Alterslash

the unofficial Slashdot digest

Google To Propose QUIC As IETF Standard

Posted by timothyView
As reported by TechCrunch, "Google says it plans to propose HTTP2-over-QUIC to the IETF as a new Internet standard in the future," having disclosed a few days ago that about half of the traffic from Chrome browsers is using QUIC already. From the article: The name "QUIC" stands for Quick UDP Internet Connection. UDP's (and QUIC's) counterpart in the protocol world is basically TCP (which in combination with the Internet Protocol (IP) makes up the core communication language of the Internet). UDP is significantly more lightweight than TCP, but in return, it features far fewer error correction services than TCP. ... That's why UDP is great for gaming services. For these services, you want low overhead to reduce latency and if the server didn't receive your latest mouse movement, there's no need to spend a second or two to fix that because the action has already moved on. You wouldn't want to use it to request a website, though, because you couldn't guarantee that all the data would make it. With QUIC, Google aims to combine some of the best features of UDP and TCP with modern security tools.

What is wrong with SCTP and DCCP?

By jd • Score: 3 • Thread

These are well-established, well-tested, well-designed protocols with no suspect commercial interests involved. QUIC solves nothing that hasn't already been solved.

If pseudo-open proprietary standards are de-rigour, then adopt the Scheduled Transfer Protocol and Delay Tolerant Protocol. Hell, bring back TUBA, SKIP and any other obscure protocol nobody is likely to use. It's not like anyone cares any more.

Joseph Goebbels' Estate Sues Publisher Over Diary Excerpt Royalties

Posted by timothyView
wabrandsma writes with this from The Guardian: The estate of Joseph Goebbels, Adolf Hitler's minister of propaganda, is taking legal action against the publisher Random House over a new biography, claiming payment for the use of extracts from his diaries. Peter Longerich's biography of Goebbels is to be published in May (Random House/ Siedler). Longerich, who is the professor at Royal Holloway's Holocaust Research Centre, maintains this case has important censorship implications. 'If you accept that a private person controls the rights to Goebbels' diaries, then – theoretically – you give this person the right to control research,' he said.

Unless

By captnjohnny1618 • Score: 4, Interesting • Thread
Up front confession: haven't read the article, but unless the diaries are in the public domain, isn't this pretty cut and dry? If the diaries are in private hands, they're in private hands and you need permission to use their contents.

rule of law

By NostalgiaForInfinity • Score: 5, Insightful • Thread

Longerich maintains this case has important censorship implications. “If you accept that a private person controls the rights to Goebbels’ diaries, then – theoretically – you give this person the right to control research,” he said.

A private person controls the rights to Goebbels' diaries until a court of law declares otherwise or they fall into the public domain for some other reason. Courts should have done this in the aftermath of WWII, but Germans wanted these copyrights to remain valid in order to control such writings. The writings could also have come into the public domain as part of some settlement to civil claims against the Goebbels estate. But since neither seems to have happened, the copyright still appears to be valid.

Arguing as if "research" should be exempted from the usual rule of law is particularly embarrassing for a German professor studying the Holocaust, since many atrocities were committed in the Third Reich because German academics considered themselves above the law and got away with it.

If Longerich can't make a convincing argument that these works are in the public domain or that he falls under a well-defined legal exemption, he can join the rest of us and work towards shorter copyright terms, broader fair use exemptions, and less draconian laws. Of course, he could also demonstrate good will by licensing his own works under a CC license.

get to the end of the article

By jonsmirl • Score: 5, Informative • Thread

'Initially, he feared that Schacht would take out an injunction against the book, preventing its publication altogether. Determined to avoid the destruction of any books “on the grounds of a claim from Goebbels”, he agreed to pay her 1% of the net retail price.

He said: “When she wanted to cash in on that agreement, I said that agreement is null and void It’s against the moral rights You haven’t been entitled to sell me any words as those words lie within the Bavarian government.”'

The author agreed to pay a 1% royalty and then reneged when the heir tried to collect. Of course that triggered a lawsuit.

Re:Unless

By garyisabusyguy • Score: 5, Informative • Thread

Certainly he had a place of power in the Nazi elite, and he used that place to drive home a pet project:

During 1942,[1] Goebbels continued to press for the "final solution to the Jewish question" to be carried forward as quickly as possible now that Germany had occupied a huge swathe of Soviet territory into which all the Jews of German-controlled Europe could be deported. There they could be worked into extinction in accordance with the plan agreed on at the Wannsee Conference convened by Heydrich in January. It was a constant annoyance to Goebbels that, at a time when Germany was fighting for its life on the eastern front, there were still 40,000 Jews in Berlin.[2] They should be "carted off to Russia," he wrote in his diary. "It would be best to kill them altogether."[3] Although the Propaganda Ministry was not invited to the Wannsee Conference, Goebbels knew by March what had been decided there.[4] He wrote:

        The Jews are now being deported to the east. A fairly barbaric procedure, not to be described in any greater detail, is being used here, and not much more remains of the Jews themselves. In general, it can probably be established that 60 percent of them must be liquidated, while only 40 percent can be put to work ... A judgment is being carried out on the Jews which is barbaric, but fully deserved.[5]

1. Jewish Virtual Library
2. Kershaw, Hitler, II, p 519
3. Kershaw, Hitler, II, p 473
4. Browning, The Origins of the Final Solution, p 415
5. Kershaw, Hitler, II, p 494
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J...

This goes well past any notion of free speech and well into advocating and driving on the process of genocide

Copyrighting History

By Jonathan P. Bennett • Score: 3, Insightful • Thread
It seems that the bigger problem here is that modern copyright is so unreasonably long, historical documents are still under copyright. Anything over the original 28 year copyright term is really robbing the next generation of history.

DOJ Could Nix Comcast-Time Warner Merger

Posted by timothyView
jriding (1076733) writes The Comcast-Time Warner Cable merger has been in the works for so long, it's starting to feel like the impending monopolistic telecom Frankenbaby was inevitable. But the Justice Department may kibosh the deal for violating antitrust laws, according to a report from Bloomberg.

May kibosh in 2017

By liquid_schwartz • Score: 5, Insightful • Thread
Unless sufficient bribes are paid in the 2016 election cycle

At this point? Really?

By damn_registrars • Score: 3, Insightful • Thread
This seems highly unlikely given the pro-monopoly stance that the administration of Barack Hussein "Lawnchair" Obama has taken up to this point. They didn't stop any of the airline or bank mergers that we have seen since 2009. They didn't reign in the massive control that the insurance industry has over the consumer (indeed they gave the industry more power). They didn't stop telecoms from merging either. Why would they get involved in this?

