The odds of an asteroid damaging Europe are so much lower than many other preventable crises that the entire sham is transparent. The odds of AIDS killing millions is much higher, and more preventable. The odds of climate change killing millions are also much higher.
There's still much to be learned about how likely an impact is. We don't know how many near Earth objects (NEOs) there are. We are especially uncertain about the number of smaller NEOs, because they are hardest to detect.
The smaller but still deadly NEOs (around 500-1000m in diameter) are harder to find than huge asteroids, but also much easier to divert. That sounds to me like a good reason to spend some effort on better detection and defence.
Nor is this limited to European interests. According to the British Near Earth Object Task Force a 1km asteroid would be sufficient to cause global climate change. It's true that the risk of such a collision is low, but that has to be multiplied by the potential of many millions of immediate casualties, followed by millions more who could die due to the after effects of an impact.
I'm not American, so I don't know these Best Buy stores, but their extreme pushiness over the PSP is pretty clear from all the posts on this thread. Sounds really bad. Sounds like they price the products so low they only make profit on the PSP.
That guy should definately be sacked for pushing you. But still, you shouldn't have sworn at them. Sounds like a sorry tale of escalation - started by them, but contributed to by you too.
You're right. A similar story happened to my uncle in an electronics store here in the UK. The guys were pushing this insurance and insisted that he could get a refund on the insurance cost if his TV didn't break. He looked over the contract and saw nothing of any refund, but they told him "it's OK, it's just not written down, but you can get the refund". They offer a "cooling off" period where you can change your mind about the insurance, so he bought it...as soon as he got back to his car he calls the insurance people. There's no refund at the end of the insurance cover. So he goes back into the store and tells the guys to refund his money. He also complained because the guys blatantly and repeatedly lied to him. Just like in Best Buy, the managers couldn't see anything wrong. The guy who sold him the insurance eventually wandered over and asked what was wrong. My uncle said that there was no refund and he didn't appreciate being lied to, so he was getting his money back right away. The guy blinked, and then said "But it's very good insurance!"
My uncle later complained to the regional bosses of the store, threatening to complain to the regulators about mis-selling of insurance. I don't know if they have replied yet, but I am looking forward to seeing what they offer to placate him.
You are totally right about swearing. Never swear, shout, or do anything aggressive. If you do, they will make the whole incident about your behaviour and will use it as a cover for their own misdeeds. Don't let them do that! Just think of the sweet, sweet justice of these lying bastards getting fired, take a deep breath, and complain calmly to their boss.
My problem with this is that it didn't ask me to autheticate IE, or other MSFT services. While I agree that this is better for Joe User, and does indeed make the average computer *somewhat* less vulnerable to becoming zombies [grc.com] I actually think that overall it compromises security, because it has the idea of "pre-trusted" programs.
It does, but you can choose to disable that at install time and enable everything yourself. I think it's a good feature for people who don't know what they're doing, because otherwise they will get used to seeing the authorisation window for every innocent program and will start giving permission without really thinking about it. My brother gave MSBlaster Internet Access this way...if permission popups were a less frequent occurence, he might have been more suspicious.
Aren't you nice? It just so happens that I was standing next to a young Indian woman as the news was on CNN. (The place of business is a Financial Institute, so we actually have a TV.) She confirmed that it was indeed a big step for India, so I'm not exactly pulling this out of my rear.
Maybe the big step forward was getting rid of the hardcore nationalist BJP, rather than electing a party led by a woman.
If america wants to have greater freedom and security they should invest in offshoring drilling. If billions of american dollars doesn't go to the middle east then families like the bin ladens wouldn't have the billions for their son to exort them.
That doesn't seem to be the case. This article on Slate argues that we are unlikely to achieve "energy independence" from the Middle East, and even if we do, OPEC will have plenty of new custom from China and other emerging economies.
OK, analogy #2 -- MegaCinemaCorp has you and your friends
arrested for sneaking into the movies without paying, aka
'theater-sharing'.
