All they need to do is send someone to Mars, all alone and with a few HD cameras. Have him send his footage back to be edited by the same folks who make Survivor Man, and Voila, instant Mars reality TV. Even if the more scientific community doesn't agree, it would definitely get more attention by people who currently don't follow anything space related. Probably creating a better atmosphere for commercial opportunity, too. Hell, I'd watch it.
Why not set a mission to bring the Apophis asteroid into earth orbit since it's trajectory brings it closer to us anyway? We wouldn't have to worry about sending a probe or exploration team out to the distant reaches of space to do a small science project about water mining. We could knock out two technologies at the same time.
Learning how to effectively maneuver an asteroid, which seems to be a hot topic as it is. Also, asteroid mining - for pretty much whatever. We would have the damn thing in our back yard and could do whatever we wanted with it.
It's keeping some of the users who shouldn't be on a computer in the first place from mucking it up with stuff they copied from their home systems. The biggest problem of a large installation is the users who think it's a great idea to try to install hacked software they downloaded from TPB, or that it's OK to try to load NES roms that they found somewhere. These are the kind of people who don't even scan the stuff they download on their own systems, and then they install it on a government system without a second thought.
I agree that this article is very lacking on details. I would like to know more about how the hydrogenosomes affect the creature's mobility and whether or not a larger animal could be sustained with these organelles.
For those who are complaining about the scene specifically - It's a game meant for entertainment, just as there are massacres in movies, there can be massacres in video games. They're both meant for the same age group.
For those who are complaining about the negative portrayal of Russia - There was also a corrupted general who killed his own men in this game too. It's a fictional storyline, get over it.
Google may be the only immediately available source of information someone can get to. The author of this article obviously had nothing to do but sit and play with the suggestion feature and figured he could burn a work day with an article to justify how he wasn't actually wasting his time.
If someone is having problems with chest pains, you can imagine they are getting scared, but it's not like they know exactly what a heart attack is supposed to feel like so they don't want to take action in case they're wrong. Someone who doesn't have insurance for example, should definitely check google for possible symptoms. Obviously if the case were serious enough, you probably would just go to the hospital regardless. However, many cases of heart attack patients actually turn out to be heartburn or acid reflux.
The same goes for the "Am I going into labor" question. Instances of women getting pregnant is rare, but happens much more often than you'd think. The experience of going into labor would be extremely frightening if you had not been expecting it or learning about it several months in advance.
The article seems to be written with an elitist point of view with no actual insight towards real world situations that would bring these searches about. Granted, there are definitely some listed that are stupid, the author could have done a better job finding far, far better examples. Like, "why is there a dead pakistani on my couch?" Although, perhaps if there was one on my couch, I may ask the same question.
This is correct, all that needs to be done to ensure that whatever developed software remains exempt from the Freedom of Information Act (5U.S.C.552) is classify it as FOUO (for offical use only) and slap a regulation on it, (IAW DoD 5400.11R)
As long as you can say that it would give an enemy knowledge of our inner processes, even how we format our harddrives, it can be FOUO.
I always figured we'd be OK. Rats only attack if they're scared right? But people...oh God! Just what we need, a robot that thinks it'd be funny to be a zombie.
Perhaps with a technology that has the potential to cause such harm in the wrong hands, the government could set up a registration method for people that can take a test or something to become eligible handlers. At least this way if there is a big problem: someone tosses one in a fire, takes it apart, sells it to unregistered users.
That way these people are aware of the consequences of their actions and are subject to huge legal ramifications. Also, each battery should probably be logged by serial number for accountability. For something as amazing as a lifelong battery, I would be more than willing to jump through the red tape.
I don't necessarily agree that these types of batteries would ever really enter the "readily disposable" mentality. People will/should know that the battery will last several lifetimes. I would assume that the throw away mentality will still be applied to the device itself, but they'll salvage the battery to use in something else.
It's unfortunate that the only robots they had a chance to test were toys. I'm sure the government wouldn't want any studies done on the security of their robots yet. Still, toys are not a good subject to make a point with. They're for kids (or young adults I suppose), and the conditions and effort required to make this work and be of any value to the hacker is immense.
