Now, IANAPP (particle physicist), but I thought one of the things discrediting Heim Theory was the prediction of more than 3 neutrinos. What does the presence of a fourth neutrino mean for other predictions made by the current model? Does this mean that Heim's predictions may have more credence?
I think the media is playing up the 'robotic' and cyborg angle a bit.
I have only read the linked articles, but the description sounds like a left ventricular assist device, or LVAD. This is a pump that helps the heart push blood, rather than replacing the heart, which is what I generally think of when people talk about artificial hearts. It sounds like the innovation here is the size, its use in a child, and the length of time they plan to use it, since it is generally used as a bridge to transplant.
I think they are optimistic in thinking they can get 25 years, since we really haven't evolved the material science to have implantable devices for that long without provoking clot formation or scarring, but it sounds like they didn't have a lot of options here.
Manufactured lace and embroidery was my family's business, for many many years. These machines were run by large spools of punched paper tape. My father and my uncle designed and created an early CAD system, and built machines that would create punch tape from the computerized design.
Modern machines are now being built that are run directly from computers, but I'd say, given that these are huge expensive machines that are often resold and moved to new locations rather than bought new, the majority still run on paper tape.
The issue of quality isn't directly related to the machines being computer-driven. The quality depends on the care of the designer, the 'stitch count' or density, and quality of thread, etc. As with many manufactured goods, you can get lace for less money if you accept lower quality. No surprise there.
I assume the computer-driven machines would let an operator change the stitch count. These days, there are few people (in the West anyway) who know how to create a 'punching' as it is called, and fewer who are interested in learning. Strangely, the remnant of my father's business is just starting to get orders from Asia, so maybe 'Free Trade' is finally coming around to the point where manufacturing costs in the US are competitive with Asia in this regard, but there really is no one ready or willing to meet the manufacturing demand if it ever really comes back. You can probably ditto this sentiment for US shoe manufacturing, furniture, etc.
Go ahead, try talking to Dragon about Doxycycline or dextromethorphan, see how well that works out for you. THAT is what these transcriptions are made of, long medical terms describing the proceedures.
I guess I should have been clearer... I use a Dragon based dictation software every day in a medical setting, to dictate medical reports, letters, notes, consultations, etc.
I think people bashing voice commercial voice recognition software either don't use it or are trolling.
As someone who uses dictation software at work every day, all day, and has used several different packages (all I believe use Dragon), I can tell you it works. Perfectly? No. Very well? Yes. Well enough. Definitely.
If I were so inclined, I would have no problem using it at home personally, but I don't really have a pressing need. A good friend who has some repetitive stress disorder issues does use it at home, and, again, it works well enough.
As an aside, I would add given the years of time Dragon has been developing and perfecting technology, I would be pleasantly surprised, but very surprised, if there was an effective non-commercial solution out there.
IANAL but, wow! I had no idea how bad this could be! The story from the judgment is that some guy sent faxes to a hospital complaining and mocking the management. As a favor, some local prosecutors investigated and set up false prosecution INCLUDING FALSE TESTIMONY to a grand jury. They subpoenaed everything including emails and phone calls.
The long and the short of it is that, because they are prosecutors, they are given absolute immunity from prosecution for their grand jury testimony, even if it is knowingly false! They are given immunity from the conspiracy to provide false testimony, since the only evidence of false testimony would be the grand jury testimony itself, which is protected!
The 4th amendment issues seem also weird to me. They say that you cannot expect a phone number to be private, since by dialing it you have given the number to the phone company, which is a third party. Really?! What is the point of a phone number, what value does it have, except with regard to the third party, in this case the phone company? I can't shout someones phone number in the street expecting that they will respond, and in any case, that also makes it public and not protected by the 4th. Again, IANAL but under what conditions would an email ever be considered private? What about letters and packages that aren't sent through the postal system? Are they private? I just don't understand this.
Again, I have no perspective and experience for this, but as a layperson, I really hope that other courts find this reasoning flawed. It seem very much so just by common sense to me, though I understand common sense doesn't necessarily mean anything here.
