Now if they'd go one step farther and compile a database of sites that "attacked" and allowed access to it for use as a blacklist. We've got spiders walking all over the net compiling all kinds of databases, I'm surprised nobody's done one like that before.
If you read TFA, they explain it. Yes, they based the name on honeypot, but a honeypot just sits there waiting to be attacked.
A honeymonkey goes swinging around the net looking for someone to attack it.
Now if MS would compile a database of offending sites and allow me to use it as a blacklist for my browser, that'd be even better. Unfortunately they'd probably only make it available for IE.
But I don't care what agreement the shipper & shipping company may have, if its a box that's shipped to me, I consider it my property.
Because if they do think they still own the box after the delivery has been made, they'd better get over here and pick them up or I'm sending them the bill for expenses and labor used to properly dispose of their boxes.
Note I am talking about boxes that have been used for shipping something, not empty boxes the shipping company may have provided with the understanding that they be used in doing business with them. Its not entirely clear to me how he got his boxes.
But if they've been created already in fertility clinics for the purpose of procreation or fun or whatever, and now they are being tossed, heck yes - lets get some more use out of them.
I may need to look into it a bit more, but my understanding is that this is the case now. Material that's essentially in the deep freeze ready to be tossed can be used for federally funded research. Its the use of embryos created specifically for research that is not currently eligible for federal funding. Seems there were some other provisions/restrictions as well, but I don't know what they are.
I hear what you're saying, and actually agree with quite a bit of it. But there are tiers of issues to deal with. For example, say the doctor and the couple are fine with using the embryo for research, but the people funding the research are not. That's the hurdle right now. Its not illegal to do the research, but the federal government has "decided" not to fund it. That's (presumably) because a majority of individuals (or more precisely, the president) have decided that's not an appropriate use of tax money.
Sorry, had to throw in my $0.02.
No problem. I appreciate it when people are willing to discuss hard topics without resorting to, shall we say, uncivilized behaviour. Helps me wrap my head around it too.
some people might be leaving other people's genetic material all over the place too
Yeah, but much fun could be had if you have pets.
Scientist : Wow! Looks like Bob in accounting has a predisposition to slobbering, floppy ears, and a veerrry hairy back! At least he's got a keen sense of smell, excellent hearing and he's very loyal. So all's good.
Other examples would be everyone from X-ray technicians to researchers working with radioactive material. In most cases the woman is give an opportunity for temporary re-assignment and the option for increased monitoring if they decline the move. Around here we've simply stopped doing certain kinds of experiments during critical times.
I personally think that anyone that tries to argue "my genes made me do it" should be laughed out of court. But that is me. Anyone else?
No, depending on the crime just allow them to be sterilized and/or put away for life since they obviously can't be rehabilitated (they admitted its genetic).
That'll stop that predisposition from perpetuating through the gene pool. I call it unnatural selection.
Good points, but there are a couple of differences. First, genetics can't be changed. Taking drugs is (theoretically) a choice. There's also the factor that having a genetic predisposition to some disease is not illegal. And finally, your employer is probably aware of any genetic "disabilities" that could interfere with your ability to work or pose a danger to others and can take adequate measures to ensure your (and your co-workers) productivity and safety. That's not true for someone who may come to work "under the influence".
True, but keep in mind that's only because we have laws that specifically mention race and sex. You'd have to write/rewrite a law to expand the legal definition. But be careful, there may be a genetic predisposition to sleep disorders. And I wouldn't want the law to force me to hire someone who couldn't get to work on time and sleeps at work because genetics prevents them from getting up on time and staying awake.
Suppose parents get their child tested for this cancer linked allele very early in the pregnancy. Parent set A has enough money to pay the doctors to correct the defective gene.
That's very unlikely to happen, especially since you'd have to "fix" every single cell (or at least know which subset to fix). The more likely scenario is Parent set A has an abortion and tries again. We're already at that point in many respects (ie fetuses being aborted because of neural tube defects being the most common, I think). There are also a battery of tests (including genetic) that can be run on amniotic fluid and even from blood samples taken from the fetus in utero.
This whole issue only comes up because the poor way in which health care is structured in the U.S. If we had universal health coverage, it wouldn't really matter much "whose fault it was".
Although universal health coverage may be the best option, its not without its inequities and problems.
