Also, the internet has become a major portion of our communications and cultural dissemination and participation. As such, interfering with it potentially infringes upon our already 'guaranteed' rights.
Just imagine what it would be like if you wanted to walk downtown and talk to George Arneston, maybe give him that invite to your birthday party. But you have to pay Sidewalk-Co a $20/month fee to walk faster than 5'/minute downtown. If that wasn't bad enough, George is a member of the organization WalkFree which Sidewalk-Co doesn't really like because they are in competition with them for the pedestrian transportation contract. Why is that bad? Because every time you try to go talk to George, Sidewalk-Co blocks the sidewalk so you can't get to George. Of course maybe you could get to him, if you went through all the back alleys and cut across a few empty weed choked lots, but that's going to take all day, and even then you'll only get a sentence or two out before Sidewalk-Co sets up a new block that separates you from George. That's what the real world would be like if it were the internet, and net neutrality isn't enforced. I know it's not that bad in most parts of the net right now, but it's still a frontier town, and people attempting to proclaim that they own the sidewalks is pretty much laughed at. Problem is they have lawyers, connections, and other resources. Some of them are already testing the waters, so to speak. If we don't act now, greed and anti-competitiveness with turn the internet into a series of roadblocks and restrictions. That's why we need Net Neutrality, so we can stroll around the internet unimpeded.
Oh now that would be sweet if you did it right. How about messing with the altitude coordinate.
I can just imagine the Onstar tech, "Sir, I show you at... WTF!?!?! FOURTEEN THOUSAND FEET!!!! errr.....".
Exactly! The bug bounties are doing exactly what they are supposed to, give people other than the devs an incentive to find and report bugs. Something that previously usually only happened if it actually inconvenienced the user. Just because they are finding more bugs and glitches than expected in no way means they are somehow generating them for profit. That's why the analogy usually used it regarding bounty hunting. You are finding the unwanted elements and turning them in for profit, as opposed to the rat farming scam (or snake farming scam in the USA) where you are actually creating/supplying the unwanted element so you can turn them in for profit. There is a big difference between finding and creating, too bad the patent examiners that handle gene patents can't seem to understand that.
Way too late for that. So do you think their plan is to use a juxtaposition of porn and animal torture to create an army of Sadistic Bestiality Fetishists through Pavlovian Response Training?
Will they also be including the tinkling bell sound every time you go to their website?
Insulin comes from a variety of sources to meet the medical requirements of patients. The one from bacteria is human insulin (product name 'Humalin', and they inserted the human gene for making insulin into a bacteria. There's more to it than that, but that's a whole article.), while most of the rest of the insulin on the market is either bovine (cow) or porcine (pig). Before the creation of Humalin, those two were just about all there was. I've heard tell there was a very limited amount of human insulin available, but it required the destruction of huge quantities of human blood to make, so it was only made available to a few of the people that couldn't take the others due to allergies or other complications. I don't have verification of that, and if you really want to know, go look it up yourself.
I've never heard of anyone using canine (dog) insulin, but if it's true (probably isn't), it has to be really really rare.
No matter what, we know they will be abused. They always have been, they always will be. The only way to change that is to fundamentally change humans, and I don't see that happening for a very very long time.
It tried to overwrite it with garbage, thus corrupting it. Kind of like blowing up your car with dynamite isn't the same thing as stealing it. Most of the time all CIH succeeded at was trashing the BIOS settings stored in CMOS. Clean the infector, reset the BIOS, save the changes and you were done.
It's amazing how low the understanding of what malware is and does has fallen. By the way, the antivirus industry has been aware that it would be possible to write a bios infector the moment software the update-able bios became available. Fortunately most writers of malware are pretty incompetent as far as programming goes, though this did take about 6 years longer than I expected.
My 6 year old daughter tests as having an extreme allergy to peanuts. As per doctors orders she hasn't been exposed to peanuts and always has an injector for emergencies (which is a real pain at school since they have a no-drugs policy that won't even let them have emergency medicines).
As informed by multiple doctors, including allergy specialists, detecting as having an allergy doesn't necessarily mean you are actually allergic, or necessarily will have a really bad reaction. Unfortunately, peanuts are one of those things that if you test positive, you most likely are, and that your reaction will be as bad as you test. My daughter tests at the maximum result so there is no way in hell I'm going to risk her dying from a reaction. We aren't talking a rash or itchy throat, we are talking asphyxiation and death. Would you risk it? Even if it was only 20% probable? Neither will I.
