Rod

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Helium_Reserve

I expect content. Do note that the acs.org link is an article too, not a thesis, so you have no point.

As expected from a New Scientist article, this is not very informative. If you wanna learn more, you might wanna take a look at these:

http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/archive/ci/31/i06/html/06chem....

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.08/helium.html

http://books.google.com/books?id=A-lS1ZD8yOkC

Interestingly I could not find this patent application at http://www.google.com/patents

Thanks for the correction.

re: (2) I suggest that congressmen start checking the executive branch, which is their duty. Failing to do so, they committ a soft form of treason. We expect the guys in uniform to sacrifice their lives, but the congressmen are not even expected to sacrifice their careers in the defense of the U.S. Constitution. Soldiers will continue to die for nothing, and congressmen will continue avoiding unpopular fights that might cost them votes.

Fortunately for the political class, malice can easily be disguised as incompetence. Plausible deniability makes it hard to attribute culpability.

If a mafia top dog sends his goons to invade private property, his goons get shot at and return fire and kill people, then the mafia guy is a criminal. If the commander-in-chief sends his goons in uniform to invade a sovereign nation that poses no threat to the U.S., his pawns get shot at and return fire and kill 100,000s of people, then the commander-in-chief is a national hero, and anyone who dares to disagree is a traitor, a liberal, a communist, a socialist, un-american scum. Lesson to be learned: if you want to be a criminal, avoid the private sector.

That will never happen. Unfortunately, the political decision-makers are above the law. We all know that. Does anyone remember LBJ & McNamara being prosecuted for the deaths of 58,000 Americans and over 2,000,000 Vietnamese?

All that is obvious. One does not need to come from a military family to understand that. Common sense should suffice. The interesting questions are:

1) if the WikiLeaks war logs contain "nothing new" (according to the White House), then why is that it's a problem of national security?

2) yes, guys with guns must be held to the highest standard possible; unfortunately, the civilians who have the power to send the "guys with guns" to invade sovereign nations and kill people are held to no standard at all. We didn't lower the bar, we removed the bar. Zero accountability for the decision-makers, death penalty to the pawns in uniform? Isn't a rogue executive branch potentially more dangerous than a rogue Army private?

3) did Congress authorize the war in Afghanistan? I don't remember any declaration of war. If we're not officially at war, then what Rogers claims to be "treason" does not call for capital punishment.

4) if we are at war and Manning should be executed for treason, then why not execute Cheney too? Didn't he reveal classified information and endangered Americans when he exposed Valerie Plame?

"I do a little introspection and realized that I'm not all that outraged about the actions of the American government with respect to Afghanistan and Iraq."

If you don't live in Russia nor China, what makes you think that the U.S. won't converge towards tyranny at some point in the future and start using their fantastic military machine to invade countries at will, building an empire that neither Napoleon nor Hitler could even dream of? If that sounds impossible, let us not forget that Germany in the 1920s was quite different from Germany in the 1930s.

I remember the huge demonstrations against the invasion of Iraq in Europe in early 2003. Hundreds of thousands of people protesting in Barcelona. The biggest protests since Vietnam. And, then, one year later, the Madrid metro bombings "forcefully" convince the vastly anti-war Spanish electorare that it was intolerable to have a handful of troops in Iraq. Just because you don't live in the U.S. nor the U.K. do not rule out the possibility that you might suffer the consequences of the reckless invasion of Iraq.

Either you're too naive or not cynical enough. Assange is on a power trip, but WL is necessary and has been useful so far, so I forgive him. He has a large ego and wants to deliver impact. Exposing informants is peanuts. Why would he do it intentionally? He has already caused one government to collapse (in Kenya). If you had such power, would you use it for the little things, or for the big things? Too bad for the informants, it would have been better if no names had ever been exposed.

I never claimed that they are incompatible. I merely claimed that those who invade a sovereign country that posed no threat, leading to 100,000s of deaths (5,000 of which U.S. soldiers) have no moral authority and cannot claim that their irresponsibility is even remotely comparable to the irresponsibility of revealing possible informants' names.

Your argument is absolutely ridiculous. This has nothing to do with republicans vs democrats. As far as I know, LBJ and McNamara were democrats. And so are Hillary Clinton and John Kerry, who voted for the war in order to avoid jeopardizing their chances of getting to the oval office. What exact part of "meretricious congressmen" didn't you understand?

Assange has never claimed that there are no legitimate secrets. He's not exposing cyphers nor nuclear secrets. The truth that he's exposing is one that the Afghans know well, but that the American public does not know. The purpose of WikiLeaks is to promote transparency and accountability by exposing truths that catalyze reform. This means, essentially, to close the feedback loop so that the electorate can make wise decisions every four years. If the electorate has no clue what is going on, you have no republic, you have a farce.

