The correct solution, but the wrong reasoning. Before western meddling many of these people were farmers and produced enough food to feed their population, even in the desert. Farming is difficult, and droughts are deadly, so birth rates were very high to generate more field hands and replace them as they died. Enter food handouts and medicine. Suddenly the population explodes and the ratio of food to person drops. Furthermore, farmers can't compete with free, so they can't sell their excess crops to buy the stuff they can't grow, thus making farming non-viable. So you have a bunch of unemployed people that are pretty pissed off. Enter a tyrannical government or militant group that sells the donated food, and you have a bad situation.
OTOH, these populations are now dependent on that food, and stopping it would kill a lot of people, both in the short term, and the long term by increasing mortality to what it used to be. Of course, the occasional genocide and mass starvation is also bad. I can't really say which would cause fewer people to die overall... My personal opinion is that trying to bring the whole world up to first world standards is impossible for the foreseeable future, so we shouldn't disrupt societies with half-way measures that create more problems than they solve. The problem is figuring out how to close Pandora's Box now that we've opened it.
Sure there is a right to force you to do something. In this case the government is codifying the social contract. If you need assistance then others are compelled to help you. For that right, you have the responsibility to render assistance if it's needed from you. To not do so is cheating the system, and one of human society's main functions is to punish cheaters. It's similar to paying taxes for the things that the government funds monetarily.
You're conflating research with clinical practice. In research the embryonic cells are vastly easier to work with, which hastens progress, reduces expense, and eliminates one source of errors. Clinically, adult stem cells are more useful since a person could receive transplants that were immunologically indistinguishable from their own body, thus negating the need for immunosupressants and reducing the need for organ donors.
I would suppose the difference in opinion is rooted in the concept of a child. At one end of the spectrum people view children as possessions of the parents and on the other they are viewed as fully autonomous individuals. Homeschooling as a right meshes better with people on the former end of the spectrum, whereas the latter end would view education to be a basic right that should be handled by the best (unbiased) professionals the state can provide. Obviously few people are on the extremes, but there seems to be considerable variation as to where people stand.
Well, the preconceived notions about school need to quit being taught in school if they are to go away... Oh, wait... (I'm not saying you're wrong, just that these notions would be uniquely difficult to preconceive. They're more likely to be outdated or exaggerated.)
I would image they're waiting until they can sell ipv6 support to people who don't have it. Really, all it'd probably take is a firmware update but how many users will do that rather than buy a new router with "Compatible with IPv6!!!" on the box? Perhaps the strategy is to wait and market it as an upgrade or wait for a major ISP to start NAT-ing ipv4 rather than buy new address space.
Prions are dangerous mainly because proteins are more stable than nucleic acids, so sterilization techniques that are adequate against viruses and bacteria aren't effective against prion-based diseases like BSE and CJD.
Minor correction: Proteins, in general aren't particularly stable. Some are, but others aren't. Your DNA, depending on the G-C content, will melt at ~140 F, whereas a bad fever will start to denature proteins at ~108 F. Even PrP-C (Prion Protein - normal, endogenous form) isn't particularly stable. The PrP-SC (disease form, e.g. Scrapie, Mad Cow, or CJD) converts some of PrP-C's alpha helices into more compacted beta-pleated sheets, which make the protein very resistant to heat and the body's natural proteases. It also makes it aggregate into amyloid deposits in the brain, which are even more stable. These deposits create a "sponge-like" appearance, hence why the diseases are called "spongiform encephalopathy".
There are a great many methods that can be uses to kill something with DNA (parasites, bacteria, viruses, etc.), such as UV light, moist heat, and various chemicals. The PrP-SC can "survive" normal autoclave temperatures that kill almost everything else. Since they lack DNA, UV light and DNA-degrading chemicals aren't going to do much to them. And because they're a single protein it's very difficult to develop a drug that can target them specifically, degrade them, and not affect the normal PrP-C. The body's antibodies might work, but they stay out of the brain due to the blood-brain barrier (also why meningitis can easily kill you), although this effect is reduced if inflammation occurs.
