They should start with the good old USA. The NSA is currently building a huge data center to capture email, phone, sms, etc. data. http://www.democracynow.org/2012/4/23/more_secrets_on_growing_state_surveillance This includes an interview with hacker Jacob Appelbaum, who has volunteered for WikiLeaks and now works with Tor Project and others.
They can probably buy most of the components off the shelf. I doubt they would have to build a semiconductor fab or turbine "directional crystal growth" thingies. Small jet engines are readily available (every airliner has one as an auxiliary power generator unit)... same for CCD cameras and lenses. GPS, CPUs and memory are commodity parts. The airframe can be easily reproduced since they have a real model to work from. The hard part will be the software that ties it all together and they seem to have made some progress on that front. This could be interesting. I do hope they open source whatever they decompile / reverse engineer / create. I'm sure the open source community would love to have a "drone stack" to work on.
How incredibly naive. "The will to prevail" is a nice thought but doesn't really count for much. There have been a few successful wars of liberation and these have been successful because the victors were able to amass more guns (US from France) and/or the political calculus changed for the occupier (US, Vietnam and Afghanistan). The people of Homs, Syria are a good case in point. They have lots of guns and public support and YouTube and members of the military are defecting but the military still has more guns and bigger guns (tanks are leveling Homs) so they are losing badly. They would be much better off if they could, like Libya, get NATO on their side (more guns and bigger guns) or they were able to get the UN to exert enough effective political pressure (difficult). Their guns are not winning and your guns give you a false sense of security... they are worthless and will only get you killed.
I've submitted my pdf resume to web sites which parse it in real time. They seem to do a reasonable job of parsing it as I rarely have to fix anything. Someone has figured out how to do it. It can't be that hard.
With all due respect to you and your skills, most of the MBAs I have met are completely clueless and are a disaster (whether they follow what they "learned" in school or not). I would never put one in charge of managing a software development team.
Apple's approach to "filing" is designed for simpletons. I have found that iPhoto is an incredible pain in the ass. They have replaced the nice folder system I was using with a big opaque blob that you access ONLY through iPhoto. If you can figure out how to get iPhoto to do what you want, you are good... otherwise you are SOL. I've given up on the iPhoto "jail" and replaced it with Picasa which does much more and also uses my folder system.
I don't need a PC to manage my Android phone. It's all backed up to the "cloud" (and no, I don't have root access to any cloud servers, do you have access to root on iCloud?... but I do have access to my data in the cloud which is what I care about.) I can also back it up to a local PC or phone memory card (which is removable and expandable unlike some other phones). My music is all MP3s that I own with no DRM so I don't have to worry about iTunes deciding that I have some unauthorized phone or music.
Why do you need a PC to "manage" an iPhone? My Android phone does just fine without any PC. My music, photos, Gmail, contacts and calendar are all managed nicely in the cloud (and I can back them up locally if I want). What does this PC do? (I have a MacBook which came with iTunes but all it ever does is pop up when I don't want it to play some music or video. It's only an annoyance and I'd like to get rid of it. When I want to play music or video, I just want to play the file, I don't want some program to "manage" it.)
It's just amazing for me to watch this battle. What other industry goes to this length to keep people from consuming their product? They are truly clueless. Here you have people going to great lengths and expense to watch a TV show (with original commercials) and we have the creators and distributors of the show actively trying to prevent them. These people are dinosaurs and deserve to die out.
Thanks for the explanation. Good to know that we have a pogo expert pontificating about climate science. If I ever have a pogo problem, I'll call him. None of the other "former NASA employees" seem to have any climate science training or experience either. Looks like a sleazy setup to me.
I think most people have concluded that it's just not worth the extreme expense of supporting a fragile life form in space. The actual science that human space travelers have done is miniscule and has reached only trivial conclusions. It's just not worth it. Space exploration without humans, on the other hand, has been able to travel far greater distances and perform genuinely useful science and has returned great benefit for the much smaller investment.
