Imagine low-power Bluetooth that can arrange into self-healing (for the most part) networks. Any kind of remote and distributed sensor network can benefit from this kind of protocol.
Unfortunately, when I worked with it (2-3 years ago), it was a huge pain in the ass. There were only a few producers of the hardware, their development boards sucked (one revision has an error in silicon that caused the radio to prevent the thermometer from being used, which was the whole point of the dev board), and the protocol stacks were even worse. It's also not as versitile as they claim it is. There's a reason nobody uses it for anything practical.
There is one (and only one) exception to this statement.
You work...you want Roast Beast of some sort for supper. So you put said once-living-animal into your oven when you leave for work, and want to turn it on at X:xx so that you walk into your house to fully ready-to-eat dead animal flesh.
Don't forget your dinner which requires timing between elements. For example, if your sauce needs 12 minutes to cook, it can be started 12 minutes before your beast is finished. Alternatively, when you open the door early to check on it and the internal temperature indicates it will require additional cooking time, the stovetop automatically lowers temperature to increase cook time accordingly.
I'm not being pedantic, just sorting out that one of the two points you made was incorrect. There most certainly are dedicated L4D servers (my gaming team has one). However, you are correct that mods can be run on non-dedicated servers perfectly fine with peering.
I don't see how you 'win', when I'm not trying to beat you, just pointing out that your first post had a minor inaccuracy. Your point about peering still stands.
I was under the impression that the only user-configurable option is to add URLs to a blocking list. There is no way to put it in bridge mode, and even if it was someone could log on and change it, and simply pass all your data to their servers anyway.
This is the kind of setup you give people who don't know about security, so they can't muck it up. Of course, it needs to be secure in the first place, so this is a huge issue and fixable only with firmware (or different hardware).
Probably because they wanted trained scientists and engineers who could more efficiently perform experiments, and with larger crew sizes fewer pilots were needed for successful space travel. It's a lot easier to teach a scientist how to be a good passenger than to teach a pilot how to be a good scientist.
For an interesting look at the difficulties, read the Apollo 11 radio transcripts, where the geologists on the ground tried to prod Aldrin and Armstrong into giving useful observations.
When I was pretty new to driving, I was rolling down a residential street in my dad's '78 Cougar. The engine died and the power steering went with it. I wasn't going too fast, but I was rolling straight toward a parked car. It took all I had to slowly pull the car into a turn.
...or you could have pulled the emergency brake...
Had this happened at speed, especially if you only notice while aproaching a turn, I'll bet you'd want to be able to steer away from whatever is in front of you at the same time that you slow down.
Ah, but the accessory/serpentine belt falling off does kill it. I've had this happen to me (the belt got nicked and hopped the track).
Even as an Electrical Engineer, I still want a mechanical backup to my steering, and especially my brakes. Any time there's a single point of failure (such as a pure steer-by-wire system has several of), you can bet that it will fail somewhere for somebody. Then, instead of being a warning (service light comes on) for a future problem, your warning is smashing into a tree at full speed.
The CDC estimates that on a year where the vaccine is properly targeted, effectiveness is 70-90% for most adults. I'd say that comes quite close to preventing it.
This individual reduction is compounded in a population with many immunized individuals, since there are fewer carriers as well. Since effectiveness is lower for seniors (and are more likely to die from actually catching the flu), it's even more important for their health care providers to be immunized to reduce their chance of transmitting the disease to them.
It's similar to seatbelts. Some people still die while wearing them, and a few people get injured more by them. However, the vast majority of cases they protect the passengers, and that's why they're mandated.
My understanding is that most negative reactions from vaccines are autoimmune, where the immune system gets too excited and attacks your own body. However, the most common reaction is easily treatable and is only deadly if severe AND ignored.
I also believe that most of the reason for the autoimmune reaction is due to them not being sick, so most people who actually came down with the flu wouldn't get the autoimmune reaction. If for some reason they did, it would be worse with the flu, because they are also sick. However, most flu deaths are caused by the severe respiratory reaction (pneumonia especially) or complications from a preexisting heart condition.
