This is a bit demagogue. By the same logic, one could just say: "Science is progressing at a reasonable pace BECAUSE there are people who can become scientists. If you limit or remove humans, you will be wiping out a large portion of the creative and lateral thinking that often leads to new methods."
So if you want to ban research from being shared among the scientists in that field just because it might be used for non-peaceful purposes, then you'll just have to ban everything. And hey, once you've thrown a tablecloth over one genie lamp, it gets a lot easier to justify doing it again. After all, it's just one more...
This again. Just because you think in black and white, you assume that everyone else does.
No, he assumes that at least one person is a bad one. Also, with potentially dangerous things such as this, preparing for the worst-case scenario is not irrational.
Sure worked for limiting nuclear weapons proliferation. Actually, it didn't, of course.
Because humanity is dead and we live in a postapocalyptic distopia? I'm not saying it worked without any glitches, but the fact that humanity, against all odds, survived the cold war and the times after it without eradicating itself pretty much proves that that nuclear proliferation was succesful in preventing nuclear weapons falling into the hands of irresponsible parties.
Comparing biological weapons to nuclear ones is pointless, as there are more differences than similarities. Aside from the prohibitive costs, there are many things that make nuclear weapons less of a threat. First of all, biological weapons can be far more destructive. A nuke can kill a few million people, but its area of effect is limited. Thus, in order to exterminate mankind one needs a large pile of nukes, and means to deploy them. The first one is hard because weapons-grade radioactive material can't be just bought, and producing it isn't easy. The second one is very hard, because well it's rocket science. If all research on rockets were published, North Korea could already reach the US. Second, nuclear weapns can be defended against, to an extent. With these defences in place, simply owning one or two nukes is not enough, one needs many of them to be able to overwhelm rocket defences. You might say that nuclear proliferation has failed in preventing countries from aquiring nukes, but it did success in limiting the number of those nukes so that they don't pose a threat. The third, and possibly the biggest difference is that with nuclear weapons you always know who attacked you. Biological weapons, however, can be released anonymously. You won't be able to respond, which takes the fear of a counterattack that is preventing a nuclear war today out of the equation.
While likely true - a couple of million dollars could by you a nice lab and the post doctoral level talent to run it - it's not clear that you could appreciably slow down research by simply not posting experimental details. Once you post the results, the details can be left as an exercise for the student. If you decide to limit research entirely you risk being blind sided by someone who hasn't been so constrained.
So you have never heard of classified research? It's perfectly possible to continue researching a subject without publishing the results. Although I'm not sure that developing an antidote is the right way to go, it could be more dangerous than the virus itself.
Next we needed an algorithm to rank these funny videos by comedic potential, e.g. is “Charlie bit my finger” funnier than “David after dentist”? Raw viewcount on its own is insufficient as a ranking metric since it is biased by video age and exposure. We noticed that viewers emphasize their reaction to funny videos in several ways: e.g. capitalization (LOL), elongation (loooooool), repetition (lolololol), exclamation (lolllll!!!!!), and combinations thereof. If a user uses an “loooooool” vs an “loool”, does it mean they were more amused? We designed features to quantify the degree of emphasis on words associated with amusement in viewer comments.
With most online stores you can go to the storage building and pick the stuff up just the same. There are also stores where you can order something in the morning and pick it up at 6pm the same day.
My dad was a manager there and he was competent with computers. He and his colleagues said most of the blame was laid squarely at HR. Managers would find a qualified candidate, then HR would submit resumes of other candidates who had 4.0 GPA grades and met "diversity" rules laid out by federal regulations.
I'm not familiar with the hierarchy of IBM, since when does HR tell the management who to hire? In normal places HR only participates in the first part to weed out those that are not serious.
On the other hand, in my experience the best schools tend to have the biggest class sizes, because all the students want to go there. So it's not like class size doesn't matter, more like it has multiple effects that cancel each other out.
Yeah in Opera you can do something similar directly in the address bar, it lets you set keyboard shortcuts for search engines, so I can type 'g something' for searching Google and 'w something' for searching wikipedia etc.
Astronauts have a great variety of skills. A doctor could also conduct biological or chemical experiments. And it's not like she wouldn't do anything when someone isn't ill, having a skilled person to constantly monitor the health of the crew would lead to a better understanding of the effects of space on the human body, and would also help to detect problems early before they become serious.
But writing software that can diagnose the cause of an illness and guide an untrained person through a surgery won't happen anytime soon. The best this tool can do is storing some general medical knowledge and "projecting" it to the patients body. Just put a doctor on board.
Slashdot Mirror
This is a bit demagogue. By the same logic, one could just say: "Science is progressing at a reasonable pace BECAUSE there are people who can become scientists. If you limit or remove humans, you will be wiping out a large portion of the creative and lateral thinking that often leads to new methods."
