It may still be in Lazarus mode, or something may have failed due to the thermal contraction of the electronics (ex: solder and circuit board material expand at different rates...too extreme of a temperature shift and things start popping apart) ending it for good. There is still some hope that Phoenix will survive the frigid temperatures and even the weight of a meter-thick layer of CO2 ice to awaken in the spring. That's what Lazarus mode was created for, but the hope of that has always been very small.
What you wrote was very informative, but when I hear the term "lazarus mode" I can't help but think of anime.
Pheonix: I'm at my limit... Power failing...
Phoenix Team: Activate, LAZARUS MODE!!
-cue rock music and transform sequence-
Anytime someone asks me what the point of protecting biodiversity/the rainforest/the environment I will point to this article. There are many other reasons IMO, but "tree hugger" is a derogatory term these days.
I think the answers seemed vacuous because people were asking specific questions. A lot of the questions were of the form "What exactly will you do in cyberspace and what is your jurisdiction?"
The sense I got from the answers was that they are still defining their mission scope, but it will probably be limited to the army systems similar to how the air force cyber command is limited to dealing with air force specific threats. Consequently jurisdiction would be limited to army systems.
That bit about the propaganda did surprise me though and makes me glad the questions about scope were asked. It's definitely something to keep an eye on.
Wow, you mean the IRS will want to know my income take taxes out of my paycheck? What is this country coming to?
I'm really surprised you were modded insightful. The only gov't system without taxation is anarchism and that's just not feasible, no matter how much you rant against "liberals".
"If someone has given them a sample under false pretenses, they have no way of actually knowing whether or not they're testing who they think they're testing."
Unless, as you said, samples cannot be sent indirectly. If the company has to cheek swab you directly to get the DNA, well they know it's your DNA whether you use your real name or not.
"Perhaps what should be banned is accepting DNA samples indirectly."
I would hope that's all ready banned. The question is how to enforce that. I would prefer the onus of accountability to be on the DNA analyzing company rather than a doctor, so I think the law could be better in that respect.
I think this has more to do with privacy than "keeping your data from you". Ask it stands now what's to stop you from sending a cheek swab with your neighbor's DNA instead of yours under a false name? If a doctor is involved at least the perpetrator must make a face to face appearance under the fake name with someone who would be "accountable" before being able to carry through with his plan.
When you say "good design" do you consider efficiency to be a part of that? I work for one of those "1000 person teams" and what I have noticed is that processes(CMMI level 4) keep the schedule and quality on track. That's not really news since that's what a 1000 case studies have said before. However, I would not want to take all of that baggage to a 10 person team that needs to remain agile to compete in their market.
IMO, designing with scalability in mind always helps, but I have no evidence beyond anecdotal to back this up.
I'm pretty sure the first webcam I ever bought came with some cheesy games like kick the massively laggy soccer ball. The only thing that the eyeToy should be able patent is the ability to read the cards from that CCG and other game specific applications. I doubt this hack extends into that realm.
Of course this will eventually lead to computers to mapping and "determining" patterns that lead to criminal activities. Such as the mind of a pedafile or rapist. Reading your mind to see if you have "BAD THOUGHTS" capable of criminal activity, will lead to the government having the ability to read individuals for criminal minds and arresting for such thoughts and predicted activities. The fear of having my thought patterns available publicly/seizable by a gov't. entity/requestable by employers is one of the reasons I'd be hesitant to have a personal "mind reader" interface.I'd say it's more likely that those organizations will learn more about you from your ISP than what you associate with the word "tomato" though. At least until you rely on it too much.
This reminds me of a psyche 101 exercise where students were asked to draw a map of the town in which the college resided. Upperclassmen drew far more detailed maps than freshmen. I suspect the upperclassmen would have thought of very different things(past experiences) compared to freshmen also, and that's within a very small subset of people.
I doubt very much that this machine could "read your mind" primed with someone else's input, but it could be invaluable in determining how the brain works and what similarities do exist across regions/ages/cultures if any.
Thank you!
Finally, someone who actually read the other article. The "proposed AF botnet" was never an official proposal. It was one guy suggesting what the AF "should" do. And this statement about wanting the ability to hack any computer has nothing to do with a botnet and everything to do with simply being competent.
Has anyone done a calculation to determine when the background radiation will be too low to sustain a black hole?