They have to know that their target is worth spying on.
they have to know there's a robot inside the house, or get one inside. (If you know this much, can't you just steal what you need anyway?)
Sniff through network traffic to find an access code.
Roll a robot around the house without anyone noticing.
I've never had any of these, but I've seen quite a few. They're pretty bulky and not at all subtle. As far as the sound they make, I'm not sure but I'd assume that they're not very stealthy, are they?
You're better off sitting in the kiddie pool out back with binoculars trained on the bathroom window.
Well if it's all true and they can resist walking/nails guns/hail/high winds, then I might as well go the extra mile and tile my entire yard too. I won't have to mow anymore and save even more money!
Yes this is called 'Gene Therapy' and one of the big issues is getting a virus to place the DNA inside the chromosome in the correct spot.
I may be misguided in this response, but if you replace all of your current DNA, with all of your less flawed/reworked 20 year old DNA, is there still an issue of "placing it in the correct spot?" I mean you're not highlighting a certain gene, you're doing the whole thing.
If you were in good physical shape and running low on funds with a modest retirement, I think you would do what most old people in that situation would do. Work at Wal-mart.
I was actually wondering how viral technology was evolving. I'm far from a biologist, so correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't we able to reverse engineer and create our own viruses in laboratories now?
Doesn't a virus take over your cell and reprogram it with the code wrapped up in the virus itself? It starts making the cell pump out tons of new viruses which ultimately bursts the cell and kills it.
How much more difficult would it be to create a virus with your DNA from saved blood at age 20 (say your 60 now), program it to hijack the cell and reprogram it with the new DNA?
There would have to be a few modifications made, for example, making it invisible to your immune system, coding the virus to die after reprogramming the cell, etc. Then just fill up an IV and let them flow into your body.
I'm sure there's a huge difference from the kind we can engineer versus the type I'm suggesting, but is it possible? Or would the temporary pause of cell function during the reprogramming phase kill you?
Slashdot Mirror
All they need to do is send someone to Mars, all alone and with a few HD cameras. Have him send his footage back to be edited by the same folks who make Survivor Man, and Voila, instant Mars reality TV. Even if the more scientific community doesn't agree, it would definitely get more attention by people who currently don't follow anything space related. Probably creating a better atmosphere for commercial opportunity, too. Hell, I'd watch it.
Why not set a mission to bring the Apophis asteroid into earth orbit since it's trajectory brings it closer to us anyway? We wouldn't have to worry about sending a probe or exploration team out to the distant reaches of space to do a small science project about water mining. We could knock out two technologies at the same time. Learning how to effectively maneuver an asteroid, which seems to be a hot topic as it is. Also, asteroid mining - for pretty much whatever. We would have the damn thing in our back yard and could do whatever we wanted with it.
It's keeping some of the users who shouldn't be on a computer in the first place from mucking it up with stuff they copied from their home systems. The biggest problem of a large installation is the users who think it's a great idea to try to install hacked software they downloaded from TPB, or that it's OK to try to load NES roms that they found somewhere. These are the kind of people who don't even scan the stuff they download on their own systems, and then they install it on a government system without a second thought.
It's no wonder we can't make much progress in space when it costs so much just to barely get there. Where are our space elevators?!
I agree that this article is very lacking on details. I would like to know more about how the hydrogenosomes affect the creature's mobility and whether or not a larger animal could be sustained with these organelles.
For those who are complaining about the scene specifically - It's a game meant for entertainment, just as there are massacres in movies, there can be massacres in video games. They're both meant for the same age group. For those who are complaining about the negative portrayal of Russia - There was also a corrupted general who killed his own men in this game too. It's a fictional storyline, get over it.
