Why wouldn't they bug China. And yes, why wouldn't China bug the US.
It's an insane system. A paranoid, power-hungry system.
Actually, it's not as insane as it first appears. Think about it this way. The more you know exactly what your "friends" and "enemies" are up to, the less likely that you are to be afraid of them. Conversely, it makes you more likely to "behave," so to speak. This is absolutely true when they spy on you. Personally, I'm all for spying. The more the better.
Here's another example:
During the Cold War, particularly in the 1950s, there was this talk of a Bomber Gap and later a Missle Gap. The logic was that it appeared to the West that the Russians (USSR) were building many more bombers and missles than the West (primarly the US in this case) were building. This led many in the US power centers, General Curtus Lemay was one if I remember correctly from my AF ROTC days, to call for pre-emptive strikes at the USSR. President Eisenhower had a different idea. He suggested we build spy planes, since the CIA couldn't get personel to do it, to fly over the USSR and figure out what what up. (Note this is before spy satellites existed/still in their infancy) They created the U-2, and later the A-12(and later slightly modified and called the SR-71), to do just that. The jet's took their pictures,and proved no such gap existed thereby diffusing much of the initial Cold War tensions. It got the American war hawks to cool off. It later proved successful again with the Cuban Missile Crisis. Could you imagine the American responce if we found out about those MRBMS in Cuba via a test launch? EEEK! Ironically, we had MRBMs or SRBMs in Turkey at the time, but hey who's counting. Anyway, spying is good. It helps control things in much the same way a good investigative reporter does.
Remember, it was the great Ben Frainlin who said, "those who are willing to trade liberty for security deserve neither!"
The Microsoft/Urge subscription model contains a new twist as well: 'Urge also lets you rent songs: $9.95 a month (or $99 a year) lets you download all the tracks you want to a computer, while $14.95 ($149 a year) lets you transfer those downloads to most newer Windows Media-compatible players. These rented songs can't be burned to CD and go silent if you stop paying the fees.'
How is this a "new twist"? Listen Rhapsody [real.com] has been using this model for years.
Yeah, Yahoo Music has a service that is the same thing... only cheaper... $60 a year for the rent only option. Good thinking MS; do what your competitor is doing... a year or two later... for 50% more...
Do they honestly think this is a good idea? Maybe the MTV connection???
I have a problem with my 700 mhz webserver that lives under my bed. How do I shut that up? It's driving me nuts. I'm not trying to be funny here, I'm really starting to loose it over this thing.
that's not the fan... it's a monster... don't go near it!!!
- even this clear cut case of non-comercial, educational use.
The most ironic part of that is the fact that real pirates will not be inhibited by this. They'll have the means to do what they are already doing. You almost can't walk down a street in Manhattan, or sit in the subway often enough, without seeing someone sell pirated copies of movies; some of which aren't in theaters yet. Sure they run away when the cops come by, but the fact is that they don't get too many of them.
You know, this sounds a lot like drug enforcement. Not to sound too radical, although/. might be the right place for this, but this sounds like the same logic. One could see the same thinking extend all the way back to Prohibition. A few are abusing it, so let's prohibit everyone from using it at all. It was a bad idea eighty years ago, and it's still a bad idea now. Better to regulate and tax than to try to outlaw that which so many folks want to do. I wouldn't see so many of those pirated movies on the street if folks weren't buying them. They keep pushing DMCA and we'll only see more of this. If you ask me, and you don't have to since this is/., it's just goes to show that the government doesn't change; it always has bad solutions to problems.
For the record, I'm rather cynical when it comes to trusting the government to solve most problems.
If by "live" you mean "barely functioning," then you'd be right.
No, but in general it looks pretty nice (assuming all of the functions work).
I tried it, and spent a few minutes playing with it. I works well enough as a simple calender, and the ability to send phone alerts I consider particularly useful!