So if you want to ban research from being shared among the scientists in that field just because it might be used for non-peaceful purposes, then you'll just have to ban everything. And hey, once you've thrown a tablecloth over one genie lamp, it gets a lot easier to justify doing it again. After all, it's just one more...
This again. Just because you think in black and white, you assume that everyone else does.
No, he assumes that at least one person is a bad one. Also, with potentially dangerous things such as this, preparing for the worst-case scenario is not irrational.
Sure worked for limiting nuclear weapons proliferation. Actually, it didn't, of course.
Because humanity is dead and we live in a postapocalyptic distopia? I'm not saying it worked without any glitches, but the fact that humanity, against all odds, survived the cold war and the times after it without eradicating itself pretty much proves that that nuclear proliferation was succesful in preventing nuclear weapons falling into the hands of irresponsible parties.
Comparing biological weapons to nuclear ones is pointless, as there are more differences than similarities. Aside from the prohibitive costs, there are many things that make nuclear weapons less of a threat. First of all, biological weapons can be far more destructive. A nuke can kill a few million people, but its area of effect is limited. Thus, in order to exterminate mankind one needs a large pile of nukes, and means to deploy them. The first one is hard because weapons-grade radioactive material can't be just bought, and producing it isn't easy. The second one is very hard, because well it's rocket science. If all research on rockets were published, North Korea could already reach the US. Second, nuclear weapns can be defended against, to an extent. With these defences in place, simply owning one or two nukes is not enough, one needs many of them to be able to overwhelm rocket defences. You might say that nuclear proliferation has failed in preventing countries from aquiring nukes, but it did success in limiting the number of those nukes so that they don't pose a threat. The third, and possibly the biggest difference is that with nuclear weapons you always know who attacked you. Biological weapons, however, can be released anonymously. You won't be able to respond, which takes the fear of a counterattack that is preventing a nuclear war today out of the equation.
While likely true - a couple of million dollars could by you a nice lab and the post doctoral level talent to run it - it's not clear that you could appreciably slow down research by simply not posting experimental details. Once you post the results, the details can be left as an exercise for the student. If you decide to limit research entirely you risk being blind sided by someone who hasn't been so constrained.
So you have never heard of classified research? It's perfectly possible to continue researching a subject without publishing the results. Although I'm not sure that developing an antidote is the right way to go, it could be more dangerous than the virus itself.
if it's just fruit and vegetables, I wonder if distilling them for ethanol could be more efficient than rotting them for methane.
The creator of Zero Wing explains how his game served as an inspiration to Anonymous.
LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL
It doesn't just use a few digits but is completely comprised of digits, making it unbreakable.
With most online stores you can go to the storage building and pick the stuff up just the same. There are also stores where you can order something in the morning and pick it up at 6pm the same day.
Luckily for you you don't have to memorize it, as the function of every key is written on them.
Every political party in every country with internet in it has paid commenters. I believe most people here have already seen more than enough of them.
I think it's still cheaper to buy an expensive speaker than to buy a new house or remove a wall.
But of course it's because of piracy why people prefer real life shows and not buy disks anymore.
My dad was a manager there and he was competent with computers. He and his colleagues said most of the blame was laid squarely at HR. Managers would find a qualified candidate, then HR would submit resumes of other candidates who had 4.0 GPA grades and met "diversity" rules laid out by federal regulations.
I'm not familiar with the hierarchy of IBM, since when does HR tell the management who to hire? In normal places HR only participates in the first part to weed out those that are not serious.
They can recommend some medicine, they don't have to send it through the wire.
In the same way you can't be certain that an IRL psychiatrist will keep his mouth shut. Whenever you go to one, you have to trust them.
This exactly. If you can't hire "efficient" coders, it might be a clue that you need more efficient managers.
On the other hand, in my experience the best schools tend to have the biggest class sizes, because all the students want to go there. So it's not like class size doesn't matter, more like it has multiple effects that cancel each other out.
but for some reason it has never offered a unified Google Drive
Google doesn't want to suffer the fate of Megaupload.
is ACTA.
It was also released on Pirate Bay, Wikileaks was not the only reason we know of it.
All Jedi have to swear an oath of celibacy.
Yeah in Opera you can do something similar directly in the address bar, it lets you set keyboard shortcuts for search engines, so I can type 'g something' for searching Google and 'w something' for searching wikipedia etc.
But in either case, it creates interest in science itself, thus leading to a more informed public.
Astronauts have a great variety of skills. A doctor could also conduct biological or chemical experiments. And it's not like she wouldn't do anything when someone isn't ill, having a skilled person to constantly monitor the health of the crew would lead to a better understanding of the effects of space on the human body, and would also help to detect problems early before they become serious.
But writing software that can diagnose the cause of an illness and guide an untrained person through a surgery won't happen anytime soon. The best this tool can do is storing some general medical knowledge and "projecting" it to the patients body. Just put a doctor on board.