Please note that the article didn't say the US had an allowable amount of Roundup in drinking water -- it had an allowable amount that could be SPRAYED ON CROPS, and the testers fed it directly to animals in their drinking water, which is probably where the confusion comes in. The summary implies that they were trying to match the levels you might get through the food chain (eating treated corn), not trying to match what you'd get directly through tap or well water.
Quoting TFA:
"or given water containing roundup at levels permitted in drinking water and GM crops in the US"
"the maximum level permitted in the US in some GM feed; the lowest corresponding to contamination found in some tap waters"
"contaminated drinking tap water, and which falls within authorized limits"
Electronics are soo cheap I can't see it being unreasonably difficult to produce an army of robots which manually tend to fields 24x7 harvesting or killing only the weeds. Perhaps hyperpsectral camera and pattern matching algorithms could be enough for reasonable machine recognition of weeds.
There may be a large investment in R&D up front yet over the years performance, reliability and affordability would greatly improve. They could even be armed to the teeth with lazers to get rid of any bugs who may be interested in sampling the harvest.
This will save the world from having to deal with side effects of weed killers on humans and the environment... Ultimatly as dead labor drives down costs the system should become cheaper and more effective to deploy with little chance of evolutionary adaption not solvable by a simple firmware update or machine learning algorithm.
The headline suggests that GM corn causes cancer. This is ludicrous and only feeds the ignorant paranoid anti-GM crowd
As headlines go I think it is fair since in the real world there is some residual roundup contamination which makes it into our food and water supplies.
The problem with distinctions are in the details of the study itself where Roundup vs NK603 were always kept together and never tested separatly.
Why should it matter which component is the cause if people are actually being exposed to both in their daily lives by eating round-up ready GM? A study including both with dosages based on regulatory guidelines seems fair enough to me.
It's ROUNDUP exposure that's linked to tumors - NOT genetic modifications. I am not at all surprised
They had three groups given NK603 and Roundup while the fourth control group was given the equivalent of NK603 (not NK603)
From construction of this study it is impossible to disambiguate NK603 or Roundup specifically as a cause. Whether they did this to simulate actual human risk and exposure, limited budget/resources or to whore attention your assumption is not supportable by this specific study.
I've been saying for years that there is nothing particularly risky about GM foods - it's dumping horrendous of herbicide on things that's risky... this is obvious to me, but not to the ignorant masses
Evidence trumps what anonymous coward finds to be obvious.
Don't give the freaks ammunition, please.
If you eat round up ready shit contaminated with roundup and a study says this combination is harmful the "freaks" are correct in being concerned because it is what they are actually getting when they purchase food.
Yes, it does. Someone will observe you traveling faster than light, going from point A to point B faster than light would travel the same distance. If nobody sees you traveling faster than light, then how can you say you did so at all?
So what? We observe stars and shit moving hundreds to thousands of times faster than light realitive to ourselves all the time.
And the whole point of relativity is that the laws of physics have to hold everywhere. That observer, depending on their own velocity in space-time, potentially see you arrive at your destination before you left, violating causality according to them
It is HOW you get there that matters. At no point is there any contradiction or apparent violation of causality. See twin paradox for an example of why "how" matters.
The speed limit is on the act of *propogation*... if you stretch space your actual distance traveled is shorter. It is no different than traveling thru a "wormhole".
With quantum entanglement you can securely transmit a one-time-pad (secure because you'll know if there is a man in the middle intercepting it), and you absolutely do not get more secure than using a one-time-pad.
Does entanglement include some kind of cosmic identity filter to validate who you are taking to?...so really it is capable of detecting no such thing.
All this does is allow people who already have a preexisting trust relationship via classic means to accumulate OTP.
The problem with lack of effective binding between classic and quantum channel leaves me wondering what the practically useful aspects of the exercise is.
If something is that sensitive you can't use crypto then would not prearranging a few TB of OTP be more secure than worrying about binding between classic and quantum channels?
A single SD card filled with random noise is enough for years of secure talk time.
If you could afford to be slightly less paranoid one could choose to use cryptographic means to stretch out your OTP pool as necessary based on the sensitivity of data. Would that really be any less secure than risks associated with binding classic and quantum channels with assumption quantum channel actually works 100% as advertised?
We've all heard of planned obsolesence...this business of activly enlisting users participation in the destruction of their expensive device represents a novel concept deserving of a business methods patent.
Well as long as you are on dual stack you have an IPv4 address for everything that needs an IPv4 address, but it doesn't solve anything as no more people can run that than there are IPv4 addresses.
