Since there are already so many different strains with different flocculation properties, I don't really see what the genetic modification gains you.
Perhaps you have a strain with the desired flavor profile, but it is a poor flocculator. It may be much cheaper to engineer that strain to flocculate well than to try to develop a strain with the same flavor profile but high flocculation.
Flavor profile + attenuation + flocculation... it may be very hard to get all three the way you want them without engineering one or more characteristic.
So now a "cyber" attack includes the physical destruction of hardware/infrastructure without any exploitation of any programming logic?
The usage struck me as odd, too.
I always figured "cyber-" refers to the mechanism, not the target. A cyber-attack would therefore be one that was perpetrated using "cyberspace", or our communications and communications control mechanisms... This attack, while targeting "cyberspace" infrastructure, was a meatspace attack.
We wouldn't claim that a missile launched from the ground that targets a ship at sea is a naval attack, would we? It's a missile attack.
Reducing single points of failure is what is needed, which is not the same thing as multiplying the places it is possible to have failure.
But all the methods you describe have merit, but they also have a huge drawback -- cost. It's hard to get private entities to absorb the cost of redundant fiber, etc, since they will see very little gain from them.
So is the answer to nationalize our fiber infrastructure? Is that the only way we can make our systems secure?
I'm not sure exactly who 'they' are, but buzzwords must be coming from somewhere.
Well, in this case, we're talking about the government. But I think most buzzwords come from marketing people. These are people who are *paid* to come up with buzzwords... and if someone else comes up with a good one, they all jump to use it.
Heaven forbid a company is seen to be behind-the-curve because they use outdated verbiage... surely that means they use outdated tech, right?
Anyway, thinking by typing here... I bet there's a measurable business buzzword cycle that makes it seem like there are new buzzwords every six months. Just like urban buzzwords. Differentiation is the key... so once everyone is using the term, it's time to find a new term.
Remember when all the whiteys started sticking out their tongue and saying "Wazzzzzuuuuuupp?!" Once Larry in purchasing starts using terms like "leverage our core competencies" it's time to find a new corporate buzzphrase. Once every Tom, Dick & Harry webdev starts splashing "Web 2.0" on their sites, it's time to find a new marketing buzzword.
The nice thing about government, in re: buzzwords, is that not only are they slow to adopt new terminology, they are even slower to change. So something they get hold of tends to stick around for a long time... hence instead of "cyber" being a buzzword, it becomes accepted usage, simply because the government is a sluggish monolith (though many libertarians might consider it a monstrous Shoggoth instead).
Since that didn't work out so well for them re: the internet, I'm not all that worried.
Out of curiosity, why do you think it didn't work out so well for them re: the internet?
Maybe, just possibly, because people were worried, and therefore monitored what MS was doing, and made sure MS wasn't allowed to leverage their desktop monopoly advantage?
You may not worry, but if no one worries, then we could have a problem.
But that's OK, you can rest comfortable knowing someone else will fix all the problems you can't be bothered to worry about:) Meanwhile, you can focus your attentions on something you can be bothered to worry about. That's good division of labor. Just remember come tax time next year, it's partly your taxes* that make sure MS doesn't abuse its monopoly.
*Offer only valid for residents of the EU. Here in the US, our taxes go towards paying lipservice by prosecuting MS, then dropping the ball when it comes time for making a decision, enforcement and follow-up. Though, it seemed to work out OK re: internet browsers, as we've now got a pretty good competitive market, as long as we keep vigilant. Though a lot of that has been because MS had to play by EU rules.
Can the snippet be re-written in English please? I don't speak Lawyeresse.
Lawyeresse? Is that German for the eating of lawyers? Sounds like a good idea.
Seriously, though, it wasn't that hard to understand. Google is you friend... so is a dictionary. If you really want to understand a legal issue, you need to learn the legal terms, as they don't always translate easily to vernacular English. A single legal term might need 20-30 words to explain in simple English without muddying what is being said.
I would really like to know how much the Daily Mail paid for this.
I don't know, but after reading that songlist I'm gonna go home and make sweet, sweet love to my wife.
OK, I'm actually going to go home and try to put the moves on my wife, who will reject me because she's "too tired" or "has a headache" or "is dying from some venereal disease" or some other lame excuse.
Who am I kidding? I'm going to go home, go downstairs to my cave, and masturbate quietly so my mom doesn't hear, just like every night.
There's not enough toilets for the number of butts. They could certainly benefit from upgraded bathroom bandwidth.
