We know she felt she needed to do this. We do not know if he solicited for this or not.
Do not assume that just because she's famous or talented that she's necessarily reasonable. She's subject to the same fallacies, errors in judgment, and emotional self-delusion as everyone else is.
What about when we stop releasing so much carbon into the atmosphere because we're not relying on the combustible properties of carbon-based molecules to generate power in the first place?
That's the whole point of using non-combusting means to generate power; we're not imparting more carbon to ever-increase the greenhouse effect.
I donno, I think if generating Terawatts of electricity through harvesting wind happens in lieu of burning material, that's still going to be an impact on global warming.
The seven removed names actually went through the courts to get their names removed. If this is the only case pending so far then they're at just under a 54% success rate with this case.
I have heard a lot of complaints about the list, but I've not followed the story enough to know how widespread the practice of trying to get off the list is. Are there other lawsuits pending? Is there something of a 'proper channels' method to appealing, and how many cases have been submitted to that? Obviously with the ACLU suit then it's unlikely that a 'proper channels' method is functioning.
Unless we have figures then we can't really gauge the effectiveness.
Stupid question, but it pertains at least a bit...
If one flies with no ID, which is legal though a PITA, and one's ticket doesn't match any no-fly list, then how exactly is the TSA or anyone else supposed to stop one from flying? Admittedly one will probably get the worst treatment at the TSA checkpoint, and may get asked a lot of questions in advance of being allowed through security, but if one can fly without ID, then how can a no-fly list actually stop anyone?
Why were the photos anywhere besides on the user's personal, hand-held device?
That's what I mean by being designed to share. From the user's perspective, the photos were automagically copied on to a cloud-based service. The photos were not stored solely on the picture-taking device, ie the smartphone, and ended up in a place that has lots and lots of users connecting to it on a regular basis. The sheer number of connections alone helps obscure inappropriate use, and coupled with the particularly lax security policies, it was much easier for access to be gained.
It's possible that the users knew that their private content was being stored on someone else's server, and that they'd intentionally set-up their phone or computer to back-up their private content on someone else's server, so it again comes back to not knowing how the software (in this case on that someone else's server) is configured, and it having a bug or other vulnerability making it easy for people to gain access to their content.
Finally, a tangible and potentially-useful fact to come out of this debacle: Ms. Lawrence's significant other is an asshole.
Or, his settings were wrong, and inadvertently put the files that she sent him on the cloud somewhere, or his device was vulnerable and was broken into...
This shows that there were at least three points of failure. There was her point, his point, and the communications medium between them. That doesn't even factor into account possible cloud storage for her or him, or automatic sharing of files between one's own network connected devices, which now could bring us easily up to seven points of failure.
This is why those of us that are being chewed-out for blaming the victim are kind of pissed off. It's well known that this is all a big tangled mess, and in the same fashion that one wouldn't go walking through an area known for muggings during the time of day or night when muggings are most common because one can't control the behavior of the muggers, one shouldn't use insecure communications devices or mediums for things that present one with a hell of a lot to lose because one cannot control the actions of others. It's unfortunate that we live in a world where people will do this, but pragmatically, just because it's morally wrong doesn't mean that it won't happen anyway. One's own choices dictate how much of a victim one has the potential of becoming, and these circumstances show that it will be a problem, regardless of how wrong it may be.
I don't know, I think that it's appropriate to allow victims the right to not be remembered as such. Perpretrators that were convicted, "on the record", don't generally deserve that same right. I will be happy to acknowledge that those that had their convictions overturned, or after a period of good behavior or the completion of court-mandated courses had their felonies voided in favor of misdemeanors, would also deserve to qualify to not be so readily remembered. Beyond that, since the verdict in court is supposed to be public record and for the public, I don't think that it's right to remove those verdicts.
As I've maintained since this scandal broke, if one doesn't fully understand all of the technologies and their implications when creating the content in the first place, one simply cannot control that content.
Devices nowadays are designed to share. Let that sink in a minute. Devices nowadays are designed to share. Smartphones are cloud-connected, and every smartphone OS make at least offers some degree of automatic cloud storage, and there are lots of third-party applications that also offer automatic cloud storage. Smartphones also designed to easily interface with PCs to share content to where it can be used on a bigger display. PCs are designed to look for open shares on trusted networks to make use of the content on those shares. PCs can also share/save to the cloud.
