Well, nicotine is indeed a very toxic substance, according to Wikipedia even more toxic than cocaine. On the other hand, lethal substances are used all the time as medicine, it all comes down to how much you administer compared to the level required to reach the lethal or damaging effect. I assume further testing on this will reveal if nicotine in levels that are helpful with the issues mentioned in the summary also provide a different health risk. However, the grand parent (and several others in this thread) seemed focus on cancers and the risks that come from the smoking of nicotine which is part of tobacco, something containing much, much more than just nicotine. (Interesting to note from Wikipedia - referenced from New Scientis - is the claim that tobacco contains what might be dangerous levels of both radium and polonium)
This is hardly the first time toxic substances have proven (although it's not proven yet) to have health benefits. For example, smoking marijuana (or THC rather) has proven to be an effective pain medication and helpful to some very ill people.
Whether or not it is politically correct to tout this information.. well, that's a different story.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that while the nicotine makes quitting smoking hard to do, its health effect is not as great as that of the other substances in smoke such as tar. That's what gives you lung cancer, not the nicotine itself.
The goal of the Hutter Prize is to encourage research in artificial intelligence (AI). The organizers believe that text compression and AI are equivalent problems. Hutter proved that the optimal behavior of a goal seeking agent in an unknown but computable environment is to guess at each step that the environment is controlled by the shortest program consistent with all interaction so far. Unfortunately, there is no general solution because Kolmogorov complexity is not computable. Hutter proved that in the restricted case (called AIXItl) where the environment is restricted to time t and space l, that a solution can be computed in time O(t2l), which is still intractable. Thus, AI remains an art.
The organizers further believe that compressing natural language text is a hard AI problem, equivalent to passing the Turing test. Thus, progress toward one goal represents progress toward the other. They argue that predicting which characters are most likely to occur next in a text sequence requires vast real-world knowledge. A text compressor must solve the same problem in order to assign the shortest codes to the most likely text sequences.
I wondered about that myself, apart from a few newspaper notices the only place that only appear to get "riled up" was Germany itself. I don't read German newspapers daily, so the level of their concern I don't know, but certainly in Scandinavia this has hardly been discussed. I also read a lot of British newspapers and I certainly haven't seen much there to indicate such a reaction from the Brits either.
The problem with texting while driving is that it usually put OTHERS in danger because your driving will be affected. Common sense is not so common unfortunately, and texting while driving does not only affect you, but also others around you.
Most corporations use the groupware in Exchange/Outlook, Thunderbird can't really compete there as it does not have a proper exchange equivalent to talk to.
I've seen countless people use Thunderbird as a regular email client, that they use with their personal email.
Most I know (that don't frequent slashdot) use the emails they get from their ISP's, which are mostly set up with POP3 or IMAP and they don't really know much or care about Gmail and the likes apart from using them as log-ins to chat applications.
So your entire defense for Google is actually "it would've been much worse with Microsoft"? I'm fully aware of the history behind MS, and I don't dispute the fact that it would perhaps BE worse with MS getting the deal instead of Google, at least for now, but think about all the information Google has on you and think about them being in complete control over most information that flows over the net. I would rather have MS, Yahoo and Google compete in the ad arena instead of having a monopoly, even if that monopoly is Google. Having one company knowing that much about a person is somewhat scary, even if the company has a "Do no evil" motto.
A monopoly is still a monopoly, whether or not you choose to call it a "natural monopoly" or not. Would it really be better if Google wiped Yahoo, MS et al off the online ads map? MS could use IE to wipe Google off, but why is it better to have only Google than only Microsoft serving us online ads? You can say "yes, but MS would do this and that", which would probably turn out to be true, but we have to face the fact that it's hypocrisy to cry foul whenever MS does something and just say "phew, at least it's not Microsoft" when Google does something almost just as bad. Remember, IBM was the big bad one during the 80's, not Microsoft, and see where we are now.
Let's be fair here, Google is substantially larger in the online ad area than Microsoft, so if Microsoft had won the bid Google would just be a bit smaller. Off course Microsoft wouldn't say "it's unfair", because it wouldn't have been. Now Google is more like the Microsoft of the online ads world. The irony is not lost, but you cannot just turn it around and say it would've been the same thing if MS had won the bid.
Their motto is "Do no evil", not "Help open source". They're still a company in the business of making money and unless they see it as a source of revenue to help making Linux a viable desktop alternative, do you really think they will do it? Just to "be nice"?
Not just absurd, it's crazy. They disregard what the scientific community has said and make up their own definition "just because"? They are politicians and should stick to that.. Sadly, this isn't exactly the first we've seen of blatant disregard of the scientific community by politicians..
