The reason is that, once grown your medial frontal gyrus, which makes the "what/when/where" go/no-go decisions is already grown.
It's not quite that simple. Changing genes in a developed brain isn't going to change gross structure, but it could well change low-level biochemical behavior, perhaps changing the levels of specific neurotransmitters, or changing the way that the brain forms new connections or breaks old ones.
It seems unlikely that gene editing could turn a Republican into a Democrat, but it doesn't seem so unlikely that it could turn a happy person into a severely depressed one, or maybe seriously decrease (or increase?) the ability to form new long-term memories, etc. Of course, those same things can be done with drugs.
It's highly unlikely that the gene expression can be permanently changed at that level. You could certainly damage organelles to achieve that effect -- long term Marijuana and LSD use is known to permanently alter brain chemistry -- it's just not at a genetic level.
All our current crop of Alzheimers and vascular dementia drugs operate through direct action, rather than indirect action.
I understand that some people believe in epigenetic effects, but the only place they've been demonstrated is on rather simple organizisms, and only through three replications.
In other words: Lamarckian Evolution is is in no way poised to make a comeback.
Medicated blood pressure to reduce it is, definitionally, a weighted moving average, trending downward.
Cholesterol is on the same slope.
Blood pressure was considered normal at 140/90 in the 1970's; now 120/80 is "the new normal".
Expect it to continue to decrease, as more medication is prescribed, because -- in fact -- the average will be lower over time, if you average it across all people, rather than just untreated people.
It would be fun to be able to design these bots, though that is not a task my company does. Still, I wonder if we can't go ultra simple? What about something like a bot based only on hydraulic lines, with a fiber optic camera? Can you pass a video image with pure fiber and no electronics? I'm assuming the hydraulic fluid could be controlled by a pneumatic valves. By using air to control movement, you don't need a return line for it. That leaves you with a fiber optic bundle, a send and return hydraulic line, and some smaller bundle of low pressure air lines.
It has been discussed.
The major issue is that the amorphous microscopic structures are particularly prone to radiation induced discoloration of the fiber optic lines. This is worse for the transparent and translucent thermoplastic copolymers, such as methylmethacrylate or polycarbonate.
You'd be replacing the optical fiber fairly frequently, particularly if it were a modern plastic, rather than true glass, although glass will have similar issues.
You end up with coloring in both the visible light regions, and in the IR and UV bands.
This is commonly known as "browning".
While technically, you could throw a laser through the fiber to heat and/or otherwise cause fading.
However, it's going to happen in and around 10^10 Rad.
You can read the original paper by W.H. Cropper here; it was published in 1962:
Altering genes which make up core personalities is difficult be a use of nature vs nurtures very real.
No, that's definitely not the reason.
The reason is that, once grown your medial frontal gyrus, which makes the "what/when/where" go/no-go decisions is already grown.
Unless you intend to dike it out and grow a new on in its place, those genes have already been spent to create tissue that has a particular preference for function.
Just like the hippocampus and amygdala would have to be diked out and regrown, in order to change someone base sexuality.
"Give us the information, so we can see if you are sharing the information with anyone!"
Uh... yeah... we realize Missouri is "The Show Me State" and all, but if we gave you the information, then it would mean that, yes, we shared information with someone: "Those Guys In Missouri".
I would say that people in technology finds it odd and cares.
You would be wrong.
People in legal just raises an eyebrow and then follows the standard procedure for when people destroy evidence.
No evidence was destroyed, from a legal standpoint, due to the FBI having maintained "chain of custody". The server is still there, it's just not located on the old hardware. Anyone trying to bitch about "destroyed evidence" has no F-ing idea how servers work, how backups work, how forensic data analysis works, or how the law treats "custodial forensic copies" as being the same as the actual copies.
If I shred a Michael Jackson "Thriller" CD, all copies of "Thriller" everywhere don't disappear from reality. If it contained evidence, every copy contains the same evidence.
You have to be completely technologically ignorant to not understand these things.
I guess the really interesting question is whether it's going to head out on the same vector it came in on, in which case it's most likely a flyby... everything else being really improbably likely to go out the way it came in.
You don't find it odd that the server was wiped after a lawsuit was filed?
No one who understands technology finds it odd, or even cares.
A server is the data the server contains, not the physical hardware.
The FBI still has "the server", with a legally admissible chain of custody, so it doesn't matter if the hardware itself was repurposed as material in an art exhibit, or whatever.
