What is particularly interesting is the last 10-15 seconds of the report.  This is the part almost no one seems to be reporting when expressing their false outrage over this report:

. . . this is an element of the story which has largely gone unreported.  There are two assessments.  One looks at right wing groups as you mentioned, and a second focuses on left wing groups.  Significantly, both were requested by the Bush administration, but not finished until President Bush left office.

But of course, that’s the kind of information entertainers like O’Reilly and Limbaugh wouldn’t want you to hear.

Technorati Tags: Right wing extremists, Conservative faux outrage, Faux News, More political lies

Like so many young women, Amy King always took great pride in her appearance.

Standing in front of the mirror to check her make-up before a night out, the 21-year-old would always try a smile – friends told her they loved the way it lit up her face.

Eight weeks ago, all that changed. The student from Plymouth was admitted to hospital where, in a single operation, she had every tooth in her mouth removed.

Amy, whose dental problems were caused by untreated gum disease, does not go out any more. And when she looks in the mirror she hardly recognises the face staring back at her.

This is absolutely an extreme case.  It is not indicative of how nationalized medicine does or does not work.  The problem here appears to be over the management of the nationalized dental care, not the mere fact that it is nationalized.  I point this out, because one cannot look at this one case and claim nationalized care programs do not work.  On the other hand, proponents of nationalized healthcare cannot wave this away as a complete aberration that should not be evaluated when discussing nationalized coverage.

According to the article, teeth extractions in the hospital are up a statistically significant amount.  There is also an increase in the time it takes to get dental care, as well as suggestions that more advanced problem cases are not getting proper treatment due to how the national dental contract works.  Furthermore, there is an increase in home-care for dental issues.  This article even mentions a specific case of a woman pulling her own teeth when she couldn’t get to see a national provider.  Ouch.

As I said above – I’m neither for nor against national healthcare programs.  I see problems and benefits for providing universal coverage as well as for staying with what we have now.  I don’t think it’s a simple problem, and anyone who tells you one side or the other is clearly correct can only say that because they haven’t studied the cost and benefits well enough.  I do believe there is a true push toward nationalized care here in the US that will eventually succeed.  I do believe there will be benefits for many people as a result.  I also believe that some people will be left worse than what they have now, and that while some people will pay less overall for this coverage, many will also pay more.  I think it’s an important discussion to have, but I also think that knowing more than just the facts that support your own side are vital.

And a final note – the story says that Ms. King doesn’t like to go out any more, nor to smile.  But honestly, looking at her picture I still think she looks great.

Technorati Tags: UK, England, Nationalized healthcare, Dentist, Teeth extraction

I found it as worthwhile as Brian did, and thought it worth passing on to my readers and friends.

Technorati Tags: Skeptoid, Open mindedness, Skepticism

But in all that reading, research, study, training, and other learning, one of the coolest things I ever consumed was the OSSTMM project. Rather than try to explain this project, I’ll just snag the introductory text from the project home site:

The Open Source Security Testing Methodology Manual (OSSTMM) is a peer-reviewed methodology for performing security tests and metrics. The OSSTMM test cases are divided into five channels (sections) which collectively test: information and data controls, personnel security awareness levels, fraud and social engineering control levels, computer and telecommunications networks, wireless devices, mobile devices, physical security access controls, security processes, and physical locations such as buildings, perimeters, and military bases.

The OSSTMM focuses on the technical details of exactly which items need to be tested, what to do before, during, and after a security test, and how to measure the results. New tests for international best practices, laws, regulations, and ethical concerns are regularly added and updated.

The version I read when I first found this was 2.2.  It has been years since I used it, and I periodically check in for updates on the version 3.0 release.  I haven’t seen an update on the web site, and I’m not a team member/subscriber to the service, so I didn’t expect I would know unless I checked in on my own.  Well tonight, while catching up on email, I get this message from the project:

Hi,

Maybe you forgot us Six years is a long time to work on a single version of a project. That time is coming to an end and the OSSTMM 3 has been fully researched, completely re-written, and is nearly ready for press.

