So if law enforcement is able to keep a database of animal DNA, and match that back to an owner... what's to stop them from using that database for other, perhaps more "interesting" crimes? An owner putting their pet into this database (or getting a pet already in it) would be tantamount to putting themselves in the database, considering the amount of pet material that an owner sheds.
They start off by saying that it's "the females that bite and spread illness," and that they'll be releasing only male mosquitoes. Then they take the concession that there's no guarantee that "**only** non-biting males will be released," and spin this into saying that folks will have "millions of flying, biting GMOs in their neighborhoods." Come on, now.
So if search results are free speech, then does that mean that law enforcement can't force them to remove search results via DMCAs? It's still not illegal material, but rather effectively *talking about* (linking to) illegal material that was generated/hosted by someone else.
It's always been odd to me that you can write an article about an entire collection of sites (including ones that are illegal), or even archive them, but a search engine can't auto-index a complete set of sites (including the ones that are illegal).
First, it sounds like your tried to replicate a "study" that had already taken place. In doing so, however, you used a different platform, Mechanical Turk, and did not use any exclusion criteria... but you still made the assumption that the two populations were the same. You do note that you made this assumption, but I would argue that the Facebook and Mechanical Turk populations are not identical -- particularly with respect to their socioeconomic status, maturity, and probably even their race -- all of which would be critical confounding factors in this study. Unless you have some form of data to back these assumptions up, they are invalid.
Furthermore, as has been pointed out already, your sample size is entirely too small.
I feel like this is the time to recall not-so-old articles such as this one: http://techcrunch.com/2013/06/...
in which Apple is praised for purposefully leaving NFC out of their phones.
I would have to second this: The ASUS RT-N16 (or even the Asus RT-N66) is the 802.11N successor
If you're looking for the latest tech (802.11AC), I would say the go-to would probably the Asus RT-AC66U or Asus RT-AC68U (or for internal antennae, the Asus RT-AC56U) with the close runner up being the Netgear AC1900
As you can see, Asus has really taken hold of the "open source router" market (you can install Tomato/DD-WRT on these), much as the WRT-54G did back in the day.
Mechanic: Somebody set up us the firewall.
Operator: Main firewall turn off.
CATS: All your [data]base are belong to us.
CATS: You have no chance to survive make your time.
Actually, the paper that this summary is referencing goes the opposite direction and talks about the 1) numerous studies that have already been performed to evaluate safety and 2) outline numerous more that will need to happen.
Fourth, our current knowledge of the risk management (5,11,36,37,95) and containment (35,38) issues associated with gene drives is largely due to the efforts of researchers focused on mosquito-borne illnesses. Frameworks for evaluating ecological consequences are similarly focused on mosquitoes (39) and the few other organisms for which alternative genetic biocontrol methods have been considered (96). While these examples provide an invaluable starting point for investigations of RNA-guided gene drives targeting other organisms, studies examining the particular drive, population, and associated ecosystem in question will be needed.
Go ahead and check out the references (and the rest of the paper) if you're genuinely interested in this topic. This is not mad science, nor is it Pandora's Box.
Journalist:// Sits at the library sorting through articles, looking for that 2007 piece on O'Neal// Journalist: Dang, I wish there was a better way of doing this Google: I can help you! EU: No. You can't. Journalist, I'm afraid you're going to have to do this by hand if you want the data. Journalist: But the data is still there... can't Google just help me sift through it? EU: No. Go home. There's nothing to see here. EU:// Thinks about removing the data all together. Stupid libraries, always archiving news... We should just write our own history.//
The whole idea behind safety is that you follow certain rules. These simply *cannot* exist in academia the same way that they can in industry.
In academia, you're trying new things every day, often using protocols that you've made up, or have never used before at the very least. This is just the nature of the beast.
In industry you're generally making a well-defined product. You already know how to produce it, or your project would be in academia. If you already know what you're doing and have Standard Operating Procedures already in place, then OF COURSE you're going to make less mistakes!
