The point of lifting the ban is to allow research on real stem cells
The point of lifting the ban is to allow federal funding of research on real stem cells. The research itself was never banned, and apparently thrived on private funding.
I was told that Bush prohibited all stem-cell science when fetal tissue was involved. The article seems to imply that he only limited federal funding for such science.
You were 'told' wrong. The article is correct. There was no blanket ban on stem cell research. Just no govt funding of new embryonic stem cell research. Fed funding for other stem cell research was ok, as was private funding for any stem cell research.
To use the claasic "car analogy" it's like driving around in a smashed-up pinto versus a brand-new Volvo. If you're worried about surviving an accident the choice of vehicles is obvious.
And people still die in Volvos. Yes, it may be harder to do so, but the uberidiot will always find a way.
The poster implied that that using something other than Windows would have been better. I posit that this particular user would have screwed the pooch no matter what OS they were on. This was not a built-in vulnerability of Windows (of which there are many). This was a built-in vulnerability of being an idiot user.
The OS doesn't matter (much). The real problems are:
1. the idiot who thought it was OK to install a file sharing program on a work computer 2. the idiot who installed said program, AND had the folder/directory containing the sensitive files shared out. 3. the idiot admins who allowed him to install said program 4. the idiot admins who allowed that traffic over the network 5. the idiot admins who allowed those ports open 6. people who think that 'anything but Windows' is automatically secure.
On any other OS, this idiot would have done exactly the same thing, simply because he is an idiot.
Re:This too was foreseen
on
Designer Babies
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Freedom means putting up with shit you don't like.
Freedom to choose, without taking into account the generational implications, may mean stuff we ALL don't like. We just don't know it yet. And by the time we do know it, it may be too late. Let's take China's (old) policy of 1 child per family. Leads to a glut of boy children. We have no idea what implications that may bring in the next decade or 3. May lead to nothing, may lead to a world war.
'Freedom' is one thing...stupid, selfish, misguided 'choices' that affect us all is quite another.
hmmm....sounds like the climate change vs the anti climate change argument. Fuck you, I'm gonna build a coal plant and drive my Hummer. "freedom means putting up with shit you don't like"
...allow them to serve country specific content rather than just blocking them?
Country specific ads? Maybe you're not sure of how they work, but CBS does not produce and air ads out of their own pocket. To serve 'country specific content' (ads), CBS would have to contract with some retailers/manufacturers/advertisers everywhere. They're not that savvy yet. Or maybe they just don't want to.
And it's not just country, but region. The aforementioned Miami vs Minnesota situation looks at very different products based on time of year. And putting a totally incorrect ad in front of the eyeballs (snowtires in Miami) tends to cast a bad light on the network airing the show + ad.
You'd think they'd be happy to get the money/eyes on ads from any place willing to pay/watch.
Nope. Ads are very time and location specific. They can't advertise the same things everywhere at the same time. Sandals vs snowtires, & Miami vs Minnesota. In traditional media (TV and print), it is easy. But retailers and advertisers are still trying to figure out how to manage that concept in the online world.
Where did you get the idea that you get to set the terms at which you get other people's stuff?
Um, that is a standard theme in here. See music, mp3, RIAA, MPAA, and similar. The general thought seems to be "Who the fuck are they to dictate how we get the music and movies that we want?"
You mean like that manned military jet in San Diego didn't not manage to do?
When the aircraft is no longer flying...i.e. not enough thrust to maintain lift, or completely broken flight controls, it matters little who in theoretical control, a human or a silicon chip. At that point, Sir Isaac is flying the aircraft, and it WILL land where he wants.
The pilot in San Diego was trying to nurse it enough to get to the canyon. Didn't make it. There was nothing more he could do. Could silicon have made a better choice? The pilot of the Hudson Airbus did have just enough speed/altitude to make the river landing. The bird strike a few seconds earlier would not have left him the option of the river. In any case, we are not at the point of being able to program that decision tree into the AI.
This really will only have commercial applications, for non-living cargo.
The USAF flies an assload of non-combat aircraft. Cargo and tankers. Cargo: Take this load of stuff from here to there. Tankers: Fly a predetermined racetrack in this area, and come home.
