The problem is that the last two WIPO treaties require DMCA style laws. Pretty much any country that doesn't implement those will end up being passed over in other crap that the international community does. It will hurt trade and cause financial issues.
The American DMCA provisions are more or less taken straight from the requirements of the WIPO Copyright Treaty or WTC and the WPPT or WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty with the exception of penalties and a few extremes. Canada signed onto both of the treaties on 12/22/1997. Focusing on the media companies will only result in disappointed losses in the fight. You need to get the government (your local government as well as other country's governments) to change the treaties and international obligations to them to reflect the will of your people.
You or I or anyone can complain about Disney or Warner bros or whatever. They are as powerful as they are in this fight because they are attempting to get the governments of countries to make good on treaties that almost all countries in the world have signed an obligation to. It's the reason that the pirate bay just got into trouble, it's the reason why their laws are being changed and why charges were being brought against a group of people on the behalf of people and corporations that most likely don't even have offices in the country.
Sure, keep believing media corps are evil. I'm not asking you or anyone else to embrace them. I'm asking people to actually pay attention to where this crap is coming from so that we don't dick around with seemingly related issues that end up being a dead end. The treaties need to be adjusted-changes-destroyed-whatever before this threat goes away. When I can say Canada or any other country has to pass a law because a treaty they signed obligated them to, no matter how much it looks like I am the bad guy, I'm more or less only reminding those countries of their obligations.
It would be fun to form a mass co-op type business, pool everyone's cash and buy up as many band contracts as possible just to keep them off the major labels.
While it would be fun, that's all it would be "for fun". Or at least until the right crap was changed out. Even if "big media" had no clients, they could/would still push for the treaties to be implemented.
One antenna, one missile... six antennas, six missiles. Problem solved.
I don't think you understand the concept I'm speaking of. If the missile is targeting the radio waves, shifting the signal from one antenna to another in bursts would spread the targeting out beyond the missiles capabilities. Even if the missile locks onto the target and remains on course regardless of the position of the signal, you can alternate antennas quick enough or bounce them off of natural formations and basically either evade the missile lock or direct it to a non-volatile location.
With our technology today, you only need to transmit for a short period of time for us to accurately locate you. Even if you shut it down we can locate and destroy it.
This is true to a limit. The limit may be the length of time it takes to determine where the signal is and if something like harmonic wave distortion is paralleled among the antennas. In that situation, your basically using a spread spectum disruption technique that causes the signals to interact with each others and create an entirely different frequency and tone. This would give the impression of a noise coming from the center of a room that was A: not actually made and B: created by speakers in the corners or even outside the room. Think of it as similar to how they make 3d spacial references in 2 speaker headphones digitally.
During the height of Iraqi Freedom we were destroying GPS jammers with GPS guided bombs. While it is easy to jam the civilian side of GPS it is not as easy to jam the military side. Believe it or not, we actually do have engineers that can design around known jamming techniques.
Sure we were. But we were going against outdated and underfunded technology sold to Iraq from by a country that stopped racing against our armaments a decade before. There is a big difference between going up against something we know about and something that's just being introduced.
Sound waves and radio wave behave similar in how they move through the air. Radio waves have some advantages to sound but think about some of the stuff being done with sound. In a 5.1 sound environment, you can make a crash that sounds like it happened in front of you, behind you, two feet from you, two inches from your or two miles from you and it can all happen when the speakers of fifteen feet from you. This happens from dividing the sound waves between the speakers, relying on the distortion caused from the sound waves hitting each other and the perception of the instruments picking up the noise. Now in the case of sound, it would be your ears. In the case of radio waves, it would be the missiles or spy plane flying around miles away.
Anyways, I'm not sure that there is anything stopping the appearance of the radio wave from emitting in another location then they actually are. It may be more difficult when you start looking at the power requirements needed to jam all communications but the concept is clearly the same. In Iraqi freedom, we also benefited from the guidance systems that can operate independent of the GPS. They program maps into the missiles, take readings of the position as close as they can, then operate on visual data and traditional navigation systems like digital gyroscopes, radar, speed detectors and so on to get that last mile.
Most missiles, GPS, laser, radio, or however guided, don't use those systems in the final event. Take cruise missiles for instance. It used GPS to get withing visual range of the target then uses optics to take a picture, then compares snapshots for course corrections until it strikes. Sometimes, it fires a small laser sighting system to determine distance and speed and the computer calculates things like angle of approach and so on.
Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying our smart bombs aren't smart, I'm saying that there are ways to defend against them. A guided missile or bomb
So your saying that a computer on board a UAV has the ability to choose a flight path, watch the ground, chose an indiscriminate target, determine that it is unfriendly with enough certainty to avoid the international backlash of killing innocent civilians or your own troops, determine the proper ammunition or armerments to use (*missiles or machine guns) and take action all without any contact from a human or a base or a command center or anything external to the UAV. And this has been around for a while now?
Am I reading this right? Because as far as I know, outside a limited scope of autonomous guns guarding a demilitarized zone in which anyone entering from could be considered a threat, all the parameters get programed in as the UAV is in action. Even on the ground or with our automatic systems, we rely on freind or foe transponders to signify friendly troops or aircraft and distinguish them between incoming missiles or other threats. I seem to remember several allied fighter being fired apon in the last active engagements because the the Friendly acquisition systems were malfunctioning and we ended up taking it off an automatic response so that we could hail the radar contact just in case.
Please tell me the name of this system that a UAV has that can set a patrol pattern, discover a truck load of people, determine that they are armed and not a humanitarian mission taking medical supplies to civilians somewhere, then target it with the appropriate weapons to ensure it's destruction without any contact from any other system or human (remember, we are talking about jamming communications). I'm really interested in this AI function that surpasses everything I know about.
Actually, it doesn't work that way. It's more like,
"Excuse me Mr. ISP, we need to get a tap on your network." "Do you have a warrant?" "We have the equivilent rm225 (whatever) form showing a proper warrant was issued and there is legal authority backing this action." "May I see the warrant?" "No, it's privileged. But for your records, this is a copy of the legal authorization we are serving you with. IF there are any questions, use the profile number in the corner." "Ok, can you point me to a judge that authorized this?" "No, it's privileged. but I can point you to a judge who will assure you that this legal authorization is legitimate. and you are required by law to comply with it. BTW talk to no one about this or who we are targeting."
When they serve a "secrete warrant", they don't leave you dumbfounded with a bunch of questions about if they were actually cops or whatever. They give you a writ saying they have the legal authority based on some law/order to do X or Y. You can't talk about them doing either except with your legal council or any employees who may need to assist but it needs to be confidential with them under the same gag orders.
Now the authorization papers will have enough information that can't be used to determine anything about the case or real warrant but enough information to associate the actions with the officers and for the appropriate clearance level employee to verify the situation without disclosing anything.
Here is an interesting concept. Use one jammer with several different antenna connected through shielded cables and an amplifier on each end.
You could effectivly switch the jamming from one geographical area to another almost a mile away with just a couple of amplifiers and hide most of the real shit completely out of harms way. And with signal seeking missiles, your could have them so far off target that they would be useless.
They can fly themselves but they cannot pick out targets, select the appropriate ammunition or missiles to use, and then take the judgment call to fire on their own.
Currently, it takes a human to make those decisions. Sure, the plane or UAV would still be in the air, it might even still be doing laps around it's original patrol route. But that's all you have if the communications to it is jammed. You won't even be able to direct the various cameras positioned on them or get the live video back for your real time intelligence.
Granted, with pilots, your real time updates are still screwed if communications is borked. But he can still move the cameras, pick targets, identify the targets to some extent (*friend or foe) and make the call to destroy them.
UAVs will end up complimenting pilots, not replacing them. Even if one pilot controls a squadron of UAVs in combat with stronger/closer radios that over ride the jamming equipment or use something that's more optical for communications with the UAV. Hell, for that matter, the fighter pilot could be simply using anti jamming equipment and relaying the signal from another source to the drones while participating in the fights.
There have been national prepass programs since the late nineties where something like a toll pass sits in the windshield of the truck and give a colored light depending on if you need to enter or pass the scales.
