Well, that's all great advice, unless the person being restrained is a psycho, and you weanted to get proof she was still stalking and harassing you. What was the poke? Did she throw a Bull at her, with an obnoxious note? Did she throw knifes at her? There's some fairly violent pokes you can send. Maybe she threw a bus at her. That would certainly be scary. Might imply she was thinking about running you down with a car/bus/truck/whatever.
Most abusive/psychotic stalkers find ways to continue to harass people they have restraining orders against, and oftentimes find ways to do it where there are no witnesses. This is probably a case of someone thinking they could get away with sending a poke. Or maybe she's just stupid. If someone got a restraining order against me, I'd un-friend them and block them quicker than you could say Hunh?
You forgot to include one example. What if her poke implied violence on the part of the poker against the pokee, along with a text note included saying "DIE BITCH! Soon enough!"
You're other argument is valid but empty. What if someone stole/borrowed her phone or tapped into her phone line or mailed a death threat with her return address on it? Borrowed her car? There are plenty of ways she could have been framed outside of th "'net". Why should the internet be offered any more protection simply because it's possible it's the internet? Sure some framing techniques are harder off the web than on it. But she's obviosly done something bad enough that a judge issued a restraining order against her. She got herself into this.
The real moral to take away here is if you don't want to get framed for something, don't be a stalker or have a history of violent and/or overly obnoxious behavior.
Just because you could never master the piano doesn't mean that the rest of society is such a dismal failure. My mother was a decent pianist, and I'm no sloth either. My sister's got a decent voice and can carry a decent tune. I'm not too bad. My daughter has a lovely voice and is quite creative and sings and creates lyrics constantly. But, then she's kind of tending to lean in the category of prodigy, maybe with encouragement and training.
Also, performing music is way more non-passive than vegging out with an earbud on. If you don't believe me, try it sometime. Also, I wouldn't call many works dumbed down. Maybe those by the Beatles and such. I'd like to see you perform some of Mozart's music and call it dumbed down. Certainly there are many alternate forms of some music, that is simplified for beginning students. That is strictly for instructional purposes and done after the fact of the creation of the original music.
I do hope, we don't get to experience this ourselves again in health care. Public schools, USPS, and highways are enough...
Oh, yes, the postal system is such a dismal failure. I have such a hard time mailing anything or getting mail. Highways are mostly maintained by states, and hence the varying quality of roads. Also, I believe the public schools are also state controlled. Things would be very different for roads and schools if they were controlled on a National level. Not necessarily what I'd like to see, but the Feds could harldy do worse than some states. Although, some states do really great.
Yes, that's called Fascism. Some people ascribe this to Obama administration, as it aims to take over corporations. Calling him "Hitler" over this misses the point, though, (and triggers Godwin's Law) — Nazism is an aberration of Fascism and Obama does not deserve the mustaches
I think you mean Socialism here. Fascism is about total domination and control without any input from the people. Although, in a Fascist world, you could conceivably have such a power structure, but it wouldn't be a pure Fascist state then.
now- the vast majority of the population has no previous exposure to H1N1.
Really? You mean the vast majority of the world's population has been born in the past 33 years!? Wow! That'd be an amazing fact. If only it were true.
Maybe, I don't like getting shots and spending money on something that on average works in less than 1/2 of the people who get it. If you consider a 0-50% (see CDC statistics) success rate very effective, then maybe you need to re-evaluate your standards. Sure in "matching years" flu vaccines are fairly effective (70-80% per CDC statistics), except no one seems to notice that there haven't been very many "matching" years. Since the flu viruses seem to have a very quick mutation rate, about twice a year on average, getting a matching year is a lot like shooting craps. It takes about six months to come up with a vaccine, by which time the virus has already mutated a bit, and there's no guarantee you're going to even see the same "type" or family of flu virus. I'd rather spend my money on the roulette wheel. At least I have a 50-50 chance of choosing the right color.
I must be one of those two-thirds parents. I see no reason to subject my child to a needless flu shot. She has an immune system, it's there to fight off diseases. I paid good money for that immune system, and I seek to utilize it and allow it to function. When she comes down with something that her system can't handle on it's own we'll augment it with drugs. If there is something out there they have a real cure for, she'll get that vaccine. Please stop spouting this "flu vaccine" as anything more than ad-speak. It's no vaccine. Something that is developed once (not every six months) that is 90% effective from year to year is a vaccine, anything less and touted as a vaccine is just a load of bovine solid waste product.
And, umm, exactly what kind of disease might a person get by sharing an infected blood pressure pump? Something that is so virulent, that it can leave one person's arm skin and enter mine (even through, sometimes, a shirt sleeve), is going to be way deadlier than anything I've ever heard of. Unless, THEY, you know who I'm talking about, are not telling, US, the general population, something we should know about.
Please cite your source that any known existing form of flu is an airborne disease. I'd like to know who has done this groundbreaking Nobel Prize winning level of research proof, that any form of flu is airborne. Last, I heard there has been no proof that any flu is airborne in the medical sense.
Sure you can catch it is someone sneezes on you, That doesn't make it an airborne disease. It makes it a projected or ejected weapon disease.
