For example, kava is a fairly strong anxiolytic, and doesn't have the addiction profile of benzodiazepines. It's commonly used as the recreational drug of choice by Polynesians, so clearly it has pronounced psychoactive effects. I've played around with it quite a lot and find it to be pleasant, albeit mild.
5-HTP, which is the extract of the Griffonia simplicifolia plant, also invariably boosts serotonin (5-HT) levels in the brain. Whether or not it actually functions as an antidepressant is debated; I found some success using it for anxiety and depression, but that its effects wore off after a few weeks and the dosage needed to be boosted. (I take this, though, as a testament to the fact that depression != low serotonin, which I think is a complete fallacy.)
Not everything is homeopathic / naturopathic bullshit. Some plants, believe it or not, actually do have medicinal value. What about aloe for skin conditions?
Quite right, I love kava and aloe, but personally I could care less if I'm destressing with a placebo or lessening my sunburns with goo that in reality does nothing.
However, studies are helpful if a product is sold to aid something, and studies are necessary if it is going to be prescribed. What if we resolved the debate about whether 5-HTP works as an antidepressant with a study? Then it could be prescribed without all the "These statements have not been verified by the FDA and this drug is not intended to treat any condition."
What percentage of the herbs in your typical natural store are useless? I have no idea and neither does anybody else, because not enough actual unbiased scientific studies are done about them so no one has any idea how to use their money effectively on herbal supplements. I know several people who use the "buy them all and something will work" strategy, but that has the caveat of side effects as well as being ridiculously expensive. Others avoid the whole scene altogether and miss many cheap effective aids to their problems. I try a middle ground, but that has the combined downsides of both strategies. The only way to make naturopathic medicines useful is to do more of these studies with the side effect of eliminating many of them as "homeopathic / naturopathic bullshit".
Parent and GP are correct; as studies have shown, more expensive placebos are more effective than cheap placebos, therefore it is extremely important that consumers not substitute their expensive placebo with something cheaper, it will most likely be less effective.
What do you mean hopefully herbal Viagra is next? Where have you been for the entire history of human kind. Oysters, bananas, rhino horn, chocolate, dragon bones, authentic mummy flesh, figs, cow's testicles, elk antlers, acai berries...I'm tired of typing, but the point is I can name a dozen natural alternatives to Viagra off the top of my head that have caused unsolicited advertisement since forever. Currently, I already receive the spam you're hoping for from at least the acai peddlers.
They don't need to. Herbal health people are like religious extremists, any sort of logic won't get absorbed by their brain.
I live among these people and embarrassingly have my own shelf of herbal supplements. I show these studies to my friends and family and this is generally what happens:
1st they bring up the dozens of semi/pseudo-scientific studies which their desired conclusion was found true and somehow they can pull up ten times as many "studies" as I can bring to counter them from their alternative medicinal handbooks. I don't have subscriptions to peer reviewed journals, so I usually can't even view the complete results of the studies I want to show them, while they have full details of each and every nonscientific step that was taken in their experiments.
Next if I still insist that pseudo-scientific studies don't discredit the results they attack the experiment: The study was handled wrong. In this case I already know the logic: "they didn't use enough of the substance, the study only shows we need to take more, much MORE!" Or they dodge the study: "dementia and memory is not what Ginkgo improves, I take it for other non-disprovable stuff."
Finnaly they can fall back on their buying mantra which goes something like this: "Science (and logic) are not only one way to understand the world, there many other ways of understanding the world which are equally as good."
Eventually, you give up, its their money and they going to buy whatever over hyped placebos they want. In fact I'm not going to bother forwarding this to any of my Ginko using family.The real benefit is that doctors and legitimate dietitians now know whether or not the substance is useful and can use it appropriately. Parent is correct, this will have minimal impact on the herbal supplement industry, besides inspiring hundreds of psuedo-scientific studies and faulty logic filled papers that discredit this study to those who still want to take it.
what a fucking troll why do you think its so cool to bash religion? Real good example of tolerance asshole.