Instead of increasing bandwidth, what about using traffic-shaping instead? I'm not sure if this is something that could be automated, or if it would need to be done manually [shudder].
Obviously, to anyone familiar with overselling is aware of, the problem is not the number of users for the bandwidth assigned. The problem is likely that 2% of your poopers consume (bad word choice, I know) 98% of your bandwidth, resulting in a logjam of epic proportions just after lunch. They key would be to cap their usage, so that everyone else can use the bandwidth in moderate amounts.
Most likely, your excessive users are illegally logsharing anyway. There can't be any legitimate reason for someone to spend 4 hours a workday on the crapper, can there?
Eye tracking would be much faster and easier to implement. FTA "I've seen people do up to eight characters per minute." That is ridiculously slow.
Aside from people who cannot move their eyeballs due to some kind of paralysis... so what? It's slow -- now. It's possible that further developments could speed it up a lot. It's also possible that the ceiling on this tech may be higher than the ceiling on eye-tracking... who knows, until there's been a lot more study and advancement?
The first internal combustion vehicles were very much inferior to horse & carriage... but that didn't mean the concept was bad.
Music doesn't work that well for me, I find myself paying attention to it instead of the task at hand. That's been my experience for all the music I've tried to work to... while it may help me become marginally productive when I'm not in the mood to work, I'm never able to hit the Zone with music playing. I've tried almost everything (rap & pop country excluded, because I don't own any), and all of it distracts me (techno (of multiple types), classical (about 20 different composers), smooth jazz, swing, classical jazz, jazz fusion, blues, bluegrass, classic rock, prog rock, folk rock, hard metal, hair metal, death metal, pop from the 70s to the 90s, folk, blues, doo-wop, you name it, I've probably tried it.
This sounds like we're getting that much closer to a human computer interface.
Tell him we've already got one.
Monitor + keyboard.
Sure, I know what you mean -- a direct neural interface instead of a kinetic input device (like a keyboard).
I think you're looking at it from the wrong perspective though, in terms of coolness. Instead of implanting a neural interface, wouldn't it be much better if we could just use telekinesis? Then we don't have to deal with extremely messy surgical hardware upgrades.
Now, if I can just get a grant for my midichlorian synthesis research...
Today, she chooses him by the size of his wallet. Evolution 2.0, if you will.
I don't know about all of the world, but in the US and Europe, at least, number of children is inversely proportional to wealth.
From an evolutionary standpoint, the best strategy is either to be poor and religious, or poor and urban. Physical appearance is still a very important selection criteria, especially to people whose strategy is not based on monogamy... and as for fitness of the offspring, physical attractiveness of both partners signifies physical health, which contributes to success of the offspring.
After the best quality code? The best place is a quiet place, free of distractions, where the problem can be easily and clearly understood.
I'm not sure that's a universal truth. I concentrate best, for example, where there is a constant murmur (or even din) of background noise. It doesn't matter if it's quiet or loud, but both silence, and variations in the volume of noise, are bad.
I've produced some of my best code next to a loud brook, birds chirping, etc -- but I've also produced some of my best code in a noisy bar at happy hour and in Grand Central Station at rush hour.
Silence is anathema to good quality code for me -- constant subtle distractions are a great way of grabbing my focus when necessary so that my subconscious can work out a problem.
Rotating the image into your field of view would destroy some of the spatial awareness of the data.
One of the points is for spatial awareness to more easily come into play when interpreting data.
Pretend you are a drug researcher, and you're working on developing analogues of naturally-occuring protein substrates. If you have a 360 model of the receptor site of the protein, being able to visualize the space your substrate fits into could help you identify possible analogues.
For an oversimplified example, look at epinephrine, which is a naturally occuring substance in the body that binds with adrenergic receptors and causes a response. Adding a methyl group in the right spot gives you a different compound that binds with adrenergic receptors more than epinephrine, but causes no response. Thus we have a compound that can be used as a drug to prevent that response. Or, maybe we can build a drug that increases the response.
Epinephrine drugs are well-understood... but there are many possible drugs that could be developed if we had better modeling and understanding of protein receptor sites. An encompassing 360 view of a receptor site could result in a breakthrough.
There are a ton of other ways this could be useful, that's just one example.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps you have a strain with the desired flavor profile, but it is a poor flocculator. It may be much cheaper to engineer that strain to flocculate well than to try to develop a strain with the same flavor profile but high flocculation.
Flavor profile + attenuation + flocculation... it may be very hard to get all three the way you want them without engineering one or more characteristic.