What reform is attained by exposing someone's phone or address? That's right. None. If you can't understand that privacy and transparency aren't incompatible, then you must be seriously intellectually challenged. In other words, you have no point, and you have no argument.

Who has the moral authority to hold Jake accountable? He exposed the truth. By contrast, Bush, Cheney & Rumsfeld gave us Gulf of Tonkin II, the meretricious congressmen gave the executive branch all the power it wanted, we know that we invaded a country based on lies, 100,000s have died, and noone has been held accountable. What's the rule here? You kill 1 it's a tragegy, but if you kill 1,000,000 it's a statistic?

You mean software as service kind of stuff? Would you care to provide some examples?

The webapp market is limited by people's leisure time. There can't be 10 Facebooks, because if the average person spends 30 min per day on Facebook, then it would have to spend 4h30min on the other 9 webapps. Nobody has that much time. The market for electronics, photonics is almost unlimited... because these technologies are meant to automate, not to entertain. This is not a matter of electronics being "nobler" than webapps, it's just the realization that one encounters certain limitations in the webapp area that do not exist elsewhere.

The burden of proof lies on the accuser's shoulders. How do you know it's not disinformation? From now on, the Pentagon will blame WikiLeaks for every civilian death. WikiLeaks had no incentive to put innocents at risk, but the Pentagon has all the incentives to discredit WikiLeaks.

Agreed. But please do note that the Taliban didn't fly any aircraft into buildings. The ones who did were Saudis. The Taliban want to kick the invader out, just like the Vietcong 40 years ago. If you think the war in Afghanistan is motivated by the desire to kill Al Qaeda, you need to read a thing or two on geopolitics.

I am not after financial independence the easy way. I could never work for an investment bank. It's boring. And even if you're paid $200K a year at a bank, you're still a pawn. Nothing more than a mere cog in a big machine, unable to decide your own future. I don't advocate that. I am only stating that there are tradeoffs. You can trade money for freedom. You can trade excitement for safety. You can be a sheep and be bored, you can be a wolf and be lonely.

In any case, there's nothing particularly noble about empire per se. Sure, it pleases the ego. But there's always a bigger empire. And empires require HR departments and middle managers and other such distasteful things. You don't need to be the captain of an aircraft carrier. It's also fun to run a pirate ship.

I only know half a dozen software empires. I know a lot more hardware empires. And I am not talking about semiconductors only.

Investment banking only requires you to go to the right schools and to be able to tolerate excruciatingly boring work for 16 hours a day. I know people who amassed a nice loot that way. By contrast, I don't know anyone who amassed the same amount by creating software, although I know a few who tried.

The problem with web-apps is precisely that the barrier of entry is too low. You are competing against the entire world. No special skills are required beyond programming. It does not require credentials. What makes the game easy to play is also what it makes it so hard to win.

Sure. Different people have different motivations. Nothing wrong with that. But, to be honest, if your goal is financial independence, go work in investment banking until you are 35, retire, go see the world, live frugally, learn quantum mechanics for fun, start painting in your free time. I know people who did that.

The point is: if you're after financial independence, take the boring, yet easy, path. Give 10 years of your life to a bank or law firm. Maybe you can make a million or two. Retire. But, if you're going to give 10 years of your life to a company that has a 1% chance of getting anywhere, then be committed to it, do it for fun, to build an empire. You'll most likely fail, but you'll have a good time, at least.

Frankly, when compared to Intel, Reddit surely looks like something that was just "cobbled together". Intel has hundreds of physics, chemistry, engineering PhD's building circuits with billions of transistors with dimensions one order of magnitude smaller than the wavelenght of visible light. And these circuits are built in billion-dollar factories. And the competitors can't catch up because they don't know how Intel does its magic.

By contrast, Reddit looks like something that was built in a couple of days by two bored college students. I like Reddit, but let's face it, they're not pushing technology anywhere. They don't have to deal with quantum effects, current leakage, and that kind of stuff. They just run a few servers, and they don't have a business plan that can compare to Intel's. So, what exact point are you trying to make?

"It all depends on your initial goals. If your goal is to create a company that is going to be around in its original form and that will 'change the world' then by all means, stick around. But if you create 'web-apps' for an emerging field where you'll be faced with 10's if not 100's of competitors a successful acquisition is not bad at all."