My point exactly!
They media aren't exactly helping though, they keep pushing out the horror stories, while it's harder to get a good story on how a measure actually worked.
I've always wondered. When these things come up, people start talking about the hysteria that was the SARS, bird flu etc and use them as example of scientists being wrong. But, with these issues, measures where taken to make sure things didn't spread etc, couldn't it have been that many of these measures, you know, WORKED? Like you say, they are still a threat, but the first "wave" if you will, was curbed. Isn't there a bigger chance that the measures that were put in place, worked, that the scientists said "if we don't stop this, it will be devastating, but we can try this and this" and it actually paid off to listen to them? Why is the fact that there was no mass extinction suddenly evidence of scientific incompetence?
Kids and teenagers have done stupid things througout every generation. They are simply incapable of seeing the consequences of their actions, whether it's driving way too fast on narrow roads ("there are never any other cars here") or if it's giving every info on their life to anyone who's willing to "listen" on the internet. This is nothing new is it? It's just a different approach that parents have to understand and inform.
Isn't this kind of like the stupid reality shows and tabloid magazines which people will never acknowledge reading/watching, yet still has a great knowledge of? Nothing new, the scenery has just changed and now the one who knows is the IT guy, not the clerk behind the counter.
His enthusiasm was amazing to see and was part of what made me a fan of his. In today's world I find his entusiastic nature less and less prominent, people are perhaps taking everything too seriously. Unfortunately, as you say, he will be an example that this direct contact can be fatal, but his colourful nature is something I admire.
RIP Steve! With 14 years of show footage, I'm sure we'll see you again many times.
And reward the owners and leaders that got them into this mess? IBM should make sure they cannot get off their feet again, not back them up with money.
It could also be the media doing this and hoping a story sticks. After all, Google have really moved into many different areas, so perhaps a journalist is going "why not?" and prints a rumour, wouldn't surprise me at all.
Given Google's obvious love for thinking "outside the box" they have a higher chance of something sticking than with for example Yahoo.
It wouldn't be the first time an article has interpreted something wrong. Blocking P2P traffic is virtually impossible, we all know that. I'm not saying it's not a stupid law, it is, but to me, this article doesn't really clarify just what has been banned and what will be legal. As we've established, companies like Blizzard are using P2P to get their patches distributed (that Penny Arcade cartoon on the issue is hilarious). Perhaps if someone could post the actual text or a translation of it so we don't have to interpret an article that tries to interpret a law which again comes off in a mind-blowing Slashdot header.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, nicotine is indeed a very toxic substance, according to Wikipedia even more toxic than cocaine. On the other hand, lethal substances are used all the time as medicine, it all comes down to how much you administer compared to the level required to reach the lethal or damaging effect. I assume further testing on this will reveal if nicotine in levels that are helpful with the issues mentioned in the summary also provide a different health risk. However, the grand parent (and several others in this thread) seemed focus on cancers and the risks that come from the smoking of nicotine which is part of tobacco, something containing much, much more than just nicotine. (Interesting to note from Wikipedia - referenced from New Scientis - is the claim that tobacco contains what might be dangerous levels of both radium and polonium)
This is hardly the first time toxic substances have proven (although it's not proven yet) to have health benefits. For example, smoking marijuana (or THC rather) has proven to be an effective pain medication and helpful to some very ill people.
Whether or not it is politically correct to tout this information.. well, that's a different story.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that while the nicotine makes quitting smoking hard to do, its health effect is not as great as that of the other substances in smoke such as tar. That's what gives you lung cancer, not the nicotine itself.
Could be because a large portion of Slashdot's readers are sysadmins and chances are that many of them are administrating Windows machines at work?
I wondered about that myself, apart from a few newspaper notices the only place that only appear to get "riled up" was Germany itself. I don't read German newspapers daily, so the level of their concern I don't know, but certainly in Scandinavia this has hardly been discussed. I also read a lot of British newspapers and I certainly haven't seen much there to indicate such a reaction from the Brits either.
Go sensationalism!
One thing's for certain, the one person/thing that WON'T be blamed is the person that pulled the trigger.
The problem with texting while driving is that it usually put OTHERS in danger because your driving will be affected. Common sense is not so common unfortunately, and texting while driving does not only affect you, but also others around you.
Most corporations use the groupware in Exchange/Outlook, Thunderbird can't really compete there as it does not have a proper exchange equivalent to talk to.
I've seen countless people use Thunderbird as a regular email client, that they use with their personal email.
