If magically tomorrow every single Windows box was Linux instead, socially-engineered malware would appear the next day.
One thing that protects Linux, and that has little to do with the OS itself, is the FOSS ecosystem. Pretty much everything you could want is available for free from trusted repositories, and so there is little or no incentive to download and install warez or other pirated software that may have been tampered with. You would still be right, though, if being the dominant "OS for the masses" implies that a similar proprietary closed-source ecosystem would quickly arise around it.
With the low humidity there, it would seem that evaporative cooling would work well. Of course, you still need water, but Evian is cheaper if you buy the big 24-packs...
It seems as if the metaphors (e.g., "virus") that computational science has borrowed from biology have come around full-circle, with the result that concepts from different fields are getting conflated with one another in bizarre ways. The reasoning seems to be: If data (in the form of a computer program) can replicate and spread to other machines, then perhaps DNA sequence data in genomic databases can perform similar biological feats like mutation, evolution, and transmission. This seems inane enough that it's likely me who is missing something, but it's a "something" that I should have been able to get from the article.
The "will be rejected" part, I think, is where the issue comes in. Rejected based on what?
Ummm, maybe on known viral/bacterial/mycoplasmal sequences? It's pretty much routine when you're assembling a genome, and it's not hard to screen a database retrospectively as new contaminating genomes are discovered.
As for sequence data mutating and evolving in silico in genome databases (if that's what people are saying here; I can't be sure), well... That might be a good plot for a SciFi novel, but not one that would seem credible to any biologist.
Won't comment on this particular application, but no: "obvious" does not mean that anyone skilled in the art would come up with exactly the same list of claims. If that were the case, the no patent would be enforceable, because all you'd have to do is introduce some trivial variance to an existing patent and it could still be deemed novel.
It's pretty remarkable that this and so many other seemingly scientific issues (evolution, plate tectonics, etc.) get fractured along "liberal/conservative" lines. Some of those are targeted because they conflict with religious doctrine, for sure, but why should so many conservatives have so much of an emotional stake in climate science?
Well, one reason is that the petroleum and coal companies are throwing boatloads of money at PR firms to generate uninformed skepticism via the mass media and the usual conservative pundits. That's what PR firms do, they do it well, and they're worth every penny if you have a large stake in the game.
So, I'd be interested in hearing from some reasonably intelligent people who identify themselves as "conservative": How do you choose what and whom to believe on scientific issues in which you (presumably) have invested little interest or study previously? Are you motivated to learn the science and evaluate the evidence, or do you trust that your favorite conservative commentators are doing an adequate job of that? Could you ever conceivably be persuaded that any scientific theory could be substantially correct if a major, politically influential industry found their interests threatened by it? If so, and if such an industry was throwing its political and PR weight against it, how might that occur?
But the claim the gas tank is empty hasn't agreed with what actually happened.
Well, that's a relief. Now that I know gasoline will be cheap and plentiful again, I think I'll go buy me that Winnebago I've had my eye on for a while.
Or, what amounts to the same thing: There are no insurance companies that would underwrite the nuclear industry if governments didn't drastically and artificially limit liability. The industry itself has said so, and that's why the limitations are in place. If anyone's going to argue about the "free-market" economics of nuclear power and how the government is stifling it, they should start by convincing the private businesses that will ultimately assume the risks.
This reminds me of how the fate of the global climate always hinged on Al Gore's personal habits, at least whenever I "debated" the matter with conservatives.
Never underestimate the power of fear and ignorance
Fear, maybe, but ignorance? I'd say it's more an issue of trust. Not everyone can be a nuclear engineer, but most can smell the stink when the assurances they are given by them are contradicted repeatedly by empirical reality. When people who purport to know what they're talking about ridicule popular concerns about safety and accidents, they allow themselves to appear cavalier about those matters, which erodes public confidence even further.
Personally, I believe that nuclear energy should be part of the mix in the future. But the next time the impossible happens and a reactor melts down, don't try to convince me that it's no worse than standing next to a bunch of bananas.
Because that's not a proper document management solution.
Nevertheless, it can work quite well, depending on your needs. I manage large numbers of files that way, with separate index files handling the metadata. Grep is very fast for simple keyword and pattern searches, even on index files with ~100,000 records, so there's no reason even to use a DBMS (I don't need complex queries). Scripting for special purposes is simple and straightforward, and backups are a breeze, using nothing but rsync. No special-purpose software needed, beyond what comes with the OS.
To each their own, of course. I recently talked to a guy who runs a MySQL server just to manage a couple hundred phone numbers. Nothing at all wrong with that, especially if you're learning about databases and SQL that way!
I'm not sure you're helping the cause any by tying it to nuclear power, where there are multiple empirical examples of incidents that occurred despite repeated authoritative assurances of their (theoretical) near-impossibility.
