That depends heavily on what you mean by an advantage in cyber war. If you're after mutually assured destruction, then maybe patching holes in everyone's defenses doesn't help. If you don't want your own side to be completely destroyed, it's aterrible idea.

Titanium isn't so risky because it's not ferromagnetic. Anything ferromagnetic is going to be about as bad as a magnet, so surgical steel items are out. Drug pumps, pacemakers, etc. are just as much of a problem and as tricky or more tricky to remove for an MRI.

Obviously I should have said: "working fusion reactor highly into the net positive side". I thought it was understood in context.

No, but that doesn't magically make the development costs cheaper than a well-understood consumer machine of which literally billions have been mass-produced.

They could have done that with a very large Farnsworth fusor or polywell device, say hundreds of meters in diameter and a few modest free-electron lasers to illuminate portions of the fusing plasma.

The millenium dome is 52 meters high on the inside and cost a more than a billion dollars and it's basically a giant tent. NASA's Space Power Facility is more the sort of thing you would need for a giant Farnsworth fusor. It's still only about forty meters high. I can't find exact costs for it, but I can guaranty it wasn't cheap and it's only a small fraction of the scale you're talking about.

Maybe your approach would be better. Who am I to say. This is what they're already building. I personally think it would be great if they could find the budget for a few different approaches.

For literally a thousand years people were going around profoundly claiming in tones of authority that baby mice spontaneously appeared through magic. All it takes is throwing some mice in a cage and, unless you're unlucky and get all males or all non-pregnant females, you can verify that this isn't true. The kind of idiotic sophistry that leads to spouting off "wisdom" without the slightest bit of decent research is to be abhorred. The climate researchers, by and large, appear to be doing their due diligence. The denialists, by and large, do not. The climate researchers very well may be wrong. I think, on balance, they're a much safer bet than the people who tend not to understand basic physical principles and who seem to mostly hold an essentially superstitious belief that humans can't alter the world around them.

You're confusing sophistry with science.

Spontaneous generation comes to us by way of Aristotle. It was finally challenged by the emerging field of science.

Lamarckian inheritance was not borne out by empirical evidence, so was effectively discounted. Modern understanding of genetics does recognize some mechanisms that resemble Lamarckian inheritance.

Miasma is an ancient greek magical revenge curse. Emperical scientists like Ignaz Semmelweiss worked away from that idea. For his trouble, he ended up dismissed from his position and replaced by Carl Braun, who stopped the handwashing program Semmelweiss had started and introduced a ventilation system to extract miasmas. The death rate went back up by an order of magnitude from when Semmelweiss was in charge.

Bloodletting goes back to belief in the four humours, which comes down from Hippocrates. Science is what has partially dispelled these ideas in modern times.

Aether is the fifth of the traditional Greek four elements. Once again, the idea comes down from fairly non-scientific thought. The name has cropped up to describe a number of different concepts in science, generally to describe something that may fill the universe in spaces in between regular matter. Science has mostly ruled out most of those theories. The general idea still lives on a bit in concepts such as the quantum foam.

Java Man... You've really got us there. A scientist dug up fossils of ancient hominids and... um... what's the smoking gun supposed to be there?

Unless a Reston style variant decides to transfer to humans. Then we're pretty fucked.

Typical development costs for a car are on the order of about a billion dollars. More than the the $650 million for ITER.
A total cost of $65 billion over six years is about $11 billion a year. To actually refine a working fusion reactor, that would be a bargain.

I'm pretty sure that the poster you're responding to is an Electric Universe proponent. Don't bother. They firmly understand Maxwell's equations and that Maxwell's equations are the only important equations in physics.

The boom in the Tsar Bomba was 99% from fusion. In the standard nuke employed by the US, a large portion of the boom is from fission, as you say. Most of that is from secondary fission from parts of the casing after the fusion stage blows. The Tsar bomba was so clean because it was intentionally designed with non-fissionable materials in the casing to avoid secondary fission so that fallout from it wouldn't rain down all over the Soviet Union. Even if it hadn't, the boom still would have been almost entirely from fusion. The fact that a typical US warhead has such a significant portion from fission is due to design compromises.

Sure, but there are plenty of other types of surgical implants that either require even more extensive surgery to allow for an MRI or that preclude an MRI altogether.

PocketPCs had them before the T42 laptop you linked to.

http://www.mobiletechreview.co...
http://www.pcmag.com/slideshow...

No difference, except "$PRIOR_ART, but with a cellular transceiver"

You're overlooking the part about purposefully manipulating the query in such a fashion as to trick the webserver into thinking you're someone else.

AT&T's mistakes do not excuse the actions of the accused.

There's no overly broad precedent here, unless you're trying to claim that prosecuting people for impersonation is a scary precedent.

How is the law being abused here? Go read the evidence in this case. AT&T set up a system that was designed to automatically populate an e-mail field for the convenience of their customers. They did this by matching two different variables, the user-agent of the iPad web browser and the ICC-ID number from the SIM card contained therein. Two people then discovered that they could fake both of those variables to obtain the personally identifiable information (PII) of AT&T customers. They did this in a deliberate manner while discussing ways of using the obtained information for profit, with ideas ranging from spamming (direct marketing ofiPad accessories to people who obviously owned iPads) to securities fraud (they floated the idea of shorting AT&T's stock when news of the security breech broke) to the enhancement of their own reputation (look how awesome of a security guy I am, I broke into AT&T, buy my consulting services!)

AT&T's failings are not really relevant here. The process of obtaining the PII was sufficiently complicated as to make it readily apparent that the information obtained was not for public consumption. No reasonable person would conclude that they were entitled to access the PII of AT&T's customers. No reasonable person would discover this security flaw then write a script to automate the collection process while exploring methods of using the obtained information for personal financial gain.

Your whole argument can be distilled to three words: Blame the victim.

That's some selective quoting right there, chopping it off at "or any overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy in New Jersey". They didn't conclude that he didn't commit the crime, they concluded that no actions taken in furtherance of the offense were performed in New Jersey.

It was keyed to only populate the e-mail field when both of the following were present: The user-agent of an iPad's web browser and a valid ICC-ID code belonging to an AT&T customer. They used these two items of information to impersonate AT&T customers and steal their personally identifiable information. Of course, your point is irrelevant either way, because the law doesn't care about "authorization process", it only cares that you accessed information you were not authorized to access. No reasonable person would conclude that they were authorized to access PII under these circumstances, wherein they had to trick AT&T's server into thinking they were somewhere else to obtain the information.

If this goes to trial again he will be convicted. If he has half a brain he'll cut a plea deal with the US Attorney, save everybody the hassle of another trial, and likely walk away with time already served. Frankly I doubt he'll do that, because he strikes me as exceedingly arrogant, but perhaps he's humbled after some time behind bars.