People are mostly complaining that there is a diminishing market for stolen goods.
There are plenty of parts for iPhones available on eBay.
They come from stolen iPhones. Stolen parts are always cheaper than freshly purchased parts. If that wasn't true, there would be no chop-shops for stolen cars.
Because there is a secondary repair market, it makes it valuable to steal an iPhone. If you make it so those parts can't be used in another iPhone, then the only people stealing iPhones are assholes who don't want them for parts, they just want to deprive you of an iPhone.
And nothing really prevents you from acquiring the $15,000+ worth of reflow oven and microscopic soldering station and other equipment -- or the Apple Authorized Repair Center certification, which would grant you access to the legitimate (but more expensive than the stolen ones) spare parts.
The only "security" I see is mainly protection from "jailbreaking," so legal owners of a product can't use or upgrade their devices.
That's not what it's there for.
It's there for two reasons:
1. To keep you from F-ing around with the baseband firmware for the SDR.
This prevents you and a bunch of your Jihadi buddies staging a terrorist attack, and then interfering with the ability of emergency responders to actually react effectively to the attack in order to mitigate damages.
People do not want you dicking with the SDR, because preventing you from doing that keeps you off the emergency responder and military frequencies with commodity devices that look like normal cell phones until you run the jamming package.
2. To keep third parties from dropping malware onto your device.
If you have to have a chain of trust to get software onto a lot of devices, it doesn't matter if you can get it onto just one developer device, or get it onto hundreds of enterprise enrolled devices, that's not the same as getting it onto 10% of the planetary devices of a given type.
They are able to reverse engineer for interoperability.
Not to publish internal implementation details to further a political agenda.
Would I prefer Microsoft not collect this crap? Yes.
Would I prefer that the Dutch government not reverse engineer the update process sufficiently that they could put government spyware on the thing in place of a normal update? Also yes.
Obscurity can be a perfectly valid defense layer for an attacker, so I'm not sure why you think there's no technical argument for it.
The real equivalent to camouflage paint on the Internet is to not show up on nmap and other port scans. That's not obscurity, that's not offering an unnecessary attack surface -- just as with tank visibility against backgrounds.
I guarantee you that the desert camouflage stands out like a sore thumb in Leningrad in the winter.
You make a terrible assumption that the Russians would TELL the vendor of exploits they'd find as well as bother to use the software internally themselves.
If the Russians get so far as to sign a letter of intent, in order to get access to audit the source code...and then decline to purchase...that's a pretty strong positive indicator of exploitable bugs.
At which point you schedule the NSA to audit the code, so that those bugs can be addressed.
Credit card information isn't stored with the browser (on the Mac at least, I don't know about anywhere else). It's stored in the Keychain, a much safer place.
It doesn't matter, if Safari is willing to go into the keychain and then to provide the data to a hidden field, without a user notification.
I talked to Visa, gave them the information, and a list of about 150 sites that had the exploit being actively used. Then it was also reported to Apple.
Slashdot Mirror
The reason is that, once grown your medial frontal gyrus, which makes the "what/when/where" go/no-go decisions is already grown.
It's not quite that simple. Changing genes in a developed brain isn't going to change gross structure, but it could well change low-level biochemical behavior, perhaps changing the levels of specific neurotransmitters, or changing the way that the brain forms new connections or breaks old ones.
It seems unlikely that gene editing could turn a Republican into a Democrat, but it doesn't seem so unlikely that it could turn a happy person into a severely depressed one, or maybe seriously decrease (or increase?) the ability to form new long-term memories, etc. Of course, those same things can be done with drugs.
It's highly unlikely that the gene expression can be permanently changed at that level. You could certainly damage organelles to achieve that effect -- long term Marijuana and LSD use is known to permanently alter brain chemistry -- it's just not at a genetic level.
All our current crop of Alzheimers and vascular dementia drugs operate through direct action, rather than indirect action.
I understand that some people believe in epigenetic effects, but the only place they've been demonstrated is on rather simple organizisms, and only through three replications.
In other words: Lamarckian Evolution is is in no way poised to make a comeback.
This was guaranteed to happen eventually.
Medicated blood pressure to reduce it is, definitionally, a weighted moving average, trending downward.
Cholesterol is on the same slope.
