I hope you were joking, because criticizing another's grammar while having 2 misspellings (one of them in the subject line!) is ironic at best and pathetic at worst.
While you are correct that there are some proteins that survive in the GI tract and get absorbed, they are mostly the exception that proves the rule. Most of the proteins that have an adverse effect on the human body only act locally in the GI tract and are not absorbed (cholera toxin), are very resistant to degradation but still have only a local effect (Gluten) or are produced by bacteria that invade the GI tract and this way can be secreted to the blood stream (Shigella, entero-toxic E. coli).
I can't understand it, about once a day we have someone complain that/. posts stories after everyone else. "Late to the party" is the phrase I seem to recall. For once they are ahead of the curve and now someone complains that they are "premature". There's no satisfying some people:)
Hey, he is missing the most insightful opening sentence I heard in years: "Computers used to be big, now they are small". How is that for +5 Insightful?
And if in addition to the great opportunity he gets money for it, what's the problem? He is a good programmer and Facebook thinks he is worth the amount they pay him. He, OTOH, gets a good salary (I presume it is more than what he got at Google) and an interesting job - seems like a Win-Win situation. Correct me if I am wrong, but it is not such a rare occasion that programmers move from one company to another in the IT business.
Wow, you found out that a top Google programmer is being hired by another company for money. Oh, and he agreed to switch companies because he is being paid big bucks. Yep, you sure deserve the Insightful mod.
Most people here dream about doing a good enough job to be hired by one of the top companies and being paid big bucks for it, but when we see someone with a proven track record getting paid for it: Sellout!
I meant the book's name. I read it as a kid and could never remember how the book was called. When you know the name of the book, the rest is easy to find (WIYF). If I had meant the boy, I would have written "his name". Thanks anyhow.
Don't know. Maybe because you've seen too many movies?
Just to allay your fears, this is a protein, meaning it cannot be ingested, since it will be broken in the gastrointestinal (GI) tract. The only effective way to give it to someone is by injection. Even then, these proteins are usually broken down quickly by the body (to prevent their overactivity). For continuous action the immune cells continue to secrete the protein until the job is done. So basically, you need to hold on to the enemy soldier, put an intravenous line in him and give him the protein continuously until he dies from massive total system cell breakdown. Sounds like a regular Dr. Evil plot - No way can Austin Powers escape this one!
It's not the first time that doctors lowered/raised the level of activity of a protein involved with the immune system. Of course it has side effects, but a drug gets approved when the benefits outweigh the risks. For example, TNF is an important mediator of inflammation. Its inhibitors are used for Rheumatoid Arthritis and many other diseases. Interleukin-2 is also an important factor in the immune system (esp. in its anti-viral and anti-cancer capacity). A recombinant form of this protein is used to fight several types of cancer. So, yes, maybe this approach won't work, but it has potential and it will be a shame if it will not be tried.
Oh, and by the way, thanks for the Wizard of Earthseas reference. I read this book years ago, and never could remember its name.
The amazing thing is people get worked up about the summery, but nowhere is it written that the "more embarrassing pat-down" is actually a TSA directive. It is the opinion of one employee that the writer talked to. As far as we know, it might be that it is really a more effective pat-down intended to be more useful at finding weapons/bombs on those who refuse the scanners. I'm not saying I am that naive, but OTOH, getting all worked up over the opinion of one TSA employee, without even the TSA's response...
Well, I just threw away a few mod points, but I had to respond. You are talking about the attempts that you know about. For every attempt that you know about there are usually many be many (tens? hundreds?) that you do not know about that the $80B prevented. Could it have been prevented with less spending? Maybe, but like the OP said: We don't have the information to know this.
You do understand that my comment was made in jest? Don't take it so seriously. Although, from a Libertarian point of view, you can take it any way you want, so have fun:)
You keep saying the same sentences that are always said in discussions such as this, while not trying to give a reasonable argument against what I said. If we have a DRM system that has all the features that I wrote (including the additions from other commenters), whats wrong with it? I can also say that physical books are bad because they inconvenience me: I have to physically carry them; I only get one copy; if someone takes the copy from me I don't have it; and if/when he losses it I can't get a new one for free. So, are physical books bad? Please try to tell me what is wrong with the hypothetical DRM system I proposed. I think if we have it, it will be even better and less cumbersome than physical books. The only real problem I think you have with DRM is that you prefer totally DRM-free books. That would be great, but assuming a publisher wants to guarantee that you pay for the book, what is wrong with my DRM proposal? Like I said, it's better than the current model - physical books.
