It seems to use client-side encryption, but it appears that they store the key on their systems (maybe only secured with your password?).
To illustrate: I installed SpiderOak on one computer, supplied my username and password and put some files in it. I then installed it on another computer, supplied my username and password and was able to see the files put in place by the first computer. So it appears that access to your data is only secured by however many bits of entropy are present in your password alone. This password is also used for access to their web server, so it is not a particularly well guarded secret.
This isn't even getting into the fact that sharing files with others or accessing your files through the web app gives them complete access to your key. I wanted to like SpiderOak, but it doesn't appear to actually be secure.
You can find 2800 people who might disagree with anything. That's 0.09% of the US population and one of the least likely causes of death. It's a question of priorities and allocation of resources.
Remember a couple months ago, when Boston was under martial law and the police forces were performing warrantless door-to-door searches, at threat of force? Now imagine that scenario with active resistance: it's the scenario you describe.
The police are not the same as the military. They recruit from different subsets of the population and they have vastly different training and goals. The military will balk at firing on Americans but the police won't.
<tinfoilhat> Do you think it's a coincidence that the police have been amassing ever increasing amounts of military hardware. The military exists to protect the country, while the police exist to protect the establishment.
A starter pistol is great for this. The TSA treats it like a real firearm, but many cities and states that have strict firearm laws don't consider them firearms (especially if you don't bring the caps for it).
When a member of the public is being childish, it usually only leads to to the policeman having a bruised ego.
Or black eye, knife in the chest, etc. When some hopped up drunk idiot would rather mouth off in hopes of impressing his friends than not back off there may be a reason to use force. You are taking the extreme cases and viewing them as the rule. There is something wrong when the standard response to an officer saying "please step back" is "Fuck you".
If you were an officer facing an aggressive person would you wait for him to pull a knife or would you taze him?
Attacking a police officer is a crime, full stop. If someone is about to use force, of course an officer can defend himself. Saying "fuck you" is not a credible threat, though, and doesn't warrant the use of force. The reason police don't get respect much is because their profession has a long history of not being respectable. This didn't come out of nowhere. They earned this reputation by beginning every single interaction with the public by framing the other citizen as an enemy and proceeding to treat him as such.
Of course on the other hand, a police officer attacking another citizen is never a crime (unless another non-police citizen managed to get video evidence). If you have legal authority to use force on other citizens (a special privilege), you should have the restraint to not instantly jump to violence just because someone is not being compliant. If you can't interact with another person without resorting to violence and your skin is so thin that simple disrespect makes your blood boil, then you are not suitable as a police officer. This society would be a much better place with fewer armed sociopathic thugs (even the ones with badges).
As to that being the extreme case, police brutality and intimidation should never exist. When a policeman is guilty of the above, the other "good" cops shouldn't attempt to cover up the incident. The fact that it is a rare but very real phenomenon, and that police departments basically condone it, means it should be part of the discussion. A systemic problem like that doesn't get to be brushed under the rug as "a few bad apples" so easily.
That cuts both ways; I wish the public could be a little more mature in their interactions with the police.
Now I have to disagree. When a member of the public is being childish, it usually only leads to to the policeman having a bruised ego. If only the misbehaving policemen were content with bruising egos.
Or less subtly, being rude or disrespectful to the police does not justify being tased or beaten. Abusing one's authority and physically attacking someone for petty verbal insults is a vastly greater offense. "With great power..." and all of that.
Of course this runs the risk that you can't keep Y a secret and since you can't file the patent without starting the clock ticking even if you can keep it secret you run this someone else might 'discover' it first.
So you keep informed of current research (and VC funding) in the field (which you'd do anyway) and buy up any small startup who starts working on that particular drug. The employees of that company sign non-disclosures and you continue to keep it buried.
Of course, at the same time, you have a patent application for that drug already written up and ready to submit in case you don't catch somebody else's efforts soon enough (or they don't sell out). Filing too early is not ideal, but it beats not getting to file at all.
Good point. I hadn't considered knives, etc. Don't mistake my comment, I'm not disagreeing with police having a need for tazers. While there's a chance of death from normal tazer usage, a violent suspect will fare much better after being subdued with a tazer than a club (or a gun). I'm just disappointed that the police can't be a little more mature in their interactions with the public.
If you're pointing a gun at a police officer, they're not going to tase you, they're going to shoot you (with a gun). Tazers are supposed to replace the club or hand-to-hand stuff (for subduing unarmed violent people). They've devolved into just being toys that they can use to fuck with people.
The worst spot to hit would have been the engine. But even during takeoff, they should survive that.
Well, the worst spot to hit would be the cockpit. Hitting a control surface could be pretty catastrophic, too. As would impacting the side of the fuselage. In fact, an engine would be one of the best spots to hit for the plane to survive.