I can't force you to get the shot, correct. When your choices are a danger to the public (or, in this specific case, hospital patients), then your rights end once again. You don't have to get immunized, but you also don't have to work in the health care field.
We don't require doctors and nurses to get the flu shot for normal flus, why now? The swine flu is more hype than substance. The media loves a good scare story, and the health organizations want to rise the plate, and the pharmaceutical companies don't mind filling an order for hundreds of millions of doses.
I never said the swine flu, I'm talking in general terms. Any airborne disease which is easily communicable, can result in death, and is easily and safely immunized against should never be transmitted by doctors or nurses. There's simply no excuse, aside from selfishness or callousness.
The flu fits this description. The swine flu also fits, being a more virulent (though not particularly more deadly) variant of the flu. If there were a way to immunize against the common cold, I would say all health care professionals should be immunized as well.
Again, this is so simple to fix with a single shot (or a nasal spray if you're squeamish), we could prevent thousands of deaths every year easily. And if someone doesn't want the shot, let them wear a mask throughout flu season. Not taking steps to protect patients seems counter to what health care should stand for. While I'm not sure how many nurses/doctors pass influenza to patients who then die, I feel like even 1 is too many, for a problem we have solved years ago.
doctors/nurses should(and probably do, given how many sick people they come into contact with) have much stronger immune systems.
You are correct, and that is exactly why they should be immunized! An immunization simply primes your immune system to fight a disease without needing to catch the disease first.
This is the exact same mechanism that usually prevents you from catching the same exact disease twice (such as chicken pox). The immunization simply removes the requirement that the disease be caught or successfully fought off first, resulting in a greatly reduced chance of transmitting the disease to others (which is what we're trying to do, right?).
The risks of complications from a vaccine are generally small, but non-zero.
Unless the risks from being sick with the flu is larger than that of the vaccine, it's still a net reduction. That's like saying one should never buckle seatbelts because sometimes they trap a person in a car causing death. However, seatbelts overwhelmingly save more lives, and we just happen to mandate them for this reason!
Seems like a legitimate issue to me, if not for the nurse/doctor's health but for the health of those they care for.
This I agree with. It *is* a legitimate issue. But your right to make demands ends absolutely when it comes to what another person does within their own body.
I can't force you to get the shot, correct. When your choices are a danger to the public (or, in this specific case, hospital patients), then your rights end once again. You don't have to get immunized, but you also don't have to work in the health care field.
It is (or should be) mandated that health care providers take due dilligence not to become a vector for potentially deadly disease. Whether that due dilligence be to get immunized, wear respiration gear at work, or not working in a field that would require such measures if one is not comfortable with them doesn't matter to me.
Your right to work in an industry is contingent on your abiding by all safety requirements. You can refuse to follow them, but you have no right to work such a job if you refuse. Take your bullheaded refusal to prevent transmitting a disease somewhere where it's less likely to kill someone.
The flu shot (any vaccine, really) isn't exactly safe either. I'm not talking about the mercury, or Jenny McCarthy autism nonsense, I'm talking about people reacting badly and severely to a vaccine.
Can you drag up evidence that a severe reaction to a flu vaccine is more likely than an equally severe reaction from not being immunized and contracting the flu?
For something like polio, this makes sense, where a large percentage of the population would die or be crippled by it. But for the flu? I don't begrudge anyone getting the shot, but I also don't begrudge them *not* getting the shot. It's *their* life and *their* body. Becoming a nurse or a doctor doesn't alter that fact.
As for flu not being 'severe' enough, there are about 36,000 deaths from the flu yearly in the US alone. Most of these deaths could be prevented by immunization, which is much safer. Unless you prove me wrong with more than 36,000 immunization deaths per year (more even, since we have children being safely immunized against other deadly diseases like measles, mumps, rubella, pertussus, and polio), the vaccine is still safer than not being vaccinated, and therefor any risk can not be used as an excuse not to get immunized.
