Cdk5 inhibitors suppress the linkage of the stimuli to the fear response. This has nothing to do with memory suppression, it has to do with making those memories (or fireworks, etc) no longer excite the fear center in the amygdala.
One could just as easily "pre-treat" combat participants during training in conjunction with this drug which would help prevent the fear response in combat situations. This is one of the same reasons there is simulated combat in training, a drug like this would make that training more effective.
This is not a drug that controls fear in the present moment. It has absolutely nothing to do with either situation you mention.
I did RTFA, but I was responding to the OP. Do you know that for certain? Almost all fear is a learned response -- this mechanism could prevent combat fear as well if it is administered in conjunction with training to overcome such fear during a period prior to combat.
I'm not talking about "pop a pill and be fearless" -- I'm talking about "pop these pills and go through our 'courage training'".
This is not to say that there is no medical value of this kinase inhibitor, but rather that it could also be used to prevent fear in combat situations.
I agree for the most part, but >blockquote>(money in) >= (money out)isn't quite correct. What it should be is
sum(money in) >= sum(money out).
I have no problem operating at a deficit when necessary; but it has to be done rationally. In the end, the summation of cash flow over time must be a positive number.
Personally, I think that it's better to fulfill your obligations and promises, even if you have to suffer to do so. Restating your obligations and breaking your promises only hurts us as a country in the long run.
Why, it'd be great for the military and terrorists.
sure about that. Fear is a useful biological mechanism, I would expect that soldiers without fear would not be, on the whole, as good as soldiers without it. A healthy dose of caution (based on fear) will save lives -- and for the US at least, minimization of loss of soldiers' lives is a prime determinant of strategy. A lack of fear can lead to foolhardiness, which can endanger not only the fearless soldier, but those around him.
Terrorists, OTOH, I have no idea. I would imagine the smaller side of any asymmetric war would benefit from fearlessness. Suicide bombers? Definitely. But not all terrorists are suicide bombers -- so would fearlessness benefit, or harm, a terrorist who plants bombs covertly? I'd guess it would limit their effectiveness, since they'd be more likely to take inapproprate risks.
How I miss the old Slashdot way, way back before it was sold to Andover and then passed to VA Research. It actually used to be a site about computers, technology, Linux and the internet.
I don't understand this grumbling. You have the power to configure your slashdot view so that politics stories don't appear on your frontpage. You can choose to have more of the tech stories appear.
In short, you can make it what you want. I just don't understand why people complain about political stories, when they could just as easily ignore them.
And you know why this is annoying? Because it's a community site, and if people devoted more attention to the stories you're interested in, then they'd be featured more prominently.
Besides, you should be glad for the political stories. They are like flak and chaff, they draw (some of) the idiot missiles away from the other threads.
So plant nitrogen-fixers (like beans) in with whatever you want to use for fuel. The nice thing about cellulose reduction is that monoculture isn't necessary for efficient yields. Sure, the yields will be slightly lower, but beanstalks are made of cellulose as well...
Just pointing out how absurd it is to call the US government fiscally disciplined at any point after, say, the 60's, relative to other countries (unless fiscally disciplined includes controlling the oil supplies by force, and that's cheaper than non-military control).
I think he meant fiscally disciplined relative to the current administration. Which only requires that money in >= money out.
The city the bridge is being built at has over 7,000 people. The reason it does not have more is there is a land shortage. Much land is available on the island (OCEAN, NOT RIVER). However, understandably, not being able to drive to work in the morning tends to make people not want to live there. There are many locations in many states where development could only take off once a bridge was built so people could drive around.
All this may be true, but it still doesn't explain why the federal government should be spending $315 million (assuming no overruns) for this small town. That same amount of money would have a much greater return on investment if used for other things.
There is no way that any kind of growth stimulus among a population of 7000 justifies spending $315 million.
Simple answer, the Copyright Royalty Board gave SoundExchange a legal monopoly which prevents it, so I understand.
Your sources are tainted if that's what you understand. SoundExchange doesn't have a legal monopoly, any broadcaster or artist can choose to register and use a different receiving agent. What the CRB did was establish SoundExchange as the default receiving agent if no notification of other agent was filed with the CRB. Filing a form is not a significant barrier to entry, which is what would make SoundExchange a monopoly. Never mind the possibility of directly negotiated agreements that bypass the need for a receiving agent.
Some other shortcomings of your post have been addressed by someone else, but
Seeing the way things have been so far, I wouldn't doubt that the band or artist wouldn't be allowed to know what funds were collected before paying.
That is speculative FUD. Artists don't need to pay to receive their funds -- SoundExchange doesn't assess any fees for anyone to register, they simply take a small cut of the payout to cover operating costs.
