They do, for the most part, and for most of the agencies (DOD, FBI, CIA, DHS, etc...). They have redundant network capabilities served both by wired and wireless means (micro-wave and satellite transmission capabilities). The "business" apps at those agencies do not necessarily have a private network. The terminals that serve you the internet at a great many of these agencies also have access to these other applications that interact with the "shadow" networks. Also, the same network providers that provide you and me with our "pipe" (AT&T, Verizon, Quest, etc...) also provide the "pipes" to the other, "shadow" networks. Should the systems at those installations become targets for malicious assault, then it could shut down entire sectors of the economy. The NASDAQ is one such "highly available" system that could be harmed, even though they have their own network. The financial networks that carry SWIFT, Cirrus, Visa, and ATM transactions would be susceptible even though they are on private networks. I'm not sure how turning "off" the internet will help. Wouldn't removing access to the internet have the same effect as a DDOS attack? The outcomes are the same aren't they (i.e. loss of connectivity)? The real goal of cyber attack is either one or both of the following:
Gain Access
Deny Access
If I were a cyber-assassin bent on disabling large networks for the purpose of disrupting an economy, I now would have two tactics available to me. I could launch my DDOS against a financial network or sufficiently large commercial target and hope to disrupt their capabilities. The other tactic would be to launch the assault and wait for the "kill" switch to be engaged. The outcome in both of those scenarios is favorable to the attacker.
Only if you assumed that the safety equipment was installed correctly. Blow out "preventers" only work when installed correctly. That also assumes the safety equipment wasn't damaged to a point that it could no longer function.
The real question isn't whether the U.N. should control "the internet" (meaning root domains). The fragmentation of the internet is an inevitability. The real question to be asked is how that fragmentation will ultimately occur. What would the topology be? Would it be that each country maintain its own national network (essentially a national node) or a collection of countries sharing a node? I think any forward thinking, international agency would be wise to consider the event that they need to register multiple domains. One for each potential root node of the global network in which they wish to resolve.
I think the perspective that the Justices viewed the case play a large role here. Grokster's (software) express purpose for being was (and according to the Justices still is) to facilitate an illegal act. I think the Justices viewed Grokster (the company) in much the same way that you would be viewed as an accomplice to the crimes of murder, robbery, or other illegitimate practice for providing a "getaway" car; with the full knowledge that it was to be used in connection with the crime.
ID as I understand it, doesn't make assumptions about creator(s). There can be many, or there can be one. There cannot be 0 creator(s). The only assertions ID makes of the creator(s), are that there is a creator(s) and that the creator(s) are capable of "creating" sufficiently complex biological organisms.
It would be incorrect to call an ID proponent a Creationist, as ID doesn't make assertions about a creator(s) associated with any religious deity. ID is compatible with any religion that doesn't preclude creation. "Creationist" beliefs are associated with the Christian religion (as they were historically the purveyors of the movement). ID is similarly compatible with any non-religious scenario that doesn't preclude creation (i.e. alien manufacture).
You are right. The American submarine nuclear powerplants that have been blessed by the Navy's review process, do not include liquid sodium (or sodium/potassium mixture) coolants. I don't believe that there are any liquid metal cooled designs still commissioned either. All of the designs are liquid water cooled designs. Amazing how the sealed units are placed in the hulls of the submarines. The main problem with having a sodium metal cooled reactor design on a naval vessel is the violent reaction that sodium has when exposed to water. If the Nuclear Regulatory body for the U.S were to operate at the same efficiency and with the same practice as the regulatory agency for the DON then we would have a workable nuclear power option. The DON definitely knows what it is doing when it comes to reactor design approval! I'm not familiar with Soviet Naval vessel reactor designs. I do know that they had issues with fuel cell design and control. But, I was never aware of issues surrounding the reactor's cooling process.
While some might argue that a desktop wouldn't be exposed to water, the sodium could leak and be exposed to water. Not a safe situation.
