I would have to research to find out why 14 years with a possible 14 more was chosen, but the fact is it was, and I don't see any good arguments for changing what Jefferson, Adams, Madison et. al. thought was the proper term.
I think it's very important to understand that saying there is a fractal pattern in DNA is an analogy. The math isn't the reality, it's a model of reality to help us understand, and the model is always less complex than the thing it models. All we can say is that using fractals to analyze DNA has some predictive value, not that that is the underlying reality.
Also, I am immediately put off by a scientist who decides to forgo the usual rigor of peer review, and worse yet, applies for a patent. I like capitalists, but I don't entirely trust them, and I want to trust my scientists.
I can only assume the same technique would apply to emails. The point is to assume that your security may fail, and to think about what the consequences of that failure would be.
And the #2 rule is that hackers are not, so they'll probably find a way to break through your security if they really want too.
Seriously, this is a whole new way to think about security, and it has a lot of promise. Security systems will never be perfect, and if they are designed never to fail, the consequences of failure are likely to be dire. By managing the consequences of failure, you can best limit the effects of a determined attack. I think this is equally true of electronic security and physical security.
IMO the best point in the article was that M$ has made PC hardware irrelevant and interchangeable. It's a little more complicated than that, and most/. readers probably don't consider all the video cards on the market interchangeable, but what's the difference, really, between a Dell and a Gateway? Nokia and Erricson and Motorola want to continue to distinguish themselves from one another, and they're afraid if M$ dominates the phone market consumer choice will be about software, not their snazzy hardware.
Also thought Von Tetzchner has a point with phones being about personal expression and style.
The link being a Money article, there's no info on how the thing works, and I'm too damn lazy to google. Anybody know anything about the science? My understanding is that it's non-trivial to put the breaks on sperm production. (Insert 4th grade joke here)
Before x-rays and cat-scans and that sort of thing, the only way to learn about anatomy was with a knife. If you wanted to learn about the actions of the things you found, you might need to use your knife on something that was still alive. Some people did, sometimes on other people.
I don't think there are "some things better off left alone." I do think I have provided an example of a scientific experiment with a valid ethical question. I also think we should have some idea of the ramifications of our actions before we proceed on any endeavor, and I think it's reasonable to ask that these scientists think long and hard before moving forward. Not because we as humans don't have a right to do such a thing, but because they are dealing with complex systems, and their safeguards may fail in unexpected ways. While I would never say, "We don't have the right to know this," it may be prudent to say, "We're not ready to do this yet."
Well, they're going to take the DNA, create an artificial copy of it, and put that into a hollowed out cell. They're using the existing organism as a sort of template. That's pretty close to going from scratch. And while it's a road we've been going down, it's certainly a few steps further down the road than we've ever been.
Absolutely right. If people don't want to pay for the product, improve the product. Any solution to the perceived problem of IP theft that involves denial of fair use will go over about as well as the Stamp Act. Provide easily accessible low-quality copies for free or near-free, and then charge for the high-quality, extra bells and whistles version. If it's a really good movie, chances are most of us are going to want to see it on a big screen, and we'll be willing to pay for the priviledge. IMO.
I was a very happy customer, they waived the delivery fee if you're order was > $100, which was not too hard to do, especially since they had a nice selection of wines and microbrews. Then Webvan bought them and ruined it all. I've tried Safeway's service, but the selection sucks and the delivery fee is exorbitant. I really hope a startup comes in and does what Homegrocer was doing.
The reason fighting the last war is a classic military mistake is that typically your foe is prepared for you to attack him in the old way. If we do not defend against similar attacks, our enemies would be foolish not to continue to use the same methods. The smart thing is to prevent similar attacks, and prepare for new types of attacks. Whether or not they are doing it well, I do think that is what our government is attempting to do.
As with any security system, there will be certain limitations of freedom. That is the price of safety.
The problem that needs to be addressed is how will the system fail? What safegaurds will be in place to protect you if your card is lost or stolen? What recourse will you have to remove false information about you from the databases? What are the ramifications of someone successfully couterfeiting one of these cards?
I don't think the idea of a national ID card/database is inherently bad, but there are a number of question that need to be addressed to make sure the system's cost in loss of freedom does not outweigh its benefit.
I agree, if email is an important communication tool for you, you need take control of the domain and own the address, not just rent it. I see people here complaining that the prices you list are excessive, I actually pay more, but I have a substantial amount of webspace.
I think renting an email address is of very limited value, and I would never pay for an address I could not both keep for the long term and control.
Sadly, Microsloth and their new M$N will probably do much better, as they seem most likely to be a permanent fixture on the internet landscape, and they are offering some measure of control and privacy.
Emily Sheketoff, associate executive director of the American Library Association's Washington Office, offered a harsher assessment. "The government recognized a need, designed a way to fill it and when it starts to be successful, the private sector says, 'Get out of the way, let us make a buck.'"
It sounds like the free government publication predated the fee-based publications. Certainly DOE was not stealing the material. IMHO this is a case of the government doing what was best for a PAC, not the people. Shocker!
They're going after fraud perpetrated over email, not SPAM(tm) per se. They already prosecute similar types of fraud (see numerous other posts), and seem to be doing a good job. I for one think this is somewhere for Big Brother to stick his nose. I see no slippery slope where soon the FTC will be "knocking at my door."
Right. The Rolling Stone Bill has no case, the writer is not a cyber-squatter, any reasonable judge would throw it out.
