Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Cellphones

+ - WHO: Cell phone use can increase possible cancer r-> 2

Submitted by suraj.sun
suraj.sun (1348507) writes "Radiation from cell phones can possibly cause cancer, according to the World Health Organization. The agency now lists mobile phone use in the same "carcinogenic hazard" category as lead, engine exhaust and chloroform.

Before its announcement Tuesday, WHO had assured consumers that no adverse health effects had been established.

A team of 31 scientists from 14 countries, including the United States, made the decision after reviewing peer-reviewed studies on cell phone safety. The team found enough evidence to categorize personal exposure as "possibly carcinogenic to humans."

What that means is that right now there haven't been enough long-term studies conducted to make a clear conclusion if radiation from cell phones are safe, but there is enough data showing a possible connection that consumers should be alerted.

CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/05/31/who.cell.phones/index.html"

Link to Original Source

+ - Court Says WoW Users Don't Own Their Game Discs->

Submitted by slcdb
slcdb (317433) writes "On Tuesday December 14th, the US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that World of Warcraft users do not own their copies of the game discs, in effect robbing them of rights they would otherwise have under US copyright law. Because Blizzard's EULA for World of Warcraft is typical of EULAs used by other companies in the software industry, this decision likely affects virtually all other software sold over the counter. If you think you actually own the copies of software that you purchase at a store or online, think again."
Link to Original Source

Comment: Re:C'mon! Let me shoot! (Score 1) 1671

by slcdb (#31777354) Attached to: Wikileaks Releases Video of Journalist Killings

The problem here is that Wikileaks' edited version of the video doesn't let the facts stand for themselves. Instead they applied their own political agenda in order to influence the viewer's opinion.

Here are some of the *facts* that Wikileaks excludes in order to (IMO) purposely distort the viewer's impression to make this appear to be a clear-cut case of wrongdoing:

Fact #1) There were firefights ongoing in the immediate area where this took place. U.S. troops on the ground there had called the helicopters in for assistance. The ground troops identified this group of men as being armed and as being a threat (apparently believing they had been participants in earlier firefights).

Fact #2) Some of the men in the group *were* armed. They were carrying *at least* one AK-47 rifle and one RPG. They are clearly visible in the unedited video (They may also be visible in the edited version. I don't remember seeing them, but the video's editing may have simply drawn my attention away from them). They were recovered by the infantry who arrived on the scene after the attack. The RPG rounds were apparently later destroyed by explosives ordinance disposal personnel (i.e. "The Hurt Locker" guys).

Fact #3) The photographer peeked around the corner, pointed his camera at U.S. troops and vehicles down the street, and snapped at least three photographs of them. It's not clear in the video that this is what's happening; it became evident after the fact (when the camera was recovered). The helicopter crew saw this and mistook it as an attempt to target the U.S. troops and/or vehicles down the street. This is understandable from watching the video. It's not at all apparent that this person is a photographer. What the crew *did* see was a man definitely carrying an RPG disappear behind that building. Later they see someone carefully peeking around the corner aiming something at the position where the ground troops are.

Fact #4) The U.S. Army didn't cover this up. Reports were written up and investigations were done. They even apparently screened the gun camera video to some members of the press (I believe they can't publicly release unredacted video like this because it would violate the Geneva Convention regarding broadcasting images/video of wounded/killed enemies).

The other thing to keep in mind is that for most of us civilians, the men who were attacked look just like a bunch of regular guys. They don't look like enemy combatants to us. But to a soldier who has been in dozens of engagements with insurgents, these guys would look *exactly* like enemy combatants. They don't wear uniforms. They don't drive armored vehicles. They wear regular clothes and drive around in sedans, and pickup trucks. Perhaps the only ways insurgents can be distinguished from innocent civilians is that insurgents hang around an active combat zone while innocent civilians will generally try to make themselves scarce (notice in the video that the streets are empty, with the exception of this group of men), and insurgents can sometimes be spotted carrying weapons (as was the case here).

Wikileaks would have us believe that it was wrong for the helicopter to engage these men under these circumstances. I think any reasonable person who has even the slightest understanding of war would see that there was a (reaonable) perceived threat and that they took the appropriate action (i.e. they eliminated the perceived threat). Also, they used the most proportionate force they had at their disposal (the 30-mm gun). Wikileaks decries the usage of such an anti-vehicle weapon against personnel, but it's the smallest caliber weapon the helicopter has (the other option would have been a hellfire missile).

As for the van the picture is a little less clear. The helicopter crew did previously observe what looked like it could have been the same van prior to the attack. It's at the very beginning of the unedited video. There's not enough context to know exactly why they seemed suspicious of the van, but the impression it leaves is that someone else (probably on the ground) had notified them to be on the lookout for such a vehicle. Or it may have simply been suspicious because it was driving around an area where active hostilities were taking place. We may never know. Nevertheless, apparently the law of war and the U.S. Army's rules of engagement allow for attacking combatants who are attempting to flee. I'm not necessarily condoning the attack on the van, but I don't think it's a clear-cut case where something illegal was done. Keep in mind that civilians probably do not usually charge into an area where there are quite obviously active hostilities taking place. Consider if the van had been an armored vehicle. Would it have been wrong to attack it? Probably not. But we know that insurgents don't drive armored vehicles so the reality on the ground in this war would never be that easy to discern.