One of the arguments against the Strategic Defense Initiative (Star Wars) was that it actually increased the risk of a nuclear war. I think you can make a similar argument here....if the effects of nuclear weapons are mitigated, doesn't that make people more likely to use them?
Fair enough, I don't dispute that it is an interesting, valuable and new technology. The article and OP, and MIT(to the extent that they call their lab the NeuroEngineering and NeuroMedia lab) present this as 'neuroengineering' and question the implications of that.
What I am saying is that it is no where close to 'neuroengineering'. Sure we can consider the implications of the day we can directly modify brains and behavior, but that day isn't today, or even anywhere close, and that this technology doesn't really make it significantly closer.
But I don't dispute it is a great research tool,and a very clever application previous research.
As interesting as this article was -- especially as he got into this from studying the neuroscience of bird song, something I was involved with years ago -- I think it's a stretch to call this 'engineering'.
It is an interesting take on an old technique. Instead of using direct electrical stimulation to stimulate the brain, he uses virally-transcoded neurons to respond to different wavelengths of light....then pipes a fiber optic cable into a mouse brain. To do what? To make it run in circles.
It's a proof of technology, but nothing more. Engineering the brain would imply we understand how it works, which, more or less, we still don't. Not really at a cellular level, not really at a systems level, not even really at a gross level either. We know an order of magnitude more than we did even a decade ago, but we are no closer to altering behavior than we were when the lobotomy was invented...the first 'neuroengineering'.
I think it is much more likely that we will first have engineered modules, either synthetic neuronal or otherwise, that will process independently and then 'plug into' our pre-existing sensory input pathways, rather than direct brain modification.
To all of those who need a reminder....always consider your sources, and be VERY wary of medical advice given on the internet.
First, you CAN have cancer of the cervix after hysterectomy...not all hysterectomies involve removing the cervix. Second, if you have a hysterectomy for cervical cancer, you still need screening: See this PubMed Article
Third, the literature for screening after hysterectomy for benign disease is still evolving. See this PubMed Article
OP is a troll, I would say, and the title is alarmist and misleading. Evidence based medicine has been around for a while, the trouble is it is very expensive and difficult to perform, and just as hard to implement.
As mentioned before, the corona is much much hotter than the surface. But still not an issue in this case. From the FTA:
"At closest approach, Solar Probe+ will be 7 million km or 9 solar radii from the sun. There, the spacecraft's carbon-composite heat shield must withstand temperatures greater than 1400o C and survive blasts of radiation at levels not experienced by any previous spacecraft."
Still lots of engineering issues, though.
I didn't tag this the subject line to be a naysayer. The idea is extremely interesting, and, as mentioned, there are countless examples of parasitic/parasitoid organisms controlling host behavior (cf. Emerald Cockroach Wasp.
One of the author's premises is that the parasite alters the behavior of intermediate hosts. Problem is, brain infection in humans is not part of the host cycle. It is a dead end for the larvae. The scolex creates a marked inflammatory reaction in the brain and dies. It can grow to very large sizes, be mistaken for a tumor, and is the most common cause of seizure disorder world wide. Now, I wouldn't argue with someone who said causing seizures is altering behavior, but I would say that is not the kind of brain control the author postulates.
Now the link with schizophrenia and antipsychotics is interesting, but also probably wrong. Toxo infection rates are pretty low in US born; as far as I know, also, there is no correlation with schizoprhenia rates and toxo infection. Ultimately, I think this reflects the idea that schizophrenia is secondary to a combination of genetic predisposition and a in-utero 'insult', probably an infection of some sort (of which toxo could be one).
As a short aside, there is a lot unknown about long term radiation effects, particularly low dose.
There are three basic models about what happens at low doses. The first is that the relationship between exposure and damage is linear, so 0 dose equals no damge, but a little causes a little damage and a lot causes a lot of damage. This is the most conservative model and is adovcated as the one to use by radiation safety experts.