One tragedy of CJD is that PrP-SC amyloid deposits stay in the brain, so the only way to be sure of the diagnosis of CJD is by brain biopsy. Therefore, it's commonly misdiagnosed, neurosurgery is performed on that patient, and PrP-SC gets on the surgeon's instruments. Since standard sterilization techniques are insufficient, it's often spread to other patients before being noticed.
While it's cheaper, does it really provide that much science? Sure, it's the most cost effective way to explore Mars, but does knowing the position, shape, and maybe the composition of a few Martian stones really help humanity?
Probes and manned space flight advance two different academic fields. Probes tell us what's in our solar system. That's useful for astronomers, perhaps some advance physics, and generates some neat pictures. Manned space flight is much more expensive because of the added challenges, such as life support, shielding, and returning to Earth, which advance biology and engineering a bit more. OTOH, many of the same technologies can be used for humans on Earth, thus making them more useful IMHO. They also would generate more interest in space, hence more funding, and have a greater potential for eventual economic payoff.
Here are some examples of technology that was developed for space travel that has made its way into everyday life. Notice the disproportionate amount of advances that can from manned space flight as compared to probes. Of course, the ratio might be a bit closer to dollars spent in each area, but there's low hanging fruit to be had in both. If we concentrate all of our money in probes then we'll eventually be spending billions to see one novel technology that's useful for more than just building better probes, as compared to dozens of technologies that might result from developing a manned spacecraft.
Meh, most lab research in biology fail on the first few attempts. DIY biology is likely to have an even higher failure rate, especially with stuff that hasn't been done a thousand times before. Beyond that, if grey goo or a super bug was feasible the natural bacteria would've done it ages ago.
Sadly, the common sense necessary to discern this is lacking. Most people seem to lack all sense of situational awareness. Hence why so many people have conversations in doorways, or vastly over-prioritize taking a phone call regardless to whether they're driving or talking to someone else.
An alternative would be to increase the volume of the second party to match how loudly you speak. So if you must shout because it's noisy, then the other person's voice is amplified to match. Conversely, if you're whispering in a quiet room, the volume is reduced. It could be marketed as a feature.
I'd actually count filing a false DMCA claim to be worse than infringement. In the case of the former they're well aware that they are starting something that'll be expensive and consume a lot of people's time. So the burden of error-checking ought to be a lot higher.
Depending on how bad a person's arrhythmia is, and the type of failure, probably nothing immediate, though they'd obviously want to get to a hospital ASAP. A pacemaker getting hit by this type of device would probably cause a premature contraction in the heart, and maybe burns, both of which would be dangerous. OTOH, with how ubiquitous EM fields are nowadays, especially in medical imaging, I have to wonder why pacemakers are unshielded, and some even ferromagnetic. Statistically, though, I'd estimate that people with pacemakers are more likely to be hit by a fleeing criminal than be too close to this device being used.
Well, to count as a "meat" or "vegetable" there has to be a certain quantity, and daycares are audited every so often to ensure they're meeting the nutritional guidelines. They do make silly mistakes at times (e.g. counting macaroni & cheese as a vegetable), but overall it's more nutritious than what most kids get at home. Don't forget that children have different nutritional requirements than adults, food vendors are well aware of the nutritional requirements and of child preferences and make food to match, and that there are a lot of misconceptions about nutrition.
That's my impression. Or more precisely, a few dolphins can kill a shark, but a shark can kill a dolphin one-on-one. So it's in a dolphin's best interest to kill them while they have the advantage. (It's rather impressive, the dolphins will actually use echolocation to locate and target internal organs.) Or it's also entirely possible that dolphins kill sharks for kicks. They kinda do that to other animals, and are certainly intelligent enough.
I'm a little curious as to what happens to a bird that tries to fly through the beam... Although I suppose that could be a selling point if marketed correctly, like in New York. Too far north for conventional solar, not enough land for a lot of options, you get the power right where it's needed, nearly zero risk of terrorism, and people get to see the "sky rats" catch fire mid-flight.
