I agree there are a lot of problems associated with this topic. All the junk you mentioned tends to drown out the credible reports that warrant investigation. It requires discernment and careful work to separate the junk from the important stuff.
But I guarantee anyone that if they spend a little time looking at the credible stuff you will see a core reality to the whole thing. Too many military officers are saying their colleagues are lying about what they have witnessed. Too many documents from when the sightings first occurred say things like the Air Force had no idea what the objects were and decided to cover it up. Too many airline pilots have seen the objects. NARCAP compiled a database of over 3000 such sightings.
There's really too much evidence for me to even try to condense it hear. All I can say is you have to understand that not everyone is a charlatan and a liar when it comes to this topic. Many scientists have examined this closely over the last several decades, Allen Hynek for example. They have made some rather interesting findings.
Notice I did not say anything about what might be piloting the craft. That is a common error in judgment many people make because of stereotypes in this topic. All we really know at this point is that some anomalous craft have been observed.
Too many people who believe what you're talking about do, and their lack of credibility rubs off on you.
In reference to "lack of credibility" please read the other reply to the parent I just posted.
In reference to "evidence." It's all there for anyone who wants to look at it. For a scientific viewpoint, I highly recommend the Condon Report of 1969. Read any section but the conclusion and you will see some great scientific analysis. For info on why the conclusion of that report differs widely from the evidence, read the various info on Condon himself that is widely available.
For interested/. readers, this is a brief list of some of the major people (military and civilian) who are known to have given convincing testimony to the reality of unusual craft (UFOs) they have witnessed. It is by no means exhaustive. Most of them have stated in some way or another that a percentage of craft encountered were definitely unknown to the Air Force and were not discussed because of that. Many also testified that they received orders to keep their mouths shut about it. Thankfully, they felt it was important enough to disregard that order. Investigations into what these people have stated (which I have been doing for several years now) is extremely fascinating. They are not kooks. Many are career military officers, scientists, academics, and others of high station. I have a great respect for them. I only wish more people would at least hear them before dismissing the whole notion. Their accounts do not come from the Weekly World News. They are not wearing tinfoil hats. They are very serious about it.
Brigadier General Stephen Lovekin: Army National Guard Reserves
Brigadier General Arthur Exon: US Air Force (ret.)
Brigadier Thomas Dubose: US Air Force (deceased)
Merle Shane McDow: US Navy Atlantic Command
Lance Corporal Jonathan Weygandt: US Marine Corps
Maj. George A. Filer, III: US Air Force (Ret.)
Maj. Donald Keyhoe: US Air Force (deceased)
Nick Pope: British Ministry of Defense Official
Larry Warren: US Air Force, Security Officer
Sgt. Clifford Stone: US Army
Master Sgt. Dan Morris: US Air Force, NRO Operative
Officer Alan Godfrey: British Police
Sgt. Karl Wolf: US Air Force
Ms. Donna Hare: NASA Employee
Dr. Robert Wood: McDonnell Douglas Aerospace Engineer
Dr. Paul Czysz: McDonnell Douglas Career Engineer
Astronaut Edgar Mitchell
Astronaut Gordon Cooper (deceased)
John Callahan: FAA Head of Accidents and Investigations
Michael Smith: US Air Force Radar Controller
Franklin Carter: US Navy Radar Technician
Neil Daniels: United Airlines Pilot
Captain Robert Salas: US Air Force, SAC Launch Controller
Harry Allen Jordan: US Navy
Sgt. Chuck Sorrells: US Air Force (ret.)
Commander Graham Bethune: US Navy (ret.)
Mr. Enrique Kolbeck: Senior Air Traffic Controller, Mexico
Dr. Richard Haines
Mr. Franklin Carter: US Navy
Sgt. Robert Blazina (ret.)
Lieutenant Frederick Marshall Fox: US Navy (ret.)
Lt. Bob Walker: US Army
Mr. Don Bockelman: US Army
Professor Robert Jacobs: Lt. US Air Force (ret.)
Lt. Colonel Dwynne Arneson: US Air Force (ret.)
Colonel Ross Dedrickson: US Air Force/AEC (ret.)
Mr. James Kopf: US Navy/ National Security Agency
Lieutenant Colonel Joe Wojtecki, US Air Force
Staff Sergeant Stoney Campbell: US Air Force
Lieutenant Colonel Charles Brown: US Air Force (ret.)
Admiral Lord Hill-Norton: Five-Star Admiral, Former Head of the British Ministry of Defense
Major-General Vasily Alexeyev: Russian Air Force,
Mr. Don Phillips: Lockheed Skunkworks, USAF, and CIA Contractor
Captain Bill Uhouse: US Marine Corps (ret.)
Lieutenant Colonel John Williams: US Air Force (ret.)