Sneaking into a movie-theatre imposes non-trivial costs on the theater: extra cleaning, wear on the carpets, cost of making sure that people with tickets don't have their seats taken, stuff like that. Also, as someone has said already, the theater is private property and the owners get to say who visits.
I don't agree with filesharing, but I don't think this analogy works.
(c) use a context based triggering mechanism to display an advertisement that partially or wholly covers or obscures paid advertising or other content on an Internet website in a way that
interferes with a user's ability to view the Internet website.
Nothing about consent in there. IANAL, but it seems like they can't "obscure" web pages even if you are crazy enough to want them to. That seems to me a step too far (the stuff about no spyware without proper consent is great).
Also, as far as missiles are concerned, that's a phantom threat. Terrorists are not going to build or buy missiles to fire at the us, it is just not an efficient way of going about things. Why spend millions of dollars of hardware to deliver a bomb from the other side of the planet, when you can just as well send one guy with a backpack to do the exact same thing?
You're right that no terrorist will have the resources to launch an ICBM. I was thinking more of a short range missile, launched from an isolated spot in the US countryside near a high value target that couldn't be reached by a suicide bomber.
The guy from New Zealand that I mentioned in my earlier post claimed he could make a guided missile for $5,000. That's certainly within Bin Laden's price range. I agree that it's not the most likely avenue of attack, but why take the risk.
You really think having the ability to "shut off" GPS would help, if the DIYCM was say 15 feet long (as opposed to the size of a 757), or if it was flying at say GL+50 instead of 20,000ft? I doubt they would even see them on radar, let alone react fast enough to prevent anything. Plus, how many people would you have to notify of a shut down to avoid serious issues (like positioning of an oil well in the gulf of mexico, tracking nuclear waste shipments, etc). There is no way you could just hit the "jam" button, the airforce alone would probably crash 15 aircraft on tanking missions with a no warning shut down.
All good points. Could the GPS signal be jammed locally? Would it be possible to broadcast fake signals that could divert a missile? If jamming the GPS signal was really useless, why are the US military so keen to be able to do it?
I had imagined that the military would broadcast a jamming or false data signal over some small vicinity, such as a nuclear power plant, just enough to put a missile wide. I don't know how you'd go about activating it in time to help.
Galileo used frequencies which were interleaved with the US military use of gps, meaning that the US couldn't jam galileo without jamming gps for their military at the same time. The US was adamant that this was unacceptable, that they wouldn't be able to disable galileo whenever they wanted, so the EU backed down, and promised to use frequencies which are more easily jammed.
I know that Europe doesn't want to depend on the US system and that's fine. The US could conceivably block European access to the system, and not just in the event of an (extremely unlikely) EU-USA war. If the EU got into a war that the US disapproved of, the US could withhold GPS services, just like the British have sometimes denied America the use of airbases to help the Israelis. It's good for Europe to have its own system, and not just for the military.
That said, I would sleep better at night knowing that the US military could jam a DIY cruise missile should the need arise.
Police ain't here to protect you, except in limited circumstances.
How right you are:
"A publicly maintained police force constitutes a basic governmental service provided to benefit the community at large by promoting public peace, safety and good order. The extent and quality of police protection afforded to the community necessarily depends upon the availability of public resources and upon legislative or administrative determinations concerning allocation of those resources. Riss v. City of New York, supra. The public, through its representative officials, recruits, trains, maintains and disciplines its police force and determines the manner in which personnel are deployed. At any given time, publicly furnished police protection may accrue to the personal benefit of individual citizens, but at all times the needs and interests of the community at large predominate. Private resources and needs have little direct effect upon the nature of police services provided to the public. Accordingly, courts have without exception concluded that when a municipality or other governmental entity undertakes to furnish police services, it assumes a duty only to the public at large and not to individual members of the community."
From Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C.App. 1981). Emphasis is my own. Full text of the court decision here.
