But a neanderthal is not a human (not as we know it). Most consider it to be a different species. I am not saying you only have to be a human (or of our exact species) to have rights. I think even my cat has certain rights. But that I the whole point- how many rights? And it is not just about rights, but quality of life. What exactly is "human"? Where is a line drawn? Even modern humans have some trace neanderthal DNA. I think there are certainly a lot of ethical things to consider, especially if this creature is a "person" of any type.
You do not need any human DNA (or modern human DNA) to produce a clone of something extinct. This has already been proven.
I have to stress, again, that we are not talking about a human.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthals Yes, something closely related, but generally considered to not even be the same species.
1) Carrying a baby does not make that person the "mother". There is no reason it must contain modern human DNA at all.
2) You are way out of bounds calling ANYTHING I said "racist". For one, this has nothing to do with race, we are talking about species and sub-species. "Race" is nothing more than ever so slight regional differences within the species such as eye/skin color, skull shape, etc. All races are the same species and nearly identical in cognitive and physical function. This topic is about a non-human. Two, I called it unethical. And not because the result is something that has slight differences, but because the result is something that will have major functional and cognitive differences. Three, I specifically was concerned about rights, with the primary concern being the welfare of what was created.
I consider myself very scientific, fairly worldly, and pretty open minded.
But to me this is unethical.
Ask yourself just some simple preliminary questions such as: If the resulting semi-human is self aware, what rights will it/he/she have? Will it/he/she be a cage animal? Will it be sterilized or allowed to reproduce? And if so, with which other species or semi-species? Is this fair to it/he/she? Will it/he/she be allowed to vote? To own property? Be allowed or required to work? To choose a field of education? To be free of staring, poking prodding?
Older generation = Know what privacy means but have no clue about the dangers of computers and how they relate to privacy.
Around my generation = Most know about privacy, and even how computers can erode it, but most don't quite care enough to do anything about it because it is inconvenient or just difficult.
Younger generation = Have no concept at all as to what privacy is. Think anyone concerned about privacy is totally paranoid and til foil hat.
1) Chrome is not open source. It is based on Chromium, which is open sourced, but the build Google takes is not identical code. They can put anything in it they wish.
2) Fiddler is a proxy, as such, the browser will know it is not directly connected.
3) Even if one could capture all data as it would normally travel, it doesn't mean one would be able to understand everything it sends. If a blob of data goes to Google at some point, especially when already connecting to their servers with every other page doing adsense, exactly how are we mere, non-Google mortals going to know it is all above-the-board?
4) Again, RLZ might be open source, but their COMPILE of CHROME that contains it is not... so what you see might not be what you get. Open-source projects, like Firefox, Linux, OpenOffice, etc, are examined and compiled by third parties and not primarily distributed as a owner/maker binary. Even Chromium seems to be obfuscated in ways that make it unsuitable for others to compile and distribute: http://ostatic.com/blog/making-projects-easier-to-package-why-chromium-isnt-in-fedora
I am not saying Chrome *is* spyware. But I am saying it has the ability to be, and it might be, and we can't really know. It is being released by a company who has a lot to gain by gathering as much info as possible, and a lot of practice doing so (and a huge, unquestioning following).
Of course not- nobody does that (or do they?) But the point is that there is MUCH smaller chance that anyone outside of Google knows what is going on inside their Chrome code when compared to an open-source browser.
You might trust Google, but do you really want to trust them with EVERYTHING? If you separate off your searching to something else, it greatly enhances your privacy, especially since you are not "signed in" to something like Startpage. I am not saying that Startpage is some great, perfect system (pick something else, then). All I am saying is that from a privacy standpoint, it makes sense to not to give ALL your data to one entity. Hence- not putting all your eggs in one basket.
Yeah, because there is something just so classy and sexy about a browser that doesn't tell you what is going or and is resistant to customizations. Even sexier when it is tied to Google, is closed source, and does who-knows-what with all that stuff you do/see/search (Chrome is secret, like IE... at least Chromium you can see inside the code, like Firefox).