In my philosophy class last night someone was just saying that they didn't believe in that "global warming nonsense". I guess they fall in the 29% bracket.
What the poll fails to take into account are people like myself. I believe global warming is happening, but that it's due to solar activity more than CO2/Methane production from human activities. I don't think there is much we can do about it, save to adapt to it. Humans have shown again and again that we're good at it.
I don't think CO2 is much of a problem, but let's face it all the other stuff that gets into the air from burning fossil fuels is nasty stuff. Particularly the particulates. : )
Anyway, why not bring that up into the mix? I think a lot more people would support it here in the US if folks added that argument to the mix. The subsities that are currently going to Fossil Fuels, at least here in the US, ought to be going to those cleaner alternatives. Notice I said cleaner instead of clean. Anyone who's made a silicon based solar cell; I made a VERY simple one in college; knows what a nasty process that is. Still, running the thing is clean. I am curious how long one would have to run before you make up the energy you spent making one? Hmm.
Realistically, I think the best option is putting money towards two or 3 technologies that I've heard of. The first being fusion. Sure it's the perenial pipe-dream, but I think this is worth the investment. Second, and more realistically, is using algae to produce hydrogen. I've read of several companies in the US and overseas pursuing this technology. Third is the waste to energy technologies that use digesters and thermal-depolomerization technologies that limit/reuse waste.
I don't like Kyoto, and am not surprised that even the British won't meet their targets. It's a bad idea. Better to save the cash and spend it on better technologies, and the new infrastructure we'll need to support it. Converting to hydrogen is great, but it will take more money than I could ever spend to convert all the gasoline stations, pipelines, etc to support it.
Like I said though, I do like the idea of moving off of fossil fuels. Anyway... my two cents...
I think that there is another problem.
While seing the movie in the theater is a more fufilling experience, the costs involved are simply too much.
The movies where I'm at are $9.00 per ticket (IIRC the theater gets none of that), the concessions are also sky high.
I simply can not afford to go to the movies, so I don't. For the cost of my wife and I going to two movies a month I can rent 6 movies at a time from Netflix and have a couple bucks left over to buy a bag of popping corn that I can flavor however I want.
That's why movie attendance is declining.
You are so right on. After NYC ticket prices broke through the $10 threshold a while back, I decided to stop going so often. It's just not worth it unless it's something REALLY big like the LOTR or HP movies. I used to go to like 2-3 movies a month, but now go see only a couple a year. It's easier and more fun to watch them at home.
Ever swing your keys on a string to generate some doppler? How about lighting steel-wool on a stick in the beam? One time I was crawling on the shop floor looking for a dropped resistor and got shocked, nobody believed me until I got the multimeter to show them there was a 208VAC between two sections of concrete.
I guess if EMF could hurt you, I'd have died a long time ago.
Yep, you'd fit in real well with my crew! I surprised we have gotten away with half the stuff we have over the years, and me being the guy fresh out of college when I started was not nearly as "experimental" as the ol' salts who have been at it since "before your daddy met your momma." The more you know the stuff, the more you know what fun you can have; particularly with the new guy.
I do feel a lot better in front of an LCD than a CRT, though the only places that might make a good comparison are with lots of desktops around (labs, work areas, etc), so it's hard to isolate it.
It's likely that this is due to the differences in eye strain that the two items produce. Most folks, myself included, notice the difference; especially after a long day of usage.
Honestly I have no idea what the difference between electric and magnetic fields is...
I am an electrical engineer, and I've worked with high power radars for about 10 years. I don't know of anyone who has noticed what you have, nor reported any problems with things like that. I'm no doctor, but it sounds to me like your sensitivity is great enough and rare enough to warrent a chat with one. Good luck.
