I'm not suggesting it as a replacement, either. I'm suggesting that a transparent paint, rather than an opaque one, could help shave a few precious seconds off the time a (young) victim is in a burning building while still offering a bit more protection for the heroes.
As I understand the situation right now, a firefighter who can't approach a child has the option to remove their mask briefly to try to calm the child down. That comes at a great risk to the rescuer, because the mask may not seal properly afterward, or even those few moments with the mask off could burn their face severely. An extra layer of protection that keeps the calming option open is something I find preferable.
As mentioned below, whether the rescuer will actually have time to apply the paint before entering is another matter.
If I remember those county-fair firefighter demonstrations well enough, one of the major problems firefighters face is that they're already too scary.
In a house fire, children are startled awake by alarms, surrounded by disorienting smoke, and seeing flashing lights outside their window. Then suddenly a grotesque figure with a misshapen body and respirator mask comes bursting in to their room carrying a giant axe, with flames surrounding them. The children scream and run away, frantically hoping to escape their certain doom at the hands of the demon from the hallway. It's no use. Their shocked scream was heard, and the monster lumbers toward them, making unintelligible noises that sound almost like speech. Finally the great beast peels off his face to show a human underneath. "It's okay, I'm a fireman. I'll take you outside." Before the children can fully understand what's going on, they're being carried toward the door, and it's so hot they can't think straight. Maybe this is alright. At the door now, and there's people outside. Then there's mommy and everything's alright.
Keeping whatever remnants of human appearance a firefighter has is a good thing.
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Or, to paraphrase, They who can give up the their pursuit of happiness in exchange for safety, deserve neither happiness nor safety. The philosophy behind the quote is simple: Absolute safety is not a desirable end in itself, because it invariably comes at the cost of letting people live their lives how they want. In context, that means that if the only route to decent security is to abandon one's ability to lead a modern live with the conveniences thereof, it is instead the security that must be abandoned as a matter of principle.
This is not to say that better security is always detrimental. Rather, if security and modern convenience can both be achieved without compromise, then by all means that is preferable. Again, though, the innocent people involved don't have the choice whether to have security or not. They don't ever get the information to make an informed choice, so they cannot be held responsible for making the wrong one. Every bank claims their security is top-notch, and few actually are.
Not so easy anymore, because after 100 years or so of theory, we've never seen anything even close to an actual Communist system. It has never once existed.
Exactly. No true (ideal) Communist system has ever existed, and I've yet to bean a political scientist who thinks a true Communist system can ever exist among humans.
Regardless, the lack of a true Communist society is due to real factors that have not yet been solved, rather than a shifting problem definition as in the No True Scotsman fallacy.
Not if society has to go through one in order to get to the other. Much like evolution via genetic mutation: you will never get from point A to point B, if the intermediate steps are always fatal.
This is not evolution, though. This is Creation, or at least an intelligent design. The progression (and the inherent socioeconomic imbalances in the progression) is one of those pitfalls, which may be possible to avoid in a future political system.
What reasonable alternative did the innocents have? Join a non-existent revolution?
The simple fact is that having the conveniences of modern life requires trusting your personal information to others. You can pick which bank you use, but they seldom allow customers to fully inspect their security practices. The innocents are unwilling participants who really have no choice in whether they support the corrupt system or an honest improvement, because they can't tell which option is supporting which system.
"No true communist state has ever existed" is not a No True Scotsman fallacy.
No True Scotsman is where the experimental grouping is based on the results of the experiment. As a more obvious example, consider giving all of the participants in a drug trial the same medication, then splitting them up afterward based on whether the drug worked or not. In the had-a-good-effect group, 100% of the trial patients had a good effect! Amazing!
The classification of political states, however, is a different issue. No true political anything has ever existed. Dictatorships aren't true dictatorships, because the dictators don't directly control absolutely everything for everyone. Communism isn't true communism, because the people making decisions have always been held in higher regard than the people making toilets. Capitalism isn't true capitalism, because there is always regulation and corruption getting in the way of an informed public. Monarchies aren't really monarchies, because there are always parallel power structures that don't fall into the nicely-defined hierarchy.
