Seriously, the guy makes a few points but the paper's headline was and is misleading at best. Then again, its sole purpose always was to generate citations for and drive eyes towards the new journal (at the time) PLoS. Considering it was done in 2005, I'd say mission accomplished. Not like this place never covered it before, either
On the bright side, your immune system will happily slaughter any cells making it into your body (AKA cancer is not contagious*). The barriers and filters exist to protect the device and the cell lines from your white cells, not the other way around.
*Yes I know about oncoviruses and animal contagious cancers. One is a vector and not really the type of thing we are discussing here. The other, well, animal sort of gives it away.
I second the MO suggestion. We've used them for storage in my line of work for years before changing to CDs.
While the CDs (archive grade charge-you-through-the-nose special coating yadda yadda) bork at an impressive rate, I've never had an MO disc fail on me (1500 discs between 10 and 15 years old)
According to the great Nick Bostrom, one of three things is true:
1. The chances that a species at our current level of development can avoid going extinct before becoming technologically mature is negligibly small
2. Almost no technologically mature civilisations are interested in running computer simulations of minds like ours
3. You are almost certainly in a simulation.
If they succeed, you can strike option 1 & 2. Good thing it's Microsoft, though:-)
By no means I want to support the "those with nothing to hide have nothing to fear" crowd, but seriously, I fail to see the issue here.
I really don't understand all the suggestions for keeping *crypt volumes and whatnot on your drive. If you're really dumb enough to try and bring illegal (digital) stuff across the border, you deserve to get caught IMHO. Just set up some download location or mail some DVDs for crying out loud.
So if you're not bringing anything illegal, why go about encrypting partitions on your drive? So you can stick it to the man? If they want to look at your laptop, they will. Customs have a right to search your belongings at the border, get over it already
Furthermore, anyone using SSL to send data to Wikileaks from work is equally stupid. The logs you speak of can just as easily identify who connected to Wikileaks over a secure connection and thus are just as easily identified as the PGP encrypted fool who does so.
Ha! That's the beauty of it!
You see, in phase #2 of their plan for global domination, wikileaks is planning to offer annual Playboy subscriptions at 50% rate, at which point their SSL servers are going to be taking hits like there's no tomorrow;-)
Quite obviously they (the submitters) would like to be able to deny they sent the information in the first place. PGP or not is not going to help a lot with that.
"Proof of intention to conceal" would refer to the fact that when the next scandal at ACME is published, and only one of their faithful employees ever used PGP as evidenced by their router logs, that would constitute enough proof to sue, even without being able to read the actual contents of the mail.
So what the nice folks at wikileaks are saying is that you might as well ditch PGP and use web-based SSL forms so you can just claim you were paying your annual Playboy magazine subscription, or whatever. Or you could send all your mail with PGP and try to convince everybody else to do so as well.
So yes, PGP isn't going to do you much good, but not for the reasons you stated.
Apple faithful, trust me on this. The phones are not lost. Okay? I just saw them, like, I don't know, last week. Or was it just before Macworld? Tim Cook is trying to find the paperwork because he says he knows we shipped them and he can totally remember seeing the invoices but now he can't remember where he put them but he swears they're around here someplace. Ja'Red is on the job too.
Just as I was wondering how many hours I've enjoyed/lost (tends to fluctuate based on current amount of actual work to do) reading this site (been doing so since before user accounts - held off because at the time "people in the know" told you ad nauseam _never_ to register _anywhere_), I noticed the "have you metamoderated today" link. Lo and behold.
I'm one of many that have had their mod privs revoked after moderating a "post of doom" or something like that (can't dig up any fast references - I seem to recall something about a user called Signal11 or something starting an offtopic meta discussion in some story - I'm sure most of you that were around at the time still remember).
Anyway, I was kind of wondering why today of all days my metamod privs seem to have been reinstated. Is this some kind of 10th anniversary present? A cunning plot to make me enjoy/lose even more time here? Coincidence? An omen of the impeding singularity?
Taco, if you're reading this and this is like some general pardon or something, really, geez, thanks man. I'll try to behave next time. No promises though.
Survival figures vary - overall in the USA the five-year survival rate is 71.2 percent for males and 66.9 percent for females. Its better than that in some units. This person's survival after a transplant would be alot higher than this as young people do better on average than older recipiants.
Over 2/3 alive at 5 years, and actually pretty similar at 10 years - bearing in mind that most of bad outcomes are in the first year, and that this is all causes of death, including deaths that were unrelated to the transplant. Not quite.