I'm guessing they meant that the key necessary to decrypt the data was never on the systems which *stored* the data, but that's just a guess (since as you pointed out, if they used 3DES, the encryption key IS the decryption key, and I doubt they lied about that).
The technology to synthesize DNA has existed for decades, but is limited in the length of DNA pieces that it can produce. Companies like genescript (mentioned in the article) can put the pieces together for you, but there's even a limit to how much they can put together for you. Plus they've been around for many years now. So first off, this is nothing new.
Second, the program that's reference here isn't really that amazing. There are scores of tools that exist for copying and pasting DNA sequences. Back in the day I used to do it in notepad (and still do from time to time). The fact that they let you essentially "edit the text of your essay" and that it integrates databases of "essays" is cool, but there have been lots of tools like this in the past, (I use them all the time).
I guess what I'm saying is this: there's nothing new here, and even if it was... all you're getting in the mail is DNA -- not the organism. As others have stated, it's an entirely different thing. DNA is completely benign and is just a dry powder at the bottom of a vial. You could eat the suff, no matter the sequence.
Perhaps Monsanto isn't as bad as they're portrayed here...
That said, I believe the farmer who sold his seeds to the grain elevator was in the wrong, not the farmer (who didn't even know better) who purchased the seeds. This is similar to the file sharer being in the wrong, as opposed to the pirate.
When farmers use Monsanto seeds, they have to realize that they can't redistribute those seeds (or seeds made from those seeds). If this were legal, then Monsanto could be cut out of the picture after the first sale. Farmers could just go to "special" grain elevators who were known to have Monsanto seed progeny and pick up some good cheap stuff. In this case, Monsanto would never be able to recoup the time and billions of dollars spent developing those seeds. It's important to therefore realize that farmers who use Monsanto seeds forfeit their right to distribute seeds to grain elevators; this is their choice.
Farmers choose to use Monsanto seeds. If they still want to distribute seeds to grain elevators, then they can't use Monsanto's products. If it's so crucial that they use Monsanto products, then all hail Monsanto for saving the grain market -- it would have failed (or at least done more poorly) otherwise. And if Monsanto is price gouging, then competitors should have no problem creating alternative products and undercutting them... but they can't because of the aforementioned time and billions spent (which Monsanto needs to recoup or they can't make these "crucial" products).
Although it's easy to paint a David and Goliath portrait here and shed tears for the poor farmers getting sued by a big corporation, right and wrong aren't so black and white here. There's a reason why the laws (made by the people) are defending Monsanto's products here. It's simply not an easy case.
I think it's much more likely that this problem exists for more than just New Zealand's yahoo servers.
A couple years back I deleted my rarely-used Yahoo account because I got a hacked email sent to my common email address from it (as did others in my address book). I hadn't been logged in for quite some time, and I had a very secure password. Whatever the security flaw was, I really don't think it was at the user end (I consider myself to be pretty adept at computer security), and I didn't want any part of it.
It's great to keep finding these earth-like planets, but wouldn't it make more sense to first focus our searches on:
1) Star systems of the right elemental makeup where planets could have iron cores
2) Star systems of the right age, where the earth-like planets with iron cores would likely still have a molten core capable of producing a magnetosphere
I think we've all but proven that finding planets of the right size, within the right distance of their star, are perhaps abundant enough (see mars). That's great, and we can postulate that there might be liquid water on them because of this, but what we really need to worry about is their ability to produce a magnetosphere capable of holding in all that good stuff against the sweeping winds produced by their star.
Does anyone have some insight as to how easy or hard it would be to try to identify star systems with these characteristics *before* looking to see if we can find earth-like size/distance planets?
Slashdot Mirror
So if law enforcement is able to keep a database of animal DNA, and match that back to an owner... what's to stop them from using that database for other, perhaps more "interesting" crimes? An owner putting their pet into this database (or getting a pet already in it) would be tantamount to putting themselves in the database, considering the amount of pet material that an owner sheds.
