Well theoretically if there exists offensive and defensive security experts (like this article implies) then the defensive oriented ones would be better at defence.
But in this particular case Canadian law, or any other for that matter, will give you very little protection. Online ads, and spam messages receive very little to no oversight. If you were ordering pills from a Canadian ad in TV or radio, sure you probably are protected moderately well.
Well at the very least you have to assume that someone trying to sell you a drug with limited ad space is far less likely to disclose all the potential side effects and dangers then your local pharmacist/doctor (who are legally bound to not lie to you).
I cannot understand why anyone would see an add for drugs online and actually go ahead and purchase that online without doing to your doctor/pharmacist, talking to them about the drug and then getting it through official channels.
You have no reason to believe that any claims made by someone trying to sell you drugs online are true, and no reason to believe that the little white pills shipped to you are even what you ordered. At the very very least, you cannot be at all confident that other medications yo are taking do not conflict or you have some other physical attributes that make taking it dangerous.
Depends on the situation. I think I have/had the source code for everything I ever worked on. Sometimes it is simply not that confidential. In my case as part of my job I had it on my computer, and did not feel it was a big deal not deleting it when I moved on; In another I wanted it for reference and I knew I would of been granted permission if I had asked (and even doubt that any laws/contracts made it illegal in the first place). I once even got an email from a past employer asking for a personal backup for a script I had wrote, lucky for him I did.
The problem with these types of practices is that you give these ex employees a legitimated reason to actively try and hurt the company. And they would still have friends there and know the building and network. If they really wanted to they should still be able to cause massive damage, and they have far more reason to do it now.
And how in hell is best practices to allow an employee to come in to work and receive a pay-check for a week after they would have a good chance of guessing that they are already fired. Best security is not to remove a network account, but to not allow them in the building.
That would depend on what "reasonable market" means.
Why would the trades likely be voluntary, are we talking about some sort of socialist society where government has gone to extreme measures to eliminate monopolies and feud? If it is in a market where involuntarily trades are possible then those kinds of trades will always be more profitable then the others and naturally propagate. "you plan to be around for a while, it usually is." But immediate profit is always significantly more important then future profit. AKA percent value of future profits (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discounted_cash_flow)
What is the point of making an augment about trade that is only valid when both parties end up happy with it and their was no fraud? Of course that trade was good (assuming there was not some third party influenced).
And how does this tie into profit? Are you saying that if people trade, and are happy with said trade, and neither of them lied, then the more profit both of them made the more morally right that trade was? Assuming specific definitions of a few of those words, I cannot say I disagree with you, but using those definitions the statement is so self evident that I cannot see why anyone would say it, and does not appear to be applicable to my comment or this article in the least.
Or maybe it is simply that all peered reviewed papers get reviewed. And it is simply that climate change is a fact and it is happening ~ like we believe it is so all reviews of those papers turn up no problems.
So even in the most like a traditional magazine format where it is sold to readers the authors at best get free publishing?
Magazine = multiple authors and repeated publishing resulting in issues. How does this differ from a journal? I just looked it up and I am pretty sure a scientific Journey is simply a specific type of magazine, specifically one dedicated to furthering scientific research and spreading knowledge of said research (in theory anyways, I am sure some exist to spread personal agendas).
Normally any-kind of author gets paid to write, not the other way around. I though scientific papers just published in journals (magazines basically) and the readers paid to read them.
Is this for authors who no one wants to read? Or authors who want to go it alone and try and sell individual papers themself's?
Yes having an organic industry mitigates the danger as not everything is GMO (assuming that GMOs stay as unacceptable to organics). And preserving grains and other genetics in seedbanks and similar is important and provides a big safety net.
But you cannot just say that since we have a parachute it does not matter how you fly the plane, to use an analogy.
Also it does not matter how many private companies are performing genetic engineering, they will never produce the same variety of genetic diversity as nature where every single individual grain seed is unique. They will not even have something approaching that, and they would never try because it is not economical. Could I conceive of genetic engineering being used in the future such that you have a few varieties that each have many many sub-varieties suited to specific climates, yes. Would the system as a whole still likely be too genetically similar to be safe, yes. Am I making assumptions and judgements based on my feelings, it is possible, but I still think that GMOs are inherently monoculture oriented.
I meant promoting a agricultural monoculture. Like having three strains of wheat instead of 3 thousand, each with huge genetic variability inside of them.
Well I would not say that I do have evidence, but it might not be of the kind you would be satisfied with (and I would not blame you, I very well might argue against myself in the same situation). I would argue that "the change is approached from a very different angle" is self evident, the processes are simply very different.