Mr. Gordon Creighton: Former British Foreign Service Official
Mr. John Maynard: Defense Intelligence Agency (ret.)
Mr. Harland Bentley: US Army
Dr. Alfred Webre: Senior Policy Analyst Stanford Research Institute
Denise McKenzie: Former SAIC employee
Colonel Phillip J. Corso, Sr.: US Army (ret.)
Sergeant Leonard Pretko: US Air Force
Mr. Dan Willis: US Navy
The existence and anomalous nature of these craft has been known to anyone who has dared to think outside the box and recognize valid testimony (albeit unusual) for almost 60 years.
It has been testified to by countless (hundreds in fact) military officials and government authorities. The Air Force itself admitted that many craft sighted were not it's own even though they performed extremely complex aeronautical maneuevers. Please go here or here, or here if you would like to do further reading.
In case there is any question, no I am not wearing a tinfoil hat. Yes I am an aerospace engineer.
The cargo ships don't return to earth in one piece. They're allowed to burn up on re-entry.
Why not just fill them with garbage anyway then? If the heat of reentry is enough to burn up the ship, surely it could incinerate some trash that's carried along with it.
Third, "pretty much anyone can patent anything that hasn't already been patented", provided that "anything" falls into an area of statutory subject matter, is WHAT THE FUCKING CONSTITUTION SAYS SHOULD BE PATENTED YOU DUMB ASS.
Sorry but you are the uninformed dumbass here. What I was saying was that "anything that hadn't already been patented" could include common technologies that had been in use for a long time by a lot of people. Thus if someone tried to patent such a technology, there would be numerous examples of prior art that could be cited. Further, I was pointing out was that the USPTO has been abysmal in their recognition of such prior art and has been readily granting patents for such commonplace things as clicking a mouse or executing a program as root. These things were most certainly not patented by the inventor but by various companies decades after the fact solely to gain a legal advantage over competing products.
I don't think the issue is as much with software patents in general as the way the system is currently implemented. The Patent Office is so clueless about prior art wrt software that pretty much anyone can patent anything that hasn't already been patented. They can then use that to intimidate or sue other companies even if those companies have been using the same technology for years without obligation to anyone.
Oh - for the purposes of this comment it has been assumed that the independant research company Gartner is independently researching for the independent entity of Microsoft.
Considering all the "independent" studies, reports, cost analyses, etc. that M$ has cited recently, it certainly wouldn't surprise me.
It's common on Slashdot to continually lament politicians' lack of intelligence when it comes to technology. What's not so common is to suggest or put into action good ideas to change that situation.
The non-sanctioned services I refer to came on the scene long before iTMS. I was pointing out that the RIAA failed to see the need for a legitimate online service until long after P2P was firmly established.
iTMS represents an improvement in their online policy, but whether or not it is what the market will ultimately accept in the online music arena still remains to be seen.
You are confusing the two parts of this story. The people distributing 2.5 TB and using 40% of the traffic were in Iceland. The RIAA had nothing to do with that. They were shut down by SMAIS, not the RIAA. The article about the RIAA states that they filed an additional 762 lawsuits in the US, which, if their previous pattern holds, could very well be "moms and pops who downloaded a song to try it out". My comment was referencing the overall situation of the lawsuits the RIAA has filed, not the situation in Iceland.
The RIAA just doesn't get it. Continuing with these lawsuits is not going to do anything but build another revenue stream for them. At this point, one has to wonder if they realize that and if that is all they are hoping for.
You see, the market has already spoken and it has spoken loudly. An entirely new paradigm of music distribution has evolved and it isn't going to regress to the way it was in the previous generation. The RIAA had their chance to give people a product they want online and to use the new mechanism of distribution for profit. It failed to do so, thus other non-sanctioned methods entered the space to fill the void.
What will happen now is one of two things. Either the RIAA realizes that they can't have it their way and comes up with an acceptable online offer that will attract customers, or they will continue to spin their wheels in vain and alienate their customers who will in turn seek other outlets from which to obtain music.
people who illegally photocopy books go to jail
people who illegally perform plays and musical pieces go to jail
people who plagiarize or don't cite references go to jail
Hell let's just have anyone who says anything in a non-free speech zone go to jail.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree there are a lot of problems associated with this topic. All the junk you mentioned tends to drown out the credible reports that warrant investigation. It requires discernment and careful work to separate the junk from the important stuff.
But I guarantee anyone that if they spend a little time looking at the credible stuff you will see a core reality to the whole thing. Too many military officers are saying their colleagues are lying about what they have witnessed. Too many documents from when the sightings first occurred say things like the Air Force had no idea what the objects were and decided to cover it up. Too many airline pilots have seen the objects. NARCAP compiled a database of over 3000 such sightings.
