Let me say first of all that I don't appreciate the tone of your comment or the "overrated" moderation on my un-rated post. I specifically said that I don't agree with these types of programs. I even bolded the words as to stress that point, but I guess nuanced, considered viewpoints have no place during the "Two Minutes' Hate."
I had thought that this would be clearly understood, but please tell the rest of us exactly what it is that most, or ALL terrorists do in the months before they commit their act of terror.
What makes you think that all foreign operatives are completely random in their actions and perfectly execute their tradecraft? Everybody makes mistakes. Everyone has a tell. Further still, there are certain pre-requisites to pulling off a plan like September 11th, such as taking flight classes or going to terrorist-training camps or attending organizational meetings. There are also common mistakes which should be looked for, like buying one-way tickets, accuring large amounts of credit card debt, or calling all your loved ones the night before your operation. These kinds of things create patterns, which presumably can be found by datamining.
Do you really think that 9/11 was completely unavoidable or that the clues or predictable patterns of the relevant actors weren't there even in such mundane things as their financial records? Modern datamining can be remarkably powerful and predictive, especially when used on important, unavoidable information like financial records. There is simply NO reason to doubt that such methods could not be validly employed to find likely terrorists.
Possession of the Anarchists Cookbook does NOT make you a terrorist, just as owning a copy of Mein Kampf does not make you a Nazi. Now, where do we stop? Lets look at what McVey liked to eat, and profile people like him. Perhaps we can also profile people that eat the same fscking foods as the DC snipers.
Sure owning a copy of Mein Kampf does not make you a Neonazi, but would you be willing to say there's no correlation whatsoever between being a Neonazi and owning Main Kampf?
Listen, it's really a pretty simple concept that, in an apolitical context, would be completely undebatable. If you've got a haystack (a large dataset of financial records) and you're searching for a needle (an Al Qaeda operative) would you search through the haystack manually inspecting every straw?
One way of dealing with this problem is to use statistically likely properties of the needle to narrow your search. You could size, for instance, to sift out large pieces of hay and leave you will a smaller stack. To further refine your search you could density, magnetism, hardness, and so on and so forth, until eventually your dataset is of a reasonable size for manual inspection. Of course, it should go without saying that domestic terrorists would have different patterns of actions, and search criteria would probably be very different than those for Al Qaeda operatives. To go back to the haystack example, it would be like changing your search parameters to look for a plastic straw or wooden pencil or coin.
I think it's interesting that you guys are so quick to assume that this information is worthless and that the FBI is a bunch of idiots for even considering the notion of collecting this data. Why is it that geeks can so readily accept the idea Google and Amazon can make startling insights from datamining mere search information but that the FBI can't find similar insights when using similar techniques on financial information?
Don't mistake me; I think that such programs are completely illegitimate and unconstitutional, BUT off the top of my head, I can think of two specific ways in which this information could be useful:
Screening out foreigners or those with middle-eastern-esque names who are assimilating into American culture. Food is an intractable part of culture, and certainly an indication of the degree of assimilation. Futhermore, it's the kind of detail that is easily overlooked from the standpoint of a foreign operative. If someone with a middle eastern name is buying hotdogs and eating pizzas exclusively, it is intuitive to assume that the statistical likelihood of them blowing up buildings or hijacking planes is less. Narrowing your dataset by this method alone might allow you to use other financial or data records (e.g. fertilizer sales, firearm permits, chemical sales, etc.) to identify likely threats.
Identifying those with an unusual interest in middle eastern culture or middle easterners with americanized, non-traditional, or falsified names. Where as, in the previous case, one could imagine the dataset being decreased in size by removing statistically less-likely records, one could use this information to increase the size of the dataset. I could specifically imagine that this could be useful for identifying Islamic converts or those attempting to avoid name-based detection via identity theft or falsified records. Again, in conjunction with other information, this could be very useful in identifying previously unknown threats.
How do you think the muslims of the world would take it if Bush declared that the "Islamic Nationalist regime of Iran should be wiped from the pages of history"? Would that be a threat or just a figure of speech?
All your duplicity about the mistranslation of a single speech aside, I think Iran and Ahmedinajad, in particular, have made their intentions quite clear. And it's not peace.
You see, the Republicans supported Kucinich's latest hail mary because they know it would be an embaressment to the Democrats. With that support the vote passed and the house 'leadership' was force to bury it in a committee.