That these different methods yield different types of results, I don't have any data on this. But I THINK just using statistical models you could prove that it is extremely unlikely for the guided randomness of evolution to produce similar results to the surgical methods of GMO production.
On the topic of which one is inherently safer, you are right neither really seems theoretically inherently absolutely better than the other. But we have millions of years of data/evidence that would seem to suggest that evolution does not produce harmful things like this (tens fo thousands for agriculture) and in particular when you have a good interdependency going on that one of them does not just evolve and kill the other (and by extension itself). Evolution seems to work quite well, and if it screws up and unbalances entire ecosystems at times then I am surprised I have never heard of it.
Everyone is so scared, mostly, because of all the really scary things they have already done with it. because GMOs are pretty much inherently a monoculture, inherently patentable, and are responsible for stuff such as the terminator varieties.
To separate the potential for good from the known bad is both impossible and illogical. It is like saying dictatorships are so much more efficient and all together a better model for government, lets just ignore Hitler.
HMM? You are comparing what some crazy, negligent to the apocalyptic consequences, farmers have done to GMOs. And how exactly does one of a multitude of genetically identically plants be different? If they use this method are they not cut evolution out of the equation? An actual reasonable non-GMO based agriculture business would mitigate the risks of evolution created dangerous foods to an extreme minimum.
But I cannot comment on the likelihood of evolution randomly generating a poisonous/otherwise dangerous plant from an edible one (particularly one that in a single generation is dangerous at all). I have never heard of this happening and I will admit that you cannot be in-depth testing of every single generation of the evolution of a plant being grown for consumption. But while you say, "Most times with GMO, a single nuclitide base pair is altered, exactly what you would expect with evolution", I cannot stop thinking that a new GMO produces a useful and quite big change while a single step in evolution does not. It does not seem conceivable to go from a non-poison to a poison in one step in evolution (particularly while also improving a good quality of itself), while a lot more complex things are done in most new GMOs.
"fighting hunger" -> The world produces far more food then it could even eat let alone what is necessary right now. Also GMOs, since they are patented and that is how you get terminator genes, are one of the biggest issues causing/potentially causing in the future hunger and food shortages. "better nutrition" -> We already have tons of super nutritious foods. unfortunately modern agriculture has been breeding nutrition out of their crops for decades, pretty much every food processor removes everything good with the food that they are processing, and no restaurants, snack, or junk food manufacturers ever care how good their food is for you. So if scientists succeeded and made a whole line of super foods we would be in the exact same situation as we are now. The only possible solution to (particularly America's) current nutrition problem while maintaining a moderately similar world otherwise would be for government mandated nutrition levels in all foods (and making/enforcing parents to feed their children properly [if your 16 YO son has diabetes, you are criminally negligent]).
"fighting pollution, water conservation, ect." -> I don't believe those issues have anything to do with GMOs... (I assume you are going to post back about how this one crack pot scientist has some theory that some GMO might be able to slightly help in these areas?)
"GMO just does what human controlled breeding would take longer to accomplish." Not really, the change is approached from a very different angle and creates a inherently different result. You might get a similar effect if you used both approaches to get a specific desired effect but it would be a very different plant internally and the side effects of the change would be very different.
Also there are inherent problems with it being so fast. When you can create a new different plant and then have it on consumers plates in a handful of years their is far more risk than a crop strain which was developed over decades/centuries.
It is only a dent if you believe that a GH or RB game was really worth 5 times more then another blockbuster game that just used a keyboard and mouse.
Yes if money is little to no object then a proprietary controller is absolutely the way to go. For the rest of the world they would of been happier buying 5 others games and playing GH at their friends house.
In some specific situations yes, but in others the occupant is perfectly fine but did thousands of dollars of Damage to their car. And making a car more bullet resistant is in high demand from many sectors.
IMHO If real work means anything, then it means accomplishing a real physical goal that benefits mankind (software can count). Not advertising, marketing, finance, etc.
Well they are humans speaking to humans about the future of human civilization. There is enough time before the sun expands and destroys the earth to come full circle, unless all life was extinguished their is probably enough time left to create a new advanced civilization from microbes or cockroaches.
But on the scale of human civilization, it likely would be irreversible as the species would likely be extinct long before it was back to "normal".
Slashdot Mirror
In this sense I think they said offensive hacker instead of defence oriented security expert.
Well theoretically if there exists offensive and defensive security experts (like this article implies) then the defensive oriented ones would be better at defence.
