The problem is while you might be able to edit the gene on a local culture/colony in a lab, there's no way to spread it. In the end it's spreading via natural selection because it selects bacteria that live (due to being antibiotic resistant).
Since bacteria reproduce through binary fission, the bacteria with the knocked out/altered gene won't have a good way of spreading the change. And even if they did, it probably wouldn't replace the active gene.
We are not talking about government agencies with security clearance. Did you where I said COMPANY?
Fifteen years later you're applying for a TSC or above, and they ask you the question, usually while hooked to a polygraph.
See above, plus, did you see where I said WRITTEN APPLICATION?
Sure, but that's not the point of the question; the point is to ask if you have knowingly broken the law, and most people know whether they have or not. That's what the question is designed to get at.
And hence, the WHOLE ORIGINAL POINT - you called him a crook who hadn't been caught, but you have no idea whether HE thought what he did was illegal, and neither does anyone else. Since what he thinks is entirely up to him, it would be totally unenforceable in a job application in his case.
Yes, and for some jobs they ask things like, "Have you ever committed a crime for which you haven't been caught?"
And because you say so makes it true? No major company (read: one who had any lawyers review the application forms) would ask that on a written application (at least today) because it's not even legally enforceable. Pretty much everyone has broken the law at some point and not been caught - most people have broken the law at least once and never known it. In fact, in this very case it's entirely possible that the defendant didn't think he was breaking the law - many/. users here are arguing (probably incorrectly) that he in fact did not.
They may ask "have you ever been charged with a crime", but even that doesn't mean much since that has nothing to do with guilt or innocence.
CDC testing subsequently revealed the germ was New Delhi metallo-beta-lactamase -- a highly resistant form of CRE
It should at least read "revealed the germ CONTAINED New Delhi metallo-beta-lactamase". NDM-1 is not a bacteria, it's an enzyme possessed by resistant bacteria that inactivates antibiotics.
What's really fun is that this gene can potentially be transferred to other types of bacteria laterally...
No, I never said or even implied it was ok, if anything I implied that the law should be changed. But until it is, *laws* are what define criminal vs immoral.
Ok, forget it, I see no need to get into a childish argument based on baseless insults. Was there any particular reason you decided to start "abusing" someone you don't even know out of the blue? Having a bad day?
Come on, don't be a jerk, Andrew. The Valley is a small place, why go out of your way to make enemies online for no reason?
If you want to argue for open borders, that's completely different.
No it's not completely different. And it's not the same as "open borders". There will always be classes of immigration. One class is "people who have a job in the US". You don't have to let everyone who wants stroll across the border to allow unlimited people who already have a job lined up into the country.
Again, I'm not saying I am advocating that policy, but that's what REMOVING ALL MARKET INTERFERENCE means. Limiting immigration of properly vetted people who are coming to the US to fill a job vacancy is obviously a form of free market interference.
Who cares what was "claimed". What was enacted is what matters, and the past 30 years have enacted the most regressive economic policies in the past century, with unsurprising results (the rich got richer and the poor got poorer).
Of course, but what's your point? Mine was to increase the minimum wage beyond inflation, because the reason this is happening is *low* end income hasn't kept up, while high end income has far surpassed it.
And that article you linked said exactly that...
Wage stagnation for the vast majority was not created by abstract economic trends. Rather, wages were suppressed by policy choices made on behalf of those with the most income, wealth, and power.
No, it's clearly not. For every intelligent and credentialed anti-minimum wage economist you can find an equally intelligent and credentialed pro-minium wage economist. I'd agree it's one of the most *debated* areas of economics, but your statement pretending it's a "solved argument" in economic theory is blatantly false.
Your post is just a bunch of ad-hominems, slippery slope, and other lazy, ignorant logical fallacies. And of course, you didn't even try to answer the question.
I bet you also think that inflation is an inherently bad thing? If so, I guess it means you may have squeaked by Econ 101, but really have no understanding of economics in theory or practice.
If you find out someone recorded video of you undressing in your bedroom, are you going to go after the camera manufacturer?
If the camera manufacturer advertised the cameras as "perfect for secretly recording people undressing" I sure would. And I'd win a bunch of money from it.