The fallacy here (for which I do not recall a proper name, and can't be bothered to look it up) is a confusion (intentional or not) between ideals and realistic implementations of systems. It's easy enough to say "in a Communist system, everyone is valued equally," but much more difficult to actually convince a nation of people to consider everyone perfectly equal. The ideal, however, does make for an interesting philosophical discussion, just as the real implementation makes for an interesting sociological discussion. With the insights from both, perhaps a political system can be devised that accomplishes the goals of the ideal system, while accommodating the pitfalls of the real implementation.
The credit record is damaged like any other identity theft: Incrementally.
Looking at a few of the leaked details, I see full names, phone numbers, passwords, and answers to verification questions. With knowledge of your bank accounts, anyone can call the person directly claiming to be a representative from the bank, and ask a few security questions. Then they can use the answers to convince the bank to release more details, under the pretense of "verifying some old records". Attackers can build up enough facts and details to open a credit card or get a loan in your name, then run off with the money. Then that monthly payment record that's so exciting turns sour fast, and even if the creditor is helpful in clearing up the fraud, the theft is noted in your fraud history.
It's amazing how much information people will gladly give away to someone claiming to represent their bank who already knows a few details.
A lot of the damage depends on how willing the creditor is to take the loss. Not all banks are "nice about it all", and it's entirely at their discretion what history end up on your report.
Because when you get a gift to help pay off a mountain of debt, surely the first thing to do is go buy a new door lock, rather than, say, paying off that debt.
Speaking from firsthand experience in Ghana, 3G cellular data coverage is available in most major cities, some villages, and several rural spots that happen to be flat enough that the network provider bothered to put in a better tower for wide coverage. The most up-to-date cities have 4G, and that's where I see the cloud aspect being most useful. It's normal for a city doctor to have a smartphone, but not a terrestrial internet connection to his office.
having the freedom to keep others from being free to harm you is part of true freedom
And how do you plan to do that, without harming others?
Do you somehow define what is or is not "harm", such as "certain folks get guns, but civilians do not", and expect everyone to live by your definitions? Do you magically remove the natural desire to harm?
Or do you simply choose to not live in a society that is "truly free", but rather one that is mostly free but also mostly fair?
Briefly considered, but I kinda wanted to make the point about old vaccines having about the same profit (which is why the pharma companies try so hard to keep control of their old patents), and the note about the millons vs. billions was something I wanted to put in the first comment, but it didn't fit the tone.
"Whoosh" responses also irritate me, but that's just a pet peeve.
So it's your contention that vaccines are a conspiracy among the data centers, insurers, utility companies, data analysts, and researchers?
And the food producers who profit from the researchers buying food for their families, and the machinist who made the data center's racks, and the veterinarian who neutered the data analyst's dog, and even you! Yes, you! You're a part of it in some roundabout way that really makes sense only to economists and conspiracy theorists!
I'll grant you that the global market has made newer vaccines more profitable than they were in the past, but vaccines still have very low profit margins. In fact, I doubt there is any profit at all on the older vaccines that we are arguing over here.
A lot of the older vaccines' R&D is paid off now, so the only costs are production and distribution like any other product. Since the retail price for the vaccines has also dropped, my rough estimate pegs them at about the same profit margin as new vaccines: really really low.
Plainly and without sarcasm (for once), vaccines are a very large market, with very slim profits. The millions of dollars drug companies spend on the catered dinners, advertisements, and private-island vacations for executives is pocket change compared to the billions spent in R&D costs.
Having worked in the medical research field, I can tell you with certainty that vaccines are that profitable...
They're profitable for the data center operators, who spend six months running database queries to assemble a clinical trial.
They're profitable for the insurers, who no longer have to pay for treatment of some very difficult diseases.
They're profitable for the utility companies who charge for powering the lab equipment for several years while a vaccine is produced.
They're profitable for the data analysts, who are paid to go over the results from the lab tests only to say "chemical A did not significantly do anything different than chemical B".
They're profitable for the researchers who get paid for spending a decade understanding the biological mechanisms of any particular disease, and finding ways to disrupt them (and nothing else).
Finally when it's all said and done, the actual pharmaceutical company can bring in billions of dollars in revenue selling the vaccine, which is just about enough to fund the next few projects.
