Posts by Eric Olson

It's all fun and games until you have to run...

His disappearance is probably due to the HK's warning of extradition. Why he chose HK over a number of other areas is beyond me. Actually, why he did this at all is beyond me, if only because the big reveal (the government is spying on electronic communications!) is yesterday's news. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to parse together the immunity clause for telecom companies along with the authorization for warrantless (but judicially-approved) gathering of call and email logs contained within the Patriot Act and come up with the basic outline of the PRISM program.

Examination of the contents of specific emails and calls, if you are a US Citizen, typically requires a warrant (though that's not much of a barrier with the "special" court"). The sheer amount of data means that actually logging the contents of every communique would result in a huge noise-to-signal ratio, so instead they log and triangulate the sender, destination, duration, frequency, etc and look for patterns. Obviously we don't know the utility of such actions, but the likes of Google, Microsoft, Yahoo!, and others have been telling the market that such activities are huge moneymakers.

While I abhor the activities, until the Patriot Act is revised or trashed such things are legal. The actual legitimacy under the Constitution is both hard to determine (mainly, is this really unconstitutional search and seizure) and easy to dismiss (national security concern, no real mechanism within the Judicial branch to review such behavior or evaluate the national security claim).

Well, now we need something else to complain about...

It doesn't have a 10-key? Is Dell intentionally selling a crippled laptop in order to make Windoze machines look better?! </sarcasm>

It's one thing to use cherry-picked data to build a case supporting one's bias...

But quite another to take data from another group and applying bad logic to support your bias. The stats, unless there is more in the NPD survey than reported, do not support the basis of the article. With the data presented, it states that in Q4'2011, people who never owned a smartphone were more likely to buy an Android-based phone than any other, while people who already owned a smartphone were... more likely to buy an Android-based smartphone, albeit at a lower percentage.

However, there are no listed statistics to back up the assertion that people who owned an Android-based phone were turning away from the OS to purchase an iPhone. Comparing two disparate groups and stating that it demonstrates any kind of movement away from the Android is low IQ at best, outright pandering to Apple at worst. The only conclusion you can take is what is presented, which is that Android is winning the mind and market share of those who are new to smartphones, while Apple, with a head-start in the smartphone biz, is holding 43% of all upgrades.

A more salient question that would actually answer the question of loyalty is to compare pre- and post-upgrade phone choices. Only if after looking at the data and see iOS with a larger share of the post-upgrade user base than the pre-upgrade, could you conclude that Android has a problem retaining users. Until that happens, all we can conclude with the data in this article is that the author fails basic comprehension of statistics. And if the information was present in the NPD survey and was not included in the article as the basis for the conclusion, it shows that the author fails basic journalism.

We do realize...

That 11 billion US is less than what you would find between the couch cushions of the US economy,right? Saving that much is literally 0.1% of the GDP in 2009. To put it another way, that's a tad less than $40/year/US citizen, presuming that the savings quoted is yearly. Not exactly earth-shattering, or even enough to make most industries sit up and take notice.

And that's probably assuming that all the finds pan out, regulation stays away, and the US economy recovers enough to bother with manufacturing instead of outsourcing it to China and other locales.

I realize Andrew has a bone to pick with British government and society, but a proper frame of reference will go a long way in winning over hearts and minds.

The only concern is the water table...

Here in the good ol' US o A, two groups are getting in a tizzy over natural gas and fracking: Energy companies and NIMBYs. On the whole, both have valid points: The energy companies are engaging in "extract at any cost" behavior, even when going through aquifers and water tables, and the NIMBYs are a bit too NIMBYish. Sadly, our paralyzed governments are sitting this one out, so litigation is king.

The latest we've heard is that even after being told not to for the last 10 years by the government, the energy companies continue to use diesel fuel as a solvent for many of their fracking operations. Now they are being sued, and trying to defend themselves with the ever-popular "We thought when you said not to use it, you meant that we could use it!" defense. Good times. Of course, it's only a problem with the fracking operations that aren't using the proper containment techniques, and nothing goes wrong. But a few water tables have been spoiled, or at least contaminated enough to require expensive filtration costs for the city or water authority.

But, 85% of the time, that doesn't happen (number randomly pulled out of my backside), so instead of putting some decent regulations in place (no diesel or other difficult to clean out solvents without some kind of insurance that will cover clean-up/mitigation costs, prompt reporting of accidents and "incidents" to local authorities, and transparent bidding/contracting processes), the energy companies are going whole hog where they were let in (rural areas, poor areas, etc), while being completely blocked in other areas.

The only other concern is that in some areas of the country that are a slight bit more geologically active than the area I call home, there has been increases in micro-earthquakes, usually detectable only by sensitive instruments or animals, with one or two real earthquakes (4ish on the scale) that might be attributed to fracking operations.

While I have no axe to grind myself...

This article was premature in the same way that most men are their first time out. We are just over 72 hours from the quake and tsunami, with nothing yet contained, and someone is going off half-cocked about how this is a win for nuclear energy concerns the world over. However, let's toss a little (boric) acidified seawater on this reaction.

