Yes, there is an effect or at least a potential effect on national security, just like climate change has potential impacts on everything from where and how people live to agriculture to industry. In fact, the effects in all those areas will be more important and deeper than the effects on defense.
But to say it has a dramatic impact is just bullshit. Its effects will be gradual and we will see them as they happen and they will be slow enough for us to adjust gradually to the changing situation.
Meanwhile, there are other things that will dramatically affect defense: the emergence of China as a dominant international economic and military power, economic changes in Africa, population expansion, the proliferation of weapons technology, the potential to attack countries by sabotaging and surveilling their communications, control of shipping routes, new ideologies and religions, the fact that we can't afford to spend money on defense like we used to...
Are you sure about that. Right now, your treatment regime is simple. You take a drug every day.
The new treatment regime would be * have bioengineered tumors grown under your skin. (First, sign the waiver that says you won't sue if they give you cancer.) * take periodic injections of nanoparticles that bind to the insulin producing genes (sign the waiver that says you agree it's OK if the nanoparticles cause you to die or go into a coma) * have yourself irradiated every day to make sure the tumors make enough insulin (sign the waiver that says it's OK if it causes you to have too much or too little insulin) * monitor your blood sugar to make sure the tumors aren't producing too much or too little insulin. * avoid radiation sources that could trigger your tumors to make insulin unexpectedly
Contrast this with a simpler solution: - have an electronically controlled insulin pump installed in your body - have your insulin replenished periodically.
A more elegant bioengineered solution would be good though. What you want is bioengineered tumors in your pancreas that regulate your insulin level without resorting to crutches like nanoparticles and a microwave oven to activate them. You had those once, but they weren't bioengineered. You need replacements.
This is a great illustration of why copyright should be dealt with only in civil courts. That way they'd have to prove their case first and tale action later.
It's notable. It'll be commendable if the huge investment they made to pull it off gives them an advantage with more than the investment. You can't know that until you've gone to mass production and seen what the problems are.
No they're not honest scientific dissenters. The evidence is that they shift from one unsupported hypothesis to another as their ideas are disproven by data and careful analysis.
Not in the world of the World Trade Organization!!
By international treaty and law, all copyrights are honored worldwide. Therefore, what is copyrighted in the U.S. is also copyrighted in Europe immediately, and vice versa (and Asia, too, technically all the GATT countries, which is pretty much everybody worth conducting business with).
So, unless you want to undo almost a century of globalization, this will affect legal software worldwide, unless and until copyright laws can be amended to more sane terms.
Regardless, this has "rush to the Supreme Court" smeared all over it.
but nothing stops the other members of the WTO from deciding that the USA isn't playing fair and either ignoring US WTO complaints on this subject or opting out of the WTO altogether. A treaty is only good as long as everybody agrees that it is in their best interest to abide by its terms.
If the first thing he did was not report it to the FBI or Police that some yahoos asked him to blow up a building, then for all intents, he had motive, he lacked means.
This is not entrapment. If the FBI was not out there looking for these idiots, they would eventually try something anyways.
"Hey, you wanna blow up a bldg"
If the reply is not "screw off, I'm calling the cops" then something is wrong.
That depends on how much trouble the agents went to talking him into it. There's a difference between being disgruntled with the government and being a terrorist.
If the FBI is looking for disgruntled people who show all the signs of being likely to be persuadable to act against the government, it need look no further than Slashdot.
Of course that's true. But the cost of making defense networks secure is trivial compared to the cost of developing a new weapon system or surveiling the world.
An F-22 is useless against ballistic missiles. You need to be able to deal with a wide range of threats, not just deal really, really well with one threat and ignore the others.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, there is an effect or at least a potential effect on national security, just like climate change has potential impacts on everything from where and how people live to agriculture to industry. In fact, the effects in all those areas will be more important and deeper than the effects on defense.
But to say it has a dramatic impact is just bullshit. Its effects will be gradual and we will see them as they happen and they will be slow enough for us to adjust gradually to the changing situation.
Meanwhile, there are other things that will dramatically affect defense: the emergence of China as a dominant international economic and military power, economic changes in Africa, population expansion, the proliferation of weapons technology, the potential to attack countries by sabotaging and surveilling their communications, control of shipping routes, new ideologies and religions, the fact that we can't afford to spend money on defense like we used to...