The distinction you are missing is that embryonic stem cells come from embryos, which are (a) not persons (in the commonly understood sense of the word), since they don't have minds or bodies, and (b) going to be thrown away anyway,
(a) really varies depending on the person and culture. In some cultures you're not a person until you hit puberty. In others women are never considered "people". Those are exteme examples, but I don't buy that "person" is defined as you have defined it. How many (happily) expectant parents talk to their "embryo" as soon as they know it exists?
(b) gets murky very quickly when you get to the question of creating embryos for the sole purpose of research. I think that's what most people have trouble with.
It remains to be seen if they(SCO, Darl, et al) will be "punished"
And what exactly constitutes punishment? Is it really punishment if SCO is run into the ground but Darl walks away with all the $$$ he's made during his tenure there?
I just don't see him being punished in any reasonable scenario.
Unless you are compiling big stuff. Or playing games. Or editing digital photographs.
You're right, but I was thinking more in the line of what's required in a computer for it to be a general purpose DVR and playback device (also handles music). That's where you may want the quite PC that's not going to be drowning out the dialog or quiet musical moments with a big ol' box fan. The other stuff I do on the "big iron" located in another room. I don't even have a burner in the iMac, but its simple enough to pull up Toast and have it burn a DVD using the burner in my G4 system.
Actually I do, but not with my home media PC (an iMac).
What does anything in that list have to do with a home media center? You do 3d work, CAD/CAM and simulations on your TV?
Yes, those jobs require more powerful computers -that's what I have other computers for. And I don't worry about them being quite as much as being fast.
Now bugger off out of a thread meant for those of us who do do this stuff.
Gee, I was responding to an article about silent media PCs and in particular to a post about fanless PCs that said, "None of them where using very powerfull configurations or were not so succesfull due to overheating".
I've been using an iMac DV, and it does just fine capturing DV and playing any kind of video file I throw at it (haven't tried HD yet though). It also hasa built-in DVD player and that nice VGA port on the back that I hook up to my TV through a VGA-S-Video convertor, and the sound goes straight to my stereo. Couple that with an FM remote, OS X, QT and VLC and I have what I consider to be a "Media PC". And no problems with overheating (though my house is air conditioned during the summer).
If I actually want to burn a DVD, I just sit down at my "main" computer and pull the captured video off the iMac (100 Mbps ethernet) and burn.
Really, unless you're encoding/transcoding video, you don't need that much computing horsepower.
According to that (and other references) it not only saves ~1% of energy, it has the nice side-effect of giving us an hour more of daylight in the evening, when most people want it.
If you've ever had to rake leaves in the fall, you really notice when we revert to "normal" time and it's too dark to rake after work/dinner.
One should also note the weasel word being used, "manual hacker attatcks". Apparently for some OS's (which shall remain nameless), hacker attacks are automatic.
Sure, NASA is FUBAR. Start another agency and give the money to them. If you stop space research for a couple of decades, China will own you.
Doesn't have to be done by NASA or any new agency. IMO the idea behind NASA was that it was (theoretically) a non-military driven space exploration agency. Give it a military agenda, and the Air Force is ready and willing to take over.
What percentage of the market share do you think would really change there buying decision to preference a non-DRM computer.
Depends on how well DRM is snuck in. Take the standard DVD player for instance. Initially you could pretty much do anything you wanted with your player (FF, Skip Chapter, Stop, go straight to the main menu) whenever you wanted.
Then they made it so you couldn't FF or skip the FBI & Interpol warnings.
Then they made it so you can't get straight to the menu.
Then they added previews etc. that can't be skipped, but maybe FF'd through.
Who knows, in 5 years you may not even be able to FF through them. By then it will be too late.
The media company is playing a good game of slowly adding these things and waiting for the consumer to be locked in. The key is the stage at which enough consumers realize they're being pwned. Will it be too late?
And while there may be no NEED to right-click in MacOS right now, given the growing popularity of multi-button mice on the Mac, eventually some apps will require it for certain functions
Don't forget, for the most part command-click == right click, and many apps do make use of a command-click already.
So the Mac has always had the equivalent of a right click, its just a matter of wether or not the mouse button has a right button to use or not.
Slashdot Mirror
"A big emphasis is going to be performance per watt," said Bill Calder, an Intel spokesman. "That is a very big deal."
Seemed to come right out of Jobs keynote, didn't it?
I admit, its still stretching it a bit. OTOH was this a Ballmer initiated project?
Maybe it does make sense in a Microsoft sorta way..