The main difference being that with selective breeding you have to wait for desirable traits to arise by chance in a population, whereas with GMO they can be introduced directly and specifically.
People like to make fun when chemically illiterate people express fears of foreign "chemicals" in their bodies, but your counter-argument - i.e., that its silly to be wary of unfamiliar compounds because water and salt are safe chemicals, and therefore all chemicals should be presumed safe - is considerably more asinine.
it's that we're taking genes and modifying them without knowing the exact changes made.
I'd argue just the opposite. With modern genetic engineering methods, we can now know exactly how we're modifying the genome. It's actually the older methods - selective breeding and the use of random mutagens like colchicine - that leave us in the dark about what is actually going on.
So I guess there is some truth in the age old saying, Correlation != Causation.
That's true as far as it goes, but in this case it's because they're selecting from a very large ensemble of data series to find the one with the highest R. If you account for the number (and sizes) of data series they evaluated to do that, you can estimate the "true" significance level in a realistic way. Statistics leads us astray only when we fail to apply it properly.
Correlation of a preliminary kind may not "imply" causation, but it can certainly suggest it, sometimes very strongly. A repeatable correlation with proper controls on extraneous variables is as close to "proof" as you can get in science. To believe anything else is to assert that empirical observation itself is of no value in understanding reality.
Absolutely. If you play with N-body gravitational simulations, you see stuff getting flung out of orbital systems all the time, and usually at very high velocities. It generally happens before a system stabilizes, or when something new enters from outside and disrupts established orbits. I've personally messed up quite a few "solar systems" just by plopping a fairly massive foreign object in the general neighborhood. The screams are silenced by the vacuum of space. There's no reason it couldn't happen to us, either, if you need yet another calamity to worry about...
Ahh... A blast from the past: snow forts and snowball fights. Most kids I know are going to spend their snow day on their lardy butts in front of the computer anyway...
It's possible that it doesn't have to do specifically with religion, but rather with any uncritical following of a leader or alpha figure. It could be a dictator or sports team as well as a god. We're basically pack animals, after all, and that requires the acceptance of hierarchy.
Slashdot Mirror
There are over 10,000 entries in my /etc/hosts file pointing to 127.0.0.1, and this is the main reason why.
Of course we all know that computing technology is static and changes only at geologic time scales. Don't hold your breath waiting for anything new.
I imagine that the willingness of the client to keep writing checks as long as it isn't done may have something to do with it...
If magically tomorrow every single Windows box was Linux instead, socially-engineered malware would appear the next day.
One thing that protects Linux, and that has little to do with the OS itself, is the FOSS ecosystem. Pretty much everything you could want is available for free from trusted repositories, and so there is little or no incentive to download and install warez or other pirated software that may have been tampered with. You would still be right, though, if being the dominant "OS for the masses" implies that a similar proprietary closed-source ecosystem would quickly arise around it.
With the low humidity there, it would seem that evaporative cooling would work well. Of course, you still need water, but Evian is cheaper if you buy the big 24-packs...
It seems as if the metaphors (e.g., "virus") that computational science has borrowed from biology have come around full-circle, with the result that concepts from different fields are getting conflated with one another in bizarre ways. The reasoning seems to be: If data (in the form of a computer program) can replicate and spread to other machines, then perhaps DNA sequence data in genomic databases can perform similar biological feats like mutation, evolution, and transmission. This seems inane enough that it's likely me who is missing something, but it's a "something" that I should have been able to get from the article.
The "will be rejected" part, I think, is where the issue comes in. Rejected based on what?
Ummm, maybe on known viral/bacterial/mycoplasmal sequences? It's pretty much routine when you're assembling a genome, and it's not hard to screen a database retrospectively as new contaminating genomes are discovered.
As for sequence data mutating and evolving in silico in genome databases (if that's what people are saying here; I can't be sure), well... That might be a good plot for a SciFi novel, but not one that would seem credible to any biologist.
Won't comment on this particular application, but no: "obvious" does not mean that anyone skilled in the art would come up with exactly the same list of claims. If that were the case, the no patent would be enforceable, because all you'd have to do is introduce some trivial variance to an existing patent and it could still be deemed novel.
It's pretty remarkable that this and so many other seemingly scientific issues (evolution, plate tectonics, etc.) get fractured along "liberal/conservative" lines. Some of those are targeted because they conflict with religious doctrine, for sure, but why should so many conservatives have so much of an emotional stake in climate science?
Well, one reason is that the petroleum and coal companies are throwing boatloads of money at PR firms to generate uninformed skepticism via the mass media and the usual conservative pundits. That's what PR firms do, they do it well, and they're worth every penny if you have a large stake in the game.