You are right. I should have responded in more detail to these two articles but I didn't have time yesterday. They are both review articles where the authors did not do any research themselves but pick research which has been done by others and fit it to a "hormesis" model which seems to be trying to hypothesize that there is some type of "immunity" induced by radiation exposure. The BJR article cites protection of 30% or 40% from further damage due to adaptive responses in some papers and then goes on to the (untenable) assertion that this "could" lead to more than 100% protection (immunity effect) if you extrapolate their curves. However, there is no evidence for more than 40% protection from further damage. The only thing the articles have shown is that there is a non-linear dose response curve to radiation damage. They have not shown any net protective effect. The second article is gated so I only have access to the abstract which states: " As yet, however, the extent to which such responses may actually reduce the risks attributable to low-level irradiation remains to be determined, pending further elucidation of the relevant dose-response relationships and the apparent lack of responsiveness in some individuals. Therefore, further research is needed to resolve this question." All of the articles have shown damage from radiation at all doses. Some of the articles show that the body attempts to repair the damage and that the repair mechanisms may mitigate the damage. None of them show any net protective effect from radiation exposure.
X-rays are ionizing radiation which removes electrons from atoms creating ions. Ions cause direct damage to cells (radiation poisoning) and have the potential to damage DNA causing cancer. There is no evidence that ionizing radiation has any beneficial effect on living cells. It damages cells and DNA. Some people have postulated that since the damage stimulates the body to react to the inflammation and repair it, there is a net beneficial effect. This is like saying it is good to beat your head against a wall since your body will try to repair the damage. The net effect is damage to your body which does what it can to repair the damage but you are still better off not beating your head against the wall. Scar tissue is tough but doesn't work as well as normal tissue. Constant inflammation from radiation damage (or any other cause) leads puts the body in a constant state of repair and has no net beneficial effect (besides getting better at repair). There is no net benefit. This does not stop some wishful thinking radiologists from postulating otherwise.
Anne Coulter said that radiation is good for you. The rest of the bat-shit crazy Republican mediasphere echo chamber repeated this claim. There is no evidence for this statement. Here is a cogent science-based article about this craziness. I don't expect you to read it or understand it but someone else might be interested. http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/ann-coulter-says-radiation-is-good-for-you-2/
Since the reports of "dental x-rays" were based on patient's memory and not on actual dental records, it is likely that there is some error here. Many people probably don't remember or don't know the difference between bitewings and full mouth x-rays. They probably only remember that they had some dental x-rays. I wouldn't put too much emphasis on the difference between the two.
Modern x-rays (digital) use about 1/3 of the radiation of older "E-speed" (high radiation, high definition) film so your estimate of 1/100 is an exaggeration. In addition, the "very focused" radiation beam can be a problem since even a small amount of radiation is delivered to a small area. Standing behind the machine is probably safe. I would hope they would shield the back of the machine. However, the patient is in front of the machine and is the target of the radiation. Radiation is bad in any amount and it doesn't do any good to deny this fact. Instead, we should all look for ways to avoid or minimize radiation exposure.
One of them is my mother. She only uses the web browser (Firefox and Yahoo for email) and occasional type up a list for one of her clubs. She always is "losing the Internet" usually by minimizing Firefox. Next week I'll be visiting her to upgrade to Ubuntu. I think the Unity interface is perfect for her. She only needs one or two buttons.
Probably a bad idea to throw in that speculative quote since the entire thread has been hijacked by rabid pro/anti Keynesian posters... you've been trolled! I would have preferred to have more actual discussion of the data itself... how to search it, how to analyze it, etc. Instead, we just have people flaming about Keynes.
As others have pointed out and as the website points out, it does give you a "huge blinky warning" and it doesn't automatically disable it so please, calm down, sit down, take a few slow deep breaths and go away.
Slashdot Mirror
They should start with the good old USA.
The NSA is currently building a huge data center to capture email, phone, sms, etc. data.
http://www.democracynow.org/2012/4/23/more_secrets_on_growing_state_surveillance
This includes an interview with hacker Jacob Appelbaum, who has volunteered for WikiLeaks and now works with Tor Project and others.
