I don't know if what you saying is obvious because neuroscientist had been heatedly arguing about that until the recent invention of fMRI. Previously, all they had to go on was "what changes if this piece gets cut out". That and it seems every mammal on the planet knows what a snake is. Anyway, here's something similar from the paper that's related to what you're saying. Have a look at figure 4.
The activation proles of many regions identied in the factor analysis (Fig. 4A and Supporting Information, Table S3) are consistent with previous ndings of the role of these regions in semantic knowledge representation, such as right anterior temporal lobe for semantic knowledge of people [Gesierich et al., 2012], fusiform gyrus for representing objects [Martin, 2007], parahippocampal areas for representing places [Epstein and Kanwisher, 1998], and so forth. Moreover, the response proles of several other regions suggest that reading of simple sentences that describe events and states also involve various nonlanguage-specic neural systems associated with the processing of social, affective, motor, and visual properties of events, as discussed below.
From the "That's today" we can read your mind link... Here's the actual study, "Predicting the Brain Activation Pattern Associated With the Propositional Content of a Sentence: Modeling Neural Representations of Events and States" http://www.ccbi.cmu.edu/reprin...
I've only skimmed it. This would take me quite a while to decode. But you should have a look at it; this is way cool. But it isn't what Dr Jepson is claiming. not at all. What they're seeing is the patterns generated in the brain when reading sentences. Not thinking about things, but reading. They record all the parts of the brain that light up during the reading given to the people in the fMRI. They discovered that these patterns are nearly the same for the people who participated. So, knowing these patterns, they can tell what sentence you had just read. But where it gets interesting is that it's not just the sentence decode part of the brain, they're seeing the other parts where the concept representations are. I think.
From the article:
The main contribution of this article is the integrated, computational account of the relation between the semantic content of a sentence and the brain activation pattern evoked by the reading of the sentence.
The initial success of the modeling using neurally plausible features suggests that the building blocks for constructing complex thoughts are shaped by neural systems rather than by lexicographic considerations. This approach predicts that the neural dimensions of concept representation might be universal across languages, as studies are beginning to suggest [Yang et al., 2017]. In this perspective, the concepts in each language would be underpinned by some subset of a universal set of NPSFs
NPSF is neurally plausible semantic features. Hope that helps.
and in the limitations section,
"The study was also limited to the processing of visually presented sentences, and the neural signature at the end of the reading of a sentence contained the representations of all of the component concepts in the sentence. If the sentences were presented in the auditory modality, it is possible the neural signature at the end of the listening to a sentence might not be the optimal decoding window for all of the component concepts in the sentence. "
Also, according to Hollywood, apparently every window in a house has armor plate below the window sill. They shoot out the window and then duck down below the sill. You'll see bullets flying through the window glass and the walls beside the window, but none penetrate below the window. It's due to the armor plate below the window.
My work explores the relationship between emerging sexualities and unwanted gifts.
With influences as diverse as Wittgenstein and Andy Warhol, new synergies are distilled from both constructed and discovered dialogues.
Ever since I was a teenager I have been fascinated by the unrelenting divergence of relationships. What starts out as contemplation soon becomes manipulated into a manifesto of temptation, leaving only a sense of decadence and the possibility of a new beginning.
As intermittent phenomena become frozen through diligent and repetitive practice, the viewer is left with a tribute to the limits of our future.
Well that pretty much made sense, so I'm not sure you've quite got the hang of it yet.
And his influences seem to be white males. I doubt we could have a valuable experience from the art of someone so obsessed with these Euro-patriarchs.
lol, this is disappointing. Now I've learned that I can't turn to you for advice on chickens.
I attempted to have some chickens a very long time ago on purpose. We bought a dozen sex-link chicks, but in our ignorance had it backwards and wound up with a dozen roosters. They grew quickly and soon began fighting. Eventually there was one huge survivor who then began attacking our dogs (having no other foe). Previously the dogs had just been observers. The dogs had been told to not attack the chickens and were strangely obedient on this, I think. The dog-rooster fights (more like rooster attacks on fleeing dogs) went on for about a month or two until one of the dogs finally decided it had had enough. The neighbors say our folly provided them much amusement.
I already knew this about chickens, thanks to my uncle's chicken house. One thing not mentioned is that roosters either hate children or consider them to be a large hen that needed to be serviced. I dunno which, I always managed to outrun them. I had to run the rooster gauntlet everytime to visit my granny and grampa because they lived in on the other side. My older relatives would yell "don't let him catch you!" and "For heavens sake, don't trip!". There may have been laughter.