The school she goes to is NOT a peanut free zone, but it does encourage non-peanut alternatives. You know what? I don't have a problem with that, so long as they don't expose my daughter to it. Also, I've been told that they try to explain to students what allergies are, and to not share food with other students because it might hurt them. (There are several students with peanut allergies, among others there.)
Unfortunately my daughter is also allergic to other things, including a severe grass allergy. But those are almost never lethal. In her case her eyes go red, nose runs, and she's pretty miserable, but give her a dose of zyrtec and she's running around the playground giggling in 20 minutes. She also tests strongly positive on a cat allergy, and she's never had a reaction to those. She loves everything fluffy, but prefers dogs over cats.
Don't assume the parents are responsible for an over reaction of a local institution, and don't ever expect them to accept a risk to their childs life for your menu convenience.
Assuming of course they don't get the idea that the radio telescopes are sucking in radio waves. Considering I've talked to people literally afraid their computers would catch an airborne computer virus from their fax machine, I'm not going to put it past them...
And the bigger the database of pre-existing papers on a limited subject, the more likely that any phrasing will have segments that duplicate a prior work. Also, the more the same source information is used, again, the more likely for statistical duplication. I know mathematicians and statisticians have a term for these kinds of things where theoretically there are a mind boggling number of possible results, but due to constraints on both input and output, the actual results tend to be of a rather limited subset.
Think about it, if you are at a high class charity formal dinner, and you want the salt shaker that's on the other side of the table and you can't get it yourself, how are you going to ask for it? Sure there are at least hundreds of ways, but there's only a tiny handful you'll actually use unless you want to be shunned or kicked out for inappropriate speech. Under those circumstances what if several other people also want the salt? How likely are you to hear one or more of them saying the same thing you did. I know that's a simplified example, but it illustrates the point. The 'tool' of Turnitin will highlight possible suspects, but it can't be relied upon to actually determine if there really was plagiarism.
Before they started marketing to those that want to avoid getting caught, I knew of a couple of students that used Turnitin before turning their papers in to make sure there was nothing a lazy teacher would try to accuse them of copying. Those two did their own work and didn't plagiarize, they were just paranoid about that one teacher. Of course, other students could have been using it to cheat, but who knows.
And they always blame the victim, but I know of at least one time it was one of their employees looting accounts that hadn't been logged into for a while so hopefully the users wouldn't notice. Of course when he finally got caught, they kept it quiet and continued to blame the users.
I'm not saying this is an inside job, but it's a definite possibility. (If someone was running a dictionary attack on Itunes, it would noticed if they have even halfway competent security. And although phishing occurs, it's never a complete answer and can usually be avoided with reasonable vigilance. After all, it's not like they don't know which ip or iphone it's going to.)
It kind of works for the old CRTs since the phosphors remain excited long enough that both scans of the electron beam leave a single image with that many lines as far as our slow to respond eyes are concerned.
On the other hand, if showing 540 lines to one eye, and 540 lines to the other eye is the same as 1080, then the ones that show 1080 lines to one eye, and 1080 lines to the other eye will have to be labeled 2160p.
The obvious problem those idiots didn't think about is that it's NOT showing you 540 + 540 lines, it's showing 540 lines from the left eyes viewpoint + the SAME 540 lines from the right eyes viewpoint. (morons)
Ok, so the last space shuttle ever is dropping off supplies, food and parts, for the guys on Space Station Alpha (aka International Space Station). Ever wonder how they are going to get home? Jumping out really isn't an answer.
(I know, they'll have the euro thing send up a rocket or something. Or maybe they'll use the escape capsule, assuming they ever got it up and working. Last I heard it wasn't, but it's not like the news reports on that stuff much. But even so, can you imagine what'll be running through their minds when the shuttle leaves?)
You wouldn't believe how many people I've talked to in a panic because they are having an issue and need to access the server, but the ONLY person with the key or password is unreachable. (On vacation with no contact number, not responding for some reason, or in a couple of cases, recently deceased.)
I know security people will often tell you to limit these things, especially passwords, so that only one person has it and it's not written down. Ignore that. You need to control access, but not so tightly that if one thing goes wrong your company is screwed. Always have a password log, and have it stored in a safe and fireproof location. Same with duplicate keys. It's actually safest if there are 2 backups, and at least one kept at a separate location. (In case of fire, flood, building blowing up, etc.) Obviously keep those secure, like in a safe. Is this 100% security on those things? No, but there's no such thing as 100% security, but it will allow you to keep reasonable security and acceptable ability to respond to emergencies. Both are important, and ignoring one to favor the other will eventually leave you screwed.
