After ingesting the algae, this mouth disappears. Instead, it is replaced by an eyespot from the algae. The eyespot is a light sensing organelle, a very primitive eye that guides algae to light sources. In this case, it also guides the host, Hatena, to light. Hatena has obvioulsy stopped feeding, and least through its mouth. It is now swimming to the light, letting the alga photosynthesize its food for both of them.
The local government bodies sued and cajoled the cell carriers to build coverage, but wouldn't let them put the tall towers up to allow service in an economically feasible way. Net result, no coverage and more death, but the view was still great.
It's interesting to compare that attitude (on both the part of government and the providers) to how AT&T was originally created and managed by the Federal Government. Universal coverage was mandated, as were QOS standards, and the old AT&T put in service to all kinds of places that weren't remotely "economically feasible". That was the price of their monopoly, and by and large they lived up to that end of the bargain.
Of course, there were a lot of things our government handled more intelligently back then.
Back in the day, I used PC's running DOS to build automated test equipment.
Me too. Hydraulic and pneumatic component life-cycle test machines, among other things, and yes, they were pretty much all DOS-based. Man, what I could have done if I'd had modern CPU running DOS back in those days. I often embedded a DOS system using an Ampro Littleboard or something similar. Most times the customer never knew or cared what OS I was using.
Everything I did usually had a foreground task written in C or BASIC or whatever was most convenient, with all the time-critical stuff (ADC/DAC, force feedback routines, etc.) running in an interrupt handler. And you're right... it was a lot more deterministic, more predictable. A lot of what I did back then simply couldn't be done under a multitasking operating system.
"Look, there's a lot of technology that could be used to kill a lot of people if the wrong hands get access to it."
So you're the right hands to have access to it and kill alot of people with it, like you're currently doing?:)
I know you're trying to be funny (and you were, actually, I did set myself up for that one) but as it happens you're absolutely correct. Because we paid for it. It's ours. Are you saying that we should share our military tech with hostile foreign powers... what, out of some misguided idea of "fairness"? This is not about fairness. It's about us versus them, just like it's been throughout history. Fact is, my friend, nothing has really changed except that our toys are a lot more dangerous than they used to be. Furthermore, if China, or Russia or anyone else would like to have the same toys, they should be required to spend their own hard earned monetary units upon them.
The way I see it, our government has a mandate to protect us. Not the Chinese. Not the Russians. Not the Israelis, or the various Arab nations, or anyone else. That means that money we spend on weapons (regardless of whether you agree that spending was wise) should be used for our purposes, not anyone else's. If they want them, let them pay for them. Oh, I'm sorry, the investment is too great? You can't afford them? Well, then maybe you don't need them after all. Build some more plowshares instead.
Now, given America's declining economic base, odds are we won't be able to afford this stuff much longer either. Might ask yourself this question: when America's ability to project power has largely disappeared, when nations like Russia and the rapidly-militarizing China are free to do as they please again... will this be an improvement?
Everything they steal from us now is something that can be used against everyone later.
I am not saying the guy acted intelligently here, but the government is using him to make a point.
And given the recent reports of security problems at a number of major military research facilities (and given the Chinese' investment in espionage and near-takeover of many of our Universities research departments), if you're right, all I can say is:
The professor did the world a favor. Sharing defense technology means conflicting powers are on equal strength and are less likely to go to war.
My god, I think he really believes that. What makes people less likely to go to war is having wealth and prosperity... something to lose, in other words. Giving away advanced military technology just makes it that much easier for a nation that has imperialistic tendencies to try and make something of it. You really need to have a better grasp of history than what you're displaying here.
The unfortunate truth is that being merely at technological parity, militarily-speaking, is not sufficient to dissuade some people from going to war anyways. You have to have demonstrably superior capabilities to have any chance at a deterrent effect. And that isn't counting the pathological types who simply don't care if you kill them or not so long as they can take you with them. Regardless, you want your enemies to know, beyond the slightest shadow of a doubt, that if they try anything they're going to take an awful pasting. And that means making damn sure they can't equal your ability to wage war without making at least the same investment. Granted, that also means that you shouldn't give them too much reason to want to make that investment, but in either case you don't make it easy for them.