This has already been stated by a bunch of people, but the difference is INTENT. This guy made a keylogger and sold it on hacking forums for the purpose of spying on people.
Your analogy only makes sense if the cell phone manufacturers marketed them as spy devices, which obviously they don't. If they did, they would be criminally liable for selling hacking/spying devices as well.
Yep. You think if a gun manufacturer marketed their product as "perfect for bank robberies and drive-bys", they wouldn't be held liable? Context - and intent - are absolutely key...
If he had been consistent to market it as an auditing system, he might have been ok. But instead he marketed is on sites like "Hack Forums" specifically for the purpose of... hacking. And that was illegal. Intent matters (and in fact was probably what the case hinged on).
You say this, but with what proof? And inflation is not always a bad thing, especially if the average income and standard of living outpaces it.
As a counter, Walmart raised their minimum wage this year, and saw significant revenue gains, because their employees now have more money to re-inject into the economy aka buy shit at Walmart!
It's been long established that when you give lots of money to already rich people, they just stash it away. When you give money to poor people, they actually immediately go and spend it to but what they need. Trickle down economics is the biggest fucking joke, it just doesn't work.
That argument makes no sense at all. You are trying to claim a policy that would effectively end H1-B and hence any immigration of tech workers is like *removing* market interference? Duh no. Ending market interference would be allowing anyone who has a job lined up to come into the country with no minimum salary or quota at all... (not that I'd agree with that policy, but that's what it means...)
Are you fucking serious? This is the same Trump who just nominated the who's who of crony capitalism for his cabinet?
Trump gives zero shits about cronyism or the "swamp" or any such thing. He said anything necessary to get elected, and has even admitted such repeatedly. In fact, saying he gives zero shits is inaccurate - he is all in favor of cronyism, he just found it expedient to say otherwise because his sheeple followers believed anything he said.
"Funny how that term caught on, isn't it?" Trump mused during a rally this month in Des Moines, Iowa. "I tell everyone, I hated it. Somebody said 'drain the swamp' and I said, 'Oh, that is so hokey. That is so terrible.'" "I said, all right, I'll try it," Trump continued. "So like a month ago I said 'drain the swamp' and the place went crazy. And I said 'Whoa, what's this?' Then I said it again. And then I start saying it like I meant it, right? And then I started to love it, and the place loved it. Drain the swamp. It's true. It's true. Drain the swamp."
That's one of the most ridiculous things you could say. How could I possibly be ignorant of the details of my work, and why would you know better what I did?
Not talking about your work, the "Welcome to the IoT" was what I felt was ignorant, of course. IoT is not about C these days (in terms of volume) if you are paying attention. It's about a tiny (C based, for an interpreter, etc, of course) kernel and tools and a HUGE higher level ecosystem.
The point of the article is that searches for help on C that list themselves as being for the C language have decreased.
No, that's the *methodology* of the article, but the *point* was that C is declining in overall popularity as a total percentage of programmers.
I don't want to get into a pissing match on C/C++ programming, but I'm pretty sure I have plenty of knowledge on C/C++ in the embedded space. I'll just say any Smart TV, BD player, and most STBs that stream video in the past 6+ years (300M+? Maybe more?) have many lines of C/C++ code I wrote in them.
The last website I made, it was in C. Welcome to the IoT
This comment is ignorant.
If you don't think in absolutes, then your comment has no value.
This comment means you didn't understand mine.
Yes, obviously, a decreasing but still important share of the market is using C (THAT'S THE POINT OF THE ARTICLE!) My point was IoT will NOT be a resurgence of C, it will be a small amount of core OS/middleware programming in C (which is what it was meant for) and a ton of programming in an efficient higher level language.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is while you might be able to edit the gene on a local culture/colony in a lab, there's no way to spread it. In the end it's spreading via natural selection because it selects bacteria that live (due to being antibiotic resistant).
Since bacteria reproduce through binary fission, the bacteria with the knocked out/altered gene won't have a good way of spreading the change. And even if they did, it probably wouldn't replace the active gene.
Apply to the FBI, CIA, NSA
We are not talking about government agencies with security clearance. Did you where I said COMPANY?
Fifteen years later you're applying for a TSC or above, and they ask you the question, usually while hooked to a polygraph.