I have to wonder why the 950 rather than something a little newer... My laptop's a year old and has a 4500 MHD, which was equivalent to a low end nVidia or ATI card from a year prior, and can do h264 hardware decoding.
Well, if ReactOS was a usable Windows replacement then you'd open up the option of using a completely open source system for Windows users that would rather not relearn how to use a computer. Businesses could be guaranteed that their legacy software has a very good chance of working with new hardware since they aren't beholden to Microsoft's corporate decisions. Furthermore, big businesses could roll their own version of ReactOS that best fit their own needs.
ReactOS has the potential to drastically weaken the Windows dominance of the desktop PC. Once the monopoly is broken then competition explodes, much like how Firefox paved the way for Opera, Chrome, and others. The small players, in turn, force the big ones to keep up with innovation. So, to address your point, ReactOS becoming usable would force Windows and Linux to both improve, which is a win.
Probably around the time that whitehouse.com went from being a porn site to being a domain squatter. Without the memorable lesson in the difference between.gov and.com, many internet users probably don't even realize that.gov exists.
As a poster above mentioned, allowing 2nd level domains is a good trade off between security and convenience. Before I used NoScript I blocked external scripts using a proxy filter for years, and it's only been in the past couple that I've bothered whitelisting anything. Basically, a few APIs (e.g. Google's) and some oddly configured sites that use multiple 1st level domains are about it. Other than those, it is quite rare for a script from an external host to be something that is beneficial for the user. Usually they're ads, stat counters, or something flashy and annoying. This will get you into trouble with some shopping sites though, like Pizza Hut's where I wasn't sure if my order was placed or not, and didn't want to refresh and possible order another pizza. So I whitelisted "https://*", and that seems to work well.
Interestingly, I've had non-technical people do odd things if I use my own subdomain e-mail address rather than something like GMail or my school account. Most often I notice that someone will completely ignore me. Once I even had a "I don't know who you are, but don't impersonate my students" response from a teacher. My guess is that such people assume nobody they know is technically oriented enough to figure out how to setup their e-mail a bit differently.
Privacy is more than the protection against humiliation, it is a tool to prevent others from acting on incomplete information. If everyone knew everything about everyone then we'd be a very tolerant people that probably preemptively executed or isolated the hopelessly sociopathic. The problem is that such a world is impossible since we cannot know what a person is thinking, nor monitor them all the time, nor remember that much information even if it were available. Therefore, we're forced to make decisions about people given our very limited information on them. Since it's nearly impossible to be completely independent of other humans, we must do what we can to guide their opinions and decisions in a way that benefits us. This is necessary for both gene propagation and rational happiness.
As for genetics, traits that enable us to have the greatest number of progeny are selected for. This means that our emotions are beneficial for this, and most likely happiness itself is a reward for getting closer to this goal. Either way, we are what we are. These traits don't work against us, they are us. Beyond that, there isn't really a "humiliation" gene. There are genes that construct neurons which form fairly random neural networks, and genes that provide feedback to shape these networks into something evolutionarily useful. Besides genes, human society also shapes these networks, and there's an evolutionary benefit to emulating successful behaviors. Without doing so a human cannot achieve a high level of functionality, since that would be akin to the first caveman building a car (then insuring it).
While it's true that you could probably mold your "happiness" to not be at all dependent on others, how is that beneficial? If something displeases you then you have two ways to solve that problem. The first is to change yourself so that it no longer displeases you, and the other is to change it. Privacy is a means of preemptively changing society, or at least how you fit into it. It's a perfectly valid solution, and one that doesn't compromise your own personal existance. OTOH, if it doesn't work for you then ignoring others is always an option. It is just more logical to try privacy first since it's much easier to try the former then switch to the latter if it doesn't work than vice versa.
