Incorporate a company, call it "mycompany inc." or whatever. Doesn't matter.
Write yourself a little contract with your company that it gets none of your ip and everything you do is your property. You don't really need a lawyer for this.
When you contract out, you are contracting out through your company. Never sign a contract from person to customer. Only sign from your company to customer.
Now you can sign anything they hand at you. No worries. Worst case? Dissolve your company and incorporate a new one. You are protected by the corporate shield.
The key question is, however, whether such a thing would be legal or interpreted as obstruction of justice? Having a policy of frequent deletion as a means of limiting exposure to privacy challenges doesn't seem to be a problem, but my proposed script might be. It might be possible to argue that before an actual request is received that preemptive deletion is not any different than frequent deletion. INAL, so I don't know, but it might be interesting to see what the courts think.
# # The location and format of the access logfile (Common Logfile Format). # If you do not define any access logfiles within a <VirtualHost> # container, they will be logged here. Contrariwise, if you *do* # define per-<VirtualHost> access logfiles, transactions will be # logged therein and *not* in this file. # CustomLog/dev/null common
I think that fixes the problem of being asked why your logs get deleted. There never were any logs to start with. Why? Because I don't feel like answering any questions, MPAA, RIAA, FBI, CIA, ISP, etc.. Any... too much trouble without any consulting fees. Enough said.
Well guess what? Sooner or later someone who IS extreme to the point that they want to use violence will show up. That will draw the intrest of the government. It is illegal to try to violently overthrow the government, make no mistake.
I suppose anarchists are like canarys in coal mines: as long as you hear them twittering and flapping around in their self-imposed cages, freedom of speech is safe.
At first glance, your comment makes a lot of sense. That is, until you realize how sophisticated the propaganda game is in the 21st century. I think it is well understood in today's society that keeping a radical wing blabbing makes everyone who is not doing that believe that we live in a tolerant society. So even if the gov. does decide to eliminate those they consider unsatisfactory (for whatever reason), they would probably see it as an advantage to keep a healthy set of the lunatic fringe well fed and well read.
At the end of the day, this provides a mechanism for the bus to operate at the same speed as the core in the CPU. When you have cache misses, you will still get a latency penalty ( potentially a few cycles in this case vs. 20 or more in traditional techniques ). Because the CPU doesn't have to wait for the data to pipe in at 1/6 it's clock, the downtime is greatly reduced.
To see the effects of greater bus speed, just look at a G5 vs a G4. The difference would be much more pronounced when you move to the architecture proposed. I think the few cycles of latency from time to time will be a welcome relief from today's bus starved architectures.
Running a website that is viewed as a "threat" to the government in which the servers reside should have taught the admin (Dave) to know better and not to keep logs of any kind past a short period of time (minutes?) so that a webstats program could be run and the data incorporated and then removed. I don't see why this wasn't followed. I mean my website only averages 1000 hits (not even unique visits) daily over a month and it takes webalizer about three seconds to do what it needs to do.
You know, I may not agree with what these guys are talking about, but I do think they have the right to talk about it.
Who gets to decide when communications are dangerous to the state? Are these measures being taken under the Patriot act? Is there no due-process of law involved for this search and seisure? Is there no line drawn at all between our rights and freedoms and the whim of the state?
What does our constitution and bill of rights have to do with the state of existence in the USA today if they are blatantly ignored by the government when it suites them?
If this is really where we are, then we should at least stop pretending. Let's at least admit openly that we no longer have constitutionally protected rights. Perhaps, more accurately, we no longer have those rights with respect to the state. It appears that they are still enforced when the state isn't the one tresspassing on them. But let's stop beating around the bush, let's call a turkey a turkey.
One of the interesting things about light is that it is non-interfering. In other words, it should be possible to lay down multiple signals in a single fiber instead of having to bundle multiple fibers together. There have been many advancements in the communications industry around this topic that could be relevant here.
By loosing the restrictions imposed by the PCB, it should also be possible to have much more ingenious designs. What this tech could do for SMP alone is staggering in it's implications (A Rack / cluster that acts as a tightly coupled SMP solution?).
The mind boggles.
One question I do have is whether they will be able to use this on-die as well as off. Can they replace electrical wiring on the chip itself with photonic pathways?
No you can't. Light is limited to c, just like the E field in the wires. At 3e8m/s, and a distance of 50cm to memory bit, that would take 0.5/3e8 ~ 1.7ns minimum for one way trip. That takes over 3ns to get to memory and back (ignoring any switching delays).
