Slow-motion biological warfare may be more plausible.
Sooner or later some hostile country is going to figure out how to modify the flu or common cold so it sets the stage for massive (10%+ fatalities) cancer over a 10-20 year time frame, and combine it with a "trigger" so the cancer part only affects people with certain gene markers, such as a particular family, clan, or ethnic group.
Imagine if North Korea figured out a way to make and distribute a cold virus that killed 10% of infected people of European descent within 10-20 years? Or what if, instead of causing fatal cancer in 10% of victims with certain genes, it causes infertility or loss of sexual desire in 50% of that group or (by manipulating egg cells and sperm-generating cells) the future children of that group, resulting in a greatly reduced population a generation or two down the road?
The hard part will be 1) getting it right, 2) making sure it doesn't mutate and kill you or others you hope will survive 3) make sure you don't get caught, and 4) make sure it's not easy enough to copy-and-modify that one of your enemies uses it to create a cold that will kill "you and yours."
What about people whose brains are "intersexed" - the brain analog to those whose reproductive organs are neither wholly male nor wholly female?
What about the mistaken social assumptions that come when a person is physically one gender and self-identifies as that gender (i.e NOT a traditional "transgender" person) but whose brain is wired the other way?
Take Mass. and throw in the kids aged 0-5 and their parents from the "bottom-10" US states together into a hypothetical state and initially keep everything else the same including the attitudes of policy-makers and educators and the attitudes of the "existing" Mass. parents and students.
The net result is that the average attitudes will initially drop, the average family income will initially drop, and the amount of state and local tax money available per student will initially drop.
Wait 10-15 years and see what happens to social attitudes towards education, what happens to average family income, and what happens to education spending from local and state taxes. Whatever the result, it will probably correlate with the scores these kids make 10-15 years down the road.
Odds are high that they will be somewhere below what Mass. is currently scoring but somewhat above where the "bottom 10" states are currently scoring.
Just charge every customer a flat "connection, billing, and because-we-love-your-as-a-customer fee" on top of metered usage and be done with it.
OK, I was joking about the because-we-love-you part but utilities have costs that are "fairest" to bill by the kW/h or other per-use basis and costs that are "fairest" to bill on a per customer-per month or per-customer-one-time basis. In a capitalist system, it's up to the companies to figure out how to make money. In a regulated system, sometimes the right thing to do is to bill each customer a one-time setup charge to cover "one time costs" of setting up the account, a recurring fixed monthly charge to cover recurring monthly charges that don't depend on usage, and an energy charge (or refund) based on net usage.
If the guy who you bought the BC from is accusing you of stealing it, you can sue him for slander. That's a preponderence-of-the-evidence case, so you don't need "proof" you just need a stronger case that you didn't steal it than he has that you did.
Now, if the prosecution wants to go after him for filing a false police report, they will have to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt."
The presumption is that the person reporting the crime would need to give their real-world information to someone that everyone trusts in order to report the theft.
In my country, filing a false police report is a crime.
If the defendant can make a good case that despite reasonable precautions, his computer was p0wned and he was unaware of it, AND but for the p0wning his files would not have been accessible, then it would be similar to someone claiming to be my spouse letting the cops into "our" house, whereupon the cops found my stash of contraband laying around in plain sight.
I'm not sure what the case law in that situation is, but whatever it is, it would seem to apply to a case like this if the computer were p0wned.
The idea would be that the person claiming to be robbed would make the initial claim of theft. Whether that would require authentication by a real-world trusted party such as a law enforcement would be the issue.
Let's say I deposited 1BC in ShadyBCBank last week. ShadyBCBank tells me specifically that MY coin was stolen. Then either I or ShadyBCBank can report the recent transactions to the authorities, to the public, and to any stolen-BC-reporting agency.
On the other hand, let's say I deposited 1BC in ShadyBCBank last week. ShadyBCBank mixed up the coins with other customers and basically gave me an "IOU" for one BC. They get robbed. I have no way to report the theft, after all, "my" BC may have been withdrawn by another customer or customers before the theft. ShadyBCBank does, if they choose to do so.
As for the "chain of infection" goes, if the coins were co-mingled that could be a major problem. We may wind up with a case where some coins are "more valuable" than others.
Let's say the thief stole 1BC from me today, deposited in in a bank that "mixed up" the coins tomorrow, and a few minutes later withdrew 1BC. Let's say I reported it a few minutes after he made his withdrawal.