Now if they'd go one step farther and compile a database of sites that "attacked" and allowed access to it for use as a blacklist. We've got spiders walking all over the net compiling all kinds of databases, I'm surprised nobody's done one like that before.
If you read TFA, they explain it. Yes, they based the name on honeypot, but a honeypot just sits there waiting to be attacked.
A honeymonkey goes swinging around the net looking for someone to attack it.
Now if MS would compile a database of offending sites and allow me to use it as a blacklist for my browser, that'd be even better. Unfortunately they'd probably only make it available for IE.
Thanks. That at least makes a little sense. Doesn't explain why they're using the DMCA, but does explain why they might have issues with his box use.
But I don't care what agreement the shipper & shipping company may have, if its a box that's shipped to me, I consider it my property.
Because if they do think they still own the box after the delivery has been made, they'd better get over here and pick them up or I'm sending them the bill for expenses and labor used to properly dispose of their boxes.
Note I am talking about boxes that have been used for shipping something, not empty boxes the shipping company may have provided with the understanding that they be used in doing business with them. Its not entirely clear to me how he got his boxes.
For example, just look at NeXT.
Went from doing both hardware and software, to doing only hardware, back to doing hardware and software (as Apple Computer) -and finally succeeding.
There's also OS2 and Be to add to the list.
But if they've been created already in fertility clinics for the purpose of procreation or fun or whatever, and now they are being tossed, heck yes - lets get some more use out of them.
I may need to look into it a bit more, but my understanding is that this is the case now. Material that's essentially in the deep freeze ready to be tossed can be used for federally funded research. Its the use of embryos created specifically for research that is not currently eligible for federal funding. Seems there were some other provisions/restrictions as well, but I don't know what they are.
I hear what you're saying, and actually agree with quite a bit of it. But there are tiers of issues to deal with. For example, say the doctor and the couple are fine with using the embryo for research, but the people funding the research are not. That's the hurdle right now. Its not illegal to do the research, but the federal government has "decided" not to fund it. That's (presumably) because a majority of individuals (or more precisely, the president) have decided that's not an appropriate use of tax money.
Sorry, had to throw in my $0.02.
No problem. I appreciate it when people are willing to discuss hard topics without resorting to, shall we say, uncivilized behaviour. Helps me wrap my head around it too.
some people might be leaving other people's genetic material all over the place too
Yeah, but much fun could be had if you have pets.
Scientist : Wow! Looks like Bob in accounting has a predisposition to slobbering, floppy ears, and a veerrry hairy back! At least he's got a keen sense of smell, excellent hearing and he's very loyal. So all's good.
Other examples would be everyone from X-ray technicians to researchers working with radioactive material. In most cases the woman is give an opportunity for temporary re-assignment and the option for increased monitoring if they decline the move. Around here we've simply stopped doing certain kinds of experiments during critical times.
I personally think that anyone that tries to argue "my genes made me do it" should be laughed out of court. But that is me. Anyone else?
No, depending on the crime just allow them to be sterilized and/or put away for life since they obviously can't be rehabilitated (they admitted its genetic).
That'll stop that predisposition from perpetuating through the gene pool. I call it unnatural selection.
Good points, but there are a couple of differences. First, genetics can't be changed. Taking drugs is (theoretically) a choice. There's also the factor that having a genetic predisposition to some disease is not illegal. And finally, your employer is probably aware of any genetic "disabilities" that could interfere with your ability to work or pose a danger to others and can take adequate measures to ensure your (and your co-workers) productivity and safety. That's not true for someone who may come to work "under the influence".
Just some food for thought.
True, but keep in mind that's only because we have laws that specifically mention race and sex. You'd have to write/rewrite a law to expand the legal definition. But be careful, there may be a genetic predisposition to sleep disorders. And I wouldn't want the law to force me to hire someone who couldn't get to work on time and sleeps at work because genetics prevents them from getting up on time and staying awake.
Suppose parents get their child tested for this cancer linked allele very early in the pregnancy. Parent set A has enough money to pay the doctors to correct the defective gene.
That's very unlikely to happen, especially since you'd have to "fix" every single cell (or at least know which subset to fix). The more likely scenario is Parent set A has an abortion and tries again. We're already at that point in many respects (ie fetuses being aborted because of neural tube defects being the most common, I think). There are also a battery of tests (including genetic) that can be run on amniotic fluid and even from blood samples taken from the fetus in utero.
