It increases the ownership from 35% to 45%, but prevents mergers from the big 4 (Fox, ABC, CBS, NBC).
From what I've heard, Viacom and News Corp (Fox) already HAD 41% prior to today.
Given that the existing rules were already being broken without major fuss, I don't see how the new rules will have any real weight. When the company goes over 45%, just appeal it for the two years and then get the FCC to make the cap equal 55%. Easy procedure to follow.
In fact:
(1) Own a major media corp.
(2) Go over the FCC imposed cap, again.
(3) Petition FCC to increase the cap to fit your percentages.
It's a conspiracy! The "people" involved make you believe that the pod is really a big flower, but really it's a HUMAN BODY REPLICATOR! It'll suck the LIFE out of you WHILE YOU SLEEP! The site even shows how the pods are human size! That child was just hatched!
When the cashier doesn't have enough change...
on
Making Change
·
· Score: 1
Although I've had situations like yours (giving $11 for $5.xx to get a fiver and change - with curious looks from the cashier), there was one time knowing math really helped speed things for a bunch of people at once.
When a gas station cashier had inadequate change, I was able to figure out how to get myself and 2 other customers to pay, and get exact change back for each of us (I REALLY hate not remembering the numbers) based on the bills we originally possessed. Of course, the cashier still needed more smaller bills for future customers, but it was a temporary fix that satisfied everyone involved. The group was pretty impressed, and (luckily) it was simple enough that they all could follow (everything was in dollars, no cents).
That experience illustrated the one true limitation of a cash machine: strictly focusing on a series of customers (one at a time). If the first customer can't complete the transaction, then everyone behind has to wait until it is complete. Of course, running out of smaller bills can be avoided. I guess they didn't take care of the issue soon enough.
I've heard that the US senate seat for NJ costs $65 million. It helps if it's mostly your own money though...
That may seem like a lot, but I think it's a great bargain.
You'd control 1/100th of 1/2 of 1/3 of the entire federal government: or 0.167%. (1 seat of 100 Senators; Legislative branch divided into two houses; FederalGov=Executive+Legislative+Judicial)
The GDP of the US is about $10 trillion, so 0.167% of that is: $16.7 billion. Almost 260 times the investment! The return is even greater considering that Senators don't have to worry about re-elections for six years.
They weren't kidding: Corzine really IS a successful businessman!
In other words we have corporations snooping in on our transport medium. It's a dangerous slippery slope, what's next... I turn on my computer and it says "Your internet may be monitored for quality assurance purposes."
Most of the net is in plain text. That's the equivalent of shouting a conversation in a crowded room.
Even the use of encryption has it's limits. The message gets sent through possibly insecure pathways to the intended recipient and decrypted there. BUT, along the way, anyone can store the encrypted message and have forever to try and break the encryption.
The rule is that if a message is SO secret that you NEVER (as in infinity-never) want anyone to know, don't send it through insecure channels. It is expected that any encryption will eventually be broken.
One way to make use of this drawback to encryption is to send a message like, "Something important. Meet me at 8PM." If anyone listening can't break the encryption by 8PM, then they're s-out of luck.
Don't forget: the RIAA is the government...
on
Prince of Pop-ups
·
· Score: 1
Interviewer: Hey, Jesse, why do you think the government came after you? (quote from: CNN, covered by/.)
Lazy reporters...
[sarcasm] not that information is important in this age... [/sarcasm]
Here's another reason why it's rarer than you'd first assume:
Mercury orbit: 88 days.
Earth orbit: 365 days.
Mercury is 4.14772 times faster than Earth. However, that doesn't mean that it's passes Earth 4.14772 times in an Earth year.
