Of course, the heart cannot exist by itself, so wouldn't you need to include the entire circulatory system in your analysis, in which case you do have multiple pumps (arteries) valves and fluid circuits. In addition the mere motion of the body helps blood flow return to the heart. Take the brain, why two artereries to supply it instead of only one? Obviously, two makes sense for certain redundancies, but in a non-intelligent design, one guided by mere chance, what would be the cause to split the arteriers into two? Or take the circle of willis, if one part gets plugged, the brain still gets its full blood supply. Now none of that proves that there is an intelligent designer, but even for a non-belieiver, the chances of all of that developing the way it did does seem pretty remarkable. One could argue survival of the fittest and these structures would indicate a better design so they lived on, but that would only have been beneficial in later years, after one's genetic seed had already been propigated, so the complex design we have today would not have provided an advantage during a time period where it would have made difference towards passing on one's genetic code, at least not compared to a simpler system.
Again, none of that proves the existence of a creator or intelligent design, but it does make one pause and marvel at the complexity of it all and the realization that without such a creator, the fact that we are all here at all are do to extremely tiny odds of all the right things happening at the right moments.
There are no demands for an industrial pump with such a low rate or the ability to last 120 years. If there were, perhaps someone would have made one by now.
Also, the heart is not unserviced. In fact they are continually serviced. I'm not sure the exact turn over, but at least over 10 years every cell in your heart is replaced.
Well then show me a self-repairing pump that doesn't need external maintenance. One that can get the materials it needs from it's surroundings without doing harm to those surroundings, all while not having to shut down for the maintenance to take place.
The complaint was "pollutes", so I'm not sure how you could interpret recycling to mean anything other than reusing the raw materials that compose the battery in order to avoid having dig more of them out of the ground, etc. Obviously recycling uses energy, but that's got very little to do with the traditional pollution of battery production. Now if recycling a battery produces as much pollution as making one from the scratch, that would be a counter point, but that isn't what you said.
And why do you think hydrogen is a better way of transporting energy than sending electricity through cables and then into batteries (since electric train style direct delivery doesn't seem practical so it needs to be stored in the vehicle at some point)? Because newer must be better than older no matter what?
Fuel cells are less efficient than batteries. If you are going to make hydrogen in a "renewable" fashion (i.e. not steam reforming) then the energy efficiency of that step is going to be significant as well. Of course there's the refueling time advantage - you can refuel a vehicle with hydrogen much faster than you can charge a battery - but you seem to be arguing purely from an energy efficiency point.
To recycle a battery so that it can be used again takes a lot of energy. Look at how much energy an alternator produces to recharge a car battery and that is one that hasn't been depleted. Recycling a battery so that its core can be used again in another battery requires a significant energy input. That energy comes from electricity, which comes from fossil fuel, so there is still pollution involved.
Hydrogen fuel cells still produce electricity. They do not, however produce CO2 or greenhouse gases and they do come from a readily renewable source. From the fuel cell to the motor, there will still be the same energy loss regardless as if from the battery to the motor. That is inherent in the wires themselves. I guess, if batteries were such a better deal, they wouldn't be using fuel cells in space. For some reason, they seem to feel that given all of the free solar energy up there, the fuel cell makes a better power source. One reason could be weight. Fuel cells produce more electricity per kg than do batteries. Since vehicle has to also transport the fuel cell or the batteries, that would be an advantage to a fuel cell.
You are correct though that there is no such thing as free energy, so converting it to stored energy in batteries or producing hydrogen for fuel cells is going to still result in less output than the energy put into the system. However, hydrogen fuel cells have other advantages over battery technology. OTOH, they have one major limitation shared by battery technology, there is no infrastructure. Until you can recharge your vehicle in a short period of time, whether battery or fuel cell, AND be able to travel long distances, neither technology is viable for the consumer. The problem with quick charge batteries is that it reduces useful life which cuts down on travel distances (which is also way too short with batteries). The problem with hydrogen is that, well, there are no hydrogen stations to even fuel at. At least with batteries you could plug in and charge for 8 hours.
My point was not that we should use fuel cells instead of batteries, though. It was that something new is needed besides batteries. I only used fuel cells as an example. As you rightly point out, they have their major obstacles, too. That is why research needs to be going into new technologies instead of trying to make current technologies work when the science shows they can't in the long run.
Do you also think that recycling plastic violates the laws of thermodynamics because you also don't get more energy out than you put in?
No, but then plastic isn't being touted as a renewable energy source as the Lithium Ion battery packs in electric cars were by the OP. Battery packs can not be recharged indefinitely nor can they just be recycled to make new batteries, at least not without using a lot of energy to reverse the processes that have taken place. It is basic thermodynamics and it doesn't matter the type of battery. You simply cannot keep recharging it indefinitely.
A further strike against battery powered cars is that even ignoring the eventual replacement of the batteries, energy has to be produced to charge the batteries. Production of that energy from renewable sources on a scale large enough to meet the demands of a totally electric vehicle fleet is not sustainable. There simply is not enough capacity with nuclear, wind, solar, etc. to meet the demand, and by the time more plants are built (using fossil fuel), hopefully, newer and better technologies than heavy, inefficient batteries will be developed.