The second is that the relationship is linear above a threshold. So 0 dose equals no damage, a little also equals no damage, and above a certain point, the relationship is linear. The question is, what is the threshold, and is it the same for everyone.
The third model, and this is the most interesting one to me, is that the relationship is 'U' shaped. That is 0 dose equals no damage, a lot of dose equals a lot of damage, but a little dose is actually less damaging than either. In other words, actually beneficial somehow! There is some evidence for it, but the mechanism is poorly understood. There is anecdotal evidence that those on the outskirts of the Japanese atomic blasts lived longer than those closer or farther from the blast radius.
The problem, of course, is testing each of these models, controlling for exposure over the long term. Most people working with radiation use the ALARP (as low as reasonably possible) priniciple to guide their exposure...
I suppose this is a good opportunity to suggest an idea I have about protecting private information. There is a whole spectrum of sensitive information about a person, and a similar range of people who want every last tidbit of information completely private to those who are clueless or just unconcerned. There obviously should be a middle ground that allows for reasonable exchange of reaosnable information, but protects that which is truly sensitive.
I've thought, and I'm interested in (constructive) comments, that a three tiered system should be used. The 'green' level, is basically that which any person can get freely, which should be equivalent to that info one can get just by, let's say, seeing you in the street. Basic physical parameters. If a person chooses, they can make other information 'green' such as name and age, etc.
Yellow would be freely available to law enforcement, and to others only with express permision from the individual. This should include credit information, address, ssn,....city hall sort of stuff.
Red would be available to law enforcement without permission only by court order, or with permission from the individual. This would include things like phone records, or other information that currently requires a supoena.
An individual can make information more or less private for the general public (i.e. I can decide that no one shold really know that I am 6'2 with brown hair.) or more available (i.e. I live here, come visit me!). I think an auditing system should be built in, tracking access, informing an individual of the identity of people accessing their information.
Auditing would require a central repository of information, which would then be the only source of the info, and that could be a problem, with privacy/security of information. However, the rest really only requires a change in legislation, but doesn't really provide a mechanism for enforcement or knowing if someone is invading your privacy.
What's more interesting is that there are already laws applying to the surreptitious recording of conversations. I think most states require that both parties must know a conversation is being recorded (whether on the phone or not), while some states only require one user to know. So, I agree, blame the user. If they post your conversation without permission, they are already breaking the law.
I use Fireforx at home and love it. I also love it's success, as a proof of concept for Open Source software for those who have had no experience with it.
My love for Firefox is accentuated daily by comparison to my continued use of IE at work. Due to security issues (which one could argue are based on MS software in the firstplace) I, as an end user, cannot install Firefox. Now the obvious solution would be to have IT migrate the institution as a whole to a new browser, but that is unlikely to happen in this particular institution for a variety of reason (monolithic administration, that ironically enough is run by committee, overworked IT, etc, etc)....
So, there are two issues here: 1. Has anyone solved this problem at their workplace? 2. IE 'market share' will always be artificially inflated by the captive user at work, which will also decrease an 'average' users chance to be exposed to Firefox.
This sounds incredibly like what pharmaceutical company sales representatives do to promote medications with physicians. While the casino example is at the upper end of the extremes of 'bribery' in medicine, it isn't at the top of the list. The gift giveaways are rampant, whether they are simply pens and penlights, expensive textbooks, or more.
Drug advertising contributes to the cost of the medication, on the order of 10%. Ironically, the 'bribery' has gone down as the TV advertising has gone up. This is OT, I know, but I think the drug advertising on TV is ridiculous. Really, they should be allowed to talk about a disease rather than the drug that treats the disease. After all, if they say, for example, 'Talk to your doc about cholesterol' they will still sell more cholesterol lowering drugs.
While I think this is pretty cool, even if only for the 'gee whiz' factor, and I think anything that maintains and supports military preparedness is a good thing (especially if it can be done virtually), I think this is missing the point.