Instead of working out the math using these two rates, think of a 12 hour span and a truely analog clock. The minute and hour hands overlap at the following specific times:
t=12:00 exactly (first pass)
t=between 1:05 and 1:06 (second pass)
t=between 2:10 and 2:11 (third pass)
t=between 3:16 and 3:17 (fourth pass)
t=between 4:21 and 4:22 (fifth pass)
t=between 5:27 and 5:28 (sixth pass)
t=between 6:32 and 6:33 (seventh pass)
t=between 7:38 and 7:39 (eighth pass)
t=between 8:43 and 8:44 (ninth pass)
t=between 9:49 and 9:50 (tenth pass)
t=between 10:54 and 10:55 (eleventh pass)
t=between 11:59 and 12:00 (twelvth pass)
But, the twelvth pass is not technically correct, since it really is 12:00 or the first pass. Even if it were, then the twelvth and first pass would occur in the same "pass".
Therefore, in a 12 hour span (on average), the minute hand passes the hour hand 11 times, even though it's 12 times faster (12 revolutions of the minute hand for 1 revolution of the hour hand). It's a tricky question that I haven't heard in a very very very long time.
This issue would only account for about 1/4 of the "missing" Mercury passes, but that's a big amount of error anyway. When you look at the missing Venus passes, since the orbits are much closer in time, the assumption error (described above) is significantly larger.
This is aside from any other mis-alignment factors such as planetary inclinations.
Sounds good, but considering that the bulk of all browsers are not strictly compliant with HTML standards, I'd expect IE to round the conversion differently than NS, differently than Opera, diff...
Then there may be differences in approach, like with the year. Is it "2003" or "1900 + 103"? To be honest, I don't know how the approach would differ, but since some examples already exist - you can't omit the possibility.
Re:All this testing, what about the tests themselv
on
Brain Privacy
·
· Score: 1
You know, somehow I knew someone was going say that... I should be more careful with my examples next time.
>That's not the case with MRI.
That's all fine and good, but the approach I was pursuing was that testing anything affects the stuff being tested. If you have a blood test then you need to remove blood from the subject, not only altering the blood to become useless but also affecting the quantity of it available within the subject. Urine tests take waste that's going to come out, test or no test. However, in this case, my concern is that material tested WITHIN the body alters that material and STAYS in the body.
The X-ray thing was just a close example that most people are aware of. I know that MRI doesn't affect the body like X-rays, so what are the consequences?
I'll rephrase my question: Given that any test will alter its subject (maybe insignificantly), what are the affects of the tests used here (MRI)?
All this testing, what about the tests themselves?
on
Brain Privacy
·
· Score: 1
Does anyone know the affects of these tests on the brain?
AFAIK, you cannot test something without affecting that something (I can't remember the name of the "rule" right now). For example, when reading voltage there is a finite amount of current taken away from the system.
Another example: X-ray use has been quite beneficial in medicine (CT scans, etc), but the tests require the use of high energy waves to measure attenuation. These waves have been shown to affect tissue tested (DNA damage).
Testing upon material within the body is actually quite invasive. I'm not thrilled with urine tests, but at least it's done externally and the affected test material doesn't physically stay with you.
But given the job search approach: What happens to the brain under the strain of multiple interviews?
Except that another factor in who got the plague and who didn't was hygiene.
Thank you! Social adapting vs genetic adapting: which one is easier? If you're screwed wrt genes, then you have little choice. But why chance it?
I also remember reading that people who were around horses a lot were much less likely, but I don't remember why, and that could just be either BS or coincidence.
I've never heard of that, but it reminds me of the relationship between cowpox and smallpox and the birth of vaccinations detailed here.
There are many people not in high density locations (much like there are many Windows boxes not networked)
In a serious biological threat, people tend to become much more reclusive - reducing the rate of infection (much like when a serious computer virus surfaces, people are more wary of their actions)
The world is a big place.
In my original post, I never mention anything against learning how to GM humans. Just because the human genome is mapped doesn't mean we know it. It's difficult to follow a conventional map with very few landmarks anyway.
There are too many mistakes to yet be made before science gets the hang of making GM people. These mistakes are better left in the non-ethical arena so that the eventual creators have the benefit of having it all sorted out ahead of time. That's why all the questions in the topic summary.
Since we only have questions:
What's to say that your example super virus isn't a product of the GM research?