Blood pressure was considered normal at 140/90 in the 1970's; now 120/80 is "the new normal".
Expect it to continue to decrease, as more medication is prescribed, because -- in fact -- the average will be lower over time, if you average it across all people, rather than just untreated people.
It would be fun to be able to design these bots, though that is not a task my company does. Still, I wonder if we can't go ultra simple? What about something like a bot based only on hydraulic lines, with a fiber optic camera? Can you pass a video image with pure fiber and no electronics? I'm assuming the hydraulic fluid could be controlled by a pneumatic valves. By using air to control movement, you don't need a return line for it. That leaves you with a fiber optic bundle, a send and return hydraulic line, and some smaller bundle of low pressure air lines.
It has been discussed.
The major issue is that the amorphous microscopic structures are particularly prone to radiation induced discoloration of the fiber optic lines. This is worse for the transparent and translucent thermoplastic copolymers, such as methylmethacrylate or polycarbonate.
You'd be replacing the optical fiber fairly frequently, particularly if it were a modern plastic, rather than true glass, although glass will have similar issues.
You end up with coloring in both the visible light regions, and in the IR and UV bands.
This is commonly known as "browning".
While technically, you could throw a laser through the fiber to heat and/or otherwise cause fading.
However, it's going to happen in and around 10^10 Rad.
You can read the original paper by W.H. Cropper here; it was published in 1962:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...
[Note: fees may be involved, if you access this through the Wiley site]
Altering genes which make up core personalities is difficult be a use of nature vs nurtures very real.
No, that's definitely not the reason.
The reason is that, once grown your medial frontal gyrus, which makes the "what/when/where" go/no-go decisions is already grown.
Unless you intend to dike it out and grow a new on in its place, those genes have already been spent to create tissue that has a particular preference for function.
Just like the hippocampus and amygdala would have to be diked out and regrown, in order to change someone base sexuality.
Give it up.
Your buggy whip manufacturing jobs are gone.
They're not coming back.
Be like a millennial: find something to spend your time on that doesn't actually produce things, and follow your bliss.
"Give us the information, so we can see if you are sharing the information with anyone!"
Uh... yeah... we realize Missouri is "The Show Me State" and all, but if we gave you the information, then it would mean that, yes, we shared information with someone: "Those Guys In Missouri".
Where do people sign up for the long term studies necessary for general approval?
I would say that people in technology finds it odd and cares.
You would be wrong.
People in legal just raises an eyebrow and then follows the standard procedure for when people destroy evidence.
No evidence was destroyed, from a legal standpoint, due to the FBI having maintained "chain of custody". The server is still there, it's just not located on the old hardware. Anyone trying to bitch about "destroyed evidence" has no F-ing idea how servers work, how backups work, how forensic data analysis works, or how the law treats "custodial forensic copies" as being the same as the actual copies.
If I shred a Michael Jackson "Thriller" CD, all copies of "Thriller" everywhere don't disappear from reality. If it contained evidence, every copy contains the same evidence.
You have to be completely technologically ignorant to not understand these things.
I guess the really interesting question is whether it's going to head out on the same vector it came in on, in which case it's most likely a flyby... everything else being really improbably likely to go out the way it came in.
I vote aliens.
You don't find it odd that the server was wiped after a lawsuit was filed?
No one who understands technology finds it odd, or even cares.
A server is the data the server contains, not the physical hardware.
The FBI still has "the server", with a legally admissible chain of custody, so it doesn't matter if the hardware itself was repurposed as material in an art exhibit, or whatever.
Oh, how horrible!
A vulnerability that allows someone "SYSTEM privileges" is ever so much worse than one which allows "system privileges"!
Slow security scare day?
At least it's not more gold leaf for city hall.
I, for one, welcome gigabit Internet service to the tents in San Francisco's homeless camps!
https://sf.curbed.com/2017/6/2...
"hard won freedoms that our men in uniform fought and died for"
So our military fights for the rights of corporations? Yeah, I can see why you voted the way you did in the last election.
That's totally unfair! You can't guess that he voted for Clinton from such scanty evidence, merely because she's a Wall Street and Beltway Insider!
People are mostly complaining that there is a diminishing market for stolen goods.
There are plenty of parts for iPhones available on eBay.
They come from stolen iPhones. Stolen parts are always cheaper than freshly purchased parts. If that wasn't true, there would be no chop-shops for stolen cars.
