Ok, to counter the first 20 or so posts that, in a nutshell, say "You'll get fat if you're always eating out with your fat friends", I have to say RTFA!! The correlation between your weight and your friends' weights is just as strong when your friends are hundreds of miles away. You're not going out to eat with your cross-country friends. I'm not stepping up here to say the study is definitive causation; I just wanted to point out to the majority of the posts already made that this is not from the simple reason that you eat with your friends.
If it's DRM-free, it IS higher quality. There's no need to state it twice as "higher quality and DRM-free." The "higher quality" bit is just for the music exec's who wouldn't be able to make that connection on their own.
Blame the MPAA! Sony and Westinghouse might be complying with this HDCP crap, and an Intel subsidiary might be making royalty money off it, but these companies wouldn't care a bit if the movie industry didn't bully content protection on all of us.
I wouldn't underrate Nintendo's competitive mentality. First of all, they're a Japan-based company accustomed to the brutal, cutthroat corporate wars of the Japanese business system/model. Second, history shows Nintendo can be as ruthless and iron-fisted in the video game market as Microsoft in the computer/software market when they have a dominant market share (remember the Nintendo/Super Nintendo era). Right now, they might just be smart enought to realize they don't have the clout to flex their corporate muscle. It would be interesting to see what would happen if they achieved market dominance in today's video game market. Back in the day they weren't fighting other large corporations with revenue streams outside of video games.
I fail to see what the fuss is about. A quick search of Web of Knowledge (for those of you with access to online periodicals) gives several abstracts where connections were formed with carbon nanotubes and the electronic properties were studied. To throw around buzzwords, how do you think researchers already knew about this "ballistic conductivity" before Intel made these interconnects? Unless the Intel results indicate how to fabricate these interconnects in bulk, there's absolutely nothing worth talking about.
The real bottleneck, as the article describes, is finding a way to sort the little guys. There isn't a standard technique (yet) to efficiently separate large quantities of the semiconducting and metallic tubes, or to separate the tubes by size. If either or both of of these advancements are made, those findings will be worth all the hype! Making an electrical connection with a single walled carbon nanotube is nothing new, and shouldn't be given any special note.
First, let me state that I think the author of the article did an excellent job making his case. However, your arguments are much less convincing.
'Almost no viruses' is not a convincing argument. Malware authors are interested in money, and frankly, there's no money in Macs. This isn't necessarily because the Mac is any more secure (which I believe it is, but its not a necessary point for this argument). Malware spread is all about exponential growth. With a Windows bug, say it wants to spread and scans 100 computers, finding 90 of them vulnerable (by vulnerable, I mean they're running Windows). Each of those 90, now-compromised nodes scan 100 computers finding 90 more vulnerable nodes each (sooner or later they'll start running into already infected systems, but we'll use a dilute approximation for now). So, in two interations there's 8100 nodes captured. Take the Mac example with 5% market share. We'll assume, for the sake of argument, that every computer running a version of OS X is vulnerable. In two rounds of infection, the malware will have captured a piddly 25 nodes. No economically-minded hacker is going to write malware for that. Even in the crowded world of Windows malware, where you might only have a 1 in 10 shot of finding a computer not already prohibitively full of other malware, you'll do better writing code for Windows exploits. Bottom line is, exponential growth and greedy spam kings can explain 'almost no viruses' just fine without invoking security, which would tip the scales slightly more towards hacking Windows.
The super-user thing isn't ENTIRELY Windows' fault either. Ever try to play a Blizzard game? Don't try it as a normal user! Third party app programmers get lazy because Windows doesn't require them to make their software runnable in unprivileged user mode. Apple puts more pressure on its third party programs. So, although some clunky Windows products also require administrative privileges, the only reason I have an open network connection while signed in to an administrator account on my Windows box is because of the d*#$ apps like Warcraft 3. The third party apps are primarily responsible for me regularly using administrator accounts, not Windows. True, Microsoft should lean on third parties harder, but I think this is a lower level of responsibility than what you imply.
Hmm, scheduling a conference on Valentine's Day?? I know we love Linux, but come on. V day is for 1)romancing a date or 2) sulking alone because of inability to procure 1. LinuxWorld, will you be my Valentine?
Ok, if there is a reasonable suspicion that you have committed a crime, an officer can exercise his authority over you in the ways you have enumerated above (however if you're completely innocent and an officer oversteps his authority, he can be held responsible in criminal court), whereas my hypothetical boss could not. There's a statement of fact; it might pass as a premise. From there you jump to a conclusion: I'm an idiot. Where's your argument??? I know step 1, and step 3 is profit, but you left out step 2 again.