Yes, there are times when those missions need to deviate. But that might happen on any mission...fighter, cargo, tanker, or otherwise. An AI that can take a Global Hawk from Edwards, CA to Oz can fly a typical tanker mission. (until things go weird, anyway)
I have met many brilliant Indian IT techs, and for every one I meet, they have ten incompetent comrades (and I'm not talking about the language barrier).
My experience exactly. And THEN you toss the language/timezone barriers on top of it, and you have a real clusterfuck.
They're also highly ineffective. Very little fallout can be spread through conventional means. And of the fallout that does spread, you'll kill very few people. The explosion intended to disperse the materials is guaranteed to kill more people than the radioactive fallout.
As a terror weapon, it works. The people who do not understand the difference vastly outnumber the ones who do. BOMB? Radiation!?! SERIOUS PANIC
Will it actually rack up a large body count? No. But the resulting panic (OMG terrorist Radiation!!) would be far, far worse than anything we've yet seen.
Why is "adult entertainment" so exclusive anyway? You know, they could have extremely tame erotic websites to cater to kids who are interested. Probably like softcore Playboy pics or something.
Same filtering, just at a different level. Oh, and that idea is batshit crazy.
I really wonder how I am going to handle this with my children.
Have the PC in a common room, with the monitor facing the room. And, even after they are older, make a point of walking through the room once in a while. You'd be surprised how effective that is. Not 100% (nothing is), but not bad. When the kid knows you may be standing right behind them at any time...it really puts a clamp on what they try to do. And the kid has to know by example...i.e. you doing it.
Slashdot Mirror
The point of lifting the ban is to allow research on real stem cells
The point of lifting the ban is to allow federal funding of research on real stem cells.
The research itself was never banned, and apparently thrived on private funding.
I was told that Bush prohibited all stem-cell science when fetal tissue was involved. The article seems to imply that he only limited federal funding for such science.
You were 'told' wrong. The article is correct. There was no blanket ban on stem cell research. Just no govt funding of new embryonic stem cell research. Fed funding for other stem cell research was ok, as was private funding for any stem cell research.
The expiration date on mine was Apr 7 09. 90 days after Jan 7 ("early Jan"). Apparently the date they were printed/mailed.
I don't need the converter boxes (have cable), but got them in case of future need.
I got two today at Circuit City. Free, when you use the coupons.
I applied for the coupons around Xmas, got then early Jan, used them today.
Our CC closes Mar 8.
Is Marine One like Air Force One in that it's not a specific helicopter, but just whichever helicopter the President happens to be in?
Yes, but I imagine the fleet of birds the Marines use to transport the President are very similar.
The newer AIM-120's can be truck mounted. Not trivial, but it works.
To use the claasic "car analogy" it's like driving around in a smashed-up pinto versus a brand-new Volvo. If you're worried about surviving an accident the choice of vehicles is obvious.
And people still die in Volvos. Yes, it may be harder to do so, but the uberidiot will always find a way.
The poster implied that that using something other than Windows would have been better. I posit that this particular user would have screwed the pooch no matter what OS they were on. This was not a built-in vulnerability of Windows (of which there are many). This was a built-in vulnerability of being an idiot user.
1b. the idiot admin that had not removed user ability to install random software on a work computer...
AKA #3 above.
The OS doesn't matter (much). The real problems are:
1. the idiot who thought it was OK to install a file sharing program on a work computer
2. the idiot who installed said program, AND had the folder/directory containing the sensitive files shared out.
3. the idiot admins who allowed him to install said program
4. the idiot admins who allowed that traffic over the network
5. the idiot admins who allowed those ports open
6. people who think that 'anything but Windows' is automatically secure.
On any other OS, this idiot would have done exactly the same thing, simply because he is an idiot.
Freedom means putting up with shit you don't like.
Freedom to choose, without taking into account the generational implications, may mean stuff we ALL don't like. We just don't know it yet. And by the time we do know it, it may be too late.
Let's take China's (old) policy of 1 child per family. Leads to a glut of boy children. We have no idea what implications that may bring in the next decade or 3. May lead to nothing, may lead to a world war.
'Freedom' is one thing...stupid, selfish, misguided 'choices' that affect us all is quite another.
hmmm....sounds like the climate change vs the anti climate change argument.
Fuck you, I'm gonna build a coal plant and drive my Hummer. "freedom means putting up with shit you don't like"
Wouldn't it just make more sense to have solar panels in orbit and transmit the power along the space elevator?