To solve your baby raising problem: Why can't we use a way to genetically alter existing humans?
Higher levels of natural selection at play
on
The Rights of GM Humans
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
I agree that medicine and social programs have tampered with the standard notion of natural selection. But humans should also be observed on a higher level of Darwinian selection. Instead of just looking at survival of the fittest WITHIN a species, humans have shown that it is necessary to also look at survival of the fittest OF ALL species. Without this perspective, it is easy to get lost on the question of why humans have succeeded AT ALL.
We should therefore look at humans with a point of view of the community rather than the individual. Without the community, humans would never have come to dominate.
One may argue that humans are successful because they are intelligent. Intelligence goes only so far - it's the knowledge that is passed on that is more important. Otherwise, we'd have people reinventing the wheel every generation, and never get to the point of building upon that to even make a cart.
Getting back on topic: Your conclusion on the result of the Black Plague is problematic. If the survivors passed on the gene in question, then why were there so many occurrances of the Plague in the same location over the centuries? Paris just kept getting hit with it into the turn of the 20th century.
I would instead prefer to look at WHY plagues occur and what stops them from re-occurring.
Given the necessity of humans to depend on each other, the tendency is toward denser populations. Conditions within any population produces an environment conducive to any other species willing to adapt. The Black Plague is an example of a special case. It took a while for humans, in general, to adapt to this threat.
One of the 'faults' of humans was to develop cities in identical ways. In particular, I'm thinking of waste disposal - just dump your trash in the trench in the middle of the street and let the rain carry it to the river. Since so many cities had this environment, a single species of parasite can easily infect multiple cities. (NOTE: since this is a geek forum - extend this to computer viruses with everyone using one OS).
You could attack this problem in one of two ways: (a) let individual natural selection take its course or (b) adapt the cities. Until just recently, the approach was (a). Once humans began to adapt as a whole (mandate washing hands before surgery, better waste disposal, water treatment, use of quarantine, etc) then there was less of a strain on the population density of the city. Each of these activities create their own problems, but such is the game of adapting.
Diseases are not always a bad thing, in the long run they are often helpful in preserving a species.
The species would be preserved WITHOUT disease, so I fail to see how having disease helps in preserving the species. Perhaps you could argue that disease acts as a "necessary evil" to produce a "greater good", but since the disease species are inclined to adapt to immunity it's a never-ending battle.
On the topic of GM-humans, I can see using this IF AND ONLY IF human existence would cease without it, including the loss of human interdependence (without which humans could not succeed). I don't see this happening anytime soon, but this would be another way that humanity would adapt to a threat. The oddity is that the result would no longer be "human" - what is being saved is civilization.
Not only the opening parentheses, but it looks like some function names were left out too.
What does "r-w/2,g)-w+2r+b,f)" mean? If they're not argument lists, then why the commas?
Also what does "-fg max(...)" mean? Is there supposed to be something between 'fg' and 'max'?
Again: "-((2r),(r+w/2+k))"?
Lots of holes in the "formula". Then again, I don't have "... a degree in maths...".
Just to be clear: I'm criticizing the reporter, not the researcher. If the reporter doesn't know the facts of the report - they shouldn't include stuff they aren't sure of. To be fair, at least the variables are listed within the article.
But, given this mess, I claim to have solved the meaning of life with a simple formula. Of course, it's unreadable and unverifiable.
Interesting. You break it up and sort of fake a domain in between. The only drawback I see is requiring scripts enabled.
If you're going that far, why not play with string variables to at least get rid of the _'//_? It'll fake the address COMPLETELY. Using substring(), just use the valid parts.
I noticed that idea on an earlier post. It looks helpful, but I see three 'flaws':
It would be useless for text-only browsers.
Loss of 'send me email' automation.
The address is still being publicized.
On the first point, one can argue that there are very few people visiting websites that use text-only browsers. That may be the case but, that logic can be extended to advocating HTML that works only for IE and screw the minority browser users - which is a rather unpopular view on/.