So far as I'm concerned this "well, heck, they're going to get it anyways" attitude is damn near treasonous. I hope that our military R&D types don't share your relative ignorance, because we need to deny our enemies access to our most significant advances. Put it this way: it cost us a lot of money and time: we should see to it that it costs them the same. If it takes China or any other hostile power 'x" number of years to equal our current capabilities, well, that's 'x' years of relative peace we're going to have, because they won't be tempted to try anything. Put them on equal footing, and there's no telling what might happen.
Many universities (or individual professors) do actually reject any ITAR projects, since it places significant restrictions on them and their students.
Correct. And they're within their rights to do just that. This guy apparently did not.
Even the " prohibited from sharing sensitive data with foreign nationals" condition is a fluff, since a foreign nation can simply pay a US citizen to get the data.
That US citizen would then be subject to the same legal sanctions the Professor got under the US laws prohibiting export of this information.
That's actually the problem with a lot of our interaction in the "global economy". Take medical transcription, for example... a lot of that is being outsourced to India. And when it gets stolen by some Indian bastard trying to make a quick buck, there's absolutely nothing our government can do. The thief is not subject to United States law. Consequently, there's no deterrent effect whatsoever when it comes to ripping off confidential data from our government or our citizens, and that's the reason the professor was prohibited from using foreign nationals on his project. Did he intend to act in a treasonous or near-treasonous manner? Perhaps not. But it's damned hard to argue that he didn't know better.
Contractual or not, four years for sharing some plans seems tad excessive.
Oh well. I guess you have to be American to understand the American judicial system.
What? My goodness, that anti-American commentary is become less and less rational on a daily basis.
Look, there's a lot of technology that could be used to kill a lot of people if the wrong hands get access to it. The American taxpayer paid for that R&D, and it should be used in our interests, not to aid an inimical foreign power like China (no, they're not our friends, and probably never will be.) I understand that you're just trying to get in a jab at the hated Americans, but ask yourself how the Russians, or the Iranians, or the Israelis, or the Chinese or... well, pretty much ANY country that has made a significant investment in military technology would (and have) handled similar cases. Compared to some of those countries, this is a slap on the wrist. I mean, after all the agreements he signed, just taking that laptop to CHINA, of all places, should have earned him a lot more than four years. I suspect the Feds cut him some slack.
I'm sorry that you're ignorant of such matters, but you know, that is a curable condition.
I'm ok with this, as long as they investigate the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers as well.
Nah... all those old-line organizations seem to keep getting a free pass from any investigation. My guess is that they've been greasing the palms of numerous public officials for so long that to investigate them would air way too much dirty laundry. So the Feds pay them no attention, even though they're as dirty as the RIAA in their own way and just as deserving of investigation.
When the general public think about searching the Internet they think of Google, even the phrase 'Google it' is fairly common. I wonder what the success rate is for this strategy?
It's not foolproof. In the UK, "hoovering" is a synonym for vacuum cleaning, but Hoover no longer dominate the vacuum cleaner market.
Yeah, well, here in the U.S., a Hoover involves whipped cream and some other accessories, although it does have something to do with (ahem!) carpets.
And it is the responsibility of the company itself to ensure that these devisions stay in line.
Sony's problems, so far as I'm concerned, stem from the decision to enter media production and distribution, rather than sticking with their core competence of consumer electronics. As you say, that wouldn't be a problem if it weren't for the fact the divisions are NOT staying in line. The media side has way too much control over the hardware side.
Slashdot Mirror
After ingesting the algae, this mouth disappears. Instead, it is replaced by an eyespot from the algae. The eyespot is a light sensing organelle, a very primitive eye that guides algae to light sources. In this case, it also guides the host, Hatena, to light. Hatena has obvioulsy stopped feeding, and least through its mouth. It is now swimming to the light, letting the alga photosynthesize its food for both of them.
Doesn't that quality the hatena as a parasite?
No, I believe you're referring to "Parisians".
You sir are lucky...my wife only has the predator aspect...and shes usually preying on my wallet.
She'd need the eye to find the green, though.
It would have been a laughingstock.
T-Mobile's 3G is like Swiss cheese here in Miami.
And when it does work, it's usually less than a megabit.
It's all relative, I suppose. My experience with T-Mobile's 3G here in Illinois for the past few months has been excellent (on a G1, just FYI.)
The local government bodies sued and cajoled the cell carriers to build coverage, but wouldn't let them put the tall towers up to allow service in an economically feasible way. Net result, no coverage and more death, but the view was still great.