And follow the same advice for backups, you need them, they may fail, and they can get destroyed just like everything else. (Easier in a lot of cases.)
Not even close. The fish in no way modified the rock or chose a rock based on specific attributes that uniquely qualify it for the task at hand. It just banged it against the nearest rock, not a difficult feat in a reef. If that's all it takes to call it tool use, then digging a nest or hiding in a crevice qualifies as tool use.
I've always been under the impression that a 'tool' has to be either intentionally modified for the intended task (like stripping the leaves off a twig) or selected for some very specific set of properties (a rock of a specific size and weight that is easily held and can be used to pound something). Seems to me there are very possibly fish out there somewhere that actually use tools, but banging a clam against the reef just doesn't seem to qualify.
I also don't consider spitting tool using either, so rays getting food out of a pipe by blowing doesn't work either. I'm sure if people keep up the observations, it will eventually be found, but stop trying to lower the required evidence bar to validate your desires.
Wow! This ignorant bozo (or lying douchebag that's going to get someone killed) doesn't know jack about the most basic components of cellular biology or mineralogy.
Mod down that idiot before anyone stupid and/or ignorant reads it and doesn't know its total B.S. of the lowest caliber. (I don't have any mod points this week.)
Boston has massively overreacted to so much innocuous stuff over the past few years I had fully expected it to be them again. This time it was the U.K., go figure...
Yeah, but that's a shape charge. You don't use those to try and kill people, and the explosive really needs to be in contact (or so bloody close it doesn't matter) to get those kinds of effects. Only a moron tries to kill people with a shaped charge. Now there are cases where people tried to do assassinations with shape charges, but they were used to propel a metal plate at a car, so it's like a big shotgun effect with spalling. Although that sucker was crammed in a mailbox, and the car was probably no more than 10 feet away if I remember right.
Slashdot Mirror
Also, the internet has become a major portion of our communications and cultural dissemination and participation. As such, interfering with it potentially infringes upon our already 'guaranteed' rights.
Just imagine what it would be like if you wanted to walk downtown and talk to George Arneston, maybe give him that invite to your birthday party. But you have to pay Sidewalk-Co a $20/month fee to walk faster than 5'/minute downtown. If that wasn't bad enough, George is a member of the organization WalkFree which Sidewalk-Co doesn't really like because they are in competition with them for the pedestrian transportation contract. Why is that bad? Because every time you try to go talk to George, Sidewalk-Co blocks the sidewalk so you can't get to George. Of course maybe you could get to him, if you went through all the back alleys and cut across a few empty weed choked lots, but that's going to take all day, and even then you'll only get a sentence or two out before Sidewalk-Co sets up a new block that separates you from George.
That's what the real world would be like if it were the internet, and net neutrality isn't enforced. I know it's not that bad in most parts of the net right now, but it's still a frontier town, and people attempting to proclaim that they own the sidewalks is pretty much laughed at. Problem is they have lawyers, connections, and other resources. Some of them are already testing the waters, so to speak. If we don't act now, greed and anti-competitiveness with turn the internet into a series of roadblocks and restrictions. That's why we need Net Neutrality, so we can stroll around the internet unimpeded.
First of all, no. Second, in practice it really only takes an accusation of infringement, not actual proof.
Oh now that would be sweet if you did it right. How about messing with the altitude coordinate.
I can just imagine the Onstar tech, "Sir, I show you at... WTF!?!?! FOURTEEN THOUSAND FEET!!!! errr.....".
Or install a switch so you can turn it on if you want it for some reason.
Exactly! The bug bounties are doing exactly what they are supposed to, give people other than the devs an incentive to find and report bugs. Something that previously usually only happened if it actually inconvenienced the user. Just because they are finding more bugs and glitches than expected in no way means they are somehow generating them for profit. That's why the analogy usually used it regarding bounty hunting. You are finding the unwanted elements and turning them in for profit, as opposed to the rat farming scam (or snake farming scam in the USA) where you are actually creating/supplying the unwanted element so you can turn them in for profit. There is a big difference between finding and creating, too bad the patent examiners that handle gene patents can't seem to understand that.
Way too late for that. So do you think their plan is to use a juxtaposition of porn and animal torture to create an army of Sadistic Bestiality Fetishists through Pavlovian Response Training?
Will they also be including the tinkling bell sound every time you go to their website?
