OK. I'm going to repeat my suggestion that they use nitrous oxide. I suppose it could be mixed with enough nitrogen to ensure that it was fatal. (I heard once that people could survive on pure nitrous oxide, but I didn't believe it, however, just in case...add enough nitrogen.)
You're making assumptions about which approaches will work. OTOH, you're right in that life will eventually lead to cancer unless something else kills it first.
I'll grant that the summary sounded like he might be lengthening the teleomeres, but that wasn't really clear. IIRC, it's also been shown that as a simple approach it won't work. The teleomeres are just one marker, and some cell lines don't use them anyway. (E.g., I believe that epidermal cell lines don't use shortened teleomeres to decide not to grow. They depend more no neighbor sensing. But it could be that the study I'm remembering was talking about the cells lining the intestines.)
There are several similar studies. IIRC, the one about young-blood mice decided that the blood of the older mice contained something "poisonous", that could probably be filtered out if they could figure out what it was. I've run across other studies that blamed aging on the increasing proportion of senescent cells. (This isn't actually a contradiction, as possibly the senescent cells generate the chemical, whatever it is.)
Another study that I ran across blamed the problem on the increasing number of cells whose mitochondrial population had become dominated by a mutated version that didn't work well. I'm not sure whether this is a different model or not.
Etc. From the summary this guy looks like an outlier, but who knows, it could be a different way of saying the same thing.
Wrong. If it were based around an earlier version of HTML I might agree, but with HTML5 there's the opportunity for an entirely new selection of things going wrong. Like a video getting stuck in a playback loop.
Well, not precisely. Since we're going into analysis, what's being assumed is that convicted criminals are evenly distributed. There's a lot of evidence that indicates that the laws are unevenly enforced against groups based on phenotype. (Which phenotypes are significant varies.)
So this could be another self-fulfilling prophecy.
I basically agree, but I will note that you are making one false assumption. You're assuming that the false positives are uniformly distributed over the population.
Is there any reason to doubt that they do both? If they do both, then it's not false advertising. They sell themselves to you based on what you want, and the sell your data to fund themselves.
If so, then while it may be reprehensible, it's not false advertising.
Not always. They never reveal the truth, but some are clever enough to say only technically true statements in ways that will cause you to believe as they intend. Not that I've run across one recently.
I think you misunderstand the economic realities, but, yes, if you want to protect yourself against the Chinese, those are reasonable actions. Unfortunately, it would be wise to secure your utility networks, etc. before action. And economically it would probably hurt the US a lot more than it hurt China. If you default on Chinese held securities your credit rating with everyone else will quickly drop to ZZZ, or less unless you've got solid grounds that THEY will accept. Even the less extreme action of freezing them until some "adjustment" is made would be likely to wreck your credit unless there is some exceptionally good reason with solid proof. And this isn't it.
I don't disbelieve the story, at all, but I still think you misunderstand it. Countries have no permanent allies. They are ALL ruled by self-seeking power-hungry individuals. (If they weren't like that, they would never have reached the top. The techniques differ, but not the goals.) And they all spy on each other in any way that won't be too blatant, and especially in any way that's deniable. Please Note: I am not excepting the US. We've been caught at this several times.
This isn't war, this is the continuation of diplomacy by normal means as has been practiced throughout history. It doesn't approach war until the actions escalate to include sabotage..even then it's only a close approach. When the US sabotaged an adversaries nuclear refineries, that wasn't quite war. Very close, but not quite. If umbrage had been taken it could easily have escalated to war. And that that was a US endeavor hasn't really been seriously denied. So don't get on a high horse.
You're being silly. AMD seems to be immune to this class of exploits, but never believe that they don't have exploits of their own. Nothing that complex is without flaws.
The problem, of course, is that you can't fix it by replacing the CPU. Intel doesn't make any fixed CPUs, and the AMD chips require a whole lot of different boards. The cheap way (if your time is worth anything) is to buy a new computer that isn't Intel. But now you're probably getting out of the range of what a small claims court will handle. (Of course, this depends on your actual computer.)
If I read the summary correctly, they haven't yet claimed to have any attacks against AMD, and aren't sure of anyone except Intel. So your comments about "other vendors" seem misguided.
An interesting question might be how long anybody except the investigators has known about the various attacks in sufficient detail to even plan a response. The summary indicates that for *one* of the attacks Intel has known about 90 days. It doesn't even indicate about the others. The only indication seems to be that Intel has planned two waves of microcode updates...one real soon now an the other in about 3 months (90 days?).
FWIW, I'm not really happy with Intel's response history, but this could be an attack on Intel the company where they are coerced into releasing multiple repeated microcode updates, repeatedly damaging their reputation. (Of course, you could reasonably argue that they deserve it.)
