A fight or conversation that happens to be overheard by someone in public is different from something you intentionally broadcast on an online profile for all of your friends to see. Your nosy neighbor doesn't look over your fence and then post his findings to YOUR Facebook profile.
Online profiles are collections of information that people CHOOSE to broadcast about themselves to anyone they like. With the news feeds, the only people who see this information are the people who already had access to it, and the only information they see is the information you chose to share with them. If it seems creepy, then maybe you're sharing too much information.
"Or how about you got in a fight with your wife and I could hear it from outside so I recorded and played it back over the PA system at your office the next day?"
Wow you have REALLY missed the point. Facebook isn't posting private conversations between their users, they're only listing information that their users have PUBLICLY posted on their profiles. If you decide to post on facebook that you broke up with your girlfriend, why would you be upset that your friends find out about it?! If you are upset then why are you posting it?!
It's like putting up a billboard, then getting upset that the billboard was in the newspaper.
I'm disappointed that facebook has listened to these whiners. It should be a feature that is turned on/off by the feed reader, not the person whose actions are producing the feed. If you don't want to read it, fine. But if I want to log in and see which of my friends updated pictures, joined groups, etc, then I'd much rather just view the feed.
In a free stock market, the prices are dictated not by what the seller thinks they are worth, but by what the buyers are willing to pay. The RIAA has never been very concerned with what people are willing to pay, all they want is money, more and more money, and they will NEVER do anything that puts their consumers in a position to dictate their pricing.
I was hoping to see the studios start using his technology somehow, but I guess that would require them to embrace technology, something they don't exactly have a track record for doing (Betamax, anyone?)
BTW - Per www.genomesize.com "Largest animal genome size: ~133pg in Protopterus aethiopicus, the marbled lungfish. "
In addition, the values for amoebae were based on rough biochemical measurements of total cellular DNA content (Friz 1968), which probably includes a significant fraction of mitochondrial DNA. The accuracy of this method is brought into question when one considers that Friz's (1968) value of 300pg for Amoeba proteus is an order of magnitude higher than those reported in subsequent studies (Byers 1986). Second, some amoebae (e.g., A. proteus) contain 500-1000 small chromosomes and are quite possibly highly polyploid (Byers 1986), in which case these values would be inappropriate for a comparison of haploid genome sizes among eukaryotes. Of course, this has little impact on the need to explain variation in genome size; it may just mean that these impressive examples will require replacement by some based on more reliable estimates.
You make too many assumptions, discard them.
I never said a change in the size of the genome, for one organism to become another requires genetic information that was not present in the previous organism.
Either way your argument about avian flu does not hold up.
"No "increase" in genetic information is necessary."
A siginificant increase in genetic information is necessary for a single celled organism to evolve into a human.
But back to your original post....
The avian flu would not have to evolve into another organism to be able to spread from human to human, the change necessary is a small mutation that would be a microevolutionary change. Even if this did occur as in other flu viruses that mutate every year, it does nothing to uphold the theory of macroevolution.
Just getting someone to admit they're afraid of the avian flu doesn't mean you've just gotten them to admit they believe in macroevolution, it just means you've defeated your straw man.
"So, if they're afraid of the Avian Flu, they MUST believe in evolution. "
Don't confuse microevolution for macroevolution. Macroevolution requires the emergence of completely new species, having DNA which includes extra information not present in previous generations.
The avian flu is not an example of macroevolution. Though the flu virus itself may have mutated into other strains, it hasn't evolved into a completely different organism. The mutations of different strains of the flu does not substantiate the theory of one species evolving into another.
A mutating flu is not the same thing as one species evolving into another. That doesn't support evolution any more than seeing people with different colors of hair or eyes. If you're trying to make a point, at least use a good/valid argument.
Finally I can create a satellite with a giant "laser" and hold the world ransom for......ONE MILLION DOLLARS!
Re:An Error in this program would be a shame...
on
Spammers on the Run
·
· Score: 1
If this is done correctly, no innocent server owners will have a problem. Bluesecurity warns the host and the spammer before anything happens. And if something DOES happen, it's not a DDOS in the traditional sense of as many computers as possible pounding away at a site, simply one response for each e-mail sent. The software just automates the process so I don't have to spend 5 minutes on the spammers site trying to figure out how to express my hate of spam.
"Against a clear backdrop of what is right and what is wrong - what is legal and what is illegal - it is as important now as ever to encourage our fans do the right thing" - Cary Sherman, President of the RIAA
Perhaps a good way would be to lead by example....
You don't need to fine people who respond to spam. 90% of them are getting ripped off anyways. And it does no good to fine the spammers, most of the times they're sleazeballs who would ignore that too.
Some people say 9 years in prison is too harsh, but I don't agree. We NEED to continue to make examples out of these scumbags until spammers start to realize that if they continue to do what they do, they'll end up locked away with a (hopefully) large, horny cellmate.
