The virus marker in question is the production of long, double-strand RNA. This is not something that ever happens in a healthy cell, and I don't think it happens in cells that contain dormant virus material (such as herpes), which I believe are stored as DNA fragments during their dormant period.
It's a very interesting discovery.
So, if you could cause dormant viruses to become active while taking this drug, would it attack them? Looks like maybe a specific drug cocktail (drug that activates herpes + the wonder drug) could take out a number of viruses that would normally stay under the radar.
It's pretty easy to tell what is and isn't running, and is a handy, one-click method of accessing your most common tasks. I can't compare it to the OSX dock - it's been years since I've seen it.
If you're in a growth phase, and can make more profit than the interest on your loan, why would you limit your growth by reducing your working capital? This isn't something you can do forever, but even a lifetime is a pretty short timespan in relation to some companies (Hudson Bay Company, for instance, was founded over 300 years ago). This is what investing is all about (doing something with your money where you have a reasonable expectation of making more money than putting it in a savings account). Greater rewards typically come with greater risks.
From what you've said, I agree, it sounds like this guy needs to feel the full force of the law.
But, again, I don't see the need for a new law, or an amendment to an existing law. He's uttering threats and harassing, we already have laws for that. There's also the restraining order you mentioned, which is generally one of the legal steps in filtering people who talk to you. So why do we need some law that basically says the same thing, "with a computer"? This is as absurd and pointless as patents with the same addendum. It's blatantly obvious that harassment via the internet is no less illegal than harassment via letter or a human proxy (which I'm pretty sure the existing laws already cover).
On the other hand, if you put up a big sign saying "Come say whatever you like to me", then I would say the onus is more on you to filter out the comments you don't want to see. If you want to stand on a soapbox on a street corner, you might have to put up with some heckling.
Am I the only one that was hoping for a scene on a train, so that Harrison Ford could tell an alien to "Get off my train"?
Please, no. That would require a new action movie with a fight scene on top of a car so he could say "Get off my automobile." The world doesn't need that.
It's hard to fix something without spending anything. The USA had a decade of almost unregulated Enron economics and the hole it fell into can't be patched for free.
While this is true, the solution for getting out of a hole is rarely to keep digging and hope you come out the other side.
A lot of posters are missing the point. Running this algorithm negates the 'benefit' derived by turning up the loudness (properly, compressing the dynamic range). Once that becomes the norm, the hope is that the record producers will stop compressing the dynamic range for marketing purposes, and we can get decent quality recordings again. Note that this may not improve the overall quality of the music.
Email can be tedious to configure for your groups, and deciding which groups to use, etc. Also, it requires some level of technical skill (or an unwieldy sending of duplicate data) to view a stream of posts in a single thread initiated by a single person. In defence of that last statement, try to remember how you feel about the 15 reply all emails about a topic that you aren't very concerned about.
It is not about surrendering the keys to the freezer where you dumped the body. It is not about obstructing a lawful search of the premises.
What if I had coded instructions to the location of the body? Could I then be "compelled" to provide the key? What if it was only suspected that it was coded instructions to the location of the body? As it is, if you don't have the body, you can't compel a suspect to provide the location (and therefore proof of knowledge of the crime). Equally, the police have no idea what they have right now either. In a lot of ways, it sounds like they're playing Let's Make a Deal. "We don't have enough evidence to lock the case, and we think you have some here. So, you can go to jail for contempt of court, or you can give us a pile of evidence we can't quite use yet (and presumably definitely go to jail). What? Chuckle politely and tell me to do my own job? No, door number three isn't available..."
Simpler solution. Make an encrypted system that has a kill phrase. Since they are asking the user to enter the pass phrase, she can just enter the kill phrase instead (this assumes the encrypted system is hardware synced, so they can't just have a working copy of the file stream). At that point the issue becomes moot under the arguments given by the DOJ.
Of course, there's a simpler analogy, which should be used. If I have a stack of documents in a safe that's locked by a key, they can compel me to hand over the key. Now, what if it uses a combination? If I can be compelled to hand that over (which I expect you can be), this is exactly the same - a memorised sequence of steps required to provide access to my secured documents.
As someone once said, one-in-a-million occurrences happen every day. But yes, you'd be foolish to assume there's a significant risk. The big issue is the margin of error - if it hits earth there's a reasonable chance it could hit something significant.
I would bet that the current state of GPS (possibly augmented with inertial navigation) is more reliable than computers that can read traffic signs.
Also, the reliability of the GPS signal is easily verified. When the GPS error becomes too big, it can alert the human driver.