This looks like window dressing more than anything. The Administration is trying to get some positive PR but eventually they will let it slide through because the free market is teh awesome!

Why merge?

By Dutch Gun • Score: 3 • Thread

A rejection of the deal would be a blow to Comcast, which has sought to gain valuable cable assets in major U.S. cities including New York and Los Angeles, where Time Warner Cable is dominant. Expanding Comcast’s broadband Internet and video footprint would help it better compete with satellite, Web and telecommunications competitors that have taken hundreds of thousands of TV subscribers from the Philadelphia-based company in recent years.

Or, Comcast, you could stop treating your customers like poop you scrape off your sole and instead offer competitive and innovative services at a reasonable price. Maybe then your customers wouldn't flee from you at the first opportunity they get. Just a thought.

Re:At this point? Really?

By tapspace • Score: 5, Insightful • Thread

Is it? I can't tell which bias he has. He's expressing a desire for more regulation, which is a left-leaning bias, but a disdain for Obama, even using his middle name, which a right-leaning bias. I think he's just showing that he's pissed at the corporate cock sucking, fascist pile of shit that is the US federal government.

nix the regulations creating these monopolies

By NostalgiaForInfinity • Score: 3 • Thread

Nixing individual mergers doesn't help anything. What government should do is nix the regulations that created these monopolies in the first place.

Norway Will Switch Off FM Radio In 2017

Posted by timothyView
New submitter titten writes The Norwegian Ministry of Culture has announced that the transition to DAB will be completed in 2017. This means that Norway, as the first country in the world to do so, has decided to switch off the FM network. Norway began the transition to DAB in 1995. In recent years two national and several local DAB-networks has been established. 56 per cent of radio listeners use digital radio every day. 55 per cent of households have at least one DAB radio, according to Digitalradio survey by TNS Gallup, continuously measuring the Norwegian`s digital radio habits.

Re:I don't get why the government is involved at a

By Xolotl • Score: 4, Informative • Thread
The governenet cares because they sell spectrum allocations, and can re-sell the ones taken back from analog. Furthermore because the digital broadcasts use less bandwidth per station and are less susceptible to crosstalk they can sell more of them per Mhz of spectrum.

Re:So much for long distance Listening

By dryeo • Score: 5, Insightful • Thread

You get best possible* image with DTV where you would get unwatchable static-covered picture.

The problem with the switch to digital TV was all the channels moved into the UHF band which does not carry as far. Here I used to get ch. 2 and 6 clear and a couple of other ones were sometimes watchable, after the switch to digital we don't get any channels. Being 30 miles outside of one of the biggest cities in Canada means no other options, satellite blocked by hills and trees, no cable, no cell coverage and with the privatized phone system 3 9's means that every 9 days the phone is out for 9 hours (18 hours last time), usually due to cable theft.
FM radio is still good but I'm sure if it switched to digital that would also be gone. This raises the question about Norway and how good the DAB coverage is compared to FM

Re:So much for long distance Listening

By thegarbz • Score: 4, Informative • Thread

Digital ANYTHING over the air for listening just plain sucks.

If your signal is not perfect you simply don't hear anything. If I am WAY away from an analog broadcast, it might be fuzzy, it might in and out of stereo but I can still HEAR and understand it.

You're assuming the goal of listening radio is simply to understand. For most people it most definitely isn't. There's nothing more fatiguing than trying to understand content through static in the background. Heck when FM drops out of stereo most people typically change the channel, and and many intelligent radios consider the signal lost at this point and look for another station.

This is only one of the reasons why cops and fire fighters hate the new digital radios.

The cops and firefighters have a rosy view of the past. The reality is that modern digital radios have receivers with far greater sensitivities than those analogue counterparts. TETRA or P25 on a power for power basis with older analogue equipment works well over 3 times the distance where analogue becomes unintelligible. The modern equipment is now so good they've started downrating the equipment's power output.

If you have a coverage issue at all then it's never the fault of the radio standard.

Too busy to rip the radio out of my car

By EmperorOfCanada • Score: 3 • Thread
It is only the fact that have been too busy to rip the radio out of my car. I have a screen/computer to put into it that will then play lectures, audio books, podcasts, etc. Also I have it ready to replace my dashcam with a series of cameras that not only can record but also upload via a dataplan if needed.

At no point in my buying did I even look for an FM or even AM option to add on. And certainly I never looked for a satellite radio technology (those things just piss me off in rentals).

To me even satellite radio is so 20th century. DAB is also just a bandaid to try to keep the radio station media companies relevant.

But the reality is that this isn't a technology issue. For the last portion of the 20th century a variety of media conglomerates bought up all the radio stations and turned them into MBA masturbatory dreams. All profit with no content. About the last time I listened to radio was just before a DJ that I know told me that his new format was to go into work, record all his blurps between songs in one long scripted 1.5 hour session including interviews, and then go home. The songs and his blurps were all run automatically by the computer.

The few things that come off NPR, BBC, or the CBC that I care about "Art of persuasion, quirks, this american life, etc" I download. But even the CBC is just on a march further and further to the PC left and I can't stomach having one great feature cut short so they can give massive amounts of time to someone with some extreme view on some stupid social issue and listen to them grind their axe endlessly.

So the best of radio on today is worse than silence. But my own playlist is awesome and the technology is sitting in a drawer so that I don't have to use my stupid FM transmitter to get crap off my iPhone.

So like my car not coming with an ashtray, I want my next car to not come with a radio, DAB or not.

Re:So much for long distance Listening

By Kjella • Score: 4, Insightful • Thread

TETRA or P25 on a power for power basis with older analogue equipment works well over 3 times the distance where analogue becomes unintelligible.

Outside. I know particularly the firefighters have complained about poorer coverage inside buildings, which is usually where their life-saving work is done. Details...

Ask Slashdot: What Features Would You Like In a Search Engine?

Posted by timothyView
New submitter nicolas.slusarenko writes Nowadays, there is one dominant search engine in the world among few alternatives. I have the impression that the majority of users think that it is the best possible service that could be made. I am sure that we could have a better search engine. During my spare time I been developing Trokam, an online search engine. I am building this service with the features that I would like to find in a service: respectful of user rights, ad-free, built upon open source software, and with auditable results. Well, those are mine. What features would you like in a search engine?

Deja vu all over again...

By kackle • Score: 5, Insightful • Thread
Amen, brother. Similarly, I switched from Lycos a decade+ ago because they dropped Boolean searching (some of us are power users!). I used Yahoo! next, but it was painful on dial-up with all the extra junk on their home page. Then I came across this new, misspelled site called "Google". I loved it; but lately it has been wearing on me as it panders more and more to the masses.