Well played, indeed.
People using Chrome and who are also worried about a third party seeing their search queries: priceless.
I think that one using Google would worrying about security of their searches a little funny and ironic. The Google way: Give us access to all your Email, all your contacts, your location, your calls, the apps you install, all your searches, all your comments on Google+, your research on Google Maps, your shopping, all your purchases with Google Wallet, tracking you with Adsense from millions of sites, storing your passwords in Google's browsers, recording your network passwords in your Android accounts, sniffing the neighborhood's WiFi, storing your photos and comments in Picasa, holding pictures of your house and cars/property in Google Earth and Streetview, recording your viewing habits on Google TV, sifting through your files stored on Google Drive, following your movements with location history, who you chat with on Google Talk and Hangouts, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc
Anyway, if you ARE concerned about the privacy of your searches, this visit this site in *ANY* browser: https://startpage.com/ And note that when you visit there in Firefox, they will provide a link called "Add to Firefox" and that will install their info into your search box which is always encrypted. But most importantly, you are not giving away all your searching to Google, even though you get most of the same results as if you went to Google directly. One should never have all their eggs in one basket.
And of course it would be Google. Because, you know, we haven't handed enough of our information to Google (and other companies) already...
Access to all your Email, all your contacts, your location, your calls, the apps you install, all your searches, all your comments on Google+, your research on Google Maps, your shopping, all your purchases with Google Wallet, tracking you with Adsense from millions of sites, storing your passwords in Google's browsers, recording your network passwords in your Android accounts, sniffing the neighborhood's WiFi, storing your photos and comments in Picasa, holding pictures of your house and cars/property in Google Earth and Streetview, recording your viewing habits on Google TV, sifting through your files stored on Google Drive, following your movements with location history, who you chat with on Google Talk and Hangouts, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc,.
So sure, I really think I should link everything I do to a single protected "login", that can't possibly be abused.
>" that provides access to virtually every major operating system â" from the Mac OS, to Windows, to Google's Chrome OS, to cloud-based solutions from Citrix and Dell â" all via the cloud"
Virtually every major operating system and yet Linux is not mentioned... typical. Change "virtually" to "most" and that might be accurate. Of course the article doesn't have many useful details.
$50? Yeah right, and then some monthly "service fee", no doubt. And then you have to trust Dell's "cloud" with all your data, passwords, programs, etc. No thanks.
>I have one of these with stock firmware and its rock solid. I shall be updating immediately.
I used my WRT54GL for many months (years ago) on the stock firmware and did not find it to be reliable. I had upgraded the stock firmware to their latest and it didn't help.
Once I changed to Toastman Tomato, it became one of the most reliable pieces of equipment I own... instantly. PLUS Tomato gave it tons of additional functionality.
Don't be afraid of installing third-party Linux firmware, it is the best thing you can do for your WRT54GL.
Yes, you would think the summary would at LEAST say *WHICH* router it affects, since Linksys has lots of different models. It is the WRT54GL.
I *love* that router and have probably 30 of them. Low power draw, real antenna, wall mountable, etc. My recommendation- install Toastman Tomato on it. They never crash, freeze, freak out, not work with certain devices, etc. Rock solid stuff.
I have, indeed, used all kinds of devices. There is no question that a touchscreen is more expensive than non-touch, that it has a lot more glare, and that it is much heavier than a non-touch. Bezel sizes don't HAVE to be bigger, but seem to be.
>"Your next laptop will likely be touch, whether you like it or not."
So all laptop/notebook/netbook/ultrabook/whatever-name-is-in-vogue models will:
1) Be more expensive 2) Be considerably heavier (glass is not light) 3) Be more fragile 4) Have lots of screen glare (yep- glass) 5) Have something else that can malfunction 6) Have a larger bezel (which is more wasted space)
Because that is what you get with touchscreen technology right now. Thanks again, Microsoft/Intel, for "leading the industry" because choice is a bad thing.
