] The Bentley Snow Crystal Collection of the Buffalo Museum
] of Science is a digital library providing a high-quality
] collection of stunning, un-retouched images of Wilson A.
] Bentley%u2019s original glass slide photographs of snow
] crystals, and includes dynamic resources to further an
] appreciation and understanding of Bentley and his work.

[ Gorgeous, really... -k]

The Bentley Snow Crystal Collection

] Wandering through the quadrangles and medieval bastions
] of learning at the University of Cambridge one overcast
] Sunday afternoon a few months ago, I found myself
] ruminating on how this venerable place had been a
] crucible for the scientific revolution that changed
] humankind%u2019s perceptions of itself and of the world.
] The notion of Cambridge as a source of grand
] transformative concepts was very much on my mind that
] day, because I had traveled to England to meet a
] contemporary Cantabrigian who aspires to a historical
] role similar to those enjoyed by Francis Bacon, Isaac
] Newton, and William Harvey. Aubrey David Nicholas Jasper
] de Grey is convinced that he has formulated the
] theoretical means by which human beings might live
] thousands of years%u2014indefinitely, in fact.

[ This is sort of a long article, and made longer by superfluous adjectives, but worth a skim, if not a detailed read.

The issue of immortality has always been interesting to me on a lot of levels, and this cuts right along that line. Pragmatically, I think there are a lot of issues, such as basic medicine and improved social conditions in much of the world, which might take precedence over a crusade for immortality. It seems certain that even were the goal achieved, it would benefit, at least for a time, only a selected elite class. I'm not convinced of the premise that living as long as possible is the most fundamental human right. I might say that providing a society in which basic needs (health, nutrition, housing) are universal, and in which everyone gets to have a life with opportunity and choices, is more fundamental. Even with the best of intentions, to offer immortality to a factory worker in a dismal slum hardly seems useful.

That being said, perhaps driving hard for this goal will advance technology enough to achieve some of those other goals. At any rate, it's interesting to think about the issues here... -k]

Do You Want to Live Forever?

[ Wow. Ooops? I guess? -k]

'It's a pretty rare injury' - World - www.smh.com.au

skullaria wrote:
] I did 72% with an average of 80 miles error.
]
] What's your score?

[ 92% with avg. 18 miles of error.

That being said, the order of the states is random, and that could affect the difficulty a great deal. If you happened to start off with a lot internal states, and non adjoining ones, you'd have a tougher time than if you happened to get all of the coastal and border states and then only states adjacent to those, etc. My set was somewhere in the middle, but after the first 4 or 5 i got none wrong, because i had a few easy ones, and then a lot of context. -k]

RE: Test your knowledge - US geography

This is an important, and infuriating issue.

] "The Supreme Court's decision to place this extraordinary
] power to sentence a person solely in the hands of a
] single federal judge - who is accountable to no one -
] flies in the face of the clear will of Congress," Mr.
] Feeney said in a statement.

1. In general, we have a problem, and we won't talk about it because its extremely unpopular to do so. The problem is that our democratically elected government is selected based on the whims of a fully and readily manipulated populace. More then half the people in this country think Sadam Hussien was connected with Al'Q. Do we think their opinions about crime are any more informed?

The "I'm gunna get tough on crime" story gets votes, and it is played entirely for marketing reasons. It has absolutely no relationship to a reasonable, considered view about how to actually lower crime rates. I'm not interested in having important matters of policy be constantly dominated by "what sells."

Congressmen refer to their democratic legitimacy because they can't refer to the credibility of their policies. Congress is a constant slew of bad ideas. I'd prefer to have certain questions be more isolated from the political process, particularly when lives are at stake.

2. Federal judges are certainly accountable for their decisions, which are vetted by several levels of hierarchy. People don't get to be federal justices because they fell out of bed this morning and figured they'd get into law.

3. No one knows more about the specifics of an individual case then the people who are handling it. Different cases have different specific circumstances and should result in different sentences.

] "We are disappointed that the decision made the guidelines
] advisory in nature," Assistant Attorney General Christopher
] A. Wray said in a statement. "District courts are still
] required to consult the federal sentencing guidelines, and
] any sentence may be appealed by either defense counsel or
] prosecutors on the grounds that it is unreasonable. To the
] extent that the guidelines are now advisory, however, the
] risk increases that sentences across the country will become
] wildly inconsistent."

I'd accuse Christopher Wray of intentionally lying, but thats what politicians do, isn't it?

What you want is consistency of standards. Two people who commit the same crime in the same circumstances should get the same sentence. You want to avoid favoritism or situations where different judges have wildly different approaches.

Wray isn't offering consistency of standards. He is offering consistency of results. Thats not the same thing. He offers one while complaining about the lack of the other. Consistency of result is unfair, because two people who commit the same crime in wildly different circumstances get the same sentence. Congressmen cannot fairly apply a blanket rule that impacts every case in the country.

Congressmen, as previously pointed out, don't even have experience with the subject matter. They are making their rules base on political fads and not based on a knowledge of how to address real problems.

If their is a problem with inconsistency of standards among judges it ought to be addressed by looking at the decision making process involved in sentencing and the selection process for judges rather then by creating a system that could as easily be operated by a computer as by a human.

As usual, you're not going to see that, because that would be reasonable. This isn't about reason. Its about power.