When you come up on the weight station, you will notice metal plates in the road way plus a light pole with some triangle looking antennas on it. The plates measure the weight and speed and the transponder calculates some crap with the hours of service then either gives a green light or a red light. Some of them have a yellow which means something is wrong with the unit and you have to watch a sign for instructions. The transponder also reports the DOT carrier authority number and the IFTA number.
Those are the two numbers you want to track a truck when automating thing. There are rules to where they are displayed, how big it needs to be, and what kind of material and so on. Most fleet trucks are on the prepass system now but some scale houses use cameras to automatically grab the numbers and put them into the system. Your not really going to be able to get a heavy truck that doesn't pay it's road use taxes. At best, you will have a local truck that give that impression but they will likely use more fuel then the miles per gallon IFTA allotment so they are most likely already paying in excess.
Oh, and BTW, a human should be at the weight station in order to check on hours of service and take care of regulatory issues. There is a reason they have weight limits, height and size limits, hours of service and mechanical and safety requirement. None of those reasons disappear when when machines are able to track and record information.
Toll roads on the other hand are primarily monetary in nature and you probably could automate them to a good degree.
That trucker was facing jail time if he didn't do something to get legal on his weight before he left and got pulled over again. It's actually a felony to violate an out of service order and you could lose your license for a year or so if they go the misdemeanor charge for it. So what you witnessed was a trucker committing a crime on top of a smaller infraction.
Actually, oil is exposed to real market forces. I don't know what gave you the idea otherwise besides someone attempting to skew the information for their benefit or someone who just doesn't know how the world and markets work.
There isn't a US oil market and a world oil market. We buy our oil from the same market that the world does and outside some special contract that individual companies make, it's all the same. Inside the US, we manipulate the markets to an extent by requiring certain conditions to be placed on the oil. These conditions do end up in tax breaks which are considered subsidies but that because we are making them do something that just isn't profitable for them. There are incentive programs for optional participation in some areas that get tax deductions and is considered a subsidy too but those are actually to the benefit of alternative fuels even though oil companies are getting it.
Of the 15 or so billion dollars in direct subsidies that were in effect in 2008, 11 billion or more is directed at everything except oil. 4.3 billion is for expansion and research into nuclear power, 2.7 billion goes directly to making renewable energy sources, 1.6 billion is for cleaning up coal energy production, 1.3 billion each for increasing energy efficiency and the creation of alternative motor fuels which include electric plug in hybrids and such. only 2.8-3 billion goes directly to fossil fuel production and a portion of that is for being more environmentally sound in extraction techniques and getting oil from places that it's not financially feasible at present.
Now I'm sure your going to come up with something about the war in Iraq being about oil even though we haven't seen any benefit from having access to that oil (actually, the only think about oil in Iraq connected to the oil was UN countries like France which used the Sanctions as bargaining tools in their illegal oil deals that defeated the purpose of the sanctions and cause the situation to progress as far as it did where war was an option). And I'm sure your going to attempt to connect some other military action or whatever to oil. That's ok because we purchase oil from a world market and all that means is the world benefits, not just the US. It's just not an oil subsidy.
Now, I'm not sure where you came up with the idea I was out to cut subsidies from alternative sources of fuel. I mentioned that Nuclear is going to be more competitive once arbitrary costs are forced onto the energy markets by government regulations that amount to little more then taxes. I also mentioned how those taxes are going to be hidden behind some scare tactic as if it will be the cure when it doesn't even address the problem in the first place. If you want to be honest with yourself and the rest of the world, I would be more then happen to debate that with you and explain precisely why it's a scam perpetrated by the government and why it's a waste that does nothing to address the problem. But you can't ignore the facts just to make up your own. You will be expected to know what the hell your talking about.
Bah, who needs clean renewable, when we have 4 coal burning plants and a nuclear reactor that's offline most of the time.:)
You balk at coal as if cost is no object.
I'm glad your in that position but the reality of the matter is the cost is a big issue for quite a few people. I doubt the reasons for restarting it was because someone else was already there. It was most likely because what was already there was an order cheaper and it wouldn't be profitable.
With that in mind, "green" and "clean" power is nice and most likely beneficial for the world. However, when it's out of the reach of the poor and moderately wealthy (those that get by on what they earn or their fixed income), you are talking about lowering the quality of life for a major segment of the population. This is very frightening because it creates the setup in which only the rich will be able to afford the energy.
I have to ask people when they present themselves like this. Has anyone even thought about the less fortunate people in the same society they are living in when they suggest things like ignoring expense over good feelings?
Also, I would like to point out that there are ways to create hydro electric power without damning up the rivers. Niagara Falls in one such venture in which their biggest concern is not diverting too much water so the falls will still have a commercial appeal to tourist. Anyways, Florida might not be the idea location for something like this but in most other states, there are rivers that run through a good portion of it and while water does run down hill, you could divert a portion along an alternate path to generate enough force to power generation within a closed system that loops back into the river at a later point. This would work off the principle of the gradient applying gravity and the force of the weight of all the water miles behind it. This effect can be further amplified by constricting the flow of water just before the generation stations to amplify the momentum of the flow for more potential power generation.
Take the ohio river for example, it starts at an elevation of around 1020 feet above see level around Pittsburgh and stretches for 980 some miles to Cario Illinois just before entering the Mississippi river at an elevation of 322 or so feet above sea level. Now it's important to notice the 980 miles of river because according to mapquest, it's only 640 miles by land and not even that is going to be "as the crow flies" or the shortest distance possible. So there is plenty of opportunity to place underground water passages (with control locks in case a pipe busts) to connect stretches of the river in a more direct route so that water can be diverted, passed through a generator, then reintroduced down stream.
Now the ohio river is a huge river but outside of tunneling the underground passages which would be more like the foot print of building a new road, most states have watersheds that could be adapted into something like this at one or more points. The new york city aqueduct systems has the capacity to flow something on the order of 500 million (or was it billion?) gallons of water per day at pressured so great that little to no pumping is required to receive excellent water pressure throughout the city. Creating 11 foot tunnels dropping 100-200 feet over 50 land miles which might be more like 80-100 river miles that condense into 8 or nine foot tunnels just before hitting the generators could have an enormous potential for energy creation. And this, although expensive, might be on the same order of costs as relocating everyone to flood a basin with the erection of a damn while only temporarily effecting the above ground landscape and ecosystem about as much as constructing a road instead of the millions of acres submerged permanently.
In fact, the NYC aqueduct system does generate power for it's own purposes or needs. I'm not sure if any is sold commercially or not. It doesn't really matter because the purpose was to bring drinking water to the city, not generate electricity but it shows it is possible.
You have obviously never heard of "mining" coal via mountain top removal.
Evidently you haven't heard of other ways to mine coal like building a mine and carting it out.
Obviously if they are looking to make coal green or clean, they are also going to look into the entire production line of it. Just because something is true today doesn't mean it will continue to be limited by those factors in the future. We don't necessarily need to throw the baby out with the bath water. I'm not sure why people want to think something can't be done or done a certain ways when there is ample opportunity for improvement.
I'm not going to argue against the study the CATO institute has done but we need to remember, we are on the verge of Government mandating what is built and/or used and where it can be used anyways when it comes to energy. We are already seeing mandated energy purchases for solar, wind, or whatever "other and alternative" sources that someone is claiming to be "green".
So here is the gamble as I see it. We have had solar and wind energy around since the 1800's to some extent. More effort and innovation has been placed into it and we are seeing roughly 5 times the power generation capacity or capabilities as we would in something like the 1970's. Even when oil prices were sky high, those alternative energy sources were just starting to be competitive with traditional sources. You have political vehicles floating around like Cap and tax or cap and trade and comments from Joe Biden or Barack Obama which claims it's going to get real expensive for traditional energy sources. You have a scientific theory co opted by political manipulation that is driving from fear pushing for those "incentives".