They can probably buy most of the components off the shelf. I doubt they would have to build a semiconductor fab or turbine "directional crystal growth" thingies.
Small jet engines are readily available (every airliner has one as an auxiliary power generator unit)... same for CCD cameras and lenses. GPS, CPUs and memory are commodity parts. The airframe can be easily reproduced since they have a real model to work from.
The hard part will be the software that ties it all together and they seem to have made some progress on that front. This could be interesting. I do hope they open source whatever they decompile / reverse engineer / create. I'm sure the open source community would love to have a "drone stack" to work on.
How incredibly naive. "The will to prevail" is a nice thought but doesn't really count for much.
There have been a few successful wars of liberation and these have been successful because the victors were able to amass more guns (US from France) and/or the political calculus changed for the occupier (US, Vietnam and Afghanistan).
The people of Homs, Syria are a good case in point. They have lots of guns and public support and YouTube and members of the military are defecting but the military still has more guns and bigger guns (tanks are leveling Homs) so they are losing badly. They would be much better off if they could, like Libya, get NATO on their side (more guns and bigger guns) or they were able to get the UN to exert enough effective political pressure (difficult).
Their guns are not winning and your guns give you a false sense of security... they are worthless and will only get you killed.
They have a lot more guns than you.
and bigger guns.
If you have a gun, it just gives them an excuse to kill you right now.
I've submitted my pdf resume to web sites which parse it in real time. They seem to do a reasonable job of parsing it as I rarely have to fix anything.
Someone has figured out how to do it. It can't be that hard.
I've yet to load any Word document into a different version of Word and have it look the same.
This does not appear to be a deal breaker for anyone.
You send out your resume as an editable Word document?
With all due respect to you and your skills, most of the MBAs I have met are completely clueless and are a disaster (whether they follow what they "learned" in school or not).
I would never put one in charge of managing a software development team.
Apple's approach to "filing" is designed for simpletons. I have found that iPhoto is an incredible pain in the ass. They have replaced the nice folder system I was using with a big opaque blob that you access ONLY through iPhoto. If you can figure out how to get iPhoto to do what you want, you are good... otherwise you are SOL. I've given up on the iPhoto "jail" and replaced it with Picasa which does much more and also uses my folder system.
I don't need a PC to manage my Android phone. ... but I do have access to my data in the cloud which is what I care about.)
It's all backed up to the "cloud" (and no, I don't have root access to any cloud servers, do you have access to root on iCloud?
I can also back it up to a local PC or phone memory card (which is removable and expandable unlike some other phones).
My music is all MP3s that I own with no DRM so I don't have to worry about iTunes deciding that I have some unauthorized phone or music.
Why do you need a PC to "manage" an iPhone?
My Android phone does just fine without any PC. My music, photos, Gmail, contacts and calendar are all managed nicely in the cloud (and I can back them up locally if I want). What does this PC do?
(I have a MacBook which came with iTunes but all it ever does is pop up when I don't want it to play some music or video. It's only an annoyance and I'd like to get rid of it. When I want to play music or video, I just want to play the file, I don't want some program to "manage" it.)
It's just amazing for me to watch this battle. What other industry goes to this length to keep people from consuming their product? They are truly clueless.
Here you have people going to great lengths and expense to watch a TV show (with original commercials) and we have the creators and distributors of the show actively trying to prevent them. These people are dinosaurs and deserve to die out.
Thanks for the explanation. Good to know that we have a pogo expert pontificating about climate science. If I ever have a pogo problem, I'll call him.
None of the other "former NASA employees" seem to have any climate science training or experience either. Looks like a sleazy setup to me.
I think SpaceX has that covered.
http://www.spacex.com/updates.php
Must stop Pogo...
I think most people have concluded that it's just not worth the extreme expense of supporting a fragile life form in space. The actual science that human space travelers have done is miniscule and has reached only trivial conclusions. It's just not worth it.