I'm curious. Does going out on a bright sunny day effect you? The reason I ask is that the sun itself is a major source of radiation at an extreemly large number of frequencies and high powers beyond the visual and UV spectrum that we are most familar with. I'm curious if it's just certain bands that effect you, or simly strong fields. What about sitting in front of a TV; a CRT not one of the new flatscreens? Those have strong magnetic fields as well. Are your symtoms more related to electric fields or magnetic ones? What about a strong home stereo(100 watts per channel+), or being near the alternator in a car? How about the low frequency radiation that comes from power lines; like the ones in your apartment? Does pulling the fuses/turning off the circuit breakers have an effect?
Overclock all you want and you are still playing the same game as everyone else.
True, but I think most of us overclock for the sheer fun of it. I agree, though, these days there is hardly the use for it that there once was; if there ever was.
I use a Zalman reservator1 for the watercooling in my system. My processor and videocard are cooled in the same water circuit, with pleanty of extra cooling capability to spare considering I have both chips (CPU and VC) heavily overclocked. All of this is cooled via the standard 5W pump; which is basically a fish tank pump. The truth is that I am using fewer total watts then before considering I have removed 3 case fans and the stock fans on the processor and video card. The whole PC is now much quieter considering only the PSU has a fan on it now.
Mind you this is not an advertisement for Zalman, I'm just trying to describe in detail what I actually own.
Buy a shredder. I shred every credit card offer and transfer check my current credit card company sends me. It's ridiculous the crap they send me. One of these days, a thief is going to raid my mailbox before I get home and get a credit card in my name. Oh well. At least I get to play Enron Executive with my niece.
I even go so far as to save my shredded paper until it fills the bin, and then throw out the whole bag of confetti at once. Granted, I live in a Manhattan apartment where they do recycling of paper; which makes us all more vulnerable.
I see nothing wrong with cencorship on some levels for the troops, either. This is normal, and always the case. We give up rights when you put on that uniform. Adultery will get you time in jail as a solder, but not as a civilian. It's not like they don't tell you that upfront.
For the record, I'm a vet myself; 98-02 USAF, and both my father(64-67) and grandfather(44-45) served before me. We all volunteered, and hate even the idea of a draft.
The key here would be the warnings: every place has a code of conduct. When you buy a ticket or enroll in a conference, you accept a, let's call it "EULA": by entering the premises, you accept to have your cell phone blocked and the company is not responsible for any lost calls nor its consequences. You have been warned.
Exactly like the one at the ski resorts that I go to that say they are not responsible for you hurting yourself skiing; particularly when you/me are not good enough to ski their most difficult trails.
I was being sarcastic, but I think it didn't come across that way. Either way, the article said that the thing would approach 66k miles from the surface. That approaches the interface withe solar wind, even at the equator. That could be a problem, and it's what generates the Arora; granted the latter when it interacts with the Ionosphere. Still, that's a lot of protons!
Well, they did have those two tethered satellite experiments that they ran on the Space Shuttle, and even in LEO with a relatively short tether the potentials between the satellite and the shuttle were pretty big.
True, but the shuttle and the satellite were moving fast through the Earth's magnetic field. Granted the field fluctuates on it's own, but I think that is relatively insignificant compared to changes due to traveling at the speed needed for LEO. What's my point, I think the magnetic flux through the "elevator cable" would be significantly lower than that of through the wire between the two orbital objects. Still, the problem remains, and I don't know enough to guess on this one, is the flux generated by the natural fluctuations great enough when operating on a cable that long to cause a problem(induce a strong current). Also, there is a possibility of an interaction with the solar wind. Let's plug into the Arora Borealis(sp?).
Just because a technology is an inevitability does not necessarily mean that people who wait are short-sighted.
Good points all! It's like asking how many people have bought HDTVs when SDTV still is available with most of the programming and their SDTV still works just fine. Sure, I'll get a HDTV soon, but I don't need it yet. I'll get it when I do, and by the way, by waiting I'll save a few bucks. I wouldn't call that short-sighted either!