Agreed. With multiple closure tags, the HTML terrorists could have knocked out one of them, and it still would have closed properly.
Oh I'm sorry, they're not terrorists, they're disgruntled web developers.
The day my employer strips me of my loosely bound electrons is the day I give notice.
Unless of course I'm on the "to be negatively charged" list, in which case:
Sucks to be you, alkali employees!!!
Yes, but only so far as better-tasting beer can help scientists get laid.
THAT, my friend, is the true purpose of science.
Without attacks there is little need to build robust systems.
Except natural disasters, of course, but you can turn them off in the options menu.
The usage struck me as odd, too.
I always figured "cyber-" refers to the mechanism, not the target. A cyber-attack would therefore be one that was perpetrated using "cyberspace", or our communications and communications control mechanisms... This attack, while targeting "cyberspace" infrastructure, was a meatspace attack.
We wouldn't claim that a missile launched from the ground that targets a ship at sea is a naval attack, would we? It's a missile attack.
He was delicious.
I concur. Especially with eggs. Or spiced and pressed into a can.
I'm not sure that means what you think it means :)
Reducing single points of failure is what is needed, which is not the same thing as multiplying the places it is possible to have failure.
But all the methods you describe have merit, but they also have a huge drawback -- cost. It's hard to get private entities to absorb the cost of redundant fiber, etc, since they will see very little gain from them.
So is the answer to nationalize our fiber infrastructure? Is that the only way we can make our systems secure?
Define terrorism.
Now define terrorist organization.
If an organized group of people orchestrated this attack in order to bring attention to some goal, wouldn't that make them a terrorist group?
Admittedly, an attack on property is not the same as an attack on people, but yet... to me this seems textbook.
Maybe you could try reading the footnote sometime :)
Well, in this case, we're talking about the government. But I think most buzzwords come from marketing people. These are people who are *paid* to come up with buzzwords... and if someone else comes up with a good one, they all jump to use it.
Heaven forbid a company is seen to be behind-the-curve because they use outdated verbiage... surely that means they use outdated tech, right?
Anyway, thinking by typing here... I bet there's a measurable business buzzword cycle that makes it seem like there are new buzzwords every six months. Just like urban buzzwords. Differentiation is the key... so once everyone is using the term, it's time to find a new term.
Remember when all the whiteys started sticking out their tongue and saying "Wazzzzzuuuuuupp?!" Once Larry in purchasing starts using terms like "leverage our core competencies" it's time to find a new corporate buzzphrase. Once every Tom, Dick & Harry webdev starts splashing "Web 2.0" on their sites, it's time to find a new marketing buzzword.
The nice thing about government, in re: buzzwords, is that not only are they slow to adopt new terminology, they are even slower to change. So something they get hold of tends to stick around for a long time... hence instead of "cyber" being a buzzword, it becomes accepted usage, simply because the government is a sluggish monolith (though many libertarians might consider it a monstrous Shoggoth instead).
Out of curiosity, why do you think it didn't work out so well for them re: the internet?
:) Meanwhile, you can focus your attentions on something you can be bothered to worry about. That's good division of labor. Just remember come tax time next year, it's partly your taxes* that make sure MS doesn't abuse its monopoly.
Maybe, just possibly, because people were worried, and therefore monitored what MS was doing, and made sure MS wasn't allowed to leverage their desktop monopoly advantage?
You may not worry, but if no one worries, then we could have a problem.
But that's OK, you can rest comfortable knowing someone else will fix all the problems you can't be bothered to worry about
*Offer only valid for residents of the EU. Here in the US, our taxes go towards paying lipservice by prosecuting MS, then dropping the ball when it comes time for making a decision, enforcement and follow-up. Though, it seemed to work out OK re: internet browsers, as we've now got a pretty good competitive market, as long as we keep vigilant. Though a lot of that has been because MS had to play by EU rules.
So, you'd rather have the jargon-of-the-month than to settle upon a standard term?
Seriously? You'll get over it, bub. In the meantime, I'm very thankful that they're not making up new buzzwords every 6 months.
Lawyeresse? Is that German for the eating of lawyers? Sounds like a good idea.
Seriously, though, it wasn't that hard to understand. Google is you friend... so is a dictionary. If you really want to understand a legal issue, you need to learn the legal terms, as they don't always translate easily to vernacular English. A single legal term might need 20-30 words to explain in simple English without muddying what is being said.
If you can't watergate, waterboard.
x283.
