One should also note that many aircraft in service today were built before cellular telephones were invented; many more were flying before cellular service became ubiquitous. The vast majority entered service before wireless networking became relatively common.
New aircraft are built with these challenges in mind, and are probably better hardened to them. The rest of the fleet wasn't designed for this type of interference, and hasn't been exhaustively tested or shielded.
There's an obvious solution to this problem, though I doubt it will be implemented.
I work in a (Canadian) hospital where most patient records are stored electronically. A monitoring system logs all of the individuals who access a given patient's records.
Regular audits are performed to verify that people who access records have a genuine need to know. (All 'celebrity' patients' records are checked--because they're more likely victims of snooping--as well as a random sampling of the rest of the patient population.) If an audit reveals unwarranted access, employees face harsh penalties, up to and including dismissal. Patients may also specifically request an audit of their records, if they are concerned about unauthorized or inappropriate access.
Unfortunately, the only way such checks would be added to any information system would be as the result of legislation. I can't see any industry or public service voluntarily implementing such audits. Pity.
"Dmitri Shostakovich wrote this. Stalin was an overbearing ass. Stalin is dead now, and I'm still alive. Dmitri Shostakovich wrote this symphony. Suck it, Stalin."
I'd have to say that it was really Schnittke who said that.
Nah. The reason why the new graphics cards run so hot is that they're self-powered. Each carries its own RTG.
As long as you have a lead-lined case and follow local, state, and federal ordinances regarding disposal of nuclear materials--then you should be fine.
Why must we deplete more of the Earth's precious resources like this?
Er...the Earth isn't exactly using them. To imply that the use of petroleum products is somehow 'stealing' from the Earth is silly. I could make an equally specious argument that building solar panels is stealing sunlight from the areas that they cover--not to mention 'depleting Earth's precious supplies of silicon and germanium'.
Apparently, there is still money to be made from additional drilling, even under very challenging conditions. Consequently, the attempt will be made.
I agree that finding alternative sources of energy is worthwhile, but looking for alternative energy sources does not preclude extending the current supply of fossil fuels.
If you'd like to argue on the basis of environmental impact, you've got something to stand on there. If you'd like to argue on the basis of human health impact then you've got some substance there, too. If you'd like to argue that there will be economic displacements if we're unprepared for increasing oil scarcity, that's worth talking about. Arguing that we should stop using fossil fuels now because they're going to run out eventually--er, why?
Incidentally, several of the things the parent post mentions are already being done. Many public transportation vehicles in North America and Europe are using alternate fuels; private fleet vehicles are beginning to adopt them as well. Hybrid cars--which do not eliminate, but do reduce the use of fossil fuels--are being sold to the public now.
Why push an agenda of nationalizing industry? What is gained by that? It makes rather more sense to put in place a public policy framework that rewards the use of alternative fuels (and/or penalizes the use of fossil fuels) and let the market find the optimal solution. I'd rather not drive a car that was designed by the British/U.S./Canadian government, thank you very much.
Further, taxing gasoline heavily has encouraged the purchase of more fuel-efficient vehicles already. Compare and contrast the cars driven in Europe with the SUVs sold in North America. I am also pleased to note that SUV sales in even the United States have taken a hit with the recent sustained higher gasoline prices.
Yes, I know. I shouldn't feed the trolls. I apologize.
If they gave him the options, but didn't vest them (he can't actually exercise them until they're vested, a gottcha with most options) then there was nothing he could do, short of sabotaging the TW-AOL merger, to protect their value. If that's the case, then TW-AOL should be reamed royally with a rusty post-hole digger. He's still dumb for not demanding immediate vesting, but TW-AOL was screwing him from the beginning with this vesting crap.
Of course, he could have taken a payment of $25 million cash, in lieu of options. He took a chance and it backfired. He still got a $10 million severance. I wish I could screw up that successfully.
Betcha there's a lot of other folks at Time Warner who got hosed on their options, too. I have a small violin for all of them.
Let's be clear here -- 20% of your salary, not 20% of the revenue generated from your oil field.
That kind of inequity is exactly why I quit working for a big high-priced computer company and went independent. Why should any of us settle for an infitesimal piece of the pie when with a little entreprenurial spirit we can get 50% or more?