While I'll definitely grant you that the BBC is WAY more unbiased than Any American News Network, I'd hardly call them unbiased. Now if you were to come up with some kind of mutant crossbreed of the BBC and The Register, then you might actaully have an unbiased news source. Or you might just get an eternal dragon eating itself or a Phoenix rising from it's own ashes. Both are more likely than an unbiased news source. It simply doesn't exist. Some are better than others and the only way to get a decent picture is to read from both sides of the argument and try to figure out what the real story is, that lies somewhere between the two news sources. The only way to get at the truth is to read several sources on both sides of the fence. Even then you have a fat chance, because the truth is a closely guarded secret restricted to those who have the power to bend it to their will.
-- But then I may be a pessimist when it comes to human behavior. Or a tinfoil hat wearer, but that doesn't mean THEY aren't out there trying to turn us all into mindless zombies living at Walmart and Eating @ Taco Bell. Personally, I prefer hats made out of Aluminum sheet. It's thicker, sturdier and reflects more radiation. Much better protection.
Oh, yes, the infamous argument. I use 4096 bit keys when it matters, but I remember when everyone used to say how secure 512 bits was. I remember how no one would ever break this 512 bit this or that algorithm that was so great, and now they've all been replaced by "newer", "better", "more secure", and "unbroken" magic bullet encryptions. If you don't think a 1024 bit key can be broken with the resources the bad guys have now, well more power to you. I personally don't have that confidence, since 512 bit is pretty easy to break, and there's nothing to say that they have to actually solve or break it. All they have to do is get a match to one of many. They don't have to solve a particular key, all they have to do is get one out of thousands or millions to match. Then do it again. And again. If 512 bit can be broken, so can 1024, and 2048 and 4096. It gets harder, of course, but nothing is immune. Lastly, if these admins areso sloppy that they have weak passwords what makes you think they'd use 1024 bit DSA encryption, instead of 512?
So, yes, I think 1024 bit DSA can be broken with the technology that botnets have at their disposal. Maybe not broken in the traditional sense, but a process that would allow them to continue to take over secured machines.
Ah, yes it's so good to see an original Sci-Fi idea.
Not. Corny as they were I enjoyed Star Trek. Why, because it was upbeat, funny and new (well in respect to TV). Now Sci FI TV and movies is mostly Crush, Kill, Destroy. Death, Kill, Death Death, Kill Kill Death. At least this one added sex. What I wouldn't give for a Sci Fi show that wasn't all about Death, War, Killing and Hate. God, if I want that all I need to do is turn on the freaking news. At least there's a lot more originality with real killers. Which is kind of sad, considering these artists are supposed to be like creative geniuses. I guess schizophrenia beats genius everytime.
I have to wonder, with such a small number of machines as this, how many of them were actually seeded by the botnetters. Just to see if they could get other Linux boxes to fall. Maybe some non-trivial number of these were/are test machines set up to try to break into.
While keys are nice, a good password policy with forced changing frequently is probably better. Ok, so you've created a key, what prevents a brute force attack on the "never-changing" key? How can a key which will never change, be more secure than a very strong password that is only good for two weeks? Odds are a key can be broken in a few months of intensive work. Or less.
I once left a machine out there and intentionally left it there with no updates, to see how long it would survive. It lived for several years before being cracked.
Well, when you say "most" humans are vaccinated, that means that "some" humans are not, and thus as long as some humans are not it will continue to persist. Not to mention the fact that we are playing around with a disease that at one time killed nearly half the planet's population of humans. So now it is grown in a lab around other diseases, and who knows what tests are being done to it. It may very well become like Hepatitis C which over decades of study and treatment has evolved sufficiently to be quite deadly and resistant to all treatments.
So, via extrapolation it isn't hard to imagine a new and improved Black Death killing machine at some point in time. I think that researchers are way to cocky and overconfident, in many fields. The "It won't happen to Me" Syndrome, that permeates mankind's mentality. I don't know whether bacteria can or can't be eradicated, I'm not so confident as you that it can't be done, if we really wanted to, but I doubt anyone, in a position to do it, really wants to. That however, doesn't mean we should be helping it evolve into something far more deadly. This facility is probably getting Federal grants, and there's probably some military funds in there somewhere.
I'll grant you that Ethanol is a toxic substance to possibly every organism on Earth, and that methanol is toxic to many things, but not necessarily everything. Not every alcohol is toxic. According to you, glycerin, an alcohol, is toxic. So we should stop using it as a medicine. Furthermore anything in sufficient quantity is toxic. Oxygen is toxic to humans in sufficient quantity. Which is why divers don't use pure oxygen for diving. We need a little nitrogen in our oxygen (although there are certain medical exceptions to this rule). It seems to me, you are the one not being scientific. the NOVA organism you're looking for is the one I listed as living in rock. As I said, I'm no biologist, and thus can't really debate how much water any given bacteria may have in it.
While I can't prove that there can be live that is not based on water, you have not offered any theory to prove that silicon based life using an alcohol is not possible. Once you rule out the impossible, anything left is possible. It is unscientific to preclude or conclude, without evidence or defensible theory, that something is impossible.
In fact, I'll submit that intelligent life is not possible without alcohols. For example you would quickly die, after your neurons stop firing, if all sources of the alcohol choline were removed from your diet. This would be a very difficult thing, almost any food you eat will have some choline source in it. I know of no advanced lifeform that could survive without alcohols. Therefore, by your own standards, alcohols are essential to life.
