I was under the impression that news was about you know, new things. This is just an article highlighting that money has up until now been targetted toward things we are pretty sure exist. you know, novel creatures not using radically different genetic bases. This is just some dudes going, "yup, there might be more out there than we thought" which is you know, the basic premise of all the sciences.
Come back to me when they actually find something that uses a sixth nucleotide.
Incidentally, where might this new life have hidden, that we haven't searched already. We've got extremophiles in the middle of godforsaken rocks already... there aren't that many new places that i imagine we
A. haven't looked already B. aren't already colonized by the cousins we know.
Generally speaking, the new life would need to be able to outcompete, in certain circumstances, the stuff we know or it wouldn't survive too well the 2 billion years that bacteria have dominated the planet.
i'd think the only viable thing would be viruses, maybe, and us not fully understanding them. but then i'd imagine if an different nucleotide were somehow incorporated into a virus we'd already found, it'd also be present enough to show up as an unknown nucleotide. Might not know what it was, but we'd most likely have an idea that it were there.
fine, a collection of well-intentioned individuals with some bad apples sprinkled in. It may be willful delusion, but i prefer to view my society as one that striving to be better, as opposed to one on the brink of collapse.
That i have not been abused (to my knowledge) seems to be indicative that I am living in a society that for the most part is better than many of the ones i could have lived in before.
We're arguing about domestic surveillance... as opposed to outright oppression. About the state of our recovery, as opposed to the state of our collapse. I'm a minority in a country that protects my rights, for the most part. This would not be true for the majority of modern countries even. And the important ones, free speech, freedom of association, the right to due process; they are afforded to me even though I'm a minority. When we stop arguing about the morality of the actions taken by our government, then i'll really start to question my belief that people are good.
the relevance of the quote is that we can afford to be upset by the actions that our government takes, because they have taken them before on our behalf.
My protection does not necessarily mean my absolute privacy.
I will be the first to admit that i don't know all the ramifications of domestic surveillance. But i trust in our form of government and our judicial system to muddle through. Each new decade brings with it new challenges. Our understanding of how we interact with each other and how the government interacts with us will eventually get there, but the complexity of the problems isn't getting any easier. There's very little black and white here, it's all grey. I'll leave balancing domestic terrorism, a global economy, an interconnected world, new forms of communication, and the vagaries of existing case-law to people better equipped to handle it.
All i say is, I like my country, but I view my government as a collection of well-intentioned individuals with all the flaws that that entails. I never bought into the idea of the "city on the hill." Try not to break that many laws in keeping us safe, and where there are no laws, do your best to write good ones.
it's a cost benefit. what's the risk to the american public from a vulnerability versus the gain from exploiting it. money money money vs security security security
because your will is not the will of the american people. neither is mine.
i'm not particularly concerned about the wiretaps... because i have nothing to hide in that regard. The anonymity of being one of 300 million people. What i have to say is no better or worse than the average joe next door. It is not an erosion of my civil liberties that the government knows who i'm talking to. I only believe in the right of privacy in so much as it concerns due process.
I don't believe in a faceless government "out to get me" because ultimately, i believe that it is composed of individuals just like you and me and similarly motivated as you and me. I believe in human goodness, human logic and human greed. And the greed thing is a bit more disconcerting in respect to large corporations. If the people are greedy, they don't go in for government work:).
I'm concerned about a lot of things my government does, but spying on me isn't really one of them.
Apparently even the proponents of the right to privacy don't use the 4th as an argument for. all the protections of the bill of rights were regarding actions taken to infringe them, not knowledge.
browsed it... the article says that companies that are worried about US tech companies are looking to Chinese companies... with strong ties to the military and government... wtf? Don't they have straight up state sponsored corporate espionage?
1. talk is cheap. on the other hand the US has kinda stood on the opposite side of fascism and stalinism for a pretty long while now. politics will be politics but some things are still true.
2. morality is a tricky thing, and something we're now finally fleshing out. I certainly don't believe we're more moral, but it does sound good no?:) our enemies certainly view us as such. We've been the great satan for a while now, but they hate you too:)
3. dictatorships also proclaim that food makes you less hungry, what's your point?
4. I can't laugh that long. which allies do you think will leave... because of the espionage? lemme know.
that's the way the cookie crumbles. Those who are were going to do it eventually anyway... because you know. economics is zero sum in certain instances and this one is one of them.
meh, i'm not particularly troubled by that, i'm more worried about google knowing everything about me... or facebook. something inherently dirtier about having my information sold for profit... and the whole profit motive strongly implying the spread of such information widely. My government will do a lot of things... but it won't sells what it finds out about me. It'll just sit on it.
i don't. but i also believe you get what you pay for... sometimes. We turn around and germany's been spying on brazil.
We are nations of men, not angels. I don't believe for a second that any nation is so pure that given the resources they would not be doing exactly the same thing.
name any country you can think of, and i'll name the country they'd give their eyeteeth to know everything about.
In that yes, if a vulnerability does not afford strategic value internationally, yeah, release it if it'll increase public security. But i'm inclined to believe we'd all agree that there's a cost benefit going on.