See above, plus, did you see where I said WRITTEN APPLICATION?
Sure, but that's not the point of the question; the point is to ask if you have knowingly broken the law, and most people know whether they have or not. That's what the question is designed to get at.
And hence, the WHOLE ORIGINAL POINT - you called him a crook who hadn't been caught, but you have no idea whether HE thought what he did was illegal, and neither does anyone else. Since what he thinks is entirely up to him, it would be totally unenforceable in a job application in his case.
Unlikely, because, once again, IT'S NOT A CRIME IN THE EYES OF THE LAW UNTIL YOU ARE CONVICTED.
And if you are convicted of a felony AFTER you start working for a company, they will have a right to fire you, anyway.
Yes, and for some jobs they ask things like, "Have you ever committed a crime for which you haven't been caught?"
And because you say so makes it true? No major company (read: one who had any lawyers review the application forms) would ask that on a written application (at least today) because it's not even legally enforceable. Pretty much everyone has broken the law at some point and not been caught - most people have broken the law at least once and never known it. In fact, in this very case it's entirely possible that the defendant didn't think he was breaking the law - many /. users here are arguing (probably incorrectly) that he in fact did not.
They may ask "have you ever been charged with a crime", but even that doesn't mean much since that has nothing to do with guilt or innocence.
CDC testing subsequently revealed the germ was New Delhi metallo-beta-lactamase -- a highly resistant form of CRE
It should at least read "revealed the germ CONTAINED New Delhi metallo-beta-lactamase". NDM-1 is not a bacteria, it's an enzyme possessed by resistant bacteria that inactivates antibiotics.
What's really fun is that this gene can potentially be transferred to other types of bacteria laterally...
No, I never said or even implied it was ok, if anything I implied that the law should be changed. But until it is, *laws* are what define criminal vs immoral.
Ok, forget it, I see no need to get into a childish argument based on baseless insults. Was there any particular reason you decided to start "abusing" someone you don't even know out of the blue? Having a bad day?
Come on, don't be a jerk, Andrew. The Valley is a small place, why go out of your way to make enemies online for no reason?
If you want to argue for open borders, that's completely different.
No it's not completely different. And it's not the same as "open borders". There will always be classes of immigration. One class is "people who have a job in the US". You don't have to let everyone who wants stroll across the border to allow unlimited people who already have a job lined up into the country.
Again, I'm not saying I am advocating that policy, but that's what REMOVING ALL MARKET INTERFERENCE means. Limiting immigration of properly vetted people who are coming to the US to fill a job vacancy is obviously a form of free market interference.
Who cares what was "claimed". What was enacted is what matters, and the past 30 years have enacted the most regressive economic policies in the past century, with unsurprising results (the rich got richer and the poor got poorer).
Of course, but what's your point? Mine was to increase the minimum wage beyond inflation, because the reason this is happening is *low* end income hasn't kept up, while high end income has far surpassed it.
And that article you linked said exactly that...
Wage stagnation for the vast majority was not created by abstract economic trends. Rather, wages were suppressed by policy choices made on behalf of those with the most income, wealth, and power.
No, it's clearly not. For every intelligent and credentialed anti-minimum wage economist you can find an equally intelligent and credentialed pro-minium wage economist. I'd agree it's one of the most *debated* areas of economics, but your statement pretending it's a "solved argument" in economic theory is blatantly false.
Your post is just a bunch of ad-hominems, slippery slope, and other lazy, ignorant logical fallacies. And of course, you didn't even try to answer the question.
I bet you also think that inflation is an inherently bad thing? If so, I guess it means you may have squeaked by Econ 101, but really have no understanding of economics in theory or practice.
Legally it sure is... why else would politicians and lawyers be so good at it?
Your whole post is irrelevant to the point...
Have you ever applied for a job? They ask "have you ever been convicted of a felony?" not "will you ever be convicted of a felony?"
If you find out someone recorded video of you undressing in your bedroom, are you going to go after the camera manufacturer?
If the camera manufacturer advertised the cameras as "perfect for secretly recording people undressing" I sure would. And I'd win a bunch of money from it.
This has already been stated by a bunch of people, but the difference is INTENT. This guy made a keylogger and sold it on hacking forums for the purpose of spying on people.