On the second point, people misspell - often. And sometimes accounts are named rather oddly. The loss of automation functionality may be a big loss, depending on who's talking.
On the last point, using an image still publicizes the address. It may be much harder to extract the embedded text, but easy/moderate image processing is capable of shape recognition. The use of images reminds me of one-way functions such as the one used in RSA encryption: it's way easy to generate a product while it's practically impossible to factor the product. In this case, it's way easy for the user to visually read while it's way hard for the computer to read. This also reminds me, you'd also exclude blind people.
All this aside, I would like to mention that the use of images in this context is a VERY good idea for general use. If everyone were to create unique images for email addresses, then it would be impossible for spammers to grab addresses in an automated fashion.
Again, it's a good idea but I'm lazy and, for now, the payoff isn't as great as just using the HTML encoding. Once that technique starts getting noticed, then I would look into the use of images.
This battle for email addresses will 'never' end. In order to use an email address, you need to publicize its existence. There lies the weakness that spammers exploit.
Even the HTML encoding of addresses can not stand up to this exploitation. When scouring a website for addresses, everyone knows you look for all occurrances of '@' in the source. Encoding it with HTML merely substitutes one search character with the short string '@'.
Probably the best defense is to randomly insert undisplayed '@'s and '@'s all over the place within a webpage. That way, there would be too many false positives for them to work out. People are lazy and won't bother with such garbage. The irony of this would be that spammers would need to use anti-anti spamming filters. Then we'd need anti-anti-anti filters, etc.
Like I said, as long as addresses are advertised, this battle will 'never' end.
Now if American/. readers were to act... as polite but concerned citizens,...
/.ers are polite? Then why even have the negative mod points for trolling/flamebait/offtopic on/.? Unfortunately, some in this group are pretty offensive at times.
Remember! The Internet is not just for porn! It's also about organizing politcal action to keep porn legal!
Cute spin. I guess if they really want a substantial outpouring of support against these bills, the article summaries should reflect this spin. But, however helpful to their cause it may be, I'd be surprised if any of the anti-DMCA posts follow that path.
When hiking in bear country, if you don't want to encounter them the advice I've heard is: make noise. You could shout occassionally, but a simpler method includes loosely attaching cookware to your backpack.
But then the noise normally bothers the hiker too. I guess I'd rather deal with an annoyance I control than an wild animal many times my size.
And many times they don't get the respect they deserve from full time Microsofties.
Microsofties? What subversive first thought of that one?
And I thought "Mr Softie" (ice cream) was bad...
Oh no. Re-reading the above excerpt now sounds WORSE.
No joke: what a horrible nickname.
What's he mean by "experienced eyes"?
on
Legacy-Free PCs
·
· Score: 1
"Take a look at this almost-20-year-old image... Experienced eyes will even pick out the BIOS chip, the battery backup for the BIOS, the RAM banks, the familiar-looking cables and electrical connectors, and more."
Given the resolution and size of the picture he's refering to, "Experienced" eyes must also mean super-human. I can make out the RAM banks, but the battery and BIOS chip?! In general, the battery's easy to find - but not here.
Some newspapers rely on their cover picture to generate the bulk of sales (NY Post in particular). I mean, the type that catches your eye on the sidewalk going to work. That cover is therefore the paper's main advertisement. Since the paper reports on news in both writing and pictures, when the cover photo for such a newspaper is adulterated, can you then trust the content? Although there were many witnesses, no one actually took a picture of Clinton shaking hands with Castro.
Thankfully, there was a heavy amount of criticism soon after. But unfortunately, it either means that mass media outlets understand that the public won't tolerate it, OR all of mass media uses the example as precident and call adulterations "illustrations".
IMO, the "illustration" would have been fine within the boundaries of an editorial section.
Slashdot Mirror
From what I've heard, Viacom and News Corp (Fox) already HAD 41% prior to today.
Given that the existing rules were already being broken without major fuss, I don't see how the new rules will have any real weight. When the company goes over 45%, just appeal it for the two years and then get the FCC to make the cap equal 55%. Easy procedure to follow.
