double reply. My other reply is perhaps too severe, in that your link offers numbers in nano scopes to begin with. Taken apart from that post, it seems like fear mongering as well, when in fact you were trying to do the opposite.
Good day,
you know, I appreciate your point, but labeling something ONE-THOUSAND NANO (x) is a really slimy move. It's one micro (x).
I have to call you out as a reminder to others - it's really easy to smell the bias when you note these mishaps and it's useful to read trolls in any internet category, so that you are aware of their technique in real life.
as unlikely as any country sending up a satellite to do it (i didn't say meteor, i said kill vehicle) and then.. is nuclear power STILL unsafe?
The problem is the design of the reactor. Read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor for one idea. Until reactors get there, nuclear power is not safe enough except if you are willing to accept the inevitable "unexpected" problem. Calamity will happen one way or another if it can, trust murphy, it will. Still it might be, for the human race not close to the incident, "worth it"...
Well, why isn't it protected from high impact space-based kinetic kill vehicles too? You can't explain that!
Yes, they needed to have backup power buried (if that would have even helped here) too, but protecting a plant from a 9.5+tsunami, you might as well ask for a pony. It's the basic DESIGN of the reactor that the problem, not the precautions they took.
Pardon about replying twice; I also wanted to point out to other readers of the thread that these DNA arguments must be made in light of anticipated future advances. What is difficult today be trivial tomorrow, so a worst case (slippery slope) argument is more valid in these arguments then others. I usually consider these policies (where DRM is another example) in light of the effect over a generation, not just today. I'm sure you do as well.
For the drama of the statement: In twenty years it will be on the spot, transmitted via near field communication to the police car, and uploaded to a database that will invariably be protected with the same security as today (if only moore's law applied to security and social engineering too!)
thank you for the extra information. I did not consider the difference and did presume the worst; If they did collect just the sample, i have so little trust that I would not necessarily believe that they would restrain themselves from taking a full sample (in cases where they wanted too for whatever reason even if they did not in the average case) even if it was policy not to. However, your take and followup are appreciated and added to the conversation!
p.s. I only use the slippery slope logic matters where public outcry is required, the corollary is the slow-boiling-crab argument which is the usual method of eroding civil liberty-with-justification. It's too prevalent and done deliberately in matters of state (as taught by psychology) to be discounted.
that might be NOW - but when you accept this measure, you are now offically on the slippery slope. You plan to notice and whine when they DO start collecting samples as well as sequences? Are you even going to notice?
Your optimism is astounding, and i note this in defense of my original post.
(fellow ham here, making a guess, as i read it) "accept" here means that it must not fail because of such interference. Example: if your ipad crashes because of your cell phone, it has not "accepted" the interference. The connection may not *work*, but it has to fail gracefully, i.e. merely not have a connection, not blow out, spark and fizzle, or fail to note it's signal is being corrupted.
I am more of the mind that any officer above a statical average of dismissals should be fired (yes, fired) with prejudice, but any case, police can and do arrest for no reason, resulting in jail time and court time and huge incurrence of loss on the part of the falsely accused all the time.
Because DNA, when part of public record as this will do, means that whether you are prone to diseases will now be part of the public record?
You okay with insurance companies swabbing you too, bucko me boy?
Chose you to respond to, although i could have chose many in this thread. You know, even with the satellites off line, I'd use my gps, just for the map! Always around, searchable. What detractors of gps are missing is that we'd have similar units *even if we had no positioning*//Gps's are the coolest tech out there. Takes almost every branch of science. An everyday modern miracle! Let's not look the gift horse in the mouth too much.
"And if it's a family member, you can just share a single B&N account and have full access to the library without even having to lend anything."....you forgot, "for now".
The problem is with developers (you? probably!) who have no idea about (and can't understand the obvious importance of!) psychology, and most likely have poor no social interaction ability or connection to the people they develop for.
The days of all science being knowable in one life time are quite over. Stargate characters aside, of course. If you only used that which you'd been tested on to understand you wouldnt have airbags in your car, numb nuts.
You conflate the ability to retrieve information (the point of the computer!) with the ability to create the retrieval of that informtion -- all abstracted away. Just how it is.
Did you enjoy your 500 page manual with your nipple when you were 0?
Some people have better things to do, snd your condescension about being tech illiterate is great....
So don't drive over a bridge until you're an engineer, huh?
I'll choose you amongst the hordes to respond to. Feel flattered;)
iPads are finding huge traction amongst medical and flight and construction and education and science visualization and you name it, all because there is FINALLY a low cost, Stable, robust, and well implemented platform for data interchange in the field as a comoditized thick-or-thin client. Are you telling me palm or windows phone 7 was what you saw driving the future of these industries and programmer growth because companies were invest in a platform that might actually mature? Sometimes I swear, android was only meant to give out of work java programmers something to do;)
How's windows doing with that low power thing? How's sony doing with releasing, improving, and using free OSS software?
