Scientists do that research too. Bears (and other hibernating animals) are of particular interest here. But humans are (hopefully) approaching a point where famine is not a significant threat to life, so other solutions like this one could also work even though it may increase the metabolic load (in addition to muscle mass) by causing a larger number of mitochondria and higher cellular respiration. (This article's reference paper).
Well it depends, if it is twice the muscle mass then you're right - something's probably gotta give. But the summary (and news article) states twice the muscle strength, and if that doesn't have a corresponding mass or metabolic burden (e.g. good resting efficiency) then there's no reason to automatically suspect such a biological cost.
...How do you expect democracy to function without free speech?
I would find it a very interesting experiment to set up a direct democracy where no political discourse was allowed. Allow the rest of education, science, and philosophy, but force every vote to be made by an individual to be based solely on his or her understanding of the event in the context of his or her knowledge. It's plausible that such blinded votes could reach better conclusions (statistically) than with discussion and persuasion.
In some ways China is a subset of the above thought experiment (limited franchise/party, non direct democracy). Science is mostly free speech, history and philosophy are more limited).
This begs two questions. Is free speech a privilege, or a human right? Can a majority vote, in a well informed democracy, ethically suspend human rights? (Debate about whether the specific case of China (or North Korea) contains well informed voting party members is a separate question). Is there a different answer if it's a republic making the decision?
I believe free speech is a human right* and that it is inherently unethical to suspend human rights by majority vote. (I'd bet there's even some days something like that could happen in the US, say that 51% of the people supported euthanization of a Congress unable to produce a budget). (Just picking a whimsical future example - hopefully we've learned to do better than our historical examples).
*Note that shouting "Fire!" in a theater doesn't get you arrested, well convicted, on free speech grounds. Current law states that speech has to incite immediate lawless action to be illegal. Now if someone is hurt (physically, financially, emotionally, etc...) by your actions you will more than likely be arrested and convicted for that action (like manslaughter). The dancing question is sort of weird. It's expression, not speech, so it sort of gets to piggy back on the First Amendment. I suspect that particular decision is more about competing freedoms (freedom of an American to meditate at a monument or memorial). The judge (in the earlier case) did state that dancing outside of the memorial would be ok. Also - in the subsequent case I'd bet that the dancers could have managed their protest if they had done whatever the proper organized protest paperwork that the park service has, but I don't really understand the decision all the way through. Of course, I am not a lawyer and nobody should take the above as legal advice.
I hear you, and I hope you're not right. It's hard to imagine the little twit being worse than big Kim.
You do remind me that I've said the same thing about Syria, Egypt, Libya, and several other countries and the Arab Spring.
I think it's relatively unlikely that North Korea will form a new Islamic government based on free and fair democratic elections.
Ha ha, very funny. We've heard that one before and BOOM - Hezbollah (and all the other late comers to the party).
With current empirical evidence and other data sources (unidentified, top secret, and missing) it is clearly time to make a preemptive strike (a Defensive Maneuver (TM)) against this Axis of Evil and initiate Change worthy of a Peace Prize.
Besides, it's clear all of those elections were rigged. It's impossible a True Democracy (TM) could come to a legitimate conclusion at odds with the Architect of the Free World. Such election results are clearly evidence of a population crying for help to overthrow their inherently illegitimately elected government. Military Advice (and cruise missiles) will be provided to said countries's insurgents, er freedom fighters, by priority established according to the value of military-industrial contracts (regulated by fair and impartial registered lobbyists).
You have it backwards. Having ridiculous laws is much worse than not having laws at all. Ridiculous laws will be broken and this is what undermines the very respect for the law.
Also protecting the precious snowflakes at all costs has dire consequences when they meet the harsh bitch called life completely unprepared.
Backwards? I think I was pointing out how ridiculous the requirements for age verification were in the light that a company is exempt merely by allowing for a user submitted, unverifiable, age. The law allowed a dead easy loophole for plausible deniability while setting up a straightforward behavioral conditioning teaching the user to hit refresh, lie, and open the cage door to the cheese.