In fact:
DON'T TOUCH IT! HACK THEM ALL INTO PIECES!
The plants are from OUTERSPACE!!!!!
It's a conspiracy! The "people" involved make you believe that the pod is really a big flower, but really it's a HUMAN BODY REPLICATOR! It'll suck the LIFE out of you WHILE YOU SLEEP! The site even shows how the pods are human size! That child was just hatched!
[shouting] That doll is *Evil*, I tells ya. Evil! Eeeeeeviillll!!!
Although I've had situations like yours (giving $11 for $5.xx to get a fiver and change - with curious looks from the cashier), there was one time knowing math really helped speed things for a bunch of people at once.
When a gas station cashier had inadequate change, I was able to figure out how to get myself and 2 other customers to pay, and get exact change back for each of us (I REALLY hate not remembering the numbers) based on the bills we originally possessed. Of course, the cashier still needed more smaller bills for future customers, but it was a temporary fix that satisfied everyone involved. The group was pretty impressed, and (luckily) it was simple enough that they all could follow (everything was in dollars, no cents).
That experience illustrated the one true limitation of a cash machine: strictly focusing on a series of customers (one at a time). If the first customer can't complete the transaction, then everyone behind has to wait until it is complete. Of course, running out of smaller bills can be avoided. I guess they didn't take care of the issue soon enough.
If someone asks questions, then the Open Source thing-to-do is answer (you know - be open with the individual).
Reading that quote makes me assume that the MS approach is different...
I've heard that the US senate seat for NJ costs $65 million. It helps if it's mostly your own money though...
That may seem like a lot, but I think it's a great bargain.
You'd control 1/100th of 1/2 of 1/3 of the entire federal government: or 0.167%. (1 seat of 100 Senators; Legislative branch divided into two houses; FederalGov=Executive+Legislative+Judicial)
The GDP of the US is about $10 trillion, so 0.167% of that is: $16.7 billion. Almost 260 times the investment! The return is even greater considering that Senators don't have to worry about re-elections for six years.
They weren't kidding: Corzine really IS a successful businessman!
In other words we have corporations snooping in on our transport medium. It's a dangerous slippery slope, what's next... I turn on my computer and it says "Your internet may be monitored for quality assurance purposes."
Most of the net is in plain text. That's the equivalent of shouting a conversation in a crowded room.
Even the use of encryption has it's limits. The message gets sent through possibly insecure pathways to the intended recipient and decrypted there. BUT, along the way, anyone can store the encrypted message and have forever to try and break the encryption.
The rule is that if a message is SO secret that you NEVER (as in infinity-never) want anyone to know, don't send it through insecure channels. It is expected that any encryption will eventually be broken.
One way to make use of this drawback to encryption is to send a message like, "Something important. Meet me at 8PM." If anyone listening can't break the encryption by 8PM, then they're s-out of luck.
Interviewer: Hey, Jesse, why do you think the government came after you? /.)
(quote from: CNN, covered by
Lazy reporters...
[sarcasm] not that information is important in this age... [/sarcasm]
Damn it. Forgot the Preview feature... That'll teach me.
Here's another reason why it's rarer than you'd first assume:
Mercury orbit: 88 days.
Earth orbit: 365 days.
Mercury is 4.14772 times faster than Earth. However, that doesn't mean that it's passes Earth 4.14772 times in an Earth year.
Instead of working out the math using these two rates, think of a 12 hour span and a truely analog clock. The minute and hour hands overlap at the following specific times:
t=12:00 exactly (first pass)
t=between 1:05 and 1:06 (second pass)
t=between 2:10 and 2:11 (third pass)
t=between 3:16 and 3:17 (fourth pass)
t=between 4:21 and 4:22 (fifth pass)
t=between 5:27 and 5:28 (sixth pass)
t=between 6:32 and 6:33 (seventh pass)
t=between 7:38 and 7:39 (eighth pass)
t=between 8:43 and 8:44 (ninth pass)
t=between 9:49 and 9:50 (tenth pass)
t=between 10:54 and 10:55 (eleventh pass)
t=between 11:59 and 12:00 (twelvth pass)
But, the twelvth pass is not technically correct, since it really is 12:00 or the first pass. Even if it were, then the twelvth and first pass would occur in the same "pass".