So, what level of privacy can police reasonably expect? Consensus seems to be that on duty police officers, when in earshot, have no right to private conversations. What about their radio transmissions? Should decoders be legal? What about their file systems (or at least the files that don't also violate the privacy of the higher tier of civilians)? How far do you go in the interest of transparency of government? I've carried this line of reasoning to the absurd, but there's a definite gray area at the lowest levels. Best we keep the laws the same for everyone instead of trying to make some people more equal than others.
Look, lets take the cops out of this for a second. I'm sitting in my lab right now with a nice, thick, soundproof wall between my boss and me, talking to my fellow employees about what an asshole my boss is. Little do I know, my boss has installed a secret surveillance system and camoflagued the warning sticker among all the other industial signage to be disregarded when you enter the door of a chemistry lab (Class IIIB and IV lasers..., [fill in the blank] can be harmful to your health, etc.). He fires me, and when I ask for just cause, he produces the tape. If a story like this were run, the whole slashdot readership would jump on the 'down with Big Brother' bandwagon, and I would be the victim.
The only difference with this story is that cops are involved. Some cops might be assholes, but we have to respect the fact that they are people too, and they also have rights granted by law. Either you support privacy laws, or you don't, and I think how often the NSA program gets mentioned by posters indicates our stance. No wonder the administration is so successful snatching our rights if we're as coherent as a teenager after his 12th shot of espresso.
Honestly, this dude's decision to turn over the tape to the police is as stupid as (disclaimer: I'm using the words 'as stupid as', not 'equivalent to'... I'm not saying this is a valid analogy, merely that its just as short-sighted) me going to the cops and saying, "Look, I've been downloading all these ripped games and movies, and I've come across over 100 with malicious code attached. You should really go after the guys posting all these trojans." Here's to idiocy!
I agree wholeheartedly. This physorg article was a convoluted mass of steaming dung. I couldn't begin to understand what the author was trying to say, or what the large improvement was over techniques that have been done for years already (some noted in comments already). I'm a physical chemist for Christ's sake! I hopped over to 'Nature,' skimmed the real article, and came to the conclusion that the author of the PhysOrg piece didn't have a firm handle on the quantum chemistry and or techniques utilized. His analogies to dumb things down for the reader were actually, imho, grasping attempts he made to sort out the process in his own mind.
Additionally, the language of the physorg piece implied that author bought sales pitch the U. Bonn group gives to its funding agencies (big improvement, hurdle crossed, HUGE progress, quantum computer around the corner). True, this is an advance and it deserves the funding it gets, but it is incremental, not monumental. However in the publish or die environment that is acadamedia, progress must be... embellished. This unfortunate sap believed it!
I disagree with both the parent and the response. First, I don't care what graduate school you go to, 90% of the people don't drop out. If you were looking at graduate schools, and you saw a 90% attrition rate, would you ever consider attending? No, not at all. The parent post is right in that professors do need warm bodies to do their bidding, and they will try to keep you under their thumbs for as long as possible. However, it serves their best interests to let you graduate, or else no prospective graduate student in their right mind will matriculate to that school or join that research group, especially the smart ones! In the same way that top tier (Ivy League included) schools are accused of padding grades, graduations are also padded to make their school look good.
Second, competent professors are filthy rich, especially in the more technology specific fields. I don't disagree with edremy's salary assessments; he seems fully accurate on that count. However, in any field that involves the discovery of new things/processes (biology, chemistry, physics), income from patents are going to match or exceed income for even the mediocre professors. The reason for this is they get cuts off whatever patents their graduate students may stumble upon. When you consider how many students a professor has in the lifetime of a patent, you can see that it would be fairly easy for a prof to be sitting on a few patents at a time for the duration of his career with a relatively small percentage of his graduate students ever producing a patent. If you don't believe my logic/rationalization, check out where your advisors live and ask yourself if they can do that on an income under $100k a year.
Doh, making myself look as big an idiot as Dr V. The property of bacteriorhodopsin he's manipulating involves absorption/reflection in the visible spectrum, meaning you must use a visible light source to read/write... meaning you won't ever be able to use rhodopsin to read at the ~1nm length scale, because you can't focus a 400nm wavelength spot to 1nm. A focused, soft x-ray source does you no good. What an idiot (him and me both).