I may perhaps be wrong about some of these things. I seem to recall reading something about each of these phenomena somewhere, briefly. As to the water part though.
Bacteria and fungus abundantly live on/in organisms with no free water. Such as cheese and bread. They may release water from the organic compounds in which they live, but that is really not the same as needing water. Although you could certainly argue that without the other beings that produced the bread or cheese they wouldn't exist. Which may or may not be valid.
On the thermophiles living in the oceanic volcanic vents, Then there is the lifeforms that can live inside nuclear reactors. I never said they didn't live in water, but normal fish can't live in that part of the ocean. I think we, as a species, presume that live is more fragile and harder to create than it really is. When I said alcohol, I was including the entire classification of alcohols, not simply your sterilizing ethanol. There are many types of alcohols.
For my citations I'll give: Deinococcus peraridilitoris, a bacteria that lives in the desert;
Pyrodictium abyssi, the volcanic vent loving lifeform that lives in boiling water;
Desulforudis audaxviator, which lives inside a S Africa gold mine without oxygen;
there is also a species that lives on methane, but I can't find a reference for it. So, I stand on the water is not a necessary requirement for life. Some species live on metals and water, but it could just be they need the oxygen or hydrogen in the water and not truly water. I'm not a biologist, just casual reader of such topics. But there are numerous examples of life living in extreme environments on Earth including inside ice, rock, at the very bottom of the Marianis trench in total darkness. There are some very very inhospitable places on Earth and yet life is found in all of them. I think it's very likely life will be found on Mars, and Europa and maybe a few other moons around Saturn and Jupiter.
Of course, Drake's formula does have one serious flaw. It will only determine life in the universe that we can detect. If you ignore that parameter, it may prove to be there is abundant life in the Universe, but beyond our feeble ability to detect. Still it would be nice to have proof of one other place where life exists just to end the silly debate on whether we are alone.
Um, sorry, there are lifeforms on earth that do not require water to live. we even have non-carbon based lifeforms. We have lifeforms living in the volcanic vents breathing the "toxic to humans" sulfurous gas in the depths of the oceans. There appears to be life on some of Jupiter's moons. So you'd want to include them as benign. Certainly, raw materials are required, but carbon based, water based lifeforms aren't the only options. Drake's formula is lacking, but since, we really have little experience in what other possibilities there are, it's a reasonable one to use. Especially if we are looking for places to possibly visit or colonize. Or just looking for those we consider a threat. Depends on you paranoia/socialization levels. not to mention there are lifeforms on earth perfectly happy to live in alcohols (No, I'm not referring to that species known as College Students). So solvent required? Yes. Water? No. At least to the depths of our current understanding.
You're an ass, and always will be. Freak. Furthermore, you don't see me complaining about paying what I pay, I didn't write an article saying wo is me. I paid for my hearing aids, and have been paying for them out of pocket for 15 years. I paid my way through school, with my own money. I don't take government handouts, although I qualify and could live tax free off the government via SSDA. I don't take charity, but do put about 5-10% of my income into charity. I've been rich, I've been homeless, I've been so sick I've nearly died, more than once. Still I have it better than Billions of people. Whining about not being able to get a PDA covered, when you got a free $8000 PC, which was probably worth $2-3000, and having email and internet disabled in a Windows PC is more than I can bear. So you get a free PC that you have to pay someone $50 to turn on the other features, unless you have a geek buddy to do it for free, is harmful how? Really, I'd like to know what is so HORRIBLE about getting a FREE computer, but not a FEE PDA? Ok,so you get a FREE computer, but you really want a FREE PDA. Ok, so you take the free PC, turn around and sell it and buy 3 PDAs and pocket the change! Where's the downside? Or are you just too stupid to be able to figure out the math here? Oh wait you're a/. freak who only knows how to cuss and insult. Nevermind.
Furthermore, I have a better solution, let people buy antibiotics without a prescription, and other medicines, except the really addictive ones. Make all drugs legal, get rid of the drinking age law, throw out the laws requiring insurance, and let people take their own risks. If you want freedom, then let's have real freedom. So who's going to pay for these free clinics of yours? Where's the money going to come from? I have no problem with this, but we already have them. Not to mention a hospital can't turn you away because you don't have the money to pay. We already have free and sliding scale healthcare.
I do pay for my own insurance. It's not economics 101, dude. Check it out sometime. Go price insurance. Then go price insurance for yourself, for you and a spouse, for you and a spouse and a child. Then price each of those separately. You'll see it doesn't add up. It's cheaper to get insurance for one person, than it is per person for more than one. Insurance is a racket and always has been. As long as we use insurance as a means for healthcare, it will be unaffordable for many. That doesn't mean we shouldn't do something to provide for those less fortunate. There are enough really wealthy people in this country who pay almost nothing into the system, because of loopholes designed by them and for them. I know this because I come from this class, and was married into it. My particular branch isn't in this class, but I have family that is. I have firsthand knowledge of some of the richest and most powerful families in America/the World.
Personally, I'd like to see healthcare free for all, or affordable for all. I see now purpose for health insurance, except to make a few people very rich at the expense of millions.
PS. Being deaf or partially so is the most discriminated group you will likely find.
If you are, you are labelled:
1) Slow,
2) a whiner,
3) a faker.
You get people who think if they shout, you'll hear better. Which for some hearing loss conditions will work, but not for all.