More than a quarter of all my Internet traffic by volume is IPv6 today. This means my ISP can get away with purchasing cheaper CGN gear as the IPv4 traffic volume dries up.
How much would cease to work if you went IPv6 only?
slashdot would...sigh...and all of our sticky glue records...and..and... the point is we're in a transition period it will take a long time before people can safely make that leap to IPv6 only.
Because that's the only Internet connection they can offer soon
Policy for the last/8 within RIRs allows a final small allocation to an existing company or any new ISP so they at least can get enough IPv4 to wire up a CGN to provide some IPv4 connectivity for transition purposes with their production IPv6 offering. The last/8 is designed to last many years perhaps decades.
And if you don't see the problem you don't know the average company's pile of legacy/custom code that will all assume it's using IPv4 and nothing else that nobody knows or the vendor will charge a ton to fix.
Please realize internal shit never needs to change...ever it can stay on IPv4 until our sun becomes a red giant for all anyone cares. It is only an organizations external facing presence which needs the upgrade to IPv6.
To rip out all the IPv4 code and go IPv6 you'd need another coding frenzy like y2k, and your chances to conjure that kind of doomsday scenario is nil.
??? Why rip anything out? You change a few function calls and the same code works with both address families... not rocket science. People who had half a brain from the start used address family agnostic functions as a result some have not needed to make ANY changes to their code to support IPv6.
IPv4 was so good that there's now decades of old code that will assume an IP is always a dotted quad and can fit in 4 bytes. Nobody wants to be the one who breaks production systems just to go IPv6 for no tangible reason.
Keep your IPX, banyan, netbeui...whatever you want to use internally within your own organization. Nobody cares.
Only the interface between your administrative domain and others need be IPv6 enabled. If you can't figure out how to get your web site and email on IPv6 or setup a VPN over IPv6 you have bigger problems than the cost of IPv6.
If you can't tell, I'm sick of the mismanagement of the IPv4 address space, please start using your brains. The sky is falling! It's the end of the world! Your children are going to suffer!
Hell no.. I'm saving my brains for the z0mb1e apocalypse!!1!
Once the supply of brraaaiiinnnssss dries up IPv4 should be more than sufficient well into the next millenium.
In my view the depth sounder is the most important piece of electronic technology so make sure it works and you have spare parts. If you have a sonar it will provide some redundancy since they both provide depth information.
Not only does the depth sounder tell you how deep the water under yer ship is when combined with chart and tide table it can be used to help figure out where you are by comparing depth contours.
Sonars/fish finders.. are awesome toys especially the new chirp mode gear...yet hardly required. Every time you drill a hole in the bottom of your boat for some new gadget you are increasing your risk.
GPS with fancy chart plotter..of course...don't buy a chart plotter that looks like a tablet.. It can have a touch screen but it must have real knobs and buttons....touch is useless at sea with the waves knocking you around all the time. If it were me I would pick up one of those new e series raymarine thingis. Look for a GPS unit with RAIM.
It is important not to depend on shit that can break or shit that won't work without power. You still need to get paper charts and should have basics of dr, danger bearings, running fix..etc. Having a good hand compass is important.
Obviously a DSC capable VHF..is a must. I recommend getting one with integrated GPS..they are cheap today and by having an integrated GPS just like the fish finder vs depth sounder you have more redundancy in location..if your chart plotter or gps unit dies you can get your location from the radios GPS. Or get a separate GPS and wire it to the DSC and nema bus for chart plotter.
If it were me I would also get a portable vhf radio and ipod with gps/ navionics/notebook/tablet with charts loaded store them in a metal toolbox, oven or protected ditch bag. Not only for backup incase of electronics failure but incase you get hit by lightning.
For safety get several passive radar reflectors to hang high from your mast. One or two is not enough. Especially if you have a grb boat..they are quite transparent to radar.. They sell fancy active enhancers but these things require/consume power and are unecessary.
Radar is in my view a must have. Radars have a TON of different uses..the swiss army knife of marine electronics. Take some care when positioning the radar antenna so that the beam path is not in the way of other antennas...lots of peeps make this mistake.
When you can't see 5 feet in front of you the radar will show you what is out there.
It can be used to detect birds (AKA fish) or uncomming weather/swells giving you more time to reef. When going thru hazardous channels rings can be used to help position your boat away from any charted hazards by measuring against land contours.