Thank you for the info. I have no idea why my posting would have been modded "Troll" by anyone, it certainly was not a troll, it was all the information I had based on experience, their help files, AND their apparently clueless support. Overrated, sure, but not Troll.
Anyway, had support just told me that quality varies depending on the album/publisher, then I wouldn't have made such a stink. You are absolutely right that they should have a way of telling you what you are getting before you download it...
I tried to use Amazon recently to obtain an mp3, they only offered it in 128kb/s. It used to be that one could purchase mp3 files from Amazon and download the songs or album through the browser in high-quality. However, this appears to have changed. Now it will shove the music into what Amazon calls their "Amazon Cloud Player" and the user has two options for downloading. One option requires a proprietary MS-Windows/MacOS-only program, which of course is not an option for Linux/Unix users. The other is to use a browser-based player-downloader for any OS...
When downloaded through the browser, it gives no options at all about quality and will offer only a lower 128kbps version. I chatted with their support for 20 minutes and they seem to indicate that is how it works. This limitation is not even documented anywhere in their help system.
So you think it is better with the "downloader"? Nope. Same thing- there, no quality choices at all. So all you are allowed to download is 128kb/s from ANYWHERE on Amazon that I can find, regardless of method. I can't believe they are getting away with this. I know most consumers are clueless, but this is just wild.
I sent them feedback that some people will *NEVER* purchase music from Amazon with this glaring limitation in place. I am one of them. I generally like Amazon so I hope they will change.
>"Did you not look at the article you linked to? They estimate Android tablets' market share will still lag 10% behind iPads' in 2016."
And even if it were true, then that would still mean 40% of the market, which is a HUGE share. So tablet does not equal iPad, neither now nor in the future.
Might sound silly, but the lines are blurring more and more. ARM only? X86? Android? MS-Windows-8 RT? MS-Windows non-RT? Keyboard attached or no? Docking? Lenovo Twist X86 machine with rotating touchscreen running Linux? 5" phone device? 6" phone? Lenovo Yoga ARM running RT? Lenovo Yoga ARM running Android? Chromebook?
While you are correct that such analyses are needed and done all the time, none of that really has to contain identifiable info. And just because work might need to be done, doesn't mean an entire database of PHI has to be copied to a mobile device to do it.
They already have a line of non-Thinkpad notebooks and ultrabooks under the name "Ideapad" and THAT is the line they like to mess with.
I specifically just bought a *THINKPAD* Twist because I wanted the removable "hard drive" (actually SSD, but whatever), a real ethernet port, and other ports, pop-out keyboard for easy service, etc. I was willing to pay more for a Thinkpad over something like their IdeaPad "Yoga" because I wanted those features and the (supposed) better quality and performance options.
I see no reason why Lenovo would need to muck around with the Thinkpad line when they have the Ideapad line. It would be disastrous to tamper with the Thinkpad line too much- I buy them at work for the same reason I wanted one for home.
I love all the immediate "encrypt it" comments. Yes, that would be helpful, but the bigger question to ask is:
"Why would such data be copied onto a laptop in the first place?"
We keep hearing stuff like lost laptops and flash drives over and over. The reality is that sensitive data like this shouldn't be on those devices in the first place. One would think it would be accessed only on secure servers through approved clients and methods. Most facilities' HIPAA guidelines specifically forbid copying such information off the servers in the first place (expect by I.T. for backup) regardless if it is encrypted or not. Seems like employees in the organizations just ignore that.
Slashdot Mirror
> Same rights as any other human.
But a neanderthal is not a human (not as we know it). Most consider it to be a different species. I am not saying you only have to be a human (or of our exact species) to have rights. I think even my cat has certain rights. But that I the whole point- how many rights? And it is not just about rights, but quality of life. What exactly is "human"? Where is a line drawn? Even modern humans have some trace neanderthal DNA. I think there are certainly a lot of ethical things to consider, especially if this creature is a "person" of any type.