Take a look at the digital cameras in the $150 range. They can track faces quite well. Big numbers on a high-contrast sign sounds pretty easy. Besides, there is also the issue of obstacles, road changes, etc., which require at least sonar, as well as image sensing to be reasonable.
Instead of reading the traffic signs, it would probably be easier to use GPS coordinates, and consult a traffic database.
There's easier, and there's less prone to interruption. GPS has known reliability issues, and would at most be used as one of a redundant set of systems.
Nice to ignore the transformative nature of the argument. I can appreciate some of the elements of the Mona Lisa in a 320 x 240 reproduction, but it wouldn't be the same experience as viewing a high-res version. The same would apply for a still-copyrighted photograph (which would be covered under the ruling listed above). Now, how would you think that the artistic experience between an image and a pixelated version of it would be the same?
Of course, you totally neglect the fact the the pixelated version was hand-drawn. You should take a little of your time and give Andy Warhol a stern talking to.
If your aren't working, or have a family member who is, what right do you have to expect anything given to you? It's not practical to save everyone.
Yes, it's far more practical to have these people engage in criminal activity, live on the streets, or just slowly die knowing there's a place not far away where they could be saved if they had enough money.
First, that's a lovely world you live in. I'll take crappy Canadian healthcare over the "best money can buy" American system, any day.
Second, think of the social cost, known and unknown, that such a system entails. I think we're all fortunate that Stephen Hawking is British.
<Thor Spoiler Alert> That's what bothered me about Thor... "oh the king is sick, nope instantly better." "Oh, I'll never see Amidala again! Just kidding, there's always a way to restore the waygates." "Oh no, he lost his brother Loki! Wait now Loki's talking to Nick Fury in the post-credits scene." What the hell, Hollywood? I understand that people go to movies to escape reality but what does it even mean when Thor sacrifices any connection to his woman to save an enemy race from genocide and then scenes later it turns out you're just going to make a sequel to undo that? </Thor Spoiler Alert>
Sucks when they actually follow the mythology, doesn't it?
Odinsleep isn't permanent until Ragnarok. Anyone who knows anything at all about the Thor comic knows Odin is going to wake up, so that isn't a surprise.
Given the presumption of a technological solution to travel between the various worlds/realms, why would you think it could never be done again? Given the mythological premise, Bifrost lasts until Ragnarok, in which case we still expect any issues with its use to be transient, or of a political nature (Odin says no).
Loki is the trickster, and known for worrying about his own skin more than pretty much everything else except playing pranks. Given the personality, does it seem plausible that he would sacrifice himself if he didn't have to? Given the premise in the movie, he was well versed in the secret paths between worlds. when he fell, I was certain he wasn't giving up on life, but making the others think so while he took one of those paths.
In point of fact, a poorly-thought-out system cost them profits. If the store requires that someone be there to cash out customers, why not just leave the door locks manual and give the management staff who will be there during store hours keys to the doors?
Besides, it's pretty clear that the loss of profits had a great deal to do with no one being there to take the money from at least half of the potential customers.
Ah, the "I'm right and you're wrong" response. Very informative!
The core issue is, MS is pushing a redundant technology the only way they can - by limiting access to products or services unless people cave and install their product. The technology isn't being sold on its merits, it's being forced on people as the only way to access certain information. Moreover, the technology isn't meant to ever be pervasive - they're only hitting major platforms. It's very much like IE 6, and the problems that caused.
I guess this just means that someone needs to build a silverlight-to-other ripping utility. More wasted effort to combat closed, short-sighted policies.
P.S. You do realize that good enough is the definition of sufficient, don't you?
The difference is, there is some reasonable assurance that when a library lends out a physical book, another doesn't magically spring into existence. And most people don't have a real-time, easy-to-use scanner to turn a physical book into an ebook in a trivial manner (not that more than one person needs one). While they might not be entirely happy that books are being lent, at least that one sale did occur.
Technically, under any GPL license, if you haven't released the product, then you don't have to release the source. Depending on the wording of their contracts when they released test versions, the whole thing could be GPL (any version) and still be compliant.
Another way to say it is: They will (or may) release the source when they release the binaries.
And for the car analogy. This is akin to getting angry at Ford for not selling 2013 cars in South America. They aren't selling them anywhere! Which, yes, includes South America.
Slashdot Mirror
The virus marker in question is the production of long, double-strand RNA. This is not something that ever happens in a healthy cell, and I don't think it happens in cells that contain dormant virus material (such as herpes), which I believe are stored as DNA fragments during their dormant period.
It's a very interesting discovery.