Could the last surviving civilization be one that harnesses the hawking radiation of a black hole(if this is even possible IANAP)?
Depends what you're looking for. I don't know of any other big auction sites, but Craig's list might be an adequate substitute. Depends how obscure the item is and where you live really.
I read On Killing and while I think he knows what he is talking about that last chapter was not up to par with the rest of his book. I would call it a hypothesis more than a theory since he did not provide any case studies or other evidence as he did with the rest of the book.
The silver lining of this is that parents get a free litmus test. If a science teacher tries to teach ID based on this bill then the teacher doesn't know enough science to properly be a teacher.
I didn't read anywhere in TFA that proposed the two were related. I understood it as more of a heads up that the candidates who were most anti-videogame on each side didn't happen to do well. Not that that they didn't do well because of their anti-videogame stances.
There are other flaws as well. From my own participation, for example, I have found that often certain groups of people will "take over" a topic as "their own", and interfere with input from outside sources... Wikipedia would be a disastrous model for anything having to do with government. It relies too much on the "good nature" of contributors.
How is this different from any government? I can think of instances of both these things within the American Republic. I would argue that Republicans have taken the national topic of "Family Values" even though different person's perceptions of what family values are can be radically different. Also we certainly rely on the "good nature" of our contributors now. As it stands those contributors are a smaller and less diverse section of the population so their effects are magnified rather than diminished by the majority.
I don't see that at all. First off you don't 'believe in' global warming. You evaluate the facts presented to you. Ignore opinions and look at the core of this article for example. NASA's temperature prediction model was a little off for the US. As others have pointed out, this bug doesn't change the overall trend of rising global temperatures.
Bottom line: Don't accept the the government has it all figured out and you don't need to worry about it, and also don't accept the opinions of random bloggers as fact. It's hard, but if the 'layman' wants to make an informed decision, he/she needs to think critically about the information provided.
Oh good lord. Look at you. The fact is, the entire environmental movement is part of an overall socialist agenda to try and deindustrialize western nations so that the third world can be "equal". You guys on the left have your zealots too. Why else would the first world have to pay the third world for the "right to pollute". The whole argument is absurd.
The same reason you pay people to take away your trash, to keep your own yard clean and so the neighbors don't complain. Why is this stuff getting modified +5 insightful? It should be modified funny.
Slashdot Mirror
It may still be in Lazarus mode, or something may have failed due to the thermal contraction of the electronics (ex: solder and circuit board material expand at different rates...too extreme of a temperature shift and things start popping apart) ending it for good. There is still some hope that Phoenix will survive the frigid temperatures and even the weight of a meter-thick layer of CO2 ice to awaken in the spring. That's what Lazarus mode was created for, but the hope of that has always been very small.
What you wrote was very informative, but when I hear the term "lazarus mode" I can't help but think of anime.
Pheonix: I'm at my limit... Power failing...
Phoenix Team: Activate, LAZARUS MODE!!
-cue rock music and transform sequence-
Anytime someone asks me what the point of protecting biodiversity/the rainforest/the environment I will point to this article. There are many other reasons IMO, but "tree hugger" is a derogatory term these days.
I think the answers seemed vacuous because people were asking specific questions. A lot of the questions were of the form "What exactly will you do in cyberspace and what is your jurisdiction?"
The sense I got from the answers was that they are still defining their mission scope, but it will probably be limited to the army systems similar to how the air force cyber command is limited to dealing with air force specific threats. Consequently jurisdiction would be limited to army systems.
That bit about the propaganda did surprise me though and makes me glad the questions about scope were asked. It's definitely something to keep an eye on.
That's good, I would also accept: "G8 Summit Aims to Stop International Copyright Infringement" since they're not actually talking about piracy.
Wow, you mean the IRS will want to know my income take taxes out of my paycheck? What is this country coming to?
I'm really surprised you were modded insightful. The only gov't system without taxation is anarchism and that's just not feasible, no matter how much you rant against "liberals".
You can't prevent people from doing bad things, you can only set up barriers and enforce punishments.
"If someone has given them a sample under false pretenses, they have no way of actually knowing whether or not they're testing who they think they're testing."
Unless, as you said, samples cannot be sent indirectly. If the company has to cheek swab you directly to get the DNA, well they know it's your DNA whether you use your real name or not.
"Perhaps what should be banned is accepting DNA samples indirectly."