Based on the comments so far, perhaps four or five people actually read the article It appears that War4peace is one of these, and so far he is the only person to make a post directly addressing the problems with the linked article based on the technology. And he got marked down to -1.
I was 99% sure you were just messing with people. Fuck. They even have a consortium.
So you made me google fog computing. That led me to "Mist computing".
"We are now seeing a new class of computing surface emerge called the Mist. The Mist consists of the edge, that is, the very edge: the sensor and actuator controllers. Extending computing all the way to the edge can make a lot of sense depending on the network topology needed. "
All these seem be based on water analogies. What comes next will be "Urine computing", where we all get on our knees and receive a golden shower from a government-corporate consortium that will save $1 trillion dollars (over the next ten years).
I say if he succeeded in putting that company out of business, then he should get a medal for sacrificing himself to destroy the company.
My belief is when he saw on his first day, the badly written docs they handed him, with a printed (!) account/password having RW access, he instinctively threw himself on that grenade by destroying their production database. Only the most cowardly IT worker would have done otherwise.
Thank you, selfless IT worker from saving us from the horror of whatever product they were trying to produce.
Actually, moderation is, by definition, censorship. Here's the definition from Wikipedia:
Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information that may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities or other groups or institutions.
Moderation suppresses posts by reducing their score below the visibility threshold for some people. By definition, moderation is censorship. The original post in this thread was, indeed, censored to -1, and very rapidly so.
I disagree. First of all "By definition, moderation is censorship" is incorrect. Yes, moderation can be used to perform censorship, but moderation can also be used in a way that does not suppress speech. And suppress is a strong word, it has a meaning closer to absolutely prevent or stop.
Moderation at Slashdot does not prevent anyone from seeing a post unless the reader chooses to not see the post. Moderation in no way prevents anyone from making a post. So the speech of the poster not suppressed by the moderator; the post it remains where literally everyone who can access Slashdot in the world can see it. It does not even add a level of difficulty in seeing the post. Moderation at Slashdot simply allows the reader to choose what they want to read.
The concept of censorship does not apply to people choosing to not hear what you have to say.
I choose to not read the "Twilight" novels. Am I censoring the author? No. Censorship does not apply in that case. I choose to sometimes read Slashdot modded -1 posts, and sometimes I choose not to read at that level. All moderation at Slashdot is allow the reader to organize what he is going to read.
Slashdot does in fact do censorship. It's the "lameness filter" that prevents posting gibberish, ascii art, and apparently when posting as AC, such things the word often referred to as the "n-word". I'm not sure what else. That's censorship because the speech is suppressed and no one can choose to see it.
The USA does not buy most of its stuff from China. The USA imported is about $480 billion of goods from China and sold about $116 billion to China.. The USA's GDP is about $18,000 billion. Trade with China is about 2.5% of the USA GDP. Most of what the USA buys is made in the USA.
Again, over a million mummies have been found in Egypt, and it's estimated that several tens of millions exist. So yes, it's more likely that royalty would be mummified than the average person, but the average mummy is an average person.
The article claims ancient Egyptians are more similar to people of Near East. "The study found that modern Egyptians share more ancestry with Sub-Saharan Africans than ancient Egyptians did, whereas ancient Egyptians were found to be most closely related to ancient people from the Near East"
However, there is not enough sample data to make a universal assertion. What if Egyptian Pharos were a bit like European royalties, where the Austrian princess would marry the ruler of France or German royalty would marry the Russian Tzar. And these mummified people were prince or princes from Near East empires marrying into Egyptian royalty to forge political bonds? Perhaps the slave / worker / minstrel caste were Sub-Saharan Africans.
There were no mummies of pharaohs or royalty in this study. Mummification wasn't limited to royalty, and that should be obvious from the fact that over a million mummies have been found and it is estimated that the total number of mummies in Egypt is several tens of millions
From the study:
On a more local scale, we aim to study changes and continuities in the genetic makeup of the ancient inhabitants of the Abusir el-Meleq community (Fig. 1), since all sampled remains derive from this community in Middle Egypt and have been radiocarbon dated to the late New Kingdom to the Roman Period (cal. 1388BCE–426CE
Although we only analysed mummified remains, there is little reason to believe that the burials Rubensohn excavated belonged exclusively to a group of prosperous inhabitants on the basis of the far published references to excavation diaries and Rubensohn’s preliminary reports that permit a basic reconstruction. Rather it seems arguable that the complete spectrum of society is represented, ranging from Late Period priests’ burials that stand out by virtue of their size and contents to simple inhumations that are buried with little to no grave goods2. The widespread mummification treatments in the Ptolemaic and Roman Periods in particular, leading to a decline in standards and costs48 and the generally modest appearance of many burials further supports this assessment.