Maybe they just would rather jump on Virgin Galatic? Branson's and Burt Rutan's new spaceline looks promising; even if they aren't talking about orbit for atleast another generation or two down the road; spaceship version that is.
That and a the WTC had a HUGE network hub of fiber optic lines that went through them to Europe and the rest of the US. The network and phone problems that we faced in the NYC area were partially due to that. Some of that was not easily re-routed; after all, there is only so much fiber.
I think you make some interesting points, but the scope of your perspective is not big enough. I have some points that might change your mind.
The image of him swooping in and saving the day could be seen as a direct symbolic justification for American imperialism and foreign interventionism...and we've seen how well that turned out.
Superman was created by a couple of Jewish guys who saw America as the hope for the world at a time when the world needed just that; Europe needed a Superman to defeat Natzism. We came into Europe to turn the tide in WWI, and it happened again a few years after Superman was created.
American Imperialism did not start with G.W Bush. The term is really an extension of Manifest Destiny that really began with Jefferson's Lousiana purchase. The imperialism part could be added, I guess, when Monroe issued his statement regarding European intervention in the Western Hemisphere; now known as the Monroe Doctrine. Still, that kept us here, and we weren't much more than a back water country until about the time of the Spanish American war of 1898, when we basically defeated the only European country weaker than we were. Still, we attempted to return to more or less Isolantionism until the First World War, and following that Wilson got us to try to end that with his idea of the League of Nations;where the Justice League came from, perhaps? Superman representing America as the strongest nation for good at the time? Anyway, then the second war came, and we could no longer be Isolationist. Right or wrong, and there is pleanty of evidence on both sides of that argument, we did not go easily into interventionism. It was the Brittish who did it before us while they were trying to make the world England.
With characters like Spiderman or Batman, it's possible to see them as somewhat more nationalistically neutral, but Superman and Captain America in particular are pretty much pure (and vulgar, most of the time) manifestations of jingoism.
Well, Captain America was created in WWII to be just that. Ironically, Uncle Sam was created as a anti-war icon protesting, if I remember correctly, the Spanish-American war. During the war, he was quite vulgar. Have you ever seen the propaganda showing the Jappenese? Still, we were at war, and nationalism was at it's peak. Stopping the Jappenese then was a good thing, so I guess it served it's purpose.
American nationalism has always been something which the rest of the world has largely considered ugly...but that has become more true than ever before in the last three years.
All nationalism is ugly. The very nature of the concept is "our tribe is better than yours." It leads to ethnocentrism and the uglist parts of humanity. To say that American nationalism alone is ugly is to ignore the face of nationalism in EVERY other country. A little nationalism can be a good thing I guess, helping in a crisis like that hurricane, but taken too far, and it's well, I don't need to give you an example.
America is a good place. Would we do better to pull back from the world stage a bit, perhaps, but who would take it? Would the world be better if we did? I don't know the answer, I only pose the question.
Slashdot Mirror
Here's another example:
During the Cold War, particularly in the 1950s, there was this talk of a Bomber Gap and later a Missle Gap. The logic was that it appeared to the West that the Russians (USSR) were building many more bombers and missles than the West (primarly the US in this case) were building. This led many in the US power centers, General Curtus Lemay was one if I remember correctly from my AF ROTC days, to call for pre-emptive strikes at the USSR. President Eisenhower had a different idea. He suggested we build spy planes, since the CIA couldn't get personel to do it, to fly over the USSR and figure out what what up. (Note this is before spy satellites existed/still in their infancy) They created the U-2, and later the A-12(and later slightly modified and called the SR-71), to do just that. The jet's took their pictures,and proved no such gap existed thereby diffusing much of the initial Cold War tensions. It got the American war hawks to cool off. It later proved successful again with the Cuban Missile Crisis. Could you imagine the American responce if we found out about those MRBMS in Cuba via a test launch? EEEK! Ironically, we had MRBMs or SRBMs in Turkey at the time, but hey who's counting. Anyway, spying is good. It helps control things in much the same way a good investigative reporter does.
