The trick, of course, is that many those that use stock ownership to "actually live on" are no longer gambling. There's no 100% sure money, but you can reduce the risks to such a level that they're not important to worry about any more.
Maybe they can sell your capacity to someone else at a more profitable price?
Electric Co: "I'm sorry mister aluminum smelting plant, I simply don't have any more electricity to sell you. Even on your 3rd shift, pesky consumers are heating their homes and charging their electric cars, and there's just no more capacity in our system, no matter how many buckets of cash you throw at us."
...1 year later after 25% of consumers have smart meters...
Electric Co: "Still have those buckets of cash lying around mister aluminum smelting plant? We've found some extra capacity and are happy to accept 3 times more money than what the consumers were paying for it."
You'll find, in fact, that many electrical utilities WILL NOT LET YOU SHARE FOR MONEY because they don't want competition. If any Joe Schmoe can put PV cells on his roof and actually do for himself what the utilities charge a premium for, that might mean a few less pennies on the quarterly revenue statements and the utilities lobby hard to stop it before it starts. They'll claim it's because of safety for "their" grid (built on public land, financed with public money, I'll note) and not wanting homespun systems connected to their systems and threatening everybody's electricity. However, that argument holds no water because it's the same grid in the next city, next county, or next state, and yet they have no problems with certified and tested inverters operating in a net metering way.
So what, their solution is a control loop arms race between smart meter designers and freezer designers? Freezing is a fight against thermodynamics, and if the freezer is not maintaining it's own, optimized control over temperature, any delays are like borrowing from the Bank of Carnot. You can always "pay back" the delta T debt, but you'll owe inefficiency compound interest on top of it.
The damned freezer knows 2 things: 1) cold enough? and 2) compressor on?. I completely understand that there are additional factors for the larger picture, but, to co-opt a meme, "freezers gonna freeze" and it's not sane to have them bargain with the smart meter to do their sole function. This will add complexity, cost, and pollution (adding wireless, ARM controller, memory, etc to a freezer introduces many new parts requiring...you guessed it...MORE ELECTRICITY to design, build, ship, and support) to the freezer for a negligible benefit.
Yes, two types in fact, depending on whether the government supports them (i.e. "patriot", "freedom fighter", "revolutionary") or the government does not support them (i.e. "terrorist", "enemy combatant", "extremist").
My wife's done her Master's thesis (http://goo.gl/rceG8) on Gardner, Beane, and Hayes-Jacobs, looking at integrated curriculum (specifically in/through the art classroom) and one of the major themes from her research has shown that teachers aren't always comfortable with multiple techniques for the same subject. If some students respond better to math concepts when they're presented through artistic methods (i.e. geometry perspective drawing), some math teachers are resistant because they fear losing their jobs to art teachers, and art teachers fear losing art classes if they get swallowed up into the other curricula.
And even more importantly, a teacher who can master the multiple techniques and/or disciplines needed to teach the "whole child" and the full spectrum of learning styles, are not produced in high quantities by the education departments at most universities, and are typically capable of seeing their value in fields that require multi-discipline expertise and offer better value for their services and moving to those fields. Or, if not a true master in many fields, but above average in more than one, become prime targets for advancement OUT OF THE CLASSROOM and into administration.
I don't know what the solution is, though my wife has some ideas that might help. Overall though, there's a huge barrier to implementing reforms that address these types of issues.
The "will be rejected" part, I think, is where the issue comes in. Rejected based on what? Comparison to a known good database is demonstrably suspect and is in fact the main point of TFA. If I can find 90% of the non-human DNA corruption in the database and delete it, that now cleaned database becomes the standard. The other 10% of non-human DNA that wasn't caught in the database is now even more vetted, more certified, and less easily detected and deleted by the same database scanning algorithm. Thus, a new and better (i.e. evolved) algorithm is created and some new percentage of the non-human data is cleaned out, but the stuff that's left this time is even more well hidden (i.e. evolved, more similar to human DNA) and suspected more to be authentically human.