If the coin was "mixed" equally with 9 other BC in an irreversible manner, then those 9 BC would be forever "devalued" by 10%, the crook would be ahead by either 1BC or 0.9BC depending on whether he got "clean" coin or not, and I would be out 1BC. The net amount of BC in circulation would be permanently reduced by 1BC.
The idea is to put an incentive on banks and other clearinghouses to delay "mixing" money up by 1-2 business days to allow time for reporting of thefts, so that if a theft is reported immediately the stolen coin can either be destroyed without affecting other coins or it can be returned to its rightful owner. In either case, the thief who deposited it or the poor sucker who he used it to buy something with quickly will be left holding the entire bag.
For individuals who hold BC "on deposit" for long periods of time, a "freeze list" can be developed.
1) I have a BC in a wallet I control that I don't plan on spending any time soon. I place its last transaction on a "freeze list." This tells the world "don't accept the coin until I take it off the list."
2) I have an BC that I am about to deposit with a particular online "bank". I place its last pre-deposit transaction on a "freeze after 1 transaction" list and include the address that I am transferring it to along with a reasonable timeout (say, 1 hour). This tells the world "if you aren't this address, don't accept the BC." If the transaction doesn't happen by the timeout, it reverts to a user-specified fallback action, such as "cancel request" or "covert to a #1-type freeze" or "email me and extend deadline by 1 hour" etc.
If a bitcoin (or fractional BC) whose last known legitimate transaction's block-chain information is known, can it be blacklisted so any attempt to spend it will raise alarms?
This feature not be in the current Bitcoin software but it seems like something that could be added to a future version of the software if those who use BC demand it.
The devil will of course be in the details - would theft reports be authenticated by One True Central Authority, or would it be up to each BitCoin user to decide what theft-report-authenticating services it trusts (much like how email server owners decide what spam-blackhole-list providers to trust)? What about libel/slander if someone maliciously reports theft of a BC he legitimately spent or if a theft-report-authenticating service erroneously reports a BC as stolen?
Just wondering if the martians count in base 10 like the cave men who count on their fingers and thumbs or if they've advanced to base 10 and powers thereof like some machines.
-- "There are 10 kinds of people in the world: Those who can count to 10, and those who can't." --unknown
Yes, it may make manipulation and brainwashing easier, but you can do that in the real world by feeding people false information and getting them to believe it.
Mind control in the "zombie" sense of the word would be directly stimulating the brain to move muscles around, or perhaps one level more abstract, to directly manipulate "the will" whatever that is. A further level up the abstraction ladder would be to directly manipulate memories and emotions.
As it is, right now we are talking about "reading the mind" but using normal means of providing sensory input.
I, for one, do NOT welcome a world where people think it's okay for lets their brain be directly manipulated by a machine in a way that impacts the will. Yes, I'm fine with "brain pacemakers" to deal with bona fide medical conditions, but not giving healthy people "cyborg brains" for the sake of efficiency or entertainment. That's one ultimimate upgrade that I don't want.
It may be possible to ban the SALE or TRADE of such software, but you can't very well stop someone from GIVING it away. After all, they can stand on the border and hold up printouts of the source code and invite people standing 5 feet away from them to take photos of it.
Well, I guess you COULD ban it if you are in a country that doesn't have or even pretend to have free-speech protections.
All any such ban will do would be to drive the R&D to other countries.
In the auto insurance industry, if you can't get insured, you don't get to drive (legally).
In most states in the United States, if you can't get legally-required automobile insurance, the government forces the insurance carriers to offer it to you at regulated-but-high rates.
Most states also had a "high risk insurance pool" for health insurance before Obamacare. Yes, it was expensive, yes, it was out of reach for even the lower-middle-class, but at least it was something.
Slashdot Mirror
Slow-motion biological warfare may be more plausible.
Sooner or later some hostile country is going to figure out how to modify the flu or common cold so it sets the stage for massive (10%+ fatalities) cancer over a 10-20 year time frame, and combine it with a "trigger" so the cancer part only affects people with certain gene markers, such as a particular family, clan, or ethnic group.
Imagine if North Korea figured out a way to make and distribute a cold virus that killed 10% of infected people of European descent within 10-20 years? Or what if, instead of causing fatal cancer in 10% of victims with certain genes, it causes infertility or loss of sexual desire in 50% of that group or (by manipulating egg cells and sperm-generating cells) the future children of that group, resulting in a greatly reduced population a generation or two down the road?
