Given that the "constants" in the Drake equation are order-of-magnitude estimates and that explosions like this are very rare, I don't think it will be a real impovement.
Good point, but probably won't happen.
All these things operate at very low radiation energies, and even they are probably going to go down as technology evolves.
In any case, I dont think they would be much worse than cell phones, and millions (billions?) of users have not died after long exposures, strongly suggesting that the're pretty much ok.
Many good emails are accidentally deleted by spam blockers as well as the human who is trying to quickly parse out the good from the bad.
True. But still, spammers do not themselves destroy data, nor is it their original purpose to do so.
Spam is bad by itself, we don't really have to invent new reasons for us to hate it.
I agree to some extent but dont forget that spammers are just annoying little pests, while virus/spyware folks have a more malevolent purpose.
It sure is annoying to get penis enlargement and online Phd ads, but at least you dont lose any data because of them.
When will you people learn?
Natural selection doesn't have a goal, there is no road it follows.
So, you just can't screw it up or change its direction: it doesn't have one.
Hopefully the new technology can make people healthier for a longer time as well.
This way, we'll be able to work until we're 75 or even more.
I know some people won't like this, but as long as you're healthy and able you should be working, no matter what you're age is.
Plus, if I get this right, a lot of that stuff will be preventive medicine and hence cheaper (it's easier to prevent something than to cure it afterwards).
usually the claim is that people hide things because it's something illegal or immoral - this study shows (what to me ought to be obvious) that people may hide things because they are different to the norm.
Well, for a lot of people, unfortunately, what is different from the norm is immoral and, in their mindsets, may even border the illegal.
I think that this study, although I actually believe it, will indeed be used by anti-privacy activists and politicians.
But in any case, that's what they argued in the first place, it doesn't add anything new to their argument.
Slashdot Mirror
Given that the "constants" in the Drake equation are order-of-magnitude estimates and that explosions like this are very rare, I don't think it will be a real impovement.
Good point, but probably won't happen. All these things operate at very low radiation energies, and even they are probably going to go down as technology evolves. In any case, I dont think they would be much worse than cell phones, and millions (billions?) of users have not died after long exposures, strongly suggesting that the're pretty much ok.
Building flying robots destroys all your html skills. I mean look at this page and the one in the original article.
True. But still, spammers do not themselves destroy data, nor is it their original purpose to do so. Spam is bad by itself, we don't really have to invent new reasons for us to hate it.
I agree to some extent but dont forget that spammers are just annoying little pests, while virus/spyware folks have a more malevolent purpose. It sure is annoying to get penis enlargement and online Phd ads, but at least you dont lose any data because of them.
When will you people learn? Natural selection doesn't have a goal, there is no road it follows. So, you just can't screw it up or change its direction: it doesn't have one.
Hopefully the new technology can make people healthier for a longer time as well. This way, we'll be able to work until we're 75 or even more. I know some people won't like this, but as long as you're healthy and able you should be working, no matter what you're age is. Plus, if I get this right, a lot of that stuff will be preventive medicine and hence cheaper (it's easier to prevent something than to cure it afterwards).
Well, for a lot of people, unfortunately, what is different from the norm is immoral and, in their mindsets, may even border the illegal.
I think that this study, although I actually believe it, will indeed be used by anti-privacy activists and politicians. But in any case, that's what they argued in the first place, it doesn't add anything new to their argument.