If it isn't public that severely limits the number of people who can work on finding an antidote. Even if they are making the information available to "qualified professionals" it still substantially increases the barrier to finding a fix.
Perhaps this is the intent behind witholding the sequence. They want to give themselves an advantage in finding the antidote, while still publishing their research.
By witholding the sequence, which they have learned ---- they can use it to give themselves a competitive advantage towards also being the first to find the antidote: while the other researchers have to work blindly, with no genetic code to assist them in finding/isolating the new strain or work on identifying an antidote.
Except that the executive branch has no discretion on paying a whole lot of that money. Many benefits are defined by law, and failing to pay them means breaking the law. A lot of expenses are going to be for contracting goods and services, and not paying is going to be illegal.
When paying them is physically impossible without breaking the law, they must delay the payments.
However, the public debt is constitutionally protected and cannot be questioned by the executive.
However, remember we only observe a small fraction of the skies, and much of the things that have a 99.99998% chance of missing us, were never detected.
Also.... when asteroids get close enough to our orbit to have a 0.9999998 chance of impacting us;
eventually, the number of times this is happening adds up to a million, and the number of expected collissions is 1 or greater.
What if you need the credit to buy gas so you can go to work and earn money? You don't get credit -> you can't go to work -> you lose your revenue and end up bankrupt.
The world doesn't end. You take the TV back, or you walk over to the nearest neighbor or pawn shop, and hoc the TV for the $50 in gas money you need.
And you praise the lord, that the credit card company put a stop to your out-of-control unsustainable spending at $10,000, instead of at $50,000.
It wouldn't have been great monetary policy, but there is a reasonable argument that it's better than default.
Exceeding the debt limit does not mean default. It means that all further spending immediately gets reduced to the level of tax revenue; implying a 30% drop in spending.
It is up to the treasury to prioritize where the cash on hand goes.
Missing a debt payment would not occur, unless Obama's administration decided they wanted to cut off the government's nose, to spite their face.
More likely; government grants, tax refunds, employee payrolls, government contracters, welfare payments, and social security benefits payments would be delayed first.
Essentially; you would have to wait a few weeks for payment, until sufficient tax revenue were collected, and over time, the delays would be increasing.
Gold dropped when the goverment was down and bounced back after the deal was signed. Why? Gold is supposed to be a safe harbour.
No. Gold is not a safe harbour. Gold can help hedge the risk of double-digit percent inflation in theory.
The problem is -- in practice, the price of gold is very volatile, and there could very well be a gold bubble, since the price has been bid up to astronomically high levels in the past 10 years due to market speculation.
The price of gold is likely overdue for a drop of 70% or more.
Secondly, while gold can in theory be a hedge against currency risk: the risk that one's currency becomes worthless;
gold is no good in a situation where your currency becomes worthless AND the economy experiences massive deflation.
For example: if the government can no longer borrow money due to high interest rates, and activities cease, then a cascade of ceasing of economic activity occurs through all the government contracters and employees.
In the short term, there is a potential for deflation; where the currency is worthless, AND hard money such as gold lose buying power, because the entire economy is grinding towards a halt -------- You can't use gold to buy and sell things, if you don't have partners to trade with, because they've all ceased economic activity.
You may have your gold, but all the supermarkets are closed, and the shelves are empty, because they can't pay the workers.
The argument is you should probably still study at least some law. Maybe you ought to study a lot of law, and still not be a lawyer.
Do you really need to be capable of passing the bar to eliminate the need for a lawyer in many cases?
I haven't needed one more than half a dozen times in a fairly long life, but when you need a lawyer you're likely to need one badly. Becoming a lawyer to save myself a few thousand in lawyer's fees over a lifetime just doesn't seem a good idea.
You should probably still hire a lawyer in those circumstances. You could still be a lawyer, but not the most practiced in the specific area of law (such as drafting type of document X or Y); there will be cases where not just any lawyer would do, but you need a lawyer specializing in the appropriate category.
Still, the US is becoming more litigious every day; you needed one half a dozen times, but someone in their 20s today, may well need to consult with a lawyer over 100 times during their lifetime, especially if you were entering a competitive business, where competitors like to use litigation as a tool for discouraging competition.
If circumstances that arise ever cause you to need to sue, in some cases it might be millions in lawyer's fees that you save.
More importantly; knowledge could help you out in circumstances where you might not have thought to have consulted with a lawyer in the first place.