OSSTMM RC15, the Beta draft has just been uploaded for Silver Team members and OSSTMM RC20, the Alpha draft has just been uploaded for the Gold Team, partners, and team members.

All tests have been fully edited as well as most chapters. It contains the new, more usable format and descriptive content with greater explanations to make it easier to use. It also includes a full chapter
on Analysis.

Only a few chapters are missing. Chapter on RAV Calculations is still partially unedited and the Trust Metrics chapter is still incomplete. End chapters for templates and other extras are still incomplete. The unedited and incomplete chapters have been clearly labeled for completion.

We have a full color cover with an animal symbol ready to go, an OSSTMM security picture for the back cover, templates, and many graphics still to be added for the public version. Further examples,
graphics, and tips and tricks will go into the print version.

It feels so good to be so close to completing this version!

Sincerely,
-pete.

I’m really looking forward to getting this update. As a non-member, I know I will still have to wait. But as a consumer of all things open source, I expect it to be worth it. And I intend to review the final version and try to offer feedback, in the manner I hope most open source consumers at least try to do. Even if I have nothing to offer, I believe just making an honest effort to contribute is an important part of being in the community.  If I were still actively in security, I would probably subscribe, but it’s hard to justify the expense at this moment since I’m not doing security any more (but would like to – hint, hint)

If you are in to computer security at all, I can recommend the OSSTMM as a good resource for testing guidance.

Technorati Tags: OSSTMM, Open Source security, Security

On December 9, federal agents arrested Democratic Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich on charges that he had put president-elect Barack Obama’s senate seat up for sale–though not on eBay, which probably would have made things a lot easier. The Blagojevich portrayed in the 76-page criminal complaint is, according to the New York Times, a “[d]elusional, narcissistic, vengeful, and profane” man who has been under investigation for years. They’re not kidding.

You want corruption?  They did it old-school in Chicago.  “Here’s a powerful position.  How much you pay me to get it?”  Plain.  Simple.  Direct.  Like was done in Capone’s time.

The really touching thing about this scandal is we also get to find out what kind of family the Blagojevichs have.

111 a. On or about November 27, 2008, ROD BLAGOJEVICH, his wife and daughters, and BLAGOJEVICH’s chief of staff JOHN HARRIS ate Thanksgiving dinner together. BLAGOJEVICH’s wife asked BLAGOJEVICH to “please pass the potatoes.” BLAGOJEVICH asked what his wife was willing to give him for “the f—ing potatoes” because “these f—ing things aren’t f—ing cheap.” HARRIS said that BLAGOJEVICH’s wife might donate $250,000 to Friends of Blagojevich in exchange for the potatoes. BLAGOJEVICH’s wife said she thought that was a high price for a spoonful of mashed potatoes and asked BLAGOJEVICH to carve the turkey instead. BLAGOJEVICH said “What am I, your f—ing butler?” and reminded her that “I don’t f—ing work for free.” HARRIS asked BLAGOJEVICH to consider carving the turkey in exchange for a helping of BLAGOJEVICH’s wife’s cranberry sauce. BLAGOJEVICH said he “hated f—ing cranberry sauce, you stupid f–k,” and reminded his wife that the “only reason we have this f—ing turkey in the first place” was because Senate Candidate 5 had personally delivered it to the BLAGOJEVICH residence that morning. BLAGOJEVICH’s wife said BLAGOJEVICH could take Senate Candidate 5’s turkey and “shove it up your a–.” BLAGOJEVICH said she could have the turkey “but if you feel like you can do this and not f—ing give me anything, then I’ll f—ing go.” HARRIS volunteered to carve the turkey if BLAGOJEVICH did not want to and the group returned to eating in silence.

Not only is he an inspiring, honest, upright public servant, he also is a loving, caring, good-natured provider for his family.  Most areas of the country have tiny little bribery or abuse of power corruptions going on.  In Chicago, they show the rest of the country what a government employee should do to abuse power and stamp out democracy.

Technorati Tags: Blagojevich, Old school corruption, Chicago, Capone’s way, Family man

In recent discussions on the future viability of US auto manufacturers, one of the topics to come up was the UAW job bank program.