There's really too much evidence for me to even try to condense it hear. All I can say is you have to understand that not everyone is a charlatan and a liar when it comes to this topic. Many scientists have examined this closely over the last several decades, Allen Hynek for example. They have made some rather interesting findings.
Notice I did not say anything about what might be piloting the craft. That is a common error in judgment many people make because of stereotypes in this topic. All we really know at this point is that some anomalous craft have been observed.
Too many people who believe what you're talking about do, and their lack of credibility rubs off on you.
In reference to "lack of credibility" please read the other reply to the parent I just posted.
In reference to "evidence." It's all there for anyone who wants to look at it. For a scientific viewpoint, I highly recommend the Condon Report of 1969. Read any section but the conclusion and you will see some great scientific analysis. For info on why the conclusion of that report differs widely from the evidence, read the various info on Condon himself that is widely available.
For interested /. readers, this is a brief list of some of the major people (military and civilian) who are known to have given convincing testimony to the reality of unusual craft (UFOs) they have witnessed. It is by no means exhaustive. Most of them have stated in some way or another that a percentage of craft encountered were definitely unknown to the Air Force and were not discussed because of that. Many also testified that they received orders to keep their mouths shut about it. Thankfully, they felt it was important enough to disregard that order. Investigations into what these people have stated (which I have been doing for several years now) is extremely fascinating. They are not kooks. Many are career military officers, scientists, academics, and others of high station. I have a great respect for them. I only wish more people would at least hear them before dismissing the whole notion. Their accounts do not come from the Weekly World News. They are not wearing tinfoil hats. They are very serious about it.
Brigadier General Stephen Lovekin: Army National Guard Reserves
Brigadier General Arthur Exon: US Air Force (ret.)
Brigadier Thomas Dubose: US Air Force (deceased)
Merle Shane McDow: US Navy Atlantic Command
Lance Corporal Jonathan Weygandt: US Marine Corps
Maj. George A. Filer, III: US Air Force (Ret.)
Maj. Donald Keyhoe: US Air Force (deceased)
Nick Pope: British Ministry of Defense Official
Larry Warren: US Air Force, Security Officer
Sgt. Clifford Stone: US Army
Master Sgt. Dan Morris: US Air Force, NRO Operative
Officer Alan Godfrey: British Police
Sgt. Karl Wolf: US Air Force
Ms. Donna Hare: NASA Employee
Dr. Robert Wood: McDonnell Douglas Aerospace Engineer
Dr. Paul Czysz: McDonnell Douglas Career Engineer
Astronaut Edgar Mitchell
Astronaut Gordon Cooper (deceased)
John Callahan: FAA Head of Accidents and Investigations
Michael Smith: US Air Force Radar Controller
Franklin Carter: US Navy Radar Technician
Neil Daniels: United Airlines Pilot
Captain Robert Salas: US Air Force, SAC Launch Controller
Harry Allen Jordan: US Navy
Sgt. Chuck Sorrells: US Air Force (ret.)
Commander Graham Bethune: US Navy (ret.)
Mr. Enrique Kolbeck: Senior Air Traffic Controller, Mexico
Dr. Richard Haines
Mr. Franklin Carter: US Navy
Sgt. Robert Blazina (ret.)
Lieutenant Frederick Marshall Fox: US Navy (ret.)
Lt. Bob Walker: US Army
Mr. Don Bockelman: US Army
Professor Robert Jacobs: Lt. US Air Force (ret.)
Lt. Colonel Dwynne Arneson: US Air Force (ret.)
Colonel Ross Dedrickson: US Air Force/AEC (ret.)
Mr. James Kopf: US Navy/ National Security Agency
Lieutenant Colonel Joe Wojtecki, US Air Force
Staff Sergeant Stoney Campbell: US Air Force
Lieutenant Colonel Charles Brown: US Air Force (ret.)
Admiral Lord Hill-Norton: Five-Star Admiral, Former Head of the British Ministry of Defense
Major-General Vasily Alexeyev: Russian Air Force,
Mr. Don Phillips: Lockheed Skunkworks, USAF, and CIA Contractor
Captain Bill Uhouse: US Marine Corps (ret.)
Lieutenant Colonel John Williams: US Air Force (ret.)
Mr. Gordon Creighton: Former British Foreign Service Official
Mr. John Maynard: Defense Intelligence Agency (ret.)
Mr. Harland Bentley: US Army
Dr. Alfred Webre: Senior Policy Analyst Stanford Research Institute
Denise McKenzie: Former SAIC employee
Colonel Phillip J. Corso, Sr.: US Army (ret.)
Sergeant Leonard Pretko: US Air Force
Mr. Dan Willis: US Navy
The existence and anomalous nature of these craft has been known to anyone who has dared to think outside the box and recognize valid testimony (albeit unusual) for almost 60 years.