If there's ever use of the data, transcribing it back into actual viable DNA molecules, these newly manufactured DNA could presumably be checked in molecular biology labs for purity/accuracy and picked up by their already happily-infecting-the-lab cousins and the loop is closed. Now granted, the chances are that such a mutation for digital resilience is unlikely to be beneficial in the wider universe where the bacteria lives, but it's a numbers game and it could be helpful or neutral. Or, if the digital scanning algorithms are based on techniques inspired by nature (perhaps the bacteria is attacked by a virus and using that virus' DNA as a search pattern could improve algorithm performance), the bacterial DNA can beat the digital implementation and have a successful mutation that need only get transcribed into actual viable DNA and infect a lab somewhere and the loop is closed again.
The counter argument, of course, is that other, more beneficial genetic information may be contained in otherwise non-optimal DNA sequences. Color blindness is genetic, and even dangerous for primitive Man who might eat a poison red berry mistakenly, but it's not fatal necessarily. If a color blind Neanderthal discovered fire and cooked his food and had a healthier family because of it, his intelligence/ingenuity was more valuable than the color blindness defect. A partial understanding of genetics leads people to believe that what THEY see as a hopelessly flawed DNA sequence (as expressed in an organism w/ one or more defects) has no value to the gene pool in general. Maybe such a defect is the precursor to a slightly tweaked evolution that boost immunity, metabolism, or any number of future things. Maybe it's just a pressure that helps other, unrelated mutations in later generations. The possibilities for any one mutation to be GOOD or BAD are too many to count, and too difficult to predict besides.
Without any judgment of the woman in TFA, perhaps she's got really great genes otherwise whose benefit more than makes up for a reproductive disorder. And, on top of that, perhaps the human evolutionary track is directed by more than just DNA now, and includes memes, culture, and macro scale things based on people and not DNA exclusively. Without being able to see the entire human race with resolution down the the individual A's, T's, C's and G's, you're wildly speculating at best, and being judgmental and self important at the worse.
I've got a whole slew of newly "acquired" bitcoins in my Infostealer.Coinbit account I can contribute to the cause as well. If they can be used to stop the blatant and rampant slashvertisement, they will finally have a valuable use.
Yes. It is not ethical and certainly not nice, but it is not my ultimate decision to do the deprogramming. It's convenient to spread the blame around, but it's not accurate. We are all still individuals, equipped with decision making and reasoning faculties. Data from any source should necessarily be factored into decisions, but the will of the decider is the ultimate authority. If I tell you your wife was cheating on you (with me or with anyone else, it makes no difference) it's unreasonable for me to feel personally responsible if you murder her out of grief, rage, or any other response to that data.
At the end of the day, if you let others' reactions to your existence determine how you live your life, you're abdicating your individuality and unnecessarily burdening yourself in a life already sufficiently supplied with burdens.
I was responding in the same vein as the creationism comment from one level higher. It is demonstrably true that the majority is not always "right". The 3/4 of the states which were against slavery weren't always so inclined. Slavery was wrong well before those states realized it.
For what it's worth, trying to get in through their heads can be a pretty satisfying endeavor in and of itself. It can be more discrete and requires less planning of location and what's to be done afterwards as well.
I'd argue that the individuals involved in the ruining are those friends/families who actually bring about the ruination. If the pizza delivery guy walks past your house and sees you murdering someone through the front door (which you left open), is it HIS fault if you get arrested and sent to prison? Or, if he sees you killing puppies and posts a notice on telephone polls in the neighborhood to be cautious with your pets because a puppy murderer lives here, is it the pizza guy's fault if your PETA friends beat you up?
It's shady to spill other peoples' secrets to their friends and families, but ultimately it's those friends and families who make the decision to ruin or not ruin lives.