According to that document, the basic guarantee from the 1987 agreement is that no eligible employee will be laid off over the term of the agreement, except under the following specific circumstances. 1)Reduced customer demand, a maximum of 42 weeks over the life of the agreement (commonly known as loss of marketshare); 2)Acts of God or other conditions beyond the control of management; 3)Conclusion of an assignment known in advance to be temporary; and 4) Plant rearrangement or model changeover.

Eligible employees can not be laid off because of new technology (robots), sourcing decisions, or company-implimented efficiency actions. There are generally three states of layoff: temporary layoffs where workers know their return date, indefinite layoffs where workers get 48 weeks of unemployment benefits and a supplemental from their employer equal to 100 percent of your salary. After 48 weeks workers are reemployed by the Job Bank, at which time they receive 95 percent of their salary.

Now if you are like me, you’ve never heard of this program before very recently. Ultimately, what the program is used for is to keep paying some number of UAW union members a worker’s salary while they don’t work. This is part of a program implemented in the 80s as a concession by auto manufacturers to the union to get support for productivity improvement efforts. In other words, the union realized that improving worker efficiency would mean fewer workers needed, so brought in this program as a way to keep paying some of the people who lost their jobs as a result.

How much does this cost the auto manufacturers? Well, we don’t know for certain, but looking back a few years gives us at least some idea:

General Motors Corp. has roughly 5,000 workers in its jobs bank. Delphi has about 4,000 in its version of the same program. Some 2,100 workers are in DaimlerChrysler AG’s Chrysler Group’s job security program. Ford had 1,275 in its jobs bank as of Sept. 25.

. . .

Detroit automakers declined to discuss the programs in detail or say exactly how much they are spending, but the four-year labor contracts they signed with the UAW in 2003 established contribution caps that give a good idea of the size of the expense.

According to those documents, GM agreed to contribute up to $2.1 billion over four years. DaimlerChrysler set aside $451 million for its program, along with another $50 million for salaried employees covered under the contract. Ford, which also maintained responsibility for Visteon Corp.’s UAW employees, agreed to contribute $944 million.

Now let’s look at what the auto manufacturers are asking for. GM alone is requesting $4 billion to finish this year plus an additional $8 billion in cash to start 2009 and a $6 billion line of credit in case more is needed. The claim from the head of the company is there is a chance for GM to fail completely if a bail-out for the last few weeks of the year does not come through.

If GM alone continued the jobs bank program at the 2005 rate when renewing their UAW contract in 2007, we are talking about somewhere around $550 million per year. Let’s call it $600 million due to inflation, although this is honestly just a nice round number I pulled out of the thick, magical fog around my head. Suddenly, I can see one way to cut the need for about 7.5% of the requested bail-out funding for next year. Can anyone else? It is true that UAW representatives agreed to eliminate this program, but until I see it happen, I’m counting that cost as part of GM’s ongoing cost of running the business.

On top of the jobs bank program, there is talk of cutting workers’ wages. While I would personally think it makes more sense for everyone to take a pay cut than for some people to get full pay while others lose their jobs, I don’t know how pragmatic those who have to make this decision will be. There are sure to be workers who will vote against wage concessions and take the gamble that they will remain employed and someone else will be let go instead.

Just these couple of things makes me wonder aloud, as I have done many times before – Why would a logical worker choose the gamble that best benefits him/herself with the high-probability downside of ALL employees losing all financial rewards, when the option that costs all workers somewhat evenly has the high-probability upside that MOST workers keep their jobs? Am I just being a blind romantic (in the literary sense) here, or am I overlooking something that makes the selfish choice smarter than I’m seeing it?  I can actually see a reason why the workers would have fought for this in the 80s.  But I just can’t see why it still exists.

Technorati Tags: Auto industry bailout, UAW, Pragmatic, GM, Unions

In early October of this year, Rep. Michelle Bachmann said The news media should do a penetrating exposé and take a look.  I wish they would.  I wish the American media would take a great look at the views of the people in Congress and find out are they pro-America or are they anti-America?  I think people would love to see an exposé like that. (view video clip starting at about 1 minute and 50 seconds)

To me, this leaves no doubt that she believes some Congress-critters are anti-American, and that with investigation Americans could find out who these critters are.