Re:The solution to problems like this...
on
HomeSec In the News
·
· Score: 1
Given the amount of pork that gets tacked on to so many bills, I would have to say it's not working. I understand that the framers intended the lack of a line item veto to be the limit, but they also intended the system of government to be pliable, and to adapt as times dictate.
Re:The solution to problems like this...
on
HomeSec In the News
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
If not a line-item veto, then we at least need some limitation on the unrelated additions to bills in congress. Their ability to overload bills with pork, and give the president a bill which he neither wishes to sign or veto, swings the power too far to congress. IMHO.
Yes, they are. An abstraction is a model, which by definition is incomplete. The only complete model is the whole system, which provides no value as an abstraction.
Slashdot Mirror
Mod parent up +1 Insightful.
I would have to research to find out why 14 years with a possible 14 more was chosen, but the fact is it was, and I don't see any good arguments for changing what Jefferson, Adams, Madison et. al. thought was the proper term.
Also, I am immediately put off by a scientist who decides to forgo the usual rigor of peer review, and worse yet, applies for a patent. I like capitalists, but I don't entirely trust them, and I want to trust my scientists.
I can only assume the same technique would apply to emails. The point is to assume that your security may fail, and to think about what the consequences of that failure would be.
Seriously, this is a whole new way to think about security, and it has a lot of promise. Security systems will never be perfect, and if they are designed never to fail, the consequences of failure are likely to be dire. By managing the consequences of failure, you can best limit the effects of a determined attack. I think this is equally true of electronic security and physical security.
Also thought Von Tetzchner has a point with phones being about personal expression and style.
That's exactly how this works, external testosterone with a little progestin, no more sperm.
on CNN about how long dogs have been domesticated, and their surprising understanding of humans.
The link being a Money article, there's no info on how the thing works, and I'm too damn lazy to google. Anybody know anything about the science? My understanding is that it's non-trivial to put the breaks on sperm production. (Insert 4th grade joke here)
I see no reason to postulate a god to describe the universe, nor do I need a religion to tell me what is ethical.
I don't think there are "some things better off left alone." I do think I have provided an example of a scientific experiment with a valid ethical question. I also think we should have some idea of the ramifications of our actions before we proceed on any endeavor, and I think it's reasonable to ask that these scientists think long and hard before moving forward. Not because we as humans don't have a right to do such a thing, but because they are dealing with complex systems, and their safeguards may fail in unexpected ways. While I would never say, "We don't have the right to know this," it may be prudent to say, "We're not ready to do this yet."
Well, they're going to take the DNA, create an artificial copy of it, and put that into a hollowed out cell. They're using the existing organism as a sort of template. That's pretty close to going from scratch. And while it's a road we've been going down, it's certainly a few steps further down the road than we've ever been.
Absolutely right. If people don't want to pay for the product, improve the product. Any solution to the perceived problem of IP theft that involves denial of fair use will go over about as well as the Stamp Act. Provide easily accessible low-quality copies for free or near-free, and then charge for the high-quality, extra bells and whistles version. If it's a really good movie, chances are most of us are going to want to see it on a big screen, and we'll be willing to pay for the priviledge. IMO.
I was a very happy customer, they waived the delivery fee if you're order was > $100, which was not too hard to do, especially since they had a nice selection of wines and microbrews. Then Webvan bought them and ruined it all. I've tried Safeway's service, but the selection sucks and the delivery fee is exorbitant. I really hope a startup comes in and does what Homegrocer was doing.
The reason fighting the last war is a classic military mistake is that typically your foe is prepared for you to attack him in the old way. If we do not defend against similar attacks, our enemies would be foolish not to continue to use the same methods. The smart thing is to prevent similar attacks, and prepare for new types of attacks. Whether or not they are doing it well, I do think that is what our government is attempting to do.
The problem that needs to be addressed is how will the system fail? What safegaurds will be in place to protect you if your card is lost or stolen? What recourse will you have to remove false information about you from the databases? What are the ramifications of someone successfully couterfeiting one of these cards?
I don't think the idea of a national ID card/database is inherently bad, but there are a number of question that need to be addressed to make sure the system's cost in loss of freedom does not outweigh its benefit.
I think renting an email address is of very limited value, and I would never pay for an address I could not both keep for the long term and control.
Sadly, Microsloth and their new M$N will probably do much better, as they seem most likely to be a permanent fixture on the internet landscape, and they are offering some measure of control and privacy.
It sounds like the free government publication predated the fee-based publications. Certainly DOE was not stealing the material. IMHO this is a case of the government doing what was best for a PAC, not the people. Shocker!
You seem a little paranoid.
Right, I assumed that the writer had registered billwyman.com. Otherwise, why would the story be on /.?
Right. The Rolling Stone Bill has no case, the writer is not a cyber-squatter, any reasonable judge would throw it out.
Given the amount of pork that gets tacked on to so many bills, I would have to say it's not working. I understand that the framers intended the lack of a line item veto to be the limit, but they also intended the system of government to be pliable, and to adapt as times dictate.
If not a line-item veto, then we at least need some limitation on the unrelated additions to bills in congress. Their ability to overload bills with pork, and give the president a bill which he neither wishes to sign or veto, swings the power too far to congress. IMHO.
That's why the president was given a line-item veto, to check this power.
Yes, they are. An abstraction is a model, which by definition is incomplete. The only complete model is the whole system, which provides no value as an abstraction.