This kind of comment is why IT workers probably should avoid making remarks on other industries...
You can't go out and discover a new major oil field by yourself. Very few individuals do their own seismic surveys as a hobby. Even fewer can launch satellites themselves. I don't know about you, but I'm pretty sure I can't front the costs to drill exploratory wells miles deep while floating in hundreds of feet of water.
You want to get 20% of the profit from a new oil field? Put twenty or thirty or a hundred million dollars on the line. Then we'll talk.
I'd go to sleep about 10 mins. after traveling on interstate then just wake up 4 hours later at where ever we were going. Traveling is so much faster that way.
You bastard--you ran over my cat! Open you damn eyes when you drive!
Someone could make a weapon out of rocketry supplies, but anyone with the skills to build a halfway decent rocket could build a pretty impressive bomb a lot easier.
On the other hand, it's a neat delivery system. A kit-built rocket could deliver a biological or chemical agent to a site a couple miles away. Heck, you could make a non-fatal dirty bomb quite easily, too. Remember, the goal is just to frighten people--and most people find the notion of a rocket dropping deadly substances frightening. Terrorism isn't always about blowing stuff up.
Of course, I agree with the idea that banning model rocketry is an inane way to fight terrorism.
I don't consider going to the doctor when not sick "preventive maintenance".
Why not? He's got specialized diagnostic tools, and lots of experience detecting problems. There's all kinds of things you can find out in a routine physical before they leave you dying in an emergency ward. Blood pressure creeping up? Heart murmur? High blood sugar? High prostate specific antigen level?
If I'm starting to develop heart disease, diabetes, prostate cancer, etc. I'd rather know about it early and treat before gross symptoms develop--before I have a heart attack, lapse into diabetic coma, or starting seeing lung metastases.
Even if I live a healthy lifestyle with lots of exercise and a balanced diet, I'd still want to be screened for these things--sometimes, you're just unlucky.
I don't want NASA to give ANY rewards. I want NASA to die, and make way for the private sector.
The private sector isn't going to do any basic space science research. There's no readily-apparent return on investment--certainly not within the quarterly or annual planning time frame that most market-beholden corporations seem to use, anyway.
Private industry will never build a supercollider, or a massive telescope, or send probes to Europa. Any project that doesn't have immediate, eminently-profitable spinoffs will never be conducted without public funding.
The cynic in me says NASA wants to make private groups dependent on their "reward" money...
Private groups are already dependent on NASA for money. Currently it's in bottomless cost-plus contracts to companies like Lockheed and Boeing. At least with the award structure, money is only paid out for results, the amount is fixed in advance, and the competition is open to anyone who wants to take a shot.
Governments regularly give incentives (in the form of grants or tax breaks) to encourage specific projects or industries. Why not do the same to encourage space exploration?
It says "a judge in Utah", not the Supreme Court or anything...hell, not even the state SC.
Note also that this is a preliminary injunction.
The claims have not been tested in court. The judge has merely acknowledged (probably correctly) that there are some points about this law for which serious Constitutional issues arise.
NASA will take their "free" money (partially confiscated from any winner their prize would have, and from people like the Ansaris) and give it to someone who makes new craft.
Quite right. If NASA has the choice of spending $1 billion to develop a new orbiter on their own, or giving ten, thirty, even a hundred million dollars in seed money to have several competitors develop it for them, that's a terrible way to spend money.
Why would it be wrong for NASA to save $900 million in R&D costs that can then be applied to doing hard science projects that are less appealing to the private sector? Why would people be upset if NASA pays a fixed reward for specified achievements, rather than doling out money-gushing cost-plus agreements?
The National Cancer Institute received just shy of five billion in funding in 2004; they're asking for six in 2005. Although I would like to see them receive more funding (I work in cancer research) I'm willing to cede an amount less than 1% of NCI's budget to other worthwhile projects.
Similarly, a great deal of money is spent in all the areas the parent poster lists. Does more need to be done? Certainly. Does that preclude any spending at all on anything else? Nope.
Further, this sort of prize will hopefully encourage additional spending by private industry far beyond the value of the prize--this has certainly happened with the X-Prize. If NASA can get a couple of private companies to develop competing orbital craft for a $100 million prize, rather than spending one billion of their own R&D dollars, isn't that money well spent?