You become aware of the existence of certain potential options or choices, you may have otherwise remained naive to: and not asked about.
The Smartphone sends the matching public key to identify the user, and the signature to authenticate it. It may be used alongside of traditional username/password to ease adoption."
Attack method: the attacker presents to the user a fake website, proxying the real QR login image.
The real user, goes through the signature shenanigans, causing the attacker's browser session to be authenticated,
when the user types in the password and hits OK.
The attacker leverages a man-in-the-browser attack to execute undesirable sequences of actions for the user to execute,
such as sending a payment they didn't intend, etc.... all by presenting fake questions, and persuading the user they need to scan more QR codes.
Also, some of the QR codes could launch malicious URLs that cause the smart phone to be compromised, or cause the digital signatures behind the crypto scheme to be transmitted to the attacker.
That said, you do not need a degree in marketing to speak marketer, and you do not need an MBA to speak boss.
Personally; I think the main reason to get a MBA is to be able to effectively refute arguments made by clueless MBAs to $do_stupid_thing_X based on $short_term_focused_reason_Y, at the cost of $long_term_damage_of_nature_Z, Q, and R.
any people are in small business, freelance, do projects as freelancers, and never see a W2/W4. And you'll need to know what a 1099 is, how to do accounting and why and when, and so forth.
Yes, but many people want to outsource these functions, so they don't have to deal with them.
If you can outsource these tasks to be handled by less technically advanced folks:
Why should you have to deal with all these issues, instead of doing what you love --- designing and implementing great software?
Spending all that time on business issues, would detract from the quality of the code!
And who's going to make this determination? Will it be the CDC or the FDA? I might be inclined to listen to the CDC. I am not inclined to listen to the FDA.
Ideally: None of the above and all at the same time.
They must both independently reach the same determination, before they get to take the matter to congress for final approval.
The basic principal being: no executive branch body gets the authority to decide what the law is.
The legislative power, that is; the power to set regulations, rests with congress alone.
And adding a new vaccine to the list of required vaccinations would be a change to the regulation.
You mischaracterized the disagreement. In reality, both sides believed themselves scientifically correct.
No I didn't.
I am sure both parents believe themselves to have scientifically correct information.
I am making a value judgement, that one of the parents is off their rocker, and believing bogus hearsay to be scientific fact.
I contend that neither parent disputes that the vaccine has huge benefits and prevents the disease it is intended to prevent.
One parent irrationally deems the vaccine unsafe; they believe their point of view is founded in bonafide science, but that belief is false, and without true foundation.
That would lead to massive abuses. Get your tiger repelling vaccine on the list, and it becomes a mandatory sale.
Subject to the criteria that: (1) The vaccine must be proven to be safe, effective, economical, and addresses a public health problem, so government clinics will administer for free as part of the public immunization programme, (2) The disease must have significant presence and be contagious among the population not vaccinated, and (3) The disease usually results in death or serious persistent damage when caught by young people who are at increased risk.
We don't let people decide what side of the road to drive on, now do we?
Indeed we do not. And we could make a law requiring people carry around proof of the proper immunizations when on public property, or when driving a car.
Perhaps, that sort of thing would settle this ridiculous anti-vaccine matter:
In order to obtain a driver's license, you must show proof of MMR vaccination; or proof of a medical condition contraindicating vaccination, with a record of vaccination received or condition excluding vaccination beginning at least 10 years before the date of license application.
Require a similar thing of employers.
In other words: add lots of "required proof of vaccination" to receive many government and private services,
so it would be unthinkable for parents to commit this abuse.
It's unfortunate they made the issue out to be the efficacy of the vaccine and not the moral implications about forcing medication on people against their will. I, like most, believe the autism-MMR link is pure nonsense, but I do believe it must be every person's right to refuse medical treatment, including vaccines
I agree that there must be some limited right for an individual to refuse a medical treatment that might be harmful to them.
However: the parents have the authority to force their children to undergo medical operations for the benefit of the child;
their child not being of sound mind, is deemed incapable of refusing treatment for themself.
The two parents are in disagreement ---- think of this as more a parental rights issue; one of the parents demands their child be vaccinated for their protection and long life; the other parent has decided they object to their child receiving the vaccine based on some bogus hearsay about vaccines causing autism or other bad things.
The parents cannot resolve the matter amongst their selves, therefore: the court has to step in to settle the dispute between the two parents, and ensure the child's welfare is protected.