Slashdot Mirror
The correct solution, but the wrong reasoning. Before western meddling many of these people were farmers and produced enough food to feed their population, even in the desert. Farming is difficult, and droughts are deadly, so birth rates were very high to generate more field hands and replace them as they died. Enter food handouts and medicine. Suddenly the population explodes and the ratio of food to person drops. Furthermore, farmers can't compete with free, so they can't sell their excess crops to buy the stuff they can't grow, thus making farming non-viable. So you have a bunch of unemployed people that are pretty pissed off. Enter a tyrannical government or militant group that sells the donated food, and you have a bad situation.
OTOH, these populations are now dependent on that food, and stopping it would kill a lot of people, both in the short term, and the long term by increasing mortality to what it used to be. Of course, the occasional genocide and mass starvation is also bad. I can't really say which would cause fewer people to die overall... My personal opinion is that trying to bring the whole world up to first world standards is impossible for the foreseeable future, so we shouldn't disrupt societies with half-way measures that create more problems than they solve. The problem is figuring out how to close Pandora's Box now that we've opened it.
Sure there is a right to force you to do something. In this case the government is codifying the social contract. If you need assistance then others are compelled to help you. For that right, you have the responsibility to render assistance if it's needed from you. To not do so is cheating the system, and one of human society's main functions is to punish cheaters. It's similar to paying taxes for the things that the government funds monetarily.
That's you? Well, what do you expect when your cellphone doesn't even broadcast on the right frequencies...
You're conflating research with clinical practice. In research the embryonic cells are vastly easier to work with, which hastens progress, reduces expense, and eliminates one source of errors. Clinically, adult stem cells are more useful since a person could receive transplants that were immunologically indistinguishable from their own body, thus negating the need for immunosupressants and reducing the need for organ donors.
I would suppose the difference in opinion is rooted in the concept of a child. At one end of the spectrum people view children as possessions of the parents and on the other they are viewed as fully autonomous individuals. Homeschooling as a right meshes better with people on the former end of the spectrum, whereas the latter end would view education to be a basic right that should be handled by the best (unbiased) professionals the state can provide. Obviously few people are on the extremes, but there seems to be considerable variation as to where people stand.
Well, the preconceived notions about school need to quit being taught in school if they are to go away... Oh, wait... (I'm not saying you're wrong, just that these notions would be uniquely difficult to preconceive. They're more likely to be outdated or exaggerated.)
I would image they're waiting until they can sell ipv6 support to people who don't have it. Really, all it'd probably take is a firmware update but how many users will do that rather than buy a new router with "Compatible with IPv6!!!" on the box? Perhaps the strategy is to wait and market it as an upgrade or wait for a major ISP to start NAT-ing ipv4 rather than buy new address space.
Prions are dangerous mainly because proteins are more stable than nucleic acids, so sterilization techniques that are adequate against viruses and bacteria aren't effective against prion-based diseases like BSE and CJD.
Minor correction: Proteins, in general aren't particularly stable. Some are, but others aren't. Your DNA, depending on the G-C content, will melt at ~140 F, whereas a bad fever will start to denature proteins at ~108 F. Even PrP-C (Prion Protein - normal, endogenous form) isn't particularly stable. The PrP-SC (disease form, e.g. Scrapie, Mad Cow, or CJD) converts some of PrP-C's alpha helices into more compacted beta-pleated sheets, which make the protein very resistant to heat and the body's natural proteases. It also makes it aggregate into amyloid deposits in the brain, which are even more stable. These deposits create a "sponge-like" appearance, hence why the diseases are called "spongiform encephalopathy".
There are a great many methods that can be uses to kill something with DNA (parasites, bacteria, viruses, etc.), such as UV light, moist heat, and various chemicals. The PrP-SC can "survive" normal autoclave temperatures that kill almost everything else. Since they lack DNA, UV light and DNA-degrading chemicals aren't going to do much to them. And because they're a single protein it's very difficult to develop a drug that can target them specifically, degrade them, and not affect the normal PrP-C. The body's antibodies might work, but they stay out of the brain due to the blood-brain barrier (also why meningitis can easily kill you), although this effect is reduced if inflammation occurs.
