That's missing the point of the entire exercise. They are trying to concentrate on systems most similar to our own since a) we know life can exist in circumstances like ours and b) if life does exist there, it may well take forms similar to life on earth so we will be able to recognise it. Concentrate on the easy stuff first and then, if that fails, try some more "abnormal" avenues.
This is a really important safeguard. Does anyone know whether my IP address and data associated with it would be classified as personal data under this (or similar) acts?
I use a work computer that has a fixed IP, so identifying me based on that IP would take all of abou 5 minutes - basically, that address represents me.
It is unlikely that this removes all the information they have about your search history. It may clear it from your google account but the search associated with the IP address may well remain, so the history could be reconstructed from that info (supposing that you have a fixed IP address). This is just speculation on my part, but I dont think that having a google account would actually give you more privacy than not having one.
I never claimed that facts were censored. If you read what i wrote, you'll see that I was talking about the process of interpretation of the science. An example: it is no use to me if someone discovers that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is rising and simply tells me that it is now 250ppm and expected to rise over the next few decades to 500ppm (or whatever). Big deal, could be a normal event as far as I know. The experts advice and thoughts on the importance of that are what matter to me and the lay public at large. And it is that opinion and comment on the bare facts that the article claims is being restricted - claims that are not just coming from a single person at NASA but from many within govt funded research institutes (see quote from article in my previous comment http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=175483&cid=145 90375).
And I am a scientist, so I'm quite happy to ask myself about the scientific process, thanks.
Well, if you believe that scientists' sole role is discover "facts", then you may be right, there is no censorship.
But scientists are not just automatons. They must also interpret their research and engage with society to help explore the implications and possible applications of what they do. What we see happening here is the admininstration trying to put a filter over that process so that the scientists discuss only the research that puts the current policies in a good light.
It doesn't seem like you've read the article very closely. The story here is that censorship of scientists is rife in government funded research institutions:
"The fight between Dr. Hansen and administration officials echoes other recent disputes.
At climate laboratories of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, for example, many scientists who routinely took calls from reporters five years ago can now do so only if the interview is approved by administration officials in Washington, and then only if a public affairs officer is present or on the phone. There scientists' points of view on climate policy align with those of the administration, however, there are few signs of restrictions on extracurricular lectures or writing."
I'd say that senior scientists in these institutions are mature enough to be making their own decisions about when interviews and writings are appropriate.
It's a completely different idea. As you describe it, Walgreens is just selling the digital equivalent of the "disposable" camera that has been around for years. (as you point out, there is nothing disposable about these cameras - you want the photos, you've got to return it and it gets reused. the Kodak "disposable" film camera is returned to a processsor more than 95% of the time and gets reused many times with replacement lens etc).
This guy's idea is more like a polaroid postcard - take the snap, put a stamp on it, write on the back and send it off. Instant, dude. And techy. What a waste, I agree, but I could see people buying it.
The summary doesn't seem to have it quite right: the $30b is an estimate of what was spent 31 Oct - 23 Dec. Which is 30% than same estimate last year.
But, FTA, another company did a survey for a similar period and found total sales to be $18b, up 25% from the previous year.
Which all goes to suggest there isn't an agreed measure of online spending...
Some of those gas taxes are on the order of 3 euros per liter
What a load of rubbish - the highest price in europe for petrol is about 1.50 per litre. Certainly much of that is tax (probably about 75%) but nothing like 3
We have occasionally asked users about visiting adult websites. The overall participation
rates have remained constant, from about 13% - 15%. Traditionally, three to five times as
many men as women have responded positively to this question.
The numbers they give are 21% of online men saying they visit adult websites and 5% of women.
That is a rather rosy view of technology. It may well be that China will have a different system of govt in 10 years but it probably won't be because of bloggers. Remember that the protestors in Tiananmen square didn't need cellphones and blogs to organise one of the critical protests in the Chinese freedom movement.
So often it seems that technologies are taken by governments and used against their citizens - a prime example is the plan for the British govt to monitor all road movements of vehicles with licencse plates (see http://www.guardian.co.uk/transport/Story/0,,15932 63,00.html discussed on/.) Add this to logs kept of cellphone calls (coupled with triangulation), the ubiqitous CCTV cameras here and increasingly vague criminal notions like "antisocial behaviour" and you have a recipe for technological totalitarianism.
Gee, look at that - get a couple of ground weather station in the artic, look at the local surface temperature and conclude that there is no global warming effect. If only one of those scientists who spend every day studying this had actually had such a good idea. But just the someone might wonder - what is the connection between the ground temperature at these places and the extent of sea ice? Well, it seems that sea ice has been decreasing over the last 40 years: see http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/286/544 6/1934 [science] But, by looking at those two temperature time series you probably wouldnt guesss it.