Yeah, right.
i'm not dude - we're on the same page. it DOES NOT imply that a CEO being overpaid is a bad investment. Listen closely: what i'm saying is if overpaying a CEO affects the value of the company then THAT IS BEING OVERPAID.
i'm not saying they are mutually exclusive, i'm saying that you can't have a company that is a good investment with an overpaid CEO, since if he WAS overpaid, then that would affect the capital of the company and ability to execute business.
if it's a good investment, he's not overpaid. if you think he is overpaid (and thus taking away money from other areas of great importance) then it would be a bad investment!
Ah im with you then, except that I'm saying, in your example, the CEO is NOT overpaid! If he was, it would not be a good investment. You are saying it's a good investment AND he's overpaid, which I am logically rejecting.
that's you trying to say I have to play your game (forever!) Look, the ability to have ones information protected is given by society, but it is NOT a built in human right! If I want to wait until the time society has given the protection of that information to expire (showing that it really, really wasn't all that important to begin with) then why should i pay for any of it.
For that matter, using your theory, you owe songbirds in the trees outside your dwelling back pay, for enjoying their original works. I'm sure you'll be right on that (sarcasm)
no, you are using the extreme example. What i'm saying is, if the company makes (long-term!) investors happy then what other measure can there be? not that i personally approve of this sort of lack of morality, but if you think an investment is "a good investment for me, although the CEO is paid too much", those are two separate statements! If the CEO pay affected the soundness of the investment, then you would not invest. Q.E.D.
can you list the type of position each of those would have that are orthogonal? I think the real-world positions are much more cloudy then you suggest.
then their not overpaid. If they can retain employees, have decent growth, and still pay exorbitant salaries for CEOs then it's okay, QED. Whether my personal opinions follow this concept, or investors are allowed to become aware of breaches of common sense due fraud is a something else, but the logic is clear.
Copyright is broken. Gee, when i'm 104 years old i'll finally be able to read that thing i always wanted to!
fix it, then you'll have the moral ground to tell people to participate in your 'lil information-money-power-game.
Slashdot Mirror
double reply. My other reply is perhaps too severe, in that your link offers numbers in nano scopes to begin with. Taken apart from that post, it seems like fear mongering as well, when in fact you were trying to do the opposite. Good day,
you know, I appreciate your point, but labeling something ONE-THOUSAND NANO (x) is a really slimy move. It's one micro (x).
I have to call you out as a reminder to others - it's really easy to smell the bias when you note these mishaps and it's useful to read trolls in any internet category, so that you are aware of their technique in real life.
as unlikely as any country sending up a satellite to do it (i didn't say meteor, i said kill vehicle) and then.. is nuclear power STILL unsafe? The problem is the design of the reactor. Read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor for one idea. Until reactors get there, nuclear power is not safe enough except if you are willing to accept the inevitable "unexpected" problem. Calamity will happen one way or another if it can, trust murphy, it will. Still it might be, for the human race not close to the incident, "worth it"...
Well, why isn't it protected from high impact space-based kinetic kill vehicles too? You can't explain that!
Yes, they needed to have backup power buried (if that would have even helped here) too, but protecting a plant from a 9.5+tsunami, you might as well ask for a pony. It's the basic DESIGN of the reactor that the problem, not the precautions they took.
Why can't the media get that straight?
Pardon about replying twice; I also wanted to point out to other readers of the thread that these DNA arguments must be made in light of anticipated future advances. What is difficult today be trivial tomorrow, so a worst case (slippery slope) argument is more valid in these arguments then others. I usually consider these policies (where DRM is another example) in light of the effect over a generation, not just today. I'm sure you do as well.
For the drama of the statement: In twenty years it will be on the spot, transmitted via near field communication to the police car, and uploaded to a database that will invariably be protected with the same security as today (if only moore's law applied to security and social engineering too!)
thank you for the extra information. I did not consider the difference and did presume the worst; If they did collect just the sample, i have so little trust that I would not necessarily believe that they would restrain themselves from taking a full sample (in cases where they wanted too for whatever reason even if they did not in the average case) even if it was policy not to. However, your take and followup are appreciated and added to the conversation!
p.s. I only use the slippery slope logic matters where public outcry is required, the corollary is the slow-boiling-crab argument which is the usual method of eroding civil liberty-with-justification. It's too prevalent and done deliberately in matters of state (as taught by psychology) to be discounted.
that might be NOW - but when you accept this measure, you are now offically on the slippery slope. You plan to notice and whine when they DO start collecting samples as well as sequences? Are you even going to notice?