First, as of 6 AM Japanese local time on Tuesday, officials confirmed that a third explosion had indeed damaged and weakened the containment of Rector 2, making any build-up of pressure in the reactor core that much more dangerous. Additionally, after the explosion, the radiation level climbed to at 11,900 μSv/h, which is approaching dangerous territory for anyone at the plant.

Second, Reactor 4 was suffering from a runaway fission reaction and nuclear material was actually burning in a fire, releasing much larger amounts of radioactive materials into the air than any previous situation at the plant. While Reactor 4 wasn't running, it still contained spent rods, which seem to be having a grand old time right now. (Update: While I was writing this, Japanese officials indicated the fire had been extinguished for now.)

Third, due to the containment breach, threat of further explosions, the aforementioned fire, and rising radiation readings, Japan was considering an evacuation of all workers from the site. Let me repeat that. They are considering a wholesale evacuation of all technicians and support personnel from the site, effectively ceasing any and all recovery and containment activity. In essence, the plant is being given up for dead, and it's entirely possible that Reactor 2, at least, will suffer a containment-busting explosion and/or meltdown, resulting in the release of uranium and plutonium into the air, let alone their decay products.

Fourth, if this does occur, a little known problem could be the cooling pools used to store spent rods. As Rector 4 is demonstrating, they still have enough energy left in them to burn and release radioactive material. The problem is that they are in cooling pools are lightly protected and poorly contained, and only have enough water over top of them to remain unexposed to air for a week or two. Clearly, a full-scale meltdown would make any kind of mitigation impossible, and they would soon begin burning and releasing even more radioactive material into the air at a rate much greater than the relatively contained reactor cores.

So, while I don't personally find nuclear power abhorrent or otherwise unpalatable, it seems like this piece was exceedingly short-sighted and resulted in the tarnishing of a reputation that had to this point been decent. It's unfortunate that someone clearly let personal bias trump the facts on the ground and didn't even let the events settle down to a point that experienced people in nuclear physics would say the threat was contained. Poorly handled by Mr. Page.

A better article would have been something like this: While we don't know the extent of the damage and fallout (har) of the Fukushima nuclear incident, we know that nuclear power is safe most of the time, assuming we aren't dumb enough to build on the coast in a tsunami-prone area that is very near a large fault. Such self-evident things, sadly, only become apparent after calamity strikes.

If there was a outed pool...

I would pick him to be the next one caught in a two-man grope fest in a public bathroom, possibly complete with snorting cocaine off some male hooker's twig. We have a wonderful history in the US of the most strident anti-gay voices being the most closeted folks in this great nation.

To those who say, "Nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide..."

Sometimes, people are using the internet for more than porn and kitten pictures (shocking, I know). While there are sites like LinkdIn to use for "business" contacts, it's not nearly on the level that Facebook is. However, that doesn't mean you want to or should be mixing business and pleasure. Additionally, some people do try to keep their personal lives separate from the public and/or employment piece, if only to prevent someone using things unrelated to work against them (see the Tiger Woods saga... err... wait, you can't talk about that here... see the growing list of employers who use interns and such to troll for personal details like affiliations and memberships on the internet when considering you for employment).

Idiots who post pictures of the keg stand from last weekend and make it available to everyone have it coming when a spouse or significant other sees them also making out with the cute blonde who isn't them. A teacher who does not want to or is professionally restricted from being "casual" with students is entirely another. Should a teacher than completely avoid any form of online networking and become the 21st century equivalent of a hermit, on the off chance a student might find them? Or should sites like Facebook comply with common sense, user requests and the law to give users the control over who can see what on their profile? It's not like whatever you post on the site is prevented from being used in data mining operations if you set it to "Friends Only." Facebook can pretend to make money on it's dataset with the user in it.

It seems like little to ask, just like it's little to ask the old phone book companies to keep your name and address unlisted, or asking to be on the Do Not Call list to cut down solicitations. Not only that, but there is something to be said of the dystopian ideal that all information is free and freely given on the internet. But if it is, when some script kiddy steals your credit card info from a secure site that turns out to be anything but, are you saying, "Fair game, kid. Go spend to your heart's content?" No, you're calling the cops to nail both the little schmuck and the company you did business with to the wall, and then send them away to experience the tenderness of some dude named Butch in a prison shower.

Plus, do you really want to parrot the likes of Bush and Cheney and other American right-wing idiots by saying, "Let us pry into everything about you. If you're innocent, you should agree that our efforts to catch the 1 out of 50,000,000 who are a threat to you are completely in line." Granted, the UK is now known far and wide as the most frightening example of a self-inflicted police state. Let's hope everyone else can learn from that.

The more I read about this stuff...

The more I think that the governments of the Western world are trying to let the criminals and terrorists win. That way, they can claim extraordinary powers on the grounds of it being a state of war. Thankfully, while the US does have it's problems and does seem to be trying to chip away at the edges of civil liberties, it's not as quick as the UKs decent in to the Orwellian nightmare. It does seems like 1984 is being read as a how-to manual rather than a warning by various members of the government class. At least as far at this goes, the US has the well-enshrined 5th Amendment, which specifically indicates that no citizen can ever be compelled to self-incriminate. And that part of it is not worded in ways that make it open to multiple interpretations, like the 1st, 2nd, and 4th, to name a few.

