Dischromats are not handicapped, their color space has the same resolution as anyone else's but is layed out differently, giving them a well known advantage in camouflage detection for example.
Correcting major genetic defects is ethically tempting but correcting a genetic non-defect would be absurd.
Who can guarantee that this specific genetic peculiarity will not protect the species from some future lethal epidemy?
I don't like geneticists playing god with a toy they do not understand at all.
Three explanations at least to this "paradox":
Explanation 1
Aliens are everywhere but shy enough to avoid being detected by ordinary idiots like us.
Explanation 2
Evolution to a technological civilization is an extremely improbable accident. Vertebrates on earth have had enough equipment (say eyes and fingers) for hundred millions years to draw stuff on walls (which is the start of civilization) yet never "thought" of it until lately. It may well be the case that the accidental brain configuration that finally suggested that feat was absolutely improbable and normally never happens anywhere else.
Explanation 3
When technology reaches a point near where we are now, it is unavoidably destructive of the species before it has time to escape its planet. We may be approaching the point where a single individual may spread disaster over the whole planet, volontarily or by error.
This is the most likely explanation of the paradox in my opinion.
No, we the chromatically challenged have the same data processing equipment as everyone else, we just use it differently.
That is why we are smarter too!
I would like to know what provisions the law provides to protect the technically challenged. Suppose my neighbour hacks into my WLAN, and starts sharing files.
According to the proposed law, in that case you cannot claim innocence unless you can prove that you used an approved (read: government-provided) protection.
Needless to say, this de facto mandatory software will not be open-source.
Is it too paranoid to think that a convenient side effect of this law would be to install a generalized eavesdropping infrastructure under the guise of protecting the innocent ?
I dont care about his limited credentials.
The very fact that his report was censored makes it worth reading.
No one should pass judgment on its merits until he has read it.
So: WHERE IS THE REPORT?
Given that this was a public forum then that's a pretty good idea. I wonder if they've chatted to the Wayback machine or google about getting a copy of previously cached data?
I'm sometimes bothered by the stress on studies being "verified" by something like a peer-review process. (...) there may be cases where what "everyone thinks" (i.e. the common conception even among experts) is wrong, and some random nutcase is right.
Absolutely, and that is exactly how Science progresses.
The modern peer review process only adds viscosity to the mechanism of discovery.
Solutions ? Maybe give only the patient the private key to unlock the medical database.
Then, if he refuses to give access to his private medical data, he will be denied whatever he is applying for: an insurance, a job, a sports license, etc...
The best way to ensure your freedom and privacy is to either *not* give you the key (so that no one can force you to release your data) or give you an *alternate* key to an edited version purged of anything you don't want to show.
There's a radar sign on Highway 17 that routinely overestimates the speed of oncoming traffic by up to 15 MPH.
Not at all, it shows your speed in km/h !
As you may know, the metric system has been the legal national standard in the US since 1866.
Any ticket based on mph measurement would be illegal.
Good news actually.
The french love to break the law.
I am french.
I have a dozen weakly WEP-protected WiFi equipped neighbours within range (wepcrackable within 10 minutes average).
It will be a lot of fun to download plenty of stuff through their connections and have *them* punished.
When you put something up on the Web without a form of access control (meaning logging in, not meaning "I only give out the address to certain people"), it's public every bit as much as if you put an ad in the newspaper. Linking to your site is no different than me saying, "Hey, check out this newspaper ad CmdrTaco put in, it's really cool!".
Let me disagree with you.
If I share private data with friends or family or colleagues on a private non-indexed website, I would certainly hate to see an outsider intercept and publish the url (or the password).
A public government website financed by taxpayers is another story of course.
Improbable theories of dinosaur extinction keep popping up.
Dinosaurs disappeared because they stifled competition so efficiently that they became unable to adapt.
** The fat stupid monopoly syndrom **
They would have needed some kind of antitrust law to survive their own hubris.
Simulation is a copy.
A model involves a shortcut.
There is a confusion here between technology, which indeed is taking the peta-brute-forcing route, and Science whose beauty precisely resides in its computational economy.
A perfect copy of a brain would be an engineering feast without providing any understanding of why it works.
Slashdot Mirror
Logically, 10^-27 would be called xennea
The recurrence is:
zepta (Z + hepta=7)
yocto (Y + okto=8)
xennea(X + ennea=9)
Dischromats are not handicapped, their color space has the same resolution as anyone else's but is layed out differently, giving them a well known advantage in camouflage detection for example.
Correcting major genetic defects is ethically tempting but correcting a genetic non-defect would be absurd.
Who can guarantee that this specific genetic peculiarity will not protect the species from some future lethal epidemy? I don't like geneticists playing god with a toy they do not understand at all.
and another who managed to call him on his mobile
Frankly, I seriously doubt he owns a cell phone.