His claim of terabyte storage shows an extreme naivety (or one could argue ignorance) of fundamental physical principles the good doctor should be aware of. It is true that there must be some medium capable of handling data storage on such a small scale, but the real hang-up, at least in terms of commercial viability, is the light source which reads the medium. Any dolt who knows next to nothing about high definition dvd's at least knows the major technological innovation involved is a commercially available blue light source (blue puts the Blu in Blu-Ray), not any groundbreaking technology involving the discs (though to save myself from flamebait, there have been advances here). Now, traditional dvd's/cd's are in the 700nm range, high def systems are around 400nm, and the industrial systems used to make microchips (yeah, these are expensive and not at all portable) can only burn chips 45nm thick. A light source of a couple nanometers (the quantity he uses for his predicted size) puts us into the soft x-ray range. Big deal if we have a storage medium. We won't be able to read or write to it (cheaply enough for consumers, that is) for decades. If I were this guy's employer, I'd investigate whether he ever completed a bachelor's degree in science, much less a PhD. This is a fundamental oversight on his part.
"Have you ever considered that since economics isn't a zero-sum game, that there are millions of people who have indirectly benefited economically from the industries that have sprung up around, support, and are supported by, music, television, books, and movies?"
But what about the millions who have DIRECTLY suffered at the hands of Britney Spears and the Spice Girls because the record companies decide this is what we will listen to. Think of the children!
Ok, I might be in the minority here, but I'm assuming that this was no conspiracy or well-organized hit to access veterans' SSN's. I'm guessing the perpetrator was some dumb teens or twenties punk who broke into the house looking for something he could sell for a couple bucks. This run-of-the-mill type would barely be able to use the laptop he stole to check email and play solitaire, let alone transfer files without leaving a trace of file access. Imagine his face, when flipping through the TV, he sees an article on the computer sitting in his trunk and thinks, "Hey, that looks like the place I jacked last night... wait a minute, that IS the place I hit! National news! FBI investigation! $50,000 reward for my ass... crap!" Ahhh, priceless!
Ok,
I'm pretty sure Phipps isn't trying to tell you what or how you should think when contributing your code to open source. He's only trying to outline which products will have the most impact, reach the most users, and make the largest positive impact on the FOSS community. Whether you're a socialist or an anarchist, in today's online community market forces will dominate. The strongest products will rise to the top. How do you make the strongest products? Answer: Directed self-interest. Ask yourself what would make you most happy in your desired product. Be completely selfish and 'me'-centric in your analysis. For example, in designing a Linux distribution, I would want a package that offers all the programs I need, no extra baggage, a full set of drivers compatible with whatever video card or auxillary I plug into it, and a sleek and intuitive, yet powerful, interface that is regularly patched and well-maintained. Oh, and if I could make a few bucks so I don't go bankrupt trying to upgrade and patch that beast after release so people could rely on the distribution, that would be great.
A product like that would be widely distributed, and succeed in the market-like environment. If, instead, you choose to focus your efforts on, say, an Amiga emulator that runs smoothly on Fedora simply because you noticed no one has made one yet (even if you're not an Amiga enthusiast), your contribution to the FOSS community would be much smaller. Market forces decide which products flourish, and don't ignore this when you design a product. Follow your selfish whims, design a product that fulfills your most rigorous expectations of what YOU want, and if you have the necessary skill to implement it, you have probably made a sucessful product in the process. I think this is the thrust of Phipps's directed self-interes talk. Enjoy!
Troy McClure voice, "You might remember Bob Lazar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Lazar from such news stories as: claiming to work on UFO's at a secret government base near Area 51 called S4, asserting the stability of element 115 and its use in UFO propulsion through the mysterious force "Gravity B" (aka strong nuclear force), claiming to hold degrees from MIT and Caltech while the records indicate he was actually attending a community college in Los Angeles at that time period."
Either you believe this nut, and the raid on his business was only the latest step in an ongoing government conspiracy to discredit him, or you think everything he says is a lie for additional publicity, in which case the story of his arrest could be called into question. Either way, chances are this blurb is wholly unrelated to the government restricting innocuous chemical sales, by virtue of the fact that it involves Bob Lazer
Slashdot Mirror
Ok, to counter the first 20 or so posts that, in a nutshell, say "You'll get fat if you're always eating out with your fat friends", I have to say RTFA!! The correlation between your weight and your friends' weights is just as strong when your friends are hundreds of miles away. You're not going out to eat with your cross-country friends. I'm not stepping up here to say the study is definitive causation; I just wanted to point out to the majority of the posts already made that this is not from the simple reason that you eat with your friends.