Are you sure about that. Right now, your treatment regime is simple. You take a drug every day.
The new treatment regime would be
* have bioengineered tumors grown under your skin. (First, sign the waiver that says you won't sue if they give you cancer.)
* take periodic injections of nanoparticles that bind to the insulin producing genes (sign the waiver that says you agree it's OK if the nanoparticles cause you to die or go into a coma)
* have yourself irradiated every day to make sure the tumors make enough insulin (sign the waiver that says it's OK if it causes you to have too much or too little insulin)
* monitor your blood sugar to make sure the tumors aren't producing too much or too little insulin.
* avoid radiation sources that could trigger your tumors to make insulin unexpectedly
Contrast this with a simpler solution:
- have an electronically controlled insulin pump installed in your body
- have your insulin replenished periodically.
A more elegant bioengineered solution would be good though. What you want is bioengineered tumors in your pancreas that regulate your insulin level without resorting to crutches like nanoparticles and a microwave oven to activate them. You had those once, but they weren't bioengineered. You need replacements.
Only after they inject you with the nanoparticles that bind to the insulin producing genes in your bioengineered tumors.
It's Rand Paul. No Government Oversight and Responsibility is his middle name.
What happens when the hijackers get on the wrong side of the fortified door?
Then you're well and truly fucked.
This is a great illustration of why copyright should be dealt with only in civil courts. That way they'd have to prove their case first and tale action later.
Anonymous did DDOS against it but I think failed to penetrate. Some religious groups take security more seriously than others.
That's what GPUs are used for these days.
Order reversed. The usage to label disabled persons is the only usage most native English speakers recognise.
Prediction: in twenty years most native English speakers will be unable to tell you that Ginger is also the name of a spice.
So we shouldn't secure our wireless routers after all?
Well there is the wife that is an eyewitness to his death.
Really? You're saying Einstein continued to disbelieve theories he didn't despite having all his ideas why they might not be right shot down?
With blast absorbing crumple zones. Can't wait to see those on the battlefield/runway.
It's notable. It'll be commendable if the huge investment they made to pull it off gives them an advantage with more than the investment. You can't know that until you've gone to mass production and seen what the problems are.
No they're not honest scientific dissenters. The evidence is that they shift from one unsupported hypothesis to another as their ideas are disproven by data and careful analysis.
That's why SCIENTISTS MEASURE the things that could affect global climate instead of just flapping their arms and lips.
That's a little past life + 70 years.
Not in the world of the World Trade Organization!!
By international treaty and law, all copyrights are honored worldwide. Therefore, what is copyrighted in the U.S. is also copyrighted in Europe immediately, and vice versa (and Asia, too, technically all the GATT countries, which is pretty much everybody worth conducting business with).
So, unless you want to undo almost a century of globalization, this will affect legal software worldwide, unless and until copyright laws can be amended to more sane terms.
Regardless, this has "rush to the Supreme Court" smeared all over it.
but nothing stops the other members of the WTO from deciding that the USA isn't playing fair and either ignoring US WTO complaints on this subject or opting out of the WTO altogether. A treaty is only good as long as everybody agrees that it is in their best interest to abide by its terms.
It's the judge who misinformed them about what the law means who needs to be slapped down.
I think the fact that he said yes only after they offered him money shows that it's entrapment.
If the first thing he did was not report it to the FBI or Police that some yahoos asked him to blow up a building, then for all intents, he had motive, he lacked means.
This is not entrapment. If the FBI was not out there looking for these idiots, they would eventually try something anyways.
"Hey, you wanna blow up a bldg"
If the reply is not "screw off, I'm calling the cops" then something is wrong.
That depends on how much trouble the agents went to talking him into it. There's a difference between being disgruntled with the government and being a terrorist.
If the FBI is looking for disgruntled people who show all the signs of being likely to be persuadable to act against the government, it need look no further than Slashdot.
In the USA we always hear the main aggressor is China.
Of course that's true. But the cost of making defense networks secure is trivial compared to the cost of developing a new weapon system or surveiling the world.
An F-22 is useless against ballistic missiles. You need to be able to deal with a wide range of threats, not just deal really, really well with one threat and ignore the others.
But ABMs aren't.
Yeah, I find the calculus particularly hard without knowing the global distribution of water temperature and depth in every cubic meter of ocean.