If they talk slower, you'll un... der... stan... d be..tt..er.
If they repeat the same thing over and over again in the same voice and lack of enunciated slur and same volume you'll eventually get it.
Talking louder does help, for my condition, if you have activate any nerves I have left to process voice, but frequencies matter. There are some people I simply cannot hear, because I don't hear in those frequency ranges, or in the ranges of the significant harmonics. Sound is easy to hear, speech is an entirely different ballpark, and a PDA/Iphone which indiscriminately amplifies all ranges and all frequencies is going to be far worse for a person in the long run, rather than an actual device designed specifically for the individual. There are some really fantastic hearing aids out there now, unfortunately, they run $4000-$6000 per (and most people need two) and are a bit out of my current range for out of pocket medical devices. Real medical devices are expensive for a reason. they are not mass produced to one specification and are one off pieces designed for maximizing assistance to a specific condition of a specific person. Simple economics, it's cheaper to build ten thousand identical pieces than ten thousand custom pieces. Should be a no brainer.
Being a hearing-disabled person, I can tell you with no uncertainty, that an IPhone is exactly what you don't want if you are: partially deaf/hard-of-hearing/hearing challenged/whatever. What a hearing-disabled person needs is a hearing aid that works with a phone, but the hearing aid is likely not covered. You're talking BS, or just don't know what you're talking about, or just have no clue what it is like to be really hard-of-hearing. IPhones are flat, if you're going to use a phone you want one that is T4/T5, or/and is TTY compatible, and you want one that molds to your face, so you can have the speaker pointing directly into your ear and have the microphone somewhere in the neighborhood of your speaking apparatus (aka mouth, for most of us).. Every single PDA/Smartphone I've seens is incredibly non-user friendly for hard-of-hearing people. You also, want one that has a decent ringer, and I'm not talking musical scores, unless it's like "Highway To Hell", or something, at 110db. Britney Spears "My head is Shaved, Do you Love Me" ain't gonna cut it.
Amazingly, insurance companies rarely cover hearing aids. Actual medical devices for enabling those of us with hearing disabilities to partake in conversations. Why a smartphone is a medical device is a mystery to me. So, until the article poster can get insurance companies to cover real medical devices, he should just stop whining about his ipod not being covered! I pay out of pocket for my hearing aids, $1200-$5000 per. Don't come whining to me about your $300 PDA! You want to use a PDA and you have a communicative disease, shell out the bucks. he fact you can get actual medical devices and have them covered by insurance says to me you have no room to complain. Most companies won't pay for my REAL medical devices.
Not that they are any better than sticking a megaphone to my ear, which is mainstream and I could use, and would be cheaper. Be thankful you are covered for actual devices that are designed to work for your medical condition and come back and complain when you have a real issue! Hell, hearing aids are little amplifiers they made to stick in your ear, which only speeds the further degradation of your hearing, and thus you need to keep buying more and more powerful devices. There is surgery for some conditions and I could get an implant to actually help fix my problem, but insurance companies don't cover that $10,000 surgery. SO STOP YOUR WHINING! You don't hear me writing articles whining about my sad state.
Yet, you hear all these people complaining about the public option, and the healthcare reform, but offer no alternative. If you're not willing to be a part of the solution and come out of your little private self-interest corner and DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT FOR EVERYONE, then you have no right or reason to complain!
I've had numerous cases of vandalism done to property I own. I report them, but it's really pointless. I live in a town of about 10,000. Most petty crimes go unsolved, or are unsolvable. Size of the town doesn't matter much. Only when there are witnesses or the victim can give names of people who might be the culprit can you reasonably hope to solve it. Of course, this Kindle thing is a whole new ball game. If I were a cop, I'd get Apple to provide me with the GPS signature and follow it around for a while. tracking as it goes from one felon to the next. I'd build up a case and bust the lot of them. The original criminal, and those who help traffic it. I'd almost certainly bag a lot more than just one 300 dollar device.
Police ought to be jumping for joy when someone reports one if these high tech toys stolen. Of course, it would pretty much kill the market for such devices. Once cops get wise and start tracking these things and bringing down the fences in large enough numbers, the market will go away, because it becomes so worthless on the black market that most criminals wouldn't waste their time on them.
Until another criminal comes along and disables the GPS.
The real point is, this guy still has options. He should have: filed a report with the police, which he did, then file a claim with his homeowner's/renter's insurance letting them know that Apple can track the device. Then he could let the insurance company fight Apple for him, because insurance companies don't like to pay out money. They'd be motivated to kick Apple in the shin and tell them to report the location of the damn thing. I suppose it's possible for him to also request the police send a subpoena to Apple for the device location. After all, it should be in their interest to solve a solvable crime. Although, the owner really should ask Apple to submit the information to the police, and if they refuse, then maybe he should file a criminal complaint against Apple for conspiracy to theft and aiding and abetting a theft. Since, it really is Apple's responsibility to report the information, if they have it, of criminal activity. Once Apple has the police report information, and the guy really should send them a copy of the report, then they are aware of a stolen device and know it's location and it is their duty to report it. Apple seems to be opening themselves up to a whole world of trouble by demanding a subpoena, rather than just proof of an actual theft. Of course, I'll never have this guy's problem. I would never own a digital reader that wasn't open (that doesn't mean one that allows copying of said digital books). I'm perfectly happy to buy paper books, or get them from the Gutenberg Project.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, that's all great advice, unless the person being restrained is a psycho, and you weanted to get proof she was still stalking and harassing you. What was the poke? Did she throw a Bull at her, with an obnoxious note? Did she throw knifes at her? There's some fairly violent pokes you can send. Maybe she threw a bus at her. That would certainly be scary. Might imply she was thinking about running you down with a car/bus/truck/whatever.