Space exploration without humans, on the other hand, has been able to travel far greater distances and perform genuinely useful science and has returned great benefit for the much smaller investment.
You are right. I should have responded in more detail to these two articles but I didn't have time yesterday.
They are both review articles where the authors did not do any research themselves but pick research which has been done by others and fit it to a "hormesis" model which seems to be trying to hypothesize that there is some type of "immunity" induced by radiation exposure.
The BJR article cites protection of 30% or 40% from further damage due to adaptive responses in some papers and then goes on to the (untenable) assertion that this "could" lead to more than 100% protection (immunity effect) if you extrapolate their curves. However, there is no evidence for more than 40% protection from further damage. The only thing the articles have shown is that there is a non-linear dose response curve to radiation damage. They have not shown any net protective effect.
The second article is gated so I only have access to the abstract which states: " As yet, however, the extent to which such responses may actually reduce the risks attributable to low-level irradiation remains to be determined, pending further elucidation of the relevant dose-response relationships and the apparent lack of responsiveness in some individuals. Therefore, further research is needed to resolve this question."
All of the articles have shown damage from radiation at all doses. Some of the articles show that the body attempts to repair the damage and that the repair mechanisms may mitigate the damage. None of them show any net protective effect from radiation exposure.
X-rays are ionizing radiation which removes electrons from atoms creating ions. Ions cause direct damage to cells (radiation poisoning) and have the potential to damage DNA causing cancer.
There is no evidence that ionizing radiation has any beneficial effect on living cells. It damages cells and DNA.
Some people have postulated that since the damage stimulates the body to react to the inflammation and repair it, there is a net beneficial effect. This is like saying it is good to beat your head against a wall since your body will try to repair the damage. The net effect is damage to your body which does what it can to repair the damage but you are still better off not beating your head against the wall. Scar tissue is tough but doesn't work as well as normal tissue. Constant inflammation from radiation damage (or any other cause) leads puts the body in a constant state of repair and has no net beneficial effect (besides getting better at repair). There is no net benefit. This does not stop some wishful thinking radiologists from postulating otherwise.
Anne Coulter said that radiation is good for you. The rest of the bat-shit crazy Republican mediasphere echo chamber repeated this claim.
There is no evidence for this statement.
Here is a cogent science-based article about this craziness. I don't expect you to read it or understand it but someone else might be interested.
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/ann-coulter-says-radiation-is-good-for-you-2/
Since the reports of "dental x-rays" were based on patient's memory and not on actual dental records, it is likely that there is some error here. Many people probably don't remember or don't know the difference between bitewings and full mouth x-rays. They probably only remember that they had some dental x-rays. I wouldn't put too much emphasis on the difference between the two.
Modern x-rays (digital) use about 1/3 of the radiation of older "E-speed" (high radiation, high definition) film so your estimate of 1/100 is an exaggeration.
In addition, the "very focused" radiation beam can be a problem since even a small amount of radiation is delivered to a small area.
Standing behind the machine is probably safe. I would hope they would shield the back of the machine. However, the patient is in front of the machine and is the target of the radiation.
Radiation is bad in any amount and it doesn't do any good to deny this fact. Instead, we should all look for ways to avoid or minimize radiation exposure.
One of them is my mother.
She only uses the web browser (Firefox and Yahoo for email) and occasional type up a list for one of her clubs.
She always is "losing the Internet" usually by minimizing Firefox.
Next week I'll be visiting her to upgrade to Ubuntu. I think the Unity interface is perfect for her. She only needs one or two buttons.
I've used Free Mind for presentations. It allows you to open and close branches and gives the big picture. Check out Mind Mapping tools.
Probably a bad idea to throw in that speculative quote since the entire thread has been hijacked by rabid pro/anti Keynesian posters... you've been trolled!
I would have preferred to have more actual discussion of the data itself... how to search it, how to analyze it, etc. Instead, we just have people flaming about Keynes.
As others have pointed out and as the website points out, it does give you a "huge blinky warning" and it doesn't automatically disable it so please, calm down, sit down, take a few slow deep breaths and go away.