...until NASA says to the winner, "Here's your $10 million prize for completing the contest first. We're going to go buy a billion dollars' worth of stuff from the second-place team now, because their design is technically superior, scalable, and all-around better thought out."
That's another benefit of having competing teams--NASA gets to cherry pick the best solutions from a variety of companies.
You do realize that most power strips surve a much more important function than just givng you extra outlets, right?
It depends if they're just putting desks and dividers in a space, or if they're actually building a better office...then they'd have clean power. If they're in a position to install outlets, then they should be in a position to install power conditioners....
Is there even any country in the world that can match this type of military power?
No. That's rather the point, I think.
Is anyone else scared shitless by the incredible power the US is pumping into their weapons?
Yes, but not this particular weapon. With any luck, this will be relatively easy to aim, less dangerous to handle, and won't leave explosive duds in a war zone. It doesn't piss away money like a cruise missile, either.
You want to talk about scary incredible power? How about an ICBM? The United States can still drop one in your lap on very short notice, just about anywhere in the world. That scares me.
Do the biotech companies know the exact sequence of GTCA's in the genes they patent?
Yes. At least, they certainly do for recent patents. Google for "sequencing facility". Most largish universities will sequence supplied bits of DNA; prices are on the order of pennies per base pair. Any biotech company of moderate size can afford the equipment to do it themselves, too.
The genetic modifications to Roundup Ready corn are listed here; the insertions (up to two per strain) are of sizes less than 23 kilobases. The whole sequencing job would run less than a few thousand dollars--chump change for Monsanto.
How many times do we have to hear this? I've cited this article on Slashdot before, and if necessary I will cite it again. Steven Kelman explained it in Government Excecutive magazine, back in 1998.
The military bought the hammer, Kelman explained, bundled into one bulk
purchase of many different spare parts. But when the contractors allocated
their engineering expenses among the individual spare parts on the
list -- a bookkeeping exercise that had no effect on the price the
Pentagon paid overall -- they simply treated every item the same. So the
hammer, originally $15, picked up the same amount of research and
development overhead -- $420 -- as each of the highly technical
components, recalled retired procurement official LeRoy Haugh. (Later news
stories inflated the $435 figure to $600.)
"The hammer got as much overhead as an engine," Kelman continued, despite
the fact that the hammer cost much less than $420 to develop, and the
engine cost much more -- "but nobody ever said, 'What a great deal the
government got on the engine!' "
Mind you I don't disagree with you on the issue of those school boards getting screwed on wireless networking equipment...the point is that sometimes the accounting is unintentionally misleading, and these sorts of numbers don't necessarily always represent waste or fraud.
... one has to take action to show the boss or owners what is actually going on.
The problem is, you still haven't said anything that sounds like you spoke to your manager about this issue before you went on your long weekend. From a purely pragmatic perspective, it's much easier for the manager/company owner to fire someone if there's a paper trail that documents the employee's incompetence. And yes, writing memos or emails with your name on them does mean sticking your neck out a bit.
It also documents the amount of time (yours and others') wasted by the guy. You then have a solid business case for finding a replacement.
Slashdot Mirror
New aircraft are built with these challenges in mind, and are probably better hardened to them. The rest of the fleet wasn't designed for this type of interference, and hasn't been exhaustively tested or shielded.
There's an obvious solution to this problem, though I doubt it will be implemented.
I work in a (Canadian) hospital where most patient records are stored electronically. A monitoring system logs all of the individuals who access a given patient's records.
Regular audits are performed to verify that people who access records have a genuine need to know. (All 'celebrity' patients' records are checked--because they're more likely victims of snooping--as well as a random sampling of the rest of the patient population.) If an audit reveals unwarranted access, employees face harsh penalties, up to and including dismissal. Patients may also specifically request an audit of their records, if they are concerned about unauthorized or inappropriate access.
Unfortunately, the only way such checks would be added to any information system would be as the result of legislation. I can't see any industry or public service voluntarily implementing such audits. Pity.
I'd have to say that it was really Schnittke who said that.
And he made you wish Stalin was still alive, too.
Nah. The reason why the new graphics cards run so hot is that they're self-powered. Each carries its own RTG.
