Battery technology will never be at the point where we can go as far as we currently can in a small car, and along the way charge up in under a few minutes (unless people start gaining acceptance for sealed personal nuclear power supplies)...
So you say. People also said that gasoline cars would never be as reliable as a horse and wagon.
People don't want and cannot afford specialized cars just for commutes.
Horseshit. I drive a specialized car just for my commute. You think I *enjoy* driving an econobox? I do it becaause it's cost-effective. The family wagon gets used by my wife during the week, and by the family on the weekends.
When liquid fuel prices get high enough, then you better believe people will want to drive a specialty vehicle for commuting... and all their other driving.
I'm sure battery powered cars have a future but I just cannot see them as being the mainstream car that most people drive.
Obviously, I disagree. I think there are inherent disadvantages to fuel systems due to: (1) distribution and transportation costs (2) the relative inefficiency of small engines, and (3) the decreased dependence on a limited set of fuels.
With regards to (3), I think from a security standpoint, as well as a market efficiency standpoint, we're far better having a system where we can swap out power sources as needed. This gives us better long-term viability (for example, allowing us to more easily change to nuclear and renewable energy sources).
On a long term scale, what would be interesting is a way to pull CO2 directly from the air, mix it with water (best bet is desalinated so it does not interfere with water needs) and start making crude oil this way ready for refining and reuse. Nuclear power has enough density per square foot, so one could combine a nuke plant, a desalination plant, and a CO2 remover in one area, and get crude in quantities that are usable for fuel or for plastics. To boot, it would be a crude oil free of mercury, sulphur, or other possible toxic metals.
It's hideously expensive, energy-wise, to make crude from CO2 and H2O. We'd be better off getting away from liquid fuels entirely if we're going to use nuclear as the primary power source. Nuclear --> electricity on grid --> car battery would be far better, I'd think. Sure, we'd need to improve the grid... but the last-mile infrastructure is already in place.
this US research seems to make absolutely no sense, since this has been a solved problem in Brazil for quite some time.
Unfortunately, here in the US we do not have the right climate for growing enough sugarcane to satisfy our appetite for fuel. Nor do we have the cheap labor required to make it cost-effective.
On top of that, we have various agricultural groups spending millions in lobbying to ensure that *their* crop (read: maize) is the target of most of the research, despite the possibilities of switchgrass or other plants being much better.
Today this is usually done at research universities.
And even at research universities, the proportion of basic research is being actively reduced.
This is partly because of reduced government funding for projects that do not produce tangible viable results, and partly because of the increasing partnership between public research universities and private for-profit enterprises.
"Like the Mutant whose special power is that one of their arms is on their back"
That could have its uses: it would make wiping ones ass easier.
Well, that depends on which way the elbow bends, what part of the back the arm is attached to, and whether there's a shoulder joint, doesn't it?
I mean, sure, it could make wiping your ass easier if the arm has a shoulder joint right in the middle of your back, and the elbow bends toward the ass. What if it bends towards the head? I guess that's a bad example, since then you could brush your hair more easily. But what if it bent towards the side?
And even if the arm was perfectly position to help you wipe your ass, you'd have to have clothes specially fitted. And you couldn't comfortably lean back in a chair. And forget about laying on a blanket to do some stargazing.
And what about laying in bed with your partner? If you want to face eachother, you've already got a where-do-we-put-the-extra-arm problem. Now you've also got that problem when you're laying on your back (forget cowgirl positions!), if you're being spooned, etc.
All in all, having an extra arm originating from your back is more hassle than it's worth. Unless you are unable to prevent getting shit all over your hands when you wipe, in which case you may be an edge case where it would be useful.
can be shielded with the same kind of tin foil bat shit insane people use to cover their heads for crying out loud.
Most bat-shit insane people I've seen wearing foil hats wear ones made from aluminum. Which is kind of ironic, given that they suppose themselves to be in the enlightened minority, but are unaware that aluminum foil does not offer the same protective properties against telepathic rays as tin. It does, however, protect against beta rays, but it's need to be much thicker than aluminum foil (orders of magnitude thicker).
All that said, the big problems with your idea are (1) amount of energy produced per unit weight is insufficient for cars; (2) disposal; (3) cost of enriching the fuel.
There are reasons beta electric cells are generally reserved for special-use cases like satellites.