Your optimism is astounding, and i note this in defense of my original post.
(fellow ham here, making a guess, as i read it) "accept" here means that it must not fail because of such interference. Example: if your ipad crashes because of your cell phone, it has not "accepted" the interference. The connection may not *work*, but it has to fail gracefully, i.e. merely not have a connection, not blow out, spark and fizzle, or fail to note it's signal is being corrupted.
sound about right, guys?
A-freakin-men
I am more of the mind that any officer above a statical average of dismissals should be fired (yes, fired) with prejudice, but any case, police can and do arrest for no reason, resulting in jail time and court time and huge incurrence of loss on the part of the falsely accused all the time.
It is an extreme affront to our rights.
Because DNA, when part of public record as this will do, means that whether you are prone to diseases will now be part of the public record? You okay with insurance companies swabbing you too, bucko me boy?
Chose you to respond to, although i could have chose many in this thread. You know, even with the satellites off line, I'd use my gps, just for the map! Always around, searchable. What detractors of gps are missing is that we'd have similar units *even if we had no positioning* //Gps's are the coolest tech out there. Takes almost every branch of science. An everyday modern miracle! Let's not look the gift horse in the mouth too much.
"And if it's a family member, you can just share a single B&N account and have full access to the library without even having to lend anything." ....you forgot, "for now".
if i only had a 'funny' mod point!
The problem is with developers (you? probably!) who have no idea about (and can't understand the obvious importance of!) psychology, and most likely have poor no social interaction ability or connection to the people they develop for.
The days of all science being knowable in one life time are quite over. Stargate characters aside, of course. If you only used that which you'd been tested on to understand you wouldnt have airbags in your car, numb nuts. You conflate the ability to retrieve information (the point of the computer!) with the ability to create the retrieval of that informtion -- all abstracted away. Just how it is.
Did you enjoy your 500 page manual with your nipple when you were 0? Some people have better things to do, snd your condescension about being tech illiterate is great.... So don't drive over a bridge until you're an engineer, huh?
I'll choose you amongst the hordes to respond to. Feel flattered ;)
iPads are finding huge traction amongst medical and flight and construction and education and science visualization and you name it, all because there is FINALLY a low cost, Stable, robust, and well implemented platform for data interchange in the field as a comoditized thick-or-thin client. Are you telling me palm or windows phone 7 was what you saw driving the future of these industries and programmer growth because companies were invest in a platform that might actually mature? Sometimes I swear, android was only meant to give out of work java programmers something to do ;)
How's windows doing with that low power thing? How's sony doing with releasing, improving, and using free OSS software?
Yeah, right.
"pure research is never wasted, it is invested"
i'm not dude - we're on the same page. it DOES NOT imply that a CEO being overpaid is a bad investment. Listen closely: what i'm saying is if overpaying a CEO affects the value of the company then THAT IS BEING OVERPAID. i'm not saying they are mutually exclusive, i'm saying that you can't have a company that is a good investment with an overpaid CEO, since if he WAS overpaid, then that would affect the capital of the company and ability to execute business. if it's a good investment, he's not overpaid. if you think he is overpaid (and thus taking away money from other areas of great importance) then it would be a bad investment!
Ah im with you then, except that I'm saying, in your example, the CEO is NOT overpaid! If he was, it would not be a good investment. You are saying it's a good investment AND he's overpaid, which I am logically rejecting.
that's you trying to say I have to play your game (forever!) Look, the ability to have ones information protected is given by society, but it is NOT a built in human right! If I want to wait until the time society has given the protection of that information to expire (showing that it really, really wasn't all that important to begin with) then why should i pay for any of it. For that matter, using your theory, you owe songbirds in the trees outside your dwelling back pay, for enjoying their original works. I'm sure you'll be right on that (sarcasm)
no, you are using the extreme example. What i'm saying is, if the company makes (long-term!) investors happy then what other measure can there be? not that i personally approve of this sort of lack of morality, but if you think an investment is "a good investment for me, although the CEO is paid too much", those are two separate statements! If the CEO pay affected the soundness of the investment, then you would not invest. Q.E.D.
can you list the type of position each of those would have that are orthogonal? I think the real-world positions are much more cloudy then you suggest.
then their not overpaid. If they can retain employees, have decent growth, and still pay exorbitant salaries for CEOs then it's okay, QED. Whether my personal opinions follow this concept, or investors are allowed to become aware of breaches of common sense due fraud is a something else, but the logic is clear.
Copyright is broken. Gee, when i'm 104 years old i'll finally be able to read that thing i always wanted to! fix it, then you'll have the moral ground to tell people to participate in your 'lil information-money-power-game.