Just about all of this software is closed-source. Even as computer professionals we don't know all that it's capble of doing, and we cannot review it for unadvertized capabilities either. We have to trust that it works as advertised and only as advertised, that there are no undocumented features that make it work otherwise, and that there are no expoitable bugs that were unintentionally introduced.
And all of this is just the end-user-device side. This doesn't even begin to address the cloud-side, the protocols, or other things.
End-users that aren't computer professionals have no chance. Even computer professionals really don't have a good shot either.
The only winning move is not to play.
Ms. Lawrence is on record saying that she supplied photos to a significant-other so he'd look at her instead of looking at other women. Good intentions perhaps, but the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. She did not understand the technology, and now she's paying the consequences of that ignorance.
I'm well aware of the painfully-small supply of ZMapp and other drugs like it. My point is that if someone with good medical and/or research credentials in viruses has something that they've been researching that they think has a decent chance of making a severe dent in Ebola based on animal testing, if they can give it a go in the wild instead of in a blind study, go for it. We already have documented what happens to a control group by simply not having a treatment; we don't need to do a blind study where some are given medication and others aren't unless you want to see how much placebo effect influences things, we don't need to go from small-trials to medium-trials to large-trials to approval. We need to go from small trials to approval.
When medicine treats chronic, long-term progressing disease I'm all in favor of long trials. When the disease is so short that the majority of patients go from symptomatic to dead in days, there's a lot less harm in a bad treatment.
I could see someone designing a screen that can't be accurately captured by at least a digital camera, but anything that the human eye can see, an analog lens and film can also image. Screens that couldn't be imaged electronically would probably be restricted to the most sensitive of data where any concern for espionage would make it desirable to spend the money to make such a screen work, and where someone couldn't infiltrate with a film camera.
I don't feel sorry for those who thought this was seriously secure, and two, who the hell sends naked pictures of themselves and actually thinks other people won't see them? 1999 called and it wants it's noobs back.
See, I can feel some mild sympathy, basically pity, for those that were stupid enough to think that something electronic and stored in a common format over a common communications medium was secure. That doesn't mean that don't assign at least some blame for their circumstances though.
This has been a problem since well before 1999. Naked pictures were exchanged on BBSes and on Usenet since the inventions of the scanner and the digital camera. The only difference is that it's easier than ever to do that distribution now, and sharing requiring human interaction has been supplemented by software that seeks out and stores such content.
Until the technology has actually matured there's no safe solution. Even computer professionals don't necessarily understand all aspects of all of the software that could have access to the content on a user's electronic devices; simple users literally have no chance.
Is quarantine working? Based on a PBS documentary, I'm not inclined to think so. The countries affected didn't have the trained medical staff needed before the outbreak and they've lost both front-line personnel and researchers to Ebola, further weakening their ability to respond. One country is already talking about trying to force families to care for their sick at home, basically guaranteeing more family members become sick, further increasing the likelihood that more people will be infected. And when the bulk of what the government can do is haul-off outed sick people and hold them until they die or occasionally recover, the population stops trusting anyone attempting to assert authority. Thay leaves only two options, vaccination or experimental treatment. The population needs to see people returning alive in significant numbers in order to start trusting their health officials again, and there's no way to achieve that without experimental treatment.
Between the high mortality rate and the apparently high transmission rate, coupled with cultural structures that are making the likelihood of spreading the disease post-mortem exceedingly high, they're simply desperate to find anything that will stop it. It also means that for those that are infected, there's so little chance of survival with "traditional" treatments that they have very little to lose by trying something experimental. Even if a treatment gives them cancer, or HIV, or leaves them with something like chronic fatigue syndrome, they're still going to enjoy quality of life better than they would if they're dead.
If there's any time to drop stages between reasoned research and application on human patients, this is it. Look at each and every patient as they're treated and attempt to monitor them after-the-fact.
I'm not the person that you replied to, but back when FDIV was discovered in the first-generation Pentiums, it was discovered because astrophysics researchers were getting results that seemed off, and when they re-ran their sims on 486s and other architectures they got different results.
That means that you have to test your stuff experimentally. Different architectures, different simulation and math programs. That sucks; it takes time to reimplement in a different simulator or math program and it costs money in both software and hardware, but those are the breaks when relying on others.
They're trying to turn Slashdot into the Scientific American Frontiers of the Internet.
Unfortunately that means that things that the existing audience for this website cares about will have to be reduced in content in order to make way for all of the other stuff.
If I wanted everything I'd browse Reddit in/r/all.