This wasn't whistle blowing though, it was passing classified documents on to a foreign national.
I see what you're saying... but IMO whether or not it was a foreign national is completely beside the point. All of the organizations you mention distribute their publications in the US. Wikileaks coordinates with organizations like that to publish in the US.
So the problem is that he leaked to a foreign intermediary? One that is not an established reputable publisher?
If you wanted to blow the whistle, what's the best bet? Leak to an organization that will disseminate it widely in the interest of public knowledge? Or leak to an organization that would twist it to suit their purposes (as any of the three orgs you mentioned would do)?
As for whether he'd be in deep doo-doo if he leaked to one of those established orgs... I disagree 100%. He'd still be in the cauldron -- he embarassed the powers that be. Sure,the charges he'd be facing wouldn't be as serious, but he'd still be up the creek.
I'm sure if someone asked Assange why they've not helped Manning's fund out, he'd skip over the question like he does with all non-fawning questions.
I'm not sure why you end every post with a denigration of Assange's character. His character is a superfluous matter. It's almost like you're trying to link support of Assange's character with support of his ideals. That's disingenuous.
It's Assange, Wikileaks, and Manning who have broken the law, and are using unsupportable diversions to try to avoid being convicted of it.
Some things are more important than not breaking the law.
Without breaking the law, the "things they say are their goals" would not have gotten enough attention to do any good.
It's also important to note that the governments' reaction to them is part of their strategy to focus public attention on the problems they are trying to get fixed.
But go ahead, keep toeing that line. You're a good boy, I'm sure you'll get your table scraps someday.
He pissed off the Army something fierce and by his actions have made it harder for other, loyal techs in the services, to use logical work arounds like gmail, flash drives, external hard disks for mundane tasks.
Even in the Army, whistle-blowers have protected status. His mistake was whistle-blowing to the public instead of to superiors up the chain of command. Arguably, though, he would have known going up the chain of command would have been useless... and so public disclosure was the only way to blow the whistle.
Wikileaks for it's part has contributed nothing to his defense fund, guess it's more important to keep Assange out of jail and his name in the press.
Or, you know, to keep operating. Wikileaks doesn't have deep pockets. Protecting their sources is not their responsibility, anyway. The responsibility they have assumed is that of providing a means of dissemination of erstwhile secret information.
Someone is using him as a poster boy for a campaign against the paradox of pretrial incarceration in a free society?
No. Read the link before attempting to refute it in ignorance.
He's not being tortured. Nobody is any more.
He's being held in solitary confinement for 23 hours a day, with limited outside contact.
That's considered torture by a lot of people -- nations, even.
Read the linked article. The author went into some detail about why it's considered torture in some places, and the deleterious effect it can have on a person.
You may disagree with the author's opinion that solitary confinement is torture. But what you have claimed they are arguing, is not what they are arguing. Your claim, and refutation of your claim -- I believe this is called a straw man.
Ironically, cubicles were originally created to "break down the fascist walls that divide us" and give us an open, social, level community. Instead, it has become representative of exactly the opposite. They oppose individuality, privacy, and make people feel like cattle.
What?
Robert Propst invented cubicles precisely to give workers individuality and privacy... he invented them as a replacement from open floor plans called "bull pens" where each worker sat at a desk and had zero privacy.
Probst has stated that he regrets the invention, because cubicles have come to replace offices for non-bullpen workers as well.
I don't think Oracle is particularly concerned with anything other than its core products and profit-making from those.
What?
Oracle has been acquiring companies up the vertical* for many years.
I think the philosophy has emerged there that it's becoming less important to do things that may have nebulous or down-the-road benefit in favor of only putting effort into things from which you can draw a straight line to profit.
I think they've been trying to avoid corporate bloat while still making acquisitions that make sense.
*And by 'up the vertical', I don't mean 'where the sun don't shine'. I mean middleware, consulting, etc.
In the future when this happens again...the perpetrator shouldn't be prosecuted...but those responsible for the security of the information. They are the ones responsible for things happening like this.
Horseshit. Punish the victim?
The company who failed to secure their property made a mistake, and they suffered for it already. That alone should be an incentive to do things right in the future, and other companies who find out about it will hopefully think twice about their policies.
This does not change the fact that the perpetrator should be prosecuted and punished if found guilty.