Top 2 causes of death if you survive your transplant for 1 year (rejection being #1 in the 1st year):
Immunosupression-related neoplasms - nasty kinds of tumors
Transplant vasculopathy - progressive diffuse disease of the vessels in the transplanted heart
Both of them account for about 20% mortality each and odds of dying from them increase over time. If you were to read the annual ISHLT reports on transplant mortality (subscription req'd) you'd see a strictly linear decrease in survival over the years. Expected 10-yrs survival for a 15-yr old patient is just above 50% (you can also check out (PPT) slide kits of this data on the ISHLT website. I'm afraid these data don't show much of a survival benefit for younger patients, either.
I know there was some initial enthusiasm in the 80s that transplant recipients were going to outlive their healthy peers but that's quite some time ago. The cynicists that are calling the procedure a pyrrhic victory over nature aren't joking.
When the Russians tried this in Moscow back in '03 they killed well over 100 hostages with the gas.
Good idea in theory, bad idea in practice.
The Russians had to release a huge dose of very fast acting gas (it is commonly believed they used a modified (ie gaseous) version of remifentanil, an ultra potent ultra fast acting opioid) to achieve their goal:
stop the terrorists from detonating their explosives before they figured out something was wrong.
Obviously, the dose needed to knock down young, presumably healthy chechnian men and women in a matter of seconds far exceeds anything an elderly citizen with chronic heart or lung disease would survive.
In a contained space like a plane, provided there are no explosives on board, you could easily go slow with your gas. Hell, you could even try nitrous oxide and hope the hijackers all start laughing and hugging.
I actually think it's a great idea. Imagine to build your own box and being able to just install from BIOS. No more fuzz about finding another box, downloading boot floppies, finding out the floppies you have are useless for anything but teacup saucers,... Just download bootloader and write to your virgin HD, and off you go!
Dunno how long before someone figures out how to flash the thing remotely and give us popup pr0n on the boot splash, tho.
Your argument is logically meaningless. Security and obscurity are different properties of a secret. Security is what is needed to keep a "visible" secret just that: secret. Obscurity is what keeps an "invisble" secret secret. So having security "trough" obscurity is nonsense: the whole point of obscurity is about not needing security for secrecy. Obviously you would be wise to use both as complementary measures. But in no way does one improve secrecy "trough" the other.
Slashdot Mirror
The advertising IS the actual content. What's in between is just there to keep you watching between ads.
I guess they become true
Seriously, the guy makes a few points but the paper's headline was and is misleading at best. Then again, its sole purpose always was to generate
citations for and drive eyes towards the new journal (at the time) PLoS. Considering it was done in 2005, I'd say mission accomplished. Not like this place never covered it before, either
http://science.slashdot.org/story/10/10/15/1934228/Meta-Research-Debunks-Medical-Study-Findings?from=rss
http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/10/19/172254
http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/08/30/2048236
http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/09/18/1429222
We got the message. I think we can go back to doing science now.
Ahem...
<comic book store guy> Whoosh </comic book store guy>
They sure are (cancerous).
On the bright side, your immune system will happily slaughter any cells making it into your body (AKA cancer is not contagious*). The barriers and filters exist to protect the device and the cell lines from your white cells, not the other way around.
*Yes I know about oncoviruses and animal contagious cancers. One is a vector and not really the type of thing we are discussing here. The other, well, animal sort of gives it away.
I second the MO suggestion. We've used them for storage in my line of work for years before changing to CDs. While the CDs (archive grade charge-you-through-the-nose special coating yadda yadda) bork at an impressive rate, I've never had an MO disc fail on me (1500 discs between 10 and 15 years old)
1. The chances that a species at our current level of development can avoid going extinct before becoming technologically mature is negligibly small
2. Almost no technologically mature civilisations are interested in running computer simulations of minds like ours
3. You are almost certainly in a simulation.
If they succeed, you can strike option 1 & 2. Good thing it's Microsoft, though :-)
1 liter has always been 1 cubic decimeter. I'd say it's pretty well defined.
I really don't understand all the suggestions for keeping *crypt volumes and whatnot on your drive. If you're really dumb enough to try and bring illegal (digital) stuff across the border, you deserve to get caught IMHO. Just set up some download location or mail some DVDs for crying out loud.
So if you're not bringing anything illegal, why go about encrypting partitions on your drive? So you can stick it to the man? If they want to look at your laptop, they will. Customs have a right to search your belongings at the border, get over it already
Funniest. Comment. Ever. Seriously, hats off.
Ha! That's the beauty of it!