This whole issue only comes up because the poor way in which health care is structured in the U.S. If we had universal health coverage, it wouldn't really matter much "whose fault it was".
Although universal health coverage may be the best option, its not without its inequities and problems.
The distinction you are missing is that embryonic stem cells come from embryos, which are (a) not persons (in the commonly understood sense of the word), since they don't have minds or bodies, and (b) going to be thrown away anyway,
(a) really varies depending on the person and culture. In some cultures you're not a person until you hit puberty. In others women are never considered "people". Those are exteme examples, but I don't buy that "person" is defined as you have defined it. How many (happily) expectant parents talk to their "embryo" as soon as they know it exists?
(b) gets murky very quickly when you get to the question of creating embryos for the sole purpose of research. I think that's what most people have trouble with.
It remains to be seen if they(SCO, Darl, et al) will be "punished"
And what exactly constitutes punishment? Is it really punishment if SCO is run into the ground but Darl walks away with all the $$$ he's made during his tenure there?
I just don't see him being punished in any reasonable scenario.
Unless you are compiling big stuff. Or playing games. Or editing digital photographs.
You're right, but I was thinking more in the line of what's required in a computer for it to be a general purpose DVR and playback device (also handles music). That's where you may want the quite PC that's not going to be drowning out the dialog or quiet musical moments with a big ol' box fan. The other stuff I do on the "big iron" located in another room. I don't even have a burner in the iMac, but its simple enough to pull up Toast and have it burn a DVD using the burner in my G4 system.
You don't
Actually I do, but not with my home media PC (an iMac).
What does anything in that list have to do with a home media center? You do 3d work, CAD/CAM and simulations on your TV?
Yes, those jobs require more powerful computers -that's what I have other computers for. And I don't worry about them being quite as much as being fast.
Now bugger off out of a thread meant for those of us who do do this stuff.
Gee, I was responding to an article about silent media PCs and in particular to a post about fanless PCs that said, "None of them where using very powerfull configurations or were not so succesfull due to overheating".
Me thinks maybe you're lost?
I've been using an iMac DV, and it does just fine capturing DV and playing any kind of video file I throw at it (haven't tried HD yet though). It also hasa built-in DVD player and that nice VGA port on the back that I hook up to my TV through a VGA-S-Video convertor, and the sound goes straight to my stereo. Couple that with an FM remote, OS X, QT and VLC and I have what I consider to be a "Media PC". And no problems with overheating (though my house is air conditioned during the summer).
If I actually want to burn a DVD, I just sit down at my "main" computer and pull the captured video off the iMac (100 Mbps ethernet) and burn.
Really, unless you're encoding/transcoding video, you don't need that much computing horsepower.
See http://webexhibits.org/daylightsaving/c.html
According to that (and other references) it not only saves ~1% of energy, it has the nice side-effect of giving us an hour more of daylight in the evening, when most people want it.
If you've ever had to rake leaves in the fall, you really notice when we revert to "normal" time and it's too dark to rake after work/dinner.
One should also note the weasel word being used, "manual hacker attatcks". Apparently for some OS's (which shall remain nameless), hacker attacks are automatic.
Sure, NASA is FUBAR. Start another agency and give the money to them. If you stop space research for a couple of decades, China will own you.
Doesn't have to be done by NASA or any new agency. IMO the idea behind NASA was that it was (theoretically) a non-military driven space exploration agency. Give it a military agenda, and the Air Force is ready and willing to take over.
What percentage of the market share do you think would really change there buying decision to preference a non-DRM computer.
Depends on how well DRM is snuck in. Take the standard DVD player for instance. Initially you could pretty much do anything you wanted with your player (FF, Skip Chapter, Stop, go straight to the main menu) whenever you wanted.
Then they made it so you couldn't FF or skip the FBI & Interpol warnings.
Then they made it so you can't get straight to the menu.
Then they added previews etc. that can't be skipped, but maybe FF'd through.
Who knows, in 5 years you may not even be able to FF through them. By then it will be too late.
The media company is playing a good game of slowly adding these things and waiting for the consumer to be locked in. The key is the stage at which enough consumers realize they're being pwned. Will it be too late?
And while there may be no NEED to right-click in MacOS right now, given the growing popularity of multi-button mice on the Mac, eventually some apps will require it for certain functions
Don't forget, for the most part command-click == right click, and many apps do make use of a command-click already.
So the Mac has always had the equivalent of a right click, its just a matter of wether or not the mouse button has a right button to use or not.