I don't think the issue is that the U.S. Military is losing wars, or is somehow not prepared tactically/strategically speaking (though funding and morale may be an issue). I mean, the initial stages of the conflict in Iraq were a military success. Similarly, Afghanistan was a successful military action. This simulator will not address the political/economic/ethnic/religious realities that have to be addressed after the fighting stops.
So, if this helps plan for urban combat, and potentially reduce military and civilian casualties, it's a great thing. But, ultimately, the U.S. has no trouble winning wars.....if I may borrow a cliched phrase, the problem is winning the peace.
As someone who has had some basic training in radiation dosimetry and biological effects of radiation, I have always wondered about the potential exposures beyond low earth orbit. Here is a fairly straightforward article about the subject that seems to argue, using reasonable numbers, that the dose would be fairly low. Other searches I've made on pubmed.gov suggest that there are a lot of unknowns, however, especially beyond the magnetosphere.
It is important to remember the difference between deterministic effects (the minimum dose needed for depilation, skin burns, marrow suppression, death) versus stochastic effects (relative risk increases in cancer). From what I understand, there doesn't seem to be a risk of death, but there may be a relatively increased risk of fatal malignancies in the future.
Personally, for me, the trip would still be worth it (though I would probably bank my sperm). Also, someone can probably help on this, I understand that there are transient increases in ionizing radiation levels, from solar flares, and from some deep space sources that have screwed up satellites from time to time. I don't know if unshielded exposure to these sources would be 'deterministically' fatal.
**LEGAL DISCLAIMNER** IN NO WAY AM I ADVOCATING THAT ONE SHOULD POINT A LASER POINTER INTO ONE'S OWN OR ANOTHERS EYE
This has been debated for a while, but recent studies have borne out the idea that class IIIa lasers, up to 5mW, don't cause permanent injury to the retina.
While it is still in it's prerelease 'beta' phase, it probably won't be exactly what you need, but here is why I suggest it:
1. Beautiful and engaging as a game.
2. Great graphics, with the ability to customize your 'avatar'...i.e. you and your girlfriend can look much like um, you and your girlfriend.
3. Older age group. I was surprised to learn form an informal poll done on one of the Uru forums that most of the players are between 30-50. It's a more mature, and friendly community (and I use the word community intentionally), with less of the "l33t/I own you" crowd....in fact, I have yet to see 'all your xxxx belong to us' while online.
4. While not available now, the plan is to include a voice chat capability. While I hesitate to proclaim the deployment of a promised feature, if it becomes available, I think it would be exactly what you need.
Barrett complained about federal agriculture subsidies he said were worth tens of billions of dollars while government investment in physical sciences was a relatively low $5 billion. "I can't understand why we continue to pour resources into the industries of the 19th century," Barrett said.
I thought that this was an interesting comment, and it pointed out something that I think people are missing:
This has happened, over and over, in the U.S., and around the world. I think of my father, who (still) manages to manufacture embroidery in the U.S., but the entire industry has gone to Asia. Did we say that the US competitiveness in the world marketplace was going to go down the tubes because the textile industry went overseas? No.... We might have 75 years earlier, but innovation occured, and new technologies and industries arose.
Now, I know IT is different. But, we do have a tendency to pay very careful attention to what's in the rear view mirror, rather than focusing on what's ahead. Would a steel worker, or steel industry baron, for that matter, have ever predicted information technologies as being a driving force of the U.S. economy?
So, I agree with the poster who said that government's role is to soften the blow of global capitalism, not prevent it. If we had banned exportation, we might still be the world leader in lace, dress making, and steel, but would we have necessarily been the world leader in any other industry, and would that be better?
One caveat: I agree that the U.S. shoudl at least remain self-sufficient in certain areas, liek agriculture, so I have no problem with farm subsidies (in general, not for specific products like corn vs. another crop), especially when so much farm land is being developed into housing.
On a similar note....agribusiness might actually be the future. Without getting in to the whole GM crop issue, I still feel that there will come a time when pharmaceuticals will be grown, rather than manufactured. Whether or not you agree with this isn't the point, as much as we don't know what will be the industry of the future.