Sodium (or combination of sodium and potassium) is usually the metal of choice when it comes to liquid metal cooled reactors. However, using liquid metal to cool a desktop doesn't seem to be a very safe alternative to water. There are super computer designs that rely on liquid metal to cool the core components. Do a google search and you will see some interesting designs.
That might be more what you are looking to explain. The "sudden" appearance of the fossils of several species in the geologic strata of that time period. Perhaps you are in a quandry as to where the "transistion" fossils must be located?
Take the "penny" for instance. You can use it to buy items with (used to be easier, now you need a huge sack of them) as well as bridge the gap on a circuit box! Two very unrelated uses of the penny.
Well...I think that IBM's Business Consulting Services will still have the Windows image for their laptops. Most client sites use Microsoft application to communicate. Applications such as Word, PowerPoint, Excel, and Outlook. I don't think that IBM will be letting loose of its Microsoft business applications anytime soon.
IBM is not selling its research division. In acutality it spends a great deal on research. It boasts the linkage between its consulting practice (BCS) with top notch research facilities (IBM Research) through the "on demand" methodology. To date, there isn't an existing consulting company that has the same connections. Deloitte Consulting, BearingPoint, Accenture, and Cap Gemini all have no equivalent to the IBM Research branch. Don't give up on big blue yet. They are simply moving into the "idea economy" full steam.
I hope so, otherwise that station chief is toast. The willful dissemenation of classified information , in some instances depending on motive, can be construed as treason. Treason in times of war have historically been punished by death. Best case, this isn't treason. In which case, the station chief loses his job and goes to jail for a period of time.
I don't see the correlation between a lack of intelligence and belief in God. I think they can exist independent of each other in the universe.
Perhaps you have confused the ID movement with the Creationist movement. The ID movement makes no reference to God, Allah, Vishnu, Buddha, Hermes, Zeus, or other religious deity as the source of life. Additionally, members of the ID movement are published, respected, and contributing members of the scientific community. So I fail to see how they are undermining science.
Perhaps the real answer why Johnny can't add, is because he doesn't put the requisite effort in his studies to understand the mathematics that supports addition. Maybe if Johnny's parents were able to take the time necessary to see to his education he could better understand mathematics, or any other subject for that matter. It's possible that the quality of teachers that are available today don't match with the quality of teachers we once had. I don't see many young students scrambling to become a teacher. Perhaps Johnny can't add due to some combination of any of these reasons. I don't think the reason Johnny can't add is because he attends church.
As I understand it, there are 6 different meanings of evolution presented in biology textbooks these days. That can make it difficult for the average student to understand, which evolution is being discussed at a given point in time. The list is drawn from a book titled "Darwinism, Design, and Public Education" edited by John Angus Campbell and Stephen Meyer.
Change over time; history of nature; any sequence of events in nature
Changes in the frequencies of alleles in the gene pool of a population.
Limited common descent: the idea that particular groups of organisms have descended from a common ancestor.
The mechanisms responsible for the change required to produce limited descent with modification, chiefly natural selection acting on random raviations or mutations.
Universal common descent: the idea that all organisms have descended from a single common ancestor.
Blind watchmaker thesis: the idea that all organisms have descended from common ancestors solely through an unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations: that the mechanisms of natural selection, random variation and mutation, and perhaps other similarly naturalist mechanisms, are completely sufficient to account for the appearance of design in living organisms.
Not a cure....treatment
on
HIV Vaccine
·
· Score: 1
This is not a cure. This isn't even a prevention. Indeed, it isn't a proven treatment. Read the article on WebMD closely and you will see what I mean. We don't know if the effects are long-term.
Perspective is needed.......prevention it is not
on
HIV Vaccine
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
From the article:
The vaccine is made from a patient's own dendritic cells and HIV isolated from the patient's own blood.
"The results suggest that [these] vaccines could be a promising strategy for treating people with chronic HIV infection," Andrieu and colleagues write.