3ns makes the memory access time equivelent to about 333MHz.
I think you are confusing latency and frequency. There are serious problems with long wires and high frequency because of parasitic effects. Light eliminates these parasitic effects, enabling a much higher bus frequency (clock rate).
It may take a few nanoseconds for the light to bounce around, but that light can be modulated at extremely high rates (that electrical wires cannot). Managing latency is a well understood problem, generally solved by using speculation, buffering, etc..
The fact is, if these parts are running at 10ghz, you will have 10ghz connections between connected parts (with a few nanoseconds of latency, which is mostly irrelevant).
What light gives you is more *bandwidth*. That also means you CPU will not run any faster, but it should be able to access to more memory at once. Multi-core/multi-thread processors like what SUN is advertising would benefit a lot from this technology. Single thread processors like P4 will not see any benefit.
Bandwidth is a measure of frequency and number of communication channels. This advancement does indeed provide more bandwidth, mostly because it can be clocked higher. All computer configurations could see substantial benefits because current electrical designs have highly limited bus speeds (it is not signal propagation that matters, but signal modulation speed "frequency").
Anyway, current access times are now limited by the speed of light, so I guess it will not be getting too much faster.
Again, signal propagation speed is mostly irrelevant. Signal modulation speed is what is important. Latency != Frequency.
I think we can pretty much all agree that video games don't make people go nuts and start fragging other people. The capacity and execution of that kind of violence is born in a disturbed mind, not a microprocessor.
However, I do believe that the games might give such disturbed minds new ideas (and even training) on how to make their big day more exciting for them and/or more efficient.
I must assume that teenagers that lived in pre-gunpowder times would also have gone on psychotic rampages from time-to-time. Probably the only media they had access to that could teach them about such things were books. So does anybody know? Where books on swordfighting censored so as not to corrupt the youth of the time into grabbing a sword on going on a berzerker streek, beheading all of their classmates?
The patent system needs to be completely overhauled. In fact, for the same reason, it appears the US legal system needs an overhaul as well. To bad it is basically impossible. Here is the problem:
In patent law, all you need is the ability to claim infringement (hell, you can use a completely unrelated patent if you have a weaker opponent). Once you can get your toe in the door with the courts, it becomes about money. The more money you spend on lawyers, the longer the case will drag on and the more it will cost your opponent to defend himself (or in the case of a real patent lawsuit against a rich corporation, the more it will cost your opponent to prove his claim).
Because most individuals and corporations cannot tolerate the massive legal bill of a head-on IP conflict with a rich opponent, in the majority of cases, the weaker opponent must settle. The result? It makes no difference who is right, it only matters who is willing to spend more.
Today, it has become like that in practically every segment of the American legal system. This is nothing more than glorified corruption and all it does is serve to ensure that the wealthiest individuals and corporations are untouchable. To add insult to injury, it ties up our tax funded court system, so we end up partially financing the corrupt activities of the wealthiest individuals and corporations.
I don't know how it would be possible, but something is needed to correct this imbalance. There should be SEVERE damage recovery for defendants that are shown to be innocent to account for their time, money and suffering of being dragged through the courts. There should likewise be SEVERE amplification of damages for corporations and individuals that put up massive, expensive legal defenses and are found guilty. Perhaps there should also be some means of capping expenditures on both parties (e.g. Corporation sues individual - legal expense cap for both parties limited to spending power of individual).
You're assuming that we have souls.
Which we don't.
Good job having an incorrect opinion, though.
Well, I guess we can just throw away thousands of years of philosophy, theology and literature regarding this issue. You settled it;-)
Seriously, though, you should open your eyes a little bit. This topic is deeper and broader than you can possibly imagine. Here are a couple of ideas to get you thinking about the issue of soul.
(1) The Omega Point theory: As the universe matures and accellerates towards a colapse, the oldest surviving civilizations begin making use of the energy in that collapse to increase computational power. As we head closer to the end, computational power is increasing faster than the collapse of the universe at such a rate that the subjective experience (inside the computer) is that there will be an infinte number of processing cycles before the *end*. Given infinite processing cycles, simulations can be run of the entire universe and during those simulations, the brain/body state (soul) of all sentient creatures can be extracted and effectively resurrected in the eternal simulation (heaven). This idea has been posited and worked through by a physicist of some renown - go google on "omega point".