I don't think so. The last thing the Republicans want is a legitimate investigation into the events leading up to the Iraq war. The (now disbanded) "Office of Special Plans," created by the Bush Administration was designed solely for the purpose of generating false intelligence reports made by non-experts that were used to intentionally mislead lawmakers and the public on Iraq. This along with the fact that Dick Cheny's business partners and associates made literally hundreds of billions of dollars in profits from government contracts from the war in Iraq creates--at the very least--the appearance of impropriety, which should be cause enough for a public investigation. If this were about preventing embarrassment, then the democrats completely failed on that front because they provided further proof for the commonly-held belief that they are incapable of reining in this administration. This whole affair made them look, at the very least, disorganized and, at worst, completely ineffectual.
I think a more likely explanation is that the Republicans faked out the Democrats big time on this one. Republicans took a gamble and, in an act of bluster, voted FOR the bill, confusing rank-and-file Democrats back into their instinctive partisan tendency of voting !=Republican, which ironically put them against their own bill. I didn't watch the C-SPAN of this when it went down, but from what I've read it was a complete freakshow, which makes me think that this bill and the DNC response wasn't a coordinated effort of the Democratic leadership by any means.
Most of the large companies do have internship programs. However, no one can really afford to give handouts and hire people who aren't capable of doing the work.
First of all, this is not a matter of giving handouts. People are not widget-producing robots. Even your veterans might benefit from teaching an apprentice by gaining greater understanding of a topic or at least getting a break from their usual routine. Your team might benefit from having a younger person's energy, perspective, or generational/(sub-)cultural knowledge. Why is it that businesses are so quick to tout the advantages of racial diversity on a team, yet so daft as to see that such benefits clearly extend onto diversity of age and thought as well?
You see, at some point, investors and business managers are going to need to realize that their businesses MUST to look farther in the future than next financial quarter if they want to seriously compete in the next century, and that absolutely requires making investments into the generalized workforce. It's not a handout if you stand to gain some objectively benefit, now is it?
Here's a hint: Get the Electric Flesh (1&2) tonics, and Incinerate 3. Get the two chemical thrower upgrades and max out your electric gel ammo. After this, every big daddy and boss in the game is a joke. It absolutely trivializes the battles. All you do is immolate them, then shoot them with the electric gel until they die (which is usually pretty fast).
According to your conspiracy theory, how can I determine that you're not the court jester who most closely supports my views?
Maybe because what he is saying makes sense?
If you can't recognize the absurdity of modern political discourse in America, you simply aren't paying attention. Which, in and of itself, would not be surprising because most Americans have annexed themselves from the entire process out of hope that others will fix the mess for them; a desired effect.
Given the way the distribution of wealth has trended in recent years paired with the fact that the majority of mainstream media outlets are owned by a handful of corporations makes his explanation--at the very least--feasible.
The quality of the scientific articles and comments on slashdot are absolutely atrocious lately.
First of all, the article is factually incorrect on the basics of diabetes. Type 2 (NON insulin-dependent) diabetics do produce adequate levels of insulin! The problem is that adipose (fat) and muscle tissue, for unknown reasons, do NOT increase glucose transport in response, leaving an excess of the glucose in the blood. This effect is called "insulin resistance," because these cells are resistant to the effects of insulin. Insulin injections are used for Type 2 diabetics as a way of overwhelming the resistant transporters, but that should not be misconstrued as a failure of the insulin-producing beta cells of the liver. In fact, there's good evidence to believe that when these cells become overactive other pathologies can result.
Secondly, the cause of Type 2 diabetes is not so clear-cut. Of course, diet plays a role. Of course, exercise plays a role. But that is not mean that every person with type 2 diabetes is a lazy glutton or that diet and exercise are effective treatments for those who already have diabetes.
You're absolutely right. Democracy is a great form of government--arguably the best. However, it is frequently mis-attributed (especially as of late) for societial progress that is better explained by metrics like culture and wealth.
There are lots of words that have meanings that fall right in the middle of a cluster of words in another language, but have no perfect translation. Thing is, that's largely irrelevant. There's no large, gaping hole in your ability to describe your world to others simply because there's no exact word in English that means the same as "gesellig"... There's nothing magic about having a special word for something. If it's truly an important concept, a word will be created for it, or borrowed from another language. Language is a living, flexible tool. It can adapt to anything.
Not necessarily. As unintuitive as it might seem to intellectuals, there's a huge profit to be made in promoting miscommunication. Take words like: terrorism, freedom, unlimited, free, love, or pride. These words have practically lost their meaning in unqualified use because their definitions have become so saturated. (I would argue largely as a result of marketing.) Do you think it's a coincidence that smoking marijuana has been equated to terrorism or that your unlimited broadband connection is capped in both speed and usage?
