Seriously, i think julian67 has a valid point. i've tried several times to find the jihadist sites alluded-to in mainstream-media reports of events such as the release of a new AQ video, or a message claiming responsibility for a particular act of terrorism.
It ain't easy. Most of the news reports refer to "SITE Intelligence Group" (siteintelgroup.com) as their source.
I've found a lot that *type* of extremist sites, but never any of those which actually distributed / published the material in the respective news report.
Based on my long-ago research, I don't think the TSA will ever be *completely* unavoidable, short of the USA becoming like the GDR, wherein half the population was being employed by the State to surveill the other half.
During Ashcroft's reign, they publicised their intent to more closely track legally-present aliens, by recording everytime an alien *left* the USA, so that they could match the arrivals and departures in order to know who's still "inside" at any given moment.
I'm still puzzled that I never saw any sign of civil libertarians,.orgs, or media asking the (to me obvious) question, to wit: how can this be accomplished without barking "Papieren, bitte" to *everyone* who leaves? When a traveler walks through a border checkpoint to Canada or embarks on a Caribbean cruise, how can TSA know if they've missed a departing alien, unless they ascertain the status of *all* who are departing? (Yes, I realize that they could slice-&-dice the USA data with Canada's entry records, but that's an ad-hoc answer which misses the point.)
So, I emailed TSA/DHS to ask this, but received no reply. Then I looked at the Canadian gov sites to determine *their* regs for entry. As it happens, they don't require (or at least didn't then) that you enter explicitly by passing through a USA border post. All they required was that, if you happened to walk across at some unmonitored location, that you immediately precede directly to the nearest relevant Canadian authority.
Then I exchanged some email with Hasbrouck or Gilmore (probably Hasbrouck) to ask: is it in fact illegal for a USA citizen to leave in a manner which circumvents tracking by the USA? If I (silly example) walked across to Mexico unobserved, obtained visas to proceed to Venezuela and points beyond, and then one day returned to the USA by commercial jet from Azerbaijan to JFK, upon arrival could I be arrested or non-trivially detained *merely* because a data cross-check revealed that I had been gadding about without the USA having any prior idea of my departure and movements?
I don't remember receiving (from anyone I asked) any answer which even remotely approached saying, "Yes, you'll be in violation of [foo]."
So I started thinking more elaborately about this. I should mention at this point, that I haven't flown, or used any other transport requiring I.D., since 9/11 -- not from fear of accidents or terrorism, but because I simply made up my mind that I wouldn't travel by any means which allows *this* nation to directly track my movements in realtime.
After some additional research, I concluded that it *will* be possible -- not *convenient*, but possible -- for me to travel, (without yielding that principle), not to absolutely any country, but to any country where I'm likely to want to go, even if it requires bribing the captain of a cargo vessel passing from Brasil to Liberia.
[btw, this is one reason I look at TI.org's annual ranking of corruption in countries. Corruption can be your friend.;)
Within the USA, traveling unmonitored is easier. And getting to the EU through the Bering Strait and Russia is a particularly knotty problem. Russian regs are much stricter, and, unlike Canada, one can't merely make a water approach and proceed to the nearest control point.
For the record, I'm hoping that my return through a USA border control *does* provoke trouble, in order to force the issue for public examination & discussion.
btw, I'm puzzled by protektor's saying "vans with the full body scanners in them so they can scan cars & people without anyone knowing". I can't picture how it's possible to effectively scan *one* moving vehicle with the airport body-scanner technology, even if driving the van in parallel, let alone *all* traffic, let alone scanning *through* the vehicle's metall
Good: "Why use closed software?" Because it offers something useful and unique (or at least distinctive). Among other characteristics, I love how I can radically change the UI to suit my working style, without extensions -- e.g., listing tabs in a vertical stack which doesn't truncate the titles, and easily toggling showing & hiding them.
And yet, every time there's a mjor release (going back at least six years), I try it and eventually abandon it, because it's still what I call "workspace-oblivious".
For the manner in which I work, it's a real problem that Opera doesn't conform to the drag-and-drop conventions seen in the behavior of other apps. -- FROM a page in Opera, I can drag a link (or an address-bar item) only to the desktop, not to a folder icon, an open folder window, a foreign browser, or an app such as a media player. -- TO Opera, I can drag icons only from the desktop or from an open folder, not from a foreign browser.
I don't have those limitations with Firefox, and it makes a genuine and substantial difference in my productivity.
I'm one of those rare quacks who believe that the over-all best way to deal with mass-IP compensation issues is to tax the physical media. And, for all practical purposes, the iPod *is* physical media, even if it's RAM or flash instead of "conventional" media such as tape.