One tragedy of CJD is that PrP-SC amyloid deposits stay in the brain, so the only way to be sure of the diagnosis of CJD is by brain biopsy. Therefore, it's commonly misdiagnosed, neurosurgery is performed on that patient, and PrP-SC gets on the surgeon's instruments. Since standard sterilization techniques are insufficient, it's often spread to other patients before being noticed.
While it's cheaper, does it really provide that much science? Sure, it's the most cost effective way to explore Mars, but does knowing the position, shape, and maybe the composition of a few Martian stones really help humanity?
Probes and manned space flight advance two different academic fields. Probes tell us what's in our solar system. That's useful for astronomers, perhaps some advance physics, and generates some neat pictures. Manned space flight is much more expensive because of the added challenges, such as life support, shielding, and returning to Earth, which advance biology and engineering a bit more. OTOH, many of the same technologies can be used for humans on Earth, thus making them more useful IMHO. They also would generate more interest in space, hence more funding, and have a greater potential for eventual economic payoff.
Here are some examples of technology that was developed for space travel that has made its way into everyday life. Notice the disproportionate amount of advances that can from manned space flight as compared to probes. Of course, the ratio might be a bit closer to dollars spent in each area, but there's low hanging fruit to be had in both. If we concentrate all of our money in probes then we'll eventually be spending billions to see one novel technology that's useful for more than just building better probes, as compared to dozens of technologies that might result from developing a manned spacecraft.
Meh, most lab research in biology fail on the first few attempts. DIY biology is likely to have an even higher failure rate, especially with stuff that hasn't been done a thousand times before. Beyond that, if grey goo or a super bug was feasible the natural bacteria would've done it ages ago.
Sadly, the common sense necessary to discern this is lacking. Most people seem to lack all sense of situational awareness. Hence why so many people have conversations in doorways, or vastly over-prioritize taking a phone call regardless to whether they're driving or talking to someone else.
An alternative would be to increase the volume of the second party to match how loudly you speak. So if you must shout because it's noisy, then the other person's voice is amplified to match. Conversely, if you're whispering in a quiet room, the volume is reduced. It could be marketed as a feature.
I'd actually count filing a false DMCA claim to be worse than infringement. In the case of the former they're well aware that they are starting something that'll be expensive and consume a lot of people's time. So the burden of error-checking ought to be a lot higher.
Personally I'd like 73.150.2.210, though it looks a bit nicer in base 10.
Depending on how bad a person's arrhythmia is, and the type of failure, probably nothing immediate, though they'd obviously want to get to a hospital ASAP. A pacemaker getting hit by this type of device would probably cause a premature contraction in the heart, and maybe burns, both of which would be dangerous. OTOH, with how ubiquitous EM fields are nowadays, especially in medical imaging, I have to wonder why pacemakers are unshielded, and some even ferromagnetic. Statistically, though, I'd estimate that people with pacemakers are more likely to be hit by a fleeing criminal than be too close to this device being used.
Well, to count as a "meat" or "vegetable" there has to be a certain quantity, and daycares are audited every so often to ensure they're meeting the nutritional guidelines. They do make silly mistakes at times (e.g. counting macaroni & cheese as a vegetable), but overall it's more nutritious than what most kids get at home. Don't forget that children have different nutritional requirements than adults, food vendors are well aware of the nutritional requirements and of child preferences and make food to match, and that there are a lot of misconceptions about nutrition.
That's my impression. Or more precisely, a few dolphins can kill a shark, but a shark can kill a dolphin one-on-one. So it's in a dolphin's best interest to kill them while they have the advantage. (It's rather impressive, the dolphins will actually use echolocation to locate and target internal organs.) Or it's also entirely possible that dolphins kill sharks for kicks. They kinda do that to other animals, and are certainly intelligent enough.
I'm a little curious as to what happens to a bird that tries to fly through the beam... Although I suppose that could be a selling point if marketed correctly, like in New York. Too far north for conventional solar, not enough land for a lot of options, you get the power right where it's needed, nearly zero risk of terrorism, and people get to see the "sky rats" catch fire mid-flight.