It's explained pretty well in the wiki article, actually. As the cart approaches the speed of the wind, it stops using the push, or drag force, offered by the wind and starts using the lift imparted on the airfoil. You're no longer using the "push" of the wind, so it makes no sense to worry about the relative direction of the wind changing.
It's the same way a sailboat with a keel works. As you pick up speed, the lift on the keel becomes responsible for a great deal of the force felt.
Isidore is ever so slightly recast as JF Sebastian. He's too "special" to emigrate off-world and he makes a connection to the replicants (well, Pris anyway). In the book, he's mostly a narrator to let us follow the replicants, though, so he isn't as needed in the movie. His perspective of them (and the world itself) is lost, though, and that was a big part of the book.
Arguably, health care falls in the same category as roads and utilities. It's a public good issue that could be managed effectively by a central authority. There's room in it for profit, but access shouldn't be denied based on profitability. What we have now is a byzantine system where profit trumps basic function.
For a single payer system to work, though, the government would have to be able to keep its grubby fingers out of the funding. If we tried to implement such a system now, the funding would just end up being spent as if it was in the general fund. See Social Security.
They still retain a portion of the original sample, though. Right? What's to stop them from sequencing it in its entirety in the future when sequencing becomes more affordable?
I've successfully used plasmids that were stored on Whatman paper for over a decade. DNA, especially if kept with care (but even if not), will keep a long long time.
It looks like I overstated the QE over the entire vis-NIR, but I use an Andor iXon 897 daily and it's over 95% QE in the bit of spectrum I use.
What's your basis for the eye being more efficient? I'm genuinely interested, as my research is in imaging. The paper I referenced is old, but the methods are sound. I can't imagine them being off by a considerable amount.
Also, I don't mean to disparage the eye in any sense. The eye is a fantastic piece of machinery. It's actually capable of integrating over different arbitrary periods of time in different parts of the field of vision. It's certainly capable of detecting a single photon, but the likelihood of a photon incident on the cornea activating a photoreceptor is somewhat low (~15%). The likelihood that the signal will be kept and propagated to the brain is significantly lower.
I understand not bothering people with unnecessary details, but you made an absolute statement that is not universally valid, even in the context discussed (astronomy). I have considerable research and teaching experience (though I'm not going to participate in the boorish qualification naming), and a very real problem is that people remember the things you say with authority. If you make an absolute statement, people will remember it and apply it out of context. It's easy enough to qualify most statements without coming off as a pedant.
This is typically described as quantum efficiency (QE) and is a measure of (detected photons)/(incident photons). Decent scientific CCDs have a QE above 95% across much of the visible-NIR spectrum. According to this paper, the human eye has a QE of around 1% in low light conditions. Overall, it looks as though the eye is a pretty lossy system.
What's next for "property rights" for scientific discoveries, the developer of a new theory of gravity insisting on everyone signing an agreement before they can use it? Newton and Einstein didn't realize the money they lost by just publishing.
You know, if science isn't going to be funded collectively by society anymore, maybe that's the correct way forward. It is any wonder that smart people go to Wall Street and into advertising instead when they're expected to devote their lives to the betterment of all mankind and do it all out of the kindness of their hearts, too?
Where I live has bicycle lanes (I'm only seven miles from work and would love to bike every day), but they are largely only present on larger busy streets and often the bike lanes are shared with on-street parking. Due to this arrangement, bikers are killed and seriously injured all the time. Car drivers rarely even manage to see the bikers, but when they do they often act extremely aggressive toward them. I tried biking to work for a couple of months, but every day contained at least one near collision with a car that would have left me maimed.
When I lived in a college town, biking was possible, but biking in a big city in the US is flirting with death.
It's not possible to have liquid CO2 on the surface of Mars, but please don't say things like this:
There is no such thing as liquid CO2. Only artificially high pressures can prevent it from sublimating,
There is such a thing as liquid CO2 and there's nothing artificial about high pressures. People seem to be getting less and less capable of basic scientific reasoning all of the time. Please don't accelerate that by muddying the waters.
The Tesla Model S's top speed is a full 50mph less than the top speed of my daily driver. It is quick to 60... but with an electric motor I'd hope so! p.s. I am a car enthusiast, as you can imagine from the top speed of my daily driver!:-) I saw a Chevy Volt on the way to work today. I passed on the left.
I'm impressed. You appear to be the sole owner of a fast car who actually drives fast (on the street). Typically, if you see two cars at a stoplight and you're trying to decide which lane to pick, you avoid the lane with the fast car. The faster the car, the slower the owner will drive it.
Slashdot Mirror
It seems to use client-side encryption, but it appears that they store the key on their systems (maybe only secured with your password?).
To illustrate:
I installed SpiderOak on one computer, supplied my username and password and put some files in it. I then installed it on another computer, supplied my username and password and was able to see the files put in place by the first computer. So it appears that access to your data is only secured by however many bits of entropy are present in your password alone. This password is also used for access to their web server, so it is not a particularly well guarded secret.