They start off by saying that it's "the females that bite and spread illness," and that they'll be releasing only male mosquitoes. Then they take the concession that there's no guarantee that "**only** non-biting males will be released," and spin this into saying that folks will have "millions of flying, biting GMOs in their neighborhoods." Come on, now.
Hide your kids, hide your wives. And hide your husbands, too.
So if search results are free speech, then does that mean that law enforcement can't force them to remove search results via DMCAs? It's still not illegal material, but rather effectively *talking about* (linking to) illegal material that was generated/hosted by someone else. It's always been odd to me that you can write an article about an entire collection of sites (including ones that are illegal), or even archive them, but a search engine can't auto-index a complete set of sites (including the ones that are illegal).
First, it sounds like your tried to replicate a "study" that had already taken place. In doing so, however, you used a different platform, Mechanical Turk, and did not use any exclusion criteria... but you still made the assumption that the two populations were the same. You do note that you made this assumption, but I would argue that the Facebook and Mechanical Turk populations are not identical -- particularly with respect to their socioeconomic status, maturity, and probably even their race -- all of which would be critical confounding factors in this study. Unless you have some form of data to back these assumptions up, they are invalid. Furthermore, as has been pointed out already, your sample size is entirely too small.
I feel like this is the time to recall not-so-old articles such as this one: http://techcrunch.com/2013/06/... in which Apple is praised for purposefully leaving NFC out of their phones.
Planning correctly can save you a lot of time and money... not to mention heartache.
I mean seriously. Skip the stupid article and actually read the abstract:
But it makes for so much better hype if you DON'T read (or understand) the science!!
And then we get IPv6 and "NAT" really won't matter so much (see previous slashdots on impressive ipv6 penetration stats).
I would have to second this: The ASUS RT-N16 (or even the Asus RT-N66) is the 802.11N successor
If you're looking for the latest tech (802.11AC), I would say the go-to would probably the Asus RT-AC66U or Asus RT-AC68U (or for internal antennae, the Asus RT-AC56U) with the close runner up being the Netgear AC1900
As you can see, Asus has really taken hold of the "open source router" market (you can install Tomato/DD-WRT on these), much as the WRT-54G did back in the day.
Mechanic: Somebody set up us the firewall. Operator: Main firewall turn off. CATS: All your [data]base are belong to us. CATS: You have no chance to survive make your time.
Give... you... money?? Why would they do a silly thing like that when they could just.... keep it?
Fourth, our current knowledge of the risk management (5,11,36,37,95) and containment (35,38) issues associated with gene drives is largely due to the efforts of researchers focused on mosquito-borne illnesses. Frameworks for evaluating ecological consequences are similarly focused on mosquitoes (39) and the few other organisms for which alternative genetic biocontrol methods have been considered (96). While these examples provide an invaluable starting point for investigations of RNA-guided gene drives targeting other organisms, studies examining the particular drive, population, and associated ecosystem in question will be needed.
Go ahead and check out the references (and the rest of the paper) if you're genuinely interested in this topic. This is not mad science, nor is it Pandora's Box.
/// Drone hovers lazily next to the river ///
NYPD: It's coming right for us! *BANG BANG BANG*
Every drone is an imminent threat.
Journalist: // Sits at the library sorting through articles, looking for that 2007 piece on O'Neal // // Thinks about removing the data all together. Stupid libraries, always archiving news... We should just write our own history. //
Journalist: Dang, I wish there was a better way of doing this
Google: I can help you!
EU: No. You can't. Journalist, I'm afraid you're going to have to do this by hand if you want the data.
Journalist: But the data is still there... can't Google just help me sift through it?
EU: No. Go home. There's nothing to see here.
EU:
The whole idea behind safety is that you follow certain rules. These simply *cannot* exist in academia the same way that they can in industry.
In academia, you're trying new things every day, often using protocols that you've made up, or have never used before at the very least. This is just the nature of the beast.