While rogue IT staff can bring infrastructure to its knees, an accountant is often far better placed to, say, rip off an organization in a huge way, and it happens enough via phony invoicing schemes to suggest to me that those in the financial end of an organization are by far the greater risk.
Any business worth its salt has controls in place to prevent any accountant from having enough control with too little oversight to prevent this. In my entire career, I have never worked for a company that was vulnerable to this without the complicity of ownership or top executive-level management. Little amounts might make it through for some of the companies I've worked for... but "in a huge way"? Never.
As for IT -- it's a function of the work involved that critical infrastructure is vulnerable to a rogue IT staff-member. Proper oversight is hard to do, especially since IT is an enigma to executive-level management most of the time. Proper system design, access management, etc, are harder to ensure for IT systems than they are for accounting processes.
Accounting example: In order for a payment to go out, it must be signed and/or authorized by a signing authority (usually top-level management) -- many companies require two signatures. The signing authorities have taken the responsibility of ensuring the payment is accurate, valid, etc, and companies have tons of audited controls to make it so.
IT example: In order for a critical system to be sabotaged... no such requirement. And even if you had the requirement, who among top-level management has the expertise to know what is proper?
I don't dispute the existence or ability of Anonymous.
But what kind of cause are they, exactly? Vigilantism? I don't think you can say that Anonymous is a cause. It's a group without a cause.
I also think it's a stretch to consider them popular. Most people haven't heard of them, or if they have, they quickly dismissed them from consciousness. Why? Because there is no face, no individual attached to them.
And if she actually serves on a jury, it's likely she'll be there longer than the week
Not really. Most cases are not that long. And for cases that are predicted to last a long time, they are even more accepting of reasons for excusal.
So canceling a week of work cuts her pay (eat-what-you-kill practice)
We all sacrifice for civic duty. Why should she be exempt?
The problem with that is that she only gets exempted from future service if she actually serves on a jury.
I don't know how your state does it. In NJ, just being called for jury duty moves you back in the queue for getting called again. I don't recall the specifics, but I think it's something like 2 years before I can be called for petit jury duty again.
In that set of incentives, you'd have to be insane to want to serve on a jury.
Who said anything about want? It's a duty, not a privilege. I don't like the interruption to my work, my home life, etc that jury duty presents. But I do my duty as a member of society, and all the excuses you give for her are just lame excuses to get out of her same responsibility.
Assuming she had been given decent notice, though, and taking your example, should she cancel the entire week's appointments?
Yes. Take vacation, whatever shee needs to do in order to be prepared to do her civic duty. There are other doctors out there -- and if not (rural area, etc), then she should be able to get an excusal.
She's a prime example, I believe, of people who will find an excuse to avoid their civic duty. I understand that the fact that she's a doctor mitigates it a bit. I understand that it's hard to clear a week. I understand that there is sacrifice involved. But she depends on society, just as society depends upon her -- and she should fulfill her duty just as everyone else should.
Slashdot Mirror
So you say. People also said that gasoline cars would never be as reliable as a horse and wagon.
Horseshit. I drive a specialized car just for my commute. You think I *enjoy* driving an econobox? I do it becaause it's cost-effective. The family wagon gets used by my wife during the week, and by the family on the weekends.
When liquid fuel prices get high enough, then you better believe people will want to drive a specialty vehicle for commuting... and all their other driving.
Obviously, I disagree. I think there are inherent disadvantages to fuel systems due to:
(1) distribution and transportation costs
(2) the relative inefficiency of small engines, and
(3) the decreased dependence on a limited set of fuels.
With regards to (3), I think from a security standpoint, as well as a market efficiency standpoint, we're far better having a system where we can swap out power sources as needed. This gives us better long-term viability (for example, allowing us to more easily change to nuclear and renewable energy sources).
It's hideously expensive, energy-wise, to make crude from CO2 and H2O. We'd be better off getting away from liquid fuels entirely if we're going to use nuclear as the primary power source. Nuclear --> electricity on grid --> car battery would be far better, I'd think. Sure, we'd need to improve the grid... but the last-mile infrastructure is already in place.
Unfortunately, here in the US we do not have the right climate for growing enough sugarcane to satisfy our appetite for fuel. Nor do we have the cheap labor required to make it cost-effective.
