What I call someone, what they call themselves, and their real identity are three different things. Why force them to be the same?
A) if Google/Facebook only grant accounts (or verified account status, as others have suggested) to people who disclose their personal identity... that's the company's choice. It certainly makes me more likely to use their service (for the obvious spam/troll prevention reasons).
B) but there's no reason they need to publish that information for anyone else. They could then let my friend Robert Snee sign up for an account, choose his public name to be "Dread Pirate Snee" and then, most importantly, let me override his name and avatar with one of my own choice... probably Bob Snee with a picture of something other than his newborn baby.
C) And if Rob wants to use a total psueodonym but still accept his friend request/add him to a circle... he'll need to tell me in private "who he is" and prove it to me. Possibly by *choosing* to reveal his google/FB-verified real-identity. If he doesn't, I'm not going to let him into my friends/circles... which is the difference between social network-based sites and open communication tools like email/forums which have global acceptance for historical/practical reasons.
Disease and biological study are sort of a circular dependency.
E.coli is one of the best biological test organisms because we've studied it so much. We understand most of its genetics, reproductive behavior, control signals, metabolism, etc... in part because it's fairly simple, but also precisely because it causes disease so it has been studied a lot in the past. It's also not very pathenogenic compared to most organisms... anything out of control is dangerous but it grows slowly and needs a lot from its environment so it's easy to keep in check.
The same holds true for a lot of "model organisms" (species that biologists can mess with without too many moral complications, like E.coli and fruit flies). S.aureus ("Staph") and Y.pestis (the plague) are horrific little bugs if they go unchecked in the wild... but they have a lot to teach us and if we can learn how to stop them we stand to gain a lot. Soo they're among the most studied species out there. Same goes for S.cerevisiea... baker's yeast:).
G
Re:Am I missing something
on
Juiced
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Yeah, you're missing something. You're missing the fact that "Technology" no longer means "Silicon" or "Ray guns". Technology is becoming less about metals and electrons and more about proteins and chemistry every day. Hell, even your aforementioned Sci-Fi writers have known this for decades; from Niven to Gibson and back to Heinlein, the masters have long known that once we've reached the boundaries of hard tech, soft tech will dominate. If you haven't realised that it's already happening, either catch up or get out of the way.
As such, the social issues of "new technology" ARE what "Nerds and Geeks and Libertarians" should be thinking about... and while Canseco is no genius philospher, he appears to have guts and some degree of vision. His stance is important, if not correct or wise. This article is more about "tommorow's technology today" than any other I've seen on Slashdot in recent memory.
It's used by a much smaller population than cell phones or the internet or viagra.. but it impacts many, many more people, and for those who do use it, the power it brings is hard to overstate.
> "Later" is after the speaker decides that conversation is over
Actually, if you read the spec, "Later" is any time after the next message pair is exchanged.. the keys are rotated constantly, including using "heartbeat" blank messages.. so PFS is maintained even during a conversation.
G
Apologies if I get a bit beyond layman's chemistry here; hopefully you can use the terminology as a websearch starting point for explainations:
Chemistry isn't nearly as black box as you make it out to be. Basic organic chem can show you how (and why) a reactive molecule will interact with another, and what the new molecule will be on a atomic level.. often predicting many of the physical properties you mentioned.
Similar rules can be applied to large repetitive molecules (Polymer Chemistry uses this type of mechanistic approach to develop new polymers fairly constantly), medium-to-large molecules (such as structure based drug design of ligands and small molecule bio inhibitors) and even very large molecules (proteins) or aggregates thereof (crystals, metals, conductors, etc).
We're still quite a ways off from being to simulate arbitrary molecules from the ground up, but we do understand a fair bit of the atomic interactions (even subatomic ones, although the QM and QFT math gets pretty heavy for anything larger than a handful of atoms which aren't in a regular pattern) and are getting a pretty solid grasp on the full set of mechanics we'd need to do such predictive simulations or derivations.