I don't think you were trolling, I think you misread him; "religious extremists" was his comparison. Extremists of any sort are not protected by political correctness. Observe: "Oh no! Watch out for the minority, power-gender, mentally-differently-abled EXTREMISTS. They're zealots!"
Good point. This will be necessary for many, as they said: Parkinson's immediately.
My neurons are perfectly normal as is the same with most slashdotters and someone is telling us we could be smarter, more productive and happier with the push of a button? You have to understand I am self absorbed and will talk about ME! Hence the long discussions about what WE NORMIES can do with it. Sorry that we're to hijacking a topic that is terribly important to you with our sci-fi pipe dream crap though.
Everyone will want this and those who don't are bound to be poor, stupid and unproductive suckers in comparison as they can't stimulate their brain like the new Übermensch shall be able to. He will look upon unstimmed man as man looks upon an ape: "A laughingstock or a painful embarrassment."
Ok, we all know what he was trying to say, and that is that animal instincts plus social norms and laws have been doing a good job at keeping us productive as a species and if we subvert that to be a desire to push a button, we are not sure what will happen but most likely it will be bad.
I disagree with the GP, but also you. I don't live in a gate community and enjoy hanging out in public parks, where meth addicts randomly run up to you delighted or infuriated by your face. If a drug addict's parents actually happened to beat good morals into them, yes they will do jobs the rest of us despise to earn their addiction, but usually they would rather just smash in you're car window and siphon your gas. Once the 30seconds of blackjacking you and running your wallet down to his dealer becomes a Pavlovian response, his "unearned pleasure" argument starts to make sense.
At the time of the so-called "reward", you've done nothing more than following animal instincts. How does that qualify as "earning" it, as you are so concerned with?
I have to point out that our instincts have done pretty well given that we, one species, have colonized nearly everywhere on this entire planet and are probably the only species here that can take life beyond it. To subvert these instincts for a desire to push a button is a risky venture.
Sorry to poke into the middle of this heated argument, but I have this same argument all the time with many people and here is the inevitable conclusions:
Opening statements:
THEM: I don't like drug users, because they are bad people.
ME: What you mean to say is that you don't like bad people but you must recognize that drug users don't necessarily turn into bad people.
Conclusion 1:
THEM: You didn't know my a priori: Drug users always become bad people.
ME: Now I understand; we will never agree on this issue, lets go get a beer and talk about something else.
Conclusion 2:
THEM: I suppose that is true, I will focus on hating bad people.
Conclusion 3:
THEM: You don't understand, I define "drug users" as people who are already so bad that they do the following nasty things.
ME: Oh, in that case your right, let's hate them.
Of course replace "drugs" with neurostim users or only coke and meth addicts (as most people I talk to exclude beer, dope and caffeine from drugs). This same discussion arises about people who dress funny, religious nuts, the unemployed, people who watch too much TV, etc. And replace bad as lazy, unloving to my daughter, or what have you. So can we get to the conclusion and go have a beer?
Why wait for neurostim to deal with drugs this way? think about it.
I have thought about how to deal with drugs quite a bit, as has the entire world's society for thousands of years. I'm not sure what obvious answer you want to us conclude. Please explain.
would be just feeling motivated, happy and loved all the time. That's the areas of the brain to stim.
And the obedience area as well, thats another good spot. Happy, motivated, loved, obedient masses, no crime, unbelievable productivity, no unhappiness or loneliness, a perfect future is sooner than we think.
If one is "high all the time," then that state becomes the normal state, and anytime they aren't "high" means they are in a "low state." Both psychologically and physiologically, one can become tolerant or adjusted to certain states.
If something is special, doing it all the time detracts from its appeal.