Furthermore, I believe there is a strong argument that can be made that language has an important function in how our minds construct a schema of the world around us. I realize that 1984 is just a book, but there is a lot of truth to the fact that language could be used to control how people think. And, remember, it's not a matter of whether YOU (an articulate, educated person) can find clever ways of clearly expressing yourself despite your language. What if all those below you on the bell curve can't?
I personally don't know what meaning we should draw at the loss of so many languages so quickly means, but I wouldn't be so quick to write such developments off as inconsequential or a generally Good Thing (TM).
Wanna bet? I have news for you. A lot of medical jobs are ALREADY being outsourced. I can zap your CT scan to India this evening and have the radiology report back in a few hours - definitely by tomorrow morning, for cheaper than waking up the local radiology attending.
Okay... but who's going to perform the surgical procedure if something bad shows up?
I'm not an economist and slashdot is a bad place to find education, but here's the simplified gist of it: You can't outsource services. Now, that being said, some things that were traditionally considered services (like accounting, for instance) can be managed and digitized such a way that they are, for all intents and purposes, a product and subsequently outsourced. BUT, don't mistake this trend to include the general practice of medicine. Even in the example you bring up, the X-ray is, in all likelihood, read again by the radiology attending once he comes in the next morning.
There will always be local markets for doctors, because it would be impossible to remove the the doctor from the equation without losing something. How could you do a physical exam without being physically present? How could you establish beside report if you're not even on the same continent? It just wouldn't work, and no technological innovation in the foreseeable future will make it so (no matter how so people would like to try).
No, the GP is absolutely right. While you were busy trying to formulate a rebuttal, the point flew right over your head.
Asymmetric warfare is only a losing proposition if the larger power is restrained in some fashion or another.
The war in Iraq could be over tomorrow if we just had enough enough troops there (pre-war estimates put this number at approximately 500,000 combat troops). The problem is this isn't a war of survival, and our glorious leader and the Republicans are--to use their own phrase--"choosing to lose" by refusing to pursue conscription or true international cooperation in order to achieve this number.
A PS/2 hardware keylogger only needs to be placed at the end of the device. You needn't even touch the keyboard to install it, let alone unscrew anything.
P.S. Oh.. and don't feel safe just because you may use a USB keyboard. That's covered too.
Going through a all files with.jpg would be time-consuming. Here's an idea: just begin your search by going through a list of fetishes. Stop those little perverts while they're young!
Perhaps it's because I don't watch sports (I can't stand ESPN-culture), but there are MAYBE five or six television programs that I ever find myself watching. In fact, if it weren't for DVR, I don't thing I would ever turn my TV on unless it was to play a video game. In fact, I went about six months last year without cable. Compare that to my internet habits. I check Google News, Digg, and Slashdot daily and I have 19 podcasts, which I avidly keep up with.
If you can't find interesting, updated content on the web, you aren't looking hard enough.
Gee, I wonder if it ever occurred to Chinese to keep their missiles (or a significant fraction of them) fueled and their locations hidden ?
If you bothered to read the article I linked it clearly said that this is not an option because the rocket fuel is corrosive and erodes the rockets if left inside without being fired. Futhermore, because they have so few missiles, the U.S. would simply have to destroy anything that even looked like a silo site to effectively put an end to China's nuclear threat.
Um... So ? You can't conquer a country with navy alone, and China has land routes to Asia, Europe and Africa, so you can't isolate it either.
Sure you can. How long do you think all those factories in the Chinese mainland would stay open when they have no profitable way to ship their goods to foreign markets? The U.S. wouldn't have to completely stop all trade to effectively kill the Chinese industry/economy. An induced economic crisis could trigger what the Chinese fear the most: a cultural revolution from within.
Yes, the US does have lots of very advanced weaponry, and is certainly capable of stopping any conventional attack. However, it doesn't have anything capable of stopping an incoming nuke. That's why nuclear weapons are such efficient deterrents, and why everyone wants them nowadays.
Having nukes is one thing. Getting them in the air is something else entirely. Don't delude yourself into thinking that the U.S. couldn't neutralize China's ability to launch missiles in the event of a crisis or as a sneak-attack. I'm not advocating such an act, but that is the reality of the situation as it is today.