Are you kidding? That has got to be one of the worst analogies I've seen here in a long time -- and this is slashdot, for crying out loud.
Socialism is, at its foundation, public ownership and control of both the State and the means of production. Socialism tends to also mean redistribution of wealth, destruction of the elite, and raising the minimum standard of living (including working conditions, etc). What in Dog's name does any of that have to do with S+S?
A more apt analogy would be that MS is acting as a private company with control over public infrastructure. To make a politicoeconomic analogy (just as ridiculous, but closer to the truth) like yours, this is more like fascism (collaboration of industry & state, with autocratic leadership). Or rampant capitalism, where access to capital (and hence, the resources to build infrastructure) defines who rules and who controls production.
At any rate, there is no way you can compare a *voluntary* commercial system with a *compulsory* politicoeconomic one.
Is anyone laboring under the impression that e-petitions do anything?
Yes. They are evidence of negative publicity. For companies or governments that need to be concerned about public opinion, it's worthwhile to have more information that can be used to determine the popularity of an action/inaction -- this is important to protect brand image.
Much like postcard campaigns and email campaigns do have *some* impact on politician's decision-making process (or at least helping to determine where they focus their attention), e-petitions do have an effect.
That said, the effect is typically minimal unless it hits the press.
Well, there're a couple other factors, one would be whether Amergence represented the rootkit as being completely legal. Another would be the fact that it contained GPL code without attribution and release of the source code, opening Sony up to copyright violation suits.
I agree with you, this does not let Sony off the hook -- however, there may be culpability at Amergence as well, and I would like that to be determined and consequences levied. What I would really like to see is Sony being fined an additional amount equal to whatever they are awarded (if anything) as a result of this suit, so that everyone gets punished.
Yes, I know that code itself isn't illegal, it's how the code is used that leads to the potential commission of a crime. I thought most people would be sharp enough to understand my point and not get bogged down in semantic arguments.
I don't think Sony should be the ones suing them, they contracted the software, and it was delivered to their specifications.
RTFA. One of Sony's claims is that it was not delivered to specifications.
If the software was illegal, then it's surely a matter for criminal court, and surely Sony shouldn't be awarded damages for being stupid enough to have this software written in the first place
Sony settled with various governments to avoid a lengthy legal process. If one of their suppliers was responsible for the illegal code, and falsely represented to Sony that the code was completely legal, then Sony sure as hell has both standing and reason to sue to be recompensed for those damages.
Yes, Sony was responsible for releasing the rootkit on their CDs. However, it is quite possible that Amergence should be held responsible for misleading Sony if that is in fact what happened.
Re:Sony BMG does nothing to hurt their reputation
on
Sony Sues Rootkit Maker
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Well, seeing as Sony did not have direct business dealings with Fortium, how would they have standing to sue them?
Sony made the purchase from Amergence -- they are claiming, among other things, that Amergence delivered a product that did not operate as described.
If Amergence wants to sue Fortium along the same reasoning, they are welcome to -- though I think they'd have a hard time of it.
Who originally wrote the rootkit is of no relevance. What matters is whether Amergence falsely represented the product they sold to Sony.
I was only half-joking -- besides the aforementioned Pacman, I've seen Othello and several other games. I've also coded a few games in VBA using Excel as the GUI, mostly extremely crap text-based RPGs.
Yes, why would there be a lot of deaths in the place all the really sick people go to?
OP is referring to cause of death, not location at time of death. Far more than 250,000 people die in hospitals each year.
It is fact that some avoidable deaths are caused by healthcare practitioners, though efforts are made to minimize this. Unfortunately, the US does pretty poorly in this regard, in comparison to other nations with "1st world" healthcare systems.
I don't agree with the OP that doctors are to be avoided -- but I do believe that patients should educate themselves and question the actions of their doctors, particularly wrt prescriptions. There's a reason pharmacists, and not doctors, are the most trusted professionals in the US.
I think there are two parts to the "halo effect", and they likely operate in different proportions in different people. First is the fear of punishment -- most of the people you refer to do not feel that their actions are really wrong (or else they wouldn't do them) -- they fear the consequences of getting caught. The second is that the patrol car may remind them of their behavior, which they actually do feel is wrong, but "forgot" about that -- the external moral compass of the patrol car awakens their internal moral compass. You may observe this when the patrol car turns off, and a portion of the speeders do not resume their terrifying race.
Why is this relevant to privacy? Because among the people doing immoral things out there, some may come to the realization that their behavior is "wrong" in some sense because they are forced to come to terms with the risks of getting caught. In other words, some people are in denial about (or are just ignoring) the immorality of their actions.