Note to Google: We nerds might be in the minority, but it is WE who direct the non-nerds as to how to set up their digital devices, avoid online trouble, choose their search engines, etc. Don't ruin it for us. I already started to keep one eye open for another search place, because I fear it'll only get worse.

Culling

By Moof123 • Score: 3 • Thread

Make it easy for me to specify I am looking for technical information, or looking to buy something, or what have you. All too often I am trying to do a search for technical information, but if that acronym has also been used by Beiber lately I am SOL. I would love it is I could weed out the pop culture hits when I wanted to omit them.

Similarly I would like a search engine that I could easily specify if I also want hits for related words, or just EXACT match, and whether to ignore capitalization or not. It is maddening when an acronym also happens to be a common word and I get flooded with useless crap.

Re:Simple

By swillden • Score: 5, Funny • Thread

Search for what I type in, not what you think I want

I want a search engine that searches for what I want, not what I type, and not even what I think I want.

Re:privacy?

By jenningsthecat • Score: 5, Interesting • Thread

I just want the search engine to stop changing what I'm searching for.

This, exactly. Google's ideas regarding 'synonyms' for my search terms would be laughable if they didn't waste so much of my time. Also, these days when I do an 'allintext' search it almost always turns up far more results than did the same query without the 'allintext' operator. Now just how in the fuck does that happen?

I would pay two or three hundred dollars a year for access to a search engine with Google's reach and power, but without all the ad-oriented bloat, the lowest-common-denominator attempts at hand-holding, and the Microsoft Clippy-isms. You know - something that's more suitable for real research and for getting a job done than for figuring out where to have dinner or what meaningless bullshit the Kardashians and other such social parasites are up to. And while they're at it, they need to include a way of searching for exactly what I type, including case, punctuation and special characters. And if my search turns up zero results, that's fine. I'd far rather have that than be insulted by Google's insistence that it must have something I'm interested in.

I'm not so naive as to believe that anyone else can replicate Google's massive search capabilities. So I really wish Google would provide a search interface for those of us who have both a good idea of what we're looking for and a clue about how to do research. It would cost them next to nothing, they could charge for it, and they'd be doing the world a favour.

Hell, right now I'd settle for Google circa ten years ago - it was way better than it is now.

2D navigation for search refinement

By iMadeGhostzilla • Score: 4, Interesting • Thread

Think of Google's search as your type as 1-dimensional suggestion list. I'd like as I type to see around the search bar a matrix of categories: news, videos, documentation, blogs etc. Then as I hover over a category with a mouse I zoom into a matrix of subcategories for that category using the mouse wheel. I zoom out back one level if that's not the branch I'm thinking of.

In addition, I don't want to click until the very end, and maybe not even then. Hovering over a set of results shows me what's at the deeper level, and when I'm looking at a one or a handful of pages that match the criteria as I refine further, it is also shown as a cell. Hovering over it will give me a preview -- from the search engine, not my browser fetching an actual page. Only when I'm certain I want to go there, I'll click.

That would be a search engine of the future. Or, idea #2: make it like google, but when I control-clik on the link for the page it opens a sanitized copy of the page, provided by your server, so I know there are no scripts or malware and crap. And if possible give me that sanitized preview when I hover over the page so if I'm lucky I don't have to click on anything at all.

I know sites wouldn't like it but just saying what I'd like to see that I think is technically possible. Thanks for listening!

The Upsides of a Surveillance Society

Posted by timothyView
theodp writes Citing the comeuppance of ESPN reporter Britt McHenry, who was suspended from her job after her filmed ad-hominem attack on a person McHenry deemed to be beneath her in terms of appearance, education, wealth, class, status went viral, The Atlantic's Megan Garber writes that one silver lining of the omnipresence of cameras it that the possibility of exposure can also encourage us to be a little kinder to each other. "Terrible behavior," Garber writes, "whether cruel or violent or something in between, has a greater possibility than it ever has before of being exposed. Just as Uber tracks ratings for both its drivers and its users, and just as Yelp can be a source of shaming for businesses and customers alike, technology at large has afforded a reciprocity between people who, in a previous era, would have occupied different places on the spectrum of power. Which can, again, be a bad thing — but which can also, in McHenry's case, be an extremely beneficial one. It's good that her behavior has been exposed. It's good that her story going viral might discourage similar behavior from other people. It's good that she has publicly promised 'to learn from this mistake.'"

High-tech "An armed society is a polite society"

By redelm • Score: 4, Interesting • Thread

... from Robert Heinlein. In both cases, the consequences of rude behaviour are much greater.

I worry most about the years-later consequences of surveillence on politicians and other leaders. They all seem to have sordid episodes, and this leaves them highly succeptible to hidden blackmail/pressure by data-holders. We will never know how they are manipulated and abuse their wide discretionary powers.

Not to protect "the little children" but to protect "the pervy pols."

You Are, But So Are They

By Bob9113 • Score: 4, Insightful • Thread

TL;DR: The upside of being under continuous surveillance is that everyone else is too. It is the same argument as, "Because terrorists might get caught."

Here's just one example of the downside: Alcoholics Anonymous, Narcotics Anonymous, and similar will all have zero attendance as soon as employers stop hiring people who have been seen at an AA/NA meeting. That will be a reality within ten years, as private license plate tracking databases come online.

Doubt it? Ask yourself this: Would a typical "profit over everything" manager hire someone he knew was in NA? That guy is going to abuse these databases as they come online. That is reality.

It's nowhere close to that rosy

By cfalcon • Score: 4, Interesting • Thread

It's nowhere close to as nice as OP portrays.

The example brought up- the ludicrous cuntly behavior of Britt going off on some poor schmuckette- is gratifying because she's "getting hers". But, lets consider a few things:

1- Britt had no reason to suspect she was being recorded (beyond the general assumption that any building or person in America *could* be "taping" you now). She acted based on assumptions that weren't true.
2- Britt has a job where public relations are extremely important, and is a celebrity (not "was", I'm certainly a lot more interested in someone who openly shits on tow companies, notoriously sketchy organizations that damage vehicles and will tow legal vehicles if they can claim that the little whatever that lets you park legally could be argued to not be perfectly visible, or if can be dislodged in towing- so if she pops up and rants about stuff, hey, I'll watch)
3- Who controls the cameras is the big deal. What if, in addition to the rant delivered by her, we saw EVERYTHING that happened in that business, from the cabs of the tow trucks to the office politics in the back to their normal customer relations? By selecting just what your foes do at a specific time, you obviously gain a great deal of control, because your shit is flushed and theirs is on youtube forever.