You do not need any human DNA (or modern human DNA) to produce a clone of something extinct. This has already been proven.
I have to stress, again, that we are not talking about a human.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthals Yes, something closely related, but generally considered to not even be the same species.
1) Carrying a baby does not make that person the "mother". There is no reason it must contain modern human DNA at all.
2) You are way out of bounds calling ANYTHING I said "racist". For one, this has nothing to do with race, we are talking about species and sub-species. "Race" is nothing more than ever so slight regional differences within the species such as eye/skin color, skull shape, etc. All races are the same species and nearly identical in cognitive and physical function. This topic is about a non-human. Two, I called it unethical. And not because the result is something that has slight differences, but because the result is something that will have major functional and cognitive differences. Three, I specifically was concerned about rights, with the primary concern being the welfare of what was created.
I consider myself very scientific, fairly worldly, and pretty open minded.
But to me this is unethical.
Ask yourself just some simple preliminary questions such as: If the resulting semi-human is self aware, what rights will it/he/she have? Will it/he/she be a cage animal? Will it be sterilized or allowed to reproduce? And if so, with which other species or semi-species? Is this fair to it/he/she? Will it/he/she be allowed to vote? To own property? Be allowed or required to work? To choose a field of education? To be free of staring, poking prodding?
+1 on everything you just said.
Older generation = Know what privacy means but have no clue about the dangers of computers and how they relate to privacy.
Around my generation = Most know about privacy, and even how computers can erode it, but most don't quite care enough to do anything about it because it is inconvenient or just difficult.
Younger generation = Have no concept at all as to what privacy is. Think anyone concerned about privacy is totally paranoid and til foil hat.
1) Chrome is not open source. It is based on Chromium, which is open sourced, but the build Google takes is not identical code. They can put anything in it they wish.
2) Fiddler is a proxy, as such, the browser will know it is not directly connected.
3) Even if one could capture all data as it would normally travel, it doesn't mean one would be able to understand everything it sends. If a blob of data goes to Google at some point, especially when already connecting to their servers with every other page doing adsense, exactly how are we mere, non-Google mortals going to know it is all above-the-board?
4) Again, RLZ might be open source, but their COMPILE of CHROME that contains it is not... so what you see might not be what you get. Open-source projects, like Firefox, Linux, OpenOffice, etc, are examined and compiled by third parties and not primarily distributed as a owner/maker binary. Even Chromium seems to be obfuscated in ways that make it unsuitable for others to compile and distribute: http://ostatic.com/blog/making-projects-easier-to-package-why-chromium-isnt-in-fedora
I am not saying Chrome *is* spyware. But I am saying it has the ability to be, and it might be, and we can't really know. It is being released by a company who has a lot to gain by gathering as much info as possible, and a lot of practice doing so (and a huge, unquestioning following).
Of course not- nobody does that (or do they?) But the point is that there is MUCH smaller chance that anyone outside of Google knows what is going on inside their Chrome code when compared to an open-source browser.
I will explain what it means...
You might trust Google, but do you really want to trust them with EVERYTHING? If you separate off your searching to something else, it greatly enhances your privacy, especially since you are not "signed in" to something like Startpage. I am not saying that Startpage is some great, perfect system (pick something else, then). All I am saying is that from a privacy standpoint, it makes sense to not to give ALL your data to one entity. Hence- not putting all your eggs in one basket.
Yeah, because there is something just so classy and sexy about a browser that doesn't tell you what is going or and is resistant to customizations. Even sexier when it is tied to Google, is closed source, and does who-knows-what with all that stuff you do/see/search (Chrome is secret, like IE... at least Chromium you can see inside the code, like Firefox).
Well played, indeed.