"...but it would take a really sick mind to perform pavlovian expriments like that..."
You mean like PETA ?
Insulin comes from a variety of sources to meet the medical requirements of patients. The one from bacteria is human insulin (product name 'Humalin', and they inserted the human gene for making insulin into a bacteria. There's more to it than that, but that's a whole article.), while most of the rest of the insulin on the market is either bovine (cow) or porcine (pig).
Before the creation of Humalin, those two were just about all there was.
I've heard tell there was a very limited amount of human insulin available, but it required the destruction of huge quantities of human blood to make, so it was only made available to a few of the people that couldn't take the others due to allergies or other complications. I don't have verification of that, and if you really want to know, go look it up yourself.
I've never heard of anyone using canine (dog) insulin, but if it's true (probably isn't), it has to be really really rare.
Why not? They've both gone way beyond the bounds of reason and good taste and are now just into sick ineffectual theater performances...
No matter what, we know they will be abused. They always have been, they always will be. The only way to change that is to fundamentally change humans, and I don't see that happening for a very very long time.
Last time I checked, judges all used to be lawyers before moving up, so... ummm... I'm kind of making your point, aren't I.
It tried to overwrite it with garbage, thus corrupting it. Kind of like blowing up your car with dynamite isn't the same thing as stealing it.
Most of the time all CIH succeeded at was trashing the BIOS settings stored in CMOS. Clean the infector, reset the BIOS, save the changes and you were done.
It's amazing how low the understanding of what malware is and does has fallen. By the way, the antivirus industry has been aware that it would be possible to write a bios infector the moment software the update-able bios became available. Fortunately most writers of malware are pretty incompetent as far as programming goes, though this did take about 6 years longer than I expected.
My 6 year old daughter tests as having an extreme allergy to peanuts. As per doctors orders she hasn't been exposed to peanuts and always has an injector for emergencies (which is a real pain at school since they have a no-drugs policy that won't even let them have emergency medicines).
As informed by multiple doctors, including allergy specialists, detecting as having an allergy doesn't necessarily mean you are actually allergic, or necessarily will have a really bad reaction. Unfortunately, peanuts are one of those things that if you test positive, you most likely are, and that your reaction will be as bad as you test. My daughter tests at the maximum result so there is no way in hell I'm going to risk her dying from a reaction. We aren't talking a rash or itchy throat, we are talking asphyxiation and death. Would you risk it? Even if it was only 20% probable? Neither will I.
The school she goes to is NOT a peanut free zone, but it does encourage non-peanut alternatives. You know what? I don't have a problem with that, so long as they don't expose my daughter to it. Also, I've been told that they try to explain to students what allergies are, and to not share food with other students because it might hurt them. (There are several students with peanut allergies, among others there.)
Unfortunately my daughter is also allergic to other things, including a severe grass allergy. But those are almost never lethal. In her case her eyes go red, nose runs, and she's pretty miserable, but give her a dose of zyrtec and she's running around the playground giggling in 20 minutes. She also tests strongly positive on a cat allergy, and she's never had a reaction to those. She loves everything fluffy, but prefers dogs over cats.
Don't assume the parents are responsible for an over reaction of a local institution, and don't ever expect them to accept a risk to their childs life for your menu convenience.
As to the blind tests, there have been several, they all were all shown to be psychosomatic. (Not affected by EM radiations.)
Assuming of course they don't get the idea that the radio telescopes are sucking in radio waves.
Considering I've talked to people literally afraid their computers would catch an airborne computer virus from their fax machine, I'm not going to put it past them...
And the bigger the database of pre-existing papers on a limited subject, the more likely that any phrasing will have segments that duplicate a prior work.
Also, the more the same source information is used, again, the more likely for statistical duplication.
I know mathematicians and statisticians have a term for these kinds of things where theoretically there are a mind boggling number of possible results, but due to constraints on both input and output, the actual results tend to be of a rather limited subset.
Think about it, if you are at a high class charity formal dinner, and you want the salt shaker that's on the other side of the table and you can't get it yourself, how are you going to ask for it? Sure there are at least hundreds of ways, but there's only a tiny handful you'll actually use unless you want to be shunned or kicked out for inappropriate speech. Under those circumstances what if several other people also want the salt? How likely are you to hear one or more of them saying the same thing you did.
I know that's a simplified example, but it illustrates the point. The 'tool' of Turnitin will highlight possible suspects, but it can't be relied upon to actually determine if there really was plagiarism.