From what I gather, the problem is that Intel didn't acknowledge in documentation how poor the instruction was for scientific use though. This is fine for home and probably most general-purpose business use, but becomes a problem when it's more critical. If those that develop software that relies on sine functionality don't know about this then error in the results of their programs will actually matter.
This won't matter to a gamer playing some first-person shooter.
I don't think that analogies to non-life circumstances really work in this argument. I would think it's better to compare this to organ transplantation. In the United States it's against the law to sell organs. It's against the law to take organs from those sentenced to death without their consent, and even with their consent it's difficult to go about it. There have been examples when tissues were taken and profited from such as those taken from Henrietta Lacks, but we've as a society attempted to take profit motive out of this kind of contribution.
I find it exceedingly unlikely that women will get pregnant specifically for the possibility of selling their abortions for medical research. I also find it exceedingly unlikely that women will choose to be less-safe with their sexual intercourse because a secondary byproduct could be a little bit of profit from such a sale. I'll concede that it's not impossible for this to happen though, as there are urban myths about people selling organs or tissues from themselves for-profit. I find it more likely that if there's any revenue for the patient by the sale of aborted fetal tissue, it'll only really be enough to offset the costs of the abortion procedure itself and given storage, transportation, and maintenance costs won't be a profitable enterprise for any party other than the one doing the research and ultimately profiting off of the results of that research.
The only real grey area that I see are IVF-embryos on-ice that were created for couples and never used and never will be used, and how disposal of those embryos will happen. I assume that the IVF-related costs have already been paid, and that the couple is now only outlaying money for the safe storage of embryos. They might be able to sell those embryos, but given that IVF-patients are unlikely to make such a decision until long after they're past the desire to have more children, it'll be a loss-mitigating circumstance rather than a profit-making one.
There have also been examples when a procedure was first pioneered with embryonic stem cells, that later was able to be replicated with adult stem cells from the patient themselves. Initial attempts were probably made in part due to religious objections surrounding the use of embryos, but it has happened enough to consider that they might be able to do it here, with the patient's own cells, so there wouldn't be much of an issue with rejection.
Slashdot Mirror
We know she felt she needed to do this. We do not know if he solicited for this or not.
Do not assume that just because she's famous or talented that she's necessarily reasonable. She's subject to the same fallacies, errors in judgment, and emotional self-delusion as everyone else is.
What about when we stop releasing so much carbon into the atmosphere because we're not relying on the combustible properties of carbon-based molecules to generate power in the first place?
That's the whole point of using non-combusting means to generate power; we're not imparting more carbon to ever-increase the greenhouse effect.
I donno, I think if generating Terawatts of electricity through harvesting wind happens in lieu of burning material, that's still going to be an impact on global warming.
Still better than burning things that aren't actively releasing energy to begin with...
The seven removed names actually went through the courts to get their names removed. If this is the only case pending so far then they're at just under a 54% success rate with this case.
I have heard a lot of complaints about the list, but I've not followed the story enough to know how widespread the practice of trying to get off the list is. Are there other lawsuits pending? Is there something of a 'proper channels' method to appealing, and how many cases have been submitted to that? Obviously with the ACLU suit then it's unlikely that a 'proper channels' method is functioning.
Unless we have figures then we can't really gauge the effectiveness.
Stupid question, but it pertains at least a bit...
If one flies with no ID, which is legal though a PITA, and one's ticket doesn't match any no-fly list, then how exactly is the TSA or anyone else supposed to stop one from flying? Admittedly one will probably get the worst treatment at the TSA checkpoint, and may get asked a lot of questions in advance of being allowed through security, but if one can fly without ID, then how can a no-fly list actually stop anyone?
Why were the photos anywhere besides on the user's personal, hand-held device?
That's what I mean by being designed to share. From the user's perspective, the photos were automagically copied on to a cloud-based service. The photos were not stored solely on the picture-taking device, ie the smartphone, and ended up in a place that has lots and lots of users connecting to it on a regular basis. The sheer number of connections alone helps obscure inappropriate use, and coupled with the particularly lax security policies, it was much easier for access to be gained.
It's possible that the users knew that their private content was being stored on someone else's server, and that they'd intentionally set-up their phone or computer to back-up their private content on someone else's server, so it again comes back to not knowing how the software (in this case on that someone else's server) is configured, and it having a bug or other vulnerability making it easy for people to gain access to their content.
Or, his settings were wrong, and inadvertently put the files that she sent him on the cloud somewhere, or his device was vulnerable and was broken into...