Yes, for normal experiences or drugs this is correct, but stimulating the brain directly may be different. To my knowledge the long term effects of feeling high all the time from nuero-stimulation have not been studied, but I don't see a reason that a constant happy excited feeling being actually produced by your brain would ever have to end. I can theorize many ways you could become tolerant and many reasons why you never would. We will have to see through experimentation what would actually happen.
Well, it seems the only real benefit would be the ability to buy power when it's cheaper, but you know that if this kind of residential load-leveling becomes popular the power companies will adjust pricing to suit.
My county power plant is trying to "go green" maybe they are not doing this everywhere. Anyway, solar panels and windmills only work while conditions are right, if you could actually encourage consumers to use electricity when it was available, by making it cheaper for them to buy, that would be phenomenal, "adjusting pricing to suit" in this manner would benefit both consumers and the power company.
it could really help the power companies keep consumption closer to base-load
Absolutely, if power companies could entice enough consumers to use something like this and load balance on hot summer days, that would be great. As we know power companies have to produce far more power than consumers consume at any given time (I was given twice as much for our local power company) to ensure that if 5,000 people suddenly arrive home from work and turn on their televisions and air conditioners a brownout doesn't result. My imagination wonders if in the future the power companies could cut down on the excess they produce by signalling battery backed houses to temporarily bare the load and recharge once once demand was down (and power would be cheaper to reward you for your help).
But for the individual homeowner, it really does seem like overkill
I was thinking about my friends who already have home batteries. They mainly use them in attempt to save a little extra power from their solar panels or windmills because our power company pays you very little for the amount you put back into the system when you are generating more than you use. The small cost that is saved on a sunny or windy day really doesn't help much, but if you could store that for yourself and nearly go off the grid with batteries such as these, that would be a huge benefit. As for non-green people, such as myself, I have seen power outages that lasted for over a week. Sure there were other problems at the time, but being without power often exacerbates them. Consider the snow storm example you used, big problems to worry about, but grave if you have electric heating.
Actually they just have to block that one page: "http://www.target.com/gp/search?field-keywords="
Better yet why don't they fiter out all search pages from websites? I hate finding what looks to be the exact page I need on a google search only to click it and end at "http://www.target.com/gp/search/192-2967276-3174027?field-keywords=exact+page+I+needed" I don't think its spamdexing on targets part, it's google's fault for not figuring out that linking to searches run by other companies, is useless and annoying to users.
Seriously, what's this "1 in 250,000" chance of hitting the Earth? It's only going to pass once, and it'll either hit or miss. So it's one in 2.
Actually the probability that it will hit us is zero; if it hits us, in all likely hood, I or at least anyone remembering this comment will be dead, but if it misses, I can point to this comment and say: "SEE I KNEW IT WOULD MISS!!!"
However, scientists know you won't listen to clear reasoning and comprehensible numbers, so they use the same reasoning, but replace 0% with 1 in 250,000. I'm 225,000 in 250,000 sure of it.
We don't even know if she is married. Do we have to assume she's evil?
why do you object to the most likely scenario?
You're analysis is superb and rather likely, but still full of assumptions. There are ways to conceive children without marriage such willing donors or sperm banks. Maybe she's bi but bisexual-porno-freak-mom did not sound as good as "lesbian mother". Maybe she got married without trying women and discovered she liked women a few years into the relationship and either kept quite from her super conservative husband, or shared it with her supportive husband and either way they stayed together for the kids and appearances. And the quote that we draw all these conclusions from does not mention her hiding this from a husband:
“were her sexual orientation public knowledge, it would negatively affect her ability to pursue her livelihood and support her family and would hinder her and her children’s ability to live peaceful lives.”
I object to the I gpppp's (right # of 'p's?) Idea that she does not deserve to file as a Jane Doe as her husband ought to know when I must conclude he missed the stream of lesbian erotica from netflix that she shared with her girlfriends on their frequent sleepovers, or however we might consider she was lying to him.