"...nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..."

I would suggest that all of you who don't want to live in a police state move further west, to the US or Canada, but you'd probably be detained either at the UK or US border for being undesirables in some way, shape, or form.

If you need me, I'll be buying land in the NW Territories of Canada....

It's an odd thing, us Yanks

Here I am a liberal, at least by most definitions used on both sides of the pond, and I find the actions by Jacqui Smith to be reprehensible, just as I have always found Michael Savage. I do realize that the US Constitution and the first ten rights, the Bill of Rights, are loosely based on the Magna Carta, with (slow) expansion to classes beyond the landed gentry. With that in mind, there is a reason for Yanks to be a bit apprehensive about what we see happening in Britain all the time when it comes to the treatment of the citizens by the government. So much of what we do is based on English law, that if you guys can water down what used to be a strong document, what could be done to the Constitution?

Even though I don't think anyone on the public list that Britain has "named and shamed" is worth much more than the sludge in a chemical toilet, I believe that as long as they don't try to incite violence or commit violence in the name of the their cause, they are free to spout off their crackpot theories. We'd even let Mrs. Smith talk around here, though most would probably cringe and ignore her, just like anyone with more than a primary school education does with Mr. Savage. The point here is that for an American, regardless of (most) political beliefs, the idea of the government making any moves that look to be suppressing or slandering a person is frightening, even if they are a foreign national. One could argue that Mrs. Smith, by putting him just on a "No Entry" list, isn't suppressing his voice, but it does look like the thin end of a wedge. One might look at it and think to themselves, "Should I ever voice an opinion that might be contrary to a ruling party's opinion in Britain, lest I get a lifetime ban as well?"

I don't condone Mr. Savage's actions at all, and he is just milking this publicity cow for all it's worth. He knows his crowd, and they are very... simple. They are very reactionary and likely to act rashly against anything they view as British regardless of how this pans out now. It might be as simple as boycott (which, given the median listener's income, probably means one less order of fish and chips from the local pub every month for every member of the Royal Family), to something as irritating as rude behavior to anyone perceived as being British in their area, even if they are a naturalized citizen of America, or downright harassment of travelers.

I don't know what kind of publicity it got across the pond, but after the French told Dubya to screw off and take his warmongering elsewhere (which went well), there was a fringe movement (including xenophobic bills in the House and Senate) to remove the name "French" from various legal definitions (french fries and french toast to be renamed "freedom" fries and "freedom" toast). That's the kind of followers that this idiot Mr. Savage has, and while it seems quaint and silly, for every 1,000 people who find it to be just harmless fun, there is that 1,001st person who takes it up as a personal grudge.

I guess it still is part of the American psyche that everyone is free (insomuch as you don't try to kill us, for varying values of "kill") and that outside interference in our policies of state or citizen actions are not tolerated (you have King George III to blame for that one, and the War of 1812 just reinforced it). "Don't Tread on Me" is more than just a rallying cry of the Revolutionary Amry and a former motto of the US Marine Corps, as it still does sum up the general US ethos when dealing with the world. Just don't ask me to defend the foreign policy of Dubya. The man wasn't much more than a jumped up brat with too much cocaine on the brain. Elections are such double-edges swords.

It was, now it's unknown...

They carbon-dated the shroud in 1988 or so, and the results proved to show that it couldn't be older than 800 years. But about 15 years later, some guy took exception to a paper contesting the carbon-dating results, but then went on to show in his own critique that the paper was right to contest the results. Apparently, the corner of the shroud they tested had cotton and medieval dyes from a repair job, invalidating the results. So now no one knows again. And honestly, even if it was from roughly 33 AD, crucifixion was a common enough practice that any number of people could have been wrapped in a shroud and then later found.

Paranoia confirmed

I never have clicked on a TinyURL link it my web life. There is something inherently absurd about following a link that you can't see the full path of. Also, it smacks of bad practice and terrible user education. Things like this just perpetuate the malware and spam problems. Bah. Where's my porch and rocking chair....

A title

Lots of numbers being thrown around here, all assuming either the US or UK standard household plug. Be that as it may, it's possible they are also talking about a specific distribution model, a type of fueling station that is able to deliver industial levels of power through a "hose" to your "tank." Light on detail the press release is... but with the right equipment, it's probably possible to push a large amount of current through to a battery that is designed for maximum surface area to cut down on charge time. Now, whether the technology is actually there, doesn't cost as much as a house, and is reliable, that's a whole other matter. It's nice to dream, though.... and I tend to err on the side of dreaming big and seeing what can be done rather than focusing on what can't be done. Remember, it wasn't more than 50 years ago that the idea of a computer thousands of times more powerful than what they had then in a package that fit in a small box would have seemed ludicrous.