The real gamble isn't if the facility will be competitive today in a free market but if it will be competitive tomorrow after the market is fixed in favor of the more expensive crap. I think it's pretty much a given that within the next 4 years, the US is going to have arbitrary programs imposed that will drive energy costs up. Obama already floated his tax cap thing where he plans increasing the cost of energy and relies on giving the "poor" a tax break for something they don't have to pay now but will because of their program and this tax break is only going to cover 2/3rds of the cost expected. None of this BTW will solve or help the Global warming problem and is more or less a means of control and taxation.
But anyways, it is so likely that the energy prices will artificially increase in the next few years, that the gamble should be looking at the manipulated costs instead of now.
I see your point. It took me a few reads to see that it wasn't just the reviewers opinion over the potential of it being used by bad intentioned people, but the authors agnostic approach to the situation too.
However, the part about innocent until proven guilty was more or less intended at the readers of the books and not so much to the author who is pretending to be "just a broker of information". I'm not even sure the author should have to make a comment about how the information is used. Remember, we expect people to follow the laws and ethics of society so of course they wouldn't be using it for illegal means.
Whoever reads the book will have to know that if the information is out there in plain sight, people are working to negate the possible problems someone can create using those methods and information. But even with the author sidestepping the ethics question, we still have to assume that the people reading it will not be doing illegal things with it. I think it's quite possible that tools to detect those types of root kits and so on might be made before anyone insidious comes up with malware.
One tool might be (and yes, I was talking with a guy on this just the other way who thinks it is possible), a boot CD that loads like a live Linux distro which in turn emulates all the hardware present on the board and loads the operating system in a transparent VM giving it the impression that it is running on the actual computer itself. From here, you can monitor the memory and processor interactions outside of any root kit's abilities as well as dump live registry and file system data to be compared with off line reports to find hidden programs by comparing the two and looking for the differences. Many root kit detection techniques do this already but within windows or Linux so there is a change that it can be effected by the same root kits but one running above or below the OS without any dependence on it stands a greater chance of not being able to hide. I'm not capable of programing anything like that myself so if anyone else wants to play- go for it. And If I'm completely wrong on those assumptions, tell me too. And if it is already being done and I'm not aware of it, point me in that direction please.
Anyways, I think the benefit of doubt is at least warranted for the people who will be reading it. I don't shrug in fear of every chemistry student who has the potential knowledge to create a bomb. I don't look at them as if they are creating synthetic or illegal drugs because they have the knowledge to figure it out if they wanted to. I don't question the neighbor who purchased a new gun, or the guy across town who bought his old one. I don't suspect the reviewer of this book as creating a root kit with the intentions of releasing it onto the world. I expect that I am safe or safe enough because none of their actions have showed me that they are using their knowledge or guns or this book for illegal purposes even though the potential is there. For all I know, they are law abiding citizens as society expects them to be. They are innocent until proven guilty.
It would seem that you are doing the very thing that you accuse me of.
Lets bring the context of the quote into play here and discuss when it can be attributed to Franklin. Please remember that when Franklin accepts attribution for the quote which had been around in various versions before he made it famous, was more or less a propaganda piece and he was using it to argue points of support for a law. In fact, Franklin when asked, claimed he published the quote for Richard Jackson but used it several times on it's own and in his own words.
So when Franklin first accepts attribution for this quote was in February 1775 in a letter from the assembly as the reply to the governor speaking about the necessity to arm the Indians in the area because the french were arming Delaware and Shawanese Indian tribes "under the Pretense of restoring them to their Country". Those tribes were somewhat displaced by colonial "progress". At the time there there were basically three approached to dealing with the raiding Indians or as it was put at the time "Attacks of small Parties of skulking Murderers." One was to make friends with them through trade and whatnot in order to appease a peaceful coexistence. Another was to arm the friendly Indians in hopes that they could defend themselves and in the process defend the outlying dwellings that were being raided. The third was to create a standing militia and fund/arm then to confront the hostiles directly.
There was a problem though, Philadelphia and Pennsylvania at this time was still more or less a for profit corporation as created by WM Penn. It functioned as what we would now consider a state government with a governor and an assembly but those were mostely appointed as what we would now consider CEO and a board of directors There was some elected positions but those could be overruled easily. The governor complained that the assembly didn't give him the power to establish a Militia to defend the colony and the assembly complained It lacked the authority to tax the people directly for anything other then sending to the kind or the heirs of WM Penn so it neither had the ability to fund a militia or start trade with the hostile Indians. The assembly wanted Penn's heirs (in England) to ante up for these costs, since they were the beneficiaries of income from the colony.
Shortly after this argument went on, the governor landed the news that "The Enemy had fallen upon settlements at a place called the Great Cove, and slaughtered or made Prisoners" of the inhabitants. When Franklin actually allows this quote to fist be attributed to him, was after this news and sentiments towards the assembly turned sour and the assembly without the authority needed passed a grant of Sixty Thousand Pounds to be struck in Bills of Credit and paid for by taxes on all the Estates (real and personal) in the Province for four years (and yes, I quoted that from a book I have but I'm sure it can be found on the interweb somewhere). Anyways, the governor vetoes the grant saying he did not have the authority to tax the Proprietaries (i.e., the Penn family) and Franklin wrote a letter in response encouraging the arming of the friendly Indians. In this letter was the first usage on feburary of 1775 that Franklin allows to be attributed to him.
Later, it was included in a book entitled "An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania". which has a copy of the letter, a version of the same quote before Franklin adopted it, and comments to Franklin's usages of it.
Franklin was arguing in favor of arming the then friendly Indians and the governor made comments about it saying "The Governor then said that the Susquehanna Indians wanted guns to defend themselves with, and the colonists should immediately give them what they wanted or they would join with the French, not being able to defend themselves against a superior force."
The comment was born in compromise or liberty and safety and it was used to trade liberty (an unconventional tax on the people themselves
Re:not pleased with this review
on
The Rootkit Arsenal
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
I understand that in today's society there are enough people who have ignored their responsibilities and obligations as well as the laws of the land and common decency towards others that you immediately think to the worst that can happen.
However, the premise of innocent until proven guilty has a deeper meaning towards society in that they will obey the laws of the society and that when faced with the question, they will act responsibly, ethically, and legally. In other words, it's not just a principle that allows criminals to get out of trouble. It's a deeper ideal that speaks to society and how we want to be in general. It's a reflection of values provided by society that people will not act on their own in an unlawful way if they know of the law and have legal options. Based on that simple principle, we need the freedom to educate people who will act in favor of us and in ways detrimental to those who would harm us. If I say "this is how people get killed", it could be enough for someone to know how to kill someone. However, at the same time, it is enough so that others can make changes that stop people from getting killed in that way.
This book, even though it has the potential of training/educating future malware coders, also has the same if not more potential to train the people who will make the malware ineffective and/or obsolete. Most of the people who would read it would likely have the potential of doing good rather then bad even if the bad they did was because they thought they were doing good.
When looking at the good in people, or the potential for good, I see nothing wrong with this book nor do I see anything wrong with a review on it. I would hope you can consider this optimistic outlook and wait until you are proven wrong on the concept before taking the negative attitude toward it. Sometimes it's hard to do, especially when we are bombarded by negative news about the failings of people all the time, but I know that they are a minority of society because we simply wouldn't have enough time to hear about the negatives of everyone if that was the case.
I was basically going from personal experience and some of that involved being asked to transfer phone books, pictures and other crap from dead phones to replacement ones ordered from ebay or given to them from friends who upgraded at some point in time. Sometimes they get the new phones from sprint or whoever directly and their service staff tells them they can't tranfer the stuff. (from my experience this generally means they don't have the time or expertise or don't want to spend money on making it work.)
I have generally found something in most modern phones (after 2002-3 or so) that I was calling a SIMs card (perhaps incorrectly) that I could put in a working phone or get to work in working phone enough to get the information from and then transfer to the new phone. I have noticed that not all phones are compatible and while sometimes newer ones work in older phones, the reverse seems to not be true. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not claiming to be some phone guru here either, I just do what I can find from Google and depending on what your trying to do, plenty of other people have done it before or attempted to with enough success that something is better then nothing that family and friends are otherwise left with. Sometimes, you just take what they offer and adapt it slightly to make it work for you. Well, that and I'm not afraid to solder on something that doesn't work anyways which surprisingly scares most people for some reason.