It has been testified to by countless (hundreds in fact) military officials and government authorities. The Air Force itself admitted that many craft sighted were not it's own even though they performed extremely complex aeronautical maneuevers. Please go here or here, or here if you would like to do further reading.
In case there is any question, no I am not wearing a tinfoil hat. Yes I am an aerospace engineer.
The cargo ships don't return to earth in one piece. They're allowed to burn up on re-entry.
Why not just fill them with garbage anyway then? If the heat of reentry is enough to burn up the ship, surely it could incinerate some trash that's carried along with it.
MEESTER SPOCK!!!!!!!!
I don't think they have portable rockets on the station, and there wouldn't be room in the russian supply ships for such bulky items.
The obvious conclusion is that you're talking out of your ass and connecting the dots to "dumb fucktard" is a trivial exercise left to the reader.
And this dear readers is an excellent illustration of why not to feed the trolls.
Third, "pretty much anyone can patent anything that hasn't already been patented", provided that "anything" falls into an area of statutory subject matter, is WHAT THE FUCKING CONSTITUTION SAYS SHOULD BE PATENTED YOU DUMB ASS.
Sorry but you are the uninformed dumbass here. What I was saying was that "anything that hadn't already been patented" could include common technologies that had been in use for a long time by a lot of people. Thus if someone tried to patent such a technology, there would be numerous examples of prior art that could be cited. Further, I was pointing out was that the USPTO has been abysmal in their recognition of such prior art and has been readily granting patents for such commonplace things as clicking a mouse or executing a program as root. These things were most certainly not patented by the inventor but by various companies decades after the fact solely to gain a legal advantage over competing products.
I don't think the issue is as much with software patents in general as the way the system is currently implemented. The Patent Office is so clueless about prior art wrt software that pretty much anyone can patent anything that hasn't already been patented. They can then use that to intimidate or sue other companies even if those companies have been using the same technology for years without obligation to anyone.
The fact that Linux even exists means The Terrorists have already won.
Oh - for the purposes of this comment it has been assumed that the independant research company Gartner is independently researching for the independent entity of Microsoft.
Considering all the "independent" studies, reports, cost analyses, etc. that M$ has cited recently, it certainly wouldn't surprise me.
It's common on Slashdot to continually lament politicians' lack of intelligence when it comes to technology. What's not so common is to suggest or put into action good ideas to change that situation.
I'm certain Apple will be surprised to hear that.
The non-sanctioned services I refer to came on the scene long before iTMS. I was pointing out that the RIAA failed to see the need for a legitimate online service until long after P2P was firmly established.
iTMS represents an improvement in their online policy, but whether or not it is what the market will ultimately accept in the online music arena still remains to be seen.
You are confusing the two parts of this story. The people distributing 2.5 TB and using 40% of the traffic were in Iceland. The RIAA had nothing to do with that. They were shut down by SMAIS, not the RIAA. The article about the RIAA states that they filed an additional 762 lawsuits in the US, which, if their previous pattern holds, could very well be "moms and pops who downloaded a song to try it out". My comment was referencing the overall situation of the lawsuits the RIAA has filed, not the situation in Iceland.
The RIAA just doesn't get it. Continuing with these lawsuits is not going to do anything but build another revenue stream for them. At this point, one has to wonder if they realize that and if that is all they are hoping for.
You see, the market has already spoken and it has spoken loudly. An entirely new paradigm of music distribution has evolved and it isn't going to regress to the way it was in the previous generation. The RIAA had their chance to give people a product they want online and to use the new mechanism of distribution for profit. It failed to do so, thus other non-sanctioned methods entered the space to fill the void.
What will happen now is one of two things. Either the RIAA realizes that they can't have it their way and comes up with an acceptable online offer that will attract customers, or they will continue to spin their wheels in vain and alienate their customers who will in turn seek other outlets from which to obtain music.
How dare you use English units in a scientific context!
Not sure about specifics now but I remember Apple saying it was a few hundred thousand a while ago.
We keep hearing about all these new bandwidth records, but when will someone conduct a real case study and find out how much pr0n/sec it can handle.
We all know that it doesn't matter what the intent of the FF was if the terrorists have already won.
Last I checked, the ENTIRE COUNTRY of the USA is a "Free Speech Zone" by dint of the 1st Ammendment of the Constitution.
Yeah I just said that to illustrate the nonsense of the whole free speech zone thing.
Let's have:
people who illegally photocopy books go to jail
people who illegally perform plays and musical pieces go to jail
people who plagiarize or don't cite references go to jail
Hell let's just have anyone who says anything in a non-free speech zone go to jail.
Inside GTech joke.
Yeah but they muted the audio when they heard him saying "the good word."