The hard part will be 1) getting it right, 2) making sure it doesn't mutate and kill you or others you hope will survive 3) make sure you don't get caught, and 4) make sure it's not easy enough to copy-and-modify that one of your enemies uses it to create a cold that will kill "you and yours."
I know Cleveland BioLabs is working on bacteria which impact acute radiation sickness.
I initially read that as
I know Cleveland BioLabs is working on bacteria which impart acute radiation sickness.
I thought "WTF? Biological+radiological warfare in America AND it's not a state secret? WTF?"
What about people whose brains are "intersexed" - the brain analog to those whose reproductive organs are neither wholly male nor wholly female?
What about the mistaken social assumptions that come when a person is physically one gender and self-identifies as that gender (i.e NOT a traditional "transgender" person) but whose brain is wired the other way?
Take Mass. and throw in the kids aged 0-5 and their parents from the "bottom-10" US states together into a hypothetical state and initially keep everything else the same including the attitudes of policy-makers and educators and the attitudes of the "existing" Mass. parents and students.
The net result is that the average attitudes will initially drop, the average family income will initially drop, and the amount of state and local tax money available per student will initially drop.
Wait 10-15 years and see what happens to social attitudes towards education, what happens to average family income, and what happens to education spending from local and state taxes. Whatever the result, it will probably correlate with the scores these kids make 10-15 years down the road.
Odds are high that they will be somewhere below what Mass. is currently scoring but somewhat above where the "bottom 10" states are currently scoring.
The self-righteous arrogance of this administration is only surpassed by the previous one.
I'm pretty sure there were some administrations in centuries past that meet or beat 21st-century administrations in this department.
Plus, there are at least 1 or 2 21st-century non-US governments that outdo any 21st-century American administration on this score as well.
If at first you don't succeed, try, try, try, try, try, try, try, try, try, try, try, try, try, try, try, try, try, try, try, try again.
Just charge every customer a flat "connection, billing, and because-we-love-your-as-a-customer fee" on top of metered usage and be done with it.
OK, I was joking about the because-we-love-you part but utilities have costs that are "fairest" to bill by the kW/h or other per-use basis and costs that are "fairest" to bill on a per customer-per month or per-customer-one-time basis. In a capitalist system, it's up to the companies to figure out how to make money. In a regulated system, sometimes the right thing to do is to bill each customer a one-time setup charge to cover "one time costs" of setting up the account, a recurring fixed monthly charge to cover recurring monthly charges that don't depend on usage, and an energy charge (or refund) based on net usage.
Since when did Anonymous == Borg ???
Ideally, any case that results in a just acquittal would never have gone to trial.
We don't live in an ideal world.
If the guy who you bought the BC from is accusing you of stealing it, you can sue him for slander. That's a preponderence-of-the-evidence case, so you don't need "proof" you just need a stronger case that you didn't steal it than he has that you did.
Now, if the prosecution wants to go after him for filing a false police report, they will have to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt."
That was in 2005. I think there has been at least one courtroom acquittal since then.
My original thoughts were of a voluntary list similar to the anti-spam blackhole lists.
The presumption is that the person reporting the crime would need to give their real-world information to someone that everyone trusts in order to report the theft.
In my country, filing a false police report is a crime.
If the defendant can make a good case that despite reasonable precautions, his computer was p0wned and he was unaware of it, AND but for the p0wning his files would not have been accessible, then it would be similar to someone claiming to be my spouse letting the cops into "our" house, whereupon the cops found my stash of contraband laying around in plain sight.
I'm not sure what the case law in that situation is, but whatever it is, it would seem to apply to a case like this if the computer were p0wned.
The idea would be that the person claiming to be robbed would make the initial claim of theft. Whether that would require authentication by a real-world trusted party such as a law enforcement would be the issue.
Let's say I deposited 1BC in ShadyBCBank last week. ShadyBCBank tells me specifically that MY coin was stolen. Then either I or ShadyBCBank can report the recent transactions to the authorities, to the public, and to any stolen-BC-reporting agency.
On the other hand, let's say I deposited 1BC in ShadyBCBank last week. ShadyBCBank mixed up the coins with other customers and basically gave me an "IOU" for one BC. They get robbed. I have no way to report the theft, after all, "my" BC may have been withdrawn by another customer or customers before the theft. ShadyBCBank does, if they choose to do so.