In terms of weather if you are not poor I would go for a sirius weather subscription and buy a chart plotter that supports it..it is not world wide coverage so check against where you plan on going to make sure it still works where you are going.
With sirius..you get tunes, weather/grib data will overlayed directly on your plotter.. it is cool to have but it involves subscription costs.
A navtex receiver is nice to have. In most locations in the world you can get basic weather information to have an idea what is going on via the radio/shortwave.
Weather fax and navtex can also be had on the cheap simply by plugging the line out from your radio into a notebook using software and the computers sound card to decode signals... If you don't like screwing around with technology it might be better to buy a separate dedicated navtex unit that will just work and consume less power than a notebook...what is the fun in that?
AIS looks like radar but works by boats broadcasting their GPS location over VHF so others know who is out there. The problem is not all boats or floating obstructions have working AIS transceivers so you can never depend on it.
Most modern chart plotters integrate with AIS and overlay location of other ships and their info
I've noticed lately Australia seems to be reverting to its roots as a penal colony. So sad to see soo many countries go down the route of talking "freedom" while acting to limit speech they don't agree with.
The real measure of freedom is societies ability to tolerate the bullshit of others. A society which believes it is acceptable to act like children and yell mommy everytime someone calls you a fat smelly hobgoblin will get what it deserves.
Scotch tape is like announcing invention of the vacuum tube while story on the very next page is dedicated to rollout of sub-nm process.
Finding evidence room temperature superconductivity is even possible is huge... I hope Mattel is taking notes... some of us are still waiting for our hoverboards!!
It seems to me we need to work to get the third party doctrine changed. It has no relevancy in anyones lives in the 21st century.
If successfull the governement will begin to loose court cases on constitutional grounds and be forced to stop.
Read it and weep:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
So the only alternative is generation of near infinite spaces. (as much as the ships energy allows) Honestly, outside of some bastardization of self-correcting closed timelike curves bent over themselves and some sort of "bridge" in to it, essentially creating a little closed off universe which can be constructed with some sort of turbo-replicator
We have single displays today that can present different images to different sets of eyeballs. We have also played with projecting images directly onto the cornea. Lets assume starfleet has access to a much more mature version of the same technology. The computer now has full control over what you see.
As far as movement is concerned people have solved this problem with conveyor belt floors... as you get closer to the edge the edge moves back. In the startrek universe you can always use intertial dampeners... in the real world a much bigger room to better sell effects. A computer can easily deconflict the area with multiple participants roaming about.
Finally we have touch... all you need is a small piece of matter next to each person that can quickly change shape to simulate the environment they can reach out and touch..With high tech version of iron filings and magnetic fields you'll be climbing mountains on vulcan in no time.
I won't pretend to know if this is actually the way startrek holodecks are supposed to work my guess if you study the story you will eventually run into contradictions in the story line. I seem to remember someone saying holodeck is based on replicator technology.
Events like this further underline why we need a new secure, distributed DNS system, , one that is not subject to tampering by either Anonymous or ICE.
"new" and "secure" are oxymorons.
So is "secure" and "distributed".
It is important to parse the difference between a problem in implementation vs a problem in specification. If an implementation failure allowed compromise then using it as an example for the need to fix DNS is not appropriate.
In my view DNS need only be as reliable as the underlying network.
We know from experience what happens with anything requiring planet scale trust anchors. They are either never implemented (DNSSEC) or fail spectacularly when they are (HTTPS).
but DNS is falling apart, and if things continue the way they have been, the Internet may be completely balkanized across national lines in a few more years
The same holds for any system where power is sufficiently aggregated outside government control. If DNS did not do a sufficient job do you think governments would just throw in the towl and stop there? They wouldn't go after transit?
If anything allowing them to play games with DNS provides some insulation against even more egregious intervention.
In my view the only solution is to knowingly give up the idea/myth of security and implement something only good enough to be usefully reliable. Something with no chance of ever making it through todays IETF.
The thing about our right of security is that it isn't about hardening. If I don't lock my door, that's not an invitation for you to come in and raid my refrigerator. If I write my papers in English, that's not an invitation for you to read them and walk off with my banking info or anything else. If a lady wears a dress, that's not an invitation for you to look up it. In all cases, the boundary can be trivially hardened: I can lock my door, I can write my papers in code, the lady can wear jeans. None of that has any bearing on the expectations of privacy, though -- the boundaries don't move.
The problem with this analogy is that big ole wifi beacon broadcasting its presence to the world with open arms. The analogy is very much like hanging a sign on your front door inviting members of the public inside.