Jesus, all the replies took this seriously. Next time I'll make the heading, "Sarcastic," ok?
If it's DRM-free, it IS higher quality. There's no need to state it twice as "higher quality and DRM-free." The "higher quality" bit is just for the music exec's who wouldn't be able to make that connection on their own.
Blame the MPAA! Sony and Westinghouse might be complying with this HDCP crap, and an Intel subsidiary might be making royalty money off it, but these companies wouldn't care a bit if the movie industry didn't bully content protection on all of us.
I wouldn't underrate Nintendo's competitive mentality. First of all, they're a Japan-based company accustomed to the brutal, cutthroat corporate wars of the Japanese business system/model. Second, history shows Nintendo can be as ruthless and iron-fisted in the video game market as Microsoft in the computer/software market when they have a dominant market share (remember the Nintendo/Super Nintendo era). Right now, they might just be smart enought to realize they don't have the clout to flex their corporate muscle. It would be interesting to see what would happen if they achieved market dominance in today's video game market. Back in the day they weren't fighting other large corporations with revenue streams outside of video games.
There's very little humor value in a 3 month old joke, that gets told -invariably- everyday, on at least one story.
You must be new here!
(Notice: The joke itself illustrates the funnyness of old jokes; the funniness being completely invalidated by this note. Great Success!)
I fail to see what the fuss is about. A quick search of Web of Knowledge (for those of you with access to online periodicals) gives several abstracts where connections were formed with carbon nanotubes and the electronic properties were studied. To throw around buzzwords, how do you think researchers already knew about this "ballistic conductivity" before Intel made these interconnects? Unless the Intel results indicate how to fabricate these interconnects in bulk, there's absolutely nothing worth talking about. The real bottleneck, as the article describes, is finding a way to sort the little guys. There isn't a standard technique (yet) to efficiently separate large quantities of the semiconducting and metallic tubes, or to separate the tubes by size. If either or both of of these advancements are made, those findings will be worth all the hype! Making an electrical connection with a single walled carbon nanotube is nothing new, and shouldn't be given any special note.
First, let me state that I think the author of the article did an excellent job making his case. However, your arguments are much less convincing. 'Almost no viruses' is not a convincing argument. Malware authors are interested in money, and frankly, there's no money in Macs. This isn't necessarily because the Mac is any more secure (which I believe it is, but its not a necessary point for this argument). Malware spread is all about exponential growth. With a Windows bug, say it wants to spread and scans 100 computers, finding 90 of them vulnerable (by vulnerable, I mean they're running Windows). Each of those 90, now-compromised nodes scan 100 computers finding 90 more vulnerable nodes each (sooner or later they'll start running into already infected systems, but we'll use a dilute approximation for now). So, in two interations there's 8100 nodes captured. Take the Mac example with 5% market share. We'll assume, for the sake of argument, that every computer running a version of OS X is vulnerable. In two rounds of infection, the malware will have captured a piddly 25 nodes. No economically-minded hacker is going to write malware for that. Even in the crowded world of Windows malware, where you might only have a 1 in 10 shot of finding a computer not already prohibitively full of other malware, you'll do better writing code for Windows exploits. Bottom line is, exponential growth and greedy spam kings can explain 'almost no viruses' just fine without invoking security, which would tip the scales slightly more towards hacking Windows. The super-user thing isn't ENTIRELY Windows' fault either. Ever try to play a Blizzard game? Don't try it as a normal user! Third party app programmers get lazy because Windows doesn't require them to make their software runnable in unprivileged user mode. Apple puts more pressure on its third party programs. So, although some clunky Windows products also require administrative privileges, the only reason I have an open network connection while signed in to an administrator account on my Windows box is because of the d*#$ apps like Warcraft 3. The third party apps are primarily responsible for me regularly using administrator accounts, not Windows. True, Microsoft should lean on third parties harder, but I think this is a lower level of responsibility than what you imply.
Hmm, scheduling a conference on Valentine's Day?? I know we love Linux, but come on. V day is for 1)romancing a date or 2) sulking alone because of inability to procure 1. LinuxWorld, will you be my Valentine?