This was the first computer game I played on a general-purpose computer. I remember playing this around 1980 on a Burroughs B6900 at work. It was the Algol port, and I had the source code on a 9-track tape that I kept for many years. I swear, I used the source to cheat only once. I believe I was stuck at a dam in the power control room.
TFA shows it is safer even than pot, based upon users self-reporting medical situations to authorities.
The thing you need to read is not the article, but rather the Global Drug Survey https://www.globaldrugsurvey.c... If you do read it, you'll see some problems.
Here's the one that bothers me the most, and it basically means the study and related articles are nonsense.
The report isn't based on the number of doses, it's based on the number of people who ever used the drug in the last year. So you're probably comparing ten million of doses of natural cannabis products with a few ten thousand mushroom doses, if that many. The report says the average cannabis users used it 134 days over the last year, but fails to mention how many days/doses for mushrooms. I kind of doubt there are many people who take mushrooms 3-4 times a week, but the Average cannabis user (responding) does just that.
The numbers are similar for users of LSD, except there are more self-reported ER visits for LSD (1%). Cocaine is reported at 1% have ER visits, amphetamines at 1.1% and cannabis at.6% ER visits. Pretty close percentages No one thinks cocaine, amphetamines, LSD, and cannabis are that similar in danger, but this study does. That's because they're looking at the wrong number.
Here's my favorite quote from the GDS study.
People who use psychedelics are generally very sensible and show some of the best preparation and adoption of harm reduction practices of any drug
Because the FDA doesn't care about the purity of the manufacturer's product all that much.
Oversimplified, but here's kind of how it works. In general, as far as the FDA is concerned, it is all about the manufacturing process. The FDA does not look at whether one manufacturers version is as pure as the other; the testing of new manufacturers of a drug isn't about purity, it is about determining equivalent biological activity. The reason is that two pills containing the exact same chemical and purity can have different biological activity depending on pill hardness, the coating that allows the pill to get past the stomach, and the pill and coatings resistance to humidity or temperature changes, and, of course, contaminants.
And speaking realistically, the complex chemicals you take may have exactly the same amount of the active chemical, but there will always be contaminants, and the contaminants vary according to the process and equipment used. Those contaminants may affect the shelf life and a 6month old pill from a French company may have greater biological activity than one from a German plant even though they both acted the same when new. That's the sort of thing that happens and that costs boatloads of money to discover in testing. That's why it's all about the process, not the pill.
The FDA generally does not do assays and testing (boatloads of money), the manufacturer does that. The FDA requires detailed logs of the manufacturing process and equipment. The FDA monitors the process by inspecting the logs and doing on-site inspections, and it's an ongoing process because many, if not most, drug manufacturers have been caught cheating.
The manufacturer cannot deviate from the process as was initially approved without the FDA's approval, nor can anyone else just say "it's exactly the same" and sell the product. And the FDA does't say "oh well, it's probably OK" for simple drugs. One law to rule them all.
(Despite cipher-punk fantasies, there are few problems in real life which cannot be solved by hanging a few people from lamp posts and trees.)
Racking my brain to think of an example problem that cannot be solved by hanging a few people from lamp posts. Can you give me an example? We need your answer by 10:00PM tonight. Thanks, The Management
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know if what you saying is obvious because neuroscientist had been heatedly arguing about that until the recent invention of fMRI. Previously, all they had to go on was "what changes if this piece gets cut out". That and it seems every mammal on the planet knows what a snake is.
Anyway, here's something similar from the paper that's related to what you're saying. Have a look at figure 4.
The activation proles of many regions identied in the factor analysis (Fig. 4A and Supporting Information, Table S3) are consistent with previous ndings of the role of these regions in semantic knowledge representation, such as right anterior temporal lobe for semantic knowledge of people [Gesierich et al., 2012], fusiform gyrus for representing objects [Martin, 2007], parahippocampal areas for representing places [Epstein and Kanwisher, 1998], and so forth. Moreover, the response proles of several other regions suggest that reading of simple sentences that describe events and states also involve various nonlanguage-specic neural systems associated with the processing of social, affective, motor, and visual properties of events, as discussed below.
From the "That's today" we can read your mind link ...
Here's the actual study, "Predicting the Brain Activation Pattern Associated With the Propositional Content of a Sentence: Modeling Neural Representations of Events and States"
http://www.ccbi.cmu.edu/reprin...
I've only skimmed it. This would take me quite a while to decode. But you should have a look at it; this is way cool. But it isn't what Dr Jepson is claiming. not at all.
What they're seeing is the patterns generated in the brain when reading sentences. Not thinking about things, but reading.
They record all the parts of the brain that light up during the reading given to the people in the fMRI. They discovered that these patterns are nearly the same for the people who participated. So, knowing these patterns, they can tell what sentence you had just read.
But where it gets interesting is that it's not just the sentence decode part of the brain, they're seeing the other parts where the concept representations are. I think.
From the article:
The main contribution of this article is the integrated, computational account of the relation between the semantic content of a sentence and the brain activation pattern evoked by the reading of the sentence.
The initial success of the modeling using neurally plausible features suggests that the building blocks for constructing complex thoughts are shaped by neural systems rather than by lexicographic considerations. This approach predicts that the neural dimensions of concept representation might be universal across languages, as studies are beginning to suggest [Yang et al., 2017]. In this perspective, the concepts in each language would be underpinned by some subset of a universal set of NPSFs
NPSF is neurally plausible semantic features. Hope that helps.
and in the limitations section,
"The study was also limited to the processing of visually presented sentences, and the neural signature at the end of the reading of a sentence contained the representations of all of the component concepts in the sentence. If the sentences were presented in the auditory modality, it is possible the neural signature at the end of the listening to a sentence might not be the optimal decoding window for all of the component concepts in the sentence. "
Why must you misgender the great Andy Warhol?
Andy puts up with it because he knows if he starts any of that gender shit with me, I'll dig him up and shoot his ass again.
Also, according to Hollywood, apparently every window in a house has armor plate below the window sill. They shoot out the window and then duck down below the sill. You'll see bullets flying through the window glass and the walls beside the window, but none penetrate below the window. It's due to the armor plate below the window.
I see goatse guy lurking in at least two of those pictures
Thanks to Slashdot, I see goatse guy every time I start to fall asleep while sober.
Fortunately, there's an easy fix.
My work explores the relationship between emerging sexualities and unwanted gifts.
With influences as diverse as Wittgenstein and Andy Warhol, new synergies are distilled from both constructed and discovered dialogues.
Ever since I was a teenager I have been fascinated by the unrelenting divergence of relationships. What starts out as contemplation soon becomes manipulated into a manifesto of temptation, leaving only a sense of decadence and the possibility of a new beginning.
As intermittent phenomena become frozen through diligent and repetitive practice, the viewer is left with a tribute to the limits of our future.
Well that pretty much made sense, so I'm not sure you've quite got the hang of it yet.
And his influences seem to be white males.
I doubt we could have a valuable experience from the art of someone so obsessed with these Euro-patriarchs.
lol, this is disappointing. Now I've learned that I can't turn to you for advice on chickens.
I attempted to have some chickens a very long time ago on purpose.
We bought a dozen sex-link chicks, but in our ignorance had it backwards and wound up with a dozen roosters. They grew quickly and soon began fighting. Eventually there was one huge survivor who then began attacking our dogs (having no other foe). Previously the dogs had just been observers. The dogs had been told to not attack the chickens and were strangely obedient on this, I think.
The dog-rooster fights (more like rooster attacks on fleeing dogs) went on for about a month or two until one of the dogs finally decided it had had enough.
The neighbors say our folly provided them much amusement.
That is amazingly accurate.
Wanna hear a chicken story?
Why yes I do.
I'll refill my glass right now.
I already knew this about chickens, thanks to my uncle's chicken house.
One thing not mentioned is that roosters either hate children or consider them to be a large hen that needed to be serviced. I dunno which, I always managed to outrun them.
I had to run the rooster gauntlet everytime to visit my granny and grampa because they lived in on the other side.
My older relatives would yell "don't let him catch you!" and "For heavens sake, don't trip!". There may have been laughter.
Here's the facts:
http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-...
Based on the comments so far, perhaps four or five people actually read the article
It appears that War4peace is one of these, and so far he is the only person to make a post directly addressing the problems with the linked article based on the technology.
And he got marked down to -1.
WTF Slashdot people.
I was 99% sure you were just messing with people. Fuck. They even have a consortium.
So you made me google fog computing. That led me to "Mist computing".
"We are now seeing a new class of computing surface emerge called the Mist. The Mist consists of the edge, that is, the very edge: the sensor and actuator controllers. Extending computing all the way to the edge can make a lot of sense depending on the network topology needed. "
All these seem be based on water analogies.
What comes next will be "Urine computing", where we all get on our knees and receive a golden shower from a government-corporate consortium that will save $1 trillion dollars (over the next ten years).
If you are going to try to insult the intelligence of people, then you should know the difference between "effects" and "affects".
I say if he succeeded in putting that company out of business, then he should get a medal for sacrificing himself to destroy the company.
My belief is when he saw on his first day, the badly written docs they handed him, with a printed (!) account/password having RW access, he instinctively threw himself on that grenade by destroying their production database. Only the most cowardly IT worker would have done otherwise.
Thank you, selfless IT worker from saving us from the horror of whatever product they were trying to produce.
Actually, moderation is, by definition, censorship. Here's the definition from Wikipedia:
Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information that may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities or other groups or institutions.
Moderation suppresses posts by reducing their score below the visibility threshold for some people. By definition, moderation is censorship. The original post in this thread was, indeed, censored to -1, and very rapidly so.
I disagree.
First of all "By definition, moderation is censorship" is incorrect.
Yes, moderation can be used to perform censorship, but moderation can also be used in a way that does not suppress speech. And suppress is a strong word, it has a meaning closer to absolutely prevent or stop.
Moderation at Slashdot does not prevent anyone from seeing a post unless the reader chooses to not see the post. Moderation in no way prevents anyone from making a post. So the speech of the poster not suppressed by the moderator; the post it remains where literally everyone who can access Slashdot in the world can see it. It does not even add a level of difficulty in seeing the post. Moderation at Slashdot simply allows the reader to choose what they want to read.
The concept of censorship does not apply to people choosing to not hear what you have to say.
I choose to not read the "Twilight" novels. Am I censoring the author? No. Censorship does not apply in that case.
I choose to sometimes read Slashdot modded -1 posts, and sometimes I choose not to read at that level.
All moderation at Slashdot is allow the reader to organize what he is going to read.
Slashdot does in fact do censorship. It's the "lameness filter" that prevents posting gibberish, ascii art, and apparently when posting as AC, such things the word often referred to as the "n-word". I'm not sure what else. That's censorship because the speech is suppressed and no one can choose to see it.
I would say it's the ghost of Jordan Belfort in action, but he's not dead.
Huh?
What does the USA export, exactly? Even the USA buys most of its "stuff" from China.
Check out your balance of trade, it's never been positive, ever:
https://tradingeconomics.com/u...
The USA does not buy most of its stuff from China.
The USA imported is about $480 billion of goods from China and sold about $116 billion to China.. The USA's GDP is about $18,000 billion. Trade with China is about 2.5% of the USA GDP.
Most of what the USA buys is made in the USA.
Again, over a million mummies have been found in Egypt, and it's estimated that several tens of millions exist.
So yes, it's more likely that royalty would be mummified than the average person, but the average mummy is an average person.
The article claims ancient Egyptians are more similar to people of Near East. "The study found that modern Egyptians share more ancestry with Sub-Saharan Africans than ancient Egyptians did, whereas ancient Egyptians were found to be most closely related to ancient people from the Near East"
However, there is not enough sample data to make a universal assertion. What if Egyptian Pharos were a bit like European royalties, where the Austrian princess would marry the ruler of France or German royalty would marry the Russian Tzar. And these mummified people were prince or princes from Near East empires marrying into Egyptian royalty to forge political bonds? Perhaps the slave / worker / minstrel caste were Sub-Saharan Africans.
There were no mummies of pharaohs or royalty in this study.
Mummification wasn't limited to royalty, and that should be obvious from the fact that over a million mummies have been found and it is estimated that the total number of mummies in Egypt is several tens of millions
From the study:
On a more local scale, we aim to study changes and continuities in the genetic makeup of the ancient inhabitants of the Abusir el-Meleq community (Fig. 1), since all sampled remains derive from this community in Middle Egypt and have been radiocarbon dated to the late New Kingdom to the Roman Period (cal. 1388BCE–426CE
Although we only analysed mummified remains, there is little reason to believe that the burials Rubensohn excavated belonged exclusively to a group of prosperous inhabitants on the basis of the far published references to excavation diaries and Rubensohn’s preliminary reports that permit a basic reconstruction. Rather it seems arguable that the complete spectrum of society is represented, ranging from Late Period priests’ burials that stand out by virtue of their size and contents to simple inhumations that are buried with little to no grave goods2. The widespread mummification treatments in the Ptolemaic and Roman Periods in particular, leading to a decline in standards and costs48 and the generally modest appearance of many burials further supports this assessment.
This was the first computer game I played on a general-purpose computer.
I remember playing this around 1980 on a Burroughs B6900 at work.
It was the Algol port, and I had the source code on a 9-track tape that I kept for many years.
I swear, I used the source to cheat only once. I believe I was stuck at a dam in the power control room.
TFA shows it is safer even than pot, based upon users self-reporting medical situations to authorities.
The thing you need to read is not the article, but rather the Global Drug Survey https://www.globaldrugsurvey.c...
If you do read it, you'll see some problems.
Here's the one that bothers me the most, and it basically means the study and related articles are nonsense.
The report isn't based on the number of doses, it's based on the number of people who ever used the drug in the last year.
So you're probably comparing ten million of doses of natural cannabis products with a few ten thousand mushroom doses, if that many.
The report says the average cannabis users used it 134 days over the last year, but fails to mention how many days/doses for mushrooms.
I kind of doubt there are many people who take mushrooms 3-4 times a week, but the Average cannabis user (responding) does just that.
The numbers are similar for users of LSD, except there are more self-reported ER visits for LSD (1%). .6% ER visits.
Cocaine is reported at 1% have ER visits, amphetamines at 1.1% and cannabis at
Pretty close percentages No one thinks cocaine, amphetamines, LSD, and cannabis are that similar in danger, but this study does.
That's because they're looking at the wrong number.
Here's my favorite quote from the GDS study.
People who use psychedelics are generally very sensible and show some of the best preparation and adoption of harm reduction practices of any drug
I guess you never heard of sulfanilamide
Nor Thalidomide. From 1962:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
If you think you know how the free market would work in drug manufacturing, then you need to read this:
http://fortune.com/2013/05/15/...
Because the FDA doesn't care about the purity of the manufacturer's product all that much.
Oversimplified, but here's kind of how it works.
In general, as far as the FDA is concerned, it is all about the manufacturing process.
The FDA does not look at whether one manufacturers version is as pure as the other; the testing of new manufacturers of a drug isn't about purity, it is about determining equivalent biological activity.
The reason is that two pills containing the exact same chemical and purity can have different biological activity depending on pill hardness, the coating that allows the pill to get past the stomach, and the pill and coatings resistance to humidity or temperature changes, and, of course, contaminants.
And speaking realistically, the complex chemicals you take may have exactly the same amount of the active chemical, but there will always be contaminants, and the contaminants vary according to the process and equipment used. Those contaminants may affect the shelf life and a 6month old pill from a French company may have greater biological activity than one from a German plant even though they both acted the same when new.
That's the sort of thing that happens and that costs boatloads of money to discover in testing. That's why it's all about the process, not the pill.
The FDA generally does not do assays and testing (boatloads of money), the manufacturer does that. The FDA requires detailed logs of the manufacturing process and equipment. The FDA monitors the process by inspecting the logs and doing on-site inspections, and it's an ongoing process because many, if not most, drug manufacturers have been caught cheating.
The manufacturer cannot deviate from the process as was initially approved without the FDA's approval, nor can anyone else just say "it's exactly the same" and sell the product. And the FDA does't say "oh well, it's probably OK" for simple drugs. One law to rule them all.
(Despite cipher-punk fantasies, there are few problems in real life which cannot be solved by hanging a few people from lamp posts and trees.)
Racking my brain to think of an example problem that cannot be solved by hanging a few people from lamp posts. Can you give me an example?
We need your answer by 10:00PM tonight.
Thanks,
The Management
they've been using kerberos since like 1999. NTLM is there for backwards compatibility
KERBEROS IS NOT A SECURE AUTHENTICATION PROTOCOL.
No there is nothing wrong my caps lock. I was intentionally shouting.
Please explain using terms appropriate to an audience that understands authentication protocols.