That is why battery powered vehicles for the masses are a dead end. They still require fossil fuel to create the electricity to charge them, so they don't have a smaller CO2 footprint and there isn't the infrastructure to support them. If the US is going to build new infrastructure for new vehicles, they should be planning for technology of the future (maybe hydrogen), not the past, like batteries. It is all basic thermodynamics.
According to the Passport Fact Sheet published May 2012, (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/smart/pdfs/passport_fact_sheet.pdf) the US may revoke a passport if there is an arrest warrant (which there is) to keep an individual from departing the US, if there is a court order restricting the individual from leaving the US. Since Snowden was already outside the US, it would seem frivolous to issue a court order barring him from leaving the US and therefore, by the State Department's own regulations (laws), it appears revoking his passport was handled improperly and this could be seen as a human rights violation as he is effectively imprisoned without due process (without a passport he cannot enter Russia, either and is confined to the one area of the airport that is considered international space).
If Russia declines asylum, since Snowden is technically not in Russia, but in international space, any country could grant him political asylum, put him on a plane, private or otherwise and let him into their country as a political refugee (for which international law does not require a passport). The question is which country will be the one to do that?
The US better hope that nothing happens to him while he is stranded, too. It would be hard to convince the rest of the world that after not following the law on password revocations that we just didn't take him out.
Encryption algorithms may be secure, but how sure are you that your implementation is? Debian was generating entirely insecure SSL keys for a couple years before anyone noticed. Couldn't the NSA do something like that, but perhaps a bit more clever, and remain unnoticed?
But the point is that somebody did notice. Open source software enables a more thorough review (doesn't mean it will happen, though), since the actual source code is available. Closed source software means you can only monitor inputs and outputs, making the detection of a problem much more likely to go unnoticed.
Fearmongering, yes. But not impossible. It's not so easy to make sure that a program is a correct implementation of a mathematical algorithm or of an open standard. A subtle bug (purposeful or not) in a crypographic algorithm or protocol can be exploited. Writing a bug is much easier than spotting it. Many applications and OSes get security updates almost dayly. They certainly haven't found them all yet. Perhaps the NSA has engineered backdoors in our free software at some point, but those vunerabilities have been patched already. Mosty paranoia then.... Rick
While true, SELinux, for example, is studied in many universities by many computer science students. Students trying to work through how the code works, often trigger bugs that won't occur in real world examples. However, even these bugs get reported and fixed. It is likely that the NSA and other governments have inserted various backdoors in all sorts of software to gain access, open source and closed source. The difference is that at least with open source, there is the possibility of others finding it.
Then again, a big deterrent to the NSA doing something like that with open source software is that if the "bad guys" (whomever they may be) find it, they too can exploit it and use it against US interests. See, doors work both ways, and doors available to the public (ie open source software) can be exploited both ways. Now, take closed source software, that is where people should be paranoid, because it doesn't fall under the same scrutiny. While it is more difficult for just anybody to patch it, how difficult is it for the NSA or other agency to get an employee of theirs hired by a large IT company that makes operating systems or provides search engines,etc? Surely such an employee would pass a background check that uses government records to provide the information. Surely such an employee would have the skills the employer was looking for. And once hired, the employee would have access to all sorts of records, source code, etc. from the inside. Once you are on the inside, things are immeasurably easier. Just ask Snowden.
Opensource provides the major advantage that the codebase is available for all to see, so even if there were a mole in the programmer pool, it is possible for third party external review.
Not to mention that if the NSA put a back door in SELinux or other open source software, they would be exposing their "secret" methods to the public. How about this scenario:
NSA: Let's put some backdoors into SELinux. BadGuys: Hey, the NSA helped develop SELinux, let's examine their code to figure out how their other algorithms work.
One advantage to open source software is that the source code is available for both the good guys and the bad guys to look at. If somebody plants something in the code, somebody else can find it. Closed software on the otherhand, who knows what is in the code.
Yes that's true. But it seems to be also true that the battery is quite recyclable. Thus, as we end up with more electric vehicles ending their life cycle the environmental costs of newer vehicles will be mitigated through the recycling of older electric cars.
They have found a way to regenerate Lithium Ion battery packs without using more energy than they get back! There should be a Noble Prize in that because it violates one of the laws of thermodynamics.
Number? Studies? Actual data? I keep hearing this kind of crap. The problem is every time a project I was on got associated with off shoring it ended up costing time and effort here to cover up the screw ups.
Again, present actual facts. I am sick and tired of the same old sound bites that just never seem to be true.
The original poster won't give you the data, because any data that exists doesn't support his/her point. Take the Snowden/NSA debacle. If Snowden were a government employee, he wouldn't be making $200,000/yr even with benefits. Now figure in the salaries of the his supervisors and the owners, etc., plus the profit being made by the company. A government network administrator would have made $60,000 add another 40% for benefits, brings the total to $84,000 or $116,000 less than what was actually being paid.
Outsourcing makes sense in some situations such as temporary positions or extremely technical positions, but the outsourcing of common jobs by the government doesn't meet these conditions and has nothing to do with cost savings but instead is the modern form of political patronage.