You see, in phase #2 of their plan for global domination, wikileaks is planning to offer annual Playboy subscriptions at 50% rate, at which point their SSL servers are going to be taking hits like there's no tomorrow ;-)
"Proof of intention to conceal" would refer to the fact that when the next scandal at ACME is published, and only one of their faithful employees ever used PGP as evidenced by their router logs, that would constitute enough proof to sue, even without being able to read the actual contents of the mail.
So what the nice folks at wikileaks are saying is that you might as well ditch PGP and use web-based SSL forms so you can just claim you were paying your annual Playboy magazine subscription, or whatever. Or you could send all your mail with PGP and try to convince everybody else to do so as well.
So yes, PGP isn't going to do you much good, but not for the reasons you stated.
Spot on! The Post of doom - Michael post! I've lost metamod privs for countless years. They're back today. Seriously.
Just as I was wondering how many hours I've enjoyed/lost (tends to fluctuate based on current amount of actual work to do) reading this site (been doing so since before user accounts - held off because at the time "people in the know" told you ad nauseam _never_ to register _anywhere_), I noticed the "have you metamoderated today" link. Lo and behold.
I'm one of many that have had their mod privs revoked after moderating a "post of doom" or something like that (can't dig up any fast references - I seem to recall something about a user called Signal11 or something starting an offtopic meta discussion in some story - I'm sure most of you that were around at the time still remember).
Anyway, I was kind of wondering why today of all days my metamod privs seem to have been reinstated. Is this some kind of 10th anniversary present? A cunning plot to make me enjoy/lose even more time here? Coincidence? An omen of the impeding singularity?
Taco, if you're reading this and this is like some general pardon or something, really, geez, thanks man. I'll try to behave next time. No promises though.
D.
Over 2/3 alive at 5 years, and actually pretty similar at 10 years - bearing in mind that most of bad outcomes are in the first year, and that this is all causes of death, including deaths that were unrelated to the transplant. Not quite.
Top 2 causes of death if you survive your transplant for 1 year (rejection being #1 in the 1st year):
Both of them account for about 20% mortality each and odds of dying from them increase over time. If you were to read the annual ISHLT reports on transplant mortality (subscription req'd) you'd see a strictly linear decrease in survival over the years. Expected 10-yrs survival for a 15-yr old patient is just above 50% (you can also check out (PPT) slide kits of this data on the ISHLT website. I'm afraid these data don't show much of a survival benefit for younger patients, either.
I know there was some initial enthusiasm in the 80s that transplant recipients were going to outlive their healthy peers but that's quite some time ago. The cynicists that are calling the procedure a pyrrhic victory over nature aren't joking.
So by all means, way to go for the girl
YHABT. Time to check up on Jacques Derrida I guess :)
1. Be an MIT IT professional mentioning influence on purchase decisions8 91675 and http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=232413&cid=189 33197)
and
2. Have some help on the inside (see http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=232413&cid=18
So yes, Steve probably did fix it, and no, he probably won't for you
Or with mother-in-laws or motherf*ing Ukranians, for that matter.
The Russians had to release a huge dose of very fast acting gas (it is commonly believed they used a modified (ie gaseous) version of remifentanil, an ultra potent ultra fast acting opioid) to achieve their goal:
stop the terrorists from detonating their explosives before they figured out something was wrong.
Obviously, the dose needed to knock down young, presumably healthy chechnian men and women in a matter of seconds far exceeds anything an elderly citizen with chronic heart or lung disease would survive.
In a contained space like a plane, provided there are no explosives on board, you could easily go slow with your gas. Hell, you could even try nitrous oxide and hope the hijackers all start laughing and hugging.
I actually think it's a great idea. Imagine to build your own box and being able to just install from BIOS. No more fuzz about finding another box, downloading boot floppies, finding out the floppies you have are useless for anything but teacup saucers, ... Just download bootloader and write to your virgin HD, and off you go!
Dunno how long before someone figures out how to flash the thing remotely and give us popup pr0n on the boot splash, tho.
there is no security through obscurity
Your argument is logically meaningless. Security and obscurity are different properties of a secret. Security is what is needed to keep a "visible" secret just that: secret. Obscurity is what keeps an "invisble" secret secret. So having security "trough" obscurity is nonsense: the whole point of obscurity is about not needing security for secrecy. Obviously you would be wise to use both as complementary measures. But in no way does one improve secrecy "trough" the other.
Considering I've got a SparcstationII handling mail for over 1000 users just fine, maybe he'd be interested in switching systems?