Sprint/nextel have sim cards. They used to be built into the phones and I remember having to actually take one completely apart to remove one when I changed a phone once. Any phone you get now will most likely have a sim car somewhere in it. It just may be hidden and not considered user accessible.
But when someone tries to twist the words of Ben Franklin to suggest it's okay to trade some liberties for some safety, as long as they aren't those select few essential ones you know, then I've got a problem.
That's exactly what was meant by the statement. He is specifically saying Pay attention that you don't throw what you hold dear or consider essential away for something that won't last but makes you feel safe.
The comment was made knowing that people want security and safety from that which they cannot control. He was warning that the ultimate price is your freedom so you should only trade it for what is permanently worth it and you should trade only what is necessary to achieve that goal.
To claim that it means never surrender any freedoms is just as much of a perversion as saying only secure what is essential.
DO I understand your argument correctly? "My OS always sucked so why not take another manufacturer's OS down to it's level?"
I don't know, if it were me, I would be looking to make my experience better, not to take from others in order to be equal. Maybe I read something wrong here, why don't you clearify this for us.
The story is a little light on details but I'm assuming they are working off the model provided to the provided to the pentagon a year of two ago.
In short, I don't have the answers for you. I can only assume they are working off the models provided to the pentagon a few years ago. The article says that "While a system of this scale and exact configuration has not been built, the underlying technology is very mature and is based on communications satellite technology". I can only assume that they can build it. The article I referenced said "Even after losses in wireless power transmission, the reduced need for overcapacity and storage to make up for periods of low illumination translates into a much lower land usage vs. terrestrial solar for an equivalent amount of delivered energy."
The original article goes on to mention "The impetus for forming Solaren was the convergence of improved high-energy conversion devices, heavy-launch vehicle developments, and a revolutionary Solaren-patented SSP [space solar power] design that is a significant departure from past efforts and makes SSP not only technically but economically viable,"
It also mentioned that the rate PG&E would purchase the power at would be comparible to other alternative sources of energy so I don't think they are comparing the costs to traditional cheaper forms of generation. But it appears that they have a design, improvements in technology that will get them in the air, and improvements that will get the power back down. They are so confident in this that they think they will be able to deliver 1,700 gigawatt-hours from the array.
The kilometer wide array in the article I referenced would probably be segmented into multiple stations (easier to beam to different parts of the world) and I'm guessing would consist mostly of expandable modules that could be added when availible. It appears that a small increase in overall efficiency on the group is amplified about five times in space so maybe it's just as important to try there as it is to try on ground too.
What is the chances of me creating a receiver to convert this and collecting stay energy as the beam spreads out though the atmosphere the way sunlight does?
Somehow I doubt the beam would be so focused that I or anyone else couldn't harvest some of it would it? Or is it going to be one of those things where it would cost me more to do then I would ever recover from doing it?
And just WHAT is the efficiency of this? I've got far better ideas than this nonsense. How inefficient is this going to be? It's already bad enough you're having to fight the inverse law on the light to begin with, why not let it hit the surface and capture it there? Hell, PG&E is full of morons.
Actually, traditional earth based solar has a few draw backs that this would solve.
The next benefit is that it's always on. All they would have to do is adjust it's orientation and they will have full sun 24 hours a day. No night time shortages, no bad weather brownouts, not building 10 times as many solar cells as necessary to complete projected output numbers in the winter or bad weather and so on.
But the best benefit is no need to find a storage solution for when the above happens on earth. Full sun all day long means full power all day long.
So the space solution, provided that we can get it there reasonably enough, can overcome inefficiencies inherent to earth based installations, overcome the inconveniences inherent to them, solve the environmental damage potential of them, and even if there is a loss on the transmission of the energy, it can still be more efficient in the end because it's a complete solution that starts out creating way more energy in the first place.
Afghani Mujahideen always tended to be extremely conservative Muslims as a whole, so it wasn't exactly unexpected...
In any case, I think it's pretty obvious that U.S. didn't support them because of some innate desire to help the oppressed against the oppressors - not any more so than the USSR did when supporting anti-colonial wars, for example. Both were merely proxy wars, instances of fighting the Cold War enemy with others' hands. By chance, one side or the other may have perceived moral superiority in some cases by supporting the "right" guys, but this is rather accidental to the original intent.
Proxy wars or not, the same fundamentals were at stake as were in Vietnam and Korea. You may be right in the hidden intent however, the justification was not made up and did pass public muster. This sort of means that we would have/the public would have still supported the efforts without the hidden agenda.
I just wish we could get some balls and done something about Rwanda and darfur where we really could have made a difference.
I'm all for applying the morals and cultural norms of the particular time when looking back at our history; but I find it to be a very weak excuse when other societies have already, at a given time, demonstrated that a higher level is possible to achieve. In that respect, Europe in Middle Ages was positively barbaric compared to the Caliphate, for example, and early Imperial Russia was barbaric compared to contemporary Europe (because in both cases, they had a real world, non-theoretical example to follow, but they choose not to). From that follows that in our day and age - and even back into 1970s - deliberate mass murder of civilian population cannot be excused by being "customary" in any place that has any contact whatsoever with the global civilization (and it's not like the West isn't constantly trying to get the human rights message across with all possible means!).
I'm not in opposition of the premise your speaking from. However, I'm not aware of deliberate mass murder of civilian populations in the Afghan war. As for tactics and real world examples, it takes time to see the enlightenment before a group of people can be expected to morally follow it. I agree with your impressions of the Middle Ages in Europe and as such, slavery with my example was outlaws in Europe long before in the US. But we needed a civil war and plenty of suffering before we could convince enough people of it.
So it isn't a blanket dismissal as much as it's an understanding. I would say it's still not good/evil/reprehensible but it's simply not at the same level of that as it would be if it happened today. Especially when for the most part, policy makers and the people in charge are different people and in most cases an entirely different generation today.
Of course, between the Balkans, Africa, and Middle East, we still have a long way to go. Yet, it's sad to see us (meaning "west" here - I'm not an American) make the same mistakes as before: now we're supporting one corrupt and effectively theocratic and oppressively clericalist Afghani regime against another - which, granted, is somewhat more oppresive, but from our perspective they should both be revolting - with the might of our guns, and the blood of our soldiers. Why?
Sadly, the most I can say here is that I agree. However, as long as the government is openly democratic in it's selection of leaders, I think that it's up to the people to reject it. And eventually, one day they might reject it. But they may also welcome it, they may at sometime trade for what they think is the best of both worlds. That's the greatest thing about a government of the people, for the most part, the people get what they want and if they are free, they will learn about freedoms elsewhere and get something better.
It seems like Freedom has taken a back seat in the west while pretending to be front and center standing at attention, I don't think Afghanistan will have that problem for a while. At least not just yet when people are pretending to be free.
About the details of the revolution, my point is simply that the Russians weren't an "invading army" in the sense that Russia said hey let's take over Afghanistan today. You seem to agree with that much. For the subjective part, yes, to the mujahideen the Russians were an invading army. To the urban Afghans who *wanted* all those reforms and did *not* want to be taken over by hardline Islamists, they were not an invading army. I guess I take the second viewpoint because I'm not at all sympathetic to hardline Islam. Maybe you are, great.
The Russians came in to support an imposed governemnt that was oppressing the people. I never said they were invaded, I said they were viewed as invaders by the afghan people. And that view was not limited to just the resistance fighters, it was the view of the majority of the population as admited by the Russian army commanders in the area.
And in the beginning, they weren't looking to displace the government to be taken over by hard line extremist Muslims. That's nothing more then a concept you are imposing because of your after the fact knowledge of the Taliban who formed and took control well after the Russians pulled out. They were attempting to over throw the imposed government and undo what they considered oppression imposed by the communist government. The norther alliance which is the group that the US worked with the most who also ended up in control of most of the area did not attempt to impose Islamic sharia laws or religious convictions onto the people. They attempted to revert back to how a lot of things were before the communist took over. These things included to allowing farmers the freedom to grow what they wanted, to allow them to participate in commerce, to reinstitute mariages and customs that had been part of their customs and traditions for centuries, to return nationalize industry to their rightful owners, to allow citizens to borrow and better their lives and so on.