This approach requires that you already have the HIV infection. This does not protect you from infection. This is not a cure. This is a treatment. It isn't clear that this will prevent you from spreading the infection either. This MIGHT prolong your life expectancy or even improve the quality of your life.
The article mentions human treatment
on
HIV Vaccine
·
· Score: 1
The article mentions the treatment of three brazillians who had been diagnosed with HIV and were becoming progressively worse in their "health". Apparently, they responded quite well to this treatment. Noteworthy is the term "treatment", as you cannot be cured. Sounds like cancer that is in "remission".
You became a "source" to a news-site, you are still a blog until your over-arching purpose is to report the news. At which point, you are now a news-site (maybe not an affiliated news-site). Does a newspaper become toilet paper because you line the bottom of your bird-cage? No. It's purpose is to provide news stories so it is still a newspaper. Now, whether you believe it to be "news" or garbage is a matter of opinion.
Think of your credit report. It contains your personally identifiable information and who you paid (didn't pay). It determines to a large degree how much your car, house, and other large ticket loans will cost you. It also tells employers if you are responsible with your money. They even sell your contact information for prequalification to lending institutions and other financial service providers. Social Security has your SSN, IRS has your tax records, now DOEd. will have your education credentials. When you tie all of that information together, you get a nifty profile. All that is needed is your wrap sheet if you have one. Once we implement a national sales or consumption tax (to replace the Income Tax), they will have your spending patterns/habits as well.
Privacy? Ha! It isn't a "Right" such as the Freedom of Press, Vote, Peacable assembly, etc. Rather, it is an "interpretation" of the 4th amendment, that allows for "privacy" to be protected.
I see no difference in content between a blog and an opinion section of any newspaper. When blogs report "news" they will become "news sites". When "news sites" place their opinions on the web, they become "blog sites".
If the MPAA can develop cool methodologies and technologies jointly with consumer electronics manufacturers to deliver "next generation" media, then that is a good thing. The only people that should be bothered by the MPAA "probing" are the pirates. If you're not a pirate, you won't be caught.
Author definition -- Autodrive: ability of automobiles to pilot themselves without the continual navigational input from human beings.
Obstacles
Implementing autodrive automobiles in a manner such that they can share highway infrastructure with human navigated automobiles.
Concept of liability for traffic accidents involving autodrive automobiles.
How to "phase" out human piloted automobiles?
I have some ideas on how to work those issues out, but my main point of the post is: not that the technology isn't ready yet, rather the implementation plan will be difficult to develop.
...it's that I don't trust the other cars on the road. When your car bases some of its navigation decisions on wireless messages received from other cars, who can guarantee another car (or something pretending to be another car) isn't LYING?
It is possible for machines to provide you the wrong information, but to be nit-picky, they don't lie. They have no moral compass. However, the car probably will do a better job of avoiding other cars than you do. It would see 360 degrees at one time and be able to respond to multiple "threat" conditions unlike humans (one threat at a time).
On a rural road, I could easily imagine thugs with a computer emitting signals that fake a deer-sighting or accident-ahead event, causing you to pull over and slow down. You are then easy prey to carjacking or simple robbery.
You assume that the human driver wouldn't be fooled by false information. What is to stop those same thugs from simply placing a roadblock and pretending to be a road crew? At any rate, I'm pretty sure each vehicle would have a manual overide so that you could take control of the vehicle in emergency conditions (such as catastrophic system failure).
Since car navigation presumably affects the passengers' lives, you can't simply add wireless warning protocols to the navigation computer without thinking seriously about how much it should trust those signals.
Where would the threat identifiers (wireless warning protocols) be emitted from? Roadcrew vehicles? Wrecked automobiles? Traffic signals? I think the solution is possible and trustworthy, it is feasible in the airline industry. Currently, the woes associated with that industry come from human operators. The number of threats signals you can address might become a problem, especially in large cities where presumably there could be many signals to receive. I think that you would need to categorize the navigation signals. Navigational systems would receive signals from traffic lights, road crew signs, onboard perimeter sensors, and embedded passive RFID tags in the road. A threat avoidance system would manage "threat" transmissions from other vehicles (wrecks), navigational system inputs (calculated from navigational data), and onboard perimeter sensors (sonar/radar).