Unless you actually read a book or watched Discovery channel in the past 20 years. I've seen that on there tons of times. And I read a story about it in high school which was almost 6 years ago. Maybe little known if you only know a little?
Exactly. The fact that hardly anyone knows about it says more about the ignorance of the American population than about the evils of censorship.
This reminds me of a recent survey of English schoolkids that found most were ignorant of D-Day. Perhaps the guys at Slate think that's because of government censorship too.
I think censorship is almost always bad, but this article seems like a weak case against it.
although, on a certain level, it was a dispute over whether the Union was inviolable or whether states could exit from the "contract" that they'd entered into. but this wouldn't have ever been an issue without slavery.
It was an issue before that, as shown by the Nullification Crisis of 1832, where the Carolina government refused to pay some federal taxes. President Jackson threatened force, and Carolina backed down.
The nullification crisis ended peacefully because SC acted alone, Jackson made a credible threat of force, and a compromise was found that allowed both sides to save face. Slavery became such a divisive issue that opinion was polarised, and moderates were drowned out by abolitionist and secessionist rhetoric. The issue also bonded the secessionist states together, making them far harder to intimidate. So in that sense it is fair to say that slavery caused the Civil War. The clash between state and federal sovereignty was bound to happen eventually, but maybe the dispute could have been resolved peacefully if some other issue had led to the confrontation.
Hey, how about actually doing your civic duty? I wouldn't want to be the defendant in this case
When you do jury duty you spend a lot of time outside the courtroom, mostly waiting to be selected for a jury. Also the judge may clear the jury to hear arguments over what the jury is allowed to be told.
I don't think he was reading the book in the jury box! I doubt you could get away with that in court, even if you had a pair of fake glasses that made it look like you were paying attention (Simpsons fans know what I mean).
Middle America thinks free trade is fair when America's gaining from it, but as soon as America's deal isn't so sweet, fair trade is something to be condemned.
I think you mean "Middle ${western_country} thinks free trade is fair when ${western_country}'s gaining from it, but as soon as ${western_country}'s deal isn't so sweet, fair trade is something to be condemned."
The US is not the only country in the world practising protectionism while preaching free trade. Trade unions in the UK are also complaining about jobs going to India. And farmers all over Europe are heavily subsisided while Africans are finding it hard to sell their crops.
Not, I think, provided the blade is less than 3 inches in length - and the blade of my Swiss Army Knife is 2.5 inches.
From section 139 of the UK Criminal Justice Act:
139.--(1)Subject to subsections (4) and (5) below, any person who has an article to which this section applies with him in a public place shall be guilty of an offence.
(2)Subject to subsection (3) below, this section applies to any article which has a blade or is sharply pointed except a folding pocketknife.
(3)This section applies to a folding pocketknife if the cutting edge of its blade exceeds 3 inches.
Swiss Army knives (at least the ones I have seen) have a locking mechanism, therefore they are not "folding pocketknives". This has been tested in the appeal courts.
Amazing how much we hear about the US trouncing civil liberties from people on that side of the pond, when they refuse to look around and realize they have NO rights left!!
Europe? New South Wales is in Australia. Knife carrying is also illegal in Britain unless you have a good reason to have one. I'm not sure what the law is in other European states, but AFAIK Britain is one of the toughest.
It works because the planet you slingshot around is moving. NASA has a page talking about it in quite some detail.
Energy and momentum are conserved. A slingshot slows down the planet by a tiny bit (just like you move the Earth when you jump in the air). The speed at which you leave the planet isn't any faster relative to the planet, but since the planet itself is moving, your speed relative to what you're aiming at can be increased.
Yeah, sure, these chairs came to symbolise the greed of the Dotom Bubble, and they may be "dumb and popular", but there's no denying one thing: they are comfortable. Ask anyone who's ever sat in one, and they will agree. Definitely not worth the $750 per chair that my company paid for them at the time, but they are very comfortable.