So, I'd be interested in hearing from some reasonably intelligent people who identify themselves as "conservative": How do you choose what and whom to believe on scientific issues in which you (presumably) have invested little interest or study previously? Are you motivated to learn the science and evaluate the evidence, or do you trust that your favorite conservative commentators are doing an adequate job of that? Could you ever conceivably be persuaded that any scientific theory could be substantially correct if a major, politically influential industry found their interests threatened by it? If so, and if such an industry was throwing its political and PR weight against it, how might that occur?
Is obviousness (to anyone "skilled in the art") not a consideration in the granting of patents anymore? It certainly seems that way sometimes...
Now that we finally have a free market solution to this problem, I'm sure that there's nothing to worry about and everything will be fine.
But the claim the gas tank is empty hasn't agreed with what actually happened.
Well, that's a relief. Now that I know gasoline will be cheap and plentiful again, I think I'll go buy me that Winnebago I've had my eye on for a while.
Or, what amounts to the same thing: There are no insurance companies that would underwrite the nuclear industry if governments didn't drastically and artificially limit liability. The industry itself has said so, and that's why the limitations are in place. If anyone's going to argue about the "free-market" economics of nuclear power and how the government is stifling it, they should start by convincing the private businesses that will ultimately assume the risks.
This reminds me of how the fate of the global climate always hinged on Al Gore's personal habits, at least whenever I "debated" the matter with conservatives.
He has a 9.6 million dollar, 11,400 square foot home.
Well, that's proof enough for me that he must be wrong, and the carrying capacity of the earth must indeed be infinite.
Never underestimate the power of fear and ignorance
Fear, maybe, but ignorance? I'd say it's more an issue of trust. Not everyone can be a nuclear engineer, but most can smell the stink when the assurances they are given by them are contradicted repeatedly by empirical reality. When people who purport to know what they're talking about ridicule popular concerns about safety and accidents, they allow themselves to appear cavalier about those matters, which erodes public confidence even further.
Personally, I believe that nuclear energy should be part of the mix in the future. But the next time the impossible happens and a reactor melts down, don't try to convince me that it's no worse than standing next to a bunch of bananas.
Because that's not a proper document management solution.
Nevertheless, it can work quite well, depending on your needs. I manage large numbers of files that way, with separate index files handling the metadata. Grep is very fast for simple keyword and pattern searches, even on index files with ~100,000 records, so there's no reason even to use a DBMS (I don't need complex queries). Scripting for special purposes is simple and straightforward, and backups are a breeze, using nothing but rsync. No special-purpose software needed, beyond what comes with the OS.
To each their own, of course. I recently talked to a guy who runs a MySQL server just to manage a couple hundred phone numbers. Nothing at all wrong with that, especially if you're learning about databases and SQL that way!
when it comes to nuclear power and GMO crops.
I'm not sure you're helping the cause any by tying it to nuclear power, where there are multiple empirical examples of incidents that occurred despite repeated authoritative assurances of their (theoretical) near-impossibility.
The main difference being that with selective breeding you have to wait for desirable traits to arise by chance in a population, whereas with GMO they can be introduced directly and specifically.
People like to make fun when chemically illiterate people express fears of foreign "chemicals" in their bodies, but your counter-argument - i.e., that its silly to be wary of unfamiliar compounds because water and salt are safe chemicals, and therefore all chemicals should be presumed safe - is considerably more asinine.
it's that we're taking genes and modifying them without knowing the exact changes made.
I'd argue just the opposite. With modern genetic engineering methods, we can now know exactly how we're modifying the genome. It's actually the older methods - selective breeding and the use of random mutagens like colchicine - that leave us in the dark about what is actually going on.
So I guess there is some truth in the age old saying, Correlation != Causation.
That's true as far as it goes, but in this case it's because they're selecting from a very large ensemble of data series to find the one with the highest R. If you account for the number (and sizes) of data series they evaluated to do that, you can estimate the "true" significance level in a realistic way. Statistics leads us astray only when we fail to apply it properly.
Correlation of a preliminary kind may not "imply" causation, but it can certainly suggest it, sometimes very strongly. A repeatable correlation with proper controls on extraneous variables is as close to "proof" as you can get in science. To believe anything else is to assert that empirical observation itself is of no value in understanding reality.
Absolutely. If you play with N-body gravitational simulations, you see stuff getting flung out of orbital systems all the time, and usually at very high velocities. It generally happens before a system stabilizes, or when something new enters from outside and disrupts established orbits. I've personally messed up quite a few "solar systems" just by plopping a fairly massive foreign object in the general neighborhood. The screams are silenced by the vacuum of space. There's no reason it couldn't happen to us, either, if you need yet another calamity to worry about...
Let the kids play outside, for their own good.
Ahh... A blast from the past: snow forts and snowball fights. Most kids I know are going to spend their snow day on their lardy butts in front of the computer anyway...
It's possible that it doesn't have to do specifically with religion, but rather with any uncritical following of a leader or alpha figure. It could be a dictator or sports team as well as a god. We're basically pack animals, after all, and that requires the acceptance of hierarchy.