Your original point was that we supported the mujahideen against an invading army and not a general populace. What I disagree with you on there is that the mujahideen terrorized PLENTY of Afghan civilians -- the ones who supported the reforms. Afghanistan, like Pakistan today, is deeply divided between city dwellers and the more tribal cultures in rural areas. The tribes and their warlords were against reform, the urbanites supported reforms.
No, my original point was that after the Soviet Union came to support the communist government that many afghan people thought illegitimate and oppressive, we entered in support of the people who didn't want to be oppressed. You can equate those actions somewhat to those of France during our own revolutionary war. Well, with the exception that Afghanistan was actually a country that existed before the communist took control and started their "oppression". To the afghan people, this was probably worse then what we went through where we started seeing how fucked things were. They had traditions, customs, freedoms, and a history of things that was taken from them under the guise of progressive reforms which is code for "don't complain about your loss of freedoms, we are moving forward".
When we armed the mujahideen to fight the Soviets, we also armed them to terrorize that urban population. It wasn't just a few thousand hardcore party supporters, it was millions of people. Afghanistan was modernizing. They were getting educated. They were abandoning the strictest parts of Islam.
You see what I mean, your doing it right here. The people's losses of traditions, the freedoms they no longer had, the monetary values ripped from their hands without compesations, the being forced to do certain things against their will has no effect on you. You just look at them "modernizing" and moving to what you think is better. The communist are great, the anti-
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, it's not the media companies.
The problem is that the last two WIPO treaties require DMCA style laws. Pretty much any country that doesn't implement those will end up being passed over in other crap that the international community does. It will hurt trade and cause financial issues.
The American DMCA provisions are more or less taken straight from the requirements of the WIPO Copyright Treaty or WTC and the WPPT or WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty with the exception of penalties and a few extremes. Canada signed onto both of the treaties on 12/22/1997. Focusing on the media companies will only result in disappointed losses in the fight. You need to get the government (your local government as well as other country's governments) to change the treaties and international obligations to them to reflect the will of your people.
You or I or anyone can complain about Disney or Warner bros or whatever. They are as powerful as they are in this fight because they are attempting to get the governments of countries to make good on treaties that almost all countries in the world have signed an obligation to. It's the reason that the pirate bay just got into trouble, it's the reason why their laws are being changed and why charges were being brought against a group of people on the behalf of people and corporations that most likely don't even have offices in the country.
Sure, keep believing media corps are evil. I'm not asking you or anyone else to embrace them. I'm asking people to actually pay attention to where this crap is coming from so that we don't dick around with seemingly related issues that end up being a dead end. The treaties need to be adjusted-changes-destroyed-whatever before this threat goes away. When I can say Canada or any other country has to pass a law because a treaty they signed obligated them to, no matter how much it looks like I am the bad guy, I'm more or less only reminding those countries of their obligations.
While it would be fun, that's all it would be "for fun". Or at least until the right crap was changed out. Even if "big media" had no clients, they could/would still push for the treaties to be implemented.
I don't think you understand the concept I'm speaking of. If the missile is targeting the radio waves, shifting the signal from one antenna to another in bursts would spread the targeting out beyond the missiles capabilities. Even if the missile locks onto the target and remains on course regardless of the position of the signal, you can alternate antennas quick enough or bounce them off of natural formations and basically either evade the missile lock or direct it to a non-volatile location.
This is true to a limit. The limit may be the length of time it takes to determine where the signal is and if something like harmonic wave distortion is paralleled among the antennas. In that situation, your basically using a spread spectum disruption technique that causes the signals to interact with each others and create an entirely different frequency and tone. This would give the impression of a noise coming from the center of a room that was A: not actually made and B: created by speakers in the corners or even outside the room. Think of it as similar to how they make 3d spacial references in 2 speaker headphones digitally.
Sure we were. But we were going against outdated and underfunded technology sold to Iraq from by a country that stopped racing against our armaments a decade before. There is a big difference between going up against something we know about and something that's just being introduced.
Sound waves and radio wave behave similar in how they move through the air. Radio waves have some advantages to sound but think about some of the stuff being done with sound. In a 5.1 sound environment, you can make a crash that sounds like it happened in front of you, behind you, two feet from you, two inches from your or two miles from you and it can all happen when the speakers of fifteen feet from you. This happens from dividing the sound waves between the speakers, relying on the distortion caused from the sound waves hitting each other and the perception of the instruments picking up the noise. Now in the case of sound, it would be your ears. In the case of radio waves, it would be the missiles or spy plane flying around miles away.
Anyways, I'm not sure that there is anything stopping the appearance of the radio wave from emitting in another location then they actually are. It may be more difficult when you start looking at the power requirements needed to jam all communications but the concept is clearly the same. In Iraqi freedom, we also benefited from the guidance systems that can operate independent of the GPS. They program maps into the missiles, take readings of the position as close as they can, then operate on visual data and traditional navigation systems like digital gyroscopes, radar, speed detectors and so on to get that last mile.
Most missiles, GPS, laser, radio, or however guided, don't use those systems in the final event. Take cruise missiles for instance. It used GPS to get withing visual range of the target then uses optics to take a picture, then compares snapshots for course corrections until it strikes. Sometimes, it fires a small laser sighting system to determine distance and speed and the computer calculates things like angle of approach and so on.
Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying our smart bombs aren't smart, I'm saying that there are ways to defend against them. A guided missile or bomb
So your saying that a computer on board a UAV has the ability to choose a flight path, watch the ground, chose an indiscriminate target, determine that it is unfriendly with enough certainty to avoid the international backlash of killing innocent civilians or your own troops, determine the proper ammunition or armerments to use (*missiles or machine guns) and take action all without any contact from a human or a base or a command center or anything external to the UAV. And this has been around for a while now?
Am I reading this right? Because as far as I know, outside a limited scope of autonomous guns guarding a demilitarized zone in which anyone entering from could be considered a threat, all the parameters get programed in as the UAV is in action. Even on the ground or with our automatic systems, we rely on freind or foe transponders to signify friendly troops or aircraft and distinguish them between incoming missiles or other threats. I seem to remember several allied fighter being fired apon in the last active engagements because the the Friendly acquisition systems were malfunctioning and we ended up taking it off an automatic response so that we could hail the radar contact just in case.
Please tell me the name of this system that a UAV has that can set a patrol pattern, discover a truck load of people, determine that they are armed and not a humanitarian mission taking medical supplies to civilians somewhere, then target it with the appropriate weapons to ensure it's destruction without any contact from any other system or human (remember, we are talking about jamming communications). I'm really interested in this AI function that surpasses everything I know about.
Actually, it doesn't work that way. It's more like,
"Excuse me Mr. ISP, we need to get a tap on your network."
"Do you have a warrant?"
"We have the equivilent rm225 (whatever) form showing a proper warrant was issued and there is legal authority backing this action."
"May I see the warrant?"
"No, it's privileged. But for your records, this is a copy of the legal authorization we are serving you with. IF there are any questions, use the profile number in the corner."
"Ok, can you point me to a judge that authorized this?"
"No, it's privileged. but I can point you to a judge who will assure you that this legal authorization is legitimate. and you are required by law to comply with it. BTW talk to no one about this or who we are targeting."
When they serve a "secrete warrant", they don't leave you dumbfounded with a bunch of questions about if they were actually cops or whatever. They give you a writ saying they have the legal authority based on some law/order to do X or Y. You can't talk about them doing either except with your legal council or any employees who may need to assist but it needs to be confidential with them under the same gag orders.
Now the authorization papers will have enough information that can't be used to determine anything about the case or real warrant but enough information to associate the actions with the officers and for the appropriate clearance level employee to verify the situation without disclosing anything.
Here is an interesting concept. Use one jammer with several different antenna connected through shielded cables and an amplifier on each end.
You could effectivly switch the jamming from one geographical area to another almost a mile away with just a couple of amplifiers and hide most of the real shit completely out of harms way. And with signal seeking missiles, your could have them so far off target that they would be useless.
They can fly themselves but they cannot pick out targets, select the appropriate ammunition or missiles to use, and then take the judgment call to fire on their own.
Currently, it takes a human to make those decisions. Sure, the plane or UAV would still be in the air, it might even still be doing laps around it's original patrol route. But that's all you have if the communications to it is jammed. You won't even be able to direct the various cameras positioned on them or get the live video back for your real time intelligence.
Granted, with pilots, your real time updates are still screwed if communications is borked. But he can still move the cameras, pick targets, identify the targets to some extent (*friend or foe) and make the call to destroy them.
UAVs will end up complimenting pilots, not replacing them. Even if one pilot controls a squadron of UAVs in combat with stronger/closer radios that over ride the jamming equipment or use something that's more optical for communications with the UAV. Hell, for that matter, the fighter pilot could be simply using anti jamming equipment and relaying the signal from another source to the drones while participating in the fights.
That's fine and all. I was just pointing out that it's a criminal act to violate the "out of service" order if you get one.
There have been national prepass programs since the late nineties where something like a toll pass sits in the windshield of the truck and give a colored light depending on if you need to enter or pass the scales.
When you come up on the weight station, you will notice metal plates in the road way plus a light pole with some triangle looking antennas on it. The plates measure the weight and speed and the transponder calculates some crap with the hours of service then either gives a green light or a red light. Some of them have a yellow which means something is wrong with the unit and you have to watch a sign for instructions. The transponder also reports the DOT carrier authority number and the IFTA number.
Those are the two numbers you want to track a truck when automating thing. There are rules to where they are displayed, how big it needs to be, and what kind of material and so on. Most fleet trucks are on the prepass system now but some scale houses use cameras to automatically grab the numbers and put them into the system. Your not really going to be able to get a heavy truck that doesn't pay it's road use taxes. At best, you will have a local truck that give that impression but they will likely use more fuel then the miles per gallon IFTA allotment so they are most likely already paying in excess.
Oh, and BTW, a human should be at the weight station in order to check on hours of service and take care of regulatory issues. There is a reason they have weight limits, height and size limits, hours of service and mechanical and safety requirement. None of those reasons disappear when when machines are able to track and record information.
Toll roads on the other hand are primarily monetary in nature and you probably could automate them to a good degree.
That trucker was facing jail time if he didn't do something to get legal on his weight before he left and got pulled over again. It's actually a felony to violate an out of service order and you could lose your license for a year or so if they go the misdemeanor charge for it. So what you witnessed was a trucker committing a crime on top of a smaller infraction.
Actually, oil is exposed to real market forces. I don't know what gave you the idea otherwise besides someone attempting to skew the information for their benefit or someone who just doesn't know how the world and markets work.
There isn't a US oil market and a world oil market. We buy our oil from the same market that the world does and outside some special contract that individual companies make, it's all the same. Inside the US, we manipulate the markets to an extent by requiring certain conditions to be placed on the oil. These conditions do end up in tax breaks which are considered subsidies but that because we are making them do something that just isn't profitable for them. There are incentive programs for optional participation in some areas that get tax deductions and is considered a subsidy too but those are actually to the benefit of alternative fuels even though oil companies are getting it.
Of the 15 or so billion dollars in direct subsidies that were in effect in 2008, 11 billion or more is directed at everything except oil. 4.3 billion is for expansion and research into nuclear power, 2.7 billion goes directly to making renewable energy sources, 1.6 billion is for cleaning up coal energy production, 1.3 billion each for increasing energy efficiency and the creation of alternative motor fuels which include electric plug in hybrids and such. only 2.8-3 billion goes directly to fossil fuel production and a portion of that is for being more environmentally sound in extraction techniques and getting oil from places that it's not financially feasible at present.
Now I'm sure your going to come up with something about the war in Iraq being about oil even though we haven't seen any benefit from having access to that oil (actually, the only think about oil in Iraq connected to the oil was UN countries like France which used the Sanctions as bargaining tools in their illegal oil deals that defeated the purpose of the sanctions and cause the situation to progress as far as it did where war was an option). And I'm sure your going to attempt to connect some other military action or whatever to oil. That's ok because we purchase oil from a world market and all that means is the world benefits, not just the US. It's just not an oil subsidy.
Now, I'm not sure where you came up with the idea I was out to cut subsidies from alternative sources of fuel. I mentioned that Nuclear is going to be more competitive once arbitrary costs are forced onto the energy markets by government regulations that amount to little more then taxes. I also mentioned how those taxes are going to be hidden behind some scare tactic as if it will be the cure when it doesn't even address the problem in the first place. If you want to be honest with yourself and the rest of the world, I would be more then happen to debate that with you and explain precisely why it's a scam perpetrated by the government and why it's a waste that does nothing to address the problem. But you can't ignore the facts just to make up your own. You will be expected to know what the hell your talking about.
You balk at coal as if cost is no object.
I'm glad your in that position but the reality of the matter is the cost is a big issue for quite a few people. I doubt the reasons for restarting it was because someone else was already there. It was most likely because what was already there was an order cheaper and it wouldn't be profitable.
With that in mind, "green" and "clean" power is nice and most likely beneficial for the world. However, when it's out of the reach of the poor and moderately wealthy (those that get by on what they earn or their fixed income), you are talking about lowering the quality of life for a major segment of the population. This is very frightening because it creates the setup in which only the rich will be able to afford the energy.
I have to ask people when they present themselves like this. Has anyone even thought about the less fortunate people in the same society they are living in when they suggest things like ignoring expense over good feelings?
Also, I would like to point out that there are ways to create hydro electric power without damning up the rivers. Niagara Falls in one such venture in which their biggest concern is not diverting too much water so the falls will still have a commercial appeal to tourist. Anyways, Florida might not be the idea location for something like this but in most other states, there are rivers that run through a good portion of it and while water does run down hill, you could divert a portion along an alternate path to generate enough force to power generation within a closed system that loops back into the river at a later point. This would work off the principle of the gradient applying gravity and the force of the weight of all the water miles behind it. This effect can be further amplified by constricting the flow of water just before the generation stations to amplify the momentum of the flow for more potential power generation.
Take the ohio river for example, it starts at an elevation of around 1020 feet above see level around Pittsburgh and stretches for 980 some miles to Cario Illinois just before entering the Mississippi river at an elevation of 322 or so feet above sea level. Now it's important to notice the 980 miles of river because according to mapquest, it's only 640 miles by land and not even that is going to be "as the crow flies" or the shortest distance possible. So there is plenty of opportunity to place underground water passages (with control locks in case a pipe busts) to connect stretches of the river in a more direct route so that water can be diverted, passed through a generator, then reintroduced down stream.
Now the ohio river is a huge river but outside of tunneling the underground passages which would be more like the foot print of building a new road, most states have watersheds that could be adapted into something like this at one or more points. The new york city aqueduct systems has the capacity to flow something on the order of 500 million (or was it billion?) gallons of water per day at pressured so great that little to no pumping is required to receive excellent water pressure throughout the city. Creating 11 foot tunnels dropping 100-200 feet over 50 land miles which might be more like 80-100 river miles that condense into 8 or nine foot tunnels just before hitting the generators could have an enormous potential for energy creation. And this, although expensive, might be on the same order of costs as relocating everyone to flood a basin with the erection of a damn while only temporarily effecting the above ground landscape and ecosystem about as much as constructing a road instead of the millions of acres submerged permanently.
In fact, the NYC aqueduct system does generate power for it's own purposes or needs. I'm not sure if any is sold commercially or not. It doesn't really matter because the purpose was to bring drinking water to the city, not generate electricity but it shows it is possible.
Evidently you haven't heard of other ways to mine coal like building a mine and carting it out.
Obviously if they are looking to make coal green or clean, they are also going to look into the entire production line of it. Just because something is true today doesn't mean it will continue to be limited by those factors in the future. We don't necessarily need to throw the baby out with the bath water. I'm not sure why people want to think something can't be done or done a certain ways when there is ample opportunity for improvement.
I'm not going to argue against the study the CATO institute has done but we need to remember, we are on the verge of Government mandating what is built and/or used and where it can be used anyways when it comes to energy. We are already seeing mandated energy purchases for solar, wind, or whatever "other and alternative" sources that someone is claiming to be "green".
So here is the gamble as I see it. We have had solar and wind energy around since the 1800's to some extent. More effort and innovation has been placed into it and we are seeing roughly 5 times the power generation capacity or capabilities as we would in something like the 1970's. Even when oil prices were sky high, those alternative energy sources were just starting to be competitive with traditional sources. You have political vehicles floating around like Cap and tax or cap and trade and comments from Joe Biden or Barack Obama which claims it's going to get real expensive for traditional energy sources. You have a scientific theory co opted by political manipulation that is driving from fear pushing for those "incentives".
The real gamble isn't if the facility will be competitive today in a free market but if it will be competitive tomorrow after the market is fixed in favor of the more expensive crap. I think it's pretty much a given that within the next 4 years, the US is going to have arbitrary programs imposed that will drive energy costs up. Obama already floated his tax cap thing where he plans increasing the cost of energy and relies on giving the "poor" a tax break for something they don't have to pay now but will because of their program and this tax break is only going to cover 2/3rds of the cost expected. None of this BTW will solve or help the Global warming problem and is more or less a means of control and taxation.
But anyways, it is so likely that the energy prices will artificially increase in the next few years, that the gamble should be looking at the manipulated costs instead of now.
I see your point. It took me a few reads to see that it wasn't just the reviewers opinion over the potential of it being used by bad intentioned people, but the authors agnostic approach to the situation too.
However, the part about innocent until proven guilty was more or less intended at the readers of the books and not so much to the author who is pretending to be "just a broker of information". I'm not even sure the author should have to make a comment about how the information is used. Remember, we expect people to follow the laws and ethics of society so of course they wouldn't be using it for illegal means.
Whoever reads the book will have to know that if the information is out there in plain sight, people are working to negate the possible problems someone can create using those methods and information. But even with the author sidestepping the ethics question, we still have to assume that the people reading it will not be doing illegal things with it. I think it's quite possible that tools to detect those types of root kits and so on might be made before anyone insidious comes up with malware.
One tool might be (and yes, I was talking with a guy on this just the other way who thinks it is possible), a boot CD that loads like a live Linux distro which in turn emulates all the hardware present on the board and loads the operating system in a transparent VM giving it the impression that it is running on the actual computer itself. From here, you can monitor the memory and processor interactions outside of any root kit's abilities as well as dump live registry and file system data to be compared with off line reports to find hidden programs by comparing the two and looking for the differences. Many root kit detection techniques do this already but within windows or Linux so there is a change that it can be effected by the same root kits but one running above or below the OS without any dependence on it stands a greater chance of not being able to hide. I'm not capable of programing anything like that myself so if anyone else wants to play- go for it. And If I'm completely wrong on those assumptions, tell me too. And if it is already being done and I'm not aware of it, point me in that direction please.
Anyways, I think the benefit of doubt is at least warranted for the people who will be reading it. I don't shrug in fear of every chemistry student who has the potential knowledge to create a bomb. I don't look at them as if they are creating synthetic or illegal drugs because they have the knowledge to figure it out if they wanted to. I don't question the neighbor who purchased a new gun, or the guy across town who bought his old one. I don't suspect the reviewer of this book as creating a root kit with the intentions of releasing it onto the world. I expect that I am safe or safe enough because none of their actions have showed me that they are using their knowledge or guns or this book for illegal purposes even though the potential is there. For all I know, they are law abiding citizens as society expects them to be. They are innocent until proven guilty.
It would seem that you are doing the very thing that you accuse me of.
Lets bring the context of the quote into play here and discuss when it can be attributed to Franklin. Please remember that when Franklin accepts attribution for the quote which had been around in various versions before he made it famous, was more or less a propaganda piece and he was using it to argue points of support for a law. In fact, Franklin when asked, claimed he published the quote for Richard Jackson but used it several times on it's own and in his own words.
So when Franklin first accepts attribution for this quote was in February 1775 in a letter from the assembly as the reply to the governor speaking about the necessity to arm the Indians in the area because the french were arming Delaware and Shawanese Indian tribes "under the Pretense of restoring them to their Country". Those tribes were somewhat displaced by colonial "progress". At the time there there were basically three approached to dealing with the raiding Indians or as it was put at the time "Attacks of small Parties of skulking Murderers." One was to make friends with them through trade and whatnot in order to appease a peaceful coexistence. Another was to arm the friendly Indians in hopes that they could defend themselves and in the process defend the outlying dwellings that were being raided. The third was to create a standing militia and fund/arm then to confront the hostiles directly.
There was a problem though, Philadelphia and Pennsylvania at this time was still more or less a for profit corporation as created by WM Penn. It functioned as what we would now consider a state government with a governor and an assembly but those were mostely appointed as what we would now consider CEO and a board of directors There was some elected positions but those could be overruled easily. The governor complained that the assembly didn't give him the power to establish a Militia to defend the colony and the assembly complained It lacked the authority to tax the people directly for anything other then sending to the kind or the heirs of WM Penn so it neither had the ability to fund a militia or start trade with the hostile Indians. The assembly wanted Penn's heirs (in England) to ante up for these costs, since they were the beneficiaries of income from the colony.
Shortly after this argument went on, the governor landed the news that "The Enemy had fallen upon settlements at a place called the Great Cove, and slaughtered or made Prisoners" of the inhabitants. When Franklin actually allows this quote to fist be attributed to him, was after this news and sentiments towards the assembly turned sour and the assembly without the authority needed passed a grant of Sixty Thousand Pounds to be struck in Bills of Credit and paid for by taxes on all the Estates (real and personal) in the Province for four years (and yes, I quoted that from a book I have but I'm sure it can be found on the interweb somewhere). Anyways, the governor vetoes the grant saying he did not have the authority to tax the Proprietaries (i.e., the Penn family) and Franklin wrote a letter in response encouraging the arming of the friendly Indians. In this letter was the first usage on feburary of 1775 that Franklin allows to be attributed to him.
Later, it was included in a book entitled "An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania". which has a copy of the letter, a version of the same quote before Franklin adopted it, and comments to Franklin's usages of it.
Franklin was arguing in favor of arming the then friendly Indians and the governor made comments about it saying "The Governor then said that the Susquehanna Indians wanted guns to defend themselves with, and the colonists should immediately give them what they wanted or they would join with the French, not being able to defend themselves against a superior force."
The comment was born in compromise or liberty and safety and it was used to trade liberty (an unconventional tax on the people themselves
I understand that in today's society there are enough people who have ignored their responsibilities and obligations as well as the laws of the land and common decency towards others that you immediately think to the worst that can happen.
However, the premise of innocent until proven guilty has a deeper meaning towards society in that they will obey the laws of the society and that when faced with the question, they will act responsibly, ethically, and legally. In other words, it's not just a principle that allows criminals to get out of trouble. It's a deeper ideal that speaks to society and how we want to be in general. It's a reflection of values provided by society that people will not act on their own in an unlawful way if they know of the law and have legal options. Based on that simple principle, we need the freedom to educate people who will act in favor of us and in ways detrimental to those who would harm us. If I say "this is how people get killed", it could be enough for someone to know how to kill someone. However, at the same time, it is enough so that others can make changes that stop people from getting killed in that way.
This book, even though it has the potential of training/educating future malware coders, also has the same if not more potential to train the people who will make the malware ineffective and/or obsolete. Most of the people who would read it would likely have the potential of doing good rather then bad even if the bad they did was because they thought they were doing good.
When looking at the good in people, or the potential for good, I see nothing wrong with this book nor do I see anything wrong with a review on it. I would hope you can consider this optimistic outlook and wait until you are proven wrong on the concept before taking the negative attitude toward it. Sometimes it's hard to do, especially when we are bombarded by negative news about the failings of people all the time, but I know that they are a minority of society because we simply wouldn't have enough time to hear about the negatives of everyone if that was the case.
Interesting. Thanks for the link.
I was basically going from personal experience and some of that involved being asked to transfer phone books, pictures and other crap from dead phones to replacement ones ordered from ebay or given to them from friends who upgraded at some point in time. Sometimes they get the new phones from sprint or whoever directly and their service staff tells them they can't tranfer the stuff. (from my experience this generally means they don't have the time or expertise or don't want to spend money on making it work.)
I have generally found something in most modern phones (after 2002-3 or so) that I was calling a SIMs card (perhaps incorrectly) that I could put in a working phone or get to work in working phone enough to get the information from and then transfer to the new phone. I have noticed that not all phones are compatible and while sometimes newer ones work in older phones, the reverse seems to not be true. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not claiming to be some phone guru here either, I just do what I can find from Google and depending on what your trying to do, plenty of other people have done it before or attempted to with enough success that something is better then nothing that family and friends are otherwise left with. Sometimes, you just take what they offer and adapt it slightly to make it work for you. Well, that and I'm not afraid to solder on something that doesn't work anyways which surprisingly scares most people for some reason.
Sprint/nextel have sim cards. They used to be built into the phones and I remember having to actually take one completely apart to remove one when I changed a phone once. Any phone you get now will most likely have a sim car somewhere in it. It just may be hidden and not considered user accessible.
That's exactly what was meant by the statement. He is specifically saying Pay attention that you don't throw what you hold dear or consider essential away for something that won't last but makes you feel safe.
The comment was made knowing that people want security and safety from that which they cannot control. He was warning that the ultimate price is your freedom so you should only trade it for what is permanently worth it and you should trade only what is necessary to achieve that goal.
To claim that it means never surrender any freedoms is just as much of a perversion as saying only secure what is essential.
DO I understand your argument correctly? "My OS always sucked so why not take another manufacturer's OS down to it's level?"
I don't know, if it were me, I would be looking to make my experience better, not to take from others in order to be equal. Maybe I read something wrong here, why don't you clearify this for us.
The story is a little light on details but I'm assuming they are working off the model provided to the provided to the pentagon a year of two ago.
In short, I don't have the answers for you. I can only assume they are working off the models provided to the pentagon a few years ago. The article says that "While a system of this scale and exact configuration has not been built, the underlying technology is very mature and is based on communications satellite technology". I can only assume that they can build it. The article I referenced said "Even after losses in wireless power transmission, the reduced need for overcapacity and storage to make up for periods of low illumination translates into a much lower land usage vs. terrestrial solar for an equivalent amount of delivered energy."
The original article goes on to mention "The impetus for forming Solaren was the convergence of improved high-energy conversion devices, heavy-launch vehicle developments, and a revolutionary Solaren-patented SSP [space solar power] design that is a significant departure from past efforts and makes SSP not only technically but economically viable,"
It also mentioned that the rate PG&E would purchase the power at would be comparible to other alternative sources of energy so I don't think they are comparing the costs to traditional cheaper forms of generation. But it appears that they have a design, improvements in technology that will get them in the air, and improvements that will get the power back down. They are so confident in this that they think they will be able to deliver 1,700 gigawatt-hours from the array.
The kilometer wide array in the article I referenced would probably be segmented into multiple stations (easier to beam to different parts of the world) and I'm guessing would consist mostly of expandable modules that could be added when availible. It appears that a small increase in overall efficiency on the group is amplified about five times in space so maybe it's just as important to try there as it is to try on ground too.
What is the chances of me creating a receiver to convert this and collecting stay energy as the beam spreads out though the atmosphere the way sunlight does?
Somehow I doubt the beam would be so focused that I or anyone else couldn't harvest some of it would it? Or is it going to be one of those things where it would cost me more to do then I would ever recover from doing it?
Actually, traditional earth based solar has a few draw backs that this would solve.
The first being that the strength of the solar particles we are dealing with is greatly diminished by the time it hits the earth. In space, you can generate roughly 5 (or was it 20) times more energy from the same processes as on earth. In fact, it's estimated that "A single kilometer-wide band of geosynchronous earth orbit experiences enough solar flux in one year (approximately 212 terawatt-years) to nearly equal the amount of energy contained within all known recoverable conventional oil reserves on Earth today (approximately 250 TW-yrs)," according the report. "This far exceeds the projected 30TW of annual demand in mid-century."
The next benefit is that it's always on. All they would have to do is adjust it's orientation and they will have full sun 24 hours a day. No night time shortages, no bad weather brownouts, not building 10 times as many solar cells as necessary to complete projected output numbers in the winter or bad weather and so on.
But the best benefit is no need to find a storage solution for when the above happens on earth. Full sun all day long means full power all day long.
So the space solution, provided that we can get it there reasonably enough, can overcome inefficiencies inherent to earth based installations, overcome the inconveniences inherent to them, solve the environmental damage potential of them, and even if there is a loss on the transmission of the energy, it can still be more efficient in the end because it's a complete solution that starts out creating way more energy in the first place.
Proxy wars or not, the same fundamentals were at stake as were in Vietnam and Korea. You may be right in the hidden intent however, the justification was not made up and did pass public muster. This sort of means that we would have/the public would have still supported the efforts without the hidden agenda.
I just wish we could get some balls and done something about Rwanda and darfur where we really could have made a difference.
I'm not in opposition of the premise your speaking from. However, I'm not aware of deliberate mass murder of civilian populations in the Afghan war. As for tactics and real world examples, it takes time to see the enlightenment before a group of people can be expected to morally follow it. I agree with your impressions of the Middle Ages in Europe and as such, slavery with my example was outlaws in Europe long before in the US. But we needed a civil war and plenty of suffering before we could convince enough people of it.
So it isn't a blanket dismissal as much as it's an understanding. I would say it's still not good/evil/reprehensible but it's simply not at the same level of that as it would be if it happened today. Especially when for the most part, policy makers and the people in charge are different people and in most cases an entirely different generation today.
Sadly, the most I can say here is that I agree. However, as long as the government is openly democratic in it's selection of leaders, I think that it's up to the people to reject it. And eventually, one day they might reject it. But they may also welcome it, they may at sometime trade for what they think is the best of both worlds. That's the greatest thing about a government of the people, for the most part, the people get what they want and if they are free, they will learn about freedoms elsewhere and get something better.
It seems like Freedom has taken a back seat in the west while pretending to be front and center standing at attention, I don't think Afghanistan will have that problem for a while. At least not just yet when people are pretending to be free.
I think maybe we are talking around each other.
The Russians came in to support an imposed governemnt that was oppressing the people. I never said they were invaded, I said they were viewed as invaders by the afghan people. And that view was not limited to just the resistance fighters, it was the view of the majority of the population as admited by the Russian army commanders in the area.
And in the beginning, they weren't looking to displace the government to be taken over by hard line extremist Muslims. That's nothing more then a concept you are imposing because of your after the fact knowledge of the Taliban who formed and took control well after the Russians pulled out. They were attempting to over throw the imposed government and undo what they considered oppression imposed by the communist government. The norther alliance which is the group that the US worked with the most who also ended up in control of most of the area did not attempt to impose Islamic sharia laws or religious convictions onto the people. They attempted to revert back to how a lot of things were before the communist took over. These things included to allowing farmers the freedom to grow what they wanted, to allow them to participate in commerce, to reinstitute mariages and customs that had been part of their customs and traditions for centuries, to return nationalize industry to their rightful owners, to allow citizens to borrow and better their lives and so on.
No, my original point was that after the Soviet Union came to support the communist government that many afghan people thought illegitimate and oppressive, we entered in support of the people who didn't want to be oppressed. You can equate those actions somewhat to those of France during our own revolutionary war. Well, with the exception that Afghanistan was actually a country that existed before the communist took control and started their "oppression". To the afghan people, this was probably worse then what we went through where we started seeing how fucked things were. They had traditions, customs, freedoms, and a history of things that was taken from them under the guise of progressive reforms which is code for "don't complain about your loss of freedoms, we are moving forward".
You see what I mean, your doing it right here. The people's losses of traditions, the freedoms they no longer had, the monetary values ripped from their hands without compesations, the being forced to do certain things against their will has no effect on you. You just look at them "modernizing" and moving to what you think is better. The communist are great, the anti-