Wow, I used to have one of those chairs when I worked for the government. I didn't know that they were so expensive. They sure are nice, though. I wish I had one right now. Hey...
If a big crunch doesn't end the universe, then heat death will. Eventually the universe will reach a state of maximum entropy, and nothing interesting will happen.
Before it gets to that stage, stars will become a rare occurance. The chain of star birth and death results in smaller stars, and once stars get small enough they become like our Sun -- too small to undergo the explosive death that would provide enough mass for future stars. Eventually there won't be enough clouds of hydrogen massive enough to start nuclear fusion.
Given enough time, current theories suggest that the universe seems to be screwed either way.
I am not an astrophysist, but does the phrase, "will be first used to study black holes in distant quasars" have any meaning at all?
Working from memory of my astrophysics classes...
Quasars are bright objects that are much larger than stars (a few light-days across) and are observed in the distant universe (that is to say, they existed in the distant past and the light from them is just reaching us now).
There is a theory that the quasars are a type of active galactic nucleus, powered by black holes. Matter falling into these black holes would be accelerated to enormous speeds and superheated, producing lots of radiation. Plenty of this radiation would be given off before the matter got so close to the black hole that the light could no longer escape.
This theory, if true, could account for the brightness of these objects. It's thought that a giant black hole sits at the centre of many galaxies (including our own), but in older galaxies the centre is not bright like a quasar because the black hole has already gobbled up most of the mass close to the centre of the galaxy. We see some galaxies that have active nuclei but aren't as bright as quasars, but they might just be quasars viewed from a different angle.
Maybe this therapy could be used to combat muscle wastage on long space journeys. It would have to be accompanied by something to stop the bones breaking down, though, or the landing on Mars could be very painful.
Slashdot Mirror
There's still much to be learned about how likely an impact is. We don't know how many near Earth objects (NEOs) there are. We are especially uncertain about the number of smaller NEOs, because they are hardest to detect.
The smaller but still deadly NEOs (around 500-1000m in diameter) are harder to find than huge asteroids, but also much easier to divert. That sounds to me like a good reason to spend some effort on better detection and defence.
Nor is this limited to European interests. According to the British Near Earth Object Task Force a 1km asteroid would be sufficient to cause global climate change. It's true that the risk of such a collision is low, but that has to be multiplied by the potential of many millions of immediate casualties, followed by millions more who could die due to the after effects of an impact.
That guy should definately be sacked for pushing you. But still, you shouldn't have sworn at them. Sounds like a sorry tale of escalation - started by them, but contributed to by you too.
You're right. A similar story happened to my uncle in an electronics store here in the UK. The guys were pushing this insurance and insisted that he could get a refund on the insurance cost if his TV didn't break. He looked over the contract and saw nothing of any refund, but they told him "it's OK, it's just not written down, but you can get the refund". They offer a "cooling off" period where you can change your mind about the insurance, so he bought it...as soon as he got back to his car he calls the insurance people. There's no refund at the end of the insurance cover. So he goes back into the store and tells the guys to refund his money. He also complained because the guys blatantly and repeatedly lied to him. Just like in Best Buy, the managers couldn't see anything wrong. The guy who sold him the insurance eventually wandered over and asked what was wrong. My uncle said that there was no refund and he didn't appreciate being lied to, so he was getting his money back right away. The guy blinked, and then said "But it's very good insurance!"
My uncle later complained to the regional bosses of the store, threatening to complain to the regulators about mis-selling of insurance. I don't know if they have replied yet, but I am looking forward to seeing what they offer to placate him.
You are totally right about swearing. Never swear, shout, or do anything aggressive. If you do, they will make the whole incident about your behaviour and will use it as a cover for their own misdeeds. Don't let them do that! Just think of the sweet, sweet justice of these lying bastards getting fired, take a deep breath, and complain calmly to their boss.