So, if you could cause dormant viruses to become active while taking this drug, would it attack them? Looks like maybe a specific drug cocktail (drug that activates herpes + the wonder drug) could take out a number of viruses that would normally stay under the radar.
It's pretty easy to tell what is and isn't running, and is a handy, one-click method of accessing your most common tasks. I can't compare it to the OSX dock - it's been years since I've seen it.
If you're in a growth phase, and can make more profit than the interest on your loan, why would you limit your growth by reducing your working capital? This isn't something you can do forever, but even a lifetime is a pretty short timespan in relation to some companies (Hudson Bay Company, for instance, was founded over 300 years ago). This is what investing is all about (doing something with your money where you have a reasonable expectation of making more money than putting it in a savings account). Greater rewards typically come with greater risks.
From what you've said, I agree, it sounds like this guy needs to feel the full force of the law.
But, again, I don't see the need for a new law, or an amendment to an existing law. He's uttering threats and harassing, we already have laws for that. There's also the restraining order you mentioned, which is generally one of the legal steps in filtering people who talk to you. So why do we need some law that basically says the same thing, "with a computer"? This is as absurd and pointless as patents with the same addendum. It's blatantly obvious that harassment via the internet is no less illegal than harassment via letter or a human proxy (which I'm pretty sure the existing laws already cover).
On the other hand, if you put up a big sign saying "Come say whatever you like to me", then I would say the onus is more on you to filter out the comments you don't want to see. If you want to stand on a soapbox on a street corner, you might have to put up with some heckling.
Am I the only one that was hoping for a scene on a train, so that Harrison Ford could tell an alien to "Get off my train"?
Please, no. That would require a new action movie with a fight scene on top of a car so he could say "Get off my automobile." The world doesn't need that.
It's hard to fix something without spending anything. The USA had a decade of almost unregulated Enron economics and the hole it fell into can't be patched for free.
While this is true, the solution for getting out of a hole is rarely to keep digging and hope you come out the other side.
A lot of posters are missing the point. Running this algorithm negates the 'benefit' derived by turning up the loudness (properly, compressing the dynamic range). Once that becomes the norm, the hope is that the record producers will stop compressing the dynamic range for marketing purposes, and we can get decent quality recordings again. Note that this may not improve the overall quality of the music.
Email can be tedious to configure for your groups, and deciding which groups to use, etc. Also, it requires some level of technical skill (or an unwieldy sending of duplicate data) to view a stream of posts in a single thread initiated by a single person. In defence of that last statement, try to remember how you feel about the 15 reply all emails about a topic that you aren't very concerned about.
It is not about surrendering the keys to the freezer where you dumped the body. It is not about obstructing a lawful search of the premises.
What if I had coded instructions to the location of the body? Could I then be "compelled" to provide the key? What if it was only suspected that it was coded instructions to the location of the body? As it is, if you don't have the body, you can't compel a suspect to provide the location (and therefore proof of knowledge of the crime). Equally, the police have no idea what they have right now either. In a lot of ways, it sounds like they're playing Let's Make a Deal. "We don't have enough evidence to lock the case, and we think you have some here. So, you can go to jail for contempt of court, or you can give us a pile of evidence we can't quite use yet (and presumably definitely go to jail). What? Chuckle politely and tell me to do my own job? No, door number three isn't available..."
Simpler solution. Make an encrypted system that has a kill phrase. Since they are asking the user to enter the pass phrase, she can just enter the kill phrase instead (this assumes the encrypted system is hardware synced, so they can't just have a working copy of the file stream). At that point the issue becomes moot under the arguments given by the DOJ.
Of course, there's a simpler analogy, which should be used. If I have a stack of documents in a safe that's locked by a key, they can compel me to hand over the key. Now, what if it uses a combination? If I can be compelled to hand that over (which I expect you can be), this is exactly the same - a memorised sequence of steps required to provide access to my secured documents.
As someone once said, one-in-a-million occurrences happen every day. But yes, you'd be foolish to assume there's a significant risk. The big issue is the margin of error - if it hits earth there's a reasonable chance it could hit something significant.
I would bet that the current state of GPS (possibly augmented with inertial navigation) is more reliable than computers that can read traffic signs.
Also, the reliability of the GPS signal is easily verified. When the GPS error becomes too big, it can alert the human driver.
Take a look at the digital cameras in the $150 range. They can track faces quite well. Big numbers on a high-contrast sign sounds pretty easy. Besides, there is also the issue of obstacles, road changes, etc., which require at least sonar, as well as image sensing to be reasonable.
Instead of reading the traffic signs, it would probably be easier to use GPS coordinates, and consult a traffic database.