Wikileaks does a good job of making it appear as though "C'mon! Let me shoot!" is merely the gunner's plea to get his adrenaline fix for the day. When viewed in context and with a bit of critical thinking applied, it becomes apparent that the gunner actually is pleading for permission to engage not because he wants to kill for killing's sake, but because he knows his fellow soldiers' lives could be on the line and he is in the unique position to be able to prevent the enemy from being able to even attempt to cause them any harm.

The other thing the video shows us is that war really is hell. We hear that all the time. Well, here it is front and center. To quote a marine I once heard talk about this sort of thing, "We're not trained to come over here and shoot rainbows out of our asses. We're trained to fucking kill people!" While this isn't a pleasant reality for us to have to face, some people obviously have a much harder time dealing with that reality than others.

Links to references:

Interview of reporter who was in the area that day
Unedited gun camera video
Photos from the dead cameraman's camera, the U.S. Army's report, and more

Comment: Re:Well, shoot, son (Score 1, Insightful) 340

by slcdb (#31128156) Attached to: State of Alabama Fighting NASA's New Plan

Making fun of ignorance is always accepted.

Indeed. We should make fun of all ignorant people. Including the dumbfucks here who think that anybody from "down south" or "out west" who doesn't live on a coast is somehow mentally retarded or at a very minimum one variety of bible-thumping, goat raping, redneck or another. Why, I believe that kind of ignorance -- which leads to the bigotry previously mentioned here -- far outshines the alleged ignorance that you allude to. So lets have at it shall we? Let's make some serious god-damned fun of those ignoramuses. I'll let you start.

In the meantime, let me point out that Constellation's crew launch vehicle would not be "competing" with any "existing commercial rockets" as claimed in the summary. There's not a single commercial rocket certified for human transport and it will likely be some time (if ever) before any of the existing ones achieve that goal. Until then, they are talking about the spaceflight equivalent of vaporware.

Yours truly,

An allegedly ignorant redneck hillbilly from "the middle of fucking nowhere", Utah, who spends his spare time (between good goat fucks, of course) doing engineering work for MIT and their clients. And I like shooting guns too. How's that for stereoptypes?

Comment: Re:Not that hard. (Score 1) 477

by slcdb (#30348026) Attached to: Defining Useful Coding Practices?

Yeah, I stopped reading the article at that point. I immediately recognized that it was walking a linked list. I was expecting that his explanation would be something along the lines of, "Although this code *seems* to be walking a linked list, it actually does something *completely* unexpected... ". Nope... apparently it took him "a good deal of research" to figure that out. Which left me thinking, "Program much?"

Comment: Re:DARPA is mapping society. (Score 1) 68

by slcdb (#30341536) Attached to: MIT and the DARPA Network Challenge

Allow me to posit an alternative interpretation. DARPA is not interested in mapping our society. They're interested in learning what the most effective strategies are for quickly locating things that they *know* exist and are "out there", but don't know their exact locations. Perhaps the application of such a strategy could be useful for one of DoD's other pet projects. You know, the one where they're trying to find Osama bin Waldo and his Al Quaedian friends.

Nah, clearly that would just be too far-fetched a theory. Clearly, what we need is an explanation with a much higher dose of paranoia, hidden agendas, conspiracies, Big Brother, and a helluva lot of tin foil hats.

Comment: Re:Why say more? (Score 1) 295

by slcdb (#30341430) Attached to: SETI@home Project Responds To School Firing

Bingo.

So this talk of police investigations and possible criminal charges is ridiculous. If his activities caused as large an increase in electricity costs as the superintendent implies they had, then you'd think that at some point during the 10 years he was running SETI@Home that someone from the district's accounting department would have started wondering why their electric bills suddenly increased for seemingly no reason. I call bullshit.

At best, they could fire him (if he hadn't already resigned) for his making poor "business" decisions (in their view). But they certainly can't claim this software was "unauthorized", and therefore a criminal violation, when he is the guy who *they* appointed to make those decisions on behalf of the district.

You could just as easily argue that letting the CPUs, that they *paid good money for*, sit idle 75% of the time is a waste of resources that could otherwise be put to good use. No doubt, most people who run SETI@Home probably have used this, in part, as rationalization for their participation in the program. So, from a different point of view, his decision to maximize the utilization of the district's computing facilities was a good one.

The whole reaction to it reeks of some kind of grudge against the guy.

The Courts

+ - "Open Sourcing" the Law->

Submitted by
slcdb
slcdb writes "Most of the codified laws of the land, such as the Unites States Code, have been freely available online for some time. But case law, a significant body of the law, has mostly only been available to law firms and others who can afford to pay for expensive subscriptions to services like Westlaw and LexisNexis. One Carl Malamud has begun to open the source of "the operating system of our society". With the help of the EFF, Carl has recently secured access to a "huge chunk" of case law, much of it going back to the 1950s and some going back as far as 1754. His non-profit company, Public.Resource.Org, is using open source tools to massage the data and put it online."
Link to Original Source

Badges? We don't need no stinking badges.

Working...