Ack! I know this is gonna get swallowed up by the political spam, but a kinda cool piece of geek news slipped past when I was reading some of the news about the new carrier.. In particular, it's ONLY GOT 3 WIRES!! Ok, so who cares? Well, it used to be a tradition among veteran carrier pilots (don't know if it still is.. anyone here in the know?) to "catch the 3rd wire".. which is to say, prove (show off:) their competance/skills by aiming for the 3rd arresting wire on the deck. I guess they'll have to go for 2nd of 3 now or something. Anyway, it was just a neat piece of military culture I heard somewhere:)
Not saying I agree with them, but all they're doing is being more upfront than most anti-DRM/P2P/etc progressive technologies are. Half the topics on Slashdot these days of whether a corporation should support or fight a technology resolve to "If they don't support it, it'll get released anyway, so they might as well".. these guys are just coalescing that "vague threat" into a direct warning. Intelligent? No.. it's not a great way to fight a guerilla tech-war.. but in a way it's more honourable than the alternative.
Do 'geeks' have a higher tendency toward conditions like PDD/Asperger?
FWIW, that's totally backwards. The question is if people with slightly different ways of thinking tend towards becoming geeks because of aptitude, etc. (Looking at it the other way might be an interesting sociological experiment w/r to diganosis, but it's certainly not the main question).
Sorry if that's nitpicking, but people getting hypothesis backwards like this is way too common in pop-science.
We haven't managed to genetically engineer flying, firebreathing lizards yet.. let alone ones that can teleport.. if the red planet is on it's aproach, we're screwed!
It doesn't realy count as an all time great work of fiction.. but I happened to be looking recently for the third in a series by Jack Chalker called 'The Wonderland Gambit'.. all of which are out of print now after about 5 years. Can't find it anywhere for trying (used stores, even libraries!:P).. which is a shame, because it was a very clever series, and lots of fun to read.
It's a VR-universe-jumping setup (predates the Matrix as a movie, but pays some homage to Gibsons stuff while adding a lot of it's own)... explores some of Chalker's standard questions, like identity switching and what it would actually mean, as well as lot of other cool and reasonably original twists/ideas on what's becoming a genre of it's own. The big difference being that it has an 'infinite recursion of worlds within worlds' type deal.. rather than just IN and OUT. A healthy dose of Lewis Carol imagry is fun too;)
If anyone knows where I can get an electronic copy of it, I'll mail him the 5$:P
What Celera/Ventner are selling for.5M is having your genome SEQUENCED, not scanned. The former is a base-pair level map of your entire genome. The latter is checking certain windows to see if they contain a known, small, problem causing mutation, (as well as some large checks for rearrangements and such).
It's sort of the difference between reverse compiling the entire suorce code for an app (hard), and checking certain locations for passwords/corruption/etc.
G
Ps: Celera's map didn't really beat HUGO, they're both totally incomplete, with tons of errors known and unknown.
Ok, so I suspect this isn't feasable, but I have two monitors set up with an ajoined desktop, and I can drag/send windows between different desktops.. so couldn't you map two different desktops to two different devices and just move things between them?
As a way of illustrating to people here about why you do what you do; If someone gave you a billion dollars tommorow and you never had to 'work' as a writer again.. what kind of books would you write? For fun or to make a point, or both? Just to delve into cool worlds, or to explore how people think? Stuff like Xanth, or Bio, KilloByte, or Tatham Mound?
I'm sure you're no stranger to criticism so don't mind the trolls around here - Thanks for the worlds, the laughs, and the thoughts.
As someone mentioned, you should have read the article a little closer;P (I need that in a paste buffer).
Seriously, I bet they had some fun tracking how much of a hit response they got on their exec profile page in response to that post. Got me at least, she's kinda a hottie;)
Slashdot Mirror
What I call someone, what they call themselves, and their real identity are three different things. Why force them to be the same?