While 130 nuclear warheads is not sufficient to carpet bomb a country the size of the USA, it is quite sufficient to take out large cities, industry, food production and central administration. The end result is likely massive death toll from starvation and plague, and collapse of the USA as a nation, or at the very least its removal from its world power status.
What you describe is entirely unlikely. You act as if the U.S. military would sit back passively while the Chinese spent hours fueling their 130 nuclear missiles. Why would we when we have the means to hit them before they even get off the ground (via Submarine-based ICBMs and Nuclear-armed cruise missiles)?
I suggest you look up the term Nuclear Primacy. Having nukes doesn't mean much if they would be obliterated before they can even be launched.
So no, no one dares attack China.
Perhaps not conventionally, but this is more for geopolitical reasons than military ones. Even in conventional warfare, the U.S. Navy is completely unmatched by anything China has to offer.
The funny thing is is how these facts shock even Americans. Should this really be that surprising? The United States spends more on its military than all the other countries in the world combined. You get what you pay for.
That's it, folks. Other than that Vista seems like a pretty decent tool that chugs along and mostly stays out of my way whether I'm using it for new or old software.
You obviously are very lucky then. From my own personal experience alone, Vista has been a nightmare. I built a gaming computer this summer (ASUS P5B-D, E6700 Core 2 Duo, 8800 GTS, 2 GB RAM, and 2 RAID-0 150 GB WD-Raptors for good measure =P) and decided that I would go ahead and use Vista rather than have to upgrade in, at most, two years anyway.
To make a long story short, I've had to re-install Vista Ultimate (32-bit) 5 times (in the span of 3 months). In fact, it won't even automatically authorize my installation anymore. I had to phone it in the last time I installed. Now, two of those times I'm willing to concede might (MIGHT) have been due to a faulty SATA cable, but the others were purely due to Vista and some truly bizzare bugs/crashes that only get worse with successive system restores. And even now, there are some completely unresolved issues I've just come to find ways around or accept. For instance, the system completely locks up if Itunes and Alcohol 120% are open at the same time. Now these aren't exactly unpopular or otherwise unstable programs; they only are this way under Vista. And this kind of stuff is par for the course from what I'm hearing from my friends who tried Vista as well.
I wouldn't call the complaints about Vista FUD. As of right now, in good conscious, I cannot recommend upgrading to Vista. The ONLY reason that I would recommend you ever subjecting yourself to it is if you are buying/building a gaming computer that will last more than a couple years. My advice is ff you don't fall into that group but are still wanting to try Vista, do yourself a favor and do what most businesses are doing: wait for SP1.
As the antibiotics are used on such a large scale, the development of resistance to the antibiotics
renders the antibotic ineffective, as the non resistant bacteria is largely replaced by the resistant bacteria. So, yes, it's both in the long term.
I agree, but that's not what the article, or the paper (from what's said in the abstract), is saying. Based on a dataset extending to 1980 (well before mass marketing of antibacterial soaps), they came up with this:
Results. Soaps containing triclosan within the range of concentrations commonly used in the community setting (0.1% - 0.45% wt/vol) were no more effective than plain soap at preventing infectious illness symptoms and reducing bacterial levels on the hands.
[emphasis mine]
Again, you can't have it both ways. If bacterial levels on the hands are not reduced, how is antibiotic resistance being selected?
I know the Oregon Trail would leave you to believe otherwise, but Dysentery is a symptom, not a disease itself and can be caused by more than just bad water. You're probably thinking of Cholera, which, yes, is associated with fecally-contaminated water sources.
That being said, dysentery can kill you. As a matter of fact, You Have Died Of Dysentery. Game over.
This article (and maybe even the paper) is fundamentally flawed because it espouses (probably by accident) a backward, Lamarckian view of adaptation that simply isn't possible. Bacteria don't develop resistance because they want to, they develop resistance because the population is killed en masse and what's left to repopulate usually turns out to be more resistant.
The triclosan in antibiotic soaps soaps can't be BOTH completely ineffective AND causing antibiotic resistance--that doesn't make sense. Either the resistance of the antibiotic is developing because the antibiotic is working (making antibiotic soap, at the very least, slightly better) or the soap is relatively ineffective. It can't be both.
I know it's popular to bash antibiotic soaps and there's good reasons for doing so, but enough with the bad science articles.
let me finish with this. for all of you that don't know, the breathalyzers dont tell you your blood alcohol content, they tell you your BREATH alcohol content. this number is then multiplied by some outrageous number like 1200, and thats how they estimate your blood alcohol content. this is why many people that dont fit the 'average' in terms of body mass are often falsely convicted.
