30 million is a lot, to be sure, but I wonder if malware authors look at them the same way. For one thing, I believe desktops must be much more desirable for spambots than laptops because they are left on more often. This is especially true for desktops in small businesses. I would guess that the vast majority of those 30 million macs are laptops.
is to research shows ahead of time, setup recordings for each you want to watch, and then never watch anything unless you sit down and see that the DVR has recorded one of these shows for you. For me, the question of "what's on tv?" has completely shifted to "what has been recorded?" and sometimes "what's free on-demand?"
This is the same for all of my twenty-something friends, so I question the results of this study.
It seems every time this subject is brought up, it ends up being an argument about exact clones and whether or not they will upset the balance of society. Personally, I think this is very shortsighted.
If cloning technology never progresses past making exact copies of people I doubt it would have a big impact on society. However, it won't stop at copies, genetic engineering is the next logical step and already available.
Consider the parents that want to clone a child they lost in a horrible accident (this is a case many scientists are pointing to as an ethical use of cloning). They figure they can give their child a second chance. Then they realize it might be easier this time if he didn't have asthma, or that slight heart problem.
It starts with tweaks like these and soon we will have the ability to engineer nearly everything. Perhaps there will be laws against it, but all that will do is stop everyone but the rich from using it. Suddenly every wealthy family in the world doesn't just have the biggest house or the nicest car, they have the superior children. The rich get richer.
I think this technology has a good chance of reshaping the world in the next 100 years, and I'm worried about it. People need to see past the surface.
Ben Reierson
Slashdot Mirror
30 million is a lot, to be sure, but I wonder if malware authors look at them the same way. For one thing, I believe desktops must be much more desirable for spambots than laptops because they are left on more often. This is especially true for desktops in small businesses. I would guess that the vast majority of those 30 million macs are laptops.
is to research shows ahead of time, setup recordings for each you want to watch, and then never watch anything unless you sit down and see that the DVR has recorded one of these shows for you. For me, the question of "what's on tv?" has completely shifted to "what has been recorded?" and sometimes "what's free on-demand?"
This is the same for all of my twenty-something friends, so I question the results of this study.
It seems every time this subject is brought up, it ends up being an argument about exact clones and whether or not they will upset the balance of society. Personally, I think this is very shortsighted. If cloning technology never progresses past making exact copies of people I doubt it would have a big impact on society. However, it won't stop at copies, genetic engineering is the next logical step and already available. Consider the parents that want to clone a child they lost in a horrible accident (this is a case many scientists are pointing to as an ethical use of cloning). They figure they can give their child a second chance. Then they realize it might be easier this time if he didn't have asthma, or that slight heart problem. It starts with tweaks like these and soon we will have the ability to engineer nearly everything. Perhaps there will be laws against it, but all that will do is stop everyone but the rich from using it. Suddenly every wealthy family in the world doesn't just have the biggest house or the nicest car, they have the superior children. The rich get richer. I think this technology has a good chance of reshaping the world in the next 100 years, and I'm worried about it. People need to see past the surface. Ben Reierson