Therefore, in a 12 hour span (on average), the minute hand passes the hour hand 11 times, even though it's 12 times faster (12 revolutions of the minute hand for 1 revolution of the hour hand). It's a tricky question that I haven't heard in a very very very long time.
This issue would only account for about 1/4 of the "missing" Mercury passes, but that's a big amount of error anyway. When you look at the missing Venus passes, since the orbits are much closer in time, the assumption error (described above) is significantly larger.
This is aside from any other mis-alignment factors such as planetary inclinations.
Sounds good, but considering that the bulk of all browsers are not strictly compliant with HTML standards, I'd expect IE to round the conversion differently than NS, differently than Opera, diff...
Then there may be differences in approach, like with the year. Is it "2003" or "1900 + 103"? To be honest, I don't know how the approach would differ, but since some examples already exist - you can't omit the possibility.
You know, somehow I knew someone was going say that... I should be more careful with my examples next time.
>That's not the case with MRI.
That's all fine and good, but the approach I was pursuing was that testing anything affects the stuff being tested. If you have a blood test then you need to remove blood from the subject, not only altering the blood to become useless but also affecting the quantity of it available within the subject. Urine tests take waste that's going to come out, test or no test. However, in this case, my concern is that material tested WITHIN the body alters that material and STAYS in the body.
The X-ray thing was just a close example that most people are aware of. I know that MRI doesn't affect the body like X-rays, so what are the consequences?
I'll rephrase my question: Given that any test will alter its subject (maybe insignificantly), what are the affects of the tests used here (MRI)?
Does anyone know the affects of these tests on the brain?
AFAIK, you cannot test something without affecting that something (I can't remember the name of the "rule" right now). For example, when reading voltage there is a finite amount of current taken away from the system.
Another example: X-ray use has been quite beneficial in medicine (CT scans, etc), but the tests require the use of high energy waves to measure attenuation. These waves have been shown to affect tissue tested (DNA damage).
Testing upon material within the body is actually quite invasive. I'm not thrilled with urine tests, but at least it's done externally and the affected test material doesn't physically stay with you.
But given the job search approach: What happens to the brain under the strain of multiple interviews?
Except that another factor in who got the plague and who didn't was hygiene.
Thank you! Social adapting vs genetic adapting: which one is easier? If you're screwed wrt genes, then you have little choice. But why chance it?
I also remember reading that people who were around horses a lot were much less likely, but I don't remember why, and that could just be either BS or coincidence.
I've never heard of that, but it reminds me of the relationship between cowpox and smallpox and the birth of vaccinations detailed here.
- There are many people not in high density locations (much like there are many Windows boxes not networked)
- In a serious biological threat, people tend to become much more reclusive - reducing the rate of infection (much like when a serious computer virus surfaces, people are more wary of their actions)
- The world is a big place.
In my original post, I never mention anything against learning how to GM humans. Just because the human genome is mapped doesn't mean we know it. It's difficult to follow a conventional map with very few landmarks anyway.There are too many mistakes to yet be made before science gets the hang of making GM people. These mistakes are better left in the non-ethical arena so that the eventual creators have the benefit of having it all sorted out ahead of time. That's why all the questions in the topic summary.
Since we only have questions:
What's to say that your example super virus isn't a product of the GM research?
To solve your baby raising problem: Why can't we use a way to genetically alter existing humans?
I agree that medicine and social programs have tampered with the standard notion of natural selection. But humans should also be observed on a higher level of Darwinian selection. Instead of just looking at survival of the fittest WITHIN a species, humans have shown that it is necessary to also look at survival of the fittest OF ALL species. Without this perspective, it is easy to get lost on the question of why humans have succeeded AT ALL. We should therefore look at humans with a point of view of the community rather than the individual. Without the community, humans would never have come to dominate.