Three explanations at least to this "paradox":
Explanation 1
Aliens are everywhere but shy enough to avoid being detected by ordinary idiots like us.
Explanation 2
Evolution to a technological civilization is an extremely improbable accident. Vertebrates on earth have had enough equipment (say eyes and fingers) for hundred millions years to draw stuff on walls (which is the start of civilization) yet never "thought" of it until lately. It may well be the case that the accidental brain configuration that finally suggested that feat was absolutely improbable and normally never happens anywhere else.
Explanation 3
When technology reaches a point near where we are now, it is unavoidably destructive of the species before it has time to escape its planet. We may be approaching the point where a single individual may spread disaster over the whole planet, volontarily or by error.
This is the most likely explanation of the paradox in my opinion.
I wonder what the downside is.
One downside is that they will be stealing it from occupied Tibet.
Sue me now!
'broken heart syndrome' is a phenomenon, not a phenomena.
I think our internal clock measures our metabolism. Since metabolism slows down with age, objective clock time appears to run faster.
"Peer review" is the other name of "inbreeding".
No, we the chromatically challenged have the same data processing equipment as everyone else, we just use it differently. That is why we are smarter too!
I would like to know what provisions the law provides to protect the technically challenged. Suppose my neighbour hacks into my WLAN, and starts sharing files.
According to the proposed law, in that case you cannot claim innocence unless you can prove that you used an approved (read: government-provided) protection.
Needless to say, this de facto mandatory software will not be open-source.
Is it too paranoid to think that a convenient side effect of this law would be to install a generalized eavesdropping infrastructure under the guise of protecting the innocent ?
Anyone who offers valid criticisms of your theory with data to back them up should be heard.
If you decide the criticism is not valid without hearing it first, it means you are prejudiced. Am I missing something?
I dont care about his limited credentials. The very fact that his report was censored makes it worth reading. No one should pass judgment on its merits until he has read it. So: WHERE IS THE REPORT?
Myanmar's real name is Burma, period.
Given that this was a public forum then that's a pretty good idea. I wonder if they've chatted to the Wayback machine or google about getting a copy of previously cached data?
Yes but good ideas only get score 1 on Slashdot
humans have a much more advanced ability to predict what will happen in the future and to make preparations to deal with that prediction
I wonder where you got that idea ...
I'm sometimes bothered by the stress on studies being "verified" by something like a peer-review process. (...) there may be cases where what "everyone thinks" (i.e. the common conception even among experts) is wrong, and some random nutcase is right.
Absolutely, and that is exactly how Science progresses. The modern peer review process only adds viscosity to the mechanism of discovery.
Solutions ? Maybe give only the patient the private key to unlock the medical database.
Then, if he refuses to give access to his private medical data, he will be denied whatever he is applying for: an insurance, a job, a sports license, etc...
The best way to ensure your freedom and privacy is to either *not* give you the key (so that no one can force you to release your data) or give you an *alternate* key to an edited version purged of anything you don't want to show.
There's a radar sign on Highway 17 that routinely overestimates the speed of oncoming traffic by up to 15 MPH.
Not at all, it shows your speed in km/h !
As you may know, the metric system has been the legal national standard in the US since 1866.
Any ticket based on mph measurement would be illegal.
Good news actually.
The french love to break the law.
I am french.
I have a dozen weakly WEP-protected WiFi equipped neighbours within range (wepcrackable within 10 minutes average).
It will be a lot of fun to download plenty of stuff through their connections and have *them* punished.
Why not complain to Slashdot? The effect should be immediate.
"Truth" is to Wikipedia what "Insightful" is to Slashdot: a laughable consensual pretense at best.
When you put something up on the Web without a form of access control (meaning logging in, not meaning "I only give out the address to certain people"), it's public every bit as much as if you put an ad in the newspaper. Linking to your site is no different than me saying, "Hey, check out this newspaper ad CmdrTaco put in, it's really cool!".
Let me disagree with you.
If I share private data with friends or family or colleagues on a private non-indexed website, I would certainly hate to see an outsider intercept and publish the url (or the password).
A public government website financed by taxpayers is another story of course.
Improbable theories of dinosaur extinction keep popping up.
Dinosaurs disappeared because they stifled competition so efficiently that they became unable to adapt.
** The fat stupid monopoly syndrom **
They would have needed some kind of antitrust law to survive their own hubris.
Uh, hello... a simulation IS a model.
Simulation is a copy.A model involves a shortcut.
There is a confusion here between technology, which indeed is taking the peta-brute-forcing route, and Science whose beauty precisely resides in its computational economy.
A perfect copy of a brain would be an engineering feast without providing any understanding of why it works.