Not necessarily so drastic as being a pedo, but my mother is a grade school teacher, and the teachers and parents there would often have discussions about the male teacher. Could give the child the nurturing that a female teacher could or handle the children with the care a woman would? These weren't based on merit or specific examples, but on the general feeling that he wouldn't handle the kids right because he didn't have enough intuition/empathy/womanyness.
Although women are known for their mushy generalizations like that (:P ), I think it is somewhat of a denial to say such feelings don't exist at some places, for example against woman in the technical profession world.
If I remember the cracking of ENIGMA correctly, there was a ton of user error that helped the allies, which no encryption system has ever been shown to protect against.
Sure, we can't put all our confidence in the unbreakability of an encryption system, but to protect a video stream from a small number of crafty, but not well educated people hiding in the mountains? They're not China; a simple XOR todays video feed with last weeks video feed from across the country would probably be enough of a key to stop this current issue.
Sure, using netflix is voluntary, but she did not volunteer to have them divulge personal information about her. In fact they promised her they would not in their privacy policy: http://www.netflix.com/Popup?id=5136#collection. Are you saying she has to conform to their terms of service but the service she is paying for should have the right to screw her anyway they like regardless of what they promised specifically not to do or we live in a "totalitarion state"? (http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1483310&cid=30488934). I disagree; the case IS just and so is the law. (well we'll see. The two of us don't know the specifics of the case, 12people we'll be so informed their ears bleed and probably be in a much better position to decide.)
I wouldn't think a secret of mine will be revealed by giving netflix information, because I expect netflix not to disclose that information to random 3rd parties!
Information like birthday and gender are a reasonable thing to provide to a big, known legit company that will be billing you. I've provided it to many companies before. I think it's unreasonable to expect her to predict that that information would later come back to haunt her.
Slashdot Mirror
For example, kava is a fairly strong anxiolytic, and doesn't have the addiction profile of benzodiazepines. It's commonly used as the recreational drug of choice by Polynesians, so clearly it has pronounced psychoactive effects. I've played around with it quite a lot and find it to be pleasant, albeit mild.
5-HTP, which is the extract of the Griffonia simplicifolia plant, also invariably boosts serotonin (5-HT) levels in the brain. Whether or not it actually functions as an antidepressant is debated; I found some success using it for anxiety and depression, but that its effects wore off after a few weeks and the dosage needed to be boosted. (I take this, though, as a testament to the fact that depression != low serotonin, which I think is a complete fallacy.)
Not everything is homeopathic / naturopathic bullshit. Some plants, believe it or not, actually do have medicinal value. What about aloe for skin conditions?
Quite right, I love kava and aloe, but personally I could care less if I'm destressing with a placebo or lessening my sunburns with goo that in reality does nothing.
However, studies are helpful if a product is sold to aid something, and studies are necessary if it is going to be prescribed. What if we resolved the debate about whether 5-HTP works as an antidepressant with a study? Then it could be prescribed without all the "These statements have not been verified by the FDA and this drug is not intended to treat any condition."
What percentage of the herbs in your typical natural store are useless? I have no idea and neither does anybody else, because not enough actual unbiased scientific studies are done about them so no one has any idea how to use their money effectively on herbal supplements. I know several people who use the "buy them all and something will work" strategy, but that has the caveat of side effects as well as being ridiculously expensive. Others avoid the whole scene altogether and miss many cheap effective aids to their problems. I try a middle ground, but that has the combined downsides of both strategies. The only way to make naturopathic medicines useful is to do more of these studies with the side effect of eliminating many of them as "homeopathic / naturopathic bullshit".
Parent and GP are correct; as studies have shown, more expensive placebos are more effective than cheap placebos, therefore it is extremely important that consumers not substitute their expensive placebo with something cheaper, it will most likely be less effective.