Here's a thought, suspend the H-1B visas and educate or retrain US citizens to take those jobs. Corporate America keeps exclaiming that the H-1B visa process is expensive and the only reason they go that route is that they can't find qualified US applicants. Well, use those funds to train your own employees. Then, when the US is at full employment (at whatever that rate really is), if more workers are needed, then bring them in.
A large percentage of college graduates are not gainfully employed in the fields they studied, including STEM. It is hard to argue, that we need to import more STEM workers when we can't even employ the recent graduates. But maybe it has to do with that new math, you know the kind where you can build wealth in America by creating jobs overseas and importing workers for the rest of the jobs here.
What was that called by Reagan? Trickle down economics, where the majority of the population trickles further down the system so the few at the top can accumulate the wealth. If it costs corporations too much to hire trained labor, then either train them yourself (as in the past), cut dividends and executive pay, or find a different line of work. After all, isn't that how economics is supposed to work?
Damn, for such a supposedly low level employee, Snowden sure seemed to be able to garner a lot of intel. Just think of the stuff that is going on that he couldn't get his hands on.
This has nothing to do with the banks and everything to do with the employers. Banks cannot force an employer to issue debit cards. No, employers do it because it saves them money. If you are angry about this, don't take it out on the banks, blame your employer. They don't want to pay the ACH fee to direct deposit your check each month, so they have sought a cheaper, for them, alternative. Banks like this scheme because they collect a fee everythime the debit card is used, plus, any left over balance after a period of time is defaulted. So, since a bank will make more from a debit card paycheck than an ACH transaction, they will gladly make the switch and not charge your employer or charge very little to your employer. But ultimately, it is still your employer making the decision.
So people should quit blaming banks about this. The banks are just a means to an end. It is the employer that is behind this. I'm curious if the CEO of the business gets paid this way or is it just the rank and file employees?
The only thing that certification certifies is that the vendor tossed some cash at MS.
That may be the practice, but the legality of the situation is that Microsoft has actually certified the hardware.
Whether or not Microsoft exercises due diligence on their part in certifying hardware does not change the fact that Microsoft actually did certify the hardware, so if it doesn't work, it is Microsoft's problem to fix.
It's not an either or situation. If you have a disabled child, you are not denying a healthy child.
Oh, but it is, and you are.
Most people will only have a set number of children in their lifetime. For the majority in the western world, that's somewhere between 1 and 3. If you have one disabled child, and you were only planning on having 2 kids, you're unlikely to now change your mind and have 3.
Additionally, depending on the exact medical condition, a deformed child may impede your ability to have further children. You may have been planning on having 2 kids, but due to the added attention and cost associated with a handicapped child, you find yourself unable to afford any further children. So instead of 2 healthy children, you end up with one who is disabled.
Either way it doesn't seem like a good trade, to me.
As you seem to be arguing so strenuously, it is a very personal issue that unless you are directly involved with it you cannot begin to make that choice for somebody else.
The decision to become a heroin addict is a deeply personal one also, yet we seem to have no difficulty legislating against it. Even if you could successfully argue that "personal issues" should not be legislated, that still doesn't mean we can't do ANYTHING about it. At the very least we can make sure that people are educated on the issue, and are given the information and advice needed to make the right decision.
Well, if you are willing to take on the establishment and tell 1/2 the population (women) that it isn't their body and it is the government that is control of their reproductive systems and whether or not they are allowed to have children then go for it. Effectively, that is what you are saying. Just like China has determined that women should only have 1 child, you are saying that the government should dictate that women should only have children that meet certain requirements. I doubt you will find much support for that position.
There is a real issue here. Minors cannot enter into contracts in most states, so they cannot technically agree to the TOS for Google. The school is requiring the minors to use the accounts as part of the enrollment. That in and of itself is not a problem, but in most states, school records are confidential and these accounts are a type of school record. Therefore, if Google or anyone else does mine the data, then the school is in violation of state statutes and could be held liable. Now, it is quite possible that the agreement entered into between Google and the school has safeguards to protect against this, after all, their for pay business accounts have those protections.
For the record, many colleges and universities also use these accounts for their student mail, but there the students are not minors and can enter into the agreement. But grade school kids, cannot.
I seriously doubt the government mines the Internet accounts of seven year olds. Nevertheless, if it chooses to do so, not having school accounts won't stop it.
Well, evidently, they mine the metadata from cell phones of 7 year olds, so why not their internet accounts? Besides, how would the government know the account belonged to a 7 year old in the first place?
A bigger concern, however, would be whether these accounts are considered school records. If so, that could be a problem because in most states school records of minors are confidential. Putting them on a public server, might be problematic, particularly if there is a data breach or if Google mines the data.
CONTROVERSIAL : of, relating to, or arousing controversy
controversy : a discussion marked especially by the expression of opposing views : dispute
There is no implication of judgement in this definition. If you add something to the definition, or put words like wonderful in my mouth, that is your perception (problem),
Clearly we dispute as a result of controversy. Your perceived context is just wrong.
You are correct there is no judgement in that definition. However as soon as you add "I find it controversial that..." you have made a judgement statement. That is what the original poster said. The word controversial in and of it self is not a judgemental word. How it was used in the statement he made was. If you cannot realize that then there is no point discussing further.