(2) Pure conjecture, but to keep you thinking: If it turns out to be true that there are more than 4 dimensions to our universe and that energy interactions may occur outside of these 4 then it is conceivable that your brain (which is nothing but a big biological circuit) is transmitting information (hollistically) to spaces that we have no experience with. It is entirely possible to speculate on any number of possible ways that these interactions may seed alternate or future existances for the dynamic system that we think of as the human mind (or soul). One such idea is that phyisical existance in this four dimensional reality is much like a seed, giving birth to an awareness that is seated in the brain, but that slowly develops an alternative carrier in this other dimension. The brain being so totally consumed by the senses of the body that the meek senses that come from interactions outside of those 4 dimensions cannot develop until the body itself is gone. This could explain much of the paranormal, the soul and the afterlife.
But these are just ideas, possibly even very silly ones. I point these out so that you have something to think about. Because this topic is not so simple and it is not just about a biblical god or a mystical invisible soul. It is a question of science.
There's no way to prevent a client or server from talking the same wire protocol.
While I agree that there is no way to prevent a client or server from talking the same wire protocol, it is most certainly possible to prevent users from using it successfuly to bypass security. In the extreme, it is possible to make applications authenticate themselves as part of the protocol in a manner similar to Microsoft's suggested Trusted Computing Initiative.
I am no proponent of such nonsense, of course, because it would be abused to trample on our fair rights, force us to purchase media multiple times (when formats change, for instance) and in general make life more difficult. But it most definitely possible.
For those not familiar with this orwellian possibility, it comes down to this: Hardware, from the bios up, must authenticate itself and can sign data with keys that are not retrievable from hardware and therefore not spoofable. The kernel must be signed in a manner recognized by the hardware for the hardware to boot it. The OS libraries must be signed in a manner recognized by the kernel for the kernel to call into them. Applications must be signed in a manner recognized by the OS for the OS to run them. All unsigned libraries and applications may only be run in a sandbox without access to the hardware authoraization keys (and therefore unable to decrypt media, call into priviledged functions or establish trusted sessions with secure servers).
There are many degrees of paranoid trustmania that can be conceived of between where we are (no trust = wild wild west) and full lockdown (as described above). Do not, for an instant, believe that Apple will not open that toolchest if they need to in order to grow as a media distribution company.
Remember, the iPod could easily be used as a trust token if Apple wanted it to - meaning that until you plugged your iPod in, you couldn't download or decrypt songs (the iPod could serve as a pseudo-trust root)... This is just an example.
I just spent like 5 minutes reading through the entire bill looking for any mentions of specific sites... for.. science.
That is a good, albeit scary, thing to point out. But I think Mormons are pretty pro-science and technology (hell, I think they even believe that the lost tribes of israel were taken up by extraterrestrials or something). It's the bible-beating south that should be watched closer in this regard.
The technology exists to prevent spoofing on IP calls, it is called SSL. Issue certificates with phone numbers instead of web addresses; Verisign could issue CA Certs for the phone companies and the phone companies could issue for phone numbers.
Got a call from the bank? Is the call signed?
Of course, this would require a user-interface change. We would need some sort of display that shows, not just caller id, but credentials as well...
I'm dreaming huh? Like the U.S. gov is ever going to allow encrypted telephone calls to go mainstream....
Why oh why do people have such a hard time paying a few hundred bucks to a lawyer in circumstances where they could possibly suffer thousands of dollars in damage?
In general, it is a *bad* idea to get lawyers involved unless you really need them. They eat up your time, your money and they will often lead you in a direction that benefits them rather than you.
However, that being said, when you need them, you need them. If, as in this case, some entity is attempting to hijack IP that is not theirs, you in fact do need them. One example of something a lawyer can do for you in a case like this is to create a document assigning all work you have previously done in a non-transferable manner to you. Then, that document can be entered into record with the employerer and *poof* your problem dissappears.
If I were think secret, I would make a whole bunch of claims that turn out to be false, on purpose. After all, it would be in their best interest to look like they don't know the difference between rumors and inside information right about now...
So I guess we are to assume that you, who make the claim that Linus is a hacker, are not a hacker?
Okay, I'll bite. What are your contributions to the evolution of the computer industry? I am going to assume, due to your judgement of Linus, that you must have done at least as much for the industry (or perhaps computer science research) as him, right?
I guess that's fair, but not everyone believes in science so it might upset some people.
Do they get upset before or after they warmed up their pizza in a microwave oven, watched an episode of Friends on their TV connected to their sattelite dish and grabbed their laptop to fetch the news about the science they don't believe in?