Cue up an interview last week on Hannity and Colmes in which she was asked about this, and she claims she never said it – it is an urban legend.  Responding to a quote read by Alan Colmes taken word-for-word from the above-viewable video, she says Actually, that’s not what I said at all.  Actually that’s not what I said.  It’s an urban legend that was created.  That isn’t what I said at all. (about 15 seconds in)

I didn’t say the media needs to investigate Congress-critters and find the anti-Americans!

Whatever.  I get that we all sometimes say things we don’t mean, have a slip of the tongue/brain and say something wrong, or say things we shouldn’t have (e.g., Obama’s 57 states or McCain’s my fellow prisoners).  But let’s at least ask that she own up to what she said and at least apologize or stand behind her suggestion that President-elect Obama and some Congress-critters are anti-American.  The first two times I ever listened to Rush Limbaugh, he did the exact same thing and wouldn’t stand behind the comments he made when his listeners called him out on them just 2-3 minutes later.  I realized then that he doesn’t really believe what he says, and now I know the same about Rep. Bachmann.

Technorati Tags: Bachmann, Lies, Urban Legend, Colmes, That’s not what I said

Is betting on the assassination date of a newly elected President free speech? I would say yes, although it sure is poor taste. Is offering a betting pool on the assassination date and then saying Let’s hope someone wins similarly protected? I would argue that it is not. This changes expressing an expectation that an assassination will occur to something that instead looks to incite violence in a manner long ruled illegal. Or at least to be dangerously close to that. To me, the betting alone seems legal and protected, even if offensive and remarkably stupid. Including the indication of hoping for a successful assassination does not seem reasonably protected speech.

The Town Council in Standish condemned the sign on Thursday in a 6-0 vote and declared it reprehensible at a meeting where some residents defended the store owner, saying he had a right to free speech even if in bad taste, local authorities said.

. . .

The sign in the Oak Hill General Store asked customers to place a $1 bet on the date of Obama’s assassination, and said “Let’s hope someone wins,” the Portland Press Herald reported. It was called the “Osama Obama Shotgun Pool.”

Am I way off here? Is this something that should be allowed? If you say yes, would you believe the same if this had happened 4 years ago, and the betting were instead for what date President Bush would be assassinated? If you say no, am I being too lenient in believing that the betting pool itself is legal without the Let’s hope someone wins quote? Where is the line on talk about expected/anticipated assassinations of our leaders?

Technorati Tags: Obama, Assassination, 1st amendment, Betting pool, Inciting violence, Free speech

Acevedo’s story is one that was never supposed to be told. “We had to sign an affidavit … [saying] we never went through what we went through. We weren’t supposed to say a word,” he says.

The U.S. Army Center of Military History provided CNN a copy of the document signed by soldiers at the camp before they were sent back home. “You must be particularly on your guard with persons representing the press,” it says. “You must give no account of your experience in books, newspapers, periodicals, or in broadcasts or in lectures.”

I am not here to question silencing those who have suffered through such events. I have worked in a classified environment, and I fully understand and respect the need to initially treat sensitive matters as classified. The military says the reason for secrecy is to protect escape and evasion techniques and the names of personnel who helped POW escapees, and I have absolutely no reason to question that. I do, however, think there is a need for an office responsible for reviewing
these cases after the fact. This is a story that is well worth knowing, and the events Mr. Acevedo describes seem to have no impact on the need to protect that the military says is the case. Certainly, 60 years after the war, I would can’t imagine why he needs to be kept under confidentiality agreement. Understand I’m not saying I know that it is fine for him to talk – I just can’t come up with a reason based on what I’ve read and learned that would support keeping confidentiality in effect.

That said, see some more below the break about Mr. Avecedo’s experience, and learn a little about how his agreement hurt him in the shortterm.

Born July 31, 1924, in San Bernardino, California, Anthony C. Acevedo is what is known in today’s parlance as a “citizen child” — one who was born in the United States to parents from Mexico.