You seem to have made an assertion of a relationship between replacable batteries and the ability of a cell phone to stand up to abuse. Can you support your claim or not? "Feel free to buy a phone that falls into pieces half the times you drop it, as all my phones with replaceable batteries did"
I brought up ruggedized phones mearly to highlight how foolish such arguments are.
Yes, companies can make money off segments of users whose needs are different from those of the majority.
There is a difference between what a customer wants and what they are willing to accept.
How do you know what the majority finds "irrelevant"? Have you conducted a poll or are you just guessing? Pulling numbers out of thin air? Not even numbers just the word "majority".. this leaves one guessing what a constitutes a majority.. 50.5% or 99.9% ?
Last time I had to replace a battery in a phone was in, um, 2004?
The last time I replaced a battery in a phone was um...3 months ago... personal experience is "irrelevant".
Sometimes, parts of a device die. You take the device to repair to have the part replaced or just buy a new device. Making the battery removable is one of the design choices
Yea well I guess also... too..and... sometimes a random number will be greater than one and sometimes it will be equal to or less than one.
I looked into this years ago thinking about schemes to use public data such as home values to set different prices. What I learned was this is illegal.
I don't know if discounting can be used to effectivly circumvent either the federal or any similar state laws.. my guess anyone actually doing this is leaving themselves open for actions for discriminatory practice in at least some jurisdictions.
It is amazing anyone could be granted a patent on such an obvious endeavour with prior art stemming from the dawn of industry. Whats next patenting "dynamic pricing" within a tourist trap while a cruise ship is in port?
If such a system were deployed wouldn't people just create accounts where they act as if they are piss poor to get the lowest possible price? Machine algorithms are exceptionally poor at reasoning and dealing with false information.
Well, it's a free market. Feel free to buy a phone that falls into pieces half the times you drop it, as all my phones with replaceable batteries did. Okay, all since Nokia 3310. That one is still working for my dad.
Could you please explain the relationship between not having a removable battery and the ability of a phone to stand up to abuse?
The last I checked all of the ruggedized nokia and snom phones have user replacable batteries.
More likely, these "standard" features are actually irrelevant to the majority of the customers, and Nokia knows that
Every batteries plus I have ever been to has a wall of cell phone batteries behind the cashiers counter and upon arrival there is usually someone talking cell phone batteries to a customer. If nobody cared about replacing consumables in their devices you would think this space would be better utilized by other batteries which actually sold and made the company money.
It seems sometimes batteries die and at this point people start caring about being able to go to the store and buy a new battery without unecessary hassle. Just because you can sell something upfront to someone willing to buy does not mean you are providing value by unecessarily denying the user a capability which may prove useful in the future.
Of course the problem with quoting these statistics is that they are one-sided and it's impossible to know how many terrorist attacks have been thwarted by TSA. Some in the government may have some idea, but they aren't talking. Maybe the TSA stopped 10 attacks and saved thousands of lives in the past month alone. It's this uncertainty that makes people willing to tolerate TSA -- they think "Well yeah, it's inconvenient but they must be effective, there haven't been any successful attacks recently"
Yea bullshit it is all about fear. The feedback loop from TSA security measures themselves coupled with endless stream of media attention to terrorists taking over the world lead people to think there is a terror1st boogie man under every bed.
So they go around sticking test strips and liquid in peoples drinks. Sure it's perfectly safe we told you so. Has the FDA even approved it or is it super secret we cant let them know it does not work.
I think they are prevented them from sticking anything IN your drink it is some kind of pouring out deal from what I understand.
Still bullshit GED recipients are allowed to randomly roam around bothering us as they please. What a bunch of assholes and what a bunch of loosers we are for tolerating this horse shit.
If you are going to check something at a checkpoint then it makes sense to stochastically sample with secondary checks to test your error rate
There is an infinite well of liquids avaliable for purchase after the security line. Before it the ban on liquids is universal.
How does "stochastically sample" provide any useful feedback on what liquids are being let thru given these constraints? Your argument is not rational let alone the actions of the TSA.
Slashdot Mirror
Please note that the article didn't say the US had an allowable amount of Roundup in drinking water -- it had an allowable amount that could be SPRAYED ON CROPS, and the testers fed it directly to animals in their drinking water, which is probably where the confusion comes in. The summary implies that they were trying to match the levels you might get through the food chain (eating treated corn), not trying to match what you'd get directly through tap or well water.