But in this particular case Canadian law, or any other for that matter, will give you very little protection. Online ads, and spam messages receive very little to no oversight. If you were ordering pills from a Canadian ad in TV or radio, sure you probably are protected moderately well.
Well at the very least you have to assume that someone trying to sell you a drug with limited ad space is far less likely to disclose all the potential side effects and dangers then your local pharmacist/doctor (who are legally bound to not lie to you).
I cannot understand why anyone would see an add for drugs online and actually go ahead and purchase that online without doing to your doctor/pharmacist, talking to them about the drug and then getting it through official channels.
You have no reason to believe that any claims made by someone trying to sell you drugs online are true, and no reason to believe that the little white pills shipped to you are even what you ordered. At the very very least, you cannot be at all confident that other medications yo are taking do not conflict or you have some other physical attributes that make taking it dangerous.
Depends on the situation. I think I have/had the source code for everything I ever worked on. Sometimes it is simply not that confidential. In my case as part of my job I had it on my computer, and did not feel it was a big deal not deleting it when I moved on; In another I wanted it for reference and I knew I would of been granted permission if I had asked (and even doubt that any laws/contracts made it illegal in the first place).
I once even got an email from a past employer asking for a personal backup for a script I had wrote, lucky for him I did.
The problem with these types of practices is that you give these ex employees a legitimated reason to actively try and hurt the company. And they would still have friends there and know the building and network. If they really wanted to they should still be able to cause massive damage, and they have far more reason to do it now.
And how in hell is best practices to allow an employee to come in to work and receive a pay-check for a week after they would have a good chance of guessing that they are already fired. Best security is not to remove a network account, but to not allow them in the building.
That would depend on what "reasonable market" means.
Why would the trades likely be voluntary, are we talking about some sort of socialist society where government has gone to extreme measures to eliminate monopolies and feud? If it is in a market where involuntarily trades are possible then those kinds of trades will always be more profitable then the others and naturally propagate.
"you plan to be around for a while, it usually is." But immediate profit is always significantly more important then future profit. AKA percent value of future profits (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discounted_cash_flow)
I don't understand what you are trying to say.
What is the point of making an augment about trade that is only valid when both parties end up happy with it and their was no fraud?
Of course that trade was good (assuming there was not some third party influenced).
And how does this tie into profit?
Are you saying that if people trade, and are happy with said trade, and neither of them lied, then the more profit both of them made the more morally right that trade was?
Assuming specific definitions of a few of those words, I cannot say I disagree with you, but using those definitions the statement is so self evident that I cannot see why anyone would say it, and does not appear to be applicable to my comment or this article in the least.
In this one speciality situation where the right thing to do coincided with the easiest thing to do and the most profitable.
And you saying that the right thing to do is always the easiest or most profitable?
Or maybe it is simply that all peered reviewed papers get reviewed. And it is simply that climate change is a fact and it is happening ~ like we believe it is so all reviews of those papers turn up no problems.
So even in the most like a traditional magazine format where it is sold to readers the authors at best get free publishing?
Magazine = multiple authors and repeated publishing resulting in issues.
How does this differ from a journal? I just looked it up and I am pretty sure a scientific Journey is simply a specific type of magazine, specifically one dedicated to furthering scientific research and spreading knowledge of said research (in theory anyways, I am sure some exist to spread personal agendas).
Normally any-kind of author gets paid to write, not the other way around. I though scientific papers just published in journals (magazines basically) and the readers paid to read them.
Is this for authors who no one wants to read? Or authors who want to go it alone and try and sell individual papers themself's?
I have to disagree with your conclusion.
Yes having an organic industry mitigates the danger as not everything is GMO (assuming that GMOs stay as unacceptable to organics).
And preserving grains and other genetics in seedbanks and similar is important and provides a big safety net.
But you cannot just say that since we have a parachute it does not matter how you fly the plane, to use an analogy.
Also it does not matter how many private companies are performing genetic engineering, they will never produce the same variety of genetic diversity as nature where every single individual grain seed is unique. They will not even have something approaching that, and they would never try because it is not economical. Could I conceive of genetic engineering being used in the future such that you have a few varieties that each have many many sub-varieties suited to specific climates, yes. Would the system as a whole still likely be too genetically similar to be safe, yes. Am I making assumptions and judgements based on my feelings, it is possible, but I still think that GMOs are inherently monoculture oriented.
I meant promoting a agricultural monoculture. Like having three strains of wheat instead of 3 thousand, each with huge genetic variability inside of them.