I mean an Intel GMA 4500 MHD (X4500 HD for desktops). Both the tech specs and Linux drivers are freely available. I got it because I needed h264 decoding and prefer open spec. 3D performance is good enough for circa 2005 games.
I have to wonder why the 950 rather than something a little newer... My laptop's a year old and has a 4500 MHD, which was equivalent to a low end nVidia or ATI card from a year prior, and can do h264 hardware decoding.
Well, if ReactOS was a usable Windows replacement then you'd open up the option of using a completely open source system for Windows users that would rather not relearn how to use a computer. Businesses could be guaranteed that their legacy software has a very good chance of working with new hardware since they aren't beholden to Microsoft's corporate decisions. Furthermore, big businesses could roll their own version of ReactOS that best fit their own needs.
ReactOS has the potential to drastically weaken the Windows dominance of the desktop PC. Once the monopoly is broken then competition explodes, much like how Firefox paved the way for Opera, Chrome, and others. The small players, in turn, force the big ones to keep up with innovation. So, to address your point, ReactOS becoming usable would force Windows and Linux to both improve, which is a win.
Probably around the time that whitehouse.com went from being a porn site to being a domain squatter. Without the memorable lesson in the difference between .gov and .com, many internet users probably don't even realize that .gov exists.
As a poster above mentioned, allowing 2nd level domains is a good trade off between security and convenience. Before I used NoScript I blocked external scripts using a proxy filter for years, and it's only been in the past couple that I've bothered whitelisting anything. Basically, a few APIs (e.g. Google's) and some oddly configured sites that use multiple 1st level domains are about it. Other than those, it is quite rare for a script from an external host to be something that is beneficial for the user. Usually they're ads, stat counters, or something flashy and annoying. This will get you into trouble with some shopping sites though, like Pizza Hut's where I wasn't sure if my order was placed or not, and didn't want to refresh and possible order another pizza. So I whitelisted "https://*", and that seems to work well.
Interestingly, I've had non-technical people do odd things if I use my own subdomain e-mail address rather than something like GMail or my school account. Most often I notice that someone will completely ignore me. Once I even had a "I don't know who you are, but don't impersonate my students" response from a teacher. My guess is that such people assume nobody they know is technically oriented enough to figure out how to setup their e-mail a bit differently.
Privacy is more than the protection against humiliation, it is a tool to prevent others from acting on incomplete information. If everyone knew everything about everyone then we'd be a very tolerant people that probably preemptively executed or isolated the hopelessly sociopathic. The problem is that such a world is impossible since we cannot know what a person is thinking, nor monitor them all the time, nor remember that much information even if it were available. Therefore, we're forced to make decisions about people given our very limited information on them. Since it's nearly impossible to be completely independent of other humans, we must do what we can to guide their opinions and decisions in a way that benefits us. This is necessary for both gene propagation and rational happiness.
As for genetics, traits that enable us to have the greatest number of progeny are selected for. This means that our emotions are beneficial for this, and most likely happiness itself is a reward for getting closer to this goal. Either way, we are what we are. These traits don't work against us, they are us. Beyond that, there isn't really a "humiliation" gene. There are genes that construct neurons which form fairly random neural networks, and genes that provide feedback to shape these networks into something evolutionarily useful. Besides genes, human society also shapes these networks, and there's an evolutionary benefit to emulating successful behaviors. Without doing so a human cannot achieve a high level of functionality, since that would be akin to the first caveman building a car (then insuring it).
While it's true that you could probably mold your "happiness" to not be at all dependent on others, how is that beneficial? If something displeases you then you have two ways to solve that problem. The first is to change yourself so that it no longer displeases you, and the other is to change it. Privacy is a means of preemptively changing society, or at least how you fit into it. It's a perfectly valid solution, and one that doesn't compromise your own personal existance. OTOH, if it doesn't work for you then ignoring others is always an option. It is just more logical to try privacy first since it's much easier to try the former then switch to the latter if it doesn't work than vice versa.