How did the U.S. survive after cotton/steel/textiles/etc etc etc went overseas? I hope you don't consider it too much of a cliche to point to a culture that (usually) fosters innovation, that (usually) values education (needs to put alot more money there at the moment, though), and, ultimately, lets those who can make money, make money. By the time an industry is at the huge corporate level, it has already played out, and it is only a matter of time when it goes overseas.
Be worried when education is cut, to save money for defense or for tax cuts (read: California). That is far far more shortsighted....the industries that allowed for uneducated entrepreneurs were exhausted al long time ago....
While I understand that the idea of signing away your rights to your IP is anathema to supporters of OpenSource, I think this situation is unique in some respects:
1. The only way to get a sponsor to put up $25K, when they could be doing a lot of other things with their money, is with a guarantee to the IP rights of what they eventually develop...
2. The only way to get a group of college students to try and create a project, when they could be doing a lot other things with their time, is to put up $25K. I agree in the ideal world, those with skill and good will would contribute to a group/distributed project under an OpenSource kind of model, but, truthfully, I don't think most college students are the most passionate advocates of OpenSource (though I could be wrong about that...)
3. Finally, I think that the people that make gobs and gobs of money in the game industry make it from publication and distribution. I don't think most people who come up with the 'idea' for the game are the ones cashing out. Unless you have a super great idea, and the resources and money to publish and distribute it yourself, you would probably be selling off your rights to your game in any case...
Slashdot Mirror
Now, IANAPP (particle physicist), but I thought one of the things discrediting Heim Theory was the prediction of more than 3 neutrinos. What does the presence of a fourth neutrino mean for other predictions made by the current model? Does this mean that Heim's predictions may have more credence?
I have only read the linked articles, but the description sounds like a left ventricular assist device, or LVAD. This is a pump that helps the heart push blood, rather than replacing the heart, which is what I generally think of when people talk about artificial hearts. It sounds like the innovation here is the size, its use in a child, and the length of time they plan to use it, since it is generally used as a bridge to transplant.
I think they are optimistic in thinking they can get 25 years, since we really haven't evolved the material science to have implantable devices for that long without provoking clot formation or scarring, but it sounds like they didn't have a lot of options here.
Modern machines are now being built that are run directly from computers, but I'd say, given that these are huge expensive machines that are often resold and moved to new locations rather than bought new, the majority still run on paper tape.
The issue of quality isn't directly related to the machines being computer-driven. The quality depends on the care of the designer, the 'stitch count' or density, and quality of thread, etc. As with many manufactured goods, you can get lace for less money if you accept lower quality. No surprise there.
I assume the computer-driven machines would let an operator change the stitch count. These days, there are few people (in the West anyway) who know how to create a 'punching' as it is called, and fewer who are interested in learning. Strangely, the remnant of my father's business is just starting to get orders from Asia, so maybe 'Free Trade' is finally coming around to the point where manufacturing costs in the US are competitive with Asia in this regard, but there really is no one ready or willing to meet the manufacturing demand if it ever really comes back. You can probably ditto this sentiment for US shoe manufacturing, furniture, etc.
Go ahead, try talking to Dragon about Doxycycline or dextromethorphan, see how well that works out for you. THAT is what these transcriptions are made of, long medical terms describing the proceedures.
I guess I should have been clearer... I use a Dragon based dictation software every day in a medical setting, to dictate medical reports, letters, notes, consultations, etc.
As someone who uses dictation software at work every day, all day, and has used several different packages (all I believe use Dragon), I can tell you it works. Perfectly? No. Very well? Yes. Well enough. Definitely.
If I were so inclined, I would have no problem using it at home personally, but I don't really have a pressing need. A good friend who has some repetitive stress disorder issues does use it at home, and, again, it works well enough.
As an aside, I would add given the years of time Dragon has been developing and perfecting technology, I would be pleasantly surprised, but very surprised, if there was an effective non-commercial solution out there.