I think that the far greater threat will be in the events arising from the integration of automobiles that drive themselves with automobiles that don't on public highways. You must require those automobiles to be accounted for in any threat avoidance system. Since the pilots are humans, who are notorious for not using blinkers or following traffic rules, it will be difficult to merge the two differing systems (human controlled and computer controlled).
Well, I have no doubt that this legislation will not pass. It is diametrically opposed to the "features" we want, like the ability to *NOT* record commercials (which is currently not provided). In fact, if they flag the commercials so that Tivo's and other systems like them do not allow skipping, my PVR *WILL* be able to skip commercials (with some modifications of course).
I foresee the rising up, of the print media to its once great state. You can take it with you where ever you go, and even use it when no electricity is available. Best of all....if you really don't like the advertisements, you can tear them out and use them to wipe your butt in the absence of toilet paper. Just be careful to not receive a paper-cut.
Slashdot Mirror
They do, for the most part, and for most of the agencies (DOD, FBI, CIA, DHS, etc...). They have redundant network capabilities served both by wired and wireless means (micro-wave and satellite transmission capabilities). The "business" apps at those agencies do not necessarily have a private network. The terminals that serve you the internet at a great many of these agencies also have access to these other applications that interact with the "shadow" networks. Also, the same network providers that provide you and me with our "pipe" (AT&T, Verizon, Quest, etc...) also provide the "pipes" to the other, "shadow" networks. Should the systems at those installations become targets for malicious assault, then it could shut down entire sectors of the economy. The NASDAQ is one such "highly available" system that could be harmed, even though they have their own network. The financial networks that carry SWIFT, Cirrus, Visa, and ATM transactions would be susceptible even though they are on private networks. I'm not sure how turning "off" the internet will help. Wouldn't removing access to the internet have the same effect as a DDOS attack? The outcomes are the same aren't they (i.e. loss of connectivity)? The real goal of cyber attack is either one or both of the following:
Gain Access
Deny Access
If I were a cyber-assassin bent on disabling large networks for the purpose of disrupting an economy, I now would have two tactics available to me. I could launch my DDOS against a financial network or sufficiently large commercial target and hope to disrupt their capabilities. The other tactic would be to launch the assault and wait for the "kill" switch to be engaged. The outcome in both of those scenarios is favorable to the attacker.
Only if you assumed that the safety equipment was installed correctly. Blow out "preventers" only work when installed correctly. That also assumes the safety equipment wasn't damaged to a point that it could no longer function.
How would that decentralization occur? Along national boundaries, along associations of nations or both?
The real question isn't whether the U.N. should control "the internet" (meaning root domains). The fragmentation of the internet is an inevitability. The real question to be asked is how that fragmentation will ultimately occur. What would the topology be? Would it be that each country maintain its own national network (essentially a national node) or a collection of countries sharing a node? I think any forward thinking, international agency would be wise to consider the event that they need to register multiple domains. One for each potential root node of the global network in which they wish to resolve.
I think the perspective that the Justices viewed the case play a large role here. Grokster's (software) express purpose for being was (and according to the Justices still is) to facilitate an illegal act. I think the Justices viewed Grokster (the company) in much the same way that you would be viewed as an accomplice to the crimes of murder, robbery, or other illegitimate practice for providing a "getaway" car; with the full knowledge that it was to be used in connection with the crime.