However, this law does work the way it was intended to. The children can't break it, it's not targeted at them, but at the corporation - so a child lying on the form is not breaking it. When the law is broken, the hammer drops in the thousands and sometimes even million dollar range for the companies who knowingly store (and perhaps use/sell) children's data without parental permission. This law is not about content on the internet and protecting the children from it. It is a law about protecting children from abuse by corporations who target children with personal information (be it advertisements or otherwise) when they are not developmentally prepared for the situation (imprint your product preference on a child for life? Sounds extreme, but this is one of the things the law's requirement to get parents involved is supposed to prevent).
While this law isn't about content, I did bring content into the conversation because age based content verification looks like the same box that COPPA has. Hence my point about it being more important to teach a child when to lie about one's age as being more important than just how to do it. Get an ad supported email address? Probably fine with me as long as I think the kid is old enough not to believe the text advertisement is the end all argument in regards to what they want for Christmas. Have a couple of their 8 year old friends over to watch snuff films? No, not in my house. My kids will know that (and far more subtle distinctions too). I personally like the verification boxes because they'll signal to a child that's still learning the ropes that this is a good time to stop and think - perhaps ask mom or dad.
Finally, I strongly disagree with your opinion about a parent's job to protect a child. A parent should protect their child at all costs - that is their job. Cost however is not always cut and dry. Some things are easy: dive in front of a bus to push your kid out of the way - yes. Give up cable, or your cell/data plan, or whatever so you can have a good life insurance policy (thus making your bus decision not such a hardship/detriment to the rest of the family) - yes. Never let them climb a tree because they might break something, or keep them from playing with other kids because the might catch something? No - successfully raising a coward or hypochondriac does more damage than the immediate protection at early childhood age (besides, kids can turn into those sorts of people well enough without parental assistance). Risking your kid's life (albeit at very small chance of fatality) to teach them about social responsibility: immunizations, blood donation, and other things - again protecting them from those complications only take in the very short and extremely selfish view, not a favor to the child. Pouring energy and activity into the child such that your marriage suffers (and perhaps ends?) - not a long term recipe for protection. Keeping all information about sex away from a kid (or teaching its "absolute wrongness") in the hopes you'll prevent STDs, pregnancy, etc... You're just setting them up for confusion, fear, and marital problems down the road. Teaching them about sex by pointing them at an unfiltered internet and telling them to learn what they want? Same problems from the other side - i
I think teaching how to circumvent COPPA is dangerous without teaching when to do so. There are a lot of age verification things out there on the internet and they're not all for the same reason. COPPA is for preventing a child from disclosing too much personal information for use by another party without informed consent of the parent (i.e. marketing and solicitation). I think teaching a child not to give out their real birth date online is a very valuable lesson. (Birth date and state are enough info for an accurate guess at a social security number, and the region can probably be obtained with a reasonable chance of success for a child (lower chance to have moved from the area of birth)). Other age verifiers are for content, some websites self regulate, others follow third party guidelines (e.g. ESRB). I expect to be the final word in what content my children permissibly access on the internet, but I do appreciate the age checkers as a sign for younger children to stop and ask permission. Older children are going to do their own thing according to what you've taught them up to that point.
Also, I've always been surprised that the age submission check is considered a valid method for absolving an entity of COPPA's requirements considering the lengths they have to go through if they do know they are dealing with a child. It seems rather trivial in comparison to these requirements:
Website operators must use reasonable procedures to ensure they are dealing with the child's parent. These procedures may include:
obtaining a signed form from the parent via postal mail or facsimile;
accepting and verifying a credit card number;
taking calls from parents on a toll-free telephone number staffed by trained personnel;
email accompanied by digital signature;
email accompanied by a PIN or password obtained through one of the verification methods above.
Operators who follow one of these procedures acting in good faith to a request for parental access are protected from liability under federal and state law for inadvertent disclosures of a child's information to someone who purports to be a parent.
It's not a total prohibition. It's a new requirement that you must show that the usage of pan troglodytes and possibly pan paniscus (common chimp and bonobo respectively), is required for the research and that there is no other alternative. You must also show that the research is valuable and worth the cost (in addition to the grants own merits). You currently already need IRB approval/exemptions for human subject research (and animal trials for that matter), but this is to make sure you really need a chimp for your research when another model might work (many IRBs wouldn't make this a requirement for the research - they'd worry more about the treatment, conditions, etc... along the way).