We require doctors to both wash their hands and use sterile gloves when there is a risk of infection. If someone doesn't feel comfortable wearing sterile gloves, perhaps they should not enter the primary care field where these gloves are an important (if not vital) safety measure. This is the same care I expect from any simple safety procedure from my caregiver, immunizations included. Especially remember that most flu deaths are young children, the elderly, and those with underlying health conditions; precisely the people you are likely to encounter at the hospital or doctor's office.
Let's face it: health care providers neglecting to protect themselves with a safe vaccine for a preventable disease are being reckless with their patient's health. Others who go unvaccinated also put others at risk, but in a much more limited sense.
A nurse (or anyone else working in a health care institution) needs to be immunized, because they have constant contact with the segment of the population who is most at risk from the flu. If a nurse gives your newborn the flu because she didn't get the vaccine and your child dies, there would be hell to pay. Seems like a legitimate issue to me, if not for the nurse/doctor's health but for the health of those they care for.
My aunt is a nurse at one of the largest hospitals in Winnipeg and she said she has never gotten the flu shot and refuses too. After she's seen all the complications with them over the years she figures she's safer without.
So your aunt works in health care and refuses to protect herself from becoming a carrier of an easily preventable communicable disease? You mean because she doesn't think she will get sick means she doesn't feel like taking a simple step to ensure she doesn't transmit it to a very young or old patient who would become seriously ill and possibly die? What a bitch!
Sure, the flu isn't highly fatal, but it's not something to ignore. People do die, sometimes unexpectedly, even though it is uncommon. If she doesn't want to take steps to protect other people's health, why the fuck is she a nurse?
The lobbyist that got this written (or wrote it himself) did not work for society, he worked for a specialty glass corporation. Why would he want rules for the betterment of society when instead he could have rules for the betterment of his patron? And of course, he'll still use the betterment of society as his argument.
I totally understand that. My argument is that it obviously shouldn't be the way it works, even if it is the status quo.
You aren't, of course, advocating that they should run the country, are you?
I don't see anything there where he is admitting to piracy or saying that he is going to pirate MW2. You fail.
Really? He says "I haven't bought a game in 10 years", but played CoD4 even though "playing only on cracked servers on MW kind of sucked". CoD4 came out 2 years ago, during a period where he was not purchasing games, and could not play on official servers. That's an admission of piracy.
Of course, he doesn't then claim he will be pirating MW2, just that the thing that he would have bought it for (good dedicated servers) might not be there anymore.
I have a really hard time feeling bad for someone who pirates a game and doesn't have fun because of the copy-protection scheme. That's kind of the idea, it's not like they owe you $50 worth of entertainment.
Why not call this by the more accurate (and awesome) name: cybernetic.
For some reason we forget how many cyborgs we already have living with cochlear implants, cybernetic prosthetics, bionic hearts, and more. They're cyborgs, and that's awesome. Welcome to the future!
You should care because an informed consumer is a better consumer. If I sold you a car that got 100 mpg on unicorn blood, and you drove off the lot with a quarter tank; what will you do when you run out?
That's why you should care and ask questions before you buy.
So we add the simple qualifier "as long as it does not require an additional consumable material". Of course, this is all hypothetical, since the article has no consumables.
Even then, shouldn't the net emissions be the goal, rather than mandating specific technologies? If an additional quart of oil is used every 5000 miles to increase gas mileage by 5mpg, it's most likely worth it. I don't need to know the mechanism behind the improvement any more than I need to know how fuel injectors, catalytic converters, or onboard computers function. I only need the proper maintenence schedule and accurate data of the resulting efficiency.
Unless you're a scientist or engineer doing reasearch and development on the topic, it really doesn't matter. You get 100mpg and have low emissions, that's good enough for the lay-person.
The mileage and the emissions should be the goals set by the government, rather than pegging it to a specific technology. What happens when an improved technology is developed that is better for mileage and emissions but no longer fits within this law? Surprise, it's suddenly illegal to put in more efficient glass!
Slashdot Mirror
YEEEAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH!!!
Imagine low-power Bluetooth that can arrange into self-healing (for the most part) networks. Any kind of remote and distributed sensor network can benefit from this kind of protocol.