Slashdot Mirror
A fight or conversation that happens to be overheard by someone in public is different from something you intentionally broadcast on an online profile for all of your friends to see. Your nosy neighbor doesn't look over your fence and then post his findings to YOUR Facebook profile. Online profiles are collections of information that people CHOOSE to broadcast about themselves to anyone they like. With the news feeds, the only people who see this information are the people who already had access to it, and the only information they see is the information you chose to share with them. If it seems creepy, then maybe you're sharing too much information.
"Or how about you got in a fight with your wife and I could hear it from outside so I recorded and played it back over the PA system at your office the next day?"
Wow you have REALLY missed the point. Facebook isn't posting private conversations between their users, they're only listing information that their users have PUBLICLY posted on their profiles. If you decide to post on facebook that you broke up with your girlfriend, why would you be upset that your friends find out about it?! If you are upset then why are you posting it?!
It's like putting up a billboard, then getting upset that the billboard was in the newspaper.
I'm disappointed that facebook has listened to these whiners. It should be a feature that is turned on/off by the feed reader, not the person whose actions are producing the feed. If you don't want to read it, fine. But if I want to log in and see which of my friends updated pictures, joined groups, etc, then I'd much rather just view the feed.
You'd just have to describe it's condition like on e-bay. "New", "Like New", "Slightly Used"
In a free stock market, the prices are dictated not by what the seller thinks they are worth, but by what the buyers are willing to pay. The RIAA has never been very concerned with what people are willing to pay, all they want is money, more and more money, and they will NEVER do anything that puts their consumers in a position to dictate their pricing.
I was hoping to see the studios start using his technology somehow, but I guess that would require them to embrace technology, something they don't exactly have a track record for doing (Betamax, anyone?)
BTW - Per www.genomesize.com "Largest animal genome size: ~133pg in Protopterus aethiopicus, the marbled lungfish. " In addition, the values for amoebae were based on rough biochemical measurements of total cellular DNA content (Friz 1968), which probably includes a significant fraction of mitochondrial DNA. The accuracy of this method is brought into question when one considers that Friz's (1968) value of 300pg for Amoeba proteus is an order of magnitude higher than those reported in subsequent studies (Byers 1986). Second, some amoebae (e.g., A. proteus) contain 500-1000 small chromosomes and are quite possibly highly polyploid (Byers 1986), in which case these values would be inappropriate for a comparison of haploid genome sizes among eukaryotes. Of course, this has little impact on the need to explain variation in genome size; it may just mean that these impressive examples will require replacement by some based on more reliable estimates. You make too many assumptions, discard them.
I never said a change in the size of the genome, for one organism to become another requires genetic information that was not present in the previous organism. Either way your argument about avian flu does not hold up.
"No "increase" in genetic information is necessary." A siginificant increase in genetic information is necessary for a single celled organism to evolve into a human. But back to your original post.... The avian flu would not have to evolve into another organism to be able to spread from human to human, the change necessary is a small mutation that would be a microevolutionary change. Even if this did occur as in other flu viruses that mutate every year, it does nothing to uphold the theory of macroevolution. Just getting someone to admit they're afraid of the avian flu doesn't mean you've just gotten them to admit they believe in macroevolution, it just means you've defeated your straw man.
"So, if they're afraid of the Avian Flu, they MUST believe in evolution. " Don't confuse microevolution for macroevolution. Macroevolution requires the emergence of completely new species, having DNA which includes extra information not present in previous generations. The avian flu is not an example of macroevolution. Though the flu virus itself may have mutated into other strains, it hasn't evolved into a completely different organism. The mutations of different strains of the flu does not substantiate the theory of one species evolving into another.
I'm saying, the existance of Avian flu may lend support microevolution, but it doesn't make macroevolution any more or less believable.
A mutating flu is not the same thing as one species evolving into another. That doesn't support evolution any more than seeing people with different colors of hair or eyes. If you're trying to make a point, at least use a good/valid argument.
Think of it as a tax on ignorance.
Okay then. We hold the world ransom for.....One hundred..BILLION DOLLARS!!
Finally I can create a satellite with a giant "laser" and hold the world ransom for......ONE MILLION DOLLARS!
If this is done correctly, no innocent server owners will have a problem. Bluesecurity warns the host and the spammer before anything happens. And if something DOES happen, it's not a DDOS in the traditional sense of as many computers as possible pounding away at a site, simply one response for each e-mail sent. The software just automates the process so I don't have to spend 5 minutes on the spammers site trying to figure out how to express my hate of spam.
"Against a clear backdrop of what is right and what is wrong - what is legal and what is illegal - it is as important now as ever to encourage our fans do the right thing" - Cary Sherman, President of the RIAA Perhaps a good way would be to lead by example....
....or we're tired BECAUSE of the noise they produce
"This is not unsolicited e-mail, you clicked thumbs up on Tivo to learn more about V1aGrA"
You don't need to fine people who respond to spam. 90% of them are getting ripped off anyways. And it does no good to fine the spammers, most of the times they're sleazeballs who would ignore that too.
Some people say 9 years in prison is too harsh, but I don't agree. We NEED to continue to make examples out of these scumbags until spammers start to realize that if they continue to do what they do, they'll end up locked away with a (hopefully) large, horny cellmate.