A) if Google/Facebook only grant accounts (or verified account status, as others have suggested) to people who disclose their personal identity... that's the company's choice. It certainly makes me more likely to use their service (for the obvious spam/troll prevention reasons).
B) but there's no reason they need to publish that information for anyone else. They could then let my friend Robert Snee sign up for an account, choose his public name to be "Dread Pirate Snee" and then, most importantly, let me override his name and avatar with one of my own choice... probably Bob Snee with a picture of something other than his newborn baby.
C) And if Rob wants to use a total psueodonym but still accept his friend request/add him to a circle... he'll need to tell me in private "who he is" and prove it to me. Possibly by *choosing* to reveal his google/FB-verified real-identity. If he doesn't, I'm not going to let him into my friends/circles... which is the difference between social network-based sites and open communication tools like email/forums which have global acceptance for historical/practical reasons.
G
Disease and biological study are sort of a circular dependency.
E.coli is one of the best biological test organisms because we've studied it so much. We understand most of its genetics, reproductive behavior, control signals, metabolism, etc... in part because it's fairly simple, but also precisely because it causes disease so it has been studied a lot in the past. It's also not very pathenogenic compared to most organisms... anything out of control is dangerous but it grows slowly and needs a lot from its environment so it's easy to keep in check.
The same holds true for a lot of "model organisms" (species that biologists can mess with without too many moral complications, like E.coli and fruit flies). S.aureus ("Staph") and Y.pestis (the plague) are horrific little bugs if they go unchecked in the wild... but they have a lot to teach us and if we can learn how to stop them we stand to gain a lot. Soo they're among the most studied species out there. Same goes for S.cerevisiea... baker's yeast :).
G
Yeah, you're missing something. You're missing the fact that "Technology" no longer means "Silicon" or "Ray guns". Technology is becoming less about metals and electrons and more about proteins and chemistry every day. Hell, even your aforementioned Sci-Fi writers have known this for decades; from Niven to Gibson and back to Heinlein, the masters have long known that once we've reached the boundaries of hard tech, soft tech will dominate. If you haven't realised that it's already happening, either catch up or get out of the way.
As such, the social issues of "new technology" ARE what "Nerds and Geeks and Libertarians" should be thinking about... and while Canseco is no genius philospher, he appears to have guts and some degree of vision. His stance is important, if not correct or wise. This article is more about "tommorow's technology today" than any other I've seen on Slashdot in recent memory.
G
G
Actually, if you read the spec, "Later" is any time after the next message pair is exchanged.. the keys are rotated constantly, including using "heartbeat" blank messages.. so PFS is maintained even during a conversation. G
Every time this question comes around again (and I'm not saying it shouldn't), I'm reminded of one of my favorite computer science quotes:
"Asking whether computers can think is like asking whether submarines can swim" -- Dijkstra
G
Chemistry isn't nearly as black box as you make it out to be. Basic organic chem can show you how (and why) a reactive molecule will interact with another, and what the new molecule will be on a atomic level.. often predicting many of the physical properties you mentioned.
Similar rules can be applied to large repetitive molecules (Polymer Chemistry uses this type of mechanistic approach to develop new polymers fairly constantly), medium-to-large molecules (such as structure based drug design of ligands and small molecule bio inhibitors) and even very large molecules (proteins) or aggregates thereof (crystals, metals, conductors, etc).
We're still quite a ways off from being to simulate arbitrary molecules from the ground up, but we do understand a fair bit of the atomic interactions (even subatomic ones, although the QM and QFT math gets pretty heavy for anything larger than a handful of atoms which aren't in a regular pattern) and are getting a pretty solid grasp on the full set of mechanics we'd need to do such predictive simulations or derivations.