Unfortunately, when I worked with it (2-3 years ago), it was a huge pain in the ass. There were only a few producers of the hardware, their development boards sucked (one revision has an error in silicon that caused the radio to prevent the thermometer from being used, which was the whole point of the dev board), and the protocol stacks were even worse. It's also not as versitile as they claim it is. There's a reason nobody uses it for anything practical.
There is one (and only one) exception to this statement.
You work...you want Roast Beast of some sort for supper. So you put said once-living-animal into your oven when you leave for work, and want to turn it on at X:xx so that you walk into your house to fully ready-to-eat dead animal flesh.
Don't forget your dinner which requires timing between elements. For example, if your sauce needs 12 minutes to cook, it can be started 12 minutes before your beast is finished. Alternatively, when you open the door early to check on it and the internal temperature indicates it will require additional cooking time, the stovetop automatically lowers temperature to increase cook time accordingly.
Gotcha ;)
I'm not being pedantic, just sorting out that one of the two points you made was incorrect. There most certainly are dedicated L4D servers (my gaming team has one). However, you are correct that mods can be run on non-dedicated servers perfectly fine with peering.
I don't see how you 'win', when I'm not trying to beat you, just pointing out that your first post had a minor inaccuracy. Your point about peering still stands.
There is now, just turn off javascript.
And after you do that, someone else can do the same thing over the internet, view your password as plain text, and change your DNS server.
I was under the impression that the only user-configurable option is to add URLs to a blocking list. There is no way to put it in bridge mode, and even if it was someone could log on and change it, and simply pass all your data to their servers anyway.
This is the kind of setup you give people who don't know about security, so they can't muck it up. Of course, it needs to be secure in the first place, so this is a huge issue and fixable only with firmware (or different hardware).
Probably because they wanted trained scientists and engineers who could more efficiently perform experiments, and with larger crew sizes fewer pilots were needed for successful space travel. It's a lot easier to teach a scientist how to be a good passenger than to teach a pilot how to be a good scientist.
For an interesting look at the difficulties, read the Apollo 11 radio transcripts, where the geologists on the ground tried to prod Aldrin and Armstrong into giving useful observations.
When I was pretty new to driving, I was rolling down a residential street in my dad's '78 Cougar. The engine died and the power steering went with it. I wasn't going too fast, but I was rolling straight toward a parked car. It took all I had to slowly pull the car into a turn.
...or you could have pulled the emergency brake ...
Had this happened at speed, especially if you only notice while aproaching a turn, I'll bet you'd want to be able to steer away from whatever is in front of you at the same time that you slow down.
Ah, but the accessory/serpentine belt falling off does kill it. I've had this happen to me (the belt got nicked and hopped the track).
Even as an Electrical Engineer, I still want a mechanical backup to my steering, and especially my brakes. Any time there's a single point of failure (such as a pure steer-by-wire system has several of), you can bet that it will fail somewhere for somebody. Then, instead of being a warning (service light comes on) for a future problem, your warning is smashing into a tree at full speed.
The CDC estimates that on a year where the vaccine is properly targeted, effectiveness is 70-90% for most adults. I'd say that comes quite close to preventing it.
This individual reduction is compounded in a population with many immunized individuals, since there are fewer carriers as well. Since effectiveness is lower for seniors (and are more likely to die from actually catching the flu), it's even more important for their health care providers to be immunized to reduce their chance of transmitting the disease to them.
It's similar to seatbelts. Some people still die while wearing them, and a few people get injured more by them. However, the vast majority of cases they protect the passengers, and that's why they're mandated.
My understanding is that most negative reactions from vaccines are autoimmune, where the immune system gets too excited and attacks your own body. However, the most common reaction is easily treatable and is only deadly if severe AND ignored.
I also believe that most of the reason for the autoimmune reaction is due to them not being sick, so most people who actually came down with the flu wouldn't get the autoimmune reaction. If for some reason they did, it would be worse with the flu, because they are also sick. However, most flu deaths are caused by the severe respiratory reaction (pneumonia especially) or complications from a preexisting heart condition.