This shows that there were at least three points of failure. There was her point, his point, and the communications medium between them. That doesn't even factor into account possible cloud storage for her or him, or automatic sharing of files between one's own network connected devices, which now could bring us easily up to seven points of failure.
This is why those of us that are being chewed-out for blaming the victim are kind of pissed off. It's well known that this is all a big tangled mess, and in the same fashion that one wouldn't go walking through an area known for muggings during the time of day or night when muggings are most common because one can't control the behavior of the muggers, one shouldn't use insecure communications devices or mediums for things that present one with a hell of a lot to lose because one cannot control the actions of others. It's unfortunate that we live in a world where people will do this, but pragmatically, just because it's morally wrong doesn't mean that it won't happen anyway. One's own choices dictate how much of a victim one has the potential of becoming, and these circumstances show that it will be a problem, regardless of how wrong it may be.
In English, quotes are not used to indicate relational words that when grouped form a proper noun.
I don't know, I think that it's appropriate to allow victims the right to not be remembered as such. Perpretrators that were convicted, "on the record", don't generally deserve that same right. I will be happy to acknowledge that those that had their convictions overturned, or after a period of good behavior or the completion of court-mandated courses had their felonies voided in favor of misdemeanors, would also deserve to qualify to not be so readily remembered. Beyond that, since the verdict in court is supposed to be public record and for the public, I don't think that it's right to remove those verdicts.
As I've maintained since this scandal broke, if one doesn't fully understand all of the technologies and their implications when creating the content in the first place, one simply cannot control that content.
Devices nowadays are designed to share. Let that sink in a minute. Devices nowadays are designed to share. Smartphones are cloud-connected, and every smartphone OS make at least offers some degree of automatic cloud storage, and there are lots of third-party applications that also offer automatic cloud storage. Smartphones also designed to easily interface with PCs to share content to where it can be used on a bigger display. PCs are designed to look for open shares on trusted networks to make use of the content on those shares. PCs can also share/save to the cloud.
Just about all of this software is closed-source. Even as computer professionals we don't know all that it's capble of doing, and we cannot review it for unadvertized capabilities either. We have to trust that it works as advertised and only as advertised, that there are no undocumented features that make it work otherwise, and that there are no expoitable bugs that were unintentionally introduced.
And all of this is just the end-user-device side. This doesn't even begin to address the cloud-side, the protocols, or other things.
End-users that aren't computer professionals have no chance. Even computer professionals really don't have a good shot either.
The only winning move is not to play.
Ms. Lawrence is on record saying that she supplied photos to a significant-other so he'd look at her instead of looking at other women. Good intentions perhaps, but the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. She did not understand the technology, and now she's paying the consequences of that ignorance.
I'm well aware of the painfully-small supply of ZMapp and other drugs like it. My point is that if someone with good medical and/or research credentials in viruses has something that they've been researching that they think has a decent chance of making a severe dent in Ebola based on animal testing, if they can give it a go in the wild instead of in a blind study, go for it. We already have documented what happens to a control group by simply not having a treatment; we don't need to do a blind study where some are given medication and others aren't unless you want to see how much placebo effect influences things, we don't need to go from small-trials to medium-trials to large-trials to approval. We need to go from small trials to approval.
When medicine treats chronic, long-term progressing disease I'm all in favor of long trials. When the disease is so short that the majority of patients go from symptomatic to dead in days, there's a lot less harm in a bad treatment.
I could see someone designing a screen that can't be accurately captured by at least a digital camera, but anything that the human eye can see, an analog lens and film can also image. Screens that couldn't be imaged electronically would probably be restricted to the most sensitive of data where any concern for espionage would make it desirable to spend the money to make such a screen work, and where someone couldn't infiltrate with a film camera.
In short, something of a pipe-dream.
See, I can feel some mild sympathy, basically pity, for those that were stupid enough to think that something electronic and stored in a common format over a common communications medium was secure. That doesn't mean that don't assign at least some blame for their circumstances though.
This has been a problem since well before 1999. Naked pictures were exchanged on BBSes and on Usenet since the inventions of the scanner and the digital camera. The only difference is that it's easier than ever to do that distribution now, and sharing requiring human interaction has been supplemented by software that seeks out and stores such content.
Until the technology has actually matured there's no safe solution. Even computer professionals don't necessarily understand all aspects of all of the software that could have access to the content on a user's electronic devices; simple users literally have no chance.