At least the "leet-ifying" moves it further down the line in terms of brute force. This makes it a bit more expensive and a bit more likely to be deemed not worth the effort. If 50% of the passwords can be had with a simple, non-leet dictionary attack, maybe that's enough ROI for the cracker to call it a day and begin chewing on the next database of victims.
It's akin to using a safe inside your home. The US Navy Seals can still come in and get your safe-protected stuff, but if the safe is just a bit heavier or more secure than the average safe, a typical burglar will leave it alone as it's not worth his time and risk.
Agreed. Watching the end of the first game (even including the Toronto gaffe) was awe inspiring to me. It was literally one of the most significant things I've ever experienced in my life.
What? If your marriage lasts longer than your courtship, you're doing it right, provided your courtship was sufficiently long. If people are married for 45 years, and they courted for 2, they've "do[ne] it wrong"?
It's not helpful that government at the federal and state levels also limits supply of health care (professional licensing, regulation on who can do what, and the opening of new health care facilities)
I shudder to think what kind of horrors would be inflicted on people, sick and healthy, if it were not for licensing and regulation. Even hundreds of years ago, people went to professional leeching practitioners because they knew the value of experience and some level of "the community has agreed this person probably won't kill me". Do you propose no licenses or regulations, but 50 free Rx pads printable at prescribenow.com and shiny new surgery kit deals on amazon?
To be fair, Wakefield's asshole-ishness is wholly separate from others in the medical field. In fact, there may still be one or two people in the medical industry who are immoral profit slaves. Just because he was a Very Bad Person, doesn't mean that others can't also be categorized that way.
Slashdot Mirror
The trick, of course, is that many those that use stock ownership to "actually live on" are no longer gambling. There's no 100% sure money, but you can reduce the risks to such a level that they're not important to worry about any more.
Maybe they can sell your capacity to someone else at a more profitable price?
Electric Co: "I'm sorry mister aluminum smelting plant, I simply don't have any more electricity to sell you. Even on your 3rd shift, pesky consumers are heating their homes and charging their electric cars, and there's just no more capacity in our system, no matter how many buckets of cash you throw at us."
...1 year later after 25% of consumers have smart meters...
Electric Co: "Still have those buckets of cash lying around mister aluminum smelting plant? We've found some extra capacity and are happy to accept 3 times more money than what the consumers were paying for it."
You'll find, in fact, that many electrical utilities WILL NOT LET YOU SHARE FOR MONEY because they don't want competition. If any Joe Schmoe can put PV cells on his roof and actually do for himself what the utilities charge a premium for, that might mean a few less pennies on the quarterly revenue statements and the utilities lobby hard to stop it before it starts. They'll claim it's because of safety for "their" grid (built on public land, financed with public money, I'll note) and not wanting homespun systems connected to their systems and threatening everybody's electricity. However, that argument holds no water because it's the same grid in the next city, next county, or next state, and yet they have no problems with certified and tested inverters operating in a net metering way.
So what, their solution is a control loop arms race between smart meter designers and freezer designers? Freezing is a fight against thermodynamics, and if the freezer is not maintaining it's own, optimized control over temperature, any delays are like borrowing from the Bank of Carnot. You can always "pay back" the delta T debt, but you'll owe inefficiency compound interest on top of it.
The damned freezer knows 2 things: 1) cold enough? and 2) compressor on?. I completely understand that there are additional factors for the larger picture, but, to co-opt a meme, "freezers gonna freeze" and it's not sane to have them bargain with the smart meter to do their sole function. This will add complexity, cost, and pollution (adding wireless, ARM controller, memory, etc to a freezer introduces many new parts requiring...you guessed it...MORE ELECTRICITY to design, build, ship, and support) to the freezer for a negligible benefit.
Yes, two types in fact, depending on whether the government supports them (i.e. "patriot", "freedom fighter", "revolutionary") or the government does not support them (i.e. "terrorist", "enemy combatant", "extremist").