Ok, if there is a reasonable suspicion that you have committed a crime, an officer can exercise his authority over you in the ways you have enumerated above (however if you're completely innocent and an officer oversteps his authority, he can be held responsible in criminal court), whereas my hypothetical boss could not. There's a statement of fact; it might pass as a premise. From there you jump to a conclusion: I'm an idiot. Where's your argument??? I know step 1, and step 3 is profit, but you left out step 2 again.
So, what level of privacy can police reasonably expect? Consensus seems to be that on duty police officers, when in earshot, have no right to private conversations. What about their radio transmissions? Should decoders be legal? What about their file systems (or at least the files that don't also violate the privacy of the higher tier of civilians)? How far do you go in the interest of transparency of government? I've carried this line of reasoning to the absurd, but there's a definite gray area at the lowest levels. Best we keep the laws the same for everyone instead of trying to make some people more equal than others.
Look, lets take the cops out of this for a second. I'm sitting in my lab right now with a nice, thick, soundproof wall between my boss and me, talking to my fellow employees about what an asshole my boss is. Little do I know, my boss has installed a secret surveillance system and camoflagued the warning sticker among all the other industial signage to be disregarded when you enter the door of a chemistry lab (Class IIIB and IV lasers..., [fill in the blank] can be harmful to your health, etc.). He fires me, and when I ask for just cause, he produces the tape. If a story like this were run, the whole slashdot readership would jump on the 'down with Big Brother' bandwagon, and I would be the victim. The only difference with this story is that cops are involved. Some cops might be assholes, but we have to respect the fact that they are people too, and they also have rights granted by law. Either you support privacy laws, or you don't, and I think how often the NSA program gets mentioned by posters indicates our stance. No wonder the administration is so successful snatching our rights if we're as coherent as a teenager after his 12th shot of espresso. Honestly, this dude's decision to turn over the tape to the police is as stupid as (disclaimer: I'm using the words 'as stupid as', not 'equivalent to'... I'm not saying this is a valid analogy, merely that its just as short-sighted) me going to the cops and saying, "Look, I've been downloading all these ripped games and movies, and I've come across over 100 with malicious code attached. You should really go after the guys posting all these trojans." Here's to idiocy!
I agree wholeheartedly. This physorg article was a convoluted mass of steaming dung. I couldn't begin to understand what the author was trying to say, or what the large improvement was over techniques that have been done for years already (some noted in comments already). I'm a physical chemist for Christ's sake! I hopped over to 'Nature,' skimmed the real article, and came to the conclusion that the author of the PhysOrg piece didn't have a firm handle on the quantum chemistry and or techniques utilized. His analogies to dumb things down for the reader were actually, imho, grasping attempts he made to sort out the process in his own mind. Additionally, the language of the physorg piece implied that author bought sales pitch the U. Bonn group gives to its funding agencies (big improvement, hurdle crossed, HUGE progress, quantum computer around the corner). True, this is an advance and it deserves the funding it gets, but it is incremental, not monumental. However in the publish or die environment that is acadamedia, progress must be... embellished. This unfortunate sap believed it!
I disagree with both the parent and the response. First, I don't care what graduate school you go to, 90% of the people don't drop out. If you were looking at graduate schools, and you saw a 90% attrition rate, would you ever consider attending? No, not at all. The parent post is right in that professors do need warm bodies to do their bidding, and they will try to keep you under their thumbs for as long as possible. However, it serves their best interests to let you graduate, or else no prospective graduate student in their right mind will matriculate to that school or join that research group, especially the smart ones! In the same way that top tier (Ivy League included) schools are accused of padding grades, graduations are also padded to make their school look good. Second, competent professors are filthy rich, especially in the more technology specific fields. I don't disagree with edremy's salary assessments; he seems fully accurate on that count. However, in any field that involves the discovery of new things/processes (biology, chemistry, physics), income from patents are going to match or exceed income for even the mediocre professors. The reason for this is they get cuts off whatever patents their graduate students may stumble upon. When you consider how many students a professor has in the lifetime of a patent, you can see that it would be fairly easy for a prof to be sitting on a few patents at a time for the duration of his career with a relatively small percentage of his graduate students ever producing a patent. If you don't believe my logic/rationalization, check out where your advisors live and ask yourself if they can do that on an income under $100k a year.
Doh, making myself look as big an idiot as Dr V. The property of bacteriorhodopsin he's manipulating involves absorption/reflection in the visible spectrum, meaning you must use a visible light source to read/write... meaning you won't ever be able to use rhodopsin to read at the ~1nm length scale, because you can't focus a 400nm wavelength spot to 1nm. A focused, soft x-ray source does you no good. What an idiot (him and me both).