In industry you're generally making a well-defined product. You already know how to produce it, or your project would be in academia. If you already know what you're doing and have Standard Operating Procedures already in place, then OF COURSE you're going to make less mistakes!
Yep, mine does the same thing. Always unnerving to know that others have access to -- what should be -- encrypted data / passwords.
I'm guessing they meant that the key necessary to decrypt the data was never on the systems which *stored* the data, but that's just a guess (since as you pointed out, if they used 3DES, the encryption key IS the decryption key, and I doubt they lied about that).
The technology to synthesize DNA has existed for decades, but is limited in the length of DNA pieces that it can produce. Companies like genescript (mentioned in the article) can put the pieces together for you, but there's even a limit to how much they can put together for you. Plus they've been around for many years now. So first off, this is nothing new.
Second, the program that's reference here isn't really that amazing. There are scores of tools that exist for copying and pasting DNA sequences. Back in the day I used to do it in notepad (and still do from time to time). The fact that they let you essentially "edit the text of your essay" and that it integrates databases of "essays" is cool, but there have been lots of tools like this in the past, (I use them all the time).
I guess what I'm saying is this: there's nothing new here, and even if it was... all you're getting in the mail is DNA -- not the organism. As others have stated, it's an entirely different thing. DNA is completely benign and is just a dry powder at the bottom of a vial. You could eat the suff, no matter the sequence.
Perhaps Monsanto isn't as bad as they're portrayed here...
That said, I believe the farmer who sold his seeds to the grain elevator was in the wrong, not the farmer (who didn't even know better) who purchased the seeds. This is similar to the file sharer being in the wrong, as opposed to the pirate.
When farmers use Monsanto seeds, they have to realize that they can't redistribute those seeds (or seeds made from those seeds). If this were legal, then Monsanto could be cut out of the picture after the first sale. Farmers could just go to "special" grain elevators who were known to have Monsanto seed progeny and pick up some good cheap stuff. In this case, Monsanto would never be able to recoup the time and billions of dollars spent developing those seeds. It's important to therefore realize that farmers who use Monsanto seeds forfeit their right to distribute seeds to grain elevators; this is their choice.
Farmers choose to use Monsanto seeds. If they still want to distribute seeds to grain elevators, then they can't use Monsanto's products. If it's so crucial that they use Monsanto products, then all hail Monsanto for saving the grain market -- it would have failed (or at least done more poorly) otherwise. And if Monsanto is price gouging, then competitors should have no problem creating alternative products and undercutting them... but they can't because of the aforementioned time and billions spent (which Monsanto needs to recoup or they can't make these "crucial" products).
Although it's easy to paint a David and Goliath portrait here and shed tears for the poor farmers getting sued by a big corporation, right and wrong aren't so black and white here. There's a reason why the laws (made by the people) are defending Monsanto's products here. It's simply not an easy case.
I think it's much more likely that this problem exists for more than just New Zealand's yahoo servers. A couple years back I deleted my rarely-used Yahoo account because I got a hacked email sent to my common email address from it (as did others in my address book). I hadn't been logged in for quite some time, and I had a very secure password. Whatever the security flaw was, I really don't think it was at the user end (I consider myself to be pretty adept at computer security), and I didn't want any part of it.
I can't wait for false DMCA-ers to start getting sued for BS take down notices.
It's great to keep finding these earth-like planets, but wouldn't it make more sense to first focus our searches on:
1) Star systems of the right elemental makeup where planets could have iron cores
2) Star systems of the right age, where the earth-like planets with iron cores would likely still have a molten core capable of producing a magnetosphere
I think we've all but proven that finding planets of the right size, within the right distance of their star, are perhaps abundant enough (see mars). That's great, and we can postulate that there might be liquid water on them because of this, but what we really need to worry about is their ability to produce a magnetosphere capable of holding in all that good stuff against the sweeping winds produced by their star.
Does anyone have some insight as to how easy or hard it would be to try to identify star systems with these characteristics *before* looking to see if we can find earth-like size/distance planets?