Most I know (that don't frequent slashdot) use the emails they get from their ISP's, which are mostly set up with POP3 or IMAP and they don't really know much or care about Gmail and the likes apart from using them as log-ins to chat applications.
So your entire defense for Google is actually "it would've been much worse with Microsoft"? I'm fully aware of the history behind MS, and I don't dispute the fact that it would perhaps BE worse with MS getting the deal instead of Google, at least for now, but think about all the information Google has on you and think about them being in complete control over most information that flows over the net. I would rather have MS, Yahoo and Google compete in the ad arena instead of having a monopoly, even if that monopoly is Google. Having one company knowing that much about a person is somewhat scary, even if the company has a "Do no evil" motto.
A monopoly is still a monopoly, whether or not you choose to call it a "natural monopoly" or not. Would it really be better if Google wiped Yahoo, MS et al off the online ads map? MS could use IE to wipe Google off, but why is it better to have only Google than only Microsoft serving us online ads? You can say "yes, but MS would do this and that", which would probably turn out to be true, but we have to face the fact that it's hypocrisy to cry foul whenever MS does something and just say "phew, at least it's not Microsoft" when Google does something almost just as bad. Remember, IBM was the big bad one during the 80's, not Microsoft, and see where we are now.
Let's be fair here, Google is substantially larger in the online ad area than Microsoft, so if Microsoft had won the bid Google would just be a bit smaller. Off course Microsoft wouldn't say "it's unfair", because it wouldn't have been. Now Google is more like the Microsoft of the online ads world. The irony is not lost, but you cannot just turn it around and say it would've been the same thing if MS had won the bid.
Their motto is "Do no evil", not "Help open source". They're still a company in the business of making money and unless they see it as a source of revenue to help making Linux a viable desktop alternative, do you really think they will do it? Just to "be nice"?
Not just absurd, it's crazy. They disregard what the scientific community has said and make up their own definition "just because"? They are politicians and should stick to that.. Sadly, this isn't exactly the first we've seen of blatant disregard of the scientific community by politicians..
My point exactly! They media aren't exactly helping though, they keep pushing out the horror stories, while it's harder to get a good story on how a measure actually worked.
I've always wondered. When these things come up, people start talking about the hysteria that was the SARS, bird flu etc and use them as example of scientists being wrong. But, with these issues, measures where taken to make sure things didn't spread etc, couldn't it have been that many of these measures, you know, WORKED? Like you say, they are still a threat, but the first "wave" if you will, was curbed. Isn't there a bigger chance that the measures that were put in place, worked, that the scientists said "if we don't stop this, it will be devastating, but we can try this and this" and it actually paid off to listen to them? Why is the fact that there was no mass extinction suddenly evidence of scientific incompetence?
Kids and teenagers have done stupid things througout every generation. They are simply incapable of seeing the consequences of their actions, whether it's driving way too fast on narrow roads ("there are never any other cars here") or if it's giving every info on their life to anyone who's willing to "listen" on the internet. This is nothing new is it? It's just a different approach that parents have to understand and inform.
Isn't this kind of like the stupid reality shows and tabloid magazines which people will never acknowledge reading/watching, yet still has a great knowledge of? Nothing new, the scenery has just changed and now the one who knows is the IT guy, not the clerk behind the counter.
His enthusiasm was amazing to see and was part of what made me a fan of his. In today's world I find his entusiastic nature less and less prominent, people are perhaps taking everything too seriously. Unfortunately, as you say, he will be an example that this direct contact can be fatal, but his colourful nature is something I admire.
RIP Steve! With 14 years of show footage, I'm sure we'll see you again many times.
And reward the owners and leaders that got them into this mess? IBM should make sure they cannot get off their feet again, not back them up with money.
Letting them sell stuff and raise stock prices. You thought there was some noble goals behind the interviews?
Perhaps that's why this policy is in place? Didn't Melinda lead the Microsoft Bob development or something?
It could also be the media doing this and hoping a story sticks. After all, Google have really moved into many different areas, so perhaps a journalist is going "why not?" and prints a rumour, wouldn't surprise me at all.
Given Google's obvious love for thinking "outside the box" they have a higher chance of something sticking than with for example Yahoo.
It wouldn't be the first time an article has interpreted something wrong. Blocking P2P traffic is virtually impossible, we all know that. I'm not saying it's not a stupid law, it is, but to me, this article doesn't really clarify just what has been banned and what will be legal. As we've established, companies like Blizzard are using P2P to get their patches distributed (that Penny Arcade cartoon on the issue is hilarious). Perhaps if someone could post the actual text or a translation of it so we don't have to interpret an article that tries to interpret a law which again comes off in a mind-blowing Slashdot header.