His claim of terabyte storage shows an extreme naivety (or one could argue ignorance) of fundamental physical principles the good doctor should be aware of. It is true that there must be some medium capable of handling data storage on such a small scale, but the real hang-up, at least in terms of commercial viability, is the light source which reads the medium. Any dolt who knows next to nothing about high definition dvd's at least knows the major technological innovation involved is a commercially available blue light source (blue puts the Blu in Blu-Ray), not any groundbreaking technology involving the discs (though to save myself from flamebait, there have been advances here). Now, traditional dvd's/cd's are in the 700nm range, high def systems are around 400nm, and the industrial systems used to make microchips (yeah, these are expensive and not at all portable) can only burn chips 45nm thick. A light source of a couple nanometers (the quantity he uses for his predicted size) puts us into the soft x-ray range. Big deal if we have a storage medium. We won't be able to read or write to it (cheaply enough for consumers, that is) for decades. If I were this guy's employer, I'd investigate whether he ever completed a bachelor's degree in science, much less a PhD. This is a fundamental oversight on his part.
Looks like we found an Encyclopedia Britannica fanboy, here. Go read "Nature". It will straighten you out. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v440/n7084/fu ll/440582b.html
"Have you ever considered that since economics isn't a zero-sum game, that there are millions of people who have indirectly benefited economically from the industries that have sprung up around, support, and are supported by, music, television, books, and movies?" But what about the millions who have DIRECTLY suffered at the hands of Britney Spears and the Spice Girls because the record companies decide this is what we will listen to. Think of the children!
Ok, I might be in the minority here, but I'm assuming that this was no conspiracy or well-organized hit to access veterans' SSN's. I'm guessing the perpetrator was some dumb teens or twenties punk who broke into the house looking for something he could sell for a couple bucks. This run-of-the-mill type would barely be able to use the laptop he stole to check email and play solitaire, let alone transfer files without leaving a trace of file access. Imagine his face, when flipping through the TV, he sees an article on the computer sitting in his trunk and thinks, "Hey, that looks like the place I jacked last night... wait a minute, that IS the place I hit! National news! FBI investigation! $50,000 reward for my ass ... crap!" Ahhh, priceless!
Ok, I'm pretty sure Phipps isn't trying to tell you what or how you should think when contributing your code to open source. He's only trying to outline which products will have the most impact, reach the most users, and make the largest positive impact on the FOSS community. Whether you're a socialist or an anarchist, in today's online community market forces will dominate. The strongest products will rise to the top. How do you make the strongest products? Answer: Directed self-interest. Ask yourself what would make you most happy in your desired product. Be completely selfish and 'me'-centric in your analysis. For example, in designing a Linux distribution, I would want a package that offers all the programs I need, no extra baggage, a full set of drivers compatible with whatever video card or auxillary I plug into it, and a sleek and intuitive, yet powerful, interface that is regularly patched and well-maintained. Oh, and if I could make a few bucks so I don't go bankrupt trying to upgrade and patch that beast after release so people could rely on the distribution, that would be great. A product like that would be widely distributed, and succeed in the market-like environment. If, instead, you choose to focus your efforts on, say, an Amiga emulator that runs smoothly on Fedora simply because you noticed no one has made one yet (even if you're not an Amiga enthusiast), your contribution to the FOSS community would be much smaller. Market forces decide which products flourish, and don't ignore this when you design a product. Follow your selfish whims, design a product that fulfills your most rigorous expectations of what YOU want, and if you have the necessary skill to implement it, you have probably made a sucessful product in the process. I think this is the thrust of Phipps's directed self-interes talk. Enjoy!
Troy McClure voice, "You might remember Bob Lazar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Lazar from such news stories as: claiming to work on UFO's at a secret government base near Area 51 called S4, asserting the stability of element 115 and its use in UFO propulsion through the mysterious force "Gravity B" (aka strong nuclear force), claiming to hold degrees from MIT and Caltech while the records indicate he was actually attending a community college in Los Angeles at that time period." Either you believe this nut, and the raid on his business was only the latest step in an ongoing government conspiracy to discredit him, or you think everything he says is a lie for additional publicity, in which case the story of his arrest could be called into question. Either way, chances are this blurb is wholly unrelated to the government restricting innocuous chemical sales, by virtue of the fact that it involves Bob Lazer