This isn't even getting into the fact that sharing files with others or accessing your files through the web app gives them complete access to your key. I wanted to like SpiderOak, but it doesn't appear to actually be secure.
You can find 2800 people who might disagree with anything. That's 0.09% of the US population and one of the least likely causes of death. It's a question of priorities and allocation of resources.
Remember a couple months ago, when Boston was under martial law and the police forces were performing warrantless door-to-door searches, at threat of force? Now imagine that scenario with active resistance: it's the scenario you describe.
The police are not the same as the military. They recruit from different subsets of the population and they have vastly different training and goals. The military will balk at firing on Americans but the police won't.
<tinfoilhat> Do you think it's a coincidence that the police have been amassing ever increasing amounts of military hardware. The military exists to protect the country, while the police exist to protect the establishment.
If you don't want to encounter US units of measurement, stop reading US websites. It's really that simple.
I don't get pissed off when German websites are in German, even though only 1% of people use that language.
A starter pistol is great for this. The TSA treats it like a real firearm, but many cities and states that have strict firearm laws don't consider them firearms (especially if you don't bring the caps for it).
When a member of the public is being childish, it usually only leads to to the policeman having a bruised ego.
Or black eye, knife in the chest, etc. When some hopped up drunk idiot would rather mouth off in hopes of impressing his friends than not back off there may be a reason to use force. You are taking the extreme cases and viewing them as the rule. There is something wrong when the standard response to an officer saying "please step back" is "Fuck you".
If you were an officer facing an aggressive person would you wait for him to pull a knife or would you taze him?
Attacking a police officer is a crime, full stop. If someone is about to use force, of course an officer can defend himself. Saying "fuck you" is not a credible threat, though, and doesn't warrant the use of force. The reason police don't get respect much is because their profession has a long history of not being respectable. This didn't come out of nowhere. They earned this reputation by beginning every single interaction with the public by framing the other citizen as an enemy and proceeding to treat him as such.
Of course on the other hand, a police officer attacking another citizen is never a crime (unless another non-police citizen managed to get video evidence). If you have legal authority to use force on other citizens (a special privilege), you should have the restraint to not instantly jump to violence just because someone is not being compliant. If you can't interact with another person without resorting to violence and your skin is so thin that simple disrespect makes your blood boil, then you are not suitable as a police officer. This society would be a much better place with fewer armed sociopathic thugs (even the ones with badges).
As to that being the extreme case, police brutality and intimidation should never exist. When a policeman is guilty of the above, the other "good" cops shouldn't attempt to cover up the incident. The fact that it is a rare but very real phenomenon, and that police departments basically condone it, means it should be part of the discussion. A systemic problem like that doesn't get to be brushed under the rug as "a few bad apples" so easily.
That cuts both ways; I wish the public could be a little more mature in their interactions with the police.
Now I have to disagree. When a member of the public is being childish, it usually only leads to to the policeman having a bruised ego. If only the misbehaving policemen were content with bruising egos.
Or less subtly, being rude or disrespectful to the police does not justify being tased or beaten. Abusing one's authority and physically attacking someone for petty verbal insults is a vastly greater offense. "With great power..." and all of that.
Of course this runs the risk that you can't keep Y a secret and since you can't file the patent without starting the clock ticking even if you can keep it secret you run this someone else might 'discover' it first.
So you keep informed of current research (and VC funding) in the field (which you'd do anyway) and buy up any small startup who starts working on that particular drug. The employees of that company sign non-disclosures and you continue to keep it buried.
Of course, at the same time, you have a patent application for that drug already written up and ready to submit in case you don't catch somebody else's efforts soon enough (or they don't sell out). Filing too early is not ideal, but it beats not getting to file at all.
Good point. I hadn't considered knives, etc. Don't mistake my comment, I'm not disagreeing with police having a need for tazers. While there's a chance of death from normal tazer usage, a violent suspect will fare much better after being subdued with a tazer than a club (or a gun). I'm just disappointed that the police can't be a little more mature in their interactions with the public.
If you're pointing a gun at a police officer, they're not going to tase you, they're going to shoot you (with a gun). Tazers are supposed to replace the club or hand-to-hand stuff (for subduing unarmed violent people). They've devolved into just being toys that they can use to fuck with people.
The worst spot to hit would have been the engine. But even during takeoff, they should survive that.
Well, the worst spot to hit would be the cockpit. Hitting a control surface could be pretty catastrophic, too. As would impacting the side of the fuselage. In fact, an engine would be one of the best spots to hit for the plane to survive.
Arggghhh. the slashdot formatter ate my less than sigh. I meant to write "consider the case V_land LESSTHAN V_wind.