Remember, it was the great Ben Frainlin who said, "those who are willing to trade liberty for security deserve neither!"
Do they honestly think this is a good idea? Maybe the MTV connection???
You know, this sounds a lot like drug enforcement. Not to sound too radical, although
For the record, I'm rather cynical when it comes to trusting the government to solve most problems.
I don't think CO2 is much of a problem, but let's face it all the other stuff that gets into the air from burning fossil fuels is nasty stuff. Particularly the particulates. : )
Anyway, why not bring that up into the mix? I think a lot more people would support it here in the US if folks added that argument to the mix. The subsities that are currently going to Fossil Fuels, at least here in the US, ought to be going to those cleaner alternatives. Notice I said cleaner instead of clean. Anyone who's made a silicon based solar cell; I made a VERY simple one in college; knows what a nasty process that is. Still, running the thing is clean. I am curious how long one would have to run before you make up the energy you spent making one? Hmm.
Realistically, I think the best option is putting money towards two or 3 technologies that I've heard of. The first being fusion. Sure it's the perenial pipe-dream, but I think this is worth the investment. Second, and more realistically, is using algae to produce hydrogen. I've read of several companies in the US and overseas pursuing this technology. Third is the waste to energy technologies that use digesters and thermal-depolomerization technologies that limit/reuse waste.
I don't like Kyoto, and am not surprised that even the British won't meet their targets. It's a bad idea. Better to save the cash and spend it on better technologies, and the new infrastructure we'll need to support it. Converting to hydrogen is great, but it will take more money than I could ever spend to convert all the gasoline stations, pipelines, etc to support it.
Like I said though, I do like the idea of moving off of fossil fuels. Anyway... my two cents...
I surprised we have gotten away with half the stuff we have over the years, and me being the guy fresh out of college when I started was not nearly as "experimental" as the ol' salts who have been at it since "before your daddy met your momma." The more you know the stuff, the more you know what fun you can have; particularly with the new guy.
Good luck.
I'm curious. Does going out on a bright sunny day effect you? The reason I ask is that the sun itself is a major source of radiation at an extreemly large number of frequencies and high powers beyond the visual and UV spectrum that we are most familar with. I'm curious if it's just certain bands that effect you, or simly strong fields.
What about sitting in front of a TV; a CRT not one of the new flatscreens? Those have strong magnetic fields as well. Are your symtoms more related to electric fields or magnetic ones?
What about a strong home stereo(100 watts per channel+), or being near the alternator in a car?
How about the low frequency radiation that comes from power lines; like the ones in your apartment? Does pulling the fuses/turning off the circuit breakers have an effect?
Just curious...
I use a Zalman reservator1 for the watercooling in my system. My processor and videocard are cooled in the same water circuit, with pleanty of extra cooling capability to spare considering I have both chips (CPU and VC) heavily overclocked. All of this is cooled via the standard 5W pump; which is basically a fish tank pump. The truth is that I am using fewer total watts then before considering I have removed 3 case fans and the stock fans on the processor and video card. The whole PC is now much quieter considering only the PSU has a fan on it now.
Mind you this is not an advertisement for Zalman, I'm just trying to describe in detail what I actually own.
I see nothing wrong with cencorship on some levels for the troops, either. This is normal, and always the case. We give up rights when you put on that uniform. Adultery will get you time in jail as a solder, but not as a civilian. It's not like they don't tell you that upfront.
For the record, I'm a vet myself; 98-02 USAF, and both my father(64-67) and grandfather(44-45) served before me. We all volunteered, and hate even the idea of a draft.
Exactly like the one at the ski resorts that I go to that say they are not responsible for you hurting yourself skiing; particularly when you/me are not good enough to ski their most difficult trails.