I do not dispute the study at all. I dispute the headline that is sensational enough to be warped into a tool for anti-medicine zealots and it's-not-my-fault parents. Instead, how about something like "Antibiotics alter gut flora and increase lipid production"? Less sensational and more informative to boot.
I interpret the data as it's presented: The antibiotics caused a very slight increase in fat. It's not nearly enough to cause obesity on its own, and anyone who looks into the actual research will (hopefully) see that. However, the excited parents I complain about do not often look into the actual research, rather simply extrapolating from the headlines and brief summaries they see on the nightly news.
Sadly their interpretation is not what I expect to be hearing soon in my (liberal-biased) community. Instead, I'll hear something like "See? This is one more reason not to use antibiotic cleanser in my bathroom, even when sick! And I'll keep my kids far away from the hospital, because they use antibiotics everywhere!"
Sensational journalism is a disservice to the research it presents. Kudos to NPR for trying to keep things level-headed.
Just what we need... yet another anti-medicine headline. I'll go ahead and invoke the rule: No.
Look, parents... it's not the antibiotics making your kids fat, it's you feeding them too much, then telling them to clean their plate because kids in Africa are starving. It's not the antibiotic-resistant superbugs making your kids sick, it's the day care center and school you send them to with myriad other kids and their bacterial cornucopia. It's not the vaccines giving your kids learning disabilities, it's the school's beancounters putting pressure on the psychiatrist to get those special-education dollars.
It's not that hard to live a healthy and decent life: Do not do anything to excess, and listen to what your body wants. When it wants rest, rest. When it wants exercise, do something active. When it wants food, eat. Do nothing more than what's reasonable, and do nothing less than what's sufficient.
The attack surface of a VM is (surface of the guest) + (surface of the host). In this case, an infected Windows host can infect a VM image residing there.
Other way around: It can break into a VM from a Windows host. From TFA:
The threat searches for a VMware virtual machine image on the compromised computer and, if it finds an image, it mounts the image and then copies itself onto the image by using a VMware Player tool.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not suggesting it as a replacement, either. I'm suggesting that a transparent paint, rather than an opaque one, could help shave a few precious seconds off the time a (young) victim is in a burning building while still offering a bit more protection for the heroes.
As I understand the situation right now, a firefighter who can't approach a child has the option to remove their mask briefly to try to calm the child down. That comes at a great risk to the rescuer, because the mask may not seal properly afterward, or even those few moments with the mask off could burn their face severely. An extra layer of protection that keeps the calming option open is something I find preferable.
As mentioned below, whether the rescuer will actually have time to apply the paint before entering is another matter.
If I remember those county-fair firefighter demonstrations well enough, one of the major problems firefighters face is that they're already too scary.
In a house fire, children are startled awake by alarms, surrounded by disorienting smoke, and seeing flashing lights outside their window. Then suddenly a grotesque figure with a misshapen body and respirator mask comes bursting in to their room carrying a giant axe, with flames surrounding them. The children scream and run away, frantically hoping to escape their certain doom at the hands of the demon from the hallway. It's no use. Their shocked scream was heard, and the monster lumbers toward them, making unintelligible noises that sound almost like speech. Finally the great beast peels off his face to show a human underneath. "It's okay, I'm a fireman. I'll take you outside." Before the children can fully understand what's going on, they're being carried toward the door, and it's so hot they can't think straight. Maybe this is alright. At the door now, and there's people outside. Then there's mommy and everything's alright.
Keeping whatever remnants of human appearance a firefighter has is a good thing.
I believe the original quote is:
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Or, to paraphrase, They who can give up the their pursuit of happiness in exchange for safety, deserve neither happiness nor safety. The philosophy behind the quote is simple: Absolute safety is not a desirable end in itself, because it invariably comes at the cost of letting people live their lives how they want. In context, that means that if the only route to decent security is to abandon one's ability to lead a modern live with the conveniences thereof, it is instead the security that must be abandoned as a matter of principle.