First, thanks for the long, but informative post (yes, I read it all). Second, you are not challenging the basic idea of DRM, only the technical feasibility of implementing it. You may be correct that it is not possible to give the user the cipher, ciphertext and key and expect him not to be able to crack the system. This does not mean that a properly implemented DRM system is not bad. I still stand behind my statement that the idea of DRM is sound. Current implementations (both the business model and the technological means) may be lacking, but that does not mean it can't be corrected.
And on a side note: if we have a DRM system that has all the features me and several commenters listed, I believe there will be less incentive to try and crack the system. It will still happen, but few people will use such cracks. I believe most people are honest and will buy the book (or just have the time and technical knowhow to search for the crack).
But you still have the nasty problem of the changing geography and topography of Mother Earth. Not to mention the changing architecture - just one new building in the path of the DeLorean...
First of all, you took this from the user license for the Kindle software for the PC, I was talking about the Kindle device. Nowhere does it say you can't give the Kindle itself to another person.
"But I want to read on the PC, not on the device!," you say? Well, the other person (e.g. you son/daughter) installs the software on his own (it's free to download from the Amazon site) and you give them your login details. I agree, the user agreement may be a bit vague on that point, but since you are dead and no one else is using it, there should be no problem. You could even give to them in the will. You can give whatever you own to whomever you want in your will, don't you?
Slashdot Mirror
I hope you were joking, because criticizing another's grammar while having 2 misspellings (one of them in the subject line!) is ironic at best and pathetic at worst.
And you are a silly person. Now go away or I shall taunt you a second time, you silly English Knnnniget!
While you are correct that there are some proteins that survive in the GI tract and get absorbed, they are mostly the exception that proves the rule.
Most of the proteins that have an adverse effect on the human body only act locally in the GI tract and are not absorbed (cholera toxin), are very resistant to degradation but still have only a local effect (Gluten) or are produced by bacteria that invade the GI tract and this way can be secreted to the blood stream (Shigella, entero-toxic E. coli).
Well, I put it in the "No shit, sherlock"-sort of insightful.
I can't understand it, about once a day we have someone complain that /. posts stories after everyone else. "Late to the party" is the phrase I seem to recall. For once they are ahead of the curve and now someone complains that they are "premature". There's no satisfying some people :)
Hey, he is missing the most insightful opening sentence I heard in years: "Computers used to be big, now they are small". How is that for +5 Insightful?
And if in addition to the great opportunity he gets money for it, what's the problem?
He is a good programmer and Facebook thinks he is worth the amount they pay him. He, OTOH, gets a good salary (I presume it is more than what he got at Google) and an interesting job - seems like a Win-Win situation.
Correct me if I am wrong, but it is not such a rare occasion that programmers move from one company to another in the IT business.
Wow, you found out that a top Google programmer is being hired by another company for money. Oh, and he agreed to switch companies because he is being paid big bucks. Yep, you sure deserve the Insightful mod.
Most people here dream about doing a good enough job to be hired by one of the top companies and being paid big bucks for it, but when we see someone with a proven track record getting paid for it: Sellout!
I meant the book's name. I read it as a kid and could never remember how the book was called. When you know the name of the book, the rest is easy to find (WIYF). If I had meant the boy, I would have written "his name".
Thanks anyhow.
Don't know. Maybe because you've seen too many movies?
Just to allay your fears, this is a protein, meaning it cannot be ingested, since it will be broken in the gastrointestinal (GI) tract. The only effective way to give it to someone is by injection. Even then, these proteins are usually broken down quickly by the body (to prevent their overactivity). For continuous action the immune cells continue to secrete the protein until the job is done.