IANAL but, wow! I had no idea how bad this could be! The story from the judgment is that some guy sent faxes to a hospital complaining and mocking the management. As a favor, some local prosecutors investigated and set up false prosecution INCLUDING FALSE TESTIMONY to a grand jury. They subpoenaed everything including emails and phone calls.
The long and the short of it is that, because they are prosecutors, they are given absolute immunity from prosecution for their grand jury testimony, even if it is knowingly false! They are given immunity from the conspiracy to provide false testimony, since the only evidence of false testimony would be the grand jury testimony itself, which is protected!
The 4th amendment issues seem also weird to me. They say that you cannot expect a phone number to be private, since by dialing it you have given the number to the phone company, which is a third party. Really?! What is the point of a phone number, what value does it have, except with regard to the third party, in this case the phone company? I can't shout someones phone number in the street expecting that they will respond, and in any case, that also makes it public and not protected by the 4th. Again, IANAL but under what conditions would an email ever be considered private? What about letters and packages that aren't sent through the postal system? Are they private? I just don't understand this.
Again, I have no perspective and experience for this, but as a layperson, I really hope that other courts find this reasoning flawed. It seem very much so just by common sense to me, though I understand common sense doesn't necessarily mean anything here.
One of the arguments against the Strategic Defense Initiative (Star Wars) was that it actually increased the risk of a nuclear war. I think you can make a similar argument here....if the effects of nuclear weapons are mitigated, doesn't that make people more likely to use them?
Here is a link to an article about a radioprotective protein by the professor listed in the TFA.
What I am saying is that it is no where close to 'neuroengineering'. Sure we can consider the implications of the day we can directly modify brains and behavior, but that day isn't today, or even anywhere close, and that this technology doesn't really make it significantly closer.
But I don't dispute it is a great research tool,and a very clever application previous research.
It is an interesting take on an old technique. Instead of using direct electrical stimulation to stimulate the brain, he uses virally-transcoded neurons to respond to different wavelengths of light....then pipes a fiber optic cable into a mouse brain. To do what? To make it run in circles.
It's a proof of technology, but nothing more. Engineering the brain would imply we understand how it works, which, more or less, we still don't. Not really at a cellular level, not really at a systems level, not even really at a gross level either. We know an order of magnitude more than we did even a decade ago, but we are no closer to altering behavior than we were when the lobotomy was invented...the first 'neuroengineering'.
I think it is much more likely that we will first have engineered modules, either synthetic neuronal or otherwise, that will process independently and then 'plug into' our pre-existing sensory input pathways, rather than direct brain modification.
First, you CAN have cancer of the cervix after hysterectomy...not all hysterectomies involve removing the cervix. Second, if you have a hysterectomy for cervical cancer, you still need screening: See this PubMed Article Third, the literature for screening after hysterectomy for benign disease is still evolving. See this PubMed Article
OP is a troll, I would say, and the title is alarmist and misleading. Evidence based medicine has been around for a while, the trouble is it is very expensive and difficult to perform, and just as hard to implement.
One of the author's premises is that the parasite alters the behavior of intermediate hosts. Problem is, brain infection in humans is not part of the host cycle. It is a dead end for the larvae. The scolex creates a marked inflammatory reaction in the brain and dies. It can grow to very large sizes, be mistaken for a tumor, and is the most common cause of seizure disorder world wide. Now, I wouldn't argue with someone who said causing seizures is altering behavior, but I would say that is not the kind of brain control the author postulates.
Now the link with schizophrenia and antipsychotics is interesting, but also probably wrong. Toxo infection rates are pretty low in US born; as far as I know, also, there is no correlation with schizoprhenia rates and toxo infection. Ultimately, I think this reflects the idea that schizophrenia is secondary to a combination of genetic predisposition and a in-utero 'insult', probably an infection of some sort (of which toxo could be one).
As a short aside, there is a lot unknown about long term radiation effects, particularly low dose.
There are three basic models about what happens at low doses. The first is that the relationship between exposure and damage is linear, so 0 dose equals no damge, but a little causes a little damage and a lot causes a lot of damage. This is the most conservative model and is adovcated as the one to use by radiation safety experts.