This is not to say that better security is always detrimental. Rather, if security and modern convenience can both be achieved without compromise, then by all means that is preferable. Again, though, the innocent people involved don't have the choice whether to have security or not. They don't ever get the information to make an informed choice, so they cannot be held responsible for making the wrong one. Every bank claims their security is top-notch, and few actually are.
Not so easy anymore, because after 100 years or so of theory, we've never seen anything even close to an actual Communist system. It has never once existed.
Exactly. No true (ideal) Communist system has ever existed, and I've yet to bean a political scientist who thinks a true Communist system can ever exist among humans.
Regardless, the lack of a true Communist society is due to real factors that have not yet been solved, rather than a shifting problem definition as in the No True Scotsman fallacy.
Not if society has to go through one in order to get to the other. Much like evolution via genetic mutation: you will never get from point A to point B, if the intermediate steps are always fatal.
This is not evolution, though. This is Creation, or at least an intelligent design. The progression (and the inherent socioeconomic imbalances in the progression) is one of those pitfalls, which may be possible to avoid in a future political system.
What reasonable alternative did the innocents have? Join a non-existent revolution?
The simple fact is that having the conveniences of modern life requires trusting your personal information to others. You can pick which bank you use, but they seldom allow customers to fully inspect their security practices. The innocents are unwilling participants who really have no choice in whether they support the corrupt system or an honest improvement, because they can't tell which option is supporting which system.
I look at the bonuses, and I don't see the problem as being so big.
MaskBook - The absolutely secure social network! body { background-color: #000; }
"No true communist state has ever existed" is not a No True Scotsman fallacy.
No True Scotsman is where the experimental grouping is based on the results of the experiment. As a more obvious example, consider giving all of the participants in a drug trial the same medication, then splitting them up afterward based on whether the drug worked or not. In the had-a-good-effect group, 100% of the trial patients had a good effect! Amazing!
The classification of political states, however, is a different issue. No true political anything has ever existed. Dictatorships aren't true dictatorships, because the dictators don't directly control absolutely everything for everyone. Communism isn't true communism, because the people making decisions have always been held in higher regard than the people making toilets. Capitalism isn't true capitalism, because there is always regulation and corruption getting in the way of an informed public. Monarchies aren't really monarchies, because there are always parallel power structures that don't fall into the nicely-defined hierarchy.
The fallacy here (for which I do not recall a proper name, and can't be bothered to look it up) is a confusion (intentional or not) between ideals and realistic implementations of systems. It's easy enough to say "in a Communist system, everyone is valued equally," but much more difficult to actually convince a nation of people to consider everyone perfectly equal. The ideal, however, does make for an interesting philosophical discussion, just as the real implementation makes for an interesting sociological discussion. With the insights from both, perhaps a political system can be devised that accomplishes the goals of the ideal system, while accommodating the pitfalls of the real implementation.
The credit record is damaged like any other identity theft: Incrementally.
Looking at a few of the leaked details, I see full names, phone numbers, passwords, and answers to verification questions. With knowledge of your bank accounts, anyone can call the person directly claiming to be a representative from the bank, and ask a few security questions. Then they can use the answers to convince the bank to release more details, under the pretense of "verifying some old records". Attackers can build up enough facts and details to open a credit card or get a loan in your name, then run off with the money. Then that monthly payment record that's so exciting turns sour fast, and even if the creditor is helpful in clearing up the fraud, the theft is noted in your fraud history.
It's amazing how much information people will gladly give away to someone claiming to represent their bank who already knows a few details.
A lot of the damage depends on how willing the creditor is to take the loss. Not all banks are "nice about it all", and it's entirely at their discretion what history end up on your report.
Because when you get a gift to help pay off a mountain of debt, surely the first thing to do is go buy a new door lock, rather than, say, paying off that debt.
Speaking from firsthand experience in Ghana, 3G cellular data coverage is available in most major cities, some villages, and several rural spots that happen to be flat enough that the network provider bothered to put in a better tower for wide coverage. The most up-to-date cities have 4G, and that's where I see the cloud aspect being most useful. It's normal for a city doctor to have a smartphone, but not a terrestrial internet connection to his office.
having the freedom to keep others from being free to harm you is part of true freedom
And how do you plan to do that, without harming others?