Furthermore, this is the NIH which funds research grants, and not the FDA which approves preclinical trials on animal subjects (they aren't clinical trials until you use humans) for new drugs and medical devices. There's still plenty of chances for chimps to get experimented on and sacrificed for R&D. These new rules should just tighten up how often people pick chimps as a model. Not that expense, care, attachment, PR, and other factors haven't already moved the ball along. This'll have more impact on the focused-to-oblivion researcher who wanted to test his thingy on something as close to human as he could, not worrying about any of the above factors because he's got his grant and that lets him keep ignoring the rest of the world.
I understand why they went with their own standard at the time (although i may have personally preferred if they had contributed to the standards process), but now that epub is mature, the clear winning standard, and possibly superior technology.
It seems to me that at this point Amazon could manage backwards compatibility just fine while transitioning to (and contributing in) the epub format; so if it's no longer a question of quality is KF8 more aimed at vendor lock-in?
It makes me sad that the article doesn't even mention which epub version (1, 2, or 3) the author was comparing it to. Most new books are in 3, but there's a ton still out there at version 2. Not to mention that the International Digital Publishing Forum [IDPF] is an active standard and will continually be updated for the foreseeable future. Some quantitative data would be very useful when comparing proprietary and open standards, especially as each format (and distribution system) have strong pros and cons. Personally I'm all for fully open standards for any data type, it'd take a lot of superior features to draw me into a vendor lock-in system.
I think that's exactly what they're thinking, but in the other direction. Contracted work, bid on by individuals (sometimes groups) around the world, and billed per hour. If you're doing contract work billed by the hour you have absolutely no right to be checking your accounts, viewing social networks, or reading personal email. I know I'd be ticked if a $600 per hour patent lawyer was billing me for the time he spends calling his Swiss banker, why should I be any less ticked by a customer support person at $20 per hour is doing the same thing? (It may cost me less, but I'm still paying for work I'm not getting).
There are a lot of other systems for taking bids on IT/computer projects online, including several that pay for the job. They have different methods of accountability; but if a customer is paying by the hour for service, they should be able to expect to get that service.
Nailed it. Replacing our entire infrastructure to generate, store, and transport hydrogen is the trick. So is the question of our source of hydrogen - it could still be oil based for a while. Our catalysts for splitting water aren't quite ready for industrial scale yet IMHO. Best plan I've seen so far is to dedicate a nuclear reactor to the provision of electricity for a catalyst assisted electrolytic splitting of water. I suppose you could do the same with a dam, but I bet it'd be easier to build a new nuke plant these days than it would to build a major dam.
How about turbine powered electric generators (pick your fuel) which run a dedicated electric vehicle system. There's only so much more efficiency you can squeak out of the ICE these days. One could add a battery/capacitor system to run it off the grid for shorter trips. Jaguar made a pretty awesome prototype along these lines a few years back.
It's true. My gasoline-powered cars catch fire all the time.
You are half-right, though. From what I've read the Volt's battery is supposed to be drained after a crash to ensure it can't catch fire... which must be great fun for people who are responding to the accident.
A more pertinent question is whether the responders feel safe using the jaws of life on an electric car. Unless every emergency responder is required to learn where the various power conduits in every vehicle are located, or unless industry standardizes locations on a vehicle, you could add a bit of extra shock when you're trying to tear someone out of the car. So far there's relatively few models and most keep all of the high current stuff all under the hood, but it's not impossible that the battery will be up front with individual electric motors per wheel, or a motor in the back, or perhaps the electric heater might be located in the passenger compartment...
But presumably they know how long the average tricky problem needs to be thought about. There can be reasonable ways of requesting (or requiring) employee accountability.
You've not had much experience with HR have you? It'd work for the first day, after which you'd have just been responsible for implementing business formal dress code for every teleworking employee the company has. After a year, everyone would be happy with the company when they were allowed to take the suit jackets off and just keep the ties and shirt (presumably pants, but unless it's a full field web cam in another part of the room...).
It wouldn't work because of two words after the colon: work progress.
It's not that a worker wouldn't be allowed to get up and grab a snack or defecate, but you'd be able to target your inefficient workers pretty easily with something like this. Now the way to game the system would be to set up voice recognition on the work computer, and text to speech on your personal computer, and then point it at something work related to be typed...:)
Slashdot Mirror
Scientists do that research too. Bears (and other hibernating animals) are of particular interest here. But humans are (hopefully) approaching a point where famine is not a significant threat to life, so other solutions like this one could also work even though it may increase the metabolic load (in addition to muscle mass) by causing a larger number of mitochondria and higher cellular respiration. (This article's reference paper).