Yes, I joke. And yes, I know you were poking fun too. And yes, again, I know those people really do exist. But how? It just doesn't make sense!
A far, far greater concern for humanity is that there are airborne strains of Ebola. If someone were to take an airborne Ebola and somehow merge in the targetting system in HIV, you could engineer a device capable of destruction on a scale Western civilization has no comprehension of.
Do you have links to airborne Ebola? That is very interesting and scary.
What is the targeting system in HIV? I don't understand the ebola+HIV comment, but I'm curious what you meant.
Your comment made me think, and in fact question, how these scientists came to modify HIV to target cancerous cells. The research, it would seem to me (altough IANAGR), would be identical to vectorizing HIV (changing the HIV virus to target specific genecodes).
Perhaps what you are describing has already been done and the cure for cancer is just a nice byproduct of the original research?
Slashdot Mirror
Incorporate a company, call it "mycompany inc." or whatever. Doesn't matter.
Write yourself a little contract with your company that it gets none of your ip and everything you do is your property. You don't really need a lawyer for this.
When you contract out, you are contracting out through your company. Never sign a contract from person to customer. Only sign from your company to customer.
Now you can sign anything they hand at you. No worries. Worst case? Dissolve your company and incorporate a new one. You are protected by the corporate shield.
I think that fixes the problem of being asked why your logs get deleted. There never were any logs to start with. Why? Because I don't feel like answering any questions, MPAA, RIAA, FBI, CIA, ISP, etc.. Any... too much trouble without any consulting fees. Enough said.
US: You can say whatever you want. We support your rights. [ silently pulls plugs ... claims terrorists lurk there ... etc.. ]
China: You can only say things that we like.
At the end of the day, this provides a mechanism for the bus to operate at the same speed as the core in the CPU. When you have cache misses, you will still get a latency penalty ( potentially a few cycles in this case vs. 20 or more in traditional techniques ). Because the CPU doesn't have to wait for the data to pipe in at 1/6 it's clock, the downtime is greatly reduced.
To see the effects of greater bus speed, just look at a G5 vs a G4. The difference would be much more pronounced when you move to the architecture proposed. I think the few cycles of latency from time to time will be a welcome relief from today's bus starved architectures.
Who gets to decide when communications are dangerous to the state? Are these measures being taken under the Patriot act? Is there no due-process of law involved for this search and seisure? Is there no line drawn at all between our rights and freedoms and the whim of the state?
What does our constitution and bill of rights have to do with the state of existence in the USA today if they are blatantly ignored by the government when it suites them?
If this is really where we are, then we should at least stop pretending. Let's at least admit openly that we no longer have constitutionally protected rights. Perhaps, more accurately, we no longer have those rights with respect to the state. It appears that they are still enforced when the state isn't the one tresspassing on them. But let's stop beating around the bush, let's call a turkey a turkey.
One of the interesting things about light is that it is non-interfering. In other words, it should be possible to lay down multiple signals in a single fiber instead of having to bundle multiple fibers together. There have been many advancements in the communications industry around this topic that could be relevant here.
By loosing the restrictions imposed by the PCB, it should also be possible to have much more ingenious designs. What this tech could do for SMP alone is staggering in it's implications (A Rack / cluster that acts as a tightly coupled SMP solution?).
The mind boggles.
One question I do have is whether they will be able to use this on-die as well as off. Can they replace electrical wiring on the chip itself with photonic pathways?
It may take a few nanoseconds for the light to bounce around, but that light can be modulated at extremely high rates (that electrical wires cannot). Managing latency is a well understood problem, generally solved by using speculation, buffering, etc..
The fact is, if these parts are running at 10ghz, you will have 10ghz connections between connected parts (with a few nanoseconds of latency, which is mostly irrelevant).
Bandwidth is a measure of frequency and number of communication channels. This advancement does indeed provide more bandwidth, mostly because it can be clocked higher. All computer configurations could see substantial benefits because current electrical designs have highly limited bus speeds (it is not signal propagation that matters, but signal modulation speed "frequency").
Again, signal propagation speed is mostly irrelevant. Signal modulation speed is what is important. Latency != Frequency.
I think we can pretty much all agree that video games don't make people go nuts and start fragging other people. The capacity and execution of that kind of violence is born in a disturbed mind, not a microprocessor.
However, I do believe that the games might give such disturbed minds new ideas (and even training) on how to make their big day more exciting for them and/or more efficient.
