And that's where it goes full circle... this doesn't consume the sodium from the expensive sodium metal electrode, it consumes the sodium from the salt you've added to the electrolyte.
Yes and no, if they are doing it right you don't taste the sodium except in a few special exceptions (pretzels, popcorn, fries) but rather the sodium facilitates the tasting of whatever it is being applied to. A properly salted steak doesn't take like steak with salt, it just tastes like a more flavorful steak.
Contrary to popular belief there IS a correct amount of salt and it is not a matter of personal taste. That said there are individuals who have ruined their palettes by consistently oversalting. The other 90% will just think your food is delicious and not miss a salt shaker.
"Would you be OK that you are forced to be in the study without any chance to contest the decision?"
There is no requirement that the child be given no choice once they are able to consent. There is also no reason an advocate and court can't be used to represent their interests in the meantime.
The two aren't mutually exclusive. The bank doesn't actually own the property that secures a loan. The seller also being the bank doesn't actually change that.
"The big problem with "We don't understand what we are doing well enough" is that the "design" of evolved life is not decomposable. There are no clean boundaries between things, everything is emergent. So one small change here could have absolutely unpredictable consequences over there."
Which is exactly why we should not be using ourselves to test on. One unpredicted error in the wrong place and we've wiped out entire species. Hell that risk is even real tweaking other things.
Our best bet isn't really genetically engineering ourselves at all. Our best bet is gaining a complex enough understanding to synthesize an analog of ourselves. We'll use them as slaves for a few generations until we've got plenty of diversity and a decent enough translation for designer units. At some point we stop having offspring naturally (not exactly unimaginable, hell in Japan they are doing it already), we order a custom unit from a lab based on our own traits or not and within a few generations the version of us we engineered and have total understanding of IS the new us and the old evolved models will be out.
There is no reason to rush out something we aren't ready for and risk our entire species to have things during our generation. Far better to be patient and do it right so that our civilization can persist.
That is the purpose of the whole scheme. The carrier sells the phone at a discount because they'll make it up on the contract. Really I think this was more about the free phone options than anything. They don't want to take the free phone, pay a cancellation fee, and then move to another carrier with their loss leader.
The carrier sells you the phone at a discount rate alongside a contract. They add the installments on the bill. If you leave early you pay the balance. That isn't rent, it's a loan on a purchase. You own the purchase, not them.
"And if they're sufficiently fly-by-night, they might well go out of business before they get around to fulfilling any requests."
Agreed. That's something I even suggested exploiting but if you actually run your traffic through such a service you should probably pay careful attention to what you do for other reasons. Selling your data on the black market is just as viable as the grey market run by traditional tech companies.
That works too. With a little more effort you can use any of the automation frameworks to put together and image that configures itself on a fresh cloud vm each day. Of course that will have a consistent fingerprint but so will doing it manually.
Hardly but you know declassified documents disclosed under an FOIA request revealed the military TRIED to do most of the above and a link to coverage was posted on this very site just a couple days ago. The military controls almost all the US 'public' research spending.
This isn't a crazy conspiracy, this is freely available and published technology.
""Now they will have to bring down thousands of pages: that is what will happen, in my view. There is a medical disciplinary panel but Google have been the judge until now. They have decided whether to take a page down -- and why do they have that position?" Van Lynden said."
I know the knee jerk reaction here is "negligent doctors having their crimes erased, rawr rawr rawr" but really the guy is right. The court of public opinion is a terrible place. We've all become armchair experts with information at our fingertips. Sure, you'll read about what a doctor did and form an opinion based on what seems reasonable to you and watching the good doctor and house m.d. but the truth is that you and I won't actually know what we are talking about. It is a large and complicated field. How is this any different than dealing with a non-technical manager who knows just enough to be dangerous?
Not to mention that Google and the other tech giants have far too much power as it is. Maybe we need to reform medical review but the answer is not the court of public opinion and it most definitely is not for Google or the tech companies to be the gatekeepers.