Most abusive/psychotic stalkers find ways to continue to harass people they have restraining orders against, and oftentimes find ways to do it where there are no witnesses. This is probably a case of someone thinking they could get away with sending a poke. Or maybe she's just stupid. If someone got a restraining order against me, I'd un-friend them and block them quicker than you could say Hunh?
You forgot to include one example. What if her poke implied violence on the part of the poker against the pokee, along with a text note included saying "DIE BITCH! Soon enough!"
You're other argument is valid but empty. What if someone stole/borrowed her phone or tapped into her phone line or mailed a death threat with her return address on it? Borrowed her car? There are plenty of ways she could have been framed outside of th "'net". Why should the internet be offered any more protection simply because it's possible it's the internet? Sure some framing techniques are harder off the web than on it. But she's obviosly done something bad enough that a judge issued a restraining order against her. She got herself into this.
The real moral to take away here is if you don't want to get framed for something, don't be a stalker or have a history of violent and/or overly obnoxious behavior.
Just because you could never master the piano doesn't mean that the rest of society is such a dismal failure. My mother was a decent pianist, and I'm no sloth either. My sister's got a decent voice and can carry a decent tune. I'm not too bad. My daughter has a lovely voice and is quite creative and sings and creates lyrics constantly. But, then she's kind of tending to lean in the category of prodigy, maybe with encouragement and training.
Also, performing music is way more non-passive than vegging out with an earbud on. If you don't believe me, try it sometime. Also, I wouldn't call many works dumbed down. Maybe those by the Beatles and such. I'd like to see you perform some of Mozart's music and call it dumbed down. Certainly there are many alternate forms of some music, that is simplified for beginning students. That is strictly for instructional purposes and done after the fact of the creation of the original music.
Oh, yes, the postal system is such a dismal failure. I have such a hard time mailing anything or getting mail. Highways are mostly maintained by states, and hence the varying quality of roads. Also, I believe the public schools are also state controlled. Things would be very different for roads and schools if they were controlled on a National level. Not necessarily what I'd like to see, but the Feds could harldy do worse than some states. Although, some states do really great.
I think you mean Socialism here. Fascism is about total domination and control without any input from the people. Although, in a Fascist world, you could conceivably have such a power structure, but it wouldn't be a pure Fascist state then.
now- the vast majority of the population has no previous exposure to H1N1.
Really? You mean the vast majority of the world's population has been born in the past 33 years!? Wow! That'd be an amazing fact. If only it were true.
Maybe, I don't like getting shots and spending money on something that on average works in less than 1/2 of the people who get it. If you consider a 0-50% (see CDC statistics) success rate very effective, then maybe you need to re-evaluate your standards. Sure in "matching years" flu vaccines are fairly effective (70-80% per CDC statistics), except no one seems to notice that there haven't been very many "matching" years. Since the flu viruses seem to have a very quick mutation rate, about twice a year on average, getting a matching year is a lot like shooting craps. It takes about six months to come up with a vaccine, by which time the virus has already mutated a bit, and there's no guarantee you're going to even see the same "type" or family of flu virus. I'd rather spend my money on the roulette wheel. At least I have a 50-50 chance of choosing the right color.
I must be one of those two-thirds parents. I see no reason to subject my child to a needless flu shot. She has an immune system, it's there to fight off diseases. I paid good money for that immune system, and I seek to utilize it and allow it to function. When she comes down with something that her system can't handle on it's own we'll augment it with drugs. If there is something out there they have a real cure for, she'll get that vaccine. Please stop spouting this "flu vaccine" as anything more than ad-speak. It's no vaccine. Something that is developed once (not every six months) that is 90% effective from year to year is a vaccine, anything less and touted as a vaccine is just a load of bovine solid waste product.
And, umm, exactly what kind of disease might a person get by sharing an infected blood pressure pump? Something that is so virulent, that it can leave one person's arm skin and enter mine (even through, sometimes, a shirt sleeve), is going to be way deadlier than anything I've ever heard of. Unless, THEY, you know who I'm talking about, are not telling, US, the general population, something we should know about.
Please cite your source that any known existing form of flu is an airborne disease. I'd like to know who has done this groundbreaking Nobel Prize winning level of research proof, that any form of flu is airborne. Last, I heard there has been no proof that any flu is airborne in the medical sense.
Sure you can catch it is someone sneezes on you, That doesn't make it an airborne disease. It makes it a projected or ejected weapon disease.
While I'll definitely grant you that the BBC is WAY more unbiased than Any American News Network, I'd hardly call them unbiased. Now if you were to come up with some kind of mutant crossbreed of the BBC and The Register, then you might actaully have an unbiased news source. Or you might just get an eternal dragon eating itself or a Phoenix rising from it's own ashes. Both are more likely than an unbiased news source. It simply doesn't exist. Some are better than others and the only way to get a decent picture is to read from both sides of the argument and try to figure out what the real story is, that lies somewhere between the two news sources. The only way to get at the truth is to read several sources on both sides of the fence. Even then you have a fat chance, because the truth is a closely guarded secret restricted to those who have the power to bend it to their will.