Any technology that has been invented, eventually would have been (because we now know it's possible). While not a direct quote, it's what Edward Teller said more or less of the Hydrogen Bomb. That, and we would have been speaking Russian now had we (the US) not pursued the H-Bomb program.
That is true, but some technologies are much more readily apparent as to their misuse than others. Splitting the atom is a good example. It is hard to think of peaceful applications of such a technology (which is different from, say, nuclear power). In the past 40 years or so, science has focussed more and more on can we do such and such and ignored the question of should we be doing such and such.
However, we scientists can not hide behind the moral argument that we are only inventing technology it isn't up to us how it is used, any more than the Nazi solders could claim they were only following orders. Scientific discovery has the power for good and evil and to ignore the potential of evil, particularly if it far outweighs the good is either a sign of moral weakness or culpability.
This doesn't just apply to scientific research, but all forms of engineering and product development in our society. I am quite confident that we could put a 500hp engine in a vehicle the size of a Fiat 500. The capability is there, but should we do that? Such an overpowered vehicle would be a death trap and the only thing that keeps a manufacturer from doing so is the liability claims would outweigh the profits from such a vehicle. Auto manufacturers aren't allowed to hide behind we only build the car, its up to people how they use it (although gun manufactures do use that thought pattern). But, for scientific research, it is acceptable.
MIT developed a new way to track people inside buildings that the only really useful and practical application is for surveillance. There is nothing wrong with that, until they come out downplaying that use and trying to say how it will actually help make privacy even better (in the article). Knowing that is a losing battle, and evidently feeling ashamed of their discovery, they then fall back on the old we only invented it, it's not up to us how people use it.
If Snowden had released that the NSA was already doing this, people would be outraged. But then MIT isn't responsible for how the government uses the surveillance technology they develop. Maybe they should require all those MIT students to take some basic philosophy and ethics courses. It would be helpful if the brightest minds in the country could tell right from wrong and how to take responsibility for what they are doing.
If it was possible to "standardize curricula" based on "state of the art" educational principles in order to minimize "costs", it would have already have been done 50 years ago, not only across US states, but across countries and continents too.
If you come to think about it, the Sciences (Physics, Astronomy, Chemistry, Biology, Maths, Geology, etc) are universal. The only differentiating subjects are language and to an extent, history. So the globalization, standardization and "canning" of knowledge to teach in schools, even in universities, is feasible.
The first company that will patent and produce The Bible for such a globalized curriculum will become as rich as the Church. Pearson is one such candidate.
The sciences are not universal in the way you mean. They are continually changing. Back when I was working on my first degree (B.S. in Chemistry, minor in Physics) this new fangled thing called quantum mechanics was just coming about. Then it became string theory and now M-theory all within my adult lifetime (and I am not that old). Sciences change, and quite abruptly at times.
However, no company will be able to patent a globalized curriculum. Patents deal with processes. They may be able to patent a globalized curriculum delivery system, but the content in such a system would be copyrighted. Think of it like textbooks. Pearson doesn't patent their textbooks, but they copyright them. They will patent their software, but the content will be copyrighted. From a legal perspective, it would be prudent to separate the two, also. If it turned out that some of the content was not theirs and the content was part of the patent, it could invalidate the patent versus just being a copyright infringement.
By the way, if by Church, you mean the Catholic Church, it doesn't make money off the Bible. The English translation of the Catholic Bible (and other Catholic books/documents) is copyrighted by ICEL, which was a separate entity formed by Bishops in English speaking countries/territories, but it is separate from the Church, per say. Proceeds from the copyrights, go towards translating the Catholic Bible and other liturgical books for the Catholic Church's official Latin. ICEL was formed to keep each English country from having to do the translations for themselves. So, they are affiliated with the Catholic Church, but not actually part of it.
No, I am not. Context is everything. If you look at the examples in the dictionary and that I used, when referring to a subject, like abortion or politics, then controversial is how you are intending it. When used as the original person is using it as in questioning the action somebody might take, it is a judgement statement.
Words derive their meaning based on the context they are used in. When your teenage daughter slams down the phone and you ask how she is doing and she says "Fine," with a sigh, The definition found in the merriam-webster dictionary probably is not the meaning that would be first choice that comes to mind.
Likewise, when use an adjective in a context that is not the normal context it is found, there is usually an different meaning implied. When you tell your kids that you put the dog to sleep, if they look that word up in the dictionary, they will have a different idea than what actually transpired. If I hook up my trailer to my car, is definitely a different meaning than if I hook up with my friend.
Context is everything and the context that the original poster used the word controversial was not the usage from the merriam-webster dictionary, or if that was their intention, they phrased the rest of the sentence poorly so as to make it sound as if like a judgemental statement.