I would hope that's all ready banned. The question is how to enforce that. I would prefer the onus of accountability to be on the DNA analyzing company rather than a doctor, so I think the law could be better in that respect.
I think this has more to do with privacy than "keeping your data from you". Ask it stands now what's to stop you from sending a cheek swab with your neighbor's DNA instead of yours under a false name? If a doctor is involved at least the perpetrator must make a face to face appearance under the fake name with someone who would be "accountable" before being able to carry through with his plan.
When you say "good design" do you consider efficiency to be a part of that? I work for one of those "1000 person teams" and what I have noticed is that processes(CMMI level 4) keep the schedule and quality on track. That's not really news since that's what a 1000 case studies have said before. However, I would not want to take all of that baggage to a 10 person team that needs to remain agile to compete in their market.
IMO, designing with scalability in mind always helps, but I have no evidence beyond anecdotal to back this up.
I'm pretty sure the first webcam I ever bought came with some cheesy games like kick the massively laggy soccer ball. The only thing that the eyeToy should be able patent is the ability to read the cards from that CCG and other game specific applications. I doubt this hack extends into that realm.
This reminds me of a psyche 101 exercise where students were asked to draw a map of the town in which the college resided. Upperclassmen drew far more detailed maps than freshmen. I suspect the upperclassmen would have thought of very different things(past experiences) compared to freshmen also, and that's within a very small subset of people. I doubt very much that this machine could "read your mind" primed with someone else's input, but it could be invaluable in determining how the brain works and what similarities do exist across regions/ages/cultures if any.
Thank you! Finally, someone who actually read the other article. The "proposed AF botnet" was never an official proposal. It was one guy suggesting what the AF "should" do. And this statement about wanting the ability to hack any computer has nothing to do with a botnet and everything to do with simply being competent.
Would you rather hear about the law after it passed?
Has anyone done a calculation to determine when the background radiation will be too low to sustain a black hole? Could the last surviving civilization be one that harnesses the hawking radiation of a black hole(if this is even possible IANAP)?
Depends what you're looking for. I don't know of any other big auction sites, but Craig's list might be an adequate substitute. Depends how obscure the item is and where you live really.
I read On Killing and while I think he knows what he is talking about that last chapter was not up to par with the rest of his book. I would call it a hypothesis more than a theory since he did not provide any case studies or other evidence as he did with the rest of the book.
The silver lining of this is that parents get a free litmus test. If a science teacher tries to teach ID based on this bill then the teacher doesn't know enough science to properly be a teacher.
I didn't read anywhere in TFA that proposed the two were related. I understood it as more of a heads up that the candidates who were most anti-videogame on each side didn't happen to do well. Not that that they didn't do well because of their anti-videogame stances.
A few hundred dollars, huh. Are we looking at the beginnings of the real next-gen console(s)?
At 25 times faster you'd still need 480.
There are other flaws as well. From my own participation, for example, I have found that often certain groups of people will "take over" a topic as "their own", and interfere with input from outside sources...
Wikipedia would be a disastrous model for anything having to do with government. It relies too much on the "good nature" of contributors.
How is this different from any government? I can think of instances of both these things within the American Republic. I would argue that Republicans have taken the national topic of "Family Values" even though different person's perceptions of what family values are can be radically different. Also we certainly rely on the "good nature" of our contributors now. As it stands those contributors are a smaller and less diverse section of the population so their effects are magnified rather than diminished by the majority.
I don't see that at all. First off you don't 'believe in' global warming. You evaluate the facts presented to you. Ignore opinions and look at the core of this article for example. NASA's temperature prediction model was a little off for the US. As others have pointed out, this bug doesn't change the overall trend of rising global temperatures. Bottom line: Don't accept the the government has it all figured out and you don't need to worry about it, and also don't accept the opinions of random bloggers as fact. It's hard, but if the 'layman' wants to make an informed decision, he/she needs to think critically about the information provided.
Oh good lord. Look at you. The fact is, the entire environmental movement is part of an overall socialist agenda to try and deindustrialize western nations so that the third world can be "equal". You guys on the left have your zealots too. Why else would the first world have to pay the third world for the "right to pollute". The whole argument is absurd. The same reason you pay people to take away your trash, to keep your own yard clean and so the neighbors don't complain. Why is this stuff getting modified +5 insightful? It should be modified funny.