Google may be the only immediately available source of information someone can get to. The author of this article obviously had nothing to do but sit and play with the suggestion feature and figured he could burn a work day with an article to justify how he wasn't actually wasting his time. If someone is having problems with chest pains, you can imagine they are getting scared, but it's not like they know exactly what a heart attack is supposed to feel like so they don't want to take action in case they're wrong. Someone who doesn't have insurance for example, should definitely check google for possible symptoms. Obviously if the case were serious enough, you probably would just go to the hospital regardless. However, many cases of heart attack patients actually turn out to be heartburn or acid reflux. The same goes for the "Am I going into labor" question. Instances of women getting pregnant is rare, but happens much more often than you'd think. The experience of going into labor would be extremely frightening if you had not been expecting it or learning about it several months in advance. The article seems to be written with an elitist point of view with no actual insight towards real world situations that would bring these searches about. Granted, there are definitely some listed that are stupid, the author could have done a better job finding far, far better examples. Like, "why is there a dead pakistani on my couch?" Although, perhaps if there was one on my couch, I may ask the same question.
This is correct, all that needs to be done to ensure that whatever developed software remains exempt from the Freedom of Information Act (5U.S.C.552) is classify it as FOUO (for offical use only) and slap a regulation on it, (IAW DoD 5400.11R) As long as you can say that it would give an enemy knowledge of our inner processes, even how we format our harddrives, it can be FOUO.
I always figured we'd be OK. Rats only attack if they're scared right? But people...oh God! Just what we need, a robot that thinks it'd be funny to be a zombie.
Perhaps with a technology that has the potential to cause such harm in the wrong hands, the government could set up a registration method for people that can take a test or something to become eligible handlers. At least this way if there is a big problem: someone tosses one in a fire, takes it apart, sells it to unregistered users. That way these people are aware of the consequences of their actions and are subject to huge legal ramifications. Also, each battery should probably be logged by serial number for accountability. For something as amazing as a lifelong battery, I would be more than willing to jump through the red tape.
I don't necessarily agree that these types of batteries would ever really enter the "readily disposable" mentality. People will/should know that the battery will last several lifetimes. I would assume that the throw away mentality will still be applied to the device itself, but they'll salvage the battery to use in something else.
It's unfortunate that the only robots they had a chance to test were toys. I'm sure the government wouldn't want any studies done on the security of their robots yet. Still, toys are not a good subject to make a point with. They're for kids (or young adults I suppose), and the conditions and effort required to make this work and be of any value to the hacker is immense. They have to know that their target is worth spying on. they have to know there's a robot inside the house, or get one inside. (If you know this much, can't you just steal what you need anyway?) Sniff through network traffic to find an access code. Roll a robot around the house without anyone noticing. I've never had any of these, but I've seen quite a few. They're pretty bulky and not at all subtle. As far as the sound they make, I'm not sure but I'd assume that they're not very stealthy, are they? You're better off sitting in the kiddie pool out back with binoculars trained on the bathroom window.
"That's the cue for a changeover. He flips the projectors, the movie keeps right on going, and nobody in the audience has any idea."
Well if it's all true and they can resist walking/nails guns/hail/high winds, then I might as well go the extra mile and tile my entire yard too. I won't have to mow anymore and save even more money!
Yes this is called 'Gene Therapy' and one of the big issues is getting a virus to place the DNA inside the chromosome in the correct spot.
I may be misguided in this response, but if you replace all of your current DNA, with all of your less flawed/reworked 20 year old DNA, is there still an issue of "placing it in the correct spot?" I mean you're not highlighting a certain gene, you're doing the whole thing.
If you were in good physical shape and running low on funds with a modest retirement, I think you would do what most old people in that situation would do. Work at Wal-mart.
I was actually wondering how viral technology was evolving. I'm far from a biologist, so correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't we able to reverse engineer and create our own viruses in laboratories now? Doesn't a virus take over your cell and reprogram it with the code wrapped up in the virus itself? It starts making the cell pump out tons of new viruses which ultimately bursts the cell and kills it. How much more difficult would it be to create a virus with your DNA from saved blood at age 20 (say your 60 now), program it to hijack the cell and reprogram it with the new DNA? There would have to be a few modifications made, for example, making it invisible to your immune system, coding the virus to die after reprogramming the cell, etc. Then just fill up an IV and let them flow into your body. I'm sure there's a huge difference from the kind we can engineer versus the type I'm suggesting, but is it possible? Or would the temporary pause of cell function during the reprogramming phase kill you?