-- But then I may be a pessimist when it comes to human behavior. Or a tinfoil hat wearer, but that doesn't mean THEY aren't out there trying to turn us all into mindless zombies living at Walmart and Eating @ Taco Bell. Personally, I prefer hats made out of Aluminum sheet. It's thicker, sturdier and reflects more radiation. Much better protection.
Oh, yes, the infamous argument. I use 4096 bit keys when it matters, but I remember when everyone used to say how secure 512 bits was. I remember how no one would ever break this 512 bit this or that algorithm that was so great, and now they've all been replaced by "newer", "better", "more secure", and "unbroken" magic bullet encryptions. If you don't think a 1024 bit key can be broken with the resources the bad guys have now, well more power to you. I personally don't have that confidence, since 512 bit is pretty easy to break, and there's nothing to say that they have to actually solve or break it. All they have to do is get a match to one of many. They don't have to solve a particular key, all they have to do is get one out of thousands or millions to match. Then do it again. And again. If 512 bit can be broken, so can 1024, and 2048 and 4096. It gets harder, of course, but nothing is immune. Lastly, if these admins areso sloppy that they have weak passwords what makes you think they'd use 1024 bit DSA encryption, instead of 512?
So, yes, I think 1024 bit DSA can be broken with the technology that botnets have at their disposal. Maybe not broken in the traditional sense, but a process that would allow them to continue to take over secured machines.
Ah, yes it's so good to see an original Sci-Fi idea. Not. Corny as they were I enjoyed Star Trek. Why, because it was upbeat, funny and new (well in respect to TV). Now Sci FI TV and movies is mostly Crush, Kill, Destroy. Death, Kill, Death Death, Kill Kill Death. At least this one added sex. What I wouldn't give for a Sci Fi show that wasn't all about Death, War, Killing and Hate. God, if I want that all I need to do is turn on the freaking news. At least there's a lot more originality with real killers. Which is kind of sad, considering these artists are supposed to be like creative geniuses. I guess schizophrenia beats genius everytime.
I have to wonder, with such a small number of machines as this, how many of them were actually seeded by the botnetters. Just to see if they could get other Linux boxes to fall. Maybe some non-trivial number of these were/are test machines set up to try to break into.
While keys are nice, a good password policy with forced changing frequently is probably better. Ok, so you've created a key, what prevents a brute force attack on the "never-changing" key? How can a key which will never change, be more secure than a very strong password that is only good for two weeks? Odds are a key can be broken in a few months of intensive work. Or less.
I once left a machine out there and intentionally left it there with no updates, to see how long it would survive. It lived for several years before being cracked.
Those Aussies are amazing. They've found a way to read RFID tags that are inside a Faraday Cage?
Phenomenal! But then I'm from Missouri, they're going to have to show me.
Well, when you say "most" humans are vaccinated, that means that "some" humans are not, and thus as long as some humans are not it will continue to persist. Not to mention the fact that we are playing around with a disease that at one time killed nearly half the planet's population of humans. So now it is grown in a lab around other diseases, and who knows what tests are being done to it. It may very well become like Hepatitis C which over decades of study and treatment has evolved sufficiently to be quite deadly and resistant to all treatments.
So, via extrapolation it isn't hard to imagine a new and improved Black Death killing machine at some point in time. I think that researchers are way to cocky and overconfident, in many fields. The "It won't happen to Me" Syndrome, that permeates mankind's mentality. I don't know whether bacteria can or can't be eradicated, I'm not so confident as you that it can't be done, if we really wanted to, but I doubt anyone, in a position to do it, really wants to. That however, doesn't mean we should be helping it evolve into something far more deadly. This facility is probably getting Federal grants, and there's probably some military funds in there somewhere.
I'll grant you that Ethanol is a toxic substance to possibly every organism on Earth, and that methanol is toxic to many things, but not necessarily everything. Not every alcohol is toxic. According to you, glycerin, an alcohol, is toxic. So we should stop using it as a medicine. Furthermore anything in sufficient quantity is toxic. Oxygen is toxic to humans in sufficient quantity. Which is why divers don't use pure oxygen for diving. We need a little nitrogen in our oxygen (although there are certain medical exceptions to this rule). It seems to me, you are the one not being scientific. the NOVA organism you're looking for is the one I listed as living in rock. As I said, I'm no biologist, and thus can't really debate how much water any given bacteria may have in it.
While I can't prove that there can be live that is not based on water, you have not offered any theory to prove that silicon based life using an alcohol is not possible. Once you rule out the impossible, anything left is possible. It is unscientific to preclude or conclude, without evidence or defensible theory, that something is impossible.
In fact, I'll submit that intelligent life is not possible without alcohols. For example you would quickly die, after your neurons stop firing, if all sources of the alcohol choline were removed from your diet. This would be a very difficult thing, almost any food you eat will have some choline source in it. I know of no advanced lifeform that could survive without alcohols. Therefore, by your own standards, alcohols are essential to life.
I may perhaps be wrong about some of these things. I seem to recall reading something about each of these phenomena somewhere, briefly. As to the water part though.