One may argue that humans are successful because they are intelligent. Intelligence goes only so far - it's the knowledge that is passed on that is more important. Otherwise, we'd have people reinventing the wheel every generation, and never get to the point of building upon that to even make a cart.
Getting back on topic: Your conclusion on the result of the Black Plague is problematic. If the survivors passed on the gene in question, then why were there so many occurrances of the Plague in the same location over the centuries? Paris just kept getting hit with it into the turn of the 20th century.
I would instead prefer to look at WHY plagues occur and what stops them from re-occurring.
Given the necessity of humans to depend on each other, the tendency is toward denser populations. Conditions within any population produces an environment conducive to any other species willing to adapt. The Black Plague is an example of a special case. It took a while for humans, in general, to adapt to this threat.
One of the 'faults' of humans was to develop cities in identical ways. In particular, I'm thinking of waste disposal - just dump your trash in the trench in the middle of the street and let the rain carry it to the river. Since so many cities had this environment, a single species of parasite can easily infect multiple cities. (NOTE: since this is a geek forum - extend this to computer viruses with everyone using one OS).
You could attack this problem in one of two ways: (a) let individual natural selection take its course or (b) adapt the cities. Until just recently, the approach was (a). Once humans began to adapt as a whole (mandate washing hands before surgery, better waste disposal, water treatment, use of quarantine, etc) then there was less of a strain on the population density of the city. Each of these activities create their own problems, but such is the game of adapting.
Diseases are not always a bad thing, in the long run they are often helpful in preserving a species.
The species would be preserved WITHOUT disease, so I fail to see how having disease helps in preserving the species. Perhaps you could argue that disease acts as a "necessary evil" to produce a "greater good", but since the disease species are inclined to adapt to immunity it's a never-ending battle.
On the topic of GM-humans, I can see using this IF AND ONLY IF human existence would cease without it, including the loss of human interdependence (without which humans could not succeed). I don't see this happening anytime soon, but this would be another way that humanity would adapt to a threat. The oddity is that the result would no longer be "human" - what is being saved is civilization.
Not only the opening parentheses, but it looks like some function names were left out too.
...".
What does "r-w/2,g)-w+2r+b,f)" mean? If they're not argument lists, then why the commas?
Also what does "-fg max(...)" mean? Is there supposed to be something between 'fg' and 'max'?
Again: "-((2r),(r+w/2+k))"?
Lots of holes in the "formula". Then again, I don't have "... a degree in maths
Just to be clear: I'm criticizing the reporter, not the researcher. If the reporter doesn't know the facts of the report - they shouldn't include stuff they aren't sure of. To be fair, at least the variables are listed within the article.
But, given this mess, I claim to have solved the meaning of life with a simple formula. Of course, it's unreadable and unverifiable.
Interesting. You break it up and sort of fake a domain in between. The only drawback I see is requiring scripts enabled.
< P><A HREF="'
If you're going that far, why not play with string variables to at least get rid of the _'//_? It'll fake the address COMPLETELY. Using substring(), just use the valid parts.
(modifying your code)
<script LANGUAGE="Javascript">
var goodDom = "realdomain";
var fakeDom = "mailto:chad6107@spambait.org";
document.write('
+ fakeDom.substring(0,16)
+ goodDom
+ fakeDom.substring(24,28)
+ '"><IMG BORDER="0" WIDTH="14" HEIGHT="10" SRC="images/mailto.gif">'
+ 'Mail us!</A></P>');
document.writeln('<P><A HREF="'//http://www.spambait.com">javascript error!</A>
+ 'contacts.html">Family Addresses and Links'
+ '</A></P>');
</SCRIPT>
Oh well,
so much for me calling myself lazy...
I noticed that idea on an earlier post. It looks helpful, but I see three 'flaws':
- It would be useless for text-only browsers.
- Loss of 'send me email' automation.
- The address is still being publicized.