You are right. The American submarine nuclear powerplants that have been blessed by the Navy's review process, do not include liquid sodium (or sodium/potassium mixture) coolants. I don't believe that there are any liquid metal cooled designs still commissioned either. All of the designs are liquid water cooled designs. Amazing how the sealed units are placed in the hulls of the submarines. The main problem with having a sodium metal cooled reactor design on a naval vessel is the violent reaction that sodium has when exposed to water. If the Nuclear Regulatory body for the U.S were to operate at the same efficiency and with the same practice as the regulatory agency for the DON then we would have a workable nuclear power option. The DON definitely knows what it is doing when it comes to reactor design approval! I'm not familiar with Soviet Naval vessel reactor designs. I do know that they had issues with fuel cell design and control. But, I was never aware of issues surrounding the reactor's cooling process.
While some might argue that a desktop wouldn't be exposed to water, the sodium could leak and be exposed to water. Not a safe situation.
Sodium (or combination of sodium and potassium) is usually the metal of choice when it comes to liquid metal cooled reactors. However, using liquid metal to cool a desktop doesn't seem to be a very safe alternative to water. There are super computer designs that rely on liquid metal to cool the core components. Do a google search and you will see some interesting designs.
That might be more what you are looking to explain. The "sudden" appearance of the fossils of several species in the geologic strata of that time period. Perhaps you are in a quandry as to where the "transistion" fossils must be located?
Take the "penny" for instance. You can use it to buy items with (used to be easier, now you need a huge sack of them) as well as bridge the gap on a circuit box! Two very unrelated uses of the penny.
Well...I think that IBM's Business Consulting Services will still have the Windows image for their laptops. Most client sites use Microsoft application to communicate. Applications such as Word, PowerPoint, Excel, and Outlook. I don't think that IBM will be letting loose of its Microsoft business applications anytime soon.
IBM is not selling its research division. In acutality it spends a great deal on research. It boasts the linkage between its consulting practice (BCS) with top notch research facilities (IBM Research) through the "on demand" methodology. To date, there isn't an existing consulting company that has the same connections. Deloitte Consulting, BearingPoint, Accenture, and Cap Gemini all have no equivalent to the IBM Research branch. Don't give up on big blue yet. They are simply moving into the "idea economy" full steam.
I hope so, otherwise that station chief is toast. The willful dissemenation of classified information , in some instances depending on motive, can be construed as treason. Treason in times of war have historically been punished by death. Best case, this isn't treason. In which case, the station chief loses his job and goes to jail for a period of time.
I don't see the correlation between a lack of intelligence and belief in God. I think they can exist independent of each other in the universe.
Perhaps you have confused the ID movement with the Creationist movement. The ID movement makes no reference to God, Allah, Vishnu, Buddha, Hermes, Zeus, or other religious deity as the source of life. Additionally, members of the ID movement are published, respected, and contributing members of the scientific community. So I fail to see how they are undermining science.
Perhaps the real answer why Johnny can't add, is because he doesn't put the requisite effort in his studies to understand the mathematics that supports addition. Maybe if Johnny's parents were able to take the time necessary to see to his education he could better understand mathematics, or any other subject for that matter. It's possible that the quality of teachers that are available today don't match with the quality of teachers we once had. I don't see many young students scrambling to become a teacher. Perhaps Johnny can't add due to some combination of any of these reasons. I don't think the reason Johnny can't add is because he attends church.
As I understand it, there are 6 different meanings of evolution presented in biology textbooks these days. That can make it difficult for the average student to understand, which evolution is being discussed at a given point in time. The list is drawn from a book titled "Darwinism, Design, and Public Education" edited by John Angus Campbell and Stephen Meyer.
This is not a cure. This isn't even a prevention. Indeed, it isn't a proven treatment. Read the article on WebMD closely and you will see what I mean. We don't know if the effects are long-term.
From the article:
This approach requires that you already have the HIV infection. This does not protect you from infection. This is not a cure. This is a treatment. It isn't clear that this will prevent you from spreading the infection either. This MIGHT prolong your life expectancy or even improve the quality of your life.
The article mentions the treatment of three brazillians who had been diagnosed with HIV and were becoming progressively worse in their "health". Apparently, they responded quite well to this treatment. Noteworthy is the term "treatment", as you cannot be cured. Sounds like cancer that is in "remission".