Bacteria and fungus abundantly live on/in organisms with no free water. Such as cheese and bread. They may release water from the organic compounds in which they live, but that is really not the same as needing water. Although you could certainly argue that without the other beings that produced the bread or cheese they wouldn't exist. Which may or may not be valid.
On the thermophiles living in the oceanic volcanic vents, Then there is the lifeforms that can live inside nuclear reactors. I never said they didn't live in water, but normal fish can't live in that part of the ocean. I think we, as a species, presume that live is more fragile and harder to create than it really is. When I said alcohol, I was including the entire classification of alcohols, not simply your sterilizing ethanol. There are many types of alcohols.
For my citations I'll give: Deinococcus peraridilitoris, a bacteria that lives in the desert; Pyrodictium abyssi, the volcanic vent loving lifeform that lives in boiling water; Desulforudis audaxviator, which lives inside a S Africa gold mine without oxygen; there is also a species that lives on methane, but I can't find a reference for it. So, I stand on the water is not a necessary requirement for life. Some species live on metals and water, but it could just be they need the oxygen or hydrogen in the water and not truly water. I'm not a biologist, just casual reader of such topics. But there are numerous examples of life living in extreme environments on Earth including inside ice, rock, at the very bottom of the Marianis trench in total darkness. There are some very very inhospitable places on Earth and yet life is found in all of them. I think it's very likely life will be found on Mars, and Europa and maybe a few other moons around Saturn and Jupiter.
Of course, Drake's formula does have one serious flaw. It will only determine life in the universe that we can detect. If you ignore that parameter, it may prove to be there is abundant life in the Universe, but beyond our feeble ability to detect. Still it would be nice to have proof of one other place where life exists just to end the silly debate on whether we are alone.
Um, sorry, there are lifeforms on earth that do not require water to live. we even have non-carbon based lifeforms. We have lifeforms living in the volcanic vents breathing the "toxic to humans" sulfurous gas in the depths of the oceans. There appears to be life on some of Jupiter's moons. So you'd want to include them as benign. Certainly, raw materials are required, but carbon based, water based lifeforms aren't the only options. Drake's formula is lacking, but since, we really have little experience in what other possibilities there are, it's a reasonable one to use. Especially if we are looking for places to possibly visit or colonize. Or just looking for those we consider a threat. Depends on you paranoia/socialization levels. not to mention there are lifeforms on earth perfectly happy to live in alcohols (No, I'm not referring to that species known as College Students). So solvent required? Yes. Water? No. At least to the depths of our current understanding.
You're an ass, and always will be. Freak. Furthermore, you don't see me complaining about paying what I pay, I didn't write an article saying wo is me. I paid for my hearing aids, and have been paying for them out of pocket for 15 years. I paid my way through school, with my own money. I don't take government handouts, although I qualify and could live tax free off the government via SSDA. I don't take charity, but do put about 5-10% of my income into charity. I've been rich, I've been homeless, I've been so sick I've nearly died, more than once. Still I have it better than Billions of people. Whining about not being able to get a PDA covered, when you got a free $8000 PC, which was probably worth $2-3000, and having email and internet disabled in a Windows PC is more than I can bear. So you get a free PC that you have to pay someone $50 to turn on the other features, unless you have a geek buddy to do it for free, is harmful how? Really, I'd like to know what is so HORRIBLE about getting a FREE computer, but not a FEE PDA? Ok ,so you get a FREE computer, but you really want a FREE PDA. Ok, so you take the free PC, turn around and sell it and buy 3 PDAs and pocket the change! Where's the downside? Or are you just too stupid to be able to figure out the math here? Oh wait you're a /. freak who only knows how to cuss and insult. Nevermind.
Furthermore, I have a better solution, let people buy antibiotics without a prescription, and other medicines, except the really addictive ones. Make all drugs legal, get rid of the drinking age law, throw out the laws requiring insurance, and let people take their own risks. If you want freedom, then let's have real freedom. So who's going to pay for these free clinics of yours? Where's the money going to come from? I have no problem with this, but we already have them. Not to mention a hospital can't turn you away because you don't have the money to pay. We already have free and sliding scale healthcare.
I do pay for my own insurance. It's not economics 101, dude. Check it out sometime. Go price insurance. Then go price insurance for yourself, for you and a spouse, for you and a spouse and a child. Then price each of those separately. You'll see it doesn't add up. It's cheaper to get insurance for one person, than it is per person for more than one. Insurance is a racket and always has been. As long as we use insurance as a means for healthcare, it will be unaffordable for many. That doesn't mean we shouldn't do something to provide for those less fortunate. There are enough really wealthy people in this country who pay almost nothing into the system, because of loopholes designed by them and for them. I know this because I come from this class, and was married into it. My particular branch isn't in this class, but I have family that is. I have firsthand knowledge of some of the richest and most powerful families in America/the World. Personally, I'd like to see healthcare free for all, or affordable for all. I see now purpose for health insurance, except to make a few people very rich at the expense of millions.
PS. Being deaf or partially so is the most discriminated group you will likely find. If you are, you are labelled:
... der ... stan ... d be..tt..er.
1) Slow,
2) a whiner,
3) a faker.
You get people who think if they shout, you'll hear better. Which for some hearing loss conditions will work, but not for all.