I was being sarcastic, but I think it didn't come across that way. Either way, the article said that the thing would approach 66k miles from the surface. That approaches the interface withe solar wind, even at the equator. That could be a problem, and it's what generates the Arora; granted the latter when it interacts with the Ionosphere. Still, that's a lot of protons!
Just because a technology is an inevitability does not necessarily mean that people who wait are short-sighted.
Good points all! It's like asking how many people have bought HDTVs when SDTV still is available with most of the programming and their SDTV still works just fine. Sure, I'll get a HDTV soon, but I don't need it yet. I'll get it when I do, and by the way, by waiting I'll save a few bucks. I wouldn't call that short-sighted either!
Maybe they just would rather jump on Virgin Galatic? Branson's and Burt Rutan's new spaceline looks promising; even if they aren't talking about orbit for atleast another generation or two down the road; spaceship version that is.
I'm only half kidding...
Enterprise J??? I thought E was the last one?
trekie is shamed (head held low)
That and a the WTC had a HUGE network hub of fiber optic lines that went through them to Europe and the rest of the US. The network and phone problems that we faced in the NYC area were partially due to that. Some of that was not easily re-routed; after all, there is only so much fiber.
The characters were not created by the U.S. Government as propaganda figures.
The characters were created by a PRIVATE business to SELL comics in America.
Their primary purpose was to make money and sell comics.
Too true...
I'm assuming a german hero that hated americans wasn't going to sell a lot of paper during the time these characters were created.
well... not in American, anyway...
I think you make some interesting points, but the scope of your perspective is not big enough. I have some points that might change your mind.
The image of him swooping in and saving the day could be seen as a direct symbolic justification for American imperialism and foreign interventionism...and we've seen how well that turned out.
Superman was created by a couple of Jewish guys who saw America as the hope for the world at a time when the world needed just that; Europe needed a Superman to defeat Natzism. We came into Europe to turn the tide in WWI, and it happened again a few years after Superman was created.
American Imperialism did not start with G.W Bush. The term is really an extension of Manifest Destiny that really began with Jefferson's Lousiana purchase. The imperialism part could be added, I guess, when Monroe issued his statement regarding European intervention in the Western Hemisphere; now known as the Monroe Doctrine. Still, that kept us here, and we weren't much more than a back water country until about the time of the Spanish American war of 1898, when we basically defeated the only European country weaker than we were. Still, we attempted to return to more or less Isolantionism until the First World War, and following that Wilson got us to try to end that with his idea of the League of Nations;where the Justice League came from, perhaps? Superman representing America as the strongest nation for good at the time? Anyway, then the second war came, and we could no longer be Isolationist. Right or wrong, and there is pleanty of evidence on both sides of that argument, we did not go easily into interventionism. It was the Brittish who did it before us while they were trying to make the world England.
With characters like Spiderman or Batman, it's possible to see them as somewhat more nationalistically neutral, but Superman and Captain America in particular are pretty much pure (and vulgar, most of the time) manifestations of jingoism.
Well, Captain America was created in WWII to be just that. Ironically, Uncle Sam was created as a anti-war icon protesting, if I remember correctly, the Spanish-American war. During the war, he was quite vulgar. Have you ever seen the propaganda showing the Jappenese? Still, we were at war, and nationalism was at it's peak. Stopping the Jappenese then was a good thing, so I guess it served it's purpose.
American nationalism has always been something which the rest of the world has largely considered ugly...but that has become more true than ever before in the last three years.
All nationalism is ugly. The very nature of the concept is "our tribe is better than yours." It leads to ethnocentrism and the uglist parts of humanity. To say that American nationalism alone is ugly is to ignore the face of nationalism in EVERY other country. A little nationalism can be a good thing I guess, helping in a crisis like that hurricane, but taken too far, and it's well, I don't need to give you an example.
America is a good place. Would we do better to pull back from the world stage a bit, perhaps, but who would take it? Would the world be better if we did? I don't know the answer, I only pose the question.