I have to imagine that not everyone in TSA management is a congenital idiot, and that some of them probably realize how silly the no-liquids rule is. But they also probably realize that they can't just abandon it without being accused of being "soft on crime" and various other silly problems, any of which might lead to the ultimate catastrophe: losing that coveted GS-99 civil service position and lucrative pension.

So what's a non-idiot to do? Simple: adopt a "new technology" that pretty much always blinks green when something gets put in its little hole, and blinks red occasionally just to pretend it actually accomplishes something. Such a device could easily scan a zip-lock bag containing a collection of liquids, and with further improvements could be integrated into the original X-ray apparatus so that it scans bags, too. For historical accuracy, it can claim to use N-rays.

As it happens, we already have liquid scanners just like this, although they are not heavily used. I accidentally tried to carry bottled water through the checkpoint X-ray at DCA 18 months ago, and after the goon squad got over the excitement, they explained that they'd have to dispose of it for me, but that first they would put it through a magic scanner (a suitcase-sized box with a cylindrical cavity and some buttons and lights) to be sure it was safe. To pass the time while being lectured, I asked if they would do something different to dispose of it were the scanner to say it was dangerous, and the responding goon assured me (with no trace of irony) that no, it all went in the same bin.

I have probably taken 300 flights since the "liquid explosive" scare. Since 2008, when I realized that the whole thing was ridiculous, I have never put my liquids into a quart-size baggie, nor have I taken them out for individual passage through the X-ray. In that time, I have been forced to give up my toothpaste in furtherance of the nation's security precisely twice. It's a small price to pay--a few bucks worth of toothpaste and a pious lecture about how dangerous the toothpaste might be, in exchange for significantly less hassle at the checkpoint. I have to imagine that the reason my approach works is that they really don't try very hard to find contraband of this sort. If I were a proper activist, I suppose I'd be willing to wear a "Toothpaste Smuggler" button when I fly, but I lack the courage.

Maybe they'll figure out that they can do this for other stuff, too. I must say that the full-body scanners are a major step backwards, since I can't even keep my passport and ticket in my pockets any more.

It seems possible that the Defense Department is researching this technology not just for economic savings. If technology like this existed, it could be used, for example, to remove a nifty new imaging sensor or radar component from someone else's satellite, or maybe to add a device that connects to that satellite's internal data bus (operation Ivy Bells, anyone?) and taps or modifies the data.

Most satellites have essentially no situational awareness, because being taken apart by little aliens in shiny green spacesuits (or by advanced remanufacturing robots) is just not part of the threat model. So it tends to be very hard for ground control to distinguish between a random equipment failure and a failure caused by deliberate modification of the spacecraft.

This mission probably isn't what the X-37 is for, since it's a low earth orbit vehicle, not geosynchronous.

If you are ever involved in divorce litigation, there is nothing nicer than being able to say "I have no such records" when your deranged spouse's even more deranged bottom-feeding scumbag sends you a discovery request listing 141 categories of documents and demands copies of all paper or electronic records in those categories.

In normal litigation this isn't as much of an issue, because the attorneys are usually able to negotiate a happy medium in which they agree not to issue nuclear-tipped discovery requests and focus on what's actually relevant to the action. In divorce, though, all bets are off, because you're paying both attorneys and an evil one can happily run through all your money (a total with which he is intimately familiar, again unlike normal litigation) by harassing you--your own attorney's fees are just handy collateral damage. Mutual destruction is by far the most profitable outcome for such sharks, since they tend not to get a lot of repeat business. (It's not just divorce, of course: if you're targeted in a SLAPP suit, or, like poor George, have otherwise angered a large corporation, you'll have the same troubles.)

Keep only what you absolutely must. The 7-year deadline is for tax returns, everything else is much more ephemeral. Search for "records retention" to find a variety of helpful guidelines.

After 50-odd years on the planet, I've found that hardly any ordinary paperwork I've kept has ever been useful. Sure, a couple months of bills or bank statements can come in handy, but even a year is more than I have ever needed (as long as I kept track of big items, like the costs of building an addition on the house).

This is especially true of old e-mail. When Cardinal Richelieu said "Give me six lines written by the most honest of men, and in them I will find something with which to hang him", that's what he was talking of. Prescient, he was. Anticipated the Internet and all that it entails.

This looks like a stupid publicity stunt designed by some inexperienced publicity-seekers in collaboration with their organization's addle-pated and self-serving PR office.