The primary claim here is that polar bears are dying because artic sea ice is retreating to a greater than normal extent. This tallies with predictions that climate change science makes.
Slashdot Mirror
That's missing the point of the entire exercise. They are trying to concentrate on systems most similar to our own since a) we know life can exist in circumstances like ours and b) if life does exist there, it may well take forms similar to life on earth so we will be able to recognise it. Concentrate on the easy stuff first and then, if that fails, try some more "abnormal" avenues.
This is a really important safeguard. Does anyone know whether my IP address and data associated with it would be classified as personal data under this (or similar) acts?
I use a work computer that has a fixed IP, so identifying me based on that IP would take all of abou 5 minutes - basically, that address represents me.
It is unlikely that this removes all the information they have about your search history. It may clear it from your google account but the search associated with the IP address may well remain, so the history could be reconstructed from that info (supposing that you have a fixed IP address). This is just speculation on my part, but I dont think that having a google account would actually give you more privacy than not having one.
I never claimed that facts were censored. If you read what i wrote, you'll see that I was talking about the process of interpretation of the science. An example: it is no use to me if someone discovers that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is rising and simply tells me that it is now 250ppm and expected to rise over the next few decades to 500ppm (or whatever). Big deal, could be a normal event as far as I know. The experts advice and thoughts on the importance of that are what matter to me and the lay public at large. And it is that opinion and comment on the bare facts that the article claims is being restricted - claims that are not just coming from a single person at NASA but from many within govt funded research institutes (see quote from article in my previous comment http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=175483&cid=145 90375).
And I am a scientist, so I'm quite happy to ask myself about the scientific process, thanks.
They pay for the Reuters or AP wire - that's how wire services make their money
Well, if you believe that scientists' sole role is discover "facts", then you may be right, there is no censorship.
But scientists are not just automatons. They must also interpret their research and engage with society to help explore the implications and possible applications of what they do. What we see happening here is the admininstration trying to put a filter over that process so that the scientists discuss only the research that puts the current policies in a good light.
"The fight between Dr. Hansen and administration officials echoes other recent disputes. At climate laboratories of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, for example, many scientists who routinely took calls from reporters five years ago can now do so only if the interview is approved by administration officials in Washington, and then only if a public affairs officer is present or on the phone. There scientists' points of view on climate policy align with those of the administration, however, there are few signs of restrictions on extracurricular lectures or writing."
I'd say that senior scientists in these institutions are mature enough to be making their own decisions about when interviews and writings are appropriate.
It's a completely different idea. As you describe it, Walgreens is just selling the digital equivalent of the "disposable" camera that has been around for years. (as you point out, there is nothing disposable about these cameras - you want the photos, you've got to return it and it gets reused. the Kodak "disposable" film camera is returned to a processsor more than 95% of the time and gets reused many times with replacement lens etc). This guy's idea is more like a polaroid postcard - take the snap, put a stamp on it, write on the back and send it off. Instant, dude. And techy. What a waste, I agree, but I could see people buying it.
The summary doesn't seem to have it quite right: the $30b is an estimate of what was spent 31 Oct - 23 Dec. Which is 30% than same estimate last year. But, FTA, another company did a survey for a similar period and found total sales to be $18b, up 25% from the previous year. Which all goes to suggest there isn't an agreed measure of online spending ...
That is a rather rosy view of technology. It may well be that China will have a different system of govt in 10 years but it probably won't be because of bloggers. Remember that the protestors in Tiananmen square didn't need cellphones and blogs to organise one of the critical protests in the Chinese freedom movement. So often it seems that technologies are taken by governments and used against their citizens - a prime example is the plan for the British govt to monitor all road movements of vehicles with licencse plates (see http://www.guardian.co.uk/transport/Story/0,,15932 63,00.html discussed on /.) Add this to logs kept of cellphone calls (coupled with triangulation), the ubiqitous CCTV cameras here and increasingly vague criminal notions like "antisocial behaviour" and you have a recipe for technological totalitarianism.
Gee, look at that - get a couple of ground weather station in the artic, look at the local surface temperature and conclude that there is no global warming effect. If only one of those scientists who spend every day studying this had actually had such a good idea. But just the someone might wonder - what is the connection between the ground temperature at these places and the extent of sea ice? Well, it seems that sea ice has been decreasing over the last 40 years: see http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/286/544 6/1934 [science] But, by looking at those two temperature time series you probably wouldnt guesss it.
The primary claim here is that polar bears are dying because artic sea ice is retreating to a greater than normal extent. This tallies with predictions that climate change science makes.