It does, but you can choose to disable that at install time and enable everything yourself. I think it's a good feature for people who don't know what they're doing, because otherwise they will get used to seeing the authorisation window for every innocent program and will start giving permission without really thinking about it. My brother gave MSBlaster Internet Access this way...if permission popups were a less frequent occurence, he might have been more suspicious.
Maybe the big step forward was getting rid of the hardcore nationalist BJP, rather than electing a party led by a woman.
No wonder we're a nation of fatasses.
This should not be modded insightful (maybe funny). Hypertrophy cardiomyopathy does not generally cause heart attacks the first time you exercise.
That doesn't seem to be the case. This article on Slate argues that we are unlikely to achieve "energy independence" from the Middle East, and even if we do, OPEC will have plenty of new custom from China and other emerging economies.
Undefined != infinite.
Sneaking into a movie-theatre imposes non-trivial costs on the theater: extra cleaning, wear on the carpets, cost of making sure that people with tickets don't have their seats taken, stuff like that. Also, as someone has said already, the theater is private property and the owners get to say who visits.
I don't agree with filesharing, but I don't think this analogy works.
Do we know which parts of the law they are challenging?
Take a look at part 2:
(1) A person may not:
...
(c) use a context based triggering mechanism to display an advertisement that partially or wholly covers or obscures paid advertising or other content on an Internet website in a way that interferes with a user's ability to view the Internet website.
Nothing about consent in there. IANAL, but it seems like they can't "obscure" web pages even if you are crazy enough to want them to. That seems to me a step too far (the stuff about no spyware without proper consent is great).
You're right that no terrorist will have the resources to launch an ICBM. I was thinking more of a short range missile, launched from an isolated spot in the US countryside near a high value target that couldn't be reached by a suicide bomber.
The guy from New Zealand that I mentioned in my earlier post claimed he could make a guided missile for $5,000. That's certainly within Bin Laden's price range. I agree that it's not the most likely avenue of attack, but why take the risk.
All good points. Could the GPS signal be jammed locally? Would it be possible to broadcast fake signals that could divert a missile? If jamming the GPS signal was really useless, why are the US military so keen to be able to do it?
I had imagined that the military would broadcast a jamming or false data signal over some small vicinity, such as a nuclear power plant, just enough to put a missile wide. I don't know how you'd go about activating it in time to help.
I know that Europe doesn't want to depend on the US system and that's fine. The US could conceivably block European access to the system, and not just in the event of an (extremely unlikely) EU-USA war. If the EU got into a war that the US disapproved of, the US could withhold GPS services, just like the British have sometimes denied America the use of airbases to help the Israelis. It's good for Europe to have its own system, and not just for the military.
That said, I would sleep better at night knowing that the US military could jam a DIY cruise missile should the need arise.
How right you are:
"A publicly maintained police force constitutes a basic governmental service provided to benefit the community at large by promoting public peace, safety and good order. The extent and quality of police protection afforded to the community necessarily depends upon the availability of public resources and upon legislative or administrative determinations concerning allocation of those resources. Riss v. City of New York, supra. The public, through its representative officials, recruits, trains, maintains and disciplines its police force and determines the manner in which personnel are deployed. At any given time, publicly furnished police protection may accrue to the personal benefit of individual citizens, but at all times the needs and interests of the community at large predominate. Private resources and needs have little direct effect upon the nature of police services provided to the public. Accordingly, courts have without exception concluded that when a municipality or other governmental entity undertakes to furnish police services, it assumes a duty only to the public at large and not to individual members of the community." From Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C.App. 1981). Emphasis is my own. Full text of the court decision here.
Exactly. The fact that hardly anyone knows about it says more about the ignorance of the American population than about the evils of censorship.
This reminds me of a recent survey of English schoolkids that found most were ignorant of D-Day. Perhaps the guys at Slate think that's because of government censorship too.
I think censorship is almost always bad, but this article seems like a weak case against it.