Actually, it's more complicated than that. Most of the breathalyzer machines actually measure the absorption of light sent through a chemical that changes color when oxidized by alcohol. From that absorption number they are able to estimate the the concentration of alcohol in the sample in the machine and, from that, the concentration in your breath. The concentration of alcohol in your breath correlates with the concentration of alcohol in your blood because the alveolar membrane in your lungs is extremely thin and highly vascularized (it must be this way to permit gas exchange for respiration). The alveolar membrane is of a similar thickness in people of all body types and would probably not be a source of error. The only possible exception to this might be someone affected with fibrosis, which would actually lower the measured amount.
That being said, this process that the breathalyzers go through requires a lot of assumptions which often are not true in all cases. In fact, I've heard of Chemistry/Biology grad students making quite a bit of money by offering their expertise to challenge (often successfully) these assumptions in court.
I'm convinced that this and other similar measures are all about control.
Despite their rhetoric, I don't think that the politicians are ignorant enough to believe that they can stop file-sharing. In a world of huge hard-drives, fast networks, and ubiquitous transfer mediums (from DVD-Rs to USB memory sticks), it's very simple: one way or another, file-sharing is going to happen. I realize that most politicians are not technically-inclined but even a fool can recognize the foolishness of fighting against the tides.
No, the real goal here is the reigning in of the internet. See, once you get the public to accept any filtering and monitoring of the internet (for any reason), the foot is in the door (either legally, physically, or psychologically) to allow further filtering against other behavior. With the end goal of something similar to the great firewall of China being the end-goal, where information can be measured and checked before being allowed to be available to the masses.
Slashdot Mirror
Let me say first of all that I don't appreciate the tone of your comment or the "overrated" moderation on my un-rated post. I specifically said that I don't agree with these types of programs. I even bolded the words as to stress that point, but I guess nuanced, considered viewpoints have no place during the "Two Minutes' Hate."
What makes you think that all foreign operatives are completely random in their actions and perfectly execute their tradecraft? Everybody makes mistakes. Everyone has a tell. Further still, there are certain pre-requisites to pulling off a plan like September 11th, such as taking flight classes or going to terrorist-training camps or attending organizational meetings. There are also common mistakes which should be looked for, like buying one-way tickets, accuring large amounts of credit card debt, or calling all your loved ones the night before your operation. These kinds of things create patterns, which presumably can be found by datamining.
Do you really think that 9/11 was completely unavoidable or that the clues or predictable patterns of the relevant actors weren't there even in such mundane things as their financial records? Modern datamining can be remarkably powerful and predictive, especially when used on important, unavoidable information like financial records. There is simply NO reason to doubt that such methods could not be validly employed to find likely terrorists.
Sure owning a copy of Mein Kampf does not make you a Neonazi, but would you be willing to say there's no correlation whatsoever between being a Neonazi and owning Main Kampf?
Listen, it's really a pretty simple concept that, in an apolitical context, would be completely undebatable. If you've got a haystack (a large dataset of financial records) and you're searching for a needle (an Al Qaeda operative) would you search through the haystack manually inspecting every straw?
One way of dealing with this problem is to use statistically likely properties of the needle to narrow your search. You could size, for instance, to sift out large pieces of hay and leave you will a smaller stack. To further refine your search you could density, magnetism, hardness, and so on and so forth, until eventually your dataset is of a reasonable size for manual inspection. Of course, it should go without saying that domestic terrorists would have different patterns of actions, and search criteria would probably be very different than those for Al Qaeda operatives. To go back to the haystack example, it would be like changing your search parameters to look for a plastic straw or wooden pencil or coin.
-Grym
I think it's interesting that you guys are so quick to assume that this information is worthless and that the FBI is a bunch of idiots for even considering the notion of collecting this data. Why is it that geeks can so readily accept the idea Google and Amazon can make startling insights from datamining mere search information but that the FBI can't find similar insights when using similar techniques on financial information?
Don't mistake me; I think that such programs are completely illegitimate and unconstitutional, BUT off the top of my head, I can think of two specific ways in which this information could be useful:
-Grym
How do you think the muslims of the world would take it if Bush declared that the "Islamic Nationalist regime of Iran should be wiped from the pages of history"? Would that be a threat or just a figure of speech?
All your duplicity about the mistranslation of a single speech aside, I think Iran and Ahmedinajad, in particular, have made their intentions quite clear. And it's not peace.