Do you somehow define what is or is not "harm", such as "certain folks get guns, but civilians do not", and expect everyone to live by your definitions? Do you magically remove the natural desire to harm?
Or do you simply choose to not live in a society that is "truly free", but rather one that is mostly free but also mostly fair?
Briefly considered, but I kinda wanted to make the point about old vaccines having about the same profit (which is why the pharma companies try so hard to keep control of their old patents), and the note about the millons vs. billions was something I wanted to put in the first comment, but it didn't fit the tone.
"Whoosh" responses also irritate me, but that's just a pet peeve.
Six months gives more time for tying up loose ends, like suspending accounts, moving belongings to storage, returning library books...
It won't make the sentence any shorter, but it will be easier to come out of.
So it's your contention that vaccines are a conspiracy among the data centers, insurers, utility companies, data analysts, and researchers?
And the food producers who profit from the researchers buying food for their families, and the machinist who made the data center's racks, and the veterinarian who neutered the data analyst's dog, and even you! Yes, you! You're a part of it in some roundabout way that really makes sense only to economists and conspiracy theorists!
I'll grant you that the global market has made newer vaccines more profitable than they were in the past, but vaccines still have very low profit margins. In fact, I doubt there is any profit at all on the older vaccines that we are arguing over here.
A lot of the older vaccines' R&D is paid off now, so the only costs are production and distribution like any other product. Since the retail price for the vaccines has also dropped, my rough estimate pegs them at about the same profit margin as new vaccines: really really low.
Plainly and without sarcasm (for once), vaccines are a very large market, with very slim profits. The millions of dollars drug companies spend on the catered dinners, advertisements, and private-island vacations for executives is pocket change compared to the billions spent in R&D costs.
Also, let's consider this, is a society truly free if other people are free to harm you?
Yes.
Next question: Is a society truly free if other people are free to deny the almighty Zeus?
Can we see a peer-reviewed version of the Carlin study, please?
Having worked in the medical research field, I can tell you with certainty that vaccines are that profitable...
Finally when it's all said and done, the actual pharmaceutical company can bring in billions of dollars in revenue selling the vaccine, which is just about enough to fund the next few projects.
I do not dispute the study at all. I dispute the headline that is sensational enough to be warped into a tool for anti-medicine zealots and it's-not-my-fault parents. Instead, how about something like "Antibiotics alter gut flora and increase lipid production"? Less sensational and more informative to boot.
I interpret the data as it's presented: The antibiotics caused a very slight increase in fat. It's not nearly enough to cause obesity on its own, and anyone who looks into the actual research will (hopefully) see that. However, the excited parents I complain about do not often look into the actual research, rather simply extrapolating from the headlines and brief summaries they see on the nightly news.
Sadly their interpretation is not what I expect to be hearing soon in my (liberal-biased) community. Instead, I'll hear something like "See? This is one more reason not to use antibiotic cleanser in my bathroom, even when sick! And I'll keep my kids far away from the hospital, because they use antibiotics everywhere!"
Sensational journalism is a disservice to the research it presents. Kudos to NPR for trying to keep things level-headed.
Just what we need... yet another anti-medicine headline. I'll go ahead and invoke the rule: No.
Look, parents... it's not the antibiotics making your kids fat, it's you feeding them too much, then telling them to clean their plate because kids in Africa are starving. It's not the antibiotic-resistant superbugs making your kids sick, it's the day care center and school you send them to with myriad other kids and their bacterial cornucopia. It's not the vaccines giving your kids learning disabilities, it's the school's beancounters putting pressure on the psychiatrist to get those special-education dollars.
It's not that hard to live a healthy and decent life: Do not do anything to excess, and listen to what your body wants. When it wants rest, rest. When it wants exercise, do something active. When it wants food, eat. Do nothing more than what's reasonable, and do nothing less than what's sufficient.
STOP READING SLASHDORT NOW or things will be worse and money.
...but I want money, so I will read Slashdort.
The attack surface of a VM is (surface of the guest) + (surface of the host). In this case, an infected Windows host can infect a VM image residing there.
The threat searches for a VMware virtual machine image on the compromised computer and, if it finds an image, it mounts the image and then copies itself onto the image by using a VMware Player tool.