In short, we are left with two choices, either the original poster did make a judgemental statement, or the original poster has a poor grasp on English grammar and miscommunicated their original intention. Regardless, the statement as presented is still a judgemental statement, as least grammatically, as written.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course, the heart cannot exist by itself, so wouldn't you need to include the entire circulatory system in your analysis, in which case you do have multiple pumps (arteries) valves and fluid circuits. In addition the mere motion of the body helps blood flow return to the heart. Take the brain, why two artereries to supply it instead of only one? Obviously, two makes sense for certain redundancies, but in a non-intelligent design, one guided by mere chance, what would be the cause to split the arteriers into two? Or take the circle of willis, if one part gets plugged, the brain still gets its full blood supply. Now none of that proves that there is an intelligent designer, but even for a non-belieiver, the chances of all of that developing the way it did does seem pretty remarkable. One could argue survival of the fittest and these structures would indicate a better design so they lived on, but that would only have been beneficial in later years, after one's genetic seed had already been propigated, so the complex design we have today would not have provided an advantage during a time period where it would have made difference towards passing on one's genetic code, at least not compared to a simpler system.
Again, none of that proves the existence of a creator or intelligent design, but it does make one pause and marvel at the complexity of it all and the realization that without such a creator, the fact that we are all here at all are do to extremely tiny odds of all the right things happening at the right moments.
There are no demands for an industrial pump with such a low rate or the ability to last 120 years. If there were, perhaps someone would have made one by now.
Also, the heart is not unserviced. In fact they are continually serviced. I'm not sure the exact turn over, but at least over 10 years every cell in your heart is replaced.
Well then show me a self-repairing pump that doesn't need external maintenance. One that can get the materials it needs from it's surroundings without doing harm to those surroundings, all while not having to shut down for the maintenance to take place.
He might be an industrial pump designer. Those things can easily outlast a human heart.
True, but can you build one with only dirt as your starting point?
Can we please not randomly make stuff up?
There's nothing about the passport revocation procedure that requires the suspect be in the U.S. when revocation occurs.
I didn't make it up, I took it right off the document from the state department that was included in the post.
The complaint was "pollutes", so I'm not sure how you could interpret recycling to mean anything other than reusing the raw materials that compose the battery in order to avoid having dig more of them out of the ground, etc. Obviously recycling uses energy, but that's got very little to do with the traditional pollution of battery production. Now if recycling a battery produces as much pollution as making one from the scratch, that would be a counter point, but that isn't what you said.
And why do you think hydrogen is a better way of transporting energy than sending electricity through cables and then into batteries (since electric train style direct delivery doesn't seem practical so it needs to be stored in the vehicle at some point)? Because newer must be better than older no matter what?
Fuel cells are less efficient than batteries. If you are going to make hydrogen in a "renewable" fashion (i.e. not steam reforming) then the energy efficiency of that step is going to be significant as well. Of course there's the refueling time advantage - you can refuel a vehicle with hydrogen much faster than you can charge a battery - but you seem to be arguing purely from an energy efficiency point.
To recycle a battery so that it can be used again takes a lot of energy. Look at how much energy an alternator produces to recharge a car battery and that is one that hasn't been depleted. Recycling a battery so that its core can be used again in another battery requires a significant energy input. That energy comes from electricity, which comes from fossil fuel, so there is still pollution involved.
Hydrogen fuel cells still produce electricity. They do not, however produce CO2 or greenhouse gases and they do come from a readily renewable source. From the fuel cell to the motor, there will still be the same energy loss regardless as if from the battery to the motor. That is inherent in the wires themselves. I guess, if batteries were such a better deal, they wouldn't be using fuel cells in space. For some reason, they seem to feel that given all of the free solar energy up there, the fuel cell makes a better power source. One reason could be weight. Fuel cells produce more electricity per kg than do batteries. Since vehicle has to also transport the fuel cell or the batteries, that would be an advantage to a fuel cell.
You are correct though that there is no such thing as free energy, so converting it to stored energy in batteries or producing hydrogen for fuel cells is going to still result in less output than the energy put into the system. However, hydrogen fuel cells have other advantages over battery technology. OTOH, they have one major limitation shared by battery technology, there is no infrastructure. Until you can recharge your vehicle in a short period of time, whether battery or fuel cell, AND be able to travel long distances, neither technology is viable for the consumer. The problem with quick charge batteries is that it reduces useful life which cuts down on travel distances (which is also way too short with batteries). The problem with hydrogen is that, well, there are no hydrogen stations to even fuel at. At least with batteries you could plug in and charge for 8 hours.
My point was not that we should use fuel cells instead of batteries, though. It was that something new is needed besides batteries. I only used fuel cells as an example. As you rightly point out, they have their major obstacles, too. That is why research needs to be going into new technologies instead of trying to make current technologies work when the science shows they can't in the long run.
Do you also think that recycling plastic violates the laws of thermodynamics because you also don't get more energy out than you put in?
No, but then plastic isn't being touted as a renewable energy source as the Lithium Ion battery packs in electric cars were by the OP. Battery packs can not be recharged indefinitely nor can they just be recycled to make new batteries, at least not without using a lot of energy to reverse the processes that have taken place. It is basic thermodynamics and it doesn't matter the type of battery. You simply cannot keep recharging it indefinitely.
A further strike against battery powered cars is that even ignoring the eventual replacement of the batteries, energy has to be produced to charge the batteries. Production of that energy from renewable sources on a scale large enough to meet the demands of a totally electric vehicle fleet is not sustainable. There simply is not enough capacity with nuclear, wind, solar, etc. to meet the demand, and by the time more plants are built (using fossil fuel), hopefully, newer and better technologies than heavy, inefficient batteries will be developed.
That is why battery powered vehicles for the masses are a dead end. They still require fossil fuel to create the electricity to charge them, so they don't have a smaller CO2 footprint and there isn't the infrastructure to support them. If the US is going to build new infrastructure for new vehicles, they should be planning for technology of the future (maybe hydrogen), not the past, like batteries. It is all basic thermodynamics.
According to the Passport Fact Sheet published May 2012, (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/smart/pdfs/passport_fact_sheet.pdf) the US may revoke a passport if there is an arrest warrant (which there is) to keep an individual from departing the US, if there is a court order restricting the individual from leaving the US. Since Snowden was already outside the US, it would seem frivolous to issue a court order barring him from leaving the US and therefore, by the State Department's own regulations (laws), it appears revoking his passport was handled improperly and this could be seen as a human rights violation as he is effectively imprisoned without due process (without a passport he cannot enter Russia, either and is confined to the one area of the airport that is considered international space).
If Russia declines asylum, since Snowden is technically not in Russia, but in international space, any country could grant him political asylum, put him on a plane, private or otherwise and let him into their country as a political refugee (for which international law does not require a passport). The question is which country will be the one to do that?
The US better hope that nothing happens to him while he is stranded, too. It would be hard to convince the rest of the world that after not following the law on password revocations that we just didn't take him out.
Any encryption can be broken, you just need enough hardware and time. As to whether the NSA meets those requirements or not is open to debate.
Encryption algorithms may be secure, but how sure are you that your implementation is? Debian was generating entirely insecure SSL keys for a couple years before anyone noticed. Couldn't the NSA do something like that, but perhaps a bit more clever, and remain unnoticed?
But the point is that somebody did notice. Open source software enables a more thorough review (doesn't mean it will happen, though), since the actual source code is available. Closed source software means you can only monitor inputs and outputs, making the detection of a problem much more likely to go unnoticed.
Perhaps the NSA has engineered backdoors in our free software at some point
More likely in our hardware.
And if they haven't there is probably a large SE Asian country that has.
Fearmongering, yes.
But not impossible.
It's not so easy to make sure that a program is a correct implementation of a mathematical algorithm or of an open standard.
A subtle bug (purposeful or not) in a crypographic algorithm or protocol can be exploited.
Writing a bug is much easier than spotting it.
Many applications and OSes get security updates almost dayly. They certainly haven't found them all yet.
Perhaps the NSA has engineered backdoors in our free software at some point, but those vunerabilities have been patched already.
Mosty paranoia then....
Rick
While true, SELinux, for example, is studied in many universities by many computer science students. Students trying to work through how the code works, often trigger bugs that won't occur in real world examples. However, even these bugs get reported and fixed. It is likely that the NSA and other governments have inserted various backdoors in all sorts of software to gain access, open source and closed source. The difference is that at least with open source, there is the possibility of others finding it.
Then again, a big deterrent to the NSA doing something like that with open source software is that if the "bad guys" (whomever they may be) find it, they too can exploit it and use it against US interests. See, doors work both ways, and doors available to the public (ie open source software) can be exploited both ways. Now, take closed source software, that is where people should be paranoid, because it doesn't fall under the same scrutiny. While it is more difficult for just anybody to patch it, how difficult is it for the NSA or other agency to get an employee of theirs hired by a large IT company that makes operating systems or provides search engines,etc? Surely such an employee would pass a background check that uses government records to provide the information. Surely such an employee would have the skills the employer was looking for. And once hired, the employee would have access to all sorts of records, source code, etc. from the inside. Once you are on the inside, things are immeasurably easier. Just ask Snowden.
Opensource provides the major advantage that the codebase is available for all to see, so even if there were a mole in the programmer pool, it is possible for third party external review.
Not to mention that if the NSA put a back door in SELinux or other open source software, they would be exposing their "secret" methods to the public. How about this scenario:
NSA: Let's put some backdoors into SELinux.
BadGuys: Hey, the NSA helped develop SELinux, let's examine their code to figure out how their other algorithms work.
One advantage to open source software is that the source code is available for both the good guys and the bad guys to look at. If somebody plants something in the code, somebody else can find it. Closed software on the otherhand, who knows what is in the code.
Yes that's true. But it seems to be also true that the battery is quite recyclable. Thus, as we end up with more electric vehicles ending their life cycle the environmental costs of newer vehicles will be mitigated through the recycling of older electric cars.
They have found a way to regenerate Lithium Ion battery packs without using more energy than they get back! There should be a Noble Prize in that because it violates one of the laws of thermodynamics.
Number? Studies? Actual data? I keep hearing this kind of crap. The problem is every time a project I was on got associated with off shoring it ended up costing time and effort here to cover up the screw ups.
Again, present actual facts. I am sick and tired of the same old sound bites that just never seem to be true.
The original poster won't give you the data, because any data that exists doesn't support his/her point. Take the Snowden/NSA debacle. If Snowden were a government employee, he wouldn't be making $200,000/yr even with benefits. Now figure in the salaries of the his supervisors and the owners, etc., plus the profit being made by the company. A government network administrator would have made $60,000 add another 40% for benefits, brings the total to $84,000 or $116,000 less than what was actually being paid.