What do you mean hopefully herbal Viagra is next? Where have you been for the entire history of human kind. Oysters, bananas, rhino horn, chocolate, dragon bones, authentic mummy flesh, figs, cow's testicles, elk antlers, acai berries...I'm tired of typing, but the point is I can name a dozen natural alternatives to Viagra off the top of my head that have caused unsolicited advertisement since forever. Currently, I already receive the spam you're hoping for from at least the acai peddlers.
They don't need to. Herbal health people are like religious extremists, any sort of logic won't get absorbed by their brain.
I live among these people and embarrassingly have my own shelf of herbal supplements. I show these studies to my friends and family and this is generally what happens:
1st they bring up the dozens of semi/pseudo-scientific studies which their desired conclusion was found true and somehow they can pull up ten times as many "studies" as I can bring to counter them from their alternative medicinal handbooks. I don't have subscriptions to peer reviewed journals, so I usually can't even view the complete results of the studies I want to show them, while they have full details of each and every nonscientific step that was taken in their experiments.
Next if I still insist that pseudo-scientific studies don't discredit the results they attack the experiment: The study was handled wrong. In this case I already know the logic: "they didn't use enough of the substance, the study only shows we need to take more, much MORE!" Or they dodge the study: "dementia and memory is not what Ginkgo improves, I take it for other non-disprovable stuff."
Finnaly they can fall back on their buying mantra which goes something like this: "Science (and logic) are not only one way to understand the world, there many other ways of understanding the world which are equally as good."
Eventually, you give up, its their money and they going to buy whatever over hyped placebos they want. In fact I'm not going to bother forwarding this to any of my Ginko using family.The real benefit is that doctors and legitimate dietitians now know whether or not the substance is useful and can use it appropriately. Parent is correct, this will have minimal impact on the herbal supplement industry, besides inspiring hundreds of psuedo-scientific studies and faulty logic filled papers that discredit this study to those who still want to take it.
what a fucking troll why do you think its so cool to bash religion? Real good example of tolerance asshole.
I don't think you were trolling, I think you misread him; "religious extremists" was his comparison. Extremists of any sort are not protected by political correctness. Observe: "Oh no! Watch out for the minority, power-gender, mentally-differently-abled EXTREMISTS. They're zealots!"
Good point. This will be necessary for many, as they said: Parkinson's immediately.
My neurons are perfectly normal as is the same with most slashdotters and someone is telling us we could be smarter, more productive and happier with the push of a button? You have to understand I am self absorbed and will talk about ME! Hence the long discussions about what WE NORMIES can do with it. Sorry that we're to hijacking a topic that is terribly important to you with our sci-fi pipe dream crap though.
Everyone will want this and those who don't are bound to be poor, stupid and unproductive suckers in comparison as they can't stimulate their brain like the new Übermensch shall be able to. He will look upon unstimmed man as man looks upon an ape: "A laughingstock or a painful embarrassment."
Ok, we all know what he was trying to say, and that is that animal instincts plus social norms and laws have been doing a good job at keeping us productive as a species and if we subvert that to be a desire to push a button, we are not sure what will happen but most likely it will be bad.
I disagree with the GP, but also you. I don't live in a gate community and enjoy hanging out in public parks, where meth addicts randomly run up to you delighted or infuriated by your face. If a drug addict's parents actually happened to beat good morals into them, yes they will do jobs the rest of us despise to earn their addiction, but usually they would rather just smash in you're car window and siphon your gas. Once the 30seconds of blackjacking you and running your wallet down to his dealer becomes a Pavlovian response, his "unearned pleasure" argument starts to make sense.
At the time of the so-called "reward", you've done nothing more than following animal instincts. How does that qualify as "earning" it, as you are so concerned with?
I have to point out that our instincts have done pretty well given that we, one species, have colonized nearly everywhere on this entire planet and are probably the only species here that can take life beyond it. To subvert these instincts for a desire to push a button is a risky venture.
Sorry to poke into the middle of this heated argument, but I have this same argument all the time with many people and here is the inevitable conclusions:
Opening statements: THEM: I don't like drug users, because they are bad people. ME: What you mean to say is that you don't like bad people but you must recognize that drug users don't necessarily turn into bad people.