Quoting TFA:
"or given water containing roundup at levels permitted in drinking water and GM crops in the US"
"the maximum level permitted in the US in some GM feed; the lowest corresponding to contamination found in some tap waters"
"contaminated drinking tap water, and which falls within authorized limits"
Electronics are soo cheap I can't see it being unreasonably difficult to produce an army of robots which manually tend to fields 24x7 harvesting or killing only the weeds. Perhaps hyperpsectral camera and pattern matching algorithms could be enough for reasonable machine recognition of weeds.
There may be a large investment in R&D up front yet over the years performance, reliability and affordability would greatly improve. They could even be armed to the teeth with lazers to get rid of any bugs who may be interested in sampling the harvest.
This will save the world from having to deal with side effects of weed killers on humans and the environment... Ultimatly as dead labor drives down costs the system should become cheaper and more effective to deploy with little chance of evolutionary adaption not solvable by a simple firmware update or machine learning algorithm.
The headline suggests that GM corn causes cancer. This is ludicrous and only feeds the ignorant paranoid anti-GM crowd
As headlines go I think it is fair since in the real world there is some residual roundup contamination which makes it into our food and water supplies.
The problem with distinctions are in the details of the study itself where Roundup vs NK603 were always kept together and never tested separatly.
Why should it matter which component is the cause if people are actually being exposed to both in their daily lives by eating round-up ready GM? A study including both with dosages based on regulatory guidelines seems fair enough to me.
It's ROUNDUP exposure that's linked to tumors - NOT genetic modifications. I am not at all surprised
They had three groups given NK603 and Roundup while the fourth control group was given the equivalent of NK603 (not NK603)
From construction of this study it is impossible to disambiguate NK603 or Roundup specifically as a cause. Whether they did this to simulate actual human risk and exposure, limited budget/resources or to whore attention your assumption is not supportable by this specific study.
I've been saying for years that there is nothing particularly risky about GM foods - it's dumping horrendous of herbicide on things that's risky... this is obvious to me, but not to the ignorant masses
Evidence trumps what anonymous coward finds to be obvious.
Don't give the freaks ammunition, please.
If you eat round up ready shit contaminated with roundup and a study says this combination is harmful the "freaks" are correct in being concerned because it is what they are actually getting when they purchase food.
Yes, it does. Someone will observe you traveling faster than light, going from point A to point B faster than light would travel the same distance. If nobody sees you traveling faster than light, then how can you say you did so at all?
So what? We observe stars and shit moving hundreds to thousands of times faster than light realitive to ourselves all the time.
And the whole point of relativity is that the laws of physics have to hold everywhere. That observer, depending on their own velocity in space-time, potentially see you arrive at your destination before you left, violating causality according to them
It is HOW you get there that matters. At no point is there any contradiction or apparent violation of causality. See twin paradox for an example of why "how" matters.
The speed limit is on the act of *propogation*... if you stretch space your actual distance traveled is shorter. It is no different than traveling thru a "wormhole".
With quantum entanglement you can securely transmit a one-time-pad (secure because you'll know if there is a man in the middle intercepting it), and you absolutely do not get more secure than using a one-time-pad.
Does entanglement include some kind of cosmic identity filter to validate who you are taking to? ...so really it is capable of detecting no such thing.
All this does is allow people who already have a preexisting trust relationship via classic means to accumulate OTP.
The problem with lack of effective binding between classic and quantum channel leaves me wondering what the practically useful aspects of the exercise is.
If something is that sensitive you can't use crypto then would not prearranging a few TB of OTP be more secure than worrying about binding between classic and quantum channels?
A single SD card filled with random noise is enough for years of secure talk time.
If you could afford to be slightly less paranoid one could choose to use cryptographic means to stretch out your OTP pool as necessary based on the sensitivity of data. Would that really be any less secure than risks associated with binding classic and quantum channels with assumption quantum channel actually works 100% as advertised?
We've all heard of planned obsolesence...this business of activly enlisting users participation in the destruction of their expensive device represents a novel concept deserving of a business methods patent.
Quite clever indeed..
"warranty void if whacked"
"whack to unlock"
When I occasionally see someone send me a lengthy email ending with phrase "sent from my iphone/ipad" I honestly feel sorry for them.
Well as long as you are on dual stack you have an IPv4 address for everything that needs an IPv4 address, but it doesn't solve anything as no more people can run that than there are IPv4 addresses.
More than a quarter of all my Internet traffic by volume is IPv6 today. This means my ISP can get away with purchasing cheaper CGN gear as the IPv4 traffic volume dries up.