I must assume that teenagers that lived in pre-gunpowder times would also have gone on psychotic rampages from time-to-time. Probably the only media they had access to that could teach them about such things were books. So does anybody know? Where books on swordfighting censored so as not to corrupt the youth of the time into grabbing a sword on going on a berzerker streek, beheading all of their classmates?
Ummm... I think BlueGene (here and here) is cooler than the Earth Simulator (here).
Never attribute to malice that which can be attributed to incompetence.
I would like to offer this corollary:
Never attribute to incompetence that which can be attributed to greed.
The patent system needs to be completely overhauled. In fact, for the same reason, it appears the US legal system needs an overhaul as well. To bad it is basically impossible. Here is the problem:
In patent law, all you need is the ability to claim infringement (hell, you can use a completely unrelated patent if you have a weaker opponent). Once you can get your toe in the door with the courts, it becomes about money. The more money you spend on lawyers, the longer the case will drag on and the more it will cost your opponent to defend himself (or in the case of a real patent lawsuit against a rich corporation, the more it will cost your opponent to prove his claim).
Because most individuals and corporations cannot tolerate the massive legal bill of a head-on IP conflict with a rich opponent, in the majority of cases, the weaker opponent must settle. The result? It makes no difference who is right, it only matters who is willing to spend more.
Today, it has become like that in practically every segment of the American legal system. This is nothing more than glorified corruption and all it does is serve to ensure that the wealthiest individuals and corporations are untouchable. To add insult to injury, it ties up our tax funded court system, so we end up partially financing the corrupt activities of the wealthiest individuals and corporations.
I don't know how it would be possible, but something is needed to correct this imbalance. There should be SEVERE damage recovery for defendants that are shown to be innocent to account for their time, money and suffering of being dragged through the courts. There should likewise be SEVERE amplification of damages for corporations and individuals that put up massive, expensive legal defenses and are found guilty. Perhaps there should also be some means of capping expenditures on both parties (e.g. Corporation sues individual - legal expense cap for both parties limited to spending power of individual).
The whole thing sickens me.
You're assuming that we have souls.
;-)
Which we don't.
Good job having an incorrect opinion, though.
Well, I guess we can just throw away thousands of years of philosophy, theology and literature regarding this issue. You settled it
Seriously, though, you should open your eyes a little bit. This topic is deeper and broader than you can possibly imagine. Here are a couple of ideas to get you thinking about the issue of soul.
(1) The Omega Point theory: As the universe matures and accellerates towards a colapse, the oldest surviving civilizations begin making use of the energy in that collapse to increase computational power. As we head closer to the end, computational power is increasing faster than the collapse of the universe at such a rate that the subjective experience (inside the computer) is that there will be an infinte number of processing cycles before the *end*. Given infinite processing cycles, simulations can be run of the entire universe and during those simulations, the brain/body state (soul) of all sentient creatures can be extracted and effectively resurrected in the eternal simulation (heaven). This idea has been posited and worked through by a physicist of some renown - go google on "omega point".
(2) Pure conjecture, but to keep you thinking: If it turns out to be true that there are more than 4 dimensions to our universe and that energy interactions may occur outside of these 4 then it is conceivable that your brain (which is nothing but a big biological circuit) is transmitting information (hollistically) to spaces that we have no experience with. It is entirely possible to speculate on any number of possible ways that these interactions may seed alternate or future existances for the dynamic system that we think of as the human mind (or soul). One such idea is that phyisical existance in this four dimensional reality is much like a seed, giving birth to an awareness that is seated in the brain, but that slowly develops an alternative carrier in this other dimension. The brain being so totally consumed by the senses of the body that the meek senses that come from interactions outside of those 4 dimensions cannot develop until the body itself is gone. This could explain much of the paranormal, the soul and the afterlife.
But these are just ideas, possibly even very silly ones. I point these out so that you have something to think about. Because this topic is not so simple and it is not just about a biblical god or a mystical invisible soul. It is a question of science.
It would be interesting to see how java would perform if a bytcode compiler could be written for it that targeted the Mono CLR.
There's no way to prevent a client or server from talking the same wire protocol.
While I agree that there is no way to prevent a client or server from talking the same wire protocol, it is most certainly possible to prevent users from using it successfuly to bypass security. In the extreme, it is possible to make applications authenticate themselves as part of the protocol in a manner similar to Microsoft's suggested Trusted Computing Initiative.