Conclusion 1: THEM: You didn't know my a priori: Drug users always become bad people. ME: Now I understand; we will never agree on this issue, lets go get a beer and talk about something else.
Conclusion 2: THEM: I suppose that is true, I will focus on hating bad people.
Conclusion 3: THEM: You don't understand, I define "drug users" as people who are already so bad that they do the following nasty things. ME: Oh, in that case your right, let's hate them.
Of course replace "drugs" with neurostim users or only coke and meth addicts (as most people I talk to exclude beer, dope and caffeine from drugs). This same discussion arises about people who dress funny, religious nuts, the unemployed, people who watch too much TV, etc. And replace bad as lazy, unloving to my daughter, or what have you. So can we get to the conclusion and go have a beer?
Why wait for neurostim to deal with drugs this way? think about it.
I have thought about how to deal with drugs quite a bit, as has the entire world's society for thousands of years. I'm not sure what obvious answer you want to us conclude. Please explain.
would be just feeling motivated, happy and loved all the time. That's the areas of the brain to stim.
And the obedience area as well, thats another good spot. Happy, motivated, loved, obedient masses, no crime, unbelievable productivity, no unhappiness or loneliness, a perfect future is sooner than we think.
If one is "high all the time," then that state becomes the normal state, and anytime they aren't "high" means they are in a "low state." Both psychologically and physiologically, one can become tolerant or adjusted to certain states.
If something is special, doing it all the time detracts from its appeal.
Yes, for normal experiences or drugs this is correct, but stimulating the brain directly may be different. To my knowledge the long term effects of feeling high all the time from nuero-stimulation have not been studied, but I don't see a reason that a constant happy excited feeling being actually produced by your brain would ever have to end. I can theorize many ways you could become tolerant and many reasons why you never would. We will have to see through experimentation what would actually happen.
My county power plant is trying to "go green" maybe they are not doing this everywhere. Anyway, solar panels and windmills only work while conditions are right, if you could actually encourage consumers to use electricity when it was available, by making it cheaper for them to buy, that would be phenomenal, "adjusting pricing to suit" in this manner would benefit both consumers and the power company.
it could really help the power companies keep consumption closer to base-load
Absolutely, if power companies could entice enough consumers to use something like this and load balance on hot summer days, that would be great. As we know power companies have to produce far more power than consumers consume at any given time (I was given twice as much for our local power company) to ensure that if 5,000 people suddenly arrive home from work and turn on their televisions and air conditioners a brownout doesn't result. My imagination wonders if in the future the power companies could cut down on the excess they produce by signalling battery backed houses to temporarily bare the load and recharge once once demand was down (and power would be cheaper to reward you for your help).
But for the individual homeowner, it really does seem like overkill
I was thinking about my friends who already have home batteries. They mainly use them in attempt to save a little extra power from their solar panels or windmills because our power company pays you very little for the amount you put back into the system when you are generating more than you use. The small cost that is saved on a sunny or windy day really doesn't help much, but if you could store that for yourself and nearly go off the grid with batteries such as these, that would be a huge benefit. As for non-green people, such as myself, I have seen power outages that lasted for over a week. Sure there were other problems at the time, but being without power often exacerbates them. Consider the snow storm example you used, big problems to worry about, but grave if you have electric heating.
Actually they just have to block that one page: "http://www.target.com/gp/search?field-keywords="
Better yet why don't they fiter out all search pages from websites? I hate finding what looks to be the exact page I need on a google search only to click it and end at "http://www.target.com/gp/search/192-2967276-3174027?field-keywords=exact+page+I+needed" I don't think its spamdexing on targets part, it's google's fault for not figuring out that linking to searches run by other companies, is useless and annoying to users.
So what is the attack system used to get "tens of millions of dollars"?
The article ties together many attacks.
