I'm not saying it's likely at all, but how can one be sure that someone else didn't override his signal and took over control of the craft? Just a thought.
General knowledge has value beyond mere practical applications. It is part of the generation and maintenance of human culture. Once society rises above the level of mere subsistence, culture is pretty much the entire point of human existence. And I say this as an engineer.
For a second there I perked up at the thought you were making a reference to the original Alfred Bester, a well-known author from the golden age of sci-fi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Bester especially since the "psi" reminded me of his Hugo-winning novel, The Demolished Man, in which telepathy is a major subject. Only then did I realize, with disappointment, that this was a reference to a Babylon 5 character.
Why does it have to be propaganda? While eugenics is tainted by its association with unfortunate historical happenstance, it doesn't have to be. Many scientists are more or less in favor of genetics, with James Watson (co-discoverer of DNA's structure) a prime example. What is the alternative? When you remove natural selection pressure (and we have very strongly diluted it, and continue to do so ever more), there is very little selection left; thus, the average genetic fitness of the population will worsen over time, even if you allow a lot of leeway in how you define the fitness function and what weights you assign to its individual factors (this is because mutation without selection would tend to lead to fitness function evaluation that one would get from a random genetic distribution). The only alternative is to replace it with some sort of artificial selection. A promise of modern biotechnology may very well turn out that such a thing can be carried out without restricting the reproductive rights of individuals by ways of ever more advanced embryo genetic vetting and selection, combined with genetic engineering.
In any case, some form of eugenics is already in wide practice by individuals, and often in ways that are detrimental to the human population overall (see, for example, sex-selective abortion in China). Some sort of insitutionalized oversight of the process will be necessary if for nothing else than to counterbalance the potential damage that individuals' practice will cause.
Can someone explain to me why "try and" seems to have become so popular? It makes no logical sense as a replacement for "try to", and appears to be favored over the latter for purely euphonic reasons.
If you had bothered to read what was already posted, you would not have embarrassed yourself by writing something that was discredited by another post before you even clicked the Submit button: http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4098539&cid=44590209
Great post! As someone pointed out in the discussion to a similar story a few months ago, once civilization gets above the level of mere subsistence, culture is pretty much the entire point of human existence--something I wholeheartedly agree with, even though I'm an engineer.
Most PKI is based on certificate authorities which are likely to easily submit to government pressure. Secure key exchange with a private key system remains necessary for anything really sensitive. Right now that might mean exchanging keys in a way immune from MITM attacks by physically carrying over a storage medium containing the keys to the other party; in the meantime, quantum key distribution is making strides and eventually will be practical enough for more widespread use.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not saying it's likely at all, but how can one be sure that someone else didn't override his signal and took over control of the craft? Just a thought.
I agree with you. This sort of treatment should be given only conditional to mandatory submission to genetic screening of embryos.
You can have your pie and eat it too: genetic screening of embryos.
Actually, among developed nations, the US has fairly low upward mobility.
General knowledge has value beyond mere practical applications. It is part of the generation and maintenance of human culture. Once society rises above the level of mere subsistence, culture is pretty much the entire point of human existence. And I say this as an engineer.
That's actually three words. https://www.google.ca/#q=%22an+acronym+is+not+a+word%22
I think this point is lost on your audience--an average Slashdotter.
Never mind that "never mind" is two words, not one.
For a second there I perked up at the thought you were making a reference to the original Alfred Bester, a well-known author from the golden age of sci-fi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Bester especially since the "psi" reminded me of his Hugo-winning novel, The Demolished Man, in which telepathy is a major subject. Only then did I realize, with disappointment, that this was a reference to a Babylon 5 character.
> Farscape as it was very serial
Not to mention Babylon 5.
> "I mean there's video"
Actually, there are over 100 videos on this playlist. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUGrW-SjjbU&list=PLPC0Udeof3T4NORTjYmPoNCHn2vCByvYG&index=1
You watched _one_ video, FFS! Here's a playlist of over 100: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUGrW-SjjbU&list=PLPC0Udeof3T4NORTjYmPoNCHn2vCByvYG&index=1
Why does it have to be propaganda? While eugenics is tainted by its association with unfortunate historical happenstance, it doesn't have to be. Many scientists are more or less in favor of genetics, with James Watson (co-discoverer of DNA's structure) a prime example. What is the alternative? When you remove natural selection pressure (and we have very strongly diluted it, and continue to do so ever more), there is very little selection left; thus, the average genetic fitness of the population will worsen over time, even if you allow a lot of leeway in how you define the fitness function and what weights you assign to its individual factors (this is because mutation without selection would tend to lead to fitness function evaluation that one would get from a random genetic distribution). The only alternative is to replace it with some sort of artificial selection. A promise of modern biotechnology may very well turn out that such a thing can be carried out without restricting the reproductive rights of individuals by ways of ever more advanced embryo genetic vetting and selection, combined with genetic engineering.
In any case, some form of eugenics is already in wide practice by individuals, and often in ways that are detrimental to the human population overall (see, for example, sex-selective abortion in China). Some sort of insitutionalized oversight of the process will be necessary if for nothing else than to counterbalance the potential damage that individuals' practice will cause.
Can someone explain to me why "try and" seems to have become so popular? It makes no logical sense as a replacement for "try to", and appears to be favored over the latter for purely euphonic reasons.
No. An algorithm like AES in CFB mode, or CBC with an unpredictable IV, is mostly resistant to even very high percentage of plaintext known.
If you had bothered to read what was already posted, you would not have embarrassed yourself by writing something that was discredited by another post before you even clicked the Submit button: http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4098539&cid=44590209
You and me, brother.
Citation needed.
Many of the homeless in SF are vets, actually. I'd say your country owes them a bit more than criticism for makeshift housing in the park.
Many of the homeless in San Francisco are war veterans. I suggest one does some fact checking before making glib comments on slashdot.
It's not just a practical issue for measurement, so your "fix" is invalid. The correct explanation is in this post: http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3904863&cid=44110125
Great post! As someone pointed out in the discussion to a similar story a few months ago, once civilization gets above the level of mere subsistence, culture is pretty much the entire point of human existence--something I wholeheartedly agree with, even though I'm an engineer.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/23/opinion/sunday/the-decline-and-fall-of-the-english-major.html
Most PKI is based on certificate authorities which are likely to easily submit to government pressure. Secure key exchange with a private key system remains necessary for anything really sensitive. Right now that might mean exchanging keys in a way immune from MITM attacks by physically carrying over a storage medium containing the keys to the other party; in the meantime, quantum key distribution is making strides and eventually will be practical enough for more widespread use.
[citation needed]