The better solution is to allow the application to request a default list of permissions, and then give the user the opportunity to accept or modify them. The application would still work if the permissions are modified, though with limited functionality.
I would go further, and say instead of just "letting the user modify"; provide the user a list of checkboxes for the permissions the app requests.
By default none of the boxes are checked. The user is to tick the box corresponding to the permissions they want to grant.
Also, there should be a dropdown box for "Duration to grant this permission"
That defaults to 'Grant permission just this time', or 'Grant permission for 5 minutes'
Also, for certain permissions; such as "Post article", "Change settings/profile", etc, there should be a dropdown with an option to choose "Prompt me for interactive approval, every time this action is requested"
oh Jeez, give it up on the "learning humility." Believe me, the students had no choice about nothing, ever. They do it to get to the end, and if they can't hack the 14-16 hour days on the line (7days a week, for probably unknown duration) they can always commit suicide.
WTF is your problem? Your suggestion of suicide is a disgusting proposition, regardless of the circumstances: please go crawl back into whatever hole you have come out of.
Like I said; trying to sneak slave labor work into an Engineering internship is reprehensible, and it should be attacked by professionals and other people in and out of the country.
For example: trained engineers refusing to take jobs at companies that abuse their interns.
US-based companies refusing to make orders to or purchase products from suppliers that abuse interns, etc
Slashdot Mirror
If it isn't public that severely limits the number of people who can work on finding an antidote. Even if they are making the information available to "qualified professionals" it still substantially increases the barrier to finding a fix.
Perhaps this is the intent behind witholding the sequence. They want to give themselves an advantage in finding the antidote, while still publishing their research.
By witholding the sequence, which they have learned ---- they can use it to give themselves a competitive advantage towards also being the first to find the antidote: while the other researchers have to work blindly, with no genetic code to assist them in finding/isolating the new strain or work on identifying an antidote.
Except that the executive branch has no discretion on paying a whole lot of that money. Many benefits are defined by law, and failing to pay them means breaking the law. A lot of expenses are going to be for contracting goods and services, and not paying is going to be illegal.
When paying them is physically impossible without breaking the law, they must delay the payments.
However, the public debt is constitutionally protected and cannot be questioned by the executive.
However, remember we only observe a small fraction of the skies, and much of the things that have a 99.99998% chance of missing us, were never detected.
Also.... when asteroids get close enough to our orbit to have a 0.9999998 chance of impacting us; eventually, the number of times this is happening adds up to a million, and the number of expected collissions is 1 or greater.
We had easily enough money coming in to cover the debt service, so it would have only been a problem had someone purposely done that to harm the US.
A constitutional violation of oath.... a high crime worthy of impeachment....
What if you need the credit to buy gas so you can go to work and earn money? You don't get credit -> you can't go to work -> you lose your revenue and end up bankrupt.
The world doesn't end. You take the TV back, or you walk over to the nearest neighbor or pawn shop, and hoc the TV for the $50 in gas money you need.
And you praise the lord, that the credit card company put a stop to your out-of-control unsustainable spending at $10,000, instead of at $50,000.
So, do I win an economic Nobel?
Not quite... sometimes the published economic predictions do come true, even though people can read them. What gives? :)
It wouldn't have been great monetary policy, but there is a reasonable argument that it's better than default.
Exceeding the debt limit does not mean default. It means that all further spending immediately gets reduced to the level of tax revenue; implying a 30% drop in spending.
It is up to the treasury to prioritize where the cash on hand goes.
Missing a debt payment would not occur, unless Obama's administration decided they wanted to cut off the government's nose, to spite their face.
More likely; government grants, tax refunds, employee payrolls, government contracters, welfare payments, and social security benefits payments would be delayed first.
Essentially; you would have to wait a few weeks for payment, until sufficient tax revenue were collected, and over time, the delays would be increasing.
Gold dropped when the goverment was down and bounced back after the deal was signed. Why? Gold is supposed to be a safe harbour.
No. Gold is not a safe harbour. Gold can help hedge the risk of double-digit percent inflation in theory. The problem is -- in practice, the price of gold is very volatile, and there could very well be a gold bubble, since the price has been bid up to astronomically high levels in the past 10 years due to market speculation.
The price of gold is likely overdue for a drop of 70% or more.
Secondly, while gold can in theory be a hedge against currency risk: the risk that one's currency becomes worthless; gold is no good in a situation where your currency becomes worthless AND the economy experiences massive deflation.