As long as you have a lead-lined case and follow local, state, and federal ordinances regarding disposal of nuclear materials--then you should be fine.
Glad I could clear that up.
Er...the Earth isn't exactly using them. To imply that the use of petroleum products is somehow 'stealing' from the Earth is silly. I could make an equally specious argument that building solar panels is stealing sunlight from the areas that they cover--not to mention 'depleting Earth's precious supplies of silicon and germanium'.
Apparently, there is still money to be made from additional drilling, even under very challenging conditions. Consequently, the attempt will be made.
I agree that finding alternative sources of energy is worthwhile, but looking for alternative energy sources does not preclude extending the current supply of fossil fuels.
If you'd like to argue on the basis of environmental impact, you've got something to stand on there. If you'd like to argue on the basis of human health impact then you've got some substance there, too. If you'd like to argue that there will be economic displacements if we're unprepared for increasing oil scarcity, that's worth talking about. Arguing that we should stop using fossil fuels now because they're going to run out eventually--er, why?
Incidentally, several of the things the parent post mentions are already being done. Many public transportation vehicles in North America and Europe are using alternate fuels; private fleet vehicles are beginning to adopt them as well. Hybrid cars--which do not eliminate, but do reduce the use of fossil fuels--are being sold to the public now.
Why push an agenda of nationalizing industry? What is gained by that? It makes rather more sense to put in place a public policy framework that rewards the use of alternative fuels (and/or penalizes the use of fossil fuels) and let the market find the optimal solution. I'd rather not drive a car that was designed by the British/U.S./Canadian government, thank you very much.
Further, taxing gasoline heavily has encouraged the purchase of more fuel-efficient vehicles already. Compare and contrast the cars driven in Europe with the SUVs sold in North America. I am also pleased to note that SUV sales in even the United States have taken a hit with the recent sustained higher gasoline prices.
Yes, I know. I shouldn't feed the trolls. I apologize.
Of course, he could have taken a payment of $25 million cash, in lieu of options. He took a chance and it backfired. He still got a $10 million severance. I wish I could screw up that successfully.
Betcha there's a lot of other folks at Time Warner who got hosed on their options, too. I have a small violin for all of them.
That kind of inequity is exactly why I quit working for a big high-priced computer company and went independent. Why should any of us settle for an infitesimal piece of the pie when with a little entreprenurial spirit we can get 50% or more?
This kind of comment is why IT workers probably should avoid making remarks on other industries...
You can't go out and discover a new major oil field by yourself. Very few individuals do their own seismic surveys as a hobby. Even fewer can launch satellites themselves. I don't know about you, but I'm pretty sure I can't front the costs to drill exploratory wells miles deep while floating in hundreds of feet of water.
You want to get 20% of the profit from a new oil field? Put twenty or thirty or a hundred million dollars on the line. Then we'll talk.
You bastard--you ran over my cat! Open you damn eyes when you drive!
On the other hand, it's a neat delivery system. A kit-built rocket could deliver a biological or chemical agent to a site a couple miles away. Heck, you could make a non-fatal dirty bomb quite easily, too. Remember, the goal is just to frighten people--and most people find the notion of a rocket dropping deadly substances frightening. Terrorism isn't always about blowing stuff up.
Of course, I agree with the idea that banning model rocketry is an inane way to fight terrorism.
Why not? He's got specialized diagnostic tools, and lots of experience detecting problems. There's all kinds of things you can find out in a routine physical before they leave you dying in an emergency ward. Blood pressure creeping up? Heart murmur? High blood sugar? High prostate specific antigen level?
If I'm starting to develop heart disease, diabetes, prostate cancer, etc. I'd rather know about it early and treat before gross symptoms develop--before I have a heart attack, lapse into diabetic coma, or starting seeing lung metastases.
Even if I live a healthy lifestyle with lots of exercise and a balanced diet, I'd still want to be screened for these things--sometimes, you're just unlucky.
True, but you can also choose not to pass your email through Google. If you live in Indiana, you're compelled to cooperate with the state government.
Further proof that Y2K isn't a bug, it's a feature.
The private sector isn't going to do any basic space science research. There's no readily-apparent return on investment--certainly not within the quarterly or annual planning time frame that most market-beholden corporations seem to use, anyway.