The medium benefits of cameras seem to be what we see in Russia from dash cams- inability of insurance companies to welch on payments, and greater evidence of actually criminal dealings on the road.
The biggest benefits of cameras will be their effect on law enforcement, and if we want to actually reap those benefits (instead of just making people who can have a short temper unemployable in even more jobs than they already are), we'll need protections for the numerous police who routinely order people to stop filming (this should not ever be something a policeman can say), attack people legally and extralegally for putting up their crimes, and actually hold them accountable for the absurd beatings that they suddenly started dealing out to poor people and anyone who wouldn't normally be believed in court- beatings that seemingly began the moment that everyone got cameras. Probably those two related, hrm, what's that correlation...

So it doesn't matter that some hot tempered cutie with a media job went off on some random people. That's not really helping society that she can't keep her ESPN job.

The workaround for (1) is that people will act like they are being recorded, which naively means that they will switch from aggression to bating and passive aggression. If they ALSO have cameras (and hidden cameras are cheap, and will become moreso), then the goal becomes to bait the other party to either committing a crime (easier in some situations than others) or crucifying themselves in the court of public opinion. We can laugh at the people who haven't adapted to this new ruleset fast enough, but it's STILL a game, and it will still be won by the same sociopaths that always are good at these games.

(2) is an issue because more and more jobs will fall into this category, resulting in minor altercations yielding a harsh streak of unemployment into a society already hellbent on assuming that ability is immediately rewarded with steady employment. While celebrities have a huge amount of support systems to fall back on ("celebrity does a heel-turn" is not a death knell by any means to their public life), many people do not. The natural assumption of the video seems to be that if someone is caught doing something on tape, that this is representative of their entire life, a brief 30 second temper tantrum serving as a summary of their entire life. This background assumption is based on what USED to be the truth, and the same logic that the legal system uses to dole out large punishments for minor violations- that cameras (observing agents in general) were so rare that if someone got caught ranting on camera (or speeding on some empty highway) that it serves as a *representation of tha

Re:I wouldn't call that a "surveillence society"

By Opportunist • Score: 4, Insightful • Thread

In 1984, people also weren't always under observation by their telescreen. Actually, they almost never were. What made them "behave" was simply that they didn'T know when they would be.

So just not having a camera "trained on you" every second of your life doesn't make the total surveillance any less invasive. When you cannot tell whether you have privacy, you have none.

You know...

By EmeraldBot • Score: 5, Insightful • Thread

I've once had the fortune (misfortune?) of living in East Germany for a year, back when the Berlin Wall existed. Do you want to know what living surveillance state is like? It's a place where you are ALWAYS on guard. You can never be honest with anyone - your teacher in school could be with the government, your best friend could be undercover, even your own family could be recruited. You have to bottle up everything inside yourself, and you present this lovely facade to the public. Many, especially those of us from the west, often wonder why people from Russia are so guarded. You want to know why? Because the alternative is rotting in jail, or even being assassinated. What this idiotic, moronic , IGNORANT author proposes is a complete regression of 300 years of progress towards a free society, and not just in America. If he can't stand people being impolite, then very well - I expect him to thank me when he is inside a gulag for going to a gay rights meeting, just as he had to thank me when I hauled off his grandmother for being related to him (she's equally guilty by being in his immediate family). THAT is the society he will live in, but at least he'll never half to bear the terrible injustice of someone calling him an idiot. And now I think I know why he's called that.

Dutch Prosecutors Launch Criminal Investigation Against Uber For Flouting Ban

Posted by timothyView
An anonymous reader writes Dutch prosecutors have announced that they are prosecuting taxi-hailing giant Uber for continuing to disregard last December's ban on the company offering its unlicensed UberPOP service in the Netherlands. The statement declares 'The company Uber is now a suspect...This means a preliminary examination will be started to collect evidence that Uber is providing illegal transportation on a commercial basis,'. Dutch police presented evidence to the prosecutors of UberPOP drivers in Amsterdam ignoring the ban, and at the time of writing the UberPOP service is still available via Uber's Amsterdam website [https://www.uber.com/cities/amsterdam]. Though Uber inspires new litigation on a weekly basis in the territories in which it is seeking to consolidate its services, this is the first time it has been the subject of a criminal prosecution.

Re:What's bad about Uber drivers?

By linearZ • Score: 5, Insightful • Thread

As a passenger, you may find them great. But then again, you probably don't have to deal with Uber SUV's right hooking you on a bike, or Lincoln town cars parked in the middle of the road, creating gridlock for blocks behind them. In my town, Uber drivers have become just as much as an entitled dipshits as Taxi drivers, maybe more so.

I will welcome our robot Uberlords.

Re:What's bad about Uber drivers?

By PolygamousRanchKid • Score: 5, Insightful • Thread

Most taxi drivers I have encountered on the other hand, have ranged from standoffish to incredibly rude and sometimes hostile, frequently lying about fares to get more money.

Let me ask you, in which countries have you taken taxis?

I am American, but live in Germany. I have traveled on business to many different European countries. I have rode in taxis in England(Winchester,Southampton), the Netherlands (Delft), France (Nice, Paris), Belgium (Brussels), Greece (Samos), Switzerland (Zurich), Turkey(Istanbul), and just about every which where in Germany. I have never had a negative experience.

I am always polite to the driver, never condescending, and friendly. Guess what? The taxi driver always pays back in kind.

Re:Haven't used it... but these laws are ridicules

By jklovanc • Score: 5, Insightful • Thread

We should not have to register vehicles, obtain drivers licenses, social security numbers, license plates, or submit to other forms of identification.

How do can you identify the owner of a vehicle and whether or not it has been stolen without registration? How do you verify that a person knows how to drive and the rules of the road without driver's licenses? How do you confirm that a person is who they say they are without a social security number? How do you identify a vehicle that has left the scene of an accident without a license plate?

It's not impossible to arrest someone for committing murder in a system without driver licenses or taxi licenses.

"Impossible" is a pretty high standard. There are also other lesser crimes that are much better dealt with from a license number rather than a name. Do you know how many Bob Smiths there are?

As a human being we should have a right to run a business without interference unless our actions are interfering with the rights of others.

How do you identify a person who has interfered with the rights of others and is no longer allowed to run the business?

You don't have a right to pollute the waters, but you do have a right to drive people without being licensed.

Where is this "right" written down? Who has agreed this is a "right"? Oh right, this would be your opinion. Too bad it is not the opinion of most people.

At the same time people have the right to refuse business with unlicensed drivers.

So every passenger would have to checks the driver's license, registration, insurance and inspection report before getting into a cab? That is why there are taxi licenses so the passenger can be sure that these checks have already been done.

Re:What's bad about Uber drivers?

By burne • Score: 4, Informative • Thread

The Uber drivers I have used have all been great.