There's easier, and there's less prone to interruption. GPS has known reliability issues, and would at most be used as one of a redundant set of systems.
Nice to ignore the transformative nature of the argument. I can appreciate some of the elements of the Mona Lisa in a 320 x 240 reproduction, but it wouldn't be the same experience as viewing a high-res version. The same would apply for a still-copyrighted photograph (which would be covered under the ruling listed above). Now, how would you think that the artistic experience between an image and a pixelated version of it would be the same?
Of course, you totally neglect the fact the the pixelated version was hand-drawn. You should take a little of your time and give Andy Warhol a stern talking to.
If your aren't working, or have a family member who is, what right do you have to expect anything given to you? It's not practical to save everyone.
Yes, it's far more practical to have these people engage in criminal activity, live on the streets, or just slowly die knowing there's a place not far away where they could be saved if they had enough money.
First, that's a lovely world you live in. I'll take crappy Canadian healthcare over the "best money can buy" American system, any day.
Second, think of the social cost, known and unknown, that such a system entails. I think we're all fortunate that Stephen Hawking is British.
<Thor Spoiler Alert> That's what bothered me about Thor ... "oh the king is sick, nope instantly better." "Oh, I'll never see Amidala again! Just kidding, there's always a way to restore the waygates." "Oh no, he lost his brother Loki! Wait now Loki's talking to Nick Fury in the post-credits scene." What the hell, Hollywood? I understand that people go to movies to escape reality but what does it even mean when Thor sacrifices any connection to his woman to save an enemy race from genocide and then scenes later it turns out you're just going to make a sequel to undo that? </Thor Spoiler Alert>
Sucks when they actually follow the mythology, doesn't it?
Odinsleep isn't permanent until Ragnarok. Anyone who knows anything at all about the Thor comic knows Odin is going to wake up, so that isn't a surprise.
Given the presumption of a technological solution to travel between the various worlds/realms, why would you think it could never be done again? Given the mythological premise, Bifrost lasts until Ragnarok, in which case we still expect any issues with its use to be transient, or of a political nature (Odin says no).
Loki is the trickster, and known for worrying about his own skin more than pretty much everything else except playing pranks. Given the personality, does it seem plausible that he would sacrifice himself if he didn't have to? Given the premise in the movie, he was well versed in the secret paths between worlds. when he fell, I was certain he wasn't giving up on life, but making the others think so while he took one of those paths.
Four words: United States Postal Service.
In point of fact, a poorly-thought-out system cost them profits. If the store requires that someone be there to cash out customers, why not just leave the door locks manual and give the management staff who will be there during store hours keys to the doors?
Besides, it's pretty clear that the loss of profits had a great deal to do with no one being there to take the money from at least half of the potential customers.
Sony didn't just remove OtherOS from the Slim, they removed it from all current and past PS3s by a forced PSN update.
And you're missing one key sentence. From the GPP:
That scared the crap out of Sony, and that's what caused them to remove OtherOS from existing consoles.
Ah, the "I'm right and you're wrong" response. Very informative!
The core issue is, MS is pushing a redundant technology the only way they can - by limiting access to products or services unless people cave and install their product. The technology isn't being sold on its merits, it's being forced on people as the only way to access certain information. Moreover, the technology isn't meant to ever be pervasive - they're only hitting major platforms. It's very much like IE 6, and the problems that caused.
I guess this just means that someone needs to build a silverlight-to-other ripping utility. More wasted effort to combat closed, short-sighted policies.
P.S. You do realize that good enough is the definition of sufficient, don't you?
Find me a Linux distro that supports 10 year old versions, on the desktop.
Find me a version upgrade of a Linux distro that costs less than the upgrade from XP to Win7. Hmm, that's a lot easier, isn't it?
The difference is, there is some reasonable assurance that when a library lends out a physical book, another doesn't magically spring into existence. And most people don't have a real-time, easy-to-use scanner to turn a physical book into an ebook in a trivial manner (not that more than one person needs one). While they might not be entirely happy that books are being lent, at least that one sale did occur.
Yes. It's unknown if life there will politely mock Americans, but given the dual nature of their system, a passive-aggressive attitude seems likely.
Technically, under any GPL license, if you haven't released the product, then you don't have to release the source. Depending on the wording of their contracts when they released test versions, the whole thing could be GPL (any version) and still be compliant.
Another way to say it is: They will (or may) release the source when they release the binaries.
And for the car analogy. This is akin to getting angry at Ford for not selling 2013 cars in South America. They aren't selling them anywhere! Which, yes, includes South America.