"Very low gravity" is quite relative. Compared to the ISS, the moon is huge and would most definitely be orbit-able.
According to www.wolframalpha.com:
Mass of the Moon: 7.3459×10^22 kg
Mass of ISS: 31100 kg
% of Moon mass represented by ISS: 4.2x10^-17%
What's even scarier is that those Powerful Darwinian Forces have slipped their insidious malware genes into the news reports about themselves!
My wife's done her Master's thesis (http://goo.gl/rceG8) on Gardner, Beane, and Hayes-Jacobs, looking at integrated curriculum (specifically in/through the art classroom) and one of the major themes from her research has shown that teachers aren't always comfortable with multiple techniques for the same subject. If some students respond better to math concepts when they're presented through artistic methods (i.e. geometry perspective drawing), some math teachers are resistant because they fear losing their jobs to art teachers, and art teachers fear losing art classes if they get swallowed up into the other curricula.
And even more importantly, a teacher who can master the multiple techniques and/or disciplines needed to teach the "whole child" and the full spectrum of learning styles, are not produced in high quantities by the education departments at most universities, and are typically capable of seeing their value in fields that require multi-discipline expertise and offer better value for their services and moving to those fields. Or, if not a true master in many fields, but above average in more than one, become prime targets for advancement OUT OF THE CLASSROOM and into administration.
I don't know what the solution is, though my wife has some ideas that might help. Overall though, there's a huge barrier to implementing reforms that address these types of issues.
Shortened to this: http://goo.gl/E8WJI
He's not hidden any of those things as far as I can see... See this image I just captured: http://tinypic.com/r/11rt72q/7
The "will be rejected" part, I think, is where the issue comes in. Rejected based on what? Comparison to a known good database is demonstrably suspect and is in fact the main point of TFA. If I can find 90% of the non-human DNA corruption in the database and delete it, that now cleaned database becomes the standard. The other 10% of non-human DNA that wasn't caught in the database is now even more vetted, more certified, and less easily detected and deleted by the same database scanning algorithm. Thus, a new and better (i.e. evolved) algorithm is created and some new percentage of the non-human data is cleaned out, but the stuff that's left this time is even more well hidden (i.e. evolved, more similar to human DNA) and suspected more to be authentically human.
If there's ever use of the data, transcribing it back into actual viable DNA molecules, these newly manufactured DNA could presumably be checked in molecular biology labs for purity/accuracy and picked up by their already happily-infecting-the-lab cousins and the loop is closed. Now granted, the chances are that such a mutation for digital resilience is unlikely to be beneficial in the wider universe where the bacteria lives, but it's a numbers game and it could be helpful or neutral. Or, if the digital scanning algorithms are based on techniques inspired by nature (perhaps the bacteria is attacked by a virus and using that virus' DNA as a search pattern could improve algorithm performance), the bacterial DNA can beat the digital implementation and have a successful mutation that need only get transcribed into actual viable DNA and infect a lab somewhere and the loop is closed again.
The counter argument, of course, is that other, more beneficial genetic information may be contained in otherwise non-optimal DNA sequences. Color blindness is genetic, and even dangerous for primitive Man who might eat a poison red berry mistakenly, but it's not fatal necessarily. If a color blind Neanderthal discovered fire and cooked his food and had a healthier family because of it, his intelligence/ingenuity was more valuable than the color blindness defect. A partial understanding of genetics leads people to believe that what THEY see as a hopelessly flawed DNA sequence (as expressed in an organism w/ one or more defects) has no value to the gene pool in general. Maybe such a defect is the precursor to a slightly tweaked evolution that boost immunity, metabolism, or any number of future things. Maybe it's just a pressure that helps other, unrelated mutations in later generations. The possibilities for any one mutation to be GOOD or BAD are too many to count, and too difficult to predict besides.