People using Chrome and who are also worried about a third party seeing their search queries: priceless.
I think that one using Google would worrying about security of their searches a little funny and ironic. The Google way: Give us access to all your Email, all your contacts, your location, your calls, the apps you install, all your searches, all your comments on Google+, your research on Google Maps, your shopping, all your purchases with Google Wallet, tracking you with Adsense from millions of sites, storing your passwords in Google's browsers, recording your network passwords in your Android accounts, sniffing the neighborhood's WiFi, storing your photos and comments in Picasa, holding pictures of your house and cars/property in Google Earth and Streetview, recording your viewing habits on Google TV, sifting through your files stored on Google Drive, following your movements with location history, who you chat with on Google Talk and Hangouts, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc
Anyway, if you ARE concerned about the privacy of your searches, this visit this site in *ANY* browser: https://startpage.com/ And note that when you visit there in Firefox, they will provide a link called "Add to Firefox" and that will install their info into your search box which is always encrypted. But most importantly, you are not giving away all your searching to Google, even though you get most of the same results as if you went to Google directly. One should never have all their eggs in one basket.
+1
And of course it would be Google. Because, you know, we haven't handed enough of our information to Google (and other companies) already...
Access to all your Email, all your contacts, your location, your calls, the apps you install, all your searches, all your comments on Google+, your research on Google Maps, your shopping, all your purchases with Google Wallet, tracking you with Adsense from millions of sites, storing your passwords in Google's browsers, recording your network passwords in your Android accounts, sniffing the neighborhood's WiFi, storing your photos and comments in Picasa, holding pictures of your house and cars/property in Google Earth and Streetview, recording your viewing habits on Google TV, sifting through your files stored on Google Drive, following your movements with location history, who you chat with on Google Talk and Hangouts, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc,.
So sure, I really think I should link everything I do to a single protected "login", that can't possibly be abused.
>" that provides access to virtually every major operating system â" from the Mac OS, to Windows, to Google's Chrome OS, to cloud-based solutions from Citrix and Dell â" all via the cloud"
Virtually every major operating system and yet Linux is not mentioned... typical. Change "virtually" to "most" and that might be accurate. Of course the article doesn't have many useful details.
$50? Yeah right, and then some monthly "service fee", no doubt. And then you have to trust Dell's "cloud" with all your data, passwords, programs, etc. No thanks.
>I have one of these with stock firmware and its rock solid. I shall be updating immediately.
I used my WRT54GL for many months (years ago) on the stock firmware and did not find it to be reliable. I had upgraded the stock firmware to their latest and it didn't help.
Once I changed to Toastman Tomato, it became one of the most reliable pieces of equipment I own... instantly. PLUS Tomato gave it tons of additional functionality.
Don't be afraid of installing third-party Linux firmware, it is the best thing you can do for your WRT54GL.
Yes, you would think the summary would at LEAST say *WHICH* router it affects, since Linksys has lots of different models. It is the WRT54GL.
I *love* that router and have probably 30 of them. Low power draw, real antenna, wall mountable, etc. My recommendation- install Toastman Tomato on it. They never crash, freeze, freak out, not work with certain devices, etc. Rock solid stuff.
Strangely, the WRT54GL is STILL BEING SOLD!
I have, indeed, used all kinds of devices. There is no question that a touchscreen is more expensive than non-touch, that it has a lot more glare, and that it is much heavier than a non-touch. Bezel sizes don't HAVE to be bigger, but seem to be.
>"Your next laptop will likely be touch, whether you like it or not."
So all laptop/notebook/netbook/ultrabook/whatever-name-is-in-vogue models will:
1) Be more expensive
2) Be considerably heavier (glass is not light)
3) Be more fragile
4) Have lots of screen glare (yep- glass)
5) Have something else that can malfunction
6) Have a larger bezel (which is more wasted space)
Because that is what you get with touchscreen technology right now. Thanks again, Microsoft/Intel, for "leading the industry" because choice is a bad thing.