Ugh, it would be really nice if slashdot had an edit function.
"I don't think so. This is no different than genetically engineering crops. Eliminating disease, making people smarter, taller, or whatever is perfectly fine. And I think gene editing is the only way the human race can advance beyond our ape heritage."
We don't understand what we are doing well enough. One day we might crack the code well enough to reliably do those things but we are nowhere near that. At present what we are doing is more like gathering up a bunch of pottery and smashing it up to make mosaics. Most of the field runs on the assumption they don't need to understand how it works, they can just use the pieces that are already out there and combine them in new ways. They are half right, there is a huge library of genetic information already out there but humanity definitely needs to understand how it works. The individual doing the combining won't need to in the end but only because they are working from rules and primitives defined by people with a better understanding.
Look at STDs already in the wild and our success at getting rid of them. We can't even stop the ones that kill off the people who get them. Changes like this could sterilize whole populations, changes like you suggest could have impacts that don't surface until several generations later. Not everything happens right away you know. Almost every gene we study enough turns out to be connected in a complicated web with other biologic functions.
Our understanding of the effects of what we are doing and what we are doing is probably on par with the drug industry circa 1780ce.
"This is no different than genetically engineering crops."
And would you feel that way if you were the subject rather the subsequent beneficiary of the experiment? Make no mistake, this is a well established phenomenon with medicine. There is a very real slippery slope and in the end it isn't you who will decide what you or your subsequent offspring are subjected to but the interests of "the greater good." Those might be contrary to the interests of nearly every individual who makes up the greater population. People all too quickly lose sight of the fact that the group is nothing but a collection of individuals and the logic you support which screws over another individual will be turned against you sooner or later.
"I don't think so. This is no different than genetically engineering crops. Eliminating disease, making people smarter, taller, or whatever is perfectly fine. And I think gene editing is the only way the human race can advance beyond our ape heritage."
We don't understand what we are doing well enough. One day we might crack the code well enough to reliably do those things but we are nowhere near that. At present what we are doing is more like gathering up a bunch of pottery and smashing it up and making mosaics. Most of the field runs on the assumption they don't need to understand how it works, they can just use the pieces that are already out there and combine them in new ways. They are half right, there is a huge library of genetic information already out there but humanity definitely needs to understand how it works. The individual doing the combining won't need to in the end but only because they are working from rules and primitives defined by people with a better understanding.
Look at STDs already in the wild and our success at getting rid of them. We can't even stop the ones that kill off the people who get them. Changes like this could sterilize whole populations, changes like you suggest could have impacts that don't surface until several generations later. Not everything happens right away you know. Almost every gene we study enough turns out to be connected in a complicated web with other biologic functions.
Our understanding of the effects of what we are doing and what we are doing is probably on par with the drug industry circa 1780ce.
"This is no different than genetically engineering crops."
And would you fill that way if you were the subject rather the subsequent beneficiary of the experiment? Make no mistake, this is a well established phenomenon with medicine. There is a very real slippery slope and in the end it isn't you who will decide what you or your subsequent offspring are subjected to but the interests of "the greater good" which might be contrary to the interests of nearly every actually individual who makes up the greater population. People all too quickly lose sight of the fact that the group is nothing but a collection of individuals and the logic you support screwing over an individual who isn't you can and will be turned against you sooner or later.
"I tend to trust my VPN provider more than I trust my ISPs"
That's a bit like saying you'd rather your body be hacked up with a chainsaw than a wood chipper. Either will sell you out faster than a $2 hooker offered a rock.
"There is also value in routing your traffic to a different legal jurisdiction"
Not really. There are networks of cooperative agreements in place because that loophole has been well known for 20 years.
The reality is the VPN ultimately provides additional evidence of your identity beyond IP (which in the US no longer is considered evidence on its own). Using a VPN also provides evidence of intent.
Most people foolishly use these services for copyright infringement. Just turning on encryption, a non-standard port, use private trackers exclusively if using torrent, and hiding in the crowd is about as good as you need for that. Oh and stay away from anything still in the theaters. You won't get any ISP warnings that way. All you need is to avoid being the low hanging fruit.
If you really insist on using VPN (hopefully to get around ISP throttling rather than some irrational sentiment) then get a VPS or colocated server on the cheap and set up a vpn yourself or better yet pay in tumbled cryptocurrency and set up your filesharing on that system with a scheduled job that truncates (rather than deletes which will cause you filehandle issues) the access logs every minute). Use some shitty run fly by night found on a board and run by a 3rd grader vpn to actually set it up in the first place, you know something that won't be around in 2 weeks.
You know who you can trust more than your ISP or VPN provider? You. You know whose server definitely isn't a nice easy central place with a streamlined process for disclosing the details you want kept private? The server built on a one off basis by you.
VPN software definitely can't be trusted. It doesn't mask your identity, these services can't operate without logging that information.
The only purpose for these services is to mask your traffic to avoid detection by your ISP. In the end correlating your activities with the VPN service adds additional verification of your identity and evidence of intent.
If you are going to run your traffic through a VPN at least pay for a hosted server and set up a VPN yourself.
Don't get me wrong this is a line we couldn't ethically cross but since he already crossed it... we should see the results and gather the data. Slap an ankle bracelet on him and have the facility take over his expenses so the lights stay on but he doesn't profit or have someone else pick up his work.
There are potentially some amazing advances that could come from this line of research.
Also, do you honestly think the likes of Putin and other regimes don't have underground activities of this sort ongoing but obviously can't publish. The genie is out of the bottle. I would be surprised if the US military doesn't have secret programs along these lines going already.
Well obviously they aren't free but all public services should be tax funded with the only exceptions being to close abuse loopholes such as caps on number of rides per day or replacements of documents.
Charging fees for these things is just a way of disproportionately taxing certain groups and income classes. Taxes aren't charged specifically to the group who uses a given service, that is on purpose, we all use different public services and the costs are pooled.
If you can't afford the program with tax dollars either raise taxes or cut somewhere else. It's called a budget.
"Many organizations may find they're better off hiring pen testers and in-house security researchers directly than running bug bounty programs"
There is no reason you can't do both. Hell the ones you hire can even be eligible for the bounties as bonuses. It's a built in incentive program.
"Instead, an elite few produce the biggest volume and highest quality of bug reports across multiple products, earning the biggest slice of available rewards. It's also claimed that even these elite "top 1%" ethical hackers can't make a decent wage by Western standards."
Obviously the bounties are too low and/or the bugs aren't being acknowledged properly and paid out.
Bad for the MongoDB project because they are stripping it of revenue. Bad for everyone who uses it because they've found a loophole to avoid contributing their enhancements back. Running SaaS has the same result as distribution but technically is not distribution and avoids the license requirements.
"but I'm under no obligation, ethically or morally, to actually do that."
You may be under no legal or professional ethical obligation to do so but you lose on the moral point. Failing to do so is a dick move and dick moves are moral fails.
"or hire our own Database experts"
It's a side note but running any serious DB is going to require this. Support exists so there is a place for shit to roll down to. It is a sad reality but a reality none-the-less that people in suits don't realize there are simply too many details and threads in tech, too much complexity, too many fail points. The point you fail on being an expensive one vs a cheap one ultimately comes down to luck and blame from the suits for expensive mistakes just results in axing perfectly good staff.
Slashdot Mirror
And that's where it goes full circle... this doesn't consume the sodium from the expensive sodium metal electrode, it consumes the sodium from the salt you've added to the electrolyte.
The sodium metal isn't consumed so long as sodium is added to the electrolyte. In other words just add salt.
Yes and no, if they are doing it right you don't taste the sodium except in a few special exceptions (pretzels, popcorn, fries) but rather the sodium facilitates the tasting of whatever it is being applied to. A properly salted steak doesn't take like steak with salt, it just tastes like a more flavorful steak.
Contrary to popular belief there IS a correct amount of salt and it is not a matter of personal taste. That said there are individuals who have ruined their palettes by consistently oversalting. The other 90% will just think your food is delicious and not miss a salt shaker.
"Would you be OK that you are forced to be in the study without any chance to contest the decision?"
There is no requirement that the child be given no choice once they are able to consent. There is also no reason an advocate and court can't be used to represent their interests in the meantime.
There is a reasonable middle ground here.
Modded down "no I'm all knowing" or just "What this guy is saying is really clashes with my opinion?"
Neither of those are valid moderation criteria.
The two aren't mutually exclusive. The bank doesn't actually own the property that secures a loan. The seller also being the bank doesn't actually change that.
"The big problem with "We don't understand what we are doing well enough" is that the "design" of evolved life is not decomposable. There are no clean boundaries between things, everything is emergent. So one small change here could have absolutely unpredictable consequences over there."
Which is exactly why we should not be using ourselves to test on. One unpredicted error in the wrong place and we've wiped out entire species. Hell that risk is even real tweaking other things.
Our best bet isn't really genetically engineering ourselves at all. Our best bet is gaining a complex enough understanding to synthesize an analog of ourselves. We'll use them as slaves for a few generations until we've got plenty of diversity and a decent enough translation for designer units. At some point we stop having offspring naturally (not exactly unimaginable, hell in Japan they are doing it already), we order a custom unit from a lab based on our own traits or not and within a few generations the version of us we engineered and have total understanding of IS the new us and the old evolved models will be out.
There is no reason to rush out something we aren't ready for and risk our entire species to have things during our generation. Far better to be patient and do it right so that our civilization can persist.
That is the purpose of the whole scheme. The carrier sells the phone at a discount because they'll make it up on the contract. Really I think this was more about the free phone options than anything. They don't want to take the free phone, pay a cancellation fee, and then move to another carrier with their loss leader.
The carrier sells you the phone at a discount rate alongside a contract. They add the installments on the bill. If you leave early you pay the balance. That isn't rent, it's a loan on a purchase. You own the purchase, not them.
The same way they buy a TV. They go to the storefronts and check out the new phones, then go buy the phone online.
True.
"And if they're sufficiently fly-by-night, they might well go out of business before they get around to fulfilling any requests."
Agreed. That's something I even suggested exploiting but if you actually run your traffic through such a service you should probably pay careful attention to what you do for other reasons. Selling your data on the black market is just as viable as the grey market run by traditional tech companies.
That works too. With a little more effort you can use any of the automation frameworks to put together and image that configures itself on a fresh cloud vm each day. Of course that will have a consistent fingerprint but so will doing it manually.
"Granted, my VPN provider could do the same but they have far less reasons too than my ISP does."
They've got the same reasons. Especially when they are under the thumb of the Chinese government.
Hardly but you know declassified documents disclosed under an FOIA request revealed the military TRIED to do most of the above and a link to coverage was posted on this very site just a couple days ago. The military controls almost all the US 'public' research spending.
This isn't a crazy conspiracy, this is freely available and published technology.
""Now they will have to bring down thousands of pages: that is what will happen, in my view. There is a medical disciplinary panel but Google have been the judge until now. They have decided whether to take a page down -- and why do they have that position?" Van Lynden said."
I know the knee jerk reaction here is "negligent doctors having their crimes erased, rawr rawr rawr" but really the guy is right. The court of public opinion is a terrible place. We've all become armchair experts with information at our fingertips. Sure, you'll read about what a doctor did and form an opinion based on what seems reasonable to you and watching the good doctor and house m.d. but the truth is that you and I won't actually know what we are talking about. It is a large and complicated field. How is this any different than dealing with a non-technical manager who knows just enough to be dangerous?
Not to mention that Google and the other tech giants have far too much power as it is. Maybe we need to reform medical review but the answer is not the court of public opinion and it most definitely is not for Google or the tech companies to be the gatekeepers.
Ugh, it would be really nice if slashdot had an edit function.
"I don't think so. This is no different than genetically engineering crops. Eliminating disease, making people smarter, taller, or whatever is perfectly fine. And I think gene editing is the only way the human race can advance beyond our ape heritage."
We don't understand what we are doing well enough. One day we might crack the code well enough to reliably do those things but we are nowhere near that. At present what we are doing is more like gathering up a bunch of pottery and smashing it up to make mosaics. Most of the field runs on the assumption they don't need to understand how it works, they can just use the pieces that are already out there and combine them in new ways. They are half right, there is a huge library of genetic information already out there but humanity definitely needs to understand how it works. The individual doing the combining won't need to in the end but only because they are working from rules and primitives defined by people with a better understanding.
Look at STDs already in the wild and our success at getting rid of them. We can't even stop the ones that kill off the people who get them. Changes like this could sterilize whole populations, changes like you suggest could have impacts that don't surface until several generations later. Not everything happens right away you know. Almost every gene we study enough turns out to be connected in a complicated web with other biologic functions.
Our understanding of the effects of what we are doing and what we are doing is probably on par with the drug industry circa 1780ce.
"This is no different than genetically engineering crops."
And would you feel that way if you were the subject rather the subsequent beneficiary of the experiment? Make no mistake, this is a well established phenomenon with medicine. There is a very real slippery slope and in the end it isn't you who will decide what you or your subsequent offspring are subjected to but the interests of "the greater good." Those might be contrary to the interests of nearly every individual who makes up the greater population. People all too quickly lose sight of the fact that the group is nothing but a collection of individuals and the logic you support which screws over another individual will be turned against you sooner or later.
"I don't think so. This is no different than genetically engineering crops. Eliminating disease, making people smarter, taller, or whatever is perfectly fine. And I think gene editing is the only way the human race can advance beyond our ape heritage."
We don't understand what we are doing well enough. One day we might crack the code well enough to reliably do those things but we are nowhere near that. At present what we are doing is more like gathering up a bunch of pottery and smashing it up and making mosaics. Most of the field runs on the assumption they don't need to understand how it works, they can just use the pieces that are already out there and combine them in new ways. They are half right, there is a huge library of genetic information already out there but humanity definitely needs to understand how it works. The individual doing the combining won't need to in the end but only because they are working from rules and primitives defined by people with a better understanding.
Look at STDs already in the wild and our success at getting rid of them. We can't even stop the ones that kill off the people who get them. Changes like this could sterilize whole populations, changes like you suggest could have impacts that don't surface until several generations later. Not everything happens right away you know. Almost every gene we study enough turns out to be connected in a complicated web with other biologic functions.
Our understanding of the effects of what we are doing and what we are doing is probably on par with the drug industry circa 1780ce.
"This is no different than genetically engineering crops."
And would you fill that way if you were the subject rather the subsequent beneficiary of the experiment? Make no mistake, this is a well established phenomenon with medicine. There is a very real slippery slope and in the end it isn't you who will decide what you or your subsequent offspring are subjected to but the interests of "the greater good" which might be contrary to the interests of nearly every actually individual who makes up the greater population. People all too quickly lose sight of the fact that the group is nothing but a collection of individuals and the logic you support screwing over an individual who isn't you can and will be turned against you sooner or later.
"I tend to trust my VPN provider more than I trust my ISPs"
That's a bit like saying you'd rather your body be hacked up with a chainsaw than a wood chipper. Either will sell you out faster than a $2 hooker offered a rock.
"There is also value in routing your traffic to a different legal jurisdiction"
Not really. There are networks of cooperative agreements in place because that loophole has been well known for 20 years.
The reality is the VPN ultimately provides additional evidence of your identity beyond IP (which in the US no longer is considered evidence on its own). Using a VPN also provides evidence of intent.
Most people foolishly use these services for copyright infringement. Just turning on encryption, a non-standard port, use private trackers exclusively if using torrent, and hiding in the crowd is about as good as you need for that. Oh and stay away from anything still in the theaters. You won't get any ISP warnings that way. All you need is to avoid being the low hanging fruit.
If you really insist on using VPN (hopefully to get around ISP throttling rather than some irrational sentiment) then get a VPS or colocated server on the cheap and set up a vpn yourself or better yet pay in tumbled cryptocurrency and set up your filesharing on that system with a scheduled job that truncates (rather than deletes which will cause you filehandle issues) the access logs every minute). Use some shitty run fly by night found on a board and run by a 3rd grader vpn to actually set it up in the first place, you know something that won't be around in 2 weeks.
You know who you can trust more than your ISP or VPN provider? You. You know whose server definitely isn't a nice easy central place with a streamlined process for disclosing the details you want kept private? The server built on a one off basis by you.
Exactly, hence the issue with where they are located.
VPN software definitely can't be trusted. It doesn't mask your identity, these services can't operate without logging that information.
The only purpose for these services is to mask your traffic to avoid detection by your ISP. In the end correlating your activities with the VPN service adds additional verification of your identity and evidence of intent.
If you are going to run your traffic through a VPN at least pay for a hosted server and set up a VPN yourself.
Don't get me wrong this is a line we couldn't ethically cross but since he already crossed it... we should see the results and gather the data. Slap an ankle bracelet on him and have the facility take over his expenses so the lights stay on but he doesn't profit or have someone else pick up his work.
There are potentially some amazing advances that could come from this line of research.
Also, do you honestly think the likes of Putin and other regimes don't have underground activities of this sort ongoing but obviously can't publish. The genie is out of the bottle. I would be surprised if the US military doesn't have secret programs along these lines going already.
Well obviously they aren't free but all public services should be tax funded with the only exceptions being to close abuse loopholes such as caps on number of rides per day or replacements of documents.
Charging fees for these things is just a way of disproportionately taxing certain groups and income classes. Taxes aren't charged specifically to the group who uses a given service, that is on purpose, we all use different public services and the costs are pooled.
If you can't afford the program with tax dollars either raise taxes or cut somewhere else. It's called a budget.
"Many organizations may find they're better off hiring pen testers and in-house security researchers directly than running bug bounty programs"
There is no reason you can't do both. Hell the ones you hire can even be eligible for the bounties as bonuses. It's a built in incentive program.
"Instead, an elite few produce the biggest volume and highest quality of bug reports across multiple products, earning the biggest slice of available rewards. It's also claimed that even these elite "top 1%" ethical hackers can't make a decent wage by Western standards."
Obviously the bounties are too low and/or the bugs aren't being acknowledged properly and paid out.
" but AWS is bad because..."
Bad for the MongoDB project because they are stripping it of revenue. Bad for everyone who uses it because they've found a loophole to avoid contributing their enhancements back. Running SaaS has the same result as distribution but technically is not distribution and avoids the license requirements.
"but I'm under no obligation, ethically or morally, to actually do that."
You may be under no legal or professional ethical obligation to do so but you lose on the moral point. Failing to do so is a dick move and dick moves are moral fails.
"or hire our own Database experts"
It's a side note but running any serious DB is going to require this. Support exists so there is a place for shit to roll down to. It is a sad reality but a reality none-the-less that people in suits don't realize there are simply too many details and threads in tech, too much complexity, too many fail points. The point you fail on being an expensive one vs a cheap one ultimately comes down to luck and blame from the suits for expensive mistakes just results in axing perfectly good staff.