-Grym
Here's a (better) review of this whole situation.
I don't think so. The last thing the Republicans want is a legitimate investigation into the events leading up to the Iraq war. The (now disbanded) "Office of Special Plans," created by the Bush Administration was designed solely for the purpose of generating false intelligence reports made by non-experts that were used to intentionally mislead lawmakers and the public on Iraq. This along with the fact that Dick Cheny's business partners and associates made literally hundreds of billions of dollars in profits from government contracts from the war in Iraq creates--at the very least--the appearance of impropriety, which should be cause enough for a public investigation. If this were about preventing embarrassment, then the democrats completely failed on that front because they provided further proof for the commonly-held belief that they are incapable of reining in this administration. This whole affair made them look, at the very least, disorganized and, at worst, completely ineffectual.
I think a more likely explanation is that the Republicans faked out the Democrats big time on this one. Republicans took a gamble and, in an act of bluster, voted FOR the bill, confusing rank-and-file Democrats back into their instinctive partisan tendency of voting !=Republican, which ironically put them against their own bill. I didn't watch the C-SPAN of this when it went down, but from what I've read it was a complete freakshow, which makes me think that this bill and the DNC response wasn't a coordinated effort of the Democratic leadership by any means.
-Grym
First of all, this is not a matter of giving handouts. People are not widget-producing robots. Even your veterans might benefit from teaching an apprentice by gaining greater understanding of a topic or at least getting a break from their usual routine. Your team might benefit from having a younger person's energy, perspective, or generational/(sub-)cultural knowledge. Why is it that businesses are so quick to tout the advantages of racial diversity on a team, yet so daft as to see that such benefits clearly extend onto diversity of age and thought as well?
You see, at some point, investors and business managers are going to need to realize that their businesses MUST to look farther in the future than next financial quarter if they want to seriously compete in the next century, and that absolutely requires making investments into the generalized workforce. It's not a handout if you stand to gain some objectively benefit, now is it?
-Grym
Here's a hint: Get the Electric Flesh (1&2) tonics, and Incinerate 3. Get the two chemical thrower upgrades and max out your electric gel ammo. After this, every big daddy and boss in the game is a joke. It absolutely trivializes the battles. All you do is immolate them, then shoot them with the electric gel until they die (which is usually pretty fast).
-Grym
Maybe because what he is saying makes sense?
If you can't recognize the absurdity of modern political discourse in America, you simply aren't paying attention. Which, in and of itself, would not be surprising because most Americans have annexed themselves from the entire process out of hope that others will fix the mess for them; a desired effect.
Given the way the distribution of wealth has trended in recent years paired with the fact that the majority of mainstream media outlets are owned by a handful of corporations makes his explanation--at the very least--feasible.
-Grym
The quality of the scientific articles and comments on slashdot are absolutely atrocious lately.
First of all, the article is factually incorrect on the basics of diabetes. Type 2 (NON insulin-dependent) diabetics do produce adequate levels of insulin! The problem is that adipose (fat) and muscle tissue, for unknown reasons, do NOT increase glucose transport in response, leaving an excess of the glucose in the blood. This effect is called "insulin resistance," because these cells are resistant to the effects of insulin. Insulin injections are used for Type 2 diabetics as a way of overwhelming the resistant transporters, but that should not be misconstrued as a failure of the insulin-producing beta cells of the liver. In fact, there's good evidence to believe that when these cells become overactive other pathologies can result.
Secondly, the cause of Type 2 diabetes is not so clear-cut. Of course, diet plays a role. Of course, exercise plays a role. But that is not mean that every person with type 2 diabetes is a lazy glutton or that diet and exercise are effective treatments for those who already have diabetes.
-Grym
You're absolutely right. Democracy is a great form of government--arguably the best. However, it is frequently mis-attributed (especially as of late) for societial progress that is better explained by metrics like culture and wealth.
-Grym
Not necessarily. As unintuitive as it might seem to intellectuals, there's a huge profit to be made in promoting miscommunication. Take words like: terrorism, freedom, unlimited, free, love, or pride. These words have practically lost their meaning in unqualified use because their definitions have become so saturated. (I would argue largely as a result of marketing.) Do you think it's a coincidence that smoking marijuana has been equated to terrorism or that your unlimited broadband connection is capped in both speed and usage?