The second is that the relationship is linear above a threshold. So 0 dose equals no damage, a little also equals no damage, and above a certain point, the relationship is linear. The question is, what is the threshold, and is it the same for everyone.
The third model, and this is the most interesting one to me, is that the relationship is 'U' shaped. That is 0 dose equals no damage, a lot of dose equals a lot of damage, but a little dose is actually less damaging than either. In other words, actually beneficial somehow! There is some evidence for it, but the mechanism is poorly understood. There is anecdotal evidence that those on the outskirts of the Japanese atomic blasts lived longer than those closer or farther from the blast radius.
The problem, of course, is testing each of these models, controlling for exposure over the long term. Most people working with radiation use the ALARP (as low as reasonably possible) priniciple to guide their exposure...
just an fyi
I've thought, and I'm interested in (constructive) comments, that a three tiered system should be used. The 'green' level, is basically that which any person can get freely, which should be equivalent to that info one can get just by, let's say, seeing you in the street. Basic physical parameters. If a person chooses, they can make other information 'green' such as name and age, etc.
Yellow would be freely available to law enforcement, and to others only with express permision from the individual. This should include credit information, address, ssn, ....city hall sort of stuff.
Red would be available to law enforcement without permission only by court order, or with permission from the individual. This would include things like phone records, or other information that currently requires a supoena.
An individual can make information more or less private for the general public (i.e. I can decide that no one shold really know that I am 6'2 with brown hair.) or more available (i.e. I live here, come visit me!). I think an auditing system should be built in, tracking access, informing an individual of the identity of people accessing their information.
Auditing would require a central repository of information, which would then be the only source of the info, and that could be a problem, with privacy/security of information. However, the rest really only requires a change in legislation, but doesn't really provide a mechanism for enforcement or knowing if someone is invading your privacy.
What do you think?
What's more interesting is that there are already laws applying to the surreptitious recording of conversations. I think most states require that both parties must know a conversation is being recorded (whether on the phone or not), while some states only require one user to know. So, I agree, blame the user. If they post your conversation without permission, they are already breaking the law.
My love for Firefox is accentuated daily by comparison to my continued use of IE at work. Due to security issues (which one could argue are based on MS software in the firstplace) I, as an end user, cannot install Firefox. Now the obvious solution would be to have IT migrate the institution as a whole to a new browser, but that is unlikely to happen in this particular institution for a variety of reason (monolithic administration, that ironically enough is run by committee, overworked IT, etc, etc)....
So, there are two issues here: 1. Has anyone solved this problem at their workplace? 2. IE 'market share' will always be artificially inflated by the captive user at work, which will also decrease an 'average' users chance to be exposed to Firefox.
-F
Drug advertising contributes to the cost of the medication, on the order of 10%. Ironically, the 'bribery' has gone down as the TV advertising has gone up. This is OT, I know, but I think the drug advertising on TV is ridiculous. Really, they should be allowed to talk about a disease rather than the drug that treats the disease. After all, if they say, for example, 'Talk to your doc about cholesterol' they will still sell more cholesterol lowering drugs.
I don't think the issue is that the U.S. Military is losing wars, or is somehow not prepared tactically/strategically speaking (though funding and morale may be an issue). I mean, the initial stages of the conflict in Iraq were a military success. Similarly, Afghanistan was a successful military action. This simulator will not address the political/economic/ethnic/religious realities that have to be addressed after the fighting stops.
So, if this helps plan for urban combat, and potentially reduce military and civilian casualties, it's a great thing. But, ultimately, the U.S. has no trouble winning wars.....if I may borrow a cliched phrase, the problem is winning the peace.
For an interesting analysis on the logistics of 'nation building', please see this recently completed report.
It is important to remember the difference between deterministic effects (the minimum dose needed for depilation, skin burns, marrow suppression, death) versus stochastic effects (relative risk increases in cancer). From what I understand, there doesn't seem to be a risk of death, but there may be a relatively increased risk of fatal malignancies in the future.