It would make that worse. Condorcet doesn't work that well on a hand count system, because there's too much shuffling of ballots. And that isn't even the big problem in most places. In most places the big problem is the amount of additional information the voters need to process to vote as well as they can. But it's still better than "plurality takes all", which is the main US voting system. (It's not majority wins, as most elections are decided with no candidate getting a majority.)
What is this "free market" you talk about? Where can I find it?
The only approximation of the "free market" I can think of is the underground market in illegal drugs. If that's your ideal, then I don't really care for it. I prefer something where one can ensure that one is getting what one purchases, and where one isn't stolen from. That's also an ideal the doesn't exist, but I find it a much more desirable one. P.S.: When a drug starts getting too profitable, the approximation of a free market disappears from the illegal market, also, as there are turf wars to restrict who the customer can do business with.
FWIW, Google isn't that much better than AltaVista was. In some ways I preferred AltaVista. If Google were cut off, something like AltaVista or WebSpider would quickly pop up. And I don't use any Google services except their search, because I don't like something intrusive.
The problem is that the voters don't have much input into the selection of candidates. This is something that can be addressed by things like Instant Runoff Voting. (Well, I prefer Condorcet, but IRV is a lot easier to explain, and it's nearly as good.)
As it is, there wasn't a single candidate in the last Presidential election that I thought desirable. Not in any party on the ballot. Decent candidates know better than to run in minor parties, and the major parties intentionally reject them.
FWIW, I did vote in the last election, but I wasn't disappointed that my candidate lost, only that a more objectionable candidate won.
It doesn't take much to have a Turing Complete system. DNA in a cell *is* such a system. So the problem here isn't that they are lying. But I suspect the only new thing here is the kind of hype they are using.
OTOH, so far I haven't been very impressed by the demonstrations I've heard of. Most of them sound like they work, but they don't look very controllable, and control is the difficult part of a Turing Complete system. (Actually, most of the systems aren't actually Turing Complete, but only recursively Turing Complete. But that suffices for almost all possible uses. And again, the problem is control.)
Outside of more modern tech, how is that different that Brave New World? Or perhaps your version is closer to R.U.R.? (Rossum's Universal Robots...only by robot Karel ÄOEapek meant synthetic human.)
Slashdot Mirror
OK. I'm going to repeat my suggestion that they use nitrous oxide. I suppose it could be mixed with enough nitrogen to ensure that it was fatal. (I heard once that people could survive on pure nitrous oxide, but I didn't believe it, however, just in case...add enough nitrogen.)
I think nitrous oxide would be a better choice. They might not die quickly, but they wouldn't care.
You're making assumptions about which approaches will work. OTOH, you're right in that life will eventually lead to cancer unless something else kills it first.
I'll grant that the summary sounded like he might be lengthening the teleomeres, but that wasn't really clear. IIRC, it's also been shown that as a simple approach it won't work. The teleomeres are just one marker, and some cell lines don't use them anyway. (E.g., I believe that epidermal cell lines don't use shortened teleomeres to decide not to grow. They depend more no neighbor sensing. But it could be that the study I'm remembering was talking about the cells lining the intestines.)
There are several similar studies. IIRC, the one about young-blood mice decided that the blood of the older mice contained something "poisonous", that could probably be filtered out if they could figure out what it was. I've run across other studies that blamed aging on the increasing proportion of senescent cells. (This isn't actually a contradiction, as possibly the senescent cells generate the chemical, whatever it is.)
Another study that I ran across blamed the problem on the increasing number of cells whose mitochondrial population had become dominated by a mutated version that didn't work well. I'm not sure whether this is a different model or not.
Etc. From the summary this guy looks like an outlier, but who knows, it could be a different way of saying the same thing.
My first thought was "The Google answer to the Microsoft paperclip.".
Wrong. If it were based around an earlier version of HTML I might agree, but with HTML5 there's the opportunity for an entirely new selection of things going wrong. Like a video getting stuck in a playback loop.
Well, not precisely. Since we're going into analysis, what's being assumed is that convicted criminals are evenly distributed. There's a lot of evidence that indicates that the laws are unevenly enforced against groups based on phenotype. (Which phenotypes are significant varies.)
So this could be another self-fulfilling prophecy.
I basically agree, but I will note that you are making one false assumption. You're assuming that the false positives are uniformly distributed over the population.
Is there any reason to doubt that they do both? If they do both, then it's not false advertising. They sell themselves to you based on what you want, and the sell your data to fund themselves.
If so, then while it may be reprehensible, it's not false advertising.
Not always. They never reveal the truth, but some are clever enough to say only technically true statements in ways that will cause you to believe as they intend. Not that I've run across one recently.
I think you misunderstand the economic realities, but, yes, if you want to protect yourself against the Chinese, those are reasonable actions. Unfortunately, it would be wise to secure your utility networks, etc. before action. And economically it would probably hurt the US a lot more than it hurt China. If you default on Chinese held securities your credit rating with everyone else will quickly drop to ZZZ, or less unless you've got solid grounds that THEY will accept. Even the less extreme action of freezing them until some "adjustment" is made would be likely to wreck your credit unless there is some exceptionally good reason with solid proof. And this isn't it.