Furthermore, I believe there is a strong argument that can be made that language has an important function in how our minds construct a schema of the world around us. I realize that 1984 is just a book, but there is a lot of truth to the fact that language could be used to control how people think. And, remember, it's not a matter of whether YOU (an articulate, educated person) can find clever ways of clearly expressing yourself despite your language. What if all those below you on the bell curve can't?
I personally don't know what meaning we should draw at the loss of so many languages so quickly means, but I wouldn't be so quick to write such developments off as inconsequential or a generally Good Thing (TM).
-Grym
Okay... but who's going to perform the surgical procedure if something bad shows up?
I'm not an economist and slashdot is a bad place to find education, but here's the simplified gist of it: You can't outsource services. Now, that being said, some things that were traditionally considered services (like accounting, for instance) can be managed and digitized such a way that they are, for all intents and purposes, a product and subsequently outsourced. BUT, don't mistake this trend to include the general practice of medicine. Even in the example you bring up, the X-ray is, in all likelihood, read again by the radiology attending once he comes in the next morning.
There will always be local markets for doctors, because it would be impossible to remove the the doctor from the equation without losing something. How could you do a physical exam without being physically present? How could you establish beside report if you're not even on the same continent? It just wouldn't work, and no technological innovation in the foreseeable future will make it so (no matter how so people would like to try).
-Grym
No, the GP is absolutely right. While you were busy trying to formulate a rebuttal, the point flew right over your head.
Asymmetric warfare is only a losing proposition if the larger power is restrained in some fashion or another.
The war in Iraq could be over tomorrow if we just had enough enough troops there (pre-war estimates put this number at approximately 500,000 combat troops). The problem is this isn't a war of survival, and our glorious leader and the Republicans are--to use their own phrase--"choosing to lose" by refusing to pursue conscription or true international cooperation in order to achieve this number.
-Grym
Tell me... when's the last time you checked the back of your computer for one of these before you typed a password?
-Grym
A PS/2 hardware keylogger only needs to be placed at the end of the device. You needn't even touch the keyboard to install it, let alone unscrew anything.
P.S. Oh.. and don't feel safe just because you may use a USB keyboard. That's covered too.
-Grym
Going through a all files with .jpg would be time-consuming. Here's an idea: just begin your search by going through a list of fetishes. Stop those little perverts while they're young!
Wait....Are two or three K's in Bukkake?
-Grym
Step 1: Put a PS/2 physical keylogger onto the keyboard.
Step 2: Ask Dad to enter the password the computer so you can "do your homework."
Step 3: Profit.
Bottom-line: There is no such thing as security when one has physical access to the machine.
-Grym
Perhaps it's because I don't watch sports (I can't stand ESPN-culture), but there are MAYBE five or six television programs that I ever find myself watching. In fact, if it weren't for DVR, I don't thing I would ever turn my TV on unless it was to play a video game. In fact, I went about six months last year without cable. Compare that to my internet habits. I check Google News, Digg, and Slashdot daily and I have 19 podcasts, which I avidly keep up with.
If you can't find interesting, updated content on the web, you aren't looking hard enough.
-Grym
If you bothered to read the article I linked it clearly said that this is not an option because the rocket fuel is corrosive and erodes the rockets if left inside without being fired. Futhermore, because they have so few missiles, the U.S. would simply have to destroy anything that even looked like a silo site to effectively put an end to China's nuclear threat.
Sure you can. How long do you think all those factories in the Chinese mainland would stay open when they have no profitable way to ship their goods to foreign markets? The U.S. wouldn't have to completely stop all trade to effectively kill the Chinese industry/economy. An induced economic crisis could trigger what the Chinese fear the most: a cultural revolution from within.
Having nukes is one thing. Getting them in the air is something else entirely. Don't delude yourself into thinking that the U.S. couldn't neutralize China's ability to launch missiles in the event of a crisis or as a sneak-attack. I'm not advocating such an act, but that is the reality of the situation as it is today.
-Grym
What you describe is entirely unlikely. You act as if the U.S. military would sit back passively while the Chinese spent hours fueling their 130 nuclear missiles. Why would we when we have the means to hit them before they even get off the ground (via Submarine-based ICBMs and Nuclear-armed cruise missiles)?
I suggest you look up the term Nuclear Primacy. Having nukes doesn't mean much if they would be obliterated before they can even be launched.
Perhaps not conventionally, but this is more for geopolitical reasons than military ones. Even in conventional warfare, the U.S. Navy is completely unmatched by anything China has to offer.
The funny thing is is how these facts shock even Americans. Should this really be that surprising? The United States spends more on its military than all the other countries in the world combined. You get what you pay for.