Maybe. Build a space elevator and try it.
I do. A little here, a little there...pretty soon there is none left.
And this is only the tip of the iceberg.
I'm ready to give up my car as soon as it is practical. I live in the boonies though, so I'm not an early candidate.
Thats the ticket! Everybody give up your cars! (Except me)
...allow them to serve country specific content rather than just blocking them?
Country specific ads? Maybe you're not sure of how they work, but CBS does not produce and air ads out of their own pocket. To serve 'country specific content' (ads), CBS would have to contract with some retailers/manufacturers/advertisers everywhere.
They're not that savvy yet. Or maybe they just don't want to.
And it's not just country, but region. The aforementioned Miami vs Minnesota situation looks at very different products based on time of year. And putting a totally incorrect ad in front of the eyeballs (snowtires in Miami) tends to cast a bad light on the network airing the show + ad.
You'd think they'd be happy to get the money/eyes on ads from any place willing to pay/watch.
Nope. Ads are very time and location specific. They can't advertise the same things everywhere at the same time. Sandals vs snowtires, & Miami vs Minnesota.
In traditional media (TV and print), it is easy. But retailers and advertisers are still trying to figure out how to manage that concept in the online world.
Where did you get the idea that you get to set the terms at which you get other people's stuff?
Um, that is a standard theme in here. See music, mp3, RIAA, MPAA, and similar.
The general thought seems to be "Who the fuck are they to dictate how we get the music and movies that we want?"
So? Assign them to each student in the same manner as textbooks.
And the 11 year old gets mugged for his laptop on his way home.
You mean like that manned military jet in San Diego didn't not manage to do?
When the aircraft is no longer flying...i.e. not enough thrust to maintain lift, or completely broken flight controls, it matters little who in theoretical control, a human or a silicon chip. At that point, Sir Isaac is flying the aircraft, and it WILL land where he wants.
The pilot in San Diego was trying to nurse it enough to get to the canyon. Didn't make it. There was nothing more he could do. Could silicon have made a better choice?
The pilot of the Hudson Airbus did have just enough speed/altitude to make the river landing. The bird strike a few seconds earlier would not have left him the option of the river.
In any case, we are not at the point of being able to program that decision tree into the AI.
This really will only have commercial applications, for non-living cargo.
The USAF flies an assload of non-combat aircraft. Cargo and tankers.
Cargo: Take this load of stuff from here to there.
Tankers: Fly a predetermined racetrack in this area, and come home.
Yes, there are times when those missions need to deviate. But that might happen on any mission...fighter, cargo, tanker, or otherwise.
An AI that can take a Global Hawk from Edwards, CA to Oz can fly a typical tanker mission. (until things go weird, anyway)
You an remove the word "Indian" from the above statement and it's pretty much still going to be true.
As my dad (tech wizard from WAY back) used to say..."if you pay peanuts, you get monkeys".
Yes, they're small ... but they do everything and they can be carried around *very* easily.
"carried around very easily" = 'carried out of the building very easily'
I have met many brilliant Indian IT techs, and for every one I meet, they have ten incompetent comrades (and I'm not talking about the language barrier).
My experience exactly. And THEN you toss the language/timezone barriers on top of it, and you have a real clusterfuck.
They're also highly ineffective. Very little fallout can be spread through conventional means. And of the fallout that does spread, you'll kill very few people. The explosion intended to disperse the materials is guaranteed to kill more people than the radioactive fallout.
As a terror weapon, it works. The people who do not understand the difference vastly outnumber the ones who do.
BOMB? Radiation!?! SERIOUS PANIC
Will it actually rack up a large body count? No. But the resulting panic (OMG terrorist Radiation!!) would be far, far worse than anything we've yet seen.
Why is "adult entertainment" so exclusive anyway? You know, they could have extremely tame erotic websites to cater to kids who are interested. Probably like softcore Playboy pics or something.
Same filtering, just at a different level.
Oh, and that idea is batshit crazy.
I really wonder how I am going to handle this with my children.
Have the PC in a common room, with the monitor facing the room. And, even after they are older, make a point of walking through the room once in a while.
You'd be surprised how effective that is. Not 100% (nothing is), but not bad. When the kid knows you may be standing right behind them at any time...it really puts a clamp on what they try to do. And the kid has to know by example...i.e. you doing it.