For example: if the government can no longer borrow money due to high interest rates, and activities cease, then a cascade of ceasing of economic activity occurs through all the government contracters and employees.
In the short term, there is a potential for deflation; where the currency is worthless, AND hard money such as gold lose buying power, because the entire economy is grinding towards a halt -------- You can't use gold to buy and sell things, if you don't have partners to trade with, because they've all ceased economic activity.
You may have your gold, but all the supermarkets are closed, and the shelves are empty, because they can't pay the workers.
Resistor sales are up. I don't know what that means for electronics and IT, but I predict the future will be warmer.
The borg will not be pleased. Resistance is futile
What if you don't want to be a lawyer?
The argument is you should probably still study at least some law. Maybe you ought to study a lot of law, and still not be a lawyer. Do you really need to be capable of passing the bar to eliminate the need for a lawyer in many cases?
I haven't needed one more than half a dozen times in a fairly long life, but when you need a lawyer you're likely to need one badly. Becoming a lawyer to save myself a few thousand in lawyer's fees over a lifetime just doesn't seem a good idea.
You should probably still hire a lawyer in those circumstances. You could still be a lawyer, but not the most practiced in the specific area of law (such as drafting type of document X or Y); there will be cases where not just any lawyer would do, but you need a lawyer specializing in the appropriate category.
Still, the US is becoming more litigious every day; you needed one half a dozen times, but someone in their 20s today, may well need to consult with a lawyer over 100 times during their lifetime, especially if you were entering a competitive business, where competitors like to use litigation as a tool for discouraging competition.
If circumstances that arise ever cause you to need to sue, in some cases it might be millions in lawyer's fees that you save.
More importantly; knowledge could help you out in circumstances where you might not have thought to have consulted with a lawyer in the first place.
You become aware of the existence of certain potential options or choices, you may have otherwise remained naive to: and not asked about.
The Smartphone sends the matching public key to identify the user, and the signature to authenticate it. It may be used alongside of traditional username/password to ease adoption."
Attack method: the attacker presents to the user a fake website, proxying the real QR login image.
The real user, goes through the signature shenanigans, causing the attacker's browser session to be authenticated, when the user types in the password and hits OK.
The attacker leverages a man-in-the-browser attack to execute undesirable sequences of actions for the user to execute, such as sending a payment they didn't intend, etc.... all by presenting fake questions, and persuading the user they need to scan more QR codes.
Also, some of the QR codes could launch malicious URLs that cause the smart phone to be compromised, or cause the digital signatures behind the crypto scheme to be transmitted to the attacker.
Rockstar coders get their clocked cleaned, often by moves that result in hideous taxes.
What's that supposed to mean?
Taxes are what you hire accountants and tax attorneys to help you deal with.
know when to contact an attorney (as important as 911 these days)
Hm... perhaps you should just say to h**** with the business stuff, and start studying law, then.
Wouldn't it be better to be the attorney; then you would rarely need to contact one ?
That said, you do not need a degree in marketing to speak marketer, and you do not need an MBA to speak boss.
Personally; I think the main reason to get a MBA is to be able to effectively refute arguments made by clueless MBAs to $do_stupid_thing_X based on $short_term_focused_reason_Y, at the cost of $long_term_damage_of_nature_Z, Q, and R.
any people are in small business, freelance, do projects as freelancers, and never see a W2/W4. And you'll need to know what a 1099 is, how to do accounting and why and when, and so forth.
Yes, but many people want to outsource these functions, so they don't have to deal with them.
If you can outsource these tasks to be handled by less technically advanced folks: Why should you have to deal with all these issues, instead of doing what you love --- designing and implementing great software?
Spending all that time on business issues, would detract from the quality of the code!
And who's going to make this determination? Will it be the CDC or the FDA? I might be inclined to listen to the CDC. I am not inclined to listen to the FDA.
Ideally: None of the above and all at the same time. They must both independently reach the same determination, before they get to take the matter to congress for final approval.
The basic principal being: no executive branch body gets the authority to decide what the law is.
The legislative power, that is; the power to set regulations, rests with congress alone.
And adding a new vaccine to the list of required vaccinations would be a change to the regulation.
You mischaracterized the disagreement. In reality, both sides believed themselves scientifically correct.
No I didn't.
I am sure both parents believe themselves to have scientifically correct information.
I am making a value judgement, that one of the parents is off their rocker, and believing bogus hearsay to be scientific fact.
