Yes but on the other hand if you find flaws in Microsoft or credit card systems the worst that would happen is some fraud and/or inconvenience if the flaws are exploited. The possibility of automated remote controlled murder is a different thing entirely and should perhaps be treated differently. Going public early with maximum sensationalism might increase the likelihood of people realising that remote controlled killing machines are ultimately too dangerous to us all to allow their continued proliferation.
The CIA were reputedly linked closely with investors who supplied the second round of venture capital funding to Facebook. Google 'Facebook CIA' for research into this. Facebook does not necessarily need to sell information to governments if it is effectively a proxy government agency.
The other answer is to work for a smaller company that can't afford lots of pigeons. There are lots of places where the person fixing the printers also develops and maintains the database and writes the scripts that manage the system integration and develops the web application that serves the customers. Small companies can't afford to pigeon hole so much and offer more chance for varied work and to develop your skills into new areas.
Nipples are just modified sweat glands, so milk is really just sweat with a different balance of ingredients. Is pigeon vomit any more disgusting than cow sweat?
Computers only do a very few things that are really different from each other. During the past 30 years I've seen the same things developed over and over and over again. The IKEA effect is strong in every organisation I've ever worked in, at least as much in commercial software as in FOSS, and is the reason for 80% of software development in my estimation. Everyone thinks they can build things better than anyone else and everyone insists that their own solution is better than anything else 'out there'.
GM Roundup-resistant oilseed rape (canola) has already been found in the wild, hybridised with local weed Brassica populations. We have already created a super-weed, resistant to major weedkiller, by releasing GM crops which have cross-pollinated purely by chance with indigenous populations. http://agbioforum.org/v12n34/v12n34a10-duke.htm
We already know it happens easily in the wild. Adding genes coding for drugs (toxins) to a plant could well confer a selective advantage by making it less likely that the plant will be eaten by herbivores, allowing the mutation to sweep through a wild population. We need to forget the idea of putting extra genes coding for toxic things in the genomes of things related to things we eat.
The problem is that this ties you into working forever. The other model (getting people to keep paying for the same thing forever) ensures that you can 'retire' in comfort after a few hits.
Except the whole edifice is built on the faulty premise of unlimited resources. The poor can not all be made rich, there are not enough riches to sustain that. Only a tiny proportion of us can afford oil to run cars, and yet we are starting to run out of it and pollute our air with it. Only a small proportion of us can afford to eat meat and yet we have cut down most of the world's rainforests to graze cattle to supply those who can afford it. Those who think that the world's poor will achieve anything like our lifestyle are dreaming. Now that the borders have been well and truly opened by greedy companies who want cheap labour the poor will inexorably drag the rest of us down to their level, while the rick 0.005% get even richer.
Stop outsourcing and hire a decent architect, some skilled engineers, and some testers would be a good start, but for all the wrong reasons we know that will never happen. Noone wants the hired help getting comfy pensions any more, better to give all the public money to people who will give decent kickbacks as discussed above.
Hmmm, unlikely that capabilities have much to do with it I'd say. I agree with you that software choice is similar to recruitment choice - mostly driven by image, prejudice, nepotism, and kickbacks, at least where governments are concerned.
I think it's the former, but what isn't clear is whether this is a true boolean AND whereby crime has to be both serious AND organised to be on their turf, or whether it is a more casual And whereby the deal with serious crime And organised crime.
What happens to domains which link to domains which link to infringing content? Would it work to have your homepage on a.com and the backend elsewhere or is the law allowed to see through these kinds of indirection and basically shut down anything they don't like?
The proposed policy looks like the typical fudge - 'we don't want to start acting as judge and jury but if the evidence is strong then we are going to start acting as judge and jury' seems to sum it up.
I had the volume on and it sounded as though they knew a wounded person was about to be picked up by people in a vehicle which was being used for the purpose of picking up a wounded person, i.e. ambulance duty.
