The military continues to do these things to this day. This is why we have intelligence centers for each branch of hte military.
supporting your argument, the CIA encouraged belief in UFO sitings to use as cover for SR-71/A-12 and U-2 flights. Mind you, and I need to say this on/., but this has nothing to do with weather or not there really are UFOs; it's just that if more people believe in then fewer will think that a jet they may see from extreme range/altitude is really a jet.
yeah much worse than all of those reinactors, right?
of course not, who would be shooting at dead people?
again, the war's over. let it go man!
dude, the war ended 144 years ago. let it go. seriously.
technically that same army not only pointed guns, but actually invaded my town, NYC, to put down draft riots. This was dramatized in the movie Gangs of New York; the Navy didn't fire on the City in reality as happened in the movie, but the Army sure did shoot up the town with troops and artillery; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Draft_Riots.
just a comment on your sig...
I love the reference to Sneakers. Great old tech flick.
It sounds too good to be true.
It is. The CO2 from the coal-fired plant would not go away. It would be converted into ethanol and then released back as CO2 when the ethanol was burned.
The reason some people are so excited about bio-fuels is they are supposedly "carbon neutral." They take CO2 out of the atmosphere, then release it back when burned. If one were to use CO2 from coal combustion instead, then the CO2 stored in the alcohol is coming out of the ground. In other words, inserting algae into the coal -> atmosphere chain does not change the carbon balance, only interrupts it.
It is possible that adding algae into the chain could make energy production more efficient (more joules of energy per ton of total CO2 emissions) and may still be worth doing.
My concern is that the coal plant owner would convince the general public (who by and large do not understand such basic scientific laws as conservation of mass) that their CO2 is a "green energy source" and therefore should not be taxed/capped as a greenhouse gas. In other words, using coal exhaust to feed the algae is basically playing a shell game -- "which one has the CO2 under it now?"
The point to remember is that bio-fuels do not provide a net benefit to CO2 reduction. Ever. They're simply carbon neutral or approximately so.
You're wrong, at least partially. The ethanol does not displace extra electricity production, but could displace extra oil production. Think of it this way. Right now there are A LOT of coal plants. They aren't going anywhere any time soon. Hooking them up to this to make lots of ethanol would enable us to displace a lot of oil that is currently being burned in cars. So, this CO2 does get "burned" twice, but it does save the CO2 from the gallons of gasoline that are not being burned, but would have been if we hadn't done this.
that was funny, thanks for the laugh... had to say something
I have no problem with the caps. Your argument is valid. The problem that I have, and I think most folks have is not the concept of the cap, but the costs per GB. Users in other countries are getting faster rates for fewer dollars. Users in the US are faced with few, usually 1, choice for HS connections. We have only 1 choice, and we believe they are charging us too much for it.
I feel the costs offered by TWC are off by a factor of 5-10; more or less. If they brought either down the cost, or upped the caps by that factor, then most folks wouldn't balk. I'd be willing to pay $75/month for their highest quoted DL rate capped at 500GB-1TB of data.
Overall, too, most folks, myself included, feel that we are heavily overpaying for cable TV service, and that is spilling in to this argument. Why are the rates for TV going up so much faster than inflation when I am not getting more channels, or better quality? (For the record, I already pay for the DTV/HDTV package, and still my rates rise between 10-20% a year for TWC in NYC.)
But the most pointed comment came from someone labeled only as dk. "You all continue to underestimate the dramatic spillover effect this poor developer experience has had and will continue to have on your other products and services. Let me drive this point home. I am a front-end programmer and a co-founder of a start-up. I can tell you categorically that my team won't download and play with Silverlight
It's unbelievable to imagine businesses who employ OWN (open wireless network) encryption on their wireless networks; even worse, its hard to imagine those that do utilize encryption to journey into the realm of WEP, as the term 'security' instantly becomes misleading. Take New York, for example, as businesses were recently 'surveyed' by an independent security specialist commissioned by RSA.
The survey was performed not by mail or in person, as one would expect, but rather, using a laptop with scanning software to detect both broadcasting and non-broadcasting access points (APs) across 802.11a, b, and g frequencies.
Of all APs war-surveyed, 21% were identified as using no encryption at all, while 15% of APs were identified as business HotSpots.
The remaining 64% of APs belonged to businesses with secured networks; however, only 49% of those using encryption, actually implemented a strong form such as WPA. The remaining are plagued with deceivingly-secure WEP encryption.
"As we evolve toward a 'wireless everywhere' world, we are witnessing enormous leaps in wireless connectivity," said Christopher Young, Vice President, Consumer and Access Solutions at RSA.
Young hits the mark, but drifts off by noting: "It is encouraging that almost half of all secured business access points are now using advanced forms of encryption."
51% of businesses, with encrypted wireless networks, who rely on WEP for network security, is simply not encouraging; it's disgusting.
In addition, 24% of business APs that use a form of security are still configured to their out-of-the-box settings, a mega no-no in the world of wireless security."
Link to Original Source