Personally, for me, the trip would still be worth it (though I would probably bank my sperm). Also, someone can probably help on this, I understand that there are transient increases in ionizing radiation levels, from solar flares, and from some deep space sources that have screwed up satellites from time to time. I don't know if unshielded exposure to these sources would be 'deterministically' fatal.
This has been debated for a while, but recent studies have borne out the idea that class IIIa lasers, up to 5mW, don't cause permanent injury to the retina.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd= Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=1111526 6
While it is still in it's prerelease 'beta' phase, it probably won't be exactly what you need, but here is why I suggest it:
1. Beautiful and engaging as a game.
2. Great graphics, with the ability to customize your 'avatar'...i.e. you and your girlfriend can look much like um, you and your girlfriend.
3. Older age group. I was surprised to learn form an informal poll done on one of the Uru forums that most of the players are between 30-50. It's a more mature, and friendly community (and I use the word community intentionally), with less of the "l33t/I own you" crowd....in fact, I have yet to see 'all your xxxx belong to us' while online.
4. While not available now, the plan is to include a voice chat capability. While I hesitate to proclaim the deployment of a promised feature, if it becomes available, I think it would be exactly what you need.
So, check it out, and keep an eye on it.
This has happened, over and over, in the U.S., and around the world. I think of my father, who (still) manages to manufacture embroidery in the U.S., but the entire industry has gone to Asia. Did we say that the US competitiveness in the world marketplace was going to go down the tubes because the textile industry went overseas? No.... We might have 75 years earlier, but innovation occured, and new technologies and industries arose.
Now, I know IT is different. But, we do have a tendency to pay very careful attention to what's in the rear view mirror, rather than focusing on what's ahead. Would a steel worker, or steel industry baron, for that matter, have ever predicted information technologies as being a driving force of the U.S. economy?
So, I agree with the poster who said that government's role is to soften the blow of global capitalism, not prevent it. If we had banned exportation, we might still be the world leader in lace, dress making, and steel, but would we have necessarily been the world leader in any other industry, and would that be better?
One caveat: I agree that the U.S. shoudl at least remain self-sufficient in certain areas, liek agriculture, so I have no problem with farm subsidies (in general, not for specific products like corn vs. another crop), especially when so much farm land is being developed into housing.
On a similar note....agribusiness might actually be the future. Without getting in to the whole GM crop issue, I still feel that there will come a time when pharmaceuticals will be grown, rather than manufactured. Whether or not you agree with this isn't the point, as much as we don't know what will be the industry of the future.
How did the U.S. survive after cotton/steel/textiles/etc etc etc went overseas? I hope you don't consider it too much of a cliche to point to a culture that (usually) fosters innovation, that (usually) values education (needs to put alot more money there at the moment, though), and, ultimately, lets those who can make money, make money. By the time an industry is at the huge corporate level, it has already played out, and it is only a matter of time when it goes overseas.
Be worried when education is cut, to save money for defense or for tax cuts (read: California). That is far far more shortsighted....the industries that allowed for uneducated entrepreneurs were exhausted al long time ago....
Combine this with the above, and we will soon be paying homage to ninja monkey overlords....
While I understand that the idea of signing away your rights to your IP is anathema to supporters of OpenSource, I think this situation is unique in some respects:
1. The only way to get a sponsor to put up $25K, when they could be doing a lot of other things with their money, is with a guarantee to the IP rights of what they eventually develop...
2. The only way to get a group of college students to try and create a project, when they could be doing a lot other things with their time, is to put up $25K. I agree in the ideal world, those with skill and good will would contribute to a group/distributed project under an OpenSource kind of model, but, truthfully, I don't think most college students are the most passionate advocates of OpenSource (though I could be wrong about that...)
3. Finally, I think that the people that make gobs and gobs of money in the game industry make it from publication and distribution. I don't think most people who come up with the 'idea' for the game are the ones cashing out. Unless you have a super great idea, and the resources and money to publish and distribute it yourself, you would probably be selling off your rights to your game in any case...
my $0.02.