I can't force you to get the shot, correct. When your choices are a danger to the public (or, in this specific case, hospital patients), then your rights end once again. You don't have to get immunized, but you also don't have to work in the health care field.
We don't require doctors and nurses to get the flu shot for normal flus, why now? The swine flu is more hype than substance. The media loves a good scare story, and the health organizations want to rise the plate, and the pharmaceutical companies don't mind filling an order for hundreds of millions of doses.
I never said the swine flu, I'm talking in general terms. Any airborne disease which is easily communicable, can result in death, and is easily and safely immunized against should never be transmitted by doctors or nurses. There's simply no excuse, aside from selfishness or callousness.
The flu fits this description. The swine flu also fits, being a more virulent (though not particularly more deadly) variant of the flu. If there were a way to immunize against the common cold, I would say all health care professionals should be immunized as well.
Again, this is so simple to fix with a single shot (or a nasal spray if you're squeamish), we could prevent thousands of deaths every year easily. And if someone doesn't want the shot, let them wear a mask throughout flu season. Not taking steps to protect patients seems counter to what health care should stand for. While I'm not sure how many nurses/doctors pass influenza to patients who then die, I feel like even 1 is too many, for a problem we have solved years ago.
doctors/nurses should(and probably do, given how many sick people they come into contact with) have much stronger immune systems.
You are correct, and that is exactly why they should be immunized! An immunization simply primes your immune system to fight a disease without needing to catch the disease first.
This is the exact same mechanism that usually prevents you from catching the same exact disease twice (such as chicken pox). The immunization simply removes the requirement that the disease be caught or successfully fought off first, resulting in a greatly reduced chance of transmitting the disease to others (which is what we're trying to do, right?).
The risks of complications from a vaccine are generally small, but non-zero.
Unless the risks from being sick with the flu is larger than that of the vaccine, it's still a net reduction. That's like saying one should never buckle seatbelts because sometimes they trap a person in a car causing death. However, seatbelts overwhelmingly save more lives, and we just happen to mandate them for this reason!
Seems like a legitimate issue to me, if not for the nurse/doctor's health but for the health of those they care for.
This I agree with. It *is* a legitimate issue. But your right to make demands ends absolutely when it comes to what another person does within their own body.
I can't force you to get the shot, correct. When your choices are a danger to the public (or, in this specific case, hospital patients), then your rights end once again. You don't have to get immunized, but you also don't have to work in the health care field.
It is (or should be) mandated that health care providers take due dilligence not to become a vector for potentially deadly disease. Whether that due dilligence be to get immunized, wear respiration gear at work, or not working in a field that would require such measures if one is not comfortable with them doesn't matter to me.
Your right to work in an industry is contingent on your abiding by all safety requirements. You can refuse to follow them, but you have no right to work such a job if you refuse. Take your bullheaded refusal to prevent transmitting a disease somewhere where it's less likely to kill someone.
The flu shot (any vaccine, really) isn't exactly safe either. I'm not talking about the mercury, or Jenny McCarthy autism nonsense, I'm talking about people reacting badly and severely to a vaccine.
Can you drag up evidence that a severe reaction to a flu vaccine is more likely than an equally severe reaction from not being immunized and contracting the flu?
For something like polio, this makes sense, where a large percentage of the population would die or be crippled by it. But for the flu? I don't begrudge anyone getting the shot, but I also don't begrudge them *not* getting the shot. It's *their* life and *their* body. Becoming a nurse or a doctor doesn't alter that fact.
As for flu not being 'severe' enough, there are about 36,000 deaths from the flu yearly in the US alone. Most of these deaths could be prevented by immunization, which is much safer. Unless you prove me wrong with more than 36,000 immunization deaths per year (more even, since we have children being safely immunized against other deadly diseases like measles, mumps, rubella, pertussus, and polio), the vaccine is still safer than not being vaccinated, and therefor any risk can not be used as an excuse not to get immunized.