All that said, I still believe invading somone's privacy is a piss-poor way to help them see their actions for what they are. Also, I think the people who respond in this fashion are a small minority; the fear of punishment is a much bigger motivator for most people to cease immoral actions.
One last comment on this topic, and it has to do with people who believe that moral codes are handed down from $AUTHORITY -- these are often the people who would act immorally if they were not told what action was moral or not. It's sad to say that most of our lawmakers, IMO, are of this breed -- which is why morality is legislated in the US.
then YouTube can then repost the material until a court order is obtained.
Not must, but rather, is allowed to. What's the gain for YouTube to repost the file? Marginal at best. What's the risk to them? Potentially huge, if successful lawsuits end up eroding their pageviews because people are afraid to post files.
Most of the time, a DMCA notice results in the material being taken down, no lawsuit occurs. A string of successful suits against YouTube posters is bad publicity. he fact that copyrighted material is available on YouTube (albeit for a short time) is good for YouTube, they don't want to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs by allowing lawsuits about material they've allowed to be posted to actually hit the courts.
Been away for a few days, sorry for the late reply.
I'm not so sure that the poor today are poorer than they were a couple hundred years ago. or even a hundred years ago. Very, very few people in the US die from exposure in the winter. The same was not true a hundred years ago; it's not just the replacement of social networks with government services (which I think is what you're alluding to when you mention funding of the poor by the working people), it's an increase in the standard of living among the poor.
I'd also note that you refer to "those of us that work for a living" as if there is no intersection with the set of those that are poor; this is not valid. Most people we consider poor today have jobs of some sort. Perhaps you mean the indigent, which is different from the poor (though included amongst them).
Slashdot Mirror
Cdk5 inhibitors suppress the linkage of the stimuli to the fear response. This has nothing to do with memory suppression, it has to do with making those memories (or fireworks, etc) no longer excite the fear center in the amygdala.
One could just as easily "pre-treat" combat participants during training in conjunction with this drug which would help prevent the fear response in combat situations. This is one of the same reasons there is simulated combat in training, a drug like this would make that training more effective.
I'm not talking about "pop a pill and be fearless" -- I'm talking about "pop these pills and go through our 'courage training'".
This is not to say that there is no medical value of this kinase inhibitor, but rather that it could also be used to prevent fear in combat situations.
Sorry, I was using numbers from the previous posters and the links they provided.
Terrorists, OTOH, I have no idea. I would imagine the smaller side of any asymmetric war would benefit from fearlessness. Suicide bombers? Definitely. But not all terrorists are suicide bombers -- so would fearlessness benefit, or harm, a terrorist who plants bombs covertly? I'd guess it would limit their effectiveness, since they'd be more likely to take inapproprate risks.
In short, you can make it what you want. I just don't understand why people complain about political stories, when they could just as easily ignore them.
And you know why this is annoying? Because it's a community site, and if people devoted more attention to the stories you're interested in, then they'd be featured more prominently.
Besides, you should be glad for the political stories. They are like flak and chaff, they draw (some of) the idiot missiles away from the other threads.
So plant nitrogen-fixers (like beans) in with whatever you want to use for fuel. The nice thing about cellulose reduction is that monoculture isn't necessary for efficient yields. Sure, the yields will be slightly lower, but beanstalks are made of cellulose as well...
There is no way that any kind of growth stimulus among a population of 7000 justifies spending $315 million.
Some other shortcomings of your post have been addressed by someone else, butThat is speculative FUD. Artists don't need to pay to receive their funds -- SoundExchange doesn't assess any fees for anyone to register, they simply take a small cut of the payout to cover operating costs.
What?
Are you kidding? That has got to be one of the worst analogies I've seen here in a long time -- and this is slashdot, for crying out loud.
Socialism is, at its foundation, public ownership and control of both the State and the means of production. Socialism tends to also mean redistribution of wealth, destruction of the elite, and raising the minimum standard of living (including working conditions, etc). What in Dog's name does any of that have to do with S+S?
A more apt analogy would be that MS is acting as a private company with control over public infrastructure. To make a politicoeconomic analogy (just as ridiculous, but closer to the truth) like yours, this is more like fascism (collaboration of industry & state, with autocratic leadership). Or rampant capitalism, where access to capital (and hence, the resources to build infrastructure) defines who rules and who controls production.
At any rate, there is no way you can compare a *voluntary* commercial system with a *compulsory* politicoeconomic one.
Much like postcard campaigns and email campaigns do have *some* impact on politician's decision-making process (or at least helping to determine where they focus their attention), e-petitions do have an effect.
That said, the effect is typically minimal unless it hits the press.