I don't disbelieve the story, at all, but I still think you misunderstand it. Countries have no permanent allies. They are ALL ruled by self-seeking power-hungry individuals. (If they weren't like that, they would never have reached the top. The techniques differ, but not the goals.) And they all spy on each other in any way that won't be too blatant, and especially in any way that's deniable.
Please Note: I am not excepting the US. We've been caught at this several times.
This isn't war, this is the continuation of diplomacy by normal means as has been practiced throughout history. It doesn't approach war until the actions escalate to include sabotage..even then it's only a close approach. When the US sabotaged an adversaries nuclear refineries, that wasn't quite war. Very close, but not quite. If umbrage had been taken it could easily have escalated to war. And that that was a US endeavor hasn't really been seriously denied. So don't get on a high horse.
When they claim to have "bug free hardware to sell" will you believe them? Why?
P.S.: If they do make that claim, they're lying. Nothing that complex will be bug free before the Singularity, and afterwards who knows.
An excellent question. Unfortunately, if I knew the answer it would be illegal to reply honestly.
Think about that. Anyone who tells you the answer to that question is either lying or subject to imprisonment.
You're being silly. AMD seems to be immune to this class of exploits, but never believe that they don't have exploits of their own. Nothing that complex is without flaws.
The problem, of course, is that you can't fix it by replacing the CPU. Intel doesn't make any fixed CPUs, and the AMD chips require a whole lot of different boards. The cheap way (if your time is worth anything) is to buy a new computer that isn't Intel. But now you're probably getting out of the range of what a small claims court will handle. (Of course, this depends on your actual computer.)
If I read the summary correctly, they haven't yet claimed to have any attacks against AMD, and aren't sure of anyone except Intel. So your comments about "other vendors" seem misguided.
An interesting question might be how long anybody except the investigators has known about the various attacks in sufficient detail to even plan a response. The summary indicates that for *one* of the attacks Intel has known about 90 days. It doesn't even indicate about the others. The only indication seems to be that Intel has planned two waves of microcode updates...one real soon now an the other in about 3 months (90 days?).
FWIW, I'm not really happy with Intel's response history, but this could be an attack on Intel the company where they are coerced into releasing multiple repeated microcode updates, repeatedly damaging their reputation. (Of course, you could reasonably argue that they deserve it.)
It would make that worse. Condorcet doesn't work that well on a hand count system, because there's too much shuffling of ballots. And that isn't even the big problem in most places. In most places the big problem is the amount of additional information the voters need to process to vote as well as they can. But it's still better than "plurality takes all", which is the main US voting system. (It's not majority wins, as most elections are decided with no candidate getting a majority.)
What is this "free market" you talk about? Where can I find it?
The only approximation of the "free market" I can think of is the underground market in illegal drugs. If that's your ideal, then I don't really care for it. I prefer something where one can ensure that one is getting what one purchases, and where one isn't stolen from. That's also an ideal the doesn't exist, but I find it a much more desirable one.
P.S.: When a drug starts getting too profitable, the approximation of a free market disappears from the illegal market, also, as there are turf wars to restrict who the customer can do business with.
FWIW, Google isn't that much better than AltaVista was. In some ways I preferred AltaVista. If Google were cut off, something like AltaVista or WebSpider would quickly pop up. And I don't use any Google services except their search, because I don't like something intrusive.
The problem is that the voters don't have much input into the selection of candidates. This is something that can be addressed by things like Instant Runoff Voting. (Well, I prefer Condorcet, but IRV is a lot easier to explain, and it's nearly as good.)
As it is, there wasn't a single candidate in the last Presidential election that I thought desirable. Not in any party on the ballot. Decent candidates know better than to run in minor parties, and the major parties intentionally reject them.
FWIW, I did vote in the last election, but I wasn't disappointed that my candidate lost, only that a more objectionable candidate won.
I haven't held a pointless job, but I've sure had pointless tasks added to a job that I was doing.
It doesn't take much to have a Turing Complete system. DNA in a cell *is* such a system. So the problem here isn't that they are lying. But I suspect the only new thing here is the kind of hype they are using.
OTOH, so far I haven't been very impressed by the demonstrations I've heard of. Most of them sound like they work, but they don't look very controllable, and control is the difficult part of a Turing Complete system. (Actually, most of the systems aren't actually Turing Complete, but only recursively Turing Complete. But that suffices for almost all possible uses. And again, the problem is control.)
I copied the name from Google, it it looked right when I pasted it, but somehow it changed during posting.
Outside of more modern tech, how is that different that Brave New World? Or perhaps your version is closer to R.U.R.? (Rossum's Universal Robots...only by robot Karel ÄOEapek meant synthetic human.)