It was an issue before that, as shown by the Nullification Crisis of 1832, where the Carolina government refused to pay some federal taxes. President Jackson threatened force, and Carolina backed down.
The nullification crisis ended peacefully because SC acted alone, Jackson made a credible threat of force, and a compromise was found that allowed both sides to save face. Slavery became such a divisive issue that opinion was polarised, and moderates were drowned out by abolitionist and secessionist rhetoric. The issue also bonded the secessionist states together, making them far harder to intimidate. So in that sense it is fair to say that slavery caused the Civil War. The clash between state and federal sovereignty was bound to happen eventually, but maybe the dispute could have been resolved peacefully if some other issue had led to the confrontation.
When you do jury duty you spend a lot of time outside the courtroom, mostly waiting to be selected for a jury. Also the judge may clear the jury to hear arguments over what the jury is allowed to be told.
I don't think he was reading the book in the jury box! I doubt you could get away with that in court, even if you had a pair of fake glasses that made it look like you were paying attention (Simpsons fans know what I mean).
I think you mean "Middle ${western_country} thinks free trade is fair when ${western_country}'s gaining from it, but as soon as ${western_country}'s deal isn't so sweet, fair trade is something to be condemned."
The US is not the only country in the world practising protectionism while preaching free trade. Trade unions in the UK are also complaining about jobs going to India. And farmers all over Europe are heavily subsisided while Africans are finding it hard to sell their crops.
From section 139 of the UK Criminal Justice Act:
139.--(1)Subject to subsections (4) and (5) below, any person who has an article to which this section applies with him in a public place shall be guilty of an offence.
(2)Subject to subsection (3) below, this section applies to any article which has a blade or is sharply pointed except a folding pocketknife.
(3)This section applies to a folding pocketknife if the cutting edge of its blade exceeds 3 inches.
Swiss Army knives (at least the ones I have seen) have a locking mechanism, therefore they are not "folding pocketknives". This has been tested in the appeal courts.
Europe? New South Wales is in Australia. Knife carrying is also illegal in Britain unless you have a good reason to have one. I'm not sure what the law is in other European states, but AFAIK Britain is one of the toughest.
I don't remember that Transformer...
The Autobots didn't do it! It is part of Megatron's Master Plan!
Now we'll see how many people remember that episode...
Energy and momentum are conserved. A slingshot slows down the planet by a tiny bit (just like you move the Earth when you jump in the air). The speed at which you leave the planet isn't any faster relative to the planet, but since the planet itself is moving, your speed relative to what you're aiming at can be increased.
Wow, I used to have one of those chairs when I worked for the government. I didn't know that they were so expensive. They sure are nice, though. I wish I had one right now. Hey...
Before it gets to that stage, stars will become a rare occurance. The chain of star birth and death results in smaller stars, and once stars get small enough they become like our Sun -- too small to undergo the explosive death that would provide enough mass for future stars. Eventually there won't be enough clouds of hydrogen massive enough to start nuclear fusion.
Given enough time, current theories suggest that the universe seems to be screwed either way.
Quasars are bright objects that are much larger than stars (a few light-days across) and are observed in the distant universe (that is to say, they existed in the distant past and the light from them is just reaching us now).
There is a theory that the quasars are a type of active galactic nucleus, powered by black holes. Matter falling into these black holes would be accelerated to enormous speeds and superheated, producing lots of radiation. Plenty of this radiation would be given off before the matter got so close to the black hole that the light could no longer escape.
This theory, if true, could account for the brightness of these objects. It's thought that a giant black hole sits at the centre of many galaxies (including our own), but in older galaxies the centre is not bright like a quasar because the black hole has already gobbled up most of the mass close to the centre of the galaxy. We see some galaxies that have active nuclei but aren't as bright as quasars, but they might just be quasars viewed from a different angle.
Maybe this therapy could be used to combat muscle wastage on long space journeys. It would have to be accompanied by something to stop the bones breaking down, though, or the landing on Mars could be very painful.