If they talk slower, you'll un
If they repeat the same thing over and over again in the same voice and lack of enunciated slur and same volume you'll eventually get it.
Talking louder does help, for my condition, if you have activate any nerves I have left to process voice, but frequencies matter. There are some people I simply cannot hear, because I don't hear in those frequency ranges, or in the ranges of the significant harmonics. Sound is easy to hear, speech is an entirely different ballpark, and a PDA/Iphone which indiscriminately amplifies all ranges and all frequencies is going to be far worse for a person in the long run, rather than an actual device designed specifically for the individual. There are some really fantastic hearing aids out there now, unfortunately, they run $4000-$6000 per (and most people need two) and are a bit out of my current range for out of pocket medical devices. Real medical devices are expensive for a reason. they are not mass produced to one specification and are one off pieces designed for maximizing assistance to a specific condition of a specific person. Simple economics, it's cheaper to build ten thousand identical pieces than ten thousand custom pieces. Should be a no brainer.
Being a hearing-disabled person, I can tell you with no uncertainty, that an IPhone is exactly what you don't want if you are:
partially deaf/hard-of-hearing/hearing challenged/whatever.
What a hearing-disabled person needs is a hearing aid that works with a phone, but the hearing aid is likely not covered. You're talking BS, or just don't know what you're talking about, or just have no clue what it is like to be really hard-of-hearing. IPhones are flat, if you're going to use a phone you want one that is T4/T5, or/and is TTY compatible, and you want one that molds to your face, so you can have the speaker pointing directly into your ear and have the microphone somewhere in the neighborhood of your speaking apparatus (aka mouth, for most of us).. Every single PDA/Smartphone I've seens is incredibly non-user friendly for hard-of-hearing people. You also, want one that has a decent ringer, and I'm not talking musical scores, unless it's like "Highway To Hell", or something, at 110db. Britney Spears "My head is Shaved, Do you Love Me" ain't gonna cut it.
Amazingly, insurance companies rarely cover hearing aids. Actual medical devices for enabling those of us with hearing disabilities to partake in conversations. Why a smartphone is a medical device is a mystery to me. So, until the article poster can get insurance companies to cover real medical devices, he should just stop whining about his ipod not being covered! I pay out of pocket for my hearing aids, $1200-$5000 per. Don't come whining to me about your $300 PDA! You want to use a PDA and you have a communicative disease, shell out the bucks. he fact you can get actual medical devices and have them covered by insurance says to me you have no room to complain. Most companies won't pay for my REAL medical devices.
Not that they are any better than sticking a megaphone to my ear, which is mainstream and I could use, and would be cheaper. Be thankful you are covered for actual devices that are designed to work for your medical condition and come back and complain when you have a real issue! Hell, hearing aids are little amplifiers they made to stick in your ear, which only speeds the further degradation of your hearing, and thus you need to keep buying more and more powerful devices. There is surgery for some conditions and I could get an implant to actually help fix my problem, but insurance companies don't cover that $10,000 surgery. SO STOP YOUR WHINING! You don't hear me writing articles whining about my sad state.
Yet, you hear all these people complaining about the public option, and the healthcare reform, but offer no alternative. If you're not willing to be a part of the solution and come out of your little private self-interest corner and DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT FOR EVERYONE, then you have no right or reason to complain!
I've had numerous cases of vandalism done to property I own. I report them, but it's really pointless. I live in a town of about 10,000. Most petty crimes go unsolved, or are unsolvable. Size of the town doesn't matter much. Only when there are witnesses or the victim can give names of people who might be the culprit can you reasonably hope to solve it. Of course, this Kindle thing is a whole new ball game. If I were a cop, I'd get Apple to provide me with the GPS signature and follow it around for a while. tracking as it goes from one felon to the next. I'd build up a case and bust the lot of them. The original criminal, and those who help traffic it. I'd almost certainly bag a lot more than just one 300 dollar device.
Police ought to be jumping for joy when someone reports one if these high tech toys stolen. Of course, it would pretty much kill the market for such devices. Once cops get wise and start tracking these things and bringing down the fences in large enough numbers, the market will go away, because it becomes so worthless on the black market that most criminals wouldn't waste their time on them.
Until another criminal comes along and disables the GPS.
The real point is, this guy still has options. He should have: filed a report with the police, which he did, then file a claim with his homeowner's/renter's insurance letting them know that Apple can track the device. Then he could let the insurance company fight Apple for him, because insurance companies don't like to pay out money. They'd be motivated to kick Apple in the shin and tell them to report the location of the damn thing. I suppose it's possible for him to also request the police send a subpoena to Apple for the device location. After all, it should be in their interest to solve a solvable crime. Although, the owner really should ask Apple to submit the information to the police, and if they refuse, then maybe he should file a criminal complaint against Apple for conspiracy to theft and aiding and abetting a theft. Since, it really is Apple's responsibility to report the information, if they have it, of criminal activity. Once Apple has the police report information, and the guy really should send them a copy of the report, then they are aware of a stolen device and know it's location and it is their duty to report it. Apple seems to be opening themselves up to a whole world of trouble by demanding a subpoena, rather than just proof of an actual theft. Of course, I'll never have this guy's problem. I would never own a digital reader that wasn't open (that doesn't mean one that allows copying of said digital books). I'm perfectly happy to buy paper books, or get them from the Gutenberg Project.