the night. The list goes on and on.
Set off a Bomb when person id code 46465456456489715678984 walks by
Terrorists typically don't target specific people, by this I mean target Fred Smith versus targeting any generic American. They target locations. They blow up the WTC, the Madrid train station, a Mosque, or a bar in Bali. Killers target specific people, and using RFID to kill a specific person is overkill (pun intended). There are many, far easier ways, to target specific person. Now if the original can be moderated funny, I would have understood.
Since we know our supplies of fossil fuels are reaching depletion...
For as long as I can remember, and I am no youngster, fossil fuels have been on the verge of depletion. I can remember in college being shown predictions from before my birth that we were going to run out of fossil fuels in one or two decades. The point my college professor was trying to make was they we have a very poor idea of how much fossil fuel remains.
In a similar vein, as prices go up, more expensive options open up. Do a Google on oil sands or shale oil. More expensive options than Saudi oil, but lots of fossil fuel remains.
My point in all of this is that your hypothesis that we are on the verge of depleting fossil fuels is probably incorrect.
Now watch me get hammered with strawman arguments that I am a Bushie with his head in the sand. Or that I don't believe in global warming. All which is untrue, but watch...:-)
Several years ago, there was a program on PBS looking into how such detailed data developed. A lot of it is a consequence of having open public records e.g., birth and death records, real estate sales records,... Companies hire people, who sit in local court houses transcribing open records into computer databases. These records are tied to publically available census records. Thru information on home values, for example, they can guesstimate family income. From census data they can determine typical demographics such as whether typical residents in a neighborhood are single, married, have kids.
To stop this from happening, you have to lock the records up. Having this data open to the public, allowing scrutiny is important. As an example, look at the massive debates after the last census between the Dems and Repubs. The risk of an open records is that someone will use the data in a way you don't like.
The article doesn't give details, but the statement "$257 million already had been spent. An additional expenditure of about $14 million would have been required to terminate the project. " probably does not mean they only needed to spend $14 million to complete the project. Most government contracts have a termination fee associated with it. If the government cancels the project early, the government pays the contractor to close up shop - dispose of unneeded material, severence pay for terminated workers, etc. etc.
Over 2,000 participants took part in the survey, and were asked what best described their view of the origin and development of life:
22% chose creationism
17% opted for intelligent design
48% selected evolution theory
and the rest did not know.
When given a choice of three descriptions for the development of life on Earth, people were asked which one or ones they would like to see taught in science lessons in British schools:
44% said creationism should be included
41% intelligent design
69% wanted evolution as part of the science curriculum.
While ID and creationism may be discussed more openly in the US, it is a worldwide problem, even in secular Europe.
The original parent is correct. The article is not describing an effort to rewrite documents, only to reclassify documents that were released. We can argue about whether that is a dumb idea (I think dumb), but it has nothing to do with rewriting history. Your example is a strawman.
The other guy's insurance company gave me three days to get a replacement vehicle. I asked friends what to do.
Your mistake was accepting the three day limitation. I was in a similar situation. They gave me an unreasonable offer. In a calm voice, I said, "That is not reasonable. And need I remind you that YOUR client was at fault. Call me back with a reasonable offer." I hung up. 30 seconds later they called back with a reasonable offer. Insurance companies like to make all sorts of demands, if they are unreasonable say no.
There is no need to "purchase legislation." Corporations only are going to care whether you spoof, obfuscate or reproduce RFIDs, if you use them for illegal activities. That is, if you use these techniques to scam the checkout system to steal merchandise. To spoof the system so it thinks you're buying a CD rather than a 50 inch plasma TV. They'll care, if you're a supplier using such techniques to scam the inventory system. Etc. Etc. All these activities are already illegal.
On the other hand, they may try to get legislation to restrict access to common technologies used to perform these techniques. But in my mind that is little different from current laws saying you can't possess burglary tools (i.e., a crowbar, hammer, or rock).
You mean a whole 1.24 million dollars. Talk about pushing the budget
Your snide comment misses the point. What was the scope of work proposed? Does 1.24 million support the work they intend to do? Saying they should spend more without a reason is dumb.
You're reading a lot of stuff into my short comment. But let me address just one point, I never said that only the Bushies have done it. In fact, I am well aware that other administrations of both parties have conducted such surveillence. In fact, the FISA legislation was inacted, in 1978, specifically because of what were considered abuses by the Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon administrations.
I am curious though, exactly how easy is it? Can some local cops in anytown, USA do this?
Technology wise, it is pretty straight forward. Legally, it requires a search warrant.
I know that many people are going to scream, the Bushies are doing it right now. Well technically, they are not. The NSA is monitoring communications that are crossing borders to other countries. Constitutionally, this is legal, for the same reasons that customs is allowed to search your luggage without a warrant when you enter the country. However, it is against the FISA law, which expressly forbids it. For that, IMHO, the Bushies should be hung out to dry.
Is it really overkill? A huge part of terrorism, is media coverage. Kill three people at the neighborhood Quikie Mart and you get local coverage. Kill three people in a suborbital or orbital flight, and instant worldwide coverage. We can question whether the no fly list works or not, but looking at ways to keep terrorists off of spacecraft is not unreasonable.
I beleive this complaint is a little early. Based on the early successes shown in the desert, without people stepping off curbs in front of cars, and other urban hazards, I believe it is premature to say robot drivers will reduce automobile deaths by 95%. That prediction maybe true someday, but we're not going to see that next year. Or even in the next decade.
While it is true, the US was not devastated in WW II, your statement ignores significant other facts. Particularly, the US had a HUGE economic lead before WW II. Take a look at historical GDP/GNP data from around the world. I agree that WW II devastation helped the US maintain its lead, but it started with a big lead, and compared to many (most?) countries grows faster. For example, the US growth rate for the last decade or so has outstripped European growth rates.
I don't find arguments based on how many PhDs we produce to be compelling. How many PhDs do we need? Are there severe shortages currently? Do we need more PhDs or more BScs? I say these things as someone who has a PhD, and who has hired several of them. I have not seen evidence that we have a huge shortage.
Slashdot Mirror
Based on previous Supreme Court rulings, the Commerce Clause. They use it to justify everything.
See for example this discussion of IEDs used against the troops in Iraq.
I am asking for common sense. Any technology can be used for evil. You need to compare the good to the evil, which comes out on top. When I was in high school, one of my teachers told me how many people were against electricity because "because people could die from electrocution." Something that obviously happens. But balancing it against the good things that it provides, the lives saved by monitors in hospitals, the quality of life improvements it brings to everyone, the good outweighs the evil. I argue the same thing is true for cellphones, batteries, and RFID which all have murder and terrorist applications.
True, and they all used low tech methods. My whole point is that people talk about this as an enabling technology for murder and terror. But murderers and terrorists don't generally use high tech. They use low tech. (I consider a cellphone as a detonator low tech.) They don't use sophisticated technology to locate their victim or victims, they use common sense. For crowds, they go where the crowds are. For a specific individual, they go to where they know the individual will be - his home, his workplace, or an well-known meeting. Do the Palestinians have a difficult time finding crowds in Israel? No. Did Booth have a hard time finding Lincoln? No.
But there are far easier ways to do this - Attack a Mosque or a Church on a religious holiday. Attack an office building in the middle of the work day. Attack a shopping mall on Black Friday. Attack a train station during rush hour. Its easy to find a crowd, I don't need to go to high tech means to find one. More layers of complexity you add to a plot, the greater the likelihood that it will fail. Terrorism follows the KISS principle - keep it simple, stupid.
They could do the same thing today with cellphones that have unique IDs and are common. Or with ID badges that have technology similar to RFIDs that are also common. In the town I live in, a high percentage of workers wear them. My point, just because you can, doesn't mean it will happen.