-Grym
You obviously are very lucky then. From my own personal experience alone, Vista has been a nightmare. I built a gaming computer this summer (ASUS P5B-D, E6700 Core 2 Duo, 8800 GTS, 2 GB RAM, and 2 RAID-0 150 GB WD-Raptors for good measure =P) and decided that I would go ahead and use Vista rather than have to upgrade in, at most, two years anyway.
To make a long story short, I've had to re-install Vista Ultimate (32-bit) 5 times (in the span of 3 months). In fact, it won't even automatically authorize my installation anymore. I had to phone it in the last time I installed. Now, two of those times I'm willing to concede might (MIGHT) have been due to a faulty SATA cable, but the others were purely due to Vista and some truly bizzare bugs/crashes that only get worse with successive system restores. And even now, there are some completely unresolved issues I've just come to find ways around or accept. For instance, the system completely locks up if Itunes and Alcohol 120% are open at the same time. Now these aren't exactly unpopular or otherwise unstable programs; they only are this way under Vista. And this kind of stuff is par for the course from what I'm hearing from my friends who tried Vista as well.
I wouldn't call the complaints about Vista FUD. As of right now, in good conscious, I cannot recommend upgrading to Vista. The ONLY reason that I would recommend you ever subjecting yourself to it is if you are buying/building a gaming computer that will last more than a couple years. My advice is ff you don't fall into that group but are still wanting to try Vista, do yourself a favor and do what most businesses are doing: wait for SP1.
-Grym
I agree, but that's not what the article, or the paper (from what's said in the abstract), is saying. Based on a dataset extending to 1980 (well before mass marketing of antibacterial soaps), they came up with this:
[emphasis mine]Again, you can't have it both ways. If bacterial levels on the hands are not reduced, how is antibiotic resistance being selected?
-Grym
I know the Oregon Trail would leave you to believe otherwise, but Dysentery is a symptom, not a disease itself and can be caused by more than just bad water. You're probably thinking of Cholera, which, yes, is associated with fecally-contaminated water sources.
That being said, dysentery can kill you. As a matter of fact, You Have Died Of Dysentery. Game over.
-Grym
This article (and maybe even the paper) is fundamentally flawed because it espouses (probably by accident) a backward, Lamarckian view of adaptation that simply isn't possible. Bacteria don't develop resistance because they want to, they develop resistance because the population is killed en masse and what's left to repopulate usually turns out to be more resistant.
The triclosan in antibiotic soaps soaps can't be BOTH completely ineffective AND causing antibiotic resistance--that doesn't make sense. Either the resistance of the antibiotic is developing because the antibiotic is working (making antibiotic soap, at the very least, slightly better) or the soap is relatively ineffective. It can't be both.
I know it's popular to bash antibiotic soaps and there's good reasons for doing so, but enough with the bad science articles.
-Grym
Actually, it's more complicated than that. Most of the breathalyzer machines actually measure the absorption of light sent through a chemical that changes color when oxidized by alcohol. From that absorption number they are able to estimate the the concentration of alcohol in the sample in the machine and, from that, the concentration in your breath. The concentration of alcohol in your breath correlates with the concentration of alcohol in your blood because the alveolar membrane in your lungs is extremely thin and highly vascularized (it must be this way to permit gas exchange for respiration). The alveolar membrane is of a similar thickness in people of all body types and would probably not be a source of error. The only possible exception to this might be someone affected with fibrosis, which would actually lower the measured amount.
That being said, this process that the breathalyzers go through requires a lot of assumptions which often are not true in all cases. In fact, I've heard of Chemistry/Biology grad students making quite a bit of money by offering their expertise to challenge (often successfully) these assumptions in court.
-Grym
I'm convinced that this and other similar measures are all about control.
Despite their rhetoric, I don't think that the politicians are ignorant enough to believe that they can stop file-sharing. In a world of huge hard-drives, fast networks, and ubiquitous transfer mediums (from DVD-Rs to USB memory sticks), it's very simple: one way or another, file-sharing is going to happen. I realize that most politicians are not technically-inclined but even a fool can recognize the foolishness of fighting against the tides.
No, the real goal here is the reigning in of the internet. See, once you get the public to accept any filtering and monitoring of the internet (for any reason), the foot is in the door (either legally, physically, or psychologically) to allow further filtering against other behavior. With the end goal of something similar to the great firewall of China being the end-goal, where information can be measured and checked before being allowed to be available to the masses.
-Grym