A Mexican-American, he was schooled in Pasadena, California, but couldn’t attend the same classes as his white peers. “We couldn’t mix with white people,” he says. Both of his parents were deported to Mexico in 1937, and he went with them.

Acevedo returned to the States when he was 17, he says, because he wanted to enlist in the U.S. Army. He received medical training in Illinois before being sent to the European theater.

I just wanted to highlight this. Mr. Acevedo’s history is one of the reasons I don’t accept any immigration arguments about how easy it would be to just ship them all home (to quote many people I know). While we as a nation need to get a handle on illegal immigration, I don’t see that it’s some simple matter with a simple solution.

Acevedo sees it differently. For a soldier who survived one of the worst atrocities of mankind, the military’s reaction is still painful to accept. “My stomach turned to acid, and the government didn’t care. They didn’t give a hullabaloo.”

It took more than 50 years, he says, before he received 100 percent disability benefits from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.

Sadly, this is something that happens more often than I would think just bad military record-keeping would cause. Even our veterans involved in wars and affected in ways that are publicly known fall through the cracks of the support structure we have in place for them. This is something to always hope for improvement. We, as a nation, have a moral obligation to our troops and veterans, don’t we?

Despite everything Acevedo endured during the war, little had prepared him for his own father’s attitude toward his capture. “My dad told me I was a coward,” he says.

“I turned around and got my duffel bag, my luggage, and said, ‘This is it, Father. I’m not coming back.’ So I took the train the following day, and I didn’t see my parents for years, because I didn’t want to see them. I felt belittled.”

Whether this was from his father not knowing the full extent of what he went through or just because he dad was a sucky parent, we’ll never know. But no matter the cause, I would argue it is inappropriate behavoir for a parent.

The U.S. prisoners, Acevedo says, were given 100 grams of bread per week made of redwood sawdust, ground glass and barley. Soup was made from cats and rats, he says. Eating dandelion leaves was considered a “gourmet meal.”

If soldiers tried to escape, they would be shot and killed. If they were captured alive, they would be executed with gunshots to their foreheads, Acevedo says. Wooden bullets, he says, were used to shatter the inside of their brains. Medics were always asked to fill the execution holes with wax, he says.

This is just one of the many bits of information about Mr. Acevedo’s ordeal that makes it worth reading. There is so much horrifying information like this in the article. These men were treated so
horribly. And as I said above, while I respect the need to protecting information initially, after 60+ years I agree that it is time for these stories to be released. Let us know what our war heroes have done.

There is much more in the full article than what I can cover here. Already, this is far longer than I would normally write. Please read the full story, and learn about Mr. Acevedo’s daily diary which he used to document every death and sickness, as well as the recognition he got from other survivors at a recent gathering of WWII prisoners and liberators. It’s a moving story, even if holocaust deniers claim such things never happened.

Technorati Tags: World War II, WWII, Buchenwald, Concentration camp, Horrors of war

All that said, what follows below the break is some of my personal history in joining this movement, which hopefully sheds some light on why I care so much about the status and health of Open Source overall.

I am a long-time user of Open Source and freely redistributable software. Long ago, based on the recommendation of a friend (hello, Jay, wherever you are), I started using Linux at home. I still remember downloading via zmodem the 4-disk installation set for SLS Linux (most likely you’ve never heard of it, as it didn’t last very long – I think due to lack of update cycles, at least compared to a number of other then available distributions). I never got it working right, because it didn’t have proper driver support for my SCSI card (an UltraStor 34F, if you must know) and I didn’t know nearly enough to resolve the problem at the time. So I looked for and found a distribution that came with the drivers I needed (SlackWare), downloaded and installed it, and all was wonderful. I came in to the Linux flock on Kernel 0.99pl14, registering with The Linux Counter project sometime not long after it went live. This was geek heaven, as running Linux really got you down close to the system and made you learn what you were doing to get everything running right – back then, I didn’t care if Linux was usable by the so-called “typical” computer user.  It worked for me, and it kept me sharp on maintaining a Unix-like system.