Is that the one of resignation when trying to write formulae on slashdot?
It's explained pretty well in the wiki article, actually. As the cart approaches the speed of the wind, it stops using the push, or drag force, offered by the wind and starts using the lift imparted on the airfoil. You're no longer using the "push" of the wind, so it makes no sense to worry about the relative direction of the wind changing.
It's the same way a sailboat with a keel works. As you pick up speed, the lift on the keel becomes responsible for a great deal of the force felt.
Isidore is ever so slightly recast as JF Sebastian. He's too "special" to emigrate off-world and he makes a connection to the replicants (well, Pris anyway). In the book, he's mostly a narrator to let us follow the replicants, though, so he isn't as needed in the movie. His perspective of them (and the world itself) is lost, though, and that was a big part of the book.
Arguably, health care falls in the same category as roads and utilities. It's a public good issue that could be managed effectively by a central authority. There's room in it for profit, but access shouldn't be denied based on profitability. What we have now is a byzantine system where profit trumps basic function.
For a single payer system to work, though, the government would have to be able to keep its grubby fingers out of the funding. If we tried to implement such a system now, the funding would just end up being spent as if it was in the general fund. See Social Security.
They still retain a portion of the original sample, though. Right? What's to stop them from sequencing it in its entirety in the future when sequencing becomes more affordable?
I've successfully used plasmids that were stored on Whatman paper for over a decade. DNA, especially if kept with care (but even if not), will keep a long long time.
Did you even read/watch them? The setting is roughly the same and some characters share the same names. The similarity really ends there.
I liked the original post better. This place would be much more awesome if discussions randomly devolved into elephant matter nectar.
It looks like I overstated the QE over the entire vis-NIR, but I use an Andor iXon 897 daily and it's over 95% QE in the bit of spectrum I use.
What's your basis for the eye being more efficient? I'm genuinely interested, as my research is in imaging. The paper I referenced is old, but the methods are sound. I can't imagine them being off by a considerable amount.
Also, I don't mean to disparage the eye in any sense. The eye is a fantastic piece of machinery. It's actually capable of integrating over different arbitrary periods of time in different parts of the field of vision. It's certainly capable of detecting a single photon, but the likelihood of a photon incident on the cornea activating a photoreceptor is somewhat low (~15%). The likelihood that the signal will be kept and propagated to the brain is significantly lower.
I understand not bothering people with unnecessary details, but you made an absolute statement that is not universally valid, even in the context discussed (astronomy). I have considerable research and teaching experience (though I'm not going to participate in the boorish qualification naming), and a very real problem is that people remember the things you say with authority. If you make an absolute statement, people will remember it and apply it out of context. It's easy enough to qualify most statements without coming off as a pedant.
This is typically described as quantum efficiency (QE) and is a measure of (detected photons)/(incident photons). Decent scientific CCDs have a QE above 95% across much of the visible-NIR spectrum. According to this paper, the human eye has a QE of around 1% in low light conditions. Overall, it looks as though the eye is a pretty lossy system.
What's next for "property rights" for scientific discoveries, the developer of a new theory of gravity insisting on everyone signing an agreement before they can use it? Newton and Einstein didn't realize the money they lost by just publishing.
You know, if science isn't going to be funded collectively by society anymore, maybe that's the correct way forward. It is any wonder that smart people go to Wall Street and into advertising instead when they're expected to devote their lives to the betterment of all mankind and do it all out of the kindness of their hearts, too?
Where I live has bicycle lanes (I'm only seven miles from work and would love to bike every day), but they are largely only present on larger busy streets and often the bike lanes are shared with on-street parking. Due to this arrangement, bikers are killed and seriously injured all the time. Car drivers rarely even manage to see the bikers, but when they do they often act extremely aggressive toward them. I tried biking to work for a couple of months, but every day contained at least one near collision with a car that would have left me maimed.
When I lived in a college town, biking was possible, but biking in a big city in the US is flirting with death.
It's not possible to have liquid CO2 on the surface of Mars, but please don't say things like this:
There is no such thing as liquid CO2. Only artificially high pressures can prevent it from sublimating,
There is such a thing as liquid CO2 and there's nothing artificial about high pressures. People seem to be getting less and less capable of basic scientific reasoning all of the time. Please don't accelerate that by muddying the waters.
The Tesla Model S's top speed is a full 50mph less than the top speed of my daily driver. It is quick to 60 ... but with an electric motor I'd hope so! p.s. I am a car enthusiast, as you can imagine from the top speed of my daily driver! :-) I saw a Chevy Volt on the way to work today. I passed on the left.
I'm impressed. You appear to be the sole owner of a fast car who actually drives fast (on the street). Typically, if you see two cars at a stoplight and you're trying to decide which lane to pick, you avoid the lane with the fast car. The faster the car, the slower the owner will drive it.