I contend that neither parent disputes that the vaccine has huge benefits and prevents the disease it is intended to prevent.
One parent irrationally deems the vaccine unsafe; they believe their point of view is founded in bonafide science, but that belief is false, and without true foundation.
That would lead to massive abuses. Get your tiger repelling vaccine on the list, and it becomes a mandatory sale.
Subject to the criteria that: (1) The vaccine must be proven to be safe, effective, economical, and addresses a public health problem, so government clinics will administer for free as part of the public immunization programme, (2) The disease must have significant presence and be contagious among the population not vaccinated, and (3) The disease usually results in death or serious persistent damage when caught by young people who are at increased risk.
Chicken pox fails (3).
How can anyone be stupid enough to believe that a judge ruling has any effect on medical science?
It doesn't really matter; as there's no real debate over the benefits in the first place.
It's like saying "The court says the sky is blue; therefore, this confirms there is no longer any debate that 1 + 1 = 2."
We don't let people decide what side of the road to drive on, now do we?
Indeed we do not. And we could make a law requiring people carry around proof of the proper immunizations when on public property, or when driving a car.
Perhaps, that sort of thing would settle this ridiculous anti-vaccine matter:
In order to obtain a driver's license, you must show proof of MMR vaccination; or proof of a medical condition contraindicating vaccination, with a record of vaccination received or condition excluding vaccination beginning at least 10 years before the date of license application.
Require a similar thing of employers.
In other words: add lots of "required proof of vaccination" to receive many government and private services, so it would be unthinkable for parents to commit this abuse.
It's unfortunate they made the issue out to be the efficacy of the vaccine and not the moral implications about forcing medication on people against their will. I, like most, believe the autism-MMR link is pure nonsense, but I do believe it must be every person's right to refuse medical treatment, including vaccines
I agree that there must be some limited right for an individual to refuse a medical treatment that might be harmful to them.
However: the parents have the authority to force their children to undergo medical operations for the benefit of the child; their child not being of sound mind, is deemed incapable of refusing treatment for themself.
The two parents are in disagreement ---- think of this as more a parental rights issue; one of the parents demands their child be vaccinated for their protection and long life; the other parent has decided they object to their child receiving the vaccine based on some bogus hearsay about vaccines causing autism or other bad things.
The parents cannot resolve the matter amongst their selves, therefore: the court has to step in to settle the dispute between the two parents, and ensure the child's welfare is protected.
The better solution is to allow the application to request a default list of permissions, and then give the user the opportunity to accept or modify them. The application would still work if the permissions are modified, though with limited functionality.
I would go further, and say instead of just "letting the user modify"; provide the user a list of checkboxes for the permissions the app requests.
By default none of the boxes are checked. The user is to tick the box corresponding to the permissions they want to grant.
Also, there should be a dropdown box for "Duration to grant this permission"
That defaults to 'Grant permission just this time', or 'Grant permission for 5 minutes'
Also, for certain permissions; such as "Post article", "Change settings/profile", etc, there should be a dropdown with an option to choose "Prompt me for interactive approval, every time this action is requested"
oh Jeez, give it up on the "learning humility." Believe me, the students had no choice about nothing, ever. They do it to get to the end, and if they can't hack the 14-16 hour days on the line (7days a week, for probably unknown duration) they can always commit suicide.
WTF is your problem? Your suggestion of suicide is a disgusting proposition, regardless of the circumstances: please go crawl back into whatever hole you have come out of.
Like I said; trying to sneak slave labor work into an Engineering internship is reprehensible, and it should be attacked by professionals and other people in and out of the country.
For example: trained engineers refusing to take jobs at companies that abuse their interns. US-based companies refusing to make orders to or purchase products from suppliers that abuse interns, etc
Our prisons are full to the max with criminals who think they cant get caught. Guess they were wrong hu?
Yes, but kind of hard to catch criminals from Russia/China who have covered their tracks.
Someone might eventually track them, but it's unlikely the authorities in their country will even do anything about it.
Want so jail time with Bubba? Use a fax machine to steal someones domain.
Yeah; that's where you may be if you use a fax machine.
The "cool kids" (evil criminal hax0rs) may use guessed credentials on FoIP / IP to fax services.
To point the domain to DNS servers/web servers running on a hosting account the evil hax0r also hacked.
The authorities will come a knocking on the victim's door instead of the bad guy's, in this case