Well I would not say that I do have evidence, but it might not be of the kind you would be satisfied with (and I would not blame you, I very well might argue against myself in the same situation).
I would argue that "the change is approached from a very different angle" is self evident, the processes are simply very different.
That these different methods yield different types of results, I don't have any data on this. But I THINK just using statistical models you could prove that it is extremely unlikely for the guided randomness of evolution to produce similar results to the surgical methods of GMO production.
On the topic of which one is inherently safer, you are right neither really seems theoretically inherently absolutely better than the other. But we have millions of years of data/evidence that would seem to suggest that evolution does not produce harmful things like this (tens fo thousands for agriculture) and in particular when you have a good interdependency going on that one of them does not just evolve and kill the other (and by extension itself). Evolution seems to work quite well, and if it screws up and unbalances entire ecosystems at times then I am surprised I have never heard of it.
Everyone is so scared, mostly, because of all the really scary things they have already done with it. because GMOs are pretty much inherently a monoculture, inherently patentable, and are responsible for stuff such as the terminator varieties.
To separate the potential for good from the known bad is both impossible and illogical. It is like saying dictatorships are so much more efficient and all together a better model for government, lets just ignore Hitler.
HMM?
You are comparing what some crazy, negligent to the apocalyptic consequences, farmers have done to GMOs.
And how exactly does one of a multitude of genetically identically plants be different? If they use this method are they not cut evolution out of the equation?
An actual reasonable non-GMO based agriculture business would mitigate the risks of evolution created dangerous foods to an extreme minimum.
But I cannot comment on the likelihood of evolution randomly generating a poisonous/otherwise dangerous plant from an edible one (particularly one that in a single generation is dangerous at all). I have never heard of this happening and I will admit that you cannot be in-depth testing of every single generation of the evolution of a plant being grown for consumption.
But while you say, "Most times with GMO, a single nuclitide base pair is altered, exactly what you would expect with evolution", I cannot stop thinking that a new GMO produces a useful and quite big change while a single step in evolution does not. It does not seem conceivable to go from a non-poison to a poison in one step in evolution (particularly while also improving a good quality of itself), while a lot more complex things are done in most new GMOs.
"fighting hunger" -> The world produces far more food then it could even eat let alone what is necessary right now. Also GMOs, since they are patented and that is how you get terminator genes, are one of the biggest issues causing/potentially causing in the future hunger and food shortages.
"better nutrition" -> We already have tons of super nutritious foods. unfortunately modern agriculture has been breeding nutrition out of their crops for decades, pretty much every food processor removes everything good with the food that they are processing, and no restaurants, snack, or junk food manufacturers ever care how good their food is for you. So if scientists succeeded and made a whole line of super foods we would be in the exact same situation as we are now. The only possible solution to (particularly America's) current nutrition problem while maintaining a moderately similar world otherwise would be for government mandated nutrition levels in all foods (and making/enforcing parents to feed their children properly [if your 16 YO son has diabetes, you are criminally negligent]).
"fighting pollution, water conservation, ect." -> I don't believe those issues have anything to do with GMOs... (I assume you are going to post back about how this one crack pot scientist has some theory that some GMO might be able to slightly help in these areas?)
"GMO just does what human controlled breeding would take longer to accomplish."
Not really, the change is approached from a very different angle and creates a inherently different result.
You might get a similar effect if you used both approaches to get a specific desired effect but it would be a very different plant internally and the side effects of the change would be very different.
Also there are inherent problems with it being so fast. When you can create a new different plant and then have it on consumers plates in a handful of years their is far more risk than a crop strain which was developed over decades/centuries.
It is only a dent if you believe that a GH or RB game was really worth 5 times more then another blockbuster game that just used a keyboard and mouse.
Yes if money is little to no object then a proprietary controller is absolutely the way to go. For the rest of the world they would of been happier buying 5 others games and playing GH at their friends house.
I don't think any game requiring proprietary hardware will ever be worth it.
In some specific situations yes, but in others the occupant is perfectly fine but did thousands of dollars of Damage to their car.
And making a car more bullet resistant is in high demand from many sectors.
IMHO If real work means anything, then it means accomplishing a real physical goal that benefits mankind (software can count).
Not advertising, marketing, finance, etc.
Well they are humans speaking to humans about the future of human civilization. There is enough time before the sun expands and destroys the earth to come full circle, unless all life was extinguished their is probably enough time left to create a new advanced civilization from microbes or cockroaches.
But on the scale of human civilization, it likely would be irreversible as the species would likely be extinct long before it was back to "normal".