I am no proponent of such nonsense, of course, because it would be abused to trample on our fair rights, force us to purchase media multiple times (when formats change, for instance) and in general make life more difficult. But it most definitely possible.
For those not familiar with this orwellian possibility, it comes down to this: Hardware, from the bios up, must authenticate itself and can sign data with keys that are not retrievable from hardware and therefore not spoofable. The kernel must be signed in a manner recognized by the hardware for the hardware to boot it. The OS libraries must be signed in a manner recognized by the kernel for the kernel to call into them. Applications must be signed in a manner recognized by the OS for the OS to run them. All unsigned libraries and applications may only be run in a sandbox without access to the hardware authoraization keys (and therefore unable to decrypt media, call into priviledged functions or establish trusted sessions with secure servers).
There are many degrees of paranoid trustmania that can be conceived of between where we are (no trust = wild wild west) and full lockdown (as described above). Do not, for an instant, believe that Apple will not open that toolchest if they need to in order to grow as a media distribution company.
Remember, the iPod could easily be used as a trust token if Apple wanted it to - meaning that until you plugged your iPod in, you couldn't download or decrypt songs (the iPod could serve as a pseudo-trust root)... This is just an example.
I just spent like 5 minutes reading through the entire bill looking for any mentions of specific sites... for.. science.
That is a good, albeit scary, thing to point out. But I think Mormons are pretty pro-science and technology (hell, I think they even believe that the lost tribes of israel were taken up by extraterrestrials or something). It's the bible-beating south that should be watched closer in this regard.
The technology exists to prevent spoofing on IP calls, it is called SSL. Issue certificates with phone numbers instead of web addresses; Verisign could issue CA Certs for the phone companies and the phone companies could issue for phone numbers.
Got a call from the bank? Is the call signed?
Of course, this would require a user-interface change. We would need some sort of display that shows, not just caller id, but credentials as well...
I'm dreaming huh? Like the U.S. gov is ever going to allow encrypted telephone calls to go mainstream....
Why oh why do people have such a hard time paying a few hundred bucks to a lawyer in circumstances where they could possibly suffer thousands of dollars in damage?
In general, it is a *bad* idea to get lawyers involved unless you really need them. They eat up your time, your money and they will often lead you in a direction that benefits them rather than you.
However, that being said, when you need them, you need them. If, as in this case, some entity is attempting to hijack IP that is not theirs, you in fact do need them. One example of something a lawyer can do for you in a case like this is to create a document assigning all work you have previously done in a non-transferable manner to you. Then, that document can be entered into record with the employerer and *poof* your problem dissappears.
IANAL & YMMV
Two 64-bit *multi gigahertz* dual core CPUs. On your desktop. Running OS X.
You forgot that each core should be multi-threaded as well. This results in the following change to your statement:
Two 64-bit *multi gigahertz* dual core, multithreaded CPUs. On your desktop. Running OS X. That is 8 hardware threads running in tandem, baby!
If I were think secret, I would make a whole bunch of claims that turn out to be false, on purpose. After all, it would be in their best interest to look like they don't know the difference between rumors and inside information right about now...
So I guess we are to assume that you, who make the claim that Linus is a hacker, are not a hacker?
Okay, I'll bite. What are your contributions to the evolution of the computer industry? I am going to assume, due to your judgement of Linus, that you must have done at least as much for the industry (or perhaps computer science research) as him, right?
I guess that's fair, but not everyone believes in science so it might upset some people.
Do they get upset before or after they warmed up their pizza in a microwave oven, watched an episode of Friends on their TV connected to their sattelite dish and grabbed their laptop to fetch the news about the science they don't believe in?
Yes, I joke. And yes, I know you were poking fun too. And yes, again, I know those people really do exist. But how? It just doesn't make sense!
A far, far greater concern for humanity is that there are airborne strains of Ebola. If someone were to take an airborne Ebola and somehow merge in the targetting system in HIV, you could engineer a device capable of destruction on a scale Western civilization has no comprehension of.
Do you have links to airborne Ebola? That is very interesting and scary.
What is the targeting system in HIV? I don't understand the ebola+HIV comment, but I'm curious what you meant.
Your comment made me think, and in fact question, how these scientists came to modify HIV to target cancerous cells. The research, it would seem to me (altough IANAGR), would be identical to vectorizing HIV (changing the HIV virus to target specific genecodes).
Perhaps what you are describing has already been done and the cure for cancer is just a nice byproduct of the original research?
My god, I do need a tinfoil hat, huh?