The cops? I hardly think a few strongly worded emails counts as terrorism, although how their attitudes translate into their behaviour is certainly a terrifying prospect. With 9/11 around the corner it's time to remember what terrorists act like, and stop bandying the word round willy-nilly. Doing things with computers is not terrorism and anyone who is terrified of their information being exposed should just refrain from putting it on the internet.
Back in the day "I was just following orders" was never a defence for committing, covering up, or otherwise aiding and abetting the commission of war crimes.
Since when was anon an organisation? Furthermore, since when did being a member of anon become illegal? Why do you say the arrested people were guilty when none of them have been convicted of anything?
Have you ever visited your local recycling centre/city dump? Ours is completely awash with perfectly fine looking displays of all shapes and sizes that are only there because someone bought something thinner and probably work just fine. The same is true for keyboards, and probably mice (and rats).
Yes but they are all scared of the reactionary crap that would be printed about them in the newspapers, and the vicious lobbying against it by the tobacco and alcohol industries, and the churches who have forgotten that god gave us all the herbs of the field to use as we see fit.
The assembly problem might not be solvable with the info at hand. If cannabis is like many other plants, it is probably archaeo-polyploid - underwent one or more whole genome duplications sometime back in prehistory, followed by subsequent loss of redundant genes. If this is fairly recent, evolutionarily, then it may not be possible to distunguish between paralogs resulting from the duplication to a clear enough degree to complete the assembly from short reads, regardless of the depth. Similarly, a lot of plants have very large highly repetitive regions from transposon expansions and whatnot, and if the length of these repests is longer than the length of the fragments that were sequenced, again it is unassemblable. The only way round these issues is to take some longer fragments - BACs, COSMIDs, FOSMIDs and the like, and end-sequence them, and use the longer fragments to scaffold the shorter reads. All of this is not easy and is why really economically important species like wheat and canola are still not asembled (although give it a year or two and they might be).
As for the THC and CBD synthase genes, I think they have already assembled them, being perhaps the more interesting parts (see the companiy's website - they have a genome browser for TCH synthase assembly), so in principle there is nothing to stop an enterprising soul having the gene synthesised de novo from nucleotides, adding a strong promoter, and transforming it into all sorts of organisms. Interesting times we live in!
Slashdot Mirror
Yes but on the other hand if you find flaws in Microsoft or credit card systems the worst that would happen is some fraud and/or inconvenience if the flaws are exploited. The possibility of automated remote controlled murder is a different thing entirely and should perhaps be treated differently. Going public early with maximum sensationalism might increase the likelihood of people realising that remote controlled killing machines are ultimately too dangerous to us all to allow their continued proliferation.
The CIA were reputedly linked closely with investors who supplied the second round of venture capital funding to Facebook. Google 'Facebook CIA' for research into this. Facebook does not necessarily need to sell information to governments if it is effectively a proxy government agency.
The other answer is to work for a smaller company that can't afford lots of pigeons. There are lots of places where the person fixing the printers also develops and maintains the database and writes the scripts that manage the system integration and develops the web application that serves the customers. Small companies can't afford to pigeon hole so much and offer more chance for varied work and to develop your skills into new areas.
Nipples are just modified sweat glands, so milk is really just sweat with a different balance of ingredients. Is pigeon vomit any more disgusting than cow sweat?
Computers only do a very few things that are really different from each other. During the past 30 years I've seen the same things developed over and over and over again. The IKEA effect is strong in every organisation I've ever worked in, at least as much in commercial software as in FOSS, and is the reason for 80% of software development in my estimation. Everyone thinks they can build things better than anyone else and everyone insists that their own solution is better than anything else 'out there'.
GM Roundup-resistant oilseed rape (canola) has already been found in the wild, hybridised with local weed Brassica populations. We have already created a super-weed, resistant to major weedkiller, by releasing GM crops which have cross-pollinated purely by chance with indigenous populations. http://agbioforum.org/v12n34/v12n34a10-duke.htm We already know it happens easily in the wild. Adding genes coding for drugs (toxins) to a plant could well confer a selective advantage by making it less likely that the plant will be eaten by herbivores, allowing the mutation to sweep through a wild population. We need to forget the idea of putting extra genes coding for toxic things in the genomes of things related to things we eat.