Under Dutch law taxi drivers need a number of additional courses and successful completion of the certifications associated with them. In addition they are required to be screened for previous convictions pertaining to alchohol- or drug abuse, traffic violations, and inter-personal violence convictions.

There's no 'uber' in the Netherlands, just 'uberpop' which is an illegal taxi-driver with none of the training and none of the safe-guards 'normal' taxi drivers have to conform to. 'Uberpop' is promoting illegal taxi services.

Taxi drivers in the Netherlands behave themselves because the first DUI means they will never drive a taxi ever again. They don't beat up customers because they will never again, ever, work as a chauffeur, not even on a freight lorry. Run a number of red lights in a few years and you'll lose your VOG and with it your license to drive a taxi.

We used to have an America-styled mob company in every city. For instance: the TCA, Taxi Criminals Amsterdam, required large fees from its drivers, to protect them from 'damage' and to assign them rides. Heavy-handed law-enforcement did a lot of good. Uberpop seems to be determined to re-establish the New York-style cabbie from the late seventies.

Resistance To Antibiotics Found In Isolated Amazonian Tribe

Posted by timothyView
sciencehabit writes When scientists first made contact with an isolated village of Yanomami hunter-gatherers in the remote mountains of the Amazon jungle of Venezuela in 2009, they marveled at the chance to study the health of people who had never been exposed to Western medicine or diets. But much to their surprise, these Yanomami's gut bacteria have already evolved a diverse array of antibiotic-resistance genes, according to a new study, even though these mountain people had never ingested antibiotics or animals raised with drugs. The find suggests that microbes have long evolved the capability to fight toxins, including antibiotics, and that preventing drug resistance may be harder than scientists thought.

Re: It Has Begun!

By garyisabusyguy • Score: 5, Insightful • Thread

I would expect that to be the case

I would even go further out on the limb and suggest that antibiotic resistant bacteria have always been present

It is imply the presence of antibiotic substances that weed out the rest of the bacteria, leaving the resistant ones as the 'last man standing' so that we notice them

It is not so much the case that our use of antibiotics have caused antibiotic resistant strains to 'develop', we have simply eliminated the rest and exposed the resistant ones

Re: It Has Begun!

By Half-pint HAL • Score: 5, Insightful • Thread
There are some scientists who think that the idea of microbes "developing" resistance is wrong anyway. All our antibiotics are naturally occurring, and a mouthful of soil contains dozens of different antibiotics. The alternative theory is that all we've done is change the balance of antibiotics in the environment, leading to an unnatural selection of antibiotic-resistant strains. The abundance of life in the rainforest extends to antibiotic-producing fungi, so the microfauna will naturally have been exposed to a broad variety of antibiotics, and therefore natural selection will have led to resistant strains.

Silly question

By CODiNE • Score: 3 • Thread

I'm assuming these people, isolated though they were, did not drink water or feed from animals exposed to water tainted with anti-biotic runoff?

You could grow up on an undiscovered island and still have ingested plastics. The smoke doesn't always stay on its side of the restaurant.

Re: It Has Begun!

By Sarten-X • Score: 4, Interesting • Thread

Four comments in, and this discussion is effectively over.

Yes, random mutations happen randomly. Sometimes they happen in hospitals using antibiotics, but usually they happen anywhere else. Sometimes, those mutations happen to survive long enough to become widespread through a population. Sometimes that population is isolated, and the mutation becomes common. Sometimes a particular antibiotic (natural or synthesized) affects the balance of variants in the population.

Very rarely, we humans have suitable circumstances to actually notice.

Or maybe

By Livius • Score: 3 • Thread

Their environment has some awesome naturally-occurring antibiotic that the local bacteria have had to develop resistance to, and we might want to learn more about that.

Rocket Lab Unveils "Electric" Rocket Engine

Posted by timothyView
New submitter Adrian Harvey writes The New Zealand based commercial space company Rocket Lab has unveiled their new rocket engine which the media is describing as battery-powered. It still uses rocket fuel, of course, but has an entirely new propulsion cycle which uses electric motors to drive its turbopumps.

To add to the interest over the design, it uses 3D printing for all its primary components. First launch is expected this year, with commercial operations commencing in 2016.

Cheap because of size, not engines

By gman003 • Score: 3, Interesting • Thread

Big rocket engines use big propellant pumps. The pump on the F-1 (used on the Saturn V) ran about 55,000 horsepower.

Electric motors won't do that cheaper. And they'll sap the weight of the rocket, since even a dead battery is heavy. Fundamentally, a big rocket will be better served by a gas-generator or staged-combustion cycle.

That's fine for this rocket because it's so small. The payload is 110kg. For comparable rockets, turn to Iran's unflown Simorgh, Israel's Shavit, or North Korea's Unha, all in the 100-160kg range.

To put those numbers in comparison, let's look at SpaceX. The single-engined Falcon 1 put 670kg into orbit. A Falcon 9 runs 10,000-13,000kg. And the Falcon Heavy is supposed to lift 53,000kg.

Or for an older comparison, Sputnik 1 weighed 80kg, and Sputnik 2 weighed 500kg. So they're building a rocket that couldn't even lift the second satellite to ever fly. I'm not particularly impressed.

Maybe there's a niche for small payloads like this, but in all honesty, I expect you could fly several such payloads on one bigger rocket, or just hitchhike on the spare capacity on a big satellite launch. Still, worth a shot. Just don't pretend to be playing in the big leagues.

Questionable engineering decisions.

By mpoulton • Score: 3 • Thread
Ever since their first widespread implementations in the mid 20th century, turbopumps have been powered by rocket propellants - either the same stuff they are pumping (F1 engine in the Saturn V), or a separate propellant dedicated to powering the pumps (Space Shuttle Main Engines). There are excellent reasons for this, and not many good reasons to use batteries and motors instead. Rocket propellant pumps require truly massive amounts of power to move thousands of gallons per minute of propellants at thousands of PSI pressure. The SSME turbopumps require over 70,000 horsepower per engine. Like all other rocket hardware, size and weight are extreme concerns. Power-to-weight ratio is the single most critical design goal. Rocket engines themselves burn the propellants they do specifically because those chemical combinations are the absolute best we have for producing the maximum amount of thermo-mechanical energy from the least mass, no-compromise. Using the same types of propellants to drive the turbopumps also provides the maximum achievable power to weight ratio. The SSME turbopumps produce over 100HP per pound, which is insanely high. No known electric motor technology can even reach that order of magnitude in power density, even considering only the actual motor itself! There is no legitimate contest in performance between a gas-driven turbopump and any other technology besides nuclear, and that's that. To make such a large compromise in power to weight ratio by using electric pumps is very odd. Yes, gas-driven turbopumps are really hard. They are the hardest part of building a large liquid rocket engine. But those challenges were first solved over 60 years ago, and avoiding a tough engineering exercise is no excuse for making a giant compromise in performance. The extra mass of that electric drive system could be replaced with propellant or cargo.