It's interesting to compare that attitude (on both the part of government and the providers) to how AT&T was originally created and managed by the Federal Government. Universal coverage was mandated, as were QOS standards, and the old AT&T put in service to all kinds of places that weren't remotely "economically feasible". That was the price of their monopoly, and by and large they lived up to that end of the bargain.
Of course, there were a lot of things our government handled more intelligently back then.
Every book I buy is "rent" to my family/friends and my girlfriend
Honestly, you'd make more money renting your girlfriend.
and Sirous Nourgostar of Iran to work
Did George Lucas get offspring in Iran or something?
+5: Fucking Epic.
Back in the day, I used PC's running DOS to build automated test equipment.
Me too. Hydraulic and pneumatic component life-cycle test machines, among other things, and yes, they were pretty much all DOS-based. Man, what I could have done if I'd had modern CPU running DOS back in those days. I often embedded a DOS system using an Ampro Littleboard or something similar. Most times the customer never knew or cared what OS I was using.
... it was a lot more deterministic, more predictable. A lot of what I did back then simply couldn't be done under a multitasking operating system.
Everything I did usually had a foreground task written in C or BASIC or whatever was most convenient, with all the time-critical stuff (ADC/DAC, force feedback routines, etc.) running in an interrupt handler. And you're right
"Look, there's a lot of technology that could be used to kill a lot of people if the wrong hands get access to it."
So you're the right hands to have access to it and kill alot of people with it, like you're currently doing? :)
I know you're trying to be funny (and you were, actually, I did set myself up for that one) but as it happens you're absolutely correct. Because we paid for it. It's ours. Are you saying that we should share our military tech with hostile foreign powers ... what, out of some misguided idea of "fairness"? This is not about fairness. It's about us versus them, just like it's been throughout history. Fact is, my friend, nothing has really changed except that our toys are a lot more dangerous than they used to be. Furthermore, if China, or Russia or anyone else would like to have the same toys, they should be required to spend their own hard earned monetary units upon them.
... will this be an improvement?
The way I see it, our government has a mandate to protect us. Not the Chinese. Not the Russians. Not the Israelis, or the various Arab nations, or anyone else. That means that money we spend on weapons (regardless of whether you agree that spending was wise) should be used for our purposes, not anyone else's. If they want them, let them pay for them. Oh, I'm sorry, the investment is too great? You can't afford them? Well, then maybe you don't need them after all. Build some more plowshares instead.
Now, given America's declining economic base, odds are we won't be able to afford this stuff much longer either. Might ask yourself this question: when America's ability to project power has largely disappeared, when nations like Russia and the rapidly-militarizing China are free to do as they please again
Everything they steal from us now is something that can be used against everyone later.
I am not saying the guy acted intelligently here, but the government is using him to make a point.
And given the recent reports of security problems at a number of major military research facilities (and given the Chinese' investment in espionage and near-takeover of many of our Universities research departments), if you're right, all I can say is:
GOOD!
The professor did the world a favor. Sharing defense technology means conflicting powers are on equal strength and are less likely to go to war.
My god, I think he really believes that. What makes people less likely to go to war is having wealth and prosperity ... something to lose, in other words. Giving away advanced military technology just makes it that much easier for a nation that has imperialistic tendencies to try and make something of it. You really need to have a better grasp of history than what you're displaying here.
The unfortunate truth is that being merely at technological parity, militarily-speaking, is not sufficient to dissuade some people from going to war anyways. You have to have demonstrably superior capabilities to have any chance at a deterrent effect. And that isn't counting the pathological types who simply don't care if you kill them or not so long as they can take you with them. Regardless, you want your enemies to know, beyond the slightest shadow of a doubt, that if they try anything they're going to take an awful pasting. And that means making damn sure they can't equal your ability to wage war without making at least the same investment. Granted, that also means that you shouldn't give them too much reason to want to make that investment, but in either case you don't make it easy for them.
So far as I'm concerned this "well, heck, they're going to get it anyways" attitude is damn near treasonous. I hope that our military R&D types don't share your relative ignorance, because we need to deny our enemies access to our most significant advances. Put it this way: it cost us a lot of money and time: we should see to it that it costs them the same. If it takes China or any other hostile power 'x" number of years to equal our current capabilities, well, that's 'x' years of relative peace we're going to have, because they won't be tempted to try anything. Put them on equal footing, and there's no telling what might happen.
Many universities (or individual professors) do actually reject any ITAR projects, since it places significant restrictions on them and their students.