G
Ack! I know this is gonna get swallowed up by the political spam, but a kinda cool piece of geek news slipped past when I was reading some of the news about the new carrier.. In particular, it's ONLY GOT 3 WIRES!! Ok, so who cares? Well, it used to be a tradition among veteran carrier pilots (don't know if it still is.. anyone here in the know?) to "catch the 3rd wire".. which is to say, prove (show off :) their competance/skills by aiming for the 3rd arresting wire on the deck. I guess they'll have to go for 2nd of 3 now or something. Anyway, it was just a neat piece of military culture I heard somewhere :)
G
G
FWIW, that's totally backwards. The question is if people with slightly different ways of thinking tend towards becoming geeks because of aptitude, etc. (Looking at it the other way might be an interesting sociological experiment w/r to diganosis, but it's certainly not the main question).
Sorry if that's nitpicking, but people getting hypothesis backwards like this is way too common in pop-science.
G
We haven't managed to genetically engineer flying, firebreathing lizards yet.. let alone ones that can teleport.. if the red planet is on it's aproach, we're screwed!
Oh.. sorry.. red planet, not moon.
G
It doesn't realy count as an all time great work of fiction.. but I happened to be looking recently for the third in a series by Jack Chalker called 'The Wonderland Gambit'.. all of which are out of print now after about 5 years. Can't find it anywhere for trying (used stores, even libraries! :P).. which is a shame, because it was a very clever series, and lots of fun to read.
;)
:P
It's a VR-universe-jumping setup (predates the Matrix as a movie, but pays some homage to Gibsons stuff while adding a lot of it's own)... explores some of Chalker's standard questions, like identity switching and what it would actually mean, as well as lot of other cool and reasonably original twists/ideas on what's becoming a genre of it's own. The big difference being that it has an 'infinite recursion of worlds within worlds' type deal.. rather than just IN and OUT. A healthy dose of Lewis Carol imagry is fun too
If anyone knows where I can get an electronic copy of it, I'll mail him the 5$
G
And if we're lucky, the one after that will be:
"HMOs become defunct as population realises en masse why total heathcare is a good idea".
Actually, screw lucky, if we're smart.
G
What Celera/Ventner are selling for .5M is having your genome SEQUENCED, not scanned. The former is a base-pair level map of your entire genome. The latter is checking certain windows to see if they contain a known, small, problem causing mutation, (as well as some large checks for rearrangements and such).
It's sort of the difference between reverse compiling the entire suorce code for an app (hard), and checking certain locations for passwords/corruption/etc.
G
Ps: Celera's map didn't really beat HUGO, they're both totally incomplete, with tons of errors known and unknown.
Ok, so I suspect this isn't feasable, but I have two monitors set up with an ajoined desktop, and I can drag/send windows between different desktops.. so couldn't you map two different desktops to two different devices and just move things between them?
G
Ok, so it's a horrible joke, but when I thought Mel(Maya embedded scripting) -> Pel, it just wasn't as cute ;)
G
As a way of illustrating to people here about why you do what you do; If someone gave you a billion dollars tommorow and you never had to 'work' as a writer again.. what kind of books would you write? For fun or to make a point, or both? Just to delve into cool worlds, or to explore how people think? Stuff like Xanth, or Bio, KilloByte, or Tatham Mound?
I'm sure you're no stranger to criticism so don't mind the trolls around here - Thanks for the worlds, the laughs, and the thoughts.
Gavin Duggan
So... Rrr, Doh!
As someone mentioned, you should have read the article a little closer ;P (I need that in a paste buffer).
;)
Seriously, I bet they had some fun tracking how much of a hit response they got on their exec profile page in response to that post. Got me at least, she's kinda a hottie
G
Laugh, Amen to the above... Zoren's Lemon and Abelian Grapes ;)
What do you get if you cross an elephant and an Aardvark?
Elephant.Ardvark.Sin(theta) of course.
And, as a Biologist and Mathematician, my favorite:
What do you get if you cross a Mosquito and a Mountain climber?
You can't, one's a vector, the other a Scaler.
Enjoy! (Both the jokes, and Mathematics in general.. a good proof is poetry for the logical mind)