Re:Questionable engineering decisions.

By gman003 • Score: 4, Informative • Thread

Uh, the SSME engines ran off the same propellant as the rocket - LH2 and LOX. It's a staged-combustion rocket - some of the fuel and oxidizer flow was diverted to a preburner, which partially combusted them (the mixture was fuel-rich, limited by oxygen), ran the fuel-rich exhaust through turbines for the fuel and oxidizer pumps, then exhausted into the main combustion chamber where it was mixed with the remaining oxygen to complete combustion.

A better example for a separate propellant would have have been the V2 rocket, which burned ethanol and LOX, and had a pump powered by hydrogen peroxide.

Right on all other points, though.

Re:Hype pain

By brambus • Score: 5, Informative • Thread
Turbine engines typically achieve around 33%-34% efficiency. Going off of Wikipedia, non-rechargeable lithium batteries are around 1.8MJ/kg, whereas kerosene is around 46MJ/kg. Now with kerosene, you need to carry around another 2.5 parts of oxygen, so gram-for-gram, the split is around 13 MJ/kg for RP-1/LOX. Accounting for engine efficiency, it comes to around 1.6MJ/kg for non-rechargeable lithium batteries driving an electric motor pump vs. 4.5MJ/kg for an RP-1/LOX turbopump. IOW, the turbopump version is around 3x more efficient. Now the dry weight of the assembly. A 1MW turbopump can be built in as little as 50kg (in fact, the Merlin 1C turbopump weights around 70kg and produces 1.86MW). A comparable DC electric motor would probably weigh in at close 2x than that. Not to mention, the dry weight of the turbopump is just the pump plus about 4-5% of the fuel weight for the tank to hold it, whereas for the electric motor pump + batteries, dry weight is essentially unchanged throughout the entire burn.
Overall for a 1MW pump system for a 120s burn, the numbers would stack up roughly like this:
  • wet turbopump: 50kg + 8kg of fuel + 20kg of oxidizer + 2kg tank, total: 80kg.
  • dry turbopump: 50kg + 2kg tank = 52kg
  • wet & dry motor + batteries: 100kg motor with pump, 74kg batteries, total: 174kg.

From a pure performance perspective, electrically driven pumps in rocket engines are simply worse. However, considering the cost and complexity of turbopumps and the relatively small part that fuel pumping overhead contributes to overall efficiency, it may be a cost worth paying, especially on a smaller launch vehicle, where the electrical equipment is relatively cheap. I'm not convinced ti scales to multi-MN engines, though, as there the electrical requirements would be enormous (100MW+ electric motors are somewhat impractical, as is the supporting electrical equipment).

Re:Hype pain

By geoskd • Score: 4, Insightful • Thread

comparable DC electric motor would probably weigh in at close 2x

Not even close. The part you missed was the ready supply of cryogenics. The limiting factors on electric motor size are a result of two key effects. Thsi first is mechanical strength. This limitation will be roughly the same for both Turbo pumps and Electric pumps. The turbo pumps in existence today are near this limitation. The second effect is heat dissipation. All motors have to dissipate a significant amount of heat. The more they can dissipate, the more power they can draw. Electric motors have a tremendous advantage in that respect as they produce far less waste heat than other motor types. The ones you looked at on wikipedia are all dissipation limited designs. Given a rockets ready supply of cryogenic fuel, far more heat can be drawn off a given size of electric motor. This means that we can pump far more power through it, in fact the new limiting factor in this application would be mechanical strength instead of the traditional dissipation limit. End of the day, I would be surprised if the motors they have are not producing close to 50 HP / Kg. I have personally seen a 5 HP cryogenic motor that weighed about 300 grams.

Also, you'd be crazy to use Li-ion batteries. You already have an awesome fuel supply, it would make far more sense to use a fuel cell. Expensive yes, but the reduced weight of the launch vehicle is worth it.

Can High Intelligence Be a Burden Rather Than a Boon?

Posted by timothyView
HughPickens.com writes David Robson has an interesting article at BBC on the relationship between high intelligence and happiness. "We tend to think of geniuses as being plagued by existential angst, frustration, and loneliness," writes Robson. Think of Virginia Woolf, Alan Turing, or Lisa Simpson – lone stars, isolated even as they burn their brightest." As Ernest Hemingway wrote: "Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know." The first steps to studying the question were taken in 1926 when psychologist Lewis Terman decided to identify and study a group of gifted children. Terman selected 1,500 pupils with an IQ of 140 or more – 80 of whom had IQs above 170. Together, they became known as the "Termites", and the highs and lows of their lives are still being studied to this day. "As you might expect, many of the Termites did achieve wealth and fame – most notably Jess Oppenheimer, the writer of the classic 1950s sitcom I Love Lucy. Indeed, by the time his series aired on CBS, the Termites' average salary was twice that of the average white-collar job. But not all the group met Terman's expectations – there were many who pursued more "humble" professions such as police officers, seafarers, and typists. For this reason, Terman concluded that "intellect and achievement are far from perfectly correlated". Nor did their smarts endow personal happiness. Over the course of their lives, levels of divorce, alcoholism and suicide were about the same as the national average." According to Robson, one possibility is that knowledge of your talents becomes something of a ball and chain. During the 1990s, the surviving Termites were asked to look back at the events in their 80-year lifespan. Rather than basking in their successes, many reported that they had been plagued by the sense that they had somehow failed to live up to their youthful expectations (PDF).

Re:What the fuck are you talking about?

By drinkypoo • Score: 5, Insightful • Thread

The notion that North American native peoples lived in any kind of harmony with nature is simply false.

Wait, what? That's nonsense. Any kind clearly covers a lot of ground, and some North American native peoples clearly did live in some kind of harmony with nature. They didn't leave it untouched, but they did see themselves as stewards with a responsibility to maintain the land. Again, there's variation between peoples. On the plains they burned down forests to make room for bison. But in other places they set controlled burns which successfully maintained forests throughout thousands of years of continuous occupation.

IQ is linked I income & wealth

By TheSync • Score: 3 • Thread

This study says "Each point increase in IQ test scores is associated with $202 to $616 more income per year...The median net worth for people with an IQ of 120 was almost $128,000 compared with $58,000 for those with an IQ of 100."

Re:The biggest problem: the "long view"

By Spugglefink • Score: 4, Interesting • Thread

I can relate to that. People who live more in the moment are happier, because the long view always involves decline, death, and dying. I'm petting and really enjoying my dog, and somewhere I'm thinking how I might have another eight years before I have a 120 pound problem who is pissing and shitting huge logs everywhere, who is going to be a royal bitch to dig a hole for one day. I'm having sex with my wife, and somewhere I'm thinking how much it's going to suck looking at her when she's 80. The big picture long view always seems to have a down side, and it's depressing.