Correct. And they're within their rights to do just that. This guy apparently did not.
Even the " prohibited from sharing sensitive data with foreign nationals" condition is a fluff, since a foreign nation can simply pay a US citizen to get the data.
That US citizen would then be subject to the same legal sanctions the Professor got under the US laws prohibiting export of this information.
That's actually the problem with a lot of our interaction in the "global economy". Take medical transcription, for example ... a lot of that is being outsourced to India. And when it gets stolen by some Indian bastard trying to make a quick buck, there's absolutely nothing our government can do. The thief is not subject to United States law. Consequently, there's no deterrent effect whatsoever when it comes to ripping off confidential data from our government or our citizens, and that's the reason the professor was prohibited from using foreign nationals on his project. Did he intend to act in a treasonous or near-treasonous manner? Perhaps not. But it's damned hard to argue that he didn't know better.
Why was this perfectly valid counter-example modded Troll?
Because Slashdot will pretty much give a loaded gun to an idiot, mod-points-wise.
Contractual or not, four years for sharing some plans seems tad excessive.
Oh well. I guess you have to be American to understand the American judicial system.
What? My goodness, that anti-American commentary is become less and less rational on a daily basis.
... well, pretty much ANY country that has made a significant investment in military technology would (and have) handled similar cases. Compared to some of those countries, this is a slap on the wrist. I mean, after all the agreements he signed, just taking that laptop to CHINA, of all places, should have earned him a lot more than four years. I suspect the Feds cut him some slack.
Look, there's a lot of technology that could be used to kill a lot of people if the wrong hands get access to it. The American taxpayer paid for that R&D, and it should be used in our interests, not to aid an inimical foreign power like China (no, they're not our friends, and probably never will be.) I understand that you're just trying to get in a jab at the hated Americans, but ask yourself how the Russians, or the Iranians, or the Israelis, or the Chinese or
I'm sorry that you're ignorant of such matters, but you know, that is a curable condition.
Maybe, just maybe, this case doesn't show that Roth is a traitor, but that the military is full of idiots who don't take their jobs serious.
That's probably true. But now maybe, just maybe, some of those idiots will take their jobs more serious(ly.)
Yeah, well, here in the U.S., a Hoover involves whipped cream and some other accessories, although it does have something to do with (ahem!) carpets.
...or warrantless wiretapping :P
Yes. Well, something sucks about this whole thing, that's for sure.
Do you smite them, thus sending them to hell?
No, he smites them and sends them to Heck.
I'm ok with this, as long as they investigate the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers as well.
Nah ... all those old-line organizations seem to keep getting a free pass from any investigation. My guess is that they've been greasing the palms of numerous public officials for so long that to investigate them would air way too much dirty laundry. So the Feds pay them no attention, even though they're as dirty as the RIAA in their own way and just as deserving of investigation.
Recording during a board meeting at Google:
"So, what are we going to do today, Brin?"
"Same thing we always do, Larry. Try and take over the world!"
It's already hard enough to switch to Google.
Nah. It's pretty damn painless actually.
Wow! A Microsoft shill with mod points. How does mentioning Firefox make me a troll?
When the general public think about searching the Internet they think of Google, even the phrase 'Google it' is fairly common. I wonder what the success rate is for this strategy?
It's not foolproof. In the UK, "hoovering" is a synonym for vacuum cleaning, but Hoover no longer dominate the vacuum cleaner market.
Yeah, well, here in the U.S., a Hoover involves whipped cream and some other accessories, although it does have something to do with (ahem!) carpets.
exactly... and Microsoft gets to take all of the shit, while Apple gets away with the same tricky bullshit.
Apple is just as evil as Microsoft, if not perhaps more so.
Dude, dude, dude. Steve Jobs is the reincarnation of Jesus H. Christ himself, and Bill Gates is ... well, you get the point.
It's already hard enough to switch to Google.
Nah. It's pretty damn painless actually.
And it is the responsibility of the company itself to ensure that these devisions stay in line.
Sony's problems, so far as I'm concerned, stem from the decision to enter media production and distribution, rather than sticking with their core competence of consumer electronics. As you say, that wouldn't be a problem if it weren't for the fact the divisions are NOT staying in line. The media side has way too much control over the hardware side.
The age of consent in Canada (Ontario, at least) used to be 14, and is now 16. 17's completely legal.
Oh really?