How much would cease to work if you went IPv6 only?
slashdot would...sigh...and all of our sticky glue records...and..and... the point is we're in a transition period it will take a long time before people can safely make that leap to IPv6 only.
Because that's the only Internet connection they can offer soon
Policy for the last /8 within RIRs allows a final small allocation to an existing company or any new ISP so they at least can get enough IPv4 to wire up a CGN to provide some IPv4 connectivity for transition purposes with their production IPv6 offering. The last /8 is designed to last many years perhaps decades.
And if you don't see the problem you don't know the average company's pile of legacy/custom code that will all assume it's using IPv4 and nothing else that nobody knows or the vendor will charge a ton to fix.
Please realize internal shit never needs to change...ever it can stay on IPv4 until our sun becomes a red giant for all anyone cares. It is only an organizations external facing presence which needs the upgrade to IPv6.
To rip out all the IPv4 code and go IPv6 you'd need another coding frenzy like y2k, and your chances to conjure that kind of doomsday scenario is nil.
??? Why rip anything out? You change a few function calls and the same code works with both address families... not rocket science. People who had half a brain from the start used address family agnostic functions as a result some have not needed to make ANY changes to their code to support IPv6.
IPv4 was so good that there's now decades of old code that will assume an IP is always a dotted quad and can fit in 4 bytes. Nobody wants to be the one who breaks production systems just to go IPv6 for no tangible reason.
Keep your IPX, banyan, netbeui...whatever you want to use internally within your own organization. Nobody cares.
Only the interface between your administrative domain and others need be IPv6 enabled. If you can't figure out how to get your web site and email on IPv6 or setup a VPN over IPv6 you have bigger problems than the cost of IPv6.
If you can't tell, I'm sick of the mismanagement of the IPv4 address space, please start using your brains. The sky is falling! It's the end of the world! Your children are going to suffer!
Hell no.. I'm saving my brains for the z0mb1e apocalypse!!1!
Once the supply of brraaaiiinnnssss dries up IPv4 should be more than sufficient well into the next millenium.
Time to crackdown and revoke/reclaim IP's
And do what? Disaggregate every /24 morsel you recover?
Clever... actually... once the IPv4 DFZ melts into a pile of goo the only choice left for people who want Internet access will be IPv6.
In my view the depth sounder is the most important piece of electronic technology so make sure it works and you have spare parts. If you have a sonar it will provide some redundancy since they both provide depth information.
Not only does the depth sounder tell you how deep the water under yer ship is when combined with chart and tide table it can be used to help figure out where you are by comparing depth contours.
Sonars/fish finders.. are awesome toys especially the new chirp mode gear...yet hardly required. Every time you drill a hole in the bottom of your boat for some new gadget you are increasing your risk.
GPS with fancy chart plotter..of course...don't buy a chart plotter that looks like a tablet.. It can have a touch screen but it must have real knobs and buttons....touch is useless at sea with the waves knocking you around all the time. If it were me I would pick up one of those new e series raymarine thingis. Look for a GPS unit with RAIM.
It is important not to depend on shit that can break or shit that won't work without power. You still need to get paper charts and should have basics of dr, danger bearings, running fix..etc. Having a good hand compass is important.
Obviously a DSC capable VHF..is a must. I recommend getting one with integrated GPS..they are cheap today and by having an integrated GPS just like the fish finder vs depth sounder you have more redundancy in location..if your chart plotter or gps unit dies you can get your location from the radios GPS. Or get a separate GPS and wire it to the DSC and nema bus for chart plotter.
If it were me I would also get a portable vhf radio and ipod with gps/ navionics/notebook/tablet with charts loaded store them in a metal toolbox, oven or protected ditch bag. Not only for backup incase of electronics failure but incase you get hit by lightning.
For safety get several passive radar reflectors to hang high from your mast. One or two is not enough. Especially if you have a grb boat..they are quite transparent to radar.. They sell fancy active enhancers but these things require/consume power and are unecessary.
Radar is in my view a must have. Radars have a TON of different uses ..the swiss army knife of marine electronics. Take some care when positioning the radar antenna so that the beam path is not in the way of other antennas...lots of peeps make this mistake.
When you can't see 5 feet in front of you the radar will show you what is out there.
It can be used to detect birds (AKA fish) or uncomming weather/swells giving you more time to reef. When going thru hazardous channels rings can be used to help position your boat away from any charted hazards by measuring against land contours.