Do they collect 10,000 user names and passwords from personal computer users?
One of the attacks was (skimming atm cards)
Do they somehow take over a merchant deposit account and transfer funds out of it?
One was, by apparently key logging.
Do they emulate a bank-to-bank transaction and modify the bank-to-bank back end transaction?
Maybe, doesn't seem to be reported in the article.
I was gonna say something witty about RTFA but I find getting my questions out of commentators is easier as well.
Seriously, what's this "1 in 250,000" chance of hitting the Earth? It's only going to pass once, and it'll either hit or miss. So it's one in 2.
Actually the probability that it will hit us is zero; if it hits us, in all likely hood, I or at least anyone remembering this comment will be dead, but if it misses, I can point to this comment and say: "SEE I KNEW IT WOULD MISS!!!"
However, scientists know you won't listen to clear reasoning and comprehensible numbers, so they use the same reasoning, but replace 0% with 1 in 250,000. I'm 225,000 in 250,000 sure of it.
It demonstrates that botnets are posting crap on /., which helps goad the discussion towards what action we can take to stop them.
We don't even know if she is married. Do we have to assume she's evil?
why do you object to the most likely scenario?
You're analysis is superb and rather likely, but still full of assumptions. There are ways to conceive children without marriage such willing donors or sperm banks. Maybe she's bi but bisexual-porno-freak-mom did not sound as good as "lesbian mother". Maybe she got married without trying women and discovered she liked women a few years into the relationship and either kept quite from her super conservative husband, or shared it with her supportive husband and either way they stayed together for the kids and appearances. And the quote that we draw all these conclusions from does not mention her hiding this from a husband:
“were her sexual orientation public knowledge, it would negatively affect her ability to pursue her livelihood and support her family and would hinder her and her children’s ability to live peaceful lives.”
I object to the I gpppp's (right # of 'p's?) Idea that she does not deserve to file as a Jane Doe as her husband ought to know when I must conclude he missed the stream of lesbian erotica from netflix that she shared with her girlfriends on their frequent sleepovers, or however we might consider she was lying to him.
Not necessarily so drastic as being a pedo, but my mother is a grade school teacher, and the teachers and parents there would often have discussions about the male teacher. Could give the child the nurturing that a female teacher could or handle the children with the care a woman would? These weren't based on merit or specific examples, but on the general feeling that he wouldn't handle the kids right because he didn't have enough intuition/empathy/womanyness.
:P ), I think it is somewhat of a denial to say such feelings don't exist at some places, for example against woman in the technical profession world.
Although women are known for their mushy generalizations like that (
If I remember the cracking of ENIGMA correctly, there was a ton of user error that helped the allies, which no encryption system has ever been shown to protect against.
Sure, we can't put all our confidence in the unbreakability of an encryption system, but to protect a video stream from a small number of crafty, but not well educated people hiding in the mountains? They're not China; a simple XOR todays video feed with last weeks video feed from across the country would probably be enough of a key to stop this current issue.
They're not on to us, otherwise we'd see it in their unencrypted communication channels.
Sure, using netflix is voluntary, but she did not volunteer to have them divulge personal information about her. In fact they promised her they would not in their privacy policy: http://www.netflix.com/Popup?id=5136#collection. Are you saying she has to conform to their terms of service but the service she is paying for should have the right to screw her anyway they like regardless of what they promised specifically not to do or we live in a "totalitarion state"? (http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1483310&cid=30488934). I disagree; the case IS just and so is the law. (well we'll see. The two of us don't know the specifics of the case, 12people we'll be so informed their ears bleed and probably be in a much better position to decide.)
I wouldn't think a secret of mine will be revealed by giving netflix information, because I expect netflix not to disclose that information to random 3rd parties!
Information like birthday and gender are a reasonable thing to provide to a big, known legit company that will be billing you. I've provided it to many companies before. I think it's unreasonable to expect her to predict that that information would later come back to haunt her.