Outsourcing makes sense in some situations such as temporary positions or extremely technical positions, but the outsourcing of common jobs by the government doesn't meet these conditions and has nothing to do with cost savings but instead is the modern form of political patronage.
Here's a thought, suspend the H-1B visas and educate or retrain US citizens to take those jobs. Corporate America keeps exclaiming that the H-1B visa process is expensive and the only reason they go that route is that they can't find qualified US applicants. Well, use those funds to train your own employees. Then, when the US is at full employment (at whatever that rate really is), if more workers are needed, then bring them in.
A large percentage of college graduates are not gainfully employed in the fields they studied, including STEM. It is hard to argue, that we need to import more STEM workers when we can't even employ the recent graduates. But maybe it has to do with that new math, you know the kind where you can build wealth in America by creating jobs overseas and importing workers for the rest of the jobs here.
What was that called by Reagan? Trickle down economics, where the majority of the population trickles further down the system so the few at the top can accumulate the wealth. If it costs corporations too much to hire trained labor, then either train them yourself (as in the past), cut dividends and executive pay, or find a different line of work. After all, isn't that how economics is supposed to work?
Damn, for such a supposedly low level employee, Snowden sure seemed to be able to garner a lot of intel. Just think of the stuff that is going on that he couldn't get his hands on.
This has nothing to do with the banks and everything to do with the employers. Banks cannot force an employer to issue debit cards. No, employers do it because it saves them money. If you are angry about this, don't take it out on the banks, blame your employer. They don't want to pay the ACH fee to direct deposit your check each month, so they have sought a cheaper, for them, alternative. Banks like this scheme because they collect a fee everythime the debit card is used, plus, any left over balance after a period of time is defaulted. So, since a bank will make more from a debit card paycheck than an ACH transaction, they will gladly make the switch and not charge your employer or charge very little to your employer. But ultimately, it is still your employer making the decision.
So people should quit blaming banks about this. The banks are just a means to an end. It is the employer that is behind this. I'm curious if the CEO of the business gets paid this way or is it just the rank and file employees?
The only thing that certification certifies is that the vendor tossed some cash at MS.
That may be the practice, but the legality of the situation is that Microsoft has actually certified the hardware.
Whether or not Microsoft exercises due diligence on their part in certifying hardware does not change the fact that Microsoft actually did certify the hardware, so if it doesn't work, it is Microsoft's problem to fix.
It's not an either or situation. If you have a disabled child, you are not denying a healthy child.
Oh, but it is, and you are.
Most people will only have a set number of children in their lifetime. For the majority in the western world, that's somewhere between 1 and 3. If you have one disabled child, and you were only planning on having 2 kids, you're unlikely to now change your mind and have 3.
Additionally, depending on the exact medical condition, a deformed child may impede your ability to have further children. You may have been planning on having 2 kids, but due to the added attention and cost associated with a handicapped child, you find yourself unable to afford any further children. So instead of 2 healthy children, you end up with one who is disabled.
Either way it doesn't seem like a good trade, to me.
As you seem to be arguing so strenuously, it is a very personal issue that unless you are directly involved with it you cannot begin to make that choice for somebody else.
The decision to become a heroin addict is a deeply personal one also, yet we seem to have no difficulty legislating against it. Even if you could successfully argue that "personal issues" should not be legislated, that still doesn't mean we can't do ANYTHING about it. At the very least we can make sure that people are educated on the issue, and are given the information and advice needed to make the right decision.
Well, if you are willing to take on the establishment and tell 1/2 the population (women) that it isn't their body and it is the government that is control of their reproductive systems and whether or not they are allowed to have children then go for it. Effectively, that is what you are saying. Just like China has determined that women should only have 1 child, you are saying that the government should dictate that women should only have children that meet certain requirements. I doubt you will find much support for that position.
There is a real issue here. Minors cannot enter into contracts in most states, so they cannot technically agree to the TOS for Google. The school is requiring the minors to use the accounts as part of the enrollment. That in and of itself is not a problem, but in most states, school records are confidential and these accounts are a type of school record. Therefore, if Google or anyone else does mine the data, then the school is in violation of state statutes and could be held liable. Now, it is quite possible that the agreement entered into between Google and the school has safeguards to protect against this, after all, their for pay business accounts have those protections.
For the record, many colleges and universities also use these accounts for their student mail, but there the students are not minors and can enter into the agreement. But grade school kids, cannot.
I seriously doubt the government mines the Internet accounts of seven year olds. Nevertheless, if it chooses to do so, not having school accounts won't stop it.
Well, evidently, they mine the metadata from cell phones of 7 year olds, so why not their internet accounts? Besides, how would the government know the account belonged to a 7 year old in the first place?
A bigger concern, however, would be whether these accounts are considered school records. If so, that could be a problem because in most states school records of minors are confidential. Putting them on a public server, might be problematic, particularly if there is a data breach or if Google mines the data.
CONTROVERSIAL : of, relating to, or arousing controversy
controversy : a discussion marked especially by the expression of opposing views : dispute
There is no implication of judgement in this definition. If you add something to the definition, or put words like wonderful in my mouth, that is your perception (problem),
Clearly we dispute as a result of controversy. Your perceived context is just wrong.