In terms of weather if you are not poor I would go for a sirius weather subscription and buy a chart plotter that supports it..it is not world wide coverage so check against where you plan on going to make sure it still works where you are going.
With sirius..you get tunes, weather/grib data will overlayed directly on your plotter.. it is cool to have but it involves subscription costs.
A navtex receiver is nice to have. In most locations in the world you can get basic weather information to have an idea what is going on via the radio/shortwave.
Weather fax and navtex can also be had on the cheap simply by plugging the line out from your radio into a notebook using software and the computers sound card to decode signals... If you don't like screwing around with technology it might be better to buy a separate dedicated navtex unit that will just work and consume less power than a notebook...what is the fun in that?
AIS looks like radar but works by boats broadcasting their GPS location over VHF so others know who is out there. The problem is not all boats or floating obstructions have working AIS transceivers so you can never depend on it.
Most modern chart plotters integrate with AIS and overlay location of other ships and their info
I've noticed lately Australia seems to be reverting to its roots as a penal colony. So sad to see soo many countries go down the route of talking "freedom" while acting to limit speech they don't agree with.
The real measure of freedom is societies ability to tolerate the bullshit of others. A society which believes it is acceptable to act like children and yell mommy everytime someone calls you a fat smelly hobgoblin will get what it deserves.
Scotch tape is like announcing invention of the vacuum tube while story on the very next page is dedicated to rollout of sub-nm process.
Finding evidence room temperature superconductivity is even possible is huge... I hope Mattel is taking notes... some of us are still waiting for our hoverboards!!
It seems to me we need to work to get the third party doctrine changed. It has no relevancy in anyones lives in the 21st century.
If successfull the governement will begin to loose court cases on constitutional grounds and be forced to stop.
Read it and weep:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and
no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or
affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the
persons or things to be seized."
So the only alternative is generation of near infinite spaces. (as much as the ships energy allows) Honestly, outside of some bastardization of self-correcting closed timelike curves bent over themselves and some sort of "bridge" in to it, essentially creating a little closed off universe which can be constructed with some sort of turbo-replicator
We have single displays today that can present different images to different sets of eyeballs. We have also played with projecting images directly onto the cornea. Lets assume starfleet has access to a much more mature version of the same technology. The computer now has full control over what you see.
As far as movement is concerned people have solved this problem with conveyor belt floors... as you get closer to the edge the edge moves back. In the startrek universe you can always use intertial dampeners... in the real world a much bigger room to better sell effects. A computer can easily deconflict the area with multiple participants roaming about.
Finally we have touch... all you need is a small piece of matter next to each person that can quickly change shape to simulate the environment they can reach out and touch..With high tech version of iron filings and magnetic fields you'll be climbing mountains on vulcan in no time.
I won't pretend to know if this is actually the way startrek holodecks are supposed to work my guess if you study the story you will eventually run into contradictions in the story line. I seem to remember someone saying holodeck is based on replicator technology.
Events like this further underline why we need a new secure, distributed DNS system, , one that is not subject to tampering by either Anonymous or ICE.
"new" and "secure" are oxymorons.
So is "secure" and "distributed".
It is important to parse the difference between a problem in implementation vs a problem in specification. If an implementation failure allowed compromise then using it as an example for the need to fix DNS is not appropriate.
In my view DNS need only be as reliable as the underlying network.
We know from experience what happens with anything requiring planet scale trust anchors. They are either never implemented (DNSSEC) or fail spectacularly when they are (HTTPS).
but DNS is falling apart, and if things continue the way they have been, the Internet may be completely balkanized across national lines in a few more years
The same holds for any system where power is sufficiently aggregated outside government control. If DNS did not do a sufficient job do you think governments would just throw in the towl and stop there? They wouldn't go after transit?
If anything allowing them to play games with DNS provides some insulation against even more egregious intervention.
In my view the only solution is to knowingly give up the idea/myth of security and implement something only good enough to be usefully reliable. Something with no chance of ever making it through todays IETF.
A massive DDOS attack?
Anonymous claims what?
I think what we currently know is closer to NOTHING than rampant speculation might have one believe.
The thing about our right of security is that it isn't about hardening. If I don't lock my door, that's not an invitation for you to come in and raid my refrigerator. If I write my papers in English, that's not an invitation for you to read them and walk off with my banking info or anything else. If a lady wears a dress, that's not an invitation for you to look up it. In all cases, the boundary can be trivially hardened: I can lock my door, I can write my papers in code, the lady can wear jeans. None of that has any bearing on the expectations of privacy, though -- the boundaries don't move.