Your analogy only makes sense if the cell phone manufacturers marketed them as spy devices, which obviously they don't. If they did, they would be criminally liable for selling hacking/spying devices as well.
Yep. You think if a gun manufacturer marketed their product as "perfect for bank robberies and drive-bys", they wouldn't be held liable? Context - and intent - are absolutely key...
The problem is, it's not illegal to manufacture or sell guns that are used in a crime. It's illegal to sell malware that is used to commit a crime.
Maybe we should go after Smith & Wesson. But not until it's made illegal. I think you are conflating legality with morality here.
c) Committed felonies while employed by a defense contractor.
I'll bet he signed something to get that job which stated he was not a crook...
Legally he wasn't a "crook", since he hadn't been convicted of anything at that time.
If he had been consistent to market it as an auditing system, he might have been ok. But instead he marketed is on sites like "Hack Forums" specifically for the purpose of... hacking. And that was illegal. Intent matters (and in fact was probably what the case hinged on).
You say this, but with what proof? And inflation is not always a bad thing, especially if the average income and standard of living outpaces it.
As a counter, Walmart raised their minimum wage this year, and saw significant revenue gains, because their employees now have more money to re-inject into the economy aka buy shit at Walmart!
It's been long established that when you give lots of money to already rich people, they just stash it away. When you give money to poor people, they actually immediately go and spend it to but what they need. Trickle down economics is the biggest fucking joke, it just doesn't work.
That argument makes no sense at all. You are trying to claim a policy that would effectively end H1-B and hence any immigration of tech workers is like *removing* market interference? Duh no. Ending market interference would be allowing anyone who has a job lined up to come into the country with no minimum salary or quota at all... (not that I'd agree with that policy, but that's what it means...)
Are you fucking serious? This is the same Trump who just nominated the who's who of crony capitalism for his cabinet?
Trump gives zero shits about cronyism or the "swamp" or any such thing. He said anything necessary to get elected, and has even admitted such repeatedly. In fact, saying he gives zero shits is inaccurate - he is all in favor of cronyism, he just found it expedient to say otherwise because his sheeple followers believed anything he said.
"Funny how that term caught on, isn't it?" Trump mused during a rally this month in Des Moines, Iowa. "I tell everyone, I hated it. Somebody said 'drain the swamp' and I said, 'Oh, that is so hokey. That is so terrible.'"
"I said, all right, I'll try it," Trump continued. "So like a month ago I said 'drain the swamp' and the place went crazy. And I said 'Whoa, what's this?' Then I said it again. And then I start saying it like I meant it, right? And then I started to love it, and the place loved it. Drain the swamp. It's true. It's true. Drain the swamp."
That's one of the most ridiculous things you could say. How could I possibly be ignorant of the details of my work, and why would you know better what I did?
Not talking about your work, the "Welcome to the IoT" was what I felt was ignorant, of course. IoT is not about C these days (in terms of volume) if you are paying attention. It's about a tiny (C based, for an interpreter, etc, of course) kernel and tools and a HUGE higher level ecosystem.
The point of the article is that searches for help on C that list themselves as being for the C language have decreased.
No, that's the *methodology* of the article, but the *point* was that C is declining in overall popularity as a total percentage of programmers.
I don't want to get into a pissing match on C/C++ programming, but I'm pretty sure I have plenty of knowledge on C/C++ in the embedded space. I'll just say any Smart TV, BD player, and most STBs that stream video in the past 6+ years (300M+? Maybe more?) have many lines of C/C++ code I wrote in them.
The last website I made, it was in C. Welcome to the IoT
This comment is ignorant.
If you don't think in absolutes, then your comment has no value.
This comment means you didn't understand mine.
Yes, obviously, a decreasing but still important share of the market is using C (THAT'S THE POINT OF THE ARTICLE!) My point was IoT will NOT be a resurgence of C, it will be a small amount of core OS/middleware programming in C (which is what it was meant for) and a ton of programming in an efficient higher level language.
No, if you graduated in 1998 (assuming you mean college) you are not in ANY reckonings a millennial. You are literally borderline OLD PERSON!
But beyond that, check out the language. It's basically Lua but really good.