You are correct there is no judgement in that definition. However as soon as you add "I find it controversial that ..." you have made a judgement statement. That is what the original poster said. The word controversial in and of it self is not a judgemental word. How it was used in the statement he made was. If you cannot realize that then there is no point discussing further.
Any technology that has been invented, eventually would have been (because we now know it's possible). While not a direct quote, it's what Edward Teller said more or less of the Hydrogen Bomb. That, and we would have been speaking Russian now had we (the US) not pursued the H-Bomb program.
That is true, but some technologies are much more readily apparent as to their misuse than others. Splitting the atom is a good example. It is hard to think of peaceful applications of such a technology (which is different from, say, nuclear power). In the past 40 years or so, science has focussed more and more on can we do such and such and ignored the question of should we be doing such and such.
However, we scientists can not hide behind the moral argument that we are only inventing technology it isn't up to us how it is used, any more than the Nazi solders could claim they were only following orders. Scientific discovery has the power for good and evil and to ignore the potential of evil, particularly if it far outweighs the good is either a sign of moral weakness or culpability.
This doesn't just apply to scientific research, but all forms of engineering and product development in our society. I am quite confident that we could put a 500hp engine in a vehicle the size of a Fiat 500. The capability is there, but should we do that? Such an overpowered vehicle would be a death trap and the only thing that keeps a manufacturer from doing so is the liability claims would outweigh the profits from such a vehicle. Auto manufacturers aren't allowed to hide behind we only build the car, its up to people how they use it (although gun manufactures do use that thought pattern). But, for scientific research, it is acceptable.
MIT developed a new way to track people inside buildings that the only really useful and practical application is for surveillance. There is nothing wrong with that, until they come out downplaying that use and trying to say how it will actually help make privacy even better (in the article). Knowing that is a losing battle, and evidently feeling ashamed of their discovery, they then fall back on the old we only invented it, it's not up to us how people use it.
If Snowden had released that the NSA was already doing this, people would be outraged. But then MIT isn't responsible for how the government uses the surveillance technology they develop. Maybe they should require all those MIT students to take some basic philosophy and ethics courses. It would be helpful if the brightest minds in the country could tell right from wrong and how to take responsibility for what they are doing.
If it was possible to "standardize curricula" based on "state of the art" educational principles in order to minimize "costs", it would have already have been done 50 years ago, not only across US states, but across countries and continents too.
If you come to think about it, the Sciences (Physics, Astronomy, Chemistry, Biology, Maths, Geology, etc) are universal. The only differentiating subjects are language and to an extent, history. So the globalization, standardization and "canning" of knowledge to teach in schools, even in universities, is feasible.
The first company that will patent and produce The Bible for such a globalized curriculum will become as rich as the Church. Pearson is one such candidate.
The sciences are not universal in the way you mean. They are continually changing. Back when I was working on my first degree (B.S. in Chemistry, minor in Physics) this new fangled thing called quantum mechanics was just coming about. Then it became string theory and now M-theory all within my adult lifetime (and I am not that old). Sciences change, and quite abruptly at times.
However, no company will be able to patent a globalized curriculum. Patents deal with processes. They may be able to patent a globalized curriculum delivery system, but the content in such a system would be copyrighted. Think of it like textbooks. Pearson doesn't patent their textbooks, but they copyright them. They will patent their software, but the content will be copyrighted. From a legal perspective, it would be prudent to separate the two, also. If it turned out that some of the content was not theirs and the content was part of the patent, it could invalidate the patent versus just being a copyright infringement.
By the way, if by Church, you mean the Catholic Church, it doesn't make money off the Bible. The English translation of the Catholic Bible (and other Catholic books/documents) is copyrighted by ICEL, which was a separate entity formed by Bishops in English speaking countries/territories, but it is separate from the Church, per say. Proceeds from the copyrights, go towards translating the Catholic Bible and other liturgical books for the Catholic Church's official Latin. ICEL was formed to keep each English country from having to do the translations for themselves. So, they are affiliated with the Catholic Church, but not actually part of it.
Dude you are so wrong.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/controversial
No, I am not. Context is everything. If you look at the examples in the dictionary and that I used, when referring to a subject, like abortion or politics, then controversial is how you are intending it. When used as the original person is using it as in questioning the action somebody might take, it is a judgement statement.
Words derive their meaning based on the context they are used in. When your teenage daughter slams down the phone and you ask how she is doing and she says "Fine," with a sigh, The definition found in the merriam-webster dictionary probably is not the meaning that would be first choice that comes to mind.
Likewise, when use an adjective in a context that is not the normal context it is found, there is usually an different meaning implied. When you tell your kids that you put the dog to sleep, if they look that word up in the dictionary, they will have a different idea than what actually transpired. If I hook up my trailer to my car, is definitely a different meaning than if I hook up with my friend.
Context is everything and the context that the original poster used the word controversial was not the usage from the merriam-webster dictionary, or if that was their intention, they phrased the rest of the sentence poorly so as to make it sound as if like a judgemental statement.
In short, we are left with two choices, either the original poster did make a judgemental statement, or the original poster has a poor grasp on English grammar and miscommunicated their original intention. Regardless, the statement as presented is still a judgemental statement, as least grammatically, as written.