Because there is a secondary repair market, it makes it valuable to steal an iPhone. If you make it so those parts can't be used in another iPhone, then the only people stealing iPhones are assholes who don't want them for parts, they just want to deprive you of an iPhone.
And nothing really prevents you from acquiring the $15,000+ worth of reflow oven and microscopic soldering station and other equipment -- or the Apple Authorized Repair Center certification, which would grant you access to the legitimate (but more expensive than the stolen ones) spare parts.
The only "security" I see is mainly protection from "jailbreaking," so legal owners of a product can't use or upgrade their devices.
That's not what it's there for.
It's there for two reasons:
1. To keep you from F-ing around with the baseband firmware for the SDR.
This prevents you and a bunch of your Jihadi buddies staging a terrorist attack, and then interfering with the ability of emergency responders to actually react effectively to the attack in order to mitigate damages.
People do not want you dicking with the SDR, because preventing you from doing that keeps you off the emergency responder and military frequencies with commodity devices that look like normal cell phones until you run the jamming package.
2. To keep third parties from dropping malware onto your device.
If you have to have a chain of trust to get software onto a lot of devices, it doesn't matter if you can get it onto just one developer device, or get it onto hundreds of enterprise enrolled devices, that's not the same as getting it onto 10% of the planetary devices of a given type.
It keeps your crapware off my iPhone.
I can live with both of these things.
Between 1998, when parts of the NetScape source were release, and 2004, when Firefox was first released, all that existed were "parts of NetScape".
You couldn't build crap, unless you were a NetScape employee, and then you could only build the full suite.
It's one of the reasons Jamie Zawinski bailed.
That's six years during which it was an unbuildable heap of crap.
This is the same problem both Solaris, and Darwin, faced as nominally "Open Source" projects.
Firefox was never the "golden boy". It's derived from Mozilla, which is derived from the public parts of Netscape.
It took for freaking ever before you could build a working browser with those bits.
Until you could do that, it was totally irrelevant, because no one could "tinker": it wasn't a workable thing.
It was surpassed by other things before it ever became buildable, and has been trying to become relevant ever since.
Does anyone else suspect... that this is because Chrome and Firefox both allow downloading of Firefox?
Right now, Firefox appears to have a big, ripe target on it.
It doesn't help that there are a lot of WebGL based games that insist on Firefox, despite being supported on other browsers which disallow plugins.
Correct.
They are able to reverse engineer for interoperability.
Not to publish internal implementation details to further a political agenda.
Would I prefer Microsoft not collect this crap? Yes.
Would I prefer that the Dutch government not reverse engineer the update process sufficiently that they could put government spyware on the thing in place of a normal update? Also yes.
Actually, it's the AC's.
That would be you, AC.
Microsoft Say Dutch Regulator Breaks The Law by violating copyright by engaging in deep reverse engineering in violation of the license agreement.
Two can fling that mud, buddy... 8p
The new Pixelbook is sadly bad.
Step 1: Convert the keyboard into an easel by hyper-opening the device
Step 2: Place the "easel" part keys-down on the table
Step 3: ?
Step 4: Spill your tea on the table and have capillary action wick it up into the Pixelbook keyboard
Step 5: !@#$*!@!
...That's me, propheting...
And the other half... is AOL discs... am I right?
Obscurity can be a perfectly valid defense layer for an attacker, so I'm not sure why you think there's no technical argument for it.
The real equivalent to camouflage paint on the Internet is to not show up on nmap and other port scans. That's not obscurity, that's not offering an unnecessary attack surface -- just as with tank visibility against backgrounds.
I guarantee you that the desert camouflage stands out like a sore thumb in Leningrad in the winter.
You make a terrible assumption that the Russians would TELL the vendor of exploits they'd find as well as bother to use the software internally themselves.
If the Russians get so far as to sign a letter of intent, in order to get access to audit the source code ...and then decline to purchase ...that's a pretty strong positive indicator of exploitable bugs.
At which point you schedule the NSA to audit the code, so that those bugs can be addressed.
Credit card information isn't stored with the browser (on the Mac at least, I don't know about anywhere else). It's stored in the Keychain, a much safer place.
It doesn't matter, if Safari is willing to go into the keychain and then to provide the data to a hidden field, without a user notification.
I talked to Visa, gave them the information, and a list of about 150 sites that had the exploit being actively used. Then it was also reported to Apple.