So basically, you need to hold on to the enemy soldier, put an intravenous line in him and give him the protein continuously until he dies from massive total system cell breakdown. Sounds like a regular Dr. Evil plot - No way can Austin Powers escape this one!
And on a more serious note, maybe they should name it "the Shiva protein"?
Can you hear it? The whisper quiet sound of something Whooshing way above you? Or maybe you just aren't relaxin enough...
It's not the first time that doctors lowered/raised the level of activity of a protein involved with the immune system. Of course it has side effects, but a drug gets approved when the benefits outweigh the risks.
For example, TNF is an important mediator of inflammation. Its inhibitors are used for Rheumatoid Arthritis and many other diseases.
Interleukin-2 is also an important factor in the immune system (esp. in its anti-viral and anti-cancer capacity). A recombinant form of this protein is used to fight several types of cancer.
So, yes, maybe this approach won't work, but it has potential and it will be a shame if it will not be tried.
Oh, and by the way, thanks for the Wizard of Earthseas reference. I read this book years ago, and never could remember its name.
But since you missed the Monty Python reference, you got your very own Whoosh. Mazal Tov!
You know you deserve it: Whoosh!
Whoosh
The amazing thing is people get worked up about the summery, but nowhere is it written that the "more embarrassing pat-down" is actually a TSA directive. It is the opinion of one employee that the writer talked to. As far as we know, it might be that it is really a more effective pat-down intended to be more useful at finding weapons/bombs on those who refuse the scanners.
I'm not saying I am that naive, but OTOH, getting all worked up over the opinion of one TSA employee, without even the TSA's response...
Well, I just threw away a few mod points, but I had to respond.
You are talking about the attempts that you know about. For every attempt that you know about there are usually many be many (tens? hundreds?) that you do not know about that the $80B prevented. Could it have been prevented with less spending? Maybe, but like the OP said: We don't have the information to know this.
You do understand that my comment was made in jest? Don't take it so seriously. Although, from a Libertarian point of view, you can take it any way you want, so have fun :)
You keep saying the same sentences that are always said in discussions such as this, while not trying to give a reasonable argument against what I said.
If we have a DRM system that has all the features that I wrote (including the additions from other commenters), whats wrong with it?
I can also say that physical books are bad because they inconvenience me: I have to physically carry them; I only get one copy; if someone takes the copy from me I don't have it; and if/when he losses it I can't get a new one for free. So, are physical books bad?
Please try to tell me what is wrong with the hypothetical DRM system I proposed. I think if we have it, it will be even better and less cumbersome than physical books.
The only real problem I think you have with DRM is that you prefer totally DRM-free books. That would be great, but assuming a publisher wants to guarantee that you pay for the book, what is wrong with my DRM proposal? Like I said, it's better than the current model - physical books.
First, thanks for the long, but informative post (yes, I read it all).
Second, you are not challenging the basic idea of DRM, only the technical feasibility of implementing it. You may be correct that it is not possible to give the user the cipher, ciphertext and key and expect him not to be able to crack the system.
This does not mean that a properly implemented DRM system is not bad. I still stand behind my statement that the idea of DRM is sound. Current implementations (both the business model and the technological means) may be lacking, but that does not mean it can't be corrected.
And on a side note: if we have a DRM system that has all the features me and several commenters listed, I believe there will be less incentive to try and crack the system. It will still happen, but few people will use such cracks. I believe most people are honest and will buy the book (or just have the time and technical knowhow to search for the crack).
But BTTF was not a cartoon, it was real! My Mama told me so...
Somehow, I don't think the ad would be approved nowadays. Sob.
But you still have the nasty problem of the changing geography and topography of Mother Earth. Not to mention the changing architecture - just one new building in the path of the DeLorean...
First of all, you took this from the user license for the Kindle software for the PC, I was talking about the Kindle device.
Nowhere does it say you can't give the Kindle itself to another person.
"But I want to read on the PC, not on the device!," you say? Well, the other person (e.g. you son/daughter) installs the software on his own (it's free to download from the Amazon site) and you give them your login details. I agree, the user agreement may be a bit vague on that point, but since you are dead and no one else is using it, there should be no problem. You could even give to them in the will. You can give whatever you own to whomever you want in your will, don't you?