TFA says, "The president also instructed the Defense Department to develop plans to disable, in certain areas, an enemy's access to the U.S. navigational satellites **AND** to similar systems operated by others."
I disagree with those who say that disrupting Galileo would require physical attack on the satellites. TFA apparently alludes to some kind of jamming.
I agree with those who say that this might be construed to be an act of war -- EVEN IF it disrupts Galileo service only in a limited area: if the area isn't USA territory, then it's a violation of another nation's sovereignty.
Didn't the USA have a policy during the M.A.D. era, of not threatening Soviet surveillance capabilities, specifically because it would be a destabilizing act?
"In the project that I'm on, I've pushed for (and successfully gotten) Palms used for interfacing to the electronics in the project."
Looked at your web site. Bitterly disappointed that I couldn't find any more info about the referenced project. Details, please, especially re "how" (both senses) you use Palm for interfacing to electronics.
The bill says that ISPs, etc. must investigate each claim of potential infringement. Does that necessarily bar the ISP from first billing the complainant for the cost involved?
"You are an old man who thinks in terms of nations and peoples. There are no nations. There are no peoples. There are no Russians. There are no Arabs. There are no third worlds. There is no West! There is only one holistic system of systems, one vast and immane, interwoven, interacting, multi-variate, multi-national dominion of dollars. Petro-dollars, electro-dollars, multi-dollars, Reichmarks, rins, rubles, pounds and shekels. It is the international system of currency which determines the totality of life on this planet. That is the natural order of things today...
You...howl about America and democracy. There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and ITT and A T & T and DuPont, Dow, Union Carbide and Exxon. Those are the nations of the world today.
What do you think the Russians talk about in their councils of state -- Karl Marx? They get out their linear programming charts, statistical decision theories, minimax solutions and compute the price-cost probabilities of their transactions and investments, just like we do.
We no longer live in a world of nations and ideologies, Mr. Beale. The world is a college of corporations, inexorably determined by the immutable by-laws of business.
The world is a business, Mr. Beale! It has been since man crawled out of the slime. And our children will live, Mr. Beale, to see that perfect world in which there's no war and famine, oppression or brutality -- one vast and ecumenical holding company, for whom all men will work to serve a common profit, in which all men will hold a share of stock, all necessities provided, all anxieties tranquilized, all boredom amused."
"I think the rest of the world should gang up on the United States at the next round of WTO negotiations and demand looser IP laws"
Dream on. Why do you think the USA succeeds at this stuff? The USA has "the best politicians which money can buy"; do you really think the situation is different in other countries? And how do you account for the EU handing over air passenger records, despite EU privacy laws and the objections of the vast majority of citizens?
"I'm in Singapore...Of course, living in the commie state that I do..."
I recently read "Confucius Lives Next Door" by T.R. Reid (1999?), which says that you can be jailed merely for criticizing ("defaming") the government in Singapore.
I hope your post can't be linked to your actual adentity. And even if it can't, is it too far-fetched to imagine that Singapore might try to block/.?
btw, is it true that they actually have legions of cops on rooftops with binoculars, as a means to enforce even those laws regarding gum-chewing, etc.?
In their recently published "College Majors Handbook With Real Career Paths and Payoffs" (Jist Publishing), three economists... concluded that choosing a major was more crucial to future financial success than the college attended.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/05/jobs/05jmar.ht ml ?pagewanted=print&position=
December 5, 2004 Choosing a College Major: For Love or for the Money? By DAVID KOEPPEL
Like countless other college students, Susannah Lloyd-Jones struggled with her choice of major. Finally, in her junior year at Loyola University in Chicago, she picked sociology, a decision that "opened my mind and introduced me to other cultures, " she said. More than two years after graduation, though, Ms. Lloyd-Jones, now a 24-year-old paralegal from Maplewood, N.J., occasionally wonders if she made the right decision. "It might have been easier if I had been a business major," she said, "because that's where the money is." Ms. Lloyd-Jones says if she had it to do over, she would probably still study sociology but take more business classes and work some internships. She said students feel tremendous pressure over the choice of a major, which could be an important career decision, when many are just beginning to understand themselves. Many students and career counselors say the pressure to choose the "right" major is more intense than ever because of factors like rising tuition costs and the uncertain economy. Parents and students today often consider college more an investment than a time of academic and personal exploration. Some students say they are education consumers seeking the best return on that investment, which is often financed with a student loan. The annual cost of a four-year public college averages $11,354, a 7.8 increase from 2003-4, according to the College Board; a four-year private college averages $27,516, a 5.6 percent increase. In their recently published "College Majors Handbook With Real Career Paths and Payoffs" (Jist Publishing), three economists from Northeastern University in Boston try to quantify