On the first point, one can argue that there are very few people visiting websites that use text-only browsers. That may be the case but, that logic can be extended to advocating HTML that works only for IE and screw the minority browser users - which is a rather unpopular view onOn the second point, people misspell - often. And sometimes accounts are named rather oddly. The loss of automation functionality may be a big loss, depending on who's talking.
On the last point, using an image still publicizes the address. It may be much harder to extract the embedded text, but easy/moderate image processing is capable of shape recognition. The use of images reminds me of one-way functions such as the one used in RSA encryption: it's way easy to generate a product while it's practically impossible to factor the product. In this case, it's way easy for the user to visually read while it's way hard for the computer to read. This also reminds me, you'd also exclude blind people.
All this aside, I would like to mention that the use of images in this context is a VERY good idea for general use. If everyone were to create unique images for email addresses, then it would be impossible for spammers to grab addresses in an automated fashion.
Again, it's a good idea but I'm lazy and, for now, the payoff isn't as great as just using the HTML encoding. Once that technique starts getting noticed, then I would look into the use of images.
This battle for email addresses will 'never' end. In order to use an email address, you need to publicize its existence. There lies the weakness that spammers exploit.
;'.
;'s all over the place within a webpage. That way, there would be too many false positives for them to work out. People are lazy and won't bother with such garbage. The irony of this would be that spammers would need to use anti-anti spamming filters. Then we'd need anti-anti-anti filters, etc.
Even the HTML encoding of addresses can not stand up to this exploitation. When scouring a website for addresses, everyone knows you look for all occurrances of '@' in the source. Encoding it with HTML merely substitutes one search character with the short string '@
Probably the best defense is to randomly insert undisplayed '@'s and '@
Like I said, as long as addresses are advertised, this battle will 'never' end.
Now if American /. readers were to act... as polite but concerned citizens, ...
/.ers are polite? Then why even have the negative mod points for trolling/flamebait/offtopic on /.? Unfortunately, some in this group are pretty offensive at times.
Remember! The Internet is not just for porn! It's also about organizing politcal action to keep porn legal!
Cute spin. I guess if they really want a substantial outpouring of support against these bills, the article summaries should reflect this spin. But, however helpful to their cause it may be, I'd be surprised if any of the anti-DMCA posts follow that path.
When hiking in bear country, if you don't want to encounter them the advice I've heard is: make noise. You could shout occassionally, but a simpler method includes loosely attaching cookware to your backpack.
But then the noise normally bothers the hiker too. I guess I'd rather deal with an annoyance I control than an wild animal many times my size.
And many times they don't get the respect they deserve from full time Microsofties.
Microsofties? What subversive first thought of that one?
And I thought "Mr Softie" (ice cream) was bad...
Oh no. Re-reading the above excerpt now sounds WORSE.
No joke: what a horrible nickname.
"Take a look at this almost-20-year-old image... Experienced eyes will even pick out the BIOS chip, the battery backup for the BIOS, the RAM banks, the familiar-looking cables and electrical connectors, and more."
Given the resolution and size of the picture he's refering to, "Experienced" eyes must also mean super-human. I can make out the RAM banks, but the battery and BIOS chip?! In general, the battery's easy to find - but not here.
Lousy Smarch weather...
I figured the ":>" made it obvious that my comment should be considered with same attitude as articles within the category, "It's funny. Laugh."
But, it's helpful to see the comparison.
Some newspapers rely on their cover picture to generate the bulk of sales (NY Post in particular). I mean, the type that catches your eye on the sidewalk going to work. That cover is therefore the paper's main advertisement. Since the paper reports on news in both writing and pictures, when the cover photo for such a newspaper is adulterated, can you then trust the content? Although there were many witnesses, no one actually took a picture of Clinton shaking hands with Castro.
Thankfully, there was a heavy amount of criticism soon after. But unfortunately, it either means that mass media outlets understand that the public won't tolerate it, OR all of mass media uses the example as precident and call adulterations "illustrations".
IMO, the "illustration" would have been fine within the boundaries of an editorial section.