Well it depends, if it is twice the muscle mass then you're right - something's probably gotta give. But the summary (and news article) states twice the muscle strength, and if that doesn't have a corresponding mass or metabolic burden (e.g. good resting efficiency) then there's no reason to automatically suspect such a biological cost.
...How do you expect democracy to function without free speech?
I would find it a very interesting experiment to set up a direct democracy where no political discourse was allowed. Allow the rest of education, science, and philosophy, but force every vote to be made by an individual to be based solely on his or her understanding of the event in the context of his or her knowledge. It's plausible that such blinded votes could reach better conclusions (statistically) than with discussion and persuasion.
In some ways China is a subset of the above thought experiment (limited franchise/party, non direct democracy). Science is mostly free speech, history and philosophy are more limited).
I'm not aware of any US laws that prohibit the reporting of theater fires. Justice Holmes' actual words were "falsely shouting fire in a theater".
And the decision making that illegal was struck down by Brandenburg vs. Ohio.
This begs two questions: is free speech a human right? and can a well informed voting democracy ethically suspend human rights?
This begs two questions. Is free speech a privilege, or a human right? Can a majority vote, in a well informed democracy, ethically suspend human rights? (Debate about whether the specific case of China (or North Korea) contains well informed voting party members is a separate question). Is there a different answer if it's a republic making the decision?
I believe free speech is a human right* and that it is inherently unethical to suspend human rights by majority vote. (I'd bet there's even some days something like that could happen in the US, say that 51% of the people supported euthanization of a Congress unable to produce a budget). (Just picking a whimsical future example - hopefully we've learned to do better than our historical examples).
*Note that shouting "Fire!" in a theater doesn't get you arrested, well convicted, on free speech grounds. Current law states that speech has to incite immediate lawless action to be illegal. Now if someone is hurt (physically, financially, emotionally, etc...) by your actions you will more than likely be arrested and convicted for that action (like manslaughter). The dancing question is sort of weird. It's expression, not speech, so it sort of gets to piggy back on the First Amendment. I suspect that particular decision is more about competing freedoms (freedom of an American to meditate at a monument or memorial). The judge (in the earlier case) did state that dancing outside of the memorial would be ok. Also - in the subsequent case I'd bet that the dancers could have managed their protest if they had done whatever the proper organized protest paperwork that the park service has, but I don't really understand the decision all the way through. Of course, I am not a lawyer and nobody should take the above as legal advice.
I hear you, and I hope you're not right. It's hard to imagine the little twit being worse than big Kim.
You do remind me that I've said the same thing about Syria, Egypt, Libya, and several other countries and the Arab Spring.
I think it's relatively unlikely that North Korea will form a new Islamic government based on free and fair democratic elections.
Ha ha, very funny. We've heard that one before and BOOM - Hezbollah (and all the other late comers to the party).
With current empirical evidence and other data sources (unidentified, top secret, and missing) it is clearly time to make a preemptive strike (a Defensive Maneuver (TM)) against this Axis of Evil and initiate Change worthy of a Peace Prize.
Besides, it's clear all of those elections were rigged. It's impossible a True Democracy (TM) could come to a legitimate conclusion at odds with the Architect of the Free World. Such election results are clearly evidence of a population crying for help to overthrow their inherently illegitimately elected government. Military Advice (and cruise missiles) will be provided to said countries's insurgents, er freedom fighters, by priority established according to the value of military-industrial contracts (regulated by fair and impartial registered lobbyists).
You have it backwards. Having ridiculous laws is much worse than not having laws at all. Ridiculous laws will be broken and this is what undermines the very respect for the law. Also protecting the precious snowflakes at all costs has dire consequences when they meet the harsh bitch called life completely unprepared.
Backwards? I think I was pointing out how ridiculous the requirements for age verification were in the light that a company is exempt merely by allowing for a user submitted, unverifiable, age. The law allowed a dead easy loophole for plausible deniability while setting up a straightforward behavioral conditioning teaching the user to hit refresh, lie, and open the cage door to the cheese.