The New York Times - Reactions: New Fight Over Controlling Punishments Is Widely Seen

] Safecracking
]
]
] Matt Blaze has written an excellent paper: "Safecracking
] for the computer scientist."
]
]
] It has completely pissed off the locksmithing community.
]
]
] There is a reasonable debate to be had about secrecy
] versus full disclosure, but a lot of these comments are
] just mean. Blaze is not being dishonest. His results are
] not trivial. I believe that the physical security
] community has a lot to learn from the computer security
] community, and that the computer security community has a
] lot to learn from the physical security community.
] Blaze's work in physical security has important lessons
] for computer security -- and, as it turns out, physical
] security -- notwithstanding these people's attempt to
] trivialize it in their efforts to attack him.

Schneier on Security: Safecracking

[ Just caught, accidentally, a segment on the local Fox News affiliate the DeKalb county has lost it's legal battle over the stickers they placed in science books stating the "evolution is only a theory, not a fact". The ruling, apparently, hinged on the fact that the stickers represented a linking of secular with religious, and thus violates the separation of church and state.

I, for one, think the stickers are silly, but mostly harmless. It is a theory. It's a really fucking good one and probably true, but I don't think it harms all that much. Possibly it causes less harm than the expenditure of money to defend against the lawsuit. Likewise, I'm not sure I agree with the camp that the church and state doctrine is violated every time anything secular touches on matters of faith. I think the far left can take this fight too far, honestly.

Still, more interesting were the comments from a couple of parents outside the school.

"I mean, I know they're gonna teach it... I wish they wouldn't, but I'm glad the stickers were removed." -DeeDee Cargle

I wish they had explored that further, because I'd like to know, honestly, why someone who's against the teaching of evolution would want them removed. I can see not wanting to spend the money on them on the first place, because they're pointless, but why spend more time and money taking them out?

"In a way it's hard, because you can't instill, like, the values we had, growin' up. Now it's like you have to explain everything." -Katherine Myles

Yeah. Anyway, I know a lot of people here were paying attention to this at some level, so here you go. -k]

] Researchers at the University of Toronto have invented an
] infrared-sensitive material that's five times more
] efficient at turning the sun's power into electrical
] energy than current methods

[ Rad. They say something like 30% efficiency, so maybe something like 300 W/m^2 if I'm remembering right. Not bad. -k]

CTV.ca | New plastic can better convert solar energy

] The government of North Korea has launched a series of
] television public service announcements called "Let Us
] Trim Our Hair In Accordance With Socialist Lifestyle!"
]
]
] Snip from a BBC News story on the campaign: "It stressed
] the 'negative effects' of long hair on 'human
] intelligence development,' noting that long hair
] 'consumes a great deal of nutrition' and could thus rob
] the brain of energy."

[ Sounds like a hoax to me, but maybe it's just irrational enough to be true. -k]

Boing Boing: North Korea wages war on long hair

Decius wrote:
] Because I own a mac I have to used itunes and an ipod, because
] they other players and music stores don't work on my computer.
] The other stores don't work on my computer because they have
] to use a DRM system and Apple will not allow them to employ
] the DRM system supported by the ipod. Basically, I have a
] several thousand dollar purchase that locks me in to a
] particular online music store. It is a monopoly, and it
] fucking sucks.

[ It's fairer to say that if you chose to use the iTunes Music Store, that you have to use an iPod to play your purchased music, regardless of wether you are a PC or a Mac user. If you purchased an iPod, then you either must use iTMS or one of the DRM-free services, which work with any player, essentially. The several thousand dollar Macintosh is mostly external to the argument. If any of the other DRM'd music stores made Macintosh clients, you could use them, and if any of the other hardware vendors made Macintosh drivers/sync software, you could use those as well. Their decision not to, in most cases, is probably more due to the miniscule Macintosh market than to the inability to break through the iTMS/iPod linkage.

I hadn't thought all the way through the issue when I called it tenuous. I've given this a lot more thought since, and I'm now willing to grant, within the understanding I possess of antitrust law, which is very limited, that Apple is being anti-competitive in linking the iTMS with the iPod. Again, though, this has little to do with your Macintosh.

The argument that tying these two devices together leverages the market of the one to swell the other is unquestioned. It happened, so one can't argue that it didn't. The iPod became huge because it was better than the other players (or more pretty, or whatever, i mean "better" in a marketing/sales sense). Then iTMS became huge because, in large part, it was the only way to buy certain tracks for your iPod. It was also because it was simple to use and the DRM didn't require an attorney to untangle, but for the sake of argument, it's fair to say that iPod users wanted to buy music online and their choices were either the iTMS or one of the non-DRM stores, which have a very limited appeal (due to not having popular music). So the argument in that direction makes a certain amount of sense.

I'm not as convinced that the gentleman who brought suit has quite as secure a position. His argument hinges on not having had non-Apple options in music stores, which is a shaky argument. The article never states if he is a PC or a Mac user, but it doesn't matter really. Apple would have to be actively discouraging other music stores from creating Mac clients, but I argue that their lack has more to do with PC/Mac market share then anything else. He may have wanted Britney Spears, but it's not really Apple's fault that iTMS is the only way to get that on a Mac. Non-drm services work fine on the Mac, and he could've paid them instead. And if he's a PC user, then he had plenty of options of both music stores and harware players. If he used iTMS despite the other options, he can hardly be said to have been forced.

Now, it's possible that now that the iTMS and iPod together share such a large market share, the barrier to entry in the market for other hardware/service vendors is much higher, because they have to offer a system which is equally integrated, since they can't leverage compatibility with either iTunes or the iPod. That suit would probably have a good chance of success, but none of the vendors has brought it yet. Real should probably consider doing so, as they have attempted to offer their service in a way that is iPod compatible, and Apple has prevented them from doing so via updates to the iPod firmware. That seems like a more realistic situation. -k]

RE: ITunes user sues Apple over iPod