just how much students with a variety of majors can expect to earn in their careers. The authors concluded that choosing a major was more crucial to future financial success than the college attended. One of the authors, Paul E. Harrington, an economist and associate director at the Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern, said that, on average, humanities and education majors fared far worse financially than students in business or engineering. In 2002, workers with degrees in chemical engineering and accounting were on the high end, earning an average of $75,579 and $63,486, respectively. On the low end, philosophy majors made an average of $42,865 and elementary education graduates $38,746. Mr. Harrington said the research was not intended to dissuade sociology majors from following their passions. Instead, he hopes the information will help students prepare carefully when choosing a major. He recommends that students contemplating majors in the liberal arts or humanities also take some business-oriented courses. A philosophy major, Mr. Harrington said, should probably get some real-world internship experience. "The world is a more unforgiving place than it used to be, and investment costs are too high for four years of drift," he said. "If a student doesn't take the right sequence of math courses in high school, they can lose out on the best jobs." But some people worry that choosing a career based primarily on economic factors can lead students to make poor choices. Jieun Chai, a 2000 Stanford University graduate, for instance, deeply regrets not majoring in Asian languages. "I'm so angry at myself for giving in to peer pressure, parental pressure and societal pressure," Ms. Chai wrote on her Web journal. "Why are you taking only language classes? Think about your career in consulting, engineering, medicine or law." Alysha Cryer, who was Ms. Lloyd-Jones's roommate at Loyola, withstood pres
Didn't RTFA, just looked at the pix. But, if these things are to be practical for "handicapped" people, buildings will need MUCH bigger doors, wider aisles between office cubicles, wider hallways in homes, and higher ceilings in many places -- not to mention bigger cargo doors in personal vans, etc.
not fixated, merely determined (a) to obtain the evidence you claimed to have ("I looked it up. You're wrong."), and (b) to ignore the attempt to obfuscate and divert the factual issues with ad hominem comments. Now that you've provided an explicit refusal, I'll drop it. Thanks.
-- statistically: You'll live longer by avoiding all manner of risks of accidents. Avoid cars, planes, electricity, wild animals, hazardous weather, high-crime neighborhoods, etc.
-- physiologically: avoid anything which is stressful, overly exciting, fattening; opt for unrelenting exercise, drastic caloric reduction, etc.
Unfortunately, the bulk of the effect is relativistic: you'll live somewhat longer, but mostly it will just *seem* longer (ba-dum-bump, thanks folks, you've been great, I'll be here all week).
Sorry, missed that. But I disagree that this addresses the risks for fire and theft.
I also disagree about the significance of "connected to the outside world": a backup must be protective against simultaneous failure, *regardless* of the purpose of the primary (otherwise, you're contradicting the initial implied assumption of there even being a need for a backup).
"free PR from the easily excitable? He's a washed up political hack who needs some press"... "Before you go freaking out with you tinfoil hats...now he is just a guy with an opinion, just like us"... "don't get your undies in a twist over this - there's nothing untoward going on here"...
Wrong. It's called a "trial balloon": have the idea publicly proposed by someone from whom the Administration can easily disassociate itself, in case public reaction is overwhelmingly negative.
"with a waiver for those who agree to protect themselves"... "His idea will not work...Users of email will not put up with it...Requires too much cooperation from everybody at once...Lack of centrally controlling authority...Jurisdictional problems...investment in protocols...illiterate politicians...Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem"...
Wrong. These are precisely the reasons which can be used to justify legislation requiring *centralized* measures, e.g. requiring service providers to install monitoring at all links entering the country or originating from internal users. It would require no changes in protocols, etc.
"the USA cannot determine the future of the Internet because they are paranoid about terrorism"...
The USA doesn't need agreement from others to impose this on links passing within the USA.
"the US seems to continuously invent new means of suppression and export them around the world...Regulation of the internet starts here, just like DVD encoding, DMCA, patriot act, etc. It becomes fashionable because the USA set the standard"...
Exactly. And, from imposing it only within the USA, it's not a big step to extend it to embargo links from countries which don't cooperate -- just as the USA now requires USA-bound ocean shipments to be vetted at the originating location.
Tenet said, "ultimately the Wild West must give way to governance and control". This is what it's really about, i.e. a governance mentality. This mentality is about, not just "terrorism", but also about IP, porn, leaks from whistle-blowers, etc. A good insight into this can be gained by reviewing the USA's current campaign to imprison porn-makers on the grounds that porn is accessible even to a single offended constituency anywhere in the USA.
The US Constitution can NOT be used to protect against such monitoring, for two reasons: 1. Mere monitoring won't be ruled to be censorship, any more than the existing monitoring of telecommunications by the National Security Agency. 2. Likewise within the NSA model, monitoring won't be ruled to be "unreasonable search".