On top of that, we have various agricultural groups spending millions in lobbying to ensure that *their* crop (read: maize) is the target of most of the research, despite the possibilities of switchgrass or other plants being much better.
There never was one. That's the nature of basic research -- there's no monetary incentive to do it.
This is precisely *why* we have public funding for basic research. So that it gets done, absent a natural monetary incentive to do it.
And even at research universities, the proportion of basic research is being actively reduced.
This is partly because of reduced government funding for projects that do not produce tangible viable results, and partly because of the increasing partnership between public research universities and private for-profit enterprises.
Well, that depends on which way the elbow bends, what part of the back the arm is attached to, and whether there's a shoulder joint, doesn't it?
I mean, sure, it could make wiping your ass easier if the arm has a shoulder joint right in the middle of your back, and the elbow bends toward the ass. What if it bends towards the head? I guess that's a bad example, since then you could brush your hair more easily. But what if it bent towards the side?
And even if the arm was perfectly position to help you wipe your ass, you'd have to have clothes specially fitted. And you couldn't comfortably lean back in a chair. And forget about laying on a blanket to do some stargazing.
And what about laying in bed with your partner? If you want to face eachother, you've already got a where-do-we-put-the-extra-arm problem. Now you've also got that problem when you're laying on your back (forget cowgirl positions!), if you're being spooned, etc.
All in all, having an extra arm originating from your back is more hassle than it's worth. Unless you are unable to prevent getting shit all over your hands when you wipe, in which case you may be an edge case where it would be useful.
Most bat-shit insane people I've seen wearing foil hats wear ones made from aluminum. Which is kind of ironic, given that they suppose themselves to be in the enlightened minority, but are unaware that aluminum foil does not offer the same protective properties against telepathic rays as tin. It does, however, protect against beta rays, but it's need to be much thicker than aluminum foil (orders of magnitude thicker).
All that said, the big problems with your idea are (1) amount of energy produced per unit weight is insufficient for cars; (2) disposal; (3) cost of enriching the fuel.
There are reasons beta electric cells are generally reserved for special-use cases like satellites.
I see what you're saying... but IMO whether or not it was a foreign national is completely beside the point. All of the organizations you mention distribute their publications in the US. Wikileaks coordinates with organizations like that to publish in the US.
So the problem is that he leaked to a foreign intermediary? One that is not an established reputable publisher?
If you wanted to blow the whistle, what's the best bet? Leak to an organization that will disseminate it widely in the interest of public knowledge? Or leak to an organization that would twist it to suit their purposes (as any of the three orgs you mentioned would do)?
As for whether he'd be in deep doo-doo if he leaked to one of those established orgs... I disagree 100%. He'd still be in the cauldron -- he embarassed the powers that be. Sure,the charges he'd be facing wouldn't be as serious, but he'd still be up the creek.
I'm not sure why you end every post with a denigration of Assange's character. His character is a superfluous matter. It's almost like you're trying to link support of Assange's character with support of his ideals. That's disingenuous.
No, it's not like that. It's not nearly like that.
The threat of Communism, as marketed in the 50s and 60s, was a threat of total war, global annihilation, prison camps, and pure evil.
In terms of public opinion and likeliness of vigilantism: Anonymous is a gnat compared to the velociraptor of Communism.
Some things are more important than not breaking the law.
Without breaking the law, the "things they say are their goals" would not have gotten enough attention to do any good.
It's also important to note that the governments' reaction to them is part of their strategy to focus public attention on the problems they are trying to get fixed.
But go ahead, keep toeing that line. You're a good boy, I'm sure you'll get your table scraps someday.
Oh, fuck me. I hadn't realized that Wikileaks had promised funding for Manning's defense.
Please ignore my posting out of ignorance above.
Even in the Army, whistle-blowers have protected status. His mistake was whistle-blowing to the public instead of to superiors up the chain of command. Arguably, though, he would have known going up the chain of command would have been useless... and so public disclosure was the only way to blow the whistle.
Or, you know, to keep operating. Wikileaks doesn't have deep pockets. Protecting their sources is not their responsibility, anyway. The responsibility they have assumed is that of providing a means of dissemination of erstwhile secret information.
No. Read the link before attempting to refute it in ignorance.
He's being held in solitary confinement for 23 hours a day, with limited outside contact.