You became a "source" to a news-site, you are still a blog until your over-arching purpose is to report the news. At which point, you are now a news-site (maybe not an affiliated news-site). Does a newspaper become toilet paper because you line the bottom of your bird-cage? No. It's purpose is to provide news stories so it is still a newspaper. Now, whether you believe it to be "news" or garbage is a matter of opinion.
Think of your credit report. It contains your personally identifiable information and who you paid (didn't pay). It determines to a large degree how much your car, house, and other large ticket loans will cost you. It also tells employers if you are responsible with your money. They even sell your contact information for prequalification to lending institutions and other financial service providers. Social Security has your SSN, IRS has your tax records, now DOEd. will have your education credentials. When you tie all of that information together, you get a nifty profile. All that is needed is your wrap sheet if you have one. Once we implement a national sales or consumption tax (to replace the Income Tax), they will have your spending patterns/habits as well.
Privacy? Ha! It isn't a "Right" such as the Freedom of Press, Vote, Peacable assembly, etc. Rather, it is an "interpretation" of the 4th amendment, that allows for "privacy" to be protected.
I see no difference in content between a blog and an opinion section of any newspaper. When blogs report "news" they will become "news sites". When "news sites" place their opinions on the web, they become "blog sites".
If the MPAA can develop cool methodologies and technologies jointly with consumer electronics manufacturers to deliver "next generation" media, then that is a good thing. The only people that should be bothered by the MPAA "probing" are the pirates. If you're not a pirate, you won't be caught.
Author definition -- Autodrive: ability of automobiles to pilot themselves without the continual navigational input from human beings.
I have some ideas on how to work those issues out, but my main point of the post is: not that the technology isn't ready yet, rather the implementation plan will be difficult to develop.
It is possible for machines to provide you the wrong information, but to be nit-picky, they don't lie. They have no moral compass. However, the car probably will do a better job of avoiding other cars than you do. It would see 360 degrees at one time and be able to respond to multiple "threat" conditions unlike humans (one threat at a time).
You assume that the human driver wouldn't be fooled by false information. What is to stop those same thugs from simply placing a roadblock and pretending to be a road crew? At any rate, I'm pretty sure each vehicle would have a manual overide so that you could take control of the vehicle in emergency conditions (such as catastrophic system failure).
Where would the threat identifiers (wireless warning protocols) be emitted from? Roadcrew vehicles? Wrecked automobiles? Traffic signals? I think the solution is possible and trustworthy, it is feasible in the airline industry. Currently, the woes associated with that industry come from human operators. The number of threats signals you can address might become a problem, especially in large cities where presumably there could be many signals to receive. I think that you would need to categorize the navigation signals. Navigational systems would receive signals from traffic lights, road crew signs, onboard perimeter sensors, and embedded passive RFID tags in the road. A threat avoidance system would manage "threat" transmissions from other vehicles (wrecks), navigational system inputs (calculated from navigational data), and onboard perimeter sensors (sonar/radar).
I think that the far greater threat will be in the events arising from the integration of automobiles that drive themselves with automobiles that don't on public highways. You must require those automobiles to be accounted for in any threat avoidance system. Since the pilots are humans, who are notorious for not using blinkers or following traffic rules, it will be difficult to merge the two differing systems (human controlled and computer controlled).
Well, I have no doubt that this legislation will not pass. It is diametrically opposed to the "features" we want, like the ability to *NOT* record commercials (which is currently not provided). In fact, if they flag the commercials so that Tivo's and other systems like them do not allow skipping, my PVR *WILL* be able to skip commercials (with some modifications of course).
I foresee the rising up, of the print media to its once great state. You can take it with you where ever you go, and even use it when no electricity is available. Best of all....if you really don't like the advertisements, you can tear them out and use them to wipe your butt in the absence of toilet paper. Just be careful to not receive a paper-cut.