If it lets you spy on the iranians... or you know, cause their centrifuges to spin themselves apart. I don't want my intelligence agencies to release that vulnerability until they've spun those fuckers down.
It's really not in the NSA's job description to be exposing vulnerabilities in public systems so much as exploiting them. We don't have an agency whose job description touches cyber security.
so pay to relocate. They're in the US for a reason. If you don't want the services in the US, incentivize them to leave or fund your own. that's what china's doing. and they're also engaging in state sponsored corporate espionage, which, you know, pisses me off. but there's reality for you.
To what standard do you hold the US government as opposed to other governments? You can be damn sure that every other intelligence agency is doing exactly the same thing... but you're criticizing NSA why exactly?
My government protects me as I expect your government to protect you. Can't believe I'm going to do this... quoting blacklist quoting orwell, because i've certainly never read the mans essays myself, “Those who abjure violence can only do so by others committing violence on their behalf.”
I laughed at the Merkel spying thing... as if they didn't expect us to get as much information as possible, and as if we didn't expect them to return the favor. Faux outrage over common practices. IMO. If you don't want your leaders getting spied on... spend more money on your own agencies.
the executive hasn't shrunk regardless of party affiliation since... i don't know, FDR. Senate doesn't produce the budget without the house... and the do-nothing congress did more than the last two.
your freedoms are still being defined, they are codified in law and judicial precedent. Yeah, you've got the freedoms innate to you, but what you know to be true, and what protects you from the freedoms of others is two entirely different things.
Libertarians are so simplistic... yeah freedom from all government control and oversight. what happened to monopolies? What about the freedom to buy support, it's their money after all? the freedom for companies to monitor traffic going through their systems? to control their prices in collusion?
the future is messy, but we're getting their. and we won't get their in good shape if one party's only stated objective is to stonewall the leader of the other.
I find immense beauty in the fact that they set out to make as perfect a tracker of time they could. And end up creating an improved gravity detector when they ran into a wall.:) tell me again, that basic science doesn't deserve funds.
Slashdot Mirror
yes, freak
oh, you know what i mean.
A, G, C, T/U
epigenetic modification is an entirely different kettle of fish.
I was under the impression that news was about you know, new things. This is just an article highlighting that money has up until now been targetted toward things we are pretty sure exist. you know, novel creatures not using radically different genetic bases. This is just some dudes going, "yup, there might be more out there than we thought" which is you know, the basic premise of all the sciences.
Come back to me when they actually find something that uses a sixth nucleotide.
Incidentally, where might this new life have hidden, that we haven't searched already. We've got extremophiles in the middle of godforsaken rocks already... there aren't that many new places that i imagine we
A. haven't looked already
B. aren't already colonized by the cousins we know.
Generally speaking, the new life would need to be able to outcompete, in certain circumstances, the stuff we know or it wouldn't survive too well the 2 billion years that bacteria have dominated the planet.
i'd think the only viable thing would be viruses, maybe, and us not fully understanding them. but then i'd imagine if an different nucleotide were somehow incorporated into a virus we'd already found, it'd also be present enough to show up as an unknown nucleotide. Might not know what it was, but we'd most likely have an idea that it were there.
well that's slightly disturbing, and they should correct that.
don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
fine, a collection of well-intentioned individuals with some bad apples sprinkled in. It may be willful delusion, but i prefer to view my society as one that striving to be better, as opposed to one on the brink of collapse.
That i have not been abused (to my knowledge) seems to be indicative that I am living in a society that for the most part is better than many of the ones i could have lived in before.
We're arguing about domestic surveillance... as opposed to outright oppression. About the state of our recovery, as opposed to the state of our collapse. I'm a minority in a country that protects my rights, for the most part. This would not be true for the majority of modern countries even. And the important ones, free speech, freedom of association, the right to due process; they are afforded to me even though I'm a minority. When we stop arguing about the morality of the actions taken by our government, then i'll really start to question my belief that people are good.
good point, never considered the incentives in that light.
my money money money, was about financial risk and loss. Basically credit card theft and corporate espionage.
security security security was kinda self evident :)
the relevance of the quote is that we can afford to be upset by the actions that our government takes, because they have taken them before on our behalf.
My protection does not necessarily mean my absolute privacy.
I will be the first to admit that i don't know all the ramifications of domestic surveillance. But i trust in our form of government and our judicial system to muddle through. Each new decade brings with it new challenges. Our understanding of how we interact with each other and how the government interacts with us will eventually get there, but the complexity of the problems isn't getting any easier. There's very little black and white here, it's all grey. I'll leave balancing domestic terrorism, a global economy, an interconnected world, new forms of communication, and the vagaries of existing case-law to people better equipped to handle it.