I can relate to the expectations thing too. Everybody looks up to you, and a lot of them are jealous of you, and it makes it that much harder to choose an ordinary life. I'm a truck driver, and I like my profession fine, but I constantly feel a need to apologize for not owning the trucking company or being a professor or something; for not aiming higher in general. I've found a lot of people don't like me, because they don't think they're good enough for me for some reason, and yet I feel the same toward them. I'd love to just be normal, and not have to think so much about everything. Too much knowledge can be crippling, instead of helpful. It's hard to invest in a business idea, knowing every conceivable way it might fail, and what all the odds are.

My mother was even more intelligent than I am, and she died young, of alcoholism. She was a miserable woman.

Intelligence is overrated. One side effect for me is that I can never enjoy the opiate of a nice handy sky daddy to make me feel less infinitesimal in the scheme of things. We evolved to see sky daddies in everything, and I have the same need in my brain as any other human, but there's nothing to plug into it. I haven't found the religion yet that wasn't just totally inconsistent and goofy.

The true burden

By msobkow • Score: 3 • Thread

The true burden lies in thinking a "high IQ" means you're better than other people. There are many valuable skills and talents which are not measured by an IQ test, including art, music, empathy, and so on.

The burden is the arrogance of presuming IQ means intelligence. It does not. It is simply one metric for measuring skillsets.

This may be why

By reboot246 • Score: 3 • Thread
The danger when you have the intelligence to do anything you want to do in life is doing nothing. You hesitate to focus narrowly on one field of study because that means you'll have less time for all the others.

I won't say what my IQ is, but it's up there. My grades, especially in science courses, were practically perfect. People were expecting me to go into all kinds of careers, including medicine, chemistry, physics, computer science, etc.. But, I'm interested in everything! Always have been. I chose a career that didn't need much thought so I could keep up with what was happening in science and technology. It's worked. How many 62 year olds do you know who build their own computers? Or just bought two new microscopes? Or diagnose their own problems before going to the doctor?

I know a lot of successful people. Most of them have very little time for fishing, hunting, camping, going to ball games, watching television, listening to music, playing with the children & grandchildren, or working in the garden. I have all the time in the world to enjoy life. Isn't that what it's all about?

Kingston HyperX Predator SSD Takes Gumstick M.2 PCIe Drives To 1.4GB/sec

Posted by timothyView
MojoKid writes Kingston recently launched their HyperX Predator PCIe SSD that is targeted at performance-minded PC enthusiasts but is much less expensive than enterprise-class PCIe offerings that are currently in market. Kits are available in a couple of capacities and form factors at 240GB and 480GB. All of the drives adhere to the 80mm M.2 2280 "gumstick" form factor and have PCIe 2.0 x4 connections, but are sold both with and without a half-height, half-length adapter card, if you'd like to drop it into a standard PCI Express slot. At the heart of the Kingston HyperX Predator is Marvell's latest 88SS9293 controller. The Marvell 88SS9293 is paired to a gigabyte of DDR3 memory and Toshiba A19 Toggle NAND. The drives are rated for read speeds up to 1.4GB/s and writes of 1GB/s and 130 – 160K random 4K IOPS. In the benchmarks, the 480GB model put up strong numbers. At roughly $1 per GiB, the HyperX Predator is about on par with Intel's faster SSD 750, but unlike Intel's new NVMe solution, the Kingston drive will work in all legacy platforms as well, not just Z97 and X99 boards with a compatible UEFI BIOS.

Why trust them?

By RelaxedTension • Score: 5, Insightful • Thread
After their bait and switch with SSD's, how can anyone trust them or the reviews?

http://www.extremetech.com/ext...

I prefer the blatant ads

By drinkypoo • Score: 4, Insightful • Thread

If I can figure out it's an ad from the first sentence of TFS, or better yet from the headline, then that's a massive win. What's annoying is the slashvertisements which masquerade as articles.

Re:Why trust them?

By drinkypoo • Score: 4, Insightful • Thread

They also want proof of purchase to RMA devices with lifetime warranties, like flash memory. Up theirs. If I wanted theft protection I'd register ownership.

Puulease... Kingston? Really?

By m.dillon • Score: 3 • Thread

Author must not know the difference between the real the rebrand. I would never buy Kingston anything. They just slap random components into those boards. There are hundreds of rebranders in the SSD space but only a handful of real companies. Kingston isn't one of them.

-Matt

No

By sexconker • Score: 5, Insightful • Thread

Stop calling these things "gumstick". It's not going to happen. Stop trying to make it happen. They're considerably larger than a stick of gum, are not chewy or delicious, and you're a piece of shit for trying to make that term stick.
Further, who cares? 1.4 GB/sec is nothing noteworthy. This is a /vertisement through and through.

Hacked Sony Emails Reveal That Sony Had Pirated Books About Hacking

Posted by timothyView
An anonymous reader writes Sony has done a lot of aggressive anti-piracy work in their time, which makes it that much funnier that pirated ebooks were found on their servers from the 2014 hacks that just went on to WikiLeaks. Better yet, the pirated books are educational books about hacking called "Inside Cyber Warfare" and "Hacking the Next Generation" from O'Reilly publishers.

Contributory Indirect Copyright Infringement!!!!!!

By CanEHdian • Score: 3 • Thread
Slashdot is linking to Daily Dot is linking to a tweet from the author is linking to a pirated copy of the book!!! AARRRHHH!!!!!!!! They're all going to be charged with Conspiracy to Contributory Indirect Copyright Infringement of whatever the MPAA/RIAA/*AA write in their next bill to sign by their politician/employees.

Re:Sony pirating e-books?

By Anonymous Coward • Score: 4, Informative • Thread

Um, no it doesn't. That's not even close. It translates to "What is permissible for Jupiter is not permissible for an ox", meaning that gods can do what cattle cannot.

Twitter Moves Non-US Accounts To Ireland, and Away From the NSA

Posted by timothyView
Mark Wilson writes Twitter has updated its privacy policy, creating a two-lane service that treats U.S. and non-U.S. users differently. If you live in the U.S., your account is controlled by San Francisco-based Twitter Inc, but if you're elsewhere in the world (anywhere else) it's handled by Twitter International Company in Dublin, Ireland. The changes also affect Periscope. What's the significance of this? Twitter Inc is governed by U.S. law; it is obliged to comply with NSA-driven court requests for data. Data stored in Ireland is not subject to the same obligation. Twitter is not alone in using Dublin as a base for non-U.S. operations; Facebook is another company that has adopted the same tactic. The move could also have implications for how advertising is handled in the future.