I entirely agree. I know that HN'ers love web-apps and love thinking that "building something people want" is enough. But web-apps are too "easy", i.e., the barrier of entry is too low, and the competition is fierce. If one's business is a website, then sticking around may be foolish. Just take the cash and go build something real, and let people with a large pillow of capital take the risk.

My point is this: Andy Grove and the founders of Intel were not successful because they built "something people want". They were successful because they created something people did eventually want, because they made wise decisions at the right time, and because their skillsets made them irreplaceable almost. If you want to build an empire, then create something the world will need in the future, make sure you're the only one who knows how to do it, and capitalize on your knowledge while the rest of the world is catching up. This is extremely hard to accomplish in software, but it's not impossible in hardware. I am thinking of electronics, photonics, microfluidics, and the like... not web-apps that can be built in a weekend.

"Starting a business, operating it for a while and a successful exit are the whole meal."

Are you serious? You mean that in general, or in this particular case? Frankly, I am shocked by your assertion. Quoting Andy Grove:

"Intel never had an exit strategy. These days, people cobble something together. No capital. No technology. They measure eyeballs and sell advertising. Then they get rid of it. You can't build an empire out of this kind of concoction. You don't even try."

My thoughts exactly, only expressed more eloquently. What do you want? Make a couple of million and spend the next 30 years bored by the pool drinking cocktails? Or do you want to build an empire? Sure, building an empire is hard work, but at the time of my death, I want to know I chose the path of adventure, not the easy way out.

I am by no means advocating taking enormous risks and chasing quasi-impossible dreams. But if one's startup is taking off, why not stick around and try to scale it up? Building a company of a few 100s of people from scratch sure must be a whole lot of fun. You are creating employment, you are creating wealth. If you sell your business as soon as it starts working, then you do the hard work, and someone else gets all the credit and the fun.

Both Ellsberg and Assange have claimed that they do believe that there are legitimate secrets (e.g., cyphers, nuclear technology, and the like). Your argument is based on the assumption that WL sees all secrets as being born equal, which is utter nonsense. Do you honestly believe that:

- the Afghan war diaries contain secrets of the same magnitude as, say, U.S. radar tech 70 years ago?

- Pakistan does not know that the U.S. knows that elements of the Pakistani intelligence are collaborating with the Taliban? (of course they are, they know the Taliban will most likely win, and they want to ensure tranquility after the U.S. gets tired, declares "victory", and leaves)

- the enemy does not know it's using heat-seeking missiles against U.S. choppers?

- the enemy does not know the attacks on U.S. forces? They were the ones who carried the attacks out!

Think about it. The release of the documents contains very little the enemy does not know about. Therefore, your entire argument is invalidated. Apples and oranges. The secrets you alluded to do compromise national security. The secrets exposed last weekend by WL only compromise the politicians who lied to the world about how the war was going in order to avoid losing popular support.

"Leave the opinions to be formed by the people."

Yes, because the average American surely has the time to read 100s of classified documents. The goal of the release is to attain reform, and if drama stokes discussion and catalyzes reform, so be it. What's the problem with drama exactly? The more notorious Assange gets, the harder it will be for the powers that be to get rid of him.

Do you honestly think that drama leads to the downfall of media? Do you remember CNN, Fox, NYTimes in early 2003, when they all claimed that Iraq had WMD? Why do they still have credibility? They do because media has become part of the enterntainment industry, which makes it obvious why WL is necessary.

Embedded or not, they still work for an American newspaper, which means that their stories can be censored via legal bullying. By contrast, WikiLeaks can't be stopped by the powers that be.

WikiLeaks' war logs contain 100s of short reports from troops on the ground. Now the question may be: what is more truthful, a platoon leader's report, or a wild-roaming journalist's report? The platoon leader must please his commanding officer, the journalist must please his boss. They both are constrained.

Yes, there are journalists who were in Afghanistan / Pakistan back in the 1980s during the war with the USSR who are visiting Taliban leaders. They can go where no U.S. soldiers can go, for sure. But is that bringing forth that much truth? Sure, it's valuable to listen to the enemy's point of view, but don't we all know already what the Taliban want?

If I remember correctly, weapons inspectors were sent to Iraq, they found nothing, and then the U.S. invaded a sovereign nation based on lies. Fox News had reporters embedded with the U.S. military during the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and I remember them reporting that "WMD sites had been secured"! It's all a circus. You can have all the journalists you want embedded with ground units in Afghanistan, but if the editors back in NYC or Washington D.C. are constrained, then you won't get the real story. In other words, your argument is a joke.

And if you want to cite a credible source of info on these issues, cite STRATFOR's article:

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20100726_wikileaks_and_afghan...

Why link to the PDF? Why not link to the book's page?

http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&...