All i say is, I like my country, but I view my government as a collection of well-intentioned individuals with all the flaws that that entails. I never bought into the idea of the "city on the hill." Try not to break that many laws in keeping us safe, and where there are no laws, do your best to write good ones.
it's a cost benefit. what's the risk to the american public from a vulnerability versus the gain from exploiting it. money money money vs security security security
depends on what aspect you're looking at...
there's a limited customer pool for the same service. If they employ me, they have no incentive to also employ you too.
because your will is not the will of the american people. neither is mine.
i'm not particularly concerned about the wiretaps... because i have nothing to hide in that regard. The anonymity of being one of 300 million people. What i have to say is no better or worse than the average joe next door. It is not an erosion of my civil liberties that the government knows who i'm talking to. I only believe in the right of privacy in so much as it concerns due process.
I don't believe in a faceless government "out to get me" because ultimately, i believe that it is composed of individuals just like you and me and similarly motivated as you and me. I believe in human goodness, human logic and human greed. And the greed thing is a bit more disconcerting in respect to large corporations. If the people are greedy, they don't go in for government work :).
I'm concerned about a lot of things my government does, but spying on me isn't really one of them.
Apparently even the proponents of the right to privacy don't use the 4th as an argument for. all the protections of the bill of rights were regarding actions taken to infringe them, not knowledge.
browsed it... the article says that companies that are worried about US tech companies are looking to Chinese companies... with strong ties to the military and government... wtf? Don't they have straight up state sponsored corporate espionage?
:) i wasn't aware, don't hear much about them :)
... wait so which amendment guarantees that my meta-data isn't going to be recorded en-masse? or that foreign nationals can't be spied on?
1. talk is cheap. on the other hand the US has kinda stood on the opposite side of fascism and stalinism for a pretty long while now. politics will be politics but some things are still true.
2. morality is a tricky thing, and something we're now finally fleshing out. I certainly don't believe we're more moral, but it does sound good no? :) our enemies certainly view us as such. We've been the great satan for a while now, but they hate you too :)
3. dictatorships also proclaim that food makes you less hungry, what's your point?
4. I can't laugh that long. which allies do you think will leave... because of the espionage? lemme know.
that's the way the cookie crumbles. Those who are were going to do it eventually anyway... because you know. economics is zero sum in certain instances and this one is one of them.
meh, i'm not particularly troubled by that, i'm more worried about google knowing everything about me... or facebook. something inherently dirtier about having my information sold for profit... and the whole profit motive strongly implying the spread of such information widely. My government will do a lot of things... but it won't sells what it finds out about me. It'll just sit on it.
i don't. but i also believe you get what you pay for... sometimes. We turn around and germany's been spying on brazil.
We are nations of men, not angels. I don't believe for a second that any nation is so pure that given the resources they would not be doing exactly the same thing.
name any country you can think of, and i'll name the country they'd give their eyeteeth to know everything about.
In that yes, if a vulnerability does not afford strategic value internationally, yeah, release it if it'll increase public security. But i'm inclined to believe we'd all agree that there's a cost benefit going on.
If it lets you spy on the iranians... or you know, cause their centrifuges to spin themselves apart. I don't want my intelligence agencies to release that vulnerability until they've spun those fuckers down.
It's really not in the NSA's job description to be exposing vulnerabilities in public systems so much as exploiting them. We don't have an agency whose job description touches cyber security.
so pay to relocate. They're in the US for a reason. If you don't want the services in the US, incentivize them to leave or fund your own. that's what china's doing. and they're also engaging in state sponsored corporate espionage, which, you know, pisses me off. but there's reality for you.
To what standard do you hold the US government as opposed to other governments? You can be damn sure that every other intelligence agency is doing exactly the same thing... but you're criticizing NSA why exactly?
My government protects me as I expect your government to protect you. Can't believe I'm going to do this... quoting blacklist quoting orwell, because i've certainly never read the mans essays myself, “Those who abjure violence can only do so by others committing violence on their behalf.”
I laughed at the Merkel spying thing... as if they didn't expect us to get as much information as possible, and as if we didn't expect them to return the favor. Faux outrage over common practices. IMO. If you don't want your leaders getting spied on... spend more money on your own agencies.
it would but turns out taking health insurance away from sick people doesn't look good... you know, because obamacare saves lives.
the executive hasn't shrunk regardless of party affiliation since... i don't know, FDR. Senate doesn't produce the budget without the house... and the do-nothing congress did more than the last two.
your freedoms are still being defined, they are codified in law and judicial precedent. Yeah, you've got the freedoms innate to you, but what you know to be true, and what protects you from the freedoms of others is two entirely different things.
Libertarians are so simplistic... yeah freedom from all government control and oversight. what happened to monopolies? What about the freedom to buy support, it's their money after all? the freedom for companies to monitor traffic going through their systems? to control their prices in collusion?
the future is messy, but we're getting their. and we won't get their in good shape if one party's only stated objective is to stonewall the leader of the other.
I find immense beauty in the fact that they set out to make as perfect a tracker of time they could. And end up creating an improved gravity detector when they ran into a wall. :) tell me again, that basic science doesn't deserve funds.
you realize that sharks like. literally have a software crash if you turn them upside down right? they go catatonic.
:) if they're like sharks, if you flip them upside down they crash. :)