Private industry will never build a supercollider, or a massive telescope, or send probes to Europa. Any project that doesn't have immediate, eminently-profitable spinoffs will never be conducted without public funding.
The cynic in me says NASA wants to make private groups dependent on their "reward" money...
Private groups are already dependent on NASA for money. Currently it's in bottomless cost-plus contracts to companies like Lockheed and Boeing. At least with the award structure, money is only paid out for results, the amount is fixed in advance, and the competition is open to anyone who wants to take a shot.
Governments regularly give incentives (in the form of grants or tax breaks) to encourage specific projects or industries. Why not do the same to encourage space exploration?
Note also that this is a preliminary injunction.
The claims have not been tested in court. The judge has merely acknowledged (probably correctly) that there are some points about this law for which serious Constitutional issues arise.
Quite right. If NASA has the choice of spending $1 billion to develop a new orbiter on their own, or giving ten, thirty, even a hundred million dollars in seed money to have several competitors develop it for them, that's a terrible way to spend money.
Why would it be wrong for NASA to save $900 million in R&D costs that can then be applied to doing hard science projects that are less appealing to the private sector? Why would people be upset if NASA pays a fixed reward for specified achievements, rather than doling out money-gushing cost-plus agreements?
The National Cancer Institute received just shy of five billion in funding in 2004; they're asking for six in 2005. Although I would like to see them receive more funding (I work in cancer research) I'm willing to cede an amount less than 1% of NCI's budget to other worthwhile projects.
Similarly, a great deal of money is spent in all the areas the parent poster lists. Does more need to be done? Certainly. Does that preclude any spending at all on anything else? Nope.
Further, this sort of prize will hopefully encourage additional spending by private industry far beyond the value of the prize--this has certainly happened with the X-Prize. If NASA can get a couple of private companies to develop competing orbital craft for a $100 million prize, rather than spending one billion of their own R&D dollars, isn't that money well spent?
That's another benefit of having competing teams--NASA gets to cherry pick the best solutions from a variety of companies.
Does that mean that you're also one of RMS' frothing GNU/Linux followers? :D
It depends if they're just putting desks and dividers in a space, or if they're actually building a better office...then they'd have clean power. If they're in a position to install outlets, then they should be in a position to install power conditioners....
Is there even any country in the world that can match this type of military power?
No. That's rather the point, I think.
Is anyone else scared shitless by the incredible power the US is pumping into their weapons?
Yes, but not this particular weapon. With any luck, this will be relatively easy to aim, less dangerous to handle, and won't leave explosive duds in a war zone. It doesn't piss away money like a cruise missile, either.
You want to talk about scary incredible power? How about an ICBM? The United States can still drop one in your lap on very short notice, just about anywhere in the world. That scares me.
I'm picturing a destroyer running gigantic jumper cables to a nearby aircraft carrier or nuclear submarine.
Yes. At least, they certainly do for recent patents. Google for "sequencing facility". Most largish universities will sequence supplied bits of DNA; prices are on the order of pennies per base pair. Any biotech company of moderate size can afford the equipment to do it themselves, too.
The genetic modifications to Roundup Ready corn are listed here; the insertions (up to two per strain) are of sizes less than 23 kilobases. The whole sequencing job would run less than a few thousand dollars--chump change for Monsanto.
Yeah, it's a good thing that they weren't likely subjected to any sort of impact, severe g-forces, or vibration.
How many times do we have to hear this? I've cited this article on Slashdot before, and if necessary I will cite it again. Steven Kelman explained it in Government Excecutive magazine, back in 1998.
Mind you I don't disagree with you on the issue of those school boards getting screwed on wireless networking equipment...the point is that sometimes the accounting is unintentionally misleading, and these sorts of numbers don't necessarily always represent waste or fraud.The problem is, you still haven't said anything that sounds like you spoke to your manager about this issue before you went on your long weekend. From a purely pragmatic perspective, it's much easier for the manager/company owner to fire someone if there's a paper trail that documents the employee's incompetence. And yes, writing memos or emails with your name on them does mean sticking your neck out a bit.
It also documents the amount of time (yours and others') wasted by the guy. You then have a solid business case for finding a replacement.