However, this law does work the way it was intended to. The children can't break it, it's not targeted at them, but at the corporation - so a child lying on the form is not breaking it. When the law is broken, the hammer drops in the thousands and sometimes even million dollar range for the companies who knowingly store (and perhaps use/sell) children's data without parental permission. This law is not about content on the internet and protecting the children from it. It is a law about protecting children from abuse by corporations who target children with personal information (be it advertisements or otherwise) when they are not developmentally prepared for the situation (imprint your product preference on a child for life? Sounds extreme, but this is one of the things the law's requirement to get parents involved is supposed to prevent).
While this law isn't about content, I did bring content into the conversation because age based content verification looks like the same box that COPPA has. Hence my point about it being more important to teach a child when to lie about one's age as being more important than just how to do it. Get an ad supported email address? Probably fine with me as long as I think the kid is old enough not to believe the text advertisement is the end all argument in regards to what they want for Christmas. Have a couple of their 8 year old friends over to watch snuff films? No, not in my house. My kids will know that (and far more subtle distinctions too). I personally like the verification boxes because they'll signal to a child that's still learning the ropes that this is a good time to stop and think - perhaps ask mom or dad.
Finally, I strongly disagree with your opinion about a parent's job to protect a child. A parent should protect their child at all costs - that is their job. Cost however is not always cut and dry. Some things are easy: dive in front of a bus to push your kid out of the way - yes. Give up cable, or your cell/data plan, or whatever so you can have a good life insurance policy (thus making your bus decision not such a hardship/detriment to the rest of the family) - yes. Never let them climb a tree because they might break something, or keep them from playing with other kids because the might catch something? No - successfully raising a coward or hypochondriac does more damage than the immediate protection at early childhood age (besides, kids can turn into those sorts of people well enough without parental assistance). Risking your kid's life (albeit at very small chance of fatality) to teach them about social responsibility: immunizations, blood donation, and other things - again protecting them from those complications only take in the very short and extremely selfish view, not a favor to the child. Pouring energy and activity into the child such that your marriage suffers (and perhaps ends?) - not a long term recipe for protection. Keeping all information about sex away from a kid (or teaching its "absolute wrongness") in the hopes you'll prevent STDs, pregnancy, etc... You're just setting them up for confusion, fear, and marital problems down the road. Teaching them about sex by pointing them at an unfiltered internet and telling them to learn what they want? Same problems from the other side - i
I think teaching how to circumvent COPPA is dangerous without teaching when to do so. There are a lot of age verification things out there on the internet and they're not all for the same reason. COPPA is for preventing a child from disclosing too much personal information for use by another party without informed consent of the parent (i.e. marketing and solicitation). I think teaching a child not to give out their real birth date online is a very valuable lesson. (Birth date and state are enough info for an accurate guess at a social security number, and the region can probably be obtained with a reasonable chance of success for a child (lower chance to have moved from the area of birth)). Other age verifiers are for content, some websites self regulate, others follow third party guidelines (e.g. ESRB). I expect to be the final word in what content my children permissibly access on the internet, but I do appreciate the age checkers as a sign for younger children to stop and ask permission. Older children are going to do their own thing according to what you've taught them up to that point.
Also, I've always been surprised that the age submission check is considered a valid method for absolving an entity of COPPA's requirements considering the lengths they have to go through if they do know they are dealing with a child. It seems rather trivial in comparison to these requirements:
It's not a total prohibition. It's a new requirement that you must show that the usage of pan troglodytes and possibly pan paniscus (common chimp and bonobo respectively), is required for the research and that there is no other alternative. You must also show that the research is valuable and worth the cost (in addition to the grants own merits). You currently already need IRB approval/exemptions for human subject research (and animal trials for that matter), but this is to make sure you really need a chimp for your research when another model might work (many IRBs wouldn't make this a requirement for the research - they'd worry more about the treatment, conditions, etc... along the way).
Furthermore, this is the NIH which funds research grants, and not the FDA which approves preclinical trials on animal subjects (they aren't clinical trials until you use humans) for new drugs and medical devices. There's still plenty of chances for chimps to get experimented on and sacrificed for R&D. These new rules should just tighten up how often people pick chimps as a model. Not that expense, care, attachment, PR, and other factors haven't already moved the ball along. This'll have more impact on the focused-to-oblivion researcher who wanted to test his thingy on something as close to human as he could, not worrying about any of the above factors because he's got his grant and that lets him keep ignoring the rest of the world.