For the next few years, I dual-booted, playing The 7^th Guest (sample game play video), Descent (reborn as DXX-Rebirth project), Doom, and other games in DOS or Windows, and rebooting into Linux to do “real” work, such as email, Usenet (there was not much on the World Wide Web for socializing and mass communication back then), and accessing and working on some Solaris systems I had guest accounts on.

After getting married, living on a limited budget meant sharing a computer with the wifey-person after some of her hardware crapped out on us. Her need for a regularly available work computer at home meant I needed to stick to a one-OS computer. And since the wifey-person was totally non-technical (the implication here being that she might be slightly technically inclined now), and many of the available productivity tools were less capable for her needs than the commercial stuff she knew at the time, that OS had to be Windows. Because of this, I was in Linux withdrawal for a few years. I still read the Usenet Linux groups and tried to help others (at that time, a busy group might get 300 messages a day – totally manageable for a single day’s readings), but I fell behind on Linux knowledge and skills. Clearly, action was required.

At this point, I started getting in to hardware in a way I’d never done before. I researched Linux driver development for all kinds of then-modern hardware, figuring that to save money I needed to build my system piece-by-piece. I was a huge believer in the need for SCSI drives at the time, because the IDE standard was just too unreliable for burning CDs. Burn protection that prevented bad disc burns when the system fell 3 milliseconds behind on feeding data just didn’t exist at the time. The irony here is that I bought a bad Philips SCSI burner that failed on discs over about 400 Meg, replaced it with a bad SCSI burner purchased on eBay, and then no longer really needed to burn discs after finally getting a reliable SCSI burner from a local store. In the end, though, I built a decent Linux capable system for a few hundred dollars (a crazy-low price at the time), got Linux running (not difficult since I’d researched my equipment needs first), configured X-Window to work (crazy hard, given the required technical details necessary to configure everything), and started looking about for software to make my efforts worthwhile.

And this brings me to where I want to start talking about what I call the Kudos society. I will be writing about tools I use, tools I’ve looked at using but do not for some reason, things I and others can do to contribute to support this community, and what I hope to do to help in the future.

First, my term “The Kudos Society.” It’s not really accurate to refer to the entire Open Source movement with this term, but what I’m really talking about is the tendency for so many to work on projects where there often isn’t real benefit beyond scratching an itch except recognition and appreciation from others.  I know there are people who get paid for working on Open Source projects. I know there are people who do the work on these projects who remain anonymous and avoid the recognition the projects could bring. And there are people who use Open Source project contributions as something of a resume to help get paying work. But generally speaking, most of the developers I see on Open Source projects are working on things as a side project to their “real” job, or are working on whatever because they have the time and skills necessary.

To me, these people seem, in essence, to be working primarily for Kudos – “Thanks for your good work.” I appreciate this attitude (even if I am incorrect in my perception), and do try to find ways to support the Kudos projects I use or would like to use. And with that large, rambling introduction, I’ll point to my “The Kudos Society” pages for my thoughts, my experiences, my attempts to contribute, and my recommendations.

Technorati Tags: Open Source, Free software, The Kudos Society

Two exceptional presidential candidates turned in strong performances. Neither man committed a major gaffe or scored a big hit.

But John McCain bettered Barack Obama.

Additionally, Barrack Obama won the first debate:

But it was not a draw – because the economy is the most important issue right now.

Plus, a great many people watched only the first half of the debate. Unlike a horse race, it is the opening, not the finish, that is the most important.

And I must confess myself a little surprised to find out that the New York Post calls the debate a draw:

I’m not sure last night’s debate changed a single vote. It was a quiet clash of styles, and of world views. Of muted temperaments that often agreed.

No huge mess-ups. No real flare-ups.

And no clear winner.

I know – all different writer’s opinions, and not necessarily a reflection of the paper’s general political opinion (for values of opinion relevant to non-entities such as a newspaper). I just found it funny to see all three as I was looking for online commentary about the election.

Yes, that is a newsperson for the fair and balanced FOX news network calling for Barrack Obama’s assassination.  Clearly Bill O’Reilly is no longer the worst thing that channel has to offer.