Keep in mind that censorship doesn't need to be explicit in order to be effective: the mere public knowledge of the monitoring can have a significant suppressive effect.
The worst thing about this is that "we" (the community of objecting users) have no way to escape to an alternative venue: -- authorities will rule that any alternative venue also poses a security threat, since an alternatively-connected PC can simultaneously be connected to the existing net. -- authorities *and* the public will regard the mere act of participation in any alternative venue, as evidence of nefarious intent, just like that subset of/. users who like to say, "If you're doing nothing wrong, why are you concerned about being monitored?"
There are few philosophical objections (or none) which will be able to withstand the power of propaganda which combines personal security fears with invocation of the sacred virtues of preservntion of "values", "protection" of children, and international commerce.
1. It sounds like the backup is for a server in the same house -- which isn't much of a backup, if your concern is environmental factors (power failure, fire, flood, theft, etc.). And re power failure, a commercial location might get more responsive service when ice takes down a power line.
2. For virtually all hardware, there's a published spec of acceptable temperatures. You should check for your equipment. Also, beware of humidity: any sudden introduction of moisture (e.g., -- from opening an attached kitchen entrance while cooking pasta, -- or moisture from an engine exhaust or a garage-located frost-free freezer, -- or a sudden rain when the weather goes above freezing faster than your equipment thaws) could cause condensation on your equipment.
They don't care if this will break all of a user's archived links.
They didn't care when they took over DejaNews: they easily could have done it in a way which would have preserved the usability of old Deja links, and chose not to, despite voluminous complaints.
So there's no reason to believe that they'll care about it this time.
No, I don't. I didn't remember a specific/. story when I wrote my OP. I merely remembered a recent science news item about wind farms potentially affecting weather. For anyone genuinely interested the SUBJECT (vs. bickering with the posters), it would be easiest AND most personally convincing to look it up.
You said "I looked it up. You're wrong." Yet when I searched google-news for
"wind farms" climate OR weather -birds I found it on the first page.
So, how (and how hard) did you look it up? And what did you find to so easily convince you that I was wrong?
Your FIRST reaction was to say, "I looked it up. You're wrong." Don't try now to claim that the actual disagreement we're having is over my posting style and not over the truth of my statement, "there are legitimate unresolved ***questions*** about how *massive* wind-farms ***might*** adversely affect weather".
Do YOU understand the point being made?
My posting history shows that I promptly, willingly, spontaneously and frequently admit to being wrong, misinformed, uninformed, or rash. Are you up to it?
1. I make no assertions re global warming, local wind strength, greenhouse effects, windmills, or the causal relationship of cancer and wearing leisure suits.
I said: "There are legitimate unresolved questions about how *massive* wind-farms might adversely affect" *WEATHER*, and "It affects more than merely..." (i.e., an effect greater than local).
The AC reply was: *WEATHER* effects from "*massive* wind-farms" ***WILL*** only be seen on a very ***LOCAL*** scale.
The older article clearly demonstrates that "There are legitimate unresolved ***QUESTIONS***" etc. It's time for your retraction.
2. It took me literally 30 seconds to find the full G&M text by googling for: "Globe and Mail" Canadian American scientists "wind farms" climate arctic
GLOBE AND MAIL - A group of Canadian and U.S. scientists reported Tuesday that computer simulations show that a large-scale use of wind farms to generate electrical power could create a significant temperature change over Earth's land masses. While the precise tradeoff between the climate changes from wind farms versus that from carbon-based power systems is still a matter of contention, the fact that wind power isn't climate neutral leaps out of the simulations. ..
Specifically, if wind generation were expanded to the point where it produced one-10th of today's energy, the models say cooling in the Arctic and a warming across the southern parts of North America should happen. The exact mechanism for this is unclear, but the scientists believe it may have to do with the disruption of the flow of heat from the equator to the poles.
Depending on how much energy is ultimately generated by wind power, the study's simulations say these changes could range from one-third of a degree to 2 degrees Celsius. One unexpected finding to the study is that the hotter temperate zone/cooler Arctic effect exists in the simulations if the wind farms are concentrated in a few spots or scattered across the world.
Slashdot Mirror
Seriously, i think julian67 has a valid point.
i've tried several times to find the jihadist sites alluded-to in mainstream-media reports of events such as the release of a new AQ video, or a message claiming responsibility for a particular act of terrorism.
It ain't easy.
Most of the news reports refer to "SITE Intelligence Group" (siteintelgroup.com) as their source.
I've found a lot that *type* of extremist sites, but never any of those which actually distributed / published the material in the respective news report.
Based on my long-ago research, I don't think the TSA
will ever be *completely* unavoidable, short of the USA
becoming like the GDR, wherein half the population was
being employed by the State to surveill the other half.
During Ashcroft's reign, they publicised their intent to
more closely track legally-present aliens,
by recording everytime an alien *left* the USA,
so that they could match the arrivals and departures
in order to know who's still "inside" at any given moment.
I'm still puzzled that I never saw any sign of civil .orgs, or media asking the (to me obvious)
libertarians,
question, to wit: how can this be accomplished without
barking "Papieren, bitte" to *everyone* who leaves?
When a traveler walks through a border checkpoint to
Canada or embarks on a Caribbean cruise, how can TSA know
if they've missed a departing alien, unless they
ascertain the status of *all* who are departing?
(Yes, I realize that they could slice-&-dice the USA data
with Canada's entry records, but that's an ad-hoc answer
which misses the point.)
So, I emailed TSA/DHS to ask this, but received no reply.
Then I looked at the Canadian gov sites to determine *their*
regs for entry. As it happens, they don't require (or at least
didn't then) that you enter explicitly by passing through
a USA border post. All they required was that,
if you happened to walk across at some unmonitored location,
that you immediately precede directly to the nearest relevant
Canadian authority.
Then I exchanged some email with Hasbrouck or Gilmore (probably
Hasbrouck) to ask: is it in fact illegal for a USA citizen
to leave in a manner which circumvents tracking by the USA?
If I (silly example) walked across to Mexico unobserved,
obtained visas to proceed to Venezuela and points beyond,
and then one day returned to the USA by commercial jet from
Azerbaijan to JFK, upon arrival could I be arrested
or non-trivially detained *merely* because a
data cross-check revealed that I had been gadding about without
the USA having any prior idea of my departure and movements?
I don't remember receiving (from anyone I asked) any answer
which even remotely approached saying, "Yes, you'll be in
violation of [foo]."
So I started thinking more elaborately about this. I should
mention at this point, that I haven't flown, or used any other
transport requiring I.D., since 9/11 -- not from fear of
accidents or terrorism, but because I simply made up my mind
that I wouldn't travel by any means which allows *this* nation
to directly track my movements in realtime.
After some additional research, I concluded that it *will* be
possible -- not *convenient*, but possible -- for me to travel,
(without yielding that principle), not to absolutely any
country, but to any country where I'm likely to want to go,
even if it requires bribing the captain of a cargo vessel
passing from Brasil to Liberia.
[btw, this is one reason I look at TI.org's annual ranking ;)
of corruption in countries. Corruption can be your friend.
Within the USA, traveling unmonitored is easier.
And getting to the EU through the Bering Strait and Russia
is a particularly knotty problem. Russian regs are much
stricter, and, unlike Canada, one can't merely make a
water approach and proceed to the nearest control point.
For the record, I'm hoping that my return through a USA
border control *does* provoke trouble, in order to
force the issue for public examination & discussion.
btw, I'm puzzled by protektor's saying "vans with the
full body scanners in them so they can scan cars & people
without anyone knowing". I can't picture how it's
possible to effectively scan *one* moving vehicle with the
airport body-scanner technology, even if driving the van in
parallel, let alone *all* traffic, let alone scanning
*through* the vehicle's metall
Good: "Why use closed software?"
Because it offers something useful and unique
(or at least distinctive).
Among other characteristics, I love how I can
radically change the UI to suit my working style,
without extensions -- e.g., listing tabs in a
vertical stack which doesn't truncate the titles,
and easily toggling showing & hiding them.
And yet, every time there's a mjor release
(going back at least six years),
I try it and eventually abandon it,
because it's still what I call "workspace-oblivious".
For the manner in which I work, it's a
real problem that Opera doesn't conform to
the drag-and-drop conventions seen in the
behavior of other apps.
-- FROM a page in Opera, I can drag a link (or an
address-bar item) only to the desktop, not to a
folder icon, an open folder window, a foreign browser,
or an app such as a media player.
-- TO Opera, I can drag icons only from the desktop
or from an open folder, not from a foreign browser.
I don't have those limitations with Firefox,
and it makes a genuine and substantial difference in
my productivity.
I'm one of those rare quacks who believe that the over-all best way to deal with mass-IP compensation issues is to tax the physical media.
And, for all practical purposes, the iPod *is* physical media, even if it's RAM or flash instead of "conventional" media such as tape.
TFA says, "The president also instructed the Defense Department to develop plans to disable, in certain areas, an enemy's access to the U.S. navigational satellites **AND** to similar systems operated by others."
I disagree with those who say that disrupting Galileo would require physical attack on the satellites. TFA apparently alludes to some kind of jamming.
I agree with those who say that this might be construed to be an act of war -- EVEN IF it disrupts Galileo service only in a limited area: if the area isn't USA territory, then it's a violation of another nation's sovereignty.
Didn't the USA have a policy during the M.A.D. era, of not threatening Soviet surveillance capabilities, specifically because it would be a destabilizing act?
can someone suggest likely types of locations?
"In the project that I'm on, I've pushed for (and successfully gotten) Palms used for interfacing to the electronics in the project."
Looked at your web site.
Bitterly disappointed that I couldn't find any more info about the referenced project.
Details, please, especially re "how" (both senses) you use Palm for interfacing to electronics.
Next:
increasing usage of unbreakably anonymous/encrypted p2p mechanisms.
Then:
prohibitions on p2p, encryption, and "non-standard" ports & protocols.
The bill says that ISPs, etc. must investigate each claim of potential infringement.
Does that necessarily bar the ISP from first billing the complainant for the cost involved?
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/images/networkpitc h2.JPG
"You are an old man who thinks in terms of nations and peoples.
There are no nations.
There are no peoples.
There are no Russians.
There are no Arabs.
There are no third worlds.
There is no West!
There is only one holistic system of systems, one vast and immane, interwoven, interacting, multi-variate, multi-national dominion of dollars.
Petro-dollars, electro-dollars, multi-dollars, Reichmarks, rins, rubles, pounds and shekels.
It is the international system of currency which determines the totality of life on this planet.
That is the natural order of things today...
You...howl about America and democracy.
There is no America.
There is no democracy.
There is only IBM and ITT and A T & T and DuPont, Dow, Union Carbide and Exxon. Those are the nations of the world today.
What do you think the Russians talk about in their councils of state -- Karl Marx? They get out their linear programming charts, statistical decision theories, minimax solutions and compute the price-cost probabilities of their transactions and investments, just like we do.
We no longer live in a world of nations and ideologies, Mr. Beale. The world is a college of corporations, inexorably determined by the immutable by-laws of business.
The world is a business, Mr. Beale! It has been since man crawled out of the slime. And our children will live, Mr. Beale, to see that perfect world in which there's no war and famine, oppression or brutality -- one vast and ecumenical holding company, for whom all men will work to serve a common profit, in which all men will hold a share of stock, all necessities provided, all anxieties tranquilized, all boredom amused."
"I think the rest of the world should gang up on the United States at the next round of WTO negotiations and demand looser IP laws"
Dream on.
Why do you think the USA succeeds at this stuff?
The USA has "the best politicians which money can buy";
do you really think the situation is different in other countries?
And how do you account for the EU handing over air passenger records, despite EU privacy laws and the objections of the vast majority of citizens?
"I'm in Singapore...Of course, living in the commie state that I do..."
/.?
I recently read "Confucius Lives Next Door" by T.R. Reid (1999?), which says that you can be jailed merely for criticizing ("defaming") the government in Singapore.
I hope your post can't be linked to your actual adentity.
And even if it can't, is it too far-fetched to imagine that Singapore might try to block
btw, is it true that they actually have legions of cops on rooftops with binoculars, as a means to enforce even those laws regarding gum-chewing, etc.?
In their recently published "College Majors Handbook With Real Career Paths and Payoffs" (Jist Publishing), three economists ... concluded that choosing a major was more crucial to future financial success than the college attended.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/05/jobs/05jmar.ht ml ?pagewanted=print&position=
December 5, 2004
Choosing a College Major: For Love or for the Money?
By DAVID KOEPPEL
Like countless other college students, Susannah Lloyd-Jones struggled with her choice of major. Finally, in her junior year at Loyola University in Chicago, she picked sociology, a decision that "opened my mind and introduced me to other cultures, " she said. More than two years after graduation, though, Ms. Lloyd-Jones, now a 24-year-old paralegal from Maplewood, N.J., occasionally wonders if she made the right decision. "It might have been easier if I had been a business major," she said, "because that's where the money is."
Ms. Lloyd-Jones says if she had it to do over, she would probably still study sociology but take more business classes and work some internships. She said students feel tremendous pressure over the choice of a major, which could be an important career decision, when many are just beginning to understand themselves.
Many students and career counselors say the pressure to choose the "right" major is more intense than ever because of factors like rising tuition costs and the uncertain economy. Parents and students today often consider college more an investment than a time of academic and personal exploration. Some students say they are education consumers seeking the best return on that investment, which is often financed with a student loan.
The annual cost of a four-year public college averages $11,354, a 7.8 increase from 2003-4, according to the College Board; a four-year private college averages $27,516, a 5.6 percent increase.
In their recently published "College Majors Handbook With Real Career Paths and Payoffs" (Jist Publishing), three economists from Northeastern University in Boston try to quantify just how much students with a variety of majors can expect to earn in their careers. The authors concluded that choosing a major was more crucial to future financial success than the college attended.
One of the authors, Paul E. Harrington, an economist and associate director at the Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern, said that, on average, humanities and education majors fared far worse financially than students in business or engineering.
In 2002, workers with degrees in chemical engineering and accounting were on the high end, earning an average of $75,579 and $63,486, respectively. On the low end, philosophy majors made an average of $42,865 and elementary education graduates $38,746.
Mr. Harrington said the research was not intended to dissuade sociology majors from following their passions. Instead, he hopes the information will help students prepare carefully when choosing a major. He recommends that students contemplating majors in the liberal arts or humanities also take some business-oriented courses. A philosophy major, Mr. Harrington said, should probably get some real-world internship experience.
"The world is a more unforgiving place than it used to be, and investment costs are too high for four years of drift," he said. "If a student doesn't take the right sequence of math courses in high school, they can lose out on the best jobs."
But some people worry that choosing a career based primarily on economic factors can lead students to make poor choices. Jieun Chai, a 2000 Stanford University graduate, for instance, deeply regrets not majoring in Asian languages.
"I'm so angry at myself for giving in to peer pressure, parental pressure and societal pressure," Ms. Chai wrote on her Web journal. "Why are you taking only language classes? Think about your career in consulting, engineering, medicine or law."
Alysha Cryer, who was Ms. Lloyd-Jones's roommate at Loyola, withstood pres
bigger doors.
Didn't RTFA, just looked at the pix.
But, if these things are to be practical for "handicapped" people, buildings will need MUCH bigger doors, wider aisles between office cubicles, wider hallways in homes, and higher ceilings in many places -- not to mention bigger cargo doors in personal vans, etc.
not fixated, merely determined (a) to obtain the evidence you claimed to have ("I looked it up. You're wrong."), and (b) to ignore the attempt to obfuscate and divert the factual issues with ad hominem comments.
Now that you've provided an explicit refusal, I'll drop it.
Thanks.
-- statistically: You'll live longer by avoiding all manner of risks of accidents. Avoid cars, planes, electricity, wild animals, hazardous weather, high-crime neighborhoods, etc.
-- physiologically: avoid anything which is stressful, overly exciting, fattening; opt for unrelenting exercise, drastic caloric reduction, etc.
Unfortunately, the bulk of the effect is relativistic:
you'll live somewhat longer, but mostly it will just *seem* longer (ba-dum-bump, thanks folks, you've been great, I'll be here all week).
still awaiting your evidence (or retraction)...6 8&cid=109346 11
slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1309
"unattached garage"
Sorry, missed that.
But I disagree that this addresses the risks for fire and theft.
I also disagree about the significance of "connected to the outside world":
a backup must be protective against simultaneous failure, *regardless* of the purpose of the primary (otherwise, you're contradicting the initial implied assumption of there even being a need for a backup).
"free PR from the easily excitable? He's a washed up political hack who needs some press"...
/. users who like to say, "If you're doing nothing wrong, why are you concerned about being monitored?"
"Before you go freaking out with you tinfoil hats...now he is just a guy with an opinion, just like us"...
"don't get your undies in a twist over this - there's nothing untoward going on here"...
Wrong. It's called a "trial balloon": have the idea publicly proposed by someone from whom the Administration can easily disassociate itself, in case public reaction is overwhelmingly negative.
"with a waiver for those who agree to protect themselves"...
"His idea will not work...Users of email will not put up with it...Requires too much cooperation from everybody at once...Lack of centrally controlling authority...Jurisdictional problems...investment in protocols...illiterate politicians...Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem"...
Wrong. These are precisely the reasons which can be used to justify legislation requiring *centralized* measures, e.g. requiring service providers to install monitoring at all links entering the country or originating from internal users.
It would require no changes in protocols, etc.
"the USA cannot determine the future of the Internet because they are paranoid about terrorism"...
The USA doesn't need agreement from others to impose this on links passing within the USA.
"the US seems to continuously invent new means of suppression and export them around the world...Regulation of the internet starts here, just like DVD encoding, DMCA, patriot act, etc. It becomes fashionable because the USA set the standard"...
Exactly. And, from imposing it only within the USA, it's not a big step to extend it to embargo links from countries which don't cooperate -- just as the USA now requires USA-bound ocean shipments to be vetted at the originating location.
Tenet said, "ultimately the Wild West must give way to governance and control".
This is what it's really about, i.e. a governance mentality.
This mentality is about, not just "terrorism", but also about IP, porn, leaks from whistle-blowers, etc.