Before they started marketing to those that want to avoid getting caught, I knew of a couple of students that used Turnitin before turning their papers in to make sure there was nothing a lazy teacher would try to accuse them of copying. Those two did their own work and didn't plagiarize, they were just paranoid about that one teacher. Of course, other students could have been using it to cheat, but who knows.
And they always blame the victim, but I know of at least one time it was one of their employees looting accounts that hadn't been logged into for a while so hopefully the users wouldn't notice. Of course when he finally got caught, they kept it quiet and continued to blame the users.
I'm not saying this is an inside job, but it's a definite possibility. (If someone was running a dictionary attack on Itunes, it would noticed if they have even halfway competent security. And although phishing occurs, it's never a complete answer and can usually be avoided with reasonable vigilance. After all, it's not like they don't know which ip or iphone it's going to.)
It kind of works for the old CRTs since the phosphors remain excited long enough that both scans of the electron beam leave a single image with that many lines as far as our slow to respond eyes are concerned.
On the other hand, if showing 540 lines to one eye, and 540 lines to the other eye is the same as 1080, then the ones that show 1080 lines to one eye, and 1080 lines to the other eye will have to be labeled 2160p.
The obvious problem those idiots didn't think about is that it's NOT showing you 540 + 540 lines, it's showing 540 lines from the left eyes viewpoint + the SAME 540 lines from the right eyes viewpoint. (morons)
Ok, so the last space shuttle ever is dropping off supplies, food and parts, for the guys on Space Station Alpha (aka International Space Station). Ever wonder how they are going to get home? Jumping out really isn't an answer.
(I know, they'll have the euro thing send up a rocket or something. Or maybe they'll use the escape capsule, assuming they ever got it up and working. Last I heard it wasn't, but it's not like the news reports on that stuff much. But even so, can you imagine what'll be running through their minds when the shuttle leaves?)
You wouldn't believe how many people I've talked to in a panic because they are having an issue and need to access the server, but the ONLY person with the key or password is unreachable. (On vacation with no contact number, not responding for some reason, or in a couple of cases, recently deceased.)
I know security people will often tell you to limit these things, especially passwords, so that only one person has it and it's not written down. Ignore that. You need to control access, but not so tightly that if one thing goes wrong your company is screwed. Always have a password log, and have it stored in a safe and fireproof location. Same with duplicate keys. It's actually safest if there are 2 backups, and at least one kept at a separate location. (In case of fire, flood, building blowing up, etc.) Obviously keep those secure, like in a safe. Is this 100% security on those things? No, but there's no such thing as 100% security, but it will allow you to keep reasonable security and acceptable ability to respond to emergencies. Both are important, and ignoring one to favor the other will eventually leave you screwed.
And follow the same advice for backups, you need them, they may fail, and they can get destroyed just like everything else. (Easier in a lot of cases.)
Not even close. The fish in no way modified the rock or chose a rock based on specific attributes that uniquely qualify it for the task at hand. It just banged it against the nearest rock, not a difficult feat in a reef. If that's all it takes to call it tool use, then digging a nest or hiding in a crevice qualifies as tool use.
I've always been under the impression that a 'tool' has to be either intentionally modified for the intended task (like stripping the leaves off a twig) or selected for some very specific set of properties (a rock of a specific size and weight that is easily held and can be used to pound something).
Seems to me there are very possibly fish out there somewhere that actually use tools, but banging a clam against the reef just doesn't seem to qualify.
I also don't consider spitting tool using either, so rays getting food out of a pipe by blowing doesn't work either. I'm sure if people keep up the observations, it will eventually be found, but stop trying to lower the required evidence bar to validate your desires.
Wow! This ignorant bozo (or lying douchebag that's going to get someone killed) doesn't know jack about the most basic components of cellular biology or mineralogy.
Mod down that idiot before anyone stupid and/or ignorant reads it and doesn't know its total B.S. of the lowest caliber.
(I don't have any mod points this week.)
Boston has massively overreacted to so much innocuous stuff over the past few years I had fully expected it to be them again.
This time it was the U.K., go figure...
Yeah, but that's a shape charge. You don't use those to try and kill people, and the explosive really needs to be in contact (or so bloody close it doesn't matter) to get those kinds of effects. Only a moron tries to kill people with a shaped charge.
Now there are cases where people tried to do assassinations with shape charges, but they were used to propel a metal plate at a car, so it's like a big shotgun effect with spalling. Although that sucker was crammed in a mailbox, and the car was probably no more than 10 feet away if I remember right.