Is quarantine working? Based on a PBS documentary, I'm not inclined to think so. The countries affected didn't have the trained medical staff needed before the outbreak and they've lost both front-line personnel and researchers to Ebola, further weakening their ability to respond. One country is already talking about trying to force families to care for their sick at home, basically guaranteeing more family members become sick, further increasing the likelihood that more people will be infected. And when the bulk of what the government can do is haul-off outed sick people and hold them until they die or occasionally recover, the population stops trusting anyone attempting to assert authority. Thay leaves only two options, vaccination or experimental treatment. The population needs to see people returning alive in significant numbers in order to start trusting their health officials again, and there's no way to achieve that without experimental treatment.
Between the high mortality rate and the apparently high transmission rate, coupled with cultural structures that are making the likelihood of spreading the disease post-mortem exceedingly high, they're simply desperate to find anything that will stop it. It also means that for those that are infected, there's so little chance of survival with "traditional" treatments that they have very little to lose by trying something experimental. Even if a treatment gives them cancer, or HIV, or leaves them with something like chronic fatigue syndrome, they're still going to enjoy quality of life better than they would if they're dead.
If there's any time to drop stages between reasoned research and application on human patients, this is it. Look at each and every patient as they're treated and attempt to monitor them after-the-fact.
Windows XP POS? Isn't that being redundant?
Does that mean that if I have an ancient Windows 98 install going somewhere, it'll get a rare update in the wild?
I'm not the person that you replied to, but back when FDIV was discovered in the first-generation Pentiums, it was discovered because astrophysics researchers were getting results that seemed off, and when they re-ran their sims on 486s and other architectures they got different results.
That means that you have to test your stuff experimentally. Different architectures, different simulation and math programs. That sucks; it takes time to reimplement in a different simulator or math program and it costs money in both software and hardware, but those are the breaks when relying on others.
You're incorrect; Grammar Nazis want to see correct usage of vocabulary and grammatical constructs, and that desire extends to proper punctuation.
I figured out what the admin is doing!
/r/all.
They're trying to turn Slashdot into the Scientific American Frontiers of the Internet.
Unfortunately that means that things that the existing audience for this website cares about will have to be reduced in content in order to make way for all of the other stuff.
If I wanted everything I'd browse Reddit in
From what I gather, the problem is that Intel didn't acknowledge in documentation how poor the instruction was for scientific use though. This is fine for home and probably most general-purpose business use, but becomes a problem when it's more critical. If those that develop software that relies on sine functionality don't know about this then error in the results of their programs will actually matter.
This won't matter to a gamer playing some first-person shooter.
I don't think that analogies to non-life circumstances really work in this argument. I would think it's better to compare this to organ transplantation. In the United States it's against the law to sell organs. It's against the law to take organs from those sentenced to death without their consent, and even with their consent it's difficult to go about it. There have been examples when tissues were taken and profited from such as those taken from Henrietta Lacks, but we've as a society attempted to take profit motive out of this kind of contribution.
I find it exceedingly unlikely that women will get pregnant specifically for the possibility of selling their abortions for medical research. I also find it exceedingly unlikely that women will choose to be less-safe with their sexual intercourse because a secondary byproduct could be a little bit of profit from such a sale. I'll concede that it's not impossible for this to happen though, as there are urban myths about people selling organs or tissues from themselves for-profit. I find it more likely that if there's any revenue for the patient by the sale of aborted fetal tissue, it'll only really be enough to offset the costs of the abortion procedure itself and given storage, transportation, and maintenance costs won't be a profitable enterprise for any party other than the one doing the research and ultimately profiting off of the results of that research.
The only real grey area that I see are IVF-embryos on-ice that were created for couples and never used and never will be used, and how disposal of those embryos will happen. I assume that the IVF-related costs have already been paid, and that the couple is now only outlaying money for the safe storage of embryos. They might be able to sell those embryos, but given that IVF-patients are unlikely to make such a decision until long after they're past the desire to have more children, it'll be a loss-mitigating circumstance rather than a profit-making one.
Was also in the pilot to Lexx, possibly making fun of the novel a bit.
There have also been examples when a procedure was first pioneered with embryonic stem cells, that later was able to be replicated with adult stem cells from the patient themselves. Initial attempts were probably made in part due to religious objections surrounding the use of embryos, but it has happened enough to consider that they might be able to do it here, with the patient's own cells, so there wouldn't be much of an issue with rejection.