Moderation points are entirely the decision of other people. It's true that potentially everyone can moderate, but in fact not everyone does. (I never have; I'm a relative newcomer, and I've not yet been offered the chance.) I didn't post what I posted hoping to be moderated up; I posted it because it came to mind when I read your... um... post.
The point of these pages varies from person to person, but personally I don't give a damn about whether what I post is modded or not. I read slashdot to be informed; I'm not well known either on Slashdot or elsewhere, and I don't care if I ever am.
You, on the other hand, are well known. Celebrity always attracts attention; if the attention is uniformly negative, perhaps that says something about you or your contributions.
Who says we have physical access to the machine? Tapping the PS/2 mouse port is well within the abilities of an "ordinary" trojan. (So is keystroke logging of course.)
Um, no. You've just described NAS - Network Attached Storage. Shared storage from NAS devices appears as NFS (or Samba, Mac, or whatever) and you can mount it on any client.
A SAN - Storage Area Network - is when you have lots of RAID storage being shared by several servers. Each server believes it is directly attached to a physical disk, when actually it's just getting one or more slices of the pooled RAID units.
It's very typical of the Church's actions; it's very typical of reactions to the Church's actions; and the next obvious step is public pressure from those who have an opinion, resulting in a very typical denoument: reversal of the removal.
Ah, this was probably a very typical comment, adding nothing of interest. Go ahead and mod it down.
Your argument seems to be that parity checking is only parity checking if the parity bit is stored at the same level as the data. Since genes are stored in sequences of DNA codons, you reason, then the parity bit must be stored as a DNA codon.
What you are overlooking is that the Nature paper is not talking about codon-level parity checking. It's talking about something different. It's asking the question, "What mechanisms might there be that ensure that DNA consists of only four bases, grouped always in the same two pairs?" It looks at the chemistry and finds evidence that the number of donors on each base seems to fulfill a parity checking relationship. They then imply that corrector enzymes, checking this parity relationship, can throw out chemicals other than A,C,G,T which might have mistakenly shown up in the nucleus.
The parity checking, therefore, is not protecting the genes; it is protecting the bases. It is as if the electronics of your computer contained mechanisms which would make sure that every bit stored was a zero or a one - never a two, seven, 1.5, or something else.
Guess what - there are such mechanisms. They ensure that the voltages found on any pathway are either low or high. They're an essential part of IC design, and are exactly analogous to corrector enzymes.
... security means only letting the owner use the system as he sees fit.
This means "security consists of one thing alone: ensuring that the owner can use the system however he wants." It forbids anyone on the planet from preventing the owner from doing what he wants with his system.
But this statement says nothing about preventing people other than the owner from doing things with the system. According to this statement, any other activity by anyone at all - for example, Bill Gates using the system to check up on whether your underwear is clean - is not a threat to security, according to this statement.
... security means letting only the owner use the system as he sees fit.
This statement is somewhat better. It says "security consists of (at least) one thing: the only person able to use the system however they see fit, will be the owner." It does not outright forbid other users from using the system, it just says that their use of the system will be limited, in unspecified ways.
My own version of the statement would be:
... security means letting the owner use the system as he sees fit, and letting the owner decide who else may use the system, and how they may use it.
A bit clumsier, but more inclusive. The ways that others may use the system are entirely up to the owner, no one else.
It won't be made mandatory from a legislative perspective. Windows software could require it tomorrow if it wanted to -- I don't care one way or another about that. It doesn't affect me, and from a pragmatic standpoint, it doesn't affect Windows users.
When will it begin to affect you?
When your Windows-dependent employer can't use any non-Palladium media for file storage, and thus you can't take any work home?
When your ISP begins refusing to let any non-Palladium equipment connect to them?
When your 802.11a refrigerator won't boot up because there's a non-Palladium node in your house?
Slashdot Mirror
Think about it a second. If gravitons moved slower than c, then by moving fast enough you could outrun them -- and escape from a black hole.
Just guessing here, but what about using an lcd panel under the keycaps, and using clear keycaps?
Moderation points are entirely the decision of other people. It's true that potentially everyone can moderate, but in fact not everyone does. (I never have; I'm a relative newcomer, and I've not yet been offered the chance.) I didn't post what I posted hoping to be moderated up; I posted it because it came to mind when I read your ... um ... post.
The point of these pages varies from person to person, but personally I don't give a damn about whether what I post is modded or not. I read slashdot to be informed; I'm not well known either on Slashdot or elsewhere, and I don't care if I ever am.
You, on the other hand, are well known. Celebrity always attracts attention; if the attention is uniformly negative, perhaps that says something about you or your contributions.
Don't waste your time increasing his web page hits.
Certainly not the first step, then.
If you can't afford $500 but can afford $250, go spend your $250 on something else instead of running a webcast.
Apparently in 2 weeks the site went down. Slashdot strikes again. Anybody got a copy of the installer?
So ...
Is that ex post facto?
Who says we have physical access to the machine? Tapping the PS/2 mouse port is well within the abilities of an "ordinary" trojan. (So is keystroke logging of course.)
Um, no. You've just described NAS - Network Attached Storage. Shared storage from NAS devices appears as NFS (or Samba, Mac, or whatever) and you can mount it on any client.
A SAN - Storage Area Network - is when you have lots of RAID storage being shared by several servers. Each server believes it is directly attached to a physical disk, when actually it's just getting one or more slices of the pooled RAID units.
It's very typical of the Church's actions; it's very typical of reactions to the Church's actions; and the next obvious step is public pressure from those who have an opinion, resulting in a very typical denoument: reversal of the removal. Ah, this was probably a very typical comment, adding nothing of interest. Go ahead and mod it down.
What you are overlooking is that the Nature paper is not talking about codon-level parity checking. It's talking about something different. It's asking the question, "What mechanisms might there be that ensure that DNA consists of only four bases, grouped always in the same two pairs?" It looks at the chemistry and finds evidence that the number of donors on each base seems to fulfill a parity checking relationship. They then imply that corrector enzymes, checking this parity relationship, can throw out chemicals other than A,C,G,T which might have mistakenly shown up in the nucleus.
The parity checking, therefore, is not protecting the genes; it is protecting the bases. It is as if the electronics of your computer contained mechanisms which would make sure that every bit stored was a zero or a one - never a two, seven, 1.5, or something else.
Guess what - there are such mechanisms. They ensure that the voltages found on any pathway are either low or high. They're an essential part of IC design, and are exactly analogous to corrector enzymes.
This means "security consists of one thing alone: ensuring that the owner can use the system however he wants." It forbids anyone on the planet from preventing the owner from doing what he wants with his system.
But this statement says nothing about preventing people other than the owner from doing things with the system. According to this statement, any other activity by anyone at all - for example, Bill Gates using the system to check up on whether your underwear is clean - is not a threat to security, according to this statement.
This statement is somewhat better. It says "security consists of (at least) one thing: the only person able to use the system however they see fit, will be the owner." It does not outright forbid other users from using the system, it just says that their use of the system will be limited, in unspecified ways.
My own version of the statement would be:
A bit clumsier, but more inclusive. The ways that others may use the system are entirely up to the owner, no one else.
YAGNWhen will it begin to affect you?
When your Windows-dependent employer can't use any non-Palladium media for file storage, and thus you can't take any work home?
When your ISP begins refusing to let any non-Palladium equipment connect to them?
When your 802.11a refrigerator won't boot up because there's a non-Palladium node in your house?