We'll just have to agree to disagree. In my view, this "RFID process" that you're talking about is overkill. Is it possible, certainly. Do I think it is likely or even probable, no. I will be very surprised to see it used as a terror weapon.
If you're wanting to kill a specific person there are a lot of ways that are low tech and don't require you to be near them. Poison in their sack lunch. A bomb connected to the ignition of their car. A high-powered rifle and a sniper position. Poison in their heart/blood pressure/or whatever medication. A bomb hidden under their bed set to go off in the middle of the night. The list goes on and on.
In a similar vein, as prices go up, more expensive options open up. Do a Google on oil sands or shale oil. More expensive options than Saudi oil, but lots of fossil fuel remains.
My point in all of this is that your hypothesis that we are on the verge of depleting fossil fuels is probably incorrect.
Now watch me get hammered with strawman arguments that I am a Bushie with his head in the sand. Or that I don't believe in global warming. All which is untrue, but watch... :-)
To stop this from happening, you have to lock the records up. Having this data open to the public, allowing scrutiny is important. As an example, look at the massive debates after the last census between the Dems and Repubs. The risk of an open records is that someone will use the data in a way you don't like.
The article doesn't give details, but the statement "$257 million already had been spent. An additional expenditure of about $14 million would have been required to terminate the project. " probably does not mean they only needed to spend $14 million to complete the project. Most government contracts have a termination fee associated with it. If the government cancels the project early, the government pays the contractor to close up shop - dispose of unneeded material, severence pay for terminated workers, etc. etc.
The original parent is correct. The article is not describing an effort to rewrite documents, only to reclassify documents that were released. We can argue about whether that is a dumb idea (I think dumb), but it has nothing to do with rewriting history. Your example is a strawman.
There is no need to "purchase legislation." Corporations only are going to care whether you spoof, obfuscate or reproduce RFIDs, if you use them for illegal activities. That is, if you use these techniques to scam the checkout system to steal merchandise. To spoof the system so it thinks you're buying a CD rather than a 50 inch plasma TV. They'll care, if you're a supplier using such techniques to scam the inventory system. Etc. Etc. All these activities are already illegal. On the other hand, they may try to get legislation to restrict access to common technologies used to perform these techniques. But in my mind that is little different from current laws saying you can't possess burglary tools (i.e., a crowbar, hammer, or rock).
Its not what you think, I was playing with my joystick.
You're reading a lot of stuff into my short comment. But let me address just one point, I never said that only the Bushies have done it. In fact, I am well aware that other administrations of both parties have conducted such surveillence. In fact, the FISA legislation was inacted, in 1978, specifically because of what were considered abuses by the Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon administrations.
I know that many people are going to scream, the Bushies are doing it right now. Well technically, they are not. The NSA is monitoring communications that are crossing borders to other countries. Constitutionally, this is legal, for the same reasons that customs is allowed to search your luggage without a warrant when you enter the country. However, it is against the FISA law, which expressly forbids it. For that, IMHO, the Bushies should be hung out to dry.
I beleive this complaint is a little early. Based on the early successes shown in the desert, without people stepping off curbs in front of cars, and other urban hazards, I believe it is premature to say robot drivers will reduce automobile deaths by 95%. That prediction maybe true someday, but we're not going to see that next year. Or even in the next decade.
While it is true, the US was not devastated in WW II, your statement ignores significant other facts. Particularly, the US had a HUGE economic lead before WW II. Take a look at historical GDP/GNP data from around the world. I agree that WW II devastation helped the US maintain its lead, but it started with a big lead, and compared to many (most?) countries grows faster. For example, the US growth rate for the last decade or so has outstripped European growth rates.
I don't find arguments based on how many PhDs we produce to be compelling. How many PhDs do we need? Are there severe shortages currently? Do we need more PhDs or more BScs? I say these things as someone who has a PhD, and who has hired several of them. I have not seen evidence that we have a huge shortage.
See this for more details. This issue appears to have been whether the company actually owned the source. The courts said yes.