I mean, what's not to like?

Err... radiation. If we wanted to know how a smartphone reacted to the LEO radiation environment, we could test that on the ground, and it would be a darn sight cheaper. But we don't need to do that, because we already KNOW that radiation will affect it badly, and that it doesn't include any mechanism to recover from latchups.

Heat transfer in vacuum. Maybe if it's just ticking over and not doing anything, a phone can survive in a vacuum--but my Droid gets plenty hot in air when it's doing anything, so heat dissipation is clearly going to be an issue. Sure, we can add heat pipes and radiators, and try to deal with it by conduction, but hey--rather than adding all that crap, why not avoid the problem to begin with by designing something sensible?

Wasted function. The phone is full of stuff that is completely useless in space: the lovely touchscreen interface (unless we're expecting vacuum-breathing aliens to be able to understand our icons, yes?), audio input and output (didn't anyone remind them that in space, no one can hear you scream?), the cellphone radio (which, if nothing else, would violate all sorts of national radio spectrum laws), etc. Those functions consume (that is, waste) watts of electrical power and add complexity (that is, unreliability). An engineer would have to be daft to design a system like this, when every gram costs so much to get into orbit.

Lots of COTS-grade hardware goes into space these days, and there is plenty of work being done to explore new (and less gold-plated) approaches to redundancy and reliability. But it's designed by engineers who actually know something and have actually thought about the issues.

Although the press release clearly describes the work of buffoons, it is POSSIBLE that the project itself isn't quite so silly as it looks. But based on what's been published, "sensible" doesn't seem to be in the cards.

And all that said, I certainly think government interference in software development of this sort is highly plausible, both for open and closed source.

But mostly it's the Chinese government I'm thinking of. How many Chinese nationals work at Microsoft? How many actually work for the PLA? None? Are you sure?

Could be true, but there's a lot that rings false.

Why doesn't Perry point out the code, or even just identify it, or outline what it did?

Why did he wait for his alleged NDA to expire, rather than pointing it out anonymously? A bug report saying "this is weird" almost certainly wouldn't have any provable connection to him.

In general, well-understood algorithms like those used by IPSec don't leak key data. A bad crypto primitive implementation could do so easily enough, but IPSec doesn't use its own implementations of crypto primitives, does it?

And if it doesn't, then code which accesses key data in any way other than as an opaque object should stick out like a sore thumb.

I eagerly await analysis by someone more familiar with the IPSec code. Shouldn't be hard to find.

Public Knowledge just did a nice report about the coming collision of intellectual property expectations and 3D printing/CNC: It Will Be Awesome If They Don't Screw It Up .

I've seen these inexpensive little machines, and I think they're too persnickety for real use: sure, you can get decent models out of them sometimes, but it takes skill and luck and persistence. But their bigger buddies can make some really nice stuff: solid, clean surface finish, etc. I'm just waiting for someone to start a chain of 3D printing shops where you can bring your CAD design in the morning and come back in the afternoon to pick up a copy--just like the copy shops that started springing up in the 1970's after photocopiers got cheap enough.

What he built is a proof of concept for a BATTERY. Not a telegraph.

He's an artist, not an engineer. Rigor is clearly not his strong point. But it's an interesting idea. And making pig iron--even a little bit--in an afternoon is a pretty good accomplishment. Copper is a lot easier, since it smelts easily and has a much lower melting point.

And it's not implausible: after all, there is evidence that better batteries were known in ancient times, and he's certainly right that a Voltaic pile can be constructed from primitive materials. He could have smelted some zinc, too.

But as others have pointed out, miles of wire is the real challenge. Could that be done under the circumstances? Sure: copper smelting was known in prehistory, and drawing copper into wires just requires hardened clay dies. But it would be a LOT of work. You'd probably have to be an inspiring leader with oodles of acolytes to carry out the grunt work. You'd need some insulated wire for the coils, but that's just an application of fabric, and not too hard.

A better idea might have been an optical telegraph, like those that were all over Europe in the early 19th century. Make lenses out of ice in clay molds and use it only in the winter, if you don't want to make glass and grind it.

Don't build 'em yourself, but for sure, spend the money you would have spent on on-site service and warranty options on a good supply of spares. You can just roll in a new machine instantly, set it up with a standard image, and have your user up and running again. Worry about repair/replacement when it's back in the shop, and use repaired machines for non-critical functions.

With copper capers. A classic: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVkZZsS-66c