Thank you for the info. I have no idea why my posting would have been modded "Troll" by anyone, it certainly was not a troll, it was all the information I had based on experience, their help files, AND their apparently clueless support. Overrated, sure, but not Troll.
Anyway, had support just told me that quality varies depending on the album/publisher, then I wouldn't have made such a stink. You are absolutely right that they should have a way of telling you what you are getting before you download it...
I tried to use Amazon recently to obtain an mp3, they only offered it in 128kb/s. It used to be that one could purchase mp3 files from Amazon and download the songs or album through the browser in high-quality. However, this appears to have changed. Now it will shove the music into what Amazon calls their "Amazon Cloud Player" and the user has two options for downloading. One option requires a proprietary MS-Windows/MacOS-only program, which of course is not an option for Linux/Unix users. The other is to use a browser-based player-downloader for any OS...
When downloaded through the browser, it gives no options at all about quality and will offer only a lower 128kbps version. I chatted with their support for 20 minutes and they seem to indicate that is how it works. This limitation is not even documented anywhere in their help system.
So you think it is better with the "downloader"? Nope. Same thing- there, no quality choices at all. So all you are allowed to download is 128kb/s from ANYWHERE on Amazon that I can find, regardless of method. I can't believe they are getting away with this. I know most consumers are clueless, but this is just wild.
I sent them feedback that some people will *NEVER* purchase music from Amazon with this glaring limitation in place. I am one of them. I generally like Amazon so I hope they will change.
>"Did you not look at the article you linked to? They estimate Android tablets' market share will still lag 10% behind iPads' in 2016."
And even if it were true, then that would still mean 40% of the market, which is a HUGE share. So tablet does not equal iPad, neither now nor in the future.
Define "tablet"
Might sound silly, but the lines are blurring more and more. ARM only? X86? Android? MS-Windows-8 RT? MS-Windows non-RT? Keyboard attached or no? Docking? Lenovo Twist X86 machine with rotating touchscreen running Linux? 5" phone device? 6" phone? Lenovo Yoga ARM running RT? Lenovo Yoga ARM running Android? Chromebook?
While you are correct that such analyses are needed and done all the time, none of that really has to contain identifiable info. And just because work might need to be done, doesn't mean an entire database of PHI has to be copied to a mobile device to do it.
They already have a line of non-Thinkpad notebooks and ultrabooks under the name "Ideapad" and THAT is the line they like to mess with.
I specifically just bought a *THINKPAD* Twist because I wanted the removable "hard drive" (actually SSD, but whatever), a real ethernet port, and other ports, pop-out keyboard for easy service, etc. I was willing to pay more for a Thinkpad over something like their IdeaPad "Yoga" because I wanted those features and the (supposed) better quality and performance options.
I see no reason why Lenovo would need to muck around with the Thinkpad line when they have the Ideapad line. It would be disastrous to tamper with the Thinkpad line too much- I buy them at work for the same reason I wanted one for home.
I love all the immediate "encrypt it" comments. Yes, that would be helpful, but the bigger question to ask is:
"Why would such data be copied onto a laptop in the first place?"
We keep hearing stuff like lost laptops and flash drives over and over. The reality is that sensitive data like this shouldn't be on those devices in the first place. One would think it would be accessed only on secure servers through approved clients and methods. Most facilities' HIPAA guidelines specifically forbid copying such information off the servers in the first place (expect by I.T. for backup) regardless if it is encrypted or not. Seems like employees in the organizations just ignore that.
Encryption can be broken.
>"Or if you're a real man, you leave your number under his windshield wiper, fess up (to the hit, not the drinking) and pay for the damage."
A real man doesn't have a hyphenated last name, either.
+1 I could not agree more. I wanted to barf when I saw this article and comment:
"Gosh, I just wish it would run Linux instead of Ubuntu"