The problem with this analogy is that big ole wifi beacon broadcasting its presence to the world with open arms. The analogy is very much like hanging a sign on your front door inviting members of the public inside.
The vast majority of phones are not ruggedized.
You seem to have made an assertion of a relationship between replacable batteries and the ability of a cell phone to stand up to abuse. Can you support your claim or not? "Feel free to buy a phone that falls into pieces half the times you drop it, as all my phones with replaceable batteries did"
I brought up ruggedized phones mearly to highlight how foolish such arguments are.
Yes, companies can make money off segments of users whose needs are different from those of the majority.
There is a difference between what a customer wants and what they are willing to accept.
How do you know what the majority finds "irrelevant"? Have you conducted a poll or are you just guessing? Pulling numbers out of thin air? Not even numbers just the word "majority" .. this leaves one guessing what a constitutes a majority.. 50.5% or 99.9% ?
Last time I had to replace a battery in a phone was in, um, 2004?
The last time I replaced a battery in a phone was um...3 months ago... personal experience is "irrelevant".
Sometimes, parts of a device die. You take the device to repair to have the part replaced or just buy a new device. Making the battery removable is one of the design choices
Yea well I guess also ... too..and ... sometimes a random number will be greater than one and sometimes it will be equal to or less than one.
I think a closer reading of this will show you that it is not intended for consumers but for distributors and resellers
Read the wikipedia article. It specifically cites court cases involving resellers. I don't think it matters.
I looked into this years ago thinking about schemes to use public data such as home values to set different prices. What I learned was this is illegal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robinson-Patman_Act
I don't know if discounting can be used to effectivly circumvent either the federal or any similar state laws.. my guess anyone actually doing this is leaving themselves open for actions for discriminatory practice in at least some jurisdictions.
It is amazing anyone could be granted a patent on such an obvious endeavour with prior art stemming from the dawn of industry. Whats next patenting "dynamic pricing" within a tourist trap while a cruise ship is in port?
If such a system were deployed wouldn't people just create accounts where they act as if they are piss poor to get the lowest possible price? Machine algorithms are exceptionally poor at reasoning and dealing with false information.
Well, it's a free market. Feel free to buy a phone that falls into pieces half the times you drop it, as all my phones with replaceable batteries did. Okay, all since Nokia 3310. That one is still working for my dad.
Could you please explain the relationship between not having a removable battery and the ability of a phone to stand up to abuse?
The last I checked all of the ruggedized nokia and snom phones have user replacable batteries.
More likely, these "standard" features are actually irrelevant to the majority of the customers, and Nokia knows that
Every batteries plus I have ever been to has a wall of cell phone batteries behind the cashiers counter and upon arrival there is usually someone talking cell phone batteries to a customer. If nobody cared about replacing consumables in their devices you would think this space would be better utilized by other batteries which actually sold and made the company money.
It seems sometimes batteries die and at this point people start caring about being able to go to the store and buy a new battery without unecessary hassle. Just because you can sell something upfront to someone willing to buy does not mean you are providing value by unecessarily denying the user a capability which may prove useful in the future.
Of course the problem with quoting these statistics is that they are one-sided and it's impossible to know how many terrorist attacks have been thwarted by TSA. Some in the government may have some idea, but they aren't talking. Maybe the TSA stopped 10 attacks and saved thousands of lives in the past month alone. It's this uncertainty that makes people willing to tolerate TSA -- they think "Well yeah, it's inconvenient but they must be effective, there haven't been any successful attacks recently"
Yea bullshit it is all about fear. The feedback loop from TSA security measures themselves coupled with endless stream of media attention to terrorists taking over the world lead people to think there is a terror1st boogie man under every bed.
There are NO rational calculations being made.
So they go around sticking test strips and liquid in peoples drinks. Sure it's perfectly safe we told you so. Has the FDA even approved it or is it super secret we cant let them know it does not work.
I think they are prevented them from sticking anything IN your drink it is some kind of pouring out deal from what I understand.
Still bullshit GED recipients are allowed to randomly roam around bothering us as they please. What a bunch of assholes and what a bunch of loosers we are for tolerating this horse shit.
If you are going to check something at a checkpoint then it makes sense to stochastically sample with secondary checks to test your error rate
There is an infinite well of liquids avaliable for purchase after the security line. Before it the ban on liquids is universal.
How does "stochastically sample" provide any useful feedback on what liquids are being let thru given these constraints? Your argument is not rational let alone the actions of the TSA.