As for the "chain of infection" goes, if the coins were co-mingled that could be a major problem. We may wind up with a case where some coins are "more valuable" than others.
Let's say the thief stole 1BC from me today, deposited in in a bank that "mixed up" the coins tomorrow, and a few minutes later withdrew 1BC. Let's say I reported it a few minutes after he made his withdrawal.
If the coin was "mixed" equally with 9 other BC in an irreversible manner, then those 9 BC would be forever "devalued" by 10%, the crook would be ahead by either 1BC or 0.9BC depending on whether he got "clean" coin or not, and I would be out 1BC. The net amount of BC in circulation would be permanently reduced by 1BC.
The idea is to put an incentive on banks and other clearinghouses to delay "mixing" money up by 1-2 business days to allow time for reporting of thefts, so that if a theft is reported immediately the stolen coin can either be destroyed without affecting other coins or it can be returned to its rightful owner. In either case, the thief who deposited it or the poor sucker who he used it to buy something with quickly will be left holding the entire bag.
For individuals who hold BC "on deposit" for long periods of time, a "freeze list" can be developed.
1) I have a BC in a wallet I control that I don't plan on spending any time soon. I place its last transaction on a "freeze list." This tells the world "don't accept the coin until I take it off the list."
2) I have an BC that I am about to deposit with a particular online "bank". I place its last pre-deposit transaction on a "freeze after 1 transaction" list and include the address that I am transferring it to along with a reasonable timeout (say, 1 hour). This tells the world "if you aren't this address, don't accept the BC." If the transaction doesn't happen by the timeout, it reverts to a user-specified fallback action, such as "cancel request" or "covert to a #1-type freeze" or "email me and extend deadline by 1 hour" etc.
If a bitcoin (or fractional BC) whose last known legitimate transaction's block-chain information is known, can it be blacklisted so any attempt to spend it will raise alarms?
This feature not be in the current Bitcoin software but it seems like something that could be added to a future version of the software if those who use BC demand it.
The devil will of course be in the details - would theft reports be authenticated by One True Central Authority, or would it be up to each BitCoin user to decide what theft-report-authenticating services it trusts (much like how email server owners decide what spam-blackhole-list providers to trust)? What about libel/slander if someone maliciously reports theft of a BC he legitimately spent or if a theft-report-authenticating service erroneously reports a BC as stolen?
Just wondering if the martians count in base 10 like the cave men who count on their fingers and thumbs or if they've advanced to base 10 and powers thereof like some machines.
--
"There are 10 kinds of people in the world: Those who can count to 10, and those who can't." --unknown
... in that order.
While a fire isn't desirable, this sounds like a good example of how to do it right.
But he can't penetrate tupperwear.
Is that anywhere near Norstan?
Brain/computer interfaces don't equal "mind control."
Yes, it may make manipulation and brainwashing easier, but you can do that in the real world by feeding people false information and getting them to believe it.
Mind control in the "zombie" sense of the word would be directly stimulating the brain to move muscles around, or perhaps one level more abstract, to directly manipulate "the will" whatever that is. A further level up the abstraction ladder would be to directly manipulate memories and emotions.
As it is, right now we are talking about "reading the mind" but using normal means of providing sensory input.
I, for one, do NOT welcome a world where people think it's okay for lets their brain be directly manipulated by a machine in a way that impacts the will. Yes, I'm fine with "brain pacemakers" to deal with bona fide medical conditions, but not giving healthy people "cyborg brains" for the sake of efficiency or entertainment. That's one ultimimate upgrade that I don't want.
It may be possible to ban the SALE or TRADE of such software, but you can't very well stop someone from GIVING it away. After all, they can stand on the border and hold up printouts of the source code and invite people standing 5 feet away from them to take photos of it.
Well, I guess you COULD ban it if you are in a country that doesn't have or even pretend to have free-speech protections.
All any such ban will do would be to drive the R&D to other countries.
Do they mate with the friggin' Shark Queen?
Would that make them Friggin' Frankin' Sharks?
In the auto insurance industry, if you can't get insured, you don't get to drive (legally).
In most states in the United States, if you can't get legally-required automobile insurance, the government forces the insurance carriers to offer it to you at regulated-but-high rates.
Most states also had a "high risk insurance pool" for health insurance before Obamacare. Yes, it was expensive, yes, it was out of reach for even the lower-middle-class, but at least it was something.