Technorati Tags: Assassination, Obama, Fair and Balanced, Idiocy

…the important factor here is that Americans are hurting. Americans are hurting today.

They are sitting around the kitchen table saying ‘Are we going to be able to make our home or our mortgage payments?’

He makes some good comments.  I think things like this will help him with his standing among some of the uncertain right, but doubt it will make any change with those already convinced to support or denounce him.  Of course, it doesn’t take a political genius to figure that out.

Technorati Tags: McCain, Recession, Economy, Americans

If you could hold a giant magnifying glass in space and focus all the sunlight shining toward Earth onto one grain of sand, that concentrated ray would approach the intensity of a new laser beam made in a University of Michigan laboratory.

That’s the instantaneous intensity we can produce,” said Karl Krushelnick, a physics and engineering professor. “I don’t know of another place in the universe that would have this intensity of light. We believe this is a record.”

. . .

The record-setting beam measures 20 billion trillion watts per square centimeter. It contains 300 terawatts of power. That’s 300 times the capacity of the entire U.S. electricity grid. The laser beam’s power is concentrated to a 1.3-micron speck about 100th the diameter of a human hair. A human hair is about 100 microns wide.

Sadly, no mention is made of strapping these suckers to the frikkin’ heads of any frikkin’ sharks.  Nor is there any word on the available ramp-up possible with a whole mess of these (say, perhaps, an ocean full of frikkin’ sharks, with, well, you know) and harnessing the power of a Dyson sphere.  But some mad-genius will make it happen some day, I am certain (sans popcorn, most likely).

A paper on this research, “Ultra-high intensity 300-TW laser at 0.1 Hz repetition rate,” is published online in the journal Optics Express. The full text is available at http://www.opticsinfobase.org/abstract.cfm?URI=oe-16-3-2109. Yanovsky and Krushelnick are authors of the paper.

Yup – 300 Terra-Watts.  Make’s ol’ Doc Brown’s Flux Capacitor look pretty miserly with the power, doesn’t it?

Technorati Tags: HERCULES, Laser, Frikkin’ sharks, 300 Terra-watts, 1.21 Giga-watts

By testing the roofs of 11 sport utility vehicles, then looking at the deaths and injury rates in accidents, the institute found that the stronger the roof was, the less likelihood of injury or death.

. . .

Rollovers account for about one-quarter of those who die in car crashes, but SUVs that are higher off the ground than other vehicles are particularly prone to rollovers. The study contends that stronger roofs, like the one on the 2000 Nissan Xterra, could cut injury risk by a third in single-vehicle SUV rollover crashes.

Automakers contend that roof strength improvements will not do anything to safety numbers, but the IIHS disagrees.  I can conceive that the automakers are right – overall safety design is probably more important than roof strength and the cars with the better safety ratings may achieve that by overall design and not just roof strength.  However, it’s hard for me to imagine that the roof strength could be improved without improving the safety overall design just because I know any change to the design has to be checked for consistency with all other design considerations.

This isn’t to indicate any of these vehicles fail to meet federally mandated safety requirements.  It’s that the IIHS believes the mandates are not strict enough.

The current standard requires vehicles to withstand 1½ times the weight of the vehicle before crushing five inches. The administration would like to require passenger vehicles to withstand 2½ times its weight instead. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety says that’s still not good enough, and argues a passenger vehicle should be able to withstand three times its weight when it rolls over.

As an owner of the SUV that received the lowest roof strength rating, I’m all for improving it.  But as with anything in design, I wonder what will the price be for any improvements?  These businesses have to factor in how much it will increase manufacturing costs for improve safety, how much of that can be passed on to consumers, and where will the dollars go from the edge-case buyers who would buy at the current price but not at any higher price.  It sucks for those only concerned with safety, and sure some people will throw up the “What cost human life?” question, but we all have finite resources, and these changes have to be considered.

So how much would you pay for more safety?  If it cost $100 for a roof with twice the collapse strength you currently have, would you?  What if it cost $1000 more?  How about an increase that cost $500 and cut fuel efficiency 5%?  Where does the trade-off become too much for you?

Technorati Tags: SUV, IIHS, Safety, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety