I'd pay good money for a script that would somehow protect HP printers from infection, or at least create a temporary firewall of addresses infecting them.
This is the quiet side of the issue, because the printers can't infect other sites. But a printer also can't be power cycled remotely (except if you've somehow forseen this problem). The printers are also unlikely to be patched, so their security holes will exist long after this current worm is done sucking bandwidth. And I really hate walking across lab, up 3 flights of stairs, to restart the printer.
I don't mean to offend the people that actually post meaningful, well thought out reviews on amazon. I'm one of those people. What I'm talking about are the one hundred million "THIS BOOK IS COOL YOU SUCK IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT" 5 star reviews that skew the system to hell. The same problem arises from their karma system, which is based off these same people clicking yes or no on reviews they like or not.
So why do we need professional reviewers? Simply because the only time you go to the review section on amazon is if you really liked, or really hated the book. A professional reviewer, ideally, should review all the books they read, and judge them fairly. They can get books cheaply/freely and have a wider range of readings. I know I can't afford to buy books I know I won't like... And I'm willing to bet most people on amazon won't either.
Jon, you hit dead on this time. Actually, again. I'd be quick to point out that Amazon's "reviews" are the best reason society has for professional critics.
But the stock market... well, people are just as well off getting advice from 15 year olds as they are MBAs because the entire system is a big ponzi scheme/slot machine already. It takes little effort to reccomend a stock you think will do well, and whether or not it is doing well is fairly subjective. Remember that during the dotcom crash only 2% of real advisors said "Sell!" 2%!
And as far as "legal advice" goes, you can't use legal advice you get on the web anyways. It would be like taking a Dear Abby to court as your evidence.
So, thanks Jon, for giving us a good review of a poorly thought out book.
skye
Re:Yes, of course she should have been paid...
on
The Immortal Cell
·
· Score: 1
Your analogy ALMOST works. But Cancer cells aren't really "you" anymore. Thats the whole problem.
lets say that she had a terrible parasitic lifeform in her. The doctors pull it out, and examine it for years later. Does she need compensation? After all, it IS a parasite they pulled out to save her life. What is she going to do with it? Put it in a bottle and save it for later?
Fast forward 40 years. People are still doing research on this parasite in hopes of removing its threat to humanity forever. Why would anyone even ASK about compensation? Would you ask to be compensated every time someone did research on a new type of tick found in your hair? The idea is ridiculous, and I think that this pompous filmmaker should get her head out of her ass. It seems like she is just tossing this idea around in order to attract attention to herself.
You heard me. Anyone that says we are safe from nanoweapons for at least 25-100 years or some other BS answer obviously didn't see the article about Bacteriaphage nanotubes.
What if those nanotubes had been designed for animal cell membranes instead of bacterial cell membranes? And then injected into a person? That's manmade ebola right there. Your organs would all be perferated at the microscopic level and NOTHING WOULD CURE IT. Granted it wouldn't reproduce/be infectious... but it would be devastating. You could probably get away with putting it in food or water.
And this technology exists NOW. Not ten years, not next year. NOW.
The benefits of nanotechnology are coming very quickly. But along with them come the dangers, and we are woefully underprepared to deal with some. After all, how do you cure a nanovirus that pokes holes in your cells?
skye
I'm a second generation JPL employee... that is, I'm the son of a JPL employee, also employed at JPL. My dad quit from jpl 10 years ago, when the big managerial shakedowns occurred.
He describes it as becoming less about science and exploration of the universe and more about rules. I have to agree with him. But the scientists themselves haven't changed. I have never met so many personally motivated, focused people anywhere else in my life. Some of these guys work long hours (without pay) programming new utilities for their own use. A friend of mine was told not to write a program, which he went ahead and did anyways on his own time. Now its the most used app in my section! And if he had listened to his manager, it never would have happened.
So where are the problems at JPL? Wasteful excess staff. We have more managers than we need, by far. Hell, our "ethics" staff is probably spending valuable money making sure we don't bid on ebay using our JPL email addresses. In fact, they might crack down on me for posting on/.
Ah well. My point is that JPL has some of the finest, most science oriented personell on earth, and given the funding, they would colonize mars in a decade. But scientists need less rules, not more. We came this far in an organization founded by a pyromaniac satanist(no, really), and I think we should return to that pioneering spirit. Maybe include a budget for chicken sacrifices.
skye
Slashdot Mirror
Jon, you did such a great job with the first article, I don't really see the point of this one.
15 year olds have power, but they are still kids, and this dilutes their "power."
that sums up the first article.
this one is, "15 year olds on the net, but they are still 15 year olds."
really, I don't see the point.
skye
I'd pay good money for a script that would somehow protect HP printers from infection, or at least create a temporary firewall of addresses infecting them.
This is the quiet side of the issue, because the printers can't infect other sites. But a printer also can't be power cycled remotely (except if you've somehow forseen this problem). The printers are also unlikely to be patched, so their security holes will exist long after this current worm is done sucking bandwidth. And I really hate walking across lab, up 3 flights of stairs, to restart the printer.
skye
I don't mean to offend the people that actually post meaningful, well thought out reviews on amazon. I'm one of those people. What I'm talking about are the one hundred million "THIS BOOK IS COOL YOU SUCK IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT" 5 star reviews that skew the system to hell. The same problem arises from their karma system, which is based off these same people clicking yes or no on reviews they like or not.
So why do we need professional reviewers? Simply because the only time you go to the review section on amazon is if you really liked, or really hated the book. A professional reviewer, ideally, should review all the books they read, and judge them fairly. They can get books cheaply/freely and have a wider range of readings. I know I can't afford to buy books I know I won't like... And I'm willing to bet most people on amazon won't either.
skye
Jon, you hit dead on this time. Actually, again. I'd be quick to point out that Amazon's "reviews" are the best reason society has for professional critics.
But the stock market... well, people are just as well off getting advice from 15 year olds as they are MBAs because the entire system is a big ponzi scheme/slot machine already. It takes little effort to reccomend a stock you think will do well, and whether or not it is doing well is fairly subjective. Remember that during the dotcom crash only 2% of real advisors said "Sell!" 2%!
And as far as "legal advice" goes, you can't use legal advice you get on the web anyways. It would be like taking a Dear Abby to court as your evidence.
So, thanks Jon, for giving us a good review of a poorly thought out book.
skye
Your analogy ALMOST works. But Cancer cells aren't really "you" anymore. Thats the whole problem.
lets say that she had a terrible parasitic lifeform in her. The doctors pull it out, and examine it for years later. Does she need compensation? After all, it IS a parasite they pulled out to save her life. What is she going to do with it? Put it in a bottle and save it for later?
Fast forward 40 years. People are still doing research on this parasite in hopes of removing its threat to humanity forever. Why would anyone even ASK about compensation? Would you ask to be compensated every time someone did research on a new type of tick found in your hair? The idea is ridiculous, and I think that this pompous filmmaker should get her head out of her ass. It seems like she is just tossing this idea around in order to attract attention to herself.
skye
You heard me. Anyone that says we are safe from nanoweapons for at least 25-100 years or some other BS answer obviously didn't see the article about Bacteriaphage nanotubes. What if those nanotubes had been designed for animal cell membranes instead of bacterial cell membranes? And then injected into a person? That's manmade ebola right there. Your organs would all be perferated at the microscopic level and NOTHING WOULD CURE IT. Granted it wouldn't reproduce/be infectious... but it would be devastating. You could probably get away with putting it in food or water. And this technology exists NOW. Not ten years, not next year. NOW. The benefits of nanotechnology are coming very quickly. But along with them come the dangers, and we are woefully underprepared to deal with some. After all, how do you cure a nanovirus that pokes holes in your cells? skye
I'm a second generation JPL employee... that is, I'm the son of a JPL employee, also employed at JPL. My dad quit from jpl 10 years ago, when the big managerial shakedowns occurred. He describes it as becoming less about science and exploration of the universe and more about rules. I have to agree with him. But the scientists themselves haven't changed. I have never met so many personally motivated, focused people anywhere else in my life. Some of these guys work long hours (without pay) programming new utilities for their own use. A friend of mine was told not to write a program, which he went ahead and did anyways on his own time. Now its the most used app in my section! And if he had listened to his manager, it never would have happened. So where are the problems at JPL? Wasteful excess staff. We have more managers than we need, by far. Hell, our "ethics" staff is probably spending valuable money making sure we don't bid on ebay using our JPL email addresses. In fact, they might crack down on me for posting on /.
Ah well. My point is that JPL has some of the finest, most science oriented personell on earth, and given the funding, they would colonize mars in a decade. But scientists need less rules, not more. We came this far in an organization founded by a pyromaniac satanist(no, really), and I think we should return to that pioneering spirit. Maybe include a budget for chicken sacrifices.
skye