We require doctors to both wash their hands and use sterile gloves when there is a risk of infection. If someone doesn't feel comfortable wearing sterile gloves, perhaps they should not enter the primary care field where these gloves are an important (if not vital) safety measure. This is the same care I expect from any simple safety procedure from my caregiver, immunizations included. Especially remember that most flu deaths are young children, the elderly, and those with underlying health conditions; precisely the people you are likely to encounter at the hospital or doctor's office.
Let's face it: health care providers neglecting to protect themselves with a safe vaccine for a preventable disease are being reckless with their patient's health. Others who go unvaccinated also put others at risk, but in a much more limited sense.
Right, but you also claimed there were no dedicated servers. That is incorrect. Whether needed or not, L4D has them.
A nurse (or anyone else working in a health care institution) needs to be immunized, because they have constant contact with the segment of the population who is most at risk from the flu. If a nurse gives your newborn the flu because she didn't get the vaccine and your child dies, there would be hell to pay. Seems like a legitimate issue to me, if not for the nurse/doctor's health but for the health of those they care for.
My aunt is a nurse at one of the largest hospitals in Winnipeg and she said she has never gotten the flu shot and refuses too. After she's seen all the complications with them over the years she figures she's safer without.
So your aunt works in health care and refuses to protect herself from becoming a carrier of an easily preventable communicable disease? You mean because she doesn't think she will get sick means she doesn't feel like taking a simple step to ensure she doesn't transmit it to a very young or old patient who would become seriously ill and possibly die? What a bitch!
Sure, the flu isn't highly fatal, but it's not something to ignore. People do die, sometimes unexpectedly, even though it is uncommon. If she doesn't want to take steps to protect other people's health, why the fuck is she a nurse?
The lobbyist that got this written (or wrote it himself) did not work for society, he worked for a specialty glass corporation. Why would he want rules for the betterment of society when instead he could have rules for the betterment of his patron? And of course, he'll still use the betterment of society as his argument.
I totally understand that. My argument is that it obviously shouldn't be the way it works, even if it is the status quo.
You aren't, of course, advocating that they should run the country, are you?
Last I checked, L4D has no dedicated servers. I can play mods all I want.
L4D has plenty of dedicated servers, provided both officially by Valve and by private individuals and groups.
I don't see anything there where he is admitting to piracy or saying that he is going to pirate MW2. You fail.
Really? He says "I haven't bought a game in 10 years", but played CoD4 even though "playing only on cracked servers on MW kind of sucked". CoD4 came out 2 years ago, during a period where he was not purchasing games, and could not play on official servers. That's an admission of piracy.
Of course, he doesn't then claim he will be pirating MW2, just that the thing that he would have bought it for (good dedicated servers) might not be there anymore.
I have a really hard time feeling bad for someone who pirates a game and doesn't have fun because of the copy-protection scheme. That's kind of the idea, it's not like they owe you $50 worth of entertainment.
Why not call this by the more accurate (and awesome) name: cybernetic.
For some reason we forget how many cyborgs we already have living with cochlear implants, cybernetic prosthetics, bionic hearts, and more. They're cyborgs, and that's awesome. Welcome to the future!
You should care because an informed consumer is a better consumer. If I sold you a car that got 100 mpg on unicorn blood, and you drove off the lot with a quarter tank; what will you do when you run out? That's why you should care and ask questions before you buy.
So we add the simple qualifier "as long as it does not require an additional consumable material". Of course, this is all hypothetical, since the article has no consumables.
Even then, shouldn't the net emissions be the goal, rather than mandating specific technologies? If an additional quart of oil is used every 5000 miles to increase gas mileage by 5mpg, it's most likely worth it. I don't need to know the mechanism behind the improvement any more than I need to know how fuel injectors, catalytic converters, or onboard computers function. I only need the proper maintenence schedule and accurate data of the resulting efficiency.
Unless you're a scientist or engineer doing reasearch and development on the topic, it really doesn't matter. You get 100mpg and have low emissions, that's good enough for the lay-person.
The mileage and the emissions should be the goals set by the government, rather than pegging it to a specific technology. What happens when an improved technology is developed that is better for mileage and emissions but no longer fits within this law? Surprise, it's suddenly illegal to put in more efficient glass!