The problem is that this ties you into working forever. The other model (getting people to keep paying for the same thing forever) ensures that you can 'retire' in comfort after a few hits.
Except the whole edifice is built on the faulty premise of unlimited resources. The poor can not all be made rich, there are not enough riches to sustain that. Only a tiny proportion of us can afford oil to run cars, and yet we are starting to run out of it and pollute our air with it. Only a small proportion of us can afford to eat meat and yet we have cut down most of the world's rainforests to graze cattle to supply those who can afford it. Those who think that the world's poor will achieve anything like our lifestyle are dreaming. Now that the borders have been well and truly opened by greedy companies who want cheap labour the poor will inexorably drag the rest of us down to their level, while the rick 0.005% get even richer.
Stop outsourcing and hire a decent architect, some skilled engineers, and some testers would be a good start, but for all the wrong reasons we know that will never happen. Noone wants the hired help getting comfy pensions any more, better to give all the public money to people who will give decent kickbacks as discussed above.
Hmmm, unlikely that capabilities have much to do with it I'd say. I agree with you that software choice is similar to recruitment choice - mostly driven by image, prejudice, nepotism, and kickbacks, at least where governments are concerned.
I think it's the former, but what isn't clear is whether this is a true boolean AND whereby crime has to be both serious AND organised to be on their turf, or whether it is a more casual And whereby the deal with serious crime And organised crime.
What happens to domains which link to domains which link to infringing content? Would it work to have your homepage on a .com and the backend elsewhere or is the law allowed to see through these kinds of indirection and basically shut down anything they don't like?
Do you know of any examples of this? It would be interesting to know more about.
The proposed policy looks like the typical fudge - 'we don't want to start acting as judge and jury but if the evidence is strong then we are going to start acting as judge and jury' seems to sum it up.
I had the volume on and it sounded as though they knew a wounded person was about to be picked up by people in a vehicle which was being used for the purpose of picking up a wounded person, i.e. ambulance duty.
Watched the vid, looked like soldiers opening fire on an ambulance in full knowledge that it was picking up wounded.
The cops? I hardly think a few strongly worded emails counts as terrorism, although how their attitudes translate into their behaviour is certainly a terrifying prospect. With 9/11 around the corner it's time to remember what terrorists act like, and stop bandying the word round willy-nilly. Doing things with computers is not terrorism and anyone who is terrified of their information being exposed should just refrain from putting it on the internet.
Email isn't private, it is like a postcard. Internet 101.
Back in the day "I was just following orders" was never a defence for committing, covering up, or otherwise aiding and abetting the commission of war crimes.
Since when was anon an organisation? Furthermore, since when did being a member of anon become illegal? Why do you say the arrested people were guilty when none of them have been convicted of anything?
1 Put frogs in pan of cold water 2 Increase heat slowly 3 ? 4 Profit
and in that 1k people still managed to create code to turn their computers into maze-solving robots, along with the addition of a chassis, motors, wheels, etc: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7744887363033563393
Have you ever visited your local recycling centre/city dump? Ours is completely awash with perfectly fine looking displays of all shapes and sizes that are only there because someone bought something thinner and probably work just fine. The same is true for keyboards, and probably mice (and rats).
Yes but they are all scared of the reactionary crap that would be printed about them in the newspapers, and the vicious lobbying against it by the tobacco and alcohol industries, and the churches who have forgotten that god gave us all the herbs of the field to use as we see fit.
As for the THC and CBD synthase genes, I think they have already assembled them, being perhaps the more interesting parts (see the companiy's website - they have a genome browser for TCH synthase assembly), so in principle there is nothing to stop an enterprising soul having the gene synthesised de novo from nucleotides, adding a strong promoter, and transforming it into all sorts of organisms. Interesting times we live in!