That's considered torture by a lot of people -- nations, even.
Read the linked article. The author went into some detail about why it's considered torture in some places, and the deleterious effect it can have on a person.
You may disagree with the author's opinion that solitary confinement is torture. But what you have claimed they are arguing, is not what they are arguing. Your claim, and refutation of your claim -- I believe this is called a straw man.
What?
Robert Propst invented cubicles precisely to give workers individuality and privacy... he invented them as a replacement from open floor plans called "bull pens" where each worker sat at a desk and had zero privacy.
Probst has stated that he regrets the invention, because cubicles have come to replace offices for non-bullpen workers as well.
WTF is osculation?
From Webster's:
Are you suggesting that the images have been passed through the pisser of a sponge?
What?
Oracle has been acquiring companies up the vertical* for many years.
I think they've been trying to avoid corporate bloat while still making acquisitions that make sense.
*And by 'up the vertical', I don't mean 'where the sun don't shine'. I mean middleware, consulting, etc.
Horseshit. Punish the victim?
The company who failed to secure their property made a mistake, and they suffered for it already. That alone should be an incentive to do things right in the future, and other companies who find out about it will hopefully think twice about their policies.
This does not change the fact that the perpetrator should be prosecuted and punished if found guilty.
I think you mistake what most accountants make. Typically less than what the IT staff gets paid. Management-level is a different case.
Nationally: Accountant II: $51k/yr; Network Admin II: $61k/yr.
This is just one example; compare accounting to IT jobs across the board and you'll see that IT jobs pay more.
Any business worth its salt has controls in place to prevent any accountant from having enough control with too little oversight to prevent this. In my entire career, I have never worked for a company that was vulnerable to this without the complicity of ownership or top executive-level management. Little amounts might make it through for some of the companies I've worked for... but "in a huge way"? Never.
As for IT -- it's a function of the work involved that critical infrastructure is vulnerable to a rogue IT staff-member. Proper oversight is hard to do, especially since IT is an enigma to executive-level management most of the time. Proper system design, access management, etc, are harder to ensure for IT systems than they are for accounting processes.
Accounting example: In order for a payment to go out, it must be signed and/or authorized by a signing authority (usually top-level management) -- many companies require two signatures. The signing authorities have taken the responsibility of ensuring the payment is accurate, valid, etc, and companies have tons of audited controls to make it so.
IT example: In order for a critical system to be sabotaged... no such requirement. And even if you had the requirement, who among top-level management has the expertise to know what is proper?
What argument?
I'm not making the case for the validity of something. I'm just stating what I think the answer to the parent's question is.
There was no value judgment assigned to it...
That analysis is a crock, for it fails when the effect of doing "something" is negative.
Doing nothing is better than doing a negative something.
Far bett, and I think you'll agree here, is to do a different something, one that will have positive results.
I don't dispute the existence or ability of Anonymous.
But what kind of cause are they, exactly? Vigilantism? I don't think you can say that Anonymous is a cause. It's a group without a cause.
I also think it's a stretch to consider them popular. Most people haven't heard of them, or if they have, they quickly dismissed them from consciousness. Why? Because there is no face, no individual attached to them.
Not really. Most cases are not that long. And for cases that are predicted to last a long time, they are even more accepting of reasons for excusal.
We all sacrifice for civic duty. Why should she be exempt?
I don't know how your state does it. In NJ, just being called for jury duty moves you back in the queue for getting called again. I don't recall the specifics, but I think it's something like 2 years before I can be called for petit jury duty again.
Who said anything about want? It's a duty, not a privilege. I don't like the interruption to my work, my home life, etc that jury duty presents. But I do my duty as a member of society, and all the excuses you give for her are just lame excuses to get out of her same responsibility.
Yes. Take vacation, whatever shee needs to do in order to be prepared to do her civic duty. There are other doctors out there -- and if not (rural area, etc), then she should be able to get an excusal.
She's a prime example, I believe, of people who will find an excuse to avoid their civic duty. I understand that the fact that she's a doctor mitigates it a bit. I understand that it's hard to clear a week. I understand that there is sacrifice involved. But she depends on society, just as society depends upon her -- and she should fulfill her duty just as everyone else should.
Weird... my last notice (this year) came in the first week of January for April service.