Re:Get out of Dodge

By Anonymous Coward • Score: 5, Informative • Thread

Yep, Ireland is a favourite country for shuffling money through to avoid paying tax, to the point where this sort of corporate structure even has its own wikipedia page.

Re:GCHQ

By Intrepid imaginaut • Score: 5, Informative • Thread

GCHQ has no jurisdiction in Ireland. Different country, not part of the UK and all that.

Technically, probably not a good move to dodge NSA

By ashpool7 • Score: 5, Insightful • Thread

If we pretend that laws mean something...

then they would be *safer* here in the USA where the NSA is not allowed to spy on them, because it's
A: in the USA (FBI territory, right?)
B: whoever it is would need a warrant.

Now, the NSA can do whatever they want, because they're completely
A: outside of the USA
B: totally foreign SIGINT

Re:Data in Ireland

By swb • Score: 5, Insightful • Thread

The beer may have been better over there 30 years ago, but there's no way that's true now. In most places in the US you can't swing a dead cat without hitting half a dozen craft brewers making outstanding beer. You literally can't sample what's available in liquor stores fast enough and a lot of it is really good.

I don't know if this is a trend that has been embraced by Ireland or not, but I would imagine that in many Irish brands suffer from what many "traditional" European beer brands are no different than most American beer brands -- owned by conglomerates, brewed on industrial scales. Maybe it makes you feel more exclusive to drink Harp over Buweiser, but I'm pretty sure its moslty psychological.

Re:Except...

By onepoint • Score: 4, Informative • Thread

I have a very general answer to this which if you research will lead to the exact answer.
Companies in the USA are allowed to have subsidiaries ( look up the structure of any international bank )
Subsidiaries are governed by local law and pass the profits up the chain.

the government can not request a subsidiary outside of it's jurisdiction to hand over personal information
( maybe some other things, but not personal information )

to carry this issue to the extreme ...
Please see what Argentina did to citi bank recently (2015)
Please see what NY ( 1996 to 2002 ) and the USA (last 6 years) did to Swiss banking
NY told the Swiss ( in summary ) If you got nazi loot you can not do business with NY, Swiss banking replied by opening subsidiaries to handle NY business
Swiss replied to the USA ... here are all the Americans that have accounts with us, you figure out who is evading taxes.

Google Ready To Unleash Thousands of Balloons In Project Loon

Posted by timothyView
jfruh writes Google has figured out how to produce an Internet-broadcast balloon in a few hours, and is on the verge of unleashing Project Loon onto the world. The project, which will work with ISPs to beam LTE cellular signals to remote regions that don't have Internet access, will be working with local ISPs rather than selling broadband directly to customers.

What the fuck is the point of the ISP middleman?

By Anonymous Coward • Score: 4, Insightful • Thread

If local ISPs are involved, then what the fuck is the point of this? Why the fuck is there still this useless ISP middleman? For crying out loud, this whole problem exists in the first place because the local ISPs weren't able or willing to invest in the infrastructure needed to provide Internet access to these regions. So why the fuck should they still be involved? Cut the middleman out, for crying out loud!

Re:This should be amusing

By Rei • Score: 4, Interesting • Thread

They talk about how they need to regularly pick up and relaunch balloons when they come down. I don't see why they would need to design the balloons without any sort of reinflation system. The leak rate is tiny, right? So:

1. A little more solar panel area than they already need.
2. Hydrogen filled instead of helium filled.
3. Tiny container of sulfuric acid (hygroscopic - self-dilutes down to a given concentration with atmospheric moisture)
4. Electrolysis cell (sulfuric acid is used as the electrolyte in some types of electrolysis cells).

Problem solved. Sulfuric acid draws moisture from the air, and during the day the solar power electrolyzes it it to produce a minute trickle of hydrogen into the balloon, which replaces the minute trickle that leaks out. Your balloon's lifespan is now as long as your electronics and envelope last.

Why not keep Google Maps?

By Anonymous Coward • Score: 4, Insightful • Thread

Rather than waste money on balloons, why not keep the working version of Google Maps alive?

Re:Where will be the next quiet place?

By Eunuchswear • Score: 4, Insightful • Thread

Not "infested" with radio waves?

Nowhere in this universe.

Google sucks now

By Anonymous Coward • Score: 5, Insightful • Thread

Time to pull all my data off your servers and never use you again. All they do now is failed social experiments, kill their good old products, and release or replace them with shitty bloated versions of their former selves. Hangouts is an abomination in privacy and design. New Google maps is bloated and sucks. Chrome doesn't get the top spot anymore in any performance benchmarks. Google is a shitty bloated company now.

The Origin of the First Light In the Universe

Posted by timothyView
StartsWithABang writes Before there were planets, galaxies, or even stars in the Universe, there really was light. We see that light, left over today, in the form of the Cosmic Microwave Background, or the remnant glow from the Big Bang. But these photons outnumber the matter in our Universe by more than a-billion-to-one, and are the most numerous thing around. So where did they first come from? Science has the answer.

Re:What came before the light?

By SternisheFan • Score: 5, Interesting • Thread
Asimov had the answer all along...

http://www.multivax.com/last_q...

Re: And GOD said

By belthize • Score: 5, Insightful • Thread

It worked, I have no faith in him what so ever. Frankly he's a right prick. Ooh, lets test those parents faith by giving their new born child some hideously painful cancer. It's ok though because their baby will live forever up in heaven and it's worth it to cause all that pain on the offhand chance one of its parents makes the grade.

I'd be a better god than that jack ass. If he really does exist I want nothing to do with him and given half the chance I'd beat the shit out of him when I saw him.

Re:And GOD said

By Paradise Pete • Score: 5, Funny • Thread
In the beginning there was nothing. And God said "Let there be light."
And there was still nothing. But you could see it.

Re: And GOD said

By belthize • Score: 4, Informative • Thread

It's not my fault because I didn't create the circumstances and I'm powerless to prevent or cure it. How the hell is it not his fault. He's omniscient and omnipotent. He knows it happens and could stop it yet chooses not to. If you see a child being beaten and killed do you step in and help or do you stand around and watch to see if any of your peers are worthy of your respect.

Is he infinite or is he finite. You can't have it both ways. If he's infinite he's demented, if he's finite he may be worthy of respect or awe but not worship.

Re: And GOD said

By mark-t • Score: 4, Insightful • Thread
If God were to stop it, and supposedly he could, it would mean that he would have to override the consequences of what are supposedly freely willed human decisions, making the very point of giving us free will in the first place moot.

As you say.... you can't have it both ways. Either we are free willed or not...