A good insight into this can be gained by reviewing the USA's current campaign to imprison porn-makers on the grounds that porn is accessible even to a single offended constituency anywhere in the USA.
The US Constitution can NOT be used to protect against such monitoring, for two reasons:
1. Mere monitoring won't be ruled to be censorship, any more than the existing monitoring of telecommunications by the National Security Agency.
2. Likewise within the NSA model, monitoring won't be ruled to be "unreasonable search".
Keep in mind that censorship doesn't need to be explicit in order to be effective: the mere public knowledge of the monitoring can have a significant suppressive effect.
The worst thing about this is that "we" (the community of objecting users) have no way to escape to an alternative venue:
-- authorities will rule that any alternative venue also poses a security threat, since an alternatively-connected PC can simultaneously be connected to the existing net.
-- authorities *and* the public will regard the mere act of participation in any alternative venue, as evidence of nefarious intent, just like that subset of
There are few philosophical objections (or none) which will be able to withstand the power of propaganda which combines personal security fears with invocation of the sacred virtues of preservntion of "values", "protection" of children, and international commerce.
1. It sounds like the backup is for a server in the same house --
which isn't much of a backup, if your concern is environmental factors (power failure, fire, flood, theft, etc.).
And re power failure, a commercial location might get more responsive service when ice takes down a power line.
2. For virtually all hardware, there's a published spec of acceptable temperatures. You should check for your equipment.
Also, beware of humidity: any sudden introduction of moisture (e.g.,
-- from opening an attached kitchen entrance while cooking pasta,
-- or moisture from an engine exhaust or a garage-located frost-free freezer,
-- or a sudden rain when the weather goes above freezing faster than your equipment thaws)
could cause condensation on your equipment.
They don't care if this will break all of a user's archived links.
They didn't care when they took over DejaNews:
they easily could have done it in a way which would have preserved the usability of old Deja links, and chose not to, despite voluminous complaints.
So there's no reason to believe that they'll care about it this time.
"There's no way to transfer the recorded content"
How long until THAT gets hacked?
"Do you understand the point being made?"
/. story when I wrote my OP.
No, I don't.
I didn't remember a specific
I merely remembered a recent science news item about wind farms potentially affecting weather.
For anyone genuinely interested the SUBJECT (vs. bickering with the posters), it would be easiest AND most personally convincing to look it up.
You said "I looked it up. You're wrong."
Yet when I searched google-news for
"wind farms" climate OR weather -birds
I found it on the first page.
So, how (and how hard) did you look it up? And what did you find to so easily convince you that I was wrong?
Your FIRST reaction was to say, "I looked it up. You're wrong."
Don't try now to claim that the actual disagreement we're having is over my posting style and not over the truth of my statement,
"there are legitimate unresolved ***questions*** about how *massive* wind-farms ***might*** adversely affect weather".
Do YOU understand the point being made?
My posting history shows that I promptly, willingly, spontaneously and frequently admit to being wrong, misinformed, uninformed, or rash.
Are you up to it?
1. I make no assertions re global warming, local wind strength, greenhouse effects, windmills, or the causal relationship of cancer and wearing leisure suits.
.
I said:
"There are legitimate unresolved questions about how *massive* wind-farms might adversely affect" *WEATHER*,
and
"It affects more than merely..." (i.e., an effect greater than local).
The AC reply was:
*WEATHER* effects from "*massive* wind-farms" ***WILL*** only be seen on a very ***LOCAL*** scale.
The older article clearly demonstrates that "There are legitimate unresolved ***QUESTIONS***" etc.
It's time for your retraction.
2. It took me literally 30 seconds to find the full G&M text by googling for:
"Globe and Mail" Canadian American scientists "wind farms" climate arctic
GLOBE AND MAIL - A group of Canadian and U.S. scientists reported Tuesday that computer simulations show that a large-scale use of wind farms to generate electrical power could create a significant temperature change over Earth's land masses. While the precise tradeoff between the climate changes from wind farms versus that from carbon-based power systems is still a matter of contention, the fact that wind power isn't climate neutral leaps out of the simulations. .
Specifically, if wind generation were expanded to the point where it produced one-10th of today's energy, the models say cooling in the Arctic and a warming across the southern parts of North America should happen. The exact mechanism for this is unclear, but the scientists believe it may have to do with the disruption of the flow of heat from the equator to the poles.
Depending on how much energy is ultimately generated by wind power, the study's simulations say these changes could range from one-third of a degree to 2 degrees Celsius. One unexpected finding to the study is that the hotter temperate zone/cooler Arctic effect exists in the simulations if the wind farms are concentrated in a few spots or scattered across the world.
"news rat (as your nickname suggests)"
"nusrat" is a tribute to great (deceased) spiritual musical artist.
see nusrat.com