Well, there're a couple other factors, one would be whether Amergence represented the rootkit as being completely legal. Another would be the fact that it contained GPL code without attribution and release of the source code, opening Sony up to copyright violation suits.
I agree with you, this does not let Sony off the hook -- however, there may be culpability at Amergence as well, and I would like that to be determined and consequences levied. What I would really like to see is Sony being fined an additional amount equal to whatever they are awarded (if anything) as a result of this suit, so that everyone gets punished.
For the sake of brevity I wrote "illegal code". I should perhaps have said "code which was used by Sony to perpetrate a crime" -- note that in many states installing spyware on someone else's computer is illegal.
Yes, I know that code itself isn't illegal, it's how the code is used that leads to the potential commission of a crime. I thought most people would be sharp enough to understand my point and not get bogged down in semantic arguments.
Sony settled with various governments to avoid a lengthy legal process. If one of their suppliers was responsible for the illegal code, and falsely represented to Sony that the code was completely legal, then Sony sure as hell has both standing and reason to sue to be recompensed for those damages.
Yes, Sony was responsible for releasing the rootkit on their CDs. However, it is quite possible that Amergence should be held responsible for misleading Sony if that is in fact what happened.
Well, seeing as Sony did not have direct business dealings with Fortium, how would they have standing to sue them?
Sony made the purchase from Amergence -- they are claiming, among other things, that Amergence delivered a product that did not operate as described.
If Amergence wants to sue Fortium along the same reasoning, they are welcome to -- though I think they'd have a hard time of it.
Who originally wrote the rootkit is of no relevance. What matters is whether Amergence falsely represented the product they sold to Sony.
I was only half-joking -- besides the aforementioned Pacman, I've seen Othello and several other games. I've also coded a few games in VBA using Excel as the GUI, mostly extremely crap text-based RPGs.
Function Call of Duty
Age of Accruals
The Balance Sheets of War
Extreme Audit III: Sarbanes-Oxley Compliance
It is fact that some avoidable deaths are caused by healthcare practitioners, though efforts are made to minimize this. Unfortunately, the US does pretty poorly in this regard, in comparison to other nations with "1st world" healthcare systems.
I don't agree with the OP that doctors are to be avoided -- but I do believe that patients should educate themselves and question the actions of their doctors, particularly wrt prescriptions. There's a reason pharmacists, and not doctors, are the most trusted professionals in the US.
Are we *sure* this is a bug, not a "feature"?
Right now, somewhere in Remdond, someone is planning a press release...
[1] By extension, if you are one of the 97.46% of desktop users worldwide with Windows installed.
I think there are two parts to the "halo effect", and they likely operate in different proportions in different people. First is the fear of punishment -- most of the people you refer to do not feel that their actions are really wrong (or else they wouldn't do them) -- they fear the consequences of getting caught. The second is that the patrol car may remind them of their behavior, which they actually do feel is wrong, but "forgot" about that -- the external moral compass of the patrol car awakens their internal moral compass. You may observe this when the patrol car turns off, and a portion of the speeders do not resume their terrifying race.
Why is this relevant to privacy? Because among the people doing immoral things out there, some may come to the realization that their behavior is "wrong" in some sense because they are forced to come to terms with the risks of getting caught. In other words, some people are in denial about (or are just ignoring) the immorality of their actions.
All that said, I still believe invading somone's privacy is a piss-poor way to help them see their actions for what they are. Also, I think the people who respond in this fashion are a small minority; the fear of punishment is a much bigger motivator for most people to cease immoral actions.
One last comment on this topic, and it has to do with people who believe that moral codes are handed down from $AUTHORITY -- these are often the people who would act immorally if they were not told what action was moral or not. It's sad to say that most of our lawmakers, IMO, are of this breed -- which is why morality is legislated in the US.
Most of the time, a DMCA notice results in the material being taken down, no lawsuit occurs. A string of successful suits against YouTube posters is bad publicity. he fact that copyrighted material is available on YouTube (albeit for a short time) is good for YouTube, they don't want to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs by allowing lawsuits about material they've allowed to be posted to actually hit the courts.
Been away for a few days, sorry for the late reply.
I'm not so sure that the poor today are poorer than they were a couple hundred years ago. or even a hundred years ago. Very, very few people in the US die from exposure in the winter. The same was not true a hundred years ago; it's not just the replacement of social networks with government services (which I think is what you're alluding to when you mention funding of the poor by the working people), it's an increase in the standard of living among the poor.
I'd also note that you refer to "those of us that work for a living" as if there is no intersection with the set of those that are poor; this is not valid. Most people we consider poor today have jobs of some sort. Perhaps you mean the indigent, which is different from the poor (though included amongst them).