Without any judgment of the woman in TFA, perhaps she's got really great genes otherwise whose benefit more than makes up for a reproductive disorder. And, on top of that, perhaps the human evolutionary track is directed by more than just DNA now, and includes memes, culture, and macro scale things based on people and not DNA exclusively. Without being able to see the entire human race with resolution down the the individual A's, T's, C's and G's, you're wildly speculating at best, and being judgmental and self important at the worse.
I've got a whole slew of newly "acquired" bitcoins in my Infostealer.Coinbit account I can contribute to the cause as well. If they can be used to stop the blatant and rampant slashvertisement, they will finally have a valuable use.
Yes. It is not ethical and certainly not nice, but it is not my ultimate decision to do the deprogramming. It's convenient to spread the blame around, but it's not accurate. We are all still individuals, equipped with decision making and reasoning faculties. Data from any source should necessarily be factored into decisions, but the will of the decider is the ultimate authority. If I tell you your wife was cheating on you (with me or with anyone else, it makes no difference) it's unreasonable for me to feel personally responsible if you murder her out of grief, rage, or any other response to that data.
At the end of the day, if you let others' reactions to your existence determine how you live your life, you're abdicating your individuality and unnecessarily burdening yourself in a life already sufficiently supplied with burdens.
I was responding in the same vein as the creationism comment from one level higher. It is demonstrably true that the majority is not always "right". The 3/4 of the states which were against slavery weren't always so inclined. Slavery was wrong well before those states realized it.
Or more highly improbable, if >50% said it was ok to own dark skinned people, or that a Y chromosome is required for voting?
For what it's worth, trying to get in through their heads can be a pretty satisfying endeavor in and of itself. It can be more discrete and requires less planning of location and what's to be done afterwards as well.
I'd argue that the individuals involved in the ruining are those friends/families who actually bring about the ruination. If the pizza delivery guy walks past your house and sees you murdering someone through the front door (which you left open), is it HIS fault if you get arrested and sent to prison? Or, if he sees you killing puppies and posts a notice on telephone polls in the neighborhood to be cautious with your pets because a puppy murderer lives here, is it the pizza guy's fault if your PETA friends beat you up?
It's shady to spill other peoples' secrets to their friends and families, but ultimately it's those friends and families who make the decision to ruin or not ruin lives.
Exactly this...
At least the "leet-ifying" moves it further down the line in terms of brute force. This makes it a bit more expensive and a bit more likely to be deemed not worth the effort. If 50% of the passwords can be had with a simple, non-leet dictionary attack, maybe that's enough ROI for the cracker to call it a day and begin chewing on the next database of victims.
It's akin to using a safe inside your home. The US Navy Seals can still come in and get your safe-protected stuff, but if the safe is just a bit heavier or more secure than the average safe, a typical burglar will leave it alone as it's not worth his time and risk.
They also sell proprietary iPhone cables.
Agreed. Watching the end of the first game (even including the Toronto gaffe) was awe inspiring to me. It was literally one of the most significant things I've ever experienced in my life.
What? If your marriage lasts longer than your courtship, you're doing it right, provided your courtship was sufficiently long. If people are married for 45 years, and they courted for 2, they've "do[ne] it wrong"?
This would have been a great movie.
It's not helpful that government at the federal and state levels also limits supply of health care (professional licensing, regulation on who can do what, and the opening of new health care facilities)
I shudder to think what kind of horrors would be inflicted on people, sick and healthy, if it were not for licensing and regulation. Even hundreds of years ago, people went to professional leeching practitioners because they knew the value of experience and some level of "the community has agreed this person probably won't kill me". Do you propose no licenses or regulations, but 50 free Rx pads printable at prescribenow.com and shiny new surgery kit deals on amazon?
Seriously.
To be fair, Wakefield's asshole-ishness is wholly separate from others in the medical field. In fact, there may still be one or two people in the medical industry who are immoral profit slaves. Just because he was a Very Bad Person, doesn't mean that others can't also be categorized that way.