I understand why they went with their own standard at the time (although i may have personally preferred if they had contributed to the standards process), but now that epub is mature, the clear winning standard, and possibly superior technology.
I’ve also checked and the guidelines says Javascript is not supported, and neither are some HTML5 tags...
It seems to me that at this point Amazon could manage backwards compatibility just fine while transitioning to (and contributing in) the epub format; so if it's no longer a question of quality is KF8 more aimed at vendor lock-in?
It makes me sad that the article doesn't even mention which epub version (1, 2, or 3) the author was comparing it to. Most new books are in 3, but there's a ton still out there at version 2. Not to mention that the International Digital Publishing Forum [IDPF] is an active standard and will continually be updated for the foreseeable future. Some quantitative data would be very useful when comparing proprietary and open standards, especially as each format (and distribution system) have strong pros and cons. Personally I'm all for fully open standards for any data type, it'd take a lot of superior features to draw me into a vendor lock-in system.
Marketing! They do have (or at least used to), the best commercial creators in the world.
Cool. Thanks.
For Direct Current (DC): P=I*V=I^2*R=V^2/R. P is power, I is current, V is voltage, and R is resistance.
And since power corrupts, and corruption leads to sin [citation needed], and the wages of sin is death, I think the conclusion is that DC can kill you.
Jaws sometimes go through the frame.
Right, but how many variations are they expected to learn. Presumably electrical vehicles are a growing market.
...The potential for abuse is staggering.
I think that's exactly what they're thinking, but in the other direction. Contracted work, bid on by individuals (sometimes groups) around the world, and billed per hour. If you're doing contract work billed by the hour you have absolutely no right to be checking your accounts, viewing social networks, or reading personal email. I know I'd be ticked if a $600 per hour patent lawyer was billing me for the time he spends calling his Swiss banker, why should I be any less ticked by a customer support person at $20 per hour is doing the same thing? (It may cost me less, but I'm still paying for work I'm not getting).
There are a lot of other systems for taking bids on IT/computer projects online, including several that pay for the job. They have different methods of accountability; but if a customer is paying by the hour for service, they should be able to expect to get that service.
Nailed it. Replacing our entire infrastructure to generate, store, and transport hydrogen is the trick. So is the question of our source of hydrogen - it could still be oil based for a while. Our catalysts for splitting water aren't quite ready for industrial scale yet IMHO. Best plan I've seen so far is to dedicate a nuclear reactor to the provision of electricity for a catalyst assisted electrolytic splitting of water. I suppose you could do the same with a dam, but I bet it'd be easier to build a new nuke plant these days than it would to build a major dam.
How about turbine powered electric generators (pick your fuel) which run a dedicated electric vehicle system. There's only so much more efficiency you can squeak out of the ICE these days. One could add a battery/capacitor system to run it off the grid for shorter trips. Jaguar made a pretty awesome prototype along these lines a few years back.
It's true. My gasoline-powered cars catch fire all the time.
You are half-right, though. From what I've read the Volt's battery is supposed to be drained after a crash to ensure it can't catch fire... which must be great fun for people who are responding to the accident.
A more pertinent question is whether the responders feel safe using the jaws of life on an electric car. Unless every emergency responder is required to learn where the various power conduits in every vehicle are located, or unless industry standardizes locations on a vehicle, you could add a bit of extra shock when you're trying to tear someone out of the car. So far there's relatively few models and most keep all of the high current stuff all under the hood, but it's not impossible that the battery will be up front with individual electric motors per wheel, or a motor in the back, or perhaps the electric heater might be located in the passenger compartment...
But presumably they know how long the average tricky problem needs to be thought about. There can be reasonable ways of requesting (or requiring) employee accountability.
Yup. Bosses walk by in the hallway too.
You've not had much experience with HR have you? It'd work for the first day, after which you'd have just been responsible for implementing business formal dress code for every teleworking employee the company has. After a year, everyone would be happy with the company when they were allowed to take the suit jackets off and just keep the ties and shirt (presumably pants, but unless it's a full field web cam in another part of the room...).
It wouldn't work because of two words after the colon: work progress.
It's not that a worker wouldn't be allowed to get up and grab a snack or defecate, but you'd be able to target your inefficient workers pretty easily with something like this. Now the way to game the system would be to set up voice recognition on the work computer, and text to speech on your personal computer, and then point it at something work related to be typed... :)