I don't know, but after reading that songlist I'm gonna go home and make sweet, sweet love to my wife.
OK, I'm actually going to go home and try to put the moves on my wife, who will reject me because she's "too tired" or "has a headache" or "is dying from some venereal disease" or some other lame excuse.
Who am I kidding? I'm going to go home, go downstairs to my cave, and masturbate quietly so my mom doesn't hear, just like every night.
OF WHAT?! Ewww...
Instead of increasing bandwidth, what about using traffic-shaping instead? I'm not sure if this is something that could be automated, or if it would need to be done manually [shudder].
Obviously, to anyone familiar with overselling is aware of, the problem is not the number of users for the bandwidth assigned. The problem is likely that 2% of your poopers consume (bad word choice, I know) 98% of your bandwidth, resulting in a logjam of epic proportions just after lunch. They key would be to cap their usage, so that everyone else can use the bandwidth in moderate amounts.
Most likely, your excessive users are illegally logsharing anyway. There can't be any legitimate reason for someone to spend 4 hours a workday on the crapper, can there?
Aside from people who cannot move their eyeballs due to some kind of paralysis... so what? It's slow -- now. It's possible that further developments could speed it up a lot. It's also possible that the ceiling on this tech may be higher than the ceiling on eye-tracking... who knows, until there's been a lot more study and advancement?
The first internal combustion vehicles were very much inferior to horse & carriage... but that didn't mean the concept was bad.
Music doesn't work that well for me, I find myself paying attention to it instead of the task at hand. That's been my experience for all the music I've tried to work to... while it may help me become marginally productive when I'm not in the mood to work, I'm never able to hit the Zone with music playing. I've tried almost everything (rap & pop country excluded, because I don't own any), and all of it distracts me (techno (of multiple types), classical (about 20 different composers), smooth jazz, swing, classical jazz, jazz fusion, blues, bluegrass, classic rock, prog rock, folk rock, hard metal, hair metal, death metal, pop from the 70s to the 90s, folk, blues, doo-wop, you name it, I've probably tried it.
Tell him we've already got one.
Monitor + keyboard.
Sure, I know what you mean -- a direct neural interface instead of a kinetic input device (like a keyboard).
I think you're looking at it from the wrong perspective though, in terms of coolness. Instead of implanting a neural interface, wouldn't it be much better if we could just use telekinesis? Then we don't have to deal with extremely messy surgical hardware upgrades.
Now, if I can just get a grant for my midichlorian synthesis research...
I don't know about all of the world, but in the US and Europe, at least, number of children is inversely proportional to wealth.
From an evolutionary standpoint, the best strategy is either to be poor and religious, or poor and urban. Physical appearance is still a very important selection criteria, especially to people whose strategy is not based on monogamy... and as for fitness of the offspring, physical attractiveness of both partners signifies physical health, which contributes to success of the offspring.
In short, physical appearance is still important.
I'm not sure that's a universal truth. I concentrate best, for example, where there is a constant murmur (or even din) of background noise. It doesn't matter if it's quiet or loud, but both silence, and variations in the volume of noise, are bad.
I've produced some of my best code next to a loud brook, birds chirping, etc -- but I've also produced some of my best code in a noisy bar at happy hour and in Grand Central Station at rush hour.
Silence is anathema to good quality code for me -- constant subtle distractions are a great way of grabbing my focus when necessary so that my subconscious can work out a problem.
It'll never happen, it would destroy tips.
Then take a sibling of the gummy bear in question, and measure its smallest width. That is the amount you should add.
Rotating the image into your field of view would destroy some of the spatial awareness of the data.
One of the points is for spatial awareness to more easily come into play when interpreting data.
Pretend you are a drug researcher, and you're working on developing analogues of naturally-occuring protein substrates. If you have a 360 model of the receptor site of the protein, being able to visualize the space your substrate fits into could help you identify possible analogues.
For an oversimplified example, look at epinephrine, which is a naturally occuring substance in the body that binds with adrenergic receptors and causes a response. Adding a methyl group in the right spot gives you a different compound that binds with adrenergic receptors more than epinephrine, but causes no response. Thus we have a compound that can be used as a drug to prevent that response. Or, maybe we can build a drug that increases the response.
Epinephrine drugs are well-understood... but there are many possible drugs that could be developed if we had better modeling and understanding of protein receptor sites. An encompassing 360 view of a receptor site could result in a breakthrough.
There are a ton of other ways this could be useful, that's just one example.